Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on January 03, 2015, 01:42:PM
-
There is a perfectly logical explanation for the initial 'two bodies in the kitchen' report.
An officer looking into the kitchen from outside by mistake reported a woman (Neville) in the kitchen. A raid team officer gained entrance and then reported the same person, a male (Neville) in the kitchen. In error on the night this became 'one male & one female' in the kitchen.
This has not stopped Bamber, decades later claiming Sheila was in the kitchen ( with a bullet in her neck). She went upstairs after the raid team entered WHF without being seen. Then shot herself again upstairs. The police/raid team being so ashamed of this they decided to frame Bamber. One month later. No one breaking ranks in 29 years.
Was the rifle upstairs ? There has never been a report of a rifle being seen in the kitchen.
That means Sheila shot herself upstairs. Then went downstairs to the kitchen without the rifle. Then back up stairs after the raid team entered (without being seen), to shoot herself again.
Quite why Sheila went downstairs to the kitchen after shooting herself once upstairs I do not know. If she wanted to commit suicide, why not shoot herself again upstairs straight away ?
Or she shot herself downstairs in the kitchen. Went upstairs and left the rifle there. Then went back downstairs to the kitchen without the rifle. Then went back upstairs after the raid team entered WHF to shoot herself again (without being seen). Again quite why she would do all this I do not know.
A lot of walking for a woman with a bullet in her neck. She also magically avoided getting vertical blood lines or blood on her hands during her walk abouts.
The pathologist said it would have been impossible to shoot herself twice. The pain and shock of the first bullet being so great. However it seems that Sheila not only shot herself twice, but went on extended walk abouts. There were also two cartridges next to Sheila upstairs.
Is it for closure on the 'two bodies found in the kitchen' claim ?
-
What are you trying to do,close the forum down ??
As it is,I've " lost " my name when I'm signed in and the search facility has vanished,so it's half-gone already.
-
1. There usually is.
2. IMO probably the most logical thing you've ever said . It makes perfect sense.................
3. ..................sadly marred by tommy rot. The only way Jeremy could make claims about Sheila being dead in the kitchen is if someone else TOLD him.
4. I haven't read anything about a gun being found in the kitchen.
5. If that is your scenario of choice.
6. As you're the only one suggesting this your question is rhetorical.
7. This statement is a good indication of why few/ANY(?) of us take you seriously.
8. DITTO
9. Other EXPERTS have judged it unlikely but NOT impossible.
10. Probably, if only to save us from another interminable thread.
-
1. There usually is.
2. IMO probably the most logical thing you've ever said . It makes perfect sense.................
3. ..................sadly marred by tommy rot. The only way Jeremy could make claims about Sheila being dead in the kitchen is if someone else TOLD him.
4. I haven't read anything about a gun being found in the kitchen.
5. If that is your scenario of choice.
6. As you're the only one suggesting this your question is rhetorical.
7. This statement is a good indication of why few/ANY(?) of us take you seriously.
8. DITTO
9. Other EXPERTS have judged it unlikely but NOT impossible.
10. Probably, if only to save us from another interminable thread.
Thank you.
Perhaps you will be taken seriously if you tell everyone why you changed from 29 years innocent, to guilty. After I joined.
-
Thank you.
Perhaps you will be taken seriously if you tell everyone why you changed from 29 years innocent, to guilty. After I joined.
You just HAVE to be unpleasant - even when people you normally don´t get along with reach out an olive branch. Heck, even towards the only member here who always went out of her way to be kind to you! What is wrong with you?!
-
Thank you.
Perhaps you will be taken seriously if you tell everyone why you changed from 29 years innocent, to guilty. After I joined.
It really gets to you why -according to you- I won't, doesn't it? I find that and the fact that had you taken the bother to actually READ my posts you'd have discovered that on 2, POSSIBLY 3, occasions, I have -no big deal.
-
You just HAVE to be unpleasant - even when people you normally don´t get along with reach out an olive branch. Heck, even towards the only member here who always went out of her way to be kind to you! What is wrong with you?!
Yes he does, Alias. Sadly it appears to be his nature....................and HIS loss.
-
What's known as a loser !!
-
You just HAVE to be unpleasant - even when people you normally don´t get along with reach out an olive branch. Heck, even towards the only member here who always went out of her way to be kind to you! What is wrong with you?!
Kind - saying no one takes me seriously. Yes very kind.
-
There is a perfectly logical explanation for the initial 'two bodies in the kitchen' report.
An officer looking into the kitchen from outside by mistake reported a woman (Neville) in the kitchen. A raid team officer gained entrance and then reported the same person, a male (Neville) in the kitchen. In error on the night this became 'one male & one female' in the kitchen.
This has not stopped Bamber, decades later claiming Sheila was in the kitchen ( with a bullet in her neck). She went upstairs after the raid team entered WHF without being seen. Then shot herself again upstairs. The police/raid team being so ashamed of this they decided to frame Bamber. One month later. No one breaking ranks in 29 years.
Was the rifle upstairs ? There has never been a report of a rifle being seen in the kitchen.
That means Sheila shot herself upstairs. Then went downstairs to the kitchen without the rifle. Then back up stairs after the raid team entered (without being seen), to shoot herself again.
Quite why Sheila went downstairs to the kitchen after shooting herself once upstairs I do not know. If she wanted to commit suicide, why not shoot herself again upstairs straight away ?
Or she shot herself downstairs in the kitchen. Went upstairs and left the rifle there. Then went back downstairs to the kitchen without the rifle. Then went back upstairs after the raid team entered WHF to shoot herself again (without being seen). Again quite why she would do all this I do not know.
A lot of walking for a woman with a bullet in her neck. She also magically avoided getting vertical blood lines or blood on her hands during her walk abouts.
The pathologist said it would have been impossible to shoot herself twice. The pain and shock of the first bullet being so great. However it seems that Sheila not only shot herself twice, but went on extended walk abouts. There were also two cartridges next to Sheila upstairs.
Is it for closure on the 'two bodies found in the kitchen' claim ?
1) you should look at the timings of the logs before you try this angle and the log where three bodies were found upstairs
2) there is a report of a gun being found in the kitchen with red paint on the barrel by an officer
Now there are only two explanations - the police made mistakes in the logs ( that they withheld)
The logs and report of the gun in the kitchen were BOTH errors ( oh like the fact that they were in "conversation" with someone in WHF.
I obviously know which one you will chose :)
Adam why do you think EP have refused to release the audio logs and video of the scene despite several requests? Oh and also the original documentation so it can be tested for editing?
-
Oh sorry point 2 - original primary source Davidsons 1992 COLP interview.
-
What are you trying to do,close the forum down ??
As it is,I've " lost " my name when I'm signed in and the search facility has vanished,so it's half-gone already.
Unfortunately lookout Adam believes he is the last authoritative word on the Bamber case.
-
Kind - saying no one takes me seriously. Yes very kind.
Adam it isn't that no one takes you seriously. It's just that you constantly give the impression that you are the last word on everything. Take this thread for instance. Why start it if you keep suggesting that it is "time for closure". Now that for me seems that you will accept no one's opinion but your own? Not only that, but by so doing you are also implying that unless people accept your opinion then they are ignorant and foolish because they will not accept your word as gospel. And you wonder why people from both sides of the fence see you as being rather arrogant? I'm not trying to be nasty. Just saying that's all.
-
Unfortunately lookout Adam believes he is the last authoritative word on the Bamber case.
Doesn't he just ? How mistaken can he be ??
-
It is my suspicion that if Sheila's body was moved from the kitchen to the upstairs that it must have been the police, as Jeremy was outside the house at the time. But I doubt very much if we will ever see such a confession as that one?
-
It is my suspicion that if Sheila's body was moved from the kitchen to the upstairs that it must have been the police, as Jeremy was outside the house at the time. But I doubt very much if we will ever see such a confession as that one?
The police moved Sheila from the kitchen to the bedroom. Why ?
-
The position of Sheilas' body in the bedroom would certainly have you believe that she'd just been placed there,along with the rifle and the Bible,so not far-fetched to think that she'd been carried upstairs. She was " too straight and unruffled " for my liking. I reckon that her head would have been left tilted,hence the collection of blood.Plus blood from both sides of her mouth denotes movement of her head.
-
The police moved Sheila from the kitchen to the bedroom. Why ?
The whole point is that we don't know why or if these things happened - all you have to go on are the logs that were not released for 19 years.
One male one female found in kitchen on entry three further bodies found upstairs .
5.25 - officers in conversation with person from WHF
So what you are asking is for us to make assumptions about what happened. What we are saying is why would experienced trained officers make so many mistakes and then try and hide those mistakes.
-
The position of Sheilas' body in the bedroom would certainly have you believe that she'd just been placed there,along with the rifle and the Bible,so not far-fetched to think that she'd been carried upstairs. She was " too straight and unruffled " for my liking. I reckon that her head would have been left tilted,hence the collection of blood.Plus blood from both sides of her mouth denotes movement of her head.
Perhaps Bamber placed her there. Rather than the police taking her upstairs.
Poor Neville left on his own. Brutally beaten, shot and dead in the kitchen. His head in a coal scuttle. Thanks Mr Policeman. And thanks Sheila for thanking Neville for the free summer holiday.
-
The whole point is that we don't know why or if these things happened - all you have to go on are the logs that were not released for 19 years.
One male one female found in kitchen on entry three further bodies found upstairs .
5.25 - officers in conversation with person from WHF
So what you are asking is for us to make assumptions about what happened. What we are saying is why would experienced trained officers make so many mistakes and then try and hide those mistakes.
My thread post already explained the two bodies in the kitchen log.
The three bodies upstairs may have been before they saw Sheila.
-
Perhaps Bamber placed her there. Rather than the police taking her upstairs.
Poor Neville left on his own. Brutally beaten, shot and dead in the kitchen. His head in a coal scuttle. Thanks Mr Policeman. And thanks Sheila for thanking Neville for the free summer holiday.
Your are resorting to sarcasm again instead of discussion.
The original evidence said that Sheila could have walked around for a short time after the initial shot.
Why did the police not correct their mistake?
why did they say three bodies upstairs if they had made a mistake thinking Neville was june .
Why does it say one male and one female ? rather than one female?
Why do the photos show a chair against the door where they broke in?
-
Your are resorting to sarcasm again instead of discussion.
The original evidence said that Sheila could have walked around for a short time after the initial shot.
Why did the police not correct their mistake?
why did they say three bodies upstairs if they had made a mistake thinking Neville was june .
Why does it say one male and one female ? rather than one female?
Why do the photos show a chair against the door where they broke in?
Well the police officer outside saw a lock of blonde hair and thought Neville was a woman. You know this.
-
Well the police officer outside saw a lock of blonde hair and thought Neville was a woman. You know this.
they were both grey - but why does it say one MALE and one FEMALE - why does it not say one FEMALE? On the logs?
-
they were both grey - but why does it say one MALE and one FEMALE - why does it not say one FEMALE? On the logs?
It should say one male on the submitted log. As it was Neville.
-
It should say one male on the submitted log. As it was Neville.
but it doesn't say that .
-
Well the police officer outside saw a lock of blonde hair and thought Neville was a woman. You know this.
Interesting, that. Sheila's hair was dark and Neville's was practically colourless. Was there A THIRD body which disappeared?
-
The police moved Sheila from the kitchen to the bedroom. Why ?
If they accidentally shot her that's why. So the best option for them was to re-arrange the scene.
-
but it doesn't say that .
So the completed log done hours or days after the raid team entered WHF, says Sheila was in the kitchen, rather than Neville.
Guess the picture of Neville must have been a hoax.
-
The whole point is that we don't know why or if these things happened - all you have to go on are the logs that were not released for 19 years.
One male one female found in kitchen on entry three further bodies found upstairs .
5.25 - officers in conversation with person from WHF
So what you are asking is for us to make assumptions about what happened. What we are saying is why would experienced trained officers make so many mistakes and then try and hide those mistakes.
Yes if there was reported one female and one male upon entry then it would be logical to assume that the bodies were moved whilst Bamber was outside with the police.
-
It should say one male on the submitted log. As it was Neville.
If they made the mistake you say - why do the records say this:
The Occupants of CA07, also passed an updated message from the scene timed at 7:38am:-
1 (one) dead male
1 (one) dead female found upon entry to premises
Request:-
(1) SOC to attend
(2) Chief Supt. Divisional to attend (on way)
(3) Divisional DCI to attend
(4) Police surgeon to attend
(5) Corners officer to attend informed only
The control room received this information and acted upon it by 7:41am...
then at 8.10 - three further bodies found - so over half an hour to correct their mistake .
-
It should say one male on the submitted log. As it was Neville.
The logs do not match their statements.
-
Why did they say two bodies if they said they'd mistaken Neville for a woman ? ( that only denotes a mix-up with one person ) They must have seen two to start with to have recorded that there were two.
-
So the completed log done hours or days after the raid team entered WHF, says Sheila was in the kitchen, rather than Neville.
Guess the picture of Neville must have been a hoax.
I certainly suspect that the police changed the crime scene and covered it up. It is the only explanation for their so many "mistakes".
-
If they accidentally shot her that's why. So the best option for them was to re-arrange the scene.
So the raid team were told there was a 'nutter' inside. Who knew how to use guns.
They shoot 'nutter' Sheila in the kitchen which is what they are trained to do. Then decide to take her upstairs and make it look like murder/suicide.
Murder/suicide is accepted. But then one month later the police decide to frame Bamber.
Interesting.
-
So the raid team were told there was a 'nutter' inside. Who knew how to use guns.
They shoot 'nutter' Sheila in the kitchen which is what they are trained to do. Then decide to take her upstairs and make it look like murder/suicide.
Murder/suicide is accepted. But then one month later the police decide to frame Bamber.
Interesting.
No. I believe that the shooting of Sheila was a mistake, that happened as they were trying to make the rifle safe.
-
I certainly suspect that the police changed the crime scene and covered it up. It is the only explanation for their so many "mistakes".
What mistakes did they make in the first few minutes ? The raid team were in the kitchen then. Not the police.
-
So the completed log done hours or days after the raid team entered WHF, says Sheila was in the kitchen, rather than Neville.
Guess the picture of Neville must have been a hoax.
NO! this is the written log that is recorded AT the time of entry . So they were relaying what happened as they went in and it was recorded and timed . I never said it was Sheila - one male and one female found downstairs on entry - one murder one suicide - this is before they went upstairs.
-
So the raid team were told there was a 'nutter' inside. Who knew how to use guns.
They shoot 'nutter' Sheila in the kitchen which is what they are trained to do. Then decide to take her upstairs and make it look like murder/suicide.
Murder/suicide is accepted. But then one month later the police decide to frame Bamber.
Interesting.
Adam - I repeat ::) We are not saying that is what happened - we are pointing out the logs that were made at the time - why do they give those timings for those discoveries ? I am only interested in the documents not "assumptions" about what happened. If Sheila was upstairs and they did not go upstairs until 8.10 how did they know it was one murder and one suicide at 7.41?
-
No. I believe that the shooting of Sheila was a mistake, that happened as they were trying to make the rifle safe.
Oh so Sheila was alive and not injured.
The experienced raid team shot Sheila by mistake. Then shot her again to kill her and make it look like murder/suicide.
-
What mistakes did they make in the first few minutes ? The raid team were in the kitchen then. Not the police.
This is a quote from Dan Straker who noted these "mistakes" that is if they were mistakes and those who believe Bamber to be guilty certainly see them as mistakes:
1 That a female body was seen in the kitchen before the police broke into the house-I am of course referring to the sighting by PC Collins.
2 That a dead male and a dead female were found on entry.
3 That a call for an ambulance was made in which two bodies were referred to.
4 That when the upstairs part of the house was gained, it was reported that THREE more bodies were found and not four.
5 That in a statement by one Neil Davidson, the following description of the scene downstairs is given: “One murder and one suicide.”
That is one hell of a lot of mistakes. I would say that they can't all be just mistakes, because they all add up to the same conclusion. Those cops, first found Sheila downstairs having, apparently, committed suicide and lying on the kitchen floor where she was visible to PC Collins when he looked through the window.
-
Adam - I repeat ::) We are not saying that is what happened - we are pointing out the logs that were made at the time - why do they give those timings for those discoveries ? I am only interested in the documents not "assumptions" about what happened. If Sheila was upstairs and they did not go upstairs until 8.10 how did they know it was one murder and one suicide at 7.41?
Do you think Sheila was in the kitchen when the raid team entered WHF ?
-
Oh so Sheila was alive and not injured.
The experienced raid team shot Sheila by mistake. Then shot her again to kill her and make it look like murder/suicide.
Adam I have just posted the logs - what is your opinion on the logs made by the police on the morning?
-
Oh so Sheila was alive and not injured.
The experienced raid team shot Sheila by mistake. Then shot her again to kill her and make it look like murder/suicide.
No. Sheila shot herself. The mistake of shooting her again was accidental.
-
No. Sheila shot herself. The mistake of shooting her again was accidental.
Did the police by accident shoot her in the kitchen or bedroom ?
-
Did the police by accident shoot her in the kitchen or bedroom ?
Did you take note of my list of mistakes quoted from Dan Straker, or are you purposely ignoring them? You may find your answer by logically looking at them?
-
Do you think Sheila was in the kitchen when the raid team entered WHF ?
Mr Gee has his opinions - I am not being drawn on that. why do you think the logs do not match how you think the police just had a case of mistaken ID?
-
Mr Gee has his opinions - I am not being drawn on that. why do you think the logs do not match how you think the police just had a case of mistaken ID?
You refuse to give you're opinion on a discussion forum.
I have given my opinion in the thread post. Even suggesting it is time for closure.
Forget about the logs. Do you believe Sheila was in the kitchen when the raid team entered WHF ?
-
You refuse to give you're opinion on a discussion forum.
I have given my opinion in the thread post. Even suggesting it is time for closure.
Forget about the logs. Do you believe Sheila was in the kitchen when the raid team entered WHF ?
Adam one question at a time - if there was a case of the police though the body was June - why does it say one dead male one dead female ?
-
You refuse to give you're opinion on a discussion forum.
I have given my opinion in the thread post. Even suggesting it is time for closure.
Forget about the logs. Do you believe Sheila was in the kitchen when the raid team entered WHF ?
It is the logs that will tell you that answer. But you refuse to believe them, instead believing other logs that said she was not. But some logs say she was. In fact we cannot forget about the logs, because all our opinions are based upon what the logs say. What we want to know is why some logs say one thing and why some say another?
I just refuse to see those logs as a simple mistake.
-
Adam one question at a time - if there was a case of the police though the body was June - why does it say one dead male one dead female ?
I agree with Hartley's explanation of this - I'll try and find it.
-
I agree with Hartley's explanation of this - I'll try and find it.
I don't. I think it was just his opinion. There were just too many mistakes for them to be mistakes.
-
It is the logs that will tell you that answer. But you refuse to believe them, instead believing other logs that said she was not. But some logs say she was. In fact we cannot forget about the logs, because all our opinions are based upon what the logs say. What we want to know is why some logs say one thing and why some say another?
I just refuse to see those logs as a simple mistake.
It's possibly worth considering that the reason Adam presents so many -and frequently worthless- points is in order to cover all basses so it becomes unnecessary for him to respond to our questions. All he has to do is refer us back to a thread. When was the last time he answered you without sidestepping?
-
It's possibly worth considering that the reason Adam presents so many -and frequently worthless- points is in order to cover all basses so it becomes unnecessary for him to respond to our questions. All he has to do is refer us back to a thread. When was the last time he answered you without sidestepping?
He hardly ever does. He has this pre-designed molds which he links to.
-
I agree with Hartley's explanation of this - I'll try and find it.
I have seen Hartleys explanation .
I still believe the logs can still be looked at both ways.
-
It's possibly worth considering that the reason Adam presents so many -and frequently worthless- points is in order to cover all basses so it becomes unnecessary for him to respond to our questions. All he has to do is refer us back to a thread. When was the last time he answered you without sidestepping?
You don't say any bad points.
Or say any good points.
Or say any points at all.
Or create threads.
Or say why you changed from innocent to guilty after I joined.
You just post to or about me.
I hope when I become elderly there will be more in my life than just posting to or about someone I have never spoken to.
-
It is the logs that will tell you that answer. But you refuse to believe them, instead believing other logs that said she was not. But some logs say she was. In fact we cannot forget about the logs, because all our opinions are based upon what the logs say. What we want to know is why some logs say one thing and why some say another?
I just refuse to see those logs as a simple mistake.
Well a log on the night said one male, one female. My thread post explains why.
The crime scene photos have Sheila in the bedroom and Neville downstairs.
-
I have seen Hartleys explanation .
I still believe the logs can still be looked at both ways.
I agree that there are several seemingly odd things about the logs but the fact that they can be explained took the mystery out of it for me.
-
He hardly ever does. He has this pre-designed molds which he links to.
Alias, I'm inclined to think it's because he can't. We probably all have entrenched views but most of us are prepared to look at them and change our minds if we feel it necessary. Adam HAS to be the greatest gift EVER to those here who believe Jeremy innocent. Because on some of the inanities he puts forward he's actually done FAR more to support Jeremy than condemn him.
-
You don't say any bad points.
Or say any good points.
Or say any points at all.
Or create threads.
Or say why you changed from innocent to guilty after I joined.
You just post to or about me.
I hope when I become elderly there will be more in my life than just posting to or about someone I have never spoken to.
RUDE AND PERSONAL POST .
-
You must admit, he's absolutely BRILLIANT at 'commanding' the whole boards attention though!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You don't say any bad points.
Or say any good points.
Or say any points at all.
Or create threads.
Or say why you changed from innocent to guilty after I joined.
You just post to or about me.
I hope when I become elderly there will be more in my life than just posting to or about someone I have never spoken to.
A brilliant deduction from one who only reads their own posts. You certainly provide no evidence of having gained information from anyone else's posts.
-
The reason I am posting with Adam on this is because he called me a chicken and a coward.
Let him go and do his own research on alternative explanations for the logs .
He does not need any help - he has his 12 sources .
I am not afraid of discussion - and if there are documents that prove me wrong I will be honest and admit I am wrong . If it is a matter of interpretation or opinion then I may just stick to the opposite until Adam can convince me otherwise.
That is my prerogative.
-
You've got a hope,haven't you ?
When you become elderly ?
What makes you think you'll live long enough to become elderly?
What's a youngster like you doing posting on here anyway? Shouldn't you be out on the pop with your mates,causing mayhem after half a lager ? Nothing better to do?
At least at your age I had a life,and a good one at that and it wasn't posting on a forum to/with the elderly !
I'm afraid you're typical of the youth-------ill-mannered,inconsiderate,selfish,self-opinionated,bad-mannered and disrespectful. And you have the gall to talk about Jeremy??
-
You must admit, he's absolutely BRILLIANT at 'commanding' the whole boards attention though!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Actually Caroline - he has done me the world of good as it has made me re-visit some evidence and statements which is never a bad thing.
-
Actually Caroline - he has done me the world of good as it has made me re-visit some evidence and statements which is never a bad thing.
I think that's probably 'in spite of' rather than 'because of'? ;D ;D ;)
-
You've got a hope,haven't you ?
When you become elderly ?
What makes you think you'll live long enough to become elderly?
What's a youngster like you doing posting on here anyway? Shouldn't you be out on the pop with your mates,causing mayhem after half a lager ? Nothing better to do?
At least at your age I had a life,and a good one at that and it wasn't posting on a forum to/with the elderly !
I'm afraid you're typical of the youth-------ill-mannered,inconsiderate,selfish,self-opinionated,bad-mannered and disrespectful. And you have the gall to talk about Jeremy??
I think he may be a she and not that young either . Someone on the outskirts of the case shall we say.
-
You don't say any bad points.
Or say any good points.
Or say any points at all.
Or create threads.
Or say why you changed from innocent to guilty after I joined.
You just post to or about me.
I hope when I become elderly there will be more in my life than just posting to or about someone I have never spoken to.
Don´t think you´re that young yourself, Adam. 8)
-
You must admit, he's absolutely BRILLIANT at 'commanding' the whole boards attention though!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes Caroline :) I believe we've talked about this on previous occasions :) I guess he -or even WE- should be thankful that he's BRILLIANT at something. Especially Jeremy ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes Caroline :) I believe we've talked about this on previous occasions :) I guess he -or even WE- should be thankful that he's BRILLIANT at something. Especially Jeremy ;D ;D ;D
I like to give a little positive ego boost sometimes April - I'm sure he'll thank me later? ;D ;D 8)
-
You've got a hope,haven't you ?
When you become elderly ?
What makes you think you'll live long enough to become elderly?
What's a youngster like you doing posting on here anyway? Shouldn't you be out on the pop with your mates,causing mayhem after half a lager ? Nothing better to do?
At least at your age I had a life,and a good one at that and it wasn't posting on a forum to/with the elderly !
I'm afraid you're typical of the youth-------ill-mannered,inconsiderate,selfish,self-opinionated,bad-mannered and disrespectful. And you have the gall to talk about Jeremy??
I was out last night with a beautiful lady. Very nice it was.
-
You've got a hope,haven't you ?
When you become elderly ?
What makes you think you'll live long enough to become elderly?
What's a youngster like you doing posting on here anyway? Shouldn't you be out on the pop with your mates,causing mayhem after half a lager ? Nothing better to do?
At least at your age I had a life,and a good one at that and it wasn't posting on a forum to/with the elderly !
I'm afraid you're typical of the youth-------ill-mannered,inconsiderate,selfish,self-opinionated,bad-mannered and disrespectful. And you have the gall to talk about Jeremy??
You think, with his mind set, he isn't OLD already, Lookout? I know people in their 80's who are more open minded than Adam.
-
I was out last night with a beautiful lady. Very nice it was.
I'll bet you were--------------in your dreams !
-
I like to give a little positive ego boost sometimes April - I'm sure he'll thank me later? ;D ;D 8)
Caroline, he'll be EFFUSIVE in his praise of you........................but PLEASE don't hold your breath in anticipation ;D ;D ;D
-
I don´t know any youngsters saying that someone is "like John Wayne". There was something else where I went, WTF! Also a comparison to some old timer, don´t remember who it was.
Just sayin´ 8)
-
I don´t know any youngsters saying that someone is "like John Wayne". There was something else where I went, WTF! Also a comparison to some old timer, don´t remember who it was.
Just sayin´ 8)
EXCELLENT deduction, Alias ;)
-
;D
EXCELLENT deduction, Alias ;)
-
Caroline, he'll be EFFUSIVE in his praise of you........................but PLEASE don't hold your breath in anticipation ;D ;D ;D
:o :o - (ex-hails) ;D
-
I don´t know any youngsters saying that someone is "like John Wayne". There was something else where I went, WTF! Also a comparison to some old timer, don´t remember who it was.
Just sayin´ 8)
He's always banging on about Bob De Niro and he's never said "in'it" once!! ;D
-
Oh,I've noticed. An old Lancashire saying he/she said the other night about " he couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding ".No young person would use that phrase nowadays as" pot/tin-rice" doesn't have a skin for a start. ;D ;D ;D ;D
" Adam " or " madam " is an old-timer.
-
:o :o - (ex-hails) ;D
Thank GOD for that. I was about to call the paramedics ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He's always banning on about Bob De Niro and he's never said "in'it" once!! ;D
Waiting for his answer. 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
I think that's probably 'in spite of' rather than 'because of'? ;D ;D ;)
possibly .
-
You don't say any bad points.
Or say any good points.
Or say any points at all.
Or create threads.
Or say why you changed from innocent to guilty after I joined.
You just post to or about me.
I hope when I become elderly there will be more in my life than just posting to or about someone I have never spoken to.
Just coincidence.
-
Waiting for his answer. 8) 8) 8) 8)
Think he must be taking a sherry or warm milk break! ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh, but I HAVE, Adam. On two, possibly three, occasions -and I HAVE already told you this- although I haven't personally addressed you with the information. This just tells me that you're such an egotist that you don't bother to read others' posts when they don't involve YOU.
-
come on Adam try and stop distracting from the thread. Caroline has given you some help .So carry on the discussion.
-
April !! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam - back to the thread - I asked you some questions . Are you going to continue?
-
Regarding the two bodies in the kitchen. It seems to be that there are a few options:
Option 1 - Mistaken Identification
In this scenario, the same body was identified as a female in one instance and a male in the other, thus giving rise to the belief there were two bodies in the kitchen.
In an ideal world, Police would count '1 body, probably male' or '2 bodies, 1 male, 1 probably female' - as it adds more clarity, but on that particular night, it could very easy have been 'I can see a woman' followed by 'I can see a male' from multiple sources, and thus misidentified as 2 bodies, 1 male, 1 female.
I have mixed feelings about this option. I can completely understand the misidentification of gender from a fairly limited viewing angle, and quite probably only for brief glimpses (remember, whichever officer was attempting to see would be risking being shot at. This also leads me to believe the number of officers looking through the kitchen window would be minimal.
On the one hand, this is a tense situation at the farm, with scope for misinformation. On the other hand, it is a potential life threatening hostage situation and attended by professionals. Correct information is paramount, particularly with regard to counting bodies.
Option 2 - Two Bodies Genuinely Seen Prior To Entry
In this scenario, both a male (Nevill) and female (presumably Sheila) are spotted through a window, both judged to be incapacitated. Somehow, between peering through the kitchen window and physically entering the building, Sheila recovers and moves upstairs, where she commits suicide.
At face value, this scenario seems plausible enough, but in a wider context it becomes less so.
If Sheila was indeed incapacitated for a period of time, she would be unlikely to recover in an instant. That isn't to say she was unconscious or anything, but if she was injured enough to appear to be motionless, then she has a very limited time to recover and make her way upstairs. Not only that, she had to avoid being seen and commit suicide without being heard. Finally, she would have to avoid leaving evidence of her presence in the kitchen.
Option 3 - Her Body Was Moved.
In this scenario, the police entered the building and identified her as one of two bodies in the kitchen. They then proceed to move the body to the bedroom and stage, or recreate the suicide position.
This is a particularly difficult to accept scenario, as at this point, the Police have no motive to move the body.
For me personally, Option 3 is discounted, and I'm more inclined to favour Option 1 than Option 2.
Option 1, in my opinion is down to human error, and it only takes one officer to make a mistake for it to be propagated up the reporting chain and repeated (erroneously) in multiple reports.
Option 2 needs some tangible evidence - traces of Sheila's blood downstairs, Nevill's blood on her gown etc.
-
Regarding the two bodies in the kitchen. It seems to be that there are a few options:
Option 1 - Mistaken Identification
In this scenario, the same body was identified as a female in one instance and a male in the other, thus giving rise to the belief there were two bodies in the kitchen.
In an ideal world, Police would count '1 body, probably male' or '2 bodies, 1 male, 1 probably female' - as it adds more clarity, but on that particular night, it could very easy have been 'I can see a woman' followed by 'I can see a male' from multiple sources, and thus misidentified as 2 bodies, 1 male, 1 female.
I have mixed feelings about this option. I can completely understand the misidentification of gender from a fairly limited viewing angle, and quite probably only for brief glimpses (remember, whichever officer was attempting to see would be risking being shot at. This also leads me to believe the number of officers looking through the kitchen window would be minimal.
On the one hand, this is a tense situation at the farm, with scope for misinformation. On the other hand, it is a potential life threatening hostage situation and attended by professionals. Correct information is paramount, particularly with regard to counting bodies.
Option 2 - Two Bodies Genuinely Seen Prior To Entry
In this scenario, both a male (Nevill) and female (presumably Sheila) are spotted through a window, both judged to be incapacitated. Somehow, between peering through the kitchen window and physically entering the building, Sheila recovers and moves upstairs, where she commits suicide.
At face value, this scenario seems plausible enough, but in a wider context it becomes less so.
If Sheila was indeed incapacitated for a period of time, she would be unlikely to recover in an instant. That isn't to say she was unconscious or anything, but if she was injured enough to appear to be motionless, then she has a very limited time to recover and make her way upstairs. Not only that, she had to avoid being seen and commit suicide without being heard. Finally, she would have to avoid leaving evidence of her presence in the kitchen.
Option 3 - Her Body Was Moved.
In this scenario, the police entered the building and identified her as one of two bodies in the kitchen. They then proceed to move the body to the bedroom and stage, or recreate the suicide position.
This is a particularly difficult to accept scenario, as at this point, the Police have no motive to move the body.
For me personally, Option 3 is discounted, and I'm more inclined to favour Option 1 than Option 2.
Option 1, in my opinion is down to human error, and it only takes one officer to make a mistake for it to be propagated up the reporting chain and repeated (erroneously) in multiple reports.
Option 2 needs some tangible evidence - traces of Sheila's blood downstairs, Nevill's blood on her gown etc.
Option one is the fact of the matter. The officer is on record saying he mistook Nevils body for a female.
-
How many times was this logged and by whom ?
There were either 2 bodies or there weren't !
What made them say two bodies if they thought it was a female ?
Seeing a female body is just one person that was seen isn't it ?
Where did the two come in ?
-
lets move on with the thread
-
Option one is the fact of the matter. The officer is on record saying he mistook Nevils body for a female.
This I might have been willing to accept but what of the 8.10 log "House now been thoroughly searched by firearms team. Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found. Five dead in total".
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
-
lets move on with the thread
Why, can't you answer it ?
-
This I might have been willing to accept but what of the 8.10 log "House now been thoroughly searched by firearms team. Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found. Five dead in total".
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
They had rectified their mistake. The radio log is just repeating what is heard.
-
there were lots of mistakes made ,we must remember this was policing in the 80s ,had it been today every policeman there would be wearing a body cam
-
Why, can't you answer it ?
cant answer what didnt see any post addressed to me.but unlike your self if i cant answer i will say so ,and not come up with 101 excuses.
-
Mistakes are still made today even with advanced technology. There's never any excuse for not using your brain !
-
Mistakes are still made today even with advanced technology. There's never any excuse for not using your brain !
theres an old saying ,seeing is believing .but we all know how easily our eyes can be deceived
-
theres an old saying ,seeing is believing .but we all know how easily our eyes can be deceived
These were police officers, who seemingly are never deceived or shouldn't be or they're not fit for the job. How can anyone be deceived by the appearance or non-appearance of two bodies ?
-
These were police officers, who seemingly are never deceived or shouldn't be or they're not fit for the job. How can anyone be deceived by the appearance or non-appearance of two bodies ?
so are you saying that they did see two bodies but are now lying .
-
so are you saying that they did see two bodies but are now lying .
You've just said that, not me !
-
You've just said that, not me !
your own sides mr knowitall has already said it was a mistake and they corrected it they mistook nevilles body for a womans
-
your own sides mr knowitall has already said it was a mistake and they corrected it they mistook nevilles body for a womans
Yeah ! Just because it's " my side " doesn't mean to say I agree, unlike yourself who finds it easier to follow the crowd.
-
This I might have been willing to accept but what of the 8.10 log "House now been thoroughly searched by firearms team. Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found. Five dead in total".
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
I can cope with this. I can see a distinct time lag between events on the ground and what is being is relayed from HQIR. The entry you refer to states that the info is coming from the Duty Inspector at HQIR.
At 7.37 just as the Firearms Unit were entering the farm, it was relayed over the radio by CA07 that 1 dead male and 1 dead female were found. At 8.09, CA07 reported all 5 bodies found dead.
With HQIR listening in, and just 1 minute later, I can certain see how they would assume '3 more bodies found'.
There seems to be a fairly distinct radio silence from inside the house for about 30 minutes as they search the house. There was other radio chatter, but not (from what I recall) anything directly from inside the house. So this leaves a lot of time when the facts were not yet updated to HQIR.
Whilst I am not saying this IS the definitive series of events, it is not beyond belief that just prior to entering the house, they have two sightings of the same body, one identified as male, and one as female, appearing to be dead. The logs suggest they heard a noise (possibly the dog moving?), and enter house forcefully. The log now reflects 2 dead bodies found - and is being relayed to multiple other parties all whilst the actual Firearms team are inside the premises discovering only 1 body...
By the time the house is fully checked and 5 dead bodies counted, the time lag makes it seem like 2 bodies + 3 bodies, rather than 1 + 4.
-
I can cope with this. I can see a distinct time lag between events on the ground and what is being is relayed from HQIR. The entry you refer to states that the info is coming from the Duty Inspector at HQIR.
At 7.37 just as the Firearms Unit were entering the farm, it was relayed over the radio by CA07 that 1 dead male and 1 dead female were found. At 8.09, CA07 reported all 5 bodies found dead.
With HQIR listening in, and just 1 minute later, I can certain see how they would assume '3 more bodies found'.
There seems to be a fairly distinct radio silence from inside the house for about 30 minutes as they search the house. There was other radio chatter, but not (from what I recall) anything directly from inside the house. So this leaves a lot of time when the facts were not yet updated to HQIR.
Whilst I am not saying this IS the definitive series of events, it is not beyond belief that just prior to entering the house, they have two sightings of the same body, one identified as male, and one as female, appearing to be dead. The logs suggest they heard a noise (possibly the dog moving?), and enter house forcefully. The log now reflects 2 dead bodies found - and is being relayed to multiple other parties all whilst the actual Firearms team are inside the premises discovering only 1 body...
By the time the house is fully checked and 5 dead bodies counted, the time lag makes it seem like 2 bodies + 3 bodies, rather than 1 + 4.
Thank you TBM. I accept that this might not be the definitive series of events but I can live with it as a plausable explanation.
-
These were police officers, who seemingly are never deceived or shouldn't be or they're not fit for the job. How can anyone be deceived by the appearance or non-appearance of two bodies ?
It was approx 2 hours after sunrise on that day, so light would be quite good, but they were looking at gaining entry into a potentially hostile building. The only body they could see was through a kitchen window, at a less than ideal angle, and one might reasonably assume, only for small periods of time (you do not want to be looking through a window for very long if there is the threat from a person with a gun inside the building!). Nevill's position was less than ideal to identify gender... longish grey hair, face down, bent over. Seemingly, Nevill was identified as a female at one point, and male at another. Quite who 'counted' two bodies is questionable. There is no clear evidence of an actual count. Again, it 'seems' that 1 female identified changed to 1 male identified, but that was mistakenly interpreted as 1 of each.
I accept others are more damning of the evidence, but for me, that is by far the most likely explanation.
-
It was approx 2 hours after sunrise on that day, so light would be quite good, but they were looking at gaining entry into a potentially hostile building. The only body they could see was through a kitchen window, at a less than ideal angle, and one might reasonably assume, only for small periods of time (you do not want to be looking through a window for very long if there is the threat from a person with a gun inside the building!). Nevill's position was less than ideal to identify gender... longish grey hair, face down, bent over. Seemingly, Nevill was identified as a female at one point, and male at another. Quite who 'counted' two bodies is questionable. There is no clear evidence of an actual count. Again, it 'seems' that 1 female identified changed to 1 male identified, but that was mistakenly interpreted as 1 of each.
I accept others are more damning of the evidence, but for me, that is by far the most likely explanation.
Whichever way this is viewed, and as far as I'm concerned no description of " a fair/grey haired person/body was mentioned, even if the light wasn't particularly good a fair/grey haired body would still be distinguishable. Two bodies has been described as having been seen and if that was recorded sobeit.
You can't mix up two bodies if you suddenly decided that it was a male with shoulder length hair, mistaken for a woman.Where does body number two come in ? One male mistaken for two people ??
When a person lays dead, an officer will describe every detail, including hair colour. The size/ build of Nevill should have given the officers a clue of the gender ?
-
Yeah ! Just because it's " my side " doesn't mean to say I agree, unlike yourself who finds it easier to follow the crowd.
you never agree to anything thats shows you are wrong.its a trait of yours.
-
you never agree to anything thats shows you are wrong.its a trait of yours.
I won't even begin listing your traits. How can anyone be right even when the police made mistakes-----and they were there !!
-
It was approx 2 hours after sunrise on that day, so light would be quite good, but they were looking at gaining entry into a potentially hostile building. The only body they could see was through a kitchen window, at a less than ideal angle, and one might reasonably assume, only for small periods of time (you do not want to be looking through a window for very long if there is the threat from a person with a gun inside the building!). Nevill's position was less than ideal to identify gender... longish grey hair, face down, bent over. Seemingly, Nevill was identified as a female at one point, and male at another. Quite who 'counted' two bodies is questionable. There is no clear evidence of an actual count. Again, it 'seems' that 1 female identified changed to 1 male identified, but that was mistakenly interpreted as 1 of each.
I accept others are more damning of the evidence, but for me, that is by far the most likely explanation.
Totally agree! I have seen the CS picture of Nevill, his hair was long, I guess it was combed over to hide a balding spot.
If messages were being relayed, it would be easy to get confused, obviously this would be something that could be cleared up later. It was but it has allowed the facts to be manipulated.
-
Whichever way this is viewed, and as far as I'm concerned no description of " a fair/grey haired person/body was mentioned, even if the light wasn't particularly good a fair/grey haired body would still be distinguishable. Two bodies has been described as having been seen and if that was recorded sobeit.
You can't mix up two bodies if you suddenly decided that it was a male with shoulder length hair, mistaken for a woman.Where does body number two come in ? One male mistaken for two people ??
When a person lays dead, an officer will describe every detail, including hair colour. The size/ build of Nevill should have given the officers a clue of the gender ?
But then you didn't view it. The officer clearly stated that there was a likely female when spotted through the window, entered the building and stated one dead male. He wasn't worried about the administration of the information at that point. He had to be alert in case he came face to face with a rifle and he certainly wouldn't be interested in describing the bodies - that wasn't his job, he was there to secure the building and make it safe.
-
Whichever way this is viewed, and as far as I'm concerned no description of " a fair/grey haired person/body was mentioned, even if the light wasn't particularly good a fair/grey haired body would still be distinguishable. Two bodies has been described as having been seen and if that was recorded sobeit.
You can't mix up two bodies if you suddenly decided that it was a male with shoulder length hair, mistaken for a woman.Where does body number two come in ? One male mistaken for two people ??
When a person lays dead, an officer will describe every detail, including hair colour. The size/ build of Nevill should have given the officers a clue of the gender ?
Nobody said it was mentioned, the point was a silvery, long haired male COULD appear as a female when they are face down, bent over, head in a bucket.
This is not a situation where a police office has all the time in the world to take the inside leg measurements of a body... it is a police officer poking his head above the parapet to try and see anybody inside a kitchen (at the risk of being shot should a shooter be in the kitchen!).
Imagine the following communications over a radio...
'One female dead in kitchen'
Second look...
'One male dead in kitchen'
Then HQIR who are listening in, interpret this as two dead in the kitchen. The logs we read are the intepretations of a remote listener, and relayed on to yet another party who will repeat the same, thus you get two logs with the same error, all because of the uncertainty on the ground.
Once inside the building, radio comms from inside the building would likely be nil unless there was an emergency - remember. at this point, the police could still be facing someone with a gun so a) need to focus on the task in hand and b) do not want to relay any information to the potential threat.
But let us suppose for a moment that there really were two dead bodies in the kitchen...
What possible motivation have a Firearms Unit got to move a dead female up a flight of stairs into a bedroom and pose her as a suicide victim?
Which is the more plausible to you?
-
That " dead " female might not have been dead at the time and would have made her own way upstairs before the firearms team got in.
-
These were police officers, who seemingly are never deceived or shouldn't be or they're not fit for the job. How can anyone be deceived by the appearance or non-appearance of two bodies ?
Okay. As you're clearly so intent on absolute perfection and clearly have no room for anyone who falls even slightly short, perhaps you'd care to name one profession in which someone hasn't, at some point, got something wrong. Police are human, like the rest of us. They're not a sub-species of programmed robots.
-
That " dead " female might not have been dead at the time and would have made her own way upstairs before the firearms team got in.
Absolutely she could.
However, she would then have to do the following:
1) Regain consciousness, or composure quite rapidly
2) Negotiate the door by which the Firearms Unit were about to enter, OR negotiate a very cluttered, generally unused staircase, and do so without them noticing
3) Leave no evidence of her presence post Nevill death
4) Carry out her own suicide without it being heard
Equally, the Firearms Team would also surely say 'The body we saw has gone!' - they didn't do that. The most plausible explanation why they didn't was because the single body they HAD seen was there. Nevill's body.
-
Okay. As you're clearly so intent on absolute perfection and clearly have no room for anyone who falls even slightly short, perhaps you'd care to name one profession in which someone hasn't, at some point, got something wrong. Police are human, like the rest of us. They're not a sub-species of programmed robots.
I make no excuses for SIMPLE mistakes such as not being able to count.
-
I make no excuses for SIMPLE mistakes such as not being able to count.
But it's clear you'd rather think that, than accept that a policeman say, through a window, what he thought to be the body of a woman, and on entry, rectified the mistake, was perhaps misheard and it was reported as being two bodies.
-
Absolutely she could.
However, she would then have to do the following:
1) Regain consciousness, or composure quite rapidly
2) Negotiate the door by which the Firearms Unit were about to enter, OR negotiate a very cluttered, generally unused staircase, and do so without them noticing
3) Leave no evidence of her presence post Nevill death
4) Carry out her own suicide without it being heard
Equally, the Firearms Team would also surely say 'The body we saw has gone!' - they didn't do that. The most plausible explanation why they didn't was because the single body they HAD seen was there. Nevill's body.
yes that sounds reasonable ,i agree good points
-
I make no excuses for SIMPLE mistakes such as not being able to count.
But it wasn't a counting mistake per se. The mistake came from listening in to radio comms, and misinterpreting the relayed information.
If i was listening in to conversation between a driver and a passenger giving instructions, and I heard 'Left, right' does that mean Left and THEN a right, or could it be that right is a correction to the left instruction?
This is almost certainly what happened in the communications error. It's not a failure to count.
We don't have access to the actual radio recordings, only the manually interpreted log. It would only take a single word to be mishead '1 dead female, no, 1 dead male' could be misheard as '1 dead female, 'n' 1 dead male' for it to be relayed as 2 dead.
-
Absolutely she could.
However, she would then have to do the following:
1) Regain consciousness, or composure quite rapidly
2) Negotiate the door by which the Firearms Unit were about to enter, OR negotiate a very cluttered, generally unused staircase, and do so without them noticing
3) Leave no evidence of her presence post Nevill death
4) Carry out her own suicide without it being heard
Equally, the Firearms Team would also surely say 'The body we saw has gone!' - they didn't do that. The most plausible explanation why they didn't was because the single body they HAD seen was there. Nevill's body.
Sheila wouldn't have been injured at that point to have enabled her to run up stairs. Only when she'd realised that she would have been closer to being " captured " would she then commit suicide as the two shots would have been in quick succession given her exertion as her finger would already have remained in firing mode.
Evidence of her being the last to die is seen quite clearly from photo's.
-
But it wasn't a counting mistake per se. The mistake came from listening in to radio comms, and misinterpreting the relayed information.
If i was listening in to conversation between a driver and a passenger giving instructions, and I heard 'Left, right' does that mean Left and THEN a right, or could it be that right is a correction to the left instruction?
This is almost certainly what happened in the communications error. It's not a failure to count.
We don't have access to the actual radio recordings, only the manually interpreted log. It would only take a single word to be mishead '1 dead female, no, 1 dead male' could be misheard as '1 dead female, 'n' 1 dead male' for it to be relayed as 2 dead.
Judging by everything else that occurred or didn't during the investigation, I'd be happier if I'd heard the logs via audio than someone's cobbled events of how/what had happened.
-
Sheila wouldn't have been injured at that point to have enabled her to run up stairs. Only when she'd realised that she would have been closer to being " captured " would she then commit suicide as the two shots would have been in quick succession given her exertion as her finger would already have remained in firing mode.
Evidence of her being the last to die is seen quite clearly from photo's.
Well, a finger would have had to be in pulling mode, once the gun was reversed into suicide mode, it's her thumb she'd have needed to employ in a pushing mode.............that's after organizing herself into preparing to commit suicide mode....................and why, with a mother she'd allegedly detested, rather than her boys whom she adored?
-
Well, a finger would have had to be in pulling mode, once the gun was reversed into suicide mode, it's her thumb she'd have needed to employ in a pushing mode.............that's after organizing herself into preparing to commit suicide mode....................and why, with a mother she'd allegedly detested, rather than her boys whom she adored?
Since I came to learn that Sheila had previously made two attempts on her life, using her thumb would have been the last of her thoughts/efforts.
-
Sheila's determination to end her life once and for all must have been on her mind for all of that day and as the environment was one that she hadn't particularly enjoyed and the thoughts going through her head of her mother, ex-husband and her deranged thoughts about her sons, then less support given by her father had proved too much to bear.
-
Didn't one log state " 1 body of female and 1 body of a male on entry ?"
-
Didn't one log state " 1 body of female and 1 body of a male on entry ?"
No.
-
No.
The way the logs are written (by individuals NOT at the scene), have allowed the words to be manipulated - nothing more.
-
The way the logs are written (by individuals NOT at the scene), have allowed the words to be manipulated - nothing more.
Well you would say that wouldn't you ?
-
Sheila wouldn't have been injured at that point to have enabled her to run up stairs. Only when she'd realised that she would have been closer to being " captured " would she then commit suicide as the two shots would have been in quick succession given her exertion as her finger would already have remained in firing mode.
Evidence of her being the last to die is seen quite clearly from photo's.
So your supposition is that she was pretending to be unconscious in the kitchen? That she was actually already conscious and uninjured and fully aware that she was about to be caught, with all her family dead, but only elected to shoot herself at the last moment - which ran the risk of being prevented?
Could you explain the physiology of 'firing mode' finger? And would you care to explain how double head shot suicides account for less that 4% of head shot suicides given the existence of the supposed 'firing mode' finger?
In Sheila's case, the weapon was less than an ideal one for suicide which only adds to the incredulity of your assertion.
Sure, the best vantage point for a fully able Sheila would be upstairs - this gives her the longest period of time to shoot herself AND monitor progress of the Firearms Unit - as opposed to the kitchen which offers severely limited scope for observation?
Let us not forget, that the Police had been observing for a number of hours, suggesting the other 4 people in the house were already dead, but she locates herself in the kitchen, pretends to be dead, then runs upstairs without detection.
Well, it's a theory, I'll give you that.
-
Sheila's determination to end her life once and for all must have been on her mind for all of that day and as the environment was one that she hadn't particularly enjoyed and the thoughts going through her head of her mother, ex-husband and her deranged thoughts about her sons, then less support given by her father had proved too much to bear.
And yet, she took hours to carry out the final act itself?
You're suggesting she was suicidal, but she kills the rest of her family first, then takes hours to kill herself.
Tokien wasn't this good.
-
Well you would say that wouldn't you ?
cant win ,you asked a question when you got the reply you come up with the above sentence
-
cant win ,you asked a question when you got the reply you come up with the above sentence
I'm used to it Sami.
-
And yet, she took hours to carry out the final act itself?
You're suggesting she was suicidal, but she kills the rest of her family first, then takes hours to kill herself.
Tokien wasn't this good.
Not only that, the police would have known and yet chose to convict Bamber and make themselves look stupid.
-
I'm actually still open to the possibility of Sheila doing it, not by much, but it's still a vague possibility for me - but I couldn't defend the view that the Police really did see two bodies and confirmed them dead (but she wasn't dead, she was uninjured and feigning it), then ran upstairs at the last minute and killed herself.
Of course, her finger was in 'trigger mode', something the rest of the world failed to appreciate.
Not only that, we have a full insight into her thought process - again a world exclusive.
-
Didn't one log state " 1 body of female and 1 body of a male on entry ?"
Heeheehee! Don't you wish!!!!
-
Heeheehee! Don't you wish!!!!
I know I've seen such a record and that's that. Laugh all you like but I won't be the one left laughing on the other side of my face.
-
Since I came to learn that Sheila had previously made two attempts on her life, using her thumb would have been the last of her thoughts/efforts.
Just because she'd once thought about it -do we have a time line for these alleged attempts- doesn't mean she was still contemplating it.
-
Just because she'd once thought about it -do we have a time line for these alleged attempts- doesn't mean she was still contemplating it.
Really ? There are many who do !!
-
I know I've seen such a record and that's that. Laugh all you like but I won't be the one left laughing on the other side of my face.
'COURSE you have, Lookout. If you say you KNOW you've seen it, you're never going to admit you may not have, are you?
-
Really ? There are many who do !!
But there are many more who don't.
-
Jeremy had been so dumb when he was outside WHF that morning that he hadn't even named/blamed Sheila------instead he'd first blamed the TFG for shooting her ! Which I sometimes wonder if that's the reason he's being kept behind bars.
-
Jeremy had been so dumb when he was outside WHF that morning that he hadn't even named/blamed Sheila------instead he'd first blamed the TFG for shooting her ! Which I sometimes wonder if that's the reason he's being kept behind bars.
mike also said the same ,is that where you read it one of mikes posts
-
Jeremy had been so dumb when he was outside WHF that morning that he hadn't even named/blamed Sheila------instead he'd first blamed the TFG for shooting her ! Which I sometimes wonder if that's the reason he's being kept behind bars.
Ha! He didn't need to be that overt, did he? He'd already given the police chapter and verse on her mental condition. her hospitalization, her suicide attempts, and her gun competency. What he meant couldn't have been any clearer, could it?
-
But there are many more who don't.
Nevertheless it's NEVER a word to be ignored by anyone I don't care who they are !!
-
Nevertheless it's NEVER a word to be ignored by anyone I don't care who they are !!
what (word) are you talking about.ive lost the plot for a bit
-
Ha! He didn't need to be that overt, did he? He'd already given the police chapter and verse on her mental condition. her hospitalization, her suicide attempts, and her gun competency. What he meant couldn't have been any clearer, could it?
That information came later. Neither he nor his family knew or even had a clue ( bit like yourself saying there are those who don't ) that sooner or later Sheila would carry out her threats----when least expected !!
-
Nevertheless it's NEVER a word to be ignored by anyone I don't care who they are !!
You're right. The first question Samaritans are required to ask is "Are you feeling suicidal"?
-
That information came later. Neither he nor his family knew or even had a clue ( bit like yourself saying there are those who don't ) that sooner or later Sheila would carry out her threats----when least expected !!
What ARE you talking about? The TFG hadn't been called when Jeremy was giving police the low-down on Sheila. It was probably after convincing them of her gun competency that it was decided they'd be necessary.
-
I know I've seen such a record and that's that. Laugh all you like but I won't be the one left laughing on the other side of my face.
It doesn't matter what the logs say Lookout, the person writing the log isn't the person giving the account. The logs are NOT set in stone, that's why there is always a debrief to get the facts straight.
-
It was rather fortunate that Jeremy was at home at all. He often wasn't.
And to remember he'd left a gun out on the kitchen table, with full magazine, plus reserve ammunition (knowing children were in the house too)? - that was a Godsend. Had he not remembered that detail, the police might have doubted the veracity of Nevill's fears.
-
It was rather fortunate that Jeremy was at home at all. He often wasn't.
And to remember he'd left a gun out on the kitchen table, with full magazine, plus reserve ammunition (knowing children were in the house too)? - that was a Godsend. Had he not remembered that detail, the police might have doubted the veracity of Nevill's fears.
He didn't say he left it on the kitchen table. He left it on a bench outside the downstairs office.
-
It was rather fortunate that Jeremy was at home at all. He often wasn't.
And to remember he'd left a gun out on the kitchen table, with full magazine, plus reserve ammunition (knowing children were in the house too)? - that was a Godsend. Had he not remembered that detail, the police might have doubted the veracity of Nevill's fears.
The gun was never on the table----apart from a toy one on the table in the lounge area ( which we've never seen a pic of )
-
He said he left the gun in the back hallway leaning on the wall near the wellies.
I wish people would understand that he didn't say he left it on the kitchen table.
-
It doesn't matter what the logs say Lookout, the person writing the log isn't the person giving the account. The logs are NOT set in stone, that's why there is always a debrief to get the facts straight.
Indeed. Out of context, the logs says 'Firearms talking to someone inside the farm' (or words to that effect). But the logs also state numerous times - 'no response'.
'Someone inside the farm' can be interpreted as a physical being inside the house, or simple an insider who is au fait with the house and the family, i.e. Jeremy.
The logs TRY to be as good a record as possible, but they are written on the fly and prone to error, or due to their relative brevity, missing a wider context. This is why testimony is given afterwards to elaborate on the detail, or clear up any ambiguities (accepting that sometimes, some will remain).
-
[2002] EWCA Crim 2912 Case No: 20011745 S1
"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."
-
He said he left the gun in the back hallway leaning on the wall near the wellies.
I wish people would understand that he didn't say he left it on the kitchen table.
Irrelevant of where he left it, it wasn't put away. If it was left where he said Sheila would have been able to see it, that was particularly fortuitous and far too convenient to be coincidental.
-
It doesn't matter what the logs say Lookout, the person writing the log isn't the person giving the account. The logs are NOT set in stone, that's why there is always a debrief to get the facts straight.
But logs should be " set in stone " as those who write them are usually the first response after a crime has occurred and it's vital that things are written as seen to assist those who are following up a case.
It's the re-typing that becomes the problem with editing galore.
-
Irrelevant of where he left it, it wasn't put away. If it was left where he said Sheila would have been able to see it, that was particularly fortuitous and far too convenient to be coincidental.
Irrelevant? If people can't even get that bit right, what hope is there?
It might have been put away ...
In any case, I don't think it's true to say that Nevill always put guns away. There were guns found on the kitchen stairs, and there were guns in the downstairs shower room.
-
Irrelevant? If people can't even get that bit right, what hope is there?
It might have been put away ...
In any case, I don't think it's true to say that Nevill always put guns away. There were guns found on the kitchen stairs, and there were guns in the downstairs shower room.
There was also a shotgun upstairs which had Sheila's fingerprints on it. AE found it there.
-
Irrelevant? If people can't even get that bit right, what hope is there?
It might have been put away ...
In any case, I don't think it's true to say that Nevill always put guns away. There were guns found on the kitchen stairs, and there were guns in the downstairs shower room.
Oh! I couldn't agree more. It's why I loathe sweeping statements. Truly, I tire of having it claimed that "Nevill (or any other name) always did........................" NOBODY "always" does!
-
But logs should be " set in stone " as those who write them are usually the first response after a crime has occurred and it's vital that things are written as seen to assist those who are following up a case.
It's the re-typing that becomes the problem with editing galore.
In many cases, the logs are summaries of events as they happened, sometimes observed, sometimes heard, and on occasion misheard, or misinterpreted. In this case, the logs are largely radio messages which are by their nature brief and not always fully explanatory. Ideally, a log would be 100% perfect and fully descriptive. In reality, they are indicative of events, but not proof positive.
-
He didn't say he left it on the kitchen table. He left it on a bench outside the downstairs office.
No he didn't. he said he left the magazine there and the rifle next to the wellington boots.
-
JB's testimony varies a little bit, but generally, he made it safe, and left outside the kitchen, but the boots in the hallway.
However, on the night in question he is alleged to have told the officers on the scene that he had left it on the table, loaded.
That may be a false recollection, or equally it may have been erroneous on JB's part, or a deliberate exaggeration, either from genuine concern to progress matters quickly, or from a more sinister attempt to paint a picture of increasingly probable tragedy.
-
No he didn't. he said he left the magazine there and the rifle next to the wellington boots.
:)) :))
-
JB's testimony varies a little bit, but generally, he made it safe, and left outside the kitchen, but the boots in the hallway.
However, on the night in question he is alleged to have told the officers on the scene that he had left it on the table, loaded.
That may be a false recollection, or equally it may have been erroneous on JB's part, or a deliberate exaggeration, either from genuine concern to progress matters quickly, or from a more sinister attempt to paint a picture of increasingly probable tragedy.
Who said he told them he left the gun on the kitchen table?
-
There was also a shotgun upstairs which had Sheila's fingerprints on it. AE found it there.
There wasn't.
-
Indeed. Out of context, the logs says 'Firearms talking to someone inside the farm' (or words to that effect). But the logs also state numerous times - 'no response'.
'Someone inside the farm' can be interpreted as a physical being inside the house, or simple an insider who is au fait with the house and the family, i.e. Jeremy.
The logs TRY to be as good a record as possible, but they are written on the fly and prone to error, or due to their relative brevity, missing a wider context. This is why testimony is given afterwards to elaborate on the detail, or clear up any ambiguities (accepting that sometimes, some will remain).
Actually, this part of the log is always misquoted, I used to do it myself. It actually states 'Firearms in conversation with a PERSON inside the FARM. Challenge to PERSONS inside the HOUSE, met with no response" - There is a clear distinction between person and persons, and farm and house. The raid team mentioned being in conversation with Jeremy and it's obvious that they are referring to him on the first part of the sentence. This has been manipulated over the years to try and suggest olice were talking to Sheila.
-
There wasn't.
It was in the upstairs office.
-
It was in the upstairs office.
Lookout, you keeps saying this but have no reference point for it.
-
It was in the upstairs office.
AE had said so in her statement.
-
AE had said so in her statement.
There was shotgun in the office, the downstairs office but it's didn't have Sheila's prints on it.
-
Who said he told them he left the gun on the kitchen table?
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
He is alleged to have told the Police this at the crime scene on the night in question. Which specific offer is not known (yet).
-
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
He is alleged to have told the Police this at the crime scene on the night in question. Which specific offer is not known (yet).
I believe Miller mentioned this in one of the video's but giving Bamber the benefit of the doubt, officers may just not have known that he meant by 'settle' and assumed he meant table.
-
There was shotgun in the office, the downstairs office but it's didn't have Sheila's prints on it.
It did when it was tested .
-
It did when it was tested .
Ah! Perhaps one of the children had picked it up and Sheila took it away from him? In any case, IF it's true, it's of no moment because the killing was done with a rifle.
-
Ah! Perhaps one of the children had picked it up and Sheila took it away from him? In any case, IF it's true, it's of no moment because the killing was done with a rifle.
It's not.
-
I know I've seen such a record and that's that. Laugh all you like but I won't be the one left laughing on the other side of my face.
-
Yes, we have all seen the log and AGAIN, it wasn't written by Collins, it wasn't written by someone at the scene, it was written by someone trying to make sense of what he/she was being told over a radio.
-
Yes, we have all seen the log and AGAIN, it wasn't written by Collins, it wasn't written by someone at the scene, it was written by someone trying to make sense of what he/she was being told over a radio.
I was simply showing a copy of a log where it refers to one dead male and one dead female, since Jane seemed to doubt it's existance.
-
I was simply showing a copy of a log where it refers to one dead male and one dead female, since you seemed to doubt it's existance.
I don't doubt it's existence, I have seen it hundreds of times. It gets debated on a regular basis.
-
I don't doubt it's existence, I have seen it hundreds of times. It gets debated on a regular basis.
My apologies Caroline I meant to say Jane not you. I have edited my post accordingly.
-
Ah! Perhaps one of the children had picked it up and Sheila took it away from him? In any case, IF it's true, it's of no moment because the killing was done with a rifle.
Well that's passed that off in the only way you operate-----with cunning.
-
Well that's passed that off in the only way you operate-----with cunning.
Cunning? How very droll. I'm really not certain why it is you want us to know that Sheila's fingerprints were on a shotgun -is this a fact?- when a shotgun wasn't used in the murders.
-
Cunning? How very droll. I'm really not certain why it is you want us to know that Sheila's fingerprints were on a shotgun -is this a fact?- when a shotgun wasn't used in the murders.
I'm well aware that a shotgun wasn't used----I didn't say it had been, but it had been handled by Sheila which, as usual, was denied as having been, or even in the vicinity at all.
-
I'm well aware that a shotgun wasn't used----I didn't say it had been, but it had been handled by Sheila which, as usual, was denied as having been, or even in the vicinity at all.
who reported it had been handled by sheila
-
who reported it had been handled by sheila
I imagine EP did after it had been fingerprinted.
-
who reported it had been handled by sheila
you would have to ask Mike as he claimed this many times on this site
Also one of the authors i think Scott Lomax claims to have seen a document as well .
-
you would have to ask Mike as he claimed this many times on this site
Also one of the authors i think Scott Lomax claims to have seen a document as well .
Yes, I emailed Scott Lomax some time ago on this very subject. He told me that he didn't have a reference for it but it must have come from the CT and that he didn't have time to look for it so I should contact them. I didn't bother given that previous attempts were met with a blank.
-
Yes, I emailed Scott Lomax some time ago on this very subject. He told me that he didn't have a reference for it but it must have come from the CT and that he didn't have time to look for it so I should contact them. I didn't bother given that previous attempts were met with a blank.
Quite busy with your various emailing aren't you ? Blimey, I'm NOT that interested in the case ::)
-
Quite busy with your various emailing aren't you ? Blimey, I'm NOT that interested in the case ::)
Yes Lookout because I like the truth which is why I don't believe your last comment. Plus, I thought you didn't like to just take someone's word - or is that ONLY when it smells like guilt?
-
Quite busy with your various emailing aren't you ? Blimey, I'm NOT that interested in the case ::)
Yet you correspond with the person for whom this forum was formed?
-
Yet you correspond with the person for whom this forum was formed?
Or does she? :-\
-
Or does she? :-\
Well, okay. She claims she does.
-
Yes Lookout because I like the truth which is why I don't believe your last comment. Plus, I thought you didn't like to just take someone's word - or is that ONLY when it smells like guilt?
Disinterested to a degree I suppose. I much prefer writing shopping lists these days. Asda is calling now.
-
With things moving at a snail's pace, I get easily despondent as I like things done Tomorrow. I've never been one for slow motion and my patience is wearing a bit thin now. I might also start my Spring cleaning ;D
-
Or does she? :-\
Yes, she still writes. I started a letter on Sunday re. his many letters to CAL as well as other things.
-
Yes, she still writes. I started a letter on Sunday re. his many letters to CAL as well as other things.
Well, you'll be able to let us all know what he says then?
-
Well, you'll be able to let us all know what he says then?
I will, but whether you'll believe him is another matter isn't it ?
-
I will, but whether you'll believe him is another matter isn't it ?
Lookout, I have eyes, I can see the letters - if Bamber says he sent 5 or 6 then he's lying.
-
Lookout, I have eyes, I can see the letters - if Bamber says he sent 5 or 6 then he's lying.
I know there's a limit on how many pages are sent and also the size of the writing paper. I reckon that the woman was peeved because he wouldn't tell her all she'd wanted to know. I don't blame JB for being guarded as authors are like journo's. I certainly would be on my guard especially as the case has been on-going, it wouldn't do to give too much away.
-
I know there's a limit on how many pages are sent and also the size of the writing paper. I reckon that the woman was peeved because he wouldn't tell her all she'd wanted to know. I don't blame JB for being guarded as authors are like journo's. I certainly would be on my guard especially as the case has been on-going, it wouldn't do to give too much away.
What's that limit Lookout? Why would she be peeved? The photographs show she was telling the truth or can you still see the king in his finery? ::)
-
What's that limit Lookout? Why would she be peeved? The photographs show she was telling the truth or can you still see the king in his finery? ::)
The prison do's and don'ts gives the amount of pages. Women are peeved at the least thing, especially when they don't get their own way ( I can't be doing with them )
It's alright you being sarky just because you think you're right, but you're in for a rude awakening !!
-
The prison do's and don'ts gives the amount of pages. Women are peeved at the least thing, especially when they don't get their own way ( I can't be doing with them )
It's alright you being sarky just because you think you're right, but you're in for a rude awakening !!
You have just had the ruse awakening and you're still in denial. Not just you though and unless you had forgotten Lookout, you're a woman too and are certainly prone to being peeved. However, there was n reason for CAL to be peeved, just refer to the sea of letters in the pictures provided!
-
You have just had the ruse awakening and you're still in denial. Not just you though and unless you had forgotten Lookout, you're a woman too and are certainly prone to being peeved. However, there was n reason for CAL to be peeved, just refer to the sea of letters in the pictures provided!
What would I ever be peeved about ? I couldn't care less about anything or anyone outside the family.
-
What would I ever be peeved about ? I couldn't care less about anything or anyone outside the family.
Lookout, you wouldn't be here being prepared to denigrate a woman who just wrote a book if you weren't invested.
-
Lookout, you wouldn't be here being prepared to denigrate a woman who just wrote a book if you weren't invested.
Who says I'm invested ?
-
Who says I'm invested ?
I just did.
-
I just did.
In what ?
-
In what ?
Mr B!
-
Mr B!
I don't think so. Nowhere near the extent that you are.
-
I don't think so. Nowhere near the extent that you are.
Yeah OK ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I find anybody who is prepared to put in some effort and collate facts, figures and opinions and try to present them in a manner that informs others deserves some credit.
I have not read the lady's book, but I would always anticipate myself disagreeing with some opinion or other, or reaching a different conclusion even whilst given the same evidence. However her efforts are still considerably greater than mine, and most likely greater than the majority here.
She may well 'feel' that JB is guilty. We all 'feel' one way or the other, unless we are truly sat on the fence.
'Feeling' need not be an irrational emotive reaction though. It can be a feeling born out of our interpretation of the evidence we are aware of.
There is always the option of countering her book with an alternative interpretation right?
Is it so wrong of her to commit her thoughts and interpretations to print? Most of us have no qualms about expressing our opinions, why shouldn't she, in whatever form she chooses?
-
I don't think so. Nowhere near the extent that you are.
D'you know, Lookout? You can be in denial/lie through your teeth in public for as long as you like, but late at night, when there's no one else to lie to, there's really no point in lying to yourself, how ever loudly you intone the 'la la la' song.
-
I find anybody who is prepared to put in some effort and collate facts, figures and opinions and try to present them in a manner that informs others deserves some credit.
I have not read the lady's book, but I would always anticipate myself disagreeing with some opinion or other, or reaching a different conclusion even whilst given the same evidence. However her efforts are still considerably greater than mine, and most likely greater than the majority here.
She may well 'feel' that JB is guilty. We all 'feel' one way or the other, unless we are truly sat on the fence.
'Feeling' need not be an irrational emotive reaction though. It can be a feeling born out of our interpretation of the evidence we are aware of.
There is always the option of countering her book with an alternative interpretation right?
Is it so wrong of her to commit her thoughts and interpretations to print? Most of us have no qualms about expressing our opinions, why shouldn't she, in whatever form she chooses?
Absolutely none!
-
Absolutely none!
She has written a book hailed as the 'difinitive' version of events, which has been made in to a TV program. She will make money off both. It's not in any way a difinitive version of events. In order to come to her personal view on the case, she has omitted or belittled police corruption. The program is informing people's opinions in favour of guilt and the viewers are of the opinion that it is almost totally factual. I would say that's doing something wrong. It's cynical and one sided.
-
She has written a book hailed as the 'difinitive' version of events, which has been made in to a TV program. She will make money off both. It's not in a way a difinitive version of events. In order to come to her personal view on the case, she has omitted or belittled police corruption. The program is informing people's opinions in favour of guilt and the viewers are of the opinion that it is almost totally factual. I would say that's doing something wrong. It's cynical and one sided.
Prove there has been some then wrote your own definitive account. As it stands it's pretty much definitive to me.
-
She has written a book hailed as the 'difinitive' version of events, which has been made in to a TV program. She will make money off both. It's not in any way a difinitive version of events. In order to come to her personal view on the case, she has omitted or belittled police corruption. The program is informing people's opinions in favour of guilt and the viewers are of the opinion that it is almost totally factual. I would say that's doing something wrong. It's cynical and one sided.
That's marketing for ya.
You are at liberty to set the record straight with your own tome.
I purchased a definitive Elvis collection CD. It wasn't.
I purchased a definitive U2 biography. It wasn't.
Does one ever purchase a book expressed as definitive and expect it to be so?
I have some magic beans if you're interested...
-
Prove there has been some then wrote your own definitive account. As it stands it's pretty much definitive to me.
You wouldn't be saying that if she'd written in the style of Lomax !
-
That's marketing for ya.
You are at liberty to set the record straight with your own tome.
I purchased a definitive Elvis collection CD. It wasn't.
I purchased a definitive U2 biography. It wasn't.
Does one ever purchase a book expressed as definitive and expect it to be so?
I have some magic beans if you're interested...
A bit of a difference when it touches on a real crime though don't you think ?
-
A bit of a difference when it touches on a real crime though don't you think ?
Read any history book. They're written by the victors.
-
That's marketing for ya.
You are at liberty to set the record straight with your own tome.
I purchased a definitive Elvis collection CD. It wasn't.
I purchased a definitive U2 biography. It wasn't.
Does one ever purchase a book expressed as definitive and expect it to be so?
I have some magic beans if you're interested...
No I'm not. If tried to get a program commissioned about police corruption in the case, it would be turned down. Not because of a lack of police corruption in the case, but because that's not what's wanted at the moment. There was nothing to stop the commissioners from insisting upon some balance.
-
I have some magic beans if you're interested...
Perfect for the accumulative super powers amidst the 'Twilight Zone' theories!
-
You wouldn't be saying that if she'd written in the style of Lomax !
It wouldn't bother me. I don't rate Lomax's book but I don't begrudge him for writing it or for making a living.
-
No I'm not. If tried to get a program commissioned about police corruption in the case, it would be turned down. Not because of a lack of police corruption in the case, but because that's not what's wanted at the moment. There was nothing to stop the commissioners from insisting upon some balance.
But you don't have any evidence of such corruption. I'm still waiting for the evidence that Bamber blamed the TFG?
-
It wouldn't bother me. I don't rate Lomax's book but I don't begrudge him for writing it or for making a living.
At least he's got the advantage of having seen and spoken to JB to get an overall impression and not a made-up wild guess such as CAL has done . How on earth can you tell what anyone is like unless you've seen/spoken to them. Is her way the done thing to form an opinion ??
-
At least he's got the advantage of having seen and spoken to JB to get an overall impression and not a made-up wild guess such as CAL has done . How on earth can you tell what anyone is like unless you've seen/spoken to them. Is her way the done thing to form an opinion ??
Well, there is always you with your 'gut feeling' - when did you meet him?
People write books about characters from history - they didn't meet them. If everyone took that silly attitude there would be no history! ::)
-
At least he's got the advantage of having seen and spoken to JB to get an overall impression and not a made-up wild guess such as CAL has done . How on earth can you tell what anyone is like unless you've seen/spoken to them. Is her way the done thing to form an opinion ??
Strange then that you've formed opinions about many on here. Especially those who oppose your views.
-
Well, there is always you with your 'gut feeling' - when did you meet him?
People write books about characters from history - they didn't meet them. If everyone took that silly attitude there would be no history! ::)
Not everyone has gut-feelings though do they ?
History has nothing to do with those who are still living does it ?
-
Not everyone has gut-feelings though do they ?
History has nothing to do with those who are still living does it ?
PLENTY have gut feelings. Your problem is that you think you're the only one with a correctly working gut.
-
Not everyone has gut-feelings though do they ?
History has nothing to do with those who are still living does it ?
Talk about talking yourself into a knot! ;D ;D ;D
-
Talk about talking yourself into a knot! ;D ;D ;D
Never, though you like to think so-----so keep thinking.
-
Never, though you like to think so-----so keep thinking.
Careful, Lookout. An ego the size of yours is quite likely to implode.
-
Careful, Lookout. An ego the size of yours is quite likely to implode.
I doubt it now at my stage in life. It's already as large as it's going to get.
-
Not everyone has gut-feelings though do they ?
History has nothing to do with those who are still living does it ?
Most people have gut feelings.
If it's in the past, it's history / historical. If I write about Donald Trumps early years, it's writing about history.
Donald Trump isn't dead.
-
But you don't have any evidence of such corruption. I'm still waiting for the evidence that Bamber blamed the TFG?
I posted it. And you've got to be kidding? Have you not seen the Ainsley and Fletcher threads?
-
I posted it. And you've got to be kidding? Have you not seen the Ainsley and Fletcher threads?
Posted it where?
Yes, I have read them, sounds like Bill Robinson?
-
At least he's got the advantage of having seen and spoken to JB to get an overall impression and not a made-up wild guess such as CAL has done . How on earth can you tell what anyone is like unless you've seen/spoken to them. Is her way the done thing to form an opinion ??
Deaf people manage to form impression without hearing.
Blind people manage without seeing.
Not all of our value judgments are visual or audible. We can judge on reportage.
Most of the world has an opinion about an entity they've never seen or heard, only read about.
Half the world believes in a God that (arguably) has less evidence to support him than JB does.
-
Robertson--get his name right please. He's one of the good cops ( not his real name )
-
Robertson--get his name right please. He's one of the good cops ( not his real name )
Whoever.
-
Robertson--get his name right please. He's one of the good cops ( not his real name )
if your talking about the bill that posted on here,well he might well be our own mike t
-
if your talking about the bill that posted on here,well he might well be our own mike t
No he isn't.
-
Deaf people manage to form impression without hearing.
Blind people manage without seeing.
Not all of our value judgments are visual or audible. We can judge on reportage.
Most of the world has an opinion about an entity they've never seen or heard, only read about.
Half the world believes in a God that (arguably) has less evidence to support him than JB does.
All perfectly true.........................but a tad too intellectual, I feel...................as in GUT feeling.
-
It's rather ironic that much speculation on this case is based on both Sheila and Jeremy's feelings and state of mind.
On either side of the fence you'll find arguments being made as to the motivation behind the murders, but feelings are so readily dismissed when it comes to judging their actions.
-
No he isn't.
hes the same one that said put your money on jb to be out by christmas,that was in 2017.he also knew how long a dog would bark after hearing a bang (20 mins)barbara woodhouse will be turning in her grave ;)
-
It's rather ironic that much speculation on this case is based on both Sheila and Jeremy's feelings and state of mind.
On either side of the fence you'll find arguments being made as to the motivation behind the murders, but feelings are so readily dismissed when it comes to judging their actions.
Whose feelings do you feel are dismissed?
-
Whose feelings do you feel are dismissed?
Carol Ann Lee has been criticised for her book, with claims of it being based on her gut feelings, then having a specific and limited narrative aimed at persuading the reader of his guilt, rather than a broader 'both sides' approach.
At the same time, many here have been at pains to say "Sheila/Jeremy would have been feeling..." which is pure conjecture, yet presented as though it were evidential.
-
Carol Ann Lee has been criticised for her book, with claims of it being based on her gut feelings, then having a specific and limited narrative aimed at persuading the reader of his guilt, rather than a broader 'both sides' approach.
At the same time, many here have been at pains to say "Sheila/Jeremy would have been feeling..." which is pure conjecture, yet presented as though it were evidential.
An interesting point.
However, posters who try to empathise with people directly affected by or involved in the case (or imagine their feelings), are hardly likely to have their posts snapped up by a TV production company and then fed to millions of viewers; with additional marketing and three paragraph press articles with lurid headlines.
-
There is a media company who have studied the Bamber case and who are also adamant that JB is innocent and who are presently an interested party. We'll see what transpires.
-
An interesting point.
However, posters who try to empathise with people directly affected by or involved in the case (or imagine their feelings), are hardly likely to have their posts snapped up by a TV production company and then fed to millions of viewers; with additional marketing and three paragraph press articles with lurid headlines.
But the opportunity for them to try to do so is/was always there.
She bothered to write a book, and a TV company used it as inspiration.
Folks can hardly complain with 'A TV company chose to take HER book as an inspiration, when it's totally biased and littered with flaws'.
Should have written a less biased and less flawed book then!
-
But the opportunity for them to try to do so is/was always there.
She bothered to write a book, and a TV company used it as inspiration.
Folks can hardly complain with 'A TV company chose to take HER book as an inspiration, when it's totally biased and littered with flaws'.
Should have written a less biased and less flawed book then!
You're missing the point. Her book is a Godsend for anyone with any clout in influencing commissioning, from the perspective of hammering home a certain view of the case. In the end, the view that will be pervasive among the majority of viewers, is the one where the police messed up; the relatives helped them put it right; and the nasty man is caught.
You might as well go back to 1993 and air the effort that was made then.
If somebody writes a book about every aspect of corrupt practice in the case, it's not going to get commissioned in to a program. In other words, the people with the clout are like 'The Man from DelMonte'.
-
You're missing the point. Her book is a Godsend for anyone with any clout in influencing commissioning, from the perspective of hammering home a certain view of the case. In the end, the view that will be pervasive among the majority of viewers, is the one where the police messed up; the relatives helped them put it right; and the nasty man is caught.
You might as well go back to 1993 and air the effort that was made then.
If somebody writes a book about every aspect of corrupt practice in the case, it's not going to get commissioned in to a program. In other words, the people with the clout are like 'The Man from DelMonte'.
If that book was honest and objective, the program would be rather boring and nothing too controversial. If the book was based on claims made by the CT and theories that you subscribe to. The show would be so ridiculous nobody would believe it anyway.
-
If that book was honest and objective, the program would be rather boring and nothing too controversial. If the book was based on claims made by the CT and theories that you subscribe to. The show would be so ridiculous nobody would believe it anyway.
What theories do I subscribe to?
-
What theories do I subscribe to?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.msg404906.html#msg404906 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.msg404906.html#msg404906)
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.msg404906.html#msg404906 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.msg404906.html#msg404906)
I've only just scanned through it but yes, makes perfect sense to me. That's the opinion of a former EP officer, who knows how the police operated. He also wrote an excellent piece about the mindset and ethos of police at the time.
-
Why don't any TV Company make a documentary, or drama series, based upon what has / is being discussed here about the tragedy at whf, on our forum?
-
I've only just scanned through it but yes, makes perfect sense to me. That's the opinion of a former EP officer, who knows how the police operated. He also wrote an excellent piece about the mindset and ethos of police at the time.
There is no evidence to support that narrative (in this case) and actually requires one to ignore evidence in order to believe it. If this is the same guy who overheard EP saying what a frame up JBs case was. He seems to have got the wrong end of the stick over who they were implying was behind it.
-
Listen up, and pay attention!
At one time, or another (7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 8.10am) - there were two dead bodies reportedly come upon downstairs in the kitchen of the farmhouse, 'the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female' and 'a further three bodies found upstairs' in bedrooms, five dead in total...
Let's remind ourselves about the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen - ' a murder, and a suicide'..
Ask yourselves, of the five victims, whose death in this investigation could be described or considered to have been by way of suicide?
Ralph Neville Bamber (shot a total of eight times) - murdered!
June Bamber (shot a total of seven times) - murdered!
Daniel Caffell (shot a total of five times) - murdered!
Nicholas Caffell (shot a total of three times) - murdered!
Sheila Caffell (shot a total of two times), one shot fired by use of a second weapon!
-
Listen up, and pay attention!
At one time, or another (7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 8.10am) - there were two dead bodies reportedly come upon downstairs in the kitchen of the farmhouse, 'the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female' and 'a further three bodies found upstairs' in bedrooms, five dead in total...
Let's remind ourselves about the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen - ' a murder, and a suicide'..
Ask yourselves, of the five victims, whose death in this investigation could be described or considered to have been by way of suicide?
Ralph Neville Bamber (shot a total of eight times) - murdered!
June Bamber (shot a total of seven times) - murdered!
Daniel Caffell (shot a total of five times) - murdered!
Nicholas Caffell (shot a total of three times) - murdered!
Sheila Caffell (shot a total of two times), one shot fired by use of a second weapon!
Yes but how did sheila get upstairs without the police seeing her ? You would have to be some type of gazelle to negotiate all the rubbish on the back stairs in the dark without knocking all the rubbish over .
-
Walked, stumbled, crawled - the images of the spiral staircase in one corner of the kitchen to the top landing record the state of affairs after Sheila used the same stairwell to leave the main kitchen shortly before 8.15am..
-
Walked, stumbled, crawled - the images of the spiral staircase in one corner of the kitchen to the top landing record the state of affairs after Sheila used the same stairwell to leave the main kitchen shortly before 8.15am..
No they don’t . They just show stairs full of clutter and no clear path through .
-
No they don’t . They just show stairs full of clutter and no clear path through .
How strange then, that after Sheila escaped the confines of the kitchen, that one particular firearms officer entered the spiral staircase in the corner of the kitchen, and proceeded to the latched door at the top of those stairs, all the while calling out Sheila Bambers name?
So, the police officer made that up, did he?
-
The 'two bodies' in the kitchen narrative, cannot easily be dismissed, because the recorded sequence of events does not support the claim that there was simply something of a mix up between cops outside the kitchen window peering into the kitchen prior to the firearms team entering the farmhouse, and them actually managing to get themselves into that kitchen, only to realise that the body they thought was a woman, had infact been the body of Ralph Neville Bamber..
The documentary evidence introduced by Essex police regarding this matter quite simply does not stack up!
First of all we have an observation by a police officer from outside the main kitchen window peering into the kitchen - he says he can see the body of a woman. But this is not reflected in any official operational log that supposedly records all communication between members of the raid team en route, and eventually after entry into the farmhouse, and senior officers who are stationed inside an outbuilding nearby, or for that matter, officers and civilian employees back in the control room at Chelmsford police station..
In particular, and for the moment disregard that sighting of Sheila Caffell as viewed by officers from the vantage point outside the kitchen window looking in, and the angle at which such a positive identification had been made of her..
Let's move to the nitty gritty, concerning when 'at last' the firearms officers managed to force entry into 'that' kitchen...
So, we are expected to believe that when firearms officers got into the kitchen (at about 7.35am) that they only discovered the body of Ralph Neville Bamber..
OK..
What we have at 'this' or 'that' stage, is a six man raid team, most of whom have physically entered the farmhouse kitchen. They all have personal radios through which they can instantly communicate with each other, and to senior officers elsewhere, in this instance in a nearby outbuilding, surrounding area, and the control room back at police headquarters in Chelmsford..
Cops enter kitchen..
Messages are passed, between interested parties...
Then how come, there is mention of the body of one dead male, before any mention is made concerning the presence of the body of one dead female, found upon entry?
Not only this, but the two bodies are described as 'A MURDER' and 'A SUICIDE'...
So, just to recap, we only have 'one body' found to be present downstairs in the kitchen upon entry. One dead male body!
Now this becomes somewhat intriguing, since bearing in mind that Ralph Neville Bamber had been shot at, and killed off by a total of eight bullets fired at him, four such bullets fired into the top part of his skull - how could it be possible for anyone, let alone firearm officers, to conclude that Ralph Neville Bamber had committed 'SUICIDE' downstairs in the kitchen at such an early stage in the police operation?
The only person whose death might possibly be described as a suicide, in the overall circumstances of this matter, involved the death of Sheila Caffell..
There is no way that by 7.42am, that police could have already made their way upstairs to the doorway of the main bedroom, and within, only to discover a second body, which they described as being dead by suicide. Since, according to police, the second body that would have been found in sequence was the body of June Bamber, apparently her body close to the open main bedroom door, her feet closest to the doorway. She had been shot a total of seven times. This being the case, how is it possible for anyone of sound mind or otherwise, to describe June Bambers death as a suicide?
Ralph Neville Bamber and his wife were both murdered!
Yet, according to the police logs, the second body which the firearms officers came upon was a body with cause of death being 'SUICIDE'...
It is not possible, for any firearm officer to have entered into the main bedroom via its doorways, to find the body of Sheila Caffell second in sequence of any body find! Cops would have come upon June Bambers body secondly, if beforehand they had only found the body of one dead male (Ralph Neville Bamber) downstairs in the kitchen. For the sake of being exact, if entry to the main bedroom had not been affected by the main bedroom door, but rather by the internal box room door, cops would have discovered the two bodies of the six year old boys, before they had come upon Sheila's body...
-
It is not possible, for any firearm officer to have entered into the main bedroom via its doorways, to find the body of Sheila Caffell second in sequence of any body find! Cops would have come upon June Bambers body secondly, if beforehand they had only found the body of one dead male (Ralph Neville Bamber) downstairs in the kitchen. For the sake of being exact, if entry to the main bedroom had not been affected by the main bedroom door, but rather by the internal box room door, cops would have discovered the two bodies of the six year old boys, before they had come upon Sheila's body...
Sheila Caffells body could only have been discovered either third in sequence (by entering the main bedroom by its main door from the landing), or fourth in sequence, if her body had been discovered by entry into the main bedroom via the children's bedroom, and the box room which linked the children's bedroom and the grandparents main bedroom...
-
What we are dealing with here, is a complete fabrication of the circumstances surrounding 'Sheila Caffells death', and the stage at which her body was found in sequence either side of the discovery of the other victims bodies!
-
What we are dealing with here, is a complete fabrication of the circumstances surrounding 'Sheila Caffells death', and the stage at which her body was found in sequence either side of the discovery of the other victims bodies!
This cannot be explained away as some sort of a mistaken identification, typing error, or a misunderstanding - it is clearly a false account introduced by Essex police to try and get away with them shooting Sheila twice, once during the operation (7.35am), and on a second occasion (9.13am) during 'INFORMATIVES' ..
-
This cannot be explained away as some sort of a mistaken identification, typing error, or a misunderstanding - it is clearly a false account introduced by Essex police to try and get away with them shooting Sheila twice, once during the operation (7.35am), and on a second occasion (9.13am) during 'INFORMATIVES' ..
Jeremy Bamber did not shoot dead, his sister, Sheila Caffell..
-
The 'two bodies' in the kitchen narrative, cannot easily be dismissed, because the recorded sequence of events does not support the claim that there was simply something of a mix up between cops outside the kitchen window peering into the kitchen prior to the firearms team entering the farmhouse, and them actually managing to get themselves into that kitchen, only to realise that the body they thought was a woman, had intact been the body of Ralph Neville Bamber..
The documentary evidence introduced by Essex police regarding this matter quite simply does not stack up!
First of all we have an observation by a police officer from outside the main kitchen window peering into the kitchen - he says he can see the body of a woman. But this is not reflected in any official operational log that supposedly records all communication between members of the raid team en route, and eventually after entry into the farmhouse, and senior officers who are stationed inside an outbuilding nearby, or for that matter, officers and civilian employees back in the control room at Chelmsford police station..
In particular, and for the moment disregard that sighting of Sheila Caffell as viewed by officers from the vantage point outside the kitchen window looking in, and the angle at which such a positive identification had been made of her..
Let's move to the nitty gritty, concerning when 'at last' the firearms officers managed to force entry into 'that' kitchen...
So, we are expected to believe that when firearms officers got into the kitchen (at about 7.35am) that they only discovered the body of Ralph Neville Bamber..
OK..
What we have at 'this' or 'that' stage, is a six man raid team, most of whom have physically entered the farmhouse kitchen. They all have personal radios through which they can instantly communicate with each other, and to senior officers elsewhere, in this instance in a nearby outbuilding, surrounding area, and the control room back at police headquarters in Chelmsford..
Cops enter kitchen..
Messages are passed, between interested parties...
Then how come, there is mention of the body of one dead male, before any mention is made concerning the presence of the body of one dead female, found upon entry?
Not only this, but the two bodies are described as 'A MURDER' and 'A SUICIDE'...
So, just to recap, we only have 'one body' found to be present downstairs in the kitchen upon entry. One dead male body!
Now this becomes somewhat intriguing, since bearing in mind that Ralph Neville Bamber had been shot at, and killed off by a total of eight bullets fired at him, four such bullets fired into the top part of his skull - how could it be possible for anyone, let alone firearm officers, to conclude that Ralph Neville Bamber had committed 'SUICIDE' downstairs in the kitchen at such an early stage in the police operation?
The only person whose death might possibly be described as a suicide, in the overall circumstances of this matter, involved the death of Sheila Caffell..
There is no way that by 7.42am, that police could have already made their way upstairs to the doorway of the main bedroom, and within, only to discover a second body, which they described as being dead by suicide. Since, according to police, the second body that would have been found in sequence was the body of June Bamber, apparently her body close to the open main bedroom door, her feet closest to the doorway. She had been shot a total of seven times. This being the case, how is it possible for anyone of sound mind or otherwise, to describe June Bambers death as a suicide?
Ralph Neville Bamber and his wife were both murdered!
Yet, according to the police logs, the second body which the firearms officers came upon was a body with cause of death being 'SUICIDE'...
It is not possible, for any firearm officer to have entered into the main bedroom via its doorways, to find the body of Sheila Caffell second in sequence of any body find! Cops would have come upon June Bambers body secondly, if beforehand they had only found the body of one dead male (Ralph Neville Bamber) downstairs in the kitchen. For the sake of being exact, if entry to the main bedroom had not been affected by the main bedroom door, but rather by the internal box room door, cops would have discovered the two bodies of the six year old boys, before they had come upon Sheila's body...
Nobody inside the building reported two dead bodies in the kitchen. They only reported one dead male in the kitchen.
The entire 'two bodies' situation was only prior to entry and can be explained readily. The explanation isn't believed by some, but it it born out by the subsequent evidence having entered the building.
-
Nobody inside the building reported two dead bodies in the kitchen. They only reported one dead male in the kitchen.
The entire 'two bodies' situation was only prior to entry and can be explained readily. The explanation isn't believed by some, but it it born out by the subsequent evidence having entered the building.
This isn't strictly correct. The bodies were reported "found on entry to premises" "one dead male. one dead female". Later on, it is recorded that a further three bodies are found (i.e. upstairs).
What is odd in my opinion is the reference in police statements regarding Collins' looking through the window and making his mistake. It all seems a bit contrived.
-
This cannot be explained away as some sort of a mistaken identification, typing error, or a misunderstanding - it is clearly a false account introduced by Essex police to try and get away with them shooting Sheila twice, once during the operation (7.35am), and on a second occasion (9.13am) during 'INFORMATIVES' ..
To have shot her twice - by accident, at extremely close range with the same bullet types and calibre and moved a body is unfathomable, and it then flies in the face of having supposedly spotted her in the kitchen already, seemingly incapacitated.
-
This isn't strictly correct. The bodies were reported "found on entry to premises" "one dead male. one dead female". Later on, it is recorded that a further three bodies are found (i.e. upstairs).
What is odd in my opinion is the reference in police statements regarding Collins' looking through the window and making his mistake. It all seems a bit contrived.
That wasn't recorded by anybody inside the building - it was recorded from HQIR.
At no point did anybody ever say they had found two bodies.
What WAS identified from the outside, were two identifications of a body - one male identification, and one female identification (both in the same place by the door), This was then relayed as 'one male, one female', when all other evidence suggests it was the same body misidentified.
Once inside, the officers identified one dead male - and nobody expressed any 'where is the missing female?' surprise.
At the end of the search, 5 dead was reported, but again, relayed by HQ as 'further three upstairs' (because they thought 2 were downstairs, incorrectly)
-
That wasn't recorded by anybody inside the building - it was recorded from HQIR.
At no point did anybody ever say they had found two bodies.
What WAS identified from the outside, were two identifications of a body - one male identification, and one female identification (both in the same place by the door), This was then relayed as 'one male, one female', when all other evidence suggests it was the same body misidentified.
Once inside, the officers identified one dead male - and nobody expressed any 'where is the missing female?' surprise.
At the end of the search, 5 dead was reported, but again, relayed by HQ as 'further three upstairs' (because they thought 2 were downstairs, incorrectly)
I understand what you're posting - but TFG were wearing mics, unless I am mistaken. So they were in ongoing communication, which was being written down and passed on to HQIR. If they hadn't entered the property, HQIR would not have recorded "found on entry to premises".
The reasoning provided for the mistaken sexing of Nevill relates to something that allegedly occurred prior to entry - not after entry.
The logs don't state 'One dead Female' (i.e. first and singular) as if what Collins allegedly saw was being communicated and recorded as per relay to HQIR.
The male is stated first. The female second.
-
Not forgetting that the light was on in the kitchen.
-
I understand what you're posting - but TFG were wearing mics, unless I am mistaken. So they were in ongoing communication, which was being written down and passed on to HQIR. If they hadn't entered the property, HQIR would not have recorded "found on entry to premises".
The reasoning provided for the mistaken sexing of Nevill relates to something that allegedly occurred prior to entry - not after entry.
The logs don't state 'One dead Female' (i.e. first and singular) as if what Collins allegedly saw was being communicated and recorded as per relay to HQIR.
The male is stated first. The female second.
Again, this comes down to a matter of interpretation. 'On entry' HQIR thought there was a male and female in the kitchen, but that doesn't mean the men on the ground did. It all comes down to whether you believe there was a mistake made at that point or not.
Regarding the comms during the raid itself, it went virtually silent as far as I know, as you might expect, virtual radio silence would be maintained unless there was a pressing need to alert those outside. Chatter from the TFG would be a very bad idea.
I do no believe they were providing running commentary, as this can compromise their location and any element of surprise etc, plus it's distracting.
Personally, I've gone through the alternative interpretation that there was a woman in the kitchen (Sheila would one presume) and how that scenario would play out, but I just can't buy into to Mike's view that the TFG shot her twice and covered it up. If they had, it would have been far easier to say 'we shot her, she was an imminent threat'. But shooting her under the chin? hmmm I just can't buy it.
I do think the reportage of 'two bodies' and '3 further bodies' looks bad, and superficially quite condemning, but I've ran it through my mind 1000 times and always been ok with two glimpsed through a kitchen window with one male identification and one female identification, both referring to the same body. IF that happened, all the rest falls into place for me - it's one error propagated up the reporting line and thus repeated.
-
Again, this comes down to a matter of interpretation. 'On entry' HQIR thought there was a male and female in the kitchen, but that doesn't mean the men on the ground did. It all comes down to whether you believe there was a mistake made at that point or not.
Regarding the comms during the raid itself, it went virtually silent as far as I know, as you might expect, virtual radio silence would be maintained unless there was a pressing need to alert those outside. Chatter from the TFG would be a very bad idea.
I do no believe they were providing running commentary, as this can compromise their location and any element of surprise etc, plus it's distracting.
Personally, I've gone through the alternative interpretation that there was a woman in the kitchen (Sheila would one presume) and how that scenario would play out, but I just can't buy into to Mike's view that the TFG shot her twice and covered it up. If they had, it would have been far easier to say 'we shot her, she was an imminent threat'. But shooting her under the chin? hmmm I just can't buy it.
I do think the reportage of 'two bodies' and '3 further bodies' looks bad, and superficially quite condemning, but I've ran it through my mind 1000 times and always been ok with two glimpsed through a kitchen window with one male identification and one female identification, both referring to the same body. IF that happened, all the rest falls into place for me - it's one error propagated up the reporting line and thus repeated.
The jury's out for me, whether she was ever in the kitchen at that point. If she was, she could have been wounded or playing possum. The TFG may have swept through the house looking for the children and left her in position in the process. Though I admit it seems unlikely. I still think that if it was the female that was mistakenly spotted first (i.e. Nevill) then this should have been how it was recorded. But everywhere you look, in every instance, it is male first and female second.
-
My mind needs refreshing here-----where was Nevill's body in relation to where the window was ?
-
Again, this comes down to a matter of interpretation. 'On entry' HQIR thought there was a male and female in the kitchen, but that doesn't mean the men on the ground did. It all comes down to whether you believe there was a mistake made at that point or not.
Regarding the comms during the raid itself, it went virtually silent as far as I know, as you might expect, virtual radio silence would be maintained unless there was a pressing need to alert those outside. Chatter from the TFG would be a very bad idea.
I do no believe they were providing running commentary, as this can compromise their location and any element of surprise etc, plus it's distracting.
Personally, I've gone through the alternative interpretation that there was a woman in the kitchen (Sheila would one presume) and how that scenario would play out, but I just can't buy into to Mike's view that the TFG shot her twice and covered it up. If they had, it would have been far easier to say 'we shot her, she was an imminent threat'. But shooting her under the chin? hmmm I just can't buy it.
I do think the reportage of 'two bodies' and '3 further bodies' looks bad, and superficially quite condemning, but I've ran it through my mind 1000 times and always been ok with two glimpsed through a kitchen window with one male identification and one female identification, both referring to the same body. IF that happened, all the rest falls into place for me - it's one error propagated up the reporting line and thus repeated.
I agree. What's written in the log cannot form the basis of an appeal anyway. Not really worth talking about IMO.
-
My mind needs refreshing here-----where was Nevill's body in relation to where the window was ?
Neville's body was not already toppled over when the firearm officers Peered through the window into the main kitchen. This can be borne out by the fact that when the raid team initially tried to enter the main kitchen via the internal kitchen door which separated the main kitchen from the back hallway, entry was delayed because there was something heavy on the other side of that internal door which prevented immediate access to the main kitchen. Another tell tale clue, is that there were two wooden chairs in close proximity to Ralph Neville Bamber, one chair in front of the other, with Neville seated on the rear chair, his body subsequently being toppled forward so that it ended up balanced somewhat precariously on top of the front chair..
The view enjoyed by the firearm officers from outside the kitchen window looking into that area of the kitchen where the all important inner kitchen / hallway door which had something heavy on the kitchen side of that door, can only be a reference to Neville Bamber being sat upon the rear chair, with the large wooden chair in front of him, blocking any view by anyone standing outside the kitchen window looking in being able to see him at all. This would be in addition to the fact that anyone standing outside the kitchen window peering in, would not be able to see the whole of that inner door because of the acute angle involved, resulting in the opening edge of that door not being viewable by the observer(s), together with a restricted view of the bottom portion of the same internal door governed by the kitchen sink and kitchen worktop..
With this in mind, if there had only been one body in the main kitchen at the time when firearm officers peered in through the kitchen window, and that was a reference to Neville Bambers body already toppled over a second wooden chair, with his bloodstained head conveniently entrenched inside the rim of a coal hod, it would have been high on impossible to know whether or not, the body (if that be the case) seen was a female or a male...
I don't believe that Neville Bambers body was already toppled over as shown in the disclosed kitchen crime scene photographs, when the firearm officers peered into the kitchen, and therefore, if it had been, the officers would not have been able to see his body because of the acute angle, and obstruction of/ by the kitchen sink and worktops...
-
Regarding the comms during the raid itself, it went virtually silent as far as I know, as you might expect, virtual radio silence would be maintained unless there was a pressing need to alert those outside. Chatter from the TFG would be a very bad idea.
I do no believe they were providing running commentary, as this can compromise their location and any element of surprise etc, plus it's distracting.
Funny thing, then that those monitoring the open line telephone with its handset off its cradle, situated a matter of feet away from where the body of Neville Bamber and the two large wooden chairs ended up after cops forced open the internal kitchen door forcing the body and chairs to topple in the general direction of where they ended up, that in their police log, it describes noises, disturbance and voices, at the very same time, as the firearm officers set about entering the main kitchen!
-
Funny thing, then that those monitoring the open line telephone with its handset off its cradle, situated a matter of feet away from where the body of Neville Bamber and the two large wooden chairs ended up after cops forced open the internal kitchen door forcing the body and chairs to topple in the general direction of where they ended up, that in their police log, it describes noises, disturbance and voices, at the very same time, as the firearm officers set about entering the main kitchen!
So much for a silent entry with very little noise, or disturbance, or voices!
-
At the end of the search, 5 dead was reported, but again, relayed by HQ as 'further three upstairs' (because they thought 2 were downstairs, incorrectly)
Or..
There had been two bodies downstairs in the kitchen, as recorded, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry, a murder no less, oh and a suicide!
-
So by all accounts the second body mentioned was a female who had committed suicide!
I wonder who that might be a reference to in the circumstances of this drama?
-
I agree. What's written in the log cannot form the basis of an appeal anyway. Not really worth talking about IMO.
Yes, it can - if police have deliberately presented a false account concerning where all the five bodies of the victims had originally been found (the contents of these radio message logs were written contemporaneously, not weeks or months later when the powers that be know what might need to be said, written down as, or spoken about)!
-
Funny thing, then that those monitoring the open line telephone with its handset off its cradle, situated a matter of feet away from where the body of Neville Bamber and the two large wooden chairs ended up after cops forced open the internal kitchen door forcing the body and chairs to topple in the general direction of where they ended up, that in their police log, it describes noises, disturbance and voices, at the very same time, as the firearm officers set about entering the main kitchen!
Where is this logged? The only report I saw was of the bog being heard to bark.
-
Where is this logged? The only report I saw was of the bog being heard to bark.
Hang on, give me a moment, please..
-
Or..
There had been two bodies downstairs in the kitchen, as recorded, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry, a murder no less, oh and a suicide!
what happened to your claim that she was shot by the police?
If it had been suicide, what motivation did the police have for moving her body?
And did the entire team collude there and then?
-
Hang on, give me a moment, please..
Here it is:-
FIVE KNOCKS ON DOOR HEARD OVER PHONE
MOVEMENT IN HOUSE AND VOICES
ONE DEAD MALE AND ONE DEAD FEMALE IN KITCHEN
REQUEST FOR SOCO, etc
-
Here it is:-
FIVE KNOCKS ON DOOR HEARD OVER PHONE
MOVEMENT IN HOUSE AND VOICES
ONE DEAD MALE AND ONE DEAD FEMALE IN KITCHEN
REQUEST FOR SOCO, etc
This is after they entered, the knocks are the police entering then announcing!
-
Remember, this is commentary from afar... describing what they can hear on the phone, then commenting on what the BELIEVED to be the current status (2 dead), which was incorrect.
-
So, there exists corroborating evidence confirming that two bodies were found upon entry, to the premises/ kitchen - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female. These exist in the form of timed police radio messages from the raid team inside the farmhouse, to senior officers who were concealed in a nearby outbuilding, and other police officers who were surrounding the farmhouse in a containment capacity, relayed to Chelmsford control room, and an independent source, an eavesdrop using an off the hook telephone handset nestling on a kitchen worktop which recorded the events separately as they unfolded...
Two dead bodies found in kitchen upon entry to kitchen - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen, a murder, and a suicide..
-
Repetition is not corroboration.
Two dead in the kitchen was never said from inside the kitchen, only repeated upstream as a consequence of the initial window inspection.
Whilst the team entered the farm, the 'two dead' was still relayed to others, but it wasnt confirmed from inside the house.
-
Remember, this is commentary from afar... describing what they can hear on the phone, then commenting on what the BELIEVED to be the current status (2 dead), which was incorrect.
No, it is correct, those eavesdropping heard Sheila Caffells screams up until the gun went off..
As far as I know, there were only male firearm officers in the chosen raid team who entered...
So, control room staff assumed there were two bodies found in the kitchen, and by some strange coincidence two police radio messages which came from the scene, one timed at 7.37am, the other at 7.38am, where its states, the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female, one dead male, one dead female...
Seems a bit far fetched trying to encourage anybody to believe such a misleading narrative to the fact that there could only have been one body found downstairs in the kitchen, when so much evidence which was not disclosed pretrial, or before the 2002 appeal hearing, existed, and still exists..
The contents of police logs are admissible in evidence!
-
Repetition is not corroboration.
Two dead in the kitchen was never said from inside the kitchen, only repeated upstream as a consequence of the initial window inspection.
Whilst the team entered the farm, the 'two dead' was still relayed to others, but it wasnt confirmed from inside the house.
So, you are advocating that various police officers made up a pack of lies about the find of two dead bodies when the raid team entered the kitchen, even though those responsible for introducing such misleading information into the operation were not and had not even been inside the farmhouse at all when they recorded the evidence...
Sorry, nobody is going to believe that malarky..
-
The 2 bodies information came from HQIR. Not from inside the house.
The logs show this quite clearly.
There is no log of anybody from inside the house counting two.
Again "3 further bodies" came from HQIR, based on the initial confusion and resultant erroneous belief of two in the kitchen, prior to entry.
They got the kitchen identification wrong, it caused confusion...
They entered the house, whilst the misinformation was still being relayed upwards. They counted 5 dead, and so the initial assumption was 2 + 3.
This is not corroboration, but exacerbation of the initial error. Exacerbation from HQIR.
-
And so, as the narrative goes, only one body found downstairs in the kitchen upon entry, the other four bodies were discovered upstairs in bedrooms!
Great - so cops who thought it was a different set of body counts downstairs and upstairs, must have all been in agreement by the end of that day (7th August 1985) that only one body had been found upon entry to the kitchen of the farmhouse..
But hang on a moment...
Consider the following state of affairs!
-
So, you are advocating that various police officers made up a pack of lies about the find of two dead bodies when the raid team entered the kitchen, even though those responsible for introducing such misleading information into the operation were not and had not even been inside the farmhouse at all when they recorded the evidence...
Sorry, nobody is going to believe that malarky..
Precisely the opposite.
They didnt make anything up. There was one misunderstanding regarding a Male or female in the kitchen which became 1 male and 1 female. This was then relayed to HQIR who would be lagging behind on info.
No officer inside the house claimed 2 bodies. The rumour was still doing the rounds whilst they were discovering the reality.
The repetition of the rumour (for illustrative purposes) isnt corroboration.
The next update from the house was 5 dead. Hence the assumption 3 more found (this assumption came from HQIR, not inside the house)
-
Sheila was shot where she was found IMO. She was not moved afterwards. If police had shot her, they would have attempted some kind of first aid.
-
Sheila was shot where she was found IMO. She was not moved afterwards. If police had shot her, they would have attempted some kind of first aid.
Do you believe the police pulled Sheila's legs after she died?
-
Do you believe the police pulled Sheila's legs after she died?
No.
-
No.
Do you think it was Crispy?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6908.msg322096.html#msg322096
-
Do you think it was Crispy?
Nobody pulled her legs.
-
Nobody pulled her legs.
Not another COA expert who is wrong.
-
Not another COA expert who is wrong.
If Sheila's head had been propped up on the cabinet after the second shot, the blood would have gone in a different direction.
-
If Sheila's head had been propped up on the cabinet after the second shot, the blood would have gone in a different direction.
The guy who said this had a degree in chemistry. Maybe he should have took physics.
-
The guy who said this had a degree in chemistry. Maybe he should have took physics.
Yes. ;D
-
This is after they entered, the knocks are the police entering then announcing!
'Voices heard over the phone' - so much for a stealthy silent approach by members of the six man raid party, in such difficult circumstances...
Here is the interesting part linked to entry of the main kitchen, prior to the discovery of two dead bodies found in the main kitchen upon entry (the body of one dead male and the body of one dead female) - I pose the following question, 'How many blows of the sledge hammer were used to force open the external rear farmhouse door'?
Five?
Four?
Three?
Two?
or
One?
-
[/b] 'How many blows of the sledge hammer were used to force open the external rear farmhouse door'?
Five?
Four?
Three?
Two?
or
One?
Well, here we are at the crux of the matter, with no official account by the police officer who smashed open the external farmhouse door with use of a police sledge Hammer, in particular how many swings of the sledge hammer which were used to smash open the external farm house door?
In 'my guesstimation', it would have taken as few as three sledge hammer blows to gain access through that external farmhouse door, but I also bear in mind that potentially it could have taken four sledge hammer blows 'maximum' to gain entry...
-
In 'my guesstimation', it would have taken as few as three sledge hammer blows to gain access through that external farmhouse door, but I also bear in mind that potentially it could have taken four sledge hammer blows 'maximum' to gain entry...
'One blow of sledge hammer' (1) to top hinge of external farmhouse door..
'One blow of sledge hammer' (2) to lower hinge of the same door..
'One or two blows of sledge hammer' (3) & (4) in region of door lock mechanism of the same door..
No damage report on rear farmhouse door, confirming, one way or another exactly how many blows of a police sledge hammer was used to smash down the external farmhouse door?
The shot which originally 'non fatally wounded Sheila Caffell' was almost certainly reference to the fifth 'bang' mentioned in the control room log of the events.....
-
Then of course, we have PS Woodcocks witness statement with its missing pages and its inserted (added) pages, which just per chance gets altered, amended, edited (call it what you like), at the point when he entered the kitchen via the blocked off internal kitchen / back hallway door...
You see, its at that very juncture that the details of both firearm operations became altered and changed enabling what was a two body presence downstairs in the kitchen narrative, to become transformed into a one body in the kitchen scenario with the other four bodies all upstairs...
Two parts to the same firearms operation...
First part - 3.48am, until about 8.15am, followed by a reenactment (stage managing of the scene) by headquarter cops and headquarters SOCO (1st team) from about 9am until 10am, then the rearranged crime scenes were duly handed over to the Witham officers, and the second SOCO team consisting of DI Cook, DS Davidson, DC Hammersley and PC Bird who made out that prior to them taking control of the crime scene at 10am, that all five bodies had remained insitu, where they had been found two and a half hours previously (7.35am, or thereabouts), untouched, undisturbed, by anyone or/and no-one!
Imagine what evidence would have been lost by delaying access of SOCO's directly into the farmhouse as soon as the first firearm operation ended at 8.10am ( the Commander of the operation being PS Adams, at that stage)?
Five dead bodies already identified by then, two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, yet on the official version of events leaked publicly, it would be one hour and 50 minutes before any SOCO team entered the farmhouse, despite the fact that the Witham SOCO team were all present at the farmhouse by 9.20am, at the very latest - if true, why keep the Witham SOCO team from taking full control of the crime scene for a further 40 minutes (until 10am)?
-
Then of course, we have PS Woodcocks witness statement with its missing pages and its inserted (added) pages, which just per chance gets altered, amended, edited (call it what you like), at the point when he entered the kitchen via the blocked off internal kitchen / back hallway door...
You see, its at that very juncture that the details of both firearm operations became altered and changed enabling what was a two body presence downstairs in the kitchen narrative, to become transformed into a one body in the kitchen scenario with the other four bodies all upstairs...
Two parts to the same firearms operation...
First part - 3.48am, until about 8.15am, followed by a reenactment (stage managing of the scene by headquarter cops and SOCO from about 9am until 10am, then the rearranged crime scenes were duly handed over to the Witham officers, and the second SOCO team consisting of DI Cook, DS Davidson, DC Hammersley and PC Bird who made out that prior to them taking control of the crime scene at 10am, that all five bodies had remained insitu, where they had been found two and a half hours previously (7.35am, or thereabouts), untouched, undisturbed, by anyone or/and no-one!
Imagine what evidence could have been lost by delaying access of SOCO's directly into the farmhouse as soon as the first firearm operation ended at 8.10am ( the Commander of the operation being PS Adams at that stage)?
Five dead bodies already identified by then, two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, yet on the official version of events leaked publicly, it would be one hour and 50 minutes before any SOCO team entered the farmhouse, despite the fact that the With am SOCO team were all present at the farmhouse by 9.20am, at the very latest - if true, why keep the Witham SOCO team from taking full control of the crime scene for a further 40 minutes (until 10am)?
Thanks Mike.
Did you release a Youtube video regarding the silencers Mike? I had a look for it recently but could not find it.
-
You see, its at that very juncture that the details of both firearm operations became altered and changed enabling what was a two body presence downstairs in the kitchen narrative, to become transformed into a one body in the kitchen scenario with the other four bodies all upstairs...
Two parts to the same firearms operation...
Ask yourselves, why there is/are/ was/were two different firearm operation Commanders ( PS Adams and then PI Montgomery) if there was only one firearm operation? There can only be one nominated firearm Commander in charge of any firearm operation, unless in exceptional circumstances!
-
Thanks Mike.
Did you release a Youtube video regarding the silencers Mike? I had a look for it recently but could not find it.
Adam - no I did not but I shall try and find some spare time and look into this..
-
Adam - no I did not but I shall try and find some spare time and look into this..
Thanks Mike. Look forward to viewing it.
-
Thanks Mike. Look forward to viewing it.
Adam, so do I, for the greater good and better understanding by us mere mortals who exist in the shadow of the 'Universal Conscience' of the earth, under heaven, and above that place we refer to, as hell..
-
Ask yourselves, why there is/are/ was/were two different firearm operation Commanders ( PS Adams and then PI Montgomery) if there was only one firearm operation? There can only be one nominated firearm Commander in charge of any firearm operation, unless in exceptional circumstances!
The first team arrived, realised the size of the house and called for further firearms officers. This is already documented.
-
The first team arrived, realised the size of the house and called for further firearms officers. This is already documented.
Thanks for your input, and contribution to this thread..
In many ways, you are correct, but the timing of these events suggests very strongly that reinforcements were not sent for, once the six man raid team set off to make its entry into the farmhouse! Indeed, two further firearm officers were seconded to the six man raid team after entry when two bodies had already been 'found' upon entry to the kitchen, by virtue of the fact that Sheila's body had 'vanished' from the kitchen Crime scene (by the time, Harris, Gibbons and Montgomery, entered the kitchen of the farmhouse by 8.15am), in addition to the fact, that one of the original raid team officers, had inadvertently tumbled down the cellar stairs as a result of him shoulder charging a locked doorway which led to the cellar, underneath ground level, and becoming injured, in need of attention by ambulance crews who were by that stage in attendance at the incident!
-
Other than that which I refer to, there were no reinforcements called upon because of the sheer size of the premises, other than a second group of firearm officers arriving at the incident at about 7am, or thereabouts...
Except, that a particular group of additional officers (SOCO 1st team, from Headquarters) were requested to attend whf in possession of cameras and recording devices. Yet, officially although this request is documented, there is an entry in police logs, that this request was cancelled...
However, it was not cancelled - since the request was a reference to headquarter SOCO to attend the incident, and which they did do!
It was Headquarter SOCO (DC's Oakey, and possibly, DC Henderson and DS Eastwood) that attended whf and who recorded the bodies insitu, and who took a crime scene video of the various locations and positions of victims bodies, and key exhibits!
-
It was Headquarter SOCO (DC's Oakey and Henderson) that attended whf and who recorded the bodies insitu, and who took a crime scene video of the various locations and positions of victims bodies, and key exhibits!
Nobody should 100% trust anybody who is employed by the CCRC - they work in principle to limit damage that might be caused to the Criminal Justice system! It needs to be abolished, because it is a corrupted Organisation, and its employees are getting paid tens of thousands of pounds annually simply for trying to protect the image of the Criminal Justice System!
Sack the lot of them, they are flamboyantly unreliable, and are draining public funds!
-
I would now at this juncture, wish to refer you all to the contents of what has been named, the Disclosure booklet' (Jeremy Bambers Campaign)
-
The initial 6 firearms officers where under Police Sergeant Adams, which was logged as 'but under the command of...' this was because it was not usually the case to be under a police sergeant.
This initial team arrived without firearms, as they had been on duty in plain clothes in Chelmsford. Subsequently they collected firearms from HQ.
A further 6 were then called for under Inspector Montgomery and these arrived.
Adams's raid team entered the house, Adams remained outside.
-
The initial 6 firearms officers where under Police Sergeant Adams, which was logged as 'but under the command of...' this was because it was not usually the case to be under a police sergeant.On the Contrary, it was accepted that someone in PS Adams position/ circumstances that despite the attendance of a far more senior Officer, that because PS Adams was a trained and highly qualified firearm officer, that he would remain commander of the ongoing firearm operation, despite the arrival thereafter of a firearm officer higher in rank!
This initial team arrived without firearms, If you are referring to the arrival of PS Bews and PC Myall at the time of their arrival at the scene at 3.48am you are indeed reporting the true facts. However, when PS Adams and his team arrived at the scene at around 5am, they all were certainly armed with loaded weapons!as they had been on duty in plain clothes in Chelmsford Oh yeah, armed to the teeth with police issue firearms!Subsequently they collected firearms from HQ. Yes, before they went to the incident which was unfolding at the farmhouse..
A further 6 were then called for under Inspector Montgomery and these arrived. A further five or six were subsequently called for, but this was after the original six man raid team had already entered the farmhouse, found two dead bodies in the kitchen by at the very latest 7.42am, or from as early as 7.35am, and after the other three dead bodies had been found upstairs, and it being confirmed by that stage (8.10am) that in total the raid team had found five persons dead, in total!
Adams's raid team entered the houseWhich included a mixture of firearm officers who had arrived earlier along with PS Adams at around 5pm, together with one or more firearm officers who did not arrive at the scene under the remit of PI Montgomery until around 7am Adams remained outside. as he would have been expected to, as the Commander of that particular part of the firearm operation - he being present in a nearby outbuilding in the presence of DCI Harris, CI Gibbons, PI Montgomery, and others, all of whom were of higher rank!
-
It isnt on the contrary, it is that by the time reinforcements arrived, Adams had a plan in place which was approved. Not exactly true, since the regulations dictated on who would take the role as the Commander of such a firearms operation, discounting whether or not a higher ranking firearm officer attended such an incident afterwards, or much later on..Adams stated that he felt Montgomery wanted to take over, ( not entirely true, since PS Adams was devastated by the fact that the body count part of, let's say, his operation, had altered, and been interfered with by PI Montgomery taking control of a separate part of the firearm operation, involving the displacement or movement of victims bodies, and invariably the plain fact that during PS Adams shift as the Commander of the operation Although Sheila who was the female body found in the kitchen presumed as being shot dead, PS Adams must have realized, that in fact at the time he was the Commander of the operation, that in fact Sheila had not died as a result of a single shot to the neck, she had survived, and made her way by whatever means upstairs into her parents bedroom and collapsed on top of her parents bed. It should come as no surprise, that Sheila collapsed on the side of her parents bed, where her dad, Ralph Neville Bamber always slept!but we can only assume higher authorities chose to stick with the team in place They had no option, but to go along with protocol..and plan proposed. The planning came after Sheila recovered in the kitchen made her way upstairs before collapsing onto her parents bed at the side where her dad always slept!
And, which has resulted, in the here and now...
-
Anyone, who claims I am saying, or that I have said, that police moved Sheila Caffells body, from the downstairs kitchen, upstairs to her parents bedroom, where police then faked her alleged suicide, you are all mistaken since I make no such claim, and in any event I do not subscribe to the possibility of such an occurence!
-
Anyone, who claims I am saying, or that I have said, that police moved Sheila Caffells body, from the downstairs kitchen, upstairs to her parents bedroom, where police then faked her alleged suicide, you are all mistaken since I make no such claim, and in any event I do not subscribe to the possibility of such an occurence!
There was/were 'two bodies downstairs, and a further three bodies upstairs, which became transfigured into an alternative arrangement, whereby later on there was only the body of Ralph Neville Bamber downstairs in the main kitchen, with by that point, the other four dead bodies upstairs, in two of the four bedrooms!
-
Anyone, who claims I am saying, or that I have said, that police moved Sheila Caffells body, from the downstairs kitchen, upstairs to her parents bedroom, where police then faked her alleged suicide, you are all mistaken since I make no such claim, and in any event I do not subscribe to the possibility of such an occurence!
But with 100% certainty I can and I do maintain that senior officers authorised the displacement of Sheila Caffells body from on top of her parents bed (just let's say, on the side of the bed where her dad always slept), under the 'guise of
'INFORMÀTIVES' , lifting and shifting her body which at that stage only bore one bullet entry to her neck onto the bedroom floor!
Thereafter, she received 'a second shot under the chin', I will leave it up to every individual to work out in your own minds, how and in what circumstances, this happened!
-
Wouldn't there be blood on Nevill's side of the bed?
-
Wouldn't there be blood on Nevill's side of the bed?
Not from Neville Bamber, 'no' because he was not shot in his bedroom!
Cop's faked the scenario that Neville Bamber had been shot four times non- fatally upstairs in his bedroom (refer to the four spent cartridge cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4) added later on to the main bedroom crime scene tally!
-
Not from Neville Bamber, 'no' because he was not shot in his bedroom!
Cop's faked the scenario that Neville Bamber had been shot four times non- fatally upstairs in his bedroom (refer to the four spent cartridge cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4) added later on to the main bedroom crime scene tally!
I meant blood from Sheila if she had been on the bed after being shot once.
-
Not from Neville Bamber, 'no' because he was not shot in his bedroom!
Cop's faked the scenario that Neville Bamber had been shot four times non- fatally upstairs in his bedroom (refer to the four spent cartridge cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4) added later on to the main bedroom crime scene tally!
Where did Sheila shoot Nevill, Mike?
-
Mike, that makes very little sense.
The officers who thought they say a woman later said it turned out to be Nevill.
Had Sheila gone upstairs, then it would come as a very big surprise that she'd head to her parents room, rather than her own, or the boys. Then collased on Nevill's side of the bed. She could have collapsed at any point downstairs, or on the stairs, but managed to make it all the way to the bed of the man she'd just killed and collapsed there...
On top of that, the police want to cover this up! - why? there still is no motive to do so, and the operation is far from botched. There would have been nothing wrong with a scenario where Sheila HAD been seen, presumed dead (but wasn't), then moved herself upstairs to commit suicide.
Why then stage manage anything?
Also, you are then having to involve other people in the supposed 'setting of the scene' - so multiple officers involved and SOCO?
It simply beggars belief.
A disturbed body in the heat of the moment - I can believe in.
A bent copper telling the story his way - I can believe in.
A familiar close knit team of coppers conspiring - I can believe in.
But the evidence just doesn't stack up. The confused logs stating '1 dead male, i dead female' are exactly that - confused logs. The logs also state ALL lights on' (they weren't) and two dogs barking (only one inside the house).
If they've falsified logs too, then why not rectify these issues too?
For me personally, I think JB did it. There is possibly a chance Sheila did it, but the evidence is weak (imo).
The only real mistake the police made was being too quick to presume murder+suicide, and potentially lost a lot of evidence as a result.
-
I've always said that there must have been something which indicated that it was a murder/suicide for " Taff " to have made his instant decision. So why won't EP release what files/documents/ photo's they have and let us decide ? It would appear that after all this time that there's information that EP don't want the public to see/read. Suspicious or what ?
-
I've always said that there must have been something which indicated that it was a murder/suicide for " Taff " to have made his instant decision. So why won't EP release what files/documents/ photo's they have and let us decide ? It would appear that after all this time that there's information that EP don't want the public to see/read. Suspicious or what ?
Yes - the fact that JB had told them all the backstory, and the phone call, and at that point there was no reason to disbelieve what had been said.
The entire operation was based around Sheila holding them hostage or a murder suicide scenario.
Once inside the farm, the whole scene still indicated what they had imagined. Murder suicide, and Sheila's position with gun only confirmed that.
It was quite understandable why that happened - either because it was the truth, or it was set up to look that way. Both scenarios offer a clear explanation of why such an assumption was made.
The struggle is Nevill was arguably the only fly in the ointment, but in comparison to the rest of the visible evidence (at that time), it was a pretty sound assumption.
-
Wouldn't there be blood on Nevill's side of the bed?
I take it, you are referring to blood from Sheila Caffell from the initial bullet entry wound...
But, by the time she arrived upstairs on her parents bed, any blood which had flowed from that first bullet entry wound, had already coagulated or dried, and therefore because she did not receive the second fatal shot until after her body was lifted from on top of the bed, to the bedroom floor, any spilled blood from the second wound would have leaked onto parts of her own body, her nightdress, and of course, the bedroom carpet!
-
Yes - the fact that JB had told them all the backstory, and the phone call, and at that point there was no reason to disbelieve what had been said.
The entire operation was based around Sheila holding them hostage or a murder suicide scenario.
Once inside the farm, the whole scene still indicated what they had imagined. Murder suicide, and Sheila's position with gun only confirmed that.
It was quite understandable why that happened - either because it was the truth, or it was set up to look that way. Both scenarios offer a clear explanation of why such an assumption was made.
The struggle is Nevill was arguably the only fly in the ointment, but in comparison to the rest of the visible evidence (at that time), it was a pretty sound assumption.
You can't tell me that a 6ft 4 strong farmer couldn't have planted one on Jeremy, even if it was to prove that Nevill had tried to defend himself. Not a scratch from Sheila using her well manicured talons, or even a crack at the back of the head with a pan from June. There were 3 adults inside that farmhouse !!
-
Where did Sheila shoot Nevill, Mike?
Jeremy told me and that conversation was recorded by prison security and added by way of transcript and a reference to Jeremy's admission to me, concerning his responsibility for him being directly involved in the murders of the other four family member victims, that he was involved in the murders of four members of his family!
Neville Bamber was downstairs when other members of his family were being shot at and murdered. He was shot at initially when he attempted to investigate what was happening upstairs as he set about climbing the main stair case, and then finished off downstairs in the main kitchen..
-
Jeremy told me and that conversation was recorded by prison security and added by way of transcript and a reference to Jeremy's admission to me, concerning his responsibility for him being directly involved in the murders of the other four family member victims, that he was involved in the murders of four members of his family!
Neville Bamber was downstairs when other members of his family were being shot at and murdered. He was shot at initially when he attempted to investigate what was happening upstairs as he set about climbing the main stair case, and then finished off downstairs in the main kitchen..
My enquiries reveal that of the eight shots received by Neville Bamber 'one was inflicted on the main stairs' when he attempted to investigate happenings upstairs in bedrooms (once), and 'the remaining seven shots' he received in the general vicinity of the main kitchen!
-
You can't tell me that a 6ft 4 strong farmer couldn't have planted one on Jeremy, even if it was to prove that Nevill had tried to defend himself. Not a scratch from Sheila using her well manicured talons, or even a crack at the back of the head with a pan from June. There were 3 adults inside that farmhouse !!
I can tell you an injured man in his 60s facing a fit 24 year old with a gun stands a slim chance of coming out on top. 'Planting one on him' is not really so practical in the face of a firearm. I would seem that whoever he fought - Sheila or Jeremy, he lost. So, if it wasn't Jeremy he fought with, it was Sheila, so surely he should have 'planted one' on her with even greater ease - but that didn't happen either.
The evidence suggests he fought with someone. Of the two (Sheila, or Jeremy), Jeremy would be the stronger and fitter and more likely to come out on top. Do you accept that much?
-
I can tell you an injured man in his 60s facing a fit 24 year old with a gun stands a slim chance of coming out on top. 'Planting one on him' is not really so practical in the face of a firearm. I would seem that whoever he fought - Sheila or Jeremy, he lost. So, if it wasn't Jeremy he fought with, it was Sheila, so surely he should have 'planted one' on her with even greater ease - but that didn't happen either.
The evidence suggests he fought with someone. Of the two (Sheila, or Jeremy), Jeremy would be the stronger and fitter and more likely to come out on top. Do you accept that much?
Essex police know full well, that Sheila was not shot and killed by Jeremy, or any third party relative or friend (ie - Ralph Neville, or another non Essex police officer involvement) and that she was killed in rather complicated circumstances which will not ever be admitted publicly..
-
I can tell you an injured man in his 60s facing a fit 24 year old with a gun stands a slim chance of coming out on top. 'Planting one on him' is not really so practical in the face of a firearm. I would seem that whoever he fought - Sheila or Jeremy, he lost. So, if it wasn't Jeremy he fought with, it was Sheila, so surely he should have 'planted one' on her with even greater ease - but that didn't happen either.
The evidence suggests he fought with someone. Of the two (Sheila, or Jeremy), Jeremy would be the stronger and fitter and more likely to come out on top. Do you accept that much?
Does a man in his 60s already shot four times stand much chance against a 28 year old either? :-\
-
The evidence suggests he fought with someone. Of the two (Sheila, or Jeremy), Jeremy would be the stronger and fitter and more likely to come out on top. Do you accept that much?
You ignore the fact, that under the circumstances of Neville Bambers body being toppled over as a result of the raid team entering the main kitchen by means of the internal kitchen / rear hallway door, and the toppling forward of his body which resulted in his head ending up secured inside the rim of a coal hod at the nearside of the kitchen aga, that any facial injuries he obtained, that such injuries may have been caused by the fact that his face and his head, may have come into contact with the metal rim of the raid coal hod!
-
I can tell you an injured man in his 60s facing a fit 24 year old with a gun stands a slim chance of coming out on top. 'Planting one on him' is not really so practical in the face of a firearm. I would seem that whoever he fought - Sheila or Jeremy, he lost. So, if it wasn't Jeremy he fought with, it was Sheila, so surely he should have 'planted one' on her with even greater ease - but that didn't happen either.
The evidence suggests he fought with someone. Of the two (Sheila, or Jeremy), Jeremy would be the stronger and fitter and more likely to come out on top. Do you accept that much?
I don't expect that Nevill had been the type to hit a woman whatever the situation. As in the past he'd been able to calm Sheila during a psychotic attack and Nevill had perhaps thought with the help of Jeremy too he might have been able to have avoided so much bloodshed.
One punch from Nevill aimed at Jeremy would have put Jeremy on his back. No problem.
Where would Sheila have been if Jeremy was downstairs bashing his dad ? The phone was working in the upstairs office ?
-
Does a man in his 60s already shot four times stand much chance against a 28 year old either? :-\
Neville Bamber was 'not shot four times' non fatally upstairs in his bedroom - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this occurred, as claimed by Essex police, and their counterparts the CPS, there 'exists nothing' to remotely suggest that Neville Bamber had in effect, been 'upstairs in his bedroom' when the shootings started, or ended!
Ask yourselves - 'did Neville Bamber' have human blood? If he did 'why didn't he bleed like every other human being' upon being shot by another person?
It's basically impossible for there not to be 'any blood trail' which starts in the main bedroom, and continues en-route down 'the main stairs', along the 'ground floor passageway' into the main kitchen...
-
Neville Bamber was 'not shot four times' non fatally upstairs in his bedroom - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this occurred, as claimed by Essex police, nothing to remotely suggest that Neville Bambers had in effect been upstairs in his bedroom when the shootings started, or ended!
Ask yourselves - did Neville Bambers have human blood? If he did why didn't he bleed like every other human be8ng upon being shot by another person?
It's basically impossible for there not to be any blood trail which starts in the main bedroom, and continues en-route down the main stairs, along the ground floor passageway into the main kitchen...
The blood trail began on the stairs-landing.
-
Does a man in his 60s already shot four times stand much chance against a 28 year old either? :-\
No, I don't believe they do.
But if the argument is to be used against JB that Nevill could have 'landed one on him' then the same must hold true for his ability to land one on Sheila too.
It would seem he could land none on either of them, so it was an utterly futile argument.
-
The blood trail began on the stairs-landing.
But...
Was Neville Bamber coming up the main stairs, or escaping downwards?
Moreover, was the 'O' type blood associated with 'the' shooting of Neville Bamber, or one or other of the two child victims in its tragedy, who all shared the all important 'O' type blood group!
-
No, I don't believe they do.
But if the argument is to be used against JB that Nevill could have 'landed one on him' then the same must hold true for his ability to land one on Sheila too.
It would seem he could land none on either of them, so it was an utterly futile argument.
Nevill would have used his 9 inch and 8 stone advantage to fall on Sheila. Rather than wrestle for the rifle.
Although Nevill would have instantly negated the situation while fully fit.
-
Nevill would have used his 9 inch and 8 stone advantage to fall on Sheila. Rather than wrestle for the rifle.
Although Nevill would have instantly negated the situation while fully fit.
I have no idea what he would have done, but working on the assumption he was already quite badly injured, he was always at a bit of a disadvantage. Even if not not injured, facing an assailant in the possession of a loaded gun is always going to be a tricky proposition!
I can imagine adrenalin flowing from the assailant and Nevill, but the evidence is there for all to see... Nevill ended up dead and neither Sheila nor Jeremy had much of a mark on them.
-
I have no idea what he would have done, but working on the assumption he was already quite badly injured, he was always at a bit of a disadvantage. Even if not not injured, facing an assailant in the possession of a loaded gun is always going to be a tricky proposition!
I can imagine adrenalin flowing from the assailant and Nevill, but the evidence is there for all to see... Nevill ended up dead and neither Sheila nor Jeremy had much of a mark on them.
The evidence is Nevill wrestled for the rifle.
If Nevill was badly weakened, he would have used his body weight to fall on Sheila. If he still had some strenght, he would have got the rifle back.
Nevill also had the opportunity to negate the situation with Sheila while fully fit. Which he would have instantly done. He did not have this option with Bamber.
-
This is my personnel offer to two members of our forum - I invite two of you to come and stay with me, between next Friday until Monday morning, this next weekend with me here at my Home Address, 29 Fenn Road, Tankersley, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, postcode, S75 3DE, with a view of observing the stack of documentary evidence contained in my possession, and whoever takes up this opportunity may take a copy of any part of such material of interest to you.
I am offering sleep over facilities, consisting of three nights, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night, for anyone who wants to discuss the case, or who would like to hear at first blush, my opinions about this case, what took place, and what I know took place, or which occurred...
I only offer an opportunity to someone interested in getting to the truth, I cannot afford to feed you, and you are welcome to express your opinion, irrespective of your belief, that Jeremy Bamber killed off his sister, or not...
Are you the one of the two members to which I willingly make this offer? Are you the someone brave enough to contrast the devils advocate in this matter, are you the someone who can face direct contact with me, and discuss privately aspects of the investigation?
-
The evidence is Nevill wrestled for the rifle.
If Nevill was badly weakened, he would have used his body weight to fall on Sheila. If he still had some strenght, he would have got the rifle back.
Nevill also had the opportunity to negate the situation with Sheila while fully fit. Which he would have instantly done. He did not have this option with Bamber.
No Adam, he MAY have done so.
I do not dispute he was his with the rifle butt - that is not the debate.
The debate is what Nevill, could or could not have achieved in a fight, given his injuries, and the truth is, we do not know. We can guess as much as we like, much like which of two boxers is about to land the knockout blow, but we can never be certain.
He was injured - just how debilitating is difficult to assess. All that we do know is that he ended up dead, so whoever he fought, he lost.
Now, my original argument was in response to Lookout claiming surely Nevill could have landed one on Jeremy. IF that were true, it would also be true of Sheila. So it is a totally moot point.
In either case, he clearly didn't manage to land one on his assailant.
When you say 'he WOULD have' - none of us know what he would have done. I don't know what I would have done. We can guess, that is all.
We call all presuppose what we would do in a given situation, but until that situation arrives, it's guesswork. To second guess another person in that situation is even more guesswork.
He MAY, or he MIGHT is a much better way to express things than a definitive 'he WOULD'.
-
This is my personnel offer to two members of our forum - I invite two of you to come and stay with me, between next Friday until Monday morning, this next weekend with me here at my Home Address, 29 Fenn Road, Tankersley, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, postcode, S75 3DE, with a view of observing the stack of documentary evidence contained in my possession, and whoever takes up this opportunity may take a copy of any part of such material of interest to you.
I am offering sleep over facilities, consisting of three nights, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night, for anyone who wants to discuss the case, or who would like to hear at first blush, my opinions about this case, what took place, and what I know took place, or which occurred...
I only offer an opportunity to someone interested in getting to the truth, I cannot afford to feed you, and you are welcome to express your opinion, irrespective of your belief, that Jeremy Bamber killed off his sister, or not...
Are you the one of the two members to which I willingly make this offer? Are you the someone brave enough to contrast the devils advocate in this matter, are you the someone who can face direct contact with me, and discuss privately aspects of the investigation?
Or just scan and release it.
-
Or just scan and release it.
I un-arrest my case - I have nothing to hide...
Either, come and spend three nights amongst the mountain of evidence in my possession. or ignore it...
-
I un-arrest my case - I have nothing to hide...
Either, come and spend three nights amongst the mountain of evidence in my possession. or ignore it...
I would say either publish and refer to it, or ignore it.
Giving it to me will persuade one (at best) publishing it might persuade many, and the courts.
Publish it.
-
The successful applicants will enjoy a private bedroom all to themselves, and be responsible for purchasing food of their like, and travelling expenses, to here and back to your place....
Retired Essex police Officers involved in the original investigation process are very welcome!
-
No Adam, he MAY have done so.
I do not dispute he was his with the rifle butt - that is not the debate.
The debate is what Nevill, could or could not have achieved in a fight, given his injuries, and the truth is, we do not know. We can guess as much as we like, much like which of two boxers is about to land the knockout blow, but we can never be certain.
He was injured - just how debilitating is difficult to assess. All that we do know is that he ended up dead, so whoever he fought, he lost.
Now, my original argument was in response to Lookout claiming surely Nevill could have landed one on Jeremy. IF that were true, it would also be true of Sheila. So it is a totally moot point.
In either case, he clearly didn't manage to land one on his assailant.
When you say 'he WOULD have' - none of us know what he would have done. I don't know what I would have done. We can guess, that is all.
We call all presuppose what we would do in a given situation, but until that situation arrives, it's guesswork. To second guess another person in that situation is even more guesswork.
He MAY, or he MIGHT is a much better way to express things than a definitive 'he WOULD'.
Obviously in a fight, the person with an 8 stone and 9 inch advantage would use it.
Either to brush Sheila aside when fully fit. Or partially fit. Or if too badly injured, he would just fall on Sheila.
The evidence shows there was a huge kitchen fight where Nevill wrestled for the rifle. There is no possibility Sheila would have won the kitchen fight.
None of the above applies to Bamber. Nevill also never had the opportunity to tackle him when fully fit.
-
Obviously in a fight, the person with an 8 stone and 9 inch advantage would use it.
Either to brush Sheila aside when fully fit. Or partially fit. Or if too badly injured, he would just fall on Sheila.
The evidence shows there was a huge kitchen fight where Nevill wrestled for the rifle. There is no possibility Sheila would have won the kitchen fight.
None of the above applies to Bamber. Nevill also never had the opportunity to tackle him when fully fit.
I don't agree with that at all. ???
-
I would say either publish and refer to it, or ignore it.
Giving it to me will persuade one (at best) publishing it might persuade many, and the courts.
Publish it.
I need to talk personally to two or more, members of our forum...
-
I am only offering this latest opportunity until Wednesday of the forthcoming week!
-
Obviously in a fight, the person with an 8 stone and 9 inch advantage would use it.
Either to brush Sheila aside when fully fit. Or partially fit. Or if too badly injured, he would just fall on Sheila.
The evidence shows there was a huge kitchen fight where Nevill wrestled for the rifle. There is no possibility Sheila would have won the kitchen fight.
None of the above applies to Bamber. Nevill also never had the opportunity to tackle him when fully fit.
Adam, I genuinely do no understand the scenario you're describing. Spell it out for me.
Are you describing a scenario in which Sheila is holding the loaded gun, or one in which she isn't?
Either way, the manner in which a man might overcome his daughter is still conjecture and highly dependent on circumstance and location etc. A man might be very reluctant to use force against a woman, even in the most dire of circumstances, whilst another man might have no qualms in the most trivial.
It is just wrong to presume how he would have set about tackling her, and it's largely pointless as whoever he did tackle came off the better.
I don't disagree that 61 year old reasonably fit male would normally overpower a light 28 year old untrained female. Against a fit 24 year old male, it's another matter - but these circumstances were extraordinary in every way, and we simply can't (and shouldn't) presuppose anything.
-
I don't agree with that at all. ???
It is all fact.
-
It is all fact.
Nevill only had the use of one arm, and he'd been shot in the face. The shooter only needed to whack him with the gun, they didn't even need to get very close to him. The table was in the middle of the kitchen and had been displaced, so it was perhaps used as a buffer.
-
Obviously in a fight, the person with an 8 stone and 9 inch advantage would use it.
Either to brush Sheila aside when fully fit. Or partially fit. Or if too badly injured, he would just fall on Sheila.
The evidence shows there was a huge kitchen fight where Nevill wrestled for the rifle. There is no possibility Sheila would have won the kitchen fight.
None of the above applies to Bamber. Nevill also never had the opportunity to tackle him when fully fit.
Nevill had a massive height & weight advantage - Fact.
Nevill had the option of using these advantages. Whether fully or partially fit - Fact.
The rifle was wrestled for in a huge kitchen fight - Fact.
There is no possibility Sheila would have won a kitchen fight against a fully fit Nevill - Fact.
An injured Nevill had the option of falling on Sheila - Fact.
None of the above applies to Bamber. Except the rifle was wrestled for - Fact.
Nevill did not have had the option of tackling Bamber when fully fit - Fact.
-
Nevill had a massive height & weight advantage - Fact.
Nevill had the option of using these advantages. Whether fully or partially fit - Fact.
The rifle was wrestled for in a huge kitchen fight - Fact.
There is no possibility Sheila would have won a kitchen fight against a fully fit Nevill - Fact.
An injured Nevill had the option of falling on Sheila - Fact.
None of the above applies to Bamber. Except the rifle was wrestled for - Fact.
Nevill did not have had the option of tackling Bamber when fully fit - Fact.
Adam,
I could overpower most females - fact
Would I overpower one with a gun? I have no idea. I might turn and run.
You are presenting a series of factual statements, but these do not lead to a factual conclusion. You are claiming to know what WOULD have happened, and none of us know that.
All we do know is that there was struggle. And it would appear Nevill was both shot and hit with the butt on the rifle. Who would have won a fight in a different set of circumstances is a pointless argument.
I believe he fought with Jeremy (he may not have known it was Jeremy). Others believe he fought with Sheila. Regardless, we know he sustained injuries, AND the assailant had the rifle. 6'4 or not, any advantage he did have was lost.