Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on January 04, 2015, 08:08:PM
-
1:
Was there a motive - Several.
2:
Was there an opportunity - Yes.
3:
Was there an alibi - No.
4:
Was there a lot of circumstantial evidence - Yes.
5:
Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.
6:
Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.
7:
Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.
8:
Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.
9:
Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.
10:
Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.
11:
Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.
12:
Are there just two suspects - Yes.
13:
Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.
14:
Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy - Yes.
15:
Is a multiple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes.
16:
Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.
17:
Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.
18:
Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No.
19:
Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No.
20:
Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.
21:
Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No.
22:
Have there been several failed appeals - Yes.
23:
Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No.
24:
Is there a library of forensic evidence ? - Yes.
I could continue. Can someone please tell me what does not fit and why the conviction is wrong.
-
Was there a motive - Several. Not necessarily - the inheritance was very complicated and JB was already quite well off with shares in two companies at age 24 - his parents as you have pointed out were very generous to him so was the motive enough to risk 5 life sentences?
Was there an opportunity - Yes. - As there was no time of death determined you can not assume that with any accuracy
Was there an alibi - No. - There was if Sheila died after he arrived :) there was a whole police force as alibis ;D
Was there a lot of circumstantial evidence - Yes. Only in your assumption .
Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes. - there have been other killers with sheilas illness who have killed as well . So that proves nothing
Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes. Don't forget the time of year and he had to leave his house in the village and arrive back on a bike without being seen by the neighbours and how would he ride down the paths in the dark - Make sure you allow plenty of time for this and getting rid of all possible forensic evidence.
Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes. - It was never proved the bike was used - it was an assumption - there was no forensic link and don't forget the family were watching hime from day one and the police were at his house the following morning - when did he clean it?
Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes. Does not prove he used it on the night.
Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes. - I give up with you .
Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes. - In your head yes - See above NO TIME OF DEATHS WAS ESTABLISHED.
Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes. - Does not mean Jeremy used them .So proves nothing
Are there just two suspects - Yes. According to the judge there were but some feel he was wrong .
Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes. - No it does not - see the DICKINSON report - You need to start a thread on this and go into more detail if you are going to state that as a fact when it is not.
Does the silencer evidence round the suspects to one - Yes. - If Jeremy did it and the silencer was on he would not be concentrating on that in various appeals . And although unlikely and improbable it is not IMPOSSIBLE that Sheila did use the gun with the silencer and in her state of mental illness put it away - to be honest it is just as unlikely as Jeremy putting it away in a box in plastic with a blob of blood that somehow survived .
Is a triple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes. Excuse me How many people do you think were involved in other cases where people were framed ? that's not even true
Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes. How ? the police and miss Marples were round his house as soon as he got back with the police and you cannot change the fact that there was NO forensic evidence to link him AT ALL .
Are there lots of reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No. Again in your head - not everyone agrees with you so it does not make it a fact.
Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No. - NOT even sure what this means?
Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No. No one said that as far as I know - so irrelevant .
Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No. Neither did they believe Jeremy was capable and she had shown more violence than him.Read FE statement where several grown adults could not control her . If you are going to say JB could do it with no prior history - then with her history it was more likely.
Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No. - Yes she could - the judge said they had to consider she could.
Have there been several failed appeals - Yes. - Yes you are right on that one .
Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No. Yes witnesses did lie in their original and subsequent statements . And the police were investigated in 1992 in connection with the case - and one of them broke down when questioned . Also logs and photos and statements have been with held - so watch this space :)
I could continue. Can someone please tell me what does not fit.
Done .
-
Take a bow,Jan. ;D
-
Very well done Jan in fire fighting.
I appreciate you have to fight every point. Because every point fits smoothly into the Bamber conviction.
I remember watching a police TV show. The police were going in the wrong direction. So not everything was fitting.
What doesn't fit in the Bamber case that everyone accepts as fact, that shows he cannot be guilty ? If it is a triple frame and Bamber is innocent, there must be something.
-
Of course my invitation was not just for Jan.
There are over twenty facts which fit with Bamber being guilty.
Obviously people can address each point.
But what would be more interesting is if there can be found a fact which does not fit with the conviction. Even showing Bamber is in fact innocent.
-
Of course my invitation was not just for Jan.
There are over twenty facts which fit with Bamber being guilty.
Obviously people can address each point.
But what would be more interesting is if there can be found a fact which does not fit with the conviction. Even showing Bamber is in fact innocent.
well the logs that you conveniently declined to discuss on the thread that strangely enough got closed. Or for example and how about the fact that EP will not release original phone logs for forensic testing . Or release missing photographs ? Or the logs that say they were in conversation with someone in WHF. Or the gun that was found in the kitchen ? Or the officers who were concerned that the body had been moved. All conveniently explained by police errors.
Please stop saying (second request ) that I am firefighting . You accused me of being chicken and a coward and now when I enter discussion with you , you persist in being sarcastic. Try to stop it. If you can.
-
well the logs that you conveniently declined to discuss on the thread that strangely enough got closed. Or for example and how about the fact that EP will not release original phone logs for forensic testing . Or release missing photographs ? Or the logs that say they were in conversation with someone in WHF. Or the gun that was found in the kitchen ? Or the officers who were concerned that the body had been moved. All conveniently explained by police errors.
Please stop saying (second request ) that I am firefighting . You accused me of being chicken and a coward and now when I enter discussion with you , you persist in being sarcastic. Try to stop it. If you can.
Very well done Jan. Are you not fire fighting a forest fire ? Apologies I thought you were.
Come on. Surely you are not saying the police were in conversation with someone in the house. I will find the thread.
I did discuss the logs on a thread I created. It was locked after another poster called me racist.
I also asked you a question, forget about the logs - do you think Sheila went on extended walkabouts after shooting herself' ? Jeremy is saying she did.
-
Very well done Jan. Are you not fire fighting a forest fire ? Apologies I thought you were.
Come on. Surely you are not saying the police were in conversation with someone in the house. I will find the thread.
I did discuss the logs on a thread I created. It was locked after another poster called me racist.
I also asked you a question, forget about the logs - do you think Sheila went on extended walkabouts after shooting herself' ?
don't find the threads
and where did I say that?
BTW I started a thread feel free to join in .
-
Was there a motive - Several.
Was there an opportunity - Yes But also for Sheila
Was there an alibi - No. Not true, but it comes down to whether you believe the phone call or not
Was there a lot of circumstantial evidence - Yes. But also for Sheila
Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes. Not relevant
Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes. I think the question should have been 'without' disturbing anyone? Possibly but far easier as an inside job
Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.
Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes. This we don't know for sure, there is conflicting info
Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes. This we don't know for sure, there is conflicting info
Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes. That would be true whoever the killer was
Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes. Also true whoever the killer was
Are there just two suspects - Yes.
Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes. Depends if you believe the silencer evidence
Does the silencer evidence round the suspects to one - Yes. Not necessarily but even if the silencer was planted, it doesn't make Jeremy innocent
Is a triple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes. You can't say that ;D because if there had been successful 'triple fame up' you wouldn't know about it!!
Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.
Are there lots of reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No. We have no idea about their true relationship
Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No. Not sure what this question is asking?
Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No. Well obviously not given that they didn't! ;D
Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No. Witness's for the defense did
Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No. Of course (although I don't think she did)
Have there been several failed appeals - Yes. Not sure why you're asking this question here, he could still be innocent regardless of failed appeals
Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No. Oh, I think it's quite clear that not everyone is telling the full truth but I include Jeremy in that
I could continue. Can someone please tell me what does not fit and why the conviction is wrong.
-
Very well done Caroline.
I was quite surprised at some of you're answers. But will not bother answering them at this late hour.
Each point from me can be endlessly argued by optimistic supporters. But if all correct, each matches perfectly a conviction.
My question was more - 'The conviction. What does not fit ? Are there any facts which show the conviction is wrong ?
-
Very well done Caroline.
I was quite surprised at some of you're answers. But will not bother answering them at this late hour.
Each point from me can be endlessly argued by optimistic supporters. But if all correct, each matches perfectly a conviction.
My question was more - 'The conviction. What does not fit ? Are there any facts which show the conviction is wrong ?
Gotta love im! ;D ;D ;D ;D. The evidence is circumstantial (in the main) and can be argued backwards and forwards until the coos come home. There are LOTS of things that don't fit and although I think he's most likely guilty - I can still see that there are many unanswered points. Perhaps I'll make a thread about those and you can answer as Jan and I have done?
-
Gotta love im! ;D ;D ;D ;D. The evidence is circumstantial (in the main) and can be argued backwards and forwards until the coos come home. There are LOTS of things that don't fit and although I think he's most likely guilty - I can still see that there are many unanswered points. Perhaps I'll make a thread about those and you can answer as Jan and I have done?
Thank you.
I have just numbered the points. Will respond to some of you're answers later.
-
Very well done Caroline.
I was quite surprised at some of you're answers. But will not bother answering them at this late hour.
Each point from me can be endlessly argued by optimistic supporters. But if all correct, each matches perfectly a conviction.
My question was more - 'The conviction. What does not fit ? Are there any facts which show the conviction is wrong ?
And it WILL be argued by those who are recalcitrant and unreasonable guilters. ;)
-
Well my 23 points are all facts to everyone. Apart from Bamber supporters who will doggedly refuse to accept each point.
If each point is accepted it fits perfectly with the conviction.
Do you know of any accepted facts by everyone that fits perfectly into Bamber being innocent ?
-
Well my 23 points are all facts to everyone. Apart from Bamber supporters who will doggedly refuse to accept each point.
If each point is accepted it fits perfectly with the conviction.
Do you know of any accepted facts by everyone that fits perfectly into Bamber being innocent ?
Well Adam they are only facts as far as they are all "general" points as opposed to specific points. No doubt you could equally make up general points in regard to most murder trials? Points like, "was there an opportunity?" The answer is bound to be "yes". Why is this? Well the same point could be applied to Sheila as well. Why? because it is just a general point.
Again, "Was there an alibi?" Well of course the answer is no. Why, because it applies to Bamber? No, because the same could be applied to anyone. It is a general point.
Again, "Have there been other inheritance killers?" Well yet again the answer would be yes. But once again it is a general question that does not necessarily apply to Bamber.
In fact you have to look over all of your questions and you will see that most of them can be answered in the affirmative. Why is that? Oh because you yourself have engineered it that way. So in actual fact it is a false questionnaire because all the questions are geared to be answered the way you want them to be answered.
Let's look at another example. "Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF ?" Well the answer must once again be "yes". So what is the purpose of that particular question? It is of course just filling in order to bulk out your questionnaire.
So as far as I am concerned your questionnaire is not really fair?
-
We could just as easily say - Did someone who knew the family well and knew about Sheilas illness have staged the whole thing to distract from themselves .
Could they have pointed a gun at Neville to make him call Jeremy - thinking that he would just come over to help. Wanting to kill the whole family - motive revenge? Jealousy ?
Other people knew how to get in and out of the house using the same method and as the court said for Jeremy you don't have to prove it happened just that it is possible.
And the answer is it is highly unlikely - but not impossible . You see it all depends on interpretation of the evidence we have been presented with .
My point is not that the above happened - but we can speculate as much as we want - but who is going to provide the proof?
Mr Healey made a good point to Jeremy - he begged him to concentrate on finding proof that he did not do it - such as the logs - rather than trying to prove that Sheila did do it. Because he genuinely thought that someone else could be involved . I don't personally agree with that but it is an opinion he is entitled to.
-
Very well done Caroline.
I was quite surprised at some of you're answers. But will not bother answering them at this late hour.
Each point from me can be endlessly argued by optimistic supporters. But if all correct, each matches perfectly a conviction.
My question was more - 'The conviction. What does not fit ? Are there any facts which show the conviction is wrong ?
Have you noticed Adam that Caroline gives a balanced reply - probably more balanced than mine . She has more experience of the case than either of us - So I think a less patronising response would have been more appropriate.
-
Have you noticed Adam that Caroline gives a balanced reply - probably more balanced than mine . She has more experience of the case than either of us - So I think a less patronising response would have been more appropriate.
I will answer some of her points later.
Everyone has information on the case. You cannot say one person knows more than another.
-
We could just as easily say - Did someone who knew the family well and knew about Sheilas illness have staged the whole thing to distract from themselves .
Could they have pointed a gun at Neville to make him call Jeremy - thinking that he would just come over to help. Wanting to kill the whole family - motive revenge? Jealousy ?
Other people knew how to get in and out of the house using the same method and as the court said for Jeremy you don't have to prove it happened just that it is possible.
And the answer is it is highly unlikely - but not impossible . You see it all depends on interpretation of the evidence we have been presented with .
My point is not that the above happened - but we can speculate as much as we want - but who is going to provide the proof?
Mr Healey made a good point to Jeremy - he begged him to concentrate on finding proof that he did not do it - such as the logs - rather than trying to prove that Sheila did do it. Because he genuinely thought that someone else could be involved . I don't personally agree with that but it is an opinion he is entitled to.
Well the thread is about the facts fitting the conviction -
Could the convicted person get into WHF through windows - Yes
Etc.
-
Well the thread is about the facts fitting the conviction -
Could the convicted person get into WHF through windows - Yes
Etc.
Could anyone? Yes.
-
Did anyone,ever ? Yes,the cousin/s.
-
Perhaps it was a random stranger. A woman to. Not sure how Neville had time to ring Jeremy. Or why.
Or was it AE ? Jeremy tucked up in bed with his teddy bear and spider man PJ's.
-
Perhaps it was a random stranger. A woman to. Not sure how Neville had time to ring Jeremy. Or why.
Or was it AE ? Jeremy tucked up in bed with his teddy bear and spider man PJ's.
Or perhaps your own fertile imagination? ;)
-
Hahaha Adam are you drunk ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahaha Adam are you drunk ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No he's usually like this. ;D
-
No he's usually like this. ;D
When he can't give a straight answer. ???
-
Perhaps it was a random stranger. A woman to. Not sure how Neville had time to ring Jeremy. Or why.
Or was it AE ? Jeremy tucked up in bed with his teddy bear and spider man PJ's.
Did you not understand my post - I could not make it much clearer. If you are going to make all your Scenarios factual just because they are "possible" - then other scenarios also become "possible"
Could the burns on Nevilles neck been some kind of torture?
Is there any signs of him being restrained or tied up at any stage?
When I make these points I ( as I have made crystal clear) am still asking questions . So there is absolutely no need for sarcasm in your replies.
If The case is not personal to you then why do you hate or are jealous of someone and his family life so much ? It does not make any sense at all.You don't even know him .
Oh and reference your other comment I do believe Caroline knows more about the case than you - or me for that fact.
-
Did you not understand my post - I could not make it much clearer. If you are going to make all your Scenarios factual just because they are "possible" - then other scenarios also become "possible"
Could the burns on Nevilles neck been some kind of torture?
Is there any signs of him being restrained or tied up at any stage?
When I make these points I ( as I have made crystal clear) am still asking questions . So there is absolutely no need for sarcasm in your replies.
If The case is not personal to you then why do you hate or are jealous of someone and his family life so much ? It does not make any sense at all.You don't even know him .
Oh and reference your other comment I do believe Caroline knows more about the case than you - or me for that fact.
Torture, tied up. Does not highlight innocence of guilty. For either person.
If I want to be sarcastic, I will.
-
Torture, tied up. Does not highlight innocence of guilty. For either person.
If I want to be sarcastic, I will.
Ok then if you insist on sarcasm - expect some back.
-
Ok then if you insist on sarcasm - expect some back.
I will try to handle it.
-
Ok then if you insist on sarcasm - expect some back.
He'll only report you and win Jan. ::)
-
I will try to handle it.
You complain a lot though....
-
1: Was there a motive - Several.
2: Was there an opportunity - Yes.
3: Was there an alibi - No.
4: Was there a lot of circumstantial evidence - Yes.
5: Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.
6: Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.
7: Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.
8: Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.
9:Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.
10: Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.
11: Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.
12: Are there just two suspects - Yes.
13: Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.
14: Does the silencer evidence round the suspects to one - Yes.
15: Is a triple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes.
16: Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.
17: Are there lots of reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.
18: Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No.
19: Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No.
20: Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.
21: Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No.
22: Have there been several failed appeals - Yes.
23: Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No.
I could continue. Can someone please tell me what does not fit and why the conviction is wrong.
-
As promised for Caroline -
3: There was no cast iron alibi for the 10pm - 3pm period.
5: Previous 'Inheritance killers shows sons do kill family
members for money.
6: Bamber is unlikely to disturb anyone cycling through fields at
2.00am.
8: Bamber himself said he knew how to get into WHF through
windows.
9: There are at least 12 sources.
10: Sheila could go crazy at any time during the day.
13: This point was not referring to the silencer evidence.
There is a lot of other forensic evidence.
14: The silencer evidence rounds the suspects to one. There is no
evidence the silencer evidence was planted.
15: There has never been a failed prosecution where a triple frame
attempt was made. Or a release based on a proven triple
frame.
17: There is a lot information on the Jeremy/Neville relationship
There are also 40 reasons why Neville would not call.
18: People have claimed Bamber could have left the front door
open Blaming a burglar or random stranger.
21: Several threads show it was impossible for Sheila to commit
the massacre. Or explain what Sheila was doing when Neville
used the phone.
22: The more failed appeals surely highlights guilt more.
-
3. I don't think anyone would argue with that.
5. Not relevant.
6. Unlikely, not impossible.
8. So could others.
9. Rehashes NOT original.
10. She could, but historically her severe episodes had been at night.
11. Was that so, we wouldn't be discussing the case 30 on.
14. That doesn't mean it wasn't.
15. Never previously doesn't mean never ever.
17. YOUR reasons.
18. YOU are the one making claims here. One or two may have SUGGESTED that the door was left open.
21. No one with any knowledge of mental illness from which Sheila suffered would make such a claim. It is MORE than possible that she could have. Whether she did is another question.
22. But it's possible he could be released on a technicality.
-
As promised for Caroline -
3: There was no cast iron alibi for the 10pm - 3pm period. Well there was for part of it, his car was heard to leave the farm and he spoke to Julie between 10:00 and 10:30. He couldn't have been calling her from WHF because at that time, June was talking to Pam so he had to be home calling from Goldhanger
5: Previous 'Inheritance killers shows sons do kill family
members for money. What other people did or didn't do isn't relevant
6: Bamber is unlikely to disturb anyone cycling through fields at
2.00am. No, but he is likely to break his neck - if he went across the fields, he walked
8: Bamber himself said he knew how to get into WHF through
windows. He also said he didn't know how to secure the lock from the outside after leaving
9: There are at least 12 sources. I prefer mayonnaise! 12 sources for what?
10: Sheila could go crazy at any time during the day. And? Anytime does include the early hours of the morning so you are actually admitting - it could have happened
13: This point was not referring to the silencer evidence.
There is a lot of other forensic evidence. Such as?
14: The silencer evidence rounds the suspects to one. There is no
evidence the silencer evidence was planted. I think conflicting stories tell another tale
15: There has never been a failed prosecution where a triple frame
attempt was made. Or a release based on a proven triple
frame. But that doesn't prove it hasn't happened!
17: There is a lot information on the Jeremy/Neville relationship
There are also 40 reasons why Neville would not call. But those are YOUR reasons and they aren't relevant and the relatives didn't see the Bambers that often to draw the kind of conclusions they did - same with Sheila
18: People have claimed Bamber could have left the front door
open Blaming a burglar or random stranger. And? People have claimed many things - so what?
21: Several threads show it was impossible for Sheila to commit
the massacre. Or explain what Sheila was doing when Neville
used the phone. You're confusing opinion with fact and the fact is no one here is qualified to make these kind of claims - you can only have an opinion
22: The more failed appeals surely highlights guilt more. No it doesn't - someone is either innocent or guilty and it doesn't count on how many appeals they have.
-
A lot of things don't fit.
2 rifles were in use that night,one with a moderator,one without.
Sheila,to my mind,died in the kitchen with her father,where the argument began.
Neville wasn't shot upstairs as none of his blood was on the carpet.No trail down the stairs ?
He'd finished work late that night and possibly showered/bathed after supper.
The teapot/kettle was by the Aga with two cups. Sheila and Neville.
The cream phone would have already been brought downstairs in case the ringing woke the boys up.It would have already been in the kitchen when Pam rang. June could have been looking for the kitchen phone,which was under a pile of magazines,not hidden,but inadvertently placed there and forgotten about once the other phone was in situ.
End cap of rifle not found ? Or if it was,it wasn't mentioned where it was found.?
" Trick of light" left its fingerprints on the sill where it was seen ?
Why was footwear removed from WHF if police knew it was Jeremy who was guilty ? Surely they wouldn't then have bothered to take them ?
Why would police have needed 2 samples of paint from the Aga surround ? 9th and 14th of August ? Nobody owned up to that blunder.
No blood on the Aga,table,and surrounds considering there'd been a " ferocious " struggle to the death, with blood oozing from Nevilles' injuries. Where DID all the blood go ? Where was it all ?
In AE's statement of the 14th of August,she made no mention of finding the silencer ? The excuse at no mention of it ? Because it wasn't relevant at the time. (What a whopper !!)
Why was Jeremy handed a 12 bore and a rifle when the relatives were convinced he'd murdered the family ?
Why did it take nigh-on 12 months before Jeremy was arrested for the murders ? PR exercises towards the relatives in the meantime ?? Of course they were.! ::)
-
A lot of things don't fit.
2 rifles were in use that night,one with a moderator,one without.
Sheila,to my mind,died in the kitchen with her father,where the argument began.
Neville wasn't shot upstairs as none of his blood was on the carpet.No trail down the stairs ?
He'd finished work late that night and possibly showered/bathed after supper.
The teapot/kettle was by the Aga with two cups. Sheila and Neville.
The cream phone would have already been brought downstairs in case the ringing woke the boys up.It would have already been in the kitchen when Pam rang. June could have been looking for the kitchen phone,which was under a pile of magazines,not hidden,but inadvertently placed there and forgotten about once the other phone was in situ.
End cap of rifle not found ? Or if it was,it wasn't mentioned where it was found.?
" Trick of light" left its fingerprints on the sill where it was seen ?
Why was footwear removed from WHF if police knew it was Jeremy who was guilty ? Surely they wouldn't then have bothered to take them ?
Why would police have needed 2 samples of paint from the Aga surround ? 9th and 14th of August ? Nobody owned up to that blunder.
No blood on the Aga,table,and surrounds considering there'd been a " ferocious " struggle to the death, with blood oozing from Nevilles' injuries. Where DID all the blood go ? Where was it all ?
In AE's statement of the 14th of August,she made no mention of finding the silencer ? The excuse at no mention of it ? Because it wasn't relevant at the time. (What a whopper !!)
Why was Jeremy handed a 12 bore and a rifle when the relatives were convinced he'd murdered the family ?
Why did it take nigh-on 12 months before Jeremy was arrested for the murders ? PR exercises towards the relatives in the meantime ?? Of course they were.! ::)
Hi lookout. I haven't heard of that before? If true then it is a very significant fact as it places Sheila and Nevill downstairs. If not who was the 2nd cup for?
I certainly believe that the argument between Nevill and Sheila began downstairs.
-
I read it on this forum on one of the 2011 threads.I do a lot of delving on the quiet. ;D
-
I read it on this forum on one of the 2011 threads.I do a lot of delving on the quiet. ;D
Yes,I would say that they were both downstairs. Sheila used to spend hours talking to her dad on the phone,and the conversations went on well until the early hours and beyond as she had trouble sleeping. Poor man must have been worn out after his day on the farm,but probably didn't like cutting her short in case she threw a wobbly.
Maybe on the night of the shootings,Sheila could have been questioning why her dad wasn't supporting her as he used to do,then it all blew up from there. I firmly believe that Neville was trying to get the rifle off her and it accidentally went off towards her jaw.
Neville might have been in the middle of putting the gun away when Sheila joined him downstairs so therefore the gun wouldn't have reached the cupboard.
-
Hi lookout you are quite good at digging ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D think I will name you as Miss Marples ;D
-
Oh heck,Susan,MD called me that a couple of years ago. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahaha lookout I remember that now it takes one to know one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D that is a compliment by the way :-*
-
I come across a post today where I called Lookout Ms Hawkeye hahahahahaha it was posted 18 moths ago ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti I have been called much much worse than that ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I come across a post today where I called Lookout Ms Hawkeye hahahahahaha it was posted 18 moths ago ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahahahahahahahaha. Moths.
-
Hahahahahahahahaha. Moths.
New that would make you laugh.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Back to the conviction.
If MOST believe that JM's statements,etc were right/correct,and don't believe she lied,how come that when she was convinced ( by Jeremy ) that a hitman was involved,why was Jeremy imprisoned ?
Was it that this part of the case wasn't believed ? If not,why should the rest of her statements be believed ?
-
It needn't have been MM,but someone else.MM would have been the first name that came into JM's head. Why did it just stop at MM ?
-
It needn't have been MM,but someone else.MM would have been the first name that came into JM's head. Why did it just stop at MM ?
Would it matter -other than to the person it WASN'T- whether it was MM,BC or AD or the man in the moon. If Jeremy HAD hired a hit man, it would still make him culpable.
-
Reading about how bias even the" photographs" of the crime scene were. High resolution pics given to the prosecution--------------you've guessed it,low resolution bordering on poor,given to the defence,by CCRC.
How can this be justified ?
-
Reading about how bias even the" photographs" of the crime scene were. High resolution pics given to the prosecution--------------you've guessed it,low resolution bordering on poor,given to the defence,by CCRC.
How can this be justified ?
I do find myself wondering if it REALLY matters to the Prosecution and Defence teams -other than in terms of point scoring- WHO wins. They'll probably all get together to hold a post mortem over supper or drinks later and move on to the next case. Bottom line is, it's the most convincing act which will convince the jury and in order to be that they have to do their homework. Some are better at it than others.
-
Would it matter -other than to the person it WASN'T- whether it was MM,BC or AD or the man in the moon. If Jeremy HAD hired a hit man, it would still make him culpable.
Then why didn't the investigation go deep enough to find out ? It would have appeared that between the relatives and JM,life was made very easy for EP,with their unfounded allegations.
-
Then why didn't the investigation go deep enough to find out ? It would have appeared that between the relatives and JM,life was made very easy for EP,with their unfounded allegations.
lookout, one side is ALWAYS going to win and it's usually the side who have done their homework and given the best performance.
-
lookout, one side is ALWAYS going to win and it's usually the side who have done their homework and given the best performance.
Performance is right,don't know about the homework though.
-
Would it matter -other than to the person it WASN'T- whether it was MM,BC or AD or the man in the moon. If Jeremy HAD hired a hit man, it would still make him culpable.
Totally agree - and I do wonder how watertight the alibi of MM was?
I could have understood the hit man scenario more - because then I could understand the ability to stand next to the police the next day - no need to clean a bike or get rid of clothing etc. etc.
-
Totally agree - and I do wonder how watertight the alibi of MM was?
I could have understood the hit man scenario more - because then I could understand the ability to stand next to the police the next day - no need to clean a bike or get rid of clothing etc. etc.
As I have said so many times, my belief is, that if a hitman was in the game, he would have been there with Jeremy when the murders were committed.
Would also better correspond with the "price" - 2000 pounds would not have been that much to kill five people including two little children.
Would a hitman know the layout of the farmhouse well enough, even though it had been drawn up by Jeremy (we have all seen his lousy ground plan drawing) - would he know where light scitches were? He couldn´t have done this in the dark. Neither could Jeremy.
-
There were one or two lights on Alias. The place wasn't exactly in darkness. This is how the" figure" was seen because of the artificial light behind it.
-
There were one or two lights on Alias. The place wasn't exactly in darkness. This is how the" figure" was seen because of the artificial light behind it.
The killer had already been there at that time.
-
The killer had already been there at that time.
Which was quoted as being " male ",but---------------if Sheila had just had a shower,which going by the sad pics of her,her hair had looked wet,thus her outline would have appeared as male because her hair would have been flattened after showering.
-
Which was quoted as being " male ",but---------------if Sheila had just had a shower,which going by the sad pics of her,her hair had looked wet,thus her outline would have appeared as male because her hair would have been flattened after showering.
Lookout, I've read on numerous occasions that Sheila had just showered and her hair was wet. Despite having years of experience in all aspects of hair, I wouldn't be prepared to say her hair was wet.
-
Lookout, I've read on numerous occasions that Sheila had just showered and her hair was wet. Despite having years of experience in all aspects of hair, I wouldn't be prepared to say her hair was wet.
Hair doesn't look wet to me.
-
Hair doesn't look wet to me.
PHEW!!! I obviously haven't lost my powers of observation ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
PHEW!!! I obviously haven't lost my powers of observation ;D ;D ;D ;D
Either that or it's greasy,but to my mind it would have appeared that Sheila had a shower not long before death.
-
Either that or it's greasy,but to my mind it would have appeared that Sheila had a shower not long before death.
It's just shinny.
-
It's just shinny.
In the same way as the blood. A trick of the light?
-
The shine is mostly from the surface of the photograped photographs - in my opinion.
-
The shine is mostly from the surface of the photograped photographs - in my opinion.
That too but it doesn't look wet.
-
When I first saw this photo, I thought there was water on the floor! It is a reflection from a lamp. Mike took a picture of a picture.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18723;image)
-
From the time and sighting of the " figure " in the window up to the time of Sheilas' death,her hair would have dried with the heat of the place,still giving that " just washed " look before being brushed.
-
From the time and sighting of the " figure " in the window up to the time of Sheilas' death,her hair would have dried with the heat of the place,still giving that " just washed " look before being brushed.
There are too many variables to say that categorically. I'm REALLY not certain how you can be so sure her hair has "that (DRY) just washed look" as opposed to your previous belief that it had a WET "just washed look"
-
There are too many variables to say that categorically. I'm REALLY not certain how you can be so sure her hair has "that (DRY) just washed look" as opposed to your previous belief that it had a WET "just washed look"
Or greasy? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
There are too many variables to say that categorically. I'm REALLY not certain how you can be so sure her hair has "that (DRY) just washed look" as opposed to your previous belief that it had a WET "just washed look"
When hair that's been washed is left to dry naturally,you can tell,before it's eventually brushed.
-
Or greasy? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Indeed,yes,greasy. Either way it appears flat until such times as it's brushed. ;D ;D
-
Indeed,yes,greasy. Either way it appears flat until such times as it's brushed. ;D ;D
But there is nothing flat about Sheila's hair -I would call it abundant- in fact, it fans out around her head. Something it wouldn't do if it was either wet or greasy.
MOST people, let alone a model, wouldn't leave their hair to dry before putting a comb -NEVER a brush on wet hair- through it. It eliminates potential tangles.
-
But there is nothing flat about Sheila's hair -I would call it abundant- in fact, it fans out around her head. Something it wouldn't do if it was either wet or greasy.
MOST people, let alone a model, wouldn't leave their hair to dry before putting a comb -NEVER a brush on wet hair- through it. It eliminates potential tangles.
April,poor Sheila often got pulled up about her hair looking like " rats tails ".A remark often said by her modelling friends.
-
April,poor Sheila often got pulled up about her hair looking like " rats tails ".A remark often said by her modelling friends.
And we know this because?
-
And we know this because?
It's written in Claire Powells' book.
-
It's written in Claire Powells' book.
I have yet to see a picture of Sheila in which her hair looks anything LIKE resembling "rats' tails". I can quite see how other girls might be envious of such luxurious hair. The other explanation MAY be that if they'd seen her at a time when she was not caring for herself, it could have been their way of encouraging her.
-
It's written in Claire Powells' book.
OK thanks Lookout - I just bought it the other day, it hasn't arrived yet.
-
OK thanks Lookout - I just bought it the other day, it hasn't arrived yet.
You'll find the comment on page 63 of " The Gorgeous Girls " chapter,Caroline.
-
Jeremy would now " be in the community " if he'd been diagnosed with Sheilas' illness.