Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on February 23, 2015, 04:06:AM
-
It is somewhat astonishing that there are so many people here who still don't understand the prosecution's case. Unless you understand the arguments by the prosecution there is no way to make an informed critique of those claims and certainly you must understand them to try to refute them.
The prosecution's case had 2 phases. Phase 1 was to use forensic evidence to establish someone other than the victims had committed the murders and then fled the scene. The forensic evidence was used to establish neither Sheila nor Nevill could have killed any of the victims. Since the boys were shot in bed and June was shot in bed before dying on the floor it was obvious they could not have taken part in the killings so no forensic evidence was sought to establish their innocence.
Nevill's hands were examined for lead and GSR to establish he didn't load or fire the weapon. He was negative for lead or GSR.
Similarly Sheila was examined for GSR and lead and her gown was examined for sooting and GSR which would have deposited there had she fired the weapon. Her hands and gown were negative. Had she loaded the weapon her hands would have had elevated lead levels in fact her hands would have had visible marks from the lead.
Had she fired the gun 23 times at the other victims she would have gotten a good amoun of GSR and soot on her hands and gown. Had she killed herself she would have to have hugged the weapon and it would have gotten deposits on the gown she died in. The staining would have been towards her stomach area where there was no blood so the argument that the blood covered it up was not possible.
Furthermore she would have cut her feet in the kitchen or at least got them full of the items in the kitchen had she been the one who beat Nevill in the kitchen. Furthermore, she would have gotten medium velocity blood impact spatter on her clothing if she had been the one who beat Nevill. Medium velocity spatter was on the butt of the weapon from the blows delivered by the stock. She also likely would have gotten her prints in the blood that was on the weapon. Wearing gloves and shoes would be
the only way to avoid being injured and leaving bloody prints. It is also likely she would have gotten high velocity spatter from Nevill and June on her body and clothing from some of the shots. Yet she didn't have any medium or high velocity impact spatter from the victims on her body or clothing.
Further proof she didn't killer herself is that she was killed with the moderator attached and could not have put it away after her death. The manner in which they established the moderator was used is as follows:
1) Medical testimony that Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback. That means Sheila's blood would have to have been deposited in the muzzle of the rifle or the moderator if the moderator were attached to the rifle when the shot was fired
2) Testimony that no blood was found in the rifle but blood consistent with Sheila's was found in the moderator
3) Testimony that is unlikely June and Nevill suffered any wounds that were contact wounds that could have resulted in drawback and the twins did not suffer any contact wounds that would result in drawback
4) visible blood was found on the first 5-7 baffles which was determined to be from one person and it was group A blood
5) a flake of blood from 1 person that was between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and also had enzyme AK1.
6) June and Sheila both have group A blood but Sheila has enzyme AK1 while June has enzyme AK2-1 so the flake was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's
7) AK2-1 is more hardy than AK1 and since the AK1 enzyme had not yet deteriorated that means had June's blood been present her AK2-1 enzymes would still have been present. So this speaks against the blood on the baffles or the flake containing any of June's blood because there was no AK2-1 present and there should have been if her blood was present because AK2-1 takes longer to deteriorate than AK1 and AK1 was present.
All of these things combined- the lack of a wound that would result in June's blood getting inside, the fact Sheila did have a wound that would result in drawback and that none was found in the rifle, the lack of AK2-1, etc all combined lead to the conclusion the group A blood found inside the moderator was Sheila's.
So the prosecution argued the forensic evidence establishes:
A) Sheila didn't load the gun
B) Sheila didn't fire the gun
C) Sheila wasn't even near the other victims when they were being killed because she had no spatter on her
D) Sheila didn't beat Nevill
E) Sheila can't have killed herself
F) Nevill didn't shoot anyone
G) The other victims didn't shoot anyone
So someone else who left the scene had to have committed the murders
The prosecution presented evidence about Sheila being shot while seated but during the trial didn't make any effective argument concerning that point. On appeal the prosecution produced evidence that Sheila had been shot and killed while seated propped up against something then after her death was dragged flat. Furthermore the bible was placed in a pool of her blood that formed after she died and opened and closed. This also establishes someone else was there at the scene. The COA held that this these arguments while strong should have been raised at trial and would not allow them on appeal. We are not limited to such rules so in looking at whether he is guilty or not we should take these into account. The defense though doesn't need to deal with them at appeal. They would have to deal with them if raised in opposition to a clemency petition though.
Phase 2
Phase 2 of the prosecution case was to establish who did commit the crimes.
The evidence proving Sheila didn't load or fire the gun means Nevill would have no reason to call Jeremy and say he needed Jeremy to come over to help disarm her. He would therefore have no way to know they had been killed unless he was the killer.
It would make little sense for Nevill to call Jeremy to do so anyway because Nevill was the largest and strongest in the family so could disarm Sheila himself and there were plenty of weapons for him to select if he decided he could not to it with his bare hands. Moreover, Jeremy did not get along with Sheila so he would have no ability to help calm her down.
Furthermore the evidence establishes the shooting started in the master bedroom where no phone was because Jeremy removed it and replaced the perfectly working kitchen phone with it and hid the phone. He lied and claimed the kitchen phone was replaced because it was broken and upon that phone being found and established as perfectly operating he claimed it was an extra simply.
His claim that the phone went dead and that he called right back finding the phone busy also doesn't add up. Not only does it make no sense for the phone to have been left off the hook, he could not have phoned back right away he would have had to have waited a couple of minutes for the phone to clear.
He called Julie to tell her what happened before the time he claimed he received the call from Nevill. He called her before police despite claiming he called police right away. Julie testified that he had been planning to kill them for a while, had told her earlier he was going to kill them that night and then called to let her know it was done. He also called a 6AM to tell her not to go to work because he would need her to talk to police.
Not only did he attempt to frame Sheila with the made up phone call from Nevill, he also made up taking out the gun and bullets and leaving it out. But his claim of finding the gun without the moderator and scope attached was not credible. Nor was his claim of getting the gun out to shoot rabbits credible. But even worse he staged too many bullets in the kitchen thus proving he staged the bullets after the murders in support of his framing efforts. By doing this he proved he staged the bullets and that he had made up the tale of leaving them out. Thus he made up the tale of leaving the gun and bullets out to set up the false narrative Sheila found a weapon of opportunity.
It was argued he further attempted to frame her with the lie to the initial responders that Sheila was competent with firearms and had fired all the weapons in the house. Prosecution witnesses testified she had no interest in firearms and would not have even known how to use the murder weapon.
It was also testified to that that Jeremy knew how to get in and out through the windows even when locked and could lock the kitchen window from the outside.
So at the end of the day phase 1 was the forensics establishing someone other than the victims committed the murders and fled the scene and phase 2 featured all the evidence proving Jeremy was that person.
-
evidence proving Jeremy was that person ?
Where ?
-
You have brought all this up before why go round in circles?
-
Never mind about forensics-------------there weren't any which involved Jeremy.
How about the uncertainty that was amongst one or two ?
Like the time when JM went to the mortuary and " asked Sheila " what had happened ?? If she'd have KNOWN for absolute certain,then she wouldn't have asked ! Did JM shout out in court " you bloody murderer ?"---------------like MOST of us would have,me included.
The uncertainty when the " robin "? landed on the sill ( a message from beyond ?) Why ? What was all that about ? The bird was obviously used to being fed there. ::)
Who was it who visited a medium ? As if they'd know ::)
Even Colin had remarked " she's finally done it ". What made him say that ? Was there more that he hadn't talked about ? And why should he forgive Jeremy who " murdered" his children--------I wouldn't!!
EP had resigned themselves initially that it was 4 murders and a suicide.What made them change 12 months later ? When any evidence to the latter would have been lost ?
Then there was poor Pam who'd dared to ask how Jeremy was. Would ANYONE have been bothered if he'd been the murdering monster he'd been made out to be ? I'm blowed if I would.
Unlike the red forum,if I thought the man was guilty,I WOULDN'T even be on the forum !! Involvement with murderers is NOT my forte ! Something not quite right about those who discuss murderers who are already jailed ! To you,it's like talking about Sutcliffe.I wouldn't waste my time online !
I'm on this forum because Jeremy is innocent.Why be on a forum when you know him to be guilty,except to argue and snipe at/to the likes of myself who has an opposing view ? As that's what it's mostly about,isn't it ? I call it bullying,not debating. Only this morning,John couldn't help but name me in one of his posts. Is there any need for that to occur from someone who should know better.
Then there's Scipio as with EVERY post I make comes a derogatory remark.Also Adam,and Mat when he gets the chance. Can I ask WHY you are like this towards me ? Do you get a kick out of being nasty ? Or is that your natural persona ?
-
You have brought all this up before why go round in circles?
I think scipio had outlined things clearly here and that is a good thing I think, because it means that we now have a distinct framework that we can go by.
-
evidence proving Jeremy was that person ?
Where ?
The phone call!
-
Never mind about forensics-------------there weren't any which involved Jeremy.
How about the uncertainty that was amongst one or two ?
Like the time when JM went to the mortuary and " asked Sheila " what had happened ?? If she'd have KNOWN for absolute certain,then she wouldn't have asked ! Did JM shout out in court " you bloody murderer ?"---------------like MOST of us would have,me included.
The uncertainty when the " robin "? landed on the sill ( a message from beyond ?) Why ? What was all that about ? The bird was obviously used to being fed there. ::)
Who was it who visited a medium ? As if they'd know ::)
Even Colin had remarked " she's finally done it ". What made him say that ? Was there more that he hadn't talked about ? And why should he forgive Jeremy who " murdered" his children--------I wouldn't!!
EP had resigned themselves initially that it was 4 murders and a suicide.What made them change 12 months later ? When any evidence to the latter would have been lost ?
Then there was poor Pam who'd dared to ask how Jeremy was. Would ANYONE have been bothered if he'd been the murdering monster he'd been made out to be ? I'm blowed if I would.
Unlike the red forum,if I thought the man was guilty,I WOULDN'T even be on the forum !! Involvement with murderers is NOT my forte ! Something not quite right about those who discuss murderers who are already jailed ! To you,it's like talking about Sutcliffe.I wouldn't waste my time online !
I'm on this forum because Jeremy is innocent.Why be on a forum when you know him to be guilty,except to argue and snipe at/to the likes of myself who has an opposing view ? As that's what it's mostly about,isn't it ? I call it bullying,not debating. Only this morning,John couldn't help but name me in one of his posts. Is there any need for that to occur from someone who should know better.
Then there's Scipio as with EVERY post I make comes a derogatory remark.Also Adam,and Mat when he gets the chance. Can I ask WHY you are like this towards me ? Do you get a kick out of being nasty ? Or is that your natural persona ?
Lookout, I mean this in the kindest possible way, but despite what you've just said about involvement with murderers not being your forte, I feel, if it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was responsible for the murders, you've invested SO much into him that you'd probably have difficulty in turning away from him. I think your defence of him is wholly admirable but I feel that it's more emotional than reasoned.
-
The phone call!
You mean of course the "alleged" phone call. If such a phone call actually took place then he could not have been the murderer. But it cannot of course the fact that he cannot prove that such a phone call took place does not mean that lack of proof makes it evidence of his guilt. But I would have thought that logic should tell you that any murderer would be able to place himself at home at the time of the killings? This is one of those dodgy pieces of so called "evidence" on which Bamber's guilt and the verdict stand and by default is one of those things that we debate in this forum today.
-
Lookout, I mean this in the kindest possible way, but despite what you've just said about involvement with murderers not being your forte, I feel, if it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was responsible for the murders, you've invested SO much into him that you'd probably have difficulty in turning away from him. I think your defence of him is wholly admirable but I feel that it's more emotional than reasoned.
I'm confident that Jeremy is innocent,so therefore I don't even have the slightest doubt that one day he'll be pardoned. There's no need for me to think on the same lines as others,either dithering or asking myself " what if ".
There is NO emotional attachment whatsoever,you obviously don't know me, I am full of optimism for the future for him,whenever that might be,but there you are. As a person,Jeremy means nothing to me.He's just a man fighting for his freedom whatever you or anyone else thinks.
I couldn't care less if I'm the only person on this forum who believes in the man. I've looked deeper than any flimsy so-called evidence that's been put forward,and I will NOT be put off by those who insist on their cheap jibes just because I support Jeremy.
-
Lookout, I mean this in the kindest possible way, but despite what you've just said about involvement with murderers not being your forte, I feel, if it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was responsible for the murders, you've invested SO much into him that you'd probably have difficulty in turning away from him. I think your defence of him is wholly admirable but I feel that it's more emotional than reasoned.
So we have to conclude that you yourself have been more emotional than reasoned for a very long time prior to your Eureka moment!
I wonder if anyone, in the kindest possible way, took it upon themselves to tell you that like you now are telling Lookout.
-
I'm confident that Jeremy is innocent,so therefore I don't even have the slightest doubt that one day he'll be pardoned. There's no need for me to think on the same lines as others,either dithering or asking myself " what if ".
There is NO emotional attachment whatsoever,you obviously don't know me, I am full of optimism for the future for him,whenever that might be,but there you are. As a person,Jeremy means nothing to me.He's just a man fighting for his freedom whatever you or anyone else thinks.
I couldn't care less if I'm the only person on this forum who believes in the man. I've looked deeper than any flimsy so-called evidence that's been put forward,and I will NOT be put off by those who insist on their cheap jibes just because I support Jeremy.
Lookout, your every word tells a different story. If I didn't KNOW it was about Jeremy, I could be forgiven for thinking, given how emotional is your defence of him, it was about a beloved grandson or godson who stood accused. Knowing how strong are your views regarding crime and your belief in the death sentence I can see how difficult it could be for you to contemplate Jeremy as anything other than innocent, but it doesn't mean he is.
-
So we have to conclude that you yourself have been more emotional than reasoned for a very long time prior to your Eureka moment!
I wonder if anyone, in the kindest possible way, took it upon themselves to tell you that like you now are telling Lookout.
Well, actually, since you ask, Alias, yes they have. So many times in fact that it's become open season in having a go at April. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was you who started it.
-
Lookout, your every word tells a different story. If I didn't KNOW it was about Jeremy, I could be forgiven for thinking, given how emotional is your defence of him, it was about a beloved grandson or godson who stood accused. Knowing how strong are your views regarding crime and your belief in the death sentence I can see how difficult it could be for you to contemplate Jeremy as anything other than innocent, but it doesn't mean he is.
It could be any Tom Dick or Harry festering in prison for all I care,but because I now know enough to feel confident in his innocence,why should it bother anyone else ?
I felt exactly the same about Eddie Gilfoyle,and if you followed that case,you'd understand why. I had every confidence that he HADN'T killed his wife and unborn child------------and I was right. Even though his wife's relatives,friends and Uncle Tom Cobley wanted him staying put.
-
Well, actually, since you ask, Alias, yes they have. So many times in fact that it's become open season in having a go at April. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was you who started it.
What did I start, April?
-
Well, actually, since you ask, Alias, yes they have. So many times in fact that it's become open season in having a go at April. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was you who started it.
That's a bit paranoid isn't it?
-
That's a bit paranoid isn't it?
No.
-
What did I start, April?
When one person makes an accusatory remark to another it gives others permission to do the same. You said I'd offended you. I hope I made it clear that it wasn't intended. You wouldn't let it go despite this. Then someone else jumped in and accused me of being condescending. Then I was hauled over the coals because apparently, my use of capitals -for emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!- meant I was shouting.
Funny how all this began because, from the way a post was worded, it sounded as if the poster was upset, and I offered my support.
-
That's a bit paranoid isn't it?
You should try standing in my shoes, Grahame. Guess what? It started because I offered support to someone who I believed had been upset.
-
When one person makes an accusatory remark to another it gives others permission to do the same. You said I'd offended you. I hope I made it clear that it wasn't intended. You wouldn't let it go despite this. Then someone else jumped in and accused me of being condescending. Then I was hauled over the coals because apparently, my use of capitals -for emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!- meant I was shouting.
Funny how all this began because, from the way a post was worded, it sounded as if the poster was upset, and I offered my support.
April, as far as I remember, you accused me of something that wasn´t there as if you had a preconception of what I was thinking.
I had to counter that, because I did feel offended by it. You said I had made it FAR from clear what I thought about a certain matter.
I put forward evidence of what I thought and had expressed, which was in fact very clear, but there was no response from you. It is still all there to see.
Mat chimed in and asked me something along the lines: As a supporter isn´t it natural that you want to believe what Mike says? (!)
How about reading what I write instead of going by your own preconceptions?
-
April, as far as I remember, you accused me of something that wasn´t there as if you had a preconception of what I was thinking.
I had to counter that, because I did feel offended by it. You said I had made it FAR from clear what I thought about a certain matter.
I put forward evidence of what I thought and had expressed, which was in fact very clear, but there was no response from you. It is still all there to see.
Mat chimed in and asked me something along the lines: As a supporter isn´t it natural that you want to believe what Mike says? (!)
How about reading what I write instead of going by your own preconceptions?
And to prove your point you presented me with a post which HAD I responded to I would NEVER have reached conclusion I arrived at. I said this at the time. I don't recall accusing you of ANYTHING and I'd be the last person to presume to read peoples' minds. If I could, I'd hardly have said something to you in the full knowledge that it would cause offence. Personally, I think it was a very little thing to take SUCH offence at -although it was your entitlement- and as I said then, it's probably best if we don't converse. As neither of us knows which of my entirely unwitting words will cause offence next, it will save us both much stress.
-
So we have to conclude that you yourself have been more emotional than reasoned for a very long time prior to your Eureka moment!
I wonder if anyone, in the kindest possible way, took it upon themselves to tell you that like you now are telling Lookout.
To be fair April admitted that and admitted she realized she was making a lot of excuses and the realization she was simply making up excuses was when she started to have a change of heart and decided to look at things more objectively.
-
To be fair April admitted that and admitted she realized she was making a lot of excuses and the realization she was simply making up excuses was when she started to have a change of heart and decided to look at things more objectively.
Sure, but why punk Lookout unnecessarily - just out of the blue because she felt like it?
-
To be fair April admitted that and admitted she realized she was making a lot of excuses and the realization she was simply making up excuses was when she started to have a change of heart and decided to look at things more objectively.
Thank-you, Scipio :) I'd invested a lot of emotion into my belief that Jeremy was innocent -our upbringings and adoptions would have been the probable reason for it- and whilst I could forgive Sheila because she was ill, forgiving Jeremy would have come much harder. Not that it was my place to forgive. Detaching myself emotionally has helped me to clarify my thoughts.............................but I still think Sheila was badly let down :D
-
You mean of course the "alleged" phone call. If such a phone call actually took place then he could not have been the murderer. But it cannot of course the fact that he cannot prove that such a phone call took place does not mean that lack of proof makes it evidence of his guilt. But I would have thought that logic should tell you that any murderer would be able to place himself at home at the time of the killings? This is one of those dodgy pieces of so called "evidence" on which Bamber's guilt and the verdict stand and by default is one of those things that we debate in this forum today.
I do INDEED mean the 'alleged' phone call because I don't believe it ever happened. Any murderer can 'say' they were at home but that wasn't good enough for Jeremy, he used the notion of the phone call to steer police in a certain direction and it almost worked. ALMOST!
-
You have brought all this up before why go round in circles?
It is not going round in circles to point out the prosecution's case so that people can see that case laid out fully. Having it laid out is necessary in order to know what claims to examine and try to refute.
Objective people will see if there is any evidence available to refute the prosecution's case and if so will say the evidence failed to establish Jeremy's guilt but if it can't be refuted will admit the evidence proves Jeremy is guilty.
So far I have not seen anyone produce evidence that refutes the prosecution's case. I certainly have not found any way to do so. Thus I face that the evidence establishes his guilt.
Other people say they choose to believe Jeremy is innocent but to date have not articulated evidence to prove their opinions. It means their opinions are not fact based but emotionally charged. Invariably the claims come up well Julie could have lied, police could have lied and fabricated evidence the family could have lied...
The issue is whether there is evidence that proves Julie lied, that evidence was planted etc. Saying different police were proven to have lied in other cases is not evidence they did so here or that evidence was planted. People who say he could be innocent because of the theoretical possibility of him being framed are running on emotion and bias not following the evidence in the case at hand.
The raid team questioned the scene right away and though Sheila was too clean to have taken part in the struggle in the kitchen or to have fired a gun. Had the police conducting the investigation agreed with them and suspected right away that Jeremy was involved and found the moderator evidence then Jeremy supporters would be using this to say they framed Jeremy because they decided he was guilty right away.
Instead the investigators believed Jeremy's claims and did a less than thorough examination of the scene and didn't examine Jeremy or his house till too much time passed for them to be able to find anything. This less than stellar job is used to attack them saying their investigation should not be trusted because they failed to do a thorough search right away and thus didn't find all the relevant evidence right away.
The bottom line is that people operating on bias are always going to critique the police, no matter what the police did they were damned and biased people will make excuses but those excuses have no legal significance at all.
I laid out the legal case against him and that case can only be taken apart by using competent evidence to refute the case. If people say they choose not to believe it that is their business but choosing not to believe the evidence doesn't undermine the case. You have to produce evidence to challenge the case in order to undermine it.
You have to understand what to try to challenge and the only way to do that is to actually know what case was made. This thread summarizes such.
-
April, this is what you said to Mr. Gee and me:
Re: Photographic still image taken from crime scene video - The shocking truth...
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2015, 06:45:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Alias on January 29, 2015, 06:23:PM
So we won´t see it, end of.
Quote from: Mr. Gee on January 29, 2015, 06:26:PM
Told you so. Me? I'm one who is pissed. I think if Jeremy is to be represented it must me honestly. This kind of thing only damages his case.
I'm really in two minds whether to shun this forum now. I'm very disappointed with you Mike. >:(
I KNOW how much you both wanted it to, but did either of you REALLY believe this was going to happen?
After I had said:
Re: Photographic still image taken from crime scene video - The shocking truth...
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2015, 06:47:PM »
Quote
Modify
Remove
Quote from: Mr. Gee on January 29, 2015, 06:26:PM
Told you so. Me? I'm one who is pissed. I think if Jeremy is to be represented it must me honestly. This kind of thing only damages his case.
I'm really in two minds whether to shun this forum now. I'm very disappointed with you Mike. >:(
It is worst for Mike´s own credibility.
You can pull something like this once, and people will perhaps believe it. Second time, you are apprehensive, not holding your breath. Third time, you don´t believe it at all. Fourth time, you don´t believe anything Mike says.
Don´t know what it is good for. People aren´t so stupid that they will believe this stunt once they´ve seen something similar come to nothing. I didn´t believe this one from get go and was waiting for the excuse for not posting. Sky News it is then.
I am not angry as you are, Gee (but I don´t blame you), just indifferent. If I get banned for this, then I´ll get banned, I don´t care.
Was I "FAR from clear", as you later claimed? I can´t see how much clearer I could have been, but you still KNEW how much I wanted it to be true - and Mat too!
One of the reasons I feel like leaving this place. People think you believe everything Mike says and that you think along the same lines. People think you are an idiot for posting here.
You bet I was mad, April! Again, read what I write actually, before you form your opinion!
-
Sure, but why punk Lookout unnecessarily - just out of the blue because she felt like it?
I think April is trying to help lookout to see that she is running on emotion in an effort to help lookout.
Anytime the evidence is pointed out lookout either denies well established facts or comes up with some argument that fails to address let alone refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy and in the process demonstrates her position is based on a combination of ignorance of the facts, intentionally ignoring evidence and running on emotion.
I think that when April posts about her change of heart and emotional investment such hits close to home with you because you recognize you are likewise emotionally vested.
I have no emotional investment in this case at all. I believe what I believe solely based on the evidence and I debate such evidence because I love to argue and will argue about just about anything where opportunity exists. That is why when credible evidence turns up I have no problem accepting it even when it is pro-Jeremy.
There is a sizable difference between watching the Baseball World Series when the New York Yankees are playing and 2 teams I don't care about. When the Yankees are playing I want them to win and it is emotional when good or bad things happen. I will cheer I will jeer I will scream I will curse... When 2 teams I don't care about play there is no emotional investment I just watch the game for the love of the game and that is it. It is much more relaxed and whatever happens happens. Some people on both sides have too much emotional investment.
-
I think April is trying to help lookout to see that she is running on emotion in an effort to help lookout.
Anytime the evidence is pointed out lookout either denies well established facts or comes up with some argument that fails to address let alone refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy and in the process demonstrates her position is based on a combination of ignorance of the facts, intentionally ignoring evidence and running on emotion.
I think that when April posts about her change of heart and emotional investment such hits close to home with you because you recognize you are likewise emotionally vested.
I have no emotional investment in this case at all. I believe what I believe solely based on the evidence and I debate such evidence because I love to argue and will argue about just about anything where opportunity exists. That is why when credible evidence turns up I have no problem accepting it even when it is pro-Jeremy.
There is a sizable difference between watching the Baseball World Series when the New York Yankees are playing and 2 teams I don't care about. When the Yankees are playing I want them to win and it is emotional when good or bad things happen. I will cheer I will jeer I will scream I will curse... When 2 teams I don't care about play there is no emotional investment I just watch the game for the love of the game and that is it. It is much more relaxed and whatever happens happens. Some people on both sides have too much emotional investment.
Total and utter bullshit!
-
Total and utter bullshit!
The way you take some things personally and make some things personal suggest otherwise in my opinion.
-
The way you take some things personally and make some things personal suggest otherwise in my opinion.
Well, that is your opinion. I am not a particularly emotional person. I have an interest in different criminal cases, that´s all. This one is not the only one.
I don´t like being accused of buying into everything and anything Mike says, because I don´t. Being accused of such doesn´t make me emotional, it makes me mad.
-
Alias quite right you are your own person and you are not influenced by anyone on this forum you come to your own conclusions from material presented to you.
-
I think April is trying to help lookout to see that she is running on emotion in an effort to help lookout.
Anytime the evidence is pointed out lookout either denies well established facts or comes up with some argument that fails to address let alone refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy and in the process demonstrates her position is based on a combination of ignorance of the facts, intentionally ignoring evidence and running on emotion.
I think that when April posts about her change of heart and emotional investment such hits close to home with you because you recognize you are likewise emotionally vested.
I have no emotional investment in this case at all. I believe what I believe solely based on the evidence and I debate such evidence because I love to argue and will argue about just about anything where opportunity exists. That is why when credible evidence turns up I have no problem accepting it even when it is pro-Jeremy.
There is a sizable difference between watching the Baseball World Series when the New York Yankees are playing and 2 teams I don't care about. When the Yankees are playing I want them to win and it is emotional when good or bad things happen. I will cheer I will jeer I will scream I will curse... When 2 teams I don't care about play there is no emotional investment I just watch the game for the love of the game and that is it. It is much more relaxed and whatever happens happens. Some people on both sides have too much emotional investment.
Sorry,but do I look or appear that I need help ? Don't patronise me perlease,I can do without it.
As I've made it plain,just because I think differently to most,doesn't mean that I'm emotionally attached to this case,because I'm not at all. I couldn't care less who it is behind bars,all I want is justice to be done and SEEN to be done,and in this case, it HASN'T and WASN'T.
-
Well, that is your opinion. I am not a particularly emotional person. I have an interest in different criminal cases, that´s all. This one is not the only one.
I don´t like being accused of buying into everything and anything Mike says, because I don´t. Being accused of such doesn´t make me emotional, it makes me mad.
I agree with Alias on this one. I don't know Jeremy , I have never met Jeremy - therefore I can not claim to be emotionally involved .
Both Alias and I both tend to look at documents for information .
And we are both still asking questions - which funnily enough certain people do not do - or if they do ask a question it is only because they have made up their minds what the answer is before they start a thread.
And lookout is passionate about the case. There are plenty of others who are as well , they just don't all come on this forum.
-
Yes, a lot of patronising going on, Lookout, it is unbearable!
Thanks, Susan!
-
Total and utter bullshit!
I totally agree.
-
I agree with Alias on this one. I don't know Jeremy , I have never met Jeremy - therefore I can not claim to be emotionally involved .
Both Alias and I both tend to look at documents for information .
And we are both still asking questions - which funnily enough certain people do not do - or if they do ask a question it is only because they have made up their minds what the answer is before they start a thread.
And lookout is passionate about the case. There are plenty of others who are as well , they just don't all come on this forum.
Good post, Jan!
-
April, this is what you said to Mr. Gee and me:
After I had said:
Was I "FAR from clear", as you later claimed? I can´t see how much clearer I could have been, but you still KNEW how much I wanted it to be true - and Mat too!
One of the reasons I feel like leaving this place. People think you believe everything Mike says and that you think along the same lines. People think you are an idiot for posting here.
You bet I was mad, April! Again, read what I write actually, before you form your opinion!
Mad, and hellbent on carrying this on WELL beyond it's sell by date, Alias. I don't even know what you think is going to happen. So I said that I knew you wanted to be true what Mike said ie He had a picture/could prove/had evidence/Jeremy would be released as soon as. It appears I was wrong. Maybe you DON'T think Jeremy should be released!!!!! May the heavens pouR their wrath on me. May the earth open up and swallow me. Did ever a woman -or man- make SUCH an unforgivable mistake. May I NEVER be forgiven. Certainly NOT by you, it seems. Do you have ANY idea of HOW ridiculous this has become?
I have NO idea who are the "people" to whom you refer as thinking "you" believe everything Mike says. I haven't come across them So I'M not considering leaving because of them. You can choose to put this behind you and go forward OR you can choose to carry on trying to make a fight. SHOULD you choose the latter, I WON'T be joining in.
-
Jan excellent post :)
-
Lookout you have your own views and you are sticking to them well done ;D
-
I agree with Alias on this one. I don't know Jeremy , I have never met Jeremy - therefore I can not claim to be emotionally involved .
Both Alias and I both tend to look at documents for information .
And we are both still asking questions - which funnily enough certain people do not do - or if they do ask a question it is only because they have made up their minds what the answer is before they start a thread.
And lookout is passionate about the case. There are plenty of others who are as well , they just don't all come on this forum.
I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.
As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!
-
Mad, and hellbent on carrying this on WELL beyond it's sell by date, Alias. I don't even know what you think is going to happen. So I said that I knew you wanted to be true what Mike said ie He had a picture/could prove/had evidence/Jeremy would be released as soon as. It appears I was wrong. Maybe you DON'T think Jeremy should be released!!!!! May the heavens pouR their wrath on me. May the earth open up and swallow me. Did ever a woman -or man- make SUCH an unforgivable mistake. May I NEVER be forgiven. Certainly NOT by you, it seems. Do you have ANY idea of HOW ridiculous this has become?
I have NO idea who are the "people" to whom you refer as thinking "you" believe everything Mike says. I haven't come across them So I'M not considering leaving because of them. You can choose to put this behind you and go forward OR you can choose to carry on trying to make a fight. SHOULD you choose the latter, I WON'T be joining in.
Thanks, that´s all I wanted. You were wrong. I never believed there was a picture and I had made that clear already.
-
I agree with Alias on this one. I don't know Jeremy , I have never met Jeremy - therefore I can not claim to be emotionally involved .
Both Alias and I both tend to look at documents for information .
And we are both still asking questions - which funnily enough certain people do not do - or if they do ask a question it is only because they have made up their minds what the answer is before they start a thread.
And lookout is passionate about the case. There are plenty of others who are as well , they just don't all come on this forum.
One doesn't have to know someone personally to become emotionally invested, you surely are emotionally invested in the case and biased in his favor. Adam is emotionally invested and he doesn't know Jeremy or the victims.
It is hardly surprising that many people who are biased and emotionally invested don't want to admit it. You would much rather delude yourself into thinking you are operating exclusively based on facts though such is clearly not the case. Oddly enough lookout is one of the few willing to admit her emotional investment. April admitting she used to be in that camp seems to cause problems for those still in the predicament she used to be in who recognize they are like she was but don't want to admit it.
Only people with an emotional attachment would have a problem with her changing her views and saying she had an epiphany.
-
Indeed I have Susan and I won't be moved. No way will I change my mind on a whim just because others have. I'm firmly stuck on my views-------------emotionless. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mad, and hellbent on carrying this on WELL beyond it's sell by date, Alias. I don't even know what you think is going to happen. So I said that I knew you wanted to be true what Mike said ie He had a picture/could prove/had evidence/Jeremy would be released as soon as. It appears I was wrong. Maybe you DON'T think Jeremy should be released!!!!! May the heavens pouR their wrath on me. May the earth open up and swallow me. Did ever a woman -or man- make SUCH an unforgivable mistake. May I NEVER be forgiven. Certainly NOT by you, it seems. Do you have ANY idea of HOW ridiculous this has become?
I have NO idea who are the "people" to whom you refer as thinking "you" believe everything Mike says. I haven't come across them So I'M not considering leaving because of them. You can choose to put this behind you and go forward OR you can choose to carry on trying to make a fight. SHOULD you choose the latter, I WON'T be joining in.
I guess it's the horse hair vest for you!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.
As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!
I don´t see why it is neccessary to tell Lookout that April considers her emotional. What is that about? It has nothing to do with case discussion. It was rather out of the blue I think.
-
One doesn't have to know someone personally to become emotionally invested, you surely are emotionally invested in the case and biased in his favor. Adam is emotionally invested and he doesn't know Jeremy or the victims.
It is hardly surprising that many people who are biased and emotionally invested don't want to admit it. You would much rather delude yourself into thinking you are operating exclusively based on facts though such is clearly not the case. Oddly enough lookout is one of the few willing to admit her emotional investment. April admitting she used to be in that camp seems to cause problems for those still in the predicament she used to be in who recognize they are like she was but don't want to admit it.
Only people with an emotional attachment would have a problem with her changing her views and saying she had an epiphany.
I don´t have a problem with April changing her view, why would I? I am not even sure Jeremy didn´t do it.
I have a problem with a condescending tone. You wouldn´t understand that, since that is what you do constantly.
-
I don´t have a problem with April changing her view, why would I? I am not even sure Jeremy didn´t do it.
I have a problem with a condescending tone. You wouldn´t understand that, since that is what you do constantly.
Lots of people here have a condescending tone, in fact, I don't think there is anyone who hasn't been guilty of it at one point or another.
-
Lots of people here have a condescending tone, in fact, I don't think there is anyone who hasn't been guilty of it at one point or another.
With some it is the norm. As if they are here just to beat other people over their heads for their views (or what they perceive to be their views.)
-
Lookout you go girl ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.
As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!
Caroline, THANK-YOU. I really appreciate your kind words. Funny, but not SO very long ago, words like yours were told me almost daily. My opinion were sought AND valued. I was praised for my insightfulness and rational thinking. WHAT happened?!!!!!! To MY knowledge, I haven't changed. My thought processes are exactly the same as they ever were but where I was once clearsighted and fair, it appears that I'm now condescending and so arrogant that I think -or so I'm told!!!- that I have the ability to read minds, the result of which being that I've suddenly become a virtual outcast.
-
I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.
As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!
I don't have a problem with most people on here . We are all entitled to our own opinions and I don't think there is any need to get personal .
-
Caroline, THANK-YOU. I really appreciate your kind words. Funny, but not SO very long ago, words like yours were told me almost daily. My opinion were sought AND valued. I was praised for my insightfulness and rational thinking. WHAT happened?!!!!!! To MY knowledge, I haven't changed. My thought processes are exactly the same as they ever were but where I was once clearsighted and fair, it appears that I'm now condescending and so arrogant that I think -or so I'm told!!!- that I have the ability to read minds, the result of which being that I've suddenly become a virtual outcast.
Well, just stop telling people what you think they think.
You did it to me and you did it to Lookout today.
-
I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.
As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!
I was not actually referring to you about not asking questions. In the interests of honesty that was about Adam and Scipio . They never ask questions or look at another angle because they have 100% made up their minds.
-
Well, just stop telling people what you think they think.
You did it to me and you did it to Lookout today.
DETERMINED to bite, aren't you. Have just looked back and can find nowhere that I told Lookout what she thought, I did however own my own feelings by telling her what I FELT she thought which is VERY different. I would prefer it if you refrained from speaking to me or AT me, but please feel free to talk about me.
-
I was not actually referring to you about not asking questions. In the interests of honesty that was about Adam and Scipio . They never ask questions or look at another angle because they have 100% made up their minds.
Not only have I looked at all the angles I have discussed them in detail. Taht is something you do not do because you are incapable of doing so or know that when that it doene all speculation you engage in falls apart.
Just look at the issue of whether a phone call was received form nevill. I go into all the different angles involved in assessing such while you ignore tham and just say that you think it happened without being able to come up with any rational evidence to support such a belief.
Adam is emotionally invested and raises some speculation that doesn't even matter let alone can be established but doesn't rely exclusively on that. He actually relies on established evidence to justify his claims of guilt.
You made up your mind not on the basis of facts or evidence but on emotional issues including having problems with the police- you have an agenda you advance you are not objective at all.
My first post discusses the evidence that convicted Jeremy. Have you come up with anything to refute these pieces of evidence? no Are you even trying to address the? Not really you dance around them instead of having a real discussion where you look at all the angles involved in a rational manner.
-
And you----------------stop telling people that they're incapable ! It's unacceptable.,
-
You should try standing in my shoes, Grahame. Guess what? It started because I offered support to someone who I believed had been upset.
I have been in your shoes April.
-
I have been in your shoes April.
How come I didn't feel your presence?
-
And you----------------stop telling people that they're incapable ! It's unacceptable.,
I meant it in the sense of unwilling.
In contrast I am willing. I actually look at claims made and evaluate them in detail for instance I did a detailed evaluation of the claims with respect to the bullets. I posted the following:
"I have seen a variety of claims that non-Eley ammunition was used in 5 rounds, another supporter claims 7 rounds, some call them lighter others heavy. The only thing consistent in these claims is no evidentiary support is presented for the claims to establish there was any non-Eley ammunition used. There are 2 ways to establish such:
1) testing the chemical composition and finding it totally different from Eley's formula/the Eley bullets form the box the undisputed Eley ammo came from
2) looking at the shell casings
The latter is the most obvious and easiest manner.
The misrepresentations about the bullet characteristics that match the Anschutz are legion.
Fletcher observed 3 main features that tied the bullets to the murder weapon:
1) 8 L&G
2) narrow lands meaning the grooves are wider than the lands as opposed to being equal in size
3) rifling marks that are made by imperfections unique to the barrel of the Anschutz and no other weapon- these are called individual or accidental characteristics while the first 2 are class characteristics
Which bullets suffered the least damage and were most intact? The 3 bullets that exited June and bullet that exited Daniel. These bullets had all 3 of the characteristics above present. PV/29 in Daniel also had all 3 of these present according to Jeremy supporters.
A bullet is round and you can roughly look at 120-150 degrees at any given time. Looking at 120 degrees at a time you can get 3 views that cover everything.
Many bullets fragmented and expanded and the outside parts that broke off were the parts that had the impressions from the lands and grooves. When that happens you might only have a small section that still has any impression remaining from the lands and grooves and/or the unique rifling marks.
Even if there are not 8 lands and grooves you still could be able to potentially match the lands and grooves remaining and the accidental marks to a particular cross section of a test bullet and this match enables you to say it was fired by the same weapon even though you don't have an entire bullet.
A bullet that is damaged too much and can't definitely be tied to the gun could still potentially have been fired by it. The only way to rule it out as having been fired is if it has characteristics that demonstrate it was definitely fired by a different gun.
I have yet to see reliable documents that for sure came from Fletcher that account for all the claims made by Jeremy supporters about what exactly what was observed on each and every bullet.
For instance, the Holab form for PV/2 indicates "general and small amount of detail" match from the Anschutz. General means class characteristics and the small detail part refers to the accidental characteristics. Both he class characteristics and accidental characteristics are rifling marks. Numerous charts and posts say no RM for PV/2, clearly the accidental characteriscs are being ignored in such analysis.
Some supporters claim that Fletcher noted some bullets had wide lands but this has not been demonstrated at all. Rather where narrow lands were not found because insufficient detail was on the bullet has been misrepresented by Jeremy supporters as Fletcher finding wide lands, though he never made such a claim he merely asserted he was unable to make an effective measurement so unable to determine the measurement of the lands in comparison to the grooves on such bullets.
The first Holab form I looked at is PV/8 which is hard to read but looks like it says same L&G width as the Anschutz but too damaged and small to match the quantity of lands and grooves possessed by the Anschutz..
This is what I have pieced together from the claims of Jeremy supporters without correcting anything so there may be more errors than the 2 I mentioned above, indeed it is impossible to detect 0 lands and yet claim narrow lands were detected so there was a typo somewhere or someone a mistake in reading something:
Master Bedroom
Nevill
PV/2 (Shoulder) (5L) (NL) (no RM)
PV/5 (jaw) fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11
PV/10 (lip) (WL) (no RM)
PV/11 (neck) (4L) (WL) (no RM)
Arm/chest Graze wound-1 of the following: DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35 (all 8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
June
PV/23 ( 0 )(NL) (no RM)
PV/24 (4L) (NL) (has RM)
PV/25 (5L) (NL) (has RM)
PV/26 (5L) (NL) (no RM)
3 of the following DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35 (all 8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
Sheila
PV/19 (WL) (no RM)
PV/20 (NL) (RM)
Kitchen
Nevill
PV/3 (skull) (NL)
PV/4 (skull) (NL) (RM)
PV/8 (skull) (WL)
PV/9 (skull) (?)
Twins
Daniel
PV/29 (8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
PV/34 (WL)
PV/35 (WL)
PV/36 (WL)
DRH/36 (8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
Nicholas
PV/30 (3L) (NL)
PV/31 (NL) (RM)
[bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered]
The wide/narrow lands claims are fiction but at any rate if one wants to claim that the bullets that failed to register narrow lands were fired from a different gun that means Nevill was shot with 2 guns in both rooms he was shot in, that both boys were shot with 2 guns and Sheila was shot with 2 guns. The yellow represents the shots claimed to be from other guns.
In the meantime the shots in both boys and 4 in Nevill's head were tightly grouped and assessed to have been fired in rapid succession from the same gun. 2 people firing together are unlikely to get a nice tight grouping.
I wonder how many other errors I will find in the above claims anyway with respect to number of lands and grooves found, whether the land width matched the Anschutz and whether the individual barrel characteristics were found.
Again though the fact a bullet lacks enough detail doesn't prove it wasn't fired from the Anschutz it merely means there is insufficient detail to say it was definitely fired from the Anschutz and other evidence like the spent casings will have to carry the day."
So I actually looked at the claims and available evidence and did an objective evaluation. It is amusing watching people say I am too biased to try dealing with the evidence. The shoe is on the other foot.
-
I meant it in the sense of unwilling.
In contrast I am willing. I actually look at claims made and evaluate them in detail for instance I did a detailed evaluation of the claims with respect to the bullets. I posted the following:
"I have seen a variety of claims that non-Eley ammunition was used in 5 rounds, another supporter claims 7 rounds, some call them lighter others heavy. The only thing consistent in these claims is no evidentiary support is presented for the claims to establish there was any non-Eley ammunition used.
..................................................
..................................................
I wonder how many other errors I will find in the above claims anyway with respect to number of lands and grooves found, whether the land width matched the Anschutz and whether the individual barrel characteristics were found.
Again though the fact a bullet lacks enough detail doesn't prove it wasn't fired from the Anschutz it merely means there is insufficient detail to say it was definitely fired from the Anschutz and other evidence like the spent casings will have to carry the day."
So I actually looked at the claims and available evidence and did an objective evaluation. It is amusing watching people say I am too biased to try dealing with the evidence. The shoe is on the other foot.
I understand that the firearms expert could not tell if the bullets were fired through the silencer or not? Is that always the case, or can you tell in some instances but the marks on the bullets?
-
I don't have a problem with most people on here . We are all entitled to our own opinions and I don't think there is any need to get personal .
Neither do I (in the main) and I don't think there is a need to get personal either. However, I know I can be completely condescending and it's deliberate - I do it deliberately when I think someone is doing that to me. Would like to think I could rise above it but - it must be a flaw in my personality. I guess everyone has at least one!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I understand that the firearms expert could not tell if the bullets were fired through the silencer or not? Is that always the case, or can you tell in some instances but the marks on the bullets?
Some silencers are made of brushings which touch the bullets and depending on what the brushings are made of they can leave some kind of marks on the bullets that can potentially be seen depending upon the condition of the spent bullet. A baffled silencer when properly operating results in the bullet not touching anything. If the baffles are crooked or it is screwed into the gun improperly the bullets can hit the baffles on the way out thus damaging the baffle and bullet. You might be able to tie the damage on the bullet to the baffle and will likewise see the damage to the baffle.
A properly installed baffled silencer will leave no way to tell whether a silencer was used or not. You have to look to other evidence like witnesses not hearing any shots or blood found on or in it etc.
-
I don't have a problem with most people on here . We are all entitled to our own opinions and I don't think there is any need to get personal .
If I had a personal problem with the people here I would not bother to post. I don't take online debating personally. My issue is with the claims people make and that is what I challenge including calling out bias when that is what I see. Debating the claims of people is why I am here that is what I like to do debate claims and evidence.
-
And saying that people are incapable.You're far too self-opinionated.
-
If I had a personal problem with the people here I would not bother to post. I don't take online debating personally. My issue is with the claims people make and that is what I challenge including calling out bias when that is what I see. Debating the claims of people is why I am here that is what I like to do debate claims and evidence.
a hint.
we would debate with you more if you were not so personal.
-
a hint.
we would debate with you more if you were not so personal.
Another hint, perhaps we would actually read your posts, Skippy, if you weren´t so personal and rude - I know I mostly don´t bother reading them.
-
Thank-you, Scipio :) I'd invested a lot of emotion into my belief that Jeremy was innocent -our upbringings and adoptions would have been the probable reason for it- and whilst I could forgive Sheila because she was ill, forgiving Jeremy would have come much harder. Not that it was my place to forgive. Detaching myself emotionally has helped me to clarify my thoughts.............................but I still think Sheila was badly let down :D
you where Adopted? So was I :)
Jeremy don't deserve forgiveness if he done it. Killing kids for money?
-
This killing wasn't for money.
-
you where Adopted? So was I :)
Jeremy don't deserve forgiveness if he done it. Killing kids for money?
It made it hard for me to look at objectively
Killing children full stop. Doesn't bear thinking of, does it?
-
It made it hard for me to look at objectively
Killing children full stop. Doesn't bear thinking of, does it?
how comes? Iv never considered it to play a role in my judgement if it does I am unaware of it.
Killing children full stop. Doesn't bear thinking of, does it?
not really forgivable in my view
-
how comes? Iv never considered it to play a role in my judgement if it does I am unaware of it.
not really forgivable in my view
We all have different experiences. It would oversimplify it to just say the male experience is different from the female experience.
-
It made it hard for me to look at objectively
Killing children full stop. Doesn't bear thinking of, does it?
Maybe I am a cold bastard but killing is killing. I view all the victims equally and see the only relevance of some victims being kids pertaining to evidence of motive and ruling out any third party actions.
Killing the kids in bed rules out the idea of an intruder being caught and eliminating anyone who could be a witness. It establishes the murders as an assassination. Only Jeremy would profit from an assassination of the whole family including the kids. This is the relevance I see to the fact some victims were children.
-
Maybe I am a cold bastard but killing is killing. I view all the victims equally and see the only relevance of some victims being kids pertaining to evidence of motive and ruling out any third party actions.
Killing the kids in bed rules out the idea of an intruder being caught and eliminating anyone who could be a witness. It establishes the murders as an assassination. Only Jeremy would profit from an assassination of the whole family including the kids. This is the relevance I see to the fact some victims were children.
I hear what you say and no one has the right to rob another of their life. However, I think that most women will react in the same way, ie, emotionally, over the death of a child. This rises exponentially with the death of two children together.
-
Killing the kids in bed rules out the idea of an intruder being caught and eliminating anyone who could be a witness. It establishes the murders as an assassination. Only Jeremy would profit from an assassination of the whole family including the kids. This is the relevance I see to the fact some victims were children.
I've always assumed they where the first to go as they where asleep. Is this most probably the case do you think?
-
This killing wasn't for money.
Well, not in the end! It was for nothing!!
-
I've always assumed they where the first to go as they where asleep. Is this most probably the case do you think?
I am thoroughly convinced June died first and then Nevill. I suspect the boys were killed next and finally Sheila but I am recognize it could have been Sheila killed third and then the boys.
The gun held a maximum of 11 rounds (10 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber) so either had 10 or 11 rounds at the outset. The twins were shot 8 times. Had they been killed first there only would have been 2-3 bullets left in the gun to use on June and Nevill. But 11 shots were fired in the master bedroom at June and Nevill (7 at June and 4 at Nevill) before the gun was empty and then things progressed to the kitchen. This is a clear sign that the initial shooting was in the master bedroom.
In the kitchen the gun was empty initially when both Nevill and his killer entered the kitchen. Nevill tried to take it away and as they struggled for control the moderator scratched the mantle, broke the ceiling lampshade and various things were knocked over. Eventually the killer gained full control over the weapon and bashed Nevill with the butt of the weapon. Nevill tried to block the blows with his right arm and that is how his arm was gouged and bruised. His watch was torn off as well during the course of this. Eventually the killer managed to bash his head in with the stock and in the process part of the stock broke off. Nevill was rendered unconscious. This permitted the killer some time to reload the gun. To make sure he didn't wake up and put up another fight the killer only partially loaded it and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him. The killer then fully loaded the magazine with 10 rounds and went up upstairs using 8 on the boys and the remaining 2 on Sheila.
There is no way to know for sure whether Sheila was killed first or the boys. If Sheila was already up then it would make sense to kill her first. But if she was still in bed it would make sense to kill the boys first and then to kill her. He needed to stage her body and as he tried to do so she might scream enough to wake up the boys and then he would have to worry about chasing 2 boys before they could escape. If they run in different directions that is a problem so it makes sense to kill them first as they sleep and then to deal with Sheila last unless she was already out of her room which would force him to deal with her right away.
If they had more than 1 magazine reloading would not have been as big an issue but when you have only one magazine you are forced to load bullets into that magazine which takes more time than changing a spare magazine that was already preloaded plus you need to go to the bullet supply to do that. Knowing this your choice of first targets would be the most dangerous targets. Nevill and June were the most dangerous so they were chosen as the first victims. Not only are they the most dangerous because they were the strongest and were in the same room togtheter, his plan of pretending Nevill called meant he could not kill Nevill in his sleep If Nevill was killed in bed he could not have called. So he needed to shoot June in bed and give Nevill a chance to get up before shooting him. He would want the gun with the maximum load during the course of trying such a thing not kill the kids and risk the parents waking up from the noise of killing the kids and then have to deal with Nevill and June (an Sheila) with only 2-3 rounds left in the gun. Since even with the 11 rounds fired in the bedroom Nevill was still was able to reach the kitchen and put up such a fight it is safe to say the killer would have been really screwed with only 2-3 rounds (instead of 11) to deal with June and Nevill.
These kinds of considerations are ones that are usually not considered except by people who are skilled in gun use and actually think about the reloading issue. I'm still amazed they only had 1 magazine. I have 8 magazines for my rifle. I had to alter them from holding 20 rounds to 15 because of a stupid state law but that still means 120 rounds. The smallest number of magazines I have for any of my pistols is 3. One magazine limits your options somewhat. If it ended up misfeeding (some magazines have problems) he would have been up the proverbial creek.
Going back to the twins I don't know why one was shot 5 times and the other only 3. Maybe he intentionally was saving 2 for Sheila in case he needed more than 1 or maybe they died last and the gun was empty so that was why 1 only got 3. We have no way to know unless Jeremy decided to talk but have no expectation he ever will admit anything. He invested too much in his denials all these years, I can't imagine him confessing even on his death bed.
-
I hear what you say and no one has the right to rob another of their life. However, I think that most women will react in the same way, ie, emotionally, over the death of a child. This rises exponentially with the death of two children together.
My weakness when it comes to crimes is rape. I am enraged by rapes especially of children. That is where I view it even worse when the victim is a child. In college I was stabbed while breaking up a rape. I interrupted it before they actually managed to rape her they only tore off some of her clothing. She was around my age so not a child but still young. She went with me to the hospital and on the way I tried to convince her to press charges and wanted to know the names of the guys. She kept saying they were her friends. I had every intention of pressing charges for being stabbed. It was astonishing to me that she wanted to protect them after what they did. She vanished from the hospital while I was treated. I never found out her name, she didn't seek any mental help at the hospital and I never saw her again so never found out the identity of the attempted rapists. Had I known she was going to do that I would not have let them get away so easily.
A few years later I was dismissed from a jury because while being questioned I expressed supportive of life sentences for those who rape children. That scared the crap out of the defense attorney. It probably sounds odd that I feel murder is murder but rape of children is worse than adults but that is how I feel.
-
April, as far as I remember, you accused me of something that wasn´t there as if you had a preconception of what I was thinking.
I had to counter that, because I did feel offended by it. You said I had made it FAR from clear what I thought about a certain matter.
I put forward evidence of what I thought and had expressed, which was in fact very clear, but there was no response from you. It is still all there to see.
Mat chimed in and asked me something along the lines: As a supporter isn´t it natural that you want to believe what Mike says? (!)
How about reading what I write instead of going by your own preconceptions?
April, this is what you said to Mr. Gee and me:
After I had said:
Was I "FAR from clear", as you later claimed? I can´t see how much clearer I could have been, but you still KNEW how much I wanted it to be true - and Mat too!
One of the reasons I feel like leaving this place. People think you believe everything Mike says and that you think along the same lines. People think you are an idiot for posting here.
You bet I was mad, April! Again, read what I write actually, before you form your opinion!
Really not sure what your issue is, ALIAS. You SEEM to tend to play the victim, I am not sure why you are even bringing me into it. I said it is natural for supporters to want there to be evidence to show innocence, so what? You didn't say anything negative to that at the time because you KNEW I wasn't accusinse you of believing Mike. I knew you didn't believe there would be photos from Mike. I knew you hadn't edited the photos when Mike accused you of doing so. I stood up and said so, numerous times. I feel you've used my words that were nothing but supportive - to have a pop at APRIL and make it seem this is something that it really wasn't.
But to quote yourself.
Total and utter bullshit!
-
I understand that the firearms expert could not tell if the bullets were fired through the silencer or not? Is that always the case, or can you tell in some instances but the marks on the bullets?
This is something I am confused by too, Grahame. If a bullet passes through the barrel and has marks left on it, unique marks, then why doesn't a silencer leave marks too?
I am sure there will be a simple answer - but it's something I have wondered about.
-
This is something I am confused by too, Grahame. If a bullet passes through the barrel and has marks left on it, unique marks, then why doesn't a silencer leave marks too?
I am sure there will be a simple answer - but it's something I have wondered about.
The barrel of most guns are rifled. The rifling makes a bullet spin. If a bullet didn't spin it would tumble. That results in less stability, velocity, and thus less accuracy and range. Consider a rugby ball. WHat happens if you spin it? You can get it to go further and straighter when you pass it. American footballs are smaller than rugby balls so that you can throw them with one hand. They are spun when you throw them. If you fail to spin it then it just tumbles and goes practically no where.
The bullets touch the rifling that is how the bullet is forced to spin. As it touches the barrel it becomes notched with the rifling characteristics (class characteristics) as well as any unique features specific to that barrel and no other (incidental characteristics).
The central channel of a baffled moderator is wider than the rifle barrel so that the bullet will not touch anything but air as it passes through the moderator unless the moderator is not properly assembled or not properly attached to the weapon.
-
The barrel of most guns are rifled. The rifling makes a bullet spin. If a bullet didn't spin it would tumble. That results in less stability, velocity, and thus less accuracy and range. Consider a rugby ball. WHat happens if you spin it? You can get it to go further and straighter when you pass it. American footballs are smaller than rugby balls so that you can throw them with one hand. They are spun when you throw them. If you fail to spin it then it just tumbles and goes practically no where.
The bullets touch the rifling that is how the bullet is forced to spin. As it touches the barrel it becomes notched with the rifling characteristics (class characteristics) as well as any unique features specific to that barrel and no other (incidental characteristics).
The central channel of a baffled moderator is wider than the rifle barrel so that the bullet will not touch anything but air as it passes through the moderator unless the moderator is not properly assembled or not properly attached to the weapon.
Knew it would be a somewhat simple answer, thanks Scip.
-
My weakness when it comes to crimes is rape. I am enraged by rapes especially of children. That is where I view it even worse when the victim is a child. In college I was stabbed while breaking up a rape. I interrupted it before they actually managed to rape her they only tore off some of her clothing. She was around my age so not a child but still young. She went with me to the hospital and on the way I tried to convince her to press charges and wanted to know the names of the guys. She kept saying they were her friends. I had every intention of pressing charges for being stabbed. It was astonishing to me that she wanted to protect them after what they did. She vanished from the hospital while I was treated. I never found out her name, she didn't seek any mental help at the hospital and I never saw her again so never found out the identity of the attempted rapists. Had I known she was going to do that I would not have let them get away so easily.
A few years later I was dismissed from a jury because while being questioned I expressed supportive of life sentences for those who rape children. That scared the crap out of the defense attorney. It probably sounds odd that I feel murder is murder but rape of children is worse than adults but that is how I feel.
I feel certain that this will be taken the wrong way, but I think it MAY be "kinder" for a child to be killed than raped. Killed results in being dead. Raped can result in a living death. Life long physical injuries and mental scars. Scans and x rays can show if the body has healed but there's no yardstick to tell how well the mind has healed.
I don't know what I feel is the appropriate punishment for a child rapist. I'm torn between the death sentence OR locking them into a room with other prisoners and turning a blind eye to what happens. Vindictive? Yes.
-
Really not sure what your issue is, ALIAS. You SEEM to tend to play the victim, I am not sure why you are even bringing me into it. I said it is natural for supporters to want there to be evidence to show innocence, so what? You didn't say anything negative to that at the time because you KNEW I wasn't accusinse you of believing Mike. I knew you didn't believe there would be photos from Mike. I knew you hadn't edited the photos when Mike accused you of doing so. I stood up and said so, numerous times. I feel you've used my words that were nothing but supportive - to have a pop at APRIL and make it seem this is something that it really wasn't.
But to quote yourself.
You to me: "But as a supporter wouldn't you want what Mike said to be true?"
No why? If someone is obviously lying I don´t want it to be true!
Is that what you take me for?
Well, obviously.
-
You to me: "But as a supporter wouldn't you want what Mike said to be true?"
No why? If someone is obviously lying I don´t want it to be true!
Is that what you take me for?
Well, obviously.
If they are LYING then of course it can't be TRUE. :-\
I was trying to explain to you how APRILS post to you was non-malicious. But I think you knew she meant no harm with her posts.
-
If they are LYING then of course it can't be TRUE. :-\
I was trying to explain to you how APRILS post to you was non-malicious. But I think you knew she meant no harm with her posts.
I don´t know, Mat. As everyone can see, I made it perfectly clear what I thought about the whole thing, still I have to listen to people telling me that I wanted it to be true! (+ being accused by Mike of doctoring the screenshots I took.)
Why was it neccessary to say that someone KNEW that I wanted it to be true - when I clearly didn´t? Just didn´t feel right and still doesn´t. What was the purpose of it?
-
I am thoroughly convinced June died first and then Nevill. I suspect the boys were killed next and finally Sheila but I am recognize it could have been Sheila killed third and then the boys.
The gun held a maximum of 11 rounds (10 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber) so either had 10 or 11 rounds at the outset. The twins were shot 8 times. Had they been killed first there only would have been 2-3 bullets left in the gun to use on June and Nevill. But 11 shots were fired in the master bedroom at June and Nevill (7 at June and 4 at Nevill) before the gun was empty and then things progressed to the kitchen. This is a clear sign that the initial shooting was in the master bedroom.
In the kitchen the gun was empty initially when both Nevill and his killer entered the kitchen. Nevill tried to take it away and as they struggled for control the moderator scratched the mantle, broke the ceiling lampshade and various things were knocked over. Eventually the killer gained full control over the weapon and bashed Nevill with the butt of the weapon. Nevill tried to block the blows with his right arm and that is how his arm was gouged and bruised. His watch was torn off as well during the course of this. Eventually the killer managed to bash his head in with the stock and in the process part of the stock broke off. Nevill was rendered unconscious. This permitted the killer some time to reload the gun. To make sure he didn't wake up and put up another fight the killer only partially loaded it and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him. The killer then fully loaded the magazine with 10 rounds and went up upstairs using 8 on the boys and the remaining 2 on Sheila.
There is no way to know for sure whether Sheila was killed first or the boys. If Sheila was already up then it would make sense to kill her first. But if she was still in bed it would make sense to kill the boys first and then to kill her. He needed to stage her body and as he tried to do so she might scream enough to wake up the boys and then he would have to worry about chasing 2 boys before they could escape. If they run in different directions that is a problem so it makes sense to kill them first as they sleep and then to deal with Sheila last unless she was already out of her room which would force him to deal with her right away.
If they had more than 1 magazine reloading would not have been as big an issue but when you have only one magazine you are forced to load bullets into that magazine which takes more time than changing a spare magazine that was already preloaded plus you need to go to the bullet supply to do that. Knowing this your choice of first targets would be the most dangerous targets. Nevill and June were the most dangerous so they were chosen as the first victims. Not only are they the most dangerous because they were the strongest and were in the same room togtheter, his plan of pretending Nevill called meant he could not kill Nevill in his sleep If Nevill was killed in bed he could not have called. So he needed to shoot June in bed and give Nevill a chance to get up before shooting him. He would want the gun with the maximum load during the course of trying such a thing not kill the kids and risk the parents waking up from the noise of killing the kids and then have to deal with Nevill and June (an Sheila) with only 2-3 rounds left in the gun. Since even with the 11 rounds fired in the bedroom Nevill was still was able to reach the kitchen and put up such a fight it is safe to say the killer would have been really screwed with only 2-3 rounds (instead of 11) to deal with June and Nevill.
These kinds of considerations are ones that are usually not considered except by people who are skilled in gun use and actually think about the reloading issue. I'm still amazed they only had 1 magazine. I have 8 magazines for my rifle. I had to alter them from holding 20 rounds to 15 because of a stupid state law but that still means 120 rounds. The smallest number of magazines I have for any of my pistols is 3. One magazine limits your options somewhat. If it ended up misfeeding (some magazines have problems) he would have been up the proverbial creek.
Going back to the twins I don't know why one was shot 5 times and the other only 3. Maybe he intentionally was saving 2 for Sheila in case he needed more than 1 or maybe they died last and the gun was empty so that was why 1 only got 3. We have no way to know unless Jeremy decided to talk but have no expectation he ever will admit anything. He invested too much in his denials all these years, I can't imagine him confessing even on his death bed.
If Jeremy committed the crime I speculate this. The Twins most probably died first, one still had his thumb in his mouth indicating he was asleep and by all reports said they probably died in their sleep.
Its extremely unlikely they would have slept thought the massacre had they not been first.
I have always thought that Jeremy would have shot them both first point blank range one shot each to the head, Then once everyone was eliminated he would have reloaded the gun and fired more shots to make it look more like the work of a deranged mind than that of a calculated killer.
Does that make sense?
-
I don´t know, Mat. As everyone can see, I made it perfectly clear what I thought about the whole thing, still I have to listen to people telling me that I wanted it to be true! (+ being accused by Mike of doctoring the screenshots I took.)
Why was it neccessary to say that someone KNEW that I wanted it to be true - when I clearly didn´t? Just didn´t feel right and still doesn´t. What was the purpose of it?
As far as I can see, April simply meant that it would be nice if such a photograph did exist and especially for his supporters. She wasn't being condescending - let me put it this way, who wouldn't have been pleased if he photograph turned out to be real? Even I would and I think he's guilty.
-
If they are LYING then of course it can't be TRUE. :-\
I was trying to explain to you how APRILS post to you was non-malicious. But I think you knew she meant no harm with her posts.
Bless you, Mat :-* You know, when I first joined this forum -withing the first month, I think- Mike was promising that he had evidence which would bring about Jeremy's release immediately, if not SOONER!!!! Believing Jeremy innocent, I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I was -I went round telling people about it, for God's sake- I was a forum virgin. I didn't think people would tell lies over something SO important. I can STILL recall how I felt when the penny dropped an d it dawned on me that it was never going to happen. To say I felt let down would be a gross understatement. I WAS GUTTED. AS A SUPPORTER I WANTED WHAT MIKE SAID TO BE TRUE.I would NEVER have taken offence if someone had suggested it to me.
When I offered support to Grahame -and included Alias- I was recalling my own feelings of disappointment. Despite that she's plastered on line the post I supposedly responded to, is it likely, HAD I responded to that post, that I would have offered HER my support? Surely common sense decrees that I'd have confined it to Grahame.
I can only believe that if Alias found malice and offence in what I said, she must have been looking for ANYTHING she could throw at me. Mat, I DO appreciate your support but I'm truly sorry that you've been made part of this.
-
Bless you, Mat :-* You know, when I first joined this forum -withing the first month, I think- Mike was promising that he had evidence which would bring about Jeremy's release immediately, if not SOONER!!!! Believing Jeremy innocent, I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I was -I went round telling people about it, for God's sake- I was a forum virgin. I didn't think people would tell lies over something SO important. I can STILL recall how I felt when the penny dropped an d it dawned on me that it was never going to happen. To say I felt let down would be a gross understatement. I WAS GUTTED. AS A SUPPORTER I WANTED WHAT MIKE SAID TO BE TRUE.I would NEVER have taken offence if someone had suggested it to me.
Apes,
I think a lot of people will be able to relate to this. When you're new to the board and you read something that sounds SO prominising that there is no way it can't be true it does open your eyes. As a supporter I can't imagine the moment when you realise that maybe not everything is as it seems.
I can only believe that if Alias found malice and offence in what I said, she must have been looking for ANYTHING she could throw at me. Mat, I DO appreciate your support but I'm truly sorry that you've been made part of this.
Perhaps that why Caroline and I saw that there was nothing but support in your posts because we were looking at it with friendly eyes? Sadly I agree, I think Alias was looking for a reason to have a go at you - and she clung onto it - I don't feel that you should have had to spend so much time in EXPLAINING ONE post that you have time and time again said was meant without malice. My post was clearly supportive too - and rather than getting annoyed at how it has been turned into something it wasn't I think I will just take the hard lesson and learn who to converse with from now on.
-
Actually reading back on the photograph thread, to be fair to Mike, I don't think he was suggesting that Alias had interfered with the pictures (because I posted the same ones), I think he was talking about the programme maker.
-
Bless you, Mat :-* You know, when I first joined this forum -withing the first month, I think- Mike was promising that he had evidence which would bring about Jeremy's release immediately, if not SOONER!!!! Believing Jeremy innocent, I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I was -I went round telling people about it, for God's sake- I was a forum virgin. I didn't think people would tell lies over something SO important. I can STILL recall how I felt when the penny dropped an d it dawned on me that it was never going to happen. To say I felt let down would be a gross understatement. I WAS GUTTED. AS A SUPPORTER I WANTED WHAT MIKE SAID TO BE TRUE.I would NEVER have taken offence if someone had suggested it to me.
When I offered support to Grahame -and included Alias- I was recalling my own feelings of disappointment. Despite that she's plastered on line the post I supposedly responded to, is it likely, HAD I responded to that post, that I would have offered HER my support? Surely common sense decrees that I'd have confined it to Grahame.
I can only believe that if Alias found malice and offence in what I said, she must have been looking for ANYTHING she could throw at me. Mat, I DO appreciate your support but I'm truly sorry that you've been made part of this.
It was the only post I had written about it + a short one where I said, "We won´t see that photo, end of." - or something like that.
The whole thing came across to me as if you were trying to make Gee and me look stupid for believing Mike (after I had made it perfectly clear I didn´t - I wasn´t disappointed, I never believed what he said!)
I never saw it as support, but as a totally unnecessary jab.
-
For my part in it Alias, can we just say - I am sorry that it came across as it did - and we can move on with no hard feelings? :)
-
Hello Mat very well said Alias is a top girl and would never be deliberately vindictive I guess a misunderstanding has occurred :) and the whole matter should be forgotten :)
-
Hello Mat very well said Alias is a top girl and would never be deliberately vindictive I guess a misunderstanding has occurred :) and the whole matter should be forgotten :)
Hi Susan.
The problem with misunderstandings is they just get bigger and bigger over time and once feelings are hurt people tend to rub against each other even when they don't mean to. I think I have enough enemies here, I don't want to be on the odds with Alias too. ;D
-
Mat you don't have enemies here at all we all loves ya :-* :-* :-*
-
You're the one who creates enemies,Mat,nobody else here.
-
If Jeremy committed the crime I speculate this. The Twins most probably died first, one still had his thumb in his mouth indicating he was asleep and by all reports said they probably died in their sleep.
Its extremely unlikely they would have slept thought the massacre had they not been first.
I have always thought that Jeremy would have shot them both first point blank range one shot each to the head, Then once everyone was eliminated he would have reloaded the gun and fired more shots to make it look more like the work of a deranged mind than that of a calculated killer.
Does that make sense?
It doesn't make sense for several reasons.
1) The experts say the shots were fired in succession at the boys. The nature of the wounds and the tight grouping of the shots resulted in the experts saying they were fired in succession
2) Children generally sleep the soundest and are the least likely to wake up/get up if they wake up.
He knew his mother was the least sound sleeper int he house so the most likely to wake up who in turn would wake up Nevill. The parents confronting him is a far greater threat than the kids waking up so the parents would be the logical first target.
3) Had the children been shot first with 1 round each that leaves 8-9 rounds in the gun (depending upon whether it originally had 10 or 11). No less than 10 shots were fired in the master bedroom in the initial exchange with the parents (4 into Nevill and 6 into June). If the boys were shot first there would not be enough bullets left in the gun for 10 shots to have been fired.
The only wound suffered in the upstairs bedroom that could potentially have been delivered later on was June's shot between the eyes. The other shots were all delivered while she was in bed or in the process of getting up so had to all be the same time. Back spatter on the door among other things indicates she was lying on the floor when the shot between her eyes was fired. It is the only round that could have been delivered anytime because she was already dead lying down when it happened and thus didn;t have to happen immediately.
If the gun had 11 rounds at the outset and 2 had been use don the boys how could 10 have been left to use in the master bedroom? Only 9 would have been left and only 9 shots woudl have been fired but at minimum 10 were fired so this contradicts your theory.
Realistically, if the gun had 11 rounds at the outset then the shot between June's eye was delivered right away and thus all 11 rounds in the master bedroom were fired the same time. If the gun had 10 rounds at the outset that means Jeremy came back from the kitchen after killing Nevill with 11 rounds int he gun and that he shot June at that point just to make sure she was dead after seeing what it took to make sure Nevill died he didn't want to take any chances. He also wouldn't want to take any chances with the boys which explains why he fired several shots into them. Nevill being able to put up the struggle he did and June being able to get out of bed didn't exactly instill confidence in his weapon.
It is obvious to me that the boys slept through everything that had happened and were killed after June and Nevill. If Sheila was up by the time Jeremy went back upstairs then he would have dealt with her first otherwise taken care of the twins first. We don't have enough information to know whether Sheila was up already at that point or not so have no good way to assess whether she was killed before them or after.
-
Hello Scipio may I ask where do you think Sheila was when Jeremy was murdering his family including her two boys. The programme on the TV last night said Sheila was drugged but according to the autopsy report that is just not true. This really does confuse me.
-
Hello Scipio may I ask where do you think Sheila was when Jeremy was murdering his family including her two boys. The programme on the TV last night said Sheila was drugged but according to the autopsy report that is just not true. This really does confuse me.
Me too. One of my big problems with the Jeremy did it scenario - as I have said so often (read, ad nauseam :P)
-
Hello Scipio may I ask where do you think Sheila was when Jeremy was murdering his family including her two boys. The programme on the TV last night said Sheila was drugged but according to the autopsy report that is just not true. This really does confuse me.
what program was that?
-
David it was on last for an hour think it was called slaughter at the farmhouse we have had it on here with You Tube maybe viewers in England saw this years ago we are a little behind in The Highlands ;D it was absolutely dreadful it is the one where Barbara Wilson really talks so badly about Jeremy and it did portray very much Jeremy guilty.
-
what program was that?
"Slaughter at the Farm" It HAS to have been one of the worst I've ever seen despite the fact that a friend of mine gave an interview. I can only think the reason he never told me was because he was embarrassed by by the whole thing.
-
It doesn't make sense for several reasons.
1) The experts say the shots were fired in succession at the boys. The nature of the wounds and the tight grouping of the shots resulted in the experts saying they were fired in succession
2) Children generally sleep the soundest and are the least likely to wake up/get up if they wake up.
He knew his mother was the least sound sleeper int he house so the most likely to wake up who in turn would wake up Nevill. The parents confronting him is a far greater threat than the kids waking up so the parents would be the logical first target.
3) Had the children been shot first with 1 round each that leaves 8-9 rounds in the gun (depending upon whether it originally had 10 or 11). No less than 10 shots were fired in the master bedroom in the initial exchange with the parents (4 into Nevill and 6 into June). If the boys were shot first there would not be enough bullets left in the gun for 10 shots to have been fired.
The only wound suffered in the upstairs bedroom that could potentially have been delivered later on was June's shot between the eyes. The other shots were all delivered while she was in bed or in the process of getting up so had to all be the same time. Back spatter on the door among other things indicates she was lying on the floor when the shot between her eyes was fired. It is the only round that could have been delivered anytime because she was already dead lying down when it happened and thus didn;t have to happen immediately.
If the gun had 11 rounds at the outset and 2 had been use don the boys how could 10 have been left to use in the master bedroom? Only 9 would have been left and only 9 shots woudl have been fired but at minimum 10 were fired so this contradicts your theory.
Realistically, if the gun had 11 rounds at the outset then the shot between June's eye was delivered right away and thus all 11 rounds in the master bedroom were fired the same time. If the gun had 10 rounds at the outset that means Jeremy came back from the kitchen after killing Nevill with 11 rounds int he gun and that he shot June at that point just to make sure she was dead after seeing what it took to make sure Nevill died he didn't want to take any chances. He also wouldn't want to take any chances with the boys which explains why he fired several shots into them. Nevill being able to put up the struggle he did and June being able to get out of bed didn't exactly instill confidence in his weapon.
It is obvious to me that the boys slept through everything that had happened and were killed after June and Nevill. If Sheila was up by the time Jeremy went back upstairs then he would have dealt with her first otherwise taken care of the twins first. We don't have enough information to know whether Sheila was up already at that point or not so have no good way to assess whether she was killed before them or after.
How could an expert determine that with certainty? The autopsy was carried out before it became a murder investigation. Shooting someone in the head then 5-10 minutues later shoot them again in the same area how could they distinguish between the two? It may appear in quick succession does not mean it was.
I'm convinced this would be the case with Jeremy if he done it, He would have killed them all fairly efficiently and once setup and completed the staged suicide killing Shelia last he would have re-loaded and fired more shots into Neville, June and the Twins to make it look more sloppy and poorly executed like a ill minded person would have done it.
I can't believe for one minute that the kids would have slept through the shooting and screaming and whatever happened down the staircase and in the kitchen its not feasible.
The 25 shots if Jeremy done it would be a result of him making it look like he didn't do it. He also admitted that he trashed up the caravan park office so it would appear it was not him.
That's my guess
-
David it was on last for an hour think it was called slaughter at the farmhouse we have had it on here with You Tube maybe viewers in England saw this years ago we are a little behind in The Highlands ;D it was absolutely dreadful it is the one where Barbara Wilson really talks so badly about Jeremy and it did portray very much Jeremy guilty.
Can you provide a link please?
-
Hello Scipio may I ask where do you think Sheila was when Jeremy was murdering his family including her two boys. The programme on the TV last night said Sheila was drugged but according to the autopsy report that is just not true. This really does confuse me.
She was drugged in the sense that her psychotic medication was a strong sedative. The implication from that is she likely slept very soundly and didn't wake up until Jeremy woke her.
Sheila was in bed while her parents were shot in their bedroom. While the scuffle in the kitchen took place it is possible she woke up, left her room and then saw June on the floor and then when Jeremy came back upstairs he encountered her and killed her before the boys. It is just as possible she was still in bed when he came back upstairs and that he killed the boys then went and woke her up to kill her.
Killing Sheila in her room would be suggestive of her being killed by someone else just like everyone else. It would be suggestive of the killer going bedroom to bedroom. Killing her in a different room makes sense. The narrative he wanted to create by killing her in the same room as June would be to suggest she killed June and then herself. But the evidence stablishes June was the first to die not the next to last.
-
Scipio thank you for the explanation.
-
David sorry I cannot help you one of the more experienced posters will I am sure. Must admit it was so bad I fell asleep whilst watching it :'(
-
Scipio thank you for the explanation.
I left out that some people also suggest her sedation would make her more cooperative. I don't know if that would be the case or not. I'm more inclided to look at the compliance issue from a regular standpoint.
Someone holds a gun on you what do you do? Do you follow orders or do you fight back and risk getting shot? The answer depends on whether you have the opportunity to try to fight back and in your own nature. Some people will try to fight back and some will be scared and never try even if the opportunity presents itself. There are people who watch someone mowing down others and instead of trying to go out fighting they just sit there cowering and praying something will happen to save them.
Jeremy could have threatened to kill the twins if she refused to comply and that could have been a strong tool to use. Threats like that are often used by people to get others to comply. There are already so many variables that there is no need to really look to the sedation issue that much for this particular issue.
-
She was drugged in the sense that her psychotic medication was a strong sedative. The implication from that is she likely slept very soundly and didn't wake up until Jeremy woke her.
Sheila was in bed while her parents were shot in their bedroom. While the scuffle in the kitchen took place it is possible she woke up, left her room and then saw June on the floor and then when Jeremy came back upstairs he encountered her and killed her before the boys. It is just as possible she was still in bed when he came back upstairs and that he killed the boys then went and woke her up to kill her.
Killing Sheila in her room would be suggestive of her being killed by someone else just like everyone else. It would be suggestive of the killer going bedroom to bedroom. Killing her in a different room makes sense. The narrative he wanted to create by killing her in the same room as June would be to suggest she killed June and then herself. But the evidence stablishes June was the first to die not the next to last.
You can rule that one out. There was no trace or sign of Jeremy in Sheila´s room. Are you suggesting he washed up before he went and woke her up?
Other than that, I cannot imagine Sheila would not have woken up by the noise that would have been at the farm. I find it very, very unlikely.
-
Alias I must admit I did find the explanation given by Scipio difficult to follow I guess none of us will ever find out what exactly did happen.
-
You can rule that one out. There was no trace or sign of Jeremy in Sheila´s room. Are you suggesting he washed up before he went and woke her up?
Other than that, I cannot imagine Sheila would not have woken up by the noise that would have been at the farm. I find it very, very unlikely.
Jeremy didn't leave a blood trail when he went back up the stairs, went into the the twins room or the master bedroom so why would you expect one in her room?
It is quite possible for her to have slept through the noise just like the boys did. There is no way to know if she woke up and got up to investigate the noise herself or Jeremy woke her up. Only Jeremy knows that and I don't believe he will ever talk.
-
Scipio I can go with that perhaps Jeremy did make Sheila comply by using her boys as a tool and I have read in Colin's book that Sheila was afraid of Jeremy.
-
You can rule that one out. There was no trace or sign of Jeremy in Sheila´s room. Are you suggesting he washed up before he went and woke her up?
Other than that, I cannot imagine Sheila would not have woken up by the noise that would have been at the farm. I find it very, very unlikely.
That's why I believe the Twins where the first to die. No one would sleep through that, As for Shelia she was on monthly antipsychotic injections, I don't know when her last recorded Injection was. However she was on this drug for four years and the dosage recently halved so considering tolerance building up over four years plus the dose recently halved, Its not going to prevent her from waking up
-
That's why I believe the Twins where the first to die. No one would sleep through that, As for Shelia she was on monthly antipsychotic injections, I don't know when her last recorded Injection was. However she was on this drug for four years and the dosage recently halved so considering tolerance building up over four years plus the dose recently halved, Its not going to prevent her form waking up
My own personal thoughts on the intramuscular injection,Haloperidol,was that it was having an adverse effect on her rather than it having the desired effect that it has on some patients. It's a very hit and miss department of medicine and what suits one doesn't necessarily mean that it suits all.
Not forgetting that Sheila should also have been taking medication to counteract the side-effects of the Haldol,but wasn't. There was no other drug in her system which meant that she hadn't been taking any of the prescription drugs which were prescribed.
-
My own personal thoughts on the intramuscular injection,Haloperidol,was that it was having an adverse effect on her rather than it having the desired effect that it has on some patients. It's a very hit and miss department of medicine and what suits one doesn't necessarily mean that it suits all.
Not forgetting that Sheila should also have been taking medication to counteract the side-effects of the Haldol,but wasn't. There was no other drug in her system which meant that she hadn't been taking any of the prescription drugs which were prescribed.
She had been taking Cannabis, Rumors of Cocaine use also
-
That's why I believe the Twins where the first to die. No one would sleep through that, As for Shelia she was on monthly antipsychotic injections, I don't know when her last recorded Injection was. However she was on this drug for four years and the dosage recently halved so considering tolerance building up over four years plus the dose recently halved, Its not going to prevent her form waking up
In reality her dose at the time was one quarter of her usual dose. The halving time of Haloperidol is 21 days - exactly the amount of time since she had gotten her last (halved) shot. (Again, expecting an essay from Skippy, we´ve been here before....)
___________________________________________________________________
The only scenario of Jeremy shooting Sheila I can go with is that she woke up and that she herself made her way into the master bedroom and that Jeremy happened upon her there.
All those crazy stories of her sleeping through it all, being "led" or "carried", sleeping like a baby just aren´t likely to me.
Why would Jeremy take the chance of upsetting Sheila by leading her literally over the dead and bloodied body of her mother. That is just daft to even consider, I think.
-
She had been taking Cannabis, Rumors of Cocaine use also
There were traces of cannabis found. Sheila had been a heavy smoker of cannabis in the last 12 months prior to her death. Cocaine was used at parties. She was also partial to cigars as well,as a social-worker during one of her visits had said that Sheila was smoking a cigar in the woman's presence.
-
That's why I believe the Twins where the first to die. No one would sleep through that, As for Shelia she was on monthly antipsychotic injections, I don't know when her last recorded Injection was. However she was on this drug for four years and the dosage recently halved so considering tolerance building up over four years plus the dose recently halved, Its not going to prevent her form waking up
She was only on Haldol for a few months. She was switched to Haldol upon her 1985 hospital release. She complained about it making her drowsy which is why it was reduced but 100MG is still a powerful dose and she was still exhibiting signs of it making her drowsy. Some of the signs of being over sedated was her speech patterns which people observed and another they observed was she had beeing going to bed early because she it made her drowsy. After her 100MG injection she still was going to bed early. The weekend before the murders she left Colin's party early because she was tired and the night of the murders she went to bed early because she was tired.
If the fear was that the noise was goign to be so great that people would wake up then the parents would be killed first because they posted the biggest threat.
There is no way the boys could have been killed first because if they had been then the number of shots fired in the master bedroom would have been less. On TV guns have limitless bullets but in real life they do not and the number of shots fired helps piece together what happened.
If the noise in the kitchen woke Sheila up she likely would have gone to the kitchen to see what was going on. There is no evidence she did that. Nor any evidence she went to check on the boys which woudl have been another likely thing for her to do.
There are plenty of documented cases of people not waking up when others in their house were murdered most often it is CHILDREN who don't wake up but it does happen with adults as well. The notion they could not have slept through the gunshots which were not loud because of the moderator plus no one was shot in a room adjacent to their room combined with the kitchen being far from their room is enough that no one can say they had to have woken up.
No less than ten shots were fired in rapid succession in the master bedroom at June and Nevill. There is no way that could have happened after 2 or more shots were used on a different victim. The gun had to have a full magazine in it at minimum for such these 10 shots to have been fired. That is the best indication of where the shooting commenced.
The gun had to be empty in order for things to then progress to the kitchen.
The gun was partially reloaded and 4 shots fired to kill Nevill. The magazine was fully reloaded with 8 of those 10 used on the boys and 2 on Sheila. That is how the gun was then empty. There is no way to know for sure if the boys died last or Sheila.
-
She was only on Haldol for a few months. She was switched to Haldol upon her 1985 hospital release. She complained about it making her drowsy which is why it was reduced but 100MG is still a powerful dose and she was still exhibiting signs of it making her drowsy. Some of the signs of being over sedated was her speech patterns which people observed and another they observed was she had beeing going to bed early because she it made her drowsy. After her 100MG injection she still was going to bed early. The weekend before the murders she left Colin's party early because she was tired and the night of the murders she went to bed early because she was tired.
If the fear was that the noise was goign to be so great that people would wake up then the parents would be killed first because they posted the biggest threat.
There is no way the boys could have been killed first because if they had been then the number of shots fired in the master bedroom would have been less. On TV guns have limitless bullets but in real life they do not and the number of shots fired helps piece together what happened.
If the noise in the kitchen woke Sheila up she likely would have gone to the kitchen to see what was going on. There is no evidence she did that. Nor any evidence she went to check on the boys which woudl have been another likely thing for her to do.
There are plenty of documented cases of people not waking up when others in their house were murdered most often it is CHILDREN who don't wake up but it does happen with adults as well. The notion they could not have slept through the gunshots which were not loud because of the moderator plus no one was shot in a room adjacent to their room combined with the kitchen being far from their room is enough that no one can say they had to have woken up.
No less than ten shots were fired in rapid succession in the master bedroom at June and Nevill. There is no way that could have happened after 2 or more shots were used on a different victim. The gun had to have a full magazine in it at minimum for such these 10 shots to have been fired. That is the best indication of where the shooting commenced.
The gun had to be empty in order for things to then progress to the kitchen.
The gun was partially reloaded and 4 shots fired to kill Nevill. The magazine was fully reloaded with 8 of those 10 used on the boys and 2 on Sheila. That is how the gun was then empty. There is no way to know for sure if the boys died last or Sheila.
I don't believe that would be the case if Jeremy done it. I will quote my theory as I previously posted
"I'm convinced this would be the case with Jeremy if he done it, He would have killed them all fairly efficiently and once setup and completed the staged suicide killing Shelia last he would have re-loaded and fired more shots into Neville, June and the Twins to make it look more sloppy and poorly executed like a ill minded person would have done it.
I can't believe for one minute that the kids would have slept through the shooting and screaming and whatever happened down the staircase and in the kitchen its not feasible.
The 25 shots if Jeremy done it would be a result of him making it look like he didn't do it. He also admitted that he trashed up the caravan park office so it would appear it was not him.
That's my guess"
-
In reality her dose at the time was one quarter of her usual dose. The halving time of Haloperidol is 21 days - exactly the amount of time since she had gotten her last (halved) shot. (Again, expecting an essay from Skippy, we´ve been here before....)
___________________________________________________________________
It wasn't 1/4 her usual dose. That is pathetic spinning even from you. But you conveniently ignore the medical evidence that there is little effective difference between 50MG and 100MG and no advantage gained in excess of 100MG and that it is not even safe to administer above 100MG for any length of time. Ferguson overdosed her base don out current medical knowledge. You and other Jeremy supporters (yeah I know you don't want to admit you are one but too bad your post demonstrate you are your admission is not required) choose to ignore our current medical knowledge ot try to pretend her medicine dosage might not have been sufficient. That is all it is- PRETENSE.
The exact issue though is the side effects of the medication and her own doctor said she was overmedicated. You want to ignore that too because it is inconvenient to what you WANT to believe.
The only scenario of Jeremy shooting Sheila I can go with is that she woke up and that she herself made her way into the master bedroom and that Jeremy happened upon her there.
All those crazy stories of her sleeping through it all, being "led" or "carried", sleeping like a baby just aren´t likely to me.
Why would Jeremy take the chance of upsetting Sheila by leading her literally over the dead and bloodied body of her mother. That is just daft to even consider, I think.
It's not crazy at all that she could have slept through it. The boys slept through it and there are plenty of documented cases of people sleeping through murders.
Killing her in her own room would be suggestive of her being killed in her bedroom by someone else just like everyone else. It would be suspicious not supportive of murder suicide. Killing her in a room with other victims makes the most sense to do for someone staging a a scene.
Your refusal to face something as possible doesn't somehow render it impossible. It just means you close your eyes to the possibility.
-
It wasn't 1/4 her usual dose. That is pathetic spinning even from you. But you conveniently ignore the medical evidence that there is little effective difference between 50MG and 100MG and no advantage gained in excess of 100MG and that it is not even safe to administer above 100MG for any length of time. Ferguson overdosed her base don out current medical knowledge. You and other Jeremy supporters (yeah I know you don't want to admit you are one but too bad your post demonstrate you are your admission is not required) choose to ignore our current medical knowledge ot try to pretend her medicine dosage might not have been sufficient. That is all it is- PRETENSE.
The exact issue though is the side effects of the medication and her own doctor said she was overmedicated. You want to ignore that too because it is inconvenient to what you WANT to believe.
It's not crazy at all that she could have slept through it. The boys slept through it and there are plenty of documented cases of people sleeping through murders.
Killing her in her own room would be suggestive of her being killed in her bedroom by someone else just like everyone else. It would be suspicious not supportive of murder suicide. Killing her in a room with other victims makes the most sense to do for someone staging a a scene.
Your refusal to face something as possible doesn't somehow render it impossible. It just means you close your eyes to the possibility.
You don't know they slept through it, no one can determine they didn't die first
-
Alias your scenario about Sheila waking up and wandering into her parents bedroom does seem feasible and by that time Jeremy had gone back upstairs if indeed he is the guilty one. Good thinking.
-
I don't believe that would be the case if Jeremy done it. I will quote my theory as I previously posted
"I'm convinced this would be the case with Jeremy if he done it, He would have killed them all fairly efficiently and once setup and completed the staged suicide killing Shelia last he would have re-loaded and fired more shots into Neville, June and the Twins to make it look more sloppy and poorly executed like a ill minded person would have done it.
I can't believe for one minute that the kids would have slept through the shooting and screaming and whatever happened down the staircase and in the kitchen its not feasible.
The 25 shots if Jeremy done it would be a result of him making it look like he didn't do it. He also admitted that he trashed up the caravan park office so it would appear it was not him.
That's my guess"
Documented cases prove your belief they could not have slept through it to be not based on anything except a fiction you invented in your mind. There are documented cases of weapon of larger caliber than the murder weapon being employed and no silencer being employed and the victims being killed in rooms adjacent to the bedroom of the witness and yet nothing was heard and the witness didn't wake up thus the witness didn't actually witness anything.
In the meantime you are ignoring the limitations placed by the weapon's magazine.
The evidence establishes at least 10- and possibly 11 shots were fired in the master bedroom at June and Nevill in a single sitting.
Explain how that could have happened if more than 1 shot was fired at the boys before the parents woke up. You are the one saying no way anyone could sleep through the noise so that means after shooting the boys Jeremy woudl have to have moved very fast to fire while June was still in bed and Nevill was in the processing of getting up. So explain to us your theory of how he was able to shoot the boys and rush in with a gun that had enough bullets to fire at least 10 shots.
-
so she slept through the beating up of Neville in the kitchen as well and then JB walked through the blood from June on the bedroom floor - got Sheila to sit down and shot her under the chin and even after the first shot she did not fight or flinch - even though her sons could have been alive? The JB gets out without leaving any blood on the sills or in the office when he puts the silencer away ( not noticing the blob of jam like blood on it)
really?
-
It wasn't 1/4 her usual dose. That is pathetic spinning even from you. But you conveniently ignore the medical evidence that there is little effective difference between 50MG and 100MG and no advantage gained in excess of 100MG and that it is not even safe to administer above 100MG for any length of time. Ferguson overdosed her base don out current medical knowledge. You and other Jeremy supporters (yeah I know you don't want to admit you are one but too bad your post demonstrate you are your admission is not required) choose to ignore our current medical knowledge ot try to pretend her medicine dosage might not have been sufficient. That is all it is- PRETENSE.
The exact issue though is the side effects of the medication and her own doctor said she was overmedicated. You want to ignore that too because it is inconvenient to what you WANT to believe.
It's not crazy at all that she could have slept through it. The boys slept through it and there are plenty of documented cases of people sleeping through murders.
Killing her in her own room would be suggestive of her being killed in her bedroom by someone else just like everyone else. It would be suspicious not supportive of murder suicide. Killing her in a room with other victims makes the most sense to do for someone staging a a scene.
Your refusal to face something as possible doesn't somehow render it impossible. It just means you close your eyes to the possibility.
I stopped reading right there, so you have just wasted your time.
-
so she slept through the beating up of Neville in the kitchen as well and then JB walked through the blood from June on the bedroom floor - got Sheila to sit down and shot her under the chin and even after the first shot she did not fight or flinch - even though her sons could have been alive? The JB gets out without leaving any blood on the sills or in the office when he puts the silencer away ( not noticing the blob of jam like blood on it)
really?
Also there wasn´t just noise from the gun! The dog(s) were yapping, yells and screams - they weren´t whispering for sure!
-
Alias your scenario about Sheila waking up and wandering into her parents bedroom does seem feasible and by that time Jeremy had gone back upstairs if indeed he is the guilty one. Good thinking.
The full scenario I presented was she might have been looking at her mother and then upon seeing Jeremy with the gun she ran to the other side of the room to get away or Jeremy ordered her to the other side of the room at gunpoint. Alias didn't like the suggestion he ordered her in, she is only willing to accept the possibility that she ran in to escape from him.
It doesn't really matter though, all that matters is that it is possible for Sheila to have been shot by Jeremy where her body was found.
-
The full scenario I presented was she might have been looking at her mother and then upon seeing Jeremy with the gun she ran to the other side of the room to get away or Jeremy ordered her to the other side of the room at gunpoint. Alias didn't like the suggestion he ordered her in, she is only willing to accept the possibility that she ran in to escape from him.
It doesn't really matter though, all that matters is that it is possible for Sheila to have been shot by Jeremy where her body was found.
Possible but unlikely.
BTW, don´t pretend to know better than anybody else here what happened. You don´t.
-
Scipio can we just say for the sake of discussion that Sheila was indeed the culprit and did shoot her family why did she decide to take her life in June's bedroom I read Colin;'s book and he said Sheila would have died with her boys and certainly not June because Sheila was more fond of her Dad than her Mum.
-
so she slept through the beating up of Neville in the kitchen as well and then JB walked through the blood from June on the bedroom floor - got Sheila to sit down and shot her under the chin and even after the first shot she did not fight or flinch - even though her sons could have been alive? The JB gets out without leaving any blood on the sills or in the office when he puts the silencer away ( not noticing the blob of jam like blood on it)
really?
Yes she really could have slept through the silenced gunshots and struggle sounds that took place in a room on a different floor than her bedroom so would not be that easy to hear. We have no idea if the dog was barking or not. The boys clearly slept through it so why couldn't Sheila who was on a sedative which made her sleep sound? People not on sedatives have slept through gunshots that were not silenced so why can't Sheila?
This is a wonderful issue that demonstrates bias in favor of Jeremy. All those who are biased in favor of Jeremy ignore that there are documented cases of people sleeping through murders committed in rooms adjacent to their bedrooms. In this case the murders were not committed adjacent rooms and the gun had a moderator. Those who are biased don't care and simply make up that there is no way Sheila could have slept through the noise even though the evidence demonstrates the boys slept through it.
The bias is demonstrated further when looking at claims you made in the past. You are the ones claiming that the house walls were so thick it would prevent police from hearing any gunshots fired inside while they were outside int he dead of night trying to see if they could observe or hear anything. Never mind that the window in the bedroom was open you ignored that. But if you want to argue the walls were so thick and soundproof then you are stuck with the argument and demonstrate bias when you use the claim for one point but ignore it when it is inconvenient. That is called hypocrisy aside from demonstrating you are biased and have an agenda.
That hypocrisy and agenda is further demonstrated by suggesting Jeremy would have to get his mother's blood on his shoes and that such would result in leaving bloody footprints but SHeila walking through the same blood in bare feet would not result in the blood getting on her feet or leaving footprints. This is a very poor argument in terms of logic but demonstrates your agenda very well.
Stepping on small drops of blood on a carpet will not necessarily result in much of that blood transferring to a shoe and if it does transfer to a shoe there is not much material for the shoe to transfer let alone o so so in any pattern that can be discerned. You need to coat the treads for the treads of shoes to be able to leave the pattern of the tread. We don't know how long he was at the scene before he left. He could have washed the blood off before leaving, could have changed his clothes and stuck his bloody clothes in a bag to throw away or the blood could have dried sufficiently that there was no blood to transfer to the windows.
You make excuse after excuse to advance your agenda instead of actually following the evidence where it leads.
-
Also there wasn´t just noise from the gun! The dog(s) were yapping, yells and screams - they weren´t whispering for sure!
You have no way to know whether Crispy was barking or not. There is certainly no reason the dogs outside would have been barking but hey when making up stuff pile on all you feel like. This is another example how you don't follow the evidence you make up what suits your agenda. You can;t stand when people point out your agenda though you want to pretend you are objective like Graham and you react like a victim or in some other immature manner.
At least lookout is willing to admit she is a Jeremy supporter instead if trying to hide behind professions of objectivity.
-
Scipio can we just say for the sake of discussion that Sheila was indeed the culprit and did shoot her family why did she decide to take her life in June's bedroom I read Colin;'s book and he said Sheila would have died with her boys and certainly not June because Sheila was more fond of her Dad than her Mum.
The problem I have with any of Colins claims is due to the fact that he never questioned Shelia doing it until the ball began rolling against Jeremy a month down the line. He accepted that Shelia had done it so at one point Shelia dying away from the Twins he accepted without question. His book I believe has allot of insight bias
-
You have no way to know whether Crispy was barking or not. There is certainly no reason the dogs outside would have been barking but hey when making up stuff pile on all you feel like. This is another example how you don't follow the evidence you make up what suits your agenda. You can;t stand when people point out your agenda though you want to pretend you are objective like Graham and you react like a victim or in some other immature manner.
At least lookout is willing to admit she is a Jeremy supporter instead if trying to hide behind professions of objectivity.
Oh, shut up! You weren´t there any more than I was. That dog was called the Pest because it barked all the time. It is so very likely that the dog woke up and barked hysterically.
You choose to be biased and in denial about something which logically would have happened.
-
Yes she really could have slept through the silenced gunshots and struggle sounds that took place in a room on a different floor than her bedroom so would not be that easy to hear.
The gunshots where not silenced. The silencer (soundmoderator) only prevents a sonic crack that scares pests rabbits/foxes away
-
Scipio can we just say for the sake of discussion that Sheila was indeed the culprit and did shoot her family why did she decide to take her life in June's bedroom I read Colin;'s book and he said Sheila would have died with her boys and certainly not June because Sheila was more fond of her Dad than her Mum.
I can't come up with one. If she shot her mother 4th and then herself last that would be a reason for such. But June was quite obviously the first one to die. Jeremy hoped police would not figure that out though.
The scene was supposed to look like Nevill phoned Jeremy then was beaten and killed. Then she went up and killed the boys. Then finally she killed June and herself.
The evidence proving Nevill was shot in the bedroom with June before the kitchen altercation screws up what he wanted everyone to believe had happened.
-
David I have to agree with you. I think if EP told him Jeremy was guilty it would be easy for him to start fitting together reasons why he then thought Sheila was not responsible. Maybe now nearly 30 years on he may have changed his mind wonder if he has been interviewed for the forthcoming books we may learn more if he has.
-
You don't know they slept through it, no one can determine they didn't die first
There is proof they didn't die first. I cited it. You refuse to address it because you can't.
There is proof that at least 10 and possibly 11 shots were fired in the master bedroom at June and Nevill in succession. In order for this to occur the gun had to have at least 10 bullets in it when the killer entered. It happened so fast that June was still lying in bed under the covers when the shooting commenced and Nevill was in the process of getting up with his left profile facing the killer.
The gun holds a maximum of 11 rounds. You explain how the killer could have had at least 10 bullets in the gun when the killer entered the master bedroom if the killer fired more than 1 shot in the room where the twins were staying.
If you can't come up with a plausible way for there to be 10 bullets in the gun then you have no way to establish it was possible for more than 1 shot to have been fired in the boy's room before the shooting that occurred in the master bedroom had taken place.
People like to say they want to look at things in detail but then when it turns out the finer details hurt what they want to suggest happened then suddenly they want to stop talking about the finer details.
-
The gunshots where not silenced. The silencer (soundmoderator) only prevents a sonic crack that scares pests rabbits/foxes away
A moderator doesn't stop a sonic crack. A moderator reduces the noise associated with the gases from the propellant. Whether there is a sonic crack or not depends on the ammunition. A sonic crack results when a bullet faster than the speed of sound leaves the barrel. Subsonic ammunition is below the speed of sound it doesn't produce a sonic crack. That is why you use subsonic ammunition in conjunction with a suppressor. The suppressor handles the noise from the gases while the subsonic ammunition eliminates the sonic crack that would otherwise be heard. If you don't use subsonic ammunition there will be a sonic crack regardless of whether you use a sound suppressor or not.
-
Scipio my mind keeps going back to the beating (if indeed a beating did occur) I feel that this points more to Jeremy than Sheila unless of course Ralph was already dead when he was beaten. Do you think the burn marks on his back were inflicted on the night of the murders, if so, why?
-
You have no way to know whether Crispy was barking or not. There is certainly no reason the dogs outside would have been barking but hey when making up stuff pile on all you feel like. This is another example how you don't follow the evidence you make up what suits your agenda. You can;t stand when people point out your agenda though you want to pretend you are objective like Graham and you react like a victim or in some other immature manner.
At least lookout is willing to admit she is a Jeremy supporter instead if trying to hide behind professions of objectivity.
Please give it a rest and stop picking on Alias, scipio. She's entitled to her own opinions just as you are.
-
There is proof they didn't die first. I cited it. You refuse to address it because you can't.
No there is not. Deluded skippy strikes again!
What you cited is your version of events and your opinion you have nothing concrete. How can I address you opinions and speculations? you can believe what you like as far as I am concerned just don't impose it on others
-
Scipio can we just say for the sake of discussion that Sheila was indeed the culprit and did shoot her family why did she decide to take her life in June's bedroom I read Colin;'s book and he said Sheila would have died with her boys and certainly not June because Sheila was more fond of her Dad than her Mum.
Applying logic to a situation like this is very difficult. She had delusionary thoughts about her sons as confirmed by the doctor so who knows if she even recognised them as her children?
-
A moderator doesn't stop a sonic crack. A moderator reduces the noise associated with the gases from the propellant. Whether there is a sonic crack or not depends on the ammunition. A sonic crack results when a bullet faster than the speed of sound leaves the barrel. Subsonic ammunition is below the speed of sound it doesn't produce a sonic crack. That is why you use subsonic ammunition in conjunction with a suppressor. The suppressor handles the noise from the gases while the subsonic ammunition eliminates the sonic crack that would otherwise be heard. If you don't use subsonic ammunition there will be a sonic crack regardless of whether you use a sound suppressor or not.
Not much point in using one then?
-
Jan that is a good point too I cannot dispute that. Do you think Sheila would have beaten her Dad she really loved him I know she had strange thoughts about her children and June I think.
-
Scipio my mind keeps going back to the beating (if indeed a beating did occur) I feel that this points more to Jeremy than Sheila unless of course Ralph was already dead when he was beaten. Do you think the burn marks on his back were inflicted on the night of the murders, if so, why?
I have no solid idea about the burn marks because no one examined them sufficiently to decide how fresh they are. I don't have evidence to make an informed decision of whether they predated the murders or not. My speculation is that they were made the night of the murders but that it was after he was already dead. My own personal speculation is the killer took a poker to his back to make sure he was really dead. This is from intuition since I don't have the evidence to be able to say for sure if they were from the night of the murders or not. They could intentionally have been made to cause confusion for all we know.
As for a beating it definitely occurred. There is no question Nevill's head was bashed in with the butt of the rifle and that it gouged his right arm as he attempted to defend himself from the blows. Had the gun still been loaded then there would not have been any need for this to occur he simply would have been shot further. They struggled over the weapon and he was thus beaten out of necessity. He was shot in the position he was found in. Someone didn't stage his body after shooting him so he was beaten and knocked in that position before being shot. Had Sheila done the beating she would have cut her feet unless she was wearing shoes. Moreover, Nevill's blood would have gotten on her. Medium velocity spatter got on the stock of the rifle, it definitely would have gotten on the person wielding it as well. Unless she was wearing gloves she would have gotten her prints in the blood that was on the stock. In addition unless wearing gloves when the stock broke it would have at least scratched her hand if not cut it. No gloves were found at WHF though for her to have worn and no clothing with spatter that she could have changed out of. To try avoiding these realities Jeremy advocates deny Nevill was beaten or suggest she committed the murders completely nude except for shoes.
There are a few cases where people got nude to commit murders so that they would not get any evidence on their clothes but by definition that was to avoid being caught they didn't do so and then commit suicide. If you try to not leave evidence of your guilt then you don't plan to kill yourself you plan to live and avoid prosecution.
-
There is proof they didn't die first. I cited it. You refuse to address it because you can't.
There is proof that at least 10 and possibly 11 shots were fired in the master bedroom at June and Nevill in succession. In order for this to occur the gun had to have at least 10 bullets in it when the killer entered. It happened so fast that June was still lying in bed under the covers when the shooting commenced and Nevill was in the process of getting up with his left profile facing the killer.
The gun holds a maximum of 11 rounds. You explain how the killer could have had at least 10 bullets in the gun when the killer entered the master bedroom if the killer fired more than 1 shot in the room where the twins were staying.
If you can't come up with a plausible way for there to be 10 bullets in the gun then you have no way to establish it was possible for more than 1 shot to have been fired in the boy's room before the shooting that occurred in the master bedroom had taken place.
People like to say they want to look at things in detail but then when it turns out the finer details hurt what they want to suggest happened then suddenly they want to stop talking about the finer details.
t
How do you know all the shots were made to each person all at one time?
assuming the person did know how to re-load how long would it take?
How do you think you know more than all the experts who tried to define the order of the killing when those trying to define that order at the time for inheritance purposes failed?
-
You have no way to know whether Crispy was barking or not. There is certainly no reason the dogs outside would have been barking but hey when making up stuff pile on all you feel like. This is another example how you don't follow the evidence you make up what suits your agenda. You can;t stand when people point out your agenda though you want to pretend you are objective like Graham and you react like a victim or in some other immature manner.
At least lookout is willing to admit she is a Jeremy supporter instead if trying to hide behind professions of objectivity.
Unfortunately the same thing can be said of your entire scenario. No one really knows what really happened that night as none of us were there? Whatever any of us say must alas remain in the realms of speculation and certainly it is not a subject that fairs well with dogmatism.
-
Jan that is a good point too I cannot dispute that. Do you think Sheila would have beaten her Dad she really loved him I know she had strange thoughts about her children and June I think.
to be clear"Sheila believed that one of the boys might rape her and was capable of murder"
If on the night they were talking about foster care ( and we know that was perfectly possible) the if her father agreed with June then perhaps that was the ultimate betrayal? Was it not said June was worried because Sheila was not interested in the children?
-
No there is not. Deluded skippy strikes again!
What you cited is your version of events and your opinion you have nothing concrete. How can I address you opinions and speculations? you can believe what you like as far as I am concerned just don't impose it on others
No I cited a fact. Anytime facts that you don't like are pointed out you hide from them. How many times have I noted either the the exact date that Sheila's last Haldol injection was given to you or the less precise that it was 3 weeks before the murders? At least 10 and you still keep saying we don't know when the last injection was.
It is a fact that Nevill was shot 4 times in the master bedroom and June shot 6-7 times during the same shooting episode. At least 10 shots were fired total at them prior to the killer and Nevill tangling in the kitchen where the gun was reloaded and then he was shot 4 more times.
Explain how things went down in light of the above. Incorporate the above facts into your assessment of how the murders were committed including detailing when the gun was reloaded at each stage when it was reloaded.
You can't which is why you want to hide from this. All Jeremy supporters want to hide from this even the defense at trial refused to address it.
If you follow the evidence and make your decision of what happened on the basis of the evidence then you don't end up with the same problems as when you decide in advance what you would like to believe and then try to find a way to get around the evidence.
-
Scipio what you are saying does make sense to me. I did wonder if the burn marks were an act of contempt but I do agree it is strange that Sheila did not have her Father's blood on her. Have seen programmes on the TV of cases in America where the murders were committed nude then the culprit showered no forensic evidence.
-
Isnt it strange that people accept the weirdest scenarios to explain how there was no evidence on JB - like wetsuits /marigolds/ getting rid of the clothes ( although the police were at his house the next day) cycling in the dark / doing the murders in the nude. plastic bags on feet etc etc
And yet when it is suggested that Sheila might have washed her hands or even her clothes in a bucket - horror of horrors that is impossible.
BTW don't forget the slippers/canvas shoes the police took and told Anne to say nothing about them
-
Scipio what you are saying does make sense to me. I did wonder if the burn marks were an act of contempt but I do agree it is strange that Sheila did not have her Father's blood on her. Have seen programmes on the TV of cases in America where the murders were committed nude then the culprit showered no forensic evidence.
House keeper said about the shower head not being in usual position - so could apply to EITHER of them
-
Not much point in using one then?
Well if you don't use both a moderator and subsonic ammunition then you are not going to get the optimal desired effects. It will still be less noisy with the moderator than without but the sonic crack is going to give away the shot anyway. Less noise still helps if you are shooting from a distance and also on your ears. Shooting without hearing protection harms ears. One of the advantages of subsonic ammo with a moderator is that you don't need to worry about hearing protection.
-
Jan it is a strange situation I am in because I can see everything you say as being possible and also what posters say who are adamant that Jeremy is guilty is also possible. I think I am confused :'(
-
Scipio what you are saying does make sense to me. I did wonder if the burn marks were an act of contempt but I do agree it is strange that Sheila did not have her Father's blood on her. Have seen programmes on the TV of cases in America where the murders were committed nude then the culprit showered no forensic evidence.
Possible that could be what she in fact did? The shower head was on the floor remember. Other than that there is no mention that the police actually examined the shower. Not much is said about the clothes in the buckets either. As far as I can see the house was not examined entirely and what examination was done was pretty scant to say the least.
-
Jan once again I agree with you but can also see where Scipio is coming from.
-
Well if you don't use both a moderator and subsonic ammunition then you are not going to get the optimal desired effects. It will still be less noisy with the moderator than without but the sonic crack is going to give away the shot anyway. Less noise still helps if you are shooting from a distance and also on your ears. Shooting without hearing protection harms ears. One of the advantages of subsonic ammo with a moderator is that you don't need to worry about hearing protection.
I meant in the house on the night.
-
Scipio do you know the story of the Romeo killer Chris Porco or something he reminds me so much of Jeremy Bamber and he was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence and got 50 years or so. Same nature and popular like Jeremy.
-
Well if you don't use both a moderator and subsonic ammunition then you are not going to get the optimal desired effects. It will still be less noisy with the moderator than without but the sonic crack is going to give away the shot anyway. Less noise still helps if you are shooting from a distance and also on your ears. Shooting without hearing protection harms ears. One of the advantages of subsonic ammo with a moderator is that you don't need to worry about hearing protection.
This was a fair ground rifle and didn't have much of a sonic "crack" anyway. None of the fairground guns have silencers on. But what David says is in fact a valid point. If there was no danger of the kids waking up during the gun fire (strange that the parents did though) and Jeremy knew what this rifle was like as it was his, then there was not really much point in using the silencer.
-
No I cited a fact. Anytime facts that you don't like are pointed out you hide from them. How many times have I noted either the the exact date that Sheila's last Haldol injection was given to you or the less precise that it was 3 weeks before the murders? At least 10 and you still keep saying we don't know when the last injection was.
It is a fact that Nevill was shot 4 times in the master bedroom and June shot 6-7 times during the same shooting episode. At least 10 shots were fired total at them prior to the killer and Nevill tangling in the kitchen where the gun was reloaded and then he was shot 4 more times.
Explain how things went down in light of the above. Incorporate the above facts into your assessment of how the murders were committed including detailing when the gun was reloaded at each stage when it was reloaded.
You can't which is why you want to hide from this. All Jeremy supporters want to hide from this even the defense at trial refused to address it.
If you follow the evidence and make your decision of what happened on the basis of the evidence then you don't end up with the same problems as when you decide in advance what you would like to believe and then try to find a way to get around the evidence.
I remember you telling me once about the Haldol injection and from others but I have never seen a record that proves it. If there is a GP record or notes from psychiatrist great I would love to keep it for my own record as I have not seen it.
I can come up will all kinds of detailed scenarios that are plausible but guess what? I actually have a life and a career I cant just spend tones of times writing essays and novels for you on what might have happened.
-
Jan it is a strange situation I am in because I can see everything you say as being possible and also what posters say who are adamant that Jeremy is guilty is also possible. I think I am confused :'(
Welcome to the world of the White House Farm mystery ;D
-
Isnt it strange that people accept the weirdest scenarios to explain how there was no evidence on JB - like wetsuits /marigolds/ getting rid of the clothes ( although the police were at his house the next day) cycling in the dark / doing the murders in the nude. plastic bags on feet etc etc
And yet when it is suggested that Sheila might have washed her hands or even her clothes in a bucket - horror of horrors that is impossible.
BTW don't forget the slippers/canvas shoes the police took and told Anne to say nothing about them
Jeremy left the scene and had ample opportunity to wash and dispose of any clothing he used.
Sheila never left. Her bloody clothing and gloves would have to have been somewhere and worse there is no way for her to have changed out of the clothing she died in which also lacked the evidence it would have had she killed herself while wearing it.
You are also failing to consider Jeremy would have a reason to change and dispose of his clothing- he didn't want to get caught. Someone who has decided to commit murder suicide has no reason to change and try to conceal evidence of having murdered others. That is what people who plan to keep on living but want to avoid spending the rest of their life in jail do.
There are no known cases where someone who decided to commit murder suicide washed up and disposed of evidence proving they committed the crime before killing themself. The closest anyone could come to that is a doomsday religious cult where the victims willingly allowed themselves to be killed, a few people cleaned up the dead bodies afterwards to purify them, cleaned their own bodies as much as possible and then finally committed suicide themselves. That in no way helps to make it plausible Sheila would take a bath and change her clothing before killing herself. The only thing that could make that plausible is if they found clothing she changed from and proof she killed herself. Then the unlikely would be established and there would be a known case where it happened. Saying maybe it happened for the first time ever and police hid the clothing she changed of doesn't cut it. That is what a Jeremy supporter speculates but speculation is enough proof is.
-
Isnt it strange that people accept the weirdest scenarios to explain how there was no evidence on JB - like wetsuits /marigolds/ getting rid of the clothes ( although the police were at his house the next day) cycling in the dark / doing the murders in the nude. plastic bags on feet etc etc
And yet when it is suggested that Sheila might have washed her hands or even her clothes in a bucket - horror of horrors that is impossible.
BTW don't forget the slippers/canvas shoes the police took and told Anne to say nothing about them
Wait what! ...... Jeremy cycling and committing the murders in the nude? people actually think he could have done that? whoever suggests that must have been joking
-
I remember you telling me once about the Haldol injection and from others but I have never seen a record that proves it. If there is a GP record or notes from psychiatrist great I would love to keep it for my own record as I have not seen it.
I can come up will all kinds of detailed scenarios that are plausible but guess what? I actually have a life and a career I cant just spend tones of times writing essays and novels for you on what might have happened.
Here are links to statements from three doctors who had Sheila as their parient. They are all interesting. Read them carefully and notice all details. You will see what a big hot mess Sheila´s treatment was.
DR HUGH CAMERON FURGUSEN
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1199.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1200.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1204.0.html
Dr. MYRTO ANGELOGLOU
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1202.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1203.0.html
DR ANN FIONA ROSEMARY WILKINSON
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1206.0.html
-
Hahaha David ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Scipio do you know the story of the Romeo killer Chris Porco or something he reminds me so much of Jeremy Bamber and he was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence and got 50 years or so. Same nature and popular like Jeremy.
That case had less evidence. They did have a motive he forged his parent's signature for loans and was caught shortly before the murders. They had a recanted claim by his mother that it was him as opposed to Julie's steadfast testimony. The only other evidence was evidence a car just like his left his college campus the evening of the murders and returned early in the morning. Also that a car like his went through the toll booths coming and going. They didn't have licence plate evidence it was his car. His car was somewhat unusual but not one of a kind.
He pretended he didn't know about the murders as opposed to making up a phone call like Jeremy did. he amazing thing to me is that even after what he did his mother ended up wanting to lie for him and get him released.
-
No forensic evidence !
Not a bead of sweat, fibres,spit,nothing at all was detected on several pieces of rug/carpet that had been cut from various areas where the bodies were found. Nothing whatsoever to report. Not even Jeremy's blood on the Bible,or we'd have heard soon enough,though someones' blood was on that Bible---------but whose was it ? I've got my own thoughts on that,however.
-
No forensic evidence !
Not a bead of sweat, fibres,spit,nothing at all was detected on several pieces of rug/carpet that had been cut from various areas where the bodies were found. Nothing whatsoever to report. Not even Jeremy's blood on the Bible,or we'd have heard soon enough,though someones' blood was on that Bible---------but whose was it ? I've got my own thoughts on that,however.
Why would Jeremy's blood be there? He didn't shoot himself! Fibres can only be matched to whatever he was wearing at the time and he's hardly likely to supply those clothes for testing - he had over a month to dispose of them.
-
Why would Jeremy's blood be there? He didn't shoot himself! Fibres can only be matched to whatever he was wearing at the time and he's hardly likely to supply those clothes for testing - he had over a month to dispose of them.
Didn't AP say that he saw cuts/scratches on Jeremy's hand.Or was it muck ?
Unless Jeremy had really old clothes I can't see him disposing of all his designer gear. Our friend JM would have definitely mentioned about destroying/throwing away clothes. JM didn't miss a trick,and wouldn't have done for the time they were together after he'd " murdered " his family.
How could she ??
Fibres can't be seen with the naked eye,nor can they be seen dropping from clothes.
-
Didn't AP say that he saw cuts/scratches on Jeremy's hand.Or was it muck ?
Unless Jeremy had really old clothes I can't see him disposing of all his designer gear. Our friend JM would have definitely mentioned about destroying/throwing away clothes. JM didn't miss a trick,and wouldn't have done for the time they were together after he'd " murdered " his family.
How could she ??
Fibres can't be seen with the naked eye,nor can they be seen dropping from clothes.
No, but that have to be MATCHED to something - I doubt anyone would turn up to murder someone wearing designer clothes Lookout and Jeremy didn't tell Julie everything - for obvious reasons!!
-
No, but that have to be MATCHED to something - I doubt anyone would turn up to murder someone wearing designer clothes Lookout and Jeremy didn't tell Julie everything - for obvious reasons!!
" For obvious reasons " is right.In case she got it wrong-----------which she did. The MM debacle.
-
" For obvious reasons " is right.In case she got it wrong-----------which she did. The MM debacle.
In case she blabbed - which she did - but you have to ask why she would mention MM in the first place? Why him? Someone planted the thought ;)
-
In case she blabbed - which she did - but you have to ask why she would mention MM in the first place? Why him? Someone planted the thought ;)
One of Jeremy's jokes I suspect,which JM would not normally have taken seriously under normal circumstances,but she had to think of something to justify her presence at the police station,didn't she ?
-
In case she blabbed - which she did - but you have to ask why she would mention MM in the first place? Why him? Someone planted the thought ;)
So Bamber told her his plans in case she blabbed. But she did anyway. Well that was smart of him wasn't it? ::) It can't be just a simple lie on her part. So it must be Bamber who told her in the first place. Good bit of reasoning there. ::)
-
So Bamber told her his plans in case she blabbed. But she did anyway. Well that was smart of him wasn't it? ::) It can't be just a simple lie on her part. So it must be Bamber who told her in the first place. Good bit of reasoning there. ::)
But those weren't his plans!! MM had nothing to do with it!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::)
-
But those weren't his plans!! MM had nothing to do with it!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::)
Precisely. You are doing exactly as I said guilters do. Mugford stated falsely that MM was the hitman, but instead of sying she lied you say that it must have been Bamber who told her. Just a bit of false reasoning there just so your belief in his guilty holds up. He wasn't the one who implicated MM it was Mugford. You need rather to see it for the lie it was.
-
Precisely. You are doing exactly as I said guilters do. Mugford stated falsely that MM was the hitman, but instead of sying she lied you say that it must have been Bamber who told her. Just a bit of false reasoning there just so your belief in his guilty holds up. He wasn't the one who implicated MM it was Mugford. You need rather to see it for the lie it was.
And you are doing the same! I don't NEED to see something just because it's the way YOU see it. I have my own opinion. I'm not telling YOU how you NEED to see things. I'm not interested in what you think enough to the point where I would try and influence you opinion.
-
Precisely. You are doing exactly as I said guilters do. Mugford stated falsely that MM was the hitman, but instead of sying she lied you say that it must have been Bamber who told her. Just a bit of false reasoning there just so your belief in his guilty holds up. He wasn't the one who implicated MM it was Mugford. You need rather to see it for the lie it was.
Julie stated that Jeremy is the one who told her MM did it. There is no speculation from guilters. One of the things objective people do when evaluating claims is to look at whether someone has a reason to make up a claim. There is no evidence she wanted to frame Jeremy but even if Julie had wanted to frame Jeremy she had no reason to make up a claim about MM being involved. If Jeremy had an alibi and she wanted to frame him then in that case she would have a reason to make a hitman confession. But he didn't have an alibi so there was no need. Furthermore, if she were going to make up a hitman story to frame him then she would not want to actually name a hitman because that person could provide an alibi and ruin the whole thing. It would be far better to say he never identified the hitman.
Innocenters such as yourself refuse to do any objective analysis and just decided you want to believe Jeremy is innocent so that forced you to argue Julie is a lair and you do so without any objective look at her accounts and despite having no evidence to establish she lied. Various evidence corroborates Julie's claims that Jeremy admitted to her that he was responsible including calling her before calling police which should send red flags to anyone objective and worse the forensic evidence that establishes Sheila didn't do it and thus that someone who fled the scene murdered them. But you ignore that evidence as well and suggest the whole case was the most vast frameup in UK history.
-
Julie stated that Jeremy is the one who told her MM did it. There is no speculation from guilters. One of the things objective people do when evaluating claims is to look at whether someone has a reason to make up a claim. There is no evidence she wanted to frame Jeremy but even if Julie had wanted to frame Jeremy she had no reason to make up a claim about MM being involved. If Jeremy had an alibi and she wanted to frame him then in that case she would have a reason to make a hitman confession. But he didn't have an alibi so there was no need. Furthermore, if she were going to make up a hitman story to frame him then she would not want to actually name a hitman because that person could provide an alibi and ruin the whole thing. It would be far better to say he never identified the hitman.
Innocenters such as yourself refuse to do any objective analysis and just decided you want to believe Jeremy is innocent so that forced you to argue Julie is a lair and you do so without any objective look at her accounts and despite having no evidence to establish she lied. Various evidence corroborates Julie's claims that Jeremy admitted to her that he was responsible including calling her before calling police which should send red flags to anyone objective and worse the forensic evidence that establishes Sheila didn't do it and thus that someone who fled the scene murdered them. But you ignore that evidence as well and suggest the whole case was the most vast frameup in UK history.
That's a good point.
Jeremy had no cast iron alibi. So Julie could have just said 'Jeremy said he did it'.
Why bring MM into it if he would have an alibi ? Jeremy gave himself a proxy to stop Julie thinking he was complete monster. Hoping to keep Julie onside.
-
That's a good point.
Jeremy had no cast iron alibi. So Julie could have just said 'Jeremy said he did it'.
Why bring MM into it if he would have an alibi ? Jeremy gave himself a proxy to stop Julie thinking he was complete monster. Hoping to keep Julie onside.
All I have seen in scipio's post is an over willingness to believe a liar. There is no good point. How can I help it if people want to believe the lies of a jilted lover? Also an innocent man needs no alibi as you put it. Alibis are for crooks and murderers.
-
All I have seen in scipio's post is an over willingness to believe a liar. There is no good point. How can I help it if people want to believe the lies of a jilted lover? Also an innocent man needs no alibi as you put it. Alibis are for crooks and murderers.
What I did was post how rational people approach the topic of assessing whether she lied. You refuse to engage in that analysis because such analysis results in no evidence she lied. You don't care that you have no evidence to establish she lied and that analysis of her claims suggest she is telling the truth. You want to believe she is a liar regardless of the facts and evidence and have branded her a liar as a result. You can do that all you like but it doesn't validate your claims in fact it undermines them.
That just demonstrate you operate on the basis of bias as opposed to rational thought.
-
What I did was post how rational people approach the topic of assessing whether she lied. You refuse to engage in that analysis because such analysis results in no evidence she lied. You don't care that you have no evidence to establish she lied and that analysis of her claims suggest she is telling the truth. You want to believe she is a liar regardless of the facts and evidence and have branded her a liar as a result. You can do that all you like but it doesn't validate your claims in fact it undermines them.
That just demonstrate you operate on the basis of bias as opposed to rational thought.
And you don't happen to be biased,of course ? Much !
-
Wait what! ...... Jeremy cycling and committing the murders in the nude? people actually think he could have done that? whoever suggests that must have been joking
actually all have been suggested - but I must admit I had not pictured them all together at once :o :o
Plus when he is shooting rabbits its dark ( not TRUE) but he can quite happily cycle across fields or seawalls in the dark ;) In the wetsuit wearing marigolds.
oh and he probably took a change of clothes and buried the bloodied ones on the way back.
-
And you don't happen to be biased,of course ? Much !
No I follow the facts where they lead. I got involved in this case because someone told me Jeremy was railroaded and the allegations were so interesting I had to look into it. It sounded like it was an amazing conspiracy with bodies moved and so forth. I thought the claims could be true.
Upon scrutiny though I found out there was more evidence than I was lead to believe. Most of the evidence used to convict Jeremy was never mentioned and the case against him not accurately described. Worse most of the spectacular claims like planted evidence, bodies being moved and shot by police, Nevill phoning police himself etc all fell apart under scrutiny. So I had to go to square one nad look at the exact evidence used to convict fully understand the entire case and then look at the defense evidence and evaluate whether they refuted the evidence of guilt. It is pretty obvious they failed to do so. I am still waiting for something to refute the evidence that establishes Jeremy is guilty and if that is ever successfully accomplished then at that point I will accept he is innocent.
I operate on the basis of proof and evidence. I follow the evidence where it leads. Some people like you have decided Jeremy is innocent no matter what and you close your eyes to ,any of the relevant facts in assessing whether he is guilty or not. It often results in you simply accepting made up things posted by Mike and others instead of making sure the claims are actually true. If it is favorable to Jeremy you accept something if unfavorable to Jeremy you reject it. You accept or reject based on whether it helps or hurts Jeremy not whether it is substantiated. That is the very essence of how bias operates.
Biased or not people should strive to make sure they are operating on real facts because it hurts credibility and makes someone look dishonest or at least foolish when they adopt claims that end up being made up. Trying to spin real facts is one thing. Trying to use made up facts and claims is something else.
-
Julie stated that Jeremy is the one who told her MM did it. There is no speculation from guilters. One of the things objective people do when evaluating claims is to look at whether someone has a reason to make up a claim. There is no evidence she wanted to frame Jeremy but even if Julie had wanted to frame Jeremy she had no reason to make up a claim about MM being involved. If Jeremy had an alibi and she wanted to frame him then in that case she would have a reason to make a hitman confession. But he didn't have an alibi so there was no need. Furthermore, if she were going to make up a hitman story to frame him then she would not want to actually name a hitman because that person could provide an alibi and ruin the whole thing. It would be far better to say he never identified the hitman.
Innocenters such as yourself refuse to do any objective analysis and just decided you want to believe Jeremy is innocent so that forced you to argue Julie is a lair and you do so without any objective look at her accounts and despite having no evidence to establish she lied. Various evidence corroborates Julie's claims that Jeremy admitted to her that he was responsible including calling her before calling police which should send red flags to anyone objective and worse the forensic evidence that establishes Sheila didn't do it and thus that someone who fled the scene murdered them. But you ignore that evidence as well and suggest the whole case was the most vast frameup in UK history.
Great post Scip! Totally agree!!
-
actually all have been suggested - but I must admit I had not pictured them all together at once :o :o
Plus when he is shooting rabbits its dark ( not TRUE) but he can quite happily cycle across fields or seawalls in the dark ;) In the wetsuit wearing marigolds.
oh and he probably took a change of clothes and buried the bloodied ones on the way back.
He didn't need to bury his clothes, he wouldn't be an immediate suspect with the story he had in mind and the staging he had just completed.
-
actually all have been suggested - but I must admit I had not pictured them all together at once :o :o
Plus when he is shooting rabbits its dark ( not TRUE) but he can quite happily cycle across fields or seawalls in the dark ;) In the wetsuit wearing marigolds.
oh and he probably took a change of clothes and buried the bloodied ones on the way back.
Indeed not true he admitted he didn't shoot any rabbits and it is quite obvious he made up the story of hearing/seeing rabbits so far away and getting out the gun then leaving it and the bullets out. he clearly staged the bullets after the murders.
No one suggested he committed the murders nude Jeremy supporters suggested Sheila did so.
As for changing his closes and washing up before he left he indeed could have chosen to do that he had clothes there already so already had clothes to change into if desired. Being caught on the street full of blood and wearing clothes with spatter and GSR would be quite bad so he could indeed have chosen to try to wash up and change. He could have disposed of the clothing on his way home or hid them somewhere to dispose of at a later time. These are not wild speculations they are things that happen frequently and are based on rational thought.
-
What I did was post how rational people approach the topic of assessing whether she lied. You refuse to engage in that analysis because such analysis results in no evidence she lied. You don't care that you have no evidence to establish she lied and that analysis of her claims suggest she is telling the truth. You want to believe she is a liar regardless of the facts and evidence and have branded her a liar as a result. You can do that all you like but it doesn't validate your claims in fact it undermines them.
That just demonstrate you operate on the basis of bias as opposed to rational thought.
Rational thought because her testimony consists of her alleged private conversations between her and Bamber alone must look for evidence to back up her claims. There are none. Rather there is a very strong likehood that her terstimony was a tissue of lies. Why do I say that although I have stressed it many times before? Because there is a very strong case that her testimony was born out of powerful evidence that she was a woman scorned.
-
Rational thought because her testimony consists of her alleged private conversations between her and Bamber alone must look for evidence to back up her claims. There are none. Rather there is a very strong likehood that her terstimony was a tissue of lies. Why do I say that although I have stressed it many times before? Because there is a very strong case that her testimony was born out of powerful evidence that she was a woman scorned.
So she told lies that could be easily be found out? Implicating a complete stranger so she could get revenge on Jeremy? Yes, that's completely rational ::)
-
Great post Scip! Totally agree!!
So you totally agree with him that innocenters like me have "refuse to do any objective analysis and just decided you want to believe Jeremy is innocent so that forced you to argue Julie is a lair and you do so without any objective look at her accounts and despite having no evidence to establish she lied." do you? In other words you agree with scipio because I have just decided I want him to be innocent because I refuse to do any objective analysis do you? I thought that that is precisely what I was doing, except that it is against scipio's opinions and that is what he doesn't like and also it appears neither do you?
-
So you totally agree with him that innocenters like me have "refuse to do any objective analysis and just decided you want to believe Jeremy is innocent so that forced you to argue Julie is a lair and you do so without any objective look at her accounts and despite having no evidence to establish she lied." do you? In other words you agree with scipio because I have just decided I want him to be innocent because I refuse to do any objective analysis do you? I thought that that is precisely what I was doing, except that it is against scipio's opinions and that is what he doesn't like and also it appears neither do you?
If you can lump me an others together and think that's OK - then I'll do the same to you. You only get respect if you show it Grahame and for the past few days, you have had an unfortunate tone to your posts that sound goading and rude. Of course none of the innocent supporters will pick you up on it because apparently you can only be rude if you favour the guilty argument.
-
If you can lump me an others together and think that's OK - then I'll do the same to you. You only get respect if you show it Grahame and for the past few days, you have had an unfortunate tone to your posts that sound goading and rude. Of course none of the innocent supporters will pick you up on it because apparently you can only be rude if you favour the guilty argument.
So you DO think that then by TOTALLY agreeing with him.
-
So you DO think that then by TOTALLY agreeing with him.
I certainly wouldn't be agreeing with you - you're showing your true colours and I won't be dragged DOWN to your level!!
-
So you DO think that then by TOTALLY agreeing with him. xxxx.
Hi Grahame, that language is totally unacceptable whoever uses it. Please stop it!
-
Rational thought because her testimony consists of her alleged private conversations between her and Bamber alone must look for evidence to back up her claims. There are none. Rather there is a very strong likehood that her terstimony was a tissue of lies. Why do I say that although I have stressed it many times before? Because there is a very strong case that her testimony was born out of powerful evidence that she was a woman scorned.
In a "he said, she said' you have to look at everything involved to assess who is the one who is lying including looking at who has a reason to lie and who doesn't.
What evidence favors Julie telling the truth? For starters:
1) Evidence proving Sheila didn't kill herself or anyone else
2) Jeremy calling Julie before police
3) The fact Nevill's alleged call doesn't make sense and worse doesn't fit into the way the crime went down, the initial event was the parents being shot in the bedroom
4) Police observing Jeremy going in through windows thus confirming she had told he about doing so
5) Evidence that Jeremy staged bullets after the murders in support of his story
6) That if she wanted to just make up a story framing him she would not have made up the claim of a hitman and certainly would not have identified a person who would be able to prove her claims untrue thus would ruin the entire lie she was trying to tell
7) For Jeremy's phone call claims to be true someone had to cleverly decided to hang up the phone, leave it hung up long enough for Jeremy to hang up then to take it off the hook so no one else could call. Not to drop the phone and just leave it there forcing Jeremy to hang up and wait several minutes for the line to clear but rather to hang up the phone, give Jeremy time to hang up the phone so the call ended then take it back off the hook. Who would do that? A crazy Sheila would just make Nevill drop the phone. Why would a crazy Sheila be worried about someone calling the house?
These are not the only things just the most significant. there were various things she told that had some corroboration like she said he planned to use a bike and took June's bike right before the murders to his house. But there is no need to discuss all these little details.
What supports Jeremy's claim that Sheila was lying? All he could come up with as a motive for her lying is that she was scorned and wanted ill will done to him. But she didn't go running to police the police went to her after she told a friend the story. Worse if she were going to make up a story to hurt him she would simply have said he confessed he committed the murders himself not make up the hitman story.
We already know he failed to dent the evidence establishing Sheila didn't do anything and had no raitonal explanation for why he called Julie before police etc so nothing to rebut the main evidence that supports Julie's assertions that he did it.
You choose to ignore the evidence and just believe he is innocent and was framed and she lied but you have nothing at all to establish she lied or that he was framed. I'm still waiting for a defender to come up with a good explanation for the phone being taken off the hook and how the phone being taken off the hook and the alleged call by Nevill fit into the known sequence of events which is the killer sneaking into the master bedroom where June was killed and Nevill injured, then the confrontation in the kitchen then after that the kids and Sheila were killed. It is pretty obvious the call would have to have predated the shooting int he bedroom but if that is the case how did both parents end up in the bedroom with June still in bed and hung up the phone then shortly thereafter took it off the hook and why? Why call Jeremy instead of handling the matter himself? These questions are important ones to answer in order for Jeremy's claims to be possible.
-
No I follow the facts where they lead. I got involved in this case because someone told me Jeremy was railroaded and the allegations were so interesting I had to look into it. It sounded like it was an amazing conspiracy with bodies moved and so forth. I thought the claims could be true.
Upon scrutiny though I found out there was more evidence than I was lead to believe. Most of the evidence used to convict Jeremy was never mentioned and the case against him not accurately described. Worse most of the spectacular claims like planted evidence, bodies being moved and shot by police, Nevill phoning police himself etc all fell apart under scrutiny. So I had to go to square one nad look at the exact evidence used to convict fully understand the entire case and then look at the defense evidence and evaluate whether they refuted the evidence of guilt. It is pretty obvious they failed to do so. I am still waiting for something to refute the evidence that establishes Jeremy is guilty and if that is ever successfully accomplished then at that point I will accept he is innocent.
I operate on the basis of proof and evidence. I follow the evidence where it leads. Some people like you have decided Jeremy is innocent no matter what and you close your eyes to ,any of the relevant facts in assessing whether he is guilty or not. It often results in you simply accepting made up things posted by Mike and others instead of making sure the claims are actually true. If it is favorable to Jeremy you accept something if unfavorable to Jeremy you reject it. You accept or reject based on whether it helps or hurts Jeremy not whether it is substantiated. That is the very essence of how bias operates.
Biased or not people should strive to make sure they are operating on real facts because it hurts credibility and makes someone look dishonest or at least foolish when they adopt claims that end up being made up. Trying to spin real facts is one thing. Trying to use made up facts and claims is something else.
Wow,you've done lots of practice getting out of tight corners. You're more like a salesman with the gift of the gab. Trying to pull the wool,except that it doesn't work for me. ;D ;D ;D ;D And speaking of spin---------------------
-
So you DO think that then by TOTALLY agreeing with him. [Profanity Redacted]
For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.
Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.
People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try. Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.
-
For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.
Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.
People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try. Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.
Here endeth the lesson !!!
-
Tee hee hee.
-
For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.
Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.
People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try. Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.
I agree, well said!!
-
For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.
Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.
People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try. Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.
Well quite frankly scipio that is what she said, "I agree totally". Cussing make me feel better especially when trying to convey to those who are blindly fumbling around in the dark so much that they can't even appreciate other posters views who don't happen to agree with them. Not only so but I will tell a poster whatever side they're on that if I think so that it is a good post, as I have with your posts. So it is grossly unfair to say that I am on the fence so called.
-
Wow,you've done lots of practice getting out of tight corners. You're more like a salesman with the gift of the gab. Trying to pull the wool,except that it doesn't work for me. ;D ;D ;D ;D And speaking of spin---------------------
That depends on what you mean by tight corners. I have things easy. I am just using facts and evidence developed by the prosecution which convicted Jeremy before a jury and which numerous Courts of Appeal have upheld. I am not going against the river I am flowing with it.
The people who have it tough are those trying to refute the evidence and to say something else happened than the official account.
If this case were used as a law class assignment with half the class told they had to represent Jeremy and the other half told they get to represent the prosecution then the ones assigned to the defense are the ones screwed because their job is much harder.
The fact that this is predominantly a pro-Jeremy site makes it hard to convince others that my points are right but I have no need to convince Jeremy supporters of anything. That is something Adam can't seem to get through his head. We are not having a trial where the pro-Jeremy people are making a decision and thus must be convinced of something. We are debating facts and issues and what people choose to believe doesn't make all that much difference when the point of the debate is to highlight the issues.
In those debated Jeremy supporters are goign against the grain and thus have the much harder job. for those Jeremy supporters who want to sway public opinion they actually have to convince people the official account is wrong. Worse to get Jeremy out of jail they have to convince an Appeal Court that the evidence used to convict Jeremy was flawed. Those Jeremy supporters who have undertaken a mission are the ones with a tough uphill battle.
Since I am objective I don't care what others choose to believe I just argue about why they believe it and what evidence they have to support it because that is the heart of what you fight over in a debate.
Rationale for a claim and evidence in support of it is what true debates are about. That is what I enjoy and the topic doesn't matter I will argue about anything.
I have something to debate because people are willing to take the other side and in this case the other side is not easy to argue so I am under no delusions about who has the harder task.
-
Hi Grahame, that language is totally unacceptable whoever uses it. Please stop it!
Careful Maggie, you might give him a complex! (http://images.zaazu.com/img/shades-animated-animation-shades-smiley-emoticon-000387-medium.gif)
-
Well quite frankly scipio that is what she said, "I agree totally". Cussing make me feel better especially when trying to convey to those who are blindly fumbling around in the dark so much that they can't even appreciate other posters views who don't happen to agree with them. Not only so but I will tell a poster whatever side they're on that if I think so that it is a good post, as I have with your posts. So it is grossly unfair to say that I am on the fence so called.
Here's a thought- instead of blowing up you could try to prove us wrong by actually attempting to substantively address the arguments that were made about why it is unlikely she was lying.
I presented a set explanation of what evidence supported her claims. That presents pints to address. All you did was brand Julie liar without producing anything to back it up and nothing to address what I raised.
-
That depends on what you mean by tight corners. I have things easy. I am just using facts and evidence developed by the prosecution which convicted Jeremy before a jury and which numerous Courts of Appeal have upheld. I am not going against the river I am flowing with it.
The people who have it tough are those trying to refute the evidence and to say something else happened than the official account.
If this case were used as a law class assignment with half the class told they had to represent Jeremy and the other half told they get to represent the prosecution then the ones assigned to the defense are the ones screwed because their job is much harder.
The fact that this is predominantly a pro-Jeremy site makes it hard to convince others that my points are right but I have no need to convince Jeremy supporters of anything. That is something Adam can't seem to get through his head. We are not having a trial where the pro-Jeremy people are making a decision and thus must be convinced of something. We are debating facts and issues and what people choose to believe doesn't make all that much difference when the point of the debate is to highlight the issues.
In those debated Jeremy supporters are goign against the grain and thus have the much harder job. for those Jeremy supporters who want to sway public opinion they actually have to convince people the official account is wrong. Worse to get Jeremy out of jail they have to convince an Appeal Court that the evidence used to convict Jeremy was flawed. Those Jeremy supporters who have undertaken a mission are the ones with a tough uphill battle.
Since I am objective I don't care what others choose to believe I just argue about why they believe it and what evidence they have to support it because that is the heart of what you fight over in a debate.
Rationale for a claim and evidence in support of it is what true debates are about. That is what I enjoy and the topic doesn't matter I will argue about anything.
I have something to debate because people are willing to take the other side and in this case the other side is not easy to argue so I am under no delusions about who has the harder task.
The problem is not that the so called supporters cannot refute the evidence. It is rather that they don't agree with your take on the evidence which you think is the only interpretation of the evidence. I gave you a perfectly logical reply together with evidence as to why I don't believe Mugford's testimony. Which you rejected out of hand as being ludicrous. You see what I mean? This constant deriding of others who do not hold precicely to your take on things and unfortunately other of your raw recruits are beginning to sound a bit like you as well.
-
Jesus, if me or Scipio said 'f--- off b----' we would be permanently banned.
Don't be paranoid Adam you are treated exactly the same as us better people. ::)
-
I agree, well said!!
Oh hail scipio let me kiss your feet oh great one.
-
He didn't need to bury his clothes, he wouldn't be an immediate suspect with the story he had in mind and the staging he had just completed.
unless he had come up intelligent policemen who spotted the "staged body" and his so called behaviour and lack of emotion. So unless he was really stupid he must have made plans for that eventuality.
And anyway I was just quoting other posters explanations - not mine.
-
Arlidge wasn't " within a country mile of showing anything that came close to proving Jeremy pulled the trigger.," so he resorted to nit-picking all the way through the trial. Sound familiar ??
-
Mike has told me to F off many times in the past and on occasion Graham had cursed me as well. That is the first time I saw him do it to a female though. I don't care if someone curses me or not though and don't want them banned for it. It doesn't hurt me it hurts the person who resorts to it by demonstrating they are unwilling or unable to deal substantively with the arguments I made.
Am I bovered? I usually consider the source! ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh hail scipio let me kiss your feet oh great one.
Stamp on his corns more like. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You don't know me so don't make assumption and stop goading! If Adam or Scip had behaved like you yesterday, they'd have been banned. The empty apology is NOT accepted!!
Of course they wouldn't you are so childish and always saying things are fair just because they are not handled the way you think they should. You're the one whose carrying on I'm just answering you. It's a wonder you can still hear me from your ivory tower. "Boo hoo it's not fair" these supposedly intelligent people cry. This admin has been the fairest it has every been. In any case I'm not really concerned if I' banned or not. As for scipio, he's had so many chances I can't begin to count them. The most abusive character I've ever known. I am just defending those who are always on his list of abused in his constant tirade of mocking. I'm just about sick and tyred of you lot poking fun at them. Bloody hypocrite.
-
Of course they wouldn't you are so childish and always saying things are fair just because they are not handled the way you think they should. You're the one whose carrying on I'm just answering you. It's a wonder you can still hear me from your ivory tower. "Boo hoo it's not fair" these supposedly intelligent people cry. This admin has been the fairest it has every been. In any case I'm not really concerned if I' banned or not. As for scipio, he's had so many chances I can't begin to count them. The most abusive character I've ever known. I am just defending those who are always on his list of abused in his constant tirade of mocking. I'm just about sick and tyred of you lot poking fun at them. Bloody hypocrite.
Mr G, it's much,much more difficult defending a person such as in Jeremy's situation than it is to condemn him. When you condemn a person,you can use up all the angst within you by chucking your hatred toward that person in calling him murderer and he did this,that and the other,and was this that and the other,but defending is a different ball game, where,hard as it is,you must never lose your cool.
I'm more or less calm because I've resigned myself to him being innocent,so therefore there are no doubts in me to unsettle the way I feel and I couldn't care less what others say about him because it goes right over my head.
It's when you're " not sure " that things get you down,and when you're fed things that aren't altogether true,doesn't help how you feel. There's NO middle ground as far as I'm concerned,it's either Yes or No.
-
Mr G, it's much,much more difficult defending a person such as in Jeremy's situation than it is to condemn him. When you condemn a person,you can use up all the angst within you by chucking your hatred toward that person in calling him murderer and he did this,that and the other,and was this that and the other,but defending is a different ball game, where,hard as it is,you must never lose your cool.
I'm more or less calm because I've resigned myself to him being innocent,so therefore there are no doubts in me to unsettle the way I feel and I couldn't care less what others say about him because it goes right over my head.
It's when you're " not sure " that things get you down,and when you're fed things that aren't altogether true,doesn't help how you feel. There's NO middle ground as far as I'm concerned,it's either Yes or No.
I agree. Neither do those who believe him to be guilty have to use much brain power either, because of the simple fact that he has already been found guilty by ten people so all they have to do is reiterate the so called evidence against him and they never ever criticise that evidence as we do. Rather it is easier for them to criticise us by saying that we are against the cops or the relatives or Mugford. They never ever try to pull the evidence apart, but rather accept it as it was accepted in court. As you say and you have felt it as well. In a lot of those who think Bamber guilty there I detect a kind of wallowing in the glee and hatred of Bamber. Furthermore they justify their actions by saying things like, "Well he deserves such hatred, because two liitle kids were murdered", thereby feigning a kind of concern for those kids.
-
I agree. Neither do those who believe him to be guilty have to use much brain power either, because of the simple fact that he has already been found guilty by ten people so all they have to do is reiterate the so called evidence against him and they never ever criticise that evidence as we do. Rather it is easier for them to criticise us by saying that we are against the cops or the relatives or Mugford. They never ever try to pull the evidence apart, but rather accept it as it was accepted in court. As you say and you have felt it as well. In a lot of those who think Bamber guilty there I detect a kind of wallowing in the glee and hatred of Bamber. Furthermore they justify their actions by saying things like, "Well he deserves such hatred, because two liitle kids were murdered", thereby feigning a kind of concern for those kids.
Exactly. So very sad as it is,it's totally unfair and very WRONG of those who EMPHASISE the deaths of the children as some kind of " bargaining tool " to keep him locked up.
-
I agree. Neither do those who believe him to be guilty have to use much brain power either, because of the simple fact that he has already been found guilty by ten people so all they have to do is reiterate the so called evidence against him and they never ever criticise that evidence as we do. Rather it is easier for them to criticise us by saying that we are against the cops or the relatives or Mugford. They never ever try to pull the evidence apart, but rather accept it as it was accepted in court. As you say and you have felt it as well. In a lot of those who think Bamber guilty there I detect a kind of wallowing in the glee and hatred of Bamber. Furthermore they justify their actions by saying things like, "Well he deserves such hatred, because two liitle kids were murdered", thereby feigning a kind of concern for those kids.
This is where you are dishonest. I did evaluate the evidence that convicted Jeremy and there is nothing to rebut it. The trial defense failed to rebut it, the defense on appeal has failed to rebut it and you and the other people who insist he is innocent have failed to rebut it.
You choose to believe Jeremy is innocent even though you have nothing to rebut the evidence that convicted him. Whatever you come up with to try to rebut it is just wild speculation that you have no evidence to actually prove occurred. For example speculating that Julie lied and he police and famiy got together and fabricated evidence. Tossed in for good measure is the claim Sheila washed herself and changed her clothes though there is no reason why she would do so but it is chalked up to, "she was crazy so would have done senseless things".
There is considerable evidence establishing the June and Nevill were shot in the bedroom where June died, but an injured Nevill traveled to the kitchen where he was beaten and shot to death, then the boys and Sheila were killed. A phone call to Jeremy from the kitchen makes no sense and doesn't fit in at all let alone for Nevill or Sheila to hang up the phone then take it off the hook again and leave it off the hook so no one could call the house. There is unrebutted evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself or anyone else.
I looked at what would be required for the blood to have been planted in the moderator in an objective fashion. Only the lab had the skill and knowledge to do that. Since the family said it saw blood that would require them to have been contacted and corrupted into making such false claim to hide that the lab planted it. In the meantime the lab had to have removed blood from the rifle and concealed that fact. If the lab was going to lie like that all they would have to have done then was to lie and say they found blood when they didn't and pretend they did tests so could have said they found AK1 enzymes throughout. Since Lincoln found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles that means they had to have done more than just test blood and say they found it inside they had to have planted it, let it dry and then scraped it whatever was visible. Aside from not having the know how to plant the blood the police demonstrated they didn't plant it by not making the lab do a thorough serological test of the blood right away. There is concrete evidence that the blood was there by 8/14/85 because there is evidence that on that date police were notified that plaint was found on the moderator and human blood was found on and inside the moderator. So the blood had to have been planted by then. Instead of having the lab follow up to type test the blood, the police spent the next few weeks fingerprinting it. If they had planted blood so that it could be used to establish Sheila was murdered they would have wanted the lab to immediately do thorough blood testing, not to be worried about looking for fingerprints and super glue fuming it. There is no accidental way for the quantity of blood found inside in the distribution it was found inside to have gotten inside by accident. It got there by being sprayed there. It was either drawback from a contact shot or planted and if it was planted then blood had ot have been found in the rifle which was concealed.
There is unrebutted evidence that Sheila's fatal shot was a contact wound which would result in drawback. There is unrebutted testimony that no blood was found in the rifle. Thus the evidence to establish the blood in the moderator was drawback is unrebutted. There is also evidence Sheila's body was moved after her death but while she was still bleeding which means someone else had to have been there. She had no ability to change from the gown she died in and if she had shot herself she would have to have hugged the weapon and soot and GSR would have exited the vents and ejection port and gotten on her gown.
You are not following the evidence you are speculating the evidence is doctored and fabricated though you have no evidence to establish it was and when asked why you speculate it is because you don't trust police or the family so not for any fact based reason. You can't pull the evidence apart but don't care you still refuse to accept it anyway.
So don't pretend that the evidence was rebutted and that people who think he is guilty are ignoring that. The whole reason he is still in prison is because the evidence that convicted him has not been rebutted. Supporters speculate witnesses lied and the evidence was fabricated but have no evidence to prove it.
When you believe something you can't prove you are taking a leap of faith. That is what his supporters do. Some supporters are people who believe he is guilty but pretend they believe he isn't and do such as opportunists who use the case for their own purposes. it is about them not Jeremy the case is just a vehicle for them.
-
This is where you are dishonest. I did evaluate the evidence that convicted Jeremy and there is nothing to rebut it. The trial defense failed to rebut it, the defense on appeal has failed to rebut it and you and the other people who insist he is innocent have failed to rebut it.
You choose to believe Jeremy is innocent even though you have nothing to rebut the evidence that convicted him. Whatever you come up with to try to rebut it is just wild speculation that you have no evidence to actually prove occurred. For example speculating that Julie lied and he police and famiy got together and fabricated evidence. Tossed in for good measure is the claim Sheila washed herself and changed her clothes though there is no reason why she would do so but it is chalked up to, "she was crazy so would have done senseless things".
There is considerable evidence establishing the June and Nevill were shot in the bedroom where June died, but an injured Nevill traveled to the kitchen where he was beaten and shot to death, then the boys and Sheila were killed. A phone call to Jeremy from the kitchen makes no sense and doesn't fit in at all let alone for Nevill or Sheila to hang up the phone then take it off the hook again and leave it off the hook so no one could call the house. There is unrebutted evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself or anyone else.
I looked at what would be required for the blood to have been planted in the moderator in an objective fashion. Only the lab had the skill and knowledge to do that. Since the family said it saw blood that would require them to have been contacted and corrupted into making such false claim to hide that the lab planted it. In the meantime the lab had to have removed blood from the rifle and concealed that fact. If the lab was going to lie like that all they would have to have done then was to lie and say they found blood when they didn't and pretend they did tests so could have said they found AK1 enzymes throughout. Since Lincoln found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles that means they had to have done more than just test blood and say they found it inside they had to have planted it, let it dry and then scraped it whatever was visible. Aside from not having the know how to plant the blood the police demonstrated they didn't plant it by not making the lab do a thorough serological test of the blood right away. There is concrete evidence that the blood was there by 8/14/85 because there is evidence that on that date police were notified that plaint was found on the moderator and human blood was found on and inside the moderator. So the blood had to have been planted by then. Instead of having the lab follow up to type test the blood, the police spent the next few weeks fingerprinting it. If they had planted blood so that it could be used to establish Sheila was murdered they would have wanted the lab to immediately do thorough blood testing, not to be worried about looking for fingerprints and super glue fuming it. There is no accidental way for the quantity of blood found inside in the distribution it was found inside to have gotten inside by accident. It got there by being sprayed there. It was either drawback from a contact shot or planted and if it was planted then blood had ot have been found in the rifle which was concealed.
There is unrebutted evidence that Sheila's fatal shot was a contact wound which would result in drawback. There is unrebutted testimony that no blood was found in the rifle. Thus the evidence to establish the blood in the moderator was drawback is unrebutted. There is also evidence Sheila's body was moved after her death but while she was still bleeding which means someone else had to have been there. She had no ability to change from the gown she died in and if she had shot herself she would have to have hugged the weapon and soot and GSR would have exited the vents and ejection port and gotten on her gown.
You are not following the evidence you are speculating the evidence is doctored and fabricated though you have no evidence to establish it was and when asked why you speculate it is because you don't trust police or the family so not for any fact based reason. You can't pull the evidence apart but don't care you still refuse to accept it anyway.
So don't pretend that the evidence was rebutted and that people who think he is guilty are ignoring that. The whole reason he is still in prison is because the evidence that convicted him has not been rebutted. Supporters speculate witnesses lied and the evidence was fabricated but have no evidence to prove it.
When you believe something you can't prove you are taking a leap of faith. That is what his supporters do. Some supporters are people who believe he is guilty but pretend they believe he isn't and do such as opportunists who use the case for their own purposes. it is about them not Jeremy the case is just a vehicle for them.
Dishonest ??
-
I can see just what you're aiming to do and I think it's a cheap trick !
Shame on your part that it doesn't work.
-
This is where you are dishonest. I did evaluate the evidence that convicted Jeremy and there is nothing to rebut it. The trial defense failed to rebut it, the defense on appeal has failed to rebut it and you and the other people who insist he is innocent have failed to rebut it.
You choose to believe Jeremy is innocent even though you have nothing to rebut the evidence that convicted him. Whatever you come up with to try to rebut it is just wild speculation that you have no evidence to actually prove occurred. For example speculating that Julie lied and he police and famiy got together and fabricated evidence. Tossed in for good measure is the claim Sheila washed herself and changed her clothes though there is no reason why she would do so but it is chalked up to, "she was crazy so would have done senseless things".
There is considerable evidence establishing the June and Nevill were shot in the bedroom where June died, but an injured Nevill traveled to the kitchen where he was beaten and shot to death, then the boys and Sheila were killed. A phone call to Jeremy from the kitchen makes no sense and doesn't fit in at all let alone for Nevill or Sheila to hang up the phone then take it off the hook again and leave it off the hook so no one could call the house. There is unrebutted evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself or anyone else.
I looked at what would be required for the blood to have been planted in the moderator in an objective fashion. Only the lab had the skill and knowledge to do that. Since the family said it saw blood that would require them to have been contacted and corrupted into making such false claim to hide that the lab planted it. In the meantime the lab had to have removed blood from the rifle and concealed that fact. If the lab was going to lie like that all they would have to have done then was to lie and say they found blood when they didn't and pretend they did tests so could have said they found AK1 enzymes throughout. Since Lincoln found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles that means they had to have done more than just test blood and say they found it inside they had to have planted it, let it dry and then scraped it whatever was visible. Aside from not having the know how to plant the blood the police demonstrated they didn't plant it by not making the lab do a thorough serological test of the blood right away. There is concrete evidence that the blood was there by 8/14/85 because there is evidence that on that date police were notified that plaint was found on the moderator and human blood was found on and inside the moderator. So the blood had to have been planted by then. Instead of having the lab follow up to type test the blood, the police spent the next few weeks fingerprinting it. If they had planted blood so that it could be used to establish Sheila was murdered they would have wanted the lab to immediately do thorough blood testing, not to be worried about looking for fingerprints and super glue fuming it. There is no accidental way for the quantity of blood found inside in the distribution it was found inside to have gotten inside by accident. It got there by being sprayed there. It was either drawback from a contact shot or planted and if it was planted then blood had ot have been found in the rifle which was concealed.
There is unrebutted evidence that Sheila's fatal shot was a contact wound which would result in drawback. There is unrebutted testimony that no blood was found in the rifle. Thus the evidence to establish the blood in the moderator was drawback is unrebutted. There is also evidence Sheila's body was moved after her death but while she was still bleeding which means someone else had to have been there. She had no ability to change from the gown she died in and if she had shot herself she would have to have hugged the weapon and soot and GSR would have exited the vents and ejection port and gotten on her gown.
You are not following the evidence you are speculating the evidence is doctored and fabricated though you have no evidence to establish it was and when asked why you speculate it is because you don't trust police or the family so not for any fact based reason. You can't pull the evidence apart but don't care you still refuse to accept it anyway.
So don't pretend that the evidence was rebutted and that people who think he is guilty are ignoring that. The whole reason he is still in prison is because the evidence that convicted him has not been rebutted. Supporters speculate witnesses lied and the evidence was fabricated but have no evidence to prove it.
When you believe something you can't prove you are taking a leap of faith. That is what his supporters do. Some supporters are people who believe he is guilty but pretend they believe he isn't and do such as opportunists who use the case for their own purposes. it is about them not Jeremy the case is just a vehicle for them.
And this is how you manufacture lies about me. Please show me where I have said that they "clubbed together" to manufacture evidence. This is just your ploy in order to discredit people. You are a wiley and dishonest man. I gave you an entirely plausible explanation why Mugford lied. But instead of accepting it you mock it and also the person who objects to your ideas. I can't see why people refuse to see this trait in you, I really can't?
-
And this is how you manufacture lies about me. Please show me where I have said that they "clubbed together" to manufacture evidence. This is just your ploy in order to discredit people. You are a wiley and dishonest man. I gave you an entirely plausible explanation why Mugford lied. But instead of accepting it you mock it and also the person who objects to your ideas. I can't see why people refuse to see this trait in you, I really can't?
I noticed a while back. I don't think most people actually bother reading what he posts anymore
-
I don't. He's just here to " fan the flames ".
-
I noticed a while back. I don't think most people actually bother reading what he posts anymore
But he does it with all supporters David. I don't really care about it happening to me. But it becomes insidious and grows unnoticed in the forum. People begin to accept it in him as just being him. But it does have a serious and demoralising effect upon some and I for one am concerned about it.
-
But he does it with all supporters David. I don't really care about it happening to me. But it becomes insidious and grows unnoticed in the forum. People begin to accept it in him as just being him. But it does have a serious and demoralising effect upon some and I for one am concerned about it.
The whole balance and tone of the forum changed when this rude person arrived. Some mods buddied up with him and thereby gave the whole mess a seal of approval.
I know some will be angry at this, but hey ho, what can I do?
-
The whole balance and tone of the forum changed when this rude person arrived. Some mods buddied up with him and thereby gave the whole mess a seal of approval.
I know some will be angry at this, but hey ho, what can I do?
LOL................... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The whole balance and tone of the forum changed when this rude person arrived. Some mods buddied up with him and thereby gave the whole mess a seal of approval.
I know some will be angry at this, but hey ho, what can I do?
The tone of the forum prior to my arrival was to attack people who initially thought Jeremy was innocent began to change their mind and support Jeremy's guilt. In the meantime there was like a Civil War of sorts between posters on the blue forum and red forum.
There are a lot of people who have views that are based not on following the evidence but rather simply based on what they choose to believe regardless of the evidence. When I bring up evidence that challenges what they want to believe it is a problem and met with scorn. I'm not one to back down and run away and how people act towards me set the tenor. Even Grahame and Mike telling me to f off or other curses wasn't responded to in kind. While I respond with confrontation it is in a different way than childish cursing.
I heard all sorts of things from people on both sides of the aisle regarding NGB. I happen to like the Battle of Hastings military history is my hobby and why I ended up a history major so I like his 1066 moniker. he doesn't post nearly as often as everyone else, maybe he posted more in the past. I have noticed a lot of people put words in his mouth and attribute things to him that he didn't actually claim. We haven't butted heads much but when we did the tenor wasn't anything like with some other people who support Jeremy. That is because of the tenor he sets. I am reactive when it comes to tenor and proactive when it comes to arguments. I head off arguments before they are even made because I know what can be coming. I am the sort that is a best friend or worst enemy. Which someone becomes is up to them.
-
The whole balance and tone of the forum changed when this rude person arrived. Some mods buddied up with him and thereby gave the whole mess a seal of approval.
I know some will be angry at this, but hey ho, what can I do?
If you mean me Alias, just say so, I'm a grown up and I can take it. It is of course totally untrue and I have had my run ins with Scip just as others have. Difference is, I don't take it personally. No point in arguing with you because you're a dig your heels in kinda gal and that's the way you see it so nee one's gonna shift ye! I'm not even going to try!!
-
LOL................... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I thought you might agree ::)
-
The tone of the forum prior to my arrival was to attack people who initially thought Jeremy was innocent began to change their mind and support Jeremy's guilt. In the meantime there was like a Civil War of sorts between posters on the blue forum and red forum.
There are a lot of people who have views that are based not on following the evidence but rather simply based on what they choose to believe regardless of the evidence. When I bring up evidence that challenges what they want to believe it is a problem and met with scorn. I'm not one to back down and run away and how people act towards me set the tenor. Even Grahame and Mike telling me to f off or other curses wasn't responded to in kind. While I respond with confrontation it is in a different way than childish cursing.
I heard all sorts of things from people on both sides of the aisle regarding NGB. I happen to like the Battle of Hastings military history is my hobby and why I ended up a history major so I like his 1066 moniker. he doesn't post nearly as often as everyone else, maybe he posted more in the past. I have noticed a lot of people put words in his mouth and attribute things to him that he didn't actually claim. We haven't butted heads much but when we did the tenor wasn't anything like with some other people who support Jeremy. That is because of the tenor he sets. I am reactive when it comes to tenor and proactive when it comes to arguments. I head off arguments before they are even made because I know what can be coming. I am the sort that is a best friend or worst enemy. Which someone becomes is up to them.
How do you know if it was prior to your arrival?
-
The tone of the forum prior to my arrival was to attack people who initially thought Jeremy was innocent began to change their mind and support Jeremy's guilt. In the meantime there was like a Civil War of sorts between posters on the blue forum and red forum.
There are a lot of people who have views that are based not on following the evidence but rather simply based on what they choose to believe regardless of the evidence. When I bring up evidence that challenges what they want to believe it is a problem and met with scorn. I'm not one to back down and run away and how people act towards me set the tenor. Even Grahame and Mike telling me to f off or other curses wasn't responded to in kind. While I respond with confrontation it is in a different way than childish cursing.
I heard all sorts of things from people on both sides of the aisle regarding NGB. I happen to like the Battle of Hastings military history is my hobby and why I ended up a history major so I like his 1066 moniker. he doesn't post nearly as often as everyone else, maybe he posted more in the past. I have noticed a lot of people put words in his mouth and attribute things to him that he didn't actually claim. We haven't butted heads much but when we did the tenor wasn't anything like with some other people who support Jeremy. That is because of the tenor he sets. I am reactive when it comes to tenor and proactive when it comes to arguments. I head off arguments before they are even made because I know what can be coming. I am the sort that is a best friend or worst enemy. Which someone becomes is up to them.
I think your post is dishonest. You lure people in by posting in a reasonable way - and then start lashing out with accusations when you don't get your own way. Using the words you do - such as dishonest - is no different than calling someone a liar to their face . Its is ill mannered and totally uncalled for. Posters on both sides are entitled to their opinions and some are more passionate than others. The majority of posters on here are NOT liars . They are not biased - they just do not accept that you are any more of an expert than those who have appeared for the prosecution and the defence on many previous occasions. We are no more biased than you , and I for one don't think there is a chance in hell that you are ever going to wake up and smell the roses so to speak.
IMO of course ;D
-
I think your post is dishonest. You lure people in by posting in a reasonable way - and then start lashing out with accusations when you don't get your own way. Using the words you do - such as dishonest - is no different than calling someone a liar to their face . Its is ill mannered and totally uncalled for. Posters on both sides are entitled to their opinions and some are more passionate than others. The majority of posters on here are NOT liars . They are not biased - they just do not accept that you are any more of an expert than those who have appeared for the prosecution and the defence on many previous occasions. We are no more biased than you , and I for one don't think there is a chance in hell that you are ever going to wake up and smell the roses so to speak.
IMO of course ;D
Thanks Jan. I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices this. It is a plan on his part to demoralize others who do not agree with him and as I stressed before and will keep on stressing it. It is insidious. He is working on people's subconscious level by his continual denigration of them so that they become dispirited. Notice his continual harping on about how he derives his arguments through a logical examination of the evidence. BUT of course everyone who dares to disagree with him does not. Instead according to hi, they grab unsupported objections out of the air.
In the end he gets others to believe that he actually is using evidence. But in reality he will not allow any critisism of his views, which of course is what they basically are, his view, his understanding of the evidence which is indisputably the correct interpretation to which there is no answer. Notice his continual challenging of others to answer him. But when and if they do all he says is that is at most wrong and at least the person is not either thinking logically neither are they examining the evidence with any kind of common sense.
-
Thanks Jan. I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices this. It is a plan on his part to demoralize others who do not agree with him and as I stressed before and will keep on stressing it. It is insidious. He is working on people's subconscious level by his continual denigration of them so that they become dispirited. Notice his continual harping on about how he derives his arguments through a logical examination of the evidence. BUT of course everyone who dares to disagree with him does not. Instead according to hi, they grab unsupported objections out of the air.
In the end he gets others to believe that he actually is using evidence. But in reality he will not allow any critisism of his views, which of course is what they basically are, his view, his understanding of the evidence which is indisputably the correct interpretation to which there is no answer. Notice his continual challenging of others to answer him. But when and if they do all he says is that is at most wrong and at least the person is not either thinking logically neither are they examining the evidence with any kind of common sense.
Spot on!
-
I think your post is dishonest. You lure people in by posting in a reasonable way - and then start lashing out with accusations when you don't get your own way. Using the words you do - such as dishonest - is no different than calling someone a liar to their face . Its is ill mannered and totally uncalled for. Posters on both sides are entitled to their opinions and some are more passionate than others. The majority of posters on here are NOT liars . They are not biased - they just do not accept that you are any more of an expert than those who have appeared for the prosecution and the defence on many previous occasions. We are no more biased than you , and I for one don't think there is a chance in hell that you are ever going to wake up and smell the roses so to speak.
IMO of course ;D
(http://s29.postimg.org/wdldcmsrr/skippy.jpg)
-
;D ;D ;D 8)
-
;D ;D ;D 8)
Jan you need to announce you're retraction from the innocent stance.
You were unable to say how Sheila did it. PM if you need some moral support.
-
(http://s29.postimg.org/wdldcmsrr/skippy.jpg)
David I excused you from having to retract.
However you're summary of how Sheila committed the massacre was so bad, you submitted another one. Which was again ripped apart.
Feel free to PM if you are having trouble retracting.
-
Thanks Jan. I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices this. It is a plan on his part to demoralize others who do not agree with him and as I stressed before and will keep on stressing it. It is insidious. He is working on people's subconscious level by his continual denigration of them so that they become dispirited. Notice his continual harping on about how he derives his arguments through a logical examination of the evidence. BUT of course everyone who dares to disagree with him does not. Instead according to hi, they grab unsupported objections out of the air.
In the end he gets others to believe that he actually is using evidence. But in reality he will not allow any critisism of his views, which of course is what they basically are, his view, his understanding of the evidence which is indisputably the correct interpretation to which there is no answer. Notice his continual challenging of others to answer him. But when and if they do all he says is that is at most wrong and at least the person is not either thinking logically neither are they examining the evidence with any kind of common sense.
Grahame you also need to retract.
PM me if you need a friendly ear.
-
Hahaha Adam you do have a sense of humour my little warrior ;D
-
I know Adam really thinks Jeremy is innocent -that is why he has a picture of his hero on every post :) :) :)
-
Hahaha Adam you do have a sense if humour my little warrior ;D
Nothing funny about it.
It's just a fact, maybe people were put off giving their version when they saw someone else's version get trashed.
Either way, there are only two suspects. If you can't say how one committed the massacre when all evidence is available, there is only one decent thing to do.
-
I know Adam really thinks Jeremy is innocent -that is why he has a picture of his hero on every post :) :) :)
It´s a bit creepy. Why does he choose a picture of a young, handsome Jeremy for his avvie?
-
Nothing funny about it.
It's just a fact, maybe people were put off giving their version when they saw someone else's version get trashed.
Either way, there are only two suspects. If you can't say how one committed the massacre when all evidence is available, there is only one decent thing to do.
don't you get it?
You have not given a feasible scenario at all ? We have ripped yours apart. It is you that needs to change your mind,not us.
-
Adam, you don´t have to, but you are welcome to PM me if you need support when you change your stance. I will be sympathetic and listen to all you have to say. :)
-
don't you get it?
You have not given a feasible scenario at all ? We have ripped yours apart. It is you that needs to change your mind,not us.
You didn't comment on my point by point suggestion.
-
Adam, you don´t have to, but you are welcome to PM me if you need support when you change your stance. I will be sympathetic and listen to all you have to say. :)
I was all ready to change stance. But no one told me how Sheila did it.
-
I was all ready to change stance. But no one told me how Sheila did it.
Adam I think I did provide you with one... You then said stop relying on unlikely events to fall inplace
in other words you couldn't destroy it ::)
-
The word begins with 'D'.
Sheila fires two shots each into the twins. Although she is in a crazy rage she does not empty the rifle. Mmm.
Neville and June, sleeping in another room luckily hear the four shots. Rather than go out together to investigate, only Neville goes out. Mmm.
Neville sees Sheila with a gun, by the twins room. He abandons everyone. To....ring Jeremy. Mmm.
He calls Jeremy and just says ten words. Although Sheila is upstairs, leaving him alone. Then leaves the phone off the hook so Jeremy cannot call back. Mmm. I trust you do not believe Neville phoned Chelmsford police.
June had decided to go back to sleep. As her first shot was with her head on the pillow. Mmm.
Neville returns upstairs after abandoning everyone for several minutes. Without anything to protect his face or torso. Although he wants to 'stop the ordeal' and was scared enough to ring Jeremy, knowing there has been gun shots. Mmm.
Although Sheila had shot the twins, and June. Neville enters the main bedroom unprotected. Although he had just abandoned his family and rang Jeremy, so terrified of Sheila. Mmm.
Sheila very accurately shoots and hits Neville four times. Neville again goes downstairs. Mmm.
Neville decides to just wait in the kitchen for Sheila to reload, although there is no proof she could re load. Mmm.
Once Sheila has reloaded she enters the kitchen. Rather than shoot Neville, she engages in a violent struggle. The judge saying 'Neville put up a tremendous fight for life'. Sheila gives Neville a brutal beating and doesn't get a mark on herself. Mmm.
Sheila now has delusions about the twins and reloads to shoot the dead twins another four times. Mmm
-
Adam, you don´t know what happened. If you need to cry out on my shoulder over it, feel free to PM me.
-
The word begins with 'D'.
Sheila fires two shots each into the twins. Although she is in a crazy rage she does not empty the rifle. Mmm.
Neville and June, sleeping in another room luckily hear the four shots. Rather than go out together to investigate, only Neville goes out. Mmm.
Neville sees Sheila with a gun, by the twins room. He abandons everyone. To....ring Jeremy. Mmm.
He calls Jeremy and just says ten words. Although Sheila is upstairs, leaving him alone. Then leaves the phone off the hook so Jeremy cannot call back. Mmm. I trust you do not believe Neville phoned Chelmsford police.
June had decided to go back to sleep. As her first shot was with her head on the pillow. Mmm.
Neville returns upstairs after abandoning everyone for several minutes. Without anything to protect his face or torso. Although he wants to 'stop the ordeal' and was scared enough to ring Jeremy, knowing there has been gun shots. Mmm.
Although Sheila had shot the twins, and June. Neville enters the main bedroom unprotected. Although he had just abandoned his family and rang Jeremy, so terrified of Sheila. Mmm.
Sheila very accurately shoots and hits Neville four times. Neville again goes downstairs. Mmm.
Neville decides to just wait in the kitchen for Sheila to reload, although there is no proof she could re load. Mmm.
Once Sheila has reloaded she enters the kitchen. Rather than shoot Neville, she engages in a violent struggle. The judge saying 'Neville put up a tremendous fight for life'. Sheila gives Neville a brutal beating and doesn't get a mark on herself. Mmm.
Sheila now has delusions about the twins and reloads to shoot the dead twins another four times. Mmm
Its all very likely Adam, you just don't want to think so. How you think they would not wake up to gunshots in the next room is beyond me
-
I was all ready to change stance. But no one told me how Sheila did it.
Never mind Adam. You can come round my house and I'll share my weed with you.
-
Its all very likely Adam, you just don't want to think so. How you think they would not wake up to gunshots in the next room is beyond me
1) they were not in the next room there was a room in between the room the boys slept in and the master bedroom
2) the gun had a moderator and subsonic bullets
3) there are documented cases of kids and adults not waking up despite people being shot in the room adjacent to theirs with an unsuppressed firearm larger than 22 caliber
So you are batting 0/3
You are factually wrong on the first issue, ignored point 2 entirely and your notion it is not possible is proven wrong by documented cases.
So much for your unbiased rational stance you keep trying to peddle incompetently
-
1) they were not in the next room there was a room in between the room the boys slept in and the master bedroom
2) the gun had a moderator and subsonic bullets
3) there are documented cases of kids and adults not waking up despite people being shot in the room adjacent to theirs with an unsuppressed firearm larger than 22 caliber
So you are batting 0/3
You are factually wrong on the first issue, ignored point 2 entirely and your notion it is not possible is proven wrong by documented cases.
So much for your unbiased rational stance you keep trying to peddle incompetently
(http://s29.postimg.org/wdldcmsrr/skippy.jpg)
-
1) they were not in the next room there was a room in between the room the boys slept in and the master bedroom
2) the gun had a moderator and subsonic bullets
3) there are documented cases of kids and adults not waking up despite people being shot in the room adjacent to theirs with an unsuppressed firearm larger than 22 caliber
So you are batting 0/3
You are factually wrong on the first issue, ignored point 2 entirely and your notion it is not possible is proven wrong by documented cases.
So much for your unbiased rational stance you keep trying to peddle incompetently
Notice the the inevitable put down. Apparently David is "incompetent" now just because he put a possible version of events.
-
(http://s29.postimg.org/wdldcmsrr/skippy.jpg)
You lied not me. You lied claiming the boys were in a room next to where the parents were shot, that is false.
Your claim it is not possible for them to sleep through the shooting if they had been directly next door is proved wrong by documented cases where in rooms adjacent to rooms where people were killed with weapons larger than 22 caliber and yet didn't wake up and found out the next morning about the murders. You intentionally ignored the gun was suppressed and had subsonic ammunition.
I'm being a horrible person for bursting your bubble with facts and rational though which you want no part of. Indeed when I pointed to the medical evidence refuting your nonsense about the 4 shots from the bedroom being near fatal and Nevill walking to the kitchen and simply passing out and collapsing you closed your eyes and covered your ears like a child does when they don't want to face something. You did the same regarding the evidence demonstrating June suffered at least 6 shots before the altercation in the kitchen which you claim never occurred.
You even made a mistake claiming the bullets were upstairs and that after reloading upstairs she went to the kitchen. You tried to spin things saying I was unaware that the back stairway leads to the kitchen and that the back office could have been accessed by it. That has nothing to do with your claim though which was she went to a cupboard upstairs, loaded the gun and then ran down the stairs to the kitchen.
Since the points I make are so hard to discredit and you keep ending up with egg on your face when you try you resort to mocking me in childish ways which frankly doesn't bother me it merely demonstrates you have no substantive way to address what I raise and belies your claims of looking at things objectively. Ignoring evidence like the medical assessments of the wounds so you can pretend there was no struggle in the kitchen and try to pretend the boys were shot first isn't being objective. Objectivity is demonstrated by following the known facts and evidence where it leads.
-
You lied not me. You lied claiming the boys were in a room next to where the parents were shot, that is false.
Your claim it is not possible for them to sleep through the shooting if they had been directly next door is proved wrong by documented cases where in rooms adjacent to rooms where people were killed with weapons larger than 22 caliber and yet didn't wake up and found out the next morning about the murders. You intentionally ignored the gun was suppressed and had subsonic ammunition.
I'm being a horrible person for bursting your bubble with facts and rational though which you want no part of. Indeed when I pointed to the medical evidence refuting your nonsense about the 4 shots from the bedroom being near fatal and Nevill walking to the kitchen and simply passing out and collapsing you closed your eyes and covered your ears like a child does when they don't want to face something. You did the same regarding the evidence demonstrating June suffered at least 6 shots before the altercation in the kitchen which you claim never occurred.
You even made a mistake claiming the bullets were upstairs and that after reloading upstairs she went to the kitchen. You tried to spin things saying I was unaware that the back stairway leads to the kitchen and that the back office could have been accessed by it. That has nothing to do with your claim though which was she went to a cupboard upstairs, loaded the gun and then ran down the stairs to the kitchen.
Since the points I make are so hard to discredit and you keep ending up with egg on your face when you try you resort to mocking me in childish ways which frankly doesn't bother me it merely demonstrates you have no substantive way to address what I raise and belies your claims of looking at things objectively. Ignoring evidence like the medical assessments of the wounds so you can pretend there was no struggle in the kitchen and try to pretend the boys were shot first isn't being objective. Objectivity is demonstrated by following the known facts and evidence where it leads.
Scipio,
Please don't use the word 'lie'. 'Lie' suggests that David purposely misled people which I'm sure he didn't.
It would be a great help if you chose your words more carefully as understandably posters object to being called liars every time they post something you don't agree with.
Thank you
-
Scipio,
Please don't use the word 'lie'. 'Lie' suggests that David purposely misled people which I'm sure he didn't.
It would be a great help if you chose your words more carefully as understandably posters object to being called liars every time they post something you don't agree with.
Thank you
scipio is very clever with words, but unfortunately doesn't know how to use them. ;)
-
scipio is very clever with words, but unfortunately doesn't know how to use them. ;)
Oh he does,Mr G. ;)
-
1) they were not in the next room there was a room in between the room the boys slept in and the master bedroom- that's weird because I thought you claimed the gun would be heard from outside - but it would not wake them inside the house?
2) the gun had a moderator and subsonic bullets- for use when killing rabbits ::)
3) there are documented cases of kids and adults not waking up despite people being shot in the room adjacent to theirs with an unsuppressed firearm larger than 22 calibre - and I am sure there are documented cases where they did wake up - so this post is deliberately decieptful
So YOU LOSE
-
1) they were not in the next room there was a room in between the room the boys slept in and the master bedroom- that's weird because I thought you claimed the gun would be heard from outside - but it would not wake them inside the house?
More evidence of your inability to think cogently. The police were asleep outside? The police were outside trying to observe anything they could form inside the house and the window of the bedroom where Sheila was killed was open. Sound travels much better outside an open window than through multiple sets of walls. The boys were not awake trying to listen to any sound they could they were sleeping.
[/color]2) the gun had a moderator and subsonic bullets- for use when killing rabbits ::)
Subsonic bullets and moderators are used in combination for plinking targets so that peopel do not need to use hearing protection.
While it was documented Jeremy used the gun for target shooting no one ever saw him shoot a rabbit or other animal with it. The scope was used all such occasions including when Jeremy was seen walking around with it. His original excuse that the gun didn't fit in the closet with the scope and moderator attached fell apart as a lie and had to give way to other excuses for why they were removed though not convincing reasons.
[/color]3) there are documented cases of kids and adults not waking up despite people being shot in the room adjacent to theirs with an unsuppressed firearm larger than 22 calibre - and I am sure there are documented cases where they did wake up - so this post is deliberately decieptful
So YOU LOSE
Yes there are both documented cases where people slept through shots and documented cases where people woke up. You claimed it is not possible for the kids could have slept through shots fired. The fact some people have slept through shots refutes your claim is it not possible. So how did I lose?
-
Oh he does,Mr G. ;)
It was a play on my words lookout. ;D
-
Yes there are both documented cases where people slept through shots and documented cases where people woke up. You claimed it is not possible for the kids could have slept through shots fired. The fact some people have slept through shots refutes your claim is it not possible. So how did I lose?
It's a bit of a mute discussion, it is quite clear from the bullet cases and numbers for reloading, that the children were the third and fourth victims. Regardless of who the killer was.
The children were thankfully still asleep when they perished, so they clearly were not woken by the shots in the master bedroom, on the landing and in the kitchen.
There is no argument to be had regarding acoustics.
-
It's a bit of a mute discussion, it is quite clear from the bullet cases and numbers for reloading, that the children were the third and fourth victims. Regardless of who the killer was.
The children were thankfully still asleep when they perished, so they clearly were not woken by the shots in the master bedroom, on the landing and in the kitchen.
There is no argument to be had regarding acoustics.
How can you work that out? not disbelieving you i'm genuinely curious
-
How can you work that out? not disbelieving you i'm genuinely curious
I formulated the only plausible order of shots, with regards to injuries sustained, opportunities to reload, magazine capacity and the number of shots fired.
I'll try and dig out the post where I scheduled it out.
-
How can you work that out? not disbelieving you i'm genuinely curious
The order of shots is as follows, there is no plausible alternative:
The first 9 shots were in the master bedroom and one on landing, 4 shots to Nevill and 6 shots to June.
The rifle was reloaded in the kitchen and four shots were to Nevills head in the kitchen.
The partially full magazine was reloaded, with a bullet already in the breach, the rifle now contained 11 bullets.
These 11 bullets were distributed as follows: 8 to the twins, 1 more to June and 2 to Sheila.
-
The order of shots is as follows, there is no plausible alternative:
10 shots in the bedroom and one on the stairs makes 11....do you include one in the breach?
4 more shots to NB after reloading???? leaves 7 including one in the breach.
The magazine must have been reloaded after the 4 shots to NB. :-\
-
10 9 shots in the bedroom and one on the stairs makes 11....do you include one in the breach?
4 more shots to NB after reloading???? leaves 7 including one in the breach.
The magazine must have been reloaded after the 4 shots to NB. :-\
My bad typing. Read again. :-[
-
The order of shots is as follows, there is no plausible alternative:
1) David chooses to believe the kids were shot first no matter what. He asserts several shots were fired into the kids, then the killer went to the master bedroom fired 4 into June and came back after the kitchen shooting to fire 3 more into her. David chooses to ignore the evidence that June suffered at least 6 shots in a row and collapsed on the floor before the killer could return from the kitchen. He doesn't care that the other 2 shots were fired while she was either seated or getting up and thus could not have been delivered while she was lying on the floor which is where she had to be by the time the killer returned from the kitchen.
2) David chooses to ignore the evidence that Nevill's 4 wounds from upstairs were not immediately life threatening and that there was a struggle and prefers to believe he simply stumbled to the kitchen then collapsed over the chair.
3) You are forgetting that it is theoretically possible for Jeremy to have loaded 11 bullets at the outset and thus to have fired all 7 at June and 4 at Nevill in the initial shooting event. If that happened the killer went upstairs with only 10 and only shot the boys and Sheila in the post kitchen shooting. There is no way to know for sure whether the gun had 11 prior to the kitchen episode or after. This doesn't affect your point though about the boys being shot after the kitchen episode.
-
1) David chooses to believe the kids were shot first no matter what. He asserts several shots were fired into the kids, then the killer went to the master bedroom fired 4 into June and came back after the kitchen shooting to fire 3 more into her. David chooses to ignore the evidence that June suffered at least 6 shots in a row and collapsed on the floor before the killer could return from the kitchen. He doesn't care that the other 2 shots were fired while she was either seated or getting up and thus could not have been delivered while she was lying on the floor which is where she had to be by the time the killer returned from the kitchen.
2) David chooses to ignore the evidence that Nevill's 4 wounds from upstairs were not immediately life threatening and that there was a struggle and prefers to believe he simply stumbled to the kitchen then collapsed over the chair.
3) You are forgetting that it is theoretically possible for Jeremy to have loaded 11 bullets at the outset and thus to have fired all 7 at June and 4 at Nevill in the initial shooting event. If that happened the killer went upstairs with only 10 and only shot the boys and Sheila in the post kitchen shooting. There is no way to know for sure whether the gun had 11 prior to the kitchen episode or after. This doesn't affect your point though about the boys being shot after the kitchen episode.
It's possible, but I don't believe so, I think the killer underestimated the number of bullets required and thought a single magazine was enough.
I think the killer reloaded directly from the gun cupboard. The 30 rounds spilled on the counter were planted afterwards.
-
My bad typing. Read again. :-[
Well I didn't mention it before but if Nevill were shot on the stairs then he would have had a shot to his back and the casing would have either gone down the stairs or towards the room Sheila was staying in. The bullet trajectory would have gone from his back to his front. All 4 bullets fired upstairs his his left profile which would have been facing the wall as he went down the stairs.
The casing in the hallway against the master bedroom wall is to the left of the gun not right (ejection port is on the right) had someone being shooting at someone on the stairs. That casing was from the kitchen, it was accidentally stuck on a shoe and brought there as someone was walking it could even have been the killer's shoe for all we know.
-
It's possible, but I don't believe so, I think the killer underestimated the number of bullets required and thought a single magazine was enough.
I think the killer reloaded directly from the gun cupboard. The 30 rounds spilled on the counter were planted afterwards.
The other thing Scip, is I think the killer 'may' have miscounted the bullets when it came to Sheila, and fired the two shots but thinking there was only one bullet left.
If that makes sense? :-\
-
Thought there was only one bullet left - so wasn't careful with the trigger and ended up firing twice?
-
Well I didn't mention it before but if Nevill were shot on the stairs then he would have had a shot to his back and the casing would have either gone down the stairs or towards the room Sheila was staying in. The bullet trajectory would have gone from his back to his front. All 4 bullets fired upstairs his his left profile which would have been facing the wall as he went down the stairs.
The casing in the hallway against the master bedroom wall is to the left of the gun not right (ejection port is on the right) had someone being shooting at someone on the stairs. That casing was from the kitchen, it was accidentally stuck on a shoe and brought there as someone was walking it could even have been the killer's shoe for all we know.
Yes you are right about a case being transferred from the kitchen.
I'm a bit rusty but I thought there was another case at the top of the stairs on the landing, the stairs turn 180 degrees, so the shot doesn't need to be behind Neville.
But you may be right, I may have confused the transferred case.
-
The magazine must have been reloaded after the 4 shots to NB. :-\
Yes the gun was reloaded after shooting Nevill in the kitchen, it was likely only partially loaded so that he could quickly be shot before he woke up and caused more problems. Then with him the dead the killer had extra time to fully reload before going back upstairs to finish the job.
There are 3 distinct shootings and some slight variations possible.
I. Prior to the kitchen episode
II Kitchen Episode
III Post Kitchen episode.
The kitchen episode had 4 shots there is no variation possible. It is 1 and 3 that have variation possible.
IA) The gun was initially loaded with 11 rounds all 7 bullets into June and 4 into Nevill
IB) The gun initially had 10 rounds 6 bullets into June and 4 into Nevill
IIIA) Returned from the kitchen with 10 rounds, 8 into the boys and 2 into Sheila
IIIB) Returned from the kitchen with 11 rounds, 1 between June's eyes, 8 into the boys, 2 into Sheila
Not that it is theoretically possible for the boys to have been killed before Sheila. We know the 10 rounds were used on them but can't be sure the boys were killed first. If Sheila was already out of her room she had to be dealt with before the boys. If Sheila was still in her room then it makes more sense to kill the boys first and then her. Obviously if one wants to assert she was the killer she had to die last.
-
Thought there was only one bullet left - so wasn't careful with the trigger and ended up firing twice?
Yes, that was my suggestion.
-
The other thing Scip, is I think the killer 'may' have miscounted the bullets when it came to Sheila, and fired the two shots but thinking there was only one bullet left.
If that makes sense? :-\
Yes, I've also thought that - I remember NGB saying the rifle had a hair trigger so it would be easy to do.
-
Yes you are right about a case being transferred from the kitchen.
I'mI'm a bit rusty but I thought there was another case at the top of the stairs on the landing, the stairs turn 180 degrees, so the shot doesn't need to be behind Neville.
But you may be right, I may have confused the transferred case.
The one against the wall there is the only one that was in the hall. It has been characterized as being found on the stairs, on the landing, against the wall, in the hall... The fact so many different descriptions are used by different people makes it confusing. When I first started examining the case I thought Nevill was shot in the head while walking down the stairs (5 shots upstairs) because of reading it was found on the stairs. Only later did I realize had any of the headshots from the kitchen been delivered upstairs he never would have reached the kitchen.
13 casings were in the master bedroom, 3 in the kitchen, 8 in the room the twins were in and 1 in the hall.
-
The one against the wall there is the only one that was in the hall. It has been characterized as being found on the stairs, on the landing, against the wall, in the hall... The fact so many different descriptions are used by different people makes it confusing. When I first started examining the case I thought Nevill was shot in the head while walking down the stairs (5 shots upstairs) because of reading it was found on the stairs. Only later did I realize had any of the headshots from the kitchen been delivered upstairs he never would have reached the kitchen.
13 casings were in the master bedroom, 3 in the kitchen, 8 in the room the twins were in and 1 in the hall.
That answers that then. :)
-
1) David chooses to believe the kids were shot first no matter what. He asserts several shots were fired into the kids, then the killer went to the master bedroom fired 4 into June and came back after the kitchen shooting to fire 3 more into her. David chooses to ignore the evidence that June suffered at least 6 shots in a row and collapsed on the floor before the killer could return from the kitchen. He doesn't care that the other 2 shots were fired while she was either seated or getting up and thus could not have been delivered while she was lying on the floor which is where she had to be by the time the killer returned from the kitchen.
2) David chooses to ignore the evidence that Nevill's 4 wounds from upstairs were not immediately life threatening and that there was a struggle and prefers to believe he simply stumbled to the kitchen then collapsed over the chair.
3) You are forgetting that it is theoretically possible for Jeremy to have loaded 11 bullets at the outset and thus to have fired all 7 at June and 4 at Nevill in the initial shooting event. If that happened the killer went upstairs with only 10 and only shot the boys and Sheila in the post kitchen shooting. There is no way to know for sure whether the gun had 11 prior to the kitchen episode or after. This doesn't affect your point though about the boys being shot after the kitchen episode.
Can you please show me the evidence proving June was definitely shot 6 times in a row
Four shots from a .22 rifle at close range will inflict serious damage considering some where head shots.
-
If NB and June were shot in the main bedroom? Where was Sheila and how did she get into the main bedroom? Why was June walking round the bed and not heading for the door? Still many questions unanswered. :-\
-
I believe the rifle was already damaged when the children were shot for the rifle went off in succession. I also believe the rifle was damaged when NB was shot, thus might mean that he was hit with the rifle prior to reloading the magazine...The reason I believe this is that the head shots are in two's...
I believe June was shot first along with Nevill. But I cannot explain Sheila? Something just does not fit imo...
-
That answers that then. :)
Actually, I was right the first time and I'm annoyed (not really :D ) for doubting myself.
Exhibits DRH 13 & 14 were both found on the stairs and landing.
-
LANDING
DRH/14...landing floor adjacent to the wall.
MAIN BEDROOM
DRH/13 metal strip of doorway
DRH/6 top of quit right hand side of the bed
DRH/7 under wardrobe
DRH/7 under wardrobe (note Hammersley quotes two cases found under same serial number DRH7
DRH/8 left hand side of bed 4inches from the pillow
DRH/9 Bullet found 4 inches form DRH/8 near pillow left hand side of bed
DRH/10 on the quilt right hand side of the bed on floor.
DRH/11 right hand side of bed on the floor near the wardrobe
DRH/12 on the floor right hand side of the bed
DRH/43 under the wardrobe right hand side of bed
DRH/1 right side of Sheila's body
DRH/2 Left hand side of Sheila's body
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
DRH/4 next to DRH/3
DRH/5 Bullet.
TWINS ROOM
8 cases and 1 bullet.
DRH/37 under wooden bedside cabinet
DRH/36 Bullet
DRH/38 Under right hand side of the bed at the head of the bed
DRH 39 right hand corner under right hand side of the bed
DRH/39 (note Hammersley quotes two case shells)
DRH 40 under the middle of the right hand bed
DRH/16 floor between both beds
DRH/17 On wooden cabinet between both beds
DRH18 right hand side of bed
-
If NB and June were shot in the main bedroom? Where was Sheila and how did she get into the main bedroom? Why was June walking round the bed and not heading for the door? Still many questions unanswered. :-\
Sheila was in her room.
She used her legs to get to the main bedroom, it wasn't far. ???
-
It's possible, but I don't believe so, I think the killer underestimated the number of bullets required and thought a single magazine was enough.
I think the killer reloaded directly from the gun cupboard. The 30 rounds spilled on the counter were planted afterwards.
I agree the bullets in the kitchen were planted afterwards. I also agree the killer underestimated things. But it is common for killers to load 1 in the chamber and then have a full magazine at the outset of a crime. There is a desire to have maximum amount of rounds available. This applies not just with weapons that have detachable magazines. In the Amityville Murder case the murder weapon was a lever action rifle that had an integral magazine. He chambered a round then loaded another so he would have maximum capacity. I know a lot of people who keep 1 round in the chamber and then a full mag in the handguns they carry. How prolific he was with his gun would determine whether this would cross his mind. He might not have realized it was even possible. It is nonetheless a theoretical possibility that should be mentioned when giving the field of possibilities.
As for losing count of the shot fired that is very easy to do. It is hard to stay focused and keep track of the count. I lost count plenty of times on the range. That is why it wasn't that easy for him to know how many bullets to stage but I don't think he even considered they would count the bullets and add the ones fired to them to test his claims.
-
LANDING
DRH/14...landing floor adjacent to the wall.
MAIN BEDROOM
DRH/13 metal strip of doorway
DRH/6 top of quit right hand side of the bed
DRH/7 under wardrobe
DRH/7 under wardrobe (note Hammersley quotes two cases found under same serial number DRH7
DRH/8 left hand side of bed 4inches from the pillow
DRH/9 Bullet found 4 inches form DRH/8 near pillow left hand side of bed
DRH/10 on the quilt right hand side of the bed on floor.
DRH/11 right hand side of bed on the floor near the wardrobe
DRH/12 on the floor right hand side of the bed
DRH/43 under the wardrobe right hand side of bed
DRH/1 right side of Sheila's body
DRH/2 Left hand side of Sheila's body
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
DRH/4 next to DRH/3
DRH/5 Bullet.
TWINS ROOM
8 cases and 1 bullet.
DRH/37 under wooden bedside cabinet
DRH/36 Bullet
DRH/38 Under right hand side of the bed at the head of the bed
DRH 39 right hand corner under right hand side of the bed
DRH/39 (note Hammersley quotes two case shells)
DRH 40 under the middle of the right hand bed
DRH/16 floor between both beds
DRH/17 On wooden cabinet between both beds
DRH18 right hand side of bed
Metal strip of doorway? I'll get back in my box then. :-[
-
I agree the bullets in the kitchen were planted afterwards. I also agree the killer underestimated things. But it is common for killers to load 1 in the chamber and then have a full magazine at the outset of a crime. There is a desire to have maximum amount of rounds available. This applies not just with weapons that have detachable magazines. In the Amityville Murder case the murder weapon was a lever action rifle that had an integral magazine. He chambered a round then loaded another so he would have maximum capacity. I know a lot of people who keep 1 round in the chamber and then a full mag in the handguns they carry. How prolific he was with his gun would determine whether this would cross his mind. He might not have realized it was even possible. It is nonetheless a theoretical possibility that should be mentioned when giving the field of possibilities.
As for losing count of the shot fired that is very easy to do. It is hard to stay focused and keep track of the count. I lost count plenty of times on the range. That is why it wasn't that easy for him to know how many bullets to stage but I don't think he even considered they would count the bullets and add the ones fired to them to test his claims.
Either way, the killer must have loaded directly from the gun cupboard in the office, at least the first time.
Perhaps there was a partially full box containing only 5 bullets, then a second full box was opened.
-
The other thing Scip, is I think the killer 'may' have miscounted the bullets when it came to Sheila, and fired the two shots but thinking there was only one bullet left.
If that makes sense? :-\
A gun with a low trigger pull like the murder weapon is very easy to double tap, which means two shots in quick succession. However, if that happened one would expect the wounds to be closer and trajectories much closer. Worse Vanezis said several seconds elapsed between Sheila's shots. He said that several seconds passed before the second was fired but not too many seconds. So this seems to suggest the second shot through the chin into the brain was intentional. The first shot was nearly level the gun was almost a 90 degree angle to the neck and the bullet went from the front of the neck to back. My best guess is after seeing that the first shot didn't kill her Jeremy panicked and shot her again.
-
I believe the rifle was already damaged when the children were shot for the rifle went off in succession. I also believe the rifle was damaged when NB was shot, thus might mean that he was hit with the rifle prior to reloading the magazine...The reason I believe this is that the head shots are in two's...
I believe June was shot first along with Nevill. But I cannot explain Sheila? Something just does not fit imo...
The rifle didn't need to be damaged, it was a semi-automatic, the groups of shots reinforces Sheila being shot twice inadvertently.
Neville was hit with the rifle because the killer ran out of ammunition.
-
Actually, I was right the first time and I'm annoyed (not really :D ) for doubting myself.
Exhibits DRH 13 & 14 were both found on the stairs and landing.
13 was in the doorway, I consider that the bedroom but if you would like to consider it the hall it amounts to tomato tomaaato.
It doesn't change that if someone is going down stairs their left side is facing the wall which makes it hard to target except a ricochet shot. The right side is what is exposed if someone is in the hall.
-
A gun with a low trigger pull like the murder weapon is very easy to double tap, which means two shots in quick succession. However, if that happened one would expect the wounds to be closer and trajectories much closer. Worse Vanezis said several seconds elapsed between Sheila's shots. He said that several seconds passed before the second was fired but not too many seconds. So this seems to suggest the second shot through the chin into the brain was intentional. The first shot was nearly level the gun was almost a 90 degree angle to the neck and the bullet went from the front of the neck to back. My best guess is after seeing that the first shot didn't kill her Jeremy panicked and shot her again.
Yeah but that doesn't fit with the staging of a suicide, not for me anyway.
Perhaps the killer thought the rifle was empty and the second shot occurred accidentally when staging the rifle on Sheila's body.
-
13 was in the doorway, I consider that the bedroom but if you would like to consider it the hall it amounts to tomato tomaaato.
It doesn't change that if someone is going down stairs their left side is facing the wall which makes it hard to target except a ricochet shot. The right side is what is exposed if someone is in the hall.
It looks like 13 is a metal strip rather than a case, on the assumption that Patti isn't leading me up the path again.
-
It looks like 13 is a metal strip rather than a case, on the assumption that Patti isn't leading me up the path again.
You can see the case shell near the metal strip in the crime scene photo's. I'll double check DRH/13
-
You can see the case shell near the metal strip in the crime scene photo's. I'll double check DRH/13
I'm sure you are right Patti.
-
If NB and June were shot in the main bedroom? Where was Sheila and how did she get into the main bedroom? Why was June walking round the bed and not heading for the door? Still many questions unanswered. :-\
Sheila was in bed as June and Nevill were shot.
There is no way to know for sure whether she stayed in bed till Jeremy woke her up or she woke up on her own at some point and left her room.
She still could have been in bed when Jeremy came up from the kitchen after killing Nevill or could have woken up and walked in the hall and went to see June's body. If so and he came back up as she was there then she could have run to the other side of the bedroom to try to get away from Jeremy.
It is just as possible though Jeremy marched her to the other side of the bed at gunpoint because he needed enough room to fit her and him in the area where he planned to stage her death. Killing her with June's body in the way wasn't ideal quite clearly. Killing her in her own bedroom would not be idea either because then it would look like everyone was shot in their own rooms like someone went room to room killing them all including Sheila. Killing her in a different room helped further the notion she did it.
If Sheila were up a long time she would have seen her mother's body then ran to check on her kids and probably try to wake them up and fell with them. So logic suggests if she did wake up she only managed to see June and didn't have time to check on her kids before Jeremy returned.
-
I'm sure you are right Patti.
Just had a quick look and its was the metal strip. I did a lot of work with that back in the good old days... ;)
Why is the rifle known as rifle (18)?
-
Yeah but that doesn't fit with the staging of a suicide, not for me anyway.
Perhaps the killer thought the rifle was empty and the second shot occurred accidentally when staging the rifle on Sheila's body.
Necessity is the mother if invention. If you think the 1st shot didn't kill your victim you fire another you don't risk your victim surviving.
At any rate firing another shot by accident several seconds later is possible whereas the medical evidence seems to foreclose a hair trigger doubletap happening.
-
Just had a quick look and its was the metal strip. I did a lot of work with that back in the good old days... ;)
Why is the rifle known as rifle (18)?
That was the court exhibit reference.
Caveat: I think. :-\
-
Sheila was in bed as June and Nevill were shot.
There is no way to know for sure whether she stayed in bed till Jeremy woke her up or she woke up on her own at some point and left her room.
She still could have been in bed when Jeremy came up from the kitchen after killing Nevill or could have woken up and walked in the hall and went to see June's body. If so and he came back up as she was there then she could have run to the other side of the bedroom to try to get away from Jeremy.
It is just as possible though Jeremy marched her to the other side of the bed at gunpoint because he needed enough room to fit her and him in the area where he planned to stage her death. Killing her with June's body in the way wasn't ideal quite clearly. Killing her in her own bedroom would not be idea either because then it would look like everyone was shot in their own rooms like someone went room to room killing them all including Sheila. Killing her in a different room helped further the notion she did it.
If Sheila were up a long time she would have seen her mother's body then ran to check on her kids and probably try to wake them up and fell with them. So logic suggests if she did wake up she only managed to see June and didn't have time to check on her kids before Jeremy returned.
mmmm
There is no sign of a struggle in the main bedroom is there? Yet there is a claim that NB had run out bullets. If this is so, why did NB not tackle Jeremy upstairs? :-\
-
It looks like 13 is a metal strip rather than a case, on the assumption that Patti isn't leading me up the path again.
DRH/3 was in the doorway of the bedroom. I consider it in the bedroom but it makes no real difference if someone calls it the hall.
Edit: sorry DRH/3 was a typo the 1 got eaten I meant DRH/13. Right inside the doorway is a metal floor strip. This strip is technically inside the room. DRH/13 was supposedly sitting on it. So whether you call this in the room or the hall is a matter of tomato tomaato. It is in the doorway right in between.
DRH/14 was in the hall right against the bedroom wall. Someone clearly had it stuck on their shoe and brought it there from the kitchen then it shook loose from the shoe and either landed in the corner or deposited away from the wall but it was later kicked into wall so it lodged in the corner of the wall. If it was kicked into the wall on purpose that was a no no.
-
mmmm
There is no sign of a struggle in the main bedroom is there? Yet there is a claim that NB had run out bullets. If this is so, why did NB not tackle Jeremy upstairs? :-\
Too many NB's. ;D
Who knows, because of his injuries most likely, plus who is to say he knew the killer was out of bullets?
Either way, he made it to the kitchen, leaving blood smears on the walls along the way.
-
That was the court exhibit reference.
Caveat: I think. :-\
Just wondered because it was labelled DRH/15
-
DRH/3 was in the doorway of the bedroom. I consider it in the bedroom but it makes no real difference if someone calls it the hall.
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
-
That was the court exhibit reference.
Caveat: I think. :-\
Actually, I'm not sure it was.
-
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
It's okay, we're talking about a metal strip now. ;)
-
Just wondered because it was labelled DRH/15
They were given references based on who found or logged the item during the investigation, these references consisted of the finders/loggers initials followed by a number. DRH referred to Hammersley I believe.
Then for the trial, the exhibits used were simply given a number for the court exhibit reference.
Having said that, I think the court exhibit 18 is the broken piece of the rifle butt rather than the rifle.
-
Anyway, It's late and I think I'm actually still banned. So I may or may not catch you next time.
Night all.
-
Anyway, It's late and I think I'm actually still banned. So I may or may not catch you next time.
Night all.
Night Hartley.
-
mmmm
There is no sign of a struggle in the main bedroom is there? Yet there is a claim that NB had run out bullets. If this is so, why did NB not tackle Jeremy upstairs? :-\
As I have said many times we have no idea whether the killer was running to the kitchen to get ammo with Nevill chasing the killer or Nevill was running to the kitchen to grab a weapon or try to get out the door with the killer chasing him to try to stop him. One would think that the killer would have caught up with Nevill before he reached the kitchen, he was bashing against the walls leaving a blood trail so I have a strong suspicion Nevill was chasing the killer then finally in the kitchen he tried to take the gun away and the struggle ensued. Once Nevill was knocked unconscious that permitted the killer the freedom to reload and then shoot him to death.
-
Can you please show me the evidence proving June was definitely shot 6 times in a row
Four shots from a .22 rifle at close range will inflict serious damage considering some where head shots.
The serious damage is the whole point. Because of the serious damage she already would have been dead by the time the killer returned upstairs following the kitchen altercation. Only the shot between her eyes could have been fired at that point.
4 of June's wounds were definitely inflicted while she was in bed. One of these is the wound severely damaged her skull.
Entrance wounds;
1) Above right ear/ inflicted while lying in bed/ severe head damage would kill her rapidly
2) Lower right Neck / inflicted while sitting in bed based on the exit wound/ severity not described
3) right forearm/ inflicted while lying in bed
4) right knee/ inflicted while lying in bed
5) right upper chest/ inflicted while sitting, getting up or virtually upright/ caused severe bleeding still alive when inflicted
6) right lower chest / inflicted while sitting, getting up or virtually upright/ caused severe bleeding still alive while inflicted
7) Between the eyes/ inflicting while lying on the floor based on back spatter on door
Note how 6 wounds were all the the right side of her body the only bullet that wasn't is the one that was between her eyes. That they were all to the right supports the killer firing the 6 shots from relatively the same position. That is one hint they were fired in succession. It is possible for all 6 to have been delivered while she was in bed. If she wasn't in bed when 5 and 6 were fired then she was either getting out of bed or practically standing upright.
The severity of the head wound she suffered in bed means that by the time the events in the kitchen finished and the killer reloaded and came back upstairs she would have been lying on the floor. With her body lying on the floor wounds 5 and 6 can't have been delivered the wound tracts are only able to fit someone sitting in bed, getting up out of bed or standing virtually upright. Moreover, wounds 5 and 6 resulted in a lot of blood filling the chest. Had bullets 5, 6 and 7 been delivered together then 5 and 6 would not have caused so much blood to fill the chest.
It is obvious based on everything that June was shot at least 6 times in a row as she was in bed and getting out of bed and then after she got up she collapsed on the floor and was shot again between the eyes. That shot could have come before the struggle in the kitchen or after. There is no way to know for sure because the gun could hold 11 rounds. We have no way to know whether it had 11 rounds at the outset or 11 rounds after the kitchen encounter which is what Harters believes happened. Sheila didn't even know how the use the gun so would not have had any clue how to get the gun to hold 11 rounds. Jeremy might have known how to accomplish such and could have chosen to do so figuring he wanted the maximum number of rounds available. He did need to kill 5 people after all. Whether Jeremy did have the foresight to do so we have no way to know as he is never going to tell us.
After knocking Nevill out the killer reloaded the gun with at least 4 bullets. If the killer loaded 5 or more rounds instead of just 4 that results in 1 being in the chamber still after killing Nevill. Upon refilling the magazine that means 11 rounds in the gun. So it would be possible to accidentally load 11 rounds. Harters thinks that is what happened and that is why he thinks the 7th shot to June was after the kitchen episode as opposed to before.
If one wants to argue Sheila did it they are forced to argue this because Sheila would never have known that 11 rounds could be loaded into the gun. It would have been accidental after the kitchen incident. I have seen a lot of cases where killers initially load a round in the chamber and then maximum rounds in the magazine so that in their initial magazine load they have maximum firepower. This is especially the case when there are not additional loaded magazines at the ready. So I am much more willing to think that Jeremy might have done that.
-
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
Note my edit:
"Edit: sorry DRH/3 was a typo the 1 got eaten I meant DRH/13. Right inside the doorway is a metal floor strip. This strip is technically inside the room. DRH/13 was supposedly sitting on it. So whether you call this in the room or the hall is a matter of tomato tomaato. It is in the doorway right in between.
DRH/14 was in the hall right against the bedroom wall. Someone clearly had it stuck on their shoe and brought it there from the kitchen then it shook loose from the shoe and either landed in the corner or deposited away from the wall but it was later kicked into wall so it lodged in the corner of the wall. If it was kicked into the wall on purpose that was a no no."
-
The word begins with 'D'.
Sheila fires two shots each into the twins. Although she is in a crazy rage she does not empty the rifle. Mmm.
Neville and June, sleeping in another room luckily hear the four shots. Rather than go out together to investigate, only Neville goes out. Mmm.
Neville sees Sheila with a gun, by the twins room. He abandons everyone. To....ring Jeremy. Mmm.
He calls Jeremy and just says ten words. Although Sheila is upstairs, leaving him alone. Then leaves the phone off the hook so Jeremy cannot call back. Mmm. I trust you do not believe Neville phoned Chelmsford police.
June had decided to go back to sleep. As her first shot was with her head on the pillow. Mmm.
Neville returns upstairs after abandoning everyone for several minutes. Without anything to protect his face or torso. Although he wants to 'stop the ordeal' and was scared enough to ring Jeremy, knowing there has been gun shots. Mmm.
Although Sheila had shot the twins, and June. Neville enters the main bedroom unprotected. Although he had just abandoned his family and rang Jeremy, so terrified of Sheila. Mmm.
Sheila very accurately shoots and hits Neville four times. Neville again goes downstairs. Mmm.
Neville decides to just wait in the kitchen for Sheila to reload, although there is no proof she could re load. Mmm.
Once Sheila has reloaded she enters the kitchen. Rather than shoot Neville, she engages in a violent struggle. The judge saying 'Neville put up a tremendous fight for life'. Sheila gives Neville a brutal beating and doesn't get a mark on herself. Mmm.
Sheila now has delusions about the twins and reloads to shoot the dead twins another four times. Mmm
-
The funniest thing about this is Neville hears gun shots. Then sees Sheila holding a gun by the twins. So of course runs downstairs....to ring Jeremy ??? However a lot made me chuckle.
But as I said, at least you you made the effort. Twice. Everyone else bottling it as they know there is no plausible explanation. Jan claiming she destroyed my version, although she did not comment.
So why support Jeremy if supporters cannot explain how Sheila did it ?
-
Cycle to WHF.
Get in quietly through the loose bathroom window.
Go upstairs with a loaded rifle. Silencer attached.
Shoot June several times while in bed. Shoot Neville several times.
Either go downstairs to re load, believing Neville and June are now incapacitated, and is followed by Neville. Or chase's a fleeing Neville downstairs.
Fight and brutally knock out an injured Neville in the kitchen.
Reload and shoot Neville four more times.
Return upstairs. Wake and get Sheila into the main bedroom. Or find Sheila already awake. Either way, she is shot.
Shoot June again who is now on the floor.
Reload and fire eight bullets into the sleeping twins.
Stage the scene and exit out of the kitchen window (14 sources).
Cycles back to the cottage.
Feel free to destroy.
-
Yes the gun was reloaded after shooting Nevill in the kitchen, it was likely only partially loaded so that he could quickly be shot before he woke up and caused more problems. Then with him the dead the killer had extra time to fully reload before going back upstairs to finish the job.
There are 3 distinct shootings and some slight variations possible.
I. Prior to the kitchen episode
II Kitchen Episode
III Post Kitchen episode.
The kitchen episode had 4 shots there is no variation possible. It is 1 and 3 that have variation possible.
IA) The gun was initially loaded with 11 rounds all 7 bullets into June and 4 into Nevill
IB) The gun initially had 10 rounds 6 bullets into June and 4 into Nevill
IIIA) Returned from the kitchen with 10 rounds, 8 into the boys and 2 into Sheila
IIIB) Returned from the kitchen with 11 rounds, 1 between June's eyes, 8 into the boys, 2 into Sheila
Not that it is theoretically possible for the boys to have been killed before Sheila. We know the 10 rounds were used on them but can't be sure the boys were killed first. If Sheila was already out of her room she had to be dealt with before the boys. If Sheila was still in her room then it makes more sense to kill the boys first and then her. Obviously if one wants to assert she was the killer she had to die last.
So in order to make this all work your only option is to have Sheila sleeping through all this firing and fighting, otherwise you have a problem with her apparently running around doing nothing whiles he shot her entire family?
-
A gun with a low trigger pull like the murder weapon is very easy to double tap, which means two shots in quick succession. However, if that happened one would expect the wounds to be closer and trajectories much closer. Worse Vanezis said several seconds elapsed between Sheila's shots. He said that several seconds passed before the second was fired but not too many seconds. So this seems to suggest the second shot through the chin into the brain was intentional. The first shot was nearly level the gun was almost a 90 degree angle to the neck and the bullet went from the front of the neck to back. My best guess is after seeing that the first shot didn't kill her Jeremy panicked and shot her again.
You forgot the question mark scipio. The other option of course is that she bent over the gun whilst sitting and firing? The gun would have still been at 90 degrees. There. I didn't forget my question mark, as both are theories and not necessarily fact.
-
You forgot the question mark scipio. The other option of course is that she bent over the gun whilst sitting and firing? The gun would have still been at 90 degrees. There. I didn't forget my question mark, as both are theories and not necessarily fact.
I have thought that a possibility, she may have sat on the bed and leant over the gun, fallen off the bed after first shot and come round on the floor at the side of the bed which may account for the blood which soaked into the arm of her night dress as she would have fallen face down. Although befuddled in most ways clear headed about what she wanted to do (this happens when in shock) she shot herself again either climbing back onto the bed first or sitting and leaning against the cabinet, no mistakes the second time.
Am sure Scorpio will rip this to bits, but what does he know?
-
The funniest thing about this is Neville hears gun shots. Then sees Sheila holding a gun by the twins. So of course runs downstairs....to ring Jeremy ??? However a lot made me chuckle.
But as I said, at least you you made the effort. Twice. Everyone else bottling it as they know there is no plausible explanation. Jan claiming she destroyed my version, although she did not comment.
So why support Jeremy if supporters cannot explain how Sheila did it ?
Probably because all these assumptions about people "bottling it" are actually only in your head?
-
Cycle to WHF.
Get in quietly through the loose bathroom window.
Go upstairs with a loaded rifle. Silencer attached.
Shoot June several times while in bed. Shoot Neville several times.
Either go downstairs to re load, believing Neville and June are now incapacitated, and is followed by Neville. Or chase's a fleeing Neville downstairs.
Fight and brutally knock out an injured Neville in the kitchen.
Reload and shoot Neville four more times.
Return upstairs. Wake and get Sheila into the main bedroom. Or find Sheila already awake. Either way, she is shot.
Shoot June again who is now on the floor.
Reload and fire eight bullets into the sleeping twins.
Stage the scene and exit out of the kitchen window (14 sources).
Cycles back to the cottage.
Feel free to destroy.
Of course the only way that all this will work is if Sheila is asleep. Otherwise what was she doing whilst all this commotion going on?
-
Of course the only way that all this will work is if Sheila is asleep. Otherwise what was she doing whilst all this commotion going on?
There is no way of knowing if Sheila was asleep or awake, we can see that when the photos were taken it appeared neither of the beds in Sheila's room had been slept in although one showed signs of having been lain on at least for a minute. That is all we know about Sheila's room. We know Sheila as a PS may not have slept well at all, this is a definite and very common side effect of the condition. We also know Sheila may have slept because of the Haldol but that doesn't always follow particularly in Sheila's case when her dose had been cut and she was nearing her next dose, we also know that she would have had a build up of the drug in her system. At pm it was obviously found she still had Haldol in her system but we don't know how much, there was no other sedative detected. The conclusion from that is, we just don't know the answer to whether she could have been awake or asleep imo.
-
..........
No he hasn't Maggie.
-
There is no way of knowing if Sheila was asleep or awake, we can see that when the photos were taken it appeared neither of the beds in Sheila's room had been slept in although one showed signs of having been lain on at least for a minute. That is all we know about Sheila's room. We know Sheila as a PS may not have slept well at all, this is a definite and very common side effect of the condition. We also know Sheila may have slept because of the Haldol but that doesn't always follow particularly in Sheila's case when her dose had been cut and she was nearing her next dose, we also know that she would have had a build up of the drug in her system. At pm it was obviously found she still had Haldol in her system but we don't know how much, there was no other sedative detected. The conclusion from that is, we just don't know the answer to whether she could have been awake or asleep imo.
Dependent on what time Neville was ready to go to bed,Sheila may possibly have sneaked into his place until he came up the stairs,Sheila sharing Bible readings with her mother,quite possibly from the verses which signified her thoughts at that time,Good and Evil. Wherever anyone happened to be,the Bible came into play. There were about 5 which had been placed in strategic areas of the farmhouse.
This would then have accounted Sheila's bed as not having been slept in. I think Neville would have perhaps showered in the meantime then made sure that everywhere was locked up and safe-------------------------then what ?
Well Neville would finally have gone upstairs,Sheila would then have moved from their bed and gone to lie on top of her own bed,obviously awake, or she'd have gone under the covers. Why didn't Sheila get into bed ? Where did she go when she got up,as she wouldn't have lain on top of the covers all night ?
-
Of course the only way that all this will work is if Sheila is asleep. Otherwise what was she doing whilst all this commotion going on?
Well my summary says Sheila was either awake or woken.
There is no reason why she should wake, thread already created.
However if she did wake, there is not much she could do.
June lay on the floor, dying or dead. Neville had been shot upstairs and brutally beaten and killed downstairs.
Sheila made no attempt to assist Neville downstairs. So a returning upstairs Jeremy just had to shoot a frozen and petrified Sheila. That is if she was wake.
-
Dependent on what time Neville was ready to go to bed,Sheila may possibly have sneaked into his place until he came up the stairs,Sheila sharing Bible readings with her mother,quite possibly from the verses which signified her thoughts at that time,Good and Evil. Wherever anyone happened to be,the Bible came into play. There were about 5 which had been placed in strategic areas of the farmhouse.
This would then have accounted Sheila's bed as not having been slept in. I think Neville would have perhaps showered in the meantime then made sure that everywhere was locked up and safe-------------------------then what ?
Well Neville would finally have gone upstairs,Sheila would then have moved from their bed and gone to lie on top of her own bed,obviously awake, or she'd have gone under the covers. Why didn't Sheila get into bed ? Where did she go when she got up,as she wouldn't have lain on top of the covers all night ?
How do you know that?
-
I have thought that a possibility, she may have sat on the bed and leant over the gun, fallen off the bed after first shot and come round on the floor at the side of the bed which may account for the blood which soaked into the arm of her night dress as she would have fallen face down. Although befuddled in most ways clear headed about what she wanted to do (this happens when in shock) she shot herself again either climbing back onto the bed first or sitting and leaning against the cabinet, no mistakes the second time.
Am sure Scorpio will rip this to bits, but what does he know?
It doesn'r matter if he does Maggie, because all you have to do is change one element from Sheila sleeping to her being active and the whole scenario (guesswork) falls down anyway.
-
Well my summary says Sheila was either awake or woken.
There is no reason why she should wake, thread already created.
However if she did wake, there is not much she could do.
June lay on the floor, dying or dead. Neville had been shot upstairs and brutally beaten and killed downstairs.
Sheila made no attempt to assist Neville downstairs. So a returning upstairs Jeremy just had to shoot a frozen and petrified Sheila. That is if she was wake.
So in other words she didn't try and wake her children or do anything to try and save them?
ps: I see we have moved away from a totally drugged up Sheila to a petrified and frozen Sheila. ::)
-
How do you know that?
Exactly Caroline it is just a guess as are both scipio's and Adams scenario's. The only difference is that they both count their scenarios af fact.
-
There is the obvious, where was Sheila?
But also (for me) the blood pattern on her nightgown and lower right arm, which indicate that she was conscious after the first shot and that there was a span of time between the two shots.
Those are not explained and are largely ignored. The two shots could not have been in quick succession as I saw one suggest.
-
There is the obvious, where was Sheila?
But also (for me) the blood pattern on her nightgown and lower right arm, which indicate that she was conscious after the first shot and that there was a span of time between the two shots.
Those are not explained and are largely ignored. The two shots could not have been in quick succession as I saw one suggest.
We Adam is always asking "where was Sheila". So he has the same question to answer. Do you believe in a frozen petrified Sheila, Alias?
-
Exactly Caroline it is just a guess as are both scipio's and Adams scenario's. The only difference is that they both count their scenarios af fact.
Hi Grahame, I don't treat anything as 'fact' now unless I dee some reference to the original investigation. I think we have all been caught out too many times to take things at face value - on 'both' sides.
-
We Adam is always asking "where was Sheila". So he has the same question to answer. Do you believe in a frozen petrified Sheila, Alias?
She couoldn´t have been frozen if she moved into the bedroom on her own - and that is the only way I can picture her being there in the first place; not "led", not "carried, sleeping" (!)
-
Hi Grahame, I don't treat anything as 'fact' now unless I dee some reference to the original investigation. I think we have all been caught out too many times to take things at face value - on 'both' sides.
Yes Caroline you and I both. It is just a pity that there are those who like to call their particular scenarios "fact". I mean, the other staircase has been mentioned and yet it had not been considered in any of their scenarios. They hadn't even bothered to find out about it let alone include it in their scenarios. Yet it could have played a vital role, we just don't know?
-
How do you know that?
I remember reading about that in one of the books.Seemingly,there were a few Bibles there anyway. Four that I knew of.One for the children,2 blue-backed ones and a black-backed one.
-
June took one Bible and left it with a friend of Sheila's. For what purpose,I don't know,but that explanation is given in Claire Powell's book,which includes quite a bit more about Sheila than other publications.
-
There is the obvious, where was Sheila?
But also (for me) the blood pattern on her nightgown and lower right arm, which indicate that she was conscious after the first shot and that there was a span of time between the two shots.
Those are not explained and are largely ignored. The two shots could not have been in quick succession as I saw one suggest.
There was also a patch of blood to the rear of her nightdress judging by one report from the pathologist.
-
June took one Bible and left it with a friend of Sheila's. For what purpose,I don't know,but that explanation is given in Claire Powell's book,which includes quite a bit more about Sheila than other publications.
I shall have to read it again.
-
Exactly Caroline it is just a guess as are both scipio's and Adams scenario's. The only difference is that they both count their scenarios af fact.
Not a guess on my part,Mr G-------------sorry.
-
Not a guess on my part,Mr G-------------sorry.
I was referring to the two amigos lookout. ;D
-
Hi Grahame, I don't treat anything as 'fact' now unless I dee some reference to the original investigation. I think we have all been caught out too many times to take things at face value - on 'both' sides.
I've NEVER made anything up yet and don't intend to do now.Whatever info I've posted/written has come from either online or books.Newspaper-cuttings are a no-no,has as been observed by those that I put up on Miscellaneous the other day,as NOT being believed. So media reports are a no-go area.
I've made suggestions,but have NEVER based them on facts,ever.
-
I've NEVER made anything up yet and don't intend to do now.Whatever info I've posted/written has come from either online or books.Newspaper-cuttings are a no-no,has as been observed by those that I put up on Miscellaneous the other day,as NOT being believed. So media reports are a no-go area.
I've made suggestions,but have NEVER based them on facts,ever.
I feel absolutely certain that you haven't, but books/internet can be equally as unreliable as newspaper cuttings. Whilst they may not tell deliberate lies, they may not tell the exact truth, either. They ALL get their "facts" from somewhere/someone. It comes down to agendas at the end of the day.
-
I was referring to the two amigos lookout. ;D
Sorry Mr G. ;D Wasn't sure.
-
I've NEVER made anything up yet and don't intend to do now.Whatever info I've posted/written has come from either online or books.Newspaper-cuttings are a no-no,has as been observed by those that I put up on Miscellaneous the other day,as NOT being believed. So media reports are a no-go area.
I've made suggestions,but have NEVER based them on facts,ever.
Where did I say you did? However, unless I see the original source for myself, I won't take it as a fact. I'm sure you're the same - just because I say something, doesn't mean it's correct, I could have misunderstood what was written or quoted it wrong.
-
Sorry Mr G. ;D Wasn't sure.
Otherwise know as the chuckle brothers. ;D
-
Otherwise know as the chuckle brothers. ;D
I had them down as a pair of Saints. Always abiding by the law.Never doing wrong.You know the sort,butter wouldn't melt and all that.
-
How do you know that?
I have never before heard a claim of a bible being placed in a strategic place. I suppose an old school one could be used as a weapon though.
-
I have never before heard a claim of a bible being placed in a strategic place. I suppose an old school one could be used as a weapon though.
It's quite true that June had her " places " in the farmhouse for a Bible. For instant and easy access.One was kept in the kitchen area for prayers before meals.One would be in the sitting room where the twins had to kneel and pray when June thought fit,much to Collin's chagrin. Then of course the bedrooms.
-
I have never before heard a claim of a bible being placed in a strategic place. I suppose an old school one could be used as a weapon though.
Strategic places were important to June because of her religious psychosis. An illness which isn't as easy to control as Sheila's should have been. This was the last diagnosis that June received not long before the tragedy.
-
Strategic places were important to June because of her religious psychosis. An illness which isn't as easy to control as Sheila's should have been. This was the last diagnosis that June received not long before the tragedy.
Do we have any formal confirmation of that, Lookout? Oh, and if you recall, the other day we were debating what were a doctor's duties when called out to confirm death at a crime scene, well today I asked my friend, a nurse, daughter, wife and mother to doctors. Her husband had been the duty doctor called out to one of our local murders -NOT the one at WHF- although I hadn't known that when I asked the question. The call out doctor's only task is to pronounce life extinct. He may form opinions on COD ONLY from what he can see, so whilst he may be able to see a knife wound/bullet hole/puncture mark, he might miss, for example, a blow to the back of the head/a stab wound to the back because he MUST NOT move the body from the position in which he found it.
-
It's quite true that June had her " places " in the farmhouse for a Bible. For instant and easy access.One was kept in the kitchen area for prayers before meals.One would be in the sitting room where the twins had to kneel and pray when June thought fit,much to Collin's chagrin. Then of course the bedrooms.
The old Puritan ministers use to share a Bible verse before breakfast in order to start the day.
The chose the verse by opening the Bible at random and reading whatever text it fell open at that was to be the verse of the day.
Anyway this old minister one day opened the cBible at random and his eyes fell on the text, "And Judas went and hanged himself". Oops! I can't give them that verse he thought. So he had another go.
This time the Bible fell open at the text, "Go thou and do likewise".
-
The serious damage is the whole point. Because of the serious damage she already would have been dead by the time the killer returned upstairs following the kitchen altercation. Only the shot between her eyes could have been fired at that point.
4 of June's wounds were definitely inflicted while she was in bed. One of these is the wound severely damaged her skull.
Entrance wounds;
1) Above right ear/ inflicted while lying in bed/ severe head damage would kill her rapidly
2) Lower right Neck / inflicted while sitting in bed based on the exit wound/ severity not described
3) right forearm/ inflicted while lying in bed
4) right knee/ inflicted while lying in bed
5) right upper chest/ inflicted while sitting, getting up or virtually upright/ caused severe bleeding still alive when inflicted
6) right lower chest / inflicted while sitting, getting up or virtually upright/ caused severe bleeding still alive while inflicted
7) Between the eyes/ inflicting while lying on the floor based on back spatter on door
Note how 6 wounds were all the the right side of her body the only bullet that wasn't is the one that was between her eyes. That they were all to the right supports the killer firing the 6 shots from relatively the same position. That is one hint they were fired in succession. It is possible for all 6 to have been delivered while she was in bed. If she wasn't in bed when 5 and 6 were fired then she was either getting out of bed or practically standing upright.
The severity of the head wound she suffered in bed means that by the time the events in the kitchen finished and the killer reloaded and came back upstairs she would have been lying on the floor. With her body lying on the floor wounds 5 and 6 can't have been delivered the wound tracts are only able to fit someone sitting in bed, getting up out of bed or standing virtually upright. Moreover, wounds 5 and 6 resulted in a lot of blood filling the chest. Had bullets 5, 6 and 7 been delivered together then 5 and 6 would not have caused so much blood to fill the chest.
It is obvious based on everything that June was shot at least 6 times in a row as she was in bed and getting out of bed and then after she got up she collapsed on the floor and was shot again between the eyes. That shot could have come before the struggle in the kitchen or after. There is no way to know for sure because the gun could hold 11 rounds. We have no way to know whether it had 11 rounds at the outset or 11 rounds after the kitchen encounter which is what Harters believes happened. Sheila didn't even know how the use the gun so would not have had any clue how to get the gun to hold 11 rounds. Jeremy might have known how to accomplish such and could have chosen to do so figuring he wanted the maximum number of rounds available. He did need to kill 5 people after all. Whether Jeremy did have the foresight to do so we have no way to know as he is never going to tell us.
After knocking Nevill out the killer reloaded the gun with at least 4 bullets. If the killer loaded 5 or more rounds instead of just 4 that results in 1 being in the chamber still after killing Nevill. Upon refilling the magazine that means 11 rounds in the gun. So it would be possible to accidentally load 11 rounds. Harters thinks that is what happened and that is why he thinks the 7th shot to June was after the kitchen episode as opposed to before.
If one wants to argue Sheila did it they are forced to argue this because Sheila would never have known that 11 rounds could be loaded into the gun. It would have been accidental after the kitchen incident. I have seen a lot of cases where killers initially load a round in the chamber and then maximum rounds in the magazine so that in their initial magazine load they have maximum firepower. This is especially the case when there are not additional loaded magazines at the ready. So I am much more willing to think that Jeremy might have done that.
That does not prove they where all fired in quick succession.
Vanezis states that 2 of the gun shots to the head would have caused rapid death. Then states the two shots to the chest would be fatal but would take time to kill the injured. Also by the blood states on Junes night dress she would have been in an upright position at some stage.
From the image I have seen of June I cant see any blood stains on the door thou its not a good picture. Do you have any description of the blood splatter on the door?
-
So in other words she didn't try and wake her children or do anything to try and save them?
ps: I see we have moved away from a totally drugged up Sheila to a petrified and frozen Sheila. ::)
Well she was found in the main bedroom, so may have gone in there first. Never to exit alive. Children or no children, people are usually terrified of gunmen in the dark.
I have never really said much about Sheila being totally drugged up. Although lots of people have mentioned this. Obviously if she was drugged up and as uncoordinated as AE and RB say, Jeremy is guilty.
-
Well she was found in the main bedroom, so may have gone in there first. Never to exit alive. Children or no children, people are usually terrified of gunmen in the dark.
I have never really said much about Sheila being totally drugged up. Although lots of people have mentioned this. Obviously if she was drugged up and as uncoordinated as AE and RB say, Jeremy is guilty.
Just out of curiosity why do you have a picture of Jeremy as your avatar?
-
What am I doing, saying 'if' ?
Jeremy is guilty. It has been confirmed this week. By supporters.
-
Well she was found in the main bedroom, so may have gone in there first. Never to exit alive. Children or no children, people are usually terrified of gunmen in the dark.
I have never really said much about Sheila being totally drugged up. Although lots of people have mentioned this. Obviously if she was drugged up and as uncoordinated as AE and RB say, Jeremy is guilty.
I thought the police said the lights were on?
-
That does not prove they where all fired in quick succession.
Vanezis states that 2 of the gun shots to the head would have caused rapid death. Then states the two shots to the chest would be fatal but would take time to kill the injured. Also by the blood states on Junes night dress she would have been in an upright position at some stage.
From the image I have seen of June I cant see any blood stains on the door thou its not a good picture. Do you have any description of the blood splatter on the door?
Statements including Dr Craig's notes the blood on the bottom back of the door.
June had to have collapsed quickly or she would have been able to leave the bedroom. Since she was shot in the head in bed before the kitchen episode this precludes her surviving long. She was already on the floor by the time the killer returned upstairs. from the kitchen. The 2 chest wounds that he called serious can't have been delivered while she was on the floor and based on the amount of blood they filled her chest with were delivered before she died. It is not conceivable they were delivered after the killer returned from the kitchen. The only reason she was still in the bedroom by that time is that is where she collapsed and only the shot between the eye could have been delivered while she was lying on the floor. The other were all while she was in bed or getting out of bed. She could have been sitting in bed or practically standing upright when shot in the chest but not lying on the floor.
-
Do we have any formal confirmation of that, Lookout? Oh, and if you recall, the other day we were debating what were a doctor's duties when called out to confirm death at a crime scene, well today I asked my friend, a nurse, daughter, wife and mother to doctors. Her husband had been the duty doctor called out to one of our local murders -NOT the one at WHF- although I hadn't known that when I asked the question. The call out doctor's only task is to pronounce life extinct. He may form opinions on COD ONLY from what he can see, so whilst he may be able to see a knife wound/bullet hole/puncture mark, he might miss, for example, a blow to the back of the head/a stab wound to the back because he MUST NOT move the body from the position in which he found it.
There should by rights have been a pathologist to see those bodies,as he/she would have carried out the necessary,including temperature to give an appx time of death,or how else do they expect to solve,or try and solve a murder when nobody knew what time it happened ?
Getting back to doctor's duties,a local doctor,here,took the old man's temperature because it was a sudden death and nobody else was present at the time. So different GP's have different methods.
I must find where I read about June. It could possibly have been the same doctor who'd treated Sheila in the March,but I do know that June had been diagnosed latterly to the tragedy,she'd suffered a nervous breakdown quite a few years after her first one.
This second breakdown of June's was just before Sheila met her birth mother,and it was after this meeting that Sheila had become increasingly erratic,and that's when she was sent along to see Dr Ferguson,where he'd described Sheila as being in a very agitated and psychotic state.
Even Sheila's friends had noticed that in 6 months,that she had become a " driven and tormented creature " ( Claire Powell's words, which I was once lambasted for using on here )
However,I've scanned through Powell's book to see if it had been her that had written the diagnosis of June,but up to now I can't find it. It's possible I've seen it on one of Dr Ferguson's letters on here somewhere,but I know I'm not mistaken.
-
I thought the police said the lights were on?
On/off I would still be terrified.
I suspect Jeremy committed the massacre in the dark. Then turned them on while staging the scene.
Then he left some lights on when leaving, to try to give the impression Sheila was keeping everyone awake. Except June and the twins !
-
There should by rights have been a pathologist to see those bodies,as he/she would have carried out the necessary,including temperature to give an appx time of death,or how else do they expect to solve,or try and solve a murder when nobody knew what time it happened ?
Getting back to doctor's duties,a local doctor,here,took the old man's temperature because it was a sudden death and nobody else was present at the time. So different GP's have different methods.
I must find where I read about June. It could possibly have been the same doctor who'd treated Sheila in the March,but I do know that June had been diagnosed latterly to the tragedy,she'd suffered a nervous breakdown quite a few years after her first one.
This second breakdown of June's was just before Sheila met her birth mother,and it was after this meeting that Sheila had become increasingly erratic,and that's when she was sent along to see Dr Ferguson,where he'd described Sheila as being in a very agitated and psychotic state.
Even Sheila's friends had noticed that in 6 months,that she had become a " driven and tormented creature " ( Claire Powell's words, which I was once lambasted for using on here )
However,I've scanned through Powell's book to see if it had been her that had written the diagnosis of June,but up to now I can't find it. It's possible I've seen it on one of Dr Ferguson's letters on here somewhere,but I know I'm not mistaken.
I don't recall reading anything about June suffering a breakdown close to the murders. I would have thought that if her health had given so much cause for concern that either the housekeeper or Barbara Willson would have noticed it and mentioned it, however I will allow that as she was probably highly strung she may have been on something to reduce anxiety. I wonder where on earth an author, long after the event, would get such information.
-
On/off I would still be terrified.
I suspect Jeremy committed the massacre in the dark. Then turned them on while staging the scene.
Then he left some lights on when leaving, to try to give the impression Sheila was keeping everyone awake. Except June and the twins !
I don't believe there was a moon that night so how on earth could he have seen anything without any lights? WHF is quite isolated there aren't any street lights. Surely they'd all be tripping over stuff?
-
Its so predictable that the situation is made to fit .And yet if the scenario is that JB is found innocent then all of a sudden the whole thing will fit the other way. And that is the thing about this case - It can be made to fit either way . Except for two things - JM testimony - and the sound moderator . There in are the clues.
-
I don't believe there was a moon that night so how on earth could he have seen anything without any lights? WHF is quite isolated there aren't any street lights. Surely they'd all be tripping over stuff?
You don't believe there was a moon. Source please.
Actually, after shooting and killing Neville and June in bed, he would put a light on to reload. Things didn't quite work like that.
-
Its so predictable that the situation is made to fit .And yet if the scenario is that JB is found innocent then all of a sudden the whole thing will fit the other way. And that is the thing about this case - It can be made to fit either way . Except for two things - JM testimony - and the sound moderator . There in are the clues.
It can't be made to fit either way, because you can't say how Sheila committed the massacre.
-
You don't believe there was a moon. Source please.
Actually, after shooting and killing Neville and June in bed, he would put a light on to reload. Things didn't quite work like that.
You can easily find that out yourself.
-
You don't believe there was a moon. Source please.
Actually, after shooting and killing Neville and June in bed, he would put a light on to reload. Things didn't quite work like that.
theres always a moon ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't recall reading anything about June suffering a breakdown close to the murders. I would have thought that if her health had given so much cause for concern that either the housekeeper or Barbara Willson would have noticed it and mentioned it, however I will allow that as she was probably highly strung she may have been on something to reduce anxiety. I wonder where on earth an author, long after the event, would get such information.
Because of June's health having been delicate,Neville was caught up in where his allegiance lay,as he'd always supported Sheila,but this time,it had been concern for June and I don't doubt that wouldn't have gone down well with Sheila. After Sheila's stay in hospital in 1983,she went to WHF to recuperate and June had given her short shrift by saying that she wasn't the only one who'd been unwell,or words to that effect. In other words,as Sheila told her friends that her mother had offered no sympathy.
BW possibly did know,but she's not likely to have said anything being a family confidante. Even less likely now since her latest video.
-
There should by rights have been a pathologist to see those bodies,as he/she would have carried out the necessary,including temperature to give an appx time of death,or how else do they expect to solve,or try and solve a murder when nobody knew what time it happened ?
Getting back to doctor's duties,a local doctor,here,took the old man's temperature because it was a sudden death and nobody else was present at the time. So different GP's have different methods.
I must find where I read about June. It could possibly have been the same doctor who'd treated Sheila in the March,but I do know that June had been diagnosed latterly to the tragedy,she'd suffered a nervous breakdown quite a few years after her first one.
This second breakdown of June's was just before Sheila met her birth mother,and it was after this meeting that Sheila had become increasingly erratic,and that's when she was sent along to see Dr Ferguson,where he'd described Sheila as being in a very agitated and psychotic state.
Even Sheila's friends had noticed that in 6 months,that she had become a " driven and tormented creature " ( Claire Powell's words, which I was once lambasted for using on here )
However,I've scanned through Powell's book to see if it had been her that had written the diagnosis of June,but up to now I can't find it. It's possible I've seen it on one of Dr Ferguson's letters on here somewhere,but I know I'm not mistaken.
Lookout, I've just had a closer look at what your post says. Forgive me, but it doesn't add up.
You say that it was after she met her birth mother that Sheila became increasingly erratic, was sent to see Dr F who described her as being in a very agitated and psychotic state!!!!! Sheila met her birth mother for the first and ONLY time AFTER she had discharged herself early from Dr F's care at the hospital. He never saw her again. I find it very hard to pin the expression "driven and tormented creature" on to any of the friends I think Sheila is likely to have had. It's too old an expression and has a far to literary ring about it.
-
You can easily find that out yourself.
I'm not claiming it.
-
Statements including Dr Craig's notes the blood on the bottom back of the door.
June had to have collapsed quickly or she would have been able to leave the bedroom. Since she was shot in the head in bed before the kitchen episode this precludes her surviving long. She was already on the floor by the time the killer returned upstairs. from the kitchen. The 2 chest wounds that he called serious can't have been delivered while she was on the floor and based on the amount of blood they filled her chest with were delivered before she died. It is not conceivable they were delivered after the killer returned from the kitchen. The only reason she was still in the bedroom by that time is that is where she collapsed and only the shot between the eye could have been delivered while she was lying on the floor. The other were all while she was in bed or getting out of bed. She could have been sitting in bed or practically standing upright when shot in the chest but not lying on the floor.
I believe she sat up right in bed then received several shots. Falling back slightly but still resting her body slightly upright. While the killer reloads and deals with Neville she manages to get to the door then receives the last fatal shots.
There would be blood at the bottom of the door yes specially since some where exit wounds. However I have seen a partial image of the door and cannot see any blood. That's another reason why I asked if we could get more of the crime scene photos it would help a lot
-
Look, Sheila was a 'nutter' who 'should be locked up' and was 'going back to the nut house'.
Who says so ? Jeremy.
-
Lookout, I've just had a closer look at what your post says. Forgive me, but it doesn't add up.
You say that it was after she met her birth mother that Sheila became increasingly erratic, was sent to see Dr F who described her as being in a very agitated and psychotic state!!!!! Sheila met her birth mother for the first and ONLY time AFTER she had discharged herself early from Dr F's care at the hospital. He never saw her again. I find it very hard to pin the expression "driven and tormented creature" on to any of the friends I think Sheila is likely to have had. It's too old an expression and has a far to literary ring about it.
It's a very old book.1994. That's exactly what the author said.Also she'd added her thanks to the dozens of people who'd agreed to speak to her while she was writing her book.
-
Maggie no moon source please ;D
-
It's a very old book.1994. That's exactly what the author said.Also she'd added her thanks to the dozens of people who'd agreed to speak to her while she was writing her book.
I haven't read it. It seems to me that there are some facts about the case that it would be difficult to get wrong. CP seems to have managed. I don't think Sheila received the best of after care under Dr F's auspices, but I would never have credited him with SO gross a miscalculation on the timing of her illness.
-
You don't believe there was a moon. Source please.
Actually, after shooting and killing Neville and June in bed, he would put a light on to reload. Things didn't quite work like that.
Am almost certain the clouds were hiding the moon that night can remember having this discussion, think we found out from the met office what the weather was like that night. Your guess is as good as mine to the source it was a few years ago. :-\
-
Am almost certain the clouds were hiding the moon that night can remember having this discussion, think we found out from the met office what the weather was like that night. Your guess is as good as mine to the source it was a few years ago. :-\
I think it was Patti who kindly gave us the weather forecast for that night. There were clouds because it had been raining too,so not as clear as sky as one would have us believe
-
Am almost certain the clouds were hiding the moon that night can remember having this discussion, think we found out from the met office what the weather was like that night. Your guess is as good as mine to the source it was a few years ago. :-\
You'll find it on a thread in the index. ;D
-
I think it was Patti who kindly gave us the weather forecast for that night. There were clouds because it had been raining too,so not as clear as sky as one would have us believe
I thought it was Patti and the sky was mainly overcast, however the moon when out was round the other side of the house.
Am sorry adam but it would have been pitch black in the house without any lights.
-
Well she was found in the main bedroom, so may have gone in there first. Never to exit alive. Children or no children, people are usually terrified of gunmen in the dark.
I have never really said much about Sheila being totally drugged up. Although lots of people have mentioned this. Obviously if she was drugged up and as uncoordinated as AE and RB say, Jeremy is guilty.
The lights were found on according to some officers.
-
theres always a moon ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
There was a moon in the hound of the Baskervilles.
-
There was a moon in the hound of the Baskervilles.
Was that the dog that didn't bark?
-
Look, Sheila was a 'nutter' who 'should be locked up' and was 'going back to the nut house'.
Who says so ? Jeremy.
the terms are now non PC and we have asked you several times not to repeat them-but what is wrong about the above statement?
-
No Maggie that was Crispy ;D ;D ;D
-
I believe she sat up right in bed then received several shots. Falling back slightly but still resting her body slightly upright. While the killer reloads and deals with Neville she manages to get to the door then receives the last fatal shots.
There would be blood at the bottom of the door yes specially since some where exit wounds. However I have seen a partial image of the door and cannot see any blood. That's another reason why I asked if we could get more of the crime scene photos it would help a lot
The 3 exit wounds corresponded to 3 of the wounds she suffered for sure while in bed. The 4th wound she definitely suffered while in bed was the wound above her ear. She didn't take 10 minutes to get out of bed and finally managed to get out of bed and walk to the door in time for the killer to return. By that time she had already collapsed and was on the floor. She didn't get shot in the chest while she was on the floor the rounds were fired to her right chest as she was either sitting in bed or getting out of bed. She was lying on the floor and got shot between the eyes to make sure she was dead. Whether that last shot happened before the kitchen altercation or after there is no way to know.
-
No Maggie that was Crispy ;D ;D ;D
Am pretty sure he did whatever some say ;D ;D
-
Maggie of course he did ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie of course he did ;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't see any testimony that he normally barked at Jeremy.
-
I didn't see any testimony that he normally barked at Jeremy.
It always yapped at Jeremy.That's why he didn't like it. Probably Jeremy back-heeled it at sometime,though somehow I couldn't have imagined him having done that.
Suzette Ford,who he lived with for nearly 2 years,said that he was a gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly.
-
I didn't see any testimony that he normally barked at Jeremy.
I believe the telephone operator heard a dog barking over the phone link? Don't know if he was ordering pie and chips?
-
I believe the telephone operator heard a dog barking over the phone link? Don't know if he was ordering pie and chips?
A dog barking because it is left alone and worried is not unusual. The issue is did the dog always bark at Jeremy. I didn't see any testimony that it did and know that dogs don't usually bark at people they know except for a reason. The dogs of my relatives and friends do not bark at me. My friend's dogs barked at me when they didn't know me but now they don't.
Some people ignore barking dogs so even if it did bark it would not necessarily wake up anyone but would want to see impartial evidence it normally barked at Jeremy before I would buy it.
-
It always yapped at Jeremy.That's why he didn't like it. Probably Jeremy back-heeled it at sometime,though somehow I couldn't have imagined him having done that.
Suzette Ford,who he lived with for nearly 2 years,said that he was a gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly.
I think it was a shit dog..........erm or do I mean a Shih Tzu?
-
I think it was a shit dog..........erm or do I mean a Shih Tzu?
We got a Shih Tzu and Lhasa Apso when I was in high school. The Lhasa was a little larger but they otherwise look a lot alike. Lhasa's tend to be more aggressive. In general they only barked at those they didn't know well. If someone rang the door bell they went crazy but as soon as they realized it was someone they knew they would stop. If it was someone they didn't know they would bark a while till they got used to the person. After a few visits they end up remembering people and would not bark at them anymore. When someone was not home they would wait and bark at any car passing by till everyone was home then they were happy. Somehow dogs can tell what day it is as well. They recognize when the weekend is and remember what different things will be happening before they happen.
-
We got a Shih Tzu and Lhasa Apso when I was in high school. The Lhasa was a little larger but they otherwise look a lot alike. Lhasa's tend to be more aggressive. In general they only barked at those they didn't know well. If someone rang the door bell they went crazy but as soon as they realized it was someone they knew they would stop. If it was someone they didn't know they would bark a while till they got used to the person. After a few visits they end up remembering people and would not bark at them anymore. When someone was not home they would wait and bark at any car passing by till everyone was home then they were happy. Somehow dogs can tell what day it is as well. They recognize when the weekend is and remember what different things will be happening before they happen.
My dog is VERY protective, he goes nuts if someone knocks on the door or even passes the house. He's very territorial.
-
We got a Shih Tzu and Lhasa Apso when I was in high school. The Lhasa was a little larger but they otherwise look a lot alike. Lhasa's tend to be more aggressive. In general they only barked at those they didn't know well. If someone rang the door bell they went crazy but as soon as they realized it was someone they knew they would stop. If it was someone they didn't know they would bark a while till they got used to the person. After a few visits they end up remembering people and would not bark at them anymore. When someone was not home they would wait and bark at any car passing by till everyone was home then they were happy. Somehow dogs can tell what day it is as well. They recognize when the weekend is and remember what different things will be happening before they happen.
Weren't you bothered about feeding the wrong end ? ;D
-
My dog is VERY protective, he goes nuts if someone knocks on the door or even passes the house. He's very territorial.
You should hear my cat growling when she doesn't recognise a knock on the door. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
My dog is VERY protective, he goes nuts if someone knocks on the door or even passes the house. He's very territorial.
Sorry Caroline I read that wrong. I thought you wrote, "He goes for nuts"? ;D
-
Sorry Caroline I read that wrong. I thought you wrote, "He goes for nuts"? ;D
He probably would - burglars beware!! ;D ;D ;D
-
My dog is VERY protective, he goes nuts if someone knocks on the door or even passes the house. He's very territorial.
If someone who it is used to is in the house does it bark at it though? The suggestion is that if it saw Jeremy in the bedroom it would have been barking away at him even though it recognized him. Barking at cars and the doorbell until they realize someone they know is home is one thing. Continuously barking at someone they know is another.
-
I have never read Jeremy claim he could not commit the massacre due to the barking dog/s. The only time I have read him refer to the dog was when he told the police to 'get rid of it/put it down' directly after the massacre, as he didn't want it 'messing up his stereo equipment'.
The only other mention of the dog was the police hearing a barking dog when the phone line was disengaged. Crispy was found cowering underneath a bed upon the raid teams entrance.
Would Crispy really prevent Jeremy from attempting the massacre ?
It was not a guard dog, may not have woken, or if it did wake may have recognised Jeremy and not made much noise.
It may have been put in another room at night time, behind a shut door. Dogs often are to prevent them charging around unattended. Jeremy letting the dog out after the massacre to make it seem like Neville had not gone to bed.
Or it may have slept with Neville & June, meaning by the time the shooting started it was too late for it to make any warning barks.
An awake Crispy is unlikely to do much once the shooting started. It was a small dog and not a guard dog. It would sense that Jeremy was firing a lethal weapon and it could be next. So would no doubt run away.
-
It is likely that the dog would bark when the shooting started at least - risking to wake up Sheila. I have been bashed plenty for that statement, but I do stand by it. Can´t see it is far fetched at all.
Barking, shouting, screaming, gunshots, moving downstairs, one in agony, the other in a frenzy - who´d sleep through that?
I don´t think people tiptoed around whispering that night.
-
In fact Bamber never mentioned the dogs doing anything during the murders. He quite ignored them when alleging his father phoned him. Whether that point is of significance or not I don't know?
-
It is likely that the dog would bark when the shooting started at least - risking to wake up Sheila. I have been bashed plenty for that statement, but I do stand by it. Can´t see it is far fetched at all.
Barking, shouting, screaming, gunshots, moving downstairs, one in agony, the other in a frenzy - who´d sleep through that?
I don´t think people tiptoed around whispering that night.
No it isn't far fetched Alias. It is your opinion. Those who will tell you it is far fetched are those who are not capable of all round thinking, but rather think their opinion is spot on.
-
In fact Bamber never mentioned the dogs doing anything during the murders. He quite ignored them when alleging his father phoned him. Whether that point is of significance or not I don't know?
He'd drugged them,silly. ::)
-
No it isn't far fetched Alias. It is your opinion. Those who will tell you it is far fetched are those who are not capable of all round thinking, but rather think their opinion is spot on.
I agree, I also cannot see how anyone can be certain Crispy wouldn't have barked his head off if anyone climbed through the window in the middle of the night.
Does anyone know where crispy used to sleep? If he slept in the bedroom with June and Nevill he may not have wakened, he was an old dog so his senses may not have been too good. I tend to think he was more likely to have slept in the kitchen near the Aga but have never seen a dog's bed in any of the photos??
-
I agree, I also cannot see how anyone can be certain Crispy wouldn't have barked his head off if anyone climbed through the window in the middle of the night.
Does anyone know where crispy used to sleep? If he slept in the bedroom with June and Nevill he may not have wakened, he was an old dog so his senses may not have been too good. I tend to think he was more likely to have slept in the kitchen near the Aga but have never seen a dog's bed in any of the photos??
Perhaps Jeremy knows where Crispy used to sleep. I don´t have contact with him, but perhaps someone who does could ask him?
-
I really don't think Crispy the dog is going to prove anything conclusive. Once again going off course on a pointless subject
-
Perhaps Jeremy knows where Crispy used to sleep. I don´t have contact with him, but perhaps someone who does could ask him?
Good idea Alias, have often wondered about that. The walls in |WHF are really thick and often sound doesn't travel well in these old houses especially as WHF is such a mishmash.
Later the operator said she could hear a dog barking, if it was the kitchen phone off the hook was it the outside dog she could hear or was crispy in the kitchen? Did he run upstairs when the raid team broke down the door or was he always upstairs and it was the office phone which was off the hook....... just speculating? We know the last number stored in the office phone was the police station but no one knows which phone the police used that morning???
-
I really don't think Crispy the dog is going to prove anything conclusive. Once again going off course on a pointless subject
I don´t think it is pointless to talk about the noise that must have been there. It was right beside Sheila´s bedroom. Would she really have slept through it as is claimed?
-
I don´t think it is pointless to talk about the noise that must have been there. It was right beside Sheila´s bedroom. Would she really have slept through it as is claimed?
BT checked the line and 4.30am since the phone was off the hook they could hear what was happening all they heard was a dog barking.
If Bamber was the culprit one could easily claim he approached the dog and as the dog was familiar with him as a family member the dog would not have raised any alarm
-
I'll ask him in this letter I started 2 weeks ago. Anything else anyone wants to ask ?
-
BT checked the line and 4.30am since the phone was off the hook they could hear what was happening all they heard was a dog barking.
If Bamber was the culprit one could easily claim he approached the dog and as the dog was familiar with him as a family member the dog would not have raised any alarm
Which phone was off the hook? We know the kitchen phone was off the hook when the raid team entered in the morning but we don't know if the police used it and left it off or if the police used the office phone and didn't touch the kitchen phone :-\
-
I'll ask him in this letter I started 2 weeks ago. Anything else anyone wants to ask ?
Thanks lookout would be interested in the answer. :)
-
I agree, I also cannot see how anyone can be certain Crispy wouldn't have barked his head off if anyone climbed through the window in the middle of the night.
Does anyone know where crispy used to sleep? If he slept in the bedroom with June and Nevill he may not have wakened, he was an old dog so his senses may not have been too good. I tend to think he was more likely to have slept in the kitchen near the Aga but have never seen a dog's bed in any of the photos??
Dogs want to be near their masters, he likely slept on the bed or at least in the master bedroom. This is especially the case with a lone dog which sees the people as his pack. Only when dogs are caged and the cages are some other location than a bedroom will they sleep away from their masters. I have little doubt Crispy was in the master bedroom and until Jeremy went in the bedroom and woke up everyone he would not have known he was even in the house.
As for the other dogs they were in outbuildings so would not even have any reason to bark.
Loud noises like gunshots usually scare dogs so they go hide.
-
BT checked the line and 4.30am since the phone was off the hook they could hear what was happening all they heard was a dog barking.
If Bamber was the culprit one could easily claim he approached the dog and as the dog was familiar with him as a family member the dog would not have raised any alarm
I think it would have once the shooting started. My point is that there was noise in the house, and that noise was likely to wake up Sheila. What had Jeremy expected upon entering the house and opened fire? Did he think he could easily control three grown ups in different rooms?
-
I'll ask him in this letter I started 2 weeks ago. Anything else anyone wants to ask ?
Thanks Lookout!
-
Adam unless trained to the gun most dogs are terrified of gun shots and thunder and would tend to hide other than bark. Maybe Sheila let him in through the door and if that happened Crispy would not have made a noise.
-
Dogs want to be near their masters, he likely slept on the bed or at least in the master bedroom. This is especially the case with a lone dog which sees the people as his pack. Only when dogs are caged and the cages are some other location than a bedroom will they sleep away from their masters. I have little doubt Crispy was in the master bedroom and until Jeremy went in the bedroom and woke up everyone he would not have known he was even in the house.
As for the other dogs they were in outbuildings so would not even have any reason to bark.
Loud noises like gunshots usually scare dogs so they go hide.
I know scipio, will be interesting to hear from Jeremy on this occasion, then we will know the facts and not have to make assumptions.
-
And a dog yapping round his ankles putting him off--------------I don't think so.
-
Adam unless trained to the gun most dogs are terrified of gun shots and thunder and would tend to hide other than bark. Maybe Sheila let him in through the door and if that happened Crispy would not have made a noise.
Crispy was exposed to Jeremy more than Sheila so would be even less likely to bark around Jeremy than Sheila. In any event a sleeping dog, like a sleeping person is less alert and by the time it woke up would have recognized the killer and had no reason to bark. It knew Sheila and the boys were staying there, they had been there for days so had even less to be surprised and bark. Some dogs bark when they want something like to be let outside or want food. The barking is to get our attention. Being stuck a long time with June's dead body likely resulted in it barking to get attention of Nevill to come get him. He didn't know Nevill was dead and couldn't.
-
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.
-
Crispy was exposed to Jeremy more than Sheila so would be even less likely to bark around Jeremy than Sheila. In any event a sleeping dog, like a sleeping person is less alert and by the time it woke up would have recognized the killer and had no reason to bark. It knew Sheila and the boys were staying there, they had been there for days so had even less to be surprised and bark. Some dogs bark when they want something like to be let outside or want food. The barking is to get our attention. Being stuck a long time with June's dead body likely resulted in it barking to get attention of Nevill to come get him. He didn't know Nevill was dead and couldn't.
A dog will react to an " excitable " situation,such as Sheila bounding around shouting and screaming,as it thinks it's fun chasing around the place,though quickly turning to nervous barks,but would still have been jumping around in as much a frenzy as Sheila would have been.
-
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.
lol
-
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.
All the more reason that Jeremy would have shot it. If he can allegedly shoot 5 humans why not a dog ?
-
be all acounts crispy and jeremy dident get on.
That doesn't mean it will bark at him. If it didn't like Jeremy then in the event Jeremy tries to touch it then it might growl or bite him. Some dogs are just scared and run away if you try to touch them others try to bite.
-
How could Jeremy count on Sheila not waking up and how could he count on her cooperation in staging a suicide?
-
That doesn't mean it will bark at him. If it didn't like Jeremy then in the event Jeremy tries to touch it then it might growl or bite him. Some dogs are just scared and run away if you try to touch them others try to bite.
Two ways a professional would handle the situation. Give the dog a nice juicy steak, or kill it. A determined killer would not hesitate to kill it in my opinion?
-
1) David chooses to believe the kids were shot first no matter what. He asserts several shots were fired into the kids, then the killer went to the master bedroom fired 4 into June and came back after the kitchen shooting to fire 3 more into her. David chooses to ignore the evidence that June suffered at least 6 shots in a row and collapsed on the floor before the killer could return from the kitchen. He doesn't care that the other 2 shots were fired while she was either seated or getting up and thus could not have been delivered while she was lying on the floor which is where she had to be by the time the killer returned from the kitchen.
2) David chooses to ignore the evidence that Nevill's 4 wounds from upstairs were not immediately life threatening and that there was a struggle and prefers to believe he simply stumbled to the kitchen then collapsed over the chair.
3) You are forgetting that it is theoretically possible for Jeremy to have loaded 11 bullets at the outset and thus to have fired all 7 at June and 4 at Nevill in the initial shooting event. If that happened the killer went upstairs with only 10 and only shot the boys and Sheila in the post kitchen shooting. There is no way to know for sure whether the gun had 11 prior to the kitchen episode or after. This doesn't affect your point though about the boys being shot after the kitchen episode.
Scipio I salute you again for this thread,which must surely have converted even more members to the guilty camp. I was wondering if you could answer a few loose ends,such as the claim by Andrew Hunter that this may have been a two-gun crime,which would have implications about the necessity to reload,and also the allegation that Nevill slept with a gun under the bed(I'm supposing that the element of surprise would have rendered this useless to him if Jeremy slugged him first). Instead of marching his father downstairs couldn't he just have shot them both in situ and returned the telephone to the bedroom post-murders,or do you believe the march downstairs was part of the original plan?
I don't see Sheila in any kind of panic that last evening,having exhausted herself the previous weekend with the two parties and reaching a modus vivendi with herself after the monastery incident. I see her as being swept along with the tide of events occurring externally,which might be a fitting epitaph for her life experiences in general,a young vulnerable girl led to her death by a man who saw no other escape from the confinement which his family circumstances had inflicted upon him and which is one reason why he has taken to prison life so placidly as he approaches the milestone of thirty years' incarceration.
-
How could Jeremy count on Sheila not waking up and how could he count on her cooperation in staging a suicide?
By looking at the photos and blood splatter.
He would have had her standing up placed the gun under her chin or close to it then fired
Once on the floor and realised she had not died he would then proceed to crouch down then press the barrel against her neck or rest the gun on her chest then pulled the trigger again.
-
Scipio I salute you again for this thread,which must surely have converted even more members to the guilty camp. I was wondering if you could answer a few loose ends,such as the claim by Andrew Hunter that this may have been a two-gun crime,which would have implications about the necessity to reload,and also the allegation that Nevill slept with a gun under the bed(I'm supposing that the element of surprise would have rendered this useless to him if Jeremy slugged him first). Instead of marching his father downstairs couldn't he just have shot them both in situ and returned the telephone to the bedroom post-murders,or do you believe the march downstairs was part of the original plan?
I don't see Sheila in any kind of panic that last evening,having exhausted herself the previous weekend with the two parties and reaching a modus vivendi with herself after the monastery incident. I see her as being swept along with the tide of events occurring externally,which might be a fitting epitaph for her life experiences in general,a young vulnerable girl led to her death by a man who saw no other escape from the confinement which his family circumstances had inflicted upon him and which is one reason why he has taken to prison life so placidly as he approaches the milestone of thirty years' incarceration.
Remember it is only scipio refuting another theory and that what he says is still only his theory. I also think that his ego gets in the way for anyone but the humblest person to be converted. Personally I'd prefer to stick my fingers down my throat that to read any more of his cock sure ideas.
-
By looking at the photos and blood splatter.
He would have had her standing up placed the gun under her chin or close to it then fired
Once on the floor and realised she had not died he would then proceed to crouch down then press the barrel against her neck or rest the gun on her chest then pulled the trigger again.
I am thinking about beforehand. How could he possibly count on that things would turn out as he planned? Her sleeping through it all, then being quite passive during the murder of her?
-
How could Jeremy count on Sheila not waking up and how could he count on her cooperation in staging a suicide?
I just think Sheila was too far gone,when you consider how she was perceived by the nurse at the twins' party, echoed by the Tiptree shopkeeper,her listlessness around the Farm and her fear of strangers. It was her very condition which gave Jeremy the idea of leading her to her death like a lamb to the slaughter,putting her out of her misery as he was similarly despatching Nevill and June,yet if we follow his reasoning the justification falls down spectacularly with the cold-blooded murder of the twins, who would I'm sure under Colin's tutelage become model citizens, and who had all their lives ahead of them.
-
What woman would let someone murder her children,unless she'd done it herself ?
-
It sadly looks as though a woman has murdered her husband and little girl,recently on the news. It was in Notting Hill.
-
Remember it is only scipio refuting another theory and that what he says is still only his theory. I also think that his ego gets in the way for anyone but the humblest person to be converted. Personally I'd prefer to stick my fingers down my throat that to read any more of his cock sure ideas.
But you have to take genius warts and all Mr. Gee and not attempt to change them. I don't think I would like to have spent an evening with a surly and irascible Beethoven,but I could easily spend a couple of hours at one of his concerts.
-
Playing his 5th Symphony,Steve ?
-
Two ways a professional would handle the situation. Give the dog a nice juicy steak, or kill it. A determined killer would not hesitate to kill it in my opinion?
I do believe that myself Mr Gee, am sure someone on a killing spree such as it was wouldn't have hesitated and would have shot Crispy, unless he was hidden and silent well out of the way.
-
Scipio I salute you again for this thread,which must surely have converted even more members to the guilty camp. I was wondering if you could answer a few loose ends,such as the claim by Andrew Hunter that this may have been a two-gun crime,which would have implications about the necessity to reload,and also the allegation that Nevill slept with a gun under the bed(I'm supposing that the element of surprise would have rendered this useless to him if Jeremy slugged him first). Instead of marching his father downstairs couldn't he just have shot them both in situ and returned the telephone to the bedroom post-murders,or do you believe the march downstairs was part of the original plan?
I don't see Sheila in any kind of panic that last evening,having exhausted herself the previous weekend with the two parties and reaching a modus vivendi with herself after the monastery incident. I see her as being swept along with the tide of events occurring externally,which might be a fitting epitaph for her life experiences in general,a young vulnerable girl led to her death by a man who saw no other escape from the confinement which his family circumstances had inflicted upon him and which is one reason why he has taken to prison life so placidly as he approaches the milestone of thirty years' incarceration.
Steve Hello. You weren't around at the time so you obviously are unaware that the monastery incident has been totally discredited.
A so called email was found, in which the "author" claimed to have been a private investigator who was threatened, AT the monastery!!!!! by men with guard dogs. One of your students could have made up a more convincing story....................AND used better grammar to express it!!!!! You'll probably find it in archives.
The story had always bothered me. The monastery is MILES from WHF, isn't accessible, if one doesn't drive, by any way other than by foot or bicycle. OTHER than someone giving her a lift -and none have admitted to this- it would have taken her HOURS to walk there.............and back!!! So this lethargic girl had left the house at crack of dawn to make this pilgrimage which allegedly ended with her having hysterics. Her absence/return/hysteria mentioned by no one. Her children simply left........................but none of this has been commented on.
-
Steve Hello. You weren't around at the time so you obviously are unaware that the monastery incident has been totally discredited.
A so called email was found, in which the "author" claimed to have been a private investigator who was threatened, AT the monastery!!!!! by men with guard dogs. One of your students could have made up a more convincing story....................AND used better grammar to express it!!!!! You'll probably find it in archives.
The story had always bothered me. The monastery is MILES from WHF, isn't accessible, if one doesn't drive, by any way other than by foot or bicycle. OTHER than someone giving her a lift -and none have admitted to this- it would have taken her HOURS to walk there.............and back!!! So this lethargic girl had left the house at crack of dawn to make this pilgrimage which allegedly ended with her having hysterics. Her absence/return/hysteria mentioned by no one. Her children simply left........................but none of this has been commented on.
There's a lesson for all of us there to take books with a pinch of salt. I assume that the incident with the electrician is bona fide though?
-
But you have to take genius warts and all Mr. Gee and not attempt to change them. I don't think I would like to have spent an evening with a surly and irascible Beethoven,but I could easily spend a couple of hours at one of his concerts.
I don't think he is a genius by any stretch of the imagination. He has a gift of memory and his training as a lawyer.
-
I don't think he is a genius by any stretch of the imagination. He has a gift of memory and his training as a lawyer.
But he has made me think about the case in a different way,namely not the forensic evidence which incriminates Jeremy,but the lack of forensic evidence which exculpates Sheila.
-
But he has made me think about the case in a different way,namely not the forensic evidence which incriminates Jeremy,but the lack of forensic evidence which exculpates Sheila.
Yes he has made some good points.
-
There's a lesson for all of us there to take books with a pinch of salt. I assume that the incident with the electrician is bona fide though?
I think it is Steve, but Scorpio, our resident macho man, paints a rather different picture of it than the accepted one. He suggests that Sheila was scared when he walked in and reacted as she may have done with a burglar. The electrician, according to him, reacted like a wimp and headed for his car. Hmm. Not sure :)
-
I just think Sheila was too far gone,when you consider how she was perceived by the nurse at the twins' party, echoed by the Tiptree shopkeeper,her listlessness around the Farm and her fear of strangers. It was her very condition which gave Jeremy the idea of leading her to her death like a lamb to the slaughter,putting her out of her misery as he was similarly despatching Nevill and June,yet if we follow his reasoning the justification falls down spectacularly with the cold-blooded murder of the twins, who would I'm sure under Colin's tutelage become model citizens, and who had all their lives ahead of them.
Personally I don´t think it happened that way - even if I consider Jeremy having done it.
-
Scipio I salute you again for this thread,which must surely have converted even more members to the guilty camp. I was wondering if you could answer a few loose ends,such as the claim by Andrew Hunter that this may have been a two-gun crime,which would have implications about the necessity to reload,and also the allegation that Nevill slept with a gun under the bed(I'm supposing that the element of surprise would have rendered this useless to him if Jeremy slugged him first). Instead of marching his father downstairs couldn't he just have shot them both in situ and returned the telephone to the bedroom post-murders,or do you believe the march downstairs was part of the original plan?
I don't see Sheila in any kind of panic that last evening,having exhausted herself the previous weekend with the two parties and reaching a modus vivendi with herself after the monastery incident. I see her as being swept along with the tide of events occurring externally,which might be a fitting epitaph for her life experiences in general,a young vulnerable girl led to her death by a man who saw no other escape from the confinement which his family circumstances had inflicted upon him and which is one reason why he has taken to prison life so placidly as he approaches the milestone of thirty years' incarceration.
Be very careful when reading Scipio's posts. He claims allot of the time that he goes by proven facts and information when its just evidenced pieced together with his assumptions and speculations. Much of what he claims as factual does not add up under close scrutiny. For example claiming I ignored the proof June was shot six times in a row, I then asked him elaborate on this alleged 'proof' and he failed to do so.
When questioned, disproven or disagreed with he resorts to craftily putting together very long posts with several paragraphs that insult the reader and goes into multiple topics combined with more insults and assumptions to put you off engaging or challenging him. He more or less manipulates and demoralises people until they either ignore or agree with him.
Anyone with actual honest information with a sound mind would not resort to such a method of communicating with people. I stopped taking him seriously long ago
-
Be very careful when reading Scipio's posts. He claims allot of the time that he goes by proven facts and information when its just evidenced pieced together with his assumptions and speculations. Much of what he claims as factual does not add up under close scrutiny. For example claiming I ignored the proof June was shot six times in a row, I then asked him elaborate on this alleged 'proof' and he failed to do so.
He certainly did answer your post. Perhaps you've missed it? The logic seems hard to argue against.
The serious damage is the whole point. Because of the serious damage she already would have been dead by the time the killer returned upstairs following the kitchen altercation. Only the shot between her eyes could have been fired at that point.
4 of June's wounds were definitely inflicted while she was in bed. One of these is the wound severely damaged her skull.
Entrance wounds;
1) Above right ear/ inflicted while lying in bed/ severe head damage would kill her rapidly
2) Lower right Neck / inflicted while sitting in bed based on the exit wound/ severity not described
3) right forearm/ inflicted while lying in bed
4) right knee/ inflicted while lying in bed
5) right upper chest/ inflicted while sitting, getting up or virtually upright/ caused severe bleeding still alive when inflicted
6) right lower chest / inflicted while sitting, getting up or virtually upright/ caused severe bleeding still alive while inflicted
7) Between the eyes/ inflicting while lying on the floor based on back spatter on door
Note how 6 wounds were all the the right side of her body the only bullet that wasn't is the one that was between her eyes. That they were all to the right supports the killer firing the 6 shots from relatively the same position. That is one hint they were fired in succession. It is possible for all 6 to have been delivered while she was in bed. If she wasn't in bed when 5 and 6 were fired then she was either getting out of bed or practically standing upright.
The severity of the head wound she suffered in bed means that by the time the events in the kitchen finished and the killer reloaded and came back upstairs she would have been lying on the floor. With her body lying on the floor wounds 5 and 6 can't have been delivered the wound tracts are only able to fit someone sitting in bed, getting up out of bed or standing virtually upright. Moreover, wounds 5 and 6 resulted in a lot of blood filling the chest. Had bullets 5, 6 and 7 been delivered together then 5 and 6 would not have caused so much blood to fill the chest.
It is obvious based on everything that June was shot at least 6 times in a row as she was in bed and getting out of bed and then after she got up she collapsed on the floor and was shot again between the eyes. That shot could have come before the struggle in the kitchen or after. There is no way to know for sure because the gun could hold 11 rounds. We have no way to know whether it had 11 rounds at the outset or 11 rounds after the kitchen encounter which is what Harters believes happened. Sheila didn't even know how the use the gun so would not have had any clue how to get the gun to hold 11 rounds. Jeremy might have known how to accomplish such and could have chosen to do so figuring he wanted the maximum number of rounds available. He did need to kill 5 people after all. Whether Jeremy did have the foresight to do so we have no way to know as he is never going to tell us.
After knocking Nevill out the killer reloaded the gun with at least 4 bullets. If the killer loaded 5 or more rounds instead of just 4 that results in 1 being in the chamber still after killing Nevill. Upon refilling the magazine that means 11 rounds in the gun. So it would be possible to accidentally load 11 rounds. Harters thinks that is what happened and that is why he thinks the 7th shot to June was after the kitchen episode as opposed to before.
If one wants to argue Sheila did it they are forced to argue this because Sheila would never have known that 11 rounds could be loaded into the gun. It would have been accidental after the kitchen incident. I have seen a lot of cases where killers initially load a round in the chamber and then maximum rounds in the magazine so that in their initial magazine load they have maximum firepower. This is especially the case when there are not additional loaded magazines at the ready. So I am much more willing to think that Jeremy might have done that.
-
Most would have it that Sheila was this drowsy,drugged-up fragile female who appeared to have been partially disabled in not being able to pour water without spilling it,or to put beans on toast where the beans ended up anywhere but on the plate.
Wrong ! Sheila did have periods of lucidity where she was more than able to think straight and certainly more than capable of knowing what was going on around her.
Example was around the supper table on the night of the killings,listening to the fate of her and her boys. Jeremy even stated that his sister was calm,quiet and didn't appear to be perturbed by the conversation.
Then as soon as Jeremy left.Wham. Sheila would not have liked what she'd been listening to.How dare her parents speak as though she wasn't there,making all kinds of arrangements that she didn't want.
Sheila hadn't wanted her boys being taken away again,neither did she want to live near WHF.
I can imagine this going on in her head and she snapped good style. It wouldn't have taken much.Her dad wasn't siding with her this time,and those boys belonged to her,not her parents,not her ex-husband and his girlfriend.
Imagine the thoughts running through her mind about Colin with Heather,taking Sheila's children on holiday.No,that wasn't going to happen,nor were her parents ideas of sending Sheila to a convalescent home,she'd rather die first.
How utterly sad that there was no support and understanding for this girl who'd by now become clearly demented.
-
Be very careful when reading Scipio's posts. He claims allot of the time that he goes by proven facts and information when its just evidenced pieced together with his assumptions and speculations. Much of what he claims as factual does not add up under close scrutiny. For example claiming I ignored the proof June was shot six times in a row, I then asked him elaborate on this alleged 'proof' and he failed to do so.
When questioned, disproven or disagreed with he resorts to craftily putting together very long posts with several paragraphs that insult the reader and goes into multiple topics combined with more insults and assumptions to put you off engaging or challenging him. He more or less manipulates and demoralises people until they either ignore or agree with him.
Anyone with actual honest information with a sound mind would not resort to such a method of communicating with people. I stopped taking him seriously long ago
Someone once said that 1% lie is carried on 99% truth. But people hold onto the lie and quite often dispense with the 99% truth in favour of the lie.
-
Be very careful when reading Scipio's posts. He claims allot of the time that he goes by proven facts and information when its just evidenced pieced together with his assumptions and speculations. Much of what he claims as factual does not add up under close scrutiny. For example claiming I ignored the proof June was shot six times in a row, I then asked him elaborate on this alleged 'proof' and he failed to do so.
When questioned, disproven or disagreed with he resorts to craftily putting together very long posts with several paragraphs that insult the reader and goes into multiple topics combined with more insults and assumptions to put you off engaging or challenging him. He more or less manipulates and demoralises people until they either ignore or agree with him.
Anyone with actual honest information with a sound mind would not resort to such a method of communicating with people. I stopped taking him seriously long ago
But you have to take people as you find them and read between the lines on occasion. I know Scipio isn't perfect and at least acknowledges now that he has no way of knowing the order of deaths,thus contradicting himself from his original stance upon arrival on this forum,but his knowledge of firearms is extensive and his posts on backspatter illuminating.
-
He certainly did answer your post. Perhaps you've missed it? The logic seems hard to argue against.
Indeed he answered and I read through it, However it does not constitute proof its speculation or a version of events that cannot be proven. It may seem hard to argue against and that's exactly what he wants the reader to think by reasons I have mentioned previously.
He is probably preparing a novel full of insults riddles and trickery for me saying this but not like I will bother reading it. 8)
-
But you have to take people as you find them and read between the lines on occasion. I know Scipio isn't perfect and at least acknowledges now that he has no way of knowing the order of deaths,thus contradicting himself from his original stance upon arrival on this forum,but his knowledge of firearms is extensive and his posts on backspatter illuminating.
But don't forget to check out what he says, because he may leave something out to his advantage sometimes?
-
Someone once said that 1% lie is carried on 99% truth. But people hold onto the lie and quite often dispense with the 99% truth in favour of the lie.
That is so true,Mr G. So in JM's case one truth and the rest lies,as that one truth would be authentic,meaning that the rest would follow in the same vain and be believed.
-
That is so true,Mr G. So in JM's case one truth and the rest lies,as that one truth would be authentic,meaning that the rest would follow in the same vain and be believed.
I believe that the main core of the case was based upon a lie personally. I certainly read a lot of the so called evidence with a large pinch of salt.
-
I believe that the main core of the case was based upon a lie personally. I certainly read a lot of the so called evidence with a large pinch of salt.
I used a bucket of the stuff.
-
Scipio I salute you again for this thread,which must surely have converted even more members to the guilty camp. I was wondering if you could answer a few loose ends,such as the claim by Andrew Hunter that this may have been a two-gun crime,which would have implications about the necessity to reload,and also the allegation that Nevill slept with a gun under the bed(I'm supposing that the element of surprise would have rendered this useless to him if Jeremy slugged him first). Instead of marching his father downstairs couldn't he just have shot them both in situ and returned the telephone to the bedroom post-murders,or do you believe the march downstairs was part of the original plan?
I don't see Sheila in any kind of panic that last evening,having exhausted herself the previous weekend with the two parties and reaching a modus vivendi with herself after the monastery incident. I see her as being swept along with the tide of events occurring externally,which might be a fitting epitaph for her life experiences in general,a young vulnerable girl led to her death by a man who saw no other escape from the confinement which his family circumstances had inflicted upon him and which is one reason why he has taken to prison life so placidly as he approaches the milestone of thirty years' incarceration.
1) All the wounds were made by 22 caliber bullets so that means the only guns that could have been used were guns chambered in 22LR. The only 22LR weapon at WHF was the Anschutz so a different rifle would have to have been brought there by the killer and taken away by the killer as well.
2) 15 of 25 bullets were matched to the Anschutz based on the rifling marks on the bullets. The other 10 bullets had no markings that could rule out having been fired by the Anschutz but lacked enough markings to say they definitely were.
3) The 25 spent casings were tied to the Anschutz by the firing pin impressions, breech and extraction
marks so that proves all 25 were fired by the Anschutz not just any 22LR weapon.
4) No one can realistically fire 2 weapons the same time. Some of the shots alleged to be fired by a different gun were among shots grouped so close they were determined to have been fired in rapid succession. This further refutes the wild speculation that 2 guns were used.
The bullets in yellow are the ones that lacked sufficient rifling marks to say they were fired by the Anschutz (though they were tied to it by the casings)
Master Bedroom
Nevill
PV/2 (Shoulder)
PV/5 (jaw) fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11
PV/10 (lip) (WL) (no RM)
PV/11 (neck) (4L) (WL) (no RM)
Arm/chest Graze wound-1 of the following: DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35
June
PV/23
PV/24
PV/25
PV/26
3 of the following DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35
Sheila
PV/19
PV/20
Kitchen
Nevill
PV/3 (skull)
PV/4 (skull)
PV/8 (skull)
PV/9 (skull)
Twins
Daniel
PV/29
DRH/36
PV/34
PV/35
PV/36
Nicholas
PV/30
PV/31
[bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered]
With the exception of June every victim had some not tied to the Anschutz by the rifling marks along. The killer used 2 different guns on each boy, 2 different guns on Sheila and 2 different guns on Nevill both in the bedroom as well as in the kitchen? Give me a break that would be a silly claim even unless the spent casings proved it happened but they prove it didn't happen.
-
But you have to take people as you find them and read between the lines on occasion. I know Scipio isn't perfect and at least acknowledges now that he has no way of knowing the order of deaths,thus contradicting himself from his original stance upon arrival on this forum,but his knowledge of firearms is extensive and his posts on backspatter illuminating.
My earlier stance is the same as now. The order of the attack was the parents in the master bedroom where June was killed, then the fight in the kitchen where Nevill was killed then either the boys killed and then Sheila or Sheila and then the boys. I have always noted the slight variations possible including that it is possible the shot between June's eyes was delivered after the kitchen attack instead of before. Noting the variations we can't ever be certain of is not contradicting the overall events of the parents first being shot in the bedroom then Nevill which helps refute the notion that Nevill could have made a phone call before the shooting commenced.
David says he is objective but at each turn he speculates in favor of Jeremy to try to pretend he is innocent including ignoring medical evidence of how Serious June's injuries and ignoring that Nevill's were not as serious. He flips the script and suggests June was still running around upstairs to be killed after the kitchen incident but Nevill simply collapsed in the kitchen without even needing to be beaten.
David does what many supporters do they try to feign objectivity while their posts demonstrate otherwise so it is best just to not even bother with such pretense.
-
Unless you were the murderer,there isn't a hope in Hell of knowing who died in what order.
-
My earlier stance is the same as now. The order of the attack was the parents in the master bedroom where June was killed, then the fight in the kitchen where Nevill was killed then either the boys killed and then Sheila or Sheila and then the boys. I have always noted the slight variations possible including that it is possible the shot between June's eyes was delivered after the kitchen attack instead of before. Noting the variations we can't ever be certain of is not contradicting the overall events of the parents first being shot in the bedroom then Nevill which helps refute the notion that Nevill could have made a phone call before the shooting commenced.
David says he is objective but at each turn he speculates in favor of Jeremy to try to pretend he is innocent including ignoring medical evidence of how Serious June's injuries and ignoring that Nevill's were not as serious. He flips the script and suggests June was still running around upstairs to be killed after the kitchen incident but Nevill simply collapsed in the kitchen without even needing to be beaten.
David does what many supporters do they try to feign objectivity while their posts demonstrate otherwise so it is best just to not even bother with such pretense.
Oh hail skippy I bow my head to thee ::)
Again and as expected lies and distortion from you in order give the impression your always correct.
I know where I stand on this. Your comments are not reflective of my views and you know it ::)
-
"David says he is objective but at each turn he speculates in favor of Jeremy to try to pretend he is innocent including ignoring medical evidence of how Serious June's injuries and ignoring that Nevill's were not as serious. He flips the script and suggests June was still running around upstairs to be killed after the kitchen incident but Nevill simply collapsed in the kitchen without even needing to be beaten"
whats that got to do with anything - it does nothing to determine the sequence.
It indicates someone who might not be an expert with the weapon that's all,
-
"David says he is objective but at each turn he speculates in favor of Jeremy to try to pretend he is innocent including ignoring medical evidence of how Serious June's injuries and ignoring that Nevill's were not as serious. He flips the script and suggests June was still running around upstairs to be killed after the kitchen incident but Nevill simply collapsed in the kitchen without even needing to be beaten"
whats that got to do with anything - it does nothing to determine the sequence.
It indicates someone who might not be an expert with the weapon that's all,
also I have never claimed June was running around upstairs after being shot ???
-
Unless you were the murderer,there isn't a hope in Hell of knowing who died in what order.
From the casings and other information we can figure out the parents were attacked first in the master bedroom, the gun was empty and that is why things were able to proceed to the kitchen and why the struggle happened there then after reloading and killing him the gun was reloaded again and the 10 rounds of that magazine used on the boys and Sheila. This information doesn't hinge on the identity of the killer it happened regardless of who the killer was.
You want to ask Jeremy questions for people ask him this for me.
"I figured out generally the order of the shots. June was shot 4 times in bed, 2 more times in the chest as she was either sitting up in bed or getting up from the bed and Nevill shot 4 times. With the gun empty the killer then either chased Nevill to the kitchen as he ran there to arm himself or chased the killer to the kitchen and then once in the kitchen they struggled over control of the weapon knocking things over, scratching the mantle and breaking the ceiling lampshade. Then the killer gained sole control and beat Nevill with with butt of the rifle gouging Nevill's arm, tearing his watch off and finally managed to bash his head knocking him out then reloaded the gun partially and shot him 4 times killing him. The killer then reloaded fully and went upstairs and used 8 on the boys and 2 on Sheila gun then empty. The only wound not accounted for is the wound between Sheila's. It was fired last after she collapsed on the floor. The question is did the killer start out with 11 rounds and shoot her between the eyes before the kitchen altercation or did the killer go upstairs with 11 rounds after the kitchen altercation and shoot her at that point to make sure she was dead. What do you think?"
Tell him that is what someone wanted you to ask him.
-
also I have never claimed June was running around upstairs after being shot ???
No instead you suggested that Sheila fired 4 shots at June, had 4 more bullets left but was saving the forevill so just sat there looking at June in bed and June just sat there looking back at her, then Nevill came up and got shot and ran downstairs to the kitchen and simply passed out there while Sheila went to a cupboard to reload then went downstairs leaving June alone and June sat in bed until Sheila was coming back upstairs after the kitchen episode and that is when June decided to finally get up and as she was leaving the room Sheila came in and shot her 3 more times.
You completely ignore June is the one who suffered a wound in the bedroom that would be rapidly fatal not Nevill so she is the one who would have passed out right away not Nevill. You flipped the script to support what you desired to argue instead of following the evidence and trying to come up with something that fit the evidence.
-
My earlier stance is the same as now. The order of the attack was the parents in the master bedroom where June was killed, then the fight in the kitchen where Nevill was killed then either the boys killed and then Sheila or Sheila and then the boys. I have always noted the slight variations possible including that it is possible the shot between June's eyes was delivered after the kitchen attack instead of before. Noting the variations we can't ever be certain of is not contradicting the overall events of the parents first being shot in the bedroom then Nevill which helps refute the notion that Nevill could have made a phone call before the shooting commenced.
David says he is objective but at each turn he speculates in favor of Jeremy to try to pretend he is innocent including ignoring medical evidence of how Serious June's injuries and ignoring that Nevill's were not as serious. He flips the script and suggests June was still running around upstairs to be killed after the kitchen incident but Nevill simply collapsed in the kitchen without even needing to be beaten.
David does what many supporters do they try to feign objectivity while their posts demonstrate otherwise so it is best just to not even bother with such pretense.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the first point,because I well remember what you originally wrote.
-
My earlier stance is the same as now. The order of the attack was the parents in the master bedroom where June was killed, then the fight in the kitchen where Nevill was killed then either the boys killed and then Sheila or Sheila and then the boys. I have always noted the slight variations possible including that it is possible the shot between June's eyes was delivered after the kitchen attack instead of before. Noting the variations we can't ever be certain of is not contradicting the overall events of the parents first being shot in the bedroom then Nevill which helps refute the notion that Nevill could have made a phone call before the shooting commenced.
David says he is objective but at each turn he speculates in favor of Jeremy to try to pretend he is innocent including ignoring medical evidence of how Serious June's injuries and ignoring that Nevill's were not as serious. He flips the script and suggests June was still running around upstairs to be killed after the kitchen incident but Nevill simply collapsed in the kitchen without even needing to be beaten.
David does what many supporters do they try to feign objectivity while their posts demonstrate otherwise so it is best just to not even bother with such pretense.
Yours is still an opinion though. I fear that whilst you accuse others as not being objective that you yourself are not as objective as you would like us to think?
-
Yours is still an opinion though. I fear that whilst you accuse others as not being objective that you yourself are not as objective as you would like us to think?
How many of us actually are, Grahame? ;)
-
Yours is still an opinion though. I fear that whilst you accuse others as not being objective that you yourself are not as objective as you would like us to think?
It is not opinion but fact established by the evidence that shooting commenced in the master bedroom at both parents and that with the gun empty the killer and Nevill went to the kitchen and had their altercation where Nevill was killed then the magazine fully reloaded with 8 of those rounds used on the boys and 2 on Sheila.
The wildcard is did the gun have 11 bullets at the outset or 11 upon going back upstairs from the kitchen. Whichever is the case that is when the final shot to June between her eyes was delivered.
-
It is not opinion but fact established by the evidence that shooting commenced in the master bedroom at both parents and that with the gun empty the killer and Nevill went to the kitchen and had their altercation where Nevill was killed then the magazine fully reloaded with 8 of those rounds used on the boys and 2 on Sheila.
The wildcard is did the gun have 11 bullets at the outset or 11 upon going back upstairs from the kitchen. Whichever is the case that is when the final shot to June between her eyes was delivered.
Well scipio we will just have to agree to disagree as Steve said. ;)
-
No instead you suggested that Sheila fired 4 shots at June, had 4 more bullets left but was saving the forevill so just sat there looking at June in bed and June just sat there looking back at her, then Nevill came up and got shot and ran downstairs to the kitchen and simply passed out there while Sheila went to a cupboard to reload then went downstairs leaving June alone and June sat in bed until Sheila was coming back upstairs after the kitchen episode and that is when June decided to finally get up and as she was leaving the room Sheila came in and shot her 3 more times.
You completely ignore June is the one who suffered a wound in the bedroom that would be rapidly fatal not Nevill so she is the one who would have passed out right away not Nevill. You flipped the script to support what you desired to argue instead of following the evidence and trying to come up with something that fit the evidence.
More to the point I never claimed June was running around after being shot. I said she could have dragged or struggled slowly to the door while the killer was reloading. I also stated this was possible with both senarios of Jeremy and Shelia being the culprit
-
More to the point I never claimed June was running around after being shot. I said she could have dragged or struggled slowly to the door while the killer was reloading. I also stated this was possible with both senarios of Jeremy and Shelia being the culprit
The spots of blood on the carpet (allegedly June´s) are round without a "tail", so they indicate slow movement, very slow.
-
The spots of blood on the carpet (allegedly June´s) are round without a "tail", so they indicate slow movement, very slow.
There's also June's blood outside Sheila's bedroom..
-
There's also June's blood outside Sheila's bedroom..
I never heard of that before.
-
There's also June's blood outside Sheila's bedroom..
Now that, if true completely changes scipio's scenario. See how little details can be important?
-
There's also June's blood outside Sheila's bedroom..
Any evidence?
To my knowledge Shelia's room was right opposite the master bedroom and Junes body was by the door in the master bedroom so there could be several explanations for it
-
There's also June's blood outside Sheila's bedroom..
June's blood was found on the socks and 2 carpet samples in the bedroom. Where precisely the carpet samples were taken hasn't been clearly established.
-
June's blood was found on the socks and 2 carpet samples in the bedroom. Where precisely the carpet samples were taken hasn't been clearly established.
The socks were on Sheila's side of the bed.
-
The socks were on Sheila's side of the bed.
I know I saw the photos. They were dropped right next to her body to try to suggest she wore socks and thus explain away her clean feet.
Nothing publicly released details where the carpet samples were though. The defense documents detail 5 drops tested from each carpet sample not where the carpet samples were in the room.
-
I know I saw the photos. They were dropped right next to her body to try to suggest she wore socks and thus explain away her clean feet.
Nothing publicly released details where the carpet samples were though. The defense documents detail 5 drops tested from each carpet sample not where the carpet samples were in the room.
Her feet where not clean as photos illustrate. There seems to be blood splatter on the socks indicating they where not placed there.
How do we know they are not June or Neville's socks that they just took off before bed?
-
Her feet where not clean as photos illustrate. There seems to be blood splatter on the socks indicating they where not placed there.
How do we know they are not June or Neville's socks that they just took off before bed?
The photos show her feet to be clean and those who saw her body said they were very clean and free of blood or cuts.
It's not blood spatter it passive blood drops. Spatter is projected by force. A passive drop is the result of blood being dripped somewhere intentionally or unintentionally. Could the socks have been on the other side of the bed and intentionally staged later? Yes.
Could the Loose carpet pieces have been staged? Yes, no one has ever explained what those patches were for let alone where they normally were kept.
Nor has anyone yet explained where the 2 carpet samples with June's blood that were cut out came from.
-
Carpet samples were taken from Master bedroom around area where Sheila's body was found and the blood tested was found to be June's. McDonnell was obviously aware of this as his report suggested that at some stage June had made her way around the bed to Nevill's side and then back again. Due to this,I for one,am happy to believe that scenario as opposed to June getting out of bed and collapsing where she was found. And I would like to see a source as to whose blood was found on the socks that lay by Sheila as I have never seen anything pertaining to the fact they were ever even tested,let alone whose blood was found to be on them.
-
Carpet samples were taken from Master bedroom around area where Sheila's body was found and the blood tested was found to be June's. McDonnell was obviously aware of this as his report suggested that at some stage June had made her way around the bed to Nevill's side and then back again. Due to this,I for one,am happy to believe that scenario as opposed to June getting out of bed and collapsing where she was found. And I would like to see a source as to whose blood was found on the socks that lay by Sheila as I have never seen anything pertaining to the fact they were ever even tested,let alone whose blood was found to be on them.
1) The killer would have to have been by the door shooting to permit June to walk all the way around the bed. If she moved to get up on Nevill's side then her blood could get there as she stood up. Finding her blood just on Nevill's side but not dripping along the foot of the bed too that side would have to mean she went across the bed. But for the killer to shoot her right side in the manner it was done the killer need to be at the foot of the bed or on Nevill's side of the bed. Her left side was exposed to the door not her right side. To stay in bed until the killer and Nevill are gone, then get up and walk to Nevill's side and then to walk back to her side and collapse makes no sense at all. The only way it would make sense to go to Nevill's side would be if he were injured there, the killer split to go reload and and she wanted to see how Nevill was then he took off after the killer and she tried to follow or go check on the boys of Sheila but she collapsed before she could make it out the door.
2) Hayward's testimony was that the socks and 2 rug samples had the AK2-1 enzyme present in the blood stains and only June had such enzyme so it must have been her blood. The socks look like men's socks to me but some women wear men's socks so who knows whether they belonged to her or Nevill.
-
Carpet samples were taken from Master bedroom around area where Sheila's body was found and the blood tested was found to be June's. McDonnell was obviously aware of this as his report suggested that at some stage June had made her way around the bed to Nevill's side and then back again. Due to this,I for one,am happy to believe that scenario as opposed to June getting out of bed and collapsing where she was found. And I would like to see a source as to whose blood was found on the socks that lay by Sheila as I have never seen anything pertaining to the fact they were ever even tested,let alone whose blood was found to be on them.
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined. Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period.
-
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined. Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period.
Stop using my name in vain. I have posted a "scenario" before . I am not doing it again as nothing has changed.
They are scenarios - nothing more nothing less . And you still have not explained the main part of yours of how JB got SC to lie in a perfect position to be shot without even holding her hand up to defend herself
-
Stop using my name in vain. I have posted a "scenario" before . I am not doing it again as nothing has changed.
They are scenarios - nothing more nothing less . And you still have not explained the main part of yours of how JB got SC to lie in a perfect position to be shot without even holding her hand up to defend herself
Only Alias and David have posted scenarios. David re submitting after an Adam/Scipio massacre. Then promptly being massacred again.
I have repeatedly posted and created threads on Sheila's two shots.
-
I know I saw the photos. They were dropped right next to her body to try to suggest she wore socks and thus explain away her clean feet.
Nothing publicly released details where the carpet samples were though. The defense documents detail 5 drops tested from each carpet sample not where the carpet samples were in the room.
It was never suggested that she wore socks at the time of the trial neither did the police suggest she did. That idea was first suggested on this forum many years after the event. If Jeremy wanted to make people think she ware socks he would have put them on her instead of by the bed.
-
I've KNOWN that June's blood had been in more than one place,for MONTHS ! As far as I'm concerned,my own personal " theories " are something that I've refused to print,and still refuse to do so.
-
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined. Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period.
Unfortunately, I know it must be a terrible blow to your ego Adam, but we are discussing the forensic evidence at this time.
So the question is not how Sheila committed the murders, but rather how did June's blood get on the carpet and socks on the side of the bed that Sheila was found.
So instead of scipio trying to fit it into his pet scenario, he should rather be investigating any logical reason for June's blood being found on Sheila's side of the bed, even if it does mean that she should abandon his scenario and admit he is wrong for once.
-
I've KNOWN that June's blood had been in more than one place,for MONTHS ! As far as I'm concerned,my own personal " theories " are something that I've refused to print,and still refuse to do so.
Well, with the wounds she sustained whilst still in her bedroom, would it not have been impossible for her to have moved far from it. I could go with the idea that she got out of bed to go to Neville when he received the first shots -MAYBE even following him onto the landing as he went downstairs- but all the shots to June were at the front, and we know that her head touched her pillow at some stage because of the blood stains.
-
Only Alias and David have posted scenarios. David re submitting after an Adam/Scipio massacre. Then promptly being massacred again.
I have repeatedly posted and created threads on Sheila's two shots.
Rather post nothing than post and be wrong like scipio. The trouble with scenarios they are really no better than guesses and what are you going to do if your scenario is found to be wrong? Just because someone is reluctant to post any scenario to satisfy your own curiosity does not mean that they are in any way wrong or do not have thoughts of their own. What it does say is rather that those people will not be drawn into your silly game of scenarios which by their very character cannot be entirely true as they ultimately spring from the mind of the scenario maker, even if they "profess" to be guided by so called "fact" which of course they are not. For if they were then you would not get a variety of scenarios. Let it be understood Adam that just because some will not do as you want them to do it in no way means that they are any less intelligent of imaginative than you are. ;)
-
Rather post nothing than post and be wrong like scipio. The trouble with scenarios they are really no better than guesses and what are you going to do if your scenario is found to be wrong? Just because someone is reluctant to post any scenario to satisfy your own curiosity does not mean that they are in any way wrong or do not have thoughts of their own. What it does say is rather that those people will not be drawn into your silly game of scenarios which by their very character cannot be entirely true as they ultimately spring from the mind of the scenario maker, even if they "profess" to be guided by so called "fact" which of course they are not. For if they were then you would not get a variety of scenarios. Let it be understood Adam that just because some will not do as you want them to do it in no way means that they are any less intelligent of imaginative than you are. ;)
Good God, Grahame!!! That has to be the first time that anyone has used "intelligent and imaginative" in the same breath as Adam ;D ;D ;D
-
As I've said for the umpteenth time----------there were two sick women in that house.BOTH on the edge !! A recipe for the biggest disaster to hit the headlines-----and nobody listened.
-
Good God, Grahame!!! That has to be the first time that anyone has used "intelligent and imaginative" in the same breath as Adam ;D ;D ;D
;D I thought I'd go easy on the boy for a change.
-
;D I thought I'd go easy on the boy for a change.
He's easily led by the majority,Mr G. ::)
-
As I've said for the umpteenth time----------there were two sick women in that house.BOTH on the edge !! A recipe for the biggest disaster to hit the headlines-----and nobody listened.
Yes, you have, but it's a moot point as to HOW sick -or NOT- was one of them. I don't know that there can be found proof, one way or the other, and Jeremy needs more than "perhaps" or "maybe" to get freed.
-
;D I thought I'd go easy on the boy for a change.
Grahame, I think you'll find he's closer to 70 than 17!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Grahame, I think you'll find he's closer to 70 than 17!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No waaaay? (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Yes, you have, but it's a moot point as to HOW sick -or NOT- was one of them. I don't know that there can be found proof, one way or the other, and Jeremy needs more than "perhaps" or "maybe" to get freed.
Put it this way,ONE was sicker than the other. I've been too confident all along that it hadn't been Jeremy. It's SO sensitive a point that I'm going to find great difficulty in explaining it to anyone.
-
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined. Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period.
Adam sorry to break this to you but no one really takes your deadline concept seriously nor did it ever mean anything on this forum.
-
No waaaay? (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Take note of his phraseology and the expressions he uses, Grahame.
-
Grahame, I think you'll find he's closer to 70 than 17!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You may be 70. But I was born 17th June just over 17 years ago.
-
Put it this way,ONE was sicker than the other. I've been too confident all along that it hadn't been Jeremy. It's SO sensitive a point that I'm going to find great difficulty in explaining it to anyone.
Lookout, you may not want to say, but you've dropped so many hints that I imagine we all know -roughly- what you're NOT saying
-
Well, with the wounds she sustained whilst still in her bedroom, would it not have been impossible for her to have moved far from it. I could go with the idea that she got out of bed to go to Neville when he received the first shots -MAYBE even following him onto the landing as he went downstairs- but all the shots to June were at the front, and we know that her head touched her pillow at some stage because of the blood stains.
If there was blood outside the room, it could simply have got there from the killers feet, it was all over the floor in the bedrrom so hard not to stand in it.
-
You may be 70. But I was born 17th June just over 17 years ago.
You've got a lot to learn yet,Adam. 70 is no big deal anyway,to which I'm the " wrong side " of,but I reckon that I had the best years of my life so far as education and a career were concerned. No internet or up to date technology,but are we any further on ? Not in some things !
I've got the best of both worlds in that I lived and learned during the 40's,50's,60's,70's,80's,90's to date so my knowledge stretches further than yours ever will,unless you study those past years to bring you up to date to appreciate what you have now.
-
You may be 70. But I was born 17th June just over 17 years ago.
I guess we're as SERIOUSLY likely to believe that as we're SERIOUSLY likely to believe 90% of what you write...........................but we all love a joke. ;)
-
Rather post nothing than post and be wrong like scipio. The trouble with scenarios they are really no better than guesses and what are you going to do if your scenario is found to be wrong? Just because someone is reluctant to post any scenario to satisfy your own curiosity does not mean that they are in any way wrong or do not have thoughts of their own. What it does say is rather that those people will not be drawn into your silly game of scenarios which by their very character cannot be entirely true as they ultimately spring from the mind of the scenario maker, even if they "profess" to be guided by so called "fact" which of course they are not. For if they were then you would not get a variety of scenarios. Let it be understood Adam that just because some will not do as you want them to do it in no way means that they are any less intelligent of imaginative than you are. ;)
He's having fun Grahame ;D ............ Bless him ;) ;)
-
1) The killer would have to have been by the door shooting to permit June to walk all the way around the bed. If she moved to get up on Nevill's side then her blood could get there as she stood up. Finding her blood just on Nevill's side but not dripping along the foot of the bed too that side would have to mean she went across the bed. But for the killer to shoot her right side in the manner it was done the killer need to be at the foot of the bed or on Nevill's side of the bed. Her left side was exposed to the door not her right side. To stay in bed until the killer and Nevill are gone, then get up and walk to Nevill's side and then to walk back to her side and collapse makes no sense at all. The only way it would make sense to go to Nevill's side would be if he were injured there, the killer split to go reload and and she wanted to see how Nevill was then he took off after the killer and she tried to follow or go check on the boys of Sheila but she collapsed before she could make it out the door.
2) Hayward's testimony was that the socks and 2 rug samples had the AK2-1 enzyme present in the blood stains and only June had such enzyme so it must have been her blood. The socks look like men's socks to me but some women wear men's socks so who knows whether they belonged to her or Nevill.
The Killer,after shooting June whilst she were in bed,COULD have been distracted by having to chase Nevill downstairs,which woud have left June alone. She may have made her way around the bed for many reasons, such as she may,in her shocked state,have forgotten the bedroom phone was no longer there. There may have been a phone there that was removed prior to the murders. She may have been on her way to check on the twins. We can only speculate. She may have made her way back around the bed,back to her side of the bed when she heard the killer in the twins room and this is where she was 'finished off'. The blood drips around the bed support the fact that somebody who was injured moved around it. If,as you say,the blood on the socks was indeed Junes,then that would support the theory that June was there at some stage,would it not? Rather than to speculate that the socks were 'planted'? I have also read previously that June's blood was found underneath Sheila's body,but do not know if that is indeed true. As far as I'm concerned,there is enough evidence for me to conclude that June DID indeed move around the bed and back again. As for the blood found in the area of the landing (in two different area's I believe),I have never seen any evidence as to whose blood it was or indeed if it was ever even tested.
-
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined. Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period.
I have of course described how Jeremy committed the massacre, point by point.
-
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined. Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period.
-
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined.
I have of course described how Jeremy committed the massacre, point by point.
Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period. WHAT ?
-
Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period. WHAT ?
He is just trying to wind people up. With some success. ;)
-
He is just trying to wind people up. With some success. ;)
Alias, at best you have to revert you're stance to guilty but it was an unfair trial. And campaign for a release on a technicality.
-
He is just trying to wind people up. With some success. ;)
I thought it was a joke. ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm too confident to be wound up,I'm afraid. My own thoughts far outweigh and surpass what he's got to say regarding Jeremy's guilt.
-
Tyler, I hope you have seen my 'uncomfortable question' and '26th February deadline' threads.
Feel free to describe in point by point detail how Sheila committed the massacre. You have said you believe Jeremy may be innocent.
The response was very disappointing. Only one poster submitted and then re submitted a summary. Even Jan declined. Automatically resulting in Jeremy losing virtually all his supporters in a 24 hour period.
I have of course described how Jeremy committed the massacre, point by point.
Unfortunately Adam I havent - sorry. I admit that I tend to skip most of your posts. I cannot describe how either Jeremy or Sheila committed the murders as fortunately I wasn't there. I can specualate on a scenario involving each of them,but admit to finding problems in both,hence I cannot decide conclusively which of them was responsible. Hope this answers your question.
-
You may be 70. But I was born 17th June just over 17 years ago.
17 and a quarter then?
-
Unfortunately Adam I havent - sorry. I admit that I tend to skip most of your posts. I cannot describe how either Jeremy or Sheila committed the murders as fortunately I wasn't there. I can specualate on a scenario involving each of them,but admit to finding problems in both,hence I cannot decide conclusively which of them was responsible. Hope this answers your question.
that's exactly my position in this. :D the only pragmatic one if you ask me
-
that's exactly my position in this. :D the only pragmatic one if you ask me
Is that why you submitted you're summary. Twice.
-
Is that why you submitted you're summary. Twice.
That'll be because he's wavering/dithering. :-\
-
Unfortunately Adam I havent - sorry. I admit that I tend to skip most of your posts. I cannot describe how either Jeremy or Sheila committed the murders as fortunately I wasn't there. I can specualate on a scenario involving each of them,but admit to finding problems in both,hence I cannot decide conclusively which of them was responsible. Hope this answers your question.
What a pity. The deadline was extended for you. In case you had not read the threads.
You cannot give a view of how Sheila may have committed the massacre in a ten minute period. Although detailed evidence of phone call times, body locations, bullet allocations, re loads and kitchen fight injuries are available.
PM me if you wish to have some moral support prior to dismissing Jeremy's claims of innocence.
-
Is that why you submitted you're summary. Twice.
You are so unkind to the only poster who was willing to go along with your request. Let it be a lesson learnt: Never try to humour Adam, it will only result in an attack. We have seen it before....
-
You are so unkind to the only poster who was willing to go along with your request. Let it be a lesson learnt: Never try to humour Adam, it will only result in an attack. We have seen it before....
I praised David for trying.
Because his attempts were unsuccessful he is now saying it is 'not pragmatic' to suggest how Sheila committed the massacre. On a discussion forum ?
-
I praised David for trying.
Because his attempts were unsuccessful he is now saying it is 'not pragmatic' to suggest how Sheila committed the massacre. On a discussion forum ?
Adam your whole deadline thing is nothing but a childish stunt of yours. no one cares
-
What a pity. The deadline was extended for you. In case you had not read the threads.
You cannot give a view of how Sheila may have committed the massacre in a ten minute period. Although detailed evidence of phone call times, body locations, bullet allocations, re loads and kitchen fight injuries are available.
PM me if you wish to have some moral support prior to dismissing Jeremy's claims of innocence.
Lol
-
Adam your whole deadline thing is nothing but a childish stunt of yours. no one cares
Par for the course, don't you think, if a a close to 70 year old is attempting to pose as a just over 17 year old who's trying to be funny??? ;) :D
-
His 17 is probably 71. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
His 17 is probably 71. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Heheheeee Smart thinking, lookout ;D ;D ;D
-
His 17 is probably 71. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Dyscalculia perhaps? ;)
-
Dyscalculia perhaps? ;)
Nah, that's my problem......................and I'm not sharing it with Adam ;D ;D ;D
-
Dyscalculia perhaps? ;)
And that. ;D
-
The Killer,after shooting June whilst she were in bed,COULD have been distracted by having to chase Nevill downstairs,which woud have left June alone. She may have made her way around the bed for many reasons, such as she may,in her shocked state,have forgotten the bedroom phone was no longer there. There may have been a phone there that was removed prior to the murders. She may have been on her way to check on the twins. We can only speculate. She may have made her way back around the bed,back to her side of the bed when she heard the killer in the twins room and this is where she was 'finished off'. The blood drips around the bed support the fact that somebody who was injured moved around it. If,as you say,the blood on the socks was indeed Junes,then that would support the theory that June was there at some stage,would it not? Rather than to speculate that the socks were 'planted'? I have also read previously that June's blood was found underneath Sheila's body,but do not know if that is indeed true. As far as I'm concerned,there is enough evidence for me to conclude that June DID indeed move around the bed and back again. As for the blood found in the area of the landing (in two different area's I believe),I have never seen any evidence as to whose blood it was or indeed if it was ever even tested.
What blood drips around the bed? Supposedly they were next to the bed there no mention of a trail all the way around it. If it is true that both samples were taken by sheila's body then there is no record of a trail of drops around the bed only drops on the Nevill's side and then the blood near where her body was found. If she walked around to Nevill's side and back while bleeding there should be blood across the foot of the bed since she had to walk that way twice. There is no description let alone testing of any blood across the foot of the bed. There is only the mention of 2 spots without saying where they were taken from so again I will ask for some solid proof both were both by her body and not anywhere else like the foot of the bed.
People do things for a reason. For her to walk to Nevill's side after both the killer and Nevill ran downstairs makes little sense except if she thought the phone was there which simply highlights the significance of Jeremy removing the bedroom phone, sticking it in the kitchen in place of a phone that worked perfectly, hiding it then lying about the whole things saying the bedroom phone replaced a broken kitchen phone and telling the secretary when she found the phone that it was just a spare though she knew better and recognized it as the kitchen phone he claimed was broken.
-
Rather post nothing than post and be wrong like scipio. The trouble with scenarios they are really no better than guesses and what are you going to do if your scenario is found to be wrong? Just because someone is reluctant to post any scenario to satisfy your own curiosity does not mean that they are in any way wrong or do not have thoughts of their own. What it does say is rather that those people will not be drawn into your silly game of scenarios which by their very character cannot be entirely true as they ultimately spring from the mind of the scenario maker, even if they "profess" to be guided by so called "fact" which of course they are not. For if they were then you would not get a variety of scenarios. Let it be understood Adam that just because some will not do as you want them to do it in no way means that they are any less intelligent of imaginative than you are. ;)
You don't post nothing though. You post ridiculous speculation to try to defend Jeremy that demonstrates you are little more than an apologist while most of the time you deny same and claim to be looking at things objectively. Every single Jeremy supporter is making wild speculations about evidence being planted and people lying in order to support their preferred belief that Jeremy is innocent though you have nothing at all to disturb the evidence.
June surviving for an extra minute doesn't change that she was on the floor already by the time the killer returned from the kitchen. That is if there is blood all the way around the bed which I still have not seen anyone demonstrate exactly where the 2 carpet samples came from.
WHat have you shown me to be wrong about that is significant?
-
June surviving for an extra minute doesn't change that she was on the floor already by the time the killer returned from the kitchen. That is if there is blood all the way around the bed which I still have not seen anyone demonstrate exactly where the 2 carpet samples came from.
For what it's worth, the blood on the side of the bed where Sheila's body was located, is referenced in Mcdonnells letter.
I suspect that is the source of the information.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html)
-
You don't post nothing though. You post ridiculous speculation to try to defend Jeremy that demonstrates you are little more than an apologist while most of the time you deny same and claim to be looking at things objectively. Every single Jeremy supporter is making wild speculations about evidence being planted and people lying in order to support their preferred belief that Jeremy is innocent though you have nothing at all to disturb the evidence.
June surviving for an extra minute doesn't change that she was on the floor already by the time the killer returned from the kitchen. That is if there is blood all the way around the bed which I still have not seen anyone demonstrate exactly where the 2 carpet samples came from.
WHat have you shown me to be wrong about that is significant?
Hey,isn't anyone allowed to criticise your posts in return for your own criticisms and put-downs ?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander !
-
For what it's worth, the blood on the side of the bed where Sheila's body was located, is referenced in Mcdonnells letter.
I suspect that is the source of the information.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.0.html)
Thanks apparently he was only shown photos and not even he was shown any reports of the actual blood testing of any drops so we still don't know the location of the 2 samples. It does say he was shown photos of the drops going all the way around the bed including the foot.
It also notes the bible was placed in the blood after the blood was already there. That explains in part why he said she was murdered.
-
Thanks apparently he was only shown photos and not even he was shown any reports of the actual blood testing of any drops so we still don't know the location of the 2 samples. It does say he was shown photos of the drops going all the way around the bed including the foot.
It also notes the bible was placed in the blood after the blood was already there. That explains in part why he said she was murdered.
He suggests ( as has been argued) that it is likely she put her right hand to the throat - this is consistent with the autopsy notes - which stated that her right hand was blood stained and was likely responsible for the print on her night dress. I don't understand why this changed in the written statement to indicate no blood on her hands.
-
You don't post nothing though. You post ridiculous speculation to try to defend Jeremy that demonstrates you are little more than an apologist while most of the time you deny same and claim to be looking at things objectively. Every single Jeremy supporter is making wild speculations about evidence being planted and people lying in order to support their preferred belief that Jeremy is innocent though you have nothing at all to disturb the evidence.
June surviving for an extra minute doesn't change that she was on the floor already by the time the killer returned from the kitchen. That is if there is blood all the way around the bed which I still have not seen anyone demonstrate exactly where the 2 carpet samples came from.
WHat have you shown me to be wrong about that is significant?
How more ridiculous suggestion can you get by saying that Jeremy placed a pair of blood stained mens socks by Sheila's body to give the impression that sheila had worn socks? You suggested that for one reason only and that is because it fits into your scenario instead of admitting like a man that your scenario is wrong.
-
what diffrence would it make weather she wore socks or not.
-
what diffrence would it make weather she wore socks or not.
It may be no more than that the socks were simply THERE ???
-
what diffrence would it make weather she wore socks or not.
Sheila wearing socks during the commission of the murders would potentially have enabled her to have done so without getting sugar on her feet and cutting her feet. Of course the sugar should have been on her socks then and perhaps some glass fragments stuck to her socks.
-
Sheila wearing socks during the commission of the murders would potentially have enabled her to have done so without getting sugar on her feet and cutting her feet. Of course the sugar should have been on her socks then and perhaps some glass fragments stuck to her socks.
Why,when it was the raid team that knocked over the bowl of sugar? And why necessarily glass fragments? None were reported as being on Nevill's feet,nor any cuts from glass and we know for definate that he had bare feet.
-
Sheila wearing socks during the commission of the murders would potentially have enabled her to have done so without getting sugar on her feet and cutting her feet. Of course the sugar should have been on her socks then and perhaps some glass fragments stuck to her socks.
But unless sugar was spilled and glass broken prior to whatever altercation occurred I don't think it likely that proceedings would have been halted to allow her time to don socks ???
-
Scipio how do we know the socks belonged to Sheila maybe they belonged to Ralph and he left them on the floor before going to bed.
-
Scipio how do we know the socks belonged to Sheila maybe they belonged to Ralph and he left them on the floor before going to bed.
That is the most likely explanation for the socks.
-
He suggests ( as has been argued) that it is likely she put her right hand to the throat - this is consistent with the autopsy notes - which stated that her right hand was blood stained and was likely responsible for the print on her night dress. I don't understand why this changed in the written statement to indicate no blood on her hands.
It wasn't changed. The statement notes the blood on the outside of her palm which was transferred to her gown. It says there was no blood INSIDE her hand or on her fingers. The police said the same thing no blood onside her hands or on her fingers.
Hold your hand like you are going to do a karate chop, pretend you have a wound to your neck and try to plug it with a bottom of your hand (the part in between your wrist and bottom outside of your pinky). That is where the blood was the bottom wrist and outside of the hand. The blood then dripped down from the wrist towards the elbow.
-
That is the most likely explanation for the socks.
I agree too. But having June's blood upon them didnt correspond to Scipios version of events,as he wont have it that June was ever around Nevilles side of the bed. Even though a blood pattern expert who has seen more photographs than we have,says that the evidence shows that she was.
-
I agree too. But having June's blood upon them didnt correspond to Scipios version of events,as he wont have it that June was ever around Nevilles side of the bed. Even though a blood pattern expert who has seen more photographs than we have,says that the evidence shows that she was.
I know. 8)
-
Alias I think they were Ralph's socks men are likely to leave their socks on the floor at the side of the bed.
-
Scipio how do we know the socks belonged to Sheila maybe they belonged to Ralph and he left them on the floor before going to bed.
We don't know who they belonged to. We don't know if they were moved and placed right next to her body or they had been there all along. One would expect her to have fallen on top of them though had they been there, the exact positioning looks staged. Jeremy could have staged them so close to her for implication she had taken them off before killing herself. We have no way to know what he was thinking when he staged the bible and could have had the socks in mind as well. Since they had no sugar or glass and the blood on them got there from passive drips it doesn't support Sheila wearing them as she killed anyone so the prosecution and defense seems to have largely ignored them at trial beyond mentioning they were there and had June's blood. No wider implication was suggested.
-
I agree too. But having June's blood upon them didnt correspond to Scipios version of events,as he wont have it that June was ever around Nevilles side of the bed. Even though a blood pattern expert who has seen more photographs than we have,says that the evidence shows that she was.
Are you saying June was shot in bed. Got out of bed. Went round to Neville's side of the bed, then back around to her side, where she collapsed ?
Why would she do that ?
-
Why,when it was the raid team that knocked over the bowl of sugar? And why necessarily glass fragments? None were reported as being on Nevill's feet,nor any cuts from glass and we know for definate that he had bare feet.
The raid team didn't know the sugar over it was already on the floor according to the raid team. The glass and sugar were where the killer had to be standing to kill Nevill and leave the kitchen. Nevill's location where he was beaten doesn't mean he would have been walking through it.
-
Scipio why would Jeremy want to stage a scene in which Sheila removed her socks before killing herself. None of it makes sense to me :'( Help Adam :)
-
Scipio why would Jeremy want to stage a scene in which Sheila removed her socks before killing herself. None of it makes sense to me :'( Help Adam :)
I can't see either why Sheila would remove her socks. Or why Jeremy would put them there.
The socks are not really an issue to me. Unless they had sugar and glass on.
-
Adam thank you I am in agreement with you :)
-
Are you saying June was shot in bed. Got out of bed. Went round to Neville's side of the bed, then back around to her side, where she collapsed ?
Why would she do that ?
No,Professor MacDonnell,a blood pattern expert who has had access to all of the photographs has concluded that. There are many reasons why June may have done that,I posted some earlier. Maybe you could use your own imagination? I know you have one.
-
The raid team didn't know the sugar over it was already on the floor according to the raid team. The glass and sugar were where the killer had to be standing to kill Nevill and leave the kitchen. Nevill's location where he was beaten doesn't mean he would have been walking through it.
The raid team admitted to having knocked the bowl of sugar off the table. And the spilt sugar was confined to an area under the table. So I cannot see why anyone would have had to have tread in any sugar. And you cannot know in what location that Nevill was beaten.
-
I agree too. But having June's blood upon them didnt correspond to Scipios version of events,as he wont have it that June was ever around Nevilles side of the bed. Even though a blood pattern expert who has seen more photographs than we have,says that the evidence shows that she was.
The socks could have been by her side of the bed, got blood on them as she got up and then they were planted. Rugs in contrast can't move (except the little mats) which is why I care about the location of the 2 carpet samples taken and whether there was blood at the foot of the bed because if she walked around the bed and back that means the foot should have blood from coming and going.
What Harters posted suggests there are photos of blood at the foot of the bed in addition to blood on Nevill's side.
As I said the only way she could walk around would be after the killer already left the room. She would have to have a reason for doing so before going back and collapsing. Going to use the phone Jeremy removed would be one possible reason another would be to check out Nevill if he hadn't left the room yet. Walking around the bed and then quickly turning around and walking to the door but collapsing before getting out doesn't have much significance other than reinforcing Harter's suspicions that June was shot between the eyes after the kitchen instead of before the kitchen incident. It is hard to fathom the killer shooting her and Nevill from the foot of the bed, then her getting up and walking past the killer then turing around and running after the killer while the gun was still loaded but collapsing at the door and the killer then being able to put a bullet between her eyes and then finally going to the kitchen. Shooting her between the eyes to make sure she was dead after the kitchen makes much more sense than before the kitchen unless she rolled out of bed and was shot between the eyes there near the door, then by some miracle after the killer left still managed to get up, walk to the other side and then in an amazing coincidence she collapsed right by the door not that far from where she rolled out of bed. Far more likely though would be after the killer left she ran to the other side to use the phone or check on Nevill or the dog and then quickly turned around and headed for the door but collapsed before getting out and the killer shot her between the eyes upon returning from the kitchen.
-
The raid team admitted to having knocked the bowl of sugar off the table. And the spilt sugar was confined to an area under the table. So I cannot see why anyone would have had to have tread in any sugar. And you cannot know in what location that Nevill was beaten.
The raid team didn't admit to knocking the sugar over. This is one of the rumors of the case you and other Jeremy supports persist with. The appeal court decision makes clear the source of this claim was not the raid team but rather hearsay from people not present when the raid team entered.
-
No,Professor MacDonnell,a blood pattern expert who has had access to all of the photographs has concluded that. There are many reasons why June may have done that,I posted some earlier. Maybe you could use your own imagination? I know you have one.
Socks, June's alleged mini walk about. Neither benefits Jeremy or Sheila.
-
Socks, June's alleged mini walk about. Neither benefits Jeremy or Sheila.
But they are parts of the bigger picture. Every little detail is significant in a crime scene.
-
Socks, June's alleged mini walk about. Neither benefits Jeremy or Sheila.
I know.But it is evidence that is at odds with Scipio's supposedly factual scenario. That is the only point that I was trying to make.
-
The raid team didn't admit to knocking the sugar over. This is one of the rumors of the case you and other Jeremy supports persist with. The appeal court decision makes clear the source of this claim was not the raid team but rather hearsay from people not present when the raid team entered.
No,the raid team may not have done,but Cook most certainly did. If my copy and pasting actually works (I am crap at it) you will see in Cook's statement that it is not just a 'rumour' that I and other Jeremy 'supporter's persist with'.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,462.msg6915.html#msg6915
-
No,Professor MacDonnell,a blood pattern expert who has had access to all of the photographs has concluded that. There are many reasons why June may have done that,I posted some earlier. Maybe you could use your own imagination? I know you have one.
Thanks Tyler. I never knew of this and it actually vindicates part of my theory of events
-
I know.But it is evidence that is at odds with Scipio's supposedly factual scenario. That is the only point that I was trying to make.
And a point worth making Tyler. :)
Cannot help but wonder why she was at that side of the bed, did the shooter enter the bedroom through the door on Nevill's side of the bed at some point?
-
No,the raid team may not have done,but Cook most certainly did. If my copy and pasting actually works (I am crap at it) you will see in Cook's statement that it is not just a 'rumour' that I and other Jeremy 'supporter's persist with'.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,462.msg6915.html#msg6915
No, Cook didn't. Pretty clear he is saying he heard the firearms had been the ones who knocked over the brown sugar.
-
No, Cook didn't. Pretty clear he is saying he heard the firearms had been the ones who knocked over the brown sugar.
Not a rumour made up by so called Jeremy 'supporters' though is it. It came from a top Detective who was heavily involved in the case.
-
Not a rumour made up by so called Jeremy 'supporters' though is it. It came from a top Detective who was heavily involved in the case.
And was addressed in the appeal document. Scip didn't say you or any supporter made it up. He said it's a rumour you persist with, which evidently it is.
-
And a point worth making Tyler. :)
Cannot help but wonder why she was at that side of the bed, did the shooter enter the bedroom through the door on Nevill's side of the bed at some point?
If the shooter were firing from Nevill's side of the bed she would run out the door not around the bed to where the shooter was.
The only thing that makes any sense is for her to have gone to Nevill's side of the bed after the killer was out of the room or at least in the doorway so that she would have both the ability to pass by the foot of the bed and a reason to run to the other side.
-
Not a rumour made up by so called Jeremy 'supporters' though is it. It came from a top Detective who was heavily involved in the case.
It doesn't matter who came up with the rumor. The issue is that Cook and the others who spread such rumor were NOT on the scene until after 9 so clearly were not part of the raid team and thus can't speak to what the raid team did. that is why it constituted hearsay according the the Court of Appeals.
Who is trying to use this rumor to their advantage? Jeremy's legal team made a failed attempt to use it and Jeremy supporters such as yourself don't care that it has been rejected already by the Courts but still try to use it.
-
Scipio what kind of police officers spread rumours it is a disgrace as far as I am concerned especially when people like me believe them :'(
-
So no one puts credence into what RW Cook says? Well, I am free to do so no matter what others say.
-
Alias I agree with you think naughty Scipio is trying to confuse me :'(
-
Scipio what kind of police officers spread rumours it is a disgrace as far as I am concerned especially when people like me believe them :'(
People of all types spread rumors. They hear something and then think it is true and spread it. The Court noted that Cook and other crime scene personnel didn't realize there was a struggle in the kitchen. That makes you wonder how good they are at reading crime scenes since the raid personnel realized it right away. The Court of Appeals noted that since Cook was one of those who denied there was a struggle in the kitchen he had to try defending his position by explaining away the various signs that there was a struggle and one way he attempted to do that was to claim the damage was caused by the raid team. He was trying to save face by saying they caused the damage and he was right about there being no struggle. The wounds on Nevill and other things supported the raid team which also saw a problem with Sheila being too clean to have committed the murder. That's the ultimate kick in the teeth. The "grunts" saw various problems right away while the crime scene experts who are are supposed to be so good at reading evidence botched it. That's pretty damn embarrassing. It is also potential motivation for the crime scene officer to stage things to blame Sheila as opposed to Jeremy.
-
People of all types spread rumors. They hear something and then think it is true and spread it. The Court noted that Cook and other crime scene personnel didn't realize there was a struggle in the kitchen. That makes you wonder how good they are at reading crime scenes since the raid personnel realized it right away. The Court of Appeals noted that since Cook was one of those who denied there was a struggle in the kitchen he had to try defending his position by explaining away the various signs that there was a struggle and one way he attempted to do that was to claim the damage was caused by the raid team. He was trying to save face by saying they caused the damage and he was right about there being no struggle. The wounds on Nevill and other things supported the raid team which also saw a problem with Sheila being too clean to have committed the murder. That's the ultimate kick in the teeth. The "grunts" saw various problems right away while the crime scene experts who are are supposed to be so good at reading evidence botched it. That's pretty damn embarrassing. It is also potential motivation for the crime scene officer to stage things to blame Sheila as opposed to Jeremy.
If there is 'potential' for one, there is potential for the other.
-
Scipio thanks for explaining that it is so damn embarrassing I don 't know how they got away with it just goes to show one has to be so careful what they believe and I for one will look at things more carefully before I draw conclusions.
-
If there is 'potential' for one, there is potential for the other.
Potential for crime scene officers who were accused of misreading the scene to plant evidence that would establish they were indeed wrong and thus deposit even more egg on their faces?
That is like saying I would try to manufacture evidence to prove I am wrong about something. Why on Earth would I do that? Someone manufacturers evidence to pretend they were right not to help establish they were wrong.
-
Scipio that makes sense to me.
-
So no one puts credence into what RW Cook says? Well, I am free to do so no matter what others say.
I do Alias. Its easy to say what the rumor might be, but Cook did say that he learnt latter that the raid team had moved the chairs and knocked the sugar over. One of the raid team members confirm this is one of their statements. Also AE confirms this in her 1901 COLP statement.
I have always said that the only struggle that could have occurred would have been a minor one, you can tell that with the blood stains on the floor...there was no ferocious struggle in the kitchen at all in my opinion...NB would not have been able to fought back in the way it is sometimes expressed by others.
If you look at the floor near the sink there is no scuff marks or smeared blood to confirm a fight took place.... :-\
-
I do Alias. Its easy to say what the rumor might be, but Cook did say that he learnt latter that the raid team had moved the chairs and knocked the sugar over. One of the raid team members confirm this is one of their statements. Also AE confirms this in her 1901 COLP statement.
I have always said that the only struggle that could have occurred would have been a minor one, you can tell that with the blood stains on the floor...there was no ferocious struggle in the kitchen at all in my opinion...NB would not have been able to fought back in the way it is sometimes expressed by others.
If you look at the floor near the sink there is no scuff marks or smeared blood to confirm a fight took place.... :-\
Sensible post, Patti. :)
A lot has been made of the sugar on the floor, but Cook says it was limited to a very small area. Do you know where - I can´t see it in photos?
-
Potential for crime scene officers who were accused of misreading the scene to plant evidence that would establish they were indeed wrong and thus deposit even more egg on their faces?
That is like saying I would try to manufacture evidence to prove I am wrong about something. Why on Earth would I do that? Someone manufacturers evidence to pretend they were right not to help establish they were wrong.
Well, that depends who they thought was responsible. We know Stan Jones thought Jeremy was guilty and not Sheila. He didn't seem interested in toeing the official line - I'm sure there were others who felt the same.
-
I do Alias. Its easy to say what the rumor might be, but Cook did say that he learnt latter that the raid team had moved the chairs and knocked the sugar over. One of the raid team members confirm this is one of their statements. Also AE confirms this in her 1901 COLP statement.
I have always said that the only struggle that could have occurred would have been a minor one, you can tell that with the blood stains on the floor...there was no ferocious struggle in the kitchen at all in my opinion...NB would not have been able to fought back in the way it is sometimes expressed by others.
If you look at the floor near the sink there is no scuff marks or smeared blood to confirm a fight took place.... :-\
The things knocked over, the scratches to the mantle and the broken lampshade tell the tale of arguing over control of the rifle. Nevill's arm having so many gouges and his watch being torn off tell the tall that he was blocking the blows from the butt of the rifle with his arm. His head wasn't bashed in for nothing, it was bashed in so that the killer could knock him out and then have the opportunity to reload in peace.
Cook wasn't there Cook's claim he heard innuendo that the scene was mess was made by the raid team is not evidence that it actually was. It at most is evidence he heard innuendo. The raid team members all dispute such a claim so it obviously didn't come from them and they are the only ones who could actually know if they did the damage or not. That is why the Appeal Court said it was hearsay and not even admissible.
-
ALL three adults had gouge marks on their forearms. Sheila would have applied them to her parents,but who made the marks on Sheila ? They were only small,so it wasn't her father.
-
Well, that depends who they thought was responsible. We know Stan Jones thought Jeremy was guilty and not Sheila. He didn't seem interested in toeing the official line - I'm sure there were others who felt the same.
Stan Jones wasn't a crime scene officer. The Crime scene officers were Hammersley, Cook and Davidson. This particular point deals with the reason why these 3 would not want to fake evidence to frame Jeremy because it would end up embarrassing them as opposed to making them look good.
-
ALL three adults had gouge marks on their forearms. Sheila would have applied them to her parents,but who made the marks on Sheila ? They were only small,so it wasn't her father.
Only Nevill had gouge marks.
-
ALL three adults had gouge marks on their forearms. Sheila would have applied them to her parents,but who made the marks on Sheila ? They were only small,so it wasn't her father.
This is my personal belief, but Sheila has no gouge marks on her arms. They are blood streams as far as I can see.
BTW, the raid team could have been ashamed that they hurled through the crime scene in such a panic that they toppled things over, and would be reluctant to admit it.
-
Sensible post, Patti. :)
A lot has been made of the sugar on the floor, but Cook says it was limited to a very small area. Do you know where - I can´t see it in photos?
I think it was confined under the table....which makes me also believe that the table may have been moved after the sugar had spilled, otherwise the sugar would have been found away from the table.
Its difficult to see any sugar on the floor and we do not have a clear view under the table.
The whole area looks like a bomb had hit it, stuff all over the place.
There must have been some struggle near the sink, for NB's watch was found under the mat. There are two ceiling lights in the kitchen, the one that was broken was the one above the where the sink is.. I think you can see it in one of the photo's after the murders, when AE lived there. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This is my personal belief, but Sheila has no gouge marks on her arms. They are blood streams as far as I can see.
BTW, the raid team could have been ashamed that they hurled through the crime scene in such a panic that they toppled things over, and would be reluctant to admit it.
I never heard of people with guns barreling through chairs and knocking things over. Running into a chair not only hurts it inhibits you from being able to defend yourself if you need to shoot someone who has a gun and is trying to shoot you.
At any rate if they decided not to tell anyone they did it because it embarrassed them then they would not be the source of the rumor that they knocked things over.
-
The things knocked over, the scratches to the mantle and the broken lampshade tell the tale of arguing over control of the rifle. Nevill's arm having so many gouges and his watch being torn off tell the tall that he was blocking the blows from the butt of the rifle with his arm. His head wasn't bashed in for nothing, it was bashed in so that the killer could knock him out and then have the opportunity to reload in peace.
Cook wasn't there Cook's claim he heard innuendo that the scene was mess was made by the raid team is not evidence that it actually was. It at most is evidence he heard innuendo. The raid team members all dispute such a claim so it obviously didn't come from them and they are the only ones who could actually know if they did the damage or not. That is why the Appeal Court said it was hearsay and not even admissible.
Venzes says the marks on his left arm was probably done with the muzzle end of the rifle not the butt end....which might indicate no silencer was on the rifle at that point.
Sorry but one of the raid team admit to moving the stools as they more or less blocked one of the doorways...Cook heard of all of this later on, there is no need for him to lie in his statement, why would he?
It would have been better if all the raid team made statements immediately and not one month later when many factors may have been missed. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
This is my personal belief, but Sheila has no gouge marks on her arms. They are blood streams as far as I can see.
BTW, the raid team could have been ashamed that they hurled through the crime scene in such a panic that they toppled things over, and would be reluctant to admit it.
I have just had another read of some of the raid team statements. With regards to Sheila,it is interesting that more than one raid team member remarks about her having blood leaking from her mouth. And of course,'leaking' is the present tense. Also Woodcock describes Sheila's head as being raised,against the bedside cabinet.That is interesting since (was it Delgado and Collins)? queried afterwards that the crime scene photos did not depict Sheila as being in the same position as they had first seen her.With one of them not even recalling a rifle on or near her body. All very odd.
-
Who would you trust to assess the state of a crime scene, crime scene officers who are used to paying attention to detail or members of a raid team who are trained to focus on a target?
-
I have just had another read of some of the raid team statements. With regards to Sheila,it is interesting that more than one raid team member remarks about her having blood leaking from her mouth. And of course,'leaking' is the present tense. Also Woodcock describes Sheila's head as being raised,against the bedside cabinet.That is interesting since (was it Delgado and Collins)? queried afterwards that the crime scene photos did not depict Sheila as being in the same position as they had first seen her.With one of them not even recalling a rifle on or near her body. All very odd.
I believe the point was made that it was WET blood which I guess would b e different from the dried blood my mother used to feed to her Hyderanga's ;)
-
I have just had another read of some of the raid team statements. With regards to Sheila,it is interesting that more than one raid team member remarks about her having blood leaking from her mouth. And of course,'leaking' is the present tense. Also Woodcock describes Sheila's head as being raised,against the bedside cabinet.That is interesting since (was it Delgado and Collins)? queried afterwards that the crime scene photos did not depict Sheila as being in the same position as they had first seen her.With one of them not even recalling a rifle on or near her body. All very odd.
Well, yes.
-
I do Alias. Its easy to say what the rumor might be, but Cook did say that he learnt latter that the raid team had moved the chairs and knocked the sugar over. One of the raid team members confirm this is one of their statements. Also AE confirms this in her 1901 COLP statement.
I have always said that the only struggle that could have occurred would have been a minor one, you can tell that with the blood stains on the floor...there was no ferocious struggle in the kitchen at all in my opinion...NB would not have been able to fought back in the way it is sometimes expressed by others.
If you look at the floor near the sink there is no scuff marks or smeared blood to confirm a fight took place.... :-\
They did indeed say that they moved two stools so that they could get through. No one (however) states they knocked over the sugar; in fact Woodcock states he saw the sugar when he entered the kitchen after breaking down the door.
-
Venzes says the marks on his left arm was probably done with the muzzle end of the rifle not the butt end....which might indicate no silencer was on the rifle at that point.
Sorry but one of the raid team admit to moving the stools as they more or less blocked one of the doorways...Cook heard of all of this later on, there is no need for him to lie in his statement, why would he?
It would have been better if all the raid team made statements immediately and not one month later when many factors may have been missed. :-\ :-\ :-\
Thank you for that Caroline that confirms what I said. About the sugar though I have never seen a report saying that one of the raid team knocked this over. It appears that Cook and AE was aware that one of them did. How they were made aware of it, I have no idea....
-
Who would you trust to assess the state of a crime scene, crime scene officers who are used to paying attention to detail or members of a raid team who are trained to focus on a target?
Depends on the issue. In the US all cops are trained to use guns and crime scene officers are trained about the finer aspects.
In the UK most cops don't use guns and thus are at a disadvantage when it comes to some firearms related issues. Hopefully now they are trianed much more about every aspect.
The raid team noticed the struggle in the kitchen as well as the lack of evidence on Sheila that should be present had she taken part in a struggle and shot people. The coroner and crime scene officers should have noticed these same things since the raid team did.
The coroner and crime scene officers seemed to ignore it. Vanezis later blamed this on not being shown the seen right away but none of his gun related claims were too bright. He stupidly suggested possibly someone stabbed Nevill with the barrel of the rifle and that this caused the marks. He said such at a point in time when he knew the moderator had been attached. Apart from the notion of being stabbed with the rifle barrel being stupid the moderator being attached should have told him it was a stupid suggestion. If he knew anything about the use of guns he would know people are hit with the butt of the rifle and the corner of the butt would be able to make marks like the gouges to Nevill's arms. He figured out the butt was used to bash Nevill's head in so you would think he would be able to figure out Nevill would have tried defending himself from such blows with his arm thus his arm getting gouged.
The lab helped save the case, otherwise a crappy job was done which is why the Dickinson investigation occurred. They wanted to try to find out what went wrong so they could try to prevent the same bad policing in the future.
-
Thank you for that Caroline that confirms what I said. About the sugar though I have never seen a report saying that one of the raid team knocked this over. It appears that Cook and AE was aware that one of them did. How they were made aware of it, I have no idea....
It appears as though the sugar was already on the floor when they entered. But yes, they did move two stools, they also opened all external doors and one window (which they later secured).
-
Thank you for that Caroline that confirms what I said. About the sugar though I have never seen a report saying that one of the raid team knocked this over. It appears that Cook and AE was aware that one of them did. How they were made aware of it, I have no idea....
The rumor that the raid team knocked it over was told to Cook but there is nothing to suggest the claim is actually true.
I never saw any claim that a light over the sink was broken and that the glass was thus found in the sink.
-
Depends on the issue. In the US all cops are trained to use guns and crime scene officers are trained about the finer aspects.
In the UK most cops don't use guns and thus are at a disadvantage when it comes to some firearms related issues. Hopefully now they are trianed much more about every aspect.
The raid team noticed the struggle in the kitchen as well as the lack of evidence on Sheila that should be present had she taken part in a struggle and shot people. The coroner and crime scene officers should have noticed these same things since the raid team did.
The coroner and crime scene officers seemed to ignore it. Vanezis later blamed this on not being shown the seen right away but none of his gun related claims were too bright. He stupidly suggested possibly someone stabbed Nevill with the barrel of the rifle and that this caused the marks. He said such at a point in time when he knew the moderator had been attached. Apart from the notion of being stabbed with the rifle barrel being stupid the moderator being attached should have told him it was a stupid suggestion. If he knew anything about the use of guns he would know people are hit with the butt of the rifle and the corner of the butt would be able to make marks like the gouges to Nevill's arms. He figured out the butt was used to bash Nevill's head in so you would think he would be able to figure out Nevill would have tried defending himself from such blows with his arm thus his arm getting gouged.
The lab helped save the case, otherwise a crappy job was done which is why the Dickinson investigation occurred. They wanted to try to find out what went wrong so they could try to prevent the same bad policing in the future.
Sorry Skip but the raid team did not notice that Sheila was clean and that it was a murder, they believed for weeks that it was suicide/murder....Not one of them put their hands up to say otherwise at the time. :-\
-
It appears as though the sugar was already on the floor when they entered. But yes, they did move two stools, they also opened all external doors and one window (which they later secured).
They opened the kitchen window too to let the smell out.
I've never been able to see any sugar on the floor, not even sure if it was white or brown. The fact is that it has been said that if Sheila was had been in the kitchen, sugar would have got on her feet. I doubt it would have stayed on her feet, it would have fell off when walking...That's one experiment we can all do... :-\
-
Sorry Skip but the raid team did not notice that Sheila was clean and that it was a murder, they believed for weeks that it was suicide/murder....Not one of them put their hands up to say otherwise at the time. :-\
Woodcock certainly admits to being suspicious.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4207.msg172557.html#msg172557
-
Sorry Skip but the raid team did not notice that Sheila was clean and that it was a murder, they believed for weeks that it was suicide/murder....Not one of them put their hands up to say otherwise at the time. :-\
There are documents that discuss the firearms team saying her clean condition didn't fit with what she had supposedly done and this was one of the things Stan Jones ended up raising.
By the way the broken light was not over the kitchen sink:
(http://s3.postimg.org/rdku6h20z/light.jpg)
-
There are documents that discuss the firearms team saying her clean condition didn't fit with what she had supposedly done and this was one of the things Stan Jones ended up raising.
By the way the broken light was not over the kitchen sink:
(http://s3.postimg.org/rdku6h20z/light.jpg)
Ower! Well they are two lights I do remember discussing this with Hartley and we came to the conclusion that it was the light over the sink...But there you go...Who made that statement Sckip? Because I have said many times that there is not much in the way of glass on the floor near the sink...There is two lights though. Hartley will confirm that...
-
Ower! Well they are two lights I do remember discussing this with Hartley and we came to the conclusion that it was the light over the sink...But there you go...Who made that statement Sckip? Because I have said many times that there is not much in the way of glass on the floor near the sink...There is two lights though. Hartley will confirm that...
I will.
-
Ower! Well they are two lights I do remember discussing this with Hartley and we came to the conclusion that it was the light over the sink...But there you go...Who made that statement Sckip? Because I have said many times that there is not much in the way of glass on the floor near the sink...There is two lights though. Hartley will confirm that...
I haven't checked, but my guess is that it is taken from the DICKINSON REPORT? :-\
-
I haven't checked, but my guess is that it is taken from the DICKINSON REPORT? :-\
So then we all naturally assume that a light is in the center of a room ceiling, but in this case there were two...I'm not sure which one was smashed...I seem to think it was the one above the sink, but cannot remember where I got that from. I must have read it somewhere! Is the Dickinson report trustworthy? I'd like a more direct source if there is one. :-\
-
So then we all naturally assume that a light is in the center of a room ceiling, but in this case there were two...I'm not sure which one was smashed...I seem to think it was the one above the sink, but cannot remember where I got that from. I must have read it somewhere! Is the Dickinson report trustworthy? I'd like a more direct source if there is one. :-\
It is:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=19621;image)
-
There are two light fixtures evenly spaced.
I think Patti and I concluded that it was the one closest to the sink that was broken, although it is not 'over' the sink. It could be described as being in the centre of the area which was not occupied by the dining table.
The Dickinson Report has just worded it incorrectly, that is my assumption anyway.
-
There are two light fixtures evenly spaced.
I think Patti and I concluded that it was the one closest to the sink that was broken, although it is not 'over' the sink. It could be described as being in the centre of the area which was not occupied by the dining table.
The Dickinson Report has just worded it incorrectly, that is my assumption anyway.
Thanks Hartley. Just waded through that myself to find it, but you beat me to it. ;D
-
Thanks Hartley. Just waded through that myself to find it, but you beat me to it. ;D
I forget exactly now, but I think you may have seen the light (s) on one of the documentaries which alerted you to the fact that there were two.
That was the catalyst for our discussion about which of the them was broken.
-
So then we all naturally assume that a light is in the center of a room ceiling, but in this case there were two...I'm not sure which one was smashed...I seem to think it was the one above the sink, but cannot remember where I got that from. I must have read it somewhere! Is the Dickinson report trustworthy? I'd like a more direct source if there is one. :-\
It is more reliable for some things than others. In terms of times it is off because it decided to just estimate or select times of one person over another and it includes some claims which are just rumor. I would assume that it would get a simple detail of where the light is located to be correct.
No statements on this site discuss the location of the kitchen light, Eaton's statement just says Jeremy asked her if police figured out how it was broken. He was interested in that but didn't ask about the locations of the bodies. That made her suspicious because if you already knew from killing them would you not be curious of where everyone was.
-
There are two light fixtures evenly spaced.
I think Patti and I concluded that it was the one closest to the sink that was broken, although it is not 'over' the sink. It could be described as being in the centre of the area which was not occupied by the dining table.
The Dickinson Report has just worded it incorrectly, that is my assumption anyway.
Are they the same height and design or different lights? How did you decide which was broken?
-
Are they the same height and design or different lights? How did you decide which was broken?
Well the lights are the same now.
I can only assume that they were also 30 years ago.
I forget how we concluded which was broken, I'll have a dig around. I do remember that we were pretty sure with our conclusions though.
-
Here is one of them...no light shade on this one and it does look like its in the center of the room. There is another one, but Its not in the archives...I know I have seen one that looks like its nearer the sink....
-
They did indeed say that they moved two stools so that they could get through. No one (however) states they knocked over the sugar; in fact Woodcock states he saw the sugar when he entered the kitchen after breaking down the door.
Thanks for all the quotes, Caroline - that's extensive work. I will save it for the next time the sugar is brought up. ;D ;D
-
Here is one of them...no light shade on this one and it does look like its in the center of the room. There is another one, but Its not in the archives...I know I have seen one that looks like its nearer the sink....
It's not in the centre, there is another above the photographers head.
-
Hartley, the light seems really high - as if it's a very high ceiling. Is the other light as high? Was the shade a low hanging one?
-
Hartley, the light seems really high - as if it's a very high ceiling. Is the other light as high? Was the shade a low hanging one?
The two light fittings are the same.
Although, what shades were on them at the time of the murders, I know not.
Yes the ceilings are high in that part of the house.
Also that photograph was taken many years after the murders.
-
There are two pendant light fittings, one is roughly opposite the door to the spiral stairs and the other is closer to the kitchen sink. It was the one closest to the sink that was damaged (I think :-\ ).
A correction to the above. It was the light furthest from the sink which was broken (this is noted in Ann's COLP statement).
I've just found these two old posts of mine. It seems that we thought it was the one closest to the sink.
But then found out that it was the other one, furthest from the sink. The one shown in the photograph above.
Clear as mud? :D
-
It's not in the centre, there is another above the photographers head.
Which is nearer the sink?
-
Which is nearer the sink?
Yes, the sink is directly behind the photographers position.
-
I've just found these two old posts of mine. It seems that we thought it was the one closest to the sink.
But then found out that it was the other one, furthest from the sink. The one shown in the photograph above.
Clear as mud? :D
Aww I must have missed your post on the 15th......It makes more sense it was that one because there is no glass near the mat which is in front on the sink...Well that's cleared that one up then. ;D
-
Here is one of them...no light shade on this one and it does look like its in the center of the room. There is another one, but Its not in the archives...I know I have seen one that looks like its nearer the sink....
It looks to me light it has a clear glass shade. Something seems to be around it.
-
It looks to me light it has a clear glass shade. Something seems to be around it.
I thought that, but then I thought it was just the lighting of the photo because there seems to be no shadow for a frame on the wall.
I am having a hard time accepting Sheila with the gun in hand, even in the air, being how the shade was smashed.
-
I've just found these two old posts of mine. It seems that we thought it was the one closest to the sink.
But then found out that it was the other one, furthest from the sink. The one shown in the photograph above.
Clear as mud? :D
You suck now I have to read one of her long ass statements again. :P
-
You suck now I have to read one of her long ass statements again. :P
;D
I'll have a quick scan to see if I can locate the page.
-
;D
I'll have a quick scan to see if I can locate the page.
So far the only thing noteworthy is about the sugar. The rumor she heard was the cops cleaning the place up before he keys were turned over the the family were the ones who spilled the sugar. Nothing about the raid team doing it.
-
It looks to me light it has a clear glass shade. Something seems to be around it.
Like Hartley says the photograph was taken many years later. I don't think it has a shade around it, its just a shadow I think. :-\
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=497.0;attach=18949;image)
-
So far the only thing noteworthy is about the sugar. The rumor she heard was the cops cleaning the place up before he keys were turned over the the family were the ones who spilled the sugar. Nothing about the raid team doing it.
I get the gist that is what she was saying. If that is the case and the sugar was not on the floor then Woodcock was not telling the truth about the sugar. Nothing gets past AE.... :-\
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=497.0;attach=18949;image)
Thanks I stand corrected there is a statement on this site that describes the location.
Given the height of the light I still think it highly unlikely it could be reached without the moderator attached to the gun.
-
It was Ann herself that asked if Sheila had sugar on her feet. She states she found out later that ??????
-
Thanks I stand corrected there is a statement on this site that describes the location.
Given the height of the light I still think it highly unlikely it could be reached without the moderator attached to the gun.
It might have been broken by something that was thrown and not the rifle at all...we just don't know. I can't make out what colour the lamp shade was I assume it was white.
-
I get the gist that is what she was saying. If that is the case and the sugar was not on the floor then Woodcock was not telling the truth about the sugar. Nothing gets past AE.... :-\
Sugar was all over the floor when she saw the place she had to clean it up. That was why she asked if Sheila had sugar on her feet. Someone either told her the false claim that the people cleaning up the house spilled it or she misunderstood somehow and misconstrued what they said as meaning that. She also was either misinformed or misunderstood about Sheila and June being in the master bedroom. What she witnessed herself is one thing. What she was told is another.
-
It was Ann herself that asked if Sheila had sugar on her feet. She states she found out later that ??????
AE was told something by someone else - we don't even know who and yet Woodcock himself is saying the sugar was on the floor when he entered WHF. Why should AE's claims be taken over and officer who states saw it for himself? This is the same as Sheila's body being reported as being found 'on the left side of bed'. AE was told this by 'someone' - I think AE, just got it wrong.
-
Thanks I stand corrected there is a statement on this site that describes the location.
Given the height of the light I still think it highly unlikely it could be reached without the moderator attached to the gun.
Hmmm well maybe, but I'm not convinced.
Assuming the light was similar to what it is today, and as per the photograph Patti posted earlier in this thread. What height would you say the light is above the floor?
Bearing in mind the internal doors are a smidgen under 2m (6'6" to you) in height.
Then how high do you think the light would need to be for It to be too high to be damaged with the rifle unless the moderator was fitted?
Is jumping allowed?
-
The light may not have been broken in a fight, some of the disarray might have been deliberately staged?
-
It might have been broken by something that was thrown and not the rifle at all...we just don't know. I can't make out what colour the lamp shade was I assume it was white.
I can't fathom what would being flying around that high up. I doubt the gun was only down low bashing against the aga mantle and knocking things over. At some point the barrel had to be facing up instead of down and hit the lampshade. If it were over the sink like you said originally I thought maybe Jeremy could have hit his head on it while climbing out the window but we are back to the gun breaking it.
When I was young we had a stained glass lampshade above a table in our den and my brother went on the table to dance around and broke it with with his head. Nothing happened to his head but a big chunk was taken out of the light. When my mother saw it she flipped out and he blamed me but she didn't believe him because he was always very bad and always lying. He used to flush stuff down the toilet just to see what could flush without getting stuck. I recall a rubber squeaky Pinocchio that he wedged in there so tight it took hours to get it out and we only had one bathroom at the time, our next house had 3. Oddly enough he became a plumber.
-
Hmmm well maybe, but I'm not convinced.
Assuming the light was similar to what it is today, and as per the photograph Patti posted earlier in this thread. What height would you say the light is above the floor?
Bearing in mind the internal doors are a smidgen under 2m (6'6" to you) in height.
Then how high do you think the light would need to be for It to be too high to be damaged with the rifle unless the moderator was fitted?
Is jumping allowed?
Depends on what kind of lampshade it was. Most don't hang that far past the bulb but there are some really long ones. It it wasn't a long one when you factor in that table was below it so no one could travel directly under and that they broke if from the side so with the gun at an angle...
The killer would have had the gun like this as Nevill tried to take it away. The gun would thus spin around and be pulled back and forth. You can see how much height is added by the moderator.
(http://i.imgur.com/3QFW0.jpg)
-
Depends on what kind of lampshade it was. Most don't hang that far past the bulb but there are some really long ones. It it wasn't a long one when you factor in that table was below it so no one could travel directly under and that they broke if from the side so with the gun at an angle...
The killer would have had the gun like this as Nevill tried to take it away. The gun would thus spin around and be pulled back and forth. You can see how much height is added by the moderator.
(http://i.imgur.com/3QFW0.jpg)
Like I said, it may have been broken deliberately and not as a result of a fight.
-
I can't fathom what would being flying around that high up. I doubt the gun was only down low bashing against the aga mantle and knocking things over. At some point the barrel had to be facing up instead of down and hit the lampshade. If it were over the sink like you said originally I thought maybe Jeremy could have hit his head on it while climbing out the window but we are back to the gun breaking it.
When I was young we had a stained glass lampshade above a table in our den and my brother went on the table to dance around and broke it with with his head. Nothing happened to his head but a big chunk was taken out of the light. When my mother saw it she flipped out and he blamed me but she didn't believe him because he was always very bad and always lying. He used to flush stuff down the toilet just to see what could flush without getting stuck. I recall a rubber squeaky Pinocchio that he wedged in there so tight it took hours to get it out and we only had one bathroom at the time, our next house had 3. Oddly enough he became a plumber.
LOL............
I don't know how it got broke. The rifle being the most logical, but what about the butt end flying off and hitting the shade? Maybe someone threw a bowl? I doubt it could have been a case shell. :-\
-
Depends on what kind of lampshade it was. Most don't hang that far past the bulb but there are some really long ones. It it wasn't a long one when you factor in that table was below it so no one could travel directly under and that they broke if from the side so with the gun at an angle...
The killer would have had the gun like this as Nevill tried to take it away. The gun would thus spin around and be pulled back and forth. You can see how much height is added by the moderator.
(http://i.imgur.com/3QFW0.jpg)
The light is between the table and the glass cabinet, rather than above the table.
I'm not arguing that the moderator wasn't fitted when it broke the light, how would I know. I just don't believe it 'had' to have been fitted.
The broken light doesn't support the moderator being attached, or not. Not for me anyway.
-
The light is between the table and the glass cabinet, rather than above the table.
I'm not arguing that the moderator wasn't fitted when it broke the light, how would I know. I just don't believe it 'had' to have been fitted.
The broken light doesn't support the moderator being attached, or not. Not for me anyway.
This gives an idea of the height without the moderator. Having been trained to fight with a rifle and knowing what a struggle over a rifle would entail, unless the light shade hung down rather low I can't
see it being broken without the moderator attached. It is also easy to see how it would knock more things off table and shelves with the added length the moderator gives.
(http://s18.postimg.org/s2ag5m51l/moderatorerased.jpg)
-
I don't know why but that rifle in that photo looks a lot larger than the one Boyce used in the tests in the New Evidence video....Any ideas where that photo has come from...I know its in the archives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLsEeE0zTI
-
Depends on what kind of lampshade it was. Most don't hang that far past the bulb but there are some really long ones. It it wasn't a long one when you factor in that table was below it so no one could travel directly under and that they broke if from the side so with the gun at an angle...
The killer would have had the gun like this as Nevill tried to take it away. The gun would thus spin around and be pulled back and forth. You can see how much height is added by the moderator.
(http://i.imgur.com/3QFW0.jpg)
Here is a clip from the vid.
-
I don't think its the same rifle is it?
-
I don't think its the same rifle is it?
They are different variations of the same gun the main difference is the iron sight.
-
So again, the fight in the kitchen could have been STAGED, light broken, dishes thrown on the floor, chairs toppled. I think quite a lot of the CS was staged!!
-
So again, the fight in the kitchen could have been STAGED, light broken, dishes thrown on the floor, chairs toppled. I think quite a lot of the CS was staged!!
The raid team staged it as soon as they went in?
-
Sheila wearing socks during the commission of the murders would potentially have enabled her to have done so without getting sugar on her feet and cutting her feet. Of course the sugar should have been on her socks then and perhaps some glass fragments stuck to her socks.
Hahahaha. What a ridiculous bit of supposed reasoning is that? As if Bamber could have had that kind of foresight. Your "reasonings" get more absurd by the day.
-
Socks, June moving to Neville's side of the bed & back again, moved chairs, smashed lights.
It is good that there is discussion about aspects of the case that in no way highlight guilt or innocence for either person. For people to still post and argue that Jeremy is innocent would be wrong.
-
The raid team staged it as soon as they went in?
If there'd been any disarray of crockery,chairs and spillages,then it would have been done by the raid team when they'd have stormed in like a bull in a china shop.
-
The raid team staged it as soon as they went in?
Not the raid team!
-
If there'd been any disarray of crockery,chairs and spillages,then it would have been done by the raid team when they'd have stormed in like a bull in a china shop.
The disarray happened before they entered WHF.
-
Socks, June moving to Neville's side of the bed & back again, moved chairs, smashed lights.
It is good that there is discussion about aspects of the case that in no way highlight guilt or innocence for either person. For people to still post and argue that Jeremy is innocent would be wrong.
Why am I wrong in supporting Jeremy's innocence ? I've thought this from day one and being on this forum reading MOSTLY guilty views has strengthened my own views even more as I've also tried to study in-depth,the minds of all concerned. So if I'm the " odd one out " on the forum,does it matter to you ? Because it certainly matters not to me.
I don't have to shout from the rooftops,nor have I persuaded/forced anyone to re-think because I wouldn't dream of manipulating anyones ideas to fit my own.
-
Why am I wrong in supporting Jeremy's innocence ? I've thought this from day one and being on this forum reading MOSTLY guilty views has strengthened my own views even more as I've also tried to study in-depth,the minds of all concerned. So if I'm the " odd one out " on the forum,does it matter to you ? Because it certainly matters not to me.
I don't have to shout from the rooftops,nor have I persuaded/forced anyone to re-think because I wouldn't dream of manipulating anyones ideas to fit my own.
Studying the minds 'in depth' is nice. But you can't say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Although you have all the crime scene evidence. Although you criticised David's attempt.
-
AE was told something by someone else - we don't even know who and yet Woodcock himself is saying the sugar was on the floor when he entered WHF. Why should AE's claims be taken over and officer who states saw it for himself? This is the same as Sheila's body being reported as being found 'on the left side of bed'. AE was told this by 'someone' - I think AE, just got it wrong.
Personally I think that at the very least the sugar tail is in doubt and that we must rule the sugar out of the equation when considering adding it to any scenario we may like to invent.
-
Like I said, it may have been broken deliberately and not as a result of a fight.
Don't know about you, but that silencer looks to be far too long to me? What's with the join in the middle? As if someone had deliberately added an extra bit?
-
LOL............
I don't know how it got broke. The rifle being the most logical, but what about the butt end flying off and hitting the shade? Maybe someone threw a bowl? I doubt it could have been a case shell. :-\
I think that to the annoyance of some we must put it down as a don't know? Sorry scenario makers.
-
Studying the minds 'in depth' is nice. But you can't say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Although you have all the crime scene evidence.
Although you criticised David's attempt.
Only because he'd done the same to me.
As for not explaining how Sheila committed the crimes.Isn't it evident ? Rifle ?
-
Only because he'd done the same to me.
As for not explaining how Sheila committed the crimes.Isn't it evident ? Rifle ?
You missed my deadline. So have to change stance. Explaining by just saying Sheila used a rifle just highlights this.
Feel free to PM me if struggling.
-
Hahaha lookout now that is an invitation for you go girl ;D ;D ;D
-
You missed my deadline. So have to change stance. Explaining by just saying Sheila used a rifle just highlights this.
Feel free to PM me if struggling.
Excuse me ? I have to do what ? Are you not well ? Or are you taking the pee like you have done from the start ?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6510.0.html
-
Hahaha lookout now that is an invitation for you go girl ;D ;D ;D
He's definitely having a laugh,Susan. Either that,or he doesn't know what he's saying.Even my late husband never told me what to do. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D He thought better of it.
-
You missed my deadline. So have to change stance. Explaining by just saying Sheila used a rifle just highlights this.
Feel free to PM me if struggling.
I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve with these silly posts but there isn't a single person on the forum (on either side) that would seek advice from you. It's not that people 'missed' you deadline (whatever that's all about), they ignored it because they have no interest in it. Harsh but true!!
-
I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve with these silly posts but there isn't a single person on the forum (on either side) that would seek advice from you. It's not that people 'missed' you deadline (whatever that's all about), they ignored it because they have no interest in it. Harsh but true!!
Thank goodness for that. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout you two are awfully hard on poor Adam ;D ;D ;D ;D good thing he has my shoulder to cry on :'(
-
I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve with these silly posts but there isn't a single person on the forum (on either side) that would seek advice from you. It's not that people 'missed' you deadline (whatever that's all about), they ignored it because they have no interest in it. Harsh but true!!
If posters cannot give a plausible explanation of how Sheila did the massacre, they must stop supporting Jeremy. All the crime scene evidence is available.
I am doing them a favour by stopping them continuing to support a murderer.
It is not advice from me I am offering. But pre stance change moral support. I could not give you any as I was not expecting you're change. So could not offer you support.
Lookout wobbled a few months ago after my 'Sheila on the night' thread. I gave her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. But she decided to still support Jeremy. Without explanation.
It's no good supporters refusing to say how Sheila did it. Saying 'we weren't there'. Then discuss the socks, lights, chairs and June's movements. Or say why Jeremy couldn't do it.
I have to currently agree with Leo Mckinstry and say any current support on here is 'creepy'.
-
If posters cannot give a plausible explanation of how Sheila did the massacre, they must stop supporting Jeremy. All the crime scene evidence is available.
I am doing them a favour by stopping them continuing to support a murderer.
It is not advice from me I am offering. But pre stance change moral support. I could not give you any as I was not expecting you're change. So could not offer you support.
Lookout wobbled a few months ago after my 'Sheila on the night' thread. I gave her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. But she decided to still support Jeremy. Without explanation.
It's no good supporters refusing to say how Sheila did it. Saying 'we weren't there'. Then discuss the socks, lights, chairs and June's movements. Or say why Jeremy couldn't do it.
I have to currently agree with Leo Mckinstry and say any current support on here is 'creepy'.
You can't tell people what to think, it's up to them. I would agree that it's 'creepy' to support a murderer , but it's hardly creepy to support someone you think is innocent. No one is saying they believe Jeremy is guilty but that they still support him irrespectively.
-
Adam lookout has never wobbled as you have just stated.
-
If posters cannot give a plausible explanation of how Sheila did the massacre, they must stop supporting Jeremy. All the crime scene evidence is available.
I am doing them a favour by stopping them continuing to support a murderer.
It is not advice from me I am offering. But pre stance change moral support. I could not give you any as I was not expecting you're change. So could not offer you support.
Lookout wobbled a few months ago after my 'Sheila on the night' thread. I gave her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. But she decided to still support Jeremy. Without explanation.
It's no good supporters refusing to say how Sheila did it. Saying 'we weren't there'. Then discuss the socks, lights, chairs and June's movements. Or say why Jeremy couldn't do it.
I have to currently agree with Leo Mckinstry and say any current support on here is 'creepy'.
Leo McKinstry ? He who says that THIS country is booming under a Conservative government ? He who claims.He who is racist ? Mmmmmm. He tells lies too !!
-
You can't tell people what to think, it's up to them. I would agree that it's 'creepy' to support a murderer , but it's hardly creepy to support someone you think is innocent. No one is saying they believe Jeremy is guilty but that they still support him irrespectively.
How can you support someone, when there is only one other suspect. But you can't say how the only other suspect could have committed the massacre ?
-
If I'm not mistaken,my posts are being deleted ??
-
If I'm not mistaken,my posts are being deleted ??
??
-
lookout never even Adam does not have that power ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
??
2 so far,Caroline,yes.
-
If I'm not mistaken,my posts are being deleted ??
No there not Lookout....I've just looked in the log and no one has deleted or removed your posts...Are you on the sherry hahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No there not Lookout....I've just looked in the log and no one has deleted or removed your posts...Are you on the sherry hahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just realised what's happened.When you get a pink " notice " I've taken them as posted and just carried on.2 posts. ::) I'd forgotten what I'd said as well,but it was nothing inflammatory. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just coffee Patti------------with nothing in it. I was watching the news at the same time,so multi-tasking isn't my thing now. ;D ;D ;D As well as posting on the news forum.
-
Sorry everyone----it was a false alarm,or more truthfully,a blunder on my behalf.
-
Socks, June moving to Neville's side of the bed & back again, moved chairs, smashed lights.
It is good that there is discussion about aspects of the case that in no way highlight guilt or innocence for either person. For people to still post and argue that Jeremy is innocent would be wrong.
That's rather funny reasoning isn't it?
-
The disarray happened before they entered WHF.
How can you say that in any definite way?
-
You missed my deadline. So have to change stance. Explaining by just saying Sheila used a rifle just highlights this.
Feel free to PM me if struggling.
Why? Did you change into a werewolf?
-
How can you support someone, when there is only one other suspect. But you can't say how the only other suspect could have committed the massacre ?
Perhaps the problem is rather with yourself than other posters Adam?
-
Unless the anwers to your questions are in a book or online,he'll have difficulty answering as they don't include Jeremy,Mr G. :-[
-
How can you say that in any definite way?
Easy - the alternative means everyone lied. Which is basically how this whole case seems to pan out. Either Jeremy is lying or everyone else is.
Woodcock said he saw the sugar for himself - AE was just repeating what someone had told her.
-
Easy - the alternative means everyone lied. Which is basically how this whole case seems to pan out. Either Jeremy is lying or everyone else is.
Woodcock said he saw the sugar for himself - AE was just repeating what someone had told her.
Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?
-
An example of lying was the manipulation by AE of the phone-call times of Jeremy to Julie. Julie had said about 3.30,but AE decided to put the time at 3.15,in her statement,in order up the existing evidence. What right had AE got to change anything that was no concern of hers anyway ?
AP had reported to the police that he'd seen circular scars Jeremy's hand/s after the murders. False info.
We all know about RWB not letting on about assisting in the changing of grannie Speakman's will,and he didn't say that he'd benefit if there was a guilty verdict.
-
Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?
I did consider it - then dismissed it ;D. But let me just ask, if Woodcocks comment favoured Sheila being the killer and AE's didn't - I think there would be a shift in emphasis.
-
An example of lying was the manipulation by AE of the phone-call times of Jeremy to Julie. Julie had said about 3.30,but AE decided to put the time at 3.15,in her statement,in order up the existing evidence. What right had AE got to change anything that was no concern of hers anyway ?
AP had reported to the police that he'd seen circular scars Jeremy's hand/s after the murders. False info.
We all know about RWB not letting on about assisting in the changing of grannie Speakman's will,and he didn't say that he'd benefit if there was a guilty verdict.
So AE is lying about the times but could have it spot on with regards to the sugar (even though a member of the raid team said he saw the sugar for himself)?
-
So AE is lying about the times but could have it spot on with regards to the sugar (even though a member of the raid team said he saw the sugar for himself)?
I was sick of hearing her version about sugar in her ws. If she mentioned it once,she must have mentioned it 50 times.I got so bored that I didn't even read what the outcome of it all was. Too much was made of it to have sounded as " important " as it was supposed to have been.
-
I did consider it - then dismissed it ;D. But let me just ask, if Woodcocks comment favoured Sheila being the killer and AE's didn't - I think there would be a shift in emphasis.
I have always thought that the sugar was knocked over in the raid. It's the kind of thing that happens. In fact I would be very surprised if they didn't do any damage.
I should think from my many comments you will see that I even questioned some of the pro Bamber statements?
-
Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?
She said she was told people who were cleaning up the scene made the sugar mess. That makes no sense at all if people cleaning up the scene did that by accident they would also clean it up. Did any of the raid team speak to her? No, she was speaking to people who had no ability to have firsthand knowledge of what the raid team saw. The defense failed to come up with any witnesses who could establish the sugar was dumped by police. In the meantime there is a lot of other evidence establishing a struggle took place in the kitchen.
Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore the evidence and try to pretend there was no struggle and they do so because of bias not because of evidence or reasoning skills. Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore evidence and not use reasoning skills in order to make the claims they do.
You are doing that now with the notion that we should ignore the testimony of the raid team who are the only ones in a position to know what they saw and to run with hearsay though we don't even know who the source of the hearsay rumors are. You and some other supporters are so desperate to defend Jeremy you will entertain any possibility no matter how little evidence there is or how little sense a claim might make. What determines whether you will support a proposition is whether it helps or hurts Jeremy. That is operating on the basis of bias.
-
An example of lying was the manipulation by AE of the phone-call times of Jeremy to Julie. Julie had said about 3.30,but AE decided to put the time at 3.15,in her statement,in order up the existing evidence. What right had AE got to change anything that was no concern of hers anyway ?
AP had reported to the police that he'd seen circular scars Jeremy's hand/s after the murders. False info.
We all know about RWB not letting on about assisting in the changing of grannie Speakman's will,and he didn't say that he'd benefit if there was a guilty verdict.
The 3:15 came from Julie. Julie said 3:30 when she initially was trying to help Jeremy not get caught. She said that after speaking to her roomates she said she realized it was 3:15 on the clock but the clock was 10 minutes ahead so it was actually not much past 3. Another roomate suggested it had not even been 3 yet but rather the hour said 2 something.
-
Hahahaha. What a ridiculous bit of supposed reasoning is that? As if Bamber could have had that kind of foresight. Your "reasonings" get more absurd by the day.
You lack of reasoning is what is absurd. Jeremy clearly staged many thing in support of the narrative he tried to sell regarding Sheila committing the murders. We have no way to know everything he tried to plant in support of it. We have no way to know whether the socks were there of Jeremy picked up socks that had been bled on and stuck them right next to Sheila's body in hope that police would think she wore them during the killings. Mentioning this is a possibility is not absurd but rather using my head.
You choose not to use yours because if you did so you would be forced to admit Jeremy is guilty but your bias prevents you from being rational.
-
I have always thought that the sugar was knocked over in the raid. It's the kind of thing that happens. In fact I would be very surprised if they didn't do any damage.
I should think from my many comments you will see that I even questioned some of the pro Bamber statements?
But Woodcock stated that he saw it on the floor when they entered which means he would have to be lying. I don't even think the sugar is important because if Sheila should have had sugar on her feet, then so should Nevill. I just see no reason why Woodcock would lie?
-
She said she was told people who were cleaning up the scene made the sugar mess. That makes no sense at all if people cleaning up the scene did that by accident they would also clean it up. Did any of the raid team speak to her? No, she was speaking to people who had no ability to have firsthand knowledge of what the raid team saw. The defense failed to come up with any witnesses who could establish the sugar was dumped by police. In the meantime there is a lot of other evidence establishing a struggle took place in the kitchen.
Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore the evidence and try to pretend there was no struggle and they do so because of bias not because of evidence or reasoning skills. Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore evidence and not use reasoning skills in order to make the claims they do.
You are doing that now with the notion that we should ignore the testimony of the raid team who are the only ones in a position to know what they saw and to run with hearsay though we don't even know who the source of the hearsay rumors are. You and some other supporters are so desperate to defend Jeremy you will entertain any possibility no matter how little evidence there is or how little sense a claim might make. What determines whether you will support a proposition is whether it helps or hurts Jeremy. That is operating on the basis of bias.
Not at all. I just don't think it important enough to consider.
Or should we rather believe your silly scenario that because the sugar was spilt in the fight in the kitchen Jeremy thought of putting socks next to Sheila so as to make people think that she wore socks to protect her feet from blood and sugar so her feet would appear clean and spotless so people would think that because she had clean feet they would come to the conclusion that she couldn't have committed the murders, then look at the socks and change their mind and say oh she must have worn socks whilst she committed the murders that;s why her feet were clean.
But you'd rather think of that far fetched scenario rather than just thinking that if Jeremy wanted to make people think she wore socks he would have just put socks on her feet? ::) And you think that "I" don't use my reason. ;D ;D ;D
-
Not the raid team!
What benefit would be served by Jeremy staging an altercation in the kitchen? If Jeremy simultaneously injured Sheila's body to make it appear she had been involved in an altercation and attempted to plant Nevill's blood on her then in that case it would have a purpose. Staging it and leaving her body so clean and without injuries she would have incurred would hurt instead of helping because it suggests Sheila wasn't the killer.
In the meantime it is clear the gun was empty when they entered the kitchen and that Nevill's wounds were not severe enough to knock him out so it is hard to imagine him allowing the killer to reload unmolested.
-
So AE is lying about the times but could have it spot on with regards to the sugar (even though a member of the raid team said he saw the sugar for himself)?
I thought he meant he saw sugar on the table? But if there was sugar on the floor why didn't the raid team carry it upstairs like they are supposed to have done the cartridge case? If they ran through the sugar on the floor how indeed could they have avoided carrying it through the house?
-
You lack of reasoning is what is absurd. Jeremy clearly staged many thing in support of the narrative he tried to sell regarding Sheila committing the murders. We have no way to know everything he tried to plant in support of it. We have no way to know whether the socks were there of Jeremy picked up socks that had been bled on and stuck them right next to Sheila's body in hope that police would think she wore them during the killings. Mentioning this is a possibility is not absurd but rather using my head.
You choose not to use yours because if you did so you would be forced to admit Jeremy is guilty but your bias prevents you from being rational.
Don't show yourself up for the stupid guy you actually are scipio. I stand my ground on this one because what you are suggesting is so absurd that it belongs in the stories of the starship Enterprise. ::)
-
Just realised what's happened.When you get a pink " notice " I've taken them as posted and just carried on.2 posts. ::) I'd forgotten what I'd said as well,but it was nothing inflammatory. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just coffee Patti------------with nothing in it. I was watching the news at the same time,so multi-tasking isn't my thing now. ;D ;D ;D As well as posting on the news forum.
Has Adam got you in a tither hahahahaha...No worries Lookout. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?
Both Cook and AE said it though, so this might mean there is something to it...There only appears Woodcock saying there was sugar on the floor. I can't see any sugar on the floor in photo's, but on saying that they are fine grains, so may be difficult to see. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not at all. I just don't think it important enough to consider.
Or should we rather believe your silly scenario that because the sugar was spilt in the fight in the kitchen Jeremy thought of putting socks next to Sheila so as to make people think that she wore socks to protect her feet from blood and sugar so her feet would appear clean and spotless so people would think that because she had clean feet they would come to the conclusion that she couldn't have committed the murders, then look at the socks and change their mind and say oh she must have worn socks whilst she committed the murders that;s why her feet were clean.
But you'd rather think of that far fetched scenario rather than just thinking that if Jeremy wanted to make people think she wore socks he would have just put socks on her feet? ::) And you think that "I" don't use my reason. ;D ;D ;D
I didn't say he definitely put them there. On the contrary I said we have no way to know whether they were there prior to her being killed or not. I noted the possibility that he stuck them there with the hope it would be used to explain her clean feet. That is a possibility, he staged plenty of things though he did so largely ineptly including the bible staging which a defense expert admitted was placed on the blood after she died thus supporter her being murdered.
I noted that not even the defense ended up trying to make the clam she wore those socks though because the blood wasn't impact spatter but Jeremy didn't know enough about the topic to be able to know the difference between blood in general and impact spatter and why spatter would be so much more important. He only knew enough to be dangerous and ended up staging the scene ineptly.
-
What benefit would be served by Jeremy staging an altercation in the kitchen? If Jeremy simultaneously injured Sheila's body to make it appear she had been involved in an altercation and attempted to plant Nevill's blood on her then in that case it would have a purpose. Staging it and leaving her body so clean and without injuries she would have incurred would hurt instead of helping because it suggests Sheila wasn't the killer.
In the meantime it is clear the gun was empty when they entered the kitchen and that Nevill's wounds were not severe enough to knock him out so it is hard to imagine him allowing the killer to reload unmolested.
So if you're saying there really was an altercation, you still have the same problem. Why didn't he stage manage Sheila to look as though she had fought with Nevill if that's what happened? He couldn't have thought no one would notice the mess. So, I still say the kitchen could have been staged.
-
Both Cook and AE said it though, so this might mean there is something to it...There only appears Woodcock saying there was sugar on the floor. I can't see any sugar on the floor in photo's, but on saying that they are fine grains, so may be difficult to see. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cook and AE are saying someone told them but Woodcock is saying he actually saw it for himself. So, he would have to be lying - why would he lie?
-
Both Cook and AE said it though, so this might mean there is something to it...There only appears Woodcock saying there was sugar on the floor. I can't see any sugar on the floor in photo's, but on saying that they are fine grains, so may be difficult to see. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cook and AE have completely different tales. Cook said he was under the impression the raid team made the mess while AE said she was under the impression those cleaning up the scene did it. Neither of them named the source who supposedly told them the claims and clearly the sources were not the raid team. They didn't hear anything from the horse's mouth. That makes their claims worthless. At MOST hearing a claim like such which doesn't come from the horse's mouth warrants trying to go to the horse's mouth to find out the truth. That means going to the raid team which is what the Court of Appeals did to resolve the claim.
We already saw that what AE was told wasn't that reliable since someone supposedly told her June and Sheila's bodies were in the bed. The grapevine is unreliable that is why hearsay is inadmissible in court- because it is not considered reliable.
-
And there certainly was a lot of hearsay,assumptions and surmising on some WS's during the trial. Because there would have appeared to have been n'owt else. :-[
-
So if you're saying there really was an altercation, you still have the same problem. Why didn't he stage manage Sheila to look as though she had fought with Nevill if that's what happened? He couldn't have thought no one would notice the mess. So, I still say the kitchen could have been staged.
Clearly he didn't know how to stage her body so as to indicate she had been in an altercation. He didn't know how to stage spatter either and actually it isn't that easy. He had to hope police would ignore the problem just like he hoped the lack of GSR and high velocity impact spatter would be ignored. That is why he did other things he did to frame her and convince police she did it.
You are suggesting he artificially created the problem though which makes no sense. Staging is done for a reason to conceal something. It is not done for no reason. If anything he had a reason to try concealing an altercation occurred as opposed to staging one.
You need ignoring that Nevill was being beaten and knocked out. He didn't move around the kitchen much while he was being beaten and then killed. Knocking over the sugar as they fought but then being knocked over and beaten would not put him in a position or marching across the sugar or broken glass. the killer though would have to have been stomping on it not only to beat him but to go reload, to shoot him, to go put the moderator away etc. His blood was on the floor after he died so clearly only the killer would have the opportunity to step in that.
I can't imagine what erroneous beliefs Jeremy would have where he would think that staging an altercation would increase the chances of police believing Sheila was responsible if anything it does the opposite. The investigators who wanted to believe she did it ignored the evidence of the altercation and said it didn't happen to try to support their narrative of her doing it. So I can't even find a potential benefit he erroneously thought he could gain.
In the meantime the wounds to his arms were real defensive wounds, the bashes to his head clearly came before he was shot so no evidence of staging wounds afterwards to pretend there was an altercation. Plus why would he do nothing as the killer reloaded? The evidence is that it was genuine.
-
And there certainly was a lot of hearsay,assumptions and surmising on some WS's during the trial. Because there would have appeared to have been n'owt else. :-[
When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise. The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.
The log report that 2 bodies were in the kitchen is a perfect example. The person was relayed the information about a female body being seen then relayed the evidence Nevill was a male and thought that meant two bodies it wasn't realized they were the same body. It is easy for people to misunderstand what others are telling them or to infer things erroneously. Did the AE and the press misunderstand when they reported bodies on the beds or did the people who relayed it to the press misunderstand and report the wrong thing to the press and AE? There is no way to know for sure and the only way to even attempt to find out who made the error would be to find out exactly who told AE and who told the press and ask them what they understood at the time and have tried ot convey to AE and the press. But that would at most tell you how the rumors came about not have any bearing on what actually occurred you go to firsthand witnesses to find out what occurred.
-
When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise. The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.
The log report that 2 bodies were in the kitchen is a perfect example. The person was relayed the information about a female body being seen then relayed the evidence Nevill was a male and thought that meant two bodies it wasn't realized they were the same body. It is easy for people to misunderstand what others are telling them or to infer things erroneously. Did the AE and the press misunderstand when they reported bodies on the beds or did the people who relayed it to the press misunderstand and report the wrong thing to the press and AE? There is no way to know for sure and the only way to even attempt to find out who made the error would be to find out exactly who told AE and who told the press and ask them what they understood at the time and have tried ot convey to AE and the press. But that would at most tell you how the rumors came about not have any bearing on what actually occurred you go to firsthand witnesses to find out what occurred.
When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise. The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.
This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.
-
Studying the minds 'in depth' is nice. But you can't say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Although you have all the crime scene evidence. Although you criticised David's attempt.
But YOU cant say how Jeremy committed it - You can only guess . Because so far he has never let on ;)
So no matter how many times you assume the scenario - you may never know whether it is true.
-
When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise. The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.
This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.
What is wrong? It is wrong to go to the witnesses who entered the house to ask what they saw and found? That is the right way to do it. The wrong way is to listen to rumor which is what you often try to do. Any rumors that support Jeremy you raise and rely upon.
The only witnesses to a majority or murders are the killers. The notion unless there is a witness there should be no trial is absurd. Circumstantial evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as reliably or even more reliably than eyewitnesses since eyewitnesses often are mistaken about the identity of criminals.
There are so many different problems with Jeremy's claim he received a phonecall from Nevill. The problems range from Nevill not having a reason to call Jeremy to not having the opportunity. The event clearly started when the killer walked into the master bedroom and opened fire 10 times on June and Nevill then with the gun empty it proceeded to the kitchen. Nevill never had the opportunity let alone a reason to call Jeremy. This alone should send great doubt into the minds of those who want to defend Jeremy.
But it gets worse Jeremy called Julie before he called police then lied about it and said he called police first. If Jeremy actually received the call he claims why would he call Julie at all let alone before police? Someone receiving such a call would either rush over or call police.
Even worse yet Julie says he had been planning to kill them a long time and admitted he was responsible.
Worst of all though, if Sheila had actually committed the murders then she would have had medium velocity impact spatter from Nevill on her clothing and body, high velocity impact spatter from June and Nevill and GSR/soot on her clothing from firing the 25 shots and her blood would have been int he rifle from her fatal shot. Instead her blood was in the moderator proving it was used to kill her then removed and put away in the closet by the killer.
You have nothing to refute the evidence you just brand Julie a liar and say the evidence was planted because you choose to believe Jeremy is innocent regardless of the evidence. you just ignore the evidence and choose to believe Jeremy is innocent because you want to not because there is any evidence to support it.
That is not evidence of an MOJ it amounts to you choosing to believe there was an MOJ though you have no rational basis to support such a belief.
-
But YOU cant say how Jeremy committed it - You can only guess . Because so far he has never let on ;)
So no matter how many times you assume the scenario - you may never know whether it is true.
The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt Jeremy did it by shooting them 25 times with the Anschutz. The evidence proves how he did it so we do in fact know.
-
Clearly he didn't know how to stage her body so as to indicate she had been in an altercation. He didn't know how to stage spatter either and actually it isn't that easy. He had to hope police would ignore the problem just like he hoped the lack of GSR and high velocity impact spatter would be ignored. That is why he did other things he did to frame her and convince police she did it.
You are suggesting he artificially created the problem though which makes no sense. Staging is done for a reason to conceal something. It is not done for no reason. If anything he had a reason to try concealing an altercation occurred as opposed to staging one.
You need ignoring that Nevill was being beaten and knocked out. He didn't move around the kitchen much while he was being beaten and then killed. Knocking over the sugar as they fought but then being knocked over and beaten would not put him in a position or marching across the sugar or broken glass. the killer though would have to have been stomping on it not only to beat him but to go reload, to shoot him, to go put the moderator away etc. His blood was on the floor after he died so clearly only the killer would have the opportunity to step in that.
I can't imagine what erroneous beliefs Jeremy would have where he would think that staging an altercation would increase the chances of police believing Sheila was responsible if anything it does the opposite. The investigators who wanted to believe she did it ignored the evidence of the altercation and said it didn't happen to try to support their narrative of her doing it. So I can't even find a potential benefit he erroneously thought he could gain.
In the meantime the wounds to his arms were real defensive wounds, the bashes to his head clearly came before he was shot so no evidence of staging wounds afterwards to pretend there was an altercation. Plus why would he do nothing as the killer reloaded? The evidence is that it was genuine.
Actually you're saying that - I was suggesting something else. Jeremy didn't just indicate that Sheila had a gun, he also indicated that 'She had gone crazy'. The disarray may not have been set up to look like an altercation but simply to show that someone had indeed 'gone crazy'.
-
When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise. The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.
This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.
But Lookout, if those same words had categorically and irrefutably made Sheila culpable, would you still be saying it was wrong?
-
When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise. The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.
This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.
Woodcock did provide first hand knowledge about the sugar but people are suggesting that AE's second hand knowledge must be correct because it's possibly more favourable to an innocent Jeremy.
-
Actually you're saying that - I was suggesting something else. Jeremy didn't just indicate that Sheila had a gun, he also indicated that 'She had gone crazy'. The disarray may not have been set up to look like an altercation but simply to show that someone had indeed 'gone crazy'.
So you are suggesting some of the damage was done during the altercation and it was enhanced to suggest she was making a mess before she started shooting? That makes it less likely for June to have stayed in bed. To stay in bed as she hears dishes flying makes no sense.
If there had been no altercation in the kitchen but rather everyone died in their rooms and I could buy him perhaps making the error of staging a mess afterwards to try to suggest she was flipping out (I say mistake because it defies them being found in bed so ruins the narrative he was trying to present) but given the altercation I don't buy it. Especially since breaking the lamp and scratching the mantle is not something that would happen from staging a mess.
When he says she went crazy I take that as meaning was having delusions not she was tossing things around in a fit of rage. If she is pushing chairs over and so forth that puts her in an easy position to be disarmed. Disarming someone holding a weapon with both hands and aiming it is harder to disarm though if they are close enough you can do it. The easiest way is to get so close the rifle can't be effectively aimed at you, (side step the rifle) then grasp it with both hands and try to maneuver the stock into the jaw of the gunman.
-
But Lookout, if those same words had categorically and irrefutably made Sheila culpable, would you still be saying it was wrong?
Given Sheila's medical condition,I suppose so.
-
So you are suggesting some of the damage was done during the altercation and it was enhanced to suggest she was making a mess before she started shooting? That makes it less likely for June to have stayed in bed. To stay in bed as she hears dishes flying makes no sense.
If there had been no altercation in the kitchen but rather everyone died in their rooms and I could buy him perhaps making the error of staging a mess afterwards to try to suggest she was flipping out (I say mistake because it defies them being found in bed so ruins the narrative he was trying to present) but given the altercation I don't buy it. Especially since breaking the lamp and scratching the mantle is not something that would happen from staging a mess.
When he says she went crazy I take that as meaning was having delusions not she was tossing things around in a fit of rage. If she is pushing chairs over and so forth that puts her in an easy position to be disarmed. Disarming someone holding a weapon with both hands and aiming it is harder to disarm though if they are close enough you can do it. The easiest way is to get so close the rifle can't be effectively aimed at you, (side step the rifle) then grasp it with both hands and try to maneuver the stock into the jaw of the gunman.
Jeremy was simply setting a scene - not trying to win an argument ;D. I don't know if e staged the mess or not, but is is a possibility - that's all.
-
Jeremy was simply setting a scene - not trying to win an argument ;D. I don't know if e staged the mess or not, but is is a possibility - that's all.
Seems pretty obvious to me. If I was trying to set a stage to look as if it had been demolished by someone deranged, I would have to set it in the way my own imagination allowed me to believe a deranged person would act.
-
Does anyone know how heavy the rifle was ?
-
Jeremy was simply setting a scene - not trying to win an argument ;D. I don't know if e staged the mess or not, but is is a possibility - that's all.
Well that's what I like about your way of debating Caroline. You use the word "possibility", which makes what you say far more digestible. There are those posters who whilst have good reasonable arguments haven't learned those skills yet. ;)
-
Does anyone know how heavy the rifle was ?
Hartley does.
-
Hartley does.
I'll see if I can find out another way.
-
I'll see if I can find out another way.
Just google it lookout it will probably tell you the weight.
-
Does anyone know how heavy the rifle was ?
I don't exactly but I believe it was quite light and easy to use, am sure have read a child could use it.
-
Just google it lookout it will probably tell you the weight.
http://www.eme421.com/anschutz.html
Here it is Lookout :)
-
I don't exactly but I believe it was quite light and easy to use, am sure have read a child could use it.
Well according to the firearms expert in the video it was as light as you say it was Maggie.
-
Well that's what I like about your way of debating Caroline. You use the word "possibility", which makes what you say far more digestible. There are those posters who whilst have good reasonable arguments haven't learned those skills yet. ;)
Thank you Grahame :)
-
Does anyone know how heavy the rifle was ?
Unloaded about 6.75 pounds.
-
http://www.eme421.com/anschutz.html
Here it is Lookout :)
Thanks Maggie.So approximately 8lbs or thereabouts-------------not heavy really.
-
Thanks Maggie.So approximately 8lbs or thereabouts-------------not heavy really.
No not heavy, new born baby weight. :-\
-
No not heavy, new born baby weight. :-\
That's right Maggie,with the weight being " spread out " taking in the length of the rifle as opposed to a solid lump. ;D ;D ;D
-
Just an observation as I had never noticed before,but Collin's and Deldago's first statements match almost word for word. Certainly backs up the notion that the raid team's statements were somewhat orchestrated. Interesting too that not one of them was required to testify at the trial.
-
Just an observation as I had never noticed before,but Collin's and Deldago's first statements match almost word for word. Certainly backs up the notion that the raid team's statements were somewhat orchestrated. Interesting too that not one of them was required to testify at the trial.
Ohhhhh.
-
Just an observation as I had never noticed before,but Collin's and Deldago's first statements match almost word for word. Certainly backs up the notion that the raid team's statements were somewhat orchestrated. Interesting too that not one of them was required to testify at the trial.
If they vary a little such as one cop using a different tense that is jumped on to suggest someone is lying as opposed to sloppy wording but if their general observations are the same (and they should be generally the same if both are accurate) then it is claimed they are orchestrated. There is no way to win...
-
If they vary a little such as one cop using a different tense that is jumped on to suggest someone is lying as opposed to sloppy wording but if their general observations are the same (and they should be generally the same if both are accurate) then it is claimed they are orchestrated. There is no way to win...
If you check them they are nearly word for word - not the same as similar observations in ones own words.
-
If they vary a little such as one cop using a different tense that is jumped on to suggest someone is lying as opposed to sloppy wording but if their general observations are the same (and they should be generally the same if both are accurate) then it is claimed they are orchestrated. There is no way to win...
God forbid the tense was different or something wasn't exactly the same, would be people still shouting WITCH WITCH WITCH.
-
If they vary a little such as one cop using a different tense that is jumped on to suggest someone is lying as opposed to sloppy wording but if their general observations are the same (and they should be generally the same if both are accurate) then it is claimed they are orchestrated. There is no way to win...
No,it is not that their general observations were the same. I wouldnt expect them to be necessarily so,as people are obviously individuals and will obviously observe different things. Their statements are almost a carbon copy of each,almost word for word. I had thought I had made the mistake of reading the same officers statement twice and had to recheck. Im not suggesting either were lying,more a case of the statements were made for them and not by them. There is a similiar case with one of JM's statements,whereby legal observers questioned why it was written as in the third person. Its not really acceptable since a police statement is a legal document.
-
No,it is not that their general observations were the same. I wouldnt expect them to be necessarily so,as people are obviously individuals and will obviously observe different things. Their statements are almost a carbon copy of each,almost word for word. I had thought I had made the mistake of reading the same officers statement twice and had to recheck. Im not suggesting either were lying,more a case of the statements were made for them and not by them. There is a similiar case with one of JM's statements,whereby legal observers questioned why it was written as in the third person. Its not really acceptable since a police statement is a legal document.
A police statement is much like an affidavit. People are asked to address certain things with their statements or affidavit. For example AE was asked certain things about Sheila to put down in her first statement. There is nothing wrong with having someone else prepare a statement or affidavit so long as the information in it is truthful though there is no indication someone else prepared the statements based on what they verbally said. A common thing legally is to listen to someone verbally, record in writing what they said that is legally relevant then to have them look over and sign those portions. If you instead just let them write as much as they want then you get long rambling statements with a lot of useless information which is not what a statement is for.
-
A police statement is much like an affidavit. People are asked to address certain things with their statements or affidavit. For example AE was asked certain things about Sheila to put down in her first statement. There is nothing wrong with having someone else prepare a statement or affidavit so long as the information in it is truthful though there is no indication someone else prepared the statements based on what they verbally said. A common thing legally is to listen to someone verbally, record in writing what they said that is legally relevant then to have them look over and sign those portions. If you instead just let them write as much as they want then you get long rambling statements with a lot of useless information which is not what a statement is for.
This is what happened when I witnessed an assault. I was questioned and the policeman wrote the statement, which I then had to read over and sign. He included only the important parts.
-
This is what happened when I witnessed an assault. I was questioned and the policeman wrote the statement, which I then had to read over and sign. He included only the important parts.
I think that's basically how it's done.
-
I think that's basically how it's done.
Certain statements by AE were short and direct. Others were very long. Giving so much leeway like they did to put in anything she wanted is unusual. Many of the extraneous details provided are interesting to people like us but not of much use to the investigators.
The point of documenting something in a statement is to be able to show it to others and all involved in the case to be able to share so you don't have to have 10 people asking the same person the same questions over and over again. It is in the file and can be shared with anyone on the case who needs that particular info. If they don't find the answer they need then they might have to interview the person again though anyway. It also helps to document key things in writing in case people end up changing their story. Note how Jeremy changed his story to police about Sheila firing all guns int he house. Had they got that in writing then it would have been even stronger later to hit him with it than just having the police claim he said it. He claimed he didn't say it but if they showed him in writing that he did say it then he would have to have tried to explain that away.