Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles35 on March 27, 2015, 11:15:PM
-
I really believe that the murder was committed by more than 1 person. It's not possible for 1 person to have controlled all the family gun or not.
-
If that was the case I think we have to consider that someone was forcing NB to make the call to JB and then they carried out the killings very quickly - or do you think JB was in on it?
-
The evidence/feel of the case doesn't fit a two person crime for me.
-
I really believe that the murder was committed by more than 1 person. It's not possible for 1 person to have controlled all the family gun or not.
While you choose not to believe it is possible there are documented cases of 1 person killing entire families using guns, axes, and even knives. Those documented cases establish it is possible so your theory that it is impossible doesn't hold up.
-
I never said it was impossible. I do not believe it was Sheila. I believe there was more than 1 killer. I do not think Jeremy did it alone or maybe at all. I think there is some persons who has been walking free for 30 years who played a major role in the murders. No one will ever come forward as they will get life. I think it was hired killers. like all of us on here no one knows the truth as we were not there. Can we really ever know the truth?
-
I never said it was impossible. I do not believe it was Sheila. I believe there was more than 1 killer. I do not think Jeremy did it alone or maybe at all. I think there is some persons who has been walking free for 30 years who played a major role in the murders. No one will ever come forward as they will get life. I think it was hired killers. like all of us on here no one knows the truth as we were not there. Can we really ever know the truth?
Hi Bubbles
Nice to see you posting. :)
I think its perfectly acceptable that someone else could have killed the family other than Jeremy/Sheila. Its an alternative, but if there were a 3rd party involved do you think Jeremy would have been involved?
-
Yes I think so I believe he never pulled the trigger but set up the murders.
-
Yes I think so I believe he never pulled the trigger but set up the murders.
:-X
-
Hi Bubbles
Nice to see you posting. :)
I think its perfectly acceptable that someone else could have killed the family other than Jeremy/Sheila. Its an alternative, but if there were a 3rd party involved do you think Jeremy would have been involved?
"My dad called he said 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun'!"
This is what makes it either Jeremy or Sheila.
-
I never said it was impossible. I do not believe it was Sheila. I believe there was more than 1 killer. I do not think Jeremy did it alone or maybe at all. I think there is some persons who has been walking free for 30 years who played a major role in the murders. No one will ever come forward as they will get life. I think it was hired killers. like all of us on here no one knows the truth as we were not there. Can we really ever know the truth?
Jeremy implicates himself with the phone call.
-
Yes I think so I believe he never pulled the trigger but set up the murders.
Hence his words to Julie. "No, I could not have done it" I hired someone to do it???????
-
Hence his words to Julie. "No, I could not have done it" I hired someone to do it???????
You can't get passed the supposed phone call from Nevill - no matter how you try.
-
You can't get passed the supposed phone call from Nevill - no matter how you try.
There weren't one... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
There weren't one... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Glad you admit it! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You can't get passed the supposed phone call from Nevill - no matter how you try.
Daft to ignore it isn't it. JEREMY says it happened.
-
Glad you admit it! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh I'm not admitting it ;D but its quite it did not happen. I want to know who the feathered earring belongs too.... :o :o :o :o :o :o
-
Oh I'm not admitting it ;D but its quite it did not happen. I want to know who the feathered earring belongs too.... :o :o :o :o :o :o
You don't think the phone call happened? Then how can you believe Bamber innocent?
-
You don't think the phone call happened? Then how can you believe Bamber innocent?
That's a fair question.
-
Daft to ignore it isn't it. JEREMY says it happened.
It's the 'crux' ;D
-
There weren't one... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you talking about no call from Nevill to police or no call from Nevill to Jeremy?
Because Caroline was talking about no phone call from Nevill to Jeremy.
-
Are you talking about no call from Nevill to police or no call from Nevill to Jeremy?
Because Caroline was talking about no phone call from Nevill to Jeremy.
Sounds like a final admission to me! ;)
-
"My dad called he said 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun'!"
This is what makes it either Jeremy or Sheila.
It is.
But would you have been so incredibly stupid to stage a two shot murder as a suicide?
-
It is.
But would you have been so incredibly stupid to stage a two shot murder as a suicide?
Same old broken record..,the same answer will come each time you ask this no matter how many times you ask it- after the first shot was botched he felt he had no choice but to shoot her again. He couldn't stage it as anything other than a murder suicide it was too late at that point to try staging it as something else. He didn't think it would matter that 2 shots had been fired and he was right Vanezis didn't rule out suicide on such basis because there are sometimes multiple shot suicides- sometimes more than 2 shots in fact.
-
It is.
But would you have been so incredibly stupid to stage a two shot murder as a suicide?
I created a thread on this. As this is the point you keep mentioning to try show Jeremy is innocent.
The first shot didn't kill her. So he had to fire a second shot.
-
I really believe that the murder was committed by more than 1 person. It's not possible for 1 person to have controlled all the family gun or not.
There have been threads on this.
Jeremy told the police Neville had rang him saying 'Sheila had gone crazy'. He later told the police Neville may have said 'she'after the police questioned her two bullets.
Jeremy said he was asleep in bed, so either Sheila alone massacred everyone. Or one/two random burglars/psychopaths broke in and killed everyone.
I am surprised Neville had time and decided to ring Jeremy in either situation.
-
Jeremy said he was asleep in bed when things went AWOL at WHF.
However there was no possibility he would have committed the massacre with an accomplice.
He did not have the money to pay someone. No one would be willing to assist him in committing such a terrible crime. He would not want to risk an accomplice cracking and confessing.
The claim that he could not do it alone is incredibly weak. He was up against two six year old's, a 61 year old woman and a small un coordinated woman. Only Neville posed a threat. It was the perfect time for an execution. Everyone was asleep in bed. Jeremy fully clothed with a loaded rifle.
-
Adam he sees himself as not gulity because he never pulled the trigger
-
Adam he sees himself as not gulity because he never pulled the trigger
Do you think it was a female random burglar/psychopath ?
The evidence shows it was not Sheila and no one is able to explain how she did it. And you said Jeremy did not pull the trigger.
-
No I think it was organised murder Very well planned. However it went very wrong.
-
No I think it was organised murder Very well planned. However it went very wrong.
Organised and committed by who ?
-
Jeremy said he was asleep in bed when things went AWOL at WHF.
However there was no possibility he would have committed the massacre with an accomplice.
He did not have the money to pay someone. No one would be willing to assist him in committing such a terrible crime. He would not want to risk an accomplice cracking and confessing.
The claim that he could not do it alone is incredibly weak. He was up against two six year old's, a 61 year old woman and a small un coordinated woman. Only Neville posed a threat. It was the perfect time for an execution. Everyone was asleep in bed. Jeremy fully clothed with a loaded rifle.
Adam, however many times you state that Sheila was 'small' it doesn't change the fact Sheila was almost 5'8" the required minimal height to be a model back in mid 80s, taller than June - '61 year old woman' and pretty much half her age. It's true Sheila must have been very slight as she had a low body weight but she was a healthy and possibly strong young woman.
-
I created a thread on this. As this is the point you keep mentioning to try show Jeremy is innocent.
The first shot didn't kill her. So he had to fire a second shot.
Adam, don't think Alias is trying to prove JB innocent, rather she is asking a question and trying to reach a conclusion by reasoning. It's the opposite to deciding on an opinion then trying to force everyone else to agree with it in any way possible .
-
If we knew who done it adam the case would be solved. And there would be no debate ????
-
If we knew who done it adam the case would be solved. And there would be no debate ????
Do you not have an opinion ?
You have just said Jeremy did not pull the trigger. And created a thread saying you believe more than one person committed the massacre.
-
Oh I'm not admitting it ;D but its quite it did not happen. I want to know who the feathered earring belongs too.... :o :o :o :o :o :o
Patti,was it an earring ? I ask because Jeremy wore a feather either behind his ear,or stuck in his hair.
Once again----------------------I've read that the feather belonged to Jeremy,but that being the case,why would it be left like a " calling card " on the table which was so obvious ?
-
Patti,was it an earring ? I ask because Jeremy wore a feather either behind his ear,or stuck in his hair.
Once again----------------------I've read that the feather belonged to Jeremy,but that being the case,why would it be left like a " calling card " on the table which was so obvious ?
Was it Jeremy or Brett who wore the feather?
-
Was it Jeremy or Brett who wore the feather?
Now you're asking,Maggie. I do know that it was either one of them,or both,with possibly the same feather.
-
Now you're asking,Maggie. I do know that it was either one of them,or both,with possibly the same feather.
Bit busy just now to look it up but pretty sure Robert Boutflour spoke of Brett wearing a feather in his ear. :-\
-
Bit busy just now to look it up but pretty sure Robert Boutflour spoke of Brett wearing a feather in his ear. :-\
Could well have been him then Maggie. Do we know the whereabouts of Brett Collins ? There was one such person who'd been released from LongBay prison in NSW in 1980 for armed robbery and burglary ?
-
Could well have been him then Maggie. Do we know the whereabouts of Brett Collins ? There was one such person who'd been released from LongBay prison in NSW in 1980 for armed robbery and burglary ?
No, don't believe we do know where he is, think he went back from whence he came. Don't know how old Brett was but would have needed to have been a very early starter or a lot older than Jeremy for it to be the same Brett. I'm sure the police checked his background and found nothing of suspicion in it because he was only questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders he didn't make a statement and was never a suspect. He was in Greece when the murders occurred.
Mike did post part of the document recording his questioning but I haven't been able to find it recently, have asked Mike to repost it but hasn't done so far.
-
If we knew who done it adam the case would be solved. And there would be no debate ????
The case is solved, Jeremy did it - he was convicted, the debate is that people refuse to accept it. (Puts on armour to deflect the knives ;D ;D ;D ;D 8))
-
The case is solved, Jeremy did it - he was convicted, the debate is that people refuse to accept it. (Puts on armour to deflect the knives ;D ;D ;D ;D 8))
There was a time when you were one of the posters who defended JB.
-
Patti,was it an earring ? I ask because Jeremy wore a feather either behind his ear,or stuck in his hair.
Once again----------------------I've read that the feather belonged to Jeremy,but that being the case,why would it be left like a " calling card " on the table which was so obvious ?
I'm only 90% sure its an earring on the table. You can just about see the white plastic cup where the fixing goes into it. It could belong to Sheila but as we can see she was more feminine in her choice of jewelery. Feathered earring were quite fashionable then and are in fashion now.
RB had Jeremy followed and noted that he hung about with a male friend who wore a feather in his ear. This person was not Brett.
The feather is never mentioned by the police yet I have always felt that it could be of some significance. I could be totally wrong. It has been suggested that one of the twins may have picked a feather up on a walk, but this feather has something attached to it and mirrors the image of an earring in my opinion. But, like I said I could be wrong... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm only 90% sure its an earring on the table. You can just about see the white plastic cup where the fixing goes into it. It could belong to Sheila but as we can see she was more feminine in her choice of jewelery. Feathered earring were quite fashionable then and are in fashion now.
RB had Jeremy followed and noted that he hung about with a male friend who wore a feather in his ear. This person was not Brett.
The feather is never mentioned by the police yet I have always felt that it could be of some significance. I could be totally wrong. It has been suggested that one of the twins may have picked a feather up on a walk, but this feather has something attached to it and mirrors the image of an earring in my opinion. But, like I said I could be wrong... ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's too big to be an earring Patti - you can see the scale of it in respect to the knife in the picture below. Plus is a scratty looking thing, not really something anyone would want dangling from their ear.
-
It's too big to be an earring Patti - you can see the scale of it in respect to the knife in the picture below. Plus is a scratty looking thing, not really something anyone would want dangling from their ear.
It looks to me as if a child has stuck the feather in to something heavy to create a flying object. It's more of a botched together arrow than an artisan earring.
-
Lookout/Patti my take on the feather it is of no significance really maybe one of the twins picked it up and brought it into the farm as a special find.
-
It looks to me as if a child has stuck the feather in to something heavy to create a flying object.
Could be a bottle top or an eraser - it's too difficult to tell but it does look like something that could only be treasure to a child.
-
Could be a bottle top or an eraser - it's too difficult to tell but it does look like something that could only be treasure to a child.
The way the feather holder is shaped looks as if it COULD be one half of one of those Kinder egg things...............................tell me, WHY are we doing this over a mankey feather which can't even claim to have originated from something exotic? ;D
-
The way the feather holder is shaped looks as if it COULD be one half of one of those Kinder egg things...............................tell me, WHY are we doing this over a mankey feather which can't even claim to have originated from something exotic? ;D
I certainly wouldn't want it dangling from my lugs ???
-
What Jeremy is doing right now,i.e. digging and delving into what he thinks happened,and by who and how is what all innocents do to look for the truth and what he hopes to do is to raise the serious doubt about the evidence which was against him.
This was why he first learned about mental health and the serious implications it can have,after having blamed Sheila for the massacre.
My other argument is why,when Jeremy FIRST blamed Sheila,weren't steps taken to look into Sheila's history with her GP/Psychiatrist,privately,to get an overall picture of her behaviour as part of the investigation ?
The first thing an alleged murderer does is blame someone else,so it would have been a vital part of this investigation to have looked at Sheila's background.
Jeremy made one big mistake at the very beginning by not ringing 999. His second was not engaging a solicitor immediately. Because he should have realised at the time that he was the only family member remaining,so should have acted quickly because he'd have been implicated.Did he not know this ? Didn't it dawn on him at the time that he'd get the blame anyway ? He couldn't have been advised very well if at all.
I can only hope that there's a strong enough breakthrough when his next submission is accepted.
-
When MM was blamed,EP looked into his background etc,so just because Sheila happened to have been one of the deceased,why wasn't her state of health questioned ? It was still part of the investigation which ever way you looked at it.
-
I created a thread on this. As this is the point you keep mentioning to try show Jeremy is innocent.
The first shot didn't kill her. So he had to fire a second shot.
Then go on to stage it as suicide and make a call that excluded anyone but himself and Sheila as the killer.
I have to say that I have a hard time buying that anyone would be that stupid.
Imagine the situation: you have shot her twice, then you decide to stage it as a suicide. Nah.
-
Then go on to stage it as suicide and make a call that excluded anyone but himself and Sheila as the killer.
I have to say that I have a hard time buying that anyone would be that stupid.
Imagine the situation: you have shot her twice, then you decide to stage it as a suicide. Nah.
So you'd suggest what? A quick turnaround and make it look like a botched burglary in which, having slaughtered an entire family, the culprit escapes with nothing. I suppose he could have pocketed a handful of family jewellery but how would he have either disposed of it OR explained having it. I doubt the whole cache would have been considered worth killing all those people for
-
So you'd suggest what? A quick turnaround and make it look like a botched burglary in which, having slaughtered an entire family, the culprit escapes with nothing. I suppose he could have pocketed a handful of family jewellery but how would he have either disposed of it OR explained having it. I doubt the whole cache would have been considered worth killing all those people for
My only suggestions are, not to stage a suicide, not leave the door locked to open up other possibilities and not make a phonecall, which implicated only two peopele.
P.S. you sound a tad hostile, why is that? Irritated?
-
Then go on to stage it as suicide and make a call that excluded anyone but himself and Sheila as the killer.
I have to say that I have a hard time buying that anyone would be that stupid.
Imagine the situation: you have shot her twice, then you decide to stage it as a suicide. Nah.
There are still people here who have asked how it could only have been Jeremy or Sheila, some still don't see that the phone call implicates Jeremy is Sheila is innocent; he (like them) didn't think it through. He only saw the call giving him an alibi - not that it also implicated him.
Criminals get caught because they make mistakes - this was his biggest.
-
There are still people here who have asked how it could only have been Jeremy or Sheila, some still don't see that the phone call implicates Jeremy is Sheila is innocent; he (like them) didn't think it through. He only saw the call giving him an alibi - not that it also implicated him.
Criminals get caught because they make mistakes - this was his biggest.
There is still the staging of suicide.
-
My only suggestions are, not to stage a suicide, not leave the door locked to open up other possibilities and not make a phonecall, which implicated only two peopele.
P.S. you sound a tad hostile, why is that? Irritated?
This has been discussed before. A lot.
Why not stage a suicide ? He can spend the next 30 years claiming it was Sheila.
He choose to phone the police and spend several hours insinuating Sheila. Rather than be first on the scene the following morning.
-
There is still the staging of suicide.
That was the plan, he no other choice but to stick to it. Obviously the most important thing to him was to distance himself and that's why he 'needed' the phone call. He didn't have to explain the two shots, that would be up to police and as far as the they would know - he was at home - he must have been because his dad called him?
-
This has been discussed before. A lot.
Why not stage a suicide ? He can spend the next 30 years claiming it was Sheila.
He choose to phone the police and spend several hours insinuating Sheila. Rather than be first on the scene the following morning.
It has been discussed before, so what, in fact I think it is not discussed enough. It is my stance, I find it unlikely that anyone would stage a two shot murder as suicide. Never heard of another case of it, only this one.
-
My only suggestions are, not to stage a suicide, not leave the door locked to open up other possibilities and not make a phonecall, which implicated only two peopele.
P.S. you sound a tad hostile, why is that? Irritated?
It may well be, that with hindsight, he wished he'd done something other.............Haven't we all, at some time? But, IMO, he HAD to go with what he'd planned from the start. It was too late, at that stage, to change things.
Hostile? Irritated? Neither, actually. Feeling rather pleased with myself. Bought 1 pair of jeans and the lovely guy on the till gave me 6 clothes hangers with grips. Gold dust!!!! Delighted.
-
It has been discussed before, so what, in fact I think it is not discussed enough. It is my stance, I find it unlikely that anyone would stage a two shot murder as suicide. Never heard of another case of it, only this one.
Supporters often mention that two shot suicides have happened. Then ask why Jeremy would stage a two shot suicide.
-
It may well be, that with hindsight, he wished he'd done something other.............Haven't we all, at some time? But, IMO, he HAD to go with what he'd planned from the start. It was too late, at that stage, to change things.
Hostile? Irritated? Neither, actually. Feeling rather pleased with myself. Bought 1 pair of jeans and the lovely guy on the till gave me 6 clothes hangers with grips. Gold dust!!!! Delighted.
Good!
The thing is, I cannot see that he HAD to go with what he had planned, because it cannot have felt right to stage that suicide. I think the only thing a person could do was to leave the place unlocked and not stage suicide.
-
Good!
The thing is, I cannot see that he HAD to go with what he had planned, because it cannot have felt right to stage that suicide. I think the only thing a person could do was to leave the place unlocked and not stage suicide.
Well he didn't. In hindsight I believe he made the right choice.
The police would never believe a random stranger or burglar theory. So he would still become the number one suspect. Especially if first on the scene in the morning.
Once a suspect he couldn't insinuate Sheila or claim Neville called him.
-
Good!
The thing is, I cannot see that he HAD to go with what he had planned, because it cannot have felt right to stage that suicide. I think the only thing a person could do was to leave the place unlocked and not stage suicide.
It wouldn't have felt right, to ME, to shoot all those people, either ;D so I guess that"it cannot have felt right to stage that suicide" is relative. We can't make this about us and what WE would have done. THIS is about Jeremy -so there's going to be some guess work- and HIS mind-set. If we accept -although I know you don't- that he was capable of carrying out this deed, the one thing I doubt he'd have felt at that stage, was remorse, but I DO think he'd have felt anger and irritation at Sheila for causing him to get it wrong. If he'd been throwing around, for the best part of a year, the idea of staging her death as suicide, I think the idea would have been SO entrenched, that shifting his mind-set, with any clarity of thought, elsewhere, would have been difficult...................although he may have been able, later and away from the scene, to have seen a better course of action.
-
Well he didn't. In hindsight I believe he made the right choice.
The police would never believe a random stranger or burglar theory. So he would still become the number one suspect. Especially if first on the scene in the morning.
Once a suspect he couldn't insinuate Sheila or claim Neville called him.
Why? I don´t think that would change anything.
-
It wouldn't have felt right, to ME, to shoot all those people, either ;D so I guess that"it cannot have felt right to stage that suicide" is relative. We can't make this about us and what WE would have done. THIS is about Jeremy -so there's going to be some guess work- and HIS mind-set. If we accept -although I know you don't- that he was capable of carrying out this deed, the one thing I doubt he'd have felt at that stage, was remorse, but I DO think he'd have felt anger and irritation at Sheila for causing him to get it wrong. If he'd been throwing around, for the best part of a year, the idea of staging her death as suicide, I think the idea would have been SO entrenched, that shifting his mind-set, with any clarity of thought, elsewhere, would have been difficult...................although he may have been able, later and away from the scene, to have seen a better course of action.
It was not just staged as suicide, it was a two shot suicide. I just don´t think anyone would do that, so I think it is unlikely that Jeremy committed the murders.
-
It was not just staged as suicide, it was a two shot suicide. I just don´t think anyone would do that, so I think it is unlikely that Jeremy committed the murders.
I agree with that as well. One shot followed the other.
-
It was not just staged as suicide, it was a two shot suicide. I just don´t think anyone would do that, so I think it is unlikely that Jeremy committed the murders.
It was planned as a ONE shot suicide, but like much else in life it didn't go to plan and ended up as a two shot suicide by default.
-
It was planned as a ONE shot suicide, but like much else in life it didn't go to plan and ended up as a two shot suicide by default.
He would have known by then that the rifle didn´t kill instantly with one shot.
I just don´t think he did it.
-
He would have known by then that the rifle didn´t kill instantly with one shot.
I just don´t think he did it.
But he wasn't trying to shoot like a champion marksman, he was trying to shoot like he thought Sheila would shoot. I have no doubt he COULD have killed them with one shot had he chosen.
The other, HIGHLY significant fact is, that HAD he changed tack, gone home and found the dreadful scene the next morning, WHERE is his alibi? He needed to be able to tell the police that his father had phoned him during the night or he'd have had no explanation for where he'd been.
-
Why? I don´t think that would change anything.
If he was first on the scene he has no alibi.
-
But he wasn't trying to shoot like a champion marksman, he was trying to shoot like he thought Sheila would shoot. I have no doubt he COULD have killed them with one shot had he chosen.
No, but he wouldn´t want to shoot someone he wanted to look like suicide twice - it is absurd.
-
No, but he wouldn´t want to shoot someone he wanted to look like suicide twice - it is absurd.
He didn't do it out of choice. He didn't kill her with the first shot so he had to leave her to either bleed to death or survive to tell the story..............I don't don't think he had MUCH by way of choice.
-
He would have known by then that the rifle didn´t kill instantly with one shot.
I just don´t think he did it.
There is no doubt Jeremy is guilty.
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi.
You just choose to refuse to believe it on this incredibly weak reason. Which I already created a thread about.
Sheila shooting herself twice is just as unlikely. And you were unable to say how Sheila committed the massacre.
-
He didn't do it out of choice. He didn't kill her with the first shot so he had to leave her to either bleed to death or survive to tell the story..............I don't don't think he had MUCH by way of choice.
Yes, he had the choice not to stage suicide.
-
He didn't do it out of choice. He didn't kill her with the first shot so he had to leave her to either bleed to death or survive to tell the story..............I don't don't think he had MUCH by way of choice.
Agreed. He had NO choice. What was he supposed to do, take her to hospital and admit it because she didn't die with the first shot. No, he had to shoot her again - stage the suicide - stage the phone call and follow through with his plan.
Yes, he had the choice not to stage suicide.
Leaving it open to interpretation as to what happened? A burgular breaks into the farmhouse and slaughters the family, including kids in their beds? BAMBER was the last one to see them all alive, of course he would of come under immediate suspicion and he wouldn't have the phone call to place him away from the scene.
-
There is no doubt Jeremy is guilty. I think there is doubt.
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi. I notice in all weak cases, the term "mountain of forensic evidence" is used. There were two things, the dodgy silencer and the testimony of a dodgy, criminal girl who miraculously escaped any charges.
You just choose to refuse to believe it on this incredibly weak reason. Which I already created a thread about. I don´t care about your threads.
Sheila shooting herself twice is just as unlikely. And you were unable to say how Sheila committed the massacre. So were you or anybody else.
-
Yes, he had the choice not to stage suicide.
OK, my theory has his next moves worked out. Going on your theory can you give a synopsis of what his next moves would be and say what might be the repercussions.
-
Agreed. He had NO choice. What was he supposed to do, take her to hospital and admit it because she didn't die with the first shot. No, he had to shoot her again - stage the suicide - stage the phone call and follow through with his plan.
Leaving it open to interpretation as to what happened? A burgular breaks into the farmhouse and slaughters the family, including kids in their beds? BAMBER was the last one to see them all alive, of course he would of come under immediate suspicion and he wouldn't have the phone call to place him away from the scene.
No one stages a two shot murder as suicide.
-
No one stages a two shot murder as suicide.
So what was his alternative?
-
Yes, he had the choice not to stage suicide.
He spent a long time planning the murder. Julie said this was his plan.
He had a few minutes to make a radical change of plan. But chose not to.
-
So what was his alternative?
I have said it so many times, but people just don´t accept what I say. So be it.
-
No one stages a two shot murder as suicide.
That's just your opinion. Thankfully the courts/police/prescution/COA aren't blinded by the two shots that they ignore everything else. I don't know what else you'd expect Jeremy to do after she didn't die straight away from the first shot.
-
I thought two shot suicides have happened before.
Bamber may have known this. Anyway he had no choice. Sheila was still alive after the first shot.
-
No one stages a two shot murder as suicide.
He did, he had no choice and like I said, why would he think it would be down to him to explain?
-
That's just your opinion. Thankfully the courts/police/prescution/COA aren't blinded by the two shots that they ignore everything else. I don't know what else you'd expect Jeremy to do after she didn't die straight away from the first shot.
Not stage a suicide, leave the door unlocked and not make up a phonecall.
I have also said that many times now.
I have never heard about another case of a two shot murder staged as suicide.
-
He did, he had no choice and like I said, why would he think it would be down to him to explain?
Yes he did.
-
Not stage a suicide, leave the door unlocked and not make up a phonecall.
I have also said that many times now.
That would make less sense and be more risky than a two shot suicide.
-
I have said it so many times, but people just don´t accept what I say. So be it.
This isn't just about changing plan at the 11th hour, it's about possibly having to change everything which constituted spin-off from the original plan working. Thus far, I seem to think that all you've said is that Jeremy didn't do it and someone else did. I guess that person wasn't Sheila, unless you believe her capable of two shot suicide, so perhaps you lean towards what Mike says.
-
This isn't just about changing plan at the 11th hour, it's about possibly having to change everything which constituted spin-off from the original plan working. Thus far, I seem to think that all you've said is that Jeremy didn't do it and someone else did. I guess that person wasn't Sheila, unless you believe her capable of two shot suicide, so perhaps you lean towards what Mike says.
I have no idea what Mike says.
Multiple shot suicides do happen, the question is would a killer stage a multiple shot murder as suicide.
-
Not stage a suicide, leave the door unlocked and not make up a phonecall.
I have also said that many times now.
I have never heard about another case of a two shot murder staged as suicide.
That puts him in a worse situation -
Not stage a suicide - He cannot insinuate Sheila.
Not make up a phone call - He has no alibi and is first on the scene.
Leave the door open - No one will believe a random psycho/burglar.
-
That puts him in a worse situation -
Not stage a suicide - He cannot insinuate Sheila.
Not make up a phone call - He has no alibi and is first on the scene.
Leave the door open - No one will believe a random psycho/burglar.
A random psycho/burglar what comes to WHF and uses the Bambers own gun!
-
I have no idea what Mike says.
Multiple shot suicides do happen, the question is would a killer stage a multiple shot murder as suicide.
You just have to accept this is what happened.
-
A random psycho/burglar what comes to WHF and uses their own guns!
He doesn't break in either - or out! ;D
-
You just have to accept this is what happened.
I don´t have to accept anything! ;D
-
He doesn't break in either - or out! ;D
Those remarks are rather superfluent, since according to you all, he went with the staging of suicide to implicate Sheila.
-
I have no idea what Mike says.
Multiple shot suicides do happen, the question is would a killer stage a multiple shot murder as suicide.
Do you believe it more likely that Sheila shot herself twice than Jeremy HAD to shoot her twice because the first shot didn't kill her?
-
There have been threads on this.
Jeremy told the police Neville had rang him saying 'Sheila had gone crazy'. He later told the police Neville may have said 'she'after the police questioned her two bullets.
Jeremy said he was asleep in bed, so either Sheila alone massacred everyone. Or one/two random burglars/psychopaths broke in and killed everyone.
I am surprised Neville had time and decided to ring Jeremy in either situation.
A random burglar reloading to go room to room killing people who were asleep thus could not be witnesses against him makes no sense.
Someone being hired to assassinate them going there with no weapon and using the Anschutz makes even less sense.
The only thing that could be reasonably tried was the plan he had at the outset to frame Sheila.
-
I have no idea what Mike says.
Multiple shot suicides do happen, the question is would a killer stage a multiple shot murder as suicide.
He didn't 'intend' to stage a multiple shot suicide. It happened, he had to just carry on. If he could make the phone call sound convincing, he had an alibi so the police wouldn't think he was a suspect. There is nothing he could do after the two shots had been fired, he couldn't 'unshoot' one of them. He had no choice but to go through with it. It wasn't 'part' of the plan - it was an unfortunate (or fortunate) mistake.
-
A random psycho/burglar what comes to WHF and uses the Bambers own gun!
There have been threads on both the random stranger and burglar framing options. Both terrible ideas.
Insinuating Sheila was easily his best option. Even though he had to shoot Sheila twice.
Alias is well aware of this but refuses to accept Jeremy's guilt. Clinging to the notion that Jeremy would make a 360 degree plan turn at the last minute after having to shoot Sheila twice.
-
Those remarks are rather superfluent, since according to you all, he went with the staging of suicide to implicate Sheila.
That WAS the name of the game. He stood outside with the police for HOURS telling them, not only how proficient she was with guns but also giving them chapter and verse on her mental state.
-
Could be a bottle top or an eraser - it's too difficult to tell but it does look like something that could only be treasure to a child.
It looks like the rubber tip of a badminton birdie. In any event it has no significance for the murders.
-
Do you believe it more likely that Sheila shot herself twice than Jeremy HAD to shoot her twice because the first shot didn't kill her?
With one shot at an almost perfect right angle? Also if it was a hit man, wasn't he still STAGING a two shot suicide? One which Jeremy HAD to go along with?
-
Do you believe it more likely that Sheila shot herself twice than Jeremy HAD to shoot her twice because the first shot didn't kill her?
Yes, and there was some time between the shots.
-
It looks like the rubber tip of a badminton birdie. In any event it has no significance for the murders.
Ha! Well done! I think that might be what it is, shuttle cock stripped of all but one feather (although it looks like the wrong kind of feather for that). They had tennis courts at WHF. I know it had nothing to do with the murders.
-
He didn't 'intend' to stage a multiple shot suicide. It happened, he had to just carry on. If he could make the phone call sound convincing, he had an alibi so the police wouldn't think he was a suspect. There is nothing he could do after the two shots had been fired, he couldn't 'unshoot' one of them. He had no choice but to go through with it. It wasn't 'part' of the plan - it was an unfortunate (or fortunate) mistake.
No need to explain this to me, of course it wouldn´t have been part of the plan.
-
It looks like the rubber tip of a badminton birdie. In any event it has no significance for the murders.
YEA!!!!!!!!!!!! That's EXACTLY what I was trying to think of ;D I agree, it didn't.
-
No need to explain this to me, of course it wouldn´t have been part of the plan.
But you keep asking who would stage a multiple shot suicide? Whether Bamber did it himself, or engaged a hit man (which I think is HIGHLY UNLIKELY), it would still mean that a multiple shot suicide had to be staged.
-
Not stage a suicide, leave the door unlocked and not make up a phonecall.
I have also said that many times now.
I have never heard about another case of a two shot murder staged as suicide.
The only suspect would be him. He had opportunity, and motive to kill everyone in the house. Who else would have the motive to kill everyone in the house? A burglar? No because a burglar would not need to kill victims in their sleep. A burglar would at most kill the person(s) who discovered the burglar then would get out of there not reload and go room to room killing people who were still asleep thus could not ID the burglar.
Aside from Jeremy being the only one with a motive to execute everyone a killer going there to execute everyone would bring his own weapon not use the Anschutz.
Jeremy felt the only way to keep suspicion off himself would be to frame Sheila and a first his plan worked. It fell apart once the lab weighed in and Julie came clean.
-
The only suspect would be him. He had opportunity, and motive to kill everyone in the house. Who else would have the motive to kill everyone in the house? A burglar? No because a burglar would not need to kill victims in their sleep. A burglar would at most kill the person(s) who discovered the burglar then would get out of there not reload and go room to room killing people who were still asleep thus could not ID the burglar.
Aside from Jeremy being the only one with a motive to execute everyone a killer going there to execute everyone would bring his own weapon not use the Anschutz.
Jeremy felt the only way to keep suspicion off himself would be to frame Sheila and a first his plan worked. It fell apart once the lab weighed in and Julie came clean.
A burglar that doesn't steal anything?
-
But you keep asking who would stage a multiple shot suicide? Whether Bamber did it himself, or engaged a hit man (which I think is HIGHLY UNLIKELY), it would still mean that a multiple shot suicide had to be staged.
I happen to think that is actually a good question. Who would? No one!
-
A burglar that doesn't steal anything?
Yeh, Jeremy could hardly carry a secretaire or a prie Dieu home on his back. The most he could have taken were probably no more than a few thousand quid in family jewels and how would he have got rid of OR explained them?
-
Jeremy would have removed a bullet first for the final shot.
-
It was not a multiple shot suicide. It was a two shot suicide. Which does happen.
-
Problems with the fake psychopath option -
Jeremy could not insinuate Sheila. Something he has been doing for 30 years.
Jeremy would still be first on the scene anyway. Threads created.
I have never heard of such an incident. A stranger going to a remote farm house. Killing men women and children. Then leaving.
A psychopath is more likely to attack an individual. Probably one person he could over power. Rather than put himself up against five people.
If the police did not believe the random stranger theory, there would only be one suspect.
A psychopath is more likely to attack in open land and an environment he knows. Not enclose himself in unfamiliar surroundings.
Jeremy could not claim Neville phoned.
The relatives would still suspect Jeremy. And he would still tell Julie.
The psychopath would have to find a quiet way into WHF. Something Jeremy liked to keep secret from the police.
Julie never said this was an option Jeremy considered. Even he is not that stupid.
He could not create the siege and 'Crazy Sheila' situation.
There would be no sightings of mysterious men in the area. As there were not any.
Psychopaths usually attack women for sexual gratification, such as Robert Napper. I have never heard of one killing children and men as well in one spree.
The random stranger would have to attack using a weapon he had brought over. Such as a knife. He would not know about the guns in WHF. Or whether they were loaded.
I could create 40 points.
The police did not believe the Sheila did it theory. They will not believe this one. There was once again a motive, opportunity and no alibi for Jeremy.
-
Jeremy would have removed a bullet first for the final shot.
You know this because?
-
The only suspect would be him. He had opportunity, and motive to kill everyone in the house. Who else would have the motive to kill everyone in the house? A burglar? No because a burglar would not need to kill victims in their sleep. A burglar would at most kill the person(s) who discovered the burglar then would get out of there not reload and go room to room killing people who were still asleep thus could not ID the burglar.
Aside from Jeremy being the only one with a motive to execute everyone a killer going there to execute everyone would bring his own weapon not use the Anschutz.
Jeremy felt the only way to keep suspicion off himself would be to frame Sheila and a first his plan worked. It fell apart once the lab weighed in and Julie came clean.
I agree! He meddled too much getting himself out of the frame that he made himself the ONLY other suspect.
-
A burglar that doesn't steal anything?
I didn't address that because if someone wanted to stage it as a burglary they could steal things to make it look like one. They could also ransack the house in support of such. But even if Jeremy had done that it would still not address the fundamental problem I highlighted. Burglars don't go room to room killing everyone in their sleep. That is the sign of an execution. That lack of any motive for anyone else to execute the whole family plus the fact the murder weapon was from the house presents a major problem for claiming it was an execution by someone outside of the family. He picked the best staging scenario he simply botched it and his 2 most severe mistakes were telling Julie and using the moderator. The other errors he made and other evidence just helps buttress these two main errors which really made the case. That is why in order to secure a new trial either Julie has to recant or moderator evidence has to be rebutted.
-
I didn't address that because if someone wanted to stage it as a burglary they could steal things to make it look like one. They could also ransack the house in support of such. But even if Jeremy had done that it would still not address the fundamental problem I highlighted. Burglars don't go room to room killing everyone in their sleep. That is the sign of an execution. That lack of any motive for anyone else to execute the whole family plus the fact the murder weapon was from the house presents a major problem for claiming it was an execution by someone outside of the family. He picked the best staging scenario he simply botched it and his 2 most severe mistakes were telling Julie and using the moderator. The other errors he made and other evidence just helps buttress these two main errors which really made the case. That is why in order to secure a new trial either Julie has to recant or moderator evidence has to be rebutted.
I was being facetious.
-
I don´t think I have to answer for what might have been, had Jeremy not staged suicide - I don´t think he was there, so it is all theoretical.
-
You know this because?
If he was going to make it look like a suicide,then a one shot would look authentic.
-
I happen to think that is actually a good question. Who would? No one!
Correct. No one would CHOSE to shoot someone twice if the were trying to make it look as if that person had committed suicide.............................HOWEVER, as the first shot didn't kill her, there HAD to be a second shot, but if he tries to make it look like a random and botched burglary he:-
A. Can't call the police to say his father has called to say Sheila has gone mad and....................
B . Doesn't have an alibi.
C. As the last person to see them alive he's in the frame.
D. Can't blame Sheila as he'd planned.
-
Correct. No one would CHOSE to shoot someone twice if the were trying to make it look as if that person had committed suicide.............................HOWEVER, as the first shot didn't kill her, there HAD to be a second shot, but if he tries to make it look like a random and botched burglary he:-
A. Can't call the police to say his father has called to say Sheila has gone mad and....................
B . Doesn't have an alibi.
C. As the last person to see them alive he's in the frame.
D. Can't blame Sheila as he'd planned.
As I said, this burglary set up I never mentioned. This is all hypothetical, since I don´t think he was there at all - so there is no reason for me to even contemplate it.
-
As I said, this burglary set up I never mentioned. This is all hypothetical, since I don´t think he was there at all - so there is no reason for me to even contemplate it.
There have now been 72 posts on this and whilst some of us have stated what we believe DID happen, I'm really only clear on what you think DIDN'T happen.
-
There have now been 72 posts on this and whilst some of us have stated what we believe DID happen, I'm really only clear on what you think DIDN'T happen.
Why is that - you asked me if I thought Sheila shot herself twice, and I said yes. That is what I think DID happen. How much clearer can I be?
-
Why is that - you asked me if I thought Sheila shot herself twice, and I said yes. That is what I think DID happen. How much clearer can I be?
So, you now believe Jeremy is innocent? (I'm just asking!! :D)
-
So, you now believe Jeremy is innocent? (I'm just asking!! :D)
Why do you feel the need to ask? I already answered April. Why do I have to keep repeating myself, it is tedious!
-
Why do you feel the need to ask? I already answered April. Why do I have to keep repeating myself, it is tedious!
Because your answer was rather like a politicians (no straight yes or no). But from your answer I am assuming that you mean yes, you believe he's innocent.
-
Why is that - you asked me if I thought Sheila shot herself twice, and I said yes. That is what I think DID happen. How much clearer can I be?
Yes, you said she did with some time between shots. Just found it.
-
Because your answer was rather like a politicians (no straight yes or no). But from your answer I am assuming that you mean yes, you believe he's innocent.
Why is it so difficult to read a yes as a yes, I don´t get it. I did say YES, I do think that Sheila shot herself twice.
What do you want me to say more? Is it because I am not saying what you want me to say that you state I am unclear.
I don´t think I am!
-
Let´s say that Jeremy staged a two shot murder as a suicide.
It must have made him nervous that he had to shoot her twice, and therefore, logically, more careful. Why then did he throw the silencer with blood and paint on it in the cupboard. You´d think he would have cleaned it.
-
Let´s say that Jeremy staged a two shot murder as a suicide.
It must have made him nervous that he had to shoot her twice, and therefore, logically, more careful. Why then did he throw the silencer with blood and paint on it in the cupboard. You´d think he would have cleaned it.
It could equally have made him careless. Logic could have gone out of the window.
-
It could equally have made him careless. Logic could have gone out of the window.
Makes no sense to me.
-
Makes no sense to me.
Aha! Do I perceive MRS Spock? :D
-
Aha! Do I perceive MRS Spock? :D
This makes even less sense - I have no idea what you are talking about!
-
Beam me up Scotty.
-
Beam me up Scotty.
LOL....................and I did ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This makes even less sense - I have no idea what you are talking about!
Sorry Alias. There's a very popular series here called Star Trek. One of the characters is a half Vulcan called Mr Spock who is mostly human but can only think logically.
-
Sorry Alias. There's a very popular series here called Star Trek. One of the characters is a half Vulcan called Mr Spock who is mostly human but can only think logically.
And where do I fit into that?
-
Alias, you finally admit you're a supporter! ;D
-
Alias, you finally admit you're a supporter! ;D
Why is that important to you?
Sometimes I think he did it, some days not. I change stance all the time, but there is nothing wrong with being a supporter - apart from being prepared to receive your share of bashing.
-
Why is that important to you?
Sometimes I think he did it, some days not. I change stance all the time, but there is nothing wrong with being a supporter - apart from being prepared to receive your share of bashing.
No, no, nothing wrong with it, people can believe what they like. But when I called you a supporter once you weren't happy with it and said you were on the fence, I said that was strange as all your posts on both forums had been supportive to Bamber - now your position is clear though as you believe Sheila shot herself twice.
-
And where do I fit into that?
As a logical thinker? Why, logical companion/friend for Mr Spock (NOT to be confused with DR Spock) ;D
-
No, no, nothing wrong with it, people can believe what they like. But when I called you a supporter once you weren't happy with it and said you were on the fence, I said that was strange as all your posts on both forums had been supportive to Bamber - now your position is clear though as you believe Sheila shot herself twice.
Not all posts, but I can see that people see what they want to see. I don´t have a fixed opinion about this case, I don´t understand that anyone can, it is all so murky and mishandled from getgo.
-
Sorry Alias. There's a very popular series here called Star Trek. One of the characters is a half Vulcan called Mr Spock who is mostly human but can only think logically.
I didn't know it was popular there. When I was young (1980s) the original series was on TV all the time. I don't think anyone has broadcast them in the past 20 years though.
My favorite character was Spock but Kirk was the favorite of the majority. Michael Myers from the original Halloween movie wore a Captain Kirk mask with the hair ripped out, they lacked the budget for a custom killer face.
-
I have to say that I find it hard to believe that Jeremy, having shot Sheila twice and staged her body as a suicide thought, Oh, OK, the silencer, better take that off the rifle and "hide" it complete with blood, hair and paint on it, no one will notice!
That would be something a five-year-old would do.
-
I didn't know it was popular there. When I was young (1980s) the original series was on TV all the time. I don't think anyone has broadcast them in the past 20 years though.
My favorite character was Spock but Kirk was the favorite of the majority. Michael Myers from the original Halloween movie wore a Captain Kirk mask with the hair ripped out, they lacked the budget for a custom killer face.
I fell for the humanity of Kirk but I loved the "otherness" of Spock.
-
I see Bob Woffinden is now on the trail in helping to clear Eddie Gilfoyle's name,having given oral evidence to the Justice Committee.
I wonder how long it'll be before he drops that one ??
-
I fell for the humanity of Kirk but I loved the "otherness" of Spock.
Anyone heard the recording they made of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Now that's something else. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have said it so many times, but people just don´t accept what I say. So be it.
Some people accept it Alias. Had Jeremy committed the murders, I agree that once the need for a second shot arose, then he would surely have felt that it would not be possible to pass off Sheila's murder as suicide. It is argued that because two shot suicides are viable and do indeed happen then Jeremy would have felt no need to change the plan. Even if Jeremy had been aware of this, which I think unlikely, he could not be confident that Sheila's death would easily be accepted as such.
This alongside the fact that he also messed up by using the silencer, which he discovered was too long for Sheila to have committed suicide, so he had to replace it in the gun cupboard after murdering Sheila. Oddly he didn't discover the fact that the silencer was too long until after the second fatal shot. There are two, rather than one, massive blunders in the staged suicide scenario and yet supposedly neither of these blunders made Jeremy change course.
Anyway after putting the silencer back, which was too long, he coolly invents a phone call and convinces Essex Police and armed units to remain outside for hours with his cunning, or so we are led to believe.
You are right Alias, this part of the prosecution case sounds so unlikely that it merits scrutiny.
-
Some people accept it Alias. Had Jeremy committed the murders, I agree that once the need for a second shot arose, then he would surely have felt that it would not be possible to pass off Sheila's murder as suicide. It is argued that because two shot suicides are viable and do indeed happen then Jeremy would have felt no need to change the plan. Even if Jeremy had been aware of this, which I think unlikely, he could not be confident that Sheila's death would easily be accepted as such.
This alongside the fact that he also messed up by using the silencer, which he discovered was too long for Sheila to have committed suicide, so he had to replace it in the gun cupboard after murdering Sheila. Oddly he didn't discover the fact that the silencer was too long until after the second fatal shot. There are two, rather than one, massive blunders in the staged suicide scenario and yet supposedly neither of these blunders made Jeremy change course.
Anyway after putting the silencer back, which was too long, he coolly invents a phone call and convinces Essex Police and armed units to remain outside for hours with his cunning, or so we are led to believe.
You are right Alias, this part of the prosecution case sounds so unlikely that it merits scrutiny.
Thank you gringo, I am glad that at least one can see where I am coming from - and you put it much better than I can do!
-
Thank you gringo, I am glad that at least one can see where I am coming from - and you put it much better than I can do!
I can see where you're coming from alias. To go along with the guilters explanations there seems to be a need for a leap of faith at times.
-
I can see where you're coming from alias. To go along with the guilters explanations there seems to be a need for a leap of faith at times.
I think so too.
-
I can see where you're coming from alias. To go along with the guilters explanations there seems to be a need for a leap of faith at times.
As does the thought of Sheila shooting herself twice with a weapon which was too long.
-
As does the thought of Sheila shooting herself twice with a weapon which was too long.
And a full conspiracy of the police/relatives and lab technicians.
-
Thank you gringo, I am glad that at least one can see where I am coming from - and you put it much better than I can do!
You put it perfectly clearly yourself, Alias. I am sure there are more than me who can see exactly where you are coming from despite the misrepresentations of your views on here.
-
And a full conspiracy of the police/relatives and lab technicians.
..........Judge, jury and Uncle Tom Cobblers and all ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
As does the thought of Sheila shooting herself twice with a weapon which was too long.
As does the thought of Jeremy not discovering it was too long after the first shot and Jeremy shooting Sheila with a weapon that too long, twice.
-
As does the thought of Jeremy not discovering it was too long after the first shot and Jeremy shooting Sheila with a weapon that too long, twice.
Like I said, he hadn't done it before so it was a question of learning as he went. There may have been a lot that he'd have done differently had he had time over again...................trouble was, he didn't.
-
Like I said, he hadn't done it before so it was a question of learning as he went. There may have been a lot that he'd have done differently had he had time over again...................trouble was, he didn't.
You said you changed your stance because you felt you were making excuses for Jeremy. Isn´t this an example of an excuse, just "mirrored"?
-
You said you changed your stance because you felt you were making excuses for Jeremy. Isn´t this an example of an excuse, just "mirrored"?
It may be how you see see it but I'm fully aware that he didn't just walk in, do the deed, and walk out. To suggest such and to insinuate that there were no problems would be to live in La La Land.
-
Like I said, he hadn't done it before so it was a question of learning as he went. There may have been a lot that he'd have done differently had he had time over again...................trouble was, he didn't.
But surely he would have learnt that the gun with silencer was too long after the first failed shot.
I hear what you are saying. In the heat of the moment mistakes would be made and there is no template to follow. It just seems a stretch too far that after these blunders he would replace the silencer and then invent the phone call, which would obviously implicate himself if the silencer was discovered.
He could not be wholly confident that the suicide of Sheila would be accepted after messing up so spectacularly, not only needing two shots but also using a silencer for both shots despite it being too long. But we are to believe that he went ahead with a plan that pointed to his guilt the moment it was discovered that Sheila was murdered.
As a matter of interest, April, do you believe in the silencer evidence or do you believe it fabricated?
I ask not to argue over the silencer evidence on this thread but as a matter of interest. It is possible to believe that the silencer evidence is fabricated and that Jeremy is guilty obviously, as I am aware that some do.
-
Some people accept it Alias. Had Jeremy committed the murders, I agree that once the need for a second shot arose, then he would surely have felt that it would not be possible to pass off Sheila's murder as suicide. It is argued that because two shot suicides are viable and do indeed happen then Jeremy would have felt no need to change the plan. Even if Jeremy had been aware of this, which I think unlikely, he could not be confident that Sheila's death would easily be accepted as such.
This alongside the fact that he also messed up by using the silencer, which he discovered was too long for Sheila to have committed suicide, so he had to replace it in the gun cupboard after murdering Sheila. Oddly he didn't discover the fact that the silencer was too long until after the second fatal shot. There are two, rather than one, massive blunders in the staged suicide scenario and yet supposedly neither of these blunders made Jeremy change course.
Anyway after putting the silencer back, which was too long, he coolly invents a phone call and convinces Essex Police and armed units to remain outside for hours with his cunning, or so we are led to believe.
You are right Alias, this part of the prosecution case sounds so unlikely that it merits scrutiny.
Jeremy had the phone call from Nevill as a means of distancing himself from the scene and he didn't have to explain the two shots to Sheila's throat once they bought his story and initially, they did.
Don't believe the silencer was used.
He didn't convince them to stay outside - it's police procedure not to storm in until they deem it fit to do so.
-
Some people accept it Alias. Had Jeremy committed the murders, I agree that once the need for a second shot arose, then he would surely have felt that it would not be possible to pass off Sheila's murder as suicide. It is argued that because two shot suicides are viable and do indeed happen then Jeremy would have felt no need to change the plan. Even if Jeremy had been aware of this, which I think unlikely, he could not be confident that Sheila's death would easily be accepted as such.
This alongside the fact that he also messed up by using the silencer, which he discovered was too long for Sheila to have committed suicide, so he had to replace it in the gun cupboard after murdering Sheila. Oddly he didn't discover the fact that the silencer was too long until after the second fatal shot. There are two, rather than one, massive blunders in the staged suicide scenario and yet supposedly neither of these blunders made Jeremy change course.
Anyway after putting the silencer back, which was too long, he coolly invents a phone call and convinces Essex Police and armed units to remain outside for hours with his cunning, or so we are led to believe.
You are right Alias, this part of the prosecution case sounds so unlikely that it merits scrutiny.
I think that is a very good point Gringo one that has never been discussed thoroughly. We are talking 1985 before the google age....Jeremy could not have been aware that a two shot suicide would have been accepted. To try to pass it off as a suicide would have been rather iffy...IMO....Great post BTW... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy had the phone call from Nevill as a means of distancing himself from the scene and he didn't have to explain the two shots to Sheila's throat once they bought his story and initially, they did.
Don't believe the silencer was used.
He didn't convince them to stay outside - it's police procedure not to storm in until they deem it fit to do so.
But did he know at the time he did not have to explain the two shots? Why did the phone call from NB omit him from this explanation? :-\
-
But did he know at the time he did not have to explain the two shots? Why did the phone call from NB omit him from this explanation? :-\
Why would he think he would have to explain the two shots? He had just distanced himself from the crime - with the phone call - I can't explain it in any clearer terms!
-
Why would he think he would have to explain the two shots? He had just distanced himself from the crime - with the phone call - I can't explain it in any clearer terms!
Why wouldn't he? Why at that point would he feel he had to introduce a phone call to distance himself from the murders? A phone call which is so disputed, that its difficult to establish if it existed or not?
I'm not being argumentative, but I find it difficult to except that there was no worry/concern by the man who is supposed to be the killer of the victim that he is supposed to have framed, ie Sheila, that the police would question the two the shots without prior knowledge that two shots were acceptable as being a suicide in 1985...
Had he made regular visits to a library or had bought books on crime, I would be able to imagine that he did have an idea about passing off two shots as being suicide...but as this was not the case, I find it hard to believe. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Why wouldn't he? Why at that point would he feel he had to introduce a phone call to distance himself from the murders? A phone call which is so disputed, that its difficult to establish if it existed or not?
I'm not being argumentative, but I find it difficult to except that there was no worry/concern by the man who is supposed to be the killer of the victim that he is supposed to have framed, ie Sheila, that the police would question the two the shots without prior knowledge that two shots were acceptable as being a suicide in 1985...
Had he made regular visits to a library or had bought books on crime, I would be able to imagine that he did have an idea about passing off two shots as being suicide...but as this was not the case, I find it hard to believe. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Because it was part of his plan - 'Step 1 - give myself an alibi' - Once he had that sorted, he didn't need to explain anything else. Plus, psychopaths don't have the same concerns that you and I do.
By the way, I didn't think you were being argumentative - it's just a discussion.
-
Because it was part of his plan - 'Step 1 - give myself an alibi' - Once he had that sorted, he didn't need to explain anything else. Plus, psychopaths don't have the same concerns that you and I do.
By the way, I didn't think you were being argumentative - it's just a discussion.
But what was his plan to explain two shots? OK, he could have invented a plan where he could have introduced a telephone call, but did he know that a call could not be traced?
He said to Jones " well, you must know, trace the call"
Did he, or could he have known a call could not be traced and if he did know a call could not be traced then why invent one?
Why on earth would he need an alibi? All he had to do was wait...... :-\ :-\ :-\
-
But what was his plan to explain two shots? OK, he could have invented a plan where he could have introduced a telephone call, but did he know that a call could not be traced?
He said to Jones " well, you must know, trace the call"
Did he, or could he have known a call could not be traced and if he did know a call could not be traced then why invent one?
Why on earth would he need an alibi? All he had to do was wait...... :-\ :-\ :-\
He didn't have a plan to explain two shots - that was obviously something he didn't plan for.
I don't think it was a state secret that calls couldn't be traced? I would imagine it would take limited research to find this out - even in 1985, especially if it mattered to your plan.
He needed an alibi because that's what he decided. If he didn't have one then he would be the obvious next suspect if they didn't believe the 4 murders 1 suicide.
-
Some people accept it Alias. Had Jeremy committed the murders, I agree that once the need for a second shot arose, then he would surely have felt that it would not be possible to pass off Sheila's murder as suicide. It is argued that because two shot suicides are viable and do indeed happen then Jeremy would have felt no need to change the plan. Even if Jeremy had been aware of this, which I think unlikely, he could not be confident that Sheila's death would easily be accepted as such.
Your claims are totally illogical. You and Alias are presenting the contradictory claim that 2 shots being fired proves it wasn't suicide and yet claim she did fire 2 shots to commit suicide. you can't have it both ways.
IF the first shot killed her and then the second shot was fired someone MIGHT be scared at that point because if police can prove the second shot was fired after she was already dead then the jig is up. But it is not always possible to prove.
You and Alias keep ignoring that the alternative of not framing Sheila was worse in his eyes. If staging a burglary would have been a good idea he would have used that instead of planning to frame Sheila. It would have been obvious it was an execution staged as a burglary. The only person with motive to do that would be Jeremy so it would send police to his doorstep.
He decided to stage it as Sheila murdering them and committing suicide to preempt police fro rushing to his door. No matter what following through with his plan was superior to just walking away and praying they would believe some third party decided to kill them all with a weapon found at WHF repeatedly reloading it to kill everyone including the kids as they slept so could not identify the killer and thus there was no need to kill them.
Once he killed them he had no choice but to carry through his plan to frame her and he felt it was such a great plan that it would not matter that he had to shoot her twice.
This alongside the fact that he also messed up by using the silencer, which he discovered was too long for Sheila to have committed suicide, so he had to replace it in the gun cupboard after murdering Sheila. Oddly he didn't discover the fact that the silencer was too long until after the second fatal shot. There are two, rather than one, massive blunders in the staged suicide scenario and yet supposedly neither of these blunders made Jeremy change course.
Anyway after putting the silencer back, which was too long, he coolly invents a phone call and convinces Essex Police and armed units to remain outside for hours with his cunning, or so we are led to believe.
You are right Alias, this part of the prosecution case sounds so unlikely that it merits scrutiny.
He figured his story about the gun being left out without the moderator attached would be sufficient for police not to ever realize it had been used. He found out it was too long after he moved her body flat and stuck the gun on her body, that is when he realized it was too long for her to pull the trigger. Staging it a burglary would not work it was clearly an execution so in his mind he had no choice but to
continue in his efforts to frame Sheila.
-
The alternative to Jeremy being guilty is that he was framed by EP because? Everyone else is lying except Jeremy because?
-
Why on earth would he need an alibi? All he had to do was wait...... :-\ :-\ :-\
He needed an alibi because it would be an obvious execution, he was the only one who would benefit from them all dead, and no stranger who carries out an execution anticipates using a weapon from the scene.
The only way he could throw police off his trial would be if he could frame someone else and the only people he could realistically frame would be his sister or Colin Caffell and his sister made a much easier mark since Colin could have an alibi and being alive would be in a position to dispute his claims including disputing any motive he provided.
-
He needed an alibi because it would be an obvious execution, he was the only one who would benefit from them all dead, and no stranger who carries out an execution anticipates using a weapon from the scene.
The only way he could throw police off his trial would be if he could frame someone else and the only people he could realistically frame would be his sister or Colin Caffell and his sister made a much easier mark since Colin could have an alibi and being alive would be in a position to dispute his claims including disputing any motive he provided.
I don't understand how people can't see this? I know i though he might be innocent once but the phone call was always a stumbling point!
-
He didn't have a plan to explain two shots - that was obviously something he didn't plan for.
I don't think it was a state secret that calls couldn't be traced? I would imagine it would take limited research to find this out - even in 1985, especially if it mattered to your plan.
He needed an alibi because that's what he decided. If he didn't have one then he would be the obvious next suspect if they didn't believe the 4 murders 1 suicide.
OK.
He had a plan to murder to murder all his family, I am sure at this point you will agree?
But, lets say this plan went wrong and it was not so easy as he thought it was.
He nips in through the bathroom window, he then picks up the rifle from the settle. Or he picks up the rifle from the bathroom where he had hidden it, along with the magazine and extra bullets.
He then makes his way up to the main bedroom. He fires numerous shots 11 altogether, 7 to his mother and 4 to his father....During this time there must have been some commotion, shouting, screaming etc. Yet the twins did not wake and neither did Sheila. We know that Sheila was not awake at the time because she would have seen her mother in the doorway and wanted to protect her children, so we can assume at this point she was still fast asleep as were the twins, regardless of the moderator being fitted or not.
We then have June not making for the doorway to get downstairs, but standing up and facing her killer at the bottom of her bed...where she received her final shots. She landed on the internal door frame and then fell to the floor. Where was NB when this happened? Why did NB not tackle Jeremy in the main bedroom when he had ran out of bullets....His wife had been shot, so why did he run downstairs? Why did Sheila not wake up and help her father? At what point did she wake up? Many questions lay unanswered.....
Night ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He needed an alibi because it would be an obvious execution, he was the only one who would benefit from them all dead, and no stranger who carries out an execution anticipates using a weapon from the scene.
The only way he could throw police off his trial would be if he could frame someone else and the only people he could realistically frame would be his sister or Colin Caffell and his sister made a much easier mark since Colin could have an alibi and being alive would be in a position to dispute his claims including disputing any motive he provided.
But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?
-
But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?
He could have done so may other things, like NOT kill his family - but he did what he did AND he's not that stupid because 30 years later, he still manipulates :(
-
But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?
How does that implicate someone else? He killed the boys in bed while they were sleeping. No one would have a reason to kill the boys as they slept except someone who decided to execute the entire family or someone paid to execute the entire family. There is only one person who would profit from the whole family being executed- Jeremy. The only other person to potentially argue could have a motive to kill everyone would be Colin Caffell but if he had an alibi then Jeremy would be totally screwed. A stranger doesn't decide to execute people in a house for the hell of it, enter go searching for a weapon and then kill everyone in their sleep. Nor does a burglar who is discovered go around killing everyone in the house in their sleep. If they are discovered at most they kill the people who discover them then get the hell out of there they don't reload and go room to room killing everyone. The notion a third party shot the parents then things proceeded to the kitchen where they knocked Nevill out then reloaded and killed him then instead of leaving reloaded and went back upstairs to see if anyone else was in any of the other rooms is absurd. They would have gotten out of there.
Killing 1-2 people and staging it as a killing by a third party is much easier than staging a third party killing of a whole household especially when you are using a gun from that household.
-
How does that implicate someone else? He killed the boys in bed while they were sleeping. No one would have a reason to kill the boys as they slept except someone who decided to execute the entire family or someone paid to execute the entire family. There is only one person who would profit from the whole family being executed- Jeremy. The only other person to potentially argue could have a motive to kill everyone would be Colin Caffell but if he had an alibi then Jeremy would be totally screwed. A stranger doesn't decide to execute people in a house for the hell of it, enter go searching for a weapon and then kill everyone in their sleep. Nor does a burglar who is discovered go around killing everyone in the house in their sleep. If they are discovered at most they kill the people who discover them then get the hell out of there they don't reload and go room to room killing everyone. The notion a third party shot the parents then things proceeded to the kitchen where they knocked Nevill out then reloaded and killed him then instead of leaving reloaded and went back upstairs to see if anyone else was in any of the other rooms is absurd. They would have gotten out of there.
Killing 1-2 people and staging it as a killing by a third party is much easier than staging a third party killing of a whole household especially when you are using a gun from that household.
It was Jeremy Bamber!
-
But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?
Left the door open to accuse a stranger of breaking in and using one of the WHF guns to slaughter those inside...... Makes no sense, he would of been under suspicion right away and he would have no alibi without the phonecall, he would have been the last one to see the family alive.
I can't see how anyone can believe changing plan after two shots would have made more sense.
-
Left the door open to accuse a stranger of breaking in and using one of the WHF guns to slaughter those inside...... Makes no sense, he would of been under suspicion right away and he would have no alibi without the phonecall, he would have been the last one to see the family alive.
I can't see how anyone can believe changing plan after two shots would have made more sense.
And the first person to find them. He was due at WHF at 7.30am that morning.
-
I am no expert on suicides or guns.
If someone said to me a person committed suicide by shooting themselves twice with a weak rifle, I would find it believable.
The first shot with a weak rifle didn't kill the person. The person who wanted to commit suicide then managed to fire a second shot.
Statistics back this up, as two shot suicides have happened.
A three or four shot suicide is unbelievable.
Alias's sole reason for believing Jeremy 'didn't do it' has no basis.
-
Jeremy had either read up about two shot suicides and knew it was possible. Or used common sense and assumed it would be believable that Sheila had shot herself twice with a weak rifle.
Either way he was not going deviate radically from the plan he had spent a long time on, at the last minute. After having to fire a second shot. The fake random burglar or psychopath options are both non starters.
Alias's reason for believing Jeremy is innocent has no basis.
-
But he could have easily left a door open which would implicate someone else. There was no need for him to have invented a call.....Maybe he was stupid, unintelligent or he did not do it?
Trying to implicate an unknown outsider breaking in to rob would have involved raising questions with no logical answer, ie WHY would such a person feel the need to turn a burglary into slaughter and leave empty-handed. A burglar, caught in the act, is surely going to think FIRST, of escape, NOT hanging around to slaughter the entire family, LEAST of all, two sleeping children. WHY would random burglar risk turning a rap over the knuckles and a fine -if caught- into a life stretch.
Trying to make it look like random burglary gone wrong would have involved Jeremy in getting into the mindset of what he believed would be the MO of a random burglar but there was nothing to suggest that anyone had been looking for valuables. No draws opened. No contents strewn. No missing objets d'art. No missing jewellery.
I imagine Jeremy saw his plan as being perfect in its simplicity..................and it actually WAS. His mentally ill sister had had a violent episode and got hold of a firearm, during which his father had been able to make a frantic call to Jeremy for assistance. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?.........................
-
Trying to implicate an unknown outsider breaking in to rob would have involved raising questions with no logical answer, ie WHY would such a person feel the need to turn a burglary into slaughter and leave empty-handed. A burglar, caught in the act, is surely going to think FIRST, of escape, NOT hanging around to slaughter the entire family, LEAST of all, two sleeping children. WHY would random burglar risk turning a rap over the knuckles and a fine -if caught- into a life stretch.
Trying to make it look like random burglary gone wrong would have involved Jeremy in getting into the mindset of what he believed would be the MO of a random burglar but there was nothing to suggest that anyone had been looking for valuables. No draws opened. No contents strewn. No missing objets d'art. No missing jewellery.
I imagine Jeremy saw his plan as being perfect in its simplicity..................and it actually WAS. His mentally ill sister had had a violent episode and got hold of a firearm, during which his father had been able to make a frantic call to Jeremy for assistance. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?.........................
I agree, making it look like a burglary is far more complicated, why kill two sleeping boys for starters? Why take nothing? He chose to blame his sister because she had a 'history' of mental health.
-
I agree, making it look like a burglary is far more complicated, why kill two sleeping boys for starters? Why take nothing? He chose to blame his sister because she had a 'history' of mental health.
The burglary scenario is a place guilters need to go to, I have never mentioned it. I don´t believe he was there, so I don´t need to even go there.
Believing that Jeremy staged a two shot murder as suicide is related to guilters being perfectly willing to accept that J could have crawled out of the little, elongated (slightly open in photo) window on the top left - until it was cleared up that it was another window. The point is, people believed it even though clearly it was impossible.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37232;image)
-
The burglary scenario is a place guilters need to go to, I have never mentioned it. I don´t believe he was there, so I don´t need to even go there.
Believing that Jeremy staged a two shot murder as suicide is related to guilters being perfectly willing to accept that J could have crawled out of the little, elongated (slightly open in photo) window on the top left - until it was cleared up that it was another window. The point is, people believed it even though clearly it was impossible.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37232;image)
There might have been something in that.......................had Jeremy not admitted to crawling through a window. The point is, he could because he already had. WHICH particular window is irrelevant.
-
I agree, making it look like a burglary is far more complicated, why kill two sleeping boys for starters? Why take nothing? He chose to blame his sister because she had a 'history' of mental health.
As Jeremy said in his interview with Eric Allison,neither he,nor his parents realised how ill Sheila was.Nobody had a clue ! So much for private medicine and the need to visit WHF to talk with the parents-------NOT. No follow-ups,no nothing and least of all no indication that Sheila could possibly be a danger to herself,and particularly others.
So Jeremy could not have used his sister as an excuse,not knowing fully about her illness--------until after the event when he was in prison reading about it.
-
The burglary scenario is a place guilters need to go to, I have never mentioned it. I don´t believe he was there, so I don´t need to even go there.
Believing that Jeremy staged a two shot murder as suicide is related to guilters being perfectly willing to accept that J could have crawled out of the little, elongated (slightly open in photo) window on the top left - until it was cleared up that it was another window. The point is, people believed it even though clearly it was impossible.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37232;image)
I never said you did. I don't NEED to go anywhere, I was answering another post - not one by you. I have also never said he climbed out of any window.
-
As Jeremy said in his interview with Eric Allison,neither he,nor his parents realised how ill Sheila was.Nobody had a clue ! So much for private medicine and the need to visit WHF to talk with the parents-------NOT. No follow-ups,no nothing and least of all no indication that Sheila could possibly be a danger to herself,and particularly others.
So Jeremy could not have used his sister as an excuse,not knowing fully about her illness--------until after the event when he was in prison reading about it.
He told police officers that his sister was 'a nutter'. He knew she was ill and he played upon it.
-
He told police officers that his sister was 'a nutter'. He knew she was ill and he played upon it.
Nah,he was trying to be big in front of the officers. It wouldn't have come out right if he'd have said that she was being seen by a psychiatrist. I don't believe he was playing on her illness at all. He didn't want to appear a " cissy ",so he used gutter language instead.
-
As Jeremy said in his interview with Eric Allison,neither he,nor his parents realised how ill Sheila was.Nobody had a clue ! So much for private medicine and the need to visit WHF to talk with the parents-------NOT. No follow-ups,no nothing and least of all no indication that Sheila could possibly be a danger to herself,and particularly others.
So Jeremy could not have used his sister as an excuse,not knowing fully about her illness--------until after the event when he was in prison reading about it.
Lookout, you know, as well as I, the STRICT rules on patient confidentiality. Irrelevant of who was footing the bill the Dr's moral duty was to Sheila and ONLY to Sheila, who didn't live anywhere NEAR WHF, so why do you believe they should have gone there. Their only way out of what may have been a moral dilemma for them would have been to seek Sheila's permission to speak with her parents. Personally, I don't think she'd have given it but she may have agreed for them to speak with Colin.
-
Nah,he was trying to be big in front of the officers. It wouldn't have come out right if he'd have said that she was being seen by a psychiatrist. I don't believe he was playing on her illness at all. He didn't want to appear a " cissy ",so he used gutter language instead.
I thought he told them she'd just come out of the "nut house" and might be going back(?) I feel sure he used the term "paranoid depressive".
-
He said to Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back to the nut house'.
Before saying to her 'Only I know what really happened that night'.
The window issue is closed. There are 16 good sources stating it could be banged shut from outside.
-
He said to Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back to the nut house'.
Before saying to her 'Only I know what really happened that night'.
The window issue is closed. There are 16 good sources stating it could be banged shut from outside.
That is not the issue here, I don´t think you understand what I was getting at.
-
The two shots issue is also closed. With a thread already created.
Sheila committing suicide by shooting herself twice with a weak rifle is not impossible. And has happened before and since.
Jeremy either knew this or used his common sense. He was going to keep to the plan he had told Julie about.
-
That is not the issue here, I don´t think you understand what I was getting at.
He certainly still does not understand what a source is.
-
I thought he told them she'd just come out of the "nut house" and might be going back(?) I feel sure he used the term "paranoid depressive".
I've never heard of either terms having been spoken by Jeremy.
-
The two shots issue is also closed. With a thread already created.
Sheila committing suicide by shooting herself twice with a weak rifle is not impossible. And has happened before and since.
Jeremy either knew this or used his common sense. He was going to keep to the plan he had told Julie about.
Not as far as I am concerned.
-
April, can you explain what you mean by which window is Irrelevant? Surely it is relevant if he can't physically fit through the window that they say he used on the night?
-
Not as far as I am concerned.
I thought Jeremy's supporters say Sheila could shoot herself twice.
-
Oh so now Jeremy can't fit through windows. Although he told the police and courts he could.
-
April, can you explain what you mean by which window is Irrelevant? Surely it is relevant if he can't physically fit through the window that they say he used on the night?
I believe the court said that it wasn't necessary to prove that he DID(climb through a window) only that he COULD and we know he could because he SAID he previously had..................and did. Something about a passport?
-
I thought Jeremy's supporters say Sheila could shoot herself twice.
That is a possibility, it does happen.
It is the absurdity in Jeremy shooting her twice , then staging it as suicide that gets to me. Further, that he "hid" the silencer with blood and paint on it after something that must have made him extremely nervous and extra cautious. Then make a phonecall , which implicated him or Sheila, no possibility that anyone else had done it.
It all makes no sense whatsoever to me.
-
I am no expert on suicides or guns.
If someone said to me a person committed suicide by shooting themselves twice with a weak rifle, I would find it believable.
The first shot with a weak rifle didn't kill the person. The person who wanted to commit suicide then managed to fire a second shot.
Statistics back this up, as two shot suicides have happened.
A three or four shot suicide is unbelievable.
-
Jeremy had either read up about two shot suicides and knew it was possible. Or used common sense and assumed it would be believable that Sheila had shot herself twice with a weak rifle.
Either way he was not going deviate radically from the plan he had spent a long time on, at the last minute. After having to fire a second shot. The fake random burglar or psychopath options are both non starters.
-
That is a possibility, it does happen.
It is the absurdity in Jeremy shooting her twice , then staging it as suicide that gets to me. Further, that he "hid" the silencer with blood and paint on it after something that must have made him extremely nervous and extra cautious. Then make a phonecall , which implicated him or Sheila, no possibility that anyone else had done it.
It all makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Your claims make no sense to me, the jury the courts or a majority of people so that leaves you in the minority.
You failed to address the rebuttal to your claim which is that if he just left the house they would have known for sure he did it because no burglar would stick around to kill everyone in their sleep they would at most kill those who caught them then flee not reload in the kitchen then go back upstairs to look for more victims to kill. It is your position that is absurd.
Your absurd position is that he would abandon his lengthy planning of framing his sister and just pray police would not suspect him though no one except him would prosper from the executions and also that Julie is lying, the lab, police and family all got together to lie and fake evidence in the most wide ranging conspiracy in UK history without any evidence of such a conspiracy surfacing so Jeremy can't prove it even though it happened.
Logically what is more likely Jeremy continuing with his plan to frame Sheila or the most wide ranging conspiracy in UK history?
Those who compared you to Spock were way off base... You are guided by emotion not logic.
-
The silencer was hidden away. There was no reason why the police would find it. Thread already created.
The phone call to the police insinuating Sheila was his best option. Rather than being first on the scene at 7.30am. Lots of threads created.
-
That is a possibility, it does happen.
It is the absurdity in Jeremy shooting her twice , then staging it as suicide that gets to me. Further, that he "hid" the silencer with blood and paint on it after something that must have made him extremely nervous and extra cautious. Then make a phonecall , which implicated him or Sheila, no possibility that anyone else had done it.
It all makes no sense whatsoever to me.
No matter what you believe, it was Jeremy who limited the culprit to being either him or Sheila.
-
I believe the court said that it wasn't necessary to prove that he DID(climb through a window) only that he COULD and we know he could because he SAID he previously had..................and did. Something about a passport?
f. Yes I am aware of that . He said he had gone in and out of windows but never said one could be locked from the outside. That is why the courts said it did not have to be proven. Which means it never was. What I was saying is if they said one particular window was used for the exit , it would be relevant if he could not physically get out of that particular window.
-
Jeremy had either read up about two shot suicides and knew it was possible. Or used common sense and assumed it would be believable that Sheila had shot herself twice with a weak rifle.
Either way he was not going deviate radically from the plan he had spent a long time on, at the last minute. After having to fire a second shot. The fake random burglar or psychopath options are both non starters.
I doubt he would have known about it and even if he did, it would have made him cautious and not toss a bloodied silencer into the cupboard.
He would also have known by the time he shot Sheila just how weak that rifle was. Both June and Nevill were up and about after having received several shots.
I think he would have picked the stronger firearm that was at the farm to kill Sheila with one shot.
-
Oh so now Jeremy can't fit through windows. Although he told the police and courts he could.
.
Read what I said. Before making rash comments.
-
.
Read what I said. Before making rash comments.
He doesn´t read what I write either, so...
-
f. Yes I am aware of that . He said he had gone in and out of windows but never said one could be locked from the outside. That is why the courts said it did not have to be proven. Which means it never was. What I was saying is if they said one particular window was used for the exit , it would be relevant if he could not physically get out of that particular window.
He could get out of kitchen windows. It's in the police interview transcripts.
Even the OS and Jeremy do not argue this. Preferring to focus on Neville's call to the police. Oh dear.
-
He doesn´t read what I write either, so...
I think he would have got stuck in that rubbery wetsuit anyway :)
-
f. Yes I am aware of that . He said he had gone in and out of windows but never said one could be locked from the outside. That is why the courts said it did not have to be proven. Which means it never was. What I was saying is if they said one particular window was used for the exit , it would be relevant if he could not physically get out of that particular window.
Are you saying that although he was found guilty, if the court said he got out of window A but it was discovered that he must have used window B because he couldn't fit through window A, the court's decision would have to be reversed?
-
f. Yes I am aware of that . He said he had gone in and out of windows but never said one could be locked from the outside. That is why the courts said it did not have to be proven. Which means it never was. What I was saying is if they said one particular window was used for the exit , it would be relevant if he could not physically get out of that particular window.
The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt how he entered and exited because the only elements that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are the essential elements of the crime. All other issues including motive need only be established by a preponderance. The family testified they were able to lock the kitchen window from the outside and a cop (Barlow) had the family demonstrate to him how it was able to be accomplished. Showing he had the ability to get in and out was all they needed to prove, not to prove he definitely used a particular window or door.
-
I doubt he would have known about it and even if he did, it would have made him cautious and not toss a bloodied silencer into the cupboard.
He would also have known by the time he shot Sheila just how weak that rifle was. Both June and Nevill were up and about after having received several shots.
I think he would have picked the stronger firearm that was at the farm to kill Sheila with one shot.
So Sheila in her rage changed guns. After her two re loads of course.
Two shot suicides happen. Especially with weak rifles. Jeremy either knew or suspected this. Anyway he had to fire a second shot to kill her.
-
He doesn´t read what I write either, so...
NO, Scipio is probably the only one of us he doesn't have on ignore.......................'course, what he doesn't realize is that most of us probably have HIM on ignore :D
-
What I find telling is that guilters were perfectly willing to accept that Jeremy could have ecited through that little window - nothing else. What other absurdities are guilters willing to accept? A two shot murder staged as a suicide to name one. ;)
-
I keep seeing this thing about "weak" rifles!!!!!!! It implies that it isn't worth giving house room to OR it's something you'd buy for a child to practice with!!! FFS!!! IT KILLED 5 PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I doubt he would have known about it and even if he did, it would have made him cautious and not toss a bloodied silencer into the cupboard.
He would also have known by the time he shot Sheila just how weak that rifle was. Both June and Nevill were up and about after having received several shots.
I think he would have picked the stronger firearm that was at the farm to kill Sheila with one shot.
Yeah cause a crazy Sheila bent on killing everyone and herself would suddenly calm down rationally consider that the Aschutz might be too weak for 1 shot to kill her so made the decision to go seek out the 12 bore because she believed it would have a better chance of killing her on the first shot....
His goal was to frame a crazy SHeila
-
Are you saying that although he was found guilty, if the court said he got out of window A but it was discovered that he must have used window B because he couldn't fit through window A, the court's decision would have to be reversed?
No. What I am saying is that I find it very hard to understand that ruling . However many times I read it I don't really get it. As far as I can see that are admitting it was never proven a window could be or was locked from the outside on the night. And they did indicate that a certain window "could" have been the one used. But if he could not have got out of that window then why was that not queried.
-
What I find telling is that guilters were perfectly willing to accept that Jeremy could have ecited through that little window - nothing else. What other absurdities are guilters willing to accept? A two shot murder staged as a suicide to name one. ;)
I'm willing to accept he got out through A window and I don't think that's any more absurd than your suggestion that he could have made the crime scene look like a botched burglary.
-
What I find telling is that guilters were perfectly willing to accept that Jeremy could have ecited through that little window - nothing else. What other absurdities are guilters willing to accept? A two shot murder staged as a suicide to name one. ;)
You have to accept Jeremy is guilty Alias. Changing stance is hard but will make you look better than continuing to argue Bamber's innocence. April, Caroline and Susan all realised this after I joined.
You tried explaining how Sheila committed the massacre several months ago. It was ripped apart.
I commend you for trying. You wisely didn't resubmit when I provided the recent deadline. Lookout and Jan also wisely declined. Only David tried. Twice. Both summaries being ripped apart.
Now you are just arguing one point. That Sheila could have committed suicide herself with two shots. But Jeremy was stupid to attempt a framing attempt after two shots. So contradicting yourself.
-
Which brings me to this very sensitive question. Why,after" knowing" for a year that you had it in mind to kill the family,would your chosen weapon be a .22 rifle. ?
He had ample time to purchase or obtain a handgun.
-
No. What I am saying is that I find it very hard to understand that ruling . However many times I read it I don't really get it. As far as I can see that are admitting it was never proven a window could be or was locked from the outside on the night. And they did indicate that a certain window "could" have been the one used. But if he could not have got out of that window then why was that not queried.
Heheheee :D THANKFULLY, I'm not a law maker. I agree that the court didn't seem interested in the minutiae, BUT.....................if YOU were the one trying to get justice, would you be worried about it?
-
The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt how he entered and exited because the only elements that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are the essential elements of the crime. All other issues including motive need only be established by a preponderance. The family testified they were able to lock the kitchen window from the outside and a cop (Barlow) had the family demonstrate to him how it was able to be accomplished. Showing he had the ability to get in and out was all they needed to prove, not to prove he definitely used a particular window or door.
but in court Barlow said there was nothing unusual about the window he never said under oath that he saw the window being locked from the outside. And even if it could then if it was that small window that he got out of could he have physically done that ? Or are you saying he got through the bigger window then balanced and reached through the top window , closed the bottom one while hanging out of the window . Then lock
Ed the top one.?
-
Which brings me to this very sensitive question. Why,after" knowing" for a year that you had it in mind to kill the family,would your chosen weapon be a .22 rifle. ?
He had ample time to purchase or obtain a handgun.
Where do you think Sheila would have got a hand gun from?
-
Heheheee :D THANKFULLY, I'm not a law maker. I agree that the court didn't seem interested in the minutiae, BUT.....................if YOU were the one trying to get justice, would you be worried about it?
no but if I was his defence I would have asked for a visit to the farm to physically see the window and if there was only that window that could be locked from the outside I would have then asked to see a person of his size get through it, because it is vital to the case. In my humble opinion.
-
Which brings me to this very sensitive question. Why,after" knowing" for a year that you had it in mind to kill the family,would your chosen weapon be a .22 rifle. ?
He had ample time to purchase or obtain a handgun.
There would be records of him buying it and a little thing called a licence and how would he be able to blame Sheila?
-
but in court Barlow said there was nothing unusual about the window he never said under oath that he saw the window being locked from the outside. And even if it could then if it was that small window that he got out of could he have physically done that ? Or are you saying he got through the bigger window then balanced and reached through the top window , closed the bottom one while hanging out of the window . Then lock
Ed the top one.?
You go there girl.
Angela Lansbury would never accept 16 primary and secondary sources. And neither should you.
-
no but if I was his defence I would have asked for a visit to the farm to physically see the window and if there was only that window that could be locked from the outside I would have then asked to see a person of his size get through it, because it is vital to the case. In my humble opinion.
Which makes me wonder what did they really believe. Perhaps they thought the game was up.
-
Where do you think Sheila would have got a hand gun from?
I'm actually referring to Jeremy,as according to JM,he'd planned this months ahead.
-
no but if I was his defence I would have asked for a visit to the farm to physically see the window and if there was only that window that could be locked from the outside I would have then asked to see a person of his size get through it, because it is vital to the case. In my humble opinion.
Because if someone his size could get through it, where would that leave them?
-
Which makes me wonder what did they really believe. Perhaps they thought the game was up.
Surely as he was paying them to defend him they should have done this to the best of their ability and followed up every lead . I don't believe it was their place to make personal decisions, it had nothing to do with what they did or didn't believe on a personal basis, that should have been irrelevant.
-
Adam we humble posters have so much to thank you for we would be stumbling along looking quite foolish had you not come along.
-
Surely as he was paying them to defend him they should have done this to the best of their ability and followed up every lead . I don't believe it was their place to make personal decisions, it had nothing to do with what they did or didn't believe on a personal basis, that should have been irrelevant.
They have to think of consequences. If they did the exercise of asking someone his size to get through the window and they managed it - it would have done JB more harm than good.
-
Adam we humble posters have so much to thank you for we would be stumbling along looking quite foolish had you not come along.
LOOOOOL!!!
-
I'm actually referring to Jeremy,as according to JM,he'd planned this months ahead.
But he was planning it to look as if Sheila had done it. If he'd bought a hand gun, applied for the licence, etc. how could he have explained Sheila getting hold of it, HIS gun OR how would he have explained Sheila BUYING the gun?
-
Surely as he was paying them to defend him they should have done this to the best of their ability and followed up every lead . I don't believe it was their place to make personal decisions, it had nothing to do with what they did or didn't believe on a personal basis, that should have been irrelevant.
I'm fairly certain that there's a certain amount of collusion between Crown and Defence counsel, and I'm equally certain that despite it being their job to defend, Defence have a pretty good picture of who's innocent and who's guilty.
-
But he was planning it to look as if Sheila had done it. If he'd bought a hand gun, applied for the licence, etc. how could he have explained Sheila getting hold of it, HIS gun OR how would he have explained Sheila BUYING the gun?
Well seeing as he got around everything else,he'd have got by with that as well. Then it could have been added to the rest of the " evidence " they got him on. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well seeing as he got around everything else,he'd have got by with that as well. Then it could have been added to the rest of the " evidence " they got him on. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I rather think you're applying your own take on it, Lookout. Let's just say that NOT trying to purchase a hand gun, apply for a licence and try to make it look as if Sheila owned it, is something he DIDN'T have to get round. In fact, his plan was so BEAUTIFULLY simple and WORKABLE that I'm astounded how those of you who think he's innocent, try to complicate things by making them more difficult for him to achieve. :D
-
I rather think you're applying your own take on it, Lookout. Let's just say that NOT trying to purchase a hand gun, apply for a licence and try to make it look as if Sheila owned it, is something he DIDN'T have to get round. In fact, his plan was so BEAUTIFULLY simple and WORKABLE that I'm astounded how those of you who think he's innocent, try to complicate things by making them more difficult for him to achieve. :D
So we all think he should have bought a handgun even though one person wrote it, is that what you are saying?
-
I rather think you're applying your own take on it, Lookout. Let's just say that NOT trying to purchase a hand gun, apply for a licence and try to make it look as if Sheila owned it, is something he DIDN'T have to get round. In fact, his plan was so BEAUTIFULLY simple and WORKABLE that I'm astounded how those of you who think he's innocent, try to complicate things by making them more difficult for him to achieve. :D
I wouldn't dream of complicating matters. I'm just filling in where applicable in stating that Jeremy could have chosen something else other than a .22 rifle which is commonly used for killing vermin. Because my question wasn't suitably answered,I decided to add my own take on an alternative weapon.
-
I wouldn't dream of complicating matters. I'm just filling in where applicable in stating that Jeremy could have chosen something else other than a .22 rifle which is commonly used for killing vermin. Because my question wasn't suitably answered,I decided to add my own take on an alternative weapon.
So let's suppose that SOMEHOW he got a hand gun. HOW was he going to explain that Sheila knew how to use if. This was never about Jeremy. It had to be made to look as if Sheila had done it. WHY would Sheila, who apparently wouldn't let her boys play with toy guns, bring a REAL one to WHF?
-
So let's suppose that SOMEHOW he got a hand gun. HOW was he going to explain that Sheila knew how to use if. This was never about Jeremy. It had to be made to look as if Sheila had done it. WHY would Sheila, who apparently wouldn't let her boys play with toy guns, bring a REAL one to WHF?
There was a toy gun in the living room at the WHF, I don´t think Nevill played with it.
-
There was a toy gun in the living room at the WHF, I don´t think Nevill played with it.
She may not have had much control over what other people gave them OR she gave in OR like some other things said/written here, "it ain't necessarily so"
-
She may not have had much control over what other people gave them OR she gave in OR like some other things said/written here, "it ain't necessarily so"
Neither is that Sheila didn´t want them to play with toyguns.
-
So let's suppose that SOMEHOW he got a hand gun. HOW was he going to explain that Sheila knew how to use if. This was never about Jeremy. It had to be made to look as if Sheila had done it. WHY would Sheila, who apparently wouldn't let her boys play with toy guns, bring a REAL one to WHF?
What difference would anything have made ? As things stood, the shooting of Sheila was made to look like suicide,but it didn't work and wouldn't have worked whatever weapon had been used. Jeremy was the target and that's where the fixation ended.
I wonder if the toy gun was fingerprinted ? I've always wondered, seeing as it was a forbidden toy.
-
What difference would anything have made ? As things stood, the shooting of Sheila was made to look like suicide,but it didn't work and wouldn't have worked whatever weapon had been used. Jeremy was the target and that's where the fixation ended.
I wonder if the toy gun was fingerprinted ? I've always wondered, seeing as it was a forbidden toy.
OK. How was Jeremy going to persuade Nevill to buy him a hand gun? What reason would he have given for wanting one? The firearms were licenced in Nevill's name, not Jeremy's. "As things stood" Sheila went mad, picked up the rifle Jeremy had "inadvertently" left where she could easily get at it, and shot the family.
-
OK. How was Jeremy going to persuade Nevill to buy him a hand gun? What reason would he have given for wanting one? The firearms were licenced in Nevill's name, not Jeremy's. "As things stood" Sheila went mad, picked up the rifle Jeremy had "inadvertently" left where she could easily get at it, and shot the family.
He wouldn't have told his father for a start.He'd have bought one from London from any dodgy dealer.That would have been no problem obtaining one at all. The rest he'd have worked out and found a way being as he was a " manipulator " .
-
He wouldn't have told his father for a start.He'd have bought one from London from any dodgy dealer.That would have been no problem obtaining one at all. The rest he'd have worked out and found a way being as he was a " manipulator " .
How was he going to explain how Sheila managed to know enough about how it worked to shoot the whole family and then herself because the bottom line is that it HAD to appear as if she'd done it. YOU may think that surreptitiously buying a hand gun to blast his family with would have been a better option for Jeremy but I think it would have involved MUCH which was unnecessary.
-
He wouldn't have told his father for a start.He'd have bought one from London from any dodgy dealer.That would have been no problem obtaining one at all. The rest he'd have worked out and found a way being as he was a " manipulator " .
We are entering the realms of fantasy.
-
but in court Barlow said there was nothing unusual about the window he never said under oath that he saw the window being locked from the outside. And even if it could then if it was that small window that he got out of could he have physically done that ? Or are you saying he got through the bigger window then balanced and reached through the top window , closed the bottom one while hanging out of the window . Then lock
Ed the top one.?
I can't understand why anyone would have to climb out of the small, top window if it was possible to close the bottom window by standing on the window ledge and reaching through the skylight to close it, I don't see how the skylight or top smaller window could be locked from the outside having grown up in a house with similar windows. I would say its impossible to get the arm to fall down and lock onto the connection which holds the window closed. :-\
-
I can't understand why anyone would have to climb out of the small, top window if it was possible to close the bottom window by standing on the window ledge and reaching through the skylight to close it, I don't see how the skylight or top smaller window could be locked from the outside having grown up in a house with similar windows. I would say its impossible to get the arm to fall down and lock onto the connection which holds the window closed. :-\
I don't think that the prosecution had to prove how Jeremy entered and left WHF, just that it was possible to do so and Jeremy had already admitted it was.
-
I can't understand why anyone would have to climb out of the small, top window if it was possible to close the bottom window by standing on the window ledge and reaching through the skylight to close it, I don't see how the skylight or top smaller window could be locked from the outside having grown up in a house with similar windows. I would say its impossible to get the arm to fall down and lock onto the connection which holds the window closed. :-\
It has been cleared up that that was not the window in question, but one of the lower windows.
The point I was trying to make was that guilters were perfectly willing to believe that the upper window was the one Jeremy exited through.
-
He wouldn't have told his father for a start.He'd have bought one from London from any dodgy dealer.That would have been no problem obtaining one at all. The rest he'd have worked out and found a way being as he was a " manipulator " .
You're bending over backwards there Lookout.
I agree, fantasy.
It has been cleared up that that was not the window in question, but one of the lower windows.
The point I was trying to make was that guilters were perfectly willing to believe that the upper window was the one Jeremy exited through.
I've always thought it was one in the kitchen - I don't know if that was the one used or not. Either way, BAMBER said he could do it.
-
You're bending over backwards there Lookout.
I agree, fantasy.
I've always thought it was one in the kitchen - I don't know if that was the one used or not. Either way, BAMBER said he could do it.
Oh dear! Was it NOT the one in the kitchen ;)?
-
You're bending over backwards there Lookout.
I agree, fantasy.
I've always thought it was one in the kitchen - I don't know if that was the one used or not. Either way, BAMBER said he could do it.
I remember people thinking it was the narrow one on top.
-
Oh dear! Was it NOT the one in the kitchen ;)?
I think it was Apes, not sure what guilters are being accused of this time but Bamber says he could do it. Maybe Jeremy was lying!!
-
I think it was Apes, not sure what guilters are being accused of this time but Bamber says he could do it. Maybe Jeremy was lying!!
Surely not? ;D
-
I think it was Apes, not sure what guilters are being accused of this time but Bamber says he could do it. Maybe Jeremy was lying!!
Far as I'm concerned, Mat, the guy says he got though a window in the past which would seem to mean he could get through a window in the present and didn't he prove it by getting in AFTER the massacres. We shouldn't be TOO hasty in calling him a liar, perhaps :)
-
Now we are at the window - what are your thoughts on the following?
Colin´s book, page 173:
"I learnt another surprising story that afternoon. Apparently, only weeks after the shootings, while the family were all at Whitehouse trying to decide which window Jeremy had used to get out, a robin flew in through the back door and landed on the kitchen window-sill.
When Anthony tried to capture it and put it outside, the robin flew past the open door and landed by the scullery window - the other one they had been debating over. On each attempt to catch it the robin flew past the open door and back to the other window-sill. This kept happening until someone voiced the opinion that it might be trying to help them come to a decision. At this point, the robin "left its signature" on the kitchen window-sill and finally allowed Anthony to pick it up and put it outside."
"The really strange thing was," said Anthony, "that after all that chasing, it didn´t struggle in my hands.""
And:
More the family told Colin about a robin, page 193:
"On the morning of the first day of the trial, a robin flew into the house of Karen and David Boutflour. They found it in their living room, singing on top of a glass display cabinet which contained a porcelain robin given to them by Ina and Anthony Pargeter - in memory of their shared earlier experiences."
-
I know it's fantasy.I did it on purpose. ::) I actually found it difficult to make something up,rather than it be factual.
-
Now we are at the window - what are your thoughts on the following?
Colin´s book, page 173:
"I learnt another surprising story that afternoon. Apparently, only weeks after the shootings, while the family were all at Whitehouse trying to decide which window Jeremy had used to get out, a robin flew in through the back door and landed on the kitchen window-sill.
When Anthony tried to capture it and put it outside, the robin flew past the open door and landed by the scullery window - the other one they had been debating over. On each attempt to catch it the robin flew past the open door and back to the other window-sill. This kept happening until someone voiced the opinion that it might be trying to help them come to a decision. At this point, the robin "left its signature" on the kitchen window-sill and finally allowed Anthony to pick it up and put it outside."
"The really strange thing was," said Anthony, "that after all that chasing, it didn´t struggle in my hands.""
And:
More the family told Colin about a robin, page 193:
"On the morning of the first day of the trial, a robin flew into the house of Karen and David Boutflour. They found it in their living room, singing on top of a glass display cabinet which contained a porcelain robin given to them by Ina and Anthony Pargeter - in memory of their shared earlier experiences."
Hog wash.
-
I know it's fantasy.I did it on purpose. ::) I actually found it difficult to make something up,rather than it be factual.
You don't usually have any problems? (soz! Couldn't resist ;D)
-
Now we are at the window - what are your thoughts on the following?
Colin´s book, page 173:
"I learnt another surprising story that afternoon. Apparently, only weeks after the shootings, while the family were all at Whitehouse trying to decide which window Jeremy had used to get out, a robin flew in through the back door and landed on the kitchen window-sill.
When Anthony tried to capture it and put it outside, the robin flew past the open door and landed by the scullery window - the other one they had been debating over. On each attempt to catch it the robin flew past the open door and back to the other window-sill. This kept happening until someone voiced the opinion that it might be trying to help them come to a decision. At this point, the robin "left its signature" on the kitchen window-sill and finally allowed Anthony to pick it up and put it outside."
"The really strange thing was," said Anthony, "that after all that chasing, it didn´t struggle in my hands.""
And:
More the family told Colin about a robin, page 193:
"On the morning of the first day of the trial, a robin flew into the house of Karen and David Boutflour. They found it in their living room, singing on top of a glass display cabinet which contained a porcelain robin given to them by Ina and Anthony Pargeter - in memory of their shared earlier experiences."
Oh you're mocking the Robin again? ::)
What does that have to do with anything? It obviously wasn't used in court - it didn't form any part of the case it's just something Colin, a man who had his children slaughtered, wrote in HIS book. Of course I don't believe it.
-
Now we are at the window - what are your thoughts on the following?
Colin´s book, page 173:
"I learnt another surprising story that afternoon. Apparently, only weeks after the shootings, while the family were all at Whitehouse trying to decide which window Jeremy had used to get out, a robin flew in through the back door and landed on the kitchen window-sill.
When Anthony tried to capture it and put it outside, the robin flew past the open door and landed by the scullery window - the other one they had been debating over. On each attempt to catch it the robin flew past the open door and back to the other window-sill. This kept happening until someone voiced the opinion that it might be trying to help them come to a decision. At this point, the robin "left its signature" on the kitchen window-sill and finally allowed Anthony to pick it up and put it outside."
"The really strange thing was," said Anthony, "that after all that chasing, it didn´t struggle in my hands.""
And:
More the family told Colin about a robin, page 193:
"On the morning of the first day of the trial, a robin flew into the house of Karen and David Boutflour. They found it in their living room, singing on top of a glass display cabinet which contained a porcelain robin given to them by Ina and Anthony Pargeter - in memory of their shared earlier experiences."
Thanks for stirring my memory. I'd always recalled it as Colin being there. Seems he was only told about it. D'ya think they had him down as an esoteric ejit ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh you're mocking the Robin again? ::)
What does that have to do with anything? It obviously wasn't used in court - it didn't form any part of the case it's just something Colin, a man who had his children slaughtered, wrote in HIS book. Of course I don't believe it.
So you think Colin made this up?
P.S. I do feel the contempt and dislike in your posts. ;)
-
Adam we humble posters have so much to thank you for we would be stumbling along looking quite foolish had you not come along.
I remember reading the words 'poor Jeremy' a lot when first reading. Not anymore.
-
So you think Colin made this up?
Of course he didn't make it up, he is simply repeating what he was told by the family.
-
You don't usually have any problems? (soz! Couldn't resist ;D)
That's because I don't normally make things up-----------touché. ;D
-
That's because I don't normally make things up-----------touché. ;D
Of course not (cough!).
-
Why are people bringing up a hand gun ?
If it was Jeremy's it would be at his cottage. Not left in the WHF kitchen after he went out to shoot rabbits.
-
So you think Colin made this up?
Do I think Colin made it up??I don't know if you've read what you posted, but Colin wasn't there for the first part.
The second part..No, but I think in the aftermath of his children being murdered he was seeing things through a haze and may have taken a robin as a sign. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, people can believe what they like even if there is no proof/logical reason...happens on here!
That's because I don't normally make things up-----------touché. ;D
I think that depends on who you ask. ;D
-
Why are people bringing up a hand gun ?
If it was Jeremy's it would be at his cottage. Not left in the WHF kitchen after he went out to shoot rabbits.
'People'? I think you'll find it was one person.
-
'People'? I think you'll find it was one person.
Ann Eaton did testify that Jeremy enquired about buying a five bullet shot gun. Thread already created.
-
Now we are at the window - what are your thoughts on the following?
Colin´s book, page 173:
"I learnt another surprising story that afternoon. Apparently, only weeks after the shootings, while the family were all at Whitehouse trying to decide which window Jeremy had used to get out, a robin flew in through the back door and landed on the kitchen window-sill.
When Anthony tried to capture it and put it outside, the robin flew past the open door and landed by the scullery window - the other one they had been debating over. On each attempt to catch it the robin flew past the open door and back to the other window-sill. This kept happening until someone voiced the opinion that it might be trying to help them come to a decision. At this point, the robin "left its signature" on the kitchen window-sill and finally allowed Anthony to pick it up and put it outside."
"The really strange thing was," said Anthony, "that after all that chasing, it didn´t struggle in my hands.""
And:
More the family told Colin about a robin, page 193:
"On the morning of the first day of the trial, a robin flew into the house of Karen and David Boutflour. They found it in their living room, singing on top of a glass display cabinet which contained a porcelain robin given to them by Ina and Anthony Pargeter - in memory of their shared earlier experiences."
Mmmm. Not sure whether this is the 17th source about the kitchen window. Another primary one as well.
Colin is confirming the relatives went to WHF to test the windows.
Thank you Alias
-
Of course not (cough!).
At least I didn't make up the bike and wetsuit.PMSL. ::)
-
Far as I'm concerned, Mat, the guy says he got though a window in the past which would seem to mean he could get through a window in the present and didn't he prove it by getting in AFTER the massacres. We shouldn't be TOO hasty in calling him a liar, perhaps :)
He and some of his relatives climbed through windows to get into the house when the doors were locked and no one was home. It was common knowledge and there's nothing new about that, it's only the question of a grown man climbing through a small top window without falling on his head, really don't know how he did that or being able to secure the bottom casement by reaching through the top window to secure it. Cannot see how he could have secured the top window or skylight whichever way he exited the house. Skylights like the one in question have arms which need to slot into place. You couldn't do this by banging the window, really can't see how it could be done.
-
Do I think Colin made it up??I don't know if you've read what you posted, but Colin wasn't there for the first part.
The second part..No, but I think in the aftermath of his children being murdered he was seeing things through a haze and may have taken a robin as a sign. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, people can believe what they like even if there is no proof/logical reason...happens on here!
I think that depends on who you ask. ;D
But that is where people get it wrong, it wasn´t Colin who saw the robin as a sign, it were the relatives - they just told Colin about it.
-
At least I didn't make up the bike and wetsuit.PMSL. ::)
Neither did I ???
-
But that is where people get it wrong, it wasn´t Colin who saw the robin as a sign, it were the relatives - they just told Colin about it.
I just said that.
-
Neither did I ???
I know,but some plonker did,and some BELIEVED it. ;D ;D
-
but in court Barlow said there was nothing unusual about the window he never said under oath that he saw the window being locked from the outside. And even if it could then if it was that small window that he got out of could he have physically done that ? Or are you saying he got through the bigger window then balanced and reached through the top window , closed the bottom one while hanging out of the window . Then lock
Ed the top one.?
No he didn't. On August 20 he recorded that the family explained how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and he told them they might have to show him so he wrote in a report that he visited WHF with Ann Eaton on 8/22 and she showed him how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and wrote up a statement about it. His statements are not here on this site. The Dickinson report though notes this as does his pocketbook which is posted here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3185.0.html
(http://s10.postimg.org/6urbgl621/barlow.jpg)
Furthermore the COA decision references it:
"Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:
"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window"
There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window.
In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
He makes no suggestion of finding any entry mark associated with the bathroom window.
It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
I just said that.
No, but I suspect Mat deems me too stupid to see it. ;) The post was not aimed at you.
-
No, but I suspect Mat deems me too stupid to see that. ;) The post was not aimed at you.
You asked if Colin had made it up. I pointed out that it wasn't Colin who said it.
No he didn't. On August 20 he visited WHF and wrote in a report that he walked around the house and took a look at the windows and didn't notice anything unusual. 2 days later he went to WHF with Ann Eaton and she showed him how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and wrote up a statement about it. His statements are not here on this site. The Dickinson report though notes this as does his pocketbook which is posted here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3185.0.html
(http://s10.postimg.org/6urbgl621/barlow.jpg)
Oh a downstairs kitchen window? Thanks Scip! I feel vindicated.
-
You asked if Colin had made it up. I pointed out that it wasn't Colin who said it.
Oh a downstairs kitchen window? Thanks Scip! I feel vindicated.
You didn´t understand what I wrote - I asked if Colin made up that the relatives said this to him!
The reason you misunderstood me is because you think I am too stupid to know the content of what I post - that is where it went wrong. 8)
-
I know it's fantasy.I did it on purpose. ::) I actually found it difficult to make something up,rather than it be factual.
Phahaha
You do make me smile Lookout ;D
-
You asked if Colin had made it up. I pointed out that it wasn't Colin who said it.
Oh a downstairs kitchen window? Thanks Scip! I feel vindicated.
Yes the claim that police were unable to figure out how to lock the kitchen window from the outside was another falsehood. Naturally the statement form Barlow is not among those posted here because it would refute propaganda but the Dickinson report references what is included so it makes no difference that it isn't posted.
-
No he didn't. On August 20 he visited WHF and wrote in a report that he walked around the house and took a look at the windows and didn't notice anything unusual. 2 days later he went to WHF with Ann Eaton and she showed him how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and wrote up a statement about it. His statements are not here on this site. The Dickinson report though notes this as does his pocketbook which is posted here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3185.0.html
(http://s10.postimg.org/6urbgl621/barlow.jpg)
Stridently as I asserted that (certain types of) windows, whilst having the capability of being closed from the outside, but not locked, it seems I was wrong, however, I may yet be vindicated because Barlow adds the rider "if it was well balanced." He doesn't state how many attempts were made. No matter. Eventually it was achieved.
-
Stridently as I asserted that (certain types of) windows, whilst having the capability of being closed from the outside, but not locked, it seems I was wrong, however, I may yet be vindicated because Barlow adds the rider "if it was well balanced." He doesn't state how many attempts were made. No matter. Eventually it was achieved.
To someone who had the 'knack' it wouldn't be difficult.
-
Stridently as I asserted that (certain types of) windows, whilst having the capability of being closed from the outside, but not locked, it seems I was wrong, however, I may yet be vindicated because Barlow adds the rider "if it was well balanced." He doesn't state how many attempts were made. No matter. Eventually it was achieved.
Which window? The top skylight or the casement window?
-
Stridently as I asserted that (certain types of) windows, whilst having the capability of being closed from the outside, but not locked, it seems I was wrong, however, I may yet be vindicated because Barlow adds the rider "if it was well balanced." He doesn't state how many attempts were made. No matter. Eventually it was achieved.
This is one of those issues where propaganda was used.
The allegations before the COA pertained to the bathroom window so there was no need for the COA to bother to mention that Barlow had confirmed the kitchen window could be locked from the outside. The court simply noted he made an examination of the window not the results of his findings.
For the COLP review Barlow wrote the following:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
The defense griped because his statement only mentioned the kitchen window and they didn't know he looked at other windows till he admitted it in his COLP statement.
In any event, Jeremy supporters took the following: "Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed" and pretended this means no windows not even the kitchen could be locked from the outside but this sentence was only pertaining to sash windows not the kitchen window.
This was spread as Barlow denying that any windows could be locked from the outside though in fact in 1985 he said he found out it could be locked from the outside.
It's just one more claim that was distorted and should no longer be an issue.
-
Which window? The top skylight or the casement window?
The skylight window could only be locked from the inside and who would want to go climbing onto the roof anyway when you can just step out a ground floor window?
-
He'd have got through the casement window easily with his 6 jumpers on. ;D ;D ;D ;D Saves scraping his body.
AE would have probably told JM what to look for as regards injuries. :o
-
The skylight window could only be locked from the inside and who would want to go climbing onto the roof anyway when you can just step out a ground floor window?
I meant the top kitchen window :)
-
Yes the claim that police were unable to figure out how to lock the kitchen window from the outside was another falsehood. Naturally the statement form Barlow is not among those posted here because it would refute propaganda but the Dickinson report references what is included so it makes no difference that it isn't posted.
is it bollocks
-
is it bollocks
The claim Barlow said the kitchen window could not be locked from the outside is indeed bollocks he said iy could be and the defense failed to come up with anything that refuted such other than Jeremy claiming he was unable to do so.
-
well theres the simple fact that all the other windows could not be locked from the outside and the police said there was nothing unsaul or diffrent about that window implying that it was the same as the other windows.
-
well theres the simple fact that all the other windows could not be locked from the outside and the police said there was nothing unsaul or diffrent about that window implying that it was the same as the other windows.
False Barlow went to WHF on August 22 with Ann Eaton and she showed him how to get it to kitchen window to lock from the outside and he noted that in a statement. He didn't claim it was like all the other windows in the house. He noted it didn't have a sash lock like the rest. Numerous posts in this thread contain an attachment showing the part of the Dickinson report that mentions this do you even bother to read other poss in a thread before commenting?
-
i know that half the stuff you cliam is in the dickenson report isnt in there.
-
False Barlow went to WHF on August 22 with Ann Eaton and she showed him how to get it to kitchen window to lock from the outside and he noted that in a statement. He didn't claim it was like all the other windows in the house. He noted it didn't have a sash lock like the rest. Numerous posts in this thread contain an attachment showing the part of the Dickinson report that mentions this do you even bother to read other poss in a thread before commenting?
Did he say that in court in his evidence? Because the written document I saw did not say that?
And why did the appeal say it did not have to be proven - if it was?
And if you are referring to a particular window it was proven on then could he fit through that particular window?
-
scipio - please show me where he said in court that the window could be LOCKED( not closed ) from the outside. Show me where he swore on oath that one window that JB could physically leave through could be locked by banging the window and I will take back everything I have said about the window.
-
scipio - please show me where he said in court that the window could be LOCKED( not closed ) from the outside. Show me where he swore on oath that one window that JB could physically leave through could be locked by banging the window and I will take back everything I have said about the window.
I second that Jan as I have never seen that either.
-
I think what scipio is going to say is barlow made a "mistake" in his notes and meant to say LOCK . But if that is true and this was a VITAL piece of evidence - then he would have said when asked under oath that yes the window could Lock - he saw it with his own eyes and it was big enough for JB to get through. If he did not say that when asked - then why was that?
-
i know that half the stuff you cliam is in the dickenson report isnt in there.
a snippet of the relevant point was posed thus proving it was there in the Dickinson report as I stated. In contrast your claims invariable end up not being true, while I say can be validated. You live in bizarro world where you pretend reality is the opposite of what it is.
-
Did he say that in court in his evidence? Because the written document I saw did not say that?
And why did the appeal say it did not have to be proven - if it was?
And if you are referring to a particular window it was proven on then could he fit through that particular window?
No he didn't say anything in court about the kitchen window not being able to be locked from the outside.
-
He said it can be 'closed'. Which means not open.
-
scipio - please show me where he said in court that the window could be LOCKED( not closed ) from the outside. Show me where he swore on oath that one window that JB could physically leave through could be locked by banging the window and I will take back everything I have said about the window.
The claim was that he swore under oath that the windows of the house were all normal and could not be locked from the outside. He didn't testify to that though. I never claimed he was asked to testify under oath to the fact he was able to lock the kitchen window I just know for sure he didn't testify it couldn't be because not only would that have contradicted his statements it would have been mentioned by the courts of appeal when summarizing the evidence.
He stated in his statements the kitchen window could be locked from the outside. All the claims over the years that he said it could not be locked from the outside were lies.
-
I think what scipio is going to say is barlow made a "mistake" in his notes and meant to say LOCK . But if that is true and this was a VITAL piece of evidence - then he would have said when asked under oath that yes the window could Lock - he saw it with his own eyes and it was big enough for JB to get through. If he did not say that when asked - then why was that?
Quite clearly he meant lock by "closed". His 1985 statement stated the window lock could be made to fall and lock from the outside by tapping the window.
Post testimony of his to the court where he said the window could not be locked.
-
Adam does that mean the window would only close and not open?
-
Adam does that mean the window would only close and not open?
By open and closed he meant could be unclocked (opened) and locked (closed). That was a statement he gave to COLP. He was more precise in his 1985 statement where he indicated the locking bar could be made to fall by tapping on the window and thus it could be locked from the outside.
Jeremy supporters have never provided proof he testified in court let alone posted any transcripts. In any event they insist he testified the kitchen window was like the other windows and could not be locked from the outside though such would conflict with his 1985 statement so is not credible so they definitely need to produce proof of such before it would be believable that such occurred.
-
Closed and shut are the same thing.
A door can be closed or shut. But someone can quite easily open it.
At WHF the window being closed/shut wasn't quite as easy as a door to open. But I'm sure Jeremy and a pen knife could open it.
-
Thank you Scipio you explain it so much better than Adam. I understand now.
-
Scott Lomax was either lying or totally incompetent in his researching when he wrote the following:
"As a consequence, on 22 August 1985 Barlow inspected the kitchen window and found nothing unusual with it. The window was secure on its latch. He examined all the downstairs windows and recorded nothing that corroborates the prosecution's argument."
In a 1985 statement he indicated the kitchen window was able to be locked from the outside by tapping on it. In 1991 in a COLP statement he indicated the sash windows could be unlocked from the outside but not locked while the kitchen window could be locked from the outside.
Was he unaware of these documents thus evidence of his poor research skills or did he intentionally ignore them? Since the Dickinson report and 2002 appeal reference the statements she should have been aware of them and the Dickinson Report even notes what it said.
-
Thank you Scipio you explain it so much better than Adam. I understand now.
You mean him telling you that closed and shut are synonyms wasn't very helpful? :P
-
You mean him telling you that closed and shut are synonyms wasn't very helpful? :P
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D EXACTLY
-
No he didn't say anything in court about the kitchen window not being able to be locked from the outside.
that's not what I asked
did he say he saw proof that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside?
You said he witnessed it - so did he say that under oath in court?
-
Scott Lomax was either lying or totally incompetent in his researching when he wrote the following:
"As a consequence, on 22 August 1985 Barlow inspected the kitchen window and found nothing unusual with it. The window was secure on its latch. He examined all the downstairs windows and recorded nothing that corroborates the prosecution's argument."
In a 1985 statement he indicated the kitchen window was able to be locked from the outside by tapping on it. In 1991 in a COLP statement he indicated the sash windows could be unlocked from the outside but not locked while the kitchen window could be locked from the outside.
Can you show me where it says locked from the outside in the COLP statement - I can only see closed?
LOTS of windows can be closed from the outside - hardly any windows can be locked from the outside.
Was he unaware of these documents thus evidence of his poor research skills or did he intentionally ignore them? Since the Dickinson report and 2002 appeal reference the statements she should have been aware of them and the Dickinson Report even notes what it said.
-
that's not what I asked
did he say he saw proof that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside?
You said he witnessed it - so did he say that under oath in court?
The window could be locked by banging the latch from the outside. There is no 'proof' that is what happened, only that it 'could' have happened.
Which allowed the prosecution to consider other possible culprits.
I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand. ???
-
The window could be locked by banging the latch from the outside. There is no 'proof' that is what happened, only that it 'could' have happened.
Which allowed the prosecution to consider other possible culprits.
I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand. ???
Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.
That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.
All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.
If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.
-
that's not what I asked
did he say he saw proof that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside?
You said he witnessed it - so did he say that under oath in court?
I said he witnessed it by going there in person and personally seeing it could be locked from the outside.
He documented this in his written statements. I have not seen any evidence that establishes he testified in court. Not all those police who are involved in the case testify in court. Whether he testified or not doesn't change what he personally witnessed.
He clearly didn't testify in court that he found no evidence of the kitchen window being able to be locked from the outside which is what was suggested.
-
Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.
You are not looking for the truth you just keep making bogus claims. Produce evidence that, "when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window."
Produce a source that recounts his testimony and proves your claim to be true. If you can't do so then produce your basis for making this assertion. You don't even know for sure he testified so obviously have no business claiming he testified to that.
That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.
All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.
If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.
I have already established Barlow is an independent witness who said the window can be locked from the outside. He wrote such in a statement in 1985 which the Dickinson Report referenced (I even posted the screenshot of the exact paragraph that addressed such) and he also said it in a COLP statement which you posted.
(http://s10.postimg.org/6urbgl621/barlow.jpg)
It doesn't matter if he said it in court or not he said it in the documents in question so is an independent witness.
The only reason we are going round and round is because you and other Jeremy supporters don't want to face the fact the window could be locked from the outside.
-
Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.
That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.
All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.
If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.
Hi, Jan. Where are you getting that from? Where have you seen that trial testimony?
-
Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.
That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.
All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.
If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.
(http://s10.postimg.org/6urbgl621/barlow.jpg)
-
To further confuse matters, I understand that the side hung casement window over the kitchen sink could be used for egress, you then put your arm through the fanlight to lock the casement.
It is then the fanlight which could be locked from the outside.
-
I thought all the police at the crime scene said all the windows appeared closed.
Barlow may have said he saw nothing unusual about the windows on the night. However the Dickenson report says that he later visited WHF and saw it could be 'closed' from the outside.
The only people going around in circles are supporters. I suggested a time for closure on this issue a few months ago. There are 16 primary and secondary sources. Even Jeremy has not mentioned this in the last 30 years and there is nothing on the OS.
-
The bathroom window and the kitchen window.
The kitchen window looks very small for a man to climb through...not saying it could not be done., but what I am saying is there is no forensic evidence to support anyone going out of that window, nor is there any evidence to support the bathroom window had been used on the night.
-
The bathroom window and the kitchen window.
The kitchen window looks very small for a man to climb through...not saying it could not be done., but what I am saying is there is no forensic evidence to support anyone going out of that window, nor is there any evidence to support the bathroom window had been used on the night.
I don't think there needs to be any forensic evidence, they just had to prove it was possible and the defence didn't challenge the notion that it was - in fact Jeremy admitted that he could get into WHF. With that admission, there isn't much for the defence to argue on that score.
-
I don't think there needs to be any forensic evidence, they just had to prove it was possible and the defence didn't challenge the notion that it was - in fact Jeremy admitted that he could get into WHF. With that admission, there isn't much for the defence to argue on that score.
Agreed!
-
I don't think there needs to be any forensic evidence, they just had to prove it was possible and the defence didn't challenge the notion that it was - in fact Jeremy admitted that he could get into WHF. With that admission, there isn't much for the defence to argue on that score.
Well the defence should have made something up then. ;D ;D ;D ;D That's what court cases are for,finding things that aren't there.
The defence needed a good kick up the behind.
-
Well the defence should have made something up then. ;D ;D ;D ;D That's what court cases are for,finding things that aren't there.
The defence needed a good kick up the behind.
What could they make up when Jeremy had already said he could get in?
-
What could they make up when Jeremy had already said he could get in?
Were they all struck dumb at this point,or what ? No further questioning ?
-
Were they all struck dumb at this point,or what ? No further questioning ?
Like?
-
Hi, Jan. Where are you getting that from? Where have you seen that trial testimony?
its on the site .
-
What could they make up when Jeremy had already said he could get in?
getting in is not the point .
-
lets try this from another angle.
If it necessary if it was JB to make it look like SC had done the murders and the police confirmed all the windows were locked from the inside . So obviously if a window had been unlocked they would have known someone could have been in the house on the night and left .
Now if it was you and the only persons who said the window could have been locked from the outside were persons who may have gained ( financially or otherwise) then I think you would be trying to prove that it was not true .
I will say it again If Barlow said under oath in court he saw that window could lock from the outside then fair enough because hey did not forensically test the windows at the time so the evidence may have been lost. But I don't think he did - I will try and find the transcript.
-
getting in is not the point .
Of course it is. Once Jeremy admitted he could get in, he left the defence with no avenue. They could peruse it but would do themselves more damage. They don't have to PROVE how he got out, just show that it was possible and they did that.
-
lets try this from another angle.
If it necessary if it was JB to make it look like SC had done the murders and the police confirmed all the windows were locked from the inside . So obviously if a window had been unlocked they would have known someone could have been in the house on the night and left .
Now if it was you and the only persons who said the window could have been locked from the outside were persons who may have gained ( financially or otherwise) then I think you would be trying to prove that it was not true .
I will say it again If Barlow said under oath in court he saw that window could lock from the outside then fair enough because hey did not forensically test the windows at the time so the evidence may have been lost. But I don't think he did - I will try and find the transcript.
I agree Jan, this has always been an argument of mine. The judge said it didn't have to be proved that JB did enter the house via the window and exit the same way just that it was possible. I have never seen anywhere anything stating it was proven to be possible. As far as I can see, Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton claimed it to be possible but according to the 2002 appeal it was accepted the police never proved it was possible and although they didn't state at trial or know for an absolute fact it wasn't possible they had never proven it was possible.?? To knock a window to make an arm of an upper casement window fall down is one thing for it to lock into place and secure the window is another thing altogether and highly unlikely imo.
-
It needn't necessarily have been Jeremy who was trying to get out. When anyone is held hostage or cornered,their first thought is an escape route or at least somewhere that has an access in which to shout out of. Someone from within could have been trying to attract attention from the easiest/nearest access area that was convenient at the time.
-
I agree Jan, this has always been an argument of mine. The judge said it didn't have to be proved that JB did enter the house via the window and exit the same way just that it was possible. I have never seen anywhere anything stating it was proven to be possible. As far as I can see, Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton claimed it to be possible but according to the 2002 appeal it was accepted the police never proved it was possible and although they didn't state at trial or know for an absolute fact it wasn't possible they had never proven it was possible.?? To knock a window to make an arm of an upper casement window fall down is one thing for it to lock into place and secure the window is another thing altogether and highly unlikely imo.
Jeremy admitted he could get in and Barlow was present when the window was shown to be closed from the outside. I think this MORE than shows it was 'possible'. It didn't have to be 'proven' that he entered or left in the same manner - just that it was 'possible'. They did this and the defence didn't challenge it.
-
I agree Jan, this has always been an argument of mine. The judge said it didn't have to be proved that JB did enter the house via the window and exit the same way just that it was possible. I have never seen anywhere anything stating it was proven to be possible. As far as I can see, Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton claimed it to be possible but according to the 2002 appeal it was accepted the police never proved it was possible and although they didn't state at trial or know for an absolute fact it wasn't possible they had never proven it was possible.?? To knock a window to make an arm of an upper casement window fall down is one thing for it to lock into place and secure the window is another thing altogether and highly unlikely imo.
Jeremy said himself he could get in and out of kitchen, bathroom and scullery windows. It is in the police interview transcripts.
He also testified he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to the bathroom window. After the massacre.
This is probably why he has not brought the window issue up in his 'Campaign for Freedom'.
-
RWB found the hacksaw !
-
RWB found the hacksaw !
I think Adam means that Jeremy said he used A hacksaw, not specifically the one found outside. Not sure I have read hat myself but IF he didn't say it then he seriously dropped himself in it.
-
I agree Jan, this has always been an argument of mine. The judge said it didn't have to be proved that JB did enter the house via the window and exit the same way just that it was possible. I have never seen anywhere anything stating it was proven to be possible. As far as I can see, Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton claimed it to be possible but according to the 2002 appeal it was accepted the police never proved it was possible and although they didn't state at trial or know for an absolute fact it wasn't possible they had never proven it was possible.?? To knock a window to make an arm of an upper casement window fall down is one thing for it to lock into place and secure the window is another thing altogether and highly unlikely imo.
I remember having this argument in another case. It turned out the window was used to gain access and exit. Though this argument went on for over 10 years >:( in fact it could still be argued now.
-
It would have had to have been proved that he did so ?
-
It does seem strange that he went to the trouble of using a hacksaw to get into WHF after the massacre.
Surely it would have been easier to get the keys.
-
Well the defence should have made something up then. ;D ;D ;D ;D That's what court cases are for,finding things that aren't there.
The defence needed a good kick up the behind.
The defence should have done many things ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Like get the jury to attend the farm to see for themselves that the window could have been locked from the outside. Instead of just excepting Barlow's word for it. The defence should have pointed out to the jury that no forensic evidence was available to support anyone got in and out of the windows after two extensive forensic tests were completed before the 16th September.
It was only after the police had been told that Jeremy had stupidly gotten in one of the windows in September that a 3rd team of forensics had been sent to the farm on the 28th and 1st October. Hence the bathroom catch RWC/8 found on the 28th.
Its after the fact....The jury were not aware of all this. In order to commit a crime one has to get and out.
The fact is there was and never was any forensic evidence other than policeman saying in court that the window could be banged several times to make the latch look like it was closed from inside and the outside....One has to see these things in order to absorb...that this can be possibly and the jury never got to see this point...
-
The defence should have done many things ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Like get the jury to attend the farm to see for themselves that the window could have been locked from the outside. Instead of just excepting Barlow's word for it. The defence should have pointed out to the jury that no forensic evidence was available to support anyone got in and out of the windows after two extensive forensic tests were completed before the 16th September.
It was only after the police had been told that Jeremy had stupidly gotten in one of the windows in September that a 3rd team of forensics had been sent to the farm on the 28th and 1st October. Hence the bathroom catch RWC/8 found on the 28th.
Its after the fact....The jury were not aware of all this. In order to commit a crime one has to get and out.
The fact is there was and never was any forensic evidence other than policeman saying in court that the window could be banged several times to make the latch look like it was closed from inside and the outside....One has to see these things in order to absorb...that this can be possibly and the jury never got to see this point...
I agree Patti. That no expense should have been spared during this case,but it was for starters being held in the " hometown " of most who lived in and around that area at the time.
However,transport should ( and usually is ) have been laid on to take the jury to WHF to have got a better idea and feel of certain elements of the case to which they clearly WERE uncertain of.
-
I agree Patti. That no expense should have been spared during this case,but it was for starters being held in the " hometown " of most who lived in and around that area at the time.
However,transport should ( and usually is ) have been laid on to take the jury to WHF to have got a better idea and feel of certain elements of the case to which they clearly WERE uncertain of.
Perhaps they,the jury,could have had a good mooch around outside to see if they could find any more " clues " while they were at it !! ( being facetious ) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It would have had to have been proved that he did so ?
No, just that it was possible.
-
The bathroom window and the kitchen window.
The kitchen window looks very small for a man to climb through...not saying it could not be done., but what I am saying is there is no forensic evidence to support anyone going out of that window, nor is there any evidence to support the bathroom window had been used on the night.
Jeremy himself admitted he climbed through the kitchen and bathroom windows and even allowed himself to be seen climbing through the bathroom window. The prosecution merely needed to prove by a preponderance (50 plus anything percent so even 50.000001%) that he had the ability to get inside nothing more. There is no requirement to establish beyond a reasonable doubt which door or window he used to enter.
They produced evidence that the sash lock could be opened using a thin object, bathroom window had scratches near the sash lock, a hacksaw blade that could have been used to open the sash lock was on the ground nearby, and they had even seen Jeremy enter through this window. He admitted he had entered through it and the kitchen window thus he himself established he had the ability to unlock them from the outside and enter through them. That admission is sufficient to establish he could have entered and egressed through the windows. Evidence he exited through the kitchen window was also provided through testimony that the items usually in the sink and window were moved to the floor to make room for someone to climb out of the window. There was also evidenc eprovided that the bathroom window might not have been locked.
The evidence proving Sheila didn't kill herself and that someone else was present alone is sufficient to say someone else entered and exited. The burden is on the defense to prove such was impossible but could not meet that burden given Jeremy himself admitted his use of the windows and ability to unlock them from the outside.
The window issue was useless as far as a court defense. It was only useful out of court for trying to fool police and prosecutors into not bringing a case and similarly is being used out of court to either fool people into supporting Jeremy or used as an excuse by Jeremy supporters who can't find anything legitimate to cite.
-
The defence should have done many things ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Like get the jury to attend the farm to see for themselves that the window could have been locked from the outside. Instead of just excepting Barlow's word for it. The defence should have pointed out to the jury that no forensic evidence was available to support anyone got in and out of the windows after two extensive forensic tests were completed before the 16th September.
It was only after the police had been told that Jeremy had stupidly gotten in one of the windows in September that a 3rd team of forensics had been sent to the farm on the 28th and 1st October. Hence the bathroom catch RWC/8 found on the 28th.
Its after the fact....The jury were not aware of all this. In order to commit a crime one has to get and out.
The fact is there was and never was any forensic evidence other than policeman saying in court that the window could be banged several times to make the latch look like it was closed from inside and the outside....One has to see these things in order to absorb...that this can be possibly and the jury never got to see this point...
A cop and family members saying they were able to lock is is more than sufficient evidence for courts. If the defense had found a lock expert then they would have used one. They didn't find one because they knew it was true the window could be locked formt he outside so going to WHF so the jury coudl see it first hand would just expose the defense as worthless liars and make the issue seem even more important than it was. The fact it could not be established that the bathroom window was locked and the bedroom window was open provides alternative methods of egress.
The ability to enter despite the doors and windows being locked was the most important issue and Jeremy himself admitted he could get in through windows despite them being locked so that right there ended the defense's ability to try playing up the issue.
-
A cop and family members saying they were able to lock is is more than sufficient evidence for courts. If the defense had found a lock expert then they would have used one. They didn't find one because they knew it was true the window could be locked formt he outside so going to WHF so the jury coudl see it first hand would just expose the defense as worthless liars and make the issue seem even more important than it was. The fact it could not be established that the bathroom window was locked and the bedroom window was open provides alternative methods of egress.
The ability to enter despite the doors and windows being locked was the most important issue and Jeremy himself admitted he could get in through windows despite them being locked so that right there ended the defense's ability to try playing up the issue.
Hi Scip
I think you are missing my point of what the jury did not know at the time of trial, regarding the forensic evidence of the windows. The whole saga of the windows was one the grounds for the 2002 appeal. It was classed as new evidence.
-
It does seem strange that he went to the trouble of using a hacksaw to get into WHF after the massacre.
Surely it would have been easier to get the keys.
Did someone see him use a hacksaw or is this his account?
-
Hi Scip
I think you are missing my point of what the jury did not know at the time of trial, regarding the forensic evidence of the windows. The whole saga of the windows was one the grounds for the 2002 appeal. It was classed as new evidence.
and then dismissed.....
I think he was trying his luck with the 2002 appeal.
-
and then dismissed.....
I think he was trying his luck with the 2002 appeal.
And continues to do so.
-
He will be successful in his quest.
-
He will be successful in his quest.
His not Lancelot - just Liesalot! (soz ;))
-
His not Lancelot - just Liesalot! (soz ;))
Caroline ;D ;D ;D
-
Of course it is. Once Jeremy admitted he could get in, he left the defence with no avenue. They could peruse it but would do themselves more damage. They don't have to PROVE how he got out, just show that it was possible and they did that.
But as you said he could have been in the house all the time? So the getting in was not the problem . He had to set the scene to show it was only Sheila by LOCKING the window from the outside.
-
Hi Scip
I think you are missing my point of what the jury did not know at the time of trial, regarding the forensic evidence of the windows. The whole saga of the windows was one the grounds for the 2002 appeal. It was classed as new evidence.
The 2002 appeal didn't involve any new evidence concerning the kitchen window. It concerned alleged new evidence concerning the bathroom window.
The defense claimed that Barlow's statements made prior to trial didn't reveal he had looked at any windows on 8/22/85 other than the kitchen window which he found could be locked from the outside.
Subsequent to the trial (during the course of the COLP investigation) Barlow wrote in a statement that he looked at all the windows not just the kitchen window and noted the other windows were mostly sash type windows that could be unlocked from the outside but not locked.
The defense argued that had they been on notice that he looked at all the windows on that date then they would have argued that since he failed to note seeing any marks on the bathroom window that they would have questioned him about such.
The Court held that whether the marks were there before or after the murders makes no difference, the defendant admitted that he unlocked that window among other prior to the murders to enter the house and thus the marks had no significant impact on the issue. All that matters was whether he could get in there was no need to establish precisely which door or window he used to enter.
"The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.
It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction."
-
But as you said he could have been in the house all the time? So the getting in was not the problem . He had to set the scene to show it was only Sheila by LOCKING the window from the outside.
The fact that the defence didn't push the point about the locking of the window from the outside doesn't mean that Barlow hadn't witnessed it, it just means they didn't want to pursue it. Probably because they knew it would go no where and Barlow could testify to what he had seen.
-
I'm still waiting for Jan to provide the basis for claiming:
Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.
-
I'm still waiting for Jan to provide the basis for claiming:
I asked her too and her answer is on the other page. "It's on the site". Not sure what that means to be honest.
-
I asked her too and her answer is on the other page. "It's on the site". Not sure what that means to be honest.
it means I saw the testimony on this site - but I am struggling to find it. I will keep trying .
He was asked specifically if he went with the family and saw the window being Locked from the outside.
-
it means I saw the testimony on this site - but I am struggling to find it. I will keep trying .
He was asked specifically if he went with the family and saw the window being Locked from the outside.
Oh, I've seen very little trial testimony, especially on this site. His comments are quite clear in the screen shot that has been posted. It seems like supporters keep changing the goal posts - at first they claimed the windows hadn't been checked - when Scip finds in the Dickinson report that they actually HAD been the question is now was this testified to at trial. :-\ Seems a bit of a strange position to take to be honest.
-
Oh, I've seen very little trial testimony, especially on this site. His comments are quite clear in the screen shot that has been posted. It seems like supporters keep changing the goal posts - at first they claimed the windows hadn't been checked - when Scip finds in the Dickinson report that they actually HAD been the question is now was this testified to at trial. :-\ Seems a bit of a strange position to take to be honest.
I found the testimony from jones when he said he was present whilst the window was being tested and he never saw them try and lock it from the outside.
And you feel free to find it strange . I will find the testimony. I find it strange that the family were told very early on that the windows were secured/locked from the inside by the police and made it their mission to prove that was not true. And I found it strange that when asked outright in court the question appeared to be avoided - I am sure Barlow could have referred to his notes if he wanted to.
-
I found the testimony from jones when he said he was present whilst the window was being tested and he never saw them try and lock it from the outside.
And you feel free to find it strange . I will find the testimony. I find it strange that the family were told very early on that the windows were secured/locked from the inside by the police and made it their mission to prove that was not true. And I found it strange that when asked outright in court the question appeared to be avoided - I am sure Barlow could have referred to his notes if he wanted to.
Just for the record - if you say you've seen it. I do believe you have.
-
it means I saw the testimony on this site - but I am struggling to find it. I will keep trying .
He was asked specifically if he went with the family and saw the window being Locked from the outside.
I think you are going by allegations made by people as opposed to seeing actual testimony because nothing I have read suggests Barlow ever testified in court let alone would he deny going there with the family in light of his statement saying he did and was able to see it lock from the outside. To deny it would have been met with rigorous attack by the prosecutor in light of his statement saying otherwise.
What I have found is that many misrepresentations are taken as true by people who want to support Jeremy instead of treating allegations with caution and requiring proof.
This is what you posted in the past:
"Barlow did not say he saw the window lock from the outside - read his testimony and the 2002 appeal before you make rash statements."
The 2002 Appeal doesn't say anything about him testifying and doesn't say anything about him claiming the kitchen window could not be locked. It notes he examined the kitchen window because of claims made by the family. It didn't bother to detail his findings with respect to the kitchen window because such findings didn't matter for the appeal. The appeal concerned his examination of the bathroom window. The on;y reason to mention the kitchen window was to provide background of why he went and to assess whether something sinister was going on in failing to mention the other windows in his statement.
If he had testified then they would have been discussing his testimony as well so the lack of discussion on it suggests he didn't testify at the trial about any windows- which means he probably didn't testify at all.
-
I believe whatever Jan has to say----------full stop.
-
I think you are going by allegations made by people as opposed to seeing actual testimony because nothing I have read suggests Barlow ever testified in court let alone would he deny going there with the family in light of his statement saying he did and was able to see it lock from the outside. To deny it would have been met with rigorous attack by the prosecutor in light of his statement saying otherwise.
What I have found is that many misrepresentations are taken as true by people who want to support Jeremy instead of treating allegations with caution and requiring proof.
This is what you posted in the past:
"Barlow did not say he saw the window lock from the outside - read his testimony and the 2002 appeal before you make rash statements."
The 2002 Appeal doesn't say anything about him testifying and doesn't say anything about him claiming the kitchen window could not be locked. It notes he examined the kitchen window because of claims made by the family. It didn't bother to detail his findings with respect to the kitchen window because such findings didn't matter for the appeal. The appeal concerned his examination of the bathroom window. The on;y reason to mention the kitchen window was to provide background of why he went and to assess whether something sinister was going on in failing to mention the other windows in his statement.
If he had testified then they would have been discussing his testimony as well so the lack of discussion on it suggests he didn't testify at the trial about any windows- which means he probably didn't testify at all.
No, I agree it isn't in the 2002 appeal.
-
I found the testimony from jones when he said he was present whilst the window was being tested and he never saw them try and lock it from the outside.
And you feel free to find it strange . I will find the testimony. I find it strange that the family were told very early on that the windows were secured/locked from the inside by the police and made it their mission to prove that was not true. And I found it strange that when asked outright in court the question appeared to be avoided - I am sure Barlow could have referred to his notes if he wanted to.
Does it say he was there on 8/22 with Barlow when Barlow claims he tested the window?
-
His not Lancelot - just Liesalot! (soz ;))
Not as bad as some of the Spamalot on here. ;D ;D ;D ;D-Spinalot.
-
I found the testimony from jones when he said he was present whilst the window was being tested and he never saw them try and lock it from the outside.
And you feel free to find it strange . I will find the testimony. I find it strange that the family were told very early on that the windows were secured/locked from the inside by the police and made it their mission to prove that was not true. And I found it strange that when asked outright in court the question appeared to be avoided - I am sure Barlow could have referred to his notes if he wanted to.
That was on August 13 when 2 people hired by the defense took photos and banged on it without trying to set the latch. It wasn't on 8/22 when Barlow successfully locked it from the outside with the family. Jones' testimony about them not trying to set the latch was devastating because it completely demolished any attempt to use their examination to rebut the prosecution assertion someone could reach through and balance the catch then bang on the window to make it lock. They never even tried it so can't say it wasn't possible. So this was a victory for the prosecution.
(http://s11.postimg.org/uc6yxk26r/jonescross.jpg)
(http://s12.postimg.org/43tyf6cfh/jonesrecross.jpg)
-
Oh, I've seen very little trial testimony, especially on this site. His comments are quite clear in the screen shot that has been posted. It seems like supporters keep changing the goal posts - at first they claimed the windows hadn't been checked - when Scip finds in the Dickinson report that they actually HAD been the question is now was this testified to at trial. :-\ Seems a bit of a strange position to take to be honest.
And actually just to be pedantic in his note book he says CLOSED from the outside not secured or locked
I can do that with my windows as well .
And it was just ONE window that could look CLOSED and it was small . If he went out headfirst I would have thought he would have landed on his head :) That could have given them some clues if they had looked harder. ;D
-
Because when Barlow was asked in court did he see the window locked from the outside - he did not answer yes. He answered he saw nothing unusual about the window.
That's all I am asking because if not we have the family saying it did lock ,but no independent witness willing to swear on oath that the window they are saying was used could LOCK from the outside.
All I am looking for is the truth - we have gone round in circles on this for ever.
If Barlow did swear on oath in court he could see that window locked from the outside and JB could get through that window then I will shut up about it.
Are yu talking about Barlow or Jones?
-
And actually just to be pedantic in his note book he says CLOSED from the outside not secured or locked
I can do that with my windows as well .
And it was just ONE window that could look CLOSED and it was small . If he went out headfirst I would have thought he would have landed on his head :) That could have given them some clues if they had looked harder. ;D
He clearly used the terms open to mean able to unlock and closed to mean able to lock. He said the sash windows could not be closed from the outside but the kitchen window could be. If one doesn't understand what he meant then it is because of a lack of desire to understand.
-
Are yu talking about Barlow or Jones?
I have quite a good memory and I am sure I saw an exert of Barlows testimony - but I have to admit defeat I cant find it - from memory he did NOT answer the question directly.
I just found the testimony from Jones. He was there while the window was being tested ( could have been a different day) there were photographers there as well.- banged several times- he said he did not see it locked from the outside.
-
That was on August 13 when 2 people hired by the defense took photos and banged on it without trying to set the latch. It wasn't on 8/22 when Barlow successfully locked it from the outside with the family. Jones' testimony about them not trying to set the latch was devastating because it completely demolished any attempt to use their examination to rebut the prosecution assertion someone could reach through and balance the catch then bang on the window to make it lock. They never even tried it so can't say it wasn't possible. So this was a victory for the prosecution.
(http://s11.postimg.org/uc6yxk26r/jonescross.jpg)
(http://s12.postimg.org/43tyf6cfh/jonesrecross.jpg)
If the defence thought for one moment they had an avenue, they would have jumped all over it - in this instance they would have been mad to even contemplate it.
-
He clearly used the terms open to mean able to unlock and closed to mean able to lock. He said the sash windows could not be closed from the outside but the kitchen window could be. If one doesn't understand what he meant then it is because of a lack of desire to understand.
Obviously it's easy to lock the main casement window but I still question how anyone can lock the small window above the main window. Not arguing just saying and I might point out I have a very strong desire to understand and quite willing to accept what you say but find it hard to believe anyone could lock the top window, maybe they could let it fall to appear to be locked. :-\
-
Obviously it's easy to lock the main casement window but I still question how anyone can lock the small window above the main window. Not arguing just saying and I might point out I have a very strong desire to understand and quite willing to accept what you say but find it hard to believe anyone could lock the top window, maybe they could let it fall to appear to be locked. :-\
Hm, but as Jeremy said he could gain access -and exit- that way and actually went on to prove it in the incident with his passport, it's more about accepting it, than understanding it.
-
Hm, but as Jeremy said he could gain access -and exit- that way and actually went on to prove it in the incident with his passport, it's more about accepting it, than understanding it.
Well not really because he didn't lock it behind him, he left a note saying he had climbed through the window and out again and asked her to secure it....
-
Well not really because he didn't lock it behind him, he left a note saying he had climbed through the window and out again and asked her to secure it....
A case of Jeremy (once again) over egging. ;)
-
Well not really because he didn't lock it behind him, he left a note saying he had climbed through the window and out again and asked her to secure it....
Given the amount of plods going through the house, probably looking at all security with little more than cursory glances because they thought it was a suicide and 4 murders, it's unlikely that proper checks were done at the time. It would have been almost impossible for them to recall who checked which window and what state of closure it had been in a month earlier.
-
A case of Jeremy (once again) over egging. ;)
Yes, that episode has always raised questions in my mind but I still don't know how anyone could have locked that top window from the outside ... :'(
-
Given the amount of plods going through the house, probably looking at all security with little more than cursory glances because they thought it was a suicide and 4 murders, it's unlikely that proper checks were done at the time. It would have been almost impossible for them to recall who checked which window and what state of closure it had been in a month earlier.
confirmed by the Dickinson report the windows and doors were all noted immediately as secured from the inside except the dairy window which was covered by mesh and the upstairs window open a few inches.
We all have our differing opinions and I bow to the judgement which said nothing had to be proven ( meaning it wasn't)- however if I can been defending I would have queried the replies from Barlow and Jones and I would have asked for the jury to visit check the window and also see if that a person of JB size could get through that one window. Just saying that's all.
I am surprised the family did not just find a ladder and say he used that to exit the bedroom window.
I also find it surprising that people who think he was innocent think the silencer could be planted - but that lies could not have been told about this vital bit of evidence.
-
Obviously it's easy to lock the main casement window but I still question how anyone can lock the small window above the main window. Not arguing just saying and I might point out I have a very strong desire to understand and quite willing to accept what you say but find it hard to believe anyone could lock the top window, maybe they could let it fall to appear to be locked. :-\
Obviously the defense took closeups of the window, maybe Mike can post these photos. We would have to see them to know whether the top fanlight window had a lock. Some say it was usually left open. Since the casement window lock could not be set just by reaching inside and required the addition banging to get it to lock then logically that means one could not reach in through that window to unlock the casement window and thus locking the small fanlight would not be an issue.
-
confirmed by the Dickinson report the windows and doors were all noted immediately as secured from the inside except the dairy window which was covered by mesh and the upstairs window open a few inches.
We all have our differing opinions and I bow to the judgement which said nothing had to be proven ( meaning it wasn't)- however if I can been defending I would have queried the replies from Barlow and Jones and I would have asked for the jury to visit check the window and also see if that a person of JB size could get through that one window. Just saying that's all.
I am surprised the family did not just find a ladder and say he used that to exit the bedroom window.
I also find it surprising that people who think he was innocent think the silencer could be planted - but that lies could not have been told about this vital bit of evidence.
The Dickinson report fails to consider the possibility that was raised in court which was that the bathroom window may not have been locked. It was found unlocked though no one admitted to opening it and police had noted which windows they opened. Taff Jones' claim that they were all locked could be wrong he wasn't alive to question and he was the one who was cited for proof that the windows were all locked.
-
Obviously the defense took closeups of the window, maybe Mike can post these photos. We would have to see them to know whether the top fanlight window had a lock. Some say it was usually left open. Since the casement window lock could not be set just by reaching inside and required the addition banging to get it to lock then logically that means one could not reach in through that window to unlock the casement window and thus locking the small fanlight would not be an issue.
I agree scipio we really need more info on the kind of locks on the windows in question before we can judge.
-
Maggie just wondering if the door (new door) had a yale lock that would just lock when the door was shut did not require a key to lock it like the old style doors they were great doors for locking a person out :'(
-
I agree scipio we really need more info on the kind of locks on the windows in question before we can judge.
DCI Jones didn't challenge Barlow's findings when he reported them to him so the window must have been a nature for the claims to be true. The Dickinson Report notes that he accepted Barlow's findings and they discussed the implications and even with such findings both men still thought Sheila did it. So Barlow certainly had no reason to lie about his findings, he still agreed with DCI Jones and thought Sheila did it inspite of Jeremy being able to get out through the window then lock it from the outside.
-
DCI Jones didn't challenge Barlow's findings when he reported them to him so the window must have been a nature for the claims to be true. The Dickinson Report notes that he accepted Barlow's findings and they discussed the implications and even with such findings both men still thought Sheila did it. So Barlow certainly had no reason to lie about his findings, he still agreed with DCI Jones and thought Sheila did it inspite of Jeremy being able to get out through the window then lock it from the outside.
I don't think Barlow lied, just think it's hard to believe, let's say it surprises me :-\ :-\
-
Maggie just wondering if the door (new door) had a yale lock that would just lock when the door was shut did not require a key to lock it like the old style doors they were great doors for locking a person out :'(
Hi suse, I thought the door was bolted on the inside or the key was in the lock on the inside. Hard to remember as there were various doors, cannot remember if the door which was broken down for the raid team to enter WHF had bolts on the inside or a big key in the lock..
-
Hi suse, I thought the door was bolted on the inside or the key was in the lock on the inside. Hard to remember as there were various doors, cannot remember if the door which was broken down for the raid team to enter WHF had bolts on the inside or a big key in the lock..
In addition to their key locks, 2 of the doors had internal latches that could only be set from the inside.
For some reason the door broken down had no internal latches just a skeleton key type lock. The key was left inside of it so that it could not be unlocked from the outside. Whether the key was normally kept in the lock or Jeremy just stuck it in the lock to support his story that the doors were all locked from the inside is unknown. Jeremy claims it was always kept in the door at night but just because he claims that doesn't make it so.
-
In addition to their key locks, 2 of the doors had internal latches that could only be set from the inside.
For some reason the door broken down had no internal latches just a skeleton key type lock. The key was left inside of it so that it could not be unlocked from the outside. Whether the key was normally kept in the lock or Jeremy just stuck it in the lock to support his story that the doors were all locked from the inside is unknown. Jeremy claims it was always kept in the door at night but just because he claims that doesn't make it so.
That is true, I thought I remembered it was a big key which was supposed to be in the lock but no bolts? It was said in the past the door was bolted on the inside but is this just a myth? It was a newish door, I am sure of that and there was apparently only one key which is why the younger members of the family used to climb through various windows when June and Nevill were out and had locked the door. :-\
-
That is true, I thought I remembered it was a big key which was supposed to be in the lock but no bolts? It was said in the past the door was bolted on the inside but is this just a myth? It was a newish door, I am sure of that and there was apparently only one key which is why the younger members of the family used to climb through various windows when June and Nevill were out and had locked the door. :-\
They kept a spare of the skeleton key in the coal shed and the farm secretary, gas man and others were told of this key so obviously during the day they didn't leave the key inside the lock. The family didn't know anything about the key normally being kept in the lock because they wondered why Jeremy didn't tell police about the spare key so evidently knew about the spare key as well. It is unclear who used to use the windows to enter besides Jeremy. The spare key could be the reason why at night the key was kept in the lock since that door didn't have an internal bolt but there is no way to know for sure. I know people who have spare keys in fake rocks and they don't have anything aside from the key locks on their doors, they simply trust the people who know about the keys not to rob them or worse. How paranoid June and Nevill were is unknown.
-
AP was known to use the window as an entrance. It's documented somewhere.
-
They kept a spare of the skeleton key in the coal shed and the farm secretary, gas man and others were told of this key so obviously during the day they didn't leave the key inside the lock. The family didn't know anything about the key normally being kept in the lock because they wondered why Jeremy didn't tell police about the spare key so evidently knew about the spare key as well. It is unclear who used to use the windows to enter besides Jeremy. The spare key could be the reason why at night the key was kept in the lock since that door didn't have an internal bolt but there is no way to know for sure. I know people who have spare keys in fake rocks and they don't have anything aside from the key locks on their doors, they simply trust the people who know about the keys not to rob them or worse. How paranoid June and Nevill were is unknown.
I thought there was a mix up about the spare key because they had a new door and the key in the outhouse was for the old door not the present door. The door the raid team broke down was new.
-
I thought there was a mix up about the spare key because they had a new door and the key in the outhouse was for the old door not the present door. The door the raid team broke down was new.
That doesn't sound right why would they have stuck an old mortise lock on a new door?
-
I said he witnessed it by going there in person and personally seeing it could be locked from the outside.
He documented this in his written statements. I have not seen any evidence that establishes he testified in court. Not all those police who are involved in the case testify in court. Whether he testified or not doesn't change what he personally witnessed.
He clearly didn't testify in court that he found no evidence of the kitchen window being able to be locked from the outside which is what was suggested.
it was the main plank of the proscutions case i would of been said in court if it was true.
-
I have quite a good memory and I am sure I saw an exert of Barlows testimony - but I have to admit defeat I cant find it - from memory he did NOT answer the question directly.
I just found the testimony from Jones. He was there while the window was being tested ( could have been a different day) there were photographers there as well.- banged several times- he said he did not see it locked from the outside.
you did
-
I believe whatever Jan has to say----------full stop.
so do i.
-
No he didn't. On August 20 he recorded that the family explained how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and he told them they might have to show him so he wrote in a report that he visited WHF with Ann Eaton on 8/22 and she showed him how to lock the kitchen window from the outside and wrote up a statement about it. His statements are not here on this site. The Dickinson report though notes this as does his pocketbook which is posted here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3185.0.html
(http://s10.postimg.org/6urbgl621/barlow.jpg)
ive read the appeal documents he doesnt say that.
Furthermore the COA decision references it:
"Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:
"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window"
There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window.
In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
He makes no suggestion of finding any entry mark associated with the bathroom window.
It is also of significance that he recorded on 20 August 1985:
"They (Robert Boulflour and Ann Eaton) thought the windows could be locked from outside the premises making particular reference to the window behind the bushes by the Geese pond facing towards the tennis court".
This would appear to be the kitchen window and provides the explanation for DC Barlow's examination of the kitchen window."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
ive had a read of appeal documents he doesnt say that he says the windows could be closed from the outside but not locked.
-
ive had a read of appeal documents he doesnt say that he says the windows could be closed from the outside but not locked.
You read what appeals documents?
The Appeal Court decision doesn't address what he said about the kitchen window.
The document Jan posted was attached to his COLP statement and he used the term closed to mean could be locked and opened to mean could be unlocked.
His 1985 statement that the Dickinson Report summarizes is not on this site so you never saw it. You have nothing to contradict the Dickinspon Report's characterization of his statement.
Your record of being wrong 100% of the time is still safe.
-
You read what appeals documents?
The Appeal Court decision doesn't address what he said about the kitchen window.
The document Jan posted was attached to his COLP statement and he used the term closed to mean could be locked and opened to mean could be unlocked.
His 1985 statement that the Dickinson Report summarizes is not on this site so you never saw it. You have nothing to contradict the Dickinspon Report's characterization of his statement.
Your record of being 100% is still safe.
He's too busy taking shots at you to understand what is being talked about, sadly. Yesterday he said that you lied about what is in the Dickinson report and said that he can never find what you claim to be there....which meant he had to ignore that you'd actually posted the quotes from the Dickinson reports in the same topic he was in.
-
He's too busy taking shots at you to understand what is being talked about, sadly. Yesterday he said that you lied about what is in the Dickinson report and said that he can never find what you claim to be there....which meant he had to ignore that you'd actually posted the quotes from the Dickinson reports in the same topic he was in.
It is neither complex nor difficult to comprehend IF one actually wants to do so. Some Jeremy supporters seem to lack the desire to do so though.
The revision of the of the moderator prefix is not complex either. After they collected all items from the Eatons that had been taken from WHF it was realized the person who found all these items had been Boutflour. At that point police decided to attribute all the items to him and revised the items to DB/1-4. Since that prefix was already in use they later changed a third time to DRB/1-4. If one WANTS to understand it then one can readily do so. But many have no interest in doing so any would rather pretend that there were different moderators ignoring the other changes so not being consistent because being consistent would require claiming there were 3 different scopes, 3 different sets of rifle ammo, 3 different sets of shotgun ammo and if they were consistent the ridiculousness of their claims would be all too apparent.
-
Jeremy's supporters are really struggling.
Spending a lot of time arguing about the kitchen window. Although there are now 16 sources about this. At first claiming they were not 'primary'sources, although most are. Then making a fuss about the word used. Closed, locked, shut there really is no difference.
-
Supporters also contradict themselves when supporting Jeremy.
Highlighting that two shot suicides do happen. Then contradicting themselves by saying Jeremy would never stage a two shot suicide. Preferring to leave Sheila alive with one shot Or shoot her twice and radically change plans at the last minute to something more implausible.
Guilters agree two shot suicides may happen. Especially with a weak rifle. But believe Jeremy fired the gun. With the silencer on.
-
I have quite a good memory and I am sure I saw an exert of Barlows testimony - but I have to admit defeat I cant find it - from memory he did NOT answer the question directly.
I just found the testimony from Jones. He was there while the window was being tested ( could have been a different day) there were photographers there as well.- banged several times- he said he did not see it locked from the outside.
Jones's testimony does not say whether the other people bang locked/shut the window or not. Just that other people were carrying out the experiment.
The experiment must have worked otherwise the prosecution would not have used it in their case.
Seventeen.
-
Jeremy's supporters are really struggling.
Spending a lot of time arguing about the kitchen window. Although there are now 16 sources about this. At first claiming they were not 'primary'sources, although most are. Then making a fuss about the word used. Closed, locked, shut there really is no difference.
That is ridiculous - if I shut you in a room with no windows and close the door - can you get out?
If I lock the door from the outside - can you get out?
simple question
-
Jeremy's supporters are really struggling.
Spending a lot of time arguing about the kitchen window. Although there are now 16 sources about this. At first claiming they were not 'primary'sources, although most are. Then making a fuss about the word used. Closed, locked, shut there really is no difference.
Hi Adam, there is a great deal of difference between shut, closed and locked am surprised you don't know this. I suggest you look the meanings up and maybe check out the meaning of the word 'debate', while you're are at it.
-
That is ridiculous - if I shut you in a room with no windows and close the door - can you get out?
If I lock the door from the outside - can you get out?
simple question
Your attacks on Adam are for naught. You got everything wrong and continue to do so out of bias.
The Dickinson report clearly states that Barlow signed a statement indicating he went to the scene with the family and that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside. You tried to challenge this with the false claim that Barlow testified the windows could not be locked from the outside so the Dickinson Report claim is untrustworthy. You ended up being wrong there was no such testimony. In addition he noted in a COLP statement that he was able to lock the kitchen window from the outside. He used the word open in placed of unlock and close in place of lock. You intentionally try to pretend he just meant open and close not lock and unlock though the meaning of his words are clear.
You also tried to pretend that Jones was there at the time Barlow tested the kitchen window and even after the relevant excerpts of the testimony were posted here and it was shown that he was referring to an earlier occasion with people hired by the defense you would not acknowledge that for sure he was talking about a different incident than Barlow was.
All you are doing is demonstrating dishonesty and bias operating hand in hand. That doesn't help you in harms you and does so tremendously you should just come clean on the issue and stop trying to play games unless you want to end up with a reputation like Mike has.
-
well its up to posters to judge where the dishonesty is coming from.
-
well its up to posters to judge where the dishonesty is coming from.
Objective ones will admit it comes mainly from Jeremy's hardcore supporters and on this window issue has come from Jeremy supporters.
How can anyone try to pretend that in the following he was not talking about the windows being locked and unlocked but simply opened and closed without regard to the lock issue:
"examined all the windows most are sash type, and could be opened from the outside but could not be closed. One window in particular in the kitchen could be closed from the outside (by banging the window.)
The notion the sash windows which open up and down could not be closed from the outside by pulling the window down is absurd. Quite clearly he meant these windows could not be locked from the outside. His claim these windows could be opened from the outside quite clearly means unlocked from the outside.
His comment about banging on the kitchen window means to get it to lock. That is crystal clear in light of his 1985 statement. The Dickinson report notes what he said in that 1985 statement:
(http://s10.postimg.org/6urbgl621/barlow.jpg)
Jeremy supporters are playing games for naught.
-
i think the reason jan is scepitcal is the fact you would expect the apeal court to mention but they dont in fact they say somthing completly diffrent.
-
i think the reason jan is scepitcal is the fact you would expect the apeal court to mention but they dont in fact they say somthing completly diffrent.
Would expect an appeal court to mention what? The appeal court addresses the arguments made by the moving party (the party that is appealing) and to a lesser degree the claims by the other party.
The window issue revolved around the bathroom window not the kitchen window. The defense knew they had no argument to make with respect to the kitchen window so didn't make one.
-
the appeal did mention the kitchen window they just dident say what your saying.
one of the grounds for appeal was non disclourser about barlows notebook so yes the appeal court did cover it.
the appeal court said the windows could be closed from the outside but not locked.
so it rather strange they said that if what your saying is true.
-
the appeal did mention the kitchen window they just dident say what your saying.
The Window portion of the appeal had 3 issues:
1) "Police Sergeant Golding gave evidence that at 2.30 p.m. on 7 August he commenced to secure the ground floor and found all windows to be secure and fastened with the exception of two windows. One was in the ground floor bathroom, which was in a closed position with the catch open. He secured the window by closing the latch. The other was a transom window, which formed part of a casement type window in the kitchen. The transom window was open approximately halfway. He secured the window.
In contrast with Sergeant Golding, DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy. That statement was read to the Jury as part of the Defence case.
Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
We reject the complaint that this portion of the police report should have been disclosed. It is no more than a commentary on evidence, which had been reduced to statement form and served upon the Defence. The conflict between the two versions was there to be seen on the face of the statements (Golding p. 102) and (Jones p.987/8). This point was plainly not lost on the Defence who read the statement of Jones as part of their case and commented upon the conflict in their closing speech."
2) The second ground of complaint is that whilst the Defence were made fully aware that Scene of Crime officers carried out a thorough examination of the scene on the 8 and 9 September, the terms of reference for the search of the scene were not disclosed to them and in particular they were not told that specific attention was paid to entry and exit marks at White House Farm. The examination had not revealed any scratch marks on the bathroom window. Our attention was drawn to a case diary kept by Mr Ainsley in which was recorded under 8 September:
"Scenes of Crime to visit 9 Head Street under the command of DI Cook and White House Farm under the command of DCI Wright and to carry out a full, thorough Scene of Crime examination, fingerprints and scientific in particular in relation to entry and exit marks at White House Farm".
The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.
He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted. There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.
It was the prosecution case that the marks on the paintwork had been made by the appellant when entering the Farm during the late evening or early hours of the 6 or 7 August in order to commit the murders.
It was the defence case, revealed for the first time at trial, that the appellant made those marks following his release after Police interview on or about 16 September upon his return from London having forgotten his keys. It was of potential advantage to the defence to demonstrate that the window in question was examined on the 8, 9, or 10 September and that at that time no marks were found on the window.
There is no doubt that the prosecution did disclose the fact that a scene of crime examination did take place at White House Farm on September 8 and 9. The defence were served with statements of DS Finch, DS Lunn and DC King. A fingerprint examination took place. Carpet fibres were taken and the side lounge window was photographed and swabbed and paint samples were taken from the side lounge window. Whilst none of their statements contain any negative observations or findings, it must have been obvious to the defence team that a scene of crime investigation into points of entry and exit was in fact taking place. We agree with the submission that in the circumstances of this case negative findings might usefully have appeared in these statements although we are satisfied that no impropriety occurred. Since the prosecution knew nothing of the use said to have been made of this window by the appellant following his release from custody, they cannot have appreciated the potential importance of this evidence to the defence. We are equally satisfied that this very experienced defence team must have known by way of deduction what the general purpose of the visits were on the 8 and 9 September. However as Mr Temple concedes the time certainly came when the specific purpose of these visits became disclosable and it was so prior to trial."
3) Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:
"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window" There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window.
In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote: "22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed" He makes no suggestion of finding any entry mark associated with the bathroom window."
--------------
The issue of the kitchen window being able to be locked from the outside was totally unrelated to the 3 issues complained about by the defense.
-
There is also this comment
"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".
He makes no mention of asking her to 'close and secure the window' just that he asked he to pay solicitor bills.
-
There is also this comment
"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".
He makes no mention of asking her to 'close and secure the window' just that he asked he to pay solicitor bills.
If Jeremy had been smart and never admitted he could get in through the windows and had not allowed police to see him enter through the bathroom window then he could have argued that he did not know how to unlock the windows so that he could enter through them.
But the prosecution would still be making the argument that they figured out it could be done, that Julie among others said he knew about the windows and there was even a mark on the bathroom window latch indicating it had been "picked".
They used his other entries to say that the marks could have been made at a time different than the time of the murders. The marks really don't matter if you admit you could unlock the window and did so in the past. All that matters is Jeremy knowing he could use the window. The defense tried to minimize the damage as best they could and tried to use it to refute the significance of the mark on the latch but the damage was done simply by admitting he knew how to unlock the window and enter through it and admitting he had done so in the past.
Instead of having to rely on Julie and the family to establish he knew how to unlock the window he simply ended up admitting the point. A trial is to assess the facts in dispute. A jury looks at the evidence and assesses the facts in dispute and is to decide what the truth is. When facts are not in dispute the jury doesn't have to make a decision the decision is provided to them. On this issue the admission resulted in it being an undisputed fact Jeremy knew how to unlock the window to enter. Everything else like the marks is just window dressing (pun intended).
-
If Jeremy had been smart and never admitted he could get in through the windows and had not allowed police to see him enter through the bathroom window then he could have argued that he did not know how to unlock the windows so that he could enter through them.
But the prosecution would still be making the argument that they figured out it could be done, that Julie among others said he knew about the windows and there was even a mark on the bathroom window latch indicating it had been "picked".
They used his other entries to say that the marks could have been made at a time different than the time of the murders. The marks really don't matter if you admit you could unlock the window and did so in the past. All that matters is Jeremy knowing he could use the window. The defense tried to minimize the damage as best they could and tried to use it to refute the significance of the mark on the latch but the damage was done simply by admitting he knew how to unlock the window and enter through it and admitting he had done so in the past.
Instead of having to rely on Julie and the family to establish he knew how to unlock the window he simply ended up admitting the point. A trial is to assess the facts in dispute. A jury looks at the evidence and assesses the facts in dispute and is to decide what the truth is. When facts are not in dispute the jury doesn't have to make a decision the decision is provided to them. On this issue the admission resulted in it being an undisputed fact Jeremy knew how to unlock the window to enter. Everything else like the marks is just window dressing (pun intended).
I agree, he can't help giving out clues - he probably thought "they will believe me because a guilty man wouldn't admit to knowing how to get in". A double bluff which didn't pay off!
-
I agree, he can't help giving out clues - he probably thought "they will believe me because a guilty man wouldn't admit to knowing how to get in". A double bluff which didn't pay off!
So it would seem :o
-
"He probably thought..." is pure speculation. It is possible that he may have thought... would be more accurate as we have no idea what he thought. He may have been simply telling the truth. Having been locked out of my own house I know the only possible way in, as all the windows have bars. I also know how to get into my parents house. It's not unusual to know these things.
-
Did he have to leave a note ? No.
-
"He probably thought..." is pure speculation. It is possible that he may have thought... would be more accurate as we have no idea what he thought. He may have been simply telling the truth. Having been locked out of my own house I know the only possible way in, as all the windows have bars. I also know how to get into my parents house. It's not unusual to know these things.
As is your wild suggestion about the silencer! You don't have the monopoly on speculation ::)
-
"He probably thought..." is pure speculation. It is possible that he may have thought... would be more accurate as we have no idea what he thought. He may have been simply telling the truth. Having been locked out of my own house I know the only possible way in, as all the windows have bars. I also know how to get into my parents house. It's not unusual to know these things.
We know that he knew how to unlock the windows from outside and to climb through them because he admitted to it. That ends the ability to say he could not have gotten in on the night of the murders through the windows.
-
We know that he knew how to unlock the windows from outside and to climb through them because he admitted to it. That ends the ability to say he could not have gotten in on the night of the murders through the windows.
I don't think anyone has ever said that? He said he and other younger members of the family used to do that when they had been out late.
What he said was that no windows could be locked from the outside
-
I don't think anyone has ever said that? He said he and other younger members of the family used to do that when they had been out late.
What he said was that no windows could be locked from the outside
Perhaps he lied. Julie knew he could bang it shut.
-
I don't think anyone has ever said that? He said he and other younger members of the family used to do that when they had been out late.
What he said was that no windows could be locked from the outside
From 2002 Appeal doc
282. We must of course consider whether the combination of failing to disclose in the statements of DS Finch, DS Lunn, and DC King the fact that an examination for entry and exit marks had been carried out and the further failure in DC Barlow's statement to disclose that he had examined all the windows has adversely affected the safety of the convictions.
283. In interview the following passage appeared:
"Appellant: There are many ways to get into the house i.e. windows"
Question: "What do you mean, insecure windows?
Appellant: "Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference".
284. On the 12 September, 2 days later he was asked:
"Question: Have you ever got in a window by putting something in between the window frames, like a knife, to move the catch so you could slide the window open?
Answer: "Yes".
Question: Which window?
Answer: Downstairs toilet and lounge window".
285. Having been interviewed he was released on bail and thereafter asserts that within a day or two he went to the White House Farm and climbed in through the very downstairs toilet window and thereby provided an explanation for the marks on the window frame. This resulted in his being asked in evidence the very pertinent question whether it was unwise to go back within 2 days of being questioned about climbing in and out of the downstairs toilet window to and leave marks on that very same window in order to get into and out of the house.
286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.
288. It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction.
-
From 2002 Appeal doc
282. We must of course consider whether the combination of failing to disclose in the statements of DS Finch, DS Lunn, and DC King the fact that an examination for entry and exit marks had been carried out and the further failure in DC Barlow's statement to disclose that he had examined all the windows has adversely affected the safety of the convictions.
283. In interview the following passage appeared:
"Appellant: There are many ways to get into the house i.e. windows"
Question: "What do you mean, insecure windows?
Appellant: "Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference".
284. On the 12 September, 2 days later he was asked:
"Question: Have you ever got in a window by putting something in between the window frames, like a knife, to move the catch so you could slide the window open?
Answer: "Yes".
Question: Which window?
Answer: Downstairs toilet and lounge window".
285. Having been interviewed he was released on bail and thereafter asserts that within a day or two he went to the White House Farm and climbed in through the very downstairs toilet window and thereby provided an explanation for the marks on the window frame. This resulted in his being asked in evidence the very pertinent question whether it was unwise to go back within 2 days of being questioned about climbing in and out of the downstairs toilet window to and leave marks on that very same window in order to get into and out of the house.
286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.
288. It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction.
If someone was cynical, they might view the above as an attempt to cover his tracks ;)
-
I don't think anyone has ever said that? He said he and other younger members of the family used to do that when they had been out late.
What he said was that no windows could be locked from the outside
Getting in is the much more significant issue since the bathroom window might not have been locked and the bedroom window was open so potentially a ladder could have been used. When were police wanted to know if there was any way in he told them no he failed to disclose the window being a means of entrance until after he was witnessed entering through the window.
At any rate, his family knew about the kitchen window being able to be locked from the outside because the victims told them so clearly Jeremy knew as well and Julie stated Jeremy told her he knew about it. Their testimony is far more credible than Jeremy's denials- to someone objective anyway which rules you out.
-
From 2002 Appeal doc
282. We must of course consider whether the combination of failing to disclose in the statements of DS Finch, DS Lunn, and DC King the fact that an examination for entry and exit marks had been carried out and the further failure in DC Barlow's statement to disclose that he had examined all the windows has adversely affected the safety of the convictions.
283. In interview the following passage appeared:
"Appellant: There are many ways to get into the house i.e. windows"
Question: "What do you mean, insecure windows?
Appellant: "Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference".
284. On the 12 September, 2 days later he was asked:
"Question: Have you ever got in a window by putting something in between the window frames, like a knife, to move the catch so you could slide the window open?
Answer: "Yes".
Question: Which window?
Answer: Downstairs toilet and lounge window".
285. Having been interviewed he was released on bail and thereafter asserts that within a day or two he went to the White House Farm and climbed in through the very downstairs toilet window and thereby provided an explanation for the marks on the window frame. This resulted in his being asked in evidence the very pertinent question whether it was unwise to go back within 2 days of being questioned about climbing in and out of the downstairs toilet window to and leave marks on that very same window in order to get into and out of the house.
286. The prosecution had established conclusively and without challenge the appellant's ability to enter and leave the White House Farm when it was apparently secure from his own answers. Julie Mugford confirmed the fact. The Crown did not have the burden of proving by which window and by which mechanism the entry was made. The Crown proved capacity both to enter and leave. There was no issue. As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
287. The only way in which the window evidence could have been of importance in the jury's decision is if despite other evidence pointing to the appellant as the killer, they might have been prevented from reaching that conclusion by doubting that he could have got in and out on the night in question with the windows being found next day in the condition in which they were found. On the appellant's own admissions, no such doubt could arise.
288. It follows that any failure to disclose earlier examination of windows cannot affect the safety of this conviction.
If someone was cynical, they might view the above as an attempt to cover his tracks ;)
Seems the Judges clocked it also ;)
This is really reminding me of the behaviours of others in another case :o
-
Did he have to leave a note ? No.
Of course he did - he needed an excuse for being there and so he didn't just look 'sneaky' ;D ;D
-
Of course he did - he needed an excuse for being there and so he didn't just look 'sneaky' ;D ;D
Gosh,where would you be without having known what went on ? ;D Good job you know these things. :o
-
If the police were watching him and saw him enter the bathroom window, why didn't they see him use the hacksaw ?
Bamber said he used the hacksaw after the massacre.
-
I believe he did have to get into WHF to get items for his trip abroad. And that he left a message for BW.
A pity he didn't have a key for his own property. He could have asked SJ/AE, or BW. None of them had gone to Amsterdam or St Tropez.
-
I am surprised the prosecution claimed he used the hacksaw on the night.
It was probably used a few days before when Bamber was on the farm. To ensure a quiet entry on the night. As back up in case it was closed when he arrived at WHF. As mentioned he may have opened the bathroom window at the last supper.
-
As is your wild suggestion about the silencer! You don't have the monopoly on speculation ::)
It's up to you to tell me why my 'wild suggestion' is not possible.
-
We know that he knew how to unlock the windows from outside and to climb through them because he admitted to it. That ends the ability to say he could not have gotten in on the night of the murders through the windows.
I am not disputing JB's ability to gain entrance, that is indisputable.
-
It's up to you to tell me why my 'wild suggestion' is not possible.
It would appear that everyone else's " wild speculations " are acceptable. ::) ::)
-
There was a " to do " at that farmhouse the minute that Sheila set foot in it and I aim to find out what it was. As soon as they'd arrived,both mother and daughter were daggers drawn,and Sheila just DIDN'T want to be there.
-
It's up to you to tell me why my 'wild suggestion' is not possible.
Because it's ludicrous.
-
There was a " to do " at that farmhouse the minute that Sheila set foot in it and I aim to find out what it was. As soon as they'd arrived,both mother and daughter were daggers drawn,and Sheila just DIDN'T want to be there.
I'm intrigued to know how you think that can be achieved given that all the particents in the scenario are long gone. IMO, all you, or ANY of us can do is speculate. I agree that Sheila didn't want to be there but whether it was a case of rather not OR desperately don't want to is up for grabs.
-
I'm intrigued to know how you think that can be achieved given that all the particents in the scenario are long gone. IMO, all you, or ANY of us can do is speculate. I agree that Sheila didn't want to be there but whether it was a case of rather not OR desperately don't want to is up for grabs.
I'm going to ask Jeremy.,
-
I'm intrigued to know how you think that can be achieved given that all the particents in the scenario are long gone. IMO, all you, or ANY of us can do is speculate. I agree that Sheila didn't want to be there but whether it was a case of rather not OR desperately don't want to is up for grabs.
half the posts on here rare based on speculation.
-
half the posts on here rare based on speculation.
Speculation is what this case is about because NONE of us have the true facts.
-
you cant have a forum without speculation most of the stuff about jeremy and sheilas early life is speculation theres no undisputable proof of it.
-
Including what the relatives had to say as well ! Who DIDN'T really know the family.
-
Including what the relatives had to say as well ! Who DIDN'T really know the family.
I bet they were shocked themselves to have read certain things that were in the press,to say nothing if any of them read Colin's book !
-
I'm going to ask Jeremy.,
But unless he was there to greet Sheila and the boys when they arrived, how would he know what went on when she arrived? Also, it's very possible that Jeremy's truth will be different from what the others could tell us, IF they could.
-
well there cant be any harm in aking him.
-
well there cant be any harm in aking him.
None whatsoever. I'm just suggesting that it might be advisable to keep an open mind about the answer. If NOTHING else, it's been a very long time since it happened.
-
But unless he was there to greet Sheila and the boys when they arrived, how would he know what went on when she arrived? Also, it's very possible that Jeremy's truth will be different from what the others could tell us, IF they could.
He was working at the farm the time that his sister and twins were there. We'll just have to wait and see,won't we ?
-
It's up to you to tell me why my 'wild suggestion' is not possible.
I addressed all your babble right before being banned.
-
There was a " to do " at that farmhouse the minute that Sheila set foot in it and I aim to find out what it was. As soon as they'd arrived,both mother and daughter were daggers drawn,and Sheila just DIDN'T want to be there.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
According to Claire Powell there was,and the guilters don't lie or spin,do they ?
-
I'm actually looking for the bit where the author states that as soon as Sheila had entered the farmhouse after Colin dropped them off,her mother started on Sheila, quote," It was an unfortunate decision *,given Sheila's unpredictable moods and the tension which was liable to erupt between mother and daughter at any moment,unquote ".
* meaning the stay at WHF.
-
According to Claire Powell there was,and the guilters don't lie or spin,do they ?
The proper way to evaluate a claim in a book regardless of the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the author is whether the author explains how they know something is true and identifies a source for the claim.
If they provide no evidence then it is just an unsupported allegation as opposed to a fact. If they provide support then you can check out that support and see if it actually holds up and the claim is true.
If she identified with specificity what supposedly happened and how she found out that is one thing. To say there was some problem but she never was able to figure out what happened doesn't sound like she had much of a basis to even be asserting anything happened.
-
According to Claire Powell there was,and the guilters don't lie or spin,do they ?
How on EARTH could she POSSIBLY know? Are you really prepared to take her word for it or do you just WANT to believe her?
-
How on EARTH could she POSSIBLY know? Are you really prepared to take her word for it or do you just WANT to believe her?
Because she'd,Claire Powell,had spent quite a bit of time with the relatives,who she got to know,so presumably it could have been something which was said to Pam by June regarding the last phone call that June had before the tragedy.
-
Because it's ludicrous.
Saying it's ludicrous is not an argument. People having psychotic episodes do ludicrous things, like sometimes murdering people because they falsely perceive them as a threat. Being convinced you are going to win a Nobel prize is ludicrous but that's exactly what my cousin believed.
Ludicrousness or lack of logic, manifest to us, may be an unshakable delusion to a psychotic. Hallucinations are common. Objects may be perceived as larger or smaller than reality.
This is a quote from a medical journal:
'deficits of object-perception and spatial attention shifting are not only associated with schizophrenia, but are common to all psychosis patients. Schizophrenia patients only differed by having abnormally slow right-to-left visual field reorienting. Deficits of object-perception and spatial attention shifting are already present after recent onset of psychosis.'
-
How on EARTH could she POSSIBLY know? Are you really prepared to take her word for it or do you just WANT to believe her?
Do we believe other authors ? After all,there have been many quotes from Wilkes's book.Are we also to believe those ?
-
How on EARTH could she POSSIBLY know? Are you really prepared to take her word for it or do you just WANT to believe her?
well powell was pro guilt
-
Do we believe other authors ? After all,there have been many quotes from Wilkes's book.Are we also to believe those ?
Lookout, my take on authors is the same across the board. There ARE moments of truth -that we probably already know- but for the most part they pad out the basics with supposition and speculation to make a better story. Unless they were actually there, it's all they have at their disposal.
-
well powell was pro guilt
I don't care WHICH side she's on, Nugs. I don't believe ANY of them who tell us what happened when there is no one left alive to confirm or deny. All they're doing is yarn spinning.
-
Saying it's ludicrous is not an argument. People having psychotic episodes do ludicrous things, like sometimes murdering people because they falsely perceive them as a threat. Being convinced you are going to win a Nobel prize is ludicrous but that's exactly what my cousin believed.
Ludicrousness or lack of logic, manifest to us, may be an unshakable delusion to a psychotic. Hallucinations are common. Objects may be perceived as larger or smaller than reality.
This is a quote from a medical journal:
'deficits of object-perception and spatial attention shifting are not only associated with schizophrenia, but are common to all psychosis patients. Schizophrenia patients only differed by having abnormally slow right-to-left visual field reorienting. Deficits of object-perception and spatial attention shifting are already present after recent onset of psychosis.'
Going to look in the office closet for a tampon when she had them in her room makes no sense. TO not only go looking in that closet but to also mistake a large metal object for an object that is much smaller, contained in a wrapper like this is simply stupid:
(https://www.meninos.us/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/u/s/usb-tampon-2.jpg)
Nor would such account for the small amount of blood found inside on the first 8 baffles which got there by virtue of being sprayed inside.
And then there is the whole issue that she would have to take it out of herself and put it back...
You surpassed Mike in terms of absurd claims, this is the worst one by far ever made in this case. It is even worse than claiming they planted blood on multiple moderators.
-
Do we believe other authors ? After all,there have been many quotes from Wilkes's book.Are we also to believe those ?
Only when they provide a source to establish they have a solid basis for the claims they are making. They are not witnesses to any of the events they write about so need to explain what their source is for making claims they make.
-
I don't care WHICH side she's on, Nugs. I don't believe ANY of them who tell us what happened when there is no one left alive to confirm or deny. All they're doing is yarn spinning.
no you cant take it as gospel but id give it more sigfifcance if somone who thinks hes guilty says somthing in his favour i mean nobody can acuse her of being a brianwashed suppoerter.
-
Only when they provide a source to establish they have a solid basis for the claims they are making. They are not witnesses to any of the events they write about so need to explain what their source is for making claims they make.
And they are unlikely to be able to provide a (believable!!!) source when all players in the scene they've set died long before the book was written. It has the same ring about it as saying someone died whilst they were having a nightmare.
-
Perhaps it came from Colin? I cant remember exactly what was said in his book but he did say something about feeling guilty about not handing over the letter to NB when he arrived ? There may have been something that made him change his mind?
-
It would have seemed that their sources were the relatives and Jeremy himself with maybe a little help from EP,I don't know. They did their investigations. They'd have to,to avoid a lawsuit.
As Claire Powell had said,that " it meant reliving a time they would have preferred to forget ", referring to those who'd helped with her book.
-
And they are unlikely to be able to provide a (believable!!!) source when all players in the scene they've set died long before the book was written. It has the same ring about it as saying someone died whilst they were having a nightmare.
That is why there are a very limited number of people who could know what happened at the arrival. Colin would be one, though he supposedly left right away- someone working at the farm who was in the right place at he right time would be the only other potential witnesses.
When you write a book you should not do what we do here. We typically don't credit well known things. In writing a book you should credit everything, you should footnote every factual claim you make with a source so the reader knows where you got the claim from and can evaluate whether to believe such source. For instance if Jeremy is a source of most of the book that surely should be noted but really it should be done with any claim.
In a legal brief to a court (among other legal documents) we have to do that. Any factual assertion must have the source of the claim in parenthesis after the sentence that makes the claim. So we have to cite an affidavit, trial transcript or other document for anything we represent to the court because we are not first person witnesses so can't make a claim ourselves we must attribute a claim to a source. We can't just make factual assertions ourselves.
-
Going to look in the office closet for a tampon when she had them in her room makes no sense. TO not only go looking in that closet but to also mistake a large metal object for an object that is much smaller, contained in a wrapper like this is simply stupid:
(https://www.meninos.us/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/u/s/usb-tampon-2.jpg)
Nor would such account for the small amount of blood found inside on the first 8 baffles which got there by virtue of being sprayed inside.
And then there is the whole issue that she would have to take it out of herself and put it back...
You surpassed Mike in terms of absurd claims, this is the worst one by far ever made in this case. It is even worse than claiming they planted blood on multiple moderators.
I have to agree and like I said, the claim is ludicrous!
-
That is why there are a very limited number of people who could know what happened at the arrival. Colin would be one, though he supposedly left right away- someone working at the farm who was in the right place at he right time would be the only other potential witnesses.
When you write a book you should not do what we do here. We typically don't credit well known things. In writing a book you should credit everything, you should footnote every factual claim you make with a source so the reader knows where you got the claim from and can evaluate whether to believe such source. For instance if Jeremy is a source of most of the book that surely should be noted but really it should be done with any claim.
In a legal brief to a court (among other legal documents) we have to do that. Any factual assertion must have the source of the claim in parenthesis after the sentence that makes the claim. So we have to cite an affidavit, trial transcript or other document for anything we represent to the court because we are not first person witnesses so can't make a claim ourselves we must attribute a claim to a source. We can't just make factual assertions ourselves.
I have ready hardly any books about the case - but I guess there are two
potential reason for perhaps reading them -
1) witnesses can only answer what is asked of them in court and they may wish to say something but not have the opportunity
2) there may have been people who were not called as witnesses who may want to comment about things - not necessarily evidence ,but to refute say for example a comment about someones character.
For example I am guessing that Freddie was not called as a witness ( statement read out) because of his "drug" connections -but having listened to the case he may have had more to say.
So some books could be "interesting" in that respect.
-
I have ready hardly any books about the case - but I guess there are two
potential reason for perhaps reading them -
1) witnesses can only answer what is asked of them in court and they may wish to say something but not have the opportunity
2) there may have been people who were not called as witnesses who may want to comment about things - not necessarily evidence ,but to refute say for example a comment about someones character.
For example I am guessing that Freddie was not called as a witness ( statement read out) because of his "drug" connections -but having listened to the case he may have had more to say.
So some books could be "interesting" in that respect.
Even for those limited purposes you would want the author to attribute claims to specific people including in your example Freddie as opposed to just making a generalized claim something happened without providing any details of how the author supposedly learned of such.
Some books about cases actually quote from testimony and even will have appendices with extended testimony or other documents of interest. They also sometimes have transcribed interviews the author did with people. I am not trashing books period. The issue is whether they have such useful things or don't clue one in to where the authors are getting their claims from.
-
Perhaps it came from Colin? I cant remember exactly what was said in his book but he did say something about feeling guilty about not handing over the letter to NB when he arrived ? There may have been something that made him change his mind?
He doesn´t say much about Sheila, June or Nevill, but writes about the twins. How they cried and clung to him like never before, begging him to stay. He has to live with this memory, can´t imagine!
I think it must have been open whether he would stay a while or even the night, since the boys reacted like that when he turned on his heel and because he had brought that letter - he would have needed to find the right moment (and guts) to hand it over.
He clearly, for some reason, couldn´t stand being there for one moment and drove off as quickly as he could.
-
I'm not surprised Colin fled.
-
I have to agree and like I said, the claim is ludicrous!
Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?
-
Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?
I agree - just look at the thoughts about her sons - were they logical ? I think most of us would find them hard to understand and to be honest disgusting if we did not accept her illness and we tend to forget it was documented that she felt she was a threat to her own sons. I am willing to bet that Jeremy was not even aware of her thoughts in that respect.
-
Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?
The problem is you can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre. I gave you the chance to, but you bottled it.
-
Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?
I'm with you on this,lebaleb.
Yesterday morning at 9am,I heard shouting. In the next road,my dear friend's daughter lives,like a recluse,in a big house on her own.Deserted by her family because of the daughter's mental problems,and also the danger involved,this woman had kicked off,shouting,swearing,you name it. I couldn't see her but I heard from a neighbour that she'd come out of the bathroom and was brushing her teeth as she was giving off !
The same woman,who I know of course,and saw last week,was quite lucid and presentable. This poor soul escaped being sectioned when she ran from the hospital,but she's got serious paranoia and nobody can do anything, short of breaking down her front door and dragging her out because it's her own property and nobody has the right to enter.
Her behaviour has got steadily worse,and she does show aggression towards her mother ( who is a lifelong friend ) so as a consequence,the mother doesn't go visiting.
All the shouting yesterday was towards her mother,even though she wasn't there,she seems to get this " red mist " which focusses on her mother and some of the things that were being said,was awful ( if nobody realised that the daughter was sick )
I'd heard that when it was windy a couple of days ago,she'd rang the police in the early hours ( lights are on in the house all night ) that there was an animal running around in the garden-------it was a plastic bag which had blown in,but she wasn't convinced and made the" excuse" of not going to bed,which she never does anyway.
This woman puts me in mind of Sheila because of her irrational behaviour,unpredictability and the focus on her mother.The woman is attractive,was an accountant,had a broken marriage,takes speed,is erratic,won't go to the GP,and even if she did,she wouldn't take any medication with all the other crap she takes.
I can't see the situation ever getting better as her own daughter,at 12 years of age,lives with my friend ( the child's grannie )
I do see a lot of Sheila in this woman,and swear that if the same person was armed with a gun,then God help a few of us.
-
Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?
well it stands to reason that irrational people do irrational things.
-
They do nugs,and unless anyone has experienced it first-hand,they're not up for judging.
-
Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?
It's not about being prudish - people have grasped desperately at straws to make excuses for Jeremy being innocent but this one takes the biscuit - it's in line with the suggestion that West Didn't tell Jeremy that his dad had already called the police just in case they needed to frame him for something later!!
-
its not making excuses its considering all possibility.
thats what a discusion is supposed to be about.
-
its not making excuses its considering all possibility.
thats what a discusion is supposed to be about.
OK, so, would you like to consider the possibility that Sheila inserted the silencer inside herself?
-
personally i don't go for it.
-
personally i don't go for it.
Thank god for that! :o
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't grasp at straws. Doesn't need to.
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't grasp at straws. Doesn't need to.
If you say so Lookout ;D
-
If you say so Lookout ;D
I do. I've followed his life,similarly to my own. It needn't necessarily be Jeremy.It could have been anyone with much the same upbringing,etc. The only difference being that we didn't live on a farm,but holidayed on one with relative's in the Isle-of-Man.
-
Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?
Gravity can't atomize a blood drop. It takes tremendous force to atomize blood like a gunshot or explosion. Moreover gravity would result in a drop of blood hitting 1 baffle not multiple baffles let alone 8 in a row. Each baffle blocks the baffle behind it. The only way to hit multiple baffles is with a spray that shoots blood at many different angles so that the blood can get behind each successive baffle.
Your claims are absurd on every single level.
-
Gravity can't atomize a blood drop. It takes tremendous force to atomize blood like a gunshot or explosion. Moreover gravity would result in a drop of blood hitting 1 baffle not multiple baffles let alone 8 in a row. Each baffle blocks the baffle behind it. The only way to hit multiple baffles is with a spray that shoots blood at many different angles so that the blood can get behind each successive baffle.
Your claims are absurd on every single level.
You are assuming the silencer was static when it could have been in motion
-
OK, so, would you like to consider the possibility that Sheila inserted the silencer inside herself?
Apart from ridiculing the idea, you haven't told me why it couldn't possibly have happened. I am trying to show that the statement that the blood could only have got into the silencer by Sheila being murdered or deliberate contamination is false. If in fact it was Sheila's blood and not a mixture of Junes and Nevilles which even the experts couldn't rule out.
-
You are assuming the silencer was static when it could have been in motion
That would still not result in atomizing the blood. You are presenting the absurd scenario where blood is flowing throughout the moderator despite a very limited amount of blood being found in it not a flow as would happen from a period.
Every single aspect is absurd form her going to that closet to look for a tampon to mistaking the moderator for a tampon. That you refuse to admit how stupid it is just makes you look like an even bigger fool than you have already demonstrated yourself to be.
-
Are supporters saying Sheila used the silencer as a tampon ?
After making this amazing mistake, she then put the silencer away in a box, in the back of the gun cupboard.
Oh dear.
-
Are supporters saying Sheila used the silencer as a tampon ?
After making this amazing mistake, she then put the silencer away in a box, in the back of the gun cupboard.
Oh dear.
One supporter not plural. This can only be ascribed to one person no used against others.
-
One supporter not plural. This can only be ascribed to one person no used against others.
Lebaleb, if it's you, you need to quit posting rubbish.
-
Lebaleb, if it's you, you need to quit posting rubbish.
ET TU BRUTE
-
Lebaleb, if it's you, you need to quit posting rubbish.
Pot/ kettle
-
What do you make of Lebaleb's point, Jan?
-
What do you make of Lebaleb's point, Jan?
to be honest I don't really have an opinion on this.
I do know that as a woman I find it extremely surprising that she left sanitary objects just around her parents house ( not in her own bedroom discreetly) because most women would never do that - or clothes soaking in the kitchen ( especially when there was a "back kitchen" scullery area).
As for the rest its probably as unlikely as JB committing the murders in a wetsuit or naked - and or cycling across fields/ footpaths on a sit up and beg bike without lights.
That's why I don't have an opinion - If we have to accept the seemingly impossible for guilt why not for innocent ?
-
to be honest I don't really have an opinion on this.
I do know that as a woman I find it extremely surprising that she left sanitary objects just around her parents house ( not in her own bedroom discreetly) because most women would never do that - or clothes soaking in the kitchen ( especially when there was a "back kitchen" scullery area).
As for the rest its probably as unlikely as JB committing the murders in a wetsuit or naked - and or cycling across fields/ footpaths on a sit up and beg bike without lights.
That's why I don't have an opinion - If we have to accept the seemingly impossible for guilt why not for innocent ?
Nobody said Jeremy committed the massacre naked. Only two people have suggested a wet suit - RB & BW.
RB said it was a easy bike ride. Julie saying he planned to cycle. Bob Miller and RB both said no one would see him cycling.
-
Regarding the wet suit, if he did wear one, I believe it is possible he wore it under his clothes.
It would not restrict his mobility. Being of strong material it would also protect his skin. Being a skin tight outfight it would not hinder his chances of getting in and out of windows.
-
Nobody said Jeremy committed the massacre naked. Only two people have suggested a wet suit - RB & BW.
RB said it was a easy bike ride. Julie saying he planned to cycle. Bob Miller and RB both said no one would see him cycling.
i suggested it.
-
Regarding the wet suit, if he did wear one, I believe it is possible he wore it under his clothes.
It would not restrict his mobility. Being of strong material it would also protect his skin. Being a skin tight outfight it would not hinder his chances of getting in and out of windows.
Hello Adam
what would be the advantage of wearing a wet suit under his clothes ???
-
Morning Jan
I found it unusual that a tampon holder was found in the lounge (if this is true) women are more discreet than this and would confine this to their own quarters. My opinion is Jeremy did not use the bike or use a wet suit. With regard to the clothes soaking in the kitchen I would not have thought June would have allowed this and they would have been put in the back room where they belonged unless of course they were placed in the kitchen after June had retired.
-
to be honest I don't really have an opinion on this.
I do know that as a woman I find it extremely surprising that she left sanitary objects just around her parents house ( not in her own bedroom discreetly) because most women would never do that - or clothes soaking in the kitchen ( especially when there was a "back kitchen" scullery area).
As for the rest its probably as unlikely as JB committing the murders in a wetsuit or naked - and or cycling across fields/ footpaths on a sit up and beg bike without lights.
That's why I don't have an opinion - If we have to accept the seemingly impossible for guilt why not for innocent ?
i find it extremly suprising she would do that as well and extremly suprising her parents wouldent complian about it.
-
Hello Adam
what would be the advantage of wearing a wet suit under his clothes ???
All in my last post.
-
Morning Jan
I found it unusual that a tampon holder was found in the lounge (if this is true) women are more discreet than this and would confine this to their own quarters. My opinion is Jeremy did not use the bike or use a wet suit. With regard to the clothes soaking in the kitchen I would not have thought June would have allowed this and they would have been put in the back room where they belonged unless of course they were placed in the kitchen after June had retired.
could the tampon holder have been moved for some reason.
-
to be honest I don't really have an opinion on this.
I do know that as a woman I find it extremely surprising that she left sanitary objects just around her parents house ( not in her own bedroom discreetly) because most women would never do that - or clothes soaking in the kitchen ( especially when there was a "back kitchen" scullery area).
As for the rest its probably as unlikely as JB committing the murders in a wetsuit or naked - and or cycling across fields/ footpaths on a sit up and beg bike without lights.
That's why I don't have an opinion - If we have to accept the seemingly impossible for guilt why not for innocent ?
The sanitary objects left around the house is very odd. In the bathroom, fine, in her bedroom, probably more likely.
The buckets filled with bloodied, soaking clothes in the kitchen is SUPER weird! Scullery close by, besides, who leaves dirty, soaking clothes in a kitchen - unless you only have space there + the kitchen was carpeted.
It makes no sense at all.
-
Morning Jan
I found it unusual that a tampon holder was found in the lounge (if this is true) women are more discreet than this and would confine this to their own quarters. My opinion is Jeremy did not use the bike or use a wet suit. With regard to the clothes soaking in the kitchen I would not have thought June would have allowed this and they would have been put in the back room where they belonged unless of course they were placed in the kitchen after June had retired.
I don't see what the issue is, the kids had probably got hold of it, they wouldn't know what it was.
-
Morning Jan
I found it unusual that a tampon holder was found in the lounge (if this is true) women are more discreet than this and would confine this to their own quarters. My opinion is Jeremy did not use the bike or use a wet suit. With regard to the clothes soaking in the kitchen I would not have thought June would have allowed this and they would have been put in the back room where they belonged unless of course they were placed in the kitchen after June had retired.
Hi Susan
That could be a possibility.... :)
-
Hello Alias I would have thought any female using a tampax would immediately dispose of the holder in the bin or fire I could not imagine leaving it laying around plus I guess she used that tampax late on in the day just my opinion of course I have no sources ;D
-
could the tampon holder have been moved for some reason.
Hello nugnug I can only think Sheila was wandering around with it maybe on her way to the bin in the kitchen and got side tracked and put it down and forgot it.
-
The sanitary objects left around the house is very odd. In the bathroom, fine, in her bedroom, probably more likely.
The buckets filled with bloodied, soaking clothes in the kitchen is SUPER weird! Scullery close by, besides, who leaves dirty, soaking clothes in a kitchen - unless you only have space there + the kitchen was carpeted.
It makes no sense at all.
I find it odd too. The holder has another bit too it and of course its wrapper. I doubt June would allow a sanitary holder in her living room. I think Susan may have given a possibility and that is the holder was put there after June had gone to bed and the underwear put in buckets.
Sheila could have been awakened by the sudden period and got up to sort this out....Why should would take a sanitary holder to the living room is odd unless she took it with her to sit down for a while had a smoke and forgot to pick it up...but why did she not throw it in the bin or chuck it on the fire in AGA?
I suppose we will never know....as the police failed to investigate it...what I mean is to look for its other part and wrapper and examine the clothes in the buckets. ;D
-
i dont think people of ralph and junes genration would be happy with somthing like that being left in the kithen.
-
i dont think people of ralph and junes genration would be happy with somthing like that being left in the kithen.
Me neither Nugs its something they would hide from the men.... :-\
-
Hello nugnug I can only think Sheila was wandering around with it maybe on her way to the bin in the kitchen and got side tracked and put it down and forgot it.
sidetracked with what though.
-
to be honest I don't really have an opinion on this.
I do know that as a woman I find it extremely surprising that she left sanitary objects just around her parents house ( not in her own bedroom discreetly) because most women would never do that - or clothes soaking in the kitchen ( especially when there was a "back kitchen" scullery area).
As for the rest its probably as unlikely as JB committing the murders in a wetsuit or naked - and or cycling across fields/ footpaths on a sit up and beg bike without lights.
That's why I don't have an opinion - If we have to accept the seemingly impossible for guilt why not for innocent ?
More falsehoods and cop-outs that seems to be all you are capable of.
1) The buckets of clothing were found in the back kitchen. Photos among other things demonstrate this. You intentionally ignore such so you can try to make a controversy though leaving clothing to soak in a kitchen is not that unusual anyway.
2) You say it is odd for her to leave the packaging from the tampon in the house instead of garbage bu you refuse to offer any opinion on what is by far the most absurd claim ever made in this case. That right there says much about you.
3) To avoid discussing the actual question you engage in your usual strawmen arguments. The issue of Jeremy committing the crime naked or in a wetsuit was not asked of you. Most who believe Jeremy is guilty don't believe he wore anything besides his normal clothing. He had the ability to change his clothes at WHF after the murders because he had a room still there with clothing in it and also had the ability to change after he got home. He also had the ability to bath at WHF or his own house. He had no need to wear special protective clothing. Using a bike as opposed to car to and from WHF is a matter of preference and either is possible.
Wearing protective clothing and biking to and from WHF is much more rational thought than the nonsense being spewed by Leb of using the moderator for a tampon which still would not be able to account for the blood found in the moderator. Anyone willing to support such nonsense by refusing to dispute it is simply admitting they are too biased to face any issue in this case rationally.
-
I hope Leb took on board my post yesterday to quit posting rubbish.
-
Me neither Nugs its something they would hide from the men.... :-\
and they were a bit socially conservative even for generation.
-
More falsehoods and cop-outs that seems to be all you are capable of.
1) The buckets of clothing were found in the back kitchen. Photos among other things demonstrate this. You intentionally ignore such so you can try to make a controversy though leaving clothing to soak in a kitchen is not that unusual anyway.
2) You say it is odd for her to leave the packaging from the tampon in the house instead of garbage bu you refuse to offer any opinion on what is by far the most absurd claim ever made in this case. That right there says much about you.
3) To avoid discussing the actual question you engage in your usual strawmen arguments. The issue of Jeremy committing the crime naked or in a wetsuit was not asked of you. Most who believe Jeremy is guilty don't believe he wore anything besides his normal clothing. He had the ability to change his clothes at WHF after the murders because he had a room still there with clothing in it and also had the ability to change after he got home. He also had the ability to bath at WHF or his own house. He had no need to wear special protective clothing. Using a bike as opposed to car to and from WHF is a matter of preference and either is possible.
Wearing protective clothing and biking to and from WHF is much more rational thought than the nonsense being spewed by Leb of using the moderator for a tampon which still would not be able to account for the blood found in the moderator. Anyone willing to support such nonsense by refusing to dispute it is simply admitting they are too biased to face any issue in this case rationally.
Being rude and personal again Scipo?
Can we stick to the points raised rather than be personal please.
There are two buckets in the crime scene kitchen. How do you come to the conclusion that the bloodied clothes were in the back kitchen for there are buckets in both. Its irrelevant surely which kitchen the clothes were soaking, the point of argument is whether they had been left soaking before or after June went to bed, the same applies to the tampon holder....I suppose even in hindsight we cannot say they were or were not. What we are discussing is whether or not June would have allowed a tampon holder in her laying about in her living room, secondly would she have left buckets with blood stained knickers in full view of the men in the house ie Jeremy, Nevill and the children not to mention any male visitors like workmen on the farm etc. :-\
-
No one yet seems to have ascertained if the tampon applicator had been used. They ARE made to be disposable and once used for the intended purpose can be flushed down the loo, be it mains sewage or cesspit. Whilst I don't see Sheila wielding a rifle in one hand and holding a tampon applicator in the other it MIGHT be possible that whilst she was in the loo she heard noises which disturbed her and forgot to flush it.
-
The most amazing thing to me is how fast people forget facts established on this very board. It seems that instead of knowledge compounding it vanishes as soon as people abandon a thread so hey can revert to their biased agenda instead of applying the knowledge going forward.
I saw one thread that had photos taken by police on the day of the murders which showed the buckets in the scullery AKA back kitchen. It was established that this is where the buckets were at the time of the murders not in the main kitchen. Furthermore numerous threads quote from various witness statements about them being in the scullery including the housekeeper. She was asked to look at the photo police took of the buckets and she identified them as normally being kept in that room.
(http://s22.postimg.org/qoq48z9tt/jbstatementbuckets.jpg)
She also noted that these buckets were used for soaking clothes before being placed in the washing machine. She said that June soaked clothing in there but she never knew her to soak her panties before washing them. She was too old to have a period so that explains why she would never need to. In contrast Sheila did and Sheila was known to soak her panties in buckets left in the kitchen:
(http://s24.postimg.org/m2afherad/jbstatementknickersbucket.jpg)
People seem to intentionally ignore the evidence to try to create something out of nothing.
Of course these same people ignore that someone who decided to kill her kids and commit suicide would not bother soaking her children's dirty clothes or her panties because clothing is of no use to the dead so she would have had no reason to bother.
No rational person would suggest the soaking clothing was in any way connected to the murders or of any relevance.
Isn't it funny how those trying to create controversy out of nothing are too cowardly or too biased to comment on the absurd suggestion that Sheila used the moderator as a tampon. If such were suggested in any context other than one supportive of Jeremy the same people expressing no comment would be all over it like flies on stink.
-
The most amazing thing to me is how fast people forget facts established on this very board. It seems that instead of knowledge compounding it vanishes as soon as people abandon a thread so hey can revert to their biased agenda instead of applying the knowledge going forward.
Isn't that what people like JB rely on. Isn't that why he still attempts to play the criminal justice system? He's the puppet master pulling the strings of his unsuspecting victims. He knows he can rely on the bias, motivation, personality and agendas of others. Especially empaths and apaths.
-
Being rude and personal again Scipo?
Can we stick to the points raised rather than be personal please.
There are two buckets in the crime scene kitchen. How do you come to the conclusion that the bloodied clothes were in the back kitchen for there are buckets in both. Its irrelevant surely which kitchen the clothes were soaking, the point of argument is whether they had been left soaking before or after June went to bed, the same applies to the tampon holder....I suppose even in hindsight we cannot say they were or were not. What we are discussing is whether or not June would have allowed a tampon holder in her laying about in her living room, secondly would she have left buckets with blood stained knickers in full view of the men in the house ie Jeremy, Nevill and the children not to mention any male visitors like workmen on the farm etc. :-\
Because there was a thread on this board that debated this very issue which showed the photos of the buckets being in the scullery and quoted from witness statements like the housekeeper noting the buckets were normally in the room they were photographed in.
Since the housekeeper admitted that Sheila had left laundry to soak in the kitchen in the past and she was aware Sheila would do this, that means the notion that June would immediately move the buckets is not necessarily true. Even if they had been in the main kitchen instead of back kitchen would not help establish she did so after June went to bed. Obviously the only way the housekeeper would be aware of Sheila soaking clothing in the kitchen would be if such were left there.
The housekeeper said they were not there when she left Monday afternoon so either were left to soak Monday evening or sometime on Tuesday. Obviously the panties would be left to soak as soon as she could take them off. Similarly her son's dirty clothes would be soaked upon seeing them stained. She would not wait until the middle of the night then decide to go soak her panties and son's clothing.
The most amusing thing is people constantly ask me how I became so familiar with the facts of this case. Outside of the 2002 COA decision most of my knowledge comes from documents, photos and debates on this site. I retain and apply what is learned going forward as opposed to erasing everything from my memory and starting from a blank slate each time I engage in a new debate.
-
Thanks Scip
The buckets in the crime scene kitchen were green. The one in view in back kitchen looks like a metal one, but obviously we can't see round the corner.
-
The most amusing thing is people constantly ask me how I became so familiar with the facts of this case. Outside of the 2002 COA decision most of my knowledge comes from documents, photos and debates on this site. I retain and apply what is learned going forward as opposed to erasing everything from my memory and starting from a blank slate each time I engage in a new debate.
People lose focus. They get sucked into the motivations of others for amusement. They don't want to see what is staring them in the face. To do so would put an end to what motivates them.
-
Isn't that what people like JB rely on. Isn't that why he still attempts to play the criminal justice system? He's the puppet master pulling the strings of his unsuspecting victims. He knows he can rely on the bias, motivation, personality and agendas of others.
He is opportunistic in using such to his advantage with his supporters but they allow it and even run further than he expects them to and that still only goes so far. That doesn't translate into the legal arena. Many of his supporters keep raising allegations disproved long ago that Jeremy isn't even pushing anymore. A puppetmaster has control over his puppets I don't see Jeremy as having much control over those who have decided to advance his cause if anything a lot of them use his cause as part of a larger agenda they have.
He is trying to play the criminal justice system because he wants out of jail and hopes that he can find some spin that will result in his release. What he can use on the public to try to garner supports can't necessarily be used to try to secure his release from the courts though. There is a dichotomy between the legal team and the campaign team.
-
He is opportunistic in using such to his advantage with his supporters but they allow it and even run further than he expects them to and that still only goes so far. That doesn't translate into the legal arena. Many of his supporters keep raising allegations disproved long ago that Jeremy isn't even pushing anymore. A puppetmaster has control over his puppets I don't see Jeremy as having much control over those who have decided to advance his cause if anything a lot of them use his cause as part of a larger agenda they have.
He is trying to play the criminal justice system because he wants out of jail and hopes that he can find some spin that will result in his release. What he can use on the public to try to garner supports can't necessarily be used to try to secure his release from the courts though. There is a dichotomy between the legal team and the campaign team.
I agree, and the dichotomy between his legal team and supporters must really frustrate him.
Deviant is due out in a few months apparently. It will be interesting to watch behaviours following it's release.
-
nugnug when I said side tracked I meant she wandered off to do something else and forgot the tampon holder if indeed it was found in the lounge. It is of no importance really just strange IMO.
-
The most amazing thing to me is how fast people forget facts established on this very board. It seems that instead of knowledge compounding it vanishes as soon as people abandon a thread so hey can revert to their biased agenda instead of applying the knowledge going forward.
I saw one thread that had photos taken by police on the day of the murders which showed the buckets in the scullery AKA back kitchen. It was established that this is where the buckets were at the time of the murders not in the main kitchen. Furthermore numerous threads quote from various witness statements about them being in the scullery including the housekeeper. She was asked to look at the photo police took of the buckets and she identified them as normally being kept in that room.
(http://s22.postimg.org/qoq48z9tt/jbstatementbuckets.jpg)
She also noted that these buckets were used for soaking clothes before being placed in the washing machine. She said that June soaked clothing in there but she never knew her to soak her panties before washing them. She was too old to have a period so that explains why she would never need to. In contrast Sheila did and Sheila was known to soak her panties in buckets left in the kitchen:
(http://s24.postimg.org/m2afherad/jbstatementknickersbucket.jpg)
People seem to intentionally ignore the evidence to try to create something out of nothing.
Of course these same people ignore that someone who decided to kill her kids and commit suicide would not bother soaking her children's dirty clothes or her panties because clothing is of no use to the dead so she would have had no reason to bother.
No rational person would suggest the soaking clothing was in any way connected to the murders or of any relevance.
Isn't it funny how those trying to create controversy out of nothing are too cowardly or too biased to comment on the absurd suggestion that Sheila used the moderator as a tampon. If such were suggested in any context other than one supportive of Jeremy the same people expressing no comment would be all over it like flies on stink.
people in acute states of psychosis do all sorts of strange things it cant be said that she wouldn't wash the clothes.
-
People lose focus. They get sucked into the motivations of others for amusement. They don't want to see what is staring them in the face. To do so would put an end to what motivates them.
And the case doesn't affect most of them personally, it doesn't interfere with their every day lives, so expediency is of no great importance.
-
No one yet seems to have ascertained if the tampon applicator had been used. They ARE made to be disposable and once used for the intended purpose can be flushed down the loo, be it mains sewage or cesspit. Whilst I don't see Sheila wielding a rifle in one hand and holding a tampon applicator in the other it MIGHT be possible that whilst she was in the loo she heard noises which disturbed her and forgot to flush it.
no i dont see her doing that ethere.
-
nugnug when I said side tracked I meant she wandered off to do something else and forgot the tampon holder if indeed it was found in the lounge. It is of no importance really just strange IMO.
sounds like a reasnable explantion.
-
The most amazing thing to me is how fast people forget facts established on this very board. It seems that instead of knowledge compounding it vanishes as soon as people abandon a thread so hey can revert to their biased agenda instead of applying the knowledge going forward.
Isn't it funny how those trying to create controversy out of nothing are too cowardly or too biased to comment on the absurd suggestion that Sheila used the moderator as a tampon. If such were suggested in any context other than one supportive of Jeremy the same people expressing no comment would be all over it like flies on stink.
This also reminds me of the phenomenon known as the empathy trap.
"Excerpt: Apaths are an integral part of the sociopath’s arsenal and contribute to sociopathic abuse. Sociopaths have an uncanny knack of knowing who will assist them in bringing down the person they are targeting. It is not necessarily easy to identify an apath; in other circumstances, an apath can show ample empathy and concern for others—just not in this case. The one attribute an apath must have is a link to the target.
How apaths, who might otherwise be fair-minded people, become involved in such destructive business is not hard to understand, but it can be hard to accept. The main qualifying attribute is poor judgment resulting from lack of insight. They might be jealous of or angry at the target, and thus have something to gain from the evolving situation.
At other times, the apath might not want to see the ‘bad’ in someone, particularly if the sociopath is useful. Or they might choose not to see because they have enough on their plate and do not possess the wherewithal or moral courage to help the targeted person at that time. Usually, be it active or passive involvement, the apath’s conscience appears to fall asleep. https://psychopathresistance.wordpress.com/tag/the-empathy-trap/
-
And the flying monkey phenomenon -
"The sociopath is a high level con who manages to dupe people so thoroughly that his/her fans will persecute, silence, and ostracize a victim who complains about mistreatment. These people are in denial and they will reject information that doesn’t correspond to their highly favorable perception of the sociopath. The victim’s accounts of abuse will upset them, and may anger them. By defending an influential sociopath and abusing his/her target by proxy, the followers prove their loyalty and hope to win favor while getting closer to the influential sociopath they are instinctively attracted to.
He is opportunistic in using such to his advantage with his supporters but they allow it and even run further than he expects them to and that still only goes so far. That doesn't translate into the legal arena. Many of his supporters keep raising allegations disproved long ago that Jeremy isn't even pushing anymore. A puppetmaster has control over his puppets I don't see Jeremy as having much control over those who have decided to advance his cause if anything a lot of them use his cause as part of a larger agenda they have.
-
And I recognise this happening on this forum http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bystand.htm
-
And I recognise this happening on this forum http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bystand.htm
And who is guilty of that may I ask?
-
And who is guilty of that may I ask?
I am not accusing anyone directly. Each and every one of us we are guilty of doing this to one degree or another, some more than others.
-
Thanks Scip
The buckets in the crime scene kitchen were green. The one in view in back kitchen looks like a metal one, but obviously we can't see round the corner.
The buckets were dark colored. They were even circled. I will have to see if I can find the thread. It was established the buckets were in the scullery not that it makes a difference since Sheila was known to leave buckets with her clothing soaking in the kitchen anyway.
This is one of those cases where objective people would require seeing police photos showing the buckets in the main kitchen to establish that is where they were. The house cleaner was even asked about the photos of the main kitchen sink area to attest to the condition and she noted no buckets that belonged elsewhere she noted the items on the floor were normally in the sink- the implication being things were moved to the floor after the struggle to enable someone to climb out the window. The buckets were not int he kitchen where the struggle occurred hence why they were not spilled.
Starting on page 200 (stamped bottom right corner) she describes anything in the kitchen that doesn't belong:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.htmlhttp://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html[/url
-
The buckets were dark colored. They were even circled. I will have to see if I can find the thread. It was established the buckets were in the scullery not that it makes a difference since Sheila was known to leave buckets with her clothing soaking in the kitchen anyway.
This is one of those cases where objective people would require seeing police photos showing the buckets in the main kitchen to establish that is where they were. The house cleaner was even asked about the photos of the main kitchen sink area to attest to the condition and she noted no buckets that belonged elsewhere she noted the items on the floor were normally in the sink- the implication being things were moved to the floor after the struggle to enable someone to climb out the window. The buckets were not int he kitchen where the struggle occurred hence why they were not spilled.
Starting on page 200 (stamped bottom right corner) she describes anything in the kitchen that doesn't belong:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.htmlhttp://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html[/url
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37215;image)
-
Is that a police photo taken the day of the murders? There is a watermark from a website but all I can make out is source.co which doesn't really provide much help. The white top left stamp on it doesn't help either. There what looks like a pencil shaped post it with writing on it but I can't read that either.
-
Is that a police photo taken the day of the murders? There is a watermark from a website but all I can make out is source.co which doesn't really provide much help. The white top left stamp on it doesn't help either. There what looks like a pencil shaped post it with writing on it but I can't read that either.
Yes, it's one of the crime scene photo's
-
Yes, it's one of the crime scene photo's
You can see blood from Nevill, poor man, in the photo I posted, you can also see the towel put there by someone in an attempt to stop the blood and also the toppled chair.
Edit to add, I think you can also see part of Nevill´s arm (the blue to the right), so I would definitely say this is a crime scene photo with the body of Nevill Bamber in situ.
-
You can see blood from Nevill, poor man, in the photo I posted, you can also see the towel put there by someone in an attempt to stop the blood and also the toppled chair.
Yes, not an easy crime scene, if there is such a thing.
-
Yes, not an easy crime scene, if there is such a thing.
It is indeed.
Does anyone know who placed the pillows and towel on the floor? The killer? Why? :)
-
Yes, it's one of the crime scene photo's
They took photos the day of and also mixed in photos from other times including staging things to appear as they often were so that is one reason why I asked. Another is the photos I saw showed papers all over the floor by the table. I guess they could be there and could be hidden by the table given the angle.
Is the website in operation anymore that these came from? Are there other crime scene photos they posted?
Having a photo section exclusively for crime scene photos taken the first 2 days would be helpful I think instead of having photos all mixed together. In a thread someone posted a photo of buckets in the scullery and said it was a photo from the crime scene. That could have been one of the photos where they staged things as they normally were. It was represented though as being the crime scene the day of the murders.
-
It is indeed.
Does anyone know who placed the pillows and towel on the floor? The killer? Why? :)
Alias that is a strange one why would the killer place a towel and cushion in such a manner does not make sense at all. ???
-
Alias that is a strange one why would the killer place a towel and cushion in such a manner does not make sense at all. ???
just a thought maybe the cushions and towel were on the floor before Ralph was in that position dripping blood. Perhaps Sheila had washed her hair and sat infront of the aga drying her hair. It is possible :(
-
Yes, not an easy crime scene, if there is such a thing.
I have seen some gruesome crime scenes and this doesn't really compare I think that when you see a decapitated head they are the most sickening.
In any event, WHF seems to have had a hodgepodge of crap all over not a show kitchen by any measure. Even the plates are mismatched. My mother, grandmothers or wife would never mix and match different patterns like that. We have 48 (24 dinner size and 24 salad size) plates that match to make sure that when there are a large amount of guests that all get the same plate. It is blasphemy to even consider mixing. The exception being plain white bowls that are used for soup, cereal or side dishes. But that is why they have no pattern and are plain.
It looks like the table was set for breakfast the night before, my paternal grandmother used to do that. I never saw anyone leave out an empty butter dish though, I guess they lacked room in the fridge for it. We always keep the butter dishes in the fridge with butter already in them.
The sheer amount of stuff around shows it was a well used kitchen not one that was kept in perfect order. The buckets are against the wall so out of the way so they were not harming anyone and wouldn't impact food preparation which obviously would be done on the other side of the kitchen. There isn't really much food prep space so I would expect the table to be used but that seems not to be the case I guess the pantry was used for that.
Since the housekeeper knew that in the past Sheila had left her underwear soaking in the kitchen that means June didn't move it from the kitchen and that the housekeeper found it there and presumed that since it was Sheila's underwear and she knew June to leave soaking laundry in the scullery that it was Sheila who left it in the kitchen to soak.
The clothing was left there either Monday evening or sometime Tuesday because it wasn't there when the housekeeper left. That would be logical since it would either be Monday evening when the boy's would change out of dirty clothing or sometime Tuesday. Sometime Tuesday they went shopping and presumably that is when Sheila bought tampons.
None of this supports the suggestion that she was up very late and decided at that point to soak her panties and her son's dirty pants. If she planned to commit murder suicide then soaking the clothes would not make any sense because someone who decided to kill her sons or had just killed them would not need the boys' pants so would not care about the stain and thus would not bother to wash them nor would bother to wash her own panties if she planned to kill herself because likewise she would have no use for them anymore so would not care if they got permanently stained.
The only logical conclusion is the clothing was placed to soak by Sheila at a point in time when murder and suicide were not contemplated.
-
It is indeed.
Does anyone know who placed the pillows and towel on the floor? The killer? Why? :)
For all we know the kids were sitting on them and thus they were there before the murders.
One reason for the killer to place them there after would be to keep the blood in an isolated location because of the floor fills with blood the killer could step in it, leave shoe prints and be royally screwed.
-
I have seen some gruesome crime scenes and this doesn't really compare I think that when you see a decapitated head they are the most sickening.
In any event, WHF seems to have had a hodgepodge of crap all over not a show kitchen by any measure. Even the plates are mismatched. My mother, grandmothers or wife would never mix and match different patterns like that. We have 48 (24 dinner size and 24 salad size) plates that match to make sure that when there are a large amount of guests that all get the same plate. It is blasphemy to even consider mixing. The exception being plain white bowls that are used for soup, cereal or side dishes. But that is why they have no pattern and are plain.
It looks like the table was set for breakfast the night before, my paternal grandmother used to do that. I never saw anyone leave out an empty butter dish though, I guess they lacked room in the fridge for it. We always keep the butter dishes in the fridge with butter already in them.
The sheer amount of stuff around shows it was a well used kitchen not one that was kept in perfect order. The buckets are against the wall so out of the way so they were not harming anyone and wouldn't impact food preparation which obviously would be done on the other side of the kitchen. There isn't really much food prep space so I would expect the table to be used but that seems not to be the case I guess the pantry was used for that.
Since the housekeeper knew that in the past Sheila had left her underwear soaking in the kitchen that means June didn't move it from the kitchen and that the housekeeper found it there and presumed that since it was Sheila's underwear and she knew June to leave soaking laundry in the scullery that it was Sheila who left it in the kitchen to soak.
The clothing was left there either Monday evening or sometime Tuesday because it wasn't there when the housekeeper left. That would be logical since it would either be Monday evening when the boy's would change out of dirty clothing or sometime Tuesday. Sometime Tuesday they went shopping and presumably that is when Sheila bought tampons.
None of this supports the suggestion that she was up very late and decided at that point to soak her panties and her son's dirty pants. If she planned to commit murder suicide then soaking the clothes would not make any sense because someone who decided to kill her sons or had just killed them would not need the boys' pants so would not care about the stain and thus would not bother to wash them nor would bother to wash her own panties if she planned to kill herself because likewise she would have no use for them anymore so would not care if they got permanently stained.
The only logical conclusion is the clothing was placed to soak by Sheila at a point in time when murder and suicide were not contemplated.
Scipio, you must understand that there is very much an upstairs/downstairs life in the way the county set live. The crockery and cutlery in the kitchens are a mix of odd pieces from once good sets and pieces bought at local sales OR the near by cheap shops. None of it will ever get near the dining room where Spode and Royal Crown Derby have pride of place.
I believe that there is far more formality in American kitchens than there is in English country kitchens. However, no dining room guest will ever have to suffer the ignominy of odd crockery although our kitchens sometimes are free for alls.
-
You're also forgetting Sheila was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder(according to the wikipedia article-Sheila mental health section) and there is very little order and method in their behaviour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Farm_murders
-
You're also forgetting Sheila was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder(according to the wikipedia article-Sheila mental health section) and there is very little order and method in their behaviour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Farm_murders
It sounds as if you're suggesting that whilst it may be quite illogical to us, in HER disorganized state, although she may have been contemplating murder/suicide, it may have seemed perfectly logical to her to soak soiled clothes and leave everything in apple pie order.
-
It sounds as if you're suggesting that whilst it may be quite illogical to us, in HER disorganized state, although she may have been contemplating murder/suicide, it may have seemed perfectly logical to her to soak soiled clothes and leave everything in apple pie order.
Yes April,just as I was wondering where to start on your thread about going back to the beginning..I had so many thoughts running through my head I went to the wikipedia article on the White House Farm murders but still can't put an opening paragraph together.
-
You're also forgetting Sheila was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder(according to the wikipedia article-Sheila mental health section) and there is very little order and method in their behaviour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Farm_murders
She was diagnosed with paranoid Schizophrenia not Hebephrenia. Her problem was having delusions and hallucinations but it was under control as a result of her medication.
A paranoid schizophrenic doesn't decide to commit murder suicide, kill everyone then suddenly in the middle of doing so forget about it go do the laundry then remember again and decide to commit suicide. They do things for a reason be it hallucinations or delusions. Obviously someone who is having a delusion that they are being kept hostage by their family so kill their family is doing wrong but to them it makes sense and is appropriate. In some cases we never figure out what delusions or hallucinations they were having that lead to things.
Murder-suicide by Schizophrenics is rare, a tiny percentage of those who commit murder suicide have Schizophrenia. Those rare cases where it happens it is usually a case of planned murders and then suicide resulting later that was unplanned. That is the case of many murder suicides though, many are to avoid capture. Those murder suicides that are actually planned as murder suicides from the outset are mostly domestic situations. Otherwise killing dependents because having to take care of the dependents gives them something to live for so getting rid of the dependents enables them to kill themselves without feeling like they are abandoning their loved one.
Schizophrenics either kill themselves or wind up killing others who are seen as a threat in some way because of delusions or hallucinations. Murder suicide doesn't really fit in so is not seen much.
Sheila killing her sons then herself would fit known paradigms much better than also killing her parents. Jeremy was hoping no one would look at the issue in too much depth though a nutter is a nutter to him.
-
skip do anything about the medication she was taking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haloperidol
-
Yes April,just as I was wondering where to start on your thread about going back to the beginning..I had so many thoughts running through my head I went to the wikipedia article on the White House Farm murders but still can't put an opening paragraph together.
STEVE!!! Stop teasing and get your head together. Even if I don't always agree with them, your posted posts are SO much more interesting than your UNposted posts.
-
Deviant is due out in a few months apparently. It will be interesting to watch behaviours following it's release.
To clarify, Paul Harrison's book is apparently to be titled "Deviant: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders", and is scheduled to be on sale from 18th July 2015.
Publisher: Vertical Editions
ISBN: 9781904091929
Format: hardback, 192 pages
One can order it at a reduced price of £12.52 here (http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781904091929), or perhaps get it for even less by becoming a new customer of a certain bookseller.
I wonder how many pages it was originally intended to be.
-
I didnt realise "Deviant: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders" was PH's book..... But yeah, Deviant is due out on July 18th.
-
Given that PH has been working on this book for about 10 years, you'd think he might have come up with a better title... such as "Dead Bodies Don't Move".
-
Given that PH has been working on this book for about 10 years, you'd think he might have come up with a better title... such as "Dead Bodies Don't Move".
Will you be buying it, Reader?
-
To clarify, Paul Harrison's book is apparently to be titled "Deviant: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders", and is scheduled to be on sale from 18th July 2015.
Publisher: Vertical Editions
ISBN: 9781904091929
Format: hardback, 192 pages
One can order it at a reduced price of £12.52 here (http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781904091929), or perhaps get it for even less by becoming a new customer of a certain bookseller.
I wonder how many pages it was originally intended to be.
Thank you for sharing this Reader. 192 pages. How do you know there were more pages? ;D
-
Thank you for sharing this Reader. 192 pages. How do you know there were more pages? ;D
Will you be reading it, Patti?
-
Just guessing, as 192 pages isn't very many after 10 years of research.
-
Will you be reading it, Patti?
Yes of course will you?
-
Just guessing, as 192 pages isn't very many after 10 years of research.
No doubt he has left the good bits out.... ;D :-[
-
Yes of course will you?
No, I found his posts poor to be honest with you... wouldn't want to read a book of it. ;D
-
Will you be buying it, Reader?
If anything from it is interesting I am sure someone will post it here to discuss.
-
Possibly, but I'll wait to see reviews of it first.
-
Possibly, but I'll wait to see reviews of it first.
There was something dodgy about the whole debacle in the Scottish newspaper with unsubstantiated accusations against people.
I don´t trust this person, so I wouldn´t put too much credence into what he writes.
Will no doubt hear from others what is in the book. ;D
-
I really believe that the murder was committed by more than 1 person. It's not possible for 1 person to have controlled all the family gun or not.
Maybe so,but if a " killer " had been contracted by,say,Jeremy,don't you think that a " payment " of £2,000 was rather small in comparison to the £25,000 which JM received for doing nothing ?? He'd be rather sick don't you think ?
Having said that,the killer was already inside the farmhouse,locked,bolted and shuttered in.
-
I might wait for the price to go down (: that seems a lot for 192 pages - where quite a few of those will no doubt be "setting the scene" and explaining the murders.
Wonder what will be in there that is "new"