Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on April 06, 2015, 03:14:AM
-
13 bullet cases recovered from main bedroom, yet no follower plate mark present on any of them...
-
13 bullet cases recovered from main bedroom, yet no follower plate mark present on any of them...
8 more bullet cases recovered from so called childrens bedroom, yet no follower plate mark found on any of them...
-
3 further bullet cases recovered from the vicinity of the main kitchen, yet none with a follower plate mark upon them...
-
A single bullet case recovered from the main stairway, yet it had no follower plate mark upon it....
-
There should be a follower plate mark on the casing of the very last round fired in the anshuzt rifle, but since none of the 25 bullet cases which form the batch of crime scene ammunition have even a solitary follower plate mark upon them, how can it be proved that every piece of the 25 bullet cases were fired at the scene when everyone was killed, with the rifle being found empty with no further bullets in its ammunition magazine?
-
Police who tampered with the batch of crime scene ammunition, made fundamental mistakes, including overlooking the fact that test fired rounds / bullet cases used in the substitution process, so that they could present the case as a one gun crime, did not have a solitary follower plate mark upon them. In addition, they introduced an additional bullet case to make the total 25, when there were originally only 24 (Ralph was only shot with 7 bullets, not 8 - one of the shots caused two of the injuries). Police involved in this exercise, dropped a clanger, they even introduced an additional bullet (the substituted whole round (PV/20) which had originally been a badly fragmented one)...
-
Follower plates don't leave distinctive marks. The lip of a magazine (the part at the top that keep the bullets inside from popping out) will scratch against the casing as it is remove from the magazine whether done manually or by the bolt of the weapon. The breech will leave distinctive marks associated with that breech, there will be extraction marks associated with a specific rifle and the firing pin impression will leave a distinctive mark. These are used to match up a casing to a particular weapon and all 25 matched the Anschutz.
-
Follower plates don't leave distinctive marks. The lip of a magazine (the part at the top that keep the bullets inside from popping out) will scratch against the casing as it is remove from the magazine whether done manually or by the bolt of the weapon. The breech will leave distinctive marks associated with that breech, there will be extraction marks associated with a specific rifle and the firing pin impression will leave a distinctive mark. These are used to match up a casing to a particular weapon and all 25 matched the Anschutz.
I am not disagreeing with marks that are made at different stages of the loading, firing and ejection, extraction procedure, but I take issue regarding your suggestion that there will be no mark made by the steel follower plate which presses against the brass casing of any round which is loaded into the ammunition magazine, since steel against shiny brass casings does produce the distinctive markings I am talking about. During test fires at Birdwell armoury in 2003 / 2004, I witnessed such follower plate markings, and I was even able to identity the position on the floor of the range where these tests took place, where the last cartridge case landed after it ejected from the rifle. The rifle used on that occasion was a model 525 anshuzt semi - automatic rifle, a parker hale sound moderator, and Eley .22 subsonic hollow point ammunition. Yet no such follower plate marks were found on any of the batch of crime scene ammunition recovered from the scene of these shootings, which tells me that somebody tampered with the bullet casings, to make this case into a one gun crime, which it was not....
-
I am not disagreeing with marks that are made at different stages of the loading, firing and ejection, extraction procedure, but I take issue regarding your suggestion that there will be no mark made by the steel follower plate which presses against the brass casing of any round which is loaded into the ammunition magazine, since steel against shiny brass casings does produce the distinctive markings I am talking about. During test fires at Birdwell armoury in 2003 / 2004, I witnessed such follower plate markings, and I was even able to identity the position on the floor of the range where these tests took place, where the last cartridge case landed after it ejected from the rifle. The rifle used on that occasion was a model 525 anshuzt semi - automatic rifle, a parker hale sound moderator, and Eley .22 subsonic hollow point ammunition. Yet no such follower plate marks were found on any of the batch of crime scene ammunition recovered from the scene of these shootings, which tells me that somebody tampered with the bullet casings, to make this case into a one gun crime, which it was not....
Follower plate marks are not often observed or recognized. It doesn't establish anything. Lip marks are readily recognizable and were mentioned to refute the notion the ammo supply was brand new untouched- some of the rounds had been loaded previously. There is not a reason to try to discern what the most subtle of marks are because it has no bearing in tying a bullet to a particular weapon that is what matters most. You spend all your time on conspiracy crap that proves nothing instead of what actually matters.
-
Follower plate marks are not often observed or recognized. It doesn't establish anything. Lip marks are readily recognizable and were mentioned to refute the notion the ammo supply was brand new untouched- some of the rounds had been loaded previously. There is not a reason to try to discern what the most subtle of marks are because it has no bearing in tying a bullet to a particular weapon that is what matters most. You spend all your time on conspiracy crap that proves nothing instead of what actually matters.
Follower plate marks are important, and do not appear on every round loaded into an ammunition magazine, unless every round is individually loaded into the magazine and then fired. In the circumstances of this case, it was very important to identify any bullet case with a follower plate mark upon it, because of the prosecution argument which they presented to the jury that there had only been one rifle used in the shootings, and that an additional 14 /15 rounds loaded into the same ammunition magazine in order for all of the 25 rounds to have been fired during the incident, and the fact that the hand swab evidence taken from Sheila showed insufficient lead deposit readings, for Sheila to have been the shooter. In the circumstances of this case, identifying at least one bullet case found at the scene with a follower plate mark upon was necessary to at least give some credence to the suggestion that the magazine belonging to the anshuzt rifle had been reloaded during the shootings. The fact that not one of the 25 bullet cases had a follower plate mark upon them, indicates to me that the batch of crime scene bulet cases was tampered with by police, in the knowlege of the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher...
A 25th bullet case was added to the crime scene batch of bullet cases, to create a false impression that 25 shots had been fired, when only 24 had been fired, including the non fatal shot across Sheila's neck, from a police issue weapon - adding a 25th bullet case to the batch of crime scene ammunition was a blunder of great magditude, police and the ballistic expert confused themselves by adding the 25th bullet case, when only 23 rounds were fired through family owned .22 weapons, during the incident unfolding inside whf, the 24th round having been fired through a .22 police issue weapon...
-
Mike,would you know if there was a separate billing for business phone-calls at WHF ?
-
Mike,would you know if there was a separate billing for business phone-calls at WHF ?
They had on phone line.
-
Mike,would you know if there was a separate billing for business phone-calls at WHF ?
Yes, I believe this was the arrangement at whf around the time of the shootings. The business line being linked to the telephone plugged in at the socket in the upstairs office, and supported by the hands free handset which could be used away from the farmhouse on the surrounding land and fields. For some reason, police have not yet revealed much information about the telephone situated in the upstairs office. We don't know if its handset was off its cradle when the police entered the farmhouse at around 7.30am...
I believe I am right in saying that the landline telephone (whf) and the business phone shared the same line connected to whf...
-
Yes, I believe this was the arrangement at whf around the time of the shootings. The business line being linked to the telephone plugged in at the socket in the upstairs office, and supported by the hands free hanset which could be used away from the farmhouse on the surrounding land and fields. For some reason, police have not t revealed much information about the telephone situated in the upstairs office. We don't know if its handset was off its cradle when the police entered the farmhouse at around 7.30am...
I believe I am right in saying that the landline telephone (whf) and the business phone shared the same line connected to whf...
They had only one phone line in the house with 2 extensions so 3 plugs total. 1 in the kitchen, 1 in the master bedroom and one in the upstairs office. The same line was used for business and personal calls.
It wasn't until after the murders that a second line was installed.
-
Through speaking with Jeremy on many occasions, I learned that it was a habit of Ralph Bamber not to go to bed, but he would relax in the lounge, or upstairs office. Often fall a sleep there, and evidence that he had been drinking close by...
-
Through speaking with Jeremy on many occasions, I learned that it was a habit of Ralph Bamber not to go to bed, but he would relax in the lounge, or upstairs office. Often fall a sleep there, and evidence that he had been drinking close by...
For this reason, I do not believe that Ralph Bamber was a sleep in bed at the time the shootings began. I believe that he was sat in his chair in the upstairs office dozing off, as was his custom....
-
I believe that an absence of any of his blood in the main bedroom, supports this idea...
-
12 bullet cases found in the immediate vicinity of the main bedroom, and a further solitary bullet case discovered just outside the main bedroom door on the upstairs landing, appear to tell its own story...
It was the prosecutions case, that the three adult victims had all been shot whilst present at one time or another in the master bedroom.
Ralph Bamber, shot 8 times (4 non fatal)
June Bamber, shot 7 times ( 5 non fatal)
Sheila Caffell, shot 2 times (1 non fatal)
total shots:- 13
-
12 bullet cases found in the immediate vicinity of the main bedroom, and a further solitary bullet case discovered just outside the main bedroom door on the upstairs landing, appear to tell its own story...
It was the prosecutions case, that the three adult victims had all been shot whilst present at one time or another in the master bedroom.
Ralph Bamber, shot 8 times (4 non fatal)
June Bamber, shot 7 times ( 5 non fatal)
Sheila Caffell, shot 2 times (1 non fatal)
total shots:- 13
We now know that in fact, Ralph Bamber was only shot 7 times, not 8 (one bullet caused two of his
injuries)...
-
I am not satisfied that the distribution of recovered bullet cases (12) in the vicinity of the main bedroom has been reported accurately...
I arrive at this conclusion because of the following reasons:-
-
I am not satisfied that the distribution of recovered bullet cases (12) in the vicinity of the main bedroom has been reported accurately...
I arrive at this conclusion because of the following reasons:-
Only June Bamber from the group of adult victims had exit wounds from being shot during the incident, she had three bullet exit wounds, and yet the following loose bullets were found in the main bedroom...
It would be a worthwhile exercise to identify these 5 bullets by reference to their exhibit marks, with a view to establishing which victims they were, or have been associated with or to...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom)
(4) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom)
What we discover, is that each of the aforementioned bullets, passed through the bodies of victims, and were found laying loosely in the corresponding locations specified.
-
Only June Bamber from the group of adult victims had exit wounds from being shot during the incident, she had three bullet exit wounds, and yet the following loose bullets were found in the main bedroom...
It would be a worthwhile exercise to identify these 5 bullets by reference to their exhibit marks, with a view to establishing which victims they were, or have been associated with or to...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom)
(4) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom)
What we discover, is that each of the aforementioned bullets, passed through the bodies of victims, and were found laying loosely in the corresponding locations specified.
Now, lets do some basic arithmetic:-
June Bamber shot seven times, has three bullet exit wounds
Ralph Bamber is shot 7 times, has one exit wound, but bullet re-enters another part of his body
Sheila Caffell is shot twice, and has no exit wounds
There should only be three loose bullets found in the main bedroom but there are in fact four...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom)
(4) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom)
-
One of the 12 bullet cases recovered from the main bedroom, must have been part of one of these four cartridges...
-
One of the 12 bullet cases recovered from the main bedroom, must have been part of one of these four cartridges...
This is where logistics come into play, helping to expose how police sought to frame Jeremy Bamber as the killer, by falsely alleging that he murdered all five victims, including Sheila Caffell, and that he stage managed the crime scene to fool police into accepting that Sheila had killed the others, and then taken her own life with use of the family owned anshuzt rifle...
But, police dropped one clanger after another by tampering with the crime scene ammunition...
-
Now, lets do some basic arithmetic:-
June Bamber shot seven times, has three bullet exit wounds
Ralph Bamber is shot 7 times, has one exit wound, but bullet re-enters another part of his body
Sheila Caffell is shot twice, and has no exit wounds
There should only be three loose bullets found in the main bedroom but there are in fact four...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom)
(4) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom)
No there should have been 4 bullets found in the bedroom because 3 bullets exited June and 1 bullet grazed Nevill. The other 7 bullets fired in the bedroom at June and Nevill were recovered inside of them. (4 recovered inside of June and 3 recovered inside of Nevill)
Master Bedroom
Nevill
PV/2 (Shoulder)
Arm/chest Graze wound -1 of the following: DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35
PV/5 (jaw) fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
June
PV/23 lower chest
PV/24 right upper chest
PV/25
PV/26
lower neck 1 of the following DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35
forearm 1 of the following DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35
knee 1 of the following DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35
Sheila
PV/19
PV/20
This is one of those things you should well know and that I have a hard time believing you simply made an honest mistake about.
-
It is now an undisputed fact that one of the 12 bullet cases found in the vicinity of the main bedroom, belonged to the mystery loose bullet, which cannot be linked or associated to any of the three adult victims who during the course of events may have got shot inside the bedroom in question...
So, what we are left with are 11 bullet cases recovered from the main bedroom, which we can then link or associate with the shootings of the three adult victims inside the parameters of the main bedroom. we can see that seven of these are linked or associated with the shooting of June Bamber, because we know that she was shot a total of 7 times inside that same bedroom. This leaves four bullet cases to still be accounted for, against six shots we have been asked to believe and accept related to Ralph Bamber and Sheila Caffell, whilst both were present inside the bedroom. But the logistics do not support the claim of the prosecution that Ralph Bamber had been shot four times whilst inside that bedroom, or that Sheila Caffell had been shot twice there, since in order for that to have been true there would have had to be six more bullet cases present in the vicinity of the bedroom, yet there are only four...
If Ralph Bamber was shot three times non fatally whilst in the bedroom, that leaves only one bullet case left there, and still to be explained is how was Sheila thus shot twice in the bedroom, without a corresponding bullet case being present to account for one of the two shots she received?
-
Logistics, in this matter, do not lie...
Do the sums...
-
Logistics, in this matter, do not lie...
Do the sums...
Whichever way the prosecution and its supporters want to play it, there was insufficient bullet cases recovered from inside the main bedroom - in other words police dropped a clanger in framing Jeremy Bamber for these murders. Sheila could not possibly have been shot twice inside the bedroom, only once...
-
Mike TESKO's Blueprint proving his theory is produced here, so that students seeking the truth can perform their own calculations:-
Bullet cases
01 - loose bullet 1 June Bamber
02 - loose bullet 2 June Bamber
03 - loose bullet 3 June Bamber
04 - loose bullet 4 Ralph Bamber
05 - (1)
06 - (2)
07 - (3)
08 - (4)
09 - (5)
10 - (6)
11 - (7)
12 - (8)
-----------------------------------------
This leaves only 8 bullet cases to be accounted for, yet since June had been shot 7 times, (three loose bullets recovered from bedroom), and that Ralph Bamber had been shot 8 times (one loose bullet recovered from the bedroom), he having been shot four times non fatally in the bedroom, and Sheila shot twice in the bedroom, there is a significant shortfall of one bullet case in the bedroom, which supports the case for Sheila Caffell only having been shot once in the main bedroom, not shot twice...
-
Whichever way the prosecution and its supporters want to play it, there was insufficient bullet cases recovered from inside the main bedroom - in other words police dropped a clanger in framing Jeremy Bamber for these murders. Sheila could not possibly have been shot twice inside the bedroom, only once...
There was blood on the wallpaper in the hall leading into the kitchen,and also the handprints of someone on the blue and white chequered worktop,which I assume was not examined as I've never read that they ever were matched to any of the victims. Do you go with the scenario of Scott Lomax that there was a struggle in the kitchen between Sheila and Nevill and this is how the ceiling light got broken? I was also wondering about the lounge where Nevill watched television. Did we ever see any photographs of this room?
-
There was blood on the wallpaper in the hall leading into the kitchen,and also the handprints of someone on the blue and white chequered worktop,which I assume was not examined as I've never read that they ever were matched to any of the victims. Do you go with the scenario of Scott Lomax that there was a struggle in the kitchen between Sheila and Nevill and this is how the ceiling light got broken? I was also wondering about the lounge where Nevill watched television. Did we ever see any photographs of this room?
The way I see how these events unfolded, is that Ralph was not a sleep in his bed when things started to take a turn for the worst. He may have been in the lounge drinking, dozing, or watching TV, but I think it is equally as likely that he was at his desk in the upstairs office, where he was also known to spend his nights. Jeremy told me many times that his father used to fall to sleep in his chair at his upstairs office desk, where he also had access to the business phone plugged in there. Now, weighing things up over the last three decades or so, I tend to favour the suggestion that Ralph was upstairs in his office, not downstairs in the lounge watching tv, or dozing in a chair, or on the sofa there. The reason why I favour him being in the upstairs office, is because of the telephone there, I believe that Ralph made the call to Jeremy, and the police, one call after the other, using the upstairs office phone, not the round finger dial phone plugged into the kitchen. I believe that the supposed use of the kitchen phone to be nothing more than a red herrin'...
DCI HARRIS used the kitchen phone between 8.15 and 8.30am, whilst relaying live information about the new search for Sheila inside the farmhouse, after her body had gone missing from the kitchen after 8.10am. DCI Harris left the kitchen phone off its cradle at around 8.30am, once Sheila's body had been relocated upstairs in the main bedroom collapsed on the bed...
I believe (know) that there must have been a struggle of sorts inside the kitchen involving Sheila, at which stage the kitchen lampshade got broken. I can't say that I disagree with Scott Lomax's interpretation of the events, but what I do know is that Sheila struggled with one of the firearms officers as he was trying to squeeze into the kitchen from the back hallway through a gap at the internal kitchen door, and that there was at this time a struggle for life over death between that police officer and Sheila, herself. That police officer, was PS Woodcock. It may well be that at the time of this struggle that the barrel of the sound moderator fitted to Woodcocks gun came into contact with the aforementioned lampshade and broke it...
I have never yet seen photographs of the lounge, or the upstairs office, but I believe that Jeremy now has...
Lastly, blood on the wall paper and elsewhere that you spoke about, was in my view deposited there as a result of Ralph Bamber fleeing the main bedroom upstairs, after being shot at, and wounded non fatally in the bedroom. I picture the scene in my minds eye, of Ralph attending the main bedroom to try and care for his injured wife, and being shot at, as he fled down the main stairs and on into the kitchen. I am not convinced that each of the four so called fatal shots that he received to his head were completely and immediately incapacitating, although I could be wrong...
Hope this helps...
-
Mike TESKO's Blueprint proving his theory is produced here, so that students seeking the truth can perform their own calculations:-
Bullet cases
01 - loose bullet 1 June Bamber
02 - loose bullet 2 June Bamber
03 - loose bullet 3 June Bamber
04 - loose bullet 4 Ralph Bamber
05 - (1)
06 - (2)
07 - (3)
08 - (4)
09 - (5)
10 - (6)
11 - (7)
12 - (8)
-----------------------------------------
This leaves only 8 bullet cases to be accounted for, yet since June had been shot 7 times, (three loose bullets recovered from bedroom), and that Ralph Bamber had been shot 8 times (one loose bullet recovered from the bedroom), he having been shot four times non fatally in the bedroom, and Sheila shot twice in the bedroom, there is a significant shortfall of one bullet case in the bedroom, which supports the case for Sheila Caffell only having been shot once in the main bedroom, not shot twice...
There were 13 spent casings found in the master bedroom.
2 corresponding to Sheila's wounds (DRH/1 & 2)
and 11 corresponding to June and Nevill's wounds:
DRH/3, 4, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 43
and for the sake of completeness:
Casings from the kitchen:
DRH 14 (found on the landing upstairs obviously accidentally conveyed there from the kitchen), 19, 20, 41
Casings from the bedroom the twins were staying in:
DRH 16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39A, 39B, 40
-
There were 13 spent casings found in the master bedroom.
2 corresponding to Sheila's wounds (DRH/1 & 2)
and 11 corresponding to June and Nevill's wounds:
DRH/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 43
WRONG...
12 in the bedroom, one outside the main bedroom door on the landing...
-
The way I see how these events unfolded, is that Ralph was not a sleep in his bed when things started to take a turn for the worst. He may have been in the lounge drinking, dozing, or watching TV, but I think it is equally as likely that he was at his desk in the upstairs office, where he was also known to spend his nights. Jeremy told me many times that his father used to fall to sleep in his chair at his upstairs office desk, where he also had access to the business phone plugged in there. Now, weighing things up over the last three decades or so, I tend to favour the suggestion that Ralph was upstairs in his office, not downstairs in the lounge watching tv, or dozing in a chair, or on the sofa there. The reason why I favour him being in the upstairs office, is because of the telephone there, I believe that Ralph made the call to Jeremy, and the police, one call after the other, using the upstairs office phone, not the round finger dial phone plugged into the kitchen. I believe that the supposed use of the kitchen phone to be nothing more than a red herrin'...
DCI HARRIS used the kitchen phone between 8.15 and 8.30am, whilst relaying live information about the new search for Sheila inside the farmhouse, after her body had gone missing from the kitchen after 8.10am. DCI Harris left the kitchen phone off its cradle at around 8.30am, once Sheila's body had been relocated upstairs in the main bedroom collapsed on the bed...
I believe (know) that there must have been a struggle of sorts inside the kitchen involving Sheila, at which stage the kitchen lampshade got broken. I can't say that I disagree with Scott Lomax's interpretation of the events, but what I do know is that Sheila struggled with one of the firearms officers as he was trying to squeeze into the kitchen from the back hallway through a gap at the internal kitchen door, and that there was at this time a struggle for life over death between that police officer and Sheila, herself. That police officer, was PS Woodcock. It may well be that at the time of this struggle that the barrel of the sound moderator fitted to Woodcocks gun came into contact with the aforementioned lampshade and broke it...
I have never yet seen photographs of the lounge, or the upstairs office, but I believe that Jeremy now has...
Lastly, blood on the wall paper and elsewhere that you spoke about, was in my view deposited there as a result of Ralph Bamber fleeing the main bedroom upstairs, after being shot at, and wounded non fatally in the bedroom. I picture the scene in my minds eye, of Ralph attending the main bedroom to try and care for his injured wife, and being shot at, as he fled down the main stairs and on into the kitchen. I am not convinced that each of the four so called fatal shots that he received to his head were completely and immediately incapacitating, although I could be wrong...
Hope this helps...
Yes of course. If Jeremy is guilty it's a further complication that he would not be sure as to Nevill's whereabouts with five people to control that morning. According to Julie the perpetrator would make a call from the blue office telephone which would leave a record of the number dialled,but of course we have no sure way of knowing who actually dialled the number. Didn't Police use this telephone anyway thus nullfying the record of any preceding call? At least there is some scenario there you have offered us,however unlikely some may feel it may be.
-
Interestingly enough I was reading one of AE's statements today and she was describing how she was told that morning via telephone form one of her relatives. She then phoned round and she said quite clearly that she kept on phoning WHF and no one answered. She did not say it was engaged. This was prior to Bird taking any crime scene photographs, this was before 8:45......So was the phone back on the cradle? then taken off again just prior to taking the photo's....
Just because we see the phone of the cradle in the kitchen, it does not mean it was that one that had been used.....Could he have phoned from his office?
-
Interestingly enough I was reading one of AE's statements today and she was describing how she was told that morning via telephone form one of her relatives. She then phoned round and she said quite clearly that she kept on phoning WHF and no one answered. She did not say it was engaged. This was prior to Bird taking any crime scene photographs, this was before 8:45......So was the phone back on the cradle? then taken off again just prior to taking the photo's....
Just because we see the phone of the cradle in the kitchen, it does not mean it was that one that had been used.....Could he have phoned from his office?
I thought I'd read somewhere that Police had made a call from that office telephone.
-
WRONG...
12 in the bedroom, one outside the main bedroom door on the landing...
13 In the master bedroom: DRH/1,2, 3, 4, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 43
DRH 14 was found in the hall against the wall of the landing but it corresponded to one of the shots fired in the kitchen.
-
KITCHEN
DRH/41 case...under kitchen table
DRH/ 19 case...on kitchen table
DRH/20 case....under the mat, infront of sink
DRH/23 bullet.....in a plastic tray on worktop near sink unit.
LANDING
DRH/14...landing floor adjacent to the wall.
MAIN BEDROOM
DRH/13 metal strip of doorway
DRH/6 top of quit right hand side of the bed
DRH/7 under wardrobe
DRH/7 under wardrobe (note Hammersley quotes two cases found under same serial number DRH7
DRH/8 left hand side of bed 4inches from the pillow
DRH/9 Bullet found 4 inches form DRH/8 near pillow left hand side of bed
DRH/10 on the quilt right hand side of the bed on floor.
DRH/11 right hand side of bed on the floor near the wardrobe
DRH/12 on the floor right hand side of the bed
DRH/43 under the wardrobe right hand side of bed
DRH/1 right side of Sheila's body
DRH/2 Left hand side of Sheila's body
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
DRH/4 next to DRH/3
DRH/5 Bullet.
TWINS ROOM
8 cases and 1 bullet.
DRH/37 under wooden bedside cabinet
DRH/36 Bullet
DRH/38 Under right hand side of the bed at the head of the bed
DRH 39 right hand corner under right hand side of the bed
DRH/39 (note Hammersley quotes two case shells)
DRH 40 under the middle of the right hand bed
DRH/16 floor between both beds
DRH/17 On wooden cabinet between both beds
DRH18 right hand side of bed
-
Interestingly enough I was reading one of AE's statements today and she was describing how she was told that morning via telephone form one of her relatives. She then phoned round and she said quite clearly that she kept on phoning WHF and no one answered. She did not say it was engaged. This was prior to Bird taking any crime scene photographs, this was before 8:45......So was the phone back on the cradle? then taken off again just prior to taking the photo's....
Just because we see the phone of the cradle in the kitchen, it does not mean it was that one that had been used.....Could he have phoned from his office?
Yes, I believe Ralph used the office phone to make the calls to Jeremy, and then the police straight afterwards. The police requested shut down of the open 999 connection after Sheila's body disappeared from the kitchen, so what you are talking about could be true. DCI Harris did not enter the upstairs office as far as I know, so that leaves the use of the round finger dial phone in the kitchen for him to have used to make his call to ACC Peter Simpson between 8.15 and 8.30am. At the conclusion of the call between Harris and Simpson at around 8.30am, Harris would have terminated the call either by depressing the cradle in the kitchen, or by replacing the handset of the round finger dial phone onto its cradle, which if true, would mean that the phone was staged for the purposes of PC Bird to then take his photographs of it, I suppose to portray the image that this was the telephone used by Ralph Bamber to call Jeremy (3.25am) and then the police (3.26am)...
-
I'm still not sure what the significance of the casings is(especially this lost bullet) if someone could spell it out for me.
-
I thought I'd read somewhere that Police had made a call from that office telephone.
You did, but I think it was mentioned like that to deliberately throw interested persons off the scent, or in other words a red herrin'...
-
Yes, I believe Ralph used the office phone to make the calls to Jeremy, and then the police straight afterwards. The police requested shut down of the open 999 connection after Sheila's body disappeared from the kitchen, so what you are talking about could be true. DCI Harris did not enter the upstairs office as far as I know, so that leaves the use of the round finger dial phone in the kitchen for him to have used to make his call to ACC Peter Simpson between 8.15 and 8.30am. At the conclusion of the call between Harris and Simpson at around 8.30am, Harris would have terminated the call either by depressing the cradle in the kitchen, or by replacing the handset of the round finger dial phone onto its cradle, which if true, would mean that the phone was staged for the purposes of PC Bird to then take his photographs of it, I suppose to portray the image that this was the telephone used by Ralph Bamber to call Jeremy (3.25am) and then the police (3.26am)...
Arrr but one of the phones must have been off the hook, because BT could hear the dog barking....but must have been replaced otherwise AE would have said it was engaged...I'll have to read all her statements... :(
-
Arrr but one of the phones must have been off the hook, because BT could hear the dog barking....but must have been replaced otherwise AE would have said it was engaged...I'll have to read all her statements... :(
Upstairs office phone originally left off the hook after Ralph had first of all called Jeremy (3.25am), and then the police (3.26am)...
-
I'm still not sure what the significance of the casings is(especially this lost bullet) if someone could spell it out for me.
The 25 casings prove the Anschutz fired all 25 rounds. The firing pin impressions, extraction marks and breech marks were conclusively tied to the Anschutz.
Furthermore they help establish where the shots were fired. the only casing in a different room than fired in was DRH/14 which was in the upstairs hall kicked against the wall but had been in the. We know all 4 shots to Nevill's head was fired in the kitchen and the kitchen was missing a casing so that is how we know it was transported upstairs.
-
Interestingly enough I was reading one of AE's statements today and she was describing how she was told that morning via telephone form one of her relatives. She then phoned round and she said quite clearly that she kept on phoning WHF and no one answered. She did not say it was engaged. This was prior to Bird taking any crime scene photographs, this was before 8:45......So was the phone back on the cradle? then taken off again just prior to taking the photo's....
Just because we see the phone of the cradle in the kitchen, it does not mean it was that one that had been used.....Could he have phoned from his office?
AE didn't specify for sure whether the phone was ringing or she got a busy signal. She simply indicated she was trying to call.
I thought I'd read somewhere that Police had made a call from that office telephone.
Yes a cop made a call from the kitchen phone early on and could potentially have hung it up though I believe he claimed he hung the phone up then removed it from the cradle again to leave it the way it was.
When the raid team entered the kitchen phone was off the cradle and that was why the phone company said it was engaged and they had to cut into the line in order to listen.
-
The 25 casings prove the Anschutz fired all 25 rounds. The firing pin impressions, extraction marks and breech marks were conclusively tied to the Anschutz.
Furthermore they help establish where the shots were fired. the only casing in a different room than fired in was DRH/14 which was in the upstairs hall kicked against the wall but had been in the. We know all 4 shots to Nevill's head was fired in the kitchen and the kitchen was missing a casing so that is how we know it was transported upstairs.
So Nevill was not placed definitively in the master bedroom when the incident started?
-
I thought I'd read somewhere that Police had made a call from that office telephone.
Steve, I have read the same but I am not sure which phone was used.... :-[
-
Upstairs office phone originally left off the hook after Ralph had first of all called Jeremy (3.25am), and then the police (3.26am)...
The upstairs phone was on the cradle, only the kitchen phone was found off the cradle.
-
AE didn't specify for sure whether the phone was ringing or she got a busy signal. She simply indicated she was trying to call. She said she got no answer???
Yes a cop made a call from the kitchen phone early on and could potentially have hung it up though I believe he claimed he hung the phone up then removed it from the cradle again to leave it the way it was.
When the raid team entered the kitchen phone was off the cradle and that was why the phone company said it was engaged and they had to cut into the line in order to listen.
-
Steve, I have read the same but I am not sure which phone was used.... :-[
It was the kitchen phone. I am fairly sure the source specified he made sure to leave it back off the hook when he was done.
-
Saying she got no answer doesn't preclude getting no answer because it was constantly busy as opposed to ringing forever with no one answering.
-
I'm still not sure what the significance of the casings is(especially this lost bullet) if someone could spell it out for me.
Prosecution case was that Ralph had been shot 8 times (four non fatal, four fatal). Evidence elsewhere, suggests that Ralph had only been shot seven times, and that one of these 7 bullets had grazed one part of his body, before entering another part of his body. Somebody else has suggested that the solitary surplus loose bullet recovered from the main bedroom, was / is in fact the 8th bullet fired at Ralph Bamber. So, we have a dilemma, was Ralph shot with 8 bullets which caused 8 separate bullet wounds in various locations of his body, or was he shot by use of 7 bullets which caused 8 bullet wound type injuries?
12 bullet cases found / recovered from the vicinity of the main bedroom...
Prosecution argument was that Ralph Bamber had already been shot non fatally 4 times in the main bedroom, before he reached the downstairs kitchen, and would therefore not have been able to make a telephone call to anybody because he had already been shot in the lip, and the jaw. We therefore have two different scenarios to consider, was Ralph shot by 7 bullets, or 8?
If two of the 8 bullet wounds was caused by one of 7 bullets fired at him, it means that the prosecution argument that he had already been shot 4 times none fatally whilst in the bedroom before he ended up downstairs, is wrong, and that in fact he had only been shot three times in the bedroom. ..
Four loose bullets found in the bedroom, three of which can be directly associated with three bullet exit wounds found on June Bambers body. So, with this in mind, 3 of the 12 corresponding bullet cases must relate to three loose bullets mentioned (leaving 9 bullet cases to still be accounted for). Well, June had been shot a total of 7 times so we can deduct four more bullet cases from that remaining total of 9 bullet cases, which leaves five bullet cases to be accounted for. Someone has claimed that the last remaining loose bullet, relates to one of the 8 bullet wounds sustained by Ralph Bamber, which when deducted from the running total of five remaining bullet cases yet to be accounted for, leaves 4 bullet cases still to be accounted for, with three more shots to Ralph in the bedroom, and two shots to Sheila in the bedroom, still to be taken into account. Lets take the other three non fatal shots into Ralph into account, deduct these from the remaining four bullet cases, leaving only 1 bullet case in the main bedroom to accommodate the two shots which the prosecution claim was the number of times that Sheila had been shot in the bedroom, but this cannot be true because there are not enough bullet cases left to be accounted for from the bedroom, only one bullet case, to balance against two bullets used in the shooting of Sheila. I am saying that Essex police have dropped a clanger in staging the scene during informatives in the bedroom, by claiming that Sheila was shot twice in the bedroom when she could not possibly have been. There wasn't enough bullet cases found in the bedroom for Sheila to have been shot twice there, she was shot only once in the main bedroom like I have always been maintaining she was...
Hope this helps...
-
So Nevill was not placed definitively in the master bedroom when the incident started?
Nevill and June were both in the master bedroom when it started. 4 bullets were used on Nevill and at least 6 on June in the initial incident. 1 bullet grazed Neivll and remained in the room. The other 3 were recovered from his body.
It is hard to accept June walking around the bed through the killer and then going back towards the killer to be knocked to the floor and then shot between the eyes. Most likely the shot between her eyes was delivered after Nevill died in the kitchen. She was lying on the floor but the killer wasn't positive she was dead so wanted to make sure.
-
Nevill and June were both in the master bedroom when it started. 4 bullets were used on Nevill and at least 6 on June in the initial incident. 1 bullet grazed Neivll and remained in the room. The other 3 were recovered from his body.
It is hard to accept June walking around the bed through the killer and then going back towards the killer to be knocked to the floor and then shot between the eyes. Most likely the shot between her eyes was delivered after Nevill died in the kitchen. She was lying on the floor but the killer wasn't positive she was dead so wanted to make sure.
How do you know ??
-
How do you know ??
Because a bullet that grazed Nevill and 4 casings associated with the 4 shots to the left profile of his body were found in the bedroom. The gun would have been empty after these shots and those to June were fired which explains why things then progressed to the Kitchen and there was a struggle. Either the killer ran to the kitchen to reload with Nevill chasing or Nevill ran to the kitchen to arm hiself or the like and the killer gave chase and in the kitchen the killer had to beat Nevill unconscious to be able to reload in peace then fired the 4 shots to Nevill's head.
-
Neville could well have been" smacked" on his way downstairs rendering him disabled as he reached the kitchen.
-
Neville could well have been" smacked" on his way downstairs rendering him disabled as he reached the kitchen.
If his head were cracked somewhere other than the kitchen he would have been found there instead of the kitchen and there would not have been a struggle in the kitchen. The struggle happened in the kitchen, that is where he was knocked unconscious, that is where the rifle stock broke and that is where he was shot to death with the 4 shots to his head.
-
If his head were cracked somewhere other than the kitchen he would have been found there instead of the kitchen and there would not have been a struggle in the kitchen. The struggle happened in the kitchen, that is where he was knocked unconscious, that is where the rifle stock broke and that is where he was shot to death with the 4 shots to his head.
The stock could have weakened on the way downstairs for it to have come asunder altogether for the final blow in the kitchen. It had hit a wall or the Aga to have broken like it did,by holding the muzzle end leaving the stock as a heavy weapon. That wouldn't have just broken by hitting someone around the skull ?
-
The stock could have weakened on the way downstairs for it to have come asunder altogether for the final blow in the kitchen. It had hit a wall or the Aga to have broken like it did,by holding the muzzle end leaving the stock as a heavy weapon. That wouldn't have just broken by hitting someone around the skull ?
The stock broke by the back of the stock bashed against something hard, not the sides striking anything. It was being used to batter Nevill. The cracks in the stock and the nature of how it sheered off reveals the motion. The side would have cracked instead if the side had been hit.
If he was beaten in the hall with it then the fight would have been there instead of in the kitchen. There are only 2 possibilities of why things ended up in the kitchen:
1) the killer went there to reload the weapon and before the killer could do so Nevill caught up to the killer and the fight ensued.
2) Nevill went to the kitchen to try to arm himself and the killer at first let him go choosing to make sure June was dead and then caught up with Nevill in the kitchen. Nevill could not move overly fast he was bumping against the walls. If the killer were chasing him right away then the killer would have caught up and struggle would have been in the hall instead of the kitchen and then the killer would have shot him there. There were no signs of a struggle in the hall just the kitchen.
-
Because a bullet that grazed Nevill and 4 casings associated with the 4 shots to the left profile of his body were found in the bedroom. The gun would have been empty after these shots and those to June were fired which explains why things then progressed to the Kitchen and there was a struggle. Either the killer ran to the kitchen to reload with Nevill chasing or Nevill ran to the kitchen to arm hiself or the like and the killer gave chase and in the kitchen the killer had to beat Nevill unconscious to be able to reload in peace then fired the 4 shots to Nevill's head.
Seven bullets fired, producing 8 bullet wounds (Ralph Bamber), all seven bullets recovered from inside his body.
Seven bullets fired, producing 7 bullet wounds (June Bamber), four bullets recovered from her body, three loose bullets recovered from the main bedroom.
One loose bullet, recovered from the main bedroom.
Two bullets fired, producing two bullet wounds (Sheila Caffell), two bullets recovered from her body.
----------------------------------------------------------------
12 cartridge cases recovered from the main bedroom, producing 13 bullets, linked to same bedroom, do not add up, something is very wrong with your calculation:-
Lets go through the known facts, of who got shot in that bedroom according to you...
June Bamber, she got shot 7 times, which must be linked to 7 of the 12 recovered cartridge cases found in the main bedroom, leaving 5 cartridge cases to still be accounted for - three bullets recovered from Ralphs body, all supposedly fired into his body whilst he was present inside that bedroom, so this takes up another three of the five cartridge cases, leaving two cartridge cases to be accounted for. All appears well up to this point, but then things start to take a turn for the worst, because we still have 1 loose bullet recovered from the bedroom, and two shots into Sheila to deal with, producing a total of three bullets requiring three cartridge cases to be matched to, but where only two exist. Now, one of the two remaining cartridge cases must relate to the loose bullet discovered in that bedroom, and this leaves just one cartridge case against which to match to two shots into Sheila's neck, but only one of these shots can be accounted for by the solitary cartridge case remaining to be accounted for in that bedroom...
We are left with, one bullet fired into Sheila's neck, without a corresponding bullet case found in that bedroom...
The only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at, is that one of the two shots fired into Sheila's neck, was inflicted in another part of the farmhouse...
Do you not agree...
-
Seven bullets fired, producing 8 bullet wounds (Ralph Bamber), all seven bullets recovered from inside his body.
Seven bullets fired, producing 7 bullet wounds (June Bamber), four bullets recovered from her body, three loose bullets recovered from the main bedroom.
One loose bullet, recovered from the main bedroom.
Two bullets fired, producing two bullet wounds (Sheila Caffell), two bullets recovered from her body.
----------------------------------------------------------------
12 cartridge cases recovered from the main bedroom, producing 13 bullets, linked to same bedroom, do not add up, something is very wrong with your calculation:-
Lets go through the known facts, of who got shot in that bedroom according to you...
June Bamber, she got shot 7 times, which must be linked to 7 of the 12 recovered cartridge cases found in the main bedroom, leaving 5 cartridge cases to still be accounted for - three bullets recovered from Ralphs body, all supposedly fired into his body whilst he was present inside that bedroom, so this takes up another three of the five cartridge cases, leaving two cartridge cases to be accounted for. All appears well up to this point, but then things start to take a turn for the worst, because we still have 1 loose bullet recovered from the bedroom, and two shots into Sheila to deal with, producing a total of three bullets requiring three cartridge cases to be matched to, but where only two exist. Now, one of the two remaining cartridge cases must relate to the loose bullet discovered in that bedroom, and this leaves just one cartridge case against which to match to two shots into Sheila's neck, but only one of these shots can be accounted for by the solitary cartridge case remaining to be accounted for in that bedroom...
We are left with, one bullet fired into Sheila's neck, without a corresponding bullet case found in that bedroom...
The only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at, is that one of the two shots fired into Sheila's neck, was inflicted in another part of the farmhouse...
Do you not agree...
No because as I demonstrated yesterday there were 13 casings found in the master bedroom not 12 and DRH/1 &2 were by Sheila so the casings from her wounds are especially not in doubt.
13 In the master bedroom: DRH/1,2, 3, 4, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 43
-
No because as I demonstrated yesterday there were 13 casings found in the master bedroom not 12 and DRH/1 &2 were by Sheila so the casings from her wounds are especially not in doubt.
13 In the master bedroom: DRH/1,2, 3, 4, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 43
What gives you the authority to move one of the cartridge cases from the upstairs landing, into the main bedroom?
-
What gives you the authority to move one of the cartridge cases from the upstairs landing, into the main bedroom?
The one in the hall was DRH/14 and it corresponds to one of the shots fired in the kitchen because only 3 were found in the kitchen though 4 shots were fired there.
-
The one in the hall was DRH/14 and it corresponds to one of the shots fired in the kitchen because only 3 were found in the kitchen though 4 shots were fired there.
Four shots were fired in the kitchen, Ralph (3), Sheila Caffell (1), I agree...
-
If one of the 7 shots fired at Ralph Bamber caused a graze, and then caused another wound in a different part of his body, with the bullet in question becoming deposited inside Ralphs body, then one of the four loose bullets found in the bedroom cannot relate to a shot fired at Ralph Bamber...
-
Four shots were fired in the kitchen, Ralph (3), Sheila Caffell (1), I agree...
Sheila received both wounds in the bedroom. There were 13 casings there.
Nevill was shot 4 times in the kitchen. Had any of his head wounds been delivered elsewhere he never would have made it to the kitchen. Moreover the position he found is what enabled his head to be targeted. The 4 shots feature in 2 batches of 2 shots in each batch. The killer fired 2 in rapid succession then moved a little and fired 2 more in rapid succession.
-
If one of the 7 shots fired at Ralph Bamber caused a graze, and then caused another wound in a different part of his body, with the bullet in question becoming deposited inside Ralphs body, then one of the four loose bullets found in the bedroom cannot relate to a shot fired at Ralph Bamber...
Nevill suffered 8 gunshot wounds. A small piece of the bullet that grazed him broke off and entered his side but it was too tiny for Vanezis to recover. The rest of the bullet was found in the bedroom. It grazed his arm, a piece broke off and entered his side the rest of the bullet grazed his chest and landed in the room.
His other 7 wounds resulted in the bullets entering him and being recovered by Vanezis.
Nevill
Master Bedroom wounds
1)PV/2 (Shoulder)
2)Arm/chest Graze wound -1 of the following: DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35 (remaining 3 correspond to June)
3) PV/10 (lip)
4) PV/11 (jaw)
PV/5 fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11
Kitchen wounds
5) PV/3 (skull)
6) PV/4 (skull)
7) PV/8 (skull)
8 ) PV/9 (skull)
-
How did the badly fragmented bullet pieces (PV/20) recovered from Sheila's neck during autopsy performed on the 7th August 1985, become transformed back into a whole bullet by the time the ballistic expert Fletcher received it at the lab' on the 20th September 1985?
-
How did the badly fragmented bullet pieces (PV/20) recovered from Sheila's neck during autopsy performed on the 7th August 1985, become transformed back into a whole bullet by the time the ballistic expert Fletcher received it at the lab' on the 20th September 1985?
It wasn't a whole bullet. A full third of the bullet broke off. So the the largest fragment was PV/20 the remaining third of the bullet was in numerous small pieces.
(http://s8.postimg.org/jsb8mcsph/sheilaxrayexhibit.jpg)
You can even see the shape of PV/20 as shown below the xray matches the shape of PV/20 in the xray. The round cavity of PV/20 didn't show up in the xray so you see a round void.
-
It wasn't a whole bullet. A full third of the bullet broke off. So the the largest fragment was PV/20 the remaining third of the bullet was in numerous small pieces.
(http://s8.postimg.org/jsb8mcsph/sheilaxrayexhibit.jpg)
You can even see the shape of PV/20 as shown below the xray matches the shape of PV/20 in the xray. The round cavity of PV/20 didn't show up in the xray so you see a round void.
So, you agree that the original PV/20 was not a whole bullet, so at least we are in agreement about something of some significance. Now, for your information the image you have posted of the badly damaged and distorted bullet, was a photograph taken by the defence ballistic expert, Major Mead, during his examination of the batch of crime scene ammunition (I think he took this and other images of bullets, during May 1986). We agree that the photographed example is the same as was removed by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, during autopsy performed on the afternoon of the 7th August 1985. The recorded weight was the weight of the damage bullet, as weighed by Major Mead, on that occasion, and clearly the bullet weight on this occasion demonstrated that this bullet was not a whole bullet, contrary to that described by the prosecution ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who in all his reports and findings described bullet PV/20, as a whole one (when it can't have been...
For your information the police did not provide this image to Jeremy, it was Jeremy and his legal team who remembered that Major Mead had photographed some of the bullets which he examined at Huntingdon Lab' in May 1986, and requested copies of those / these...
Conversion of the recorded (24.46) GRAIN weight, into GRAM weight, produces the following:- 1.714579g
Eley manufacturers specified weight for .22LR subsonic hollow point is 2.26 grams , from Hunter's book , but I think it is posted elsewhere as you say. The bullets bearing Hammersley's initials on exhibit numbers weigh 2.44 , 2.43 , 2.42 , 2.42 and the fifth , described as near whole , weighed 1.67 grams .
There are many anomalies in the ballistics which are indicative of deceit .
-
Lets look at the five loose bullets police recovered from the scene:-
It would be a worthwhile exercise to identify these 5 bullets by reference to their exhibit marks, with a view to establishing which victims they were, or have been associated with or to...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom)
(4) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/36) recovered from RH edge of LH bed in twins bedroom
(5) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom)
What we discover, is that each of the aforementioned bullets, passed through the bodies of victims, and were found laying loosely in the corresponding locations specified. Four of these bullets weighed considerably more, than the standard manufacturers bullet weight specification produced by Eley for .22 LR subsonic hollow point bullets, the other weighed considerably less...
-
Lets look at the five loose bullets police recovered from the scene:-
It would be a worthwhile exercise to identify these 5 bullets by reference to their exhibit marks, with a view to establishing which victims they were, or have been associated with or to...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom)
(4) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/36) recovered from RH edge of LH bed in twins bedroom
(5) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom)
What we discover, is that each of the aforementioned bullets, passed through the bodies of victims, and were found laying loosely in the corresponding locations specified. Four of these bullets weighed considerably more, than the standard manufacturers bullet weight specification produced by Eley for .22 LR subsonic hollow point bullets, the other weighed considerably less...
Of these bullets, four of them were linked or associated by varying degree with rifle 18, the other which was considerably smaller in size, could not be associated to rifle 18...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom (Linked to rifle 18)
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom (Linked to rifle 18)
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom (Linked to rifle 18)
(4) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/36) recovered from RH edge of LH bed in twins bedroom (Linked to rifle 18)
(5) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom (Not linked to rifle 18)
-
So, you agree that the original PV/20 was not a whole bullet, so at least we are in agreement about something of some significance. Now, for your information the image you have posted of the badly damaged and distorted bullet, was a photograph taken by the defence ballistic expert, Major Mead, during his examination of the batch of crime scene ammunition (I think he took this and other images of bullets, during May 1986). We agree that the photographed example is the same as was removed by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, during autopsy performed on the afternoon of the 7th August 1985. The recorded weight was the weight of the damage bullet, as weighed by Major Mead, on that occasion, and clearly the bullet weight on this occasion demonstrated that this bullet was not a whole bullet, contrary to that described by the prosecution ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who in all his reports and findings described bullet PV/20, as a whole one (when it can't have been...
For your information the police did not provide this image to Jeremy, it was Jeremy and his legal team who remembered that Major Mead had photographed some of the bullets which he examined at Huntingdon Lab' in May 1986, and requested copies of those / these...
Conversion of the recorded (24.46) GRAIN weight, into GRAM weight, produces the following:- 1.714579g
Fletcher never claimed it was a whole bullet. By definition they are all fragments because not a single bullet that was fully intact. Fletcher notations in his notes that said whole bullet didn't mean that it was a full 40 grain bullet. The notes were for his own purposes. At trial he never claimed full bullets were found. It is another of your strawmen.
-
Lets look at the five loose bullets police recovered from the scene:-
It would be a worthwhile exercise to identify these 5 bullets by reference to their exhibit marks, with a view to establishing which victims they were, or have been associated with or to...
(1) - 2.44 (exhibit mark, DRH/35a) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(2) - 2.43 (exhibit mark, DRH/35b) recovered from pillow of main bed in main bedroom
(3) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/5) recovered from near dressing table in main bedroom)
(4) - 2.42 (exhibit mark, DRH/36) recovered from RH edge of LH bed in twins bedroom
(5) - 1.67 (exhibit mark, DRH/9) recovered from main bed in main bedroom)
What we discover, is that each of the aforementioned bullets, passed through the bodies of victims, and were found laying loosely in the corresponding locations specified. Four of these bullets weighed considerably more, than the standard manufacturers bullet weight specification produced by Eley for .22 LR subsonic hollow point bullets, the other weighed considerably less...
They weigh 40 grains when whole. No recovered bullet was 40 grains or more they were all less.
-
Mystery of the Fragmented Bullet
This article relates to the fragmented bullet that was found in Sheila Caffell’s neck after supposedly having been shot with a rifle with a sound moderator attached. The significance of the sound moderator being attached to the rifle is as follows……..
Had the sound moderator actually been attached then it would have been impossible for Sheila to have committed suicide since the sound moderator was found in a cupboard downstairs some time after the murders. This would therefore lead us to the conclusion (as Essex Police would like us to think) that Jeremy carried out the murders. In order to introduce the sound moderator into the picture, it was necessary to replace the fragmented bullet with a whole bullet. This whole bullet could then be fired through a sound moderator in order to ‘give the impression’ that a sound moderator had been used, thus incriminating Jeremy. However if the sound moderator had actually been attached to the rifle at the time of the murders, then why would Essex Police have had to lie/cover up/ tamper with evidence?
The fragmented bullet PV/20
Facts
There are sixty documents verifying the fragmented bullet PV/20 was replaced by a whole bullet. This whole bullet was then replaced by a further bullet which had been fired through a sound moderator. There are photos of all bullets including PV/20 depicted as a fragmented and as a whole bullet. Both whole bullets had been weighed twice: these are recorded both in the metric and imperial system. The chart reveals a disparity between the two recorded weights of the bullet PV/20. This was overlooked until the grains were converted into grams. Both of these weights are more or less consistent with a whole bullet, which matches the photo of PV/20: not the 15 tiny fragments as in the x-rays.
Questions
Why has the discrepancy in weight between the two whole bullets not been questioned by police? The weight of the first bullet was 23.83 grains, the second, 26.46 grains: thus confirming that one bullet must surely have been replaced with another.
Why did the police destroy these bullets? Had the Defence had the opportunity to forensically examine the bullets, it may have resolved the issue of whether Sheila’s wounds were sustained with or without the sound moderator attached to the rifle.
Why has the destroying of the said bullets not been questioned? This issue was central to the Jeremy’s case at his 1986 trial? Four Police enquiries took place between 1985 and 2002, yet still this issue was not investigated.
Conclusion
The question must be raised as to why the police replaced the shattered bullet with not one but two whole bullets.One may deduce it was necessary so that the ’whole’ bullet could then be fired through a sound moderator in order to convince the court that a sound moderator had been used in the murders?
It was imperative for the prosecution to convince the jury that the sound moderator had been used. With it attached to the rifle, it would have proved impossible for Sheila to have carried out the murders and then shoot herself before replacing the sound moderator in the downstairs gun cupboard. However if a silencer had ‘genuinely’ been used in the murders then why the need to replace the shattered bullet with a whole bullet?
Surely this refutes the whole theory that the silencer was used in the murders, thus supporting the ‘Red paint/sound moderator/scratch mark issue’.
-
Fletcher never claimed it was a whole bullet. By definition they are all fragments because not a single bullet that was fully intact. Fletcher notations in his notes that said whole bullet didn't mean that it was a full 40 grain bullet. The notes were for his own purposes. At trial he never claimed full bullets were found. It is another of your strawmen.
He did, in fact, he specifically recorded that 12 of the 25 bullets which formed part of the batch of crime scene ammunition were WHOLE in nature. Seven of these 12 WHOLE bullets weighed too much, and the other five of the 12 WHOLE bullets were much too light to be described as Eley .22LR subsonic hollow pointed bullets which according to manufacturers specification at production stage weigh 2.26g, or 34.8113Grains, so please do not even go down the road of trying to convince any of us that the prosecution expert Fletcher presented an honest account of the true bullet weights of the bullets recovered from the bodies of victims, and the scene. Fletcher was / is a rotten apple, who manipulated the ballistic expert favouring the police case that this was a one gun crime, with use of a sound moderator...
-
They weigh 40 grains when whole. No recovered bullet was 40 grains or more they were all less.
I beg to differ:-
-
You have deliberately sought to deceive everyone into thinking and believing that rounds of manufactured Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point bullets weighed 40 GRAIN, but they do not and did not back in the era when the shootings took place. Your distortion of the true manufacturers bullet weight, produces a conversion weight (into grams) which is heavier than all the recovered individual pieces of the 25 bullets recovered, in order to produce a false impression, that every single piece of the 25 recovered bullets had lost weight, when you know that this is a deliberate lie...
-
The truth of the matter, is that two entirely different bullets were used in the substitution process, one weighing, 23.83g, and a second one, 24.46g. How can two different bullets with conflicting weights be one and the same original bullet lodged inside Sheila Caffells neck, which the pathologist Peter Venezis removed during autopsy, 7th August 1985?
-
Standard manufacturers weight for this type of ammunition was 2.26g, yet under Fletchers direct control were two examples of PV/20, one weighing 1.544158g, and the other, 1.714579g...
You have already pointed out that the original PV/20 bullet, is that which the defence expert, Major Mead photographed in May 1986, by comparison against the image shown in the x-ray, so with this in mind if you accept that Fletcher produced a second example upon which he chose to rely in his own calculations, enabling him as it did to match markings upon it to rifle 18, then do you not agree that Fletcher has been guilty of perverting the course of justice?
-
Do you think it is al-right to swap key ballistic evidence which in turn favours the prosecution of someone who might just be innocent in this case?
-
Bullet PV/20 is a very significant exhibit in this case, since it was the bullet fired on that first occasion into Sheila's neck. Now, why would anybody, produce a second example which weighs differently, and carry out a comparison test upon that second example, seeking to match it to the rifle (18), if the original PV/20 had been fired via rifle 18? The simple answer is that you wouldn't, but in Fletchers case, he did...
-
Bullet PV/20 is a very significant exhibit in this case, since it was the bullet fired on that first occasion into Sheila's neck. Now, why would anybody, produce a second example which weighs differently, and carry out a comparison test upon that second example, seeking to match it to the rifle (18), if the original PV/20 had been fired via rifle 18? The simple answer is that you wouldn't, but in Fletchers case, he did...
I ask myself, why would Fletcher need to do what he undoubtedly did do, and produced a second version of bullet PV/20, with the specific intention of matching it to the rifle (18) so that he could conclude as he did, that both of the bullets recovered from Sheila's neck, had indeed been fired by the very same weapon, and that weapon had been the rifle photographed upon her body in crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird? Well, it wouldn't have looked good if the original PV/20 had markings upon it linking it to an entirely different weapon than the one photographed upon her body on the floor of the bedroom now, would it?
-
Fletcher did not decide to tamper with the original bullet PV/20, all by himself - he was requested to do what he did by Essex police, to cover up for the fact that two different guns had been used to shoot Sheila Caffell and kill her, that other gun (which fired the original bullet PV/20) did not belong to the family, it did not belong to any relative, it belonged to Essex police...
-
Fletcher did not decide to tamper with the original bullet PV/20, all by himself - he was requested to do what he did by Essex police, to cover up for the fact that two different guns had been used to shoot Sheila Caffell and kill her, that other gun (which fired the original bullet PV/20) did not belong to the family, it did not belong to any relative, it belonged to Essex police...
ASk yourself, why would Jeremy Bamber (if he be the killer), shoot his sister with use of two different guns, and stage manage her body by placing one of the rifles used to shoot her on top of her body, and honestly expect the police to be fooled into thinking that the same rifle he had placed on her body had fired both shots, if it hadn't? Think about that for a moment. Let it sink in that if two different guns were used to shoot and kill Sheila, how in gods name could anyone expect to get away with positioning only one of these rifles on the victims body, to try and make out a case for her to have taken her own life by way of two two consecutively fired shots from the same gun? Unless of course, you were the police, and you thought you could get away with doing what they undoubtedly did, in the knowledge that if the case progressed through the coroners court, and not become a criminal matter, they could and would have got away with it...
-
When is it going to sink in, that the police really did shoot and kill Sheila Caffell?
-
When is it going to sink in, that the police really did shoot and kill Sheila Caffell?
Jeremy Bamber, did not kill his sister, how exactly could he have, considering that she was shot with a gun that he nor his family or relatives could possibly have had access to, at the time Sheila was shot by use of that gun...
-
How could a sound moderator which belonged to the family, have been fitted to a gun owned by the police that fired the first shot into and across Sheila Caffells throat?
Impossible...
-
Then, we move onto the use of the second gun which fired the all important fatal shot beneath the point of her chin, the family owned, anshuzt rifle. A rifle which from around 7.15am, that morning had always been resting against the bedroom window, until shortly after 9am, when it was brought to Sheila's body during informatives, and during a bizarre accident discharged a solitary round of .22 ammunition under her chin as the weapon was being adjusted on her body, and her hands being gauged to see if she could have reached the trigger. The reason I am mentioning this, was because the rifle leaning against the bedroom window was not fitted with a sound moderator on the end of its barrel - so, here is yet another example, of why the silencer evidence has to be dodgy, because neither of the two rifles used in the shooting of Sheila Caffell were fitted with a sound moderator belonging to the family, or to the relatives...
-
You have deliberately sought to deceive everyone into thinking and believing that rounds of manufactured Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point bullets weighed 40 GRAIN, but they do not and did not back in the era when the shootings took place. Your distortion of the true manufacturers bullet weight, produces a conversion weight (into grams) which is heavier than all the recovered individual pieces of the 25 bullets recovered, in order to produce a false impression, that every single piece of the 25 recovered bullets had lost weight, when you know that this is a deliberate lie...
You are lying as you always do. The weight of a complete bullet is 40 grains (2.6 grams) all of the bullet fragments weighed less than this. Thus I have no need to respond to all your bull crap that flows from your bogus assertion the fragments weighed more than complete 22LR rounds. You start from a false position then make up crap based on the false claim.
-
You are lying as you always do. The weight of a complete bullet is 40 grains (2.6 grams) all of the bullet fragments weighed less than this. Thus I have no need to respond to all your bull crap that flows from your bogus assertion the fragments weighed more than complete 22LR rounds. You start from a false position then make up crap based on the false claim.
The truth of the matter is that whenever you dig yourself in a hole, and can't find anything constructive to say in response, you revert to abuse and allegations of lies being told by anybody but you...
-
The truth of the matter is that whenever you dig yourself in a hole, and can't find anything constructive to say in response, you revert to abuse and allegations of lies being told by anybody but you...
You are the one burying yourself in a hole.
You present false claim after false claim. You insisted only 12 casings were found in the mater bedroom though there were 13, you said there was an extra bullet found int he bedroom though there wasn't one bullet only grazed Nevill thus was not in his body but rather recovered from the room. You said the rifle was against the window when police entered though all say it was on Sheila's body and the photo you rely upon was taken after the photos of Sheila's body with the rifle on it. you keep claiming multiple weapons were used to shoot the victims though the casings were all tied to the Anschutz. You claim whole bullets were planted but there were no whole bullets there were fragments smaller than complete bullets that were recovered from the scene and victims. The only whole bullets were unfired ones still part of a complete cartridge.
You ignore the facts and evidence instead making wild allegations that you have no support for and simply tell us these unsupported allegations are facts. You need to prove they are facts just claiming so doesn't cut it. But they are not facts so you can't prove it.
Your wild claims are worthless and while Jeremy might have initially found them useful he now knows your antics don't help him so he and you had a falling out.
-
The truth of the matter is that whenever you dig yourself in a hole, and can't find anything constructive to say in response, you revert to abuse and allegations of lies being told by anybody but you...
You are the one burying yourself in a hole.
You present false claim after false claim. You insisted only 12 casings were found in the mater bedroom though there were 13, you said there was an extra bullet found int he bedroom though there wasn't one bullet only grazed Nevill thus was not in his body but rather recovered from the room. You said the rifle was against the window when police entered though all say it was on Sheila's body and the photo you rely upon was taken after the photos of Sheila's body with the rifle on it. you keep claiming multiple weapons were used to shoot the victims though the casings were all tied to the Anschutz. You claim whole bullets were planted but there were no whole bullets there were fragments smaller than complete bullets that were recovered from the scene and victims. The only whole bullets were unfired ones still part of a complete cartridge.
You ignore the facts and evidence instead making wild allegations that you have no support for and simply tell us these unsupported allegations are facts. You need to prove they are facts just claiming so doesn't cut it. But they are not facts so you can't prove it.
Your wild claims are worthless and while Jeremy might have initially found them useful he now knows your antics don't help him so he and you had a falling out.
Scipio, SHOULD you take the time to read CAREFULLY what Mike said, I think you MAY find he's repeated back to you the exact words YOU'VE (sometimes) applied to him ;D
-
Scipio, SHOULD you take the time to read CAREFULLY what Mike said, I think you MAY find he's repeated back to you the exact words YOU'VE (sometimes) applied to him ;D
Yes but I was able to recite the lies he told and explained how and why they were lies and challenged him to prove otherwise which of course he can't.
Even on the most simple issues he distorts. He takes the report that an old woman's body was seen in the kitchen and the log entry that 2 bodies were found and this proves Sheila was in the kitchen alive when police entered though it would have been referring to June not Sheila and a body not a live woman. Of course we know it was just Nevill's body mistaken for an elderly female.
Playing games is worthless it doesn't advance your agenda and simply harms your reputation.
-
Yes but I was able to recite the lies he told and explained how and why they were lies and challenged him to prove otherwise which of course he can't.
Even on the most simple issues he distorts. He takes the report that an old woman's body was seen in the kitchen and the log entry that 2 bodies were found and this proves Sheila was in the kitchen alive when police entered though it would have been referring to June not Sheila and a body not a live woman. Of course we know it was just Nevill's body mistaken for an elderly female.
Playing games is worthless it doesn't advance your agenda and simply harms your reputation.
Wrong again, I have never said the female body in the kitchen was an old woman, I have always said the female seen through the kitchen window was Sheila Caffell, because it was...
-
Wrong again, I have never said the female body in the kitchen was an old woman, I have always said the female seen through the kitchen window was Sheila Caffell, because it was...
That's my point. You just make up anything you feel like without regard to the evidence. Collins said he saw an old lady and yet you claim it was Sheila. If a witness claimed to see a big black guy committing a crime you would have no problem claiming it was Maggie Thatcher the witness saw. You divorce yourself from the evidence and just assert anything you feel like. What you assert has no support at all. That is the issue.
Wouldn't you rather have a reputation where people trust you as opposed to having a reputation of someone who cries wolf?
-
The only female Collins could have seen was Sheila, and the only female found upon entry was Sheila, it couldn't have been June Bamber because after she had been shot she never left the main bedroom. The sighting of the female by Collins through the kitchen window, is a separate event to the reports logged in the police radio messages passed declaring the discovery of a female body...
-
The only female Collins could have seen was Sheila, and the only female found upon entry was Sheila, it couldn't have been June Banber because after she had been shot she never left the main bedroom. The sighting of the female by Collins through the kitchen window, is a separate event to the reports logged in the police radio messages passed declaring the discovery of a female body...
OR he needed to go to Spec Saver ;D
-
The sighting of the female body through the kitchen window, and the finding of one dead male, and one dead female, once police entered the kitchen, were two different events that were separated by several minutes. The claim that Collins made an error by wrongly identifying Ralph Bambers body as being Sheila's, can easily be discredited...
-
The sighting of the female body through the kitchen window, and the finding of one dead male, and one dead female, once police entered the kitchen, were two different events that were separated by several minutes. The claim that Collins made an error by wrongly identifying Ralph Bambers body as being Sheila's, can easily be discredited...
Are you saying:-
A. That whilst it was CLAIMED Collins erred in identifying Nevill as Sheila, when it was, in fact SHEILA. B. It was WRONGLY claimed that Collins erred. He didn't, and it was in fact NEVILL.
C. The initial claim was wrong.
D. Collins DIDN'T make an error.
E. Collins needed glasses.
-
The only female Collins could have seen was Sheila, and the only female found upon entry was Sheila, it couldn't have been June Bamber because after she had been shot she never left the main bedroom. The sighting of the female by Collins through the kitchen window, is a separate event to the reports logged in the police radio messages passed declaring the discovery of a female body...
Sheila didn't leave the bedroom either after being shot and she was shot before the police ever arrived.
Collins saw Nevill but thought Nevill's gray hair was old lady hair.
-
Are you saying:-
A. That whilst it was CLAIMED Collins erred in identifying Nevill as Sheila, when it was, in fact SHEILA. B. It was WRONGLY claimed that Collins erred. He didn't, and it was in fact NEVILL.
C. The initial claim was wrong.
D. Collins DIDN'T make an error.
E. Collins needed glasses.
Collins, could not have found himself in the position of being able to mistakenly identify his body as the body of a female. The angle was to acute. Nevilles body was not originally croutched over an overturned chair in the vicinity of the coal bucket by tge corner of the aga surround, his body ended up there in that position after the raid team entered the farmhouse. It is important to remember that, because his body was in a different location inside the kitchen when Collins looked through the kitchen window, he couldn't see any part of Nevilles body at that time to form a view as to whose body it might have been. He saw a female on that occasion, he didn't say he saw a female who had her head in the coal bucket, he didn' t mention anything about seeing blood all over the floor in the vicinity of the female he could see...
-
You are the one burying yourself in a hole.
You present false claim after false claim. You insisted only 12 casings were found in the mater bedroom though there were 13, you said there was an extra bullet found int he bedroom though there wasn't one bullet only grazed Nevill thus was not in his body but rather recovered from the room. You said the rifle was against the window when police entered though all say it was on Sheila's body and the photo you rely upon was taken after the photos of Sheila's body with the rifle on it. you keep claiming multiple weapons were used to shoot the victims though the casings were all tied to the Anschutz. You claim whole bullets were planted but there were no whole bullets there were fragments smaller than complete bullets that were recovered from the scene and victims. The only whole bullets were unfired ones still part of a complete cartridge.
You ignore the facts and evidence instead making wild allegations that you have no support for and simply tell us these unsupported allegations are facts. You need to prove they are facts just claiming so doesn't cut it. But they are not facts so you can't prove it.
Your wild claims are worthless and while Jeremy might have initially found them useful he now knows your antics don't help him so he and you had a falling out.
[/color]
The last paragraph is not fact - it is a personal attack and assumption by you - Why cant you just stick to the argument in hand without telling lies.You don't know why Mike and JB fell out - and why should you? Its none of your business.
-
O
Collins, could not have found himself in the position of being able to mistakenly identify his body as the body of a female. The angle was to acute. Nevilles body was not originally croutched over an overturned chair in the vicinity of the coal bucket by tge corner of the aga surround, his body ended up there in that position after the raid team entered the farmhouse. It is important to remember that, because his body was in a different location inside the kitchen when Collins looked through the kitchen window, he couldn't see any part of Nevilles body at that time to form a view as to whose body it might have been. He saw a female on that occasion, he didn't say he saw a female who had her head in the coal bucket, he didn' t mention anything about seeing blood all over the floor in the vicinity of the female he could see...
He said he saw a body of an elderly female. He says that body was in the same location when he went inside and it was Nevil not an old woman like he thought. The body was in a location visible from the window he looked in.
You made up that he claimed the body was in a different location than Nevill's. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes no sense because all you do is undermine your own credibility you fail to accomplish anything else by it.
-
You are the one burying yourself in a hole.
You present false claim after false claim. You insisted only 12 casings were found in the mater bedroom though there were 13, you said there was an extra bullet found int he bedroom though there wasn't one bullet only grazed Nevill thus was not in his body but rather recovered from the room. You said the rifle was against the window when police entered though all say it was on Sheila's body and the photo you rely upon was taken after the photos of Sheila's body with the rifle on it. you keep claiming multiple weapons were used to shoot the victims though the casings were all tied to the Anschutz. You claim whole bullets were planted but there were no whole bullets there were fragments smaller than complete bullets that were recovered from the scene and victims. The only whole bullets were unfired ones still part of a complete cartridge.
You ignore the facts and evidence instead making wild allegations that you have no support for and simply tell us these unsupported allegations are facts. You need to prove they are facts just claiming so doesn't cut it. But they are not facts so you can't prove it.
Your wild claims are worthless and while Jeremy might have initially found them useful he now knows your antics don't help him so he and you had a falling out.
Wasn't there evidence from WPC Jeapes that the rifle was by the window?
-
Wasn't there evidence from WPC Jeapes that the rifle was by the window?
No Jeapes wasn't facing the the bedroom window she was facing the window of the storage room adjacent to the master bedroom. She said she saw something sticking up that looked like it could have been the barrel of a rifle leaning against the windowsill. She could have seen the top of a broom for all she knew or a reflection of a stick even. Whatever she saw never moved and was still there when police found the weapon on Sheila's body so quite clearly it wasn't the barrel of the murder weapon. It could not be on Sheila's body and in the window of a different room at the same time.
Since no photos of the box room were released we have no idea what was in that room at the time of the murders and can't say what she might have seen but for sure it wasn't the murder weapon.
-
He said he saw a body of an elderly female. He says that body was in the same location when he went inside and it was Nevil not an old woman like he thought. The body was in a location visible from the window he looked in.
You made up that he claimed the body was in a different location than Nevill's. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes no sense because all you do is undermine your own credibility you fail to accomplish anything else by it.
it makes no sense to lie about shooting a man in the back whilst he is running away from you - but it happens .
-
No Jeapes wasn't facing the the bedroom window she was facing the window of the storage room adjacent to the master bedroom. She said she saw something sticking up that looked like it could have been the barrel of a rifle leaning against the windowsill. She could have seen the top of a broom for all she knew or a reflection of a stick even. Whatever she saw never moved and was still there when police found the weapon on Sheila's body so quite clearly it wasn't the barrel of the murder weapon. It could not be on Sheila's body and in the window of a different room at the same time.
Since no photos of the box room were released we have no idea what was in that room at the time of the murders and can't say what she might have seen but for sure it wasn't the murder weapon.
Where have you got that from Scip?
-
No Jeapes wasn't facing the the bedroom window she was facing the window of the storage room adjacent to the master bedroom. She said she saw something sticking up that looked like it could have been the barrel of a rifle leaning against the windowsill. She could have seen the top of a broom for all she knew or a reflection of a stick even. Whatever she saw never moved and was still there when police found the weapon on Sheila's body so quite clearly it wasn't the barrel of the murder weapon. It could not be on Sheila's body and in the window of a different room at the same time.
Since no photos of the box room were released we have no idea what was in that room at the time of the murders and can't say what she might have seen but for sure it wasn't the murder weapon.
how do you deduct from her statement it was the box room?
-
how do you deduct from her statement it was the box room?
Jeaps was facing the white side and she describes the grey brick...which is the box room that is in the middle of the main bedroom and the twins room... ;D
-
is the grey brick only by that room then?
-
Its strange because I found a post from bambergate where he was going to write to Jeapes to ask which window on that side of the house she saw the rifle - that's why I asked.
-
it makes no sense to lie about shooting a man in the back whilst he is running away from you - but it happens .
What does that have to do with the point I am making to Mike? I don't see why he is so deadset on destroying his credibility for naught. He is not accomplishing anything else.
-
Its strange because I found a post from bambergate where he was going to write to Jeapes to ask which window on that side of the house she saw the rifle - that's why I asked.
Jan,I think you'll find reference to that on the thread which is headed Bambergate. He did write to her.
-
What does that have to do with the point I am making to Mike? I don't see why he is so deadset on destroying his credibility for naught. He is not accomplishing anything else.
because you were implicating it could not happen because it does not make sense. But what I was saying is you are relying on the officers not telling lies as a cover up.
I am not making an argument for or against -just saying - it does happen
-
Jan,I think you'll find reference to that on the thread which is headed Bambergate. He did write to her.
Included on the same thread are documents which only came to light in 2004.
-
is the grey brick only by that room then?
The master bedroom originally had 2 windows. For whatever reason they sealed off the window that faced the back of the house. This is the side Jeapes was on, there was no window to the master bedroom. The newer part of the house had red brick the older part gray brick. The window she described on the gray part is the boxroom. The windows on the red part (moving from right to left) were where the twins were and then a bathroom window and then 2 windows above the coal shed.
The master bedroom window is actually on the side of the house with the front door. What Jeapes called the front door is actually the kitchen door (often called the back door but if you want to get technical it is a side door because that is actually a side of the house not the back. The back is actually where the coal shed is).
-
Included on the same thread are documents which only came to light in 2004.
Also an interesting post by tyler who'd explained that police seeing the body of a woman lying on the kitchen floor must have been right in their findings because Neville was found slumped in his chair ? Dead men can't move either.
-
Jan,I think you'll find reference to that on the thread which is headed Bambergate. He did write to her.
It says he wrote to her son and apparently got no response because never mentioned one:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2044.msg62622.html#msg62622
I'm not surprised he got no response since he was claiming Sheila was still alive and had not been checked to see if she was dead. Jeapes probably figures he was off his rocker. 99 times out of 100 though if you ask even simple questions of people on facebook or via email or snail mail letter they are going to ignore you. It is a rare breed that actually takes time to respond.
-
because you were implicating it could not happen because it does not make sense. But what I was saying is you are relying on the officers not telling lies as a cover up.
I am not making an argument for or against -just saying - it does happen
There is no way Sheila left the master bedroom after she was shot anymore than June did. Mike is busy spinning his wheels claiming she could have been in the kitchen. Neither of them could have been in the kitchen shot. Police who entered identified only Nevill as being in the kitchen not 2 people. There was no blood or anything else from any other victim there. Sheila;s second shot was delivered within seconds of her first shot and she never stood up or the blood would have been down her gown. There is less a chance of Sheila being in the kitchen then June.
-
It says he wrote to her son and apparently got no response because never mentioned one:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2044.msg62622.html#msg62622
I'm not surprised he got no response since he was claiming Sheila was still alive and had not been checked to see if she was dead. Jeapes probably figures he was off his rocker. 99 times out of 100 though if you ask even simple questions of people on facebook or via email or snail mail letter they are going to ignore you. It is a rare breed that actually takes time to respond.
I was asking why the question was asked if you are so sure was the box room - her statement does not say which window.
-
I was asking why the question was asked if you are so sure was the box room - her statement does not say which window.
Because Bambergate didn't realize it, or didn't want to believe it because it is detrimental to his claims so hoped he could get her to say she was looking at the bedroom window.
In her statement she called the kitchen door the front door. People uninterested in the truth have tried to use that to say she was looking at the bedroom window. Of course the front of the house is narrow and has no red brick so it falls apart quite fast even before consulting the various reports that explain who was on what side and what the colors mean etc.
-
Because Bambergate didn't realize it, or didn't want to believe it because it is detrimental to his claims so hoped he could get her to say she was looking at the bedroom window.
In her statement she called the kitchen door the front door. People uninterested in the truth have tried to use that to say she was looking at the bedroom window. Of course the front of the house is narrow and has no red brick so it falls apart quite fast even before consulting the various reports that explain who was on what side and what the colors mean etc.
but I thought the box room was on the same side between the two bedrooms?
-
When you see the window with the rifle,then without,they're two different windows ?
-
but I thought the box room was on the same side between the two bedrooms?
Jan the room inbetween the main bedroom and Sheila's room was known as the needlework room, but it might have had boxes in it...This room is slightly set back from the landing and I think Hartley said or it could have been Vic that there was a window looking into that room from the landing or some sort of glass...but either side of the main bedroom were inhabited rooms used for storage..etc. I guess Hartley could confirm one way or the other. ;)
-
but I thought the box room was on the same side between the two bedrooms?
There was a box room that could be accessed by the hall or the bedroom Sheila was using. There was also a box room that was in between the master bedroom and the room the boys were in which had a door from each room but not from the hall. The one in front was used for sewing. The one between the master bedroom and other bedroom was used for some sort of storage. Presumably both used to be dressing rooms hence why they are attached to bedrooms.
The box room in between the master bedroom and the boy's room is the room that the window Jeapes was looking in corresponded to.
The officers Jeapes relieved (so that they could become part of the raid team) were watching the kitchen door. That is one clue she was facing the "back" of the house. But this further gives it away:
"I saw that the front door of the farm was shut and that a light was on in the room to the right of this [door], which I understood was the kitchen. I could also see a window on the first floor of white/red side where the building is clad in gray brick in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window. There was no sign of movement in the house."
The window to the right of the front door was the dining room. Other officers were covering that side. The door near the kitchen is the "back" door. The whole front is clad in gray brick there was no reason to mention the portion in gray brick if she had actually been in front.
-
Jeaps was facing the white side and she describes the grey brick...which is the box room that is in the middle of the main bedroom and the twins room... ;D
She was covering the CORNER OF WHITE / RED...
-
The master bedroom originally had 2 windows. For whatever reason they sealed off the window that faced the back of the house. This is the side Jeapes was on, there was no window to the master bedroom. The newer part of the house had red brick the older part gray brick. The window she described on the gray part is the boxroom. The windows on the red part (moving from right to left) were where the twins were and then a bathroom window and then 2 windows above the coal shed.
The master bedroom window is actually on the side of the house with the front door. What Jeapes called the front door is actually the kitchen door (often called the back door but if you want to get technical it is a side door because that is actually a side of the house not the back. The back is actually where the coal shed is).
Jeapes was COVERING THE CORNER OF WHITE / RED...
-
There is no way Sheila left the master bedroom after she was shot anymore than June did. Mike is busy spinning his wheels claiming she could have been in the kitchen. Neither of them could have been in the kitchen shot. Police who entered identified only Nevill as being in the kitchen not 2 people. There was no blood or anything else from any other victim there. Sheila;s second shot was delivered within seconds of her first shot and she never stood up or the blood would have been down her gown. There is less a chance of Sheila being in the kitchen then June.
Sheila's blood was present in the kitchen, you should take more care when stating facts which you claim are true, when in fact they are not true - her heavily bloodstained knickers were soaking in a plastic bucket of cold water right there in the kitchen...
-
I was asking why the question was asked if you are so sure was the box room - her statement does not say which window.
Look for photographs which show a view of the corner of white / red, and everything becomes clear..,
-
Because Bambergate didn't realize it, or didn't want to believe it because it is detrimental to his claims so hoped he could get her to say she was looking at the bedroom window.
In her statement she called the kitchen door the front door. People uninterested in the truth have tried to use that to say she was looking at the bedroom window. Of course the front of the house is narrow and has no red brick so it falls apart quite fast even before consulting the various reports that explain who was on what side and what the colors mean etc.
the corner of white / red, is situated between the front door, and the back door...
-
There was a box room that could be accessed by the hall or the bedroom Sheila was using. There was also a box room that was in between the master bedroom and the room the boys were in which had a door from each room but not from the hall. The one in front was used for sewing. The one between the master bedroom and other bedroom was used for some sort of storage. Presumably both used to be dressing rooms hence why they are attached to bedrooms.
The box room in between the master bedroom and the boy's room is the room that the window Jeapes was looking in corresponded to.
The officers Jeapes relieved (so that they could become part of the raid team) were watching the kitchen door. That is one clue she was facing the "back" of the house. But this further gives it away:
"I saw that the front door of the farm was shut and that a light was on in the room to the right of this [door], which I understood was the kitchen. I could also see a window on the first floor of white/red side where the building is clad in gray brick in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window. There was no sign of movement in the house."
The window to the right of the front door was the dining room. Other officers were covering that side. The door near the kitchen is the "back" door. The whole front is clad in gray brick there was no reason to mention the portion in gray brick if she had actually been in front.
Corner of white red, where the building is clad...
Standing at that corner, the main bedroom window was. Visible to WPC Jeapes. Furthermore, at the position she was stood facing the house, she could see the front door and the dining room window..,
That angle allowed her to see the rifle leaning against the right hand side of the main bedroom window, nothing could be any clearer...
-
Sheila's blood was present in the kitchen, you should take more care when stating facts which you claim are true, when in fact they are not true - her heavily bloodstained knickers were soaking in a plastic bucket of cold water right there in the kitchen...
THAT is really scraping the bottom of the bucket in which they were soaking!!!
-
Sheila's blood was present in the kitchen, you should take more care when stating facts which you claim are true, when in fact they are not true - her heavily bloodstained knickers were soaking in a plastic bucket of cold water right there in the kitchen...
Panties with menstrual stains on them doesn't equate to her blood being found in the kitchen in a location that indicates she had been shot there or after being shot walked in/was dragged in but then left.
-
Corner of white red, where the building is clad...
Standing at that corner, the main bedroom window was. Visible to WPC Jeapes. Furthermore, at the position she was stood facing the house, she could see the front door and the dining room window..,
That angle allowed her to see the rifle leaning against the right hand side of the main bedroom window, nothing could be any clearer...
According to Jeapes she was standing at a shed. She said said she took over at the containment position used by Collins, Delgado and Alexander-Smart. They were on the kitchen side 30 meters from the house by the shed.
Here is this shed they were near so that if necessary they could jump behind it for cover to protect themselves:
(http://s27.postimg.org/r8d7sxq03/whfshed.jpg)
They were observing the kitchen side of the property. They could not see in the master bedroom window.
Given the distance from the house they could not see in any of the upper floor windows. At best they would be able to see something that is right against the window they would have no depth perception. She thought she saw something leaning against the boxroom window which was like a skinny stick so thought it might a rifle barrel. A broom would look the same as a rifle barrel because all she could see is what appeared to be a skinny thing sticking up. She couldn't see the lower portion of whatever she saw only the top portion. Whatever it was never moved, it was still there when the raid team found the bodies.
If it had been the murder weapon that would have been even ore proof that Sheila was murdered because after she was dead she couldn't have taken the gun and walked it to the boxroom window nor could she have walked it to the master bedroom window for that matter.
So on top of making things up you are making up things that if true would be even more evidence Sheila didn't commit suicide. Gee I wonder why Jeremy doesn't want your help...
-
Panties with menstrual stains on them doesn't equate to her blood being found in the kitchen in a location that indicates she had been shot there or after being shot walked in/was dragged in but then left.
The facts are that Sheila was unwell, she was in the early stages of her menstrual cycle, she was hysterical and screaming abuse at an electricity meter reader a day or so before she shot and killed the others, she wrote out a suicide note entitled 'LOVE ONE ANOTHER', She sulked at the supper table when her parents were trying to lecture her about tge need for her to get some help with looking after the twins. She was suffering from the strains of rejection, she refused to talk to aunty Pam on the phone at around 10pm, forgetting to even say 'Goodnight'. Later, she howled and barked like a dog when police tried to communicate with her...
-
The facts are that Sheila was unwell, she was in the early stages of her menstrual cycle, she was hysterical and screaming abuse at an electricity meter reader a day or so before she shot and killed the others, she wrote out a suicide note entitled 'LOVE ONE ANOTHER', She sulked at the supper table when her parents were trying to lecture her about tge need for her to get some help with looking after the twins. She was suffering from the strains of rejection, she refused to talk to aunty Pam on the phone at around 10pm, forgetting to even say 'Goodnight'. Later, she howled and barked like a dog when police tried to communicate with her...
LMAO, she was dead, the only living thing inside at the time was the dog.
-
The facts are that Sheila was unwell, she was in the early stages of her menstrual cycle, she was hysterical and screaming abuse at an electricity meter reader a day or so before she shot and killed the others, she wrote out a suicide note entitled 'LOVE ONE ANOTHER', She sulked at the supper table when her parents were trying to lecture her about tge need for her to get some help with looking after the twins. She was suffering from the strains of rejection, she refused to talk to aunty Pam on the phone at around 10pm, forgetting to even say 'Goodnight'. Later, she howled and barked like a dog when police tried to communicate with her...
I agree that Sheila was unwell.............................
-
LMAO, she was dead, the only living thing inside at the time was the dog.
Not only was Sheila alive inside the house as the raid team began its approach to enter the farmhouse at just after 7.15am wgen WPC Heapes first saw the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, but she was also still very much alive after Woodcock shot her downstairs in the kitchen. She was stiil a live after senior officers conducted 'familiars' in the bedroom upstairs, she was still alive after police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced her dead at 8.44am...
Collins saw Sheila on the floor in the kitchen, Ralphs body was never photographed on the floor...
Sheila had obviously washed herself down after removing her heavily bloodstained knickers, and inserting the tampon in the living room. I think that Collins saw Sheila just after she had put her bloodied knickers in the bucket in the kitchen. She heard the raid team approaching and laid down on the kitchen floor faking death, an
-
Not only was Sheila alive inside the house as the raid team began its approach to enter the farmhouse at just after 7.15am wgen WPC Heapes first saw the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, but she was also still very much alive after Woodcock shot her downstairs in the kitchen. She was stiil a live after senior officers conducted 'familiars' in the bedroom upstairs, she was still alive after police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced her dead at 8.44am...
Collins saw Sheila on the floor in the kitchen, Ralphs body was never photographed on the floor...
Sheila had obviously washed herself down after removing her heavily bloodstained knickers, and inserting the tampon in the living room. I think that Collins saw Sheila just after she had put her bloodied knickers in the bucket in the kitchen. She heard the raid team approaching and laid down on the kitchen floor faking death, an
This is a perfect example of how you ignore the evidence and just make up what you feel like. Jeapes was looking at the kitchen side according to her statement. She saw something she thought could be a rifle barrel in the window of the box room.
Every single person who entered the house said only Nevill was in the kitchen. You simply made upo from nothing that she was there, ignore the evidence proving she was shot with the Anschutz and instead say a different police weapon shot her that she was still alive after declared dead and lived a long time without bleeding out from her first wound despite it causing her to hemmorhage...
You ignore everything and just make things up. Anyone can just make things up at best that provides comic relief. Otherwise I makes people feel sorry for the wretch making the things up. Do you want to be seen in such a light?
-
This is a perfect example of how you ignore the evidence and just make up what you feel like. Jeapes was looking at the kitchen side according to her statement. She saw something she thought could be a rifle barrel in the window of the box room.
Every single person who entered the house said only Nevill was in the kitchen. You simply made upo from nothing that she was there, ignore the evidence proving she was shot with the Anschutz and instead say a different police weapon shot her that she was still alive after declared dead and lived a long time without bleeding out from her first wound despite it causing her to hemmorhage...
You ignore everything and just make things up. Anyone can just make things up at best that provides comic relief. Otherwise I makes people feel sorry for the wretch making the things up. Do you want to be seen in such a light?
WRONG...
The person or persons who passed and relayed the police radio messages subject of the log entries, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, 7.45am, and 8.10am, spoke about the bodies of one dead male, AND, the body of one dead female, two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, one of the two bodies downstairs, was a murder, the other a suicide...
-
The corner of WHITE / RED:-
-
The red circle and red line shown attached to the corner of WHITE / RED, indicates the area where WPC Jeapes was positioned at the time she saw the rifdle leaning against the main bedroom window...
From her vantage point at the corner of WHITE / RED, WPC Jeapes could see the front door on ared side, and the back door on White side...
-
From her position at the corner of WHITE / RED, WPC Jeapes would have had a clear unobstructed view of the rifle leaning against the main bedroom window...
-
From her vantage point at the corner of WHITE / RED, WPC Jeapes could see the front door on Red side, and the back door on White side...
-
From her vantage point at the corner of WHITE / RED, WPC Jeapes could see the front door on Green side, and the back door on White side, and the dining room light switched on...
-
WRONG...
The person or persons who passed and relayed the police radio messages subject of the log entries, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, 7.45am, and 8.10am, spoke about the bodies of one dead male, AND, the body of one dead female, two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, one of the two bodies downstairs, was a murder, the other a suicide...
The persons relaying the messages were told Collins saw a woman in the window then told upon entry that Nevill had been found and they ASSUMED that meant there were 2 bodies. They never saw any bodies they thus didn't have any way to know anything for sure. The people who ACTUALLY entered the house and thus are eyewitnesses ALL say 1 body was in the kitchen and that it turned out to be Nevill.
You take the claim of an old woman and old man which were the same person and then say it was Sheila though none of the logs or witness statements or anything else provides any support for Sheila being there if there had been different bodies then the bodies would have been June and Nevill because an old woman was supposedly in there and Nevill. That though is according to non-eyewitnesses who misunderstood. The eyewitnesses say there was just 1 body and it was Nevill. SO you have decided to ignore the eyewitnesses and to just go by the claims of non-witnesses. But then you disregard them too and make up that the old woman was Sheila. Then you disregard the accounts further and claim she was alive though characterized as a body. You further disregard the ballistic evidence proving she was shot with the Anschutz and claim she was shot by a police weapon. You disregard the medical evidence that the second shot was fired seconds after the first because her artery was injured and there would have been substantially more blood flow if there was a large gap and if there was the gap you claim she would have died from blood loss before the second shot was ever fired.
Instead of following the evidence you ignore it and make up your own things.
The account from those who actually participated in the raid:
1) Prior to the raid Collins saw Nevill and based on the hair he thought it was an elderly woman.
2) Upon entry it was reported that the body in the kitchen was in fact Nevill
At this point the person keeping the logs assumed 2 bodies were found in the kitchen so noted 2 bodies int he kitchen
3) While on the stairs they used a mirror on the end of a rifle as a crude periscope to look in the master bedroom and saw June's body thus reported finding an elderly woman's body but never indicated where she was found.
This was reported as a second body found without revealing the location she was found. The log already had already thought 2 bodies were found and had already listed 2 bodies as found so failed to note anything further when fed with a new account that 2 bodies had been found and old man and old woman because it was assumed such was simply referring to the bodies previously referred to.
4) After clearing the rest of the upstairs they found Sheila's body which had been hidden by the bed, and the boys and this was reported as 3 additional bodies found. The location of these 3 additional bodies was not fed to those keeping the logs it said 3 further bodies found 5 victims total it didn't claim these 3 were found upstairs as you and other Jeremy supporters keep pretending.
So the reality is that the only body whose location was fed to those outside was Nevill's. The location of the other bodies was never fed. Through miscommunication non-witnesses thought 2 bodies were in the kitchen.
Collins saw only one body through the window, every witness who entered the house saw only 1 body int he kitchen and the physical evidence proves the other 4 victims bodies all were where they died except Sheila was moved flat.
The wild made up tales all fall apart under scrutiny and upon learning just how bad these lies are it turns people against Jeremy so these claims are not helpful. If he were actually innocent it would not be necessary to resort to such rubbish things of value would be identified.
-
The persons relaying the messages were told Collins saw a woman in the window then told upon entry that Nevill had been found and they ASSUMED that meant there were 2 bodies. They never saw any bodies they thus didn't have any way to know anything for sure. The people who ACTUALLY entered the house and thus are eyewitnesses ALL say 1 body was in the kitchen and that it turned out to be Nevill.
You take the claim of an old woman and old man which were the same person and then say it was Sheila though none of the logs or witness statements or anything else provides any support for Sheila being there if there had been different bodies then the bodies would have been June and Nevill because an old woman was supposedly in there and Nevill. That though is according to non-eyewitnesses who misunderstood. The eyewitnesses say there was just 1 body and it was Nevill. SO you have decided to ignore the eyewitnesses and to just go by the claims of non-witnesses. But then you disregard them too and make up that the old woman was Sheila. Then you disregard the accounts further and claim she was alive though characterized as a body. You further disregard the ballistic evidence proving she was shot with the Anschutz and claim she was shot by a police weapon. You disregard the medical evidence that the second shot was fired seconds after the first because her artery was injured and there would have been substantially more blood flow if there was a large gap and if there was the gap you claim she would have died from blood loss before the second shot was ever fired.
Instead of following the evidence you ignore it and make up your own things.
The account from those who actually participated in the raid:
1) Prior to the raid Collins saw Nevill and based on the hair he thought it was an elderly woman.
2) Upon entry it was reported that the body in the kitchen was in fact Nevill
At this point the person keeping the logs assumed 2 bodies were found in the kitchen so noted 2 bodies int he kitchen
3) While on the stairs they used a mirror on the end of a rifle as a crude periscope to look in the master bedroom and saw June's body thus reported finding an elderly woman's body but never indicated where she was found.
This was reported as a second body found without revealing the location she was found. The log already had already thought 2 bodies were found and had already listed 2 bodies as found so failed to note anything further when fed with a new account that 2 bodies had been found and old man and old woman because it was assumed such was simply referring to the bodies previously referred to.
4) After clearing the rest of the upstairs they found Sheila's body which had been hidden by the bed, and the boys and this was reported as 3 additional bodies found. The location of these 3 additional bodies was not fed to those keeping the logs it said 3 further bodies found 5 victims total it didn't claim these 3 were found upstairs as you and other Jeremy supporters keep pretending.
So the reality is that the only body whose location was fed to those outside was Nevill's. The location of the other bodies was never fed. Through miscommunication non-witnesses thought 2 bodies were in the kitchen.
Collins saw only one body through the window, every witness who entered the house saw only 1 body int he kitchen and the physical evidence proves the other 4 victims bodies all were where they died except Sheila was moved flat.
The wild made up tales all fall apart under scrutiny and upon learning just how bad these lies are it turns people against Jeremy so these claims are not helpful. If he were actually innocent it would not be necessary to resort to such rubbish things of value would be identified.
Look at the diagrams you idiot, it is not rubbish, you are rubbish, you are one evil lying cunt, a piece of rat shit, like the evil scumbags who murdered Sheila and pinned her death on her innocent brother...
LOOK at the fucking diagrams, and shut the fuck up, I am Right, you are wrong, the diagrams don't lie, but you do...
-
For all those interested in the truth, here is a picture which shows the cladded part of the farmhouse (I have highlighted the portion of the farmhouse clad in stone, as opposed to red brick, by yellow outline)...
-
From her position at the corner of WHITE / RED, WPC Jeapes would have had a clear unobstructed view of the rifle leaning against the main bedroom window...
There is a shed a hedge and tons of foliage in the way, she would not be able to see crap if she had been in the location you claim. Her location was behind the brick wall. She says as plain as day the window next to the door was the kitchen window and the upper floor window she described was to the box room.
(http://s27.postimg.org/b63isnxb7/whfbrickwall.jpg)
This shows the wall she was behind and this shows all 4 containment positions your location is not where any containment position was.
(http://s30.postimg.org/tq1dv3sgx/whfcontainmentpositions.jpg)
-
The corner of WHITE / RED, afforded WPC Jeapes with an excellent view of the rifle at the main bedroom window, a view of the front door, and a view of the dining room light switched on:-
-
For all those interested in the truth, here is a picture which shows the cladded part of the farmhouse (I have highlighted the portion of the farmhouse clad in stone, as opposed to red brick, by yellow outline)...
You are not posting the truth you are posting a made up location for her position.
Her initial location was the green side watching the coal shed. After the raid team went inside they requested the 2 people at the wall to go inside. She then went to the wall to act as containment. She stated explicitly the window to the right of the door was the kitchen window.
The corner containment position was in front of the house the kitchen door could not be seen from there. The location is number 2 in the image I posted. There was no need for her to go to that containment position there were 3 men there already- Brown, Mildinhall and Moule. She went to the containment position for the White side because all of the men there went inside the house.
-
You are stupid, the position I have given which was at the corner of WHITE / RED, cannot be any more accurate than I have put it. What I will say, is that her location was not permanently static or fixed. But on the occasion where Jeapes says she was at the corner of WHITE / RED, she had to be exactly where I have shown her to be, affording her a view of the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, she could see the front door, she could see the dining room window, nothing could be any clearer, she was not so disoriented that she did not know the front door from the rear door, or the main bedroom window from a box room window, or the dining room window from the kitchen window...
-
You are not posting the truth you are posting a made up location for her position.
Her initial location was the green side watching the coal shed. After the raid team went inside they requested the 2 people at the wall to go inside. She then went to the wall to act as containment. She stated explicitly the window to the right of the door was the kitchen window.
The corner containment position was in front of the house the kitchen door could not be seen from there. The location is number 2 in the image I posted. There was no need for her to go to that containment position there were 3 men there already- Brown, Mildinhall and Moule. She went to the containment position for the White side because all of the men there went inside the house.
She could see both doors from the general location identified in the diagram...
-
Well, you don't need to convince me of anything to do with where Jeapeas and the others were, or had been, at any given time, I am fully aware of where they all were from moment to moment. But when someone like Jeapes declares she was at the corner of WHITE / RED, there surely cannot be any doubt whatsoever as to where she was (at the corner) which afforded them the vantage point of the rifle at the bedroom window, a view ofthe front door, and the dining room window with light on...
-
Where others have made mistakes, and its easy to see why, is where they have chosen the corner of the cladded part of the house that I am about to identify, as being representative of the corner of WHITE / RED, but from that position, WPC Jeapes would not have been able to see the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, she would not have been able to see the front door, and she would not have been able to see the dining room window which was switched on...
-
You are stupid, the position I have given which was at the corner of WHITE / RED, cannot be any more accurate than I have put it. What I will say, is that her location was not permanently static or fixed. But on the occasion where Jeapes says she was at the corner of WHITE / RED, she had to be exactly where I have shown her to be, affording her a view of the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, she could see the front door, she could see the dining room window, nothing could be any clearer, she was not so disoriented that she did not know the front door from the rear door, or the main bedroom window from a box room window, or the dining room window from the kitchen window...
Now stop being so fucking downright stupid, because up to now you have done nothing but talk shite...
I posted the 4 containment locations on a photograph so that they can be seen fully accurately. These locations come directly from the statements of those at the locations.
Jeapes was confused and misidentified her location at the wall as being the corner of red and white just like she incorrectly identified it as the front door. She was WRONG- 3 other men were at the white/red corner location. She went to the White site not the red/white corner.
While you are busy trying to make up BS to pretend there were bodies moving around I am interested in accuracy and thus I put together a thread fully explaining the containment positions and who did what. It is constructed directly from all the statements.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6630.0.html
The only people I failed to mention the locations of were the superiors who were inside various structures talking together and making plans who thus were not on containment duty.
Your interest is obfuscation while mine is establishing what factually occurred.
-
From the vantage point of the yellow line superimposed on the farmhouse, had WPC Jeapes been standing there, she would not have been able to see the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, she would not have been able to see the front door, and she would not have been able to see the dining room window on the red side of the house...
-
Where others have made mistakes, and its easy to see why, is where they have chosen the corner of the cladded part of the house that I am about to identify, as being representative of the corner of WHITE / RED, but from that position, WPC Jeapes would not have been able to see the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, she would not have been able to see the front door, and she would not have been able to see the dining room window which was switched on...
Jeapes was at this wall looking at the kitchen door thus identified the window next to it as the kitchen window and the room upstairs she was referring to was the box room. She didn't relocate from the green side just to go into a corner that already had 3 men. Moule was at the white red corner and yet she identified him as being quite a bit away from her she incorrectly identified she was at the corner or red and white, she was actually at the white side containment location.
(http://s27.postimg.org/b63isnxb7/whfbrickwall.jpg)
Your distortions are a complete waste of time you are just digging a deeper hole but you seem to enjoy it, were you a miner?
-
I posted the 4 containment locations on a photograph so that they can be seen fully accurately. These locations come directly from the statements of those at the locations.
Jeapes was confused and misidentified her location at the wall as being the corner of red and white just like she incorrectly identified it as the front door. She was WRONG- 3 other men were at that location. She went to the White site not the red white corner and did so because people at the white side wall already had gone inside and she needed to fill in for them.
While you are busy trying to make up BS to pretend there were bodies moving around I am interested in accuracy and thus I put together a thread fully explaining the containment positions and who did what. It is constructed directly from all the statements.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6630.0.html
The only people I failed to mention the locations of were the superiors who were inside various structures talking together and making plans who thus were not on containment duty.
Your interest is obfuscation while mine is establishing what factually occurred.
Listen birdbrain, I don't even know why I am tolerating you at the moment, please explain as simply as you can without making things up, what your interpretation of Jeapes being at the corner of WHITE / RED means. Just tell me in plain English where she was when she says she had that view from that position / location? Do you not agree, that in order for a person to be able to see across the face of the RED side of the farmhouse, and the WHITE side of the farmhouse, then Jeapes would have had to be in a very similar position to that which I have posted earlier...
-
Jeapes was where I said she was (Corner of WHITE / RED), and she saw the rifle leaning against the bedroom window at about 7.15am, a rifle which remained there until about 9.15am, at around this time it was removed from the window and handled upon and around Sheila's body, and she got shot by use of it in a bizarre shooting accident during a training exercise that went tits up...
-
Listen birdbrain, I don't even know why I am tolerating you at the moment, please explain as simply as you can without making things up, what your interpretation of Jeapes being at the corner of WHITE / RED means. Just tell me in plain English where she was when she says she had that view from that position / location? Do you not agree, that in order for a person to be able to see across the face of the RED side of the farmhouse, and the WHITE side of the farmhouse, then Jeapes would have had to be in a very similar position to that which I have posted earlier...
I just told you in plain English- WHEN she wrote up her statement she was confused about the various colors and sides of the house.
She erroneously though she was at the front of the house when in fact she was at the side, the kitchen door is the side door not front. She though that the location she was at was considered the red white corner position but it wasn't it was the white containment position. They didn't have 4 corners of the house covered. They had 2 corners covered a location that faced only green and another location that faced only white. The green side was supposed to be the corner of black and green but they found nothing to hide behind and felt no one could run through the hedge so found an area near a shed to hide behind and blocked it because someone could potentially escape through there otherwise.
Jeapes relieved 3 raid team members who were at the White containment location. She was thus at the wall with Webb and Rozga. They left her during the raid and she wound up being the only one left int he White containment site.
She was thus at the wall and to her right was the red/white containment site with Moule and company. She stated in her statement that Moule was to her right. She stated the window to the door was the kitchen. She erroneously thought the raid team entered through the kitchen.
I don't know how to say it in plainer English than this.
-
Jeapes was where I said she was (Corner of WHITE / RED), and she saw the rifle leaning against the bedroom window at about 7.15am, a rifle which remained there until about 9.15am, at around this time it was removed from the window and handled upon and around Sheila's body, and she got shot by use of it in a bizarre shooting accident during a training exercise that went tits up...
According to her she was facing the door next to the kitchen window which means she was on the white side not the red white corner.
-
I just told you in plain English- WHEN she wrote up her statement she was confused about the various colors and sides of the house.
She erroneously though she was at the front of the house when in fact she was at the side, the kitchen door is the side door not front. She though that the location she was at was considered the red white corner position but it wasn't it was the white containment position. They didn't have 4 corners of the house covered. They had 2 corners covered a location that faced only green and another location that faced only white. The green side was supposed to be the corner of black and green but they found nothing to hide behind and felt no one could run through the hedge so found an area near a shed to hide behind and blocked it because someone could potentially escape through there otherwise.
Jeapes relieved Mercer. She was at the green containment site with Dermott while Mercer went to talk to Jeremy. After the raid team entered she relocated to the White side because no one was at the white side anymore. She was thus at the wall and to her right was the red/white containment site with Moule and company. She stated in her statement that Moule was to her right. She stated the window to the door was the kitchen. She erroneously thought the raid team entered through the kitchen.
I don't know how to say it in plainer English than this.
She wasn't confused at all, this was a trained firearms instructor, in charge of a loaded gun at the scene of a siege, you do not give loaded guns to lunatics who easily get confused, or else she might end up shooting fellow colleagues, rather than victims or suspects. She was not confused, she knows what she saw and where she was standing when she was at the corner of WHITE / RED...
-
In Jeapes statement posted on this site she demonstrates she was completely confused about the colors.
"I was then deployed to a containment position which was located on the corner of a barn facing the farm house, with a view to the right hand side of the premises. In firearms terminology I was covering White/Red"
The above is talking about after she relocated from the green side and she relocated because the raid was happening.
What barn was she at? The barn she is referring to is the barn near the wall. She was at the wall and the barn was to her immediate right.
"I in fact took over from PC Alexander-Smart, PA 172 Collins and PC 627 Delgado and was aware that A/Ps 1596 Moule was about 12 yards behind me to my right and covering the white/green side of the premises, that is the left hand side of the farm, facing the barn."
This tells you even more that she has no clue about colors because the green/white side would be to her left if she were in the red/white corner. Moreover, there was no green/white corner containment position at all. To her right was the red/white corner containment position she was at the white containment position. If you stand in the position of WHF to look at the shed she was referring to the left hand side is the front of the house. So what she calls the left hand side facing the shed is the front of the house that is where Moule was.
She claimed she took over for Alexander-Smart, Collins and Delgado. They were not at the red white corner. They were at the White Containment location. They were selected to do recon and thus were replaced by Sgt Jeapes, Webb and Rozga. It's impossible for her to have replaced them in the red/white corner that's not where they were.
"I saw that the front door of the farm was shut and that a light was on in the room to the right of this, which I understood was the kitchen. I could also see a window on the first floor of the white/red ride where the building is clad in grey brick in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window. There was no sign of movement in the house."
She clearly was at the white containment site looking at the kitchen door.
Jeapes was confused that is quite apparent. However, by reading all the statements and actually trying to understand you can figure out she screwed up her colors and if you ignore the colors and just follow her descriptions you can determine where she was.
-
She wasn't confused at all, this was a trained firearms instructor, in charge of a loaded gun at the scene of a siege, you do not give loaded guns to lunatics who easily get confused, or else she might end up shooting fellow colleagues, rather than victims or suspects. She was not confused, she knows what she saw and where she was standing when she was at the corner of WHITE / RED...
If she was in the white/red corner like you claim then what barn was she at? She said she was at the corner of a barn. How could Moule be to her right and yet be at the green/white corner? There was not even a containment site at the green/white corner she was CONFUSED about the colors and which side of the house was the front. Moule was at the White/red corner she was at the White Containment location.
-
I just found this thread where you admit the colors make no sense so her statement can't be right:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4431.msg181999.html#msg181999
Sgt Jeapes reversed the red and green sides of the property. She thus though to her right was the white green corner though it was the red white corner. That explains everything. Everything fits fine if you realize that.
The people she said she relieved were on the white containment side and if she was at white containment Moule would be to her right. She would be at the corner of the shed like she said. So everything fits she just screwed up the colors. She also incorrectly called it the front of the house though it was the side technically. But she knew she was by the kitchen and everything flows fine by ignoring the color error and error of calling it the front.
-
I just found this thread where you admit the colors make no sense so her statement can't be right:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4431.msg181999.html#msg181999
Sgt Jeapes reversed the red and green sides of the property. She thus though to her right was the white green corner though it was the red white corner. That explains everything. Everything fits fine if you realize that.
The people she said she relieved were on the white containment side and if she was at white containment Moule would be to her right. She would be at the corner of the shed like she said. So everything fits she just screwed up the colors. She also incorrectly called it the front of the house though it was the side technically. But she knew she was by the kitchen and everything flows fine by ignoring the color error and error of calling it the front.
Reply #1 on: June 22, 2013, 09:50:PM »
Grey bricked part of the farmhouse, includes the downstairs rooms of the lounge, front door, and dining room, and the upstair rooms, including the main bedroom...
I would not say that WPS Jeapes reversed the colour coding of the farmhouse in the way you are suggesting, or for the purpose you are saying she did. At the end of the day, she arrived at the scene and was deployed around the farmhouse, she did not stay static without moving, she obviously changed her position from moment to moment. There were times when the kitchen window and the rear external farmhouse door (WHITE SIDE) were in her sight, and there were times when the main bedroom window, the front door, and the dining room window (RED SIDE) were in her vision. Your approach has her in the same position at all times, and you introduce the argument that she was confused and had made an error. But, you are WRONG, she changed her position, and what is more there would have been times when she was facing towards the farmhouse, and other occasions she would have her back turned away from the house. It is this very same basic principle which explains what she was referring too when she said that this officer, and that officer, were on her right at a part of her duties, and so and so, on her left - was because at one time or other she may have been facing towards the farmhouse, whilst on other occasions she will have had her back turned to the house, in keeping with her training...
-
If she was in the white/red corner like you claim then what barn was she at? She said she was at the corner of a barn. How could Moule be to her right and yet be at the green/white corner? There was not even a containment site at the green/white corner she was CONFUSED about the colors and which side of the house was the front. Moule was at the White/red corner she was at the White Containment location.
She did not stay static at all times, she moved around shifting her vantage point, which for some reason you do not appear to be able to grasp...
What I am saying, is that at the time she was covering WHITE and RED SIDES, she must have been at the corner of WHITE / RED, otherwise she could not be doing what she said she had been doing. If she was at the corner of WHITE / RED, then without doubt she would have been able to see the ashuzt rifle leaning up against the main bedroom window, she would have been able to see the front door of the farmhouse, and she would have been able to see the dining room window on the far side (RED) at the front of the house. Similarly, whilst in the general area of the corner of WHITE / RED, she would have been able to see the main kitchen window (WHITE), and the rear external farmhouse door (WHITE) at the back of the house...
One oddity in this matter, concerns the fact that the position of the front door (RED SIDE) and the rear back external door (WHITE SIDE) are not located on opposite sides of the farmhouse, they are situated on adjoining sides at a right angle to one another...
-
Reply #5 on: June 23, 2013, 07:54:AM
It is the contents of page 2 of Mrs Jeapes witness statement, which causes me to suspect that the colour coding for the four sides of the farmhouse were different at the time of the operation, and changed later for the purpose of the case being brought against Jeremy Bamber, under a crime reference of SC/786/85...
Note, that I said, "Which causes me to suspect that the colour coding for the four sides of the farmhouse were different at the time of the operation", etc. This was spoken about in this way in the context of the direction which members of the six man raid team approached the rear external door before smashing it down with an hammer. I will give a full explanation regarding this in due course...
-
Based upon information given in witness statements made by raid team officers, they approached the back external door from the direction of the following wall (WHITE SIDE):-
-
I believe that police got their pants in a twist, by introducing PC Collins explanation that he had seen the body of a female on the floor through the main kitchen window, which he said was a mistake, because once the raid team got into the kitchen he realized the body he thought was a female, turned out to be the body of Ralph Bamber. You see, bearing in mind the direction with which the raid team approached the rear farmhouse door, and the account given by PC Collins and others, he is supposed to have gone beyond the rear door to the kitchen window and looked and saw the female body on the floor, but he would have gone beyond the main kitchen window before he got to the rear external door, and therefore by going beyond the rear external door, to the window beyond the door, Collins would have been looking in through a window of the back kitchen, not the main kitchen. This was Jeremys approach to the matter a few years ago, which I looked into on his behalf. I found that whilst approaching the rear door on WHITE SIDE, Collins and the other raid team members would have all gone past the main kitchen window, got to the rear door, and if Collins went further beyond that door, he would indeed have ended up at the wrong kitchen window, and therefore could not possibly have seen Ralph Bambers body in the other kitchen and mistakenly identified Ralphs body as that of a female laying on the floor. You see, Ralphs body was not even laying on the kitchen floor in the other room, his body was crouched over and balancing precariously over and on top of an overturned wooden chair. So, it looked like Jeremys explanation was a valid one...
-
I believe that police got their pants in a twist, by introducing PC Collins explanation that he had seen the body of a female on the floor through the main kitchen window, which he said was a mistake, because once the raid team got into the kitchen he realized the body he thought was a female, turned out to be the body of Ralph Bamber. You see, bearing in mind the direction with which the raid team approached the rear farmhouse door, and the account given by PC Collins and others, he is supposed to have gone beyond the rear door to the kitchen window and looked and saw the female body on the floor, but he would have gone beyond the main kitchen window before he got to the rear external door, and therefore by going beyond the rear external door, to the window beyond the door, Collins would have been looking in through a window of the back kitchen, not the main kitchen. This was Jeremys approach to the matter a few years ago, which I looked into on his behalf. I found that whilst approaching the rear door on WHITE SIDE, Collins and the other raid team members would have all gone past the main kitchen window, got to the rear door, and if Collins went further beyond that door, he would indeed have ended up at the wrong kitchen window, and therefore could not possibly have seen Ralph Bambers body in the other kitchen and mistakenly identified Ralphs body as that of a female laying on the floor. You see, Ralphs body was not even laying on the kitchen floor in the other room, his body was crouched over and balancing precariously over and on top of an overturned wooden chair. So, it looked like Jeremys explanation was a valid one...
Jeremy reasoned that after Collins saw Sheila through the other kitchen window on WHITE SIDE, that Once police started to smash in the rear external door to the farm, that Sheila ran off upstairs and fled to the bedroom, but with hand on heart I see a problem with Jeremys (and his supporters) way of thinking, since, if Sheila fled upstairs just as the raid team were smashing open the rear external door, how could the same raid team, find (7.37am) find the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry? (7.38am) One dead male, one dead female, (7.41am) Can someone contact the police surgeon and Coroners officer, regarding two bodies, (7.45am) Can you attend the office, since police are attending an incident at whf, involving a murder, and a suicide, (8.10am) after a thorough search, a further three bodies found upstairs. You see if Jeremy and his supporters account is right, then how did the raid team find two bodies upon entering the main kitchen? One was the body of a dead male, and the other the dead body of a female, one was a murder (Ralph Bamber), the other was a suicide (guess who this refers too)?
-
If anyone thinks that someone like me, is as it were, behind the door, so to speak, think again, because I am street wise, I am intelligent, and I am resourceful (according to the trial judge who sentenced me to a total of 54 years back in 1988 - December 2nd). I have lived through arguably the worst era of police and judicial corruption there has ever been. I am a victim of that system, there isn't anything that I don't know what the police and the cast in the judicial system can't get up too, I have lived through it, I am a victim of it, and anybody who has never been a victim in a miscarriage of justice can't judge me on the basis of their own experiences. I do not need anyone to tell me that Jeremy Bamber is guilty and that he did what he has been convicted of doing, he's innocent, that's the bottom line, the case against him was a fabricated one...
-
I don't think Jeremy and his supporters account could possibly be true, for a number of reasons...
The fundamental fact that two bodies were found upon entry to the main kitchen, one male, one female, one a murder, one a suicide, must surely mean that no-one had fled the back kitchen to go upstairs to the main bedroom. At least, not that early in the proceedings. Two bodies had to be found, once the raid team entered the main kitchen...
-
I don't think Jeremy and his supporters account could possibly be true, for a number of reasons...
The fundamental fact that two bodies were found upon entry to the main kitchen (7.37am), one male, one female (7.38am), one a murder, one a suicide (7.45am), must surely mean that no-one had fled the back kitchen to go upstairs to the main bedroom. At least, not that early in the proceedings. Two bodies had to be found (7.37am), once the raid team entered the main kitchen...
This is one example, of why Jeremy decided I was of no further use to him, and his cause...
-
I have never sought to tell any lies, or make anything up, to make the case out for Jeremy's innocence, that is not what I am about. I don't act on lies, I proceed in knowing the truth, at least on the basis that those I am trying to help, tell me the truth, their truth...
I would never abandon anyone who I set out to try and help, unless I came across a deliberate attempt by them to hoodwink me by telling a blatantly obvious lie that they knew I would go out of my way, to use to try and prove their innocence....
-
I have never sought to tell any lies, or make anything up, to make the case out for Jeremy's innocence, that is not what I am about. I don't act on lies, I proceed in knowing the truth, at least on the basis that those I am trying to help, tell me the truth, their truth...
I would never abandon anyone who I set out to try and help, unless I came across a deliberate attempt by them to hoodwink me by telling a blatantly obvious lie that they knew I would go out of my way, to use to try and prove their innocence....
Jeremy Bamber is innocent, in the same way that Princess Diana, was killed off...
The State, has its way of dealing with a certain type of character, like Diana, and Jeremy, and the Birmingham six, The Guildford four, the Swansea two and dare I say it, The Barnsley one, and every other case where the suspect turns out to be the victim...
-
Are police capable of lying - Yes, they are...
Will they lie, if they have to show moral support for one of their colleagues - Yes, they would...
Would they invent evidence, Yes they would...
Would they be prepared to make false witness statements, Yes they would...
Is, Jeremy Bamber, innocent, Yes he is...
-
I have been wrongly convicted of crimes I did not commit, I have been sentenced to sentences which I should not have served, I was a victim, just like Jeremy is, I did not serve as long as Jeremy has thus far served, but every minute I have been unlawfully in custody was a living hell. What I have learned is that the so called good people, the ones without Criminal records, can often be as evil as the ones, they pursue and try at all costs to prosecute, convict, and sentence...
-
Reply #1 on: June 22, 2013, 09:50:PM »
Grey bricked part of the farmhouse, includes the downstairs rooms of the lounge, front door, and dining room, and the upstair rooms, including the main bedroom...
I would not say that WPS Jeapes reversed the colour coding of the farmhouse in the way you are suggesting, or for the purpose you are saying she did. At the end of the day, she arrived at the scene and was deployed around the farmhouse, she did not stay static without moving, she obviously changed her position from moment to moment. There were times when the kitchen window and the rear external farmhouse door (WHITE SIDE) were in her sight, and there were times when the main bedroom window, the front door, and the dining room window (RED SIDE) were in her vision. Your approach has her in the same position at all times, and you introduce the argument that she was confused and had made an error. But, you are WRONG, she changed her position, and what is more there would have been times when she was facing towards the farmhouse, and other occasions she would have her back turned away from the house. It is this very same basic principle which explains what she was referring too when she said that this officer, and that officer, were on her right at a part of her duties, and so and so, on her left - was because at one time or other she may have been facing towards the farmhouse, whilst on other occasions she will have had her back turned to the house, in keeping with her training...
All you are doing is what you always do- IGNORING the things that officers say and instead just pretending things are how you WANT then to be so you can push your agenda.
You ignore her clear statement the kitchen was the room the right of the door on purpose and pretend she was looking at the dining room so you can also pretend the window was the master bedroom but the window above the dining room was Sheila's bedroom not the master bedroom. EVERY window in the front of the house is surrounded by grey brick so there would have been no point in specifying the window on the gray portion.
The only position she could be in where the people at white would be to her right would be if she were with her husband at the green containment location which was watching the the coal shed. There was no green/white location but if one wants to call the white location 2 colors then it was green/white. This was to the right of the green location AKA black/green. It's impossible for her to have the green/white location to her right unless she was at black/green.
All your games accomplish nothing. She said she spelled the men who were at the white containment site. She described being at the corner of the shed at the white containment site. She described the view that would exist from the white containment site.
You MADE UP that she walked around site to site to pretend she went to the front of the house so you can then pretend she was looking at the master bedroom window. Her statement makes no such claim. Nor does the statements of the men at the red/white location claim she came and was with them. Moule was an acting police Sgt and he was the one in charge at the red/white corner. He didn't need Jeapes to come help him supervise the 2 men assigned to the red/white corner- Brown and Mildinhall. Post where any of these 3 claim she was with them. You can't because in her own statement she admits they were to her right which means she was to their left. The white containment location was to their left.
It is crystal clear she reversed red and green and also mistook the kitchen door for the front of the house. Because the truth doesn't support and of you fantasy conspiracies you ignore it and pretend she was somewhere else than she described. You don't even remain consistent in the past you admitted she screwed up her colors but since that demolishes your antics now you are backtracking.
Your denials are not convincing in the least and thus accomplish nothing. If she had been looking at the front of the house the entire thing was clad in grey- there would be 3 upper floor windows instead of 1 clad in grey so saying the window clad in grey would provide no value at all. So even if we took your nonsense at face value it still would not establish the window she was looking in was the master bedroom because if she were in front of the house:
"I saw that the front door of the farm was shut and that a light was on in the room to the right of this, which I understood was the kitchen. I could also see a window on the first floor of the white/red ride where the building is clad in grey brick in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window. There was no sign of movement in the house."
The above would not establish which of the three 1st floor windows she was referring to since all are surrounded by grey brick. Furthermore we would have to say she made a mistake and called the dining room the kitchen. So your spin still fails to accomplish what you desire your spin would at best establish she could have been referring to 3 different windows.
But we know she was at the white containment location where there was only 1 upper floor window on the gray brick area hence why she used that description to identify it and that window was to the box room.
-
Jeremy reasoned that after Collins saw Sheila through the other kitchen window on WHITE SIDE, that Once police started to smash in the rear external door to the farm, that Sheila ran off upstairs and fled to the bedroom, but with hand on heart I see a problem with Jeremys (and his supporters) way of thinking, since, if Sheila fled upstairs just as the raid team were smashing open the rear external door, how could the same raid team, find (7.37am) find the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry? (7.38am) One dead male, one dead female, (7.41am) Can someone contact the police surgeon and Coroners officer, regarding two bodies, (7.45am) Can you attend the office, since police are attending an incident at whf, involving a murder, and a suicide, (8.10am) after a thorough search, a further three bodies found upstairs. You see if Jeremy and his supporters account is right, then how did the raid team find two bodies upon entering the main kitchen? One was the body of a dead male, and the other the dead body of a female, one was a murder (Ralph Bamber), the other was a suicide (guess who this refers too)?
All this amounts to is ignoring that Collins saw Neivll's body, ignoring that he thought Nevill was an elderly woman until they could inspect his body close up, ignoring the physical evidence establishing Sheila was murdered, ignoring the evidence establishing Sheila was murdered with the Anschutz int he bedroom, ignoring the evidence that both shots were fired into Sheila seconds apart and making up a load of impossible nonsense.
-
All this amounts to is ignoring that Collins saw Neivll's body, ignoring that he thought Nevill was an elderly woman until they could inspect his body close up, ignoring the physical evidence establishing Sheila was murdered, ignoring the evidence establishing Sheila was murdered with the Anschutz int he bedroom, ignoring the evidence that both shots were fired into Sheila seconds apart and making up a load of impossible nonsense.
I would have no reason to do what you are suggesting which amounts to bullshit. Jeapes was in a position to cover WHITE / RED sides at the same time, this can only mean to anybody with something that represents a brain, that she was at the corner of WHITE / RED. If she was at the corner of WHITE / RED, she could see the main bedroom window and the anshuzt rifle leaning against it, she could see the front door, and she could see the dining room window, all on the RED SIDE of the building. You haven't even got a clue what your on about, let alone what I'm on about...
Sheila was murdered in the bedroom, yes, but not by Jeremy...
The anshuzt rifle was resting or leaning against the main bedroom window for two solid hours, between 7.15am and 9.15am, so she did not kill herself by use of it, and nobody else killed her by use of it, and staged managed her body on the floor with that rifle on top of her body until 9.15am that same morning. If you can't work out who killed Sheila by that stage at that (9.15am) time, then I suppose I have given you too much credit for being cleverer than you really are. You have got to be a nut case, a lunatic, brain dead, or better / worse still, someone who loves police corruption...
If that's true then you are an evil bastard, just like the filth that framed Jeremy for the murder of Sheila that they themselves committed...
-
Essex police killed Sheila Caffell, not Jeremy Bamber, not no as yet unidentified killer. Jeremy got it right when upon being told by Saxby that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead, when he accused the police of shooting his family dead after they had gone towards the farmhouse. Essex police, like every other police force in the mid 1980's, were corrupted, it was well known in the criminal fraternity and criminal circles that pigs or the filth (as they were known by) were worse than the criminals they targeted, framed. helped to convict and get locked up, on many occasions for offences they had not committed. Until you have been a victim of these disgusting and unacceptable practices, you can't begin to imagine where the truth in anytghing lies...
-
I would have no reason to do what you are suggesting which amounts to bullshit. Jeapes was in a position to cover WHITE / RED sides at the same time, this can only mean to anybody with something that represents a brain, that she was at the corner of WHITE / RED. If she was at the corner of WHITE / RED, she could see the main bedroom window and the anshuzt rifle leaning against it, she could see the front door, and she could see the dining room window, all on the RED SIDE of the building. You haven't even got a clue what your on about, let alone what I'm on about...
Sheila was murdered in the bedroom, yes, but not by Jeremy...
The anshuzt rifle was resting or leaning against the main bedroom window for two soli hours, between 7.15am and 9.15am, so she did not kill herself by use of it, and nobody else killed her by use of it, and staged managed her body on the floor with that rifle on top of her body until 9.15am that same morning. If you can't work out who killed Sheila by that stage at that (9.15am) time, then I suppose I have given you too much credit for being cleverer than you really are. You have got to be a nutcase, a lunatic, brain dead, or better / worse swtill, someone who loves police corruption...
If that's true then you are an evil bastard, just like the filth that framed Jeremy for the murder of Sheila that they themselves committed...
Fact: Upon the second firearms team deploying Collins and others at the white containment position were relieved by Sgt Jeapes, Webb and Rozga. This containment position featured a brick wall next to a shed. This containment position faced the side of the house that had the kitchen door.
Fact: The position to the right of the white containment position was the red/white corner. This position featured a hedge row behind the officers. They faced the front of the house. Upon the arrival of the second batch of officers Sgt Moule, Mildinhall and Brown were assigned to this location.
Fact: All 3 upper floor windows were surrounded by gray brick but only one upper floor window on the kitchen side of the house was surrounded by gray brick so on the kitchen side such a description would isolate a single window whereas on the front side the description is worthless because it describes all the windows.
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said her position was by a corner of a shed
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said she relieved the men who had been at the white containment location
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said Moule was to her right.
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said the window she saw something in was the upper floor window surrounded by grey brick.
Fact: Sgt. Jeapes said the door was the kitchen door and the window to the left was the kitchen window
Fact: there was no green/white corner containment location
Fact: The only position that could be characterized as a green/white containment location was the white containment location.
Fact: If Moule had been at this location and she was to the left of Moule that would mean she had to be at the green/black containment location but that faced the coal shed
The evidence conclusively establishes Sgt Jeapes was at the white containment location and that she screwed up by calling it the red/white containment location and also that she screwed up by thinking the kitchen door was the front door.
All your antics accomplish nothing.
-
All you are doing is what you always do- IGNORING the things that officers say and instead just pretending things are how you WANT then to be so you can push your agenda.
Listen birdbrain, don't try to tell me how to think or what to say, because you don't even know what your saying all by yourself without any help from me. The officer in question, and I shall spell it out so that you know who I am referring to when I am speaking about her, W P C, J U l i a J e a p e s, clearly refers to covering WHITE / RED side, and in order for her to be covering both of these / those sides at the same time, she would need to be in the general area of the corner of the building (White / Red)...
-
Fact: Upon the second firearms team deploying Collins and others at the white containment position were relieved by Sgt Jeapes, Webb and Rozga. This containment position featured a brick wall next to a shed. This containment position faced the side of the house that had the kitchen door.
She doesn't say this word for word as you try to describe it...
-
Fact: The position to the right of the white containment position was the red/white corner. This position featured a hedge row behind the officers. They faced the front of the house. Upon the arrival of the second batch of officers Sgt Moule, Mildinhall and Brown were assigned to this location.
She doesn't say this word for word, it's you saying what your saying, not her...
-
Fact: All 3 upper floor windows were surrounded by gray brick but only one upper floor window on the kitchen side of the house was surrounded by gray brick so on the kitchen side such a description would isolate a single window whereas on the front side the description is worthless because it describes all the windows.
Your words, not hers...
-
"Fact: The position to the right of the white containment position was the red/white corner. This position featured a hedge row behind the officers. They faced the front of the house. Upon the arrival of the second batch of officers Sgt Moule, Mildinhall and Brown were assigned to this location."
She doesn't say this word for word as you try to describe it...
Her exact words:
"I was then deployed to a containment position which was located on the corner of a barn facing the farm house, with a view to the right hand side of the premises. In firearms terminology I was covering White/Red. I in fact took over from PC Alexander-Smart, PA 172 Collins and PC 627 Delgado and was aware that A/Ps 1596 Moule was about 12 yards behind me to my right and covering the white/green side of the premises, that is the left hand side of the farm, facing the barn."
She took over for people who were at the white containment site. What barn is at the red/white containment site? There is none the corner of the barn she is referring to is the one at the white containment site. She incorrectly claim Moule was at the green/white containment site he was at the red/white containment site. She said Moule was at the site to her right so she was to his left. To the left of the red/white corner containment site was the white containment site so she was at the white containment site.
If she had been at the red/white containment site that means Moule would have to have been at the red/black containment site but he wasn't. She said there was a barn in between her site and Moule's What barn is on the front of the house dividing the red/white containment site and the black/red containment site?
Number 2 is the red/white containment site and 3 is the black/red containment site. What barn is there dividing these positions?
(http://s30.postimg.org/tq1dv3sgx/whfcontainmentpositions.jpg)
Your claims totally fall apart under scrutiny.
-
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said her position was by a corner of a shed
From the corner of the shed she could not possibly have been covering both WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse...
-
"Fact: The position to the right of the white containment position was the red/white corner. This position featured a hedge row behind the officers. They faced the front of the house. Upon the arrival of the second batch of officers Sgt Moule, Mildinhall and Brown were assigned to this location."
She doesn't say this word for word, it's you saying what your saying, not her...
Indeed I am the one saying who was actually assigned to the red/white location because she INCORRECTLY claimed that is where she was. To rebut it I posted the fact that Moule, Mildinhall and Brown were there. Moreover the people she claimed she replaced were at the white containment site. location. What this proves is that she messed up the colors because her claims are wrong.
She said she was at the corner of a barn. There was no barn at the red/corner containment site the site had a hedgerow behind it. The barn was to the left of the red/white corner and didn't border it because the hedge was in the way. By saying she was to the right of this barn and Moule was to the left of it that tells you she was at the white containment site while he was at the red/white containment site.
-
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said she relieved the men who had been at the white containment location
In firearm terms she was covering WHITE / RED, now how can relieving men on the WHITE side of the farm house, result in her covering WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse? Plus the raid team approached the rear door on WHITE side of the building, from the direction of RED side of the same building, albeit by following the curved wall previously depicted in posted diagrams...
-
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said Moule was to her right.
Which way was she facing when she says that Moule was to her right?
Was she facing towards the farmhouse, was she facing with her back to the farmhouse, or sideways?
-
"Fact: All 3 upper floor windows were surrounded by gray brick but only one upper floor window on the kitchen side of the house was surrounded by gray brick so on the kitchen side such a description would isolate a single window whereas on the front side the description is worthless because it describes all the windows."
Your words, not hers...
Her exact words:
"I saw that the front door of the farm was shut and that a light was on in the room to the right of this, which I understood was the kitchen. I could also see a window on the first floor of the white/red side where the building is clad in grey brick in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window. There was no sign of movement in the house."
The entire front side is clad in gray brick, all 3 upper floor windows are clad in gray brick so it is worthless to specify the window with gray brick. There was no point to mention that at all. In the meantime you also ignore that she stated the door she was looking at was next to the kitchen window.
-
Fact: Sgt Jeapes said the window she saw something in was the upper floor window surrounded by grey brick.
The main bedroom window where the anshuzt rifle was later photographed by PC Bird, is also surrounded by grey brick...
-
From the corner of the shed she could not possibly have been covering both WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse...
She wasn't covering the white/red side she was covering the white side. She made it clear she saw the kitchen door, and kitchen window and was by the corner of the shed at the white containment location. The people she replaced had been covering the white containment location. Moule and 2 others were covering the red/white containment location. She INCORRECTLY thought she was at the red/white location when in fact she was at the white location. You intentionally keep ignoring the police who were ACTUALLY at the red/white location so she could not have been there, IGNORING that the men she replaced were at the white location so by extension that means she was at the white location, and IGNORING the physical descriptions which clearly describe the white containment location.
Moule was at the red/white containment location and she admits she was not at the same site as him he was to the site right of her. So that right there proves she was wrong in claiming she was at the red/white containment location. You are fighting a battle you can't win.
-
Fact: Sgt. Jeapes said the door was the kitchen door and the window to the left was the kitchen window
No, she says FRONT DOOR, and a window to the right of that door, which she believed was the kitchen, but she was wrong because the window to the right of the front door as she viewed it whilst covering WHITE / RED sides, was / is the dining room, not the kitchen. There is no way she could have known which window on RED SIDE related to which room, she was merely speculating, nothing more, nothing less...
-
In firearm terms she was covering WHITE / RED, now how can relieving men on the WHITE side of the farm house, result in her covering WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse? Plus the raid team approached the rear door on WHITE side of the building, from the direction of RED side of the same building, albeit by following the curved wall previously depicted in posted diagrams...
Her claim that she was covering the red/white side is objectively wrong. Moule, Mindinhall and Brown were the ones covering the red/white corner so she can't have been. The men she replaced were covering the white side so objectively that proves she was at the white containment site. The physical descriptions she gave correspond to the white containment site not the red/white corner.
Beyond all doubt she erroneously wrote she was at the white/red containment site when in fact she was at the white containment site.
-
Fact: there was no green/white corner containment location
Yes, there was / is...
-
Which way was she facing when she says that Moule was to her right?
Was she facing towards the farmhouse, was she facing with her back to the farmhouse, or sideways?
Apart from logic saying she was talking about facing the farmhouse, if she had her back to the farmhouse the position to the right would be the white containment position not green/white and Moule was not there. Furthermore she would not have been near the corner of any shed. The red/white position had a hedge dividing that area from the white containment position. The hedge would have prevented her from being near the shed. The people she said she took over for were covering the white side which in turn eans she took over at white. You are waging a battle you can't win.
-
Yes, there was / is...
No there wasn't. The white green corner of the property had no containment location. The located the containment site at the brick wall so that it was no where near the green/white corner and this was called the white containment site. This site was not that far from the red/white site these were the 2 sites closest together in terms of distance. That added to her confusion.
-
Fact: The only position that could be characterized as a green/white containment location was the white containment location.
You are talking double Dutch, how can GREEN / WHITE containment, be the same as WHITE containment location, Jeapes ended up covering in firearm terms WHITE / RED side...
-
Fact: If Moule had been at this location and she was to the left of Moule that would mean she had to be at the green/black containment location but that faced the coal shed
According to you, she was everywhere except at the corner of WHITE / RED, where she says she had been...
-
The main bedroom window where the anshuzt rifle was later photographed by PC Bird, is also surrounded by grey brick...
There are 3 brick windows in the upper floor of the front of the house ALL clad in brick. Even if she had been talking about the front of the house that doesn't isolate the master bedroom window.
The gun was photographed against the window after it was photographed on Sheila's body.
Jeapes replaced the men who hate been at the white containment location and the physical descriptions she provide were the white location. Furthermore different men were at the red/white location- she objectively wasn't there.
You are wasting your time repeating the same stuff I have already demonstrated to be false.
-
No, she says FRONT DOOR, and a window to the right of that door, which she believed was the kitchen, but she was wrong because the window to the right of the front door as she viewed it whilst covering WHITE / RED sides, was / is the dining room, not the kitchen. There is no way she could have known which window on RED SIDE related to which room, she was merely speculating, nothing more, nothing less...
She incorrectly thought the door near the kitchen was the front door to the house. You are the one speculating that she was wrong about the window being the kitchen window and instead being the dining room window. The totality of the evidence establishes beyond question she was at the white containment location looking at the kitchen not the front of the house. The physical descriptions correspond to the white location, the men she replaced were at the white location there were DIFFERENT people at the red/white location including Moule. See said Moule was at the position to her right and he was at the actual red/white location.
You are just spinning your wheels at this point.
-
She incorrectly thought the door near the kitchen was the front door to the house. You are the one speculating that she was wrong about the window being the kitchen window and instead being the dining room window. The totality of the evidence establishes beyond question she was at the white containment location looking at the kitchen not the front of the house. The physical descriptions correspond to the white location, the men she replaced were at the white location there were DIFFERENT people at the red/white location including Moule. See said Moule was at the position to her right and he was at the actual red/white location.
You are just spinning your wheels at this point.
There is no evidence that the main kitchen light was switched on by the time Jeapes (after 7.15am) arrived at the corner location of WHITE / RED side...
-
You are talking double Dutch, how can GREEN / WHITE containment, be the same as WHITE containment location, Jeapes ended up covering in firearm terms WHITE / RED side...
2 of the 4 containment sites were not actually at corners. The site called green/black was actually just facing the green side and was towards the middle of the green side so it was not at any corner. It was nonetheless called the black/green containment site. The white containment site was not exactly in the middle of the the white side but rather more to the right so closer to the corner with the front of the house but it wasn't at the corner. Since there was one at the corner of red/white if calling them all corners then it would mean the white would be called green/white. But they just called it white- at least the officers at this site called it that.
Moule, Mildinhall and Brown were at the red/white site so clearly Jeapes was not. The people she replaced were at the white containment site so clearly this is the site she was at.
-
She incorrectly thought the door near the kitchen was the front door to the house. You are the one speculating that she was wrong about the window being the kitchen window and instead being the dining room window. The totality of the evidence establishes beyond question she was at the white containment location looking at the kitchen not the front of the house. The physical descriptions correspond to the white location, the men she replaced were at the white location there were DIFFERENT people at the red/white location including Moule. See said Moule was at the position to her right and he was at the actual red/white location.
You are just spinning your wheels at this point.
It never ceases to amaze me, birdbrain, why you challenge everything I am saying, but then again, thats why your a bird brain, but prey tell us all which rifle was seen at the window of your choice? Now, remember that Jeapes specifically states 'RIFLE', and not shotgun...
-
According to you, she was everywhere except at the corner of WHITE / RED, where she says she had been...
No according to me she was at the white containment site not anywhere else.
The most significant evidence that I use to establish this is:
1) the people she replaced were at the white containment site and if she replaced them that means she too was at the white containment site
2) the description she provided of being at the corner of a barn fits only 2 locations the green containment site and white containment site. They are the only sites that were at the corner of barns. However all the other things she describes establishes she was at white not the green site.
3) she said she could see the kitchen window and described a single upper floor window int he grey portion which only fits if she was at the white containment location
4) She described Moule as being at the containment location to her right and that means she was to his left. The containment location to the left of Moule was the white containment site
5) she said she could see the raid team entering the building. They entered through the kitchen door which could only be seen from the white containment site.
While I am objectively considering all the evidence you are ignoring it to pretend she was at a location that was staffed by other men and ignoring that location had 3 upper floor windows clad in gray so if she had been there we could no even tell which of the 3 windows she meant and even ignoring that she wasn't even sure what she saw was a rifle barrel ALL so you can pretend she saw the rifle barrel in the master bedroom window which doesn't help Jeremy because there is no way she could have killed herself then moved the gun to the window that would prove for sure someone else killed her.
If your claims had actually been true then police would have no reason to deny the gun was in the window and would have used it to establish Jeremy's guilt.
-
Fact: If Moule had been at this location and she was to the left of Moule that would mean she had to be at the green/black containment location but that faced the coal shed
You are confusing, yourself...
WPC Jeapes was covering in firearm terms, was WHITE / RED sides...
In order to do this, she had to be in the general location of the corner of WHITE / RED, otherwise she would not have been able to see the only rifle ever photographed at a bedroom window (Anshuzt rifle leaning against the upper floor main bedroom window), and the FRONT DOOR, and the window to the right of that front door, which was / is the dining room...
-
It never ceases to amaze me, birdbrain, why you challenge everything I am saying, but then again, thats why your a bird brain, but prey tell us all which rifle was seen at the window of your choice? Now, remember that Jeapes specifically states 'RIFLE', and not shotgun...
She said it appears to be a rifle barrel. A broom or cane sticking up would appear the same way a rifle barrel would there was even an air rifle that could have been against the window. It could have been a reflection from something even there might have been nothing actually in the window.
I challenge what you say because you intentionally distort to pretend you have evidence that establishes things that you actually have no evidence to establish.
-
The evidence conclusively establishes Sgt Jeapes was at the white containment location and that she screwed up by calling it the red/white containment location and also that she screwed up by thinking the kitchen door was the front door.
All your antics accomplish nothing.
No, you are wrong, again, she clearly states that in firearm terminology she was covering WHITE / Red sides...
-
You are confusing, yourself...
WPC Jeapes was covering in firearm terms, WHITE / RED sides...
In order to do this, she had to be in the general location of the corner of WHITE / RED, otherwise she would not have been able to see the only rifle ever photographed at a bedroom window (Anshuzt rifle leaning against the upper floor main bedroom window), and the FRONT DOOR, and the window to the right of that front door, which was / is the dining room...
Jeapes said he was looking a the door near the kitchen. She incorrectly thought this was the front of the house. You are trying to pretend she was really at the front of the house though all the evidence establishes otherwise. You keep ignoring the people she replaced were at the white location, Moule and other men were at the red/white location so she could not have been there, the shed she described was at the white location...
You lost this debate long ago. You can keep repeating your disproved allegations all you want I will keep refuting them with the evidence. You might be an English bulldog but I am a US Marine Bulldog and there is nothing more stubborn than us and our bite is worse than out bark.
-
She wasn't covering the white/red side she was covering the white side. She made it clear she saw the kitchen door, and kitchen window and was by the corner of the shed at the white containment location. The people she replaced had been covering the white containment location. Moule and 2 others were covering the red/white containment location. She INCORRECTLY thought she was at the red/white location when in fact she was at the white location. You intentionally keep ignoring the police who were ACTUALLY at the red/white location so she could not have been there, IGNORING that the men she replaced were at the white location so by extension that means she was at the white location, and IGNORING the physical descriptions which clearly describe the white containment location.
Moule was at the red/white containment location and she admits she was not at the same site as him he was to the site right of her. So that right there proves she was wrong in claiming she was at the red/white containment location. You are fighting a battle you can't win.
Listen, birdbrain, I do not ignore anything....
You, do not know, and you have no idea what I have taken into consideration in arriving at my own conclusions. I am streets ahead of your current way of thinking, I have been there, considered it, weighed up the pro's and cons, in favour or against it, and moved on...
I know that what you are advocating is absolutely wrong, and that any right thinking member of the public will clearly see that there is merit in what I am promoting...
-
No, you are wrong, again, she clearly states that in firearm terminology she was covering WHITE / Red sides...
Stating so doesn't make her right. She stated the green/white corner was to her right but that is impossible unless she was at the green/black containment site. So that objectively demonstrates mistake 1. She called the front of the house the site with the kitchen door. This objectively illustrates mistake 2. She claimed Moule was at the green/white location but he was at white/red so this objectively illustrates mistake 3. Since he was at red/white and she was at a different location this objectively illustrates she could not have been at white/red she had to have made a mistake. Since the men she replaced were not at white/red this objectively proves she was not at white/red she made a mistake. Since the barn she describes was not at the white/red location this proves she was somewhere else.
You want us to just accept claims that we objectively know are wrong. I will not close my eyes to absolute proof she made an error and to just pretend her erroneous claims were true. Nor will I pretend the murder weapon was found int he window because I only use real evidence against Jeremy not fake evidence. It would be highly useful to use the murder weapon in the window as evidence that someone else murdered Sheila but it would be fake evidence because all the evidence available establishes the murder weapon was found on her body.
-
Her claim that she was covering the red/white side is objectively wrong. Moule, Mindinhall and Brown were the ones covering the red/white corner so she can't have been. The men she replaced were covering the white side so objectively that proves she was at the white containment site. The physical descriptions she gave correspond to the white containment site not the red/white corner.
Beyond all doubt she erroneously wrote she was at the white/red containment site when in fact she was at the white containment site.
She said it, so it must be right...
The men she replaced were close to the corner of WHITE / RED side, on WHITE side, not entirely on RED side. You have no evidence whatsoever, that when Jeapes replaced those men, that she stood in exactly the same position and location that those men had been standing in. Again, you are speculating on this matter. If she stood in the general area where those men that she replaced had previously been standing then those men had not simply been covering the WHITE location containment area, but WHITE / RED location, or in other words the corner area of WHITE / RED allowing them, and later WPC Jeapes to have the vantage point of both sides of the farmhouse, or in other words, WHITE / RED, not only WHITE side, as you erroneously allege...
-
NOW I understand why someone wrote to her to clarify . Fact - she never said which room window it was.
-
She said it appears to be a rifle barrel. A broom or cane sticking up would appear the same way a rifle barrel would there was even an air rifle that could have been against the window. It could have been a reflection from something even there might have been nothing actually in the window.
I challenge what you say because you intentionally distort to pretend you have evidence that establishes things that you actually have no evidence to establish.
Please direct me to any photograph which shows a broom handle leaning against the side of the main bedroom window, or for that matter, any other upstairs room window on either side of the WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse? I do not intentionally distort anything. Actually, I seek the truth in any matter, I am not biased in any view I may end up believing in...
-
Listen, birdbrain, I do not ignore anything....
You, do not know, and you have no idea what I have taken into consideration in arriving at my own conclusions. I am streets ahead of your current way of thinking, I have been there, considered it, weighed up the pro's and cons, in favour or against it, and moved on...
I know that what you are advocating is absolutely wrong, and that any right thinking member of the public will clearly see that there is merit in what I am promoting...
Your conclusions are clearly driven by bias and since you haven't refuted the evidence I raised it means you are just ignoring it.
You are ignoring that if she had been in front of the house there are 3 windows that she could have been referring to and there would be no way to isolate which of the 3 she meant. So you would not be able to establish she meant the master bedroom window.
You are ignoring objective evidence that Moule, ildinhall and Brown were the ones assigned to the red/white contianment site.
You are ignoring objective evidence that those Jeapes said she replaced were at the white containment site.
You are ignoring that there is no barn at the red/white containment site.
You are interpreting things on purpose in a manner that affords the pretense she was at the front of the house so you can then pretend she was talking about the master bedroom window and you ignore all evidence that proves this to be false. You know the truth you just don't want to admit it. This isn't a matter of you being confused and fooled by Jeapes you are playing games. You don't even sincerely believe the things you are writing. You can swear up and down you are a gullible codger who believes the things you write but I don't believe it. You could never convince me that you are dumb and gullible and thus honestly believe what you are peddling- you are are just playing games.
-
Jeapes said he was looking a the door near the kitchen. She incorrectly thought this was the front of the house. You are trying to pretend she was really at the front of the house though all the evidence establishes otherwise. You keep ignoring the people she replaced were at the white location, Moule and other men were at the red/white location so she could not have been there, the shed she described was at the white location...
You lost this debate long ago. You can keep repeating your disproved allegations all you want I will keep refuting them with the evidence. You might be an English bulldog but I am a US Marine Bulldog and there is nothing more stubborn than us and our bite is worse than out bark.
The, "He", you are referring to, is a SHE...
-
Jeapes said he was looking a the door near the kitchen. She incorrectly thought this was the front of the house. You are trying to pretend she was really at the front of the house though all the evidence establishes otherwise. You keep ignoring the people she replaced were at the white location, Moule and other men were at the red/white location so she could not have been there, the shed she described was at the white location...
You lost this debate long ago. You can keep repeating your disproved allegations all you want I will keep refuting them with the evidence. You might be an English bulldog but I am a US Marine Bulldog and there is nothing more stubborn than us and our bite is worse than out bark.
I do not accept that I have lost any debate on these matters, no-one has argued or challenged what I have been saying in any sort of depth, so I once again disagree with what you are intent on wrongly promoting...
-
NOW I understand why someone wrote to her to clarify . Fact - she never said which room window it was.
She did say which window if one approaches the issue honestly. If one approaches it honestly they realize she was on the side facing the kitchen and the upper window on the gray portion is the window. There was only one such window the boxroom window. All other windows on the upper floor were clad in red brick.
If one approaches it dishonestly and pretends she was in the front of the house then there are 3 windows that she could have been referring to.
Writing to her would be:
1) to make her clarify if she was at the actual front of the house or she was at the containment site facing the kitchen (though we already know the answer because she saw the raid team enter and only could have seen this from the site facing the kitchen not front of the house plus other evidence proving it)
2) If she answered the front (though we know she wasn't at the front) then to clarify which of the 3 upper windows she meant.
-
Please direct me to any photograph which shows a broom handle leaning against the side of the main bedroom window, or for that matter, any other upstairs room window on either side of the WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse? I do not intentionally distort anything. Actually, I seek the truth in any matter, I am not biased in any view I may end up believing in...
None of the photos of the box room have been publicly released so we can't try to assess what if anything was against that window. Could it be that Jeremy supports won' show any of that room precisely because it would reveal some object that was able to look like a rifle? Perhaps so.
But we don't know she saw anything in that window, it could have been a shadow simply- the photos might reveal nothing.
That was definitely the window she was referring to though there is no question about that at all.
You are the one with access to all the photos supposedly so you tell us what the photos revealed of the boxroom.
-
The, "He", you are referring to, is a SHE...
Who Moule?
-
Stating so doesn't make her right. She stated the green/white corner was to her right but that is impossible unless she was at the green/black containment site.
Have you got any idea who you are trying to undermine, or even how much time and effort I have put into trying to arrive at the truth? I am streets ahead of you, I have looked at and considered what you are promoting, years ago...
Good luck in your mission to arrive at the truth, you are really a very long way off...
-
"You are ignoring that if she had been in front of the house there are 3 windows that she could have been referring to and there would be no way to isolate which of the 3 she meant. So you would not be able to establish she meant the master bedroom window.
great point skippy - that's why you cant isolate she meant the box room either!
-
I do not accept that I have lost any debate on these matters, no-one has argued or challenged what I have been saying in any sort of depth, so I once again disagree with what you are intent on wrongly promoting...
You don't have to admit it anymore than Saddam hiding in a hole in the ground refusing to admit defeat prevented the Iraqi military from having been defeated.
The simple facts are that Jeapes replaced men who were at the white containment site. DIFFERENT officers were at the white/red containment site including a person who she said was at the position to her right. She described being at the corner of a barn which fits the white containment location but not the red/white. She claimed she saw the raid team enter which is on;y possible if she had been at the white containment site. She claimed she was on the side facing the kitchen windows which means the white containment site.
Your admission you lost is not necessary to establish you lost I established it with the objective evidence.
-
"You are ignoring that if she had been in front of the house there are 3 windows that she could have been referring to and there would be no way to isolate which of the 3 she meant. So you would not be able to establish she meant the master bedroom window.
great point skippy - that's why you cant isolate she meant the box room either!
She wasn't at the front of the house though. She was at the side facing the kitchen and there is on;y one window there clad in gray. The whole reason she used the description she did is because only one window fit the bill the box room window.
There are 2 possibilities:
1) she incorrectly thought the kitchen door was the front of the house
or
2) she was at the front of the house and incorrectly thought the dining room was the kitchen.
By looking at all the available evidence it is clear she wasn't a the front of the house. The descriptions she provided of being by the corner of a barn apply to the white side not the front. The officers she relieved were at the white side not the front. She said she saw the raid team enter and they entered the kitchen door not the front. We know for a fact other officers were in the front.
You have to ignore all the available evidence to pretend it is possible that she was at the front of the house and thought the dining room was the kitchen.
-
You don't have to admit it anymore than Saddam hiding in a hole in the ground refusing to admit defeat prevented the Iraqi military from having been defeated.
Please, don't you dare try to go down that road - there were no weapons of mass destruction, now shut the fuck up...
-
Saddam Hussain, was executed, he did not die screaming, he did not plea for his life to be spared, he died, with dignity. How many other world leaders would have left this world, in the same manner, as Saddam did?
-
The simple facts are that Jeapes replaced men who were at the white containment site. DIFFERENT officers were at the white/red containment site including a person who she said was at the position to her right. She described being at the corner of a barn which fits the white containment location but not the red/white. She claimed she saw the raid team enter which is on;y possible if she had been at the white containment site. She claimed she was on the side facing the kitchen windows which means the white containment site.
Your admission you lost is not necessary to establish you lost I established it with the objective evidence.
You have established "FUCK ALL"...
-
You have established "FUCK ALL"...
Mildinhall was actually in the front of the house in the red/white position with Brown and Moule joined shortly thereafter. In fact Moule is the only one who stayed there and was covering the position alone while the raid team was inside.
Mildinhall's statement is extremely detailed and highly useful:
(http://s10.postimg.org/5uxca4zgp/mildinhall.jpg)
(http://s28.postimg.org/3tw8hh6fx/mildinhall2.jpg)
It is crystal clear that he has accurately described the red/white location and what the building would look like from that location. He also correctly identifies the white location. He notes from the red/white location he could only hear the raid team not see them enter. Jeapes described the white side of the building and the description of being by the barn likewise fits the white side. The people she relieved had been on the white side. She said she saw the raid team enter so was clearly on the white side.
Furthermore, the dining room light wasn't on the kitchen light was the one that was on.
There is no question Jeapes misidentified her location when she wrote red/white she meant white. She also messed up by calling the location to her right the green/white location, the location to her right was the red/white location where Mildinhall, Brown and Moule were prior to Brown and Mildinhall moving to the white containment site with Jeapes.
-
I understand Mike, he is defending someone he thinks is innocent, but what on earth are all of you people doing charachter assassinating Jeremy Bamber who is already behind bars with the harshest sentence possible.
What is it about?
-
I understand Mike, he is defending someone he thinks is innocent, but what on earth are all of you people doing charachter assassinating Jeremy Bamber who is already behind bars with the harshest sentence possible.
What is it about?
It's just about trying to understand how such a young man could be driven to murder five people in cold blood,or if you consider him innocent why so many have conspired against him for so long. I'm not against conspiracy theories and believe me the Establishment can play as dirty as anyone..
-
It's just about trying to understand how such a young man could be driven to murder five people in cold blood,or if you consider him innocent why so many have conspired against him for so long. I'm not against conspiracy theories and believe me the Establishment can play as dirty as anyone..
Steve, it happened thirty years ago. I agree, it is an interesting case, we are still dicussing it. But Jeremy had the harshest sentence possible, so why is there still a need to "kill" him further? What is that about?
-
By reference to the following "google map image", it becomes increasingly obvious where WPC Jeapes was stood (2) , or generally stood at the time she spotted the rifle leaning against the upper floor window (RED SIDE), how she could see the front door of the farmhouse (RED SIDE), and the dining room window beyond the front door (RED SIDE), whilst at the same time from a similar location, have been able to see the rear farmhouse door on WHITE SIDE:-
-
At the time of Jeapes sighting of the rifle leaning against the upper floor window, she was generally in location 2, covering WHITE / RED SIDES at one and the same time. From there she could see the following features on RED SIDE, Main bedroom window on upper floor with the anshuzt rifle leaning against it, the prominently positioned front door, and the downstairs ground floor window to the right of the front door, which she thought was the kitchen window, but which in fact was the dining room window. At the same general time, she could see on the WHITE SIDE of the building to her left, the rear external door via which the raid team would eventually smash down and enter into the farmhouse. I doubt from her vantage point on the corner of WHITE / RED that she would have even been able to see the main kitchen window, because of the acute angle or the view afforded her from there...
Because she couldn't see the main kitchen window from the corner of WHITE / RED, there can be no possibility that she could have mistaken the front door (RED SIDE) and the dining room window (also on RED SIDE), with the rear door (WHITE SIDE), and the main kitchen window (also on WHITE SIDE), because from her vantage point at the corner of WHITE / RED, she could not even see the main kitchen window to her left, on the right side of the rear door on WHITE SIDE, to allow her to make such a mistake...
-
Steve, it happened thirty years ago. I agree, it is an interesting case, we are still dicussing it. But Jeremy had the harshest sentence possible, so why is there still a need to "kill" him further? What is that about?
It IS an interesting case about which there is no middle ground. Jeremy is either innocent or guilty. Those who believe him to be innocent think up every reason under the sun to make it so OR search for the elusive loophole which will get him out on a technicality. This is countered by those who believe he's guilty and they answer the more extreme claims with reasons WHY the harsh sentence was justified and should remain. It's generally known as debate.
-
All the key evidence relied upon to secure the convictions for murder were dodgy by anybodies standards...
-
I understand Mike, he is defending someone he thinks is innocent, but what on earth are all of you people doing charachter assassinating Jeremy Bamber who is already behind bars with the harshest sentence possible.
What is it about?
Agreed,Alias. All Scipios' Sermons about a man,who he knows to be 100% guilty ?? What's that about ?
-
Agreed,Alias. All Scipios' Sermons about a man,who he knows to be 100% guilty ?? What's that about ?
I agree it all seems pretty pointless to me, think maybe scipio thinks he has a mission to educate and explain where all we 'thickos' are going wrong ;D
-
I agree it all seems pretty pointless to me, think maybe scipio thinks he has a mission to educate and explain where all we 'thickos' are going wrong ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Police are not always honest, trustworthy, or innocent from accusations of brutality:-
-
I agree it all seems pretty pointless to me, think maybe scipio thinks he has a mission to educate and explain where all we 'thickos' are going wrong ;D
Since you see it as pointless, does that mean if you were ever to believe or Bambers guilt you would leave the forum?
-
I understand Mike, he is defending someone he thinks is innocent, but what on earth are all of you people doing charachter assassinating Jeremy Bamber who is already behind bars with the harshest sentence possible.
What is it about?
I think his character was assassinated long before this forum was ever even thought of. That happened the day he was convicted of killing 5 people. However, it's not about assassinating anyone's character it's about debating his claims of innocence. If he ever confesses, then there will be nothing left to debate - until that day ........
You ask this question on a regular basis - now you know.
-
I understand Mike, he is defending someone he thinks is innocent, but what on earth are all of you people doing charachter assassinating Jeremy Bamber who is already behind bars with the harshest sentence possible.
What is it about?
Jeremy is a convicted murderer. His character was ruined by the actions he was convicted of doing. Posting accurately about the crimes including the locations where the police were and what they observed is an attempt at accuracy.
In contrast Mike intentionally twists and distorts to try to pretend that various absurd things happened to pretend Jeremy is innocent. Making up things because he wants to pretend Jeremy is innocent but can't find anything valid to raise is not something admirable it is underhanded.
-
Jeremy is a convicted murderer. His character was ruined by the actions he was convicted of doing. Posting accurately about the crimes including the locations where the police were and what they observed is an attempt at accuracy.
In contrast Mike intentionally twists and distorts to try to pretend that various absurd things happened to pretend Jeremy is innocent. Making up things because he wants to pretend Jeremy is innocent but can't find anything valid to raise is not something admirable it is underhanded.
Why was there two differently weighted PV/20 bullets, associated with the non fatal shot into and across Sheila Caffells throat. one weighing (1.7114579g - or 26.46 grain), and the other weighing (1.544158g - or 23.83 grain)?
-
So, which was the real PV/20 bullet removed from Sheila's neck, by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, during autopsy performed on the afternoon of the 7th August 1985?
She could not have been shot across the neck by both of these bullets, so lets have your explanation for how this significant discrepancy occurred, how could the very same bullet (PV/20) have two different weights?
-
So, which was the real PV/20 bullet removed from Sheila's neck, by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, during autopsy performed on the afternoon of the 7th August 1985?
She could not have been shot across the neck by both of these bullets, so lets have your explanation for how this significant discrepancy occurred, how could the very same bullet (PV/20) have two different weights?
I just can't imagine any explanation to account from either a 10% loss, or gain in weight, between both versions of the same bullet (PV/20)...
(a) - Bullet PV/20 - 1.714579g
(b) - Bullet PV/20 - 1.544158g
Difference .170411g
-
Which of the two bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2) belonged to the three bullets associated with the shooting of Sheila Caffell?
-
I am really very interested in knowing, which of the two bullet cases, (either DRH/1, or DRH/2) belonged to the two differently weighted PV/20 bullets? I mean, its impossible for these two toally different bullets to have belonged to the same individual cartridge, so prey tell Mr Tesko' if you know, exactly what the true explanation is for this paradox?
"It's a kind of Magic"...
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_1QSUsbsM
-
Why was there two differently weighted PV/20 bullets, associated with the non fatal shot into and across Sheila Caffells throat. one weighing (1.7114579g - or 26.46 grain), and the other weighing (1.544158g - or 23.83 grain)?
Your allegation is that the weight was screwed up by the lab and that someone else weighing it got a different weight. If so it was screwed up only a little not by any amount that matters. PV/20 matches the shape in the xray and was definitely fired by the Anschutz. All 25 shots were definitely fired by the Anshutz.
-
Which of the two bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2) belonged to the three bullets associated with the shooting of Sheila Caffell?
There were only 2 bullets. Saying PV/20 was misweighed by the lab means nothing- it's exact weight is not importan. There was only 1 PV/20 bullet, it was shaped like in the xray and had rifling marks proving it was fired by the Anschutz in addition to the casing proving it was fired by the Anschutz. The difference in weight is slight and it makes no difference at all which is the correct weight. You are trying to make something out of nothing.
-
Your allegation is that the weight was screwed up by the lab and that someone else weighing it got a different weight. If so it was screwed up only a little not by any amount that matters. PV/20 matches the shape in the xray and was definitely fired by the Anschutz. All 25 shots were definitely fired by the Anshutz.
WRONG AGAIN, because PC Bird photographed all 25 bullets including one version of PV/20, and Major Mead photographed the other version of PV/20 in May 1986. The fact of the matter is, that the bullet (PV/20) photographed by Major Mead in May 1986, was probably the same damaged bullet x-rayed inside Sheila's throat pre-autopsy, but the one matched to the anshuzt rifle by the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, weighing 1.544158 was definitely not...
-
There were only 2 bullets. Saying PV/20 was misweighed by the lab means nothing- it's exact weight is not importan. There was only 1 PV/20 bullet, it was shaped like in the xray and had rifling marks proving it was fired by the Anschutz in addition to the casing proving it was fired by the Anschutz. The difference in weight is slight and it makes no difference at all which is the correct weight. You are trying to make something out of nothing.
WRONG AGAIN, there were clearly two differently weighted examples of bullet PV/20, a photograph of each, not identical in any way, and one weighing, 1.714579g, the other 1.544158g, so you can bleat all you like, the truth is there for all to see. Nobody has mis-weighed anything, only you in your head, you refuse to accept the truth even when two versions of the same bullet are presented to you to comment upon...
-
None of the 25 cartridge cases were matched scientifically or ballistically to any of the 26 bullets...
And that is a fact...
-
WRONG AGAIN, there were clearly two differently weighted examples of bullet PV/20, a photograph of each, not identical in any way, and one weighing, 1.714579g, the other 1.544158g, so you can bleat all you like, the truth is there for all to see. Nobody has mis-weighed anything, only you in your head, you refuse to accept the truth even when two versions of the same bullet are presented to you to comment upon...
No doubt this is just like the photo of Sheila in the kitchen and photo of her on the bed that you claim to have seen though they don't exist. There was only 1 PV/20. Pretending otherwise just illustrates you are resorting to dishonesty to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent because you have nothing valid to raise to establish he actually is innocent.
-
No doubt this is just like the photo of Sheila in the kitchen and photo of her on the bed that you claim to have seen though they don't exist. There was only 1 PV/20. Pretending otherwise just illustrates you are resorting to dishonesty to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent because you have nothing valid to raise to establish he actually is innocent.
You believe what you want to believe by ignoring the evidence...
-
You believe what you want to believe by ignoring the evidence...
I'm following the evidence unlike you. There were twentyfive 22LR casings, 25 bullet wounds, fragments from twentyfive 22LR bullets, the wounds were consiseten with 22LR wounds, the casings were all fired by the Anschutz so ZERO evidence of any other gun being used let alone a different claiber weapon used for some of the wounds.
You have no evidence of any casings or bullets being swapped you just make up the allegations from whole cloth. There is no evidence regarding other weapons being used for me to ignore. You are just making unsupported allegations not posting evidence.
-
There were not 25 x .22LR bullets found at the scene or recovered from the bodies of victims, some were the remnants of .22 LR ammunition, others were described by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, as merely .22 bullets, and in at least one instance, he referred to one as "a bullet"...
-
There were not 25 x .22LR bullets found at the scene or recovered from the bodies of victims, some were the remnants of .22 LR ammunition, others were described by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, as merely .22 bullets, and in at least one instance, he referred to one as "a bullet"...
Here again is what I wrote: "There were twentyfive 22LR casings, 25 bullet wounds, fragments from twentyfive 22LR bullets, the wounds were consiseten with 22LR wounds, the casings were all fired by the Anschutz so ZERO evidence of any other gun being used let alone a different claiber weapon used for some of the wounds."
-
None of the 25 bullets or part bullets were scientifically linked to any of the 25 cartridge cases that 'eventually' formed part of the so called batch of crime scene ammunition. What I mean by that / this, is that crimping marks made during them manufacturing stage found present on the casings were absent or different on the base lines of the 25 bullets / part bullets. Furthermore, the chemical composition of the residual charge inside these cartridge cases were not matched, or were different in the bullets. This was /is totally unsatisfactory, since there is no way of telling whether or not any of the 25 bullets that form part of the crime scene batch (in existence from 20th September 1985, onward) were fired via the anshuzt rifle at one and the same time. I do not believe it to be sufficient for anyone to rely upon the notion that just because each of the 25 cartridge cases have got many identifying marks upon them linking them to the ammunition magazine, and the extracter / ejection mechanism of the anshuzt rifle, that anyone can be certain that any of these 25 cartridge cases were loaded and fired from the anshuzt rifle at the time of the murders, since they could have been fired later from the anshuzt rifle, lets for argument sake say during unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle, which we now know did take place using previously unfired rounds of Eley .22 type ammunition? We know that not one single follower mark was found on any single cartridge case in the final batch of these cartridge cases, which raises strong suspicion that these 25 cartridge cases which formed part of the batch of crime scene ammunition from 20th September 1985, onward, could quite easily have been swapped over, with a view of trying to present a misleading case for these shootings to have been the result of a one gun crime, when it had not been. I cannot for the life of me believe that the authorities have got away with making this case into a one gun crime simply by presenting 25 cartridge cases which at one time or another had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, without a single example of a single bullet having been linked or matched up with or too any of the 25 cartridge cases, by reliance upon manufacturers crimping marks, and lack of matching residues between any bullet or case..
It should also be noted, that upon reception at the Lab' the packaging of these crime scene exhibits had been cut open and resealed with cellotape...
-
None of the 25 bullets or part bullets were scientifically linked to any of the 25 cartridge cases that 'eventually' formed part of the so called batch of crime scene ammunition. What I mean by that / this, is that crimping marks made during them manufacturing stage found present on the casings were absent or different on the base lines of the 25 bullets / part bullets. Furthermore, the chemical composition of the residual charge inside these cartridge cases were not matched, or were different in the bullets. This was /is totally unsatisfactory, since there is no way of telling whether or not any of the 25 bullets that form part of the crime scene batch (in existence from 20th September 1985, onward) were fired via the anshuzt rifle at one and the same time. I do not believe it to be sufficient for anyone to rely upon the notion that just because each of the 25 cartridge cases have got many identifying marks upon them linking them to the ammunition magazine, and the extracter / ejection mechanism of the anshuzt rifle, that anyone can be certain that any of these 25 cartridge cases were loaded and fired from the anshuzt rifle at the time of the murders, since they could have been fired later from the anshuzt rifle, lets for argument sake say during unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle, which we now know did take place using previously unfired rounds of Eley .22 type ammunition? We know that not one single follower mark was found on any single cartridge case in the final batch of these cartridge cases, which raises strong suspicion that these 25 cartridge cases which formed part of the batch of crime scene ammunition from 20th September 1985, onward, could quite easily have been swapped over, with a view of trying to present a misleading case for these shootings to have been the result of a one gun crime, when it had not been. I cannot for the life of me believe that the authorities have got away with making this case into a one gun crime simply by presenting 25 cartridge cases which at one time or another had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, without a single example of a single bullet having been linked or matched up with or too any of the 25 cartridge cases, by reliance upon manufacturers crimping marks, and lack of matching residues between any bullet or case..
It should also be noted, that upon reception at the Lab' the packaging of these crime scene exhibits had been cut open and resealed with cellotape...
The bag was cut open and resealed because the items were fingerprinted.
The rest of your post warrants no response, 25 casings were fired by the Anschutz which means 25 bullets had to have been fired by the Anschutz. 15 of the 25 had rifling marks indicating they were fired by the Anschutz. They didn't have to do any chemical composition tests to figure out the other 10 came from the Anschutz. I already dealt with your ridiculous follow marks nonsense.
Your conspriacy claims have no leg to stand on at all.
-
The bag was cut open and resealed because the items were fingerprinted.
The rest of your post warrants no response, 25 casings were fired by the Anschutz which means 25 bullets had to have been fired by the Anschutz. 15 of the 25 had rifling marks indicating they were fired by the Anschutz. They didn't have to do any chemical composition tests to figure out the other 10 came from the Anschutz. I already dealt with your ridiculous follow marks nonsense.
]
Your conspriacy claims have no leg to stand on at all.
[/quote-----------------------------------------------------------Neither do yours.
-
The bag was cut open and resealed because the items were fingerprinted.
The rest of your post warrants no response, 25 casings were fired by the Anschutz which means 25 bullets had to have been fired by the Anschutz. 15 of the 25 had rifling marks indicating they were fired by the Anschutz. They didn't have to do any chemical composition tests to figure out the other 10 came from the Anschutz. I already dealt with your ridiculous follow marks nonsense.
]
Your conspriacy claims have no leg to stand on at all.
[/quote-----------------------------------------------------------Neither do yours.
I don't have any conspiracy claims. I rely on facts and evidence. You and Mike don't want to face that Jeremy is guilty so you both ignroe that evidence and rely on nonsense.
You have again repeated your babble about June's arms being clawed at and Sheila's nails torn off int he process. Those claims are false relying on false clais so you can ignore the truth just makes you look sad.
-
Yes,claw marks Sheila was embroiled in. It's not until you look at another side to these murders that you see a connection in the Bible and also Witchcraft,of which Sheila once told a cousin of hers that she was a " white witch ".
How sad it is that you're so blinkered.
Also 3 burns to Neville. Would Jeremy waste his precious time making sure he cted these burns on his family as well as murdering them too ? Get real !
-
Yes,claw marks in which Sheila was embroiled in. It's not until you look at another side to these murders that you see a connection in the Bible and also Witchcraft,of which Sheila once told a cousin of hers that she was a " white witch ".
How sad it is that you're so blinkered.
Also 3 burns to Neville, Would Jeremy waste his precious time making sure he inflicted these burns on his family as well as murdering them too ? Get real !
I am real you live in fantasyland. You troll pro-Jeremy propaganda sites- repeat their lies there and then try to snow us with the ABSURD claim that 99% of your information comes from primary sources.
Anyone being real knows that there is no way Sheila killed herself seated propped against something, then while dead removed the moderator, took it to the closet without her blood dripping down her gown, hen washed up then went back to the bedroom lied down flat with the rifle across her chest and placed then after pooling blood on the floor she placed the bible in it.
Anyone being real knows that if Nevill had actually phoned Jeremy then Jeremy would not have phoned his girlfriend and then wasted time looking up phone numbers of police stations. Someone in his place would either rush over or call 999.
Anyone being real knows that there is no way she could have beaten Nevill without getting his blood on her body and clothing and knows she would have left bloody prints.
Anyone being real knows Jeremy lied repeatedly throughout the process and clearly did so to try to hide his guilt.
Anyone being real would know the autopsy report only mentions injuries of the sort you claim to Nevill. You made up the injuries to June and Daniel.
We don't know for sure if the burns to Nevill were made during the course of the murders but if so Jeremy did it for staging purposes. We neve rfigured out what that staging was meant to convey though. It could have been to try to make it look like she burned him to force him to make the call. Jeremy could have hoped police thought the call was to sucker him there so he would be killed as well. He told AE he didn't go because he was scared that Sheila forced Nevill to make the call to sucker him there. He could have hoped police would read such into the burns. He could have done the burns just to try to make it seem like the killer was acting crazy to support his framejob.
You are not being real because even though you once admitted once you don't know Jeremy from a hole in the wall (which you said in an effort to say you had no bias in his favor) you constantly claim you know he would never kill his family and know he was a great guy yadda yadda yadda.
You choose to go with propaganda over sound evidence because of you are biased and have an agenda instead of looking at this objectively for the truth.
That is why even after you are shown the exact portions of the autopsy applicable to June showing no injuries were observed to her arms you have no problem ignoring that and continuing with the bogus claim her arms were clawed. Someone trying to be real would not do that.
-
I am real you live in fantasyland. You troll pro-Jeremy propaganda sites- repeat their lies there and then try to snow us with the ABSURD claim that 99% of your information comes from primary sources.
Anyone being real knows that there is no way Sheila killed herself seated propped against something, then while dead removed the moderator, took it to the closet without her blood dripping down her gown, hen washed up then went back to the bedroom lied down flat with the rifle across her chest and placed then after pooling blood on the floor she placed the bible in it.
Anyone being real knows that if Nevill had actually phoned Jeremy then Jeremy would not have phoned his girlfriend and then wasted time looking up phone numbers of police stations. Someone in his place would either rush over or call 999.
Anyone being real knows that there is no way she could have beaten Nevill without getting his blood on her body and clothing and knows she would have left bloody prints.
Anyone being real knows Jeremy lied repeatedly throughout the process and clearly did so to try to hide his guilt.
Anyone being real would know the autopsy report only mentions injuries of the sort you claim to Nevill. You made up the injuries to June and Daniel.
We don't know for sure if the burns to Nevill were made during the course of the murders but if so Jeremy did it for staging purposes. We neve rfigured out what that staging was meant to convey though. It could have been to try to make it look like she burned him to force him to make the call. Jeremy could have hoped police thought the call was to sucker him there so he would be killed as well. He told AE he didn't go because he was scared that Sheila forced Nevill to make the call to sucker him there. He could have hoped police would read such into the burns. He could have done the burns just to try to make it seem like the killer was acting crazy to support his framejob.
You are not being real because even though you once admitted once you don't know Jeremy from a hole in the wall (which you said in an effort to say you had no bias in his favor) you constantly claim you know he would never kill his family and know he was a great guy yadda yadda yadda.
You choose to go with propaganda over sound evidence because of you are biased and have an agenda instead of looking at this objectively for the truth.
That is why even after you are shown the exact portions of the autopsy applicable to June showing no injuries were observed to her arms you have no problem ignoring that and continuing with the bogus claim her arms were clawed. Someone trying to be real would not do that.
Do we know if the "burns" were old, as in scabbed over, or recent. I once suggest that they MAY have been the result of a minor procedure to remove moles. skin tags of even something precancerous.
-
Do we know if the "burns" were old, as in scabbed over, or recent. I once suggest that they MAY have been the result of a minor procedure to remove moles. skin tags of even something precancerous.
We only know that Vanezis said they appeared to be burns and there are the images that supposedly show the burns. Those photos are the extent of what we can gleam. Unless someone asked him more detail about these burns at trial and such hasn't been mentioned anywhere (in which case we would need to get the full transcript of his testimony) the only way to learn more of what Vanezis observed in relation to them would be to question him.
They look fresh enough to me that I think they were probably related to the murders and I don't see how he could have gotten them by accident prior to the murders. But I can't prove that for sure based on the limited evidence that we have before us. That is just my own intuition.
The million dollar question is one that police initially ignored and that Jeremy supporters ignore. WHY would Sheila allow Nevill to make a phone call? If left alone why would he make the call instead of arming himself with a knife or one of the shotguns or even the air rifle if he just wanted to wound her so he could then disarm her? Why would Sheila decide to kill not only herself and her children but also her parents yet decided to spare Jeremy? She could have acted while all were there to target.
I think Jeremy burned Nevill in an effort to deal with these issues. He wanted to make it look like Nevill was forced by Sheila to make the call to Jeremy and that it was an effort to sucker him there. He didn't just think up this claim out of the blue when he told it to Ann Eaton he clearly thought about it previously.
Police were so blinded they didn't even think up how it made no sense for Nevill to get away to call Jeremy and that if that were the case he should have armed himself. They just accepted he would somehow get away to make the call and would be too scared to try confronting her himself and thus they never needed to make the leap he wanted them to about her prompting Nevill to make the call.
-
Jan the room inbetween the main bedroom and Sheila's room was known as the needlework room, but it might have had boxes in it...This room is slightly set back from the landing and I think Hartley said or it could have been Vic that there was a window looking into that room from the landing or some sort of glass...but either side of the main bedroom were inhabited rooms used for storage..etc. I guess Hartley could confirm one way or the other. ;)
Yes there is glazing between the landing and the needlework room.
-
Yes there is glazing between the landing and the needlework room.
Thank You Hartley, This could account for two of the raid team saying that there wads a light on above the main entrance door and not the kitchen door... ;)
-
Thank You Hartley, This could account for two of the raid team saying that there wads a light on above the main entrance door and not the kitchen door... ;)
Wads? I've never heard light described as a 'wad' lol. :D
-
Thank You Hartley, This could account for two of the raid team saying that there wads a light on above the main entrance door and not the kitchen door... ;)
Exactly Patti, Hartley, think quite a few stated the light above the main door was on and we have o believe that was the window above the front door, not the light in the front door porch.
-
Wads? I've never heard light described as a 'wad' lol. :D
Haven't you? A wad of light is a common measure of light, surely you know that Hartley? ;)
-
Wads? I've never heard light described as a 'wad' lol. :D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Exactly Patti, Hartley, think quite a few stated the light above the main door was on and we have o believe that was the window above the front door, not the light in the front door porch.
I've only popped back on for a quick visit so haven't read any of the discussion on this thread.
But there is a window in the needlework room above the formal front door, if the stair landing light was on, then it would be visible from the outside when looking up at the needlework room window.
Is that what you are asking? :-\
-
Haven't you? A wad of light is a common measure of light, surely you know that Hartley? ;)
I am not the brightest :D
-
I've only popped back on for a quick visit so haven't read any of the discussion on this thread.
But there is a window in the needlework room above the formal front door, if the stair landing light was on, then it would be visible from the outside when looking up at the needlework room window.
Is that what you are asking? :-\
Thank you Hartley and its nice that you have had a quick visit...
I have me feet firmly on the milk tops, but no idea how long me legs will last in the fridge.... ;D
-
I've only popped back on for a quick visit so haven't read any of the discussion on this thread.
But there is a window in the needlework room above the formal front door, if the stair landing light was on, then it would be visible from the outside when looking up at the needlework room window.
Is that what you are asking? :-\
Think it's Patti's thing, I'm just interfering ;), Patti maintains this is the light above the 'main door' and I agree with her on this point. The light was shining through which caused the window to appear lit up.
-
Think it's Patti's thing, I'm just interfering ;), Patti maintains this is the light above the 'main door' and I agree with her on this point. The light was shining through which caused the window to appear lit up.
I suspect that is a likely possibility.
-
I am not the brightest :D
The brightest what?? Bulb on the Christmas tree? Star in the sky? You know what a wad of light is Hartley ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The brightest what?? Bulb on the Christmas tree? Star in the sky? You know what a wad of light is Hartley ;D ;D ;D ;D
I've never heard the term, I am in the dark on this one. ;)
-
I've never heard the term, I am in the dark on this one. ;)
Not even a twinkle in the eye? Surely it must spark a memory? ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank you Hartley and its nice that you have had a quick visit...
I have me feet firmly on the6 milk tops, but no idea how long me legs will last in the fridge.... ;D
Have you been in my fridge again? >:( >:( >:( ;D
-
Not even a twinkle in the eye? Surely it must spark a memory? ;D ;D ;D
Okay, that's enough now. ;D
-
Okay, that's enough now. ;D
Lights out ;D night
-
Lights out ;D night
Night night :D
-
The bag was cut open and resealed because the items were fingerprinted.
The rest of your post warrants no response, 25 casings were fired by the Anschutz which means 25 bullets had to have been fired by the Anschutz. 15 of the 25 had rifling marks indicating they were fired by the Anschutz. They didn't have to do any chemical composition tests to figure out the other 10 came from the Anschutz. I already dealt with your ridiculous follow marks nonsense.
Your conspriacy claims have no leg to stand on at all.
Many of the bullet cases which ended up at the lab' had not in fact already been fingerprinted, since not all were found to be coated in the white residue from super glue treatment. These details relating to which indidual cartridge cases had a presence of the all important white residue or not, are recorded in the 25 individual 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' completed at the lab' upon arrival / examination of the same. Those cartridge cases without such as a tiny trace of white residue upon them (and as I say, there were many of them) suggests in the clearest possible terms that such cartridge cases cannot have been fingerprinted prior to the arrival at the lab' for the first time. I believe I am right in saying that these non risidual cartridge cases were not the original ones recovered from the scene. It would have been or was relatively easy to swap over cartridge cases belonging to use with a different weapon, than the anshuzt rifle, and simply replace those with test control fired cartridge cases which were later fired in the anshuzt rifle during an unofficial test firing of the anshuzt rifle, parker hale sound moderator, and a batch of .22 ammunition cartridges cases.You would simply only need to remove as many as 14 cartridge cases, keep them separate (MDF/100), and replace them with test fired cartridge cases fired through the anshuzt rifle, and 'hey presto' you end up with, what they ended up with. You end up with some cartridge cases in this batch of crime scene ammunition not having white residue from superglue treatment on them because as many as 14 if them had been switched later to give a general impression that a did afferent gun must have been used during the shootings.In my opinion it is not enough to simply say that because the current batch of cartridge cases had all been fired via the anshuzt rifle, that all of this collection was fired during the shooting incident, because it does not..,
-
Exactly Patti, Hartley, think quite a few stated the light above the main door was on and we have o believe that was the window above the front door, not the light in the front door porch.
Have to believe it was the sewing room window why? The two members in question were looking for a way in the house so much more apt to be looking at the ground level and the light they were talking about appeared to be an outside light not a window light. Mildinhall said the only upper floor light on was the master bedroom. The same people who mentioned the light above the door neglected to mention the bedroom window light being on. The natural reading of it would be the porch light.
-
Many of the bullet cases which ended up at the lab' had not in fact already been fingerprinted, since not all were found to be coated in the white residue from super glue treatment. These details relating to which indidual cartridge cases had a presence of the all important white residue or not, are recorded in the 25 individual 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' completed at the lab' upon arrival / examination of the same. Those cartridge cases without such as a tiny trace of white residue upon them (and as I say, there were many of them) suggests in the clearest possible terms that such cartridge cases cannot have been fingerprinted prior to the arrival at the lab' for the first time. I believe I am right in saying that these non risidual cartridge cases were not the original ones recovered from the scene. It would have been or was relatively easy to swap over cartridge cases belonging to use with a different weapon, than the anshuzt rifle, and simply replace those with test control fired cartridge cases which were later fired in the anshuzt rifle during an unofficial test firing of the anshuzt rifle, parker hale sound moderator, and a batch of .22 ammunition cartridges cases.You would simply only need to remove as many as 14 cartridge cases, keep them separate (MDF/100), and replace them with test fired cartridge cases fired through the anshuzt rifle, and 'hey presto' you end up with, what they ended up with. You end up with some cartridge cases in this batch of crime scene ammunition not having white residue from superglue treatment on them because as many as 14 if them had been switched later to give a general impression that a did afferent gun must have been used during the shootings.In my opinion it is not enough to simply say that because the current batch of cartridge cases had all been fired via the anshuzt rifle, that all of this collection was fired during the shooting incident, because it does not..,
A white coating doesn't coat everything it adheres to oils from the fingers and other materials that get on metal. I showed you a gun and how the entire gun wasn't white afterwards. You just keep ignoring reality in order to then claim anything you feel like. Making things up though accomplishes nothing unless you find someone who fell of the back of a cabbage truck but such people hold no sway over Jeremy's future.
-
A white coating doesn't coat everything it adheres to oils from the fingers and other materials that get on metal. I showed you a gun and how the entire gun wasn't white afterwards. You just keep ignoring reality in order to then claim anything you feel like. Making things up though accomplishes nothing unless you find someone who fell of the back of a cabbage truck but such people hold no sway over Jeremy's future.
When an object is exposed to cynoacrylate fume treatment, all of the objects surface gets coated with the superglue residue, so I think you must have been one of those people who have fallen off the back of a lorry, as you put it, if not climb back up and fall off again...
-
Have to believe it was the sewing room window why? The two members in question were looking for a way in the house so much more apt to be looking at the ground level and the light they were talking about appeared to be an outside light not a window light. Mildinhall said the only upper floor light on was the master bedroom. The same people who mentioned the light above the door neglected to mention the bedroom window light being on. The natural reading of it would be the porch light.
I do beg your pardon Scipio ;) I will revise my sentence from 'have to believe' to 'It possibly was' do hope you're happy with that. Of course you never, ever state a possibility as a definite....... yawn.
-
Have to believe it was the sewing room window why? The two members in question were looking for a way in the house so much more apt to be looking at the ground level and the light they were talking about appeared to be an outside light not a window light. Mildinhall said the only upper floor light on was the master bedroom. The same people who mentioned the light above the door neglected to mention the bedroom window light being on. The natural reading of it would be the porch light.
The light in the porch at the front of the house has to be turned on and off from inside the house. If the porch light was on and the main bedroom plus light shining through the needle work room, this suggest that the front of the house was well lit up...but no one says this.
At 4am when Bews Mayall and Bamber go for a walk around the house there is no mention of any lights on at the front of the house with the possible exception of light coming through the needlework room.
At 6am when Collins and Delgardo did their check and both say a light was on above the door at the front of the house. This light you referred to as being the kitchen light, but since we have established that there was no light above the kitchen door, they must have been referring to the light above the main front door. We now know there is a light in the porch, but this has to be turned on and off from the inside. Note that Bews and Mayall did not report that light being on in the porch and neither did Mildinhall who was stationed on the red side. So we are left with the possibility that the light Collins and Delgardo were describing was the needlework room which is directly above the front door. If they are factually saying it was the porch light then it was not on at 4am, was on at 6am and not on when Mildinhall was there at 6:30 this scenario can suggest that there was someone alive in the house. Personally I think Collins and Delgardo made a mistake and it was the landing light shining through the needlework room. Neither of them reported the light on in the main bedroom and I do not think Bews and Myall did either. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
It's funny how Collins and Delgado's statements about the lights are almost word for word identical.
Would you describe the porch light as being directly above the front door?
-
It's funny how Collins and Delgado's statements about the lights are almost word for word identical.
Would you describe the porch light as being directly above the front door?
I noticed that too Hartley.
Yes you can see the light on the photo's in the archives. If you look at the one where the funeral directors are loading the car you can see the light more clearly.
-
I noticed that too Hartley.
Yes you can see the light on the photo's in the archives. If you look at the one where the funeral directors are loading the car you can see the light more clearly.
Yes I know where it is.
I was asking if you would refer to it as being directly above the main door, or would you refer to it as the porch light, or maybe the outside light?
In normal conversation I mean.
-
Yes I know where it is.
I was asking if you would refer to it as being directly above the main door, or would you refer to it as the porch light, or maybe the outside light?
In normal conversation I mean.
Mildenhall describes the needlework room window as being 'DIRECTLY' above the front door.
-
Yes I know where it is.
I was asking if you would refer to it as being directly above the main door, or would you refer to it as the porch light, or maybe the outside light?
In normal conversation I mean.
I would describe it as being an outside light above the main door.
-
It's funny how Collins and Delgado's statements about the lights are almost word for word identical.
Would you describe the porch light as being directly above the front door?
I think it's difficult to know how others may or not describe it but I would think it would be the window as well. The porch light is just that imo.
-
I would describe it as being an outside light above the main door.
As a description, I don't think I would describe where the actual bulb was located, but rather what was being lit up by the light. I'd describe simply as an outside or porch light.
-
Collins also says that there was only one other light on 'IN' the house.
I don't think the porch light can be considered as being 'IN' the house. Can it?
-
As a description, I don't think I would describe where the actual bulb was located, but rather what was being lit up by the light. I'd describe simply as an outside or porch light.
The only other light which was on was directly over the main door of the house????
Would you think this description meant the needlework room or the porch light?
Of course the needlework room light was not on, but from the internal window inside, light from the landing shone through that room which is directly over the front door.
Anyway, the point of this was to advice Scip that it was not the kitchen, but it may have been the porch light or the needlework room. I think they both describe the needlework room because if it was the porch light Bews Mayall and Mildinhall would have commented on it....And I believe Mildinhall was very precise in his description having looked at the house for several hours...The only light Mildinhall states were on was the main bedroom light...for the needlework room light was not on, it merely allowed light from the landing to shine through...
I think you have had enough of me now.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Collins also says that there was only one other light on 'IN' the house.
I don't think the porch light can be considered as being 'IN' the house. Can it?
I agree.... ;)
-
When an object is exposed to cynoacrylate fume treatment, all of the object's surface gets coated with the superglue residue, . . .
The fuming should be stopped once any fingerprints or comparable smudges would stand out from the background, i.e. before the background is visibly coated as well, so the question is whether this is easy to achieve when using an object that was far from clean in the first place.
-
I agree.... ;)
I think he's light no...... right Patti ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's funny how Collins and Delgado's statements about the lights are almost word for word identical.
Would you describe the porch light as being directly above the front door?
They clearly spoke with one another as they drafted their statements. Several statements where officers had been paired up were quite close.
We call the lights on the front of our house (which has a stoop covered by a porch) our front lights. I have another switch that controls 2 pole lights in front as well. That we call the pole lights not front lights. Then there is the light above the garage door which we call the garage light a light at the back door called the back door light and the outside backyard lights that we call the backyard lights.
Since police were calling the kitchen side of the house that would create confusion about where the light they were talking about was so that would be a reason for them to say the light above the main door.
If they were talking about the limited amount of light they could seen shining from the hallway into the sewing room that is pretty damn strange that they noticed such but not the actual light being on in the master bedroom. I have a small extra bedroom and if you are outside in the driveway at night and the light is off in that room yet the hallway light is on you can see that the hallway light is on. You can tell that the light is not coming from the room itself but the hall. If this is what they were trying to convey they saw they did a horrible job of it and they also forgot or failed to notice the light in the master bedroom being on.
-
Mildenhall describes the needlework room window as being 'DIRECTLY' above the front door.
But mentions no light being on. He isolated the master bedroom saying the light was in in that room then mentions the other 2 describing curtains etc but no light seen in either window.
-
Collins also says that there was only one other light on 'IN' the house.
I don't think the porch light can be considered as being 'IN' the house. Can it?
That seems like sloppy wording to mean "at the house" and is not the wording Delgado used. Delgado said, "only one other light switched on".
The window lights they explicitly stated windows and even described the curtains in the windows in question. They didn't do that with the "light above the main door". No description of the window about the main door and a description of the curtain situation. They obviously forgot or failed to notice the light in the master bedroom being on or even could have misconstrued it as a light above the main door because of faulty memory that just caused them to remember at the front of the house 1 light was on and they just took a wrong guess as to which one.
-
That seems like sloppy wording to mean "at the house" and is not the wording Delgado used. Delgado said, "only one other light switched on".
The window lights they explicitly stated windows and even described the curtains in the windows in question. They didn't do that with the "light above the main door". No description of the window about the main door and a description of the curtain situation. They obviously forgot or failed to notice the light in the master bedroom being on or even could have misconstrued it as a light above the main door because of faulty memory that just caused them to remember at the front of the house 1 light was on and they just took a wrong guess as to which one.
Rather like the sloppy/ambiguous wording which said Sheila was discovered on the far side of the bed.
-
Rather like the sloppy/ambiguous wording which said Sheila was discovered on the far side of the bed.
Yes. But it also includes a mistake. They either forgot entirely about the bedroom light being on, or recalled 1 light was on in the front of the house but could not remember exactly which light was on and were just guessing. The only way they made no error was if the light above the door was supposed to convey the master bedroom light. If that is what it was supposed to convey it was a horrible description. I don't think that is what they were conveying though they knew the master bedroom window was open 3 inches so should have been able to say this was the same window where they saw a light on.
The wording of where Sheila was found simply was sloppy, they made no actual errors.
-
Yes. But it also includes a mistake. They either forgot entirely about the bedroom light being on, or recalled 1 light was on in the front of the house but could not remember exactly which light was on and were just guessing.
The wording of where Sheila was found simply was sloppy, they made no actual errors.
It sort of tells us we shouldn't repeat verbatim from the police's statements many of which were written in hindsight and not accurate.
-
It sort of tells us we shouldn't repeat verbatim from the police's statements many of which were written in hindsight and not accurate.
An effort should be made to figure out what they actually meant. Also to make sure that there is not evidence that establishes they were wrong.
Bews thought he might have seen movement in the master bedroom window so obviously the light was on. If It was off he would not have been able to think he saw anything. Mildinhall had a better look than Collins and Delgado because he was stationed at the front of the house so had reason to remember what he saw and was able to describe the windows he saw. He says the light was on in the bedroom but not any other rooms.
Collins and Delgado said a light above the main door was on. Maybe they misrecalled the bedroom as being above the main door, maybe they saw light from the hall entering the sewing room, maybe they meant the porch light. Unless they meant the bedroom but did a poor job of conveying it they made a mistake and failed to note the bedroom light had been on.
The statements of others especially someone who described the 3 upper windows with so much detail as to noting the curtain situation is more credible than them in that respect.
In contrast, their observations about the kitchen side would be more reliable than people not stationed on that side. They were able to describe the certain situation in detail showing they looked carefully, indeed they stared at the those windows for hours so such would be expected.
Their frame of reference has to be considered in addition to trying to figure out what they mean. If there is something they can't have witnessed then you look for who supposedly told them the detail and then go try to see where that person got it from and try to trace back to a source. This is what we always should do with evaluating claims.
-
I think the lights and windows were never fully discussed and examined because they had already excepted that Jeremy admitted he could get in and out of the windows. What the defense should have done is question the statements of Collins and Delgardo to determine which light they referred to, becuase if it was the porch light then this might suggest their was someone in the house that had tuned that light on and off at some point. One has to consider the possibility maybe?
-
Either to let someone in,or else got mixed up with the switches inside if they were two-way.
-
Either to let someone in,or else got mixed up with the switches inside if they were two-way.
I must :-X regarding the lights hahahaha :-[
-
I think the lights and windows were never fully discussed and examined because they had already excepted that Jeremy admitted he could get in and out of the windows. What the defense should have done is question the statements of Collins and Delgardo to determine which light they referred to, becuase if it was the porch light then this might suggest their was someone in the house that had tuned that light on and off at some point. One has to consider the possibility maybe?
The only way that police testimony would suggest someone was alive and turning on lights after police arrived would be someone seeing a light being turned on or off. Jeremy could have turned on any lights before leaving. Only if police actually saw a light being turned on would that be useful to the defense.
-
I must :-X regarding the lights hahahaha :-[
I suppose it makes a change from windows, tee hee hee. Especially those of which have shutters. ;D ;D
-
The only way that police testimony would suggest someone was alive and turning on lights after police arrived would be someone seeing a light being turned on or off. Jeremy could have turned on any lights before leaving. Only if police actually saw a light being turned on would that be useful to the defense.
Collins and Delgardo could not see the red side after they had taken position, but if they claim a light was on at 5:30 and Two officers claim it was not on at 4:00 and Mildenhall did not report the light was on when he took position is this not evidence in its self that that lights could have put on and off? Surely this should have been investigated further and I believe the reason it was not investigated was that both sides had excepted what Jeremy had told them and that was there was a way in and out of the windows...but did say that windows could not be locked and made secure from the outside.
30 years later no one would remember, but the statements are clear enough, but not proof enough to determine that lights went on and off at the front of the house.
-
Collins and Delgardo could not see the red side after they had taken position, but if they claim a light was on at 5:30 and Two officers claim it was not on at 4:00 and Mildenhall did not report the light was on when he took position is this not evidence in its self that that lights could have put on and off? Surely this should have been investigated further and I believe the reason it was not investigated was that both sides had excepted what Jeremy had told them and that was there was a way in and out of the windows...but did say that windows could not be locked and made secure from the outside.
30 years later no one would remember, but the statements are clear enough, but not proof enough to determine that lights went on and off at the front of the house.
Mildinhall only spoke about the lights on in the upper windows. He wasn't asked to provide any information about the lower portion of the house. in any event someone was always watching that side of the house from the time the first firearms officers arrived forward. There were 2 different containment locations facing the front of the house. If a light turned on while those officers were there they would have noticed it and mentioned it because that would mean someone was alive inside.
-
How utterly bizzare that not one of the 25 cartridge cases recovered from the scene had got a follower plate mark upon them...
Furthermore, since everyone seems to be in agreement that Sheila had died last, and that she had only been shot twice, it becomes something rather unusual for neither of the two cartridge cases linked with her shooting in the bedroom, should not have a follower plate mark at all between them...
-
Mildinhall only spoke about the lights on in the upper windows. He wasn't asked to provide any information about the lower portion of the house. in any event someone was always watching that side of the house from the time the first firearms officers arrived forward. There were 2 different containment locations facing the front of the house. If a light turned on while those officers were there they would have noticed it and mentioned it because that would mean someone was alive inside.
I disagree with that comment Scip. Mildinhall was asked to give a statement which reflected the events of that morning. He was not told to leave the bit out re the light above the main door, that would be right surely.
-
I disagree with that comment Scip. Mildinhall was asked to give a statement which reflected the events of that morning. He was not told to leave the bit out re the light above the main door, that would be right surely.
The light above the door was immaterial, the whole lower floor was not considered material. The upper floor windows were all described because in contrast they were not immaterial they were the rooms focused on.
-
The light above the door was immaterial, the whole lower floor was not considered material. The upper floor windows were all described because in contrast they were not immaterial they were the rooms focused on.
Surely each piece of someone's statement is to give as much detail as possible about where they were, what they saw ect. Surely every sentence of such a statement becomes relevant. To ignore what was in the statements and fail to ask the relevant questions the moment has been lost I grant you that, but I cannot see that lights on and off are not considered relevant at all.
The kitchen floor was quite relevant was it not which is situated on the same floor as the front door. :-\
-
I would like to address the question of what 'exactly' the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, stated in his witness statement, dated, 13th November, 1985:-
"I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...
Well, here are the contents of this / that witness statement:-
-
Fletcher, describes both bullets subject of Sheila Caffells injuries, as being 'WHOLE BULLETS', despite that both, or one another, was clearly not...
-
Fletcher, describes both bullets subject of Sheila Caffells injuries, as being 'WHOLE BULLETS', despite that both, or one another, was clearly not...
-
Now, I don't get how Fletcher arrives at his conclusion that 'both' bullets (PV/19 and PV/20) were WHOLE BULLETS?
-
One thing, is absolutely clear, and this is that neither bullet fired into Sheila's neck, was 'WHOLE' in nature, and because of this, Fletcher produced the contents of a witness statement, knowing that that which he stated had been 'WHOLE' bullets, could not have been, therefore, the question which needs to be asked is, why hasn't Fletcher been charged with making false statements regarding the size of bullets, PV/19, and PV/20, since neither were 'WHOLE' bullets?
-
Why has the CROWN's ballistic expert, been permitted to get away 'SCOT FREE' with making false contents in a witness statement, about the size of bullets, PV/19, and PV/20?
-
Surely each piece of someone's statement is to give as much detail as possible about where they were, what they saw ect. Surely every sentence of such a statement becomes relevant. To ignore what was in the statements and fail to ask the relevant questions the moment has been lost I grant you that, but I cannot see that lights on and off are not considered relevant at all.
The kitchen floor was quite relevant was it not which is situated on the same floor as the front door. :-\
No a statement is not to provide every detail imaginable. A statement is supposed to contain relevant information.
-
No a statement is not to provide every detail imaginable. A statement is supposed to contain relevant information.
" I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...
So, why wasn't Fletcher, prosecuted?
-
Fletcher, describes both bullets subject of Sheila Caffells injuries, as being 'WHOLE BULLETS', despite that both, or one another, was clearly not...
He didn't mean whole in the sense of very little of the bullet breaking off like would be the case from test firing a bullet in a trap. He made clear by the weights that they were ALL just fragments.
-
He didn't mean whole in the sense of very little of the bullet breaking off like would be the case from test firing a bullet in a trap. He made clear by the weights that they were ALL just fragments.
You can't possibly know what he meant - his words, his witness statement, he being at peril of being prosecuted if he included details which he knew not to be true, or to be false...
Now, choose carefully what you say next, because if it be your case that Fletcher did not mean that both bullets were 'WHOLE', then he has clearly made a false witness statement, a fact he knew not to be true, so what's your explanation...
-
Was bullet, PV/20, 'WHOLE', or not?
-
Was bullet, PV/20, 'WHOLE', or not?
If not, then Fletcher was guilty of making a false witness statement, in favour of him being prosecuted, do you not agree?
-
If not, then Fletcher was guilty of making a false witness statement, in favour of him being prosecuted, do you not agree?
If he made a false witness statement, please enlighten me as to the date of his prosecution, the date of his trial, and the prison sentence imposed upon him?
-
Fletcher made a false witness statement, and his credibility is surely forever undermined, you can't believe anything he says on the case...
-
You can't possibly know what he meant - his words, his witness statement, he being at peril of being prosecuted if he included details which he knew not to be true, or to be false...
Now, choose carefully what you say next, because if it be your case that Fletcher did not mean that both bullets were 'WHOLE', then he has clearly made a false witness statement, a fact he knew not to be true, so what's your explanation...
I can indeed know that he didn't mean whole in the sense of the same weight as a complete bullet because the weights he listed for them proves he didn't mean that. You are just trying to set up a strawman argument and it is a wasted effort.
-
I can indeed know that he didn't mean whole in the sense of the same weight as a complete bullet because the weights he listed for them proves he didn't mean that. You are just trying to set up a strawman argument and it is a wasted effort.
" I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...
What you are suggesting is a deception, and such a deception warrants a prosecution, do you not agree...
-
Bullet, PV/20, was not a 'WHOLE BULLET' at all, was it...
-
" I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...
What you are suggesting is a deception, and such a deception warrants a prosecution, do you not agree...
There is no deception, his statement doesn't mean what you claim. Only dishonest people have tried pretending he literally meant the bullets were actually whole and such dishonesty was used to try to pretend bullets were switched from whole bullets to the fragments that were used at trial. It is an absurd argument because if whole test bullets had been swapped in place of fragments then the bullets used in court would have been whole bullets instead of the fragments removed by Vanezis from the victims or the fragments that exited/grazed the victims that were recovered by police.
-
There is no deception, his statement doesn't mean what you claim. Only dishonest people have tried pretending he literally meant the bullets were actually whole and such dishonesty was used to try to pretend bullets were switched from whole bullets to the fragments that were used at trial. It is an absurd argument because if whole test bullets had been swapped in place of fragments then the bullets used in court would have been whole bullets instead of the fragments removed by Vanezis from the victims or the fragments that exited/grazed the victims that were recovered by police.
He states that bullets PV/19 and PV/20, were WHOLE BULLETS, but clearly they cannot have been - this amounts to a deliberate deception, intended to persuade anyone who reads its contents, that both were 'strongly suggestive' of having been fired in rifle 18 - nothing could be any clearer, Fletcher was responsible for including in his witness statement, facts that he must have known were not true, and as such he should have been prosecuted for making a false witness statement...
-
Essex police destroyed the batch of crime scene ammunition, despite an order being in force for them not to be in 1996...
-
Essex police destroyed the batch of crime scene ammunition, despite an order being in force for them not to be in 1996...
Bullets, PV/19 and PV/20 being amongst the destroyed ammunition - how very convenient, do you not agree?
-
Essex police destroyed the batch of crime scene ammunition, despite an order being in force for them not to be in 1996...
There was no order in force. Standard policy was violated not some order and that policy was unintentionally violated since they had no idea that he had any ongoing appeal.
-
Looking at his statement I see that it was a mistake to make my chart from the allegations of Jeremy supporters. Here is one that is true to his statement merged with the wound sizes Vanezis provided with those he could not tie from the rifling marks in yellow:
Master Bedroom
Nevill
PV/2 (Shoulder) 3/16"
Arm/chest Graze wound 3/16"-DRH/5
PV/10 (lip) 5/16"
PV/11 (jaw) 5/16"
PV/5 (jaw) fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11
June
PV/23 lower chest 3/16"
PV/26 above right ear 3/16"
PV/24 right upper chest 1/2"
PV/25 between eyes 3/16"
DRH/35a lower neck 1/4"
DRH/35b forearm 3/16"
DRH/9 knee 1/4"
Sheila
PV/19 chin 3/16"
PV/20 neck 1/4"
Kitchen
Nevill
PV/3 top of skull 3/16"
PV/4 top of skull 3/16"
PV/8 upper right skull 1/2"
PV/9 upper right skull 1/2"
Twins
Daniel
PV/34 highest wound 3/16"
PV/35 3/16"
PV/36 3/16"
PV/29 3/16"
DRH/36 3/16"
Nicholas
PV/30 3/16"
PV/31 3/16"
bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered 3/16"
-
There was no order in force. Standard policy was violated not some order and that policy was unintentionally violated since they had no idea that he had any ongoing appeal.
By 1996, they did know that Bamber was pursuing an appeal - I was released from custody in 1995, I returned as his approved Home Office visitor, acting as Jeremy's Mckensie man. Ewen Smith was acting for Jeremy into the build up of what turned out to be, the 2002 appeal hearing. We were in touch with Huntingdon Lab', and trying to make arrangements for the ammunition to be examined by DNA process, in the same way that the sound moderator was, and had been. so you have got your facts wrong. Jeremy's case was investigated by COLP between 1990 and 1992, and it was obvious that they did not investigate his complaints properly, or as it were fully...
Bamber has continued to this day to appeal his convictions, it was clear from a very early stage that he was never going to throw the towel in, and he never has, so to suggest that police thought he was not going to be appealing again by 1996, is a lie, and you, me and every other tom dick and Harry knows its a lie...
-
Not only does it make clear mention in his witness statement, dated, 13th November 1985 (under Citiation, at peril of being prosecuted, if he did not believe the contents to be true, or if he had wilfully stated in it anything false) that the two bullets PV/19, and PV /20, were WHOLE BULLETS, but he also produced hand written notes which also state that both of these bullets were WHOLE...
I cannot for the life of me, begin to imagine how anyone such as yourself can realistically interpret his evidence to mean that both bullets were, not as it were, WHOLE BULLETS, but fragmented parts of bullets...
Well, for the record, Fletcher used a variety of different descriptions when dealing with the batch of crime scene ammunition (bullets) - WHOLE, NEARLY WHOLE, FRAGMENTED, and HALF A BULLET. Now, if the two bullets, PV/19 and PV/20, were not WHOLE BULLETS, but were as you suggest in fact FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, then I can't begin to imagine why he didn't record these as such, in his hand written notes, and more importantly, in his witness statement, dated the 13th November, 1985?
He could have recorded that those two bullets were FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, or that they were NEARLY WHOLE BULLETS, but he didn't, he specifically recorded that both had been WHOLE BULLETS...
-
By 1996, they did know that Bamber was pursuing an appeal - I was released from custody in 1995, I returned as his approved Home Office visitor, acting as Jeremy's Mckensie man. Ewen Smith was acting for Jeremy into the build up of what turned out to be, the 2002 appeal hearing. We were in touch with Huntingdon Lab', and trying to make arrangements for the ammunition to be examined by DNA process, in the same way that the sound moderator was, and had been. so you have got your facts wrong. Jeremy's case was investigated by COLP between 1990 and 1992, and it was obvious that they did not investigate his complaints properly, or as it were fully...
Bamber has continued to this day to appeal his convictions, it was clear from a very early stage that he was never going to throw the towel in, and he never has, so to suggest that police thought he was not going to be appealing again by 1996, is a lie, and you, me and every other tom dick and Harry knows its a lie...
Jeremy lost his appeal. The police who destroyed the evidence were unaware his lawyers were corresponding with the Home Office for 2 year and that correspondence meant they considered there to be an active appeal. It is not an appeal in any conventional sense where you have actual legal proceedings the police would be aware of. There was no court action of any kind taking place at the time which is why it is quite foolish for Jeremy supporters to make the false allegation that there was a court order preventing the destruction of evidence. It is an easy lie to see through.
-
did he lose he appeal bloody hell i never knew that.
i wondered why he was still in prison 13 years later.
well that explians it all thankyou scipio.
-
did he lose he appeal bloody hell i never knew that.
i wondered why he was still in prison 13 years later.
well that explians it all thankyou scipio.
He lost his direct appeal in 1989. As a result of the complaints made in 1991 the COLP investigation occurred.
In 1993 they petitioned the Home Office for a referral to the Court of Appeal. This was rejected in 1994.
The Home office agreed to reconsider the issue though they made no promises they would do anything. For the next 2 years the defense attorneys and Home Office occasionally and infrequently corresponded.
This is from the 2002 Appeal Court decision: "In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about."
Police guidelines say that trial exhibits are to be retained until the period for filing an appeal expires or if an appeal is filed then until the appeal is concluded. If a petition is filed with the Home Office and trial exhibits had not been destroyed prior guidelines called for retaining them until the Home Office ruled. The Home Office had ruled police were unaware that the home Office was considering a new look at the petition.
Their guidelines only covered trial exhibits. Anything not a trial exhibit had no need to be preserved and could be destroyed or disposed of at any time. So far as I can tell this is still the case. I have found nothing that requires preserving evidence that wasn't a trial exhibit for appeal purposes. Maybe NGB knows if there is some evidentiary rule concerning such but I have found none. The only recourse seems to be in the case of exculpatory evidence that was not a trial exhibit by virtue of concealment from the defense. It doesn't matter when such was destroyed it is considered wrong to have concealed it and destroyed it period.
-
He lost his direct appeal in 1989. As a result of the complaints made in 1991 the COLP investigation occurred.
In 1993 they petitioned the Home Office for a referral to the Court of Appeal. This was rejected in 1994.
The Home office agreed to reconsider the issue though they made no promises they would do anything. For the next 2 years the defense attorneys and Home Office occasionally and infrequently corresponded.
This is from the 2002 Appeal Court decision: "In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about."
Police guidelines say that trial exhibits are to be retained until the period for filing an appeal expires or if an appeal is filed then until the appeal is concluded. If a petition is filed with the Home Office and trial exhibits had not been destroyed prior guidelines called for retaining them until the Home Office ruled. The Home Office had ruled police were unaware that the home Office was considering a new look at the petition.
Their guidelines only covered trial exhibits. Anything not a trial exhibit had no need to be preserved and could be destroyed or disposed of at any time. So far as I can tell this is still the case. I have found nothing that requires preserving evidence that wasn't a trial exhibit for appeal purposes. Maybe NGB knows if there is some evidentiary rule concerning such but I have found none. The only recourse seems to be in the case of exculpatory evidence that was not a trial exhibit by virtue of concealment from the defense. It doesn't matter when such was destroyed it is considered wrong to have concealed it and destroyed it period.
The police have much information including Julie Mugfords interviews and statements all under 'Public Interest Immunity' meaning it cannot be revealed
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm (http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm)
340,00 pages of documents held under Public Interest Immunity (PII) and a further 367 photographs
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkYjhmYmIzMWItMTVkMy00YjQyLTgzZDAtN2Y0ZDg0OGY5NTg5/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1 (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkYjhmYmIzMWItMTVkMy00YjQyLTgzZDAtN2Y0ZDg0OGY5NTg5/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1)
-
The police have much information including Julie Mugfords interviews and statements all under 'Public Interest Immunity' meaning it cannot be revealed
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm (http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm)
340,00 pages of documents held under Public Interest Immunity (PII) and a further 367 photographs
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkYjhmYmIzMWItMTVkMy00YjQyLTgzZDAtN2Y0ZDg0OGY5NTg5/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1 (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkYjhmYmIzMWItMTVkMy00YjQyLTgzZDAtN2Y0ZDg0OGY5NTg5/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1)
That doesn't provide anything about how many pages are whithheld under PII. ANythign withheld is by definition not exculpatory based on your own source:
"The balance is between the public interest to withhold and the interests of justice to disclose. If the disputed material MAY prove the defendant’s innocence or prevent a miscarriage of justice, then the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosure of the defence. Therefore, if there is a chance that the information may lead to an acquittal, the judge should order disclosure."
The PII nonsense is just that another BS argument from Jeremy's campaign team. They have no valid arguments to make so constantly rely on nonsense.
-
That doesn't provide anything about how many pages are whithheld under PII. ANythign withheld is by definition not exculpatory based on your own source:
"The balance is between the public interest to withhold and the interests of justice to disclose. If the disputed material MAY prove the defendant’s innocence or prevent a miscarriage of justice, then the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosure of the defence. Therefore, if there is a chance that the information may lead to an acquittal, the judge should order disclosure."
The PII nonsense is just that another BS argument from Jeremy's campaign team. They have no valid arguments to make so constantly rely on nonsense.
I am not implying any guilt or innocence here. The fact is PII are in effect on large amounts of information and there must be good reason for them to do so.
-
Not only does it make clear mention in his witness statement, dated, 13th November 1985 (under Citiation, at peril of being prosecuted, if he did not believe the contents to be true, or if he had wilfully stated in it anything false) that the two bullets PV/19, and PV /20, were WHOLE BULLETS, but he also produced hand written notes which also state that both of these bullets were WHOLE...
I cannot for the life of me, begin to imagine how anyone such as yourself can realistically interpret his evidence to mean that both bullets were, not as it were, WHOLE BULLETS, but fragmented parts of bullets...
Well, for the record, Fletcher used a variety of different descriptions when dealing with the batch of crime scene ammunition (bullets) - WHOLE, NEARLY WHOLE, FRAGMENTED, and HALF A BULLET. Now, if the two bullets, PV/19 and PV/20, were not WHOLE BULLETS, but were as you suggest in fact FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, then I can't begin to imagine why he didn't record these as such, in his hand written notes, and more importantly, in his witness statement, dated the 13th November, 1985?
He could have recorded that those two bullets were FRAGMENTED parts of a bullet, or that they were NEARLY WHOLE BULLETS, but he didn't, he specifically recorded that both had been WHOLE BULLETS...
When neither could have been...
In other words, he lied about bullets, PV/ 19 and PV/20, being WHOLE BULLETS, when clearly they were not. In other words, he made a false witness statement...
-
Now, I am also very interested in the varying bullet weights given to bullet PV/20...
When first received at the lab' and according to its weight that is recorded in THE LAB GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD, bullet PV/20 weighed. , yet by the time Major Mead examined it, in April 1985, PV/20 weighed. ...
-
Now, I am also very interested in the varying bullet weights given to bullet PV/20...
When first received at the lab' and according to its weight that is recorded in THE LAB GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD, bullet PV/20 weighed. , yet by the time Major Mead examined it, in April 1985, PV/20 weighed. ...
I am not satisfied that the two weight references attributed to bullet PV/20, were in fact reference to the same bullet...
-
I am not implying any guilt or innocence here. The fact is PII are in effect on large amounts of information and there must be good reason for them to do so.
The amount of information held under PII is quite limited and none of it involves any evidence that could clear him, that kind of evidence can't be withheld. The figures on how many documents are under PII from the campaign team is a made up figure.
-
I am not satisfied that the two weight references attributed to bullet PV/20, were in fact reference to the same bullet...
if Fletchers bullet weight, and Meads bullet weight, referred to the exact same bullet, then the difference in weight between them needs to be accounted for. A bullet does not lose or gain weight with the passing of time...
Based on the claim made by others, Fletcher the ballistic expert, got the weight wrong, but I don't buy into that tale. He didn't get the bullet weight wrong at all, and neither did Mead. If the bullet weighed by Fletcher and Mead were in fact the very same bullet, something had happened to PV/20 in the interim period (between 30th August 1985, and April 1986). There vmay be some truth in a rumour going around, which makes mention of why the difference in weight for the same bullet occurred. Some are saying that the reason for such differences in weight for the same bullet at separate times, was because blood belonging exclusively to Sheila Caffell, encapsulated in and upon bullet PV/20 was removed from the bullet, and transferred in the sound moderator. Now, this of course is one example, which might go someway towards establishing that the differences in weight of PV/20 ended up becoming changed. The small flake of blood which has since been attributed to the sound moderator, could have been taken from bullet PV/20 during a cleansing process of the bullet. In addition to the flake being taken from the mangled bullet (PV/20), the bullet could have been washed and the material removed could have been dripped into the sound moderator, with a view of trying to replicate the phenomena of 'backspatter'. The only person in control of the original bullet PV/20 and the sound moderator, was Fletcher, and there is something very disturbing about his account regarding when he came into possession of bullet PV/20, and one of the sound moderators (DB/1), since these were sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, yet Fletcher pretends he doesn't receive possession of these / those, until the 20th September 1985, despite information recorded in lab' records that he did...
Does the difference in weight loss between Fletchers bullet weight for PV/20, and Meads bullet weight for PV/20, relate to removal of blood from the original PV/20?
It would be interesting to find out exactly how much blood say in its dried format, would need to have been removed from the original PV/20, which equals the difference of weight loss between the Fletcher / Mead weights of bullet PV/20? Obviously, we already have the two conflicting bullet weights, so the difference between these is something that can be used as a yard stick in future experiments...
-
The amount of information held under PII is quite limited and none of it involves any evidence that could clear him, that kind of evidence can't be withheld. The figures on how many documents are under PII from the campaign team is a made up figure.
That is pure speculation on your part.
-
Diagrams which show the position of cartridge cases is not proof of where the cartridge cases were actually found...
PC Bird photographed the exact location and position of the 25 cartridge cases...
-
That is pure speculation on your part.
No the speculation is from you about how much is held under PII and the nature of what is being held.
The burden is on you to prove how much is held under PII and what is being held not for me to disprove it. Things the CCRC has but refuses to turn over the the defense clearly are not withheld under PII because the CCRC would not have them if that were the case.
-
Yet to be accounted for, is the loss of mass (x), involving the same bullet (PV/20) - everything is pointing towards removal of dried and diluted blood from the original PV/20, and the same being used to deliberately contaminate sound moderator, DB/1...
-
The batch of Eley .22lr rounds used in the shootings were 35 grain, not 40 grain...
-
The batch of Eley .22lr rounds used in the shootings were 35 grain, not 40 grain...
Somebody, has therefore been feeding us misinformation...
-
The batch of Eley .22lr rounds used in the shootings were 35 grain, not 40 grain...
Provide evidence. You are the one constantly feeding false information to us. These are the official stats from Eley:
(http://s16.postimg.org/h6honvi1x/eleystats.jpg)
-
No the speculation is from you about how much is held under PII and the nature of what is being held.
The burden is on you to prove how much is held under PII and what is being held not for me to disprove it. Things the CCRC has but refuses to turn over the the defense clearly are not withheld under PII because the CCRC would not have them if that were the case.
From what you previously stated only Essex Police would know of and you are not part of Essex Police therefore you are speculating.
The CCRC does not have them but the CCRC forced Essex police to allow Jeremy's legal team access to the content. But the information still cannot be revealed to the public
-
From what you previously stated only Essex Police would know of and you are not part of Essex Police therefore you are speculating.
The CCRC does not have them but the CCRC forced Essex police to allow Jeremy's legal team access to the content. But the information still cannot be revealed to the public
The Courts grant a PII order according to the site you posted. Do you even bother reading things you post?
As for the CCRC they didn't force the release of anything to the defense they shared somethings with the defense. The CCRC is not a court only a court can force police to share documents. The CCRC shared documents with the defense though.
You seem to be contradicting yourself because on one hand you say you Jeremy's legal team has no way to know what has been Withheld under PII and then int he next breath you claim you know how many documents were withheld.
You don't know what if anything was withheld under PII and are just speculating.
-
The Courts grant a PII order according to the site you posted. Do you even bother reading things you post?
As for the CCRC they didn't force the release of anything to the defense they shared somethings with the defense. The CCRC is not a court only a court can force police to share documents. The CCRC shared documents with the defense though.
You seem to be contradicting yourself because on one hand you say you Jeremy's legal team has no way to know what has been Withheld under PII and then int he next breath you claim you know how many documents were withheld.
You don't know what if anything was withheld under PII and are just speculating.
PII didn't exist in 1986. There was Crown Privilege, but they didn't record things in the same way as they do today.
-
Provide evidence. You are the one constantly feeding false information to us. These are the official stats from Eley:
(http://s16.postimg.org/h6honvi1x/eleystats.jpg)
You have identified yourself as the person who is responsible for providing misleading information about bullet weights used in these shootings. You should really try to get your facts right - you need to be looking at Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, bought by Ralph Bamber, on the 30th November 1984. Ralph Bamber purchased 500 rounds of Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point bullets (35 Grain). You deliberately increased the Grain of the batch of bullets purchased by Ralph Bamber on that date, to try to eradicate the FACT that at least 7 bullets were too heavy to have originated from the same batch as those bought by Ralph on that date (30th November 1984)...
7 Heavy bullets
DRH/35 (a) - a .22 LR Bullet weighing 2.44g (pillow main bedroom)
DRH/35 (b) - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.43g (pillow mainj bedroom)
PV/2 - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.426g / 37.45 grain (Ralphs left arm)
PV/24 - a .22 Bullet weighing 2.4208g (June Bambers, right side of spine)
DRH/5 - a .22 LR Bullet weighing 2.42g / 37 grain (Main bedroom, near dressing table)
DRH/36 - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.42g (Twins bedroom, right edge of left bed)
PV/23 - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.29g (June Bambers chest)
Get your facts right, none of these 7 bullets originated from the batch of 35 grain Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, purchased by Ralph Bamber, and clearly manuafactured, prior to 30th November 1984...
-
There were three types of ammunition used in the shootings inside whf, (1) 9x .22LR Bullets, (2) 15x .22 Bullets, and (3) 1 x a Bullet...
-
This brings us back to the use of the second principle rifle used in the shootings, using different ammunition than that purchased by Ralph Bamber (500 rounds) on the 30th November 1985). Study the evidence, the facts speak for themselves, it becomes difficult for anyone to argue against the now known facts. I am confident that at least 15 bullets used in the shootings did not originate from the batch of ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber on the 30th November 1984. I suspect that these 15 bullets (15 x .22 bullet) belonged to Anthony Pargeters batch of .22 ammunition, purchased separately by him, and kept at the scene....
-
If I am right, and I am, it sheds a totally different light on the sequence of events involving the shooting of the victims during the tragedy...
What becomes apparent regarding my findings is that except for Sheila (in this presentation of the evidence), all the other four victims were shot by two different type of .22 ammunition (.22LR Bullets, and .22 Bullets). This throws doubt on the official explanation that this was a one gun crime, involving one type of the same batch of Eley ammunition...
Ralph Bamber
PV/2 a .22LR Bullet (2.4267g/ 37.45 grain) - left arm (1)
PV/4 a .22 Bullet (2.0999g) - Top front of skull
PV/3 a .22 Bullet (1.9368g) - Top of skull
PV/11 a .22 Bullet (1.93g) - Left side of neck
PV/8 a .22 Bullet (1.63g) - Left side base of skull
PV/10 a Bullet (1.14g) - Left side of neck
PV/5 a Fragment of a Bullet (Not weighed) - Left Jaw
PV/9 a .22 Bullet (Not weighed) - Top left side of brain
June Bamber
PV/24 a .22 Bullet (2.4208g) Right side of spine
PV/23 a .22LR Bullet (2.29g) Chest (2)
PV/25 a .22 Bullet (1.79g) Front of head
PV/26 a .22 Bullet (1.7783g) Left side of brain
Daniel Caffell
PV/29 a .22 Bullet (2.13g / 32.87grain) Right side of head
PV/36 - a .22LR Bullet (2.03g) Right temple (3)
PV/34 a .22 Bullet (1.7972g) Inside of skull
PV/35 a .22 Part of a .22 Bullet (Not weighed) Right temple
Nicholas Caffell
PV/31 a .22 Bullet (2.1223g) Top right side of head
PV/30 a .22LR Bullet (2.03g) Top of head (4)
Sheila Caffell
PV/19 - a .22 Bullet (2.16g) Brain
PV/20 - a .22 Bullet (1.5453g) Right side of neck
Other
DRH/35 (a) - .22LR Bullet (2.44g) pillow in main bedroom (5) June Bamber?
DRH/35 (b) - .22LR Bullet (2.43g) pillow in main bedroom (6) June Bamber?
DRH/5 - .22LR Bullet (2.42g / 37.00 grain) Nr dressing table in main bedroom (7)
DRH/36 - .22LR Bullet (2.42g) Right edge of left bed in childrens bedroom (8)
DRH/9 - .22LR Bullet (1.67g / 25.8 grain) Bed in main bedroom (9) June Bamber?
-
Two different type of bullet, used in two principle rifles, believed to have been (a) family owned .22 semi-automatic anshuzt rifle, and (b) Anthony Pargeters .22 Bruno bolt action rifle, using (x) .22LR bullets purchased by Anthony Pargeter, and (y) Eley .22 ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber, on the 30th November 1984, known to have been kept at the scene at the time of the shootings...
-
Bamber told police that he left the anshuzt rifle with a fully loaded magazine, on the table in the kitchen - Now, there has been a bit of confusion surrounding what he means by his reference to "TABLE" in the "KITCHEN"? My understanding on questioning him at length on several occasions, is that his reference to the "TABLE" was in fact the settle bence in the hallway of the back kitchen, close to the rear external farm house door...
In any event, a magazine full of bullets, or as close to full as could possibly have been (10)
-
We know that 5 rounds which had originally been loaded into a 5 shot magazine, suspected of belonging to Anthony Pargeters bolt action rifle, had been removed and transferred into the 10 shot ammunition magazine, during the incident, and fired, because 5 cartridge cases were found to have got double magazine markings on them...
-
We know that 5 rounds which had originally been loaded into a 5 shot magazine, suspected of belonging to Anthony Pargeters bolt action rifle, had been removed and transferred into the 10 shot ammunition magazine, during the incident, and fired, because 5 cartridge cases were found to have got double magazine markings on them...
Based upon this detail, I believe it to be reasonable to conclude that the shooter may only have had to physically handle 5 bullets, not 15, with less likelihood of lead deposit becoming deposited on the shooters hands...
-
If I am right, and I am, it sheds a totally different light on the sequence of events involving the shooting of the victims during the tragedy...
What becomes apparent regarding my findings is that except for Sheila (in this presentation of the evidence), all the other four victims were shot by two different type of .22 ammunition (.22LR Bullets, and .22 Bullets). This throws doubt on the official explanation that this was a one gun crime, involving one type of the same batch of Eley ammunition...
Ralph Bamber
PV/2 a .22LR Bullet (2.4267g/ 37.45 grain) - left arm (1) - fired via second principle rifle
PV/4 a .22 Bullet (2.0999g) - Top front of skull - fired via first principle rifle
PV/3 a .22 Bullet (1.9368g) - Top of skull - fired via first principle rifle
PV/11 a .22 Bullet (1.93g) - Left side of neck - fired via first principle rifle
PV/8 a .22 Bullet (1.63g) - Left side base of skull - fired via first principle rifle
PV/10 a Bullet (1.14g) - Left side of neck - fired via first principle rifle
PV/5 a Fragment of a Bullet (Not weighed) - Left Jaw - fired via first principle rifle
PV/9 a .22 Bullet (Not weighed) - Top left side of brain - fired via first principle rifle
June Bamber
PV/24 a .22 Bullet (2.4208g) Right side of spine- fired via first principle rifle
PV/23 a .22LR Bullet (2.29g) Chest (2)fired via second principle rifle
PV/25 a .22 Bullet (1.79g) Front of head- fired via first principle rifle
PV/26 a .22 Bullet (1.7783g) Left side of brain- fired via first principle rifle
Daniel Caffell
PV/29 a .22 Bullet (2.13g / 32.87grain) Right side of head- fired via first principle rifle
PV/36 - a .22LR Bullet (2.03g) Right temple (3)fired via second principle rifle
PV/34 a .22 Bullet (1.7972g) Inside of skull- fired via first principle rifle
PV/35 a .22 Part of a .22 Bullet (Not weighed) Right temple- fired via first principle rifle
Nicholas Caffell
PV/31 a .22 Bullet (2.1223g) Top right side of head- fired via first principle rifle
PV/30 a .22LR Bullet (2.03g) Top of head (4)fired via second principle rifle
Sheila Caffell
PV/19 - a .22 Bullet (2.16g) Brain- fired via first principle rifle
PV/20 - a .22 Bullet (1.5453g) Right side of neck - Fired via police issue Mini Ruger 14
Other
DRH/35 (a) - .22LR Bullet (2.44g) pillow in main bedroom fired via second principle rifle(5) June Bamber?fired via second principle rifle
DRH/35 (b) - .22LR Bullet (2.43g) pillow in main bedroom fired via second principle rifle(6) June Bamber?fired via second principle rifle
DRH/5 - .22LR Bullet (2.42g / 37.00 grain) Nr dressing table in main bedroom (7)fired via second principle rifle
DRH/36 - .22LR Bullet (2.42g) Right edge of left bed in childrens bedroom (8)fired via second principle rifle
DRH/9 - .22LR Bullet (1.67g / 25.8 grain) Bed in main bedroom fired via second principle rifle(9) June Bamber?fired via second principle rifle
First principle rifle used in the shootings - Anshuzt Rifle
Second principle rifle used in the shootings - Bruno Rifle
Third rifle used in shootings - police issue mini Ruger 14
-
The above diagrammatic view is arguably the closest interpretation of which type of ammunition was used, in the different weapons, involving the shooting of the 5 victims...
-
First principle rifle used in the shootings - Anshuzt Rifle
Second principle rifle used in the shootings - Bruno Rifle
Third rifle used in shootings - police issue mini Ruger 14
Five of the 15 shots fired by way of the first principle rifle, anshulzt, had originally been loaded into the 5 shot ammunition magazine of the second principle rifle, Bruno, and removed, reloaded into the 10 shot magazine of the principle rifle (anshuzt) and fired...
-
Five of the 15 shots fired by way of the first principle rifle, anshulzt, had originally been loaded into the 5 shot ammunition magazine of the second principle rifle, Bruno, and removed, reloaded into the 10 shot magazine of the principle rifle (anshuzt) and fired...
Cartridge cases bearing evidence of double magazine markings upon them were found to be present in the following locations:-
Main bedroom - two
Child's bedroom - one
Kitchen - two...
-
PII didn't exist in 1986. There was Crown Privilege, but they didn't record things in the same way as they do today.
That's ok most of the documents the defense claims about are not even from 1986. They complain about only being provided the COLP statements and official COLP report but not all the other materials like private thoughts of the investigators. This makes up the bulk of what they moan about not having been provided.
The PII stuff is just a BS excuse. They found zilch to exonerate Jeremy among the documents that would do so if her were innocent. They want to pretend he is innocent though so claim documents that could clear him are being hidden. The key things were all released- the statements, the notebooks...these are the documents that would provide clues if the police had framed him.
-
Bamber told police that he left the anshuzt rifle with a fully loaded magazine, on the table in the kitchen - Now, there has been a bit of confusion surrounding what he means by his reference to "TABLE" in the "KITCHEN"? My understanding on questioning him at length on several occasions, is that his reference to the "TABLE" was in fact the settle bence in the hallway of the back kitchen, close to the rear external farm house door...
In any event, a magazine full of bullets, or as close to full as could possibly have been (10)
He told the initial responders he left it on the kitchen table. Realizing this looked quite stupid he changed it to the settle when he spoke to investigators and made his written statement.
-
We know that 5 rounds which had originally been loaded into a 5 shot magazine, suspected of belonging to Anthony Pargeters bolt action rifle, had been removed and transferred into the 10 shot ammunition magazine, during the incident, and fired, because 5 cartridge cases were found to have got double magazine markings on them...
Pargeter's rifle wasn't there. There were a total of 6 rounds that had been in a magazine previously but unloaded. All that means is that at some previous time someone didn't fire these 6 rounds and unloaded the magazine rather than leave the magazine of the weapon loaded. 5 of these were used by the killer on the victims. The 6th was not used, it was one of the 30 unused rounds found in the kitchen.
-
First principle rifle used in the shootings - Anshuzt Rifle
Second principle rifle used in the shootings - Bruno Rifle
Third rifle used in shootings - police issue mini Ruger 14
There was only one rifle used the Anschutz, it fired all 25 rounds. The 25 casings were all 22LR and all tied to the Anschutz. The bullets were all 22LR. Pargeter's rifle wasn't there and there is nothing at all to indicate it was used. The Mini-14 fires 5.56mm NATO or .223 Remington which are larger than 22LR and are in fact jacketed rounds. No jackets were recovered from the victims the rounds were all unjacketed lead 22LR bullets. The notion a Mini 14 fired any of the rounds is absurd.
-
I suggest you get used to the true facts, and stop trying to unconfused yourself by deliberately trying to mislead everyone regarding the use of these different types of .22 ammunition - Fletcher clearly defines .22LR bullets, from .22 bullets, and a bullet. Two principle rifles were clearly used in these shootings, with ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamb and Anthony Pargeter...
-
The standard Eley manufacturers bullet weight for the type of ammunition purchased by Ralp Bamber weighed, 2.27 grams or 35 grain (2.26792)...
-
I suggest you get used to the true facts, and stop trying to unconfused yourself by deliberately trying to mislead everyone regarding the use of these different types of .22 ammunition - Fletcher clearly defines .22LR bullets, from .22 bullets, and a bullet. Two principle rifles were clearly used in these shootings, with ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamb and Anthony Pargeter...
You should take your own advice. While I am using real facts you are making things up and it accomplishes nothing because made up things have no chance of convincing the COA to vacate Jeremy's conviction. Nor will such sway objective, rational people believing Jeremy is innocent. Only real evidence of his innocence would be able to do that.
Some of the bullet fragments were so small (including one bullet that was not recovered by Vanezis because it broke into such small pieces) that he couldn't assess they were subsonic 22LR hollow points just from the state of the fragments. He had to use the casings in addition. Making up that Sheila's initial wound was a jacketed round in either 5.56mm or .223 Remington accomplishes nothing except demonstrating you are dishonest. Nothing establishes the wound was made by a high velocity, jacketed round let alone a round of larger size than 22LR. No jacket was recovered, the bullet fragment recovered was .22 not 5.56mm or .223 Remington and two 22LR casings fired by the Anschutz were found near Sheila's body on the day of the murders. Making up that the lab provided these casings a month later to plant is foolish given the photos and statements of those who viewed the scene on the day of the murders establishing the casings were there on the day of the murders.
-
You have identified yourself as the person who is responsible for providing misleading information about bullet weights used in these shootings. You should really try to get your facts right - you need to be looking at Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, bought by Ralph Bamber, on the 30th November 1984. Ralph Bamber purchased 500 rounds of Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point bullets (35 Grain). You deliberately increased the Grain of the batch of bullets purchased by Ralph Bamber on that date, to try to eradicate the FACT that at least 7 bullets were too heavy to have originated from the same batch as those bought by Ralph on that date (30th November 1984)...
7 Heavy bullets
DRH/35 (a) - a .22 LR Bullet weighing 2.44g (pillow main bedroom)
DRH/35 (b) - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.43g (pillow mainj bedroom)
PV/2 - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.426g / 37.45 grain (Ralphs left arm)
PV/24 - a .22 Bullet weighing 2.4208g (June Bambers, right side of spine)
DRH/5 - a .22 LR Bullet weighing 2.42g / 37 grain (Main bedroom, near dressing table)
DRH/36 - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.42g (Twins bedroom, right edge of left bed)
PV/23 - a .22LR Bullet weighing 2.29g (June Bambers chest)
Get your facts right, none of these 7 bullets originated from the batch of 35 grain Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, purchased by Ralph Bamber, and clearly manuafactured, prior to 30th November 1984...
My facts are straight. You are the liar not me. Eley NEVER manufactured any subsonic hollow points in 35 grain. I already produced an image of the exact packaging of the 40 grain rounds purchased by Nevill.
I just produced the stats from Eley itself related to their 22LR subsonic Hollow points.
Go ahead and produce evidence that back in 1984 (when Nevill purchased the ammo) they used to make a 35 grain 22LR unjacketed hollow point. You won't be able to because they didn't you simply made it up.
So not only can't you prove that Nevill bought 35 grain bullets even worse you can't even prove that in the early '80s Eley made a 22LR subsonic Hollow Point that weighed 35 grains. You made up the claim they made 35 grain bullets, made up the claim Nevill bought such bullets and then piggybacked these lies with your lie that this means some of the bullets in the victims were larger than those bought by Nevill so had to have been fired by a different weapon.
Your ultimate lie still fails even if the bullets had been larger because the murder weapon could fire any 22LR bullet including 60 grain 22LR bullets. So it still would fail to prove another weapon were used even if some of the 22LR bullets had been bigger than others. But there is zero evidence any were bigger. To try pretending some were bigger you created the lie that the complete bullets weighed 35 grain when in fact they weighed 40 grain. Your antics just demonstrate your dishonesty nothing more.
I have no idea what you think you gain by such.
-
The standard Eley manufacturers bullet weight for the type of ammunition purchased by Ralp Bamber weighed, 2.27 grams or 35 grain (2.26792)...
According to Eley's 1984 product catalog their 22LR subsonic Hollow Points weighed 40 grains. According to every sales site selling older Eley product (1970s-1990 manufacture) their 22LR subsonic Hollow Points weighed 40 grains. According to their current catalog their 22LR subsonic Hollow Points still weigh 40 grains. There is no bullet seller out there with oldstock or new stock that has any 35 grain Eley subsonic Hollow Points and the reason why is because Eley never made any 35 grain subsonic hollow points.
I emailed Eley and they responded that their hollow points are intended for use hunting small animals so the need is for a more substantial bullet than is the case for target shooting so they have not made one of less than 40 grains but have made some heavier ones.
The ball is in your court to produce evidence that Eley made 35 grain subsonic hollow points decades ago and that this is the ammunition Nevill purchased. Saying Nevill purchased ammunition that Eley never manufactured doesn't help enhance your reputation.
-
According to Eley's 1984 product catalog their 22LR subsonic Hollow Points weighed 40 grains. According to every sales site selling older Eley product (1970s-1990 manufacture) their 22LR subsonic Hollow Points weighed 40 grains. According to their current catalog their 22LR subsonic Hollow Points still weigh 40 grains. There is no bullet seller out there with oldstock or new stock that has any 35 grain Eley subsonic Hollow Points and the reason why is because Eley never made any 35 grain subsonic hollow points.
I emailed Eley and they responded that their hollow points are intended for use hunting small animals so the need is for a more substantial bullet than is the case for target shooting so they have not made one of less than 40 grains but have made some heavier ones.
The ball is in your court to produce evidence that Eley made 35 grain subsonic hollow points decades ago and that this is the ammunition Nevill purchased. Saying Nevill purchased ammunition that Eley never manufactured doesn't help enhance your reputation.
Just goes to show you how wrong you have been...
-
You should take your own advice. While I am using real facts you are making things up and it accomplishes nothing because made up things have no chance of convincing the COA to vacate Jeremy's conviction. Nor will such sway objective, rational people believing Jeremy is innocent. Only real evidence of his innocence would be able to do that.
Some of the bullet fragments were so small (including one bullet that was not recovered by Vanezis because it broke into such small pieces) that he couldn't assess they were subsonic 22LR hollow points just from the state of the fragments. He had to use the casings in addition. Making up that Sheila's initial wound was a jacketed round in either 5.56mm or .223 Remington accomplishes nothing except demonstrating you are dishonest. Nothing establishes the wound was made by a high velocity, jacketed round let alone a round of larger size than 22LR. No jacket was recovered, the bullet fragment recovered was .22 not 5.56mm or .223 Remington and two 22LR casings fired by the Anschutz were found near Sheila's body on the day of the murders. Making up that the lab provided these casings a month later to plant is foolish given the photos and statements of those who viewed the scene on the day of the murders establishing the casings were there on the day of the murders.
Yes, I agree you are dishonest...
-
That's ok most of the documents the defense claims about are not even from 1986. They complain about only being provided the COLP statements and official COLP report but not all the other materials like private thoughts of the investigators. This makes up the bulk of what they moan about not having been provided.
The PII stuff is just a BS excuse. They found zilch to exonerate Jeremy among the documents that would do so if her were innocent. They want to pretend he is innocent though so claim documents that could clear him are being hidden. The key things were all released- the statements, the notebooks...these are the documents that would provide clues if the police had framed him.
Speaking of pocketbooks, the handwritten notes of DS Jones, pertaining to the incidents at whf were recorded in an old out of date blank pocketbook issued to Jones months and months beforehand. It appears that these corrupt officers all had access to, and use of additional pocketbooks, in which they could record information as though it had been written up contemporaneously, when the couldn't have been. DS Jones had a lot to answer for, he was at the forefront of the false case they brought against Jeremy, that is for sure...
-
My facts are straight. You are the liar not me. Eley NEVER manufactured any subsonic hollow points in 35 grain. I already produced an image of the exact packaging of the 40 grain rounds purchased by Nevill.
I just produced the stats from Eley itself related to their 22LR subsonic Hollow points.
Go ahead and produce evidence that back in 1984 (when Nevill purchased the ammo) they used to make a 35 grain 22LR unjacketed hollow point. You won't be able to because they didn't you simply made it up.
So not only can't you prove that Nevill bought 35 grain bullets even worse you can't even prove that in the early '80s Eley made a 22LR subsonic Hollow Point that weighed 35 grains. You made up the claim they made 35 grain bullets, made up the claim Nevill bought such bullets and then piggybacked these lies with your lie that this means some of the bullets in the victims were larger than those bought by Nevill so had to have been fired by a different weapon.
Your ultimate lie still fails even if the bullets had been larger because the murder weapon could fire any 22LR bullet including 60 grain 22LR bullets. So it still would fail to prove another weapon were used even if some of the 22LR bullets had been bigger than others. But there is zero evidence any were bigger. To try pretending some were bigger you created the lie that the complete bullets weighed 35 grain when in fact they weighed 40 grain. Your antics just demonstrate your dishonesty nothing more.
I have no idea what you think you gain by such.
You are the liar, not me...
I don't have to do anything to prove to you that what I'm saying is true, or was true, and I won't at this stage, I'll just let you dig a deeper hole into which you are falling into. You never have anything constructive to say, all you can keep saying is thatvI am a liar, that I am dishonest, etc, etc, your script is now getting rather monotonous, when you eventually come to accept that the .22 bullets purchased by Ralph Bamber weighed 2.27gram / 35 grain, you won't even apologise for your mistake, that's because you are a conman...
The hole you are digging for yourself to fall into is getting deeper and deeper...
-
You are dishonest, and a lying toe rag...
-
You are the liar, not me...
I don't have to do anything to prove to you that what I'm saying is true, or was true, and I won't at this stage, I'll just let you dig a deeper hole into which you are falling into. You never have anything constructive to say, all you can keep saying is thatvI am a liar, that I am dishonest, etc, etc, your script is now getting rather monotonous, when you eventually come to accept that the .22 bullets purchased by Ralph Bamber weighed 2.27gram / 35 grain, you won't even apologise for your mistake, that's because you are a conman...
The hole you are digging for yourself to fall into is getting deeper and deeper...
You have failed to prove me to be wrong about anything I said let alone to be a liar. I produced evidence that Eley's subsonic 22LR Hollow Points are 40 grain. You have produced zero evidence to establish Eley ever made 35 grain subsonic hollow points let alone any evidence that Nevill purchased such. You simply looked at the weights of the fragments, saw that some were above 35 grains and made up the LIE that Nevill had 35 grain bullets so you could then falsely claim some of the bullets used on the victims were larger than the bullets Nevill bought.
You are right you have no need to produce any evidence to back up your claims but if you fail to do so then there is no reason for anyone to believe you and more importantly if you fail to do so it will demonstrate to rational people you can't and that you simply lied. What you should do is admit your claims were false or produce credible evidence that Eley used to make 35 grain subsonic Hollow Points and evidence that this is what Nevill purchased.
Naturally you will do neither and just continue full speed ahead with your bogus claims which is pointless because you are not fooling anyone.
-
You have failed to prove me to be wrong about anything I said let alone to be a liar. I produced evidence that Eley's subsonic 22LR Hollow Points are 40 grain. You have produced zero evidence to establish Eley ever made 35 grain subsonic hollow points let alone any evidence that Nevill purchased such. You simply looked at the weights of the fragments, saw that some were above 35 grains and made up the LIE that Nevill had 35 grain bullets so you could then falsely claim some of the bullets used on the victims were larger than the bullets Nevill bought.
You are right you have no need to produce any evidence to back up your claims but if you fail to do so then there is no reason for anyone to believe you and more importantly if you fail to do so it will demonstrate to rational people you can't and that you simply lied. What you should do is admit your claims were false or produce credible evidence that Eley used to make 35 grain subsonic Hollow Points and evidence that this is what Nevill purchased.
Naturally you will do neither and just continue full speed ahead with your bogus claims which is pointless because you are not fooling anyone.
Just waffle, you simply have not got anything constructive to say so you keep relying on the same old script that is embedded in your head...
The bullets Ralph Bamber purchased were 35 grain, not 40 grain...
-
The 40 grain weight ammunition was purchased by Anthony Pargeter and kept with his rifle and shotgun at the scene...
-
Just waffle, you simply have not got anything constructive to say so you keep relying on the same old script that is embedded in your head...
The bullets Ralph Bamber purchased were 35 grain, not 40 grain...
Eley didn't make 35 grain ammunition you made this up. I have challenged you to produce evidence they manufactured such, that is EASIER than proving Nevill bought such which would be a different question. You can't provide any evidence because you simply made it up. Eley's subsonic 22LR Hollow Points are 40 grain and have always been 40 grain.
-
Pargeter made a witness statement to Essex police stating that his rifle was kept at the scene, but that he removed the bolt and took that home with him so that nobody could fire it in his absence...
-
Eley didn't make 35 grain ammunition you made this up. I have challenged you to produce evidence they manufactured such, that is EASIER than proving Nevill bought such which would be a different question. You can't provide any evidence because you simply made it up. Eley's subsonic 22LR Hollow Points are 40 grain and have always been 40 grain.
No, I haven't made it up - it was the police who suggested that Ralph Bamber purchased .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition, because other .22LR ammunition used in the shootings actually belonged to Anthony Pargeter, so get your facts right...
The bolt action rifle fired all the .22LR ammunition which was 40 grain rounds...
Ralph Bamber
PV/2 a .22LR Bullet (2.4267g/ 37.45 grain) - left arm (1) Fired in bolt action rifle...
PV/4 a .22 Bullet (2.0999g) - Top front of skull
PV/3 a .22 Bullet (1.9368g) - Top of skull
PV/11 a .22 Bullet (1.93g) - Left side of neck
PV/8 a .22 Bullet (1.63g) - Left side base of skull
PV/10 a Bullet (1.14g) - Left side of neck
PV/5 a Fragment of a Bullet (Not weighed) - Left Jaw
PV/9 a .22 Bullet (Not weighed) - Top left side of brain
June Bamber
PV/24 a .22 Bullet (2.4208g) Right side of spine
PV/23 a .22LR Bullet (2.29g) Chest (2) Fired in bolt action rifle...
PV/25 a .22 Bullet (1.79g) Front of head
PV/26 a .22 Bullet (1.7783g) Left side of brain
Daniel Caffell
PV/29 a .22 Bullet (2.13g / 32.87grain) Right side of head
PV/36 - a .22LR Bullet (2.03g) Right temple (3) Fired in bolt action rifle...
PV/34 a .22 Bullet (1.7972g) Inside of skull
PV/35 a .22 Part of a .22 Bullet (Not weighed) Right temple
Nicholas Caffell
PV/31 a .22 Bullet (2.1223g) Top right side of head
PV/30 a .22LR Bullet (2.03g) Top of head (4) Fired in bolt action rifle...
Sheila Caffell
PV/19 - a .22 Bullet (2.16g) Brain
PV/20 - a .22 Bullet (1.5453g) Right side of neck
Other
DRH/35 (a) - .22LR Bullet (2.44g) pillow in main bedroom Fired in bolt action rifle...(5) June Bamber? Fired in bolt action rifle...
DRH/35 (b) - .22LR Bullet (2.43g) pillow in main bedroom Fired in bolt action rifle...[color=green](6)[/color] June Bamber?
DRH/5 - .22LR Bullet (2.42g / 37.00 grain) Nr dressing table in main bedroom (7) Fired in bolt action rifle...
DRH/36 - .22LR Bullet (2.42g) Right edge of left bed in childrens bedroom (8)Fired in bolt action rifle...
DRH/9 - .22LR Bullet (1.67g / 25.8 grain) Bed in main bedroom (9) June Bamber?Fired in bolt action rifle...
-
The shooter used the bolt action rifle, and the .22LR ammunition and went to the main bedroom and shot June Bamber. The shooter then went into the bedroom where the children were sleeping and shot each of them in the head once, using the bolt action rifle with the 40 grain .22LR ammunition. The shooter then shot at Ralph Bamber using the bolt action rifle with the 40 grain .22LR ammunition, before he fled to the kitchen to raise the alarm by calling Jeremy, and then the police...
-
Ralph Bamber was shot in the arm by use of the bolt action rifle, before fleeing to the kitchen to raise the alarm by making calls to Jeremy and then to the police - he left bloodied fingermark impressions on the edge of the kitchen worktop whilst making these calls, blood from his wounded left arm (bloodied fingermarks on edge of kitchen worktop can clearly been seen nr the phone in crime scene images)...
Ralph Bamber
PV/2 a .22LR Bullet (2.4267g/ 37.45 grain) - left arm (1) Fired in bolt action rifle...
-
Bloodied finger marks from Ralph Bambers wounded left arm left on the edge of the kitchen worktop at the time he raised the alarm by telephoning Jeremy and the police, after he was shot only once by the bolt action rifle, and the .22LR ammunition...
-
Nothing could be clearer - Ralph had only been shot once by the time he made both of his distress calls, one to Jeremy, the other to the police, at around 3.25am...
Ralph was stood holding the telephone handset with his uninjured right hand, whilst gripping the edge of the kitchen work top with the bloody fingers of his left hand...
-
Drops of blood from his left arm wound dripped onto the kitchen floor directly beneath where his bloodied fingers was holding onto the edge of the kitchen worktop, whilst making the distress calls...
-
The attacks started with use of the bolt action rifle loaded with the heavier .22LR bullets, and escalated into use of the anshuzt rifle when the shooter ran into problems or ran out of ammunition in the bolt action rifle...
The location of the placed .22LR ammunition in each of the four victims is true testimony to what took place, it was a crime involving two principle rifles, which the authorities changed into a one gun, one batch of ammunition case...
-
Nothing could be clearer - Ralph had only been shot once by the time he made both of his distress calls, one to Jeremy, the other to the police, at around 3.25am...
Ralph was stood holding the telephone handset with his uninjured right hand, whilst gripping the edge of the kitchen work top with the bloody fingers of his left hand...
If Nevill had been shot before he called Jeremy then he would have called 999 not Jeremy. Nevill was shot 4 times in a row in the master bedroom and never had any opportunity to call anyone after that, he couldn't speak and was busy engaged in a struggle with his killer in the kitchen.
-
The attacks started with use of the bolt action rifle loaded with the heavier .22LR bullets, and escalated into use of the anshuzt rifle when the shooter ran into problems or ran out of ammunition in the bolt action rifle...
The location of the placed .22LR ammunition in each of the four victims is true testimony to what took place, it was a crime involving two principle rifles, which the authorities changed into a one gun, one batch of ammunition case...
The ammunition proves only one rifle was used, the Anschutz. You made up nonsense about shell casings being repalced and even made up a ficitonal ammo variety all to advance your claims. It is simply nonsense.
-
If Nevill had been shot before he called Jeremy then he would have called 999 not Jeremy. Nevill was shot 4 times in a row in the master bedroom and never had any opportunity to call anyone after that, he couldn't speak and was busy engaged in a struggle with his killer in the kitchen.
You don't know what Ralph would have done, or indeed did...
By the time he got to the kitchen, Ralph had only been shot once.
-
You don't know what Ralph would have done, or indeed did...
By the time he got to the kitchen, Ralph had only been shot once.
I know that if Nevill had been shot and yet he had gotten to a phone and been able to speak then he would have called for an ambulance if not police as opposed to calling Jeremy to "keep it in the family".
The evidence proves Nevill was shot 4 times in the master bedroom BEFORE he went to the kitchen. All 4 shots were to his left profile he had his left profile facing the killer for all 4 shots. He was not fully upright when shot in the arm. After the gun was emptied into June and Nevill, Nevill then went to the kitchen. He did so either to arm himself with the killer chasing him and catching him in the kitchen or he chased the killer to prevent the killer from reloading. Nevill was beaten unconscious, the killer partially reloaded then fired 4 shots into his head killing him.
You have zero evidence to establish Nevill was shot only once in the bedroom before going to the kitchen. It is clear that the killer walked into the master bedroom and shot Nevill 4 times, June 6 times then things progressed to the kitchen. Nevill never made any phone calls.
The evidence further proves that Sheila didn't load the weapon, didn't beat Nevill with the rifle and didn't shoot anyone with the rifle. That means someone else was responsible for the murders. Nevill would not have phoned Jeremy falsely implicating Sheila. That means Jeremy lied and the only way he would have been able to know there was trouble at WHF is if he was the one who killed everyone.
Your claims are all fantasy fabrications not supported by any evidence just like your fantasy fabrication that Eley manufactured a 35 grain subsonic Hollow Point bullet and that this is what Nevill purchased. Do a google search for 35 grain Eley subsonic Hollow Point. You will find zilch, not on the web, not on google books- zilch. You will only find references to Eley subsonic Hollow Point that weigh 40 grain because that is the actual weight and that has always been the weight.
A handful of the bullet fragments that were recovered weighed more than 35 grains. So you made up the claim the complete bullets Nevill purchased were 35 grain (which means you lied) and then lied further by claiming this proves the fragments that weighed more than 35 grains were a different caliber and were fired by a different gun than the murder weapon. You relied on these lies as support for your claim that some of the casings had been planted by the lab and the corresponding real casings used were concealed.
This is all a wasted effort on your part. Your lies are not working all they are doing is demonstrating your lack of candor and thus tarnishing your reputation.
-
You don't know what Ralph would have done, or indeed did...
By the time he got to the kitchen, Ralph had only been shot once.
Mike,would you know,or know of one of the cops who was actually at the crime scene ?
-
I know that if Nevill had been shot and yet he had gotten to a phone and been able to speak then he would have called for an ambulance if not police as opposed to calling Jeremy to "keep it in the family".
The evidence proves Nevill was shot 4 times in the master bedroom BEFORE he went to the kitchen. All 4 shots were to his left profile he had his left profile facing the killer for all 4 shots. He was not fully upright when shot in the arm. After the gun was emptied into June and Nevill, Nevill then went to the kitchen. He did so either to arm himself with the killer chasing him and catching him in the kitchen or he chased the killer to prevent the killer from reloading. Nevill was beaten unconscious, the killer partially reloaded then fired 4 shots into his head killing him.
You have zero evidence to establish Nevill was shot only once in the bedroom before going to the kitchen. It is clear that the killer walked into the master bedroom and shot Nevill 4 times, June 6 times then things progressed to the kitchen. Nevill never made any phone calls.
The evidence further proves that Sheila didn't load the weapon, didn't beat Nevill with the rifle and didn't shoot anyone with the rifle. That means someone else was responsible for the murders. Nevill would not have phoned Jeremy falsely implicating Sheila. That means Jeremy lied and the only way he would have been able to know there was trouble at WHF is if he was the one who killed everyone.
Your claims are all fantasy fabrications not supported by any evidence just like your fantasy fabrication that Eley manufactured a 35 grain subsonic Hollow Point bullet and that this is what Nevill purchased. Do a google search for 35 grain Eley subsonic Hollow Point. You will find zilch, not on the web, not on google books- zilch. You will only find references to Eley subsonic Hollow Point that weigh 40 grain because that is the actual weight and that has always been the weight.
A handful of the bullet fragments that were recovered weighed more than 35 grains. So you made up the claim the complete bullets Nevill purchased were 35 grain (which means you lied) and then lied further by claiming this proves the fragments that weighed more than 35 grains were a different caliber and were fired by a different gun than the murder weapon. You relied on these lies as support for your claim that some of the casings had been planted by the lab and the corresponding real casings used were concealed.
This is all a wasted effort on your part. Your lies are not working all they are doing is demonstrating your lack of candor and thus tarnishing your reputation.
If Neville had already been shot 4 times upstairs in the bedroom, then at least one drop of his unique blood would have been deposited, ney I should say found somewhere in the bedroom, somewhere on the landing, somewhere on the main stairs, somewhere on the front hallway and passage, somewhere at the entrance to the main kitchen, but sadly none was found, because he wasn't shot 4 times in the manner described by you, otherwise there would have been his blood spilled everywhere. Not only that, but just to show how utterly bonkers your suggestion is, I can't begin to imagine Ralph having already been shot in the arm, his jaw, his lip, etc, attempting to make it downstairs without taking measures to stem the bleeding from these wounds using a towel or a piece of clothing or whatever. Your suggestion that he made it from the main bedroom all the way down to the kitchen with four bullets already pumped into him, without spilling a drop of blood, Is fanciful and somewhat ludicrous. Why would Ralph go downstairs after having been shot four times, if as you suggest he had got a mouthful of bullet? He certainly wouldn't be going downstairs to use the telephone if he couldn't speak, so why does he end up dead downstairs in the kitchen? How on earth can there be two different parts of the farmhouse where Ralph gets shot four tines, and there be no physical evidence of a blood trail involving his unique blood between the main bedroom upstairs, and the main kitchen downstairs?
Your scenario is unworkable...
-
If Neville had already been shot 4 times upstairs in the bedroom, then at least one drop of his unique blood would have been deposited, ney I should say found somewhere in the bedroom, somewhere on the landing, somewhere on the main stairs, somewhere on the front hallway and passage, somewhere at the entrance to the main kitchen, but sadly none was found, because he wasn't shot 4 times in the manner described by you, otherwise there would have been his blood spilled everywhere. Not only that, but just to show how utterly bonkers your suggestion is, I can't begin to imagine Ralph having already been shot in the arm, his jaw, his lip, etc, attempting to make it downstairs without taking measures to stem the bleeding from these wounds using a towel or a piece of clothing or whatever. Your suggestion that he made it from the main bedroom all the way down to the kitchen with four bullets already pumped into him, without spilling a drop of blood, Is fanciful and somewhat ludicrous. Why would Ralph go downstairs after having been shot four times, if as you suggest he had got a mouthful of bullet? He certainly wouldn't be going downstairs to use the telephone if he couldn't speak, so why does he end up dead downstairs in the kitchen? How on earth can there be two different parts of the farmhouse where Ralph gets shot four tines, and there be no physical evidence of a blood trail involving his unique blood between the main bedroom upstairs, and the main kitchen downstairs?
Your scenario is unworkable...
My scenario is supported by the evidence. Yours is fictional and contradicted by the evidence. All of the blood in the bedroom wasn't tested. They only cut out a few pieces of carpet and destroyed the bedding at Jeremy's request. They didn't test all the blood in the bedroom, that is why they didn't find his blood. The bullet that grazed him was in the bedroom, the 4 casings from the 4 shots he suffered in the bedroom were found in the bedroom and he tracked blood to the kitchen- specifically by bumping into walls on his way to the kitchen- he wasn't profusely bleeding as you would like to suggest. The majority of blood was inside his mouth.
-
My scenario is supported by the evidence. Yours is fictional and contradicted by the evidence. All of the blood in the bedroom wasn't tested. They only cut out a few pieces of carpet and destroyed the bedding at Jeremy's request. They didn't test all the blood in the bedroom, that is why they didn't find his blood. The bullet that grazed him was in the bedroom, the 4 casings from the 4 shots he suffered in the bedroom were found in the bedroom and he tracked blood to the kitchen- specifically by bumping into walls on his way to the kitchen- he wasn't profusely bleeding as you would like to suggest. The majority of blood was inside his mouth.
You are talking nonsense, they took many blood samples from the main bedroom carpet, and every single drop of blood that was tested was found to have AK 2-1 in it, a blood group unique to June Bamber. None of Ralph's blood was found anywhere in the bedroom because he was never shot whilst present in that bedroom. The police have gone on record as saying that the fact that a piece of carpet and the bedspread was destroyed at an early stage, that they had already got all the blood samples required to identify the donor of all the dripped blood (June Bamber), so that knocks your argument down, don't you agree? What is important, was the discovery of five separate blood stains upon the lower bedsheets, which the police were satisfied belonged to the shooting of June whilst she lay in bed asleep. It might be worth your while remembering that there was no other reference to any other blood staining found anywhere at all on the bed, none on the pillows, none on the bedroom carpet, so there it us all set out in front of you, so you see, you have been talking nonsense, there is no evidence, and there was no evidence that Ralph had been shot at all whilst he was inside the bedroom, the adding of four bullet cases to the bedroom scenario does not prove that Ralph had been shot at, at all in that bedroom, on the contrary it appears that by adding an additional four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario, that these four bullet cases were simply added for the purpose of making it appear as though he had been...
-
You are talking nonsense, they took many blood samples from the main bedroom carpet, and every single drop of blood that was tested was found to have AK 2-1 in it, a blood group unique to June Bamber. None of Ralph's blood was found anywhere in the bedroom because he was never shot whilst present in that bedroom. The police have gone on record as saying that the fact that a piece of carpet and the bedspread was destroyed at an early stage, that they had already got all the blood samples required to identify the donor of all the dripped blood (June Bamber), so that knocks your argument down, don't you agree? What is important, was the discovery of five separate blood stains upon the lower bedsheets, which the police were satisfied belonged to the shooting of June whilst she lay in bed asleep. It might be worth your while remembering that there was no other reference to any other blood staining found anywhere at all on the bed, none on the pillows, none on the bedroom carpet, so there it us all set out in front of you, so you see, you have been talking nonsense, there is no evidence, and there was no evidence that Ralph had been shot at all whilst he was inside the bedroom, the adding of four bullet cases to the bedroom scenario does not prove that Ralph had been shot at, at all in that bedroom, on the contrary it appears that by adding an additional four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario, that these four bullet cases were simply added for the purpose of making it appear as though he had been...
The defense expert report posted on this site (by the expert who examined the evidence) identified 2 carpet samples taken. They tested 5 drops on each sample. Your claim they tested the entire carpet is false. Nor did they test the bedding.
You have zero evidence to establish someone planted the casings in the bedroom and also planted the bullet that grazed Nevill in the bedroom. You are just tossing crap at the wall hoping some of it will stick and when you can no longer find anymore crap you take a dump so you can toss some more.
(http://s16.postimg.org/pf5mlqf9h/bambercarpet.jpg)
-
The defense expert report posted on this site (by the expert who examined the evidence) identified 2 carpet samples taken. They tested 5 drops on each sample. Your claim they tested the entire carpet is false. Nor did they test the bedding.
You have zero evidence to establish someone planted the casings in the bedroom and also planted the bullet that grazed Nevill in the bedroom. You are just tossing crap at the wall hoping some of it will stick and when you can no longer find anymore crap you take a dump so you can toss some more.
(http://s16.postimg.org/pf5mlqf9h/bambercarpet.jpg)
You are misleading every body regarding the areas from where they took blood samples from on the main bedroom carpet, since although the samples taken were somewhat limited, these were part of the same continuous blood trail...
Four bullet cases were added to the 8 originally found in the main bedroom, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, exhibits which were vacated to allow the introduction of four Dody cartridge cases into the main bedroom scenario so as to include the four alleged non fatal shots received by Ralph Bamber in the bedroom...
Let's put it this way, with bullets in his mouth in the bedroom there would have been expiated bloodstains all over the place but no such blood stains were found either in the main bedroom itself, or anywhere along the route from the main bedroom upstairs, to the main kitchen downstairs, no expiated blood staining on any carpet, no such blood staining on any wall or doorframe - tobput it bluntly there was no corresponding blood trail which was found or could be linked to Ralph Bamber, himself..
A small bloodstain on wall paper n the main stairs was 'O' type blood, which could have got carried and deposited there on Sheila's body, or either of the two principle rifles that were used in the shootings...
-
Now, may be the time to reveal, that Ralph Banner did not purchase Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition on the 30th November 1984. He actually purchased 500 rounds of Eley .22 subsonic ammunition, so once you know this to be true, it becomes plain as a pikestaff that the 8 .22LR bullets fired during the incident, belonged to someone else, not part of the same batch of 500 rounds of .22 subsonic ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber. This of course now means that all 25 bullets did not originate from the same batch of crime scene ammunition...
-
You are misleading every body regarding the areas from where they took blood samples from on the main bedroom carpet, since although the samples taken were somewhat limited, these were part of the same continuous blood trail...
Four bullet cases were added to the 8 originally found in the main bedroom, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, exhibits which were vacated to allow the introduction of four Dody cartridge cases into the main bedroom scenario so as to include the four alleged non fatal shots received by Ralph Bamber in the bedroom...
Let's put it this way, with bullets in his mouth in the bedroom there would have been expiated bloodstains all over the place but no such blood stains were found either in the main bedroom itself, or anywhere along the route from the main bedroom upstairs, to the main kitchen downstairs, no expiated blood staining on any carpet, no such blood staining on any wall or doorframe - tobput it bluntly there was no corresponding blood trail which was found or could be linked to Ralph Bamber, himself..
A small bloodstain on wall paper n the main stairs was 'O' type blood, which could have got carried and deposited there on Sheila's body, or either of the two principle rifles that were used in the shootings...
You then admit they only tested what amounted to be part of June's blood trail around the bed not the entire rug. This explains why they didn't find Nevill's blood in the bedroom since they only ended up testing part of the trail going from June's side of the bed to the other side- which was a trail from June. This is a far cry from what you claimed of there being extensive testing without a drop of Nevill's blood found. Extensive testing didn't occur.
You are again trotting out your ridiculous made up claim that DRH/1-4 were not shell casings but rather things seized from Julie's house and these 4 things were moved so that 4 shell casings could be added. The initial day they ONLY inspected WHF and quite clearly the first 4 exhibits bagged and tagged by police would be from WHF not other locations. So on top of not having evidence to back up your claims your claim makes zero sense and is clearly false.
-
Scipio do you think Ralph received any shots in the bedroom?
-
You then admit they only tested what amounted to be part of June's blood trail around the bed not the entire rug. This explains why they didn't find Nevill's blood in the bedroom since they only ended up testing part of the trail going from June's side of the bed to the other side- which was a trail from June. This is a far cry from what you claimed of there being extensive testing without a drop of Nevill's blood found. Extensive testing didn't occur.
You are again trotting out your ridiculous made up claim that DRH/1-4 were not shell casings but rather things seized from Julie's house and these 4 things were moved so that 4 shell casings could be added. The initial day they ONLY inspected WHF and quite clearly the first 4 exhibits bagged and tagged by police would be from WHF not other locations. So on top of not having evidence to back up your claims your claim makes zero sense and is clearly false.
You are obviously deluded because the facts are that not one drop of Ralph Bambers blood was found anywhere in the main bedroom, you are creating evidence in the dark recesses of your mind, the only person making things up is you...
There is there was no expiated blood anywhere in the bedroom from Ralph Bamber, non on the upstairs landing between the bedroom door and the top of the main stairs, non on the main stairs, non on the main hallway floor or walls, non in the entrance to the main kitchen, non on the kitchen worktop near the bloodied finger marks on the edge of the kitchen worktop, non on the telephone, not on the kitchen floor - I guess he travelled all the way from the bedroom with a mouthful of bullets and blood, holding his breath all the while, and then collapsed in the kitchen, because he ran out of breath and suffocated, and became an easy target for Sheila to finish him off...
The true facts are that the suggestion that Ralph had been shot four times whilst in the bedroom was a ploy adopted by the prosecution to try and undermine Jeremy's account about receiving a distress call from his father. They asserted that with a mouthful of bullet that Ralph would not have been able to speak to anybody on the phone, hence why PI Bob Miller arranged for four additional cartridge cases to be added to the batch of crime scene ammunition associated with the main bedroom. There is evidential documents to support what I am saying, unlike yourself who relies upon absurd speculation...
-
So, they claimed Ralph had been shot a total of four times whilst he was present in the main bedroom, supported by the introduction of four additional cartridge cases at the say so of PI Bob Miller, yet how could there be these four additional cartridge cases in the bedroom scenario if one of these four wounds had been caused by the same bullet responsible for one of the other three non fatal shots?
-
The Conspirators, confused themselves by adding four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario, when they only needed to add three...
-
Scipio do you think Ralph received any shots in the bedroom?
All 4 shots to his left side were received in the bedroom. The 4 casings from these shots were in the bedroom plus one of those shots was just a graze wound which resulted in the largest fragment from the bullet being found in the bedroom instead of in his body. He was either sitting down when shot or in the process of rising because the trajectory of the shot to his shoulder would have had an upward incline had he been fully upright. It had a downward trajectory instead. If he had been standing fully upright then in order for Jeremy to shoot him in that location with a downward trajectory Jeremy would have to be standing on something. Why would he be standing on a chair or the like as he fired though?
Some people suggest the bullet that grazed Nevill and the casings were moved to the bedroom but such makes no sense. Some of these suggest he was shot while going down the stairs but that makes no sense, he was shot on the left side and when walking downstairs the left side would be facing the wall. So his left side would not be able to be targeted.
If he was walking up the stairs then in theory his left side could have been targeted but he would not continue walking up the stairs as he is being shot at, that makes zero sense. It is obvious he was shot in the bedroom alone with June. Nevill was shot 4 times, June 6 then the gun was empty and that is what enabled the progression to the kitchen. Either Nevill went to the kitchen to arm himself and the killer attacked him first or the killer ran to the kitchen to get more ammo and Nevill chased and confronted the killer to prevent he killer from reloading but ultimately failed.
-
So, they claimed Ralph had been shot a total of four times whilst he was present in the main bedroom, supported by the introduction of four additional cartridge cases at the say so of PI Bob Miller, yet how could there be these four additional cartridge cases in the bedroom scenario if one of these four wounds had been caused by the same bullet responsible for one of the other three non fatal shots?
I have pointed out to you numerous times that 4 different bullets caused Nevill's 4 gunshot wounds received in the bedroom. The largest fragment from each of these 4 bullets were:
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (arm/chest Graze wound)
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
The only bullet that caused multiple outside wounds was the graze wound. It first grazed his arm then a small portion broke off and entered his side. The fragments that entered his side were so small Vanezis failed to recover them though they showed up on the Xray. The remainder of the bullet grazed his chest and then landed in the bedroom. PV/2, 10 and 11 were recovered from inside his body. Each was the largest fragment of a different bullet. Thus 4 bullets total accounted for the gunshot wounds he suffered in the bedroom.
4 different bullets accounted for the 4 gunshot wounds he suffered in the kitchen, the largest fragment recovered from each of these 4 bullets were: PV/3, 4, 8 and 9.
8 bullets total accounted for his wounds.
-
The Conspirators, confused themselves by adding four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario, when they only needed to add three...
The one confused is you, or perhaps you are not confused at all but rather intentionally lying.
I have pointed out to you numerous times that 4 different bullets caused Nevill's 4 gunshot wounds received in the bedroom. The largest fragment from each of these 4 bullets were:
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (arm/chest Graze wound)
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
Naturally there would have to be 1 spent shell case associated with each bullet thus 4 shell casings.
-
Now, may be the time to reveal, that Ralph Banner did not purchase Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition on the 30th November 1984. He actually purchased 500 rounds of Eley .22 subsonic ammunition, so once you know this to be true, it becomes plain as a pikestaff that the 8 .22LR bullets fired during the incident, belonged to someone else, not part of the same batch of 500 rounds of .22 subsonic ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber. This of course now means that all 25 bullets did not originate from the same batch of crime scene ammunition...
The subsonic ammunition he purchased when he bought the Anschutz was Eley 22LR Hollow Points. The only other subsonic 22LR ammunition that Eley manufactured at the time was from the "Prime" line which is solid shot not hollow point. The only 22LR ammunition at the scene was Eley subsonic Hollow Points and this is what Nevill purchased at the same time he purchased the Anschutz. Making up that Eley subsonic Hollow Points were 35 grain failed miserably so now you are making up that he didn't buy Hollow Points he bought other subsonic ammo. When are you going to realize that making things up accomplishes nothing?
-
Scipio any chance the killer used two different rifles because I always thought Ralph was near death when he was beaten so he must have received more than the 4 shots at that time. Face on which side of the bed did Ralph sleep on?
-
Scipio any chance the killer used two different rifles because I always thought Ralph was near death when he was beaten so he must have received more than the 4 shots at that time. Face on which side of the bed did Ralph sleep on?
The side Sheila was found at.
-
The side Sheila was found at.
Alias thanks for that I am trying to figure out in my mind who was shot first June or Ralph.
-
Alias thanks for that I am trying to figure out in my mind who was shot first June or Ralph.
That is really hard to tell, but June was lying in her bed when shot, there was blood on her pillow. There was no blood on Nevill´s side of the bed. A bit strange that.
-
That is really hard to tell, but June was lying in her bed when shot, there was blood on her pillow. There was no blood on Nevill´s side of the bed. A bit strange that.
Alias it is so strange and really confusing. If June was shot first then Ralph jumped up he would have been shot in that position June lying down the blood would have landed on her pillow. I think the killer ran downstairs to reload and was followed by Ralph who was shot again and beaten June tried to make it to the door of the bedroom and died in that position. We will never know the answer we are all to a certain extent guessing.
-
The subsonic ammunition he purchased when he bought the Anschutz was Eley 22LR Hollow Points. The only other subsonic 22LR ammunition that Eley manufactured at the time was from the "Prime" line which is solid shot not hollow point. The only 22LR ammunition at the scene was Eley subsonic Hollow Points and this is what Nevill purchased at the same time he purchased the Anschutz. Making up that Eley subsonic Hollow Points were 35 grain failed miserably so now you are making up that he didn't buy Hollow Points he bought other subsonic ammo. When are you going to realize that making things up accomplishes nothing?
Ralph Bamber did not purchase .22LR ammunition on the 30th November 1984, so the first thing you need to do, is take stock of what you have been saying:-
He purchased 500 rounds of .22 subsonic ammunition...
-
The one confused is you, or perhaps you are not confused at all but rather intentionally lying.
I have pointed out to you numerous times that 4 different bullets caused Nevill's 4 gunshot wounds received in the bedroom. The largest fragment from each of these 4 bullets were:
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (arm/chest Graze wound)
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
Naturally there would have to be 1 spent shell case associated with each bullet thus 4 shell casings.
He wasn't shot four times in the bedroom, that claim is nothing but a red herring...
-
Here are the bullet wounds received by Ralph Bamber, as shown in diagrammatic form:-
Shots 7 and 8, were in my view inflicted when Ralph was coming up, or going down the main stairs. I arrive at this conclusion because of the angle at which the shots hit home. The other two so called 'non fatal' shots to the lip and the jaw, shots 5 and 6, were inflicted downstairs in the kitchen when Ralph Bamber was using the telephone, during his call to police at 3.26am, after he had already made a very brief call to his son Jeremy, I arrive at this conclusion because the angle at which Ralph received both of these shots (5 and 6) is consistent with the shooter aiming at his mouth to try to stop him talking further on the telephone ...
-
Shots, 1, 2, 3 and 4, were received downstairs in the kitchen, 'coup de grace'...
PV/2 a .22LR Bullet (2.4267g/ 37.45 grain) - left arm (1) Fired in bolt action rifle...
-
Hello Mike do you think Ralph was shot in the main bedroom or in the kitchen or in both places I thought Scipio said 10 casings found in bedroom are you saying thirteen.
-
Hello Mike do you think Ralph was shot in the main bedroom or in the kitchen or in both places I thought Scipio said 10 casings found in bedroom are you saying thirteen.
He claims there were 13 cartridge casings found in the bedroom, I believe there should have been only 8...
I think Ralph got shot coming up, or going down the main stairs towards or from the top landing, (shots 7 and 8), and again, shot in the region of his mouth (shots 5 and 6) whilst having made use of the telephone downstairs in the kitchen - I do not believe that Ralph made it to the main bedroom once the shots started getting fired. There is no blood spatter or expiated bloodstaining that would be associated with bullets to his mouth, anywhere along the journey it would have entailed. Attributing four additional cartridge cases to the main bedroom scenario does nothing toward proving Ralph had been shot there four times, particularly when there exists clear evidence that PI Bob Miller drafted up a document vacating four of the original exhibits bearing identifying marks of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, these subsequently being replaced by four cartridge cases, producing Scipio's total of 12, with an additional cartridge case on the top landing close to the main bedroom door...
Hope this explanation helps...
-
Mike thanks for that explanation it helps clear things up in my mind and it looks as if lookout was right that Ralph was shot in the kitchen and never made it upstairs.
-
Here is one of the entries from the firearms dealers (Radcliffes) records confirming the date, quantity, and type of ammunition, purchased by Ralph Bamber, on the 30th November 1984 - Eley .22 subsonic (500 rounds)...
-
I have the full records, relating to this transaction, it does not say that the .22 subsonic ammunition consisting of 500 rounds was LR, or hollow pointed...
-
I have the full records, relating to this transaction, it does not say that the .22 subsonic ammunition consisting of 500 rounds was LR, or hollow pointed...
I suppose now is the correct moment for me to post the full record, for future reference purposes...
Hang on, I'll photograph it now, then post it up in a few minutes, bear with me:-
-
I suppose now is the correct moment for me to post the full record, for future reference purposes...
Hang on, I'll photograph it now, then post it up in a few minutes, bear with me:-
So, there is no evidence at all that Ralph Bamber purchased any .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition at any stage / time, and so with this in mind, to whom did the .22LR bullets used in the shootings belong to, or originate from?
-
Now, we can see from the now known facts that each of Sheila's four victims was shot at least once by use of the second principle rifle, containing the .22LR bullets, as follows:-
Main bedroom - June Bamber shot 5 times by use of .22LR ammunition
Child's bedroom - Daniel Caffell, shot once by use of . 22LR ammunition
Child's bedroom - Nicholas Caffell, shot once by use of .22LR ammunition
Main stairs - Ralph Bamber, shot once by use of .22LR ammunition...
-
Now, we can see from the now known facts that each of Sheila's four victims was shot at least once by use of the second principle rifle, containing the .22LR bullets, as follows:-
Main bedroom - June Bamber shot 5 times by use of .22LR ammunition
Child's bedroom - Daniel Caffell, shot once by use of . 22LR ammunition
Child's bedroom - Nicholas Caffell, shot once by use of .22LR ammunition
Main stairs - Ralph Bamber, shot once by use of .22LR ammunition...
The shooter who was Sheila, targeted her mother and vented her rage toward her by shooting her with five rounds of .22LR bullets before leaving the main bedroom, believing that she had shot dead her mother. Then Sheila went into the bedroom containing her two sons and shot each of them once with use of .22LR ammunition.Sometime afterwards, Ralph commenced his approach up the main stairs, and Sheila shot at him at least once, using .22LR ammunition, but possibly twice (bullet wounds 7 and 8). Due to the angle of inclination relating to bullet wounds 7 and 8, I believe that Ralph had reached the middle landing of the main stair when he was initially shot (8) at, and then upon him retreating back down the main stair, Sheila shot (7) at him as he fled downstairs on the main stair...
The cartridge recovered from the top landing close to the main bedroom door being part of the .22LR round (provisionally correct), and the dented cartridge recovered from the main stairs, being connected to the .22LR bullet (PV/2) which wounded Ralphs left neck...
-
Scipio any chance the killer used two different rifles because I always thought Ralph was near death when he was beaten so he must have received more than the 4 shots at that time. Face on which side of the bed did Ralph sleep on?
No all 25 casings were determined to have been fired by the Anschutz. Furthermore, the only 22LR weapon at WHF for the killer to access at the time of the murders was the Anschutz. If the killer had another weapon to turn to after firing the initial 10 shots in the bedroom then the killer would have fired more shots into Nevill then and there instead of things progressing to the kitchen. If the killer had another loaded rifle in the kitchen then the killer would have used it to shoot Nevill instead of beating him.
The whole reason Nevill was beaten is because he was not injured enough to disable him and he was trying to take the rifle away from the killer and to prevent the killer from reloading. The killer had to render him unconscious just to be able to reload.
-
Alias thanks for that I am trying to figure out in my mind who was shot first June or Ralph.
Probably June since she was shot at least 4 times while lying in bed while Nevill was seated or in the process of rising when he was shot. His plan was to claim Nevill phoned him so that means he couldn't kill Nevill in his sleep he needed to give Nevill a chance to at least start getting out of bed before opening fire.
If Nevill had been killed in bed then the claim he made a call to Jeremy would not be credible in the least.
-
No all 25 casings were determined to have been fired by the Anschutz. Furthermore, the only 22LR weapon at WHF for the killer to access at the time of the murders was the Anschutz. If the killer had another weapon to turn to after firing the initial 10 shots in the bedroom then the killer would have fired more shots into Nevill then and there instead of things progressing to the kitchen. If the killer had another loaded rifle in the kitchen then the killer would have used it to shoot Nevill instead of beating him.
The whole reason Nevill was beaten is because he was not injured enough to disable him and he was trying to take the rifle away from the killer and to prevent the killer from reloading. The killer had to render him unconscious just to be able to reload.
But then you would have had the problem of Nevill's body in the bedroom and Sheila might not have been so compliant had she seen it.
-
Here are the bullet wounds received by Ralph Bamber, as shown in diagrammatic form:-
Shots 7 and 8, were in my view inflicted when Ralph was coming up, or going down the main stairs. I arrive at this conclusion because of the angle at which the shots hit home. The other two so called 'non fatal' shots to the lip and the jaw, shots 5 and 6, were inflicted downstairs in the kitchen when Ralph Bamber was using the telephone, during his call to police at 3.26am, after he had already made a very brief call to his son Jeremy, I arrive at this conclusion because the angle at which Ralph received both of these shots (5 and 6) is consistent with the shooter aiming at his mouth to try to stop him talking further on the telephone ...
wound 7 was the wound to his outer left shoulder and 8 the graze wound which grazed his arm then his chest.
Had these been delivered in the hall then 2 less casings would have been found in the bedroom and instead they would have been found in the hallway. Furtherore, the bullet that caused the graze wound would have been found on the stairs or in the wall adjacent to the stairs. Moreover, since the bullets came at Nevill's left side that means it is impossible for them to have been delivered when Neville was walking down the stairs because he left side would be to the wall it would only be possible to target his left side if he was coming up the stairs. Finally the angles were down but not very steep so he would have to be near the top of the stairs to be shot at those angles.
The evidence belies your claims.
-
But then you would have had the problem of Nevill's body in the bedroom and Sheila might not have been so compliant had she seen it.
He banked on her being scared of the gun and compliant for that reason. We don't know whether he planned in advance where to stage Sheila's suicide let alone know whether he changed his ind at some point and decided to stage it somewhere different. Prior to the murders he mentioned to Julie his plan to fake a call from WHF. He didn't tell her anything about planning to stage Sheila's suicide in a particular location. He could simply have decided not to tell her the minute details or might not have thought through every minute detail in advance. It was probably a mix of both.
-
As a result of my findings of these matters, I can say with almost certainty that cartridge cases were displaced from the region of the kitchen downstairs, and wrongly attributed to the main bedroom upstairs, in the following circumstances...
As I have already pointed out, two of the four non fatal shots inflicted upon Ralph Bamber occurred with him coming up (8), or going down (7) the main stairs. One of these cartridge cases (the one on the top landing near to the main bedroom door) was added to the main bedroom total. The dented bullet case on the main stair was attributed to one of the four fatal head shots inflicted in the kitchen. This left two further non fatal shots (5 and 6) to be accounted for. Since the angle of inclination of the two mouth shots is an indication that the shooter intended to prevent Ralph from speaking further to anyone, it seems reasonable to assume that these two mouth shots were inflicted downstairs in the main kitchen in the region of the telephone. Both of the cartridges associated with these two shots were transferred from point of recovery in the main kitchen downstairs, into the main bedroom upstairs. This leaves us with having to account for the whereabouts of the other four fatal head shot cartridge cases inflicted whilst Ralph was present downstairs in the main kitchen. There should have been therefore a total of 6 cartridge cases recovered from the vicinity of the main kitchen, yet only three ended up being found there. It is possible to work out what the police ended up having to do, in their attempt to cook the books, regarding the locations at which all the cartridge cases had been found. Three kitchen cartridge cases were moved up to the main bedroom crime scene, which along with inclusion of the cartridge case from the top landing making up the four cartridge cases which had to be displaced into the main bedroom scenario. This left three cartridge cases downstairs in the main kitchen scene, which became four, when the dented case from the main stair was carried over to produce a total of four. In actual fact, there should have been a 7th cartridge case in the region of the kitchen (bullet linked to the initial shooting of Sheila downstairs in the kitchen), this was also transferred into the main bedroom scenario...
-
wound 7 was the wound to his outer left shoulder and 8 the graze wound which grazed his arm then his chest.
Had these been delivered in the hall then 2 less casings would have been found in the bedroom and instead they would have been found in the hallway. Furtherore, the bullet that caused the graze wound would have been found on the stairs or in the wall adjacent to the stairs. Moreover, since the bullets came at Nevill's left side that means it is impossible for them to have been delivered when Neville was walking down the stairs because he left side would be to the wall it would only be possible to target his left side if he was coming up the stairs. Finally the angles were down but not very steep so he would have to be near the top of the stairs to be shot at those angles.
The evidence belies your claims.
No, it doesn't...
bullet wound 8 did not graze Ralph Bambers left arm, it penetrated it...
Angle of trajectory of bullet wounds 8 and 7, consistent with him approaching up, or retreating down the main stairs...
Angle of trajectory of bullet wounds 5 and 6, consistent with the shooter shooting him deliberately in the mouth, whilst Ralph was either using the phone in the kitchen, or he having already just used the phone...
-
No, it doesn't...
bullet wound 8 did not graze Ralph Bambers left arm, it penetrated it...
Angle of trajectory of bullet wounds 8 and 7, consistent with him approaching up, or retreating down the main stairs...
Angle of trajectory of bullet wounds 5 and 6, consistent with the shooter shooting him deliberately in the mouth, whilst Ralph was either using the phone in the kitchen, or he having already just used the phone...
Are you truly confused or just playing more games? This is one of the reasons why your past dishonesty hurts you, because it makes it hard to tell if you are genuinely in error or intentionally twisting.
The photo you posted is not of a bullet wound, it is a gouge made to Nevill's right forearm by the corner of the butt of the rifle when Nevill tried to block a blow with his arm.
The graze wound to his arm was to his upper arm. The bullet grazed his upper arm around the elbow then continued across his chest thus grazed his chest as well.
Since the diagram you posted of the 8 bullet wounds to Nevill failed to show any bullet wounds to Nevill's forearms and the following is clear enough that you should be able to comprehend it, combined with your past antics I find it hard to believe you are merely confused:
(http://s27.postimg.org/6s5gpwsir/nevillgraze.jpg)
-
He banked on her being scared of the gun and compliant for that reason. We don't know whether he planned in advance where to stage Sheila's suicide let alone know whether he changed his ind at some point and decided to stage it somewhere different. Prior to the murders he mentioned to Julie his plan to fake a call from WHF. He didn't tell her anything about planning to stage Sheila's suicide in a particular location. He could simply have decided not to tell her the minute details or might not have thought through every minute detail in advance. It was probably a mix of both.
I don't see Sheila ever being threatened with a gun. Had she been her first thought would have been to run to the twins' room. In the context of Jeremy being guilty she would inevitably have had to walk over June or at least witness her demise,but this is less problematical than the scenario you suggest.
-
As a result of my findings of these matters, I can say with almost certainty that cartridge cases were displaced from the region of the kitchen downstairs, and wrongly attributed to the main bedroom upstairs, in the following circumstances...
As I have already pointed out, two of the four non fatal shots inflicted upon Ralph Bamber occurred with him coming up (8), or going down (7) the main stairs. One of these cartridge cases (the one on the top landing near to the main bedroom door) was added to the main bedroom total. The dented bullet case on the main stair was attributed to one of the four fatal head shots inflicted in the kitchen. This left two further non fatal shots (5 and 6) to be accounted for. Since the angle of inclination of the two mouth shots is an indication that the shooter intended to prevent Ralph from speaking further to anyone, it seems reasonable to assume that these two mouth shots were inflicted downstairs in the main kitchen in the region of the telephone. Both of the cartridges associated with these two shots were transferred from point of recovery in the main kitchen downstairs, into the main bedroom upstairs. This leaves us with having to account for the whereabouts of the other four fatal head shot cartridge cases inflicted whilst Ralph was present downstairs in the main kitchen. There should have been therefore a total of 6 cartridge cases recovered from the vicinity of the main kitchen, yet only three ended up being found there. It is possible to work out what the police ended up having to do, in their attempt to cook the books, regarding the locations at which all the cartridge cases had been found. Three kitchen cartridge cases were moved up to the main bedroom crime scene, which along with inclusion of the cartridge case from the top landing making up the four cartridge cases which had to be displaced into the main bedroom scenario. This left three cartridge cases downstairs in the main kitchen scene, which became four, when the dented case from the main stair was carried over to produce a total of four. In actual fact, there should have been a 7th cartridge case in the region of the kitchen (bullet linked to the initial shooting of Sheila downstairs in the kitchen), this was also transferred into the main bedroom scenario...
Your claim the graze wound and shot to Nevill's shoulder were delivered as he walked down the stairs is impossible given the shooter was facing his left side and his left side would face the wall as he walked down the stairs. You failed to post any evidence at all to establish these wounds were delivered as he walked up the stairs and was near the top of the stairs which wound be needed for incline of the shots. The shooter could only target his left if standing near the door of the bedroom Sheila was using. The angle of the shot though would not work and especially would not work for the graze wound. Though they were to the side profile of Nevill they came from the rear not forward. A shooter standing near the door of the room Sheila was in would come from the front side. If he were going down the stairs only his right side could be targeted.
Furthermore there would have been 2 less casings in the bedroom and 2 additional casings on the stairs.
The single casing in the hallway was transported there from the kitchen.
The 4 casings and bullet that grazed Nevill being located in the bedroom helps prove that is where such 4 shots were fired. For sure the trajectories rule out the shots being delivered as he was in the hall or on the stairs.
-
I don't see Sheila ever being threatened with a gun. Had she been her first thought would have been to run to the twins' room. In the context of Jeremy being guilty she would inevitably have had to walk over June or at least witness her demise,but this is less problematical than the scenario you suggest.
Most people who are threatened with a gun freeze and do as they are told. Obviously Sheila wasn't beaten into submission, she complied. Whether she complied because he threatened to kill the boys or was simply scared she would be shot if she didn't comply makes little difference.
-
Are you truly confused or just playing more games? This is one of the reasons why your past dishonesty hurts you, because it makes it hard to tell if you are genuinely in error or intentionally twisting.
The photo you posted is not of a bullet wound, it is a gouge made to Nevill's right forearm by the corner of the butt of the rifle when Nevill tried to block a blow with his arm.
The graze wound to his arm was to his upper arm. The bullet grazed his upper arm around the elbow then continued across his chest thus grazed his chest as well.
Since the diagram you posted of the 8 bullet wounds to Nevill failed to show any bullet wounds to Nevill's forearms and the following is clear enough that you should be able to comprehend it, combined with your past antics I find it hard to believe you are merely confused:
I thought it was never determined what caused the gouge marks? Was blood of Neveils blood group ever found on the butt of the rifle?
-
For the sake of clarity I am going to use a clock to describe where the killer was standing Nevill was shot the first 4 times. The 12 O'clock position is to Nevill's front. The 6 O'clock position is to Nevill's behind. The 3 O'clock position is to Nevill's right and 9 O'clock is to Nevill's left.
Classified wound #5 according to the Autopsy report (lip)- 9-10 O'clock
Classified wound #6 according to the Autopsy report (lower jaw)- 9-10 O'Clock
Classified wound #7 according to the Autopsy report (shoulder)- 8 O'Clock
Classified wound #8 according to the Autopsy report (graze wounds)- between 8 and 9 O'clock
All of the wounds had a downward angle. Because of Nevill's height if he had been fully upright his killer would needed to be taller than him to deliver the wounds at a downward angle. This effectively means that Nevill was either not fully upright when shot or the killer was standing at a higher level than Nevill.
Someone standing near the door of the room Sheila slept in could not target the left side of someone who is walking down the stairs only the right side could be targeted when someone is going down. Conversely when someone is walking up the stairs their right side cannot be targeted only their left. The further down the stairs the more steep the incline of the bullet would be.
Someone standing near Sheila's door shooting at someone walking up the stairs would be in between the 10-12 O'Clock positions. perhaps for a short period of time, if timed perfectly there would be a way to pull off the 9-10 O'clock shots (wounds 5 and 6); however, it would be impossible from such a location to pull off the latter two shots which came from someone standing to the left rear of Nevill when the shots were fired.
Obviously if wounds 5 and 6 had been delivered in the hall then the bullet that grazed Nevill wound have been found in the hall along with 2 casings but these casings and this bullet were found in the bedroom.
-
I thought it was never determined what caused the gouge marks? Was blood of Neveils blood group ever found on the butt of the rifle?
It is clear that the wounds were made by the rifle butt.
1) We know that they are defensive wounds
2) Defensive wounds are the result of trying to block damage from occurring
3) They match the kinds of wounds known to be made by the butt of the rifle
4) We know Nevill's head was bashed in with the butt of the rifle so he would would be trying to defend against such blows.
Vanezis was not a military doctor, nor knew anything about how one would go about using a gun as a bludgeoning instrument. He opined a different the front of the rifle was used in stabbing motions to cause the wounds. Such is stupid because) A) that is not a practical way to use a weapon B) it would not result in the longer/wider abrasions he observed C) the moderator was attached to the weapon so there is no way at all the gouge marks could have been made by the front of the gun even if someone used it in the stupid manner he suggested.
With a glancing blow the butt of a rifle causes linear scrapes (the ones he had no idea what caused). When the corner digs into the skin it causes the gouges like we saw in the photo Mike posted (that Mike incorrectly claimed was a bullet wound). There is no doubt the wounds were made by the butt of the rifle.
The burns to Nevill's back could have been made by a variety of things so even if done in the course of the murders we have no way to figure out for sure what was used.
They were unable to successfully do grouping tests to the blood found on the rifle stock but it had to be Nevill's. The blood was medium velocity impact spatter. It was the result of bashing someone with the butt of the weapon and blood of the victim splashing the killer/weapon. No other victim was beaten so there is no one the blood could belong to besides Nevill.
It would be like police walking into a room where my fists are covered in blood, 1 person in the room has a busted nose and face covered in blood and the only other 2 people there have no injuries that would have resulted in the blood on my hands nor have and blood on their hands or clothes so they can't have beaten the victim. If none of us say a word to police they still would be able to tell I broke the guy's nose. A blood test is not necessary to establish such. The evidence speaks for itself.
-
No all 25 casings were determined to have been fired by the Anschutz. Furthermore, the only 22LR weapon at WHF for the killer to access at the time of the murders was the Anschutz. If the killer had another weapon to turn to after firing the initial 10 shots in the bedroom then the killer would have fired more shots into Nevill then and there instead of things progressing to the kitchen. If the killer had another loaded rifle in the kitchen then the killer would have used it to shoot Nevill instead of beating him.
The whole reason Nevill was beaten is because he was not injured enough to disable him and he was trying to take the rifle away from the killer and to prevent the killer from reloading. The killer had to render him unconscious just to be able to reload.
Scipio thanks for that it makes good sense to me. I have often wondered had the killer been successful in killing Ralph in the main bedroom how he would have staged the telephone so as to convince the police Ralph had phoned him I guess it worked out better the fact Ralph made his way to the kitchen and died there.
-
Are you truly confused or just playing more games? This is one of the reasons why your past dishonesty hurts you, because it makes it hard to tell if you are genuinely in error or intentionally twisting.
The photo you posted is not of a bullet wound, it is a gouge made to Nevill's right forearm by the corner of the butt of the rifle when Nevill tried to block a blow with his arm.
The graze wound to his arm was to his upper arm. The bullet grazed his upper arm around the elbow then continued across his chest thus grazed his chest as well.
Since the diagram you posted of the 8 bullet wounds to Nevill failed to show any bullet wounds to Nevill's forearms and the following is clear enough that you should be able to comprehend it, combined with your past antics I find it hard to believe you are merely confused:
(http://s27.postimg.org/6s5gpwsir/nevillgraze.jpg)
This was no graze, it is a bullet exit would...
-
Your claim the graze wound and shot to Nevill's shoulder were delivered as he walked down the stairs is impossible given the shooter was facing his left side and his left side would face the wall as he walked down the stairs. You failed to post any evidence at all to establish these wounds were delivered as he walked up the stairs and was near the top of the stairs which wound be needed for incline of the shots. The shooter could only target his left if standing near the door of the bedroom Sheila was using. The angle of the shot though would not work and especially would not work for the graze wound. Though they were to the side profile of Nevill they came from the rear not forward. A shooter standing near the door of the room Sheila was in would come from the front side. If he were going down the stairs only his right side could be targeted.
Furthermore there would have been 2 less casings in the bedroom and 2 additional casings on the stairs.
The single casing in the hallway was transported there from the kitchen.
The 4 casings and bullet that grazed Nevill being located in the bedroom helps prove that is where such 4 shots were fired. For sure the trajectories rule out the shots being delivered as he was in the hall or on the stairs.
Firstly, I have posted evidence that shots 8 and 7 were delivered from above Ralph Bamber by reference to the angle inclination shown in the diagrams. Let me put it as simple as I can - Ralph is on the middle landing of the main stairs, and or somewhere on the upper flight of the main stair above the middle landing aforementioned. The shooter could have easily shot at Ralph causing the two wounds (8 and 7) from the vantage point of the upper landing, since with Ralph on his way up, or down on that part of the main stairs, it didn't matter whether or not which way around his body was facing because the shooter would easily have had the opportunity to inflict both shots, irrespective of whether or not Ralph had his left side to the wall, or his right side...
I have explained the distribution of cases, and how four were added to the main bedroom, after PI Bob Miller vacated items which originally had exhibit references DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, if you can't get your head around that then there is quite simply no hope of you ever coming to terms with what actually took place. But just to recap, 8 cartridge cases originally in the main bedroom, add to these 4 additional cases displaced from the kitchen, producing 12 cartridge cases in the main bedroom. I know you you disagree, but so what, I know that what I am saying is right. The 13th cartridge case was not inside the main bedroom, it was outside on the top landing. I believe it possible that this particular cartridge case may have got moved along the top landing by traffic coming and going before DC Hammersley (soc) supposedly collected it up after 10 am...
I believe the cartridge cases recovered from the top landing and the main stair are associated with Ralphs 8 and 7 wounds...
If I am right, and I believe that I am, Ralph Bamber was shot a total of 6 times whilst present in the kitchen - two bullets to the mouth region whilst he was using, or had used the telephone. we know that blood from his wounded left arm had contaminated the fingers of his left hand which contaminated the edge of the kitchen worktop. by that stage when his bloodied left hand fingers gripped the kitchen worktop, it left his uninjured right arm / hand to operate the telephone, and it begs the question why would he be holding the telephone handset in his right hand intending to make a telephone call, if he already had a mouthful of bullets - this indicates that by the time he used the phone to make distress calls (however brief) firstly to Jeremy, and then to the police at 3.26am, that he had not yet been shot in the lip, or his jaw...
Police made a fundamental mistake moving the location of four bullet cases from the region of the main kitchen downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs, because it left 3 cartridge cases in the kitchen, when there should only have been 2. In other words, they were faced with a paradox, and whichever way they decided to handle it, they were always going to be in trouble one way or another, they could doctor the logistics as much as they wanted to, but they could never make the logistics fit perfectly. If you remove 4 cases from the kitchen to promote the idea that Ralph had been shot 4 times non fatally upstairs in the main bedroom, it should have left two cartridge cases downstairs in the kitchen (4 cases from the 4 fatal head shots, and 2 cases from the bullets to the mouth shots), but when PI Bob Miller handled the swap over of these 4 cartridge cases, he made the fundamental mistake of leaving an additional cartridge case in the kitchen, he confused himself by forgetting, or indeed, remembering that Sheila had in fact been shot once downstairs in the kitchen...
Now, before you get on your high horse, by suggesting that Sheila was not shot downstairs in the kitchen, let me reassure you that she was. The story that PC Collins made a mistake by misidentifying Ralphs body for that of a female through the main kitchen window prior to entry into the premises by the raid team (including PC Collins himself), can easily be proven to be nothing but a red herring, since in his COLP interview, Collins himself describes the approach to the rear farmhouse door on WHITE SIDE of the farmhouse via a curved wall, and that he went beyond the door and looked into the kitchen window beyond. Now, he is correct when he says that the window he looked through beyond the door being a kitchen window. But the window in question was not the main kitchen window, it was the back kitchen window - the window before the door was / is the main kitchen window. Therefore, Collins saw a female through the back kitchen window, and of course, Ralph Bambers body was found inside the main kitchen. So, in a nutshell, Collins could not possibly have misidentified Ralphs body in one room, for the body of a female in the other room, or vice versa...
-
Scipio thanks for that it makes good sense to me. I have often wondered had the killer been successful in killing Ralph in the main bedroom how he would have staged the telephone so as to convince the police Ralph had phoned him I guess it worked out better the fact Ralph made his way to the kitchen and died there.
If he was killed in the bedroom then the phone probably would have been returned. Things progressing to the kitchen eliminated any such need though.
-
If he was killed in the bedroom then the phone probably would have been returned. Things progressing to the kitchen eliminated any such need though.
Scipio I thought that too and it would have been left off the cradle as it was in the kitchen,
-
This was no graze, it is a bullet exit would...
The wound in the photo is a gouge wound from the rifle butt not a bullet wound. I posted the autopsy section on the graze wound. It clearly states the bullet grazed above the elbow not on the forearm and moreover details how a small portion then entered his side with the remainder of the fragment grazing his chest.
-
Firstly, I have posted evidence that shots 8 and 7 were delivered from above Ralph Bamber by reference to the angle inclination shown in the diagrams. Let me put it as simple as I can - Ralph is on the middle landing of the main stairs, and or somewhere on the upper flight of the main stair above the middle landing aforementioned. The shooter could have easily shot at Ralph causing the two wounds (8 and 7) from the vantage point of the upper landing, since with Ralph on his way up, or down on that part of the main stairs, it didn't matter whether or not which way around his body was facing because the shooter would easily have had the opportunity to inflict both shots, irrespective of whether or not Ralph had his left side to the wall, or his right side...
I have been discussing the trajectory of these shots for more than a year. I noted that the trajectory proves that either Nevill was either not standing fully upright when shot or the killer was standing on something to be at a higher vantage point. After more than a year of stating such you have finally decided to discuss this issue but do so only by including it in your various lies instead of actually trying to be rational and honest about it.
I posted the position of where the killer was in relation to Nevill when each of the first 4 shots was fired based on the position of the hour hand of an analog. The shots came from left and behind- between 8 O'clock and 9'oclock positions. Somone standing in the small hall that runs at the top of the stairs between the master bedroom and room Sheila was sleeping in would not be able to target the left side of someone walking down the stairs at all. The left side would be facing the wall. Shooting at someone coming up the stairs would not result in bullets coming from the front or front/left side- the shot would not be from the back/left side as was the case with bullets 7 and 8. Your claims are physically impossible.
So your made up the claim that the bullet that grazed Nevill and the 2 associated casings were originally in the hall but were moved to the bedroom by police not only has zero evidentiary support- it is impossible for someone on the stairs to have suffered wounds 7 and 8.
I have explained the distribution of cases, and how four were added to the main bedroom, after PI Bob Miller vacated items which originally had exhibit references DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, if you can't get your head around that then there is quite simply no hope of you ever coming to terms with what actually took place. But just to recap, 8 cartridge cases originally in the main bedroom, add to these 4 additional cases displaced from the kitchen, producing 12 cartridge cases in the main bedroom. I know you you disagree, but so what, I know that what I am saying is right. The 13th cartridge case was not inside the main bedroom, it was outside on the top landing. I believe it possible that this particular cartridge case may have got moved along the top landing by traffic coming and going before DC Hammersley (soc) supposedly collected it up after 10 am...
I believe the cartridge cases recovered from the top landing and the main stair are associated with Ralphs 8 and 7 wounds...
If I am right, and I believe that I am, Ralph Bamber was shot a total of 6 times whilst present in the kitchen - two bullets to the mouth region whilst he was using, or had used the telephone. we know that blood from his wounded left arm had contaminated the fingers of his left hand which contaminated the edge of the kitchen worktop. by that stage when his bloodied left hand fingers gripped the kitchen worktop, it left his uninjured right arm / hand to operate the telephone, and it begs the question why would he be holding the telephone handset in his right hand intending to make a telephone call, if he already had a mouthful of bullets - this indicates that by the time he used the phone to make distress calls (however brief) firstly to Jeremy, and then to the police at 3.26am, that he had not yet been shot in the lip, or his jaw...
Police made a fundamental mistake moving the location of four bullet cases from the region of the main kitchen downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs, because it left 3 cartridge cases in the kitchen, when there should only have been 2. In other words, they were faced with a paradox, and whichever way they decided to handle it, they were always going to be in trouble one way or another, they could doctor the logistics as much as they wanted to, but they could never make the logistics fit perfectly. If you remove 4 cases from the kitchen to promote the idea that Ralph had been shot 4 times non fatally upstairs in the main bedroom, it should have left two cartridge cases downstairs in the kitchen (4 cases from the 4 fatal head shots, and 2 cases from the bullets to the mouth shots), but when PI Bob Miller handled the swap over of these 4 cartridge cases, he made the fundamental mistake of leaving an additional cartridge case in the kitchen, he confused himself by forgetting, or indeed, remembering that Sheila had in fact been shot once downstairs in the kitchen...
Now, before you get on your high horse, by suggesting that Sheila was not shot downstairs in the kitchen, let me reassure you that she was. The story that PC Collins made a mistake by misidentifying Ralphs body for that of a female through the main kitchen window prior to entry into the premises by the raid team (including PC Collins himself), can easily be proven to be nothing but a red herring, since in his COLP interview, Collins himself describes the approach to the rear farmhouse door on WHITE SIDE of the farmhouse via a curved wall, and that he went beyond the door and looked into the kitchen window beyond. Now, he is correct when he says that the window he looked through beyond the door being a kitchen window. But the window in question was not the main kitchen window, it was the back kitchen window - the window before the door was / is the main kitchen window. Therefore, Collins saw a female through the back kitchen window, and of course, Ralph Bambers body was found inside the main kitchen. So, in a nutshell, Collins could not possibly have misidentified Ralphs body in one room, for the body of a female in the other room, or vice versa...
All of this nonsense is just that made up nonsense that need not even be addressed because you have no evidence to support any of this ridiculous nonsense.
-
I posted the position of where the killer was in relation to Nevill when each of the first 4 shots was fired based on the position of the hour hand of an analog. The shots came from left and behind- between 8 O'clock and 9'oclock positions. Somone standing in the small hall that runs at the top of the stairs between the master bedroom and room Sheila was sleeping in would not be able to target the left side of someone walking down the stairs at all. The left side would be facing the wall. Shooting at someone coming up the stairs would not result in bullets coming from the front or front/left side- the shot would not be from the back/left side as was the case with bullets 7 and 8. Your claims are physically impossible.
So your made up the claim that the bullet that grazed Nevill and the 2 associated casings were originally in the hall but were moved to the bedroom by police not only has zero evidentiary support- it is impossible for someone on the stairs to have suffered wounds 7 and 8.
All of this nonsense is just that made up nonsense that need not even be addressed because you have no evidence to support any of this ridiculous nonsense.
You have resorted to your usual personal attack mode, because you can't provide any proper answers to the points I am making...
The fact is that Ralph was shot twice either coming up, or going down the top part of the main stairs - there was ample room for Sheila to shoot him from the position I have described, and for the two cartridge casings to end up where they were found...
-
The wound in the photo is a gouge wound from the rifle butt not a bullet wound. I posted the autopsy section on the graze wound. It clearly states the bullet grazed above the elbow not on the forearm and moreover details how a small portion then entered his side with the remainder of the fragment grazing his chest.
Stop behaving like an idiot, its the exit wound on his left arm, as indicated in the post mortem diagram...
-
Stop behaving like an idiot, its the exit wound on his left arm, as indicated in the post mortem diagram...
I am with you on this one, Mike.
-
Stop behaving like an idiot, its the exit wound on his left arm, as indicated in the post mortem diagram...
You are projecting again, the diagram shows no exit wound on his forearm and more importantly the autopsy report doesn't mention any exit wound or other bullet wounds to his forearm. I am being accurate not an idiot and you are just being your usual lying self. If I were to just call you a liar in general that would be a personal attack. Calling me an idiot, scumbag, fukker and all the other various names you have called me in the past are personal attacks. When I demonstrate you are lying it is issue specific and substantive posting.
(http://s3.postimg.org/zd1uhptkz/nevillbulletwounddiagram.jpg)
(http://s27.postimg.org/6s5gpwsir/nevillgraze.jpg)
-
I am with you on this one, Mike.
Your true colors have continuously shined through as of late. You have abandoned the pretense of being an objective fence sitter and have gone fully to full Jeremy conspiracy camp mode. This is a rather odd bandwagon to jump on considering the autopsy report and wound diagrams make clear there were no bullet wounds to Nevill's forearms and thus demonstrate Mike's claims to be complete bunk.
-
You are projecting again, the diagram shows no exit wound on his forearm and more importantly the autopsy report doesn't mention any exit wound or other bullet wounds to his forearm. I am being accurate not an idiot and you are just being your usual lying self. If I were to just call you a liar in general that would be a personal attack. Calling me an idiot, scumbag, fukker and all the other various names you have called me in the past are personal attacks. When I demonstrate you are lying it is issue specific and substantive posting.
(http://s3.postimg.org/zd1uhptkz/nevillbulletwounddiagram.jpg)
(http://s27.postimg.org/6s5gpwsir/nevillgraze.jpg)
Sorry Scip the exit wound on figure 8 is correct it matches with the whole bullets that were found in the main bedroom. All match up. I think the problem is that there was some confusion between the shoulder shot and the arm shot.....For if you are saying that the arm shot was a graze then Nevill only had 7 shots...and we know he had 8.... :-\
-
Sorry Scip the exit wound on figure 8 is correct it matches with the whole bullets that were found in the main bedroom. All match up. I think the problem is that there was some confusion between the shoulder shot and the arm shot.....For if you are saying that the arm shot was a graze then Nevill only had 7 shots...and we know he had 8.... :-\
Skippy is clearly wrong. Still he is so arrogant that he is name-calling and talking down to people who dare to contradict him. This is intolerable.
-
Skippy is clearly wrong. Still he is so arrogant that he is name-calling and talking down to people who dare to contradict him. This is intolerable.
Alias read the report...It does indicate that the bullet from the shoulder somehow tracked down the arm, then exited and that fragments from that bullet ended up in the chest cavity....if this was so then Nevill only had 7 shots which is what I argued with Hartley a long time ago....
I'll have a look at what I did....I'll be back...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Skippy is clearly wrong. Still he is so arrogant that he is name-calling and talking down to people who dare to contradict him. This is intolerable.
4 inches above the left elbow that is his shoulder isn't it????? Yikes this is confusing. hahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
4 inches above the left elbow that is his shoulder isn't it????? Yikes this is confusing. hahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D
You can see where it is in the photo Mike posted - it is not at the shoulder.
-
KITCHEN
DRH/41 case...under kitchen table
DRH/ 19 case...on kitchen table
DRH/20 case....under the mat, infront of sink
DRH/23 bullet.....in a plastic tray on worktop near sink unit.
LANDING
DRH/14...landing floor adjacent to the wall.
MAIN BEDROOM
DRH/13 metal strip of doorway
DRH/6 top of quit right hand side of the bed
DRH/7 under wardrobe
DRH/7 under wardrobe (note Hammersley quotes two cases found under same serial number DRH7
DRH/8 left hand side of bed 4inches from the pillow
DRH/9 Bullet found 4 inches form DRH/8 near pillow left hand side of bed
DRH/10 on the quilt right hand side of the bed on floor.
DRH/11 right hand side of bed on the floor near the wardrobe
DRH/12 on the floor right hand side of the bed
DRH/43 under the wardrobe right hand side of bed
DRH/1 right side of Sheila's body
DRH/2 Left hand side of Sheila's body
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
DRH/4 next to DRH/3
DRH/5 Bullet.
TWINS ROOM
8 cases and 1 bullet.
DRH/37 under wooden bedside cabinet
DRH/36 Bullet
DRH/38 Under right hand side of the bed at the head of the bed
DRH 39 right hand corner under right hand side of the bed
DRH/39 (note Hammersley quotes two case shells)
DRH 40 under the middle of the right hand bed
DRH/16 floor between both beds
DRH/17 On wooden cabinet between both beds
DRH18 right hand side of bed
-
Alias read the report...It does indicate that the bullet from the shoulder somehow tracked down the arm, then exited and that fragments from that bullet ended up in the chest cavity....if this was so then Nevill only had 7 shots which is what I argued with Hartley a long time ago....
I'll have a look at what I did....I'll be back...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
If Ralph only had 7 shots (instead of 8), it creates a logistical problem, because there are 25 cartridge cases...
-
You can see where it is in the photo Mike posted - it is not at the shoulder.
This is the wound Scip and Mike are on about? And below that is diagram of that wound that say exit on it. That is not 4 inches up from the elbow that is just below the elbow isn't it? Or am I seeing things.
-
This is the wound Scip and Mike are on about? And below that is diagram of that wound that say exit on it. That is not 4 inches up from the elbow that is just below the elbow isn't it? Or am I seeing things.
I think "the inside of the elbow" (don´t know what that part is called) is what you see at the bottom of the picture on the left side. Elbow itself is not visible, but at the right side bottom.
-
If Ralph only had 7 shots (instead of 8), it creates a logistical problem, because there are 25 cartridge cases...
Well it could mean we have a missed shot? But I think we are right in what we have said and that fig.8 is an exit wound, but where is the bullet? I have said this before and that Vanezes doesn't mention any entry wounds to the chest....I#m a bit confused about this... :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If Ralph only had 7 shots (instead of 8), it creates a logistical problem, because there are 25 cartridge cases...
So, which of the 25 cartridge cases recovered from the scene, is / was the red herring?
-
Sorry Scip the exit wound on figure 8 is correct it matches with the whole bullets that were found in the main bedroom. All match up. I think the problem is that there was some confusion between the shoulder shot and the arm shot.....For if you are saying that the arm shot was a graze then Nevill only had 7 shots...and we know he had 8.... :-\
How does one of the wounds being a graze wound result in only 7 bullet wounds? A graze wound is a bullet wound it simply means the bullet didn't enter the body.
Read the autopsy report paragraph related to wound 8. It describes it as a graze wound there was no exit wound. When a bullet enters the body it is an entrance wound. That means it goes inside the skin. Then a bullet that goes inside the body exits the body it does so through an exit wound. A graze wound is a wound where a bullet scrapes against the body. it leaves a channel mark on the exterior of the body. The word exit on the diagram is merely to show where the bullet was at the point that it stopped grazing the arm. It was not an actual exit wound which is why you don't see exit wound used in the autopsy.
The bullet fragment fractured, a small part of it entered Nevill's side the remainder grazed his chest and ended up in the bedroom. The fact it was in the bedroom establishes this is the room where the graze wound was delivered. Nevill was definitely shot in the bedroom.
Apart from not understanding the difference between a graze wound and wound where a bullet actually enters then exits the body, you are ignoring the body location of wound 8.
Mike posted a photo of a wound to Nevill's right forearm. He claimed the wound was a bullet exit wound. Yet the autopsy report and diagram of Nevill's bullet wounds do not list any bullet wound to his right forearm.
The wound you erroneously thought was an exit wound (8 ) was a wound above Nevill's left elbow. Even if it had been an exit wound that still would not have helped Mike's claims at all since it is not on the right side at all and not to any forearm at all it was to the left upper arm above the elbow.
The wound to Nevill's right forearm which Mike showed a photo of was an abrasion made by the corner of the butt of the rifle.
I understand that people will have a problem with some technical issues like understanding what a graze wound is but the location of the wounds should not be confusing to anyone. The diagrams are straight forward and so is the section of the autopsy with regard to location of wounds.
You are trying to defend Mike for naught.
8 bullets caused 8 gunshot wounds to Nevill. 7 of those bullets entered Nevill's body and remained there none of them exited. 1 of those bullets grazed Nevill's upper arm and then a small portion of the fragment entered his side while the largest part of the fragment landed in the bedroom and thus was recovered from the bedroom by the crime scene officers.
This is easy to understand if one actually makes an effort to do so.
-
Well it could mean we have a missed shot? But I think we are right in what we have said and that fig.8 is an exit wound, but where is the bullet? I have said this before and that Vanezes does mention any entry wounds to the chest....I#m a bit confused about this... :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Would Jeremy the marksman have missed his target at such close quarters? I presume we would be talking about a shot aimed at Ralph that missed, but where was Ralph when the shot that missed him was fired at him? Was he in the main bedroom? Was he on the top landing? Was he in the main kitchen? This makes the case very interesting from my perspective, since if the missed shot at Ralph occurred in the main bedroom, and he got shot non fatally four times whilst in the bedroom, then we have a bullet case missing from the vicinity of the main bedroom, established because June was shot and wounded 7 times, Ralph shot at 5 times, and Sheila shot twice, totalling14 shots...
If we say in those / these circumstances, 13 cartridge cases were recovered from the main bedroom, instead of 12, it still leaves a short fall of one bullet case, if Sheila was shot twice in the main bedroom, instead of just once (thus supporting my contention that she was only shot once in the main bedroom)...
-
Well it could mean we have a missed shot? But I think we are right in what we have said and that fig.8 is an exit wound, but where is the bullet? I have said this before and that Vanezes doesn't mention any entry wounds to the chest....I#m a bit confused about this... :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
One of the bullets grazed the back of Nevill's left arm. It created a channel on the outside of the back of his arm because it brushed against it at high speed. If the bullet were more to the left it would have entered his arm. If the bullet were more to the right it would have missed his arm entirely. It was in a position which resulted in it brushing against his arm so grazing him. A very small portion of the bullet entered his side. Most of the bullet though ended up landing in the room. That bullet is DRH/5
The largest fragments from the 4 bullet wounds suffered by Nevill in the bedroom:
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (Arm/chest Graze wound)
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
The fragments with the PV prefix were all removed from Nevill's body at autopsy. DRH/5 was recovered in the master bedroom by the crime scene investigators. Since this fragment never entered his body but rather just grazed him it wound up in the bedroom.
I don't understand why people are having so much difficulty with this.
-
Mike posted a photo of a wound to Nevill's right forearm. He claimed the wound was a bullet exit wound. Yet the autopsy report and diagram of Nevill's bullet wounds do not list any bullet wound to his right forearm.
The wound you erroneously thought was an exit wound (8 ) was a wound above Nevill's left elbow. Even if it had been an exit wound that still would not have helped Mike's claims at all since it is not on the right side at all and not to any forearm at all it was to the left upper arm above the elbow.
The wound to Nevill's right forearm which Mike showed a photo of was an abrasion made by the corner of the butt of the rifle.
I understand that people will have a problem with some technical issues like understanding what a graze wound is but the location of the wounds should not be confusing to anyone. The diagrams are straight forward and so is the section of the autopsy with regard to location of wounds.
You are trying to defend Mike for naught.
8 bullets caused 8 gunshot wounds to Nevill. 7 of those bullets entered Nevill's body and remained there none of them exited. 1 of those bullets grazed Nevill's upper arm and then a small portion of the fragment entered his side while the largest part of the fragment landed in the bedroom and thus was recovered from the bedroom by the crime scene officers.
This is easy to understand if one actually makes an effort to do so.
I never said the bullet wound in the arm was located on Ralphs right arm, it was situated in his left arm, not his right arm:-
Look at the diagram, stop misinterpreting what I am saying to enable yourself to develop inaccurate counter arguments...
-
Skippy is clearly wrong. Still he is so arrogant that he is name-calling and talking down to people who dare to contradict him. This is intolerable.
I'm not wrong in the least. I'm the only one posting in this thread who is accurate.
-
I'm not wrong in the least. I'm the only one posting in this thread who is accurate.
Get the facts right then, bullet exit wound was in left arm, not his right arm...
-
I'm not wrong in the least. I'm the only one posting in this thread who is accurate.
But if you are accurate then Nevill only received 7 shots and we have a bullet that missed its target. :-\
-
Alias read the report...It does indicate that the bullet from the shoulder somehow tracked down the arm, then exited and that fragments from that bullet ended up in the chest cavity....if this was so then Nevill only had 7 shots which is what I argued with Hartley a long time ago....
I'll have a look at what I did....I'll be back...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
It doesn't say the bullet from the shoulder tracked down the arm and exited. The autopsy report says the bullet from the shoulder wound fractured his arm and the bullet was recovered from the fracture. That was classified wound 7 in the autopsy and on the diagram. Wound 8 is the graze wound. This wound just brushed against his skin it didn't enter his arm. The largest fragment form it was DRH/5 and was recovered in the bedroom instead of in his body precisely because it simply brushed against his body it didn't enter.
-
But if you are accurate then Nevill only received 7 shots and we have a bullet that missed its target. :-\
Post where I suggested he only had 7 gun shot wounds. I have been continuously posting the 8 wounds he suffered and even matched up the bullets to the wounds. You are jumping to conclusions instead of reading what I have written. I just matched up the 4 bullets again to the 4 wounds suffered in the bedroom and described the location of each wound. I don't know how I could be more clear for you.
-
It doesn't say the bullet from the shoulder tracked down the arm and exited. The autopsy report says the bullet from the shoulder wound fractured his arm and the bullet was recovered from the fracture. That was classified wound 7 in the autopsy and on the diagram. Wound 8 is the graze wound. This wound just brushed against his skin it didn't enter his arm. The largest fragment form it was DRH/5 and was recovered in the bedroom instead of in his body precisely because it simply brushed against his body it didn't enter.
Hang on a minute - the original autopsy report went missing, so once again you are not being entirely accurate...
-
I never said the bullet wound in the arm was located on Ralphs right arm, it was situated in his left arm, not his right arm:-
Look at the diagram, stop misinterpreting what I am saying to enable yourself to develop inaccurate counter arguments...
I'm not misrepresenting- you are!
You posted a photo of a wound on Nevill's right forearm. You told us that this was a bullet exit wound. The diagram shows no exit wound to either of Nevill's forearms nor does the autopsy report mention any exit wounds to either of his forearms. The wound in the photo you posted was not a bullet exit wound, it was a gouge to Nevill's right forearm that was made by the butt of the rifle as Nevill tried to block the blows.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18752;image)
Exit noted on June´s diagram as well.
So are they grazings - or exit wounds as it says on her (and Nevill´s) diagram.
Why call a grazing wound "exit"?
-
One of the bullets grazed the back of Nevill's left arm. It created a channel on the outside of the back of his arm because it brushed against it at high speed. If the bullet were more to the left it would have entered his arm. If the bullet were more to the right it would have missed his arm entirely. It was in a position which resulted in it brushing against his arm so grazing him. A very small portion of the bullet entered his side. Most of the bullet though ended up landing in the room. That bullet is DRH/5
The largest fragments from the 4 bullet wounds suffered by Nevill in the bedroom:
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (Arm/chest Graze wound)
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
The fragments with the PV prefix were all removed from Nevill's body at autopsy. DRH/5 was recovered in the master bedroom by the crime scene investigators. Since this fragment never entered his body but rather just grazed him it wound up in the bedroom.
I don't understand why people are having so much difficulty with this.
Because for the past 3 years we have been under the belief that Nevill had 8 shots to his poor body...What you are saying is that it was a graze and not an exit wound which is clearly diagrammed as being an exit wound along with a measurement of this wound which gives the same dimensions as other entry wounds. What I am asking is, where does it mention an entry wound or grazes ext into the chest of Nevill Bamber in the pathology report? The wound is clearly shown below the elbow, yet the notes state 4 inches above the elbow...I think the crime scene photograph is quite clear that the wound goes down towards the thinness of his arm and not the thicker part of his arm....
Maybe I am not graping what you are saying......Did Nevill have 7 shots or 8 shots? And where is the bullet that grazed his arm, for there is not entry wounds to the chest? :-\
-
Post where I suggested he only had 7 gun shot wounds. I have been continuously posting the 8 wounds he suffered and even matched up the bullets to the wounds. You are jumping to conclusions instead of reading what I have written. I just matched up the 4 bullets again to the 4 wounds suffered in the bedroom and described the location of each wound. I don't know how I could be more clear for you.
Hang on another minute, if Ralph was shot four times whilst he was in the bedroom, why is there not only any evidence that expiated blood was found there or anywhere along the route to the main kitchen downstairs, and why would Ralph pick up the kitchen phone with his uninjured right hand, grab the edge of the kitchen worktop with the bloodied fingers of his left hand without there being any evidence of expiated blood in existence anywhere at all in that particular vicinity, and most importantly of all, why did PI Bob Miller vacate four exhibit references (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4), so that four cartridge cases could be added to the main bedroom total?
-
How does one of the wounds being a graze wound result in only 7 bullet wounds? A graze wound is a bullet wound it simply means the bullet didn't enter the body.
Read the autopsy report paragraph related to wound 8. It describes it as a graze wound there was no exit wound. When a bullet enters the body it is an entrance wound. That means it goes inside the skin. Then a bullet that goes inside the body exits the body it does so through an exit wound. A graze wound is a wound where a bullet scrapes against the body. it leaves a channel mark on the exterior of the body. The word exit on the diagram is merely to show where the bullet was at the point that it stopped grazing the arm. It was not an actual exit wound which is why you don't see exit wound used in the autopsy.
The bullet fragment fractured, a small part of it entered Nevill's side the remainder grazed his chest and ended up in the bedroom. The fact it was in the bedroom establishes this is the room where the graze wound was delivered. Nevill was definitely shot in the bedroom.
Apart from not understanding the difference between a graze wound and wound where a bullet actually enters then exits the body, you are ignoring the body location of wound 8.
Mike posted a photo of a wound to Nevill's right forearm. He claimed the wound was a bullet exit wound. Yet the autopsy report and diagram of Nevill's bullet wounds do not list any bullet wound to his right forearm.
The wound you erroneously thought was an exit wound (8 ) was a wound above Nevill's left elbow. Even if it had been an exit wound that still would not have helped Mike's claims at all since it is not on the right side at all and not to any forearm at all it was to the left upper arm above the elbow.
The wound to Nevill's right forearm which Mike showed a photo of was an abrasion made by the corner of the butt of the rifle.
I understand that people will have a problem with some technical issues like understanding what a graze wound is but the location of the wounds should not be confusing to anyone. The diagrams are straight forward and so is the section of the autopsy with regard to location of wounds.
You are trying to defend Mike for naught.
8 bullets caused 8 gunshot wounds to Nevill. 7 of those bullets entered Nevill's body and remained there none of them exited. 1 of those bullets grazed Nevill's upper arm and then a small portion of the fragment entered his side while the largest part of the fragment landed in the bedroom and thus was recovered from the bedroom by the crime scene officers.
This is easy to understand if one actually makes an effort to do so.
Well if you check all the exit wounds from the diagrams and the bullets found it does not add up....
I am trying to make the effort Scip. I am not perfect and neither an expert. It takes a lot for things to sink in... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But if you are accurate then Nevill only received 7 shots and we have a bullet that missed its target. :-\
A graze wound is still considered a gunshot wound. It was thus articulated as a gunshot wound. It didn't miss him entirely. Naturally the shooter didn't intend to merely graze him, the shooter almost missed him but did manage to "nick" him. While most of the bullet only grazed him a small portion did enter him. He had a small entrance wound at his side. The majority of the bullet though only "nicked" him and thus ended up in the room.
If this bullet missed entirely then Vanezis would have said Nevill suffered 7 gunshot wounds and the bullet found in the bedroom would be a bullet that missed the victims entirely and there would be no way to know for sure who the bullet had been aimed at. But since it grazed Nevill we know who it was aimed at and it technically qualifies as a gunshot wound.
Do you understand now?
-
I'm not misrepresenting- you are!
You posted a photo of a wound on Nevill's right forearm. You told us that this was a bullet exit wound. The diagram shows no exit wound to either of Nevill's forearms nor does the autopsy report mention any exit wounds to either of his forearms. The wound in the photo you posted was not a bullet exit wound, it was a gouge to Nevill's right forearm that was made by the butt of the rifle as Nevill tried to block the blows.
The wound on the right forearm isn't an exit wound - I agree completely, I didn't think that the diagram showed that, but just to double check I looked at the autopy report and it also doesn't say it, which it indeed would.
Didn't a bullet enter and not exit?
Some people will claim anything - and then others are willing to back them up.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18752;image)
Exit noted on June´s diagram as well.
So are they grazings - or exit wounds as it says on her (and Nevill´s) diagram.
Why call a grazing wound "exit"?
That is what I would like to know..
-
I'm not misrepresenting- you are!
You posted a photo of a wound on Nevill's right forearm. You told us that this was a bullet exit wound. The diagram shows no exit wound to either of Nevill's forearms nor does the autopsy report mention any exit wounds to either of his forearms. The wound in the photo you posted was not a bullet exit wound, it was a gouge to Nevill's right forearm that was made by the butt of the rifle as Nevill tried to block the blows.
Stop talking daft, the wound is clearly an exit wound, and that exit wound is illustrated in the diagram, on his left arm...
Be careful what you are saying, that hole you are digging is getting deeper by the moment, any time soon you are liable to tumble head first into it...
-
That is what I would like to know..
Glad it makes some sense what I am asking - even though to some I am "some people."
-
Glad it makes some sense what I am asking - even though to some I am "some people."
Alias to me you are a lovely intelligent lady :)
-
A graze wound is still considered a gunshot wound. It was thus articulated as a gunshot wound. It didn't miss him entirely. Naturally the shooter didn't intend to merely graze him, the shooter almost missed him but did manage to "nick" him. While most of the bullet only grazed him a small portion did enter him. He had a small entrance wound at his side. The majority of the bullet though only "nicked" him and thus ended up in the room.
If this bullet missed entirely then Vanezis would have said Nevill suffered 7 gunshot wounds and the bullet found in the bedroom would be a bullet that missed the victims entirely and there would be no way to know for sure who the bullet had been aimed at. But since it grazed Nevill we know who it was aimed at and it technically qualifies as a gunshot wound.
Do you understand now?
Yes I get that now, its just that I'd like to know where the bullet went for there are too many exit/grazed wounds to match the bullets found......June had 3 and Nevill had 1 so there should be 4 whole bullets found.....I can only account for 2 unless DRH 35 (twice) means two more bullets?????
-
Alias to me you are a lovely intelligent lady :)
:)
-
Alias to me you are a lovely intelligent lady :)
What do you make of the debate, Susan? What's your take on the wound?
-
What do you make of the debate, Susan? What's your take on the wound?
Hahaha Mat you having a laugh I have not got a clue I am enjoying reading the posts but some are way above me but I am learning. Would be very unwise for me to say one way or another as I don't know ;D
-
If this was / is an injury caused by the barrel of the gun, then - hang on another minute, where was the sound moderator at this time? I thought the moderator was still fitted to the rifle when the shooter attacked Ralph in the kitchen? Now, what is your response to that / this?
End of rifle barrel minus sound moderator, or en of Sound Moderator, now which are you saying caused the wound shown?
-
What do you make of the debate, Susan? What's your take on the wound?
[/quote
Mat see what you are meaning now my post to Alias was nothing to do with bullets or wounds I just think she is a lovely intelligent lady and I think Scipio is a nice intelligent guy.
-
Yes I get that now, its just that I'd like to know where the bullet went for there are too many exit/grazed wounds to match the bullets found......June had 3 and Nevill had 1 so there should be 4 whole bullets found.....I can only account for 2 unless DRH 35 (twice) means two more bullets?????
Yes I am right DRH/35 are two bullets. Graze/exit call it what you want to, but at the end of the day we call it an exit wound....All the bullets do match up and all cases accounted for.
One wonder what we have been on about for the past hour hahahahahahaha It just makes me larf... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Because for the past 3 years we have been under the belief that Nevill had 8 shots to his poor body...What you are saying is that it was a graze and not an exit wound which is clearly diagrammed as being an exit wound along with a measurement of this wound which gives the same dimensions as other entry wounds. What I am asking is, where does it mention an entry wound or grazes ext into the chest of Nevill Bamber in the pathology report? The wound is clearly shown below the elbow, yet the notes state 4 inches above the elbow...I think the crime scene photograph is quite clear that the wound goes down towards the thinness of his arm and not the thicker part of his arm....
Maybe I am not graping what you are saying......Did Nevill have 7 shots or 8 shots? And where is the bullet that grazed his arm, for there is not entry wounds to the chest? :-\
Ok you are forcing me to type out the relevant portions of the autopsy report instead of jus tposting the image of the report passages.
"Oblique grazing wound measuring 1/2", situated 4 inches above the left elbow"
It says grazing wound. A grazing wound means the bullet touches the outside of the body and doesn't actually enter the interior of the body. You probably heard of a flesh wound or superficial gunshot wound. These are other terms for a graze wound.
"The track of this wound was from the left arm and against the left side of the lower chest causing a 1 1/2" graze"
So it also grazed his lower chest. After grazing his chest it ended up on the floor. This fragment was recovered by the crime scene investigators in the bedroom and was labeled DRH/5.
So when you see exit on the diagram it doesn't mean there was an exit wound. That is where the graze wound stopped on the arm and then picked up on the chest. What is someone unusual is that a few small fragments did break off the bullet and enter Nevill's side. Most of the bullet grazed his chest and landed on the floor but a few tiny fragments entered his side. This is noted in the report by this passage, "The radiograph showed fragments of a bullet in the left lower chest although these could not be located within the body cavity". The upshot is they were too tiny for him to locate. So what happened is a few tiny pieces broke off and were still traveling at high speed so were able to get inside his body. The bulk of the bullet though grazed his chest instead of entering and ultimately landed in the room.
So this was a mixed wound. It was mostly a graze wound but a small portion of the bullet did enter his side.
The primary significance of the fact that the majority of the bullet merely grazed him is that it resulted in the bullet being found in the bedroom so we know that is where this shot was received by Nevill. Of secondary note though is that this wound didn't cause any real damage to him. It would have stung and could have caused long term problems like infection but would have no real impact on him so far as his ability to defend himself or causing any blood loss.
Most of his bleeding was internal particularly in side his mouth. If he tried to speak he would have had blood flowing down his face onto his lower body. His face was obviously hit by the killer during the struggle and I would be willing to wager a noteworthy amount of blood got on the killer and weapon at that point.
-
Ok you are forcing me to type out the relevant portions of the autopsy report instead of jus tposting the image of the report passages.
"Oblique grazing wound measuring 1/2", situated 4 inches above the left elbow"
It says grazing wound. A grazing wound means the bullet touches the outside of the body and doesn't actually enter the interior of the body. You probably heard of a flesh wound or superficial gunshot wound. These are other terms for a graze wound.
"The track of this wound was from the left arm and against the left side of the lower chest causing a 1 1/2" graze"
So it also grazed his lower chest. After grazing his chest it ended up on the floor. This fragment was recovered by the crime scene investigators in the bedroom and was labeled DRH/5.
So when you see exit on the diagram it doesn't mean there was an exit wound. That is where the graze wound stopped on the arm and then picked up on the chest. What is someone unusual is that a few small fragments did break off the bullet and enter Nevill's side. Most of the bullet grazed his chest and landed on the floor but a few tiny fragments entered his side. This is noted in the report by this passage, "The radiograph showed fragments of a bullet in the left lower chest although these could not be located within the body cavity". The upshot is they were too tiny for him to locate. So what happened is a few tiny pieces broke off and were still traveling at high speed so were able to get inside his body. The bulk of the bullet though grazed his chest instead of entering and ultimately landed in the room.
So this was a mixed wound. It was mostly a graze wound but a small portion of the bullet did enter his side.
The primary significance of the fact that the majority of the bullet merely grazed him is that it resulted in the bullet being found in the bedroom so we know that is where this shot was received by Nevill. Of secondary note though is that this wound didn't cause any real damage to him. It would have stung and could have caused long term problems like infection but would have no real impact on him so far as his ability to defend himself or causing any blood loss.
Most of his bleeding was internal particularly in side his mouth. If he tried to speak he would have had blood flowing down his face onto his lower body. His face was obviously hit by the killer during the struggle and I would be willing to wager a noteworthy amount of blood got on the killer and weapon at that point.
Its OK Scip I get it now, thank you. Sorry for spinning this out, but had to be sure that what I understood was right....
So we call it an exit wound. It matters not that it touched the skin and made a small entry, the bullet escaped and ended up on June's side of the bed. Now can we determine where the shooter was and where Nevill was stood was this information....
See my last post..... ;)
-
Yes I am right DRH/35 are two bullets. Graze/exit call it what you want to, but at the end of the day we call it an exit wound....All the bullets do match up and all cases accounted for.
One wonder what we have been on about for the past hour hahahahahahaha It just makes me larf... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
DRH/35a and DRH/35b were bullet fragments that exited June and entered her pillow. DRH/5 is the bullet fragment that grazed Nevill. I get tired of posting this but I guess it is necessary until peopel actually absorb this information:
Largest fragment from each wound suffered by victims:
Master Bedroom
Nevill
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (Arm/chest Graze wound)
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
June
PV/23 lower chest
PV/26 above right ear
PV/24 right upper chest
PV/25 between eyes
DRH/35a lower neck (bullet exited into pillow)
DRH/35b forearm (bullet exited into pillow)
DRH/9 knee (bullet exited into bed)
Sheila
PV/19 chin
PV/20 neck
Kitchen
Nevill
PV/3 top of skull
PV/4 top of skull
PV/8 upper right skull
PV/9 upper right skull
Bedroom the twins were in
Daniel
PV/34 (highest wound)
PV/35
PV/36
PV/29
DRH/36 (bullet exited and landed in bedroom)
Nicholas
PV/30 3/16"
PV/31 3/16"
(bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered)
---------
The largest fragment of every bullet was recovered EXCEPT one of the bullets that killed Nicholas.
-
DRH/5 is the bullet fragment that grazed Nevill.
Largest fragment from each wound suffered by victims:
Master Bedroom
DRH/5 (Arm/chest Graze wound)
Get your facts right (how many times do I have to keep correcting you) Bullet DRH/5 was not a bullet fragment, it was a WHOLE bullet (.22LR) weighing 2.42 gram...
-
Its OK Scip I get it now, thank you. Sorry for spinning this out, but had to be sure that what I understood was right....
So we call it an exit wound. It matters not that it touched the skin and made a small entry, the bullet escaped and ended up on June's side of the bed. Now can we determine where the shooter was and where Nevill was stood was this information....
See my last post..... ;)
Unfortunately it is more complex than this. Unjacketed 22LR hollow points are notorious for ricocheting. Thus trying to track where the shooter was by where the bullet ended up won't work. If it were this simple I would have noted it long ago since for the past year plus I have noted the bullet merely grazed him.
The bullet weighed about 24 grains I believe and that means more than just a few tiny fragments broke off, it probably broken after it ricocheted against something. Had a ballistic expert been called to the scene such person could potentially have figured out where it ricocheted from but that didn't happen so we are left with no basis to assess such.
-
Get your facts right (how many times do I have to keep correcting you) Bullet DRH/5 was not a bullet fragment, it was a WHOLE bullet (.22LR) weighing 2.42 gram...
A bullet (.22LR), not purchased on any occasion, by Ralph Bamber...
-
DRH/35a and DRH/35b were bullet fragments that exited June and entered her pillow. DRH/5 is the bullet fragment that grazed Nevill. I get tired of posting this but I guess it is necessary until peopel actually absorb this information:
Largest fragment from each wound suffered by victims:
Master Bedroom
Nevill
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (Arm/chest Graze wound)
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
June
PV/23 lower chest
PV/26 above right ear
PV/24 right upper chest
PV/25 between eyes
DRH/35a lower neck (bullet exited into pillow)
DRH/35b forearm (bullet exited into pillow)
DRH/9 knee (bullet exited into bed)
Sheila
PV/19 chin
PV/20 neck
Kitchen
Nevill
PV/3 top of skull
PV/4 top of skull
PV/8 upper right skull
PV/9 upper right skull
Bedroom the twins were in
Daniel
PV/34 (highest wound)
PV/35
PV/36
PV/29
DRH/36 (bullet exited and landed in bedroom)
Nicholas
PV/30 3/16"
PV/31 3/16"
(bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered)
---------
The largest fragment of every bullet was recovered EXCEPT one of the bullets that killed Nicholas.
Yes I know Scip I did this one ages ago...2012? Maybe
KITCHEN
DRH/41 case...under kitchen table
DRH/ 19 case...on kitchen table
DRH/20 case....under the mat, infront of sink
DRH/23 bullet.....in a plastic tray on worktop near sink unit.
LANDING
DRH/14...landing floor adjacent to the wall.
MAIN BEDROOM
DRH/13 metal strip of doorway
DRH/6 top of quit right hand side of the bed
DRH/7 under wardrobe
DRH/7 under wardrobe (note Hammersley quotes two cases found under same serial number DRH7
DRH/8 left hand side of bed 4inches from the pillow
DRH/9 Bullet found 4 inches form DRH/8 near pillow left hand side of bed
DRH/10 on the quilt right hand side of the bed on floor.
DRH/11 right hand side of bed on the floor near the wardrobe
DRH/12 on the floor right hand side of the bed
DRH/43 under the wardrobe right hand side of bed
DRH/1 right side of Sheila's body
DRH/2 Left hand side of Sheila's body
DRH/3 on the floor inside the door of the main bedroom to the left of June's body.
DRH/4 next to DRH/3
DRH/5 Bullet.
TWINS ROOM
8 cases and 1 bullet.
DRH/37 under wooden bedside cabinet
DRH/36 Bullet
DRH/38 Under right hand side of the bed at the head of the bed
DRH 39 right hand corner under right hand side of the bed
DRH/39 (note Hammersley quotes two case shells)
DRH 40 under the middle of the right hand bed
DRH/16 floor between both beds
DRH/17 On wooden cabinet between both beds
DRH18 right hand side of bed
-
Get your facts right (how many times do I have to keep correcting you) Bullet DRH/5 was not a bullet fragment, it was a WHOLE bullet (.22LR) weighing 2.42 gram...
My facts are straight, a complete Eley 22LR Hollow Point weighs 240 grains (2.59 grams) you made up a LIE that they weigh 35 grains. I have to go look at the chart but I am pretty sure DRH/5 was only around 24 grains.
-
Unfortunately it is more complex than this. Unjacketed 22LR hollow points are notorious for ricocheting. Thus trying to track where the shooter was by where the bullet ended up won't work. If it were this simple I would have noted it long ago since for the past year plus I have noted the bullet merely grazed him.
The bullet weighed about 24 grains I believe and that means more than just a few tiny fragments broke off, it probably broken after it ricocheted against something. Had a ballistic expert been called to the scene such person could potentially have figured out where it ricocheted from but that didn't happen so we are left with no basis to assess such.
24 grains is practically classed as a whole bullet, which is what it is documented as being. What ballistics did not do of course is match the fragments to the bullets...like a jigsaw puzzle.
It clearly states here that DRH/5 was whole.
-
My facts are straight, a complete Eley 22LR Hollow Point weighs 240 grains (2.59 grams) you made up a LIE that they weigh 35 grains. I have to go look at the chart but I am pretty sure DRH/5 was only around 24 grains.
I have a chart, Eley .22 subsonic bullets, weighed 35 grain, or 2.27 grams, Ralph never purchased .22LR bullets, you have been provided with the gun dealers records, and sale invoice. Where does it mention that Ralph Bamber purchased Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point bullets on the 30th November 1984? You are manipulating the facts to support your false arguments, sort yourself out...
DRH/5 - .22LR Bullet (2.42g / 37.00 grain) Nr dressing table in main bedroom (7)fired via second principle rifle
-
24 grains is practically classed as a whole bullet, which is what it is documented as being. What ballistics did not do of course is match the fragments to the bullets...like a jigsaw puzzle.
Upon checking the chart it was DRH/9 that was small not DRH/5. DRH/5 was around 37 grain so only missing 3 grains.
There is no way to put bullets back together like a jigsaw puzzle. There will always be tiny fragments that go unrecovered.
The limited info available is not enough to say DRH/5 didn't deflect or ricochet and that makes it impossible for us to determine where the shooter was. At best we could determine around where the shooter was IF the bullet didn't deflect.
-
My facts are straight, a complete Eley 22LR Hollow Point weighs 240 grains (2.59 grams) you made up a LIE that they weigh 35 grains. I have to go look at the chart but I am pretty sure DRH/5 was only around 24 grains.
Wrong, again - how many more times are you going to be making such basic and fundamental mistakes?
-
Also
-
Upon checking the chart it was DRH/9 that was small not DRH/5. DRH/5 was around 37 grain so only missing 3 grains.
There is no way to put bullets back together like a jigsaw puzzle. There will always be tiny fragments that go unrecovered.
The limited info available is not enough to say DRH/5 didn't deflect or ricochet and that makes it impossible for us to determine where the shooter was. At best we could determine around where the shooter was IF the bullet didn't deflect.
DRH/5 weighed in at 37 and was classed as a solid bullet. ;D
-
I have a chart, Eley .22 subsonic bullets, weighed 35 grain, or 2.27 grams, Ralph never purchased .22LR bullets, you have been provided with the gun dealers records, and sale invoice. Where does it mention that Ralph Bamber purchased Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point bullets on the 30th November 1984? You are manipulating the facts to support your false arguments, sort yourself out...
A chart from where? I posted the chart from Eley itself. I looked at the product manual from Eley from 1984 and it matched the chart they currently list. Eley reps said that their 22LR subsonic HP has always been 40 grain. All oldstock ammunition made by Eley available for sale is 40 grain. There are no references on the web or in any book let alone any product manual for 35 grain. Your chart was made up by someone- probably you. It clearly is not from Eley.
-
DRH/5 weighed in at 37.4 and was classed as a solid bullet. ;D
who created the chart?
-
A chart from where? I posted the chart from Eley itself. I looked at the product manual from Eley from 1984 and it matched the chart they currently list. Eley reps said that their 22LR subsonic HP has always been 40 grain. All oldstock ammunition made by Eley available for sale is 40 grain. There are no references on the web or in any book let alone any product manual for 35 grain. Your chart was made up by someone- probably you. It clearly is not from Eley.
It's an official chart, Eley .22 subsonic manufacturers bullet weight, 2.27 grams (just fractionally under 35 grain), now seems like you have got your facts wrong again...
-
who created the chart?
I believe that the chart was reproduced by "THE MANCHESTER McKENSIE ORGANISATION", when they took a deep interest in the case...
-
who created the chart?
SOC officer Malcolm Fletcher.
I think the weight of the bullets were about 2.7 ??????? Someone found a chart from the internet, I thought we had the size and weight in the archives....I am sure it was less than 40.
-
Did the end of a sound moderator, or the muzzle end of a rifles barrel, make these gouge marks upon Ralphs arm?
-
It's an official chart, Eley .22 subsonic manufacturers bullet weight, 2.27 grams (just fractionally under 35 grain), now seems like you have got your facts wrong again...
An official chart from Eley? If that is your claim then you are just lying again. Their 1984 product catalog says 40 grain fo rtheir subsonic ammo. Their current catalog says 40 grain. Try finding a 35 grain Eley and for sale- you won't because you won't because there is no such product you made it up. Do a google search in google books and the web section for 35 grain subsonic Eley- you made it up!
Their subsonic Hollowpoint:
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/subsonic-hollow/
Their subsonic lead round nose rounds:
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/sport/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/tenex-pistol/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/club/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/match-pistol/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/match-osp/
ALL of these rounds are 40 grain- the only subsonic round they make not 40 grains is a 42 grain round.
-
Does anybody know, whether or not they found firearm residue inside the Sound Moderator when it was examined?
-
An official chart from Eley? If that is your claim then you are just lying again. Their 1984 product catalog says 40 grain fo rtheir subsonic ammo. Their current catalog says 40 grain. Try finding a 35 grain Eley and for sale- you won't because you won't because there is no such product you made it up. Do a google search in google books and the web section for 35 grain subsonic Eley- you made it up!
Their subsonic Hollowpoint:
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/subsonic-hollow/
Their subsonic lead round nose rounds:
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/sport/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/tenex-pistol/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/club/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/match-pistol/
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/match-osp/
ALL of these rounds are 40 grain- the only subsonic round they make not 40 grains is a 42 grain round.
Keep digging yourself that hole, you'll be plunging into it very soon...
Manufacturers bullet weight specification - 2.27grams...
-
Did the end of a sound moderator, or the muzzle end of a rifles barrel, make these gouge marks upon Ralphs arm?
The gouge marks appear to be made with the muzzle end, not moderator. ;D
I don´t think the single wound in the photo where there is only one wound is the same as the others. I could be wrong, it just appears different,
-
Did the end of a sound moderator, or the muzzle end of a rifles barrel, make these gouge marks upon Ralphs arm?
The stock of the rifle was used to cause those injuries.
-
Keep digging yourself that hole, you'll be plunging into it very soon...
Manufacturers bullet weight specification - 2.27grams...
You are the one in the hole not me, that is the manufacturer's own specs on their own website. Their 1984 catalog contains the same specs. You are the one unable to produce a SHRED of evidence to establish they EVER made 35 grain bullets let alone that Nevill purchased any in 1984.
-
The gouge marks appear to be made with the muzzle end, not moderator. ;D
I don´t think the single wound in the photo where there is only one wound is the same as the others. I could be wrong, it just appears different,
I agree, it's just that Scope suggested the solitary exit wound mark was caused by the muzzle of the rifle...
-
He's now saying the gouge marks were caused by the wooden stock of the rifle...
-
He's now saying the gouge marks were caused by the wooden stock of the rifle...
Next, he'll be saying the gouges were caused by Sheila's earrings, or her necklace...
-
The gouge marks appear to be made with the muzzle end, not moderator. ;D
I don´t think the single wound in the photo where there is only one wound is the same as the others. I could be wrong, it just appears different,
To people who know nothing about guns perhaps. Those are the kinds of marks typical when hit with the butt of a rifle. The more rounded gouges are made by the corners digging in while glancing blows leave linear abrasions. People don't stab with the barrel of a weapon unless there is a bayonet attached. Stabbing wiht the front of a barrel is impractical.
-
I agree, it's just that Scope suggested the solitary exit wound mark was caused by the muzzle of the rifle...
:)
-
To people who know nothing about guns perhaps. Those are the kinds of marks typical when hit with the butt of a rifle. The more rounded gouges are made by the corners digging in while glancing blows leave linear abrasions. People don't stab with the barrel of a weapon unless there is a bayonet attached. Stabbing wiht the front of a barrel is impractical.
So, why would Sheila be striking Ralph with the butt of the rifle, if she still had bullets in the gun, and where did the striking in this manner occur, upstairs in the bedroom, or downstairs in the kitchen?
-
Next, he'll be saying the gouges were caused by Sheila's earrings, or her necklace...
I have always said the gouges were made by the stock. I have seen wounds made by rifles, the military happens to use the butt of a rifle as a weapon. Some of the abrasions are much too thick and large to have been made by the barrel of the weapon. Something wider made them. Something the same exact size as the stock. The smaller deeper digs were made by the corner of the stock. His head was bashed in by the stock as well. The killer was bashing him with the stock and he tried to block the blows with his arm but could not block them all and was thus knocked out.
-
I have always said the gouges were made by the stock. I have seen wounds made by rifles, the military happens to use the butt of a rifle as a weapon. Some of the abrasions are much too thick and large to have been made by the barrel of the weapon. Something wider made them. Something the same exact size as the stock. The smaller deeper digs were made by the corner of the stock. His head was bashed in by the stock as well. The killer was bashing him with the stock and he tried to block the blows with his arm but could not block them all and was thus knocked out.
So, all this took place, where? Upstairs or downstairs?
-
So, why would Sheila be striking Ralph with the butt of the rifle, if she still had bullets in the gun, and where did the striking in this manner occur, upstairs in the bedroom, or downstairs in the kitchen?
Jeremy committed the murders not Sheila but in any event the gun was emptied in the master bedroom. The killer then ran to the kitchen to try to reload but Nevill chased the killer and confronted the killer to try to prevent the killer from reloading- resulting in the struggle or Nevill ran to the kitchen to try to arm himself and the killer chased him, caught up in the kitchen then the struggle occurred. AFTER Nevill was knocked out the killer was then able to reload and shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him.
-
So, all this took place, where? Upstairs or downstairs?
After the gun was empty the killer and Nevill left the master bedroom and fought in the kitchen.
-
Jeremy committed the murders not Sheila but in any event the gun was emptied in the master bedroom. The killer then ran to the kitchen to try to reload but Nevill chased the killer and confronted the killer to try to prevent the killer from reloading- resulting in the struggle or Nevill ran to the kitchen to try to arm himself and the killer chased him, caught up in the kitchen then the struggle occurred. AFTER Nevill was knocked out the killer was then able to reload and shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him.
Sheila killed the other four victims, Jeremy did not kill anybody....
What affect would it have had if Sheila Wielded the rifle in the manner you suggest during her attack upon Ralph, with no bullets left in the .22 bolt action rifle...
-
Sheila killed the other four victims, Jeremy did not kill anybody....
What affect would it have had if Sheila Wielded the rifle in the manner you suggest during her attack upon Ralph, with no bullets left in the .22 bolt action rifle...
Would the same injuries have occurred?
-
Could the gouge marks on the forearm, have been made when Sheila scratched and clawed at Ralphs arm during a struggle to take or keep possession of the gun?
-
So, in your opinion, Sheila ran out of bullets, who did she shoot, and how many times did she shoot her victims before she ran out of bullets, in order to end up downstairs in the kitchen, struggling with Ralph in the manner you describe?
-
Could the gouge marks on the forearm, have been made when Sheila scratched and clawed at Ralphs arm during a struggle to take or keep possession of the gun?
Personally I don´t believe so. Not at all.
-
Personally I don´t believe so. Not at all.
Police took an interest in a poker found in the kitchen....
-
The butt of which of the two rifles was used?
The bolt action rifles butt, or the anshuzt butt?
-
Would the same injuries have occurred?
There was no Bolt Action rifle at the scene. The injuries were made by the butt of the Anschutz. It doesn't matter if you want to allege Mary Poppins did it- the wounds were made by the butt of the Anschutz regardless of who the killer was.
-
I don't buy into the idea that Sheila managed to shoot Ralph no less than 4 times, or 3 times non fatally whilst he was present in the main bedroom. There is no way he could have had a mouth full of bullets, and blood, and manage not to spill or spit out any expiated blood anywhere inside the bedroom, or anywhere along the route he must then have taken to end up downstairs in the kitchen - if you have bullets embedded in your mouth and a mouth filling up with blood, you would not keep it all in your mouth or swallow it, since you could end up drowning in your own blood. No, the shots to the mouth were definitely not inflicted whilst Ralph was upstairs in the bedroom. He was shot in the mouth region after he arrived at the kitchen...
Nothing could be any clearer...
-
There was no Bolt Action rifle at the scene. The injuries were made by the butt of the Anschutz. It doesn't matter if you want to allege Mary Poppins did it- the wounds were made by the butt of the Anschutz regardless of who the killer was.
No human flesh or tissue was found on the butt of the rifle, do you think Sheila wiped the gun clean after striking Ralph with it in the manner you mention?
-
The .22 bolt action rifle was there at the scene, and you'd better believe it...
That hole you'll be tumbling into is getting ever bigger by the minute...
-
The sequence of events involved use of the .22 bolt action rifle and 8 or 9 .22 LR Bullets (not purchased, and not belonging to Ralph Bamber), and the shooter targeting June in the main bedroom, directing as many as 5 shots at her. Shooter enters the twins room, and shoots both dead with a single shot apiece, then the shooter and Ralph meet head to head in the region of the top landing and the middle landing of the main stairs, where Sheila fires two rounds at him - at this stage I believe that either the bolt action rifle ran out of bullets, or it jammed, enabling Ralph to scurry off towards the kitchen with a view to alerting Jeremy and the police. There was obviously some delay between Ralph being shot at, and Ralph making his two distress calls, one to Jeremy, the other to the police (3.26am). Ralph has got his bloodied left hand fingers gripping the edge of the kitchen worktop, whilst holding the telephone handset in his uninjured right hand, enabling him to make a very abrupt call to Jeremy, without managing to say much at all during that call, then he had depressed the cradle of the phone and then made his more detailed call to the police (3.26am). This coincided with Jeremy trying to re-establish contact with his father only to be greeted by an engaged tone, this was because at that stage Ralph was on the phone to the police informing them that his daughter has got one of his guns...
Step forward Sheila, wielding the rifle striking Ralph with it because she had no more bullets in it to fire, or the rifles firing mechanism had become jammed, so she bludgeoned Ralph with the wooden stock of the rifle, into near or close unconsciousness...
-
So, in your opinion, Sheila ran out of bullets, who did she shoot, and how many times did she shoot her victims before she ran out of bullets, in order to end up downstairs in the kitchen, struggling with Ralph in the manner you describe?
No in my opinion Jeremy ran out of bullets. But the scenario I posted regarding the shots is NOT contingent upon who the killer was. That is why I often say killer instead of bothering to identify the name of a specific person who was the killer when I give the scenario.
The killer entered the master bedroom and shot June at least 4 times while she was lying in bed. As she was lying down, sitting up or in the process of getting out of the bed she was shot 2 more times (both in the chest). Nevill was permitted to at least sit up before the killer opened fire on him. Most likely the wounds classified 5 and 6 by the autopsy report were as he was sitting up but still somewhat facing the killer because the shots came for the forward left. 7 and 8 were delivered as he sat on the bed to get up. With him seated on the bed with his left side to the killer, the killer was around the 8 O'clock position and was thus able to fire the shots from his left rear. The gun was then empty. The killer likely ran to the kitchen to reload. With the killer gone June was able to freely walk to the other side of the bed. Nevill was free to leave the room. Nevill ran after the killer to try to stop the killer from reloading. He left a blood drop in the hall and blood on the wall as he bumped into the wall on his way to the kitchen. June tried to follow Nevill but she was so severely wounded she collapsed before she could make it out the door.
Otherwise in some mysterious manner Nevill was able to get past the killer to leave the room to go try to arm himself in the kitchen, and June mysteriously was able to walk around the bed through the killer. This is highly unlikely much more likely is that th ekiller left to reload and Nevill gave chase.
Upon entering the kitchen Nevill found the killer trying to reload the magazine so Nevill grabbed the gun. The killer then proceded to strugle with him for control of the wepaon. In the process they bumped into things knockign thm over, the moderator crashed against the lampshade breaking it and then as the gun was lowered to waist level with them fighting the moderator scratched the mantle. Otherwise the moderator scratched the mantle as the killer was bashing Nevill with the butt of the rifle and thus the motion of bringing the rifle back to the killer resulted in the mantle being hit.
The killer secured sole control of the weapon and began bashing Nevill with the stock. He stuck his right arm in front to him to try to block the blows. he butt of the rifle thus kept crashing into his arm. In the process his watch was ripped off and the various gouges and abrasions were left on his arm. The killer also hit Nevill in the face with his/her fists or with the rifle stock. Eventually the killer was able to bash Nevill's head in with the stock and in the process a piece of the stock broke off and Nevill was rendered unconscious. During this beating the killer and weapon was splashed with Nevill's blood. The re was medium velocity impact spatter on the stock of the rifle. The killer would have gotten his/her prints in such blood unless wearing gloves. Moreover the killer would have suffered an injury to the hand when the stock broke unless wearing gloves.
The killer then reloaded and shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him. Rather than go upstairs with only a partial magazine the killer released the mag and fully loaded it thus there were 11 rounds in the weapon (one in the chamber, 10 in the mag). The killer then went upstairs and fired a shot between June's eyes to make sure she was dead. Then the killer went to the boy's room and fired 8 shots total into them killing them. That left 2 bullets left which were used to kill Sheila and then the gun was empty.
It is also possible Sheila was shot before the boys though that would only have happened if she woke up and was outside of her room when the killer returned upstairs but there is nothing to suggest that this happened. Obviously if Sheila had been the killer then she would have to have died last. This is the only killer specific issue if she were the killer she had to have died last while the boys could have died last otherwise.
But Sheila wasn't the killer. Sheila was shot while seated against something. The blood flowed down her shoulder and side of her breast. After a short while she was dragged flat so that the gun could be placed on top of her body. this resulted in blood flowing changing to run down the side of her neck to the floor instead of down her shoulder/breast. The Bible was subsequently placed in this pool of blood. The moderator was removed and placed in the closet and the gun was left on her chest. Quite obviously the she can't have moved her body and objects after she was dead so she can't have been the killer.
-
The .22 bolt action rifle was there at the scene, and you'd better believe it...
That hole you'll be tumbling into is getting ever bigger by the minute...
It is you in a hole not me. The police found no evidence of AP's rifle nor did the family when they collected the weapons. AP says he took the weapon home with him after his last visit and the evidence supports his claim because no one found it there.
-
No human flesh or tissue was found on the butt of the rifle, do you think Sheila wiped the gun clean after striking Ralph with it in the manner you mention?
Aside from microscopic traces of human flesh none would get on the rifle during the blows. Blood would and did which further proves the butt of the rifle was being used to bash Nevill not the barrel. Had the barrel been used blood would have been on the barrel of the weapon instead of on the stock.
The stock still had blood on it when found so obviously the stock wasn't wiped down. Some of the blood did rub off though because the stock was rubbing against the killer's clothing as it was being fired. SO blood definitely was on the killer's clothing through a variety of mechanisms. Police would have loved to find clothing of hers containing such blood because it would heave helped their theory but there was no such clothing found.
-
No in my opinion Jeremy ran out of bullets. But the scenario I posted regarding the shots is NOT contingent upon who the killer was. That is why I often say killer instead of bothering to identify the name of a specific person who was the killer when I give the scenario.
The killer entered the master bedroom and shot June at least 4 times while she was lying in bed. As she was lying down, sitting up or in the process of getting out of the bed she was shot 2 more times (both in the chest). Nevill was permitted to at least sit up before the killer opened fire on him. Most likely the wounds classified 5 and 6 by the autopsy report were as he was sitting up but still somewhat facing the killer because the shots came for the forward left. 7 and 8 were delivered as he sat on the bed to get up. With him seated on the bed with his left side to the killer, the killer was around the 8 O'clock position and was thus able to fire the shots from his left rear. The gun was then empty. The killer likely ran to the kitchen to reload. With the killer gone June was able to freely walk to the other side of the bed. Nevill was free to leave the room. Nevill ran after the killer to try to stop the killer from reloading. He left a blood drop in the hall and blood on the wall as he bumped into the wall on his way to the kitchen. June tried to follow Nevill but she was so severely wounded she collapsed before she could make it out the door.
Otherwise in some mysterious manner Nevill was able to get past the killer to leave the room to go try to arm himself in the kitchen, and June mysteriously was able to walk around the bed through the killer. This is highly unlikely much more likely is that th ekiller left to reload and Nevill gave chase.
Upon entering the kitchen Nevill found the killer trying to reload the magazine so Nevill grabbed the gun. The killer then proceded to strugle with him for control of the wepaon. In the process they bumped into things knockign thm over, the moderator crashed against the lampshade breaking it and then as the gun was lowered to waist level with them fighting the moderator scratched the mantle. Otherwise the moderator scratched the mantle as the killer was bashing Nevill with the butt of the rifle and thus the motion of bringing the rifle back to the killer resulted in the mantle being hit.
The killer secured sole control of the weapon and began bashing Nevill with the stock. He stuck his right arm in front to him to try to block the blows. he butt of the rifle thus kept crashing into his arm. In the process his watch was ripped off and the various gouges and abrasions were left on his arm. The killer also hit Nevill in the face with his/her fists or with the rifle stock. Eventually the killer was able to bash Nevill's head in with the stock and in the process a piece of the stock broke off and Nevill was rendered unconscious. During this beating the killer and weapon was splashed with Nevill's blood. The re was medium velocity impact spatter on the stock of the rifle. The killer would have gotten his/her prints in such blood unless wearing gloves. Moreover the killer would have suffered an injury to the hand when the stock broke unless wearing gloves.
The killer then reloaded and shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him. Rather than go upstairs with only a partial magazine the killer released the mag and fully loaded it thus there were 11 rounds in the weapon (one in the chamber, 10 in the mag). The killer then went upstairs and fired a shot between June's eyes to make sure she was dead. Then the killer went to the boy's room and fired 8 shots total into them killing them. That left 2 bullets left which were used to kill Sheila and then the gun was empty.
It is also possible Sheila was shot before the boys though that would only have happened if she woke up and was outside of her room when the killer returned upstairs but there is nothing to suggest that this happened. Obviously if Sheila had been the killer then she would have to have died last. This is the only killer specific issue if she were the killer she had to have died last while the boys could have died last otherwise.
But Sheila wasn't the killer. Sheila was shot while seated against something. The blood flowed down her shoulder and side of her breast. After a short while she was dragged flat so that the gun could be placed on top of her body. this resulted in blood flowing changing to run down the side of her neck to the floor instead of down her shoulder/breast. The Bible was subsequently placed in this pool of blood. The moderator was removed and placed in the closet and the gun was left on her chest. Quite obviously the she can't have moved her body and objects after she was dead so she can't have been the killer.
Hi Scip can I address the point I highlighted in red please. June was not heading for the door at all she was on her way round to the other side of the bed. This is apparent as she fell backward into the open door of the main bedroom. If you look at the full image of that crime scene photo and imagine you lifted June to her standing position she was certainly not going out of the room.
The other point you make about Nevill sat on the bed, there is no evidence of that for there is no blood in that area of the bed....unless there is blood that does not show up on the photo. ?
The other point about the weights of the bullets used is that I am interested in the DRH/23 the whole bullet that was found in the plastic tray in the kitchen on its lonesome. The largest weight I have seen of all the whole bullets is 37.54. I was trying to find out if Fletcher has fully examined that bullet and it appears there is no mention of it...
-
Hi Scip can I address the point I highlighted in red please. June was not heading for the door at all she was on her way round to the other side of the bed. This is apparent as she fell backward into the open door of the main bedroom. If you look at the full image of that crime scene photo and imagine you lifted June to her standing position she was certainly not going out of the room.
The other point you make about Nevill sat on the bed, there is no evidence of that for there is no blood in that area of the bed....unless there is blood that does not show up on the photo. ?
The other point about the weights of the bullets used is that I am interested in the DRH/23 the whole bullet that was found in the plastic tray in the kitchen on its lonesome. The largest weight I have seen of all the whole bullets is 37.54. I was trying to find out if Fletcher has fully examined that bullet and it appears there is no mention of it...
You are making the assumption that Nevill would have left blood on the bed though that is not necessarily the case. He had clothes on which inhibits blood dripping. Furthermore the bed wasn't tested so we have no way to know if there were any drips there or not. The photos we have don't show the underbedding and don't even show the quilt well. A close-up picture would be needed to see static drips, spatter is mostly microscopic so we won't see that regardless in a photo. We don't see the spatter on June's side. What we do see is blood from where June's wounds were touching the bedding because she was lying down when bleeding and thus bleeding on the bedding. In contrast Nevill's wounds were not to areas where his wounds would be touching the bedding.
If they saved the bedding a blood expert could have inspected the spatter using a SEM and other tools and could have figured out things that we can't. But they didn't save it so we are stuck with photos of the blood where June was lying down and that's it.
We know Nevill dripped a drop blood in the hall but they didn't find a trail of drops all the way to the kitchen he was not bleeding that much in the sense of it dripping places moreso he got it by his bloody body bumping against things and transferring it. Trying to talk would have left a mess though becausee his mouth had a lot of blood inside it and if you ever tried talking you would know if drips down your clothes. When I got my wisdom teeth out my mouth filled with blood for days and I ruined a lot of shirts. That was despite gauge in my mouth he didn't have that so opening his mouth would have made a mess for sure.
June walked to Nevill's side of the bed then back towards the door and could not longer keep her balance and fell. She probably spun around to grab the bed to try to keep her balance but it was to little avail. She could also have simply spun loosing her balance. My dad fell yesterday and spun around as he did landing on one of my mom's swan planters. He's fat, it broke, she cried. He was facing the planter next thing you know he starts to fall spins around like a ballerina so has his back to the planter and falls on it CRUSH. He simply lost his footing somehow. June could have fallen seated at first and then her back fell to the floor after a bit of time, she didn't have to just tumble over like a domino. We don't have any way to know the exact nature of her tumble. If she had bashed her head in as she fell hat would provide some indication she fell like a domino.
The cliche she fell and could not get back up seems to fit. She collapsed and then ended up stuck there till the shot between her eyes to make sure she was dead. It was delivered while she was already on the floor and most likely already dead but the killer needed to be certain. All that matters is she was so severely injured she never made it out of the room. If she were less injured and had been able to go help Nevill things could have turned out differently.
With respect to DRH/23:
1) DRH/23 was technically an unfired cartridge. While people often call unfired cartridges that is not technically correct and is imprecise language that can allow for confusion sometimes. A bullet is a component of a complete cartridge.
2) I have never seen anything about DRH/23 or any of the other unfired cartridges being weighed. Had they been weighed they would have weighed over 50 grains because the cartridge is made up of not only the bullet, but the case, but also the propellant and primer. When someone says 40 grain bullet that means the bullet alone weighs 40 grains before it is mated with the case. There would be no purpose served by weighing the entire cartridge and I have seen no evidence to suggest it happened. If you want the weight of the bullet you have to remove it from the casing to weigh it alone. You will often find that cartridges vary from one another by a small amount. There is no way to know if that variation is the bullet, the casing, or the propellant unless you separate the cartridges into their components and weigh the components to see where the variation exists.
Jeremy dumped out the tray but but one of the bullets managed to stay inside. All that tells us is he was probably holding the side where the bullet remained when he dumped it. That is not really of any use to us though.
-
From my point of view, take away the four cartridge cases added to the main bedroom total, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Ralph Bamber was in bed or in the bedroom at all when he received any of the shots...
PI Bob Miller, was responsible for arranging these four additional bullet cases to become part of the main bedroom total, as well as recommendations for witnesses to alter exhibit references to a sound moderator to be altered from one exhibit reference to another, and then another, so that they turned separate moderators into the same one...
Nothing could be any clearer. The evidence proving this is there for all to see...
-
If you take away the four cartridge cases from the bedroom total (12), it leaves 8 to be accounted for in the bedroom - June shot 7 times, Sheila shot once (that's correct). The other cartridge case was not found in the main bedroom but outside on the top landing near the doorway. There was another case on the main stairs, there were 8 other cartridge cases in the twins room, and 3 more downstairs in the kitchen - leaving 4 more to be accounted for (the 4 PI Miller added to the main bedroom total with a view to making it appear as though Ralph had been shot 4 times in the main bedroom). I believe that these 4 nomadic cartridge cases were originally taken from the kitchen downstairs, and that in total there had been found 7 cartridge cases there, 6 of which related to Ralph Bamber, the other 1 associated with and to the initial shooting of Sheila Caffell downstairs in the kitchen...
-
The 'O' type blood found on wallpaper near the top of the main stairs and near the main kitchen door, was not uniquely associated with Ralph Bamber, since both children also had 'O' type blood, and it could have been there blood transferred there from the killer, either upon the killer herself, or the weapon...
-
From my point of view, take away the four cartridge cases added to the main bedroom total, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Ralph Bamber was in bed or in the bedroom at all when he received any of the shots...
PI Bob Miller, was responsible for arranging these four additional bullet cases to become part of the main bedroom total, as well as recommendations for witnesses to alter exhibit references to a sound moderator to be altered from one exhibit reference to another, and then another, so that they turned separate moderators into the same one...
Nothing could be any clearer. The evidence proving this is there for all to see...
You are ignoring th ebullet that grazed Nevill was found int he master bedroom.
In the meantime you have zero evidence any casings were moved to the master bedroom and there is no motive for police to do so.
-
The 'O' type blood found on wallpaper near the top of the main stairs and near the main kitchen door, was not uniquely associated with Ralph Bamber, since both children also had 'O' type blood, and it could have been there blood transferred there from the killer, either upon the killer herself, or the weapon...
The killer would not have any significant amount of blood from the boys on him/her to transfer to the wall.
-
By the way here are Radcliffe's statements where he says Nevill bought 500 rounds of Eley Subsonic Hollow Point 22LR ammunition:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1721.msg54988.html#msg54988
It needs to be added to the archive.
-
Hi Scip can I address the point I highlighted in red please. June was not heading for the door at all she was on her way round to the other side of the bed. This is apparent as she fell backward into the open door of the main bedroom. If you look at the full image of that crime scene photo and imagine you lifted June to her standing position she was certainly not going out of the room.
The other point you make about Nevill sat on the bed, there is no evidence of that for there is no blood in that area of the bed....unless there is blood that does not show up on the photo. ?
The other point about the weights of the bullets used is that I am interested in the DRH/23 the whole bullet that was found in the plastic tray in the kitchen on its lonesome. The largest weight I have seen of all the whole bullets is 37.54. I was trying to find out if Fletcher has fully examined that bullet and it appears there is no mention of it...
Morning Patti
read yours and Scipio's posts with interest. I wonder why June was trying to get to Ralph's side of the bed wonder if Sheila was lying there with the one bullet to a neck. It is so difficult to figure all this out as we are all just applying our own views to a certain extent :(
-
By the way here are Radcliffe's statements where he says Nevill bought 500 rounds of Eley Subsonic Hollow Point 22LR ammunition:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1721.msg54988.html#msg54988
It needs to be added to the archive.
Archived.
-
You are making the assumption that Nevill would have left blood on the bed though that is not necessarily the case. He had clothes on which inhibits blood dripping. So did June, but we can see evident transfers of blood. Furthermore the bed wasn't tested so we have no way to know if there were any drips there or not. The photos we have don't show the underbedding and don't even show the quilt well. A close-up picture would be needed to see static drips, spatter is mostly microscopic so we won't see that regardless in a photo. Could we say the same with Sheila's nightdress then? We don't see the spatter on June's side. What we do see is blood from where June's wounds were touching the bedding because she was lying down when bleeding and thus bleeding on the bedding. In contrast Nevill's wounds were not to areas where his wounds would be touching the bedding. So June was shot and Nevill did not reach over to June to offer protection or love her, he simply got a shoulder shot and left the bed. Fig. 5 and 6 also show a slightly downward shot, thus meaning the killer was higher than Nevill. Any wounds to head or mouth and it will bleed profusely, surely?
If they saved the bedding a blood expert could have inspected the spatter using a SEM and other tools and could have figured out things that we can't. But they didn't save it so we are stuck with photos of the blood where June was lying down and that's it. They saved the pillow slips, not 100% sure they did not save the sheet.
We know Nevill dripped a drop blood in the hall but they didn't find a trail of drops all the way to the kitchen he was not bleeding that much in the sense of it dripping places moreso he got it by his bloody body bumping against things and transferring it. Trying to talk would have left a mess though becausee his mouth had a lot of blood inside it and if you ever tried talking you would know if drips down your clothes. When I got my wisdom teeth out my mouth filled with blood for days and I ruined a lot of shirts. That was despite gauge in my mouth he didn't have that so opening his mouth would have made a mess for sure. Hammersley took a scraping of blood some 15/18 inches from the outside of Sheila's bedroom, but we do not know the results of that blood sample, I suspect it to belong to Nevill.
June walked to Nevill's side of the bed then back towards the door and could not longer keep her balance and fell. She probably spun around to grab the bed to try to keep her balance but it was to little avail. I don't buy that Scip, she was clearly not on her way out, she was facing her killer at the bottom of the bed and already using the bottom of the bed to keep her balance, she then fell back after another shot into the door, transfered blood onto the door and slipped further into the position she was found. She could also have simply spun loosing her balance. My dad fell yesterday and spun around as he did landing on one of my mom's swan planters. He's fat, it broke, she cried. He was facing the planter next thing you know he starts to fall spins around like a ballerina so has his back to the planter and falls on it CRUSH. He simply lost his footing somehow. June could have fallen seated at first and then her back fell to the floor after a bit of time, she didn't have to just tumble over like a domino. We don't have any way to know the exact nature of her tumble. If she had bashed her head in as she fell hat would provide some indication she fell like a domino.
The cliche she fell and could not get back up seems to fit. She collapsed and then ended up stuck there till the shot between her eyes to make sure she was dead. It was delivered while she was already on the floor and most likely already dead but the killer needed to be certain. All that matters is she was so severely injured she never made it out of the room. If she were less injured and had been able to go help Nevill things could have turned out differently.
With respect to DRH/23:
1) DRH/23 was technically an unfired cartridge. While people often call unfired cartridges that is not technically correct and is imprecise language that can allow for confusion sometimes. A bullet is a component of a complete cartridge.
2) I have never seen anything about DRH/23 or any of the other unfired cartridges being weighed. Had they been weighed they would have weighed over 50 grains because the cartridge is made up of not only the bullet, but the case, but also the propellant and primer. When someone says 40 grain bullet that means the bullet alone weighs 40 grains before it is mated with the case. There would be no purpose served by weighing the entire cartridge and I have seen no evidence to suggest it happened. If you want the weight of the bullet you have to remove it from the casing to weigh it alone. You will often find that cartridges vary from one another by a small amount. There is no way to know if that variation is the bullet, the casing, or the propellant unless you separate the cartridges into their components and weigh the components to see where the variation exists.
Jeremy dumped out the tray but but one of the bullets managed to stay inside. All that tells us is he was probably holding the side where the bullet remained when he dumped it. That is not really of any use to us though.
The bullet in the tray was near the kitchen sink we do not have that photo in the archives, but I have seen it. Hartley posted it for me. I was looking for info re DRH/23 to see if they had weighed it. I do remember a document with the weight of the bullets and it was not 40 grams I am sure, but I stand to be corrected...I was always under the impression the weight was 39 point something. :-\
-
Morning Patti
read yours and Scipio's posts with interest. I wonder why June was trying to get to Ralph's side of the bed wonder if Sheila was lying there with the one bullet to a neck. It is so difficult to figure all this out as we are all just applying our own views to a certain extent :(
Morning Susan
I think that is a fair comment. I do think she was facing her killer at the time. Nevill could have entered the bedroom and bent down to June and he could have been shot in his left shoulder then? Who knows....eh? Many scenarios, but I bet one of them is right.....but which one. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Morning Susan
I think that is a fair comment. I do think she was facing her killer at the time. Nevill could have entered the bedroom and bent down to June and he could have been shot in his left shoulder then? Who knows....eh? Many scenarios, but I bet one of them is right.....but which one. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti I have noted your comments but I am wondering if you have an theory on the following (gawd sounding like Adam new threads next ) ;D
l. why was June going to Ralph's side of the bed.
2 If Ralph was bending down to June do you think the killer was still in the room.
3 When June was shot do you think Ralph was still in the room.
4. Could June have been going to Sheila on Ralph's side with the one shot to her neck
-
Patti I have noted your comments but I am wondering if you have an theory on the following (gawd sounding like Adam new threads next ) ;D
l. why was June going to Ralph's side of the bed.
2 If Ralph was bending down to June do you think the killer was still in the room.
3 When June was shot do you think Ralph was still in the room.
4. Could June have been going to Sheila on Ralph's side with the one shot to her neck
Hahahaha I will get me crystal ball out and give it a good shake. I can't give you an honest answer, but can give you an opinion... ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just found this:
ELEY subsonic hollow
ELEY subsonic hollow
download product guide
overview
ELEY subsonic hollow is a hunting cartridge with target shooting accuracy and reduced velocity, offering a quieter muzzle report compared to other .22LR hunting rounds.
With its innovative hollow nosed profile, the ELEY subsonic hollow projectile delivers unequalled expansion characteristics, resulting in short penetration with outstanding stopping power; essential features for vermin control .The non-greasy lubricant provides smooth operation in semi-automatic rifles and improves functioning in all weather conditions.
Increasingly popular with game keepers and land owners, ELEY subsonic hollow is regarded as one of the quietest and most accurate subsonic rounds on the market.
key features
Quiet and accurate
Non-greasy all weather lubricant
Market-leading expansion characteristics
Excellent stopping power
designed for
Varmint shooters
used for
Hunting
firearm
.22LR Rifle
.22LR Lightweight Sport Rifle (LSR)
technical information
specifications
bullet profile
Hollow point
cartridge length
25.4mm / 1inch
bullet weight
2.59grams / 40grains
velocity
Muzzle : 317m/s (1040ft/s)
20m (22yds) : 303m/s (984ft/s)
50m (55yds) : 285m/s (922ft/s)
energy
Muzzle = 13.3 (Kg.m) / 96.0 (ft.lb)
20m / 22yds = 11.9 (Kg.m) / 86 (ft.lb)
50m / 55yds = 10.4 (Kg.m) / 75 (ft.lb)
-
Just read on gun club forum that when the above bullets came out they weighed 38grms. :-\
-
Hahahaha I will get me crystal ball out and give it a good shake. I can't give you an honest answer, but can give you an opinion... ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahaha Patti forget the crystal ball your opinion is good enough when you have time ;D
-
Just read on gun club forum that when the above bullets came out they weighed 38grms. :-\
Patti I knew that of course did not want to show off ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti I knew that of course did not want to show off ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Not sure they are right though Susan, its off a forum.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not sure they are right though Susan, its off a forum.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti will be guess work then ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D kidding what does Scipio think.
-
Patti will be guess work then ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D kidding what does Scipio think.
He says the weight is 40 grams. I think there were tow types of bullets used. Not sure if they were the same weight in 1985, I guess they may have been. Off to polish me ball.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
By the way here are Radcliffe's statements where he says Nevill bought 500 rounds of Eley Subsonic Hollow Point 22LR ammunition:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1721.msg54988.html#msg54988
It needs to be added to the archive.
The contents of this witness statement dated the 30th September 1985, where it describes the type of .22 ammunition sold to Ralph Bamber on the 30th November 1984, does not match the description recorded in the firearms register, which simply states, .22 subsonic. Furthermore, the contents of this statement is unsigned, and clearly made after the case had already been made into a one gun crime...
-
Patti I have noted your comments but I am wondering if you have an theory on the following (gawd sounding like Adam new threads next ) ;D
l. why was June going to Ralph's side of the bed.
2 If Ralph was bending down to June do you think the killer was still in the room.
3 When June was shot do you think Ralph was still in the room.
4. Could June have been going to Sheila on Ralph's side with the one shot to her neck
I'm still curious why JB, who supposedly planned the murders for a year didn't make any attempt to put Nevill out of action, would have thought that would have been his first thought. Why no shots to lower legs, it's very brutal but kneecapping is a sure way of incapacitating a person rather than pot shots at the head. Nevill's height was his best asset against JB so am surprised no attempt to bring him down. There were no missed shots to the lower body, so no attempt at all
Was made....... just thinking out loud really. :-\
-
He says the weight is 40 grams. I think there were tow types of bullets used. Not sure if they were the same weight in 1985, I guess they may have been. Off to polish me ball.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti nuts to you too hahaha
-
I'm still curious why JB, who supposedly planned the murders for a year didn't make any attempt to put Nevill out of action, would have thought that would have been his first thought. Why no shots to lower legs, it's very brutal but kneecapping is a sure way of incapacitating a person rather than pot shots at the head. Nevill's height was his best asset against JB so am surprised no attempt to bring him down. There were no missed shots to the lower body, so no attempt at all
Was made....... just thinking out loud really. :-\
You're right Maggie. Jeremy would never have attempted a face to face confrontation with his father without first putting him out of action.
These murders were deliberate and frenzied,to have used so many bullets.
-
Hello gals
if you imagine Ralph being asleep sitting up in bed suddenly being awaken it was not possible to aim at his legs the killer would have been more interested in the head to kill him on the spot things seem to go off course don't think you can forward plan a murder such as this not sure if Ralph ran downstairs to arm himself. If Ralph was stood upright facing his killer he would have killed him on the spot with a head wound or to the heart. Just thoughts that go round in my head could be way off course how will we ever know.
-
My own thoughts are that Neville didn't even get the chance to go to bed that night. June wouldn't have been asleep,as RWB said in one of his statements that she was a very poor sleeper who used to read the Bible in order to help her relax. June would have heard a pin drop ! So for sure she'd have been aware of Sheila wandering about,probably getting herself a snack. I believe the taking of cannabis creates a phenomenom called " the munchies ". :-X------------usually during the night/morning.
-
It is you in a hole not me. The police found no evidence of AP's rifle nor did the family when they collected the weapons. AP says he took the weapon home with him after his last visit and the evidence supports his claim because no one found it there.
The police did find AP's bolt action rifle at the scene, they checked it to see if it had been damaged during the incident. AP himself made a witness statement to Essex police stating that hw always kept his .22 bolt action rifle at whf, but that it was his usual practice to remove the bolt from it and to take that home with him so that no-one could fire it in his absence. Jeremt listed it as beinf present at the scene at the materiall time..
-
Just read on gun club forum that when the above bullets came out they weighed 38grms. :-\
First of all if they wrote 38 grams they messed up and meant grains because a 38 grain bullet would be a huge projectile.
Second, they probably mean when the 22LR Hollow Point was first invented over a hundred years ago that it was 38 grains. If they are claiming Eley 22LR Subsonic Hollow Point were 38 grain they are wrong it has always been 40 grain- at least with modern gunpowder there is little information on their old blackpowder rounds.
-
The police did find AP's bolt action rifle at the scene, they checked it to see if it had been damaged during the incident. AP himself made a witness statement to Essex police stating that hw always kept his .22 bolt action rifle at whf, but that it was his usual practice to remove the bolt from it and to take that home with him so that no-one could fire it in his absence. Jeremt listed it as beinf present at the scene at the materiall time..
AP said that he had taken the gun home with him after his last visit. Post evidence police inspected a bolt action rifle at WHF, the claim is false. Zero police mention anything about a bolt action rifle and the Eatons were specifically asked if one of the weapons they found was AP's bolt action rifle and they answered no. If it had been there not only would the family have seen it they would have taken it along with all the other guns to be stored at the Eaton's.
-
Morning Patti
read yours and Scipio's posts with interest. I wonder why June was trying to get to Ralph's side of the bed wonder if Sheila was lying there with the one bullet to a neck. It is so difficult to figure all this out as we are all just applying our own views to a certain extent :(
First of all, how could he stage Sheila in the room and shoot her with both parents looking on from bed? While he had the gun on Sheila they would have gotten up and attacked him from behind. That would have reduced the shots he had available to use on the parents to 8 though we know he used a full magazine on them.
Some of the blood June dripped was under Sheila's body that means the blood was there before Sheila was.
June most likely walked around the bed after the killer left the room. Whether she went to try to go to Nevill or to the phone that was normally on Nevill's nightstand, or just moving around like a chicken without a head there is no way to know but it wasn't to go see Sheila's body.
-
I'm still curious why JB, who supposedly planned the murders for a year didn't make any attempt to put Nevill out of action, would have thought that would have been his first thought. Why no shots to lower legs, it's very brutal but kneecapping is a sure way of incapacitating a person rather than pot shots at the head. Nevill's height was his best asset against JB so am surprised no attempt to bring him down. There were no missed shots to the lower body, so no attempt at all
Was made....... just thinking out loud really. :-\
What do you think the 4 shots at him in the bedroom were intended for? They were intended to put him out of action. His plan was to say that Nevill phoned him. He thus could not kill Nevill in his sleep. He needed Nevill to die while being awake. So he waited till Nevill was at least seated if not in the process of getting up before opening fire on Nevill. He thus fired several shots at June permitting Nevill to start to get up before turning the gun on Nevill. After they began moving he had a harder time hitting them in key locations. He didn't practice hitting moving targets, it is not as easy as people think.
-
First of all, how could he stage Sheila in the room and shoot her with both parents looking on from bed? While he had the gun on Sheila they would have gotten up and attacked him from behind. That would have reduced the shots he had available to use on the parents to 8 though we know he used a full magazine on them.
Some of the blood June dripped was under Sheila's body that means the blood was there before Sheila was.
June most likely walked around the bed after the killer left the room. Whether she went to try to go to Nevill or to the phone that was normally on Nevill's nightstand, or just moving around like a chicken without a head there is no way to know but it wasn't to go see Sheila's body.
Scipio hello you do make me see just how stupid my posts are and I thank you for that ;D I am learning daily I could have done with you on here three years ago when I joined or was it 4 :'( You are very patient with me ;D
-
What do you think the 4 shots at him in the bedroom were intended for? They were intended to put him out of action. His plan was to say that Nevill phoned him. He thus could not kill Nevill in his sleep. He needed Nevill to die while being awake. So he waited till Nevill was at least seated if not in the process of getting up before opening fire on Nevill. He thus fired several shots at June permitting Nevill to start to get up before turning the gun on Nevill. After they began moving he had a harder time hitting them in key locations. He didn't practice hitting moving targets, it is not as easy as people think.
Were the similar shots also intended to put June out of action as well? :-\ Or is it that the person that used the rifle was not familiar with it? ;D
-
What do you think the 4 shots at him in the bedroom were intended for? They were intended to put him out of action. His plan was to say that Nevill phoned him. He thus could not kill Nevill in his sleep. He needed Nevill to die while being awake. So he waited till Nevill was at least seated if not in the process of getting up before opening fire on Nevill. He thus fired several shots at June permitting Nevill to start to get up before turning the gun on Nevill. After they began moving he had a harder time hitting them in key locations. He didn't practice hitting moving targets, it is not as easy as people think.
I know you've said all that before but that is your assumption, you need him to have behaved in this way otherwise your scenario falls down. How do you know he hadn't practiced hitting moving targets? He apparently planned it for a year and prepared strangling rats which is ludicrous but never thought to paractice hitting moving targets or thinking out any kind of strategy for quickly getting control of Nevill who was the most dangerous and biggest threat to carrying out his extremely risky plan.
It would be easier for me to accept JB lost his temper that night and shot them in anger before leaving the house to go home. I know it's highly unlikely but struggle with the theory and statement of Julie Mugford that he planned it and carried it out with such little care for his own safety. Everything about it suggests spur of the moment to me just doesn't make sense in some way, otherwise..
-
I know you've said all that before but that is your assumption, you need him to have behaved in this way otherwise your scenario falls down. How do you know he hadn't practiced hitting moving targets? He apparently planned it for a year and prepared strangling rats which is ludicrous but never thought to paractice hitting moving targets or thinking out any kind of strategy for quickly getting control of Nevill who was the most dangerous and biggest threat to carrying out his extremely risky plan.
It would be easier for me to accept JB lost his temper that night and shot them in anger before leaving the house to go home. I know it's highly unlikely but struggle with the theory and statement of Julie Mugford that he planned it and carried it out with such little care for his own safety. Everything about it suggests spur of the moment to me just doesn't make sense in some way, otherwise..
Hello Maggie
as I said earlier very difficult to plan a murder down to fine details with a case like this. It is my opinion that the killer intended to kill Ralph as soon as possible why did he have to allow him to be downstairs he could have put the phone back in the bedroom and taken it off the cradle and pretended Ralph phoned him from there. I have a feeling Scipio is going to tell me why my suggestion is not feasible :'(
-
Were the similar shots also intended to put June out of action as well? :-\ Or is it that the person that used the rifle was not familiar with it? ;D
Patti I guess shooting June would have awoken Ralph so he need not have died in his sleep was not important if June died in her sleep or not he wanted Ralph on his feet so he could have made the phone call whether from the bedroom or the kitchen.
-
A) So did June, but we can see evident transfers of blood.
B) Could we say the same with Sheila's nightdress then?
C) So June was shot and Nevill did not reach over to June to offer protection or love her, he simply got a shoulder shot and left the bed. Fig. 5 and 6 also show a slightly downward shot, thus meaning the killer was higher than Nevill. Any wounds to head or mouth and it will bleed profusely, surely?
D) They saved the pillow slips, not 100% sure they did not save the sheet.
E) Hammersley took a scraping of blood some 15/18 inches from the outside of Sheila's bedroom, but we do not know the results of that blood sample, I suspect it to belong to Nevill.
F) I don't buy that Scip, she was clearly not on her way out, she was facing her killer at the bottom of the bed and already using the bottom of the bed to keep her balance, she then fell back after another shot into the door, transfered blood onto the door and slipped further into the position she was found.
A) June was lying down in bed while she was bleeding. She had 4-6 entrance wounds while in bed and 3 exit wounds and was bleeding directly against the bedding.
Nevill had a shot to his lip, shot to his jaw and shot to his shoulder. The 4th shot was a graze wound so not one likely to spill blood. He was not lying against the bed when shot and none of these were in a location that would come in contact with the bed after he was shot. It would take a while before blood would drip down his face and fall off his face onto the floor and if seated it would fall in his lap. There could have been high velocity impact back spatter on bedding but since it is fine very little would show up in photos and you need a very good closeup to see any of it. You would even need a good closeup to see a static drop. The only blood seen in the photos of June's side is where bloody wounds came into direct contact with the bedding. By the time June stood up she had 6 entrance wounds and 3 exit wounds so 9 different wounds to bleed from. The blood went down her gown and also on the floor. Nevill's clothing didn't exhibit such his 3 wounds resulted in a lot of blood being internal. he did drop a little in the hall though and when his bloody arm actually came into contact with the wall it left blood at that point.
B) Because of the nature and location of her wounds, had she stood up then blood would have dripped down her gown like happened to June. That would be evident in the photos. Medium velocity impact spatter from beating Nevill would also be seen. The photos are not good enough for us to be able to see high velocity backspatter though. We are stuck exclusively with the examination done by the lab with respect to such issue the photo is of no value in evaluating such. The lab of course said there was no backspatter (medium or high velocity) from any victims just her own blood was on her gown.
C) Shortly after being shot his mouth and throat were full of blood. If Nevill tried talking then blood would be leaking out of his mouth. If he kept his mouth closed the blood would mostly stay inside. He must not have been opening his mouth too much because blood wasn't all over his chest to the extent one would expect had he been trying to talk. My guess is that when his face was beaten blood was getting on his attacker. It only takes seconds to get out of bed so he was up before his mouth was full though. His idea of defense was to get out of bed and try to get the attacker. By the time he rose the gun was empty and that made it easier to charge the killer. The killer likely fled the room upon the gun being empty. There is no damage indicating a struggle took place in the bedroom. The killer likely fled to the kitchen to reload and Nevill decided to try to prevent that.
D) They saved the pillows because the bullets were embedded in them. They burned the sheets etc so there was never any lab examination to see if there was spatter or other blood on it. They just have the photos of the blood stains made by June's bloody wounds coming into direct contact with the bed. This is one of the things that shows they had little intention of examining things more thoroughly and were content with blaming Sheila. To destroy the bedding so quick means that even though their theory was just supposed to be a theory and they were supposed to be entertaining all options they didn't really entertain all options and pretty much already decided to take a particular course and close off investigating others.
E) There was a drop of blood right outside the master bedroom door (DRH/47) This obviously was either dripped there by Nevill or leaked off the killer. Nevill is the only victim who managed to leave the room he had initially been shot in so he is the only possible contributor aside from the killer getting splashed with some victim blood and then it dripping off. High Velocity backspatter though usually won't deposit so much blood that it would then drip off the killer leaving a static drop. The killer woudl have had a lot of blood after the kitchen fight and could have dripped Nevill's blood after going back upstairs though. It could have been dripped near the master bedroom and then Sheila's room as the killer was going to get Sheila. So it could have been dripped by Nevill or the killer there is no way to know for sure.
F) The shot delivered between her eyes was delivered while she was on the floor and this is the shot that sent spatter to the door
-
No in my opinion Jeremy ran out of bullets. But the scenario I posted regarding the shots is NOT contingent upon who the killer was. That is why I often say killer instead of bothering to identify the name of a specific person who was the killer when I give the scenario.
The killer entered the master bedroom and shot June at least 4 times while she was lying in bed. As she was lying down, sitting up or in the process of getting out of the bed she was shot 2 more times (both in the chest). Nevill was permitted to at least sit up before the killer opened fire on him. Most likely the wounds classified 5 and 6 by the autopsy report were as he was sitting up but still somewhat facing the killer because the shots came for the forward left. 7 and 8 were delivered as he sat on the bed to get up. With him seated on the bed with his left side to the killer, the killer was around the 8 O'clock position and was thus able to fire the shots from his left rear. The gun was then empty. The killer likely ran to the kitchen to reload. With the killer gone June was able to freely walk to the other side of the bed. Nevill was free to leave the room. Nevill ran after the killer to try to stop the killer from reloading. He left a blood drop in the hall and blood on the wall as he bumped into the wall on his way to the kitchen. June tried to follow Nevill but she was so severely wounded she collapsed before she could make it out the door.
Otherwise in some mysterious manner Nevill was able to get past the killer to leave the room to go try to arm himself in the kitchen, and June mysteriously was able to walk around the bed through the killer. This is highly unlikely much more likely is that th ekiller left to reload and Nevill gave chase.
Upon entering the kitchen Nevill found the killer trying to reload the magazine so Nevill grabbed the gun. The killer then proceded to strugle with him for control of the wepaon. In the process they bumped into things knockign thm over, the moderator crashed against the lampshade breaking it and then as the gun was lowered to waist level with them fighting the moderator scratched the mantle. Otherwise the moderator scratched the mantle as the killer was bashing Nevill with the butt of the rifle and thus the motion of bringing the rifle back to the killer resulted in the mantle being hit.
The killer secured sole control of the weapon and began bashing Nevill with the stock. He stuck his right arm in front to him to try to block the blows. he butt of the rifle thus kept crashing into his arm. In the process his watch was ripped off and the various gouges and abrasions were left on his arm. The killer also hit Nevill in the face with his/her fists or with the rifle stock. Eventually the killer was able to bash Nevill's head in with the stock and in the process a piece of the stock broke off and Nevill was rendered unconscious. During this beating the killer and weapon was splashed with Nevill's blood. The re was medium velocity impact spatter on the stock of the rifle. The killer would have gotten his/her prints in such blood unless wearing gloves. Moreover the killer would have suffered an injury to the hand when the stock broke unless wearing gloves.
The killer then reloaded and shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him. Rather than go upstairs with only a partial magazine the killer released the mag and fully loaded it thus there were 11 rounds in the weapon (one in the chamber, 10 in the mag). The killer then went upstairs and fired a shot between June's eyes to make sure she was dead. Then the killer went to the boy's room and fired 8 shots total into them killing them. That left 2 bullets left which were used to kill Sheila and then the gun was empty.
It is also possible Sheila was shot before the boys though that would only have happened if she woke up and was outside of her room when the killer returned upstairs but there is nothing to suggest that this happened. Obviously if Sheila had been the killer then she would have to have died last. This is the only killer specific issue if she were the killer she had to have died last while the boys could have died last otherwise.
But Sheila wasn't the killer. Sheila was shot while seated against something. The blood flowed down her shoulder and side of her breast. After a short while she was dragged flat so that the gun could be placed on top of her body. this resulted in blood flowing changing to run down the side of her neck to the floor instead of down her shoulder/breast. The Bible was subsequently placed in this pool of blood. The moderator was removed and placed in the closet and the gun was left on her chest. Quite obviously the she can't have moved her body and objects after she was dead so she can't have been the killer.
Everything you have spoken about could have been done by Sheila, as opposed to Jeremy...
-
Were the similar shots also intended to put June out of action as well? :-\ Or is it that the person that used the rifle was not familiar with it? ;D
He clearly didn't care about shooting June as she was lying in bed. He wanted her dead immediately and wanted to kill Nevill while up so he could say Nevill phoned. Her moving around combined with his own nerves resulted in him sending shots all around her. The head shot (above the ear) was probably the first one, after that he had more problems targeting her effectively. That head shot was fatal but took a while to kill her so he kept firing but he could nto afford to use all his bullets on her because he still needed to kill Nevill. In all likelihood he fired a couple of shots into June then 2 into Nevill's face then as Nevill turned to get up he fired the one into his shoulder and graze wound. Then he finished emptying the gun on June. After that he probably ran away to reload and that is when the parents got up fully. June either went around to see Nevill or after Nevill left she went to use the phone but then saw it was missing. It is possible the killer was in the kitchen reloading the magazine (which means the rifle would not have been in the killer's hands because one hand would be holding the magazine while the other hand was inserting the bullets) and that Nevill walked in and grabbed the gun and then that is what started the struggle because the killer needed to take the gun back. The killer probably would have caught up to Nevill before he ever made it to the kitchen if Nevill managed to somehow get past the killer to leave the room. More likely is that the killer went to the kitchen and Nevill ended up following the killer. The killer might not have even known Nevill was not immobilized and could have been surprised by Nevill when Nevill entered. These finer details can only be answered by the killer.
-
Aside from microscopic traces of human flesh none would get on the rifle during the blows. Blood would and did which further proves the butt of the rifle was being used to bash Nevill not the barrel. Had the barrel been used blood would have been on the barrel of the weapon instead of on the stock.
The stock still had blood on it when found so obviously the stock wasn't wiped down. Some of the blood did rub off though because the stock was rubbing against the killer's clothing as it was being fired. SO blood definitely was on the killer's clothing through a variety of mechanisms. Police would have loved to find clothing of hers containing such blood because it would heave helped their theory but there was no such clothing found.
Some of the clothing worn by Sheila in her role as the killer was no doubt used by the police to try and control the spread of Ralph Bombers blood on the kitchen floor. After she killed Ralph she washed herself down as best she could and dried herself on a towel, which the police also used to control the spread of blood around the kitchen floor. Other items with her bloodvon were put into a plastic bucket of cold water, where three days later Ann Eaton found them and retained them...
-
You are making the assumption that Nevill would have left blood on the bed though that is not necessarily the case. He had clothes on which inhibits blood dripping. Furthermore the bed wasn't tested so we have no way to know if there were any drips there or not. The photos we have don't show the underbedding and don't even show the quilt well. A close-up picture would be needed to see static drips, spatter is mostly microscopic so we won't see that regardless in a photo. We don't see the spatter on June's side. What we do see is blood from where June's wounds were touching the bedding because she was lying down when bleeding and thus bleeding on the bedding. In contrast Nevill's wounds were not to areas where his wounds would be touching the bedding.
If they saved the bedding a blood expert could have inspected the spatter using a SEM and other tools and could have figured out things that we can't. But they didn't save it so we are stuck with photos of the blood where June was lying down and that's it.
We know Nevill dripped a drop blood in the hall but they didn't find a trail of drops all the way to the kitchen he was not bleeding that much in the sense of it dripping places moreso he got it by his bloody body bumping against things and transferring it. Trying to talk would have left a mess though becausee his mouth had a lot of blood inside it and if you ever tried talking you would know if drips down your clothes. When I got my wisdom teeth out my mouth filled with blood for days and I ruined a lot of shirts. That was despite gauge in my mouth he didn't have that so opening his mouth would have made a mess for sure.
June walked to Nevill's side of the bed then back towards the door and could not longer keep her balance and fell. She probably spun around to grab the bed to try to keep her balance but it was to little avail. She could also have simply spun loosing her balance. My dad fell yesterday and spun around as he did landing on one of my mom's swan planters. He's fat, it broke, she cried. He was facing the planter next thing you know he starts to fall spins around like a ballerina so has his back to the planter and falls on it CRUSH. He simply lost his footing somehow. June could have fallen seated at first and then her back fell to the floor after a bit of time, she didn't have to just tumble over like a domino. We don't have any way to know the exact nature of her tumble. If she had bashed her head in as she fell hat would provide some indication she fell like a domino.
The cliche she fell and could not get back up seems to fit. She collapsed and then ended up stuck there till the shot between her eyes to make sure she was dead. It was delivered while she was already on the floor and most likely already dead but the killer needed to be certain. All that matters is she was so severely injured she never made it out of the room. If she were less injured and had been able to go help Nevill things could have turned out differently.
With respect to DRH/23:
1) DRH/23 was technically an unfired cartridge. While people often call unfired cartridges that is not technically correct and is imprecise language that can allow for confusion sometimes. A bullet is a component of a complete cartridge.
2) I have never seen anything about DRH/23 or any of the other unfired cartridges being weighed. Had they been weighed they would have weighed over 50 grains because the cartridge is made up of not only the bullet, but the case, but also the propellant and primer. When someone says 40 grain bullet that means the bullet alone weighs 40 grains before it is mated with the case. There would be no purpose served by weighing the entire cartridge and I have seen no evidence to suggest it happened. If you want the weight of the bullet you have to remove it from the casing to weigh it alone. You will often find that cartridges vary from one another by a small amount. There is no way to know if that variation is the bullet, the casing, or the propellant unless you separate the cartridges into their components and weigh the components to see where the variation exists.
Jeremy dumped out the tray but but one of the bullets managed to stay inside. All that tells us is he was probably holding the side where the bullet remained when he dumped it. That is not really of any use to us though.
There was none of Ralph's blood in the main bedroom because he wasn't shot inside the bedroom, not once, not twice, not three times, or four times... How come there was no blood at all on the soles of Ralph's feet?
-
Hello Mike is this your explanation why Sheila was so clean. If what you have posted is what happened the police must have known that Sheila was the killer and Jeremy was innocent :'(
-
Everything you have spoken about could have been done by Sheila, as opposed to Jeremy...
Except that she could not have moved objects and her own body after she was dead. So she can't have killed herself.
Furthermore, had she been the one who beat Nevill then her body and clothing would have been covered in his blood and also GSR/soot from shooting everyone. The killer worse gloves if she wore them then the bloody gloves she wore would have been found and even if she changed the bloody clothing she wore would have been found. Someone planning to kill herself would have no reason to wash up and change anyway though.
-
There was none of Ralph's blood in the main bedroom because he wasn't shot inside the bedroom, not once, not twice, not three times, or four times... How come there was no blood at all on the soles of Ralph's feet?
You can't prove his blood wasn't there. The only blood they tested was 5 drops at June's feet and 5 drops at Sheila's feet. They didn't test all the blood in the room and didn't even document all the blood that was in the room they destroyed the bloody bedding. The only things they kept were June's pillows because 2 bullets that exited her were found in them.
-
Except that she could not have moved objects and her own body after she was dead. So she can't have killed herself.
Furthermore, had she been the one who beat Nevill then her body and clothing would have been covered in his blood and also GSR/soot from shooting everyone. The killer worse gloves if she wore them then the bloody gloves she wore would have been found and even if she changed the bloody clothing she wore would have been found. Someone planning to kill herself would have no reason to wash up and change anyway though.
Scipio I agree if Sheila had carried out the murders why would she wish to destroy all the evidence from her clothes does not make sense and she would not have wore gloves
-
Scipio I agree if Sheila had carried out the murders why would she wish to destroy all the evidence from her clothes does not make sense and she would not have wore gloves
There is no evidence that anyone wore gloves...
-
Hello Maggie
as I said earlier very difficult to plan a murder down to fine details with a case like this. It is my opinion that the killer intended to kill Ralph as soon as possible why did he have to allow him to be downstairs he could have put the phone back in the bedroom and taken it off the cradle and pretended Ralph phoned him from there. I have a feeling Scipio is going to tell me why my suggestion is not feasible :'(
Think you may be right about scip suse but it seems a valid point to me. I struggle to believe the killer would have put such stress on himself in his plans. IMO he needed Nevill dead ASAP , I shall even concede he wanted Nevill dead by a phone but if as guilters insist the phone was moved from the bedroom surely it would make more sense to keep the bedroom phone in the bedroom and if possible kill Nevill in the bedroom ASAP before killing the others? Xxx
-
He clearly didn't care about shooting June as she was lying in bed. He wanted her dead immediately and wanted to kill Nevill while up so he could say Nevill phoned. Her moving around combined with his own nerves resulted in him sending shots all around her. The head shot (above the ear) was probably the first one, after that he had more problems targeting her effectively. That head shot was fatal but took a while to kill her so he kept firing but he could nto afford to use all his bullets on her because he still needed to kill Nevill. In all likelihood he fired a couple of shots into June then 2 into Nevill's face then as Nevill turned to get up he fired the one into his shoulder and graze wound. Then he finished emptying the gun on June. After that he probably ran away to reload and that is when the parents got up fully. June either went around to see Nevill or after Nevill left she went to use the phone but then saw it was missing. It is possible the killer was in the kitchen reloading the magazine (which means the rifle would not have been in the killer's hands because one hand would be holding the magazine while the other hand was inserting the bullets) and that Nevill walked in and grabbed the gun and then that is what started the struggle because the killer needed to take the gun back. The killer probably would have caught up to Nevill before he ever made it to the kitchen if Nevill managed to somehow get past the killer to leave the room. More likely is that the killer went to the kitchen and Nevill ended up following the killer. The killer might not have even known Nevill was not immobilized and could have been surprised by Nevill when Nevill entered. These finer details can only be answered by the killer.
Suddenly, your term 'killer' , turns into 'he', when it should in all honesty be turned into a 'she'...
-
Think you may be right about scip suse but it seems a valid point to me. I struggle to believe the killer would have put such stress on himself in his plans. IMO he needed Nevill dead ASAP , I shall even concede he wanted Nevill dead by a phone but if as guilters insist the phone was moved from the bedroom surely it would make more sense to keep the bedroom phone in the bedroom and if possible kill Nevill in the bedroom ASAP before killing the others? Xxx
Maggie the killer could not risk leaving the phone in the bedroom Ralph may have got to use it I can see Scipio's point about not wanting to kill Ralph asleep or still lying in his bed he could not have made the phone call then I am not even sure Ralph running downstairs was in the plan at all :'( it was just how things turned out we are all speculating as none of us were there.
-
You are ignoring th ebullet that grazed Nevill was found int he master bedroom.
In the meantime you have zero evidence any casings were moved to the master bedroom and there is no motive for police to do so.
In my presentation Ralph was never in the bedroom to be grazed by any shot, as you put it. Ralph was undoubtedly shot at least once somewhere near the top of the main stairs, perhaps twice, (wounds 8 and 7). In my opinion he was never inside the main bedroom at all. He made it to the kitchen, managed to make his distress call to Jeremy, followed by his distress call to the police, informing them that his daughter has got one of his guns, and is going berserk. It seems obvious to me that once Sheila shot Ralph on the stairs (wound 7), that the bolt action load mechanism jammed forcing Sheila to return to her bedroom to collect the preloaded anshuzt rifle filled with 10 cartridges, with another 5 live rounds on standby on top of her coded handwritten note on her bedside cabinet. Once in possession of the loaded anshuzt rifle she set off down stairs to finish off Ralph. In the meantime, Ralph had made his calls to Jeremy and the police (3.26am), and was either still in the process of talking to police, or had just finished, when Sheila turned up in the main kitchen with the fully loaded anshuzt rifle. As she entered the kitchen, Ralph half turned his body and his head, and at that precise moment Sheila fired two .22 subsonic bullets into his mouth region...
-
You can't prove his blood wasn't there. The only blood they tested was 5 drops at June's feet and 5 drops at Sheila's feet. They didn't test all the blood in the room and didn't even document all the blood that was in the room they destroyed the bloody bedding. The only things they kept were June's pillows because 2 bullets that exited her were found in them.
There was none of Ralph's blood at all in the main bedroom, that's all I need to know...
-
There is no evidence that anyone wore gloves...
If the killer didn't wear gloves then the killer's prints would have been in the blood that was on the rifle and that means blood would have been on the killer's hands to leave bloody prints on other objects the killer touched. Moreover, when the stock broke the killer's hand would at minimum have been scratched and more likely cut. Sheila's hands had no scratches let alone cuts and there is no proof Jeremy's hands had any wounds either.
-
Some of the clothing worn by Sheila in her role as the killer was no doubt used by the police to try and control the spread of Ralph Bombers blood on the kitchen floor. After she killed Ralph she washed herself down as best she could and dried herself on a towel, which the police also used to control the spread of blood around the kitchen floor. Other items with her bloodvon were put into a plastic bucket of cold water, where three days later Ann Eaton found them and retained them...
There is not a shred of evidence that any clothing used by Sheila had any blood let alone that police decided to use such to clean up the scene. You make up wacky things then claim there is no doubt they are true though there is in fact no doubt they are fairytales.
-
Hello Maggie
as I said earlier very difficult to plan a murder down to fine details with a case like this. It is my opinion that the killer intended to kill Ralph as soon as possible why did he have to allow him to be downstairs he could have put the phone back in the bedroom and taken it off the cradle and pretended Ralph phoned him from there. I have a feeling Scipio is going to tell me why my suggestion is not feasible :'(
The plan wasn't for Nevill to go to the kitchen. The plan was simply to kill Nevill while he was not sleeping in bed. Sleeping in bed when shot = phone call impossible. It was just a fluke that he failed to disable Nevill and that things progressed to the kitchen. Had Nevill died in the bedroom he could have decided to replace the bedroom phone. We have no way to know whether he would have tried to make it look like the bedroom phone was used or still have gone with the kitchen phone hoping to make it look like trouble started in the kitchen then progressed upstairs. He could have done either it depends on what was going through his mind of what he wanted police to think. He either didn't tell Julie enough of his plan for us to know whether he intended to replace the bedroom phone or not or he told Julie but she didn't pay close attention or remember because she thought he was just blowing smoke and thus only half listened. Only Jeremy could tell us whether prior to committing the murders he was intending to replace the phone or not. I suspect he would have replaced it but my thought process and his are different. Just take the Bible. I still don't know what he was trying to accomplish with it. If I wanted to make it look like she had been reading it though before killing herself I would have put it down by her waist. he clearly put it down after she was lying down flat. But she would not have been lying down flat to read it. Putting it by her head helps show it was staged. He wasn't as smart as he thinks he is. You have to be a veritable idiot though to kill someone in their sleep and claim they made a phone call to you. That's something he would not have recognized for sure.
-
The plan wasn't for Nevill to go to the kitchen. The plan was simply to kill Nevill while he was not sleeping in bed. Sleeping in bed when shot = phone call impossible. It was just a fluke that he failed to disable Nevill and that things progressed to the kitchen. Had Nevill died in the bedroom he could have decided to replace the bedroom phone. We have no way to know whether he would have tried to make it look like the bedroom phone was used or still have gone with the kitchen phone hoping to make it look like trouble started in the kitchen then progressed upstairs. He could have done either it depends on what was going through his mind of what he wanted police to think. He either didn't tell Julie enough of his plan for us to know whether he intended to replace the bedroom phone or not or he told Julie but she didn't pay close attention or remember because she thought he was just blowing smoke and thus only half listened. Only Jeremy could tell us whether prior to committing the murders he was intending to replace the phone or not. I suspect he would have replaced it but my thought process and his are different. Just take the Bible. I still don't know what he was trying to accomplish with it. If I wanted to make it look like she had been reading it though before killing herself I would have put it down by her waist. he clearly put it down after she was lying down flat. But she would not have been lying down flat to read it. Putting it by her head helps show it was staged. He wasn't as smart as he thinks he is. You have to be a veritable idiot though to kill someone in their sleep and claim they made a phone call to you. That's something he would not have recognized for sure.
Scipio I have always been puzzled by the position of the bible just did not ring true where it was placed. Have you any thoughts on the socks at the side of her body splattered with blood do you think Ralph left them there when he retired for bed.?
-
Scipio I have always been puzzled by the position of the bible just did not ring true where it was placed. Have you any thoughts on the socks at the side of her body splattered with blood do you think Ralph left them there when he retired for bed.?
They look unworn to me, maybe he left them there to put on in the morning?
-
They look unworn to me, maybe he left them there to put on in the morning?
Scipio I have read on here that the socks belonged to Sheila this is why her feet were so clean but I think they belonged to Raloh quite often some men remove their socks before jumping into bed and throw them on the floor (not on my watch I may add) ;D
-
I'm still curious why JB, who supposedly planned the murders for a year didn't make any attempt to put Nevill out of action, would have thought that would have been his first thought. Why no shots to lower legs, it's very brutal but kneecapping is a sure way of incapacitating a person rather than pot shots at the head. Nevill's height was his best asset against JB so am surprised no attempt to bring him down. There were no missed shots to the lower body, so no attempt at all
Was made....... just thinking out loud really. :-\
Pretty good thoughts though. Good question.
-
If the killer didn't wear gloves then the killer's prints would have been in the blood that was on the rifle and that means blood would have been on the killer's hands to leave bloody prints on other objects the killer touched. Moreover, when the stock broke the killer's hand would at minimum have been scratched and more likely cut. Sheila's hands had no scratches let alone cuts and there is no proof Jeremy's hands had any wounds either.
You deliberately ignore the fact that both Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, had things of importance together, which make the struggle far more likely to have been between Ralph and Sheila, rather than between Ralph and anyone else. You over look the fact that marks upon Ralph's arm, and marks on Sheila's right wrist and right forearm, are perfectly consistent with both having been involved in some sort of a struggle together. Furthermore, both Ralph and Sheila had blood on the fingers of their hand. Additionally, sheila had blood on the soles of her feet indicating that June had already been shot before Sheila's feet got contaminated with Junes blood. Ralph had clean feet, thus enhancing the fact that he never entered the main bedroom after the shootings had started...
Bearing this in mind, the short conversation Ralph had on the phone to Jeremy, makes absolute sense, because by that stage all that Ralph knew for certain was that Sheila had got one of his guns, and that she had shot at him at least once, but possibly twice, and that she was going berserk. He didn't know at that stage that Sheila had shot June 5 times in the main bedroom, or that she had already killed her two young sons in the other bedroom. If Ralph had known this, he would not have wasted any time in phoning Jeremy, he would have called for the police, and ambulances...
-
Hello Mike is this your explanation why Sheila was so clean. If what you have posted is what happened the police must have known that Sheila was the killer and Jeremy was innocent :'(
I don't think by anybody's standards, you could say that Sheila was clean, because she wasn't spotlessly clean, she'd got blood on the soles of her feet, she'd got blood on her right wrist, and the top part of her right hand. She had bruising around her throat, and there were traces of what I believe to have been Ralph Bambers expiated blood on the front part of her nightdress, and Ralph Bambers bloodied fingermarks on the front lower part of her nightdress, indicating that at some point Sheila was stood above the cowering body of Ralph in the kitchen after she had shot him twice in the mouth,,,
-
Mike thanks for posting that I knew nothing about all this I had seen a photo of stains on one of her feet but did not know about the finger marks on her nightdress. All this throws a different light on things. Am I right in thinking you like lookout think Ralph was shot in the kitchen and was never in the bedroom?
-
If the killer didn't wear gloves then the killer's prints would have been in the blood that was on the rifle and that means blood would have been on the killer's hands to leave bloody prints on other objects the killer touched. Moreover, when the stock broke the killer's hand would at minimum have been scratched and more likely cut. Sheila's hands had no scratches let alone cuts and there is no proof Jeremy's hands had any wounds either.
Visit specsavers first, and then look at the scratch marks, bruises and the like present on her right forearm in photo's posted in the archives, then repeat what you've just said without laughing...
-
The plan wasn't for Nevill to go to the kitchen. The plan was simply to kill Nevill while he was not sleeping in bed. Sleeping in bed when shot = phone call impossible. It was just a fluke that he failed to disable Nevill and that things progressed to the kitchen. Had Nevill died in the bedroom he could have decided to replace the bedroom phone. We have no way to know whether he would have tried to make it look like the bedroom phone was used or still have gone with the kitchen phone hoping to make it look like trouble started in the kitchen then progressed upstairs. He could have done either it depends on what was going through his mind of what he wanted police to think. He either didn't tell Julie enough of his plan for us to know whether he intended to replace the bedroom phone or not or he told Julie but she didn't pay close attention or remember because she thought he was just blowing smoke and thus only half listened. Only Jeremy could tell us whether prior to committing the murders he was intending to replace the phone or not. I suspect he would have replaced it but my thought process and his are different. Just take the Bible. I still don't know what he was trying to accomplish with it. If I wanted to make it look like she had been reading it though before killing herself I would have put it down by her waist. he clearly put it down after she was lying down flat. But she would not have been lying down flat to read it. Putting it by her head helps show it was staged. He wasn't as smart as he thinks he is. You have to be a veritable idiot though to kill someone in their sleep and claim they made a phone call to you. That's something he would not have recognized for sure.
You did post to me not very long ago that JB wanted Nevill to die in the kitchen but see you have now changed your stance. :-\
-
Mike thanks for posting that I knew nothing about all this I had seen a photo of stains on one of her feet but did not know about the finger marks on her nightdress. All this throws a different light on things. Am I right in thinking you like lookout think Ralph was shot in the kitchen and was never in the bedroom?
I believe that he was shot a total of 6 times whilst he was downstairs in the main kitchen, consisting of two bullets to the mouth, and a further 4 bullets to his head. I also believe that wound (7) was inflicted was Ralph was approaching the top of the main stairs...
-
I believe that he was shot a total of 6 times whilst he was downstairs in the main kitchen, consisting of two bullets to the mouth, and a further 4 bullets to his head. I also believe that wound (7) was inflicted which Ralph was approaching the top of the main stairs...
Mike that is very interesting.
-
You did post to me not very long ago that JB wanted Nevill to die in the kitchen but see you have now changed your stance. :-\
No I didn't. I said JB didn't want Nevill to die in the bed. The fight in the kitchen occurred because Nevill wasn't disabled by the time the gun was empty.
-
You deliberately ignore the fact that both Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, had things of importance together, which make the struggle far more likely to have been between Ralph and Sheila, rather than between Ralph and anyone else. You over look the fact that marks upon Ralph's arm, and marks on Sheila's right wrist and right forearm, are perfectly consistent with both having been involved in some sort of a struggle together. Furthermore, both Ralph and Sheila had blood on the fingers of their hand. Additionally, sheila had blood on the soles of her feet indicating that June had already been shot before Sheila's feet got contaminated with Junes blood. Ralph had clean feet, thus enhancing the fact that he never entered the main bedroom after the shootings had started...
Bearing this in mind, the short conversation Ralph had on the phone to Jeremy, makes absolute sense, because by that stage all that Ralph knew for certain was that Sheila had got one of his guns, and that she had shot at him at least once, but possibly twice, and that she was going berserk. He didn't know at that stage that Sheila had shot June 5 times in the main bedroom, or that she had already killed her two young sons in the other bedroom. If Ralph had known this, he would not have wasted any time in phoning Jeremy, he would have called for the police, and ambulances...
The wounds on Nevill were made by the rifle. Sheila had no wounds to her body besides her gunshot wounds. Sheila had no blood on her fingers only on her outside palm by her wrist and it dripped from there down her arm to her elbow. That blood dripped from her wound when she tried to plug it with her palm/wrist.
Your supposed photos are never what you claim just like the photo of Nevill's right forearm which you tried to claim was an exit wound above his left elbow. You just pretend photos show anything you like instead of accepting what they actually show.
-
The wounds on Nevill were made by the rifle. Sheila had no wounds to her body besides her gunshot wounds. Sheila had no blood on her fingers only on her outside palm by her wrist and it dripped from there down her arm to her elbow. That blood dripped from her wound when she tried to plug it with her palm/wrist.
Your supposed photos are never what you claim just like the photo of Nevill's right forearm which you tried to claim was an exit wound above his left elbow. You just pretend photos show anything you like instead of accepting what they actually show.
I am afraid you are drastically deluded, either that or you have got your ryes inserted the wrong way round in your eye sockets, left in right, and right in left, and back to front. Perhaps a visit to spec savers might give you a fighting chance of being able to see things for what they are. Not only that, but you will also then be able to see that huge hole you have been digging for yourself to fall into anytime soon...
Steady as you go, you never know when that fall is coming. On the other hand I can post up photographs, and documents, whenever I choose to, that might help you over the edge, nay, When the time comes no doubt you will leap over the edge of your hole all by yourself - simply because you know as well as I do, that Sheila killed the others, but not herself...
Steady as you go...
-
Mike,the pieces of carpet which had been cut out from various areas,would you know if any of these pieces had contained bloodied footprints ?
I seem to remember AE going mad about the "cut-outs " and asking why.
-
Mike,the pieces of carpet which had been cut out from various areas,would you know if any of these pieces had contained bloodied footprints ?
I seem to remember AE going mad about the "cut-outs " and asking why.
There were no footprints just static blood drops. A large chunk of bedroom carpet was cut out at the feet of each victim. Not all blood was tested for typing just 5 drops from each of the carpet squares. The 10 drops were June's blood.
-
There were no footprints just static blood drops. A large chunk of bedroom carpet was cut out at the feet of each victim. Not all blood was tested for typing just 5 drops from each of the carpet squares. The 10 drops were June's blood.
How the dickens would you know if there were no footprints ? Did the laboratory/police,etc get in touch with you ?
-
How the dickens would you know if there were no footprints ? Did the laboratory/police,etc get in touch with you ?
For starters if there had been any bloody footprints then they would have been examined by the lab and Lincoln. Lincoln's report discusses the testing of the carpet samples:
(http://s3.postimg.org/uj2ge12wj/bambercarpet.jpg)
-
It mentions blood staining which could be anything in whatever form. How is it that we haven't seen this " blood-staining ?"
-
Anyway,what was June doing,wandering around,injured ? I was led to understand that she died on the spot against the door ?
-
Anyway,what was June doing,wandering around,injured ? I was led to understand that she died on the spot against the door ?
It seems she walked (or crawled - horrible!) about some before she died. I always wonder if she was trying to get to the twins.
She was moving very slowly, you can tell from the drops.
-
It seems she walked (or crawled - horrible!) about some before she died. I always wonder if she was trying to get to the twins.
She was moving very slowly, you can tell from the drops.
A terrible and sickening thought really,Alias. Gives you goose-pimples thinking about it.
-
It mentions blood staining which could be anything in whatever form. How is it that we haven't seen this " blood-staining ?"
If the staining had been determined to be footprints then it would state such. No one determined there to be any bloody footprints hence neither the police nor the lab/defense experts mention any footprints.
-
Anyway,what was June doing,wandering around,injured ? I was led to understand that she died on the spot against the door ?
Maybe she was trying to go to Nevill, maybe she was trying to go to the phone then turned around upon seeing it missing. Maybe she was disoriented and just wandering aimlessly. There is no way to know since we can't ask her.
-
Maybe she was trying to go to Nevill, maybe she was trying to go to the phone then turned around upon seeing it missing. Maybe she was disoriented and just wandering aimlessly. There is no way to know since we can't ask her.
I would go with that! If anyone should to be in shock after being woken in a hail of bullets, June certainly had good reason. Apparently it's fine that Jeremy was so shook up by just receiving a call he couldn't think to call 999 but there must be a 'logical' reason why June was wandering around the bedroom. ???
-
I would go with that! If anyone should to be in shock after being woken in a hail of bullets, June certainly had good reason. Apparently it's fine that Jeremy was so shook up by just receiving a call he couldn't think to call 999 but there must be a 'logical' reason why June was wandering around the bedroom. ???
And that " logical " reason we'll never know.
-
I would go with that! If anyone should to be in shock after being woken in a hail of bullets, June certainly had good reason. Apparently it's fine that Jeremy was so shook up by just receiving a call he couldn't think to call 999 but there must be a 'logical' reason why June was wandering around the bedroom. ???
No, not neccessarily. We are just speculating why she moved around the room. One explanation is as good as the other, we don´t know. All we know is that she moved around.
-
No, not neccessarily. We are just speculating why she moved around the room. One explanation is as good as the other, we don´t know. All we know is that she moved around.
What I don't get, is why didn't the killer make sure that June was killed before the shooter left the main bedroom - if Jeremy had been the killer, why didn't he finish June off, before he left the bedroom?
-
No, not neccessarily. We are just speculating why she moved around the room. One explanation is as good as the other, we don´t know. All we know is that she moved around.
We're speculating about everything and in your own words, given that one explanation is as good as another, my explanation is as good as any other so not sure what you're getting at/commenting on?
-
What I don't get, is why didn't the killer make sure that June was killed before the shooter left the main bedroom - if Jeremy had been the killer, why didn't he finish June off, before he left the bedroom?
It simply doesn't make sense, if Jeremy was the killer, because Ralph Bamber surely would have been his main target - so why waste 5 bullets on June in the main bedroom?
-
It simply doesn't make sense, if Jeremy was the killer, because Ralph Bamber surely would have been his main target - so why waste 5 bullets on June in the main bedroom?
Because he was acting proxy of the mind set he imagined would have been Sheila's if she'd "gone mad and has the gun."
-
What I don't get, is why didn't the killer make sure that June was killed before the shooter left the main bedroom - if Jeremy had been the killer, why didn't he finish June off, before he left the bedroom?
Maybe he thought he had? Or lack of bullets?
-
Strange how the bullet numbers are in 3's and 5's equalling 8.
3 in one child,5 in the other=8
Neville=8
All excepting June who had 7. ?
3 and 5 having a significance in religion and witchcraft.
The Devil tempted Jesus 3 times.
There are 3 Synoptic Gospels and 3 Epistles of John. ( Matthew,Mark and Luke )
-
It simply doesn't make sense, if Jeremy was the killer, because Ralph Bamber surely would have been his main target - so why waste 5 bullets on June in the main bedroom?
Jeremy's claim he received a phone call screwed him in many ways. One way it was a problem was that in order to claim Nevill phoned him he could not kill Nevill in bed. He had to wait for Nevill to get up or at least begin to get out of bed. How can someone killed in his sleep have phoned him?
They were moving around, he had a problem effectively targeting them and thus he expended the full magazine without fully immobilizing them. June's wounds were so severe she did not get far. Nevill on the other hand wasn't immobilized by his wounds and that resulted in the fight in the kitchen.
So this fight is directly attributable to him running out of ammo before immobilizing Nevill. This fight screwed him because if Sheila had engaged in such a fight with Nevill she would have had evidence on her body and clothing from it but she didn't. So his choices had various repercussions.
-
Because June and Sheila focussed on the Bible,why not use logic in that direction ? Instead of Jeremy-Bashing all the time. There's more than one way to skin a cat !
-
Because June and Sheila focussed on the Bible,why not use logic in that direction ? Instead of Jeremy-Bashing all the time. There's more than one way to skin a cat !
If you want to go in that direction the Bible was clearly planted after Sheila was murdered. It was opened and closed while it had blood on it and was placed in a pool of blood that formed after Sheila's death.
Rational people look at evidence that actually has the ability to say whether someone committed a crime or not. That means the most important evidence is that evidence which would exist if Sheila had in fact killed anyone else and evidence of whether she could have killed herself. That objective evidence proves she can't have killed herself and didn't beat or shoot anyone else. This evidence corroborates Julie's testimony. Given the weight of the evidence only people who live in denial believe he is innocent and you are a perfect case in point for living in denial because no matter what the issue your take is not grounded in reality. You ignore all the real evidence such as the evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself and stress evidence that doesn't actually exist such as your debunked claim that June had scratches on her arm made by Sheila's nails.
Sheila was shot by the murder weapon with the moderator attached while seated propped up against something. After she was dead the killer:
1) removed the moderator and put it in the downstairs closet
2) dragged her body flat and then placed the murder weapon on op of her to try to make it appear she shot herself
3) placed the Bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death.
It's impossible for her to have shot herself with the moderator attached and a dead person doing any of these things is even more impossible if there is such a thing as degrees of impossibility.
You keep pecking at inconsequential things instead of dealing with the main evidence. This is what you need to refute in order to establish Jeremy's innocence which would have the natural result of convincing others of his innocence or at least that there is insufficient evidence of his guilt.
-
If you want to go in that direction the Bible was clearly planted after Sheila was murdered. It was opened and closed while it had blood on it and was placed in a pool of blood that formed after Sheila's death.
Rational people look at evidence that actually has the ability to say whether someone committed a crime or not. That means the most important evidence is that evidence which would exist if Sheila had in fact killed anyone else and evidence of whether she could have killed herself. That objective evidence proves she can't have killed herself and didn't beat or shoot anyone else. This evidence corroborates Julie's testimony. Given the weight of the evidence only people who live in denial believe he is innocent and you are a perfect case in point for living in denial because no matter what the issue your take is not grounded in reality. You ignore all the real evidence such as the evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself and stress evidence that doesn't actually exist such as your debunked claim that June had scratches on her arm made by Sheila's nails.
Sheila was shot by the murder weapon with the moderator attached while seated propped up against something. After she was dead the killer:
1) removed the moderator and put it in the downstairs closet
2) dragged her body flat and then placed the murder weapon on op of her to try to make it appear she shot herself
3) placed the Bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death.
It's impossible for her to have shot herself with the moderator attached and a dead person doing any of these things is even more impossible if there is such a thing as degrees of impossibility.
You keep pecking at inconsequential things instead of dealing with the main evidence. This is what you need to refute in order to establish Jeremy's innocence which would have the natural result of convincing others of his innocence or at least that there is insufficient evidence of his guilt.
Scipio I believe the thrust of your argument but why would Police deny that they moved the body when the official photographs prove her arm was moved,which might explain the fresh blood flow in the photograph which was concealed until 2004?
-
Scipio I believe the thrust of your argument but why would Police deny that they moved the body when the official photographs prove her arm was moved,which might explain the fresh blood flow in the photograph which was concealed until 2004?
Police don't deny that they moved her arm, they said they moved her arm after they already photographed her as she was found. They deny he claim her body was moved to a different location in the room or house by the police. The claim moving her arm caused blood to flow is not credible the blood would have been dry by the time police moved her arm. The blood on the floor clearly pooled there as the blood ran down the side of her neck.
-
Police don't deny that they moved her arm, they said they moved her arm after they already photographed her as she was found. They deny he claim her body was moved to a different location in the room or house by the police. The claim moving her arm caused blood to flow is not credible the blood would have been dry by the time police moved her arm. The blood on the floor clearly pooled there as the blood ran down the side of her neck.
Hi Scip
Can you explain why the blood from her mouth appears dry and cracked whilst the blood from her wounds appear not to be? :-\
-
Hi Scip
Can you explain why the blood from her mouth appears dry and cracked whilst the blood from her wounds appear not to be? :-\
All of the blood looks dry in all the photos I have seen. When her body was moved flat blood in her mouth area was disturbed and leaked down the sides of her face to her ears. If she had been lying down the blood would not have done that because blood doesn't flow against gravity. Lying down the blood would flow to the back of her mouth not the front out her lips, she was seated and the blood was able to come out of her mouth before she was moved flat and then the blood already out leaked down the sides as opposed to down her chin as it would if her body remained seated.
-
All of the blood looks dry in all the photos I have seen. When her body was moved flat blood in her mouth area was disturbed and leaked down the sides of her face to her ears. If she had been lying down the blood would not have done that because blood doesn't flow against gravity. Lying down the blood would flow to the back of her mouth not the front out her lips, she was seated and the blood was able to come out of her mouth before she was moved flat and then the blood already out leaked down the sides as opposed to down her chin as it would if her body remained seated.
But I thought you argued that Jeremy pulled her legs to check if she were dead,or at least that's what I had assumed..
-
But I thought you argued that Jeremy pulled her legs to check if she were dead,or at least that's what I had assumed..
Jeremy dragged her flat because he wanted to place the gun on her body and with her seated he could only lay it across her legs. He needed her flat in order to pay it across her body. WHile she was seated blood flowed out of her lips. After being dragged flat the blood on her lips leaked down the sides of her face.
In hindsight he should have removed the moderator before shooting her and should have made her lie flat on her back and shot her while she was already lying down.
Removing the moderator after death is something she could not do so establishes someone else was there
Moving her body after death raises the same red flag.
You need to try planning things so that you don't need to move anything because experts can often figure it out when you change things after.
He failed to plan these minute details so was sunk. Sometimes things happen that screw up your planning. For instance if Sheila moved as he was shooting her it could screw up what he was planning to do. So aside from just poor planning a problem can be the victims doing things that prevent a plan from being carried out to the letter. So no matter how skilled you are there is always a risk.
-
Jeremy dragged her flat because he wanted to place the gun on her body and with her seated he could only lay it across her legs. He needed her flat in order to pay it across her body. WHile she was seated blood flowed out of her lips. After being dragged flat the blood on her lips leaked down the sides of her face.
In hindsight he should have removed the moderator before shooting her and should have made her lie flat on her back and shot her while she was already lying down.
Removing the moderator after death is something she could not do so establishes someone else was there
Moving her body after death raises the same red flag.
You need to try planning things so that you don't need to move anything because experts can often figure it out when you change things after.
He failed to plan these minute details so was sunk. Sometimes things happen that screw up your planning. For instance if Sheila moved as he was shooting her it could screw up what he was planning to do. So aside from just poor planning a problem can be the victims doing things that prevent a plan from being carried out to the letter. So no matter how skilled you are there is always a risk.
Scip I am surprised that you may think Sheila was seated. Any idea of where she might have been seated?
I don't think she was in a sitting position, if she were blood would have flowed downwards onto the front of her nightdress and there is no blood flowing downwards.
Herbert M....says she could not have been standing up or seated...
-
Scip I am surprised that you may think Sheila was seated. Any idea of where she might have been seated?
I don't think she was in a sitting position, if she were blood would have flowed downwards onto the front of her nightdress and there is no blood flowing downwards.
Herbert M....says she could not have been standing up or seated...
The most logical assumption is she was against the night table though it is possible she was against the bed, closet door or something else and her body was spun somewhat not merely dragged flat.
Blood did flow down her dress. It flowed down her shoulder and side breast area. This would not have occurred had she been lying flat. Had she been flat then the blood would have simply gone down the side of her neck. It did go down the side of her neck eventually but only after she was moved flat. She sat propped against something long enough for the blood do flow down her shoulder and side breast area before she was moved.
This was brought up on the appeal the prosecution didn't bother to raise it at trial. Whether it was because they felt the other evidence was sufficient or they simply never found an expert who noted the significance is unknown. The court found the evidence persuasive but rejected it because it wasn't new evidence. They didn't use new science to come up with the analysis they simply either didn't bother to use it at trial or didn't learn of it in time to use at trial because of a lack of effort. That means the Court refused to consider it. Since the defense failed to refute the evidence used at trial it made no difference that the court refused to consider it. If the conviction were vacated and a new trial help such could be used though. A new trial is not limited to evidence used prior it is a new trial from scratch.
My own guess was it was prosecutorial ineptitude that they missed it. Vanezis said in his writings that she was shot seated then fell flat after. So he was suggesting she was sitting up not propped against something, managed not to fall after the first shot somehow, bled down her shoulder and gown then seconds later fired the second shot and upon dying fell flat.
Fletcher rejected such he said she would have fallen flat immediately after any shot. So the prosecution for sure was on notice of a problem. They simply failed to piece the issue together and for that matter the experts never fully pieced it together for them but prosecutors are supposed to see such problems and have the experts further assess anything overlooked. So in my estimation the Court was right the prosecution missed their chance to make the point and should not be permitted to do so on appeal.
That is why the defense currently has no need to address the point and why you see little made of it anywhere. Only if the conviction were vacated and a new trial granted would the defense need to worry about addressing such.
-
Sheila was laid on the bed with a solitary dried blood stained wound on her throat, which ran vertically down her neck when stood upright. She could not have been sat upright anywhere upstairs at the time she received the first shot. Expert evidence exists which strongly suggests that the second shot inflicted underneath her chin was cause between an hour and an hour and a half before the photograph which shows partially coagulated blood running, leaking and still running from that particular wound - as stated by Giovani De Stefano in the documentary, "KILLING MUM AND DAD" - Jeremy Bamber...
-
Sheila was laid on the bed with a solitary dried blood stained wound on her throat, which ran vertically down her neck when stood upright. She could not have been sat upright anywhere upstairs at the time she received the first shot. Expert evidence exists which strongly suggests that the second shot inflicted underneath her chin was cause between an hour and an hour and a half before the photograph which shows partially coagulated blood running, leaking and still running from that particular wound - as stated by Giovani De Stefano in the documentary, "KILLING MUM AND DAD" - Jeremy Bamber...
In the photo' of Sheila on the bed, she is laid with her head on the left hand side pillow (when stood at the foot of the bed viewing the pillows from that position). One wound on her throat, no blood running from the sides of her mouth, no triangular bloodstain on the upper front right hand side of her nightdress, withy bloodstaining visible on the sole of her foot...
-
The jury were deceived by the police / prosecutions claim that Sheila's feet were spotlessly clean...
-
The most logical assumption is she was against the night table though it is possible she was against the bed, closet door or something else and her body was spun somewhat not merely dragged flat.
Blood did flow down her dress. It flowed down her shoulder and side breast area. This would not have occurred had she been lying flat. Had she been flat then the blood would have simply gone down the side of her neck. It did go down the side of her neck eventually but only after she was moved flat. She sat propped against something long enough for the blood do flow down her shoulder and side breast area before she was moved.
This was brought up on the appeal the prosecution didn't bother to raise it at trial. Whether it was because they felt the other evidence was sufficient or they simply never found an expert who noted the significance is unknown. The court found the evidence persuasive but rejected it because it wasn't new evidence. They didn't use new science to come up with the analysis they simply either didn't bother to use it at trial or didn't learn of it in time to use at trial because of a lack of effort. That means the Court refused to consider it. Since the defense failed to refute the evidence used at trial it made no difference that the court refused to consider it. If the conviction were vacated and a new trial help such could be used though. A new trial is not limited to evidence used prior it is a new trial from scratch.
My own guess was it was prosecutorial ineptitude that they missed it. Vanezis said in his writings that she was shot seated then fell flat after. So he was suggesting she was sitting up not propped against something, managed not to fall after the first shot somehow, bled down her shoulder and gown then seconds later fired the second shot and upon dying fell flat.
Fletcher rejected such he said she would have fallen flat immediately after any shot. So the prosecution for sure was on notice of a problem. They simply failed to piece the issue together and for that matter the experts never fully pieced it together for them but prosecutors are supposed to see such problems and have the experts further assess anything overlooked. So in my estimation the Court was right the prosecution missed their chance to make the point and should not be permitted to do so on appeal.
That is why the defense currently has no need to address the point and why you see little made of it anywhere. Only if the conviction were vacated and a new trial granted would the defense need to worry about addressing such.
I agree that blood flowed slightly downwards to her right hand side, but do you agree she could not have been in a vertical position when this occured and that she was on her right hand side and that it is possible that the 2nd shot tracked from her right hand side and was not a vertical shot.
Could the latter have thrown her backwards onto her back, thus supported by blood running vertically from each corner of her mouth, plus the jerk of this made blood run into her eye.
-
Sheila was laid on the bed with a solitary dried blood stained wound on her throat, which ran vertically down her neck when stood upright. She could not have been sat upright anywhere upstairs at the time she received the first shot. Expert evidence exists which strongly suggests that the second shot inflicted underneath her chin was cause between an hour and an hour and a half before the photograph which shows partially coagulated blood running, leaking and still running from that particular wound - as stated by Giovani De Stefano in the documentary, "KILLING MUM AND DAD" - Jeremy Bamber...
The expert evidence in the case says the second shot came within seconds of the first. She would have bled out if the second wound had not been delivered. Your claim she would have survived hours is absurd.
She never stood upright the blood on her gown indicates she was seated at first then moved flat.
Your claim she was in bed is also nonsense.
You are under the delusion that just making things up is helpful. It isn't it is worthless such efforts go now where in Court and rarely even make it to court. They don't even make it to sway the CCRC.
-
Sheila was on the bed with one bullet wound in her neck. I have personally seen the photographs depicting this. She is on the bed, her head resting on the left hand pillow, no blood coming out of her mouth, no blood running back into her left eye socket, no blood running horizontally across the right side of her neck, just a wee vertical blood run running as it had vertically from the first wound. There was no rifle on her body at that time. It was still resting against the bedroom window by that stage, iso somebody had to bring it away from the window and place it upon her body in time for the photographs which show two bullet wounds on her neck could be photographed there. You see, PC Bird did not start taking photographs of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor until around 11.00am, not as has previously been stated. The truth of the matter is that PC Bird started taking photographs elsewhere in the farmhouse at 10 am, for example, downstairs in the kitchen. According to DI RON Cook, he did not move Sheila Caffells right hand from the gun so that PC Bird could photograph the bloodied fingermarks on the front lower part if Sheila's nightdress until 11.10am. This is very interesting because at this time the rifle was photographed on her body, showing the position of her right hand and arm in two different positions upon and around the gun. The rifle was therefore on the body at that precise time (11.10am), yet...
The photograph taken from the middle landing of the main stairs showing the rifle leaning against the main bedroom window, was taken by PC Bird at 10.25 am, some 45 minutes prior to the same rifle being photographed on her body by 11.10am...
Bamber has now got photographic proof in the sequence and timing that each photograph was taken at the scene using the expert opinion of a photograph expert, proving that the rifle at the bedroom window was never photographed upon her body at any time prior to 11.10am, that morning, so this must surely be a significant breakthrough...
The rifle which fired the fatal shot (bullet PV/19) remained at the bedroom window until it was utilized in a police training exercise, and whilst offering the weapon against her body with the barrel of the rifle beneath the chin, and the fingers of her right hand upon the trigger mechanism, which activated the firing mechanism of the rifle. The rifle was placed back at the window where it remained until just before 11.10am, when police moved it back onto her body enabling PC Bird to photograph the rifle on Sheila's body. The timing when these photographs were taken exposes what the police had got up to whilst stage managing the bedroom scene to try and make out a false case that Sheila had taken her own life -yet, she hadn't and didn't...
-
DS Jones told relatives he had seen Sheila's body on the bed and that she had been shot once under the chin. Dr Craig told how he saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed with a solitary bullet wound in her neck. pi Bob Miller also stated that he saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed, with a single shot to the neck. Police photographed Sheila's body on the bed showing only one bullet wound in her throat, with no rifle on her body. The newspapers of the day reported in several different publications that Sheila's body was found on the bed. At the opening of the inquest held in the 14th August 1985, PI Miller reinforced what he had said in his statement, that police were satisfied that Sheila had shot and killed the other four victims, and that she had then gone on to take her own life by was of a single shot underneath the chin...
When Julie Mugford returned from Chelmsford hospital mortuary after identifying Sheila's body, she told everybody that Sheila had been shot once under the chin...
The rifle that fired the fatal shot beneath Sheila's chin, was photographed to be leaning against the bedroom window at 10.25am, some 45 minutes prior to the first photograph taken (11.10am) showing the same rifle on her body, so how could Jeremy have killed Sheila with use of the anshuzt rifle?
-
The facts speak for themselves, Jeremy Bamber did not kill any one of the five victims at all...
-
DS Jones told relatives he had seen Sheila's body on the bed and that she had been shot once under the chin. Dr Craig told how he saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed with a solitary bullet wound in her neck. pi Bob Miller also stated that he saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed, with a single shot to the neck. Police photographed Sheila's body on the bed showing only one bullet wound in her throat, with no rifle on her body. The newspapers of the day reported in several different publications that Sheila's body was found on the bed. At the opening of the inquest held in the 14th August 1985, PI Miller reinforced what he had said in his statement, that police were satisfied that Sheila had shot and killed the other four victims, and that she had then gone on to take her own life by was of a single shot underneath the chin...
When Julie Mugford returned from Chelmsford hospital mortuary after identifying Sheila's body, she told everybody that Sheila had been shot once under the chin...
The rifle that fired the fatal shot beneath Sheila's chin, was photographed to be leaning against the bedroom window at 10.25am, some 45 minutes prior to the first photograph taken (11.10am) showing the same rifle on her body, so how could Jeremy have killed Sheila with use of the anshuzt rifle?
DS Jones didn't tell the family Sheila was on the bed. I don't know why you keep bothering with all your faitytales...
-
Someone told AE that was the case-----------------but she " forgot " who'd told her. ::)
Remembered everything else bar that,and the silencer,of course.
-
Someone told AE that was the case-----------------but she " forgot " who'd told her. ::)
Remembered everything else bar that,and the silencer,of course.
It was PC Clark Lookout not sure if it has an e on the end.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It was PC Clark Lookout not sure if it has an e on the end.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh I see,with or without an " e ". ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh I see,with or without an " e ". ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yeah not an N hahahahah ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
SOC officer Malcolm Fletcher.
I think the weight of the bullets were about 2.7 ??????? Someone found a chart from the internet, I thought we had the size and weight in the archives....I am sure it was less than 40.
The chart looks to be of modern computer creation not the typing fonts of the documents Fletcher created. Moreover, it lacks the markings typical to genuinse case documents. They have numbers stamped on them reflecting exhibit numbers or pagination from copying. When you send documents to the other side as part of a document production you have your own pagination apart from that original to the document.
I think it was created by someone during the course of the defense effort, compiled by supporters from various documents.
-
The chart looks to be of modern computer creation not the typing fonts of the documents Fletcher created. Moreover, it lacks the markings typical to genuinse case documents. They have numbers stamped on them reflecting exhibit numbers or pagination from copying. When you send documents to the other side as part of a document production you have your own pagination apart from that original to the document.
I think it was created by someone during the course of the defense effort, compiled by supporters from various documents.
Where is the chart, I am sure Fletcher signed it? I can only say that DRH/5 was bullet as Hammersley described it...the weight of it was 37. something from memory...
I noted that on a gun forum they said at one time the bullets were 38....but now are 40.
-
Here are the docs.
-
Here are the docs.
The chart is the 3rd image you posted, that is what I asked who created. It clearly wasn't Fletcher.
-
The chart is the 3rd image you posted, that is what I asked who created. It clearly wasn't Fletcher.
I think it was Scip, it was posted by Hartley. Maybe he can confirm?
-
I think it was Scip, it was posted by Hartley. Maybe he can confirm?
It's a computer font not typed. Someone working on the appeal or just trying to help Jeremy constructed it.
-
It's a computer font not typed. Someone working on the appeal or just trying to help Jeremy constructed it.
Yeah, I am familiar with the font, could be Old Times Roman. We will have to ask Hartley. It could be from the 2002 COA.
-
Yeah, I am familiar with the font, could be Old Times Roman. We will have to ask Hartley. It could be from the 2002 COA.
I'll make you a pinky bet he found it on Sluething for justice and that it was posted there by Mike.
-
I'll make you a pinky bet he found it on Sluething for justice and that it was posted there by Mike.
I know our Mike spins some tales, but I have never seen a document that is not authentic.....I do believe that Hartley would know. Lets wait and ask him..eh? :-\
-
Scip read this
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3781.msg153063.html#msg153063
-
I know our Mike spins some tales, but I have never seen a document that is not authentic.....I do believe that Hartley would know. Lets wait and ask him..eh? :-\
If authentic means something from Jeremy's papers that may be true but many such papers were generated by people working on Jeremy's behalf and possibly even Jeremy himself. That chart seems to be data collected from various sources and complied for defense purposes.
-
If authentic means something from Jeremy's papers that may be true but many such papers were generated by people working on Jeremy's behalf and possibly even Jeremy himself. That chart seems to be data collected from various sources and complied for defense purposes.
And if it was? ;D
-
And if it was? ;D
It could have errors for one thing. Even if accurate it could be providing a false impression in several respects. For instance, suppose Fletcher bothered to write out 22LR in some notes and in others just wrote 22 though he meant 22LR. Many people shorten it by simply writing 22 or 22 rimfire instead of 22LR. 22 usually means 22LR, that is the most popular 22 cartridge.
Mike took this chart and said it proves some bullets were only 22 not 22LR, ignoring that the default when someone uses .22 rimfire it is 22lr. If someone means 22 short or 22 long they will say it because these cases are uncommon and even will say 22 Magnum. 22 Magnum is very popular but still not referred to simply as 22.
There is a big difference between Fletcher composing a single document that spells out 22LR for some but not others and him being inconsistent in his usage in multiple documents. In a single document there logically would be something trying to be conveyed in say 22LR for some but not all. But in various documents there is nothing odd in varying. I vary and sometimes call 22LR, 22, 22rimfire, 22rf.
I try to be somewhat consistent in my use of terms here to try not to confuse people but don't always stay in habit. For a long time I called a silencer a sound suppressor because that is the military term and term I am used to using. To not confuse I have been using the British term sound moderator and for the most part don't slip up but occasionally I do.
This often can and are taken out of context. Quite obviously Fletcher's use of "whole" is not the definition Mike wants to pretend. Mike wants to pretend he meant the entire bullet that had been inside the case was recovered. That's not true though the ones characterized as whole were various sizes and clearly had part of the lead missing. Someone would have to ask him what he meant. If we had all his testimony and documents we might know the answer but we don't have such. I have a feeling the defense figured out the answer but either Mike doesn't know or knows but doesn't care. Mike makes many claims that Jeremy abandoned because they ended up failing. Because we don't have access to everything the defense does he figures we won't know they failed let alone know why they failed.
-
It could have errors for one thing. Even if accurate it could be providing a false impression in several respects. For instance, suppose Fletcher bothered to write out 22LR in some notes and in others just wrote 22 though he meant 22LR. Many people shorten it by simply writing 22 or 22 rimfire instead of 22LR. 22 usually means 22LR, that is the most popular 22 cartridge.
Mike took this chart and said it proves some bullets were only 22 not 22LR, ignoring that the default when someone uses .22 rimfire it is 22lr. If someone means 22 short or 22 long they will say it because these cases are uncommon and even will say 22 Magnum. 22 Magnum is very popular but still not referred to simply as 22.
There is a big difference between Fletcher composing a single document that spells out 22LR for some but not others and him being inconsistent in his usage in multiple documents. In a single document there logically would be something trying to be conveyed in say 22LR for some but not all. But in various documents there is nothing odd in varying. I vary and sometimes call 22LR, 22, 22rimfire, 22rf.
I try to be somewhat consistent in my use of terms here to try not to confuse people but don't always stay in habit. For a long time I called a silencer a sound suppressor because that is the military term and term I am used to using. To not confuse I have been using the British term sound moderator and for the most part don't slip up but occasionally I do.
This often can and are taken out of context. Quite obviously Fletcher's use of "whole" is not the definition Mike wants to pretend. Mike wants to pretend he meant the entire bullet that had been inside the case was recovered. That's not true though the ones characterized as whole were various sizes and clearly had part of the lead missing. Someone would have to ask him what he meant. If we had all his testimony and documents we might know the answer but we don't have such. I have a feeling the defense figured out the answer but either Mike doesn't know or knows but doesn't care. Mike makes many claims that Jeremy abandoned because they ended up failing. Because we don't have access to everything the defense does he figures we won't know they failed let alone know why they failed.
Hi Scip
Fletcher describes the bullet as being whole and suggestive of rifle (18)
The weight of DRH/5 is minus its jacket and weighs in at 37 not sure of the weight of a case shell, but when added together it must weigh approximately 40.
If you say sound suppressor, I would still know what you mean.. ;)
-
Hi Scip
Fletcher describes the bullet as being whole and suggestive of rifle (18)
The weight of DRH/5 is minus its jacket and weighs in at 37 not sure of the weight of a case shell, but when added together it must weigh approximately 40.
If you say sound suppressor, I would still know what you mean.. ;)
Jacket and case are different. A jacket is a copper/bronze etc coating around the sides and front of a bullet. If someone calls a case a jacket they are being imprecise. None of the bullets recovered from the scene were jacketed they were simply all lead bullets. A hollow point is all lead but has a channel in the center of the front. A solid bullet AKA lead round nose has no such channel.
A cartridge is made up of the bullet, the case and the propellant (gunpowder/primer). In a rimfire cartridge the primer is built into the rim of the case. Then gunpowder is loaded into the case. Then the bullet is loaded into the case. The bullet weight of the subsonic Hollow rounds were 40 grains at the time of the murders. That is just the bullet weight not the weight of the entire cartridge. The entire cartridge would weigh more than 50 grains. The case, primer and gunpowder combined weigh more than 10 grains. How much more depends. A subsonic cartridge is generally filled with less powder than a cartridge that has higher velocity. You will never see makers list the weights of their complete cartridges they only give you the bullet weight, you have to weigh the cartridges yourself and often will find very slight variations. Some diehards will weigh their 22 cartridges in advance so they can group ones of the same precise weight together for use. Even though the difference is 1000th of a gram you will see some oddball people trying to weigh and sort them in groups.
What Mike posted is either talking about weights well before the murders or has a misprint on the bullet weight. The 1984 catalog lists 40 grain for both of their subsonics- they sold a solid subsonic and hollow point. I can't find any records of a 35 grain high velocity round either only 37.5 grains so the document probably is wrong on several fronts or is extremely old.
-
Jacket and case are different. A jacket is a copper/bronze etc coating around the sides and front of a bullet. If someone calls a case a jacket they are being imprecise. None of the bullets recovered from the scene were jacketed they were simply all lead bullets. A hollow point is all lead but has a channel in the center of the front. A solid bullet AKA lead round nose has no such channel.
A cartridge is made up of the bullet, the case and the propellant (gunpowder/primer). In a rimfire cartridge the primer is built into the rim of the case. Then gunpowder is loaded into the case. Then the bullet is loaded into the case. The bullet weight of the subsonic Hollow rounds were 40 grains at the time of the murders. That is just the bullet weight not the weight of the entire cartridge. The entire cartridge would weigh more than 50 grains. The case, primer and gunpowder combined weigh more than 10 grains. How much more depends. A subsonic cartridge is generally filled with less powder than a cartridge that has higher velocity. You will never see makers list the weights of their complete cartridges they only give you the bullet weight, you have to weigh the cartridges yourself and often will find very slight variations. Some diehards will weigh their 22 cartridges in advance so they can group ones of the same precise weight together for use. Even though the difference is 1000th of a gram you will see some oddball people trying to weigh and sort them in groups.
What Mike posted is either talking about weights well before the murders or has a misprint on the bullet weight. The 1984 catalog lists 40 grain for both of their subsonics- they sold a solid subsonic and hollow point. I can't find any records of a 35 grain high velocity round either only 37.5 grains so the document probably is wrong on several fronts or is extremely old.
Sorry I meant case not jacket. I was merely saying that the whole bullet may have weighed in a 37 due to the loss of its case, thus meaning that the entire bullet must have weighed in at more than 37.
Anyhow, I don't know much about bullets and guns as I run a gun shop.... ;)
-
Sorry I meant case not jacket. I was merely saying that the whole bullet may have weighed in a 37 due to the loss of its case, thus meaning that the entire bullet must have weighed in at more than 37.
Anyhow, I don't know much about bullets and guns as I run a gun shop.... ;)
You don't have to know anything about bullets to see how Mike's claims totally fall apart. Mike alleges:
a) That Nevill purchased 35 grain bullets
b) That Fletcher swapped out of the bullets recovered from the victims and scene and replaced them with bullets that he test fired
c) Proof that they swapped in test fired bullets is some of the bullets weigh more than 35 grains
Mike is ignoring that Fletcher test fired bullets purchased by Nevill so whatever the weight of the bullets Nevill purchased the test fired bullets would be the same. So his whole theory falls apart and he thus amended his theory by arguing Fletcher would be a complete moron and substituted 22LR bullets he test fired from some different brand that were larger than the ones Nevill purchased thus giving away that he substituted the bullets.
But sometimes Mike takes a different tact. He argues the bullets were not swapped but rather are the genuine bullets used in the murders and then argues there were 3 different calibers of bullets used that were fired by 3 different weapons.
Mike can't make up his mind of which allegation he prefers so keeps alternating between them.
Eley hasn't gotten back to me with a definitive answer of whether they maid a 35 grain subsonic hollow point and if so when they stopped selling it though it is rather obvious it was before 1984. They had a 37.5 grain hollow point selling side by side with their 40 grain in 1984 so in theory either could have been purchased. The 37.5 grain one was 2.44 grams and no fragment was larger than it so it is possible they were 37.5 grains.
The velocity stats for that 37.5 grain round is 1050/965 /895 which is the same stats on the sheet Mike posted. This means one of 2 things- the sheet got the grains wrong or Eley raised the weight by 2.5 grains and raised the amount of gunpowder enough to match the velocity perfectly. I am more inclined to believe the former- particularly since I can't find any reference to a 35 grain round and Eley seems to be having such a hard time finding it as well. It is unusual for references to be so hard to find unless a round was in existence for a very short period of time.
-
Eley hasn't gotten back to me with a definitive answer of whether they maid a 35 grain subsonic hollow point and if so when they stopped selling it though it is rather obvious it was before 1984. They had a 37.5 grain hollow point selling side by side with their 40 grain in 1984 so in theory either could have been purchased. The 37.5 grain one was 2.44 grams and no fragment was larger than it so it is possible they were 37.5 grains.
One can only take your word that this correspondence between you and Eley has taken place.
Secondly how do you expect them to know the specifications of what they produced over 30 years ago are the same staff sill employed?
Thirdly, I doubt a gun catalogue would make such a mistake
-
You don't have to know anything about bullets to see how Mike's claims totally fall apart. Mike alleges:
a) That Nevill purchased 35 grain bullets
b) That Fletcher swapped out of the bullets recovered from the victims and scene and replaced them with bullets that he test fired
c) Proof that they swapped in test fired bullets is some of the bullets weigh more than 35 grains
Mike is ignoring that Fletcher test fired bullets purchased by Nevill so whatever the weight of the bullets Nevill purchased the test fired bullets would be the same. So his whole theory falls apart and he thus amended his theory by arguing Fletcher would be a complete moron and substituted 22LR bullets he test fired from some different brand that were larger than the ones Nevill purchased thus giving away that he substituted the bullets.
But sometimes Mike takes a different tact. He argues the bullets were not swapped but rather are the genuine bullets used in the murders and then argues there were 3 different calibers of bullets used that were fired by 3 different weapons.
Mike can't make up his mind of which allegation he prefers so keeps alternating between them.
Eley hasn't gotten back to me with a definitive answer of whether they maid a 35 grain subsonic hollow point and if so when they stopped selling it though it is rather obvious it was before 1984. They had a 37.5 grain hollow point selling side by side with their 40 grain in 1984 so in theory either could have been purchased. The 37.5 grain one was 2.44 grams and no fragment was larger than it so it is possible they were 37.5 grains.
The velocity stats for that 37.5 grain round is 1050/965 /895 which is the same stats on the sheet Mike posted. This means one of 2 things- the sheet got the grains wrong or Eley raised the weight by 2.5 grains and raised the amount of gunpowder enough to match the velocity perfectly. I am more inclined to believe the former- particularly since I can't find any reference to a 35 grain round and Eley seems to be having such a hard time finding it as well. It is unusual for references to be so hard to find unless a round was in existence for a very short period of time.
I've always assumed they were 37.5 or 38. According to the rifle forum they raised the weight to 40 sometime in the late 80's. Alls I know is that 2 different types of bullets were used at WHF. Fletcher also went on to say and noted that several of the bullets had been loaded into the magazine before and taken out... ;)
-
One can only take your word that this correspondence between you and Eley has taken place.
Secondly how do you expect them to know the specifications of what they produced over 30 years ago are the same staff sill employed?
Thirdly, I doubt a gun catalogue would make such a mistake
that's ok he can scan and post the reply (:
-
One can only take your word that this correspondence between you and Eley has taken place.
Secondly how do you expect them to know the specifications of what they produced over 30 years ago are the same staff sill employed?
Thirdly, I doubt a gun catalogue would make such a mistake
Are you seriously suggesting that Eley would not retain records of what they produced in the past? Surely they would have records of whether they ever had a 35 grain subsonic hollow point and when they stopped making it. Whether their employees will actually undertake the effort required to find out is the only thing uncertain.
The form Mike posted is not a catalog, it is a single sheet and we don't know when it is from or where it is from. It is the only reference anyone could find to a 35 grain subsonic hollow point from Eley. No boxes no price lists no catalogs...
The Eley rep didn't make up a 37.5 grain subsonic hollow point there are references proving it exists. When they went into their craze of rebranding things "Xtra" it was rebranded as subsonic Hollow point Xtra. The 40 grain was branded subsonic Xtra Plus subsonic Hollow point. They stopped making the 37.5 grain 10-12 years ago. They recently did away with many of the Xtra varities such as Club Xtra which was rebranded simply Club and at the same time they rebranded the 40 grain subsonic Hollow point simply Subsonic Hollow point.
I have actually seen the boxes and references in various sources to the 37.5 grain ammo while references for 35 grain can't be found. Their catalogs list the 37.5 grain and even shooting magazines mention such in their tables. Tables like this
http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/22lrballistics.htm
Subsonic Xtra HP, .22 LR 37.5 gr 1050 / 92 965 / 77 895 / 67
If they did sell a 35 grain it was before Nevill bought his gun and so long ago that there are no references to be found.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that Eley would not retain records of what they produced in the past? Surely they would have records of whether they ever had a 35 grain subsonic hollow point and when they stopped making it. Whether their employees will actually undertake the effort required to find out is the only thing uncertain.
I find it difficult to understand why they would give you the time of day to look into your question.
Telephone rings "Thanks for calling Eley Limited your through to reception how can I help?"
Scipio "Hi can you confirm that you did or did not produce Eley 35 grain 22 calibre subsonic hollow points in 1985?"
lol
I am sure records exist but I doubt current employees will know, considering the staff turnover and new management and new ownership over the last 30 odd years. Its better to ask a UK based gun shop owner who has been in the business over 35 years.
-
I find it difficult to understand why they would give you the time of day to look into your question.
Telephone rings "Thanks for calling Eley Limited your through to reception how can I help?"
Scipio "Hi can you confirm that you did or did not produce Eley 35 grain 22 calibre subsonic hollow points in 1985?"
lol
I am sure records exist but I doubt current employees will know, considering the staff turnover and new management and new ownership over the last 30 odd years. Its better to ask a UK based gun shop owner who has been in the business over 35 years.
Hi David
I would think most established company's will have archived all, if not most of their achievements.
Once I was looking for the first 4 wheeled motor cart that a long lost relative had driven back in the early 1900's. He worked for Pickfords who are a removals firm and who are still trading today. It was a long shot but, I wrote to them and a few weeks later I received a book of their history and inside was the first 4 wheeled engine cart...its amazing what company's have these days. So with a bit of luck and good customer service. Eley will reply, whether they hold that information or not...at a guess I think they will.... :-\
-
I've always assumed they were 37.5 or 38. According to the rifle forum they raised the weight to 40 sometime in the late 80's. Alls I know is that 2 different types of bullets were used at WHF. Fletcher also went on to say and noted that several of the bullets had been loaded into the magazine before and taken out... ;)
How do you know 2 types of ammunition were used at WHF? Unless you mean in general and mean shotgun shells and 22LR rifle bullets as opposed to used to commit the murders there is no support for such a claim. Fletcher didn't assert such. The seller said he sold 500 rounds of subsonic hollow point, all the unspent rifle ammo was subsonic hollow point. The ammunition used for the murders was all the same regardless of whether it was 40 grain or 37.5 grain that Nevill purchased.
Forums are not the best place to find information necessarily. Their subsonic line consisted of 3 products-1) 40 grain subsonic solid 2) 37.5 subsonic hollow point and 3) 40 grain subsonic hollow point all were sold side by side for a while, the 40 grain didn't replace the 37.5 grain except int he sense that it made the 37.5 unpopular so Eley killed production. The 37.5 grain hollow point and subsonic solid were discontinued well before Eley's latest rebranding. In 2008 they rebranded their products- the sole survivor of the subsonic line was rebranded as "Subsonic Hollow".
-
I find it difficult to understand why they would give you the time of day to look into your question.
Telephone rings "Thanks for calling Eley Limited your through to reception how can I help?"
Scipio "Hi can you confirm that you did or did not produce Eley 35 grain 22 calibre subsonic hollow points in 1985?"
lol
I am sure records exist but I doubt current employees will know, considering the staff turnover and new management and new ownership over the last 30 odd years. Its better to ask a UK based gun shop owner who has been in the business over 35 years.
Who uses the phone anymore? We are in email contact. I got an email reply monday and a follow up from him today about the 37.5 grain even though I didn't specifically ask about it so he already did more than you assumed he would. Only the technical department can locate info far enough back to address the 35 grain issue. It is out of his hands when and whether the technical department will answer the questions he said he posed to them of whether Eley made a 35 grain subsonic hollow point and if so when it was discontinued. It doesn't matter how new the workers are it just matters whether they will actually take the time and effort to look it up. There is no harm in trying and if I didn't try the 37.5 grain would not have been brought to our attention so we already got something from it. If the technical department ignores him we are still better off than we were a few days ago.
-
How do you know 2 types of ammunition were used at WHF? Unless you mean in general and mean shotgun shells and 22LR rifle bullets as opposed to used to commit the murders there is no support for such a claim. Fletcher didn't assert such. The seller said he sold 500 rounds of subsonic hollow point, all the unspent rifle ammo was subsonic hollow point. The ammunition used for the murders was all the same regardless of whether it was 40 grain or 37.5 grain that Nevill purchased.
Forums are not the best place to find information necessarily. Their subsonic line consisted of 3 products-1) 40 grain subsonic solid 2) 37.5 subsonic hollow point and 3) 40 grain subsonic hollow point all were sold side by side for a while, the 40 grain didn't replace the 37.5 grain except int he sense that it made the 37.5 unpopular so Eley killed production. The 37.5 grain hollow point and subsonic solid were discontinued well before Eley's latest rebranding. In 2008 they rebranded their products- the sole survivor of the subsonic line was rebranded as "Subsonic Hollow".
I am basing it on this...
-
I am basing it on this...
That asserts some were .22LR subsonic hollow, some were .22LR standard velocity solid and some were 22 LR high velocity solid so 3 different types of .22LR ammo used. However it was created by some unknown Jeremy supporter and doesn't list any source for the claims. Nothing drafted by Fletcher references anything bus subsonic hollow points, the seller of the ammunition only referenced subsonic hollow points as being purchased and owned, Jeremy and AP bother referenced the ammo at WHF as being subsonic hollow points. The portion of Fletcher's testimony posted here didn't discuss any high velocity or standard solid rounds.
A Jeremy supporter decided to interpret something as suggesting some were standard and high velocity solid rounds but unless we find a companion document explaining why or find the author to ask we can't know the basis of the claim it is just unsupported allegation. That is why I wanted to know who created the chart to try to see if there were a way to ask where the claims came from.
If solid rounds were used it would have raised red flags in light of all the unspent ammo at the scene being hollow points and what was purchased being hollow points. So the notion Fletcher noted such somewhere and police, defense lawyers etc never addressed it is not credible.
-
That asserts some were .22LR subsonic hollow, some were .22LR standard velocity solid and some were 22 LR high velocity solid so 3 different types of .22LR ammo used. However it was created by some unknown Jeremy supporter and doesn't list any source for the claims. Nothing drafted by Fletcher references anything bus subsonic hollow points, the seller of the ammunition only referenced subsonic hollow points as being purchased and owned, Jeremy and AP bother referenced the ammo at WHF as being subsonic hollow points. The portion of Fletcher's testimony posted here didn't discuss any high velocity or standard solid rounds.
A Jeremy supporter decided to interpret something as suggesting some were standard and high velocity solid rounds but unless we find a companion document explaining why or find the author to ask we can't know the basis of the claim it is just unsupported allegation. That is why I wanted to know who created the chart to try to see if there were a way to ask where the claims came from.
If solid rounds were used it would have raised red flags in light of all the unspent ammo at the scene being hollow points and what was purchased being hollow points. So the notion Fletcher noted such somewhere and police, defense lawyers etc never addressed it is not credible.
I don't know as far as I am aware the document is authentic. It certainly looks as if its been in a ring binder, you can make out the holes.
How do we know an electronic type writer was not used, they were very much around back then. I left school in the 70's and we had them at school in our typing class.
-
I don't know as far as I am aware the document is authentic. It certainly looks as if its been in a ring binder, you can make out the holes.
How do we know an electronic type writer was not used, they were very much around back then. I left school in the 70's and we had them at school in our typing class.
It not only is a different font, it has no pagination. The documents provided by the prosecution all have stamps. It is a summary that was being made by someone on the defense side. If Fletcher had actually written it then there would have been a lot of questions raised.
-
Here are the docs.
Fletcher does not describe any of the bullets in his hand written notes as having been Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point bullets or part bullets, that tag has been made up later to try and convince everyone that this was a one gun crime, committed by someone who used the same type of ammunition, when of course, they did not...
-
I am basing it on this...
Produced by Mike or the Campaign team I'm afraid Patti. It's not an official document.
The bullet descriptions given as being high velocity solid rounds is clearly untrue.
-
Produced by Mike or the Campaign team I'm afraid Patti. It's not an official document.
The bullet descriptions given as being high velocity solid rounds is clearly untrue.
Based on the bullet weight specifications and Fletchers description of each bullet he examined, it is factually true...
-
Produced by Mike or the Campaign team I'm afraid Patti. It's not an official document.
The bullet descriptions given as being high velocity solid rounds is clearly untrue.
Haaaaaaaaaa!! (that was a deep, exasperated sigh) WHEN will posters learn that bending the truth/re-interpreting written words to suit their own agenda/posting titbits from scurrilous publications/quoting accurately or misinterpreting words said by a third party who may, or not, have their own agenda/telling US unintentional/deliberate untruths/blinding others with convoluted facts and figures being passed off a scientific facts is not, I repeat NOT, for those of the innocent party, going to suddenly and miraculously render Jeremy innocent, and for those of the guilty party is not, NOT going to render him MORE guilty.
-
To be fair to Patti, she had questioned the authenticity of the document and the information it contained. In fact she appears to question everything, which seems fair enough to me.
Cheers Hartley ;)
-
To be fair to Patti, she had questioned the authenticity of the document and the information it contained. In fact she appears to question everything, which seems fair enough to me.
Nothing wrong with questioning, Hartley. How else will truth -of anything- be arrived at.
-
That's simple, we merely need to ask Adam for it. :P
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
As I said, it is not an official document.
The descriptions are your interpretation only.
And, you forgot to mention that the prosecution ballistics expert forgot to mention the particular type of Eley .22 ammunition in question, despite allegedly having the 25 bullets, and the corresponding 25 cartridge cases from the shootings. Now, why would he not be able to provide this information considering he had access to it?
Don't blame me, blame him...
-
And, you forgot to mention that the prosecution ballistics expert forgot to mention the particular type of Eley .22 ammunition in question, despite allegedly having the 25 bullets, and the corresponding 25 cartridge cases from the shootings. Now, why would he not be able to provide this information considering he had access to it?
Don't blame me, blame him...
He called the test bullets (which he got from WHF) subsonic hollow points in his statement then said the casings and bullets used to kill the victims were the same type. I already pointed this out to you the other day. Saying "same type" means he determined they were Eley subsonic hollow points.
(http://s12.postimg.org/sfaw4xvhp/fletchereley.jpg)
-
The same dispelling of myths which have happened again and again on this forum.
It's become a case of: Whatever Mike says, it would be safe to believe the opposite.
The worst part is I often can't tell whether Mike is honestly confused or just distorting. Sometimes it is patently obvious but other times he is almost believable as simply being confused.
-
This has taken over his life.
Giving him the credit he deserves, the reason why we are able to delve into the details, research the case and debate the sticky points, is because he has made the various documents available to the public.
In the early days, it was a few cherry picked statements here and there to further his campaign. Eventually people are seeing through the manipulation and in an attempt to maintain interest and maintain his own self importance, he has started posting other statements and documents. Unfortunately they simply fill in a few blanks and contradict his wild claims.
It used to be a bit cat and mouse with people keeping their cards close to their chests, not really knowing what others knew, sometimes making out that they had a privileged insight to one thing or another.
Now, Mike has run out of documents to post and he's lost his usefulness. Every single argument you are having with him now, myself or others have had before. It's all very circular.
It really is the case that if Mike tells a person it's going to be sunny tomorrow, then I would advise them to take a brolly.
He's not confused, he's just a sycophantic liar.
I don't see Mike as this person you depict at all. Everyone has an agenda to some extent and will try to spin things to fit their own point of view,but I don't think he feels himself as self-important and from what I have read he has many more documents available in his possession for public scrutiny,unlike the Establishment who are holding back what they choose to.
-
Based on the bullet weight specifications and Fletchers description of each bullet he examined, it is factually true...
weights of fragments are useless in trying to assess whether a round is high velocity or not or whether it is solid.
The examination needs to concern the physical looks of the bullet to figure out if it is a hollow point or solid and unless the nose is intact you can't really tell the difference because other than the nose they are identical. You get the velocity by identifying the cartridge in question. If one wants to try making assessments as to these issues then they need to have access to the bullets or adequate photos or descriptions from someone who examined them and then point out what specific things establish what. Just making a chart up without explaining in detail the evidence being relied upon to reach conclusions accomplishes nothing.
-
weights of fragments are useless in trying to assess whether a round is high velocity or not or whether it is solid.
The examination needs to concern the physical looks of the bullet to figure out if it is a hollow point or solid and unless the nose is intact you can't really tell the difference because other than the nose they are identical. You get the velocity by identifying the cartridge in question. If one wants to try making assessments as to these issues then they need to have access to the bullets or adequate photos or descriptions from someone who examined them and then point out what specific things establish what. Just making a chart up without explaining in detail the evidence being relied upon to reach conclusions accomplishes nothing.
Fletcher had the bullets, he physically examined each one, he described them for what each bullet was, the police accepted his descriptions, the CPS accepted his descriptions, the defence ballistic expert Major Mead accepted his descriptions, theses 25 bullets were what they were, and nothing you or I or anybody for that matter can change the reality of the situation - these were bullets from different batches or types of .22 ammunition, some .22LR bullets, some .22 bullets, and one just recorded as a bullet. FACTUS, CAPPUT, END OF, there is no other explanation for it, no other interpretation that any body can come up with, ZILCH. But if you want to add or alter what Fletcher has said then you go a head, but it still won't alter the fact that in that collection of bullets, there never was just one type of .22 ammunition, or bullet...
-
Fletcher had the bullets, he physically examined each one, he described them for what each bullet was, the police accepted his descriptions, the CPS accepted his descriptions, the defence ballistic expert Major Mead accepted his descriptions, theses 25 bullets were what they were, and nothing you or I or anybody for that matter can change the reality of the situation - these were bullets from different batches or types of .22 ammunition, some .22LR bullets, some .22 bullets, and one just recorded as a bullet. FACTUS, CAPPUT, END OF, there is no other explanation for it, no other interpretation that any body can come up with, ZILCH. But if you want to add or alter what Fletcher has said then you go a head, but it still won't alter the fact that in that collection of bullets, there never was just one type of .22 ammunition, or bullet...
You seem to not understand how evidence works.
Saying Fletcher was wrong and that they were actually different kinds of bullets requires evidence. Someone has to examine them and then explain why they disagree with Fletcher or has to analyze raw data provided from someone who examined them and explain why such data proves the opposite of what Fletcher claimed.
If you do neither than you have no rational basis to challenge Fletcher.
The Hollow point bullets Nevill purchased were either 40 grain or 37.5 grain not 35 grain. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain so your whole assertion they had to be a different bullet by the basis of weight doesn't hold up. If that is all you had then your claims fall apart.
you keep saying you don't need to produce you evidence but if you don't explain the basis of your claims and provide evidence then you are just making unsupported claims.
-
You seem to not understand how evidence works I know exactly how evidence works, for example if it supports the prosecutions case it is usually allowed in, whereas if it tends to expose the prosecutions case as a fit up, it tends to get excluded, or completely ignored.
Saying Fletcher was wrong Wrong about what?and that they were actually different kinds of bullets Which is what they wererequires evidence And Fletchers hand written schedule dated 10th October 1985, and signed by fletcher, along with his typed witness statement in which he describes the 25 bullets differently, is in fact, evidence. Someone has to examine them and then explain why they disagree with Fletcher or has to analyze raw data provided from someone that has been done who examined them Already doneand explain why such data proves the opposite Yes, this has already been done, its in the bagof what Fletcher claimed.
If you do neither than you have no rational basis Its already been done, and is already in the bag to challenge Fletcher.
The Hollow point bullets Nevill purchased were either 40 grain or 37.5 grain not 35 grain No, they weren't matey, the 500 rounds were 35 grain hollow points. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain so your whole assertion they had to be a different bullet by the basis of weight doesn't hold up You believe what you want, or better still keep changing and altering what people have said or say to try and get your point across. Ralph Bamber purchased 35 grain Eley .22 hollow points. If that is all you had Watch this spacethen your claims fall apart.
you keep saying you don't need to produce you evidence but if you don't explain the basis of your claims and provide evidence then you are just making unsupported claims That's just your opinion.
-
I believe that I have identified the source from where the bullet weight data posted below was published:-
-
This data was published in the June 1985 version of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN...
-
This data was published in the June 1985 version of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN...
LMAO you claimed it was a document put out by Eley no wonder such was not in the 1984 Eley catalog. It was an error published in a magazine!
They estimated the 37.5 grain cartridges down to 35 grain.
-
LMAO you claimed it was a document put out by Eley no wonder such was not in the 1984 Eley catalog. It was an error published in a magazine!
They estimated the 37.5 grain cartridges down to 35 grain.
Why do you have to be so rude and insulting all the time . It is no laughing matter . For whatever reason Mike has dedicated hours of work on this case.
How do you know the magazine made a mistake and why and how should Mike know that?
-
LMAO you claimed it was a document put out by Eley You misunderstood what I said, and you are now trying to make out that the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazine made a mistake in reporting Eley hollow points, but the information was and is accurate. Elsewhere in other publications some subsonic hollow point .22 ammo' weighed 36 grain no wonder such was not in the 1984 Eley catalog. It was an error published in a magazine!It was not an error, as you put it, it was accurately recorded, and you know it
They estimated the 37.5 grain cartridges down to 35 grain No, they did not, they recorded the weight of 35 grain accurately.
-
Why do you have to be so rude and insulting all the time . It is no laughing matter . For whatever reason Mike has dedicated hours of work on this case.
How do you know the magazine made a mistake and why and how should Mike know that?
His claim that the defense was unable to find any 35 grain and thus took photos of 40 grain should have put him on notice of a problem. Furthermore the failure of the defense to raise the charges he is making in any submissions should clue him in that the defense found out they were wrong. In any event, he now can put A) the inability of the defense to find any 35 caliber bullets and B) failure to raise these claims in court C)the inability to find any other references to 35 grain bullets including in Eley's 1984 catalog- in perspective. Eley was selling 37.5 grain subsonic hollow points and 40 grain so Nevill could have bought either. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain so it makes no difference what he bought Mike's claim that some of the fragments were bigger than the bullets Nevill purchased doesn't hold up. So that is why the defense never ended up making this claim.
Mike and many on the campaign team keep taking arguments that didn't pan out and keep advancing them as if they are valid claims that have not been disproved. He needs to realize at this point that such is not going to work with us because we have too much information on this case and he needs to dig deeper if he wants to try to fool us.
Not only is he not going to look for arguments that are more logical and harder to disprove worse he is going to keep making this same 35 grain claim instead of just moving on and admitting it turned out to be wrong. If he chooses to keep insulting our intelligence then being overly nice when responding to them again is not in the cards.
-
His claim that the defense was unable to find any 35 grain and thus took photos of 40 grainThe tests done by us took place in 2003 / 2004, by which stage the 35 grain ammunition had been discontinued should have put him on notice of a problem. Furthermore the failure of the defense to raise the charges he is making in any submissions should clue him in that the defense found out they were wrong We were aware of the problem, but intended to raise the point with Jeremy at a later date, once the RENSHAW tests had been completed, but RENSHAW messed up the testing, and then before we knew it, Jeremy disposed of Ewen Smiths services and GDS then became Jeremys representative. At this stage Jeremy was being awkward saying that he only wanted three main appeal points, which he already had, and so we never brought the conflicting bullet weight evidence to his attention. There are lots of other potentially good grounds of appeal that we could have bombarded Jeremy with but he made it clear that the next appeal was only going to deal with three main grounds, not multiple ones like happened at the failed 2002 appeal. In any event, he now can put A) the inability of the defense to find any 35 caliber bullets and B) failure to raise these claims in court C)the inability to find any other references to 35 grain bullets including in Eley's 1984 catalog- in perspective. Eley was selling 37.5 grain subsonic hollow points and 40 grain They were also selling 29 grain, and 35 grain bullets in November 1984 so Nevill could have bought either. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain But 7 of the 12 WHOLE BULLETS were too heavy to have been 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets so it makes no difference what he bought Yes it does, and did Mike's claim that some of the fragments were bigger than the bullets Nevill purchased doesn't hold up Yes, it does, because 7 of the 12 WHOLE Bullets were too heavy to be either 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets. So that is why the defense never ended up making this claim No, you are wrong, you are making claims that because of the knowledge I have on this matter, that I represented Jeremys defence solicitors, but that was not the case in 2003 / 2004.
Mike and many on the campaign team keep taking arguments that didn't pan out and keep advancing them as if they are valid claims that have not been disproved If a valid argument has not been considered accurately and rejected, why shouldn' those arguments be re - raised, until such times as they are properly and fully considered?. He needs to realize at this point that such is not going to work with us because we have too much information on this case and he needs to dig deeper if he wants to try to fool us I am not in the business of trying to fool anybody, thats just your opinion, it doesn't prove that what you say is true.
Not only is he not going to look for arguments that are more logical and harder to disprove worse he is going to keep making this same 35 grain claim Yes, because Eley did produce 35 grain ammunition, of the kind purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984 instead of just moving on and admitting it turned out to be wrong. If he chooses to keep insulting our intelligence There is no evidence to prove that the ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984, was 40 grainthen being overly nice when responding to them again is not in the cards.
though given that I brought it to his attnetion that Eley reps you need to show us the correspondence you say you had with these Eley Reps, so that we can see for ourselves what you asked, and what they in fact said? knew nothing Many Reps in many companies do not know everything about products the company might have been manufacturing or producing 30 years previouslyabout any 35 grain subsonic hollow points
-
"His claim that the defense was unable to find any 35 grain and thus took photos of 40 grain should have put him on notice of a problem." The tests done by us took place in 2003 / 2004, by which stage the 35 grain ammunition had been discontinued"
Discontinued ammo can still be found. Eley 37.5 grain hollow points were discontinued a decade ago and I still found a source to buy them from. When you can't locate anything that is a sign you may be looking for something that doesn't exist. Some people jack up the price and you may not want to pay that price but you can always find some. The date code of what I found is from January 1985 so 30 years old and I could buy them if I want. Maybe the lube on them is gone by this point so they would not fire well without first doing something to relube them. That could be another consideration in the equation of why someone won't want to use old ammo for test use. But again you can find them if they actually were made. I can still find British surplus for various rifles and revolvers that are pre-WWII. What did they do make these 35 grain bullets for 1 year so never put it in their catalog and everyone who bought them fired them all so none exist anywhere?
"Furthermore the failure of the defense to raise the charges he is making in any submissions should clue him in that the defense found out they were wrong" We were aware of the problem, but intended to raise the point with Jeremy at a later date, once the RENSHAW tests had been completed, but RENSHAW messed up the testing, and then before we knew it, Jeremy disposed of Ewen Smiths services and GDS then became Jeremys representative. At this stage Jeremy was being awkward saying that he only wanted three main appeal points, which he already had, and so we never brought the conflicting bullet weight evidence to his attention. There are lots of other potentially good grounds of appeal that we could have bombarded Jeremy with but he made it clear that the next appeal was only going to deal with three main grounds, not multiple ones like happened at the failed 2002 appeal.
If they were good ideas they would have been used. Someone came to the realization the rounds were not 35 grain and thus the whole thing fell apart.
"In any event, he now can put A) the inability of the defense to find any 35 caliber bullets and B) failure to raise these claims in court C)the inability to find any other references to 35 grain bullets including in Eley's 1984 catalog- in perspective. Eley was selling 37.5 grain subsonic hollow points and 40 grain"
They were also selling 29 grain, and 35 grain bullets in November 1984 so Nevill could have bought either. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain But 7 of the 12 WHOLE BULLETS were too heavy to have been 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets so it makes no difference what he bought Yes it does, and did Mike's claim that some of the fragments were bigger than the bullets Nevill purchased doesn't hold up Yes, it does, because 7 of the 12 WHOLE Bullets were too heavy to be either 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets. So that is why the defense never ended up making this claim No, you are wrong, you are making claims that because of the knowledge I have on this matter, that I represented Jeremys defence solicitors, but that was not the case in 2003 / 2004.
1) Why do you keep bringing up 29 grain 22 short bullets? The Anschutz fired 22LR bullets not 22 short. Nevill didn't buy 22 short he bought 500 rounds of 22LR subsonic hollow points. None of the bullets were 22 short no one hand loaded a 22 short bullet into the Anschutz try entering reality and focusing your claims on something REMOTELY PLAUSIBLE.
2) you are wrong that there were fragments greater than the 37.5 grain (2.44 grams)
3) you have not established that the American Rifleman chart is correct and that in 1984 they offered 35 grain subsonic hollow points. Even if they did have 3 different weights of subsonic hollow points for sale in 1984 you need to establish Nevill bought the 35 grain variety for there to be a problem.
I am not in the business of trying to fool anybody, thats just your opinion, it doesn't prove that what you say is true.
You don't take evidence and then use it logically you ignore evidence and make up what is convenient to you. Just above you ignore that Jeremy claimed the rifle was unloaded when he picked it up and you claim it had 5 rounds in it which means he would not have needed to get any bullets out and could have just ran outside with it. Worse yet you suggest that the 5 rounds being loaded 2 times helps support there were bullets already in the gun when it doesn't. They would simply have been loaded once if left in the gun. You never follow your arguments to their logical conclusion to test them.
To me that certainly smacks of trying to fool us and especially when you tell these tales of being shown photos that clearly the police would never have taken and tales of a cop form the case feeding you info. You seem to want attention simply and you done need to resort to what you do in order to get it, you could could get attention in a much better way and positive attention at that.
"Not only is he not going to look for arguments that are more logical and harder to disprove worse he is going to keep making this same 35 grain claim" Yes, because Eley did produce 35 grain ammunition, of the kind purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984
The chart in American Rifleman doesn't prove they were making it in 1984 and certainly doesn't prove that is what Nevill purchased. Larger grain subsonic hollow point bullets were being sold in 1984 and thus you need to prove the ones Nevill purchased were 35 grain. Just saying they were being made is not enough since other varities were available and your supposed evidence it was being produced at the time is shaky given it is the only source claiming such and no such ammo can be found.
" instead of just moving on and admitting it turned out to be wrong. If he chooses to keep insulting our intelligence" There is no evidence to prove that the ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984, was 40 grain
It doesn't matter whether they were 40 grain or 37.5 grain none the bullet fragments are larger than 37.5 grain. You are the one insisting he bought 35 grain you bear the burden of proving that. You hoped to prove it by saying they only sold 35 grain subsonic hollow points at the time but that is not the case. You need to prove the product he bought was 35 grain. Surely the defense was provided photos of the ammunition boxes and thus the lot numbers. Aside for the lot number having the date code and machines made on they also have the mean velocity. If you want to play detective advocate then act like one. Investigate for real following the evidence where it leads instead of deciding what you want to believe then trying to frame the evidence around such.
PS
I waited to see if you would say it but you didn't. The first round used in the murders should have been double loaded. Jeremy claimed he chambered a round, then unloaded it and stuck it back in the magazine. For this claim to be true that means that round would have been double marked. So if Jeremy's claims were true 4 of the rounds used in the murders were loaded/unloaded some day prior and then reloaded on the day of the murders. The 5th round that was loaded previously would have been from that very day. If you want to play advocate you have to be aware of EVERYTHING your "client" claimed and look at the ramifications of such.
-
PS
I waited to see if you would say it but you didn't. The first round used in the murders should have been double loaded. Jeremy claimed he chambered a round, then unloaded it and stuck it back in the magazine. For this claim to be true that means that round would have been double marked. So if Jeremy's claims were true 4 of the rounds used in the murders were loaded/unloaded some day prior and then reloaded on the day of the murders. The 5th round that was loaded previously would have been from that very day. If you want to play advocate you have to be aware of EVERYTHING your "client" claimed and look at the ramifications of such.
But the family insisted that Neville would have emptied the magazine and put the gun away as he did every night - so how do you know where those bullets were put?
-
The dealers entry in his dealers register simply says 500 hollows, or subsonic, I do not think the brand name Eley is recorded in the delars register, if true te subsonic ammo' sold to Ralph Bamber could have been Remington, or Winchester produced...
-
But the family insisted that Neville would have emptied the magazine and put the gun away as he did every night - so how do you know where those bullets were put?
Which means 1 round would have been unloaded and reloaded 3 times and the other 9 2 times. But only 6 round had been reloaded 2 times- 5 of which were used in the murders and the 6th still mixed in the batch.
Those 5 rounds were not consecutive in the magazine there were 2 in the first magazine load, 1 in the second magazine load and 2 in the 3rd magazine load.
Mike's claims are not supported at all.
-
The dealers entry in his dealers register simply says 500 hollows, or subsonic, I do not think the brand name Eley is recorded in the delars register, if true te subsonic ammo' sold to Ralph Bamber could have been Remington, or Winchester produced...
Less than 200 rounds had been used. They had the 6 totally undisturbed boxes and 2 other boxes that were opened. The boxes were Eley. Eley cases have an E stamped on them which give away they were Eley. The gun dealer said in his statement he sold 10 boxes of 50 rounds each box of Eley subsonic.
(http://s1.postimg.org/5279cny1r/radclstatement.jpg)
The defense found an error in a magazine, looked into it, found out the bullets were actually larger than the magazine asserted and thus the angle they were looking at didn't pan out.
-
Less than 200 rounds had been used. They had the 6 totally undisturbed boxes and 2 other boxes that were opened. The boxes were Eley. Eley cases have an E stamped on them which give away they were Eley. The gun dealer said in his statement he sold 10 boxes of 50 rounds each box of Eley subsonic.
(http://s1.postimg.org/5279cny1r/radclstatement.jpg)
The defense found an error in a magazine, looked into it, found out the bullets were actually larger than the magazine asserted and thus the angle they were looking at didn't pan out.
Let's get something straight, the entries in the dealers dealer register, dated the 24 the November 1984, do not identify the 500 rounds of hollow point, subsonic ammunition as being uniquely Eley n character. The entry simple states 500 'hollows', or 'subsonic'. Whilst in a witness statement dated, 19th September 1975, suddenly Fletcher recollects that these 500 rounds were Eley type bullets, by reference to the 'E' stamped on the base of each recovered cartridge case, Well, I have got news for everybody,the unreported test fire of the anshuzr rifle, sound moderator and Eley control ammunition, was test fired on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, just in time for the gun dealer to suddenly remember that the 500 rounds he had earlier ( almost a year later) remembered that they were all Eley types...
-
Let's get something straight, the entries in the dealers dealer register, dated the 24 the November 1984, do not identify the 500 rounds of hollow point, subsonic ammunition as being uniquely Eley n character. The entry simple states 500 'hollows', or 'subsonic'. Whilst in a witness statement dated, 19th September 1975, suddenly Fletcher recollects that these 500 rounds were Eley type bullets, by reference to the 'E' stamped on the base of each recovered cartridge case, Well, I have got news for everybody,the unreported test fire of the anshuzr rifle, sound moderator and Eley control ammunition, was test fired on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, just in time for the gun dealer to suddenly remember that the 500 rounds he had earlier ( almost a year later) remembered that they were all Eley types...
That was from the seller not Fletcher. The sller said the firearms certificate has such recorded on it. Your spin crashed and burned as usual.
-
That was from the seller not Fletcher. The sller said the firearms certificate has such recorded on it. Your spin crashed and burned as usual.
In the extract you have posted up, the reference to the entry recorded in Ralph Bambers firearm certificate, not Radcliffe's dealership Register, where Radcliffe records the entry differently. How is it possible for the entry in Radcliffe's dealership register, to be recorded differently to the entry in Ralph Banners firearms certificate? Furthermore, on the receipt of purchase, the description of the ammunition does not match one or other description of the ammunition recorded elsewhere in the aforementioned Register and or Certificate. So, here we have documentary evidence that something dodgy has been going on. It is also worth pointing out the date of the witness statement which the extract you have posted up, which conveniently fell on the 19th September 1985...
The dodgy unreported test fire of the anshuzt rifle, with use of a sound moderator, and Eley control ammunition took place on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...
Radcliffe's witness statement is not signed, so someone other than Radcliffe has produced that witness statement to claim that if called upon to do so, that Radcliffe would have said he sold that type of ammunition to Ralph Bamber, but he was never called upon to do so...
What appears to have been happening behind the scene, is that steps were being taken to carry out test firing of the anshuzt rifle using Eley control ammunition, used in a substitution process, involving the switch of cartrige cases so that the police ended up with 25 Eley cartridge cases, which had all at one time or another been fired via the rifle, albeit some during the shootings, whilst others still fired afterwards in the unreported test fire of gun and Eley control ammunition between 12th and 19th September 1985. The police and Fletcher swapped over 14 cartridge cases so that they could rely upon Fletchers later test fire of the same rifle with control ammunition to conclude that all the 25 cartridge cases had been loaded and fired in the anshuzt rifle, and that this helps to prove that the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the five victims by the 25 bullets had all been fired via the same gun...
But, they kept secret the unreported test fire of the gun with 14 Eley rounds that took place between the 12th and 19th September 1985, instead choosing to introduce Fletchers official test fire of the same rifle between 20th September and 2nd October 1985, as the yardstick with which to declare that all the 25 bullets and cartridge cases bearing the brand 'E', had been the cause of the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the 5 victims. Yet many of the bullets contained in the crime scene batch (14 of them in total) belonged to other types of ammunition, identifiable by the 14 cartridge cases retained by Huntingdon Lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100...
-
In the extract you have posted up, the reference to the entry recorded in Ralph Bambers firearm certificate, not Radcliffe's dealership Register, where Radcliffe records the entry differently. How is it possible for the entry in Radcliffe's dealership register, to be recorded differently to the entry in Ralph Banners firearms certificate? Furthermore, on the receipt of purchase, the description of the ammunition does not match one or other description of the ammunition recorded elsewhere in the aforementioned Register and or Certificate. So, here we have documentary evidence that something dodgy has been going on. It is also worth pointing out the date of the witness statement which the extract you have posted up, which conveniently fell on the 19th September 1985...
The dodgy unreported test fire of the anshuzt rifle, with use of a sound moderator, and Eley control ammunition took place on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...
Radcliffe's witness statement is not signed, so someone other than Radcliffe has produced that witness statement to claim that if called upon to do so, that Radcliffe would have said he sold that type of ammunition to Ralph Bamber, but he was never called upon to do so...
What appears to have been happening behind the scene, is that steps were being taken to carry out test firing of the anshuzt rifle using Eley control ammunition, used in a substitution process, involving the switch of cartrige cases so that the police ended up with 25 Eley cartridge cases, which had all at one time or another been fired via the rifle, albeit some during the shootings, whilst others still fired afterwards in the unreported test fire of gun and Eley control ammunition between 12th and 19th September 1985. The police and Fletcher swapped over 14 cartridge cases so that they could rely upon Fletchers later test fire of the same rifle with control ammunition to conclude that all the 25 cartridge cases had been loaded and fired in the anshuzt rifle, and that this helps to prove that the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the five victims by the 25 bullets had all been fired via the same gun...
But, they kept secret the unreported test fire of the gun with 14 Eley rounds that took place between the 12th and 19th September 1985, instead choosing to introduce Fletchers official test fire of the same rifle between 20th September and 2nd October 1985, as the yardstick with which to declare that all the 25 bullets and cartridge cases bearing the brand 'E', had been the cause of the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the 5 victims. Yet many of the bullets contained in the crime scene batch (14 of them in total) belonged to other types of ammunition, identifiable by the 14 cartridge cases retained by Huntingdon Lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100...
You just post the same nonsense over and over again which has zero support.
The Firearms register is the premier document. That is the one the dealer has to make sure is correct. If the dealer didn't put as much detail in his books about what is sold who cares he filled out the firearm certificate at the time of the sale.
In any event we only have your word that the registry from Radcliffe is different and unless you produce a copy of it I don't even believe you have access to his sales books. You have made up far too many things to trust your claims.
None of this supports the allegations you make about different guns being used, bullets and cases being switched etc. These are just wild allegations totally lacking in support of any kind.
-
I don't have to post anything up, but the truth is that the details of the sale of ammunition to Ralph Bamber on the 24th November 1984, is recorded differently at three separate sources. This is no accident, somebody is responsible for making it difficult for someone to come along at a later date and be able to identify the exact type and make of the 500 rounds purchased by Ralph Bamber. Moreover, in the typed version of Jeremy Bambers named statement, he too neither refers to the manufacturer of the ammunition he supposedly loaded into an empty magazine. Add to this the examination of the batch of crime scene bullets as .22lr bullets, .22 bullets, and a bullet, without mentioning the manufacturer of of these different kinds of ammunition, now that is very very strange, do you not agree?
-
I don't have to post anything up, but the truth is that the details of the sale of ammunition to Ralph Bamber on the 24th November 1984, is recorded differently at three separate sources. This is no accident, somebody is responsible for making it difficult for someone to come along at a later date and be able to identify the exact type and make of the 500 rounds purchased by Ralph Bamber. Moreover, in the typed version of Jeremy Bambers named statement, he too neither refers to the manufacturer of the ammunition he supposedly loaded into an empty magazine. Add to this the examination of the batch of crime scene bullets as .22lr bullets, .22 bullets, and a bullet, without mentioning the manufacturer of of these different kinds of ammunition, now that is very very strange, do you not agree?
Fletcher said the bullets used for testing were the same ones that had been purchased by Nevill and that the bullets and casings connected to the murders were the same. He didn't claim some were different .22 short, .22 magnum etc he found them all to be 22LR.
-
Fletcher said the bullets used for testing were the same ones that had been purchased by Nevill and that the bullets and casings connected to the murders were the same. He didn't claim some were different .22 short, .22 magnum etc he found them all to be 22LR.
No, he didn't at all, and that is the weakness in the ballistics evidence relied upon in this case. Stop making things up, altering the truth and changing things around to suit your arguments. Fletcher did not say what you say he did, and the contents of his hand written notes (dated and signed), his witness statement, or his hand written entries on each of the Lab' General Examination records, gain which he signed and dated, so once again you stumble towards that huge hole you have been digging for yourself...
-
No, he didn't at all, and that is the weakness in the ballistics evidence relied upon in this case. Stop making things up, altering the truth and changing things around to suit your arguments. Fletcher did not say what you say he did, and the contents of his hand written notes (dated and signed), his witness statement, or his hand written entries on each of the Lab' General Examination records, gain which he signed and dated, so once again you stumble towards that huge hole you have been digging for yourself...
You seem to think that if you just refuse to admit you are wrong that such will suffice, it doesn't.
For the 5th time he called the test bullets (which he got from WHF) subsonic hollow points in his statement then said the casings and bullets used to kill the victims were the same type. I already pointed this out to you the other day. Saying "same type" means he determined they were Eley subsonic hollow points.
(http://s12.postimg.org/sfaw4xvhp/fletchereley.jpg)
-
You seem to think that if you just refuse to admit you are wrong that such will suffice, it doesn't.
For the 5th time he called the test bullets (which he got from WHF) subsonic hollow points in his statement then said the casings and bullets used to kill the victims were the same type. I already pointed this out to you the other day. Saying "same type" means he determined they were Eley subsonic hollow points.
(http://s12.postimg.org/sfaw4xvhp/fletchereley.jpg)
You are deliberately ignoring the now known facts...
Fletcher took part in unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle, silencer and Eley control ammunition prior to, or on the 12th September 1985. His signature is present upon several 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' pertaining to the examination and test comparisons between specific cartridge cases (Marked with 'E') and control ammunition fired via rifle (18), on dates between the 12th and the 19th September 1985. Fletcher clearly had access to test fired rounds, fired in rifle (18), long before he came around to performing his 'OFFICIAL TEST FIRE' of the same, which he states took place between the 20th September, and the 2nd October 1985. Now, why have a separate test fire of the anshuzt rifle and Eley control ammunition (before, or on the 12th September 1985), and a separate test fire of the same rifle and Eley control ammunition, and deny ever having carried out, taken part in, or known about the earlier test fire of the rifle, with Eley control ammunition?
Lets get the facts straight, prior to Fletcher carrying out the so called 'OFFICIAL' test fire of the rifle and Eley control ammunition (between 20th September and 2nd October 1985) Fletcher makes the bold statement that prior to these 'OFFICIAL' tests being undertaken, that he did not know when the rifle had last been fired, but clearly he did. His signature appears on several lab' records which state that various cartridge cases were compared against test fired rounds in the rifle, in order for comparison tests to have been carried out on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985 - so Fletcher lied, he lied because he knows the purpose of having had two separate test fires of the rifle and Eley control ammunition. The sole purpose of the original unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition was chiefly for substitution purposes, so that other manufacturers cartridge cases could be extracted from the batch of crime scene ammunition, replaced by test fired Eley ammunition, so that by the time the 'OFFICIAL' test fire gets under way, from 20th September 1985, the substituted cartridge cases in the crime scene batch are all Eley ammunition. So, Fletcher does another test fire of the rifle between 20th September 1985 and 2nd October 1985, and uses the test fired Eley control ammunition, in comparison tests with various cartridge cases as part of the 'REVISED' batch of cartridge cases, thus allowing him to conclude that the individual cartridge cases subject of the individual Lab' reports, was loaded into the gun and fired from it...
That is all well and good...
My point is this, If the original 14 cartridge cases had not in part been swapped over with Eley ammunition after the 'UNREPORTED TEST FIRE', and there had been no earlier test fire prior to the 20th September 1985, it would not have been possible to match all 25 bullet cases to rifle (18), nor would it have been possible to declare that all 25 bullets had come from the same batch. What I am saying, is that there had to be the earlier unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition, so that the batch of crime scene ammunition, as of and from the 19th September 1985, was available to be compared against other Eley control ammunition officially test fired from the 20th September 1985, onward...
You do not have two different test fires of the same gun using Eley ammunition, for no reason at all, and then seek to hide for the fact that two such test firings had occurred, not only one...
-
Another thing...
My recollection regarding what Jeremy has always maintained to me, is that he did not tip out the contents of the box of ammunition onto the kitchen worktop. He told me on several different occasions that he simply removed the cellophane wrapper around the box, and picked out the individual rounds to load into the magazine...
-
The content of these typed extracts is wrong, based upon the information contained in the Lab' General Examination Report, regarding cartridges...
-
You are deliberately ignoring the now known facts...
Fletcher took part in unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle, silencer and Eley control ammunition prior to, or on the 12th September 1985. His signature is present upon several 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' pertaining to the examination and test comparisons between specific cartridge cases (Marked with 'E') and control ammunition fired via rifle (18), on dates between the 12th and the 19th September 1985. Fletcher clearly had access to test fired rounds, fired in rifle (18), long before he came around to performing his 'OFFICIAL TEST FIRE' of the same, which he states took place between the 20th September, and the 2nd October 1985. Now, why have a separate test fire of the anshuzt rifle and Eley control ammunition (before, or on the 12th September 1985), and a separate test fire of the same rifle and Eley control ammunition, and deny ever having carried out, taken part in, or known about the earlier test fire of the rifle, with Eley control ammunition?
Lets get the facts straight, prior to Fletcher carrying out the so called 'OFFICIAL' test fire of the rifle and Eley control ammunition (between 20th September and 2nd October 1985) Fletcher makes the bold statement that prior to these 'OFFICIAL' tests being undertaken, that he did not know when the rifle had last been fired, but clearly he did. His signature appears on several lab' records which state that various cartridge cases were compared against test fired rounds in the rifle, in order for comparison tests to have been carried out on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985 - so Fletcher lied, he lied because he knows the purpose of having had two separate test fires of the rifle and Eley control ammunition. The sole purpose of the original unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition was chiefly for substitution purposes, so that other manufacturers cartridge cases could be extracted from the batch of crime scene ammunition, replaced by test fired Eley ammunition, so that by the time the 'OFFICIAL' test fire gets under way, from 20th September 1985, the substituted cartridge cases in the crime scene batch are all Eley ammunition. So, Fletcher does another test fire of the rifle between 20th September 1985 and 2nd October 1985, and uses the test fired Eley control ammunition, in comparison tests with various cartridge cases as part of the 'REVISED' batch of cartridge cases, thus allowing him to conclude that the individual cartridge cases subject of the individual Lab' reports, was loaded into the gun and fired from it...
That is all well and good...
My point is this, If the original 14 cartridge cases had not in part been swapped over with Eley ammunition after the 'UNREPORTED TEST FIRE', and there had been no earlier test fire prior to the 20th September 1985, it would not have been possible to match all 25 bullet cases to rifle (18), nor would it have been possible to declare that all 25 bullets had come from the same batch. What I am saying, is that there had to be the earlier unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition, so that the batch of crime scene ammunition, as of and from the 19th September 1985, was available to be compared against other Eley control ammunition officially test fired from the 20th September 1985, onward...
You do not have two different test fires of the same gun using Eley ammunition, for no reason at all, and then seek to hide for the fact that two such test firings had occurred, not only one...
You are ignoring that the documents were signed at different times by different people and notations were added later on various pages they were filled out at different times for different things. You have not proven any of your allegations to be facts. In fact, you intentionally conceal the Dickinson report paragraphs related to this probably because such paragraphs completely demolish all your lies.
You make up one conspiracy claim after the next all of which are unsupported and moreover which are contradictory. You can't even stick with 1 conspiracy you allege a bunch of different ones which just demonstrates you are throwing a bunch of shit at the wall seeing if any will stick.
At this point your should realize they all flopped and that recycling them over and over again is not going to accomplish a thing. 9/11 conspiracy clowns and JFK conspiracy clowns and pretty much all conspiracy clowns do the same thing. They make up a million different claims so that after one is rebutted they lodge the next and by the time they are all rebutted they start over again hoping no one remembers it or it is new people who never saw the arguments before. It is a worthless game being run.
-
Another thing...
My recollection regarding what Jeremy has always maintained to me, is that he did not tip out the contents of the box of ammunition onto the kitchen worktop. He told me on several different occasions that he simply removed the cellophane wrapper around the box, and picked out the individual rounds to load into the magazine...
Once again either you are lying to us, you have a faulty memory or Jeremy was lying to you.
It is quite apparent he didn't get the gun out to shoot rabbits and made up the story about leaving the gun and bullets out. He said he was in a rush so tipped the box over to make it faster for him to load and that the box was not sealed in his statement and at trial. It is a good thing he did say it wasn't sealed because then he would have had even more problems because one of the 30 bullets had been previously loaded into the Anschutz. How could a cartridge have been loaded into the Anschutz then removed and placed back in the box prior to the box being sealed by Eley?
In fact 4 casings used in the murders would also have to have been loaded into the magazine and then placed back in the box and sealed by Eley in order for the box to have been sealed that way. Non one would believe such nonsense so he didn't claim it was sealed.
In order for the box to have been sealed only 1 of the casings used in the murders should have had marks indicating it was loaded twice. But there were 5 plus there was an unfired one that had been previously loaded and unloaded.
It doesn't matter if Jeremy told you these lies or you are making them up they are clearly false either way. Jeremy's claims in his statements and trial testimony is what matters and he said it wasn't sealed because if he claimed it was sealed he knew he would have had even more problems. He also said the gun was empty when he found it. Changing that claim after his conviction doesn't in any way help him because 1) he is stuck with his trial testimony. Trying to change his claims after is not new evidence. 2) Aside from looking like he is just trying to lie his way out of things to fool people into supporting him, a changed claim that the gun had been loaded would further diminish the credibility of his story of taking bullets out. If the gun were already loaded and he were in the rush he claims then he simply would have rushed out the door not to walk past the door into the kitchen with a box of bullets to load the gun.
Your revisions don't do anything but further highlight how Jeremy lies and his entire tale of taking the gun out to shoot rabbits was nonsense. The question then becomes why did he make up this tale of leaving taking the gun and bullets out and leaving it out? Clearly he did so in order to pretend Sheila found a weapon of opportunity because she would not have gone to the closet to get it herself and if she had done so then Nevill would have been able to disarm her before she could load the gun so he made up leaving a loaded magazine next to it and even extra bullets for her to use.
-
The content of these typed extracts is wrong, based upon the information contained in the Lab' General Examination Report, regarding cartridges...
An honest reading of them confirms what Fletcher asserted. A dishonest reading permits one to make up anything desired such as you making up that there was a 6th spent casing that had been loaded twice.
-
You are ignoring that the documents were signed at different times by different people and notations were added later on various pages they were filled out at different times for different things the hand written notations in Fletchers own handwriting, dated, and signed by Fletcher himself, confirming that 5 of the cartridge cases had got double magazine marks, on dates before the official test fire of the rifle with Eley control ammunition, was carried out. This proves that Fletcher had prior involvement in the unreported test fire of the same rifle and other control ammunition which was subsequently used in a substitution process, removing other types and make of ammunition from the original batch of crime scene ammunition, and replacing some with pieces of the unreported test fire components. You continue to doubt whatever you like, but the truth of what took place has been spelt out by me. You have not proven any of your allegations to be facts Yes, I have . In fact, you intentionally conceal the Dickinson report paragraphs related to this probably You appear to know more about this, than I do because such paragraphs completely demolish all your lies That is only your opinion, you have no evidence to backvup what you are claiming .
You make up one conspiracy claim after the next all of which are unsupported and moreover which are contradictory Everything I have said was true at the time I said it, supported by documents You can't even stick with 1 conspiracy you allege a bunch of different ones which just demonstrates you are throwing a bunch of shit at the wall seeing if any will stick Your opinion only .
At this point your should realize they all flopped and that recycling them over and over again is not going to accomplish a thing. 9/11 conspiracy clowns and JFK conspiracy clowns and pretty much all conspiracy clowns do the same thing. They make up a million different claims so that after one is rebutted they lodge the next and by the time they are all rebutted they start over again hoping no one remembers it or it is new people who never saw the arguments before. It is a worthless game being run.
-
the hand written notations in Fletchers own handwriting, dated, and signed by Fletcher himself, confirming that 5 of the cartridge cases had got double magazine marks, on dates before the official test fire of the rifle with Eley control ammunition
The notations in question were notations regarding the physical observations during inspection of the casings. There was no need to wait until after the test firing to observe how many markings they had on the and where and what they were. This was done and then LATER after they test fired them they then did comparisons between the test fired casings and these to check that the firing pin impressions etc were the same.
5 of the casings had been loaded twice into the magazine, 20 were loaded once. All this proves is that 5 of the cartridges used to kill the victims had at some time prior to the murders been loaded into the magazine and then unloaded from it and returned to the ammunition supply. Jeremy claims he loaded the top bullet in the magazine twice the evening of the murders so if we accept Jeremy's claims without question then only 4 of the cartridges used had been loaded previously on some other date and returned to the ammunition supply. But his claims are not credible so it is obvious all 5 of the twice loaded casings had been loaded prior on some day other than the murders and were loaded the second time in contemplation of the murders. There was another cartridge that had previously been loaded but it wasn't used so that actually means 6 had been loaded and unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply on some other day but only 5 of the 6 wound up being grabbed by the killer and loaded.
The twice loaded cartridges are not of any relevance at all to who committed the murders. The fact 5 of the rounds used had been previously unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply used by the killer is of no consequence it tells us nothing useful.
-
The notations in question were notations regarding the physical observations during inspection of the casings. There was no need to wait until after the test firing to observe how many markings they had on the and where and what they were. This was done and then LATER after they test fired them they then did comparisons between the test fired casings and these to check that the firing pin impressions etc were the same The comparison tests were made in many instances on dates between 12th and 19th September, confirmed by the hand written notations, which are dated, and signed by Fletcher and DS 'Stan' Jones, so I think you need to go back to the drawing board, give yourself a good shake up, and retheorize.
5 of the casings had been loaded twice into the magazine, 20 were loaded once. All this proves is that 5 of the cartridges used to kill the victims had at some time prior to the murders been loaded into the magazine and then unloaded from it and returned to the ammunition supply. Jeremy claims he loaded the top bullet in the magazine twice the evening of the murders so if we accept Jeremy's claims without question then only 4 of the cartridges used had been loaded previously on some other date and returned to the ammunition supply. But his claims are not credible so it is obvious all 5 of the twice loaded casings had been loaded prior on some day other than the murders and were loaded the second time in contemplation of the murders. He does not say that one of the rounds he loafed into the magazine, that he removed it from the chamber of the rifle, and put it back in the magazine. It is much more likely that if Jeremy later removed a round from the rifles chamber, that it had been manually loaded into the gun not forced in through the magazine mechanism, so if this very same round had in fact been fired during the shootings, then it would only have 1 set of marks, plus chamber marks unique to the manual loading process, rather have been loaded into the chamber by the magazine mechanism There was another cartridge that had previously been loaded but it wasn't used so that actually means 6 had been loaded and unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply on some other day but only 5 of the 6 wound up being grabbed by the killer and loaded Wrong, study the facts.
The twice loaded cartridges are not of any relevance at all to who committed the murders Oh, yes, they have . The fact 5 of the rounds used had been previously unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply used by the killer is of no consequence Yes, it has, it shows the frenzied approach made by the shooter, victim to victim, room to room, upstairs and downstairs. it tells us nothing useful Wrong, again, it dispels any notion that the killer had entered each room and shot each victim until the quota of shots pervictim had been exhausted, so that there were questions being raised about when the gun was reloaded with bullets, and who by. In the scenario I have raised, three of the 5 victims had already been dead by the time the shooter had emptied the first full load of the gun downstairs in the kitchen. The only two still alive being Sheila, and Ralph....
-
"The notations in question were notations regarding the physical observations during inspection of the casings. There was no need to wait until after the test firing to observe how many markings they had on the and where and what they were. This was done and then LATER after they test fired them they then did comparisons between the test fired casings and these to check that the firing pin impressions etc were the same"
The comparison tests were made in many instances on dates between 12th and 19th September, confirmed by the hand written notations, which are dated, and signed by Fletcher and DS 'Stan' Jones,
The date of the comparison tests has nothing to do with my point about the double marks. You always try changing the subject. In the meantime it is obvious that the first test firing of the weapon was done before the casings were actually compared to the test fired casings. your claim that the comparisons were faked and never happened is more of your worthless babble which I suspect is refuted by the passages of the Dickinson Report that you intentionally refused to post.
"5 of the casings had been loaded twice into the magazine, 20 were loaded once. All this proves is that 5 of the cartridges used to kill the victims had at some time prior to the murders been loaded into the magazine and then unloaded from it and returned to the ammunition supply. Jeremy claims he loaded the top bullet in the magazine twice the evening of the murders so if we accept Jeremy's claims without question then only 4 of the cartridges used had been loaded previously on some other date and returned to the ammunition supply. But his claims are not credible so it is obvious all 5 of the twice loaded casings had been loaded prior on some day other than the murders and were loaded the second time in contemplation of the murders."
He does not say that one of the rounds he loafed into the magazine, that he removed it from the chamber of the rifle, and put it back in the magazine.
Yes he did. In both his August 7 and August 8 statements he wrote it plus said it at trial and the worst part is that I constantly use evidence you posted yourself to prove your claims false, that is a sure sign that either you don't read carefully or are distorting and it is a waste of time to distort because when it comes to evidence I read I have an amazing command of the facts:
(http://s28.postimg.org/hxu2txsvh/jeremyunloadaugust7.jpg)
(http://s2.postimg.org/o263v7z89/jeremyunloadaugust8.jpg)
It is much more likely that if Jeremy later removed a round from the rifles chamber, that it had been manually loaded into the gun not forced in through the magazine mechanism, so if this very same round had in fact been fired during the shootings, then it would only have 1 set of marks, plus chamber marks unique to the manual loading process, rather have been loaded into the chamber by the magazine mechanism
Why do you make up such stupid things? He loaded the magazine with 9 rounds and instead of putting the tenth in the magazine he stuck it directly in the chamber? That is absurd plus it is contrary to what he said. He said he inserted the magazine and chambered a round. He said he ejected it and then loaded it into the magazine a second time.
"There was another cartridge that had previously been loaded but it wasn't used so that actually means 6 had been loaded and unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply on some other day but only 5 of the 6 wound up being grabbed by the killer and loaded"
Wrong, study the facts.
I already have studied the facts and unfortunately for you I have far greater command of them than you do:
"The cartridges (part of 51) and (93) consist of a total of thirty British made Eley 'Subsonic .22" Long Rifle...one of the cartridges (part of 93) has at some time, been loaded into the magazine of the rifle."
(http://s13.postimg.org/9qu1nhk13/fletcherloadedpreviously.jpg)
So there were a total of 6 that had been loaded previously and then unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply and Jeremy ended up loaded 5 of these 6 a second time to use in commission of the murders. The 6th wasn't used and was still in the unused batch of 30.
"The twice loaded cartridges are not of any relevance at all to who committed the murders. The fact 5 of the rounds used had been previously unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply used by the killer is of no consequence"
Yes, it has, it shows the frenzied approach made by the shooter, victim to victim, room to room, upstairs and downstairs. In the scenario I have raised, three of the 5 victims had already been dead by the time the shooter had emptied the first full load of the gun downstairs in the kitchen. The only two still alive being Sheila, and Ralph...
The scenario you raised is refuted by the evidence and totally absurd. In any event if such were actually possible to have happened Jeremy could have done such as easily as Sheila. It would not establish who committed the murders. But it is not possible. Had bullets been left in the magazine then they would have been loaded only once so would not have double markings. Nor would the killer have shot Nevill once in the master bedroom simply grazing him then ran to kill the boys. That graze wound did nothing of significance to Nevill he would have been able to disarm the killer. You make up a series of absurd nonsense to pretend Nevill's other 3 wounds were not suffered in the bedroom and just basically humiliate yourself with one stupid suggestions after the next. You would garner more attention and better attention with rational claims.
-
My scenario is accurate...
-
Sheila shot dead the other four victims...
-
Yes, she shot June in the main bedroom, then entered the twins room, and killed them both with a solitary shot a piece. She then returned to the main bedroom and shot June Bamber dead with the 8th bullet. She was confronted by Ralph in the main bedroom and shot at him, the 9th bullet penetrated his left arm, and Ralph fled downstairs to the kitchen where he contacted Jeremy very briefly, before phoning the police as per the contents of the 3.25am phone call log contents, " My daughter has got one of my guns"...
Sheila went downstairs to the kitchen in the knowledge that she had already killed her two children and mother...
The very last bullet from the first full load of the rifle, also brought a sudden end to Ralph Bambers life...
-
Yes, she shot June in the main bedroom, then entered the twins room, and killed them both with a solitary shot a piece. She then returned to the main bedroom and shot June Bamber dead with the 8th bullet. She was confronted by Ralph in the main bedroom and shot at him, the 9th bullet penetrated his left arm, and Ralph fled downstairs to the kitchen where he contacted Jeremy very briefly, before phoning the police as per the contents of the 3.25am phone call log contents, " My daughter has got one of my guns"...
Sheila went downstairs to the kitchen in the knowledge that she had already killed her two children and mother...
The very last bullet from the first full load of the rifle, also brought a sudden end to Ralph Bambers life...
All you are doing is repeating the same nonsense that is refuted by the evidence instead of following the evidence.
Aside from the fact 4 casings associated with 4 gunshots wounds Nevill suffered were in the master bedroom, the bullet that grazed him was found there. I the meantime if Sheila had shot people Nevill's priorities at that point would have been 1) to disarm her or otherwise stop her;
2)to call for an ambulance there is no way he would have phoned Jeremy and if he had phoned Jeremy after shooting started he would have mentioned she was shooting and have said call an ambulance. .
The graze wound would not have inhibited his ability to disarm Sheila, if that was his only wound the killer would have been disarmed regardless of whether it was Jeremy or Sheila. Your scenario makes no sense on any level and is refuted by the evidence. As pointed out by you the official account which I present could have been done by either of them. However, since that account leaves not room for a phone call to Jeremy you have to distort the order of the shots and locations in order to pretend that a phone call was possible. But making up that the call came after shots were fired is not credible in the least you need to stick with making up scenarios where the call preceded any shots.
-
Ralph Bamber was not shot four times whilst present in the bedroom, he was shot six times whilst present in the kitchen...
-
4 cartridge cases, originally found in the kitchen, were hypothetically transferred to the main bedroom - these 4 cartridges related to the shooting of Ralph (3), and Sheila (1) in the kitchen...
-
4 cartridge cases, originally found in the kitchen, were hypothetically transferred to the main bedroom - these 4 cartridges related to the shooting of Ralph (3), and Sheila (1) in the kitchen...
Complete and total nonsense. The only shots suffered in the kitchen by Nevill were 4 shots to his head after he was knocked unconscious. The gun was empty when they fought in the kitchen and he had to be knocked unconscious in order for the killer to be able to reload.
Your wild claims about casings being moved etc have no support at all you made them up from whole cloth. Just like your made up claim that Jeremy loaded a bullet into the chamber by hand instead of loading it through the magazine. You ignore all reality including refusing to use Jeremy's own. Making things up is easy but pointless because it is easy to see when things are made up and no one pays any attention to such things the existing record consists of what was presented in court.
-
Complete and total nonsense. The only shots suffered in the kitchen by Nevill were 4 shots to his head after he was knocked unconscious. The gun was empty when they fought in the kitchen and he had to be knocked unconscious in order for the killer to be able to reload.
Your wild claims about casings being moved etc have no support at all you made them up from whole cloth. Just like your made up claim that Jeremy loaded a bullet into the chamber This is typical of how you alter or change what has been said, since I did not say that Jeremy had loaded one round manually into the chamber of the rifle, I said that somebody could have, or did.. by hand instead of loading it through the magazine. You ignore all reality including refusing to use Jeremy's own. Making things up is easy but pointless because it is easy to see when things are made up So why do you keep doing it - its about time that you practiced what you preached and no one pays any attention to such things the existing record consists of what was presented in court.
-
Now, it is very interesting to note by reference to the GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS for each of the 25 Eley cartridge cases that the length and dimensions of them are not mentioned at all. It should be noted, that Eley produced or manufactured different types of .22 rim fire ammunition back in 1984, including 29 grain, 35 grain, 37.5 grain and 40 grain ammunition. How very odd, that Fletcher makes no reference at all to the type of bullets any of these 25 cartridge cases were part of, nor does he mention the grain weight of each when the casings had been part of a full manufacturers round?
It is not sufficient just to refer to these 25 cartridge cases as simply 'Eley' make, since different types of cartridge cases were manufactured by different .22 ammunition manufacturers, including Eley...
Different weighted .22 bullets had cartridge cases of different size and dimensions, and I suggest that the absence of any measurements alongside each of these 25 cartridge cases, significantly weakens the claim that all of them, individually or collectively refer to one type of the same Eley batch. On the contrary, absence of such key measurements depicting the size and dimension of these 25 Eley cartridge cases substantially weakens the argument that they formed part of the same type of Eley .22 ammunition...
-
This is one of the key weaknesses of the prosecutions ballistic evidence, quite simply they did not establish the type of .22 ammunition to which each of these 25 Eley cartridge cases, individually or collectively, corresponded to...
For all we know, some of these 25 Eley cartridge cases could have been significantly different in size and dimension, which means that if true bullets from different type of Eley .22 RF ammunition had been used. That being the case, then the .22 Eley ammunition used in the shootings could not possibly have originated from the same batch purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984 - there had to have been another contributing source...
-
This is typical of how you alter or change what has been said, since I did not say that Jeremy had loaded one round manually into the chamber of the rifle, I said that somebody could have, or did..
I didn't alter anything. Let's go to the videotape:
Scipio: Jeremy claims that he loaded the top cartridge into the magazine twice. He claims he loaded it the magazine, chambered a round, removed the magazine, ejected the cartridge and loaded it back into the magazine a second time. So if his claims were true then he would have caused it to have 2 sets of loading marks and that leaves only 4 used in the murders that could have loading marks prior to the rabbit event. So you are still 1 short.
Mike:
It is much more likely that if Jeremy later removed a round from the rifles chamber, that it had been manually loaded into the gun not forced in through the magazine mechanism, so if this very same round had in fact been fired during the shootings, then it would only have 1 set of marks, plus chamber marks unique to the manual loading process, rather have been loaded into the chamber by the magazine mechanism
-------
Your claim is contradicted by Jeremy's own claims and worse it is absurd and shows how you just make up nonsense. Why would it be likely let alone more likely someone would load a cartridge manually into the chamber? Who does that? I have never loaded a round into the chamber manually into any of my semi-automatic pistols or rifles. The only reason I would would be if the magazine were damaged and I needed to use it to defend myself so loaded it manually but would only have 1 shot I could fire so I would have to be very careful in its use.
You made it up to try to avoid reality. That reality is that Jeremy claims he was responsible for 1 of the rounds being double loaded which makes your claim there were 5 twice-loaded rounds in it before he even picked it up impossible. You also ignored the reality that if 5 cartridges had been loaded into the weapon and left there then they would have been loaded only a single time.
I haven't misrepresented a thing, I simply scrutinized your actual claims and those claims don't hold up.
-
Now, it is very interesting to note by reference to the GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS for each of the 25 Eley cartridge cases that the length and dimensions of them are not mentioned at all. It should be noted, that Eley produced or manufactured different types of .22 rim fire ammunition back in 1984, including 29 grain, 35 grain, 37.5 grain and 40 grain ammunition. How very odd, that Fletcher makes no reference at all to the type of bullets any of these 25 cartridge cases were part of, nor does he mention the grain weight of each when the casings had been part of a full manufacturers round?
It is not sufficient just to refer to these 25 cartridge cases as simply 'Eley' make, since different types of cartridge cases were manufactured by different .22 ammunition manufacturers, including Eley...
Different weighted .22 bullets had cartridge cases of different size and dimensions, and I suggest that the absence of any measurements alongside each of these 25 cartridge cases, significantly weakens the claim that all of them, individually or collectively refer to one type of the same Eley batch. On the contrary, absence of such key measurements depicting the size and dimension of these 25 Eley cartridge cases substantially weakens the argument that they formed part of the same type of Eley .22 ammunition...
Before you lie and make things up you should actually research a topic.
At the time of the murders all 22LR cases were the same length. This changed only recently when 60 grain 22LR bullets were created. In order for the overall cartridge size to be small enough not to have problems they had to reduce the size of the case.
22 short is not the same cartridge as 22LR that is why the case is different and 22 short is not the variety of cartridge used by the Anschutz.
You keep sticking your foot in your mouth.
-
This is one of the key weaknesses of the prosecutions ballistic evidence, quite simply they did not establish the type of .22 ammunition to which each of these 25 Eley cartridge cases, individually or collectively, corresponded to...
For all we know, some of these 25 Eley cartridge cases could have been significantly different in size and dimension, which means that if true bullets from different type of Eley .22 RF ammunition had been used. That being the case, then the .22 Eley ammunition used in the shootings could not possibly have originated from the same batch purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984 - there had to have been another contributing source...
All you are doing is ignoring the evidence and reality. The Anschutz rifle is chambered in 22LR. The 25 cases were all 22LR cases. The trial testimony was that they were the same casings as the unfired cartridges which were at WHF. You can't help but stick your foot in your mouth.
-
This shows the dimensions of 22LR next to a .22 Stinger. The 22 Stinger can be ignored it is a larger cartridge:
(http://www.3me.us/holding_bin/22ammo.jpg)
another look:
(http://www.bullseyepistol.com/saami.jpg)
The middle is the 22LR while the 4th is 22 short:
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c276/johnvstrom/2012%20misc/2012-08-09004a.jpg)
The Anshutz is chambered in 22LR and that is what was purchased for it. Nevill didn't buy any 22 short ammo, and didn't own anything chambered in 22 short. Constantly bringing up 22 short is a red herring.
-
Police submitted unidentified cartridge cases to the lab' at Huntingdon, on 30th August 1985, which by the 12 September 1985, had all become turned into 25 Eley manufactured cartridge cases...
-
Police submitted unidentified cartridge cases to the lab' at Huntingdon, on 30th August 1985, which by the 12 September 1985, had all become turned into 25 Eley manufactured cartridge cases...
Police didn't note any cartridges being different from others. The only ammunition at WHF was shotgun shells, pellets and 22lr rimfire cartridges. The pellet gun and shotguns were not used in the murders only the Anschutz chambered in 22lr was so the fact only 22lr casings were found is totally expected. A different weapon being used which had been removed from the scene would give away that it was a mass murder staged as suicide murder. Police would have been wary had casings of a different kind been found.
-
On the 30th August 1985, Essex police submitted a batch of cartridge cases to the Lab' which were not identified as Eley cartridges. Yet by 12th September, they were being referred too as all being Eley type. What happened between 30th August and the 12th September, which transformed different types of .22 cartridge cases, into Eley ones...
-
Police didn't note any cartridges being different from others Oh yes, they did . The only ammunition at WHF was shotgun shells, pellets and 22lr rimfire cartridges Not recorded as all being of Eley type until on or after 12th September 1985 . The pellet gun and shotguns were not used in the murders You do not know that, and why did police take an interest in the shotgun? only the Anschutz chambered in 22lr was so Wrong the fact only 22lr casings were found is totally expected but not all Eley types . A different weapon being used which had been removed from the scene would give away that it was a mass murder staged as suicide murder Incorrect, since use of police weapon, in the shooting incident in the kitchen only fired one shot into Sheila's neck . Police would have been wary had casings of a different kind been found. All .22 cartridge cases, bar one (.223)...
-
' Judge and Lawyers blamed for trial bias '
JUDGE SIR MAURICE DRAKE was accused of failing to secure a fair trial for James Robertson. The Court of Appeal heard how Judge Drake 'neutralized' an important defence point when there was gross inconsistencies between eye witnesses descriptions. It was stated that prosecution counsel operated without regard to the proper rules, and failed to ensure the the disclosure of fingerprints. Defence Counsel seemed ' patently not to have read documents provided, which shows a lack of proper legal administration.
-
On the 30th August 1985, Essex police submitted a batch of cartridge cases to the Lab' which were not identified as Eley cartridges. Yet by 12th September, they were being referred too as all being Eley type. What happened between 30th August and the 12th September, which transformed different types of .22 cartridge cases, into Eley ones...
The police simply called them cases they didn't bother to identify the brand. The job of ascertaining the brand fell to the lab and the lab did so.
-
The police simply called them cases they didn't bother to identify the brand. The job of ascertaining the brand fell to the lab and the lab did so.
The cartridge cases were not identified as ELEY types until one month after the shootings, which coincided with a switch in the direction of the investigations. There were separate investigations being carried out by Witham police, and Southend on Sea police, into the same 5 deaths, these investigations had different crime reference numbers, with different suspects accountable between 7th August and 7th September 1985, in the Witham investigation, Sheila was held accountable, whereas, in the Southend on Sea, investigation, a man called EDEN was the chief suspect...
-
There is no lab record disclosed which shows what type of cartridge cases were received at the lab' between 30th August 1985, and the 11th September 1985. The cartridge cases did not all take on the guise of being ELEY cartridge cases until 12th September 1985, onward...
What happened to all the original 25 cartridge cases at the lab' between 30th August and 12th September 1985?
-
Entries in the police property register describes them as .22 cartridge cases, not ELEY cartridge cases...
-
These are the finder of all the cartridge cases description of the 25 cartridge cases, found by DC Hammersley (SOCO):-
-
"Police didn't note any cartridges being different from others"
Oh yes, they did
Post evidence of which police identified some cartridge cases as being different. You made the claim up like you make up so much of what you post.
Not recorded as all being of Eley type until on or after 12th September 1985
Police chose not to take the unspent ammunition thus didn't note what brand the ammunition was. Nor did they bother to attempt to ascertain and note the marks on the spent casings. Their job was simply to take the casings. The job of identifying the casings falls to the lab and the lab did so in September. Also in September the unfired ammunition was obtained and they checked with the seller to find out what ammunition Nevill purchased and checked his firearms certificate. you try to spin conspiracy out of nothing and it doesn't work it just makes you look desperate and dishonest.
"The pellet gun and shotguns were not used in the murders"
You do not know that, and why did police take an interest in the shotgun?
Because at the time they were uncertain whether it played a role or not that is what investigators are supposed to do- investigate. The investigation revealed just the Anschutz rifle was used to cause all 25 gunshot wounds and also the beating to Nevill.
"only the Anschutz chambered in 22lr"
Wrong
I am fully correct, the Anschutz was the only weapon owned by Nevill chambered in 22lr and only weapon present at the time of the murders chambered in 22lr.
"the fact only 22lr casings were found is totally expected"
but not all Eley types
Yes it was totally expect all would be Eley brand since that is the only brand purchased by Nevill and all were.
"A different weapon being used which had been removed from the scene would give away that it was a mass murder staged as suicide murder"
Incorrect, since use of police weapon, in the shooting incident in the kitchen only fired one shot into Sheila's neck All .22 cartridge cases, bar one (.223)
The spent cases were all 22LR and the bullet in Sheila's neck was an unjacketed 22LR just like the rest. .223/5.56mm rounds are 55 or 62 grain, they are jacketed and they fly at a velocity 3 times the speed of the 22LR rounds owned by Nevill.
-
There is no lab record disclosed which shows what type of cartridge cases were received at the lab' between 30th August 1985, and the 11th September 1985. The cartridge cases did not all take on the guise of being ELEY cartridge cases until 12th September 1985, onward...
What happened to all the original 25 cartridge cases at the lab' between 30th August and 12th September 1985?
The cases used in the murders were Eley cases- the only ones purchased by Nevill and only ones at WHF. They were recovered by police and not identified by police by brand as that was not their job.
Your wild conspiracy stories are just that made up stories that make no sense and just make you look foolish and dishonest. It is a waste of time even bothering with such pretense.
-
Entries in the police property register describes them as .22 cartridge cases, not ELEY cartridge cases...
I already said that how many times? The police didn't try to assess what brand they were they had no need to that is the job of the lab not theirs.
-
The cases used in the murders were Eley cases- the only ones purchased by Nevill and only ones at WHF. They were recovered by police and not identified by police by brand as that was not their job.
Your wild conspiracy stories are just that made up stories that make no sense and just make you look foolish and dishonest. It is a waste of time even bothering with such pretense.
Her is the ballistic experts description of the cartridge cases in his witness statement:-
-
Why have police failed to disclose the identity of the 14 cartridge cases held at the lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100?
-
Her is the ballistic experts description of the cartridge cases in his witness statement:-
You failed to post the analysis section of his statement- on purpose because it states they were Eley cases. He specifically said the unfired cartridges were Eley subsonic hollow points and then said the spent cases were the same. I already posted such last week. Your games are for naught why do you even bother?
(http://s12.postimg.org/sfaw4xvhp/fletchereley.jpg)
-
Why have police failed to disclose the identity of the 14 cartridge cases held at the lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100?
You haven't established there is such an exhibit let alone what exhibit they were originally part of. since you make up claims about sea police and other things there is no reason to believe anything you say without solid proof. That is a byproduct of making up things- lack of trust.
-
You failed to post the analysis section of his statement- on purpose because it states they were Eley cases. He specifically said the unfired cartridges were Eley subsonic hollow points and then said the spent cases were the same. I already posted such last week. Your games are for naught why do you even bother?
(http://s12.postimg.org/sfaw4xvhp/fletchereley.jpg)
Well, first of all, it would of course help if you had a better understanding of the Queens English, because Fletcher is referring only to "(part of 51), and (93)"...
Item 51 - DRH/23 was a cartridge and box
Item 93 - was in fact one Eley cartridge, with a spot of blood upon it (later altered into 29 cartridges). If you add the original item 93 to the 23 cartridges that Fletcher test fired in rifle (18), it produces a total of 24, which is one bullet short of the 25 in total which were fired during the shootings. The 25th bullet fired was in fact police ammunition...
So, your claim that all 25 bullets fired during the shootings belonged to the same batch of Eley ammunition, by drawing attention to what is mentioned in this statement extract, proves no such thing, since the 25 cartridge cases recovered from the scene, had the following lab' item numbers:-
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 48...
None of these cartridge cases had a lab' iem number of (part 51), and or (93), so you appear to have got your knickers in a twist once again...
-
It took until the 13th November 1985 (3 months after the shootings) for Fletcher to refer to cartridges being of Eley make, in a witness statement. Fletcher himself says in this version of his witness statement that he did not receive lab'item number (93) until 20th September 1985, so once again it sheds some light onto what had been going on behind the scenes. Lastly, lab' items 24 to 44 inclusive, and 47, 48, only amount to 24 cartridge cases, again evidence that at least one other type of cartridge case belonged to one of the shots fired by police (refer Officers report regarding the shooting incident in the kitchen) which Fletcher appears to have been hell bent in keeping out of the equation. This missing 25th cartridge case, being associated with the police shooting of Sheila in the kitchen downstairs, the details of which are covered in a police Report, mentioned elsewhere entitled, "The shooting incident in the kitchen"...
-
Well, first of all, it would of course help if you had a better understanding of the Queens English, because Fletcher is referring only to "(part of 51), and (93)"...
Item 51 - DRH/23 was a cartridge and box
Item 93 - was in fact one Eley cartridge, with a spot of blood upon it (later altered into 29 cartridges). If you add the original item 93 to the 23 cartridges that Fletcher test fired in rifle (18), it produces a total of 24, which is one bullet short of the 25 in total which were fired during the shootings. The 25th bullet fired was in fact police ammunition...
So, your claim that all 25 bullets fired during the shootings belonged to the same batch of Eley ammunition, by drawing attention to what is mentioned in this statement extract, proves no such thing, since the 25 cartridge cases recovered from the scene, had the following lab' item numbers:-
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 48...
None of these cartridge cases had a lab' iem number of (part 51), and or (93), so you appear to have got your knickers in a twist once again...
93 was the 29 unfired casings on the kitchen counter. 51 was the plastic box and single round inside that was on the kitchen counter with the looses bullets next to it. He said these were all Eley subsonic Hollow points. Then after after that he wrote:
"The twenty-five fired cartridge cases ... are the same type as the cartridge cases used in the cartridges (part of 51) and (93)." The same means also Eley cartridge cases.
This means the same thing in the Queen's English as it does in American English.
-
93 was the 29 unfired casings on the kitchen counter. No 51 was the plastic box and single round No inside that was on the kitchen counter with the looses bullets next to it. He said these were all Eley subsonic Hollow points. Then after after that he wrote: he doesn't mean what your trying to suggest
"The wenty-five fired cartridge cases ... are the same type as the cartridge cases used in the cartridges (part of 51) and (93)." The same means also Eley cartridge cases I beg to differ, he is referring only to the solitary loose round (part of 51) and the loose Eley round which was originally (93)... .
This means the same thing in the Queen's English as it does in American English. I honestly dont think so, in this unstance
-
It took until the 13th November 1985 (3 months after the shootings) for Fletcher to refer to cartridges being of Eley make, in a witness statement. Fletcher himself says in this version of his witness statement that he did not receive lab'item number (93) until 20th September 1985, so once again it sheds some light onto what had been going on behind the scenes. Lastly, lab' items 24 to 44 inclusive, and 47, 48, only amount to 24 cartridge cases, again evidence that at least one other type of cartridge case belonged to one of the shots fired by police (refer Officers report regarding the shooting incident in the kitchen) which Fletcher appears to have been hell bent in keeping out of the equation. This missing 25th cartridge case, being associated with the police shooting of Sheila in the kitchen downstairs, the details of which are covered in a police Report, mentioned elsewhere entitled, "The shooting incident in the kitchen"...
As usual you lie. It took until the cases were analyzed by the lab to determine they were Eley. Each case has an individual sheet associated and each sheet shows the Eley E on the bottom of the casing.
In November is when Fletcher finally wrote up his first statement he didn't write prior statements on the cases and bullets so that is why it is the first statement discussing them.
-
93 was the 29 unfired casings on the kitchen counter. No 51 was the plastic box and single round No inside that was on the kitchen counter with the looses bullets next to it. He said these were all Eley subsonic Hollow points. Then after after that he wrote: he doesn't mean what your trying to suggest
"The wenty-five fired cartridge cases ... are the same type as the cartridge cases used in the cartridges (part of 51) and (93)." The same means also Eley cartridge cases I beg to differ, he is referring only to the solitary loose round (part of 51) and the loose Eley round which was originally (93)... .
Your desperation to spin is all too clear and it is not working. I fell once for the BS of a supporter that the Queen's English is so different from American English that I failed to comprehend what was being said. I don't fall for the same trick twice.
This means the same thing in the Queen's English as it does in American English. I honestly dont think so, in this unstance
This sentence means exactly what it says: "The twenty-five fired cartridge cases ... are the same type as the cartridge cases used in the cartridges (part of 51) and (93)."
-
You haven't established there is such an exhibit let just think about it for a moment, why would there be very little mention of these 14 cartridge cases which formed part of the investigation, kept at Huntingdon Lab' under the exhibit reference of MDF/100? alone what exhibit they were originally part of. since you make up claims about sea police Southend on Sea police station is like any other police station, it is based on land, not on the sea, as you seem to think and other things there is no reason to believe anything you say without solid proof. That is a byproduct of making up things- lack of trust.
-
Now, despite what you think, I am not trying to catch anybody out, or make anybody believe what they are not capable Of believing in, for one reason or another. But like so many things in this case, nothing fits Perfectly, there exists alternative version, contained in documents and photographs. The solitary Eley cartridge is but one example, it is presented in places as being part of lab'item 51, and lab' item number 93 - both can't be right...
This duplication of items, lab' item numbers, and exhibit references. It's got the same modus operandi, someone has clearly orchestrated the evidence and presented it in such a way to help convict an innocent man of killing, first and foremost his sister, a murder he did not and could not have committed. How could he have shot Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, an incident covered by a police report about the shooting incident in the kitchen...
How utterly unconvincing it is, that all 25 rounds used in the shooting of the 5 victims were from the same batch of Eley .22 ammunition - yeah, a likely story...
-
Descriptions of the 25 cartridge cases recorded in the Major Incident Property Register did not refer to them as Eley types...
5 victims shot and killed, one by one the bodies of these 5 victims were disposed of, without Essex police, or any ballistic expert, identifying the type of rounds used, or how many guns fired those bullets - they disposed of the bodies, at a time when police accepted that Sheila had killed the other 4 victims. Can you believe it that not until mid to late September 1985, was anybody remotely interested in what type of bullets had been used in the shootings, or which guns were used in the same act? You do not wait a month after the disposal of the bodies without identifying the bullets and the weapons used...
-
Let's dig a little deeper...
Now, lab' item 93 is supposed to have been in one version of the evidence, the solitary Eley cartridge, yet in another the same solitary Eley cartridge case, was part of lab' item number 51. This is confusing since police also claimed the 29 cartridges also had the lab' item number 93. But how can the solitary Eley round be lab' item number 93, yet at the same time as the 29 loose cartridges also be lab' item number 93? If the solitary Eley round (93), was added to the 29 loose bullets, there would have been 30 loose bullets, but there wasn't, and there isn't...
Worse still, According to Fletchers witness statement, dated, 13 November 1985, he only test fired 23 of these 29 / 30 cartridges, but this does not correspond with his official test fire hand written notes, relating to to so called Official test fire of the anshuzt rifle, sound moderator, and the batch of 29 so called control rounds, of which incidentally only 27 were test fired between 20th September, and the 2nd October 1985...
Funny how Fletcher says in his statement that he test fired 23 control bullets, yet in his hand written schedule it states he test fired 27, why is there a difference of 4 test fired bullets? What happened to the other 2 control rounds? Fletcher told the COLP investigators that they must have been lost somewhere along the way - oh, yeah, another likely story....
-
You haven't established there is such an exhibit let just think about it for a moment, why would there be very little mention of these 14 cartridge cases which formed part of the investigation, kept at Huntingdon Lab' under the exhibit reference of MDF/100? alone what exhibit they were originally part of. since you make up claims about sea police Southend on Sea police station is like any other police station, it is based on land, not on the sea, as you seem to think and other things there is no reason to believe anything you say without solid proof. That is a byproduct of making up things- lack of trust.
There is no mention of a MDF 100 because it is fictional just as is the claim sea police were investigating the case.
-
As usual you lie. It of course, you would say that wouldn't you? But sadly your so wrong, again, and again, and again took until the cases were analyzed by the lab to determine they were Eley Of course, police just rushed to allow disposal of the victims bodies, and then they set about making this into a one gun, one batch of ammunition crime . Each case has an individual sheet associated received at the lab' on the 30th August 1985, yet the earliest date on these individual lab' records is dated 11th September 1985. What happened to this ammunition in the interim period between 30th August and the 11th September1985, and each sheet shows the Eley E on the bottom of the casing Which came into existence on and after 12th September 1985 - What happened to the original crime scene ammunition during that unaccounted for missing 12 day period? It was during this mysterious missing 12 day period, that Fletcher and others carried out the 'Unofficial test fire' of the anshuzt rifle, sound moderator, and replacement Eley control ammunition, which replaced other types of .22 ammunition actually used in the shootings... .
In November is when Fletcher finally wrote up his first statement he didn't write prior statements on the cases and bullets, he carried out 'unofficial test fires', between 30th August and 12th September 1985, followed by his so called 'Official test fire', between 20th September and 2nd October 1985. We don't have a proper record of the first unofficial test fire, but we do of the official test fire. Significantly, the number of control rounds fired in the so called official test fire, differ considerably between Fletchers witness statement version dated the 13th November 1985, when compared against the number of control rounds fired as recorded in Fletchers hand written notes, he states he test fired 23 control rounds in his witness statement, 4 control rounds less than he records in his hand written notes. Added to this, is the fact that when questioned by the COLP investigators as to the whereabouts of the other missing two control rounds, Fletcher told them that they must have been lost... so that is why it is the first statement discussing them logistics simply don't add up, Fletcher has lied....
-
There is no mention of a MDF 100 because it is fictional Stop talking daft, of course the 14 cartridge cases bearing the exhibit reference MDF/100 exists just as is the claim sea police were investigating the case Eden was the suspect, in those separate investigations, truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
-
There is no mention of a MDF 100 because it is fictional just as is the claim sea police were investigating the case.
In case you don't know -a highly UNlikely occurrence, I'm sure- MDF is medium density fibreboard and the police force of Southend on Sea has no more to do WITH the sea than that it's a town situated BY the sea. They don't have a separate sea force of their own.
-
So, we have Fletcher, the prosecutions ballistic expert telling porkies about (a) when he test fired the anshuzt rifle, sound moderator and Eley control ammunition, (b) the number of control rounds fired (23 in his statement) as opposed to 27 in his hand written notes, (c) he described the badly fragmented bullet (PV/20), as a WHOLE BULLET, just so police could try to cover up the shooting of Sheila by police in the kitchen...
-
A total of 14 cartridge cases were exchanged in the switch, involving a total of 14 non Eley cartridge cases, with 14 Eley control rounds. The 14 non Eley cartridge cases were placed in storage at Huntingdon Lab', under an exhibit reference of MDF/100. In 2003 ballistic expert, Renshaw, confirmed in writing that he could carry out unique tests on these 14 cartridge cases held at Huntingdon, to see whether any of them had been fired through a sound moderator, but Renshaw wanted another couple of thousand pounds in fees, which Jeremy was reluctant to pay...
-
A new technique which surfaced in 2003, was capable of establishing whether or not, any of the 25 cartridges had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, with as opposed to without a sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel. Gun enthusiast Keith Mallinson, with over 30 years experience in the use of a large variety of differently calibrated weapons, presented his theory to Renshaw at Junction 36, Birdwell armoury, otherwise also known as Shooting sports club. Tests using a variety of different types of .22 semi automatic rifles, and Eley type ammunition. Control rounds were test fired using various weapons both without and with a sound moderator fitted, and measurements around the base of spent cartridge cases taken with a view to establishing increased bulging as a result of additional back pressure generated by the use of a sound moderator - .22 semiautomatic weapons being the only weapons this additional back pressure applies...
-
A new technique which surfaced in 2003, was capable of establishing whether or not, any of the 25 cartridges had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, with as opposed to without a sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel. Gun enthusiast Keith Mallinson, with over 30 years experience in the use of a large variety of differently calibrated weapons, presented his theory to Renshaw at Junction 36, Birdwell armoury, otherwise also known as Shooting sports club. Tests using a variety of different types of .22 semi automatic rifles, and Eley type ammunition. Control rounds were test fired using various weapons both without and with a sound moderator fitted, and measurements around the base of spent cartridge cases taken with a view to establishing increased bulging as a result of additional back pressure generated by the use of a sound moderator - .22 semiautomatic weapons being the only weapons this additional back pressure applies...
Now, bear in mind, that Fletcher has gone on record as having stated that he had not been able to tell whether any of the 25 rounds, or cartridge cases had been fired via a sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle. Mallinsons theory was capable of significantly undermining that point, supported by the expert theory of Renshaw, who agreed in principle with what Mallinson came up with in 2003...
-
THE MALLINSON TEST (2003) involves a technique not available at the time of Bambers trial in October 1986. Neither was it a recognised technique by the time of the failed appeal of 2002. This technique was developed in 2003, and but for the destruction of the crime scene ammunition by Essex police in 1996, it would have been possible to establish whether or not any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, or not. At the 2002 appeal the judges indicated that they would look favourably upon any argument relating to ballistics, if the defence chose to advance such an argument. Mallinsons technique was capable of leading to a situation whereby the prosecutions own ballistic expert was significantly undermined regarding his claim on the one hand that the sound moderator was used, but on the other hand, that it was not possible to tell if any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator. Mallinsons technique is capable of establishing that it is possible to differentiate between bullets fired via use of a sound moderator, or not. On that basis there would be grounds for referring the case back to the court of appeal, since if as Mallinson contends that it is possible to tell if a round had been fired through a sound moderator, as opposed to not, then Fletchers findings in 1985 / 86 that not any of the key 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, serves to negate the use of the sound moderator in the shooting of the victims, in partiular the shooting of Sheila Caffell. It would also have bearing upon the reliability of paint found ingrained into parts of the silencer, since if it was possible using the Mallinson technique to establish when a round is fired through a sound moderator, and by virtue of Fletcher saying it was not possible to tell, then obviously the scratches to the aga surround and the paint on the silencer must have occurred on some unrelated occasion...
-
THE MALLINSON TEST (2003) involves a technique not available at the time of Bambers trial in October 1986. Neither was it a recognised technique by the time of the failed appeal of 2002. This technique was developed in 2003, and but for the destruction of the crime scene ammunition by Essex police in 1996, it would have been possible to establish whether or not any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, or not. At the 2002 appeal the judges indicated that they would look favourably upon any argument relating to ballistics, if the defence chose to advance such an argument. Mallinsons technique was capable of leading to a situation whereby the prosecutions own ballistic expert was significantly undermined regarding his claim on the one hand that the sound moderator was used, but on the other hand, that it was not possible to tell if any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator. Mallinsons technique is capable of establishing that it is possible to differentiate between bullets fired via use of a sound moderator, or not. On that basis there would be grounds for referring the case back to the court of appeal, since if as Mallinson contends that it is possible to tell if a round had been fired through a sound moderator, as opposed to not, then Fletchers findings in 1985 / 86 that not any of the key 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, serves to negate the use of the sound moderator in the shooting of the victims, in partiular the shooting of Sheila Caffell. It would also have bearing upon the reliability of paint found ingrained into parts of the silencer, since if it was possible using the Mallinson technique to establish when a round is fired through a sound moderator, and by virtue of Fletcher saying it was not possible to tell, then obviously the scratches to the aga surround and the paint on the silencer must have occurred on some unrelated occasion...
How shocking they destroyed the bullets. I'm assuming it was the same time they destroyed Sheila's nightie as well.
-
A new technique which surfaced in 2003, was capable of establishing whether or not, any of the 25 cartridges had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, with as opposed to without a sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel. Gun enthusiast Keith Mallinson, with over 30 years experience in the use of a large variety of differently calibrated weapons, presented his theory to Renshaw at Junction 36, Birdwell armoury, otherwise also known as Shooting sports club. Tests using a variety of different types of .22 semi automatic rifles, and Eley type ammunition. Control rounds were test fired using various weapons both without and with a sound moderator fitted, and measurements around the base of spent cartridge cases taken with a view to establishing increased bulging as a result of additional back pressure generated by the use of a sound moderator - .22 semiautomatic weapons being the only weapons this additional back pressure applies...
More lies from you. There is no such thing as a test that tells whether a moderator was attached when bullets were fired. I don't understand why you make things like this up.
-
How shocking they destroyed the bullets. I'm assuming it was the same time they destroyed Sheila's nightie as well.
The bullets were used as exhibits at trial. There has not been any claim by the defense to date that they were destroyed. Whether they were or not is of no consequence because he made up the claim there are new tests to determine whether a moderator was used to fire a bullet. He is sitting behind his keyboard laughing at how many people believe the constant barrage of nonsense he makes up.
-
The bullets were used as exhibits at trial. There has not been any claim by the defense to date that they were destroyed. Whether they were or not is of no consequence because he made up the claim there are new tests to determine whether a moderator was used to fire a bullet. He is sitting behind his keyboard laughing at how many people believe the constant barrage of nonsense he makes up.
I don't think the case shells or the bullets have been destroyed. I think this is the key to resolving the fact that the sound moderator was used or not. Ballistics is the key IMO...
-
More lies from you. There is no such thing as a test that tells whether a moderator was attached when bullets were fired Not until 2003, when Smith and Mallinson (Barnsley) postulated the theory that it may be possible to tell scientifically whether any bullets had been fired through a sound moderator whilst it was fitted to the barrel of the semi - automatic anshuzt rifle. Use of a sound moderator on this type of weapon produces back pressure all the way back along the barrel of the rifle, right into the breech, imposing itself microscopically upon and around the base of the cartridge, flattening the lip of the cartridge, and causing a slightly exaggerated bulge near the bottom end of the spent cartridge - this phenomena, according to Mallinson (2003 / 2004) only occurs when a sound moderator is attached to the barrel of semi -automatic rifles. Moreover, Mallinson and Smith sought to demonstrate in tests carried out at the gun club they both ran, that different rates of distortion cast upon the cartridges when fired in different models of semi - automatic rifles, and or different types of .22 ammunition, this was because some Semi -automatic rifles generate slightly less or slightly more back pressure than other models / ammunition. This was why on the occasion when ballistic expert Renshaw attended the shooting range at the club, several different types of .22 semi automatic rifles were used in tests conducted in the presence of all, with 25 rounds of Eley .22lr subsonic hollow point rounds were fired via each rifle without a 17 baffled parker hale silencer attached, and another 25 with the silencer fitted. Present during these strictly controlled tests, were the ballistic expert, Renshaw, Mr Rivlin, QC, Ewen Smith (Jeremys solicitor), Keith Mallinson, Glen Smith and myself... . I don't understand why you make things like this up.
-
I don't make things up, that's just it - that's why you can't understand why I would do such a thing...
-
I don't think the case shells or the bullets have been destroyed. I think this is the key to resolving the fact that the sound moderator was used or not. Ballistics is the key IMO...
Bullets do not touch the inside of a sound moderator composed of baffles and thus no marks are left on the bullets. In contrast moderators made of wipes can cause marks but there is no way to tie such to a particular moderator, the marks can end up screwing up matching of rifling marks though which is why it is important to be aware of the possibility. Moderators made of wipes are quite rare though.
There is no new science with regard to marks made by baffled moderators they don't leave marks. Mike is just pulling people's legs. I don't believe he is making things up just to try to trick people into supporting Jeremy I think he does it for attention and also he gets a kick from fooling people.
-
More lies from you. There is no such thing as a test that tells whether a moderator was attached when bullets were fired Not until 2003, when Smith and Mallinson (Barnsley) postulated the theory that it may be possible to tell scientifically whether any bullets had been fired through a sound moderator whilst it was fitted to the barrel of the semi - automatic anshuzt rifle. Use of a sound moderator on this type of weapon produces back pressure all the way back along the barrel of the rifle, right into the breech, imposing itself microscopically upon and around the base of the cartridge, flattening the lip of the cartridge, and causing a slightly exaggerated bulge near the bottom end of the spent cartridge - this phenomena, according to Mallinson (2003 / 2004) only occurs when a sound moderator is attached to the barrel of semi -automatic rifles. Moreover, Mallinson and Smith sought to demonstrate in tests carried out at the gun club they both ran, that different rates of distortion cast upon the cartridges when fired in different models of semi - automatic rifles, and or different types of .22 ammunition, this was because some Semi -automatic rifles generate slightly less or slightly more back pressure than other models / ammunition. This was why on the occasion when ballistic expert Renshaw attended the shooting range at the club, several different types of .22 semi automatic rifles were used in tests conducted in the presence of all, with 25 rounds of Eley .22lr subsonic hollow point rounds were fired via each rifle without a 17 baffled parker hale silencer attached, and another 25 with the silencer fitted. Present during these strictly controlled tests, were the ballistic expert, Renshaw, Mr Rivlin, QC, Ewen Smith (Jeremys solicitor), Keith Mallinson, Glen Smith and myself... . I don't understand why you make things like this up.
Far from there being an impact on the casings the impact is on the action of the rifle. Back pressure shoots unburned powder back into the firing mechanism and out of the ejection port/vents onto the shooter. This can require the weapon to need cleaning after fewer firings than ordinarily.
There are no scientific journal articles or books discussing any impact to casings because there is no consistent impact on casings caused by moderators.
-
Bullets do not touch the inside of a sound moderator composed of baffles and your point is? and thus no marks are left on the bullets. In contrast moderators made of wipes can cause marks but there is no way to tie such to a particular moderator, the marks can end up screwing up matching of rifling marks though which is why it is important to be aware of the possibility. Moderators made of wipes are quite rare though.
There is no new science with regard to marks made by baffled moderators they don't leave marks who is saying they did? . Mike is just pulling people's legs. I don't believe he is making things up, so that puts paid to your nonsense.. I don't make things up, so that puts paid to all your nonsense just to try to trick people into supporting Jeremy I think he does it for attention and also he gets a kick from fooling people No, the only person making things up is you in this instant, and Essex police from September 1985, onward .
-
Here's something I have been accused of making up, for kicks, or so that I can trick people into supporting Jeremy - now according to Fletcher as per his witness statement dated 13th November 1985, he only test fired 23 control bullets, but in hand written notes which were recorded contemporaneously, he declares to have test fired 27 control bullets. ..
Which version is true?
Have made all of this up - or am I recording the now known facts?
-
Bullets do not touch the inside of a sound moderator composed of baffles and your point is? and thus no marks are left on the bullets. In contrast moderators made of wipes can cause marks but there is no way to tie such to a particular moderator, the marks can end up screwing up matching of rifling marks though which is why it is important to be aware of the possibility. Moderators made of wipes are quite rare though.
There is no new science with regard to marks made by baffled moderators they don't leave marks who is saying they did? . Mike is just pulling people's legs. I don't believe he is making things up, so that puts paid to your nonsense.. I don't make things up, so that puts paid to all your nonsense just to try to trick people into supporting Jeremy I think he does it for attention and also he gets a kick from fooling people No, the only person making things up is you in this instant, and Essex police from September 1985, onward .
The one making up stories is you not me. You made up so many bogus claims including but not limited to- there were too few casings in the master bedroom, the bullet in the master bedroom was found elsewhere, items collected in September from Julie's place were collected the day of the murders as exhibits DRH/1-4 but were later moved to 51-54 so other cases could be added- seeing photos of Sheila in the kitchen and bed, informants in the woods...
When all your bull crap is stripped aside you have exactly zilch to establish Jeremy's innocence and zilch to attack the evidence that proves his guilt. Because you have nothing legitimate you raise complete nonsense but much of your nonsense includes claims of how intimately involved you were as if that makes you a celebrity- you want the attention. I don't care if you were intimately involved or not with any of the people you claim such doesn't impress me at all. All I care about is the substance of the claims you make and it is clear there is no substance. You distort anything and everything but it is only fooling people who are so biased in favor of Jeremy that they choose to believe irrational things rather than face the truth.
Any actual evidence of a phone call from Nevill to police? No
Any actual evidence that Sheila was shot by police as you claim- no the bullets that killed her clearly was 22LR
Any actual evidence of any evidence being doctored? No
You have to play games to pretend evidence was doctored to pretend that Jeremy was framed when the truth is Sheila was framed.
-
Here's something I have been accused of making up, for kicks, or so that I can trick people into supporting Jeremy - now according to Fletcher as per his witness statement dated 13th November 1985, he only test fired 23 control bullets, but in hand written notes which were recorded contemporaneously, he declares to have test fired 27 control bullets. ..
Which version is true?
Have made all of this up - or am I recording the now known facts?
Obviously the number of cartridges that remained unfired would reveal which is correct. The spent and unspent cartridges were a trial exhibit along with the other evidence so the defense had every opportunity to figure out how many were test fired and how many remained. If he did make a typo in either his notes or his statement it is of little consequence. This is a perfect example of how you just throw crap out to try to imply something sinister must have happened though you have no proof anything happened. Proof is required, non-specific unsupported allegations don't accomplish a thing.
Anytime you do come up with specific claims thought ye are made up like your fairytale of Stan Jones going to WHF late at night on August 7, collecting a moderator and asking Jeremy about this moderator with Taff Jones on August 9. These are just fairytales you invented. Most of the time you just want to try creating suspicion of police with claims like you just posted, some of which you make up but some of which is true but just amounts to innocent errors or even can be explained rationally in some other manner, which don't establish anything illicit happened you just use it to impugn the reputation of people and then say they must have been doing something crooked and you make up crooked things you claim they did.
You don't even make up anything rational in the meantime. You make up off the wall things that are obviously bull and that many people can't even follow. Most of the claims I take the time to rebut a lot of people can't even understand what you are alleging. They don't realize where you are trying to go with your claims because they ultimately make no sense.
If makes no difference how many cartridges Fletcher used for the testing- the number used and unused add up to 29 which is the grand total of unfired cartridges that made up the exhibit. It doesn't matter whether the exhibit displayed in court consisted of 23 spent cartridges and 6 unfired cartridges or 27 spent cartridges and 2 unfired cartridges. Either way there is no way he would have extra cases he could pretend had been found by police elsewhere and police records reveal what they found and where so if he did try to make such up it would be easy to disprove.
So even if true that there is a discrepancy between one note and his statement it doesn't mean squat- just like changing the prefix for the moderator doesn't mean squat- but given your past dishonestly we don't even know if you made the whole thing up.
-
Here - have a look at this, I believe you have been claiming that I have been making stories up about it. Funny how it is no longer a story:-
-
Obviously the number of cartridges that remained unfired would reveal which is correct. The spent and unspent cartridges were a trial exhibit No, they weren't, they were test fired and introduced as part of the original batch of crime scene ammunition. along with the other evidence so the defense had every opportunity to figure out how many were test fired and how many remained. If he did make a typo in either his notes or his statement it is of little consequence. This is a perfect example of how you just throw crap out to try to imply something sinister must have happened though you have no proof anything happened. Proof is required, non-specific unsupported allegations don't accomplish a thing.
You are talking nonsense, as usual...
Anytime you do come up with specific claims thought ye are made up like your fairytale of Stan Jones going to WHF late at night on August 7 You idiot, I never said late at night, because he returned to the scene later that morning, leaving Jeremys cottage to go there and take four exhibits, one of which was one of the sound moderators.., collecting a moderator and asking Jeremy about this moderator with Taff Jones on August 9 Yes, absolutely true.... These are just fairytales you invented What a fucking idiot you are, . Most of the time you just want to try creating suspicion of police with claims like you just posted, some of which you make up but some of which is true but just amounts to innocent errors or even can be explained rationally in some other manner, which don't establish anything illicit happened you just use it to impugn the reputation of people and then say they must have been doing something crooked Framing an innocent man for killing his sister when he didn't is pure evil on the part of all those who pushed for that claim to be true and you make up crooked things you claim they did.
You don't even make up anything rational in the meantime. You make up off the wall things that are obviously bull and that many people can't even follow. Most of the claims I take the time to rebut a lot of people can't even understand what you are alleging. They don't realize where you are trying to go with your claims because they ultimately make no sense You like talking about what your really like don't you, you describe yourself perfectly....
If makes no difference how many cartridges Fletcher used for the testing Yes, it does- the number used and unused add up to 29 he says he test fired 23 cartridges in his only test, yet elsewhere he claims he fired 29 rounds, so which is it? You can't have experts not being able to do simpole arithmatic like adding up the number of cartridges he test fired, and then believe everything he said about use of the silencer in the shootings, the mans a barm pot which is the grand total of unfired cartridges that made up the exhibit. It doesn't matter whether the exhibit displayed in court consisted of 23 spent cartridges and 6 unfired cartridges or 27 spent cartridges and 2 unfired cartridges. Of course it matters, barm pot, you can't magic up unfired cartridge cases and say these are the ones I didn't fire, when elsewhere he states that he fired 27 of the damn things, and that he did not know where two of them were, probably lost, Oh yeah, that old chestnut, "We lost it, em"... Either way there is no way he would have extra cases he could pretend had been found by police elsewhere and police records reveal what they found and where so if he did try to make such up it would be easy to disprove. And it has been disproved, the crime scene ammunition was dodgy, it was not a one gun crime, and the 25 bullets fired came from more than one batch of .22 ammunition...
So even if true that there is a discrepancy between one note and his statement it doesn't mean squat- just like changing the prefix for the moderator doesn't mean squat- but given your past dishonestly I beg your pardon, rat face? we don't even know if you made the whole thing up.
-
So, was the solitary Eley Round part of lab' item 51, or 93?
-
Here is some of Keith Mallinsons Work:-
-
Here - have a look at this, I believe you have been claiming that I have been making stories up about it. Funny how it is no longer a story:-
Why do you always change the subject? This doesn't say how many cartridges were used for testing.
This suggests a drop of blood was found on a cartridge. It is hard enough to read if you had scanned it but instead you take a photo making it even more difficult to read. It looks like there is a tape mark blocking some of the writing in the meantime what is up with that? The killer would have had blood on him so big deal if a bit dropped onto one the unused rounds when the killer brushed against it while grabbing the ones to reload. All that proves it that if the killer had enough blood to transfer it to a cartridge then we would have found plenty of blood on Sheila if she had been the murderer.
-
No, they weren't, they were test fired and introduced as part of the original batch of crime scene ammunition.
The exhibit consisted of the test fired ammo as well as the cartridges never fired even during testing the number of unfired and test fired added up to 29 which is the exact number that had been left in the kitchen unfired.
You idiot, I never said late at night, because he returned to the scene later that morning, leaving Jeremys cottage to go there and take four exhibits, one of which was one of the sound moderators..,
He didn't leave Goldhanger until late afternoon after all the statements were taken and then went back to the police station for the debriefing.
Framing an innocent man for killing his sister when he didn't is pure evil on the part of all those who pushed for that claim to be true
He was neither framed nor is innocent. He was convicted because he was guilty as sin and that is why he will die in prison.
he says he test fired 23 cartridges in his only test, yet elsewhere he claims he fired 29 rounds, so which is it? You can't have experts not being able to do simpole arithmatic like adding up the number of cartridges he test fired, and then believe everything he said about use of the silencer in the shootings, the mans a barm pot
You can't even keep your story straight. You claimed his notes recorded that he test fired 27 rounds now you claim he test fired all 29. You are complaining about his claims being inconsistent when yours never are. There were 29 total cartridge cases that were taken into evidence as DRH/22. The majority of these were test fired. The trial exhibit added up to 29 still when combining those test fired and those not test fired. So all were still accounted for.
Of course it matters, barm pot, you can't magic up unfired cartridge cases and say these are the ones I didn't fire, when elsewhere he states that he fired 27 of the damn things, and that he did not know where two of them were, probably lost, Oh yeah, that old chestnut, "We lost it, em"...
It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds. Either way the full 29 are accounted for and your claim they were planted somewhere else falls apart.
And it has been disproved, the crime scene ammunition was dodgy, it was not a one gun crime, and the 25 bullets fired came from more than one batch of .22 ammunition...
You failed miserably at establishing the .22 ammunition used for the murders were different varieties (which is what you mean by different batches). You also failed to establish anything dodgy about the evidence.
-
Here is some of Keith Mallinsons Work:-
Why don't you shoot the pages from up in a tree- they would be just as hard to read.
Most modern printers are scanners you know...
All I can make out is that it concerns the loading of the magazine.
-
So, was the solitary Eley Round part of lab' item 51, or 93?
The solitary round was still in the plastic box and rather than separating it to combine with the other 29 cartridges they left it in the box and made it part of 51. 93 was the 29 cartridges that were sitting directly on the counter. The sheet above claims there was blood on one of the 29 cartridges that were part of 93. You didn't answer what was whited out. There are 2 different sections with whiteout.
-
Why do you always change the subject? This doesn't say how many cartridges were used for testing.
This suggests a drop of blood was found on a cartridge. It is hard enough to read if you had scanned it but instead you take a photo making it even more difficult to read. It looks like there is a tape mark blocking some of the writing in the meantime what is up with that? The killer would have had blood on him so big deal if a bit dropped onto one the unused rounds when the killer brushed against it while grabbing the ones to reload. All that proves it that if the killer had enough blood to transfer it to a cartridge then we would have found plenty of blood on Sheila if she had been the murderer.
This is the solitary cartridge which elsewhere is described as lab' item no. 51...
Directly beneath where it is positioned in the kitchen photograph (on worktop) there was multiple spots of Ralph banners blood all over that part of the kitchen floor. It does not take a genius to work out that the spot of blood on this solitary cartridge, got there at the same time that Ralph's blood dripped on the floor directly beneath, this is in addition to his bloodied fingerprints being deposited on the edge of the worktop from his wounded left arm...
-
The exhibit consisted of the test fired ammo as well as the cartridges never fired even during testing the number of unfired and test fired added up to 29 which is the exact number that had been left in the kitchen unfired.
He didn't leave Goldhanger until late afternoon after all the statements were taken and then went back to the police station for the debriefing.
He was neither framed nor is innocent. He was convicted because he was guilty as sin and that is why he will die in prison.
You can't even keep your story straight. You claimed his notes recorded that he test fired 27 rounds now you claim he test fired all 29. You are complaining about his claims being inconsistent when yours never are. There were 29 total cartridge cases that were taken into evidence as DRH/22. The majority of these were test fired. The trial exhibit added up to 29 still when combining those test fired and those not test fired. So all were still accounted for.
It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds. Either way the full 29 are accounted for and your claim they were planted somewhere else falls apart.
You failed miserably at establishing the .22 ammunition used for the murders were different varieties (which is what you mean by different batches). You also failed to establish anything dodgy about the evidence.
No, it does not - if 23 were test fired as asserted by Fletcher in that witness statement there would have been 6 unfired rounds and 23 test fired rounds, as opposed to if he test fired 27 test fired cartridge cases, there would only have been 2 unfired rounds. The logistics don't add up. You are arguing that if Fletcher fired 23 test rounds there would only have been 2 unfired rounds, or that if he had test fired 27 test fired rounds there would still have been 6 unfired rounds, or vice versa. What you are trying to argue amounts to a paradox, it can't be true, because no matter which way you try to argue it, it basically does not fit in with the known and established facts...
-
The exhibit consisted of the test fired ammo as well as the cartridges never fired even during testing the number of unfired and test fired added up to 29 which is the exact number that had been left in the kitchen unfired. No, they did not, the two versions of how many test fired rounds Fletcher test fired ( 23, or 27) cannot be reconciled with what you yourself are trying to argue. For your argument to be true there would have needed to be 33 unfired piece of control ammunition on the kitchen worktop, plus one in the box. Bearing this in mind, how could there have been 29 and 33 loose bullets tipped out on the kitchen worktop at one and the same time? Fletcher has lied, and you are simply trying to find an excuse to justify why he has lied (good luck)...
He didn't leave Goldhanger until late afternoon after all the statements were taken read his COLP interview notes, then you'll see why what you are saying is hogwash and then went back to the police station for the debriefing. just goes to show how very little you know
He was neither framed nor is innocent. He I agree with this, DS Jones has neither been framed, nor was he innocentb was convicted because he was guilty as sin and that is why he will die in prison. you evil, vile indidual.
You can't even keep your story straight. You claimed his notes recorded that he test fired 27 rounds now you claim he test fired all 29. You No, pea brain, Fletcher said he test fired 23 control rounds from the 29, and he says he test fired 27 elsewhere, it is you now saying I said he test fired all 29, you are a baffoon are complaining about his claims being inconsistent when yours never are. There I am merely drawing attention to the inconsistencies, the contradictions, and ambiguities, which upset people of the likes of yourself were 29 total cartridge cases that were taken into evidence as DRH/22. The majority of these were test fired. The trial exhibit added up to 29 still when combining those test fired and those not test fired. No, the trial exhibit did not add up, how can it have remained 29 cartridges, when either 23 or 27 were test fired, and those which were test fired were no longer complete cartridge cases? How could there be 6 unfired loose cartridges, and 2 unfired cartridges, at one and the same time? Impossible... So all were still accounted for. No, Fletcher told COLP interviewers that 2 cartridges must have been lost, which further adds to the mystery
It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds. Are you for real, of course it makes a difference, clearly the exhibit has been doctored, there was either 29 rounds, or 33, now which is it that you are applying your vast intellectual ability in favour of? Oh, I get it, you want it both ways, there was 29 loose cartridges amongst the overall total of 33 loose cartridges on the kitchen worktop. Well, matey, if that be the case then why weren't the COLP interviewers interested in the other unaccounted for 4 loose as yet unfired cartridges, in addition to the 2 they did take an interest in? If there were only 29 loose cartridge's, that means 4 additional rounds came from another source, in addition to the shot across Sheila's throat by Woodcock in the kitchen... Either way the full 29 are accounted for and your claim they were planted somewhere else falls apart. my claim stands tried and tested, there is nothing you can make up to shake it, good luck...
You failed miserably at establishing the .22 ammunition used for the murders were different varieties (which is what you mean by different batches) the variety in weight of all 12 WHOLE bullets linked to these shootings speaks for itself, Fletcher has lied, and everybody can see that he has and did, good luck trying to prove me wrong . You also failed to establish anything dodgy about the evidence. So, why are you struggling to provide answers that make sense and add up?
-
This is the solitary cartridge which elsewhere is described as lab' item no. 51...
Directly beneath where it is positioned in the kitchen photograph (on worktop) there was multiple spots of Ralph banners blood all over that part of the kitchen floor. It does not take a genius to work out that the spot of blood on this solitary cartridge, got there at the same time that Ralph's blood dripped on the floor directly beneath, this is in addition to his bloodied fingerprints being deposited on the edge of the worktop from his wounded left arm...
No it's not, the solitary round from the box. That cartridge is part of 53. While the photo you took is difficult to read it clearly states it is one of the 29 cartridges from 93.
There were no bloody prints on the counter. If blood was dropped there it was dropped by the killer like on the bullet but there is no blood noted on the counter let alone bloody prints.
-
"It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds. Either way the full 29 are accounted for and your claim they were planted somewhere else falls apart."
No, it does not - if 23 were test fired as asserted by Fletcher in that witness statement there would have been 6 unfired rounds and 23 test fired rounds, as opposed to if he test fired 27 test fired cartridge cases, there would only have been 2 unfired rounds. The logistics don't add up.
They do add up you just repeated what I wrote though you are pretending you wrote something different than me.
You are arguing that if Fletcher fired 23 test rounds there would only have been 2 unfired rounds, or that if he had test fired 27 test fired rounds there would still have been 6 unfired rounds, or vice versa. What you are trying to argue amounts to a paradox, it can't be true, because no matter which way you try to argue it, it basically does not fit in with the known and established facts...
Are you living in the Twilight Zone? Where did I argue that there would have been only 2 unfired cartridges if he test fired 23? I clearly stated 23 test fired and 6 unfired. I clearly stated the total of test fired and unfired produced at trial totaled 29.
You have to lie about my posts to try to pretend there is a problem? That doesn't help you in any way.I don't know why you are bothering with such babble.
-
"The exhibit consisted of the test fired ammo as well as the cartridges never fired even during testing the number of unfired and test fired added up to 29 which is the exact number that had been left in the kitchen unfired."
No, they did not, the two versions of how many test fired rounds Fletcher test fired ( 23, or 27) cannot be reconciled with what you yourself are trying to argue. For your argument to be true there would have needed to be 33 unfired piece of control ammunition on the kitchen worktop, plus one in the box. Bearing this in mind, how could there have been 29 and 33 loose bullets tipped out on the kitchen worktop at one and the same time? Fletcher has lied, and you are simply trying to find an excuse to justify why he has lied (good luck)...
Where did you learn your math? Since when does 23+6 or 27+2 equal 33? They equal 29.
"He didn't leave Goldhanger until late afternoon after all the statements were taken and then went back to the police station for the debriefing"
read his COLP interview notes, then you'll see why what you are saying is hogwash. just goes to show how very little you know
The COLP interview notes are not in order. There are pages talking about Jones in third person and then someone speaking in first person and it wasn't entirely clear the first person speaking is DS Jones. In any event if he did go to WHF that doesn't establish he took anything. Indeed he doesn't mention taking any exhibits and the only exhibits with his initials were from other dates including photos. The first exhibit under his name was from the 13th of August and that was later changed to DB/1. If he already had 4 exhibits taken as you claim then the moderator turned over to Cook would have been SBJ/5 instead of 1.
"You can't even keep your story straight. You claimed his notes recorded that he test fired 27 rounds now you claim he test fired all 29."
No, pea brain, Fletcher said he test fired 23 control rounds from the 29, and he says he test fired 27 elsewhere, it is you now saying I said he test fired all 29, you are a baffoon.
Here are your own words:
"he says he test fired 23 cartridges in his only test, yet elsewhere he claims he fired 29 rounds, so which is it?"
I'm not a buffoon you don't even know what you are writing. You clearly asserted he claimed he test fired 23 rounds in 1 spot and all 29 rounds in another spot. Yet previous to this you wrote 23 and 27. You are attacking him for being inconsistent when you are doing the same thing.
I am merely drawing attention to the inconsistencies, the contradictions, and ambiguities, which upset people of the likes of yourself
You are trying to create inconsistencies that don't exist. DRH/22 consisted of 29 cartridges total. At the outset all 29 were unfired. A majority of them were used for test firing so a majority of these 29 were spent casings and bullets by the time of the trial. The number of unfired cartridges and those test fired added up to 29 there was no discrepancy like you are trying to pretend. He may have test fired some subsequent to his statement. He may have been wrong in his statement or wrong in his notes. He could have made the same error you just made. You meant to say 27 and wrote 29. The only way there would be a problem would be if the court exhibit had less than 29 cartridges total counting the fired and unfired cartridges all together. But that is not the case there were still 29 total so your efforts fall flat.
"There were 29 total cartridge cases that were taken into evidence as DRH/22. The majority of these were test fired. The trial exhibit added up to 29 still when combining those test fired and those not test fired."
No, the trial exhibit did not add up, how can it have remained 29 cartridges, when either 23 or 27 were test fired, and those which were test fired were no longer complete cartridge cases? How could there be 6 unfired loose cartridges, and 2 unfired cartridges, at one and the same time? Impossible
The fired cartridges each consist of a spent bullet and casing, the unfired cartridges are still 1 unit each. The number of fired and unfired add up to 29 total. I didn't claim there were 6 plus 2 unfired cartridges I said EITHER 6 or 2. You intentionally keep trying to twist because you have zilch to support Jeremy and yet desperately want to pretend he was framed.
No, Fletcher told COLP interviewers that 2 cartridges must have been lost, which further adds to the mystery
Post evidence that he claimed two were lost at the time of the trial. The defense would have noticed 2 cartridges missing and would have questioned him about it.
"It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds."
Are you for real, of course it makes a difference, clearly the exhibit has been doctored, there was either 29 rounds, or 33, now which is it that you are applying your vast intellectual ability in favour of? Oh, I get it, you want it both ways, there was 29 loose cartridges amongst the overall total of 33 loose cartridges on the kitchen worktop. Well, matey, if that be the case then why weren't the COLP interviewers interested in the other unaccounted for 4 loose as yet unfired cartridges, in addition to the 2 they did take an interest in? If there were only 29 loose cartridge's, that means 4 additional rounds came from another source, in addition to the shot across Sheila's throat by Woodcock in the kitchen...
Clearly math is not your strong suit. There were 29 total sitting on the counter and 1 in the tray. Of the 29 on the counter the bulk were test fired. The remainder remained unfired. The number test fired and that remained unfired combined added up to 29. There is no discrepancy except in your mind. There wasn't 33 and thus wasn't 4 extra. In the meantime seconds ago you claimed 2 were missing now you are claiming 4 extra. You are all over the place.
"Either way the full 29 are accounted for and your claim they were planted somewhere else falls apart."
my claim stands tried and tested, there is nothing you can make up to shake it, good luck...
Your claims are contradictory and fell apart. You claimed there were 2 cartridges lost and yet 4 extra cartridges. You have no clue what you are talking about. There were 29 total in the exhibit. Your efforts all fall apart completely including your absurd claim about 1 of the bullets being .223/5.56mm.
You failed miserably at establishing the .22 ammunition used for the murders were different varieties (which is what you mean by different batches)"
the variety in weight of all 12 WHOLE bullets linked to these shootings speaks for itself, Fletcher has lied, and everybody can see that he has and did, good luck trying to prove me wrong
His chart which contained the word whole for some clearly didn't mean whole in the sense of the full weight of the unfired bullet. If he intended whole to mean such then his chart contains errors because clearly some were not even close. It is possible his statement did contain typos in that regard. The burden is on you to prove Fletcher lied and that evidence was doctored not for me to disprove it. You have not proven such except in your wildest dreams.
These are supposedly the weights of the 12 bullet she referred to as whole:
Sheila
1 ) PV/19 2.16g
2 ) PV/20 1.54g
June
3 ) PV/23 2.29g
4 ) PV/24 2.42g
5 ) DRH/35a 2.43g
6 ) DRH/35b 2.44g
Nevill
7 ) DRH/5 2.42g
8 ) PV/2 2.42g
9 ) PV/4 2g
Daniel
10) PV/29 2.13g
11) DRH/36 2.42g
Nicholas
12) PV/31 2.12g
PV/20 and PV/4 are way off the rest. He clearly wasn't using the term to mean the complete weight.
"You also failed to establish anything dodgy about the evidence."
So, why are you struggling to provide answers that make sense and add up?
I'm not struggling in the least. You are the one making up stupid stories that make no sense or evidentiary support about bullets being switched and casings being switched and police shooting Sheila then moving her body and so much more and struggling to find away to pretend these ridiculous things could be true.
I'm just following the evidence where it leads I don't have to break a sweat. Since you are providing a revisionist account you bear the burden of proof I can rest on the proof used at trial. You have not come even remotely close to meeting your burden. I could make up more rational conspiracy claims than you do but naturally am not going to bother.
-
No it's not, the solitary round from the box Yes, it is - it was not one of the 29 loose bullets, you are barmy even trying to suggest it is, or it was, none of the loose 29 cartridges had a spot of dripped blood on them, but the solitary cartridge in the box did. What we have here is someone at the lab' deliberately contaminating item 93 with use of another exhibit (part of lab' item no. 51. It was done by somebody so that fletcher could make that reference in one of his witness statements that part of 51, and 93 were ELEY type cartridges. Once you know that the solitary bullet in part of 51, has been presented as 93, it becomes easy to see why Fletcher was able to refer to the other 29 loose cartridges as Eley types, by thrusting item 93, and part of 51 being an unfired ELEY cartridge . That cartridge is part of 53. While the photo you took is difficult to read it clearly states it is one of the 29 cartridges from 93. No, it does not mention anywhere at all on that lab' form, anything at all about that solitary bullet being part of the other 29 loose rounds. You are just making up nonsense for the sake of pretending Fletcher and DS Jones, didn't tamper with the crime scene ammunition, the sound moderator, and that both of the reprobates turn the investigation upside down by presenting false ballistic evidence so that they could turn it into a one gun crime...
There were no bloody prints on the counter. Yes, there was, everybody can see it as clear as day. Your argument is a foolish gesture trying to pretend this and that, in the same way you and others of your elk have been saying all along that there was no blood on the soles of Sheila's feet, no blood on her hands, no blood on her arms, you say she had no injuries or marks at all on her arms, or her body, but we have all seen the photographic evidence, she had blood on the soles of her feet, she had blood on her hands, and she had blood on her arms, and her nightdress, front and rear. Its about time you lot retired from making up nonsense like this If blood was dropped there it was dropped by the killer like on the bullet but there is no blood noted on the counter let alone bloody prints.
-
"No it's not, the solitary round from the box"
Yes, it is - it was not one of the 29 loose bullets, you are barmy even trying to suggest it is, or it was, none of the loose 29 cartridges had a spot of dripped blood on them, but the solitary cartridge in the box did. What we have here is someone at the lab' deliberately contaminating item 93 with use of another exhibit (part of lab' item no. 51. It was done by somebody so that fletcher could make that reference in one of his witness statements that part of 51, and 93 were ELEY type cartridges. Once you know that the solitary bullet in part of 51, has been presented as 93, it becomes easy to see why Fletcher was able to refer to the other 29 loose cartridges as Eley types, by thrusting item 93, and part of 51 being an unfired ELEY cartridge
This is a perfect example of how you ignore the actual evidence and just make up any crap you want.
As plain as day the document you post purports to provide a diagram and description of one of the unfired cartridges from Exhibit 93 AKA DRH/22. It expressly states it is from 93.
You allege this document contains a lie and that this was actually the single cartridge from Exhibit 51 AKA DRH/23.
What evidence do you have to support such an allegation? None! What is the genesis of this allegation? It was simply made up from whole cloth without any evidentiary basis at all.
In the real world that is worthless an it is even more worthless if you want to argue such to a court because a court won't even entertain the suggestion without evidence they are even more demanding that ordinary objective rational people.
You can make up any allegations you want but such allegations are worthless without evidence to substantiate them.
"That cartridge is part of 53. While the photo you took is difficult to read it clearly states it is one of the 29 cartridges from 93."
No, it does not mention anywhere at all on that lab' form, anything at all about that solitary bullet being part of the other 29 loose rounds. You are just making up nonsense for the sake of pretending Fletcher and DS Jones, didn't tamper with the crime scene ammunition, the sound moderator, and that both of the reprobates turn the investigation upside down by presenting false ballistic evidence so that they could turn it into a one gun crime...
You have the document in front of you, you can read it far easier than we can and yet still it is easy to see the upper right corner in the field titled "Identifying Mark" it has the number 93 which indicates it is part of 93. By indicating it is part of 93 it is indicating it is one of the 29 rounds found on the kitchen counter because Exhibit 93 consists of the 29 rounds found on the kitchen counter.
Why do you bother trying to fool us? What till it take for you to realize we are no where near as stupid as you hope we are?
The bottom line is the record you posted purports this cartridge is one of the 29 unfired cartridges from 93 and you have zero evidence to prove the document wrong. In the mumbo jumbo posted above you claimed it was switched and other babble but you have no actual evidence to support such allegations.
Evidence floats unsupported allegations sink.
"There were no bloody prints on the counter."
Yes, there was, everybody can see it as clear as day. Your argument is a foolish gesture trying to pretend this and that,
People see what appear to be marks in the photos. There is no way for people to be able to tell if these marks are actually there or just shading from the photo. If there is something there people have no way to know if it is dirt or what and no way to know if it is a fingerprint. People are just wildly speculating.
The people who took the photos and were actually at the scene with a close up view didn't determine such looked like fingerprints or blood. Their opinions deserve deference your wild allegations do not.
Saying they are definitely bloody prints is nonsense you have no valid basis upon which to assert such. A The photo provides no basis to assert such the best one can do is wildly speculate and that is all you are doing.
in the same way you and others of your elk have been saying all along that there was no blood on the soles of Sheila's feet, no blood on her hands, no blood on her arms, you say she had no injuries or marks at all on her arms, or her body, but we have all seen the photographic evidence, she had blood on the soles of her feet, she had blood on her hands, and she had blood on her arms, and her nightdress, front and rear. Its about time you lot retired from making up nonsense like this
LMAO I don't have antlers it's ilk not elk. There wasn't any blood found on Sheila's feet as to demosntrate she waled through any blood or sugar int he kitchen and there are no photos which demonstrate otherwise. Nor was there any damage to her hands, nails or any blood from victims on her only her own blood. The blood on her wrist that ran down to her elbow was her own. She tried to plug the hole in her neck with her wrist. If she was holding the gun she could not have done that but since she was shot by Jeremy her hand wasn't on the trigger it was near her body and able to go right to her neck. I follow the evidence while you ignore it and make up claims to pretend Jeremy was framed though it is clear he wasn't. Your made up claims are worthless because they have zero support. Allegations are worthless unless they can be proved by credible evidence. That you make up ridiculous allegations instead of ones that are even remotely possible just makes it worse.
For instance, If I were going to make up the claim that police found 8 casings in the kitchen but moved 4 to the bedroom then I would claim they doctored the reports that indicated where 4 were found. Instead you make up a convoluted load of nonsense where you claim only 21 cases were found at WHF and later one they added 4 more and took items that originally had been collected as DRH1-4 and moved them to DRH 51-54 and then inserted the cases in place. This convoluted tale is ridiculous and not how someone planting evidence would do it. Worse, there were 25 firearm wounds so they would have found 25 all along not 21. Last and most importantly DRH51-54 were collected in September and not even collected from WHF so how could they have originally been DRH1-4? Instead of making up something simple that is at least theoretically possible you make up complex nonsense that is completely impossible. Trying to get us to believe such outlandish things insults our intelligence.
Making up something theoretically possible but that has no proof to establish actually occurred is useless at helping free Jeremy or convince informed, objective people of his innocence. You need to start concentrating on evidence not unsupported allegations.
"If blood was dropped there it was dropped by the killer like on the bullet but there is no blood noted on the counter let alone bloody prints."
---
The cat got your tongue you didn't reply to this point.
-
The exhibit consisted of the test fired ammo as well as the cartridges never fired even during testing the number of unfired and test fired added up to 29 which is the exact number that had been left in the kitchen unfired. the number of unfired cartridges differs depending upon how many rounds Fletcher test fired. If he only test fired 23 as he claimed in his witness statement, then obviously the would have been 6 remaining unfired cartridges, as opposed to the 2 if Fletcher test fired 27, as per his hand written report. So, clearly you are wrong to say that the same number of test fired rounds, and unrest fired rounds still existed, no matter how many rounds Fletcher had test fired...
He didn't leave Goldhanger until late afternoon after all the statements were taken You'd be well advised to keep your gob shut, until you find out the true facts regarding this matter, but in the meantime pleas be reassured that DS Jones did return to the scene from Jeremy's cottage, I believe it happed at 11am, or there about. This was the occasion he took possession of 4 exhibits from the scene, marked SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4... and then went back to the police station for the debriefing.
He was neither framed Oh, yes, he was nor is innocent. He was convicted because he was guilty as sin and that is why he will die in prison. He might not
You can't even keep your story straight. You claimed his notes recorded that he test fired 27 rounds now you claim he test fired all 29. You are complaining about his claims being inconsistent when yours never are. Fletcher told COLP he fired 27 of the loose 29 cartridges, and that two remaining rounds had got lost. He test fired these 27 cartridges between the 20th September and the 2nd October 1985, which gave rise to our suspicion that the missing 2 rounds had in all probability been used in the unofficial test fire of the gun prior to 12th September 1985. There were 29 total cartridge cases that were taken into evidence as DRH/22. The majority of these were test fired. You are wrong, the way I see it, Fletcher did two lots of test firing, he test fired 23 cartridges during what I shall refer to as 'The unreported test fire, and he test fired a further 27 rounds during his official test fire which took place, on 20th, and 25th September,and the 1st and 2'and October 1985. In total Fletcher test fired 50 cartridges, equivalent to a full box of bullets, but hey presto there were only 29 rounds left of the box, after somebody tipped them out of the box, so Fletcher must have had access to a separate supply of .22 ammunition, most of which was used in a substitution process. All they had to do was swap cartridge cases over, and hey presto, they could argue that all the fired bullets fired during the shootings belonged to, and originated from the same batch... The trial exhibit added up to 29 still No, it did not, there were not 29 unfired bullets by the time the case got to trial... when combining those test fired and those not test fired. So all were still accounted for. That is a blatent lie, and you know it, so do most other people
It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds. It does matter Either way the full 29 are accounted for No, they are not, you can't rely upon two conflicting accounts to say the amount of .22 ammunition is correct, what you are trying to do, is doctor the evidence exactly like the police have and did and your claim they were planted somewhere else falls apart. No, it doesn't fall a part, my version of events stands up to scrutiny, whereas yours is either just wishful thinking or pure fabrication
You failed miserably at establishing the .22 ammunition used for the murders were different varieties (which is what you mean by different batches). You also failed to establish anything dodgy about the evidence. That's just your opinion which in my book counts for very little
-
"The exhibit consisted of the test fired ammo as well as the cartridges never fired even during testing the number of unfired and test fired added up to 29 which is the exact number that had been left in the kitchen unfired."
the number of unfired cartridges differs depending upon how many rounds Fletcher test fired. If he only test fired 23 as he claimed in his witness statement, then obviously the would have been 6 remaining unfired cartridges, as opposed to the 2 if Fletcher test fired 27, as per his hand written report. So, clearly you are wrong to say that the same number of test fired rounds, and unrest fired rounds still existed, no matter how many rounds Fletcher had test fired...
I said the total of rounds comprising 93 was 29 rounds and that the number of fired and unfired combined added up to 29. You can play all the games you desire the simple fact is this is true- whatever he test fired still remained part and parcel of 93 and were not available to plant somewhere nor did he have any need to plant any cartridges. The combined number of spent .22LR casings collected on August 7 and 8 totaled 25- the same number of gunshot wounds.
DS Jones did return to the scene from Jeremy's cottage, I believe it happed at 11am, or there about. This was the occasion he took possession of 4 exhibits from the scene, marked SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Note how you refused to quote my previous response and just repeated the same mantra.
You have ZERO evidence he collected anything form WHF on August 7 let alone 4 items. Neither he nor anyone else asserts he took anything from the scene. If He had taken the items you claim and they were assigned the exhibit references you claim then on 8/13/85 the moderator would have been given designation SBJ/5 instead of SBJ/1. Your made up claims have zero support and are refuted by the moderator being identified as SBJ/1 on August 13 that proves no exhibits had previously been collected by Jones. You bear the burden of proof but have none and have no response to my points so keep pretending I didn't make them.
"You can't even keep your story straight. You claimed his notes recorded that he test fired 27 rounds now you claim he test fired all 29. You are complaining about his claims being inconsistent when yours never are."
Fletcher told COLP he fired 27 of the loose 29 cartridges, and that two remaining rounds had got lost. He test fired these 27 cartridges between the 20th September and the 2nd October 1985, which gave rise to our suspicion that the missing 2 rounds had in all probability been used in the unofficial test fire of the gun prior to 12th September 1985.
1) Post Fletcher's COLP statement because you lie too much to ever be trusted without seeing evidence first hand
2) This doesn't change the fact claimed stated he fired 27 and then changed it to claiming he stated he fired 29. Your claims are inconsistent and your attempt to reconcile them falls apart because now you are claiming you suspect he fired 29 not that he claims he did whereas you claimed he stated he fired 29.
Here again are your own words:
"he says he test fired 23 cartridges in his only test, yet elsewhere he claims he fired 29 rounds, so which is it?"
You are guilty of the same thing you are attacking him over. In the meantime you have not produced his hand note where you claim he says he test fired 27 of the 29 rounds so have not proven he made the error while it is clear as day you made the error attributed to you.
"There were 29 total cartridge cases that were taken into evidence as DRH/22. The majority of these were test fired.
You are wrong, the way I see it, Fletcher did two lots of test firing, he test fired 23 cartridges during what I shall refer to as 'The unreported test fire, and he test fired a further 27 rounds during his official test fire which took place, on 20th, and 25th September,and the 1st and 2'and October 1985. In total Fletcher test fired 50 cartridges, equivalent to a full box of bullets, but hey presto there were only 29 rounds left of the box, after somebody tipped them out of the box, so Fletcher must have had access to a separate supply of .22 ammunition, most of which was used in a substitution process. All they had to do was swap cartridge cases over, and hey presto, they could argue that all the fired bullets fired during the shootings belonged to, and originated from the same batch...
All this amounts to is a load of nonsense you made up. IF your claim regarding his notes are true then it simply establishes he made a mistake on either the notes or in his statement regarding how many rounds from 93 he test fired. He messed up and either wrote 23 or 27 by accident and it was the other figure. You decided to just MAKE UP the claim he fired both numbers and to add them up. On what basis do you do so? Just because you wanted to make such up not because there is any evidentiary support.
This is just an unsupported allegation that is worthless as are all your unsupported allegations. Unsupported allegations don't amount to squat.
In the meantime you make up a load of nonsense about how they neede dot plant these extra casings to take away non-Eley casings. The only ammunition Nevill owned was Eley. The only 22LR gun at WHF at the time of the murders was the Anschutz. it clearly was the weapon used. Your made up claims about other guns and calibers being used are not only unsupported but amount to ludicrous nonsense.
Only irrational, ignorant biased fools will believe any of this ridiculous tripe- if you are going to make up something at least make up something that makes sense.
"The trial exhibit added up to 29 still when combining those test fired and those not test fired. So all were still accounted for. "
No, it did not, there were not 29 unfired bullets by the time the case got to trial...That is a blatent lie, and you know it, so do most other people
The only blatant lie is from you. I didn't claim the 29 rounds comprising 93 were all unfired by the time of the trial. I said the bulk of them were test fired and that the number test fired combined with those that remained unfired added up to 29. You keep misrepresenting what I write to try to pretend I was wrong. Your spinning simply demonstrates your dishonesty though. All someone need do is look at the underscored portion of my quote to see your mischaracterization bears no semblance to reality.
"It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds. Either way the full 29 are accounted for "
No, they are not, you can't rely upon two conflicting accounts to say the amount of .22 ammunition is correct, what you are trying to do, is doctor the evidence exactly like the police have and did
No what I am doing is facing reality. The reality is that the trial exhibit featured unfired and fired rounds totaling 29. If they didn't total 29 then the defense would have asked Fletcher why not. The defense didn't have any problems with the exhibit because nothing was missing.
IF (you still have not produced evidence in his notes that he recorded test firing 27 of them) he test fired 27 but his statement contained a typo that said he test fired 23 all that proves is that his statement had a typo nothing more. Your wild conspiracy claims are not supported by such typo if it exists.
You intentionally have refused to post Fletcher's full testimony which would actually mention in detail his testing. You also refused to post the full Dickinson report which again would likely have discussed the test firing. Nor have you produced Fletcher's COLP testimony. If you produce all in full there is little doubt it will put an end to many of you allegations which is why you won't post these items in full.
It's the same reason why supporters won't publish the CCRC's rejection- then everyone would see why the claims made to the CCRC were invalid and supporters are still making some of these invalid claims so don't want such revealed.
You try to fool people by keeping them in ignorance of the true facts. But that only works with people who are not smart enough to recognize that the burden off proof rests on your shoulders so keeping us in the dark simply supports the status quo.
"You failed miserably at establishing the .22 ammunition used for the murders were different varieties (which is what you mean by different batches). You also failed to establish anything dodgy about the evidence."
That's just your opinion which in my book counts for very little
No it is a fact that you have failed to establish other brands of 22LR ammunition was used, that other varieties than subsonic hollowpoints were used and that other calibers than 22LR were used. Your allegation that other guns were used also have no suport. Even Jeremy said AP took his gun home with him after his last visit. Ignoring reality doesn't prove anything except that you are too biased to face the case rationally.
-
Where did you learn your math? Since when does 23+6 or 27+2 equal 33? They equal 29.
The COLP interview notes are not in order. They are if you put them in the correct order There are pages talking about Jones in third person and I don't know, I didn't record the interview notes then someone speaking in first person and the person talking was not me, so I can't help you it wasn't entirely clear the first person speaking is DS Jones. Rest assured, DS Jones returned to the scene that morning at around 11am, I believe there is mention of this in his dodgy pocketbook entry dated, 7th August 1985 In any event if he did go to WHF that doesn't establish he took anything. But he did, he seized a sound moderator SBJ/1, and three other exhibits. This silencer had the identifying mark of SJ/1 when handed over to DCI 'Taff' Jones, but in the property register only the other 3 exhibits were recorded, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 Indeed he doesn't mention taking any exhibits and the only exhibits with his initials were from other dates including photos. he removed exhibits from the scene that morning whilst the bodies of victims were still laying in with situ The first exhibit under his name was from the 13th of August and that was later changed to DB/1. No, he didn't. He had possession of a sound moderator from the first day of the investigation. The one bearing the identifying mark of SJ/1. DS Jones did not receive a sound moderator from Peter Eaton on the 13th August 1985. The relatives only handed over the silencer belonging to the Bambers Rifle (18) on the 11th September 1985. The other silencer (SJ/1) was the one Cook took to the lab' on the 13th August, this was the one provisionally examined by Glynis Howard on that date. She handed that silencer back to Cook that very same date, and Cook went onto to dismantle and rebuild it in the 29th August. He took photographs of the disturbance he made of the silencer, and it is worth pointing out that on that occasion, with the silencer stripped down, baffles separated, Cook did not see or find any blood on any baffle plate of this silencer on that occasion. In the photographs Cook took of his interference of the silencer, was attached a piece of paper with the mark, SJ/1, upon it... If he already had 4 exhibits yes, he took 4 exhibits from the scene that first morning taken as you claim then the moderator turned over to Cook would have been SBJ/5 instead of 1. he didn't hand it is over to Cook on the 7th August, he handed it (SJ/1) to DCI 'Taff' Jones, who retained it on his desk in his office at Witham police station, until it was sent to the lab' on two occasions, once on 13th and secondly,on the 30th August 1985.
Here are your own words:
"he says he test fired 23 cartridges in his only test, yet elsewhere he claims he fired 29 rounds, so elsewhere he inferred he had fired all 29 rounds, but when COLP pointed out that he had only test fired 27 bullets and they wanted to know the whereabouts of the 2 unfired control bullets, Fleture took on an evasive stance, claiming that these two rounds had been lost which is it?"
I'm not a buffoon you don't even know what you are writing. to my mind you are a baffoon You clearly asserted he claimed he test fired 23 rounds in 1 spot and all 29 rounds in another spot. Yet previous to this you wrote 23 and 27. You are attacking him for being inconsistent when you are doing the same thing. Correct interpretation is that there existed 29 control bullets, and Fletcher claims he test fired 23 (see witness statement) and he also test fired 27 (hand written note version) if he fired 23 from the batch of 29, then that leaves 6 unfired rounds. If he test fired 27 of the 29 rounds, then 2 unfired rounds existed...
You are trying to create inconsistencies that don't exist. Inconsistencies do exist DRH/22 consisted of 29 cartridges total not including the solitary loose round in the box on the kitchen worktop . At the outset all 29 were unfired Correct . A majority of them were used for test firing so a majority of these 29 were spent casings and bullets by the time of the trial. please supply the court exhibit number for this exhibit? The number of unfired cartridges and those test fired added up to 29 there was no discrepancy like you are trying to pretend. Hehe got it wrong may have test fired some subsequent to his statement. He may have been wrong in his statement or wrong in his notes. He could have made the same error you just made. I didn't make an error, I was drawing an inference from what Fletcher said to the COLP interviewers You meant to say 27 and wrote 29. The only way there would be a problem would be if the court exhibit had less than 29 cartridges total counting the fired and unfired cartridges all together. But that is not the case there were still 29 total so your efforts fall flat. [color=red None existed of the test fired rounds, and according to what Fletcher told the COLP investigators, non of the unfired cartridges existed either, because Fletchers excuse was that they had been lost ][/color]
The fired cartridges each consist of a spent bullet and casing, the unfired cartridges are still 1 unit each. The number of fired and unfired add up to 29 total. I didn't claim there were 6 plus 2 unfired cartridges I said EITHER 6 or 2. You intentionally keep trying to twist because you have zilch to support Jeremy and yet desperately want to pretend he was framed.the two examples I have drawn your attention to, do not both add up together alongside of one another with the balance of loose bullets standing at 29. You can't say that either 23 or 27 rounds were test fired, and either 2 or 6 unfired rounds remained
Post evidence that he claimed two were lost at the time of the trial. The defense would have noticed 2 cartridges missing and would have questioned him about it. No they wouldn't and didn't. They had no such suspicions during the trial
Clearly math is not your strong suit. There were 29 total sitting on the counter and 1 in the tray. Of the 29 on the counter the bulk were test fired. The remainder remained unfired. The number test fired and that remained unfired combined added up to 29. 27 test fired, and 6 unfired, totals 33. Alternatively, 23 test fired, and 2 unfired rounds totals 25, not 29 as you allege There is no discrepancy except in your mind. There wasn't 33 depends which way you add things together and thus wasn't 4 extra. In the meantime seconds ago you claimed 2 were missing now you are claiming 4 extra. You are all over the place. rather than blame me, because these discrepancies exis
Your claims are contradictory and fell apart. You claimed there were 2 cartridges lost and yet 4 extra cartridges. You have no clue what you are talking about. On the contrary, I know exactly what I am talking about There were 29 total in the exhibit. Your efforts all fall apart completely including your absurd claim about 1 of the bullets being .223/5.56mm.
His chart which contained the word whole for some clearly didn't mean whole Whole, means Whole, no excuses are invited in the sense of the full weight of the unfired bullet. If he intended whole to mean such then his chart contains errors because clearly some were not even close. It is possible his statement did contain typos in that regard. How could a typo be the correct explanation considering he also referred to these same 12 control rounds as Whole in his hand written notes? The burden is on you to prove Fletcher lied I think there were two test fires of the ammunition, one pre 12th September 1985, and secondly another test fire between 20th September and the 2nd October 1985, 23 test fired in the former, 27 test fired in the latter... and that evidence was doctored not for me to disprove it. You have not proven such except in your wildest dreams.
These are supposedly the weights of the 12 bullet she referred to as whole:
Sheila
1 ) PV/19 2.16g
2 ) PV/20 1.54g
June
3 ) PV/23 2.29g
4 ) PV/24 2.42g
5 ) DRH/35a 2.43g
6 ) DRH/35b 2.44g
Nevill
7 ) DRH/5 2.42g
8 ) PV/2 2.42g
9 ) PV/4 2g
Daniel
10) PV/29 2.13g
11) DRH/36 2.42g
Nicholas
12) PV/31 2.12g
PV/20 and PV/4 are way off the rest. He clearly wasn't using the term to mean the complete weight. He was referring to bullet head weight
I'm not struggling in the least. You are the one making up stupid stories that make no sense or evidentiary support about bullets being switched and casings being switched and police shooting Sheila then moving her body and so much more and struggling to find away to pretend these ridiculous things could be true. it is all true
-
"Where did you learn your math? Since when does 23+6 or 27+2 equal 33? They equal 29.
The COLP interview notes are not in order. There are pages talking about Jones in third person and speaking in first person"
They are if you put them in the correct order. I don't know, I didn't record the interview notes the person talking was not me, so I can't help you
You posted it. You mixed a hodgepodge together out of sequence. Some pages are from those who were interviewing police. Other pages were clearly in the first person of the police so either were pocketbook entries or were statements given to COLP. It should be spelled out what the source is not just jumble select pages from a bunch of stuff together. You should not complain about people failing to follow the materials when you do such. It is hard enough reading handwritten print when it is scanned as oppose to a photo taken and out of sequence.
"it wasn't entirely clear the first person speaking is DS Jones."
Rest assured, DS Jones returned to the scene that morning at around 11am, I believe there is mention of this in his dodgy pocketbook entry dated, 7th August 1985
Some of what was posted might be from his pocketbook, it is hard to tell. In a thread where you posted specifically about his pocketbook all you posted was the cover...
In any event going back to WHF doesn't establish he took any exhibits. If he had taken 4 exhibits then the moderator from the family would have been SBJ/5 instead of SBJ/1.
"In any event if he did go to WHF that doesn't establish he took anything."
But he did, he seized a sound moderator SBJ/1, and three other exhibits. This silencer had the identifying mark of SJ/1 when handed over to DCI 'Taff' Jones, but in the property register only the other 3 exhibits were recorded, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4
These are allegations you made up from whole cloth you have zero evidentiary support. There was moderator handed over to Taff Jones. Nor was there anything registered in the property books as being taken at WHF by Stan Jones. There never was any Exhibit marked SJ/1. The first exhibit taken by Jones was conveyed to him from the family which is why it has the number 1 in it.
Your nonsense is all for nothing, if the moderator had been seized the first day that would have been fine there would be no need for the police to conceal such. But they didn't take it it was left there and found by the family. That's the only moderator that was owned by Nevill and only one at WHF there was only 1 moderator to find and it was found by the family and turned over to police on the 12th and sent to the lab on the 13th. That is when Jones turned it over to Cook and Cook assigned SBJ/1 to it.
You have no evidence to refute any of this just silly allegations.
"Indeed he doesn't mention taking any exhibits and the only exhibits with his initials were from other dates including photos."
he removed exhibits from the scene that morning whilst the bodies of victims were still laying in with situ
You have no evidence at all that this happened you simply made it up.
"The first exhibit under his name was from the 13th of August and that was later changed to DB/1."
No, he didn't. He had possession of a sound moderator from the first day of the investigation. The one bearing the identifying mark of SJ/1. DS Jones did not receive a sound moderator from Peter Eaton on the 13th August 1985. The relatives only handed over the silencer belonging to the Bambers Rifle (18) on the 11th September 1985. The other silencer (SJ/1) was the one Cook took to the lab' on the 13th August, this was the one provisionally examined by Glynis Howard on that date. She handed that silencer back to Cook that very same date, and Cook went onto to dismantle and rebuild it in the 29th August. He took photographs of the disturbance he made of the silencer, and it is worth pointing out that on that occasion, with the silencer stripped down, baffles separated, Cook did not see or find any blood on any baffle plate of this silencer on that occasion. In the photographs Cook took of his interference of the silencer, was attached a piece of paper with the mark, SJ/1, upon it...
Everything you just wrote is entirely made up. There is zero evidence of anything being labeled SJ/1 let alone a moderator. There was only 1 moderator at WHF it was turned over on the 12th of August. These wasn't any moderator turned over by the family in September. You keep making a lot of allegations but have zero proof to support any of them and they are stupid allegations since there was only 1 moderator. What moderator could the family have found if police took the only moderator on the day of the murders? It is bad enough you are making things up without any evidentiary basis but worse you are making up things that make no sense. Making thing sup without any evidentiary basis already makes the claims worthless but to make up ridiculous things makes one seriously wonder about you...
Jack lies and tells people that he previously lived in Hong Kong working for a financial firm.
Mike lies and tells people he just returned from a colony on Mars.
Instead of being like Jack you are being like Mike...
Lying is lying neither lie accomplishes anything but the latter either is lying as a joke or has severe problems. If you want to be taken seriously stop being absurd.
"If he already had 4 exhibits then the moderator turned over to Cook would have been SBJ/5 instead of 1."
he didn't hand it is over to Cook on the 7th August, he handed it (SJ/1) to DCI 'Taff' Jones, who retained it on his desk in his office at Witham police station, until it was sent to the lab' on two occasions, once on 13th and secondly,on the 30th August 1985.
This demonstrates how you are simply making up stupid crap from whole cloth.
He takes 4 items from WHF and labels 1 SJ/1 while he labels the others SBJ/2-4? Yeah that makes sense...
What evidence do you have he took anything? NONE!
What evidence do you have that something had been labeled SJ/1? NONE!
What evidence do you have that something was handed over to Taff Jones and Jones kept it? NONE!
Since there is no evidence where did these claims come from? They were made up from whole cloth.
It doesn't matter how made up these stupid claims they are stupid made up claims totally lacking in evidentiary support and would not be alleged by anyone competent.
The only evidence that ACTUALLY exists demonstrates the items labeled SBJ/1-4 were taken August 12 and later. Also evidence of only 1 moderators being at WHF at the time of the murders let alone found after. Making up things form whole cloth accomplishes nothing.
"Here are your own words:
"he says he test fired 23 cartridges in his only test, yet elsewhere he claims he fired 29 rounds,"
elsewhere he inferred he had fired all 29 rounds, but when COLP pointed out that he had only test fired 27 bullets and they wanted to know the whereabouts of the 2 unfired control bullets, Fleture took on an evasive stance, claiming that these two rounds had been lost
You have failed to provide evidence of this, post his COLP interview so we can see if you are lying further.
In any event this fails to salvage your claims. you claimed he stated he fired 27 rounds in one spot and 29 shortly thereafter. You were not referring to some inference of him firing 29 rounds you claimed he stated it in writing. You were referencing his notes on both occasions. You claimed in 1 spot it was 27 yet in another 29 and have not produced any evidence to back up either. You were being inconsistent just like you are accusing Fletcher of being. You can't spin your way out of it.
"I'm not a buffoon you don't even know what you are writing.You clearly asserted he claimed he test fired 23 rounds in 1 spot and all 29 rounds in another spot. Yet previous to this you wrote 23 and 27. You are attacking him for being inconsistent when you are doing the same thing."
to my mind you are a baffoon Correct interpretation is that there existed 29 control bullets, and Fletcher claims he test fired 23 (see witness statement) and he also test fired 27 (hand written note version) if he fired 23 from the batch of 29, then that leaves 6 unfired rounds. If he test fired 27 of the 29 rounds, then 2 unfired rounds existed...
That someone engaging in nonsense is calling me a buffoon means nothing. Just look at your response to my post, you are not even addressing it. My point was that you are guilty of the same thing you are attacking Fletcher for. He wrote he test fired 23 in one spot and you allege he wrote 27 in another. You wrote he test fired 27 in one spot and 29 in another. So you did the same exact thing you screwed up your own claims by not being consistent. Your attempt to wiggle out fails miserably. You don't want ot admit you made the same mistake you accuse him of because then you would be admitting such a mistake is easy to make and doesn't amount to anything. You tried to construct a giant conspiracy around it.
"You are trying to create inconsistencies that don't exist."
Inconsistencies do exist
Not regarding to the total number of rounds produced at trial for DRH/22. The number of fired and unfired rounds added up to 29. There was no discrepancy. You want to pretend some casings were missing so you could claim they were planted though none needed to be planted. You make up so much nonsense that not only do most of your fellow Jeremy supporters not even know what you are talking about you don't even end up knowing what you are talking about- you get lost in your own web.
"DRH/22 consisted of 29 cartridges total"
not including the solitary loose round in the box on the kitchen worktop
The box and round inside it were a different exhibit- DRH/23
"At the outset all 29 were unfired. A majority of them were used for test firing so a majority of these 29 were spent casings and bullets by the time of the trial."
please supply the court exhibit number for this exhibit?
Offhand I don't know the number and it serves little purpose in looking it up since you have a hard enough problem dealing with the Lab reference number and police reference number, adding a third to the mix will just confuse you more. In fact you are having a problem keeping track of the fact the box with the round inside was a different police/lab exhibit from the 29 cartridges next to the box.
"The number of unfired cartridges and those test fired added up to 29 there was no discrepancy like you are trying to pretend. He may have test fired some subsequent to his statement. He may have been wrong in his statement or wrong in his notes. He could have made the same error you just made."
I didn't make an error, I was drawing an inference from what Fletcher said to the COLP interviewers.
Nonsense. If that were the case you would have claimed he wrote 23 but in his notes wrote 27 and in the COLP interview implied all 29 were fired. Seconds apart you wrote 23 and 27 and 23 and 29. You screwed up and don't want to admit it because it shows how easy such a mistake is to make and why building a giant conspiracy around the error is absurd.
"You meant to say 27 and wrote 29. The only way there would be a problem would be if the court exhibit had less than 29 cartridges total counting the fired and unfired cartridges all together. But that is not the case there were still 29 total so your efforts fall flat."
None existed of the test fired rounds, and according to what Fletcher told the COLP investigators, non of the unfired cartridges existed either, because Fletchers excuse was that they had been lost
More nonsense, the test fired rounds did exist still and were exhibits as were the unfired rounds. Any lost after the trial are immaterial but again you refuse to post Fletcher's COLP interview and full trial testimony as well as the portion of the Dickinson report concerning these issues because they reveal you are full of crap.
"The fired cartridges each consist of a spent bullet and casing, the unfired cartridges are still 1 unit each. The number of fired and unfired add up to 29 total. I didn't claim there were 6 plus 2 unfired cartridges I said EITHER 6 or 2. You intentionally keep trying to twist because you have zilch to support Jeremy and yet desperately want to pretend he was framed."
the two examples I have drawn your attention to, do not both add up together alongside of one another with the balance of loose bullets standing at 29. You can't say that either 23 or 27 rounds were test fired, and either 2 or 6 unfired rounds remained
You haven't produced evidence that establishes whether 23 were test fired or 27 thus we can't know which is the case and thus don't know whether 23 were test fired with 6 remaining unfired or 27 with only 2 remaining unfired. You won't post his full testimony which would speak to such the portions of the Dickinson report that would speak to such or his COLP interview. Sop all we know is that it was one or the other. What we do know is that if the total fired and unfired combined didn't add up to 29 the defense would have questioned why. So all your nonsense is for nothing.
"Post evidence that he claimed two were lost at the time of the trial. The defense would have noticed 2 cartridges missing and would have questioned him about it."
No they wouldn't and didn't. They had no such suspicions during the trial
They had no suspicions because nothing was missing, your allegations are an illogical mess and there is zero evidence to support the allegations you keep making so wasn't any evidence at the time of trial either.
"Clearly math is not your strong suit. There were 29 total sitting on the counter and 1 in the tray. Of the 29 on the counter the bulk were test fired. The remainder remained unfired. The number test fired and that remained unfired combined added up to 29."
27 test fired, and 6 unfired, totals 33. Alternatively, 23 test fired, and 2 unfired rounds totals 25, not 29 as you allege
This is a perfect example of how you lie through your teeth about everything. I states 27+ 2 not 27 + 6 or 23 + 6 not 23 + 2. You just ignore reality and make up nonsense like your nonsense about a moderator being collected on August 7 and assigned SJ/1 and it sitting in DCI Jones possess for a long period. You just make up any crap you feel like and expect such nonsense to be believed without question. Lying just makes you a joke, maybe at some point you will face that but I doubt it you seem to be beyond help.
"There is no discrepancy except in your mind. There wasn't 33 and thus wasn't 4 extra."
depends which way you add things together
The sum is the same- 27+2=23+6 The sum in both cases is 29.
"In the meantime seconds ago you claimed 2 were missing now you are claiming 4 extra. You are all over the place.
rather than blame me, because these discrepancies exis
The discrepancy is in your allegations- you have not established any genuine discrepancy yet. You claimed in your allegations there were 4 too many and yet 2 too few, you can't make up your mind. Earlier today you were even more off the wall and claimed he test fired 50. You just make up anything you feel like without any regard to evidence and logic. You are as phoney as the Keebler Elves.
"Your claims are contradictory and fell apart. You claimed there were 2 cartridges lost and yet 4 extra cartridges. You have no clue what you are talking about. There were 29 total in the exhibit. Your efforts all fall apart completely including your absurd claim about 1 of the bullets being .223/5.56mm."
On the contrary, I know exactly what I am talking about
Evidence and logic demonstrate otherwise.
"His chart which contained the word whole for some clearly didn't mean whole in the sense of the full weight of the unfired bullet. If he intended whole to mean such then his chart contains errors because clearly some were not even close. It is possible his statement did contain typos in that regard.
Whole, means Whole, no excuses are invited. How could a typo be the correct explanation considering he also referred to these same 12 control rounds as Whole in his hand written notes?[/quote]
Whole has to be defined to know his meaning it doesn't necessarily mean the entire bullet was present not missing any fragments. In the meantime the 12 bullets are not control bullets they were used in the murders. Control bullets are those he fired during testing. You mix up everything. In the meantime you have yet to produce evidence that in his notes he asserted he fired 27. You previously posted notes that stated he fired 23 like he wrote in his statement.
You posted evidence and summarized it as follows:
"8 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 20th September 1985
2 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 25th September 1985
12 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 1st October 1985
1 of these 29 control bullets was test fired by Fletcher on 2nd October 1985"
You constantly contradict yourself. What this demonstrates is that you end up deciding to lie and make up things forgetting you already posted the truth prior.
"The burden is on you to prove Fletcher lied and that evidence was doctored not for me to disprove it."
I think there were two test fires of the ammunition, one pre 12th September 1985, and secondly another test fire between 20th September and the 2nd October 1985, 23 test fired in the former, 27 test fired in the latter...
All you are doing is making allegations- different allegations than you made in the past. What you decide to "think" at any given moment is not proof.
You posted proof in the past that he claimed the following test firings:
"8 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 20th September 1985
2 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 25th September 1985
12 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 1st October 1985
1 of these 29 control bullets was test fired by Fletcher on 2nd October 1985"
You have not produced anything to challenge this let alone support your wild claims of 50 fired total from a batch of 29 cartridges.
"These are supposedly the weights of the 12 bullet she referred to as whole:
Sheila
1 ) PV/19 2.16g
2 ) PV/20 1.54g
June
3 ) PV/23 2.29g
4 ) PV/24 2.42g
5 ) DRH/35a 2.43g
6 ) DRH/35b 2.44g
Nevill
7 ) DRH/5 2.42g
8 ) PV/2 2.42g
9 ) PV/4 2g
Daniel
10) PV/29 2.13g
11) DRH/36 2.42g
Nicholas
12) PV/31 2.12g
PV/20 and PV/4 are way off the rest. He clearly wasn't using the term to mean the complete weight."
He was referring to bullet head weight
Nonsense they are all different weights and some considerably so, clearly he didn't mean they were all the original weight they were at the time fired.
-
You posted it. You mixed a hodgepodge together out of sequence. Some pages are from those who were interviewing police. Other pages were clearly in the first person of the police so either were pocketbook entries or were statements given to COLP. It should be spelled out what the source is not just jumble select pages from a bunch of stuff together. You should not complain about people failing to follow the materials when you do such. It is hard enough reading handwritten print when it is scanned as oppose to a photo taken and out of sequence.
Some of what was posted might be from his pocketbook, it is hard to tell. In a thread where you posted specifically about his pocketbook all you posted was the cover...
In any event going back to WHF doesn't establish he took any exhibits. If he had taken 4 exhibits then the moderator from the family would have been SBJ/5 instead of SBJ/1.
These are allegations you made up from whole cloth you have zero evidentiary support. There was moderator handed over to Taff Jones. Nor was there anything registered in the property books as being taken at WHF by Stan Jones. There never was any Exhibit marked SJ/1. The first exhibit taken by Jones was conveyed to him from the family which is why it has the number 1 in it.
Your nonsense is all for nothing, if the moderator had been seized the first day that would have been fine there would be no need for the police to conceal such. But they didn't take it it was left there and found by the family. That's the only moderator that was owned by Nevill and only one at WHF there was only 1 moderator to find and it was found by the family and turned over to police on the 12th and sent to the lab on the 13th. That is when Jones turned it over to Cook and Cook assigned SBJ/1 to it.
You have no evidence to refute any of this just silly allegations.
You have no evidence at all that this happened you simply made it up.
Everything you just wrote is entirely made up. There is zero evidence of anything being labeled SJ/1 let alone a moderator. There was only 1 moderator at WHF it was turned over on the 12th of August. These wasn't any moderator turned over by the family in September. You keep making a lot of allegations but have zero proof to support any of them and they are stupid allegations since there was only 1 moderator. What moderator could the family have found if police took the only moderator on the day of the murders? It is bad enough you are making things up without any evidentiary basis but worse you are making up things that make no sense. Making thing sup without any evidentiary basis already makes the claims worthless but to make up ridiculous things makes one seriously wonder about you...
Jack lies and tells people that he previously lived in Hong Kong working for a financial firm.
Mike lies and tells people he just returned from a colony on Mars.
Instead of being like Jack you are being like Mike...
Lying is lying neither lie accomplishes anything but the latter either is lying as a joke or has severe problems. If you want to be taken seriously stop being absurd.
This demonstrates how you are simply making up stupid crap from whole cloth.
He takes 4 items from WHF and labels 1 SJ/1 while he labels the others SBJ/2-4? Yeah that makes sense...
What evidence do you have he took anything? NONE!
What evidence do you have that something had been labeled SJ/1? NONE!
What evidence do you have that something was handed over to Taff Jones and Jones kept it? NONE!
Since there is no evidence where did these claims come from? They were made up from whole cloth.
It doesn't matter how made up these stupid claims they are stupid made up claims totally lacking in evidentiary support and would not be alleged by anyone competent.
The only evidence that ACTUALLY exists demonstrates the items labeled SBJ/1-4 were taken August 12 and later. Also evidence of only 1 moderators being at WHF at the time of the murders let alone found after. Making up things form whole cloth accomplishes nothing.
You have failed to provide evidence of this, post his COLP interview so we can see if you are lying further.
In any event this fails to salvage your claims. you claimed he stated he fired 27 rounds in one spot and 29 shortly thereafter. You were not referring to some inference of him firing 29 rounds you claimed he stated it in writing. You were referencing his notes on both occasions. You claimed in 1 spot it was 27 yet in another 29 and have not produced any evidence to back up either. You were being inconsistent just like you are accusing Fletcher of being. You can't spin your way out of it.
That someone engaging in nonsense is calling me a buffoon means nothing. Just look at your response to my post, you are not even addressing it. My point was that you are guilty of the same thing you are attacking Fletcher for. He wrote he test fired 23 in one spot and you allege he wrote 27 in another. You wrote he test fired 27 in one spot and 29 in another. So you did the same exact thing you screwed up your own claims by not being consistent. Your attempt to wiggle out fails miserably. You don't want ot admit you made the same mistake you accuse him of because then you would be admitting such a mistake is easy to make and doesn't amount to anything. You tried to construct a giant conspiracy around it.
Not regarding to the total number of rounds produced at trial for DRH/22. The number of fired and unfired rounds added up to 29. There was no discrepancy. You want to pretend some casings were missing so you could claim they were planted though none needed to be planted. You make up so much nonsense that not only do most of your fellow Jeremy supporters not even know what you are talking about you don't even end up knowing what you are talking about- you get lost in your own web.
The box and round inside it were a different exhibit- DRH/23
Offhand I don't know the number and it serves little purpose in looking it up since you have a hard enough problem dealing with the Lab reference number and police reference number, adding a third to the mix will just confuse you more. In fact you are having a problem keeping track of the fact the box with the round inside was a different police/lab exhibit from the 29 cartridges next to the box.
Nonsense. If that were the case you would have claimed he wrote 23 but in his notes wrote 27 and in the COLP interview implied all 29 were fired. Seconds apart you wrote 23 and 27 and 23 and 29. You screwed up and don't want to admit it because it shows how easy such a mistake is to make and why building a giant conspiracy around the error is absurd.
More nonsense, the test fired rounds did exist still and were exhibits as were the unfired rounds. Any lost after the trial are immaterial but again you refuse to post Fletcher's COLP interview and full trial testimony as well as the portion of the Dickinson report concerning these issues because they reveal you are full of crap.
You haven't produced evidence that establishes whether 23 were test fired or 27 thus we can't know which is the case and thus don't know whether 23 were test fired with 6 remaining unfired or 27 with only 2 remaining unfired. You won't post his full testimony which would speak to such the portions of the Dickinson report that would speak to such or his COLP interview. Sop all we know is that it was one or the other. What we do know is that if the total fired and unfired combined didn't add up to 29 the defense would have questioned why. So all your nonsense is for nothing.
They had no suspicions because nothing was missing, your allegations are an illogical mess and there is zero evidence to support the allegations you keep making so wasn't any evidence at the time of trial either.
This is a perfect example of how you lie through your teeth about everything. I states 27+ 2 not 27 + 6 or 23 + 6 not 23 + 2. You just ignore reality and make up nonsense like your nonsense about a moderator being collected on August 7 and assigned SJ/1 and it sitting in DCI Jones possess for a long period. You just make up any crap you feel like and expect such nonsense to be believed without question. Lying just makes you a joke, maybe at some point you will face that but I doubt it you seem to be beyond help.
The sum is the same- 27+2=23+6 The sum in both cases is 29.
The discrepancy is in your allegations- you have not established any genuine discrepancy yet. You claimed in your allegations there were 4 too many and yet 2 too few, you can't make up your mind. Earlier today you were even more off the wall and claimed he test fired 50. You just make up anything you feel like without any regard to evidence and logic. You are as phoney as the Keebler Elves.
Evidence and logic demonstrate otherwise.
Whole, means Whole, no excuses are invited. How could a typo be the correct explanation considering he also referred to these same 12 control rounds as Whole in his hand written notes?
Whole has to be defined to know his meaning it doesn't necessarily mean the entire bullet was present not missing any fragments. In the meantime the 12 bullets are not control bullets they were used in the murders. Control bullets are those he fired during testing. You mix up everything. In the meantime you have yet to produce evidence that in his notes he asserted he fired 27. You previously posted notes that stated he fired 23 like he wrote in his statement.
You posted evidence and summarized it as follows:
"8 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 20th September 1985
2 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 25th September 1985
12 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 1st October 1985
1 of these 29 control bullets was test fired by Fletcher on 2nd October 1985"
You constantly contradict yourself. What this demonstrates is that you end up deciding to lie and make up things forgetting you already posted the truth prior.
All you are doing is making allegations- different allegations than you made in the past. What you decide to "think" at any given moment is not proof.
You posted proof in the past that he claimed the following test firings:
"8 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 20th September 1985
2 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 25th September 1985
12 of these 29 control bullets were test fired by Fletcher on 1st October 1985
1 of these 29 control bullets was test fired by Fletcher on 2nd October 1985"
You have not produced anything to challenge this let alone support your wild claims of 50 fired total from a batch of 29 cartridges.
Nonsense they are all different weights and some considerably so, clearly he didn't mean they were all the original weight they were at the time fired.
You keep posting up comments as though I made them by including your own comments, and then making further comments as though you are responding to what I said, when all you are doing is responding to what you said yourself. You have a habit of attributing things you have said, as though somebody else said it, when they didn't...
This is one of a few dishonest tactics that you adopt frequently, where you seek to agree with yourself by attributing what you yourself said, as though others said it. Unless you make it clear, who said what I will not be responding to anything else you post up, I can't stand dishonest people who adopt these kinds of tactic, you are worse that a corrupt policeman, or public official...
-
Members and visitors should be wary of what 'Skippy' posts up, because he has a habit of including what he said himself, as though somebody else said it, then answering himself, on the pretense that he is only responding to what others have said. This approach can be very misleading, so be on your guard against this sort of dishonesty...
-
Members and visitors should be wary of what 'Skippy' posts up, because he has a habit of including what he said himself, as though somebody else said it, then answering himself, on the pretense that he is only responding to what others have said. This approach can be very misleading, so be on your guard against this sort of dishonesty...
You are projecting. You distort to no end. By way of example here is what I wrote followed by your mischaracterization:
Scipio:"It makes no difference if the court exhibit featured 23 test fired rounds and 6 unfired rounds or 27 test fired rounds and 2 unfired rounds. Either way the full 29 are accounted for and your claim they were planted somewhere else falls apart."
Mike: 27 test fired, and 6 unfired, totals 33. Alternatively, 23 test fired, and 2 unfired rounds totals 25, not 29 as you allege.
That is just one small example of how you distort everything.
I can provide countless examples of you making contradictory allegations and constantly changing your allegations and NONE of the allegation being base don any evidence. For instance making up that there were 2 moderators taken from WHF one of which was SBJ/1 and the other SJ/1 even though there was never anything labeled SJ/1 and you keep changing whether the first one allegedly found was SJ/1 or the one handed over by the family.
Since you know the evidence Sheila didn't kill herself is unassailable you conjure up a ridiculous tale of police shooting her and moving her body around though they would have had no need to conceal shooting her. In the meantime not only do you have zero evidence of your claims and simply made them up from whole cloth a great number of things proves your claims impossible.
For starters Vanezis pulled out a 22LR round and said the wound was consistent with a 22LR not a police round which is substantially larger and travels at 3 times the speed thus would have exited her neck. Such police rounds are jacketed but no jacket was on the bullet recovered by Vanezis. The xray matched the shape of the 22LR round produced at trial perfectly. Posting a ridiculous made up story just makes you look pathetic. It doesn't help your reputation or in any way help Jeremy.
Maybe one day you will wake up in the real World and stop with the wasted nonsense.
Evidence talks unsupported claims like BS walks.
-
I repeat the warning to all members that 'Skippy', is attributing what he himself has said, to other people as though they said what he said. If he himself does not remove the offendung qupte references, I will personally delete each of his posts which contain reference to his own misquoted comments. Please be awate that when membets quote something un another members name that what the other person said is clear and accurate. If this kind of deception continues I may have to impose a life time ban. We can't be seen to be condoning the use of fabricated information by these morons...
-
Fletcher Took part in two general test fires of the anshuzt rifle, where each test fire (a) and (b) was undertaken with a different purpose in mind. The former (a) was undertaken chiefly so as to produce sufficient ELEY cartridge cases (as many as 23) to manage the switch of the other manufacturers cartridge cases in the original batch of crime scene ammunition. What they did after Fletcher test fired the anshuzt 23 times, is that they used 14 of these, and did a dramatic swap. Once this was done, the reconfigured batch of 25 cartridge cases, were presented on the footing that all 25 bullets had been Eley manufactured rounds. In other words, it was presented as a one gun crime, with use of bullets from one batch of Eley ammunition....
But that proposition was / a false one...
Fletcher was aided in the cartridge case scam, by DS 'Stan' Jones, who countersigned the GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, of all the dodgy substituted original cartridge cases, with the (a) earlier test fired ones. The 14 cartridge cases which were replaced were retained at the lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100....
-
Test fire (b) was commenced on the 20th September 1985, 25th September 1985, 1st October 1985, and the 2nd October 1985, with the specific intention of establishing that the reconfigured batch of crime scene ammunition and the later test fired (b) rounds had been fired from the same gun...
Once the comparison tests were completed, the scam had been completed, and everyone was left in no doubt, that the same gun fired all of the 25 shots...
-
In 2003 Keith Mallinson identified a feature of the blood found inside the sound moderator which had previously not been noted, or more significantly, explained away. Mallinson noted that blood had been found as far down as the void between baffles 5 and 6. In particular, that blood had been found on the back of baffle plate 5, but not on the upper surface of baffle plate 6. Mallinson has previously testified as an expert in a local suicide involving someone he knew personally. He had over 30 years experience in the field of firearms and ammunitions. He noted the presence of the last blood contaminated baffle was contaminated on the back face of the 5th baffle, in the void between baffles 5 and 6. This he stated, was a significant feature which helped him to understand how the blood inside the sound moderator, had got into the silencer. It may come as a shock to many of you, but Mallinson contends that the blood in the sound moderator, entered it from the bottom end of the silencer, not the top. He is convinced, nay he is adamant that Malcolm Fletchers backscatter theory was wrongly accepted as the phenomena responsible for Sheila's blood getting into the silencer. Mallinson states that had Fletchers backspatter theory been the correct explanation for how the blood got there, he says, blood would have to have entered the top end of the silencer, and that blood would have been deposited on the top surface of the last blood contaminated baffle plate, not the back surface of the same. According to Mallinson, blood in the sound moderator was forced in via the bottom end of the silencer, or in other words when the silencer had been screwed onto the barrel of a blood contaminated rifle barrel, and a live round fired in the gun with the sound moderator attached. He says that based on the position of blood on the back surface of baffle 5, blood was forced out of the barrel into the sound moderator, not the other way around...
-
This brings me back to the earlier (a) test fire of the rifle with 23 rounds, which Fletcher and another were involved in prior to the 12th September 1985...
-
This brings me back to the earlier (a) test fire of the rifle with 23 rounds, which Fletcher and another were involved in prior to the 12th September 1985...
And the timing of the official test fire (b) where Fletcher test fired 27 of the 29 control rounds, 2 rounds gone missing...
You can't have only 1 test fire (a) and declare you test fired 23 rounds in one breath, and that you test fired 27 rounds in another breath. Quite clearly, there were two separate test fires, one where Fletcher test fired 23 rounds, and another test fire where Fletcher test fired 27 rounds. Now, bearing in mind that if you add 23 to 27 it produces a full box of 50 rounds, how does this sit with the claim that there had been only 29 rounds in lab' item number (93)?
-
Fletcher Took part in two general test fires of the anshuzt rifle, where each test fire (a) and (b) was undertaken with a different purpose in mind. The former (a) was undertaken chiefly so as to produce sufficient ELEY cartridge cases (as many as 23) to manage the switch of the other manufacturers cartridge cases in the original batch of crime scene ammunition. What they did after Fletcher test fired the anshuzt 23 times, is that they used 14 of these, and did a dramatic swap. Once this was done, the reconfigured batch of 25 cartridge cases, were presented on the footing that all 25 bullets had been Eley manufactured rounds. In other words, it was presented as a one gun crime, with use of bullets from one batch of Eley ammunition....
But that proposition was / a false one...
Fletcher was aided in the cartridge case scam, by DS 'Stan' Jones, who countersigned the GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, of all the dodgy substituted original cartridge cases, with the (a) earlier test fired ones. The 14 cartridge cases which were replaced were retained at the lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100....
They didn't need to switch any cases all 25 cases collected by police were 22LR Eley cases. The test firing was done for legitimate purposes in order to prove the bullets and cases were fired by the Anschutz and that no weapon was used by a killer who removed it from the scene.
Your fairytales are just that complete nonsense fairytales totally lacking in any evidentiary support. You just make up allegations without any regard to logic or facts.
-
And the timing of the official test fire (b) where Fletcher test fired 27 of the 29 control rounds, 2 rounds gone missing...
You can't have only 1 test fire (a) and declare you test fired 23 rounds in one breath, and that you test fired 27 rounds in another breath. Quite clearly, there were two separate test fires, one where Fletcher test fired 23 rounds, and another test fire where Fletcher test fired 27 rounds. Now, bearing in mind that if you add 23 to 27 it produces a full box of 50 rounds, how does this sit with the claim that there had been only 29 rounds in lab' item number (93)?
You haven't produced any evidence he claimed 27 were test fired or that any were lost. The evidence you posted in the past asserted 23 were test fired just liek his statement says.
-
In 2003 Keith Mallinson identified a feature of the blood found inside the sound moderator which had previously not been noted, or more significantly, explained away. Mallinson noted that blood had been found as far down as the void between baffles 5 and 6. In particular, that blood had been found on the back of baffle plate 5, but not on the upper surface of baffle plate 6. Mallinson has previously testified as an expert in a local suicide involving someone he knew personally. He had over 30 years experience in the field of firearms and ammunitions. He noted the presence of the last blood contaminated baffle was contaminated on the back face of the 5th baffle, in the void between baffles 5 and 6. This he stated, was a significant feature which helped him to understand how the blood inside the sound moderator, had got into the silencer. It may come as a shock to many of you, but Mallinson contends that the blood in the sound moderator, entered it from the bottom end of the silencer, not the top. He is convinced, nay he is adamant that Malcolm Fletchers backscatter theory was wrongly accepted as the phenomena responsible for Sheila's blood getting into the silencer. Mallinson states that had Fletchers backspatter theory been the correct explanation for how the blood got there, he says, blood would have to have entered the top end of the silencer, and that blood would have been deposited on the top surface of the last blood contaminated baffle plate, not the back surface of the same. According to Mallinson, blood in the sound moderator was forced in via the bottom end of the silencer, or in other words when the silencer had been screwed onto the barrel of a blood contaminated rifle barrel, and a live round fired in the gun with the sound moderator attached. He says that based on the position of blood on the back surface of baffle 5, blood was forced out of the barrel into the sound moderator, not the other way around...
More nonsense you made up.
-
We believe but for Jeremy's decision to dispose of Ewen Smiths services in 2004, that all the good work undertaken by Smith and Mallinson between 2003 and 2004 would have led to his convictions being quashed, and the prosecutions ballistic expert, Fletchers evidence being significantly undermined...
This work was sanctioned by Ewen Smith and with the knowledge of Rivlin QC who had represented Jeremy at the failed 2002 appeal hearing. It was pursued on the basis of what the judges said regarding how they would look favourably upon any argument advanced linked to the ammunition which police had wrongly destroyed in 1996. As I have truthfully stated previously, at the time of the appeal in 2002 the defence did not advance any ballistic argument because no-one by that stage had looked into the matter in the same way that Smith and Mallinson did between 2003 / 2004. There wasn't anything that these two pioneering gun enthusiasts did not look into and consider. One of the issues they dealt with, was the claim that with the sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the gun, the overall length of the weapon would have been too long to enable Sheila to shoot herselfbwith the gun so configured. This was dealt with on the basis that the sound moderator had been fitted to the barrel of the rifle at the time she shot herself, but that the silencer had not been removed by anybody afterwards and taken downstairs to be concealed in the downstairs office gun cupboard. We were aware by this stage that DS Jones had taken possession of a silencer from the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, thus contradicting the claim that only one silencer had been found at the scene, this being the one found by David Boutflour in the aforementioned gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985. How could Jones have taken possession of a silencer at the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, and then along came the relatives 3 days later to find the same silencer in the aforementioned gun cupboard? Obviously there were two identical parker game silencers at the scene on the morning of 7th August, but only 1 there by the 10th August 1985. Smith and Mallinson came to that conclusion, based on information that two parker hale sound moderators were normally kept at whf, one belonging to AP, the other to Ralph Bamber. The former being the sole silencer kept at the scene since 1980 when AP purchased it along with his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle, the latter being the second of the two silencers kept at the scene since November 1984, when Ralph Bamber purchased it along with the Anshuzt .22 semi automatic Rifle. Smith and Mallinson set about investigating these matters vigorously and with painstaking diligence. Smith was the owner of the gun club where most of their research into these ballistics issues took place between 2003 and 2004. He had been a probationary police officer who had performed duties during Princess Diana's visit to South Yorkshire, he had been a member of the territorial army based at Catterick, he was a Registered Firearms Dealer, and ran his own fireworks and pyrotechnics business. He and Keith Mallinson both did a marvelous job of looking into all the ballistics matters on behalf of Jeremy Bamber free of charge, and news of everything they did was filtered back and forth to Ewen Smith in his Birmingham office. Now, as I say they set out to try and prove that with the silencer fitted to the rifle barrel that it would not have prevented Sheila from being able to shoot herself using such a configured weapon. The services of Amy Holland were obtained, and with empty rifle and silencer a series of exercises were performed to demonstrate various positions Sheila could have adopted in order to shoot herself twice in the throat at the corresponding angles matching the actual shots had been administered at the time of her shooting (August 1985). These exercises were filmed and photographed, and prove beyond any doubt that the prosecution argument during the trial, that the weapon would have been too long to enable her to shoot herself even if she had wanted to, was in actual fact not true. Sheila could have shot herself with the rifle and silencer attached, as demonstrated by the exercises described. Smith and Mallinson did say, however, that the anshuzt rifle would have been found with the aforementioned silencer fitted to its barrel afterwards. They said that the photographs they had been given access to showed the barrel of the rifle on the body minus a silencer fitted, and that the external screw thread end of the guns barrel appeared to be free from blood. This led them to suspect that somebody may have removed something from the end of the guns barrel prior to the photographs being taken? When enquired into by myself regarding what could possibly have been fitted onto that external thread, they said it might have been one of the silencers, or as the case may be, it could have been the guns metal end cap which fits onto that external thread of the barrel? During debates between Smith, Mallinson, and myself, regarding the cleanliness of the thread on the end of the rifles barrel as shown in various crime scene photographs, it became obvious that if any of the shots inflicted upon Sheila's throat had been contact in nature, that the tip if the rifle barrel and its thread should have got some blood upon it, or as the case may be, inside the rifles barrel? But we could find no references in the case file to any such blood being found or detected in those such locations. From that point onward, we set about approaching the matter of trying to find any supporting evidence for the inclusion of (a) the guns metal end cap, and (b) a silencer? Dealing with (a) firstly, we discovered that police had taken into their possession at an early stage the (a) metal gun cap which was normally fitted to the guns barrel. However, we could find no information at that stage, how it (a) had ended up being in the possession of the police? My own theory regarding this, was that it had been this metal (a) end cap that David Boutflour had found in the gun cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, not the silencer. Furthermore, it had been this (a) metal end cap, which Peter Eaton had given to DS Jones on the 12th August 1985, who in turn had shown it (a) to DI Miller, and which ultimately ended up in DI Cooks possession on the following day, to enable him to take it (a) to the lab' to be provisionally examined by Glynis Howard. If true, then Cook did not take a sound moderator to the lab on that date, instead he took along the metal end cap (a), upon which was found human blood. I believe this metal end cap was originally given a lab' item number 22, and that there was some red aga paint ingrained into its knurled pattern around its circumference. I also believe that this is the end of the guns barrel, which prompted DS Davidson to tell the COLP investigators that some paint had been found downstairs on the end of a guns barrel, which had caused Cook to take a paint sample (RC/1) from the kitchen aga on 8th August 1985? This theory was problematic however, because Boutflour did not find (a) the guns metal end cap until 10th August 1985, and thus was not potentially handed over to Jones by Peter Eaton until the evening of 12th August 1985. But it (a) fitted the puzzle of why lab' item numbers 22 and 23 later became interchangeable exhibits...
Perhaps the metal end cap (a) of the anshuzt had been left at the scene, or placed in the gun cupboard by the police, prior to the keys of whf being handed back at the scene on evening of 9th August 1985 by Jones and Jones? Another possibility, which I took into consideration, was the meaning of Ann Eaton's note, where she mentions her husband Peter returning the gun back to whf on the evening of 9th August? What was Ann Eaton talking about, when she mentioned this gun? What gun? Did she mean, (a) part of the guns barrel? If so,then how coincidental that he should replace it (a) in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office (9th August), and along comes David Boutflour on the following day to find it (a), along with the Bamber owned silencer...
One thing which bothered me, was the interchangeable lab' item numbers, 22 and 23, or vice versa, supposedly of the same silencer? Well, to me none of that made much sense, I couldn't see the police or those at the lab' making a pigs ear of the exhibit references to the silencer, or indeed create even more confusion by sometimes referring to the silencer as lab' item number 22, and or 23? I think the (a) metal end cap was (22), and the silencer which was not handed over by Ann Eaton until 11th September 1985, became item number 23, or vice versa...
One thing I am certain about, is that David Boutfloyr took possession of (a) the gun barrels metal end cap from the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, because he makes mention of having done so in one of his witness statement versions..,
-
We believe but for Jeremy's decision to dispose of Ewen Smiths services in 2004, that all the good work undertaken by Smith and Mallinson between 2003 and 2004 would have led to his convictions being quashed, and the prosecutions ballistic expert, Fletchers evidence being significantly undermined...
This work was sanctioned by Ewen Smith and with the knowledge of Rivlin QC who had represented Jeremy at the failed 2002 appeal hearing. It was pursued on the basis of what the judges said regarding how they would look favourably upon any argument advanced linked to the ammunition which police had wrongly destroyed in 1996. As I have truthfully stated previously, at the time of the appeal in 2002 the defence did not advance any ballistic argument because no-one by that stage had looked into the matter in the same way that Smith and Mallinson did between 2003 / 2004. There wasn't anything that these two pioneering gun enthusiasts did not look into and consider. One of the issues they dealt with, was the claim that with the sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the gun, the overall length of the weapon would have been too long to enable Sheila to shoot herselfbwith the gun so configured. This was dealt with on the basis that the sound moderator had been fitted to the barrel of the rifle at the time she shot herself, but that the silencer had not been removed by anybody afterwards and taken downstairs to be concealed in the downstairs office gun cupboard. We were aware by this stage that DS Jones had taken possession of a silencer from the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, thus contradicting the claim that only one silencer had been found at the scene, this being the one found by David Boutflour in the aforementioned gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985. How could Jones have taken possession of a silencer at the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, and then along came the relatives 3 days later to find the same silencer in the aforementioned gun cupboard? Obviously there were two identical parker game silencers at the scene on the morning of 7th August, but only 1 there by the 10th August 1985. Smith and Mallinson came to that conclusion, based on information that two parker hale sound moderators were normally kept at whf, one belonging to AP, the other to Ralph Bamber. The former being the sole silencer kept at the scene since 1980 when AP purchased it along with his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle, the latter being the second of the two silencers kept at the scene since November 1984, when Ralph Bamber purchased it along with the Anshuzt .22 semi automatic Rifle. Smith and Mallinson set about investigating these matters vigorously and with painstaking diligence. Smith was the owner of the gun club where most of their research into these ballistics issues took place between 2003 and 2004. He had been a probationary police officer who had performed duties during Princess Diana's visit to South Yorkshire, he had been a member of the territorial army based at Catterick, he was a Registered Firearms Dealer, and ran his own fireworks and pyrotechnics business. He and Keith Mallinson both did a marvelous job of looking into all the ballistics matters on behalf of Jeremy Bamber free of charge, and news of everything they did was filtered back and forth to Ewen Smith in his Birmingham office. Now, as I say they set out to try and prove that with the silencer fitted to the rifle barrel that it would not have prevented Sheila from being able to shoot herself using such a configured weapon. The services of Amy Holland were obtained, and with empty rifle and silencer a series of exercises were performed to demonstrate various positions Sheila could have adopted in order to shoot herself twice in the throat at the corresponding angles matching the actual shots had been administered at the time of her shooting (August 1985). These exercises were filmed and photographed, and prove beyond any doubt that the prosecution argument during the trial, that the weapon would have been too long to enable her to shoot herself even if she had wanted to, was in actual fact not true. Sheila could have shot herself with the rifle and silencer attached, as demonstrated by the exercises described. Smith and Mallinson did say, however, that the anshuzt rifle would have been found with the aforementioned silencer fitted to its barrel afterwards. They said that the photographs they had been given access to showed the barrel of the rifle on the body minus a silencer fitted, and that the external screw thread end of the guns barrel appeared to be free from blood. This led them to suspect that somebody may have removed something from the end of the guns barrel prior to the photographs being taken? When enquired into by myself regarding what could possibly have been fitted onto that external thread, they said it might have been one of the silencers, or as the case may be, it could have been the guns metal end cap which fits onto that external thread of the barrel? During debates between Smith, Mallinson, and myself, regarding the cleanliness of the thread on the end of the rifles barrel as shown in various crime scene photographs, it became obvious that if any of the shots inflicted upon Sheila's throat had been contact in nature, that the tip if the rifle barrel and its thread should have got some blood upon it, or as the case may be, inside the rifles barrel? But we could find no references in the case file to any such blood being found or detected in those such locations. From that point onward, we set about approaching the matter of trying to find any supporting evidence for the inclusion of (a) the guns metal end cap, and (b) a silencer? Dealing with (a) firstly, we discovered that police had taken into their possession at an early stage the (a) metal gun cap which was normally fitted to the guns barrel. However, we could find no information at that stage, how it (a) had ended up being in the possession of the police? My own theory regarding this, was that it had been this metal (a) end cap that David Boutflour had found in the gun cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, not the silencer. Furthermore, it had been this (a) metal end cap, which Peter Eaton had given to DS Jones on the 12th August 1985, who in turn had shown it (a) to DI Miller, and which ultimately ended up in DI Cooks possession on the following day, to enable him to take it (a) to the lab' to be provisionally examined by Glynis Howard. If true, then Cook did not take a sound moderator to the lab on that date, instead he took along the metal end cap (a), upon which was found human blood. I believe this metal end cap was originally given a lab' item number 22, and that there was some red aga paint ingrained into its knurled pattern around its circumference. I also believe that this is the end of the guns barrel, which prompted DS Davidson to tell the COLP investigators that some paint had been found downstairs on the end of a guns barrel, which had caused Cook to take a paint sample (RC/1) from the kitchen aga on 8th August 1985? This theory was problematic however, because Boutflour did not find (a) the guns metal end cap until 10th August 1985, and thus was not potentially handed over to Jones by Peter Eaton until the evening of 12th August 1985. But it (a) fitted the puzzle of why lab' item numbers 22 and 23 later became interchangeable exhibits...
Perhaps the metal end cap (a) of the anshuzt had been left at the scene, or placed in the gun cupboard by the police, prior to the keys of whf being handed back at the scene on evening of 9th August 1985 by Jones and Jones? Another possibility, which I took into consideration, was the meaning of Ann Eaton's note, where she mentions her husband Peter returning the gun back to whf on the evening of 9th August? What was Ann Eaton talking about, when she mentioned this gun? What gun? Did she mean, (a) part of the guns barrel? If so,then how coincidental that he should replace it (a) in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office (9th August), and along comes David Boutflour on the following day to find it (a), along with the Bamber owned silencer...
One thing which bothered me, was the interchangeable lab' item numbers, 22 and 23, or vice versa, supposedly of the same silencer? Well, to me none of that made much sense, I couldn't see the police or those at the lab' making a pigs ear of the exhibit references to the silencer, or indeed create even more confusion by sometimes referring to the silencer as lab' item number 22, and or 23? I think the (a) metal end cap was (22), and the silencer which was not handed over by Ann Eaton until 11th September 1985, became item number 23, or vice versa...
One thing I am certain about, is that David Boutfloyr took possession of (a) the gun barrels metal end cap from the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, because he makes mention of having done so in one of his witness statement versions..,
You make up nonsense after nonsense after nonsense.
If anything had actually been able to be proved by Mallinson et al then the current attorneys would have used it. They found zilch. You just make up one BS thing after the next including making up that blood was found on the thread protector but such finding was concealed. What evidence do you have? None because you claim they lied. How do you know it was found and they lied? What evidence establishes such was found but they lied? There is none the claim was simply made up from whole cloth.
"Smith and Mallinson came to that conclusion, based on information that two parker hale sound moderators were normally kept at whf, one belonging to AP, the other to Ralph Bamber. The former being the sole silencer kept at the scene since 1980 when AP purchased it along with his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle, the latter being the second of the two silencers kept at the scene since November 1984, when Ralph Bamber purchased it along with the Anshuzt .22 semi automatic Rifle."
This is just another made up lie. AP's moderator was purchased shortly before the murders and was brought to WHF on his last stay and was taken home with him he didn't leave it there. Even Jeremy said he didn't leave the rifle there he took it with him after his last stay. You make up your own fake facts. Jeremy's current lawyers can't use this garbage because it is all base don fake made up crap. It has nothing to do with Smith or Mallinson refusing to provide their information to Jeremy's current lawyers.
Your lies only serve to demonstrate why you can't be trusted nothing more.
-
"AP's moderator was purchased shortly before the murders and was brought to WHF on his last stay and was taken home with him he didn't leave it there. Even Jeremy said he didn't leave the rifle there he took it with him after his last stay."
Now that's the only new bit of information I have seen on here for a while - that's strange because when we investigated all the original statements from AP he does not say he took his rifle home . And I have never seen Jeremy say that he did.
I remember this because there was a whole thread about how he got awarded compensation from the newspaper when there appeared to be no evidence showing he had removed his rifle
-
"AP's moderator was purchased shortly before the murders and was brought to WHF on his last stay and was taken home with him he didn't leave it there. Even Jeremy said he didn't leave the rifle there he took it with him after his last stay."
Now that's the only new bit of information I have seen on here for a while - that's strange because when we investigated all the original statements from AP he does not say he took his rifle home . And I have never seen Jeremy say that he did.
I remember this because there was a whole thread about how he got awarded compensation from the newspaper when there appeared to be no evidence showing he had removed his rifle
Very true, Jan.
-
perhaps Scipio could give us the source for Jeremys comment about Anthonys rifle
-
Anthony's rifle was at the scene at the time of the shootings, so was his parker hale silencer, and plenty of his .22 ammunition, manufactured by Eley, Winchester and Remington...
-
"AP's moderator was purchased shortly before the murders and was brought to WHF on his last stay and was taken home with him he didn't leave it there. Even Jeremy said he didn't leave the rifle there he took it with him after his last stay."
Now that's the only new bit of information I have seen on here for a while - that's strange because when we investigated all the original statements from AP he does not say he took his rifle home . And I have never seen Jeremy say that he did.
I remember this because there was a whole thread about how he got awarded compensation from the newspaper when there appeared to be no evidence showing he had removed his rifle
Nothing I post is new I am just pointing out things that Mike ignores during the course of his lies.
During Jeremy's interrogation he said AP sometimes leaves his rifle there but he didn't see it after AP's last visit supporting his claim he took it home.
No one asked him to put in his statement that he took it home his weapon was not found at WHF so there was no reason to bother mentioning he took it home it was considered a given that he did after his last visit. We don't have all his statements so he could at some point have been asked to put it in and naturally Mike is not going to post such statement if it exists.
No one asked him at trial if he left it there during the murders. That is why he didn't mention it he only answers questions actually asked of him. He was asked about when he does leave it there whether he leaves the bolt and he said no he takes the bolt home with his rifle could not be used in his absence. He also discussed leaving his shotguns there at the time of the murders which other testimony established was found at WHF. Since his rifle was not found by anyone and not a police exhibit collected at any point that is why there was no occasion to bother specifying his rifle was not there had it been there it would have been expressly stated.
Because of the COLP allegations they specifically asked him whether he took it home or not and he said he took it home. There is nothing sinister.
I did mistype above it was the scope not moderator which he purchased recently and was fitting to his rifle.
-
Nothing I post is new I am just pointing out things that Mike ignores during the course of his lies.
During Jeremy's interrogation he said AP sometimes leaves his rifle there but he didn't see it after AP's last visit supporting his claim he took it home.
No one asked him to put in his statement that he took it home his weapon was not found at WHF so there was no reason to bother mentioning he took it home it was considered a given that he did after his last visit. We don't have all his statements so he could at some point have been asked to put it in and naturally Mike is not going to post such statement if it exists.
No one asked him at trial if he left it there during the murders. That is why he didn't mention it he only answers questions actually asked of him. He was asked about when he does leave it there whether he leaves the bolt and he said no he takes the bolt home with his rifle could not be used in his absence. He also discussed leaving his shotguns there at the time of the murders which other testimony established was found at WHF. Since his rifle was not found by anyone and not a police exhibit collected at any point that is why there was no occasion to bother specifying his rifle was not there had it been there it would have been expressly stated.
Because of the COLP allegations they specifically asked him whether he took it home or not and he said he took it home. There is nothing sinister.
I did mistype above it was the scope not moderator which he purchased recently and was fitting to his rifle.
I was just going to say that! ;D
-
Anthony's rifle was at the scene at the time of the shootings, so was his parker hale silencer, and plenty of his .22 ammunition, manufactured by Eley, Winchester and Remington...
The trial defense didn't think so. The trial defense failed to find any evidence that he left it there after his last visit. He didn't claim he left it there, Jeremy didn't claim he saw it after AP's last visit, nor was it found at WHF by the police, Eatons or Boutflours. You have zero basis to say it was at WHF at the time of the murders you have no evidence of any kind to establish such. You simply made the claim up like so much of what you post is simply made up. These same made up allegations were made to COLP and were disproved by them. AP even got money from someone who falsely reported his rifle was there at the time of the murders. A court ruled there was no evidentiary basis to make the claim so it was made with a reckless disregard for the truth. Your statement is thus likewise made with a reckless disregard for the truth because you have zilch to actually support the claim.
We are still waiting for you to post the note you claim you have where Fletcher wrote he test fired 27 bullets. You previously posted documents that added up to 23 tested and highlighted he tested 23. You are now contradicting yourself which means either you recently found a document that says 27 and were unaware of it at the time you posted he test fired 23 or you are simply lying and there is no hand written note indicating he test fired 27.
-
I was just going to say that! ;D
I should really proofread before I hit post but I don't and that is not going to change anymore than Mike is going to change his ways so...
-
He did get confused though- in the trial twice he mentions that the rifle was usually left at WHF - and does not mention removing it until 1991 where he contradicts what he says at trial . BTW I found the post that look out was referring to where NGB said you were getting confused about military and civilian rifles - I think she misunderstood it but she was not deliberately telling lies as you said :)
-
I should really proofread before I hit post but I don't and that is not going to change anymore than Mike is going to change his ways so...
Guess none of us can change the habits of a life time, Scipio ;) ;D
-
He did get confused though- in the trial twice he mentions that the rifle was usually left at WHF - and does not mention removing it until 1991 where he contradicts what he says at trial . BTW I found the post that look out was referring to where NGB said you were getting confused about military and civilian rifles - I think she misunderstood it but she was not deliberately telling lies as you said :)
I remember that now.
-
He did get confused though- in the trial twice he mentions that the rifle was usually left at WHF - and does not mention removing it until 1991 where he contradicts what he says at trial . BTW I found the post that look out was referring to where NGB said you were getting confused about military and civilian rifles - I think she misunderstood it but she was not deliberately telling lies as you said :)
He was asked if he sometimes had his rifle with him when he visited. He replied very often I left it he didn't say he usually left it and this is the only time in his testimony he said such.
In the meantime the next question government the weapons that were established as being at WHF at the time of the murders. The whole reason the rifle was discussed separately was because it was not among them. The jury heard that other weapons of his had been at WHF at the time of the murders but his rifle was not among them. You have to look at everything in context. He may have made a mistake in saying very often he left it he may have said very often to the question of whether he often had it with him and then added he left it. It is hard to tell such things from a transcript. People will say different things not just give a sentence that is well designed like when they write.
The prosecution was asking about his rifle because 10 they wanted to establish Jeremy used it and was a proficient shot; 2) when looking for his rifle he found the Anschutz and that is what they really cared about they wanted him to testify about how the Anschutz was in the closet with the scope and moderator attached.
In order to establish the rifle was there at the time of the murders people would have to have testified to such effect you can't infer. He would have been specifically asked and other witnesses would have to have established what became of it. We know that Jeremy said he didn't see it at WHF after AP's last visit, the Boutflours and Eatons said they didn't find it there when they cleaned up and took away all the firearms related materials and police didn't find it there so...
Mike has zero basis to suggest his rifle was there and his suggestion that it was there and that police took the moderator from his weapon but left the one from the Anschutz is absurd.
The police go in the closet take out all the gun cases and such, open up AP's rifle case, and decide to take that moderator though it clearly belongs to AP's rifle but leave the moderator belonging to the Anschutz? Why would they do such it is a stupid claim and saying Taff Jones refused to log it into evidence and simply kept it on his desk for a month is even more absurd.
If AP had left his rifle there and the family gave it back to him without telling police and lied to police when they said it wasn't there then he would have complained about his missing moderator.
This is a perfect example of illogical allegations being made up. It is bad enough to make up allegations that have zero foundation but if you are going to make up allegations at least make up something that makes sense.
-
Guess none of us can change the habits of a life time, Scipio ;) ;D
We can if we set our minds to it but I am too lazy to change my habit in the issue at bar.
-
in the other document it says - I do not leave the bolt at whitehouse farm . I do leave the rifle at whf
that is from his testimony
-
in the other document it says - I do not leave the bolt at whitehouse farm . I do leave the rifle at whf
that is from his testimony
The question asked was: "when you leave your firearms at the house, do you do anything with the bolts?"
He didn't say he always leaves the rifle, when he leaves the rifle he takes the bolt was his answer.
These were questions were asked after it was already established that only his shotguns were at WHF at the time of the murders. There was previous testimony regarding which weapons of his had been left at WHF and recovered there after the murders.
This is why things can't be looked at in isolation. You have to consider the full context including the evidence previously presented and prior claims made.
As I said before it is possible he filled out a statement where he was asked specifically if he took his gun home and naturally if it existed Mike would not show it to us.
It is possible the police didn't bother to have him put such in a statement simply because there was no need since his gun wasn't found there by the family.
Neither side felt the need to clarify the issue at trial during his testimony since no claim was made that his gun had been recovered there after the murders.
The COLP statement is the first time he was asked to detail such in writing and that was because of allegations made to COLP that his gun/moderator was used. The raising of the allegations is what required addressing the claims expressly. Prior to that there was no need to do so.
-
I post the following documention for the purpose of confirming that Ralph Bamber was never sold, and never purchased any of the Eley .22LR from Radcliffe the gun dealor, as matching the Eley .22LR cartridge cases referred to by Fletcher in his witness statement. Ralph Bamber purchased 500 rounds of ELEY subsonic ammunition, not 500 rounds of ELEY .22LR ammunition, as denoted in the gun dealers Firearms register, and Ralph Bambers firearms certificate...
-
So, now we know that ammunition belonging to someone else was used in the shooting of the family, and that none of the 500 rounds of .22 subsonic ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber, or sold to him was used in the shootings at all, so now it becomes clear why Essex police were in such a hurry to destroy the batch of crime scene ammunition, because they knew about this very serious discrepancy from the outset...
-
So, now we know that ammunition belonging to someone else was used in the shooting of the family, and that none of the 500 rounds of .22 subsonic ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber, or sold to him was used in the shootings at all, so now it becomes clear why Essex police were in such a hurry to destroy the batch of crime scene ammunition, because they knew about this very serious discrepancy from the outset...
The 22 Subsonic he recorded is a variety of 22LR ammunition. Your whole premise is built upon 2 lies:
1) the lie that the 22 Subsonic sold was not a 22LR cartridge (which is nonsense because the gun sold to Nevill was chambered in 22LR os that is what he would have purchased not 22 short or some other 22 caliber plus the remaining 300 plus unfired cartridges were all 22LR not some other caliber that would have been worthless to the family;
2) the lie that Fletcher determined the bullets and cases used in the murders were something other than those test fired though he states they were identical to those test fired.
Your lies are worthless.
(http://s14.postimg.org/53ahddnoh/fletchereley.jpg)
-
There is no evidence at all that Ralph Bamber purchased, or was sold by Radcliffe the gun dealer, any ELEY .22LR ammunition on the 30th November 1984, that is the lie that the police, their ballistics expert, Fletcher, and evry other tom dick and Harry who want Bamber to be guilty have sought to rely upon to justify the correctness of the convictions for 5 counts of murder, but as I have demonstrated with use of legal framework documentation governing the sale and possession of ammunition, that Ralph Bamber was sold and purchased a different type of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition - the game is up I am afraid, the deception which has so far kept Jeremy Bamber in prison for the last 30 years is exposed as a lie, do you not agree?
-
At trial, Judge Drake in his summing up speech to the jury, told them that they should not concern themselves with involvement of any third party in the killings, but that they had to decide who the killer was between Sheila, or Jeremy. He reminded them that the killer could only be either one of them. But this recent discovery regarding use of a different type of ELEY .22LR ammunition in the shootings, significantly contradict those directions given to the jury by the judge. We can now for the very first time say with absolute confidence that there was a third party involvement in the shootings, a fact which serves to affect the aforementioned direction given to the jury at such a critical point in the trial...
-
There is no evidence at all that Ralph Bamber purchased, or was sold by Radcliffe the gun dealer, any ELEY .22LR ammunition on the 30th November 1984, that is the lie that the police, their ballistics expert, Fletcher, and evry other tom dick and Harry who want Bamber to be guilty have sought to rely upon to justify the correctness of the convictions for 5 counts of murder, but as I have demonstrated with use of legal framework documentation governing the sale and possession of ammunition, that Ralph Bamber was sold and purchased a different type of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition - the game is up I am afraid, the deception which has so far kept Jeremy Bamber in prison for the last 30 years is exposed as a lie, do you not agree?
You are just making yourself look like a fool. The Anschutz was chambered in 22LR. While he didn't write 22LR on the documentation but rather simply wrote "22" he meant 22LR. It is variously called "22LR", "22RF", "22 rimfire", and "22". It all means the same thing. He wrote simply "22" but meant 22LR by it.
This is what he bought:
(http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/238455/10295331/acf185c.jpg)
It says 22 RF long rifle on it. That means 22 rimfire long rifle. 22LR is short for "22 long rifle".
This is the package on this site which you claim was used for testing because this is the version of the ammo Eley was producing at the time of the testing:
(http://www.njuskalo.hr/image-bigger/ostalo-oruzje/prodajem-mk-streljivo-eley-subsonic-hollow-xtra-22lr-slika-48062332.jpg)
It says the same thing on it. In 2008 they changed their packaging to this:
(http://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/2/296689m2_ts.jpg)
Again it says long rifle.
You are playing worthless games that simply further undermine your credibility.
-
At trial, Judge Drake in his summing up speech to the jury, told them that they should not concern themselves with involvement of any third party in the killings, but that they had to decide who the killer was between Sheila, or Jeremy. He reminded them that the killer could only be either one of them. But this recent discovery regarding use of a different type of ELEY .22LR ammunition in the shootings, significantly contradict those directions given to the jury by the judge. We can now for the very first time say with absolute confidence that there was a third party involvement in the shootings, a fact which serves to affect the aforementioned direction given to the jury at such a critical point in the trial...
There was no recent discovery of other ammo used you simply made the claim up.
-
There is now considerable doubt that that any of the ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber on 30th November 1984, was even fired via the anshuzt rifle, since according to skippy it was not chambered to fire the type of ammunition bought and sold by Radcliffe to Ralph Bamber...
I am ever so grateful for all the help that Skippy has provided to help me resolve this delicate matter...
-
The more I look into these circumstances the greater I am convinced of the reason why there was the earlier test fire of the anshuzt rifle in this case, which the police and ballistics expert have sought to pretend never took place...
-
There is now considerable doubt that that any of the ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber on 30th November 1984, was even fired via the anshuzt rifle, since according to skippy it was not chambered to fire the type of ammunition bought and sold by Radcliffe to Ralph Bamber...
I am ever so grateful for all the help that Skippy has provided to help me resolve this delicate matter...
Doubt in your mind alone but it is not based on any evidence so you have no ability to sell it to someone who has the power to release Jeremy.
-
We have all now seen the truth in black and white, we have had sight of the firearms register, dealers register and firearms certificate entry, as well as a bill of sale concerning the 500 rounds of Eley ammunition sold and purchased by Ralph Bamber on the 30th November 1984 - the ammunition subject of that sale and purchase was ELEY .22 subsonic, not ELEY .22LR ammunition. The firearms dealer is required by law to accurately record the type of ammunition sold to a certificate holder in the dealers register and on the persons firearm certificate, at peril of losing his dealership status if he makes any errors, or fails to document the aforementioned records accurately...
Firstly, we had Skippy claiming that the ballistic expert Fletcher had wrongly described the batch of crime scene bullets all being ELEY .22 LR bullet types, even though he describes some of the bullets as simply being .22 bullets, instead of .22LR bullets, and now Skippy is arguing that the dealer Radcliffe made the exact same mistake in describing the type of ammunition he sold to Ralph Bamber, as ELEY .22 subsonic rounds, instead of ELEY .22LR rounds? What a coincidence that the ballistic expert, Fletcher, and the gun dealer Radcliffe, should make the exact same mistake relating to the same type of ammunition?
-
We have all now seen the truth in black and white, we have had sight of the firearms register, dealers register and firearms certificate entry, as well as a bill of sale concerning the 500 rounds of Eley ammunition sold and purchased by Ralph Bamber on the 30th November 1984 - the ammunition subject of that sale and purchase was ELEY .22 subsonic, not ELEY .22LR ammunition. The firearms dealer is required by law to accurately record the type of ammunition sold to a certificate holder in the dealers register and on the persons firearm certificate, at peril of losing his dealership status if he makes any errors, or fails to document the aforementioned records accurately...
Firstly, we had Skippy claiming that the ballistic expert Fletcher had wrongly described the batch of crime scene bullets all being ELEY .22 LR bullet types, even though he describes some of the bullets as simply being .22 bullets, instead of .22LR bullets, and now Skippy is arguing that the dealer Radcliffe made the exact same mistake in describing the type of ammunition he sold to Ralph Bamber, as ELEY .22 subsonic rounds, instead of ELEY .22LR rounds? What a coincidence that the ballistic expert, Fletcher, and the gun dealer Radcliffe, should make the exact same mistake relating to the same type of ammunition?
The truth we all see is that you are xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx. I didn't say anything about Fletcher making a mistake let alone claim he made a mistake in assessing all to be Eley.
I simply pointed out that there are many different names for the ammunition purchased by Nevill including- ".22 RF", ".22 rim fire", ".22LR", "22 long rifle", and ".22". Far from these designations being different they all mean the same thing.
Different .22 sized ammunition includes: ".22 centerfire", ".22 Winchester Magnum", ".22 short", ".22 Stinger", ".22 long", ".22 CB cap", and ".22 BB cap".
Nevill's weapon was chambered in 22LR and that is what he purchased he didn't purchase any of the other sized 22 ammunition because his weapon could not fire them. What you are suggesting would be like me purchasing a pistol chambered in .45 APC but deciding to purchase 10mm ammunition for it even though it can't fire 10mm ammunition and I have no other weapons chambered in 10mm so the ammunition would be worthless to me and the .45 pistol would have to simply be a show piece because I would not be able to use it unless I went out and bought the correct ammunition at a later date.
Your claims are xxxxxx on top of being unsupported xxxxxxxxx.
-
AP purchased various different type of .22 ammynition including ELEY .22 LR bullets, sime Winchester, and Remmingtin .22 cartridges, all if which was present at the scene in addition to the batch of Eley .22 subsonic ammunirion sold to Ralph Bamber...
-
AP purchased various different type of .22 ammynition including ELEY .22 LR bullets, sime Winchester, and Remmingtin .22 cartridges, all if which was present at the scene in addition to the batch of Eley .22 subsonic ammunirion sold to Ralph Bamber...
Post evidence that AP purchased Eley ammunition- I posted evidence he didn't even know Eley ammunition is English he assumed it was German Like the Anschutz. You simply made this claim up.
Post evidence he purchased Remington ammunition- the ammunition he owned when he turned his weapon over to police for inspection was made by Winchester. You simply made this claim up.
Post evidence that Remington and Winchester cartridges were present at the murder scene. Fletcher found no such evidence nor did anyone else you simply made the claim up.
The evidence is clear- the ammunition used for the murders was the Eley ammunition Nevill purchased. That is what the evidence establishes and you have nothing to prove otherwise so rely on the farce that Nevill didn't purchase 22LR ammunition but rather some different size 22 ammunition that the rifle he purchased didn't use. Your games fall flat.
-
AP purchased different types of .22 ammunition between 1980 and the beginning of August 1985 - confirmed by entries recorded on his firearms certificate. COLP did not seize his Bruno .22 bolt action rifle, parker hale sound moderator, and two ammunition magazines (one 10 shot, one a 5 shot) until 1991, some six years after the shootings. Not to be overlooked is that during those interim six years AP had regularly cleaned the inside of the barrel with tools which over a period of time changed the internal surface of the rifles barrel...
-
AP purchased different types of .22 ammunition between 1980 and the beginning of August 1985 - confirmed by entries recorded on his firearms certificate. COLP did not seize his Bruno .22 bolt action rifle, parker hale sound moderator, and two ammunition magazines (one 10 shot, one a 5 shot) until 1991, some six years after the shootings. Not to be overlooked is that during those interim six years AP had regularly cleaned the inside of the barrel with tools which over a period of time changed the internal surface of the rifles barrel...
Are you claiming you have a copy of AP's firearms certificate that he had at the time of the murders? You can't know what ammunition was listed on it unless you have a copy of such.
Basically I just set a trap for you. You have the choice of admitting you have not seen it and thus simply are making up what is on it though you have no idea or can lie and say you have a copy and then I can prove you are full of crap because the authorities never obtained such and thus can't have provided a copy of such to Jeremy and thus you can't have found it in Jeremy's documents.
Hint AP was unable to provide a copy to COLP because he no longer had the same certificate by the time of the COLP interview. He provided COLP his new certificate.
-
You are just making yourself look like a fool. The Anschutz was chambered in 22LR. While he didn't write 22LR on the documentation but rather simply wrote "22" he meant 22LR. It is variously called "22LR", "22RF", "22 rimfire", and "22". It all means the same thing. He wrote simply "22" but meant 22LR by it.
(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle#Cartridge_length
Cartridge length
A .22 short, .22 LR, .22 Winchester Magnum, and a .22 Hornet
The .22 LR uses a straight-walled case. Depending upon the type and the feed mechanism employed, a firearm which is chambered for .22 LR may also be able to safely chamber and fire the following shorter rimfire cartridges:
.22 BB, in cap, short, or long lengths
.22 CB, in cap, short, long, and long rifle lengths
.22 short
.22 long
The .22 long rifle may also be used in firearms chambered for the obsolete .22 Extra Long.
-
Are you claiming you have a copy of AP's firearms certificate that he had at the time of the murders? You can't know what ammunition was listed on it unless you have a copy of such.
Basically I just set a trap for you. You have the choice of admitting you have not seen it and thus simply are making up what is on it though you have no idea or can lie and say you have a copy and then I can prove you are full of crap because the authorities never obtained such and thus can't have provided a copy of such to Jeremy and thus you can't have found it in Jeremy's documents.
Hint AP was unable to provide a copy to COLP because he no longer had the same certificate by the time of the COLP interview. He provided COLP his new certificate.
You had better stop saying that I make things up, because I don't, that's your own way of doing things...
Of course I have got a copy of AP's firearms certificate, detailing all the ammunition he purchased from 1980, until 1991, it was copied into the case file as a result of the COLP investigation, when they seized his Bruno rifle, 17 baffled parker hale silencer, and two ammunition magazines, one 10 shot, the other a 5 shot...
-
Seizing AP's Bruno rifle in 1991, and test firing it, is a different proposition to if the police back in August 1985 had test fired it and made comparisons to the marks made on 10 unlinked rounds associated with the shootings not matched to the anshuzt rifle...
The lining of the barrel of the bruno rifle would have been dramatically different six years after the event, through general wear and tear, fine tool marks used in a cleaning process, or clogged up recesses of the rifling lands and grooves through poor maintenance over a lengthy period of time...
-
(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle#Usage
Muzzle velocity (nominal)
40-grain (2.6 g) lead: 1,082 ft/s (330 m/s) .22 LR subsonic
36-grain (2.3 g) copper plated lead: 1,328 ft/s (405 m/s) .22 LR high velocity
Note: actual velocities are dependent on many factors, such as barrel length of a given firearm and manufacturer of a given batch of ammunition, and will vary widely in practice. The above velocities are typical.
-
You had better stop saying that I make things up, because I don't, that's your own way of doing things...
Of course I have got a copy of AP's firearms certificate, detailing all the ammunition he purchased from 1980, until 1991, it was copied into the case file as a result of the COLP investigation, when they seized his Bruno rifle, 17 baffled parker hale silencer, and two ammunition magazines, one 10 shot, the other a 5 shot...
Add to this collection of available ammunition magazines at AP's and Sheila Caffells disposal on the night of the shootings the 10 shot magazine of the anshuzt rifle, and hey presto, it produces the exact number of preloaded bullets capable of inflicting 24 of the 25 rounds used to kill the victims - now, that's some coincidence, don't you agree?
-
How odd that Essex police have not disclosed any close up photographs of every cartridge case in situ at the crime scene so that each of the original 25 cartridges can be accurately identified...
-
(1) - http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-will-set-me-free
Exclusive: Jeremy Bamber, who was sentenced to life in 1986 for the murder of five of his family members, has claimed that previously-unseen police photographs prove he was not given a fair trial.
Jeremy Bamber
Bamber, 50, has always protested his innocence, claiming that his sister Sheila, who had paranoid schizophrenia, used a rifle to kill her adoptive parents, Nevill and June, and her six-year-old twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas, before shooting herself in the remote Essex farmhouse. The Bamber murder case is one of the most notorious criminal cases in modern British history. Bamber’s legal team plan to set out a series of apparent inconsistencies in the case presented to the original trial court:
• Photographs which his lawyers allege show that the gun was moved
• One police officer described having no memory of the gun being at the crime scene
• Inconsistencies in the blood-spatter evidence
• X-rays revealing bullets which were presented whole at trial had broken up on impact
Bamber's legal team claim that photos of Sheila, known as Bambi - which show the murder weapon, a rifle, positioned in different places on her body - point to evidence-tampering and are therefore incompatible with the prosecution's case. They add that the inconsistencies the photographs depict appear to be supported by the records of police officers who attended the scene of the crime. One detective raised concerns after seeing the pictures, describing having no recollection of seeing the rifle at all when he was at the scene.
The White House Farm murders
The White House Farm murders became among the most infamous multiple murders of a generation, because they bore all the hallmarks of a detective crime novel: a brutal massacre behind locked doors, a mentally-unstable model with a fanatical religious streak, a suave and conniving son, and his jilted lover who informed on him to police a month later. When police arrived at the scene, they thought the killings pointed to a murder/suicide, but three days later, one of Bamber’s cousins found a silencer in a box in the gun cupboard and presented it to police.
The silencer had a speck of blood on it, which a scientist concluded had come from Sheila, although doubts have since been raised about the authenticity of the tests. Police claimed that it would not have been possible for Sheila to shoot herself and then return the silencer to the cupboard.
About a month after the murders, Bamber broke up with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after she discovered that he had had sex with her best friend. Miss Mugford went to police the next day and told officers that Jeremy had been planning the murders for some time and called her on the night of the killings, saying: "Tonight’s the night."
The trial
At Bamber's trial - at Chelmsford Crown Court in October 1986 - he was convicted on a 10-2 majority verdict. The jury was asked to decide whether he had murdered his family to inherit an estate worth around £500,000 (£1m in today’s money) or whether schizophrenic Sheila Caffell carried out the massacre after her parents suggested that her children should be taken into foster care.
The jury decided Sheila could not have killed her family before turning the gun on herself, and that it was Bamber who committed the crimes and re-staged the scene to appear like a murder/suicide.
But Channel 4 News has seen for the first time a series of police pictures showing a .22 Anschutz semi-automatic rifle, the murder weapon, seemingly resting in different positions on Sheila’s body and also placed around the bedroom where she was found dead. Bamber’s legal team argue that because the trial jury convicted him on grounds that he had re-staged the crime scene, these photos prove he was not given a fair trial. They claim that, at the least, the pictures cast doubt on part of the prosecution case and appear to expose significant inconsistencies in the evidence from 7 August 1985.
Main bedroom/staircase
The rifle rests above and below Sheila's neckline in different close-up images. In wide shots of the room, the gun appears propped up against a window and is then missing in another. Essex police officers told the trial jury that the gun on her body was not moved in the aftermath of the crime and only made safe at 11.10am.
But Bamber's defence team argues that all of the police pictures photographed in the room were taken at least 50 minutes before then. A blown-up image of one of the pictures of the master bedroom of the farmhouse, in which the bodies of June and Sheila were found, shows a clock on the bedside table reading 10.20am, indicating that the gun could have been moved during the photographing sessions: almost an hour before police testified it had been.
'No recollection of gun'
Various logs of different police officers at the scene suggest incongruous accounts of the positioning of Sheila's body and also where the gun lay in relation to her. One police officer raised concerns that, after viewing the photos, Sheila's body was in a different position from when he saw her, before 8.45am.
"Photo of Sheila not in same position as when I saw it," his notes reads. "Head too close to bedside table. Not sure about angle of head but something not right. No recollection of gun. Was level with her waist 12-18in away."
Another officer, on first inspecting the room at 9.30am, half an hour before the photographer arrived in the room, noted: "Daughter with .22 rifle by her right side."
Dr Herbert Leon MacDonell, director of the New-York based Laboratory for Forensic Science, studied the photographs for the defence team and concluded that the pattern of blood spatter suggested movement of the body.
Dr MacDonell, who testified in the OJ Simpson murder case and was involved in the investigations into the assassinations of US Senator Robert F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, told Channel 4 News: "From the bloodstain patterns the victim's arms must have been moved.
"Bloodstains on the floor showed that other objects were also moved. I concluded that it had to have been murder because of the two shots under her chin. (But) Some time later I learned that the pathologists concluded that she could have fired both shots so I now believe it could have been suicide as well."
Peter Sutherst, a photographic expert, adviser to crime scene officers, and on the UK register of expert witnesses, examined around 400 of the previously-undisclosed negatives.
He told Channel 4 News: "Based on knowledge of how roll films are put together with frame numbers in sequence, the pictures of Sheila with the rifle on her were taken early on in the photographing process.
"(The officer) started in the kitchen first, then to the bedroom Sheila was found in and then to several other rooms afterwards.
"I think those pictures were taken between 10.20 and 10.45. It is extremely unlikely they were taken after that."
Mr Sutherst added that scores of negatives from the film roll remained undisclosed.
Hurd: 'Errors were made'
In 1989, the then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd ordered a tightening of procedures for police investigations following the murders. He said that the operation had been riddled with errors.
"First, the senior investigating officer (DCI 'Taff' Jones), having assessed the scene of the crime and considered the information provided by Jeremy Bamber, wrongly concluded that Sheila Caffell had taken her own life and shooting her parents and twin sons," he said.
"In consequence of this error of judgement, he did not follow normal procedures of potential murder cases, and was reluctant to take account of information which challenged his original assessment.
"Secondly, there was inadequate supervision of the senior investigating officer to ensure that existing force practices were observed and that the inquiries took account of the information coming to light."
Catalogue of new evidence
The discovery of the photographs is the latest in a catalogue of around 100,000 pages Bamber has accessed from his prison cell in Full Sutton, Yorkshire, via the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act.
He and his legal team – headed by lawyer Barry Woods – have also uncovered the following evidence which they hope could overturn his conviction:
• The pictures of Sheila’s body also show wet blood flowing from Sheila’s wounds, according to the defence. Bamber’s team say that experts have told them that because the blood had not coagulated at the time of photographing at 10.30am, she could have been killed no earlier than 7am. Bamber had been with police officers since about 3am.
Bullet
• An X-Ray of Sheila's neck, which shows one bullet fragmented into 14 pieces and a second bullet intact in her brain. However, police showed the court two unbroken bullets at the trial.
Police log
• Police logs showing some of the officers who first arrived at the farmhouse reporting that there were two bodies, a male and a female, dead in the kitchen, while they were in the presence of Bamber. The final report stated that only the male body - that of Bamber's father Nevill - was found in the kitchen, with the other bodies in four upstairs rooms. Bamber's supporters argue that the female body was Sheila’s, and she had gone upstairs to kill herself between the time of the log entry and some time after police entered the house, several hours later.
• Another police log in which an officer reports that officers were in conversation with someone inside the farmhouse upon their arrival.
Phone log
• Two "lost" police logs, which Bamber’s defence team claim show that Nevill called police at 3.26am saying his daughter had "gone berserk" and "got hold of one of my guns". The record is almost identical to another phone log timed at 3.36am in which Bamber made from his home in Goldhanger, three-and-a-half miles away from the farm.
• Mr Sutherst has also found that scratch marks the prosecution said had been caused by Bamber – in a tussle between him and his father - on the night of the killings might have actually been made a month later. After scrutinising photographs taken on the day of the murders, he found no indication of the scratch marks, said to have been made by the silencer. Mr Sutherst then found that the photograph of the scratches used in Bamber's trial was taken on 10 September, over a month after the murders.
Forensic officers established that Sheila could not have shot herself and return the silencer to the cupboard.Mr Sutherst told Channel 4 News: "There is no doubt that marks made by the silencer, which were visible a month later, were not present on the day of the killings. In the photos taken on the day of the crimes, I could see no scratches and no residue of paint which invariably would have been there if scratches were made."
-
You had better stop saying that I make things up, because I don't, that's your own way of doing things...
Of course I have got a copy of AP's firearms certificate, detailing all the ammunition he purchased from 1980, until 1991, it was copied into the case file as a result of the COLP investigation, when they seized his Bruno rifle, 17 baffled parker hale silencer, and two ammunition magazines, one 10 shot, the other a 5 shot...
This is a perfect example of how you are as foolish as dishonest because I blurted out why this was a trick question and how we would easily see you are lying if you decide to lie and claim you have a copy of his 1980 certificate. Despite such you barreled full speed ahead like sheep over a cliff.
AP had to turn in his 1980 certificate and receive a new one prior to the COLP investigation. He provided the COLP investigators a copy of his new certificate that was all they could get a hold of. Since COLP didn't have a copy of his 1980 certificate they can't have provided a copy to the defense and thus you can't have found such in Jeremy's papers.
This is a prime example of the point I made that you don't even put any effort into your lies anymore you just keep insulting our intelligence.
-
This is a perfect example of how you are as foolish as dishonest because I blurted out why this was a trick question and how we would easily see you are lying if you decide to lie and claim you have a copy of his 1980 certificate. Despite such you barreled full speed ahead like sheep over a cliff.
AP had to turn in his 1980 certificate and receive a new one prior to the COLP investigation. He provided the COLP investigators a copy of his new certificate that was all they could get a hold of. Since COLP didn't have a copy of his 1980 certificate they can't have provided a copy to the defense and thus you can't have found such in Jeremy's papers.
This is a prime example of the point I made that you don't even put any effort into your lies anymore you just keep insulting our intelligence.
What an absolute baffoon you are, of course I have copies of both parts, what good would AP's firearms certificate be to the COLP investigators looking into whether or not AP's rifle, silencer and ammunition was used in the August 1985 shootings - your thicker than I thought you are. You are truly a bumbling baffoon who is basically full of shit. Now, fuck off and entertain yourself somewhere else, you abnoxious horrible piece of cow dung. You have only got half a brain, haven't you ever got anything useful or constructive to say, except the drivel that you kept releasing from that dishonest gob of yours. What a fucking idiot you are, pathetic abnoxious pea brain scumbag...
-
(1) - http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-will-set-me-free
Exclusive: Jeremy Bamber, who was sentenced to life in 1986 for the murder of five of his family members, has claimed that previously-unseen police photographs prove he was not given a fair trial.
Jeremy Bamber
Bamber, 50, has always protested his innocence, claiming that his sister Sheila, who had paranoid schizophrenia, used a rifle to kill her adoptive parents, Nevill and June, and her six-year-old twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas, before shooting herself in the remote Essex farmhouse. The Bamber murder case is one of the most notorious criminal cases in modern British history. Bamber’s legal team plan to set out a series of apparent inconsistencies in the case presented to the original trial court:
• Photographs which his lawyers allege show that the gun was moved
The gun could not be left on her forever, it had to be moved. A photo was taken showing it on her body and then another photo was taken without in on her body in order to show the blood on her gown which her hand had left. But for that blood on her gown they would not have needed any without the gun on her.
It is not suspicious that they removed the gun and took a photo of the blood nor is it in any way supportive of Jeremy's innocence.
• One police officer described having no memory of the gun being at the crime scene
Big deal Adas was unable in 1991 to recall what he had seen anymore because so many years passed and his recollection was fuzzy. That simply means we have to rely on the photos and testimony of those who did remember.
• Inconsistencies in the blood-spatter evidence
There wasn't any inconsistency.
• X-rays revealing bullets which were presented whole at trial had broken up on impact
This is sheer nonsense the bullets presented at trial matched what Vanezis pulled out of them. This includes PV/20 which we have a photo of which quite clearly matches the xray. Only one bullet (from Nicholas) was shattered into pieces too small for any large fragment to be recovered and no fragment was thus produced at trial from such bullet since nothing was collected.
Bamber's legal team claim that photos of Sheila, known as Bambi - which show the murder weapon, a rifle, positioned in different places on her body - point to evidence-tampering and are therefore incompatible with the prosecution's case. They add that the inconsistencies the photographs depict appear to be supported by the records of police officers who attended the scene of the crime. One detective raised concerns after seeing the pictures, describing having no recollection of seeing the rifle at all when he was at the scene.
The gun being moved doesn't in any way help Jeremy. A dozen police saw the gun on her body most of them senior officers- only 3 were from the raid team. Adams not being able to remember whether it was on her is totally meaningless. The gun was clearly on her body and then moved after as it well had to be. I have yet to see a case where a body is left as is for days. The claims the gun should never have been moved are simply stupid. The person who declared her dead saw the gun on her before the photos were taken of the gun on her as were so many other police. Her hand int he photo with the gun on her is right over the blood on her gown which helps confirm that is where her hand rested while her blood was still wet because that blood was transferred from her wrist. Police had no reason to falsely pretend they found the gun on her body nor is there any evidence that suggest they found it elsewhere and placed it there for the photos then had a dozen police lie about it. Such suggestions are absurd and don't help Jeremy at all.
The White House Farm murders
The White House Farm murders became among the most infamous multiple murders of a generation, because they bore all the hallmarks of a detective crime novel: a brutal massacre behind locked doors, a mentally-unstable model with a fanatical religious streak, a suave and conniving son, and his jilted lover who informed on him to police a month later. When police arrived at the scene, they thought the killings pointed to a murder/suicide, but three days later, one of Bamber’s cousins found a silencer in a box in the gun cupboard and presented it to police.
The silencer had a speck of blood on it, which a scientist concluded had come from Sheila, although doubts have since been raised about the authenticity of the tests. Police claimed that it would not have been possible for Sheila to shoot herself and then return the silencer to the cupboard.
The doubts are form Jeremy supporters who raised nothing valid to to question the blood evidence just refusal to face the evidence because of a desire to believe Jeremy innocent no matter what.
About a month after the murders, Bamber broke up with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after she discovered that he had had sex with her best friend. Miss Mugford went to police the next day and told officers that Jeremy had been planning the murders for some time and called her on the night of the killings, saying: "Tonight’s the night."
Nonsense, their breakup was coming a long time and it wasn't over him cheating on her with a woman let alone her best friend.
The trial
At Bamber's trial - at Chelmsford Crown Court in October 1986 - he was convicted on a 10-2 majority verdict. The jury was asked to decide whether he had murdered his family to inherit an estate worth around £500,000 (£1m in today’s money) or whether schizophrenic Sheila Caffell carried out the massacre after her parents suggested that her children should be taken into foster care.
The jury decided Sheila could not have killed her family before turning the gun on herself, and that it was Bamber who committed the crimes and re-staged the scene to appear like a murder/suicide.
But Channel 4 News has seen for the first time a series of police pictures showing a .22 Anschutz semi-automatic rifle, the murder weapon, seemingly resting in different positions on Sheila’s body and also placed around the bedroom where she was found dead. Bamber’s legal team argue that because the trial jury convicted him on grounds that he had re-staged the crime scene, these photos prove he was not given a fair trial. They claim that, at the least, the pictures cast doubt on part of the prosecution case and appear to expose significant inconsistencies in the evidence from 7 August 1985.
Main bedroom/staircase
The rifle rests above and below Sheila's neckline in different close-up images. In wide shots of the room, the gun appears propped up against a window and is then missing in another. Essex police officers told the trial jury that the gun on her body was not moved in the aftermath of the crime and only made safe at 11.10am.
The gun was removed from her body and placed against the wall, big deal. It had to be removed to take the photo of the blood on her gown and was then placed against a wall. This doesn't in any way hurt the case against Jeremy. There is no legal significance to this at all.
But Bamber's defence team argues that all of the police pictures photographed in the room were taken at least 50 minutes before then. A blown-up image of one of the pictures of the master bedroom of the farmhouse, in which the bodies of June and Sheila were found, shows a clock on the bedside table reading 10.20am, indicating that the gun could have been moved during the photographing sessions: almost an hour before police testified it had been.
Actually the gun was made safe early on before the crime scene photos were taken. In any event, the defense has no ability to prove the clock photos were taken the same time as any of the photos of Sheila. In any event it makes no difference at all if they put the gun back and took more photos again at that point. It has no legal bearing on the case at all. A dozen police including the one who declared her dead said the rifle was on her, the crime scene officers say they took photos of it on her before removing it to take photos of the blood on her gown and there is nothing at all to refute this. That they moved it after is not surprising and doesn't in any way undercut the testimony that the gun was on her. None of this BS could make it past the CCRC it simply is bull crap to try to fool the public.
'No recollection of gun'
Various logs of different police officers at the scene suggest incongruous accounts of the positioning of Sheila's body and also where the gun lay in relation to her.
No logs suggest different accounts.
One police officer raised concerns that, after viewing the photos, Sheila's body was in a different position from when he saw her, before 8.45am.
"Photo of Sheila not in same position as when I saw it," his notes reads. "Head too close to bedside table. Not sure about angle of head but something not right. No recollection of gun. Was level with her waist 12-18in away."
Again this is Adas who who could not even remember if the gun was on her or not. He was not one of the raid team members and was only in the house a short time he didn't see her body long. Little wonder that he was unable to remember much. Since he didn't remember much his faulty memory is worthless and we have to go by the memory of the dozen officer who could remember and the testimony of those who took the photos.
Another officer, on first inspecting the room at 9.30am, half an hour before the photographer arrived in the room, noted: "Daughter with .22 rifle by her right side."
The author of this sentence DI Miller said his writing was sloppy and that the gun was on her body.
Dr Herbert Leon MacDonell, director of the New-York based Laboratory for Forensic Science, studied the photographs for the defence team and concluded that the pattern of blood spatter suggested movement of the body.
Dr MacDonell, who testified in the OJ Simpson murder case and was involved in the investigations into the assassinations of US Senator Robert F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, told Channel 4 News: "From the bloodstain patterns the victim's arms must have been moved.
He said her body was moved while the blood was still wet and thus he could say for sure she didn't kill herself but rather someone else killed her and moved her. Far from this helping Jeremy and hurting police it implicates Jeremy.
"Bloodstains on the floor showed that other objects were also moved. I concluded that it had to have been murder because of the two shots under her chin. (But) Some time later I learned that the pathologists concluded that she could have fired both shots so I now believe it could have been suicide as well."
The Bible is the object in question and it was moved after she was dead while the blood was still wet so far from helping establish suicide it helps establish murder.
In the meantime the evidence that her body was moved after she was dead but while her blood was still wet still proves murder as well. He simply decided to ignore such and support the defense after they gave him more money though he could not explain away the evidence he relied upon.
Peter Sutherst, a photographic expert, adviser to crime scene officers, and on the UK register of expert witnesses, examined around 400 of the previously-undisclosed negatives.
He told Channel 4 News: "Based on knowledge of how roll films are put together with frame numbers in sequence, the pictures of Sheila with the rifle on her were taken early on in the photographing process.
"(The officer) started in the kitchen first, then to the bedroom Sheila was found in and then to several other rooms afterwards.
"I think those pictures were taken between 10.20 and 10.45. It is extremely unlikely they were taken after that."
Mr Sutherst added that scores of negatives from the film roll remained undisclosed.
Hurd: 'Errors were made'
In 1989, the then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd ordered a tightening of procedures for police investigations following the murders. He said that the operation had been riddled with errors.
"First, the senior investigating officer (DCI 'Taff' Jones), having assessed the scene of the crime and considered the information provided by Jeremy Bamber, wrongly concluded that Sheila Caffell had taken her own life and shooting her parents and twin sons," he said.
"In consequence of this error of judgement, he did not follow normal procedures of potential murder cases, and was reluctant to take account of information which challenged his original assessment.
"Secondly, there was inadequate supervision of the senior investigating officer to ensure that existing force practices were observed and that the inquiries took account of the information coming to light."
Catalogue of new evidence
The discovery of the photographs is the latest in a catalogue of around 100,000 pages Bamber has accessed from his prison cell in Full Sutton, Yorkshire, via the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act.
• Mr Sutherst has also found that scratch marks the prosecution said had been caused by Bamber – in a tussle between him and his father - on the night of the killings might have actually been made a month later. After scrutinising photographs taken on the day of the murders, he found no indication of the scratch marks, said to have been made by the silencer. Mr Sutherst then found that the photograph of the scratches used in Bamber's trial was taken on 10 September, over a month after the murders.
Forensic officers established that Sheila could not have shot herself and return the silencer to the cupboard.Mr Sutherst told Channel 4 News: "There is no doubt that marks made by the silencer, which were visible a month later, were not present on the day of the killings. In the photos taken on the day of the crimes, I could see no scratches and no residue of paint which invariably would have been there if scratches were made."
Sutherst's claims have been rejected as junk science. There is no way to blow up the photos enough using current science so as to be able to tell if the mantle was marked up and especially not to be able to see specks on the floor near the mantle. He could not establish his claims to be scientifically reliable so none of his nonsense could be used in court.
He and his legal team – headed by lawyer Barry Woods – have also uncovered the following evidence which they hope could overturn his conviction:
• The pictures of Sheila’s body also show wet blood flowing from Sheila’s wounds, according to the defence. Bamber’s team say that experts have told them that because the blood had not coagulated at the time of photographing at 10.30am, she could have been killed no earlier than 7am. Bamber had been with police officers since about 3am.
There are no photos showing wet blood and the doctor who declared her dead at 8:45Am said the blood was dry thus confirming the claims of the officers who said she had dry blood on her.
Bullet
• An X-Ray of Sheila's neck, which shows one bullet fragmented into 14 pieces and a second bullet intact in her brain. However, police showed the court two unbroken bullets at the trial.
The court wasn't shown unbroken bullets. They were shown large fragment from her brain like the xray showed and fragment matching the Xray of the largest portion of PV/20 (the one you claim was broken into 14 pieces):
(http://s8.postimg.org/jsb8mcsph/sheilaxrayexhibit.jpg)
Police log
• Police logs showing some of the officers who first arrived at the farmhouse reporting that there were two bodies, a male and a female, dead in the kitchen, while they were in the presence of Bamber. The final report stated that only the male body - that of Bamber's father Nevill - was found in the kitchen, with the other bodies in four upstairs rooms. Bamber's supporters argue that the female body was Sheila’s, and she had gone upstairs to kill herself between the time of the log entry and some time after police entered the house, several hours later.
Collins looked in the window before entering and saw a body in the kitchen which he thought was an old woman. This was relayed to the HQ Information room. Upon entering they discovered it was Nevill not June like they had though. Upon hearing about Nevill the radio operator incorrectly recorded a second body not realizing it was the same one. Those at the scene who actually entered the house all say there was only 1 body in the kitchen and that it was Nevill. Jeremy supporters use this error from the person keeping to log to try pretending there was another body in the kitchen and are not even consistent because they pretend the old woman could have been Sheila.
• Another police log in which an officer reports that officers were in conversation with someone inside the farmhouse upon their arrival.
The log actually says police tried to speak with those in the house by communicating to them through a megaphone but no one in the house responded.
Phone log
• Two "lost" police logs, which Bamber’s defence team claim show that Nevill called police at 3.26am saying his daughter had "gone berserk" and "got hold of one of my guns". The record is almost identical to another phone log timed at 3.36am in which Bamber made from his home in Goldhanger, three-and-a-half miles away from the farm.
Logs that were trial exhibits were lost? The defense discussed them at trial even. The claim the logs reflect a call from Nevill is sheer nonsense. It need not evne be addressed because it was already demolished so many times here in the past. All that need be said is neither log even remotely hints at a call from Nevill there is simply a wild allegation made that Nevill called Bonnett and it was covered up by pretending West called Bonnett. There is no evidence to prove this allegation and quite clearly it is nonsense.
-
What an absolute baffoon you are, of course I have copies of both parts, what good would AP's firearms certificate be to the COLP investigators looking into whether or not AP's rifle, silencer and ammunition was used in the August 1985 shootings - your thicker than I thought you are. You are truly a bumbling baffoon who is basically full of shit. Now, fuck off and entertain yourself somewhere else, you abnoxious horrible piece of cow dung. You have only got half a brain, haven't you ever got anything useful or constructive to say, except the drivel that you kept releasing from that dishonest gob of yours. What a fucking idiot you are, pathetic abnoxious pea brain scumbag...
Post a copy of his firearm certificate then. Prove you have it and are not lying. You can't because you know you are lying and so do we for the reason I mentioned when I told you straight out I was asking you a trick question and why it was a trick question.
AP didn't have a copy of his old certificate to provide to COLP:
(http://s9.postimg.org/b5i43rowv/apcolp.jpg)
Granted you don't remember all the evidence in this case that was released so don't always realize you are making up things that can be disproved but I TOLD YOU IN ADVANCE before you even made the claim that it could be disproved. I could have just sandbagged you and sprung it on you after daring you to lie. Instead I gave you a heads up so you could avoid being caught in the lie and yet you still charged full speed ahead anyway...
-
You bungling baffoon, who do you think he had to surrender his old firearms certificate to? The postman? The milkman? The icecream van man?
I will give you a clue, he surrendered it to a particular department in the police force...
You have got a rodents brain...
-
You bungling baffoon, who do you think he had to surrender his old firearms certificate to? The postman? The milkman? The icecream van man?
I will give you a clue, he surrendered it to a particular department in the police force...
You have got a rodents brain...
He surrendered it years before the COLP investigation to the police station where they issued his new one and that station destroyed the old one they didn't retain it.
You have not even been able to provide a copy of Nevill's firearm certificate though that one the police actually had and potentially did provide to the defense.
AP's certificate was not provided to the police in the original investigation and wasn't available to be provided to the COLP investigators.
-
No, they didn't destroy it, that's you just making things up again...
-
No, they didn't destroy it, that's you just making things up again...
When they don't destroy documents they punch holes or other cancellation marks in them like passports and driver's licenses and hand them back to you along with the new document. When they seize the documents and don't give them back they destroy them they don't place them in a file cabinet.
-
Essex police took a copy of AP's firearms certificate as part of the original investigation, when DCI Jones believed the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy for all 5 murders. At that time, the new version of AP's firearms certificate had not yet come into existence. Essex police took the aforementioned copy of his firearms certificate in September 1985, at the same time his sound moderator came into play, when Ann Eaton handed over to police the other Ralph Bamber silencer on the 11th September. AP's silencer had already been in police possession by that stage and was in fact the very same parker hale silencer inside which the crucial blood group evidence was later attributed to..,
-
Essex police took a copy of AP's firearms certificate as part of the original investigation, when DCI Jones believed the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy for all 5 murders. At that time, the new version of AP's firearms certificate had not yet come into existence. Essex police took the aforementioned copy of his firearms certificate in September 1985, at the same time his sound moderator came into play, when Ann Eaton handed over to police the other Ralph Bamber silencer on the 11th September. AP's silencer had already been in police possession by that stage and was in fact the very same parker hale silencer inside which the crucial blood group evidence was later attributed to..,
Taff Jones didn't think the family was trying to frame him, he didn't look at AP's guns or certificate. AP makes clear in his COLP statement police didn't want to look at his weapons and Firearms certificate until 1991.
On top of simply making things up, it is silly that you keep making up such diametrically opposed things. You on one hand say Taff Jones kept the moderator illegally in his possession allowing the family to provide a tampered one to police- thus allege he was in on the fraud yet at other times you claim he felt the family was trying to frame Jeremy and took actions to investigate their weapons. Such inconsistency tells us you are just throwing crap at the wall to see if any of it will stick.
If you actually had a copy of AP's old firearms certificate you would have posted it to prove me wrong instead of straining to find a way to pretend that police copied it in 1985. In the meantime you originally claimed COLP obtained a copy of it during their investigation but since that is not the case you say it was obtained in 1985 by Taff Jones.
These games serve no purpose because not only can we see right through them, AP's gun was not at WHF at the time of the murders and even when it had been left at WHF it had no bolt so could not be used. It doesn't matter what ammunition he purchased since it wasn't there.
The ammunition used in the murders was assessed to be the same ammunition Nevill purchased of which more than 300 unfired rounds remained at WHF.
Anyone honest about the case, which includes Jeremy's own trial lawyers, admit that either Sheila was responsible or Jeremy. There is no chance of third parties being responsible. Sheila would not have had access to other ammunition or weapons so other ammunition or weapons being used would not have been concealed by the prosecution it would have been used by the prosecution to further undermine the notion Sheila was responsible. You don't seem to think the implications of your claims through fully when conjuring them up.
-
Taff Jones didn't think the family was trying to frame him, he didn't look at AP's guns or certificate. AP makes clear in his COLP statement police didn't want to look at his weapons and Firearms certificate until 1991.
this is not true, since Pargeter told the COLP investigators that shortly after the shootungs essex poluce bisited him and asked to look at his bruno rifle. AP told COLP that he was given the impression by the way those officers looked at his rifle, that they were checking to see whether or not his rifle was damaged...
On top of simply making things up, it is silly that you keep making up such diametrically opposed things. You on one hand say Taff Jones kept the moderator illegally in his possession allowing the family to provide a tampered one to police- thus allege he was in on the fraud yet at other times you claim he felt the family was trying to frame Jeremy and took actions to investigate their weapons. Such inconsistency tells us you are just throwing crap at the wall to see if any of it will stick.
If you actually had a copy of AP's old firearms certificate you would have posted it to prove me wrong instead of straining to find a way to pretend that police copied it in 1985. In the meantime you originally claimed COLP obtained a copy of it during their investigation but since that is not the case you say it was obtained in 1985 by Taff Jones.
These games serve no purpose because not only can we see right through them, AP's gun was not at WHF at the time of the murders and even when it had been left at WHF it had no bolt so could not be used. It doesn't matter what ammunition he purchased since it wasn't there.
The ammunition used in the murders was assessed to be the same ammunition Nevill purchased of which more than 300 unfired rounds remained at WHF.
Anyone honest about the case, which includes Jeremy's own trial lawyers, admit that either Sheila was responsible or Jeremy. There is no chance of third parties being responsible. Sheila would not have had access to other ammunition or weapons so other ammunition or weapons being used would not have been concealed by the prosecution it would have been used by the prosecution to further undermine the notion Sheila was responsible. You don't seem to think the implications of your claims through fully when conjuring them up.
-
this is not true, since Pargeter told the COLP investigators that shortly after the shootungs essex poluce bisited him and asked to look at his bruno rifle. AP told COLP that he was given the impression by the way those officers looked at his rifle, that they were checking to see whether or not his rifle was damaged...
He said that during his September 10 statement (given at his house) when he reiterated to police he didn't believe she could shoot herself with the moderator attached or load the magazine (because after the murders he had his wife try to load his and she couldn't) that police used his weapon with the moderator attached to try to see if Sheila could have shot herself with it. He said he suspected that as they did such they used the opportunity to look over his weapon to see if it had any damage.
That is a far cry from taking his weapon away for examination and taking his Firearms certificate so they could copy it. Moreover this was after Taff Jones was no longer in charge. It also demonstrates he still had his moderator with his weapon in order for police to be able to try to recreate Sheila shooting herself with his weapon with the moderator attached. This demolishes your nonsense about this moderator being the one turned in to police by the Eatons.
-
How odd that Essex police have not disclosed any close up photographs of every cartridge case in situ at the crime scene so that each of the original 25 cartridges can be accurately identified...
Were the bullets ever matched to the empty cartridges ?
-
Were the bullets ever matched to the empty cartridges ?
There is no such thing as matching a bullet as having come from a specific casing other than by circumstantial evidence.
Bullets and cases are matched to the gun they were fired from. Obviously when bullets and cases are tied to the same gun then the bullets are associated with those cases. When there are multiple cases and bullets fired in the same location there is no way to narrow down which case specifically was tied to each specific bullet.
Master Bedroom
Sheila
upper wound (chin) PV/19
lower wound (neck) PV/20
cases they were fired from: DRH/1 and 2. There is no way to know specifically which case goes to which of these bullets.
Nevill
PV/10 (lip)
PV/11 (jaw)
PV/2 (Shoulder)
DRH/5 (Arm/chest Graze wound)
June
PV/25 between eyes
PV/26 above right ear
DRH/35a lower neck (bullet exited into pillow)
DRH/35b forearm (bullet exited into pillow)
PV/24 right upper chest
PV/23 lower chest
DRH/9 knee (bullet exited into bed)
There is no way to know with specificity which of the 11 cases corresponds with which particular bullet fired into June and Nevill we just know the 11 bullets came from these 11 cases: DRH/3, 4, 6, 7a, 7b, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 43
Kitchen
PV/8 front of right ear/exit left ear but still in the body
PV/9 slightly above wound 1
PV/3 top of skull
PV/4 top of skull
The 4 cases associated with these shots are: DRH/14, 19, 20 and 41.
Twins Room
Daniel
PV/34
PV/35
PV/36
PV/29
DRH/36 (bullet exited and landed in bedroom)
Nicholas
Left cheek bone
Left of bridge of the nose
Outer aspect of right eyebrow (fragmented into small pieces no fragment from this bullet recovered by Vanezis)
The 8 cases associated with these shots are: DRH/16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39a, 39b, and 40.
------
So it can only be narrowed down so much which case went to which bullet.
-
In the manufacturing process, preloaded cases are crimped together by unique crimping equipment so the crimping marks which are present upon the cartridge, can be identified by matching the crimping marks on the case and bullet head. These crimping marks are unique to individual manufacturers, and from type of round against different types of round, produced by the same manufacturer...
-
In the manufacturing process, preloaded cases are crimped together by unique crimping equipment so the crimping marks which are present upon the cartridge, can be identified by matching the crimping marks on the case and bullet head. These crimping marks are unique to individual manufacturers, and from type of round against different types of round, produced by the same manufacturer...
Crimping marks can't match a specific case to a specific bullet that came form it. What I posted above is about as specific as one can get. A group of cases matched to a group of wounds and that's it.
-
Crimping marks can't match a specific case to a specific bullet that came form it. What I posted above is about as specific as one can get. A group of cases matched to a group of wounds and that's it.
You don't know what you are talking about, you are not a firearms expert, your talking rubbish as usual...
-
Ds Jones returned to the scene from Jeremy's cottage at just after 11 am, and duly took possession of the sound moderator, and three other exhibits, all given the exhibit references of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, by the exhibits officer. One nutter on the forum is still insisting that DS Jones did not return to whf on the morning of the shootings once he had gone to Jeremys cottage, but that nutter is simply out to cause mischief. According to the nutter, everyone who says anything which sheds a poor light on anything relied upon at trial to help convict Bamber as the killer, are all liars, but what does he know? He doesn't even agree with true facts like DS Jones returning back to the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, but here is an extract taken from DS Jones typed witness statement, dated 3rd October 1985, page 3:- I then left DC Clark and Bamber and returned to white house farm. I then left white house farm and at about 11.15am the same day I went to 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, where I saw Bamber, DC Clark and a woman who I now know to be Ann Eaton"...
-
You don't know what you are talking about, you are not a firearms expert, your talking rubbish as usual...
I own and use firearms. You on the other hand make up nonsense upon nonsense from claiming the ammunition purchased by Nevill was not 22LR (even going so far as to assert he bought 22 short so that it could be loaded in manually instead of using the magazine) to your bogus claim regarding follower marks to your bogus claims regarding crimp marks.
you have no evidence of an experts making these claims to the courts because these claims are not valid.
You engage in smoke and mirrors instead of a frank discussion of the actual evidence and facts.
-
Ds Jones returned to the scene from Jeremy's cottage at just after 11 am, and duly took possession of the sound moderator, and three other exhibits, all given the exhibit references of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, by the exhibits officer. One nutter on the forum is still insisting that DS Jones did not return to whf on the morning of the shootings once he had gone to Jeremys cottage, but that nutter is simply out to cause mischief. According to the nutter, everyone who says anything which sheds a poor light on anything relied upon at trial to help convict Bamber as the killer, are all liars, but what does he know? He doesn't even agree with true facts like DS Jones returning back to the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, but here is an extract taken from DS Jones typed witness statement, dated 3rd October 1985, page 3:- I then left DC Clark and Bamber and returned to white house farm. I then left white house farm and at about 11.15am the same day I went to 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, where I saw Bamber, DC Clark and a woman who I now know to be Ann Eaton"...
He didn't take any exhibits on the days of the murder. Exhibit SBJ/1 was received from the family on Aug 12 and was cataloged as SBJ/1 on 8/13. SBJ/2-4 were taken subsequent to this. Jones didn't take anything from WHF on the day of the murders only the crime scene officers did such.
On top of making up that Jones took the moderator and other exhibits from WHF on this day you harm you credibility even more with the absurd allegation that Taff Jones kept the moderator at his desk for a month as a paperweight. It is bad enough your claims are not based on any evidence but rather made up from thin air but worse you don't even make up things that make any sense.
-
I own and use firearms So do many murderers, robbers and terrorists, but that don't mean they know jack shit about ballistics. You on the other hand make up nonsense upon nonsense from claiming the ammunition purchased by Nevill Entries in the Dealors register, and Ralph Bambers firearms certificate, and the bill of sale, do not describe the ammunition sold to Ralph Bamber, as .22LR ammunition. Furthermore, the prosecution ballistic expert, Fletcher does not refer to the cartridge cases as all being .22LR , and in his hand written notes, and the typed version of his witness statement, Fletcher does not describe the individual cases as .22LR cartridge cases, he simply refers to the all as cartridge cases was not 22LR (even going so far as to assert he bought 22 short so that it could be loaded in manually instead of using the magazine) to your bogus claim regarding follower marks None of the cartridge cases which have ended up as part of the crime scene ammunition had a follower plate mark present upon them, evidence that some of the original cartridge cases bearing these marks have almost certainly been substituted, swapped, or replaced to your bogus claims regarding crimp marks Crimping marks upon the cartridge case and base of the bullet head exist and can be scientifically verified and relied upon to confirm or disprove that the bullets and the spent cartridge cases belonged to the same type and batch of ammunition, experts exist who can do such work, so your puny attempt to try and suggest it can't be done exposes you for what you are .
you have no evidence of an experts You have no idea what I have got, or what I can get access too making these claims to the courts because these claims are not valid New evidence has not yet been put before any court yet, so if I were you I'd keep my trap shut until such time as they have .
You engage in smoke and mirrors instead of a frank discussion of the actual evidence and facts No, it is you who constantly seeks to turn the new evidence into smoke and mirrors, you are basically a dick head, who knows nothing much .
-
He didn't take any exhibits on the days of the murder He did, he took possession of four seperate ones, which the exhibits officer labelled SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 on some subsequent occasion. DS Jones did not give these 4 items those exhibit references, he just seized them, or took them . Exhibit SBJ/1 was received from the family on Aug 12 No, you are again wrong, DS Jones nor Peter EATon gave that silencer an exhibit reference at all. In fact, according to DI Cooks account, there was no exhibit label fixed to the sound moderator which he took to the lab' on 13th August 1985, non at all, so Cook a fixed a brown coloured CJA label upon which Cook wrote, SJ/1, he did not write SBJ /1. Cook explains this to the COLP investigators in 1991.and was cataloged as SBJ/1 on 8/13 No, it was not, it was given the exhibit reference of SJ/1 on this date, and as Cook explains to the COLP investigators in 1991, he labelled that Silencer SJ/1 on that occasion because he was not aware that DS Jones had a middle christian name of Brian. I am not bothered whether you choose to believe this or not, all that matters to me, is that what I am saying is true. It's Cooks truth, and its my truth, and to hell with your own opposing truth . SBJ/2-4 were taken subsequent to this. Jones didn't take anything from WHF on the day of the murders He did, you nut jack, he took possession of the 4 exhibits I have been telling you about only the crime scene officers did such Again, that is not true, and to hell with what you think, or what your going to say in response .
On top of making up that Jones took the moderator and other exhibits from WHF on this day You really must be a nut jack to keep making up things which are definately not true like this, it wasn't all that long ago you were saying that DS Jones never left 9 Head Street to return to the scene on the morning of the 7th August 1985. You posted untruth after untruth declaring that I was a liar, and that I was making it up, but even though I kept assuring you that I was not making anything up, you continued to keep pouring all that garbage about me being the liar, when as it now stands you yourself have been exposed as the liar you harm you credibility I am not bothered what the likes of you think about me, it's irrellevant even more with the absurd allegation that Taff Jones kept the moderator at his desk for a month as a paperweight Now, which sound moderator are you referring to?. It is bad enough your claims are not based on any evidence Official documentary content is evidence, whether you like it or not, get real, stop making nonsense up but rather made up from thin air but worse you don't even make up things that make any sense You must have got a weird notion about what makes sense, or what doesn't .
-
Entries in the Dealors register, and Ralph Bambers firearms certificate, and the bill of sale, do not describe the ammunition sold to Ralph Bamber, as .22LR ammunition. Furthermore, the prosecution ballistic expert, Fletcher does not refer to the cartridge cases as all being .22LR , and in his hand written notes, and the typed version of his witness statement, Fletcher does not describe the individual cases as .22LR cartridge cases, he simply refers to the all as cartridge cases
1) The dealer says that on the firearms certificate he recorded that Nevill purchased 500 rounds of Eley 22 long rifle Subsonic Hollow Points. 22 long rifle is 22LR written out. You have produced nothing to contradict this you have failed at proving you have a copy of Nevill's firearm certificate which means either you made up having a copy or it states what the firearms dealer claims so you won't post it because it proves you a liar.
2) The gun purchased was chambered in 22LR so by definition that means the Eley subsonic hollow points purchased were 22LR
3) Eley didn't make subsonic hollow points in other 22 cartridges only 22LR.
4) Fletcher stated the 300 plus rounds of unfired ammunition were Eley 22LR subsonic Hollow points.
5) Fletcher stated the 25 cases used in commission of the murders were Eley brand and were identical to the cases of the unfired cartridges.
Your babble totally falls apart upon inspection of the evidence.
None of the cartridge cases which have ended up as part of the crime scene ammunition had a follower plate mark present upon them, evidence that some of the original cartridge cases bearing these marks have almost certainly been substituted, swapped, or replaced
Complete nonsense. I have challenged you to post a reputable publication be it a book or journal article on ballistics which mentions follower marks having to be on the last case fired by a magazine and that the absence of such proves no cartridge was the last cartridge in the magazine. You can't because such is sheer nonsense.
Crimping marks upon the cartridge case and base of the bullet head exist and can be scientifically verified and relied upon to confirm or disprove that the bullets and the spent cartridge cases belonged to the same type and batch of ammunition, experts exist who can do such work, so your puny attempt to try and suggest it can't be done exposes you for what you are .
How much a bullet breaks up or expands determines whether crimping marks on bullets can even be found on a bullet fragment. Crimping marks do not allow matching a bullet to a particular cartridge.
You have no idea what I have got, or what I can get access too so if I were you I'd keep my trap shut until such time as they have .
You have a big mouth and think if you should lies louder than anyone can shout the truth it will accomplish something but it doesn't. Evidence speaks louder than words and you have none just unsupported allegations that make no sense and are contradictory.
-
1) The dealer says that on the firearms certificate he recorded that Nevill purchased 500 rounds of Eley 22 long rifle Subsonic Hollow Points No, that is not what is recorded at all, in the day to day registry.... 22 long rifle is 22LR written out I disagree, it does not say that at all in the day register . You have produced nothing to contradict this you have failed at proving you have a copy of Nevill's firearm certificate I have Ralphs firearms certificate, it does not state that which you allege which means either you made up having a copy I have not made up anything, how many times do you need me to keep telling you that everything I have said is true or it states what the firearms dealer claims No, the firearms certificate in Ralph Bambers name, simply states ".22 subsonic", that's all so you won't post it because it proves you a liar I am not a liar, it is recorded as ".22 subsonic"....
2) The gun purchased was chambered in 22LR so by definition that means the Eley subsonic hollow points purchased were 22LR So, says you, but all the records at source refer to the ammunition sold to Ralph Bamber as .22 subsonic
3) Eley didn't make subsonic hollow points in other 22 cartridges they did, they produced 35 grain cartridges at a time when there was a shortage of .22 rimfire ammunition, worldwide...only 22LR.
4) Fletcher stated the 300 plus rounds of unfired ammunition were Eley 22LR subsonic Hollow points Not in his handwritten notes, he didn't, he simply refers to the individual cartridge cases, as .22 cartridge cases....
5) Fletcher stated the 25 cases used in commission of the murders were Eley brand This was at a time, after cartridge cases were switched in a substitution program, with test fired cartridge cases fired in the anshuzt rifle in what is now known as the unofficial test fire of the anshuzt rifle with Eley control ammunition, followed by an official test fire, again using the anshuzt rifle and Eley control ammunition, and comparison tests were done involving marks found on the unofficial substituted cartridge cases, against markings found on the official test fired Eley control ammunition, with the inevitable conclusion that replaced cartridge cases, and official test fire cases had been fired via the same gun - they used a common trick to fool everybody into thinking that this had been a one good crime, which it wasn't and were identical to the cases of the unfired cartridges.
Your babble totally falls apart upon inspection of the evidence But you haven't properly inspected the evidence which I rely upon - what you do, is alter the material I am relying upon, turning it into something it is not, because without altering it you would be dumbstruck. So, you change the evidence by including things what you say, pretending that I said what you said, and then like the proper nut jack that you are, you call me a liar. Well, carry on nutjack, carry on, at the end of the day you are calling yourself a liar, because you have fraudulently altered what I have said, and then you accuse me of saying the things that you yourself have made up and altered....
Complete nonsense. I have challenged you to post a reputable publication be it a book or journal article on ballistics which mentions follower marks having to be on the last case fired by a magazine and that the absence of such proves no cartridge was the last cartridge in the magazine. You can't because such is sheer nonsense. Nutjack, you keep looking for that material yourself, no doubt if you don't find it, you'll deny that you even looked for it, carry on, it's an open playing field, make up whatever you feel you need to, it'll all be garbage in any event...
How much a bullet breaks up or expands determines whether crimping marks on bullets can even be found on a bullet fragment. Crimping marks do not allow matching a bullet to a particular cartridge They do, when the ammunition in question has been manufactured by a different ammunition manufacturer .
You have a big mouth and think if you should lies louder than anyone can shout the truth it will accomplish something but it doesn't. Evidence speaks louder than words and you have none just unsupported allegations that make no sense and are contradictory So says you, who cannot accept real evidence that is documented in the gun dealers register, on the bill of sale, and in Ralph Bambers firearms certificate, and in the hand written notes of Fletcher, where he describes them as .22 cartridges.
-
He did, he took possession of four seperate ones, which the exhibits officer labelled SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. DS Jones did not give these 4 items those exhibit references, he just seized them, or took them.
Post evidence. You were not present so you can't have seen him take them. You claim he took them but no one recorded it anywhere so how could you know this? In order to establish you didn't simply make the claim up or someone else didn't make it up you need to reveal evidence upon which this claim is based. You have no such evidence this claim was simply made up.
The documentary evidence from police documents assert SBJ/1 was received from Peter Eaton by Stan Jones on Aug 12 and that on Aug 13 Jones transferred it to Cook to catalog it into evidence and to send it to the lab the same day. Lab documentary evidence indicates it was received by the lab that day and that on the following day (Aug 14) police were notified that human blood was found inside/outside the moderator and paint was on the knurled tip. SBJ/2-4 were recorded as being taken at later dates.
Your claims are not supported by any of this evidence and in fact are refuted by this evidence. So you need to produce evidence that refutes the police evidence. You have none you just keep making allegations of things you can't possibly know happened without any basis for claiming they happened.
As the proponent of revisionist claims contrary to the documented evidence in this case you bear the burden or proof but have no proof. You have no documents that support your claims nor any witnesses.
"Exhibit SBJ/1 was received from the family on Aug 12"
No, you are again wrong, DS Jones nor Peter EATon gave that silencer an exhibit reference at all. In fact, according to DI Cooks account, there was no exhibit label fixed to the sound moderator which he took to the lab' on 13th August 1985, non at all, so Cook a fixed a brown coloured CJA label upon which Cook wrote, SJ/1, he did not write SBJ /1. Cook explains this to the COLP investigators in 1991.
This is a perfect example of you making a strawman argument and also lying. A straman argument is an argument someone didn't make but you pretend they made in order to pretend you are proving them wrong and this is done to deflect from the actual arguments. I never claimed that Eaton or Jones stuck a label on the moderator. I said that Eaton gave it to Jones on the 12th and Jones presented it to Cook on the 13th for Cook to catalog and then send to the lab. SO far from proving me wrong you simply confirmed what I said about it being given to Cook and him cataloging it and sending it to the lab. You are outright lying about Cook's COLP statement He said he recorded SBJ/1 on the label. He said he wrote in his notes he was going to label it SJ/1 HOWEVER he learned that Jones has a middle initial so he ended up recording it as SBJ/1. I have proved you a liar on this so many times that it boggles the mind you continue to lie about it. It just demonstrates you lack integrity and credibility.
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/vg8yxzb75/cook2.jpg)
(http://s9.postimg.org/usdb275v3/cook3.jpg)
-
Post evidence. You were not present so you can't have seen him take them. You claim he took them but no one recorded it anywhere so how could you know this? In order to establish you didn't simply make the claim up or someone else didn't make it up you need to reveal evidence upon which this claim is based. You have no such evidence this claim was simply made up. The other three exhibits taken from the scene by DS Jones on morning of 7th August 1985, were logged in the original MAJOR INCIDENT PROPERTY REGISTER, that is, items SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, yet for some reason, no item bearing exhibit SBJ/1 is recorded there, so if DS Jones seized items SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 at the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, what other item did DS Jones take from whf that morning, bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1? Just answer me that very basic enquiry...
The documentary evidence from police documents assert SBJ/1 was received from Peter Eaton by Stan Jones on Aug 12 No, it does not assert that at all. Since, on the 13th August 1985, when Cook took that silencer to the lab' to be examined by Howard, he told COLP there was no exhibit label at all attached to that particular silencer, despite it allegedly having been found 3 days previously? Cook had to attach his own exhibit label onto that silencer, and he marked it on that date with the exhibit reference SJ/1. It is misleading and totally inaccurate to suggest that there was only one silencer, and that it was found as long ago as 10th August and had always had the exhibit mark of SBJ/1. How odd then that on the 30th November 1985, police send a silencer to the lab', now bearing the identifying mark of DB/1, and much later, another silencer sent along to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, bearing an exhibit refrence of DRB/1and that on Aug 13 Jones transferred it to Cook to catalog it into evidence and to send it to the lab the same day Not as exhibit SBJ/1, it was not.... Lab documentary evidence indicates it was received by the lab that day and that on the following day (Aug 14) police were notified that human blood was found inside/outside the moderator and paint was on the knurled tip. SBJ/2-4 were recorded as being taken at later dates. Not true, you haven't got a grasp of how all these different silencers have been merged together as being one and the same, but the truth is that they have...
Your claims are not supported by any of this evidence Yes, my claims are supported by documents in my possession and in fact are refuted by this evidence After you have altered its contents . So you need to produce evidence that refutes the police evidence. Easy You have none So, says you you just keep making allegations of things you can't possibly know happened without any basis for claiming they happened. So, says you
As the proponent of revisionist claims contrary to the documented evidence in this case you bear the burden or proof but have no proof Don't worry about me, I have all the support and evidence I need to prove everything I am saying . You have no documents that support your claims nor any witnesses.
This is a perfect example of you making a strawman argument and also lying. A straman argument is an argument someone didn't make but you pretend they made in order to pretend you are proving them wrong and this is done to deflect from the actual arguments. I never claimed that Eaton or Jones stuck a label on the moderator. I said that Eaton gave it to Jones on the 12th and Jones presented it to Cook on the 13th for Cook to catalog and then send to the lab. SO far from proving me wrong you simply confirmed what I said about it being given to Cook and him cataloging it and sending it to the lab. You are outright lying about Cook's COLP statement He said he recorded SBJ/1 on the label. He said he wrote in his notes he was going to label it SJ/1 HOWEVER he learned that Jones has a middle initial so he ended up recording it as SBJ/1. I have proved you a liar on this so many times that it boggles the mind you continue to lie about it. It just demonstrates you lack integrity and credibility.
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/vg8yxzb75/cook2.jpg)
(http://s9.postimg.org/usdb275v3/cook3.jpg)
-
"1) The dealer says that on the firearms certificate he recorded that Nevill purchased 500 rounds of Eley 22 long rifle Subsonic Hollow Points"
No, that is not what is recorded at all in the day to day registry....
Again with your strawman deflections and distortions. I am discussing what the dealer said he wrote on the firearms certificate. You either don't have a copy of that certificate thus are in no position to be able to contradict him or have a copy of the certificate but refuse to post it because it confirms what the dealer said and you want to continue to lie and pretend it doesn't state such.
In the meantime the dealer book states 22 Subsonic Hollow Points which means 22LR Subsonic Hollow Points because it is the only Subsonic Hollow points that were being marketed by Eley and more importantly the gun sold to Nevill was chambered in 22LR. Your suggestions that though Nevill wanted ammunition for the rifle he purchased, he was sold ammunition of a different type than his rifle used is ABSURD. He was sold ammunition to use in his rifle, that rifle was chambered in 22LR and thus he was sold 500 rounds of 22LR ammunition. It went without saying that it was 22LR which is why he didn't bother to record it in his sales book as 22LR.
Your nonsense would be akin to looking at the receipt from when I bought my M1911 .45 Colt Pistol and 200 rounds of 45 caliber ammunition and seeing 45 caliber ammo on the receipt and then suggesting that because the receipt doesn't specify it is 45 APC that I likely bought 45 Long ammunition even though that is for a Colt revolver not the pistol I purchased. You are simply trying to play stupid games and look like a dishonest fool by so doing.
22 long rifle is 22LR written out I disagree, it does not say that at all in the day register .
It doesn't have to be written out. 22LR is the default when someone refers to .22 rimfire. He wrote the Anschutz 525 was .22 caliber. The Anschutz 525 is chambered ONLY in 22LR it is not made by the manufacturer in any other caliber. He was referring to 22LR when he wrote 22 caliber for the rifle and when he wrote it for the ammunition. You are just playing stupid games that lead no where.
No, the firearms certificate in Ralph Bambers name, simply states ".22 subsonic", that's all so you won't post it because it proves you a liar I am not a liar, it is recorded as ".22 subsonic"....
Eley only made subsonic in 22LR and 22 short. By your own admission it doesn't state 22 Short subsonic. ".22" means 22LR. It is the default .22 rimfire cartridge. When talking about ANY other cartridge the suffix has to be mentioned. 22 Short is not called simply "22" . The gun was chambered in 22LR and that is the ammunition the dealer sold to Nevill. You are just humiliating yourself suggesting he sold a different caliber than the weapon utilized.
"2) The gun purchased was chambered in 22LR so by definition that means the Eley subsonic hollow points purchased were 22LR"
So, says you, but all the records at source refer to the ammunition sold to Ralph Bamber as .22 subsonic
So says the dealer- the dealers said .22 means 22LR on the forms and logic and custom confirm his claims. It is custom to call .22LR simply ".22" or ".22 rimfire". It is illogical to sell him different ammunition than the rifle used.
"3) Eley didn't make subsonic hollow points in other 22 cartridges only 22LR"
they did, they produced 35 grain cartridges at a time when there was a shortage of .22 rimfire ammunition, worldwide....
Your source claims the 35 grain bullets are 22LR genius and in the meantime your source is wrong the actual grain was 37.5 or 40 depending upon which 22LR Hollow Point was being purchased.
"4) Fletcher stated the 300 plus rounds of unfired ammunition were Eley 22LR subsonic Hollow points" Not in his handwritten notes, he didn't, he simply refers to the individual cartridge cases, as .22 cartridge cases....
So what, he can write any short hand he feels like in his notes. He is free to write .22 instead of 22LR anytime he wants- they mean the same exact thing. If someone used the term .22 unless otherwise specified they mean 22LR. You want to ignore his report simply because it proves you wrong.
5) This was at a time, after cartridge cases were switched in a substitution program, with test fired cartridge cases fired in the anshuzt rifle in what is now known as the unofficial test fire of the anshuzt rifle with Eley control ammunition, followed by an official test fire, again using the anshuzt rifle and Eley control ammunition, and comparison tests were done involving marks found on the unofficial substituted cartridge cases, against markings found on the official test fired Eley control ammunition, with the inevitable conclusion that replaced cartridge cases, and official test fire cases had been fired via the same gun - they used a common trick to fool everybody into thinking that this had been a one good crime, which it wasn't and were identical to the cases of the unfired cartridges.
You have zero support for these allegations they are simply unsupported allegations made up based on nothing other than the desire to pretend that Jeremy was framed and the allegations make no sense at all.
The only unfired 22LR ammunition at WHF before and after the murders was the ammunition purchased by Nevill. The only 22LR gun present to be used in the murders was the ammunition purchased by Nevill. The spent ammunition used int he murders was the ammunition purchased by Nevill. The only 22LR chambered firearm at WHF during and after the murders was the Anschutz.
Your claims to the contrary are not only baseless but worse make no sense and are totally ridiculous. If police found evidence that another weapon and ammunition were brought to the scene and used it would further prove their claims that Sheila wasn't the killer and that woudl further undermine Jeremy's babble about having received a phone call from Nevill claiming sheila was running around with his rifle. Police would not doctor such evidence to Jeremy's benefit. Your claims make zero sense on top of having zero evidentiary support.
But you haven't properly inspected the evidence which I rely upon - what you do, is alter the material I am relying upon, turning it into something it is not, because without altering it you would be dumbstruck. So, you change the evidence by including things what you say, pretending that I said what you said, and then like the proper nut jack that you are, you call me a liar. Well, carry on nutjack, carry on, at the end of the day you are calling yourself a liar, because you have fraudulently altered what I have said, and then you accuse me of saying the things that you yourself have made up and altered....
You haven't posted any evidence to support your claims. Everything you have cited proves the complete opposite of what you assert. You keep intentionally distorting such as trying to sell the absurd tale that Nevill purchased ammo for his rifle that his rifle would not be able to fire. His rifle was chambered in 22LR and that is what Nevill purchased. Your supposed evidence that he didn't doesn't hold up. The "22" on the paperwork means 22LR. The seller said so and the 300 plus rounds of unfired 22LR ammunition at WHF prove it. You are playing worthless games.
Your lied about Cook telling COLP he attached a label marked SJ/1 doesn't hold up either. He stated that he wrote SBJ/1 on the label and on the Holab form. Since this was pointed out so many times to you it means you are not merely wrong but intentionally lying.
In the meantime you offer ZERO evidence that Jones took the moderator from the scene on the day of the murders and zero evidence that bullets and casings were switched by the lab. I am not misreading your proof you offer no proof for such claims. You have no evidentiary basis for such claims these allegations are simply made up out of thin air.
"Complete nonsense. I have challenged you to post a reputable publication be it a book or journal article on ballistics which mentions follower marks having to be on the last case fired by a magazine and that the absence of such proves no cartridge was the last cartridge in the magazine. You can't because such is sheer nonsense."
Nutjack, you keep looking for that material yourself, no doubt if you don't find it, you'll deny that you even looked for it, carry on, it's an open playing field, make up whatever you feel you need to, it'll all be garbage in any event...
You bear the burden of proof as the proponent of the claim. You can't post anything in support of this because it is nonsense. I don't need to prove a negative you bear the burden of proving it.
"How much a bullet breaks up or expands determines whether crimping marks on bullets can even be found on a bullet fragment. Crimping marks do not allow matching a bullet to a particular cartridge"
They do, when the ammunition in question has been manufactured by a different ammunition manufacturer .
You have not produced any evidence that any of the bullet fragments even had crimping marks remaining let alone that it could be demonstrated the bullets were a different brand by such. In the meantime you contradict yourself and claim they were switched.
You have zero basis to make any claims. You just make crap up and that's that.
So says you, who cannot accept real evidence that is documented in the gun dealers register, on the bill of sale, and in Ralph Bambers firearms certificate, and in the hand written notes of Fletcher, where he describes them as .22 cartridges.
It says .22 Anschutz and .22 cartridges. Both mean 22LR- .22= 22LR. The same way when I say my .45 pistol I mean .45 ACP. You are simply playing worthless games and they make you look like a dishonest clown.
-
(YOU SAID THIS) The dealer says that on the firearms certificate he recorded that Nevill purchased 500 rounds of Eley 22 long rifle Subsonic Hollow Points"
(I SAID THIS)..No, that is not what is recorded at all in the day to day registry....
Again with your strawman deflections and distortions. I am discussing what the dealer said he wrote on the firearms certificate. You either don't have a copy of that certificate thus are in no position to be able to contradict him or have a copy of the certificate but refuse to post it because it confirms what the dealer said and you want to continue to lie and pretend it doesn't state such.
Here you are, attributing things you said as though I said it, you are an obnoxious individual who appears not to have any scruples. You do what you want twisting the truth to show support for the dodgy evidence relied upon to convict an innocent man for these murders...
You say things, then dishonestly imply that I said what you said, DUMBO, ER DER, ER DER, ER DER...
-
The other three exhibits taken from the scene by DS Jones on morning of 7th August 1985, were logged in the original MAJOR INCIDENT PROPERTY REGISTER, that is, items SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, yet for some reason, no item bearing exhibit SBJ/1 is recorded there, so if DS Jones seized items SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 at the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, what other item did DS Jones take from whf that morning, bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1? Just answer me that very basic enquiry...
There is nothing logged into any property register as being taken from WHF on August 7 by Stan Jones or anything taken period by him from anywhere on August 7 and logged into evidence. SBJ/1 is the first item he took and that pertains to the moderator he tool from the Eatons. SBJ/2-4 are recorded as being taken by him SUBSEQUENT to SBJ/1. You are lying about this just like you keep lying about what Cook told COLP.
"The documentary evidence from police documents assert SBJ/1 was received from Peter Eaton by Stan Jones on Aug 12"
No, it does not assert that at all. Since, on the 13th August 1985, when Cook took that silencer to the lab' to be examined by Howard, he told COLP there was no exhibit label at all attached to that particular silencer, despite it allegedly having been found 3 days previously? Cook had to attach his own exhibit label onto that silencer, and he marked it on that date with the exhibit reference SJ/1.
Cook is the crime scene officer it is his job to attach the labels and to record the items. He was not on duty when Stan Jones retrieved the moderator from the Eatons so he stored it until the next day and on that day transferred it to Cook. I posted the excerpts from Cook's statement regarding it, he said he wrote SBJ/1 on the label and the Holab form not SJ/1. You keep lying about this like you lie about so much else. AS plain as day he said that he planned to write SJ/1 but he learned the middle name of Jones and thus recorded SBJ/1 on the label and Holab forms. The funny thing is you continue lying through your teeth even when evidence is posted proving you are lying. That doesn't help your image at all.
The last line states as clear as day it was marked SBJ/1 and this is from his COLP interview:
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
It is misleading and totally inaccurate to suggest that there was only one silencer, and that it was found as long ago as 10th August and had always had the exhibit mark of SBJ/1. How odd then that on the 30th November 1985, police send a silencer to the lab', now bearing the identifying mark of DB/1, and much later, another silencer sent along to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, bearing an exhibit refrence of DRB/1and that on Aug 13 Jones transferred it to Cook to catalog it into evidence and to send it to the lab the same day Not as exhibit SBJ/1, it was not....
No it is misleading to keep lying as you do. Only one moderator was at WHF at the time of the murders and after. It was turned over by the Eatons to Stan Jones on the 12th of August. It was initially labeled SBJ/1 because Jones was unsure who found it. Later after it was ascertained the finder was Boutflour it was changed to DB/1 but because the initials DB were already in use his middle initial was added and it was changed to DRB/1. Your claims are complete nonsense that COLP prove false in 1991. You carry on with the same disproved lies no matter what.
"Lab documentary evidence indicates it was received by the lab that day and that on the following day (Aug 14) police were notified that human blood was found inside/outside the moderator and paint was on the knurled tip. SBJ/2-4 were recorded as being taken at later dates."
Not true, you haven't got a grasp of how all these different silencers have been merged together as being one and the same, but the truth is that they have...
It is absolutely true that SBJ2-4 were collected and logged into evidence subsequent to SBJ/1 being sent to the lab. It is thus absolutely true that your claim SBJ/1-4 were taken from WHF by Jones on the day of the murders is false.
There was only 1 moderator at WHF and if there had been more there still would not have been any need to hide such. You keep parroting allegations that never made a lick of sense that were proved wrong long ago.
"Your claims are not supported by any of this evidence"
Yes, my claims are supported by documents in my possession
Nonsense. The claim you have documents proving items were seized by Jones on August 7 is not in the least bit believable. If you actually had such documents you would have posted them by now. In the meantime COLP would have had them first and would not have rejected the allegations if such evidence existed.
You have zilch to challenge the official account just allegations that make no sense and have already been proven false.
-
There is nothing logged into any property register as being taken from WHF on August 7 by Stan Jones or anything taken period by him from anywhere on August 7 and logged into evidence Yes, there is, how would you know considering you don't have possession of the documentary evidence confirming that What I say to be true . SBJ/1 is the first item he took and that pertains to the moderator he tool from the Eatons. SBJ/2-4 are recorded as being taken by him SUBSEQUENT to SBJ/ [/b] So, if we mistakenly accept what you say regarding this matter, then the sound moderator, could not ever have had the original exhibit reference of SJ/1 on 13th August 1985, when Cook took it along to the lab' to be shown to Glynis Howard? If we accept your proposition as being true, then David Boutflour cannot have found a sound moderator marked with the exhibit reference of DRB/1 at the scene 3 days previously bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1. Since, using your warped sense of logic, the sound moderator had the exhibit reference of SBJ/1 when it was taken to the lab' by Cook on the 13th August 1985, would that be a fair assessment of what you are trying to argue? [/b]1. You are lying about thisb Look, pea brain, I am not lying about anything, since if DAV d Boutflour found silencer DRB/1 at the scene on 10th August, then how come by the time the same silencer is supposedly handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on evening of 12th August 1985, both DS Jones, and Peter Eaton refer to the exhibit reference of that silencer, as having been DRB/1 at that time? If you are right, how could the silencer have had an exhibit defence of DRB/1 on the 10th August and the 12th August 1985, respectively, yet on the 13th August same year, it had a completely different exhibit label reference of SBJ/1, upon it? just like you keep lying about what Cook told COLP If what you claim, Cook told COLP investigators that the silencer had a label marked SBJ/1 by the time Cook had taken the silencer to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, then it would be an impossibility for David Boutfloyr, and others, to reference to the silencer bearing the exhibit reference of DRB/1, on any occasion beforehand. This in turn would cast very serious doubt upon the prosecution claim that all these different references to a different exhibit reference for any silencer prior to that 13th August silencer bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1. That silencer could not ever have had an exhibit reference of DRB/1, before it had ever been referred to as exhibit SBJ/1, so on any instance where it is claimed the silencer had an identifying mark of SBJ/1, the same silencer found by David Boutlour at the scene bearing an exhibit reference of DRB/1 beforehand has to be regarded as completely wrong, is that the gist of what you are saying? Because if that's what you are saying, you are more stupid than I first thought you are, since in the grand scheme of things, how on earth could the silencer found at the scene in a cupboard on the 10th August 1985, have attached to it by 10th August 1985, an exhibit label marked DRB/1, if three days later it had a contradictory exhibit reference SBJ/1 attached to it when Cook first took the silencer to the lab' to show it to Howard?.
If that be the case, then how on gods earth could David Boutfliur (10th August), and Peter Eaton (12th August)'refer to the exhibit reference of DRB/1; since Cook himself had no involvement with the silencer in question, prior to the 13th August 1985? The exhibit reference of that silencer can never have had a different label attached to it in any other occasion prior to the 13th August 1985, Otherwise you are suggesting that it is somewhat alright to keep referring to the wrong sequence of events insofar as the order which the prosecuting authorities say the various exhibit references had come into existence (SJ/1, then SBJ/1, followed by DB/1; then DRB/1?
Cook is the crime scene officer it is his job to attach the labels and to record the items. He was not on duty when Stan Jones retrieved the moderator from the Eatons so he stored it until the next day and on that day transferred it to Cook. I posted the excerpts from Cook's statement regarding it, he said he wrote SBJ/1 on the label and the Holab form not SJ/1. You keep lying about this like you lie about so much else. AS plain as day he said that he planned to write SJ/1 but he learned the middle name of Jones and thus recorded SBJ/1 on the label and Holab forms. The funny thing is you continue lying through your teeth even when evidence is posted proving you are lying. That doesn't help your image at all.
The last line states as clear as day it was marked SBJ/1 and this is from his COLP interview:
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
No it is misleading to keep lying as you do. Only one moderator was at WHF at the time of the murders and after. It was turned over by the Eatons to Stan Jones on the 12th of August. It was initially labeled SBJ/1 because Jones was unsure who found it. Later after it was ascertained the finder was Boutflour it was changed to DB/1 but because the initials DB were already in use his middle initial was added and it was changed to DRB/1. Your claims are complete nonsense that COLP prove false in 1991. You carry on with the same disproved lies no matter what.
It is absolutely true that SBJ2-4 were collected and logged into evidence subsequent to SBJ/1 being sent to the lab. It is thus absolutely true that your claim SBJ/1-4 were taken from WHF by Jones on the day of the murders is false.
There was only 1 moderator at WHF and if there had been more there still would not have been any need to hide such. You keep parroting allegations that never made a lick of sense that were proved wrong long ago.
Nonsense. The claim you have documents proving items were seized by Jones on August 7 is not in the least bit believable. If you actually had such documents you would have posted them by now. In the meantime COLP would have had them first and would not have rejected the allegations if such evidence existed.
You have zilch to challenge the official account just allegations that make no sense and have already been proven false.
-
What you are claiming is absolutely wrong, and very dishonest, since in the grand scheme of things, the exhibit reference to the silencer could never have existed other than in the following sequence, SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1; and lastly, DRB/1. Your version of events, ignores all this, and plummets head first, turning the sequence of events upside down, which is one of your traits, you alter and change things around when it suites your own purpose...
-
David Boutflour falsified the contents of his witness statement where he describes having found the silencer on 10th August as having the identifying exhibit reference DRB/1, at which time that exhibit could not have got the aforementioned exhibit reference (DRB/1)...
-
What you are claiming is absolutely wrong, and very dishonest, since in the grand scheme of things, the exhibit reference to the silencer could never have existed other than in the following sequence, SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1; and lastly, DRB/1. Your version of events, ignores all this, and plummets head first, turning the sequence of events upside down, which is one of your traits, you alter and change things around when it suites your own purpose...
All you are doing is projecting. You are the one lying through your teeth. You dishonestly assert there were multiple moderators at the scene which were merged into 1 which makes no sense. It makes no sense for there to have been more than 1 moderator there, there is no evidence more than 1 moderator had been there and there is no reason why police would have merged multiple moderators to conceal their finding.
Furthermore you keep lying about what Cook said in his statement. He said that he planned to issue SJ/1 to the moderator found by Boutflour but he found out Stan Jones' full initials and thus wound up issuing it a label mark SBJ/1 and wrote such on the Holab forms as well. You keep falsely claiming he issued a label bearing SJ/1 though he said no such thing he said SBJ/1. He said that it was later changed to DB/1 when they were put on notice of who actually found it but they subsequently realized prefix DB was already in use by David Bird so they added Boutflour's middle initial and change dit to DRB/1.
The lab actually has documentation reflecting police telling the about the changes. The police claims are all documented. Your lstupid allegaitons totally fall apart under scrutiny and reading Cook's statement reveals you are a liar you grossly misrepresent what he claimed. He never claimed writing up a label for the moderator with SJ/1 on it and writing such on the paperwork. He said he placed a label bearing SBJ/1 and wrote such on the Holab forms. Your lies simply render you a joke.
-
David Boutflour falsified the contents of his witness statement where he describes having found the silencer on 10th August as having the identifying exhibit reference DRB/1, at which time that exhibit could not have got the aforementioned exhibit reference (DRB/1)...
Your lies never cease I already proved you wrong about this countless times. It was changed to DB/1 in September and DRB/1 while it was at the lab in October or early November.
Boutflour's statement is dated November 17:
(http://s12.postimg.org/4up7vft7h/drbstatement.jpg)
The gun dealer's statement is November 16 and refers to it as DRB/1:
(http://s9.postimg.org/h74aipy0f/radcliff.jpg)
The moderator was transferred from the lab to the property room on November 13 and at the time this happened it had a label marked DRB/1:
(http://s13.postimg.org/4mm6yde3r/whiddon1.jpg)
(http://s7.postimg.org/aclgczfjf/whiddon2.jpg)
You have senseless allegations but no actual proof of anything.
-
"There is nothing logged into any property register as being taken from WHF on August 7 by Stan Jones or anything taken period by him from anywhere on August 7 and logged into evidence:
Yes, there is, how would you know considering you don't have possession of the documentary evidence confirming that What I say to be true .
The testimony of the officers and the COLP investigation make it quite clear you are lying and that is why you can't produce any evidence to back up your claims. Your assertion you possess such evidence but don't feel like posting it is not in the least bit credible. You bear the burden of proof, claiming you have evidence isn't sufficient you need to produce such evidence and it needs to withstand scrutiny. On those occasions you put forth your supposed evidence it always falls apart like your bogus claim that Cook slapped a sticker marked SJ/1 on the moderator received from the Eatons. The statement that you claim asserts such in fact asserts he slapped a label marked SBJ/1 and wrote same on the Holab forms. Your version of what your sources demonstrate and what they actually demonstrate are seldom the same. In the meantime you don't have any evidence for your most spectacular claims they are simply allegations built around wild speculation that ignores the actual evidence developed by COLP.
So, if we mistakenly accept what you say regarding this matter, then the sound moderator, could not ever have had the original exhibit reference of SJ/1 on 13th August 1985, when Cook took it along to the lab' to be shown to Glynis Howard?
Cook says he put a lable on it bearing "SBJ/1" He wrote on the forms submitted to the lab with the moderator that it was "SBJ/1". Glynnis Howard recorded in her documents that it was marked SBJ/1 when she received it on August 13. Howard told COLP that it was marked SBJ/1 when she received it. ALL the documentary evidence and testimony from those involved agree that it was marked SBJ/1 initially. Your SJ/1 claim is fictional- it is not supported by any of the documents or by any of the verbal testimony of the witnesses COLP spoke to. The ONLY person to reference SJ/1 was Cook and what he stated was that he planned to identify the moderator as SJ/1 but by the time he wrote up the label and paperwork he had found out Stan Jone's full initials and thus used SBJ/1 on the paperwork and label. Lying about this doesn't help you in any way so you might as well give it up already. You have spent more than 8 months arguing with me over this and each time I demonstrate your claims false. You fail to produce any evidence to demonstrate it was ever labeled SJ/1- no lab documents, no Holab forms, no verbal testimony, no witness statements identifying it as such... The ONLY thing you cite is the bogus claim that COok stated in his COLP statement that he labeled it SJ/1 but I proved he didn't claim such. I have proved he said it was marked SBJ/1 on the label and documents and proved it by posting the relevant portions of his statement. You won't address these snapshots you just ignore them and continue with claims people can see are nonsense. Such games are a waste of time.
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/vg8yxzb75/cook2.jpg)
If we accept your proposition as being true, then David Boutflour cannot have found a sound moderator marked with the exhibit reference of DRB/1 at the scene 3 days previously bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1. Since, using your warped sense of logic, the sound moderator had the exhibit reference of SBJ/1 when it was taken to the lab' by Cook on the 13th August 1985, would that be a fair assessment of what you are trying to argue?
What I am posting is the truth. The truth is that the moderator found by Boutflour was identified as SBJ/1 but in September after it was fully appreciated who found it then it was redesignated DB/1 but sometime in October or early November it was redesignated DRB/1 because the intials DB were already being used by David Bird. This is what COLP determined after a thorough investigation. You have zero evidence to refute that it was found by Boutflour on August 10 and turned over to the lab on August 13. You have zero evidence to refute the reason for the changes in designation that COLP found. You just make allegations that don't have any support at all and make no sense. They are the same allegations made by Bamber to COLP which COLP ended up rejecting as false after a thorough investigation..
Look, pea brain, I am not lying about anything, since if DAV d Boutflour found silencer DRB/1 at the scene on 10th August, then how come by the time the same silencer is supposedly handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on evening of 12th August 1985, both DS Jones, and Peter Eaton refer to the exhibit reference of that silencer, as having been DRB/1 at that time? If you are right, how could the silencer have had an exhibit defence of DRB/1 on the 10th August and the 12th August 1985, respectively, yet on the 13th August same year, it had a completely different exhibit label reference of SBJ/1, upon it?
Neither of them assert it bore a label period when it was handed to Jones let alone a label marked DRB/1. The label was created by Cook and placed on it right before he took it to the lab. Peter Eaton's first statement discussing his turning over of the moderator to police is dated November 4 and it doesn't even mention what the exhibit reference is. it simply says he turned over the moderator that had been found by Boutflour. His December 16 statement is the first to identify the exhibit number of the moderator and refers to it as DRB/1 because it was marked DRB/1 at the time of this statement. He doesn't assert it was marked DRB/1 at the time it was taken from him, it had no label or reference at that point in time. it didn't have a reference number until Cook labeled it on July 13. All documents create din August and early September refer to the moderator as SBJ/1. After the change to DB/1 the documents began referring to it as DB/1. After the change to DRB/1 the documents began referring to it as DRB/1. Some people unaware of the changes still referred to it by th eprior designation in some of their documents but once they learned of the changes they stopped and began referring to it under the current designation. No one referred to it by a latter designation before the change was even made.
If what you claim, Cook told COLP investigators that the silencer had a label marked SBJ/1 by the time Cook had taken the silencer to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, then it would be an impossibility for David Boutfloyr, and others, to reference to the silencer bearing the exhibit reference of DRB/1, on any occasion beforehand. This in turn would cast very serious doubt upon the prosecution claim that all these different references to a different exhibit reference for any silencer prior to that 13th August silencer bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1. That silencer could not ever have had an exhibit reference of DRB/1, before it had ever been referred to as exhibit SBJ/1, so on any instance where it is claimed the silencer had an identifying mark of SBJ/1, the same silencer found by David Boutlour at the scene bearing an exhibit reference of DRB/1 beforehand has to be regarded as completely wrong, is that the gist of what you are saying?
There are no instances where it was referred to as DRB/1 in August or September (before police assert it was changed to DRB/1). All references to DRB/1 are from periods of time after the change took place. You are spinning your wheels.
Because if that's what you are saying, you are more stupid than I first thought you are, since in the grand scheme of things, how on earth could the silencer found at the scene in a cupboard on the 10th August 1985, have attached to it by 10th August 1985, an exhibit label marked DRB/1, if three days later it had a contradictory exhibit reference SBJ/1 attached to it when Cook first took the silencer to the lab' to show it to Howard?.
No one is claiming it had a DRB/1 label on it at anytime in August or September. No one is claiming it had a label on it at all on the 10th of August. The police are the ones who put labels on evidence and they didn't even take it until August 12 and it was not until August 13 that Cook tagged it. He told COLP that he tagged it SBJ/1 and put SBJ/1 on the paperwork sent to the lab with it. he lab worker identified it as SBJ/1 on her paperwork and told COLP that is what was on it when she received it. It was not changed to DRB/1 until October or early November. The exact date is known by COLP but you won't release the full report to us because you don't want us to see the precise date they ascertained. We know it was changed to DB/1 in September the police notified the lab of the change towards the end of September. When they changed it form DB/1 to DRB/1 they also changed DB/2 and 3 to DRB/2 and 3. They didn't just change the moderator they changed the other items that were taken from Boutflour. DB/2 was the scope and DB/3 was unfired ammunition. These were changed to DRB/2 and 3 the same time the moderator was changed to DRB/1. There was nothing sinister going on their explanation for these changes was well supported. You keep trying to falsely suggest there are documents created in August and September referring to these items under the "DRB" prefix but that is false. They did amend documents at later dates but amending a document months later is far different from the original document containing an exhibit number not yet in existence. Your games are worthless.
If that be the case, then how on gods earth could David Boutfliur (10th August), and Peter Eaton (12th August)'refer to the exhibit reference of DRB/1; since Cook himself had no involvement with the silencer in question, prior to the 13th August 1985?
They didn't refer to it on those dates by that exhibit number or any exhibit number. This is just another of your absurd claims that you failed to use even a modicum of intelligence to conjure up.
The exhibit reference of that silencer can never have had a different label attached to it in any other occasion prior to the 13th August 1985, Otherwise you are suggesting that it is somewhat alright to keep referring to the wrong sequence of events insofar as the order which the prosecuting authorities say the various exhibit references had come into existence (SJ/1, then SBJ/1, followed by DB/1; then DRB/1?
It didn't have an exhibit label when Boutflour found it. He never claimed it had a label on it when he found it in the close you made such up like you make up so many absurd things. Nor did Peter Eaton claim it had a label on it when he handed it to Stan Jones on August 12. They don't claim it had a label let aloen a label marked DRB/1. You are just embarrassing yourself.
-
Your lies never cease I already proved you wrong about this countless times. You have not proved me wrong about anything I have ever spoken about. The truth of the matter is, that you have proved yourself wrong so many times with the nonsense and garbage that keeps coming out if your gob... It was changed to DB/1 in September and DRB/1 while it was at the lab in October or early November. hang on a minute bird brain, it got changed into DB/1 on 30th August 1985, didn't it?
Boutflour's statement is dated November 17: Yeah, but he refers to the silencer as DRB\1, at a time when the silencer was named as SJ/1 and then SBJ/1..,
(http://s12.postimg.org/4up7vft7h/drbstatement.jpg)
The gun dealer's statement is November 16 and refers to it as DRB/1:
(http://s9.postimg.org/h74aipy0f/radcliff.jpg)
The moderator was transferred from the lab to the property room on November 13 and at the time this happened it had a label marked DRB/1: from 20th September 1985, the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11th September, came into play and this was the first time Ralph Bambers parker hale silencer surfaced
(http://s13.postimg.org/4mm6yde3r/whiddon1.jpg)
(http://s7.postimg.org/aclgczfjf/whiddon2.jpg)
You have senseless allegations Wrong again but no actual proof of anything. How can you possibly profess to know that?
-
"Your lies never cease I already proved you wrong about this countless times. It was changed to DB/1 in September and DRB/1 while it was at the lab in October or early November."
You have not proved me wrong about anything I have ever spoken about. The truth of the matter is, that you have proved yourself wrong so many times with the nonsense and garbage that keeps coming out if your gob... hang on a minute bird brain, it got changed into DB/1 on 30th August 1985, didn't it?
I have proven you to be lying far too many times to count. I have proved beyond question you lied about Cook placing a label marked SJ/1 on it- he stated SBJ/1- you can't tell the truth to save your life.
As for the change to DB/1 the lab was notified in September. Whether the police changed it that exact day or earlier is unclear all that is known is that it changed by that date. The COLP report might specify the exact day of the change but you refuse to reveal the report because it proves all your claims to be nonsense. This is the same reason you refused to post part of the Dickinson report.
"Boutflour's statement is dated November 17"
Yeah, but he refers to the silencer as DRB\1, at a time when the silencer was named as SJ/1 and then SBJ/1..
It was never labeled SJ/1 it was initially SBJ/1 then renamed DB/1 in September and renamed DRB/1 prior to the date of his Nov 17 statement. It was known as DRB/1 at the time he gave his statement and was correctly identified as such in his statement.
"The moderator was transferred from the lab to the property room on November 13 and at the time this happened it had a label marked DRB/1:"
the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11th September, came into play and this was the first time Ralph Bambers parker hale silencer surfaced
There wasn't any moderator handed by Ann Eaton on September 11 this is more fiction from you.
-
I have proven you to be lying far too many times to count No, you haven't, so stop fooling yourself, what you have actually done is prove what a lying toe rag you yourself really is... I have proved beyond question you lied about Cook placing a label marked SJ/1 on it- you have proved no such thing, it would be impossible for you to be able to prove he didn't attach the label SJ/1, because he certainly did... he stated SBJ/1 Elsewhere he stated SBJ/1, he also claims he took silencer DRB/1 to the lab' on the same occasion on the 13th August 1985, which is also evidence that the exhibit label of the silencer is dodgy...- you can't tell the truth to save your life That's only your opinion, but since you don't recognise that you yourself can't see that you lie with every breath you take, what chance do you have of forming such an opinion about others? .
As for the change to DB/1 the lab was notified in September Silencer DB/1 sent to lab' on 30th August 1985, according to Cook . Whether the police changed it that exact day or earlier is unclear all that is known is that it changed by that date. there does not exist a paper trial of evidence confirming what you have said... The COLP report might specify the exact day of the change but you refuse to reveal the report because it proves all your claims to be nonsense how do you know that if you've not seen the report?. This is the same reason you refused to post part of the Dickinson report Again, how could you possibly know that, without seeing all the report? .
It was never labeled SJ/1 Yes, it was. Cook wrote SJ/1 on the brown CJA brown exhibit label at the lab', he wrote SJ/1 instead of SBJ/1 because he didn't know that DS Jones had got the middle Christian name of ' Brian'... it was initially SBJ/1 SJ/1 then renamed DB/1 in September and renamed DRB/1 SBJ/1 prior to the date of his Nov 17 statement. It was known as DRB/1 at the time he gave his statement Yes, it had been altered into DRB/1, from a date prior to the 17th November 1985 and was correctly identified as such in his statement and yet, he identified it by different exhibit references elsewhere in other police documents and records .
There wasn't any moderator handed by Ann Eaton on September 11 Yes, there was. She handed that silencer (DRB/1) over to the police on that date, after her brother David Boutflour contancted the police on the same date, or it could have been the day before, by telephone to tell the police that he had found a silencer. So, why was Boutflour phoning the police up on 11th September 1985, telling them that he had found a silencer, if the police already had the same silencer in question and they had already had it for nearly a month already? Furthermore, Ann Eaton handed over to police that very same date, all the other DRB exhibits,so put that in your pipe and smoke it... this is more fiction from you. how can I be blamed for what other people actually did? Are you for real?
-
"I have proved beyond question you lied about Cook placing a label marked SJ/1 on it"
you have proved no such thing, it would be impossible for you to be able to prove he didn't attach the label SJ/1, because he certainly did...
I proved it by posting his COLP statement. You claim that in this statement he indicated he marked it SJ/1 but in reality it clearly states he marked it SBJ/1. The evidence I posted proves you are lying about what he wrote.
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
Furthermore here is the actual Holab form which proves he told the truth in his COLP statement:
(http://s3.postimg.org/6dggd08df/holabform.jpg)
You misrepresented that in his COLP statement he said he labeled it SJ/1 and keep telling this lie on purpose despite the fact I nailed you to the wall countless times.
he also claims he took silencer DRB/1 to the lab' on the same occasion on the 13th August 1985, which is also evidence that the exhibit label of the silencer is dodgy...
More lies from you. He said he it was marked SBJ/1 when taken to the lab on August 13. He said the reference changed to DB/1 later on and then to DRB/1 subsequent to that. AFTER it became known as DRB/1 EVERYONE referred to it as that so said things like DRB/1 was taken to the lab on August 13, 1985. That doesn't mean he was claiming it was marked DRB/1 at the time it was taken there. You distort and distort and distort some more and the reason you distort is because you have nothing valid to raise to challenge the evidence with.
"As for the change to DB/1 the lab was notified in September"
Silencer DB/1 sent to lab' on 30th August 1985, according to Cook
Cook never said such in his COLP interview nor did he say it in court or in any of his statements. So this is just another baseless claim. The exact date they realized Boutflour found it and decided to change it to DB/1 doesn't matter anyway though.
"Whether the police changed it that exact day or earlier is unclear all that is known is that it changed by that date." there does not exist a paper trial of evidence confirming what you have said...
There is a document indicating the lab was told of the change to DB/1. There is also paperwork showing they crossed out SBJ/1 and changed it to DB/1 on various documents. any of them were retyped with the new designation and the same was done when the change to DRB/1 was effected.
There is no doubt at all that they changed the designation to DB/1 and then again to DRB/1.
"The COLP report might specify the exact day of the change but you refuse to reveal the report because it proves all your claims to be nonsense"
how do you know that if you've not seen the report?
I don't know if COLP ascertained the precise days the changes were decided upon. That is why I said maybe. There is no doubt though that the report REJECTED the allegations of multiple moderators and found that the moderator was initially labeled SBJ/1 then changed to DB/1 and finally DRB/1. That much is known for sure and that is why you won't post it. It rejected so many different allegations made by Jeremy which you continue to make despite the fact they were proved nonsense.
"This is the same reason you refused to post part of the Dickinson report" Again, how could you possibly know that, without seeing all the report?
Because it is well established that all of Jeremy's allegation were rejected by COLP just like it is well estbalished that all of the latest CCRC submisisons were thoroughly rejected by the CCRC. The defense refuses to release the CCRC's report because they don't want people to see the smackdown but we still know it happened. We know the Colp smackdown happened you just don't want us to see the full specifics of what was rejected and why. The index tells which portions of the Dickinson report you concealed and it was all the paragraphs that described the reinvestigation including the work done by the lab and all the portions related to the trial. You clearly didn't post these because they smash your nonsense.
"It was never labeled SJ/1"
Yes, it was. Cook wrote SJ/1 on the brown CJA brown exhibit label at the lab', he wrote SJ/1 instead of SBJ/1 because he didn't know that DS Jones had got the middle Christian name of ' Brian'...
That's not what he said in his COLP statement- in his COLP statement he said he figured out his middle initial and wrote it on the label and the Holab form confirms he labeled it SBJ/1
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/vg8yxzb75/cook2.jpg)
(http://s3.postimg.org/6dggd08df/holabform.jpg)
yet, he identified it by different exhibit references elsewhere in other police documents and records
He identified it as SBJ/1 initially. After the change was made to DB/1 he referred to it as such then after the change to DRB/1 he referred to it as such. There is nothing at all dodgy except in your imagination.
"There wasn't any moderator handed by Ann Eaton on September 11"
Yes, there was. She handed that silencer (DRB/1) over to the police on that date, after her brother David Boutflour contancted the police on the same date, or it could have been the day before, by telephone to tell the police that he had found a silencer. So, why was Boutflour phoning the police up on 11th September 1985, telling them that he had found a silencer, if the police already had the same silencer in question and they had already had it for nearly a month already?
Furthermore, Ann Eaton handed over to police that very same date, all the other DRB exhibits,so put that in your pipe and smoke it..
Boutflour didn't contact police in September claiming he found a moderator that needed to be picked up. This is another of your fictional claims. Likewise your claim that Ann Eaton gave police a moderator on the 11th is fictional- here is what was taken from her on September 11:
(http://s21.postimg.org/dyncsnxtz/oakey.jpg)
When they took the above items they failed to take some shotgun ammunition he wanted them to take so he had to notify them and he brought it to them the next day:
(http://s3.postimg.org/4stnye4bn/oakey2.jpg)
your lies are a waste of time.
-
Mention of the type of ammunition received by DC Oakey, was made on 2nd October 1985, and there was no evidence proving these were the very same cartridges at the scene at the time of the shootings...
-
Mention of the type of ammunition received by DC Oakey, was made on 2nd October 1985, and there was no evidence proving these were the very same cartridges at the scene at the time of the shootings...
The Eatons and Boutflours say it was the same ammunition they found int he cupboard at WHF. That is evidence it was such ammunition. Furthermore such ammunition is the same kind and brand the dealer said he sold Nevill and identical to the 30 rounds of unfired ammunition police seized from the kitchen.
You have no evidence to refute their claims just empty allegations. Those allegation not only are unsupported but worse make no sense at all.
-
The Eatons and Boutflours say it was the same ammunition they found int he cupboard at WHF. No they never say that in the way you allege, and besides what the gun dealer says he sold to Ralph Bamber is ambiguous, as was the manner with which Fletcher described the bullets and cartridge cases used in the shootings, again, ambiguous, depending upon the source relied upon That is evidence it was such ammunition there is evidence that these people describe the ammunition differently depending upon the source you refer to, so there is considerable doubt which can be placed on your point Furthermore such ammunition is the same kind and brand the dealer said he he says something different depending upon what source you rely upon - there is therefore considerable doubt cast upon your claims. sold Nevill and identical to the 30 rounds of unfired ammunition police seized from the kitchen. Again, it is not described at all sources as alleged by you, so your claims do not stand up to all the tests which can be levelled against all these claims of yours
You have no evidence to refute their claims Wrong, you can't even get that right just empty allegations. Those allegation not only are unsupported On the contrary, fully supported but worse make no sense at all. So, says you...
-
"The Eatons and Boutflours say it was the same ammunition they found int he cupboard at WHF."
No they never say that in the way you allege, and besides what the gun dealer says he sold to Ralph Bamber is ambiguous, as was the manner with which Fletcher described the bullets and cartridge cases used in the shootings, again, ambiguous, depending upon the source relied upon
The Eatons and Boutflours say the ammunition they turned in was found in the cupboard and the cop who accepted it recorded that is where they told him it came from. Suggesting otherwise is nonsense.
In the meantime Neither Fletcher nor the gun dealer were ambiguous. Both expressly stated in their statements Eley 22LR Subsonic Hollow Points. I posted the exact snapshots of their statements where they stated such. You want to pretend they were ambiguous to pretend the nonsense you post is not ruled out by their statements though it is.
there is evidence that these people describe the ammunition differently depending upon the source you refer to, so there is considerable doubt which can be placed on your point
Nonsense, 22 rimfire and 22LR are synonymous terms. Your suggestion Nevill purchased something other than 22LR for a rifle chambered in 22LR is patently absurd. In the meantime their statement trumps hand notes where they didn't need to be as specific because the hand notes were for their own benefit. Statements are written for an audience.
"Furthermore such ammunition is the same kind and brand the dealer said sold Nevill"
he says something different depending upon what source you rely upon - there is therefore considerable doubt cast upon your claims.
Saying .22 rimfire on some documents instead of 22 LR doesn't cast any doubt at all- both are the same. He wrote .22 Anschutz 525 which means 22LR because the Anschutz 525 is ONLY available in 22LR. You are desperately trying to pretend he could have meant something other than 22LR when that is impossible. Your games just render you a lying joke. He stated EXPRESSLy in his statement that he sold Nevill 500 rounds of Eley .22 long rifle Subsonic Hollow points. He knew what his records meant and posted such. You have zilch to contradict them just the complete nonsense claim that maybe he sold something other than 22LR though such would not work in the Anschutz and furtherore the others are NOT referred to as .22 rimfire simply that is reserved for 22LR. .22 short is called .22 short. .22CB is called .22CB. ...
"and identical to the 30 rounds of unfired ammunition police seized from the kitchen."
Again, it is not described at all sources as alleged by you, so your claims do not stand up to all the tests which can be levelled against all these claims of yours
You have nothing to refute my claims with besides lies. Your allegations are all unsupported nonsense and your claim by evidence doesn't stand for the proposition I assert is a giant lie. Here once again is what Fletcher wrote about the 30 rounds found in the kitchen- each time you lie about it I will post it again to demonstrate your lack of honesty:
(http://s11.postimg.org/5viqyjuqb/fletchereleysub.jpg)
(http://s7.postimg.org/610zi31kb/fletcher.jpg)
(http://s30.postimg.org/f4m7pcsox/radclstatement.jpg)
"You have no evidence to refute their claims just empty allegations. Those allegation not only are unsupported"
On the contrary, fully supported
You posted nothing in support, just nonsense allegations that make no sense.
-
It becomes very clear how police set about intending to deceive everyone over the silencer evidence. Not to be forgotten is that in the build up to Bambers 1986 trial, and during it, intact all the way until I became involved in the case in 1989, the silencer was only referred to by the exhibit reference of DRB/1. No information was disclosed to to indicate the volatile history associated with "IT". There was no suggestion that it had had its exhibit reference altered, from SJ/1, to SBJ/1, to DB/1, ending up as DRB/1. There was no suspicion, no acknowledgement that 'THIS' silencer (DRB/1) had at one time or another, it had been referred to by two different Lab' item numbers ( 22, 23, and back to 22). There was no mention at all the a silencer had been found at the scene on 7th August 1975. There was no mention that Ann Eaton had handed over silencer DRB/1 to police on 11th September 1975, or that her brother David Boutflour had not in fact phoned police on 10th September 1975, to report finding a gun silencer. No mention that DS Davidson and DS Eastwood had in fact fingerprinted the silencer on 14th September 1975, (DRB/1) handed to Police by Ann Eaton previously as stated. No mention that this very same silencer (DRB/1) had not in fact been sent along to the lab' until the 20th September 1985, and not physically examined by any expert until 25th September 1985. They kept all this key information secret so that blood and paint evidence could be wrongly linked to the Bamber family owned silencer, but they did not anticipate that years further down the line, someone like myself would come along and drag the truth about it out into the open...
By 20th September 1985, blood had already been found, analysed inside a silencer which had been present at Huntingdon Lab' ever since 30th August 1985; under an exhibit reference of DB/1, bearing a lav' item reference number 23. It was inside "THIS" silencer that the key blood evidence was found (DB/1 - 23), not the silencer still in the possession of relatives until 11th September, had been fingerprinted (14th September) and sent along to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers on the 20th September at which point the silencer (DRB/1) handed to police on the 11th September 1985 by Ann Eaton, then came into play for the very first time. You will no doubt realize that if the silencer handed to police on the 11th September 1985, that was not fingerprinted by police on 14th September, not sent along to the lab' for the very first time until after the key blood evidence had already been found inside the "OTHER" silencer (DB/1), a silencer which had been present at the lab' ever since 30th August1985. Blood from "THAT" silencer (DB/1 - 23) having already been removed and analysed on the following dates confirming blood group activity (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1975, the net conclusion being held that this collection of blood group activity belonged exclusively to Sheila Caffell, yet the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September, had not by "THAT STAGE", been sent along to the lab' until after the key blood evidence had already been found in the "OTHEr" silencer (DB/1 - 23)...
Sheila Caffells blood has been wrongly attributed to the silencer DRB/1 belonging to the Banner rifle, this can be proven by reference to the fact that all the key blood and paint evidence was associated to a different silencer at the lab' on dates before the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1) came into play on 11th September 1985, for the very first time...
You do not send a silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, requesting that it be checked for blood and fibers, if it was already at the lab' and had been there continually since 30th August, and blood had already been found inside that silencer (DB/1 - 23), blood had already been removed, and analysed between 12th and 19th September, and try to claim that there was only one silencer, one silencer upon which key blood evidence can be associated, when the silencer (DRB/1) it is being linked to, did not come onto the scene until it was much too late to have been the silencer (DB/1 - 23) thevkey blood evidence had been found inside. Silencer DB/1 - 23, and silencer DRB/1, were bit, and could never have been one and the same silencers for the reasons given. The relatives know that, Essex police know that, the COS know that, I know that / this, and everyone else should by now know that. The bottom line is that key blood evidence was not found in the so called Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1), it was found inside a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the relatives. Sheila Caffells blood was found in a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the accusers, which throws a different light in the question of, " Who killed the victims?
-
Careful study of all the facts exposes the manner with which police, relatives and bent lab' experts falsified the blood evidence attributing it to the wrong silencer (DRB/1) not sent to the lab' until it was too late to have found the key blood group activity inside it...
Get wise, don't be fooled by the practices adopted by this group of corrupted individuals....
-
In a reply to an email dated 6th April 2004, sent by myself to Essex police, Kim Perks, press officer, sent me the following reply, dated, 8th April 2004:-
Dear Mr Teskowski,
You emailed Essex police on April 6 with regard to the white house farm murders and questions about the silencers. Having consulted with the both the senior officer who oversaw the latest appeal and our force solicitor all I am able to say is that all parties connected with the case were made aware of the sound moderators and all the issues surrounding them, but that this detail is not a matter for public disclosure. I am sorry we are unable to assist you further on this occasion.
Regards
Kim Perks
Press Office
DDI: 01245 452455
Ext 50620
Mobile: 07850 882215
-
More or less the answer I got when I e-mailed them for information early this year. They're not giving anything away !!
-
In a reply to an email dated 6th April 2004, sent by myself to Essex police, Kim Perks, press officer, sent me the following reply, dated, 8th April 2004:-
Dear Mr Teskowski,
You emailed Essex police on April 6 with regard to the white house farm murders and questions about the silencers Note that I was enquiring into silencers, not only one silencer . Having consulted with the both the senior officer who oversaw the latest appeal and our force solicitor all I am able to say is that all parties connected with the case were made aware of the sound moderators and Note, this part of the response is very misleading because even to this date, (7 June 2015) Essex police have sought to conceal the truth about blood that was found inside one of the silencers belonging to a relative, was later attributed to the Bamber family owned silencer, so that they could focus on prosecuting Jeremy Bamber, instead of having to deal with another rifle belonging to one of the other relatives, ammunition which belonged to another relative, and a parker hale silencer belonging to one of the other relatives all the issues surrounding them, but Again, note the reference and admission that there were more than just one solitary silencer, having numerous different exhibit and lab' item numbers at different stages of the proceedings that this detail is not a matter for public disclosure. I This is akin to admitting that Essex police, relatives and corrupt lab' experts did alter, swap and switch references given to different silencers, and come up with the falsified claim that there had only been just one silencer which had all these different exhibit references and corresponding lab' item numbers. If the truth had to be made public there would be an enormous outcry, and immense damage caused to the criminal justice system. Therefore, the truth is hidden away under pii, hidden and concealed because what it would prove if all the facts were acknowledged publickly, is that not only was / is Jeremy Bamber innocent, but that these monsters who call themselves police officers, relatives, and lab' experts, are evil beyond comprehension am sorry we are unable to assist you further on this occasion.
Regards
Kim Perks
Press Office
DDI: 01245 452455
Ext 50620
Mobile: 07850 882215
-
What I would like to say, is that even in instances where official records confirm that one exhibit has been altered into another, and so on, and so forth, the person responsible for doing so, did not initial the alteration, or provide a witness statement why the exhibit reference, and in some instances the lab' item numbers were altered - leaving an impression that at the time these alterations were done, that they never expected anyone to come along at a later date, performing the sort of rigorous paper trail investigation, and stumbling upon one of the dark secrets Essex police adopted in the pursuit of a cover up in this case...
-
This is exactly why the case turned on its head,Mike,as it was originally a straightforward murder/suicide but once it became 5 murders,and because there was no proof that it had been 5 murders the police had to put their thinking caps on to devise a way of making it look like 5 murders.
-
It becomes very clear how police set about intending to deceive everyone over the silencer evidence. Not to be forgotten is that in the build up to Bambers 1986 trial, and during it, intact all the way until I became involved in the case in 1989, the silencer was only referred to by the exhibit reference of DRB/1. No information was disclosed to to indicate the volatile history associated with "IT". There was no suggestion that it had had its exhibit reference altered, from SJ/1, to SBJ/1, to DB/1, ending up as DRB/1.
What is clear is how you are trying to deceive everyone. It was never known as SJ/1 this is one of your pathetic lies. You keep lying about Cook's COLP statement indicating it had been known as SJ/1 initially- his statement says he PLANNED to issue it SJ/1 but learned of Jones' middle initial and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and on the Holab form.
There was no need to indicate at trial that it had originally been labeled SBJ/1 and was changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1. It was referred to by the latest reference because that is standard procedure when a change is made you refer to it by the current reference so as to not confuse anyone by calling it the prior reference- otherwise you would not even have a reason to change it.
The explanation for the change to DB/1 and then DRB/1 and reasons for the changes are well supported and totally innocent. Your lies are just that lies and worse make no sense.
Far from having any evidence to support wrongdoing you just have totally unsupported allegations which are refuted by the evidence, make no sense and you even add lies like that it was originally labeled SJ/1 though the source you claim states that states no such thing. Your nonsense is just lies and wild unsupported allegations proved false in 1991 by the COLP investigation.
There was no suspicion, no acknowledgement that 'THIS' silencer (DRB/1) had at one time or another, it had been referred to by two different Lab' item numbers ( 22, 23, and back to 22).
It wasn't referred to by two different numbers. It was always 22. The lab only referred to it as 22. The police had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab forms, they didn't use photo copy machines. Cook screwed up and wrote 23 on 1 of the 3 copies by accident while the other copies correctly said 22. The forms were identical except on one the numbers jumped from "21" to "23" while the numbers on the others read "21" and then "22".
He admitted in his COLP interview that he made a clerical error:
(http://s14.postimg.org/4ez28h6s1/cook23error.jpg)
If 2 moderators had been handed in that day then ALL three copies would have had numbers 22 and 23 listed instead of 22 on two of them and 23 on the third which indicates a clerical error.
There was no mention at all the a silencer had been found at the scene on 7th August 1975.
There was no mention that Ann Eaton had handed over silencer DRB/1 to police on 11th September 1975, or that her brother David Boutflour had not in fact phoned police on 10th September 1975, to report finding a gun silencer.
No mention that DS Davidson and DS Eastwood had in fact fingerprinted the silencer on 14th September 1975, (DRB/1) handed to Police by Ann Eaton previously as stated.
No mention that this very same silencer (DRB/1) had not in fact been sent along to the lab' until the 20th September 1985, and not physically examined by any expert until 25th September 1985. They kept all this key information secret so that blood and paint evidence could be wrongly linked to the Bamber family owned silencer, but they did not anticipate that years further down the line, someone like myself would come along and drag the truth about it out into the open...
There was no mention of these things because they didn't happen- these are all fictional claims you made up. You have no evidentiary basis to assert any of these things happened. While there is evidence of the changes in the designation from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 and evidence of the clerical error made by Cook there is no evidence to support any of these wild allegations. They are made up from thin air.
There is zero evidence that Jones collected any items into evidence from WHF on the day of the murders let alone collected a moderator.
There is zero evidence that there were any moderators at WHF during or after the murders to be collected into evidence by police- the evidence establishes only Nevill's moderator was present.
There is zero evidence to establish Boutflour called police on the 10th to indicate he had a moderator and that it was picked up the next day from Ann Eaton. The evidence establishes the police were notified in August and it was picked up on August 12.
The moderator that was fingerprinted is the moderator turned in by the family on August 12 which the lab analyzed on August 13 which resulted in the the lab notifying police on Aug 14 they had found human blood on/in the moderator and paint on the knurled tip. This is what evidence proves happened.
You have ZERO evidence to support your allegations. You take things made up, admit there is no evidence to support your allegations by admitting there is no mention anywhere of these things you made up happening then ridiculously say you proved they happened. You reside in bozo land.
By 20th September 1985, blood had already been found, analysed inside a silencer which had been present at Huntingdon Lab' ever since 30th August 1985; under an exhibit reference of DB/1, bearing a lav' item reference number 23. It was inside "THIS" silencer that the key blood evidence was found (DB/1 - 23), not the silencer still in the possession of relatives until 11th September, had been fingerprinted (14th September) and sent along to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers on the 20th September at which point the silencer (DRB/1) handed to police on the 11th September 1985 by Ann Eaton, then came into play for the very first time.
DB/1 and DRB/1 are the same moderator. There wasn't any moderator under lab item number 23. The lab never even noticed 1 of the forms said 23 they used 22 for the moderator. David Bird was taking photos not collecting evidence he had no ability to take any physical items into evidence.
You keep ignoring that the SOLE Holab form which called the moderator 23 was a carbon copy of the other Holab forms EXCEPT had a 23 next to the moderator instead of 22. Other items were sent to the lab with the moderator and these "other items" were the same on all three of the Holab forms. ALL 3 forms were dated August 13. So if they were 2 different moderators they would have been handed in together August 13. Further all 3 say SBJ/1 as the exhibit reference further demonstrating it was just a clerical error.
The forms doesn't permit asserting they were different but even if one ignores reality and asserts 2 were handed in that still means they had to be handed in on the 13th. You have no Holab forms listing an item 23 handed in to the lab in September. The only Holab form that says 23 on it is dated August 13 and is one of the 3 copies of this:
(http://s3.postimg.org/6dggd08df/holabform.jpg)
The only line different in the third copy is the one related to the moderator:
21 ND/11 "--------" carpet in upstairs front bedroom
23 SBJ/1 Silencer gun cupboard
The other 2 are what I posted and read:
21 ND/11 "--------" carpet in upstairs front bedroom
22 SBJ/1 Silencer gun cupboard
Quite clearly nothing labeled DB/1 was submitted to the lab on Aug 13 for testing. SBJ/1 was submitted and on one form Cook screwed up and accidentally wrote 23 instead of 22 but the lab ignored the error and solely referred to it in their records as 22.
You stupidly assert that item 23 was the lab designation for the moderator handed to them on Aug 13, though they write 22 all over their records, that it was know as DB/1 at the time though all their records say SBJ/1 and that in early September a different moderator known as DRB/1 was submitted and given lab reference number 22 even though it would have to have a reference number LATER than 23 if the one received in August had been labeled 23 and even though you have zilch to establish the police or lab ever called anything DRB/1 in September. The first references to DRB/1 on documents is on documents created in November.
Your claims are pathetic- you are taking a document dated August 13 that refers to the moderator as SBJ/1 and contains a clerical error referring to it as item 23 and suggesting this proves the previous lab number- number 22- was DB/1 handed in September 11. This is not supportable at all it is nonsensical.
By August 30 they had already expended numbers 1-72. DRH/36 was lab reference 72. Items taken in September would have a lab reference higher than this. Indeed you allege DRB/1 was taken the same time they took DRB/2 and DRB/3 from Ann Eaton. DRB/2 and 3 were items 108 and 109.
Your babble makes no sense at all and just is made up nonsense that totally ignores the evidence. Your claims are totally pathetic.
You will no doubt realize that if the silencer handed to police on the 11th September 1985, that was not fingerprinted by police on 14th September, not sent along to the lab' for the very first time until after the key blood evidence had already been found inside the "OTHER" silencer (DB/1), a silencer which had been present at the lab' ever since 30th August1985. Blood from "THAT" silencer (DB/1 - 23) having already been removed and analysed on the following dates confirming blood group activity (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1975, the net conclusion being held that this collection of blood group activity belonged exclusively to Sheila Caffell, yet the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September, had not by "THAT STAGE", been sent along to the lab' until after the key blood evidence had already been found in the "OTHEr" silencer (DB/1 - 23)...
What I realize is that you are lying and making up total nonsense. I realize you have ZERO evidence of any moderator being collected from Ann Eaton on August 11, you make an unsupported claim that this happened. You have zero testimonial evidence form anyone that this happened, zero documentary evidence that this happened- you have zero evidence period it happened you simply made it up from thin air. You take this unsupported claim and then make up more nonsense about how it had blood on it not the actual moderator turned over a month prior which is the only actual moderator. Your babble totally unravels upon looking at how stupid your claims are and how they are totally made up and not supported by any evidence. You seem to think a vivid imagination can substitute for logic and solid evidence- it cannot.
Sheila Caffells blood has been wrongly attributed to the silencer DRB/1 belonging to the Banner rifle, this can be proven by reference to the fact that all the key blood and paint evidence was associated to a different silencer at the lab' on dates before the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1) came into play on 11th September 1985, for the very first time...
Only 1 moderator was at WHF and it was collected August 12 and sent to the lab on August 13. SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were all the same moderator. Nevill's moderator is the only one that was inspected in 1985 by the lab and only one that had been at WHF. You are stupidly suggesting police left Nevill's moderator but collected another moderator. Why would they do they? How could they do that when there was only a single moderator there? What evidence do you have of this? None! The babble you make up is totally unsupported and makes no sense.
My idea of support means testimony and documents that establish the allegations you claim. You have neither. You just make up any crap you feel like the same way to ignored what Cook actually wrote in his COLP statement and lied saying he wrote tha the stuck a label marked SJ/1 on the moderator though he stated as plain as day he marked it SBJ/1. You ignore reality and just pretend things say whatever you feel like. That is quite pointless, renders you a lying joke simply.
You do not send a silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, requesting that it be checked for blood and fibers, if it was already at the lab' and had been there continually since 30th August, and blood had already been found inside that silencer (DB/1 - 23), blood had already been removed, and analysed between 12th and 19th September, and try to claim that there was only one silencer, one silencer upon which key blood evidence can be associated, when the silencer (DRB/1) it is being linked to, did not come onto the scene until it was much too late to have been the silencer (DB/1 - 23) thevkey blood evidence had been found inside. Silencer DB/1 - 23, and silencer DRB/1, were bit, and could never have been one and the same silencers for the reasons given.
The moderator went back and forth between the lab it wasn't there continuously so you lie right off the bat. You further lie by claiming there are original Holab documents from September 1985 asserting DRB/1 was conveyed to the lab. The documents from September say SBJ/1 until the end of the month when they received notice that SBJ/1 was changed to DB/1. None use DRB/1. Your lies are all a total waste of time. You can't support your lies with any evidence because you made them up. Note how I keep posting actual evidence while you don't just your barebones absurd allegations.
The relatives know that, Essex police know that, the COS know that, I know that / this, and everyone else should by now know that. The bottom line is that key blood evidence was not found in the so called Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1), it was found inside a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the relatives. Sheila Caffells blood was found in a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the accusers, which throws a different light in the question of, " Who killed the victims?
here is no evidence to support any of this nonsense, your claims are just nonsense you made up to try to suggest the family killed the victims and framed Jeremy. The family should sue you for libel they would win though I doubt you have much for them to collect the judgment from.
-
This is exactly why the case turned on its head,Mike,as it was originally a straightforward murder/suicide but once it became 5 murders,and because there was no proof that it had been 5 murders the police had to put their thinking caps on to devise a way of making it look like 5 murders.
In your warped mind only. Note how not one person here is trying to bolster Mike's lies and nonsense beyond you and you only do so by cheer leading not by actually debating the evidence I raised which proves Mike to be lying and wrong.
-
Why do you keep having to insult people ? Is it part of your obnoxious makeup,or is it because you're losing the battle ?
Whatever it is,there's no damn need for it.
-
Why do you keep having to insult people ? Is it part of your obnoxious makeup,or is it because you're losing the battle ?
Whatever it is,there's no damn need for it.
I am stating fact, you live in fantasyland and are always wrong. It is a fact you have not entered this debate substantively. You cheer Mike on telling him he is doing great while the reality is he has been humiliated in our debates.
How am I losing? I am the one posting evidence proving Mike to be both wrong and lying. Your claim I am loosing is as unsupported and much nonsense as his claim that Cook told COLP he labeled the moderator SJ/1. Living in a fantasy world doesn't alter reality it just means you can't hack it in reality so hide from it.
I prefer to face reality rather than hide from it.
Like you, Mike is never able to actually back up his claims with evidence. He posts evidence that police took DRB/2 and 3 from Ann Eaton on September 11 (though at the time collected they were not referred to as DRB2 and 3) then simply makes up out of thin air that the moderator was collected along with them. What proof does he have? None he just made it up. He ignores that these items were subsequently changed from DB/2 and 3 to DRB/2 and 3.
So he has no evidence that any moderator was collected on September 11 he simply made it up and worse he claims it was given the identifier DRB/1 at the time though none of the items collected that day were initially labeled DRB. His lies make no sense and totally fall apart upon inspection.
You are the one who decided to cheer on lies and nonsense and then to assert he is winning the debate over these lies and nonsense claims. When you get burned in the process don't blame me- you made the decision to support such tripe.
-
I am stating fact, you live in fantasyland and are always wrong Everyone is wrong except for you. It must be great living in your own little imaginary environment. The thing is, everything you say, every trick you pull, everything you alter and make out this person said this and that, everything you do can be reconstructed to prove who the true liar is, that liar is you.... It is a fact you have not entered this debate substantively. You cheer Mike on telling him he is doing great while the reality is he has been humiliated the only person humiliated is you, because I don't in the least feel humiliated at all by anything anybody has said about me. Why should I or anyone else feel humiliated by anything somebody like you has said. You are a laughing stock, coming up with all your stories, keep it up because I can prove you wrong every time if I want to. I can if I want to by posting up the documents when I choose, but why should I? It's much better to give you all the rope you need to hang yourself with... in our debates. Ha, ha, ha, your so funny, were you a court jester by any chance in a Former life?
How am I losing? How are you winning? I am the one posting evidence proving Mike to be both wrong and lying. I have not seen any such evidence... Your claim I am loosing is as unsupported and nor disproved by your garbage much nonsense as his claim that Cook told COLP he labeled the moderator SJ/1. which is what Cook did tell the COLP investigators Living in a fantasy world doesn't alter reality So, step out of your fantasy world and try to pull yourself together it just means you can't hack it in reality So stop doing it so hide from it.
I prefer to face reality rather Ha ha ha, your a true lunatic, god help you... than hide from it.
Like you, Mike is never able to actually back up his claims with evidence. of course I can, but I will choose the moment and time to do it, proving things to a moron like you will achieve nothing. He posts evidence that police took DRB/2 and 3 from Ann Eaton on September 11 (though at the time collected they were not referred to as DRB2 and 3) the items eventually labelled DRB/2 and 3, were handed over to the police by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, that's a fact, as is the fact you are a complete and utter nutcase then simply makes up out of thin air that the moderator was collected along with them. What proof does he have? None he just made it up. He ignores that these items were subsequently changed from DB/2 and 3 to DRB/2 and 3. Listen up, pea brain, I ignore nothing, these items which were handed over to police by Annie Eaton in 11 September 1985, were originally marked AE, then altered to CAE exhibits, and subsequently altered into exhibits DRB/2 and DRB/3, so put that in your pipe full of utter garbage and smoke on it
So he has no evidence I think everybody knows that I do have the evidence to support everything I have ever said, I have over 50, 000'case documents, compared to hardly anything you yourself has got. You can't possibly know everything recorded in each of these documents in my possession. By calling me a liar will not force my hand to post the material in my possession. The cheap tricks you are pulling are pitiful and desperate. that any moderator was collected on September 11 Yes, Annie Eaton did... he simply made it up I have not made up anything, its documented that she did and worse he claims it was given the identifier DRB/1 at the time No, the truth is, this silencer was originally designated the exhibit mark AE\1, later altered to CAE\1, and subsequently changed into DRB\1 though none of the items collected that day were initially labeled DRB. As confirmed by me His lies make no sense I would advise everyone reading anything you post, to replace your words of liar and lies, with truthteller and truth and totally fall apart upon inspection. So, says you, the biggest liar and conman of all
You are the one who decided to cheer on lies and nonsense and then to assert he is winning the debate over these lies and nonsense claims. When you get burned in the process don't blame me- you made the decision to support such tripe. Keep digging that hole, you will soon be tumbling head first into it, you bumbling baffoon. What a truly pathetic individual you are...
-
In your warped mind only. Note how not one person here is trying to bolster Mike's lies and nonsense beyond you and you only do so by cheer leading not by actually debating the evidence I raised which proves Mike to be lying and You have proved no such thing, only in your warped imagination wrong.
-
Everyone is wrong except for you. It must be great living in your own little imaginary environment. The thing is, everything you say, every trick you pull, everything you alter and make out this person said this and that, everything you do can be reconstructed to prove who the true liar is, that liar is you....
This is a perfect example of you projecting. You are the one trying to pull tricks and they have all fallen apart upon inspection.
You are the one who:
1) lied and falsely asserted that Cook said he labeled the moderator he sent o the lab on August 13 SJ/1- I posted a snapshot of the portion of his actual COLP statement concerning such and it actually stated he labeled it SBJ/1. I also posted the Holab form in question proving he was telling the truth in his statement. I proved you lied about what he wrote in his statement.
2) lied and claimed there was a moderator sent to the lab under number 23 and another one sent a month later under number 22. The lab never used number 23 for anything it examined they used 22.
When Cook transported the moderator to the lab he filled out 3 Holab forms. On one of them he screwed up and wrote 23 instead of 22. I posted a snapshot of his COLP statement where he admitted he made a clerical error in writing 23 on one of the forms. Other than this error the forms were identical. All of them said SBJ/1 sent August 13. The documents from the person in the lab who examined it on that date used number 22 SBJ/1 she ignored the error or failed to even notice it. It is bad enough you are trying to use this clerical error to falsely pretend it proves a second moderator was turned in to the lab the same date but you do better and falsely assert it proves another moderator was turned in on a different date than the paper states and with a different police reference than the document states- though it states SBJ/1 on August 13 you falsely claim it says DRB/1 and is from September.
3) You keep lying about the ammunition Nevill purchased and absurdly insisting he didn't by 22LR ammunition for his 22LR gun but rather bought some other variety of ammunition that his gun would not even be able to use.
4) You made up that Ann Eaton gave police a moderator on September 11 when she handed them the scope and bullets. You have zero evidence to support this you simply made the claim up.
All of these lies are to pretend that either police shot Sheila or the family killed the victims and tried to frame Jeremy for it. You are the one playing games and those games will only fool people who are biased beyond all reason like lookout or totally ignorant of the facts and evidence in the case.
When I first heard all these allegations I wondered if they could be true and Jeremy was railroaded but after looking at the evidence it became clear this and all the other BS you/the campaign team spout are all based upon made up allegations without any evidence and relying on intentional distortion for support.
the only person humiliated is you, because I don't in the least feel humiliated at all by anything anybody has said about me. Why should I or anyone else feel humiliated by anything somebody like you has said. You are a laughing stock, coming up with all your stories, keep it up because I can prove you wrong every time if I want to. I can if I want to by posting up the documents when I choose, but why should I? It's much better to give you all the rope you need to hang yourself with... in our debates. Ha, ha, ha, your so funny, were you a court jester by any chance in a Former life?
More projecting from you. The only one posting evidence and documents is me and I keep proving you to be little more than a lying clown. You don't need to admit it in order for it to be true, the silence from the peanut gallery says volumes. They know they can't defend your nonsense without also looking like fools but at the same time feel bad for you so don't want to come help me by piling on.
Saying you have evidence but refuse to release it means you have not supported your claims with any evidence. If you refuse to post evidence in support then claims are unsupported. In one breath you say your claims have been, "fully supported" by the evidence you posted and then in the next you say you don't need to post evidence and if you choose to post it you will but have no need to do so. You can't have it both ways either you have posted evidence or you have not. Excuses about why you refuse to post evidence are meaningless and simply admissions you lied about fully supporting your allegations with evidence.
You are the one engaging in deception after deception to try to fool people into believing nonsense. I simply am posting evidence and known facts which counter such deceptions. You can try revising history in your mind all you like but it won't revise reality and that is the problem you can't get around.
Ignoring that COLP dispatched all this nonsense and lying to pretend that different things were found during COLP is simply an effort to try to fool us. Fooling us is quite worthless and it isn't even working. This nonsense won't be able to fool those who handle pardons, or the CCRC/Court of Appeals has no ability to actually help Jeremy be released. it is an effort to revise how he is looked at by the public and will be remembered by history.
-
What is clear is how you are trying to deceive everyone. It I am not seeking to deceive anyone, on the contrary, my intention is to inform and expose instances where the evidence is called into question was never known as SJ/1 Yes, it was. The mark was also photographed by Cook on the 29th August 1985, when Cook dismantled the silencer (SJ\1), rebuilt it, and attached it to the barrel of the rifle. The photographs tell their own story, there was definitely a silencer in police possession bearing the mark SJ\1... this is one of your pathetic lies. rethink your comment, pea brain, you are a jester... You keep lying about Cook's COLP statement indicating it had been known as SJ/1 rethink what you are trying to talk about initially- his statement says he PLANNED to issue it SJ/1 but to my knowledge he said no such thing learned of Jones' middle initial and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and Cook later altered the exhibit reference SJ\1 into SBJ\1, once he found out that DS Jones had a middle Christian name of 'Brian'. At the lab' on 13th August 1985, he marked the label SJ\1, and both he and Glynis Howard both signed it, at positions 2 and 3, leaving the position at 1 blank... on the Holab form.
There was no need to indicate at trial that it had originally been labeled SBJ/1 (SJ\1) and was changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1 I disagree. The integrity of the silencer and presence of the key blood group evidence discovered inside silencer, DB\1 (23) depended upon it being made known, since without the detail of the key blood having already been found inside a different silencer (DB\1 - 23) sent to the lab by Essex police on the 30 September 1985, there was no real prospect of the defence being able to discover that the Bamber family owned parker hale silencer (DRB\1) could not have been the crucial silencer (DB\1 - 23) inside the key blood evidence had been found, because that silencer had been sent to the lab' by Essex police on the 30 August 1985, whereas, it had not been until 20th September that the Bamber owned silencer (DRB\1) had been sent along to the lab', to be checked for blood and fibers, which beggars belief, if silencers DB\1 and DRB\1, had in fact been one and the same silencer, since how could police still be in possession of silencer DB\1 after 30th August 1985, to enable DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to fingerprint it on the 13 September 1985, and then still be in the possession of DB\1 by 20 September, to enable Essex police to resubmit that silencer (DB\1) back to the lab' on 20 September, too late to enable Fletcher and Hayward to dismantle it on 12 September 1985 and discover blood inside it, since the silencer (DRB\1) sent to the lab' on 20 September 1985, was sent there with the request for that silencer (DRB\1) to be checked for blood and fibers? Since, by 20 September the key blood had already been found in the other silencer (DB\1 - 23)... . It was referred to by the latest reference because that is standard procedure when a change is made no, it isn't exhibit references should never be tampered with, because it automatically lends a very strong suspicion that the integrity of the item is called into question you refer to it by the current reference so as to not confuse anyone Oh, yeah, that sounds very convincing, more like when strokes like that are pulled, if a jury heard about it they would almost certainly add little weight to its significance, if any at all by calling it the prior reference- otherwise you would not even have a reason to change it. Exactly, no reason at all can justify changing or altering an exhibit reference once, let alone twice, or three times
The explanation for the change to DB/1 and then DRB/1 and reasons for the changes are well supported and no, Suspicious, I would say, because it should never happen, its not a good enough reason, to change any exhibit reference, or lab' item number... totally innocent. Your lies are just that lies and worse make no sense. So, says you, but there is absolutely nothing you have had to say that I can't respond to, and the reason for that is because what I am saying is the truth, as compared to what you say all the time, which is repetitive
Far from having any evidence to support wrongdoing you just have totally unsupported allegations which are refuted by the evidence, not true, everything I have spoken about is supported by the contents contained in official logs, records, statements and photographs make no sense do make sense and you even add lies like that it was originally labeled SJ/1 though every time you use the words, liar, or lies, I substitute it with truthteller, and truth the source you claim states that states no such thing. I choose to accept that it does Your nonsense is just lies truth and wild unsupported proven allegations proved facts false in 1991 by the COLP investigation confirmed by their investigation .
It wasn't referred to by two different numbers you baffoon, of course it was, lab' item 22 and then 23, renumbered 22 on 17 November 1985 . It was always 22. Hogwash The lab only referred to it as 22 Hogwash, lab' numbered silencers 22 and 23, later altered back to 22 . The police had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab forms, they didn't use photo copy machines. Cook screwed up and wrote 23 on 1 of the 3 copies Ha, ha, ha, what a complete load of bullshit, your brain dead pal, and nuts to boot by accident while some accident, how do you explain there being no blood in the silencer (SJ\1) when he dismantled it on 29 August 1985? the other copies correctly said 22 DRB\1 was neither originally, lab' item number, 22, or 23... . The forms were identical except on one the numbers jumped from "21" (22) to "23" while the numbers on the others read "21" (23)and then "22".
He admitted in his COLP interview that he made a clerical error: Oh he made an error, alright, a blundering one. One that will eventually come back to haunt him, and the others involved in perverting the course of justice
(http://s14.postimg.org/4ez28h6s1/cook23error.jpg)
If 2 moderators had been handed in that day then ALL three copies would have had numbers 22 and 23 listed instead of 22 on two of them and 23 on the third which indicates a clerical error. So, says you
There was no mention of these things because they didn't happen didn't happen the way you said it would have done - these are all fictional claims Accurate
you made up uncovered, and established . You Do not have no evidentiary basis to assert any of these things happened I do . While there is evidence of the changes in the designation from SJ\1 to SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 and you are deliberately altering the truth evidence of the clerical error made an immense error, that will come back to haunt him and the others by Cook there is no evidence to support any of these wild true allegations. They are made up from thin air. just like the circumstantial evidence concocted and used to help them to prosecute and convict him as the murderer
There is zero evidence that Jones collected any items into evidence from WHF Yes, there is, Jones was a crooked copper on the day of the murders he went back to whf from Jeremy's cottage, and took possession of four exhibits, absolutely true and accurate let alone collected a moderator. seized a silencer, not collected one
There is zero evidence that there were any moderators at WHF during or after the murders to be collected into evidence by police yes, there was - the evidence establishes only Nevill's moderator was present. not true
There is zero evidence to establish Boutflour called police on the 10th to indicate he had a moderator and that it was picked up the next day from Ann Eaton yes, there is. Phone messages were recorded regarding David Boutflour contacting Essex police on 10th September informing police that he had found the gun silencer, his sister handed exhibits over to police on the following day the 11th September 1985, as compared against the date, 12August her husband Peter handed over the other silencer to DS Jones . The evidence establishes the police were notified in August and it was picked up on August 12. you are not reporting the circumstances accurately
The moderator that was fingerprinted is the moderator turned in by the family on August 12 which the lab analyzed on August 13 which resulted in the the lab notifying police on Aug 14 they had found human blood on/in the moderator and paint on the knurled tip. This is what evidence proves happened. no, it does not. All it proves is that this blood on that silencer (SJ\1) was not the Bamber family owned silencer, it was a different silencer belonging to one of the relatives
You have ZERO evidence to support your allegations Don't count on it . You take things made up, admit made up by who? there is no evidence to support your allegations yes, there is by admitting there is no mention anywhere of these things you made up happening then ridiculously say you proved they happened. You reside in bozo land. How long have you yourself lived there?
DB/1 and DRB/1 are the same moderator. no, they are not There wasn't any moderator under lab item number 23 so says you . The lab never even noticed 1 of the forms said 23 yes, they did they used 22 for the moderator and 23, then they reverted it back to 22 . David Bird was taking photos not collecting evidence that was not what I ever said had been the case, it was Jeremy who once believed that the exhibit reference DB\1 referred to an exhibit found by PC Bird he had no ability to take any physical items into evidence. I never truly believed PC Bird took possession of one of the silencers
You keep ignoring that the SOLE Holab form which called the moderator 23 was a carbon copy of the other Holab forms EXCEPT no, it wasn't had a 23 next to the moderator instead of 22. no it didn't, the number 22 on the top copyholabny holab form, could not possibly manifest itself as number 23 on either the 1st copy, or the second one, what a load of hogwash you are seeking to promote... Other items were sent to the lab with the moderator and these "other items" were the same on all three of the Holab forms. it gets worse, now not only had the police altered exhibit references, and lab item numbers, but now police have also been tampering with holab forms, my god ALL 3 forms were dated August 13. So, somebody deliberately altered one of the copies if the holab forms. You wouldn't happen to know which of the two copies were interferred with, was it the first copy or the second? So if they were 2 different moderators they would have been handed in together August 13. but they weren't, one was handed to police on 12 August 1985, by Peter Eaton, the other handed to police by Annie Eaton on the 11th September Further all 3 say SBJ/1 as the exhibit reference further demonstrating it was just a clerical error. the exhibit reference first given to the silencer in Cooks possession was earmarked SJ\1, not SBJ\1...
The forms doesn't permit asserting they were different but even if one ignores reality and asserts 2 were handed in that still means they had to be handed in on the 13th No, it does not, two were taken from the scene by relatives on 10 August but only one of these was handed to police by Peter Eaton on 12 the August 1985, the other was handed back to Jeremy after he complained to police that his relatives were stealing possessions from whf. . You have no Holab forms listing an item 23 handed in to the lab in September. The only Holab form that says 23 on it is dated August 13 and is one of the 3 copies of this:
(http://s3.postimg.org/6dggd08df/holabform.jpg)
The only line different in the third copy is the one related to the moderator:
21 ND/11 "--------" carpet in upstairs front bedroom
23 SBJ/1 Silencer gun cupboard
The other 2 are what I posted and read:
21 ND/11 "--------" carpet in upstairs front bedroom
22 SBJ/1 Silencer gun cupboard
Quite clearly nothing labeled DB/1 was submitted to the lab on Aug 13 for testing. SBJ/1 was submitted and on one form Cook screwed up and accidentally wrote 23 instead of 22 but the lab ignored the error and solely referred to it in their records as 22.
You stupidly you are the stupid one, not me assert that item 23 was the lab designation for the moderator handed to them on Aug 13, though no, pea brain, that is not what I assert, so that's something else you are wrong about. The silencer taken to the lab' by Cook on 13 August 1985, (SJ\1) was originally lab' item no. 22 they write 22 all over their records, that it was know as DB/1 no, that is not true at the time though all their records say SBJ/1 wrong, again. They wouldn't label something wrongly, if they knew it to be something else and that in early September a different moderator known as DRB/1 was submitted and given lab reference number 22 even though it would have to have a reference number LATER than 23 if the one received in August had been labeled 23 and even though you have zilch to establish the police or lab ever called anything DRB/1 in September no, you are wrong again, it was not necessary to do that in the way you mention. What happened was that in late August another parker hale silencer belonging to one of the relatives was handed to police. This is the silencer which ended up having the exhibit reference DB\1, lab' item number 23. At this stage, late August 1985, the situation was that police still had silencer SJ\1 (22) in their possession, whilst the second silencer belonging to one of the relatives (DB\1 -23) was sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985. This enabled Cook to dismantle silencer SJ\1 (22) on 29th August, rebuilt and screwed onto the barrel of the rifle.. The first references to DRB/1 on documents is on documents created in November. yes, the silencer which later became DRB\1 was not originally given that exhibit reference of DRB\1 on the day it was handed over to police by Ann Eaton in 11 September 1985, it was originally known as AE\1, then altered to CAE\1, until it was subsequently changed into DRB\1. It was after this that steps were taken to merge all these different silencers together as the same one. Fletcher altered all the lab controlled documents, whilst PI Miller performed the same duties involving police records and witness statements, where they got rid of all references to silencer SJ\1, thereafter proceeding on the basis that silencer SBJ\1 was the first silencer handed to police? by Peter Eaton on the 12 August 1985. They attempted to imply that the silencer (DB\1 - 23) had been the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11 September, thereby being capable if being the silencer (DB\1 - 23) inside which was the one inside which was found the key blood evidence. But, it started to become something of a ougs ear trying to match up all of these different silencers as being one and the same. It was hard enough trying to fabricate a time line in which all these different silencers had to be merged into the same silencer, but altering all the records only appeared to make matters worse. There were three different occasions when a silencer had been sent to the lab durunfg this investigation, 13 August, 30 August, and 20September - this was where those involved in the conspiracy and a basic error...
Your claims are pathetic- you are taking a document dated August 13 that refers to the moderator as SBJ/1 and contains a clerical error referring to it as item 23 and suggesting this proves the previous lab number- number 22- was DB/1 handed in September 11. This is not supportable at all it is nonsensical.
By August 30 they had already expended numbers 1-72. DRH/36 was lab reference 72. Items taken in September would have a lab reference higher than this. Indeed you allege DRB/1 was taken the same time they took DRB/2 and DRB/3 from Ann Eaton. DRB/2 and 3 were items 108 and 109.
Your babble makes no sense at all and just is made up nonsense that totally ignores the evidence. Your claims are totally pathetic.
What I realize is that you are lying and making up total nonsense. I realize you have ZERO evidence of any moderator being collected from Ann Eaton on August 11, you make an unsupported claim that this happened. You have zero testimonial evidence form anyone that this happened, zero documentary evidence that this happened- you have zero evidence period it happened you simply made it up from thin air. You take this unsupported claim and then make up more nonsense about how it had blood on it not the actual moderator turned over a month prior which is the only actual moderator. Your babble totally unravels upon looking at how stupid your claims are and how they are totally made up and not supported by any evidence. You seem to think a vivid imagination can substitute for logic and solid evidence- it cannot.
Only 1 moderator was at WHF and it was collected August 12 and sent to the lab on August 13. SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were all the same moderator. Nevill's moderator is the only one that was inspected in 1985 by the lab and only one that had been at WHF. You are stupidly suggesting police left Nevill's moderator but collected another moderator. Why would they do they? How could they do that when there was only a single moderator there? What evidence do you have of this? None! The babble you make up is totally unsupported and makes no sense.
My idea of support means testimony and documents that establish the allegations you claim. You have neither. You just make up any crap you feel like the same way to ignored what Cook actually wrote in his COLP statement and lied saying he wrote tha the stuck a label marked SJ/1 on the moderator though he stated as plain as day he marked it SBJ/1. You ignore reality and just pretend things say whatever you feel like. That is quite pointless, renders you a lying joke simply.
The moderator went back and forth between the lab it wasn't there continuously so you lie right off the bat. You further lie by claiming there are original Holab documents from September 1985 asserting DRB/1 was conveyed to the lab. The documents from September say SBJ/1 until the end of the month when they received notice that SBJ/1 was changed to DB/1. None use DRB/1. Your lies are all a total waste of time. You can't support your lies with any evidence because you made them up. Note how I keep posting actual evidence while you don't just your barebones absurd allegations.
here is no evidence to support any of this nonsense, your claims are just nonsense you made up to try to suggest the family killed the victims and framed Jeremy. The family should sue you for libel they would win though I doubt you have much for them to collect the judgment from.
-
I am not seeking to deceive anyone, on the contrary, my intention is to inform and expose instances where the evidence is called into question
You do indeed attempt to deceive. Instead of posting the COLP report so the findings could be seen, instead of posting the portions of the Dickinson report that address these issues and instead of honestly
characterizing the evidence including document on this website you keep lying and distorting what they state be it your false claim Cook stated he labeled the SJ/1 or you false claim that the ammunition Nevill purchased to use in his 22LR chambered weapon was something other than 22LR ammunition to your false claim Ann Eaton handed over Nevill's moderator on September 11.
You don't have any valid basis to make these claims or any valid basis to call the evidence into question so you lie in order to call it into question because you have an agenda and that agenda is not to find the the truth but rather to insist Jeremy is innocent no matter what the evidence actually demonstrates.
"The moderator was never known as SJ/1 this is one of your pathetic lies."
Yes, it was. The mark was also photographed by Cook on the 29th August 1985, when Cook dismantled the silencer (SJ\1), rebuilt it, and attached it to the barrel of the rifle. The photographs tell their own story, there was definitely a silencer in police possession bearing the mark SJ\1 rethink your comment, pea brain, you are a jester...
You lied about Cook stating it was SJ/1 he said he put a label marked SBJ/1 and wrote such on the Holab forms. You claim there is a photo showing it has a label marked SJ/1 is a lie and that is why you can't produce the photo it is as made up as the lie you saw a photo of Sheila in bed. If you actually had such photos you would produce them. You don't they are fictional. Nor can you produce any evidence from COLP that they found such photos. COLP rejects the claim it was ever known as SJ/1 COLP determined a single moderator was known as SBJ/1 then changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1. You have zilch to contradict their findings- no documents conveyed to the lab referring to it as SJ/1, no testimony from anyone that it had been SJ/1 you simply made the claim up from thin air. To support this made up claim you allege you have a photo showing it was marked SJ/1. Then you tell us you are not trying to deceive and I had better rethink my position, there is nothing to rethink, you clearly are a liar.
"You keep lying about Cook's COLP statement indicating it had been known as SJ/1 initially- his statement says he PLANNED to issue it SJ/1 but learned of Jones' middle initial and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label on the Holab form."
rethink what you are trying to talk about to my knowledge he said no such thing Cook later altered the exhibit reference SJ\1 into SBJ\1, once he found out that DS Jones had a middle Christian name of 'Brian'. At the lab' on 13th August 1975, he marked the label SJ\1, and both he and Glynis Howard both signed it, at positions 2 and 3, leaving the position at 1 blank...
I have no reason to rethink what I wrote. I posted the parts of Cook's statement proving he stated he he marked it SBJ/1 and the Holab form proving it was marked SBJ/1. I proved your lies false and no matter how many time you repeat them they will still remain lies that you can't prove and that in fact have been proven lies by virtue of the evidence I posted. I his statement he didn't say anything about changing it so SBJ/1 on some later date. He said he wrote in his pocketbook he was planning to label it SJ/1 but learned of Jones full initials and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and Holab forms.
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/vg8yxzb75/cook2.jpg)
What does the above say? It says Cook realizes he must have asked Stan Jones for his full initials because Cook labeled it SBJ/1 and wrote SBJ/1 on the Holab forms.
"There was no need to indicate at trial that it had originally been labeled SBJ/1 and was changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1"
I disagree. The integrity of the silencer and presence of the key blood group evidence discovered inside silencer, DB\1 (23) depended upon it being made known, since without the detail of the key blood having already been found inside a different silencer (DB\1 - 23) sent to the lab by Essex police on the 30 September 1985, there was no real prospect of the defence being able to discover that the Bamber family owned parker hale silencer (DRB\1) could not have been the crucial silencer (DB\1 - 23) inside the key blood evidence had been found, because that silencer had been sent to the lab' by Essex police on the 30 August 1985, whereas, it had not been until 20th September that the Bamber owned silencer (DRB\1) had been sent along to the lab', to be checked for blood and fibers, which beggars belief, if silencers DB\1 and DRB\1, had in fact been one and the same silencer, since how could police still be in possession of silencer DB\1 after 30th August 1985, to enable DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to fingerprint it on the 13 September 1985, and then still be in the possession of DB\1 by 20 September, to enable Essex police to resubmit that silencer (DB\1) back to the lab' on 20 September, too late to enable Fletcher and Hayward to dismantle it on 12 September 1985 and discover blood inside it, since the silencer (DRB\1) sent to the lab' on 20 September 1985, was sent there with the request for that silencer (DRB\1) to be checked for blood and fibers? Since, by 20 September the key blood had already been found in the other silencer (DB\1 - 23)...
To bad for you that you don't like that the change wasn't discussed at trial. You are busy lying about it originally being SJ/1 and falsely asserting it wasn't Nevill's moderator. You have zero evidence to establish it wasn't Nevill's moderator. You have no evidence to prove your allegations that police took Nevill's moderator on the day of the murders and that the family turned over a moderator that they owned which they doctored and lied about finding it at WHF. Since you have zero evidence you could not argue such to the jury. That is why there is no basis upon which to vacate the conviction and order anew trial which such allegations. This is all crap made up simply which was thoroughly rejected by COLP after a thorough investigation that found the moderator's designation was changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 for legitimate reasons.
-
I am currently in Spain meeting up with former officer 'Z' and Cyclops members...
-
I am currently in Spain meeting up with former officer 'Z' and Cyclops members...
Latest update - 'Z' is telling us, that none of the original 25 rounds had a double set of magazine marks upon the spent cartridge cases. He is telling us that the original 25 cartridges only had a full single set of magazine marks upon them. Until the first test fire , at which time 5 rounds were used from the batch of 350 Eley bullets, handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11 September 1985...
-
Cyclops members confirming information received via database via internet link up. Confirming that relatives seized 350 rounds of Eley ammunition from gun cupboard at scene on 10 August 1985, retained by relatives kept until 11 September, at which point they handed all 350 rounds over to police. ..
'Z' - He is explaining at which stage, 5 rounds have been test fired via the anshuzt rifle, and why...
-
'Z' stating that shortly after change of direction in the investigation, only 345 eley rounds, 5 short because they were used to undermine Jeremys account about loading the gun and unloading it...
-
'Z' stating that shortly after change of direction in the investigation, only 345 eley rounds, 5 short because they were used to undermine Jeremys account about loading the gun and unloading it...
Cyclops members checking database, trying to verify what 'Z' has relayed to us this morning. Thus far, it has been confirmed thay (1) - relatives had in thier possession 350 Eley bullets on 11 September, which Ann Eaton handed over to police that very same day, along with (a) a parker hale sound moderator, and (b) a telescopic site belonging to the anshulzt rifle...
'Z' informs us all, that (a) parker hale silencer, and (b) telescopic site, both not present in gun cupboard on morning of 7 August, when police looked into the aforementioned cupboard, and searched it 'THAT' morning...
-
Checks currently being made back in the UK, to verify that 5 rounds went missing from the original batch of 350 Eley rounds handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11 September 1985 - a response expected this evening...
-
Checks currently being made back in the UK, to verify that 5 rounds went missing from the original batch of 350 Eley rounds handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11 September 1985 - a response expected this evening...
Breaking news, Breaking news...
Cyclops team have confirmed that 5 rounds missing from batch of 350 rounds of Eley ammunition - only 345 rounds, 5 rounds missing, and unaccounted for...
-
I love how more than a day later you edit your post to instead of bothering to make a new one to try to slide under the radar.
"The explanation for the change to DB/1 and then DRB/1 and reasons for the changes are well supported"
no, Suspicious, I would say, because it should never happen, its not a good enough reason, to change any exhibit reference, or lab' item number... totally innocent.
The lab number to the moderator wasn't changed that is just another of your lies. Cook made an error on a single Holab form that he was writing 3 copies of. On one copiy he screwed up and wrote 23 instead of 22. The lab either never noticed the error or ignored it and used the correct number (22) on all their paperwork. So you keep lying to pretend there was a change that never happened. That makes you a lying joke.
Jones didn't know who found the moderator so he and Cook agreed to simply use his initials at the outset. Upon learning it was Boutflour and other items were also found by Boutflour and had been collected the items were all re-labeled DB/1-4. After finding out that David Bird already was using this they changed them to DRB/1-4. Nothing sinister or wrong occurred. That you choose not to accept the explanation given is your problem, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You can't prove anything sinister or wrong occurred and proving it is what would amount to something.
While you can't prove the police did anything wrong you lie regularly about seeing photos that don't exist, meeting informants who don't exist, lie about being part of a group working on Jeremy's defense though Jeremy kicked you to the curb... You are seeking attention and desperately want to pretend you are still in the loop so Jeremy supporters will admire you and give deference to you. It is quite sad that you can't find something more worthwhile to do with your life than lie to garner attention from Jeremy supporters.
"Your lies are just that lies and worse make no sense."
So, says you, but there is absolutely nothing you have had to say that I can't respond to, and the reason for that is because what I am saying is the truth, as compared to what you say all the time, which is repetitive
Your responses try to change the subject as opposed to dealing with the evidence and points I raise. You have zero ability to establish your claims make any sense. You have zero evidence to establish any of your allegations are true. You never offer any evidence you just claim you have seen evidence. Anytime you mess up and cite something posted on this site as evidence so we can go see if it states what you claim it invariably says the opposite of what you claim. Cook's COLP statement says he marked the moderator SBJ/1 not SJ/1 like you asserted. I posted the relevant portion of his statement proving it. You failed to respond by posting a section where he stated he marked SJ/1 on a label because there is no such thing in his statement. Instead you just ignored the evidence I posted and restated your unsupported lie. Bragging about being able to respond to anything I post by restating your lies is quite pathetic. What would mean something would be if you could respond with evidence proving me wrong and your claims true but that you can't do. Since you have no actual evidence you lie claiming you have evidence but that you choose not to post it. If you had the evidence you claim you would post it and unless and until you do post evidence there is no reason to believe a single thing you state because you lied too often in the past and now find yourself in the same situation as "the boy who cried wolf".
"Far from having any evidence to support wrongdoing you just have totally unsupported allegations which are refuted by the evidence"
not true, everything I have spoken about is supported by the contents contained in official logs, records, statements and photographs
Your claims are always refuted by the statements and evidence. You falsely asserted Cook's COLP statement indicated be put a label on the moderator marked SJ/1. Cook's COLP statement states he labeled the moderator SBJ/1 and the Holab forms he filled out the same day also state SBJ/1. I posted snapshots of these documents proving your claims false.
Jeremy said he didn't see AP's rifle at WHF after he left. AP says he took it home with him after he left. The family said they didn't find his weapon there when police turned over the house to them. The police didn't report finding or taking his weapon from WHF. On those occasions when AP did store his rifle at WHF he took the bolt home with him so no one could use his rifle in his absence. The ballistic expert matched all 25 casings used in the murders to Nevill's Anschutz rifle. You ignore all of this and insist AP's gun was present at the time of the murders and used. You are not following evidence you are ignoring it.
Eaton and the Boutflours say the moderator was found August 10, and turned over to police on August 12. Police say it was turned over to them August 12 and examined in the lab for the first time on August 13. There is no documentation to counter any of this. You ignore the statements and evidence and made up that Ann Eaton gave the moderator to police on September 11.
I can go on and on and on listing claims you make that are not supported by the statements and evidence from the case file but rather refuted by such evidence.
"make no sense"
do make sense
You failed miserably as establishing any sense to your allegations they are all absurd including your ridiculous assertion that Nevill purchased 500 rounds of a different variety of .22 caliber ammunition than his rifle used. How would it make sense to buy a different variety of ammunition than that used by his rifle? You claim the gun seller lied about selling him 22LR ammunition for his rifle chambered in 22LR and instead sold him something else. This is just plain absurd. Your other claims make just as little sense. Whenever it is pointed out that your claims make no sense and why they make no sense you don't follow up by providing some logical explanation you simply assert you feel the claims make sense. You can't prove they make sense or how you just make the unsupported claim they do make sense.
"and you even add lies like that it was originally labeled SJ/1"
every time you use the words, liar, or lies, I substitute it with truthteller, and truth the source you claim states that states no such thing. I choose to accept that it does
What you are effectively saying here is that you choose to ignore what the sources actually state and choose to believe they state something else. It is much like propagandists who say the truth is what people subjectively perceive it to be as opposed to what it objectively is. So if people believe the world is flat than it is flat even though it is really round. These kinds of games might intrigue someone who likes psychology but it doesn't intrigue someone like me who is driven by objective reason and facts.
"It wasn't referred to by two different numbers. It was always 22. The lab only referred to it as 22 The police had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab forms, they didn't use photo copy machines. Cook screwed up and wrote 23 on 1 of the 3 copies. The forms were identical except on one the numbers jumped from "21" to "23" while the numbers on the others read "21" and then "22"."
Hogwash, you baffoon, of course it was, lab' item 22 and then 23, renumbered 22 on 17 November 1985.
Ha, ha, ha, what a complete load of bullshit, your brain dead pal, and nuts to boot by accident while some accident, how do you explain there being no blood in the silencer (SJ\1) when he dismantled it on 29 August 1985? the other copies correctly said 22 DRB\1 was neither originally, lab' item number, 22, or 23...
The exact dates the remaining blood int he moderator was remove dis unclear because you won't post all the records that detail such. The section of the Dickinson report, trial testimony, the COLP report and anything else that details such you don't post. You post unsupported lies and say that since we don't have the documents we can't disprove your lies. The burden though is on you to provide evidence to prove your claims but you cannot because you claims are all made up lies.
You lied about Cook labeling it SJ/1 and lied about it being referred to as number 23 by the lab they referred to it at all times as 22 th eONLY document marked 23 was one of 3 copies that had a clerical error. You have no documents to establish otherwise and no documents to establish any moderator was ever submitted to the lab for the examination as DB/1 let alone DRB/1. The designations were changed after the lab found and removed the significant evidence.
You spend your time looking for clerical errors and inconsistencies you can weave giant fairy tales around. In the process you render yourself a laughing stock. Your so called friends don't care enough about you to be honest. They write off most of your claims as insane or unable to be understood so either don't respond to your posts or just respond to humor you. Convincing others you are a nut just renders yourself totally irrelevant- so you are achieving the exact opposite of what you want to achieve.
Maybe one day you will wake up and smell the coffee and recognize it.
"He admitted in his COLP interview that he made a clerical error"
Oh he made an error, alright, a blundering one. One that will eventually come back to haunt him, and the others involved in perverting the course of justice
COLP was aware of the error since 1991. They dismissed the error as a clerical error in their report. The defense lawyers could not even craft a submission around it for the CCRC. It's 24 years later already. You sound like Charlie Brown talking about the Great Pumpkin coming some future year.
-
Through speaking with Jeremy on many occasions, I learned that it was a habit of Ralph Bamber not to go to bed, but he would relax in the lounge, or upstairs office. Often fall a sleep there, and evidence that he had been drinking close by...
'Z' returning to UK tomorrow, Cyclops members returning home Friday, myself due back in UK Sunday afternoon...
-
We have been left with new leads to pursue in the Quest for justice on Jeremys part - the batch of crime scene was unterfered with, by using 5 of the 350 rounds of Eley ammunition...
-
"If 2 moderators had been handed in that day then ALL three copies would have had numbers 22 and 23 listed instead of 22 on two of them and 23 on the third which indicates a clerical error."
So, says you
So says COLP, so says Cook and so says common sense. You ignore the evidence and common sense to press the claim because you have nothing legitimate to raise.
"There was no mention of these things because they didn't happen - these are all fictional claims you made up"
didn't happen the way you said, I uncovered and established otherwise.
You have not established any of your claims with evidence you just make wild allegations that the accounts contained it the documents and asserted by the police are false. Making allegations doesn't establish anything except that you decided to make allegations.
"You have no evidentiary basis to assert any of these things happened. While there is evidence of the changes in the designation from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 and evidence of the clerical error by Cook there is no evidence to support any of these wild allegations. They are made up from thin air."
just like the circumstantial evidence concocted and used to help them to prosecute and convict him as the murderer
While your claims are made up from thin air and have no evidentiary basis the prosecutor's claims were well supported by the physical evidence, assessments of those who analyzed the evidence and witnesses testimony.
"There is zero evidence that Jones collected any items into evidence from WHF let alone collected a moderator."
Yes, there is, Jones was a crooked copper on the day of the murders he went back to whf from Jeremy's cottage, and took possession of four exhibits, absolutely true and accurate
You have zero evidence that he took anything from WHF let alone a moderator. Your bare bones claim is not proof or evidence. You made the claim up plain and simple.
"There is zero evidence that there were any moderators at WHF during or after the murders to be collected into evidence by police the evidence establishes only Nevill's moderator was present."
not true[/quote]
Saying not true and insisting another moderator was there (despite the testimony of all involved saying only Nevill's was present and testimony of finding only Nevill's at WHF) is not proof and doesn't establish an evidentiary basis to assert more than 1 was present during the murders.
"There is zero evidence to establish Boutflour called police on the 10th to indicate he had a moderator and that it was picked up the next day from Ann Eaton. The evidence establishes the police were notified in August and it was picked up on August 12."
you are not reporting the circumstances accurately Phone messages were recorded regarding David Boutflour contacting Essex police on 10th September informing police that he had found the gun silencer, his sister handed exhibits over to police on the following day the 11th September 1985, as compared against the date, 12August her husband Peter handed over the other silencer to DS Jones .
There was no recorded phone call in evidence this is just another of your made up claims. Boutflour said there was only 1 moderator and it was turned in in August. Ann Eaton said there was only 1 moderator and it was turned in in August she said and wrote that she handed over the scope and bullets on September 11 not a moderator. The police who collected the items on September 11 said he collected the scope and bullets. A made up phone call recording doesn't trump the actual evidence which consists of written statements and transcripts of verbal testimony.
The only calls recorded were those to the HQ information room which could be reached by the public only by dialing 999 and Boutflour didn't dial 999 to ask police to pick up anything. So that alone proves you made up the claim of a taped phone call from Boutflour. Your claim that you are in contact with a cop and this cop told you such a recording existed is not evidence but rather another unsupported allegation and one that defies all belief. The only way anyone would believe such a fantastic tale would be if you could produce an actual tape recording.
"The moderator that was fingerprinted is the moderator turned in by the family on August 12 which the lab analyzed on August 13 which resulted in the the lab notifying police on Aug 14 they had found human blood on/in the moderator and paint on the knurled tip. This is what evidence proves happened."
no, it does not. All it proves is that this blood on that silencer (SJ\1) was not the Bamber family owned silencer, it was a different silencer belonging to one of the relatives
You failed miserably at proving any moderator was marked SJ/1 your own source unambiguously stated he labeled it SBJ/1. Moreover, you have zero evidence that the family turned over a moderator owned by them this is just an unsupported allegation you make and a stupid allegation at that.
Here are your allegations in a nutshell:
The family planted blood in one of their own moderators and turned it in to police on August 12 claiming it was Nevill's moderator and that they found it at WHF. The family had Nevill's moderator but chose not to plant the blood in that one and hand it in. Then in September they decided to plant more blood in Nevill's moderator and told police they found Nevill's moderator and the first one they handed in must not have been his. So on top of having no evidence to support any of your claims, your claims are ABSURD.
"You have ZERO evidence to support your allegations
Don't count on it .
"You take things made up, admit there is no evidence to support your allegations by admitting there is no mention anywhere of these things you made up happening then ridiculously say you proved they happened. You reside in bozo land."
there is evidence. How long have you yourself lived there?
Your response is a perfect example- you never produce any evidence you just claim you have evidence and your bare bones claim you have evidence is supposed to suffice.
"DB/1 and DRB/1 are the same moderator."
no, they are not
You have Zero evidence to prove otherwise. The first references on any documents to DRB/1 are documents from November. DB/1 was crossed out and changed to DRB/1 on various documents and the statements of people secured in mid to late November referred to the moderator as DRB/1 and were identifying the moderator handed in by the family in August which had been SBJ/1 at the time.
You never produce any evidence to prove otherwise you just make unsupported claims that police and the family were lying.
"There wasn't any moderator under lab item number 23"
so says you .
No, so says the lab personnel, the police, the various lab documents and the COLP report.
"The lab never even noticed 1 of the forms said 23"
yes, they did they used 22 for the moderator and 23, then they reverted it back to 22 .
Post evidence then. The evidence shows they used 22 at all times and the only document that mentioned 23 was the Holab form dated Aug 13 with the clerical error. making up that there is evidence doesn't help because when you make evidence up you can't produce it.
"David Bird was taking photos not collecting evidence he had no ability to take any physical items into evidence."
that was not what I ever said had been the case, it was Jeremy who once believed that the exhibit reference DB\1 referred to an exhibit found by PC Bird I never truly believed PC Bird took possession of one of the silencers
That's even worse because it means you are asserting police simultaneously used two different prefixes for David Boutflour. You suggest they knowingly used David Bird's prefix for 1 moderator and then DRB for another. This makes no sense at all. Your claims get more convoluted and senseless each time you tweak them. This results in people not even understanding your claims.
Surely you are intelligent enough to recognize most people do not respond to your threads, your threads mostly have you posting to yourself. Numerous people said they don't understand most of your posts. What good is it when most people can't understand your posts and the only ones who do and will respond to you refute them? Logic would suggest you would at least want people to understand your posts since you seek attention and will get none if people can't even understand you. It is bad enough you make unsupported claims but you don't even make them in a straightforward manner that people can follow. Try putting your allegations together in a single post where you explain everything in a way that can be followed and has some kind of semblance. Yeah I know you don't have to take orders and can do anything you want...
Well if you keep going doing what you are doing then 99% of the people here will have no idea what you are talking about and you are accomplishing none of your intended goals.
"You keep ignoring that the SOLE Holab form which called the moderator 23 was a carbon copy of the other Holab forms EXCEPT had a 23 next to the moderator instead of 22."
no, it wasn't no it didn't, the number 22 on the top copyholabny holab form, could not possibly manifest itself as number 23 on either the 1st copy, or the second one, what a load of hogwash you are seeking to promote...
You are the one promoting nonsense. COLP produced the Holab forms to Cook and questioned him about them. The sole difference between the forms was two copies listed "22" as the lab reference while the other listed "23". The forms were identical in all other regards. Cook responded that he made a clerical error on one of the forms.
"Other items were sent to the lab with the moderator and these "other items" were the same on all three of the Holab forms."
it gets worse, now not only had the police altered exhibit references, and lab item numbers, but now police have also been tampering with holab forms, my god
All that has been established is that Cook made a clerical error on one of the forms. Your wild claims are not supported by any evidence.
"ALL 3 forms were dated August 13. So if they were 2 different moderators they would have been handed in together August 13 but they weren't.
So, somebody deliberately altered one of the copies of the holab forms. You wouldn't happen to know which of the two copies were interferred with, was it the first copy or the second? one was handed to police on 12 August 1985, by Peter Eaton, the other handed to police by Annie Eaton on the 11th September
None were interfered with. In making up your claims you totally ignore logic.
The ONLY Holab form that exists which refers to a moderator as lab reference number 23 is dated August 13, 1985.
Such form refers to it as SBJ/1 and the other exhibits on the SAME form were:
18 DRH/15 .22 ANSHOLT Rifle Serial#13740 On body of Sheila Jean Caffell Aug 7, 1985
19 ND/3 Nightdress Taken from body of Sheila Jean Caffell
20 ND/10 Carpet Sample Carpet in upstairs front bedroom
21 ND/11 Carpet Sample Carpet in upstairs front bedroom
All 3 copies of the Holab form were the same up to this point
the final line on 2 copies read:
22 SBJ/1 Silencer Gun cupboard
the final line on the last copy read:
23 SBJ/1 Silencer Gun cupboard
You are asserting the date on one of the forms was altered and actually was sent to the lab in September. In September they again sent the SAME EXACT ITEMS they had sent with the first moderator except this time with a second moderator?
If a moderator had been collected in September with the scope and bullets then it would have been conveyed to the lab with the scope and bullets not with items sent to the lab in August. Where do you come up with such stupid claims? you don't think them through at all which is part of the reason why most people here can't even follow what you are claiming.
"Further all 3 say SBJ/1 as the exhibit reference further demonstrating it was just a clerical error."
the exhibit reference first given to the silencer in Cooks possession was earmarked SJ\1, not SBJ\1...
This lie is not helping you. Cook stated in his statement he labeled it SBJ/1 and wrote SBJ/1 on the Holab form he said he learned Stan Jones' middle initial before writing up the paperwork and label because he ended up including it on the label and forms.
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/vg8yxzb75/cook2.jpg)
"The forms doesn't permit asserting they were different but even if one ignores reality and asserts 2 were handed in that still means they had to be handed in on the 13th. You have no Holab forms listing an item 23 handed in to the lab in September. The only Holab form that says 23 on it is dated August 13 and is one of the 3 copies of this:"
No, it does not, two were taken from the scene by relatives on 10 August but only one of these was handed to police by Peter Eaton on 12 the August 1985, the other was handed back to Jeremy after he complained to police that his relatives were stealing possessions from whf.
This is a perfect example of how you have no evidentiary basis for your claims. The evidence being cited is that one Holab form was different from the other 2. How does a document asserting lab reference 23 SBJ/1 sent to the lab on Aug 13 support a moderator handed in on September 11? The obvious answer is it doesn't. You ignore the evidence and just make up things that have nothing to do with the evidence you are complaining about.
You have zero evidence of 2 moderators being collected by the family at WHF, zero evidence of the family handing in a second in September and zero evidence of a moderator being returned to Jeremy. Everytime I think you can't some up with a claim more stupid than your previous claims you manage to prove me wrong. Jeremy doesn't claim he was given a moderator back by police. What do you think is to gain by making that up? I don't understand you at all.
"Quite clearly nothing labeled DB/1 was submitted to the lab on Aug 13 for testing. SBJ/1 was submitted and on one form Cook screwed up and accidentally wrote 23 instead of 22 but the lab ignored the error and solely referred to it in their records as 22. You stupidly assert that item 23 was the lab designation for the moderator handed to them on Aug 13, though they write 22 all over their records that it was known as DB/1 at the time, though all their records say SBJ/1 and that in early September a different moderator known as DRB/1 was submitted and given lab reference number 22 even though it would have to have a reference number LATER than 23 if the one received in August had been labeled 23 and even though you have zilch to establish the police or lab ever called anything DRB/1 in September"
you are the stupid one, not me. The silencer taken to the lab' by Cook on 13 August 1985, (SJ\1) was originally lab' item no. 22, What happened was that in late August another parker hale silencer belonging to one of the relatives was handed to police. This is the silencer which ended up having the exhibit reference DB\1, lab' item number 23. At this stage, late August 1985, the situation was that police still had silencer SJ\1 (22) in their possession, whilst the second silencer belonging to one of the relatives (DB\1 -23) was sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985. This enabled Cook to dismantle silencer SJ\1 (22) on 29th August, rebuilt and screwed onto the barrel of the rifle..
the silencer which later became DRB\1 was not originally given that exhibit reference of DRB\1 on the day it was handed over to police by Ann Eaton in 11 September 1985, it was originally known as AE\1, then altered to CAE\1, until it was subsequently changed into DRB\1. It was after this that steps were taken to merge all these different silencers together as the same one. Fletcher altered all the lab controlled documents, whilst PI Miller performed the same duties involving police records and witness statements, where they got rid of all references to silencer SJ\1, thereafter proceeding on the basis that silencer SBJ\1 was the first silencer handed to police? by Peter Eaton on the 12 August 1985. They attempted to imply that the silencer (DB\1 - 23) had been the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11 September, thereby being capable if being the silencer (DB\1 - 23) inside which was the one inside which was found the key blood evidence. But, it started to become something of a ougs ear trying to match up all of these different silencers as being one and the same. It was hard enough trying to fabricate a time line in which all these different silencers had to be merged into the same silencer, but altering all the records only appeared to make matters worse. There were three different occasions when a silencer had been sent to the lab durunfg this investigation, 13 August, 30 August, and 20September - this was where those involved in the conspiracy and a basic error...
This is all sheer fiction. You have no support for any of this it is all simply made up. The only document with 23 on it for the moderator was the third copy of the August 13 Holab for containing what Cook admitted was a clerical error. You have no documents which show an item 23 sent on any other date and no documents demonstrating any reference to DB/1 prior to the change of SBJ/1 to DB/1. Your claim of a SJ/1 is fictional as proved by looking at Cook's COLP statement.
In this very post you made 3 mutually exclusive scenarios about the moderator. In one allegation you claim Jeremy was given his moderator back in another you claimed the family found 2 moderators at WHF. In this last version police took a moderator from WHF, the family substituted their own moderators not once but twice!. You claim they gave one of their moderators in and then gave in a second both times claiming it was the moderator from the Anschutz- yeah that makes a lot of sense... A few months ago debating me you claims there were only 2 moderators not 3 and that one was originally SJ/1 while the other was SBJ/1 and one was changed to DB/1 while the other was changed to DRB/1. Your claims are not only unsupported you keep making up different things each time you type- you can't even stay consistent within the same post. When you are challenged to post evidence you can't and just claim you have evidence that you choose not to post or make up nonsense of secret informants and photos which you have seen but were destroyed or tape recordings that you can't produce... Someone reading this for the first time would think your walls need to be padded...
-
Some of Mike's blasts from the past:
"Subject: Stan Jones statement, confirming he took possession of moderator at scene...
At long last, the piece of evidence that is guaranteed to shake the safety of these convictions, a witness statement in which one of the key witnesses admits to re-attending the scene on the morning of the shootings to recover one of the sound moderators,which could not be the same moderator found three days later by relatives...
YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEE...."
Did Mike ever produce such statement- no he made it up.
From that thread:
"Re: Stan Jones statement, confirming he took possession of moderator at scene...
« Reply #77 on: September 02, 2014, 09:36:PM »
This is what we now know to be true regarding the silencer issue:-
(1) - silencer SBJ/1 cannot be the same as silencer SJ/1, or vice versa...
(2) - silencer DB/1 cannot have been the same silencer as silencer DRB/1, or vice versa...
(3) - silencers SJ/1 and DB/1 could be the same silencer, and vice versa...
(4) - silencer SBJ/1 and silencer DRB/1 could be the same silencer, or vice versa..."
----
In a post in a different thread around the same time Mike insisted SJ/1 was changed to DB/1 and SBJ/1 was changed to DRB/1. He asserted there were only 2 moderators one taken by Jones and the other by the family.
His changing claims shows he had no actual evidence just unsupported theories that keep evolving in his mind. That is all to clear in yet another post from his thread where he falsely claimed Stan Jones admitted in a statement that he seized a moderator:
"I am also open to the possibility that on the 13th August 1975, that Ron Cook took both silencers to the lab (SBJ/1 and SJ/1), and that human blood got detected on the top end of silencer SBJ/1. At this time, silencer SBJ/1 was allocated a lab item reference no. 22, whilst silencer SJ/1 was given a lab item no. 23..."
Being open to the possibility means one is not sure and just tossing out ideas...
-
It is normal for anyone to change thier mind once new material cones to light or is brought to thier attention. If the jury had heard all the different versions of evidence which did not come to lught until long after the conclusion of the trial there is little doubt that the verdict would almost certainly have been very different. Any changing views I may have had from time to time, refleced new material and unformation which came to light from time to time, or from previously unknown sources. Therefore anything different I may have said, reprezented the state of play at a particular time. ..
-
It is normal for anyone to change thier mind once new material cones to light or is brought to thier attention. If the jury had heard all the different versions of evidence which did not come to lught until long after the conclusion of the trial there is little doubt that the verdict would almost certainly have been very different. Any changing views I may have had from time to time, refleced new material and unformation which came to light from time to time, or from previously unknown sources. Therefore anything different I may have said, reprezented the state of play at a particular time. ..
Your allegations are not based on evidence though. You simply make up allegations from thin air such as the claim that Ann Eaton handed in a moderator on September 11. There is nothing in the record to suggest such. To support this fable you made up a recorded phone call from Boutflour telling police to go pick it up from Ann Eaton on the 11th. In the meantime it makes zero sense for the family to turn in a moderator of theirs doctor it with blood and paint on Aug 12 and falsely insist it was found at WHF then a month later to take another of their moderators, doctor it with blood and again to insist it was found at WHF. So your claims make no sense on top of having zero evidentiary support.
You are using the same Holab forms and other evidence that in the past you suggested indicated 2 moderators had been turned in and were renamed later not new evidence that surfaced since. You are simply putting a new spin on them suggesting they indicate there were 3 or 4 moderators. The COLP investigation disproved all your various spins of these documents. You are trying to twist the COLP documents to your own end but it won't work. You erroneously think that if the report is not in the public domain we won't be able to figure out what the documents actually demonstrate. It is all a wasted effort on your part.
-
Your allegations are not based on evidence though don't be so stupid of course what I've been saying is based upon evidence. What do you think the contents of various witness statements, the contents of official lab' and police records are, what do you think photographs are, and confoucting exhibit refences, and different lab' item numbers are? This material does not simply become evidence if ahd only if it suits your view of the case, it is evidence which any party is privy to seeing, knowing about, or who seeks to rely upon it, or any part of it... . You simply make up allegations from thin air I do not such as the claim that Ann Eaton handed in a moderator on September 11. She did, the fact that she had done is recorded in police owned documents, nso how can you or anybody say that these police documents do not amount to evidence, of course they do... There is nothing in the record to suggest such. nothing you have not yet seen perhaps, but truly such evidence does exist, and is mentioned in police owned and police controlled records To support this fable you made up a recorded phone call from Boutflour telling police to go pick it up from Ann Eaton on the 11th. I have never claimed any such thing, it is you who is now claiming I said that when I never have. What I may have said, because it is true, is that David Boutflour phoned up the police on either 10th / 11th September 1985, to tell them that he had found the sound moderator to the rifle. ANN Eaton handed a sound moderator to police on 11th September, which is confirmed by details being recorded on a Lab' submission of articles to the lab' form, dated 20th September 1985. In this document it makes mention of amongst other things the fact that the silencer in question is being sent along to the lab' to be checked for the presence of blood and fibers, now why would police be sending this particular silencer to the lab' on 20th September, to be checked for blood and fibers, if as we are being led to believe that on the 30th August 1985, another silencer bearing the identifying mark of DB/1 (23) had been present at the lab' ever since 30th August, and by which on the 12th September, key blood evidence in the form of a small flake had already been found inside it? Not only had the key flake of blood already been found inside silencer DB/1 (23) on 12th September 1985, but the other silencer handed over to police on 11th September was retained by police until 20th September, before they decided to forward it to the lab' to be checked. The facts speak for themselves, key blood group evidence was found inside one of the silencers (DB/1 - 23), before the other silencer was sent to the lab' by police on 20th September. Nobody in thier right mind could reliably maintain that both of these silencers, were one and the same.., In the meantime it makes zero sense for the family to turn in a moderator of theirs doctor it with blood there you go again, attributing things to me, when I have not said those things to you.and paint on Aug 12 and falsely insist it was found at WHF then a month later to take another of their moderators, doctor it with blood and again to insist it was found at WHF.the way you write about this matter it doesn't make sense, but the way I might choose to say it, makes positive sence So your claims make no sense on top of having zero evidentiary support. as usual, you are talking hogwash
You are using the same Holab forms and other evidence that in the past you suggested indicated 2 moderators had been turned in and were renamed later not new evidence that surfaced since. You are simply putting a new spin on them suggesting they indicate there were 3 or 4 moderators. lets get the facts right, bozo - (1) -Ralph Bambers parker hale silencer, (2) - Anthony Pargeters parker hale silencer, (3) - Robert Woodwis Boutflours parker hale silencer, (4) - David Boutflours parker hale silencer (all these parker hale silencers were in police possession at one time or another, and lo and behold Essex police can't tell us which of these silencers were handed to them, or seized by them, as part of the first phase of the investigation under SC/688/85, or as the case may be, SC/786/85...
Instead, Essex police, relatives, and lab experts immorally suggest that all these different parker hale silencers were one and the same. But they were not all the same, they were 4 different ones, matching the 4 exhibit references, SJ/1,SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, all 4 sharing two lab' item reference numbers of 22 and 23.., The COLP investigation disproved all your various spins of these documents. no, they did not, quite the opposite actuallyYou are trying to twist the COLP documents to your own end but it won't work. You erroneously think that if the report is not in the public domain we won't be able to figure out what the documents actually it's beyond your control bozo... demonstrate. It is all a wasted effort on your part. You don't know what your talking about, you can speculate all you want to
-
don't be so stupid of course what I've been saying is based upon evidence. What do you think the 1)contents of various witness statements, 2)the contents of official lab' and 3)police records are, 4)what do you think photographs are, and 5)confoucting exhibit refences, and 6)different lab' item numbers are? This material does not simply become evidence if ahd only if it suits your view of the case, it 7s evidence which any party is privy to seeing, knowing about, or who seeks to rely upon it, or any part of it...
1) The various witness statements reference one moderator handed in to police on July 12, 1985. No witness statements provide any evidentiary support to the rubbish you post about Jones seizing a moderator from WHF or Ann Eaton handing in another moderator on September 11.
2) There are no lab records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 by police or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11. Lab records detail a single moderator being examined and it is the moderator the statements all say was taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August.
3) There are no police records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 by police or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11. Police records detail a single moderator being taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August.
4) There are no photographs detailing multiple moderators let alone photos asserting police seized 1 on the day of the murders and other photos stating one was taken from Ann Eaton on September 11. The only way photos could state such is if they had writing on the back but there are no such photos.
5) The prefix changes have been innocently explained. At the time Jones turned it over to Cook he didn't know who found the moderator so it was simply given his initials SBJ. In September after interviewing the family they found out it was found by David Boutflour so at that time it was changed to DB/1 and the lab was notified of the change. At the same time the scope was named DB/2, the bullets DB/3 and the shotgun shells DB/4. Later they realized David Bird was using DB and thus there were already exhibits with the same designations so they renamed the Boutflour exhibits DRB. They HAD TO change them because there was no way to have two sets of DB exhibits in the same case it would be too confusing. You ignore the evidence and ridiculously assert DB/1 and 2 had to be 2 different moderators. You don't similarly assert there were 2 scopes, two sets of bullets, two sets of shotgun shells. So you ignore the changes of the other items to suit your agenda and this cherry picking shows you are not being sincere but rather just pushing your agenda. The evidenc eproves beyond all question the change from the references from DB to DRB was innocent and necessary. You have produced ZILCH to demonstrate otherwise. You just run with allegations that make no sense and have no support. Similarly you have nothing to counter the police explanation of changing various items to DB in order to reflect the initials of the person who actually found the items. Your allegations are all empty and baseless. You make allegations without any evidence to support your claims and ignore the valid reasons that the record establishes for the changes. These changes do not establish there was more than 1 moderator let alone establish a moderator was seized by police on August 7 and a moderator received from Ann Eaton on September 11.
6) There was no change in the lab serial number associated with the moderator. A single document listed it as 23 instead of 22 and Cook admitted such was a clerical error on his part. The forms are filled out by hand in triplicate and on the third form he screwed up and wrote 23 by accident. The 3 forms are all identical except for this error. The lab referred to it as item 22 at all times and the police referred to it as item 22 the clerical error was ignored. This clerical error doesn't support more than than 1 moderator let alone establish a moderator was seized by police on August 7 and a moderator received from Ann Eaton on September 11.
"You simply make up allegations from thin air such as the claim that Ann Eaton handed in a moderator on September 11."
She did, the fact that she had done is recorded in police owned documents, nso how can you or anybody say that these police documents do not amount to evidence, of course they do.
It is not recorded on any documents that she handed in a moderator on September 11. You can't post any such documents on this website because they do not exist.
"There is nothing in the record to suggest such."
nothing you have not yet seen perhaps, but truly such evidence does exist, and is mentioned in police owned and police controlled records
So now you return to your admission that nothing posted on this site to date or publicly released by Bamber to date supports your claims and assert you have documents that prove it but have yet to release them...
If you had such documents you would have posted them long ago and kept posting them in every thread you post your claims in. You have no such documents they are simply fictions of your own mind. There are no unreleased statements stating Ann Eaton turned in a moderator on September 11 or that Jones seized a moderator on the day of the murders from WHF. There are no police records of other kinds asserting such. There are no lab records asserting such. You are lying to us about possessing such evidence the same way you lied about seeing a photo of Sheila's body on the bed. We know her body was never on the bed she was on the floor- the testimony establishes that as does her blood on the floor. If that evidence had not existed we would still know that they would not have taken photos of her in bed before moving her to the floor they would have moved her to the floor before taking photos. So your claim you saw photos would still not be credible even if it had not been for the pool of her blood on the floor. You have no real evidence so you make up evidence which you say you can't release because you no longer possess it or you refuse to release despite possessing it. Why should anyone believe you?
"To support this fable you made up a recorded phone call from Boutflour telling police to go pick it up from Ann Eaton on the 11th." I have never claimed any such thing, it is you who is now claiming I said that when I never have.
Oh yes you did, this is a direct cut and paste of your post: "you are not reporting the circumstances accurately Phone messages were recorded regarding David Boutflour contacting Essex police on 10th September informing police that he had found the gun silencer, his sister handed exhibits over to police on the following day the 11th September 1985, as compared against the date, 12August her husband Peter handed over the other silencer to DS Jones."
you always run away from your own words, that is another sign you are just making crap up and then when busted you deny ever making the bogus claims.
What I may have said, because it is true, is that David Boutflour phoned up the police on either 10th / 11th September 1985, to tell them that he had found the sound moderator to the rifle. ANN Eaton handed a sound moderator to police on 11th September, which is confirmed by details being recorded on a Lab' submission of articles to the lab' form, dated 20th September 1985.
There is no lab document which states a moderator to be examined was taken from Ann Eaton on September 11.
In this document it makes mention of amongst other things the fact that the silencer in question is being sent along to the lab' to be checked for the presence of blood and fibers, now why would police be sending this particular silencer to the lab' on 20th September, to be checked for blood and fibers, if as we are being led to believe that on the 30th August 1985, another silencer bearing the identifying mark of DB/1 (23) had been present at the lab' ever since 30th August, and by which on the 12th September, key blood evidence in the form of a small flake had already been found inside it? Not only had the key flake of blood already been found inside silencer DB/1 (23) on 12th September 1985, but the other silencer handed over to police on 11th September was retained by police until 20th September, before they decided to forward it to the lab' to be checked. The facts speak for themselves, key blood group evidence was found inside one of the silencers (DB/1 - 23), before the other silencer was sent to the lab' by police on 20th September. Nobody in thier right mind could reliably maintain that both of these silencers, were one and the same..,
The moderator was going back and forth to the lab it wasn't there continuously and they removed the blood at various times. There was still microscopic traces of blood left when defense expert Lincoln examined it he was able to detect blood on the first 8 baffles and even was able to test the blood to find out it was group A.
The evidence you cite doesn't establish more than 1 moderator let alone assert a moderator turned over by Ann Eaton on September 11 was being tested. Ther eis not a single documentary reference to a moderator handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11 ANYWHERE- You simply decided to make up that at the same time Oakey took the scope and bullets from Ann Eaton that he also took another moderator. You have no evidence of this you just made it up that on this date he took a moderator from her as well. Her statement doesn't assert she gave him a moderator, Oakey's statement doesn't suggest it. No moderator was sent to the lab with the items Oakey took. You simply made the claim up. The fact the moderator was sent to the lab multiple times doesn't even establish there were multiple moderators let alone establish that on September 11 Ann Eaton handed in a moderator.
"In the meantime it makes zero sense for the family to turn in a moderator of theirs doctor it with blood
and paint on Aug 12 and falsely insist it was found at WHF then a month later to take another of their moderators, doctor it with blood and again to insist it was found at WHF"
there you go again, attributing things to me, when I have not said those things to you, the way you write about this matter it doesn't make sense, but the way I might choose to say it, makes positive sence So your claims make no sense on top of having zero evidentiary support. as usual, you are talking hogwas
You make so many different claims you forget what you write. You asserted the family found 2 moderators at WHF and that they turned in one in August and the other in September. Your claims constantly change because instead of having a position based on evidence things are fluid and you simply make up allegations a new each time you post. You even contradict yourself by on one hand asserting you have evidence but refuse to release it and on the other hand insisting the statements and other documents posted on this site already establish your claims. I'm not the one posting contradictory and confusing things- you are. I am not confusing what you write or confusing you you are the one confusing others to the point that most can't even follow what you are alleging.
-
I have seen the documentary evidence about the call from DB in Sept - unfortunately like most things in this case it is not clear - it could have been him calling to see what was happening about the moderator because obviously the family felt they should be kept in the picture .
I don't think Mike is deliberately telling lies I think the log is ambiguous.
As is the one where it says the moderator should be handed back to the police.
-
I have seen the documentary evidence about the call from DB in Sept - unfortunately like most things in this case it is not clear - it could have been him calling to see what was happening about the moderator because obviously the family felt they should be kept in the picture .
I don't think Mike is deliberately telling lies I think the log is ambiguous.
As is the one where it says the moderator should be handed back to the police.
There is no evidence that states he found another moderator that needs to be collected by police. There most certainly is no recording of a phone call made by him. Nor is there any evidence of police collecting a moderator from Ann Eaton on September 11.
He is intentionally distorting and that distortion is to pretend there is evidence that demonstrates that Boutflour stated he had a moderator which needed to be picked up by police and that this supports police taking the moderator at the same time they took the other items from Ann Eaton.
It amounts to distorting- he should admit he has no evidence and is just speculating because that is all he is doing.
-
Bozo - pay attention
Three submissions of a silencer to the Lab' at huntingdon, as follows:-
(1) - SJ/1 (22) - 13/08/85
(2) - DB/1 (23) - 30/08/85
(3) - DRB/1 - 20/09/85
-
Bozo - pay attention
Three submissions of a silencer to the Lab' at huntingdon, as follows:-
(1) - SJ/1 (22) - 13/08/85
(2) - DB/1 (23) - 30/08/85
(3) - DRB/1 - 20/09/85
The first claim is an outright lie and I have proved it as such time and again. The Holab form says SBJ/1 and Cook stated he marked it SBJ/1 there was no SJ/1.
(http://s3.postimg.org/6dggd08df/holabform.jpg)
The last line states as clear as day it was marked SBJ/1 and this is from his COLP interview:
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
Post evidence proving the latter 2. Post all 3 copies of the original Holab forms for the latter 2. Notice I said original. We know the forms were retyped in the future with the prefix changed. Even the August 13 forms were amended to say DRB/1. Copies made weeks or months later where they altered the number doesn't prove the prefix was on the original submission.
We know the moderator went back and forth to the lab multiple times. Post documents that state a moderator was collected from Ann Eaton on September 11. The fact the moderator went ot the lab multiple times doesn't prove this in any way.
You always make giant leaps as opposed to the evidence actually demonstrating anything you assert.
-
Post evidence proving the latter 2. Post all 3 copies of the original Holab forms for the latter 2. Notice I said original. We know the forms were retyped in the future with the prefix changed. Even the August 13 forms were amended to say DRB/1. Copies made weeks or months later where they altered the number doesn't prove the prefix was on the original submission.
We know the moderator went back and forth to the lab multiple times. Post documents that state a moderator was collected from Ann Eaton on September 11. The fact the moderator went ot the lab multiple times doesn't prove this in any way.
You always make giant leaps as opposed to the evidence actually demonstrating anything you assert.
What about the moderator which Stan Jones was playing with on his desk using it as a paperweight,or is this another myth of the case?
-
There is no evidence that states he found another moderator that needs to be collected by police. There most certainly is no recording of a phone call made by him. Nor is there any evidence of police collecting a moderator from Ann Eaton on September 11.
He is intentionally distorting and that distortion is to pretend there is evidence that demonstrates that Boutflour stated he had a moderator which needed to be picked up by police and that this supports police taking the moderator at the same time they took the other items from Ann Eaton.
It amounts to distorting- he should admit he has no evidence and is just speculating because that is all he is doing.
There was a log - I have seen it .
But as I said it could be misinterpreted.
-
What about the moderator which Stan Jones was playing with on his desk using it as a paperweight,or is this another myth of the case?
The fable is that he gave it to DCI Jones and that DCI Jones kept it for a month as a paperweight. There is zero evidence to support such it was simply mad eup.
The truth is that Stan Jones brought it back to the station on August 12 after the crime scene officers were gone so he turned it in to Cook the next day. Cook told COLP Stan Jones locked it in his desk overnight as opposed to leaving it in the evidence room and that he was glad about such because as far as he was concerned the fewer people who handled it the better.
The paperweight claims is simply made up rubbish.
Here is just one of the many incarnations of this fable:
"Everyone has also to be mindful, of the sound moderator kept by DCI 'Taff' Jones on his desk, that he was using as a paperweight for some weeks before PC 'Chris' Whiddon came aling and took possession of it. WHIDDON TOOK IT STRAIGHT TO THE FORCE ARMOURY AND CHECKED TO SEE IF IT FITTED ONTO THE BARREL OF THE ANSHULZT RUFLE. When he duscovered that it did, he sent this particular silencer to the lab'."
-
There was a log - I have seen it .
But as I said it could be misinterpreted.
There is a log that indicates he phoned. It doesn't indicate he found another moderator that needed to be retrieved and that such moderator was picked up from Ann Eaton on September 11. Giant leaps were made to suggest such.
There is evidence that Stan Jones went back to WHF the day of the murders. There is no evidence that while there he took anything into evidence. A giant leap was made to suggest the took 4 items into evidence including the moderator. Then another giant leap that the moderator was handed in to DCI Jones and he kept it at his desk as a paperweight for weeks.
Giant leaps don't work you need specific proof with respect to these claims. Mike's evidence always falls short.
He is not simply confused he spins. Cook's COLP statement was quite clear- he said in his pocketbook he wrote down he was going to issue SJ/1 to the moderator but at some point after writing in his pocketbook and before actually writing the label he learned Stan Jones' middle initial and he ending up issuing SBJ/1 to the moderator as reflected on the Holab forms. I explained this 6 plus months ago to Mike so even if he was actually confused he knows the truth now. He ignores the truth and still continues going on about a SJ/1 though there are no documents anywhere that mention an SJ/1 just the entry in Cook's pocketbook where he noted he intended to issue it SJ/1. He has even gone so far as to claim he saw a Holab form marked SJ/1 though he won't produce it- I wondered it he would claim he can't because Ewen Smith ate it.
He not only makes giant leaps but outright preposterous claims. He said that because the gun seller wrote .22 rimfire he didn't mean 22LR though the seller stated in his statement he sold Nevill 22LR. He spent days arguing the gun seller lied and that Nevill didn't actually buy 22LR ammunition for his 22LR rifle. He claimed Nevill bought some 22 ammunition that could not be loaded in the magazine and suggested Nevill would manually stick each round individually in the chamber instead of using the magazine. Not only did he intentionally misread the documents to get to this interpretation it is a senseless one.
I think that Mike's antics turned him into a liability and that is why Jeremy cut bait. The campaign sites have plenty of whoppers so it is not as if Jeremy doesn't appreciate fairy tales but Mike's are so crazy that they don't help, Jeremy needs things people will actually believe.
-
The same sound moderator was not going back and forth to the lab' - what an absolutely ridiculous thing for anybody to suggest that it was. The closest to this ever happenning was on the 13/08/85, when Cook took the unmarked silencer to the lab' on that day, and he attached a brown CJA exhibit label to it which he marked SJ/1, that was signed by Cook and Howard. This was handed back to Cook that very same day so that it could be fingerprinred later (the details of which are covered in witness statements. This silencer was never returned back to the lab' bearing that unique exhibit reference. Somebody altered the exhibit reference for this silencer from SJ/1 to SBJ/1 at a later date. We know that by 29th August, this particular silencer (SJ/1) was still being referred to by that exhibit reference (SJ/1) because Cook took it upon himself to dismantle it, rebuild it, and screw it onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, and of course, take photographs of (SJ/1) at each stage of this activity. In the photographs he took, there is no brown coloured exhibit label attached to the silencer in question, but there is a white paper wrapped around the barrel which clearly indentifies this silencer as SJ/1, not SBJ/1, or DB/1, or AE/1, or CAE/1, or DRB/1.,.
-
We also know, that on 30/08/85 that police sent a different silencer marked DB/1 to the lab'. It would be somewhat bizzare to imagine that within the space of one day (29th / 30th August) that the original silencer marked SJ/1, had become transformed into SBJ/1, and then DB/1 in time for its submission to the lab' within the space of one whole day...
-
Perhaps, part of this mystery may be resolvable by the following set of circumstances:-
DS Jones returned to whf from Jeremys cottage shortly after 11am, 8n the morning of 7th August 1985, and took possessession of 4 exhibits, one of which was a silencer marked SBJ/1, the other 3 items being marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. The silencer (SBJ/1) ending up on DCI Jones desk in his office at Witham police station, where it remained for many weeks, disregarded. Then on 12th August, Peter Eaton handed DS Jones another parjer hale silencer, which in the grand scheme of things was taken to the lab' by Cook on 30th August 1985. At this point, there arose a degree of confusion involving the two parker hale silencers currently in police possession. One on DCI Jones desk (SBJ/1), and the other handed to DS Jones (without any reference until later when upon arrival at the lab' later that same date, Cook himself marked it SJ/1...
The person who completed the submission of articles to the lab' form, did not know that by 13th August police had possession of two identical looking parker hale silencers (SBJ/1 and (an unmarked one). The person responsible for writing out the form mistakenly identified the actual silencer being taken to the lab' by logging the exhibit reference (SBJ/1) of the other parker hale silencer being kept on DCI Jones desk, but the silencer taken to the lab' by Cook bore no such identification mark. Since by Cooks own admission, there was no exhibit label attached to the parker hale silencer he took along to the lab' that particular day. Cook therefore attached to the silencer in his possession on that date a brown CJA label which he marked SJ/1, which he and Glynis Howard both signed...
At this stage there existed two identical parker hale silencers, one back at Witham police station known as SBJ/1, and the otherin Cooks possession at the lab' marked SJ/1...
-
We now know that the first parker hale silencer to fall into the possession of police had an exhibit mark of SBJ/1. This silencer was taken at the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, given to DCI Jones, who for one reason or another kept this particular silencer on his desk in his office, using it as a mere paperweight. A second identical parker hale silencer was handed to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on 12th August 1985. At the time this second parker hale silencer was handed over to Cook on the following day, it didn't have an exhibit reference, so Cook himself gave it one at the lab, he personally marked it SJ/1...
-
Two identical looking parker hale silencers, in police possession by 12th / 13th August 1985, one marked SBJ/1, the other marked SJ/1...
-
Parker hale silencer SBJ/1 remained on DCI Jones desk in his office at Witham police station, a s3cond parker hale silencer SJ/1 remained in the possession of Cook after he had taken it to the lab' on 13th August 1985...
-
We know that Cook retained possession of one of the parker hale silencers (SJ/1) between 13th and 29th August 1985, because during the occasion on the 29th August when he dismantled it, rebuilt it, and screwed the rebuilt unit directly onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, that it had the identifying mark of SJ/1 still attached to the silencer in (d) photographs taken on that occasion by Cook himself. Cook even sent copies of these photographs to the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher at the lab' afrerwards. Therefore, Fletcher even had confirmation that the parker hale silencer in Cooks possession had the identifying mark of SJ/1, and not SBJ/1, by as late as 29th August 1985...
-
Then, something of unique significance occurred - police came into possession of a third identical looking parker hale silencer bearing the unique exhibit reference of DB/1...
Parker hale silencer DB/1 was submitted along to the lab' for the attention of the ballistics expert, Fletcher, on the 30th August 1985. When it arrived at the lab' on that occasion it was given a lab' item number of 23, whereas on the previous occasion parker hale silencer SJ/1 was given lab' item number 22...
-
There had then, up to this stage, been the subm7ssion of two different parker hale silencers to the Lab' at Huntingdon in connection with this case:-
13/08/85 - SJ/1 lab' item number 22
30/08/85 - DB/1 lab' item number 23
-
There had then, up to this stage, been the subm7ssion of two different parker hale silencers to the Lab' at Huntingdon in connection with this case:-
13/08/85 - SJ/1 lab' item number 22
30/08/85 - DB/1 lab' item number 23
Another parker hale silencer, was already in police possession, and had been in thier possession since the very first day of the investigation, collected from the scene by DS Jones, and retained by DCI Jones on his desk in his office at Witham police station. This particular parker hale silencer bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1...
-
Yet, by far the most important parker hale silencer of all, was the fourth silencer to fall into the possession of the police. This was the parker hale silencer that Ann Eaton handed to police on the 11th September 1985. It was originally identified by the exhibit reference of AE/1, was later changed to CAE/1, and subsequentlybecame DRB/1...
Rather disturbingly, parker hale silencer, AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1, was significantly different to any of the other 3 parker hale silencers ( SBJ/1, SJ/1 or DB/1), as will become apparent very shortly in a few moments.
-
These 4 parker hale silencers (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) belonged to three relatives, and fourthly to Ralph Bamber...
-
These 4 parker hale silencers (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) belonged to three relatives, and fourthly to Ralph Bamber...
One of these parker hale silencers belonged to Anthony Pargeter
One of these parker hale silencers belonged to Robert Woodwis Boutflour
One of these parker hale silencers belonged to David Boutflour
The last of these parker hale silencers belonged to Ralph Bamber (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1)
-
One thing which everyone can be certain of, and that is that the parker hale silencer, AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1, arrived at the lab' far too late to have been the silencer inside which had been found the key blood group evidence. It not being sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers until 20th September 1985, by which stage the key blood evidence had already been found and removed from parker hale silencer DB/1 (23), that blood already positively grouped by 19th September 1985, and so not attributable in any way with the Bamber owned parker hale silencer, sent to the lab' much later on...
-
Proof that different parker hale silencers were received at the lab' and examined can be found by comparing the sketches drawn of two different parker hale silencers, in lab' records, dated, 13/08/85 and 25/09/85. The parker hale silencers examined on both of these occasions were completely different ones, as confirmed by comparing the diagrams recorded in each, which are clearly different...
-
Two parker hale silencers were present at the scene on the morning of the shootings, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the other to Ralph Bamber. Ds Jones took possessession of (SBJ/1) one that morning, and Relatives removed the other from the scene (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) from the farmhouse on 10th August 1985. Peter Eaton handed over Robert Boutflours parker hale silencer (no exhibit mark) to DS Jones on the 12th August, which Cook took along to the lab' on the following day (Cook titled it SJ/1). Prior to 30th August 1985, David Boutflours parker hale silencer (DB/1 - 23) fell into police possession, and was submitted to the lab' on 30th August where it remained until stripped down by Fletcher and Hayward on the 12th September 1985, enabling them as they did to discover the key blood group evidence locked away inside DB/1 (23)...
-
Two parker hale silencers were present at the scene on the morning of the shootings, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the other to Ralph Bamber. Ds Jones took possessession of (SBJ/1) one that morning, and Relatives removed the other from the scene (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) from the farmhouse on 10th August 1985. Peter Eaton handed over Robert Boutflours parker hale silencer (no exhibit mark) to DS Jones on the 12th August, which Cook took along to the lab' on the following day (Cook titled it SJ/1). Prior to 30th August 1985, David Boutflours parker hale silencer (DB/1 - 23) fell into police possession, and was submitted to the lab' on 30th August where it remained until stripped down by Fletcher and Hayward on the 12th September 1985, enabling them as they did to discover the key blood group evidence locked away inside DB/1 (23)...
The Ralph Bamber owned parker hale silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) was handed back to Jeremy on or about the 12th August 1985, as a result of Jeremy confronting the Boutflours and the Eatons, concerning alleged theft of property from whf belonging to his parents estates. As a result of this confrontation relatives handed everything back, including paintings, items of jewellry, firearms, firearm accessories, including ammunition, Ralph Bambers Parker hale silencer, and telescopic site, belonging to the same gun...
-
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, the parker hale silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) remained insitu back at the scene (whf) between 12th August 1985, and the 11th September 1985, until David Boutflour phoned police on 10th September, to report the previousfinding of it a month ppreviously (on 10th August 1985)...
As a result of David Boutflour contacting police by telephone on this occasion, arrangements were made to collect this (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) parker hale silencer from Ann Eaton at the scene (whf), at a time when Jeremy was already in custody...
-
Informant 'Z' has given inside information, regarding how Ann Eaton, returned with police to whf on the 11th September1985, and amongst other things, handed over to them, Ralph Bambers parker hale silencer ( AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1), the telescopic site, and 350 rounds of ammunition, to the police on that occasion...
Albeit, these items were given AE/? Exhibit references originally, later altered to CAE/, and then subsequently converted into various DRB/? Exhibit references,.,
-
The same sound moderator was not going back and forth to the lab' - what an absolutely ridiculous thing for anybody to suggest that it was.
Far from being ridiculous it is well documented that this is what happened. Your claims on the other hand are ridiculous, totally unsupported and outright lies. Even though the moderator had 3 different prefixes this truth is not enough for you and you make up the lie that there was a moderator marked SJ/1. You already have credibility issues, when you lie in such an obvious manner it renders nothing you say credible and makes it easy for people to dismiss everything you post as fairytales and indeed you have no evidence at all to prove there was more than one moderator.
The evidence proves a single moderator was taken to the lab August 13, subsequently fingerprinted, subsequently superglu fumed, subsequently fingerprint tested again, and sent to the lab for through testing at which time it was examined by multiple people. It was known as SBJ/1 on all the documents until police changed the references to DB - which featured other items ALSO marked DB at the same time such as the scope and extra rifle bullets- and notified the lab of the change. Upon realizing David Bird already was using DB they changed ALL these exhibits to DRB.
There is no evidence supporting multiple moderators or a moderator being submitted to the lab under anything than the SBJ prefix in August or September. The original documents are all marked SBJ. LATER they amended the documents and put the then current designation on such copies. All that proves is that later they amended the documents it doesn't prove the moderator was submitted to the lab weeks or even months earlier under the designation that didn't even yet exist. Your spinning is intentional distortion and it renders you completely non-credible. Your fairytales about seeing photos that don't exist and meeting informants that don't exist further render your credibility in the toilet all you are doing is embarrassing yourself.
The closest to this ever happenning was on the 13/08/85, when Cook took the unmarked silencer to the lab' on that day, and he attached a brown CJA exhibit label to it which he marked SJ/1, that was signed by Cook and Howard. This was handed back to Cook that very same day so that it could be fingerprinred later (the details of which are covered in witness statements. This silencer was never returned back to the lab' bearing that unique exhibit reference. Somebody altered the exhibit reference for this silencer from SJ/1 to SBJ/1 at a later date. We know that by 29th August, this particular silencer (SJ/1) was still being referred to by that exhibit reference (SJ/1) because Cook took it upon himself to dismantle it, rebuild it, and screw it onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, and of course, take photographs of (SJ/1) at each stage of this activity. In the photographs he took, there is no brown coloured exhibit label attached to the silencer in question, but there is a white paper wrapped around the barrel which clearly indentifies this silencer as SJ/1, not SBJ/1, or DB/1, or AE/1, or CAE/1, or DRB/1.,.
There was never a moderator marked SJ/1. You have zero documentation to prove there was because this is a claim you made up simply. To support this lie that you made up you also made up a photo showing the moderator was marked SJ/1 but no such photo exists and that is why you can't produce such a photo. You ridiculously claim you don't want to show the photo to us because you have no need to prove your claims it is sufficient to just tell us and we should believe you. I would not believe you if you told me it was sunny out I would check a window first before going out.
Your lies accomplish nothing except to assassinate your own credibility. You intentionally didn't post all of Cook's trial testimony because you don't want anyone to see his discussion of the moderator. Instead you want only his statements because he doesn't give a detailed discussion of the September testing by the lab. You also intentionally omitted the portions of the Dickinson Inquiry that detailed such and refused to post the COLP report that dismantles all your BS.
Despite intentionally concealing the evidence that proves your claims false you still have no evidence to support anything you say. You pretend we have to disprove your claims though you as the proponent bear the burden of proof and you have none. Your supposed proof are photos and documents you claim you possess but refuse to upload. Cook's COLP statement makes plain he marked the label SBJ/1 and wrote such on the Holab forms. Thus we do have proof you are lying about it being marked SJ/1 and all your other claims are lies of a similar character. They are not just mistakes on your part but intentional lies.
-
Two identical looking parker hale silencers, in police possession by 12th / 13th August 1985, one marked SBJ/1, the other marked SJ/1...
There is no evidence at all to support that there were 2 moderators in police possession at any time in 1985 let alone on August 12 and no evidence of any exhibit marked SJ/1 let alone a moderator so marked. You made up that it was marked SJ/1 and to support this made up claim you lied about possessing photos showing the moderator was had SJ/1 on the label. You have rendered your own credibility nonexistent.
-
Then, something of unique significance occurred - police came into possession of a third identical looking parker hale silencer bearing the unique exhibit reference of DB/1...
Parker hale silencer DB/1 was submitted along to the lab' for the attention of the ballistics expert, Fletcher, on the 30th August 1985. When it arrived at the lab' on that occasion it was given a lab' item number of 23, whereas on the previous occasion parker hale silencer SJ/1 was given lab' item number 22...
Your lies are old and worthless all they prove is that you are a liar and lack credibility.
There never was an exhibit marked SJ/1 and you thus have zero proof of such an exhibit you simply made it up. There are similarly no original Holab forms indicating a moderator handed in on Aug 30 bearing the mark DB/1 and being referred to as number 23. A SINGLE document exists marked 23 it is dated Aug 13 and it is one of the 3 copies of the Holab forms that accompanied SBJ/1. Your lies just make you a joke nothing more. You expect people to just take your word that you have documents that clearly do not exist. You ridiculously say you won't post the photos and other documentary evidence you possess because you don't want to. You can't that is why you won't post it- the only way you can come up with such documents is if you take documents currently in your possession and doctor them.
-
We all know, that is everyone who is genuinely interested, that two sound moderators were normally kept at whf, and that one of these belonged to Anthony Pargeter, and that the other belonged to Ralph Bamber. Anthony pargeter purchased his parker hale silencer in 1980,!whilst Ralph Bamber purchased his parker hale silencer in November 1984. The former had 17 internal baffle plates, the latter only 15 internal baffle plates...
-
No information exists to confirm when the other two parker hale silencers owned by Robert Woodwis Boutflour, and his son David Boutflour had purchased their respective parker hale silencers, but both fell into the possession of the police as part of thier investigation into the 5 deaths - both silencers were later brought secretly to the trial by a police motor cycle outrider, but they didn't inform anybody that these steps had been taken, or why indeed they were brought to the trial in the first place...
-
What a very coincidental set of circumstances, four parker hale silencers, 4 sets of exhibit references, 1st silencer known as SBJ/1. Second silencer known as SJ/1. Third silencer known as DB/1. Fourth silencer known at one time or another by the following exhibit references, AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1...
-
What a very coincidental set of circumstances, four parker hale silencers, 4 sets of exhibit references, 1st silencer known as SBJ/1. Second silencer known as SJ/1. Third silencer known as DB/1. Fourth silencer known at one time or another by the following exhibit references, AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1...
four parker hale silencers owned by:-
Anthony Pargeter
Robert Woodwis Boutflour
David Boutflour
Ralph Bamber
-
We all know, that is everyone who is genuinely interested, that two sound moderators were normally kept at whf, and that one of these belonged to Anthony Pargeter, and that the other belonged to Ralph Bamber. Anthony pargeter purchased his parker hale silencer in 1980,!whilst Ralph Bamber purchased his parker hale silencer in November 1984. The former had 17 internal baffle plates, the latter only 15 internal baffle plates...
The evidence shows that AP took his rifle home after his last visit. There is zero evidence that his rifle was at WHF during the murders. There is zero evidence his moderator was looked at by police in any detail until 1991.
Nevill's moderator had 17 baffle plates. In November 1984 Parker-Hale stopped manufacturing the 17 baffle version and changed to 14. Nevill purchased his weapon in November 1984. The gun store didn't have moderators manufactured days earlier- the stock in the store were received from the factory previously from the 17 baffle version. You have nothing to establish otherwise just your made up claim much like your claim AP's rifle was at WHF during the murders is simply made up you have zero support. A publication ended up liable for slander because it could not provide any evidence to establish AP's rifle was at WHF during the murders and the court thus held it asserted AP's weapon was there with a reckless disregard for the truth. You are doing the same thing. You are also asserting Nevill's had 14 baffles with a reckless disregard for the truth because you have zero evidence to establish such. The fact they stopped making the 17 baffle version in the same month that Nevill purchased his weapon is not proof that all those sold in any store had 14 baffles. Parker Hale was still shipping out 17 baffled versions in November 1984 and it took stores well into 1985 and stores that didn't sell many moderators longer than that to exhaust their 17 baffle version supply.
Your twisting just helps cement why nothing you say can be trusted.
-
The grey coloured hair was present on the parker hale silencer which Peter Eaton handed to DS Jones on 12th August 1985, this was not the parker hale silencer owned by Ralph Bamber, it was a parker hale silencer owned by one of the relatives...
-
No information exists to confirm when the other two parker hale silencers owned by Robert Woodwis Boutflour, and his son David Boutflour had purchased their respective parker hale silencers, but both fell into the possession of the police as part of thier investigation into the 5 deaths - both silencers were later brought secretly to the trial by a police motor cycle outrider, but they didn't inform anybody that these steps had been taken, or why indeed they were brought to the trial in the first place...
Their moderators were looked at in 1986.
-
Ralph Bamber went along to Radcliffe the gun dealers in Colchester, on the 24th November to purchase the .22 semi-automatic rifle and parker hale silencer. However, the gun dealor informed Ralph Bamber that he would have to order the parker hale silencer from the manufacturers because on the 24th November he simply did not have any parker hale silencers in stock, because a new version had been manufactured from the beginning of the month. Radcliffe promised to get Ralph Bamber the very latest model which had been put into circulation from the beginning of the month. Arrangements were therefore made for the anshuzt rifle, new version of the parker hale silencer and 500 rounds of ammunition to be delivered directly to whf as soon as everything was received from the manufacturer. This fell on the 30th November 1984, and on that date, Radcliffe duly delivered evrything to Ralph Bamber at whf on the same day...
-
What a very coincidental set of circumstances, four parker hale silencers, 4 sets of exhibit references, 1st silencer known as SBJ/1. Second silencer known as SJ/1. Third silencer known as DB/1. Fourth silencer known at one time or another by the following exhibit references, AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1...
CAE/1 was one of Ann Eaton's notecards.
AE/1 appears to have been the scope taken from Ann Eaton on September 11
SJ/1 was never an exhibit you made it up
The same day SBJ/1 was renamed DB/1, AE/1 and AE/2 were renamed DB/2 and DB/3.
The same day DB/1 was changed to DRB/1 DB/2 and DB/3 were renamed DRB/2 and DRB/3.
Even a monkey can recognize that since David Bird was using DB that the moderator, scope and bullets labeled DB/1-3 would have to be changed to a different designation. The reason for the change is unassailable.
In the meantime the change to reflect they had been found by Boutflour is well reasoned and supported by evidence which demonstrates the change occurred and that no moderator was submitted in the first instance under the DB label. It was known as SBJ during the early days and the lab was specifically notified of the change in designation and documents were then amended to reflect the change.
The COLP investigation fully explored this issue and found the complete opposite of the nonsense you spew. Jeremy's team abandoned efforts to attack the moderator evidence on this basis because the COLP investigation cleared up the issues.
-
Everything points to the 3 parker hale silencers (SBJ/1, SJ/1, and DB/1) owned by the three named relatives falling into the possession of pokice, on 7th August 1985, 12th August 1985, and the 30th August 1985...
-
Ralph Bamber went along to Radcliffe the gun dealers in Colchester, on the 24th November to purchase the .22 semi-automatic rifle and parker hale silencer. However, the gun dealor informed Ralph Bamber that he would have to order the parker hale silencer from the manufacturers because on the 24th November he simply did not have any parker hale silencers in stock, because a new version had been manufactured from the beginning of the month. Radcliffe promised to get Ralph Bamber the very latest model which had been put into circulation from the beginning of the month. Arrangements were therefore made for the anshuzt rifle, new version of the parker hale silencer and 500 rounds of ammunition to be delivered directly to whf as soon as everything was received from the manufacturer. This fell on the 30th November 1984, and on that date, Radcliffe duly delivered evrything to Ralph Bamber at whf on the same day...
You made this up. Your lies render you a sad, pathetic joke. Neither Radcliffe nor anyone else has EVER claimed anything was delivered to WHF because it was out of stock at the time he made his purchase. You have no evidentiary basis for such a claim you simply made it up. This is one of the reasons why Jeremy kicked you to the curb you simply make things up and in the process he looks bad because the lies being made up are for his benefit so it makes it look like he put you up to it. Obvious lies do not help Jeremy they simply hurt your credibility. I suppose at some point one hits rock bottom and has no credibility left to lose so has nothing to lose in continuing to make up nonsense. It seems that is the terrain in which we currently sit. Time to find bigger boots to wear because the BS is only going to get thicker from here...
-
You made this up. Your lies render you a sad, pathetic joke. Neither Radcliffe nor anyone else has EVER claimed anything was delivered to WHF because it was out of stock at the time he made his purchase. You have no evidentiary basis for such a claim you simply made it up. This is one of the reasons why Jeremy kicked you to the curb you simply make things up and in the process he looks bad because the lies being made up are for his benefit so it makes it look like he put you up to it. Obvious lies do not help Jeremy they simply hurt your credibility. I suppose at some point one hits rock bottom and has no credibility left to lose so has nothing to lose in continuing to make up nonsense. It seems that is the terrain in which we currently sit. Time to find bigger boots to wear because the BS is only going to get thicker from here...
You talk BS as well - you have no idea why jb and mt fell out. You are making assumptions.
-
Jeremy told me personally during one of our many in depth discussions that on the 24th November 1984, that he went along to Radcliffes to purchase the rifle, a parker hale silencer and ammunition. When they got there, the silencer was not in stock, so it was arranged to order it and deliver everything a week later. The purchased items were delivered to whf a week later on the 30th August 1985...
-
You talk BS as well - you have no idea why jb and mt fell out. You are making assumptions.
It is easy to see why Jeremy had problems with you.
1) You posted actual documents that Jeremy didn't want released because his campaign team likes to lie about what is in those documents and by posting them their lies were exposed.
2) You make up absurd things that harm his name because the lies are made on his behalf and worse many of the lies you tell are refuted by the very documents that were publicly released.
This renders you a liability not an asset.
-
Jeremy told me personally during one of our many in depth discussions that on the 24th November 1984, that he went along to Radcliffes to purchase the rifle, a parker hale silencer and ammunition. When they got there, the silencer was not in stock, so it was arranged to order it and deliver everything a week later. The purchased items were delivered to whf a week later on the 30th August 1985...
Anyone who has any doubts about what I am saying, why don't you write directly to Jeremy Bamber and ask him, if what I am reporting is accurately spoken about by me...
-
Jeremy told me personally during one of our many in depth discussions that on the 24th November 1984, that he went along to Radcliffes to purchase the rifle, a parker hale silencer and ammunition. When they got there, the silencer was not in stock, so it was arranged to order it and deliver everything a week later. The purchased items were delivered to whf a week later on the 30th August 1985...
Even if Jeremy made this claim it would not be credible but I don't believe he did make this claim to you. You lie more than Jeremy does and that is pretty amazing because his lies were to avoid liability/get out of jail. You lie just for attention...
-
Anyone remotely interested in the truth - go look at the two diagrams in the two General Examination records, dated, 13th August 1985, and the 25th September 1985, and tell me that these two diagrams are of the same parker hale silencer, or two different ones?
-
Anyone who has any doubts about what I am saying, why don't you write directly to Jeremy Bamber and ask him, if what I am reporting is accurately spoken about by me...
Someone else can write to his to see if he admits to telling such to you. Even if he did claim such it would not be a credible claim that he had to order a new batch of moderators from Parker hale and in the meantime Parker-Hale still had a supply of 17 baffled moderators to sell anyway. They didn't stop making them until sometime in November 1984. The 17 baffled supply wasn't instantly shipped out the same day it was produced. They would be shipped out weeks or even months after being manufactured. Old supply is totally exhausted before they start shipping new supply.
Jeremy's team determined the moderator would have 17 baffles and thus never made any legal challenge that the 17 baffled moderator wasn't Nevill's. So that means he didn't tell any story to them about getting a brand new 14 baffle one. So that means either he lied to you or you lied to us. Either way it falls far short of establish the moderator purchased by Nevill had 14 baffles.
-
Anyone remotely interested in the truth - go look at the two diagrams in the two General Examination records, dated, 13th August 1985, and the 25th September 1985, and tell me that these two diagrams are of the same parker hale silencer, or two different ones?
They are the same the person who drew the first one can draw better. The person drawing the second like me is hardly an artist...
-
4 parker hale silencers, accompanied by 4 sets of exhibit references (1) SBJ/1, (2) SJ/1, (3) DB/1, and (4) AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1...
It stands to reason that the police would need to identify the sound moderator in their possession st any one time. If their was only ever just the one parker hale silencer in police possession at any one time, then to whom did that silencer belong to?
-
There are a different set of grooves around the circumference of the silencers tubing, when comparing the diagrams contained in lab' records, dated, 13th August 1985, and 25th September 1985 - this establishes that these were two entirely different parker hale silencers. In due course when the next police investigation gets under way, the people responsible for sketching these silencers will have to answer some very delicate and sensitive questions...
-
There are a different set of grooves around the circumference of the silencers tubing, when comparing the diagrams contained in lab' records, dated, 13th August 1985, and 25th September 1985 - this establishes that these were two entirely different parker hale silencers. In due course when the next police investigation gets under way, the people responsible for sketching these silencers will have to answer some very delicate and sensitive questions...
No witness statement exists, no explanation given, regarding why two different parker hale silencers were sketched on these lab' records...
-
Mike its just not worth it!
straying from the facts will unsettle you, and will leave you open to a sucker punch. Realize that if any one of your statements is shown to be inaccurate, it devalues everything you've said to that point and beyond. To maintain a valid discussion and stay calm, stick to the facts.
Be aware that there are people who must always be right. In this case, the idea of an argument is futile and you need to change the subject or shut down any argument. This isn't about giving in to someone with a difficult personality or a stubborn will; it's about recognizing that your own time and mental health are more valuable than launching into proving such a person wrong. As far as that sort of person is concerned, he or she will never be wrong, so you really are wasting your time.
-
4 parker hale silencers, accompanied by 4 sets of exhibit references (1) SBJ/1, (2) SJ/1, (3) DB/1, and (4) AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1...
It stands to reason that the police would need to identify the sound moderator in their possession st any one time. If their was only ever just the one parker hale silencer in police possession at any one time, then to whom did that silencer belong to?
AE/1 was not a moderator it was a scope or something else but appears to have been the scope.
CAE/1 was a notecard
SJ/1 was never an exhibit it is simply made up by you.
There were only 3 references for moderators SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 and all 3 were the same moderator. The change from DB/1 to DRB/1 is unassailable so that leaves you at most trying to argue SBJ/1 and DB/1(AKA DRB/1) were different moderators but you have no evidence of 2 moderators being collected, no evidence of 2 different moderators being reviewed side by side and no evidence to establish a moderator was marked DB/1 at the time it was sent to the lab in August or September...
Lying doesn't help you it just ruins your credibility if you are actually honest you have zilch to support your allegations and would have to admit you simply made them up from thin air. Since you made them up from thin air you make up lies about original Holab forms indicating on 8/30/85 moderator 23 labeled DB/1 was sent to the lab but there is no original documentation actually asserting such which is why you can't produce it. You simply made it up to support your made up fables just as you made up SJ/1.
-
Scipio
there is no doubt you are an excellent debater. It is obvious you have studied this case very well.
However, your rebuttals are somewhat rude at times and I think it very unfair you slip in very cruel comments and jibes to Mike.
I am beginning to think you are enjoying trying to belittle Mike.
There is a name for that but it doesn't spring to mind at the moment.
Please learn to be kinder.
-
We then have a further conflict of evidence involving one of the parker hale silencers in Cooks possession on the 29th August 1985, and a parker hale silencer inspected on behalf of the defence in May 1986. I have already successfully established by reference to photographic evidence that the parker hale silencer on that occasion bore the exhibit mark SJ/1. Upon close inspection of the said photographs, it becomes apparent that the baffle plates of this particular silencer were downward facing. In comparison, at the time of the May 1986 examination, the baffle plates were upward facing (as confirmed by a diagramatic sketch)...
The question I pose, is this...
if the position of blood group activity as depicted in the May 1986 record is accurate, then blood group activity was detected in a number of consecutive baffle plates at the top end of the silencer. Yet, in Cooks photographs taken on 29th August 1985, show the removed baffles of SJ/1 downward facing, with the first 6 baffles separated, and no sign whatsoever of any blood, or any flake of blood in that part of the silencer. A further 11 baffle plates were not separated at this time, but in any event this section of 11 downward facing baffles were positioned at the bottom end of the silencer...
This suggests that different parker hale silencers were being examined on 29th August 1985, as opposed to the one being examined on the 28th May 1986...
-
We then have a further conflict of evidence involving one of the parker hale silencers in Cooks possession on the 29th August 1985, and a parker hale silencer inspected on behalf of the defence in May 1986. I have already successfully established by reference to photographic evidence that the parker hale silencer on that occasion bore the exhibit mark SJ/1. Upon close inspection of the said photographs, it becomes apparent that the baffle plates of this particular silencer were downward facing. In comparison, at the time of the May 1986 examination, the baffle plates were upward facing (as confirmed by a diagramatic sketch)...
The question I pose, is this...
if the position of blood group activity as depicted in the May 1986 record is accurate, then blood group activity was detected in a number of consecutive baffle plates at the top end of the silencer. Yet, in Cooks photographs taken on 29th August 1985, show the removed baffles of SJ/1 downward facing, with the first 6 baffles separated, and no sign whatsoever of any blood, or any flake of blood in that part of the silencer. A further 11 baffle plates were not separated at this time, but in any event this section of 11 downward facing baffles were positioned at the bottom end of the silencer...
This suggests that different parker hale silencers were being examined on 29th August 1985, as opposed to the one being examined on the 28th May 1986...
if there was only just the one parker hale silencer, how could the baffle plates be the wrong way around, on the two aforementioned occasions?
-
Scipio
there is no doubt you are an excellent debater. It is obvious you have studied this case very well.
However, your rebuttals are somewhat rude at times and I think it very unfair you slip in very cruel comments and jibes to Mike.
I am beginning to think you are enjoying trying to belittle Mike.
There is a name for that but it doesn't spring to mind at the moment.
Please learn to be kinder.
There is no way to sugarcoat it when someone is lying and simply making things up. Long ago I demonstrated Mike was wrong about there being an exhibit marked SJ/1 and showed that Cook's COLP statement doesn't state such. Mike doubled down by making up that he has photos of the moderator with a tag marked SJ/1. His claim he possesses them but refuses to release them is not credible. Clearly COLP would have questioned witnesses regarding a label marked SJ/1 if one had actually existed so it is patently obvious he made up these photos just like he made up that Cook's witness statement asserts he marked it SJ/1. At some point these things can no longer be characterized as reasonable mistakes. When you progress to making up photos that support your claims things have escalated to the level of outright fraud. There is no kind way to put it.
Similarly, COLP made clear the only Holab form that ever referred to a moderator as 23 is one of the triplicate copies of the 8/13/85 submission. Mike chose to ignore such and insists he has a form from 8/30/85 that shows the moderator was known on this date as lab number 23 police exhibit DB/1. It is obvious Mike made up possessing such document because if it actually existed then Cook and others would have been asked by COLP about it.
Mike still hasn't learned that making up things is pointless. Most people ignore Mike. He mainly posts in his own threads to himself and few people respond to him. Those who do typically humor him simply.
It seems like he is tolerated simply because he runs the site so he has to be but people largely go on about their business as if he isn't here. It is quite an odd dynamic.
He seems to be seeking attention with his stories but is not getting the attention he seeks so his efforts are backfiring. I don't understand why he continues full steam ahead with such instead of posting honestly in a way that brings him into the community of posters instead of essentially a pariah. It makes no sense to me at all.
-
We then have a further conflict of evidence involving one of the parker hale silencers in Cooks possession on the 29th August 1985, and a parker hale silencer inspected on behalf of the defence in May 1986. I have already successfully established by reference to photographic evidence that the parker hale silencer on that occasion bore the exhibit mark SJ/1. Upon close inspection of the said photographs, it becomes apparent that the baffle plates of this particular silencer were downward facing. In comparison, at the time of the May 1986 examination, the baffle plates were upward facing (as confirmed by a diagramatic sketch)...
The question I pose, is this...
if the position of blood group activity as depicted in the May 1986 record is accurate, then blood group activity was detected in a number of consecutive baffle plates at the top end of the silencer. Yet, in Cooks photographs taken on 29th August 1985, show the removed baffles of SJ/1 downward facing, with the first 6 baffles separated, and no sign whatsoever of any blood, or any flake of blood in that part of the silencer. A further 11 baffle plates were not separated at this time, but in any event this section of 11 downward facing baffles were positioned at the bottom end of the silencer...
This suggests that different parker hale silencers were being examined on 29th August 1985, as opposed to the one being examined on the 28th May 1986...
There is no photo of a SJ/1 this is simply made up by you along with the rest.
-
"It seems like he is tolerated simply because he runs the site so he has to be but people largely go on about their business as if he isn't here. It is quite an odd dynamic. "
No that is not the reason.
Mike has spent hours studying lots of documents because even though he is not in contact with JB he still considers him innocent . Which we all understand.
you also have apparently spent hours studying the case - apparently for no reason - because you know 100% he is guilty - so what on earth is the point trying to prove something which in your world has already been proven?
-
"It seems like he is tolerated simply because he runs the site so he has to be but people largely go on about their business as if he isn't here. It is quite an odd dynamic. "
No that is not the reason.
Mike has spent hours studying lots of documents because even though he is not in contact with JB he still considers him innocent . Which we all understand.
you also have apparently spent hours studying the case - apparently for no reason - because you know 100% he is guilty - so what on earth is the point trying to prove something which in your world has already been proven?
The way to know whether he is guilty or the claims made by Jeremy supporters were true was to research the claims made by Jeremy supporters to see if the claims hold water. It turns out they do not. I like to argue and since there are people arguing he is innocent it is ripe for argument.
It would be nice if people would make some challenging arguments though, I am bored because of so much nonsense is often bandied about.
At best Jeremy supporters can try to use the documentary evidence to suggest there were 2 moderators in police possession. It would have been impossible to keep the moderator and other evidence attributed to Boutflour with the DB prefix because David Bird already was using such prefix so for sure the items had to be changed. These items were all changed from DB to DRB after the main testing took place already.
So the only real question is whether SBJ/1 and DB/1(renamed DRB/1) were the same or different. Evidence establishes they were the same so Jeremy dropped this argument from the legal arena and basically it is just a propaganda point used by the campaign team. If a Jeremy supporter wants to go through the motions then they should make it a debate about whether SBJ/1 and DB/1 are indeed the same as claimed.
Instead Mike refuses to admit the DB to DRB change took place and also makes up that there was a SJ/1 moderator and claims there were thus 4 different moderators. He falsely claims he saw a photo of a moderator bearing a SJ/1 label. He also suggested he saw a document showing a moderator was known as serial number 23 DRB/1 on August 30. Such nonsense pretty much makes the debate a joke and just serves to undermine any credibility in the real debate which should be over SBJ/1 and DB/1. That real debate should feature the original paperwork to demonstrate what the label said at the time of submission. Paperwork amended later is proof the amendments were made later and that it was the same moderator.
Mike doesn't engage in an objective logical review of the evidence he decides what he wants to argue and then tries to twist the evidence to fit going so far as to make up evidence that doesn't exist. Mike uses having known JB and possessing documents to garner attention. When someone keeps making things up though and distorting it makes people no longer trust them.
Long ago while debating with mike I asked why no one else posts in his threads and why he doesn't post in other threads. I was basically told people knew his claims were false and chose to demonstrate they knew his claims were false by failing to respond to them as opposed to my style of challenging them and thus giving him attention. People also said they often couldn't comprehend what Mike was even suggesting.
I have seen the same play out again and again. A small handful like lookout repeat his allegations but most ignore them. When Mike says he has documents people want to see the documents they don't want to see what mike claims the documents state. They offer to come physically help look through them or to scan them.
Mike's deceptions have achieved the opposite of what he hoped. At some point he should wake up and smell the coffee and consider changing his habits.
-
Of course photographs of the parker hale silencer (SJ/1) exist, anyone who says they don't simply does not know what they are taljibg about...
-
On evening of 9th August 1985, Jones and Jones visited Jeremy at his cottage, and asked him if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun the previous evening?
This establishes that police knew about the silencer long before 12th August when Peter Eaton handed another one of them over...
-
1) The various witness statements reference one moderator handed in to police on July 12, 1985 wrong, again . No witness statements provide any evidentiary support to the rubbish you post about Jones seizing a moderator from WHF thats what you think or Ann Eaton handing in another moderator on September 11 yes, she did .
2) There are no lab records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 yes, there is by police Wrong again, bozo or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11. yes, there is Lab records detail a single moderator being examined no, they don't. Lab' records give information about 3 of them and it is the moderator the statements all say was taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August. no, they don't
3) There are no police records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 by police yes, there are or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11. Wrong again, she handed over a parker hale silencer on that occasion Police records detail a single moderator being taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August. they took one from him on that date, this was in addition to the silencer taken frim the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, and much later another parker hale silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11 September 1985...
4) There are no photographs detailing multiple moderators let alone photos asserting police seized 1 on the day of the murders and other photos stating one was taken from Ann Eaton on September 11. The only way photos could state such is if they had writing on the back but there are no such photos. why are you making up all this nonsense about all these different photographs of all the parker hale silencers. You are a complete fruitcake
5) The prefix changes have been innocently explained. no, they have not At the time Jones turned it over to Cook he didn't know who found the moderator so it was simply given his initials SBJ. no, it was not. There was no label on it, Cook marked the brown label at the lab', he marked it SJ/1, that is the absolute truth of the matter In September after interviewing the family they found out it was found by David Boutflour so at that time it was changed to DB/1 you bumbling bafoon, no it wasn't, the parker hale silencer sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, had the exhibit mark of DB/1 (23), so that part of your nonsencicle explanation sank along with the titanic and the lab was notified of the change. and when was that, I might as well humour you?At the same time the scope was named DB/2, the bullets DB/3 and the shotgun shells DB/4. [color=red ] wrong again, bozo, these items all had AE and CAE exhibit references beforehand, get your facts right [/color]Later they realized David Bird was using DB and thus there were already exhibits with the same designations so they renamed the Boutflour exhibits DRB. that was the punitive explanation offered but it can easily be exposed as an unnecessary lie. Since, the exhibited items in question were unique to a particular person, found or seized in unique circumstances, so there was no need to change any exhibit references. These individual items had different lab' item reference numbers, and different court exhibit numbers, so as I say, there was no need to tamper with exhibit references at all. They HAD TO change them because there was no way to have two sets of DB exhibits in the same case it would be too confusing. what an utter load of codswallop. How much more confusing would it be to keep changing the exhibit references to the same item? You ignore the evidence and ridiculously assert DB/1 and 2 had to be 2 different moderators. I did no such thing, bozo, I have never said DRB/2 was a silencer, so get your flippin facts right You don't similarly assert there were 2 scopes, two sets of bullets, two sets of shotgun shells. what the blooming hell are you going on about, are you nuts or something?So you ignore the changes of the other items to suit your agenda no, I don't and this cherry picking shows you are not being sincere but rather just pushing your agenda. I have not been cherry picking, as you put it. You are choosing to do that, then trying to blame me for doing that which you yourself are responsible for doing, bozo The evidenc eproves beyond all question the change from the references from DB to DRB was innocent and necessary it was not necessary, at all. PC Birds soil sample, and one of the parker hale silencers were unique pieces of evidence, found or taken in different circumstances, both with different lab' item numbers, and separate court exhibits. Therefore no need to start tampering with exhibit references... . You have produced ZILCH to demonstrate otherwise. I don't have to prove anything at all to you bozo You just run with allegations that make no sense of course what I am speaking about makes complete sense and have no support. I have all the support to back up everything I have said in the thousands of case papers in my possession compared to just a few that I have allowed you access to Similarly you have nothing to counter the police explanation of changing various items to DB of course I have in order to reflect the initials of the person who actually found the items. Your allegations are all empty and baseless. no, they are factual and absolutely true You make allegations without any evidence to support your claims there is always evidence available to support all my allegations and ignore the valid reasons that the record establishes for the changes. the official explanation offered for altering exhibit references is a bogus and unnecessary one These changes do not establish there was more than 1 moderator yes, they do let alone establish a moderator was seized by police on August 7 [color=red ] you keep going round and round in circles, repeating your nonsenwe over and over because you do not have anything constructive to say, you are pathetic [/color]and a moderator received from Ann Eaton on September 11.
6) There was no change in the lab serial number associated with the moderator. yes, there was, the relatives parker hale silencer (DB/1) sent to the lab on 30th August 1985, was given a lab' item number of 23... A single document listed it as 23 instead of 22 no, it did not, Cooi sent a hand written note, dated, 17th October 1985, to Fletcher, asking him to alter the lab' item number 23 of the silencer to 22 and Cook admitted such was a clerical error on his part. no, he did not, there were two parker hale silencers sent to the lab' one on 13th August (SJ/1), and a different one 8n 30th August (DB/1). THE FOMER WAS GIVEN LAB' ITEM NO. 22, AND THE LATTER WAS GIVEN LAB' ITEM NO. 23 The forms are filled out by hand in triplicate and on the third form he screwed up and wrote 23 by accident. no, he did not, the alterations came later as part of the attempt to merge the different parker hale silencers into the same one The 3 forms are all identical except for this error. you describe it as an error but the truth is was that this was part of the attempt to merge different parker hale silencers into the same one The lab referred to it as item 22 at all times no, they do not, the lab' never referred to the DB/1 parker hale silencer as no. 22, unless Fletcher altered it later on the say so of Cook, as per the contents of his hand written note, dated, 17th October 1985 and the police referred to it as item 22 the clerical error was ignored. it was not a clerical error, and they did not ignore it as suggested by you, they in fact took steps to change it, and in various places and upon different records they managed to succeed in doing so This clerical error doesn't support more than than 1 moderator your assertion that it was a clerical error is a dishonest interpretation of the facts let alone establish a moderator was seized by police on August 7 I have corrected you countless times already on your misrepresentation of yhe facts, so in future refere to my previous answer and a moderator received from Ann Eaton on September 11. refer to my previous answer given in response to your misreprented assertion in this instance
It is not recorded on any documents that she handed in a moderator on September 11. you need to refer to my previous answer regarding this point You can't post any such documents on this website I can, but I won't even bother whilst ever morins like you are being so rude and despicable. I won't be forced by anybody to pist up new material, I don't like bullies, and you fall into that category because they do not exist. documents supporting everything I say do exist, but with your attitude you will never get to see them on demand at the click of your fingers
So now you return to your admission that nothing posted on this site to date or publicly released by Bamber to date supports your claims those are your chouce of words, not mineand assert you have documents that prove it but have yet to release them I have what I have, and I have pisted up, what I have pisted up ...
If you had such documents you would have posted them long ago I have over 50, 000 documents and have not pisted all of them up, so that kind of shows you in a poor light by makibg assertions which cannot possibly be remotely true. and kept posting them in every thread you post your claims in. Well, I have not done that You have no such documents of course I have such dicuments, how many times do you need to be told, are you thick or something they are simply fictions of your own mind. so, says you, the king of liars There are no unreleased statements refer to my previous replies on this point stating Ann Eaton turned in a moderator on September 11 refer to previous answer on this matter or that Jones seized a moderator on the day of the murders from WHF. so says you, just refer to my previous answer in this matter There are no police records of other kinds asserting such that you have thus seen, obviously . There are no lab records asserting such. [b? refer to previous answer [/b]You are lying to us about possessing such evidence no, I am telling the truth the same way you lied about seeing a photo of Sheila's body on the bed. the truth is Sheila's body was photographed on the bed, and videod on the bed, before police moved her body to the floor We know her body was never on the bed then you can't know the truth in the matter, yiur assertions are based upon a mountain of mistruths she was on the floor after police moved her body there and stage maged it, I agree - the testimony establishes that the firearms officers refused to testify during the trial, because they jnew the contents of witness statements were untruthful as does her blood on the floor. and the bed, don't forget the bed, and the bloodstain on the reverse of her nightdress, not present on the bedroom carpet If that evidence had not existed we would still know that they would not have taken photos of her in bed she wasn't in bed, she was laid on the bed before moving her to the floor they would have moved her to the floor before taking photos. how could you possible know that? So your claim you saw photos would still not be credible even if it had not been for the pool of her blood on the floor. you are talking nonsense, because once police moved her body to the bedroom floir from the bed, her blood wiuld contaminate the caroet unless it had already dried You have no real evidence so you make up evidence which you say you can't release because you no longer possess it or you refuse to release despite possessing it.these are your choice of words, not mine Why should anyone believe you?I am only reporting the true facts
Oh yes you did, this is a direct cut and paste of your post: "you are not reporting the circumstances accurately Phone messages were recorded regarding David Boutflour contacting Essex police on 10th September informing police that he had found the gun silencer, his sister handed exhibits over to police on the following day the 11th September 1985, as compared against the date, 12August her husband Peter handed over the other silencer to DS Jones."
you always run away from your own words, that is another sign you are just making crap up and then when busted you deny ever making the bogus claims.
There is no lab document which states a moderator to be examined was taken from Ann Eaton on September 11.
The moderator was going back and forth to the lab it wasn't there continuously and they removed the blood at various times. There was still microscopic traces of blood left when defense expert Lincoln examined it he was able to detect blood on the first 8 baffles and even was able to test the blood to find out it was group A.
The evidence you cite doesn't establish more than 1 moderator let alone assert a moderator turned over by Ann Eaton on September 11 was being tested. Ther eis not a single documentary reference to a moderator handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11 ANYWHERE- You simply decided to make up that at the same time Oakey took the scope and bullets from Ann Eaton that he also took another moderator. You have no evidence of this you just made it up that on this date he took a moderator from her as well. Her statement doesn't assert she gave him a moderator, Oakey's statement doesn't suggest it. No moderator was sent to the lab with the items Oakey took. You simply made the claim up. The fact the moderator was sent to the lab multiple times doesn't even establish there were multiple moderators let alone establish that on September 11 Ann Eaton handed in a moderator.
You make so many different claims you forget what you write. You asserted the family found 2 moderators at WHF and that they turned in one in August and the other in September. Your claims constantly change because instead of having a position based on evidence things are fluid and you simply make up allegations a new each time you post. You even contradict yourself by on one hand asserting you have evidence but refuse to release it and on the other hand insisting the statements and other documents posted on this site already establish your claims. I'm not the one posting contradictory and confusing things- you are. I am not confusing what you write or confusing you you are the one confusing others to the point that most can't even follow what you are alleging.
-
Of course photographs of the parker hale silencer (SJ/1) exist, anyone who says they don't simply does not know what they are taljibg about...
How come COLP never saw this photo? How come the campaign site doesn't mention such a photo? How come such photo is not on this site?
It is a figment of your imagination- that is why.
-
On evening of 9th August 1985, Jones and Jones visited Jeremy at his cottage, and asked him if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun the previous evening?
This establishes that police knew about the silencer long before 12th August when Peter Eaton handed another one of them over...
On 9/17/85 Jones said the following when asked about the meeting on Aug 9:
(http://s10.postimg.org/7hbr81ovt/jonesaug9.jpg)
There is no mention of Taff Jones asking him anything about a moderator.
In any event on August 8 Anthony told police about the gun having a moderator on it when he saw it. So asking Jeremy on the 9th whether the moderator was attached or not when he took the gun out would not be an unusual question if it had been asked. But there is no evidence that suggests Taff Jones actually asked Jeremy such. In 1991 Stan Jones wasn't positive what was discussed that night because so much time had passed. Taff Jones was dead so could not be asked. But he gave the above statement a month later when it still would have been fresh in his mind.
-
"1) The various witness statements reference one moderator handed in to police on July 12, 1985"
wrong, again .
Then post the statements that reference a moderator handed in or seized at any other time in 1985. There are no such statements the only statements discuss the moderator found by Boutflour on Aug 10, that was turned over Aug 12. You can't post any because there are none you just make up the claim there are statements and expect people to accept your word.
"No witness statements provide any evidentiary support to the rubbish you post about Jones seizing a moderator from WHF or Ann Eaton handing in another moderator on September 11" thats what you think. yes, she did .
I know there are no statements that suggest Jones seized a moderator on Aug 7 or at any other date from WHF. The only statements discussing a moderator he took possession of assert it was handed to him by Peter Eaton at Oak Farm on Aug 12. The trial testimony says the same. There is no testimony or any statements discussing Ann Eaton turning over a moderator on September 11 or any other date to police. If they existed you would have posted them you are simply trying to play games but such games are futile- as futile as me going to the Lottery Commission and telling them I won the PowerBall jackpot and telling them to just trust I have a ticket that demonstrates I won the grand prize though I refuse to show it to them. They would not even give me so much as a dime just on my say so.
"There are no lab records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 by police"
yes, there is Wrong again, bozo
"or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11."
yes, there is
"Lab records detail a single moderator being examined and it is the moderator the statements all say was taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August."
no, they don't. Lab' records give information about 3 of them and it is the moderator the statements all say was taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August.
You offer no evidence at all to prove any of your claims. We are just expected to believe your claims though the documents on this site and the COLP findings say you are wrong. It doesn't work that way you need to produce evidence to back up your claims- no tickee no laundry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob05sr6hKW8
"There are no police records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 by police"
yes, there are
"or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11."
Wrong again, she handed over a parker hale silencer on that occasion
"Police records detail a single moderator being taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August. they took one from him on that date"
this was in addition to the silencer taken frim the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, and much later another parker hale silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11 September 1985...
I posted how there are no police records of any moderator being collected in 1985 beyond the one foudn by Boutflour that was handed in on Aug 12. You have offered nothing to refute this. You have produced no police records or other documents showing a moderator was seized at WHF on Aug 7 and another turned in by Eaton on September 11 all you have done is repeat your unsupported allegation that 2 other moderators were seized. Insisting it happened doesn't prove it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob05sr6hKW8
"There are no photographs detailing multiple moderators let alone photos asserting police seized 1 on the day of the murders and other photos stating one was taken from Ann Eaton on September 11. The only way photos could state such is if they had writing on the back but there are no such photos."
why are you making up all this nonsense about all these different photograohs of alk the parker hale silencers. You are a complete fruitcake
You are the one who made up nonsense about possessing photos detailing multiple moderators including one marked SJ/1 on the label. I am merely pointing out why your claims of possessing such are not credible. Talk is cheap produce if you fail to produce the photos that is solid evidence that you made it up.
"The prefix changes have been innocently explained."
no, they have not
Sure they have.
(http://s8.postimg.org/5mbwbt85h/jonescolpexhibitprefixes.jpg)
The statements of all involved and the various things done to documents that contained the exhibit references to amend those references in the documents when the changes occurred all confirm what Jones claimed.
"At the time Jones turned it over to Cook he didn't know who found the moderator so it was simply given his initials SBJ."
no, it was not. There was no label on it, Cook marked the brown label at the lab', he marked it SJ/1, that is the absolute truth of the matter
Cook stated he marked the label SBJ/1. You keep lying pointlessly about this:
The last line states as clear as day it was marked SBJ/1 and this is from his COLP interview:
(http://s18.postimg.org/5po60niqx/cook1.jpg)
It is confirmed by the Holab form:
(http://s3.postimg.org/6dggd08df/holabform.jpg)
Your claim you have a photo of it with a label marked SJ/1 is a lie which is why you can't produce such photo.
"In September after interviewing the family they found out it was found by David Boutflour so at that time it was changed to DB/1"
you bumbling bafoon, no it wasn't, the parker hale silencer sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, had the exhibit mark of DB/1 (23), so that part of your nonsencicle explanation sank along with the titanic
This is just another of your lies. There is no original Holab form that was submitted on 8/30/85 which referred to the moderator as lab number 23 and police exhibit DB/1. You can't produce such document because it doesn't exist.[/quote]
"and the lab was notified of the change"
and when was that, I might as well humour you?
The precise date might be in the COLP report, the exact date might never have been ascertained. The COLP interviews demonstrate it happened whether they documented the exact date of the change is unknown. You refuse to release the report, the pertinent portions of the Dickinson report, and other COLP documents that would discuss such precisely because you know if you released such then the jig would be up for sure. The jig is up anyway though because the burden of proof rests with you the proponent and you have none. I don't have to prove a negative you have to prove your claims but you can't because they are untrue.
"At the same time [that the moderator was renamed DB/1] the scope was named DB/2, the bullets DB/3 and the shotgun shells DB/4."
wrong again, bozo, these items all had AE and CAE exhibit references beforehand, get your facts right
My facts are straight. The same time the change was made to reflect the moderator had been found by Boutflour the exhibit references for the other items he found were also changed. Thus the scope was changed to DB/2, the bullets to DB/3 and shotgun shells were DB/4. Upon learning DB was already in use by David Bird these all changed in unison to DRB/1-4. So the change to DB featured all of them changing to DB and then the further change also featured all of them. I don't see you claiming there were 3 scopes by virtue of the 3 changes...
"Later they realized David Bird was using DB and thus there were already exhibits with the same designations so they renamed the Boutflour exhibits DRB."
that was the punitive explanation offered but it can easily be exposed as an unnecessary lie. Since, the exhibited items in question were unique to a particular person, found or seized in unique circumstances, so there was no need to change any exhibit references. These individual items had different lab' item reference numbers, and different court exhibit numbers, so as aI say, there was no need to tamper with exhibit references at all.
First of all Biff, this is the 5th time you said this- the word is "putative" not "punitive" you sound like a fool when you say it like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rze0XkDUqQ
Second, the exhibit prefix is supposed to denote WHO found an item so that it could be instantly known just by virtue of the prefix that is why different prefixes are used. Otherwise they could just keep a running number and would not even need prefixes at all. They amended it to denote who actually found them.
"They HAD TO change them because there was no way to have two sets of DB exhibits in the same case it would be too confusing."
what an utter load of codswallop. How much more confusibg would it be to keep changing the exhibit references to the same item?
Amending the exhibit numbers didn't cause any confusion it cleared up confusion that would have been caused by multiple items having the same exact exhibit reference.
"You ignore the evidence and ridiculously assert DB/1 and 2 had to be 2 different moderators."
I did no such thing, bozo, I have never said DRB/2 was a silencer, so get your flippin facts right
It was supposed to read DB/1 and DRB/1. By the context you should have figured that out since I stated so many times in the same post DB/2 was the scope and particularly given the point I was making that followed:
"You don't similarly assert there were 2 scopes, two sets of bullets, two sets of shotgun shells."
"You don't similarly assert there were 2 scopes, two sets of bullets, two sets of shotgun shells. So you ignore the changes of the other items to suit your agenda and this cherry picking shows you are not being sincere but rather just pushing your agenda."
what the blooming hell are you going on about, are you nuts or something?
I don't know how I can spell it out anymore clearly. The exhibit references for all 4 items found in the closet by Boutflour were changed at the same time the moderator reference was changed. The moderator became DB/1, the scope DB/2 the bullets DB/3 the shotgun shells DB/4. When the change was made to DRB because David Bird was using DB already the 4 were changed in unison to DRB/1-4.
There is no way to claim the change from DB/1-4 to DRB/1-4 was anything except because of the conflict caused by David Bird already utilizing DB. If one is making the claim there was a different moderator issued DRB/1 then to be consistent one would have to argue there were another scope named DRB/2 and another set of bullets....
-
The key blood evidence was found inside a parker hale silencer DB/1 (23) belonging to one of the relatives. This begs the question, of the whereabouts of this particular parker hale silencer after the shootings?
-
The key blood evidence was found inside a parker hale silencer DB/1 (23) belonging to one of the relatives. This begs the question, of the whereabouts of this particular parker hale silencer after the shootings?
The blood evidence was all found in SBJ/1 which was later renamed DB/1 which later still was renamed DRB/1. This is what police say and what the evidence demonstrates. You have simply empty allegations saying otherwise.
-
Ok here are the exhibits:
CAE/1 Letter from Sheila to AE that was mailed from the hospital during her second breakdown (turned over to police on Aug 7, 1985)
CAE/1A Plan of the Caravan site prepared for Police
CAE/2 Notecard containing statements made by Jeremy the day of the murders
CAE/3 kitchen plan showing normal positions of the victims when they sat at the kitchen table
CAE/4 Notecard from August 8, 1985
CAE/5 List of questions prepared for police officers
CAE/6 Spare Key removed from coal shed by Jean Boutell and handed over to AE
CAE/7 Card from flowers sent by Jeremy to the Eatons
CAE/8 AJ/Barker circular found in rubbish bin
AE/1 the telescopic rifle scope (renamed DB/2 and ultimately DRB/2)
AE/2 box containing Abu carrier Bag and rifle ammunition (renamed DB/3 and ultimately DRB/3)
-
Moderator progression Evidence:
Holab form proving submitted 8/13/85 as SBJ/1 (earliest Holab available)
Examination record dated 9/25/85 as SBJ/1 (latest Holab form referring to it as SBJ/1)
Sometime between this date and October 17 it was changed to DB/1 while AE/1-3 were renamed DB/2-3. The Raker shotgun box collected on 9/14/85 was renamed DB/4 and subsequently renamed DRB/4.
Oct 17 a message was passed to Fletcher noting the change. This doesn't necessarily mean the change occurred that day though simply by that day.
There could be other forms subsequent to 9/25/85 which refer to it as SBJ/1 that were not publicly released we don't have all the documents by any stretch. So we can simply narrow the change down to such time-frame.
The COLP report might have narrowed it down further or even found the exact date but we don't have that report, all the COLP statements or all the COLP exhibits. Someone chooses not to post all of them...
-
The key blood evidence was only found in the parker hale silencer marked DB/1 (23) belonging to one of the relatives...
-
The Bamber owned paker hale silencer did not get sent to the Lab' at Huntingdon until 20th September 1985, by which stage all the key blood group evidence had already been removed from one of the relatives parker hale silencer (DB/1 - 23)...
-
Considering that relatives and Ralph Bamber all had parker hale silencers, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the the silencer (DB/1 - 23) inside which the key blood group evidence was found and removed by John Hayward in the presence of Malcolm Fletcher on the 12th September 1985, was the parker hale silencer belonging solely to Ralph Bamber. I do not believe that the prosecution proved that to be the case. The SILENCER (DB/1 - 23) could just as easily belonged to ine of the relatives who themselves became key prosecution witnesses, who all stood to benefit financially if Jeremy Bamber was convicted of the murders...
-
Let's look at the known and established facts:-
Prosecution witness David Boutflour owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Robert Boutflour owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Anthony Pargeter owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Peter Eaton owned and possessed q parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Ann Eaton owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
On 7th August 1985, the day of the shootings police looked inside the cupboard at whf and did not see or come across a parkerhale silencer at all. We only have the relatives say so that they recovered the parker hale silencer from the scene on the 10thvAugust 1985, but it is equally just as lijeky that onebor more if them had it in thier oossession all of the time...
-
So easy when they all possess the same,eh ? Saves any complications !
-
The key blood evidence was only found in the parker hale silencer marked DB/1 (23) belonging to one of the relatives...
It was known as SBJ/1 at the time the blood was tested. The lab was notified to change the designation in their records to DB/1 in mid October 1985.
-
Let's look at the known and established facts:-
Prosecution witness David Boutflour owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Robert Boutflour owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Anthony Pargeter owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Peter Eaton owned and possessed q parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Ann Eaton owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
On 7th August 1985, the day of the shootings police looked inside the cupboard at whf and did not see or come across a parkerhale silencer at all. We only have the relatives say so that they recovered the parker hale silencer from the scene on the 10thvAugust 1985, but it is equally just as lijeky that onebor more if them had it in thier oossession all of the time...
Ann Eaton only owned shotguns, she didn't even own a rifle that was capable of using a moderator why do you always make up obvious lies? All you accomplish it do demonstrate you are intentionally lying and can't be trusted. In the meantime here is no evidence that suggests Peter Eaton had a moderator. He didn't claim such in any of his statements and there are no documents regarding a moderator he owned being tested ever.
There are documents that note the Boutflours and AP had moderators. During the trial the police requested to inspect the Boutflour moderators for testing and the Boutflours voluntarily turned them over to police. While taking a statement from AP police looked at his rifle and moderator but did not do a thorough examination at that time. In 1991 they requested his moderator and rifle for examination and he voluntarily allowed them to do so.
If the Boutflours had turned their moderators in to police in 1985 and lied pretending they were Nevill's moderator then they would not have been able to produce their moderators to police during the trial. Furthermore, if they had turned in their moderators police would have known they were lying because Nevill didn't have 2 moderators so turning in two and claiming both were Nevill's would have been absurd on their part. It also would have been absurd because if they didn't find Nevill's moderator then they would have known that means police had it so it would be absurd to say here we found Nevill's moderator knowing the police already had it.
You never think logically when making up your fairytales and always make up your fairytales without regard to the evidence thinking that we are too stupid to know any of the facts like the fact that Ann Eaton only used shotguns...
-
There is no way to sugarcoat it when someone is lying and simply making things up. Long ago I demonstrated Mike was wrong about there being an exhibit marked SJ/1 and showed that Cook's COLP statement doesn't state such. Mike doubled down by making up that he has photos of the moderator with a tag marked SJ/1. His claim he possesses them but refuses to release them is not credible. Clearly COLP would have questioned witnesses regarding a label marked SJ/1 if one had actually existed so it is patently obvious he made up these photos just like he made up that Cook's witness statement asserts he marked it SJ/1. At some point these things can no longer be characterized as reasonable mistakes. When you progress to making up photos that support your claims things have escalated to the level of outright fraud. There is no kind way to put it.
Similarly, COLP made clear the only Holab form that ever referred to a moderator as 23 is one of the triplicate copies of the 8/13/85 submission. Mike chose to ignore such and insists he has a form from 8/30/85 that shows the moderator was known on this date as lab number 23 police exhibit DB/1. It is obvious Mike made up possessing such document because if it actually existed then Cook and others would have been asked by COLP about it.
Mike still hasn't learned that making up things is pointless. Most xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx.
He mainly posts in his own threads to himself and few people respond to him. Those who do typically humor him simply.
It seems like he is tolerated simply because he runs the site so he has to be but people largely go on about their business xx xx xx xxxx xxxx. It is quite an odd dynamic.
He seems to be seeking attention with his stories but is not getting the attention he seeks so his efforts are backfiring. I don't understand why he continues full steam ahead with such instead of posting honestly in a way that brings him into the community of posters instead of essentially a pariah. It makes no sense to me at all.
;) :)
-
Let's look at the known and established facts:-
Prosecution witness David Boutflour owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Robert Boutflour owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Anthony Pargeter owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Peter Eaton owned and possessed q parker hale silencer
prosecution witness Ann Eaton owned and possessed a parker hale silencer
On 7th August 1985, the day of the shootings police looked inside the cupboard at whf and did not see or come across a parkerhale silencer at all. We only have the relatives say so that they recovered the parker hale silencer from the scene on the 10thvAugust 1985, but it is equally just as lijeky that onebor more if them had it in thier oossession all of the time...
The police at the scene didn't know Nevill owned a moderator so didn't know to look for it. The crime scene officers didn't search through all the boxes in the closet and didn't look for a moderator. The family first told OTHER Police about the moderator on the 8th of August. After such notice Taff Jones didn't bother to have such police search for the moderator because he didn't think it relevant since Jeremy claimed he left the gun out without the moderator attached. Even when it was turned in police didn't think much of it despite the blood they assumed it was simply animal blood. Only when the lab determined it was human blood did they even begin to take note and at that point they though the only potential value it held was in terms of fingerprints.
The family assumed police seized Nevill's moderator and if they didn't find Nevill's moderator then they would have figured police had it. It is absurd to suggest they would have doctored one of their own moderators and then misrepresented finding it at WHF if they thought police already had Nevill's moderator. It would be plainly obvious they could not have found Nevill's moderator if police already had it. The only way they would turn in a moderator to police and claim it was found at WHF would be if they actually found a moderator at WHF and thus knew police failed to take it. If they wanted to doctor a moderator they would doctor the actual moderator found at WHF not one of their own.
The only allegation a Jeremy supporter could make that would make any sense at all would be to claim they doctored Nevill's moderator which they found at WHF but there is no evidence they did doctor it and no evidence they had the skill or knowledge to be able to doctor it so as to plant Sheila's blood type on the first 8 baffles, tiny specks of blood on the outside and the paint.
-
Not only did DS Jones return to the scene from Jeremys cottage on the morning of the shootings, but upon returning there at just sfter 11am, he took possession of a parker hale silencer (SBJ/1), which DS Davidson fingerprinted on 9th August 1985...
-
Notice to all member's - I do not post information expecting any response from anyone, I merely post to inform others of certainand specific facts. This is a forum not a court of law, and there is no requirement for anyone to swear on oath, just for members to post thier opinion. If I never get another response ever it will not upset me, because my purpose is simply to inform, not to dictate...
-
Cyclops members returning to the UK tomorrow...
-
I will be posting some new material upon my own return to the UK on Sunday afternoon, at the request of Cyclops members...
-
One good thing which has come out of this Spanish get together, is that Cyclops members have at last met up with former officer 'Z', and had the opportunity to speak with him privately out of my earshot or influence. The culmination of these meetings has left some cyclops members elated and optimistic for any forth coming appeal application made on Jeremy Bambers behalf in the coming months. Prior to 'Z' flying back to the UK, he showed Cyclops members a photograph of Sheila on the bed with only a solitary wound on her neck. This event has been the topic of conversation between us all here in Majorca since his departure from Palma airport on Tuesday. We all spent the day yesterday in Can Picaforte on the beach. Today, we have all been down at the harbour at Port Alcudia...
Tomorrow, Cyclops members fly home to the UK from Palma airport...
Everyone is feeling optimistic for the future...
-
Now that other members of the forum have seen this image of Sheila's body on the bed with only one shot in her neck, the tension in the atmosphere has been lifted somewhat, because Cyclops members now know that what I have been maintaining since 2004, was true. At least that is the impression that I got through speaking with one or two of them after 'Z' left Palma, UK bound on Tuesday...
-
This has prompted one Cyclops member to declare that as far as he is concerned now that he has been shown one of the photographs of Sheila on the bed only shot once, he is convinced that Sheila must have still been alive at the time this photograph was taken. He has also spoken to me saying that the blood found in the silencer and grouped with Sheila's must be either genuine, or fabricated. When I asked him to elaborate he said that if the presehce of Sheila' unique blood found in the silencer, then police must have known there had been a silencer fitted to the gun barrel at the time the next shot which killed her was fired. He said because police deny a silencer was fitted to the barrel of the rifle, that the blood evidence got into the silencer by contamination, or at the time when the initial shot to the neck was inflicted...
Today, we have been looking at the circular mark which is visible around the lower bullet entry wound upon Sheila's neck. Cyclops members said that When 'Z' showed them the photograph of Sheila on the bed, that he made a point of drawing thier attention to this circular mark around the circumference of the solitary bullet hole in Sheila's neck, adding that the diameter and circumference of that circular marks characteristics, is the same as the end of a silencer. Cyclops members are satisfied that a silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun, which had fired that non fatal lower neck wound shot...
I agree...
-
Not only did DS Jones return to the scene fr8m Jeremys cottage on the morning of the shootings, but upon returning there at just sfter 11am, he took possession of a parker hale silencer (SBJ/1), which DS Davidson fingerprinted on 9th August 1985...
You have zero evidence that Jones found a moderator and took it away on August 7 or any other day. Jones doesn't claim he found it, there ar eno documents claiming such, no one else claims such there is no evidence of a moderator being seized until August 12th at Oak Farm.
You simply made up this claim from thin air there is no evidentiary basis at all for it.
The first reference to SBJ/1 is dated Aug 13, 1985 when Cook created such exhibit reference by filling out a label and sticking it on the moderator and filling out 3 Holab forms to convey it to the lab where he wrote SBJ/1. This is the moderator that Peter Eaton gave to Jones on August 12 according to the testimony of all involved and the documents.
You ignore this and just make up anything you feel like just like you made up that Ann Eaton owned a .22 Parker Hale moderator even though she didn't even own a .22 rifle and said she only knew how to use shotguns. Making things up merely demonstrates you like to make things up and should not be trusted. Instead of getting people to fall for your claims it gets people to refuse to believe a single word you say unless you can provide concrete proof even for minor issues.
-
Notice to all member's - I do not post information expecting any response from anyone, I merely post to inform others of certainand specific facts. This is a forum not a court of law, and there is no requirement for anyone to swear on oath, just for members to post thier opinion. If I never get another response ever it will not upset me, because my purpose is simply to inform, not to dictate...
When the claims you posts are false I post a response in order to demonstrate your claims are false. We are both informing onyl I happen to be informing for the sake of accuracy...
-
Today, we have all been sharing eachothers thoughts regarding the implications of Sheila's body being photographed on the bed, at a time when she had only been shot once, and with use of a silenced weapon? Additionally, 'Z' had told uscall on Monday of this week that the crime scene was videod from around 9am until 11am, during which time Sheila's body was already on the bed, there was no rifle on her body, and she had only been shot once by that stage. He told us all in a clear and precise manner how during a training exercise, a rifle was brought from the bedroom window and placed against the body on the bed. 'Z' told us that the second shot was inflicted whilst Sheila was laid down flat on the top of the bed, apparently unconscious. The rifle brought from the window onto the body was mistakenly believed to have been made safe and empty, but according to 'Z' it still had a live round in its breach...
-
How could DS Davidson fingerprint one of the four parker hale silencers, on the 9th August 1985, if one had not already been seized beforehand?
-
Now that other members of the forum have seen this image of Sheila's body on the bed with only one shot in her neck, the tension in the atmosphere has been lifted somewhat, because Cyclops members now know that what I have been maintaining since 2004, was true. At least that is the impression that I got through speaking with one or two of them after 'Z' left Palma, UK bound on Tuesday...
You didn't post any photo of Sheila on the bed
-
'Z' Confirmed that once Sheila's body was moved to the floor, police repositioned her body alongside the edge of the bed, on the floor, and that there was no rifle near her body when PS Adams entered the main bedroom and spoke to other officers present there. 'Z' told us that PS Adams visit to the main bedroom that morning aforementioned was captured in the video footage being taken. He also confirmed that recorded in the very same video footage was the arrival of PC Wright the coroners officer, at just before 9.30am, at a time when there was still no rifle at all on Sheila's body...
-
'Z' confirmed to us that at varying intervals between 9 and 10 O'clock that morning, that various senior officers came and left the scene that morning. For example, entry into the main bedroom by all senior officers at one time or another was duly captured in the video footage, as was the arrival in particular there of DCI Harris, DCI Gibbons, DCI Wright, DCI Clark, DCI Jones, and all the others, at a time when Sheila's body had been either on the bed with only a solitary bullet wound in her neck and no rifle anywhere near Sheila's body, or on the floor by the side of the bed, with a second shot in the neck, but still no gun near Sheila's body. The rifle is shown to be leaning at the bedroom window whilst all these senior officers are in attendance inside the main bedroom viewing Sheila's body, before the rifle is brought from the bedroom window and physically placed onto her body by the police, and Sheila's arms arranged upon and around the gun, as if clasping the weapon to herself - senior officers are still present inside the bedroom when the body and the rifle is being staged by the police themselves, its all recorded in different sections of the crime scene video footage, being taken by DS Davidson (SOCO)...
-
How could DS Davidson fingerprint one of the four parker hale silencers, on the 9th August 1985, if one had not already been seized beforehand?
He didn't fingerprint it. He testified at the COLP hearing that he never saw the moderator even to that day in 1991.
You simply resort to distortion after distortion.
You posted this document which says there was no recollection of any training exercise and claim it establishes a training exercise took place. In the meantime you didn't post the attachment which belongs to it so we could see exactly what was being claimed in the first place. You didn't attach it so you could pretend it said anything you wanted
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1116.msg34415.html#msg34415
That is how you operate you ignore the relaity and twist to pretend things say anything you desire and most of the time don't post the evidence so we can't see that you are distorting. Occasionally you do post it and simply ignore that the evidence states the complete opposite of what you claim.
-
Since 'Z' has left us on Tuesday, there has been speculation that the actual moment that Sheila received the second fatal shot beneath the chin was inflicted must have been recorded in the very same crime scene video footage. 'Z' himself has thus far never confided in me, nor did he mention this to the Cyclops members, but we are all in agreement that there has to be a very strong possibility of that having occurred...
-
Since 'Z' has left us on Tuesday, there has been speculation that the actual moment that Sheila received the second fatal shot beneath the chin was inflicted must have been recorded in the very same crime scene video footage. 'Z' himself has thus far never confided in me, nor did he mention this to the Cyclops members, but we are all in agreement that there has to be a very strong possibility of that having occurred...
just imagine that, police have potentially been in possession of video footage showing the actual circumstances of how the police (not Jeremy) shot and killed Sheila Caffell?
-
'Z' did confirm whilst in our presence that a total of 2 video tapes were used to take footage at the scene between 9 and 10 O'clock...
-
Blimey, if it is all true, what would that do to you scip
-
Are you sure you're bored scip? i think not, I think you enjoy it
-
'Z' did confirm whilst in our presence that a total of 2 video tapes were used to take footage at the scene between 9 and 10 O'clock...
Bambers legal team have thus far only been privy to access of the second of these 2 tapes - key evidence proving police shot Sheila was recorded in the first video tape, proving police shot and killed Sheila, and that Jeremy Bamber could not have done. At the monent the first tape is withheld under pii, but Bambers legal team could now make a high court application now that its contents are known, to order the authorities to release the footage recorded on that first tape of the moment police shot and killed Sheila Caffell, whilst using her body as a prop in a film set. Under these circumstances that particular footage may be obtained in the public interest because it would prove once and for all that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister, he did not stage manage her body to make it appear like she had taken her own life, but the police did...
-
Cyclops members returning to the UK tomorrow have promised to research the procedures and protocols involved in videoing crime scenes back in August 1985...
On the other hand, found amongst our database is confirmation that police did take video footage at the crime scene with the bodies insitu on the morning of 7th August 1985. This is in addition to confirmation from Jeremy himself, that he has seen various images of his family being used and abused by the police disrepectfully at the scene, he complaining that police used the bodies of his family like props in a film set...
-
Blimey, if it is all true, what would that do to you scip
If what were true? This is all pure fantasy there is no officer Z. There was no training exercise, the gun was cleared before the superiors ever entered the house and before Dr Craig declared her dead. This is all made up nonsense.
-
Blimey, if it is all true, what would that do to you scip
Do you believe it?
-
Im a bit lost to be honest. Who wre cyclops and z?
why are they meeting in spain and who are they,
i admit it all seems rather bizare but why is he doing all this and saying what he is. ..?
-
Im a bit lost to be honest. Who wre cyclops and z?
why are they meeting in spain and who are they,
i admit it all seems rather bizare but why is he doing all this and saying what he is. ..?
Mike has been unable to find any evidence to establish any wrongdoing so he makes up such evidence.
He used to claim he learned such things from Jeremy and loves the attention he garners from Jeremy supporters who defer to him because he personally interacted with Jeremy and some members of the team working on Jeremy's appeal/campaign team.
Jeremy broke off all contact with him so he has needed to make up other sources of information to pretend he is still in the loop and can get people to pay attention to him.
Part of that is he made up that a police officer is a secret informant of his and that this officer feeds him information. On an irregular basis he claims to be meeting with this informant and reporting new scandalous claims made by the informant. There is no informant he is making up the claims and simply pretending an informant is making the claims.
A few months ago he made up a group called Cylcops that he claims is working on Jeremy's case to exonerate him. He pretends he meets with them and attributes nonsense claims to them as well.
He is not fooling anyone so the whole charade is quite pointless and just detracts from genuine debate.
-
We now know that DS Davidson took the video footage at the scene, between 9am, and 10 am, although no witness statement or report or corresponding pocketbook entry has yet been confirmed or disclosed. The reason for this as we have only just been told by an ex serving officer (Z) is that this material has been withheld under pii. Infact, Davidsons video footage comes in two parts, part (1) recorded on a video tape covering events inside the farmhouse between around 9am and 9.30am, and the second part of the events covering from about 9.30am to around 10am, recorded on the second tape. 'Z' has told us this week that the CCRC have been given access to part (2) of the footage, but not to part (1). We believe that Jeremys legal team have had access to part (2) of the recording, but that the CCRC refused to let Jeremy himself view its contents on the grounds that its contents were too sensitive and shocking. However, Jeremy has been told by his legal team that the bodies of his family were used like props in the stage managing process involving the bodies of victims being positioned and then eventually photographed by PC Bird, as though the positions victims were photographed in by Bird from 10 O'clock onward, was the position the bodies had been in ever since police gained entry into the farmhouse at around 7.30am, which they hadn't been...
-
No Scipio He does not get attention from supporters. That is what you pointed out in a previous post.
We just let him post what he wants and try to avoid being rude to him.
-
Cyclops members are very optimistic that once the first crime scene video footage covering the period between 9 and 9.30am, on 7th August 1985 is obtained, that this will result in a swift return to the appeal courts, with a view of quashing the convictions...
-
Essex police have sought to deliberately withhold evidence of this video footage to enable them to prosecute and convict Jeremy Bamber of murdering his own sister, when all along the police themselves have had this footage confirming Jeremys innocence in the matter. To make matters worse, they have sought to use pii to prevent the content of this video footage ever becoming available to the general public on the basis that to release it would not be in the public interest, when the opposite is true...
-
There is no doubt that what we are dealing with here is a state involved conspiracy, in similar terms to which occurred in the attempted Hillsboro' cover up...
-
PS Adams said that at around 9am when he visited the main bedroom, that he had no recollection of the gun being present on the body. PC Wright the coroners officer, visited the main bedroom at about 9.25am, and he too does not recall the gun being on the body. Ron Cook arrives at the scene at 9.20am, but does not take control of the scene until 10 O'clock, yet when he does take control of the scene by that stage, the gun is laying lengthways upon Sheila's body. So, somebody placed the rifle from the bedroom window, onto Sheila's body after 9.25am, to enable Cook to see the gun on the body at 10 O' clock that same morning - then we have Cook saying that once he took control of the scene at 10am, that he removed the rifle from Sheila's body and made it safe, before standing the gun against the bedroom window in time for PC Bird to take photograph it there as per photigraoh 23...
-
PS Adams said that at around 9am when he visited the main bedroom, that he had no recollection of the gun being present on the body. PC Wright the coroners officer, visited the main bedroom at about 9.25am, and he too does not recall the gun being on the body. Ron Cook arrives at the scene at 9.20am, but does not take control of the scene until 10 O'clock, yet when he does take control of the scene by that stage, the gun is laying lengthways upon Sheila's body. So, somebody placed the rifle from the bedroom window, onto Sheila's body after 9.25am, to enable Cook to see the gun on the body at 10 O' clock that same morning - then we have Cook saying that once he took control of the scene at 10am, that he removed the rifle from Sheila's body and made it safe, before standing the gun against the bedroom window in time for PC Bird to take photograph it there as per photigraph 23...
On this version of the events Ron Cook removed the rifle from Sheila's body at just after 10 O' clock that morning, and after clearing it, he duly stood the rifle leaning against the inner main bedroom window...
-
So, between 9 and 9.25am, the gun is not laying on the body of Sheila Caffell, a fact established by two independant accounts, provided by PS Adams, and PC Wright. But by 10 O'clock the rifle is on the body in time for Ron Cook to remove it, and stand the rifle leaning against the inner part of the main bedroom window...
lets use this as the starting point by which we can reconstruct whatever else must have taken place...
Lo and behold, we then have PS Woodcock, who states that he removed the rifle from Sheila Caffells body and made it safe at precieely 11.10am, that same morning...
-
We now know that DS Davidson took the video footage at the scene, between 9am, and 10 am, although no witness statement or report or corresponding pocketbook entry has yet been confirmed or disclosed. The reason for this as we have only just been told by an ex serving officer (Z) is that this material has been withheld under pii. Infact, Davidsons video footage comes in two parts, part (1) recorded on a video tape covering events inside the farmhouse between around 9am and 9.30am, and the second part of the events covering from about 9.30am to around 10am, recorded on the second tape. 'Z' has told us this week that the CCRC have been given access to part (2) of the footage, but not to part (1). We believe that Jeremys legal team have had access to part (2) of the recording, but that the CCRC refused to let Jeremy himself view its contents on the grounds that its contents were too sensitive and shocking. However, Jeremy has been told by his legal team that the bodies of his family were used like props in the stage managing process involving the bodies of victims being positioned and then eventually photographed by PC Bird, as though the positions victims were photographed in by Bird from 10 O'clock onward, was the position the bodies had been in ever since police gained entry into the farmhouse at around 7.30am, which they hadn't been...
This rubbish about an informant just makes people snicker behind your back- most anyway I don't talk behind people's backs which some say is rude but I think it is less rude to tell someone to their face. I say you are being dishonest others think worse of you (worse from my perspective anyway)- long ago I was told by a number of people you are xxxxxxxx xxx. That is what people believe as a result of these tales do you really want people to think that about you? Surely you realize conveying such is only advantageous if one is hoping to avoid/lessen criminal punishment.
-
Hang on a minute, if PC Bird took photograph no. 23 showing the rifle leaning against the main bedroom window, as being the net product of Ron Cook having removed the rifle and made it safe before placing that rifle there, then how could it be possible for PS Woodcock to remove the same gun again from the body at 11.10am, if ever since about an hour earlier Cook himself had already removed the gun from Sheila's body, had made it safe, and had placed the same gun against the bedroom window.
-
I have a simple question to raise concerning these alleged events - could somebody please tell me exactly how PS Woodcock could have possibly removed the rifle from a top Sheila's body at 11.10am, when Ron Cook had already removed it from the same body about an hour sooner, and had moved the rifle away from Sheila's body by placing it against the inner main bedroom window?
How did the rifle get back onto Sheila's body, once Cook had removed it, to enable PS Woodcock to remove it again, at the later time of precisely 11.10am?
-
I have a simple question to raise concerning these alleged events - could somebody please tell me exactly how PS Woodcock could have possibly removed the rifle from a top Sheila's body at 11.10am, when Ron Cook had already removed it from the same body about an hour sooner, and had moved the rifle away from Sheila's body by placing it against the inner main bedroom window?
How did the rifle get back onto Sheila's body, once Cook had removed it, to enable PS Woodcock to remove it again, at the later time of precisely 11.10am?
Surely, no-one is going to try and claim that Jeremy Bamber himself moved it back onto the body...
-
If the truth be known to all and sundry, then of course each and everyone of us knows that it must have been, that it must definately have been put back on Sheila's body, by a police officer...
-
This brings me back to, who placed the rifle on top of Sheila's body after 9.25am, in order to enable Ron Cook to remove it from a top Sheila's body, and place the rifle against the inner bedroom window, in time for PC Bird to photograph it there in photograph 23?
Somebody put the gun onto Sheila's body after 9.25am, and it could not have been Jeremy, it had to be one of the dishonest policeman who did it, and who for 30 years or so, has kept his rotten gob shut...
-
Step forward PI Ivor Montgomery - he also lays claim to having removed the rifle from Sheila's body, which he made safe, but when did he do that?
-
I have a simple question to raise concerning these alleged events - could somebody please tell me exactly how PS Woodcock could have possibly removed the rifle from a top Sheila's body at 11.10am, when Ron Cook had already removed it from the same body about an hour sooner, and had moved the rifle away from Sheila's body by placing it against the inner main bedroom window?
How did the rifle get back onto Sheila's body, once Cook had removed it, to enable PS Woodcock to remove it again, at the later time of precisely 11.10am?
Woodcock noted he and Cook removed the gun. Cook suggested he is the one who actually removed it and that Woodcock simply looked inside to make sure there was no ammunition in the chamber but Woodcock said he picket it up. They put the gun against the wall and after this the photo was taken by Bird. The times are estimations written later at the station, they didn't have a sheet of paper where they wrote down at the time every step they were taking as they were doing each step.
-
Step forward PI Ivor Montgomery - he also lays claim to having removed the rifle from Sheila's body, which he made safe, but when did he do that?
Now, I seem to recollect having read somewhere, that Montgomery may have been requested to remove the rifle and make it safe from Sheila's body, by Ron Cook himself, which gives rise to the possibility that Montgomery was with Cook, when the rifle was removed from a top Sheila's body after 10 O'clock that morning. If so, does anybody know the identitity of any other police officer who claims to have removed a rifle or a gun or any weaoon at all from Sheila's body before or prior to 10 O' clock that particular morning?
No, there is nobody, and the reason there is nobody is because she did not shoot herself...
She was originally shot downstairs by the use of PS Woodcocks police issue rifle, and ended up upstairs on the bed in the main bedroom, with only a solitary shot to the neck. There was no rifle accompanying her body on the bed, and no rifle accompanying her body once police moved her body from the bed onto the floor. The only rifle present in the same bedroom with Sheila on the bed with only a solitary shot to the neck, was the rifle at the bedroom window which had been their continually ever since WPC Jeapes had noticed it leaning there from as long ago as 7.15am, that same morning...
-
I have mentioned these factual things, in order to highlight the recorded events in part (2) of the crime scene video, involving the true circumstsnces of how Sheila Caffell sustained the second fatal under the chin shot. A secret that police and prosecuting authories have thus far managed to keep secret for over 30 years...
-
The truth of the matter, is that the anshuzt rifle was not checked and made safe, until it was too late to matter anymore. Nobody checked that rifle to see if there was anymore ammunition loaded inside it, until after 10 O' clock that morning. Failure to do this beforehand cost Sheila Caffell her life. Worse still, police captured the killing of Sheila Caffell upon the second video tape taken at the crime scene, between 9.25am and 10am that morning, evidence which they did not ever want to be released or access given, to the general public...
-
The truth of the matter, is that the anshuzt rifle was not checked and made safe, until it was too late to matter anymore. Nobody checked that rifle to see if there was anymore ammunitiin liaded insidevit, until after 10 O' clock that morning. Failure to do this beforehand cost Sheila Caffell her life. Worse still, police captured the killing of Sheila upon the second video tape taken at the crime scene, evidence which they did not ever want to be released or access given to the general public...
Not true it was checked twice- it was checked before Craig was allowed to see her body and then checked again when the gun was removed in order to take photos of the blood on her gown.
-
Craig only saw one bullet wound on Sheila's neck at the time he pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am...
-
Craig only saw one bullet wound on Sheila's neck at the time he pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am...
Nonsense, he only bothered to note 1 wound on each victim in his statement because his goal was simply to note each was killed by a gunshot wound.
Both shots were fired seconds apart according to Vanezis. He said that she would have been substantially more had there been a gap of more than mere seconds between the first shot and fatal shot.
Every single aspect of your allegation is unsupported and in fact contradicted by the real evidence.
-
Pi Miller told Deputy Coroner Mr Thompkins at the opening of the inquests on 14 August 1985, that police were satisfied that Sheila had killed the others and then taken her own life by way of a single shot beneath the chin...
-
Julie mugford went to identify the bodies, and upon returning back into the fold, told everyone present that the other 4 victims had multiple shors to the head, but when asked about Sheila, she simply pointed her index finger beneath her own chin and said that Sheila had shot herself once under the chin...
-
There was a substantial and unnecessary delay before SOCO took control of the scene once DR Craig pronounced the victims dead at 8.44am. This delay of one hour and 16 minutes allowed senior officers and other firearm officers to danage the crime scene, rearrange it, and led to the moment when Sheila was killed as a result of the loaded rifle being being moved onto her body from the window....
-
Pi Miller told Deputy Coroner Mr Thompkins at the opening of the inquests on 14 August 1985, that police were satisfied that Sheila had killed the others and then taken her own life by way of a single shot beneath the chin...
In his witness statement describing the occasion he first saw Sheila in the bedroom, Miller states quite clearly that Sheila only had a solitary shot in the neck, and that her body was laid "ON" the far side of the bed, not next to it, or not on the bed...
-
SHEILA was photographed laid on the bed with only a solitary bullet wound in her neck...
-
Sheila's body was videod laid on the bed with only one bullet wound present in her neck...
-
According to a retired officer who was present at the scene, the actual moment that Sheila was shot under the chin was captured in the crime scene video, including the moment that her body was moved from the bed onto the bedroom floor. He informed us only this week that after police had inflicted the second shot which penetrated beneath her chin, that her body was lifted from the bed onto the floor and placed in a considerably different position than her body ended up in. He told us that her body was placed on its right hand side and that one officer in particular tried to stem the blood flow from the second shot by placing his fingers over the bullet hole which was leaking blood, but that after a few minutes he removed his fingers and the fresh blood that was leaking from the fresh wound (the most recent second wound), the blood ran over the bloodied fingermarks he had left in that part of the neck. He informed us that blood had run in all directions from her mouth and nostrils during the movement of her body from the bed to the bedroom floor, and that some of it pooled into her left eye socket...
all recorded in the second part of the crime scene video currently withheld under pii...
-
When that officer addressed cyclops members the other day here in Spain, they asked questions of him which helps to clarify the multi - directional blood flow which came about as a result of the body movement after the second shot had been inflicted, as opposed to the barely visible solitary verticle blood trail on Sheila's neck? It was very interesting listening to the exchanges between 'Z' and team Cyclops. The gist of the questioning went something like this:-
Cyclops - what characteristics involving blood flow from the two bullet wounds, help to determine that both shots were either inflected close together, as opposed to there having been a considerable delay between both?
'Z' - blood flow from the inital wound inflicted downstairs in the kitchen occurred when Sheila was stood in lets say it was an upright position. She was stood upright, involved in a struggle. She was not entirely upright, since in that initial struggle with the officer, she was weaving back / forth, and side to side. She was grabbing onto the barrel of the officers rifle as he was negotiating coming into the kitchen through what turned out to be a narrow gap between the edge of the door, and the door jamb. The door we are talking about opened inward, and so the barrel of the officers rifle was always pointing away from Sheila as the officer first started to make his entry into the main kitchen from the hallway beyond. What happened was that Sheila grabbed at the barrel before the officers body had even come into view. During this initial contact the barrel of the gun which was fitted with a sound moderator, came into contact with the wall just inside the kitchen and damaged it. This damage was in the form of scratch and gouge marks upon the wall near that door. However, the officer did manage to get beyond the gap into the kitchen, whilst all the while grappling over control of his weapon. Once inside the kitchen the struggle escalated and furniture and chairs /stools were knocked over. It was a furocious struggle, right up until the moment when Sheila pulled the muzzle of the guns barrel into her own throat which councided with the officer involuntarily activating the trigger of his weapon. Sheila fell to the floor immediately as if dead. There was very little external blood visible, which caused all the police who were present within 30 seconds or so of this shooting incident occurring in the kitchen, to mistakenly believe that she had been killed. The majority of bleeding in this instance must have occurred internally, as opposed to externally, because there was only a small amount of blood which flowed from this solitary wound, and the direction of this particular flow of blood could best be described as having been almost verticle in direction...
-
When that officer addressed cyclops members the other day here in Spain, they asked questions of him which helps to clarify the multi - directional blood flow which came about as a result of the body movement after the second shot had been inflicted, as opposed to the barely visible solitary verticle blood trail on Sheila's neck? It was very interesting listening to the exchanges between 'Z' and team Cyclops. The gist of the questioning went something like this:-
Cyclops - what characteristics involving blood flow from the two bullet wounds, help to determine that both shots were either inflected close together, as opposed to there having been a considerable delay between both?
'Z' - blood flow from the inital wound inflicted downstairs in the kitchen occurred when Sheila was stood in lets say it was an upright position. She was stood upright, involved in a struggle. She was not entirely upright, since in that initial struggle with the officer, she was weaving back / forth, and side to side. She was grabbing onto the barrel of the officers rifle as he was negotiating coming into the kitchen through what turned out to be a narrow gap between the edge of the door, and the door jamb. The door we are talking about opened inward, and so the barrel of the officers rifle was always pointing away from Sheila as the officer first started to make his entry into the main kitchen from the hallway beyond. What happened was that Sheila grabbed at the barrel before the officers body had even come into view. During this initial contact the barrel of the gun which was fitted with a sound moderator, came into contact with the wall just inside the kitchen and damaged it. This damage was in the form of scratch and gouge marks upon the wall near that door. However, the officer did manage to get beyond the gap into the kitchen, whilst all the while grappling over control of his weapon. Once inside the kitchen the struggle escalated and furniture and chairs /stools were knocked over. It was a furocious struggle, right up until the moment when Sheila pulled the muzzle of the guns barrel into her own throat which councided with the officer involuntarily activating the trigger of his weapon. Sheila fell to the floor immediately as if dead. There was very little external blood visible, which caused all the police who were present within 30 seconds or so of this shooting incident occurring in the kitchen, to mistakenly believe that she had been killed. The majority of bleeding in this instance must have occurred internally, as opposed to externally, because there was only a small amount of blood which flowed from this solitary wound, and the direction of this particular flow of blood could best be described as having been almost verticle in direction...
He went on to say that there was considerable difference in directional blood flow emminating from the first wound, as opposed to directional blood flow from the second wound inflicted under the chin, which flowed this way and then that way, so on and so forth...
-
Cyclops member - how much time elapsed to your knowlege, between the infliction of the first and second wounds?
'Z' - sheila was officially shot according to the officers report dealing with this shooting incident in the kitchen, at 7.35am. She was eventually shot a second time at 9.13am, so there was a 98 minutes delay in between the 2 shots she sustained. The first shot inflicted when she was stood upright in the kitchen downstairs, the second shot was inflicted whilst she was laid flat out on the bed...
-
He went on to say that blood from the first injury was very little externally, which in any event had dried completely by the time the second shot was eventually inflicted...
-
So, the mystery of the time which elapsed in between both shots has finally been resolved - there was exactly a 98 minute gap between infliction of the first and last shot....
'Z' told Cyclops members who queried the timing of the second shot beneath the chin, pointing out that if Sheila received the second shot at 9.13am, then the recording which captured the actual circumstances of her death should have been recorded on the first crime scene video, not the second one. But 'Z' responded that the clock at the scene used to keep time during the firearms operation was 10 to 15 minutes out of synchronisation with the main clock in the control room...
-
In his witness statement describing the occasion he first saw Sheila in the bedroom, Miller states quite clearly that Sheila only had a solitary shot in the neck, and that her body was laid "ON" the far side of the bed, not next to it, or not on the bed...
Nothing you say is credible you need to post the statements because you lie to often to be trusted about anything. In any even, many different officers said far side of the bed and they meant on the floor on the opposite side June was located. June was on the near side of the bed and Sheila on the far side of the bed. Dr. Craig said she was on the far side and clearly indicated the bed blocked her body so it could not be seen until you walked around the bed to the far side. Despite such you distorted and insisted he meant she was in the bed. How could the bed block her body if she had been laying on it? This is just one of countless examples of you intentionally distorting and why nothing you say can be trusted.
A large number of police indicated she was on the floor and the blood evidence proves she was on the floor as they said. They had no need to transfer her to the floor if she had died in the bed. So on top of all the evidence being against you, you don't even have a logical reason why they would move her body and lie about it.
-
So, the mystery of the time which elapsed in between both shots has finally been resolved - there was exactly a 98 minute gap between infliction of the first and last shot....
'Z' told Cyclops members who queried the timing of the second shot beneath the chin, pointing out that if Sheila received the second shot at 9.13am, then the recording which captured the actual circumstances of her death should have been recorded on the first crime scene video, not the second one. But 'Z' responded that the clock at the scene used to keep time during the firearms operation was 10 to 15 minutes out of synchronisation with the main clock in the control room...
Cyclops members have returned to the UK earlier this morning from Palma airport...
-
According to a retired officer who was present at the scene, the actual moment that Sheila was shot under the chin was captured in the crime scene video, including the moment that her body was moved from the bed onto the bedroom floor. He informed us only this week that after police had inflicted the second shot which penetrated beneath her chin, that her body was lifted from the bed onto the floor and placed in a considerably different position than her body ended up in. He told us that her body was placed on its right hand side and that one officer in particular tried to stem the blood flow from the second shot by placing his fingers over the bullet hole which was leaking blood, but that after a few minutes he removed his fingers and the fresh blood that was leaking from the fresh wound (the most recent second wound), the blood ran over the bloodied fingermarks he had left in that part of the neck. He informed us that blood had run in all directions from her mouth and nostrils during the movement of her body from the bed to the bedroom floor, and that some of it pooled into her left eye socket...
all recorded in the second part of the crime scene video currently withheld under pii...
Who recorded this video and when? It is easy to make up nonsense claims evidence is needed to prove such including the name of who recorded it and the time. It wasn't Davidson, Cook, Bird or Hammersley and they were the only ones inside when the crime scene investigation was taking place so who filmed it Casper the ghost?
In the meantime if a recording had been made then Vanezis would have used it. He specifically said no recording was made of the scene and he simply got to do a walk through later after everything had already been removed. They would not have made a video then instantly withheld it from him when they were busy blaming Sheila.
Fairytales like this just ruin any chance of people believing a word you say so you are simply shooting yourself in the foot.
about There wasn't any recording of the scene that is why
-
He went on to say that blood from the first injury was very little externally, which in any event had dried completely by the time the second shot was eventually inflicted...
The first injury severed a major vein and caused substantial bleeding. The second wound killed her, resulting in her heard to stop beating so the amount of blood that flowed out after such was not very substantial which is why the pool of blood on the floor is not that big.
-
Overall, the meetings held in alcudia this week, between the retired officer, Cyclops members and myself, has proved to have been a very positive one. We all know that 100% Jeremy Bamber had not shot and killed his sister Sheila Caffell. The police who all attended the scene in a firearms, SOCO, and senior officers capacity also knew and know that Sheila did not die, until after the firearms officers forced thier way into the building, at around 7.30am...
-
The first injury severed a major vein and caused substantial bleeding. The second wound killed her, resulting in her heard to stop beating so the amount of blood that flowed out after such was not very substantial which is why the pool of blood on the floor is not that big.
I will start responding to you once you have learned to be a bit more respectful to other people, including myself...
-
SHEILA was photographed laid on the bed with only a solitary bullet wound in her neck...
Nonsense on so many levels.
Dr. Craig examined her at 8:45am while she was on the floor and she was declared dead. He noted the blood that was on her gown and on her face which he said was dry. The crime scene officers entered later than this and there is no way she could have been in the bed unless they or someone else moved her from the floor to the bed. There is no reason anyone would do so.
Not only did police have no reason to lie about where her body had been, if police had decided to conceal she was found in bed and thus decided to lie to Vanezis about where her body had been no way would they have decided to lie and yet to take photos proving they were lying by documenting she had been in the bed. The only photos taken would be after they moved her.
You want to pretend that for no reason they decided to move her body and lie about where her body was and worse yet decided to take photos and video documenting how she was before they moved her so that they could get caught lying. It is preposterous on top of there being zero evidence to support it.
-
Monday evening of this past week was a very interesting discussion between all three parties, regarding the various claims made by one expert, as opposed to another expert, concerning how long could Sheila have survived once she had sustained the first shot across the throat? Venezis's view, and Professor Knight's view, being at the forefront of debate...
According to Professor Knight's version of events, he had testified to the effect that it was not uncommon for someone with the type of injury sustained at the time of the first shot, to be able to survive a considerable length of time. He even went to the trouble of saying that Sheila might have been able to walk about for as long as 30 minutes after initially been shot. Of course, this did not fit in with what 'Z' had told Cyclops members to the effect that there had been a 98 minute period in between both shots. So, as can be imagined, all sorts of additional questions were being raised, some answered, some not yet answered, to account for what Professor Knight had said during his testimony and cross examination. The gist of which came down to the following:-
-
Monday evening of this past week was a very interesting discussion between all three parties, regarding the various claims made by one expert, as opposed to another expert, concerning how long could Sheila have survived once she had sustained the first shot across the throat? Venezis's view, and Professor Knight's view, being at the forefront of debate...
According to Professor Knight's version of events, he had testified to the effect that it was not uncommon for someone with the type of injury sustained at the time of the first shot, to be able to survive a considerable length of time. He even went to the trouble of saying that Sheila might have been able to walk about for as long as 30 minutes after initially been shot. Of course, this did not fit in with what 'Z' had told Cyclops members to the effect that there had been a 98 minute period in between both shots. So, as can be imagined, all sorts of additional questions were being raised, some answered, some not yet answered, to account for what Professor Knight had said during his testimony and cross examination. The gist of which came down to the following:-
There were questions being raised particularly with regards to the 30 minute period which Prifessor Knight had spoken about, and the 98 minute delay between both shots being inflicted against Sheila, which 'Z' was speaking of? One cyclops member in particular pointed out from the outset that this represented a one hour and 8 minute disparity, which he thought was way out of the scope to which Professor Knight had been alluding too...
-
Another Cyclops member offered an interesting solution to account for the aforementioned disparity. He told us that he strongly suspected that what Professor Knight had been speaking about, was someone who had similarly been shot like Sheila, who had not lapsed into unconsciousness, not someone who as Sheila had done, lapsed immediately into unconsciousness, then become woken up. Based upon what we know, if the accounts provided for our attention had been accurately mentioned, then the last known occasion that Sheila's body was known to have been definately downstairs in the kitchen had been at precisely 8.10am, when a radio message was transmitted from inside the farmhouse, ' after a thorough search, a further three bodies have been found upstairs, five dead in total'...
By 8.10am, there was still two bodies downstairs, and three more upstairs...
However, at 8.15am, counciding with the entry of DCI Harris, DCI Gibbons, and PI Montgomery, into the kitchen of the farmhouse, Sheila's body was discovered by these senior officers to have gone AWOL. The alarm was raised at 8.15am, to the effect that Sheila's body was no longer in the kitchen where it was supposed to have been..,
-
Another Cyclops member offered an interesting solution to account for the aforementioned disparity. He told us that he strongly suspected that what Professor Knight had been speaking about, was someone who had similarly been shot like Sheila, who had not lapsed into unconsciousness, not someone who as Sheila had done, lapsed immediately into unconsciousness, then become woken up. Based upon what we know, if the accounts provided for our attention had been accurately mentioned, then the last known occasion that Sheila's body was known to have been definately downstairs in the kitchen had been at precisely 8.10am, when a radio message was transmitted from inside the farmhouse, ' after a thorough search, a further three bodies have been found upstairs, five dead in total'...
By 8.10am, there was still two bodies downstairs, and three more upstairs...
However, at 8.15am, counciding with the entry of DCI Harris, DCI Gibbons, and PI Montgomery, into the kitchen of the farmhouse, Sheila's body was discovered by these senior officers to have gone AWOL. The alarm was raised at 8.15am, to the effect that Sheila's body was no longer in the kitchen where it was supposed to have been..,
There is zero support for the notion 2 bodies were ever in the kitchen. Collins saw only one body before the door was broken down- which he thought was an elderly woman- and after it was broken down EVERY single person who entered reported seeing only Nevill's body. The only pooled blood in the kitchen was Nevill's so no physical support for any other body.
You ignore all the relevant evidence and say there was another body because of someone NOT at the scene (hearsay) got confused by Collins' initial report of an elderly woman and the report after the door was broken down and report Nevill was in the kitchen and incorrectly recorded 2 bodies in the kitchen. No where did the person who made such error suggest the 2nd body was Sheila. Indeed, if one wants to run with the erroneous claim of an elderly woman that would mean one would have to argue June was the second body in the kitchen. There is no support for log entry of 2 bodies found in the kitchen but even less support for the notion the second body being referred to in the report was Sheila it was June. June was the only elderly woman in the house and was the second body found. The third body found was Sheila's with a rifle and then after that the boys finally.
-
A message was passed and received, requesting DCI Harris to make immediate contact with ACC Peter Simpson, using a land line from the scene. This telephone conversation was said to have lasted until around 8.30am, by which time Sheila's body was relocated laid out on the bed. Now if true, and based on the first timing in the police log of a dead female body being found in the kitchen upon entry, there was a 33 minute period of pitential unconsciousness involving Sheila up until 8.10am. To this another 15 minutes must be added to account for the period between 8.30am, and 8.44am, at which stage Dr Craig had viewed her body "On" the far side of the bed, until 9.13am? This was another lengthy period consisting of a further 43 minutes, leading up to the actual time the second fatal shot was discharged beneath her chin during a trainingvexercise being videod by DS Davidson...
These periods of inactivity, (1) - 33 minutes and (2) - 43 minutes adding up to a total period of unconsciousness of 76 minutes,or in other words, 1 hour and 13 minutes of inactivity by Sheila Caffell...
-
A message was passed and received, requesting DCI Harris to make immediate contact with ACC Peter Simpson, using a land line from the scene. This telephone conversation was said to have lasted until around 8.30am, by which time Sheila's body was relocated laid out on the bed. Now if true, and based on the first timing in the police log of a dead female body being found in the kitchen upon entry, there was a 33 minute period of pitential unconsciousness involving Sheila up until 8.10am. To this another 15 minutes must be added to account for the period between 8.30am, and 8.44am, at which stage Dr Craig had viewed her body "On" the far side of the bed, until 9.13am? This was another lengthy period consisting of a further 43 minutes, leading up to the actual time the second fatal shot was discharged beneath her chin during a trainingvexercise being videod by DS Davidson...
These periods of inactivity, (1) - 33 minutes and (2) - 43 minutes adding up to a total period of unconsciousness of 76 minutes,or in other words, 1 hour and 13 minutes of inactivity by Sheila Caffell...
There is the potential for a further 5 minutes of inactivity on Sheila's part, between 8.10am and 8.15am, which if added to 1 hour and 13 minutes previously calculated has grown to 1 hour and 18 minutes of inactivity, during which police had mistakenly believed her to be dead...
-
In stark contrast, displacement of Sheila's body from the kitchen downstairs (8.15am to 8.30am) to the bed in the main bedroom upstairs, lasted only 15 minutes, before she recollapsed into a state of inactivity, that is 15 minutes shorter than the 30 minutes calculated by Professor Knight which he thought someone with Sheila type injury could have been capable of moving around, after being similarly shot...
One Cyclops member offered these statistics as being a possible explanation to account for the overal period between shots being greater than 98 minutes, as declared by officer 'Z', from 7.37am...
-
A message was passed and received, requesting DCI Harris to make immediate contact with ACC Peter Simpson, using a land line from the scene. This telephone conversation was said to have lasted until around 8.30am, by which time Sheila's body was relocated laid out on the bed. Now if true, and based on the first timing in the police log of a dead female body being found in the kitchen upon entry, there was a 33 minute period of pitential unconsciousness involving Sheila up until 8.10am. To this another 15 minutes must be added to account for the period between 8.30am, and 8.44am, at which stage Dr Craig had viewed her body "On" the far side of the bed, until 9.13am? This was another lengthy period consisting of a further 43 minutes, leading up to the actual time the second fatal shot was discharged beneath her chin during a trainingvexercise being videod by DS Davidson...
These periods of inactivity, (1) - 33 minutes and (2) - 43 minutes adding up to a total period of unconsciousness of 76 minutes,or in other words, 1 hour and 13 minutes of inactivity by Sheila Caffell...
The only body in the kitchen was Nevill's. If there had been an elderly woman's body in the kitchen it would have been June's. So right off the bat ignoring the evidence of only one body and ignoring the evidence that if there were another body it would have been June's.
Next it is ignored that there was no evidence of any body found in the bed and simply made up that Sheila's body was in the bed. So we have a totally made up claim that Sheila's body was in the kitchen and then another made up claim that her body was moved to the bed though all witnesses say she was on the floor on the far side of the bed. Next we have the fake claim there was a training exercise conducted in the house before the crime scene investigation was conducted and finally the nonsense claim that the second shot was delivered hours after the first shot and that Sheila was alive the entire time though Craig declared her dead.
One should be embarrassed to allege such tripe.
-
Last night, during another discussion involving Cyclops members and myself, their was a general acceptance amongst all parties, that the actual timing of the second shot, could be displaced by another 10 to 15 minutes of inactivity of Sheila before the second shot was fired, since what mattered was not the period of her inactivity, but rather the period of her activity since the timing of the first shot having been fired at around 7,35am - the known period of her activity after this was and would always gave been the same 15 minute period, or in other words half the period which Professor Knight had said a person similarly injured could have moved around (30 minutes)...
-
At least now there is a group of us all moving in the same direction together, with a common purpose.
-
At least now there is a group of us all moving in the same direction together, with a common purpose.
I know that I don't have to motivate any of the team Cyclops members, now that they have seen the evidence for themselves, and spokn directly in an informal setting with one of the retired police officers who was there when police were responsible for killing Sheila in a set of bizzare circumstances...
-
Many years ago, I watched a tv documentary about the murders, I think it was called, 'KILLING MUM AND DAD". I'm not now certain if that was the title, so forgive me if I am wrong. But in any event, regardless of the title, there was camera footage contained in the documentary which showed the camera man stood filming outside the main internal kitchen door. The door was closed at first and then it was swung open slowly. The door swung from right to left, inward of the main kitchen. What I found to be most interesting was at the time the aforementioned door opened, the view from the camera gave a very fine glimpse of the kitchen window. It was barely visible at all, even before the cameraman altered his position to prepare entering into the main kitchen via the door. Once he changed his position, and started entering into the kitchen, all the while the camera still rolling, you could not even see a glimpse of the kitchen window somewhere out of shot on the wall to the right of entry...
This reminded me of the occasion when in August 1990 I had visited white house farm, and peered into the same kitchen window, to see the tightest angle visible to me at that time, and to compare that angled view with PC Collins account of him having looked in through the kitchen window and reported that he could see the body of a female in a position behind the internal kitchen door situated over in the left hand corner out of my sight from the vantage point of me standing outside the kitchen window looking in...
There was no doubt whatsoever in my mind back then in August 1990, or later when I saw the reverse angle taken by the cameraman in the tv documentary that PC Collins could have seen a body behind that internal door on the kitchen sude of the door, from the same vantage point I had personally been stood at. Collins could not have seen a body there, neither a female body or a male body. He could not have mistaken Ralphs body behind that door from that vantage point, mistakenly identifying it as a dead females body - impossible..,
-
Some years ago I asked Hartley to take photographs of a chair pushed up in the left hand corner of the main kitchen against the door I am now speaking about, and to take photographs from the vantage point outside the kitchen window, but he never took up the offer, presumeably because he knows the angle is too acute for anyone outside the kitchen window, to see a person sat in a chair positioned at that location...
-
When I reported back to Jeremy that I had been to whf and looked in through the kitchen window, and discovered that PC Collins wouldn't have been able to see a body sat on a chair behind the kitchen door to enable him to mistakenley identify his dads body for that of a female body, Jeremy said that I had looked through the wrong kitchen window. He asked me again which kitchen window I had looked through, he asked, if you were facing the back farmhouse door, there is a kitchen window on either side of the door which window did you look through, the kitchen window to the right of that door, or the window to the left of it? I told him that when facing that door, I had looked into the kitchen on the right of that door, to which Jeremy confirmed was the main kitchen, but he added that PC Collins had not looked through that kitchen window, he had so Jeremy told me, looked into the left hand side window into a room known as the back kitchen. He pointed out that PC Collins approached the farmhouse door via white side, and went past the kitchen door on green side, and then looked into the kitchen window to the left of that door, not to the right of it. I said to Jeremy, but your dads body was in the other kitchen, in the main kitchen, not in the back kitchen at all? Exactly, said Jeremy, they have got thier story wrong, they could not have mistaken Ralphs body through the left hand window as that of a dead female, because Ralphs body couldn't possible be seen at all through the left hand side window, since his body whether viewable or not from the vantage point of someone standing outside the right hand side kitchen window, Ralphs body was not present in the back kitchen beyond the left window, his body was somewhere in the main kitchen beyond the right hand side window...
-
Many years ago, I watched a tv documentary about the murders, I think it was called, 'KILLING MUM AND DAD". I'm not now certain if that was the title, so forgive me if I am wrong. But in any event, regardless of the title, there was camera footage contained in the documentary which showed the camera man stood filming outside the main internal kitchen door. The door was closed at first and then it was swung open slowly. The door swung from right to left, inward of the main kitchen. What I found to be most interesting was at the time the aforementioned door opened, the view from the camera gave a very fine glimpse of the kitchen window. It was barely visible at all, even before the cameraman altered his position to prepare entering into the main kitchen via the door. Once he changed his position, and started entering into the kitchen, all the while the camera still rolling, you could not even see a glimpse of the kitchen window somewhere out of shot on the wall to the right of entry...
This reminded me of the occasion when in August 1990 I had visited white house farm, and peered into the same kitchen window, to see the tightest angle visible to me at that time, and to compare that angled view with PC Collins account of him having looked in through the kitchen window and reported that he could see the body of a female in a position behind the internal kitchen door situated over in the left hand corner out of my sight from the vantage point of me standing outside the kitchen window looking in...
There was no doubt whatsoever in my mind back then in August 1990, or later when I saw the reverse angle taken by the cameraman in the tv documentary that PC Collins could have seen a body behind that internal door on the kitchen sude of the door, from the same vantage point I had personally been stood at. Collins could not have seen a body there, neither a female body or a male body. He could not have mistaken Ralphs body behind that door from that vantage point, mistakenly identifying it as a dead females body - impossible..,
Nevill's body wasn't by the door it was near the Aga. The Aga is able to be seen quite clearly through the window. Many of the kitchen photos were taken by standing by the sink. The window was by the sink. So someone outside the window could see even more without having to bend the head but a simple bend of the head results in seeing Nevill.
(http://s9.postimg.org/bf5a087of/whfkitchen.jpg)
-
Ralph Bambers body was originally sat in a wooden chair pushed up against the internal kitchen door through which first of all Woodcock squeezed through a small gap that was created by firearms officers pressing against the opposite side of the door. This pressure eventually toppled Ralphs body over so that it ended up, balancing somewhat precariously over a second wooden chair which had originally positioned in front of the chair Ralphs body had been sat upon. There had been two wooden chairs, one in front of the other, pressed against the door, Ralph sat on the one closest the door, the other one in front empty. It took 3 or 4 minutes for police to put pressure on the opposite side of the door which had the effect of inching the chair that Ralphs body was sat upon, plus the empty wooden chair in front of this to topple over, sending Ralphs body tumbling forward, including the chair he had been sat upon, and the empty chair in front to tumble sideways, so that his body ended up near the corner of the aga surround. His body was not in that position prior to the firearms team entering the farmhouse at 7.30am...
Once Ralphs body had been toppled over, Woodcock started to squeeze through the gap in the door which had been created by the police action just described. I agree that once Ralphs body ended up near the corner of the aga, that anybody looking in through the kitchen window from outside would easily have been able to see his body, in that altered position...
But There is no evidence to prove that PC Collins had even looked through the window of the main kitchen, when he reported that he could see the body of a dead female, according to Jeremys account, because Collins had looked through the other kitchen window, the one to the left of the back court yard door, which provided him a view into the back kitchen, not the main kitchen...
-
Are we to believe that as Ralphs body was toppled over, that his head smashed brutally against the rim of the metal coal bucket, or did a kind samariton gently place his bullet riddled head and face into the bucket with the view of trying to contain blood spillage from these 6 bullet wounds?
-
There is also the matter of someone deciding to use a towel, items of clothing and seat cushions to try and control the spread of fresh blood further a field from around the base of the coal bucket inside which Ralphs badly wounded and injured head ended up being carefully deposited. Which good samariton put these items on the floor with the intention of preventing blood running further afield on the kitchen floor? Surely not Sheila, or the killer? It had to be the police who were responsible for having done this - since nowhere in any of the witness statements made by firearms officers, makes mention of articles on the floor in the vicinty of the base of the coal bucket when entry was made eventually into the kitchen. Moreover, the towel, the pair of cloth trousers, and the 2 seat cushions were never seized as exhibits, or sent to the lab' to be forensically examined...
-
For the record - Jeremy and I disagreed over which kitchen window PC Collins had looked into, prior to the back court yard door being smashed in, and entry to the farmhouse was gained at precisely 7.30am...
Jeremy was insisting the window Collins looked into was the back kitchen window to the left of the court yard door, whereas I was certain that Collins had been referring to the main kitchen window situated to the right if the aforementioned door...
-
For the record - Jeremy and I disagreed over which kitchen window PC Collins had looked into, prior to the back court yard door being smashed in, and entry to the farmhouse was gained at precisely 7.30am...
Jeremy was insisting the window Collins looked into was the back kitchen window to the left of the court yard door, whereas I was certain that Collins had been referring to the main kitchen window situated to the right if the aforementioned door...
as a result of our disagreement, Jeremy decided to interpret the sighting made by PC Collins through the back kitchen window, as being evidence that Collins had seen Sheila through the back kitchen window the window to the left of the court yard door, and that as police started to smash down the external door, that Sheila had simply fled upstairs...
I disagreed, citing the messages of the police logs which stated that the body of one dead female body had been found upon entry to the kitchen, along with the body of one dead female...
-
as a result of our disagreement, Jeremy decided to interpret the sighting made by PC Collins through the back kitchen window, as being evidence that Collins had seen Sheila through the back kitchen window the window to the left of the court yard door, and that as police started to smash down the external door, that Sheila had simply fled upstairs...
I disagreed, citing the messages of the police logs which stated that the body of one dead female body had been found upon entry to the kitchen, along with the body of one dead female...
The body of the dead male being reference to the discovery of Ralphs body in the main kitchen, not the back kitchen...
-
Jeremy was trying to force me to adopt his approach to this matter, but I stubbornly refused to do so, deciding instead to stick to my own principles and methods of investigation...
-
It didn't help matters, when at the beginning of 2004, a group of us discovered evidence that the first shot inflicted across Sheila's throat had been inflicted with use of a sound moderator. Jeremy did not take too kindly to us validating that a silencer had been used on the gun which had fired the initial non fatal neck wound...
We stuck to our guns, a silencer had almost certainly been used when that shot had been inflicted - Jeremy disagreed...
-
It didn't help matters, when at the beginning of 2004, a group of us discovered evidence that the first shot inflicted across Sheila's throat had been inflicted with use of a sound moderator. Jeremy did not take too kindly to us validating that a silencer had been used on the gun which had fired the initial non fatal neck wound...
We stuck to our guns, a silencer had almost certainly been used when that shot had been inflicted - Jeremy disagreed...
Jeremy was maintaining that the circular mark visible around the first non fatal neck shot, was nothing but bruising which naturally occurred when someone had been shot. We considered this, and came to the conclusion that it was strange how the diameter and the circumference of the mark in question appeared to identically match the characteristics of the dimensions of a silencers end cap - we continued to stick to our guns, a silencer had made that mark, of this we were as certain as we could be...
-
At the beginning of 2004, our small group of advisors, started to look more deeply into the ballistic issues of the case. One of the areas we looked into, was whether or not Sheila could have removed the sound moderator from the barrel of the gun after the first shot, and before she had fired the second fatal shot (minus the silencer) under the chin? Our intent had been to try and discover a way for the blood belonging to Sheila exclusively, could have got into the sound moderator prior to the second fatal shot being inflicted? If we could do that (we reasoned amongst ourselves) then it might not particularly matter that it was Sheila's unique blood inside the silencer. This was because in the trial judges summing up, he had told the jury that it was up to them to arrive at a decision as to who's blood was present inside the silencer? It could be a mixture of the parents bloods, and if the jury came to that decision, they need not concern themselves eith the circumstances of how that silencer had ended up inside the gun cupboard before Sheila had then gone on to commit suicide. We interpreted this to include, that if Sheila's blood had got into the silencer at the time of the first shot, that the jury need not concern itself with how the silencer ended up in the cupboard, providing that we could prove there had been no silencer fitted to the gun barrel at the time Sheila had been shot under the chin on the second occasion...
-
Jeremy was not happy with this aporoach, since he was adamant that a silencer could not have been used in the shooting of his sister...
-
We as a group, had been intending to speak with Ewen Smith about this idea, but Jeremy disposed of his services around this time, because Ewen had been offered the chance to become a CCRC Commissioner...
-
It did not help matters because I chose to send in the photograph of Sheila's body on the bed in the main bedroom to Jeremy, under the privilege of RULE 37A, which caused additional stress between Jeremy and myself. I know there are some people who must be thinking that no such photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, but I can assure everyone that such a photograph does exist, and that I posted the original copy I took into Jeremy at HMP Full Sutton, on the day after I got possession of it. This coincided with a telephone conversation I had with Jeremy on the same evening I had gotten the photograph. I told Jeremy over the phone on this occasion that I had taken the photograph in Ewens possession, and that I was going to post it into him the following day. We now know prison discipline confiscated the contents of my letter and the said photograph, and that Jeremy was refused to see it, but in any event he was told that the photograph and my accompanying letter was heing placed in his prison file...
-
I am closing down now for the night, with a clear conscience. I have done my duty, and spoken about as much of the truth as I can...
-
It did not help matters because I chose to send in the photograph of Sheila's body on the bed in the main bedroom to Jeremy, under the privilege of RULE 37A, which caused additional stress between Jeremy and myself. I know there are some people who must be thinking that no such photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, but I can assure everyone that such a photograph does exist, and that I posted the original copy I took into Jeremy at HMP Full Sutton, on the day after I got possession of it. This coincided with a telephone conversation I had with Jeremy on the same evening I had gotten the photograph. I told Jeremy over the phone on this occasion that I had taken the photograph in Ewens possession, and that I was going to post it into him the following day. We now know prison discipline confiscated the contents of my letter and the said photograph, and that Jeremy was refused to see it, but in any event he was told that the photograph and my accompanying letter was heing placed in his prison file...
I think you also posted a letter from Jeremy about this incident.
-
Jeremy was maintaining that the circular mark visible around the first non fatal neck shot, was nothing but bruising which naturally occurred when someone had been shot. We considered this, and came to the conclusion that it was strange how the diameter and the circumference of the mark in question appeared to identically match the characteristics of the dimensions of a silencers end cap - we continued to stick to our guns, a silencer had made that mark, of this we were as certain as we could be...
The first shot wasn't a contact wound, muzzle marks are only left during hard contact wounds. The only marks around it were caused by the bullet, unburned powder and gases.
-
I think you also posted a letter from Jeremy about this incident.
No he simply posted this:
"are at least two photographs amongst the 581 images contained in 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', which was kept locked away inside a safe in ACC Peter Simpsons office. There were 358 photographs taken in connection with the investigation that were deliberately kept from Jeremy, his legal team, and the court which tried the case. In two of the images I have seen of Sheila on the bed, one I saw during a visit to Ewen Smiths office at the beginning of 2004, and the other I have seen more recently shown to me by a retired police officer involved in the investigation. The one I first saw at Ewens office in Birmingham, was taken from a vantage point of the photographer standing about a metre or so, or whatever, at the foot of the bed in the main bedroom. It shows Sheila laid on the bed with her head on a pillow , she is wearing the light blue coloured nightdress, with the hem pulled up towards her waist. You can see that she is not wearing any underwear, and without being too graphic, you can see exposed pubic hair in the region of her crutch. There is no blood on her nightdress, none of the heavily triangular stained blood which appears in the later photographs situated in the region of her right hand side shoulder and armpit. It looks like whoever took this photograph did so out of mischief. It looks like to all intents and purposes, like a soft porn image, as though Sheila is just sleeping on the bed. There is no rifle on her body, no bible on the bed or nearby, just two pillows, a teddy bear, and Sheila. At this time, she must have still been alive because there is no second shot yet beneath her chin, and none of the blood we see on her face and neck which appears later after police moved her body onto the floor at the side of the bed. I first saw this photograph at Ewen Smiths office, contained in what I know know to be 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', loaned to Ewen by Essex police. When Ewen told me about having been to see Dr Craig, I was under an impression that Ewen had taken this photograph of Sheila on the bed along with him to show to Dr Craig, and that this was how he was able to get confirmation from Craig, that when he had viewed Sheila's body at 8.44am, and pronounced her as being dead, that her body was on the bed, and she only had a solitary bullet wound injury to her throat. However, I have since seen another image, a photograph which provides a better view of Sheila's throat at the time she is laid on the bed. She clearly only has one wound, and I now suspect that Ewen may have show that image, or both of them to Dr Craig during his visit to see him. One thing is certain, and that is that Dr Craig told Ewen that Sheila only had one shot to her throat by the time (8.44am) he dealt with her at the scene. But he acknowledged that another shot, the second one beneath the chin came later after Dr Craig left the farmhouse...
Jeremy didn't want Ewen telling me things, and showing me crime scene photographs that he himself did not know, or had seen. He told me to get Ewen to come and see him at Full Sutton, for a talk and to bring the photographs of Sheila on the bed. This was the chief reason why upon first sight of the aforementioned photograph, that I took it and posted it in an envelope to Jeremy along with an accompanying letter under RULE 37A to Jeremy. I had not seen the photograph until the day I took it from the Album at Ewens Birmingham office. I had only been told by Ewen that such a photograph might exist and that in fact if it did, he might have taken it along with him when he had been to visit Dr Craig and his wife at their home. In any event these photographs, or at least one or other of them, were behind Dr Craig confirming to Ewen on that occasion that Sheila's body was laid on the bed when he viewed her, and that by that stage she had only been shot once, with evidence of very little external blood at all if any visible externally of the bullet wound. This is why I know that police shot Sheila, because I have seen this particular photograph of Sheila on the bed, one shot to the neck, no gun on the body, and later photographs of her body now laying on the bedroom floor, two shots to the neck, blood on her face and throat, a rifle on her body, and heavy triangular bloodstains on her nightdress...
Jeremy Banner cannot therefore be responsible for killing his sister, FACTUAL..."
There is no Criminal Procedure Rule 37A so it is unclear what he is referring to. Clearly if Jeremy had been mailed the photo claimed then he would have had such posted on his website and used to question the veracity of police. The notion the police hid this then willingly loaned it to his lawyer is pretty absurd. But so are all the other allegations.
-
As a result of discovering the the 1 inch diameter circular mark around the first shot inflicted to Sheila's neck, Smith and Mallinson did a series of range tests involving use of a Anshuzt model 525 semi automatic rifle, .22 ammunition and a 17 baffled parker hale silencer. These range tests consisted of firing bullets into target paper at the range from measured distances of contact, 1", 2", 3", 4", 5" and 6". In total 14 shots were fired at the aforementioned distances, 7 with the parker hale silencer attached to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, and a further 7 minus the parker hale silencer. The results at all measured distances produced slightly different resilts at each distance specified when the silenced tests were compared against the same unsilenced tests. What Smith and Mallinson then did, was to examine the two bullet wounds upon Sheila's throat using magnifying equipment to see whether or not, there was any evidence around each of the two entry wounds that provided a clue to how far from the surface of the skin the muzzle of the gun had been at the time each shot had been inflicted...
Smith and Mallinson used the ranging tests results aforementioned when performing this task...
Net result, was that they concluded the first shot was hard contact via use of a sound moderator, and that the second shot was inflicted by use of an unsilenced gun at close contact...
-
Something else which fell inyo our radar concerned the development of bruising around the lower entry wound on the neck. We reasoned that Sheila must have remained alive for a considerable length of time after the infliction of the first shot, in order for that bruising from contact with the end of the sound moderator to develop before she was killed...
-
I would just like to clear up something regarding the photographs which ended up in Ewen Smiths possession at the beginning of 2004...
I may have inadvertently given an impression that this set of photographs, contained in what is now known to have been entitled, "THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", consisting of 581 photographs, had been loaned to Ewen Smith directly by Essex police. That was not how Ewen came to be in possession of them. In fact, this album was produced by Essex police to the CCRC under special arrangement, and the CCRC loaned them to Ewen because he had already agreed to become a CCRC Commissioner...
-
Much earlier, when COLP had carried out its investigation into the sequence with which all the photographs contained in this particular album had been taken, they discovered that one photograph in particular was not even made part of any official photograohic album, either in the guise of any court album (50), master cooy album (223), or the senior investigating officers album (581). This photograph was retained by ACC Simpson who kept it separately of any version of photographic albums, created or produced by PC Bird. COLP reported that this photograph should never have been withheld from the defence - it is believed to be a close up photograph showing Sheila Caffells face and throat with only one bullet hole present, and a light vertically inclined flow of blood which at some stage had run from that wound. Officially, COLP have never described what that photograph found in ACC Peter Simpsons office safe shows, but in the 2nd version of thier report they do...
It states that the withheld photograph was a still image taken from video footage taken of the crime scene...
In particular that this particular image was taken as part of the 2nd video tape taken between 9 and 10 O'clock at the scene, on the 7th August...
-
In COLP documents, disclosed after the failed 2002 appeal, they refer to 70 or more photographs taken at the scene either by PC Bird, or by way of still images taken from video of the crime scene, which they did not copy. Many of these uncopied photographs show the general state of play covering the transformation of Sheila's body on top of the bed in the main bedroom at a time when she only had one bullet wound on her throat, culminating in her body ending up on the bedroom floor in the recovery pisition with two bullet wounds thus in her throat, and eventually her body rolled onto its back, and the rifle placed conveniently upon her body, with her hands placed upon and around it, and the open pages of the blue bible placed above bloodstaining on the bedroom carpet where Sheila's head had been resting immediayely after police have moved herbody from on top of the bed, onto the bedroom floor into the recovery position...
-
From my point of view, Jeremys legal team need to request copies of the photograph which COLP seized from inside Simpsons office safe, and the other 70 odd photographs which COLP refused to copy as part of thier investigation...
-
From my point of view, Jeremys legal team need to request copies of the photograph which COLP seized from inside Simpsons office safe, and the other 70 odd photographs which COLP refused to copy as part of thier investigation...
This would be a good starting point towards exposing the true events which took place inside the farmhouse once police entered at just after 7.30am, but in particular what actually happened to Sheila's body between 9 and 10 O' clock, before PC Bird had the opportunity to take a series of misleading photographs from 10 O ' clock, onwards...
-
The photographs shown to the jury, and which are contained in the wrongly named, "MASTER COPY ALBUM", consisting of 223 photographs, only show the position and location of victims bodies as they had been set, at and by 10 O'clock that morning - by which time the bodies had all been man handled by the police and stage managed...
-
Everyone can tell that the bodies of victims have been stage managed, and the jury were influenced by what they saw in the same images. The bodies of the 5 victims were most definately not found in the positiins and locations shown in photographs taken by PC Bird. This is borne out by the fact that not one firearm officer attended the trila, who was shown these photographs, who confirmed that the photographs were exactly as each body had been found inside the farmhouse between 7.30 and 8.10am, that morning...
The only person who was called to testify regarding what could be seen in these photographs was PC Bird, who's main role was to confirm the sequence with which he had taken the photographs at the scene, from 10am, onwards...
-
There was a fundamental failure on the part of the prosecutions case at trial stage, to prove that the position of the 5 victims bodies, as shown in PC Birds photographs which he took at the scene from 10 O' clock onwards, had been the original position and locations they had been found in, between 7.30 and 8.10am, that morning...
-
There was a fundamental failure on the part of the prosecutions case at trial stage, to prove that the position of the 5 victims bodies, as shown in PC Birds photographs which he took at the scene from 10 O' clock onwards, had been the original position and locations they had been found in, between 7.30 and 8.10am, that morning...
Linked to this matter, was the deliberate withholding of the various police log messages, which record crucial facts regarding the discovery of 2 bodies downstairs upon entry, and the other 3 bodies found upstairs...
Had there been disclosue of the aforementioned police log contents, a significant amount of doubt would have been cast upon the claim that PC Birds photographs represented how the bodies of victims had been found, untouched, undisturbed, one hour and a half, to one hour, earlier...
-
In my opinion, the jury were hoodwinked into falsly believing that the photographs taken by PC Bird at the scene after 10 O'clock, represented the exact position and location the 5 bodies had been found in upon entry to the farmhouse, but according to these photographs, the bodies of 4 victims were photographed insitu upstairs after 10 O'clock when the log contents clearly state there were only 3 bodies discovered upstairs and similarly the photographs taken after 10 O'clock, shows only 1 body downstairs in the kitchen, whereas the police log contents confirm the presence of two bodies...,
-
In my opinion, the jury were hoodwinked into falsly believing that the photographs taken by PC Bird at the scene after 10 O'clock, represented the exact position and location the 5 bodies had been found in upon entry to the farmhouse, but according to these photographs, the bodies of 4 victims were photographed insitu upstairs after 10 O'clock when the log contents clearly state there were only 3 bodies discovered upstairs and similarly the photographs taken after 10 O'clock, shows only 1 body downstairs in the kitchen, whereas the police log contents confirm the presence of two bodies...,
More specifically, the police log contents describe the presence of one dead male "AND" the body of one dead male, downstairs in the kitchen, from as early as 7.37am, another confirms the presence of one dead male, one dead female at 7.38am, and yet another message timed at 8.42am, states the following, " CAN SOMEONE CONTACT THE POLICE SURGEON, AND THE CORONERS OFFICER, REGARDING TWO BODIES", and a further confirmation that at the beginning of the firearms operation once firearms officers had entered the farm house, is found timed at 8.45am, when a female operative with the Christian name of Linda, contacted DS Davidson at home, requesting him to attend the office because police at whf were dealing with an incident involving a murder, and a suicide...
These messages help to prove the presence of 2 bodies downstairs between 7.37 and 7.45am, with a further 3 bodies upstairs by 8.10am...
No evidence that these timed messages were in fact wrong, by the existence of additional messages being passed remedying any mistaken quote..,
-
I regard myself as someone who looks at things from every possible angle, I approach things on the basis that was has been said, or done, is accurately reoirted, and alternatively, as if the same information or material, might not after all be true...
This forum is not a court of law which can make lawful or legal decisions. I make posts on the forum as though it were a diary in which I can record my thoughts and provide access to information never made public before. Sometimes I might post my thoughts on an issue, which at some other point I might say something contradicting what I've said earlier - when this happens I have not lied, since there could be any number of reasons why I may have changed my mind about something or other...
-
I do not mind that people do not respond directly to any of my posts, or even if people disagree with what I am saying, what I am really interested in, are the reasons ehy people might think differently to me on a particular subject, issue, or matter. Perhaps they might have something to say which can make me change my mind about something or other?
-
I regard myself as someone who looks at things from every possible angle, I approach things on the basis that was has been said, or done, is accurately reoirted, and alternatively, as if the same information or material, might not after all be true...
This forum is not a court of law which can make lawful or legal decisions. I make posts on the forum as though it were a diary in which I can record my thoughts and provide access to information never made public before. Sometimes I might post my thoughts on an issue, which at some other point I might say something contradicting what I've said earlier - when this happens I have not lied, since there could be any number of reasons why I may have changed my mind about something or other...
I do not mind that people do not respond directly to any of my posts, or even if people disagree with what I am saying, what I am really interested in, are the reasons ehy people might think differently to me on a particular subject, issue, or matter. Perhaps they might have something to say which can make me change my mind about something or other?
Mike, how lovely for you. It sounds as if you've just returned from a jolly with the lads to the Balearics. I hope you had a wonderful time.
I quite see that you write random thoughts -possibly inspired by other sources- diary fashion, which you appear to believe correct at the time because, on occasions, you have been known to become a smidgeon irate!!!! when these thoughts have been challenged although, at some point, it's highly likely that you'll refute the same thoughts. You say that when this happens "I have not lied" BUT there appear no guarantees that your source was telling the truth when they passed the information to you. It does appear, from what you tell us, that all your informants were literally "there at the kill" so it would seem far more plausible that you'd accept what THEY have to say above anything any of us might offer. It MAY be one reason, ie, the truth of what you have been told being disputed, why so few of us -other than Scipio who has more fire arms/legal knowledge than most of us- debate with you. SUCH a shame -AND a dilemma- when all any of us wants is the truth........ which is unlikely to be found in contradictory information, EVERY bit of which appears to be presented as THE truth.
-
In COLP documents, disclosed after the failed 2002 appeal, they refer to 70 or more photographs taken at the scene either by PC Bird, or by way of still images taken from video of the crime scene, which they did not copy. Many of these uncopied photographs show the general state of play covering the transformation of Sheila's body on top of the bed in the main bedroom at a time when she only had one bullet wound on her throat, culminating in her body ending up on the bedroom floor in the recovery pisition with two bullet wounds thus in her throat, and eventually her body rolled onto its back, and the rifle placed conveniently upon her body, with her hands placed upon and around it, and the open pages of the blue bible placed above bloodstaining on the bedroom carpet where Sheila's head had been resting immediayely after police have moved herbody from on top of the bed, onto the bedroom floor into the recovery position...
COLP saw all the photos. Police had no reason to move any bodies and peopel who decided to move a body and lie about it being found elsewhere would not have taken photos to document the locaiton they found it thus proving they lied. Nor would police retain such photos even after the case is over and hide them in a safe. The whole story is absurd. They would not have taken such photos in the first place, would have destroyed such photos if they had been taken as opposed to keeping them in a safe and the notion someone would know what is secretly in a high ranking officer's safe is also not credible.
Nor is it credible that police would provide such to Ewen Smith yet Ewen Smith to do nothing with them and then for you to steal such to mail to Jeremy. The whole story makes no sense on any level and you squarely place yourself in the middle by claiming to have personally seen it, taken it and sent it to Jeremy.
So instead of being a story simply made up by someone else and told to you it ends up being one you clearly made up a sizable portion (if not all of it) yourself.
-
As a result of discovering the the 1 inch diameter circular mark around the first shot inflicted to Sheila's neck, Smith and Mallinson did a series of range tests involving use of a Anshuzt model 525 semi automatic rifle, .22 ammunition and a 17 baffled parker hale silencer. These range tests consisted of firing bullets into target paper at the range from measured distances of contact, 1", 2", 3", 4", 5" and 6". In total 14 shots were fired at the aforementioned distances, 7 with the parker hale silencer attached to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, and a further 7 minus the parker hale silencer. The results at all measured distances produced slightly different resilts at each distance specified when the silenced tests were compared against the same unsilenced tests. What Smith and Mallinson then did, was to examine the two bullet wounds upon Sheila's throat using magnifying equipment to see whether or not, there was any evidence around each of the two entry wounds that provided a clue to how far from the surface of the skin the muzzle of the gun had been at the time each shot had been inflicted...
Smith and Mallinson used the ranging tests results aforementioned when performing this task...
Net result, was that they concluded the first shot was hard contact via use of a sound moderator, and that the second shot was inflicted by use of an unsilenced gun at close contact...
There wasn't any 1 inch circular mark on Sheila's neck. There was a 3/16" entrance mark with a bullet abrasion collar around it and the diameter of the collar was less than half an inch. The wound was not a contact wound even so had zero ability to leave a muzzle imprint only hard contact wounds result in muzzle imprints.
-
You need to get yourself a pair of glasses - try spec savers...
-
Amidst all the garbage surrounding the introduction of the sound moderator in its various disguises of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, very little attention has been paid to the recovery of the end piece of the anshuzr rifles barrel, known more commonly as the 'metal End Cap' which is normally screwed onto the thread on the end of the guns barrel. It is part of the barrel, which is detachable.. Not many people know this, but this metal end cap belonging to the rifle was found downstairs in the kitchen on 8th August 1985. It was only found once police had brought a metal detector to the scene on that date to help them look for discarded bullet cases. It was found in the kitchen, along with as it turns out to be, Ralph Bambers wrist watch. The most interesting feature concerning the recovery of this metal ene cap,bwas that it appeared to have got some reddish brown paint, or blood ingrained into the engrained circumference of it. Discovery of this end cap, prompted Ron Cook to take 2 paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) on the 8th August 1985 from thebred painted aga surround on that particular day, and hand these 2 paint samples to DS Davidson at the scene that same day, because of the contamination found upon the aforementioned end cap from the rifles barrel. There can be no doubt that at that stage the police were as sure as they could be that the rifles metal end cap had become detached in the kitchen after it had possibly come into contact with the red painted aga, or as a result of it having at some stage been fitted to the barrel at the time one or more contact shots had been fired at victims, particularly Ralph Banner who's body was also found in the same main kitchen...
-
It has also been established as a fact, that during autopsy performed upon Sheila Caffell on 7th August, that 3 blood samples were taken from her body, but that only 2 of these have been officially accounted for...
-
Amidst all the garbage surrounding the introduction of the sound moderator in its various disguises of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, very little attention has been paid to the recovery of the end piece of the anshuzr rifles barrel, known more commonly as the 'metal End Cap' which is normally screwed onto the thread on the end of the guns barrel. It is part of the barrel, which is detachable.. Not many people know this, but this metal end cap belonging to the rifle was found downstairs in the kitchen on 8th August 1985. It was only found once police had brought a metal detector to the scene on that date to help them look for discarded bullet cases. It was found in the kitchen, along with as it turns out to be, Ralph Bambers wrist watch. The most interesting feature concerning the recovery of this metal ene cap,bwas that it appeared to have got some reddish brown paint, or blood ingrained into the engrained circumference of it. Discovery of this end cap, prompted Ron Cook to take 2 paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) on the 8th August 1985 from thebred painted aga surround on that particular day, and hand these 2 paint samples to DS Davidson at the scene that same day, because of the contamination found upon the aforementioned end cap from the rifles barrel. There can be no doubt that at that stage the police were as sure as they could be that the rifles metal end cap had become detached in the kitchen after it had possibly come into contact with the red painted aga, or as a result of it having at some stage been fitted to the barrel at the time one or more contact shots had been fired at victims, particularly Ralph Banner who's body was also found in the same main kitchen...
This is more nonsense from you.
As I already demonstrated there was never any SJ/1 exhibit. The thread protector was not found in the kitchen nor was any paint found on it. The thread protector was found in the closet by Oakey in September when he cleaned it out. The rifle was always stored and used with the moderator attached the thread protector was not used but rather was buried in the closet. Your fairytales are not working you need to start using real facts and evidence instead of just making things up.
(http://s7.postimg.org/toum5xol7/oakeyexhibits.jpg)
The thread protector was part of HGO/2. The entire box was HGO/2 and the contents of the box are as well. It is the cap that was in the box. It was produced at trial as Exhibit 49. Jeremy never claimed the thread protector was on the gun when he got the murder weapon out or on it when he claims to have left it out. Nor did Jeremy testify that the thread protector was ever used on those occasions when he claims the moderator was removed from the gun before placing it in the closet. The prosecution suggested that the cap was never used on the weapon, that the moderator was always used so the thread protector was buried in the closet simply. The defense failed to adduce any testimony to establish the threat protector was ever used let alone was attached on the night of the murders.
There was no evidence of any paint on the thread protector. This is simply made up by you and it a totally wasted effort.