Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on June 28, 2015, 11:59:PM
-
Mike keeps dishonestly claiming Cook told COLP he labeled the moderator handed to him by Stan Jones SJ/1 .
What Cook actually told COLP:
(http://s16.postimg.org/hpcciik1h/cookinitials1.jpg)
(http://s3.postimg.org/whx5y47xf/cookinitials2.jpg)
What does the above mean?
It means:
1) That he wrote in his pocketbook that he planned to label the moderator SJ/1
2) That prior to labeling it he spoke to Jones, found out his middle initial and they settled on labeling it SBJ/1 because Jones was unsure of who actually found it and when that is the case the initial of the cop who accepted the evidence from civilians are used
3) That he typed up the Holab forms in advance on August 12. That in addition to the items on he typed form her decided to take 3 additional items including the moderator and while at the lab he hand wrote these items on the Holab forms. COLP actually showed him the Holab forms that he filled out in triplicate he saw all 3 of them.
This is one of the 3 copies of that Holab form, he did indeed write the last 3 entries by hand and it does indeed refer to the moderator as SBJ/1 not SJ/1 like Mike keeps falsely claiming.:
(http://s3.postimg.org/6dggd08df/holabform.jpg)
Glynnis Howard also says the tag on the moderator said SBJ/1 and that is why on her examination record she drafted that very same day of August 13 she wrote SBJ/1 as the designation.
With respect to the triplicate forms that Cook filled out he made a clerical error on one of them. On tow of them he wrote 22 as the lab reference number but messed up and 23 as the lab reference number on the third. He admitted this was just a sloppy mistake on his part. If there actually had been 2 moderators submitted then each of the 3 copies would have had 2 moderators listed. Each has only 1 listed and on all 3 it is referred to as SBJ/1 this supports his claim that the 23 on the third form was simply an error.
(http://s28.postimg.org/rg6nqvg7x/cook2223discrep.jpg)
the lab didn't see the error because their forms said 22 on them. The form with the error went back to the police station which caused further problems because at the station they thought it was item 23 and they wrote such on other forms that ended up going to the lab and this forced the number to be corrected.
This is erroneously characterized as them officially changing the reference from 22 to to 23 and then changing it back to 22. The reference was never officially changed to 23. It was always 22 some forms simply contained 23 in error and it is directly attributable to Cook's error- police had a form which recorded it as 23 and simply copied that erroneous reference. Only later was the error detected and corrected. This is why select forms list 23.
While Cook's COLP statement clears everything up, Mike dishonestly pretends Cook stated the complete opposite of what he actually stated. Since we can read what he really wrote I don't know what Mike thinks he is going to accomplish by his deception. I am tired of posting this information over and over again so form now on I am going to link to this thread when he repeats his claims and everyone knows he is going to repeated them again and again no matter what.
If the movie Groundhog day were filmed with Mike as the character it would feature Mike repeating the same day over and over again changing nothing. They would be able to simply film one day and then just keep playing it over and over. They would have saved a lot of filming expenses. They also would have one hell of a boring movie though.
-
I do wonder why Jones didn't know who had found the silencer when (according to AE), he had spent several hours drinking with PE at the Eaton's house when he went to collect it. Surely the story of the find was relayed to him at some point?
-
I do wonder why Jones didn't know who had found the silencer when (according to AE), he had spent several hours drinking with PE at the Eaton's house when he went to collect it. Surely the story of the find was relayed to him at some point?
I agree, the silencer story seems very flimsy and unconvincing whichever angle you view it from it seems contrived and badly executed. I am not convinced about the silencer.
-
Either the relatives or police must have deliberately contaminated the silencer.
A thread already exists showing it was impossible for the relatives to do this.
Therefore the relatives handed in a silencer with nothing on. Don't ask me why.
The police then decided to use the clean silencer to help secure a conviction. They needed the support of each other and the lab technicians, who would deliberately contaminate the silencer.
The police also needed the relatives to keep quiet. As the relatives knew they had handed in a clean silencer.
-
Another similar scenario is the relatives handed in a clean silencer and suggested to the police that they use it to frame Jeremy.
The relatives were taking a big risk in making this suggestion.
The police would still need the support of each other, the lab technicians and the relatives.
No one has cracked and admitted deliberate contamination in 30 years. Although a lot of people will be aware of it.
-
Another similar scenario is the relatives handed in a clean silencer and suggested to the police that they use it to frame Jeremy.
The relatives were taking a big risk in making this suggestion.
The police would still need the support of each other, the lab technicians and the relatives.
No one has cracked and admitted deliberate contamination in 30 years. Although a lot of people will be aware of it.
Thanks for suggestions Adam, you are such a support to a thicko like me.
-
What silencer ??
-
I agree, the silencer story seems very flimsy and unconvincing whichever angle you view it from it seems contrived and badly executed. I am not convinced about the silencer.
Just thought I'd throw a few ideas into the mix. I'm not offering any explanations as to how I think it could have been done but I go along with the theory of where a will exists, there will be a way to bring about a successful conclusion.
A. Rellies wanted to put Jeremy in the picture. To convince police, they found a silencer.
B. Rellies and police jointly had doubts about Jeremy's innocence. Silencer was introduced.
C. Police were convinced of Jeremy's guilt. Suggested a silencer would help convict him.
D. Police wanted Jeremy convicted to cover their own activities. Introduced silencer.
-
If the police wanted to introduce the silencer, why involve the relatives ?
They had several weeks to order a second search themselves and find a silencer they could deliberately contaminate.
Instead they had their brainwave to use fake evidence on a silencer after the relatives handed a clean one in. Knowing that the relatives would have to keep quiet. For ever.
The relatives have been quite happy to discuss the silencer over the years. Must be good liars.
-
Just thought I'd throw a few ideas into the mix. I'm not offering any explanations as to how I think it could have been done but I go along with the theory of where a will exists, there will be a way to bring about a successful conclusion.
A. Rellies wanted to put Jeremy in the picture. To convince police, they found a silencer.
B. Rellies and police jointly had doubts about Jeremy's innocence. Silencer was introduced.
C. Police were convinced of Jeremy's guilt. Suggested a silencer would help convict him.
D. Police wanted Jeremy convicted to cover their own activities. Introduced silencer.
April
thanks for the suggestions the one that is most likely to me is B
-
Criminals get away with crime all the time.
Either avoiding arrest, or cases collapsing before or during trial. Due to lack of evidence or a technicality.
Even if a full trial is heard, the jury often vote 'not guilty' if not convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The defendant in the 80's getting away with it. For ever.
The police were well aware of this, and would have been used to criminals walking free. To suggest they refused to accept Jeremy would be another one 'who got away' and carried out a huge , serious and delicate frame up is not realistic.
-
April
thanks for the suggestions the one that is most likely to me is B
Well 'B' is what happened.
Both the relatives and most of the police had doubts from day one.
The relatives, inside WHF with BW and Basil Cock, found a silencer hidden away.
The relatives handed it to the police, who sent it away for testing.
No joint conspiracy.
-
Julie approached the police a month later.
The silencer was handed in by the relatives.
Jeremy was walking free.
The police sure weren't being pro active in framing him.
-
Actually I will amend post 8.
The relatives handed in the silencer quite soon after the massacre. So the police did not have much time to carry out a second search.
At this time the official line was that Sheila was guilty. The silencer was sent to the Labs, who spent several weeks testing it.
So the police must have asked the labs to give false results.
I still find it strange that the relatives would hand in a silencer with nothing on.
-
Another similar scenario is the relatives handed in a clean silencer and suggested to the police that they use it to frame Jeremy.
The relatives were taking a big risk in making this suggestion.
The police would still need the support of each other, the lab technicians and the relatives.
No one has cracked and admitted deliberate contamination in 30 years. Although a lot of people will be aware of it.
Clearly, that DIDN'T happen!
-
I do wonder why Jones didn't know who had found the silencer when (according to AE), he had spent several hours drinking with PE at the Eaton's house when he went to collect it. Surely the story of the find was relayed to him at some point?
Ann Eaton didn't say hours she said he spent quite some time there. She had no idea how much earlier than her he had arrived it could have been only a few minutes. He was already at Oak Farm when she got home. Shortly after she got home she had to run to White house Farm because the alarm had gone off. He only saw him for a short while and had no idea how long he was there.
Jones didn't think the moderator held any value. Only after the lab said it had human blood and paint did he recognize a value. So he didn't particularly care about it he said that he was placating the family by smoozing with them and probably was secretly trying to get information from them that he himself though would be useful. He didn't end up getting anything from Eaton though as Eaton didn't really know anything of value. Eaton wasn't even at WHF when the moderator was found so would not be of much use anyway in explaining the full details of how it was found and by whom.
After the lab reported the significance then police had to go establish the details of who found it and when and the chaing of custody till handed to police and had the witnesses include such in statements. At that point they found out Boutflour was the one who found them and decided to amend all the exhibits found by Boutflour to reflect such so changed the following all together:
SBJ/1 to DB/1
AE/1 (scope) to DB/2
AE/2 (.22 ammunition in abu bag) to DB/3
HGO/1 (Raker shotgun ammo) to DB/4
They had not established the trail of any of these items at the time of collection they found out later when interviewing the parties to determine the finding of such items and change of custody.
-
Members of the jury had been led to believe that only one silencer had been found------------yet years later,it was known that at least 5 silencers had been taken from WHF after the murders. Naturally there would have been,given the amount of guns/rifles that were kept at the farmhouse.
-
Members of the jury had been led to believe that only one silencer had been found------------yet years later,it was known that at least 5 silencers had been taken from WHF after the murders. Naturally there would have been,given the amount of guns/rifles that were kept at the farmhouse.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. There was 1 moderator at WHF- the one owned by Nevill.
The only other moderators the police took were the personal moderators owned by the Boutflours and the mdoerator owned by AP. They took AP's moderator to examine during the COLP investigation. They took the Boutflour's personal moderators during the trial so that if the defense made the suggestion that Nevill lost his moderator before the murders and Boutflour put his own moderator in the closet then the prosecution would produce the other two and say here are the moderators owned by the Boutflours so the defense's suggestion is bogus.
-
I agree, the silencer story seems very flimsy and unconvincing whichever angle you view it from it seems contrived and badly executed. I am not convinced about the silencer.
That is because you are biased. To an objective person there is no way to undermine the moderator evidence and that is why Jeremy lost his appeals.
When someone is convicted the defense is deseperate to make any allegations they can even ridiculous ones. That resulted in the nonsense claim of multiple moderators being doctored and so forth based on the changed designations.
If the family or the police were going to doctor evidence they would not doctor multiple moderators. They would take Nevill's moderator and doctor it. SO the allegations never made sense even before investigating the designation changes.
Then when one looks at the designation changes one finds that the references to DB/1 didn't exist until the very end of September or October. The evidence shows that after police determined that 4 items were found by Boutflour they decided to have the prefix for these items reflec tit. 3 different prefixes were used for these items thus giving no clue that all were found by the same person let alone all found by Boutflour.
SBJ/1 was redesignated DB/1
AE/1 was redesignated DB/2
AE/2 was redesignated DB/3
HGO/1 was redesignated DB/4
It is indisputable that David Bird had already logged his exhibits under the DB prefix and that there were already exhibits DB/1-4 in the case.
That forced the administrative personal to redesignate the Boutflour exhibits. They chose to add Boutflour's middle initial and thus to redesignate them DRB/1-4.
An objective person finds such evidence satisfactory and there is nothing about this which can be used to undermine the moderator evidence.
If one wants to make a claim that the evidence in the moderator was planted then one needs to find evidence to establish such and the redesignations don't provide any such evidence the redesignations have to be ignored if one is trying to find evidence of planting. Not only are the explanations for the changes ironclad the allegations that multiple moderators were doctored is downright stupid and someone who alleges such sounds like a biased hack. Advocates need their reputation intact when they are going to make arguments to a court. Making absurd allegations will instantly deny them credibility.
Jeremy's lawyers knew the allegations were completely and totally refuted by the COLP investigation and thus made zero attempt to argue these issues before the CCRC. These issues are used to try to fool the ignorant or to used by Jeremy supporters to try to justify their positions because they have nothing legitimate to raise. It is therefore damaging to even bring up this because it demonstrates supporters have nothing legitimate to raise because if they did they they would not be raising nonsense.
-
That is because you are biased. To an objective person there is no way to undermine the moderator evidence and that is why Jeremy lost his appeals.
When someone is convicted the defense is deseperate to make any allegations they can even ridiculous ones. That resulted in the nonsense claim of multiple moderators being doctored and so forth based on the changed designations.
If the family or the police were going to doctor evidence they would not doctor multiple moderators. They would take Nevill's moderator and doctor it. SO the allegations never made sense even before investigating the designation changes.
Then when one looks at the designation changes one finds that the references to DB/1 didn't exist until the very end of September or October. The evidence shows that after police determined that 4 items were found by Boutflour they decided to have the prefix for these items reflec tit. 3 different prefixes were used for these items thus giving no clue that all were found by the same person let alone all found by Boutflour.
SBJ/1 was redesignated DB/1
AE/1 was redesignated DB/2
AE/2 was redesignated DB/3
HGO/1 was redesignated DB/4
It is indisputable that David Bird had already logged his exhibits under the DB prefix and that there were already exhibits DB/1-4 in the case.
That forced the administrative personal to redesignate the Boutflour exhibits. They chose to add Boutflour's middle initial and thus to redesignate them DRB/1-4.
An objective person finds such evidence satisfactory and there is nothing about this which can be used to undermine the moderator evidence.
If one wants to make a claim that the evidence in the moderator was planted then one needs to find evidence to establish such and the redesignations don't provide any such evidence the redesignations have to be ignored if one is trying to find evidence of planting. Not only are the explanations for the changes ironclad the allegations that multiple moderators were doctored is downright stupid and someone who alleges such sounds like a biased hack. Advocates need their reputation intact when they are going to make arguments to a court. Making absurd allegations will instantly deny them credibility.
Jeremy's lawyers knew the allegations were completely and totally refuted by the COLP investigation and thus made zero attempt to argue these issues before the CCRC. These issues are used to try to fool the ignorant or to used by Jeremy supporters to try to justify their positions because they have nothing legitimate to raise. It is therefore damaging to even bring up this because it demonstrates supporters have nothing legitimate to raise because if they did they they would not be raising nonsense.
No I am not biased, scipio and I am objective.
-
Jeremy focused on the moderator surprising late, as if it was a last resort. There were no claims of contamination or incorrect testing at trial.
He had nothing to lose by having further tests. Bad results can be hushed up and/or contamination claimed. Good results can be shouted from the rooftops.
-
No I am not biased, scipio and I am objective.
Then explain how the change in designations undermines the evidence found inside the moderator. The only way one can argue such is if one argues evidence was planted in multiple moderators and there was aneed to hide such. That is what Mike keeps claiming but it makes zero sense on top of not having any evidence to support it.
Scenario:
I am hired to represent Jeremy.
I want to allege the blood evidence was planted but have nothing valid to raise so I allege the family planted paint and blood on moderator SBJ/1, the family subsequently planted even more blood in another moderator that was labeled DB/1 and then the police changed the designation to conceal evidence was planted on 2 different moderators.
What would the result be?
I would be humiliated because the reason for the change from DB/1 to DRB/1 is unassailable/. It is an absolute fact there already was a DB/1 from David Bird and it is not permitted to have 2 exhibits using the same reference so one of them had to be changed. They changed the newer one retaining the older designation for the item that already had it.
The reason given for changing SBJ/1 to DB/1 is a valid one and their is considerable evidence demonstrating they changed it for the reason stated including the fact they changed all 4 items found by Boutflour not merely the moderator.
While they give a valid reason for the change and I have no evidence to refute that reason worse still- my allegations make no sense. It makes zero sense for the family to plant evidence on 2 different moderators that would demonstrate to everyone that they had planted evidence on at least 1 of them because only one moderator would have been used to commit the murders. If the police were going to plant evidence on a moderator within their possession they would plant it all on the same moderator not multiple moderators. Since I have no evidence to refute the claims made by the witness as to why the changes occurred I would already not be able to prevail. But since these allegations make no sense I would be a laughing stock if I claimed such to a Court.
On rare occasion people do absurd things and if you have proof that someone did something ludicrous then you present such to a court but you don't make absurd allegations that you can't prove because you look ridiculous and lose credibility with the judges.
-
As it happened the results were bad. So Jeremy blamed the testing methods !
-
Members of the jury had been led to believe that only one silencer had been found------------yet years later,it was known that at least 5 silencers had been taken from WHF after the murders. Naturally there would have been,given the amount of guns/rifles that were kept at the farmhouse.
Lookout, they had one semi automatic rifle and ONE silencer. The rest were shot guns - don't think you can get a silence for a shot gun! ;D ;D ;D
-
Ann Eaton didn't say hours she said he spent quite some time there. She had no idea how much earlier than her he had arrived it could have been only a few minutes. He was already at Oak Farm when she got home. Shortly after she got home she had to run to White house Farm because the alarm had gone off. He only saw him for a short while and had no idea how long he was there.
Jones didn't think the moderator held any value. Only after the lab said it had human blood and paint did he recognize a value. So he didn't particularly care about it he said that he was placating the family by smoozing with them and probably was secretly trying to get information from them that he himself though would be useful. He didn't end up getting anything from Eaton though as Eaton didn't really know anything of value. Eaton wasn't even at WHF when the moderator was found so would not be of much use anyway in explaining the full details of how it was found and by whom.
After the lab reported the significance then police had to go establish the details of who found it and when and the chaing of custody till handed to police and had the witnesses include such in statements. At that point they found out Boutflour was the one who found them and decided to amend all the exhibits found by Boutflour to reflect such so changed the following all together:
SBJ/1 to DB/1
AE/1 (scope) to DB/2
AE/2 (.22 ammunition in abu bag) to DB/3
HGO/1 (Raker shotgun ammo) to DB/4
They had not established the trail of any of these items at the time of collection they found out later when interviewing the parties to determine the finding of such items and change of custody.
I can't believe that Jones didn't ask where it was found and who found it - especially the fuss made about it around the kitchen table just days before.
-
Jeremy focused on the moderator surprising late, as if it was a last resort. There were no claims of contamination or incorrect testing at trial.
He had nothing to lose by having further tests. Bad results can be hushed up and/or contamination claimed. Good results can be shouted from the rooftops.
The trial defense did the best they could to mitigate the moderator evidence.
Their expert confirmed the prosecution's claims he even found his own group A blood inside on the first 8 baffles.
They had a choice of making no argument, claiming maybe someone planted it though they had nothing at all to suggest it was planted and thus the suggestion would not implicate reasonable doubt or asserting it was June and Nevill's blood and hope and pray the jury would be fooled into thinking this created reasonable doubt even though the expert said it was a remote possibility that could only happen if the blood had not intimately mixed but he did testing and could not find a way for blood in the moderator not to intimately mix. The best they could do is hope the jury would get lost in the technical issues and thing it were possible for the blood to not intimately mix and be June and Nevill's and believe hat for some reason Sheila would have hid the moderator in the closet after killing everyone.
There was not much more they could do.
Even on appeal they have found nothing to establish the evidence was planted on/in the moderator so have not made that allegation to the courts. They made limited allegations which were withdrawn because they had no evidentiary basis to justify their allegations. These allegations are made for public consumption hoping the ignorant public will be more amenable than the fully informed courts.
The efforts to undermine the moderator evidence on appeal has been limited to technical issues not claims of planing evidence. The technical issues raised though have fallen far short of proving anything.
-
I can't believe that Jones didn't ask where it was found and who found it - especially the fuss made about it around the kitchen table just days before.
Peter Eaton wasn't there when it was found so he didn't know thus if Jones did ask he could not answer. If anything it sounded like Peter Eaton was trying to ply information from Jones with booze and Eaton told his brother in law afterwards that he wasn't impressed with him. So both of them were trying to get general information out of each other but neither succeeded.
-
The trial defense did the best they could to mitigate the moderator evidence.
Their expert confirmed the prosecution's claims he even found his own group A blood inside on the first 8 baffles.
They had a choice of making no argument, claiming maybe someone planted it though they had nothing at all to suggest it was planted and thus the suggestion would not implicate reasonable doubt or asserting it was June and Nevill's blood and hope and pray the jury would be fooled into thinking this created reasonable doubt even though the expert said it was a remote possibility that could only happen if the blood had not intimately mixed but he did testing and could not find a way for blood in the moderator not to intimately mix. The best they could do is hope the jury would get lost in the technical issues and thing it were possible for the blood to not intimately mix and be June and Nevill's and believe hat for some reason Sheila would have hid the moderator in the closet after killing everyone.
There was not much more they could do.
Even on appeal they have found nothing to establish the evidence was planted on/in the moderator so have not made that allegation to the courts. They made limited allegations which were withdrawn because they had no evidentiary basis to justify their allegations. These allegations are made for public consumption hoping the ignorant public will be more amenable than the fully informed courts.
The efforts to undermine the moderator evidence on appeal has been limited to technical issues not claims of planing evidence. The technical issues raised though have fallen far short of proving anything.
Where does it say the defence tried to discredit the moderator at trial ?
Wilkes's book has several chapters on the trial. There is not much mention of the moderator.
The judge saying it was certainly Sheila's blood, and the jury asking for the moderator evidence again, when deliberating. That's it.
-
I can't believe that Jones didn't ask where it was found and who found it - especially the fuss made about it around the kitchen table just days before.
It was found by one of the relatives. Inside WHF. Jones had given AE the keys. Were the details that important then ?
He may have asked who found it and where. All of that information would soon be common knowledge anyway.
-
Where does it say the defence tried to discredit the moderator at trial ?
Wilkes's book has several chapters on the trial. There is not much mention of the moderator.
The judge saying it was certainly Sheila's blood, and the jury asking for the moderator evidence again, when deliberating. That's it.
At trial the defense argued perhaps the blood inside the moderator belonged to June and Nevill and after killing everyone Sheila put the moderator in the closet and washed and changed before killing herself.
This was their way of trying to refute the moderator evidence proved she was murdered by someone and also an attempt to explain away the lack of evidence on her clothing and body to indicate she had killed the others.
-
At trial the defense argued perhaps the blood inside the moderator belonged to June and Nevill and after killing everyone Sheila put the moderator in the closet and washed and changed before killing herself.
This was their way of trying to refute the moderator evidence proved she was murdered by someone and also an attempt to explain away the lack of evidence on her clothing and body to indicate she had killed the others.
Have you got a source ?
Wilkes's book said the judge said it would be hard to fathom why Sheila would shoot herself once and then put the moderator away. After saying it was Sheila's blood in it. He did not mention of the possibility of it not being her blood.
-
Have you got a source ?
Wilkes's book said the judge said it would be hard to fathom why Sheila would shoot herself once and then put the moderator away. After saying it was Sheila's blood in it. He did not mention of the possibility of it not being her blood.
(http://s15.postimg.org/oyiuqww3v/defence7.jpg)
-
So who's telling the truth ?
-
Thank you David.
It was actually impossible for Sheila to shoot herself once, then put the silencer into a box at the back of the gun cupboard.
But 'hard to fathom' that Sheila would shoot everyone and then put the silencer away. Before going upstairs to shoot herself.
It is human blood in the silencer and it looks bad for Jeremy. Thread already created.
-
Have you got a source ?
Wilkes's book said the judge said it would be hard to fathom why Sheila would shoot herself once and then put the moderator away. After saying it was Sheila's blood in it. He did not mention of the possibility of it not being her blood.
The reason why the judge said it would be hard to fathom was because the defense asserted such. If they didn't assert it then there would have been no claim for the judge to even reference.
Are you honestly suggesting the defense didn't try to argue that it was June and Nevill's blood and that Sheila put it away before killing herself? Had they not argued such they would not have had any defense at all to the prosecution's assertions with respect to the moderator.
-
So who's telling the truth ?
Neither one is lying, they are just giving their opinion.
-
Neither one is lying, they are just giving their opinion.
They're both wrong anyway. If it's got anything to do with AK1 being present,then it's rabbit blood.
-
They're both wrong anyway. If it's got anything to do with AK1 being present,then it's rabbit blood.
Yes Lookout! ::)
-
Then explain how the change in designations undermines the evidence found inside the moderator. The only way one can argue such is if one argues evidence was planted in multiple moderators and there was aneed to hide such. That is what Mike keeps claiming but it makes zero sense on top of not having any evidence to support it.
Scenario:
I am hired to represent Jeremy.
I want to allege the blood evidence was planted but have nothing valid to raise so I allege the family planted paint and blood on moderator SBJ/1, the family subsequently planted even more blood in another moderator that was labeled DB/1 and then the police changed the designation to conceal evidence was planted on 2 different moderators.
What would the result be?
I would be humiliated because the reason for the change from DB/1 to DRB/1 is unassailable/. It is an absolute fact there already was a DB/1 from David Bird and it is not permitted to have 2 exhibits using the same reference so one of them had to be changed. They changed the newer one retaining the older designation for the item that already had it.
The reason given for changing SBJ/1 to DB/1 is a valid one and their is considerable evidence demonstrating they changed it for the reason stated including the fact they changed all 4 items found by Boutflour not merely the moderator.
While they give a valid reason for the change and I have no evidence to refute that reason worse still- my allegations make no sense. It makes zero sense for the family to plant evidence on 2 different moderators that would demonstrate to everyone that they had planted evidence on at least 1 of them because only one moderator would have been used to commit the murders. If the police were going to plant evidence on a moderator within their possession they would plant it all on the same moderator not multiple moderators. Since I have no evidence to refute the claims made by the witness as to why the changes occurred I would already not be able to prevail. But since these allegations make no sense I would be a laughing stock if I claimed such to a Court.
On rare occasion people do absurd things and if you have proof that someone did something ludicrous then you present such to a court but you don't make absurd allegations that you can't prove because you look ridiculous and lose credibility with the judges.
Do you believe in 'noble cause corruption' scipio? Just curious.
-
Thank you David.
It was actually impossible for Sheila to shoot herself once, then put the silencer into a box at the back of the gun cupboard.
But 'hard to fathom' that Sheila would shoot everyone and then put the silencer away. Before going upstairs to shoot herself.
It is human blood in the silencer and it looks bad for Jeremy. Thread already created.
It depends on Shelia's personality. If she was an OCD type person she could have put the weapon and silencer away nicely packed away, Then several hours later believing a police raid was imminent took the gun out the cuboard went back upstairs then shot herself.
But Its extremely extremely unlikely
-
I can't believe that Jones didn't ask where it was found and who found it - especially the fuss made about it around the kitchen table just days before.
If it happened the way its stated I cannot believe AE ever saw it, her description doesn't stand up. No blood could have appeared like 'a blob of jam' after hours never mind days..... it doesn't make sense, as you proved.
-
If it happened the way its stated I cannot believe AE ever saw it, her description doesn't stand up. No blood could have appeared like 'a blob of jam' after hours never mind days..... it doesn't make sense, as you proved.
Yeah dried blood is brown not red. Also David Boutflour in an interview in 2005 claimed it was all "sticky"
-
Do you believe in 'noble cause corruption' scipio? Just curious.
1) I don't believe corruption is ever noble.
2) Some people do try to rationalize their corrupt behavior as benevolent but that doesn't make it so
3) That doesn't deal with the precise points at hand regarding the issue of the designation changes. If one is trying to argue the changes were done to enable planting of evidence that one must rational set forth how it is so and then provide evidence. The suggestion the family planted evidence in multiple moderators or that the police did so is absurd. That is what people try to claim happened and rely upon the multiple designations as proof. The multiple designations fail to prove the absurd happened though. For Jeremy it is thus a worthless legal issue and that is why it wasn't raised in the 2002 appeal. They lumped in other crap that was really weak but didn't lump in the allegation of the designation changes establishing the moderator evidence was fabricated. They didn't leave it out because of incompetence they left it out because they had no valid argument.
-
1) I don't believe corruption is ever noble.
That's not really the point. The Elliot Turner case is a good example, He claimed he killed his girlfiend by accident but police obtained evidence of him and his parents in a convosation proving it was no accident.
This evidence was technically obtained illegally therefore should not have been shown to the jury but they did so anyway. corruption can in some cases be good.
-
If it happened the way its stated I cannot believe AE ever saw it, her description doesn't stand up. No blood could have appeared like 'a blob of jam' after hours never mind days..... it doesn't make sense, as you proved.
Different people have different descriptions for the same exact thing. One might think it looks nothing like the item someone else compared it to that is why such is subjective. People see colors differently as well mind you. A dried blob of jam can in fact resemble dried blood in terms of shape and consistency. The shape and texture of blood will vary by the nature of the location, amount and much more. The color of blood changes over time. The color of jelly varies greatly from orange shades to brown, burgundy and even deep purple. For Christmas I got a thing with a bunch of tiny bottles of various jellies and cheeses and other crap. They had all sorts of exotic ones in various colors. Just saying something looks like jelly doesn't mean much unless you nail down things further.
She didn't say it looked wet people just assumed that because a blob often is wet but not always. If she said it looked wet that would be a different matter. In the meantime she said she didn't get a good look at it because the men were busy with it.
-
Different people have different descriptions for the same exact thing. One might think it looks nothing like the item someone else compared it to that is why such is subjective. People see colors differently as well mind you. A dried blob of jam can in fact resemble dried blood in terms of shape and consistency. The shape and texture of blood will vary by the nature of the location, amount and much more. The color of blood changes over time. The color of jelly varies greatly from orange shades to brown, burgundy and even deep purple. For Christmas I got a thing with a bunch of tiny bottles of various jellies and cheeses and other crap. They had all sorts of exotic ones in various colors. Just saying something looks like jelly doesn't mean much unless you nail down things further.
She didn't say it looked wet people just assumed that because a blob often is wet but not always. If she said it looked wet that would be a different matter. In the meantime she said she didn't get a good look at it because the men were busy with it.
David B said it was sticky. They may simply all be very bad witnesses but the relatives account of the silencer makes it all very far fetched.
-
That's not really the point. The Elliot Turner case is a good example, He claimed he killed his girlfiend by accident but police obtained evidence of him and his parents in a convosation proving it was no accident.
This evidence was technically obtained illegally therefore should not have been shown to the jury but they did so anyway. corruption can in some cases be good.
The courts held the evidence was not obtained illegally. The "bugging" of the house was approved by authorities not done by rogue cops.
On appeal they tried arguing that some privileged information was heard but the court held such evidence was not used at trial so no claim could be made that legally privileged material was used to convict him.
In any event catching someone by illegally spying on them or using listening devices is not akin to intentionally fabricating evidence to frame someone you think could be guilty. The former involves doing anything it takes to find real evidence. The latter constitutes making up evidence because none could be found.
-
David B said it was sticky. They may simply all be very bad witnesses but the relatives account of the silencer makes it all very far fetched.
He never said anything about it being sticky on the witness stand or in his statements. In fact he didn't ever indicate he touched it with his bare hands. he made sure no one else touched it with their for instance Ann said he told her not to touch it.
This is not a quote it is a statement from the author:
During the clean-up on August 10, by his own account David Boutflour picked up some ammunition that was lying around and went to return it to the gun cupboard where he found hidden away the sound moderator — we can call it the “silencer” — of the murder weapon. It was sticky as if it had been hurriedly cleaned, and appeared to show spots of blood and flecks of red paint, and a single hair.
Saying it looked sticky from being hurriedly clean could be from Boutflour or could be from someone else. I recall a cop stating such. It could indeed have stuck to the bag that it was in. There is nothing all that unusual about the claim. The only thing of note is he didn't make the claim in his statements or on the stand.
-
He never said anything about it being sticky on the witness stand or in his statements. In fact he didn't ever indicate he touched it with his bare hands. EXACTLY! he made sure no one else touched it with their for instance Ann said he told her not to touch it.
This is not a quote it is a statement from the author:
During the clean-up on August 10, by his own account David Boutflour picked up some ammunition that was lying around and went to return it to the gun cupboard where he found hidden away the sound moderator — we can call it the “silencer” — of the murder weapon. It was sticky as if it had been hurriedly cleaned, and appeared to show spots of blood and flecks of red paint, and a single hair.
Saying it looked sticky from being hurriedly clean could be from Boutflour or could be from someone else. I recall a cop stating such. It could indeed have stuck to the bag that it was in. There is nothing all that unusual about the claim. The only thing of note is he didn't make the claim in his statements or on the stand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU
Straight from the horses mouth (David Boutflour), move the progress bar to up to about 20:40 "I picked up the silencer and I noticed it was sticky, sticky to the touch ........."
I know he didn't mention it in his statements or on the stand which is why I have said his (and other relatives) accounts are inconsistent.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU
Straight from the horses mouth (David Boutflour), move the progress bar to up to about 20:40 "I picked up the silencer and I noticed it was sticky, sticky to the touch ........."
I know he didn't mention it in his statements or on the stand which is why I have said his (and other relatives) accounts are inconsistent.
In 2005 he either was remembering things based on having heard from police that it appeared sticky or he failed to mention it at the time he testified. I tend to believe contemporaneous statements more because people not only forget things after a long period of time, they tend to incorporate things hey read or things said by others. For instance decades later one cop in another case asserted the ballistics expert identified the caliber of bullet on the scene and detectives thus knew right away what murder weapon they were looking for. This is in direct conflict with the official account. It turns out that in a book the ballistics expert said he felt he knew the caliber right off the bat. The cop took this and reported that the ballistic expert told them the caliber right away. The fine print though is that the expert said in a different part of the book that he waited until he measured the bullets at the lab to confirm he was right before telling anybody. He never told the cop in question or any other cops at the scene his suspicions.
It is not intentional revisionism but people tend to incorporate other things into their minds as time goes on. His claim he could remember the day like yesterday I don't believe one bit. Reading his statements and those of others will help him be able to recite things but I doubt he remembers every detail with specificity on his own. Back in 1985 he could not remember the exact date he found it- he simply knew it was a weekend and had to consult a calendar and be aided with the exact date from the others who were with him. That certainly calls his claim of a perfect memory into question 20 years later.
-
Different people have different descriptions for the same exact thing. One might think it looks nothing like the item someone else compared it to that is why such is subjective. People see colors differently as well mind you. A dried blob of jam can in fact resemble dried blood in terms of shape and consistency. The shape and texture of blood will vary by the nature of the location, amount and much more. The color of blood changes over time. The color of jelly varies greatly from orange shades to brown, burgundy and even deep purple. For Christmas I got a thing with a bunch of tiny bottles of various jellies and cheeses and other crap. They had all sorts of exotic ones in various colors. Just saying something looks like jelly doesn't mean much unless you nail down things further.
She didn't say it looked wet people just assumed that because a blob often is wet but not always. If she said it looked wet that would be a different matter. In the meantime she said she didn't get a good look at it because the men were busy with it.
Hi scipio, as blood dries it cracks and flakes, 'blob of jam' sounds like a description from someone's imagination of what they thought it may look like, all I'm saying.
The statements regarding the whole situation were questionable imo. I am not claiming this proves innocence but questioning this particular event.
-
1) I don't believe corruption is ever noble.
2) Some people do try to rationalize their corrupt behavior as benevolent but that doesn't make it so
3) That doesn't deal with the precise points at hand regarding the issue of the designation changes. If one is trying to argue the changes were done to enable planting of evidence that one must rational set forth how it is so and then provide evidence. The suggestion the family planted evidence in multiple moderators or that the police did so is absurd. That is what people try to claim happened and rely upon the multiple designations as proof. The multiple designations fail to prove the absurd happened though. For Jeremy it is thus a worthless legal issue and that is why it wasn't raised in the 2002 appeal. They lumped in other crap that was really weak but didn't lump in the allegation of the designation changes establishing the moderator evidence was fabricated. They didn't leave it out because of incompetence they left it out because they had no valid argument.
I was not discussing the designation changes, I was agreeing with Caroline as I always have that the statements about the moderator found in the cupboard by the relatives were questionable as they were inconsistent and unconvincing, what about the grey hair supposedly stuck in the blob of dried blood(?) What happened to that, it soon disappeared, sounds like embellishment to me.
-
I agree, the silencer story seems very flimsy and unconvincing whichever angle you view it from it seems contrived and badly executed. I am not convinced about the silencer.
Jones said he didn't know who found the silencer. Who found it, Maggie?
-
Jones said he didn't know who found the silencer. Who found it, Maggie?
Dont you know mat? I suggest you read the statements of the extended family. That should answer your question.
-
I don't know what is unconvincing about the relatives finding the silencer.
Jones gave AE the keys to WHF. PE found the silencer, other relatives, BW & Basil Cock were also at WHF. There was bound to be a silencer at WHF, for the rifle.
The description of the silencer may have differed slightly by the people over the last 30 years. But if they were trying to frame him, surely they would all say exactly the same thing.
The hair was handed into the police with the silencer. The police lost it. A pity, I am sure they could have used it to enhance a framing attempt, by saying it was Neville's hair.
-
How was it that the relatives knew which silencer belonged to the Bambers ? " The one. "
-
How was it that the relatives knew which silencer belonged to the Bambers ? " The one. "
That part was really quite easy Lookout, there was only one! It's only when reading this forum that we find moderators popping out like rabbits from a magicians hat.
-
In 2005 he either was remembering things based on having heard from police that it appeared sticky or he failed to mention it at the time he testified. I tend to believe contemporaneous statements more because people not only forget things after a long period of time, they tend to incorporate things hey read or things said by others. For instance decades later one cop in another case asserted the ballistics expert identified the caliber of bullet on the scene and detectives thus knew right away what murder weapon they were looking for. This is in direct conflict with the official account. It turns out that in a book the ballistics expert said he felt he knew the caliber right off the bat. The cop took this and reported that the ballistic expert told them the caliber right away. The fine print though is that the expert said in a different part of the book that he waited until he measured the bullets at the lab to confirm he was right before telling anybody. He never told the cop in question or any other cops at the scene his suspicions.
It is not intentional revisionism but people tend to incorporate other things into their minds as time goes on. His claim he could remember the day like yesterday I don't believe one bit. Reading his statements and those of others will help him be able to recite things but I doubt he remembers every detail with specificity on his own. Back in 1985 he could not remember the exact date he found it- he simply knew it was a weekend and had to consult a calendar and be aided with the exact date from the others who were with him. That certainly calls his claim of a perfect memory into question 20 years later.
I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!
There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF.
I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.
-
That part was really quite easy Lookout, there was only one! It's only when reading this forum that we find moderators popping out like rabbits from a magicians hat.
So the DB/1 which was found to have blood on it was the same as the DRB/1,which was Bambers and checked for DNA in the 2002 appeal,were the same silencers ? No blood in DRB/1.
No wonder " Taff " Jones was disliked when he ordered blood-tests to be carried out by the relatives after the silencer debacle,as his suspicions grew when the bloodied one ( DB/1 ) was handed in AFTER Jeremy was arrested and kept until the end of September before being sent to the lab for blood,fibres and fingerprints. ?
How strange that RWB had EXACTLY the same blood group,etc,as Sheila. I wonder if he knew that beforehand--------A-EAP-BA-AK1-HP-2-1.
There HAD to be around half a dozen silencers in that gun cupboard,as one size doesn't fit all.
-
So the DB/1 which was found to have blood on it was the same as the DRB/1,which was Bambers and checked for DNA in the 2002 appeal,were the same silencers ? No blood in DRB/1.
No wonder " Taff " Jones was disliked when he ordered blood-tests to be carried out by the relatives after the silencer debacle,as his suspicions grew when the bloodied one ( DB/1 ) was handed in AFTER Jeremy was arrested and kept until the end of September before being sent to the lab for blood,fibres and fingerprints. ?
How strange that RWB had EXACTLY the same blood group,etc,as Sheila. I wonder if he knew that beforehand--------A-EAP-BA-AK1-HP-2-1.
There HAD to be around half a dozen silencers in that gun cupboard,as one size doesn't fit all.
I'm not talking about the appeal - there was ONLY ONE silencer picked up from WHF! It's only HERE where it's suggested that their were a cast of thousands.
Not sure what you're trying to say Lookout, you appear to be suggesting that RWB used his own blood to contaminate the silencer? I thought you didn't believe there was a conspiracy?
-
I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!
There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF.
I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.
Excellent post Caroline, I totally agree with you.
-
I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!
There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF.
I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.
It is well known who was there. BW and Basil Cock, together with AE, DB & PE. Probably some other relatives who I have forgotten.
They freely say they were looking for incriminating evidence. PE found the silencer for the murder weapon hidden away, which they noticed had blood, paint and a hair attached to it. It would not take a genius to work out it could be an important discovery.
-
It is well known who was there. BW and Basil Cock, together with AE, DB & PE. Probably some other relatives who I have forgotten.
They freely say they were looking for incriminating evidence. PE found the silencer for the murder weapon hidden away, which they noticed had blood, paint and a hair attached to it. It would not take a genius to work out it could be an important discovery.
I'm not talking about who was in the house at the time! I'm talking about who was there IN THE ROOM when the silencer was ACTUALLY found!
-
I'm not talking about who was in the house at the time! I'm talking about who was there IN THE ROOM when the silencer was ACTUALLY found!
Why is that important ?
-
Dont you know mat? I suggest you read the statements of the extended family. That should answer your question.
Of course I know, or else I would of asked Caroline. I was asking you because you quoted Carolines post to say you agree it is odd the officer said he didn't know who was there when the silencer was found. I was asking you because I was wondering if you knew why it was odd that officer said he didn't know, and who he should of said to see if you knew WHY Caroline finds it odd (since you said you agree with her post) or if you were just agreeing with it because it makes the silencer sound dodgy.
-
Of course I know, or else I would of asked Caroline. I was asking you because you quoted Carolines post to say you agree it is odd the officer said he didn't know who was there when the silencer was found. I was asking you because I was wondering if you knew why it was odd that officer said he didn't know, and who he should of said to see if you knew WHY Caroline finds it odd (since you said you agree with her post) or if you were just agreeing with it because it makes the silencer sound dodgy.
Of course you know, why would I not know? You were just trying to show me up but I'm not in the habit of trying to make things look dodgy. I may not be posting but I am on reading and thinking and my mind is open.
I discussed the silencer with CAroline over a year ago.
-
I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!
There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF.
I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.
Great post Caroline. I agree ENTIRELY that we can't turn a blind eye when others do the same as that which we accuse Jeremy of. Re the interview with DB, I wondered just how much was real clarity of thought compared to what he thought he thought -with the benefit of hindsight- years down the line. I recall thinking that he didn't look entirely comfortable, the arm appeared more draped for effect than a sign of ease.
-
So the DB/1 which was found to have blood on it was the same as the DRB/1,which was Bambers and checked for DNA in the 2002 appeal,were the same silencers ? No blood in DRB/1.
No wonder " Taff " Jones was disliked when he ordered blood-tests to be carried out by the relatives after the silencer debacle,as his suspicions grew when the bloodied one ( DB/1 ) was handed in AFTER Jeremy was arrested and kept until the end of September before being sent to the lab for blood,fibres and fingerprints. ?
How strange that RWB had EXACTLY the same blood group,etc,as Sheila. I wonder if he knew that beforehand--------A-EAP-BA-AK1-HP-2-1.
There HAD to be around half a dozen silencers in that gun cupboard,as one size doesn't fit all.
Why would there HAVE to have been around half a dozen silencers in the gun cupboard, Lookout?
-
Of course you know, why would I not know? You were just trying to show me up but I'm not in the habit of trying to make things look dodgy. I may not be posting but I am on reading and thinking and my mind is open.
I discussed the silencer with CAroline over a year ago.
Not trying to show you up. I was trying to work out if you knew WHY Caroline finds it strange THAT officer didn't know who was there or if you were just agreeing with her.
But I think I got my answer.
Why would there HAVE to have been around half a dozen silencers in the gun cupboard, Lookout?
I think the fact that there wasn't, means that....there wasn't! :)
Great post Caroline. I agree ENTIRELY that we can't turn a blind eye when others do the same as that which we accuse Jeremy of. Re the interview with DB, I wondered just how much was real clarity of thought compared to what he thought he thought -with the benefit of hindsight- years down the line. I recall thinking that he didn't look entirely comfortable, the arm appeared more draped for effect than a sign of ease.
Agree completely. We complain that supporters make excuses for Bambers behaviour and comments, so we can't do the same for the police or the relatives and as far as I can see, we don't.
-
Seems that former guilters are trying to justify their former support for Bamber. Trying to say the finding of the silencer was mysterious.
Not content with knowing who was inside WHF, people want to know who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. Even Bamber has never asked this.
However Bamber does look for any missing 'T' or difference in document numbers, to jump on. Which is what people are doing here by discussing minor changes in what was said in statements over 30 years regarding the silencer.
The judge thought there was only mysterious thing - Neville's phone call.
-
Seems that former guilters are trying to justify their former support for Bamber. Trying to say the finding of the silencer was mysterious.
Not content with knowing who was inside WHF, people want to know who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. Even Bamber has never asked this.
However Bamber does look for any missing 'T' or difference in document numbers, to jump on. Which is what people are doing here by discussing minor changes in what was said in statements over 30 years regarding the silencer.
The judge thought there was only mysterious thing - Neville's phone call.
To be fair though, Caroline has always had doubts over the silencer, no matter what side she's been on.
-
Why would there HAVE to have been around half a dozen silencers in the gun cupboard, Lookout?
I'd imagine that just one silencer wouldn't be enough if more than one worker was using a rifle at the same time.
-
Seems that former guilters are trying to justify their former support for Bamber. Trying to say the finding of the silencer was mysterious.
Not content with knowing who was inside WHF, people want to know who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. Even Bamber has never asked this.
However Bamber does look for any missing 'T' or difference in document numbers, to jump on. Which is what people are doing here by discussing minor changes in what was said in statements over 30 years regarding the silencer.
The judge thought there was only mysterious thing - Neville's phone call.
Seems like you have to try an ruin any debate with your spiteful, childish BS! If you don't want to debate the point then go play in one of your already created threads and count the number of mysterious coincidences. That should keep you busy for a while! :P :P :P ::) ::)
-
Seems like you have to try an ruin any debate with your spiteful, childish BS! If you don't want to debate the point then go play in one of your already created threads and count the number of mysterious coincidences. That should keep you busy for a while! :P :P :P ::) ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahahahaha I like it ;D
-
Seems like you have to try an ruin any debate with your spiteful, childish BS! If you don't want to debate the point then go play in one of your already created threads and count the number of mysterious coincidences. That should keep you busy for a while! :P :P :P ::) ::)
I have reported you to the moderators. Similar to Jan you must stop getting over excited.
You know there is nothing to get hold of regarding the relatives finding the silencer. But you are once again just trying to back up you're unproven claim about the silencer not being used.
You said Stan Jones and others arranged to contaminate the silencer. I created a thread on this showing it is complete nonsense. Now you are again focusing on the relatives. To try to justify you're former 'innocent' stance.
Just admit you supported Jeremy so passionately because he is famous and wrote you letters.
And please answer my question about why it is important who was 'actually' in the room when the silencer was found.
-
Maggie, I see you are online.
Can I ask you and the other moderators to re consider allowing posters to call other posters posts 'bullshit' or 'BS'. It degrades the forum.
A moderator said it was acceptable for Nugs to call other peoples posts 'bullshit'. However we are not allowed to criticise his posts as he has dyslexia. Now Caroline is quoting the word.
I asked the question again in the open board recently after Nugs started calling Scipo's posts 'bullshit'. But got no response.
Thank you.
I think "BS" is acceptable now tbh, a lot of people seem to use it. I'ved used it, Patti's used it - most people do now.
But if you have a serious greivance I've found NGB is the person to go to, he will reply. Although if you poke Caroline and cry when she pokes back, won't look good. ;D
-
Maggie, I see you are online.
Can I ask you and the other moderators to re consider allowing posters to call other posters posts 'bullshit' or 'BS'. It degrades the forum.
A moderator said it was acceptable for Nugs to call other peoples posts 'bullshit'. However we are not allowed to criticise his posts as he has dyslexia. Now Caroline is quoting the word.
I asked the question again in the open board recently after Nugs started calling Scipo's posts 'bullshit'. But got no response.
Thank you.
Hi Adam personally I don't see anything wrong with BS but think we need to have agreement on this. I understand your complaint but it's in everyday use now and is no more abusive than rubbish etc imo.
-
Thanks. I won't use that word to describe other peoples posts.
I would rather discuss the case.
-
Hi Adam personally I don't see anything wrong with BS but think we need to have agreement on this. I understand your complaint but it's in everyday use now and is no more abusive than rubbish etc imo.
Some of the name calling that's been going on is far worse than using bs. Nobody seems to mention nothing about that though.
-
Thanks. I won't use that word to describe other peoples posts.
I would rather discuss the case.
Good for you.
-
Some of the name calling that's been going on is far worse than using bs. Nobody seems to mention nothing about that though.
We do edit and remove posts Marty.
-
Hi Adam personally I don't see anything wrong with BS but think we need to have agreement on this. I understand your complaint but it's in everyday use now and is no more abusive than rubbish etc imo.
Hi Maggie, nothing wrong with talking about Adam's BS Bowel Sounds?
-
Thanks. I won't use that word to describe other peoples posts.
I would rather discuss the case.
Adam well done just carry on posting with clarity and dignity don't let your standards fall because of others :)
-
We do edit and remove posts Marty.
Maggie the Mods do an excellent job on the forum and edit unsavoury posts. Well done to you all :)
-
Maggie the Mods do an excellent job on the forum and edit unsavoury posts. Well done to you all :)
Well said Susan
-
Hi Maggie, nothing wrong with talking about Adam's BS Bowl Sounds?
Shouldn't that be Bowel Sounds ? ;D
-
Shouldn't that be Bowel Sounds ? ;D
Ha ha sorry Lookout I will edit. Thanks dear
-
Well said Susan
Thank you Susan. :)
-
Hi Maggie, nothing wrong with talking about Adam's BS Bowel Sounds?
:'( :'( I'd rather not. :'( :'( ;)
-
:'( :'( I'd rather not. :'( :'( ;)
I see Adam has managed -YET AGAIN- to produce enough BS to disrupt a good debate.
-
I have reported you to the moderators. Similar to Jan you must stop getting over excited.
You know there is nothing to get hold of regarding the relatives finding the silencer. But you are once again just trying to back up you're unproven claim about the silencer not being used.
You said Stan Jones and others arranged to contaminate the silencer. I created a thread on this showing it is complete nonsense. Now you are again focusing on the relatives. To try to justify you're former 'innocent' stance.
Just admit you supported Jeremy so passionately because he is famous and wrote you letters.
And please answer my question about why it is important who was 'actually' in the room when the silencer was found.
Why do you question the importance of Caroline questioning who was in the room when the silencer was found -it's highly pertinent and part of the case- when you devote a thread to asking if Jeremy smuggled heroin which has nothing to do with the case.
-
Hi Adam personally I don't see anything wrong with BS but think we need to have agreement on this. I understand your complaint but it's in everyday use now and is no more abusive than rubbish etc imo.
Frankly, I see a whole lot wrong with BS and I wish Adam would refrain from such emissions.
-
I'd imagine that just one silencer wouldn't be enough if more than one worker was using a rifle at the same time.
We don't know that they were, and I doubt that Neville provided enough firearms for every worker. Most likely they'd all have had their own and bought them in as and when necessary -with or without silencers- which I don't imagine to have been a daily occurence.
-
This is a good discussion thread . I think it would be useful to look at the statements at the time also to compare where the silencer was "stored" and who actually reported it to the police because I have a feeling the accounts do vary . They definitely do later on - but as others have mentioned that would be normal - except they were making diary notes and as a certain poster has quite rightly said they were looking for evidence - so you would have thought that this important find would have been noted in detail.
I get the feeling that the document that shows the call about the silencer on the 11th Sept is in fact DB calling to find out why the police were hanging about in telling the family what the blood on the silencer was . It is an ambiguous note.
-
>:(
Frankly, I see a whole lot wrong with BS and I wish Adam would refrain from such emissions.
;D ;D :'(
-
>:( ;D ;D :'(
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi scipio, as blood dries it cracks and flakes, 'blob of jam' sounds like a description from someone's imagination of what they thought it may look like, all I'm saying.
The statements regarding the whole situation were questionable imo. I am not claiming this proves innocence but questioning this particular event.
How thick blood is and where it is determines what happens to it. Blood that is on a body is going to crack as will blood on something that moves. Blood that dries on a solid object where no movement is occurring will be able to dry in different shapes depending on the quantity of such blood.
A blob means a small amount of something. The moderator's hole is not that large. Blood right inside that hole will naturally be a small amount and some would call that a blob. Did you ever see Jelly that dried outside of a container? It can and does dry in small amounts that are not perfectly flat against the jar. Ann Eaton never claimed it looked wet. People who don't want to believe the evidence and want to find a way to assert the blood was planted are trying to suggest she said it was wet at the time it was found but she didn't say that. In some instance blood takes a very long time to dry totally mind you. On cloth it can take more than a day to be fully dry. Blood also changes colors differently on some materials than others.
The blood the family saw in the opening is the blood that Howard used to test whether the blood was human. It was apparently one of the largest blood deposits even though it was only the size of a matchhead. Sadly it wasn't used for typing instead because it would have been large enough and close enough to the murders to get a good the AK reading. Furthermore since it was blocking the opening it presumably would have been from the last victim the moderator was used on. Lincoln found quite a bit of microscopic material where the "blob" had been and determined it was group A blood but could not get an AK reading because his testing was in 1986 and it was still only microscopic traces not the nice sample Howard used.
The blood extended well beyond the inside threads though. Blood got to the 8th baffle as confirmed by defense expert Lincoln. Trying to claim the family planted blood goes out the window since the family would not have known drawback would extend far and know to plant it so far let alone figure out how to plant it that far. Nor did they know Sheila had a wound which would have resulted in drawback and if they did know that and did know the moderator wasn't used they would know blood would be in the rifle and it would expose their planting of evidence. hey wanted police to have all the items found in the closet but police only would take the moderator at first. A month later they finally agreed to take the bullets and the scope. then after that they finally agreed to take the shotgun shells. The family wanted police to have everything firearm related from WHF not just the moderator.
-
How thick blood is and where it is determines what happens to it. Blood that is on a body is going to crack as will blood on something that moves. Blood that dries on a solid object where no movement is occurring will be able to dry in different shapes depending on the quantity of such blood.
A blob means a small amount of something. The moderator's hole is not that large. Blood right inside that hole will naturally be a small amount and some would call that a blob. Did you ever see Jelly that dried outside of a container? It can and does dry in small amounts that are not perfectly flat against the jar. Ann Eaton never claimed it looked wet. People who don't want to believe the evidence and want to find a way to assert the blood was planted are trying to suggest she said it was wet at the time it was found but she didn't say that. In some instance blood takes a very long time to dry totally mind you. On cloth it can take more than a day to be fully dry. Blood also changes colors differently on some materials than others.
The blood the family saw in the opening is the blood that Howard used to test whether the blood was human. It was apparently one of the largest blood deposits even though it was only the size of a matchhead. Sadly it wasn't used for typing instead because it would have been large enough and close enough to the murders to get a good the AK reading. Furthermore since it was blocking the opening it presumably would have been from the last victim the moderator was used on. Lincoln found quite a bit of microscopic material where the "blob" had been and determined it was group A blood but could not get an AK reading because his testing was in 1986 and it was still only microscopic traces not the nice sample Howard used.
The blood extended well beyond the inside threads though. Blood got to the 8th baffle as confirmed by defense expert Lincoln. Trying to claim the family planted blood goes out the window since the family would not have known drawback would extend far and know to plant it so far let alone figure out how to plant it that far. Nor did they know Sheila had a wound which would have resulted in drawback and if they did know that and did know the moderator wasn't used they would know blood would be in the rifle and it would expose their planting of evidence. hey wanted police to have all the items found in the closet but police only would take the moderator at first. A month later they finally agreed to take the bullets and the scope. then after that they finally agreed to take the shotgun shells. The family wanted police to have everything firearm related from WHF not just the moderator.
Scipio blood on metal dries in hours turning dark brown and flaking off. The blood was never said to be inside the moderator hole where it just may have escaped oxgenation but the blob like jam was said to be at the end of the silemcer. I am not trying to any sort of manipulation this is one point I find questionable as do others.
-
I'm not talking about who was in the house at the time! I'm talking about who was there IN THE ROOM when the silencer was ACTUALLY found!
He was in the room alone because everyone in the house was doing different things. After he found it he brought it to the attention of others and their reactions varied from not caring at all (Cock) to the family agreeing it and the other firearms items should be turned over to police but not thinking too much of it. Ann said she thought maybe it was simply animal blood and didn't realize the significance of the moderator until the trial when she heard he experts discussing the significance.
The notion he found it and then decided on the spur to plant blood inside so took it apart and planted blood doesn't sound very plausible or that he subsequently snuck into the kitchen to scratch the mantle then returned to the office with it and pretend it was like that when he found it. People were nearby enough to hear him say he found it and to then go in the room to see what he was talking about so presumably some were in the kitchen at the time.
-
This is a good discussion thread . I think it would be useful to look at the statements at the time also to compare where the silencer was "stored" and who actually reported it to the police because I have a feeling the accounts do vary . They definitely do later on - but as others have mentioned that would be normal - except they were making diary notes and as a certain poster has quite rightly said they were looking for evidence - so you would have thought that this important find would have been noted in detail.
I get the feeling that the document that shows the call about the silencer on the 11th Sept is in fact DB calling to find out why the police were hanging about in telling the family what the blood on the silencer was . It is an ambiguous note.
There was no call about a silencer on September 11. There was a call about the scope and bullets which subsequently were picked up by police from Ann Eaton that same day.
-
He was in the room alone because everyone in the house was doing different things. After he found it he brought it to the attention of others and their reactions varied from not caring at all (Cock) to the family agreeing it and the other firearms items should be turned over to police but not thinking too much of it. Ann said she thought maybe it was simply animal blood and didn't realize the significance of the moderator until the trial when she heard he experts discussing the significance.
The notion he found it and then decided on the spur to plant blood inside so took it apart and planted blood doesn't sound very plausible or that he subsequently snuck into the kitchen to scratch the mantle then returned to the office with it and pretend it was like that when he found it. People were nearby enough to hear him say he found it and to then go in the room to see what he was talking about so presumably some were in the kitchen at the time.
So what you're saying, is that although people were near enough to hear him say he'd found it, but because nobody was in the room, no one actually SAW him find it.
-
Scipio blood on metal dries in hours turning dark brown and flaking off. The blood was never said to be inside the moderator hole where it just may have escaped oxgenation but the blob like jam was said to be at the end of the silemcer. I am not trying to any sort of manipulation this is one point I find questionable as do others.
Blood adheres to metal. That is why blood was found on the baffles. If blood didn't adhere none would have been on the baffles it would have all been on the sides. You are making it sound like it would just disintegrate. The claims you are making are not claims scientists or experts are making and you should consider why they didn't make such claims. Metal is not porous and as a result the blood will not soak and become flat like will be the case on porous surfaces where it is absorbed into, it will remain more textured. A guy fell and cracked his head open in a store I worked in. He was on the floor being treated for an extended period. I later had to clean the mess up. The floor was nonporous. There were chunks throughout the spill it was not simply flat and this is on a floor. It was bumpy like vomit. Before blood coagulates it glistens like this:
(http://www.healthline.com/hlcmsresource/images/diabetesmine/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/blood-test-finger-with-strip.jpg)
Boutflour didn't have any preservatives to store blood he would have to have cut himself there and then to plant the blood and the people would have known something was wrong if it were wet blood so he would have need to wait a while for it to dry and taking it apart to plant blood on each baffle and also at the tip would have left him with an obvious wound not simply a pin prick he could hide.
-
the relatives said NB would always tidy away the guns at night although not lock them away - but when you look at the house ( very untidy typical farmhouse ) it seems odd that the silencer was put away in a box - and yet the "blob"of blood did not get disturbed or smudged .
I think it was handled more when taken away from WHF by the family rather than when it was there.
-
I have reported you to the moderators. Similar to Jan you must stop getting over excited.
You know there is nothing to get hold of regarding the relatives finding the silencer. But you are once again just trying to back up you're unproven claim about the silencer not being used.
You said Stan Jones and others arranged to contaminate the silencer. I created a thread on this showing it is complete nonsense. Now you are again focusing on the relatives. To try to justify you're former 'innocent' stance.
Just admit you supported Jeremy so passionately because he is famous and wrote you letters.
And please answer my question about why it is important who was 'actually' in the room when the silencer was found.
Good! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So what you're saying, is that although people were near enough to hear him say he'd found it, but because nobody was in the room, no one actually SAW him find it.
He went into the office closet while other people were in the kitchen and others still could have been in other rooms. Besides David his sister, father, Cock and Barbara were in the house. Ann and Robert heard him and went in. They could not recall whether Cock and Barbara went in as well or were shown it in other rooms. Police didn't ask them about the precise circumstances of it being found till a month later so their memories were not as sharp. Cock saw it and didn't care he agreed just give it and the other firearms related materials to police. Barbara wasn't asked to give a statement about such and didn't publicly discuss seeing it until after the trial. While I believe she did in fact see it I don't know if she coudl accurately be able to recall when and where she was when she saw it. When people realize something is significant it stands out in mind where they were. None of them realized the significance of the find. None of them knew that Sheila's fatal shot was a contact wound that would result in drawback and that the blood inside would be determined to be Sheila's blood resulting from drawback from that fatal wound. If any of them knew the significance they would have insisted police come get it then and there from WHF.
-
Hi Adam personally I don't see anything wrong with BS but think we need to have agreement on this. I understand your complaint but it's in everyday use now and is no more abusive than rubbish etc imo.
Hi Maggie when Adam stops posting BS, I'll stop calling it BS. Personally, I think that's pretty fair? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks. I won't use that word to describe other peoples posts.
I would rather discuss the case.
Then get on with it!
-
Some of the name calling that's been going on is far worse than using bs. Nobody seems to mention nothing about that though.
Exactly Marty and my reference to BS was Adam's CONSTANT goading - when he stops goading, I'll stop calling his posts 'Bog Standard' ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
the relatives said NB would always tidy away the guns at night although not lock them away - but when you look at the house ( very untidy typical farmhouse ) it seems odd that the silencer was put away in a box - and yet the "blob"of blood did not get disturbed or smudged .
I think it was handled more when taken away from WHF by the family rather than when it was there.
The blob was inside the moderator. What would disturb the blood inside of it while it sat in the closet?
The face of the moderator had a little blood on the outside. which survived because what would disturb it in the closet?
Jeremy put it inside of a box in order to hide it. In case police opened the closet he didn't want it sitting right there at the opening. He put the scope away in a box and the moderator to make it appear someone simply removed them after use in support of his story they would be put way and not kept on the gun which he initially claimed could not be stored with these accessories attached.
-
I have reported you to the moderators. Similar to Jan you must stop getting over excited.
You know there is nothing to get hold of regarding the relatives finding the silencer. But you are once again just trying to back up you're unproven claim about the silencer not being used.
You said Stan Jones and others arranged to contaminate the silencer. I created a thread on this showing it is complete nonsense. Now you are again focusing on the relatives. To try to justify you're former 'innocent' stance.
Just admit you supported Jeremy so passionately because he is famous and wrote you letters.
And please answer my question about why it is important who was 'actually' in the room when the silencer was found.
Just wondering - is TOSSER acceptable?? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ ??? ;D ;D
-
The blob was inside the moderator. What would disturb the blood inside of it while it sat in the closet?
The face of the moderator had a little blood on the outside. which survived because what would disturb it in the closet?
Jeremy put it inside of a box in order to hide it. In case police opened the closet he didn't want it sitting right there at the opening. He put the scope away in a box and the moderator to make it appear someone simply removed them after use in support of his story they would be put way and not kept on the gun which he initially claimed could not be stored with these accessories attached.
Where does it state that the blob was on the 'outside'?
-
He was in the room alone because everyone in the house was doing different things. After he found it he brought it to the attention of others and their reactions varied from not caring at all (Cock) to the family agreeing it and the other firearms items should be turned over to police but not thinking too much of it. Ann said she thought maybe it was simply animal blood and didn't realize the significance of the moderator until the trial when she heard he experts discussing the significance.
The notion he found it and then decided on the spur to plant blood inside so took it apart and planted blood doesn't sound very plausible or that he subsequently snuck into the kitchen to scratch the mantle then returned to the office with it and pretend it was like that when he found it. People were nearby enough to hear him say he found it and to then go in the room to see what he was talking about so presumably some were in the kitchen at the time.
That's not what RWB stated.
-
Just wondering - is TOSSER acceptable?? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ ??? ;D ;D
I'd say yes;
tosser
noun
1.
a person or thing that tosses something.
"a contest to find the best pancake-tosser"
-
Just wondering - is TOSSER acceptable?? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ ??? ;D ;D
Haha!! We shall have to have a book of rules with all acceptable words listed such as ninny, silly pickle etc. That should work ;D
-
Just wondering - is TOSSER acceptable?? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ ??? ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D think that would be OK ;D
-
I'd say yes; http://
tosser
?t?s?/
noun
1.
a person or thing that tosses something.
"a contest to find the best pancake-tosser"
I have a hunch it's a bit more basic than that Steph ;D
-
I'd say yes;
tosser
noun
1.
a person or thing that tosses something.
"a contest to find the best pancake-tosser"
Could always use 'pancake' - we'd all know what you meant.... ;D ;D ;D
-
Where does it state that the blob was on the 'outside'?
Where does it state the blob was 'inside'?
-
Haha!! We shall have to have a book of rules with all acceptable words listed such as ninny, silly pickle etc. That should work ;D
Maggie just looked in the book of rules and tosser is acceptable ;D silly pickle is out and ninny so please refrain from using them ;D stick to the rules ;D
-
Could always use 'pancake' - we'd all know what you meant.... ;D ;D ;D
Hahaha Steph next time I address Adam I will say Hi there pancake ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Could always use 'pancake' - we'd all know what you meant.... ;D ;D ;D
Pancake would be acceptable, I'm sure.
-
I have a hunch it's a bit more basic than that Steph ;D
The urban dictionary:
"Adam - The first Man to ever get laid." ;D ;D ;D
That's what it says.. ;D
Maybe the first and the last - hence the use of the word 'pancake' ;)
-
Maggie just looked in the book of rules and tosser is acceptable ;D silly pickle is out and ninny so please refrain from using them ;D stick to the rules ;D
Does it mention pancake?
-
The urban dictionary:
"Adam - The first Man to ever get laid." ;D ;D ;D
That's what it says.. ;D
Maybe the first and the last - hence the use of the word 'pancake' ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'd say yes;
tosser
noun
1.
a person or thing that tosses something.
"a contest to find the best pancake-tosser"
;D ;D ;D
-
Does it mention pancake?
Maggie I'm not a pancake expert but I know a tosser when I see one.... 8)
-
The urban dictionary:
"Adam - The first Man to ever get laid." ;D ;D ;D
That's what it says.. ;D
Maybe the first and the last - hence the use of the word 'pancake' ;)
Similar in name only then? ??? ;D ;D
-
He went into the office closet while other people were in the kitchen and others still could have been in other rooms. Besides David his sister, father, Cock and Barbara were in the house. Ann and Robert heard him and went in. They could not recall whether Cock and Barbara went in as well or were shown it in other rooms. Police didn't ask them about the precise circumstances of it being found till a month later so their memories were not as sharp. Cock saw it and didn't care he agreed just give it and the other firearms related materials to police. Barbara wasn't asked to give a statement about such and didn't publicly discuss seeing it until after the trial. While I believe she did in fact see it I don't know if she coudl accurately be able to recall when and where she was when she saw it. When people realize something is significant it stands out in mind where they were. None of them realized the significance of the find. None of them knew that Sheila's fatal shot was a contact wound that would result in drawback and that the blood inside would be determined to be Sheila's blood resulting from drawback from that fatal wound. If any of them knew the significance they would have insisted police come get it then and there from WHF.
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Scipio. They admitted that they were looking for something which could, shall we say, change the course of the enquiry. I believe it was RWB who announced that "I've found the silencer" As someone trained to hear unspoken words, it follows that I'm likely to be suspicious of "the" as opposed to "a." My feeling is that even if RWB wasn't aware of it's significance -and for a highly intelligent man I find it difficult to believe- he certainly hoped it was.
-
Maggie I'm not a pancake expert but I know a tosser when I see one.... 8)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Similar in name only then? ??? ;D ;D
How about nincompoop?
-
Maggie I'm not a pancake expert but I know a tosser when I see one.... 8)
Yeah, especially when it's a tosser of BS 8)
-
Maggie I'm not a pancake expert but I know a tosser when I see one.... 8)
Steph I have met many in my life time ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Scipio. They admitted that they were looking for something which could, shall we say, change the course of the enquiry. I believe it was RWB who announced that "I've found the silencer" As someone trained to hear unspoken words, it follows that I'm likely to be suspicious of "the" as opposed to "a." My feeling is that even if RWB wasn't aware of it's significance -and for a highly intelligent man I find it difficult to believe- he certainly hoped it was.
I agree April, excellent post. I cannot believe that anyone finding such a specimen could possibly believe it wasn't significant. It was all there blood and hair, it surely was a Eureka moment?
-
Why do you question the importance of Caroline questioning who was in the room when the silencer was found -it's highly pertinent and part of the case- when you devote a thread to asking if Jeremy smuggled heroin which has nothing to do with the case.
Why is it important who was actually in the room. Only Caroline asks this question, and has never said why despite requests. And you didn't either in you're post, just said it's highly pertinent.
Whether Jeremy smuggled heroin relates to the case. He either lied, and didn't, showing he lies. Or he did smuggle heroin, showing he would take huge risks for money.
-
Steph I have met many in my life time ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Why is it important who was actually in the room. Only Caroline asks this question, and has never said why despite requests. And you didn't either in you're post, just said it's highly pertinent.
Whether Jeremy smuggled heroin relates to the case. He either lied.and didn't, showing he lies. Or he did smuggle heroin, showing he would take huge risks for money.
unfortunately that's all it proves, it doesn't prove he has the stomach to murder his closest family.
-
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Scipio. They admitted that they were looking for something which could, shall we say, change the course of the enquiry. I believe it was RWB who announced that "I've found the silencer" As someone trained to hear unspoken words, it follows that I'm likely to be suspicious of "the" as opposed to "a." My feeling is that even if RWB wasn't aware of it's significance -and for a highly intelligent man I find it difficult to believe- he certainly hoped it was.
The family didn't expect to find any evidence directly related to the murders they expected police to have taken everything of potential value. They were surprised the ammunition and rifle accessories were left.
Robert didn't even know it had blood on it. He said he didn't have his glasses so could not see the moderator well enough to notice the scratches or anything else and thus could not identify if the one the police showed him was the exact one he saw. Someone looking to railroad Jeremy no matter what would say he saw the blood and hair and scratch not say he didn't have his glasses and thus didn't see it well. People ignore all the things the family said which they would not have said if they had fabricated evidence and often seize upon such things even though it woudl make no sense for them to say such things if they had done anything illicit.
-
PE was in the gun cupboard. So was obviously looking for the silencer. Or anything else which would incriminate Jeremy.
I have said before it would make sense for Bamber to use the silencer. The relatives may have thought the same. If they were experienced with guns they may have known Sheila could not shoot herself with the silencer attached.
Of they just saw the silencer with hair, paint and blood on.
-
Why is it important who was actually in the room. Only Caroline asks this question, and has never said why despite requests. And you didn't either in you're post, just said it's highly pertinent.
Whether Jeremy smuggled heroin relates to the case. He either lied, and didn't, showing he lies. Or he did smuggle heroin, showing he would take huge risks for money.
Oh, I SEE!!! This is all because YOU didn't ask the question. Heaven forbid that someone should upset your emissions by asking something intelligent and pertinent.
-
The family didn't expect to find any evidence directly related to the murders they expected police to have taken everything of potential value. They were surprised the ammunition and rifle accessories were left.
Robert didn't even know it had blood on it. He said he didn't have his glasses so could not see the moderator well enough to notice the scratches or anything else and thus could not identify if the one the police showed him was the exact one he saw. Someone looking to railroad Jeremy no matter what would say he saw the blood and hair and scratch not say he didn't have his glasses and thus didn't see it well. People ignore all the things the family said which they would not have said if they had fabricated evidence and often seize upon such things even though it woudl make no sense for them to say such things if they had done anything illicit.
David Boutflour found the moderator and stated it had blood and scratches on it, he didn't mention a grey hair at that time :-\
-
The family didn't expect to find any evidence directly related to the murders they expected police to have taken everything of potential value. They were surprised the ammunition and rifle accessories were left.
Robert didn't even know it had blood on it. He said he didn't have his glasses so could not see the moderator well enough to notice the scratches or anything else and thus could not identify if the one the police showed him was the exact one he saw. Someone looking to railroad Jeremy no matter what would say he saw the blood and hair and scratch not say he didn't have his glasses and thus didn't see it well. People ignore all the things the family said which they would not have said if they had fabricated evidence and often seize upon such things even though it woudl make no sense for them to say such things if they had done anything illicit.
We must agree to differ. I believe that's exactly what they were looking for -something which would convince the police that they, the family, had been right all along. As to whether RWB would have blurted out what he perceived to be attached to the silencer, he was a very astute and clever man and I think he would have been far more subtle in his approach. He would have allowed it to be found.
-
David Boutflour found the moderator and stated it had blood and scratches on it, he didn't mention a grey hair at that time :-\
He did mention the gray hair to the police when he called. The police were also aware of the hair at the time it was being sent to the lab but it was lost on the way to the lab or at the lab because lack of care. The lab was not told by police to take care because a hair was on it. Fortunately for them it didn't really matter. We all know it is Nevill's hair not some random gray haired person. We also all know it was his closet and his house so his hair would be around and could attach to it at any stage after the murders including by being in the closet and getting on it in there. So the hair was not of much value.
A murder could happen at my house and my hair could get on the weapon even though I am not there at the time of the murder simply because my hair will be around my house. If it is a whole clump of hair that's a different matter because clumps of my hair are not falling out it would have to be pulled out of my head...
-
Oh, I SEE!!! This is all because YOU didn't ask the question. Heaven forbid that someone should upset your emissions by asking something intelligent and pertinent.
No, someone else asked the question. So I am contributing to the discussion by asking why it matters.
No one knows the answer to the question anyway as far as I know. But there were several people in the house at the time. Some would have been near by, some not.
You still have not answered the question of why it is important. And neither has Caroline.
-
He did mention the gray hair to the police when he called. The police were also aware of the hair at the time it was being sent to the lab but it was lost on the way to the lab or at the lab because lack of care. The lab was not told by police to take care because a hair was on it. Fortunately for them it didn't really matter. We all know it is Nevill's hair not some random gray haired person. We also all know it was his closet and his house so his hair would be around and could attach to it at any stage after the murders including by being in the closet and getting on it in there. So the hair was not of much value.
A murder could happen at my house and my hair could get on the weapon even though I am not there at the time of the murder simply because my hair will be around my house. If it is a whole clump of hair that's a different matter because clumps of my hair are not falling out it would have to be pulled out of my head...
He didn't mention it in his statement when speaking of his discovery is what I was saying.
-
Why is it important who was actually in the room. Only Caroline asks this question, and has never said why despite requests. And you didn't either in you're post, just said it's highly pertinent.
Whether Jeremy smuggled heroin relates to the case. He either lied, and didn't, showing he lies. Or he did smuggle heroin, showing he would take huge risks for money.
Its quite simple if you think about it - if there were 4 people and their statements differ then you begin to think something may be wrong. Or if on person says xxx saw us find the silencer - and xxx denies that happened then someone lied. I cant see what your problem is?
And stop going on about the heroin thing when there is no evidence. It is therefore irrelevant.
-
Its quite simple if you think about it - if there were 4 people and their statements differ then you begin to think something may be wrong. Or if on person says xxx saw us find the silencer - and xxx denies that happened then someone lied. I cant see what your problem is?
And stop going on about the heroin thing when there is no evidence. It is therefore irrelevant.
April brought up Heroin on this thread. The evidence is Jeremy boasted about smuggling heroin.
I don't consider Caroline's question important. There were several people inside WHF. They were not all following each other around and would have been in different rooms.
Didn't PE say 'I've found the silencer' ? Which suggests there was no one else around. I have just answered Caroline's question.
You have not PM'd me. If you don't want to PM me for support before changing stance, that is you're choice. However you must change stance. Continuing to support Jeremy is 'creepy'.
And stop telling me what to bring up.
-
He didn't mention it in his statement when speaking of his discovery is what I was saying.
Police didn't ask him to include it until later when they realized they screwed up and wanted to document the hair was there and that it was lost later. If one is suggesting he made it up then the fact he mentioned it right away is evidence cutting against it. The whole hair issue though is a waste of time.
The defense essentially conceded the moderator was used by arguing the blood inside was Nevill and June's.
Let's say both sides were to agree the hair got on the moderator during the murders and not after by sticking it in the closet. What would such demonstrate? Would it demonstrate Sheila was killed before Nevill and thus that Sheila didn't kill him? No, the prosecution argued Sheila or the boys were killed last in spite of the hair. So even if the hair attached during the murders it establishes nothing significant and there is no way to prove it attached during as opposed to after. So I see no potential value at all of this hair.
-
Police didn't ask him to include it until later when they realized they screwed up and wanted to document the hair was there and that it was lost later. If one is suggesting he made it up then the fact he mentioned it right away is evidence cutting against it. The whole hair issue though is a waste of time.
The defense essentially conceded the moderator was used by arguing the blood inside was Nevill and June's.
Let's say both sides were to agree the hair got on the moderator during the murders and not after by sticking it in the closet. What would such demonstrate? Would it demonstrate Sheila was killed before Nevill and thus that Sheila didn't kill him? No, the prosecution argued Sheila or the boys were killed last in spite of the hair. So even if the hair attached during the murders it establishes nothing significant and there is no way to prove it attached during as opposed to after. So I see no potential value at all of this hair.
I agree with that scipio
-
f you dont belve the sllincer evedence then you have to conclude the slencer was planted if you belive the silencer was planted t coud only have been planted by the relatives if thats the case then it has to call into qustion all there other evedence.
-
April brought up Heroin on this thread. The evidence is Jeremy boasted about smuggling heroin.
I don't consider Caroline's question important. There were several people inside WHF. They were not all following each other around and would have been in different rooms.
Didn't PE say 'I've found the silencer' ? Which suggests there was no one else around. I have just answered Caroline's question.
You have not PM'd me. If you don't want to PM me for support before changing stance, that is you're choice. However you must change stance. Continuing to support Jeremy is 'creepy'.
And stop telling me what to bring up.
stick to discussing and I might gain an ounce of respect for your opinion. The thread was going along quite nicely thank you.
-
f you dont belve the sllincer evedence then you have to conclude the slencer was planted if you belive the silencer was planted t coud only have been planted by the relatives if thats the case then it has to call into qustion all there other evedence.
No one who believes the family planted the blood has articulated how they came up with it and accomplished it. Planting both paint and blood makes little sense unless one doesn't appreciate the significance of the blood relating to drawback. Only the lab had the expertise to plant the blood on the baffles and understand the significance of doing so. So basically ope would have to argue the family planted the blood inside the opening that was tested by Howard and the paint while the blood used for type testing was planted by the lab and the lab also concealed the finding of blood in the rifle. Those notion all of this happened is quite remote and there is zero evidence to prove it happened so even if you choose to believe this happened it doesn't have any broader implications than what you choose to believe.
-
Police didn't ask him to include it until later when they realized they screwed up and wanted to document the hair was there and that it was lost later. If one is suggesting he made it up then the fact he mentioned it right away is evidence cutting against it. The whole hair issue though is a waste of time.
The defense essentially conceded the moderator was used by arguing the blood inside was Nevill and June's.
Let's say both sides were to agree the hair got on the moderator during the murders and not after by sticking it in the closet. What would such demonstrate? Would it demonstrate Sheila was killed before Nevill and thus that Sheila didn't kill him? No, the prosecution argued Sheila or the boys were killed last in spite of the hair. So even if the hair attached during the murders it establishes nothing significant and there is no way to prove it attached during as opposed to after. So I see no potential value at all of this hair.
It also could have been an animal hair - it was a farm and had cats dogs and allegedly even rats. Perhaps if it had not been handled in a kitchen roll we would know.
-
well theres the evedence of some of the most emenant balistic in the world that a silencer wasnt used in the killings.
theres the fact that 4 policeman seached the cupboard that it was supposed to have been fund in and dident see it.
-
It also could have been an animal hair - it was a farm and had cats dogs and allegedly even rats. Perhaps if it had not been handled in a kitchen roll we would know.
Human hair and animal hair do not look the same. Animal hair is generally shorter especially hair of rodents and those animals that have hair as long as human hair will be coarser it is easy to tell dog hair from human hair. Animal hair has actually ended up helping catch animals because they got the hair of their pets on victims or left such hair at the scene. Now with DNA it is worse because DNA has been used to match pet air even more convincingly than in the past when they argued it was simply from the same breed and color as the pet. They even have matched DNA of plants.
-
He did mention the gray hair to the police when he called. The police were also aware of the hair at the time it was being sent to the lab but it was lost on the way to the lab or at the lab because lack of care. The lab was not told by police to take care because a hair was on it. Fortunately for them it didn't really matter. We all know it is Nevill's hair not some random gray haired person. We also all know it was his closet and his house so his hair would be around and could attach to it at any stage after the murders including by being in the closet and getting on it in there. So the hair was not of much value.
A murder could happen at my house and my hair could get on the weapon even though I am not there at the time of the murder simply because my hair will be around my house. If it is a whole clump of hair that's a different matter because clumps of my hair are not falling out it would have to be pulled out of my head...
Jones was the first to mention the grey hair.
-
Oh, I SEE!!! This is all because YOU didn't ask the question. Heaven forbid that someone should upset your emissions by asking something intelligent and pertinent.
When Adam asks a relevant question I think we should ALL have a party (but not invite Adam!) :D
-
stick to discussing and I might gain an ounce of respect for your opinion. The thread was going along quite nicely thank you.
I think (recently) the issues surrounding the statements of the relatives RE: the moderator have been neglected. I know there are many discrepancies and I will highlight my own problems with their statements but would be interested to hear other people's views!
-
It also could have been an animal hair - it was a farm and had cats dogs and allegedly even rats. Perhaps if it had not been handled in a kitchen roll we would know.
I honestly don't think that the hair has any significance, being as the silencer was carefully scrutinised around the kitchen table and no one noticed it. If it came from anywhere, it mus have come from being handled or from the Eaton's house.
-
as it hadent been under proper conditions that hair could of come from anywhere surely if it belonge to one of the bambers we would know becouse of dna.
-
I think (recently) the issues surrounding the statements of the relatives RE: the moderator have been neglected. I know there are many discrepancies and I will highlight my own problems with their statements but would be interested to hear other people's views!
I think (recently) the issues surrounding the statements of the relatives RE: the moderator have been neglected. I know there are many discrepancies and I will highlight my own problems with their statements but would be interested to hear other people's views!
The differences are quite minor and to be expected considering the statements were a month or more later and they didn't recognize the significance of the items at the time.
They agree David found them, that it was on the Saturday when the house was turned over to them, that Ann Eaton took the items to Oak Farm and kept them there till Jones picked it up.
Ann and David looked closely enough to see blood and pain on it while their father did not. Cock was there but didn't care about it or the other items and told them to handle giving them to police. There is not much else to say about it.
-
Stan Jones gave AE the keys to WHF after the police had finished. The relatives were not begging him for the keys so they could create a big frame.
If the relatives were looking to frame Jeremy, I am not sure why BW & Basil Cock were there. Bit risky.
Anyway they found the silencer in the gun cupboard. This is not surprising as Jeremy said he had (surprisingly) gone out to shoot rabbits without the silencer attached.
It was also surprising the silencer was off the rifle. AP said he had seen the rifle shortly beforehand with the silencer on. There is not much point in taking it off, if the rifle is used for shooting vermin. Didn't Jeremy incorrectly claim it was not possible to put the rifle in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached ?
Anyway one person found it, it seems while everyone else was scattered around WHF. Where are these big discrepancies in statements ?
-
they found the silncer in the gun cupboard after 4 policeman had searched the gun cupboar and not sen it.
-
Human hair and animal hair do not look the same. Animal hair is generally shorter especially hair of rodents and those animals that have hair as long as human hair will be coarser it is easy to tell dog hair from human hair. Animal hair has actually ended up helping catch animals because they got the hair of their pets on victims or left such hair at the scene. Now with DNA it is worse because DNA has been used to match pet air even more convincingly than in the past when they argued it was simply from the same breed and color as the pet. They even have matched DNA of plants.
The hair was apparently an inch long which sounds like a cat hair to me.
-
i would of thought dna testing would be able to tell the difrence between animal and human hair but then agian i would of thought if the hair belonged to any of the vicems a dna test would be able to establish that as well.
it could be the hair of one of the relatives.
-
they found the silncer in the gun cupboard after 4 policeman had searched the gun cupboar and not sen it.
Nugnug
exactly why did the police not find it if they had searched the cupboard earlier.
-
Nugnug
exactly why did the police not find it if they had searched the cupboard earlier.
They were not looking for it. It was murder/suicide.
The silencer was in a box, under other boxes, guns and a dartboard, at the back of the gun cupboard.
Why were the police going to open every box at WHF if the culprit was Sheila ?
-
The hair was apparently an inch long which sounds like a cat hair to me.
Hmm. A colourless hair of approximately an inch long? The one human who comes instantly to mind is, of course, Neville. However it COULD be difficult for the untrained eye to tell the difference between colourless hair and the white blond hair which is what the twins appeared to have, but going on the length, I'd say it was unlikely to be hair belonging to either Neville or the boys, none of which, IMO, could have produced a hair that short.
-
It is quite possible the police would have done another search of WHF. After Julie approached them and other evidence had been processed.
As if happens, Stan Jones used his initiative. He was not happy with the situation and knew the relatives felt the same.
Jones could not become a rogue copper and go into WHF alone. So he gave the keys to AE to do a tidy up, aware they would probably also have a nose around.
-
Nugnug
exactly why did the police not find it if they had searched the cupboard earlier.
well my guess is becouse it wasnt there.
-
well my guess is becouse it wasnt there.
See my post 166.
Why wouldn't the silencer be there ? The rifle came with the silencer as it was used for shooting vermin.
The only reason it wouldn't be there is if Jeremy disposed of it.
-
When Adam asks a relevant question I think we should ALL have a party (but not invite Adam!) :D
Caroline, it's come to my notice that Adam never asks the kind of question which demonstrates ANY interest is what others think. He gives ad nauseum lists of HIS views and the question which, more often than not, follows is "Do other people agree that...............?" He makes no attempt to join or share in a debate, rather, he peppers it with attempts to either hi-jack or rail-road, as is very obvious using this one as an example.
-
Caroline, it's come to my notice that Adam never asks the kind of question which demonstrates ANY interest is what others think. He gives ad nauseum lists of HIS views and the question which, more often than not, follows is "Do other people agree that...............?" He makes no attempt to join or share in a debate, rather, he peppers it with attempts to either hi-jack or rail-road, as is very obvious using this one as an example.
And you post bullshit. Don't try and ban me. Maggie said the word is acceptable.
You're BS -
Supporting Jeremy for several months after I joined and I highlighted his certain guilt.
Being a coward and changing stance after Caroline and Susan did. Don't try to ban me for that, as you called me a coward after I went offline once. For about two hours.
Being a coward again and refusing to say why you changed stance. Unlike Susan who gave her reason straight away.
Just posting to or about me. After changing stance. Because you had nothing worthwhile to say on the case. A bit like you have just done while I was posting about the case.
Trying to get me banned if I criticise Nugs. Although you are quite happy to let others criticise him and him criticise others.
Eventually admitting why you changed stance. But not thanking me.
Never creating a thread in two years. Then complaining when I do. Although my threads get big responses, including from you.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5758.msg277625.html#msg277625
This is the thread on why the police would not find the silencer in the first three days.
-
And you post bullshit. Don't try and ban me. Maggie said the word is acceptable.
You're BS
Supporting Jeremy for several months after I joined and I highlighted his certain guilt.
Being a coward and changing stance after Caroline and Susan did. Don't try to ban me for that, as you called me a coward after I went offline once. For about two hours.
Being a coward again and refusing to say why you changed stance. Unlike Susan who gave her reason straight away.
Just posting to or about me. After changing stance. Because you had nothing worthwhile to say on the case. A bit like you have just done while I was posting about the case.
Trying to get me banned if I criticise Nugs. Although you are quite happy to let others criticise him and him criticise others.
Eventually admitting why you changed stance. But not thanking me.
Never creating a thread in two years. Then complaining when I do. Although they get big responses, including from you.
TEMPER TEMPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
And you post bullshit. Don't try and ban me. Maggie said the word is acceptable.
You're BS
Supporting Jeremy for several months after I joined and I highlighted his certain guilt.
Being a coward and changing stance after Caroline and Susan did. Don't try to ban me for that, as you called me a coward after I went offline once. For about two hours.
Being a coward again and refusing to say why you changed stance. Unlike Susan who gave her reason straight away.
Just posting to or about me. After changing stance. Because you had nothing worthwhile to say on the case. A bit like you have just done while I was posting about the case.
Trying to get me banned if I criticise Nugs. Although you are quite happy to let others criticise him and him criticise others.
Eventually admitting why you changed stance. But not thanking me.
Never creating a thread in two years. Then complaining when I do. Although they get big responses, including from you.
PS. "You're BS" AM I INDEED? You really are displaying your true colours, aren't you? Whilst it IS permissible to refer to a post as BS, It most certainly ISN'T permissible to say, as YOU just have, that a PERSON is BS. That IS a bannable offence, wouldn't you agree? It most certainly is an offence worthy of reporting.
-
PS. "You're BS" AM I INDEED? You really are displaying your true colours, aren't you? Whilst it IS permissible to refer to a post as BS, It most certainly ISN'T permissible to say, as YOU just have, that a PERSON is BS. That IS a bannable offence, wouldn't you agree? It most certainly is an offence worthy of reporting.
My apologies. I have now inserted a ' - ' after BS.
You would be well aware that it was a title and my examples would be underneath.
-
My apologies. I have now inserted a ' - ' after BS.
You would be well aware that it was a title and my examples would be underneath.
Thank-you for the apology, Adam.
It wouldn't have been necessary had you heeded the several posts which have advised you of the difference between "YOUR" which denotes ownership of and YOU'RE which is the shorter version of "you are".
-
See my post 166.
Why wouldn't the silencer be there ? The rifle came with the silencer as it was used for shooting vermin.
The only reason it wouldn't be there is if Jeremy disposed of it.
so were the police searching the cupboard with there eyes closed.
-
Hopefully Nugnug will expand on post 169.
Why wouldn't the silencer be there when the relatives visited ? Did Jeremy dispose of it ?
Or did the relatives bring their own silencer and expertly put hair, paint and Sheila's/Neville's/June's blood on it ? After Stan Jones asked them to do a tidy up.
-
so were the police searching the cupboard with there eyes closed.
Please refer to my post 166. And also the link I have supplied in post 173.
-
they found the silncer in the gun cupboard after 4 policeman had searched the gun cupboar and not sen it.
yeah but to be fair, no one was looking for the silencer in the beginning, they also left guns because they weren't related.
-
i would of thought dna testing would be able to tell the difrence between animal and human hair but then agian i would of thought if the hair belonged to any of the vicems a dna test would be able to establish that as well.
it could be the hair of one of the relatives.
the hair was never tested because it went missing Nugs.
-
yeah but to be fair, no one was looking for the silencer in the beginning, they also left guns because they weren't related.
It wouldn't be alarming to find a silencer in a gun cupboard really would it? If it had been hidden elsewhere in the house it would raise questions, but being where it belonged makes the most sense. At that point the severity of what the silencer wouldn't be clear, for obvious reasons.
-
And you post bullshit. Don't try and ban me. Maggie said the word is acceptable.
You're BS -
Supporting Jeremy for several months after I joined and I highlighted his certain guilt.
Being a coward and changing stance after Caroline and Susan did. Don't try to ban me for that, as you called me a coward after I went offline once. For about two hours.
Being a coward again and refusing to say why you changed stance. Unlike Susan who gave her reason straight away.
Just posting to or about me. After changing stance. Because you had nothing worthwhile to say on the case. A bit like you have just done while I was posting about the case.
Trying to get me banned if I criticise Nugs. Although you are quite happy to let others criticise him and him criticise others.
Eventually admitting why you changed stance. But not thanking me.
Never creating a thread in two years. Then complaining when I do. Although they get big responses, including from you.
I think you'll find that BS is acceptable not what you have written tsk, tsk!! :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D
No one has anything to thank you for - quite the opposite in fact!
-
the hair was never tested because it went missing Nugs.
well in that case it could of been an animal hair.
-
yeah but to be fair, no one was looking for the silencer in the beginning, they also left guns because they weren't related.
weather they were looking for it or not i dont see how you could fail to notice it if it had blood on it.
-
It wouldn't be alarming to find a silencer in a gun cupboard really would it? If it had been hidden elsewhere in the house it would raise questions, but being where it belonged makes the most sense. At that point the severity of what the silencer wouldn't be clear, for obvious reasons.
Exactly, hidden in the teapot or buried in a plant pot might raise suspicions but in the gun cupboard with other gunny things - when all points to murder/suicide? Nah! No reason to have a Eureka moment at that point.
-
one or 2 of them maybe but all 4 of them i find that hard to belive.
-
weather they were looking for it or not i dont see how you could fail to notice it if it had blood on it.
According the the errrr 'story (and which statement you care to read)' the blood wasn't immediately visible. Anyone looking around wouldn't have thought the silencer was related to the crime because they thought the killer was Sheila. She was dead with the murder weapon laying across here. Unlikely therefore, that the silencer was related to the incident. There were lots of guns in the house and they didn't take those either.
-
one or 2 of them maybe but all 4 of them i find that hard to belive.
Because they weren't looking for it.
-
Because they weren't looking for it.
I've got a feeling you'll be repeating this alot. ;D
If they had taken the silencer or any of the weapons at that stage, I am sure a mountain would be made out of that too. Can't do right for wrong really.
I see nothing strange or suspicious about leaving something they weren't looking for.
-
I've got a feeling you'll be repeating this alot. ;D
If they had taken the silencer or any of the weapons at that stage, I am sure a mountain would be made out of that too. Can't do right for wrong really.
I see nothing strange or suspicious about leaving something they weren't looking for.
Me either! No one even thought about the silencer until Pargeter said he's seen it on the rifle last time he was at WHF. And that was a few days after the tragedy (Friday 9th).
-
Me either! No one even thought about the silencer until Pargeter said he's seen it on the rifle last time he was at WHF. And that was a few days after the tragedy (Friday 9th).
Problem is people are looking back with hindsight - knowing what we know NOW they'd act differently than they did at the time.
-
Because they weren't looking for it.
weather your looking for it or not how do you not notice somthing with blood on it.
-
I've got a feeling you'll be repeating this alot. ;D
If they had taken the silencer or any of the weapons at that stage, I am sure a mountain would be made out of that too. Can't do right for wrong really.
I see nothing strange or suspicious about leaving something they weren't looking for.
I was talking about finding a silencer with a blob of jam on the end, scratched with red paint and a hair attached as a Eureka moment not just a silencer in a box in a gun cupboards but if there was no blob of red blood like jam well that is a different matter.
-
I was talking about finding a silencer with a blob of jam on the end, scratched with red paint and a hair attached as a Eureka moment not just a silencer in a box in a gun cupboards but if there was no blob of red blood like jam well that is a different matter.
So? I was replying to Caroline who was replying to Nugnug. I didn't read or reply to your post.
-
I was talking about finding a silencer with a blob of jam on the end, scratched with red paint and a hair attached as a Eureka moment not just a silencer in a box in a gun cupboards but if there was no blob of red blood like jam well that is a different matter.
well there ethere was or there wasnt.
-
So? I was replying to Caroline who was replying to Nugnug. I didn't read or reply to your post.
I beg your pardon I didn't realise there were rules about answering posts.
-
I beg your pardon I didn't realise there were rules about answering posts.
I didn't say there was. But you replied to my post explaining what you had meant, but my post had nothing to do with what you meant or had previously posted.
Maybe we should just not post to each other? I don't find your post informative or clear and you don't like my postings, it would be must easier if we just stuck to other peoples posts - no confusion that way.
-
weather they were looking for it or not i dont see how you could fail to notice it if it had blood on it.
Do you not take things in Nugs.
For the police to notice the silencer had blood on, they would have had to have opened every box in the gun cupboard and checked every item in there.
Why would the police do that ? Jeremy had told them it was murder/suicide. Taff Jones was agreeing with this.
As previously said, please refer to posts 166 and 173.
-
Do you not take things in Nugs.
For the police to notice the silencer had blood on, they would have had to have opened every box in the gun cupboard and checked every item in there.
Why would the police do that ? Jeremy had told them it was murder/suicide. Taff Jones was agreeing with this.
As previously said, please refer to posts 166 and 173.
Exactly, Adam. At THAT stage at THAT time there was no need or reason to. If you look back with hindsight sure.
-
Part of the claim by Jeremy and supporters is that it was suspicious that the relatives found the silencer. Because the the police didn't find it.
But the police were not looking for it. They had been lead in a direction by a person whose name I forget. Oh yes I remember now, it was Mr Jeremy Bamber.
-
Bamber wants it both ways.
Leading the police in a direction. When that direction contributes to his downfall, he claims they should have not believed him and searched for and found the silencer.
Bit sneaky that.
-
I didn't say there was. But you replied to my post explaining what you had meant, but my post had nothing to do with what you meant or had previously posted.
Maybe we should just not post to each other? I don't find your post informative or clear and you don't like my postings, it would be must easier if we just stuck to other peoples posts - no confusion that way.
Theres little to be informative about, it's all been said a thousand times.
-
I was talking about finding a silencer with a blob of jam on the end, scratched with red paint and a hair attached as a Eureka moment not just a silencer in a box in a gun cupboards but if there was no blob of red blood like jam well that is a different matter.
It is obvious to me that Boutflour didn't sneak into the kitchen to get paint on it by scratching the mantle and then decided to cut himself, stick his blood inside and on the front and then go back to the office and call everyone to the room to show them a moderator with wet blood on and in it.
This was also obvious to the defense which didn't make any such claims at trial. I was also obvious to the defense he would not be in a position to conceal the finding of blood in the rifle muzzle. There was nothing to suggest Boutflour knew anything about the concept of drawback let alone would know that Sheila's fatal wound would have resulted in drawback. The notion he took the moderator apart and put his blood on 8 baffles simply doesn't make any sense.
If he planted evidence and knew the impact he would have rushed it to the police station as opposed to having Ann Eaton hold the items. It was Cock's idea to have such stored at Oak Farm until police came for them.
After Ann Eaton told the Boutflours about how police took paint samples from the mantle they went to WHF and looked at the mantle. If they had planted the paint they would not have bothered to go investigate it.
They didn't press the police to find out anything more about the blood they saw in/on the moderator. They didn't even press the police to take it. They notified police and waited for police to get it which wound up being 2 days later because Jones wasn't on duty the weekend.
In contrast Boutflour took the shotgun shells to the station himself on September 14. Police picked up the scope and bullets but didn't take the shotgun shells so Boutflour got peeved and ended up taking them to police himself. If he planted evidence in the moderator and knew that evidence would prove Sheila was murdered why would they bother insisting on police have the other items that ended up being of little consequence?
-
It is obvious to me that Boutflour didn't sneak into the kitchen to get paint on it by scratching the mantle and then decided to cut himself, stick his blood inside and on the front and then go back to the office and call everyone to the room to show them a moderator with wet blood on and in it.
This was also obvious to the defense which didn't make any such claims at trial. I was also obvious to the defense he would not be in a position to conceal the finding of blood in the rifle muzzle. There was nothing to suggest Boutflour knew anything about the concept of drawback let alone would know that Sheila's fatal wound would have resulted in drawback. The notion he took the moderator apart and put his blood on 8 baffles simply doesn't make any sense.
If he planted evidence and knew the impact he would have rushed it to the police station as opposed to having Ann Eaton hold the items. It was Cock's idea to have such stored at Oak Farm until police came for them.
After Ann Eaton told the Boutflours about how police took paint samples from the mantle they went to WHF and looked at the mantle. If they had planted the paint they would not have bothered to go investigate it.
They didn't press the police to find out anything more about the blood they saw in/on the moderator. They didn't even press the police to take it. They notified police and waited for police to get it which wound up being 2 days later because Jones wasn't on duty the weekend.
In contrast Boutflour took the shotgun shells to the station himself on September 14. Police picked up the scope and bullets but didn't take the shotgun shells so Boutflour got peeved and ended up taking them to police himself. If he planted evidence in the moderator and knew that evidence would prove Sheila was murdered why would they bother insisting on police have the other items that ended up being of little consequence?
You make massive assumptions, I have never suggested the family planted anything, I just said I find the whole episode of the finding, examining and collection of the moderator unconvincing.
-
The relatives were hoodwinked by the police,but whether in time they realised this themselves,I don't know,but the moving of Jeremy to Wakefield has suspicious undertones as far as I'm concerned,as those inside don't have a cat-in-Hell's chance of ever being released,and this is EXACTLY why I think Jeremy was put there.To keep his gob shut once and for all.
-
The relatives were hoodwinked by the police,but whether in time they realised this themselves,I don't know,but the moving of Jeremy to Wakefield has suspicious undertones as far as I'm concerned,as those inside don't have a cat-in-Hell's chance of ever being released,and this is EXACTLY why I think Jeremy was put there.To keep his gob shut once and for all.
He has been in Wakefield before, Lookout. :-\
-
He has been in Wakefield before, Lookout. :-\
I know,Mat,earlier on in his sentence, which I wouldn't mind betting it was when he was organising another submission. I must find that out.
-
I know,Mat,earlier on in his sentence, which I wouldn't mind betting it was when he was organising another submission. I must find that out.
Hi lookout that was me, not mat ;D ;D
-
The relatives were hoodwinked by the police,but whether in time they realised this themselves,I don't know,but the moving of Jeremy to Wakefield has suspicious undertones as far as I'm concerned,as those inside don't have a cat-in-Hell's chance of ever being released,and this is EXACTLY why I think Jeremy was put there.To keep his gob shut once and for all.
Lookout dear, I feel perfectly confident that you find suspicious undertones in night following day. ;D ;D ;D
-
You make massive assumptions, I have never suggested the family planted anything, I just said I find the whole episode of the finding, examining and collection of the moderator unconvincing.
Police say they didn't take it which means it would still be there at WHF.
The family say because police left it and the other items they found the items and notified police.
The police admit they were notified by the family and passed the message to the detectives
Jones said he received the message from the clerical workers and ended up going to Oak Farm and decided to take it
Because it was late Jones and crime scene officers were gone Jones waited until the next day to give it to them, turning it over to Cook.
Cook says he took it to the lab on August 13 which is confirmed by the lab and documentation. There is documentation proving the lab notified police about the finding of human blood on/in it and paint on the knurled end.
As a result on August 14 police were sent to WHF to take paint samples and find the source of the paint. Ann Eaton says she was phoned by them and asked to allow them entry to take the sample which she did.
What is problematic with this account? There is various evidence which establishes certain things happened for sure like the lab testing on the date in question and the passing of the results to police the next day. COLP had records of such and used such records to question the police.
-
Hi lookout that was me, not mat ;D ;D
Must be the heat,Maggie. ;D ;D ;D-sorry.
-
Lookout dear, I feel perfectly confident that you find suspicious undertones in night following day. ;D ;D ;D
My middle name is wary. ;D ;D ;D If something's too good to be true and all that.
-
My middle name is wary. ;D ;D ;D If something's too good to be true and all that.
I was going to ask if you've ever taken a leaf of faith, but I guess, in backing Jeremy, you've taken the biggest one you're ever likely to.
-
I know,Mat,earlier on in his sentence, which I wouldn't mind betting it was when he was organising another submission. I must find that out.
It doesn't matter where he is to enter a submission - don't understand what you're getting at?
-
Must be the heat,Maggie. ;D ;D ;D-sorry.
No probs, I'm boiling too. X
-
Police say they didn't take it which means it would still be there at WHF.
The family say because police left it and the other items they found the items and notified police.
The police admit they were notified by the family and passed the message to the detectives
Jones said he received the message from the clerical workers and ended up going to Oak Farm and decided to take it
Because it was late Jones and crime scene officers were gone Jones waited until the next day to give it to them, turning it over to Cook.
Cook says he took it to the lab on August 13 which is confirmed by the lab and documentation. There is documentation proving the lab notified police about the finding of human blood on/in it and paint on the knurled end.
As a result on August 14 police were sent to WHF to take paint samples and find the source of the paint. Ann Eaton says she was phoned by them and asked to allow them entry to take the sample which she did.
What is problematic with this account? There is various evidence which establishes certain things happened for sure like the lab testing on the date in question and the passing of the results to police the next day. COLP had records of such and used such records to question the police.
I didn't mean you makemassive assumptions about the case but rather that I believe the family went around framing jeremy. I find the silencer event questionable .... the conflicting statements etc.
-
I didn't mean you makemassive assumptions about the case but rather that I believe the family went around framing jeremy. I find the silencer event questionable .... the conflicting statements etc.
They agree on everything significant surrounding the finding.
A month or more later not remembering exactly where in the house everyone was at the time it was found is natural. Cock was definitely there at the time they claim to have found it and doesn't deny that it was found or that he told them to take the items to Oak Farm. Making such up would be quite silly since he would have denied it if untrue.
-
I didn't mean you makemassive assumptions about the case but rather that I believe the family went around framing jeremy. I find the silencer event questionable .... the conflicting statements etc.
Hello Maggie
If the family tried to frame Jeremy for the murders it is because they firmly believed he was guilty and they were so worried he would walk away a free man just my humble opinion :)
-
They agree on everything significant surrounding the finding.
A month or more later not remembering exactly where in the house everyone was at the time it was found is natural. Cock was definitely there at the time they claim to have found it and doesn't deny that it was found or that he told them to take the items to Oak Farm. Making such up would be quite silly since he would have denied it if untrue.
Of course they do but they were unable to get their story straight. Even now you have BW stating that she saw the silencer with blood on it. I'm certainly not buying that.
-
Hello Maggie
If the family tried to frame Jeremy for the murders it is because they firmly believed he was guilty and they were so worried he would walk away a free man just my humble opinion :)
the though of him now being there landlord might have somthing to do with it.
-
the though of him now being there landlord might have somthing to do with it.
nugnug I am sure that came into it as well.
-
Of course they do but they were unable to get their story straight. Even now you have BW stating that she saw the silencer with blood on it. I'm certainly not buying that.
if they dident see the silencer with blood on it why would they think it was of any significance.
-
Of course they do but they were unable to get their story straight. Even now you have BW stating that she saw the silencer with blood on it. I'm certainly not buying that.
They couldn't recall whether BW saw it or not because it wasn't significant. They admit she was there so she could very well have seen it. If there were some grand conspiracy then they would have said she saw it and police would have made sure they had her put such in her statement. They didn't need her or Cock to put it in their statements because they had the statements from the person who found it and the people who were given custody of it and turned it over to police. that is all that was needed.
You have not posted anything rational to challenge the moderator with at all the most you do is post you choose not to accept it though you can't find anything to actually use to attack it. What you choose to believe makes no difference at all. In a debate what matters is what evidence can be brought to bear.
People keep saying they are not suggesting the family planted the blood but choose not to believe the moderator evidence. To be able to rationally discount the moderator one has to believe the evidence was planted and would need to set forth who they think did it and how.
What I see are people who don't want to accept the moderator evidence and are struggling to find a way to justify what they choose to believe as opposed to following the evidence where it leads.
If police decided to plant evidence in the moderator they would simply have made up finding it themselves prior to turning the house over to the family. By rights they should have taken all the firearms related materials anyway. Telling the family to lie would make no sense at all. In the meantime the evidence it was analyzed in the lab and paint and human blood found on July 13 and the police notified the 14th is ironclad. I see no one able to deal with such.
The only one who has come up with a plausible planting scenario that takes all the evidence into account is me. That scenario requires:
1) the family to have planted human blood in the opening, on the face and paint on the knurled edge so that the lab was able to find such on July 13.
2) the lab to have planted more blood on the 8 baffles ad the flake in between baffles 1 and 2 in order to simulate drawback
3) conceal that blood was found inside the rifle muzzle
So there needs to have been 2 distinct plantings of evidence and a concealing of blood found in the rifle.
No one who wants to discount the moderator wants to face this because they know the chances to 2 plantings occurring are so remote.
People who want to discount it raise some cloud of suspicion which is a amorphous, non-specific and unclear. That demonstrates not only speculation but ill defined speculation to boot.
My scenario is surely speculation because there is no evidence it occurred but at least it is a well thought out speculation which if there were evidence to prove then it would actually undermine the moderator and since I constructed it around the evidence this makes it plausible in the theoretical sense.
-
BW apparently said something different decades later. Was she in on the frame ?
Why would the relatives involve her ? They didn't need to.
-
Earlier today Nugs was saying the police should have found the silencer. Even Caroline argued against this.
The other thing asked is who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. No one knows or why it is important. However common sense suggests people were scattered around WHF.
-
Everything fits with the silencer -
It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer.
It makes sense for him to take it off. After realising before or during the massacre Sheila could not shoot herself.
It makes sense for him to put it away. Not expecting the police and certainly not the relatives to look for it. He may not have been aware of back splatter either.
It makes sense for the police to not find the silencer. Thread already created.
It makes sense for suspicious relatives to find the silencer.
It makes sense for there to blood, paint and a hair on it. If it was not cleaned or not cleaned properly.
-
if they dident see the silencer with blood on it why would they think it was of any significance.
I was talking about BW.
-
Earlier today Nugs was saying the police should have found the silencer. Even Caroline argued against this.
The other thing asked is who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. No one knows or why it is important. However common sense suggests people were scattered around WHF.
OK Adam, this is pretty simple but because you don't seem to be able to grasp it - I'll explain. It's important BECAUSE several people claim to have been there at the moment it was found. However, DB (the guy who actually found it) doesn't mention anyone being there and talks about the find as though he were alone! OK? ::) ::)
-
Hello Maggie
If the family tried to frame Jeremy for the murders it is because they firmly believed he was guilty and they were so worried he would walk away a free man just my humble opinion :)
Hi Susan I . Agree that could have been the case. I was telling scipio he was assuming I believe the family framed jeremy but I do not necessarily think that. I do believe the statements do not correspond and that DB spoke in his statement as though he were alone when he found the moderator but others contradict that.
-
Of course they do but they were unable to get their story straight. Even now you have BW stating that she saw the silencer with blood on it. I'm certainly not buying that.
I agree Caroline, BW was an unreliable witness imo, she seems to have been prone to exaggeration at times.
-
OK Adam, this is pretty simple but because you don't seem to be able to grasp it - I'll explain. It's important BECAUSE several people claim to have been there at the moment it was found. However, DB (the guy who actually found it) doesn't mention anyone being there and talks about the find as though he were alone! OK? ::) ::)
Several people were there at the moment it was found. All inside WHF.
When the finder said 'I've found the silencer', other people near by would recall it as being there at the time.
If the statements differ slightly then there is nothing sinister in it.
-
well it is a sigfifcant event so you would think they would remember.
-
I've not seen the statements which apparently have these great differences. Hopefully Caroline can highlight them.
-
Hi Susan I . Agree that could have been the case. I was telling scipio he was assuming I believe the family framed jeremy but I do not necessarily think that. I do believe the statements do not correspond and that DB spoke in his statement as though he were alone when he found the moderator but others contradict that.
David Boutflour said he wasn't sure if anyone was in the room at the time he found it or they came in after the find. He was asked more than a month later. Similarly the others were not positive of exactly where they were when he first found it for the same exact reason.
SInce they were not framing Jeremy they were honest about their uncertainty and Robert Boutflour was honest about not having his glasses and thus not seeing it well. If they were framing him then they would say they were all definitely with him and definitely saw the blood and scratch instantly...
-
David Boutflour said he wasn't sure if anyone was in the room at the time he found it or they came in after the find. He was asked more than a month later. Similarly the others were not positive of exactly where they were when he first found it for the same exact reason.
SInce they were not framing Jeremy they were honest about their uncertainty and Robert Boutflour was honest about not having his glasses and thus not seeing it well. If they were framing him then they would say they were all definitely with him and definitely saw the blood and scratch instantly...
You COULD be right...................on the other hand I can offer valid alternatives, and I wouldn't mid betting that were the boot on the OTHER foot, so, too, could you. You may even have found yourself being part of such.
You assert that if they were framing him they'd all have said the same thing and stuck to the story yet you must know that doing so CAN be seen as very suspicious -I believe police use every sort of trick to break these group stories. It maybe that at the last moment the enormity hit them of what they were attempting to do -was he REALLY guilty? One sees this on a daily basis from class room to board room when people don't want to own responsibility. A group will swear undivided loyalty to each other in private but lose confidence publicly. This could explain BW's odd behaviour. Other than Cock, she was the only one who wasn't family. Although she was close to them, blood is thicker than water, they had each other for support and she may have felt unsupported and isolated with the -possible- lie and floundered. Her polarized statements suggest this may be true.
Re RWB not having his glasses. I'm inclined to say "Pull the other one." This was the person MOST responsible for pushing the case against Jeremy. He had gone to WHF with the intention of looking for something to further this. Of course, it's possible that he forgot his glasses, but I find it difficult to believe. Also difficult to believe is that he was SO short sighted that he couldn't have seen blood although I CAN see the difficulty he may have experienced with a colourless hair of only an inch long.
-
You COULD be right...................on the other hand I can offer valid alternatives, and I wouldn't mid betting that were the boot on the OTHER foot, so, too, could you. You may even have found yourself being part of such.
You assert that if they were framing him they'd all have said the same thing and stuck to the story yet you must know that doing so CAN be seen as very suspicious -I believe police use every sort of trick to break these group stories. It maybe that at the last moment the enormity hit them of what they were attempting to do -was he REALLY guilty? One sees this on a daily basis from class room to board room when people don't want to own responsibility. A group will swear undivided loyalty to each other in private but lose confidence publicly. This could explain BW's odd behaviour. Other than Cock, she was the only one who wasn't family. Although she was close to them, blood is thicker than water, they had each other for support and she may have felt unsupported and isolated with the -possible- lie and floundered. Her polarized statements suggest this may be true.
Re RWB not having his glasses. I'm inclined to say "Pull the other one." This was the person MOST responsible for pushing the case against Jeremy. He had gone to WHF with the intention of looking for something to further this. Of course, it's possible that he forgot his glasses, but I find it difficult to believe. Also difficult to believe is that he was SO short sighted that he couldn't have seen blood although I CAN see the difficulty he may have experienced with a colourless hair of only an inch long.
Its unclear if RB's need for glasses was for age related long sightedness but due to him being mature that's a strong probability. We were lead to believe by AE the blood was red and prominent, not inside the aperture f the moderator but on it, if that was the situation a long sighted person without reading glasses could hold an object further away to view more clearly. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been able to make it out. If his eyes were very bad I pretty certain a man such as RB would always carry his glasses, so frustrating being unable to read anything and not his style IMO.
-
If the blood on the moderator was more of a stain which is more likely and would have been difficult to see without magnifiers that is an acceptable statement by RB but leaves us wondering how AE saw a 'blob of jam' as she stated, this makes me question what was on the moderator, and who actually saw it ?
-
If the blood on the moderator was more of a stain which is more likely and would have been difficult to see without magnifiers that is an acceptable statement by RB but leaves us wondering how AE saw a 'blob of jam' as she stated, this makes me question what was on the moderator, and who actually saw it ?
There are many possibilities here, and whilst I'm not ruling out Scipio being right, there are too many considerations to make it one of the absolutes he's fond of.......................which is, after all, the norm where numerous people are involved.
-
There are many possibilities here, and whilst I'm not ruling out Scipio being right, there are too many considerations to make it one of the absolutes he's fond of.......................which is, after all, the norm where numerous people are involved.
I agree April, it may not be proof of innocence or guilt but it is questionable.
-
If the blood on the moderator was more of a stain which is more likely and would have been difficult to see without magnifiers that is an acceptable statement by RB but leaves us wondering how AE saw a 'blob of jam' as she stated, this makes me question what was on the moderator, and who actually saw it ?
well i dont its blood they have no real reason to be interested in it i mean finding a slincer in a gun cupboard is hardly unusual.
-
If you read " Innocence is no Defence ",written by Sandra Lean,the questioning of an innocent person who tells the police EVERYTHING,becomes the main suspect as information gathered from other quarters is totally ignored when police are looking to secure a conviction for the person they're questioning.
One mistake regarding times and places is then turned on its head as police see this innocent person struggling with their lapse of memory,therefore digging themselves into a deeper hole so far as the police are concerned.
The way I see it,and have always done,is what happened in Jeremy's case.He all but stood on his head to help police,but to no avail,then along came the relatives to rub salt in the wound.
It's unfair when a case is based on suspicion alone such as this was.!!
-
I notice EP have retained their status as " bungling police " after a man was found dead in his garden at home in Brentwood. Police confirmed the death as " non-suspicious ".The man had only been blasted by a shotgun. ::)
-
If you read " Innocence is no Defence ",written by Sandra Lean,the questioning of an innocent person who tells the police EVERYTHING,becomes the main suspect as information gathered from other quarters is totally ignored when police are looking to secure a conviction for the person they're questioning.
One mistake regarding times and places is then turned on its head as police see this innocent person struggling with their lapse of memory,therefore digging themselves into a deeper hole so far as the police are concerned.
The way I see it,and have always done,is what happened in Jeremy's case.He all but stood on his head to help police,but to no avail,then along came the relatives to rub salt in the wound.
It's unfair when a case is based on suspicion alone such as this was.!!
It is also quite well known that some offenders like to get involved with the investigation to help lead the police away from themselves. Jeremy implicated Sheila in this way from the start.
-
well i dont its blood they have no real reason to be interested in it i mean finding a slincer in a gun cupboard is hardly unusual.
The reason they gave for being interested, is that AP said the silencer was attached when he last saw the rifle at WHF.
-
and he doesnt think the silencer would have been removed since then.
i cant see that as a credible reason.
-
and he doesnt think the silencer would have been removed since then.
i cant see that as a credible reason.
Why take the silencer off just to put it back on again ? It was used for shooting vermin so would be permanently on.
I suppose in the course of months it may have been taken off. But AP saw the rifle with the silencer attached just before the massacre. A 'curious co incidence' it was taken off ?
Why would Bamber go outside to shoot rabbits with a rifle without a silencer ? What is the point in just firing one shot, which would probably miss before the rabbits dispersed. Thought he would have put the silencer on.
-
It is also quite well known that some offenders like to get involved with the investigation to help lead the police away from themselves. Jeremy implicated Sheila in this way from the start.
That is a good point.
People like Tracey Andrews, John Tanner and Mike Philpot co operated with the police. Making public appeals for information.
John Tanner even participated in the televised reconstruction.
Jeremy ringing the police to assist them in the 'siege' situation at WHF is standard practice if you know you will be a suspect anyway. The only reason a criminal would not do this is if they felt they would never be traced.
-
If you read " Innocence is no Defence ",written by Sandra Lean,the questioning of an innocent person who tells the police EVERYTHING,becomes the main suspect as information gathered from other quarters is totally ignored when police are looking to secure a conviction for the person they're questioning.
One mistake regarding times and places is then turned on its head as police see this innocent person struggling with their lapse of memory,therefore digging themselves into a deeper hole so far as the police are concerned.
The way I see it,and have always done,is what happened in Jeremy's case.He all but stood on his head to help police,but to no avail,then along came the relatives to rub salt in the wound.
It's unfair when a case is based on suspicion alone such as this was.!!
The case was based on forensic and circumstantial evidence. Of which there is a lot.
But you just keep asking 'what evidence' although you contribute to all threads.
-
Why take the silencer off just to put it back on again ? It was used for shooting vermin so would be permanently on.
I suppose in the course of months it may have been taken off. But AP saw the rifle with the silencer attached just before the massacre. A 'curious co incidence' it was taken off ?
Why would Bamber go outside to shoot rabbits with a rifle without a silencer ? What is the point in just firing one shot, which would probably miss before the rabbits dispersed. Thought he would have put the silencer on.
when your puting a gun away you take the silencer off genrally.
-
and he doesnt think the silencer would have been removed since then.
i cant see that as a credible reason.
Yes, I have to admit that I also find this reasoning weak. You simply need to unscrew it to remove it. However, he also said the sights were attached and people have said they are tricky to refit once removed. I did ask Jeremy if he removed them and he said no, he thought that perhaps his father had in order to clean the rifle. I don't think Jeremy would have needed either the silencer or sights to commit the murders.
-
when your puting a gun away you take the silencer off genrally.
Really ? It must be easy to put off and on then.
I wonder why Jeremy didn't put it on before going to shoot rabbits.
-
when your puting a gun away you take the silencer off genrally.
I guess that would be down to personal choice, you don't to have to remove it to put it away and Jeremy's claim that it didn't fit in the cupboard when the silencer was attached, turned out not to be true.
-
Really ? It must be easy to put off and on then.
I wonder why Jeremy didn't put it on before going to shoot rabbits.
It is easy, it screws on and off.
-
Yes, I have to admit that I also find this reasoning weak. You simply need to unscrew it to remove it. However, he also said the sights were attached and people have said they are tricky to refit once removed. I did ask Jeremy if he removed them and he said no, he thought that perhaps his father had in order to clean the rifle. I don't think Jeremy would have needed either the silencer or sights to commit the murders.
Clean the rifle ? Wasn't it quite new ?
Perhaps Neville had been rolling around with it commando style shooting rabbits as well.
-
I guess that would be down to personal choice, you don't to have to remove it to put it away and Jeremy's claim that it didn't fit in the cupboard when the silencer was attached, turned out not to be true.
Why would Jeremy say that if it wasn't true ?
-
Really ? It must be easy to put off and on then.
I wonder why Jeremy didn't put it on before going to shoot rabbits.
yes for somone who does it every day it is easy.
-
It is easy, it screws on and off.
If you don't include the sights.
Why didn't he put it on before going to shoot rabbits then ?
Either way Jeremy is in a poor situation. He is relying on people believing that the silencer was taken off in the short period between AP seeing the rifle and the massacre.
He is then relying on people believing he would go out to shoot rabbits without the silencer attached.
Lots of 'curious coincidences'.
-
My post 228 shows that everything fits with the silencer.
Hopefully the sources of the relatives differences in statements will be supplied. There would have to be big differences to negate everything else.
-
if the defendant had changed his story that many times you would be all over him.
-
My post 228 shows that everything fits with the silencer.
Hopefully the sources of the relatives differences in statements will be supplied. There would have to be big differences to negate everything else.
You have serious issues!!
-
if the defendant had changed his story that many times you would be all over him.
He has.
-
He has.
One hopes that with treatment an improvement will be seen.
-
He has.
so a witnes should surely be given the same treatment.
-
so a witnes should surely be given the same treatment.
Have the relatives changed their statements ?
I thought there were just minor differences between different peoples statements. Unless shown otherwise.
Apart from BW who changed to saying she saw the blood on the silencer, decades later. But she has never been accused of being in on any frame up.
-
when your puting a gun away you take the silencer off genrally.
You make up as many bogus claims and excuses as Mike. The users normally (and testimony suggested always not just normally) left the moderator on the weapon when putting it away.
Jeremy made up that it could not fit in the closet with the accessories attached. After police were told by the family that this is a lie then he changed to claiming it could not fit in a gun case with the accessories on. Nevill didn't purchase a gun case though so no gun case was found at WHF. He didn't purchase a case like AP had for his rifle. So Jeremy got caught in two different lies and the only reason to tell these lies was to pretend he would have found the gun without the scope and moderator attached like he claimed.
The last known user of the gun was AP who said the gun had the scope and moderator attached when he found it in the closet and was put away with the scope and moderator attached. During Jeremys interrogation he stated he last used it a week to fortnight before the murders leaving AP as the last known user. Upon them confronting him with what AP said about how he put it away, Jeremy changed his story and claimed he and Nevill repeatedly used it the week before the murders and sometime she found it with the scope and mdoerator attache dother times they had been reoved and he claiemd Nevill was the one removing them.
So Jeremy got caught lying about the gun not fitting in the closet, lying about it not fitting in a nonexistent case and lied about Nevill repeatedly removing the scope not just the moderator the week before the murders. He also got caught lying about leaving the gun and ammunition out, he left too many bullets out for his claim to be true.
Why would he lie about leaving the gun and bullets out period let alone lie and say the gun had no moderator and scope when he found it and left it out in such condition?
He clearly lied in order to:
1) pretend Sheila found a weapon of opportunity to use
2) pretend that the magazine was already loaded so that Nevill could not simply take the weapon away as she loaded the magazine which requires 2 hands so she could not have also kept control of the rifle
3) pretend there was extra ammunition so she would not have to go search for any
4) pretend the scope was not attached when the gun was found because Jeremy didn't want anyone to know he removed it himself in anticipation of the murders. The only reason to remove it would be if one were going to shoot at close quarters in which case the scope would get int he way of accurate aiming. He didn't want police to know he removed it in anticipation of the murders because that helps give away he committed the murders. So he made up the lies that it was frequently removed after use and had not been attached when he picked up the gun. Sheila taking the time to remove it certainly would not be consistent with her going crazy and simply grabbing a weapon of opportunity, but he didn't want to leave it on because it would have inhibited accurate shooting so he made up the claim he left the gun out and that the scope wasn't attached when he picked it up.
5) pretend the gun didn't have the moderator attached when he found it and left it out without it because he didn't want police to know the moderator was used. He removed it after the murders and put it away in order to pretend that it wasn't used and lied about it not having the moderator attached so they would not think it had been attached.
These lies are not lies an innocent man would make up only a guilty one who wanted to conceal that he removed the scope in anticipation of the murders and hid the moderator after carrying out the murders and only the murderer would be in position to stage bullets in the kitchen after the murders to support the bogus story he ended up telling about leaving the gun out.
The prosecution didn't stress these lies to the jury for their health they stressed these lies because they prove Jeremy's guilt.
-
It is also quite well known that some offenders like to get involved with the investigation to help lead the police away from themselves. Jeremy implicated Sheila in this way from the start.
He didn't " implicate " Sheila as such. He'd explained that she " wasn't well ",in his own words because he didn't know exactly what was wrong with her. It was obviously part of his interpretation relating to his father's call,as nobody who's normal threatens their family with a gun/rifle.
Anyone would have mentioned about Sheila,but it doesn't equate to implicating her. It's however you WANT to believe it.
-
He didn't " implicate " Sheila as such. He'd explained that she " wasn't well ",in his own words because he didn't know exactly what was wrong with her. It was obviously part of his interpretation relating to his father's call,as nobody who's normal threatens their family with a gun/rifle.
Anyone would have mentioned about Sheila,but it doesn't equate to implicating her. It's however you WANT to believe it.
But he threw in little oddments such as her just coming out of hospital and having been diagnosed as a PS/depressive(?). I would call that as close to implicating her as makes no difference and I think you're playing semantics here.
-
I guess that would be down to personal choice, you don't to have to remove it to put it away and Jeremy's claim that it didn't fit in the cupboard when the silencer was attached, turned out not to be true.
And after he was called on this false claim he compounded it with another lie- that it didn't fit in its case with the accessories attache. Nevill never bought a hard case for it like AP had purchased for his rifle. So there was no case. This was brought out in trial testimony discussing how no one ever saw a case, no one found a case and the gun dealer didn't sell Nevill any case.
After the case claim fell apart and he was told that the last known user said it was put away with the scope and moderator attached then Jeremy made up the claim he and Nevill used it repeatedly the week before the murders and claimed during this period of time Nevill sometimes took the scope and moderator off before putting it away and other times left them on. Prior to police confronting him about being the last known user, Jeremy claimed he had not used it for more than a week before the murders thus his own testimony helped establish AP was the last known user. He changed his story and did so for a very transparent reason. Nevill was not known to remove the scope and had no reason to do so thus the claim he repeatedly did so is not credible. Similarly there was no reason to remove the moderator. Yes it screws on and off but you don't waste time screwing something on and removing without a reason. The only reason to remove it would be to clean the gun barrel which probably was never cleaned since it was purchased given the buildup. Only about 150 rounds had been fired in the weapon prior to the murders. If one takes into account the target shooting Jeremy periodically did with it in the barn to get accustomed to it and those fired by AP for target shooting that means few if any rounds were fired in any other context.
Jeremy's suggestion it was used constantly holds no water which explains the near pristine condition AP found the rifle in.
I have never seen any Jeremy supporters put forth anything to explain innocently why he lied about these things or to deal with the evidence that proves he lied about leaving the gun out at all. He staged the bullets in the kitchen after the murders. The only way for those bullets ot have been placed there before the murders as he claimed would be if the killer decided to use 20 bullets from that supply and then decided to go get 5 more from the closet rather than continuing to use that supply. Such makes no sense though.
-
But he threw in little oddments such as her just coming out of hospital and having been diagnosed as a PS/depressive(?). I would call that as close to implicating her as makes no difference and I think you're playing semantics here.
I'm sorry,but if your life depended on mentioning that a relative had a mental illness,you'd say something or would you take it on the chin knowing that you were the innocent one,acting all infra-dig ? I doubt it. Not that it made any difference to JB for having told them as much information as he could.
The case was twisted beyond all recognition,making out that schizophrenics don't kill ( without medication ) except that NOBODY knew that bit.
-
He didn't " implicate " Sheila as such. He'd explained that she " wasn't well ",in his own words because he didn't know exactly what was wrong with her. It was obviously part of his interpretation relating to his father's call,as nobody who's normal threatens their family with a gun/rifle.
Anyone would have mentioned about Sheila,but it doesn't equate to implicating her. It's however you WANT to believe it.
Oh, yes he did Lookout. He said she was a nutter that she knew how to use the weapons and that his father has said 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's go the gun'. Orchestrated from the off.
-
when the relatives handed the silencer in there must have been some record made of weather there was blood on the outside or not.
-
Oh, yes he did Lookout. He said she was a nutter that she knew how to use the weapons and that his father has said 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's go the gun'. Orchestrated from the off.
Maybe in your mind------------but not in mine.
-
Oh, yes he did Lookout. He said she was a nutter that she knew how to use the weapons and that his father has said 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's go the gun'. Orchestrated from the off.
From the moment he called the police from his cottage to arriving outside the farm, all his words did was implicate Sheila - and that's the case whether he is guilty or innocent.
-
Maybe in your mind------------but not in mine.
I'm aware that you don't agree Lookout.
-
From the moment he called the police from his cottage to arriving outside the farm, all his words did was implicate Sheila - and that's the case whether he is guilty or innocent.
Exactly!
-
I'm sorry,but if your life depended on mentioning that a relative had a mental illness,you'd say something or would you take it on the chin knowing that you were the innocent one,acting all infra-dig ? I doubt it. Not that it made any difference to JB for having told them as much information as he could.
The case was twisted beyond all recognition,making out that schizophrenics don't kill ( without medication ) except that NOBODY knew that bit.
But he threw in little oddments such as her just coming out of hospital and having been diagnosed as a PS/depressive(?). I would call that as close to implicating her as makes no difference and I think you're playing semantics here.
He didn't " implicate " Sheila as such. He'd explained that she " wasn't well ",in his own words because he didn't know exactly what was wrong with her. It was obviously part of his interpretation relating to his father's call,as nobody who's normal threatens their family with a gun/rifle.
Anyone would have mentioned about Sheila,but it doesn't equate to implicating her. It's however you WANT to believe it.
OK. so I've got the posts in the wrong order. YOU said Jeremy didn't implicate Sheila. I gave examples of where he did. YOU then make excuses for why he did. Call it what you like, Lookout, ie suggestion by osmosis, subliminal messaging, implicit suggestions or good old fashioned implication. It all amounts to the same thing which was a lot more damning than just saying she wasn't well.
-
He'd have said it to alert the police because of the various guns/rifles which were kept at the premises.
What if he hadn't have said anything and they'd been met with someone firing from the bedroom window ? He'd have been held over the coals for not letting on. Either way,he couldn't win against those who wanted to see the back of him.
-
He'd have said it to alert the police because of the various guns/rifles which were kept at the premises.
What if he hadn't have said anything and they'd been met with someone firing from the bedroom window ? He'd have been held over the coals for not letting on. Either way,he couldn't win against those who wanted to see the back of him.
The deceased don't fire guns, Lookout..................other than in horror movies.
-
The deceased don't fire guns, Lookout..................other than in horror movies.
So you knew she was dead too ? What time had she been killed ?
-
So you knew she was dead too ? What time had she been killed ?
'COURSE I didn't.........................but Jeremy did.
-
establishing weather the relatives are telling the truth about the silencer should be easy there should be a record of what was on the outside when it was handed in.
-
establishing weather the relatives are telling the truth about the silencer should be easy there should be a record of what was on the outside when it was handed in.
??? On the outside of what, Nugs ???
-
when the relatives handed the silencer in there must have been some record made of weather there was blood on the outside or not.
Jones took it because of it looked like it had blood on it. He didn't want the scope and bullets because there was nothing on them that looked like blood. If it didn't have anything on it he likely would not have even been willing to take it. After Julie came forward they were much more willing to take whatever potential evidence they could to examine.
-
OK. so I've got the posts in the wrong order. YOU said Jeremy didn't implicate Sheila. I gave examples of where he did. YOU then make excuses for why he did. Call it what you like, Lookout, ie suggestion by osmosis, subliminal messaging, implicit suggestions or good old fashioned implication. It all amounts to the same thing which was a lot more damning than just saying she wasn't well.
He didn't tell police that after her 1983 treatment she had one episode as a result of not taking her medication so was put on injections. He told them she would have episodes at a moments notice implying it happened frequently. The whole way in which he approached the issue was contrived as opposed to a loving brother.
Telling police she would shoot him if she saw him was obviously calculated as well. not only did he exaggerate her mental problems and violent tendencies though he lied about her having fired all the weapons in the house and having been trained to use the murder weapon.
-
Say what you like but NOBODY saw this coming. Sheila had part of her medication intramuscularly simply because she couldn't be trusted to take it orally ( what does that tell you ?),and as it was,what bit of Haldol she had left in her system was as good as useless when she was smoking heavily on cannabis ( hence her nicotine-stained fingers ) which would have counteracted any anti-psychotic medication.
Jeremy only found out about the extent of her illness by reading up about it in prison,and the police wouldn't have known,they're only just learning about mental illness now 30 years on !!
-
Jones took it because of it looked like it had blood on it. He didn't want the scope and bullets because there was nothing on them that looked like blood. If it didn't have anything on it he likely would not have even been willing to take it. After Julie came forward they were much more willing to take whatever potential evidence they could to examine.
but surely when the sent it for testing the knew weather it had blood on the outside or not.
-
He didn't tell police that after her 1983 treatment she had one episode as a result of not taking her medication so was put on injections. He told them she would have episodes at a moments notice implying it happened frequently. The whole way in which he approached the issue was contrived as opposed to a loving brother.
Telling police she would shoot him if she saw him was obviously calculated as well. not only did he exaggerate her mental problems and violent tendencies though he lied about her having fired all the weapons in the house and having been trained to use the murder weapon.
How do you know she only had one episode, no offence but how can anyone know that?
-
Say what you like but NOBODY saw this coming. Sheila had part of her medication intramuscularly simply because she couldn't be trusted to take it orally ( what does that tell you ?),and as it was,what bit of Haldol she had left in her system was as good as useless when she was smoking heavily on cannabis ( hence her nicotine-stained fingers ) which would have counteracted any anti-psychotic medication.
Jeremy only found out about the extent of her illness by reading up about it in prison,and the police wouldn't have known,they're only just learning about mental illness now 30 years on !!
She smoked pot before she traveled to WHF. The tox tests revealed none was active in her system there was just the background remnants which revealed she used it 4-7 days prior. There is no evidence of it inhibiting the Haldol even when she was actively smoking it but there was no possibility of it doing anything to her many days after. this is just something you made up because you are are desperate to pretend Sheila did it and that your great guy Jeremy didn't.
It wouldn't matter if she was off her Haldol she still could not have done it. If she killed everyone else then there would have been evidence on her body proving it and it is impossible for her to have killed herself.
You excuse all of Jeremy's lies which he had no reason to tell other than if he was responsible and all the evidence that matters simply deciding you don't think he would do it and that Sheila would. That is your simplistic position even as you try to dress it up with other things like the fake claim Sheila used pot around the time of the murders and it would have prevented her Haldol from working. Her doctor said using it days earlier would not do so.
-
How do you know she oh had one episode, no offence but how can anyone know that?
There is only one episode that was reported after she left the hospital in 1983. The record thus establishes only one episode. The burden of proof of proving she had more rests with those who want to establish it.
Various made up things like the monastery claim were used to try to pretend there were more instances but the only documented ones are the 2 that resulted in her hospitalizations.
The month before police changed gears they tried finding evidence of Sheila having episodes and all they could find were those 2 that resulted in her hospitalizations. The defense would have liked to find more instances but didn't either.
So we are stuck with the record.
-
Say what you like but NOBODY saw this coming. Sheila had part of her medication intramuscularly simply because she couldn't be trusted to take it orally ( what does that tell you ?),and as it was,what bit of Haldol she had left in her system was as good as useless when she was smoking heavily on cannabis ( hence her nicotine-stained fingers ) which would have counteracted any anti-psychotic medication.
Jeremy only found out about the extent of her illness by reading up about it in prison,and the police wouldn't have known,they're only just learning about mental illness now 30 years on !!
Lookout, I don't know what is your yard-stick for Sheila "smoking heavily on cannabis" as the autopsy didn't seem to present a heavy dependence on it - I recall my own fingers being stained with nicotine from bog standard baccy- and Jeremy seemed to have a good enough working knowledge of her illness long before he was in prison.
-
what wer the relatives hoping to find when they looked in the cupboard in the first place
-
She smoked pot before she traveled to WHF. The tox tests revealed none was active in her system there was just the background remnants which revealed she used it 4-7 days prior. There is no evidence of it inhibiting the Haldol even when she was actively smoking it but there was no possibility of it doing anything to her many days after. this is just something you made up because you are are desperate to pretend Sheila did it and that your great guy Jeremy didn't.
It wouldn't matter if she was off her Haldol she still could not have done it. If she killed everyone else then there would have been evidence on her body proving it and it is impossible for her to have killed herself.
You excuse all of Jeremy's lies which he had no reason to tell other than if he was responsible and all the evidence that matters simply deciding you don't think he would do it and that Sheila would. That is your simplistic position even as you try to dress it up with other things like the fake claim Sheila used pot around the time of the murders and it would have prevented her Haldol from working. Her doctor said using it days earlier would not do so.
Who's desperate ? Only those who are arguing against me as far as I can see. I couldn't give a flying **** one way or the other.
Doctors aren't right ALL of the time you know. There'll always be margins of error,as in this case where mental illness is concerned and the doctor didn't give much away because of patient confidentiality.
However,the focus was only on Jeremy anyway because there were two people who couldn't speak and about a dozen who made up for that fact,who'd pretended to know the family when they only met once a year if they were lucky. It was they who made things up to keep the focus on Jeremy which suited EP.
-
what wer the relatives hoping to find when they looked in the cupboard in the first place
I think the answer to that is ANYTHING the police might have missed, which could prove useful. I believe they said as much.
-
why did they think the police had missed anything.
-
Lookout, I don't know what is your yard-stick for Sheila "smoking heavily on cannabis" as the autopsy didn't seem to present a heavy dependence on it - I recall my own fingers being stained with nicotine from bog standard baccy- and Jeremy seemed to have a good enough working knowledge of her illness long before he was in prison.
I've been smoking for years but you wouldn't think so. However,her lungs were also congested,which would account for her heavier smoking during the last 12 months before her death.
I'd imagine that Jeremy read up about schizophrenia,which he very probably knew nothing about.
-
Who's desperate ? Only those who are arguing against me as far as I can see. I couldn't give a flying **** one way or the other.
Doctors aren't right ALL of the time you know. There'll always be margins of error,as in this case where mental illness is concerned and the doctor didn't give much away because of patient confidentiality.
However,the focus was only on Jeremy anyway because there were two people who couldn't speak and about a dozen who made up for that fact,who'd pretended to know the family when they only met once a year if they were lucky. It was they who made things up to keep the focus on Jeremy which suited EP.
So what it amounts to is this? EVERY expert in their field, YEARS of experience between them, regarding Sheila's mental health, is wrong. Lookout, who did some psych nursing as part of her ongoing training, is right?
-
I've been smoking for years but you wouldn't think so. However,her lungs were also congested,which would account for her heavier smoking during the last 12 months before her death.
I'd imagine that Jeremy read up about schizophrenia,which he very probably knew nothing about.
He couldn't lose then, could he? If HE with a mentally ill sister knew nothing about her illness, I think it safe to say that those police present weren't too well versed in it either.
-
what wer the relatives hoping to find when they looked in the cupboard in the first place
Boutflour was putting something away inside of the closet when he found the items. The family was cleaning the place up so going through everything. Cock was going through everything of value and leaving the rest for the family to take care of. Some of the Jewelry wasn't June's it belonged to Granny so that stuff was not taken by Cock. He didn't care about the gun items either.
-
so he wasnt looking for ethere but he managed to find one wich makes it all the more odd the police dident.
-
Boutflour was putting something away inside of the closet when he found the items. The family was cleaning the place up so going through everything. Cock was going through everything of value and leaving the rest for the family to take care of. Some of the Jewelry wasn't June's it belonged to Granny so that stuff was not taken by Cock. He didn't care about the gun item's either.
Boutflour says in his statement he was checking all the firearms which is why he went into the gun cupboard and that is when he found the moderator in the cardboard box.
-
so he wasnt looking for ethere but he managed to find one wich makes it all the more odd the police dident.
Not odd at all since he decided to go through the whole closet and look at everything whereas police didn't.
-
so he wasnt looking for ethere but he managed to find one wich makes it all the more odd the police dident.
Do you think the police should have turned out the contents of every box they found, Nugs? Why would they have been looking for ANYTHING when they believed it was murder/suicide. The rellies had a different mind set.
-
So what it amounts to is this? EVERY expert in their field, YEARS of experience between them, regarding Sheila's mental health, is wrong. Lookout, who did some psych nursing as part of her ongoing training, is right?
Haven't you personally met with any " mistaken diagnosis " at all ? If not then you can't possibly understand how doctors can get things wrong,even with mental illnesses.
Sheila could quite possibly have been wrongly diagnosed and with that comes the wrong treatment to treat something that wasn't there in the first place.
The way that Sheila had smoked,latterly,even ordinary cigarettes would have reduced the effectiveness of the Haldol,let alone with cannabis as well,and with other prescription drugs not being in her body at her time of death,it would have appeared that for at least 72 hours,she hadn't taken any medication,deeming her as being culpable for what happened as her original symptoms would have returned with a vengeance.
-
Do you think the police should have turned out the contents of every box they found, Nugs? Why would they have been looking for ANYTHING when they believed it was murder/suicide. The rellies had a different mind set.
well if we belive the relatives just stumbled upon it without looking for it shouldent the police have managed to.
-
well if we belive the relatives just stumbled upon it without looking for it shouldent the police have managed to.
I would say so,nugs. It's a load of hooey. I don't remember it being tested for fingerprints ?
-
Haven't you personally met with any " mistaken diagnosis " at all ? If not then you can't possibly understand how doctors can get things wrong,even with mental illnesses.
Sheila could quite possibly have been wrongly diagnosed and with that comes the wrong treatment to treat something that wasn't there in the first place.
The way that Sheila had smoked,latterly,even ordinary cigarettes would have reduced the effectiveness of the Haldol,let alone with cannabis as well,and with other prescription drugs not being in her body at her time of death,it would have appeared that for at least 72 hours,she hadn't taken any medication,deeming her as being culpable for what happened as her original symptoms would have returned with a vengeance.
Lookout, the key word here is "COULD" which can also be applied to almost every person who has ever been convicted. There is no proof of any of what you say -for starters, had there been the slightest chance of her doing violence she wouldn't have been released- nor have I heard your particular claims made by others. However, even allowing for your claims to be valid, it doesn't prove that Sheila was the killer.
-
Lookout, the key word here is "COULD" which can also be applied to almost every person who has ever been convicted. There is no proof of any of what you say -for starters, had there been the slightest chance of her doing violence she wouldn't have been released- nor have I heard your particular claims made by others. However, even allowing for your claims to be valid, it doesn't prove that Sheila was the killer.
Where's the evidence that Jeremy was the killer-------hearsay and suspicions aside.
-
Where's the evidence that Jeremy was the killer-------hearsay and suspicions aside.
I imagine that Jeremy himself provided that evidence by the way he behaved. Say what you like about people trying to frame him -and I DO believe that some may have had an agenda- Jeremy's own behaviour assisted them every step of the way. Let's just say he didn't go out of his way to make it difficult for then to do.
-
I imagine that Jeremy himself provided that evidence by the way he behaved. Say what you like about people trying to frame him -and I DO believe that some may have had an agenda- Jeremy's own behaviour assisted them every step of the way. Let's just say he didn't go out of his way to make it difficult for then to do.
What's behaviour got to do with anything ? EP didn't go out of their way either,to focus anywhere else,nor did they bother with the N&J debacle which BW had reported as they were fixated on scoring points, and or promotions for securing their longed-for conviction after such bad press.
-
What's behaviour got to do with anything ? EP didn't go out of their way either,to focus anywhere else,nor did they bother with the N&J debacle which BW had reported as they were fixated on scoring points, and or promotions for securing their longed-for conviction after such bad press.
Lookout, where else COULD they focus? According to Jeremy, a "PANICKED" Neville had rung him around 3am to tell him that Sheila -(mentally ill)- had gone mad and had got hold of one of his guns, added to which Jeremy had been the last person to see the family alive. Who would believe that a girl, said to be immaculately devoid of the detritus of others' deaths, had killed them all before shooting herself TWICE? Whatever N&J debacle BW at some moment reported, doesn't make Jeremy innocent and adds nothing to the plausibility of Sheila being guilty.
-
Where's the evidence that Jeremy was the killer-------hearsay and suspicions aside.
Jeremy was convicted based on:
1) Evidence that Jeremy lied about numerous things which he only would have lied about if he were the killer
2) Evidence that Sheila can't have killed anyone or herself
3) Evidence that Nevill couldn't and wouldn't have made the call Jeremy claims Nevill made to him
4) Evidence Jeremy had been planning to kill them for quite some time and admitted he was responsible.
You ignore all the evidence because you don't want to face it that just means you are living in denial.
-
I would say so,nugs. It's a load of hooey. I don't remember it being tested for fingerprints ?
well fingerprints wouldent prove whoevers they were it would only prove they touched it.
-
well fingerprints wouldent prove whoevers they were it would only prove they touched it.
As usual lookout has no idea what she is talking about. Not only was it tested for fingerprints it subsequently was super glue fumed. The hope was to find Sheila's prints on it so that they could say there was evidence she removed the moderator and put it away. They found no prints though because the killer wore gloves.
-
Haven't you personally met with any " mistaken diagnosis " at all ? If not then you can't possibly understand how doctors can get things wrong,even with mental illnesses.
Sheila could quite possibly have been wrongly diagnosed and with that comes the wrong treatment to treat something that wasn't there in the first place.
The way that Sheila had smoked,latterly,even ordinary cigarettes would have reduced the effectiveness of the Haldol,let alone with cannabis as well,and with other prescription drugs not being in her body at her time of death,it would have appeared that for at least 72 hours,she hadn't taken any medication,deeming her as being culpable for what happened as her original symptoms would have returned with a vengeance.
I agree, professionals will more often than not close ranks, there is no doubt this happens in the medical profession and elsewhere, it's how the establishment operates . Most people have experienced this to a greater or lesser extent imo.
-
Jeremy was convicted based on:
1) Evidence that Jeremy lied about numerous things which he only would have lied about if he were the killer
2) Evidence that Sheila can't have killed anyone or herself
3) Evidence that Nevill couldn't and wouldn't have made the call Jeremy claims Nevill made to him
4) Evidence Jeremy had been planning to kill them for quite some time and admitted he was responsible.
You ignore all the evidence because you don't want to face it that just means you are living in denial.
Lied or lapse of memory ( considering he was the ONLY one concerned for the loss of his family ) ? How could he remember anything if he wasn't there ? Would YOU think straight if you'd lost all your family in one fell swoop ? No wonder Jeremy took off.
Brothers/sisters ? Any of them crying at the funeral ? I'd be devastated and in an unholy mess if my brother died.
Killers remember every last detail without faltering so it's firmly fixed in their minds each time they're questioned as most killers have offended before in some way so know the spiel as well as the system. Daft Jeremy was naïve and rattled off what he did know,or thought he knew,but it was those " thoughts " that the police used for their own ends in saying that" he'd lied " when he hadn't.
It's only when you've been in such a situation yourself that you too would feel embittered ( though I must say that Jeremy isn't ) A few years ago,I'd received a threat for having reported someone for slashing the tyres on my daughter's car.The perpetrator,a known criminal,had been questioned and thus threatened me for reporting him.
My case was reviewed by the CPS,then thrown out ? It was ME who felt like a criminal until some joker rang to ask if I wanted " victim support " to which I told him to go to Hell. Hence my attitude towards the police. I told them I was selling up and moving somewhere where this ass**** couldn't find me and their answer was " yes,that's a good idea " !! Which is hilarious if it hadn't been so serious.
My advice is that if you see any trouble---------------walk away from it or you'll get roped in and be worse off for reporting/intervening.
-
Slashing the tyres of you're daughters car ?
Was he a big time criminal then ?
-
Haven't you personally met with any " mistaken diagnosis " at all ? If not then you can't possibly understand how doctors can get things wrong,even with mental illnesses.
Sheila could quite possibly have been wrongly diagnosed and with that comes the wrong treatment to treat something that wasn't there in the first place.
The way that Sheila had smoked,latterly,even ordinary cigarettes would have reduced the effectiveness of the Haldol,let alone with cannabis as well,and with other prescription drugs not being in her body at her time of death,it would have appeared that for at least 72 hours,she hadn't taken any medication,deeming her as being culpable for what happened as her original symptoms would have returned with a vengeance.
This just isn't true Lookout, and she was taking anti-psychotic medication. You can't get passed that and such bold unsubstantiated claims are not helping your argument.
-
As usual lookout has no idea what she is talking about. Not only was it tested for fingerprints it subsequently was super glue fumed. The hope was to find Sheila's prints on it so that they could say there was evidence she removed the moderator and put it away. They found no prints though because the killer wore gloves.
So the killer wore gloves ? Fibres,then ?
-
As usual lookout has no idea what she is talking about. Not only was it tested for fingerprints it subsequently was super glue fumed. The hope was to find Sheila's prints on it so that they could say there was evidence she removed the moderator and put it away. They found no prints though because the killer wore gloves.
as it had been handled by god knows how many people they wuldent find any prints of intrest.
-
So the killer wore gloves ? Fibres,then ?
Rubber gloves? Fibres??
-
This just isn't true Lookout, and she was taking anti-psychotic medication. You can't get passed that and such bold unsubstantiated claims are not helping your argument.
Oh yes it IS true. Sheila was NOT taking her other medication since arriving at WHF.Enough time for it to have cleared out of the system save for the remains of the Haldol which,being reduced anyway,left her in a pretty chronic situation.
-
Rubber gloves? Fibres??
Even rubber gloves would have left their mark.
-
Even rubber gloves would have left their mark.
Not certain where this is going, Lookout. If you believe Sheila was the shooter, why would it occur to her to wear rubber gloves? Jeremy could have worn them, washed them and disposed of them very easily.
-
Wasn't there a rubber glove knocking around ? If so,why haven't we heard any more about it ?
-
Wasn't there a rubber glove knocking around ? If so,why haven't we heard any more about it ?
There may well have been but it isn't unheard of for rubber gloves to be worn to do housework in.
-
There may well have been but it isn't unheard of for rubber gloves to be worn to do housework in.
hello lookout
I remember steve uk posted that an empty marigold bag was found in one of the nearby fields don't think he provided a source :'(
-
hello lookout
I remember steve uk posted that an empty marigold bag was found in one of the nearby fields don't think he provided a source :'(
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Jeremy was convicted based on:
1) Evidence that Jeremy lied about numerous things which he only would have lied about if he were the killer
2) Evidence that Sheila can't have killed anyone or herself
3) Evidence that Nevill couldn't and wouldn't have made the call Jeremy claims Nevill made to him
4) Evidence Jeremy had been planning to kill them for quite some time and admitted he was responsible.
You ignore all the evidence because you don't want to face it that just means you are living in denial.
i know this defendants one defendants witneses just get mixed up.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D xxxx
Hahaha Maggie we gave steve uk a hard time over that empty bag poor guy he disappeared and he came back a changed man ;D ;D ;D
-
hello lookout
I remember steve uk posted that an empty marigold bag was found in one of the nearby fields don't think he provided a source :'(
Well that settles that. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well that settles that. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well, Lookout, we can discuss all the things an empty Marigold packet could mean.
A. Absolutely nothing. It escaped from the bin men when they collected.
B. Sheila used brand new gloves to commit the murders and took the packet outside in case it was found.
C. Someone en route to WHF with murderous intentions opened the packet, and carelessly threw it down.
D. One of the farmhands packed their sarnies in it and forgot to take it home.
Howzat!!!!! Feel free to add to it ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, Lookout, we can discuss all the things an empty Marigold packet could mean.
A. Absolutely nothing. It escaped from the bin men when they collected.
B. Sheila used brand new gloves to commit the murders and took the packet outside in case it was found.
C. Someone en route to WHF with murderous intentions opened the packet, and carelessly threw it down.
D. One of the farmhands packed their sarnies in it and forgot to take it home.
Howzat!!!!! Feel free to add to it ;D ;D ;D
Well at least EP could/should have fingerprinted it.All adds to the clues. ;D ;D
AE's fault for going through the bin,she must have overlooked it,tut tut. ::)
-
Well that settles that. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahaha lookout I must ask steve when he comes on where he got that information from. Has a thread been started on the subject if not soon one will be ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahaha lookout I must ask steve when he comes on where he got that information from. Has a thread been started on the subject if not soon one will be ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
He'd have worn his diving gloves to match the wet-suit. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He'd have worn his diving gloves to match the wet-suit. ;D ;D ;D ;D
lookout you forgot the flippers ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'd imagine that just one silencer wouldn't be enough if more than one worker was using a rifle at the same time.
1) You are ignoring the evidence of how many moderators Nevill owned instead making wild assumptions of how many he owned
2) You are not even basing your assumptions on sound evidence of how many rifles were at WHF.
There was only one rifle at WHF- the murder weapon. The only other rifle was a pellet gun not a real firearm. The other firearms were shotguns.
-
lookout you forgot the flippers ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oooops,so I did. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
1) You are ignoring the evidence of how many moderators Nevill owned instead making wild assumptions of how many he owned
2) You are not even basing your assumptions on sound evidence of how many rifles were at WHF.
There was only one rifle at WHF- the murder weapon. The only other rifle was a pellet gun not a real firearm. The other firearms were shotguns.
I'm going to make another wild assumption. Did anyone think to fingerprint the phone which SOMEONE ( other than Jeremy ) hid beneath the magazines ?
-
I'm going to make another wild assumption. Did anyone think to fingerprint the phone which SOMEONE ( other than Jeremy ) hid beneath the magazines ?
No.
I suspect they could find finger prints from several people. It has been known for people to use a phone.
-
I'm going to make another wild assumption. Did anyone think to fingerprint the phone which SOMEONE ( other than Jeremy ) hid beneath the magazines ?
Jeremy was hardly a stranger in the house so it would have come as no surprise to find his finger prints, along with those of June, Neville, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel, the farm secretary and the cleaner.
-
No.
I suspect they could find finger prints from several people. It has been known for people to use a phone.
The one which was unplugged ? Which would have had fresh prints on it ? No excuses please.
-
Oooops,so I did. ;D ;D ;D ;D
BTW,it was Bob Woffinden who originally made the suggestion of the wearing of the wetsuit. ::) I bet he feels a fool now.
-
The one which was unplugged ? Which would have had fresh prints on it ? No excuses please.
Fresh prints ? I have never heard of that before.
Well the defence or prosecution didn't ask about that. Whether his fingerprints were on it or not is neither here or there. He may have worn gloves. If his finger prints were on there he would just say he was often at WHF.
-
The one which was unplugged ? Which would have had fresh prints on it ? No excuses please.
Yeah, the cleaners prints would have been on it, it was her who moved the magazines but there would be nothing unusual in finding Jeremy's prints on it.
-
Yeah, the cleaners prints would have been on it, it was her who moved the magazines but there would be nothing unusual in finding Jeremy's prints on it.
Fresh prints ? He wasn't living there at the time ?
-
I don't remember reading that Mrs Boutell moved it ?
-
Fresh prints ? He wasn't living there at the time ?
Neither were the cleaner and the secretary, or Sheila and the twins.
-
Neither were the cleaner and the secretary, or Sheila and the twins.
So who hid it and when,as it must have been done after the lightening strike whoever was there at the time. ? It would have appeared that there'd been plenty of fingerprinting dust everywhere ( as remarked by Basil Cock ) but not a lot of fingerprinting recorded of what belonged to whom.
-
I'm going to make another wild assumption. Did anyone think to fingerprint the phone which SOMEONE ( other than Jeremy ) hid beneath the magazines ?
Jeremy is the one who hid it there.
He is the one who:
1) Lied and claimed the kitchen phone was broken so the bedroom phone was moved to replace it
2) Hid the phone so no one would know that it wasn't broken like he claimed
3) lied when the unbroken kitchen phone was found claiming it was just an extra phone not the kitchen phone
Late June a BT engineer was called to fix the phones. He said the kitchen phone was tested and found to be in working order. In July he was called back because they said the upstairs office phone was having reception problems so he replaced it. If any of the other phones had a problem then he would have been told about it. This also demonstrates that when there was a real problem with the phone that was discovered by June or Nevill they called and complained to the phone company.
June and Nevill had no idea what happened to the kitchen phone because Jeremy is the one who hid it and thus didn't call to have it fixed since they didn't know where it was or what happened to it. It was removed from the bedroom only after Sheila arrived thus Jeremy did it in anticipation of the murders. He didn't want a phone in their bedroom so that they could call police before he could kill them both.
After the murders Jeremy asserted it was broken so replaced with the bedroom phone further demonstrating he is the one who did it because he was well aware of the change. He further lied when the real kitchen phone he hid was found by claiming it was an extra phone. He said extra because he knew it wasn't broken so if he said it was the broken phone then he would have been caught in a lie. But he was caught in a lie anyway because Barbara and Jean both knew he was lying and that it was the kitchen phone which he previously told them was broken.
-
You tell a fine tale. What is worrying is that you've convinced yourself that you're right.
-
You tell a fine tale. What is worrying is that you've convinced yourself that you're right.
It is not a tale it is what the evidence established happened.
Here is the phone company agent about the phones:
(http://s17.postimg.org/t46aoi0xb/btelecom.jpg)
(http://s13.postimg.org/6s51u15yf/btelecom2.jpg)
Here is the person who took the cordless phone away while Sheila was visiting because they didn't want it anymore and he took the 2 way splitter as well so it was no longer possible to plug 2 phones in the kitchen, he noted the cream rotary phone normally in the bedroom was in the kitchen at the time he removed the cordless phone so that proves it was moved to the kitchen prior to the murders.
(http://s1.postimg.org/ogmzisean/corlessphone1.jpg)
(http://s10.postimg.org/ovps69r7d/cordlessphone2.jpg)
Here is where it is recounted that Jeremy lied and said the hidden phone was an extra phone though they never had an extra phone it was the phone normally kept in the kitchen and how he had previously claimed the bedroom phone was moved to the kitchen because the kitchen phone was broken
(http://s28.postimg.org/5mcog14q5/phonejb.jpg)
Barbara wilson
(http://s22.postimg.org/79z09tuqp/phonesbw.jpg)
So what seems rather obvious is that in anticipation of the murders Jeremy moved the bedroom phone to the kitchen and lied and stated the kitchen phone was broken and he hid it.
He continued to tell that lie to people after the murders including to Jean. Upon Jean finding the kitchen phone which he had hidden she tested it and found out it worked and then asked him why it was hidden. He told her it was just a spare phone not to worry about it. But she later thought about it and realized it was the kitchen phone which he had told her was broken.
Barbara also recognized it as the kitchen phone and she also tested it and found it working and chose to use it instead of the dial phone for the remainder of the time she worked at WHF.
Why would Jeremy lie about the phone being broken?
Why would Jeremy lie about the hidden phone that he claimed was broken but actually wasn't just being a spare phone?
The answer is obvious and it is not good for Jeremy supporters like you. While you can willingly close your eyes to evidence you can't force other people to do so and that is a big roadblock when trying to establish Jeremy's innocence to others.
-
You seem to forget that there were also others inside the farmhouse who would have been quite capable of hiding the phone.Why blame Jeremy ? Talk about giving a dog a bad name,everyone had him hung drawn and quartered as soon as this tragedy occurred. Nobody bothered to investigate any further,and to my mind it's NOT a case of " beyond reasonable doubt " at all.There are too many anomalies and unanswered questions.It's a farce.
I'm not the one who's blind or blinkered !!
-
You seem to forget that there were also others inside the farmhouse who would have been quite capable of hiding the phone.Why blame Jeremy ? Talk about giving a dog a bad name,everyone had him hung drawn and quartered as soon as this tragedy occurred. Nobody bothered to investigate any further,and to my mind it's NOT a case of " beyond reasonable doubt " at all.There are too many anomalies and unanswered questions.It's a farce.
I'm not the one who's blind or blinkered !!
There is a reason why Jeremy would hide the phone, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. Suggesting it might have been Sheila contradicts the notion that she killed everyone in a psychotic episode.
-
You seem to forget that there were also others inside the farmhouse who would have been quite capable of hiding the phone.Why blame Jeremy ? Talk about giving a dog a bad name,everyone had him hung drawn and quartered as soon as this tragedy occurred. Nobody bothered to investigate any further,and to my mind it's NOT a case of " beyond reasonable doubt " at all.There are too many anomalies and unanswered questions.It's a farce.
I'm not the one who's blind or blinkered !!
No everyone didn't have him hung drawn and quartered as soon as it happened, they thought it was murder suicide by Sheila, they didn't bother to investigate any further because Bamber had led them to believe that. Whether you agree with it or not the investigation was a shambles led by Taff Jones who Jeremy's supporters hold in high esteem. He earned his own bad name afterwards.
-
There are threads on the police investigation.
They couldn't change direction until evidence of the crime scene was processed. Which took time. This showed Sheila could not have committed the massacre.
They also got lucky with Julie's approach after a month and the silencer results from the lab, around the same time.
Until they had all this evidence they had to assume it was murder/suicide. The only witness was Jeremy who said he received a phone call from Neville and that Sheila was a 'nutter' who could fire guns.
They also needed to do checks on Jeremy and see if there was a motive and had to look for circumstantial evidence. As well as do checks on Sheila.
Can't blame them for not finding the silencer. However the disposal of items was too soon.
If people blame the police early on, then Taff Jones must take the blame.
-
You seem to forget that there were also others inside the farmhouse who would have been quite capable of hiding the phone.Why blame Jeremy ? Talk about giving a dog a bad name,everyone had him hung drawn and quartered as soon as this tragedy occurred. Nobody bothered to investigate any further,and to my mind it's NOT a case of " beyond reasonable doubt " at all.There are too many anomalies and unanswered questions.It's a farce.
I'm not the one who's blind or blinkered !!
So was it Sheila, in a moment of lucidity from her psychosis, who stole into her parents bedroom and removed the phone, suggesting that she may have previously planned the whole thing down to the last detail OR was it the police who decided it would be fun to see if they could incriminate ANYONE rather than Sheila, despite initially believing it was her.
-
So was it Sheila, in a moment of lucidity from her psychosis, who stole into her parents bedroom and removed the phone, suggesting that she may have previously planned the whole thing down to the last detail OR was it the police who decided it would be fun to see if they could incriminate ANYONE rather than Sheila, despite initially believing it was her.
In actual fact,there's a simple enough explanation for the phone to have been hidden under a pile of magazines. Farmhouses by their very nature are places of work,particularly living/dining areas,pantries and other rooms off the main kitchen area.
Because people were in and out,coming and going,it would have been the hardest place to have kept tidy and free from disruption so stuff would be moved from one chair to another and so on. More than likely after the telephone engineer had gone,arrangements of where to put what phone where,began as they were one phone down which was being repaired.
Maybe mid-job it had been forgotten so clothes/mags/newspapers were piled on the chair,with the phone forgotten about under an array of items which had been moved from one place to another.
Noticeably,there were a couple of newspapers on the breakfast table whicvh could have originated from the heap on the chair in which the phone lay hidden.
No doubt nobody knew where the damn thing was so therefore took the one from the bedroom to use in the kitchen.
It was Mrs Boutell who'd called them " musical phones " because she never knew where they'd be from one week to another,so it's NO mystery that the phone was missing. When I first saw a pic of the kitchen/butlers pantry,I remember remarking that a cat wouldn't find its kittens in that mess,so it's no wonder nobody couldn't find anything.
It's just that it suits the scenario of the conviction that most say Jeremy hid it,that's all. There's nothing sinister attached to its " disappearance ". It's all in your minds. Keep taking the tablets. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In actual fact,there's a simple enough explanation for the phone to have been hidden under a pile of magazines. Farmhouses by their very nature are places of work,particularly living/dining areas,pantries and other rooms off the main kitchen area.
Because people were in and out,coming and going,it would have been the hardest place to have kept tidy and free from disruption so stuff would be moved from one chair to another and so on. More than likely after the telephone engineer had gone,arrangements of where to put what phone where,began as they were one phone down which was being repaired.
Maybe mid-job it had been forgotten so clothes/mags/newspapers were piled on the chair,with the phone forgotten about under an array of items which had been moved from one place to another.
Noticeably,there were a couple of newspapers on the breakfast table whicvh could have originated from the heap on the chair in which the phone lay hidden.
No doubt nobody knew where the damn thing was so therefore took the one from the bedroom to use in the kitchen.
It was Mrs Boutell who'd called them " musical phones " because she never knew where they'd be from one week to another,so it's NO mystery that the phone was missing. When I first saw a pic of the kitchen/butlers pantry,I remember remarking that a cat wouldn't find its kittens in that mess,so it's no wonder nobody couldn't find anything.
It's just that it suits the scenario of the conviction that most say Jeremy hid it,that's all. There's nothing sinister attached to its " disappearance ". It's all in your minds. Keep taking the tablets. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Certainly, in and of itself, it offers an explanation, but can't be taken in isolation. Taking other variables into consideration suggests that it isn't the case.
-
Certainly, in and of itself, it offers an explanation, but can't be taken in isolation. Taking other variables into consideration suggests that it isn't the case.
It could be the case that the phone was slimply mislaid, we are told this kind of thing happened a lot by J Boutell and the bedroom phone was often used in the kitchen, there is a possibility the phone wasn't hidden but mislaid imo
-
Certainly, in and of itself, it offers an explanation, but can't be taken in isolation. Taking other variables into consideration suggests that it isn't the case.
It does depend on the context of these " variables ".If they fit a conviction,then it's bingo for EP,but I'm in no way happy about it at all.
-
It does depend on the context of these " variables ".If they fit a conviction,then it's bingo for EP,but I'm in no way happy about it at all.
Lookout, are you saying that none of the variables fit ANY of the evidence OR are you saying, that in YOUR opinion, they don't?
-
You seem to forget that there were also others inside the farmhouse who would have been quite capable of hiding the phone.Why blame Jeremy ? Talk about giving a dog a bad name,everyone had him hung drawn and quartered as soon as this tragedy occurred. Nobody bothered to investigate any further,and to my mind it's NOT a case of " beyond reasonable doubt " at all.There are too many anomalies and unanswered questions.It's a farce.
I'm not the one who's blind or blinkered !!
Other people had no reason to unplug and hide a perfectly working phone and to replace it with the bedroom phone.
Jeremy is clearly the one who did such not only because he had motive but is evidenced by him KNOWING about the replacement and FALSELY claiming the replacement occurred because the phone broken and then after it was found FALSELY claiming it was just a spare phone.
The only reason he would lie is if he was the one who unplugged the perfectly working phone and hid it.
-
It could be the case that the phone was slimply mislaid, we are told this kind of thing happened a lot by J Boutell and the bedroom phone was often used in the kitchen, there is a possibility the phone wasn't hidden but mislaid imo
Your opinion like Lookouts is grounded in pure bias. You profess your objectivity but never display any it is simply lip service.
It is not plausible for the phone to have been unplugged, the cord wound around it and then buried under magazines by accident. The phone was deliberately unplugged and replaced with the bedroom phone. Anytime June or Nevill had a problem with a phone they had a repair person come to replace same or repair them. They had the cordless phone and phone from the upper office replaced because they had static reception issues. The phone was replaced by Jeremy and that is how:
1) Jeremy knew about it
2) Why the phone company was not contacted to come repair/replace it
If Jeremy didn't hide it and simply left it there the phone company would have been contacted and would have come and said the phone was fine and plugged it back in. The others might have checked it themselves before even calling the phone company if they simply found it sitting.
Jeremy said the phone was broken and implied it had been taken away which he was able to do since it was hidden.
When it was found he lied and denied it was the missing kitchen phone,, why would he lie unless he was the one who hid it and didn't want anyone to realize he lied about it being broken?
This is one of those issues where Jeremy supporters are anything but objective and instead go out of their way trying to make excuses for Jeremy and don't even realize they are doing it because it is so second nature to just make such excuses.
-
Your opinion like Lookouts is grounded in pure bias. You profess your objectivity but never display any it is simply lip service.
It is not plausible for the phone to have been unplugged, the cord wound around it and then buried under magazines by accident. The phone was deliberately unplugged and replaced with the bedroom phone. Anytime June or Nevill had a problem with a phone they had a repair person come to replace same or repair them. They had the cordless phone and phone from the upper office replaced because they had static reception issues. The phone was replaced by Jeremy and that is how:
1) Jeremy knew about it
2) Why the phone company was not contacted to come repair/replace it
If Jeremy didn't hide it and simply left it there the phone company would have been contacted and would have come and said the phone was fine and plugged it back in. The others might have checked it themselves before even calling the phone company if they simply found it sitting.
Jeremy said the phone was broken and implied it had been taken away which he was able to do since it was hidden.
When it was found he lied and denied it was the missing kitchen phone,, why would he lie unless he was the one who hid it and didn't want anyone to realize he lied about it being broken?
This is one of those issues where Jeremy supporters are anything but objective and instead go out of their way trying to make excuses for Jeremy and don't even realize they are doing it because it is so second nature to just make such excuses.
No it's not scipio, I use words like 'possible' , May, possibility that does not show bias it shows an open mind. I do not just stick rigidly to either side, I am UNSURE.
-
In actual fact,there's a simple enough explanation for the phone to have been hidden under a pile of magazines. Farmhouses by their very nature are places of work,particularly living/dining areas,pantries and other rooms off the main kitchen area.
Because people were in and out,coming and going,it would have been the hardest place to have kept tidy and free from disruption so stuff would be moved from one chair to another and so on. More than likely after the telephone engineer had gone,arrangements of where to put what phone where,began as they were one phone down which was being repaired.
Maybe mid-job it had been forgotten so clothes/mags/newspapers were piled on the chair,with the phone forgotten about under an array of items which had been moved from one place to another.
Noticeably,there were a couple of newspapers on the breakfast table whicvh could have originated from the heap on the chair in which the phone lay hidden.
No doubt nobody knew where the damn thing was so therefore took the one from the bedroom to use in the kitchen.
It was Mrs Boutell who'd called them " musical phones " because she never knew where they'd be from one week to another,so it's NO mystery that the phone was missing. When I first saw a pic of the kitchen/butlers pantry,I remember remarking that a cat wouldn't find its kittens in that mess,so it's no wonder nobody couldn't find anything.
It's just that it suits the scenario of the conviction that most say Jeremy hid it,that's all. There's nothing sinister attached to its " disappearance ". It's all in your minds. Keep taking the tablets. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Once again you ignore the facts to just make up excusable.
The only phone they were down was the cordless phone which they decided to get rid of. They had Pike take that phone away. The BT operator would bring phones with him and replace them when he was there. He did so only with the upstairs phones he found the kitchen phone (which was later hidden under magazines) to be in perfect working order. No phone was moved to the kitchen because it had been in perfect working order the upstairs phones are the ones that were damaged. The only phone downstairs that had a problem was the cordless phone that they got rid of.
There was zero reason for anyone to unplug the perfectly working kitchen phone, to wrap the cord around it, leave it on the counter so that it could end up buried by others and to replace it with the bedroom phone. The phone was not broken and if June or Nevill had found that it was broken and decided to replace it with the bedroom phone then they would have called the phone company to have them replace it but they did not do so. They called the phone company two times in June and July but not because of the kitchen phone. They called the person they bought the cordless phone from multiple times to fix the cordless phone but didn't call anyone about the kitchen phone.
The only reason to unplug the kitchen phone, wrap the cord around it and then replace it with the bedroom phone would be in order to remove the bedroom phone from the bedroom so it was not available for use in the bedroom. The person who did this could not simply leave the phone out in plain view as someone would test it or call the phone company to test it so hid it. Until it was found the phone company could not be called to come fix it. The only reason to make sure there was no phone in the bedroom would be so the killer could be sure that police would not be summoned if the parents woke up upon hearing the killer on the ground level or one tried using the phone as the other were being shot. The only person with a motive to remove the phone was the killer.
There is considerable evidence that the killer was Jeremy. There is also direct evidence that Jeremy moved the phone beyond simply he must have since he was the killer. Jeremy lied about why it was moved he claimed it was broken and thus replaced with the bedroom phone. When it was found and determined to be in working order he further lied and claimed it was simply an extra phone not the missing kitchen phone. He would not have told these lies unless he were the one who moved and hid it.
-
Lookout, are you saying that none of the variables fit ANY of the evidence OR are you saying, that in YOUR opinion, they don't?
In my opinion,they don't. They're too orchestrated.
-
No it's not scipio, I use words like 'possible' , May, possibility that does not show bias it shows an open mind. I do not just stick rigidly to either side, I am UNSURE.
The following scenario which comes from Jeremy supporters has a lot of maybes but still is lacking in plausibility and thus objectivity:
Maybe the phone really did break but then mysteriously fixed itself as it sat unplugged in the kitchen and June and Nevill never got around to calling the phone company and the phone got buried naturally..
Maybe June decided to replace the bedroom phone with the dial phone because she liked it better and decided to forego a bedroom phone instead of placing the digital kitchen phone in the bedroom and the unused digital phone got buried naturally.
Maybe Sheila planned the murders days in advance and removed the bedroom phone early Monday in anticipation of such and hid it.
In the meantime all except one of these maybes fail to account for Jeremy's lie about the phone being broken (except the maybe which posits it was broken but mysteriously fixed itself) and all fail to account for Jeremy's lie about it being simply a spare phone when it was found.
These maybes are being invented simply to try to find ways to protect Jeremy not being created for objective reasons.
-
In my opinion,they don't. They're too orchestrated.
Well, surely, in order to be orchestrated, they have to fit. That you think they're TOO orchestrated is entirely different.
-
Anyone with the knowhow and wherewithall ( EP ) can make anything fit a certain scenario " when all else fails ".
-
Anyone with the knowhow and wherewithall ( EP ) can make anything fit a certain scenario " when all else fails ".
Using the above as evidence of malpractice we could release all the current residents of our prisons.
-
In actual fact,there's a simple enough explanation for the phone to have been hidden under a pile of magazines. Farmhouses by their very nature are places of work,particularly living/dining areas,pantries and other rooms off the main kitchen area.
Because people were in and out,coming and going,it would have been the hardest place to have kept tidy and free from disruption so stuff would be moved from one chair to another and so on. More than likely after the telephone engineer had gone,arrangements of where to put what phone where,began as they were one phone down which was being repaired.
Maybe mid-job it had been forgotten so clothes/mags/newspapers were piled on the chair,with the phone forgotten about under an array of items which had been moved from one place to another.
Noticeably,there were a couple of newspapers on the breakfast table whicvh could have originated from the heap on the chair in which the phone lay hidden.
No doubt nobody knew where the damn thing was so therefore took the one from the bedroom to use in the kitchen.
It was Mrs Boutell who'd called them " musical phones " because she never knew where they'd be from one week to another,so it's NO mystery that the phone was missing. When I first saw a pic of the kitchen/butlers pantry,I remember remarking that a cat wouldn't find its kittens in that mess,so it's no wonder nobody couldn't find anything.
It's just that it suits the scenario of the conviction that most say Jeremy hid it,that's all. There's nothing sinister attached to its " disappearance ". It's all in your minds. Keep taking the tablets. ;D ;D ;D ;D
But the phone wasn't just on a chair with stuff piled on it, it was 'wedged' between papers and magazines!!
-
But the phone wasn't just on a chair with stuff piled on it, it was 'wedged' between papers and magazines!!
Haven't we been round this loop before, Caroline? ;D ;D
-
Well, surely, in order to be orchestrated, they have to fit. That you think they're TOO orchestrated is entirely different.
EP had set the scene for what they thought had happened-----------not what ACTUALLY did happen,as none of them were there as it happened either.
-
EP had set the scene for what they thought had happened-----------not what ACTUALLY did happen,as none of them were there as it happened either.
Jeremy set the scene and he WAS THERE!!
-
Jeremy set the scene and he WAS THERE!!
Any un-contaminated and forensic proof ?
-
Any un-contaminated and forensic proof ?
This has been answered more than once! However, apparently to make a claim, you don't need proof :o :o :o ;D ;)
-
This has been answered more than once! However, apparently to make a claim, you don't need proof :o :o :o ;D ;)
But I'm waiting for FORENSIC proof ! Stop evading a perfectly simple question.
-
But I'm waiting for FORENSIC proof ! Stop evading a perfectly simple question.
I'm waiting for you to post proof of your claims - stop evading the question.
Forensic proof? The lack of residue on Sheila and the fact that she would have had to hold the rifle at 90 degrees for the lower shot - even with the silencer OFF, it wouldn't be possible.
-
Lookout asked me to post what forensic evidence showed Sheila was not the killer. On 'a postage stamp'.
I posted 15 points. But got no response.
-
Lookout asked me to post what forensic evidence showed Sheila was not the killer. On 'a postage stamp'.
I posted 15 points. But got no response.
probably because you are on ignore.
-
probably because you are on ignore.
She must have everyone on ignore, because many people have answered her question numerous times.
I'm waiting for you to post proof of your claims - stop evading the question.
Forensic proof? The lack of residue on Sheila and the fact that she would have had to hold the rifle at 90 degrees for the lower shot - even with the silencer OFF, it wouldn't be possible.
The angle of the weapon for the second shot is a good point, one that I don't think is mentioned enough.
-
She must have everyone on ignore, because many people have answered her question numerous times.
The angle of the weapon for the second shot is a good point, one that I don't think is mentioned enough.
The lower shot is the first shot (non-fatal one)
Without the moderator it's unclear whether she would be able to fire the gun at nearly a 90 degree angle at non-contact range. So far as I can tell no one tested it to see. Since they knew the moderator was attached they simply tested it with the moderator. Even if possible it is an unlikely to attempt. The natural thing to do is lean into the muzzle which makes it easier to activate the trigger and also to control the weapon.
-
The lower shot is the first shot (non-fatal one)
Without the moderator it's unclear whether she would be able to fire the gun at nearly a 90 degree angle at non-contact range. So far as I can tell no one tested it to see. Since they knew the moderator was attached they simply tested it with the moderator. Even if possible it is an unlikely to attempt. The natural thing to do is lean into the muzzle which makes it easier to activate the trigger and also to control the weapon.
Ah, thanks, Scip. :-[
And good point in bold.