Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on July 11, 2015, 11:47:AM
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PP255&lpg=PP255&dq=The+Murders+at+White+House+Farm+read&source=bl&ots=h7KmLHRnPl&sig=Mq-fJTjV015NHZ2BOWq7GlxUSEY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pz2gVba6EeXW7QaXzYjADg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=The%20Murders%20at%20White%20House%20Farm%20read&f=false
-
are thankyou
-
The police interviews are available online. They were even in Wilkes's 1996 book.
I hope there is some new good information in the book. Backed up by sources.
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PP255&lpg=PP255&dq=The+Murders+at+White+House+Farm+read&source=bl&ots=h7KmLHRnPl&sig=Mq-fJTjV015NHZ2BOWq7GlxUSEY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pz2gVba6EeXW7QaXzYjADg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=The%20Murders%20at%20White%20House%20Farm%20read&f=false
Caroline thanks for the link sounds like the book will be worth reading have ordered it on Amazon and look forward to reading more.
-
Caroline thanks for the link sounds like the book will be worth reading have ordered it on Amazon and look forward to reading more.
I hope you don't find it boring like Wilkes's book.
-
I hope you don't find it boring like Wilkes's book.
Adam how can I find a book written by A Yorkshire Lass like myself boring ;D ;D ;D ;D it will be brilliant she has great reviews :)
-
If these authors got to the " heart " of the matter,there'd be no necessity for 320 pages. As Prince Philip said--------" get on with it ",or words to that effect.
I'd already read it.
-
that was quick lookout.
-
There's a lot in it I recognize as having been said here. The background work is excellent.
-
. The background work is excellent.
"There's a lot in it I recognize as having been said here"
So therefore any one of us could write a book depending on which stance you take ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It would be good to read something we don't know though.
But will give it a read .
Its quite hard for any author to be totally unbiased. For example if someones testimony is 5 hours long - how do you pick out which parts are relevant?
And it would be interesting to know sources - Did she have access to the full court transcripts ? Or is she using newspaper reports/books as her source?
-
I can't see there being much difference in what we already know,seeing that the author has met with the relatives and Jeremy himself. Though whether CAL has been privy to unseen documents which Jeremy has in his possession,we don't know.
-
"There's a lot in it I recognize as having been said here"
So therefore any one of us could write a book depending on which stance you take ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Some may already have, Lookout ;)
-
Some may already have, Lookout ;)
I wonder where she first learned that the incident with a terrified meter man never happened. Pure fiction, as is the story that Sheila fled hysterically from the Greek Monastery she never visited. I wonder, if like I, she pondered on the abject cruelty of defaming a girl who was mentally ill.
-
I wonder where she first learned that the incident with a terrified meter man never happened. Pure fiction, as is the story that Sheila fled hysterically from the Greek Monastery she never visited. I wonder, if like I, she pondered on the abject cruelty of defaming a girl who was mentally ill.
Where did the " meter man " story come from in the first place ?
-
Where did the " meter man " story come from in the first place ?
Like much else I've read here, lookout, I wonder.
-
Any truth in the individual who threw bullets at Neville's car and threatened they'd be " real " next time ?
What was that about ?
-
Any truth in the individual who threw bullets at Neville's car and threatened they'd be " real " next time ?
What was that about ?
Knowing the individual involved, Lookout, I can't, in all honesty, say it ISN'T true, nor can I begin to guess at the reasons for it.
-
Knowing the individual involved, Lookout, I can't, in all honesty, say it ISN'T true, nor can I begin to guess at the reasons for it.
I wonder if that incident is contained in the new book. Or the black eyes ? We'll wait and see.
-
"There's a lot in it I recognize as having been said here"
So therefore any one of us could write a book depending on which stance you take ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
As Prince Philip said--------" get on with it ",or words to that effect. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Any truth in the individual who threw bullets at Neville's car and threatened they'd be " real " next time ?
What was that about ?
What about it? It has nothing to do with the murders - it's been said many times before but you keep bringing it back up. It has to either be Sheila or JEREMY because of the phone call!!
-
What about it? It has nothing to do with the murders - it's been said many times before but you keep bringing it back up. It has to either be Sheila or JEREMY because of the phone call!!
I'm referring to whether it was " another myth " or not,that's all. On the other hand,how would you know it had nothing to do with the murders ?
-
Thanks for posting Caroline, looking forward to getting my teeth into this and the other book on my hols.
-
http://www.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/reader/9780283072222?fromssl=true
A lot of information on the book is here.
It seems Jeremy is focusing on Sheila being alive when everyone was outside. Although he has never said why she would wait until the raid team entered. Thread already created.
-
I'm referring to whether it was " another myth " or not,that's all. On the other hand,how would you know it had nothing to do with the murders ?
Lookout, I think we can all rest assured that it didn't.
-
It says Jeremy went to Gresham's at 9.
-
What about it? It has nothing to do with the murders - it's been said many times before but you keep bringing it back up. It has to either be Sheila or JEREMY because of the phone call!!
I don't think the phone call is the only reason - because there could be a very remote possibility that someone wanted the whole family dead and was forcing Neville to make the call to get Jeremy to come to the house. But I think it is pretty obvious that in that case there would not be an alleged "fake suicide".
-
http://www.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/reader/9780283072222?fromssl=true
A lot of information on the book is here.
It seems Jeremy is focusing on Sheila being alive when everyone was outside. Although he has never said why she would wait until the raid team entered. Thread already created.
Adam thank you for the link wonder if Carol Ann is on the guilty stance or don't know stance or MOJ
-
I can't see there being much difference in what we already know,seeing that the author has met with the relatives and Jeremy himself. Though whether CAL has been privy to unseen documents which Jeremy has in his possession,we don't know.
It says she saw previously unpublished documents. She needs to clarify which documents, how she got them and what was in them for her account to be well supported by these supposed documents.
-
It says she saw previously unpublished documents. She needs to clarify which documents, how she got them and what was in them for her account to be well supported by these supposed documents.
She says there's a bibliography.
-
She says there's a bibliography.
good - that may add more weight to the book.
-
Where did the " meter man " story come from in the first place ?
A fictional work entitled "An Innocent Man" and it was also picked up by Lomax.
I pointed out long ago 2 things.
1) no one has produced this alleged witness statement. The claim is that a witness gave a statement but police never shared it with the defense thus the allegation is it was one of the documents turned over by police after the courts ordered release of more documents. So this is nothing more than an unsupported allegation.
2) Even if the claims were true it makes no difference because the claims simply were that Sheila was alone in the house so had the door locked (which alone is a suspicious claim), the meter man unlocked the door and walked in and surprised her and she shouted at this stranger she never met to get out and chased him to his car. Many people will chase strangers out of the house. This is not strange behavior attributable to having mental illness. It fails to demonstrate she was still having delusions despite being on her medication.
In the legal field we often engage in exercises saying even if we accept claims as true and view them in the light most favorable of the person making the claims what would be the implication. In this instance the implication is meaningless so it doesn't matter whether the claim is true or not.
If it was made up then some pro Jeremy person made it up to give the impression that right before the murders she was having delusions despite her medication.
-
A fictional work entitled "An Innocent Man" and it was also picked up by Lomax.
I pointed out long ago 2 things.
1) no one has produced this alleged witness statement. The claim is that a witness gave a statement but police never shared it with the defense thus the allegation is it was one of the documents turned over by police after the courts ordered release of more documents. So this is nothing more than an unsupported allegation.
2) Even if the claims were true it makes no difference because the claims simply were that Sheila was alone in the house so had the door locked (which alone is a suspicious claim), the meter man unlocked the door and walked in and surprised her and she shouted at this stranger she never met to get out and chased him to his car. Many people will chase strangers out of the house. This is not strange behavior attributable to having mental illness. It fails to demonstrate she was still having delusions despite being on her medication.
In the legal field we often engage in exercises saying even if we accept claims as true and view them in the light most favorable of the person making the claims what would be the implication. In this instance the implication is meaningless so it doesn't matter whether the claim is true or not.
If it was made up then some pro Jeremy person made it up to give the impression that right before the murders she was having delusions despite her medication.
It was stated that the statement was not revealed until 2003. And yes it was in Shaws book.
-
It was stated that the statement was not revealed until 2003. And yes it was in Shaws book.
No evidence was posted in support and no name even was used for this person which is a good indication it was likely made up because when real you will name the person so people can look for the statement and also look to speak to the person to see whether they will comment.
-
It was stated that the statement was not revealed until 2003. And yes it was in Shaws book.
Hello Jan
have you any idea where I can find this book An Innocent Man can't find it on the internet.
-
Hello Jan
have you any idea where I can find this book An Innocent Man can't find it on the internet.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1268.0.html
-
I'm referring to whether it was " another myth " or not,that's all. On the other hand,how would you know it had nothing to do with the murders ?
Because the phone call Jeremy CLAIMED to have received makes the murderer either himself or Sheila.
-
I don't think the phone call is the only reason - because there could be a very remote possibility that someone wanted the whole family dead and was forcing Neville to make the call to get Jeremy to come to the house. But I think it is pretty obvious that in that case there would not be an alleged "fake suicide".
Who in their right mind would make such a call and risk him calling the police? (Although in this case, there was no fear of that). They would be caught fairly quickly had he done so.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1268.0.html
Hi Scipio
thanks for the link was this Shaw guy an actual writer I cannot find him anywhere on the internet.
-
Hope everyone noted that the bang on the head was mentioned and it was bad enough for June to worry about he being taken away from her! Also that Jeremy also told CAL that he now has most of what was held under PII - telt yers! :P
-
Hope everyone noted that the bang on the head was mentioned and it was bad enough for June to worry about he being taken away from her! Also that Jeremy also told CAL that he now has most of what was held under PII - telt yers! :P
" Most " ? Not good enough. ;D
-
" Most " ? Not good enough. ;D
He's got what he wanted and still nothing have surfaced!!
-
He's got what he wanted and still nothing have surfaced!!
It'll be in the ones he didn't get ;D Surreptitiously selected.
-
It'll be in the ones he didn't get ;D Surreptitiously selected.
If there really was a widespread conspiracy, the police wouldn't keep evidence of it in boxes.
-
It'll be in the ones he didn't get ;D Surreptitiously selected.
Oh it will be in there - I can tell you what it is right now ........ It's a GREAT BIG FAT ZERO!!
-
If there really was a widespread conspiracy, the police wouldn't keep evidence of it in boxes.
Yeah! Who is going to set someone up for murder and leave documents stating how they did it and then keep them for 30 years? Even Nixon had the sense to start 'shredding' ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If there really was a widespread conspiracy, the police wouldn't keep evidence of it in boxes.
Hello Mat
I was just reflecting on these hidden documents surely if any document incriminated EP they would just shred it ;D ;D ;D not hide it.
-
Yeah! Who is going to set someone up for murder and leave documents stating how they did it and then keep them for 30 years? Even Nixon had the sense to start 'shredding' ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahaha Caroline great minds think alike Shredding ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yeah! Who is going to set someone up for murder and leave documents stating how they did it and then keep them for 30 years? Even Nixon had the sense to start 'shredding' ;D ;D ;D ;D
And risk them ending up in someone's garage from where, after there'd been some kind of contratemps, they could end up in the hands of some third party who could bring down the whole pack of playing cards...................if they ever got round to reading them.
-
Who in their right mind would make such a call and risk him calling the police? (Although in this case, there was no fear of that). They would be caught fairly quickly had he done so.
Even if someone were to dial Jeremy's number for Nevill and hand the phone to him telling him to summon Jeremy the pertinent question is how could the person trust Nevill not to tell Jeremy the name of who was there with a weapon figuring Nevill was going to be killed anyway so might as well let Jeremy know who is responsible and also to prevent Jeremy from becoming a victim as well by suckering him there.
-
Hahaha Caroline great minds think alike Shredding ;D ;D ;D ;D
They would have to be REALLY stupid to keep incriminating evidence but I can't even think of what evidence they COULD have that would exonerate Jeremy? The Guilford Four, found that statements backing up their alibi had not been disclosed to the defence and it was also proven that various other statements had been heavily altered. We know that Colin's statement was altered (slightly) in this case but he found out before the trial and no one has come forward and claimed they had theirs altered.
Loopholes and technicalities is all that's been found and claimed here.
-
They would have to be REALLY stupid to keep incriminating evidence but I can't even think of what evidence they COULD have that would exonerate Jeremy? The Guilford Four, found that statements backing up their alibi had not been disclosed to the defence and it was also proven that various other statements had been heavily altered. We know that Colin's statement was altered (slightly) in this case but he found out before the trial and no one has come forward and claimed they had theirs altered.
Loopholes and technicalities is all that's been found and claimed here.
Caroline thanks for that I did not know about Colin's statement being altered.
-
They would have to be REALLY stupid to keep incriminating evidence but I can't even think of what evidence they COULD have that would exonerate Jeremy? The Guilford Four, found that statements backing up their alibi had not been disclosed to the defence and it was also proven that various other statements had been heavily altered. We know that Colin's statement was altered (slightly) in this case but he found out before the trial and no one has come forward and claimed they had theirs altered.
Loopholes and technicalities is all that's been found and claimed here.
I would have thought that the moment the conviction was secured, anything -EVERYTHING- which had a whiff of something not quite above board, would have been destroyed, be it shredded or burned. Perhaps they had a celebratory bonfire party and cremated it.
-
Caroline thanks for that I did not know about Colin's statement being altered.
Can't remember exactly what it was but something was changed.
-
I would have thought that the moment the conviction was secured, anything -EVERYTHING- which had a whiff of something not quite above board, would have been destroyed, be it shredded or burned. Perhaps they had a celebratory bonfire party and cremated it.
Perhaps 'it's' been folded into a little square and is (as we speak), being used to prop up the leg of an old desk in police head quarters? :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If there really was a widespread conspiracy, the police wouldn't keep evidence of it in boxes.
Yeah forget PII. conspiracies are planned without paperwork.
-
Yeah forget PII. conspiracies are planned without paperwork.
Given that this alleged conspiracy seems to have swelled to a cast of thousands, no ONE person could have afforded to commit anything to paper for fear of bringing down co-conspirators, and that's just those who were known to them. As the tentacles of this alleged conspiracy allegedly stretch far and wide it's highly likely that no one, save perhaps Mr Big, whoever HE was, knew all who were involved.
-
Yeah forget PII. conspiracies are planned without paperwork.
The argument that a conspiracy could be unfolded by having the PII material, just shows they don't know what PII is.
-
I don't think the phone call is the only reason - because there could be a very remote possibility that someone wanted the whole family dead and was forcing Neville to make the call to get Jeremy to come to the house. But I think it is pretty obvious that in that case there would not be an alleged "fake suicide".
Maybe it was the burglar who didn't take anything. Or the psychopath who just happened to be near WHF at 2am, and able to enter and exit undetected. ;D
-
The apparent unseen documents is a strange one for supporters.
They say the documents are being withheld because they have information that could free him. But obviously have no proof of this as the documents are unseen.
The documents are simply being withheld under PPI. Bamber's legal team have failed to get a court order to get access to these documents. Although Bamber still has millions of documents which Carol Ann Lee says he goes through every day. Enjoy.
-
Any documents that highlighted police corruption would have been shredded. If the police are going to be corrupt, then they would have no hesitation in disposing the evidence. It's called covering yourself.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html
CAL is saying Bamber is guilty.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html
CAL is saying Bamber is guilty.
Thanks Adam you are a wee pal ;D Lots to read I see :)
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html
CAL is saying Bamber is guilty.
So ? Doesn't mean a thing. She doesn't know any more than WE do !!
-
So ? Doesn't mean a thing. She doesn't know any more than WE do !!
But you'd have been telling a different story had she proclaimed him innocent, wouldn't you, Lookout?
-
The forensic and circumstantial evidence shows Jeremy is guilty and Sheila did not commit the massacre.
The only way CAL could come to a different conclusion is if her research showed the evidence had been deliberately falsified and there had been a mass conspiracy.
-
But you'd have been telling a different story had she proclaimed him innocent, wouldn't you, Lookout?
Damn right!
-
Comment from the psychiatrist engaged by the defence team ‘If ever there was a psychopath, it’s Jeremy Bamber.’
-
But you'd have been telling a different story had she proclaimed him innocent, wouldn't you, Lookout?
But I know she wouldn't/couldn't have,either way.
-
Comment from the psychiatrist engaged by the defence team ‘If ever there was a psychopath, it’s Jeremy Bamber.’
Interesting that he also mentions "his very real belief that he didn't do it" because that's one of the points I put to Colin after reading his book.
-
Who's been saying that all psychopaths don't kill ??
Nothing to say that Jeremy isn't a psychopath,but there's also nothing to say that he killed everyone either just because he's been " branded " as one.
-
But I know she wouldn't/couldn't have,either way.
But that has nothing to do with the point I made, Lookout. Simply saying "But I know she wouldn't/couldn't have, either way" not only smacks of sour grapes, it doesn't address how your reaction may have been if an author stated very clearly that they believed Jeremy was innocent. However vehement you may be about his innocence, your belief alone won't get him out. You need the back up of those whose voices can be heard. As of now, they seem to be in short supply.
-
Who's been saying that all psychopaths don't kill ??
Nothing to say that Jeremy isn't a psychopath,but there's also nothing to say that he killed everyone either just because he's been " branded " as one.
Just a coincidence eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html
CAL is saying Bamber is guilty.
Didn't think much of that article to be honest. It does raise doubts in the reader's mind as to Bamber's moral character and psychology. But this is achieved by an accumulated mud-slinging - throwing stones at waterhen chicks etc. Now it could be that people genuinely did witness incidents of behaviour over the years that caused them concern... but it's stil not a very balanced article. If she had wanted to intelligently convince people of Bamber's guilt, she could have worked with journalists regarding the exposure of genuine police mistakes that have explanations which are not sinister. Though I think that would be a more risky strategy, as it's an area generally mired in controversy.
-
Who's been saying that all psychopaths don't kill ??
Nothing to say that Jeremy isn't a psychopath,but there's also nothing to say that he killed everyone either just because he's been " branded " as one.
Going along those lines we may just as well open the prison doors of every psychopath who's ever been convicted of murder.
-
But that has nothing to do with the point I made, Lookout. Simply saying "But I know she wouldn't/couldn't have, either way" not only smacks of sour grapes, it doesn't address how your reaction may have been if an author stated very clearly that they believed Jeremy was innocent. However vehement you may be about his innocence, your belief alone won't get him out. You need the back up of those whose voices can be heard. As of now, they seem to be in short supply.
The only people coming up with so called new excus ....opps I mean 'evidence' is Jeremy and the CT. Now they have the PII stuff, there is little they can claim and if they can't come up with anything NEW for any intended submissions then this is the last chance saloon.
Two writers studied the case, one started off thinking he was innocent - they BOTH concluded he's guilty. None of this will help his cause.
-
Didn't think much of that article to be honest. It does raise doubts in the reader's mind as to Bamber's moral character and psychology. But this is achieved by an accumulated mud-slinging - throwing stones at waterhen chicks etc. Now it could be that people genuinely did witness incidents of behaviour over the years that caused them concern... but it's stil not a very balanced article. If she had wanted to intelligently convince people of Bamber's guilt, she could have worked with journalists regarding the exposure of genuine police mistakes that have explanations which are not sinister. Though I think that would be a more risky strategy, as it's an area generally mired in controversy.
She could certainly find her knuckles rapped for taking that path but I take your point about her saying he was cruel to animals. I COULD be another of those tales akin to the non existent meter man and the non existent visit to the monastery.
-
Didn't think much of that article to be honest. It does raise doubts in the reader's mind as to Bamber's moral character and psychology. But this is achieved by an accumulated mud-slinging - throwing stones at waterhen chicks etc. Now it could be that people genuinely did witness incidents of behaviour over the years that caused them concern... but it's stil not a very balanced article. If she had wanted to intelligently convince people of Bamber's guilt, she could have worked with journalists regarding the exposure of genuine police mistakes that have explanations which are not sinister. Though I think that would be a more risky strategy, as it's an area generally mired in controversy.
I guess she doesn't want to give too much of the book away. I'm sure that's not the only reason why she believes he's guilty.
-
The only people coming up with so called new excus ....opps I mean 'evidence' is Jeremy and the CT. Now they have the PII stuff, there is little they can claim and if they can't come up with anything NEW for any intended submissions then this is the last chance saloon.
Two writers studied the case, one started off thinking he was innocent - they BOTH concluded he's guilty. None of this will help his cause.
It'll be interesting to read PH's take on it but I hope he can come up with something other than a replication of what CAL has said.
-
Going along those lines we may just as well open the prison doors of every psychopath who's ever been convicted of murder.
A problem with a lot of people is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. ???
-
So CAL has " re-investigated ? What,exactly ?
-
So CAL has " re-investigated ? What,exactly ?
Only a guess this mind but, I'd say she went through the evidence and spoke to those involved? ;D ;D She also discussed the case with Jeremy and found much the same as I did.
-
An author who goes above and beyond a retired detective ? Another former police officer and investigative journalist ? The woman must have spent most of her time with the relatives I imagine !
-
An author who goes above and beyond a retired detective ? Another former police officer and investigative journalist ? The woman must have spent most of her time with the relatives I imagine !
Well, I doubt that but read the book - you might learn something to your advantage. I suspect you won't read either.
-
Well, I doubt that but read the book - you might learn something to your advantage. I suspect you won't read either.
Oh I'll buy it and read it,as afterall, it's only her verdict.
-
A problem with a lot of people is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. ???
What makes Jeremy different, Lookout. Surely what you are saying of him others have the same right to.
-
What makes Jeremy different, Lookout. Surely what you are saying of him others have the same right to.
Yes---------------and ?
-
Oh I'll buy it and read it,as afterall, it's only her verdict.
and the verdict of the court!
-
and the verdict of the court!
Do you always believe the courts ? ::) Dearie me.
-
Do you always believe the courts ? ::) Dearie me.
Just like you do, Lookout. When we think it appropriate ;D
-
I guess she doesn't want to give too much of the book away. I'm sure that's not the only reason why she believes he's guilty.
I'm not so sure. I suppose we will find out when the book is read.
-
A few pages before CAL's " rendition " of WHF,there's a story about " The Mockery of Justice ",which includes an NHS doctor ( children's brain surgeon ) snorting cocaine before going on duty. ::)
Laughable,if it wasn't so serious.
-
Saying of Sheila----------" she had a wild social life that resulted in a £40,000 debt linking her to a string of country house burglaries ??" Where the devil did that come from ?
-
Saying of Sheila----------" she had a wild social life that resulted in a £40,000 debt linking her to a string of country house burglaries ??" Where the devil did that come from ?
The gossip machine which would have been ripe at the time.
-
From The Mail on Sunday
Carol Ann Lee, "Now I know Bamber did it"
Better late than never I suppose. ching ching (http://images.zaazu.com/img/clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-medium.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/NyXRTjj.jpg?1)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html
-
when we read the book do you think it would be at all possible to have an adult discussion about anything new that is revealed? ( if there is anything new)
If so I am willing to post - but if it is going to be mud slinging nastiness then I am out.
-
when we read the book do you think it would be at all possible to have an adult discussion about anything new that is revealed? ( if there is anything new)
If so I am willing to post - but if it is going to be mud slinging nastiness then I am out.
There is nothing new directly related to the murders, just a load of triviality used as padding.
-
From The Mail on Sunday
Carol Ann Lee, "Now I know Bamber did it"
Better late than never I suppose. ching ching (http://images.zaazu.com/img/clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-medium.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/NyXRTjj.jpg?1)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html
This is only her verdict/opinion,but continue to follow it if you so wish,nobody's stopping you.
-
Saying of Sheila----------" she had a wild social life that resulted in a £40,000 debt linking her to a string of country house burglaries ??" Where the devil did that come from ?
Clearly, the dead can't sue for libel.
-
This is only her verdict/opinion,but continue to follow it if you so wish,nobody's stopping you.
No ta lookout, I made my own mind up long ago.
-
There is nothing new directly related to the murders, just a load of triviality used as padding.
I might use that line-"I'm not fat, just padded with a lot of triviality"!
I'll get my coat.........
-
No ta lookout, I made my own mind up long ago.
It has been evident.
-
The gossip machine which would have been ripe at the time.
Speaking of which, I have a book entitled "The Essex Triangle" by David Thurlow. I quote from the Bamber section and capitals are my own:- "Police searched for the silencer for three days without finding it. Bamber's cousin, David Boutflour was in the house FOR THREE MINUTES before he found it in the gun cupboard. FORENSIC TESTS SHOWED BAMBI'S HAIR ON IT. But how? Police took two days to come and collect the silencer and on the way to the laboratory managed to lose a vital clue: A GREY HAIR on the silencer WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY BELONGED TO BAMBI"
I think you'll agree that he may have used a little licence here -much like some of what is said on form!!!!- but whilst I feel the urge to hail DB as the hero of the hour...........NOT, although it isn't impossible for a 27 year old to have the odd colourless hair, to find ONE out of a total of approximately 120,000, stuck to a silencer, would be more of a miracle than a coincidence. FURTHER, to have forensic tests PROVE it to be Sheila's BEFORE forensic tests were done has to be an even greater miracle. I guess its subsequent loss was of no moment if they already knew from whose head it had originated.
-
when we read the book do you think it would be at all possible to have an adult discussion about anything new that is revealed? ( if there is anything new)
If so I am willing to post - but if it is going to be mud slinging nastiness then I am out.
I'd like to!
I will be taking the books on my holiday with me. Two weeks away starting the 27th. When I come back I should have finished them both and be fully armed! ;D
The gossip machine which would have been ripe at the time.
40k drug debt, what a load of shit!! ;D
I did like the article though, it's yet another person who has had actual contact with Bamber AND looked into the case and come to the clear and obvious conclusion.
I am hoping the new books will be good enough to convince you, Jan. (xxxx did that sound like Adam?) :-[
-
[quote author=mat link=topic=6811.msg314964#msg314964 date=143670615 (Fuck did that sound like Adam?)
[/quote]
Heaven forbid :o :o :o :o :o
-
So many conflicting stories though. It's just not cricket when you have a murder case as big as this one was at the time.
-
Speaking of which, I have a book entitled "The Essex Triangle" by David Thurlow. I quote from the Bamber section and capitals are my own:- "Police searched for the silencer for three days without finding it. Bamber's cousin, David Boutflour was in the house FOR THREE MINUTES before he found it in the gun cupboard. FORENSIC TESTS SHOWED BAMBI'S HAIR ON IT. But how? Police took two days to come and collect the silencer and on the way to the laboratory managed to lose a vital clue: A GREY HAIR on the silencer WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY BELONGED TO BAMBI"
I think you'll agree that he may have used a little licence here -much like some of what is said on form!!!!- but whilst I feel the urge to hail DB as the hero of the hour...........NOT, although it isn't impossible for a 27 year old to have the odd colourless hair, to find ONE out of a total of approximately 120,000, stuck to a silencer, would be more of a miracle than a coincidence. FURTHER, to have forensic tests PROVE it to be Sheila's BEFORE forensic tests were done has to be an even greater miracle. I guess its subsequent loss was of no moment if they already knew from whose head it had originated.
The police didn't search for the silencer. It was murder/suicide. Why would they be looking for a silencer ?
-
The book seems well researched.
She gives a history of WHF before Neville and June were even born. But that isn't bringing anything new as regards to the massacre.
-
How can there be anything new when there's been a " blackout " concerning new evidence being prepared for the forthcoming submission ?
-
How can there be anything new when there's been a " blackout " concerning new evidence being prepared for the forthcoming submission ?
That's funny, I can just see the CCRC response this time. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/daze-male-cross-eye-dizzy-smiley-emoticon-000296-medium.gif) (http://images.zaazu.com/img/crying-smiley-sad-male-cry-tears-smiley-emoticon-000352-medium.gif)
-
That's funny, I can just see the CCRC response this time. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/daze-male-cross-eye-dizzy-smiley-emoticon-000296-medium.gif) (http://images.zaazu.com/img/crying-smiley-sad-male-cry-tears-smiley-emoticon-000352-medium.gif)
Oh,another one who's got a crystal ball,eh ?
-
Oh,another one who's got a crystal ball,eh ?
You don't need a crystal ball to realise that he won't be getting out but you do need rose tinted glasses to think he might! ;)
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=0peiVZXHGMTkUtuRsOgF&url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25686362-the-murders-at-white-house-farm&ved=0CDcQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFPKVEmIw9f2_oIsXJhK4iIS0qQSw&sig2=L1MW44oj2haDFvQIISsyHQ
Here are some reviews of the book.
-
I'd like to!
I will be taking the books on my holiday with me. Two weeks away starting the 27th. When I come back I should have finished them both and be fully armed! ;D
40k drug debt, what a load of shit!! ;D
I did like the article though, it's yet another person who has had actual contact with Bamber AND looked into the case and come to the clear and obvious conclusion.
I am hoping the new books will be good enough to convince you, Jan. (xxxx did that sound like Adam?) :-[
I am afraid it did Mat. :(
-
How can there be anything new when there's been a " blackout " concerning new evidence being prepared for the forthcoming submission ?
personally even if there are interviews with family etc I cant see any of them saying anything that they did not say in court that is relevant . But I don't want to pre-judge.
As I say I will be interested to see if there is anything new that has not been argued to death on here .
-
How can there be anything new when there's been a " blackout " concerning new evidence being prepared for the forthcoming submission ?
There may not be anything new - it may just be the authors view of the information she has put together . I cant see that a bombshell will come out because of a book - either way to be honest .
-
You don't need a crystal ball to realise that he won't be getting out but you do need rose tinted glasses to think he might! ;)
Stranger things have happened. Though now it's beginning to sound like a mass vendetta even if he is presumed innocent,for it's the power of the public that'll keep him where he is and NOT so much the legal system. Let's face it,it only needs the usual war-cry from the relatives saying that " they all fear for their lives " and that'll be the end of any more thoughts of appealing, that would be my reason for his continued incarceration even if his innocence is proven.
Too many people have too much to lose otherwise !!
-
personally even if there are interviews with family etc I cant see any of them saying anything that they did not say in court that is relevant . But I don't want to pre-judge.
As I say I will be interested to see if there is anything new that has not been argued to death on here .
I look forward to reading the book, am hoping there will be some new info in it.
-
I'd like to!
I will be taking the books on my holiday with me. Two weeks away starting the 27th. When I come back I should have finished them both and be fully armed! ;D
40k drug debt, what a load of shit!! ;D
I did like the article though, it's yet another person who has had actual contact with Bamber AND looked into the case and come to the clear and obvious conclusion.
I am hoping the new books will be good enough to convince you, Jan. (xxxx did that sound like Adam?) :-[
Ok Mat - when you come back off holiday we will have a little book review thread.
But like I said only posters who can debate like adults allowed ! ;D
And even posters who have made up their minds should try and discuss from both angles - its makes it more interesting I find.
-
personally even if there are interviews with family etc I cant see any of them saying anything that they did not say in court that is relevant . But I don't want to pre-judge.
As I say I will be interested to see if there is anything new that has not been argued to death on here .
Oh, there is ;) ;D ;D
-
Ok Mat - when you come back off holiday we will have a little book review thread.
But like I said only posters who can debate like adults allowed ! ;D
And even posters who have made up their minds should try and discuss from both angles - its makes it more interesting I find.
Hahaha Jan by the time Mat gets back from holiday we will have all killed each other ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D so he can debate with himself ;D
-
I look forward to reading the book, am hoping there will be some new info in it.
Hello Maggie
Caroline said we have new information ahead ;D ;D ;D can't wait ;D
-
Oh, there is ;) ;D ;D
Oh dear - you are doing the same as you accuse lookout of doing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh dear - you are doing the same as you accuse lookout of doing. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I know ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Maggie
Caroline said we have new information ahead ;D ;D ;D can't wait ;D
I do hope so we need some new posters and new info to stimulate debate.
also agree with Jan that we need proper reasoned debate from every angle rather than point scoring. ;D
-
Hello Maggie
Caroline said we have new information ahead ;D ;D ;D can't wait ;D
Well If there is new information I trust it has been directed through the correct channels to stop any further appeals - because that would be the correct thing to do .
-
I do hope so we need some new posters and new info to stimulate debate.
also agree with Jan that we need proper reasoned debate from every angle rather than point scoring. ;D
we can all do it if we try , well most of us anyway.
-
Stranger things have happened. Though now it's beginning to sound like a mass vendetta even if he is presumed innocent,for it's the power of the public that'll keep him where he is and NOT so much the legal system. Let's face it,it only needs the usual war-cry from the relatives saying that " they all fear for their lives " and that'll be the end of any more thoughts of appealing, that would be my reason for his continued incarceration even if his innocence is proven.
Too many people have too much to lose otherwise !!
Lookout, it has nothing to do with the public. If you read my quote from "The ESSEX Triangle" you can see the -ALLEGED- words said by the trial judge.
-
I do hope so we need some new posters and new info to stimulate debate.
also agree with Jan that we need proper reasoned debate from every angle rather than point scoring. ;D
Maggie much better for us all to have a real good scrap ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie much better for us all to have a real good scrap ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's the way it usually goes!
-
Stranger things have happened. Though now it's beginning to sound like a mass vendetta even if he is presumed innocent,for it's the power of the public that'll keep him where he is and NOT so much the legal system. Let's face it,it only needs the usual war-cry from the relatives saying that " they all fear for their lives " and that'll be the end of any more thoughts of appealing, that would be my reason for his continued incarceration even if his innocence is proven.
Too many people have too much to lose otherwise !!
It sounds like you've already got an answer ready when the next submission fails, Lookout ;)
-
That's the way it usually goes!
Caroline we don't do gentle debate ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout, it has nothing to do with the public. If you read my quote from "The ESSEX Triangle" you can see the -ALLEGED- words said by the trial judge.
I don't need to read anything April,it's just the feeling I get. If the rellies can complain and bring about a change in the category status,then anything is possible.
-
Stranger things have happened. Though now it's beginning to sound like a mass vendetta even if he is presumed innocent,for it's the power of the public that'll keep him where he is and NOT so much the legal system. Let's face it,it only needs the usual war-cry from the relatives saying that " they all fear for their lives " and that'll be the end of any more thoughts of appealing, that would be my reason for his continued incarceration even if his innocence is proven.
Too many people have too much to lose otherwise !!
I would guess that any author would hopefully spend a lot of time on research and should go in open minded and I think the timings are more to do with the 30 year anniversary than anything else .
If what has been inferred about the appeal is correct - then the book will be irrelevant. But if it contains new evidence that is valid then it should be used through the correct channels.
-
Maggie much better for us all to have a real good scrap ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You're a hooligan Susie ;D
-
Scott Lomax is writing another book. I believe he's been in touch a lot with Jeremy.
-
We'll all end up at Spec-Savers by the time we're finished.
-
We'll all end up at Spec-Savers by the time we're finished.
Lookout or in a funny farm ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Scott Lomax is writing another book. I believe he's been in touch a lot with Jeremy.
That's interesting.
-
That's interesting.
Maggie that is interesting hope it is not out for awhile we need to get through these two ;D
-
That's interesting.
I don't know any details of when it comes out or anything,so he must be in the throes of writing it,but did mention about Jeremy talking about the lie detector,and also Sheila still being alive when Jeremy was in the courtyard of WHF,so there must be a " contact " who is at last pouring his soul out to rid himself of guilt-------------I hope. ;D
-
I would guess that any author would hopefully spend a lot of time on research and should go in open minded and I think the timings are more to do with the 30 year anniversary than anything else .
If what has been inferred about the appeal is correct - then the book will be irrelevant. But if it contains new evidence that is valid then it should be used through the correct channels.
Exactly that - no vendetta, it's just the 30th anniversary.
-
I don't know any details of when it comes out or anything,so he must be in the throes of writing it,but did mention about Jeremy talking about the lie detector,and also Sheila still being alive when Jeremy was in the courtyard of WHF,so there must be a " contact " who is at last pouring his soul out to rid himself of guilt-------------I hope. ;D
Mentioned it where?
-
Exactly that - no vendetta, it's just the 30th anniversary.
I agree.
-
Mentioned it where?
Scott's site/post on Bambertweets.
-
Hahaha Jan by the time Mat gets back from holiday we will have all killed each other ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D so he can debate with himself ;D
;D ;D
Well if I am not here, I can't get the blame - so that's a good thing!!
-
Scott's site/post on Bambertweets.
Guess he's using the release of the NEW BOOKS, to promote his OLD one. What an opportunist!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mentioned it where?
Caroline
sorry to change the subject but why did Jeremy not dial 999 was he playing for time or what.
-
I'll blame you anyway for leaving your fluence behind.
-
I'll blame you anyway for leaving your fluence behind.
I think the Bamber case shows you never have been good at placing blame, Lookout. ;D
-
;D ;D
Well if I am not here, I can't get the blame - so that's a good thing!!
Hahaha Mat good point never thought of that ;D ;D ;D
-
Guess he's using the release of the NEW BOOKS, to promote his OLD one. What an opportunist!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
After his first, I won't buy a second!
-
Scott Lomax is writing another book. I believe he's been in touch a lot with Jeremy.
Have you got a source please.
-
I suspect the new book may have some new information. But not much.
It will be interesting to see the section where the police report shows how they believe Bamber killed everyone inside WHF. Suspect it matches my scenario.
-
Have you got a source please.
I've already given a source-----------on here.
-
Guess he's using the release of the NEW BOOKS, to promote his OLD one. What an opportunist!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Why not ?
-
Source - https://twitter.com/SCLomax
-
It's alright I have found it on his tweets.
I doubt it will be a new book. Just a modified and updated version of his current book. Authors sometimes do that. Phillip Norman did it with his 'Shout' book.
-
Why not ?
He's had his turn and most of that stuff has been rebuked.
-
I think the Bamber case shows you never have been good at placing blame, Lookout. ;D
I'm not particularly interested in what you think. ;D
-
He's had his turn and most of that stuff has been rebuked.
Oh you mean like Claire Powell's has ?
-
He's had his turn and most of that stuff has been rebuked.
Have you seen how much of what he has posted on his twitter feed today is completely wrong?
-
Oh you mean like Claire Powell's has ?
Who mentioned her?
-
Have you seen how much of what he has posted on his twitter feed today is completely wrong?
He said five years ago, he handed Bamber evidence Sheila was still alive inside WHF. It's a pity Bamber didn't use this in his CCRC submission three years ago.
-
He said five years ago, he handed Bamber evidence Sheila was still alive inside WHF. It's a pity Bamber didn't use this in his CCRC submission three years ago.
I know, silly Bamber.
He also says that Bamber was seen in his cottage at midnight. ;D
He also says a bike was seen outside Bamber cottage (yes, June's) but that Bamber was said to have "stolen" a bike to escape after the massacre... which isn't true - he was said to have used the bike he had, JUNE's.
-
He said five years ago, he handed Bamber evidence Sheila was still alive inside WHF. It's a pity Bamber didn't use this in his CCRC submission three years ago.
Adam
I think it is quite unprofessional for Scot Lomax to be making negative comments about Carol Ann Lee's book before he even reads it.
-
Who mentioned her?
Me.
-
Me.
She mentioned the £40,000 drug debt,the same as CAL does.
-
She mentioned the £40,000 drug debt,the same as CAL does.
CAL isn't saying Sheila had a £40,000.00 dug debt, just that it was a rumour at the time!
-
I don't have much faith in either sequel,publicized more for the pecuniary motive one would imagine,or cashing in on an anniversary of death in the vernacular. Maybe we could call the former "The Murders at White House Farm: further Whitewash" and Scott Lomax's contribution "Jeremy Bamber:Evil,Almost Beyond Belief Beyond the Bed".
-
CAL isn't saying Sheila had a £40,000.00 dug debt, just that it was a rumour at the time!
It was still printed though,rumour or not and remained to be questionable.
-
I don't have much faith in either sequel,publicized more for the pecuniary motive one would imagine,or cashing in on an anniversary of death in the vernacular. Maybe we could call the former "The Murders at White House Farm: further Whitewash" and Scott Lomax's contribution "Jeremy Bamber:Evil,Almost Beyond Belief Beyond the Bed".
Why not just " Revisited " ? Same plot---different themes that's all.
-
Why not just " Revisited " ? Same plot---different themes that's all.
Have they really been granted access to all the heretorfore undisclosed information? I doubt it..
-
I don't have much faith in either sequel,publicized more for the pecuniary motive one would imagine,or cashing in on an anniversary of death in the vernacular. Maybe we could call the former "The Murders at White House Farm: further Whitewash" and Scott Lomax's contribution "Jeremy Bamber:Evil,Almost Beyond Belief Beyond the Bed".
Hello steve
am I to understand you are not looking forward to Carol Ann Lee's book or Paul Harrison I certainly am can't wait will try and read them both at once ;D
-
Hello steve
am I to understand you are not looking forward to Carol Ann Lee's book or Paul Harrison I certainly am can't wait will try and read them both at once ;D
Read them both at once ?
Yes I'm they will be much more exciting than that boring Roger Wilkes book.
-
It was still printed though,rumour or not and remained to be questionable.
She is mentioning it because she is questioning the validity of such a claim!
-
Hello steve
am I to understand you are not looking forward to Carol Ann Lee's book or Paul Harrison I certainly am can't wait will try and read them both at once ;D
Yes I will be reading the Carol Ann Lee book Susan,but it's the timing of the release which I question and also the purported "new information" contained therein.
-
Read them both at once ?
Yes I'm they will be much more exciting than that boring Roger Wilkes book.
Hahaha Adam you will never let me forget I called Roger's book boring is he your Dad or indeed you ;D
-
Have they really been granted access to all the heretorfore undisclosed information? I doubt it..
I doubt it too. Undisclosed information has been kept under wraps this time.
-
Yes I will be reading the Carol Ann Lee book Susan,but it's the timing of the release which I question and also the purported "new information" contained therein.
Steve I think Carol's book was to be published on the 30th July it seems to have been brought forward because I ordered it on Amazon and will get it before that and kindle readers get it on Friday lucky them. I think we are going to learn something new in at least one of the books or indeed both of them.
-
A money-making racket in which to purposely distort evidence. The more grime and lies about the case,the more money that these authors claw in.
" References to relevant issues from various books and publications listed in the TERMS of REFERENCE are made only when the authors claim to have first-hand knowledge of a particular event or conversation ".
-
A money-making racket in which to purposely distort evidence. The more grime and lies about the case,the more money that these authors claw in.
" References to relevant issues from various books and publications listed in the TERMS of REFERENCE are made only when the authors claim to have first-hand knowledge of a particular event or conversation ".
Including Scott Lomax?
-
Including Scott Lomax?
If we're splitting hairs-------I suppose so. ::)
-
If we're splitting hairs-------I suppose so. ::)
We're not! We're being fair and applying the same rules to BOTH sides!
-
We're not! We're being fair and applying the same rules to BOTH sides!
Okay. I was looking at the " balance " of opinions ( lopsided ) which falls into the guilty camp----3 to 1.
-
Okay. I was looking at the " balance " of opinions ( lopsided ) which falls into the guilty camp----3 to 1.
There's a reason for that!
-
There's a reason for that!
Yes,there is-----------lies,fantasy and fabrication sells !
-
Yes,there is-----------lies,fantasy and fabrication sells !
Don't think Lomax sold that many actually ;)
How do you know these books are lies and fabrication when you haven't even read them? Wilkes isn't fabrication!! You are simply showing complete bias and proving that you have a closed mind. No matter what was put in front of you, you would still say Bamber was innocent. You tend to believe anything that points to innocence without checking it out first - like your comment of Crispy in the wardrobe - which was WRONG! It truly is getting old reading myths and badly researched claims and stuff that is clearly made up It won't get Jeremy out so I don't know why people do it!
-
Don't think Lomax sold that many actually ;)
How do you know these books are lies and fabrication when you haven't even read them? Wilkes isn't fabrication!! You are simply showing complete bias and proving that you have a closed mind. No matter what was put in front of you, you would still say Bamber was innocent. You tend to believe anything that points to innocence without checking it out first - like your comment of Crispy in the wardrobe - which was WRONG! It truly is getting old reading myths and badly researched claims and stuff that is clearly made up It won't get Jeremy out so I don't know why people do it!
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out why people write books in the first place. Secondly,unless these authors have obtained any further information than has been gathered either by Jeremy or his present solicitor,they're not going to contain anything more than we already know,apart from a few more lies to add to the collection.
-
Don't think Lomax sold that many actually ;)
How do you know these books are lies and fabrication when you haven't even read them? Wilkes isn't fabrication!! You are simply showing complete bias and proving that you have a closed mind. No matter what was put in front of you, you would still say Bamber was innocent. You tend to believe anything that points to innocence without checking it out first - like your comment of Crispy in the wardrobe - which was WRONG! It truly is getting old reading myths and badly researched claims and stuff that is clearly made up It won't get Jeremy out so I don't know why people do it!
Whilst Crispy may eventually have ended up in the wardrobe having been placed there by the police, he was originally found under a bed by a policeman who heard him whimpering.
-
In DI Cook's statement dated 24/10/85,he states " Also in the bedroom cowering in one of the WARDROBES was a small white/grey dog which was reluctant to come out ".
I can see that I've opened up a can of worms.
-
In DI Cook's statement dated 24/10/85,he states " Also in the bedroom cowering in one of the WARDROBES was a small white/grey dog which was reluctant to come out ".
I can see that I've opened up a can of worms.
No, as usual, you haven't bothered to check out the details before posting. Cook didn't get there until 09:30 - Collins saw the dog under the bed when he entered WHF. (Shakes head and rolls eyes!!) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out why people write books in the first place. Secondly,unless these authors have obtained any further information than has been gathered either by Jeremy or his present solicitor,they're not going to contain anything more than we already know,apart from a few more lies to add to the collection.
You have no idea what is in them, but Scot Lomax was drip fed by Jeremy - so we know there are lots of lies, half truths and exaggerations in his book. I never rated it even when I thought Jeremy was innocent!
-
You have no idea what is in them, but Scot Lomax was drip fed by Jeremy - so we know there are lots of lies, half truths and exaggerations in his book. I never rated it even when I thought Jeremy was innocent!
Just looking at his twitter feed it shows him as laughable. He makes wild claims that even Bamber hasn't made.
Lomax gave Bamber PROOF Sheila was alive whilst he was outside. Bamber didn't use this in his 2012 appeal. You'd think it would be the first priority.
-
Just looking at his twitter feed it shows him as laughable. He makes wild claims that even Bamber hasn't made.
Lomax gave Bamber PROOF Sheila was alive whilst he was outside. Bamber didn't use this in his 2012 appeal. You'd think it would be the first priority.
As I explained earlier,these FACTS aren't adhered to straightaway,but rise to the surface in future years,especially after an unnecessary utterly confusing case which was marred by those who thought they knew everything and knew nothing !!
-
As I explained earlier,these FACTS aren't adhered to straightaway,but rise to the surface in future years,especially after an unnecessary utterly confusing case which was marred by those who thought they knew everything and knew nothing !!
That's got nothing to do with Lomax making erroneous comments on his twitter feed YESTERDAY.
-
That's got nothing to do with Lomax making erroneous comments on his twitter feed YESTERDAY.
I wasn't referring to Lomax.
-
I wasn't referring to Lomax.
Well I was and you quoted me. :-\
-
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out why people write books in the first place. Secondly,unless these authors have obtained any further information than has been gathered either by Jeremy or his present solicitor,they're not going to contain anything more than we already know,apart from a few more lies to add to the collection.
It's unclear whether he even has any lawyers currently working for him the most recent lawyers known to be working for him were working on the Human Rights angle. Jeremy's current lawyers, if he has any working for him, have not found any additional evidence. There is no additional evidence to find. There is evidence that has not been publicly released such as trial testimony and that is the sort of thing that authors could publish to enhance the public's understanding of things. Also authors could read the full COLP Report and evidence to provide the public with an event greater understanding of how most of the claims made by Jeremy supporters are hogwash that was already investigated and proven false more than 20 years ago.
-
It's unclear whether he even has any lawyers currently working for him the most recent lawyers known to be working for him were working on the Human Rights angle. Jeremy's current lawyers, if he has any working for him, have not found any additional evidence. There is no additional evidence to find. There is evidence that has not been publicly released such as trial testimony and that is the sort of thing that authors could publish to enhance the public's understanding of things. Also authors could read the full COLP Report and evidence to provide the public with an event greater understanding of how most of the claims made by Jeremy supporters are hogwash that was already investigated and proven false more than 20 years ago.
Jeremy has a solicitor and trainee lawyers helping out.If I remember rightly,his Christian name is Michael,but I've forgotten the surname,which has appeared on the forum in the past.
There are trial testimonies on this forum going back to 2010/11 if you look hard enough but the trouble is,if it's not in the interest by those of you who say he's guilty,then they're ignored and conveniently forgotten about,or else argued against if they don't meet with your approval.
I must say that most of your sermons are " hogwash " too which you'll find out sooner or later.
-
Jeremy has a solicitor and trainee lawyers helping out.If I remember rightly,his Christian name is Michael,but I've forgotten the surname,which has appeared on the forum in the past.
There are trial testimonies on this forum going back to 2010/11 if you look hard enough but the trouble is,if it's not in the interest by those of you who say he's guilty,then they're ignored and conveniently forgotten about,or else argued against if they don't meet with your approval.
I must say that most of your sermons are " hogwash " too which you'll find out sooner or later.
There is lots of hogwash here - claims with nothing to back it up - there are two ends to a stick Lookout and you always seem to grab onto the wrong end!
-
There is lots of hogwash here - claims with nothing to back it up - there are two ends to a stick Lookout and you always seem to grab onto the wrong end!
Do I indeed ? We'll see,won't we ? When you stop picking holes in whatever I happen to post,I'd like to hear something of SUBSTANCE from yourself !!
-
Do I indeed ? We'll see,won't we ? When you stop picking holes in whatever I happen to post,I'd like to hear something of SUBSTANCE from yourself !!
I'd like to hear ANYTHING of substance from you! Preferably with an actual source! It's more likely Bamber will be free one day that you back up your claims with evidence and Bamber will never be free!
-
YOu STILL haven't bothered to say where you got the idea that the dog was locked in the wardrobe before Collins entered or where the notion of this so called experiment came from???
-
Jeremy has a solicitor and trainee lawyers helping out.If I remember rightly,his Christian name is Michael,but I've forgotten the surname,which has appeared on the forum in the past.
There are trial testimonies on this forum going back to 2010/11 if you look hard enough but the trouble is,if it's not in the interest by those of you who say he's guilty,then they're ignored and conveniently forgotten about,or else argued against if they don't meet with your approval.
I must say that most of your sermons are " hogwash " too which you'll find out sooner or later.
You have a severe case of projection and just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. You are the one who has not read the statements and testimony posted on this site. I routinely quote from such documents and other materials which summarize the information presented at trial and in statements. Others who face Jeremy is guilty do the same thing.
On the other hand you have no idea what was presented at trial and in statements nor do you care. You never quote from such instead you quote nonsense claims like this babble about a test to see if they could hear a dog barking. You quote from pro-Jeremy websites, books and articles nothing more.
You drone on and on about how Sheila's claw marks were found on June and Neivll's arms. I quoted from Vanezis own autopsy report to demonstrate there was no damage of any kind to June's arms yet you ignored such and kept making your claims anyway. You and other Jeremy supporters are the ones who have no interest in the facts or evidence.
The trial testimony posted here is very limited and most of such are just small excerpts because Mike recognizes how damaging much of the evidence is so only posts that which he thinks he can twist to his advantage. I read such and all the statements that were posted already. You clearly have not and when people do refer to what is contained in such you ignore it unless it is favorable to Jeremy.
Rather than read all the available evidence and then make up your mind from an informed position you decided from a position of ignorance that Jeremy was innocent and you refuse to admit you made a mistake and instead have decided that no matter what evidence comes to light to implicate Jeremy that you will simply ignore and dismiss it. You refuse to read any of that evidence yourself you close your eyes to it and prefer simply reading pro-Jeremy tripe and are only exposed to facts and evidence when the guily camp brings it up. You respond to such with pure denial and are so hell bent on living in denial you resort to projection like this nonsense of pretending you rely on statements and testimony and reliable evidence while the guilty camp doesn't. Projection is pointless it just makes one look silly.
-
Do I indeed ? We'll see,won't we ? When you stop picking holes in whatever I happen to post,I'd like to hear something of SUBSTANCE from yourself !!
You have things backwards substance is what your opponents post while you post tripe.
You just posted an allegation that police tested whether a barking dog could be heard in a farm house. You had no source for such claim and no substantive point to the story because the issue of Crispy being heard over the phone barking is not relevant at all to the issue of whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent.
Even when you do post an allegation that is on point it ends up having no evidentiary foundation like your claim June and Nevill had claw marks from Sheila on their arms. No one assessed June had any damage at all to her arms, no experts assessed the damage to Nevill's arm was made by nails and their was no sign of any damage or trauma to Sheila's nails as would be evident if she used them to attack anyone.
More than half your posts on this site amount to you just writing that you don't believe Jeremy is innocent and claiming there was no evidence of his guilt. You never attempt to refute the evidence that is raised against him let alone do you successfully refute it. You just claim there is no evidence of his guilt and when people detail the evidence you simply say you dismiss it as if that means squat. Dismissing evidence doesn't make it go away it must be refuted.
-
You have a severe case of projection and just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. You are the one who has not read the statements and testimony posted on this site. I routinely quote from such documents and other materials which summarize the information presented at trial and in statements. Others who face Jeremy is guilty do the same thing.
On the other hand you have no idea what was presented at trial and in statements nor do you care. You never quote from such instead you quote nonsense claims like this babble about a test to see if they could hear a dog barking. You quote from pro-Jeremy websites, books and articles nothing more.
You drone on and on about how Sheila's claw marks were found on June and Neivll's arms. I quoted from Vanezis own autopsy report to demonstrate there was no damage of any kind to June's arms yet you ignored such and kept making your claims anyway. You and other Jeremy supporters are the ones who have no interest in the facts or evidence.
The trial testimony posted here is very limited and most of such are just small excerpts because Mike recognizes how damaging much of the evidence is so only posts that which he thinks he can twist to his advantage. I read such and all the statements that were posted already. You clearly have not and when people do refer to what is contained in such you ignore it unless it is favorable to Jeremy.
Rather than read all the available evidence and then make up your mind from an informed position you decided from a position of ignorance that Jeremy was innocent and you refuse to admit you made a mistake and instead have decided that no matter what evidence comes to light to implicate Jeremy that you will simply ignore and dismiss it. You refuse to read any of that evidence yourself you close your eyes to it and prefer simply reading pro-Jeremy tripe and are only exposed to facts and evidence when the guily camp brings it up. You respond to such with pure denial and are so hell bent on living in denial you resort to projection like this nonsense of pretending you rely on statements and testimony and reliable evidence while the guilty camp doesn't. Projection is pointless it just makes one look silly.
After pointing out time and time again that Lookout never states where she gets her info and she's still doing it - I'd say that was fair comment. Adam is asked for sources as are many others but Lookout continues to just post anything without evidence and no one bats an eyelid! The stuff posted about Cook being the first to find Cripsy in the wardrobe is simply rubbish!
-
Jeremy has a solicitor and trainee lawyers helping out.If I remember rightly,his Christian name is Michael,but I've forgotten the surname,which has appeared on the forum in the past.
There are trial testimonies on this forum going back to 2010/11 if you look hard enough but the trouble is,if it's not in the interest by those of you who say he's guilty,then they're ignored and conveniently forgotten about,or else argued against if they don't meet with your approval.
I must say that most of your sermons are " hogwash " too which you'll find out sooner or later.
Lookout, I am truly concerned. Despite your assertions that it isn't so, that you are, in fact objective, you write as if you have staked all your hopes and dreams on what, until such time as it -EVER- becomes a certainty, and there are no guarantees, remains a fantasy. You appear to have invested so much into this that I have very real worries about how you'll take it if any new submission fails. Conversely, I'm not as concerned about what you'd do if you discovered for yourself that Jeremy was guilty all along, because I don't think you'd believe it even if it was he who told you.
-
After pointing out time and time again that Lookout never states where she gets her info and she's still doing it - I'd say that was fair comment. Adam is asked for sources as are many others but Lookout continues to just post anything without evidence and no one bats an eyelid! The stuff posted about Cook being the first to find Cripsy in the wardrobe is simply rubbish!
Cook testified he removed the dog completely from the scene because even though i was hiding in the closet he was scared it would come out and contaminate the scene. Various officers testified it was under the bed when they first entered and subsequently hid in the closet.
Various officers also said Jeremy was given control of the dog. That means the dog was removed before they had Jeremy leave the scene and before they locked up the house to do the crime scene work.
The dog is totally irrelevant so I don't even know why people bring it up at all.
-
Cook testified he removed the dog completely from the scene because even though i was hiding in the closet he was scared it would come out and contaminate the scene. Various officers testified it was under the bed when they first entered and subsequently hid in the closet.
Various officers also said Jeremy was given control of the dog. That means the dog was removed before they had Jeremy leave the scene and before they locked up the house to do the crime scene work.
The dog is totally irrelevant so I don't even know why people bring it up at all.
If that dog -a shih tzu- had been anywhere near the crime scene, with hair that long it would have been covered in blood. I imagine, terrified, it crawled under the bed for safety, and stayed there. Whatever, it has no relevance to Jeremy's guilt or innocence.
-
Cook testified he removed the dog completely from the scene because even though i was hiding in the closet he was scared it would come out and contaminate the scene. Various officers testified it was under the bed when they first entered and subsequently hid in the closet.
Various officers also said Jeremy was given control of the dog. That means the dog was removed before they had Jeremy leave the scene and before they locked up the house to do the crime scene work.
The dog is totally irrelevant so I don't even know why people bring it up at all.
Lookout was trying to suggest that someone put the dog in the wardrobe before the raid team entered - as such, she was saying someone must have been alive inside the farm.
-
Lookout was trying to suggest that someone put the dog in the wardrobe before the raid team entered - as such, she was saying someone must have been alive inside the farm.
.................and as Jeremy was sitting outside in a police car he wasn't responsible for shooting whoever was still alive so it would follow that he wasn't responsible for shooting the others, either.
-
In this case even the smallest thing could be relevant - so why not just discuss it instead of the long personal attacks on each other. Its not attractive.
I would say if the dog could be overheard barking on the open phone line it probably was not shut away. However I am surprised it would carry on barking if everyone was quiet and dead.
-
Lookout was trying to suggest that someone put the dog in the wardrobe before the raid team entered - as such, she was saying someone must have been alive inside the farm.
I distinctly remember Lookout stating in the past that the dog was whimpering under the bed...so clearly she was aware of the police statements that the dog was under the bed initially. How is Cook supposedly removing it from the closet later supposed to establish the killer put the dog in there given it was under the bed initially?
-
In this case even the smallest thing could be relevant - so why not just discuss it instead of the long personal attacks on each other. Its not attractive.
I would say if the dog could be overheard barking on the open phone line it probably was not shut away. However I am surprised it would carry on barking if everyone was quiet and dead.
Would it carry on barking if someone was alive Jan, surely they would shut the dog up one way or another, killing a dog would not matter when you just killed family members? Would not matter if it was barking and you had fled the scene?
-
In this case even the smallest thing could be relevant - so why not just discuss it instead of the long personal attacks on each other. Its not attractive.
I would say if the dog could be overheard barking on the open phone line it probably was not shut away. However I am surprised it would carry on barking if everyone was quiet and dead.
It could have been barking to try to get someone to come to it. A dog I had as a child would barks when it is alone to summon us to come back to it, it didn't like being alone. Allegedly it was barking after the megaphone challenges so could have been barking because of hearing strange voices outside.
-
Would it carry on barking if someone was alive Jan, surely they would shut the dog up one way or another, killing a dog would not matter when you just killed family members? Would not matter if it was barking and you had fled the scene?
That is a good point but we don't know how often it was barking anyway. Saying that the people listening in on the phone line never heard anything except a dog barking doesn't state the dog barked continuously for hours straight. If they did claim they heard the dog barking nonstop it would be another bad sign for Jeremy supporters would want to suggest someone was alive inside for the reason you suggest- someone would have shut it up if alive.
-
Would it carry on barking if someone was alive Jan, surely they would shut the dog up one way or another, killing a dog would not matter when you just killed family members? Would not matter if it was barking and you had fled the scene?
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy appear to have had any emotional link to the dog. Sheila hadn't lived at the farm since she was 17/18 so it wasn't "her" dog and Jeremy had no love for it which makes me think that whilst "it" was all going on the dog made itself invisible. I guess anyone who can kill children would have few qualms about shooting a dog they had no feelings for.
-
In this case even the smallest thing could be relevant - so why not just discuss it instead of the long personal attacks on each other. Its not attractive.
I would say if the dog could be overheard barking on the open phone line it probably was not shut away. However I am surprised it would carry on barking if everyone was quiet and dead.
If Lookout bothered to post a source (like everyone asks Adam to do), there would be no problem. It's totally pointless debating something without any substance when there are statements completely refuting what she said.
-
If Lookout bothered to post a source (like everyone asks Adam to do), there would be no problem. It's totally pointless debating something without any substance when there are statements completely refuting what she said.
The funny thing is she was aware of the statements that refuted her own argument it is not as if she is ignorant of them. She posted this March 8:
"Wasn't the dog cowering under the bed when the shooting had stopped and everyone was dead ? So while it was yapping,did it indicate that someone was still alive ?"
-
Lookout was trying to suggest that someone put the dog in the wardrobe before the raid team entered - as such, she was saying someone must have been alive inside the farm.
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lol_ricky_gervais.gif)
-
This was because she had been conned into believing (from her "knowledgeable source") that Ralph didn't have a pyjama top on when he was found in kitchen (false) hence the theory he was attacked when he stepped out of the shower.
I think it shows how things can begin to spin out of control really...and how a little story can turn into something big.
;D
Supporters don't agree with her though - she makes Bamber look terrible but that is fine by me.
Trouble is Mat, many of us have been duped by what has proved to amount to little more than cant, often passing it on as FACT before we've cottoned on to it and realized the error of our ways :o :o
-
Trouble is Mat, many of us have been duped by what has proved to amount to little more than cant, often passing it on as FACT before we've cottoned on to it and realized the error of our ways :o :o
Comes a time when enough is enough though..
But hell!! I've just realised I won't be taking Carol Ann Lee's book with me. I leave on the 27th and
The Murders at White House Farm Hardcover – 30 Jul 2015
-
Comes a time when enough is enough though..
But hell!! I've just realised I won't be taking Carol Ann Lee's book with me. I leave on the 27th and
The Murders at White House Farm Hardcover – 30 Jul 2015
Awww Your hols won't be the same without it :'(
-
Awww Your hols won't be the same without it :'(
Waste of time asking how much to post to Cancun I guess... ;D
-
This was because she had been conned into believing (from her "knowledgeable source") that Ralph didn't have a pyjama top on when he was found in kitchen (false) hence the theory he was attacked when he stepped out of the shower.
I think it shows how things can begin to spin out of control really...and how a little story can turn into something big.
;D
Supporters don't agree with her though - she makes Bamber look terrible but that is fine by me.
This is what REALLY hacks me off - you can sit researching something for hours and finally find the information to prove your point and then days later - someone comes along, write something without ANY evidence to back it up and undoes everything you spent hours on. If people are going to claim something (unless it's just an 'idea') they should have to back it up OR suffer the wrath. We can all just claim any old BS but how does that help?
-
Waste of time asking how much to post to Cancun I guess... ;D
I'm sure Amazon have a Cancun branch? ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm sure Amazon have a Cancun branch? ;D ;D ;D
Can get CAL's book on Kindle by 30th July, Paul Harrison not available on kindle for some reason. :-\
-
Can get CAL's book on Kindle by 30th July, Paul Harrison not available on kindle for some reason. :-\
Maggie
Waterstones are not taking Deviant into stock so they would have to order it and will give me no guarantee when I will get it due to the Publisher not being well known to them I would not expect the book to sell well in this area as none have heard of JB other than me. I ordered from Amazon and will get it on the 24th July.
-
Maggie
Waterstones are not taking Deviant into stock so they would have to order it and will give me no guarantee when I will get it due to the Publisher not being well known to them I would not expect the book to sell well in this area as none have heard of JB other than me. I ordered from Amazon and will get it on the 24th July.
Yes, I have ordered from Amazon as well, delivery on 24th July in hardback.....
CAL on Kindle from Amazon 30th July.....
-
Thank you all so much.
-
Thank you all so much.
What for?
-
What for?
The " hidden posts " which vanished from under my nose as I started watching a programme about the NHS. Can't do two things at once now.
-
The " hidden posts " which vanished from under my nose as I started watching a programme about the NHS. Can't do two things at once now.
Musta missed it ???
-
Re: the above book. I have ordered it from Mail Book Shop for £12.74 with free p&p.
-
Re: the above book. I have ordered it from Mail Book Shop for £12.74 with free p&p.
WHSmith,if you can find a branch now,it's £11.96 or 99. Or was anyway. It'll probably be in a charity shop soon for £1. ;D
-
Re: the above book. I have ordered it from Mail Book Shop for £12.74 with free p&p.
Ah, thanks Steve. :)
-
WHSmith,if you can find a branch now,it's £11.96 or 99. Or was anyway. It'll probably be in a charity shop soon for £1. ;D
LOL
I have heard that the book is an embarrassing read and that the smoking gun is that Sheila did it and Jeremy encouraged it, witnessed it and told an inmate all about it. The inmate sent a letter with this info on it....Honestly you could not make it up... ;)
-
LOL
I have heard that the book is an embarrassing read and that the smoking gun is that Sheila did it and Jeremy encouraged it, witnessed it and told an inmate all about it. The inmate sent a letter with this info on it....Honestly you could not make it up... ;)
That wouldn't explain who shot Sheila. If that is the story of the book - I will throw it in the ocean!
-
LOL
I have heard that the book is an embarrassing read and that the smoking gun is that Sheila did it and Jeremy encouraged it, witnessed it and told an inmate all about it. The inmate sent a letter with this info on it....Honestly you could not make it up... ;)
He said .he shot Sheila because she asked him to but she showered first and he took her bloodied clothes and destroyed them. No real mention of the twins.
-
That wouldn't explain who shot Sheila. If that is the story of the book - I will throw it in the ocean!
The claim is that Jeremy told Sheila to cleanse herself then Jeremy shot Sheila.
I am only repeating hearsay, I have not read it yet. I don't think it will be a best seller Mat....I also hear he mentions the threats made to him.
-
And she beat up Neville - which would be against all arguments that she would not be capable of doing so.
Is it worth reading for any new information at all ?
-
The claim is that Jeremy told Sheila to cleanse herself then Jeremy shot Sheila.
I am only repeating hearsay, I have not read it yet. I don't think it will be a best seller Mat....I also hear he mentions the threats made to him.
Wait.
Are we talking CAL or PH? I thought we were talking about Carol Ann Lees book.
-
Wait.
Are we talking CAL or PH? I thought we were talking about Carol Ann Lees book.
no the bits above are from the book the deviant
-
And she beat up Neville - which would be against all arguments that she would not be capable of doing so.
Is it worth reading for any new information at all ?
Am reading interviews with the police involved, I find that interesting particularly about Taff Jones, have a way to go yet.
Read the last chapter first ;D
-
Wait.
Are we talking CAL or PH? I thought we were talking about Carol Ann Lees book.
Sorry my mistake I did not read the thread title. I'm talking about PH....but, I feel sure that no matter who it was that your sentiments are the same about throwing the book in the ocean.
-
no the bits above are from the book the deviant
Oh, I see. I thought we were still talking about CAL's book. ;D I will wait until I read PH's book for myself, because if it contains the sort of things that PH claimed it would then supporters will want to talk the book down before it is released.
Sorry my mistake I did not read the thread title. I'm talking about PH....but, I feel sure that no matter who it was that your sentiments are the same about throwing the book in the ocean.
Yup, I would!
I was just confused why you were calling CAL a HE ;D
-
Oh, I see. I will wait until I read PH's book for myself, because if it contains the sort of things that PH claimed it would then supporters will want to talk the book down before it is released.
Not necessarily, I believe most 'supporters' on this forum are just interested in the truth.
-
Not necessarily, I believe most 'supporters' on this forum are just interested in the truth.
I wasn't talking about on here, because I don't think anyone on here has read it.
But to be honest you can see that some supporters here are already bashing the book BEFORE they have even read them, which is no surprise.
-
I wasn't talking about on here, because I don't think anyone on here has read it.
But to be honest you can see that some supporters here are already bashing the book BEFORE they have even read them, which is no surprise.
I have the book and am reading it. It was delivered from Amazon yesterday.
-
I have the book and am reading it. It was delivered from Amazon yesterday.
Well still I would prefer to read it for myself!
SOME supporters are slating it before having read it. And that started months ago.
-
Well still I would prefer to read it for myself!
SOME supporters are slating it before having read it. And that started months ago.
Fair enough.
-
LOL
I have heard that the book is an embarrassing read and that the smoking gun is that Sheila did it and Jeremy encouraged it, witnessed it and told an inmate all about it. The inmate sent a letter with this info on it....Honestly you could not make it up... ;)
That is precisely the kind of story inmates make up to tell one another and even to try to use to escape liability by telling such to a court. It is quite possible Jeremy did make up such and tell it to someone but believing it is another matter entirely. If an author is actually claiming that it is true because Jeremy says so to a fellow inmate that is pretty funny.
-
The claim is that Jeremy told Sheila to cleanse herself then Jeremy shot Sheila.
I am only repeating hearsay, I have not read it yet. I don't think it will be a best seller Mat....I also hear he mentions the threats made to him.
What is the point in Bamber telling Sheila to cleanse herself ? She had just got out of bed so would have already been clean.
Bamber would have wanted everyone dead as quickly as possible with the minimum of fuss.
-
What is the point in Bamber telling Sheila to cleanse herself ? She had just got out of bed so would have already been clean.
Bamber would have wanted everyone dead as quickly as possible with the minimum of fuss.
Adam
I agree why would Jeremy tell Sheila to shower and change her clothes it would have been much more authentic that she was the killer had she had blood splatter on her and gun residue then he took her clothes away. Not buying that at all. Skipio explained all this in an earlier post to me.
-
I have the book and am reading it. It was delivered from Amazon yesterday.
Mat I have just finished the book and I am no wiser now than before I started. Anonymous letters hold no credence for me at all waste of time. I am of course talking about Deviant.
-
Adam
I agree why would Jeremy tell Sheila to shower and change her clothes it would have been much more authentic that she was the killer had she had blood splatter on her and gun residue then he took her clothes away. Not buying that at all. Skipio explained all this in an earlier post to me.
I do agree but giving benefit of the doubt...... JB just may have panicked and not thought it through anymore than the way he staged the scene? :-\ Think the claim was that she showered before she said she wanted to die.
I would guess the writer of the letter had been duped by JB or had made it up :-\ ??
It doesn't seem to ring true to me but in some ways it makes sense,
it does solve the question of how a lone gunman could have done this , etc .
Will be interested to hear other's opinions about this particular chapter when they've read it, I need to mull it over. :-\
-
Another clever author who shouts " he did it " while the man has served 30 years so far ::)
-
That wouldn't explain who shot Sheila. If that is the story of the book - I will throw it in the ocean!
It does.
-
That is precisely the kind of story inmates make up to tell one another and even to try to use to escape liability by telling such to a court. It is quite possible Jeremy did make up such and tell it to someone but believing it is another matter entirely. If an author is actually claiming that it is true because Jeremy says so to a fellow inmate that is pretty funny.
I think what is even funnier, is people expected some massive revelation that would solve everything. That's not going to happen unless Jeremy confesses OR someone comes forward and can PROVE he didn't do it and that's not going to happen either. This is all starting to sound like Monty Python searching for the Holy Grail - Nee!!
-
I think what is even funnier, is people expected some massive revelation that would solve everything. That's not going to happen unless Jeremy confesses OR someone comes forward and can PROVE he didn't do it and that's not going to happen either. This is all starting to sound like Monty Python searching for the Holy Grail - Nee!!
I certainly didn't expect a massive revelation, it was claimed that the book was the 'real story' of what happened that night therefore raising some people's expectations.
Paul Harrison or his publishers tend to claim his books solve murder mysteries but imo they don't seem to do more than put over an opinion ...... haven't finished it so haven't made my mind up yet. :-\
-
I certainly didn't expect a massive revelation, it was claimed that the book was the 'real story' of what happened that night therefore raising some people's expectations.
Paul Harrison or his publishers tend to claim his books solve murder mysteries but imo they don't seem to do more than put over an opinion ...... haven't finished it so haven't made my mind up yet. :-\
I didn't suggest you did. However, there are people here who expected some huge revelation. CAL has made similar claims about her book - truth is, neither one will prove anything either way, and people will cherry pick exerts to back up their own thoughts and beliefs and criticising those that don't.
-
I didn't suggest you did. However, there are people here who expected some huge revelation. CAL has made similar claims about her book - truth is, neither one will prove anything either way, and people will cherry pick exerts to back up their own thoughts and beliefs and criticising those that don't.
That is the thing, unless there really is startling new evidence and if there was it would surely not be announced in a book, such evidence would be treated with more respect for all those personally involved, I would hope.
I am interested in the fact PH interviewed Brett Collins, have always wondered about his opinion of JB seeing as he was so close to him at the time of the murders. Also, as I have already said, statements about Taff Jones from his colleagues and interviews of those policemen most closely involved with the case, think they have all died now. Look forward to reading about Julie Mugford further on in the book.
-
I didn't suggest you did. However, there are people here who expected some huge revelation. CAL has made similar claims about her book - truth is, neither one will prove anything either way, and people will cherry pick exerts to back up their own thoughts and beliefs and criticising those that don't.
So what do you think of the book Caroline? Are you pleased to have been credited by PH as his researcher?
-
If either book has evidence that just one person lied or fabricated incriminating evidence. Or that evidence has been misinterpreted by experts, then wouldn't that be enough for Bamber ?
I doubt there is any of that evidence. The relatives, police, Julie, experts etc all told the truth.
-
So what do you think of the book Caroline? Are you pleased to have been credited by PH as his researcher?
I haven't read it yet - I helped him quite a bit with bits and bobs, mainly the bible stuff so yes, it's nice to get an acknowledgement (I imagine Roch will agree?). it doesn't happen often.
-
Is Julie interviewed for either book ?
-
I haven't read it yet - I helped him quite a bit with bits and bobs, mainly the bible stuff so yes, it's nice to get an acknowledgement (I imagine Roch will agree?). it doesn't happen often.
has he sent you a signed copy? ::)
-
has he sent you a signed copy? ::)
Not so far - not sure what the rolling eyes are for?
-
How easy it must be to kick a man when he's already down ::) I couldn't think of anything more simple to write about.
-
Not so far - not sure what the rolling eyes are for?
The least he could do is send you a signed copy after all your help.
-
The least he could do is send you a signed copy after all your help.
Just bought both books from Amazon last night - best part of 30 quid! :o
-
I am going to read it and make up my own mind. It will be interesting if Bamber is telling people inside such stories. It will be good to have books that have all the evidence in one place.
-
Just bought both books from Amazon last night - best part of 30 quid! :o
Bought CAL on Kindle, that saves a few bob. ;D
-
Bought CAL on Kindle, that saves a few bob. ;D
yes, I thought of doing that too but I like real books. You'd think with the advent of Kindle, books would be cheaper ???
-
yes, I thought of doing that too but I like real books. You'd think with the advent of Kindle, books would be cheaper ???
I know I like books really, was surprised to see the kindle book was on pre order, if it's good I shall buy it later. It's true its easy to access and look back at various subjects in a paper book as well.
-
I haven't read it yet - I helped him quite a bit with bits and bobs, mainly the bible stuff so yes, it's nice to get an acknowledgement (I imagine Roch will agree?). it doesn't happen often.
Lets hope you still feel like that once you've read it! Has Harrison explained what motivated / inspired(!) him to write this ?
-
Lets hope you still feel like that once you've read it! Has Harrison explained what motivated / inspired(!) him to write this ?
Why wouldn't I? The part I researched still stands!
-
I do agree but giving benefit of the doubt...... JB just may have panicked and not thought it through anymore than the way he staged the scene? :-\ Think the claim was that she showered before she said she wanted to die.
I would guess the writer of the letter had been duped by JB or had made it up :-\ ??
It doesn't seem to ring true to me but in some ways it makes sense,
it does solve the question of how a lone gunman could have done this , etc .
Will be interested to hear other's opinions about this particular chapter when they've read it, I need to mull it over. :-\
Maggie according to the book Deviant two of them killed the family Sheila and Jeremy Sheila shot June and Neville first so not difficult from then on. Why did Jeremy remove Sheila's clothes from the property when he left he would have been better leaving them behind guess some of June's and Neville's blood may have been on them that way we would not have been asking for 30 years why was Sheila so clean. I accept she may have wanted a shower before she went to meet her maker always thought her hair looked damp but Jeremy should have left her soiled clothes if indeed we are to believe the story.
-
Why wouldn't I? The part I researched still stands!
The fact should be the same no matter who researches them, I agree. It's only when a supporter reads a document and looks for the innocent slant they can put on it, or a guilter reads and look for the guilty slant they can put on it that things begin to become murky. This case isn't as complicated as some would have you believe, It's like the Wizard Of Oz - there is no Wizard behind the curtain, it's all smoke and mirrors, the Wizard is a child killer!!
-
Is it possible to find out the sales figures of these books?
I would be surprised if they each sold more than a couple of thousand.
-
Is it possible to find out the sales figures of these books?
I would be surprised if they each sold more than a couple of thousand.
It's a very niche market isn't it. And I haven't seen any promotion for either of them, so if I didn't post here I would have no idea about them. I don't think there is a way to get sale figures.
-
It's a very niche market isn't it. And I haven't seen any promotion for either of them, so if I didn't post here I would have no idea about them. I don't think there is a way to get sale figures.
Mat I have seen sales figures for other books written by PH it is possible to get them eventually forgot how to get them will need to phone a friend ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's a very niche market isn't it. And I haven't seen any promotion for either of them, so if I didn't post here I would have no idea about them. I don't think there is a way to get sale figures.
CAL book is being promoted in the Mail - .
-
CAL book is being promoted in the Mail - .
I wonder is PH will receive the same treatment.
-
Mat I have just finished the book and I am no wiser now than before I started. Anonymous letters hold no credence for me at all waste of time. I am of course talking about Deviant.
Not saying it's true or not Susan that Jeremy has confessed to a fellow cell mate? Remember how he bragged to Julie about the hitman if true? Did he use a similar ploy in jail to water down his involvement? It happens and they talk to each other they like to brag. Take a look at this. April Jones killer says he is haunted by ghost of the five-year-old in his prison cell: Court papers show Mark Bridger also confessed to fellow inmate he had killed her Another one?
But the news of the brain cancer made him give up completely, and that’s where the shock confession comes into play. Apparently inmates repeatedly asked Simpson if he’d murdered Nicole Brown to the point where he allegedly admitted that he had..
-
I am of the opinion Bamber was not alone With the murders? Had a feeling Sheila went along with it? They discussed the final detail when she visited him in the field that day? That's when he did the final prep on her mind?
-
I am of the opinion Bamber was not alone? Had a feeling Sheila went along with it? They discussed the final detail when she visited him in the field that day? That's when he did the final prep on her mind?
And the children?????? :o :o :o
-
I am of the opinion Bamber was not alone? Had a feeling Sheila went along with it? They discussed the final detail when she visited him in the field that day? That's when he did the final prep on her mind?
I think you may be right justice. I certainly have struggled with the idea of JB or anyone else carrying out the killings alone, have had problems with Sheila being willing to join in if she was not psychotic but now realise she may have been suffering from a low level psychosis which wouldn't be particularly apparent to people but caused enough distortion for her to be manipulated. :-\
-
I am of the opinion Bamber was not alone With the murders? Had a feeling Sheila went along with it? They discussed the final detail when she visited him in the field that day? That's when he did the final prep on her mind?
I agree, that's why she was so quiet and seemed uncomfortable around Jeremy from the previous Saturday at the party. She didn't utter a single word to Colin during the drive home.
-
I think you may be right justice. I certainly have struggled with the idea of JB or anyone else carrying out the killings alone, have had problems with Sheila being willing to join in if she was not psychotic but now realise she may have been suffering from a low level psychosis which wouldn't be particularly apparent to people but caused enough distortion for her to be manipulated. :-\
Good post Maggie, I think that's why he could act the way he did after,it allowed him to distance himself from the murders, not read the book though Maggie.
-
Good post Maggie, I think that's why he could act the way he did after,it allowed him to distance himself from the murders, not read the book though Maggie.
Well the claim is Sheila shot both parents and beat Nevill when he was already very badly injured, Jeremy shot Sheila twice after she had showered because she asked him to because she had decided she wanted to die and be with her boys. No mention of who killed the boys.... Answers some questions but who knows? and as Susan says why take her bloodied clothes away when leaving them would reinforce the staged suicide? :-\ Also the tales seems to exonerate JB from most of the killing which is suspicious.?????
-
and then after the twins had been killed of course she was not angry at his betrayal she just let him shoot her - twice .
-
It's an interesting theory, Justice, AND one that makes sense, but I'm guessing that, if this is what happened, Jeremy persuaded her that dispatching their parents would be advantageous to them both but failed to share his ultimate agenda with her.
Now that's the hard part Jane j, I do believe Sheila was in a bad place at the time, who knows what he stuffed her up with? Maybe he and Colin would take care of the twins? Maybe if I wound you Sheila it could look like a robbery then me and you can share everything, just lay down and I will glance your shoulder that's why the first bullet did not kill? Think I am going over the top now Jane?
-
and then after the twins had been killed of course she was not angry at his betrayal she just let him shoot her - twice .
Could he have shot the twins after Sheila Jan?
-
of course any sequence at all is possible - but if he was going to tell a fellow inmate or boast then you would think full details would be included.
To me it seems less likely than him doing it on his own and that's saying something.
I cant really take the letter seriously because anyone could have made it up for a number of motives and Jeremy is not going to suddenly admit he told a fellow inmate is he?
-
of course any sequence at all is possible - but if he was going to tell a fellow inmate or boast then you would think full details would be included.
To me it seems less likely than him doing it on his own and that's saying something.
I cant really take the letter seriously because anyone could have made it up for a number of motives and Jeremy is not going to suddenly admit he told a fellow inmate is he?
But why would he make that story up? Surely if it was revenge he could have just said Jeremy confessed to me in jail that he had killed everyone, he did it for this reason bla bla, what made him say it the way he did that Sheila was on board with him, this has very rarely been said in public before? Your right Jeremy is hardly going to confess he has said this?
-
But why would he make that story up? Surely if it was revenge he could have just said Jeremy confessed to me in jail that he had killed everyone, he did it for this reason bla bla, what made him say it the way he did that Sheila was on board with him, this has very rarely been said in public before? Your right Jeremy is hardly going to confess he has said this?
Find it hard to believe he willingly told someone what happened therefore wonder if he was just playing a game, he was careful to not mention killing the twins and saying Sheila killed their parents but was happy to portray himself as the manipulator/puppet master. I don't believe it would be accurate but there could have been elements of truth in his story. Think PH believes they were in it together.
-
But why would he make that story up? Surely if it was revenge he could have just said Jeremy confessed to me in jail that he had killed everyone, he did it for this reason bla bla, what made him say it the way he did that Sheila was on board with him, this has very rarely been said in public before? Your right Jeremy is hardly going to confess he has said this?
who is to say it is actually from an inmate? It could be from anyone wanting to stir things up . And why would it have to be anonymous? If Jeremy said it to someone he will know who he said it to so if they are frightened of revenge they are a bit stupid .Or perhaps the letter does not even exist?
-
who is to say it is actually from an inmate? It could be from anyone wanting to stir things up . And why would it have to be anonymous? If Jeremy said it to someone he will know who he said it to so if they are frightened of revenge they are a bit stupid .Or perhaps the letter does not even exist?
Very true, jan it doesn't prove anything but it's food for thought. Need to read the whole book to get a real flavour I think.
-
who is to say it is actually from an inmate? It could be from anyone wanting to stir things up . And why would it have to be anonymous? If Jeremy said it to someone he will know who he said it to so if they are frightened of revenge they are a bit stupid .Or perhaps the letter does not even exist?
Perhaps he is protecting a source that didn't want to be named?
-
So what are his legal team going to do now ? Throw the towel in ?
-
So what are his legal team going to do now ? Throw the towel in ?
I am sure they will do what all the rest have done. Give it their best shot and then part ways, either because they don't think they can do anymore or because Bamber chooses to get rid of them.
-
I am sure they will do what all the rest have done. Give it their best shot and then part ways, either because they don't think they can do anymore or because Bamber chooses to get rid of them.
I meant if they found out what this other prisoner alleged that Jeremy told him,according to PH's book.
-
Find it hard to believe he willingly told someone what happened therefore wonder if he was just playing a game, he was careful to not mention killing the twins and saying Sheila killed their parents but was happy to portray himself as the manipulator/puppet master. I don't believe it would be accurate but there could have been elements of truth in his story. Think PH believes they were in it together.
Blaming Sheila would allow him to distance himself from it? He did not have to mention the killing of the twins because he would not want to go into detail about that part of it? Never spoke to PH but I have always had this gut feeling they were both involved though? I know it seems strange but a lot of people who have been in jail like to brag that they have been inside? They tell you what went on in jail it puts this macho side to them? Not everyone though. What I am getting at it could be a way of survival in jail don't mess with me type of thing, he would not want to mention killing the twins because this would put him in a different league?
-
who is to say it is actually from an inmate? It could be from anyone wanting to stir things up . And why would it have to be anonymous? If Jeremy said it to someone he will know who he said it to so if they are frightened of revenge they are a bit stupid .Or perhaps the letter does not even exist?
You could be right Jan, has PH checked this guy out does anyone know? He is rather adverse with anonymous letters I remember?
-
Blaming Sheila would allow him to distance himself from it? He did not have to mention the killing of the twins because he would not want to go into detail about that part of it? Never spoke to PH but I have always had this gut feeling they were both involved though? I know it seems strange but a lot of people who have been in jail like to brag that they have been inside? They tell you what went on in jail it puts this macho side to them? Not everyone though. What I am getting at it could be a way of survival in jail don't mess with me type of thing, he would not want to mention killing the twins because this would put him in a different league?
Exactly, if he did speak of it, he was noticeably careful not to admit he was a child killer.... too dangerous.
-
You could be right Jan, has PH checked this guy out does anyone know? He is rather adverse with anonymous letters I remember?
;D ;D
-
You could be right Jan, has PH checked this guy out does anyone know? He is rather adverse with anonymous letters I remember?
Jan
I thought it quite strange the guy said he would not give his name and address because he feared for his family but he said Jeremy would know who he was!!!!!!!
-
You could be right Jan, has PH checked this guy out does anyone know? He is rather adverse with anonymous letters I remember?
Yes he has checked him out/
-
So what are his legal team going to do now ? Throw the towel in ?
I imagine they will continue, as far as any legal team is concerned it's only hearsay and not proven....another theory to be taken with a pinch of salt, I would guess. :-\
-
Yes he has checked him out/
Thanks for that Caroline.
-
I imagine they will continue, as far as any legal team is concerned it's only hearsay and not proven....another theory to be taken with a pinch of salt, I would guess. :-\
Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
-
Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
You should know, you eaten enough of em ;D ;D ;D ;D (soz couldn't resist ;) X)
-
Thanks for that Caroline.
Justice that does not mean the guy is speaking the truth he could have a debt to settle with Jeremy or Jeremy could have been showing off and just told the guy I am not saying PH did not get a letter. Wonder why he did not come forward earlier unless he did and PH did not take him seriously at the beginning. Best to keep an open mind over an anonymous letter.
-
Justice that does not mean the guy is speaking the truth he could have a debt to settle with Jeremy or Jeremy could have been showing off and just told the guy I am not saying PH did not get a letter. Wonder why he did not come forward earlier unless he did and PH did not take him seriously at the beginning. Best to keep an open mind over an anonymous letter.
It wasn't anonymous, he knows who sent it.
-
It wasn't anonymous, he knows who sent it.
Caroline
I am not disputing that but it is not forced to be true how would PH or you or indeed anyone of us know It is Julie all over again but she stood up in Court. By the way this book has not affected the way I feel about Jeremy guess I am disappointed I was expecting more. :'(
-
So what are his legal team going to do now ? Throw the towel in ?
Jeremy's legal team can go to Jeremy and ask Jeremy if he did tell these things to any prisoners and could ask if the claims are true and then ask why he didn't tell them sooner so they could have tried to use it at trial.
It is obvious to me that even if Jeremy did tell such things to fellow inmates that it was made up simply.
The notion Jeremy talked Sheila into killing anyone and trusted her not to shoot him instead is not credible in the least. The notion she did it and then he tried to help cover for her by getting her to clean herself up and dispose of her clothes is not credible either. If even a small portion of it were true he would have told such to Julie and his lawyers. If this actually was from him and not made up by the person who talked to Harrison then it means Jeremy wasn't even able to think up these fairytales until after he was convicted and did so simply to try to get fellow prisoners to lay off him.
-
Caroline
I am not disputing that but it is not forced to be true how would PH or you or indeed anyone of us know It is Julie all over again but she stood up in Court. By the way this book has not affected the way I feel about Jeremy guess I am disappointed I was expecting more. :'(
My expectations apparently were met, I didn't anticipate anything of value.
-
Caroline
I am not disputing that but it is not forced to be true how would PH or you or indeed anyone of us know It is Julie all over again but she stood up in Court. By the way this book has not affected the way I feel about Jeremy guess I am disappointed I was expecting more. :'(
Know if the guy is telling the truth? We don't, but why would he lie? If this man wanted to kick JB in the teeth, all he had to say is that he confessed to him. PH is putting the story out there, it's up to you whether you believe it or not BUT, I think you have previously suggested that Sheila may have been involved yourself in the past?
-
Jeremy's legal team can go to Jeremy and ask Jeremy if he did tell these things to any prisoners and could ask if the claims are true and then ask why he didn't tell them sooner so they could have tried to use it at trial.
It is obvious to me that even if Jeremy did tell such things to fellow inmates that it was made up simply.
The notion Jeremy talked Sheila into killing anyone and trusted her not to shoot him instead is not credible in the least. The notion she did it and then he tried to help cover for her by getting her to clean herself up and dispose of her clothes is not credible either. If even a small portion of it were true he would have told such to Julie and his lawyers. If this actually was from him and not made up by the person who talked to Harrison then it means Jeremy wasn't even able to think up these fairytales until after he was convicted and did so simply to try to get fellow prisoners to lay off him.
It may not be the whole truth, but there may be elements.
-
Jeremy's legal team can go to Jeremy and ask Jeremy if he did tell these things to any prisoners and could ask if the claims are true and then ask why he didn't tell them sooner so they could have tried to use it at trial.
It is obvious to me that even if Jeremy did tell such things to fellow inmates that it was made up simply.
The notion Jeremy talked Sheila into killing anyone and trusted her not to shoot him instead is not credible in the least. The notion she did it and then he tried to help cover for her by getting her to clean herself up and dispose of her clothes is not credible either. If even a small portion of it were true he would have told such to Julie and his lawyers. If this actually was from him and not made up by the person who talked to Harrison then it means Jeremy wasn't even able to think up these fairytales until after he was convicted and did so simply to try to get fellow prisoners to lay off him.
I tend to agree with this....
I think if there were an element of truth in it, JB would have already let something slip - long ago
-
Know if the guy is telling the truth? We don't, but why would he lie? If this man wanted to kick JB in the teeth, all he had to say is that he confessed to him. PH is putting the story out there, it's up to you whether you believe it or not BUT, I think you have previously suggested that Sheila may have been involved yourself in the past?
Caroline you are quite right I have always thought Sheila was involved and I think he brain washed her then double crossed her that has always been my take on it.The fact the ex con wrote this letter does not guarantee Jeremy told him this he could have come up with the story himself but if I was writing the letter or telling the story I would have left Sheila's clothes at the scene they could have been forensically tested to authenticate the fact she carried out some or all of the shootings other than herself.
-
It may not be the whole truth, but there may be elements.
Jeremy killed everyone himself, he planned it from the start himself and he carried it all out himself. He didn't ask Sheila to help him or trust her with a weapon. The ONLY reason to try to get her to help as opposed to doing it all himself would be in order to get physical evidence on her clothing and body so that police would believe she did it. But trusting her not to shoot him is not something he would have risked or risked her telling anyone his plan and thwarting it just in order to get some evidence on her. If he had gone through all that trouble and taken such risks in order to make sure she got evidence on her no way in hell would he let her change her clothes and wash such evidence off and then dispose of such clothes.
The only person he shared his plans with prior to carrying out the murders was Julie and she has to live with the fact that if she actually told someone how horrible he was speaking then he would not have been able to go through with it because they would have been on notice in advance of his intentions and would have spread such around and he would have been aware that he would have been blamed if anything did happen to them.
-
Caroline you are quite right I have always thought Sheila was involved and I think he brain washed her then double crossed her that has always been my take on it.The fact the ex con wrote this letter does not guarantee Jeremy told him this he could have come up with the story himself but if I was writing the letter or telling the story I would have left Sheila's clothes at the scene they could have been forensically tested to authenticate the fact she carried out some or all of the shootings other than herself.
Good point Susan!!
-
My expectations apparently were met, I didn't anticipate anything of value.
Scipio I know you and I discussed this and I fear you were right and I got it wrong I expected too much. I expected concrete proof which you said I would not get.
-
Good point Susan!!
Stephanie this is the bit of the story that is making me question the letter nothing else because I always thought they were in it together had Jeremy allowed Sheila to shower to be clean to meet her maker her stained clothes at the scene would have cleared him IMO. and he would not have been convicted.
-
Stephanie this is the bit of the story that is making me question the letter nothing else because I always thought they were in it together had Jeremy allowed Sheila to shower to be clean to meet her maker her stained clothes at the scene would have cleared him IMO. and he would not have been convicted.
Totally...
Maybe she was showering when he first started shooting? Maybe she had already showered?
-
Totally...
Maybe she was showering when he first started shooting? Maybe she had already showered?
Steph that is possible the shower head was hanging down guess we will never know exactly what happened.
-
Caroline you are quite right I have always thought Sheila was involved and I think he brain washed her then double crossed her that has always been my take on it.The fact the ex con wrote this letter does not guarantee Jeremy told him this he could have come up with the story himself but if I was writing the letter or telling the story I would have left Sheila's clothes at the scene they could have been forensically tested to authenticate the fact she carried out some or all of the shootings other than herself.
I very much doubt Jeremy would tell anyone what 'actually' happened but that doesn't mean he didn't relay this scenario to the informant and there may be 'some' elements of truth - however small.
-
Steph that is possible the shower head was hanging down guess we will never know exactly what happened.
Some people don't bother replacing their shower heads. Some people just leave them dangling down, maybe after they've rinsed themselves down or washed their hair?
It's possible it was moved to this position for effect or maybe it's holder had broken?
-
I very much doubt Jeremy would tell anyone what 'actually' happened but that doesn't mean he didn't relay this scenario to the informant and there may be 'some' elements of truth - however small.
Agree with this also... Though why would he talk to anyone about it? Was the informant 'a lover?'
-
Does anyone know if JB does drugs?
I know drugs are rife in most of our prisons and are often taken to alleviate boredom, as one example..
Just wondered if he did ever suggest SC was involved, could he have been under the influence of a mind altering substance?
-
Does anyone know if JB does drugs?
I know drugs are rife in most of our prisons and are often taken to alleviate boredom, as one example..
Just wondered if he did ever suggest SC was involved, could he have been under the influence of a mind altering substance?
I would make a guess that he does. He did before prison so no reason to stop imo. He's always claimed Sheila did it and what he told this prisoner reinforces that the only difference being in this scenario he was present and he shot Sheila because she begged him.
-
I would make a guess that he does. He did before prison so no reason to stop imo. He's always claimed Sheila did it and what he told this prisoner reinforces that the only difference being in this scenario he was present and he shot Sheila because she begged him.
So, in that case, he could have been under the influence of a mind altering substance and blabbed to someone something? I guess that's a possibility, though I still sense unlikely.
I can't see it. Why would she beg him to kill her? Surely if she had murdered the family it would be better for him to keep her alive. She would have then gone to prison and he would keep his inheritance.
-
So, in that case, he could have been under the influence of a mind altering substance and blabbed to someone something? I guess that's a possibility, though I still sense unlikely.
I can't see it. Why would she beg him to kill her? Surely if she had murdered the family it would be better for him to keep her alive. She would have then gone to prison and he would keep his inheritance.
I'm not saying I believe that's what happened but it's possible parts of it are true? If Sheila killed the way he claimed, I could only imagine she was in a low level psychotic state he describes her behaviour as such. I don't believe Sheila would kill any of them unless her thoughts were distorted by psychosis which may not have been particularly obvious.
I agree there are various arguments against and I'm not convinced myself but can see there may be some truth in it. :-\
I simply struggle to believe if he committed the murders he did it on his own.
-
I simply struggle to believe if he committed the murders he did it on his own.
A lot of people seem to have this hangup and in turn it seems to make such people look for something that isn't there.
I follow evidence so I only believe Jeremy had help if there is credible evidence he had help. All the evidence though points to a single killer. The sole evidence of Jeremy getting help was his account to Julie that he hired a MM which ended up falling apart under scrutiny. There is nothing to suggest Brett to anyone else was involved in any way.
There is no evidence Sheila was involved- that is what helped convict him yet people are apt to believe she was involved anyway because they have a hangup of Jeremy being responsible alone. What can Jeremy say about the lack of evidence that Sheila did anything? Publicly he alleges police hid such evidence though he has been unable to develop a shred of evidence to that effect to use in an appeal proceeding. Allegedly in secret he claimed claimed he is the one who scrubbed the evidence but his claims make no sense. He suggests he told Sheila to wash up and destroyed her clothing in order to help her escape liability. He was planning to help her get away with it. Planning to help her get away with it makes zero sense. If they were quite close it is one thing but he didn't made clear long before that he didn't want to share the inheritance with her so trying to help her escape liability and try to help make up a claim someone else did it is not credible at all. If he did tell this to someone he told it to a convict thinking the convict would be ignorant/gullible enough to buy it. He didn't tell that story publicly because he knows no one will buy it unless one is predisposed to the thought he could not do it alone.
A lot of people want to think there is more than meets the eye to this case but I don't see it. I think what we see is all that there is to see. This may seem like a let down and suck because it leaves little to discuss but that's all I think that is ever going to come out.
My idea of a good book on this case is one that provides a more detailed account of the trial testimony to provide the most complete picture available. It would not amount to any new evidence or facts just publicly releasing tidbits that have not been publicly released prior. There won't be anything dramatic in such testimony because the most important points were already summarized in the appeal decision etc. and many statements were released so we already have a good idea of everything significant.
I don't mean to sound like a Geico commercial but convicts lie including to other prisoners it's what they do.
-
Caroline you are quite right I have always thought Sheila was involved and I think he brain washed her then double crossed her that has always been my take on it.The fact the ex con wrote this letter does not guarantee Jeremy told him this he could have come up with the story himself but if I was writing the letter or telling the story I would have left Sheila's clothes at the scene they could have been forensically tested to authenticate the fact she carried out some or all of the shootings other than herself.
Good point Susan, but how many on here would know back in the 80s that when firing a gun you would leave forensic evidence on your clothes? The only thing i was aware of was finger prints. Or do you mean blood deposits?
-
How can anyone evaluate these claims when we don't know who the source is? Most of us don't even know anything about Harrison.
As it stands, it is a totally worthless piece of information.
-
How can anyone evaluate these claims when we don't know who the source is? Most of us don't even know anything about Harrison.
As it stands, it is a totally worthless piece of information.
Hi Neil i think some posters were in close contact with him when he used to post on here? But you are right its better with a source otherwise its just hearsay.
-
I think you may be right justice. I certainly have struggled with the idea of JB or anyone else carrying out the killings alone, have had problems with Sheila being willing to join in if she was not psychotic but now realise she may have been suffering from a low level psychosis which wouldn't be particularly apparent to people but caused enough distortion for her to be manipulated. :-\
Alias brings up this argument.
There really is no difficulty carrying out the massacre alone.
He had the element of surprise. He was fully clothed and protected. He had a gun. He choose the perfect time for an execution, when everyone would be sleeping.
He was up against two six year old boys and two women, neither of whom was strong. Only Neville could pose a threat.
An accurate head shot into each person would at the least disable them. Giving him time to complete his task. However he had enough bullets to fire more than one bullet into each persons head, before having to do his first chamber and reload.
-
He was never going to find an accomplice to complete the massacre with him.
He didn't mix in hardcore criminal circles and even those criminals would think twice. He didn't have the money to pay anyone up front. An accomplice would be expensive, money he would rather keep for himself.
If he investigated getting an accomplice and sounded people out, there was a chance people would tell the police of this after the massacre.
-
The only person he may have considered as an accomplice was Julie.
He had told her of his hatred and plans. But probably realised a young lady in attendance would do more harm than good and would certainly not be as committed as him.
However the advantage of bringing her along would mean she could not go to the police, as she was involved. They could also provide alibi's for each other. Saying they were in bed when woken by Neville's call.
It seems his 'now or never' decision was quite spur of the moment, after being really 'pissed off' at work. Everyone was at WHF. Julie was in Lewisham. Jeremy was going it alone, but would keep Julie informed of developments.
-
Alias brings up this argument.
There really is no difficulty carrying out the massacre alone.
He had the element of surprise. He was fully clothed and protected. He had a gun. He choose the perfect time for an execution, when everyone would be sleeping.
He was up against two six year old boys and two women, neither of whom was strong. Only Neville could pose a threat.
An accurate head shot into each person would at the least disable them. Giving him time to complete his task. However he had enough bullets to fire more than one bullet into each persons head, before having to do his first chamber and reload.
Do you think the killer underestimated the number or bullets required?
-
Alias brings up this argument.
There really is no difficulty carrying out the massacre alone.
He had the element of surprise. He was fully clothed and protected. He had a gun. He choose the perfect time for an execution, when everyone would be sleeping.
He was up against two six year old boys and two women, neither of whom was strong. Only Neville could pose a threat.
An accurate head shot into each person would at the least disable them. Giving him time to complete his task. However he had enough bullets to fire more than one bullet into each persons head, before having to do his first chamber and reload.
I agree, Alias used that argument as one of her reasons to question JBs guilt, I remember her arguing from that angle long before you joined the forum and agreeing with it but others have also thought it. Susan has just posted that she has always believed this scenario. In theory an accurate headshot would of course disable everyone but in practice it would not be easy to achieve, anyway Sheila wasn't shot in the head.. Also there is the question .... where was Sheila when her brother was rampaging around shooting everyone...... sleeping you will say and that is a possibility but there's no proof of that.
I am not stating as FACT something unproven, am just saying it maybe ' has a ring of truth about it' ...... now where have I heard that expression before?? ;)
-
He was never going to find an accomplice to complete the massacre with him.
He didn't mix in hardcore criminal circles and even those criminals would think twice. He didn't have the money to pay anyone up front. An accomplice would be expensive, money he would rather keep for himself.
If he investigated getting an accomplice and sounded people out, there was a chance people would tell the police of this after the massacre.
Obviously, Adam but no one is suggesting that, we are discussing the possibility that Sheila may have been his accomplice.
The whole thing is horrific, anyway.
-
Do you think the killer underestimated the number or bullets required?
He prob thought one loaded magazine would do it?
-
Do you think the killer underestimated the number or bullets required?
I can't believe this. He had been planning the massacre and knew a bit about guns.
Ideally he would be hoping to kill everyone with the 10/11 bullets. As suspicious people may ask if Sheila could chamber and re load.
Maybe one shot head each into Sheila and the twins, the rest into Neville and June. However Neville got downstairs after only two upstairs head shots.
After Neville's beating, more head shots were needed. Meaning a re load was needed as he had already fired bullets into June and two bullets into Neville's torso. Sheila, Nicolas and Daniel had still to be shot.
Once he had chambered and re loaded once, the damage was done. He might as well chamber and re load twice and fire lots more bullets into people to make it look 'crazy'.
-
Obviously, Adam but no one is suggesting that, we are discussing the possibility that Sheila may have been his accomplice.
The whole thing is horrific, anyway.
Sheila his accomplice ?
Jeremy really did have a way with women.
-
I agree, Alias used that argument as one of her reasons to question JBs guilt, I remember her arguing from that angle long before you joined the forum and agreeing with it but others have also thought it. Susan has just posted that she has always believed this scenario. In theory an accurate headshot would of course disable everyone but in practice it would not be easy to achieve, anyway Sheila wasn't shot in the head.. Also there is the question .... where was Sheila when her brother was rampaging around shooting everyone...... sleeping you will say and that is a possibility but there's no proof of that.
I am not stating as FACT something unproven, am just saying it maybe ' has a ring of truth about it' ...... now where have I heard that expression before?? ;)
It shouldn't be hard to fire an accurate head shot into sleeping people. June and the twins were shot in the heads with their heads on the pillow. June didn't die but was disabled.
Neville woke up and Sheila had to be out of bed before being shot.
Sheila either woke up and went into the main bedroom. Or was woken and lead a few yards while she was half asleep. If awake, people have said she either froze or fainted upon seeing a gun man.
-
He prob thought one loaded magazine would do it?
I agree.
-
There is a possibility he was not concerned about re loading.
He just wanted to complete the job. The issue of Sheila chambering and reloading would never be brought up as he believed he would be 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut' case. If it was brought up he could claim Sheila was competent with guns.
Lots of bullets fired does make the massacre look more 'crazy' and deranged.
-
For a crack shooter,it wouldn't have been necessary to have re-loaded.
-
There is a possibility he was not concerned about re loading.
He just wanted to complete the job. The issue of Sheila chambering and reloading would never be brought up as he believed he would be 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut' case. If it was brought up he could claim Sheila was competent with guns.
Lots of bullets fired does make the massacre look more 'crazy' and deranged.
It was really hard to load the magazine up fully, the last 3 bullets was hard to push in the jury was shown this at the trial. He thought one magazine would be enough.
-
Although he had been planning the massacre, he may not have realised that two chambers and reloads by Sheila would leave damaged finger nails and oil on her hands. So in other words not concerned about re loading.
-
For a crack shooter,it wouldn't have been necessary to have re-loaded.
They are not first choice defensive weapons because they kill too slow to stop a determined aggressor that's why he needed more bullets, he did not realise this?
-
It was really hard to load the magazine up fully, the last 3 bullets was hard to push in the jury was shown this at the trial. He thought one magazine would be enough.
Of course it's only a minimum of two reloads. Could be more, the final three 'tricky' bullets of the magazine may never have been loaded?
-
Of course it's only a minimum of two reloads. Could be more, the final three 'tricky' bullets of the magazine may never have been loaded?
Although it can't actually be that difficult, JB loaded the full magazine in a rush to go rabbit hunting.
-
They are not first choice defensive weapons because they kill too slow to stop a determined aggressor that's why he needed more bullets, he did not realise this?
Yes, they were not hollow point or shot gun bullets. The first round of shots may have killed everyone, after all Neville and June did get head shots. But the deaths would not be instant.
Bamber seeing Neville fight back and June get out bed, panicked and re loaded.
-
Sheila his accomplice ?
Jeremy really did have a way with women.
How funny are you? :o NOT!
-
It shouldn't be hard to fire an accurate head shot into sleeping people. June and the twins were shot in the heads with their heads on the pillow. June didn't die but was disabled.
Neville woke up and Sheila had to be out of bed before being shot.
Sheila either woke up and went into the main bedroom. Or was woken and lead a few yards while she was half asleep. If awake, people have said she either froze or fainted upon seeing a gun man.
'people have said' means nothing ..... just guesses
-
Yes, they were not hollow point or shot gun bullets. The first round of shots may have killed everyone, after all Neville and June did get head shots. But the deaths would not be instant.
Bamber seeing Neville fight back and June get out bed, panicked and re loaded.
Er? ???
-
It was really hard to load the magazine up fully, the last 3 bullets was hard to push in the jury was shown this at the trial. He thought one magazine would be enough.
Thesuggestion in the letter is that he loaded and Sheila pulled the trigger :-\
-
Er? ???
I believe they are the bullets Mark Chapman used on John Lennon. They open up upon impact causing more damage. Apparently they can knock down an elephant.
-
Although it can't actually be that difficult, JB loaded the full magazine in a rush to go rabbit hunting.
But presumably he'd reloaded a gun/firearm/rifle/weapon on more occasions than had Sheila.
-
Thesuggestion in the letter is that he loaded and Sheila pulled the trigger :-\
Pulled the trigger on herself ?
Why didn't Bamber just shoot her himself ? He had shot everyone else.
-
I believe they are the bullets Mark Chapman used on John Lennon. They open up upon impact causing more damage. Apparently they can knock down an elephant.
Eley hollow point .22 rounds were used to murder 5 people at Whitehouse Farm in 1985.
Yes they are designed to expand on impact, but usually in a rat or rabbit, not six year old children.
-
But presumably he'd reloaded a gun/firearm/rifle/weapon on more occasions than had Sheila.
Presumably so.
-
Eley hollow point .22 rounds were used to murder 5 people at Whitehouse Farm in 1985.
Yes they are designed to expand on impact, but usually in a rat or rabbit, not six year old children.
Really ? so if they expanded slowly upon impact this would help explain Neville and June not dying straight away. And Jeremy's panic re load.
-
Really ? so if they expanded slowly upon impact this would help explain Neville and June not dying straight away. And Jeremy's panic re load.
Are you new to the case? ??? Lol :D
-
Are you new to the case? ??? Lol :D
I'm not but didn't know the bullets used expanded on impact. Obviously they were not as powerful as Mark Chapman's bullets as his was a gun designed for humans.
-
I'm not but didn't know the bullets used expanded on impact. Obviously they were not as powerful as Mark Chapman's bullets as his was a gun designed for humans.
Maybe that's why so many bullets were needed. :-\
-
Although it can't actually be that difficult, JB loaded the full magazine in a rush to go rabbit hunting.
For a man? Who was used to loading them, not for a novice?
-
Obviously, Adam but no one is suggesting that, we are discussing the possibility that Sheila may have been his accomplice.
The whole thing is horrific, anyway.
Sheila as his accomplice makes no sense.
He didn't need her help to commit the massacre and stage the scene.
If he had asked for her help, to kill her family and herself !, she would have declined. It would have also given her advance warning and she may have told Neville or June.
-
I'm not but didn't know the bullets used expanded on impact. Obviously they were not as powerful as Mark Chapman's bullets as his was a gun designed for humans.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=37128;image)
-
For a man? Who was used to loading them, not for a novice?
Perhaps. I have loaded them myself and the last couple of bullets need a little more force to insert.(I am a novice though).
What I was really getting at, is if you were in a mad rush to load the rifle and go out after those pesky rabbits, would you bother loading a full mag?
-
Pulled the trigger on herself ?
Why didn't Bamber just shoot her himself ? He had shot everyone else.
don't even know why I'm bothering to answer. In this particular scenario, JB admits he shot Sheila.
-
Are you new to the case? ??? Lol :D
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sheila as his accomplice makes no sense.
He didn't need her help to commit the massacre and stage the scene.
If he had asked for her help, to kill her family and herself !, she would have declined. It would have also given her advance warning and she may have told Neville or June.
I give up, throw in the towel :'( :'( :'(
-
Perhaps. I have loaded them myself and the last couple of bullets need a little more force to insert.(I am a novice though).
What I was really getting at, is if you were in a mad rush to load the rifle and go out after those pesky rabbits, would you bother loading a full mag?
Do we know if he loaded the rifle regularly ?
-
Perhaps. I have loaded them myself and the last couple of bullets need a little more force to insert.(I am a novice though).
What I was really getting at, is if you were in a mad rush to load the rifle and go out after those pesky rabbits, would you bother loading a full mag?
Fully loading the rifle without a silencer does not make sense. As he could only fire one shot before the rabbits dispersed.
However didn't Bamber say he fully loaded the rifle ? I have no doubt he did. In preparation for later.
-
I give up, throw in the towel :'( :'( :'(
Yes it is a ridiculous suggestion that Sheila was his accomplice.
-
Yes it is a ridiculous suggestion that Sheila was his accomplice.
I agree, it is an utterly preposterous suggestion.
-
Fully loading the rifle without a silencer does not make sense. As he could only fire one shot before the rabbits dispersed.
However didn't Bamber say he fully loaded the rifle ? I have no doubt he did. In preparation for later.
I very much doubt the failed rabbit hunting exercise ever took place, it was just a story to give credence to the alleged existence of a loaded rifle to be easily accessible by Sheila.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6221.msg292159.html#msg292159
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6221.msg292159.html#msg292159
I'm not sure of your intended meaning? ???
-
Yes it is a ridiculous suggestion that Sheila was his accomplice.
I have always thought so but am willing to give it an airing, :-\
-
I have always thought so but am willing to give it an airing, :-\
:o
I suggest you put that towel back on right this minute! :o
-
:o
I suggest you put that towel back on right this minute! :o
;D ;D ;D ;D :'(
-
Given the amount of guns and ammunition in the farmhouse I'm surprised that Neville didn't arm himself------------very surprised. How quick,seconds in fact it would have taken to shoot at the legs of the perpetrator to put them out of action ? He was this big,strong farmer ? I really don't understand.
-
Given the amount of guns and ammunition in the farmhouse I'm surprised that Neville didn't arm himself------------very surprised. How quick,seconds in fact it would have taken to shoot at the legs of the perpetrator to put them out of action ? He was this big,strong farmer ? I really don't understand.
Where would he get a gun from?
-
Where would he get a gun from?
The gun cupboard ? The one he kept under his bed ?
-
The gun cupboard ? The one he kept under his bed ?
Did Neville keep a loaded gun under his bed or is that another myth?
-
The gun cupboard ? The one he kept under his bed ?
There wasn't a gun under the bed, that is a myth.
The gun cupboard. Okay.
As the office stair door was locked, he would have to go through the kitchen to get to the gun cupboard.
Where was he murdered again?
He didn't have access to a firearm.
-
How can anyone evaluate these claims when we don't know who the source is? Most of us don't even know anything about Harrison.
As it stands, it is a totally worthless piece of information.
I agree.
-
How can he have done if the alleged letter he claims to have received was anonymous?
which one? He gets them regular? Only joking Neil.
-
which one? He gets them regular? Only joking Neil.
He certainly does. 8) 8)
-
He certainly does. 8) 8)
Not sure where your post went? But as I understand it, the letter wasn't anonymous, whoever the person is, asked for his name to be kept out of the book.
-
Not sure where your post went? But as I understand it, the letter wasn't anonymous, whoever the person is, asked for his name to be kept out of the book.
Do you know who this supposed letter was from?
-
Do you know who this supposed letter was from?
All I know is, that he was a close friend. Don't have any names.
-
All I know is, that he was a close friend. Don't have any names.
Hopefully it wasn't Mike!!! :o
-
Hopefully it wasn't Mike!!! :o
Heheheheeeee ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hopefully it wasn't Mike!!! :o
Errrrr, I don't think so! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
All I know is, that he was a close friend. Don't have any names.
Why did he not want his identity disclosed? Is this another of Paul Harrison's death threat claims?
-
There wasn't a gun under the bed, that is a myth.
The gun cupboard. Okay.
As the office stair door was locked, he would have to go through the kitchen to get to the gun cupboard.
Where was he murdered again?
He didn't have access to a firearm.
So what would have been the purpose of locking that door between the bathroom and upstairs office if it was someone from the outside doing the shooting ? Surely it would have hampered an assailant to have made a quick getaway ? Only those already present for the night would go around locking doors seeing as the one which was locked led to other parts of the house ?
-
Why did he not want his identity disclosed? Is this another of Paul Harrison's death threat claims?
There is really no way I can answer that given that I haven't read the book. However, I can understand why someone wouldn't want to be named as being associated with Jeremy, especially if they believe he's guilty and had been close to him in the past. I don't believe there were any death threats - just a request not to name him.
-
So what would have been the purpose of locking that door between the bathroom and upstairs office if it was someone from the outside doing the shooting ? Surely it would have hampered an assailant to have made a quick getaway ? Only those already present for the night would go around locking doors seeing as the one which was locked led to other parts of the house ?
It may have been always locked at night OR, perhaps it was locked for the very reason you have mentioned, if it blocks the assailant's escape, it also blocks the victims and stops them getting to the gun cupboard without going through the rest of the house first.
-
On the contrary,it's those who say/think that Jeremy is guilty who certainly don't mind admitting it,from what I've seen. It's those of us who claim he's innocent who are the cautious ones because of all the flak and name-calling,i.e " supporters of a child murderer ".
-
On the contrary,it's those who say/think that Jeremy is guilty who certainly don't mind admitting it,from what I've seen. It's those of us who claim he's innocent who are the cautious ones because of all the flak and name-calling,i.e " supporters of a child murderer ".
Admitting what? Cautious about what?
-
On the contrary,it's those who say/think that Jeremy is guilty who certainly don't mind admitting it,from what I've seen. It's those of us who claim he's innocent who are the cautious ones because of all the flak and name-calling,i.e " supporters of a child murderer ".
But those who believe him to be guilty may well not wish to be named as having previously been closely associated with him.
-
But those who believe him to be guilty may well not wish to be named as having previously been closely associated with him.
It might not suit the board that the guy doesn't want to be named, but that's his prerogative. He might still be in prison and doesn't want his fellow inmates to know he associated with Jeremy or may be out and doesn't want his family to know. Who knows! You either believe the guy wrote to PH or you don't, that the story he wrote in the letter is true or it isn't - but if it is ........ even if it's JUST a scenario, what innocent man puts himself in scenario that makes him (even if only partially) responsible?
-
Admitting what? Cautious about what?
Admitting his guilt. Where's the shame in admitting who you are and what you think ?
Cautious about the minority who say he's innocent. People can be vicious.I've witnessed it in Australia with the Lindy Chamberlain case where the courtroom was full of guilters and where I was among only a handful who believed she'd been telling the truth. I'd have probably been pelted with eggs if I'd stood up and shouted innocent. This is the difference when there's a crowd who support guilt,they didn't mind being in the news the next day.
There's always safety in numbers and where you have a majority who says he's guilty,it's fine to include your name because you've got the world and his wife backing you up.
-
How can anyone evaluate these claims when we don't know who the source is? Most of us don't even know anything about Harrison.
As it stands, it is a totally worthless piece of information.
ive done a tiny bit of resarch on harrsion it was rather intresting i found out about one of leser known works.
-
Admitting his guilt. Where's the shame in admitting who you are and what you think ?
Cautious about the minority who say he's innocent. People can be vicious.I've witnessed it in Australia with the Lindy Chamberlain case where the courtroom was full of guilters and where I was among only a handful who believed she'd been telling the truth. I'd have probably been pelted with eggs if I'd stood up and shouted innocent. This is the difference when there's a crowd who support guilt,they didn't mind being in the news the next day.
There's always safety in numbers and where you have a majority who says he's guilty,it's fine to include your name because you've got the world and his wife backing you up.
Lookout, this isn't about you and your experiences in Australia, and I think you're being a little judgemental. None of us have any idea about this guy's lifestyle and it may be that he's not in a position to share this information with whoever he is closest to. It may have the same effect that you were concerned about when you didn't stand up and shout "INNOCENT" in that Australian court.............and you had the luxury of coming home.
-
Admitting his guilt. Where's the shame in admitting who you are and what you think ?
Cautious about the minority who say he's innocent. People can be vicious.I've witnessed it in Australia with the Lindy Chamberlain case where the courtroom was full of guilters and where I was among only a handful who believed she'd been telling the truth. I'd have probably been pelted with eggs if I'd stood up and shouted innocent. This is the difference when there's a crowd who support guilt,they didn't mind being in the news the next day.
There's always safety in numbers and where you have a majority who says he's guilty,it's fine to include your name because you've got the world and his wife backing you up.
Never needed anyone to back me up, when I thought he was innocent, I said so, when I realised I had make a mistake - I said so. Some people stand up to be counted and some hid behind the crowd. If I had thought the woman above was telling the truth (eggs or no eggs), I'd have said so.
-
Admitting his guilt. Where's the shame in admitting who you are and what you think ?
Cautious about the minority who say he's innocent. People can be vicious.I've witnessed it in Australia with the Lindy Chamberlain case where the courtroom was full of guilters and where I was among only a handful who believed she'd been telling the truth. I'd have probably been pelted with eggs if I'd stood up and shouted innocent. This is the difference when there's a crowd who support guilt,they didn't mind being in the news the next day.
There's always safety in numbers and where you have a majority who says he's guilty,it's fine to include your name because you've got the world and his wife backing you up.
Don't really understand what your trying to get at here? Don't forget this was a pro Bamber site that was heavenly in favour of Bamber in numbers? It has been changed by people reevaluating evidence or in my case doing their own research away from this site and nothing to do with safety in numbers?
-
Don't really understand what your trying to get at here? Don't forget this was a pro Bamber site that was heavenly in favour of Bamber in numbers? It has been changed by people reevaluating evidence or in my case doing their own research away from this site and nothing to do with safety in numbers?
And we've all done it independently, NOT as a soon to be/newly anti Bamber group.
-
There wasn't a gun under the bed, that is a myth.
The gun cupboard. Okay.
As the office stair door was locked, he would have to go through the kitchen to get to the gun cupboard.
Where was he murdered again?
He didn't have access to a firearm.
Which is possibly where he was heading via the kitchen?
-
Which is possibly where he was heading via the kitchen?
Personally I think he was just trying to get away, he'd already been shot and severely injured by then.
-
ive done a tiny bit of resarch on harrsion it was rather intresting i found out about one of leser known works.
And?
-
Personally I think he was just trying to get away, he'd already been shot and severely injured by then.
He was either trying to get away from Jeremy. Or followed him as he knew he was going downstairs to reload before returning.
It's a natural reaction to run away when someone is shooting you. In the dark Neville would not know who it was, or what sort of gun it was. It could have been a shot gun, which would blow his head off, or it could have been a rifle which holds up to 11 bullets.
The other reasons to run downstairs was to arm himself, find a defensive weapon. Or to try to get outside, the Foakes's were only a few yards away.
Bob Woffinton said Neville ran downstairs to telephone the police. After Jeremy had disabled all phones at WHF. This I do not believe as there was no time to be making phone calls.
-
Personally I think he was just trying to get away, he'd already been shot and severely injured by then.
I guess that's very possible, of course I didn't think it through the poor guy was very badly injured by that time.
-
ive done a tiny bit of resarch on harrsion it was rather intresting i found out about one of leser known works.
Do you have a typewriter? :D
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison)
-
The list of credits in the Deviant book names Tony Bennett.Would this be the same Tony Bennett who was once a solicitor ( I'd be very surprised if he still is ) ?
-
The list of credits in the Deviant book names Tony Bennett.Would this be the same Tony Bennett who was once a solicitor ( I'd be very surprised if he still is ) ?
If it's the same guy---------------he's a liar,and I don't mind saying that on here. He made some dreadful allegations against the McCanns----------he's one horrible character. I can't imagine anyone going to him for advice unless it was to/for another creep like himself.
-
If it's the same guy---------------he's a liar,and I don't mind saying that on here. He made some dreadful allegations against the McCanns----------he's one horrible character. I can't imagine anyone going to him for advice unless it was to/for another creep like himself.
If this is the same guy,he'd actually published that the McCanns killed their daughter,so it comes as no surprise that he'd assist in blaming Jeremy for the murders.
-
The list of credits in the Deviant book names Tony Bennett.Would this be the same Tony Bennett who was once a solicitor ( I'd be very surprised if he still is ) ?
I thought he was a singer? Perhaps PH listened to him a lot when he was writing the book? ;D ;D ;D
-
I thought he was a singer? Perhaps PH listened to him a lot when he was writing the book? ;D ;D ;D
No comparison. Bennett the solicitor is one obnoxious creep who went out of his way to make trouble for the McCanns. He set up his own website for all his " guilty " cronies and generally formed a hate campaign against two innocent people. He had posters made to be put up everywhere,even in Leicester where the McCanns live,vilifying and accusing them. One evil character.
-
No comparison. Bennett the solicitor is one obnoxious creep who went out of his way to make trouble for the McCanns. He set up his own website for all his " guilty " cronies and generally formed a hate campaign against two innocent people. He had posters made to be put up everywhere,even in Leicester where the McCanns live,vilifying and accusing them. One evil character.
So what would he have to do with the Bamber case? Sounds like he has his hands full already. I guess there are quite a few Tony Bennett's - it's not really an unusual name.
-
So what would he have to do with the Bamber case? Sounds like he has his hands full already. I guess there are quite a few Tony Bennett's - it's not really an unusual name.
I can somehow see it being the same guy. Contemptuous and reels off allegations like they're going out of fashion. An Essex man,or was one. I remember him well,and I'd imagine the type of guy with time on his hands,ex-solicitor,what could be better than having someone who thinks he's above the law ? A match made in Heaven for PH.!!
-
I can somehow see it being the same guy. Contemptuous and reels off allegations like they're going out of fashion. An Essex man,or was one. I remember him well,and I'd imagine the type of guy with time on his hands,ex-solicitor,what could be better than having someone who thinks he's above the law ? A match made in Heaven for PH.!!
You're doing that now Lookout.
-
The damn book sends shivers down my spine----------and it's got nothing to do with it being about Jeremy either. I've got a bad feeling about it and the way it's been written. A fabricated washout with lies.
-
The damn book sends shivers down my spine----------and it's got nothing to do with it being about Jeremy either. I've got a bad feeling about it and the way it's been written. A fabricated washout with lies.
You were saying such before you read it, so it's no surprise you feel that way now. I think your description is how many feel about your posts.
You were never going to say anything positive about an anti-Bamber book.
-
The damn book sends shivers down my spine----------and it's got nothing to do with it being about Jeremy either. I've got a bad feeling about it and the way it's been written. A fabricated washout with lies.
Jesus! Talk about an over reaction. Why don't you wait until midnight and burn it by the light of the moon. Don't forget to draw a circle around yourself to ward off the evil - better carry some garlic and wear a sliver cross for good measure!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Jesus! Talk about an over reaction. Why don't you wait until midnight and burn it by the light of the moon. Don't forget to draw a circle around yourself to ward off the evil - better carry some garlic and wear a sliver cross for good measure!! ;D ;D ;D
It seems the book has ruffled feathers, there must be more in it than the letter that cuts a little deep.
-
You're doing that now Lookout.
That's just tuff.It's how I feel about the man and his behaviour towards the McCanns. People were sucked in by him which I couldn't understand them being so gullible. Perhaps it was his status as a solicitor at the time.
-
That's just tuff.It's how I feel about the man and his behaviour towards the McCanns. People were sucked in by him which I couldn't understand them being so gullible. Perhaps it was his status as a solicitor at the time.
We don't even know if it is the same man, and if it is how much he even had to do with Deviant.
-
That's just tuff.It's how I feel about the man and his behaviour towards the McCanns. People were sucked in by him which I couldn't understand them being so gullible. Perhaps it was his status as a solicitor at the time.
Oh for gods sake, you don't even know it's the same person, you're just trying to up the drama!
-
You were saying such before you read it, so it's no surprise you feel that way now. I think your description is how many feel about your posts.
You were never going to say anything positive about an anti-Bamber book.
I couldn't give a toss what people think of my posts.
I'd like to have seen your posts had he been pro-Bamber.
-
Oh for gods sake, you don't even know it's the same person, you're just trying to up the drama!
I've got a good idea it is the same bloke. I don't do drama either---------just the truth.
-
I've got a good idea it is the same bloke. I don't do drama either---------just the truth.
Hogwash! You grab onto anything that supports an innocent Jeremy and you don't even bother to check if it's fact or not. You're not bothered about the truth - just in Jeremy being innocent, whatever the cost!
-
I'd like to have seen your posts had he been pro-Bamber.
I don't have a high opinion of PH. I never rated his posts. But I am willing to read the book with an open mind.
I've got a good idea it is the same bloke. I don't do drama either---------just the truth.
It's just the same name. That's the only idea you have. Because he has the same name as someone who you believe posted negatively about the McCanns you're throwing everything you can to insult the person in the book, as a way to have even more digs at the book. Just a diversion tactic in my opinion and another attempt to be-little the book. Doesn't matter if it is the truth or not, as long as you are defending Bamber.
-
I've got a good idea it is the same bloke. I don't do drama either---------just the truth.
Thank God his name wasn't John Smith. You'd have been in a bit of a muddle then. I wonder just how many Tony Bennetts there are who neither sing nor disrespect the MaCanns.
-
Never needed anyone to back me up, when I thought he was innocent, I said so, when I realised I had make a mistake - I said so. Some people stand up to be counted and some hid behind the crowd. If I had thought the woman above was telling the truth (eggs or no eggs), I'd have said so.
Me too!
“Honesty is more than not lying. It is truth telling, truth speaking, truth living, and truth loving.”
James E. Faust
-
Thank God his name wasn't John Smith. You'd have been in a bit of a muddle then. I wonder just how many Tony Bennetts there are who neither sing nor disrespect the MaCanns.
If it had been a " John Smith " I'd have looked for the credentials befitting to PH's book. It takes a deviant to know another deviant. They all stick together. It's beginning to look a bit like the rogues gallery,what with Mick Gradwell being embroiled in the scandal in Jersey-----and him a top cop and whatever else gets uncovered in the meantime.
-
If it had been a " John Smith " I'd have looked for the credentials befitting to PH's book. It takes a deviant to know another deviant. They all stick together. It's beginning to look a bit like the rogues gallery,what with Mick Gradwell being embroiled in the scandal in Jersey-----and him a top cop and whatever else gets uncovered in the meantime.
If you try hard enough Lookout, you might be able to wheedle Hitler into the book or Genghis Khan.
-
If it had been a " John Smith " I'd have looked for the credentials befitting to PH's book. It takes a deviant to know another deviant. They all stick together. It's beginning to look a bit like the rogues gallery,what with Mick Gradwell being embroiled in the scandal in Jersey-----and him a top cop and whatever else gets uncovered in the meantime.
Lookout, why do I get the impression that you're blowing this out of ALL proportion, but I really intrigued to learn that having allegedly recognized a deviant you admit that it takes one to know one ;)
-
Will be of interest
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html
-
"After showering, he changed into new clothes from his old bedroom, pushing the others into a bag for disposal later. He placed the silencer in a box in the ‘den’ cupboard, since to dispose of it might raise questions about its whereabouts."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html#ixzz3gHVh3F00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
An extract from the mail .
Well I hope the rest of the book is not going to include unprovable assumptions like this? >:(
-
Some comments below from Colin. Hopefully now supporters will finally accept that he does believe in Bambers guilt.
As part of her research, in July 2013 Carol Ann Lee contacted Colin Caffell, Sheila’s former husband and the father of her twins. It came shortly after the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the ‘whole life’ sentence imposed on Bamber and two others. Here is his moving reply...
‘I have remained silent through many years of Jeremy Bamber’s perennial intrusions into our lives because I have been endeavouring to create a normal life for my new family who have nothing to do with my tragic past.
‘Despite my best endeavours to shield them, however, they have had to live under its shadow. The new ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, against the setting of “whole life tariffs” as “inhumane”, not only potentially places the lives of myself, my family and the families of all those who fought for Jeremy’s conviction in very real danger (and the public in general in the case of other dangerous “whole lifers” who are also seeking parole) but undermines our democracy and strikes at the very heart of what is globally recognised as one of the finest and fairest justice systems in the world.
‘It is perhaps a blessing for my family that, despite a fair trial in 1986 and a later appeal before three judges who determined that new evidence made Bamber’s original conviction “even safer”, he has refused to admit his guilt and therefore does not meet the Strasbourg court’s criteria of “progressing towards rehabilitation”.
‘Bamber has proved himself an extremely dangerous and devious man who will clearly remain that way, having shown no sign of remorse or contrition for murdering five members of his family for financial gain. That is “inhumane”. Any “depression and despair” he has said that he feels may be the beginning of him coming to terms with the fact that he has lost his spurious battle with justice; something most “lifers” begin to accept much earlier on in their sentences. It is not inhumane to have to face that – they need to – but it is inhumane to make victims and their families live a life sentence of uncertainty. The victims’ families have to truly face overwhelming loss, depression and despair.
‘It is also inhumane that our daughter and her friends, at the age of 11, Googled her name only to be confronted with Bamber’s website that included photographs of bullet wounds to my former wife’s neck. My daughter would understandably like to change her name.’
-
"from Goldhanger to Tolleshunt D’Arcy took no more than 15 minutes. An approach from the front of the house was too risky; it was safer for Jeremy to dismount in the back garden, leaving the bicycle there before pulling on gloves and some sort of mask"
Well that would explain why the dog was barking I suppose. Perhaps it was a batman mask.
-
Some comments below from Colin. Hopefully now supporters will finally accept that he does believe in Bambers guilt.
As part of her research, in July 2013 Carol Ann Lee contacted Colin Caffell, Sheila’s former husband and the father of her twins. It came shortly after the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the ‘whole life’ sentence imposed on Bamber and two others. Here is his moving reply...
‘I have remained silent through many years of Jeremy Bamber’s perennial intrusions into our lives because I have been endeavouring to create a normal life for my new family who have nothing to do with my tragic past.
‘Despite my best endeavours to shield them, however, they have had to live under its shadow. The new ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, against the setting of “whole life tariffs” as “inhumane”, not only potentially places the lives of myself, my family and the families of all those who fought for Jeremy’s conviction in very real danger (and the public in general in the case of other dangerous “whole lifers” who are also seeking parole) but undermines our democracy and strikes at the very heart of what is globally recognised as one of the finest and fairest justice systems in the world.
‘It is perhaps a blessing for my family that, despite a fair trial in 1986 and a later appeal before three judges who determined that new evidence made Bamber’s original conviction “even safer”, he has refused to admit his guilt and therefore does not meet the Strasbourg court’s criteria of “progressing towards rehabilitation”.
‘Bamber has proved himself an extremely dangerous and devious man who will clearly remain that way, having shown no sign of remorse or contrition for murdering five members of his family for financial gain. That is “inhumane”. Any “depression and despair” he has said that he feels may be the beginning of him coming to terms with the fact that he has lost his spurious battle with justice; something most “lifers” begin to accept much earlier on in their sentences. It is not inhumane to have to face that – they need to – but it is inhumane to make victims and their families live a life sentence of uncertainty. The victims’ families have to truly face overwhelming loss, depression and despair.
‘It is also inhumane that our daughter and her friends, at the age of 11, Googled her name only to be confronted with Bamber’s website that included photographs of bullet wounds to my former wife’s neck. My daughter would understandably like to change her name.’
I guess it's easy to forget that REAL people are living with the consequences of Bambers actions. I hope one day he will confess and leave them to get on with their lives in peace.
-
I guess it's easy to forget that REAL people are living with the consequences of Bambers actions. I hope one day he will confess and leave them to get on with their lives in peace.
Me too. But I don't think that he ever will whilst people support him and he believes that he has a chance of a loop hole somewhere someday, he has nothing else to live for other than fighting the system and even if he doesn't get anywhere legally the attention that correspondence he gets will stroke his ego.
-
He's not likely to confess if he didn't do it,is he ?
-
"from Goldhanger to Tolleshunt D’Arcy took no more than 15 minutes. An approach from the front of the house was too risky; it was safer for Jeremy to dismount in the back garden, leaving the bicycle there before pulling on gloves and some sort of mask"
Well that would explain why the dog was barking I suppose. Perhaps it was a batman mask.
Doesn't sound very convincing does it? I'm not nit picking just giving my opinion from the excerpts shown but shall read the book before forming an opinion.
-
"from Goldhanger to Tolleshunt D’Arcy took no more than 15 minutes. An approach from the front of the house was too risky; it was safer for Jeremy to dismount in the back garden, leaving the bicycle there before pulling on gloves and some sort of mask"
Well that would explain why the dog was barking I suppose. Perhaps it was a batman mask.
She isn't saying that is what happened. But what was the safest approach - the back garden. When you read an authors book.. they are going to give their opinion - nitpicking really. :-\
-
This bit is wrong
"Sash windows do not open silently either, but Bamber managed to get into the house without alerting either the labrador in the garage or his mother’s dog indoors. After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table"
The phone wasn't in the bedroom on the night of the murders.
I did note that Len Foakes said he 'saw' Neville bringing the trailer back full of rapeseed - so that settles that.
-
This bit is wrong
"Sash windows do not open silently either, but Bamber managed to get into the house without alerting either the labrador in the garage or his mother’s dog indoors. After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table"
The phone wasn't in the bedroom on the night of the murders.
I did note that Len Foakes said he 'saw' Neville bringing the trailer back full of rapeseed - so that settles that.
Just about to message you about this - so Neville brought it back. I wonder why Jeremy left without doing so.
-
This bit is wrong
"Sash windows do not open silently either, but Bamber managed to get into the house without alerting either the labrador in the garage or his mother’s dog indoors. After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table"
The phone wasn't in the bedroom on the night of the murders.
I did note that Len Foakes said he 'saw' Neville bringing the trailer back full of rapeseed - so that settles that.
It's a glaring mistake to make. As the hidden phone makes Jeremy look suspicious.
-
This bit is wrong
"Sash windows do not open silently either, but Bamber managed to get into the house without alerting either the labrador in the garage or his mother’s dog indoors. After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table"
The phone wasn't in the bedroom on the night of the murders.
I did note that Len Foakes said he 'saw' Neville bringing the trailer back full of rapeseed - so that settles that.
Hi Caroline, yes I agree the phone wasn't in the bedroom, also noticed she quoted Len Foakes about the trailer but she was wrong about the phone so no guarantee she was right about the trailer?
-
It's a glaring mistake to make. As the hidden phone makes Jeremy look suspicious.
She mentions that he swapped the phones on the night of the murders but I think others saw the bedroom phone in the kitchen before the murders?
-
Hi Caroline, yes I agree the phone wasn't in the bedroom, also noticed she quoted Len Flakes about the trailer but she was wrong about the phone so no guarantee she was right about the trailer?
Perhaps, I thought Foakes only hear the trailer but I might be wrong?
-
Some comments below from Colin. Hopefully now supporters will finally accept that he does believe in Bambers guilt.
As part of her research, in July 2013 Carol Ann Lee contacted Colin Caffell, Sheila’s former husband and the father of her twins. It came shortly after the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the ‘whole life’ sentence imposed on Bamber and two others. Here is his moving reply...
‘I have remained silent through many years of Jeremy Bamber’s perennial intrusions into our lives because I have been endeavouring to create a normal life for my new family who have nothing to do with my tragic past.
‘Despite my best endeavours to shield them, however, they have had to live under its shadow. The new ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, against the setting of “whole life tariffs” as “inhumane”, not only potentially places the lives of myself, my family and the families of all those who fought for Jeremy’s conviction in very real danger (and the public in general in the case of other dangerous “whole lifers” who are also seeking parole) but undermines our democracy and strikes at the very heart of what is globally recognised as one of the finest and fairest justice systems in the world.
‘It is perhaps a blessing for my family that, despite a fair trial in 1986 and a later appeal before three judges who determined that new evidence made Bamber’s original conviction “even safer”, he has refused to admit his guilt and therefore does not meet the Strasbourg court’s criteria of “progressing towards rehabilitation”.
‘Bamber has proved himself an extremely dangerous and devious man who will clearly remain that way, having shown no sign of remorse or contrition for murdering five members of his family for financial gain. That is “inhumane”. Any “depression and despair” he has said that he feels may be the beginning of him coming to terms with the fact that he has lost his spurious battle with justice; something most “lifers” begin to accept much earlier on in their sentences. It is not inhumane to have to face that – they need to – but it is inhumane to make victims and their families live a life sentence of uncertainty. The victims’ families have to truly face overwhelming loss, depression and despair.
‘It is also inhumane that our daughter and her friends, at the age of 11, Googled her name only to be confronted with Bamber’s website that included photographs of bullet wounds to my former wife’s neck. My daughter would understandably like to change her name.’
I think at times, we have to remember that Colin lost his little boys in this tragedy. It must have been an awful and almost an impossible time for Colin, and his family to bear; sons' a grandson and nephews. I doubt anyone can imagine how it must have felt.
I'm so pleased that the forum is not in the public eye anymore and can only be read by being a member. I hope it stays that way.
-
She mentions that he swapped the phones on the night of the murders but I think others saw the bedroom phone in the kitchen before the murders?
Wouldn't make sense to do it on the night of the murders, would it & as you say people saw it there earlier. I guess I will have to read the full thing to see why she is saying that - but it would be worrying for the rest of the book if a mistake like this has been on something so well known.
-
Just about to message you about this - so Neville brought it back. I wonder why Jeremy left without doing so.
BW said it sounded as though there had been an argument because of Nevill's off-hand manner, perhaps Jeremy returning without the trailer was the cause of it?
-
Mr Boutflour, a farmer from Wix, added: “Anybody who gives him a new appeal - well I would seriously question their sanity.
“I find all this quite extraordinary, people forget the gravity of the crime and talk about it as if he went and had a cup of tea or punched somebody in the face.
“Two innocent children were shot in their beds. Wake up, this guy is a bloody murderer.
“He killed five people and why is anybody giving him any credibility?
“It is messing about with stupid technicalities and an appeal would be a waste of public time and money.”
---------------------------------------
Caroline - Boutflour talks JUST like you and I do... I think soon we will be accused of being Boutflour and AE. ;D ;D
He speaks a lot of sense though.
BW said it sounded as though there had been an argument because of Nevill's off-hand manner, perhaps Jeremy returning without the trailer was the cause of it?
Yeah. Or Jeremy thought "sod it!" and left without bothering to bring the trailor back because of whatever argument had happened, perfect storm brewing for him.
-
Wouldn't make sense to do it on the night of the murders, would it & as you say people saw it there earlier. I guess I will have to read the full thing to see why she is saying that - but it would be worrying for the rest of the book if a mistake like this has been on something so well known.
I wouldn't have thought so because it leaves too many things to do. Washing and changing clothes, returning the silencer to the cupboard, staging the scene etc. However, if he really did decide 'tonights the night' - perhaps he did do everything as he went along?
-
Mr Boutflour, a farmer from Wix, added: “Anybody who gives him a new appeal - well I would seriously question their sanity.
“I find all this quite extraordinary, people forget the gravity of the crime and talk about it as if he went and had a cup of tea or punched somebody in the face.
“Two innocent children were shot in their beds. Wake up, this guy is a bloody murderer.
“He killed five people and why is anybody giving him any credibility?
“It is messing about with stupid technicalities and an appeal would be a waste of public time and money.”
---------------------------------------
Caroline - Boutflour talks JUST like you and I do... I think soon we will be accused of being Boutflour and AE. ;D ;D
He speaks a lot of sense though.
Yeah. Or Jeremy thought "sod it!" and left without bothering to bring the trailor back because of whatever argument had happened, perfect storm brewing for him.
Ha, ha!! Don't give people idea's - it doesn't take much!! ;D ;D ;D
-
"from Goldhanger to Tolleshunt D’Arcy took no more than 15 minutes. An approach from the front of the house was too risky; it was safer for Jeremy to dismount in the back garden, leaving the bicycle there before pulling on gloves and some sort of mask"
Well that would explain why the dog was barking I suppose. Perhaps it was a batman mask.
There isn't a back garden. ???
-
I couldn't give a toss what people think of my posts.
I'd like to have seen your posts had he been pro-Bamber.
He was wasn't he?
-
He was wasn't he?
When he joined he was, or that was the impression I got. He received a lot of encouragement here. Jackie offered to help him promote is book and you can bet your life she wouldn't do that if he was a guilter.
-
When he joined he was, or that was the impression I got. He received a lot of encouragement here. Jackie offered to help him promote is book and you can bet your life she wouldn't do that if he was a guilter.
We'll I don't know the chap. Personally I don't buy in to all these claims of revelation.
He says he proves the case against JB, whereas the reality is he's just repeating much of what has been said already on this forum. Throwing in an alleged sensational letter for good measure, which is somewhat convenient.
His quarrels with NGB and JP also leave a lot to be desired and detracts from his professionalism.
I'm not impressed by it all.
-
Given the amount of guns and ammunition in the farmhouse I'm surprised that Neville didn't arm himself------------very surprised. How quick,seconds in fact it would have taken to shoot at the legs of the perpetrator to put them out of action ? He was this big,strong farmer ? I really don't understand.
How many times have I posed to you that Nevill could have been going to try to get a gun from the back office but was attacked before he could get there?
I posted the universe of possibilities:
1) the killer was running to the kitchen to get bullets to reload but Nevill caught up and tried to disarm the killer before the killer could reload
2) Nevill was running to the kitchen to:
A) try to get a gun but the killer caught up and they fought before Nevill got the chance
B) to try to use the phone but the killer caught up and they fought before Nevill got the chance to try
C) to try to get out the back door to go run for help
--------
How many times have I posted that if Sheila had been running around with the gun and Nevill was too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands but she left him alone in the kitchen then he would have been apt to go get a shotgun from the closet as opposed to calling Jeremy.
Are you finally waking up after all this time or am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.
-
He prob thought one loaded magazine would do it?
He thought 1 loaded magazine would be sufficient for the parents. He likely expected the need to reload to take care of the other victims but that is the whole reason you use a moderator and kill them in bed. The expectation is to be able to silently kill them in batches. His poor targeting of Nevill screwed things up resulting in the struggle. There is nothing to suggest anyone else woke up at an inopportune time so he was able to complete his task successfully.
-
I can't believe this. He had been planning the massacre and knew a bit about guns.
Ideally he would be hoping to kill everyone with the 10/11 bullets. As suspicious people may ask if Sheila could chamber and re load.
Maybe one shot head each into Sheila and the twins, the rest into Neville and June. However Neville got downstairs after only two upstairs head shots.
After Neville's beating, more head shots were needed. Meaning a re load was needed as he had already fired bullets into June and two bullets into Neville's torso. Sheila, Nicolas and Daniel had still to be shot.
Once he had chambered and re loaded once, the damage was done. He might as well chamber and re load twice and fire lots more bullets into people to make it look 'crazy'.
The more shots fired the more reloading that needs to have taken place which increases the opportunity for some of the victims to escape and decreases the likelihood the killer was Sheila. There is a substantial difference between having extra magazines already loaded to draw upon and having to keep reloading a single magazine.
-
There wasn't a gun under the bed, that is a myth.
The gun cupboard. Okay.
As the office stair door was locked, he would have to go through the kitchen to get to the gun cupboard.
Where was he murdered again?
He didn't have access to a firearm.
Indeed he could have been trying to get to the gun closet after escaping from the bedroom but was jumped by the killer before he could reach it the office.
If he had been left in the kitchen alone to use the phone then instead of calling Jeremy he could have gone to the office and got a gun. That is what someone to panicked to try to disarm a gunman with their bare hands would do- go arm themselves as opposed to call their son and hope their son could get to them before the gunman did anything. So this is a problem for why Jeremy would be called. Of course there are others like Sheila never touched the gun so why would Nevill call and claim such...
-
Which is possibly where he was heading via the kitchen?
Assuming he was running to the kitchen and being chased by the killer then there are only 3 possibilities:
1) trying to get to the guns
2) trying to get to the phone
3) trying to get out the door to go try to summon help
There is of course the 4th possibility that he was chasing the killer to prevent the killer from reloading and caught up in the kitchen. Presumably the killer could have caught Nevill before he even got into the kitchen since he was bouncing against walls and having some difficulty moving fast. But we will never know for sure which of these 4 is the case unless Jeremy felt like speaking. Someone posing this to Jeremy with the generic word killer or Sheila in place of the word killer to see what he thought of it could be interesting.
-
Really ? so if they expanded slowly upon impact this would help explain Neville and June not dying straight away. And Jeremy's panic re load.
The location of their wounds explain why they did not die right away. To kill instantly with a 22LR you need to hit a key location and he failed to do so. The same holds true with other calibers of bullets though location matters as to whether a wound will be fatal or not and how soon.
-
This bit is wrong
"Sash windows do not open silently either, but Bamber managed to get into the house without alerting either the labrador in the garage or his mother’s dog indoors. After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table"
The phone wasn't in the bedroom on the night of the murders.
I did note that Len Foakes said he 'saw' Neville bringing the trailer back full of rapeseed - so that settles that.
Hey Harters, how noisy were the windows when you push them up.
-
He was wasn't he?
Hartley
PH gave me the impression he thought Jeremy a MOJ at the time I thought Jeremy was innocent and I promoted his book as you may all remember like somebody crazy for which he thanked me personal correspondence I had with him was a totally different story from what is written in Deviant :'(
-
Hartley
PH gave me the impression he thought Jeremy a MOJ at the time I thought Jeremy was innocent and I promoted his book as you may all remember like somebody crazy for which he thanked me personal correspondence I had with him was a totally different story from what is written in Deviant :'(
Carol's book is the headlines in Daily Mail online, part of the headline Now crime writer Carol Ann Lee has reinvestigated the murders with Bamber’s full co-operation. Over the course of three years she has studied thousands of documents and interviewed detectives who worked on the case to create this reconstruction of what really happened at White House Farm. And she concludes there can only be one killer...
-
"After showering, he changed into new clothes from his old bedroom, pushing the others into a bag for disposal later. He placed the silencer in a box in the ‘den’ cupboard, since to dispose of it might raise questions about its whereabouts."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html#ixzz3gHVh3F00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
An extract from the mail .
Well I hope the rest of the book is not going to include unprovable assumptions like this? >:(
Jan
both the latest books will be the author's scenario just like we have them on the forum we will never see any concrete evidence of Jeremy's guilt other than what was presented at trial the Establishment struggled then so nothing new is going to come to light most of what I have read in Deviant I have read before on the forum we are all left to our own views. I apologise to Carol Ann I should not judge her book before reading it and I am looking forward to publication.
-
Carol's book is the headlines in Daily Mail online, part of the headline Now crime writer Carol Ann Lee has reinvestigated the murders with Bamber’s full co-operation.
Hi Justice
hope her book is more interesting than Deviant.
-
Jan
both the latest books will be the author's scenario just like we have them on the forum we will never see any concrete evidence of Jeremy's guilt other than what was presented at trial the Establishment struggled then so nothing new is going to come to light most of what I have read in Deviant I have read before on the forum we are all left to our own views. I apologise to Carol Ann I should not judge her book before reading it and I am looking forward to publication.
Hi Susan the problem is readers will see it like this Now crime writer Carol Ann Lee has reinvestigated the murders with Bamber’s full co-operation.
-
Hi Justice
hope her book is more interesting than Deviant.
Hi Susan don't really bother with books, not even read Scott Lomax book and he lives a couple of miles away, read extracts online though? Like you say the evidence is there or do your own research?
-
Doesn't sound very convincing does it? I'm not nit picking just giving my opinion from the excerpts shown but shall read the book before forming an opinion.
Why bother with the mask? I could easily recognise any of my family members no matter what mask they were wearing. Besides they were all going to die, it makes no sense.
-
Hi Susan don't really bother with books, not even read Scott Lomax book and he lives a couple of miles away, read extracts online though? Like you say the evidence is there or do your own research?
Hi Justice
I have only read the book written by Colin as far as Deviant is concerned I was led to believe much more was going to come out of the book and greatly disappointed when I read it nothing different than what I have read on the forum and I feel let down :'( In my head I have two books written only one was published.
-
Why bother with the mask? I could easily recognise any of my family members no matter what mask they were wearing. Besides they were all going to die, it makes no sense.
Well she does add this to the end The experts consulted don’t agree on every point. Indeed, there are puzzles and inconsistencies throughout the case. It is notable, for example, that no one can satisfactorily explain burn marks found on Nevill’s back. It demonstrates there are often questions that cannot be answered – except by the killer.
One thing she has done though, she has spoken with Bamber and a lot of the detectives and Colin Caffel and prob relatives and numerous people involved, that's more than me you or anyone on here has done? So at least give her credit for this. She has formed her own opinion from this and prob could have sold more books by saying he was not guilty? Just for the record did Lomax go to the trouble of interviewing all these people?
-
Hi Justice
I have only read the book written by Colin as far as Deviant is concerned I was led to believe much more was going to come out of the book and greatly disappointed when I read it nothing different than what I have read on the forum and I feel let down :'( In my head I have two books written only one was published.
Again Susan I think an author would have sold more books saying he was innocent? So from all the research they have done and don't forget they have spoken with Bamber himself they have formed the opinion he was guilty? Joe public like books that go against what has already been passed, so credit due to them. Let's face it they are hardly going to make a lot of money from these books?
-
This bit is wrong
"Sash windows do not open silently either, but Bamber managed to get into the house without alerting either the labrador in the garage or his mother’s dog indoors. After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table"
The phone wasn't in the bedroom on the night of the murders.
I did note that Len Foakes said he 'saw' Neville bringing the trailer back full of rapeseed - so that settles that.
How do you know the bedroom phone was not in the bedroom on the night ?
It is correct that taking the kitchen phone off the hook disables all other phones. This is the situation in my parents house. Bamber has gone on about storms and telephone engineers over the years.
I thought the belief was that Bamber moved the bedroom phone downstairs after killing everyone and hid the working kitchen phone under magazines, to justify Neville being in the kitchen.
-
Why bother with the mask? I could easily recognise any of my family members no matter what mask they were wearing. Besides they were all going to die, it makes no sense.
I would wear some sort of protective head/face gear. To protect himself from getting any face marks. Just in case there is a fight to the death.
-
Not forgetting thick lens spectacles as he must have been pretty short-sighted to have had to switch most of the lights on considering he'd lived there for a good 20 years and knew his bearings,etc.
-
"After showering, he changed into new clothes from his old bedroom, pushing the others into a bag for disposal later. He placed the silencer in a box in the ‘den’ cupboard, since to dispose of it might raise questions about its whereabouts."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html#ixzz3gHVh3F00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
An extract from the mail .
Well I hope the rest of the book is not going to include unprovable assumptions like this? >:(
That is a reason the silencer was put away. Rather than disposed of. In a box, underneath other boxes, dart boards and guns at the back of the gun cupboard.
It is very doubtful he knew about back splatter. He would not expect the police to look for it, after he had directed them to murder/suicide. He certainly would not expect the relatives to find it. In all the excitement he probably didn't notice any blood anyway.
-
Why the need for artificial lights everywhere when there was a moon shining through the farmhouse casting shadows such as " figures in windows ",oops,tricks of the light ! Yes,the light of the moon. Who did switch the lights on ? Just little things like this that need answers.
I've yet to hear about a burglar or a murderer entering a premises and switching lights on first before carrying out their action. The mind boggles.
-
Some comments below from Colin. Hopefully now supporters will finally accept that he does believe in Bambers guilt.
As part of her research, in July 2013 Carol Ann Lee contacted Colin Caffell, Sheila’s former husband and the father of her twins. It came shortly after the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the ‘whole life’ sentence imposed on Bamber and two others. Here is his moving reply...
‘I have remained silent through many years of Jeremy Bamber’s perennial intrusions into our lives because I have been endeavouring to create a normal life for my new family who have nothing to do with my tragic past.
‘Despite my best endeavours to shield them, however, they have had to live under its shadow. The new ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, against the setting of “whole life tariffs” as “inhumane”, not only potentially places the lives of myself, my family and the families of all those who fought for Jeremy’s conviction in very real danger (and the public in general in the case of other dangerous “whole lifers” who are also seeking parole) but undermines our democracy and strikes at the very heart of what is globally recognised as one of the finest and fairest justice systems in the world.
‘It is perhaps a blessing for my family that, despite a fair trial in 1986 and a later appeal before three judges who determined that new evidence made Bamber’s original conviction “even safer”, he has refused to admit his guilt and therefore does not meet the Strasbourg court’s criteria of “progressing towards rehabilitation”.
‘Bamber has proved himself an extremely dangerous and devious man who will clearly remain that way, having shown no sign of remorse or contrition for murdering five members of his family for financial gain. That is “inhumane”. Any “depression and despair” he has said that he feels may be the beginning of him coming to terms with the fact that he has lost his spurious battle with justice; something most “lifers” begin to accept much earlier on in their sentences. It is not inhumane to have to face that – they need to – but it is inhumane to make victims and their families live a life sentence of uncertainty. The victims’ families have to truly face overwhelming loss, depression and despair.
‘It is also inhumane that our daughter and her friends, at the age of 11, Googled her name only to be confronted with Bamber’s website that included photographs of bullet wounds to my former wife’s neck. My daughter would understandably like to change her name.’
BTW - the website are denying those photos have been published on their site. Just for info really .
-
Jan
both the latest books will be the author's scenario just like we have them on the forum we will never see any concrete evidence of Jeremy's guilt other than what was presented at trial the Establishment struggled then so nothing new is going to come to light most of what I have read in Deviant I have read before on the forum we are all left to our own views. I apologise to Carol Ann I should not judge her book before reading it and I am looking forward to publication.
No I agree and I will try and read both books - but I do dislike printing things in a factual way when the crime is bad enough in itself without adding assumptions that are not really relevant. Is she trying to make it sound more sinister ?
-
Well she does add this to the end The experts consulted don’t agree on every point. Indeed, there are puzzles and inconsistencies throughout the case. It is notable, for example, that no one can satisfactorily explain burn marks found on Nevill’s back. It demonstrates there are often questions that cannot be answered – except by the killer.
One thing she has done though, she has spoken with Bamber and a lot of the detectives and Colin Caffel and prob relatives and numerous people involved, that's more than me you or anyone on here has done? So at least give her credit for this. She has formed her own opinion from this and prob could have sold more books by saying he was not guilty? Just for the record did Lomax go to the trouble of interviewing all these people?
I will read the book - basically I would like to see how she has come to her conclusion because it does seem on most factual evidence ( meaning Sheila could not have done it ) there are always two "experts" that will disagree :)
-
I wonder how she concludes that Sheila couldn't have done it ?
-
20th time -
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
15: No oil on her hands from re loading.
16: The gas meter and monastery stories are made up.
17: Sheila had never attacked anyone before.
18: No one can explain how Sheila committed the massacre, matching the crime scene.
19: According to Jeremy she had stayed alive right up until the raid team entered WHF. This is not credible as she was so determined to kill everyone in a murder/suicide rage.
20: There is no evidence of the fostering conversation which may have upset her. She was apparently passive during this alleged conversation anyway.
-
20th time -
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
15: No oil on her hands from re loading.
16: The gas meter and monastery stories are made up.
17: Sheila had never attacked anyone.
18: No one can explain how Sheila committed the massacre, matching the crime scene.
Think maybe you should write a book, Adam.
-
Think maybe you should write a book, Adam.
It's a now nice even 20 reasons.
-
I laughed at the 'Slaughter at the farm' video when Bews was interviewed.
Jeremy was insinuating, without much encouragement how Sheila could have killed everyone or was holding everyone hostage. 'Mmm, that changed things a bit' he said.
-
It's a now nice even 20 reasons.
There you are then, get scribbling ;)
-
I wonder how she concludes that Sheila couldn't have done it ?
maybe she didn't get a letter?
-
Hi Justice
I have only read the book written by Colin as far as Deviant is concerned I was led to believe much more was going to come out of the book and greatly disappointed when I read it nothing different than what I have read on the forum and I feel let down :'( In my head I have two books written only one was published.
Why should you feel let down? ???
-
It's a now nice even 20 reasons.
who are you trying to convince ? yourself ?
-
Why should you feel let down? ???
I think because we are looking for something new - either way- not just the information we have already seen re-written and then somebody ( a writer) forming an opinion.
But to be honest - I don't think that is going to happen .
-
Jeremy's website says there is 'none' forensic evidence against him.
The forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila, automatically makes him guilty. As he knew something was wrong.
There is also other forensic evidence, of which I have created a thread.
-
It depends who gets pipped at the post when new information does materialise. Maybe then we'll get some semblance of truth.
So many conflicting views and posts on different sites. Only yesterday I read a post on another site/forum and the poster spoke of the police hearing a shot from within WHF at appx 07.00 before the raid team entered at 07.30 or thereabouts.
This is the first time I'd read about it and the poster in question has written some brilliant and very knowledgeable posts.
Anyone else heard this version ? Seemingly,it was when the loud-hailer was in use.
-
Jeremy's website says there is 'none' forensic evidence against him.
The forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila, automatically makes him guilty. As he knew something was wrong.
There is also other forensic evidence, of which I have created a thread.
It is not forensic evidence to suggest she was not capable of using the gun - it is an opinion that can be disputed as if the "fact" that her feet were clean or that she would break a nail. How do you know she was not wearing the black canvas shoes that were taken away ? I am not saying she was - just pointing out possibilities.
-
It depends who gets pipped at the post when new information does materialise. Maybe then we'll get some semblance of truth.
So many conflicting views and posts on different sites. Only yesterday I read a post on another site/forum and the poster spoke of the police hearing a shot from within WHF at appx 07.00 before the raid team entered at 07.30 or thereabouts.
This is the first time I'd read about it and the poster in question has written some brilliant and very knowledgeable posts.
Anyone else heard this version ? Seemingly,it was when the loud-hailer was in use.
so what is the source of the information?
-
I think because we are looking for something new - either way- not just the information we have already seen re-written and then somebody ( a writer) forming an opinion.
But to be honest - I don't think that is going to happen .
Neither do I - but (and whether you like him or not), PH made it clear that he had changed from innocent to guilty. He needed to promote his book so is hardly going to say "By the way, there's nothing really new here". I think being disappointed is fair enough but not sure why anyone should feel 'let down' - he wrote the book for himself as part of his career, not for anyone on this forum. I helped him with part of it (incidentally - my contribution was from when I thought Jeremy was innocent), and didn't even get a signed copy, do I feel let down? Nah! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not having read the full forum,only odd snippets from this particular poster,I wouldn't know where his/her source came from as yet. I'm assuming it's possibly a male poster who's on a forum with another poster ( guilter,Odysseus ) Can't remember the name of the other poster.
-
Neither do I - but (and whether you like him or not), PH made it clear that he had changed from innocent to guilty. He needed to promote his book so is hardly going to say "By the way, there's nothing really new here". I think being disappointed is fair enough but not sure why anyone should feel 'let down' - he wrote the book for himself as part of his career, not for anyone on this forum. I helped him with part of it (incidentally - my contribution was from when I thought Jeremy was innocent), and didn't even get a signed copy, do I feel let down? Nah! ;D ;D ;D ;D
So you couldn't even persuade PH to maintain his innocence stance. When you thought Bamber was innocent.
-
It depends who gets pipped at the post when new information does materialise. Maybe then we'll get some semblance of truth.
So many conflicting views and posts on different sites. Only yesterday I read a post on another site/forum and the poster spoke of the police hearing a shot from within WHF at appx 07.00 before the raid team entered at 07.30 or thereabouts.
This is the first time I'd read about it and the poster in question has written some brilliant and very knowledgeable posts.
Anyone else heard this version ? Seemingly,it was when the loud-hailer was in use.
More unsubstantiated rumour!
-
Found it-----------Injustice Anywhere and the poster is Supernaut
-
I doubt that PH went into the book believing Bamber was innocent.
He would have done research beforehand so would know the score.
Saying he went from innocent to guilty is just publicity. It makes it seem like he has discovered the smoking gun.
-
Neither do I - but (and whether you like him or not), PH made it clear that he had changed from innocent to guilty. He needed to promote his book so is hardly going to say "By the way, there's nothing really new here". I think being disappointed is fair enough but not sure why anyone should feel 'let down' - he wrote the book for himself as part of his career, not for anyone on this forum. I helped him with part of it (incidentally - my contribution was from when I thought Jeremy was innocent), and didn't even get a signed copy, do I feel let down? Nah! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, I recognised a few things Caroline, the palm print on the bible and Vanezis' written statement for two ;) Heady days ;D ;D
-
I doubt that PH went into the book believing Bamber was innocent.
He would have done research beforehand so would know the score.
Saying he went from innocent to guilty is just publicity. It makes it seem like he has discovered the smoking gun.
He said he did - and I am sure he would not lie for publicity - his book would have probably sold more if he had stuck to that opinion because less people would be interested in a book that says there is a murderer in jail and yes he is guilty?
-
So you couldn't even persuade PH to maintain his innocence stance. When you thought Bamber was innocent.
Why would I be trying to persuade anyone to change their opinion? What REALLY makes me laugh is that you believe you have the ability to effect change, when in reality most people simply roll their eyes when you post - pathetic little man! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, I recognised a few things Caroline, the palm print on the bible and Vanezis' written statement for two ;) Heady days ;D ;D
Yes, we used to have some good debates then - before the arrival of a certain ............. ;)
-
Why would I be trying to persuade anyone to change their opinion? What REALLY makes me laugh is that you believe you have the ability to effect change, when in reality most people simply roll their eyes when you post - pathetic little man! ;D ;D ;D ;D
No you couldn't make him keep the same 'innocent' opinion.
He must have read my posts and threads.
-
Found it-----------Injustice Anywhere and the poster is Supernaut
Also--------wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media-Jeremy bamber.
-
No you couldn't make him keep the same 'innocent' opinion.
He must have read my posts and threads.
he thinks you're an idiot - I concur!
-
More unsubstantiated rumour!
It ALL is,isn't it ?
-
he thinks you're an idiot - I concur!
Source please.
He obviously thinks you're an idiot for believing Bamber innocent for so long.
I concur.
-
Source please.
He obviously thinks you're an idiot for believing Bamber innocent for so long.
I concur.
Yeah, that's why he used some of my research!! Just proved you're an idiot - as if anyone had any doubts! ;D ;D ;D
Oh! When you actually work out what a source is, then you'd be qualified to ask for one!!
-
Yeah, that's why he used some of my research!! Just proved you're an idiot - as if anyone had any doubts! ;D ;D ;D
Oh! When you actually work out what a source is, then you'd be qualified to ask for one!!
Jan kindly informed me what a 'primary' source is. After I gave her ten (now 18) sources.
Although I was surprised BW saying on camera (twice) something is not a 'primary' source.
-
Jan kindly informed me what a 'primary' source is. After I gave her ten (now 18) sources.
Although I was surprised BW saying on camera (twice) something is not a 'primary' source.
I have never seen BW talking about Primary sources!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have never seen BW talking about Primary sources!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Nor I, Caroline. I have no reason to think the expression would have been part of her vocabulary. It certainly doesn't form part of Adam's knowledge.
-
Did I read somewhere that BW had passed away ?
-
Did I read somewhere that BW had passed away ?
We had this question before and it was someone else so unless she died in the mean time (which I doubt) - then no.
-
We had this question before and it was someone else so unless she died in the mean time (which I doubt) - then no.
I hadn't read it on here,it was an outside source. Didn't know it had been mentioned before either.
-
Anyone reading the Stokenchurch investigation,will see that the Met knew/know how the burns appeared on Neville's back. Jeremy has the information from this investigation stating that the burns were made by the guns barrel,minus a silencer.
The results were never disclosed to the defence.
The moral being that this side of the case couldn't have been investigated in the books or the authors would have known how the burns appeared.
-
20th time -
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
15: No oil on her hands from re loading.
16: The gas meter and monastery stories are made up.
17: Sheila had never attacked anyone before.
18: No one can explain how Sheila committed the massacre, matching the crime scene.
19: According to Jeremy she had stayed alive right up until the raid team entered WHF. This is not credible as she was so determined to kill everyone in a murder/suicide rage.
20: There is no evidence of the fostering conversation which may have upset her. She was apparently passive during this alleged conversation anyway.
1. Since the rifle was photographed laying on the nightdress with Sheila's hand upon it, there must have been residue present.
2. She may have been wearing the socks found near her body. Partly digested food suggests she was in the kitchen at some point during the night.
3. We have no knowledge of the position or size of glass fragments which may well have been large and in a small area. We don't know at what point the lampshade was broken.
4. Anyone setting the scene would know the first thing to do would be to put fingerprints on the gun.
5. There are ways Sheila's blood could be in the silencer, presuming the test was correct.
6. In such great spirits that she sat in the car with CC and didn't utter a word the whole journey. So happy that she didn't respond to PB's conversation on the phone and didn't even say 'Goodnight'.
7. After the first shot she could have walked about for some time, I wouldn't call that incapacitated.
8. There was no fight just a mortally wounded man being bludgeoned.
9. Traces of cannabis do not act as a tranquilizer.
10. The effects of the Halperidol would have been minimal after the dose had been halved and she was due for another shot.
11. 8 year old's can use these rifles. I wouldn't say her shots were on target unless she was aiming for Neville's arm, June's arm or side etc...
12. There was blood splatter, blood on her neck was smeared, bloody fingers had been wiped on her nightdress. Her blood had dripped onto the bible which was closed and then opened at the same page.
13. Why is that more likely when she was having a psychotic episode.
14. I play guitar and have long nails. I can perform daily functions without damaging them. Painted nails are even stronger.
15. Someone showered, it could have been Sheila. There should have been some oil from the hand photographed on the gun.
16. More likely JM's story is made up.
17. Maybe, maybe not, but Freddie was scared. My cousin had never attacked anyone, if he had then maybe people would have realised he was dangerous before he strangled his wife.
18. Do you read other people's posts?
19. Jeremy is in no better position to know that than the police. It's speculation.
20. June had already spoken to other people about fostering. There is usually a catatonic phase before the manic one.
-
Why should you feel let down? ???
Caroline maybe after all he told me I was expecting more and I believed him and if I want to feel let down that is my emotion.
-
Caroline maybe after all he told me I was expecting more and I believed him and if I want to feel let down that is my emotion.
He told a lot of people stuff but nothing that he hasn't written in the book - if people were expecting more, that's not really down to him. I knew about the letter as did a few others - I'm open minded about it but I didn't expect it to provide a definitive result. He doesn't owe any of us anything and vice versa.
-
1. Since the rifle was photographed laying on the nightdress with Sheila's hand upon it, there must have been residue present.
2. She may have been wearing the socks found near her body. Partly digested food suggests she was in the kitchen at some point during the night.
3. We have no knowledge of the position or size of glass fragments which may well have been large and in a small area. We don't know at what point the lampshade was broken.
4. Anyone setting the scene would know the first thing to do would be to put fingerprints on the gun.
5. There are ways Sheila's blood could be in the silencer, presuming the test was correct.
6. In such great spirits that she sat in the car with CC and didn't utter a word the whole journey. So happy that she didn't respond to PB's conversation on the phone and didn't even say 'Goodnight'.
7. After the first shot she could have walked about for some time, I wouldn't call that incapacitated.
8. There was no fight just a mortally wounded man being bludgeoned.
9. Traces of cannabis do not act as a tranquilizer.
10. The effects of the Halperidol would have been minimal after the dose had been halved and she was due for another shot.
11. 8 year old's can use these rifles. I wouldn't say her shots were on target unless she was aiming for Neville's arm, June's arm or side etc...
12. There was blood splatter, blood on her neck was smeared, bloody fingers had been wiped on her nightdress. Her blood had dripped onto the bible which was closed and then opened at the same page.
13. Why is that more likely when she was having a psychotic episode.
14. I play guitar and have long nails. I can perform daily functions without damaging them. Painted nails are even stronger.
15. Someone showered, it could have been Sheila. There should have been some oil from the hand photographed on the gun.
16. More likely JM's story is made up.
17. Maybe, maybe not, but Freddie was scared. My cousin had never attacked anyone, if he had then maybe people would have realised he was dangerous before he strangled his wife.
18. Do you read other people's posts?
19. Jeremy is in no better position to know that than the police. It's speculation.
20. June had already spoken to other people about fostering. There is usually a catatonic phase before the manic one.
Excellent post - you have more patience than I have.
perhaps Adam would like to give a reply - as people do in a proper discussion. Lets see.
-
He told a lot of people stuff but nothing that he hasn't written in the book - if people were expecting more, that's not really down to him. I knew about the letter as did a few others - I'm open minded about it but I didn't expect it to provide a definitive result. He doesn't owe any of us anything and vice versa.
Caroline
I can assure you he told me lots of things that are not in the book and NGB will verify this if of course he reads the book. I too knew about the letter but I still cannot understand why Jeremy would remove Sheila's clothes from the scene perhaps you can explain this to me.
-
Caroline
I can assure you he told me lots of things that are not in the book and NGB will verify this if of course he reads the book. I too knew about the letter but I still cannot understand why Jeremy would remove Sheila's clothes from the scene perhaps you can explain this to me.
Why would he have anything that he would keep from the book - after waiting so long to publish it?
-
Caroline maybe after all he told me I was expecting more and I believed him and if I want to feel let down that is my emotion.
I don't think that the book, or anyone book on Bamber, is going to offer too much new stuff to members of the forum. Because we talk about the case daily and have done for a long time. So to US the book may not be full of new things but to the normal person who isn't familiar with the case the books will be great because they get all the information in one place.
Caroline
I can assure you he told me lots of things that are not in the book and NGB will verify this if of course he reads the book. I too knew about the letter but I still cannot understand why Jeremy would remove Sheila's clothes from the scene perhaps you can explain this to me.
What has he kept from the book that he told you? It's strange he would do that because you'd think he would throw everything & the kitchen sink into the book.
-
I don't think that the book, or anyone book on Bamber, is going to offer too much new stuff to members of the forum. Because we talk about the case daily and have done for a long time. So to US the book may not be full of new things but to the normal person who isn't familiar with the case the books will be great because they get all the information in one place.
What has he kept from the book that he told you? It's strange he would do that because you'd think he would throw everything & the kitchen sink into the book.
Mat
it would not be appropriate for me to post such information but if you doubt me talk to NGB he will confirm what I have said.
-
1. Since the rifle was photographed laying on the nightdress with Sheila's hand upon it, there must have been residue present.
False. Jeremy supporters keep posting this tripe but it is not in the least bit true. Taking a weapon and setting it down will not necessarily transfer any GSR to where it is sat and if there is any transfer it will be extremely small which is why finding GSR is meaningless unless it is in sufficient quantity that it indicates it resulted from firing a weapon. Soot is transferred while firing the weapon and is visible to the naked eye which is why it was pointed out.
2. She may have been wearing the socks found near her body. Partly digested food suggests she was in the kitchen at some point during the night.
The socks had blood drops like the surrounding blood from June's body indicating those socks were on the floor when June was walking around wounded. The food in her stomach indicates she died 4-6 hours after her dinner.
3. We have no knowledge of the position or size of glass fragments which may well have been large and in a small area. We don't know at what point the lampshade was broken.
The lampshade was obviously broken while Nevill and the killer were fighting for control of the weapon. The glass/crockery fragments would have gotten in the feet of a barefoot killer.
4. Anyone setting the scene would know the first thing to do would be to put fingerprints on the gun.
Jeremy tried to do such but only got one of her prints on it. Planting prints is not as easy as you would suggest.
5. There are ways Sheila's blood could be in the silencer, presuming the test was correct.
The only natural way her blood would get in the moderator would be it being used to kill her. The only way is could get inside to the degree found would be if a weapon with the moderator attached was fired into her at contact range.
7. After the first shot she could have walked about for some time, I wouldn't call that incapacitated.
Vanezis didn't know if she would have been able to walk around or not. He said she could have been stunned and gone into shock or might have been able to move around some. All he could say for sure is that she didn't get up and walk around and was shot fatally within seconds of her first wound. He had no solid way to estimate what she could have done if she had not been killed seconds later.
8. There was no fight just a mortally wounded man being bludgeoned.
Nonsense, there was a struggle which is why things were knocked all over, the lampshade was broken and mantle was scratched.
10. The effects of the Halperidol would have been minimal after the dose had been halved and she was due for another shot.
More nonsense her dosage was cut in half to 100MG which is the maximum effective dosage she never should have been prescribed more. The manufacturer stopped making dosages higher than 100MG precisely because 100MG is the maximum safe dosage to inject. The shots lasted 6 weeks and she had a shot 3 weeks before the murders.
11. 8 year old's can use these rifles. I wouldn't say her shots were on target unless she was aiming for Neville's arm, June's arm or side etc...
8 year olds who are trained how to fire them can fire them but that doesn't mean they will be able to hit a target well let alone a moving target. Despite Nevill and June moving around no shots missed either of them.
12. There was blood splatter, blood on her neck was smeared, bloody fingers had been wiped on her nightdress. Her blood had dripped onto the bible which was closed and then opened at the same page.
There wasn't blood spatter of any victims on her gown or body. The blood on her neck wasn't smeared there was substantial blood flow from her wounds. Her fingers weren't wiped on her dress blood that was on her outer palm/wrist got on her gown when her wrist/palm was placed on her gown.
14. I play guitar and have long nails. I can perform daily functions without damaging them. Painted nails are even stronger.
Pulling a trigger and wildly beating someone are vastly different than playing a guitar. The former not only damage nails but cause damage to hands in general unless wearing gloves. The gun stock broke exactly where the killer's hand would be.
15. Someone showered, it could have been Sheila. There should have been some oil from the hand photographed on the gun.
Someone who decided to commit murder suicide would have no reason to wash up and shower in between killing everyone else and her self nor would such person change their clothing and if they did do so then their clothing would be found.
16. More likely JM's story is made up.
No most likely it is true. If she were making it up then she would not have made up the claim Jeremy hired a hitman and certainly would not have named the hitman so police could find out in short order he wasn't involved. Furthermore there is substantial evidence which corroborates Sheila didn't do anything and thus that Jeremy was responsible.
you have zilch to suggest she lied you just don't want to believe Jeremy did it but all that proves is your bias and frankly you lost all credibility once you posted that nonsense about Sheila mistaking the moderator for a tampon and sticking it inside her and that being how the blood got there. You outdid even Mike with that garbage.
17. Maybe, maybe not, but Freddie was scared. My cousin had never attacked anyone, if he had then maybe people would have realised he was dangerous before he strangled his wife.
Freddie was so scared he stayed with her for hours...
In the meantime his fears were unrealized.
19. Jeremy is in no better position to know that than the police. It's speculation.
That Sheila could not have done it is not speculation it is established fact. It is quite clear Jeremy made up the phone call and murdered everyone he is the only one who knows every minor detail of what happened though after all this time he might not even remember every little detail.
20. June had already spoken to other people about fostering. There is usually a catatonic phase before the manic one.
Part time foster help which Sheila had in the past and would have welcomed.
-
Why would he have anything that he would keep from the book - after waiting so long to publish it?
Jan
I will pm you shortly when I get home.
-
False. Jeremy supporters keep posting this tripe but it is not in the least bit true. Taking a weapon and setting it down will not necessarily transfer any GSR to where it is sat and if there is any transfer it will be extremely small which is why finding GSR is meaningless unless it is in sufficient quantity that it indicates it resulted from firing a weapon. Soot is transferred while firing the weapon and is visible to the naked eye which is why it was pointed out.
Gunshot residue can travel over 1 meter and is typically deposited on surfaces close to the discharged weapon. Since the nightdress was underneath the rifle, regardless of who pulled the trigger one would expect to find GSR. The fact is the nightdress was never tested. Similarly, GSR can be transfered by handling of a fired weapon.
The socks had blood drops like the surrounding blood from June's body indicating those socks were on the floor when June was walking around wounded. The food in her stomach indicates she died 4-6 hours after her dinner.
Blood on the socks was not tested and we have no way of knowing from where or when the blood arrived there. Most food is digested in the stomach within 2 to 3 hours.
The lampshade was obviously broken while Nevill and the killer were fighting for control of the weapon. The glass/crockery fragments would have gotten in the feet of a barefoot killer.
It is not 'obvious' when or how the lampshade was broken.
Jeremy tried to do such but only got one of her prints on it. Planting prints is not as easy as you would suggest.
The trigger would have been pulled with the joint of the finger not the fingertip. So no fingerprint there.
The only natural way her blood would get in the moderator would be it being used to kill her. The only way is could get inside to the degree found would be if a weapon with the moderator attached was fired into her at contact range.
Or it could be a mixture of NB and June's blood. Or the flake of blood DB scraped from the silencer... or other ways.
Vanezis didn't know if she would have been able to walk around or not. He said she could have been stunned and gone into shock or might have been able to move around some. All he could say for sure is that she didn't get up and walk around and was shot fatally within seconds of her first wound. He had no solid way to estimate what she could have done if she had not been killed seconds later.
In other words 'He didn't know.' What is for sure is that the second shot was some time after the first and that at some point Sheila was in a reclined sitting position above the bible.
Nonsense, there was a struggle which is why things were knocked all over, the lampshade was broken and mantle was scratched.
The kitchen table was still set for breakfast, a couple of chairs were knocked over, hardly the scene of a brawl.
More nonsense her dosage was cut in half to 100MG which is the maximum effective dosage she never should have been prescribed more. The manufacturer stopped making dosages higher than 100MG precisely because 100MG is the maximum safe dosage to inject. The shots lasted 6 weeks and she had a shot 3 weeks before the murders.
Get your facts straight. Her injections were monthly. So Sheila had been receiving a dangerous dose of 200mg which was causing her coordination problems and probably building her resistance to the drug.
8 year olds who are trained how to fire them can fire them but that doesn't mean they will be able to hit a target well let alone a moving target. Despite Nevill and June moving around no shots missed either of them.
All of the shots were fired from close distances, a few meters at most. A lot being close contact.
There wasn't blood spatter of any victims on her gown or body. The blood on her neck wasn't smeared there was substantial blood flow from her wounds. Her fingers weren't wiped on her dress blood that was on her outer palm/wrist got on her gown when her wrist/palm was placed on her gown.
The gown was never tested besides Sheila probably showered before donning the nightgown.
Pulling a trigger and wildly beating someone are vastly different than playing a guitar. The former not only damage nails but cause damage to hands in general unless wearing gloves. The gun stock broke exactly where the killer's hand would be.
The gun was probably being wielded like a club when the stock broke. You're saying if you fire a gun without gloves it will damage your hands? Give me a break.
Someone who decided to commit murder suicide would have no reason to wash up and shower in between killing everyone else and her self nor would such person change their clothing and if they did do so then their clothing would be found.
People having psychotic episodes are unpredictable and do things beyond the realm of logic. Clothing was found soaking in buckets.
No most likely it is true. If she were making it up then she would not have made up the claim Jeremy hired a hitman and certainly would not have named the hitman so police could find out in short order he wasn't involved. Furthermore there is substantial evidence which corroborates Sheila didn't do anything and thus that Jeremy was responsible.
Substantial evidence???? Why did JM plead with the dead bodies to tell her what had happened when according to her Jeremy had told her that already? Why did she wait so long to tell the police?
you have zilch to suggest she lied you just don't want to believe Jeremy did it but all that proves is your bias and frankly you lost all credibility once you posted that nonsense about Sheila mistaking the moderator for a tampon and sticking it inside her and that being how the blood got there. You outdid even Mike with that garbage.
Something you fail to disprove could have happened.
Freddie was so scared he stayed with her for hours...
In the meantime his fears were unrealized.
She had no reason at that moment to see him as a threat.
That Sheila could not have done it is not speculation it is established fact. It is quite clear Jeremy made up the phone call and murdered everyone he is the only one who knows every minor detail of what happened though after all this time he might not even remember every little detail.
Quite clear to you maybe but I still don't believe it beyond reasonable doubt.
Part time foster help which Sheila had in the past and would have welcomed.
Yeah, loosing her kids and being sent off to the loony bin. She would have loved that.
-
Skippy
Its assumption not fact that Jeremy tried to put her prints on the gun
Its is assumption not fact that her nails would break
I showed you a document which disputed your fact that the rifle would always deposit GSR - you chose to ignore that.
You have ignored other experts ( not posters) who said that Sheila could have shot herself.
You still did not explain how the twins DNA could get in the moderator by contamination .
I think you are just a teeny weeny bit interested in the case otherwise why would you post? If its just to preach to the rest of us - save your breath and go and use your brain power to save a MOJ that you believe in.
-
Gunshot residue can travel over 1 meter and is typically deposited on surfaces close to the discharged weapon.
You are referring to unburned powder that is what will travel a distance towards the victim. At intermediate range stippling is left on the victim and such will help reveal the distance the shot was fired at. If the shot was at a distance then it will be too far for there to be stippling. If at close range the unburned powder will be in the wound or in tight concentration around the wound. Only a shot at a distance would be able to permit a dispersion of unburned powder to be able to get on her gown instead of simply a tight concentration around her wound. Neither shot was at a significant distance. If powder burned were on her gown that would have been horrible for Jeremy because it would prove the gun was fired too far away for Sheila to have pulled the trigger. So if the powder burns you suggest had actually been found then Jeremy would be even worse off than now.
Since the nightdress was underneath the rifle, regardless of who pulled the trigger one would expect to find GSR. The fact is the nightdress was never tested. Similarly, GSR can be transfered by handling of a fired weapon.
The particles were no longer airborne by the time the gun was placed upon her. Taking a weapon and jsut laying it down will not necessarily transfer GSR to the place it was sat down. You have to vigorously rub the item against the place it is sat to make sure there is a transfer. She was dead she didn't hold and handle the weapon it was simply sat upon her.
The nightgown was tested, it tested negative for GSR and soot. Had she fired it then her gown would have had soot because soot is ejected out of the vents and ejection port and such would have been near her gown had she fired the weapon at herself or any of the victims. In contrast if she was shot the vents and ejection port were near the killer not her.
It is not 'obvious' when or how the lampshade was broken.
It is to someone objective and honest. The light was above the table and at a high level that the only way it would be damaged was if the gun had the moderator attached and was being held high in the air as would have occurred while Nevill and the killer were fighting over control of the weapon. During such struggle the lampshade was broken and the mantle scratched.
Or it could be a mixture of NB and June's blood. Or the flake of blood DB scraped from the silencer... or other ways.
It could not be a mixture of June and Nevill's blood, they didn't suffer any contact wounds and had it been June's blood then AK2-1 would have been detected. It would be impossible for there to have been a mixture that went undetected unless blood doesn't mix intimately and there was no way that the blood of victims that got inside the moderator would not mix intimately unless one was shot a very long time prior to the other so such blood had the opportunity to dry. The prosecution did tests to see if blood would be able to rapidly dry inside the moderator and those tests proved it would not. Even if a significant time had passed between shots and blood of one victim had been able to dry it is still highly unlikely for a trained expert to miss a mixture but it is possible to make an error in such case. But there is no chance of an error if the blood intimately mixed and the defense failed to come up with a way it would not intimately mix. At trial the defense offered nothing because their own expert disagreed that it could have been their blood mixed. They thus didn't have him testify. On appeal they made a few pathetic unsupported claims which the judges tore apart:
"The final and most important criticism of Mr Webster is as to his findings in relation to the possibility of a mixture of blood drying in such a way that it would not thoroughly mix. We should have thought that before advancing such a theory, a scientist would inevitably satisfy himself that there was a proper basis for the theory. That might be done by some form of experimentation, by drawing upon identifiable findings in other cases of relevance or by reference to the recent conclusions of other scientists. So far as we can judge, Mr Webster has done none of these things. He rejects experimentation because he asserts that it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation that arose in this case and because he did not have available to him sufficient facilities to do anything that came close to the circumstances of this case. He pointed to one instance he had come across where a single bloodstain was a mixture of more than one person's blood, which had not completely mixed. When asked to identify the relevant case, he was unable to do so and when asked for further details it transpired that it was blood that had soaked into cloth and not, as had occurred in this case, blood that had fallen upon a non-porous surface, a wholly different situation.
Mr Webster was asked about support for his theory amongst other scientists or in published material. As to the former, he said that his theory had been "looked at by an extremely senior forensic scientist from Germany and he thinks that it is a theory worth consideration". As to the latter he referred to a paper by Stringer, Vintner, Stowel and Thomson which included the passage:
"In forensic investigations, it can be mistakenly assumed that a particular blood stain originated from a single individual. In our experience, there have been occasions when blood stains consisting of blood from more than one individual have occurred; for example crime scenes where more than one person has been stabbed. Grouping of blood mixtures in such cases can give rise to false exclusions."
We find no support for Mr Webster's theory in that passage."
"Vanezis didn't know if she would have been able to walk around or not. He said she could have been stunned and gone into shock or might have been able to move around some. All he could say for sure is that she didn't get up and walk around and was shot fatally within seconds of her first wound. He had no solid way to estimate what she could have done if she had not been killed seconds later."
In other words 'He didn't know.' What is for sure is that the second shot was some time after the first and that at some point Sheila was in a reclined sitting position above the bible.
This is a perfect example of how you ignore facts and evidence that you don't like.
Vanezis said that he could tell the second shot was fired mere seconds after the first shot because there would have been a lot more blood if a significant period of time passed between the first and second shot.
She wasn't shot with the Bible close to her the Bible was placed afterwards in the pool of blood that had formed.
The facts she was seated when shot but found lying down flat is evidence the killer moved her body flat in order to place the gun on her.
The kitchen table was still set for breakfast, a couple of chairs were knocked over, hardly the scene of a brawl.
The kitchen table was moved, the items on the table moved or were knocked off, various other things were knocked off counters, the lampshade was broken and the mantle scratched. Nevill had defensive wounds from a severe beating, the stock had blood spatter from Nevill on it that resulted from his beating and his head was bashed in so hard that the stock broke. The struggle is obvious and only someone extremely biased refuses to face it but that merely amounts to living in denial.
"More nonsense her dosage was cut in half to 100MG which is the maximum effective dosage she never should have been prescribed more. The manufacturer stopped making dosages higher than 100MG precisely because 100MG is the maximum safe dosage to inject. The shots lasted 6 weeks and she had a shot 3 weeks before the murders."
Get your facts straight. Her injections were monthly. So Sheila had been receiving a dangerous dose of 200mg which was causing her coordination problems and probably building her resistance to the drug.
My facts are straight. The shots lasted 6 weeks. This provided a 2 week extra window in case she failed to get her shot exactly on time that 4th week. There is nothing to suggest she built up resistance so it was no longer preventing her from having delusions.
All of the shots were fired from close distances, a few meters at most. A lot being close contact.
People still miss at that range, particularly when targets are moving and you still missed the point that you are making a false argument that because 8 year olds who were trained to use the weapon can load and fire it that means Sheila would know how to use it despite not being trained how to load and operate it. That is like saying because an 8 year old can be taught Chinese it means I should b able to speak and write Chinese despite not being trained to do so.
"There wasn't blood spatter of any victims on her gown or body. The blood on her neck wasn't smeared there was substantial blood flow from her wounds. Her fingers weren't wiped on her dress blood that was on her outer palm/wrist got on her gown when her wrist/palm was placed on her gown."
The gown was never tested besides Sheila probably showered before donning the nightgown.
It was indeed tested and all that was found was her own blood. There were no traces of spatter. Spatter is distinctive in shape and size of droplets.
Anytime you say something is probable you have no basis to make such a claim. You just make up that things you wish happen are probable. To establish something as probable you have to post evidence that makes it probable.
It is improbable that someone who decides to commit murder suicide would change their clothing after killing the other victims and change into something before killing themselves. It is so improbable that the only example any Jeremy supporter could come up with if this happening was in the context of mass ritual murder suicide by a cult.
If she had actually done this then the clothing she wore during the murders would have been found at the scene.
In the meantime if she shot herself then her down would have had soot and GSR on it. There was no soot or GSR. Soot is visible to the naked eye. They looked for sooting visually and found none. This was more significant than whether any GSR was present because a tiny drop of GSR could get on her gown potentially from the gun simply being deposited the sooting though would only be present if she fired the weapon at herself and would have been present for sure had she fired it at herself. Thus at trial they devoted most attention to the lack of sooting and lack of spatter from the victims.
"Pulling a trigger and wildly beating someone are vastly different than playing a guitar. The former not only damage nails but cause damage to hands in general unless wearing gloves. The gun stock broke exactly where the killer's hand would be. "
The gun was probably being wielded like a club when the stock broke.
Once again you are reckless with your probable claims. You just make up anything you feel like is probable without regard to the evidence. Not only is is awkward and difficult to wield a rifle like a club, had that been done then the stock would have broken side to side instead of lengthwise cracks. The lengthwise cracks indicate the back of the stock was being forcibly pressed against something. Furthermore, the wounds to Nevill's head and the wounds on his arm are consistent with the back of the stock hitting him. The spatter on the rifle stock was consistent with the back of the stock bashing the victim and spatter being projected onto the stock. There was no cast off spatter anywhere which is a sign of a clubbing or axing motion. So the evidence doesn't in any way support your claim it is probable it was used like a club you just made that up from thin air.
You're saying if you fire a gun without gloves it will damage your hands? Give me a break.
I noted that beating someone with the rifle would result in damage to their hands because the rifle slips and it broke exactly where the person wielding it would have had a hand so the hand on the stock would have been at minimum scratched from such.
"Someone who decided to commit murder suicide would have no reason to wash up and shower in between killing everyone else and her self nor would such person change their clothing and if they did do so then their clothing would be found."
People having psychotic episodes are unpredictable and do things beyond the realm of logic. Clothing was found soaking in buckets.
People having delusions still do things for a reason. There are no cases of anyone who committed murder suicide during a psychotic episode washing and changing clothes in between murdering others and committing suicide. The only time people do such is when they don't plan to commit suicide and hope to avoid liability for the murders.
The clothing soaking in the buckets were children's pants and female panties. There was nothing soaking that she could have worn to commit the murders in but changed out of.
"No most likely it is true. If she were making it up then she would not have made up the claim Jeremy hired a hitman and certainly would not have named the hitman so police could find out in short order he wasn't involved. Furthermore there is substantial evidence which corroborates Sheila didn't do anything and thus that Jeremy was responsible."
Substantial evidence???? Why did JM plead with the dead bodies to tell her what had happened when according to her Jeremy had told her that already? Why did she wait so long to tell the police?
The evidence that Jeremy made up the phone call, that Sheila didn't load or fire the weapon period let alone at any of the victims and that she could not have shot herself but rather her body was staged and moved are all substantial pieces of evidence supporting Julie's story.
Note you did not address my point about Julie not having any reason to make up the hitman claim.
Jeremy only told certain details to Julie he didn't tell her all the fine details about the murders and even made up that a hitman did it so he would not know all the details to tell her.
You make it sound like she waited years to tell the truth she waited a month. She loved Jeremy despite his actions so tried to protect him but her conscience got the better of her and they broke up so she no longer had any reason to keep protecting him. It is still unclear though whether she went forward to police or her friend talked to police about what she had said and thus they approached her.
"you have zilch to suggest she lied you just don't want to believe Jeremy did it but all that proves is your bias and frankly you lost all credibility once you posted that nonsense about Sheila mistaking the moderator for a tampon and sticking it inside her and that being how the blood got there. You outdid even Mike with that garbage."
Something you fail to disprove could have happened.
I don't have to disprove such a stupid suggestion you have to prove it reasonably likely to have occurred. In any event as I pointed out there would be blood throughout the moderator and all over the outside if it were stuck in a bleeding vagina not tiny drops of blood that get on the first 8 baffles and a tiny splash on the smooth face. So I did disprove your absurd suggestion and what makes it absurd is why would a woman decide to go look in a gun closet in the office for her tampons instead of in the location where she stored her tampons? Furthermore how could someone mistake a moderator which is metal and much larger than a tampon for a tampon? Mike has suggested some outlandish things but you managed to out do him by far.
"Freddie was so scared he stayed with her for hours...In the meantime his fears were unrealized."
She had no reason at that moment to see him as a threat.
You are the one who suggested his fear she would do something violent proves she was capable of violence though his unrealized fears prove nothing of the sort and if he were overly frightened then he would have fled instead of staying with her.
"That Sheila could not have done it is not speculation it is established fact. It is quite clear Jeremy made up the phone call and murdered everyone he is the only one who knows every minor detail of what happened though after all this time he might not even remember every little detail."
Quite clear to you maybe but I still don't believe it beyond reasonable doubt.
It is quite clear to most who are informed about this case including the courts which is what matters. The opinion of the courts matter not yours. In the meantime you demonstrate quite clearly your opinion is not based on facts or evidence you just live in denial and are so biased yo umake up ridiculous tripe to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
Part time foster help which Sheila had in the past and would have welcomed.
Yeah, loosing her kids and being sent off to the loony bin. She would have loved that.
She wasn't going to be sent to the looney bin or going to lose her kids. Part time foster care is exactly what it sounds like someone would help watch the kids at times.
-
Skippy
Its assumption not fact that Jeremy tried to put her prints on the gun
AN assumption is something someone makes because it is likely but they have no direct evidence to prove it happened. There was evidence presented that Jeremy tried to get Sheila to handle the weapon in advance of the murders (June saying that Jeremy was trying to teach her how to load it) and testimony from Sheial that Jeremy admitted to planting her print prior to the murders but fearing that fresher prints got on it when a glove came off during commission of the murders. Furthermore her hand was rested on the weapon by Jeremy before he left the scene. That is the evidence besides simple logic that suggests he tried to plant her prints on the weapon.
Its is assumption not fact that her nails would break
Based on real life experiences her nails would chip if she had been the one who beat Nevill with the rifle. Furthermore Howard noted that her nails would have broken if she pushed the trigger with her nails, the were getting in the way of her being able to push the trigger while holding it backwards. You choose to ignore this simply because of bias. In the meantime these issues are not the main ones I concentrate on which prove Jeremy's guilt anytime I list the main evidence I don't even bring this up. It is simply additional evidence.
I showed you a document which disputed your fact that the rifle would always deposit GSR - you chose to ignore that.
All you posted was something that made a general assertion that more PGSR is left by handguns than by rifles and shotguns and erroneously suggested it proved no GSR will be left on the hands of those firing shotguns and rifles even though it asserted GSR was left only a third of the time from a rifle shot.
Your claim I ignored this is false. Like I always do I responded and proved you wrong. You are easy to prove wrong because you biased claims are always false. You did not respond to my rebuttals and keep dishonestly suggesting I am the one who didn't respond. In the process you look dishonest in addition to clueless.
First I noted that there were 25 shots and even if your claims were true that means GSR would have been on her clothing and hands from 8 plus shots.
Furthermore I noted that in the case of the gun being against her gown as she shot herself then the GSR would have to be deposited as well as soot.
Moreover, I posted about how there is no legitimate way to generalize about all shotguns or all rifles because the actions vary from rifle to rifle or shotgun to shotgun and thus the dispersion varies depending upon the action. I posted an image showing the GSR plume from a semi-auto 22LR rifle with the same action as the murder weapon and the snippet noted the GSR got on the hand of the shooter among other places.
You ignored these points and continue with your false rubbish that GSR would not get on her hands and clothing by ignoring the relevant facts.
You have ignored other experts ( not posters) who said that Sheila could have shot herself.
No experts have come up with a way for her to have shot herself with the moderator attached let alone to have removed it and put it away after she was dead.
No experts established she would have been able to fire the gun at non-contact range at virtually a 90 degree angle if the moderator were not attached. The defense experts failed to test such and neither did Vanezis he didn't examine that issue initially and then the lab dealt with the issue once it because clear Jeremy killed everyone Vanezis didn't reevaluate things and try testing things. Evne if possible it is highly unlikely someone would hold a rifle straight ahead at non-contact range it is hard to control the weapon in such manner. In any event she was shot with the moderator attached.
I only believe experts who can justify their positions with rational scientific points and evidence. The defense experts were not able to do so.
You still did not explain how the twins DNA could get in the moderator by contamination .
I did explain it. I noted that minute amounts of all the victim's DNA could have gotten on someone at the lab or a jury member who played with the moderator and other evidence in the case and thus been transferred. This is the basis the court cited for contamination of June, Nevill and Sheila's DNA into the moderator which in turn came from the defense's own expert. Why would such contamination only apply to the adults and not the twins as well? Evidence form all 5 victims was handled by the lab and jury.
I think you are just a teeny weeny bit interested in the case otherwise why would you post? If its just to preach to the rest of us - save your breath and go and use your brain power to save a MOJ that you believe in.
I post because I like to argue and the lies and nonsense posted by Jeremy supports provides plenty to argue about and dispute.
-
It says Jeremy went to Gresham's at 9.
It also says "in July 1978, Jeremy decided that nine years of boarding school was enough."
If Jeremy went to Gresham's at age 9, he was there for 8 years, not nine.
-
I think too much stress has been placed on the pressence of the blood inside the silencer, since there is no corroborating ballistics evidence to support the fact that any of the bulkets fired through the rifle had been fired throygh a silencer fitred to its barrel. According to the prosecutions own ballistic expert, Malcolm Fketcher, in his report (hand written notes) he srates quite clearly and EMPHATICALLY that he has been unable to tell whether any of the 25 rounds that were fired via the .22 semi- autimatic rifle had been fired thriygh a silencer...
Therefore, although the bloodvwas found unside the silencer a mobth after the shootings, there is absolytely no ballustics evidence to link the presence of this bloid there to the shootings of the gictins, and leaves the door open for the bloid (like the paint) to have been added to the silencer after the shootings. It's funny how the paint (1st October 1985) and the blood (11th Seotember 1985 were only officially found on or inside the silencer once the nature of the investigation changed from a coroners court status, into a criminal prosecution case status, in mid September 1985, and that there was, or is absultely no ballistics evidence to associate the blood found inside the silencer with any roubd fired via the rifle, and crime scene ohotigraohs taken on the day of the shoitings to shown that key scratch marks which were not photographed as being present on the kitchen aga until mid September 1985. This smacks of the blood and the paint evidence havibg been added later as part of an ambush approach in the decision to prosecute Bamber as the killer...
-
It also says "in July 1978, Jeremy decided that nine years of boarding school was enough."
If Jeremy went to Gresham's at age 9, he was there for 8 years, not nine.
I sometimes think you make a career out of being a pedant. Apart from yourself, how many of us are SO precise. It MAY have been just under 9 or just over 8. It MAY have depended on his birthday or the time in the school year when her started/left. There is much Jeremy can be castigated for. Personally I think he may be forgiven for a blip in the time he was at Gresham's.
-
I sometimes think you make a career out of being a pedant. Apart from yourself, how many of us are SO precise. It MAY have been just under 9 or just over 8. It MAY have depended on his birthday or the time in the school year when her started/left. There is much Jeremy can be castigated for. Personally I think he may be forgiven for a blip in the time he was at Gresham's.
This is where the conspiracy theories come from Jane - people seeing something and taking it literally and not being able to see that often how people express things isn't black and white or cut and dried.
-
I sometimes think you make a career out of being a pedant. Apart from yourself, how many of us are SO precise. It MAY have been just under 9 or just over 8. It MAY have depended on his birthday or the time in the school year when her started/left. There is much Jeremy can be castigated for. Personally I think he may be forgiven for a blip in the time he was at Gresham's.
A bit like Jeremy not being precise about times ? ;D
-
A bit like Jeremy not being precise about times ? ;D
No, there is not being 'precise' then there is adamantly denying something (calling police at 03:36) - then years later saying what you had adamantly denied was true all along. That's called 'lying' Lookout.
-
No, there is not being 'precise' then there is adamantly denying something (calling police at 03:36) - then years later saying what you had adamantly denied was true all along. That's called 'lying' Lookout.
Years later,I'd say it'd been forgotten.
-
Years later,I'd say it'd been forgotten.
No years later he thought he could hoodwink the GP into believing a call from Nevill took place and so needed to shift the times! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No years later he thought he could hoodwink the GP into believing a call from Nevill took place and so needed to shift the times! ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's only what you want to believe,as I'd be the same if I thought him guilty.I'd be carefully scrutinising every last little thing. I understand your eagerness and determination to pin this crime on him. Though he hasn't got away with it,has he ??? :o
-
That's only what you want to believe,as I'd be the same if I thought him guilty.I'd be carefully scrutinising every last little thing. I understand your eagerness and determination to pin this crime on him. Though he hasn't got away with it,has he ??? :o
Pin it on him? Unless it escaped your notice Lookout - someone got there before me and NO! He hasn't gotten away with it - nor will he.
-
Pin it on him? Unless it escaped your notice Lookout - someone got there before me and NO! He hasn't gotten away with it - nor will he.
Like I said,he's not got away with it,so why the continued determination that he stays put where he's been for the last 30 years when in your eyes he's where he belongs ? I really can't see the logic. What more do you want ?
-
Like I said,he's not got away with it,so why the continued determination that he stays put where he's been for the last 30 years when in your eyes he's where he belongs ? I really can't see the logic. What more do you want ?
I'd like the lies he spews out to stop, and those of some of his supporters. And the continued degradation of his victims to stop.
But none of that will happen.
Like I said,he's not got away with it,so why the continued determination that he stays put where he's been for the last 30 years when in your eyes he's where he belongs ? I really can't see the logic. What more do you want ?
There are people like yourself still out there willing to do/say ANYTHING to make sure that he does get away with this crime, even though you have not one shred of innocence. It's easy to slap guilters with the "why bother" arguement but Caroline debating a case she is interested in is more logical to me than what supporters do.
-
It's NOT a case of seeing him getting away with anything ::) It's a matter of seeing fair play,something that MOST ( apart from yourself ) would wish to see.
Even 3/4 years ago,Mick Gradwell who writes for the LEP had to admit that an appeal should be in place after the mess of the investigation.
-
It's NOT a case of seeing him getting away with anything ::) It's a matter of seeing fair play,something that MOST ( apart from yourself ) would wish to see.
Even 3/4 years ago,Mick Gradwell who writes for the LEP had to admit that an appeal should be in place after the mess of the investigation.
Is Mick Gradwell campaigning on Jeremy's behalf now?
-
It's a matter of seeing fair play,something that MOST ( apart from yourself ) would wish to see.
I am happy with the evidence Lookout, I think it is concrete and that his appeals have been more than fair.
Telling fibs about autopsy reports ISN'T fair play Lookout, you're in no position to lecture anyone on fairness in this case.
-
Is Mick Gradwell campaigning on Jeremy's behalf now?
Not necessarily,he doesn't have to be,but he admits that the trial was an unfair one.
-
I am happy with the evidence Lookout, I think it is concrete and that his appeals have been more than fair.
Telling fibs about autopsy reports ISN'T fair play Lookout, you're in no position to lecture anyone on fairness in this case.
So what you have to say,goes above what a top cop has to say ? I see.
-
Not necessarily,he doesn't have to be,but he admits that the trial was an unfair one.
But not convinced enough to stand up and be counted?
-
As usual Lookout doesn't quite post the truth.
This is what he ACTUALLY says.
"I think the case would benefit from a new forensic examination of the remaining exhibits and photographs - particularly in relation to the analysis of the patterns of blood-splattering, which could provide additional and useful evidence.
What I find most frustrating is that, had modern DNA techniques and itemised billing for telephone calls been available in 1985, many of the doubts about this troubling case would have been laid to rest a long time "
-
As usual Lookout doesn't quite post the truth.
This is what he ACTUALLY says.
"I think the case would benefit from a new forensic examination of the remaining exhibits and photographs - particularly in relation to the analysis of the patterns of blood-splattering, which could provide additional and useful evidence.
What I find most frustrating is that, had modern DNA techniques and itemised billing for telephone calls been available in 1985, many of the doubts about this troubling case would have been laid to rest a long time "
What I read included the appeal.
-
What you purposely omitted was the bit where he said " the trial jury weren't provided with accurate evidence which may result in a re-trial ",as he'd mentioned that new photographs shown since appeared to show some re-staging during original investigations and that scratch marks on the Aga had not been there or made during the incident.
-
Selective,as per.
-
As usual Lookout doesn't quite post the truth.
This is what he ACTUALLY says.
"I think the case would benefit from a new forensic examination of the remaining exhibits and photographs - particularly in relation to the analysis of the patterns of blood-splattering, which could provide additional and useful evidence.
What I find most frustrating is that, had modern DNA techniques and itemised billing for telephone calls been available in 1985, many of the doubts about this troubling case would have been laid to rest a long time "
I guess the best that can be said of it is that it's ambiguous.
-
As usual Lookout doesn't quite post the truth.
This is what he ACTUALLY says.
"I think the case would benefit from a new forensic examination of the remaining exhibits and photographs - particularly in relation to the analysis of the patterns of blood-splattering, which could provide additional and useful evidence.
What I find most frustrating is that, had modern DNA techniques and itemised billing for telephone calls been available in 1985, many of the doubts about this troubling case would have been laid to rest a long time "
The photos are not that good. They did not take closeups of all the spatter so as to allow reconstruction of events based on spatter. They can at best make isolated observations.
If itemized billing had been in use in 1985 it would have simply made it necessary for Jeremy to call his answering machine from WHF and it would show a call from WHF to his place or he could have turned it off, called his place, set the ringer on low so no one would hear it ring and let it ring until he got home and answered. Then it would show up as a call from WHF to Goldhanger.
The only way itemized billing would have helped is if Jeremy didn't know about such and thus didn't fake a call to himself in which case his lie would be easily busted.
Itemized billing would have forced him to use the car instead of leaving him the option of the bike because he would have needed to get home faster and instead of dissuading supporters the fact a call was made would further embolden them. The Campaign Team would be insisting it was Nevill who called and would deny to the hilt that Jeremy faked the call.
-
Like I said,he's not got away with it,so why the continued determination that he stays put where he's been for the last 30 years when in your eyes he's where he belongs ? I really can't see the logic. What more do you want ?
I want to make sure that people don't get hoodwinked by the myths that keep circulating and jump on any and every attempt to spin the truth out of all proportion because it is done here on a daily basis. If innocent supporters don't like that, it must be because they don't care about the truth!
-
What I read included the appeal.
Where did you read it?
-
Selective,as per.
Me selective?? The irony!!! ;D ;D ;D
I copied the only part that I saw in the article that remotely spoke about what you saw. If you saw something about the appeal it isn't in that article that I can see.
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2zhk2li.jpg)
As ya'll can see - I got my copy of Deviant, if I am going to comment on it I do need to read it - plus I hear the researchers are pretty decent.
Also got a new beach vest - and was shocked to see our very own susans face on it! :)
-
What you purposely omitted was the bit where he said " the trial jury weren't provided with accurate evidence which may result in a re-trial ",as he'd mentioned that new photographs shown since appeared to show some re-staging during original investigations and that scratch marks on the Aga had not been there or made during the incident.
There is no evidence of police restaging anything. The expert who claimed there were no marks on the Aga blew up photos the defense had of the mantle in the background, he didn't even have negatives. His process is not recognized as a valid means because blowing up a photo doesn't result in the level of detail necessary to be able to assess the mantle. What you keep raising are things rejected by the CCRC and Court of Appeals or things entirely made up by Jeremy supporters thus never presented to the CCRC/Court of Appeals.
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2zhk2li.jpg)
As ya'll can see - I got my copy of Deviant, if I am going to comment on it I do need to read it - plus I hear the researchers are pretty decent.
Also got a new beach vest - and was shocked to see our very own susans face on it! :)
Hahaha Mat that means I will be with you for all of your holiday and I will be watching you ;D ;D ;D See Cal's book was on sale in Waterstones yestersay.
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2zhk2li.jpg)
As ya'll can see - I got my copy of Deviant, if I am going to comment on it I do need to read it - plus I hear the researchers are pretty decent.
Also got a new beach vest - and was shocked to see our very own susans face on it! :)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Nice tats Susan! 8) - YES! that is supposed to say TATS! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Nice tats Susan! 8)
Caroline
where are my tats seem to have lost them ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Nice tats Susan! 8) - YES! that is supposed to say TATS! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Caroline hahaha found my tats down both arms and on my ankles Scottish thistles and Yorkshire roses ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline
where are my tats seem to have lost them ;D ;D ;D ;D
You rubbed them too hard in the shower!!
Hahaha Mat that means I will be with you for all of your holiday and I will be watching you ;D ;D ;D See Cal's book was on sale in Waterstones yestersay.
Oh really?? I didn't think it was out yet. I will probably pick that up now too!!
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Nice tats Susan! 8) - YES! that is supposed to say TATS! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you SURE that's how you spell them, Caroline????????????
-
You rubbed them too hard in the shower!!
Oh really?? I didn't think it was out yet. I will probably pick that up now too!!
Mat I have not seen it guess it will be light years away from this area Amazon told me 30th July. Guess it is better to read one first I always read a book twice as I have a bad habit of skim reading and could be missing something.
-
Are you SURE that's how you spell them, Caroline????????????
Yes, I'm sure! ;D ;D ;D
-
. The expert who claimed there were no marks on the Aga blew up photos the defense had of the mantle in the background, he didn't even have negatives. His process is not recognized as a valid means because blowing up a photo doesn't result in the level of detail necessary to be able to assess the mantle. What you keep raising are things rejected by the CCRC and Court of Appeals or things entirely made up by Jeremy supporters thus never presented to the CCRC/Court of Appeals.
There is no evidence of police restaging anything-------it was Mick Gradwell who quoted this,not me !!
-
Me selective?? The irony!!! ;D ;D ;D
I copied the only part that I saw in the article that remotely spoke about what you saw. If you saw something about the appeal it isn't in that article that I can see.
Where is the article Mat?
-
The article is in the LEP-2011 with Mick Gradwell and his opinion of what SHOULD happen. A re-trial !
-
The article is in the LEP-2011 with Mick Gradwell and his opinion of what SHOULD happen. A re-trial !
And where is that? (shrugs! ???)
-
Mat, have you got a link to the article you quoted? No idea what LEP-2011 is.
-
Mat, have you got a link to the article you quoted? No idea what LEP-2011 is.
Course, sorry Caroline only just seen this.
http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813
-
You are referring to unburned powder that is what will travel a distance towards the victim. At intermediate range stippling is left on the victim and such will help reveal the distance the shot was fired at. If the shot was at a distance then it will be too far for there to be stippling. If at close range the unburned powder will be in the wound or in tight concentration around the wound. Only a shot at a distance would be able to permit a dispersion of unburned powder to be able to get on her gown instead of simply a tight concentration around her wound. Neither shot was at a significant distance. If powder burned were on her gown that would have been horrible for Jeremy because it would prove the gun was fired too far away for Sheila to have pulled the trigger. So if the powder burns you suggest had actually been found then Jeremy would be even worse off than now.
The particles were no longer airborne by the time the gun was placed upon her. Taking a weapon and jsut laying it down will not necessarily transfer GSR to the place it was sat down. You have to vigorously rub the item against the place it is sat to make sure there is a transfer. She was dead she didn't hold and handle the weapon it was simply sat upon her.
The nightgown was tested, it tested negative for GSR and soot. Had she fired it then her gown would have had soot because soot is ejected out of the vents and ejection port and such would have been near her gown had she fired the weapon at herself or any of the victims. In contrast if she was shot the vents and ejection port were near the killer not her.
It is to someone objective and honest. The light was above the table and at a high level that the only way it would be damaged was if the gun had the moderator attached and was being held high in the air as would have occurred while Nevill and the killer were fighting over control of the weapon. During such struggle the lampshade was broken and the mantle scratched.
It could not be a mixture of June and Nevill's blood, they didn't suffer any contact wounds and had it been June's blood then AK2-1 would have been detected. It would be impossible for there to have been a mixture that went undetected unless blood doesn't mix intimately and there was no way that the blood of victims that got inside the moderator would not mix intimately unless one was shot a very long time prior to the other so such blood had the opportunity to dry. The prosecution did tests to see if blood would be able to rapidly dry inside the moderator and those tests proved it would not. Even if a significant time had passed between shots and blood of one victim had been able to dry it is still highly unlikely for a trained expert to miss a mixture but it is possible to make an error in such case. But there is no chance of an error if the blood intimately mixed and the defense failed to come up with a way it would not intimately mix. At trial the defense offered nothing because their own expert disagreed that it could have been their blood mixed. They thus didn't have him testify. On appeal they made a few pathetic unsupported claims which the judges tore apart:
"The final and most important criticism of Mr Webster is as to his findings in relation to the possibility of a mixture of blood drying in such a way that it would not thoroughly mix. We should have thought that before advancing such a theory, a scientist would inevitably satisfy himself that there was a proper basis for the theory. That might be done by some form of experimentation, by drawing upon identifiable findings in other cases of relevance or by reference to the recent conclusions of other scientists. So far as we can judge, Mr Webster has done none of these things. He rejects experimentation because he asserts that it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation that arose in this case and because he did not have available to him sufficient facilities to do anything that came close to the circumstances of this case. He pointed to one instance he had come across where a single bloodstain was a mixture of more than one person's blood, which had not completely mixed. When asked to identify the relevant case, he was unable to do so and when asked for further details it transpired that it was blood that had soaked into cloth and not, as had occurred in this case, blood that had fallen upon a non-porous surface, a wholly different situation.
Mr Webster was asked about support for his theory amongst other scientists or in published material. As to the former, he said that his theory had been "looked at by an extremely senior forensic scientist from Germany and he thinks that it is a theory worth consideration". As to the latter he referred to a paper by Stringer, Vintner, Stowel and Thomson which included the passage:
We find no support for Mr Webster's theory in that passage."
This is a perfect example of how you ignore facts and evidence that you don't like.
Vanezis said that he could tell the second shot was fired mere seconds after the first shot because there would have been a lot more blood if a significant period of time passed between the first and second shot.
She wasn't shot with the Bible close to her the Bible was placed afterwards in the pool of blood that had formed.
The facts she was seated when shot but found lying down flat is evidence the killer moved her body flat in order to place the gun on her.
The kitchen table was moved, the items on the table moved or were knocked off, various other things were knocked off counters, the lampshade was broken and the mantle scratched. Nevill had defensive wounds from a severe beating, the stock had blood spatter from Nevill on it that resulted from his beating and his head was bashed in so hard that the stock broke. The struggle is obvious and only someone extremely biased refuses to face it but that merely amounts to living in denial.
My facts are straight. The shots lasted 6 weeks. This provided a 2 week extra window in case she failed to get her shot exactly on time that 4th week. There is nothing to suggest she built up resistance so it was no longer preventing her from having delusions.
People still miss at that range, particularly when targets are moving and you still missed the point that you are making a false argument that because 8 year olds who were trained to use the weapon can load and fire it that means Sheila would know how to use it despite not being trained how to load and operate it. That is like saying because an 8 year old can be taught Chinese it means I should b able to speak and write Chinese despite not being trained to do so.
It was indeed tested and all that was found was her own blood. There were no traces of spatter. Spatter is distinctive in shape and size of droplets.
Anytime you say something is probable you have no basis to make such a claim. You just make up that things you wish happen are probable. To establish something as probable you have to post evidence that makes it probable.
It is improbable that someone who decides to commit murder suicide would change their clothing after killing the other victims and change into something before killing themselves. It is so improbable that the only example any Jeremy supporter could come up with if this happening was in the context of mass ritual murder suicide by a cult.
If she had actually done this then the clothing she wore during the murders would have been found at the scene.
In the meantime if she shot herself then her down would have had soot and GSR on it. There was no soot or GSR. Soot is visible to the naked eye. They looked for sooting visually and found none. This was more significant than whether any GSR was present because a tiny drop of GSR could get on her gown potentially from the gun simply being deposited the sooting though would only be present if she fired the weapon at herself and would have been present for sure had she fired it at herself. Thus at trial they devoted most attention to the lack of sooting and lack of spatter from the victims.
Once again you are reckless with your probable claims. You just make up anything you feel like is probable without regard to the evidence. Not only is is awkward and difficult to wield a rifle like a club, had that been done then the stock would have broken side to side instead of lengthwise cracks. The lengthwise cracks indicate the back of the stock was being forcibly pressed against something. Furthermore, the wounds to Nevill's head and the wounds on his arm are consistent with the back of the stock hitting him. The spatter on the rifle stock was consistent with the back of the stock bashing the victim and spatter being projected onto the stock. There was no cast off spatter anywhere which is a sign of a clubbing or axing motion. So the evidence doesn't in any way support your claim it is probable it was used like a club you just made that up from thin air.
I noted that beating someone with the rifle would result in damage to their hands because the rifle slips and it broke exactly where the person wielding it would have had a hand so the hand on the stock would have been at minimum scratched from such.
People having delusions still do things for a reason. There are no cases of anyone who committed murder suicide during a psychotic episode washing and changing clothes in between murdering others and committing suicide. The only time people do such is when they don't plan to commit suicide and hope to avoid liability for the murders.
The clothing soaking in the buckets were children's pants and female panties. There was nothing soaking that she could have worn to commit the murders in but changed out of.
The evidence that Jeremy made up the phone call, that Sheila didn't load or fire the weapon period let alone at any of the victims and that she could not have shot herself but rather her body was staged and moved are all substantial pieces of evidence supporting Julie's story.
Note you did not address my point about Julie not having any reason to make up the hitman claim.
Jeremy only told certain details to Julie he didn't tell her all the fine details about the murders and even made up that a hitman did it so he would not know all the details to tell her.
You make it sound like she waited years to tell the truth she waited a month. She loved Jeremy despite his actions so tried to protect him but her conscience got the better of her and they broke up so she no longer had any reason to keep protecting him. It is still unclear though whether she went forward to police or her friend talked to police about what she had said and thus they approached her.
I don't have to disprove such a stupid suggestion you have to prove it reasonably likely to have occurred. In any event as I pointed out there would be blood throughout the moderator and all over the outside if it were stuck in a bleeding vagina not tiny drops of blood that get on the first 8 baffles and a tiny splash on the smooth face. So I did disprove your absurd suggestion and what makes it absurd is why would a woman decide to go look in a gun closet in the office for her tampons instead of in the location where she stored her tampons? Furthermore how could someone mistake a moderator which is metal and much larger than a tampon for a tampon? Mike has suggested some outlandish things but you managed to out do him by far.
You are the one who suggested his fear she would do something violent proves she was capable of violence though his unrealized fears prove nothing of the sort and if he were overly frightened then he would have fled instead of staying with her.
It is quite clear to most who are informed about this case including the courts which is what matters. The opinion of the courts matter not yours. In the meantime you demonstrate quite clearly your opinion is not based on facts or evidence you just live in denial and are so biased yo umake up ridiculous tripe to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
She wasn't going to be sent to the looney bin or going to lose her kids. Part time foster care is exactly what it sounds like someone would help watch the kids at times.
No, I'm referring to GSR which ends up on the shooters hands, the weapon and surfaces within 1 or 1.5 meters. It can be transfered easily by touch. And can be easily washed off. The rifle was in the same position regardless of who pulled the trigger. The nightdress was given a visual examination only.
It was not possible to reproduce the exact conditions for an experiment to see if the blood mixture theory could be tested.
"In forensic investigations, it can be mistakenly assumed that a particular blood stain originated from a single individual. In our experience, there have been occasions when blood stains consisting of blood from more than one individual have occurred; for example crime scenes where more than one person has been stabbed. Grouping of blood mixtures in such cases can give rise to false exclusions."
To me this seems to confirm the possibility.
Don't you think that someone staging a suicide would prefer to shoot his victim only once? Shooting twice could be a big mistake. The assertion that the shots were seconds apart would seem to confirm that this was a suicide. After shooting the victim once, don't you think Jeremy would have waited more than a few seconds before shooting the second time?
Vanezis says Sheila's position for the first shot was sitting upright but for the second was more reclined after which she dropped to the ground. The killer would have no reason to have to move the body.
You presume that the rifle stock was broken when it came into contact with Neville's head. This may not have been the case.
Psychotic behavior is not logical.
Sheila could well have been wearing just her underwear during the shooting. They were found at the scene.
In Sheila's psychotic state she could well have interpreted June's intentions as losing her kids and being institutionalised.
-
How annoying that the book is available to read in Waterstones yet those of us who ordered it online have to wait another week. On a different matter I have to say I have been appalled by the tone of some of the attacks on Lookout recently,who has borne them with a stoicism and a dignity beyond the call of duty.
-
Course, sorry Caroline only just seen this.
http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813
Cheers Mat :)
-
Cheers Mat :)
No problem, I should have included it when I posted the snippet!
-
The article is in the LEP-2011 with Mick Gradwell and his opinion of what SHOULD happen. A re-trial !
There is no mention of a retrial or an appeal and he even states that he thinks Jeremy is the most likely suspect. Read the article again Lookout, none of us here are the ability to alter it so your claim is incorrect.
http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813
Steve, no one is attacking Lookout at all but anyone making incorrect claims should expect to be challenged - I'd expect it if I did it. I'm sure it's happened in the past.
-
No, I'm referring to GSR which ends up on the shooters hands, the weapon and surfaces within 1 or 1.5 meters.
Unburned powder exits the muzzle thus getting on those in front of the muzzle and a minor amount is expelled out of the vents and ejection port. Primer gunshot residue is expelled out of the vents and ejection port forming this cloud which deposits PGSR on the hands of the shooter and other areas discussed in the caption:
(http://s10.postimg.org/yntty5btl/22lrsemiautosgrcloud.jpg)
In addition soot is expelled out of the muzzle and vents/ejection port. That soot will get in the wound or around the entrance wound of someone shot at very close distance. It will also get on the shooters clothing.
It can be transfered easily by touch. And can be easily washed off.
It can be washed off but something hads to be used to clean it off. Touching it can result in transfer but Sheila was dead she didn't touch the weapon. Just placing it on her body would not necessarily transfer any GSR to her. Your claim it would have to transfer is not true.
The rifle was in the same position regardless of who pulled the trigger. The nightdress was given a visual examination only.
The Nightgown was tested for foreign blood spatter, GSR and soot and was negative for all of these all it had on it was Sheila's blood.
Your claim the gun would be in the same position whether someone else shot Sheila or she shot herself is complete nonsense.
The only way for Sheila to shoot herself would be with the moderator not attached which brings the ejection port and vents closer to her body.
Furthermore, her body would be hugging the weapon if she shot herself which means the ejection port and vents would be against her gown and FOR SURE would have deposited the soot, unburned powder and PGSR on her lower gown. There was none which means she was not hugging the weapon when she was shot. If she was not hugging the weapon then it is impossible for her to have fired the fatal shot even if no moderator had been attached.
The fatal shot was fired while she was int he seated position with her head bent back so that the killer could shoot her chin. In contrast the killer fired the first shot with the weapon at nearly a 90 degree angle. Howard's video shows the natural position one would try to shoot oneself and neither is the position she was in or the weapon was in when she was shot.
The fact is that the moderator was attached when she was killed and thus the ejection port and vents were no where near her body when she was shot which is why only the materials that exit the barrel was on her and those materials were in/directly around the entrance wounds because the shots were a close range shot and contact shot.
It was not possible to reproduce the exact conditions for an experiment to see if the blood mixture theory could be tested.
"In forensic investigations, it can be mistakenly assumed that a particular blood stain originated from a single individual. In our experience, there have been occasions when blood stains consisting of blood from more than one individual have occurred; for example crime scenes where more than one person has been stabbed. Grouping of blood mixtures in such cases can give rise to false exclusions."
To me this seems to confirm the possibility.
It doesn't to any rational objective people. They were unable to produce any examples of blood failing to intimately mix beyond an alleged situation where they asserted it happened on cloth but were unable to detail when and where this supposedly happened so it could be checked. In the meantime cloth doesn't matter what matters is a non-porous metal surface. They have nothing at all to suggest blood would not be intimately mix in the moderator and had no means to try testing their conclusions. The prosecution lab did have the means to conduct testing and found that blood of one victim would not be able to rapidly dry before blood of another victim got inside. The only way blood would not be able to intimately mix is if blood of one victim were totally dry before the blood of another got inside.
In the meantime, there is still a low chance of an expert failing to detect a mixture when there is non-intimate mixture. It simply is a low theoretically possible to make such a mistake. It is not possible for an expert to fail to detect a mixture when there is an intimate mixture though.
The bottom line is that the defense claims were pure nonsense and should be embarrassed for even trying to raise them to a court. The only reason they were even able to make these pathetic claims is because the CCRC referred the DNA evidence to the COA and the rules in existence at the time permitted the defense to raise anything else desired to the COA instead of just the DNA evidence. The Court chastized the defense for raising such frivolous claims and noted the rules should be changed so that the only arguments the party can make is those approved by the CCRC hey should not be allowed to add on any garbage they feel like.
Don't you think that someone staging a suicide would prefer to shoot his victim only once? Shooting twice could be a big mistake. The assertion that the shots were seconds apart would seem to confirm that this was a suicide. After shooting the victim once, don't you think Jeremy would have waited more than a few seconds before shooting the second time?
Most killers would have preferred it they killed her with a single shot. It one has such intention but fails to kill the person then that forces firing another shot. Why would he wait an extended period to see if she eventually died on her own? That would permit her to move around as he went to clean up and stage things and would have inhibited his desired staging of her body if she could move. He certainly could not leave the gun on her while she was alive. The natural thing for a killer to do when they fail to kill the first time is to fire again. He shot her with the gun at nearly a 90 degree angle to her neck not in contact with her neck, she moved her hand to her neck, he freaked out and jammed the weapon under her chin and fired again at contact range this time to make sure the bullet went into her brain. Whether the first shot was fired intentionally or he had to because she was reaching out to try to grab the weapon only Jeremy knows.
Vanezis says Sheila's position for the first shot was sitting upright but for the second was more reclined after which she dropped to the ground. The killer would have no reason to have to move the body.
What Vanezis said is that she was seated while both shots were fired and she must have subsequently fallen backwards after the second shot. He said this because blood evidence proved she was seated when she was shot but her body was found flat. He noted that unless propped up against something she would not be able to stay seated after she was dead.
She was propped against something when she was shot that is why she didn't fall flat after the first shot. She was still against it when shot the second time. The blood from both wounds flowed down and that could only happen if she was not lying flat yet.
It is possible that she was pulled own somewhat to make it easier to target her chin. There is no way to know whether the killer pulled her legs to move her down more after the first shot so that the second could be delivered easier. She wasn't flat for either shot though. She was moved flat after she was dead and that was in order to place the gun on her body. The gun coudl only be placed on her body if she were lying flat.
So the killer had a potential motive to move her body lower after the first shot in order to more easily target her chin though the killer could have done the same by using the weapon to force her head back by jamming it into her chin. Which to do is a matter of choice.
The killer had a motive to move her body flat after the murders to plant the weapon on her body and did so.
You presume that the rifle stock was broken when it came into contact with Neville's head. This may not have been the case.
It is quite clearly the case. The nature of the break is from the face of the stock being forced into something. The sides of the stock hitting something would result in up and down breaks instead of a break traversing the stock. What was the killer hitting with the face of the rifle stock? Nothing in the kitchen had damage that would be caused by such motions except Nevill's head and his arms. In the meantime even if the killer had missed Nevill and hit the floor and this how the stock broke the killer was still the one forcing the stock into the floor and the killer's hand still would have been in the are where the stock broke.
Psychotic behavior is not logical.
There are distinct patterns and behavior still follows patterns. While it is irrational for crazy people to believe they are being held back by those taking care of them some do have this belief and they kill in order to become free to pursue the irrational things they want to pursue. The murder is in their eyes rational. If they were right about being held back by such people they do have a logical reason to kill them though they should not do it.
People having delusions don't just do things for no reason at all like plan to commit murder suicide and wash in between and destroy the clothing they committed the murders in. That is why Jeremy supporters like yourself can't provide a single example of a crazy person who committed murder suicide doing such. The only time people change their clothing and wash after murders is to try to avoid liability for such murders.
Psychotic behavior is not logical.
Sheila could well have been wearing just her underwear during the shooting. They were found at the scene.[/quote]
The 2 pairs of panties at the scene had blood in the crotch area which means it was menstrual blood. Sheila was in fact menstruating around the time of the murders hence purchased tampons found at the scene.
The notion she decided to commit the murders in only panties is silly enough but it is even more absurd to suggest before killing herself she decided to soak her panties which she would no longer need because she planned to kill herself then took a bath and put on a nightgown to kill herself in.
In the meantime even if she were the first person in history to do such things during the course of a murder suicide she still would have gotten evidence on her body and clothing while shooting herself and can't have shot herself with the moderator.
So you want us to believe a series of illogical and extremely unlikely (some even impossible) things ALL happened in the same event though the chances of such actually happening are infinitesimal.
In Sheila's psychotic state she could well have interpreted June's intentions as losing her kids and being institutionalised.
More desperate babble. All you do is make up nonsense to try to pretend that Sheila did it. I don't know why you are so biased or why Jeremy's other supporters are but when the kind of tripe used to justify your stance is like the above it means you are just making up any BS you can find and choosing not to look at the case in a rational, objective legalistic manner.
This is in direct contrast to how people genuinely interested in MOJ's should approach things and they succeed because their approach results in evidence that actually demonstrates a MOJ occurred.
-
How annoying that the book is available to read in Waterstones yet those of us who ordered it online have to wait another week. On a different matter I have to say I have been appalled by the tone of some of the attacks on Lookout recently,who has borne them with a stoicism and a dignity beyond the call of duty.
Steve I totally agree with you on this one . 100%
-
"The Nightgown was tested for foreign blood spatter, GSR and soot and was negative for all of these all it had on it was Sheila's blood."
1) What tests where done exactly
2) I posted a document that showed various blood groups on her nightie that you saud you did not understand - how can you dismiss that evidence?
-
There is no mention of a retrial or an appeal and he even states that he thinks Jeremy is the most likely suspect. Read the article again Lookout, none of us here are the ability to alter it so your claim is incorrect.
http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813
Steve, no one is attacking Lookout at all but anyone making incorrect claims should expect to be challenged - I'd expect it if I did it. I'm sure it's happened in the past.
its not what is posted - its how its posted - smiley icons don't sugar coat the post - and two wrongs don't make a right IMO
-
its not what is posted - its how its posted - smiley icons don't sugar coat the post - and two wrongs don't make a right IMO
I'm sorry you don't like my posting style - I won't be changing it. Perhaps I don't like yours! Clearly you take what I say personally and that's your problem! If I back my posts up, why shouldn't other people??
-
its not what is posted - its how its posted - smiley icons don't sugar coat the post - and two wrongs don't make a right IMO
:-\
If you mean my posts too - then I am sorry Jan but I just am not giving her the benefit of doubt any longer. I don't truly believe ANYONE can be accidentally that wrong all the time. Constantly claiming things to be true that turn out to be not true, or even little things like "This person supports Bamber on twitter" and none of it seems to be right....it just comes across strange.
I still take this case serious, Colins recent comments reminded me even further that these are real people.
Made up is made up, no matter who is doing it.
-
:-\
If you mean my posts too - then I am sorry Jan but I just am not giving her the benefit of doubt any longer. I don't truly believe ANYONE can be accidentally that wrong all the time. Constantly claiming things to be true that turn out to be not true, or even little things like "This person supports Bamber on twitter" and none of it seems to be right....it just comes across strange.
I still take this case serious, Colins recent comments reminded me even further that these are real people.
Made up is made up, no matter who is doing it.
I agree Mat and if links were posted questions wouldn't need to be asked.
-
"The Nightgown was tested for foreign blood spatter, GSR and soot and was negative for all of these all it had on it was Sheila's blood."
1) What tests where done exactly
2) I posted a document that showed various blood groups on her nightie that you saud you did not understand - how can you dismiss that evidence?
Her gown was visually tested for soot stains to see if there were any to examine but none were found. A SEM was used to look for GSR.
The document you posted didn't show various blood groups on her nightgown. There were two references on the document to her nightgown both of which showed her blood type. The other references on the document were to different dates including dates prior to the murders and didn't specify those reference pertain to her nightgown.
It makes no difference that I can't figure out what the references to other dates and objects other than the 2 references to the nightgown mean since they clearly do not refer to the nightgown and that is what we are discussing.
The Appeal Court decision and Lincoln's report both discuss the blood on her nightgown and specify only her blood was found. This is from the COA decision:
"Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times."
Lincoln:
(http://s21.postimg.org/5z1l597dj/lincolnsheilanightdress.jpg)
-
They presume she was wearing the nightdress for all. 25 shots which was evidently not true. People having psychotic episodes may or may not be aware of what they are or aren't wearing at any moment. Scipio please stick to the discussion and refrain from insulting people, it just reflects your wear stance.
-
They presume she was wearing the nightdress for all. 25 shots which was evidently not true. People having psychotic episodes may or may not be aware of what they are or aren't wearing at any moment. Scipio please stick to the discussion and refrain from insulting people, it just reflects your wear stance.
Evidently not true?
-
They presume she was wearing the nightdress for all. 25 shots which was evidently not true. People having psychotic episodes may or may not be aware of what they are or aren't wearing at any moment. Scipio please stick to the discussion and refrain from insulting people, it just reflects your wear stance.
There is nothing to suggest she was not wearing the same nightdress the entire night, nothing to suggest she was not wearing it as Jeremy fired all 25 shots into the victims and nothing to suggest she killed anyone in something else then changed into the gown to shoot herself. You have zilch by way to evidence to support your contention that she was wearing something else.
As for my "insults" I am within my rights to say it is foolish to think she was walking around in only panties to kill everyone and point out that the panties had no spatter just blood on the crotch area thus indicative of her menstruating in them. I also am within my rights to point out that someone who decided to commit murder suicide would not kill everyone else then before killing herself decide to soak her dead children's dirty pants in a bucket and stick the panties she menstruated in in another bucket. They would not need the pants and she would not need the panties since she was going to shoot herself in this scenario. It doesn't matter if someone is crazy or not they would not bother it is a ridiculous assertion. It is fair game to call someone who makes ridiculous assertions and you make more than most. In order to establish reasonable doubt by way ot things that make no sense you can't just say maybe she did things that made zero sense. You need to produce evidence that establishes it likely these illogical things happened but you cannot do so.
Moreover, your ridiculous assertions still fail to grapple with the evidence that proves Sheila can't have shot herself. She died in her gown and was definitely shot while wearing it. If she had shot herself then her would have been soot and GSR on her gown. Furthermore her blood would have been int he rifle muzzle instead of the moderator.
-
It IS evident that Sheila wasn't wearing the nightdress while shooting 25 shots. Either she didn't do the shooting or she put on the nightdress before killing herself. Either way, no matter who pulled the trigger, there must have been some GSR on the nightdress. It is easily transferred by handshake or handling the weapon or just being in the vicinity of a fired weapon. Do you have documentation of the test?
Backspatter is still just a theory. To prove a theory exhaustive tests must be done replicating the situation. Since that can never happen [unless you can find a few guinea pigs willing to be shot in the neck] it will always remain a theory. I have postulated other theories that would result in the same outcome.
If A+B=C,and D+E=C and F+G=C,
Just because we know the result is C then we cannot say it is a fact that A+B was the cause.
Scipio, Your comparison between learning to load a rifle and learning Chinese shows that to you loading a rifle is rocket science or that you think learning a foreign language is something that can be done in 5 minutes.
How you know there was no blood, other than menstrual, on the panties means either you were there or you are psychic. Anyway, she could have been stark naked for all we know.
There was blood on the screw thread.
You should stop trying to make sense of Sheila's actions. She was delusional, therefor, things that made sense to her would be obviously irrational to us.
-
It IS evident that Sheila wasn't wearing the nightdress while shooting 25 shots. Either she didn't do the shooting or she put on the nightdress before killing herself. Either way, no matter who pulled the trigger, there must have been some GSR on the nightdress. It is easily transferred by handshake or handling the weapon or just being in the vicinity of a fired weapon. Do you have documentation of the test?
Backspatter is still just a theory. To prove a theory exhaustive tests must be done replicating the situation. Since that can never happen [unless you can find a few guinea pigs willing to be shot in the neck] it will always remain a theory. I have postulated other theories that would result in the same outcome.
If A+B=C,and D+E=C and F+G=C,
Just because we know the result is C then we cannot say it is a fact that A+B was the cause.
Scipio, Your comparison between learning to load a rifle and learning Chinese shows that to you loading a rifle is rocket science or that you think learning a foreign language is something that can be done in 5 minutes.
How you know there was no blood, other than menstrual, on the panties means either you were there or you are psychic. Anyway, she could have been stark naked for all we know.
There was blood on the screw thread.
You should stop trying to make sense of Sheila's actions. She was delusional, therefor, things that made sense to her would be obviously irrational to us.
A question I have always had is that Anne Eaton said that years later she still had the dress that Sheila wore the day of the murders in her laundry basket. she never saw Sheila that day - so how did she know she had worn it that day ?
And what happened to the black canvas shoes?
-
I see Michael O brien has asked CAL to take part in a debate about her book . so far he has not had a reply.
-
If there is a positive reply it'll be interesting----------if not,it'll be more interesting.
-
A question I have always had is that Anne Eaton said that years later she still had the dress that Sheila wore the day of the murders in her laundry basket. she never saw Sheila that day - so how did she know she had worn it that day ?
And what happened to the black canvas shoes?
Maybe it was in the laundry? If anything was to happen to me in the middle of the night whilst I was in my Y-fronts....it wouldn't take much to work out what I had been wearing that day, just check my washing basket.
-
Maybe it was in the laundry? If anything was to happen to me in the middle of the night whilst I was in my Y-fronts....it wouldn't take much to work out what I had been wearing that day, just check my washing basket.
I imagine the police asked what she was wearing that day, if there was anything sinister, she wouldn't have admitted to having kept it.
-
I imagine the police asked what she was wearing that day, if there was anything sinister, she wouldn't have admitted to having kept it.
Jeremy would know.
-
Jeremy would know.
Yes, he certainly would.
-
Maybe it was in the laundry? If anything was to happen to me in the middle of the night whilst I was in my Y-fronts....it wouldn't take much to work out what I had been wearing that day, just check my washing basket.
Jan/Mat
maybe if that was the only article of Sheila's in the laundry AE would assume she had wore it that day had it been worn the day before June would have washed it. If AE took it home I guess she would have run it past EP before removing it maybe she kept it for sentimental reasons ???
-
Jan/Mat
maybe if that was the only article of Sheila's in the laundry AE would assume she had wore it that day had it been worn the day before June would have washed it. If AE took it home I guess she would have run it past EP before removing it maybe she kept it for sentimental reasons ???
form memory Only I think she offered it to the police for testing - not sure why - and they were not interested.
-
form memory Only I think she offered it to the police for testing - not sure why - and they were not interested.
The police didn't take it in the first place because there was no blood or soot stains on it so nothing to indicate it could have been worn during commission of the murders then changed out of. The defense was aware she had it but made no effort to have it tested either for the same reason police didn't want it.
While she still had it as of 1991 it is unclear if it was disposed of after that point or still to this day is held.
-
We had the taster,but there's nothing like the full book. More similar in style to Clare Powell than Roger Wilkes,I had not heard of Carol Ann Lee previously before, a single mother with one son from Yorkshire looking remarkably like a middle-aged Ann Eaton, authoress of ten previous books including two much acclaimed works on Myra Hindley and Ruth Ellis.
There is nothing really new in the book apart from an epilogue containing Colin's email to the author dated July 19 2013 requesting privacy and Appendix 1 reconstructing the Police scenario sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1985. Both reiterate Jeremy's guilt.
It's hard not to reach a similar conclusion when one confronts the scale of the conspiracy needed in order for the defendant to be innocent. If anything the book has alienated me further from Jeremy as we learned more of the lives of the people involved ,many seemingly inconsequential details which put the characters in context and whom nobody had the right to destroy.
-
Hi All.Probably wrong thread,but I just wanted to ask if anyone who has read 'Deviant' recommends the book ? I cannot decide whether to buy it or not. Will I learn anything new? Previously,PH disclosed that he was going to expose the corruption carried out by EP and the relatives with regards to the investigation into the murders (I still have the emails). Does the book cover this aspect? Later,it was said that PH had found new evidence that proves JB's guilt and that the book would put the case to bed once and for all. Can anyone say what the new 'evidence' is? Thanks x
-
Hi tyler,how lovely to hear from you.x
I haven't as yet got the book,like yourself I was in two minds whether to buy it or not given that it didn't get such a good reception on the " red " forum,so there must be something in it that they don't like or agree to. ;D
However,something's confusing me at what you've posted-----EP's corruption and JB's guilt don't somehow gel ?
-
Hi tyler,how lovely to hear from you.x
I haven't as yet got the book,like yourself I was in two minds whether to buy it or not given that it didn't get such a good reception on the " red " forum,so there must be something in it that they don't like or agree to. ;D
However,something's confusing me at what you've posted-----EP's corruption and JB's guilt don't somehow gel ?
Obviously he couldn't find any corruption. Otherwise it would be front page news. So his boast that he was going to expose it was simply...a boast.
After investigating the case PH came to the conclusion of Bamber's guilt.
-
If Jeremy and his lawyers cannot find any proof of police corruption after 30 years, I don't see how PH or CAL can. And they haven't.
-
Silly me,police corruption is a myth isn't it ? It never happens.
-
Silly me,police corruption is a myth isn't it ? It never happens.
Make your mind up Lookout, was Jeremy framed by EP or not? If not what corruption are you on about?
-
Make your mind up Lookout, was Jeremy framed by EP or not? If not what corruption are you on about?
Again-----------did I mention Jeremy ?? I wasn't even thinking about HIM !
-
Again-----------did I mention Jeremy ?? I wasn't even thinking about HIM !
If you think EP are corrupt you must believe he was framed if not, in what way have they been corrupt?
-
If you think EP are corrupt you must believe he was framed if not, in what way have they been corrupt?
There have been other cases you know. One which is still on-going that I've been looking for where a father states that his son had been murdered but EP ( knowing the son had been murdered ) have denied it and said it was an accident involving farming machinery.
-
There have been other cases you know. One which is still on-going that I've been looking for where a father states that his son had been murdered but EP ( knowing the son had been murdered ) have denied it and said it was an accident involving farming machinery.
How do you know that they know he was murdered?
-
If you think EP are corrupt you must believe he was framed if not, in what way have they been corrupt?
Do you think "bending the truth" or buying statements for the "noble cause" is corrupt or acceptable ?
If you think the silencer was a red herring and it turns out it was manipulated as evidence is that corrupt or not?
Just a question I am not saying that is what happened.
-
Some people do seem to have an innate compass inside their head and others are totally clueless as to any sense of direction whatsoever. I feel from what I have read Jeremy was in the former category. Inspired by a good geography teacher at school he flourished in the subject. He often liked to explore new terrain and must have often surveyed the Blackwater Estuary environment. Just one of the many strange coincidences which contrived this tragedy.
Another favourite subject was maths,particularly arithmetic as he applied it to the takings at Osea Road in particular at board meetings and could see when the family finances were at their zenith. His third interest at school was chemistry,and again this manifested itself in an interest in poisons to slip into Nevill's gin and tonic,though realizing that cyanide might be traced he renounced this plan in favour of the shootings.
-
Some people do seem to have an innate compass inside their head and others are totally clueless as to any sense of direction whatsoever. I feel from what I have read Jeremy was in the former category. Inspired by a good geography teacher at school he flourished in the subject. He often liked to explore new terrain and must have often surveyed the Blackwater Estuary environment. Just one of the many strange coincidences which contrived this tragedy.
Another favourite subject was maths,particularly arithmetic as he applied it to the takings at Osea Road in particular at board meetings and could see when the family finances were at their zenith. His third interest at school was chemistry,and again this manifested itself in an interest in poisons to slip into Nevill's gin and tonic,though realizing that cyanide might be traced he renounced this plan in favour of the shootings.
I am guessing the last bit is according to Julie - which would make her not saying anything even worse.
-
I am guessing the last bit is according to Julie - which would make her not saying anything even worse.
Well it ties in indirectly with Charles Marsden's statement when Jeremy told him shortly before Christmas 1984 in the Frog & Beans in Colchester that "if the Farm burns down then everything will be mine".
-
Do you think "bending the truth" or buying statements for the "noble cause" is corrupt or acceptable ?
If you think the silencer was a red herring and it turns out it was manipulated as evidence is that corrupt or not?
Just a question I am not saying that is what happened.
I think it happens all of the time Jan - No I don't agree with it but rather that than a guilty person walking free to murder someone else.
-
Well it ties in indirectly with Charles Marsden's statement when Jeremy told him shortly before Christmas 1984 in the Frog & Beans in Colchester that "if the Farm burns down then everything will be mine".
you mean the fact that the family would be in there? Because they did not own the farm so there would have been no insurance money or anything .
-
I think it happens all of the time Jan - No I don't agree with it but rather that than a guilty person walking free to murder someone else.
But it is still corruption and you would assume that there was only a need to do this when there was not enough evidence. So in other words a gut feeling . But it is not acceptable apparently to have a gut feeling the other way?
-
you mean the fact that the family would be in there? Because they did not own the farm so there would have been no insurance money or anything .
Well they were underinsured which is the main reason Jeremy abandoned the plan-not because he didn't want them all dead.
-
But it is still corruption and you would assume that there was only a need to do this when there was not enough evidence. So in other words a gut feeling . But it is not acceptable apparently to have a gut feeling the other way?
Isn't it?
-
Just thinking that he took a risk replacing the silencer back in the gun cupboard because he could have trailed blood from anywhere in the house into that area.
-
Well they were underinsured which is the main reason Jeremy abandoned the plan-not because he didn't want them all dead.
It was more than just an issue of insurance. There was no way to ensure all the victims would die in a fire. if any lived then the fire was for nothing. It is possible to tell whether people died from fire or not so killing them then starting a fire doesn't help either it shows that someone committed murder and tried to cover it up with arson or used the arson to destroy evidence.
-
Just thinking that he took a risk replacing the silencer back in the gun cupboard because he could have trailed blood from anywhere in the house into that area.
Only someone not in their right mind would do something like that. It begs wanting to be caught or not being bothered if they were------------which wouldn't have been on Jeremy's mind.
-
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2015-07-29/yorkshire-author-writes-book-about-jeremy-bamber-case/
-
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2015-07-29/yorkshire-author-writes-book-about-jeremy-bamber-case/
Thirty years on it's not looking hopeful for Jeremy,who may well be parcelled up in perpituity..
-
Obviously he couldn't find any corruption. Otherwise it would be front page news. So his boast that he was going to expose it was simply...a boast.
After investigating the case PH came to the conclusion of Bamber's guilt.
If you remember back,PH stated that although he couldnt say either way whether Jeremy was indeed guilty or not,he did feel JB's case was a MOJ. He made that decision AFTER he had seemingly researched the case. He previously believed the silencer evidence to be corrupt,along with the investigation and some of its main players and he had said he could prove it. I understood that exposing the corruption was the purpose of his writing the book.hence the original title being 'Dead bodies don't move'. Even if PH came to the conclusion of JB's guilt,it doesn't alter what he allegedly uncovered with regards to the investigation. Due to the legal implications,I dont believe that anyone will ever be able to write a book revealing the truth behind this case (whether JB guilty or not),certainly not in our lifetime anyway.
-
If you remember back,PH stated that although he couldnt say either way whether Jeremy was indeed guilty or not,he did feel JB's case was a MOJ. He made that decision AFTER he had seemingly researched the case. He previously believed the silencer evidence to be corrupt,along with the investigation and some of its main players and he had said he could prove it. I understood that exposing the corruption was the purpose of his writing the book.hence the original title being 'Dead bodies don't move'. Even if PH came to the conclusion of JB's guilt,it doesn't alter what he allegedly uncovered with regards to the investigation. Due to the legal implications,I dont believe that anyone will ever be able to write a book revealing the truth behind this case (whether JB guilty or not),certainly not in our lifetime anyway.
All the research points to Jeremy's guilt;even such a clandestine family as the Bambers has been scrutinized with a fine tooth comb and once the tittle tattle has been sifted and discarded the salient facts bear testament to this.
-
If you remember back,PH stated that although he couldnt say either way whether Jeremy was indeed guilty or not,he did feel JB's case was a MOJ. He made that decision AFTER he had seemingly researched the case. He previously believed the silencer evidence to be corrupt,along with the investigation and some of its main players and he had said he could prove it. I understood that exposing the corruption was the purpose of his writing the book.hence the original title being 'Dead bodies don't move'. Even if PH came to the conclusion of JB's guilt,it doesn't alter what he allegedly uncovered with regards to the investigation. Due to the legal implications,I dont believe that anyone will ever be able to write a book revealing the truth behind this case (whether JB guilty or not),certainly not in our lifetime anyway.
If he did claim such then it means his research ended up not proving what he suspected was the case.
-
Both books are probably just a rewrite of Wilkes's book. With a bit of extra useless information which has been gathered in the last 20 years.
Both books will hopefully deal with Bamber's fight for freedom and appeals. Right up to the present day. But then the whole of the 2002 appeal is already online.
-
If PH and CAL did find proof of police corruption, or that key experts or witnesses lied, what is the protocol ?
Do they go straight to the authorities and Bamber's lawyers. Then wait for the conclusion of this, before submitting the book ? Or can they just submit the book with the proof in ? And wait for the back lash.
-
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2015-07-29/yorkshire-author-writes-book-about-jeremy-bamber-case/
It says Bamber wrote to ITV saying all the evidence pointed to Sheila being guilty ;D
-
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/features/features/13520876.Did_Jeremy_Bamber_kill_his_family_30_years_ago__Make_up_your_own_mind__says_local_author_Carol_Ann_Lee__whose_book_about_the_murder
-
According to CAL's book P399 all documents previously held under PII have now been released to JB.
-
According to CAL's book P399 all documents previously held under PII have now been released to JB.
yes that is true. But not that long ago
-
If PH and CAL did find proof of police corruption, or that key experts or witnesses lied, what is the protocol ?
Do they go straight to the authorities and Bamber's lawyers. Then wait for the conclusion of this, before submitting the book ? Or can they just submit the book with the proof in ? And wait for the back lash.
that is probably a moral question rather than a legal one. I bet they would wait until after publication to ensure sales of the book . Cant give away the ending before publication - oh but PH did.
-
it should be on my kindle so perhaps will start reading soon.
-
According to CAL's book P399 all documents previously held under PII have now been released to JB.
I could tell you a secret - but I wont because I don't trust you.
-
it should be on my kindle so perhaps will start reading soon.
Yes jan I got mine on KINDLE on 30TH
-
yes that is true. But not that long ago
You kept that quiet.
Are you engaging with Bamber ? Why ?
-
You kept that quiet.
Are you engaging with Bamber ? Why ?
Not that its any of your business but that information came from another source and I was asked to keep it quiet which I did - and there was a reason for that. TBH I am surprised it is in the book.
-
According to CAL's book P399 all documents previously held under PII have now been released to JB.
I posted that MONTHS ago!
-
Not that its any of your business but that information came from another source and I was asked to keep it quiet which I did - and there was a reason for that. TBH I am surprised it is in the book.
I posted it here ages ago - I was told just after Christmas wasn't told to keep it quiet.
-
I posted that MONTHS ago!
Jan said it 'was not that long ago'.
What was you're source ? Why didn't you mention this when there was a recent discussion on the boxes, when a poster suggested they were match boxes.
-
Not that its any of your business but that information came from another source and I was asked to keep it quiet which I did - and there was a reason for that. TBH I am surprised it is in the book.
It's not any of you're business either.
He's certainly not found anything amazing in the released boxes. Otherwise it would be all over the media.
But I'm sure he's looking at a spelling mistake or missed digit to jump on.
Fair play to him, he wants out.
-
Jan said it 'was not that long ago'.
What was you're source ? Why didn't you mention this when there was a recent discussion on the boxes, when a poster suggested they were match boxes.
Jeremy told me - I mentioned it months ago, check my back posts!! Fact is you don't read what other people say properly!!
-
Jeremy told me - I mentioned it months ago, check my back posts!! Fact is you don't read what other people say properly!!
I asked a polite question.
No I'm not going to check all you're back posts. You provide the post. Unless you are lying again.
Thought you had stopped engaging with Bamber. You have certainly been a guilter for over 6 months.
-
I asked a polite question.
No I'm not going to check all you're back posts. You provide the post. Unless you are lying again.
Thought you had stopped engaging with Bamber. You have certainly been a guilter for over 6 months.
Adam how dare you.
And yes Caroline is correct it was months ago not weeks. I can verify that . But I was asked not to put it all over the forum by someone else not Jeremy for a specific reason.
-
Well she accused me of not reading other posts properly. Just because I had not seen her alleged post about Bamber having all documents.
Caroline became a guilter in July 2014, highlighted in 'The Last Trailer' thread. So why would she engage with him since then and why would he tell her ?
But I am sure she is going to direct me to her post.
-
It's not any of you're business either.
He's certainly not found anything amazing in the released boxes. Otherwise it would be all over the media.
But I'm sure he's looking at a spelling mistake or missed digit to jump on.
Fair play to him, he wants out.
We shall see wont we.
Like you say if he wants to spend his time trying to find his way out that's up to him.
-
Well she accused me of not reading other posts properly. Just because I had not seen her alleged post about Bamber having all documents.
Caroline became a guilter in July 2014. So why would she engage with him ?
But I am sure she is going to direct me to her post.
wait for it :o- I hope you get the book thrown at you.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/features/bamber-murders-the-definitive-account-1-7368685&ved=0CCcQqQIoADADahUKEwi5_YTS8YfHAhXJmdsKHcSBCoI&usg=AFQjCNE7qmbH5S--1KVgv4D4-5GeUIeveA&sig2=xJBqJCCYqi6XjJp3RNu-rg
-
The article does not say she interviewed Julie. I don't believe PH interviewed her either.
Julie had the chance to just rub salt into the wounds of two books that highlight guilt. Wouldn't blame her she did. After all the 'Campaign for Freedom' team have recently created an 8 minute video on her.
-
“Sheila did have mental health issues, but I spoke to her friends and she was a much loved young woman. No one was frightened of her.”
CAL
-
“I asked five of the police officers in which order the murders were committed and the path the killer took through the house, none of them agreed"CAL.
That is no big deal. I disagreed with some of CAL's version. But agreed with other parts.
At least officers had a view on how Jeremy committed the massacre.
-
I don't believe Bamber would divulge this information to anyone.
He would want to keep the myth going that he is being hard done by, and there are millions of unreleased documents.
This suggests the police are hiding something and the documents may prove his innocence.
CAL probably found this out from another source. Or may have eventually coaxed it out of Bamber.
-
I don't believe Bamber would divulge this information to anyone.
He would want to keep the myth going that he is being hard done by, and there are millions of unreleased documents.
This suggests the police are hiding something and the documents may prove his innocence.
CAL probably found this out from another source. Or may have eventually coaxed it out of Bamber.
wrong!
-
Anyway.
Everyone knows now. Supporters and Bamber can't complain anymore about the documents that were held under PPI.
-
wrong!
What is wrong ?
CAL could only get the information from Bamber or another source.
I am pleased that you and Caroline have verified CAL's statement. Although you have no sources.
Thought supporters would start denying it.
-
What is wrong ?
CAL could only get the information from Bamber or another source.
I am pleased that you and Caroline have verified CAL's statement. Although you have no sources.
Thought supporters would start denying it.
wrong - he did divulge the information to at least three people - Caroline/CAL / and the person who told me.
there may be others as well.
And We both have sources one primary and one secondary - so in other words both from the SAME SOURCE.
-
I don't believe Bamber would divulge this information to anyone.
He would want to keep the myth going that he is being hard done by, and there are millions of unreleased documents.
This suggests the police are hiding something and the documents may prove his innocence.
CAL probably found this out from another source. Or may have eventually coaxed it out of Bamber.
There is evidence that proves the information was released. By denying it he would be revealing himself to be a liar who is just using a bogus tale of document being held under PII to pretend the government is withholding evidence. Real lawyers won't want to help him anymore if he is going to publicly lie about such.
He has supporters who spread lies on his behalf. He might enjoy them doing about some things but might not enjoy them doing so about others things. While it is assumed he has complete control over the campaign team and other supporters that is clearly nonsense and there is no way to know which things he is pushing them to post or trying to get them to rescind.
If they post something overly damaging then in that case he will be forced to risk alienating them by thoroughly disclaiming their assertions in a press release or the like (personally or issued by his lawyers). But to date he hasn't had any such need their lies haven't risen to such level. He will contradict them simply in a less than public communication.
-
Oh yes, Caroline posted it. Months ago. After Bamber wrote and told her. Funny how people still claimed there were withheld documents.
Thought she would have revelled in directing me to her post.
post 619 - posted in Feb - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6437.msg288210.html#msg288210
Oh I am revelling like no one EVER revelled before!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D AND ;D
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.still waiting
-
It MAY have been just under 9 or just over 8.
How is either figure possible? By making an assertion that appears to be incorrect, Carol demonstrated she wasn't paying proper attention to detail.
-
How is either figure possible? By making an assertion that appears to be incorrect, Carol demonstrated she wasn't paying proper attention to detail.
Gosh! Are you getting hard up for a post to pick holes in? You went back some 12 -or perhaps it was 11 to 13- pages to find that post :D
-
Does CAL mention anything about Dr Gillingham's Report on the significance of the Psalms which were featured inside the open Bible ?
-
The above was mentioned at trial but apparently there weren't enough grounds for it having been Sheila as she wasn't religious---------------but June WAS !! Did nobody think of that ? She was the one with religious psychosis NOT Sheila. ::)
-
The above was mentioned at trial but apparently there weren't enough grounds for it having been Sheila as she wasn't religious---------------but June WAS !! Did nobody think of that ? She was the one with religious psychosis NOT Sheila. ::)
The defense didn't mention anything about Psalms at trial it was after the conviction. On appeal they argued the trial lawyers never figured out what page the Bible had been opened to. They tried to frame it as the prosecution intentionally note responding to their requests for information and claimed they hid the Bible from the trial lawyers. The Court responded that the claims were not credible and moreover the Bible was a court exhibit and thus the trial lawyers had the ability to look at it and see with their own eyes which pages had blood. They opined that the defense might have selected not to raise the blood on the Bible because it tended to establish someone stuck the Bible in Sheila's blood after she was dead which obviously she could not do so was supportive of the notion someone else was there on scene shortly after her death. The defense had enough problems they would not want to open such can of worms. They got lucky the prosecution only brought such up on appeal not at trial.
-
The above was mentioned at trial but apparently there weren't enough grounds for it having been Sheila as she wasn't religious---------------but June WAS !! Did nobody think of that ? She was the one with religious psychosis NOT Sheila. ::)
Leaving aside ANY psychosis, was not June supposed to be going to (hosting?) a (Bible study?) meeting that night and could the Psalms have been what the group was to study that evening?
-
Leaving aside ANY psychosis, was not June supposed to be going to (hosting?) a (Bible study?) meeting that night and could the Psalms have been what the group was to study that evening?
Hi Jane, that is a possibility, I agree or it may have just been the way the bible landed.
I did read in CAL's book that Sheila never went to Bible Class when Sheila and the twins visited. I had read on the forum before somewhere that June never, ever missed a Bible Class until that night but it seems that was wrong and there was no such mystery as to why she didn't attend that night.
-
Hi Jane, that is a possibility, I agree or it may have just been the way the bible landed.
I did read in CAL's book that Sheila never went to Bible Class when Sheila and the twins visited. I had read on the forum before somewhere that June never, ever missed a Bible Class until that night but it seems that was wrong and there was no such mystery as to why she didn't attend that night.
Landing by accident doesn't explain the mirror image. It was closed after blood got on it and was reopened to the same page. That seems intentional. If not for that it could indeed just be coincidence that or chosen at random which page was opened.
The only way to argue that page had been preselected by June would be if some sort of book mark had been on that page but it doesn't look like that was the case. Maybe there was and Jeremy moved it who knows. It doesn't help that police lost the things sticking out of the Bible that potentially could have acted as bookmarks. That is just one of the things showing their sloppiness. The loss has no significance for the crimes but does show they were pretty sloppy. Anything they didn't view as very important they didn't treat with great care.
-
Landing by accident doesn't explain the mirror image. It was closed after blood got on it and was reopened to the same page. That seems intentional. If not for that it could indeed just be coincidence that or chosen at random which page was opened.
The only way to argue that page had been preselected by June would be if some sort of book mark had been on that page but it doesn't look like that was the case. Maybe there was and Jeremy moved it who knows. It doesn't help that police lost the things sticking out of the Bible that potentially could have acted as bookmarks. That is just one of the things showing their sloppiness. The loss has no significance for the crimes but does show they were pretty sloppy. Anything they didn't view as very important they didn't treat with great care.
I understand that within the pages -and actually BOTH are visible- along with the alleged suicide note there was also a lace/crocheted doily.
-
I understand that within the pages -and actually BOTH are visible- along with the alleged suicide note there was also a lace/crocheted doily.
There was a note but it most likely was one written by June which simply had religious notes. Since it was lost it can't be known for sure what it was. The defense tried arguing on appeal that the Psalms Bible page s themselves constituted a suicide note.
-
It's probable that because so much alluded to those Psalms that had the Bible been tossed in the air,it still would have landed where it did. It was more or less programmed to ;D. : Quocunque Jeceris Stabit.
Good/Evil------God/Devil----ritualistic cleansing----forgiveness of sins----lamentations---
-
No wonder the pages were dog-eared. Read to death and caused death.
-
No wonder the pages were dog-eared. Read to death and caused death.
They never did get a full analysis of those pages which alluded to the destruction of families. They asked one member of the local clergy I believe who prevaricated and left it at that.
-
They never did get a full analysis of those pages which alluded to the destruction of families. They asked one member of the local clergy I believe who prevaricated and left it at that.
Well that would have figured considering that not all had been aware of the depth of religious psychosis within the family.
-
They never did get a full analysis of those pages which alluded to the destruction of families. They asked one member of the local clergy I believe who prevaricated and left it at that.
Steve, I expect that there would have been differing versions of what the meaning was. There are probably as many differences of theological opinion as there are of political opinion.
-
Steve, I expect that there would have been differing versions of what the meaning was. There are probably as many differences of theological opinion as there are of political opinion.
It could at least have been explored. I wonder if putting Jeremy on the stand was also in his best interests?
-
It could at least have been explored. I wonder if putting Jeremy on the stand was also in his best interests?
I suspect it wasn't. A show of humility may have served him better than "That's for you to prove".
-
It could at least have been explored. I wonder if putting Jeremy on the stand was also in his best interests?
1) The COA nailed on the head why the defense didn't discuss the Bible. The defense was quite happy that the prosecution didn't bring up the fact that the Bible was placed in Sheila's wet blood after her death. This fact supports the conclusion someone else was there at the scene after she died before her blood dried. It thus provides support for the blood evidence that someone was there staging things. If the defense brought up the Bible in order to refute their claims the prosecution would discuss this and it would be another problem to deal with instead of a help. When the other side gives you a gift by missing an argument you don't help them out by providing them with a reason to change course and use it.
2) Unless someone posts Jeremy's full testimony we don't have a way to evaluate if it was more helpful or more hurtful. Part of his testimony I saw was not helpful in my estimation. He testified that at first he didn't appreciate the significance of Nevill's words. He said this is why he didn't think about calling 999 plus he didn't think it would be faster. After he fully woke up and thought about it then a sense of urgency struck him and he decided to call police. his doesn't really help explain away his failure to call 999 and conflicts with his claim to police he immediately phoned police. Furthermore, he maintained he called Julie after police though the prosecution did a good job of establishing he called Julie first. His story is not a good one given he called Julie first. Calling Julie though he didn't appreciate anything significant makes no sense. I would have whante dhim to have a better story than this to tell if I was going to allow him to testify. Of course the decision is ultimately up to the client but we can pester the hell out of them to tell them not to if we think they are not going to do well.
We don't know just how bad he came off in the entirety without seeing the full transcript. the prosecution lost his transcript and the defense didn't provide it to the appeal court so the defense must have decided not to keep it. That seems odd unless he did poorly but even then you would want it to be able to see how poorly he did and try to find a way to mitigate it. The government only has his cross examination. Both sides losing his testimony transcript is just one more odd thing.
-
The Bible was a most important piece of evidence in this case and because nobody in court was aware of the significance of it within the Bamber household,it was cast aside as having no meaning or relevance to the case. How wrong they were.
-
The Bible was a most important piece of evidence in this case and because nobody in court was aware of the significance of it within the Bamber household,it was cast aside as having no meaning or relevance to the case. How wrong they were.
The only significance is it helps prove Sheila was murdered because the killer stuck it in a puddle of her blood after the murders.
-
The bible being put down on blood already on the carpet, together with Sheila's legs being pulled after being shot, suggest something to me. Now what could it be ?
The bible and Sheila's legs being pulled are both forensic evidence against Jeremy. But his OS says there is none.
-
I think that Carolines photo was actually quite convincing and it is strange that the fact that the bible was on her chest was mentioned a few times . But this is just a question and nothing to do with proof of guilt or innocence. What do you fellow dog owners think your dog would do if you were laying injured or dead with blood on you?
-
Well I'm sure it would be licking you,especially the bloodied parts as dogs seem to do.
I've had dogs in the past and they can sniff out a sore such as I once ripped my hand on a rose bush so the dog proceeded to lick it " better ".
-
Do you mean that Crispy might have touched the bible in some way before the Raid Team entered?
-
I'm certain that the dog would have been wandering around the bedroom sniffing/licking before it heard the thunderous bash of the door being broken.
-
I think that Carolines photo was actually quite convincing and it is strange that the fact that the bible was on her chest was mentioned a few times . But this is just a question and nothing to do with proof of guilt or innocence. What do you fellow dog owners think your dog would do if you were laying injured or dead with blood on you?
I don't see how the pages being bent back explains the stain at all. The picture of the bible shows that the pages were bend back over the spine of the book and so still out of reach of the stain. Also pages that were not bent back would also have soaked up part of the blood - these would be pages on the opposite side (when turned over) but there is nothing. Finally, when the bible was closed, the blood must have been almost dry because the stain has only very partially repeated on the opposite page. I don't believe the stain is from the floor at all, I think it's a palm print - you can even see the pressure points!!
-
The Bible may have originated from Sheila's right side after she'd been holding it because of the palm print on the book and the continuation of her bloodied hand which left fingerprints on her nightdress,as she'd gradually lost the grip of it.
-
The Bible may have originated from Sheila's right side after she'd been holding it because of the palm print on the book and the continuation of her bloodied hand which left fingerprints on her nightdress,as she'd gradually lost the grip of it.
Had that been the case Lookout, it couldn't have ended up face down at almost shoulder level. Someone had to have placed the bible next to her in that position.
-
I don't see how the pages being bent back explains the stain at all. The picture of the bible shows that the pages were bend back over the spine of the book and so still out of reach of the stain. Also pages that were not bent back would also have soaked up part of the blood - these would be pages on the opposite side (when turned over) but there is nothing. Finally, when the bible was closed, the blood must have been almost dry because the stain has only very partially repeated on the opposite page. I don't believe the stain is from the floor at all, I think it's a palm print - you can even see the pressure points!!
like I said it does not prove guilt or innocence because it could have been the raid team who moved the bible before the photos
-
The raid team did a hell of a lot of moving around. Mike even has a picture of Sheila on the bed.
Thought the raid teams role was just to negate any threat. As everyone was dead, there was no need to move anything.
-
Had that been the case Lookout, it couldn't have ended up face down at almost shoulder level. Someone had to have placed the bible next to her in that position.
The Bible had been moved,that's for sure. Firstly it was about 2ft away from her,then it was on her chest,so what are we supposed to believe as to its last " resting place "?
-
Had that been the case Lookout, it couldn't have ended up face down at almost shoulder level. Someone had to have placed the bible next to her in that position.
From whence and how the Bible landed would have depended on where it was in the first place,as it hadn't been " placed " in the position we see with its pages sprawled open.
Firstly it had been reported that the book was about 18" to 2 ft away from Sheila,edging toward the centre of the room between the two women. Then secondly we're told it was found on Sheila's chest. Which is it to be ?
-
From whence and how the Bibble landed would have depended on where it was in the first place,as it hadn't been " placed " in the position we see with its pages sprawled open.
Firstly it had been reported that the book was about 18" to 2 ft away from Sheila,edging toward the centre of the room between the two women. Then secondly we're told it was found on Sheila's chest. Which is it to be ?
Well unless you provide a reference for your information, I can't really comment Lookout.
-
The reviews on Amazon are good.
However one review says it doesn't really say anything new for people already familiar with the case. Which would mean everyone who posts on here.
The section where the police describe how Bamber committed the massacre would be interesting.
-
The reviews on Amazon are good.
However one review says it doesn't really say anything new for people already familiar with the case. Which would mean everyone who posts on here.
The section where the police describe how Bamber committed the massacre would be interesting.
Most Amazon reviews are worthless, people give 5 stars just for something being in print. True reviews that discuss the contents in detail in a constructive way are few and far between.
-
Most Amazon reviews are worthless, people give 5 stars just for something being in print. True reviews that discuss the contents in detail in a constructive way are few and far between.
Lomax's book got erratic reviews. Lots of 1 stars and 5 stars. As it was clearly biased.
Wilkes's book got eight 5 star reviews and one 4 star review. Quite rightly so.
CAL's book is no doubt well written. However there have already been good books written about it. Together with a vast amount of information online, two forums and loads of Youtube videos.
But it's selling well so helping CAL pay the rent.
-
I don't see how the pages being bent back explains the stain at all. The picture of the bible shows that the pages were bend back over the spine of the book and so still out of reach of the stain. Also pages that were not bent back would also have soaked up part of the blood - these would be pages on the opposite side (when turned over) but there is nothing. Finally, when the bible was closed, the blood must have been almost dry because the stain has only very partially repeated on the opposite page. I don't believe the stain is from the floor at all, I think it's a palm print - you can even see the pressure points!!
The blood was not out of reach of the blood pool, the blood pool was hidden by the Bible and was under the top of the Bible. You keep looking at the photos of the bottom of the Bible where there was no blood pool and thus not blood on the bottom of the Bible and then drawing erroneous conclusions.
-
like I said it does not prove guilt or innocence because it could have been the raid team who moved the bible before the photos
The raid team moving it would not cause any blood to get on it because by that time the blood was dry.
-
The blood was not out of reach of the blood pool, the blood pool was hidden by the Bible and was under the top of the Bible. You keep looking at the photos of the bottom of the Bible where there was no blood pool and thus not blood on the bottom of the Bible and then drawing erroneous conclusions.
No I'm not, how do you know where I'm looking :o? I'm looking at the top and I don't agree with you! Of course some of the blood was hidden by the bible but however far it ultimately reached, it would have extended from Sheila, there would be no gaps. Your theory doesn't work because it doesn't explain why the stain doesn't start at the top corner of the page - there is a gap, then the stain starts (see below) or why one side of the stain isn't straight where the fold of the page would have been. The stain is also TOO well defined to be from the stain on the floor. Finally, for your theory to be correct, there would still be blood on the opposite page because some of that page couldn't fail to touch the blood. The second picture is a top view and the bible isn't raised as much from the bent back pages so more of it is touching the surface area.
Finally (Edit), if the pages are bent back, the corner of the page in question will be situated around where I have drawn the line on the last picture,
Ignore the first picture, was getting my fold in the wrong direction - the rest still stands!
-
The raid team moving it would not cause any blood to get on it because by that time the blood was dry.
not true if carolines theory is right - the blood was on the bible already
-
like I said it does not prove guilt or innocence because it could have been the raid team who moved the bible before the photos
Why would the raid team move the bible ?
You are clutching at straws again.
-
No I'm not, how do you know where I'm looking :o? I'm looking at the top and I don't agree with you! Of course some of the blood was hidden by the bible but however far it ultimately reached, it would have extended from Sheila, there would be no gaps. Your theory doesn't work because it doesn't explain why the stain doesn't start at the top corner of the page - there is a gap, then the stain starts (see below). The stain is also TOO well defined to be from the stain on the floor. Finally, for your theory to be correct, there would still be blood on the opposite page because some of that page couldn't fail to touch the blood. The second picture is a top view and the bible isn't raised as much from the bent back pages so more of it is touching the surface area.
Finally (Edit), if the pages are bent back, the corner of the page in question will be situated around where I have drawn the line on the last picture,
Those photos show how the blood pool is at the top like I said. You can't see the extent of the blood under the top of the Bible because in those photos the Bible is vblocking it. You have to life the Bible off to see the remainder of the pool.
Those photos are taken from a top profile not side. The bottom photos I showed are from an angle and thus show the pages folded over. The folded over pages were under the half of the cover closest to Sheila's body thus IN THE BLOOD. The beginning of the right page is in the air so not touching the blood pool. BUT a portion of the right side did touch the pool. That is why you have blood on the left hand top and right hand top. Your suggestion it is a palm print doesn't hold any water and was rejected by those who actually looked at the Bible and tested it for bloody prints.
In between the 2 green lines is the portion of the right hand side page which was sitting in blood actually touching the floor.
In between the orange lines is the section of the left hand side which was touching the floor.
In between the 2 is a gap where nothing was touching the floor there was air.
(http://s15.postimg.org/6zv7ujgkb/bibletop.jpg)
(http://s1.postimg.org/a6g1spofz/air.jpg)
This is the result:
(http://s13.postimg.org/62c10cpk7/bloodbible.jpg)
The result is blood on the top of the left side that was touching the floor. A gap then the blood on the right sided that was folded over and also touching the floor. The blood on both sides combined is the size of a page. If the book had rested perfectly flat in half then all of it would have been on the left side and none of the right but because it was folded over much got on the right side though some got on left anyway because part of the left was still touching the ground, only part to the left side was blocked by the right side being folded over.
-
Those photos show how the blood pool is at the top like I said. You can't see the extent of the blood under the top of the Bible because in those photos the Bible is vblocking it. You have to life the Bible off to see the remainder of the pool.
Those photos are taken from a top profile not side. The bottom photos I showed are from an angle and thus show the pages folded over. The folded over pages were under the half of the cover closest to Sheila's body thus IN THE BLOOD. The beginning of the right page is in the air so not touching the blood pool. BUT a portion of the right side did touch the pool. That is why you have blood on the left hand top and right hand top. Your suggestion it is a palm print doesn't hold any water and was rejected by those who actually looked at the Bible and tested it for bloody prints.
In between the 2 green lines is the portion of the right hand side page which was sitting in blood actually touching the floor.
In between the orange lines is the section of the left hand side which was touching the floor.
In between the 2 is a gap where nothing was touching the floor there was air.
(http://s15.postimg.org/6zv7ujgkb/bibletop.jpg)
(http://s1.postimg.org/a6g1spofz/air.jpg)
This is the result:
(http://s13.postimg.org/62c10cpk7/bloodbible.jpg)
The result is blood on the top of the left side that was touching the floor. A gap then the blood on the right sided that was folded over and also touching the floor. The blood on both sides combined is the size of a page. If the book had rested perfectly flat in half then all of it would have been on the left side and none of the right but because it was folded over much got on the right side though some got on left anyway because part of the left was still touching the ground, only part to the left side was blocked by the right side being folded over.
Yes, they do show that the pages are folded back on themselves but you have been rather economical on your picture of how far you think they were folded back. The bottom of the bible shows how far they go back and it's a LOT further than you indicated. They go FURTHER than the spine and the bible isn't lifted up from the top view.
This is your theory of the bible - which you are welcome to but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it doesn't explain how only the folded part of the bible ended up stained when the pages behind it would also have have touched the stain. I still say it's a palm print.
You have also changed what you said earlier, you said the blood on the left side showed that the bible had been closed and the print on the left side was indicative of that (mirror image).
-
Yes, they do show that the pages are folded back on themselves but you have been rather economical on your picture of how far you think they were folded back. The bottom of the bible shows how far they go back and it's a LOT further than you indicated. They go FURTHER than the spine and the bible isn't lifted up from the top view.
This is your theory of the bible - which you are welcome to but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it doesn't explain how only the folded part of the bible ended up stained when the pages behind it would also have have touched the stain. I still say it's a palm print.
I'm going with palm print. I think the corresponding finger prints are on her nightdress.
-
Yes, they do show that the pages are folded back on themselves but you have been rather economical on your picture of how far you think they were folded back. The bottom of the bible shows how far they go back and it's a LOT further than you indicated. They go FURTHER than the spine and the bible isn't lifted up from the top view.
This is your theory of the bible - which you are welcome to but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it doesn't explain how only the folded part of the bible ended up stained when the pages behind it would also have have touched the stain. I still say it's a palm print.
The folded page was touching the ground it was sitting in a puddle of blood. There was blood under the Bible which you can't see because in those photos the Bible is sitting on top of such blood.
A portion of the right side page and left side were both sitting in the blood. Prosecution experts discussed this first not me and MacDonnell also discussed it to an extent. The prosecution argued to the COA in 2002 that this happened and this is why the Defense didn't discuss the Bible. The prosecution used it for a limited purpose as opposed to independent ground to support guilt because they could not establish it was based on new evidence. The prosecution could have found an expert to make this argument at trial- they had the evidence in their possession at that time and could have contacted an expert to evaluate it. They overlooked it. That's too bad for them it can't be used on appeal. They could use it though if there were a retrial because a retrial is a trial from scratch with both sides getting to start from square one. Neither side is limited to the arguments they made at trial.
-
I'm going with palm print. I think the corresponding finger prints are on her nightdress.
Her night dress had a palm print. Her fingers were free of blood the only blood was on her outer palm/wrist. She didn't have any blood on the inside of her palm or fingers.
The pages were folded over so that a portion of the right side page was touching the puddle of blood that was under it. Since it was folded over only not fully folded a portion of the let side page also touched blood. The result is blood on the top of both pages.
-
Would any of you say that Sheila and June died at the same time ?
-
The folded page was touching the ground it was sitting in a puddle of blood. There was blood under the Bible which you can't see because in those photos the Bible is sitting on top of such blood.
A portion of the right side page and left side were both sitting in the blood. Prosecution experts discussed this first not me and MacDonnell also discussed it to an extent. The prosecution argued to the COA in 2002 that this happened and this is why the Defense didn't discuss the Bible. The prosecution used it for a limited purpose as opposed to independent ground to support guilt because they could not establish it was based on new evidence. The prosecution could have found an expert to make this argument at trial- they had the evidence in their possession at that time and could have contacted an expert to evaluate it. They overlooked it. That's too bad for them it can't be used on appeal. They could use it though if there were a retrial because a retrial is a trial from scratch with both sides getting to start from square one. Neither side is limited to the arguments they made at trial.
From where do you suggest this "puddle" of blood came? Certainly blood has pooled into her armpit, but none has leaked from under her right shoulder which it surely would have to have done to have reached a point where it extended beyond the top edge of the Bible.
-
Would any of you say that Sheila and June died at the same time ?
I shall ask again before the post vanishes into oblivion. Do you all agree that Sheila and June both died at the same time ?
-
I shall ask again before the post vanishes into oblivion. Do you all agree that Sheila and June both died at the same time ?
Within minutes of each other.
June was shot first, asleep with her head on the pillow. Along with Neville.
Sheila was shot after Neville had been beaten and shot eight times.
-
Within minutes of each other.
June was shot first, asleep with her head on the pillow. Along with Neville.
Sheila was shot after Neville had been beaten and shot eight times.
I'm talking about the two women who were found together in the bedroom,not Neville.
-
I'm talking about the two women who were found together in the bedroom,not Neville.
June was shot first.
Jeremy is not going to lead Sheila into the bedroom with June and Neville fully fit.
-
I have green hands now. I will soon try to post photos of an experiment that we did. It would be disrespectful to ruin a Bible so we used a magazine owned by one of the ladies. The only colored fluid we could find was green fluid used for some kind of St Patty's Day thing. We stuck it on a sheet of paper then folded the magazine page over like the Bible was and stuck the magazine on it. The blood was deeper under the folded over section than under the left section so I used more green under the folded over part.
The general pattern of the stain is not that different from the one in the Bible. The magazine has wider pages so it is naturally not perfect but demonstrates the theory works quite well.
(http://s12.postimg.org/8om7aztnh/experiment1.jpg)
This paper in the photo above that is underneath it was covered in green paint. The paint was more narrowly applied in the half that touched the left. In the part that touched the folded over page it was applied further down. The book was then pushed against it. Note how the paint was entirely over the half of the book to the right of the binding just like the blood was all to the right of the binding. (left in photo because we are looking at it from the top while it is upside down)
After applying it in the paint I then opened the book unfolding the page that was folded over.
Here is the left page:
(http://s3.postimg.org/3uma26p1v/experiementleftpage.jpg)
Here is the right page:
(http://s4.postimg.org/e8kqursv1/experiementfoldedoverpage.jpg)
The 2 Bible stains:
(http://s21.postimg.org/o7qcun4rr/bibletopstains.jpg)
-
June was shot first.
Jeremy is not going to lead Sheila into the bedroom with June and Neville fully fit.
::) I'm not including Neville,nor Jeremy for that matter. Simple question,did the two women die at the same time !!??
-
I have green hands now. I will soon try to post photos of an experiment that we did. It would be disrespectful to ruin a Bible so we used a magazine owned by one of the ladies. The only colored fluid we could find was green fluid used for some kind of St Patty's Day thing. We stuck it on a sheet of paper then folded the magazine page over like the Bible was and stuck the magazine on it. The blood was deeper under the folded over section than under the left section so I used more green under the folded over part.
The general pattern of the stain is not that different from the one in the Bible. The magazine has wider pages so it is naturally not perfect but demonstrates the theory works quite well.
This is palm print I did a few years ago, I used poster pain so the effect and colour will be slightly different. I used the SAME bible as the one in the picture - look at the shape and the size - my hands are small - so is the bible.
-
I have green hands now. I will soon try to post photos of an experiment that we did. It would be disrespectful to ruin a Bible so we used a magazine owned by one of the ladies. The only colored fluid we could find was green fluid used for some kind of St Patty's Day thing. We stuck it on a sheet of paper then folded the magazine page over like the Bible was and stuck the magazine on it. The blood was deeper under the folded over section than under the left section so I used more green under the folded over part.
The general pattern of the stain is not that different from the one in the Bible. The magazine has wider pages so it is naturally not perfect but demonstrates the theory works quite well.
Wow for someone who knows that JB is guilty that is pretty dedicated research.
-
It looks a bit like the impression of the doily now.
-
This is palm print I did a few years ago, I used poster pain so the effect and colour will be slightly different. I used the SAME bible as the one in the picture - look at the shape and the size - my hands are small - so is the bible.
The lines present in your example are not present in the Bible photo which is one of several reasons why it was not determined to be a bloody print which they could try to match to Jeremy or anyone else. Sheila had no blood on her inside palm even. Jeremy had gloves on so would not get palm lines form his gloves anyway. His gloves would have to have been absolutely soaked in blood to leave that much. They would have had some blood but enough to leave that.
You are doing what Mike did when he decided that marks he saw in photos near the phones are bloody fingerprints.
-
The lines present in your example are not present in the Bible photo which is one of several reasons why it was not determined to be a bloody print which they could try to match to Jeremy or anyone else. Sheila had no blood on her inside palm even. Jeremy had gloves on so would not get palm lines form his gloves anyway. His gloves would have to have been absolutely soaked in blood to leave that much. They would have had some blood but enough to leave that.
You are doing what Mike did when he decided that marks he saw in photos near the phones are bloody fingerprints.
I have to agree with Caroline the two prints are very alike to me. The fleshy part at the base of the thumb where there seems to have been most pressure shows on both prints imo.
-
The lines present in your example are not present in the Bible photo which is one of several reasons why it was not determined to be a bloody print which they could try to match to Jeremy or anyone else. Sheila had no blood on her inside palm even. Jeremy had gloves on so would not get palm lines form his gloves anyway. His gloves would have to have been absolutely soaked in blood to leave that much. They would have had some blood but enough to leave that.
You are doing what Mike did when he decided that marks he saw in photos near the phones are bloody fingerprints.
you are stating something as fact that has never been proven .You can not prove the murderer wore gloves . that is pure assumption
-
I have to agree with Caroline the two prints are very alike to me. The fleshy part at the base of the thumb where there seems to have been most pressure shows on both prints imo.
I had assumed it was established that it was a palm print. There are times when I'm inclined to feel a little suspicious of Scipio's love of argument combined with, what I suspect is, a pathological NEED to be right ;)
-
I had assumed it was established that it was a palm print. There are times when I'm inclined to feel a little suspicious of Scipio's love of argument combined with, what I suspect is,
a pathological NEED to be right ;)
Ooooooooh,I've thought that for a long time now and it gives me the creeps.
-
I had assumed it was established that it was a palm print. There are times when I'm inclined to feel a little suspicious of Scipio's love of argument combined with, what I suspect is, a pathological NEED to be right ;)
Since I love to argue I can argue any side of any thing. As far as being right is concerned, who would intentionally choose a losing argument? Sometimes you get assigned a loser argument you are stuck making. When I pick my own I pick the ones best supported.
A) The lab failed to find any bloody fingerprints or palm prints on the Bible. They would be in the best position to know what it was
B) Sheila did not have any blood on her inside palm.
C) Nothing the killer did would result in getting the victim's blood over their entire palm. There was spatter but spatter doesn't coat a hand fully or anything else fully which is why the rifle stock wasn't completely covered the blood was sporadic
D) There was blood under the Bible corresponding to where that stain is and blood corresponding to where the blood on the left page stain is.
Look at how rounded the palm print is and the veins in it. The stain on the bible is not rounded and doesn't have veins. The only way a glove could make that kind of stain would be if the entire palm of the glove was covered in blood. If you shoot someone you are not going to get that much blood on your gloves unless you stuck it in a pool of blood first.
Palm prints from shootings are much smaller you only get a small section of the hand or a finger(s) not a big giant mass. Unless someone is suggesting Jeremy stuck his hand in a puddle of blood the suggestion doesn't work.
The COA adopted the prosecutions argument that the blood got there from being placed in the pool of blood I didn't think this up myself:
"The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial."
The other fresh evidence they allude to is evidence that Sheila was shot while propped up against something then after she died was dragged flat to dump the rifle on her.
his evidence helps establish she was murdered. HOWEVER, it was not able to be used in the appeal for the purposes of proving such. There is no new science at play allowing the prosecution to make these arguments. The science and factual evidence existed at the time of the trial. They could have had experts argued about the Bible being placed in her blood after she was dead and being moved after she was dead. They failed to recognize these arguments and that is their touch luck. If there were a retrial they could raise such but can't raise such to defeat the need for a retrial.
-
The lines present in your example are not present in the Bible photo which is one of several reasons why it was not determined to be a bloody print which they could try to match to Jeremy or anyone else. Sheila had no blood on her inside palm even. Jeremy had gloves on so would not get palm lines form his gloves anyway. His gloves would have to have been absolutely soaked in blood to leave that much. They would have had some blood but enough to leave that.
You are doing what Mike did when he decided that marks he saw in photos near the phones are bloody fingerprints.
Rubbish! The two prints look the same! You asked for people to take into account that your experiment used different mediums etc but you're not prepared to make allowances for the fact that I used poster pain and the picture is higher quality. You aren't the oracle here Scip - and your theory on the bible is flimsy. The two prints have almost an identical outline regardless of us having the same palm lines (which is hardly likely). Lets leave it to people to make their own minds up without being rail-roaded by you and your enormous ego.
Where is your experiment?
-
The lines present in your example are not present in the Bible photo which is one of several reasons why it was not determined to be a bloody print which they could try to match to Jeremy or anyone else. Sheila had no blood on her inside palm even. Jeremy had gloves on so would not get palm lines form his gloves anyway. His gloves would have to have been absolutely soaked in blood to leave that much. They would have had some blood but enough to leave that.
You are doing what Mike did when he decided that marks he saw in photos near the phones are bloody fingerprints.
Read Venezis written notes! He clearly states that she had blood on her right hand. This was written on 07.09.85 - his later statement says her hands were clean. I'd rather go with his initial findings!
-
I have to agree with Caroline the two prints are very alike to me. The fleshy part at the base of the thumb where there seems to have been most pressure shows on both prints imo.
Exactly - which would be a pressure point. Obviously my hand print lines won't be the same as the print on the bible and my photograph is clearer BUT - the shape is the same. But lets see Scips experiment?
-
Rubbish! The two prints look the same! You asked for people to take into account that your experiment used different mediums etc but you're not prepared to make allowances for the fact that I used poster pain and the picture is higher quality. You aren't the oracle here Scip - and your theory on the bible is flimsy. The two prints have almost an identical outline regardless of us having the same palm lines (which is hardly likely). Lets leave it to people to make their own minds up without being rail-roaded by you and your enormous ego.
Where is your experiment?
You cannot expect both prints to be exact copies and am sure you know this scipio. It depends on the pressure exerted on both occasions, on the amount of paint on Caroline's Palm as compared with the amount of blood on the other as to whether the Palm lines show or not. Think there's probably more paint than blood and one photo is very poor quality while the other is clear and fresh. Having said all that imo there's a definite similarity between the shape and contours of the two prints.
-
Rubbish! The two prints look the same! You asked for people to take into account that your experiment used different mediums etc but you're not prepared to make allowances for the fact that I used poster pain and the picture is higher quality. You aren't the oracle here Scip - and your theory on the bible is flimsy. The two prints have almost an identical outline regardless of us having the same palm lines (which is hardly likely). Lets leave it to people to make their own minds up without being rail-roaded by you and your enormous ego.
Where is your experiment?
My theory has expert support and convinced the judges. Yours has no expert support and ignores a number of points I raised which doom your suggestion.
You are doing exactly what Mike did with the image he says is a bloody fingerprint. He ignores that police saw no print and says it has to be one because form the distant photo it looks like one.
You ignore the experts saying there was no bloody prints and decide you know better from a photo than they did from looking in person.
You ignore that underneath the Bible was blood and it corresponds to exactly where the blood was found on the top of both pages.
You ignore that Sheila had no blood on the inside of her palm and Jeremy wore gloves and would not have such a large quantity of blood on his hands or his gloves.
I will stick with the experts and the judges on this.
-
My theory has expert support and convinced the judges. Yours has no expert support and ignores a number of points I raised which doom your suggestion.
You are doing exactly what Mike did with the image he says is a bloody fingerprint. He ignores that police saw no print and says it has to be one because form the distant photo it looks like one.
You ignore the experts saying there was no bloody prints and decide you know better from a photo than they did from looking in person.
You ignore that underneath the Bible was blood and it corresponds to exactly where the blood was found on the top of both pages.
You ignore that Sheila had no blood on the inside of her palm and Jeremy wore gloves and would not have such a large quantity of blood on his hands or his gloves.
I will stick with the experts and the judges on this.
You always do stick with the expert and judge even though life experience should teach everyone that such people are not infallible.
As Caroline has already stated Vanezis' first handwritten statement said Sheila had blood on the Palm of her hand. As he is a professional, why do you ignore this?
-
My theory has expert support and convinced the judges. Yours has no expert support and ignores a number of points I raised which doom your suggestion.
You are doing exactly what Mike did with the image he says is a bloody fingerprint. He ignores that police saw no print and says it has to be one because form the distant photo it looks like one.
You ignore the experts saying there was no bloody prints and decide you know better from a photo than they did from looking in person.
You ignore that underneath the Bible was blood and it corresponds to exactly where the blood was found on the top of both pages.
You ignore that Sheila had no blood on the inside of her palm and Jeremy wore gloves and would not have such a large quantity of blood on his hands or his gloves.
I will stick with the experts and the judges on this.
So what? Did you not read Venezis's written report? I'm not making this shit up Scip - he actually wrote that Sheila had blood on her right hand. You can ignore it or make excuses but that's what he wrote.
Stick with who you like but you haven't doomed anything - that's simply your arrogance showing.
Where is your experiment?
-
You always do stick with the expert and judge even though life experience should teach everyone that such people are not infallible.
As Caroline has already stated Vanezis' first handwritten statement said Sheila had blood on the Palm of her hand. As he is a professional, why do you ignore this?
Cheers Maggie :) - the guy actually wrote that she had blood on her right hand on the day he conducted the autopsy. I believe that Jeremy is guilty but I won't ignore such anomalies - to do so is being disingenuous. However, regardless of what Scip says the stain clearly looks like a palm print.
I'll leave other people to decide what the print is - but would still like to see Scips experiment!
-
Cheers Maggie :) - the guy actually wrote that she had blood on her right hand on the day he conducted the autopsy. I believe that Jeremy is guilty but I won't ignore such anomalies - to do so is being disingenuous.
Good for you, I agree the truth is important, whoever it supports or not isn't the point. It's disingenuous to ignore facts because they don't fit your personal theory imo.
-
Good for you, I agree the truth is important, whoever it supports or not isn't the point. It's disingenuous to ignore facts because they don't fit your personal theory imo.
Exactly! ;)
-
So what? Did you not read Venezis's written report? I'm not making this shit up Scip - he actually wrote that Sheila had blood on her right hand. You can ignore it or make excuses but that's what he wrote.
Stick with who you like but you haven't doomed anything - that's simply your arrogance showing.
Where is your experiment?
You are making it up.
Do you mean his autopsy report that I quoted from to prove you wrong? The report where he said she had blood on her wrist which she transferred to her gown but noted no blood on her fingers or palms.
(http://s28.postimg.org/bfcjb64fh/vanezispalms.jpg)
(http://s4.postimg.org/eglr0o3j1/vaneziswrist.jpg)
Numerous experts have since discussed the issue of her putting her outer wrist/outer palm to her throat to plug the wound, getting blood on such areas and then getting it onto her gown. There is nothing about activities which would get blood inside her hand or any observations of blood inside her hand.
I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm just following the established evidence in this case.
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/bloodspatter-120424122335-phpapp01/95/blood-spatter-14-728.jpg?cb=1335270411)
This is a wall hit by a substantial amount more medium velocity spatter than the rifle was hit with. With staining patterns similar to this on the rifle would touching it totally coat the hand? No you will have spots in isolated places and you will see gaps if the hand touching it then transferred the blood to something else. That is why many palm prints and the like are partial you don't see a whole hand print unless someone is stabbing someone and thus there is plenty of blood flow.
Gloves are not going to change this the gloves would not be fully coated they would have the blood on sporadically unless Jeremy decided to stick his glove covered hand in a pool of blood. I can't imagine how or why he would do such though.
-
You are making it up.
Do you mean his autopsy report that I quoted from to prove you wrong? The report where he said she had blood on her wrist which she transferred to her gown but noted no blood on her fingers or palms.
(http://s28.postimg.org/bfcjb64fh/vanezispalms.jpg)
(http://s4.postimg.org/eglr0o3j1/vaneziswrist.jpg)
Numerous experts have since discussed the issue of her putting her outer wrist/outer palm to her throat to plug the wound, getting blood on such areas and then getting it onto her gown. There is nothing about activities which would get blood inside her hand or any observations of blood inside her hand.
I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm just following the established evidence in this case.
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/bloodspatter-120424122335-phpapp01/95/blood-spatter-14-728.jpg?cb=1335270411)
This is a wall hit by a substantial amount more medium velocity spatter than the rifle was hit with. With staining patterns similar to this on the rifle would touching it totally coat the hand? No you will have spots in isolated places and you will see gaps if the hand touching it then transferred the blood to something else. That is why many palm prints and the like are partial you don't see a whole hand print unless someone is stabbing someone and thus there is plenty of blood flow.
Gloves are not going to change this the gloves would not be fully coated they would have the blood on sporadically unless Jeremy decided to stick his glove covered hand in a pool of blood. I can't imagine how or why he would do such though.
OMG! I haven't made ANYTHING UP - you are such a megalomaniac that you never consider someone else might know more than you! Why would I make a statement up? They can be checked just as this one can! READ it!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html
I'm not going to get personal with you - I think you're funny when you NEED to be right. In this instance - you're simply NOT! :-*
Where is your experiment?
-
OMG! I haven't made ANYTHING UP - you are such a megalomaniac that you never consider someone else might know more than you! Why would I make a statement up? They can be checked just as this one can! READ it!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html
I'm not going to get personal with you - I think you're funny when you NEED to be right. In this instance - you're simply NOT! :-*
Where is your experiment?
I don't need to be right I am right. His notes simply confirms the same thing she had blood on her outer palm/outer wrist and transferred it to her gown. Nothing about blood on the inside of her hands.
I posted the experiment already post 732 of this thread.
-
OMG! I haven't made ANYTHING UP - you are such a megalomaniac that you never consider someone else might know more than you! Why would I make a statement up? They can be checked just as this one can! READ it!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html
I'm not going to get personal with you - I think you're funny when you NEED to be right. In this instance - you're simply NOT! :-*
Where is your experiment?
Ive blocked scipio so I no longer see his posts for those reasons youve mentioned. It's quiet a relief, I can't be bothered with that deluded xxxxxxxx anymore.
-
Ive blocked scipio so I no longer see his posts for those reasons youve mentioned. It's quiet a relief, I can't be bothered with that deluded xxxxxxxx anymore.
Still projecting to the bitter end. You have the delusions not me. I completely crushed you in debate and you responded by throwing a tantrum and childishly attacking my religion. I will still refute all your nonsense and you can pretend you can't read my posts as a cop-out for not being able to respond.
This all started because you ERRONEOUSLY claimed June's DNA being found in the moderator increases the odds of the blood removed in 1985 being a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.
After I proved you wrong you made matters worse by insisting the COA was on your side and agreed with you. I pointed out that the COA disagreed with such position.
Rather than admit you were wrong you posted a section of the COA decision summarizing the CCRC's suggestions and said see they agree with you. You ignored that the judges then proceeded to reject that position.
Next you said this wasn't your idea it was Webster's. But I posted evidence proving Webster rejects this as well.
Rather than admit your error you then changed course away form DNA to the general issue of whether the chance of it being a mixture was remote or not. You argue it wasn't remote and adopt Webster's opinion. I pointed out how Webster's opinion is rejected by the scientific community and he is unable to provide any support for his claims. You respond by saying he has credentials and you choose to believe him just because he has credentials. Aside form that being an extremely childish position the most laughable part is that you rejected his opinions about the DNA. You are not even consistent. His credentials are not enough to convince you he is right about the DNA and ironically he was bale to back up his position with respect to the DNA his arguments there actually are supported by scientific literature and accepted by other experts as true.
Here is analogy to what you are doing:
Respected scientist publishes a paper on volcanoes which makes assertions and relies upon testing and observations by others to help support his position. He has scientific literature on his side other experts agree with him.
He writes an article speculating the Earth is really flat and disagrees with the experts who say it is spherical. He provides no evidence to support his contentions he simply offers rank conjecture.
You decide to reject his volcano claims but accept his flat Earth claims saying you do so because he is an expert though you failed to adopt his well supported claims on the basis he is an expert and rejected the despite not having any good reason to do so.
You hate me because the debate proved totally humiliating to you.
-
Good for you, I agree the truth is important, whoever it supports or not isn't the point. It's disingenuous to ignore facts because they don't fit your personal theory imo.
But if ones NEED to be right is pathological, all those important relevancies you point out will be ignored. The goal is everything.
-
But if ones NEED to be right is pathological, all those important relevancies you point out will be ignored. The goal is everything.
How sad to be like that. :-[
-
Ive blocked scipio so I no longer see his posts for those reasons youve mentioned. It's quiet a relief, I can't be bothered with that deluded xxxxxxxx anymore.
I don't think that will bother Scipio much.
-
Still projecting to the bitter end. You have the delusions not me. I completely crushed you in debate and you responded by throwing a tantrum and childishly attacking my religion. I will still refute all your nonsense and you can pretend you can't read my posts as a cop-out for not being able to respond.
This all started because you ERRONEOUSLY claimed June's DNA being found in the moderator increases the odds of the blood removed in 1985 being a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.
After I proved you wrong you made matters worse by insisting the COA was on your side and agreed with you. I pointed out that the COA disagreed with such position.
Rather than admit you were wrong you posted a section of the COA decision summarizing the CCRC's suggestions and said see they agree with you. You ignored that the judges then proceeded to reject that position.
Next you said this wasn't your idea it was Webster's. But I posted evidence proving Webster rejects this as well.
Rather than admit your error you then changed course away form DNA to the general issue of whether the chance of it being a mixture was remote or not. You argue it wasn't remote and adopt Webster's opinion. I pointed out how Webster's opinion is rejected by the scientific community and he is unable to provide any support for his claims. You respond by saying he has credentials and you choose to believe him just because he has credentials. Aside form that being an extremely childish position the most laughable part is that you rejected his opinions about the DNA. You are not even consistent. His credentials are not enough to convince you he is right about the DNA and ironically he was bale to back up his position with respect to the DNA his arguments there actually are supported by scientific literature and accepted by other experts as true.
Here is analogy to what you are doing:
Respected scientist publishes a paper on volcanoes which makes assertions and relies upon testing and observations by others to help support his position. He has scientific literature on his side other experts agree with him.
He writes an article speculating the Earth is really flat and disagrees with the experts who say it is spherical. He provides no evidence to support his contentions he simply offers rank conjecture.
You decide to reject his volcano claims but accept his flat Earth claims saying you do so because he is an expert though you failed to adopt his well supported claims on the basis he is an expert and rejected the despite not having any good reason to do so.
You hate me because the debate proved totally humiliating to you.
Scipio, I have no objections to you being right -in fact, I commend you for demolishing rubbish- but I have serious doubts about your motives. I CRINGE when you use "hate" "humiliate" "crush", ALL, IMO, quite unnecessary. However, I emphatically DO defend your right to hit out when your religion is attacked.
-
The undercurrent leading to the disturbance inside the farmhouse that night must have been unbearable with BOTH women facing an uncertain future as regards seeing the twins ever again. Because Sheila was not compliant in moving nearer to WHF and because June wasn't well enough to lend a helping hand with the welfare of the boys ( suggesting foster care as a respite ) and the fact that Colin wanted to take over their care on a full-time basis,is it any wonder that the atmosphere exploded ?
If we find out that Sheila had made a previous attempt on taking her life,then this time,she'd want to take her boys with her rather than leave them behind in a life full of uncertainties.
Murders of this type where people have mental health issues DO happen when a patient hasn't been taking their medication.
-
I'm not sure that I want to read any more nonsense about this case which has already been blown up out of all proportion.
-
Scipio, I have no objections to you being right -in fact, I commend you for demolishing rubbish- but I have serious doubts about your motives. I CRINGE when you use "hate" "humiliate" "crush", ALL, IMO, quite unnecessary. However, I emphatically DO defend your right to hit out when your religion is attacked.
Jane J again another excellent post from you. Scipio has taken his share of abuse on this forum and has never complained. I agree the use of some of his words leaves much to be desired and I honestly think they are empty words with no personal insults intended it is just the way he is and he has posted more positive information on this forum than negative.
-
Jane J again another excellent post from you. Scipio has taken his share of abuse on this forum and has never complained. I agree the use of some of his words leaves much to be desired and I honestly think they are empty words with no personal insults intended it is just the way he is and he has posted more positive information on this forum than negative.
I agree Susan, scipio is far from perfect but he has taken some heavy abuse from some people and dealt really well with it.
-
Why would Jeremy want to leave a bible at Sheila's side and not his mothers side?
I wonder why the pages were curled up on one side of the bible. Is this consistant with being placed on the floor or by being dragged of shoved whilst on the floor?
Could the door leading to the box room upon being opened by the raid team have caught the bible and shoved it more towards Sheila, thus causing the pages to curl? :-\ :-\
-
Why would Jeremy want to leave a bible at Sheila's side and not his mothers side?
I wonder why the pages were curled up on one side of the bible. Is this consistant with being placed on the floor or by being dragged of shoved whilst on the floor?
Could the door leading to the box room upon being opened by the raid team have caught the bible and shoved it more towards Sheila, thus causing the pages to curl? :-\ :-\
Hi Patti, I agree the bible could have been caught by the door or kicked by some passing size 11 feet. You would imagine it was a well used book which should have opened easily and laid flat unlike a new book....... we will never know the answer ......
-
Hi Patti, I agree the bible could have been caught by the door or kicked by some passing size 11 feet. You would imagine it was a well used book which should have opened easily and lain flat unlike a new book....... we will never know the answer ......
Hi Maggie
I'm still convinced that the blood was wet when the bible was closed up and caused a mirror image. If that is the case then the blood had to have been wet at the time the bible was closed. Its a shame more was not done in 1986 at trial. Plus we do not know if it is a mirror image, although it looks like it is...the bible is no longer available as is so many items that would benefit us with today's science. Sad really, but you are right we can talk about it till the cows come home, but we will never know the real truth of what happened that night.
-
I don't need to be right I am right. His notes simply confirms the same thing she had blood on her outer palm/outer wrist and transferred it to her gown. Nothing about blood on the inside of her hands.
I posted the experiment already post 732 of this thread.
You're NOT right - your ego just doesn't let you think you're wrong. There is no shame in being wrong now and again!!
The notes don't say 'outer palm' JUST PALM! 'Outer' is your slant. Just like no one mentions 'fine mist' in connection with the silencer. You obviously haven't read the written notes before and FAR FROM stating that she had no blood on her palm, he clearly states that she did! This changes to no blood on her palm in the written statement.
If she has no blood on her hands and palms why would Venezis write this?
Blood stained PALM print on nightdress. Blood stains appear to have been transferred from R HAND
Both hands not contaminated APART FROM BLOODSTAINS
-
well I know where my palm and wrist are (:
-
Why would Jeremy want to leave a bible at Sheila's side and not his mothers side?
I wonder why the pages were curled up on one side of the bible. Is this consistant with being placed on the floor or by being dragged of shoved whilst on the floor?
Could the door leading to the box room upon being opened by the raid team have caught the bible and shoved it more towards Sheila, thus causing the pages to curl? :-\ :-\
that's a good point - I thought that Sheila was against her mothers strong religious views ( according to Colin ). So what would make Jeremy think of placing the bible on Sheila? Would he of actually known about her seeing Freddie as the Devil etc? And would that have even indicated to him she would have turned to God at the end?
Also there was still the discrepancy about whether the police would have removed the rifle to make sure it was safe immediately on entering the room before checking she was dead.So if the bible was on her body it would have been moved .
-
As I said I don't think Scipio will be bothered about David putting him on ignore. He will just reply to David's posts as usual.
It will probably bother David more, knowing his posts are being responded to and he can't read it and respond.
This is why Jan keeps announcing she has put me on ignore. She knew she had to respond to my posts before because they were so damaging to Jeremy. But now has backed herself into a corner where she can't defend him effectively. Or defend my attacks on her posts. A strange move by a supporter.
-
that's a good point - I thought that Sheila was against her mothers strong religious views ( according to Colin ). So what would make Jeremy think of placing the bible on Sheila? Would he of actually known about her seeing Freddie as the Devil etc? And would that have even indicated to him she would have turned to God at the end?
Also there was still the discrepancy about whether the police would have removed the rifle to make sure it was safe immediately on entering the room before checking she was dead.So if the bible was on her body it would have been moved .
I think the Bible was thrown in Sheila's direction by her mother. It would have landed as we saw it,with pages sprawled.
-
It would have indicated June's final thoughts before she died.
-
that's a good point - I thought that Sheila was against her mothers strong religious views ( according to Colin ). So what would make Jeremy think of placing the bible on Sheila? Would he of actually known about her seeing Freddie as the Devil etc? And would that have even indicated to him she would have turned to God at the end?
Also there was still the discrepancy about whether the police would have removed the rifle to make sure it was safe immediately on entering the room before checking she was dead.So if the bible was on her body it would have been moved .
Sheila had referred to religion on several occasions and it could look like she turned to the bible in her suicidal state. No point in leaving the bible next to June - she was a victim and had no control over the situation and no time to grab a bible.
-
June had probably been reading the Bible in bed as she often did to help her sleep,so more than likely it would have been to hand before she fell down dead,managing to throw it in Sheila's direction before doing so. June was the religious one,not Sheila.
-
I think the Bible was thrown in Sheila's direction by her mother. It would have landed as we saw it,with pages sprawled.
I find the Bible unconvincing, I don't really understand why it's there. It seems to have arrived there by accident or was staged, its too predictable. :-\
-
I find the Bible unconvincing, I don't really understand why it's there. It seems to have arrived there by accident or was staged, its too predictable. :-\
Maggie the bible has always puzzled me did it fall on the floor or was it staged if it was staged why?
-
You're NOT right - your ego just doesn't let you think you're wrong. There is no shame in being wrong now and again!!
The notes don't say 'outer palm' JUST PALM! 'Outer' is your slant. Just like no one mentions 'fine mist' in connection with the silencer. You obviously haven't read the written notes before and FAR FROM stating that she had no blood on her palm, he clearly states that she did! This changes to no blood on her palm in the written statement.
If she has no blood on her hands and palms why would Venezis write this?
Blood stained PALM print on nightdress. Blood stains appear to have been transferred from R HAND
Both hands not contaminated APART FROM BLOODSTAINS
It doesn't say anything about blood on the inside of her hand and clearly doesn't speak to such because he said the blood he is referring to was transferred to her gown. His notes were for his benefit and he knew what he meant by such. He elaborated in detial for the benefit of others in his autosly report which was for the benefit of others. He explained in detail no blood was on the inside of her hands or fingers. The only blood was her wrist area and it was the blood on the outer area that transferred to her gown because that is the part of her hand that was touching her gown.
I actually set out to fully comprehend what people mean. Doing so enables me to accurately describe what they stated they observed. Taking his notes which note blood transferred from her right hand to her gown and then saying this proves she had blood everywhere on her right hand is disingenuous. His notes don't elaborate where the blood was beyond saying it was in a location that transferred to the gown. We know from other evidence (his autopsy report and also expert evidence form others) that such blood transferred from her outer palm/ outer wrist area. From testimony of police who saw her hands including those at autopsy we know the inside of her hands and fingers had no blood. Vanezis wrote the same thing in his autopsy report clarifying no blood was inside her hand only the outside palm wrist area. That blood got there by her putting her wrist/outer palm to her wound. The blood then dripped down her arm to her elbow. This doesn't implicate the inside of her hand at all as having any blood.
This is why sticking her hand on the gun failed to result in any bloody prints to the weapon she had no blood inside her hand or on her fingers.
I do like to be right an din an effort to be right I actually fully consider the evidence before deciding what happened. I looked at all this evidence as well as the evidence put forth by experts who said blood was underneath the Bible and this is how the stains on the top of both pages got there. I looked at how the Bible pages were folded over so part of both top pages were on the same exact side above such blood. I looked at how Jeremy woudl be unlikely to have gloves totally covered in blood but instead spotted with blood and thus a single uninterrupted print would be unlikely and that is how I came to accept the opinion of the experts as accurate that it was made by the Bible being placed in the pool of blood.
I further looked at the location of the door in relation to her body and where the Bible would have to be in order for the close door to be able to push it. The door doesn't extend down far enough to push it nice and even to her body. If anything it would be slanted into her, the door would strike her head before it could push the Bible to where it was and it would likely be angled . In fact it would likely be most close. Since the Bible is soft covered and the pages so narrow hitting it forces it to close when it is on carpet. The only way I could get a soft covered Bible to slide was by pushing it with a door in a location where there was no carpet. It will slide on tile, it will slide on hardwood floors. It will not slide on carpet it closes first instead. It closes by going from this:
(http://s29.postimg.org/ek6wpprfb/newtestament1.jpg)
to this:
(http://s3.postimg.org/93alpjvf7/newtestament2.jpg)
Even when it was on a floor and slid as soon as it bumped against something to keep it from sliding ore it would close like in the second photo. The further you push the more it stands up.
I didn't decide in a vacuum what happened I did so looking at the relevant facts and evidence.
-
I find the Bible unconvincing, I don't really understand why it's there. It seems to have arrived there by accident or was staged, its too predictable. :-\
Maggie,I feel that June had the Bible in her hand when she got out of bed,as it seems that she did read it before going to sleep and may possibly have been quoting a few passages meant for Sheila's benefit.
No doubt it would have been read to the twins before they went to sleep too,so it would have been in the vicinity.
-
It doesn't say anything about blood on the inside of her hand and clearly doesn't speak to such because he said the blood he is referring to was transferred to her gown. His notes were for his benefit and he knew what he meant by such. He elaborated in detial for the benefit of others in his autosly report which was for the benefit of others. He explained in detail no blood was on the inside of her hands or fingers. The only blood was her wrist area and it was the blood on the outer area that transferred to her gown because that is the part of her hand that was touching her gown.
I actually set out to fully comprehend what people mean. Doing so enables me to accurately describe what they stated they observed. Taking his notes which note blood transferred from her right hand to her gown and then saying this proves she had blood everywhere on her right hand is disingenuous. His notes don't elaborate where the blood was beyond saying it was in a location that transferred to the gown. We know from other evidence (his autopsy report and also expert evidence form others) that such blood transferred from her outer palm/ outer wrist area. From testimony of police who saw her hands including those at autopsy we know the inside of her hands and fingers had no blood. Vanezis wrote the same thing in his autopsy report clarifying no blood was inside her hand only the outside palm wrist area. That blood got there by her putting her wrist/outer palm to her wound. The blood then dripped down her arm to her elbow. This doesn't implicate the inside of her hand at all as having any blood.
This is why sticking her hand on the gun failed to result in any bloody prints to the weapon she had no blood inside her hand or on her fingers.
I do like to be right an din an effort to be right I actually fully consider the evidence before deciding what happened. I looked at all this evidence as well as the evidence put forth by experts who said blood was underneath the Bible and this is how the stains on the top of both pages got there. I looked at how the Bible pages were folded over so part of both top pages were on the same exact side above such blood. I looked at how Jeremy woudl be unlikely to have gloves totally covered in blood but instead spotted with blood and thus a single uninterrupted print would be unlikely and that is how I came to accept the opinion of the experts as accurate that it was made by the Bible being placed in the pool of blood.
I further looked at the location of the door in relation to her body and where the Bible would have to be in order for the close door to be able to push it. The door doesn't extend down far enough to push it nice and even to her body. If anything it would be slanted into her, the door would strike her head before it could push the Bible to where it was and it would likely be angled . In fact it would likely be most close. Since the Bible is soft covered and the pages so narrow hitting it forces it to close when it is on carpet. The only way I could get a soft covered Bible to slide was by pushing it with a door in a location where there was no carpet. It will slide on tile, it will slide on hardwood floors. It will not slide on carpet it closes first instead. It closes by going from this:
(http://s29.postimg.org/ek6wpprfb/newtestament1.jpg)
to this:
(http://s3.postimg.org/93alpjvf7/newtestament2.jpg)
Even when it was on a floor and slid as soon as it bumped against something to keep it from sliding ore it would close like in the second photo. The further you push the more it stands up.
I didn't decide in a vacuum what happened I did so looking at the relevant facts and evidence.
Does that mean it's not a palm print?
-
I think the Bible was thrown in Sheila's direction by her mother. It would have landed as we saw it,with pages sprawled.
Sheila would have to have been dead before June for that to be possible. It was over a puddle of blood that formed later. Furthermore if the Bible were there before Sheila died how would it get against her arm in the manner it was?
It is more consistent with it being placed on her arm and sliding off into the pool of blood than it is with being there prior to her dying. It would be more likely to start to close though in that instance not be the way it was. Maybe Jeremy stuck it on her arm area and it slid off and closed so then he reopened it and stuck it next to her because he could not get it to stay on her. The gun was in the way of putting it in the middle of her chest the best he could do was stick it on her shoulder area. I don't think he did such though. It was supposed to look like she read it before she fatally shot herself. Sticking it on her instead of next to her would demonstrate staging I think even he could see that.
-
I don't think that will bother Scipio much.
I don't expect it to. The only thing that bothers scipio is being right even when he is wrong. Caroline may find it amusing and I guess it is in small doses but there is a limit 8)
-
Sheila would have to have been dead before June for that to be possible. It was over a puddle of blood that formed later. Furthermore if the Bible were there before Sheila died how would it get against her arm in the manner it was?
It is more consistent with it being placed on her arm and sliding off into the pool of blood than it is with being there prior to her dying. It would be more likely to start to close though in that instance not be the way it was. Maybe Jeremy stuck it on her arm area and it slid off and closed so then he reopened it and stuck it next to her because he could not get it to stay on her. The gun was in the way of putting it in the middle of her chest the best he could do was stick it on her shoulder area. I don't think he did such though. It was supposed to look like she read it before she fatally shot herself. Sticking it on her instead of next to her would demonstrate staging I think even he could see that.
Mother and daughter died simultaneously !
-
Does that mean it's not a palm print?
I would say a definite no given that
1) Police and Vanezis say Sheila had no blood on the inside of her hands let alone enough to leave such a complete impression
2) Jeremy used gloves so would not have blood on his palms to transfer let alone have enough to leave such a complete impression
3) The experts who analyzed the Bible for prints said there were no finger, foot or palm prints in blood
[this is a pretty big issue we can't see detail in the photos they saw the fine details and are experts in the field and assessed it was not a bloody palm print]
(these first 3 eliminate the possibility of it being palm prints made by bare hands)
4) Gloves leave glove prints not bare palm prints. Jeremy's gloves would not be likely to be totally soaked in blood so as to be able to leave a full impression of the palm area of the glove at best it would likely leave a spotted one
5) There was pooled blood underneath the very area where the page was resting and that provides a plausible way for the blood to have gotten there.
That is my reasoning.
I'm getting criticized for refusing to decide on the basis of a ill defined photo that the experts who analyzed it for prints were wrong when they said there were no prints in blood. I am simply accepting the existing facts. The people with an uphill battle are those who wish to prove the experts were wrong.
-
Mother and daughter died simultaneously !
Meaning they both had a gun? From where did June get hers and what happened to it?
-
It was a pattern from the doily.
-
Scipio, I have no objections to you being right -in fact, I commend you for demolishing rubbish- but I have serious doubts about your motives. I CRINGE when you use "hate" "humiliate" "crush", ALL, IMO, quite unnecessary. However, I emphatically DO defend your right to hit out when your religion is attacked.
I didn't attack his religion. He claimed as part of his argument he is a rational being guided by science, reason and logic. Such people don't follow religious doctrine in the absence of evidednce thus indicating he is anything but. If he is offended then I guess he knows how it feels to be those who have faith in Jeremy to be on the receiving end of his comments.
-
Mother and daughter died simultaneously !
How does that enable June to toss the Bible so as it would land in the pool of blood that did not form until after Sheila's body was moved flat?
-
How does that enable June to toss the Bible so as it would land in the pool of blood that did not form until after Sheila's body was moved flat?
It wasn't a pool of blood as such or the Bible would have been saturated---------and it wasn't,as the blood came mainly through the handling of it as there was no visible pool of blood on the carpet,just spatters.
-
I didn't attack his religion. He claimed as part of his argument he is a rational being guided by science, reason and logic. Such people don't follow religious doctrine in the absence of evidednce thus indicating he is anything but. If he is offended then I guess he knows how it feels to be those who have fairy in Jeremy to be on the receiving end of his comments.
I think one's religion is a very sensitive and personal subject. Unless he's lying, it seems he FELT attacked.
-
It was a pattern from the doily.
If the doily were soaked in blood and the Bible page placed against it such could leave a design of sorts. The doily doesn't look like it was under that exact area though and the level of detail in the photo inadequate to see a design. Also there is nothing to suggest it was soaked in enough blood so that someone touching it and using it as a "glove" to handle the bible to prevent leaving prints on it would be able to leave such mark.
If someone decided to use something to open it to avoid leaving prints what they used had so have blood over a sizable area instead of just spots of blood. Aside from touching the sizable amount of blood on Sheila's shoulder I don't know how they would get such a sizable amount of blood on it and don't know why they would touch such. I suppose Jeremy could have tried to pick her up underneath her armpits and got a sizable amount of something he was using for protection in such manner. That is about the only thing I can think up to account for such.
-
I don't see how we can acquaint ourselves fully with any cases without going beyond the dry-as-dust documents which after wading through for an afternoon would drive a saint to drink. You need a balanced approach which involves putting the evidence in context and this requires looking at the bigger picture and listening to what the people on the ground had to say.
-
I think one's religion is a very sensitive and personal subject. Unless he's lying, it seems he FELT attacked.
He was mocking me for having a religion instead of being an atheist. It was indeed an attack. He could not win a debate on the merits and lashed out in such manner. That says a great deal about who was being emotional and having ego problems with losing the debate- he claimed it was me but his post demonstrated the inverse.
-
How does that enable June to toss the Bible so as it would land in the pool of blood that did not form until after Sheila's body was moved flat?
I have previously asked from where did the "pool" of blood emerge. I can see that blood has pooled in her armpit but the area of blood emerging from under the Bible appears quite apart from any blood having flowed from that area.
-
He was mocking me for having a religion instead of being an atheist. It was indeed an attack. He could not win a debate on the merits and lashed out in such manner. That says a great deal about who was being emotional and having ego problems with losing the debate- he claimed it was me but his post demonstrated the inverse.
I can hear that you felt attacked. I'd ask you to HOLD that feeling and remember that, whatever the reasons for it, David probably feels that he, too, has been attacked.
-
I don't see how we can acquaint ourselves fully with any cases without going beyond the dry-as-dust documents which after wading through for an afternoon would drive a saint to drink. You need a balanced approach which involves putting the evidence in context and this requires looking at the bigger picture and listening to what the people on the ground had to say.
The people who actually inspected the Bible for prints are the people "on the ground" in the best position to assess whether it was a palm print or not. To look at a photo of poor resolution and to decide they were wrong based upon such makes little sense to me. Some of the people supporting such reject efforts by others to do the same thing with the paint chips/mantle. It seems some people change what they consider valid methods or not depending upon whether they like the results instead of being consistent in the validity of the methodology.
-
Jane J again another excellent post from you. Scipio has taken his share of abuse on this forum and has never complained. I agree the use of some of his words leaves much to be desired and I honestly think they are empty words with no personal insults intended it is just the way he is and he has posted more positive information on this forum than negative.
Susan, thank-you. I agree that, mostly, Scipio handles abuse -especially that which, on occasion, he receives from Mike- in very dignified way. However, when he chooses to retaliate OR go on the defensive, the words he chooses, even if he sees them as empty and therefore meaningless, come over as both powerful and attacking and will elicit similar response.....................and believing himself to be right and everyone else, wrong, makes about as much sense as believing Jeremy right and everyone else involved, liars.
-
I don't see how we can acquaint ourselves fully with any cases without going beyond the dry-as-dust documents which after wading through for an afternoon would drive a saint to drink. You need a balanced approach which involves putting the evidence in context and this requires looking at the bigger picture and listening to what the people on the ground had to say.
Steve,when a daughter,along with the children aren't looking forward to a short stay with mum/grannie,it's got to tell you something. You have to ask yourself why,and the reason which led to the tragedy,as that's where it all started.
What child isn't excited at going to see grannie ?
I bet Sheila had felt as though she was entering the lions den.!
-
Susan, thank-you. I agree that, mostly, Scipio handles abuse -especially that which, on occasion, he receives from Mike- in very dignified way. However, when he chooses to retaliate OR go on the defensive, the words he chooses, even if he sees them as empty and therefore meaningless, come over as both powerful and attacking and will elicit similar response.....................and believing himself to be right and everyone else, wrong, makes about as much sense as believing Jeremy right and everyone else involved, liars.
I don't read the debates between Mike and Scopio much.However when I do, Scopio is always calling Mike a liar. Mike gives it back.
-
I can hear that you felt attacked. I'd ask you to HOLD that feeling and remember that, whatever the reasons for it, David probably feels that he, too, has been attacked.
I don't care that he attacked me. My point was to illustrate his immature reaction to losing the debate as to engage in attacking me on a totally unrelated issue. I would make the same point if he lashed out at someone else with that attack or a similar attack.
It would be like me getting mad at someone who beat me in a debate who is gay and attacking them for being gay or some other irrelevant personal followings.
When people make attacks like such I don't get bothered by them I use them against the poster to show their emotional reactions. It embarrasses the person who engaged in such it doesn't hurt me.
I was mocked for attending Catholic grammar school but didn't care except when it resulted in physical abuse. We had to wear shoes, dress slacks, button down shirts and ties. (today they can wear sneakers and normal pants they wear polo shirts not dress shirts anymore) While walking home we would be harassed by public school students. One started to choke me by pulling on my tie- not viciously choke but I was not going to let him progress further. That is when it changes for me, I decked him. From that point forward they mocked from a distance. Names don't mean a thing to me. I do not turn the other cheek though so someone can strike that cheek too. When someone tries to put their hands on me that is where I draw the line.
-
I don't read the debates between Mike and Scopio much.However when I do, Scopio is always calling Mike a liar. Mike gives it back.
I don't just call him a liar, I identify what he lied about and provide evidence. It is not simply you are a liar and that's that. Mike does frequently call me a liar but he fails to demonstrate what I lied about. That makes it valueless. Just calling someone a liar and not establishing how or why accomplishes nothing.
The other day in response to evidence I posted that refuted his claims he said I was a liar. it could simply have devolved into me saying no you are the liar and him relying back no you are the liar. I didn't bother in such nonsense I tried bringing him back to his own arguments by challenging him to post evidence the moderator was fingerprinted by Davidson August 9 and in September.
-
Steve,when a daughter,along with the children aren't looking forward to a short stay with mum/grannie,it's got to tell you something. You have to ask yourself why,and the reason which led to the tragedy,as that's where it all started.
What child isn't excited at going to see grannie ?
I bet Sheila had felt as though she was entering the lions den.!
Lookout, I HATED being dragged to 95% of my relatives, ALL of whom were bought up in the Victorian age and were further removed in age from me than were June and Neville from the twins. As for Great Granny, she was in her 90's when I first remember her, and the only words I recall her saying were that she wished she could crawl in a ditch and die. I would have some sympathy now but between the ages of 7 and 9, Great Granny's was a place in which I'd sooner not have been.
-
Lookout, I HATED being dragged to 95% of my relatives, ALL of whom were bought up in the Victorian age and were further removed in age from me than were June and Neville from the twins. As for Great Granny, she was in her 90's when I first remember her, and the only words I recall her saying were that she wished she could crawl in a ditch and die. I would have some sympathy now but between the ages of 7 and 9, Great Granny's was a place in which I'd sooner not have been.
I was one of many who didn't have any grannies or granddads,only great aunts who fussed and kissed and smelled of face-powder and moth-balls,who admittedly scared me to death as a 7/8 year old.
My own mother delighted when my girls stayed with them,and they were excited at going to see her and my dad as both interacted with the children and made them laugh,played games,read to them and took them out. The girls were allowed to be themselves without restraint.
I remember reading about how AE had 10 fits when one of the twins accidentally put jam or marmalade on the sofa,and Sheila telling AE not to make a big thing out of it,so wherever those boys went there didn't seem to be much comfort for them. No wonder she lost her temper now and again.You'd want to live miles away from that.
-
It doesn't say anything about blood on the inside of her hand and clearly doesn't speak to such because he said the blood he is referring to was transferred to her gown. His notes were for his benefit and he knew what he meant by such. He elaborated in detial for the benefit of others in his autosly report which was for the benefit of others. He explained in detail no blood was on the inside of her hands or fingers. The only blood was her wrist area and it was the blood on the outer area that transferred to her gown because that is the part of her hand that was touching her gown.
I actually set out to fully comprehend what people mean. Doing so enables me to accurately describe what they stated they observed. Taking his notes which note blood transferred from her right hand to her gown and then saying this proves she had blood everywhere on her right hand is disingenuous. His notes don't elaborate where the blood was beyond saying it was in a location that transferred to the gown. We know from other evidence (his autopsy report and also expert evidence form others) that such blood transferred from her outer palm/ outer wrist area. From testimony of police who saw her hands including those at autopsy we know the inside of her hands and fingers had no blood. Vanezis wrote the same thing in his autopsy report clarifying no blood was inside her hand only the outside palm wrist area. That blood got there by her putting her wrist/outer palm to her wound. The blood then dripped down her arm to her elbow. This doesn't implicate the inside of her hand at all as having any blood.
This is why sticking her hand on the gun failed to result in any bloody prints to the weapon she had no blood inside her hand or on her fingers.
I do like to be right an din an effort to be right I actually fully consider the evidence before deciding what happened. I looked at all this evidence as well as the evidence put forth by experts who said blood was underneath the Bible and this is how the stains on the top of both pages got there. I looked at how the Bible pages were folded over so part of both top pages were on the same exact side above such blood. I looked at how Jeremy woudl be unlikely to have gloves totally covered in blood but instead spotted with blood and thus a single uninterrupted print would be unlikely and that is how I came to accept the opinion of the experts as accurate that it was made by the Bible being placed in the pool of blood.
I further looked at the location of the door in relation to her body and where the Bible would have to be in order for the close door to be able to push it. The door doesn't extend down far enough to push it nice and even to her body. If anything it would be slanted into her, the door would strike her head before it could push the Bible to where it was and it would likely be angled . In fact it would likely be most close. Since the Bible is soft covered and the pages so narrow hitting it forces it to close when it is on carpet. The only way I could get a soft covered Bible to slide was by pushing it with a door in a location where there was no carpet. It will slide on tile, it will slide on hardwood floors. It will not slide on carpet it closes first instead. It closes by going from this:
(http://s29.postimg.org/ek6wpprfb/newtestament1.jpg)
to this:
(http://s3.postimg.org/93alpjvf7/newtestament2.jpg)
Even when it was on a floor and slid as soon as it bumped against something to keep it from sliding ore it would close like in the second photo. The further you push the more it stands up.
I didn't decide in a vacuum what happened I did so looking at the relevant facts and evidence.
I didn't decide in a vacuum either so that makes two of us and I still say you're wrong - I don't have time to answer this now (going out) but I will.
-
I would say a definite no given that
1) Police and Vanezis say Sheila had no blood on the inside of her hands let alone enough to leave such a complete impression
2) Jeremy used gloves so would not have blood on his palms to transfer let alone have enough to leave such a complete impression
3) The experts who analyzed the Bible for prints said there were no finger, foot or palm prints in blood
[this is a pretty big issue we can't see detail in the photos they saw the fine details and are experts in the field and assessed it was not a bloody palm print]
(these first 3 eliminate the possibility of it being palm prints made by bare hands)
4) Gloves leave glove prints not bare palm prints. Jeremy's gloves would not be likely to be totally soaked in blood so as to be able to leave a full impression of the palm area of the glove at best it would likely leave a spotted one
5) There was pooled blood underneath the very area where the page was resting and that provides a plausible way for the blood to have gotten there.
That is my reasoning.
I'm getting criticized for refusing to decide on the basis of a ill defined photo that the experts who analyzed it for prints were wrong when they said there were no prints in blood. I am simply accepting the existing facts. The people with an uphill battle are those who wish to prove the experts were wrong.
You have decided that on your own - Venezis made no mention of 'outer' palm, you added that word. His written notes clearly differ from the typed statement whether you want to admit it or not. I'm not interested in YOUR interpretation of what was written - you pick people up for doing this on a regular basis, if it's not right when they do it, then it's not right for you either.
I have no uphill battle because I have no NEED to convince other people I am right, they can decide for themselves - I think you're wrong and will answer your other post later.
-
I didn't decide in a vacuum either so that makes two of us and I still say you're wrong - I don't have time to answer this now (going out) but I will.
You are saying those who inspected the Bible for prints and said the only prints were not in blood were wrong. You are saying they failed to recognize it was a palm print. You are doing so on the basis of saying from a photo of low quality you can tell it is a palm print. his is just rank speculation on your part nothing more and you ignore a great deal of other evidence in order to assert it.
-
You are saying those who inspected the Bible for prints and said the only prints were not in blood were wrong. You are saying they failed to recognize it was a palm print. You are doing so on the basis of saying from a photo of low quality you can tell it is a palm print. his is just rank speculation on your part nothing more and you ignore a great deal of other evidence in order to assert it.
Who said there was no prints in blood - where is this written? Also how do you know what my basis is? You're 'trying' to suggest that Venezis's written notes and the typed statement are the same and it's as clear as the nose on your face that they're not.
When you say I'm ignoring evidence you actually mean that I refute your pages bent back to a convenient position - that's not evidence, it's YOUR assertion. To be continued! ........... :P
-
I would say a definite no given that
1) Police and Vanezis say Sheila had no blood on the inside of her hands let alone enough to leave such a complete impression
2) Jeremy used gloves so would not have blood on his palms to transfer let alone have enough to leave such a complete impression
3) The experts who analyzed the Bible for prints said there were no finger, foot or palm prints in blood
[this is a pretty big issue we can't see detail in the photos they saw the fine details and are experts in the field and assessed it was not a bloody palm print]
(these first 3 eliminate the possibility of it being palm prints made by bare hands)
4) Gloves leave glove prints not bare palm prints. Jeremy's gloves would not be likely to be totally soaked in blood so as to be able to leave a full impression of the palm area of the glove at best it would likely leave a spotted one
5) There was pooled blood underneath the very area where the page was resting and that provides a plausible way for the blood to have gotten there.
That is my reasoning.
I'm getting criticized for refusing to decide on the basis of a ill defined photo that the experts who analyzed it for prints were wrong when they said there were no prints in blood. I am simply accepting the existing facts. The people with an uphill battle are those who wish to prove the experts were wrong.
There are examples where experts are wrong and ruin peoples lives in the process .
-
Who said there was no prints in blood - where is this written? Also how do you know what my basis is? You're 'trying' to suggest that Venezis's written notes and the typed statement are the same and it's as clear as the nose on your face that they're not.
When you say I'm ignoring evidence you actually mean that I refute your pages bent back to a convenient position - that's not evidence, it's YOUR assertion. To be continued! ........... :P
His notes and statement are not contradictory. His notes are written for his benefit he knows what he meant by his words. He said her hand had blood which transferred to her gown. He elaborated on this
in his report where he wrote the blood was on her wrist not her palm. He said her palm and fingers were free of blood. The police who saw her body say her hands were free of blood.
You decide you know better than he does. Though he says he meant blood was on her wrist in his notes you say he meant on the inside of her hand. The inside of her hand was not touching her gown. The part with blood was touching her gown.
As of the testing of the Bible they were told to test it for any prints they could find ESPECIALLY any prints in blood. Saying they found only prints not in blood by definition means they didn't find a palm print. If they found a palm print in blood they would have said so there would be a report on it and they would and tried to see who they could include or exclude as being the contributor in hopes of figuring out who it belonged to. Proving it didn't belong to Sheila would be another huge piece of evidence supporting someone else had to have done it so if they could establish it were a palm print (even one made with a glove on) then they would have used such at trial. Fingerprints in general don't mean much unless strangers are suspected, prints in blood can mean a great deal so are always referenced if found.
-
There are examples where experts are wrong and ruin peoples lives in the process .
Proving an expert and witnesses wrong requires strong evidence though not speculation like is being engaged in here.
-
His notes and statement are not contradictory. His notes are written for his benefit he knows what he meant by his words. He said her hand had blood which transferred to her gown. He elaborated on this
in his report where he wrote the blood was on her wrist not her palm. He said her palm and fingers were free of blood. The police who saw her body say her hands were free of blood.
You decide you know better than he does. Though he says he meant blood was on her wrist in his notes you say he meant on the inside of her hand. The inside of her hand was not touching her gown. The part with blood was touching her gown.
As of the testing of the Bible they were told to test it for any prints they could find ESPECIALLY any prints in blood. Saying they found only prints not in blood by definition means they didn't find a palm print. If they found a palm print in blood they would have said so there would be a report on it and they would and tried to see who they could include or exclude as being the contributor in hopes of figuring out who it belonged to. Proving it didn't belong to Sheila would be another huge piece of evidence supporting someone else had to have done it so if they could establish it were a palm print (even one made with a glove on) then they would have used such at trial. Fingerprints in general don't mean much unless strangers are suspected, prints in blood can mean a great deal so are always referenced if found.
These two statements don't contradict? Seriously? One says her palms were NOT contaminated with blood and the other that they weren't contaminated APART from blood but according to you, they're saying the same thing? Really?? :o :o Yes he said there was blood on her writs but also said there was blood on her PALM in the written notes.
It's not me deciding what he knows, you're doing that - I am looking at what he ACTUALLY wrote, you're adding words like 'outer' for you own benefit!
-
Proving an expert and witnesses wrong requires strong evidence though not speculation like is being engaged in here.
We're having an opinion - we're not in court!
-
These two statements don't contradict? Seriously? One says her palms were NOT contaminated with blood and the other that they weren't contaminated APART from blood but according to you, they're saying the same thing? Really?? :o :o
If he wrote that her palms and fingers had blood in his notes then it would contradict what he wrote in his report. It doesn't, he didn't specify in the notes where the blood was because the notes because he didn't need to. He knew where. When he wrote the report he expressly stated where he blood was.
You want to ignore his specific details written later for official purposes to something less specific written earlier for his own benefit. It would be like taking some of my notes that are less specific and trying to use them to say I meant something different in my final product becaus eof what i wrote in my notes. In my final product I make sure to clarify points so others can understand them my notes are general because they are just for my benefit and I know what i mean I can just use a few words and fill in the meat later.
He's not the only one who said she had no blood on her fingers or inside palms mind you.
At best notes can be used to question someone to ask what they meant. They can't be used on their own to disprove what they assessed in official form. Why did you write.. what did you mean by this...Where was the blood...
We know what he would answer if asked because he clarified in his report.
-
We're having an opinion - we're not in court!
It requires proof regardless of the venue. The only difference in court is that Court Rules of Evidence apply and limit what evidence can be used.
-
If he wrote that her palms and fingers had blood in his notes then it would contradict what he wrote in his report. It doesn't, he didn't specify in the notes where the blood was because the notes because he didn't need to. He knew where. When he wrote the report he expressly stated where he blood was.
You want to ignore his specific details written later for official purposes to something less specific written earlier for his own benefit. It would be like taking some of my notes that are less specific and trying to use them to say I meant something different in my final product becaus eof what i wrote in my notes. In my final product I make sure to clarify points so others can understand them my notes are general because they are just for my benefit and I know what i mean I can just use a few words and fill in the meat later.
He's not the only one who said she had no blood on her fingers or inside palms mind you.
At best notes can be used to question someone to ask what they meant. They can't be used on their own to disprove what they assessed in official form. Why did you write.. what did you mean by this...Where was the blood...
We know what he would answer if asked because he clarified in his report.
You actually quoted him saying there was NO blood on her palms - you hadn't read the notes where he contradicted this - now you're trying to smooth it over to go with your own claim. Rubbish Scipio - you're wrong, you can't just decide what the guy means because it suits you!! We can all read and you're explanation is serious wanting!
-
It requires proof regardless of the venue. The only difference in court is that Court Rules of Evidence apply and limit what evidence can be used.
I just posted proof - the contradiction - it's there regardless of how you try and twist it. We can ALL read!
-
I just posted proof - the contradiction - it's there regardless of how you try and twist it. We can ALL read!
Caroline I hate to make things personal but he has argued black is white with the David Bain case and refuses to budge one iota from his dubious stance.
-
You actually quoted him saying there was NO blood on her palms - you hadn't read the notes where he contradicted this - now you're trying to smooth it over to go with your own claim. Rubbish Scipio - you're wrong, you can't just decide what the guy means because it suits you!! We can all read and you're explanation is serious wanting!
He said she had no blood on her inside palms and fingers so did all those who saw her body.
You are trying to pretend that he did see blood on her inside palms and use generalized talk of blood in his notes to try to establish such.
That is all there is to it.
-
Caroline I hate to make things personal but he has argued black is white with the David Bain case and refuses to budge one iota from his dubious stance.
Well, he can't tell me that those two statements say the same thing - one says blood was present, the other that it wasn't. Incredible!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, he can't tell me that those two statements say the same thing - one says blood was present, the other that it wasn't. Incredible!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
One says blood was present without saying precisely where. The other clarifies it was on her hand not inside or fingers.
-
He said she had no blood on her inside palms and fingers so did all those who saw her body.
You are trying to pretend that he did see blood on her inside palms and use generalized talk of blood in his notes to try to establish such.
That is all there is to it.
Inside? Outer? These are your words! He simply said in the notes that her hands weren't contaminated APART from blood in the other that they were contaminated with blood. YOU the one pretending that things were said when they weren't. Stop adding to the statement with what you THINK he was saying and concentrate on what he ACTUALLY said!
-
I just posted proof - the contradiction - it's there regardless of how you try and twist it. We can ALL read!
Lets all be honest there are a LOT of contradictions in this case and somehow Scipio Always knows the one which is right. ::)
He excuses every contradiction as a "mistake" that suits his scenario.
He also keeps repeating things as if they are fact that have not been proved. Assumptions are not facts.
-
One says blood was present without saying precisely where. The other clarifies it was on her hand not inside or fingers.
OH PLEASE!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A NEW 297 page Kindle on the facts of Why Jeremy is Innocent is now on sale ( Kindle only ) on Amazon. It's penned by various supporters of his.
-
A NEW 297 page Kindle on the facts of Why Jeremy is Innocent is now on sale ( Kindle only ) on Amazon. It's penned by various supporters of his.
What's it called Lookout?
-
What's it called Lookout?
No probs, found it.
-
No probs, found it.
What is it called Maggie? ;D ;D
-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jeremy-Bamber-Campaign-Innocent-Information-ebook/dp/B013HX1ES8/ref=sr_1_4?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1438865097&sr=1-4&keywords=Jeremy+bamber
-
What is it called Maggie? ;D ;D
Sorry Caroline, only just seen this, can't remember but think you've found it. ;D
-
Sorry Caroline, only just seen this, can't remember but think you've found it. ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
Lets all be honest there are a LOT of contradictions in this case and somehow Scipio Always knows the one which is right. ::)
He excuses every contradiction as a "mistake" that suits his scenario.
He also keeps repeating things as if they are fact that have not been proved. Assumptions are not facts.
Most contradictions are in the claims of Jeremy supporters. Anytime I challenge you and other supporters to come up with questionable things you end up coming up with nothing beyond the fact the police initially missed the moderator. That means nothing and the rest of what is raised is nonsense.
The police initially failed to properly consider the possibility they were all murdered and as a result failed to do some things they should have that would have caught Jeremy sooner. They failed to take the firearms and all firearms related materials from the outset. They left evidence behind like bloody bedding then destroyed it for Jeremy to try to help him so he would not have to clean such up. They failed to ask for his clothing and to make a record of injuries to his body or to ask him to willingly provide any swabs to test for GSR. They did not question Jeremy about the contradictory claims he made to police. He told different police different things.
These things were all to Jeremy's benefit so it is illogical to point them out and try to suggest these are things which hurt him.
Jeremy supporters dishonestly try to pretend their initial lack of suspicion and miserable failures at reading the scene properly means Jeremy was innocent and they framed him when they later changed their minds and built a case against him.
After his conviction a lot of nonsense has been made up including bogus claims that police moved things before taking photos which still would not have any implications even if true but are not true. All these dishonest supporters do is take photos taken after things were moved and lie claiming they were taken before the bodies were moved. The same lie can be used in any case. At some point the bodies have to be moved and photos taken again after they are.
All cases have typographical errors on documents and plenty have changes made to exhibit numbers etc.
These are all insignificant but have been jumped on after the conviction to try creating a general sense of suspicion. Since there is no actual specific evidence of wrongdoing supporters rely on a web of suspicion they conjure up and that is supposed to make up for the lack of any actual evidence of evidence being doctored. It doesn't.
When I challenge supporters to actually back up their claims such as the claim you just made I always am left hearing crickets.
-
A NEW 297 page Kindle on the facts of Why Jeremy is Innocent is now on sale ( Kindle only ) on Amazon. It's penned by various supporters of his.
"297 pages on the facts of why Jeremy is innocent" don't get carried away ::)
-
"297 pages on the facts of why Jeremy is innocent" don't get carried away ::)
Unsupported argument on why Jeremy is innocent is more likely.