Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on November 25, 2015, 12:33:PM
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/victim-support/support-at-the-scene/family-home-is-a-crime-ccene/media-intrusion/psychological-impact-and-implications-for-recovery/social-and-relationships/advocacy/bodies-and-funerals
-
I don't imagine he'd have been overly keen to see the results of his handiwork and Julie MAY have been concerned that he'd "loose it" and confess, which would not only have destroyed her chances of marriage, but possibly revealed how much she knew.
-
I don't imagine he'd have been overly keen to see the results of his handiwork and Julie MAY have been concerned that he'd "loose it" and confess, which would not only have destroyed her chances of marriage, but possibly revealed how much she knew.
It may have been that, Jane. Or it may have been that he was trying to play act how someone in his position would cope/act and what they would say and he thought that someone in his position would not want to see his Parents/sister/nephews dead and that in refusing to do so - he was doing what he thought he should be doing.
Either way, we can thank Jeremy's own supporters and hos official site for yet again pointing out why Bamber is a liar and a terrible source for information when it comes to looking for the truth.
Killing him with kindness, they sure are.
-
It may have been that, Jane. Or it may have been that he was trying to play act how someone in his position would cope/act and what they would say and he thought that someone in his position would not want to see his Parents/sister/nephews dead and that in refusing to do so - he was doing what he thought he should be doing.
Either way, we can thank Jeremy's own supporters and hos official site for yet again pointing out why Bamber is a liar and a terrible source for information when it comes to looking for the truth.
Killing him with kindness, they sure are.
Good point, Mat. The other thing which occurs to me is that with every support group giving different reasons for his innocence, if -IF!!!- it were anywhere near to being so, he'd never have been convicted in the first place.
-
The only people telling lies in this prosecution were prosecution witnesses, and the Scenes of Crime Officers, themselves...
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmCART1vcCo
-
It may have been that, Jane. Or it may have been that he was trying to play act how someone in his position would cope/act and what they would say and he thought that someone in his position would not want to see his Parents/sister/nephews dead and that in refusing to do so - he was doing what he thought he should be doing.
Either way, we can thank Jeremy's own supporters and hos official site for yet again pointing out why Bamber is a liar and a terrible source for information when it comes to looking for the truth.
Killing him with kindness, they sure are.
He was heard to say that he didn't want to identify them and re we supposed to believe that they asked everyone (including Julie) and didn't ask Jeremy to identify HIS family? Compete TWADDLE!
-
He was heard to say that he didn't want to identify them and re we supposed to believe that they asked everyone (including Julie) and didn't ask Jeremy to identify HIS family? Compete TWADDLE!
Listen up, Jeremy did not lie about the sequence, or the order with which police took photographs of the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window, as opposed to the same rifle, being upon her body...
-
Listen up, Jeremy did not lie about the sequence, or the order with which police took photographs of the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window, as opposed to the same rifle, being upon her body...
How would Jeremy know? He wasn't in the house when the pictures were being taken.
-
How would Jeremy know? He wasn't in the house when the pictures were being taken.
He didn't know, until later when I drew this to his attention...
-
Listen up, Jeremy did not lie about the sequence, or the order with which police took photographs of the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window, as opposed to the same rifle, being upon her body...
I'm not talking about rifles at windows.
-
I'm not talking about rifles at windows.
Of course, not. That is because you know that the anshuzt rifle (photo' 23) was photographed resting against the bedroom window, before it was photographed on the body. Stop pretending you don't know the police positioned the rifle on Sheila's body from the bedroom window, and stop pretending you don't accept the rifle was moved from the bedroom window, onto the body. You must surely know that what I am talking about, is true...
-
Of course, not. That is because you know that the anshuzt rifle (photo' 23) was photographed resting against the bedroom window, before it was photographed on the body. Stop pretending you don't know the police positioned the rifle on Sheila's body from the bedroom window, and stop pretending you don't accept the rifle was moved from the bedroom window, onto the body. You must surely know that what I am talking about, is true...
Hell's bells!!!! That's a bit of a leap. isn't it?
-
Hell's bells!!!! That's a bit of a leap. isn't it?
No, it's not...
The facts speak for themselves, unless you are trying to suggest, that the rifle rifle was photographed on the body of Sheila was photographed on the body, before the rifle was photographed on the body of Sheila Caffell - now, what is you argument? Was the rifle photographed upon Sheila's body, before it was photographed, against the bedroom window, or vice versa?? We need to understand what your position is? You tell us, what your position is?
We will then be able to tell, what your true position, and belief is...
-
Of course, not. That is because you know that the anshuzt rifle (photo' 23) was photographed resting against the bedroom window, before it was photographed on the body. Stop pretending you don't know the police positioned the rifle on Sheila's body from the bedroom window, and stop pretending you don't accept the rifle was moved from the bedroom window, onto the body. You must surely know that what I am talking about, is true...
Ha, ha!! Nah! I don't know or believe any of that. Jeremy put the rifle on his sister after he shot her. He lied then and he's still lying now.
-
Ha, ha!! Nah! I don't know or believe any of that. Jeremy put the rifle on his sister after he shot her. He lied then and he's still lying now.
I am sorry, but you are absolutely wrong...
Crime scene photograph No. 23, was definitely taken before Crime Scene Photographs, No's "5, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32. What benefit would there be in me lying about that fact?
-
I am sorry, but you are absolutely wrong...
Crime scene photograph No. 23, was definitely taken before Crime Scene Photographs, No's "5, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32. What benefit would there be in me lying about that fact?
I didn't say you were lying - I said Jeremy is, but not about a rifle or photograph order. I was talking about him lying on the OS in respect to not being asked to view the bodies of his murdered family. He was asked and decline - hence why Julie attended.
-
No, it's not...
The facts speak for themselves, unless you are trying to suggest, that the rifle rifle was photographed on the body of Sheila was photographed on the body, before the rifle was photographed on the body of Sheila Caffell - now, what is you argument? Was the rifle photographed upon Sheila's body, before it was photographed, against the bedroom window, or vice versa?? We need to understand what your position is? You tell us, what your position is?
We will then be able to tell, what your true position, and belief is...
Jeremy is guilty as charged. I do NOT believe that a cover up was necessary. Whatever the case, if fire arms go in and find themselves confronted by an armed person who they believe constitutes a danger, they're within their rights to shoot. I do NOT believe that a call, allegedly made, by Nevill, to the police, was withheld from Jeremy and I do NOT believe that Nevill made a call to Jeremy......................however, I DO believe Jeremy has lied to you.
-
I didn't say you were lying - I said Jeremy is, but not about a rifle or photograph order. I was talking about him lying on the OS in respect to not being asked to view the bodies of his murdered family. He was asked and decline - hence why Julie attended.
Listen, Love, I don't lie, whether you believe I do, or don't...
What does, 'OS' refer to?
-
Listen, Love, I don't lie, whether you believe I do, or don't...
What does, 'OS' refer to?
You seem to be after having someone call you a liar oh and calling me love makes no odds - I don't get rattled by such things pet!! ;)
OS is the Official site - I placed a link to it on the first post.
-
Jeremy is guilty as charged. I do NOT believe that a cover up was necessary. Whatever the case, if fire arms go in and find themselves confronted by an armed person who they believe constitutes a danger, they're within their rights to shoot. I do NOT believe that a call, allegedly made, by Nevill, to the police, was withheld from Jeremy and I do NOT believe that Nevill made a call to Jeremy......................however, I DO believe Jeremy has lied to you.
Listen up, love, if you think that I am incapable of identifying when someone is lying to me, then you obviously do not know much about me, you believe what you like, good luck...
-
You seem to be after having someone call you a liar oh and calling me love makes no odds - I don't get rattled by such things pet!! ;)
OS is the Official site - I placed a link to it on the first post.
'Love' is just a figure of speech, just like 'duck, or 'girt' or 'darling', or 'whatever', You obviously don't know much about me, or a part of the world I come from, enough said...
-
Listen up, love, if you think that I am incapable of identifying when someone is lying to me, then you obviously do not know much about me, you believe what you like, good luck...
I also know when someone is lying to me. None of us know much about you and vice versa and we all have our own opinions - isn't that what the forum is for?
-
Listen up, love, if you think that I am incapable of identifying when someone is lying to me, then you obviously do not know much about me, you believe what you like, good luck...
Are you saying that you know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that everything you've posted here, told you by others, is 100% true?
-
Are you saying that you know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that everything you've posted here, told you by others, is 100% true?
It's all true, Love...
-
Flippi g heck mike is that you i that youtube video talking in a funny american accent.
You will need to behave more seriuosly if uou want us to take you seriously
-
I couldnt listen properly as i found it so funny. I know i shouldnt have but it was a bit odd!
-
It's all true, Love...
I'll agree that it may be somebody's truth. The truth means different things to different people.
-
Flippi g heck mike is that you i that youtube video talking in a funny american accent.
You will need to behave more seriuosly if uou want us to take you seriously
It was the bit where his lip quivered which got me. I really thought he was going to start laughing and lose it.
-
Jane its cracked me up.i cant stol laughing. I dont want tobe cruel so please dont take offence mike! I thought he must have been hiding somewhere and recording it so his wife couldnt hear.
-
Flippi g heck mike is that you i that youtube video talking in a funny american accent.
You will need to behave more seriuosly if uou want us to take you seriously
Yeah, that was me, on 'You Tube', trying to be as discreet as possible, hoping my wife, and daughter, couldn't, wouldn't hear me. American accent? Oh, I don't really know about that, I was simply tryin' to keep the tone of my voice down...
-
Ha, ha!! Nah! I don't know or believe any of that. Jeremy put the rifle on his sister after he shot her. He lied then and he's still lying now.
After he shot her twice in the neck and claimed she committed suicide? Then called the police, then stood there outside the crime scene with them and said: I don´t really like my sister?
Yeah right!
-
After he shot her twice in the neck and claimed she committed suicide? Then called the police, then stood there outside the crime scene with them and said: I don´t really like my sister?
Yeah right!
This has been discussed many times. Forget Jeremy. It applies to everyone of us -I'll leave you out because I don't want to find myself, yet again, of being accused of telling you what you think- we plan for something important and secret. As far as is possible, we allow for all possibilities, we act it out in our heads a thousand times, ensuring that nothing can go wrong, and it doesn't....................................until the last moment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn't just go a little bit wrong. It goes horribly and irresolvably wrong in a way which can ruin the whole thing. We can't leave it. It has to be finished, but time is limited and we're robbed of that clarity of thought we had in the planning stage. Something very close to PANIC sets in. Trying to turn it into something other than we'd intended would change the whole context of what we'd planned AND maybe take time we didn't think we'd have. Most agreed that our only option would be to carry on as if the blip hadn't occurred and try to make a convincing job of not knowing anything about it.
-
After he shot her twice in the neck and claimed she committed suicide? Then called the police, then stood there outside the crime scene with them and said: I don´t really like my sister?
Yeah right!
Yeah - he had some neck but there you go, this the guy you want freed! :o
-
This has been discussed many times. Forget Jeremy. It applies to everyone of us -I'll leave you out because I don't want to find myself, yet again, of being accused of telling you what you think- we plan for something important and secret. As far as is possible, we allow for all possibilities, we act it out in our heads a thousand times, ensuring that nothing can go wrong, and it doesn't....................................until the last moment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn't just go a little bit wrong. It goes horribly and irresolvably wrong in a way which can ruin the whole thing. We can't leave it. It has to be finished, but time is limited and we're robbed of that clarity of thought we had in the planning stage. Something very close to PANIC sets in. Trying to turn it into something other than we'd intended would change the whole context of what we'd planned AND maybe take time we didn't think we'd have. Most agreed that our only option would be to carry on as if the blip hadn't occurred and try to make a convincing job of not knowing anything about it.
What Sheila must have thought between that first and second shot,as her right hand moved instinctively to the neck to stem the flow of blood,then finally to realize that this was no accident as the brother she trusted,maybe against her better instincts,had betrayed her.
-
What Sheila must have thought between that first and second shot,as her right hand moved instinctively to the neck to stem the flow of blood,then finally to realize that this was no accident as the brother she trusted,maybe against her better instincts,had betrayed her.
No, you have got it completely wrong - it couldn't possibly have happened like that / this. Do you fully understand the implications of the anshuzt rifle being photographed at the bedroom window (23), before Scenes of crime photographed 'it' on the Sheila's body, in crime scene photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33? Can you even begin to imagine the consequences of Detective Inspector Ron Cook, and police constable David Bird committing perjury about the order with which crime scene photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 23 were taken...
Bamber is in the clear...
If your looking for who killed Bambers sister, look no further than the police...
-
What Sheila must have thought between that first and second shot,as her right hand moved instinctively to the neck to stem the flow of blood,then finally to realize that this was no accident as the brother she trusted,maybe against her better instincts,had betrayed her.
Well it’s been a while since I posted on this forum but your comment Steve-uk doesn’t make sense regardless of innocent or guilt or how much I know about the case. To shoot anyone below the chin and upwards into the head takes compliance on the part of Sheila, i.e. an assisted suicide moderator or no moderator. If that is the case there can be no sense of betrayal. It’s unlikely that Jeremy would be able to control both Sheila and the rifle in order to get in a precision shot. It would be easier to shoot her in the heart if facing her or in the back of the head if turned away. It has to be said that Sheila was killed in a different manner than the rest of the family. I would like to know what narrative went on between Jeremy and Sheila in order to achieve that compliance.
Hoots!
-
Well it’s been a while since I posted on this forum but your comment Steve-uk doesn’t make sense regardless of innocent or guilt or how much I know about the case. To shoot anyone below the chin and upwards into the head takes compliance on the part of Sheila, i.e. an assisted suicide moderator or no moderator. If that is the case there can be no sense of betrayal. It’s unlikely that Jeremy would be able to control both Sheila and the rifle in order to get in a precision shot. It would be easier to shoot her in the heart if facing her or in the back of the head if turned away. It has to be said that Sheila was killed in a different manner than the rest of the family. I would like to know what narrative went on between Jeremy and Sheila in order to achieve that compliance.
Hoots!
TomG Hello. It most certainly would have been easier as an execution but the idea was for it to have looked like a suicide, which probably explains why it was a different manner of shooting. I, too, would be interested to know what was the dialogue between all parties concerned.
-
Fancy me not thinking of that. ::) Why go to the trouble and bother of positioning yourself " lying on the floor " to get a couple of shots to the neck.?
-
TomG Hello. It most certainly would have been easier as an execution but the idea was for it to have looked like a suicide, which probably explains why it was a different manner of shooting. I, too, would be interested to know what was the dialogue between all parties concerned.
I doubt whether it would be “easier” as an execution Jeremy would have to control Sheila (with one hand) and the rifle and get in a precision shot. He could have saved himself the bother by either killing her or at least wounding her at long range. The wounds imply compliance to me if Jeremy was involved, and if that’s the case it’s not murder its assisted suicide.
Hoots!
-
I doubt whether it would be “easier” as an execution Jeremy would have to control Sheila (with one hand) and the rifle and get in a precision shot. He could have saved himself the bother by either killing her or at least wounding her at long range. The wounds imply compliance to me if Jeremy was involved, and if that’s the case it’s not murder its assisted suicide.
Hoots!
People tend to be compliant at gun point however, even if we call it assisted suicide - we still have another 4 victims where murder is certainly applicable.
-
Well it’s been a while since I posted on this forum but your comment Steve-uk doesn’t make sense regardless of innocent or guilt or how much I know about the case. To shoot anyone below the chin and upwards into the head takes compliance on the part of Sheila, i.e. an assisted suicide moderator or no moderator. If that is the case there can be no sense of betrayal. It’s unlikely that Jeremy would be able to control both Sheila and the rifle in order to get in a precision shot. It would be easier to shoot her in the heart if facing her or in the back of the head if turned away. It has to be said that Sheila was killed in a different manner than the rest of the family. I would like to know what narrative went on between Jeremy and Sheila in order to achieve that compliance.
Hoots!
Well if he is standing in front of her with the rifle at her throat all he had to do was pull the trigger, I have argued very differently but have to agree once he held the gun to Sheila's throat as a threat he only had to pull the trigger to mortally wound her then it was easy enough to get her into position to finish her off with the shot under her chin. :-\
-
The same could apply to the thin slip of a girl who tackled her 6ft 4 father. A couple of shots to put him out of action and the rest is without effort,hence why Sheila didn't show marks of a struggle. The gun-holder will always have the upper hand.
-
People tend to be compliant at gun point however, even if we call it assisted suicide - we still have another 4 victims where murder is certainly applicable.
I understand that the shot upward from the neck into the head would be an effective kill shot. If people are compliant at the point of a gun why did it take so many shots to kill Jeremy’s parents? Why were they so resistant to the more effective neck shots that killed Sheila, especially when Neville had allegedly been struck with the butt of the rifle? Furthermore to your last point, if the death of Sheila is assisted suicide then Jeremy would be not guilty of her murder regardless of what happened to the others.
Hoots!
-
Well if he is standing in front of her with the rifle at her throat all he had to do was pull the trigger, I have argued very differently but have to agree once he held the gun to Sheila's throat as a threat he only had to pull the trigger to mortally wound her then it was easy enough to get her into position to finish her off with the shot under her chin. :-\
I agree, actually. People seem to think they would be pretty brave, but there is no telling how you would react when you have a gun pointed at you and have possibly already seen others dead in the room. If she didn't have much time to think or act, it favoured the one with the weapon.
The same could apply to the thin slip of a girl who tackled her 6ft 4 father. A couple of shots to put him out of action and the rest is without effort,hence why Sheila didn't show marks of a struggle. The gun-holder will always have the upper hand.
Whoever did what was done to Neville, had great strength and would have shown signs of a struggle or at least had some injuries or his blood on them.
Never heard of anyone shot that many times and then beaten - and the guilty party being spotlessly clean.
-
Well if he is standing in front of her with the rifle at her throat all he had to do was pull the trigger, I have argued very differently but have to agree once he held the gun to Sheila's throat as a threat he only had to pull the trigger to mortally wound her then it was easy enough to get her into position to finish her off with the shot under her chin. :-\
She only has to swipe it away which even Sheila could manage, are we not talking about a girl who is fighting for her life?
Hoots!
-
I agree, actually. People seem to think they would be pretty brave, but there is no telling how you would react when you have a gun pointed at you and have possibly already seen others dead in the room. If she didn't have much time to think or act, it favoured the one with the weapon.
Whoever did what was done to Neville, had great strength and would have shown signs of a struggle or at least had some injuries or his blood on them.
Never heard of anyone shot that many times and then beaten - and the guilty party being spotlessly clean.
You don't need " great strength " when you're in charge of a gun. The shooter doesn't normally have any injuries ? Especially being a woman.
I've never heard of anyone having been shot that many times when after 2 or 3 bullets they'd have already been dead. Only an amateur would do that !
-
You don't need " great strength " when you're in charge of a gun. The shooter doesn't normally have any injuries ? Especially being a woman.
I've never heard of anyone having been shot that many times when after 2 or 3 bullets they'd have already been dead. Only an amateur would do that !
I'm talking about the beating.
-
She only has to swipe it away which even Sheila could manage, are we not talking about a girl who is fighting for her life?
Hoots!
This has been claimed many times before but should think anyone with a rifle held at their throat would probably be too frozen with fear to function in any way at all, never mind be able to raise their arm and swipe a fly never mind a rifle.
We are talking about a woman who may have been in great fear of losing her life and therefore it's most likely that she would have been frozen with fear.
It's ok for you in your imagination to decide how Sheila or anyone else would have behaved fighting back but in such a situation fear would be overriding imo and fear paralyses the mind and the body.
What good would swiping away the rifle do anyway if she had no means of protecting herself further?
-
I'm talking about the beating.
So was I.
-
This has been claimed many times before but should think anyone with a rifle held at their throat would probably be too frozen with fear to function in any way at all, never mind be able to raise their arm and swipe a fly never mind a rifle.
We are talking about a woman who may have been in great fear of losing her life and therefore it's most likely that she would have been frozen with fear.
It's ok for you in your imagination to decide how Sheila or anyone else would have behaved fighting back but in such a situation fear would be overriding imo and fear paralyses the mind and the body.
What good would swiping away the rifle do anyway if she had no means of protecting herself further?
I don’t think that to be frozen with fear is a probability (or imaginative on my part) at all however it is a possibility. Another option that we are more familiar with is the flight or fight mechanism as well as the natural instinct for a Mother to be with her children in a time of danger so you would expect Sheila (who was devoted to her children) to be found in the same room at least, defending her children to the last. It would be interesting to know what those who think Jeremy is guilty in what order he dispatched his family.
Does anyone know the exact model of the Anschutz rifle that Jeremy used to do the dirty deed as well as what uses it was intended for ie. foxes, rabbits, stray dogs or people?
Hoots!
-
I don’t think that to be frozen with fear is a probability (or imaginative on my part) at all however it is a possibility. Another option that we are more familiar with is the flight or fight mechanism as well as the natural instinct for a Mother to be with her children in a time of danger so you would expect Sheila (who was devoted to her children) to be found in the same room at least, defending her children to the last. It would be interesting to know what those who think Jeremy is guilty in what order he dispatched his family.
Does anyone know the exact model of the Anschutz rifle that Jeremy used to do the dirty deed as well as what uses it was intended for ie. foxes, rabbits, stray dogs or people?
Hoots!
With reference to the flight or fight mechanism, this is Barbara Wilson's description of Sheila in June 1985:
"I was indoors,watching her across the yard. The geese were about-perishing things, they used to cackle and chase people. But on this particular occasion I saw Sheila walking across the yard, her body and legs very stiff, staring straight ahead. She moved through the geese as if they weren't there."
I just don't see Sheila putting up any resistance to someone waking her up in the middle of the night,gun in hand or not. She was just too far gone..
-
I don’t think that to be frozen with fear is a probability (or imaginative on my part) at all however it is a possibility. Another option that we are more familiar with is the flight or fight mechanism as well as the natural instinct for a Mother to be with her children in a time of danger so you would expect Sheila (who was devoted to her children) to be found in the same room at least, defending her children to the last. It would be interesting to know what those who think Jeremy is guilty in what order he dispatched his family.
Does anyone know the exact model of the Anschutz rifle that Jeremy used to do the dirty deed as well as what uses it was intended for ie. foxes, rabbits, stray dogs or people?
Hoots!
Depression robs the sufferer of energy. They become listless, drained of emotion. It describes how Sheila was described as being during her last fortnight.
-
With reference to the flight or fight mechanism, this is Barbara Wilson's description of Sheila in June 1985:
"I was indoors,watching her across the yard. The geese were about-perishing things, they used to cackle and chase people. But on this particular occasion I saw Sheila walking across the yard, her body and legs very stiff, staring straight ahead. She moved through the geese as if they weren't there."
I just don't see Sheila putting up any resistance to someone waking her up in the middle of the night,gun in hand or not. She was just too far gone..
That's just it Steve,Sheila was completely cut-off from the " real world " and was focussed on her world of oblivion where she wouldn't have recognised anyone as being a part of her or her family.This is exactly the state of mind she was in on the night of the killings. Shooting her family to her would have been seen as strangers making threats.
-
I don’t think that to be frozen with fear is a probability (or imaginative on my part) at all however it is a possibility. Another option that we are more familiar with is the flight or fight mechanism as well as the natural instinct for a Mother to be with her children in a time of danger so you would expect Sheila (who was devoted to her children) to be found in the same room at least, defending her children to the last. It would be interesting to know what those who think Jeremy is guilty in what order he dispatched his family.
Does anyone know the exact model of the Anschutz rifle that Jeremy used to do the dirty deed as well as what uses it was intended for ie. foxes, rabbits, stray dogs or people?
Hoots!
You cannot 'expect' Sheila to be found in the same room as the twins, you may have such an opinion but as you have no real idea what happened and how she came to be where she was found you can only speculate.
I think I am aware of the natural instincts of a mother needing to protect her children which begs the question why didn't she?
The answer could be that she was not allowed to be with her children by the person holding the rifle, she may have been trying to get to them when she was shot.
If she was responsible f o r the death of her children during a psychotic episode it is unlikely she would have been aware of her maternal instincts at that time but rather in another dimension.
I have taken fight or flight into consideration and 'flight' if you are trapped can translate as being 'frozen with fear' this is VERY understandable to anyone who has experienced a serious life threatening situation.
-
I also don't see her returning the silencer to the gun cupboard if she is experiencing psychosis. Of course the silencer is a controversial part of the case.
-
I also don't see her returning the silencer to the gun cupboard if she is experiencing psychosis. Of course the silencer is a controversial part of the case.
Nor me, Steve. The silencer evidence is certainly highly questionable anyway but leaving that aside, why would Sheila have even been aware about the silencer? If it was getting in her way and she was aware of it, I supposed she may have removed it and chucked it on the floor but returning it to the back of the gun cupboard doesn't really ring true to me but I may be wrong......
I find the silencer affair hard to accept whoever did or didn't hide it or find it and what was or wasn't on it, stuck to it, in it......
-
Nor me, Steve. The silencer evidence is certainly highly questionable anyway but leaving that aside, why would Sheila have even been aware about the silencer? If it was getting in her way and she was aware of it, I supposed she may have removed it and chucked it on the floor but returning it to the back of the gun cupboard doesn't really ring true to me but I may be wrong......
I find the silencer affair hard to accept whoever did or didn't hide it or find it and what was or wasn't on it, stuck to it, in it......
Nor do I see a woman who CHOSE to spend her life in London amongst cafe society, having the remotest idea of how to reload a gun.
-
Nor me, Steve. The silencer evidence is certainly highly questionable anyway but leaving that aside, why would Sheila have even been aware about the silencer? If it was getting in her way and she was aware of it, I supposed she may have removed it and chucked it on the floor but returning it to the back of the gun cupboard doesn't really ring true to me but I may be wrong......
I find the silencer affair hard to accept whoever did or didn't hide it or find it and what was or wasn't on it, stuck to it, in it......
Maybe her dad took it off her and put it in the cupboard ? It was never fingerprinted was it ?
-
Maybe her dad took it off her and put it in the cupboard ? It was never fingerprinted was it ?
Yeah right! Since when was a silencer known to fire bullets when not attached to a gun. Surely, HAD such a scenario occurred, he'd have taken the gun away.
-
Yeah right! Since when was a silencer known to fire bullets when not attached to a gun. Surely, HAD such a scenario occurred, he'd have taken the gun away.
She may have clouted him with it for starters after handling it with her bloodied hands.,
-
She may have clouted him with it for starters after handling it with her bloodied hands.,
OK, so having clouted him with it, he calmly says "Now give it to Daddy like as good girl" and she hands it over, he puts it neatly away, then she shoots him and beats him to death. There's something about that scenario which doesn't quite work.
-
OK, so having clouted him with it, he calmly says "Now give it to Daddy like as good girl" and she hands it over, he puts it neatly away, then she shoots him and beats him to death. There's something about that scenario which doesn't quite work.
For obvious reasons it won't work the way you say it,or want to imagine it. There were grab marks on Neville's arm,or would you rather there weren't ? The same on June's arm but not as pronounced.
-
For obvious reasons it won't work the way you say it,or want to imagine it. There were grab marks on Neville's arm,or would you rather there weren't ? The same on June's arm but not as pronounced.
So you've said....................repeatedly. Funny though how, despite the poor quality and grainy pictures, you've seen these marks. They even seemed to have been missed -or simply not thought worth noting if they WERE there- at autopsy. My apologies. You weren't the only one. Mike said he saw marks on Nevill's wrist and said it was where Sheila had tied him to the chair in order to shoot him and beat him to death.
-
So you've said....................repeatedly. Funny though how, despite the poor quality and grainy pictures, you've seen these marks. They even seemed to have been missed -or simply not thought worth noting if they WERE there- at autopsy. My apologies. You weren't the only one. Mike said he saw marks on Nevill's wrist and said it was where Sheila had tied him to the chair in order to shoot him and beat him to death.
I actually read a document explaining the marks on the forearms of both Neville and June because it hadn't been decided how or what made them.
-
There was a really interesting programme on BBC four last night I would recommend watching it - catching Histories criminals - the forensic story .
It will make you think twice about what posters on here say is fact when in fact a lot of it is opinion . It is a series of 4 I think. I found it fascinating .
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/victim-support/support-at-the-scene/family-home-is-a-crime-ccene/media-intrusion/psychological-impact-and-implications-for-recovery/social-and-relationships/advocacy/bodies-and-funerals
As you are stating this as 100% lie - do you know if the police did ask him?
-
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7173.45.html
See Reply 52...
-
There was a really interesting programme on BBC four last night I would recommend watching it - catching Histories criminals - the forensic story .
It will make you think twice about what posters on here say is fact when in fact a lot of it is opinion . It is a series of 4 I think. I found it fascinating .
Why's that Jan? Or do we have to watch it? Welcome back btw, were you banned?
-
You cannot 'expect' Sheila to be found in the same room as the twins, you may have such an opinion but as you have no real idea what happened and how she came to be where she was found you can only speculate.
I have no idea in what order the family was dispatched if Jeremy committed the murder, perhaps you can let me know. With more than 10k posts you would surely have some theory of the crime.
I think I am aware of the natural instincts of a mother needing to protect her children which begs the question why didn't she?
Agreed! Perhaps she had dispatched them to a better place.
The answer could be that she was not allowed to be with her children by the person holding the rifle, she may have been trying to get to them when she was shot.
Hmmm!
If she was responsible f o r the death of her children during a psychotic episode it is unlikely she would have been aware of her maternal instincts at that time but rather in another dimension.
Agreed!
I have taken fight or flight into consideration and 'flight' if you are trapped can translate as being 'frozen with fear' this is VERY understandable to anyone who has experienced a serious life threatening situation.
O.K. but I still think that her natural protective insticts would have kicked in taking her to her children.
What about the rifle? Can someone give me a specification and usage of the rifle or provide a link?
Hoots!
-
I have no idea in what order the family was dispatched if Jeremy committed the murder, perhaps you can let me know. With more than 10k posts you would surely have some theory of the crime.Agreed! Perhaps she had dispatched them to a better place. Hmmm!Agreed!O.K. but I still think that her natural protective insticts would have kicked in taking her to her children.
What about the rifle? Can someone give me a specification and usage of the rifle or provide a link?
Hoots!
None of us was there so all we can do is speculate. I guess there can be more orders of death than there are members here. Indeed, several have already posted on this. Feel free you add your own thoughts.
-
Natural instincts would not generally override psychosis and as I said if she was held at gunpoint her natural instincts would possibly not have had time to kick in, as she was in a state of shock and fear and then she was dead.
I am open to any suggestions and not a hard line quilter by any means but your suggestions are only possibilities and unconvincing imo.
-
I actually read a document explaining the marks on the forearms of both Neville and June because it hadn't been decided how or what made them.
Then where is it?
-
None of us was there so all we can do is speculate. I guess there can be more orders of death than there are members here. Indeed, several have already posted on this. Feel free you add your own thoughts.
OK. At this moment in time I think Jeremy was framed. In order to conclude otherwise I would have to have a pro-guilt timeline of events of what order the family was dispatched. If I was Jeremy walking towards the farm that night I would have to be thinking about what order the family was going to die. If it were me I would certainly want to kill Neville first since that would take care of the head of the family and drain the morale of the rest, but it seems that was not the case. Neville was the only other with experience with guns and knowledge of how to use them effectively. Why wasn’t Neville killed first while he slept?
Hoots!
-
OK. At this moment in time I think Jeremy was framed. In order to conclude otherwise I would have to have a pro-guilt timeline of events of what order the family was dispatched. If I was Jeremy walking towards the farm that night I would have to be thinking about what order the family was going to die. If it were me I would certainly want to kill Neville first since that would take care of the head of the family and drain the morale of the rest, but it seems that was not the case. Neville was the only other with experience with guns and knowledge of how to use them effectively. Why wasn’t Neville killed first while he slept?
Hoots!
Hi Tom, from your account I guess you don't think he did the shooting (some people think he's guilty but 'framed' with the silencer evidence)? Can I ask why you think EP would frame Jeremy when they had the case sewn up as a murder/suicide? Especially as they had to make themselves look pretty stupid and seriously incompetent in order to do so. Also, at what point did they start framing him? If there was a call from Nevill, they knew t from day one and could have proven to the relatives that Jeremy was innocent. If there was a female body in the kitchen, they knew it from day one and could have proven ........ you get the picture. So, when and why would they have decided to frame Jeremy?
Jeremy being framed drags up more questions than why Nevill wasn't targeted first BUT, I can offer a suggestion (or two). The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened. Nevill may have awoken before Jeremy was able to get into a good enough position to shoot OR he may have been sleeping in another room (there are no casings on Nevill's side of the bed other than those used to kill Sheila, none of Nevill's blood was found in the main bedroom but there was some outside of Sheila's room - on the landing and all of the casings are located near to the main bedroom door). This may explain how Nevill managed to get passed Jeremy and down stairs.
-
Then where is it?
A report written by Vanezis stated that gouge marks found on Neville and similarly also found on Sheila were consistent with them both having been in a struggle. Mrks were on Neville's right forearm and also the right hand of Sheila.
-
A report written by Vanezis stated that gouge marks found on Neville and similarly also found on Sheila were consistent with them both having been in a struggle. Mrks were on Neville's right forearm and also the right hand of Sheila.
There is nothing about gouge marks in Venezis's report(s) (either typed or written) and he never suggests that there was a struggle between Nevill and Sheila. He mentions that there were 'grazes' on Nevill's arm but nothing in respect to Sheila. We can see Sheila's arms in the CS pictures and there are no grazes or gouges visible at all. The only suggestion Vanezis makes in respect to the GRAZES and linear bruises on Nevill's arm; is that they may have come from the barrel of the rifle.
-
There is nothing about gouge marks in Venezis's report(s) (either typed or written) and he never suggests that there was a struggle between Nevill and Sheila. He mentions that there were 'grazes' on Nevill's arm but nothing in respect to Sheila. We can see Sheila's arms in the CS pictures and there are no grazes or gouges visible at all. The only suggestion Vanezis makes in respect to the GRAZES and linear bruises on Nevill's arm; is that they may have come from the barrel of the rifle.
So, silencer wasn't fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle when Ralph was being shot, hit and was killed...
-
There is nothing about gouge marks in Venezis's report(s) (either typed or written) and he never suggests that there was a struggle between Nevill and Sheila. He mentions that there were 'grazes' on Nevill's arm but nothing in respect to Sheila. We can see Sheila's arms in the CS pictures and there are no grazes or gouges visible at all. The only suggestion Vanezis makes in respect to the GRAZES and linear bruises on Nevill's arm; is that they may have come from the barrel of the rifle.
Lookout posts about this mysterious report, that only she can see, pretty often. And regularly posts rubbish about marks on peoples arms when they weren't there. Sometimes she calls them marks, sometimes gouges, sometimes scratches. This is what I was referring to yesterday when she was bleating on about Sheila's illness, Sheilas medication and the side affects of such - when I said that someone who can not even read and understand autopsy reports that are on the forum (and say NOTHING like she claims) is not the best person to talk about medication or side affects and expect to be taken serious.
-
Why's that Jan? Or do we have to watch it? Welcome back btw, were you banned?
ha ha ;D I am sure Adam tried. But no that was not the reason. A certain poster was pushing me into making comments which were very unlike my normal calm polite posts so I thought it best to step back and take a deep breath. Two wrongs don't make a right :)
The programme was just very interesting about forensic science history and how it is used . There was a piece where they were trying to prove where a person was standing when they beat someone else to death with blood patterns and they explained how some forensics like this were just opinion not fact as of course knowledge increases with the amount of cases studied. There was also information about the history of using fingerprinting and applying to cases . I think basically the programmes will show that if all the evidence had been taken properly and not destroyed there probably was proof there. But really what struck me was how many years these methods had been in use and that is why EP should have treated it as a crime scene irrespective of them thinking they knew the answers.
I think this week is to do with crimes with guns so again should be interesting.
-
Hi Tom, from your account I guess you don't think he did the shooting (some people think he's guilty but 'framed' with the silencer evidence)? Can I ask why you think EP would frame Jeremy when they had the case sewn up as a murder/suicide? Especially as they had to make themselves look pretty stupid and seriously incompetent in order to do so. Also, at what point did they start framing him? If there was a call from Nevill, they knew t from day one and could have proven to the relatives that Jeremy was innocent. If there was a female body in the kitchen, they knew it from day one and could have proven ........ you get the picture. So, when and why would they have decided to frame Jeremy?
Jeremy being framed drags up more questions than why Nevill wasn't targeted first BUT, I can offer a suggestion (or two). The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened. Nevill may have awoken before Jeremy was able to get into a good enough position to shoot OR he may have been sleeping in another room (there are no casings on Nevill's side of the bed other than those used to kill Sheila, none of Nevill's blood was found in the main bedroom but there was some outside of Sheila's room - on the landing and all of the casings are located near to the main bedroom door). This may explain how Nevill managed to get passed Jeremy and down stairs.
Hi Caroline
You've given me plenty to think about and that's good so, I will respond to this as soon as I can. I want to refer to some of my post that I submitted a couple of years back (or more) :P before I get back to you on this. I have to say that I don't nearly have the same knowledge of this case as the other posters so I'm aware that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here.
Hoots!
-
Lookout posts about this mysterious report, that only she can see, pretty often. And regularly posts rubbish about marks on peoples arms when they weren't there. Sometimes she calls them marks, sometimes gouges, sometimes scratches. This is what I was referring to yesterday when she was bleating on about Sheila's illness, Sheilas medication and the side affects of such - when I said that someone who can not even read and understand autopsy reports that are on the forum (and say NOTHING like she claims) is not the best person to talk about medication or side affects and expect to be taken serious.
This report does exist I managed to unearth it from a web archive. I can get it for you if you like, its the work of Dodgy Di Stefano so it don't hold much credibility if you ask me
-
Hi Caroline
You've given me plenty to think about and that's good so, I will respond to this as soon as I can. I want to refer to some of my post that I submitted a couple of years back (or more) :P before I get back to you on this. I have to say that I don't nearly have the same knowledge of this case as the other posters so I'm aware that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here.
Hoots!
I would like to add that of those posters who think he is innocent not all believe the call from Neville to the police happened or that Jeremy was framed.
If Jeremy is innocent he does not know if the call happened or not.
I think at the point of the investigation being changed the police believed it was murder suicide - but they did not have proof either way so had not choice but to go with the flow on the pressure being put on them.
One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.
Why on earth would she say that? She of all people must KNOW he is guilty.
Same as Bews - he thinks he is guilty?
A lot of people who should know the truth seem to be covering their backs.
-
This report does exist I managed to unearth it from a web archive. I can get it for you if you like, its the work of Dodgy Di Stefano so it don't hold much credibility if you ask me
No, I've seen that before when you kindly posted it. But that report only goes so far, and obviously what is in black and white doesn't change - so Lookouts claims don't hold water when they change. At one time Lookout claimed that June had fingernail marks on her arms.
I agree with you about the credibility of that report and think that "Dodgy Di Stefano" is pretty apt. ;D
-
Is there any need for your contemptuous posts in reply to mine ?
BTW,where do you get your crappy theories from------------everyone else ?? Sheeple !!
-
This report does exist I managed to unearth it from a web archive. I can get it for you if you like, its the work of Dodgy Di Stefano so it don't hold much credibility if you ask me
So it's not a report by Venezis then?
-
Hi Caroline
You've given me plenty to think about and that's good so, I will respond to this as soon as I can. I want to refer to some of my post that I submitted a couple of years back (or more) :P before I get back to you on this. I have to say that I don't nearly have the same knowledge of this case as the other posters so I'm aware that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here.
Hoots!
Look forward to reading your reply :)
-
I would like to add that of those posters who think he is innocent not all believe the call from Neville to the police happened or that Jeremy was framed.
If Jeremy is innocent he does not know if the call happened or not.
I think at the point of the investigation being changed the police believed it was murder suicide - but they did not have proof either way so had not choice but to go with the flow on the pressure being put on them.
One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.
Why on earth would she say that? She of all people must KNOW he is guilty.
Same as Bews - he thinks he is guilty?
A lot of people who should know the truth seem to be covering their backs.
Where does she say this?
-
So, silencer wasn't fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle when Ralph was being shot, hit and was killed...
I thought that there was a theory circulating at one point that Nevill struggled with his daughter in the vicinity of the mantelpiece, thus creating the aforementioned scratch marks with the rifle with silencer attached.
-
Where does she say this?
Was about to ask the same thing, Steve. I've read CAL's book but I'm as capable of "selective reading" as the next person.
-
Where does she say this?
in CAL book but I will have to check OS source .
-
Was about to ask the same thing, Steve. I've read CAL's book but I'm as capable of "selective reading" as the next person.
its on my kindle so it not easy to find - but I have only just finished reading it so it is fresh in my mind.
-
I thought that there was a theory circulating at one point that Nevill struggled with his daughter in the vicinity of the mantelpiece, thus creating the aforementioned scratch marks with the rifle with silencer attached.
if only those original photos were better it would be straight forward to see if those scratches were post crime date.
-
I would like to add that of those posters who think he is innocent not all believe the call from Neville to the police happened or that Jeremy was framed.
If Jeremy is innocent he does not know if the call happened or not.
I think at the point of the investigation being changed the police believed it was murder suicide - but they did not have proof either way so had not choice but to go with the flow on the pressure being put on them.
One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.
Why on earth would she say that? She of all people must KNOW he is guilty.
Same as Bews - he thinks he is guilty?
A lot of people who should know the truth seem to be covering their backs.
Just found it. It isn't quite as you said it, Jan. It reads as follows:- "Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life. And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case, I still believe he is guilty."
-
Just found it. It isn't quite as you said it, Jan. It reads as follows:- "Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life. And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case, I still believe he is guilty."
Not exactly what Jan claimed. :-\ New light on the investigation, but she still believes him guilty. Is that a direct quote Jane? I assume it is? Don't go to the bother of scanning the page or anything, I do trust you. :)
-
Not exactly what Jan claimed. :-\ New light on the investigation, but she still believes him guilty. Is that a direct quote Jane? I assume it is? Don't go to the bother of scanning the page or anything, I do trust you. :)
Yeah Mat, it IS a word for word quote but I have to say, it's an ambiguous one......................however, not for a moment do I believe she's suggesting that "new forensic techniques" could prove his innocence.
-
Just found it. It isn't quite as you said it, Jan. It reads as follows:- "Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life. And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case, I still believe he is guilty."
She stands by her original story. That must be the one in her original statement.
'I still BELIEVE he's guilty.' If she doesn't know for sure, then she must have been lying all along.
-
She stands by her original story. That must be the one in her original statement.
'I still BELIEVE he's guilty.' If she doesn't know for sure, then she must have been lying all along.
Perhaps it was "I STILL believe he's guilty."
-
Not " I KNOW he's guilty ?" Which would have been more precise.
-
Not " I KNOW he's guilty ?" Which would have been more precise.
Why are you nitpicking? She believes he is guilty, he statements from that time clearly show that. She says she still believes he is, of course she does, why wouldn't she?
These are the same games people played with Colin, acting as if they can read between the lines that he wrote in his book and that he has doubts. It wasn't until recently, when Colin spoke out saying that he DOES believe Bamber guilty, that the games stopped but now it seems they have begun with Julie!! The prosecution witness!!! ;D ;D
Colin believes Bamber guilty.
Julie believes Bamber guilty.
-
Not " I KNOW he's guilty ?" Which would have been more precise.
I would have wondered just who she was trying to convince had she said that.
-
I would have wondered just who she was trying to convince had she said that.
Whatever she said and however she said it was probably said under sufferance anyway because of a possible " threat " hanging over herself pertaining to her own shortcomings if she hadn't abided by the rules of " him who had to be obeyed ",namely,S Jones.
-
Whatever she said and however she said it was probably said under sufferance anyway because of a possible " threat " hanging over herself pertaining to her own shortcomings if she hadn't abided by the rules of " him who had to be obeyed ",namely,S Jones.
Lookout, I hold no love for the woman, but you seem to carry such spite against her that your words are likely to make people feel like defending her.
-
Lookout, I hold no love for the woman, but you seem to carry such spite against her that your words are likely to make people feel like defending her.
That's strange,I feel the same when the world and its wife go on about Jeremy,particularly those here on the forum. I actually felt " quietly " sorry for JM if you did but realise it.
However,I'm by no means a spiteful person and never have been. I'm quite balanced and sober although I say it myself.
-
That's strange,I feel the same when the world and its wife go on about Jeremy,particularly those here on the forum. I actually felt " quietly " sorry for JM if you did but realise it.
However,I'm by no means a spiteful person and never have been. I'm quite balanced and sober although I say it myself.
I don't find it difficult to believe re Jeremy as you think he's 100% innocent but as you think Julie has lied through her teeth -even, I believe, suggesting she should be forced to tell the truth- I find it difficult to believe you hold any positive feelings for her.
-
I don't find it difficult to believe re Jeremy as you think he's 100% innocent but as you think Julie has lied through her teeth -even, I believe, suggesting she should be forced to tell the truth- I find it difficult to believe you hold any positive feelings for her.
JM was betwixt and between as half of her wanted to spite him but only because of his waywardness,nothing else. Until she was spurred on to side with the guilty and the possibility and prospect of what would be in store if she went along with everyone else, it was called a sweetener-----------and who wouldn't be tempted by such a huge amount as it was then ? I wonder if she thought about the word blackmail ?
EP must have thought all their Christmases had come at once after that tempting tactic,because they had nothing on Jeremy. JM WOULD have had feelings of guilt but it's surprising how quickly those feelings vanish when you've got a healthy bank account.
JM was bamboozled into her part at the trial------------shame on EP for influencing and grooming a young woman for their own ends.
-
She cant say i know hes guilty because she wasnt there. Same for bews.
they have thier opinions like everyone else.
-
JM was betwixt and between as half of her wanted to spite him but only because of his waywardness,nothing else. Until she was spurred on to side with the guilty and the possibility and prospect of what would be in store if she went along with everyone else, it was called a sweetener-----------and who wouldn't be tempted by such a huge amount as it was then ? I wonder if she thought about the word blackmail ?
EP must have thought all their Christmases had come at once after that tempting tactic,because they had nothing on Jeremy. JM WOULD have had feelings of guilt but it's surprising how quickly those feelings vanish when you've got a healthy bank account.
JM was bamboozled into her part at the trial------------shame on EP for influencing and grooming a young woman for their own ends.
In your opinion only, of course.
-
Hi Tom, from your account I guess you don't think he did the shooting (some people think he's guilty but 'framed' with the silencer evidence)? Can I ask why you think EP would frame Jeremy when they had the case sewn up as a murder/suicide? Especially as they had to make themselves look pretty stupid and seriously incompetent in order to do so. Also, at what point did they start framing him? If there was a call from Nevill, they knew t from day one and could have proven to the relatives that Jeremy was innocent. If there was a female body in the kitchen, they knew it from day one and could have proven ........ you get the picture. So, when and why would they have decided to frame Jeremy?
Jeremy being framed drags up more questions than why Nevill wasn't targeted first BUT, I can offer a suggestion (or two). The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened. Nevill may have awoken before Jeremy was able to get into a good enough position to shoot OR he may have been sleeping in another room (there are no casings on Nevill's side of the bed other than those used to kill Sheila, none of Nevill's blood was found in the main bedroom but there was some outside of Sheila's room - on the landing and all of the casings are located near to the main bedroom door). This may explain how Nevill managed to get passed Jeremy and down stairs.
Hi Caroline
OK. So the last thing I said was that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, you also mentioned that “The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened”. If Jeremy or anyone else decides that they are going to massacre their family then planning is going to come into the equation.
The first thing that worries me is the calibre of the gun or at least it’s efficiency as a killing weapon. As far as I know Neville was hit 8 times, June was hit 7, Daniel5 times and Nicholas 3 times (Wikipedia source). There were over 30 cartridges spent as I understand it. The gun was of low calibre and completely inefficient for the task. It may be effective in killing rats, bunnies and foxes but Jeremy must have known the gun was not the weapon of choice. IMO Jeremy would not take that risk or make that mistake.
If Jeremy was to kill his family he would have certainly have acquired a heavier calibre gun to dispatch the family when they are all in the same room perhaps when having lunch or having a family get-together such as a birthday or anniversary, that way there is a lot less risk. For Jeremy’s plan to work either way it would have to include one absolutely crucial outcome which was to make it appear that the murder of Sheila would look like suicide. It would have been out of the question to stage the suicide with Neville or June since they would have no motive to murder or suicide. So Jeremy would have had to predict the unpredictable and rely on his paranoid schizophrenic sister who was capable of anything on a night that absolutely anything could have happened to be absolutely compliant and to act exactly according to his plan of action.
So while Jeremy was walking towards the farmhouse that night he would have known that the only way that he was not going to be convicted for murder would be for the above staged suicide scenario to be an absolute certainty, if not there would be no way he would avoid arrest and subsequent charges. He might have considered the possibility that his climbing through the window would set the dog barking and he might have to confront Neville perhaps with a shotgun trying to find out what the problem was. Jeremy would then have to take care of him and the rest of the family with his bunny-popper gun providing he got to it first. If he did manage to get to the gun first there would have been a complete uproar with Neville would have been crashing about trying to defend himself while he took the 8 low-calibre bullets that killed him. With all the time that would take it could have resulted in the twins as well as Sheila and June in hearing the uproar trying to escape down any one of the farmhouses 3 staircases trying to get out or find places to hide resulting in a fiasco. Unfortunately JB was apparently too stupid even to contemplate that on his way to the farmhouse on that ruinous night. He was to busy thinking the unthinkable, predicting the unpredictable and planning the unplannable in order to get the exact result needed, the staged suicide of Sheila.
Nah! Life doesn’t work like that. The case against JB is a stitch-up.
Hoots
-
Hi Caroline
OK. So the last thing I said was that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, you also mentioned that “The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened”. If Jeremy or anyone else decides that they are going to massacre their family then planning is going to come into the equation.
The first thing that worries me is the calibre of the gun or at least it’s efficiency as a killing weapon. As far as I know Neville was hit 8 times, June was hit 7, Daniel5 times and Nicholas 3 times (Wikipedia source). There were over 30 cartridges spent as I understand it. The gun was of low calibre and completely inefficient for the task. It may be effective in killing rats, bunnies and foxes but Jeremy must have known the gun was not the weapon of choice. IMO Jeremy would not take that risk or make that mistake.
If Jeremy was to kill his family he would have certainly have acquired a heavier calibre gun to dispatch the family when they are all in the same room perhaps when having lunch or having a family get-together such as a birthday or anniversary, that way there is a lot less risk. For Jeremy’s plan to work either way it would have to include one absolutely crucial outcome which was to make it appear that the murder of Sheila would look like suicide. It would have been out of the question to stage the suicide with Neville or June since they would have no motive to murder or suicide. So Jeremy would have had to predict the unpredictable and rely on his paranoid schizophrenic sister who was capable of anything on a night that absolutely anything could have happened to be absolutely compliant and to act exactly according to his plan of action.
So while Jeremy was walking towards the farmhouse that night he would have known that the only way that he was not going to be convicted for murder would be for the above staged suicide scenario to be an absolute certainty, if not there would be no way he would avoid arrest and subsequent charges. He might have considered the possibility that his climbing through the window would set the dog barking and he might have to confront Neville perhaps with a shotgun trying to find out what the problem was. Jeremy would then have to take care of him and the rest of the family with his bunny-popper gun providing he got to it first. If he did manage to get to the gun first there would have been a complete uproar with Neville would have been crashing about trying to defend himself while he took the 8 low-calibre bullets that killed him. With all the time that would take it could have resulted in the twins as well as Sheila and June in hearing the uproar trying to escape down any one of the farmhouses 3 staircases trying to get out or find places to hide resulting in a fiasco. Unfortunately JB was apparently too stupid even to contemplate that on his way to the farmhouse on that ruinous night. He was to busy thinking the unthinkable, predicting the unpredictable and planning the unplannable in order to get the exact result needed, the staged suicide of Sheila.
Nah! Life doesn’t work like that. The case against JB is a stitch-up.
Hoots
I hope you don't mind me answering this.
Jeremy had no choice of weapon. He had to use what his father bought him and why would Nevill think he wanted a gun for anything other than shooting game?
It's one thing to say he could have planned it for a family gathering. Getting them all together for such an occasion is something else, especially in a fractured family. Besides which, he wanted it to appear as if Sheila had done it.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines with the benefit of hindsight and say what he should have planned for, but I'll guarantee that Jeremy BELIEVED he'd planned for every possibility and one of them WOULDN'T have been having to shoot Sheila twice.
-
Yes,I can see it.Sheila wouldn't do as she was told the first time to lie down flat, as it missed the spot. ::)
If the first shot had been a contact one,there'd have been no need for a second shot. Strewth,you couldn't be any nearer to have got an exact aim to the jugular ! I thought Jeremy was down as being a " crack-shot ?"
-
I hope you don't mind me answering this.
Jeremy had no choice of weapon. He had to use what his father bought him and why would Nevill think he wanted a gun for anything other than shooting game?
It's one thing to say he could have planned it for a family gathering. Getting them all together for such an occasion is something else, especially in a fractured family. Besides which, he wanted it to appear as if Sheila had done it.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines with the benefit of hindsight and say what he should have planned for, but I'll guarantee that Jeremy BELIEVED he'd planned for every possibility and one of them WOULDN'T have been having to shoot Sheila twice.
I'm not definite he planed to kill her with one shot, Jane. I think it's possible that he had to accept he may have had to shoot her twice possibly checking out the statistics but if he was the murderer of the 5 closest people in his family he was surely extremely disordered and because of that he would probably have been a risk taker and was happy to take the chance?? He was certainly very careless with the detail. :-\
-
I'm not definite he planed to kill her with one shot, Jane. I think it's possible that he had to accept he may have had to shoot her twice possibly checking out the statistics but if he was the murderer of the 5 closest people in his family he was surely extremely disordered and because of that he would probably have been a risk taker and was happy to take the chance?? He was certainly very careless with the detail. :-\
Well, if we're frank, Maggie, it would have been so much more simple to have placed the barrel in her mouth but the one thing he wouldn't have been able to force her to do was open her mouth. Had she, I don't imagine a second shot would have been necessary.
-
Yes,I can see it.Sheila wouldn't do as she was told the first time to lie down flat, as it missed the spot. ::)
If the first shot had been a contact one,there'd have been no need for a second shot. Strewth,you couldn't be any nearer to have got an exact aim to the jugular ! I thought Jeremy was down as being a " crack-shot ?"
Hi Lookout, I don't believe Sheila had to lie down flat for the first shot. Far more likely she was threatened while sitting with the gun held close to her neck and was shot before she was aware what was happening, the first shot always had to be quick before she had a chance to fight back even if it didn't kill her. She probably then fell sideways but was moved into position for the second more conclusive and obvious suicidal shot. I don't believe for one minute that Sheila would have lamely laid down and let anyone shoot her, think she was taken by surprise.
If she had shot herself it's more likely she would have lain in a semi conscious position until she faded away and died rather than pick up that rifle and get into a really difficult position to shoot herself again, think if she had tried to shoot herself again she would possibly have failed again because the position she needed to get into to succeed was very difficult, particularly considering the state she must have been in.
I know I have argued from the other side but that doesn't make sense to me anymore, I'm afraid. :'(
-
Hi Lookout, I don't believe Sheila had to lie down flat for the first shot. Far more likely she was threatened while sitting with the gun held close to her neck and was shot before she was aware what was happening, the first shot always had to be quick before she had a chance to fight back even if it didn't kill her. She probably then fell sideways but was moved into position for the second more conclusive and obvious suicidal shot. I don't believe for one minute that Sheila would have lamely laid down and let anyone shoot her, think she was taken by surprise.
If she had shot herself it's more likely she would have lain in a semi conscious position until she faded away and died rather than pick up that rifle and get into a really difficult position to shoot herself again, think if she had tried to shoot herself again she would possibly have failed to kill herself again because the position she needed to get into to succeed was very difficult, particularly the state she must have been in.
I know I have argued from the other side but that doesn't make sense to me anymore, I'm afraid. :'(
I don't believe that Sheila lay down for that first shot either. I've always held on to the idea that during the time her father grappled with her to retrieve the rifle,it went off accidentally at the angle in which one would hold their head to avoid being shot in the face while the thing wavered about. Though to my mind,it happened in the kitchen and realistically there was no way that Sheila could have got up 3 flights of stairs as that shot would have left her semi-concious.
-
I don't believe that Sheila lay down for that first shot either. I've always held on to the idea that during the time her father grappled with her to retrieve the rifle,it went off accidentally at the angle in which one would hold their head to avoid being shot in the face while the thing wavered about. Though to my mind,it happened in the kitchen and realistically there was no way that Sheila could have got up 3 flights of stairs as that shot would have left her semi-concious.
The problem is if Sheila was badly injured in that way how did Nevill come to be dead as well and who killed him?
-
Hi Lookout, I don't believe Sheila had to lie down flat for the first shot. Far more likely she was threatened while sitting with the gun held close to her neck and was shot before she was aware what was happening, the first shot always had to be quick before she had a chance to fight back even if it didn't kill her. She probably then fell sideways but was moved into position for the second more conclusive and obvious suicidal shot. I don't believe for one minute that Sheila would have lamely laid down and let anyone shoot her, think she was taken by surprise.
If she had shot herself it's more likely she would have lain in a semi conscious position until she faded away and died rather than pick up that rifle and get into a really difficult position to shoot herself again, think if she had tried to shoot herself again she would possibly have failed to kill herself again because the position she needed to get into to succeed was very difficult, particularly the state she must have been in.
I know I have argued from the other side but that doesn't make sense to me anymore, I'm afraid. :'(
Maggie, we've had posters talking about her taking a second shot, posters talking about her walking upstairs and whilst I've been told about chicken running around without their heads, I'm damned if I can believe that Sheila was capable of A) shooting herself twice or B) running around all over the house after the shooting herself/being shot in the neck.
-
Maggie, we've had posters talking about her taking a second shot, posters talking about her walking upstairs and whilst I've been told about chicken running around without their heads, I'm damned if I can believe that Sheila was capable of A) shooting herself twice or B) running around all over the house after the shooting herself/being shot in the neck.
I don't believe she moved round the house although I could see she may have been able to reach out for the rifle if it had fallen within reach and shoot herself again this time from a different and more effective angle but it is clutching at straws, I think. :-\
-
I don't believe that Sheila lay down for that first shot either. I've always held on to the idea that during the time her father grappled with her to retrieve the rifle,it went off accidentally at the angle in which one would hold their head to avoid being shot in the face while the thing wavered about. Though to my mind,it happened in the kitchen and realistically there was no way that Sheila could have got up 3 flights of stairs as that shot would have left her semi-concious.
If she'd been close enough to Nevill for him to grapple with the gun, the barrel would have been too long to shoot her in the neck. Even if he had managed it, how, with that sort of injury, did she manage to shoot him and beat him to death.
-
I don't believe she moved round the house although I could see she may have been able to reach out for the rifle if it had fallen within reach and shoot herself again this time from a different and more effective angle but it is clutching at straws, I think. :-\
It is, rather 8) ^-^
-
Hi Caroline
OK. So the last thing I said was that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, you also mentioned that “The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened”. If Jeremy or anyone else decides that they are going to massacre their family then planning is going to come into the equation.
The first thing that worries me is the calibre of the gun or at least it’s efficiency as a killing weapon. As far as I know Neville was hit 8 times, June was hit 7, Daniel5 times and Nicholas 3 times (Wikipedia source). There were over 30 cartridges spent as I understand it. The gun was of low calibre and completely inefficient for the task. It may be effective in killing rats, bunnies and foxes but Jeremy must have known the gun was not the weapon of choice. IMO Jeremy would not take that risk or make that mistake.
If Jeremy was to kill his family he would have certainly have acquired a heavier calibre gun to dispatch the family when they are all in the same room perhaps when having lunch or having a family get-together such as a birthday or anniversary, that way there is a lot less risk. For Jeremy’s plan to work either way it would have to include one absolutely crucial outcome which was to make it appear that the murder of Sheila would look like suicide. It would have been out of the question to stage the suicide with Neville or June since they would have no motive to murder or suicide. So Jeremy would have had to predict the unpredictable and rely on his paranoid schizophrenic sister who was capable of anything on a night that absolutely anything could have happened to be absolutely compliant and to act exactly according to his plan of action.
So while Jeremy was walking towards the farmhouse that night he would have known that the only way that he was not going to be convicted for murder would be for the above staged suicide scenario to be an absolute certainty, if not there would be no way he would avoid arrest and subsequent charges. He might have considered the possibility that his climbing through the window would set the dog barking and he might have to confront Neville perhaps with a shotgun trying to find out what the problem was. Jeremy would then have to take care of him and the rest of the family with his bunny-popper gun providing he got to it first. If he did manage to get to the gun first there would have been a complete uproar with Neville would have been crashing about trying to defend himself while he took the 8 low-calibre bullets that killed him. With all the time that would take it could have resulted in the twins as well as Sheila and June in hearing the uproar trying to escape down any one of the farmhouses 3 staircases trying to get out or find places to hide resulting in a fiasco. Unfortunately JB was apparently too stupid even to contemplate that on his way to the farmhouse on that ruinous night. He was to busy thinking the unthinkable, predicting the unpredictable and planning the unplannable in order to get the exact result needed, the staged suicide of Sheila.
Nah! Life doesn’t work like that. The case against JB is a stitch-up.
Hoots
The whole rationale for the murders was that Sheila had seen him loading the "bunny-popper" and this had set machinations whirring inside her brain. The lame excuse "Well I didn't know what would happen,did I?" is Jeremy's black humour rising to the surface and speaks volumes. He doesn't need to flap around looking for the rifle as he has concealed it somewhere on the Farm premises shortly before he leaves,with no living witnesses to contest his story. He had the occasion to witness the sleeping arrangements and Sheila's demeanour from the Sunday night, and of course viewing her on her last visit to the Farm in June of that year he knew how fragile she was. He had been in and out of the Farm via windows many times before("secure windows,insecure windows..it makes no difference") and a dog which recognizes the smell of an intruder is unlikely to bark.
The alibi came from the purported telephone call which Jeremy made from the Farm to his answerphone at Goldhanger,which would be registered as well as on the office telephone,which had a last number redial facility. Nevill had been ill and was described as a shadow of his former self by Barbara Wilson,June and the twins were sitting ducks and Sheila would be awoken from a deep sleep,overdosed as she was on Haloperidol.
The final irony was pulling Sheila by the legs to check whether she was dead,revenge for the same treatment she had given him when she wakened her brother all those years ago on Christmas morning and they proceeded downstairs to the tree,bedecked with parcels and sweetmeats, which they gorged together,in that convivial alienation which was White House Farm.
-
If she'd been close enough to Nevill for him to grapple with the gun, the barrel would have been too long to shoot her in the neck. Even if he had managed it, how, with that sort of injury, did she manage to shoot him and beat him to death.
Not if Sheila had had hold of the barrel and Neville the butt,because that first shot wasn't a contact one.
I'd have imagined at that stage that poor Neville was literally on his last and possibly unaware of the carnage upstairs.
Don't forget that all occupants suffered extra shots when they were already dead,hence all the bullets which had been used. Neville would have died shortly after the struggle.
-
I hope you don't mind me answering this.
Jeremy had no choice of weapon. He had to use what his father bought him and why would Nevill think he wanted a gun for anything other than shooting game?
It's one thing to say he could have planned it for a family gathering. Getting them all together for such an occasion is something else, especially in a fractured family. Besides which, he wanted it to appear as if Sheila had done it.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines with the benefit of hindsight and say what he should have planned for, but I'll guarantee that Jeremy BELIEVED he'd planned for every possibility and one of them WOULDN'T have been having to shoot Sheila twice.
Jeremy did have a choice of weapon. It could have easily been a shotgun.
-
Jeremy did have a choice of weapon. It could have easily been a shotgun.
But it wasn't a shotgun he was seen trying to teach Sheila how to use.
-
Not if Sheila had had hold of the barrel and Neville the butt,because that first shot wasn't a contact one.
I'd have imagined at that stage that poor Neville was literally on his last and possibly unaware of the carnage upstairs.
Don't forget that all occupants suffered extra shots when they were already dead,hence all the bullets which had been used. Neville would have died shortly after the struggle.
He would NEVER have made any form of defensive action with those appalling head wound and they weren't done post mortem.
-
He would NEVER have made any form of defensive action with those appalling head wound and they weren't done post mortem.
Neither would Jeremy have left there unscathed if he'd been the killer. Man to man as opposed to father and daughter and this was why Sheila showed no signs of a struggle,apart from perhaps her mother who'd grabbed Sheila's arm which left their mark.
-
Jeremy did have a choice of weapon. It could have easily been a shotgun.
He did have a choice, that's true lebaleb but a shotgun is so loud it probably would have alerted the Foakes' in the farm cottages and even further afield. Someone needing to do the job quietly and needing to avoid discovery and make their escape would not choose the easy option of the shotgun.
Imo it was necessary the rifle was chosen for the particular reason that it was quiet therefore not only was it less likely to disturb his victims but also it would not be heard outside the house.
Think weighing up the options the killer thought this reason outweighed the shotgun option even though it had it's own risks ie. It was harder to kill people if they were disturbed.
-
Neither would Jeremy have left there unscathed if he'd been the killer. Man to man as opposed to father and daughter and this was why Sheila showed no signs of a struggle,apart from perhaps her mother who'd grabbed Sheila's arm which left their mark.
There is no proof he wasn't. No one checked.
-
There is no proof he wasn't. No one checked.
JM would have seen bruises,etc on his body as she was the only one who saw him undressed. Don't worry,AP had reported seeing " burn marks " on one of Jeremy's hands to which were then inspected by EP even at the suggestion of an infra-red instrument but in the end,the so-called marks amounted to nothing because they weren't there.
Shows how desperate everyone was ! Pity the pathologists weren't as thorough.
-
There is no proof he wasn't. No one checked.
It's often argued and I have said it myself that Julie Mugford didn't mention seeing any injuries on JB but I am looking at it from a different angle now and I wonder.......
She had enough information as a witness without incriminating herself by stating she saw such injuries when she slept with him after the murders eventhough she claimed she 'suspected' him of carrying it out.
It makes me feel ill thinking about the fact she did this and I'm sure the jury would have felt similar as her behaviour was outrageous imo. It certainly wouldn't have sounded good or made a good impression of her integrity on the witness stand.
I have serious doubts about JMs involvement in all this, I'm afraid, although I'm not making any accusations, just wonder. :-\ :-\
-
So far as I'm concerned there'd been no plan at all,least of all on Jeremy's part as Neville would well and truly have been killed first. As for pitting strength against father and son,the father would have won.
What I've gathered from this tragedy is that it was a very frenzied attack carried out " at the moment ".
-
It's often argued and I have said it myself that Julie Mugford didn't mention seeing any injuries on JB but I am looking at it from a different angle now and I wonder.......
She had enough information as a witness without incriminating herself by stating she saw such injuries when she slept with him after the murders eventhough she claimed she 'suspected' him of carrying it out.
It makes me feel ill thinking about the fact she did this and I'm sure the jury would have felt similar as her behaviour was outrageous imo. It certainly wouldn't have sounded good or made a good impression of her integrity on the witness stand.
I have serious doubts about JMs involvement in all this, I'm afraid, although I'm not making any accusations, just wonder. :-\ :-\
Maggie that is a good point and I do believe she was involved and grassed him up to save herself and this is why he has said little or nothing about her he would incriminate himself.
-
He did have a choice, that's true lebaleb but a shotgun is so loud it probably would have alerted the Foakes' in the farm cottages and even further afield. Someone needing to do the job quietly and needing to avoid discovery and make their escape would not choose the easy option of the shotgun.
Imo it was necessary the rifle was chosen for the particular reason that it was quiet therefore not only was it less likely to disturb his victims but also it would not be heard outside the house.
Think weighing up the options the killer thought this reason outweighed the shotgun option even though it had it's own risks ie. It was harder to kill people if they were disturbed.
Maggie I guess in order to make it look like Sheila had carried out the killings a rifle would look more convincing than the shot gun especially with the overkill.
-
JM would have seen bruises,etc on his body as she was the only one who saw him undressed. Don't worry,AP had reported seeing " burn marks " on one of Jeremy's hands to which were then inspected by EP even at the suggestion of an infra-red instrument but in the end,the so-called marks amounted to nothing because they weren't there.
Shows how desperate everyone was ! Pity the pathologists weren't as thorough.
Julie was an intelligent girl. There was no way on God's earth that she'd have admitted -a month on- that she'd seen injuries on Jeremy after the massacre. She wouldn't have made obvious her prior knowledge of what had occurred.
-
He did have a choice, that's true lebaleb but a shotgun is so loud it probably would have alerted the Foakes' in the farm cottages and even further afield. Someone needing to do the job quietly and needing to avoid discovery and make their escape would not choose the easy option of the shotgun.
Imo it was necessary the rifle was chosen for the particular reason that it was quiet therefore not only was it less likely to disturb his victims but also it would not be heard outside the house.
Think weighing up the options the killer thought this reason outweighed the shotgun option even though it had it's own risks ie. It was harder to kill people if they were disturbed.
And how many of us believe Sheila capable of weighing up those options?
-
It's often argued and I have said it myself that Julie Mugford didn't mention seeing any injuries on JB but I am looking at it from a different angle now and I wonder.......
She had enough information as a witness without incriminating herself by stating she saw such injuries when she slept with him after the murders eventhough she claimed she 'suspected' him of carrying it out.
It makes me feel ill thinking about the fact she did this and I'm sure the jury would have felt similar as her behaviour was outrageous imo. It certainly wouldn't have sounded good or made a good impression of her integrity on the witness stand.
I have serious doubts about JMs involvement in all this, I'm afraid, although I'm not making any accusations, just wonder. :-\ :-\
So there is a distinct possibility that Julie saw injuries on Jeremy, but at the time there was still the "carrot" on the horizon, of her becoming the next Mrs Bamber, so she said nothing -although she COULD have said something there and then, saving both police time and tax-payer money. One month on, it would have looked fishy if she said anything. "I forgot to mention it" simply wouldn't have cut the mustard.
-
Julie was an intelligent girl. There was no way on God's earth that she'd have admitted -a month on- that she'd seen injuries on Jeremy after the massacre. She wouldn't have made obvious her prior knowledge of what had occurred.
Circumstantial evidence was still flowing after a month so why should what JM had to say make any difference ? Don't forget a " case was being put together " so there'd be no stone left unturned whatever it could have been.
-
Circumstantial evidence was still flowing after a month so why should what JM had to say make any difference ? Don't forget a " case was being put together " so there'd be no stone left unturned whatever it could have been.
But you're viewing it from 30 years on, NOT from the viewpoint of a 21 year old who may have been concerned with staying OUT of a hole before she was in it and needed to dig herself out.
-
But you're viewing it from 30 years on, NOT from the viewpoint of a 21 year old who may have been concerned with staying OUT of a hole before she was in it and needed to dig herself out.
Aren't we all viewing it from 30 years on ? She'd already dug herself a hole. What would have been more important-------reporting a " potential murderer " or being scared about how YOU would fare given your own background of crime ?
It was a question of self-preservation along with some help regarding the law and the fact that S Jones NEEDED her as a prosecution witness,and if her friend hadn't been the first to tell the police,JM wouldn't have bothered at all because she knew in her own heart and mind that he wasn't the killer.
So having been a "vulnerable" 21 year old it works both ways.
-
Aren't we all viewing it from 30 years on ? She'd already dug herself a hole. What would have been more important-------reporting a " potential murderer " or being scared about how YOU would fare given your own background of crime ?
It was a question of self-preservation along with some help regarding the law and the fact that S Jones NEEDED her as a prosecution witness,and if her friend hadn't been the first to tell the police,JM wouldn't have bothered at all because she knew in her own heart and mind that he wasn't the killer.
So having been a "vulnerable" 21 year old it works both ways.
Sounds like killing two birds with one stone, to me.
-
Sounds like killing two birds with one stone, to me.
JM must have suffered a certain amount of confusion at the time. Her being pressed to give evidence which was then twisted beyond all recognition by the law enforcers because this is what they do purposely to get you confused. Then the influence ( she was only 21 don't forget ! ) and to be influenced by a team of police she'd have thought they must be right in what they say,they're the law.
After 32 interviews she'd have come more accustomed to the ways of the law,but she was also in the situation of abiding by whatever they said and had felt OBLIGED to given the reward at the end of it all because as I've said before that only for USING JM,EP had nothing else to go on. EP did use her there's no doubt about that.
To make the situation feel more authentic they,EP,even offered JM a " safe-house " which is only done in exceptionally dangerous circumstances when a person's life is at risk. It all added to their carefully thought of plan !
-
I would like to add that of those posters who think he is innocent not all believe the call from Neville to the police happened or that Jeremy was framed.
If Jeremy is innocent he does not know if the call happened or not.
I think at the point of the investigation being changed the police believed it was murder suicide - but they did not have proof either way so had not choice but to go with the flow on the pressure being put on them.
One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.
Why on earth would she say that? She of all people must KNOW he is guilty.
Same as Bews - he thinks he is guilty?
A lot of people who should know the truth seem to be covering their backs.
Because perhaps she knows the silencer is dodgy evidence.
-
He did have a choice, that's true lebaleb but a shotgun is so loud it probably would have alerted the Foakes' in the farm cottages and even further afield. Someone needing to do the job quietly and needing to avoid discovery and make their escape would not choose the easy option of the shotgun.
Imo it was necessary the rifle was chosen for the particular reason that it was quiet therefore not only was it less likely to disturb his victims but also it would not be heard outside the house.
Think weighing up the options the killer thought this reason outweighed the shotgun option even though it had it's own risks ie. It was harder to kill people if they were disturbed.
That seems to be offering one bad choice for another. Why would there be any urgency? The guns at the farm weren't the only options available to Jeremy. He may have been able to procure a more adequate gun through farm connections or through a magazine on a false name etc. He still had to predict the unpredictable with the staged suicide of Sheila who was capable of anything on that night or face an certain life sentence. Only an idiot would take the risk and JB was no idiot, that's why he didn't do it IMO.
Hoots
Hoots!
-
JM must have suffered a certain amount of confusion at the time. Her being pressed to give evidence which was then twisted beyond all recognition by the law enforcers because this is what they do purposely to get you confused. Then the influence ( she was only 21 don't forget ! ) and to be influenced by a team of police she'd have thought they must be right in what they say,they're the law.
After 32 interviews she'd have come more accustomed to the ways of the law,but she was also in the situation of abiding by whatever they said and had felt OBLIGED to given the reward at the end of it all because as I've said before that only for USING JM,EP had nothing else to go on. EP did use her there's no doubt about that.
To make the situation feel more authentic they,EP,even offered JM a " safe-house " which is only done in exceptionally dangerous circumstances when a person's life is at risk. It all added to their carefully thought of plan !
I imagine she must have suffered rather more than "a certain amount of confusion." She was the holder of this terrible secret but there seemed little she could contribute which was first hand. Most of what she knew had been told her by Jeremy -if he was having a laugh at her expense it certainly backfired on him- and he'd told her she wouldn't be believed. I imagine that once the relief of sharing what she knew was over, there came the problem of her friends telling her she should go to the police.
I think the notion of a "safe house" is something which has become embellished.
-
JM must have suffered a certain amount of confusion at the time. Her being pressed to give evidence which was then twisted beyond all recognition by the law enforcers because this is what they do purposely to get you confused. Then the influence ( she was only 21 don't forget ! ) and to be influenced by a team of police she'd have thought they must be right in what they say,they're the law.
After 32 interviews she'd have come more accustomed to the ways of the law,but she was also in the situation of abiding by whatever they said and had felt OBLIGED to given the reward at the end of it all because as I've said before that only for USING JM,EP had nothing else to go on. EP did use her there's no doubt about that.
To make the situation feel more authentic they,EP,even offered JM a " safe-house " which is only done in exceptionally dangerous circumstances when a person's life is at risk. It all added to their carefully thought of plan !
The moral being that it was EP who'd had a plan-------------not Jeremy !
-
Hi Caroline
OK. So the last thing I said was that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, you also mentioned that “The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened”. If Jeremy or anyone else decides that they are going to massacre their family then planning is going to come into the equation.
The first thing that worries me is the calibre of the gun or at least it’s efficiency as a killing weapon. As far as I know Neville was hit 8 times, June was hit 7, Daniel5 times and Nicholas 3 times (Wikipedia source). There were over 30 cartridges spent as I understand it. The gun was of low calibre and completely inefficient for the task. It may be effective in killing rats, bunnies and foxes but Jeremy must have known the gun was not the weapon of choice. IMO Jeremy would not take that risk or make that mistake.
If Jeremy was to kill his family he would have certainly have acquired a heavier calibre gun to dispatch the family when they are all in the same room perhaps when having lunch or having a family get-together such as a birthday or anniversary, that way there is a lot less risk. For Jeremy’s plan to work either way it would have to include one absolutely crucial outcome which was to make it appear that the murder of Sheila would look like suicide. It would have been out of the question to stage the suicide with Neville or June since they would have no motive to murder or suicide. So Jeremy would have had to predict the unpredictable and rely on his paranoid schizophrenic sister who was capable of anything on a night that absolutely anything could have happened to be absolutely compliant and to act exactly according to his plan of action.
So while Jeremy was walking towards the farmhouse that night he would have known that the only way that he was not going to be convicted for murder would be for the above staged suicide scenario to be an absolute certainty, if not there would be no way he would avoid arrest and subsequent charges. He might have considered the possibility that his climbing through the window would set the dog barking and he might have to confront Neville perhaps with a shotgun trying to find out what the problem was. Jeremy would then have to take care of him and the rest of the family with his bunny-popper gun providing he got to it first. If he did manage to get to the gun first there would have been a complete uproar with Neville would have been crashing about trying to defend himself while he took the 8 low-calibre bullets that killed him. With all the time that would take it could have resulted in the twins as well as Sheila and June in hearing the uproar trying to escape down any one of the farmhouses 3 staircases trying to get out or find places to hide resulting in a fiasco. Unfortunately JB was apparently too stupid even to contemplate that on his way to the farmhouse on that ruinous night. He was to busy thinking the unthinkable, predicting the unpredictable and planning the unplannable in order to get the exact result needed, the staged suicide of Sheila.
Nah! Life doesn’t work like that. The case against JB is a stitch-up.
Hoots
Hi Tom,
Couple of things for you to consider - the upstairs door that led to the other stairs was locked so there was only one exit stairs from the bedroom side of the house and Jeremy did enquire about a higher calibre rifle. He asked Peter Eaton about buying a high powered automatic (of some description) with the excuse that he wanted to take up hunting. He was told that such a weapon wasn't sportsman like. ;) -I agree that he was stitched up but by his own arrogance.
You still didn't answer why EP would frame Jeremy Bamber when they had a perfectly straight forward conclusion with Sheila as the killer. Nor when they decided to frame him?
-
I imagine she must have suffered rather more than "a certain amount of confusion." She was the holder of this terrible secret but there seemed little she could contribute which was first hand. Most of what she knew had been told her by Jeremy -if he was having a laugh at her expense it certainly backfired on him- and he'd told her she wouldn't be believed. I imagine that once the relief of sharing what she knew was over, there came the problem of her friends telling her she should go to the police.
I think the notion of a "safe house" is something which has become embellished.
Her secret was knowing that Jeremy didn't do it but she was in too deep to retract any of her phony statements,of which there are 30 which we haven't seen.
Write to Bambergate and find out whether her testimony was dodgy or not.
-
Her secret was knowing that Jeremy didn't do it but she was in too deep to retract any of her phony statements,of which there are 30 which we haven't seen.
Write to Bambergate and find out whether her testimony was dodgy or not.
The majority don't share your opinion, Lookout and I guess "dodgy" will only be apparent to those who think Jeremy is innocent.
-
The majority don't share your opinion, Lookout and I guess "dodgy" will only be apparent to those who think Jeremy is innocent.
Bambergate is in the " know ".
-
Bambergate is in the " know ".
Dependent, I think, on "which side one bats for"?
-
Dependent, I think, on "which side one bats for"?
He's done a lot of " personal " research before committing himslf,so it wasn't always a case of which side.
-
He's done a lot of " personal " research before committing himslf,so it wasn't always a case of which side.
We all have.
-
We all have.
Not on as personal a level as Bambergate though.
-
He's done a lot of " personal " research before committing himslf,so it wasn't always a case of which side.
Lookout, he's as entitled to his own opinion as are the rest of us, many of us having also done "personal" research.
-
Truth is although we have amountain of documents to read we still do not have the trial transcript or all of jms testimony and probably a lot more. Therefore how can any of us really make an informed decision.
-
Truth is although we have amountain of documents to read we still do not have the trial transcript or all of jms testimony and probably a lot more. Therefore how can any of us really make an informed decision.
But we DO know, regardless of our personal feelings re the trial transcript, that the jury found Jeremy guilty.
-
That seems to be offering one bad choice for another. Why would there be any urgency? The guns at the farm weren't the only options available to Jeremy. He may have been able to procure a more adequate gun through farm connections or through a magazine on a false name etc. He still had to predict the unpredictable with the staged suicide of Sheila who was capable of anything on that night or face an certain life sentence. Only an idiot would take the risk and JB was no idiot, that's why he didn't do it IMO.
Hoots
Hoots!
I agree there was an element of risk in any scenario, even buying a gun under a different name etc. has risks and after such a crime could have possibly been traceable. If JB carried out this crime to my mind he must be disordered ie highly narcissistic and psychopathic, APD or the like. People suffering from these disorders don't fear risk, in fact they are risk takers and enjoy it believing they are so clever and invincible they will not be caught.
-
Hi Tom,
Couple of things for you to consider - the upstairs door that led to the other stairs was locked so there was only one exit stairs from the bedroom side of the house and Jeremy did enquire about a higher calibre rifle. He asked Peter Eaton about buying a high powered automatic (of some description) with the excuse that he wanted to take up hunting. He was told that such a weapon wasn't sportsman like. ;) -I agree that he was stitched up but by his own arrogance.
You still didn't answer why EP would frame Jeremy Bamber when they had a perfectly straight forward conclusion with Sheila as the killer. Nor when they decided to frame him?
Hi Caroline
That’s a good post. First of all if what you say is true and we only would have Peter Eaton’s word for it. If Jeremy wanted to purchase a high powered rifle specifically for the purpose of blasting his family into oblivion then he’s hardly likely to tell close friends or relatives about it since the rifle would easily be traced to him. Did Peter Eaton ask Jeremy what he was going to hunt if he was so suspicious? Your points about framing have me stymied I must admit but since I can only reiterate that the reasoning for Jeremy planning a murder that had to result in the staged suicide of Sheila when she was capable of anything on a night that anything could have happened leads me to believe that Jeremy would not have even contemplated carrying out the murders even if he harboured motives to do so. The other reason that has me concluding that Jeremy was framed is that there are multiple instances and compelling evidence of the cops lying or withholding information. This was only evident when Jeremy came into the picture as a suspect.
You mentioned the upstairs door being locked. Did anyone know where the key was or was it locked permanently with no key available? Perhaps you would like to explain to me why JB would risk a very probable life sentence to stage the suicide of Sheila as the only alternative on a night when such an outcome would be remote.
-
But we DO know, regardless of our personal feelings re the trial transcript, that the jury found Jeremy guilty.
C'mon Jane,the jury aren't the be all and end all. They're all fallible at some time. You've only to look up the list of MOJ's------------- partly brought about by the jury teams.
-
I agree there was an element of risk in any scenario, even buying a gun under a different name etc. has risks and after such a crime could have possibly been traceable. If JB carried out this crime to my mind he must be disordered ie highly narcissistic and psychopathic, APD or the like. People suffering from these disorders don't fear risk, in fact they are risk takers and enjoy it believing they are so clever and invincible they will not be caught.
Maggie I agree Jeremy would enjoy taking risks he would consider himself superior to others due to his arrogant nature.
-
In Jeremy's case half the paperwork was missing which left the defence with one hand tied behind their backs.
Probably the contents of the missing paperwork told a different story,something we've yet to find out.
-
That seems to be offering one bad choice for another. Why would there be any urgency? The guns at the farm weren't the only options available to Jeremy. He may have been able to procure a more adequate gun through farm connections or through a magazine on a false name etc. He still had to predict the unpredictable with the staged suicide of Sheila who was capable of anything on that night or face an certain life sentence. Only an idiot would take the risk and JB was no idiot, that's why he didn't do it IMO.
Hoots
Hoots!
Hoots to you!! I have come to the conclusion that JB must be a risk taking idiot which makes me believe in spite of the façade he shows to the world that he has to be a psychopath or the like. I agree at the moment this cannot be proved therefore I am speculating just as you are.
I have spent 3 years reading documents and posts and gradually I have come to the conclusion that the reason there are so many blind allies is because he's guilty, once you accept that the answers are staring you in the face. For all that, I accept I may be wrong and am quite open to anything which may suggest innocence after all. So far you haven't said anything to make me reconsider....
-
Maggie I agree Jeremy would enjoy taking risks he would consider himself superior to others due to his arrogant nature.
I still find it hard to believe that someone who comes across as so affable and open is very possibly a cruel and callous murderer but I know he's not the first nor will he be the last good looking young guy or woman to use his charm and charisma to dupe people and ruin lives. :(
-
Hi Caroline
That’s a good post. First of all if what you say is true and we only would have Peter Eaton’s word for it. If Jeremy wanted to purchase a high powered rifle specifically for the purpose of blasting his family into oblivion then he’s hardly likely to tell close friends or relatives about it since the rifle would easily be traced to him. Did Peter Eaton ask Jeremy what he was going to hunt if he was so suspicious? Your points about framing have me stymied I must admit but since I can only reiterate that the reasoning for Jeremy planning a murder that had to result in the staged suicide of Sheila when she was capable of anything on a night that anything could have happened leads me to believe that Jeremy would not have even contemplated carrying out the murders even if he harboured motives to do so. The other reason that has me concluding that Jeremy was framed is that there are multiple instances and compelling evidence of the cops lying or withholding information. This was only evident when Jeremy came into the picture as a suspect.
You mentioned the upstairs door being locked. Did anyone know where the key was or was it locked permanently with no key available? Perhaps you would like to explain to me why JB would risk a very probable life sentence to stage the suicide of Sheila as the only alternative on a night when such an outcome would be remote.
May I ask. Did that gang spend forever planning to rob Hatton Garden vaults believing they were going to be caught? I don't think there's a criminal anywhere who, whilst knowing the risk is ever present, actually believes they'll be caught.
These murders were less about Sheila's eventual "suicide" than making it appear as if a deranged Sheila carried out the killings with a gun conveniently left in a prominent position.
There are NO valid reasons for the police framing Jeremy. There is no logic or reason for those who were first informed -West and Bonnet- to have withheld information from Jeremy re an alleged call from his father. There was no logic or reason for the police to hide that they'd -so we're told- shot Sheila. They were perfectly entitled to do so,in order to protect themselves, AND within the line of duty, if they'd considered her a threat.
-
C'mon Jane,the jury aren't the be all and end all. They're all fallible at some time. You've only to look up the list of MOJ's------------- partly brought about by the jury teams.
I don't make a song and dance about it, though, if I disagree with their findings. It was THEY, not I, who heard the evidence, and I can't start saying that every piece of evidence I disagree with is dodgy.
-
Not on as personal a level as Bambergate though.
How would you know what level of research anyone has done?
-
Hi Caroline
That’s a good post. First of all if what you say is true and we only would have Peter Eaton’s word for it. If Jeremy wanted to purchase a high powered rifle specifically for the purpose of blasting his family into oblivion then he’s hardly likely to tell close friends or relatives about it since the rifle would easily be traced to him. Did Peter Eaton ask Jeremy what he was going to hunt if he was so suspicious? Your points about framing have me stymied I must admit but since I can only reiterate that the reasoning for Jeremy planning a murder that had to result in the staged suicide of Sheila when she was capable of anything on a night that anything could have happened leads me to believe that Jeremy would not have even contemplated carrying out the murders even if he harboured motives to do so. The other reason that has me concluding that Jeremy was framed is that there are multiple instances and compelling evidence of the cops lying or withholding information. This was only evident when Jeremy came into the picture as a suspect.
You mentioned the upstairs door being locked. Did anyone know where the key was or was it locked permanently with no key available? Perhaps you would like to explain to me why JB would risk a very probable life sentence to stage the suicide of Sheila as the only alternative on a night when such an outcome would be remote.
I'll answer your post later - shattered after work but yes, I can answer your question :)
-
I still find it hard to believe that someone who comes across as so affable and open is very possibly a cruel and callous murderer but I know he's not the first nor will he be the last good looking young guy or woman to use his charm and charisma to dupe people and ruin lives. :(
Maggie when I see him I find it difficult to believe what he did and ask myself have I got it wrong but alas I think not.
-
I still find it hard to believe that someone who comes across as so affable and open is very possibly a cruel and callous murderer but I know he's not the first nor will he be the last good looking young guy or woman to use his charm and charisma to dupe people and ruin lives. :(
The very same things were said about Ted Bundy Maggie.
-
Maggie when I see him I find it difficult to believe what he did and ask myself have I got it wrong but alas I think not.
Think that is understandable Susie, we don't expect people we can relate to, who appear to be just like us, to have such a hidden, inner unacceptable and terrifying self but it happens more often than we like to believe, it's not that rare, we just prefer to think it is. :-\ :-\
-
The very same things were said about Ted Bundy Maggie.
I know, I do accept it but it takes a mind change and that can be difficult, not because you don't want to lose face or admit you were wrong but jst because we have to change our whole attitude. I'm not struggling, I do feel at the moment as things stand I am more right than wrong but it's weird at times, I always try to see the good in people but am afraid there's nothing good about someone who can do what he did.. ;D
-
Think that is understandable Susie, we don't expect people we can relate to, who appear to be just like us, to have such a hidden, inner unacceptable and terrifying self but it happens more often than we like to believe, it's not that rare, we just prefer to think it is. :-\ :-\
Jung was right. Our "shadow self" is ever present and part of who we are.
-
Jung was right. Our "shadow self" is ever present and part of who we are.
True, old Jung knew what he was talking about...... ;D ;D ;D
-
I know, I do accept it but it takes a mind change and that can be difficult, not because you don't want to lose face or admit you were wrong but jst because we have to change our whole attitude. I'm not struggling, I do feel at the moment as things stand I am more right than wrong but it's weird at times, I always try to see the good in people but am afraid there's nothing good about someone who can do what he did.. ;D
I've been around some VERY good people but also some VERY bad, I still like to see the good but accept that some people are only good for bad reasons.
-
I know, I do accept it but it takes a mind change and that can be difficult, not because you don't want to lose face or admit you were wrong but jst because we have to change our whole attitude. I'm not struggling, I do feel at the moment as things stand I am more right than wrong but it's weird at times, I always try to see the good in people but am afraid there's nothing good about someone who can do what he did.. ;D
Maggie, it may be that all of us who changed sides felt it was "weird at times" 'cos it WAS. I didn't care for the thought of being like those who were condemning Jeremy, but when everything was stripped away and the allowances I'd been making began to feel like excuses, all that was left was his guilt.
-
How would you know what level of research anyone has done?
Through contact.
-
I've been around some VERY good people but also some VERY bad, I still like to see the good but accept that some people are only good for bad reasons.
That is true.
-
Through contact.
You have had contact with him, but not with the rest of us!
-
Maggie, it may be that all of us who changed sides felt it was "weird at times" 'cos it WAS. I didn't care for the thought of being like those who were condemning Jeremy, but when everything was stripped away and the allowances I'd been making began to feel like excuses, all that was left was his guilt.
That's the nub of it 8)
I am not naive and acknowledge there is a fair amount of corruption in all areas of the establishment but I really struggle to believe someone could be in prison for 30 years with all the attention he has received, his continual assertion of innocence and all of his public support over those years without an appeal being granted if there was the slightest chance he may be an MOJ.
The fact this hasn't happened but rather his sentence has been increased is hardly convincing of innocence I'm afraid. :-\
But I am open to persuasion ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's the nub of it 8)
I am not naive and acknowledge there is a fair amount of corruption in all areas of the establishment but I really struggle to believe someone could be in prison for 30 years with all the attention he has received, his continual assertion of innocence and all of his public support over those years without an appeal being granted if there was the slightest chance he may be an MOJ.
The fact this hasn't happened but rather his sentence has been increased is hardly convincing of innocence I'm afraid. :-\
But I am open to persuasion ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maggie, then there are still the "facts" to consider. You know the ones I mean, don't you? All those "facts" -most saying scurrilous and unrepeatable things about the family- offered here, as proof of his innocence. Those pictures -God alone knows of whom- presented as being categoric proof that Jeremy couldn't have done it. Would it REALLY be so necessary to go to such underhand lengths if Jeremy was REALLY innocent?
-
I agree there was an element of risk in any scenario, even buying a gun under a different name etc. has risks and after such a crime could have possibly been traceable. If JB carried out this crime to my mind he must be disordered ie highly narcissistic and psychopathic, APD or the like. People suffering from these disorders don't fear risk, in fact they are risk takers and enjoy it believing they are so clever and invincible they will not be caught.
The risk in this case is overwhelming and any plan to kill the family would be unsustainable set against that backdrop according to reasonable doubt. If Jeremy had any psychological or personality defects it would have been highlighted before the trial or after it and would certainly be more evident in prison. If Jeremy couldn’t acquire a suitable weapon to carry out the crime then he doesn’t do it.
I am asking those who think that Jeremy is guilty to challenge their own thinking, see the crime through a different lens and put themselves in Jeremy’s shoes. I would like to see a plan of action and a narrative of the crime that results in the staged suicide of Sheila from the viewpoint that nothing yet has happened. I am challenging those to posters to get from point “a” to “z” taking into account honestly all the variables that could intervene in the plan and arriving at the intended outcome of the staged suicide of Sheila beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hoots!
-
The risk in this case is overwhelming and any plan to kill the family would be unsustainable set against that backdrop according to reasonable doubt. If Jeremy had any psychological or personality defects it would have been highlighted before the trial or after it and would certainly be more evident in prison. If Jeremy couldn’t acquire a suitable weapon to carry out the crime then he doesn’t do it.
I am asking those who think that Jeremy is guilty to challenge their own thinking, see the crime through a different lens and put themselves in Jeremy’s shoes. I would like to see a plan of action and a narrative of the crime that results in the staged suicide of Sheila from the viewpoint that nothing yet has happened. I am challenging those to posters to get from point “a” to “z” taking into account honestly all the variables that could intervene in the plan and arriving at the intended outcome of the staged suicide of Sheila beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hoots!
You may see the risks more clearly than Jeremy did. Psychopaths are risk takers because they have no fear. Therefore it's probably not possible for you to see it as Jeremy would have. I find condescending your request for us to challenge our thinking. There are numerous educated and thinking members here who have done precisely that..........................and find Jeremy guilty.
-
The risk in this case is overwhelming and any plan to kill the family would be unsustainable set against that backdrop according to reasonable doubt. If Jeremy had any psychological or personality defects it would have been highlighted before the trial or after it and would certainly be more evident in prison. If Jeremy couldn’t acquire a suitable weapon to carry out the crime then he doesn’t do it.
I am asking those who think that Jeremy is guilty to challenge their own thinking, see the crime through a different lens and put themselves in Jeremy’s shoes. I would like to see a plan of action and a narrative of the crime that results in the staged suicide of Sheila from the viewpoint that nothing yet has happened. I am challenging those to posters to get from point “a” to “z” taking into account honestly all the variables that could intervene in the plan and arriving at the intended outcome of the staged suicide of Sheila beyond reasonable doubt.
Hoots!
I believed JB innocent for 2 years then the past year I have come to realise this cannot be so and have had to change my stance.
No one can take into account all the variables in this crime as there are too many to mention. Anyway I don't do scenarios, to my mind they are guess work and prove nothing but I would be interested to hear your opinion of what you believe happened if you want to give it.
My mind is open to change and I am willing to consider any new scenarios supporting innocence but for the present at least I have to go with guilty for various reasons. I cannot excuse the 'dodgy' areas anymore, the facts which don't quite gel.
The bottom line is why did EP frame Jeremy Bamber? What were they covering up?
I don't go with the idea they shot Sheila and covered that up by accusing JB, why would they?
For a start they ran with the belief that Sheila did it and committed suicide so they already had a cover up if they believed they needed it. Why complicate a simple murder/suicide by suddenly accusing her brother of multiple murder causing an embarrassing and humiliating media frenzy all to cover up what? The only answer I have heard to this question is that the police shot Sheila on entry or at some other time.
I can see it is possible if Sheila was alive when they broke into the farmhouse that they may have shot her in panic, self defence or some other reason but as I've already said the suicide verdict would cover this up if it was necessary but why would it be necessary to cover up a raid team shooting of a violent P.S. who had killed both her children and her parents? There would be an internal investigation and the verdict would have been self defence or at worst accidental death or the like.
If I could find a convincing argument for a cover up I would climb back up on the fence but I can't for now, I have to stay on what feels like unfamiliar ground ie. accepting the status quo :'(
-
Hi Maggie. Because you've been unsure for quite a while now it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you say he's guilty. You're certainly entitled to the way you feel about it all and it won't be held against you.
To me,the whole scenario tells me that it's too obvious for him to be the killer.
-
He doesn't need to have been framed by the police, only by JM.
-
He doesn't need to have been framed by the police, only by JM.
JM didn't put blood in the silencer and hide it in the gun cupboard.
-
I believed JB innocent for 2 years then the past year I have come to realise this cannot be so and have had to change my stance.
No one can take into account all the variables in this crime as there are too many to mention. Anyway I don't do scenarios, to my mind they are guess work and prove nothing but I would be interested to hear your opinion of what you believe happened if you want to give it.
My mind is open to change and I am willing to consider any new scenarios supporting innocence but for the present at least I have to go with guilty for various reasons. I cannot excuse the 'dodgy' areas anymore, the facts which don't quite gel.
The bottom line is why did EP frame Jeremy Bamber? What were they covering up?
I don't go with the idea they shot Sheila and covered that up by accusing JB, why would they?
For a start they ran with the belief that Sheila did it and committed suicide so they already had a cover up if they believed they needed it. Why complicate a simple murder/suicide by suddenly accusing her brother of multiple murder causing an embarrassing and humiliating media frenzy all to cover up what? The only answer I have heard to this question is that the police shot Sheila on entry or at some other time.
I can see it is possible if Sheila was alive when they broke into the farmhouse that they may have shot her in panic, self defence or some other reason but as I've already said the suicide verdict would cover this up if it was necessary but why would it be necessary to cover up a raid team shooting of a violent P.S. who had killed both her children and her parents? There would be an internal investigation and the verdict would have been self defence or at worst accidental death or the like.
If I could find a convincing argument for a cover up I would climb back up on the fence but I can't for now, I have to stay on what feels like unfamiliar ground ie. accepting the status quo :'(
Excellent post Maggie and might I say ........ welcome to the dark side! ;) ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
JM didn't put blood in the silencer and hide it in the gun cupboard.
Neither did Jeremy.Better start looking for a pipette or medicine-dropper.
-
The risk in this case is overwhelming and any plan to kill the family would be unsustainable set against that backdrop according to reasonable doubt. If Jeremy had any psychological or personality defects it would have been highlighted before the trial or after it and would certainly be more evident in prison. If Jeremy couldn’t acquire a suitable weapon to carry out the crime then he doesn’t do it.
I am asking those who think that Jeremy is guilty to challenge their own thinking, see the crime through a different lens and put themselves in Jeremy’s shoes. I would like to see a plan of action and a narrative of the crime that results in the staged suicide of Sheila from the viewpoint that nothing yet has happened. I am challenging those to posters to get from point “a” to “z” taking into account honestly all the variables that could intervene in the plan and arriving at the intended outcome of the staged suicide of Sheila beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hoots!
Many of us have done this lots of times but when I get the time, I'll do it again. In the mean time you need to consider and account for why EP would fit up Jeremy Bamber because without a reason the whole notion of a fit up falls at the first hurdle - you haven't tackled the issue yet. You also need to consider when they decided to fit him up. Jeremy is relying on things like the logs that state 'two dead bodies in the kitchen. One dead male, one dead female'. So, if this was the case and if as suggested; Sheila wasn't dead and legged it upstairs, EP KNEW that Jeremy was innocent but framed him anyway - is that likely? Is it likely that Nevill called the police as is also suggested and that West wouldn't have mentioned to Jeremy that an incident at WHF had already been reported by his father? What reason would West have for not telling Jeremy that they were aware?
-
Neither did Jeremy.Better start looking for a pipette or medicine-dropper.
So EP and JM decided to frame JB at the same time but independently?
-
So EP and JM decided to frame JB at the same time but independently?
Did I mention framing ? Did I mention EP or JM ?
-
Did I mention framing ? Did I mention EP or JM ?
No you haven't nor did you give any explanation on how the blood got in the silencer. If he wasn't framed how did the blood get there?
-
Many of us have done this lots of times but when I get the time, I'll do it again. In the mean time you need to consider and account for why EP would fit up Jeremy Bamber because without a reason the whole notion of a fit up falls at the first hurdle - you haven't tackled the issue yet. You also need to consider when they decided to fit him up. Jeremy is relying on things like the logs that state 'two dead bodies in the kitchen. One dead male, one dead female'. So, if this was the case and if as suggested; Sheila wasn't dead and legged it upstairs, EP KNEW that Jeremy was innocent but framed him anyway - is that likely? Is it likely that Nevill called the police as is also suggested and that West wouldn't have mentioned to Jeremy that an incident at WHF had already been reported by his father? What reason would West have for not telling Jeremy that they were aware?
Hi Caroline
I don’t doubt what you say about people having theorised Jeremy’s involvement in the case. The problem is that forums are great for discussions but not for referencing. Does this forum have an affiliate website or wiki so that I can access the information? If not you could provide links to the previous discussions that you refer to.
I certainly take the rest of your post seriously. What I have learned about this case is sketchy and sporadic. The post I submitted previously, were made in 2013 so I’m going back a bit. The reason I pursued the issue of Jeremy having to predict the unpredictable and plan the unplannable with an infinite number of variables in order to get the most exacting of outcomes is because I believe that failure of a sustainable narrative in that respect undermines the whole pro-guilt argument and also makes irrelevant all the points you make. As far as I am concerned (at the moment) it’s a murder/suicide case with Jeremy being shoe-horned into a scenario that offers an easy way out for a jury.
I am reading the e-book on the case by Jeremy’s official website. However I want to consider both sides of the argument with an up-to-date pro-guilt version of events if one is available. Let me know if the one by Carol-Ann Lee is any good and advise me if anyone on this forum has reviewed it.
Hoots!
-
Hi Caroline
I don’t doubt what you say about people having theorised Jeremy’s involvement in the case. The problem is that forums are great for discussions but not for referencing. Does this forum have an affiliate website or wiki so that I can access the information? If not you could provide links to the previous discussions that you refer to.
I certainly take the rest of your post seriously. What I have learned about this case is sketchy and sporadic. The post I submitted previously, were made in 2013 so I’m going back a bit. The reason I pursued the issue of Jeremy having to predict the unpredictable and plan the unplannable with an infinite number of variables in order to get the most exacting of outcomes is because I believe that failure of a sustainable narrative in that respect undermines the whole pro-guilt argument and also makes irrelevant all the points you make. As far as I am concerned (at the moment) it’s a murder/suicide case with Jeremy being shoe-horned into a scenario that offers an easy way out for a jury.
I am reading the e-book on the case by Jeremy’s official website. However I want to consider both sides of the argument with an up-to-date pro-guilt version of events if one is available. Let me know if the one by Carol-Ann Lee is any good and advise me if anyone on this forum has reviewed it.
Hoots!
I read the ebook and give it a BIG THUMBS DOWN!
CAL's book is VERY GOOD.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'unplannable'? Clearly the plan was bad because he got caught - however, to go ahead with it, he simply had to believe it was workable. He knew the victims and I guess he planned around what he knew, or what he thought he knew. That with a mix of desperation and arrogance allowed him to believe he get away with it.
-
I read the ebook and give it a BIG THUMBS DOWN!
I thought you'd say that.
CAL's book is VERY GOOD.
I thought you'd say that.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'unplannable'? Clearly the plan was bad because he got caught - however, to go ahead with it, he simply had to believe it was workable. He knew the victims and I guess he planned around what he knew, or what he thought he knew. That with a mix of desperation and arrogance allowed him to believe he get away with it.
So what was the plan? No... I tell you what! I'll refer you to your previous post and leave that for you to consider as you said you would. In the meantime I'll go and read up on the books mentioned and I'll get back to you later....Much later.
Peace :)
Hoots!
-
You may see the risks more clearly than Jeremy did. Psychopaths are risk takers because they have no fear. Therefore it's probably not possible for you to see it as Jeremy would have. I find condescending your request for us to challenge our thinking. There are numerous educated and thinking members here who have done precisely that..........................and find Jeremy guilty.
I'd like to see the psychiatrist's report or at least a diagnosis for Jeremy's psychopathy, either in prison or before. I'm sorry that you find my request for you to challenge your thinking condecending. I am willing to go forth and challenge my own thinking if it makes you feel better if only someone would come up with Jeremy's theory of the crime and plan of action. ???
Peace
Hoots!
-
I'd like to see the psychiatrist's report or at least a diagnosis for Jeremy's psychopathy, either in prison or before. I'm sorry that you find my request for you to challenge your thinking condecending. I am willing to go forth and challenge my own thinking if it makes you feel better if only someone would come up with Jeremy's theory of the crime and plan of action. ???
Peace
Hoots!
It's OK Tom. I hold hold grudges ;) "Jeremy's theory of the crime and plan of action" was given by Julie and can be found in CAL's book which I can recommend. Much is made of Jeremy being regularly tested for psychopathy. I think the most he's given is the yearly "MOT" given to all prisoners. I'm not even certain that anyone would be too concerned about him being a psychopath any longer. As for a psych. report, I hazard a guess that it depends on who was the psychiatrist. Like doctors, they don't always agree with each other.
-
Hi Caroline
I don’t doubt what you say about people having theorised Jeremy’s involvement in the case. The problem is that forums are great for discussions but not for referencing. Does this forum have an affiliate website or wiki so that I can access the information? If not you could provide links to the previous discussions that you refer to.
I certainly take the rest of your post seriously. What I have learned about this case is sketchy and sporadic. The post I submitted previously, were made in 2013 so I’m going back a bit. The reason I pursued the issue of Jeremy having to predict the unpredictable and plan the unplannable with an infinite number of variables in order to get the most exacting of outcomes is because I believe that failure of a sustainable narrative in that respect undermines the whole pro-guilt argument and also makes irrelevant all the points you make. As far as I am concerned (at the moment) it’s a murder/suicide case with Jeremy being shoe-horned into a scenario that offers an easy way out for a jury.
I am reading the e-book on the case by Jeremy’s official website. However I want to consider both sides of the argument with an up-to-date pro-guilt version of events if one is available. Let me know if the one by Carol-Ann Lee is any good and advise me if anyone on this forum has reviewed it.
Hoots!
Killing parents is rare,as in the cases of David Bain,Martin Tankleff, the Menendez brothers and Ernest Scherer. I can only surmise that the status quo becomes so insufferable that doing away with them becomes an idée fixe and the lesser of two evils. Born into an alien environment where you have little in common with your parents may be the start of this process, and in Jeremy's case the double blow of being sent away at eight years old,the only justification for which being that your future life would be made materially comfortable,only to end up working twelve hour days on the tractor,which may have tipped the balance of his thinking. As he bounced ideas off an intelligent girlfriend he must over a period of time have come to think they were given a modicum of respectability,and with the aid of central nervous system stimulants he was able to commit the crime and revert back to normal thought processes,where he alone took precedence and outside interference was unwelcome if this criterion were not met.
-
I'd like to see the psychiatrist's report or at least a diagnosis for Jeremy's psychopathy, either in prison or before. I'm sorry that you find my request for you to challenge your thinking condecending. I am willing to go forth and challenge my own thinking if it makes you feel better if only someone would come up with Jeremy's theory of the crime and plan of action. ???
Peace
Hoots!
What does that mean? Jeremy planned to enter the farm in the dead of night and kill his family in order to inherit early. He pretended to receive a phone call from his father in order to distance himself from the incident and implicate his sister after he staged the crime scene to make it look as though she had 'gone crazy' with a gun he 'just happened' to have left out. 'What' he did while in the house and in what order, only he knows. How can anyone tell you 'Jeremy's theory'?
-
What does that mean? Jeremy planned to enter the farm in the dead of night and kill his family in order to inherit early. He pretended to receive a phone call from his father in order to distance himself from the incident and implicate his sister after he staged the crime scene to make it look as though she had 'gone crazy' with a gun he 'just happened' to have left out. 'What' he did while in the house and in what order, only he knows. How can anyone tell you 'Jeremy's theory'?
If that was his plan then he must be completely mad. Too many 'What if's...':
Somebody saw him on the road.
The dog barked and alerted Neville.
Someone heard him climbing through the window.
Someone was awake at WHF and called the police.
Neville had unloaded the gun and put it away.
He was overpowered by Neville.
Sheila locked herself [and her children] in the bathroom or another room.
Sheila refused to cooperate and allow herself to be shot.
He left a tiny amount of blood on the window, the bike, his clothes.
JM went to the police.
Et Al...
-
Killing parents is rare,as in the cases of David Bain,Martin Tankleff, the Menendez brothers and Ernest Scherer. I can only surmise that the status quo becomes so insufferable that doing away with them becomes an idée fixe and the lesser of two evils. Born into an alien environment where you have little in common with your parents may be the start of this process, and in Jeremy's case the double blow of being sent away at eight years old,the only justification for which being that your future life would be made materially comfortable,only to end up working twelve hour days on the tractor,which may have tipped the balance of his thinking. As he bounced ideas off an intelligent girlfriend he must over a period of time have come to think they were given a modicum of respectability,and with the aid of central nervous system stimulants he was able to commit the crime and revert back to normal thought processes,where he alone took precedence and outside interference was unwelcome if this criterion were not met.
Hi Steve
Food for thought.
Hoots!
Peace
-
If that was his plan then he must be completely mad. Too many 'What if's...':
Somebody saw him on the road.
The dog barked and alerted Neville.
Someone heard him climbing through the window.
Someone was awake at WHF and called the police.
Neville had unloaded the gun and put it away.
He was overpowered by Neville.
Sheila locked herself [and her children] in the bathroom or another room.
Sheila refused to cooperate and allow herself to be shot.
He left a tiny amount of blood on the window, the bike, his clothes.
JM went to the police.
Et Al...
Exactly!
Hoots!
Peace!
-
If that was his plan then he must be completely mad. Too many 'What if's...':
Somebody saw him on the road.
The dog barked and alerted Neville.
Someone heard him climbing through the window.
Someone was awake at WHF and called the police.
Neville had unloaded the gun and put it away.
He was overpowered by Neville.
Sheila locked herself [and her children] in the bathroom or another room.
Sheila refused to cooperate and allow herself to be shot.
He left a tiny amount of blood on the window, the bike, his clothes.
JM went to the police.
Et Al...
Jeremy obviously believed he could control anything that occurred. Did ANY of your concerns transpire?
-
'What' he did while in the house and in what order, only he knows. How can anyone tell you 'Jeremy's theory'?
You said you'd get back to me with this.
Peace
Hoots!
-
You said you'd get back to me with this.
Peace
Hoots!
Morning TomG.
Caroline has clearly answered your question yet you are choosing to ignore her answer suggesting she hasn't answered you? What's that all about?
-
If that was his plan then he must be completely mad. Too many 'What if's...': All crimes are 'what if's'
Somebody saw him on the road. - not if he went across the fields
The dog barked and alerted Neville. So what if he alerted Nevill? He'd have let him in! But why would the dogs bark? They knew Jeremy and they'd have smelled him before they saw him!
Someone heard him climbing through the window. Again, so what?
Someone was awake at WHF and called the police. Why would they call the police on Jeremy?
Neville had unloaded the gun and put it away. Jeremy didn't leave it on the settle in full view, he loaded it and put it somewhere out of sight!
He was overpowered by Neville. Nevill was 63, had chronic back pain and Jeremy was armed and could certainly move faster and he had the element of surprise!
Sheila locked herself [and her children] in the bathroom or another room. Every crime carries a risk but that's really not much of a one.
Sheila refused to cooperate and allow herself to be shot. I think he was a little cleverer than relying on her cooperation!
He left a tiny amount of blood on the window, the bike, his clothes. What difference would that make? His plan was to NOT be a suspect from the start and I don't think he used the bike!
JM went to the police. She did but he told her a C&B story which he thought would discredit her!
Et Al...
-
You said you'd get back to me with this.
Peace
Hoots!
I can get back to you with MY theory - not his, I'm not a mind reader.
-
Morning TomG.
Caroline has clearly answered your question yet you are choosing to ignore her answer suggesting she hasn't answered you? What's that all about?
Cheers Steph, I asked WHY and WHEN EP would want to frame Jeremy when they had a perfectly plausible ending to their investigation with the murder suicide outcome. Like many others, Tom can't answer either question.
-
Cheers Steph, I asked WHY and WHEN EP would want to frame Jeremy when they had a perfectly plausible ending to their investigation with the murder suicide outcome. Like many others, Tom can't answer either question.
I totally agree with you. Why would EP want to do that? What could they gain from framing him. Nothing! As already pointed out, it originally started out as a murder/suicide. If the police had accidentally shot anyone - which they hadn't - they could have left it at that.
The police clearly went after JB when they realised his behaviour wasn't that of a grieving son/brother and knew he was dangerous and needed taking off the streets.
I'm re-posting the first few paragraphs of his last blog to remind readers how sick he is:
"I wanted to write about what it’s been like having now spent thirty complete years in jail. A total of 10958 days (Including 8 added leap year days) give or take a few hours (8) on 29th September, equalling 263 thousand hours of wrongful imprisonment.
Looking at it like that makes it seem such a long time. No doubt it’s at least a third of my life. It feels so painful at times to know that I’ve let my mum and dad down so badly. Dad especially would be disappointed in me for having failed to prove my innocence and therefore cleared their names too within thirty years. “Thirty years Jem, you’ve had thirty years mate to sort this lot out”, his voice is still clear in my mind.
I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other ‘Mate’, it was an in joke between us. This began in 1980. Both dad and I enjoyed the movies and from the age of 12 onwards we’d quite often go to the cinema together. Once I’d learnt to drive and had my own car we’d go to the cinema a little less often as I used to like taking a friend instead. Bringing your dad along if you were hoping for a kiss and a cuddle just wasn’t cool, even I knew that. It sounds so corny thinking back that my taking a young lady to the pictures might have led to something more than friendship, but I had no idea how to do this dating malarkey way back then."
Look how in his opening couple of paras he 'plays the victim' in order to attempt to gain sympathy votes.
Then the comment about 'letting his mum & dad down so badly?' No mention of Sheila or the twins!
'Dad especially would be disappointed?' Why his dad more than his mum? If he were innocent, which he isn't - surely it would be equal - not one parent more than the other.
He's so dismissive of their deaths and by the next sentence he's making a joke of things....
Very telling imo.....
-
I totally agree with you. Why would EP want to do that? What could they gain from framing him. Nothing! As already pointed out, it originally started out as a murder/suicide. If the police had accidentally shot anyone - which they hadn't - they could have left it at that.
The police clearly went after JB when they realised his behaviour wasn't that of a grieving son/brother and knew he was dangerous and needed taking off the streets.
I'm re-posting the first few paragraphs of his last blog to remind readers how sick he is:
"I wanted to write about what it’s been like having now spent thirty complete years in jail. A total of 10958 days (Including 8 added leap year days) give or take a few hours (8) on 29th September, equalling 263 thousand hours of wrongful imprisonment.
Looking at it like that makes it seem such a long time. No doubt it’s at least a third of my life. It feels so painful at times to know that I’ve let my mum and dad down so badly. Dad especially would be disappointed in me for having failed to prove my innocence and therefore cleared their names too within thirty years. “Thirty years Jem, you’ve had thirty years mate to sort this lot out”, his voice is still clear in my mind.
I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other ‘Mate’, it was an in joke between us. This began in 1980. Both dad and I enjoyed the movies and from the age of 12 onwards we’d quite often go to the cinema together. Once I’d learnt to drive and had my own car we’d go to the cinema a little less often as I used to like taking a friend instead. Bringing your dad along if you were hoping for a kiss and a cuddle just wasn’t cool, even I knew that. It sounds so corny thinking back that my taking a young lady to the pictures might have led to something more than friendship, but I had no idea how to do this dating malarkey way back then."
Look how in his opening couple of paras he 'plays the victim' in order to attempt to gain sympathy votes.
Then the comment about 'letting his mum & dad down so badly?' No mention of Sheila. 'Dad especially would be disappointed?' Why his dad more than his mum? If he were innocent, which he isn't - surely it would be equal - not one parent more than the other.
He's so dismissive of their deaths and by the next sentence he's making a joke of things....
Very telling imo.....
Good post Steph - one other thing, he never mentions the twins! Also telling I think.
-
Good post Steph - one other thing, he never mentions the twins! Also telling I think.
Thanks Caroline - I'm going to edit my post. I totally missed that out and shouldn't have. So telling imo. What a sick and twisted individual he is!
-
Killing parents is rare,as in the cases of David Bain,Martin Tankleff, the Menendez brothers and Ernest Scherer. I can only surmise that the status quo becomes so insufferable that doing away with them becomes an idée fixe and the lesser of two evils. Born into an alien environment where you have little in common with your parents may be the start of this process, and in Jeremy's case the double blow of being sent away at eight years old,the only justification for which being that your future life would be made materially comfortable,only to end up working twelve hour days on the tractor,which may have tipped the balance of his thinking. As he bounced ideas off an intelligent girlfriend he must over a period of time have come to think they were given a modicum of respectability,and with the aid of central nervous system stimulants he was able to commit the crime and revert back to normal thought processes,where he alone took precedence and outside interference was unwelcome if this criterion were not met.
David Bain and Martin Tankleff are innocent Steve, I don't know why you still think they are guilty. The case of tanklef was an apauling MOJ
-
If that was his plan then he must be completely mad. Too many 'What if's...':
Somebody saw him on the road.
The dog barked and alerted Neville.
Someone heard him climbing through the window.
Someone was awake at WHF and called the police.
Neville had unloaded the gun and put it away.
He was overpowered by Neville.
Sheila locked herself [and her children] in the bathroom or another room.
Sheila refused to cooperate and allow herself to be shot.
He left a tiny amount of blood on the window, the bike, his clothes.
JM went to the police.
Et Al...
All these were minor obstacles as far as Bamber was concerned, pre massacre.
He was committing the massacre between midnight - 2.30am. The perfect time for an execution.
No one would see him ride across the fields at that time. DB said it passed no dwellings.
There is a thread on the dogs. Crispy was certainly not a guard dog.
The window had been loosened beforehand, or had been left open by Bamber when he went to supper. So the downstairs noise would be minimal.
There was no reason why anyone would wake. The rifle with the silencer on is almost silent. There was a possibility someone was already awake, but that was a chance he was prepared to take at that time period.
Everything was seconds away from going exactly to plan. Neville woke seconds before getting fatal shots while he slept. This was because Bamber fired into June first.
Bamber was not worried about Julie, post massacre. He assumed he had left no forensic evidence and he could keep her sweet for a few months. But he soon tired of her, and her of him.
-
If someone was awake and up when Bamber arrived at WHF, there would be a light, or several lights on.
Bamber would then just cycle home.
I assume Bamber cased the joint a bit outside before entering. Making sure there were no lights, noises or movements. There was still the chance someone would be lying in bed awake, but at that time, he was prepared to assume they were all asleep.
-
How many more days did the twins and Sheila have at WHF ?
I know Bamber told Julie it was 'now or never', but he was just fed up after a long day. He would have just gone home if he thought there were people awake at WHF.
Once he had gained access and got the gun, I doubt he would be too worried if he was wrong and one person was awake and up. He would just have to shoot that person there and then before they could make too much noise. Then arrange the scene afterwards. The exception to this is Neville.
-
David Bain and Martin Tankleff are innocent Steve, I don't know why you still think they are guilty. The case of tanklef was an apauling MOJ
Well you can say what you like about David Bain,but I prefer to go by this site: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/
As for Marty Tankleff I still think the evidence points to his guilt. Not all crimes are clones of an Agatha Christie novel.
-
How many more days did the twins and Sheila have at WHF ?
I know Bamber told Julie it was 'now or never', but he was just fed up after a long day. He would have just gone home if he thought there were people awake at WHF.
Once he had gained access and got the gun, I doubt he would be too worried if he was wrong and one person was awake and up. He would just have to shoot that person there and then before they could make too much noise. Then arrange the scene afterwards. The exception to this is Neville.
Maybe he was worried the "brick" mobile telephone might be returned to the Farm.
-
Well you can say what you like about David Bain,but I prefer to go by this site: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/
As for Marty Tankleff I still think the evidence points to his guilt. Not all crimes are clones of an Agatha Christie novel.
Not only does Robin Bain have the magazine marks on his fingers there was also Robin Bains blood in the barrel of the gun! pointing to suicide. They found this written at the original forensic notes, that never made it to his first trial.
As for Tankleff
I. COMPELLING NEW FACTUAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES
THAT MARTIN TANKLEFF IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT AND HAS
BEEN WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED FOR OVER THIRTEEN
YEARS
A. New Fact Witnesses Indicate That Others Murdered Seymour and Arlene Tankleff
B. New Expert Witnesses Indicate That Martin Tankleff?s ?Confession? Was False
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tankleff_martin/tankleff_motion.pdf (http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tankleff_martin/tankleff_motion.pdf)
-
Not only does Robin Bain have the magazine marks on his fingers there was also Robin Bains blood in the barrel of the gun! pointing to suicide. They found this written at the original forensic notes, that never made it to his first trial.
As for Tankleff
I. COMPELLING NEW FACTUAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES
THAT MARTIN TANKLEFF IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT AND HAS
BEEN WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED FOR OVER THIRTEEN
YEARS
A. New Fact Witnesses Indicate That Others Murdered Seymour and Arlene Tankleff
B. New Expert Witnesses Indicate That Martin Tankleff?s ?Confession? Was False
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tankleff_martin/tankleff_motion.pdf (http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tankleff_martin/tankleff_motion.pdf)
Robin Bain had been using a chainsaw. In fact this was the catalyst for the massacre as he and David had had a row about it shortly before the murders.
Marty Tankleff is guilty as hell. http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/adoption-forensics-and-the-tankleff-case.php
-
Robin Bain had been using a chainsaw. In fact this was the catalyst for the massacre as he and David had had a row about it shortly before the murders.
Marty Tankleff is guilty as hell. http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/adoption-forensics-and-the-tankleff-case.php
I suggest you read the court transcripts on Tankleff rather than some dopey website http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tankleff_martin/tankleff_motion.pdf
-
I suggest you read the court transcripts on Tankleff rather than some dopey website http://murderpedia.org/male.T/images/tankleff_martin/tankleff_motion.pdf
Lawyers get paid to prolong any legal process. But I will read what you suggest.
-
He seems to have the support of his immediate relatives, apart from the half-sister who stood to inherit upon his conviction. He may be innocent but from his inconsistencies and reactions throughout I can't quite accept it and don't believe he suffered a great loss. They all loved their parents didn't they? Marty, David Bain, Jeremy.. https://youtu.be/C87Stc56CA0
-
He seems to have the support of his immediate relatives, apart from the half-sister who stood to inherit upon his conviction. He may be innocent but from his inconsistencies and reactions throughout I can't quite accept it and don't believe he suffered a great loss. They all loved their parents didn't they? Marty, David Bain, Jeremy.. https://youtu.be/C87Stc56CA0
It was jerry steuerman who killed Marty's parents. David Bain never killed anyone, as for Jeremy I'm on the fence.
-
It was jerry steuerman who killed Marty's parents. David Bain never killed anyone, as for Jeremy I'm on the fence.
Jerry Steuerman may have hired someone to kill Seymour Tankleff, but why kill his wife and leave Marty unscathed? David Bain killed his parents,two sisters and brother whilst under a trance he had learned how to produce from his mother. He is a sick man, and it's an absolute scandal that he is allowed to sip a Cabernet on the balcony of his Auckland apartment,whilst the five members of his family rest in a distant South Island graveyard.
-
Jerry Steuerman may have hired someone to kill Seymour Tankleff, but why kill his wife and leave Marty unscathed?
Marty was asleep and never witnessed it, Leaving Marty in the house alive would make him a possible suspect, I doubt Jerry Steuerman realised the importance of it at the time but in leaving Marty alive allowed him to get away with it. Jerry Steuerman owed Seymour hundreds of thousands of dollars plus Steuerman used his bagel shops as a front for his cocaine dealing business. After the murders Steuerman fled and disguised himself and went by another name, Its not difficult to work out who murdered Marty's parents
David Bain killed his parents,two sisters and brother whilst under a trance he had learned how to produce from his mother. He is a sick man, and it's an absolute scandal that he is allowed to sip a Cabernet on the balcony of his Auckland apartment,whilst the five members of his family rest in a distant South Island graveyard.
Crime scene photos and forensic science disagrees with you.
-
Marty was asleep and never witnessed it, Leaving Marty in the house alive would make him a possible suspect, I doubt Jerry Steuerman realised the importance of it at the time but in leaving Marty alive allowed him to get away with it. Jerry Steuerman owed Seymour hundreds of thousands of dollars plus Steuerman used his bagel shops as a front for his cocaine dealing business. After the murders Steuerman fled and disguised himself and went by another name, Its not difficult to work out who murdered Marty's parents
Crime scene photos and forensic science disagrees with you.
There might be enough doubt in the Marty Tankleff case given that he was 17 years old and bullied by experienced Police Officers to confess. But there is no doubt with David Bain, who left a mountain of forensic evidence, much of it terribly distressing, but if you are interested in the truth you might wish to peruse the relevant Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain