Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on April 21, 2016, 05:11:PM
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(a) Cops, experts, and relatives had to frame him, because they 'thought' he might have had something to do with it, so they improvised the evidence, acting with a touch of 'noble cause corruption' in mind'...
(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...
1 - Occupants of CA07 were deployed to scene prior to J making his call, evidence which confirms that cops received other intelligence and information regarding what was transpiring at the farmhouse from a different source...
(c) no evidence to place J at the scene at the time any of the victims got shot or were killed...
(d) no evidence to show that he loaded any of the 15 additional bullets required to carry out the murders into the gun which cops have identified as the murder weapon...
(e) closest cops could put J to the scene at any stage of their investigation was when the occupants of CA07 overtook him on their way to the farmhouse. At this time J was driving his astra car at 30 MPH when cops overtook his car. J was travelling toward the farmhouse, not from it. The occupants (CA07) were not deployed to the incident as a result of J's call to cops at 3.36am, they were deployed to the scene before J called cops. Occupants of CA05 were deployed to the scene as a result of J's 3.36am call, and they did not arrive there until 4.22am (30 minutes after J arrived there. So, if anything got from his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse, faster than the occupants of CA05 did. But at trial prosecution presented the argument that J had been taking his time to get to the farm because the cops overtook him. Wrongs cops overtook J, just shows how devious and sly prosecution of J was...
(f) Pathologist, police doctor, Coroners officer, Senior cops, firearm officers, SOCO's, ambulance paramedics, who all attended the scene, could not confirm that any of the victims had died any sooner, or earlier than the occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene at 3.48am, that morning...
(g) cops had to do an 'officers report' about the shooting incident which took place upon first entry into the kitchen of the farmhouse. A victim was presumed 'dead' as a result of the discharge of a raid team members firearm. The person that got shot was alive before the cop shot them, the person who got shot was Sheila Caffell, therefore J could not have shot and killed her, either downstairs in the kitchen (in accordance with the specifics of the aforementioned officers report), or upstairs in the main bedroom, either whilst she was on the bed, or later when cops moved her body to the floor...
(h) J passed a lie detector test, answering 'No' to key questions relating to his potential culpability. He did not shoot his dad. He did not shoot his mum. He did not shoot his sister. He did not shoot her two young children. He was not at the farmhouse when any of them or all of them had been shot...
(I) J had no injuries consistent with him being involved in a supposed 'struggle' in a matter of life or death, with his dad, before dad succumbed to his fate...
(j) PC Mercers police dog failed to detect a presence of firearm discharge residue upon J or his clothing whilst J was with other cops in the grounds of the farmhouse, confirming that J had not fired a firearm recently, nor had J been any closer to the farmhouse itself other than where he was stood when PC Mercers dog was brought to 'check him out'...
(k) no firearm discharge residue or lead deposits was found to be present upon J's hands or clothing, nor upon the handle bar and grips of the pushbike it was alleged J had used to make good his escape after allegedly killing everyone...
(l) dads call to cops at 3.26am...
(m) activation of Special Branch attack alarm from farmhouse at 3.29am...
(n) DS 'Stan' Jones was at the heart of everything corrupt regarding the evidence used to help convict J as the killer. He had to obtain another pocketbook and rewrite all his notes because the original contents which he originally recorded in his pocketbook would have guaranteed an acquittal had Rivlin QC ever got his hands upon it and seen its original contents...
(o) person seen at bedroom window by Bews, Myall and J, obviously at least one of the victims was still alive inside the farmhouse by that stage (around 4am)...
(p) phone suddenly became engaged when operator was checking line for cops, obviously somebody still alive using the phone inside the farmhouse, whilst cops and J were outside in the grounds or at Pages Lane, near farm cottages. Closest victim to kitchen phone when bodies of victims ended up by 10 am was dad. But the person cops shot upon entry to the kitchen may have been the person who was using the phone at the specified time, thus helping to establish that Sheila was responsible for the death of dad, mum and her kids. Sheila was the person shot by cops in the kitchen. There exists an 'officers report' confirming this which nobody should ignore. The phone suddenly became 'engaged' when the operator was checking the line for cops without so much as an explanation as to how the line had become engaged whilst the operator had control of the line?
-
There are many other reasons, why J is innocent...
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(a) Cops, experts, and relatives had to frame him, because they 'thought' he might have had something to do with it, so they improvised the evidence, acting with a touch of 'noble cause corruption' in mind'...
(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...
(c) no evidence to place J at the scene at the time any of the victims got shot or were killed...
(d) no evidence to show that he loaded any of the 15 additional bullets required to carry out the murders into the gun which cops have identified as the murder weapon...
(e) closest cops could put J to the scene at any stage of their investigation was when the occupants of CA07 overtook him on their way to the farmhouse. At this time J was driving his astra car at 30 MPH when cops overtook his car. J was travelling toward the farmhouse, not from it. The occupants (CA07) were not deployed to the incident as a result of J's call to cops at 3.36am, they were deployed to the scene before J called cops. Occupants of CA05 were deployed to the scene as a result of J's 3.36am call, and they did not arrive there until 4.22am (30 minutes after J arrived there. So, if anything got from his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse, faster than the occupants of CA05 did. But at trial prosecution presented the argument that J had been taking his time to get to the farm because the cops overtook him. Wrongs cops overtook J, just shows how devious and sly prosecution of J was...
(f) Pathologist, police doctor, Coroners officer, Senior cops, firearm officers, SOCO's, ambulance paramedics, who all attended the scene, could not confirm that any of the victims had died any sooner, or earlier than the occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene at 3.48am, that morning...
(g) cops had to do an 'officers report' about the shooting incident which took place upon first entry into the kitchen of the farmhouse. A victim was presumed 'dead' as a result of the discharge of a raid team members firearm. The person that got shot was alive before the cop shot them, the person who got shot was Sheila Caffell, therefore J could not have shot and killed her, either downstairs in the kitchen (in accordance with the specifics of the aforementioned officers report), or upstairs in the main bedroom, either whilst she was on the bed, or later when cops moved her body to the floor...
(h) J passed a lie detector test, answering 'No' to key questions relating to his potential culpability. He did not shoot his dad. He did not shoot his mum. He did not shoot his sister. He did not shoot her two young children. He was not at the farmhouse when any of them or all of them had been shot...
(I) J had no injuries consistent with him being involved in a supposed 'struggle' in a matter of life or death, with his dad, before dad succumbed to his fate...
(j) PC Mercers police dog failed to detect a presence of firearm discharge residue upon J or his clothing whilst J was with other cops in the grounds of the farmhouse, confirming that J had not fired a firearm recently, nor had J been any closer to the farmhouse itself other than where he was stood when PC Mercers dog was brought to 'check him out'...
(k) no firearm discharge residue or lead deposits was found to be present upon J's hands or clothing, nor upon the handle bar and grips of the pushbike it was alleged J had used to make good his escape after allegedly killing everyone...
(l) dads call to cops at 3.26am...
(m) activation of Special Branch attack alarm from farmhouse at 3.29am...
(n) DS 'Stan' Jones was at the heart of everything corrupt regarding the evidence used to help convict J as the killer. He had to obtain another pocketbook and rewrite all his notes because the original contents which he originally recorded in his pocketbook would have guaranteed an acquittal had Rivlin QC ever got his hands upon it and seen its original contents...
(o) person seen at bedroom window by Bews, Myall and J, obviously at least one of the victims was still alive inside the farmhouse by that stage (around 4am)...
(p) phone suddenly became engaged when operator was checking line for cops, obviously somebody still alive using the phone inside the farmhouse, whilst cops and J were outside in the grounds or at Pages Lane, near farm cottages. Closest victim to kitchen phone when bodies of victims ended up by 10 am was dad. But the person cops shot upon entry to the kitchen may have been the person who was using the phone at the specified time, thus helping to establish that Sheila was responsible for the death of dad, mum and her kids. Sheila was the person shot by cops in the kitchen. There exists an 'officers report' confirming this which nobody should ignore. The phone suddenly became 'engaged' when the operator was checking the line for cops without so much as an explanation as to how the line had become engaged whilst the operator had control of the line?
That's a good point, but there were specks of blood on Jeremy's clothing in the wardrobe, which proved inconclusive when tested by John Hayward. Wasn't the figure at the window deemed to be a male, which would rule out Sheila.
-
That's a good point, but there were specks of blood on Jeremy's clothing in the wardrobe, which proved inconclusive when tested by John Hayward. Wasn't the figure at the window deemed to be a male, which would rule out Sheila.
So that would be a male trick of the light as opposed to a female trick of the light, would it, Steve? ;)
-
So that would be a male trick of the light as opposed to a female trick of the light, would it, Steve? ;)
Yes, and the bike was tested weeks later anyway.
-
There are many other reasons, why J is innocent...
(1) trial judge wrongly took away juries option to decide for themselves whether there had been a 'third party' involvement in all the deaths, or any of the individual deaths. His comments adversely effected the juries 'choice of free will', making the verdict untennable. The simple truth of the matter, is that the trial judge cannot lawfully make a statement in law telling the jury that 'they had to choose' between Sheila or J. The jury didn't have to do anything. It was wrong of the judge to give the jury 'a choice', in the manner that he did. His comments adversely effected the process of a fair trial by jury. There was nothing fair about him saying to the jury, that 'the killer could only be Sheila, or Jeremy'. How did the judge come to that conclusion? Did he know that by that stage, for example, that there 'existed' an Officers Report' concerning a shooting incident in the kitchen at the time firearm officers first entered? Yes, or No? My guess is that cops and prosecution did not tell Drake about what the contents of 'this' report dealt with. If I am wrong, then the judiciary must have been in on the plot to convict J for crimes he hadn't committed...
-
That's one of the first things defence lawyers are taught. Bring up the evidence that isn't there.
No witnesses, no murder weapon. If every criminal was aquited on these grounds, the prisons would be empty.
-
That's a good point, but there were specks of blood on Jeremy's clothing in the wardrobe, which proved inconclusive when tested by John Hayward. Wasn't the figure at the window deemed to be a male, which would rule out Sheila.
No, that is a misconception...
When I spoke to J regarding this sighting he was adamant that 'he' could not identify the figure they all saw as either being male, or female. He agreed, however, that it was PC Myall who first drew attention to the person in the upstairs bedroom, moving around. This 'person' was observed moving around in the parents bedroom. J told me that when PC Myall first brought the attention of this person to their attention, that the person appeared to be loitering at the right hand side of the bedroom window. When I asked J if he could be more specific, he said that when Myall pointed out the person, they were in the grounds of the farmhouse at the time. They had originally been behind a hedgerow, but had effectively moved around the house and having gone over a gate were themselves in the area that could be described as the front garden. In that front garden were circular walled flower beds. I questioned J about the location of these walled flower beds, and I was satisfied that the circular walled flower bed which Myall, Bews and J crouched down up against was situated somewhat in front of the main bedroom window at garden level, but slightly to the left. I know this has been discussed at great length elsewhere on the forum, and some who know the relatives have said or stated that no such circular walled flower beds exist, but what you have to try to remember is that I was trying to build a picture about what J is telling me. Let's get things into perspective, I told J that I wasn't interested in lies. I said to him, you telling me lies, isn't going to help you one little bit. He understood my approach. He ends up telling me that when PC Myall points out the person, that all three of them (Myall, Bews , and J) rush against this aforementioned circular walled flower bed. They try to conceal themselves behind it. I ask J how tall was this circular walled flower bed? He states it was about 10 inches high, or thereabouts. I says to J, ' that's pathetic', how could three grown up adults hide behind a 10 inch high circular walled flower bed, trying to hide from the sight of a person at the bedroom window, high up on the first floor?
-
That's one of the first things defence lawyers are taught. Bring up the evidence that isn't there.
No witnesses, no murder weapon. If every criminal was aquited on these grounds, the prisons would be empty.
Jeremy's defending barrister Rivlin QC was a prosecutor not a defence lawyer. Why he decided to defend Jeremy is anyone's guess.
-
No, that is a misconception...
When I spoke to J regarding this sighting he was adamant that 'he' could not identify the figure they all saw as either being male, or female. He agreed, however, that it was PC Myall who first drew attention to the person in the upstairs bedroom, moving around. This 'person' was observed moving around in the parents bedroom. J told me that when PC Myall first brought the attention of this person to their attention, that the person appeared to be loitering at the right hand side of the bedroom window. When I asked J if he could be more specific, he said that when Myall pointed out the person, they were in the grounds of the farmhouse at the time. They had originally been behind a hedgerow, but had effectively moved around the house and having gone over a gate were themselves in the area that could be described as the front garden. In that front garden were circular walled flower beds. I questioned J about the location of these walled flower beds, and I was satisfied that the circular walled flower bed which Myall, Bews and J crouched down up against was situated somewhat in front of the main bedroom window at garden level, but slightly to the left. I know this has been discussed at great length elsewhere on the forum, and some who know the relatives have said or stated that no such circular walled flower beds exist, but what you have to try to remember is that I was trying to build a picture about what J is telling me. Let's get things into perspective, I told J that I wasn't interested in lies. I said to him, you telling me lies, isn't going to help you one little bit. He understood my approach. He ends up telling me that when PC Myall points out the person, that all three of them (Myall, Bews , and J) rush against this aforementioned circular walled flower bed. They try to conceal themselves behind it. I ask J how tall was this circular walled flower bed? He states it was about 10 inches high, or thereabouts. I says to J, ' that's pathetic', how could three grown up adults hide behind a 10 inch high circular walled flower bed, trying to hide from the sight of a person at the bedroom window, high up on the first floor?
https://youtu.be/ohcCMvLrFm0?t=1m34s (https://youtu.be/ohcCMvLrFm0?t=1m34s)
-
No, that is a misconception...
When I spoke to J regarding this sighting he was adamant that 'he' could not identify the figure they all saw as either being male, or female. He agreed, however, that it was PC Myall who first drew attention to the person in the upstairs bedroom, moving around. This 'person' was observed moving around in the parents bedroom. J told me that when PC Myall first brought the attention of this person to their attention, that the person appeared to be loitering at the right hand side of the bedroom window. When I asked J if he could be more specific, he said that when Myall pointed out the person, they were in the grounds of the farmhouse at the time. They had originally been behind a hedgerow, but had effectively moved around the house and having gone over a gate were themselves in the area that could be described as the front garden. In that front garden were circular walled flower beds. I questioned J about the location of these walled flower beds, and I was satisfied that the circular walled flower bed which Myall, Bews and J crouched down up against was situated somewhat in front of the main bedroom window at garden level, but slightly to the left. I know this has been discussed at great length elsewhere on the forum, and some who know the relatives have said or stated that no such circular walled flower beds exist, but what you have to try to remember is that I was trying to build a picture about what J is telling me. Let's get things into perspective, I told J that I wasn't interested in lies. I said to him, you telling me lies, isn't going to help you one little bit. He understood my approach. He ends up telling me that when PC Myall points out the person, that all three of them (Myall, Bews , and J) rush against this aforementioned circular walled flower bed. They try to conceal themselves behind it. I ask J how tall was this circular walled flower bed? He states it was about 10 inches high, or thereabouts. I says to J, ' that's pathetic', how could three grown up adults hide behind a 10 inch high circular walled flower bed, trying to hide from the sight of a person at the bedroom window, high up on the first floor?
None of which explains the "specks of blood found on Jeremy's clothing in the wardrobe, which proved inconclusive when tested by John Hayward", which Steve also mentioned.
-
None of which explains the "specks of blood found on Jeremy's clothing in the wardrobe, which proved inconclusive when tested by John Hayward", which Steve also mentioned.
Show me the document, and the analysis...
-
Almost all adult males shave...
We have all done it, 'cut ourselves' whilst shaving...
Name me a male adult that has never cut themselves whilst trying to rid themselves of the 'facial hair'? If that is being used to project J as the killer, then all males who have cut themselves whilst shaving are 'guilty' of these murders, oh look, that includes all the 'male relatives', and 'me'...
-
Jeremy's defending barrister Rivlin QC was a prosecutor not a defence lawyer. Why he decided to defend Jeremy is anyone's guess.
I have personally met up with Rivlin, QC, at the tests that were being carried out (photographed, and videod) at 'Birdwell Armoury', otherwise known as 'junction 36 (M1) shooting club'. This man is a person who ultimately believed in doing the best job possible for his client (J), and charged 'no fees' for his travel, or time to get to the truth...
I take my hat off, to Rivlin, QC...
-
J is the victim of a 'miscarriage of justice', I can see why, and how he got convicted, unless you have been a ''victim' of a miscarriage of justice, yourself, I suppose it is difficult to image that 'The State', and its witnesses, could 'lie', but they do, in 'certain circumstances'. I know, because on several 'different occasions' I have been the 'victim' of such tactics 'myself'...
-
J is the victim of a 'miscarriage of justice', I can see why, and how he got convicted, unless you have been a ''victim' of a miscarriage of justice, yourself, I suppose it is difficult to image that the state, and its witnesses, could 'lie', but they do, in 'certain circumstances'. I know, because on several 'different occasions' I have been the 'victim' of such tactics 'myself'...
In my honest opinion, J was not 'the killer', basically put he doesn't have the compulsion or the brains to have done everything they claimed he had done.I am not suggesting that J is not now 'intelligent' or 'devious enough' to have done it, and tried to get away with it. No, it is irrelevant what J is like, now. What counts is 'What J was like back then in August, 1985'. He was 'slow', in my opinion, a bit 'thick' in the head. He was like, how can I say this without appearing to be being offensive, he was a 'dumbo'. When I first met J he hadn't got a clue about what the cops, the prosecution, his relatives, the experts had done to him. I am talking about 1989, here. J was backward, he couldn't see what the authorities had done to him, whereas, in comparison, I had been the victim of 'such tactics' from December, 1985, onwards...
Today, 'J is a completely different person', he is more like the person I was when 'I first met him, in 1989'...
-
J was 'thick' , maybe that is being 'unkind to him', but what I mean is that he couldn't open himself up to the possibility, that his 'relatives' were 'gunning for him', so to speak. Cops had 'secrets they intended to conceal, forever', J was 'wet between the ears', unsuspecting, whereas, relatives were eager to cling to the wealth they thought they were entitled too, in front of J...
-
It was a receipy for what we all now know to be termed, as a 'miscarriage of Justice'...
-
J was 'thick' , maybe that is being 'unkind to him', but what I mean is that he couldn't open himself up to the possibility, that his 'relatives' were 'gunning for him', so to speak. Cops had 'secrets they intended to conceal, forever', J was 'wet between the ears', unsuspecting, whereas, relatives were eager to cling to the wealth they thought they were entitled too, in front of J...
That's exactly the way it was Mike. He couldn't see further than the end of his nose at what was happening. His father would have seen through it.
-
That's exactly the way it was Mike. He couldn't see further than the end of his nose at what was happening. His father would have seen through it.
I agree, whole heartedly...
-
I agree, whole heartedly...
Unfortunately,Mike,he's learned the hard way that such people do exist,but I would think that now he'll be forever on his guard after this very hard lesson. I should hope so anyway,even now as things are moving in his favour.
-
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
It seems things are moving in the right direction. Mike found the above compelling evidence last year and David has made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' this year.
-
No need to be facetious,just because you've not come up with anything worth mentioning. :-[
-
No need to be facetious,just because you've not come up with anything worth mentioning. :-[
But it IS worth mentioning I heard from EP this morning that ".............at present Essex Police is not re-investigating the case, or the part it played in the original investigation, or the conduct of the officers involved in the case".
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(a) Cops, experts, and relatives had to frame him, because they 'thought' he might have had something to do with it, so they improvised the evidence, acting with a touch of 'noble cause corruption' in mind'...
As time moved on different people began to suspect that Sheila might not have been responsible for shooting and killing the others. First, there was 'Stan' Jones, the relatives, and a few cops in the elk of Cook and Miller, who gradually grew into the idea that J had killed the lot of them just so he could get his hands on the family fortune (around £440,000).These in turn sought to influence others, in the form of scientists involved in the testing of exhibits and samples. In the end there was a group of people all motivated in trying to convict J of the murders, just because they 'thought' he could have done it. There existed a sense of 'noble cause corruption' amongst this group, that although they all knew that there was no way of proving J's involvement directly in the murders, they all felt he must have had something to do with it. Another thing which everyone conveniently overlooked, was that it was never a racing certainty that he (J) would have inherited everything anyway, because there was always going to be other beneficiaries involved in any inheritance matters. The real issue but for J's convictions would have surely been about how much of a share that J and the other beneficiaries stood to inherit. J was I suppose always going to be the one who stood to get the lions share, but others also were in line for a share, including the relatives at the heart of the prosecutions case. Their share grew considerably because J got convicted...
-
As time moved on different people began to suspect that Sheila might not have been responsible for shooting and killing the others. First, there was 'Stan' Jones, the relatives, and a few cops in the elk of Cook and Miller, who gradually grew into the idea that J had killed the lot of them just so he could get his hands on the family fortune (around £440,000).These in turn sought to influence others, in the form of scientists involved in the testing of exhibits and samples. In the end there was a group of people all motivated in trying to convict J of the murders, just because they 'thought' he could have done it. There existed a sense of 'noble cause corruption' amongst this group, that although they all knew that there was no way of proving J's involvement directly in the murders, they all felt he must have had something to do with it. Another thing which everyone conveniently overlooked, was that it was never a racing certainty that he (J) would have inherited everything anyway, because there was always going to be other beneficiaries involved in any inheritance matters. The real issue but for J's convictions would have surely been about how much of a share that J and the other beneficiaries stood to inherit. J was I suppose always going to be the one who stood to get the lions share, but others also were in line for a share, including the relatives at the heart of the prosecutions case. Their share grew considerably because J got convicted...
Are you telling us that there is proof that Nevill's Will would have been challenged in the courts even had Jeremy been innocent? Leaving aside you lack of racing certainty, as Nevill's heir, Jeremy would most certainly have come in for the lion's share but it's still within reason that he'd have left bequests elsewhere. Besides which, Jeremy allegedly knew what was in Nevill's will.
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...
I find it very hard to understand, how the police surgeon 'Dr Craig' failed to notice something odd, about the state and the condition of Sheila's body at the time he viewed it, at 8.44am when he pronounced her as being dead, that it suddenly did not dawn upon him, that Sheila 'had been dead' for longer than five and a half hours already? He was summoned to the scene at quite an early stage, to deal with 'two bodies', not five. When he arrives at the scene with 'Bob' Miller he discovers there are actually five bodies, not two. He must have been left with a clear impression that one or more of the victims must have been shot within an hour or so of him being contacted at around 7.42am, and being requested to attend the incident where two people had been shot? Indeed, and this is what I find rather interesting, Dr Craig sees the body of Sheila at 8.44am, and he describes her body being on the far side of the bed. He states at this time, she has what appears to be 'a solitary wound' to her neck (hang on, let me finish). He is accompanied at this time by 'Bob' Miller. Strangely enough he says he saw Sheila's body at this time, situated on the far side of the bed. Through his own eyes, he independently recalls that she had been shot once in the neck (hang on, let me finish). The 'time' was 8.44am, and the firearm operation had not been officially terminated by that stage, and would not be until around 9am, when PS Adams enters the farmhouse for the very first time to view the state of play. You will remember, that it was Adams who was not happy at the debriefing held at Witham police station later that same evening when senior officers showed all those present at that time a video of the various crime scenes in the kitchen downstairs, and the two bedrooms upstairs. Adams complained that Sheila's body had been moved from the position he had personally seen it in at 9 O'clock. He also complained that 'somebody had put a gun on Sheila's body' and wrapped her 'hand upon the trigger mechanism' of the rifle to give the impression that 'she was armed' (not that she had killed herself). He also complained about the position of 'the Bible' in the video footage, as compared to where it was, when he had viewed her body and the bible. How utterly convenient that at the debriefing held on the same day as the shootings, that not one firearm officer said that any of the victims must have already been dead before the firearm teams arrived at the scene? No senior officer did likewise, and all those present had viewed the bodies themselves insitu...
-
I find it very hard to understand, how the police surgeon 'Dr Craig' failed to notice something odd, about the state and the condition of Sheila's body at the time he viewed it, at 8.44am when he pronounced her as being dead, that it suddenly did not dawn upon him, that Sheila 'had been dead' for longer than five and a half hours already? He was summoned to the scene at quite an early stage, to deal with 'two bodies', not five. When he arrives at the scene with 'Bob' Miller he discovers there are actually five bodies, not two. He must have been left with a clear impression that one or more of the victims must have been shot within an hour or so of him being contacted at around 7.42am, and being requested to attend the incident where two people had been shot? Indeed, and this is what I find rather interesting, Dr Craig sees the body of Sheila at 8.44am, and he describes her body being on the far side of the bed. He states at this time, she has what appears to be 'a solitary wound' to her neck (hang on, let me finish). He is accompanied at this time by 'Bob' Miller. Strangely enough he says he saw Sheila's body at this time, situated on the far side of the bed. Through his own eyes, he independently recalls that she had been shot once in the neck (hang on, let me finish). The 'time' was 8.44am, and the firearm operation had not been officially terminated by that stage, and would not be until around 9am, when PS Adams enters the farmhouse for the very first time to view the state of play. You will remember, that it was Adams who was not happy at the debriefing held at Witham police station later that same evening when senior officers showed all those present at that time a video of the various crime scenes in the kitchen downstairs, and the two bedrooms upstairs. Adams complained that Sheila's body had been moved from the position he had personally seen it in at 9 O'clock. He also complained that 'somebody had put a gun on Sheila's body' and wrapped her 'hand upon the trigger mechanism' of the rifle to give the impression that 'she was armed' (not that she had killed herself). He also complained about the position of 'the Bible' in the video footage, as compared to where it was, when he had viewed her body and the bible. How utterly convenient that at the debriefing held on the same day as the shootings, that not one firearm officer said that any of the victims must have already been dead before the firearm teams arrived at the scene? No senior officer did likewise, and all those present had viewed the bodies themselves insitu...
Nobody talked about 'how long any of the victims had been dead', and in Sheila's case they 'didn't need to'...
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...
For there to be even a remote possibility that J was the killer, you would have expected somebody to notice that at least one of the five victims had been dead for longer than say six hours by 9am that morning? But nobody did. Nobody noticed anything suspicious that would have exposed J's account as being a made up account. Let's take the body of dad, for example. If J was the killer he would have had to have killed dad before 3am, for sure. Nobody can tell me that with the amount of blood he must have bled out of the 8 bullet wounds, and god forbid all the other injuries he is supposed to have sustained, that 'nobody' noticed that dad had already been dead longer than five hours or more? Anybody who suggests that cops didn't notice any of this because J had conditioned their minds is barking up the wrong tree. J wasn't that clever back in August 1985, there was nothing remarkable about him, he was not overtly super intelligent, nor did he have much street cred'. He was just a normal everyday run of the mill Joe, 'with benefits'...
-
But it IS worth mentioning I heard from EP this morning that ".............at present Essex Police is not re-investigating the case, or the part it played in the original investigation, or the conduct of the officers involved in the case".
Did they give an honest reason ?
They'll have no choice if/when a court order is in place.
-
Did they give an honest reason ?
They'll have no choice if/when a court order is in place.
But it rather puts pay to the claim made here, several weeks back, that EP were re-investigating the crime.
-
But it rather puts pay to the claim made here, several weeks back, that EP were re-investigating the crime.
EP must be befuddled-----as per usual. Lack of communication being their weakest point.
-
EP must be befuddled-----as per usual. Lack of communication being their weakest point.
Or more likely, a Bamber supporter thought they'd chance their arm by putting erroneous information on forum, thinking no one would check it out.
-
In my honest opinion, J was not 'the killer', basically put he doesn't have the compulsion or the brains to have done everything they claimed he had done.I am not suggesting that J is not now 'intelligent' or 'devious enough' to have done it, and tried to get away with it. No, it is irrelevant what J is like, now. What counts is 'What J was like back then in August, 1985'. He was 'slow', in my opinion, a bit 'thick' in the head. He was like, how can I say this without appearing to be being offensive, he was a 'dumbo'. When I first met J he hadn't got a clue about what the cops, the prosecution, his relatives, the experts had done to him. I am talking about 1989, here. J was backward, he couldn't see what the authorities had done to him, whereas, in comparison, I had been the victim of 'such tactics' from December, 1985, onwards...
Today, 'J is a completely different person', he is more like the person I was when 'I first met him, in 1989'...
I don't think he did wish his parents ill will at the beginning, even when they sent him away to that bleak Norfolk outpost to brag to the neighbours that they had a son at public school. But as Jeremy was in his own little world during the day making copious notes from dilapidated textbooks whist the schoolmasters pontificated on history and calculus, and alone at night affrighted by the other boys' bullying and boastings of their parents' wealth it was the thought of his own inheritance which brought him succour and saw him through.
It wasn't until he returned to White House Farm and realized how all his efforts, all his energies had been dissipated to be faced with the crop sprayer and regimented by June to be at home at a time of her choosing that the impending resentment surfaced, as documented so tellingly by Julie those last two years.
-
I don't think he did wish his parents ill will at the beginning, even when they sent him away to that bleak Norfolk outpost to brag to the neighbours that they had a son at public school. But as Jeremy was in his own little world during the day making copious notes from dilapidated textbooks whist the schoolmasters pontificated on history and calculus, and alone at night affrighted by the other boys' bullying and boastings of their parents' wealth it was the thought of his own inheritance which brought him succour and saw him through.
It wasn't until he returned to White House Farm and realized how all his efforts, all his energies had been dissipated to be faced with the crop sprayer and regimented by June to be at home at a time of her choosing that the impending resentment surfaced, as documented so tellingly by Julie those last two years.
Steve, it definitely wouldn't have been a case of bragging to neighbours. It was only ever a question of WHICH public school he attended and here we are surrounded by good ones. top of the list being Felstead, then after that comes Hallingbury, Framlingham and Gosfield.
-
Steve, it definitely wouldn't have been a case of bragging to neighbours. It was only ever a question of WHICH public school he attended and here we are surrounded by good ones. top of the list being Felstead, then after that comes Hallingbury, Framlingham and Gosfield.
That's surprising Jane. Why Gresham's in that case?
-
That's surprising Jane. Why Gresham's in that case?
Steve, I can only think it was on someone's recommendation. I have a friend whose husband went there. He was a doctor whose hobby was music which I believe to have been fostered at Greshams. I forgot to mention another excellent school which is Friends School, a Quaker establishment at Saffron Walden. We really are spoilt for choice here.
-
That's surprising Jane. Why Gresham's in that case?
Neville didn't want Jeremy attending school with local children, because one day he may end up employing them on the farm.
-
Neville didn't want Jeremy attending school with local children, because one day he may end up employing them on the farm.
That isn't in dispute. Steve's question was about why one particular school was chosen above others.
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...
The simple truth of the matter, is that nobody can place J at the scene at the time any of the 5 victims got shot. There is no tell tale scientific evidence which places him there at any stage after the victims were last known to be alive by reference to the telephone conversation between Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber at around 10pm on the evening of 6th August 1985 (J having already left the farm half an hour earlier according to an eye witness account, who heard the distinctive sound of J's astra GTE drive out from whf and along Pages Lane at around 9..30pm...
-
The simple truth of the matter, is that nobody can place J at the scene at the time any of the 5 victims got shot. There is no tell tale scientific evidence which places him there at any stage after the victims were last known to be alive by reference to the telephone conversation between Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber at around 10pm on the evening of 6th August 1985 (J having already left the farm half an hour earlier according to an eye witness account, who heard the distinctive sound of J's astra GTE drive out from whf and along Pages Lane at around 9..30pm...
The closest any eye witness account can place J anywhere near to the scene of the tragedy was the next morning when the occupants of CA07 who had been deployed to the scene one minute before J himself had called cops (whenever the time of that call may have been) overtook J in his astra when they themselves were racing to the scene. Cops estimated that he was going about 30 MPH at that stage, but the reason for this needs to be explained because unless you know about the following you can't begin to understand the reluctance of J to want to go to the farmhouse in the middle of the night just because his sister may have been having one of her turns, but in the end finding himself being told to go to the farmhouse by cops during his call, where he would be met by other cops that were being deployed there to check it out. Furthermore, cop on phone told J not to approach the farmhouse alone, until other cops arrived there to meet him. So, what we have here is J responding to instruction that the cop on the other end of the phone has given him. The cop on the other end of the telephone was based in Chelmsford, and the cop in question knew where J was calling from, because he took J's address, and telephone number. The cop gave J the impression that he had deployed other cops from Chelmsford, which was true - the occupants of CA05 who were deployed from Chelmsford police station as soon as J made his 3.36am call to cops. The recorded time when the occupants of CA05 were deployed to this incident is 3.36am, and they arrived at the scene at 4.22am). Now, this is very interesting, so pay attention to what I am going to be saying next...
-
The closest any eye witness account can place J anywhere near to the scene of the tragedy was the next morning when the occupants of CA07 who had been deployed to the scene one minute before J himself had called cops (whenever the time of that call may have been) overtook J in his astra when they themselves were racing to the scene. Cops estimated that he was going about 30 MPH at that stage, but the reason for this needs to be explained because unless you know about the following you can't begin to understand the reluctance of J to want to go to the farmhouse in the middle of the night just because his sister may have been having one of her turns, but in the end finding himself being told to go to the farmhouse by cops during his call, where he would be met by other cops that were being deployed there to check it out. Furthermore, cop on phone told J not to approach the farmhouse alone, until other cops arrived there to meet him. So, what we have here is J responding to instruction that the cop on the other end of the phone has given him. The cop on the other end of the telephone was based in Chelmsford, and the cop in question knew where J was calling from, because he took J's address, and telephone number. The cop gave J the impression that he had deployed other cops from Chelmsford, which was true - the occupants of CA05 who were deployed from Chelmsford police station as soon as J made his 3.36am call to cops. The recorded time when the occupants of CA05 were deployed to this incident is 3.36am, and they arrived at the scene at 4.22am). Now, this is very interesting, so pay attention to what I am going to be saying next...
We have now got J leaving his cottage, at 9 head Street, Goldhanger, end route to the farm. Cop who he had been speaking too on phone was based at Chelmsford. J knew, and the cop at Chelmsford who J had been speaking to on the phone knew, that the distance between where J would be leaving to go to the farm, was a vastly shorter distance than the distance the cops sent by the cop on the phone would have to travel, from Chelmsford to the farmhouse. Now this is important because the cop on the phone who J had been speaking to had told J that under no circumstances was J to go into the farmhouse, or approach it all by himself, until the cops that were being sent arrived there to meet him. Now, we know that the journey time it took for the occupants of CA05 to get from Chelmsford police station to whf took from 3.36am until 4.22am. In stark contrast, the journey between J's cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger to the farm could be done in around 7 minutes (see my you tube footage of this journey). Once you compare the known journey times, between the journey the occupants of CA05 had to travel (and we are talking about 46 minutes), and the 7 minute journey it would have taken J if he had gone 'hell for leather' to get there, it becomes easy to see why if J was travelling to the farm at a mundane speed, why he was doing so. In my estimation, based on the time of his call (3.36am) to cops and its duration, he would have left Head Street at around 3.45am, and he arrived in Pages Lane at precisely 3.52am. It took J the same 7 minutes it would normally have taken to reach the farm from his cottage. He didn't break any land speed records getting from A to B, but if you remember the cop on the phone had told J not to approach the farmhouse until the cops that had been deployed by him from Chelmsford (CA05) 'got there'. Yes, the occupants of CA07 had overtaken J en-route to the same incident, but J was not to know that until he himself actually arrived in Pages Lane himself at 3.52am. Remember, that CA07 had been deploted ti whf before J had made his own call to the cop in Chelmsford, so they must have been acting independantly of the information that J had told the cop at Chelmsford. J got to thw farm comfortably in about 7 minutes from leaving his cottage. Nobody can say that he was deliberately slow timing by his own choice, albeit to a certain extebt with what the cop on the ohone at Chelmsford had saiud to him still ringing in his ear, he had not rushed to get there. J knew it would take about 45 minutes to get from Chelmsford police station to the farm, and he must therefore have known that even if he had deliberately slow timed his journey as compared against the journey time which the occupants of the exploited Chelmsford car would be making, J still would have arrived at the farmhouse, sooner than as it turned out the occupants of CA05 had done. Since, J arrived there in Pages Lane at precisely 3.52am, as compared to the arrival od the occupants of the deployed Chelmsford cop car (4.22am), 39 minutes behind him...
This now brings me on to arguably one of the most astonishing and intriguing parts of the police investigation. Why were the occupants of CA07 deployed to the incident at the farmhouse before J had made 'his' call to the cop at Chelmsford? I will now proceed to enlighten the uneducated, and the interested parties regarding this matter...
-
I was waiting for this to continue, but it seems to have stopped..
-
I was waiting for this to continue, but it seems to have stopped..
Perhaps there weren't any uneducated to enlighten? :)) :))
-
We have now got J leaving his cottage, at 9 head Street, Goldhanger, end route to the farm. Cop who he had been speaking too on phone was based at Chelmsford. J knew, and the cop at Chelmsford who J had been speaking to on the phone knew, that the distance between where J would be leaving to go to the farm, was a vastly shorter distance than the distance the cops sent by the cop on the phone would have to travel, from Chelmsford to the farmhouse. Now this is important because the cop on the phone who J had been speaking to had told J that under no circumstances was J to go into the farmhouse, or approach it all by himself, until the cops that were being sent arrived there to meet him. Now, we know that the journey time it took for the occupants of CA05 to get from Chelmsford police station to whf took from 3.36am until 4.22am. In stark contrast, the journey between J's cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger to the farm could be done in around 7 minutes (see my you tube footage of this journey). Once you compare the known journey times, between the journey the occupants of CA05 had to travel (and we are talking about 46 minutes), and the 7 minute journey it would have taken J if he had gone 'hell for leather' to get there, it becomes easy to see why if J was travelling to the farm at a mundane speed, why he was doing so. In my estimation, based on the time of his call (3.36am) to cops and its duration, he would have left Head Street at around 3.45am, and he arrived in Pages Lane at precisely 3.52am. It took J the same 7 minutes it would normally have taken to reach the farm from his cottage. He didn't break any land speed records getting from A to B, but if you remember the cop on the phone had told J not to approach the farmhouse until the cops that had been deployed by him from Chelmsford (CA05) 'got there'. Yes, the occupants of CA07 had overtaken J en-route to the same incident, but J was not to know that until he himself actually arrived in Pages Lane himself at 3.52am. Remember, that CA07 had been deploted ti whf before J had made his own call to the cop in Chelmsford, so they must have been acting independantly of the information that J had told the cop at Chelmsford. J got to thw farm comfortably in about 7 minutes from leaving his cottage. Nobody can say that he was deliberately slow timing by his own choice, albeit to a certain extebt with what the cop on the ohone at Chelmsford had saiud to him still ringing in his ear, he had not rushed to get there. J knew it would take about 45 minutes to get from Chelmsford police station to the farm, and he must therefore have known that even if he had deliberately slow timed his journey as compared against the journey time which the occupants of the exploited Chelmsford car would be making, J still would have arrived at the farmhouse, sooner than as it turned out the occupants of CA05 had done. Since, J arrived there in Pages Lane at precisely 3.52am, as compared to the arrival od the occupants of the deployed Chelmsford cop car (4.22am), 39 minutes behind him...
This now brings me on to arguably one of the most astonishing and intriguing parts of the police investigation. Why were the occupants of CA07 deployed to the incident at the farmhouse before J had made 'his' call to the cop at Chelmsford? I will now proceed to enlighten the uneducated, and the interested parties regarding this matter...
I will give an honest and a specific response...
-
If we have to bring J's phone call (3.36am) forward by 10 minutes, we have to bring the timing of other events forward by the same period...
-
If we have to bring J's phone call (3.36am) forward by 10 minutes, we have to bring the timing of other events forward by the same period...
If J called cops at 3.26am, rather than 3.36am, then the occupants of CA07 were still deployed to the incident 'prior to' J making his call to cops, at whatever time anybody wants to attach a time to J's call to the cop at Chelmsford...
-
The occupants of CA07 were always 'deployed to the incident' prior to J making his 'call to cops', be that occurring at 3.36am, or 3.26am, or whatever time...
-
So, and this is rather significant, it still begs an answer to the question, ' what made the occupants of CA07 to be deployed to the incident', prior to J contacting cops? They had ' obviously' received information, or intelligence, that something was ' untoward' at the farmhouse, without any input from J...
-
Based upon the assumption that cops got their timings wrong, then dads call to cops, had not occurred at at 3.26am, but rather at 3.15am...
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...
1 - Occupants of CA07 were deployed to scene prior to J making his call, evidence which confirms that cops received other intelligence and information regarding what was transpiring at the farmhouse from a different source...
What is it, that we already know about that adequately informs us as to the 'other source' via which cops received intelligence and information, about what was happening at the farmhouse before J called cop at Chelmsford? The record of the other phone log bearing the time of 3.26am was one such source, as was the fact that an alarm installed by SB as part of a family protection program was activated at 3.29am. This other phone log, and the activation of the alarm, are the only two sources (timed at 3.26am, and 3.29am) that are on record as having occurred prior to the deployment of the occupants of CA07 at 3.35am, so these must be the source from which the aforementioned intelligence was gleaned, resulting in Bews, Myall and Saxby being dispatched to the incident. This proves that J is in the clear and that he was telling the truth about receiving a telephone call from dad, details of which he later recounted to the cop at Chelmsford (3.36am) by which time it becomes clear that cops were already dealing with the same matter, hence why the occupants of CA07 had already been deployed before J made his cop call to Chelmsford...
-
En route to the scene, Cop at Chelmsford who took J's call at 3.36am, relayed the nature and content of his (J) call over to the occupants of CA07, adding that the son had been told to attend the incident and liase with cops. This information could not have been relayed to the occupants of CA07 until after they had already got underway after 3.35am, and no sooner that 3.36am. This is the correct interpretation regarding why the occupants of CA07 were deployed before J called cop at Chelmsford. They could not have set off to the incident at whf based on any information supplied by J because he had not spoken to the cop at Chelmsford by that stage. They were updated about J's call to cop at Chelmsford whilst CA07 were already en route to the scene. This information must have been relayed to them, after the cop at Chelmsford told J to go directly to the scene where he would be met by other cops who had already been deployed to investigate the complaint. We know that the occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene at precisely 3.48am, and we know that it must have been around 3.45am before the cop at Chelmsford told J to go to the farmhouse, adding that he should not approach the house alone, but rather he must wait until cops who had been deployed arrived. What this suggests is that at the time the cop at Chelmsford was giving these instructions to J at around 3.45am, that the cop at Chelmsford might not have been aware in that moment of time, that the occupants of CA07 had 'already been deployed to the same incident. The cop at Chelmsford may have had in his mind, the deployment of CA05 as being the cops he knew were already en route to the scene, hence why the cop who was instructing J over the phone added for J not to approach the farmhouse until these cops arrived there. As I say, there clearly appears to have been an air of mystery surrounding the deployment of CA07 and its occupants to whf before J contacted the cop at Chelmsford. The reason for this is now robustly clear, cops had received 'two calls' that morning, and a SB alarm had been activated. Dad had made the first call at 3.26am, the contents of which were noted. This was followed 3 minutes later by the activation of the SB alarm at 3.29am. As a result the occupants of CA07 were deployed to investigate (3.35am). Then J made his call to the cop at Chelmsford (3.36am), which resulted in the occupants of CA05 being deployed to the farmhouse at 3.36am. Whilst this latter deployment was being orchestrated, the cop at Chelmsford spoke to a civilian employee named Bonnet, and at this time he discovered that a different mobile response in the form of CA07 had already been deployed to the same matter, and as a result Bonnet added a note at the foot of dads phone log bearing the time 3.26am, to the effect that ' the son of Mr Bamber' had contacted CM with a similar message', etc...
-
There will obviously still be some, who advocate the PC West got the timing of J's call wrong by 10 minutes, but even if that were true, it still does not mean that the contents of the 3.26am phone log is what J said to the cop at Chelmsford. This has been discussed on a different thread. However, why would cops make two different phone logs of the same call, one timed at 3.26am, and the other, at 3.36am? It doesn't make sense, since there are no other examples where this has been done, involving PC West (3.36am) and Malcolm Bonnet (3.26am). What should not be overlooked is the fact that during the trial (October, 1986), it was only suggested that the timing of J's call to the cop at Chelmsford had been misrecorded as having occurred at 3.36am, when it had happened 10 minutes sooner at 3.26am. But no physical evidence was produced or adduced in support of such a contention. The closest we got to any of this was when Rivlin QC was pulling West to pieces over what he had written down in his phone log (3.36am) as to what J had supposedly said to him, against something totally different which PC West had stated in one of his witness statements, what he had recorded there that he said J had told him? The information recorded at both sources did not match up, so Rivlin wanted an explanation from PC West for the discrepancies. Now, at this juncture, it may be worth repeating again, that the contents of both phone logs (3.36am, and 3.26am) were not disclosed during the trial alongside one another. Since, as everybody knows it was the defence case throughout the duration of the trial, that J had been woken in the dark of night by a telephone call from dad. It wasn't a conversation as such, more like an attempt by dad to very quickly impart information to J, because dad must have had something far more important on his mind at the time dad was making that call to J. Basically put, it was the defence case that at around 3.25am dad had been alive at that stage. He must have been because he telephoned J and very quickly and with some urgency he blurted it out, that either ' Sheila has got the gun', or maybe ' she has got the gun', or who knows for sure, dad could easily have said, 'he has got the gun', and 'gone crazy, going crazy', or 'gone berserk, going berserk', ending, 'come quickly'. There being no opportunity for J to ask dad anything, to try and clarify, the true state of play at the farmhouse. The call ended just as abruptly as it had commenced. So, on this footing dad must have been alive at that stage, and in any event it was the defence case that dad had been alive at 'that' stage. So, having regard to this, and together with the fact that J was insistent that after the call got terminated how upon trying to ring dad back his efforts were met by a constant engaged tone. It is important that I should speak about this aspect of the defence case, since during the trial the prosecution went to great pains to suggest that if dad had called J, the line had been cut, and because the handset had been found off its cradle at the scene, that J would not have been able to get an engaged tone, or even dial the police until a certain amount of time had elapsed. Anyway, what the prosecution knew, and what we all now know, with of course the benefit of hindsight, is that...
-
There will obviously still be some, who advocate the PC West got the timing of J's call wrong by 10 minutes, but even if that were true, it still does not mean that the contents of the 3.26am phone log is what J said to the cop at Chelmsford. This has been discussed on a different thread. However, why would cops make two different phone logs of the same call, one timed at 3.26am, and the other, at 3.36am? It doesn't make sense, since there are no other examples where this has been done, involving PC West (3.36am) and Malcolm Bonnet (3.26am). What should not be overlooked is the fact that during the trial (October, 1986), it was only suggested that the timing of J's call to the cop at Chelmsford had been misrecorded as having occurred at 3.36am, when it had happened 10 minutes sooner at 3.26am. But no physical evidence was produced or adduced in support of such a contention. The closest we got to any of this was when Rivlin QC was pulling West to pieces over what he had written down in his phone log (3.36am) as to what J had supposedly said to him, against something totally different which PC West had stated in one of his witness statements, what he had recorded there that he said J had told him? The information recorded at both sources did not match up, so Rivlin wanted an explanation from PC West for the discrepancies. Now, at this juncture, it may be worth repeating again, that the contents of both phone logs (3.36am, and 3.26am) were not disclosed during the trial alongside one another. Since, as everybody knows it was the defence case throughout the duration of the trial, that J had been woken in the dark of night by a telephone call from dad. It wasn't a conversation as such, more like an attempt by dad to very quickly impart information to J, because dad must have had something far more important on his mind at the time dad was making that call to J. Basically put, it was the defence case that at around 3.25am dad had been alive at that stage. He must have been because he telephoned J and very quickly and with some urgency he blurted it out, that either ' Sheila has got the gun', or maybe ' she has got the gun', or who knows for sure, dad could easily have said, 'he has got the gun', and 'gone crazy, going crazy', or 'gone berserk, going berserk', ending, 'come quickly'. There being no opportunity for J to ask dad anything, to try and clarify, the true state of play at the farmhouse. The call ended just as abruptly as it had commenced. So, on this footing dad must have been alive at that stage, and in any event it was the defence case that dad had been alive at 'that' stage. So, having regard to this, and together with the fact that J was insistent that after the call got terminated how upon trying to ring dad back his efforts were met by a constant engaged tone. It is important that I should speak about this aspect of the defence case, since during the trial the prosecution went to great pains to suggest that if dad had called J, the line had been cut, and because the handset had been found off its cradle at the scene, that J would not have been able to get an engaged tone, or even dial the police until a certain amount of time had elapsed. Anyway, what the prosecution knew, and what we all now know, with of course the benefit of hindsight, is that...
There existed, the 'contents of dads 3.26am phone log', together with a similar phone log made by PC West of J's 3.36am call...
What transpired as a result of cops and the prosecution withholding the contents of dads 3.26am phone log made by Malcolm Bonnet, is that it deprived the defence of a robust piece of evidence which was capable of supporting the contention that dad was known to be alive after dad had called J at around 3.25am, because dad had called cops himself at 3.26am. Not only that, but by virtue of the fact that cops and the prosecution knew that dad himself had raised the alarm before J himself had, it served to demonstrate why J had been getting an engaged tone, when he tried unsuccessfully to ring dad back. J was getting an engaged tone because dad was speaking with cops as soon as the call from dad to J had been terminated. Furthermore, this explains why the occupants of CA07 (3.35am) got deployed to the scene, before J got around to phoning the cop at Chelmsford (3.36am)...
-
Existence of the 3.26am phone log contents, was capable of corroborating J's account relating to a call received from dad, (3.25am) a minute earlier. It explains why J got the engaged tone when he said he had, and it explains why the occupants of CA07 were deployed to whf at 3.35am, without any input at all from J...
-
Existence of the 3.26am phone log contents, was capable of corroborating J's account relating to a call received from dad, (3.25am) a minute earlier. It explains why J got the engaged tone when he said he had, and it explains why the occupants of CA07 were deployed to whf at 3.35am, without any input at all from J...
This establishes J's innocence. He did not kill dad. He did not kill mum. He did not kill his sister, and he did not kill her two little children...
-
It was part of the prosecutions case, that dad would not have called J, that dad would have called cops, and guess what, that is precisely what dad did do...
-
There now needs to be another high profile investigation into the reasoning behind the denial of the 3.26am phone call log details to the defence during the October, 1986 Crown Court trial. If cops knew about its existence, and the prosecution knew about its existence, the question which needs to be answered, and very sharpiushly I might add, is ' did the trial Judge, Drake, also know of the existence of this compelling piece of evidence?
-
Having pondered long and hard over the implications of the withholding of this valuable piece of evidence, I am left in no doubt whatsoever that J is completely innocent. He said he received the call from dad, and he did. He said he kept getting the engaged tone when he tried to ring dad back, and he did get a constant engaged tone. He did because dad was speaking with cops and the contents of the 3.26am phone log bear witness to that. Dad called cops, just like the prosecution claimed he would have done if dad had still been alive when J said he was...
'Dad was alive, alive, alive, O'...
-
Having pondered long and hard over the implications of the withholding of this valuable piece of evidence, I am left in no doubt whatsoever that J is completely innocent. He said he received the call from dad, and he did. He said he kept getting the engaged tone when he tried to ring dad back, and he did get a constant engaged tone. He did because dad was speaking with cops and the contents of the 3.26am phone log bear witness to that. Dad called cops, just like the prosecution claimed he would have done if dad had still been alive when J said he was...
'Dad was alive, alive, alive, O'...
Now, because of this fact, it stands to good reason that if J had got the gun and J had been attacking dad, that dad would have told cops this when dad called cops himself, as per the 3.26am phone log contents. No, it wasn't J with the gun, it was dads 'daughter'. It is spelt out clearly, fair and squarely, dad told cops during that phone call (3.26am) 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', nothing could be any clearer, it was dads daughter with the one of dads guns, nobody else. That was one of the reasons why cops and prosecution did not want to disclose the logs contents to the defence during the trial. Because it was part of the prosecutions case that J had planted that idea into the minds of cops from a very early stage, that Sheila had ran amok with the gun, shot and killed everybody, then herself. When if the truth be known dad had mentioned that his 'daughter' had the gun. Dad never said that daughter had shot anybody, or killed anybody, dad just told cops that 'my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. If for one moment cops had got any inclination that anybody had been shot the cops would have called for an ambulance immediately. But, they chose not to do this in response to dads call (3.26am), or J's call (3.36am)...
-
There is no doubt in my mind who murdered that family.
Sheila could NOT have delivered the second shot after she'd died from the first one.
-
For some reason, and we are not told why, or who decided to summon three ambulances at around 6 am to the scene, but surely this must have been in response to multiple shots being heard via the open telephone line situated in the kitchen...
-
For some reason, and we are not told why, or who decided to summon three ambulances at around 6 am to the scene, but surely this must have been in response to multiple shots being heard via the open telephone line situated in the kitchen...
Three shots, three ambulances...
-
Three shots, three ambulances...
Cops recovered three spent cartridge cases from the vicinity of the telephone handset off its cradle laid on the cupboard worktop. Is that just a coincidence?
-
At one stage, when the operator was checking the line at the farmhouse, she reported that she could hear 'slight movement' and also the sound of a dog barking - this movement could have been dad, or Sheila moving around in the kitchen. It can't have been the dog 'Crispy' because the dog was upstairs in the main bedroom cowering under the bed. No, that movement was almost certainly confirmation that there was someone still alive inside the farmhouse at that particular time...
-
At one stage, when the operator was checking the line at the farmhouse, she reported that she could hear 'slight movement' and also the sound of a dog barking - this movement could have been dad, or Sheila moving around in the kitchen. It can't have been the dog 'Crispy' because the dog was upstairs in the main bedroom cowering under the bed. No, that movement was almost certainly confirmation that there was someone still alive inside the farmhouse at that particular time...
Dead bodies don't 'move around' all by themselves...
-
The reason cops did not try to enter the farmhouse before 7.30am, was because they were convinced that Sheila was alive somewhere inside the farmhouse in possession of the gun dad had told J about, and what dad himself had told cops about, linked to the sighting of the figure by Myall, Bews and J, and the operators report that she could hear 'slight movement' close to the telephone. One of the problems cops had was that they did not know whereabouts inside the farmhouse, the phone with its handset off the cradle was situated. Cops did not know until later that the phone in the kitchen was the phone via which the operator could hear 'slight movement'. It was only then that cops realised that the 'slight movement' which the operator had reported hearing could well have been a wounded and dying dad, or Sheila herself prowling around over her dads dying, or dead body...
-
The reason cops did not try to enter the farmhouse before 7.30am, was because they were convinced that Sheila was alive somewhere inside the farmhouse in possession of the gun dad had told J about, and what dad himself had told cops about, linked to the sighting of the figure by Myall, Bews and J, and the operators report that she could hear 'slight movement' close to the telephone. One of the problems cops had was that they did not know whereabouts inside the farmhouse, the phone with its handset off the cradle was situated. Cops did not know until later that the phone in the kitchen was the phone via which the operator could hear 'slight movement'. It was only then that cops realised that the 'slight movement' which the operator had reported hearing could well have been a wounded and dying dad, or Sheila herself prowling around over her dads dying, or dead body...
Three things 'leap out of the file' which confirm to me why 'cops believed there were still people alive inside the farmhouse', right up until the point when 'the raid team went in'...
-
Three things 'leap out of the file' which confirm to me why 'cops believed there were still people alive inside the farmhouse', right up until the point when 'the raid team went in'...
(1) - report by the operator, that she could hear 'slight movement' close to the handset of the phone, wherever that was inside the farmhouse
(2) - three shots fired in close proximity to aforementioned phone, three spent cartridges cases found on top of kitchen table, and three ambulances summoned to attend the scene, arriving duly at 7am
(3) - the 'sudden appearance of the anshuzt rifle' at the upstairs bedroom window at 7.15am, where no such weapon had previously been visible, as referenced by WPC Julia Jeapes in her ' undisclosed' witness statement (not disclosed until after 2002)
-
(1) - report by the operator, that she could hear 'slight movement' close to the handset of the phone, wherever that was inside the farmhouse
(2) - three shots fired in close proximity to aforementioned phone, three spent cartridges cases found on top of kitchen table, and three ambulances summoned to attend the scene, arriving duly at 7am
(3) - the 'sudden appearance of the anshuzt rifle' at the upstairs bedroom window at 7.15am, where no such weapon had previously been visible, as referenced by WPC Julia Jeapes in her ' undisclosed' witness statement (not disclosed until after 2002)
Add to this short list, the contents of the police message log entries, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 8.10am, and also incorporate the message sent by a civilian employee at 7.45am, a female with the Christian name of 'Linda' to DS Davidson at home, requesting him to come on duty into the office because police were dealing with an incident at whf involving two bodies, a murder, and a suicide, and it suddenly becomes clear why cops and prosecution don't want to disclose anything that might open up a can of worms at the same time as helping to clear J's good name in the same process...
-
Another astounding fact was that DCI 'Taff' Jones, was not told that anyone had been found shot and killed until he arrived at the scene at around 9.05am. He thought he was attending a siege situation, with Sheila holding other members of her family as hostages - and remember this was about an hour after five dead bodies had supposedly been found, depending upon which of the two police scenarios you choose to accept, for example, two bodies downstairs by 7.38am, and a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, as opposed to the other version the officers were instructed to write their notes up with in mind, only one body downstairs, the other four bodies upstairs. How did the two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, scenario, become a one body downstairs, four bodies upstairs one?
The answer to that is because there was a twist smack bang in the middle of the operation when it went 'pearshaped...
-
What becomes apparent is that cops were confronted with two bodies upon entry, but obviously one of these two bodies was mistakenly presumed to be dead when she wasn't. You can choose to believe whatever you like, but I must insist that what I am saying is true. We know by reference to the logs that one of these bodies was male, and that the other body was a female. It is therefore a relatively simple deduction to be able to say that at some stage immediately after the raid team entered the kitchen that they were first and foremost confronted by Ralph Bambers body, so that puts paid to the male body. Which leaves a female body. Now, there were only two female victims, June Bamber and Sheila Caffell. The female body referred to had to have been either, or one of these two. Notice that because the body of the male is reported / recorded in the message logs firstly, that there can be no room for the argument that PC Collins mistakenly thought the body which turned out to be Ralph, was the body of a female. No such mistake can be accounted for by referring to the contents of these police message logs, because discovery of the male body is clearly reported before there is any mention of the body of a female. The body of a dead female is mentioned 'after' the discovery of the body of a dead male. So, as I say no room for any mistake there made by PC Collins. Another point worth considering whilst dealing with the nonsense introduced primarily by PC Collins, is that he reports seeing what He thinks is the body of a dead female, from his vantage point of standing outside the kitchen window which is a key observation. He then claims that once he entered the kitchen he realised his mistake, because he says he realised that the body he thought was a dead female, was in fact a dead male. This explanation is at odds with the facts recorded in the police message logs, since PC Collins explanation relies on an observation from outside the kitchen window looking inward, and another observation once he enters the kitchen, whereas, the log contents refer to what was found once the cops got into the kitchen. PC Collins version of events do not match the version of events logged in the radio message logs. In the logs, there is mention of finding the body of one dead male, followed by the find of the body of one dead female, twice, as if the second reference to one dead male, one dead female, is a check to confirm that what has been reported in the log was true, and it was true. If there had been 'this mistake' as proffered by PC Collins, the error would have been 'corrected in the log', with the discovery of 'four bodies upstairs', but the relevant log entry timed at 8.10am, is emphatic - ' a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total'...
-
We know that 'the details recorded in these police radio message logs' were 'relayed to the control room' by the 'occupants of CA07'. We know this because it states as much in the logs. Now, this in itself is very interesting, for a number of different as yet unexplored reasons, to which I shall now endeavour to address...
-
We know that 'the details recorded in these police radio message logs' were 'relayed to the control room' by the 'occupants of CA07'. We know this because it states as much in the logs. Now, this in itself is very interesting, for a number of different as yet unexplored reasons, to which I shall now endeavour to address...
Let's get the names of all the actors in this part of the script, so that everybody knows who's who, and who was where, and who did what?
Occupants of CA07, who were originally deployed to 'this' incident acting on information passed at 3.26am by the dad (Ralph Bamber ) to cops, were (1) the driver, PS Oliver Saxby, (2) PS Bews, and (3) PC Myall...
Linked to PS Oliver Saxby at the time these key police radio messages were being passed by CA07 was, none other than J.
Now, on the very many occasions I have had to interview, question, interrogate J about specific features of this case, he has never once said to me that he was inside the patrol car in the company of PS Oliver Saxby, when any of these 'key messages' were being passed by his call sign (CA07). This means that it was not Saxby who passed any of these messages. J does not know this because I have never told him, but it was PS Bews who was responsible for relaying the messages which he was listening into on a private frequency used by members of the raid team and their Commander, and simply relaying these messages using another radio on a different frequency to relay what he was overhearing, to the control room. Bews knows the truth about the two bodies which confronted the firearm officers as they first entered the kitchen. There was no mistaken identification of dads body, for the body of Sheila or June. Bews heard it correctly, two bodies, not one, and what's more, back in the control room staff confirmed that there had been two bodies, through listening in on the telephone eavesdrop. Bews, Myall and Saxby were all under that same call sign (CA07). For over 30 years, Bews and Myall have both been privy to 'the fact' that the raid team were 'confronted by Sheila' at the point of first entry into the kitchen. She was not the first body cops were confronted by, the first body was that of a dead male, one dead male, Ralph Bamber , or dad. Sheila was the second body which confronted the cops, she was the referenced 'the body of one dead female' after they shot her...
The conversations between Bews, Myall and Saxby, were muted for much of the remainder of that day until the debriefing, when PS Saxby brought to the attention of Senior officers the 'fact' that Jeremy had complained to him, that he thought the cops who had entered the farmhouse, had shot dead, not just Sheila, but everyone else, as well...
-
Bews is an integral part of the cover up regarding not only the 'sighting of the person at the upstairs bedroom window', but he was actively involved and responsible for relaying the message from the scene to the control room, regarding the 'presence of Sheila, downstairs in the kitchen' between 7.37am, and 8.10am...
Fact...
-
Bews is an integral part of the cover up regarding not only the 'sighting of the person at the upstairs bedroom window', but he was actively involved and responsible for relaying the message from the scene to the control room, regarding the 'presence of Sheila, downstairs in the kitchen' between 7.37am, and 8.10am...
Fact...
For over 30 years Bews has been personally responsible for keeping J in Prison convicted of murdering his sister, when he could not possibly have shot and killed her upstairs in the bedroom, when he knows with 100% certainty that Sheilas body was downstairs in the kitchen for at least 33 minutes. Bews is a witness who could if he wanted to, end J's living nightmare by coming out of the woodwork and fessin' up to what I am drawing e eryones attention too...
-
For over 30 years Bews has been personally responsible for keeping J in Prison convicted of murdering his sister, when he could not possibly have shot and killed her upstairs in the bedroom, when he knows with 100% certainty that Sheilas body was downstairs in the kitchen for at least 33 minutes. Bews is a witness who could if he wanted to, end J's living nightmare by coming out of the woodwork and fessin' up to what I am drawing everyones attention too...
But, will he?
-
Allow me to remind everybody, that it wasn't until after the COLP enquiry that it became common knowledge that J had indeed complained to Oliver Saxby when news was broke to J that all his family had been found shot dead inside the farmhouse, that 'cops must have shot them all dead'. During my interrogation of J (some time ago, now I might add) I became extremely interested in what made J say that to the cop, at that time? I wanted to know why J thought the cops had shot dead all his family? His replies (because I always made it my business to go back over things at a moments notice, so as not to allow him time to think up answers) were very interesting...
-
Allow me to remind everybody, that it wasn't until after the COLP enquiry that it became common knowledge that J had indeed complained to Oliver Saxby when news was broke to J that all his family had been found shot dead inside the farmhouse, that 'cops must have shot them all dead'. During my interrogation of J (some time ago, now I might add) I became extremely interested in what made J say that to the cop, at that time? I wanted to know why J thought the cops had shot dead all his family? His replies (because I always made it my business to go back over things at a moments notice, so as not to allow him time to think up answers) were very interesting...
One of the first things he told me, was because everybody at the farmhouse knew that his family were alive inside the farmhouse from a very early stage. When I asked J what he meant by his reference to 'an early stage', it was then that he talked about the sighting of the person at the first floor level bedroom window. He identified that bedroom window to me as his parents bedroom. So, I asked him to recount to me, how this particular sighting of the so called figure came about. He told me that they had climbed a gate and entered what he described to me in layman's terms to be the garden at the front of the farmhouse. So, I asked him who drew attention to the person, and what was the person doing when they all saw it? He said that it was one of the cops he was with who first noticed a slight movement at the right hand edge of his parents bedroom window. I asked J what did he personally see at that point? He tells me that there was this figure of a person standing to the right hand side of the window as viewed by them. He said this person was just stood there as though observing what they were doing. I asked if he could tell whether the person he was looking at was male or female? J says he couldn't tell, but mentioned that one of the cops referred to this person, as a 'he'. I asked J what did you all do when you realised that you were being watched by somebody up in his parents bedroom window? J said it was a bit unnerving because he couldn't tell whether it was his dad, his mum or Sheila. So, I asked J, well who else could it be? J responds and says, 'he did not know'. So, I said to J, you are all stood in the grounds of the front garden, somebody is at your parents bedroom window looking down at you all. What happened then? J says they crouched down behind a walled flower bed trying to hide themselves but they stood out like sore thumbs. And then he says the person in the bedroom walked from right to left across the opening of the window and disappeared out of sight to the left of the window. It was not a trick of light, I later satisfied myself because I gleaned from J that he and the two cops were crouched static behind the flower bed and the person literraly walked across the window from one side to the other, right to left from his vantage point. I asked him what happened then, and J said the two cops and himself bolted it out of the grounds back to the patrol car parked up in pages lane with Saxby manning it...
-
The only person who stood at the window would have been June,whose blood drips were found there.
-
J said there was definitely somebody alive at 'that' point inside his parents bedroom. He accepts that it could have been his mum, his dad, or Sheila. He discounts the possibility that it could have been anybody else because when the cops eventually went in three and a half hours later, they didn't find anybody other than members of his family. J said the reason why he complained to Oliver Saxby that he thought cops had shot and killed his family was chiefly because of the sighting of that person in his parents bedroom and the fact that he had not heard any reports that anyone had heard gunshots whilst he was with police in the grounds or roundabout the farm in their company. J said he had been moved away from the perimeter of the farm and placed inside Saxbys patrol car when the firearm chaps had gone to get into the house, and when news was eventually broken to him that his family had been shot dead, he automatically assumed that there had been a shoot out, and that the reason he hadn't heard any gunshots on this occasion was because cops had moved him out of earshot and harms way by placing inside the patrol car with PS Saxby in Pages Lane, near the farm cottages...
-
For over 30 years Bews has been personally responsible for keeping J in Prison convicted of murdering his sister, when he could not possibly have shot and killed her upstairs in the bedroom, when he knows with 100% certainty that Sheilas body was downstairs in the kitchen for at least 33 minutes. Bews is a witness who could if he wanted to, end J's living nightmare by coming out of the woodwork and fessin' up to what I am drawing e eryones attention too...
Mike what do you know of PC Bews?
-
Mike what do you know of PC Bews?
Only that he was granted immunity from prosecution for making up the story about the 'trick of light' sighting of 'the living person' in the Bamber parents bedroom. Also that he was made subject of a 'D Notice' imposed upon him, Myall and Saxby, by Special Branch not to speak publickly regarding the true reason they were deployed to the incident at 3.35am. I have been given this information privately. About a year ago, I was told that Chris' Bews was regarded as a key witness to clear J of the murders, because it was ' he' who was monitoring the radio communication between the raid team as they forced their way into the kitchen and were 'confronted' by Dad, and daughter. Bews relayed the information via police radio to the control room regarding 'two bodies' found upon entry to the kitchen. Bews knows that J could not possibly have shot and killed his sister upstairs in the bedroom, because he heard the raid team confrontation involving her downstairs in the kitchen, eventually he heard the command, 'one female dead', hence why the message that Bews passed to the control room was ' the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry'. The person who told me this reckons that 'the powers that be' are worried that Bews will crack, and maybe 'spill the beans'. This is because he enjoys being in the public image, whereas Myalls and Saxby were not like that. It is a fact though that Bews knows that Sheila was alive in the kitchen when cops went into the farmhouse. He heard everything that was said by members of the raid team who were using open mike communication during the operation Sheila was alive downstairs at just after 7.30am, then she was pronounced dead twice from 7.37am, onward. Her body being one of the two bodies found downstairs in the kitchen, so J could not have shot and killed her, or staged her death scene in the bedroom upstairs - Chris' Bews is J's 'get out of jail card', because he was there at the scene, he performed liason duties by relaying messages between the raid team inside the farmhouse, to staff in the control room in Chelmsford. You cannot afford to make 'mistakes' if you are the guy assigned this important role, and he didn't make any mistakes, he simply relayed to the control room what he was monitoring on the open mike system. Also, what you have got to remember is that staff back in the control room were eavesdropping everything that was being said whilst there was any activity going on in and around the kitchen phone with its handset off outs cradle, so all in all, Bews was not relaying anything back to the control room which they were not already aware of, because everything that was being said via the open mike system was being overheard via the telephone intercept that was functioning at that stage of the operation. The bottom line insofar as Bews knowing more than he has ever dared talk about publicly, to date, about Sheila's presence downstairs in the kitchen. If he is put on the spot, and asked outright ' how many bodies were found downstairs when cops entered the kitchen', there is no way out for him other than to ' fess up. He can't use the 'trick of light' explanation over this matter, because they are his words that he relayed from the scene to the control room. The police surgeon was being told there were two bodies found, so too was the Coroners Officer, and DCI's here, there, and everywhere. To top it all, even ACC Simpson was led to believe that 'two bodies' had been found downstairs upon entry, yet by the end of the police operation only one body remained there...
-
Only that he was granted immunity from prosecution for making up the story about the 'trick of light' sighting of 'the living person' in the Bamber parents bedroom. Also that he was made subject of a 'D Notice' imposed upon him, Myall and Saxby, by Special Branch not to speak publickly regarding the true reason they were deployed to the incident at 3.35am. I have been given this information privately. About a year ago, I was told that Chris' Bews was regarded as a key witness to clear J of the murders, because it was ' he' who was monitoring the radio communication between the raid team as they forced their way into the kitchen and were 'confronted' by Dad, and daughter. Bews relayed the information via police radio to the control room regarding 'two bodies' found upon entry to the kitchen. Bews knows that J could not possibly have shot and killed his sister upstairs in the bedroom, because he heard the raid team confrontation involving her downstairs in the kitchen, eventually he heard the command, 'one female dead', hence why the message that Bews passed to the control room was ' the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry'. The person who told me this reckons that 'the powers that be' are worried that Bews will crack, and maybe 'spill the beans'. This is because he enjoys being in the public image, whereas Myalls and Saxby were not like that. It is a fact though that Bews knows that Sheila was alive in the kitchen when cops went into the farmhouse. He heard everything that was said by members of the raid team who were using open mike communication during the operation Sheila was alive downstairs at just after 7.30am, then she was pronounced dead twice from 7.37am, onward. Her body being one of the two bodies found downstairs in the kitchen, so J could not have shot and killed her, or staged her death scene in the bedroom upstairs - Chris' Bews is J's 'get out of jail card', because he was there at the scene, he performed liason duties by relaying messages between the raid team inside the farmhouse, to staff in the control room in Chelmsford. You cannot afford to make 'mistakes' if you are the guy assigned this important role, and he didn't make any mistakes, he simply relayed to the control room what he was monitoring on the open mike system. Also, what you have got to remember is that staff back in the control room were eavesdropping everything that was being said whilst there was any activity going on in and around the kitchen phone with its handset off outs cradle, so all in all, Bews was not relaying anything back to the control room which they were not already aware of, because everything that was being said via the open mike system was being overheard via the telephone intercept that was functioning at that stage of the operation. The bottom line insofar as Bews knowing more than he has ever dared talk about publicly, to date, about Sheila's presence downstairs in the kitchen. If he is put on the spot, and asked outright ' how many bodies were found downstairs when cops entered the kitchen', there is no way out for him other than to ' fess up. He can't use the 'trick of light' explanation over this matter, because they are his words that he relayed from the scene to the control room. The police surgeon was being told there were two bodies found, so too was the Coroners Officer, and DCI's here, there, and everywhere. To top it all, even ACC Simpson was led to believe that 'two bodies' had been found downstairs upon entry, yet by the end of the police operation only one body remained there...
One body moved, either by its own steam, or it was carried upstairs. The information I have been given was that Sheila made her own way upstairs. By 8.15am, she was no longer downstairs in the kitchen. It took her less than 30 seconds to get from the kitchen downstairs, before she collapsed again onto her parents bed. She had not been moving around continually after she received the first shot downstairs in the kitchen. She was not even armed with a weapon when cop shot her. Since, at that stage the anshuzt rifle was upstairs resting near to the bedroom window...
-
One body moved, either by its own steam, or it was carried upstairs. The information I have been given was that Sheila made her own way upstairs. By 8.15am, she was no longer downstairs in the kitchen. It took her less than 30 seconds to get from the kitchen downstairs, before she collapsed again onto her parents bed. She had not been moving around continually after she received the first shot downstairs in the kitchen. She was not even armed with a weapon when cop shot her. Since, at that stage the anshuzt rifle was upstairs resting near to the bedroom window...
You've obviously been misinformed then. Somebody telling porkies again. :)
Your 'cop shot her' tale must be the silliest thing ever.
-
You've obviously been misinformed then. Somebody telling porkies again. :)
Your 'cop shot her' tale must be the silliest thing ever.
John I don't buy that either, but the trick of the light conspiracy is worth investigating as well as the enormity of the cover up which must have taken place if Jeremy is to be declared innocent.
-
Your 'cop shot her' tale must be the silliest thing ever.
Not half as silly, as the 'existence' then, of an officers report, that deals with the shooting of Sheila in the kitchen...
-
The evidence is all there in the police file, cops held back from approaching the farmhouse because of Sheila in possession of guns. The 'movement' of a person at the parents bedroom window. It wasn't a 'trick of light' as suggested by Bews , if anything, it was a 'trick of truth'. Added to that was 'movement' of a person' overheard by the operator, a person close to where the phones handset was off its cradle. At the time this occurred nobody outside the farmhouse knew which phone had its handset off the hook, but with the benefit of hindsight we now know that it was in the kitchen. So, by the time the operator checked the telephone line and heard 'this movement' it becomes crystal clear that there was somebody in the kitchen who was ''not dead'.This suggests in the clearest possible terms that at the time the operator made this observation, that either 'dad' or 'the daughter', were 'moving around in the kitchen'. We know that by this time that the anshuzt rifle was 'not resting against the bedroom window' at that stage. So, somebody 'alive inside the farmhouse' must had got control and possession of 'it' at that point. It's no good everybody 'hiding their heads in the sand', like an ostrich, ask yourselves, ' where was the anshuzt rifle at 'all times' prior to someone placing it near the bedroom 'window'? I don't think 'dad' placed it there, I don't think 'mum' placed it there. J 'didn't place it 'there either. Rest assured, that the 'only person' who could have placed that rifle there at that window was 'the daughter'. And, she 'did' place it there in full view, like 'a trophy'. By that stage, the 'others' were 'all dead', but not 'Sheila'...
An 'un-armed' Sheila went downstairs to the kitchen 'contemplating a surrender', but all that changed once the barrel of the cops gun came around the edge of the internal kitchen door...
-
Sheila 'did not die', until 9.13am, that morning. How then can J be responsible for 'killing' her?
-
Don't forget 'the trophy', which Sheila put 'in clear view', at the bedroom at around '7.15am'..
-
Don't forget 'the trophy', which Sheila put 'in clear view', at the bedroom at around '7.15am'..
Cops and the xxxxxxxxx prosecutor, 'his these facts' from the defence, the court, and most importantly of all, the jury'...
-
Cops involved in the firearm operation should not be treated as ' truth seekers', they are 'xxxxx', xxxxxx no good xxxxx. They moved the bodies from 'where' they found them, ' and fabricated a different account declaring the bodies had been found, here, there, and everywhere...
Despicable, cops, dispicable prosecutor, the ' Criminal Justice System' should hang its head, in 'shame'...
-
Prosecutors can't be prosecuted, for telling deliberate lies, or for fabricating evidence - this is part of the problem. xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxxxx can get away with falsifying evidence against an unsuspecting innocent person. I say being back 'hanging' just to rid the world of these xxxx xxxx xxxx. They are sometimes worse than the terrorists we hear about on a daily basis...
-
There should be a 'public enquiry' into why a full account regarding the 'discrepancies' between the 'contents of police message logs', and ' witness statement accounts' about where the bodies of the five victims were originally found'. The current state of affairs is totally 'unacceptable'. Heads must roll for allowing this situation to survive for over 30 years, unaddressed. .
-
There should be a 'public enquiry' into why a full account regarding the 'discrepancies' between the 'contents of police message logs', and ' witness statement accounts' about where the bodies of the five victims were originally found'. The current state of affairs is totally 'unacceptable'. Heads must roll for allowing this situation to survive for over 30 years, unaddressed. .
Tell you what, let's xxxx the prosecutor, and the xxxxx cops, then have an inquiry, afterwards...
-
Sheila 'did not die', until 9.13am, that morning. How then can J be responsible for 'killing' her?
Impossible
-
Don't forget 'the trophy', which Sheila put 'in clear view', at the bedroom at around '7.15am'..
Were you there? Did you see her? Obviously NOT!!
-
Cops involved in the firearm operation should not be treated as ' truth seekers', they are 'xxxxx', xxxxxx no good xxxxx. They moved the bodies from 'where' they found them, ' and fabricated a different account declaring the bodies had been found, here, there, and everywhere...
Despicable, cops, dispicable prosecutor, the ' Criminal Justice System' should hang its head, in 'shame'...
They did their job, no more and no less.
-
There should be a 'public enquiry' into why a full account regarding the 'discrepancies' between the 'contents of police message logs', and ' witness statement accounts' about where the bodies of the five victims were originally found'. The current state of affairs is totally 'unacceptable'. Heads must roll for allowing this situation to survive for over 30 years, unaddressed. .
All so-called discrepancies have been more than adequately dealt with.
-
There should be a 'public enquiry' into why a full account regarding the 'discrepancies' between the 'contents of police message logs', and ' witness statement accounts' about where the bodies of the five victims were originally found'. The current state of affairs is totally 'unacceptable'. Heads must roll for allowing this situation to survive for over 30 years, unaddressed. .
Tell you what, let's hang the prosecutor, and the lying cops, then have an inquiry, afterwards...
-
Prosecutors can't be prosecuted, for telling deliberate lies, or for fabricating evidence - this is part of the problem. xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxxxx can get away with falsifying evidence against an unsuspecting innocent person. I say being back 'hanging' just to rid the world of these xxxx xxxx xxxx. They are sometimes worse than the terrorists we hear about on a daily basis...
Then you must prove that they're lying. Quite possibly they will say, as you have said, that they believed what they'd said to be the truth when they said it. No one has prosecuted you for your words, have they?
-
Tell you what, let's hang the prosecutor, and the lying cops, then have an inquiry, afterwards...
Yes yes...everybody's guilty except Jeremy Bamber. ::)
-
I would say defence lawyers are worse for telling lies.
They will say all sorts of things which are made up. They won't have anything to back it up, but it just gets the jury thinking about other scenarios and reasonable doubt.
In the OJ case, the defence claimed the police planted blood, DNA and clothes in four locations. Because Simpson was a black man. None of the police had been accused of being racist before.
However the 14th officer on the scene, who was directed around the back of Rockingham by Simpson's house guest, found a matching bloodied glove. He had used the 'N' word nine years earlier in a taped conversation for a film script. Some of the jurors said this was a deciding factor for them.
-
I would say defence lawyers are worse for telling lies.
They will say all sorts of things which are made up. They won't have anything to back it up, but it just gets the jury thinking about other scenarios and reasonable doubt.
In the OJ case, the defence claimed the police planted blood, DNA and clothes in four locations. Because Simpson was a black man. None of the police had been accused of being racist before.
However the 14th officer on the scene, who was directed around the back of Rockingham by Simpson's house guest, found a matching bloodied glove. He had used the 'N' word nine years earlier in a taped conversation for a film script. Some of the jurors said this was a deciding factor for them.
Who had used 'the N word' Adam, I don't quite follow what you're saying.
-
I would say defence lawyers are worse for telling lies.
They will say all sorts of things which are made up. They won't have anything to back it up, but it just gets the jury thinking about other scenarios and reasonable doubt.
In the OJ case, the defence claimed the police planted blood, DNA and clothes in four locations. Because Simpson was a black man. None of the police had been accused of being racist before.
However the 14th officer on the scene, who was directed around the back of Rockingham by Simpson's house guest, found a matching bloodied glove. He had used the 'N' word nine years earlier in a taped conversation for a film script. Some of the jurors said this was a deciding factor for them.
The problem is he swore under oath that he had never used that word before, this enabled the defence to prove he was a liar. Mark Furman was done for perjury after the trail
-
Then you must prove that they're lying. Quite possibly they will say, as you have said, that they believed what they'd said to be the truth when they said it. No one has prosecuted you for your words, have they?
No, that's right, but I am not trying to condemned an innocent person for something that they could not possibly have done, and did not do. I do not tell lies to get anybody convicted of something they did not do, that is the difference. Everybody should be accountable for what they do, or say. You can't blame somebody for believing anything, but when faced with the clearest evidence imaginable, if someone can be shown to be lying, they must be held accountable. Now, lady, what I am saying, is that the prosecutor in the Bamber prosecution fell into that category which I refer to, as a lying, evil, no good for nothing, scumbag. That xxxxxxx knew there was evidence (available to him, to the defence, to the court, to the xxxxxxx jury, that J could not have and did not kill, anybody), now if you accept this, then the prosecutor, needs hanging ( like Saddam Hussein), I doubt, however, that these xxx xxx xxxxxxxx prosecutors and bent cops from the past, will die brutally and with 'dignity', in the manner which SaddamHussein showed in his final moments on this earth. How Would the Prime minister and the President of the USA have conducted themselves in the final moments? Ordinary members of 'the public' are being taken for a ride. The system is corrupted, run by corrupt officials, and corrupt participants. I trust my dog (Mist') more than I trust the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA...
-
There is going to be 'civil unrest' and even ' a civil war' because those that govern us, think they are better than us. Send them all to the gallows, that's what I say, and let us have an inquiry why these 'fat cat bastards', were hung...
-
I would like to ' hear', the President of the USA talk about J's conviction. I would like to listen to him, talk about the ' rights', and the 'wrongs' of the persecution of 'J', based upon the 'greedy aspirations' of the relatives, and 'why' in his opinion, the available evidence, which was available to cops, and the 'dastardly' prosecutor, during the trial was 'deliberately' withheld from (1) the defence, (2) the court, and (3) from the jury?
-
Everyone, is entitled, to live a happy existence, free from oppression, free from intimidation, free from the action of others with the desire to portray this person, or 'that' person, of having done this, or that, or of having been responsible for doing this, or that...
The President of the US of A, and the Prime Minister of the Uk, are not interested in 'personnel circumstances', their goal is a ' general one', designed to fool the 'masses', it's basically, a ' universal deception', nothing more, 'nothing less'...
But...
'The truth, will out'...
-
Who are the liars? The convicted Criminals, or their 'prosecutors'?
I say, hang the 'prosecutors', then let's have an investigation, into why we hung them...
-
Who are the liars? The convicted Criminals, or their 'prosecutors'?
I say, hang the 'prosecutors', then let's have an investigation, into why we hung them...
Fuck, how their 'families feel' about them having been 'hung', the ' truth' will eventually come out, decades later. In the meantime, let's also 'hang UK Prime Ministers', and the Presidents of the 'US of A' (providing that it can be established, that they deliberately lie), for deceiving ordinary people. The 'buck' has got to stop somewhere,and 'fat cat bastards' have to be held accountable, for their dishonest application..,
-
Why does the buck stop, with the hanging of Saddam Hussein?
What about all the atrocities committed by the Prime Ministers of the UK, and the Presidents of the US of A?
-
Why does the buck stop, with the hanging of Saddam Hussein?
What about all the atrocities committed by the Prime Ministers of the UK, and the Presidents of the US of A?
Oh, I get it, the Prime Minister of the UK, and the President of the US of A, don't tell lies, they don't take any action which results in the deaths of vulnerable, innocent victims...
What a xxxx xxxx joke...
The xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx...
-
So many ' innocent lives lost' because of decisions made by these 'morons'. How would these xxxxxxxx like it, if someone dropped bombs and killed members of 'their' family, or friends, or associates?
-
PC Bird (soco) took photographs during two sessions whilst Sheila's body was laid insitu, after 10am. So, here we are, what did cops do, to 'the daughter', in between both of these sessions, and why?
Something 'very unusual occurred involving Sheila Caffells body', in between the first series of photographs, taken by PC Bird (soco) after 10 O'clock, and the second seies of photographs which ' he' took, thereafter...
Think, logically...
-
The ' authorities' have lied, they are 'liars'...
-
Spotlessly clean,wasn't she ? Not a mark on her.
-
That's not Sheila.
-
That's not Sheila.
Yes, Steve, it 'is'...
-
Looks like her to me,with that shot near her jaw-bone.
-
We are now, down to the 'nitty, gritty', to show, and to demonstrate what cops did to the body of the daughter, that was suppose to have already been 'dead' for over six hours (if J was the killer)prior to 'them' administering CPR to Sheila at some time after 10 am (second session)...
-
Looks like her to me,with that shot near her jaw-bone.
I have had it confirmed, that this 'is an image of Sheila'. Moreover, that this is 'the image' which ACC Simpson kept locked away in his office safe, which the COLP investigators, stated 'should not have happened'. So, here we are, at 'deaths door', cops at the scene, performing ',CPR' on a body which they 'believed was still possibly 'alive', at some stage, 'after' 10 O'clock that morning...
Bear with me...
-
Yes, Steve, it 'is'...
No its not, its from a reconstruction In the CI documentary crimes that shook Britain, ask the producers
-
That's not Sheila.
I'm totally with you there, Steve. In fact I well remember the last time we were fobbed off with pictures of "Sheila" and "June" who'd allegedly been hauled, not QUITE dead, into another room, and then hauyled back to the master bedroom to die.
-
I'm totally with you there, Steve. In fact I well remember the last time we were fobbed off with pictures of "Sheila" and "June" who'd allegedly been hauled, not QUITE dead, into another room, and then hauyled back to the master bedroom to die.
its a dummy from a documentary
-
I have had it confirmed, that this 'is an image of Sheila'. Moreover, that this is 'the image' which ACC Simpson kept locked away in his office safe, which the COLP investigators, stated 'should not have happened'. So, here we are, at 'deaths door', cops at the scene, performing ',CPR' on a body which they 'believed was still possibly 'alive', at some stage, 'after' 10 O'clock that morning...
Bear with me...
How come you label all those as liars who believe Jeremy guilty and yet when every one of your so called informants tell you a different story, THEY'RE all telling the truth?
-
No its not, its from a reconstruction In the CI documentary crimes that shook Britain, ask the producers
Yes, it is Sheila, you do not know what you are talking about. It's definately Sheila, 100% her. You are obviously out to 'sabotage' J's chances of getting his convictions quashed. How dare you come on this forum claiming that you have uncovered new scientific evidence that will clear J, yet deny the existence of a photograph which is clearly of Sheila?
Shame on you...
-
I'm totally with you there, Steve. In fact I well remember the last time we were fobbed off with pictures of "Sheila" and "June" who'd allegedly been hauled, not QUITE dead, into another room, and then hauyled back to the master bedroom to die.
It's defo' an image of Sheila, which is why people like yourself will never bring yourselves to admitting the truth, you are obviously 'not with it', god help anybody who might be on trial, and you being a juror...
-
It's defo' an image of Sheila, which is why people like yourself will never bring yourselves to admitting the truth, you are obviously 'not with it', god help anybody who might be on trial, and you being a juror...
Mike it looks like a woman well over 29 years old and the nightdress has a pattern on it whilst Sheila's was plain white.
-
its a dummy from a documentary
No, it's not, you are the xxxxxxx xxxxx'', and full of xxxxxxxx...
-
Yes, it is Sheila, you do not know what you are talking about. It's definately Sheila, 100% her. You are obviously out to 'sabotage' J's chances of getting his convictions quashed. How dare you come on this forum claiming that you have uncovered new scientific evidence that will clear J, yet deny the existence of a photograph which is clearly of Sheila?
Shame on you...
My claims of new evidence have been corroborated by others. The producers of the documentary will not agree that is Sheila
-
Mike it looks like a woman well over 29 years old and the nightdress has a pattern on it whilst Sheila's was plain white.
Listen, I haven't got time to waste arguing the toss, this is 'the photograph which COLP investigators declared ACC Simpson deliberately kept back from the defence'. It is defo' Sheila...
-
My claims of new evidence have been corroborated by others. The producers of the documentary will not agree that is Sheila
It is Sheila, and 'good luck' with whatever you think you have come up with. ..
-
Looks like her to me,with that shot near her jaw-bone.
It's defo' Sheila. They don't want to 'admit' that it is, because to 'do so' means they have to accept that there is something 'dramatically wrong' with the 'police version of events', and the 'prosecutions case'. Corruption, begets Corruption...
-
It is Sheila, and 'good luck' with whatever you think you have come up with. ..
Its out of my hands now, its down to JBs lawyers how they go about it :-\
-
Corruption is alive and well.
I bet the fingermarks found on June's neck were the results of Sheila's right blooded hand. Similarly,fingermarks found on Sheila's neck would have been June's.
-
Its out of my hands now, its down to JBs lawyers how they go about it :-\
Yes, 'good luck' with that. But don't you dare insinuate that I am a liar over the authenticity of this image. It is defo' an image taken of 'the daughter. You make sure you get the producer of any documentary you like to come on here saying anything different to what am saying. I will call such a producer a xxxx xxx x xxxx xxxxxxx, because if they come on here telling such a blatent lie, they surely must be. 'evil'...
-
He'll need more than " good luck " ! If the same tactic is used as that in the Amaral libel case where " trolls " raised £50,000 for the crooked cop,then whatever evidence has been found won't be worth a carrot.
I'm old and I'm wise.!
-
Yes, it is Sheila - they applied CPR in between the two occasions PC Bird (soco) took photographs, after 10 O'clock, but why, if she had already been dead for seven hours or more, already?
-
You do not attempt CPR on the body of a victim which has already been dead for longer than '7 hours' already, do you not?
-
For some reason, cops don't explain why they performed 'CPR' after 10 O'clock on the body of 'the daughter'...
-
We are now 'on course' toward proving that 'Cops have lied' regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Sheila Caffell...
-
We 'will' nail the bastards...
-
That bloodied image of Sheila was taken in the morgue hours after she was discovered. The transportation of the body in a body bag is what caused the massive amount of blood smearing seen in that photo compared to the original taken in the bedroom.
There was no reason for anyone to give CPR to a deceased person.
-
We 'will' nail the bastards...
There appears to be a proliferation of """"""""""""""""""""""" attached to many of your posts, Mike. Have you undertaken a breeding programme on their behalf?
-
That bloodied image of Sheila was taken in the morgue hours after she was discovered. The transportation of the body in a body bag is what caused the massive amount of blood smearing seen in that photo compared to the original taken in the bedroom.
There was no reason for anyone to give CPR to a deceased person.
No, it isn't. Morticians don't place the bodies of the deceased resting on their right sides. And Besides, if you look closely her lips are perfectly clean of any blood. So how do you explain that or this?
-
Cops interfered with her body alright, they used it like a prop in a stage construction. If we are to believe some, morticians / undertakers, carry bodies off in body bags with the deceased toppled over upon their sides so that blood chiefly runs only down one side of the victims body...
Remarkable theory...
-
Lets take a closer look at Sheila's mouth whilst examining a photograph taken by PC Bird (soco) which for some reason the muzzle end of the rifles barrel is resting 'against her neck'. Here we can all see the amount of blood that is all over her lips, yet in the other one, the one with all the additional blood all over her face and throat, her lips are perfectly clean of any blood whatsoever. So what is going on here, are the bodies of victims placed into body bags on their sides, and carried off on their sides, without any blood at all on the victims lips, where previously there had been an abundance of blood there?
-
Yes, it is Sheila's body on the bedroom floor at the scene, not an actress as some have claimed...
-
When did cops remove Sheila's earrings, and necklace?
Was it before PC Bird (soco) took pictures at the mortuary, or afterwards?
-
You can't win. ::) If pic shows a clear,non-blemished face------------it's been enhanced.
If the pic shows it as it is---------it's not her.
-
You can't win. ::) If pic shows a clear,non-blemished face------------it's been enhanced.
If the pic shows it as it is---------it's not her.
So you believed those previous pictures of "Sheila" and "June" in which the changing furniture suggested they'd been hauled from one room to another?
-
You can't win. ::) If pic shows a clear,non-blemished face------------it's been enhanced.
If the pic shows it as it is---------it's not her.
On the contrary, I believe J can win...
-
So you believed those previous pictures of "Sheila" and "June" in which the changing furniture suggested they'd been hauled from one room to another?
Bear in mind, that this is a forum, not a court room. You know perfectly well, that cops 'interfered with the bodies of the victims', that cops (not J) staged Sheila Caffells death scene. You can pretend all you like that cops did 'no such thing', but deep down in your soul, you must know that cops staged the daughters body, not J, not some as yet unidentified hitman, mass murderer. I know, the cops know, and surely you and everybody else must know with 100% certainty, that J did not kill anyone, that its all a big deception as part of a cop cover up for tampering with the crime scene...
-
When did cops remove Sheila's earrings, and necklace?
Was it before PC Bird (soco) took pictures at the mortuary, or afterwards?
Right, here we go - Jewellery removed from 'Sheila' exhibit 'ND/4'...
-
Sheila's jewellery (ND/4) was removed from Sheila's body, by DS Davidson, prior to PC Bird (soco) taking his mortuary photographs. So, suddenly now this becomes an extremely 'important' and a 'significant topic'...
-
So you believed those previous pictures of "Sheila" and "June" in which the changing furniture suggested they'd been hauled from one room to another?
There is no doubt in my mind that bodies had been moved. June's body was described as being in the doorway at one point,but pics taken of her showed her to be behind the door.
-
Bear in mind, that this is a forum, not a court room. You know perfectly well, that cops 'interfered with the bodies of the victims', that cops (not J) staged Sheila Caffells death scene. You can pretend all you like that cops did 'no such thing', but deep down in your soul, you must know that cops staged the daughters body, not J, not some as yet unidentified hitman, mass murderer. I know, the cops know, and surely you and everybody else must know with 1005 certainty, that J did not kill anyone, that its all a big deception as part of a cop cover up for tampering with the crime scene and a cover up...
So are you saying that police hauled, not QUITE dead, Sheila and June into a room furnished differently from the master bedroom, to photograph them there, only to haul them back to the master bedroom again, to be rephotographed and to die? I'm not blind to the fact that taking pictures would necessitate movement of both body and accessories......................but there are limits.
-
There is no doubt in my mind that bodies had been moved. June's body was described as being in the doorway at one point,but pics taken of her showed her to be behind the door.
And was that door open or closed?
-
On the contrary, I believe J can win...
So do I Mike,but there's no pleasing some.
-
And was that door open or closed?
Open.
June had been photographed lying flat behind the door,yet blood on the back of the door indicates that she'd been propped up against it,where she'd obviously slid and so was moved to where she was photographed.
-
So are you saying that police hauled, not QUITE dead, Sheila and June into a room furnished differently from the master bedroom, to photograph them there, only to haul them back to the master bedroom again, to be rephotographed and to die? I'm not blind to the fact that taking pictures would necessitate movement of both body and accessories......................but there are limits.
No, your suggesting 'that'...
What I am saying, is that this 'image of Sheila' was taken at the scene, between the 'first set of crime scene photographs', and 'the second lot', taken at a time 'after' cops had desperately attempted to keep this young woman 'alive'. That's what I am saying...
-
No, your suggesting 'that'...
What I am saying, is that this 'image of Sheila' was taken at the scene, between the 'first set of crime scene photographs', and 'the second lot', taken at a time 'after' cops had desperately attempted to keep this young woman 'alive'. That's what I am saying...
Now, my question is this, 'why would cops perform CPR on a person who must have already been dead over 7 hours previously'?
It simply and frankly does not add up...
-
No, your suggesting 'that'...
What I am saying, is that this 'image of Sheila' was taken at the scene, between the 'first set of crime scene photographs', and 'the second lot', taken at a time 'after' cops had desperately attempted to keep this young woman 'alive'. That's what I am saying...
Certainly NOT. It was you who suggested it when you posted those pictures INSISTING that the women in them were Sheila and June.........................Oh, and if desperate attempts were made to keep her alive, how come some of her ribs weren't broken? And where is the proof that such ever occurred?
-
The truth was, that they 'applied CPR' because they 'knew' that she had been shot and was presumed dead, very recently, and that the flow of fresh looking blood from the corners of her mouth, her nostril, and the 'two bullet wounds' on her throat, together with the state of her complexion, and total lack of rigor mortis, that they might, 'just might' have been able to snatch her back, from the jaws of death...
-
Certainly NOT. It was you who suggested it when you posted those pictures INSISTING that the women in them were Sheila and June.........................Oh, and if desperate attempts were made to keep her alive, how come some of her ribs weren't broken? And where is the proof that such ever occurred?
Where is your evidence, please 'educate me, of the fact as suggested by you, that whenever someone has 'CPR' perform upon them, that with 100% certainty, the victim will always end up with broken ribs? You are now snatching at straws, since what you are suggesting is certainly 'not true' in every case, and it was 'not true' in Sheila's case...
-
Can anybody tell me (if they know) that when President Kennedy was assassinated, if 'CPR was performed, and if it was, whether this resulted in him receiving 'broken ribs'?
-
We can't trust all the people that work for the authorities, ordinary men and women, including all the young people have got to start questioning the motives of these people in key positions, as to whether they are reporting the 'truth', or as the case may be, 'a pack of lies'...
As the saying goes (X files) 'The truth is out there'...
-
I'm afraid you are wrong Mike, the second photo was taken in the mortuary after transportation. The pathologist later commented on the photos of Sheila taken at the crime scene compared to what he found at the mortuary.
-
I'm afraid you are wrong Mike, the second photo was taken in the mortuary after transportation. The pathologist later commented on the photos of Sheila taken at the crime scene compared to what he found at the mortuary.
No, John, I am not wrong, DS Davidson removed the jewellery from Sheila (ND/4) before PC Bird took his mortuary photographs...
-
Where is your evidence, please 'educate me, of the fact as suggested by you, that whenever someone has 'CPR' perform upon them, that with 100% certainty, the victim will always end up with broken ribs? You are now snatching at straws, since what you are suggesting is certainly 'not true' in every case, and it was 'not true' in Sheila's case...
I don't think it is with 100 per cent Mike that they would end up with broken ribs, but in the 80s you was taught to give I hard thump to the chest area ( The precordial thump ) this was to try and get the heart started, they stopped doing this later because it was causing broken ribs, CPR in itself does cause broken ribs, it's the ribs breaking away from the sternum. And yes, it does happen, and unless the patient is very large and/or muscular, "ribs" will break. So when someone refers to breaking ribs, it's just assumed that it's the first several crunches you hear when they snap away from the sternum. We trained with the mines for competition and was well aware about ribs breaking, several of my team mates went on to be paramedics.
-
I don't think it is with 100 per cent Mike that they would end up with broken ribs, but in the 80s you was taught to give I hard thump to the chest area ( The precordial thump ) this was to try and get the heart started, they stopped doing this later because it was causing broken ribs, CPR in itself does cause broken ribs, it's the ribs breaking away from the sternum. And yes, it does happen, and unless the patient is very large and/or muscular, "ribs" will break. So when someone refers to breaking ribs, it's just assumed that it's the first several crunches you hear when they snap away from the sternum. We trained with the mines for competition and was well aware about ribs breaking, several of my team mates went on to be paramedics.
Thanks for that, but in any event although three X rays were taken of Sheila, only the one showing her neck and part skull have ever been disclosed. So, unless someone examines those other two, we will never know whether or not Sheila sustained broken ribs as a result of CPR having been applied in her particular case...
-
Thanks for that, but in any event although three X rays were taken of Sheila, only the one showing her neck and part skull have ever been disclosed. So, unless someone examines those other two, we will never know whether or not Sheila sustained broken ribs as a result of CPR having been applied in her particular case...
Applying CPR technique may result in blood being forced out of the orifices, such as the mouth, the nostrils, and open wounds in parts of the body linked to the 'respirator system', clearly visible in the following image of 'the daughter'...
-
Thanks for that, but in any event although three X rays were taken of Sheila, only the one showing her neck and part skull have ever been disclosed. So, unless someone examines those other two, we will never know whether or not Sheila sustained broken ribs as a result of CPR having been applied in her particular case...
They have changed the way CPR is performed that many times one cannot keep up, the reason I stopped practicing first aid was the threat of being taken to court if something like this happened or I did something wrong.
-
I would say that's aspirated blood around her mouth.
-
No, John, I am not wrong, DS Davidson removed the jewellery from Sheila (ND/4) before PC Bird took his mortuary photographs...
Conveniently you believe the police when it suits and call them liars and conspirators when it doesn't. :)
It is standard procedure to photograph a body on arrival but then you wouldnt know that being a civilian.
-
John,it's also standard procedure to give a time of death too ? What happened ?
-
John,it's also standard procedure to give a time of death too ? What happened ?
Not when it couldn't be established. Due to the delay in entering the house and the failure to call the pathologist to the crimescene, that opportunity was lost.
-
Where is your evidence, please 'educate me, of the fact as suggested by you, that whenever someone has 'CPR' perform upon them, that with 100% certainty, the victim will always end up with broken ribs? You are now snatching at straws, since what you are suggesting is certainly 'not true' in every case, and it was 'not true' in Sheila's case...
It wouldn't stand a chance of being so when CPR wasn't attempted. Where is your evidence of it being so?
-
Not when it couldn't be established. Due to the delay in entering the house and the failure to call the pathologist to the crimescene, that opportunity was lost.
John,so far as I understand,no attempt was ever made to establish any times of death,which if it had been done according to " the book " would then have possibly saved even a trial.
-
I would have estimated the time of Neville's death being between 03.45 and 04.00.
Would you have said that Sheila had died before that time or after ?
Based on the appx time of RM being around 6hrs.
-
John,so far as I understand,no attempt was ever made to establish any times of death,which if it had been done according to " the book " would then have possibly saved even a trial.
According to exploreforensics.co.uk there are three methods of establishing TOD.
1. Physiological TOD- the point at which the body'd vital organs cease to function.
2. Estimated TOD- Best guess on available information.
3. Legal TOD- Time at which body was found and pronounced dead.
Going by the above, it appears to me that the GP called to attend the scene MAY have been much maligned. He'd have been unable to establish 1 because he didn't have the availability of 2 therefore the best he could have given was 3. It was up to either the pathologist or coroner to find more information.
-
Stages of RM will also give an indication of TOD.
-
Conveniently you believe the police when it suits and call them liars and conspirators when it doesn't. :)
How astute of you to finally realise when a cop is telling the truth, or the cop is telling a lie. Of course I'm not going to call a truthful cop a liar, but I will shout it from the rooftops when anyone of them lies, or fabricates evidence. And, that's what they did in this case, and many of them lie and fabricate evidence in a lot of other cases. At Hillsboro' it was more than one bad cop, and they took it upon themselves to 'tamper' with 116 cop statements. Same tactic in the Bamber case, somebody 'tampered' with PS Woodcocks witness statement, to deliberately conceal the truth regarding what really happened to Sheila downstairs in the kitchen. You are as bad as the corrupt cops that are responsible for killing Sheila, upstairs, not downstairs. We are going through a similar period in this case, that the Hillsboro' families have been going through until today's verdict. Everyone who it affected, and everyone who cared about the wrong doings of the police in that case, all knew 27 years ago that the 96 were unlawfully killed. It's the same scenario now, only in the Bamber case, everybody knows that the police operation inside that farmhouse went wrong. It went wrong in such a dramatic way, that it impacted upon the 'body count downstairs' and 'upstairs'. Cops found two bodies downstairs, its clearly documented, no amount of lying or fabricating any evidence can alter that fact. PC Collins explanation does not even fit the facts, its pure and utter bullshit what that cop has come out with. The matter is not helped because of people like you, who try to make the Collins explanation fit. No matter what he says, or what you might think, the truth is, the truth was that Sheila was downstairs. Just so as to hit the nail on the head, so to speak, and knock you back down into your hole, the female body, was reported after the report of the male body downstairs in the kitchen. There is no radio message which mentions the sighting of a female body before mention was made of the dead male body. Collins explanation is hogwash, all he's done, is what cops did at Hillsboro' did, he has tried to make up an excuse for the discrepancy in the body count downstairs. He has tried to revert the body count downstairs to one, when it clearly is two. They tried this kind of approach at Hillsboro' and it came unstuck 27 years after the event. The same approach exists in the Bamber case, the evidence has been tampered with, it has been fabricated, and falsified. In PC Collins haste to 'doctor' the body count downstairs in the kitchen by turning two bodies which were there into one body, the baffoon didn't even have the foresight to amend the body count upstairs, where in accordance with the contents of the police message logs, only three bodidies were found (not four). Cops were shooting each other in the foot by declaring that the bodies of a male and a female had been found downstairs, one of these deaths being a murder, the other, a suicide. Yet, based upon the cop witness statement accounts, June Bambers body was the second body to have been found, and you would be hard pushed to describe her death, as a suicide (not even you could get away with trying to argue that). No, Sheila's body was the third body in the grand scheme of discovery, not the second one. So here again, is this common feature at each and every step of the police investigation where nothing sits right. Leave me to know the truth, and you carry on believing the nonsense that corrupted cops have been feeding everyone ever since September 1985, onward...
-
Great logic by any standards comparing Hillsboro with the Bamber case. The biggest impediment to your conspiracy claim is the fact that the police initially went with Bambers story. Once that began to unravel then the true modus operandi was revealed so I'm afraid your conspiarcy theory is utter hogwash. But then what's new?
-
Stages of RM will also give an indication of TOD.
To a certain extent it will give a vague indication but there are just so many variables that a pathologist would be hard pressed to state time of death to the nearest three hours.
Establishing time of death after several hours is always a bit of a guessing game.
-
To a certain extent it will give a vague indication but there are just so many variables that a pathologist would be hard pressed to state time of death to the nearest three hours.
Establishing time of death after several hours is always a bit of a guessing game.
Compared to Neville,did Sheila appear to have died at the same time as he ?
-
(e) . . . So, if anything got from his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse, faster than the occupants of CA05 did. But at trial prosecution presented the argument that J had been taking his time to get to the farm because the cops overtook him.
Jeremy was well ahead of car CA05 because that car came all the way from Chelmsford. The jury would probably have dismissed any suggestion that Jeremy dawdled, as all the police officers in CA07 put 30 mph in their statements regarding Jeremy's speed.
(j) PC Mercer's police dog failed to detect a presence of firearm discharge residue upon J or his clothing . . . when PC Mercers dog was brought to 'check him out'
No evidence was presented that the dog was used to 'check him out'.
(m) activation of Special Branch attack alarm from farmhouse at 3.29am
There's no proof that any call occurred at exactly that time, or even that such an alarm was installed at the time.
(p) The phone suddenly became 'engaged' when the operator was checking the line for cops
There is no evidence that justifies that assertion.
-
. . . whist the schoolmasters pontificated on history and calculus, . . .
Jeremy wasn't taught calculus at his public school.
-
J knew, and the cop at Chelmsford who J had been speaking to on the phone knew, that the distance between where J would be leaving to go to the farm, was a vastly shorter distance than the distance the cops sent by the cop on the phone would have to travel, from Chelmsford to the farmhouse.
According to Pc West, he told Jeremy that the police were on their way from Witham. There is no indication that Jeremy disputed that at any early stage.
-
In my estimation, based on the time of his call (3.36am) to cops and its duration, he would have left Head Street at around 3.45am, and he arrived in Pages Lane at precisely 3.52am.
It doesn't make sense to include 'exactly' in an estimation. There is no precise time established for when Jeremy arrived at where the police had parked in Pages Lane. Bonnett's log gives 03:48 as the time of arrival of CA07 at where it parked near WHF. That's about all there is to go on that seems to have been recorded at the time, as distinct from later in police statements.
-
To a certain extent it will give a vague indication but there are just so many variables that a pathologist would be hard pressed to state time of death to the nearest three hours.
Establishing time of death after several hours is always a bit of a guessing game.
A comparison could have been made between the amount of RM in Junes body and Sheila. The ambient temperature would be the same. Judging by the flexibility in Sheila's arm I would guess she hadn't been dead that long.
-
According to Pc West, he told Jeremy that the police were on their way from Witham. There is no indication that Jeremy disputed that at any early stage.
It depends at what time of J's call to PC West, that West told J that the cops from Witham were on their way to the incident, since if J's call to the cop at Chelmsford did not commence until 3.36am, which was the time PC West recorded as the 'start' of J's call to him, and West did not mention to J anything about the cops from having left Witham until near the end of J's 9 minute or so, call to him, then cops from WWitam were already well on their way to the scene and had been from as early as 3.35am. This is interesting, because J did not leave his cottage until around 3.45am, and by that stage the cops from Witham had already been 10 minutes into their journey. Within 3 minutes, those same cops were arriving in Pages Lane at 3.48am. At some point during those last 3 minutes the Witham cops had overtaken J's astra at a particular spot en route to the incident. J arrived in Pages Lane four minutes behind the Witham Cops (3.52am), which adequately accounts for why the Witham cops thought he had been taking his time to get to the scene. However, PC West had forewarned J not to approach the farmhouse before the cops ( in whichever disguise) arrived there, so nobody can legitimately allege that J had been slow timing in his journey from his cottage to the farmhouse because he must have been the killer. J had a legitimate reason for not wanting to get to the farmhouse too quick. This was because PC West had told J not to do so. This suggests to someone like me, that PC West knew something more, than J had ended up 'telling him' during his 3.36am call. The bottom line is that the occupants of CA07 were deployed to 'this' incident 'before' J made his call to PC West, not afterward...
-
It doesn't make sense to include 'exactly' in an estimation. There is no precise time established for when Jeremy arrived at where the police had parked in Pages Lane. Bonnett's log gives 03:48 as the time of arrival of CA07 at where it parked near WHF. That's about all there is to go on that seems to have been recorded at the time, as distinct from later in police statements.
The occupants of CA07 estimated that J arrived in Pages lane driving his astra 3 or 4 minutes after they themselves had arrived there. This places J's arrival there in Pages Lane, between 3.51 and 3.52am...
-
If the timing of J's call to PC West had occurred at 3.26am, the occupants of CA07 could not possibly have left Witham before Such a call. They would have left afterwards, and the other occupants of CA05 could not possibly have been the vehicle which was first deployed to the scene as a result of J's call to West, CA05 occupants would have been the second vehicle deployed to the incident, which is why it is important to get the timing of events right...
-
Yes, it is Sheila, you do not know what you are talking about.
Why is the background black in a police photograph? Can you post the whole of the picture, not just the head, and can you explain how and when you acquired this image? If this image matches one used in the documentary, is that because (according to you) the documentary used a police photograph of Sheila's body?
-
Going on cop accounts, the occupants of CA07 overtook J in his astra car at a particular spot. So, here is an opportunity to calculate how far from (a) Witham police station, and (b) J's cottage, that 'overtaking spot', was / is. We can then accurately calculate the true time of J's call to PC West, and see whether or not the occupants had been deployed to the incident, before J's call, or afterward...
-
The occupants of CA07 estimated that J arrived in Pages lane driving his astra 3 or 4 minutes after they themselves had arrived there. This places J's arrival there in Pages Lane, between 3.51 and 3.52am...
That's misleading. According to Pc Saxby, the three to four minutes was from when Jeremy's car was overtaken to when CA7 parked. Pc Myall and Ps Bews initially disagreed, but Bews made an additional statement, dated 19 September, 1985, that contained a correction: "To clarify matters . . . I actually meant that three to four minutes had elapsed from the vehicle I was travelling in . . . passing the Silver coloured Vauxhall Astra GTE . . . and Jeremy Bamber arriving at the scene in a vehicle identical to the one passed in Tollesbury Road." There was no reason for any of these officers to measure this time interval, and none of the officers stated that they had looked at any watch or clock, so "three to four minutes" can't be regarded as reliable anyway.
-
We can then accurately calculate the true time of J's call to PC West, and see whether or not the occupants had been deployed to the incident, before J's call, or afterward...
It can't be determined accurately enough, as we don't know exactly when Jeremy's call ended or exactly how much time elapsed between when the call ended and when Jeremy set off. However, the police estimates of Jeremy's speed when overtaken are consistent with his having called Pc West at 03:36 and departed about six or seven minutes later. Had he called Pc West about 10 minutes earlier, he had time to spare, but he might have needed that time to get dressed - we don't know, as Jeremy hasn't stated at what stage he got dressed.
Bonnett's logged time indicate that CA07's journey time was 13 minutes, but the car was being driven fast and could have covered the distance in slightly less time, such as 12 minutes.
-
That's misleading. According to Pc Saxby, the three to four minutes was from when Jeremy's car was overtaken to when CA7 parked. Pc Myall and Ps Bews initially disagreed, but Bews made an additional statement, dated 19 September, 1985, that contained a correction: "To clarify matters . . . I actually meant that three to four minutes had elapsed from the vehicle I was travelling in . . . passing the Silver coloured Vauxhall Astra GTE . . . and Jeremy Bamber arriving at the scene in a vehicle identical to the one passed in Tollesbury Road." There was no reason for any of these officers to measure this time interval, and none of the officers stated that they had looked at any watch or clock, so "three to four minutes" can't be regarded as reliable anyway.
According to Bews they overtook the silver astra GTE on the tollsbury Road where it meets with the junction of D'arcy way...
D'arcy Way was about 1.3 miles away from the scene, and according to Google maps, and AA Route Planner, such a journey would take 3 minutes and 40 seconds. Based on these statistics it puts PS News into perspective. Basically put, J must have arrived there in Pages Lane just behind the occupants of CA07. More worryingly, Bews talks about seeing headlights of J's astra turning into Pages after they had arrived there, which he thought was their 'back up car, CA05', yet the occupants of CA05 had been deployed 'before them' to the incident, not afterwards. This anomaly presents a further inconsistency in why the occupants of CA07 were 'actually' deployed to this incident...
-
Bews makes mention in his 19th Sepember, 1985, witness statement of him thinking that the headlights of J's vehicle that he first saw turning into Pages Lane, as being their 'back up car' CA07...
His comments about the length of time it took J's car to arrive in Pages Lane behind their car, is a true reflection of the actual time it might have taken a driver to get from the 'passing location' at D'arcy way, along the Tollsbury Road, into Pages Lane itself, in a vehicle driven legally by a member of the public as opposed to a fast police car responding by that stage, to 'a logged call' timed at 3.26am, and 'another logged call' timed at 3.36am (the latter call having been made to cops by J, after the occupants of CA07 had already been deployed to the incident)...
-
The occupants of CA07 left 'after' the logged 3.26am call had been made and logged, but 'before' the other 3.36am call was made and logged...
-
The occupants of CA07 left 'after' the logged 3.26am call had been made and logged, but 'before' the other 3.36am call was made and logged...
Compare this with the fact that the occupants of CA05 left 'after' both calls had been made, and logged - with this mind, and the location from which CA05 was being deployed from (Chelmsford police station), why would Bews be thinking that when J's astra turned into Pages Lane, that he thought the car had been their 'back up' car, when such a journey was by all accounts some 45 minutes away from the scene? This leads to the suggestion that Bews must have received information from Chelmsford control room that CA05 were already on their way to the same incident some 30 minutes or so, before Bews and his crew themselves had been deployed to the same matter. Since, how did Bews expect the 'back up' car (CA05) to be arriving in Pages Lane, just behind themselves, consistent with the time it took CA07 to travel from when they overtook J in his car at D'arcy way along the Tollsbury Road to the scene, if the occupants of CA05 had not actually been deployed from Chelmsford cop shop until 'after' J' 3.36am call to cops?
-
It's astonishing that PS Bews should be thinking at around 3.48am that the headlights of J's car turning into Pages Lane were the lights from 'their back up car' (CA05) - another 'trick of light', I suppose that's what we can put this down to...
-
On a more serious note, there is clearly something 'very wrong' with the timings of both phone call logs, and the deployment of the occupants of both CA07 and CA05, and their respective arrival times at the scene (3.48 and 4.22am). This must surely have got something to do with the two occasions that PC West had spoken to Malcolm Bonnet on the internal line at Chelmsford police station. Something is not right here, its too much of a coincidence that PC West could not remember what he had contacted Bonnet about prior to him speaking to Bonnet about J's 3.36am call. But it seems almost certain that PC West had already spoken to Bonnet about the same incident that the son (J) had phoned in about. If you take that approach and with the benefit of what else is now known, then it appears to show some sort of support for the case that in fact 'there had been two different calls' made to cops, 10 minutes a part, one by dad at 3.26am, the other by the son (J) at 3.36am. West had spoken to Bonnet about the unfolding drama at whf 'prior' to receiving J's call at 3.36am, at which stage the occupants of CA07 had already been deployed to the incident, possibly because they were the closest police unit to the scene, and because the occupants of CA05 were currently dealing with another matter. It may well be that the occupants of CA07 who got deployed to the incident at 3.35am were given information about the possibility of CA05 being deployed, or already having been deployed to the incident as well, which caused PS Bews to suspect that the head lights he saw turning into Pages Lane, had been the lights of 'their back up car' CA05, when it turned out to be J in his Astra. Those two occasions when PC West contacted Bonnet must both be linked to the drama unfolding at whf. This would explain the words used in both phone logs, the former log having been recorded in a manner clearly befitting a call from dad to cops, the latter befitting the call from J to cops. Interestingly enough, in the former example, the phraseology of the log is contradictory by the 'inclusion' of the fact that ' the son of Mr Bamber had been in contact with CM and passed a message'. This is consistent with PC West having contacted Malcolm Bonnet after receiving J's call at 3.36am, and Bonnet updating the first log (3.26am) with that information...
-
Why is the background black in a police photograph?
The background is dark because of the shadow cast by the Camera due to the angle at which the image was filmed. The image showing Sheila's body with all the additional blood across the right side of her face and neck, is a 'still' taken from one of the crime scene videos, that Producers of the documentary got there hands on. The quality is different between it and the photographs taken by PC Bird earlier. You can see a similar shadow cast beyond Sheila's body beneath the bedside cabinet in the images taken by PC Bird after 10 ' O'clock...
-
J was clearly en route to the farmhouse 'already' by 3.45am, because at around this time the occupants of CA07 had overtaken him in his astra at the junction along the Tollsbury Road, with D'arcy way...
-
Having had a great many opportunities to interrogate J about the journey he took that morning from his cottage to the scene, I found out a lot of things not reported at the time or since. In particular, about how fast he was driving on different stretches of the journey...
-
Having had a great many opportunities to interrogate J about the journey he took that morning from his cottage to the scene, I found out a lot of things not reported at the time or since. In particular, about how fast he was driving on different stretches of the journey...
For example, during the first stretch of 'that' journey, I learned that J had broken the law by hurtling along toward the village of D'arcy at speeds between 80 to 90 MPH....
Then, he had to reduce his speed dramatically when he hit the village...
It did not help matters, as he wound his way through D'arcy, that he became aware of the cop car with its blue lights flashing, and J thought the cops were trying to pull him over for 'speeding', so by the time cops were overtaking him on the Tollsbury Road, at the junction with D'arcy way, J was travelling at a law abiding 30 MPH...
-
I have examined the route that J took on that occasion, armed with the untapped information from J about that journey. It was true what J told me, since along that first stretch toward D'arcy J could easily have reached speeds of over 80mph, until he hit the hub of the village. Then a somewhat guarded drive through the centre and out onto the Tollsbury Road in his astra GTE. He had just got through the hub at the centre of the village when he becomes aware of the cop car with its flashing blue lights ablaze. He fears the worse and maintains a steady 30mph, expecting to be pulled for speeding, but to his surprise the cops fly past him. He was not to know that these very same cops that were in this car were en route to the farmhouse having been deployed there prior to J calling police himself (3.36am). He drove the remainder of the route at a normal speed, thankful that cops hadn't nabbed him for speeding...
-
Here is the route that J took from on his cottage at Head Street, to D'arcy Way on the Tollsbury Road (3.1miles) . I recon that J completed this section of the journey in around a 'couple of minutes'. If correct, this information and analysis confirms the account given to me by J regarding 'that' journey, and serves to debunk what others have said about how fast or slow he drove to the farmhouse that morning. The fact of the matter is that he drove extremely fast along the first section of the route. He drove normal through the hub of the village. Then after cops flew past him just as he was coming from the centre of the village near to D'arcy way, he admittedly drove at a leisurely sedate pace...
-
From the diagram you gave, you included a short stretch of D'Arcy Way, measuring about 0.1 miles, that doesn't apply, as the intended location is in Tollesbury Road, near the junction with D'Arcy way. The remaining 1.2 miles, travelled at an average of 30 mph would have taken Jeremy two minutes and twenty-four seconds. The route planners normally used assume typical traffic conditions, which would not apply in the middle of the night, so they use a lower average speed and calculate a correspondingly longer time interval.
-
From the diagram you gave, you included a short stretch of D'Arcy Way, measuring about 0.1 miles, that doesn't apply, as the intended location is in Tollesbury Road, near the junction with D'Arcy way. The remaining 1.2 miles, travelled at an average of 30 mph would have taken Jeremy two minutes and twenty-four seconds. The route planners normally used assume typical traffic conditions, which would not apply in the middle of the night, so they use a lower average speed and calculate a correspondingly longer time interval.
Correct...
It's the same principle from the start point in the other diagram, J left 9 Head Street, not No.32...
-
Here is my method for calculating the speed for the distances specified. In particular, that first stretch from Head Street to D'arcy way on the Tollsbury Road...
The vehicle owned by J was a Vauxhall astra GTE capable of reaching speeds of 125 mph...
3.1 miles X 60 \ 1.5 minutes = 124 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 1.75 minutes = 106 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 2 minutes = 90 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 2.5 minutes = 74 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 3 minutes = 62 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 3.5 minute's = 53 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 4 minutes = 46 mph
-
Regarding the first part of Jeremy's journey, having seen your video of the trip you made, I think it's physically impossible to average anything like 80 mph, though a high speed could be achieved briefly in places. However, we don't know how many minutes Jeremy had available for that part of his journey as we don't know the exact time when he left his home. He could have left home at, say, 03:41 and travelled at about 30 mph, or he could have left home at 03:43 and travelled at a higher average speed. Either possibility is consistent with being overtaken as described at about 03:46 or 03:47, which, when the time the police needed to reach where they parked is added on, gives about 03:48, matching the time that Bonnett logged. Also, both possibilities are consistent with the time of 03:42 that Pc West logged in relation to when he was told that a WHF telephone was off-hook, which was after Jeremy's call had ended.
-
Here is my method for calculating the speed for the distances specified. In particular, that first stretch from Head Street to D'arcy way on the Tollsbury Road...
The vehicle owned by J was a Vauxhall astra GTE capable of reaching speeds of 125 mph...
3.1 miles X 60 \ 1.5 minutes = 124 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 1.75 minutes = 106 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 2 minutes = 90 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 2.5 minutes = 74 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 3 minutes = 62 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 3.5 minute's = 53 mph
3.1 miles X 60 \ 4 minutes = 46 mph
J sped along the first stretch of the journey, driving at excessive speeds, slowed down for the hub of the village, then drove rather sedately for the remainder of the way, grateful that cops didn't stop him for speeding along the first stretch of his journey...
-
Regarding the first part of Jeremy's journey, having seen your video of the trip you made, I think it's physically impossible to average anything like 80 mph, though a high speed could be achieved briefly in places. However, we don't know how many minutes Jeremy had available for that part of his journey as we don't know the exact time when he left his home. He could have left home at, say, 03:41 and travelled at about 30 mph, or he could have left home at 03:43 and travelled at a higher average speed. Either possibility is consistent with being overtaken as described at about 03:46 or 03:47, which, when the time the police needed to reach where they parked is added on, gives about 03:48, matching the time that Bonnett logged. Also, both possibilities are consistent with the time of 03:42 that Pc West logged in relation to when he was told that a WHF telephone was off-hook, which was after Jeremy's call had ended.
Yes, I accept that...
One of the problems in this case has been time keeping by all the parties concerned at different stages of the investigation. None more so than J himself. Since when I first met J in 1989 whilst we were both serving prisoners, and much later on after my release from custody and when I acted as his McKenzie man, his friend and during visits, through letter writing, and speaking to him on the telephone, it became clear to me that J couldn't remember the specific timings of events, only the sequence with which he could remember them having happened. Today, however, J is referring to timed events because others have put a time to them, either during his trial, or in the file that was disclosed to him after the failed 2002 appeal and so on and so forth. I suppose in many ways I preferred it when J did not remember timed events, because it was because of this failing on his part, that I interrogated him more intensely to try to get at the truth. His truth that he spoke about to me and with me was chiefly about the sequence of each event not the timings of them, and I think that because of this problem, if you like, I got a better understanding of what happened through his eyes, not anybody else's. I can assure you and everybody else that my recollection of what J told me about that journey from his cottage that morning to the farmhouse is absolutely true. He was speeding during that first stretch, slowed down through the centre of the village, saw the cops hurtling up behind him out of the centre of the village. Fearing the worst, thinking cops were going to pull him over for the speeding offences he had just committed he drove at 30 mph thinking cops were going to stop him. Once cops got past him, he told me that he was just so relieved that he had got away without getting a speeding ticket, and that was why he took his time for the remainder of his journey...
-
As Jeremy had to make a 90 degree turn to leave Head Street, he certainly didn't average a high speed along Head Street. Also, the distance to where he was overtaken was less than 3.1 miles as he didn't turn into D'Arcy Way. Such details don't really matter, though, as we don't know precisely when he departed.
-
Its things like this that gave me confidence in what J was telling me about things to do with his convictions being 'wrong', as he used to put it, ' I didn't have anything whatsoever to do with killing any one member of my family', he used to say, ' you've got to believe me, Mike', he would often say. It wasn't a case of me believing what he used to tell me, it was about finding out the truth from his perspective, listening to him, interrogating him, much pondering on my part. Did he do it? Didn't he do it? If he did do it, how had he done it? If he hadn't done it, how had they 'all' framed him for doing it? I decided from an early stage, after some contemplating, that the best way forward insofar as to his possible culpability was concerned, was to try to get the sequence with which J says he can remember about how things had panned out or happened. And that is what I did. One thing I have learned from the vast knowledge I possess through being regarded as a career criminal by the authorities, is that the most import feature in any prosecution or police investigation is 'timing'. 'Tempest fugit', and time stands still for nobody. If you can get an accurate account of the sequence of events it will stand you in good stead. In most cases, that's how cops put innocent victims in the frame. They do it by presenting evidence with timed events. They falsify it deliberately sometimes, and get witnesses to lie about the time this happened, or the time that happened, or I saw him at this time, and I spoke to him at this and that time. What I learned during my 60 years is that the all important feature in any case, is trying to identify the actual true sequence of events, no matter how trivial a thing it might be that you find yourself wanting to find out about, its timing that counts in law, but the next best thing if you can't remember timed events, is the sequence with which things happened in...
-
Do I believe J to be guilty?
No, of course he didn't do it...
-
It really is 'interesting' that PS Bews , thought that when J's astra GTE turned its headlights into Pages Lane, off the Tollsbury Road, and he and the other two cops with him, thought it was 'their back up', CA05, arriving at the scene. Since, it was the occupants of CA05 which got deployed to the scene (3.36am) in response to J's call (3.36am), yet although mention en route to the scene, the occupants of CA07 had been made aware of J's call to PC West, there is no logical explanation for why they should have been deployed to this incident (3.35am) prior to J calling the cops at 3.36am. It's out of 'sync', ambiguous, contradictory, and rather puzzling...
-
It really is 'interesting' that PS Bews , thought that when J's astra GTE turned its headlights into Pages Lane, off the Tollsbury Road, and he and the other two cops with him, thought it was 'their back up', CA05, arriving at the scene. Since, it was the occupants of CA05 which got deployed to the scene (3.36am) in response to J's call (3.36am), yet although mention en route to the scene, the occupants of CA07 had been made aware of J's call to PC West, there is no logical explanation for why they should have been deployed to this incident (3.35am) prior to J calling the cops at 3.36am. It's out of 'sync', ambiguous, contradictory, and rather puzzling...
That is...
Until you link it with the earlier call made by PC West to Malcolm Bonnet, minutes before West had called Bonnet upon receiving J's 3.36am, call. PC West claimed he had 'forgot' what he had been contacting Bonnet on that earlier occasion, but it seems almost certain that it was in connection with dads call to cops, the detail of which can be found in the contents of Bonnets 3.26am phone long. On the second time West contacted bonnet after 3.36am, it was to update Bonnet of the fact that J had contacted Chelmsford (cm) and passed a similar message in his 3.36am call to cops, as the detail given to cops by dad as per Bonnets phone log timed at 3.26am. When PC West spoke to Bonnet about J contacting cops, Bonnet simply added that information onto the bottom part of dads 3.26am, log...
-
So you're alleging that Nevill phoned PC West or Bonnett? What do you know of these two individuals?
-
I've been reading that there WAS a panic button at WHF during the time of the murders. It was explained by Vidvic,who would obviously have known,knowing the family. The post was made at 11.38pm on the night of December 3rd 2012.
This would answer my query about Neville having been found in the hall as was stated in a few newspapers when the tragedy was reported.
-
Confirmation of the above is found on the thread " How Bent Was Basil " December 4th 2012.
-
The same thread mentions Kelvin McKenzie enjoying a party with EP post-trial of JB.
-
I've been reading that there WAS a panic button at WHF during the time of the murders. It was explained by Vidvic,who would obviously have known,knowing the family. The post was made at 11.38pm on the night of December 3rd 2012.
This would answer my query about Neville having been found in the hall as was stated in a few newspapers when the tragedy was reported.
Hi lookout
Vidvic retracted that about the panic button he got it wrong and apologised.
-
I've been reading that there WAS a panic button at WHF during the time of the murders. It was explained by Vidvic,who would obviously have known,knowing the family. The post was made at 11.38pm on the night of December 3rd 2012.
This would answer my query about Neville having been found in the hall as was stated in a few newspapers when the tragedy was reported.
Just stop and think about it, Lookout. What earthly good would A panic button be in a house the size of WHF? My friends had them installed in every room in their house when they were threatened by someone the ;police believed capable of doing them harm. An alarm WAS installed after the massacre and I believe it was connected to a police station, but Vic -and I believe Hartley, too, confirmed that prior to then, there was no alarm system.
-
Hi lookout
Vidvic retracted that about the panic button he got it wrong and apologised.
Hi Susan,I didn't see that.It must either be further on the same thread or a different thread altogether.
I tend to go by those who know the family.
It was just another thought/idea/reason I'd had if he'd not physically used the phone. Trust me ::)
-
Hi lookout
Vidvic retracted that about the panic button he got it wrong and apologised.
It was 'activated' at precisely, 3.29am, give or take a few seconds this way, or that way. What is 'interesting' about the activation of 'this' panic button, was that 'it' was activated 'after the 3.26am phone log (no matter who the prosecution and its supporters made, that 3.26am phone call to the cops...
Mystery solved - why would the panic button be activated at 3.29am, if J had made the 3.26am call? Since the panic button was installed for dad and mums convenience, no body elses'...
-
It remains a distinct possibility that the occupants ofCA07 got deployed ( 3.35am) to the incident responding to the activation of the panic button at 3.29am, not dads 3.26am, or J's 3.36am phone calls...
-
It was 'activated' at precisely, 3.29am, give or take a few seconds this way, or that way. What is 'interesting' about the activation of 'this' panic button, was that 'it' was activated 'after the 3.26am phone log (no matter who the prosecution and its supporters made, that 3.26am phone call to the cops...
Mystery solved - why would the panic button be activated at 3.29am, if J had made the 3.26am call? Since the panic button was installed for dad and mums convenience, no body elses'...
Well, at least you use inverts.
-
It was 'activated' at precisely, 3.29am, give or take a few seconds this way, or that way. What is 'interesting' about the activation of 'this' panic button, was that 'it' was activated 'after the 3.26am phone log (no matter who the prosecution and its supporters made, that 3.26am phone call to the cops...
Mystery solved - why would the panic button be activated at 3.29am, if J had made the 3.26am call? Since the panic button was installed for dad and mums convenience, no body elses'...
Mike I am only posting what Vidvic said and he knows the house well.
-
Hi Susan,I didn't see that.It must either be further on the same thread or a different thread altogether.
I tend to go by those who know the family.
It was just another thought/idea/reason I'd had if he'd not physically used the phone. Trust me ::)
Hi lookout
easy mistake to make as we had loads of discussions about the panic button as Vic said WHF had one he even indicated where it was but then much later he apologised and said he had made a mistake and it seems it was installed after the murders and I seem to think Jeremy confirmed this. ;D
-
Hi lookout
easy mistake to make as we had loads of discussions about the panic button as Vic said WHF had one he even indicated where it was but then much later he apologised and said he had made a mistake and it seems it was installed after the murders and I seem to think Jeremy confirmed this. ;D
Yes didn't Barbara Wilson or Jean Boutell set it off post-murders? Another of Jeremy's "pranks".
-
Not a hanging offence,Steve.
-
Yes didn't Barbara Wilson or Jean Boutell set it off post-murders? Another of Jeremy's "pranks".
Hi Steve yes I read that. Trouble with this panic button so many myths surrounding it :))
-
And it depends who believes these myths------------and why.
-
J sped along the first stretch of the journey, driving at excessive speeds, slowed down for the hub of the village, then drove rather sedately for the remainder of the way, grateful that cops didn't stop him for speeding along the first stretch of his journey...
You forgot the bit where he stopped the car, got out and put on another jumper. :)
-
Do I believe J to be guilty?
No, of course he didn't do it...
Unfortunately the evidence tells a different story and that is what counts.
-
It really is 'interesting' that PS Bews , thought that when J's astra GTE turned its headlights into Pages Lane, off the Tollsbury Road, and he and the other two cops with him, thought it was 'their back up', CA05, arriving at the scene. Since, it was the occupants of CA05 which got deployed to the scene (3.36am) in response to J's call (3.36am), yet although mention en route to the scene, the occupants of CA07 had been made aware of J's call to PC West, there is no logical explanation for why they should have been deployed to this incident (3.35am) prior to J calling the cops at 3.36am. It's out of 'sync', ambiguous, contradictory, and rather puzzling...
That's because you invented the 3.36am call. There only ever was one successful telephone call to the police and that was to PC West who then contacted police civilian operator Malcolm Bonnet to arrange deployments. If PC West or anyone else for that matter had spoken with Nevill Bamber then they would have given evidence to that effect.
-
I've been reading that there WAS a panic button at WHF during the time of the murders. It was explained by Vidvic,who would obviously have known,knowing the family. The post was made at 11.38pm on the night of December 3rd 2012.
This would answer my query about Neville having been found in the hall as was stated in a few newspapers when the tragedy was reported.
There wasn't. Moral of the tale is don't believe all you read.
-
There wasn't. Moral of the tale is don't believe all you read.
I agree, especially if 'it is posted by you', who has never had any direct contact with J, or access to independent case files...
-
For the record, 'I have in my possession', over 50,000 documents relating to the Bamber investigation, and J's private correspondence with his legal team, from the time prior to (and afterward) of J's October, 1986, Chelmsford Crown Court trial'...
The man 'killed', no-one...
-
I agree, especially if 'it is posted by you', who has never had any direct contact with J, or access to independent case files...
How would you know whether I have had contact with Jeremy because you certainly don't have any more. In fact didn't he ask you to stop promoting the nonsense you were doing as it was harming his chances of having a further appeal? :)
-
For the record, 'I have in my possession', over 50,000 documents relating to the Bamber investigation, and J's private correspondence with his legal team, from the time prior to (and afterward) of J's October, 1986, Chelmsford Crown Court trial'...
The man 'killed', no-one...
So what? The evidence says otherwise!
-
Had there been a panic button, surely Jeremy would have known about it, but he clearly didn't. Had a panic button been used, why wouldn't car CA05 have been contacted and told to get a move on? How come nothing has been posted here to explain how the time of precisely 03:29 could be known? If a panic button was used at 03:29, how come no car was sent to WHF until about six minutes after that?
-
So what? The evidence says otherwise!
No it does not!
-
Had there been a panic button, surely Jeremy would have known about it, but he clearly didn't.
He did not know about it, and neither did Sheila. The only two people that 'knew' in the family were 'dad' and 'mum'. Although, J did know about the ' threats' made against dads life. He knew that dad had to pack his job in as Chairman of the Bench at Witham, because of the threats in question. J did not live at whf, neither did Sheila, and her kids. There was no reason for Sheila and J to know about the panic button. It is a feature of the police investigation that either dad, or mum activated the panic button at precisely 3.29am. Neither Sheila, nor J could have activated it, because neither of them were aware of its existence. Cops in charge, knew about dads call to cops at 3.26am, they knew that the panic button got activated at 3.29am, they knew that J's call to PC West occurred 'after' the two aforementioned events, not before them. Dad left phone off the hook after he made the 3.26am call, followed by him activating the panic button. No reason is given for why the deployment of CA07 to the incident at 3.35am took 6 minutes to get underway. It may have had something to do with the fact that activation of the panic button interfered with the open phone line to the cops three minutes earlier.What we do know is that the occupants of CA07 were not deployed to the scene primarily acting on the back of what J had told them about, because J had not phoned PC West by that stage. CA07 were clearly acting upon some information obtained from another source. Once they were underway, the fact that J had also phoned the cops at 3.36am, confirming that there was some sort of a disturbance going on at the farm, was relayed to them from Chelmsford. At the same time this was done, Malcolm Bonnet updated dads phone log record to include mention that the 'son' of Mr Bamber had passed a message to cm...
-
No it does not!
Oh yes it does!
-
No it does not!
But it does, not one single piece of exculpatory evidence has ever been provided.
-
He did not know about it, and neither did Sheila. The only two people that 'knew' in the family were 'dad' and 'mum'.
Now you're just talking nonsense. Jeremy knew everything that went on at the farm and that's a FACT!!
You've just been caught out telling lies again...sooooooo predictable :)
-
Now you're just talking nonsense. Jeremy knew everything that went on at the farm and that's a FACT!!
You've just been caught out telling lies again...sooooooo predictable :)
And doesn't it just make every sense known to man............NOT!!!!!............ to have just ONE panic alarm in a house which could VERY well mean that one would have to walk into the very TEETH of the perceived danger in order to activate it? Duhhhhhh!!!!!!!
-
And doesn't it just make every sense known to man............NOT!!!!!............ to have just ONE panic alarm in a house which could VERY well mean that one would have to walk into the very TEETH of the perceived danger in order to activate it? Duhhhhhh!!!!!!!
Excellent point. If Nevill had been in fear for his and June's life they would have had a secure bedroom/safe room too and been able to remain there until police arrived. Had there been such security measure at White House Farm the details of it would have been contained within police statements, as it was they weren't.
-
Excellent point. If Nevill had been in fear for his and June's life they would have had a secure bedroom/safe room too and been able to remain there until police arrived. Had there been such security measure at White House Farm the details of it would have been contained within police statements, as it was they weren't.
And surely the first thing would have been to make certain that the house wasn't accessible via the windows that Jeremy had no trouble in opening. Heheheeee!!!!! I'm just laughing at the thought of a large, isolated house with ONE panic button.................. and any amount of windows that would open easily.
-
I smell desperation.
-
And doesn't it just make every sense known to man............NOT!!!!!............ to have just ONE panic alarm in a house which could VERY well mean that one would have to walk into the very TEETH of the perceived danger in order to activate it? Duhhhhhh!!!!!!!
There was certainly a panic button, installed as part of the SB protection program. You can scoff all you like. None of you lot have got a legitimate explanation for 'the involvement' of Special Branch in this investigation. Why was DI Soames, and PS Woodcock involved right from the off? Why was DI Soames hell bent on destroying anything and everything as far as exhibits were concerned, making it more difficult for anyone to come along and a later date, to try to reconstruct precisely what did happen 'Duhhhhhh!!!!!!'
-
There was certainly a panic button, installed as part of the SB protection program. You can scoff all you like. None of you lot have got a legitimate explanation for 'the involvement' of Special Branch in this investigation. Why was DI Soames, and PS Woodcock involved right from the off? Why was DI Soames hell bent on destroying anything and everything as far as exhibits were concerned, making it more difficult for anyone to come along and a later date, to try to reconstruct precisely what did happen 'Duhhhhhh!!!!!!'
Oh, I get it now, SB's role in every investigation is to destroy evidence to prevent anyone at a later date being able to reconstruct the truth, because it was dodgy evidence that helped convict somebody?
-
That's because you invented the 3.36am call. There only ever was one successful telephone call to the police and that was to PC West who then contacted police civilian operator Malcolm Bonnet to arrange deployments. If PC West or anyone else for that matter had spoken with Nevill Bamber then they would have given evidence to that effect.
You xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx, how the xxx did I invent the 3.36am phone call that J made. Stop being such a complete xxxxx. Can't you think up something more constructive to say. Fancy falsely alleging that I made up J's call to PC West. Get 'a brain cell', how come in the court of appeal judgement (2002), that the judges commented on it being something of a mystery why the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the farmhouse before J had even spoken to PC West? So, the judges at the appeal made that up as well? CA07 were deployed at 3.35am, now if you did but not know it, the judges accepted that Bews , Myall and Saxby, got deployed 'prior' to J calling PC West, so you can't possibly be right in what you have maliciously alleged in your post. Next you'll be inventing other lies, and condo,acting other stories about the timing of that deployment (3.35am) is wrong. So, go on move the time back. It doesn't make any difference how far back you want to move the time, because the occupants of CA07 were always deployed to the scene, 'beforw' J's call to PC West. And 'that fact' Sunshine is where cops made a catastrophic mistake as part of their 'cover up'. Now run along back to red and tell them all what a great job you did trying to put me in my place...
-
There was certainly a panic button, installed as part of the SB protection program. You can scoff all you like. None of you lot have got a legitimate explanation for 'the involvement' of Special Branch in this investigation. Why was DI Soames, and PS Woodcock involved right from the off? Why was DI Soames hell bent on destroying anything and everything as far as exhibits were concerned, making it more difficult for anyone to come along and a later date, to try to reconstruct precisely what did happen 'Duhhhhhh!!!!!!'
And I will continue to do so because I know beyond a SHADOW of doubt, that if there is considered the need to install a personal safety alarm system, it will be a universal system that is installed and NOT a one off in a random position which could mean someone walking into danger before they get the chance to activate it. Oh, and the first thing which would be attended to would be the standard of the catches/locking facilities on the windows.
-
I smell desperation.
Desperation about WHAT, exactly, Lookout?
-
There was certainly a panic button, installed as part of the SB protection program. You can scoff all you like. None of you lot have got a legitimate explanation for 'the involvement' of Special Branch in this investigation. Why was DI Soames, and PS Woodcock involved right from the off? Why was DI Soames hell bent on destroying anything and everything as far as exhibits were concerned, making it more difficult for anyone to come along and a later date, to try to reconstruct precisely what did happen 'Duhhhhhh!!!!!!'
I'm afraid you're in yet another dead end alley on that one.
-
You xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx, how the xxx did I invent the 3.36am phone call that J made. Stop being such a complete xxxxx. Can't you think up something more constructive to say. Fancy falsely alleging that I made up J's call to PC West. Get 'a brain cell', how come in the court of appeal judgement (2002), that the judges commented on it being something of a mystery why the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the farmhouse before J had even spoken to PC West? So, the judges at the appeal made that up as well? CA07 were deployed at 3.35am, now if you did but not know it, the judges accepted that Bews , Myall and Saxby, got deployed 'prior' to J calling PC West, so you can't possibly be right in what you have maliciously alleged in your post. Next you'll be inventing other lies, and condo,acting other stories about the timing of that deployment (3.35am) is wrong. So, go on move the time back. It doesn't make any difference how far back you want to move the time, because the occupants of CA07 were always deployed to the scene, 'beforw' J's call to PC West. And 'that fact' Sunshine is where cops made a catastrophic mistake as part of their 'cover up'. Now run along back to red and tell them all what a great job you did trying to put me in my place...
You can shout and scream all you want but Malcolm Bonnett never received any telephone call from the Bambers...End Off!
The first and only call to police was made by Jeremy Bamber to PC West at around 3.26am. West communicated the call to civilian operator Bonnett as Jeremy Bamber waited on the line. Night crew Bews, Myall and Saxby were then alerted and at 3.37am made their way to WHF passing a malingering Jeremy Bamber on the way. The firearms teams were also alerted and arrived shortly thereafter.
In case you haven't yet grasped it... THERE WAS NO SECOND TELEPHONE CALL TO POLICE!
-
If Neville phoned the police Sheila would have only 22 minutes to do everything prior to the police arriving.
She would have to wait for Neville to finish the call. Which may take several minutes. Then she can get around to shooting him upstairs in the bedroom. Fighting with him in the kitchen, shooting him again. And then burning his back.
Once Neville was negated, Sheila could get on with killing everyone else, having a shower, changing, reading the bible, writing a suicide note and shooting herself.
All of which would take over an hour.
-
If Neville phoned the police Sheila would have only 22 minutes to do everything prior to the police arriving.
She would have to wait for Neville to finish the call. Which may take several minutes. Then she can get around to shooting him upstairs in the bedroom. Fighting with him in the kitchen, shooting him again. And then burning his back.
Once Neville was negated, Sheila could get on with killing everyone else, having a shower, changing, reading the bible, writing a suicide note and shooting herself.
All of which would take over an hour.
Another good post. These points can never be addressed by supporters because frankly nobody beleves it any more.
-
Desperation about WHAT, exactly, Lookout?
In trying to rustle up anything that points towards guilt. A SUDDEN change of mind that there was no panic alarm installed,for instance. Is this why nobody believes what the paper said about Neville having been found in the hall ? Alarms are usually by the front door-------for obvious reasons.
Do you think that Neville would have gone around telling everyone there was one installed ? He wouldn't have even told Sheila or Jeremy and this is partly the reason why anyone refuses to imagine that there was such a thing in the house. It goes against the grain of the guilters to have known there was one fitted.
It would have been installed since the threat to the family which Neville and possibly June knew about,but nobody else.
June very likely wrote her" message " in view of this should anything happen. Her note was very telling !!
-
In trying to rustle up anything that points towards guilt. A SUDDEN change of mind that there was no panic alarm installed,for instance. Is this why nobody believes what the paper said about Neville having been found in the hall ? Alarms are usually by the front door-------for obvious reasons.
Do you think that Neville would have gone around telling everyone there was one installed ? He wouldn't have even told Sheila or Jeremy and this is partly the reason why anyone refuses to imagine that there was such a thing in the house. It goes against the grain of the guilters to have known there was one fitted.
It would have been installed since the threat to the family which Neville and possibly June knew about,but nobody else.
June very likely wrote her" message " in view of this should anything happen. Her note was very telling !!
OK, Lookout. There's this middle aged couple who live in a large and isolated house. He has apparently come under threat from someone to do with his position as a magistrate so the police decide that a personal panic system should be installed. Without checking the property's security, ie, making enquiries about the possibility of there already being a burglar alarm and checking the security of windows and doors -Nevill couldn't have been unaware that Jeremy, and others, had used the windows as a means of entry- they install ONE panic button. Does such TRULY strike you as having the ring of truth? It hardly makes sense to place ONE panic alarm near a door in a house of that size when entry could be achieved in other ways.
I have lived along side a family who were given police protection because of a threat which was taken seriously. There were alarms placed in every room in their house and their children were taken to school and escorted home by police. It's academic whether Nevill would have told Jeremy or others -however, HAD the threat been to the entire family, he and they would have had every right to know as there were children involved- but the more word could have been circulated that there was protection in place, the less likely an attack would be attempted. It's also worth noting that Nevill would have been far more likely to have come under attack whilst he was going about his daily business. I don't recall that this fact was ever mentioned, by EP, that they felt it necessary to guard him 24/7. It also occurs to me that HAD a threat been made against the entire family it would have been a lucky person to have managed an attack at the very time MOST were under the one roof, as it was a rare occurence.
This has NOTHING to do with "trying to rustle up anything that points towards guilt". It's down to plain common sense. I'd also ask you where is there proof of any involvement by SB to protect Nevill, OTHER than Mike's hints about Jeremy's biological background. I note that whilst you challenge me, you accept what he says, without question.
-
In trying to rustle up anything that points towards guilt. A SUDDEN change of mind that there was no panic alarm installed,for instance. Is this why nobody believes what the paper said about Neville having been found in the hall ? Alarms are usually by the front door-------for obvious reasons.
Do you think that Neville would have gone around telling everyone there was one installed ? He wouldn't have even told Sheila or Jeremy and this is partly the reason why anyone refuses to imagine that there was such a thing in the house. It goes against the grain of the guilters to have known there was one fitted.
It would have been installed since the threat to the family which Neville and possibly June knew about,but nobody else.
June very likely wrote her" message " in view of this should anything happen. Her note was very telling !!
There is NO PROOF that any such device was ever installed. Had there been such a device fitted Jeremy and other close family members would have definitely known about it. There wasn't anything going on in that farmhouse that Jeremy didn't know about and anyone who suggests differently is delusional.
-
But it does, not one single piece of exculpatory evidence has ever been provided.
Just because YOU have not seen such evidence or don't understand such evidence does mean it does not exist.
-
Just because YOU have not seen such evidence or don't understand such evidence does mean it does not exist.
And how much more condescending can you get?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4232.msg173041.html#msg173041
Just to clarify, David. There was NEVER a panic button in stalled at WHF. Vic knows the family intimately.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4232.msg173041.html#msg173041
Just to clarify, David. There was NEVER a panic button in stalled at WHF. Vic knows the family intimately.
I know. They only tend to have them in shops under the counter.
-
I know. They only tend to have them in shops under the counter.
And a retail outlet is usually one room/area covering one floor.
-
I know. They only tend to have them in shops under the counter.
But they DO install them in every room in private houses where there has been a specific threat which is taken seriously.
-
Just because YOU have not seen such evidence or don't understand such evidence does mean it does not exist.
;D ;D. Please enlighten us.
-
I know. They only tend to have them in shops under the counter.
They could install one in the Jeremy Bamber store..
-
Just because YOU have not seen such evidence or don't understand such evidence does mean it does not exist.
I have looked at all the evidence and see nothing which could ever change my mind. I look forward to reviewing your recent claimed breakthrough however.
-
I have looked at all the evidence and see nothing which could ever change my mind. I look forward to reviewing your recent claimed breakthrough however.
The irritating thing about this 'breakthrough' claim, is that it has resulted in Caroline no longer posting on here.
-
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
David is you're forensic evidence breakthrough more important than Mike's from last year ?
-
The irritating thing about this 'breakthrough' claim, is that it has resulted in Caroline no longer posting on here.
Probably too busy disputing it if she's found out about it. :-X
-
It's easy saying that a " device was fitted in the aftermath " of what happened. I reckon it was the existing one which was upgraded. Or why bother when you " knew the culprit was going to be tucked-up in prison and that the new landlord had a clutch of weapons ?"
-
It's easy saying that a " device was fitted in the aftermath " of what happened. I reckon it was the existing one which was upgraded. Or why bother when you " knew the culprit was going to be tucked-up in prison and that the new landlord had a clutch of weapons ?"
OR it was deemed a good idea to install a burglar alarm in a large, remote property which was uninhabited for a long time after the massacre.
-
I've been doing a lot of writing and I'm happy to say that support for Jeremy is gathering momentum.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7178.msg327310#msg327310
-
I've been doing a lot of writing and I'm happy to say that support for Jeremy is gathering momentum.
Which has WHAT do do with a burglar alarm that wasn't there until after the massacre?
-
Which has WHAT do do with a burglar alarm that wasn't there until after the massacre?
It has a lot to do with the subject.
-
It has a lot to do with the subject.
It seems that however many say there was NO alarm system of ANY kind prior to the massacre, you either THINK you know differently, OR you're NOT prepared to allow that you're wrong.
-
It seems that however many say there was NO alarm system of ANY kind prior to the massacre, you either THINK you know differently, OR you're NOT prepared to allow that you're wrong.
Wouldn't you like to know !!
-
Wouldn't you like to know !!
Let's put it this way, Lookout. From the amount of times you've misquoted and the amount of times you've "read something somewhere" which for the MOST part can't be located, I think the answer is probably NO......................but you might like to compare notes with Daisy to argue the toss about how much Jeremy has revealed to each of you.
-
Getting back to the subject of this thread I don't see how any of these things makes him innocent..
-
Getting back to the subject of this thread I don't see how any of these things makes him innocent..
They absolutely don't, Steve...................however some desperately want to have us believe that an unproven phone call from Nevill to the police following the activating of a non existent panic alarm makes him so.
-
They absolutely don't, Steve...................however some desperately want to have us believe that an unproven phone call from Nevill to the police following the activating of a non existent panic alarm makes him so.
Now you're being silly,as it's not just that. The phone-call or non phone-call is just another stupid epithet of having been swayed by those others who just because they slung mud about the facts of JB's origins,decided to continue with the mud-slinging in every direction possible. All because his upbringing happens to have been different. That was just the start. It's called character assassination.
-
Now you're being silly,as it's not just that. The phone-call or non phone-call is just another stupid epithet of having been swayed by those others who just because they slung mud about the facts of JB's origins,decided to continue with the mud-slinging in every direction possible. All because his upbringing happens to have been different. That was just the start. It's called character assassination.
I don't think anybody would argue that Jeremy was perceived as a "cuckoo" amongst the relatives and maybe this was the start of Jeremy's lack of concern about the Farm and what others thought about him. However I don't see how this affected the Police investigation, when it was those in the junior ranks who were most perturbed by Taff Jones' peremptory conclusions and not the top brass, who would have been content to take the easier course with Sheila taking the blame.
-
Now you're being silly,as it's not just that. The phone-call or non phone-call is just another stupid epithet of having been swayed by those others who just because they slung mud about the facts of JB's origins,decided to continue with the mud-slinging in every direction possible. All because his upbringing happens to have been different. That was just the start. It's called character assassination.
Lookout, I don't recall that I, or indeed ANY from the guilty side, have "slung mud about the ""facts"" of Jeremy's origins". Indeed, it's more those in the innocent camp who have tried to promote certain "facts". I'd hazard a guess that NONE of us accept that his blood may be a tad blue, but IF such was the case, it denotes neither guilt nor innocence, and it certainly DOESN'T mean that Special Branch have been keeping an eye on the family from the time of his adoption!!!!! I don't know what you mean about his upbringing being different. It was as close to mine as makes no difference and as a child I had no idea that others led different lives.
-
Lookout, I don't recall that I, or indeed ANY from the guilty side, have "slung mud about the ""facts"" of Jeremy's origins". Indeed, it's more those in the innocent camp who have tried to promote certain "facts". I'd hazard a guess that NONE of us accept that his blood may be a tad blue, but IF such was the case, it denotes neither guilt nor innocence, and it certainly DOESN'T mean that Special Branch have been keeping an eye on the family from the time of his adoption!!!!! I don't know what you mean about his upbringing being different. It was as close to mine as makes no difference and as a child I had no idea that others led different lives.
Champagne life-style and all that tosh ? So what ?
-
Private school and " branded " clothing ?
-
Champagne life-style and all that tosh ? So what ?
Well yes. There IS that............if only because no one has come forward to say that he was an enthusiastic member of anything that wasn't associated with it. Whilst that, in itself doesn't make him guilty, that life style had to be funded and would likely cost more than a yearly sub. to Young Farmers or young Conservatives.
-
There are ALWAYS those who are more than ready to disparage others of having everything,and it's those people who go one better when it comes to something like accusing an innocent man of murder. The hatred is deep-seated and takes over their everyday lives to such an extent that their mindset no longer believes otherwise. Even when JB is cleared of murder,these people will remain fixated in their world of guilt.
-
There are ALWAYS those who are more than ready to disparage others of having everything,and it's those people who go one better when it comes to something like accusing an innocent man of murder. The hatred is deep-seated and takes over their everyday lives to such an extent that their mindset no longer believes otherwise. Even when JB is cleared of murder,these people will remain fixated in their world of guilt.
There is evidence of that mind set -inverted snobbery- on this forum, Lookout. I seem to recall foul and unsubstantiated accusations made against all those who are Masons. Such hatred does, indeed, appear to be so deep seated that it takes over their lives to such an extent that they become fixated on it as the truth. It matters not that Jeremy will never see freedom because they need to have that mind set to hang on to as proof that corruption, in certain quarters is alive, well and thriving..........................and I don't believe there is any comparison with that appalling football tragedy.
-
There is evidence of that mind set -inverted snobbery- on this forum, Lookout. I seem to recall foul and unsubstantiated accusations made against all those who are Masons. Such hatred does, indeed, appear to be so deep seated that it takes over their lives to such an extent that they become fixated on it as the truth. It matters not that Jeremy will never see freedom because they need to have that mind set to hang on to as proof that corruption, in certain quarters is alive, well and thriving..........................and I don't believe there is any comparison with that appalling football tragedy.
As for your last statement Jane--------you've said it----Masons.
-
I have looked at all the evidence and see nothing which could ever change my mind. I look forward to reviewing your recent claimed breakthrough however.
You can't have, the evidence in the public domain is just the tip of the iceberg.
-
You can't have, the evidence in the public domain is just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't think so. We have most of the facts at our disposal. There isn't a single piece of exculpatory evidence in existence, says it all really doesn't it David?
-
C'mon John,we've seen/read about more than enough of the " top-brass " in the force,thinking they're protected by their positions,who have reneged in some way. They always make sure they're seen rubbing shoulders with some MP or another. Then the rest of their crew ( poodles ) have to follow suit. None of them are infallible,or indispensible, come to that.
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(a) Cops, experts, and relatives had to frame him, because they 'thought' he might have had something to do with it, so they improvised the evidence, acting with a touch of 'noble cause corruption' in mind'...
h as an explanation as to how the line had become engaged whilst the operator had control of the line?
Thinking, or believing somebody did something is 'not evidence'...
-
Thinking, or believing somebody did something is 'not evidence'...
Relatives and cops took it upon themselves (jointly, eventually) to take matters into their own hands by introducing the 'dodgy silencer' evidence, to which the 'nitwits' associated everything else to 'it', like the blood, the paint, and the claim that it was fitted to the barrel of the rifle which fired the fatal shot beneath Sheila's chin, that 'whoever' the killer was, had removed 'it' and taken it all the way downstairs to hide it in a box in the cupboard in the den. I mean, come on, 'how can the S have been on the barrel of the G when Sheila got shot with it before her body reached the bedroom, because we all know the G was resting against the side of the bedroom window, and that it had been there from as long ago as 7.15am? You don't get it, do ya? With the gun at the window before Sheila got shot downstairs, how could cops regard her as dead in the kitchen, if shot by that same G? Impossible. Cops called it 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen upon entry. The male body was called first, followed by the calling of the second body, a female. There is no room in this event for any dodgty cop to try and introduce a 'mix up', where he supposedly mistook the dead male body for the body of a female from his vantage point outside the kitchen window, which he rectified once he got into the kitchen. By that I mean, once the cops got into the kitchen they were clearly dealing with 'two bodies, not one'. If PC Collins made 'that' mistake, it only has a bearing on one of the two bodies reported to have been found upon entry to the kitchen. Collins account could be right in relation to one of those two bodies, but not both. So, PC Collins account can be put to bed once and for all. This is because once the first body was identified as a dead male, in particular, dads body, then I fail to see how cops inside the same kitchen can then proceed to report the discovery of another body. A female body, not a male body. Heaven forbid if some other cop is going to crawl out of the woodword and make a counter claim that after dads body had been found and reported as found, that cops changed their minds and described his body as a dead female. Nothing would surprise me, cops cannot be trusted. Many of them are far worse criminals than the ones that they profess to arrest and prosecute.
-
Relatives and cops took it upon themselves (jointly, eventually) to take matters into their own hands by introducing the 'dodgy silencer' evidence, to which the 'nitwits' associated everything else to 'it', like the blood, the paint, and the claim that it was fitted to the barrel of the rifle which fired the fatal shot beneath Sheila's chin, that 'whoever' the killer was, had removed 'it' and taken it all the way downstairs to hide it in a box in the cupboard in the den. I mean, come on, 'how can the S have been on the barrel of the G when Sheila got shot with it before her body reached the bedroom, because we all know the G was resting against the side of the bedroom window, and that it had been there from as long ago as 7.15am? You don't get it, do ya? With the gun at the window before Sheila got shot downstairs, how could cops regard her as dead in the kitchen, if shot by that same G? Impossible. Cops called it 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen upon entry. The male body was called first, followed by the calling of the second body, a female. There is no room in this event for any dodgty cop to try and introduce a 'mix up', where he supposedly mistook the dead male body for the body of a female from his vantage point outside the kitchen window, which he rectified once he got into the kitchen. By that I mean, once the cops got into the kitchen they were clearly dealing with 'two bodies, not one'. If PC Collins made 'that' mistake, it only has a bearing on one of the two bodies reported to have been found upon entry to the kitchen. Collins account could be right in relation to one of those two bodies, but not both. So, PC Collins account can be put to bed once and for all. This is because once the first body was identified as a dead male, in particular, dads body, then I fail to see how cops inside the same kitchen can then proceed to report the discovery of another body. A female body, not a male body. Heaven forbid if some other cop is going to crawl out of the woodword and make a counter claim that after dads body had been found and reported as found, that cops changed their minds and described his body as a dead female. Nothing would surprise me, cops cannot be trusted. Many of them are far worse criminals than the ones that they profess to arrest and prosecute.
It gets worse, because before 7.45am, a civilian employee in the communications room (Linda) has received information that one of these 'two bodies' was a murder, and the other body, the second one, was in fact reported to her as 'a suicide'. So, if there was only one body downstairs in the kitchen, this is the unlikeliest scenario ever, that cops and those that condemn J as the killer, expect ordinary folk to believe. There was only ever one body in the kitchen, it was a female body, then it was a male body, then it was a female body, which was being described and referred to by cops, as a murder, then a suicide...
Numpties...
How can anybody have described dads death as a suicide by 7.45am?
Worse still, how did he commit suicide downstairs in the kitchen, if the G was still resting at the bedroom window by that stage of his murder, or his suicide?
-
Cops have 'blown it'...
-
What the Hillsboro cops did in the Hillsboro' cover up were tactics that dodgy police forces all over the country adopted when trying to pin the blame upon the innocent. Bambers case was no exception...
-
What cops at whf did, is they moved the timing of Sheila's death backwards, to before 3.36am from 9.13am, and cut out all the activity involving her, downstairs in the kitchen, and later after her arrival upstairs in the main bedroom on the bed, then they moved her body to the bedroom floor, rifle brought from window placed on her body during a training exercise for 'gauging' purposes, 'BANG', now, she was dead, and they killed her, the cops killed Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom, she did not kill herself, J did not kill her, how could he have?
-
You can't have, the evidence in the public domain is just the tip of the iceberg.
I know you are right
-
One day the lot of you will 'wake up' to the truth regarding what took place inside that farmhouse after cops went in at around 7.30am. The truth is shocking. The truth involves having to accept that 'cops have lied'. The truth is that Sheila was still alive. She got shot downstairs in the kitchen, but which G fired the first shot? Certainly not the rifle which was leaning at the bedroom window, since that did not get moved from its position at the window at any stage between 7.15 and 9.12am, so if Sheila's body was the female body reportedly found downstairs in the kitchen after the body of dad had already been reported as being dead, can somebody tell me how Sheila had been shot to enable cops in the kitchen to call her as being dead? Where did the G come from which fired that first shot across her throat? The true explanation, is a simple one. A bullet from a cop gun wounded her downstairs in the kitchen. It cannot have been the rifle at the upstairs bedroom window. It was a gun which belonged to a cop, for sure. That is why there is mention of a 'police officers report', relating to the shooting incident downstairs upon entry. That report contains the detail which proves categorically that Sheila did not initially get shot upstairs. She was 'not' shot twice in quick succession upstairs in the main bedroom. That is a dirty cop lie. How can both shots have been fired one after the other, in quick succession, with use of the same gun, with the rifle that 'did' fire the fatal bullet beneath the chin at the bedroom window, unmoved, untouched, until around 9.12am, when it was brought to Sheila's body after her body had been moved to the bedroom floor from the bed, as part of a 'training exercise', that went 'tragically' wrong?
-
A cop lie...
Nothing more, nothing less...
-
Imagine the situation at the time that rifle which was resting against the bedroom window, in full view of cop marksmen and women, from 7.15am, onward? The time is 9.13am, and Sheila has just been shot by a G that had no right to have been anywhere near her body at that stage. Worse still, she had also by that stage been shot earlier downstairs in the kitchen upon entry by a cop gun...
-
Imagine the situation at the time that rifle which was resting against the bedroom window, in full view of cop marksmen and women, from 7.15am, onward? The time is 9.13am, and Sheila has just been shot by a G that had no right to have been anywhere near her body at that stage. Worse still, she had also by that stage been shot earlier downstairs in the kitchen upon entry by a cop gun...
What do cops do?
-
Do they 'fess up, and let it be made known publicly that the forces armed response units have dropped one almighty bollock, or do they try to keep a lid upon it, hoping that if they handle the matter discreetly, given time, that the matter can be swept under the carpet?
-
Do they 'fess up, and let it be made known publicly that the forces armed response units have dropped one almighty bollock, or do they try to keep a lid upon it, hoping that if they handle the matter discreetly, given time, that the matter can be swept under the carpet?
In all the circumstances of this case, they took the wrong option. They chose to cover up the mistakes, hoping the five deaths would be dealt with as 'four murders, and a suicide'...
They didn't count on the determination of the relatives...
-
In all the circumstances of this case, they took the wrong option. They chose to cover up the mistakes, hoping the five deaths would be dealt with as 'four murders, and a suicide'...
They didn't count on the determination of the relatives...
It wasn't J who fooled cops into taking this approach. Cops made that decision all by themselves...
If you remember, when the news was broken to J by cops, how J had accused cops of shooting dead all his family? Well, actually, they had shot Sheila, not once, but twice. Once downstairs in the kitchen, secondly upstairs in the bedroom. J"s gut instinct that he felt at the time the bad news was given to him, was closer to the truth, than the cop lies which have endured for over 30 years already...
It's now time to put things right...
The public must realize that 'we can't trust the cops to police us honestly'. Cops lie, cops fabricate, and will often pervert the course of justice...
-
The same gun did not fire both shots sustained by Sheila, that is a stonewall fact...
-
One day the lot of you will 'wake up' to the truth regarding what took place inside that farmhouse after cops went in at around 7.30am. The truth is shocking. The truth involves having to accept that 'cops have lied'. The truth is that Sheila was still alive. She got shot downstairs in the kitchen, but which G fired the first shot? Certainly not the rifle which was leaning at the bedroom window, since that did not get moved from its position at the window at any stage between 7.15 and 9.12am, so if Sheila's body was the female body reportedly found downstairs in the kitchen after the body of dad had already been reported as being dead, can somebody tell me how Sheila had been shot to enable cops in the kitchen to call her as being dead? Where did the G come from which fired that first shot across her throat? The true explanation, is a simple one. A bullet from a cop gun wounded her downstairs in the kitchen. It cannot have been the rifle at the upstairs bedroom window. It was a gun which belonged to a cop, for sure. That is why there is mention of a 'police officers report', relating to the shooting incident downstairs upon entry. That report contains the detail which proves categorically that Sheila did not initially get shot upstairs. She was 'not' shot twice in quick succession upstairs in the main bedroom. That is a dirty cop lie. How can both shots have been fired one after the other, in quick succession, with use of the same gun, with the rifle that 'did' fire the fatal bullet beneath the chin at the bedroom window, unmoved, untouched, until around 9.12am, when it was brought to Sheila's body after her body had been moved to the bedroom floor from the bed, as part of a 'training exercise', that went 'tragically' wrong?
What a load of bollocks...provide some evidence or give it up! :)
-
The same gun did not fire both shots sustained by Sheila, that is a stonewall fact...
No its not, more rubbish. :)
-
I don't think so. We have most of the facts at our disposal.
There are around 3.8 million pages of case documents Jeremy and his lawyers have access to. That does not include photos audio tapes and evidence still withheld.
A crude estimate of the amount the documents on this site I put at around 15,000
There isn't a single piece of exculpatory evidence in existence, says it all really doesn't it David?
Quite the opposite IMO, Not only does exculpatory exist, it outweighs the inculpatory evidence.
-
What a load of bollocks...provide some evidence or give it up! :)
The evidence is there for all to see - gun at bedroom window by 7.15am, how did it end up on top of Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photography it there from 10 O'clock onwards? No other gun was found resting up against any of the upstairs windows, non was photographed at any other upstairs window, no rifle was ever seized or made an exhibit in the investigations, so the rifle in question which WPC Julia Jeapes said she saw, can only have been the anshuzt rifle. Facts like this cannot be ignored. Who moved the rifle from the bedroom window after 7.15am, onto Sheila's body?
It wasn't J, he could not have done that...
Sheila didn't do it either because she was mistakenly pronounced as being dead downstairs in the kitchen. Cops knew she had been shot downstairs when they stepped into the kitchen. The anshuzt rifle was still resting against the bedroom window upstairs at 'that' stage, so cops could hgardly have shot her using that rifle now could they? So, work it out for yourself, they shot her with a cop gun downstairs, whilst the anshuzt rifle was still resting against the bedroom window upstairs. Nothing could be any clearer, the cop account about misidentifying dads body for a female is nothing but a red herrin', the mistake only applied to one dead body, not the two that were reported 'after' cops had entered the kitchen. If you don't know it, or if for some shady reason you choose to ignore the truth, I shall remind you by gleefully ramming the facts down your throat - cops reported a female body downstairs in the kitchen, after dads body had already been mentioned. Not once, but twice...
Get your facts right, before you open your gob...
-
There are around 3.8 million pages of case documents Jeremy and his lawyers have access to. That does not include photos audio tapes and evidence still withheld.
A crude estimate of the amount the documents on this site I put at around 15,000
Quite the opposite IMO, Not only does exculpatory exist, it outweighs the inculpatory evidence.
Prove it then, what is this exculpatory evidence?
-
The evidence is there for all to see - gun at bedroom window by 7.15am, how did it end up on top of Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photography it there from 10 O'clock onwards? No other gun was found resting up against any of the upstairs windows, non was photographed at any other upstairs window, no rifle was ever seized or made an exhibit in the investigations, so the rifle in question which WPC Julia Jeapes said she saw, can only have been the anshuzt rifle. Facts like this cannot be ignored. Who moved the rifle from the bedroom window after 7.15am, onto Sheila's body?
It wasn't J, he could not have done that...
Sheila didn't do it either because she was mistakenly pronounced as being dead downstairs in the kitchen. Cops knew she had been shot downstairs when they stepped into the kitchen. The anshuzt rifle was still resting against the bedroom window upstairs at 'that' stage, so cops could hgardly have shot her using that rifle now could they? So, work it out for yourself, they shot her with a cop gun downstairs, whilst the anshuzt rifle was still resting against the bedroom window upstairs. Nothing could be any clearer, the cop account about misidentifying dads body for a female is nothing but a red herrin', the mistake only applied to one dead body, not the two that were reported 'after' cops had entered the kitchen. If you don't know it, or if for some shady reason you choose to ignore the truth, I shall remind you by gleefully ramming the facts down your throat - cops reported a female body downstairs in the kitchen, after dads body had already been mentioned. Not once, but twice...
Get your facts right, before you open your gob...
That's not evidence of anything. Jeeeze I give up.
-
That's not evidence of anything. Jeeeze I give up.
Yes, it is evidence. You can't say its not evidence just because cops and CPS kept it back from the jury. If they hadn't kept it back, and the jury had heard about these things J would 'never' have been convicted...
-
Yes, it is evidence. You can't say its not evidence just because cops and CPS kept it back from the jury. If they hadn't kept it back, and the jury had heard about these things J would 'never' have been convicted...
All that represents is your own interpretation of events.
We all know the rifle was lifted and replaced on the body at least twice, so what!
We all know there was a mix up as to how many fatalities had been found initially, so what, shit happens!
I repeat...in over thirty years nobody has ever produce a single piece of evidence which can back up Jeremy Bamber's story.
-
You can't have, the evidence in the public domain is just the tip of the iceberg.
Have you seen the rest of it then?
-
Prove it then, what is this exculpatory evidence?
I've discussed it on this forum and the red forum multiple times, its there for anyone to read.
There are several things I don't mention because I have agreed not to :-\
-
Have you seen the rest of it then?
No, I don't think its possible for one person go over that much info IMO. were would you begin? :-\
-
No, I don't think its possible for one person go over that much info IMO. were would you begin? :-\
Most of it is simply material relating to Jeremy's complaints after the trial and the various Inquiry's which took place into police conduct. The evidence is a different matter and that was before the jury. This constant reference to hidden material which will free Bamber is just a smokescreen.
-
At trial, defence lawyers will speak about the evidence which is not available. No witnesses, no murder weapon etc. Although in this case the murder weapon was crucial to the frame.
After conviction supporters will again talk about evidence no one has seen. Which the police are apparently hiding away. Or saying that evidence has been discovered but not saying what it is.
-
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
At least Mike posts his forensic evidence discoveries.
-
Most of it is simply material relating to Jeremy's complaints after the trial and the various Inquiry's which took place into police conduct. The evidence is a different matter and that was before the jury. This constant reference to hidden material which will free Bamber is just a smokescreen.
Matters which were not placed before the jury because cops and CPS deliberately withheld access to such material is 'evidence', once it becomes known. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not J has complained about these tactics by cops or the CPS. Since, but for cop dishonesty the jury would have considered the 'missing' evidence in question. Just because the jury did not hear 'this evidence' during the trial does not 'invalidate' it as evidence. Of course its evidence, no matter whether J or anybody else has since found out about it, or complained about it, or discussed it on a forum such as this. Yes, there is still material being withheld, all of which is potential evidence that is capable of establishing that J is 100% innocent. Why would cops and CPS still after over 30 years be seeking to withhold it?
The answer to these questions is that cops know when Sheila actually died, how she died and that she was shot with two different weapons. She was shot once downstairs in the kitchen whilst the anshuzt rifle was upstairs resting against the bedroom window. For confirmation of this you need to get your hands on the currently withheld 'Officers Report' relating to the shooting incident downstairs in the kitchen at the time of entry. Why would such a report exist, yet cops and CPS seek for over 30 years to deliberately withhold it. So, that is evidence there. The evidence in question being the actual existence of such a report, about how Sheila got shot downstairs in the kitchen whilst the anshuzt rifle was resting against the bedroom window upstairs (that too is evidence). It is 'evidence' that 'two bodies, not one' was reported as being 'found downstairs' in the 'kitchen', after and inclusive of the reported discovery of dads body. Again, that is 'evidence' that we now know about, which the jury never got chance to hear because cops and CPS withheld the true contents of the police message logs (that is also evidence). If per chance the cops, CPS and people like you, want to throw in the argument that PC Collins mistakenly identified dads body as the body of a female, then fine go ahead. Since, this will be counter argued that any such mistake only involves one of the two bodies found downstairs, and reported as found downstairs (which is evidence). It is 'evidence' that a female body was found downstairs after dads body itself had already been found downstairs in the same kitchen. Again, this is evidence contained in the previously undisclosed police message logs. It is 'evidence' that not only was it confirmed that two bodies had been found upon entry at 7.37am, but this fact was re-affirmed at 7.38am, and later at various stages all the way up to 8.10am, with another previously undisclosed message being past, that 'after a thorough search of the premises', it states, 'a further three bodies found upstairs' and 'five dead in total'. Again, that is 'evidence'. The fact that at the time of the trial 'two different versions of events' regarding the body count downstairs and upstairs, and the fact that one version of these events was being deliberately withheld, is I am afraid 'evidence' that there has been, ney there was and there is a cover up surrounding 'the death' of at least one of the five victims. Now, you can pretend to be as brain dead as you like, but it should be obvious to someone even as biased as you are, that cops certainly knew and they know exactly how, when and where one of the female victims was shot and died inside that farmhouse. Again, this is evidence. The time one of these females died is 'important' to the validity of these convictions, because if one of the two females was 'not dead' when cops got into the kitchen, then it raises very serious legal and ethical question marks over the legitimacy of the convictions. I will leave you to try to fathom out which of the two females was found downstairs, but I will give you a clue. It was either June Bamber, or it was Sheila Caffell (and that is evidence). I will provide you with an additional clue to try and guide you toward the correct interpretation - the female body found downstairs had committed suicide. Again, more 'evidence'. How much 'evidence does one need before they are satisfied that the cop version of events as relied upon at trial was a completely dishonest account regarding where the positioning of the 5 bodies were found, met with or confronted by when they entered the kitchen downstairs, and the two bedrooms upstairs. Why did cops and CPS deliberately withhold the true version of the events as recorded in the cop message logs if they had not told lies, and had got 'nothing to hide'? Again, that is 'evidence'. Two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, versus one body downstairs, four bodies upstairs, that is the 'issue' that the jury should have been deciding this case on, not whether Sheila or Jeremy were the killer. That, my friend, is 'evidence', it is evidence of a cover up. Do you know something, its people like you that make me angry. Let me remind you about what the judge told the jury in his biased summing up. He said that there was 'no evidence' of a 'third party' involvement in these killings. It had to be either Sheila or Jeremy. Well, that is not right, because it didn't have to have been either Sheila or Jeremy. It only got presented like this because cops and CPS deliberately withheld 'evidence' of the 'other' version of where each of the five bodies had been found, contained in the withheld police message logs. Now, that is 'evidence'. There clearly existed, albeit a fact only known to cops and the CPS during the trial, that 'evidence' of at least one of the two females still being alive at the time cops entered the kitchen, by reference to, and with reliance upon the content of the contemporaneously recorded police message logs. That only 'three bodies had been found upstairs' by 8.10am that morning. That is 'evidence', whether you choose to like it or not. Had the defence known about the existence of these police message logs, I can say with 100% certainty that their case would have been as follows. They would have defended J by stating that Sheila was still alive downstairs in the kitchen when police entered. At that time she was 'unarmed'. That cops miscalculated the reason why the family own rifle suddenly appeared at the bedroom window. That cops thought the placement of that rifle there meant Sheila was resting upstairs, or perhaps being prepared to 'surrender'. In any event what cops did not bargain for was them being confronted by Sheila downstairs in the kitchen. During a struggle over possession of one of the cops guns she was shot and presumed to have died there in the kitchen from that wound. This would be a mistake because that first shot had not as was originally thought killed her. At this precise moment the rifle was still resting against the window upstairs. Cops reported the two bodies found in the kitchen, dads body first, then a female. That female could only have been a reference to Sheila. This is because cops reported that during the struggle between one of the cops in possession of his weapon, with Sheila, how she had pulled the barrel of his gun into her throat at the time a single shot was discharged from the gun. Her death being therefore described as a 'suicide'. How cops had gone all the way through the house, downstairs, and then upon reaching the upstairs part of the farmhouse, how 'a further three bodies' had been found by 8.10am. By 10 O'clock, how PC Bird (soco) had been instructed to photograph the bodies 'insitu', now laid out in a completely different configuration, no longer two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs. Now, the photographs showed only one body downstairs, with the other four bodies upstairs. It would not have been necessary for Rivlin QC to outline exactly how this 'problem' in the prosecutions case had arisen. All he needed to have done, had he been given the opportunity was to advance the two different versions of the events as documented by the cops themselves, to be able to satisfy the jury that J could not possibly have been responsible for shooting dead his sister upstairs in the bedroom, of staging her death there, of removing the silencer after he had killed her upstairs in the bedroom with use of it, in the bedroom. He could not possibly have been responsible for doing any of that or this, because Sheila was still alive downstairs in the kitchen when cops entered. She had not been shot by that stage, and the gun which cops said had fired both shots which killed her, was still resting against the bedroom window upstairs when she got shot downstairs and was reported as being dead, by 'suicide'. What a mystery, she had supposedly committed suicide, ' downstairs', with use of a gun that was 'upstairs at the bedroom window'. In any event, if she was dead downstairs in the kitchen from as early as 7.37am until 8.10am, how had her body managed to end up on the bedroom floor by 10am in order for it to be photographed there? Had she 'not' been dead earlier? But if she had not been killed downstairs, had not as it were committed suicide, how had the second shot that was inflicted under her chin been made?
Surely, Jeremy could not have been responsible for shooting her once, let alone twice in these circumstances...
-
The two versions of where the bodies of the five victims were found (two downstairs, three upstairs, versus, one downstairs, four upstairs) should have been the main argument during the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal. But this was not possible because cops and CPS did not disclose the content of the police message logs until 'after' the 2002 appeal was turned down...
It should be obvious why cops and CPS did not want a court to determine the 'significance' of this previously unseen, unconsidered material...
Cops have lied about the circumstances of Sheila Caffells death. They know exactly when and how she got shot once downstairs, secondly upstairs. Its no good anyone trying to defend what these cops have done and what they did. The truth of the matter is that cops ended up shooting an unarmed Sheila downstairs in the kitchen. The most likeliest explanation for her being downstairs in the kitchen when cops entered was that she was preparing to surrender, a fact supported by the placement of the rifle at the upstairs window. All that changed when as the internal kitchen door was gradually pushed open the barrel of a cop gun came protruding around the opening edge of the door...
-
The two versions of where the bodies of the five victims were found (two downstairs, three upstairs, versus, one downstairs, four upstairs) should have been the main argument during the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal. But this was not possible because cops and CPS did not disclose the content of the police message logs until 'after' the 2002 appeal was turned down...
It should be obvious why cops and CPS did not want a court to determine the 'significance' of this previously unseen, unconsidered material...
Cops have lied about the circumstances of Sheila Caffells death. They know exactly when and how she got shot once downstairs, secondly upstairs. Its no good anyone trying to defend what these cops have done and what they did. The truth of the matter is that cops ended up shooting an unarmed Sheila downstairs in the kitchen. The most likeliest explanation for her being downstairs in the kitchen when cops entered was that she was preparing to surrender, a fact supported by the placement of the rifle at the upstairs window. All that changed when as the internal kitchen door was gradually pushed open the barrel of a cop gun came protruding around the opening edge of the door...
This is all purely speculation on your behalf. The forensic evidence tells a different story unfortunately. Sheila was shot twice where she sat on the bedroom floor.
-
It is obvious why the content of the police message logs were 'deliberately' withheld - the prosecution case would have 'collapsed'...
-
This is all purely speculation on your behalf. The forensic evidence tells a different story unfortunately. Sheila was shot twice where she sat on the bedroom floor.
No, it is 'not speculation', the facts exist in the police message logs that have been deliberately kept back from the defence, the court, the jury, the appellate court - two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs. A male body, and a female body downstairs. A murder, and a suicide, known about before the other three bodies were located upstairs at 8.10am. PC Collins bull shit explanation out of the window, regarding mistakenly identifying dads body for the body of a female. At best all it indicates is that he made a mistake with the sex of one of the two bodies in the kitchen, not both of them. A fact established by confirmation that after dads body had been reported as found, was the fact that the body of a female was also present in the kitchen. Mention of the presence of a female body is made 'twice' directly after reference to finding dads body. The truth is that there were two bodies in the kitchen, not one (at least not one until Sheila temporarily recovered from the shock and the effect of having been shot in the throat downstairs in the kitchen, and making her way upstairs, before collapsing on the bed in her parents bedroom. The same bedroom where she had placed the rifle at the window at 7.15am, loaded with a solitary bullet). The defence had a right to know about the existence of these message logs, and the location of the bodies inside the farmhouse at the time these timed messages were being passed. The court was deceived, because cops and CPS deliberately presented a scenario of where the bodies had been found upon entry, by relying upon false testimony and photographs which referred to where the bodies of the victims had 'ended up' after a training exercise during which time the rifle that Sheila had placed at the bedroom window was brought by cops to her body for 'gauging purposes', and as the fingers of her right hand were being positioned upon or against the trigger mechanism, the gun went off and fired the fatal bullet beneath the point of the chin and killed her. She died at 9.13am, upstairs on the bedroom floor. That is what it says in the officers report which is being deliberately withheld under pii...
-
No, it is 'not speculation', the facts exist in the police message logs that have been deliberately kept back from the defence, the court, the jury, the appellate court - two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs. A male body, and a female body downstairs. A murder, and a suicide, known about before the other three bodies were located upstairs at 8.10am. PC Collins bull shit explanation out of the window, regarding mistakenly identifying dads body for the body of a female. At best all it indicates is that he made a mistake with the sex of one of the two bodies in the kitchen, not both of them. A fact established by confirmation that after dads body had been reported as found, was the fact that the body of a female was also present in the kitchen. Mention of the presence of a female body is made 'twice' directly after reference to finding dads body. The truth is that there were two bodies in the kitchen, not one (at least not one until Sheila temporarily recovered from the shock and the effect of having been shot in the throat downstairs in the kitchen, and making her way upstairs, before collapsing on the bed in her parents bedroom. The same bedroom where she had placed the rifle at the window at 7.15am, loaded with a solitary bullet). The defence had a right to know about the existence of these message logs, and the location of the bodies inside the farmhouse at the time these timed messages were being passed. The court was deceived, because cops and COS deliberately presented a scenario of where the bodies had been found upon entry, by relying upon false testimony and photographs which referred to where the bodies of the victims had 'ended up' after a training exercise during which time the rifle that Sheila had placed at the bedroom window was brought by cops to her body for 'gauging purposes', and as the fingers of her right hand were being positioned upon or against the trigger mechanism, the gun went off and fired the fatal bullet beneath the point of the chin and killed her. She died at 9.13am, upstairs on the bedroom floor. That is what it says in the officers report which is being deliberately withheld under pii...
None of which renders Bamber innocent. In fact, the forensic evidence renders your theory impossible.
-
None of which renders Bamber innocent.
Yes, it does...
Cops and CPS know that J could not have shot and killed his sister Sheila upstairs in the bedroom by shooting her twice there with use of the anshuzt rifle, or be responsible for staging her death scene in that bedroom, because she wasn't shot twice in the bedroom, and the same rifle did not fire both of the bullets which led to her death. How could Sheila have even been shot downstairs with the rifle that supposedly fired the bullet across her throat upstairs at the bedroom window, where it had been from 7.15am that same morning? The big problem cops have is that (1) Sheila was shot downstairs in the kitchen with use of a cop weapon, (2) they have falsely presented ballistic evidence suggesting that the rifle at the upstairs bedroom window fired the shot downstairs in the kitchen, but it could not have been, because at 7.37am, and by 7.38am, the rifle they are trying to fool us with, was 'unfortunately' for them, still resting at the upstairs window where it had been since 7.15am, (3) they are suggesting that the rifle which fired the fatal shot under Sheila's chin was the rifle at the window, but without explaining how 'that' rifle got from the bedroom window, after 7.15am, onto Sheila's body where it was eventually photographed by PC Bird (soco) after 10am...
-
There is 'no forensic evidence' which proves J's involvement in any of these killings...
-
Cops found themselves in a dilemma...
Sheila was on the verge of surrendering, she had placed the rifle at the bedroom window in view of cops outside. She had gone downstairs to that part of the farmhouse where police intended to enter. She was unarmed. There was a struggle. She got shot. She was mistakenly presumed dead. Her death was reported as a suicide. In the same room, was the body of her dad. Cops went in search of the other three victims, and located them at 8.10am. By that stage everything appeared, 'tickityboo'. But then things suddenly went pearshaped. Sheila's body was no longer present downstairs in the kitchen...
It's quite 'obvious' what took place afterward...
In order for Sheila's body to wind up dead on the bedroom floor as depicted by PC Birds photographic images, a number of different things needed to happen. (1) Sheila was still alive or dead, after the first shot in the kitchen, (2) she either made her own way upstairs from the kitchen to the bedroom, or she was taken there. (3) she either walked, or was carried. (4) she either collected the rifle from the bedroom window so that she had it in her possession, or a cop brought it from the window and placed it on her body. (5) she either shot herself, once under the chin and killed herself, or the gun discharged a solitary shot whilst cops were manipulating the position of the rifle upon her body...
-
Once all the shit had hit the fan, with Sheila 'now dead' on the bedroom floor (9.13am), what were cops to do? They had the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor. She had been shot twice in the same region of her throat, by bullets fired from two different weapons. One of these weapons belonged to a cop, the other had been resting against the bedroom window and had been there ever since about 7.15am. How could cops explain how the gun from the bedroom window had found its way onto her body, and then shoot her?
An almost impossible situation to explain away. But some of the most sharpest minds in the Essex force at that time, were in attendance at the scene. Surely, they would know the best way to deal with such a bad situation?
-
Once all the shit had hit the fan, with Sheila 'now dead' on the bedroom floor (9.13am), what were cops to do? They had the body of Sheila on the bedroom floor. She had been shot twice in the same region of her throat, by bullets fired from two different weapons. One of these weapons belonged to a cop, the other had been resting against the bedroom window and had been there ever since about 7.15am. How could cops explain how the gun from the bedroom window had found its way onto her body, and then shoot her?
An almost impossible situation to explain away. But some of the most sharpest minds in the Essex force at that time, were in attendance at the scene. Surely, they would know the best way to deal with such a bad situation?
As cops gathered around Sheila's body, pondering the best way to proceed, soco arrived at the scene (9.20am) but were prevented from taking control of the crime scene until the cops inside the farmhouse had got their stories right. Now, how best to describe the infliction of the two wounds to the victims throat?
'Recoil', the same gun had fired both shots, one shot immediately, after the other. Both shots were in the same region of the victims neck, so 'recoil' might be a good enough explanation, but...
There was still the problem concerning the fact that two different guns, not the same gun, had been used to shoot the victim, once downstairs with one weapon, and a second time upstairs with the rifle from the window. How could cops get around that problem? They decided to cross that bridge when they came to it. In the meantime, cops decided to proceed on the footing that Sheila had ran amok shooting and killing the others, then taking her own life in the bedroom by shooting herself once under the chin...
-
Sheila had been shot 'only' once, that was the theme cops originally went with, not twice...
-
Sheila had been shot 'only' once, that was the theme cops originally went with, not twice...
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, would state she had what appeared to be a solitary bullet wound to her neck at the time (8.44am) he formally pronounced her as being dead. Accompanying him at that time, was PI 'Bob' Miller, he too would report that Sheila only had a single bullet wound at the time her death was pronounced (8.44am) by Dr Craig. They both could legitimately say this, because at that stage, there was only the one shot to her throat, not two...
-
Along comes Julie Mugford to carry out the formal identification of Sheila's body at Chelmsford hospital mortuary. Once she returned to J's cottage after formally identifying Sheila, and using the index finger of her right hand, which she pointed to her throat (when asked how many shots had Sheila died from?) indicating just one shot...
-
At the opening of the inquests into these five deaths, 'Bob' Miller, informed the Deputy Coroner, that cops were satisfied that Sheila Caffell had shot and killed the other four victims, and that she had then gone on to take her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin...
-
At the opening of the inquests into these five deaths, 'Bob' Miller, informed the Deputy Coroner, that cops were satisfied that Sheila Caffell had shot and killed the other four victims, and that she had then gone on to take her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin...
Things were looking up for the cops. The sooner they got the case through the coroners court system the better. They could control things better in the Coroners court system, than through the Criminal court system...
-
But, cops had not bargained for the intervention of PC 'Bobby' Carr, a metropolitan police officer. Son of the former manager of Osea Road Camp site. Friend of the relatives. Someone who had personal knowledge of the victims, and of course Jeremy, himself...
-
But, cops had not bargained for the intervention of PC 'Bobby' Carr, a metropolitan police officer. Son of the former manager of Osea Road Camp site. Friend of the relatives. Someone who had personal knowledge of the victims, and of course Jeremy, himself...
Relatives, and cops, have for over 30 years kept a dark secret about the role played by 'Bobby' Carr in the introduction of the silencer evidence. What no-one outside these circles knows is that on the 10th August 1985, 'Bobby' Carr was present at the farmhouse, when David Boutflour took possession of one of the two silencers still present there. Also, that he attended the farmhouse on the previous day with soco and that it was he who took the two paint samples marked 'RC/1', because he found out that some similar paint had been found on the end of a guns barrel (these two paint samples, RC/1 and RC/2, were not to be mistaken with the other two paint samples (RWC/1 and RWC/2) that were taken by 'Ron' Cook)...
-
In my possession, I have seen a 'handwritten note' where one of the relatives refers to the presence of 'Bobby' at the scene on Saturday 10th August, 1985...
-
What becomes clear to me, is that the cop investigation being conducted by Essex, was being hampered by the role in which 'Bobby' Carr was taking in the same investigation. From a very early stage PC 'Bobby' Carr got involved at the crime scene from as early as the 8th August 1985. More worryingly, although relatives and cops alike all knew this, almost all of them refused to acknowledge this fact to the extent with which a family 'insider' may have influenced the Essex police investigation - particularly with the introduction of the paint contaminated silencer later on...
-
What becomes clear to me, is that the cop investigation being conducted by Essex, was being hampered by the role in which 'Bobby' Carr was taking in the same investigation. From a very early stage PC 'Bobby' Carr got involved at the crime scene from as early as the 8th August 1985. More worryingly, although relatives and cops alike all knew this, almost all of them refused to acknowledge this fact to the extent with which a family 'insider' may have influenced the Essex police investigation - particularly with the introduction of the paint contaminated silencer later on...
It is also very concerning, to note that according to notes hand written by Ann Eaton, she states that on the evening of the 9th August 1985, when cops gave the keys of whf back to the relatives, that once this had been done, that her husband, 'Peter' had 'put the gun, back' inside the farmhouse? This has always been a very puzzling fact. Since, what is meant by the reference to 'the gun'? Was it a gun? Was it a shotgun? Was it a rifle? Was it a silencer? Was it the metal end cap from the end of a rifles barrel?
Did it have anything at all to do with the fact, that 'Bobby' Carr had taken two paint samples, (RC/1 and RC/2) at the scene on either the 8th or 9 the August, 1985?
-
It is also very concerning, to note that according to notes hand written by Ann Eaton, she states that on the evening of the 9th August 1985, when cops gave the keys of whf back to the relatives, that once this had been done, that her husband, 'Peter' had 'put the gun, back' inside the farmhouse? This has always been a very puzzling fact. Since, what is meant by the reference to 'the gun'? Was it a gun? Was it a shotgun? Was it a rifle? Was it a silencer? Was it the metal end cap from the end of a rifles barrel?
Did it have anything at all to do with the fact, that 'Bobby' Carr had taken two paint samples, (RC/1 and RC/2) at the scene on either the 8th or 9 the August, 1985?
Did these two separate events, one involving PC 'Robert' Carr, and the other involving 'Peter' Eaton, have anything at all to do with the 'guns barrel' having had some paint upon it, to which DS Davidson refers in his COLP interviews?
-
Why would PC Robert Carr take two paint samples and hand them to DS Davidson at the scene? I know in his COLP interview that Davidson claimed that 'Ron' Cook had given him both of these (RC/1 and RC/2), but he was obviously lying, and may have felt 'good reason' to lie so as not to expose the involvement of a family 'insider' in the police investigation at such a critical early stage...
-
Why, would 'Peter' Eaton be putting a gun back into the farmhouse after police had completed their examination of the crime scene by the evening of 9th August 1985?
-
More disturbingly, despite DS Davidson confirming that some paint had been found on the end of a guns barrel (not the silencer), and that that was the reason why those two paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) had to be taken, yet the identitity of 'that' gun has never yet been formally identified...
Why not?
-
There is 'no forensic evidence' which proves J's involvement in any of these killings...
Of course there is and lots of it too. You are simply deluding yourself if you believe otherwise.
-
The police surgeon, Dr Craig, would state she had what appeared to be a solitary bullet wound to her neck at the time (8.44am) he formally pronounced her as being dead. Accompanying him at that time, was PI 'Bob' Miller, he too would report that Sheila only had a single bullet wound at the time her death was pronounced (8.44am) by Dr Craig. They both could legitimately say this, because at that stage, there was only the one shot to her throat, not two...
That's completely absurd and illogical.
-
What becomes clear to me, is that the cop investigation being conducted by Essex, was being hampered by the role in which 'Bobby' Carr was taking in the same investigation. From a very early stage PC 'Bobby' Carr got involved at the crime scene from as early as the 8th August 1985. More worryingly, although relatives and cops alike all knew this, almost all of them refused to acknowledge this fact to the extent with which a family 'insider' may have influenced the Essex police investigation - particularly with the introduction of the paint contaminated silencer later on...
All simply speculation.
-
And all this 'nonsense' about paint from the aga in the kitchen found on the silencer in August 1985, is nothing but a red herrin' - The relatives did not actually scratch the aga or get red paint onto the silencer until 'after' Annie Eaton handed over to DC Oakey until 11th September 1985, and it was not until a day or so afterwards, that David Boutflour set about leading cops a merry dance by contacting them intent on showing them where the marks on the aga were, and how red paint from 'that' aga had got onto the silencer during the struggle in the kitchen...
'Oh', Look, and then came along the 'scour marks' on the 'underside of the mantelshelf', which were not present there on the morning of the shootings...
-
I believe this photograph was taken after Annie Eaton handed over the silencer (DRB/1) to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985. If I am correct (I may need to refresh my memory on this point)the photograph was taken on either the 12th September, or the 14th September 1985, immediately after David Boutflour, himself had phoned cops to tell them about the 'scour marks' on the underside of the aga...
How utterly remarkable, that nobody noticed these fresh looking scour marks there in clear view, on the morning of the murders? Even more bizarre, how come when 'Ronnie' Cook took his paint sample (RWC/1) at the scene, in the presence of 'Bob' Miller, and Annie Eaton, that Cook nor anybody else saw the 'squiggly scratch marks' there on the 'underside of the mantelpiece', on that date (14th August, 1985)? You see, the fact that relatives must have scratched a silencer which they had in their own possession after the 14th August 1985, independent of the one in police possession from the 12th August 1985, either that or dare I suggest it, the cops scratched the aga before they took the photograph in question. Either way, Cook made a fatal mistake in shoving the fact that he never took paint samples RC/1 or RC/2 from the scene on the 8th or the 9th August 1985. That's right, 'Ronnie', you didn't, PC 'Robert Carr' took those two paint samples, and you thought you was clever by denying any knowledge that he had been there at the scene interfering with the police investigation that he had no business sticking his nose into. And there was you, 'Ronnie' breaking your neck to point out that you had taken two paint samples, 'RWC/1' and 'RWC/2' from the underside of the kitchen aga mantelpiece, on the 14th August 1985. A big mistake that 'Ronnie', because in your haste to show us that you had taken those two paint samples from the part of the kitchen mantelpiece, you 'fucked up big time', my friend. You were too busy bragging about how you had taken those two paint samples on that date, and bragging how you had marked the exact spot where you had taken those paint samples from by attaching a piece of 'yellow sticky tape' there, as some sort of a trophy. So, big boy, how come you never saw, nor reported seeing any of those freshly scoured marks when you took those paint samples, and stuck yellow tape there in the same region where scour marks later gave birth? You would have seen those marks, 'Ronnie', my god you would have seen those marks, if they had been there on the 14th August 1985. Annie Eaton would not have been handing over a second silencer to cops on the 11th September 1985, and David Boutflour would not be phoning cops up on the 14th September 1985, to tell cops that there was scour marks on the underside shelf of the kitchen aga, 'Ronnie' because you would have known about them a month beforehand if they had been present there at that stage...
'You have blown it', along with the relatives 'Ronnie, you know, the relatives know, and I know, and now everybody in the whole wide world is going to get to know, because 'you lot deliberately framed Jeremy' for these murders, when you know without question that he had killed nobody...
Have a look at the 'yellow sticky tape' you placed on the underside of the kitchen aga, on the 14th August, 1985 'Ronnie', that is where you made 'your big mistake'...
-
Reconstructing 'the sequence of events' can be very rewarding...
-
Looking at 'this' from a different perspective. If there was only ever one silencer (now hear me out), forget about a second silencer, forget about Annie Eaton handing a second silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September, 1985. If we say, ok cop, there was only one silencer. We will forget for now all the inconsistencies relating to the exhibit referencing and the lab' item numbering that from time to time is at odds with itself. Lets for arguments sake, say 'ok' there was only one silencer. This silencer had Sheila's blood inside it.This silencer did 'not' have the red paint upon it, until some point after the 14th August 1985, when 'Ronnie' himself took those two paint samples (RWC/1 and RWC/2). The cop deliberately scratched the silencer (SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1, DRB/1) and made those marks on the underside of the aga mantelshelf prior to allowing David Boutflour access to the farmhouse whilst Jeremy was locked up and being interviewed, to discover the marks that no-one had seen before that time, or commented about their existence...
Are you with me 'Ronnie', are you with me...
-
Looking at 'this' from a different perspective. If there was only ever one silencer (now hear me out), forget about a second silencer, forget about Annie Eaton handing a second silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September, 1985. If we say, ok cop, there was only one silencer. We will forget for now all the inconsistencies relating to the exhibit referencing and the lab' item numbering that from time to time is at odds with itself. Lets for arguments sake, say 'ok' there was only one silencer. This silencer had Sheila's blood inside it.This silencer did 'not' have the red paint upon it, until some point after the 14th August 1985, when 'Ronnie' himself took those two paint samples (RWC/1 and RWC/2). The cop deliberately scratched the silencer (SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1, DRB/1) and made those marks on the underside of the aga mantelshelf prior to allowing David Boutflour access to the farmhouse whilst Jeremy was locked up and being interviewed, to discover the marks that no-one had seen before that time, or commented about their existence...
Are you with me 'Ronnie', are you with me...
Then why is it, 'Ronnie', why is it that its taken a relative to inform cops about these scratch marks, at a time when cops have control of the farmhouse, with Jeremy in custody and being interviewed? This is the bit I don't get 'Ronnie', its baffling me. I am trying my damned hardest to figure it out, trying to be unfair to everyone if you like, but I don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me 'Ronnie, it don't make any sense at all, that cops have the keys to the farmhouse with the son locked up out of harms way, being interviewed, 'Ronnie', about the possibility that he may have had some sort of an involvement in these murders, are you with me 'Ronnie, are you with me? Then lo and behold, out of the blue, 'Ronnie', out of the blue, along comes David Boutflour, phoning into the cops to tell the cops about something that if it had been there on the morning of the murders, 'Ronnie', that he had no right to be telling cops about it being there, because the way I figure it out 'Ronny' old boy, is that if those marks had been there from the time of the murders, 'Ronnie' then the cops would have sure as there's a hell, have known about it, before he did - 'are you with me, Ronnie, are you with me'...
-
The marks scoured on the underside of the mantelpiece is nothing more than a piece of fabricated evidence. I don't need the expertise of Mr Sutherst to convince me that those scour marks could not have been there on the morning of the murders, analysis by the 'sequence of events' brings me to the right conclusion. It works every time, providing you've got facts to work with, or against. Cook would have seen those scour marks on the 14th August 1985, when he took his paint samples and marked the underside of the shelf with that yellow tape. He didn't, so the fresh scour marks can't have been there until sometime after the 14th August 1985. Additionally, since in his own words and testimony, the silencer was always in his possession whenever it was not at the lab', then he must take responsibility for how the red paint got onto the silencer...
-
The marks scoured on the underside of the mantelpiece is nothing more than a piece of fabricated evidence. I don't need the expertise of Mr Sutherst to convince me that those scour marks could not have been there on the morning of the murders, analysis by the 'sequence of events' brings me to the right conclusion. It works every time, providing you've got facts to work with, or against. Cook would have seen those scour marks on the 14th August 1985, when he took his paint samples and marked the underside of the shelf with that yellow tape. He didn't, so the fresh scour marks can't have been there until sometime after the 14th August 1985. Additionally, since in his own words and testimony, the silencer was always in his possession whenever it was not at the lab', then he must take responsibility for how the red paint got onto the silencer...
What a 'coincidence' that when 'Ronnie' separated the baffles which he had taken out of the tubing of the silencer (refer photograph available on this site) that he did not see any blood on any of the first six or seven baffles which he separated, yet by the time he had rebuilt the damn thing and sent it off to his sidekick the ballistic expert Fletcher, how Fletch' discovers the key crucial flake, right there between baffles one and two, where previously there had been no blood, and no flake...
-
I am now pondering long and hard...
Trying to reconstruct what has taken place during this police investigation is akin to trying to reconstruct acts of magic performed by a team of magicians who appear to have the knack of conjuring up evidence, here, there, and every blooming where, out of nothing. Now you see em, now you don't. Where did that come from, it wasn't there beforehand...
The figure at the bedroom window was obviously not a trick of light, it was a person, someone alive, moving around. Now, obviously Bews knew that to have to admit to that as having been true, then Jeremy could not have been prosecuted as the killer, since the last person alive inside the farmhouse would I should think be 'the killer'. In point of fact, Sheila was the last person still alive inside the kitchen, and dare I say it, also alive on the bed before they moved her body to the floor and 'bumped' her off...
Then of course, there is the silencer that wasn't found by cops in the cupboard on the morning of the shootings, but which David Boutflour found there the day after the keys were handed back to the Eatons...
Now, there's a thought, wonder what gun 'Peter' Eaton sneaked back into the farmhouse after cops had finished their investigation by evening of 9th August 1985?
A gun, by jove...
-
Then...
A 'badly fragmented bullet' no less (PV/20) that 'grew' into a 'whole bullet, to enable Fletch' to confirm that it had been loaded and fired via the rifle that was leaning against the bedroom window, at the same precise moment that Sheila was being shot diagonally across the throat in the kitchen downstairs...
As if by 'magic' the badly fragmented bullet just grew and grew until it became whole again...
-
Then there is the 'disappearing body' trick, where the body of a female originally documented as found downstairs in the kitchen, ends up in the bedroom upstairs, shot twice they say by bullets from the gun at the bedroom window, and yet cops still treated her death as, wait for it, 'a suicide'...
-
Her feet were spotlessly clean, not a mark on them, and then there was blood photographed on them...
Her hands were clean, then they had blood on them...
Her arms were clean, not a mark on them that would be consistent with her having been involved in some sort of a struggle with anybody, then there was runs of blood and marks all over her right forearm, and the top part of her right hand and wrist...
Then there was her spotless nightdress, covered in bloodstains in the region of her right armpit and shoulder, a bloodied hand print on the front lower right side of her gown, and expiation marks in the region of her right breast where during her last seconds alive she had been gasping for breath...
So many tricks with words, so many lies being told by cops, and other support witnesses...
-
Cops found themselves in a dilemma...
Sheila was on the verge of surrendering, she had placed the rifle at the bedroom window in view of cops outside. She had gone downstairs to that part of the farmhouse where police intended to enter. She was unarmed. There was a struggle. She got shot. She was mistakenly presumed dead. Her death was reported as a suicide. In the same room, was the body of her dad. Cops went in search of the other three victims, and located them at 8.10am. By that stage everything appeared, 'tickityboo'. But then things suddenly went pearshaped. Sheila's body was no longer present downstairs in the kitchen...
It's quite 'obvious' what took place afterward...
In order for Sheila's body to wind up dead on the bedroom floor as depicted by PC Birds photographic images, a number of different things needed to happen. (1) Sheila was still alive or dead, after the first shot in the kitchen, (2) she either made her own way upstairs from the kitchen to the bedroom, or she was taken there. (3) she either walked, or was carried. (4) she either collected the rifle from the bedroom window so that she had it in her possession, or a cop brought it from the window and placed it on her body. (5) she either shot herself, once under the chin and killed herself, or the gun discharged a solitary shot whilst cops were manipulating the position of the rifle upon her body...
Mike this is very hard to swallow given that her nightie had very little blood trail down the front.
-
And all this 'nonsense' about paint from the aga in the kitchen found on the silencer in August 1985, is nothing but a red herrin' - The relatives did not actually scratch the aga or get red paint onto the silencer until 'after' Annie Eaton handed over to DC Oakey until 11th September 1985, and it was not until a day or so afterwards, that David Boutflour set about leading cops a merry dance by contacting them intent on showing them where the marks on the aga were, and how red paint from 'that' aga had got onto the silencer during the struggle in the kitchen...
'Oh', Look, and then came along the 'scour marks' on the 'underside of the mantelshelf', which were not present there on the morning of the shootings...
Mike in the photo that is taken under the mantle, what is all that white powder? I think it may be fingerprint dust?
-
Then...
A 'badly fragmented bullet' no less (PV/20) that 'grew' into a 'whole bullet, to enable Fletch' to confirm that it had been loaded and fired via the rifle that was leaning against the bedroom window, at the same precise moment that Sheila was being shot diagonally across the throat in the kitchen downstairs...
As if by 'magic' the badly fragmented bullet just grew and grew until it became whole again...
Maybe, thats why Special Branch were involved in this case, they were 'experimenting on trying to make ammunition grow back to its original size after firing and it becoming badly fragmented'. That's it, thats why SB destroyed all the key exhibits, so nobody could zero in on their secret 'ammunition growth' program...
-
Mike this is very hard to swallow given that her nightie had very little blood trail down the front.
I don't think so, because looking at the bigger picture, rather than the one everyone is trying to throw up in their imagination of blood streaming from the first neck wound as Sheila ran or walked or crept stealthily upstairs to the bedroom. I don't for one minute think that that was what happened. I shall tell you why. If that had been the case, Sheila would have ended upstairs before cops finally got upstairs to find the other three bodies (as per the police message log version of the location and distribution of bodies, found downstairs, and upstairs - two down, three up). Lets just say that Sheila got shot downstairs in the kitchen at just fractionally before 7.37am. In Jeremys version of events Sheila shot herself at this time. Of course he is absolutely wrong about this, but I will leave him and those who are representing his interests at the moment to their own pleasure. pursuing that angle will not succeed because the rifle she is supposed to have used to shoot herself, where does J and his followers say the gun was at the time she got shot downstairs in the kitchen at lets say 7.37am? It was at the bedroom window upstairs at the time Sheila got shot in the kitchen, so how did she get the rifle from upstairs without anyone seeing her get the gun from the window, take it downstairs and shoot herself with it? She didn't, so thats Jeremys account out of the window, so to speak. Sheila was shot downstairs for sure. Hers was the female body mentioned in the police message logs. Hers was the 'suicide' before 7.45am. Hers was 'not' one of the other three bodies found upstairs by 8.10am...
So, lets look at it logically, Sheila's body is the female referred to in the police message logs found downstairs in the kitchen along with dads body from as early as 7.37am. We know because the contents of the same police message logs, that Sheila's body was 'not' upstairs by 8.10am, otherwise it would have been reported in the message passed at 8.10am, that a further four bodies had been found upstairs. So, we have Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, presumed shot dead during a struggle with the cop over control and possession of the cops gun. In any event, she is shot and declared to be dead downstairs in the kitchen, shot once. Cops called her death a suicide, because she appeared to pull the muzzle of the cops gun in toward her own throat when the gun discharged a solitary shot. In any event, by 7.37am, she is presumed dead, and does not move, does not appear to be breathing, appears not to have a heartbeat, and not showing signs of distress and pain as a result of being shot in the neck. She remains laid on the kitchen floor in this way for another 30 minutes or so. She is laid on her back. Very little blood oozed from the wound to her neck. She fell on top of pooled blood in the kitchen which stained the back of her nightdress. Within ten minutes the bullet entry wound in her throat began to coagulate and formed a natural plug preventing any trapped blood inside her throat in the track of the bullet spilling out when she did eventually regain consciousness and get to her feet. When she stood upright, there was no fresh blood running down her neck onto either her body or her nightdress. There was only a very feint vertically inclined blood flow which ran down her neck which had dried by the time so got back to her feet. She was therefore in this state and this condition able to make the journey from the kitchen downstairs via the spiral stair situated in the corner of the kitchen which took her up onto the main landing and her parents bedroom door. It was just coincidental that no cop saw her, because they had all gone back downstairs via the main staircase at the front of the farmhouse, and as I say just by chance there was nobody to see her arrive upstairs, nobody saw her enter the bedroom, and nobody so her collapse onto her parents bed. In fact, nobody knew that anything had gone wrong with the police operation until senior cops entered the kitchen after the all clear had been given at 8.10am, with five bodies accounted for (two down, three up)...
-
I don't think so, because looking at the bigger picture, rather than the one everyone is trying to throw up in their imagination of blood streaming from the first neck wound as Sheila ran or walked or crept stealthily upstairs to the bedroom. I don't for one minute think that that was what happened. I shall tell you why. If that had been the case, Sheila would have ended upstairs before cops finally got upstairs to find the other three bodies (as per the police message log version of the location and distribution of bodies, found downstairs, and upstairs - two down, three up). Lets just say that Sheila got shot downstairs in the kitchen at just fractionally before 7.37am. In Jeremys version of events Sheila shot herself at this time. Of course he is absolutely wrong about this, but I will leave him and those who are representing his interests at the moment to their own pleasure. pursuing that angle will not succeed because the rifle she is supposed to have used to shoot herself, where does J and his followers say the gun was at the time she got shot downstairs in the kitchen at lets say 7.37am? It was at the bedroom window upstairs at the time Sheila got shot in the kitchen, so how did she get the rifle from upstairs without anyone seeing her get the gun from the window, take it downstairs and shoot herself with it? She didn't, so thats Jeremys account out of the window, so to speak. Sheila was shot downstairs for sure. Hers was the female body mentioned in the police message logs. Hers was the 'suicide' before 7.45am. Hers was 'not' one of the other three bodies found upstairs by 8.10am...
So, lets look at it logically, Sheila's body is the female referred to in the police message logs found downstairs in the kitchen along with dads body from as early as 7.37am. We know because the contents of the same police message logs, that Sheila's body was 'not' upstairs by 8.10am, otherwise it would have been reported in the message passed at 8.10am, that a further four bodies had been found upstairs. So, we have Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, presumed shot dead during a struggle with the cop over control and possession of the cops gun. In any event, she is shot and declared to be dead downstairs in the kitchen, shot once. Cops called her death a suicide, because she appeared to pull the muzzle of the cops gun in toward her own throat when the gun discharged a solitary shot. In any event, by 7.37am, she is presumed dead, and does not move, does not appear to be breathing, appears not to have a heartbeat, and not showing signs of distress and pain as a result of being shot in the neck. She remains laid on the kitchen floor in this way for another 30 minutes or so. She is laid on her back. Very little blood oozed from the wound to her neck. She fell on top of pooled blood in the kitchen which stained the back of her nightdress. Within ten minutes the bullet entry wound in her throat began to coagulate and formed a natural plug preventing any trapped blood inside her throat in the track of the bullet spilling out when she did eventually regain consciousness and get to her feet. When she stood upright, there was no fresh blood running down her neck onto either her body or her nightdress. There was only a very feint vertically inclined blood flow which ran down her neck which had dried by the time so got back to her feet. She was therefore in this state and this condition able to make the journey from the kitchen downstairs via the spiral stair situated in the corner of the kitchen which took her up onto the main landing and her parents bedroom door. It was just coincidental that no cop saw her, because they had all gone back downstairs via the main staircase at the front of the farmhouse, and as I say just by chance there was nobody to see her arrive upstairs, nobody saw her enter the bedroom, and nobody so her collapse onto her parents bed. In fact, nobody knew that anything had gone wrong with the police operation until senior cops entered the kitchen after the all clear had been given at 8.10am, with five bodies accounted for (two down, three up)...
By 8.15am, certainly that ratio (two down, three up) had changed into one down four up, but cops did not ascertain this until about 8.30am. For around 15 minutes it was bedlam inside the farmhouse, with cops 'not knowing' of the whereabouts of an injured, crazed killer, possibly now armed with one of the many weapons to hand elsewhere downstairs in the farmhouse. During those 15 minutes senior officers found themselves trapped inside the kitchen, 'unarmed'.They had to take precautions by barricading themselves in. They shoved a wooden chair against the inner door that led to the back passageway to prevent Sheila coming back into the kitchen via that door. The effects of this can be seen in PC Birds crime scene photographs...
-
What I would ask you to bear in mind in addition to what I am saying, is that Professor Knight had seen photographs of Sheila's body, the extent of her injuries, and the condition of her nightdress, and directional blood flow on her body and the aforementioned nightdress, yet at one stage he testified to the fact that in his expert opinion it might have been possible for Sheila to have been shot on the first occasion, and that she could have moved around for half an hour before she might collapse if she had not received the second fatal shot which effectively killed her immediately. Think about what Professor Knight testified about. Basically put he was advocating the two shots possibly being as long as 30 minutes a part, not consecutively inflicted as in recoil. I found his testimony very helpful, because understanding what he was trying to say made complete sense to me, to explain the delay in between Sheila having been shot downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, she laying on the kitchen floor for about 30 minutes as if dead, regaining consciousness, getting to her feet and making her way upstairs to the bed in her parents bedroom. Collapsing on the bed with only one shot in her throat on the verge of death, but not quite dead. I think Knight got it almost spot on, except for the fact that Sheila had not been running amok for half an hour after she had been shot downstairs. She didn't run amok, the contents of the police message log tell us this. She laid there on the kitchen floor for about 30 minutes, then got up briefly made her way to the bed in her parents bedroom and collapsed just like Knight said he thought she might do...
Armed with the testimony of Professor knight and against a backdrop of the police message log contents which had two bodies downstairs and three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, versus the police witness statement versions which had one body downstairs and four bodies upstairs, I was able to reconstruct what 'had' taken place, enabling one version to change into the other version of events, with Sheila shot and mistakenly believed to be dead right at the heart of the matter. Laying on the kitchen floor as if dead for around 30 minutes - that is how I untangled the truth in this convoluted operation / investigation...
Understanding 'the sequence of events', paid off again...
-
What I would ask you to bear in mind in addition to what I am saying, is that Professor Knight had seen photographs of Sheila's body, the extent of her injuries, and the condition of her nightdress, and directional blood flow on her body and the aforementioned nightdress, yet at one stage he testified to the fact that in his expert opinion it might have been possible for Sheila to have been shot on the first occasion, and that she could have moved around for half an hour before she might collapse if she had not received the second fatal shot which effectively killed her immediately. Think about what Professor Knight testified about. Basically put he was advocating the two shots possibly being as long as 30 minutes a part, not consecutively inflicted as in recoil. I found his testimony very helpful, because understanding what he was trying to say made complete sense to me, to explain the delay in between Sheila having been shot downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, she laying on the kitchen floor for about 30 minutes as if dead, regaining consciousness, getting to her feet and making her way upstairs to the bed in her parents bedroom. Collapsing on the bed with only one shot in her throat on the verge of death, but not quite dead. I think Knight got it almost spot on, except for the fact that Sheila had not been running amok for half an hour after she had been shot downstairs. She didn't run amok, the contents of the police message log tell us this. She laid there on the kitchen floor for about 30 minutes, then got up briefly made her way to the bed in her parents bedroom and collapsed just like Knight said he thought she might do...
Armed with the testimony of Professor knight and against a backdrop of the police message log contents which had two bodies downstairs and three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, versus the police witness statement versions which had one body downstairs and four bodies upstairs, I was able to reconstruct what 'had' taken place, enabling one version to change into the other version of events, with Sheila shot and mistakenly believed to be dead right at the heart of the matter. Laying on the kitchen floor as if dead for around 30 minutes - that is how I untangled the truth in this convoluted operation / investigation...
Understanding 'the sequence of events', paid off again...
Absolute tosh, we have all seen the photos of Sheila lying there with the two wounds to her neck and trails of blood emanating from them. NO SMEARING WHATSOEVER. Sheila was out of it from the first shot, had she been conscious her finger tips and neck would have been covered in blood smears. I don't know what photos Prof Knight was referring to but it certainly wasn't the very first ones taken.
Your version of events is not consistent with the evidence, rather, it is your own interpretation of events based on your need to believe that Sheila committed suicide. I prefer to keep to the evidence and the forensics which are abundant in this case. Sheila never shot anyone including herself!
-
If we examine the photograph of the blood running from the upper wound on Sheila's neck, and the corners of her mouth, you 'can see' these 'plugs of coagulated blood', which have become 'detached' upon different parts of her throat. This is 'evidence' that her head had been moved 'vigorously' about prior to the people who moved her body around into that final position. The upper bullet wound, for example, had clearly already been plugged by the time PC Bird (soco) took the said photograph, but the plug had become detached, possibly as many times as twice. Have a look, the evidence is all there in the photograph. Considering that it takes about 15 minutes for blood to coagulate, and dare I say it, for a wound to form 'a plug'', added to the fact that uncoagulated blood can still be seen to be oozing from the top wound and her mouth, blood which had previously been trapped behind the aforementioned 'detached' plug, provides a clue, not only to the timing of the victims death, but is testimony to the fact that the people who are responsible for killing her, moved her head and possibly her body around before she was placed into that final position...
-
If we examine the photograph of the blood running from the upper wound on Sheila's neck, and the corners of her mouth, you 'can see' these 'plugs of coagulated blood', which have become 'detached' upon different parts of her throat. This is 'evidence' that her head had been moved 'vigorously' about prior to the people who moved her body around into that final position. The upper bullet wound, for example, had clearly already been plugged by the time PC Bird (soco) took the said photograph, but the plug had become detached, possibly as many times as twice. Have a look, the evidence is all there in the photograph. Considering that it takes about 15 minutes for blood to coagulate, and dare I say it, for a wound to form 'a plug'', added to the fact that uncoagulated blood can still be seen to be oozing from the top wound and her mouth, blood which had previously been trapped behind the aforementioned 'detached' plug, provides a clue, not only to the timing of the victims death, but is testimony to the fact that the people who are responsible for killing her, moved her head and possibly her body around before she was placed into that final position...
At least you got most of that right. Her head was forward before being pushed back thus the mirror image of both wounds in blood. The only person responsible for killing her was the intruder/gunman.
-
By reference to the above image, everyone can see that the people responsible for staging her body, caused her head to move significantly on at least 'two' separate occasions by reference to the 'duplicated 'plugs of blood' from the wounds, displaced onto other parts of her throat...
The 'displacement of these plugged clots of blood, is duplicated around and from 'both' bullet wounds, features which 'could not' have occurred until in the first instance, at least 15 minutes of the upper shot being inflicted, followed by a period of 'stillness in which the head had remained stationary for a period greater than 15 minutes', before the head was moved again, resulting in the 'detachment' of a secondary 'plug' to a different part of the throat (as seen in the image). Finally, the people responsible for staging her body moved her again, leaving it as shown in the image...
What is not known, albeit it becomes possible to 'estimate' the time these biological transformations took place in keeping with the described 'events, how long the victims head had been 'resting' in each position, what we do know is that it takes around 15 minutes for blood to fully coagulate and form a proper plug of the wound. This is interesting because Sheila received the fatal shot beneath the chin at precisely 9.13am. The photograph showing these 'features was taken at 10 O'clock' that morning by PC Bird...
What we do not know is the exact position and angle her head was in at the time she was fatally shot, we only know that there were two distinctive and highly significant movements of her head involving two periods of at least 15 minutes or so, in between these movements to enable coagulation to have developed, and that after the people who are responsible for staging her death scene had put her into this final position, she had not been laid in that position very long at all, before along came PC Bird (soco) to take 'this' photograph. The blood shown running across her neck is blood which had been trapped behind the plugs of clotted blood detached upon other parts of the neck. The fresh looking blood has clearly not yet fully coagulated, but the process can be seen to have begun by a slight presence of the coagulating feature along the edges of the blood flow - this informs me that PC Bird took this image within minutes of the other cops having moved her body and repositioned it at least on three separate occasions...
-
A presence of the slight coagulating feature in the flow of blood, indicates that the visible blood had only been running from the wound minutes beforehand, certainly not 15 minutes otherwise it would have fully coagulated, in keeping with how this had occurred by reference to photographs taken after this one...
-
The barrel of the rifle cannot have been in the position shown at the time of these movements...
-
Pity there isn't a photograph of her neck and surrounding area cleaned up.
-
Any cop worth his weight in dodgy pocketbook entries should have known that if cops found Sheila's body like this that she could not have killed herself and the body end up like this 'two and a half hours' after cops allegedly found her body...
If the flow of blood looked like this, two and a half hours after cops originally found her body, shot in the neck, then why is it that this flow of blood has not yet fully coagulated? It only takes blood 15 minutes to coagulate, yet here is an image taken two and a half hours after cops entered the farmhouse, and 'it has not' coagulated fully. This is odd considering that the victim is laid on her back with the wounds high up in that position of her body in the photograph. Cops shot Sheila. Cops staged her body. There is no other party responsible for killing her. She did not kill herself, and her brother Jeremy could not possibly have done what cops have done, and did...
-
Pity there isn't a photograph of her neck and surrounding area cleaned up.
That is a good point...
The blood shown on her neck in this image cannot have looked like this when cops found her body. The blood in this image cannot have been like this when the police surgeon, Dr Craig pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am, in the presence of 'Bob' Miller. The blood shown in this image cannot have looked like this when PS Adams viewed her body minus the gun at 9 O'clock, or when DS 'Stan' Jones saw Sheila's body on the bed sporting a single bullet wound after 9.05am ( he told Annie Eaton this when he saw her later that morning). The blood on her neck in this image was not present in the images cops took of Sheila's body 'on the bed' because she hadn't been shot under the chin by that stage. Since the time that DCI 'Taff' Jones and DS 'Stan' Jones did not arrive at the scene until around 9.05am, and the time the second shot got inflicted at 9.13am, the timing at which the images of Sheila's body on the bed can now be identified at being taken moments either side of, and inclusive of 9.10am. The fact that 'Stan' Jones has gone on record as describing what Sheila looked like when he had seen her body, as though she was 'just sleeping, so peacefully', does not befit the image shown in this photograph (shown). However, if you could imagine all the flowing blood from the upper wound and the corner of her mouth, nostril and pooled into her left eye socket, it paints the picture 'Stan' Jones was talking about. In the images of Sheila on the bed you can barely see any blood flow from the only bullet wound on her throat. There is no blood running from the corners of her mouth, or nostril. There is no blood pooled in her left eye socket. There is no triangular bloodstain on the upper right hand side of her nightdress. Above waistline Sheila 'does look like she is just sleeping', and the reason for that is because at 'that' stage, she was 'still barely' alive, not yet the recipient of the shot beneath the chin...
-
Then...
A 'badly fragmented bullet' no less (PV/20) that 'grew' into a 'whole bullet, to enable Fletch' to confirm that it had been loaded and fired via the rifle that was leaning against the bedroom window, at the same precise moment that Sheila was being shot diagonally across the throat in the kitchen downstairs...
As if by 'magic' the badly fragmented bullet just grew and grew until it became whole again...
According to the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, this bullet (PV/20) was ' whole bullet', that was from the first shot diagonally across Sheila's neck - it weighs 26.46 gr...
Whereas, according to the pathologist, 'Peter Venezis', the bullet fired diagonally across Sheila's neck had become badly fragmented, had broken into a multitude of different pieces. A fact borne out by the X-ray image taken before part of the bullet was removed during autopsy...
The bullet in this image, sure don't look like a whole bullet to me. Perhaps, I'm missing something...
-
What I want to know is, 'how the ballistic expert, Fletcher, matched the lands and grooves, and striation marks on this piece of a bullet, to the same on the control ammunition, fired from the anshuzt rifle during test fire and comparison tests...
-
One thing must be 'absolutely clear' to anybody viewing this image, and that is that 'Sheila had not been shot and killed seven hours before this photograph was taken' after 10 am, that morning. Surely to god, how could this be possible?
Yes?
No?
-
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
You're posting a lot today Mike.
Did you get any feedback from Jeremy or lawyers about the police framing of Jeremy ?
-
Any cop worth his weight in dodgy pocketbook entries should have known that if cops found Sheila's body like this that she could not have killed herself and the body end up like this 'two and a half hours' after cops allegedly found her body...
If the flow of blood looked like this, two and a half hours after cops originally found her body, shot in the neck, then why is it that this flow of blood has not yet fully coagulated? It only takes blood 15 minutes to coagulate, yet here is an image taken two and a half hours after cops entered the farmhouse, and 'it has not' coagulated fully. This is odd considering that the victim is laid on her back with the wounds high up in that position of her body in the photograph. Cops shot Sheila. Cops staged her body. There is no other party responsible for killing her. She did not kill herself, and her brother Jeremy could not possibly have done what cops have done, and did...
Back into la la land again! :)
-
That is a good point...
The blood shown on her neck in this image cannot have looked like this when cops found her body. The blood in this image cannot have been like this when the police surgeon, Dr Craig pronounced her as being dead at 8.44am, in the presence of 'Bob' Miller. The blood shown in this image cannot have looked like this when PS Adams viewed her body minus the gun at 9 O'clock, or when DS 'Stan' Jones saw Sheila's body on the bed sporting a single bullet wound after 9.05am ( he told Annie Eaton this when he saw her later that morning). The blood on her neck in this image was not present in the images cops took of Sheila's body 'on the bed' because she hadn't been shot under the chin by that stage. Since the time that DCI 'Taff' Jones and DS 'Stan' Jones did not arrive at the scene until around 9.05am, and the time the second shot got inflicted at 9.13am, the timing at which the images of Sheila's body on the bed can now be identified at being taken moments either side of, and inclusive of 9.10am. The fact that 'Stan' Jones has gone on record as describing what Sheila looked like when he had seen her body, as though she was 'just sleeping, so peacefully', does not befit the image shown in this photograph (shown). However, if you could imagine all the flowing blood from the upper wound and the corner of her mouth, nostril and pooled into her left eye socket, it paints the picture 'Stan' Jones was talking about. In the images of Sheila on the bed you can barely see any blood flow from the only bullet wound on her throat. There is no blood running from the corners of her mouth, or nostril. There is no blood pooled in her left eye socket. There is no triangular bloodstain on the upper right hand side of her nightdress. Above waistline Sheila 'does look like she is just sleeping', and the reason for that is because at 'that' stage, she was 'still barely' alive, not yet the recipient of the shot beneath the chin...
Are you so naive as to think that blood cannot flow from a dead body more than 24 hours after death and even if the body doesn't have wounds? You really haven't got a baldy have you?
Your claim of a picture of Sheila on the bed with ONE BULLET HOLE in her neck is a load of BULL! This point alone renders your credibility in this case as highly suspect.
No wonder Bamber told you to get on your bike :)
-
Dad left phone off the hook after he made the 3.26am call, followed by him activating the panic button.
Leaving the telephone receiver off-hook would have made the telephone line unavailable for use when any panic button was pressed. There is no evidence that WHF had a second line connected so that a panic button could dial out using that line instead. You've not explained how you know the time of 03:29, which you've been mentioning only relatively recently.
-
Leaving the telephone receiver off-hook would have made the telephone line unavailable for use when any panic button was pressed. There is no evidence that WHF had a second line connected so that a panic button could dial out using that line instead. You've not explained how you know the time of 03:29, which you've been mentioning only relatively recently.
All telephone lines were shared unless you had a 'private telephone directory account', or similar. As I understand it, the line at the farmhouse was shared between private and business calls, for accounting purposes. BT had a way of billing for the business calls made to the business run from inside the farmhouse, known as, ' N & J Bamber, Ltd'. The phone located in the 'upstairs office' was for business use, and purposes only. The kitchen phone and the main bedroom phones were for private calls. That is the information I have been given...
It is not as certain as everyone thinks, that dads call to J (3.25am), and dads call to cops (3.26am), was using the same 'party line' to which the 'SB panic alarm' was linked to. The information I received was that the alarm was activated at 3.29am, and that it did not effect the open line left open by dad calling cops on the private side of the party line. Dad used the kitchen phone to make both the brief message call to J followed by the call to cops. The panic alarm was 'activated' three minutes after dad was speaking to cops. The panic buttons in use at the farmhouse operated via the party line fed into the upstairs office. A control box was plugged in inside Ralph's upstairs office, which could receive the signal from either of the two portable hand held transponders issued to the parents, no matter where they were inside the farmhouse or within a radius of 50 metres or more in the farmyard. I had personal knowledge of this type of transponder when I was a target criminal being hounded by the No.3 Regional Crime Squad. They put tracking devices on vehicles I was believed to be using, bugged cars, houses I visited, and my home, did phone taps. I suppose I was a guini pig for the No.3 RCS to practice the new technology they had developed or been given access to during the early to mid 1980's. All of this technology, its deployment and usage all fell under pii, and the official secrets act. Although we found out about it, we could not mention anything about how it had been unlawfully deployed or used against us. Cops couldn't use the evidence obtained from these devices, except for intelligence gathering purposes. I have it on good authority that transponder type panic alarms were installed at the farmhouse. Cops are forbidden to admit to them being installed because they were linked to a protection program involving Ralph Bamber and his wife, June, and it is not possible to get anything in writing regarding the use of this equipment at that time, because of something called, 'The Proviso', which is something the High Court will refer all enquiries to, which basically means the authorities do not have to give any explanation for why this type of equipment was used, other than the say the it maybe because it involves issues of National Security, the detection of crime, interfering with witnesses, you name it, they have an answer for everything. However, it still does not stop people from 'knowing', what the authorities do not want to have to admit to doing, or having done...
-
Are you so naive as to think that blood cannot flow from a dead body more than 24 hours after death and even if the body doesn't have wounds? You really haven't got a baldy have you?
Your claim of a picture of Sheila on the bed with ONE BULLET HOLE in her neck is a load of BULL! This point alone renders your credibility in this case as highly suspect.
No wonder Bamber told you to get on your bike :)
You are a baffoon, with a peanut for a brain. Look at the position of the two bullet holes in Sheila's neck. Where are they located upon her neck? Underneath her neck at the lowest point, no. On either side of her neck let's say half way up or down, no. At the highest part of her neck from the floor, yes. How much blood do you day Sheila had inside her body? How long was the inside of her neck always going to be full up to such an extent that seven hours later, her blood is still running out of the wounds at the top of her neck (furthest away from the ground beneath her neck). It stands to reason that sooner or later, she would run out of blood, and sooner or later, because she is dead, there will be a lack of oxygen in the blood because when she died her heart stopped beating. I do not believe that someone with two such injuries located on the upper most part of a persons neck from the floor beneath it, would be able to bleed like that continuously for over seven hours. Impossible because the victim would run out of blood before they ran out of time. 8 pints of blood, still running out of wounds on the highest part of the body in the neck - sorry, your having a laugh...
-
You are a baffoon, with a peanut for a brain. Look at the position of the two bullet holes in Sheila's neck. Where are they located upon her neck? Underneath her neck at the lowest point, no. On either side of her neck let's say half way up or down, no. At the highest part of her neck from the floor, yes. How much blood do you day Sheila had inside her body? How long was the inside of her neck always going to be full up to such an extent that seven hours later, her blood is still running out of the wounds at the top of her neck (furthest away from the ground beneath her neck). It stands to reason that sooner or later, she would run out of blood, and sooner or later, because she is dead, there will be a lack of oxygen in the blood because when she died her heart stopped beating. I do not believe that someone with two such injuries located on the upper most part of a persons neck from the floor beneath it, would be able to bleed like that continuously for over seven hours. Impossible because the victim would run out of blood before they ran out of time. 8 pints of blood, still running out of wounds on the highest part of the body in the neck - sorry, your having a laugh...
You are the baffoon, as to a brain...hmm...questionable. :)
A body can bleed for well over a day so your claim is nonsense, simplistic, amateurish bullshit!
Back to the drawingboard and more made up silliness eh?
-
All telephone lines were shared unless you had a 'private telephone directory account', or similar. As I understand it, the line at the farmhouse was shared between private and business calls, for accounting purposes. BT had a way of billing for the business calls made to the business run from inside the farmhouse, known as, ' N & J Bamber, Ltd'. The phone located in the 'upstairs office' was for business use, and purposes only. The kitchen phone and the main bedroom phones were for private calls. That is the information I have been given...
You can't seperate one line into two accounts. White House Farm only had one telephone number associated with it consequently one line and one account. Regardless, there never was an alarm of any sort in the house until AFTER the murders so your informant is talking out of his ass...but then what's new with your claims?
-
You are the baffoon, as to a brain...hmm...questionable. :)
A body can bleed for well over a day so your claim is nonsense, simplistic, amateurish bullshit!
Back to the drawingboard and more made up silliness eh?
It cannot bleed for a day from the upper most part of the body from the floor. You really are 'idiotic'. Stop, for a moment and think about what your saying. It's bonkers like your forum. What I will say in response to your nonsense is that I am 100% certain that any expert will back me up on this point. Now, if the wounds had been at the back of her neck, closest to the ground, that would be another matter. Your a complete fool for saying what your saying. How come, less than 10 minutes after 'that' image was taken, all the blood had 'coagulated, and turned 'dark looking'? Are you saying that its just a coincidence that she bled like that for over seven hours, and that 10 minutes after 'that' photograph was taken, that the blood suddenly decided to coagulate, all by itself, and the fact it did is just a remarkable coincidence? You forget - what about the female body downstairs, as per the police message log contents? A female which cannot have been dead, unless cops carried her body upstairs after they shot her, and plonked her body on the bed. A female, who supposedly committed suicide before 7.45am. Are you saying that cops made all this up for no particular reason? The problem the cops and brain dead people like you have got, is that by 8.10am, the body count downstairs and upstairs was two down, three up. Cops state that, not me. By the time PC Bird starts to take photographs at ten, the body count downstairs has changed to one, and changed to four upstairs. That is the problem the cops and people like you have got to come up with a legitimate explanation for. You are stuck in the myre of a fabricated account that cops only have themselves to blame for, and you are basically as thick as pig shit for believing the witness accounts, rather than the police message log accounts...
-
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
You're posting a lot today Mike.
Did you get any feedback from Jeremy or lawyers about the police framing of Jeremy ?
I have received a communication, yes...
-
Back into la la land again! :)
Where you belong...
-
You can't seperate one line into two accounts. White House Farm only had one telephone number associated with it consequently one line and one account. Regardless, there never was an alarm of any sort in the house until AFTER the murders so your informant is talking out of his ass...but then what's new with your claims?
See what it says in 'N & J Bamber , Ltd' tax returns, then, lard arse...
-
See what it says in 'N & J Bamber , Ltd' tax returns, then, lard arse...
Oh, I forgot you 'don't have them' do you?
-
I have received a communication, yes...
What did the lawyers or Bamber say Mike ?
Are they also including you're picture of Sheila on the bed in the next CCRC application ?
-
What did the lawyers or Bamber say Mike ?
Are they also including you're picture of Sheila on the bed in the next CCRC application ?
deffo la la land. :)
...and as for communications from Bamber or his lawyers, Tesko stopped getting them a long time ago.
-
See what it says in 'N & J Bamber , Ltd' tax returns, then, lard arse...
As usual for farmers there will be a split between private use and business use which will be an estimate only.
-
It cannot bleed for a day from the upper most part of the body from the floor. You really are 'idiotic'. Stop, for a moment and think about what your saying. It's bonkers like your forum. What I will say in response to your nonsense is that I am 100% certain that any expert will back me up on this point. Now, if the wounds had been at the back of her neck, closest to the ground, that would be another matter. Your a complete fool for saying what your saying. How come, less than 10 minutes after 'that' image was taken, all the blood had 'coagulated, and turned 'dark looking'? Are you saying that its just a coincidence that she bled like that for over seven hours, and that 10 minutes after 'that' photograph was taken, that the blood suddenly decided to coagulate, all by itself, and the fact it did is just a remarkable coincidence? You forget - what about the female body downstairs, as per the police message log contents? A female which cannot have been dead, unless cops carried her body upstairs after they shot her, and plonked her body on the bed. A female, who supposedly committed suicide before 7.45am. Are you saying that cops made all this up for no particular reason? The problem the cops and brain dead people like you have got, is that by 8.10am, the body count downstairs and upstairs was two down, three up. Cops state that, not me. By the time PC Bird starts to take photographs at ten, the body count downstairs has changed to one, and changed to four upstairs. That is the problem the cops and people like you have got to come up with a legitimate explanation for. You are stuck in the myre of a fabricated account that cops only have themselves to blame for, and you are basically as thick as pig shit for believing the witness accounts, rather than the police message log accounts...
I stated A BODY can bleed of its own volition even after death has occurred for a period of 24 hours. Sheila was dead for several hours before being photographed. All victims would still have been bleeding to some degree by the time police broke in. According to your logic maybe the police shot everybody? :)
-
deffo la la land. :)
...and as for communications from Bamber or his lawyers, Tesko stopped getting them a long time ago.
You fool...
-
You fool...
Its true but isn't it? Your days of speaking for Bamber are long gone.
-
I stated A BODY can bleed of its own volition even after death has occurred for a period of 24 hours. Sheila was dead for several hours before being photographed. All victims would still have been bleeding to some degree by the time police broke in.
Not Sheila's body, in that same position for over seven hours. The bullet wounds are situated as far as possible from the bedroom floor to where they are placed on her neck. Nobody could bleed for very long laid in the position cops put her in, that PC Bird photographed her in. Blood would settle at the lowest part of the body in relation to how the body is laid upon the floor. I don't believe that Sheila's neck was 'topped up' with blood for over seven hours to enable her to be bleeding like 'that' after 10 O'clock from wounds at the top surface of her neck (when compared against and in relation to the floor)...
-
Its true but isn't it? Your days of speaking for Bamber are long gone.
I can speak for myself, I will leave him to believe that Sheila shot herself downstairs with the gun from the bedroom window, whilst it was still resting at the window. That, could not have happened. Why would I want to speak on behalf of somebody who has set his mind on something that could not possibly have occurred? Sheila was shot downstairs but not by the anshuzt rifle. So, which gun fired 'that' first shot across her neck, which caused cops to report her death as a suicide before 7.45am? To make matters worse, the ballistic expert, then grows a whole bullet from a badly fragmented bullet, and then finds that this miraculous bullet 'had' been fired from the anshuzt rifle, after all. The mans a crackpot, since how could a rifle that appears at the bedroom window by 7.15am, have fired any shot downstairs that wounded Sheila, if it was always at the bedroom window when cops reported Sheila as being dead downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, and 7.38am? On both of these occasions, cops reported having found Sheila dead in the kitchen after they had already reported dad being dead. So, don't hit me with the PC Collins garbage. What he says about mistaking dads body for Sheila', and how he realised his mistake when he entered the kitchen only accounts for one body, there were two bodies in the kitchen, and the second body was clearly described as a dead female, after the body of a dead male had been mentioned. Oh, I don't mind not having to speak for J, but he can't stop me talking about the injustices in his case, neither can you, or anybody else, providing that I believe what I have said, and what I am saying to be true. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Don't you worry about me, concentrate on yourself and your own ideas and beliefs. I know exactly what happened inside whf which is something which you obviously do not...
-
I stated A BODY can bleed of its own volition even after death has occurred for a period of 24 hours. Sheila was dead for several hours before being photographed. All victims would still have been bleeding to some degree by the time police broke in. According to your logic maybe the police shot everybody? :)
Look, Sheila could not have been bleeding for over seven hours laid in that position for the whole duration of those seven hours, because when somebody dies all their blood settles at the lowest part of their bodies in relation to the floor, or the ground, because of 'gravitational forces'. We already know, because of the displacement of the plugged clots of blood which appear on different parts of her neck, that she had not been laid in that position she has been photographed in, her head has moved at least twice by reference to the position of the 'detached' clots. Blood in her head would settle at the back of her head closest to the floor. Blood in her torso would settle in the lowest part of her torso. Blood in her legs would settle in the lowest part of her legs. Blood in her arms would settle in the lowest part of her arms, and blood in her neck would settle at the lowest part of her neck. Therefore, I find it hard to imagine why after over seven hours by your estimation of Sheila being laid like 'that', and by that I mean as shown in the image we are talking about, blood should still be running out of a wound at the highest point on her neck? Now if the wound had been almost touching the floor, I could understand blood might still be leaking until a long time afterwards because in that example the exit wound via which the blood would be escaping from the body would be very close to the lowest part of their body against the floor. But your theory that Sheila was laid like that with the wounds at the highest point of her neck in relation to the lowest part of her neck against the floor beggars belief, and logic...
-
By heck, not only is the blood inconsistent with somebody having already been dead for over seven hours, bleeding from a wound on the top surface of the neck when logic tells us that all the blood in all parts of a persons dead body sinks to the lowest parts of the body, but hey, this deceased lady ain' even got any signs of 'purplish mottling' anywhere on her neck or face...
-
By heck, not only is the blood inconsistent with somebody having already been dead for over seven hours,bleeding from a wound on the top surface of the neck when logic tells us that all the blood in all parts of a persons dead body sinks to the lowest parts of the body, but hey, this deceased lady ain' even got any signs of 'purplish mottling' anywhere on her neck or face...
If Caroline were here she would point out the dried blood also present. By the way, where is Caroline?
-
Look, Sheila could not have been bleeding for over seven hours laid in that position for the whole duration of those seven hours, because when somebody dies all their blood settles at the lowest part of their bodies in relation to the floor, or the ground, because of 'gravitational forces'. We already know, because of the displacement of the plugged clots of blood which appear on different parts of her neck, that she had not been laid in that position she has been photographed in, her head has moved at least twice by reference to the position of the 'detached' clots. Blood in her head would settle at the back of her head closest to the floor. Blood in her torso would settle in the lowest part of her torso. Blood in her legs would settle in the lowest part of her legs. Blood in her arms would settle in the lowest part of her arms, and blood in her neck would settle at the lowest part of her neck. Therefore, I find it hard to imagine why after over seven hours by your estimation of Sheila being laid like 'that', and by that I mean as shown in the image we are talking about, blood should still be running out of a wound at the highest point on her neck? Now if the wound had been almost touching the floor, I could understand blood might still be leaking until a long time afterwards because in that example the exit wound via which the blood would be escaping from the body would be very close to the lowest part of their body against the floor. But your theory that Sheila was laid like that with the wounds at the highest point of her neck in relation to the lowest part of her neck against the floor beggars belief, and logic...
Do read my post again. I never said blood would be running out of her wounds.
-
By heck, not only is the blood inconsistent with somebody having already been dead for over seven hours, bleeding from a wound on the top surface of the neck when logic tells us that all the blood in all parts of a persons dead body sinks to the lowest parts of the body, but hey, this deceased lady ain' even got any signs of 'purplish mottling' anywhere on her neck or face...
It is not inconsistent. Blood will trickle from a wound for quite a while after death. Any disturbance of the body will have an effect on that flow.
-
All telephone lines were shared unless . . .
That's incorrect. It's irrelevant anyway, as a telephone line (even a party line) cannot be used for two calls at the same time. This changed slightly with the introduction of digital telephone exchanges, but those exchanges didn't support party lines.
BT had a way of billing for the business calls made to the business run from inside the farmhouse, known as, ' N & J Bamber, Ltd'. The phone located in the 'upstairs office' was for business use, and purposes only.
The exchange couldn't know which telephone was using the line, so the billing included all calls, with no separation of business calls from non-business calls. For tax purposes, non-business usage was estimated.
-
I have received a communication, yes...
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
Mike who was the communication from ? Is Jeremy's conviction about to be quashed ?
-
That's incorrect. It's irrelevant anyway, as a telephone line (even a party line) cannot be used for two calls at the same time. This changed slightly with the introduction of digital telephone exchanges, but those exchanges didn't support party lines.
Due to the fact that DCI Harris used the kitchen phone, between 8.15am to 8.30am, and 'he' left the handset of 'that' phone off its cradle on the kitchen worktop, it is not certain that dad used 'that' same phone to message J, (3.25am), or to call cops (3.26am). Ralph could have used the upstairs office phone to make those calls. The fact is that the panic button (transponder device) was activated at 3.29am precisely, which eventually caused the occupants of CA07 to be deployed to the incident five to six minutes later. By the time dad activated the panic button, he had already had ample time to pass the details to cops which got wrote into the contents of the 3.26am phone log. Once that information was imparted by dad to cop, he simply put the handset down on its receiver (whichever phone he used) and went about the business of trying to control or to try and prevent what as it turned out was a life or death situation, and it was then that dad activated the transponder device at 3.29am. There is no proof that at the time the panic button got activated at precisely 3.29am, that any handset on any phone inside that house was off its cradle at that time. We can't rely upon the fact that the kitchen phone was off its cradle at that time because of DCI Harris' use of it later. We know that by 3.56am that one of the phones was off it's hook because in dads phone log message account that fact is recorded there towards the foot of the log. Dad did not pass that information recorded there somebody else did. Similarly dad did not pass the information regarding the son contacting cm with a similar message, since that part of the log was passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West. For all we know, dad back at the farmhouse cancelled the call (3.26am) to cops. So that he could activate the panic button because once he realised that it would take 45 minutes or so for a response vehicle to get to pages lane, Tolleshunt D'arcy from Chelmsford, he could have thought someone closer might be able to react far more quickly to the activation of the panic alarm, as opposed to the phone call he had just made. This is what transpired as it turned out because the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the scene earlier, before J made his own call to cops, and before Chelmsford deployed the occupants of CA05 in response to J's as it were, follow up call. Once Ralph had activated the panic button (3.29am) he may well have tried to use one of the phones again in a different part of the house but been unable to do so because he had activated the alarm which was still active by 3.56am, and beyond...
We know that the operator was able to use an 'emergency' option open to her when checking a telephone line, to eavesdrop the immediate vicinity of the phone in question, and after this option had been exercised she reported to cops that the handset of the phone had been 'left' off its cradle. She wasn't aware how many phones there were inside the farmhouse. She did not know that there were four phones in the farmhouse, or that only two of them were plugged in. The two plugged in, were the one in the kitchen, and the one in the upstairs office. At one stage, she checked the line and reported to cops that she could hear a dog barking in the background. Just as a matter of interest when cops entered the farmhouse they discovered 'Crispy' the pet dog cowling under the parents bed in the upstairs bedroom (closer to the upstairs office phone, than the downstairs kitchen phone). What is a striking feature of the 'open line' status of the phone when being checked by the operator, was that she was 'unable' to confirm that the open line was connected to any other telephone anywhere else. What this suggests is that the phone in question, the one left off the hook, had simply been lifted off its cradle, and then for whatever reason left off the hook, without the caller dialing out. At the earliest stage (around 3.56am) it is not even known which of the two active phones at the farmhouse had its handset off the hook? Somewhere, mid cop operation, the phone line suddenly became 'engaged'. This is significant because up until then when the operator had been carrying out checks on the line, she had reported that the line was 'open' with the phone off the hook and she could hear a dog barking in the background. The fact that the phone line suddenly became 'engaged', tells a story of its own. Somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse, had done something with the phone that had 'changed' its status. From 'that' point onward, cops got the operator to patch the connection through to them back in the control room. We then find, that the phone line eventually reverts back to an 'open line' status again. From inquiries I have made over the past two and a half decades into this 'mysterious' change in the phones status, I am led to believe that the 'unplugging' of telephones from the socket can produce this effect. Considering that there were four phones at the farm, with by the end of play only two phones plugged in, and one of these had been potentially plugged in at the kitchen socket, when it seemingly belonged upstairs in the bedroom, it appears to be a good argument for somebody who was alive inside the farmhouse having 'unplugged' all the phones, or alternatively, that 'someone from inside the farmhouse was having a conversation with someone using the phone. It may not be just a coincidence that in one of the police message logs, at an entry timed '5.25am, its states that ' firearm officers are engaged in a conversation with a person from inside the farmhouse'...
Having said all of this, about the different phones that were in the farmhouse, at the end of the day only two phones were plugged in, open line status, engaged tone status, a word now about the use of these 'transponder type' panic button devices being used by the Regional Crime Squads, and the security services back in August 1985, did not require the use of a telephone wire. The signal was transmitted over the air and the 'black box' type control device could either be 'battery powered', or fed from the mains. In the transponders used during the surveillances carried out on me between 1985 and 1991, the tracking devices cops fitted beneath two family cars were 'battery' fed - the signals emitted from these black boxes were picked up by other equipment fitted to three different surveillance vehicles which received the signal from the transponder they had fitted to one of my cars, and by plotting the signal on a map through 'triangulation' they were supposed to be able establish the exact location at all times the operation was ongoing. Panic alarms in use at that time, could be operated by phone line, or by 'transponder' method, where the black control box was simply plugged in at the mains, and communicated 'directly' to the nearest manned police station. The nearest 24 hour manned police station to whf was Witham police station. I just want to say a little bit more about the type of 'transponder' box used at whf at the time of the shootings. Portable panic buttons allowed dad and mum to roam about the house, or outside in the grounds of the farmhouse, which continually updated the transmitter as to their whereabouts providing they were carrying the 'portable devices' with them at all times. What I have found out is 'astonishing' regarding the 'transponder' device panic alarm fitted at the scene of this tragedy. The most important aspect is that it was 'activated' at 3.29am. This convinces me that by that stage, and not a moment sooner, 'did the shooting start'. Nobody knows whether dad or mum activated the portable device. The most likeliest guess would be that dad did it, what with mum shot in bed. But I could be wrong. I believe the shooting started at 3.29am, which means that when dad made the 3.25am call to J, nobody had been shot by that stage or dad would have said something to J regarding that fact. However, by the time dad called cops at 3.26am, things appear to have started to deteriorate...
-
When dad was speaking to cops (3.26am) he didn't actually tell cops that his daughter had shot anyone by that stage, but reading between the lines of the content of his message, you can sense a build up with potentially devasting consequences. Within a couple of minutes of dad making 'that' call, the portable alarm was activated. This must surely be linked to the shots starting to get fired...
-
When dad was speaking to cops (3.26am) he didn't actually tell cops that his daughter had shot anyone by that stage, but reading between the lines of the content of his message, you can sense a build up with potentially devasting consequences. Within a couple of minutes of dad making 'that' call, the portable alarm was activated. This must surely be linked to the shots starting to get fired...
Witham police station received the activation signal of the panic alarm from the farmhouse, at 3.29am. The reason nobody responded to it immediately was because there was nobody present at that point, the only three cops on duty at that station that night were Saxby, Myall and Bews, who were at that stage out dealing with another job. Their absence from the police station at Witham being confirmed 'independantly' by J who tried contacting them there before 3.29am, he got no response, so he then had called his girlfriend Julie (3.30am), she told him to go back to bed...
-
Witham police station received the activation signal of the panic alarm from the farmhouse, at 3.29am. The reason nobody responded to it immediately was because there was nobody present at that point, the only three cops on duty at that station that night were Saxby, Myall and Bews, who were at that stage out dealing with another job. Their absence from the police station at Witham being confirmed 'independantly' by J who tried contacting them there before 3.29am, he got no response, so he then had called his girlfriend Julie (3.30am), she told him to go back to bed...
For the purpose of being specific, this accounts for the confusion surrounding whether J had called cops 'before' or 'after' he had called his girlfriend that morning (3.30am). The correct answer is that he called cops at Witham before he called Julie at 3.30am, and he called Chelmsford cops (3.36am) afterwards...
-
Trying to reconstruct events is a worthwhile exercise when you have two factions arguing differently over this issue, or that...
-
Trying to reconstruct events is a worthwhile exercise when you have two factions arguing differently over this issue, or that...
The prosecution and its witnesses and supporters have said so many things which they insisted, and continue to insist that J could not have done because of this factor, and that factor, but when I have looked into all these matters, I have found that J's account could be true because despite what the other party has alleged, it could have happened like he has said repeatedly for over 30 years, provable by 'reconstruction of the events' around the 'truths' or 'lies' of either party...
-
If Caroline were here she would point out the dried blood also present. By the way, where is Caroline?
Oh I'm still here Steve and yes, other pictures tell a different story.
-
Oh I'm still here Steve and yes, other pictures tell a different story.
I wonder what the smears on the upper wound are? It looks like the lower wound is a frontal shot, and the upper wound was from a positioned shot.
There seems to be a lack of bleeding from the lower wound that makes me wonder if it was a second shot.
-
Oh I'm still here Steve and yes, other pictures tell a different story.
This image was taken after the other one, or edited to give the 'impression' that more of the blood had dried. It can be seen in the 2nd image that the blood is starting to coagulate and darken with the passing of time. I hope no-ones trying to suggest that this image was taken before the other one...
A key feature is that there is no presence of the ' purplish mottling' effect that becomes visible a few hours after death has occurred...
-
This image was taken after the other one, so as can be seen the blood is starting to coagulate and darken with the passing of time. I hope no-ones trying to suggest that this image was taken before the other one...
I suppose it is possible that the neck shot was after death which would explain the lack of bleeding.
-
I suppose it is possible that the neck shot was after death which would explain the lack of bleeding.
Let's reconstruct 'that' scenario with the known facts...
During the autopsy, pathologist, Venezis, removed the bullet from the brain of Sheila (bullet PV/19). He linked this to the uppermost wound upon Sheila's neck. He said in layman's terms, that the bullet entered her body under the chin, up through the roof of her mouth and ended up inside her brain. Death was instantaneous...
OK, with death being instantaneous, why would any would be killer feel it was 'necessary to shoot her a second time, only this time shoot her 'diagonally' across the throat? I can't see how Sheila could have raised the rifle from its original position close to her body to enable that first fatal shot (PV/19) to penetrate into her brain that killed immediately, for the rifle to leap away from her body with her finger still on the trigger, to enable her to shoot herself again across her own neck. Cops at the scene, spoke about the possibility of 'recoil' having occurred to explain one shot having followed the other, but I doubt that very much. Since, in this 'reconstruction' both wounds wound be bleeding together, and there would surely have been a corresponding vertical flow of blood from the upper wound, that matched the vertical blood flow which accompanies the lower wound site...
How is it, that there is no 'verticle' flow of blood emanating from the upper wound, yet there 'is' from the lower wound site. Sheila can't have stood upright after she had already killed herself with the first shot, can she?
-
And here, look at the direction of blood flow from the mouth, notice how there isn't a vertical flow of blood from the corners of her mouth to match the obvious movement of her head on at least two occasions, when her head lolled forward twice, evidenced by the same pattern of displaced plugs of clotted blood from that movement in relation to the upper wound, and correspondingly feinted duplications from the lower wound mirrored lower down on her neck. These displaced clots of blood from the upper wound tell us something important. They tell us quite emphatically that 'somebody' moved her body' into that position, not before she was shot under the chin, but afterwards...
-
Any cop worth his weight in dodgy pocketbook entries would have noticed this, if they had found Sheila's body like this...
-
Any cop worth his weight in dodgy pocketbook entries would have noticed this, if they had found Sheila's body like this...
They would have automatically come to the conclusion, that she could 'not have killed herself, and her body with the gun upon it, and her hand upon the trigger mechanism, end used up as shown in this image, because her head had no ed significantly at least twice after the upper wound had become sealed with clots of plugged blood which had then become 'detached' onto other parts of her throat, with significant intervals between such movement...
-
This image was taken after the other one, or edited to give the 'impression' that more of the blood had dried. It can be seen in the 2nd image that the blood is starting to coagulate and darken with the passing of time. I hope no-ones trying to suggest that this image was taken before the other one...
A key feature is that there is no presence of the ' purplish mottling' effect that becomes visible a few hours after death has occurred...
I am suggesting they are part of the same batch of photographs. Some pictures have been distorted because they are pictures of pictures. This is the only close up picture which shows the blood on the mouth and the neck - why does yours ONLY show the neck?
-
I am suggesting they are part of the same batch of photographs. Some pictures have been distorted because they are pictures of pictures. This is the only close up picture which shows the blood on the mouth and the neck - why does yours ONLY show the neck?
Hi Caroline thankyou for posting again as you have a lot to offer. As a unconvinced can you give your theory on why there is no blood flow from the lower wound?
-
I am suggesting they are part of the same batch of photographs. Some pictures have been distorted because they are pictures of pictures. This is the only close up picture which shows the blood on the mouth and the neck - why does yours ONLY show the neck?
Photograph cops released to the press, for 'their scoop' story...
-
Look what happens when you alter exposure settings, making the victims skin paler...
-
Cops 'faked' images to enable them to present photographic evidence supporting the case for Sheila having been dead a long time before she had died...
-
Cops 'faked' images to enable them to present photographic evidence supporting the case for Sheila having been dead a long time before she had died...
I bet you and Lookout would give those horrible police smacked bottoms if you got you're hands on them.
-
Look what happens when you alter exposure settings, making the victims skin paler...
You can't not made the blood dry and cracked. Post a picture of the blood looking wet which also includes the blood running from Sheila's mouth as in the picture I posted.
-
You can't not made the blood dry and cracked. Post a picture of the blood looking wet which also includes the blood running from Sheila's mouth as in the picture I posted.
You need to speak to the editor of the Daily Express who published the image on the front page a few years ago. Basically put, if you mess around with the settings making the colour of Sheila's skin tone lighter, the more darker and cracked the blood appears. It depended on what settings were made to produce the images of Sheila's throat with the two wounds upon it, so as to present the blood old and dried looking to give a false impression that she had been dead for far longer than she actually had...
-
You need to speak to the editor of the Daily Express who published the image on the front page a few years ago. Basically put, if you mess around with the settings making the colour of Sheila's skin tone lighter, the more darker and cracked the blood appears. It depended on what settings were made to produce the images of Sheila's throat with the two wounds upon it, so as to present the blood old and dried looking to give a false impression that she had been dead for far longer than she actually had...
OK, here's a challenge for you, make the blood in the picture YOU have posted, look dried and cracked?
The papers also published a picture of what was SUPPOSED to be Sheila's foot, it was quite clearly June's. They are in the business of selling papers, they aren't interested in anything else.
-
It's the same picture Mike, someone has just cut out the neck part and made sure you can't see the cracked blood on her mouth. That would give the game away. The neck picture also looks enhanced but it's taken from the same picture as the one I posted.
See?
-
Here is some of my work for an earlier time, on the subject of the cops editing the photographs so as to present the blood on Sheila's neck as being darker and older than it actually was in reality from 10 O'clock, onward...
-
Here is some of my work for an earlier time, on the subject of the cops editing the photographs so as to present the blood on Sheila's neck as being darker and older than it actually was in reality from 10 O'clock, onward...
Yes but it's nothing like the picture I posted. You can't make the blood look cracked if it's not, not without making it look fake. The picture I posted doesn't look fake.
-
Yes but it's nothing like the picture I posted. You can't make the blood look cracked if it's not, not without making it look fake. The picture I posted doesn't look fake.
I believe what you are referring to as 'cracks' in the blood, could be reflective light caused by the flash...
If you change the settings on that part of Sheila's face where the blood appears to be cracked, to the same colour tone of her skin as per the 'inset' portion of your example, I feel sure that the true interpretation of your 'cracked blood flow' will be interpreted as reflective light of the flash upon fresher looking blood...
-
No, this is defo cracked.
-
No, this is defo cracked.
I am using my tablet at the moment, haven't got access to my laptop...
I think the reflections you are referring to as 'cracks', not only be the way the light is reflecting on the blood, but it seems to me that this effect might have been produced because of air bubbles caught up in the blood which has eminated from her mouth, and the way with which the light has caught or fell upon the uneven distribution of the blood. If you have got access to the relevant software try changing the colour of Sheila's skin in your image, so that the colour in both merged images is the same. Only then might we get a better idea of what the light areas which you are describing as cracks could be...
-
Yes, cracked.
-
Air bubbles, in the blood, that's my basic gut feeling, otherwise known as 'spit', or 'goz'...
-
Air bubbles, in the blood, that's my basic gut feeling...
Cracks ;)
-
Even if they turned out.to be cracks, it does not prove that she hadn't died less than an hour before the photograph had been taken. This is because it only takes 15 minutes for blood to coagulate and dry once the flow of blood from its source has ceased to run. Sheila's mouth could only fill up with blood for so long and a limited amount of blood ran from that corner of her mouth. The photo was taken after 10 O'clock, which means that she had been dead for around 47 minutes, ample enough time for the blood which had been flowing from that side of her mouth to have stopped flowing, and coagulated after or within 15 minutes of its flow ending. Considering that there is clear evidence on parts of her neck that clots of plugged blood were displaced upon two different parts of her neck, nobody can doubt that there was considerable movement of her head. The general position of the two detached plugs of blood around the upper wound, is duplicated by the same pattern around the lower wound. Sheila's head certainly lolled forward and back on at least to different occasions. This movement is not readily identified on Sheila's face, and I believe if these marks are cracks in the dried blood, it came about because of the movement of the head back and forth, after the blood which had ran from the corner of Sheila's mouth had already dried. This in itself could be evidence which supports for the fact that her body was moved after she had been shot dead...
-
Even if they turned out.to be cracks, it does not prove that she hadn't died less than an hour before the photograph had been taken. This is because it only takes 15 minutes for blood to coagulate and dry once the flow of blood from its source has ceased to run. Sheila's mouth could only fill up with blood for so long and a limited amount of blood ran from that corner of her mouth. The photo was taken after 10 O'clock, which means that she had been dead for around 47 minutes, ample enough time for the blood which had been flowing from that side of her mouth to have stopped flowing, and coagulated after or within 15 minutes of its flow ending. Considering that there is clear evidence on parts of her neck that clots of plugged blood were displaced upon two different parts of her neck, nobody can doubt that there was considerable movement of her head. The general position of the two detached plugs of blood around the upper wound, is duplicated by the same pattern around the lower wound. Sheila's head certainly lolled forward and back on at least to different occasions. This movement is not readily identified on Sheila's face, and I believe if these marks are cracks in the dried blood, it came about because of the movement of the head back and forth, after the blood which had ran from the corner of Sheila's mouth had already dried. This in itself could be evidence which supports for the fact that her body was moved after she had been shot dead...
Oh I agree that it's likely the body of Sheila was moved - but I think Jeremy moved her.
-
Air bubbles, in the blood, that's my basic gut feeling, otherwise known as 'spit', or 'goz'...
Cracks...................as in "dried and cracking blood".
-
These are the facts if what we have been debating are cracks...
(1) - the photograph in question was taken by PC Bird after 10 O'clock that morning
(2) - by that stage Sheila had been shot twice, (a) once diagonally across the throat, with a weapon that was held out from the left hand side of her body, (b) and, once under the chin which ended up inside her brain, the weapon more or less held or pressed against her body with the muzzle against the underside of her chin
(3) - Cops saw nothing suspicious to alert them to the possibility that she had not killed herself
(4) - Cops saw nothing to suggest that anybody had staged her death scene
(5) - Cops were happy that with that rifle found on her body, that she could have shot herself twice with it
(6) - cops were happy that the triangular bloodstain situated near her right armpit upon her nightdress had got there whilst Sheila was laid on her back as shown in PC Birds photograph
(7) - cops were happy regarding bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of the nightdress originated from her bloodied right hand, and were not a suspicious feature
(8) - cops were happy that clotted blood in the form of two wound plugs had become detached from the upper bullet entry wound and displaced on other lower parts of her neck, indicating that after she had been shot, and after the upper wound had become sealed with clotted blood that her head had lolled forward and rested there until the wound had sealed itself again, and then lolled further forward into a different position causing the replugged wound to detach the reformed plugged. Her head had since that time, fell back into the position PC Bird had photographed her body and head in after 10am
(9) - in the position shown with Sheila laid upon her back alongside the edge of the bed the position of her mouths opening was positioned higher up from the floor than either of the two bullet wounds
(10) - as per above, the location of both wounds were lower down on the body in relation to the position of the mouth and to the floor (above the floor)
(11) - blood settles to the lowest parts of the body after death, dependant upon the posture adopted by the deceased when death occurs (unmoved)
(12) - where blood has left the body, and there is little or no further blood flow, within 15 minutes or so the blood will start to coagulate and darken in colour
(13) - where blood has left the body and there is a continuous flow of blood leaking out of the body, the edges at either side of the flow may show signs of coagulation and darkening
(14) - as soon as death occurs, the heart stops beating so it no longer pumps blood inside the body around the body
(15) - as soon as death occurs, blood starts to seep to the lowest parts of the head, neck, torso, and extremities. During this process blood may leak or run from any wound located in any part of the body which is lower at any given time to the level of blood in that corresponding part of the body
(16) - the passing of time from the moment of death will always have a bearing upon the level to which the blood inside a body has drained hydraulically, until all the blood (around 8 pints) reaches its lowest point in all parts of the body. For example, the natural blood level inside the body of a deceased person will be different inside the limbs of the body, at one hour, two hours, three hours, and so on and so forth, until the blood settles at the lowest part of the body (ground zero)
(17) - from marks present around the upper wound on Sheila's neck, somebody has tried to stem the flow of blood from that wound, but been unsuccessful, because fresh blood has flowed over the top of these marks. Cops were not concerned with this...
-
. . . the panic button got activated at precisely 3.29am
This time is what someone has told you? Is there any document that you have a copy of that gives this time or indicates that a panic button was used? Didn't Jeremy say that he didn't attempt to call Witham police station?
-
Panic button ?
Where was it supposed to go to, a police station ? It's doubtful the police are going to let members of the public have their own personal panic button leading to their police station. People have to dial 999.
If the panic button just makes a loud noise, it just creates more of a panic.
-
These are the facts if what we have been debating are cracks...
(1) - the photograph in question was taken by PC Bird after 10 O'clock that morning
The photograph in question would have been taken with the others - it is the same picture as the one you posted.
Only, your version has had the colour and tone edited to present the blood from the wound on her neck as dried, and the blood at her mouth, and its flow also dark and dried, with cracks in the flow that were caused with the movement of the head, which lolled forward on two occasions after she had been shot and killed and the blood which ran from the right corner of her mouth stopped flowing and dried diagonally across her face, confirming that at the time this particular blood stain started to crack, it did so when the skin still showed signs of elasticity, which would not be found in the skin seven hours or more after the time of death. This is borne out by the blood leaking from the wound beneath the chin still leaking from a bullet wound at the top part of Sheila's neck after 10am, which would be 'impossible' after her being dead for seven hours or longer. Everyone knows that when death occurs that blood in the body settles at the lowest parts of the torso, the head, the neck, and the extremities, but for what you are suggesting to be true and factual, the blood in Sheila's neck must have remained topped up with blood that 'did not' settle to the lowest part of the neck despite over seven hours already having elapsed. You also choose to ignore confirmation in the police logs that Sheila's body was the female body reported to have been found downstairs in the kitchen after reference has already been made to the discovery of dads body, not once but on two separate occasions. You also choose to ignore clear facts that cops were dealing with a murder, and a suicide before 7.45am, and that cops only found three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. The purpose of keeping these contemporaneously recorded message logs constitutes clear evidence of two bodies found downstairs, and only three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. There are no radio messages past or recorded relating to how the two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, turned into one body downstairs, four bodies upstairs. This is a significant discrepancy which cannot be overlooked on an evidential basis. According to the police message logs, there was never only one body downstairs, and there was never any mention of four bodies upstairs, it was an investigation where at the end of play, one body ended up downstairs, with the other four bodies upstairs, with no explanation from the cops how this transition occurred. They refuse to talk about the 'training exercise involving the bodies being used as props, before PC Bird (soco) eventually took photographs showing one body downstairs, and four bodies upstairs, which the raid team adopted as part of the truth, of what they found upon entry, which was far from the real truth...
(2) - by that stage Sheila had been shot twice, (a) once diagonally across the throat, with a weapon that was held out from the left hand side of her body, (b) and, once under the chin which ended up inside her brain, the weapon more or less held or pressed against her body with the muzzle against the underside of her chin
(3) - Cops saw nothing suspicious to alert them to the possibility that she had not killed herself
I thought you said they killed her? Surely they would KNOW she didn't kill herself if they did it?
Of course they knew that they killed her, but they had to 'pretend' that they hadn't, but they did. Later on, the suggestion that cops had been fooled by Jeremy was nothing but 'tosh', how could he have fooled them into thinking Sheila had taken her own life after she had killed the others, if cops were responsible for shooting her? The contents of the police message logs tell the true circumstances of what unfolded right up to 8.10am, two bodies downstairs, three upstairs. J hasn't made those 'facts' up, and neither have I. The facts are there for all to see and read. Sheila was downstairs between 7.37am and 8.10am. Cops said she had died, had committed suicide. They knew she had been shot once by that stage. If not, how could cops call her death, as a suicide? She wasn't found hanged, she hadn't cut her wrists, or taken an overdose of tablets or drugs. She had been shot. Cops knew this because one of their own shot her with a bullet from his weapon. The problem cops have got is that they called her death downstairs, when her body was downstairs, but 'not dead'. They called her presumed death at that stage, a 'suicide'. Nobody can accuse J of planting that idea into the minds of the cops inside the farmhouse at that time. He had 'no control' or input on what messages cops passed to one another, during that period between 7.37am, and 8.10am...
(4) - Cops saw nothing to suggest that anybody had staged her death scene
As above - but why would they be looking for a staged scene when Jeremy had already blind sided them?
They wouldn't, but with the benefit of hindsight and because cops 'were' involved in the circumstances of her death, I am just making the point that because cops staged her death scene as captured by PC Bird in his photographs, they knew her body in those photographs had been staged by themselves, but they were reluctant to say so for obvious reasons...
(5) - Cops were happy that with that rifle found on her body, that she could have shot herself twice with it
They hadn't done any investigating at that point or had time to review what they had found and had been blind sided by Jeremy
No, your wrong. They carried out 'informals' between 9 and 10 O'clock, without naming the officers involved, nor mention what they did with the bodies of the victims...
(6) - cops were happy that the triangular bloodstain situated near her right armpit upon her nightdress had got there whilst Sheila was laid on her back as shown in PC Birds photograph
As above
Cops pretended that glaring clues like these, amounted to nothing they needed to concern themselves with, and nobody but the cops themselves would be able to look into anything police did not believe to be suspicious. But, everything cops did to cover up the true circumstances surrounding the shooting of Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, the mistake of declaring her death by suicide downstairs, alongside dads body in the kitchen, dad who's death was accurately described as a murder. But there was nothing anybody could do to reconstruct the truth involving the presence of dad and daughters bodies being found downstairs, because the investigation was being carried out with it being a coroners court case, not a criminal one. There would hardly be any opportunity for it ever becoming a criminal matter providing that cops kept the case as one of four murders, and a suicide, where Sheila had killed the others, then took her own life...
(7) - cops were happy regarding bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of the nightdress originated from her bloodied right hand, and were not a suspicious feature
As above
They had to pretend it didn't matter...
(8) - cops were happy that clotted blood in the form of two wound plugs had become detached from the upper bullet entry wound and displaced on other lower parts of her neck, indicating that after she had been shot, and after the upper wound had become sealed with clotted blood that her head had lolled forward and rested there until the wound had sealed itself again, and then lolled further forward into a different position causing the replugged wound to detach the reformed plugged. Her head had since that time, fell back into the position PC Bird had photographed her body and head in after 10am
They didn't have time to analyse any of that.
They didn't need much time to see what all of us can see at first glance. Truth was, that cops pretended such detail amounted to nothing they should concern themselves with, otherwise they could not proceed with the case through the coroners court system, as 'four murders, and a suicide'...
(9) - in the position shown with Sheila laid upon her back alongside the edge of the bed the position of her mouths opening was positioned higher up from the floor than either of the two bullet wounds
Jeremy moved her
He couldn't have moved her body at all inside the bedroom. How could he have, with cops already being on record as stating that her body being downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, onward along with dads body. It's nonsense to suggest that although you accept Sheila's body was moved and staged, that it wasn't the cops who had been responsible for moving and staging her body, but rather Jeremy had been. Sadly, the contents of the police message log contents between 7.37 and 8.10am, tell a completely different account than the one you appear to be championing here...
(10) - as per above, the location of both wounds were lower down on the body in relation to the position of the mouth and to the floor (above the floor)
As above
(11) - blood settles to the lowest parts of the body after death, dependant upon the posture adopted by the deceased when death occurs (unmoved)
On the picture I posted you can see that LM is already present
Sheila's neck could not possibly have still been filled up with blood to its 'highest point' from the floor at the bottom of her neck, after over seven hours if she had been dead, long before cops state 'her body' was present downstairs in the kitchen from 7.37am, onward...
(12) - where blood has left the body, and there is little or no further blood flow, within 15 minutes or so the blood will start to coagulate and darken in colour
The blood is dry and cracking, LM is present - she has been dead for some time
the neck could 'not be still full to the top with fresh blood', more than seven hours 'after' her death, and still be running from the fatal wound at the highest point of her neck from the bedroom floor after 10 O'Clock. What you are advocating is impossible, it could not happen...
(13) - where blood has left the body and there is a continuous flow of blood leaking out of the body, the edges at either side of the flow may show signs of coagulation and darkening
(14) - as soon as death occurs, the heart stops beating so it no longer pumps blood inside the body around the body
(15) - as soon as death occurs, blood starts to seep to the lowest parts of the head, neck, torso, and extremities. During this process blood may leak or run from any wound located in any part of the body which is lower at any given time to the level of blood in that corresponding part of the body
And you can see that this has happened my the dark patches on Sheila's face.
Her neck would not still be topped up and full of blood if she had been laid in that position for seven hours or more, and still be leaking fresh blood from the two wounds on the highest part of her neck. Any blood inside her neck would have long since settled at its lowest point, which in her case was the back of her neck closest to the bedroom floor. The 'fact', and it is an immense factor, that Sheila is still leaking fresh looking blood from wounds at the highest part of her neck in relation to the bedroom floor, it is an 'impossibity' for J to have had anything whatsoever to do with staging her body there in that position on the bedroom floor in possession of a rifle which from 7.15am until at least just prior to 9.13am was always propped up against the bedroom window. In addition to this, there is unrefuted evidence that there were two bodies present downstairs in the kitchen between 7.37 and 8.10am. No cop has yet come forward to deny that the contents of the relevant police message log are inaccurate and not true. Raid team members were 'told' by senior officers at the debrief held at Witham later that same day, to make their notes up in a certain way, whereas, the contents of the police message logs were recorded contemporaneous and spontaneously. I know which version is the correct version, and its not the cop witness statements, and that's the truth. The real problem with the contents of the various cop statements relating to how in them they describe where each of the bodies of the five victims were found initially, is that the cops were 'told' to make their notes up in a certain way, not by J, but by senior cops at the debrief. Senior cops telling lower ranked cops to 'make sure' that they got the position of the bodies in keeping where PC Bird had photographed them all. It follows that where PC Bird photographed the victims bodies after 10 am, was 'not' the actual position the bodies were reportedly found in upon first entry into each and every room in the farmhouse between 7.37and 8.10am. The location of the body of Sheila became problematic to cops writing up their notes in the way senior officers told them to do, because her body had been present downstairs in the kitchen upon first entry there at around 7.37am until 8.10am, and by the time PC Bird had got around to photographing Sheila on the bedroom floor with the rifle that was originally resting against the bedroom window from 7.15am, all the way through until shortly before 9.13am, cops couldn't write up their notes accurately because senior officers had told them all to make up their notes including where the bodies had been found by referring to the positions of the bodies, as photographed, which in Sheila's case was laid on the bedroom floor with the rifle from the bedroom window now under her control and in her possession on the bedroom floor by the edge of the bed.
(16) - the passing of time from the moment of death will always have a bearing upon the level to which the blood inside a body has drained hydraulically, until all the blood (around 8 pints) reaches its lowest point in all parts of the body. For example, the natural blood level inside the body of a deceased person will be different inside the limbs of the body, at one hour, two hours, three hours, and so on and so forth, until the blood settles at the lowest part of the body (ground zero)
(17) - from marks present around the upper wound on Sheila's neck, somebody has tried to stem the flow of blood from that wound, but been unsuccessful, because fresh blood has flowed over the top of these marks. Cops were not concerned with this...
They didn't have time to analyse it - the investigation comes later when they have gathered the evidence. When they did that, they realised they had been hood winked by one Jeremy Bamber.
The marks I am referring to, were fundamental clues that a school kid would notice just by looking at the body long before any investigation. Since, we have had it rammed down our throats for over 30 years that Sheila's hands were 'spotlessly clean'. Anybody seeing those bloodied marks around the fatal wound on her neck would instantly be questioning how she could have held the fingers of her right hand there on that part of her neck and her hands end up back on the gun near the trigger mechanism? Cops did not show any interest in this feature, because cops were responsible for making those marks. But they had to pretend that they hadn't. Cops shot an 'unarmed' Sheila downstairs in the kitchen after she met them there (I believe) intent on surrendering. A fact made clear by the act of her placing the rifle at the bedroom window at 7.15am, then going downstairs to 'give herself up'. Cops shot and killed Sheila who at both times she got shot was 'unarmed'. She certainly could not have shot herself twice with use of the anshuzt rifle and had been found with that gun upon her body, because as I keep having to remind everybody, that rifle was resting at the bedroom window from 7.15am, onward, until just prior to 9.13am, so cops could not have found Sheila with the rifle in her possession on the bedroom floor at first entry into the main bedroom. It would have been impossible for that to have happened for all the reasons given J fooled nobody into thinking his sisters body would be found on the bedroom floor with the rifle he had shot her with, because the said rifle was at the bedroom window when cops went in. With this in mind, not only was it impossible for J to have staged his sisters body with the gun from the bedroom window, but what fool would murder his sister, stage her death on the bedroom floor near the edge of the bed, but leave the rifle at the bedroom window? It is only when you realise that the anshuzt rifle did not get placed at the bedroom window until 7.15am, that it becomes clear who was responsible for the deaths of the other four victims, and that that person was Sheila. What also becomes crystal clear is that J did not shoot his sister, kill her, and stage her body with the gun from the bedroom window. Now, which part don't you understand?
-
This time is what someone has told you? Is there any document that you have a copy of that gives this time or indicates that a panic button was used? Didn't Jeremy say that he didn't attempt to call Witham police station?
J told me that he tried to call Witham police station before he made the call to Julie Mugford at 3.30am, but he got no response, and that he called Chelmsford police station after he some to Julie...
I kept notes of everything he told me, and I have letters addressed to me from him where he mentions these facts. If he's saying something g different now then I'd like to hear about it, because why would he change his mind about something that did happen?
-
J told me that he tried to call With am police station before he made the call to Julie Mugford at 3.30am, but he got no response, and that he called Chelmsford police station after he some to Julie...
I kept notes of everything he told me, and I have letters addressed to me from him where he mentions these facts. If he's saying something g different now then I'd like to hear about it, because why would he change his mind about something that did happen?
This was denied by Police.
Mike you're asking us to believe:
1) Dozens of Police lied that morning in an attempt to cover up their shooting of Sheila in error.
2) Jeremy received a telephone call from his father asking him to come to the Farm in the middle of the night because Sheila had run amok with a gun.
3) Nevill telephoned Police to summon help, but again Police are concealing this information.
4) Relatives took possession of the Farm post-murders, used a dropper to impregnate a silencer with Sheila's blood, hid it in the den and scratched the kitchen mantelpiece.
5) Jeremy loved his parents and had no plans to do away with them: Julie's testimony is therefore pure fabrication.
6) That 30 years have passed without one informant having the decency to come forward and exculpate Jeremy in 1-5.
-
This was denied by Police.
Mike you're asking us to believe:
1) Dozens of Police lied that morning in an attempt to cover up their shooting of Sheila in error.
2) Jeremy received a telephone call from his father asking him to come to the Farm in the middle of the night because Sheila had run amok with a gun.
3) Nevill telephoned Police to summon help, but again Police are concealing this information.
4) Relatives took possession of the Farm post-murders, used a dropper to impregnate a silencer with Sheila's blood, hid it in the den and scratched the kitchen mantelpiece.
5) Jeremy loved his parents and had no plans to do away with them: Julie's testimony is therefore pure fabrication.
6) That 30 years have passed without one informant having the decency to come forward and exculpate Jeremy in 1-5.
In a nutshell, basically that's what it would mean for Jeremy to be innocent. The cast involved would be massive in order to maintain 'the secret' and also many police officers would have independently decided to lie, withhold information and frame Jeremy even before the scene was discovered. It would be too far fetched even for a work of fiction and we're being asked to believe it actually happened.
-
In a nutshell, basically that's what it would mean for Jeremy to be innocent. The cast involved would be massive in order to maintain 'the secret' and also many police officers would have independently decided to lie, withhold information and frame Jeremy even before the scene was discovered. It would be too far fetched even for a work of fiction and we're being asked to believe it actually happened.
I totally agree Caroline the whole idea of it is preposterous.
-
J told me that he tried to call Witham police station before he made the call to Julie Mugford at 3.30am, but he got no response, and that he called Chelmsford police station after he some to Julie...
I kept notes of everything he told me, and I have letters addressed to me from him where he mentions these facts. If he's saying something g different now then I'd like to hear about it, because why would he change his mind about something that did happen?
Its very simple really, he made up so much nonsense he forgot who he told what to.
-
In a nutshell, basically that's what it would mean for Jeremy to be innocent. The cast involved would be massive in order to maintain 'the secret' and also many police officers would have independently decided to lie, withhold information and frame Jeremy even before the scene was discovered. It would be too far fetched even for a work of fiction and we're being asked to believe it actually happened.
The facts now known tell a different story to the one you are portraying...
If you ignore the 'facts' you are doomed into believing something which cannot possibly be true. Furthermore, hitting me with the rhetoric that for the truth to be the truth it would have to involve all these cops and them cops rubbish. Look at all the 'major miscarriages of justice', and think back to people like you making similar claims back then, which turned out to be false. This is not a case where I or others are just saying there has been 'dishonesty' on the part of cops, the cops are 'showing us all that what they got up to was dishonest', they are 'damaging their own integrity'. Let me remind you what 'senior officers' told the raid team at the end of the 'debrief held at Witham on evening of 7th August 1985', they told lesser ranked cops to 'make sure they wrote their notes up, along the lines of where the bodies had been photographed', and 'that what they were dealing with' was 'four murders, and a suicide'...
-
Its very simple really, he made up so much nonsense he forgot who he told what to.
No, he didn't. J is not as intelligent or tactful as a lot of different people from different backgrounds think he is...
-
I totally agree Caroline the whole idea of it is preposterous.
Yes, cops lied and falsified evidence, to cover up their own mistakes and misgivings. They made significant errors inside the farmhouse, and afterwards...
-
No, he didn't. J is not as intelligent or tactful as a lot of different people from different backgrounds think he is...
Yes he did, he forgot who he called first very early on.
-
Yes, cops lied and falsified evidence, to cover up their own mistakes and misgivings. They made significant errors inside the farmhouse, and afterwards...
The police (at least some of them) were quite content to go along with Jeremy's story in the beginning which was when your great conspiracy was supposed to have taken place. They then changed their mind when the evidence began to reveal a very different state of affairs. By that point of course everything was documented and recorded already so your claim that a conspiracy took place from day one is frankly nonsense.
-
Yes he did, he forgot who he called first very early on.
No, he didn't that was 'dodgy Stan' Jones trying to truck J into saying something that couldn't be true. But dodgy 'Stan' did not know that J had attempted to call Witham police station that morning but got no response, and how he had then called Julie, and afterwards how he called Chelmsford police station and spoken to PC West. Whatever J said was true, because despite what 'Stan' was trying to do, J had called cops, before, and after, he called Julie Mugford at 3.30am...
-
Yes, cops lied and falsified evidence, to cover up their own mistakes and misgivings. They made significant errors inside the farmhouse, and afterwards...
No one is denying that they made mistakes Mike but the kind of conspiracy being promoted would be of such size and magnitude that it would be impossible to keep secret and for what? To frame Jeremy Bamber when they already had a suspect that couldn't deny she was responsible because she was dead? It doesn't make any sense - they would have stuck to Sheila being the killer. However, the conspiracy also involves police officers hiding things before the bodies were even discovered. The ONLY reason why West wouldn't have told Jeremy that Nevill called the police is because Nevill didn't call.
-
The police (at least some of them) were quite content to go along with Jeremy's story in the beginning which was when your great conspiracy was supposed to have taken place. They then changed their mind when the evidence began to reveal a very different state of affairs. By then of course everything was documented and recorded already so your claim that a conspiracy took place from day one is nonsense.
Stop talking nonsense, J had no input in the fact that cops found two bodies in the kitchen upon entry. J had no input whatsoever in the fact that cops reported the presence of a female body in the kitchen, after they themselves had already reported the presence of dads body in the kitchen also? You are nuts to even be suggesting that J had control of cops inside the farmhouse, outside the farmhouse, and anywhere else. Cops do not get controlled by criminals, least of all someone of J's character, and intelligence back in August 1985...
-
No one is denying that they made mistakes Mike but the kind of conspiracy being promoted would be of such size and magnitude that it would be impossible to keep secret and for what? To frame Jeremy Bamber when they already had a suspect that couldn't deny she was responsible because she was dead? It doesn't make any sense - they would have stuck to Sheila being the killer. However, the conspiracy also involves police officers hiding things before the bodies were even discovered. The ONLY reason why West wouldn't have told Jeremy that Nevill called the police is because Nevill didn't call.
Hillsboro'...
-
Dad did call police, its recorded in the phone message log timed, 3.26am, a log which cops and prosecution failed to disclose to the defence, the court, and the jury, because its contents contradicted their argument that if Sheila had gone crazy, that dad would have called cops, not Jeremy...
-
Hillsboro'...
There is no comparison but the conspiracy promoted here is even bigger and far more complicated. You have police officers tryi g to frame Jeremy even before there was a crime to frame him into. You have police ditching a ready made suspect JUST so that they can frame Jeremy - introducing all manner of twist and turns to complicate matters making it ever unlikely that they wouldn't be rumbled. The truth came out for the victims of Hillsborough - the truth is already out for the victims of Jeremy Bamber.
-
There is no comparison but the conspiracy promoted here is even bigger and far more complicated. You have police officers tryi g to frame Jeremy even before there was a crime to frame him into. You have police ditching a ready made suspect JUST so that they can frame Jeremy - introducing all manner of twist and turns to complicate matters making it ever unlikely that they wouldn't be rumbled. The truth came out for the victims of Hillsborough - the truth is already out for the victims of Jeremy Bamber.
That's very well-written Caroline. I am no expert on firearms but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult for someone to shoot Sheila by accident, especially as that particular gun was stiff, as corroborated in the courtroom at trial.
-
That's very well-written Caroline. I am no expert on firearms but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult for someone to shoot Sheila by accident, especially as that particular gun was stiff, as corroborated in the courtroom at trial.
Thanks you Steve :).
Not only difficult but someone would have been VERY unlucky for there to have been one bullet left in the rifle or did they shoot her twice? I get lost off in the confusion :)
-
Thanks you Steve :).
Not only difficult but someone would have been VERY unlucky for there to have been one bullet left in the rifle or did they shoot her twice? I get lost off in the confusion :)
Apparently there were no bullets left in the Anschutz after the attack(whoever you think of as the murderer)but Mike has introduced a second gun into the matter.
-
Apparently there were no bullets left in the Anschutz after the attack(whoever you think of as the murderer)but Mike has introduced a second gun into the matter.
Ah yes, two guns, four silencers (or was it five?) - like I said, it gets confusing :).
-
This was denied by Police.
It was not for cops to deny, since the call J tried to make to Witham police station was never answered. So cops can deny all they want to that J had done that. J told cops from a very early stage that he had tried calling Witham but had no response, so eventually after calling Julie, he looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station in the phone book.if J had called Chelmsford before trying to call Witham police station now that would have caught my attention. Witham police station was a lot closer to whf than Chelmsford.
Mike you're asking us to believe:
1) Dozens of Police lied that morning in an attempt to cover up their shooting of Sheila in error.
Refer Hillsboro'...
2) Jeremy received a telephone call from his father asking him to come to the Farm in the middle of the night because Sheila had run amok with a gun.
The message recited to J by dad did not explicitly state that Sheila had shot anyone by that stage, only that she had got 'the gun' and was going crazy. J never got chance to have any input into that 3.25am call...
3) Nevill telephoned Police to summon help, but again Police are concealing this information.
Refer Hillsboro' scenario...
4) Relatives took possession of the Farm post-murders, used a dropper to impregnate a silencer with Sheila's blood, hid it in the den and scratched the kitchen mantelpiece.
The integrity of the silencer, the blood in it, the paint upon it, you make up your own mind whether you think it is all legitimate evidence, untampered with?
5) Jeremy loved his parents and had no plans to do away with them: Julie's testimony is therefore pure fabrication.
you might be surprised to learn that there are many of examples in the history of crime, where best mates, boyfriends and girlfriends, husbands and wives, and so on and so forth, are prepared to tell deliberate lies to get revenge in one form or another. How come Julie never knew about the use of a silencer? And, why doesn't she think it suspicious that when she identified Sheila's body at the hospital mortuary, Sheila only appeared to have got a single bullet wound to her throat, although she must surely know by this stage that she had been shot twice?
6) That 30 years have passed without one informant having the decency to come forward and exculpate Jeremy in 1-5.
Oh, but they have...
-
There is no comparison but the conspiracy promoted here is even bigger and far more complicated. You have police officers tryi g to frame Jeremy even before there was a crime to frame him into. You have police ditching a ready made suspect JUST so that they can frame Jeremy - introducing all manner of twist and turns to complicate matters making it ever unlikely that they wouldn't be rumbled. The truth came out for the victims of Hillsborough - the truth is already out for the victims of Jeremy Bamber.
But the 'conspiracy of Hillsboro' was immense, not only involving cops themselves, but home secretaries and a Prime Minister, and a Coroners court, the cover up went right through the system from bottom to top, the right honorable gentleman this, and the right honorable gentleman that. The bottom line in the Bamber case, is that when the shit started to hit the fan, with relatives poking their noses into cop affairs helped by PC Robert Carr (Bobbie), cops found themselves in the myre because 'they had tampered with the crime scene', and 'they had moved the bodies of the adult victims about, using them like props in a stage production', and eventually it was 'the cops who staged Sheila's death scene in the bedroom'. The solution was for the cops to 'take the path of least resistance', in the situation they suddenly found themselves in. Relatives were 'baying' for Jeremy's blood, and cops jumped merrily onto the bandwagon. Nothing complicated about any of it. It was a question of switching the responsibility for staging Sheila's body, onto Jeremy's shoulders. Now which part don't you understand?
-
Ah yes, two guns, four silencers (or was it five?) - like I said, it gets confusing :).
Don't blame J for that, or me, look no further than the end of your own nose, and ask yourself why there would be so many different exhibit references for one silencer? Let's look at the different exhibit references this 'solitary' silencer is referred to or mentioned in one form or another:-
SBJ/1
SJ/1
DB/1
DRB/1
Don't hit me with the crap about 'conflicting' exhibit references, so cops had to change it - what change it so many times? The jury didn't get to hear any of this nonsense, to them the silencer had always been exhibit DRB/1, lab' item 22. Which brings me nicely onto the lab' item number this so called silencer was given. First it was 22, then it became 23, and eventually by the time the matter came to court it was 22 again. There's nothing complicated about what cops have done, its simplistic. Its just that people on your side of the fence in matters like this, try to make out than in order for the silencer evidence to be dodgy, it involves some sort of a sophisticated conspiracy. Basically put it was a simple case of cops merging however many silencers were involved into one, when careful study of the facts reveals that it couldn't have been just a solitary silencer - nothing complicated about that argument. As for there being at least two different guns used in the shootings, explain to me how and with what gun Sheila is supposed to have committed suicide downstairs in the kitchen, considering the anshuzt rifle was upstairs resting against the bedroom window when cops entered the kitchen? Neither J nor me, nor anybody else who feels that these convictions are unsafe contributed to the contents of the police message logs, and a basic analysis of the contents tell the true story of whereabouts in the farmhouse the five bodies were found between 7.37 and 8.10am. Sheila was the female in the kitchen, but she did not die there, she eventually died upstairs 'unarmed'. That rifle at the bedroom window had not fired the shot across Sheila's neck downstairs in the kitchen. There is nothing complex or confusing about the fact that bullet fragment (PV/20) was replaced by a whole test fired bullet, so that the ballistic expert, Fletcher, could confirm that it had been loaded into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle, it had been fired, and ejected from it, because it had, but not at the time of the shootings. Again, a relatively simple explanation, not a complex one...
-
That's very well-written Caroline. I am no expert on firearms but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult for someone to shoot Sheila by accident, especially as that particular gun was stiff, as corroborated in the courtroom at trial.
How did the anshuzt rifle get onto Sheila's body from its original position at the bedroom window from 7.15am, onward, that's the question which cops need to be answering, no matter how stiff or easy it was to activate the trigger. Also bear in mind, that Sheila's death downstairs in the kitchen was being referred to as a suicide, by 7.45am, and then much later (after 8.10am) when her body ends up dead upstairs in the bedroom, her death is described as a suicide again once the investigation gets underway? How can Sheila have committed suicide twice, once downstairs in the kitchen, and a second time upstairs in the bedroom? This brings me on to how the home secretary at the time, hit the tabloid headlines with ' How did he fool you'? Thing is, he didn't try to fool anybody. How can J have 'fooled cops' into reporting his sisters death downstairs in the kitchen as a suicide by 7.45am, and then later the investigation into her death upstairs be pursued as another suicide? Which part don't you understand?
-
But the 'conspiracy of Hillsboro' was immense, not only involving cops themselves, but home secretaries and a Prime Minister, and a Coroners court, the cover up went right through the system from bottom to top, the right honorable gentleman this, and the right honorable gentleman that. The bottom line in the Bamber case, is that when the shit started to hit the fan, with relatives poking their noses into cop affairs helped by PC Robert Carr (Bobbie), cops found themselves in the myre because 'they had tampered with the crime scene', and 'they had moved the bodies of the adult victims about, using them like props in a stage production', and eventually it was 'the cops who staged Sheila's death scene in the bedroom'. The solution was for the cops to 'take the path of least resistance', in the situation they suddenly found themselves in. Relatives were 'baying' for Jeremy's blood, and cops jumped merrily onto the bandwagon. Nothing complicated about any of it. It was a question of switching the responsibility for staging Sheila's body, onto Jeremy's shoulders. Now which part don't you understand?
Yes, it was immense but nothing like this - the amount of people involved (some independently) would have to be far greater and for what? There was far more at stake at Hillsborough, there was nothing at stake i the Bamber case.
-
" Sheila was scared of her mother ". Since June had put the thought of Sheila being a " Devil's Child ", things went downhill for every member of the Bamber family.
Much has been said and written about Sheila's " psychosis ",but June too had been psychotic and had been taking a myriad of of various medications for her own mental health issues.
Diagnosed psychotics by their nature,are very unpredictable.
-
" Sheila was scared of her mother ". Since June had put the thought of Sheila being a " Devil's Child ", things went downhill for every member of the Bamber family.
Much has been said and written about Sheila's " psychosis ",but June too had been psychotic and had been taking a myriad of of various medications for her own mental health issues.
Diagnosed psychotics by their nature,are very unpredictable.
So are psychopaths - especially the ones that have murder in mind.
-
Tsk. MOST Psychopaths aren't murderers and MOST Murderers aren't psychopaths.
-
Tsk. MOST Psychopaths aren't murderers and MOST Murderers aren't psychopaths.
Tsk - Do you have a source for this claim Lookout?
Some one who decides to kill 5 members of his family simply to inherit early, is most certainly a psychopath!
-
In a nutshell, basically that's what it would mean for Jeremy to be innocent. The cast involved would be massive in order to maintain 'the secret' and also many police officers would have independently decided to lie, withhold information and frame Jeremy even before the scene was discovered. It would be too far fetched even for a work of fiction and we're being asked to believe it actually happened.
No, it wouldn't...
I myself have been on the receiving end of corruption and dishonesty by a few bad apple cops. It does not involve everybody else being in on it, as you are saying. All it takes is one bent cop, or one group of bent cops, and everybody else who becomes part of the prosecutions case is carried along on the back of the fabrication, or that dishonesty. What you end up with, is the sniggering bad apple cop, or group of cops, chuckling amongst themselves, because all the other cops, and prosecution witnesses really believe that their contribution to the case is 100% genuine, and truthful. I can provide many examples in my own cases spanning six years when I was considered to be a low life career criminal, but instead I will talk in terms of J's case. OK, let's assume, that David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene on Saturday, 10th August, 1985, but instead of Peter Eaton handing it over to DS 'Stan' Jones on the evening of Monday, 12th August, 1985, Boutflour retains possession of it, until Jeremy gets arrested on the first occasion, 7th September, 1985, or there about. Let's assume, that once J is in custody being interviewed by cops, that David and the other relatives have been talking amongst themselves, fuelled by Robert Boutflours hatred of J. What happens is, David gets his sister, 'Annie' to hand over various exhibits that David had removed from the cupboard in the den at the farmhouse on the previous month ( let's say, 10th August, 1985). So amongst these items, is the silencer that David had kept possession of for over a month, before he gets his sister to hand everything of possible interest to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985. Putting those facts to one side for the moment, imagine that prior to David arranging for his sister, 'Annie' to hand the silencer, and the other stuff over to DC Oakey , that the relatives were aware that J would be appearing in court in a day or so, charged with the burglary at Osea Road, Camp Site, an offence which involved Julie Mugford, as his 'accomplice', and that J would be applying for bail, and was requesting sureties. All the relatives 'turned him down', they weren't about to help J get bail. And, at around this general time, there was a specific conversation that I would like to introduce you all to, between Annie and David. It went along the lines that they weren't going to help him get bail, because they wanted him locked up. It was 'then' that David said to Annie, ' don't worry, I've got something up my sleeve'. I kid you not, this is what David said to his sister. How do I know this? Well, I know this because Annie was always jotting down notes on pieces of card, and guess what? She recorded what her brother had said to her on 'that' occasion. So, what was it, what was 'this something' that David Boutflour had up his sleeve, which would help put or 'keep J locked away in prison' behind bars?
On an occasion after Annie handed over to DC Oakey, the silencer, and everything else, on the 11th September, 1985, David contacts the police, to tell them that 'he has found the silencer to the gun'...
-
I mean, its a bit late in the day, for David to be phoning cops up, to tell them that he has found 'the silencer to the gun'...
A 'month' after cops are supposed to have 'already had possession of it'...
Oink, oink, oink...
-
Let's develop this topic a little further, to demonstrate the 'ramifications' of David Boutflour contacting cops on the 12th September, 1985, to ' inform them that he has found the silencer', to 'the gun'...
Now, where have I heard that term, 'the gun', before?
Oh, yes, in the telephone call dad made to J at 3.25am...
-
No, it wouldn't...
I myself have been on the receiving end of corruption and dishonesty by a few bad apple cops. It does not involve everybody else being in on it, as you are saying. All it takes is one bent cop, or one group of bent cops, and everybody else who becomes part of the prosecutions case is carried along on the back of the fabrication, or that dishonesty. What you end up with, is the sniggering bad apple cop, or group of cops, chuckling amongst themselves, because all the other cops, and prosecution witnesses really believe that their contribution to the case is 100% genuine, and truthful. I can provide many examples in my own cases spanning six years when I was considered to be a low life career criminal, but instead I will talk in terms of J's case. OK, let's assume, that David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene on Saturday, 10th August, 1985, but instead of Peter Eaton handing it over to DS 'Stan' Jones on the evening of Monday, 12th August, 1985, Boutflour retains possession of it, until Jeremy gets arrested on the first occasion, 7th September, 1985, or there about. Let's assume, that once J is in custody being interviewed by cops, that David and the other relatives have been talking amongst themselves, fuelled by Robert Boutflours hatred of J. What happens is, David gets his sister, 'Annie' to hand over various exhibits that David had removed from the cupboard in the den at the farmhouse on the previous month ( let's say, 10th August, 1985). So amongst these items, is the silencer that David had kept possession of for over a month, before he gets his sister to hand everything of possible interest to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985. Putting those facts to one side for the moment, imagine that prior to David arranging for his sister, 'Annie' to hand the silencer, and the other stuff over to DC Oakey , that the relatives were aware that J would be appearing in court in a day or so, charged with the burglary at Osea Road, Camp Site, an offence which involved Julie Mugford, as his 'accomplice', and that J would be applying for bail, and was requesting sureties. All the relatives 'turned him down', they weren't about to help J get bail. And, at around this general time, there was a specific conversation that I would like to introduce you all to, between Annie and David. It went along the lines that they weren't going to help him get bail, because they wanted him locked up. It was 'then' that David said to Annie, ' don't worry, I've got something up my sleeve'. I kid you not, this is what David said to his sister. How do I know this? Well, I know this because Annie was always jotting down notes on pieces of card, and guess what? She recorded what her brother had said to her on 'that' occasion. So, what was it, what was 'this something' that David Boutflour had up his sleeve, which would help put or 'keep J locked away in prison' behind bars?
On an occasion after Annie handed over to DC Oakey, the silencer, and everything else, on the 11th September, 1985, David contacts the police, to tell them that 'he has found the silencer to the gun'...
Yes, I personally know someone who was fitted up. However, in this instance, we have many people being accused of being part of the conspiracy - to name a few; West, Bonnett, Bews, Jones, Hammersley, Davidson, Cook, Venezis, the family, Ainsley, the raid team who entered WHF ...... and that's just to name a few. Each one of these people have been accused of taking an active role in the conspiracy; some even before the bodies were discovered. Yes, people get fitted up or a conviction might be 'helped along' - however, with someone as cunning as Jeremy it's takes a thief to catch one!
-
Let's develop this topic a little further, to demonstrate the 'ramifications' of David Boutflour contacting cops on the 12th September, 1985, to ' inform them that he has found the silencer', to 'the gun'...
Now, where have I heard that term, 'the gun', before?
Oh, yes, in the telephone call dad made to J at 3.25am...
That matter aside, it quite simply does not make any sense of the known facts relating to the handing over of a silencer by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August, 1985, to cops. This being a silencer that was taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August, 1985, for the attention of Glynis Howard, who by all accounts found 'human blood' to be present in the vicinity of the silencers aperture. She hands back this silencer to 'Ron' Cook who by his own testimony apparently kept the silencer in question upon his person at all times during the following consecutive 17 days and nights, by carrying it around in his 'grubby' jacket pocket. Still, further, he fingerprints this silencer on the 15th and the 23rd August, 1985. He dismantles the said silencer, photographs what he has done with. Rebuilds it, and then screws the rebuilt silencer, directly onto the thread on the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, and photographs this also. Cook then submits the rebuilt silencer back to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August, 1985, for the attention of the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, to examine it. You may well remember that the cops were a bit concerned with the condition of the silencer at that stage, because bullets that were being 'test fired' via it were disintegrating or becoming badly fragmented...
How odd...
So, what I would like to know, is why were experts at the lab' on all the occasions prior to David calling up cops on the phone to tell them that he has found the silencer which belongs to 'the gun' on 12th September, 1985? Seems to be something dodgy been going on there for a start, because lab's are not supposed to accept or receive items which are not properly bagged, and documented. So, for a start we have got Glynis Howard examining a silencer on the 13th August, 1985, that she was 'not entitled' to be examining it, because the finder of it, had not yet contacted the police to tell them that he had found it...
-
Tsk - Do you have a source for this claim Lookout?
Some one who decides to kill 5 members of his family simply to inherit early, is most certainly a psychopath!
But it WASN'T Jeremy ! He wasn't the psychotic one in the family ! Nor the narcissistic psychopath,nor the one who'd claimed to be a part of the " Devil's child/ren ". Nor the one who was found committing a "deadly sin " in the fields of WHF. Nor the one who was jealous of anyone talking to his father,or Neville's attention being drawn to someone other than himself which was a three-way thing discounting Jeremy.
-
We know that on the 11th September, 1985, when Annie Eaton handed everything over to DC Oakey, that these exhibits were all given Annie's exhibit references, ( either AE or CAE) but which were later 'altered' to DRB exhibits (David Robert Boutflour). But the funny thing was, is that when Peter Eaton handed over the silencer to 'Stan' Jones, on the evening of the 12 the August 1985, that that silencer was never given Peter Eaton's exhibit reference...
Have I missed something regarding this?
-
But it WASN'T Jeremy ! He wasn't the psychotic one in the family ! Nor the narcissistic psychopath,nor the one who'd claimed to be a part of the " Devil's child/ren ". Nor the one who was found committing a "deadly sin " in the fields of WHF. Nor the one who was jealous of anyone talking to his father,or Neville's attention being drawn to someone other than himself which was a three-way thing discounting Jeremy.
I see, so having sex with your future husband in a field is worse than robbing the family business? Strange view of morality. Jeremy has 'form' Sheila didn't. Jeremy showed his disdain for his family when he stole from them, when he said he hated them and finally - when he killed them.
-
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
Lookout you must come up with something substantive on Jeremy's innocence.
Mike came up with his Youtube video last year about EP framing Jeremy, which he said he has received conmunication about. And he also said he has passed his picture of Sheila on the bed, to his legal advisors, around 18 months ago.
David has received a reply from Jeremy on his 'forensic evidence breakthough'.
Trudie is posting weekly vlogs.
Jeremy needs you to step up. Just posting on here does nothing.
-
I see, so having sex with your future husband in a field is worse than robbing the family business? Strange view of morality. Jeremy has 'form' Sheila didn't. Jeremy showed his disdain for his family when he stole from them, when he said he hated them and finally - when he killed them.
C'mon,who,in the family ranted about sex before marriage being a cardinal sin ? Then carrying on preaching about moralities to ONE person for the rest of their short lives ? Sheila was NEVER allowed to forget about the way she'd conducted herself------------she was bound to blow.
This murder WASN'T about money as the media et al would have you believe. If someone got on your nerves so much that you had to kill them--------you would.No question about it if your mind was unbalanced.
-
Yes, I personally know someone who was fitted up. However, in this instance, we have many people being accused of being part of the conspiracy - to name a few; West, Bonnett, Bews, Jones, Hammersley, Davidson, Cook, Venezis, the family, Ainsley, the raid team who entered WHF ...... and that's just to name a few. Each one of these people have been accused of taking an active role in the conspiracy; some even before the bodies were discovered. Yes, people get fitted up or a conviction might be 'helped along' - however, with someone as cunning as Jeremy it's takes a thief to catch one!
No, that approach cannot be right on the one hand, then you are saying all these named people were in on the conspiracy, when they couldn't have been. Do you know something, let's deal with PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, for example, in your argument. How about if I were to put before you the fact that, because the contents of the 3.26am phone log was not disclosed to the defence, or to the court, and the jury never got to learn about the existence of such a significant piece of evidence at all. How in those circumstances, can anyone say that Bonnet and West told the truth when they testified on behalf and in support of the prosecutions case? Defence counsel would not have been able to question them both about the contradictory nature of 'that' log, opposed to the disclosed one (3.36am). If cop and civilian employee had got nothing to hide which the prosecution were obviously as it were 'frightened' to disclose the contents of the 3.26am log, because to do so would almost certainly have been very damaging to their own case. So, they withheld it, and neither West, nor Bonnet, spoke about the existence of that particular phone log, or its contents. Adopting this approach by the prosecution and its witnesses lends ones thinking along the lines that this 'motley crew' were out to deceive, the defence, the court, the jury, the public, and I am afraid its just not cricket for these morons to be doing this sort of stuff, knowing full well, that what they are doing and what they have done is ethically and morally wrong. If that renders all members of this 'motley crew' as conspirators, then so be it. And if it did, they could justifiably be called 'conspirators'...
Maybe, you have a different view...
There is no room in this case for any acts of 'noble cause corruption' to have reared its ugly head. A gentleman should never allude to such despicable acts of dishonesty just so somebody might end up convicted of doing something or other...
-
What Sheila had done was to act out her delusion of being a " child of the devil " which included her own " children of the devil. Something which had been well and truly implanted in her mind. She'd have slain her children first,then carried on killing her parents. Jeremy WASN'T there !
-
During Sheila's early life she'd appeared to have been affected by sociocultural influences such as when being a model asking others if her appearance was up to standard, leaning and relying on her friends and colleagues to reassure her constantly. Then came her " inner beliefs " of being a " Devil's child " . Both of these issues needed addressing initially as being part of a mental health issue. Then there was the hormonal reaction to becoming pregnant and for reasons unknown,whether they be mental or physical,Sheila spent months in hospital during her pregnancy with the twins.
This is a lot of issues that a young woman had to encounter and suffer with nobody close enough to share them with and lack of understanding with her parents.A bunch of grapes and flowers was not enough !!
-
During Sheila's early life she'd appeared to have been affected by sociocultural influences such as when being a model asking others if her appearance was up to standard, leaning and relying on her friends and colleagues to reassure her constantly. Then came her " inner beliefs " of being a " Devil's child " . Both of these issues needed addressing initially as being part of a mental health issue. Then there was the hormonal reaction to becoming pregnant and for reasons unknown,whether they be mental or physical,Sheila spent months in hospital during her pregnancy with the twins.
This is a lot of issues that a young woman had to encounter and suffer with nobody close enough to share them with and lack of understanding with her parents.A bunch of grapes and flowers was not enough !!
I agree...
-
No, that approach cannot be right on the one hand, then you are saying all these named people were in on the conspiracy, when they couldn't have been. Do you know something, let's deal with PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, for example, in your argument. How about if I were to put before you the fact that, because the contents of the 3.26am phone log was not disclosed to the defence, or to the court, and the jury never got to learn about the existence of such a significant piece of evidence at all. How in those circumstances, can anyone say that Bonnet and West told the truth when they testified on behalf and in support of the prosecutions case? Defence counsel would not have been able to question them both about the contradictory nature of 'that' log, opposed to the disclosed one (3.36am). If cop and civilian employee had got nothing to hide which the prosecution were obviously as it were 'frightened' to disclose the contents of the 3.26am log, because to do so would almost certainly have been very damaging to their own case. So, they withheld it, and neither West, nor Bonnet, spoke about the existence of that particular phone log, or its contents. Adopting this approach by the prosecution and its witnesses lends ones thinking along the lines that this 'motley crew' were out to deceive, the defence, the court, the jury, the public, and I am afraid its just not cricket for these morons to be doing this sort of stuff, knowing full well, that what they are doing and what they have done is ethically and morally wrong. If that renders all members of this 'motley crew' as conspirators, then so be it. And if it did, they could justifiably be called 'conspirators'...
Maybe, you have a different view...
There is no room in this case for any acts of 'noble cause corruption' to have reared its ugly head. A gentleman should never allude to such despicable acts of dishonesty just so somebody might end up convicted of doing something or other...
This is taken from Jeremy's own website, the Bonnet's log was withheld, how come they are talking about it being discussed by the prosecution? This is the 03:26 log, the one SUPPOSED to be from Nevill and it was made available to the jury. West read from his log in court - the jury were aware according to Jeremy's OWN website.
-
So are psychopaths - especially the ones that have murder in mind.
Can you answer me this, out of interest - is it your argument that J killed Sheila with the rifle at the window?
Is it your case, that PC Bird (soco) photographed Sheila's body after 10 O' clock and that her body had remained 'unmoved' and 'undisturbed' from the moment J staged her death scene there on the bedroom floor around, or over 7 hours previously?
-
This is taken from Jeremy's own website, the Bonnet's log was withheld, how come they are talking about it being discussed by the prosecution? This is the 03:26 log, the one SUPPOSED to be from Nevill and it was made available to the jury. West read from his log in court - the jury were aware according to Jeremy's OWN website.
J's phone log contents were disclosed to the defence, the court, and the jury. It was the 'timing' of the call that was in issue during the trial, and the 'fact' that PC Wests time keeping was questionable, because in the phone log West wrote out the time of the call was recorded as 3.36am, but in one of his witness statements he stated that J's call occurred at 3.26am, that is what was being argued about during the trial, involving testimony from Malcolm Bonnet who told the court that at 3.26am he was contacted by PC West. The 3.36am log contents were disclosed, but not the 3.26am phone log contents which did not come to light until many years later...
What I believe happened was that before J called cop at Chelmsford, that West spoke to Bonnet about dads call at 3.26am. Then when J called at 3.36am, West contacted Bonnet again and told him that the son of Mr Bamber has contacted cm and passed a message, and upon learning of this Bonnet updated the earlier call from dad (3.26am) to that effect. That is why the contents of the 3.26am log are written up like they have been which included information passed to Malcolm Bonnet from dad, and his son. Please note that this same feature is not duplicated in the contents of PC Wests version of J's phone log (3.36am). The other thing you need to be aware of, is the fact that Malcolm Bonnet did not know that PC West kept his own phone log of J's call timed as having started at 3.36am. This became apparent during the trial, and but for the sly prosecution not disclosing the contents of dads log (3.26am), the cop and the civilian employee would have both been rumbled for trying to give damning evidence confirming that dad had called cops, just like the prosecution were alleging that dad would have done, if Sheila had got possession of 'the gun' and was going crazy. West and Bonnett got away with it during the trial by the skin of their teeth, helped by the sly prosecutor. I know exactly what went on, you mark my words.The prosecution couldn't afford to disclose the contents of 'both' phone logs, because the ruse that West and Bonnet pulled off relating to the purported 'timing' of J's call to West 'was' at 3.36am. West and Bonnett made it a confusing issue, and did so deliberately because prosecution needed an excuse for why the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the scene (3.35am) before J's call to West at 3.36am, so, between them West and Bonnet sought to bring the time of J's call forward by 10 minutes. Imagine, all hell breaking loose in court if 'both' phone logs had been disclosed to all parties, and the shit hitting the fan, when the defence, the court in general, and the jury, discovered that the contents of each log were different to the other one. The first one, timed at 3.26am, (ladies and gentlemen of the jury) written as if spoken by dad, the second one, timed at 3.36am, written as if spoken by J. At that point 'the cat would have been out of the bag'. Defence counsel would have reminded the jury in his closing address, how the prosecution and its witnesses, in the form of PC West and Malcolm Bonnet, had set out to create a 'smokescreen' by suggesting that J had called PC West at 3.26am, not at 3.36am like PC West had first thought. However, the real reason for West and Bonnet trying to confuse everybody with these times, surounding J's call to PC West was 'because dad had called cops, himself' at 'that' time (3.26am), and I have no doubt in my mind that the jury would have bought into defence counsels argument to the effect that cops were trying to 'stitch J up for the murders, and that cops and the prosecution only stoop to such lowly despicable tactics when they have no other evidence to rely upon to convict the defendant...
-
What reason did West and Bonnett have to conceal a call from Nevill?
-
What reason did West and Bonnett have to conceal a call from Nevill?
That is an excellent question. Do you know the answer?
-
That is an excellent question. Do you know the answer?
I would hardly be asking if I did..
-
Ah, just as I thought, you can't think of anything off the top of your head for why both of them should want to conceal the fact that dad 'had' called cops. But there is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer. In fact you yourself have just become a victim of the tactic used by the Prosecutor to question them during their testimony. You see, all cops and civilian employees who work for the cops all know that when you are in the witness box, only answer questions that are asked of you. Answer as often as possible with a yes, or a no, reply. Never volunteer any information that you have not been asked about...
That's what happened during the trial, they were never asked if dad had made a call to cops, so in keeping with their training they did not volunteer that information. Furthermore, defence counsel couldn't question PC West or Malcolm Bonnet about dads call because the prosecution had not disclosed the contents of both logs to them. The gist of what appears to have taken place is that the contents from the 3.36am phone log record, were being spoken about in terms of the call itself having occurred at 3.26am, instead...
-
Because it was Neville's call to the police where it was he who'd mentioned the gun collection---------and not Jeremy,the officers had been confused because of the " two " Mr Bamber's ( as this was presumably how they'd both addressed themselves ) officers decided to put the two separate calls as one Mr Bamber.
-
The phone log of Jeremy's doesn't mention firearms. Neville's does.
-
Lookout after 30 years you must join David, Trudie and Mike and step up to the plate.
David has sent his forensic evidence breakthrough to Jeremy, and Mike has posted Youtube videos on how the police framed Jeremy. Trudie is sending weekly vlogs.
Jeremy wanted this forum taken down. Posting on it does not benefit him.
-
The transcripts of BOTH phone-calls are entirely different---------meaning that there were TWO separate phone-calls made that night/early morning. Both given as Mr Bamber ! Anyone with half a brain can see what's happened.It depends whether you want to or not.
-
No, he didn't that was 'dodgy Stan' Jones trying to truck J into saying something that couldn't be true. But dodgy 'Stan' did not know that J had attempted to call Witham police station that morning but got no response, and how he had then called Julie, and afterwards how he called Chelmsford police station and spoken to PC West. Whatever J said was true, because despite what 'Stan' was trying to do, J had called cops, before, and after, he called Julie Mugford at 3.30am...
Well actually you're wrong because Jerry phoned Julie just after 3am. ;)
Took him just over twenty minutes to phone police at Chelmsford... he was in such a hurry wasn't he? :)
-
Lookout after 30 years you must join David, Trudie and Mike and step up to the plate.
David has sent his forensic evidence breakthrough to Jeremy, and Mike has posted Youtube videos on how the police framed Jeremy. Trudie is sending weekly vlogs.
Jeremy wanted this forum taken down. Posting on it does not benefit him.
Shut up you ! I'm in no mood for idiots.
-
Stop talking nonsense, J had no input in the fact that cops found two bodies in the kitchen upon entry. J had no input whatsoever in the fact that cops reported the presence of a female body in the kitchen, after they themselves had already reported the presence of dads body in the kitchen also? You are nuts to even be suggesting that J had control of cops inside the farmhouse, outside the farmhouse, and anywhere else. Cops do not get controlled by criminals, least of all someone of J's character, and intelligence back in August 1985...
Facts dear boy...FACTS!! It was Jeremy who first informed police at Chelmsford HQ of a possible domestic shooting. It was Jeremy who briefed the police on his sister and of all the guns available to her. It was Jeremy who informed police that Sheila had mental health issues. It was Jeremy who told police Sheila was quite capable of firing a rifle.
Notice the coincidences?
-
Dad did call police, its recorded in the phone message log timed, 3.26am, a log which cops and prosecution failed to disclose to the defence, the court, and the jury, because its contents contradicted their argument that if Sheila had gone crazy, that dad would have called cops, not Jeremy...
Bollocks, that's all in your imagination, Nevill never telephoned anyone.
-
That's very well-written Caroline. I am no expert on firearms but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult for someone to shoot Sheila by accident, especially as that particular gun was stiff, as corroborated in the courtroom at trial.
Of course it would, Mike Tesko dwells in la la land if he thinks anyone would believe that nonsense for a minute.
-
Well actually you're wrong because Jerry phoned Julie just after 3am. ;)
Took him just over twenty minutes to phone police at Chelmsford... he was in such a hurry wasn't he? :)
Mike has Jeremy spoken to you about his 3am phone call to Julie ? He just said 'no comment' to the police.
-
Ah, just as I thought, you can't think of anything off the top of your head for why both of them should want to conceal the fact that dad 'had' called cops. But there is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer. In fact you yourself have just become a victim of the tactic used by the Prosecutor to question them during their testimony. You see, all cops and civilian employees who work for the cops all know that when you are in the witness box, only answer questions that are asked of you. Answer as often as possible with a yes, or a no, reply. Never volunteer any information that you have not been asked about...
That's what happened during the trial, they were never asked if dad had made a call to cops, so in keeping with their training they did not volunteer that information. Furthermore, defence counsel couldn't question PC West or Malcolm Bonnet about dads call because the prosecution had not disclosed the contents of both logs to them. The gist of what appears to have taken place is that the contents from the 3.36am phone log record, were being spoken about in terms of the call itself having occurred at 3.26am, instead...
What reason would West have for not telling Jeremy that his father had already called?
-
How did the anshuzt rifle get onto Sheila's body from its original position at the bedroom window from 7.15am, onward, that's the question which cops need to be answering, no matter how stiff or easy it was to activate the trigger. Also bear in mind, that Sheila's death downstairs in the kitchen was being referred to as a suicide, by 7.45am, and then much later (after 8.10am) when her body ends up dead upstairs in the bedroom, her death is described as a suicide again once the investigation gets underway? How can Sheila have committed suicide twice, once downstairs in the kitchen, and a second time upstairs in the bedroom? This brings me on to how the home secretary at the time, hit the tabloid headlines with ' How did he fool you'? Thing is, he didn't try to fool anybody. How can J have 'fooled cops' into reporting his sisters death downstairs in the kitchen as a suicide by 7.45am, and then later the investigation into her death upstairs be pursued as another suicide? Which part don't you understand?
Just for you I will explain it in simple language.
1. Jeremy shoots Sheila second time and lays rifle along her body to make it look like a suicide. First mistake because rifle would never have ended up in that position anyway.
2. Police arrive on scene, find Sheila with rifle lying on her. Standard procedure, police lift rifle, make safe and put it adjacent to window. Photographed there.
3. After doctor inspects body police put rifle back on body where found. Photos taken.
4. Police assume four murders and a suicide.
End of story...no mystery...no conspiracy!
-
But it WASN'T Jeremy ! He wasn't the psychotic one in the family ! Nor the narcissistic psychopath,nor the one who'd claimed to be a part of the " Devil's child/ren ". Nor the one who was found committing a "deadly sin " in the fields of WHF. Nor the one who was jealous of anyone talking to his father,or Neville's attention being drawn to someone other than himself which was a three-way thing discounting Jeremy.
No, he was simply the one who planned to drug his family before burning them and the house down. Remember the robbery and arson at Osea a few weeks earlier, was that the starter ahead of the main course?
What a nice boy!
-
It's customary to answer " no comment " no matter who it is who's been arrested !! In case their words get twisted by the police---------as what happened in JB's case when he first rattled off the truth without a solicitor present. That's why a solicitor SHOULD be present,to speak for the accused.
-
It's customary to answer " no comment " no matter who it is who's been arrested !! In case their words get twisted by the police---------as what happened in JB's case when he first rattled off the truth without a solicitor present. That's why a solicitor SHOULD be present,to speak for the accused.
He did handle himself well under interrogation; nobody is denying that. But he'd had eight long years at Gresham's of imposing authority figures scrutinizing him to prepare him for the ordeal.
-
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
Lookout you must come up with something substantive on Jeremy's innocence.
Mike came up with his Youtube video last year about EP framing Jeremy, which he said he has received conmunication about. And he also said he has passed his picture of Sheila on the bed, to his legal advisors, around 18 months ago.
David has received a reply from Jeremy on his 'forensic evidence breakthough'.
Trudie is posting weekly vlogs.
Jeremy needs you to step up. Just posting on here does nothing.
Mike Tesko's claimed photo of Sheila on the bed with one bullet hole in her neck is lie, pure and simple!
-
It's customary to answer " no comment " no matter who it is who's been arrested !! In case their words get twisted by the police---------as what happened in JB's case when he first rattled off the truth without a solicitor present. That's why a solicitor SHOULD be present,to speak for the accused.
Customary? I don't think so Lookout. He first 'rattled' off his story on the morning of the murders. Are you suggesting he should have asked for a solicitor to be present when he spoke to police? If so, he might as well have put the handcuffs on himself!!
-
The transcripts of BOTH phone-calls are entirely different---------meaning that there were TWO separate phone-calls made that night/early morning. Both given as Mr Bamber ! Anyone with half a brain can see what's happened.It depends whether you want to or not.
Only one call received by police despite the myths. Jeremy didn't know that the time of his call from the farm to his own house wouldn't be recorded by BT. He had to leave the handset off to make it appear that Nevill made the call and was interrupted and also to ensure that the phone rang long enough so that he could nip home and answer it. Since the phone was then disabled Jerry had to wait for a while before phoning Julie. Not a very imaginative plan.
-
No, he was simply the one who planned to drug his family before burning them and the house down. Remember the robbery and arson at Osea a few weeks earlier, was that the starter ahead of the main course?
What a nice boy!
One robbery doesn't constitute a mass murder carried out by the same man. Arson now too ??
If JB hadn't robbed the office ( then admitted it was him ) what pedigree would he have had leading up to the murders ?
-
One robbery doesn't constitute a mass murder carried out by the same man. Arson now too ??
If JB hadn't robbed the office ( then admitted it was him ) what pedigree would he have had leading up to the murders ?
He didn't admit it was him, Julie admitted it so he couldn't deny it!
-
One robbery doesn't constitute a mass murder carried out by the same man. Arson now too ??
If JB hadn't robbed the office ( then admitted it was him ) what pedigree would he have had leading up to the murders ?
He didn't admit it though until Julie squealed on him.
-
Customary? I don't think so Lookout. He first 'rattled' off his story on the morning of the murders. Are you suggesting he should have asked for a solicitor to be present when he spoke to police? If so, he might as well have put the handcuffs on himself!!
Ask John how many arrests don't answer,or answer no comment. You'd be a fool to talk.
-
He didn't admit it though until Julie squealed on him.
It was in JM's interest to open up about the robbery,or she wouldn't have cracked on either. Soft lad had already told his father previously.
-
Only one call received by police despite the myths. Jeremy didn't know that the time of his call from the farm to his own house wouldn't be recorded by BT. He had to leave the handset off to make it appear that Nevill made the call and was interrupted and also to ensure that the phone rang long enough so that he could nip home and answer it. Since the phone was then disabled Jerry had to wait for a while before phoning Julie. Not a very imaginative plan.
The myth lies in the fact that the jury were told that there was only one phone-call when there were two.
The " nipping home " bit creases me. Speeding over rough terrain on a sit-up and beg ladies bicycle. Never !
-
Ask John how many arrests don't answer,or answer no comment. You'd be a fool to talk.
Its generally the guilty or those with prior convictions who refuse to answer.
-
The myth lies in the fact that the jury were told that there was only one phone-call when there were two.
The " nipping home " bit creases me. Speeding over rough terrain on a sit-up and beg ladies bicycle. Never !
Why do you persist with that nonsense lookout, had there been two calls made to police they would have been recorded as such and spoken to by witnesses at the trial.
-
Its generally the guilty or those with prior convictions who refuse to answer.
So in actual fact when JB was first arrested,he was telling the truth. Second arrest he'd been advised to engage a solicitor. If I'm not wrong,JB had refused the services of a solicitor when first arrested---------until the penny dropped that his words could/WOULD get misconstrued ( putting it politely ) and were.
-
Why do you persist with that nonsense lookout, had there been two calls made to police they would have been recorded as such and spoken to by witnesses at the trial.
Because there was a general cock-up of everything else,to admit to there being two phone-calls would have been the end of the trial and a few jobs to boot.
Two Mr Bambers,separate addresses ( or was it, in the minds of officers ?) which is how it would have appeared to those not expecting a call-out for a murder or an attempted one/s.
My " nonsense " is every bit as nutty as yours.
-
It was in JM's interest to open up about the robbery,or she wouldn't have cracked on either. Soft lad had already told his father previously.
And you know this because?
-
Ask John how many arrests don't answer,or answer no comment. You'd be a fool to talk.
Perhaps John could confirm if answering no comment is 'customary'?
-
I'm not sure Jeremy told his parents as such-probably more of a nudge nudge wink wink. Didn't Nevill tell the Eatons that they weren't looking for anyone in connection with the robbery..
-
And you know this because?
I read books,don't you ? Oh,you don't have Lomax's do you ?
-
Because there was a general cock-up of everything else,to admit to there being two phone-calls would have been the end of the trial and a few jobs to boot.
Two Mr Bambers,separate addresses ( or was it, in the minds of officers ?) which is how it would have appeared to those not expecting a call-out for a murder or an attempted one/s.
My " nonsense " is every bit as nutty as yours.
So you don't think West would bother to ask for the address of the caller and the address of the possible victim? Perhaps you can answer WHY West wouldn't have told Jeremy that his father had already called not 10 minutes previously?
-
So you don't think West would bother to ask for the address of the caller and the address of the possible victim? Perhaps you can answer WHY West wouldn't have told Jeremy that his father had already called not 10 minutes previously?
Because the idiot was getting confused with there being two Mr Bambers so it was easier to just mention one. Perhaps you haven't realised that JB wasn't the only one with no gumption.
-
If there'd been the technology in 1985 as there is now,there wouldn't have been a trial. Though even now,they still manage to get things wrong. ::)
-
Well actually you're wrong because Jerry phoned Julie just after 3am. ;)
Took him just over twenty minutes to phone police at Chelmsford... he was in such a hurry wasn't he? :)
No, he didn't...
That was suggested by dodgy 'Stan' Jones, pressurising Julie Mugford and her drug lodgers, to make J appear to be a liar, but it wasn't J lying, it was Mugford and the druggie witnesses of imaginary truth who lied...
-
Facts dear boy...FACTS!! It was Jeremy who first informed police at Chelmsford HQ of a possible domestic shooting. Again, no it wasn't, since dad alerted cops as per his 3.26am phone log, and as everyone is aware J's call to Chelmsford was not until 3.36am. You can pretend all you like that J was the killer, but he wasn't. How could he have killed his sister upstairs in the bedroom, when cops reported her death as a suicide downstairs in the kitchen by 7.45am. Not only that but how did J manage to use the rifle at the bedroom window upstairs from 7.15am onward, and place it onto Sheila's body upstairs, when from 3.52am, J was in the company of cops? It was Jeremy who briefed the police on his sister and of all the guns available to her. No, dad told cops, that 'my daughter has got one of my guns', in his 3.26am phone call, long before J arrived at the scene at 3.52am... It was Jeremy who informed police that Sheila had mental health issues. Sheila's psychiatrist knew all the facts relating to Sheila's mental illness years before J mentioned anything to cops at the scene... It was Jeremy who told police Sheila was quite capable of firing a rifle. it was June Bamber who told her sister, Pamela, that J had been showing Sheila how to load the rifle with bullets, long before the shootings occurred, as recounted by Robert Boutflour, so your point now is?
Notice the coincidences?
I agree..
-
I read books,don't you ? Oh,you don't have Lomax's do you ?
Yes, I do have Lomax but I guess he got that from Jeremy and Jeremy could have told him anything.
-
Because the idiot was getting confused with there being two Mr Bambers so it was easier to just mention one. Perhaps you haven't realised that JB wasn't the only one with no gumption.
Was he? I don't think so Lookout but I do know that Jeremy has LOTS of gumption. West would know the difference between the two callers and would have told Jeremy that he had just spoken to his father.
-
Was he? I don't think so Lookout but I do know that Jeremy has LOTS of gumption. West would know the difference between the two callers and would have told Jeremy that he had just spoken to his father.
Another excellent point, the devil is in the detail.
-
No, he didn't...
That was suggested by dodgy 'Stan' Jones, pressurising Julie Mugford and her drug lodgers, to make J appear to be a liar, but it wasn't J lying, it was Mugford and the druggie witnesses of imaginary truth who lied...
The independent witnesses testified to the time so wrong again.
-
Facts dear boy...FACTS!! It was Jeremy who first informed police at Chelmsford HQ of a possible domestic shooting.
Again, no it wasn't, since dad alerted cops as per his 3.26am phone log, and as everyone is aware J's call to Chelmsford was not until 3.36am. You can pretend all you like that J was the killer, but he wasn't. How could he have killed his sister upstairs in the bedroom, when cops reported her death as a suicide downstairs in the kitchen by 7.45am. Not only that but how did J manage to use the rifle at the bedroom window upstairs from 7.15am onward, and place it onto Sheila's body upstairs, when from 3.52am, J was in the company of cops
You are totally wrong about the 3.36 note passed by West to Bonnett. There was no telephone call by Nevill Bamber to anyone and what's more you can't prove there was!
-
It was Jeremy who briefed the police on his sister and of all the guns available to her.
No, dad told cops, that 'my daughter has got one of my guns', in his 3.26am phone call, long before J arrived at the scene at 3.52am.
Dad told cops nothing, your imaginary telephone call again. :)
-
It was Jeremy who informed police that Sheila had mental health issues.
Sheila's psychiatrist knew all the facts relating to Sheila's mental illness years before J mentioned anything to cops at the scene...
Not at all, Jeremy went to great pains to inform the first police responders as to Sheila's supposed problemns.
-
It was Jeremy who told police Sheila was quite capable of firing a rifle.
It was June Bamber who told her sister, Pamela, that J had been showing Sheila how to load the rifle with bullets, long before the shootings occurred, as recounted by Robert Boutflour, so your point now is?
Wrong again!
-
Was he? I don't think so Lookout but I do know that Jeremy has LOTS of gumption. West would know the difference between the two callers and would have told Jeremy that he had just spoken to his father.
That's incorrect, it's not police policy to tell informants anything about what another informant has told them....
-
So what,if JB had shown Sheila how to load a gun/rifle ? For all any of us know Sheila might have asked JB to show her how it was done. JB would have obliged but wouldn't have had a clue that his sister was using her know-how for future reference.
It's not a case whether anything is the truth or not,it's whatever is perceived according to what YOU,YOURSELVES believe.
None of us were at WHF when certain things were discussed so what makes any of us think that what we say are facts ?
All this discussion is about now is US and THEM without any thought given that there were three other adults involved besides Jeremy. ALL with an axe to grind in one way or another and ALL at the end of their tethers,so why single out one individual just because he happens to be alive ?
-
Another excellent point, the devil is in the detail.
Yes, the devil is in the detail, cops don't tell one informant (J) what another informant (dad) had told them, especially since J was speaking over the phone, and not face to face with PC West. Not only that but cops hadn't investigated what dad had told them (3.26am) by that stage (3.36am, or until after the arrival of the occupants CA07 arriving at the general scene at around 3.48am. With this in mind, and the fact that J had finished his 3.36am call to PC West by the time the occupants of CA07 arrived in Pages lane, you tell me what cops knew regarding the fact that anyone had fired a shot, or been wounded by the time J called West at 3.36am, because J certainly didn't tell PC West that at 3.36am, and dad didn't tell cops that anyone had been shot by reference to ' dads' 3.26am phone log. The facts are 'that two phone logs' existed, one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed 3.36am. It was 'never part of the prosecutions case', either during the October, 1986 trial, or the failed 2002 apoeal, that the 'contents of both these logs', related to the same call. If you have got that idea inside your head, then I for one do not know where you have got idea from. In the first call (3.26am) the informant is clearly identified as being 'dad' from the farmhouse, because he blurts out, 'my daughter has got one of my guns, and is going crazy', as opposed to the informant in the 'other' phone log timed at 3.36am, which identifies the caller as 'J', because the contents clearly state, ' your sister has got the gun and is going berserk'. Nothing could be any clearer...
-
That's incorrect, it's not police policy to tell informants anything about what another informant has told them....
Oh come on Mike!
-
That's incorrect, it's not police policy to tell informants anything about what another informant has told them....
Of course it is silly.
-
So what,if JB had shown Sheila how to load a gun/rifle ? For all any of us know Sheila might have asked JB to show her how it was done. JB would have obliged but wouldn't have had a clue that his sister was using her know-how for future reference.
It's not a case whether anything is the truth or not,it's whatever is perceived according to what YOU,YOURSELVES believe.
None of us were at WHF when certain things were discussed so what makes any of us think that what we say are facts ?
All this discussion is about now is US and THEM without any thought given that there were three other adults involved besides Jeremy. ALL with an axe to grind in one way or another and ALL at the end of their tethers,so why single out one individual just because he happens to be alive ?
That must be the worst excuse ever.
-
Yes, the devil is in the detail, cops don't tell one informant (J) what another informant (dad) had told them, especially since J was speaking over the phone, and not face to face with PC West. Not only that but cops hadn't investigated what dad had told them (3.26am) by that stage (3.36am, or until after the arrival of the occupants CA07 arriving at the general scene at around 3.48am. With this in mind, and the fact that J had finished his 3.36am call to PC West by the time the occupants of CA07 arrived in Pages lane, you tell me what cops knew regarding the fact that anyone had fired a shot, or been wounded by the time J called West at 3.36am, because J certainly didn't tell PC West that at 3.36am, and dad didn't tell cops that anyone had been shot by reference to ' dads' 3.26am phone log. The facts are 'that two phone logs' existed, one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed 3.36am. It was 'never part of the prosecutions case', either during the October, 1986 trial, or the failed 2002 apoeal, that the 'contents of both these logs', related to the same call. If you have got that idea inside your head, then I for one do not know where you have got idea from. In the first call (3.26am) the informant is clearly identified as being 'dad' from the farmhouse, because he blurts out, 'my daughter has got one of my guns, and is going crazy', as opposed to the informant in the 'other' phone log timed at 3.36am, which identifies the caller as 'J', because the contents clearly state, ' your sister has got the gun and is going berserk'. Nothing could be any clearer...
West would certainly have told Jeremy his father had called = we're not talking about 'informants'. I would like to see this argument stand up in any kind of appeal!
-
Yes, the devil is in the detail, cops don't tell one informant (J) what another informant (dad) had told them, especially since J was speaking over the phone, and not face to face with PC West. Not only that but cops hadn't investigated what dad had told them (3.26am) by that stage (3.36am, or until after the arrival of the occupants CA07 arriving at the general scene at around 3.48am. With this in mind, and the fact that J had finished his 3.36am call to PC West by the time the occupants of CA07 arrived in Pages lane, you tell me what cops knew regarding the fact that anyone had fired a shot, or been wounded by the time J called West at 3.36am, because J certainly didn't tell PC West that at 3.36am, and dad didn't tell cops that anyone had been shot by reference to ' dads' 3.26am phone log. The facts are 'that two phone logs' existed, one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed 3.36am. It was 'never part of the prosecutions case', either during the October, 1986 trial, or the failed 2002 apoeal, that the 'contents of both these logs', related to the same call. If you have got that idea inside your head, then I for one do not know where you have got idea from. In the first call (3.26am) the informant is clearly identified as being 'dad' from the farmhouse, because he blurts out, 'my daughter has got one of my guns, and is going crazy', as opposed to the informant in the 'other' phone log timed at 3.36am, which identifies the caller as 'J', because the contents clearly state, ' your sister has got the gun and is going berserk'. Nothing could be any clearer...
You obviously know very little about what 'really took place', because even when its put on a plate for you, your not able to see beyond the end of your nose. But I I will take pity on you one last time, hoping that you will see the errors of your ways...
J had nothing whatsoever to do with the contents contained in Bonnets handwriting in 'that' 3.26am 'Communications Report'. PC West contacted Bonnet at 3.26am, and alerted Bonnet to those facts, ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. There is 'nothing of any great significance mentioned in that log, which identifies J as the caller at 3.26am, 'nothing that anyone can rely on' to be able to say or prove that J was the informant at that time. But there is clear evidence that 'dad' made that (3.26am) to PC West, and that West contacted Bonnet relaying what dad had said at 3.26am. The only reference to the 'son' is added at the end of dads message in that Report. Let's look at that additional piece of information to see what it actually says:-
message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead . Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns, and .410s'...
-
Yes, the devil is in the detail, cops don't tell one informant (J) what another informant (dad) had told them, especially since J was speaking over the phone, and not face to face with PC West. Not only that but cops hadn't investigated what dad had told them (3.26am) by that stage (3.36am, or until after the arrival of the occupants CA07 arriving at the general scene at around 3.48am. With this in mind, and the fact that J had finished his 3.36am call to PC West by the time the occupants of CA07 arrived in Pages lane, you tell me what cops knew regarding the fact that anyone had fired a shot, or been wounded by the time J called West at 3.36am, because J certainly didn't tell PC West that at 3.36am, and dad didn't tell cops that anyone had been shot by reference to ' dads' 3.26am phone log. The facts are 'that two phone logs' existed, one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed 3.36am. It was 'never part of the prosecutions case', either during the October, 1986 trial, or the failed 2002 apoeal, that the 'contents of both these logs', related to the same call. If you have got that idea inside your head, then I for one do not know where you have got idea from. In the first call (3.26am) the informant is clearly identified as being 'dad' from the farmhouse, because he blurts out, 'my daughter has got one of my guns, and is going crazy', as opposed to the informant in the 'other' phone log timed at 3.36am, which identifies the caller as 'J', because the contents clearly state, ' your sister has got the gun and is going berserk'. Nothing could be any clearer...
Get real ffs. Surely you don't honestly disbelieve for a second that had two calls been made in quick succession that PC West would have said to Jerry something like...Oh! Your dad just phoned us and reported the same matter so no need to hold on while I speak to Mr Bonnett?
So laughable but predictable! You notion of 'clear evidence' is certainly laughable. :)
Nevill never phoned anyone because he couldn't...end off!
-
Get real ffs. Surely you don't honestly disbelieve for a second that had two calls been made in quick succession that PC West wouldn't have said to Jerry something like, Oh! Your dad just phoned us and reported the matter?
Of course he would!!
-
Of course he would!!
No, he wouldn't and in any event he himself was not questioned on this point because the contents of the original 3.26am Communication Report, was 'never disclosed' during the trial, or in time for the 2002 appeal...
-
You obviously know very little about what 'really took place', because even when its put on a plate for you, your not able to see beyond the end of your nose. But I I will take pity on you one last time, hoping that you will see the errors of your ways...
J had nothing whatsoever to do with the contents contained in Bonnets handwriting in 'that' 3.26am 'Communications Report'. PC West contacted Bonnet at 3.26am, and alerted Bonnet to those facts, ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. There is 'nothing of any great significance mentioned in that log, which identifies J as the caller at 3.26am, 'nothing that anyone can rely on' to be able to say or prove that J was the informant at that time. But there is clear evidence that 'dad' made that (3.26am) to PC West, and that West contacted Bonnet relaying what dad had said at 3.26am. The only reference to the 'son' is added at the end of dads message in that Report. Let's look at that additional piece of information to see what it actually says:-
message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead . Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns, and .410s'...
Now let's look at the contents which PC West jotted down in phone log 3.36am...
Where in the log recorded by PC West (himself) does it make any mention of his 'dad' having a collection of shotguns, and .410's?
-
Of course he would!!
Thank you Caroline, any idiot can see that.
-
Now let's look at the contents which PC West jotted down in phone log 3.36am...
The policeman was writing down what Bamber told him you Muppet. :)
-
Thank you Caroline, any idiot can see that.
Hope an idiot can see that in his own phone log, PC West does not make any mention of J's dad having a collection of shotguns and .410's, but that information appears as 'if' spontaneously noted in Bonnets log. Now can any idiot explain to me how such a 'glaring' inconsistency could have arisen?
-
You obviously know very little about what 'really took place', because even when its put on a plate for you, your not able to see beyond the end of your nose. But I I will take pity on you one last time, hoping that you will see the errors of your ways...
J had nothing whatsoever to do with the contents contained in Bonnets handwriting in 'that' 3.26am 'Communications Report'. PC West contacted Bonnet at 3.26am, and alerted Bonnet to those facts, ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'. There is 'nothing of any great significance mentioned in that log, which identifies J as the caller at 3.26am, 'nothing that anyone can rely on' to be able to say or prove that J was the informant at that time. But there is clear evidence that 'dad' made that (3.26am) to PC West, and that West contacted Bonnet relaying what dad had said at 3.26am. The only reference to the 'son' is added at the end of dads message in that Report. Let's look at that additional piece of information to see what it actually says:-
message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead . Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns, and .410s'...
This doesn't stand up to scrutiny Mike - I thought there might be something in it when I thought he was innocent but found it difficult to justify even then. Nevill didn't call the police because West would have told Jeremy his father had just called and he would have KNOWN Jeremy was innocent and because of that, other cops would have known the same, including Jones. This would have been the PERFECT excuse ti get the family off their back. They had no reason to frame Jeremy knowing he was innocent. The things that Jeremy has said, don't add up and if he was innocent, he would need to lie or exaggerate. He killed his family, tried to sell pictures of his dead sister, burned his parents clothes in the farm fire pit, sold family heirlooms to go on holiday and totally disrespected their memory. He doesn't deserve a second thought - he's guilty and will never get out.
-
The policeman was writing down what Bamber told him you Muppet. :)
Yes, I might be a Muppet, but at least I am not an idiot like you...
-
No, he wouldn't and in any event he himself was not questioned on this point because the contents of the original 3.26am Communication Report, was 'never disclosed' during the trial, or in time for the 2002 appeal...
He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!
-
This doesn't stand up to scrutiny Mike - I thought there might be something in it when I thought he was innocent but found it difficult to justify even then. Nevill didn't call the police because West would have told Jeremy his father had just called and he would have KNOWN Jeremy was innocent and because of that, other cops would have known the same, including Jones. This would have been the PERFECT excuse ti get the family off their back. They had no reason to frame Jeremy knowing he was innocent. The things that Jeremy has said, don't add up and if he was innocent, he would need to lie or exaggerate. He killed his family, tried to sell pictures of his dead sister, burned his parents clothes in the farm fire pit, sold family heirlooms to go on holiday and totally disrespected their memory. He doesn't deserve a second thought - he's guilty and will never get out.
No, he did not kill anyone...
Where did Malcolm Bonnet get the information from about dad having a collection of shotguns and .410's to be able to include that information in his 3.26am log?
-
Hope an idiot can see that in his own phone log, PC West does not make any mention of J's dad having a collection of shotguns and .410's, but that information appears as 'if' spontaneously noted in Bonnets log. Now can any idiot explain to me how such a 'glaring' inconsistency could have arisen?
Unless you can explain why West didn't tell Jeremy his father had just called, the whole thing falls flat. Your informant argument doesn't work Mike. John, who is an ex cop is saying the same thing and he would know. Jeremy wasn't an informant, he would be a concerned citizen and worried about his dad. However, in the end game, West would have known Jeremy was innocent and so would the others - to suggest they framed an innocent man - when they had the perfect suspect - is ridiculous.
-
He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!
Neither PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet were questioned about the entirely different contents in the two logs, on the footing that they were supposed to be the same log, albeit timed differently. The fact that these two different versions of phone log exist has nothing whatsoever to do with J being responsible for at least one version (3.26am) of them, so what he says about the contents of the 3.26am log contents, is no more the truth than anybody else can say about it. J is not god, and he does not know everything about his own case. In fact some of the things posted on his official site are ludicrous, such as that Sheila shot herself downstairs in the kitchen - what with? A broom handle?
-
Neither PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet were questioned about the entirely different contents in the two logs, on the footing that they were supposed to be the same log, albeit timed differently. The fact that these two different versions of phone log exist has nothing whatsoever to do with J being responsible for at least one version (3.26am) of them, so what he says about the contents of the 3.26am log contents, is no more the truth than anybody else can say about it. J is not god, and he does not know everything about his own case. In fact some of the things posted on his official site are ludicrous, such as that Sheila shot herself downstairs in the kitchen - what with? A broom handle?
No J isn't god, quite the opposite but I have to agree with at LEAST the above comment!!
-
Unless you can explain why West didn't tell Jeremy his father had just called, the whole thing falls flat. Your informant argument doesn't work Mike. John, who is an ex cop is saying the same thing and he would know. Jeremy wasn't an informant, he would be a concerned citizen and worried about his dad. However, in the end game, West would have known Jeremy was innocent and so would the others - to suggest they framed an innocent man - when they had the perfect suspect - is ridiculous.
First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', its unethical for obvious reasons...
-
No J isn't god, quite the opposite but I have to agree with at LEAST the above comment!!
Well, its the truth, Sheila 'did not' shoot herself downstairs in the kitchen. But if he wants to pursue that further let him, because it won't get himn anywhere. The anshuzt rifle was at the bedroom window from 7.15am, and still there when cops entered the kitchen. So, how did she manage to shoot herself with 'that' gun?
-
First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', it unethical for obvious reasons...
I once reported a break in, the cop told me it had already been reported. Telling someone that the incident is being 'dealt with' isn't giving any thng away - however, I maintain that West would have told Jeremy his father had JUST called and there was no reason to knowingly frame an innocent man.
-
First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', it unethical for obvious reasons...
As you can see, by reference to the last entry on PC Wests 3.36am message log, he refers to 'J' as the 'INFORMANT'...
'Informant requested to attend the scene'...
-
As you can see, by reference to the last entry on PC Wests 3.36am message log, he refers to 'J' as the 'INFORMANT'...
'Informant requested to attend the scene'...
Hardly surprising given that at that stage he'd had no other contact with Jeremy. "Informant" is simply generic.
-
He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!
Where are the real logs?
-
Where are the real logs?
Never never land?
-
Yes, I might be a Muppet, but at least I am not an idiot like you...
You're so transparent.
-
He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!
They all make it up as they go along Caroline but not a single scrap of any proof that Bamber could be innocent. Just myths and innuendos.
-
Unless you can explain why West didn't tell Jeremy his father had just called, the whole thing falls flat. Your informant argument doesn't work Mike. John, who is an ex cop is saying the same thing and he would know. Jeremy wasn't an informant, he would be a concerned citizen and worried about his dad. However, in the end game, West would have known Jeremy was innocent and so would the others - to suggest they framed an innocent man - when they had the perfect suspect - is ridiculous.
Totally!
-
Neither PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet were questioned about the entirely different contents in the two logs, on the footing that they were supposed to be the same log, albeit timed differently. The fact that these two different versions of phone log exist has nothing whatsoever to do with J being responsible for at least one version (3.26am) of them, so what he says about the contents of the 3.26am log contents, is no more the truth than anybody else can say about it. J is not god, and he does not know everything about his own case. In fact some of the things posted on his official site are ludicrous, such as that Sheila shot herself downstairs in the kitchen - what with? A broom handle?
OMG...I actually agree with you on that one. Nice to see you are beginning to see the light.
-
First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', it unethical for obvious reasons...
Don't be a silly Billy or should that be Mikey. The police use that tactic all the time to extract information.
-
Well, its the truth, Sheila 'did not' shoot herself downstairs in the kitchen. But if he wants to pursue that further let him, because it won't get himn anywhere. The anshuzt rifle was at the bedroom window from 7.15am, and still there when cops entered the kitchen. So, how did she manage to shoot herself with 'that' gun?
SHE DIDN'T! Jeremy Bamber shot her TWICE!
-
I once reported a break in, the cop told me it had already been reported. Telling someone that the incident is being 'dealt with' isn't giving any thng away - however, I maintain that West would have told Jeremy his father had JUST called and there was no reason to knowingly frame an innocent man.
Certainly he would have done had Nevill actually phoned the police but we know he didn't.
-
Certainly he would have done had Nevill actually phoned the police but we know he didn't.
We certainly do.
-
Hardly surprising given that at that stage he'd had no other contact with Jeremy. "Informant" is simply generic.
That's right, PC West had had no contact with J before 3.36am...
-
Where are the real logs?
Why would cops, re-write the logs?
-
Never never land?
Well, even the content of J's phone log (3.36am) were not accurately recorded according to the cross examination of PC West by Rivlin, QC, as opposed to what J talked about as per PC Wests witness statement. Why would there exist such differences, inconsistences, and contradictory information in both?
-
That's right, PC West had had no contact with J before 3.36am...
THAT wasn't the point I was making. Whatever "time" you insist on, Jeremy's status, as the only informant was "the informant".
-
You're so transparent.
Yes, but at least I'm not bent and corrupt like dishonest coppers...
-
Yes, but at least I'm not bent and corrupt like dishonest coppers...
I think it must be accepted that if all those charged AREN'T guilty of those thing they're charged with, it must also be accepted that not ALL police are what you accuse them of being.
-
They all make it up as they go along Caroline but not a single scrap of any proof that Bamber could be innocent. Just myths and innuendos.
There is 'loads of evidence' not yet heard at trial, or during an appeal. You must be deluded and frightened that if all this fresh evidence ever got raised in a court of law, that judges of appeal would be hard pushed to ignore the significance of it all. The cops that were involved in successfully prosecuting and convicting J of these murders are vile evil bastards. How could they concoct all these lies to try and convict an innocent man of such an awful crime? Despicable cops, nothing more, nothing less...
-
There is 'loads of evidence' not yet heard at trial, or during an appeal. You must be deluded and frightened that if all this fresh evidence ever got raised in a court of law, that judges of appeal would be hard pushed to ignore the significance of it all. The cops that were involved in successfully prosecuting and convicting J of these murders are vile evil bastards. How could they concoct all these lies to try and convict an innocent man of such an awful crime? Despicable cops, nothing more, nothing less...
So it's an "As you were" situation, isn't it? That which doesn't exist can't ever be produced so Jeremy's supporters have the luxury of saying, for the foreseeable future, that it's deliberately being withheld and you can continue to call the police rude names.
-
OMG...I actually agree with you on that one. Nice to see you are beginning to see the light.
I'm not agreeing with you, I am just stating a fact. The anshuzt rifle remained at the bedroom window from 7.15am, onward, otherwise cops would have reported its movement. Because they didn't, means it remained at the window, and would have been at the window when cops downstairs in the kitchen reported 'two bodies' present in the kitchen, a male, and a female. Note that a male body was reported before the report of a female body? This was 'after' cops had entered the kitchen, so this puts PC Collins nonsense to bed, once and for ever...
-
Don't be a silly Billy or should that be Mikey. The police use that tactic all the time to extract information.
J was regarded as an informant according to the contents of Wests 3.36am log, but 'not' dad...
I wonder why?
-
That's right, PC West had had no contact with J before 3.36am...
Rubbish, the first call was made by Jeremy at 3.26am
-
Yes, but at least I'm not bent and corrupt like dishonest coppers...
Just an honest burglar. ;D
-
I think I asked this question before but didn't get a satisfactory answer: at what time did WPC Jeapes see the Anschutz rifle in the window and was it before or after the Raid Team made their ingress into the Farm?
-
There is 'loads of evidence' not yet heard at trial, or during an appeal. You must be deluded and frightened that if all this fresh evidence ever got raised in a court of law, that judges of appeal would be hard pushed to ignore the significance of it all. The cops that were involved in successfully prosecuting and convicting J of these murders are vile evil bastards. How could they concoct all these lies to try and convict an innocent man of such an awful crime? Despicable cops, nothing more, nothing less...
No there's not otherwise the CCRC would have put it forward. Lets face it, this case is at a dead end!
The child murderer is the vile evil bastard in my book!
-
I'm not agreeing with you, I am just stating a fact. The anshuzt rifle remained at the bedroom window from 7.15am, onward, otherwise cops would have reported its movement. Because they didn't, means it remained at the window, and would have been at the window when cops downstairs in the kitchen reported 'two bodies' present in the kitchen, a male, and a female. Note that a male body was reported before the report of a female body? This was 'after' cops had entered the kitchen, so this puts PC Collins nonsense to bed, once and for ever...
Actually the police officer who initially looked in the kitchen window reported a female victim later changed to a male victim on entry.
NOTE: 'Changed to' and not 'In addition to'
ie One victim in the kitchen downstairs.
-
SHE DIDN'T! Jeremy Bamber shot her TWICE!
No, he didn't. You weren't there, and you are ignoring indisputable facts. Two bodies in the kitchen by 7.37am, a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. Cops involved stated that, there can be no further evidence required to get to the truth. Once a bent cop, always a bent cop. You know as well as I do, that cops fucked up big time by disclosing the police radio log messages which contain all this damning information. Worse still, despite disclosing these logs in error, nobody has come forward to deny the contents, except prosecution supporters. Er, why can't cops who passed the key messages speak for themselves?
-
THAT wasn't the point I was making. Whatever "time" you insist on, Jeremy's status, as the only informant was "the informant".
But not the caller of the 3.26am call, so he wasn't and couldn't have been the informant on that occasion...
-
No, he didn't. You weren't there, and you are ignoring indisputable facts. Two bodies in the kitchen by 7.37am, a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. Cops involved stated that, there can be no further evidence required to get to the truth. Once a bent cop, always a bent cop. You know as well as I do, that cops fucked up big time by disclosing the police radio log messages which contain all this damning information. Worse still, despite disclosing these logs in error, nobody has come forward to deny the contents, except prosecution supporters. Er, why can't cops who passed the key messages speak for themselves?
You weren't there either. One body in the kitchen, any idiot can see that!
There's nothing damning in the police logs, merely your own twisted interpretation of them.
-
But not the caller of the 3.26am call, so he wasn't and couldn't have been the informant on that occasion...
Considering there only ever was one call EVIDENCED BY THE DOCUMENTS and onlyone informant then one can quite rightly infer that it was Jeremy who told police about the guns in order to set the scene for his murderous masterplan.
-
Certainly he would have done had Nevill actually phoned the police but we know he didn't.
Dad did make such a call, hence why when PC West requested J to go to the farmhouse, he told him not to approach the farmhouse until police arrived at the scene. Now, why would West tell J not to do this if J had supplied the information recorded in Malcolm Bonnets 3.26am phone log contents?
-
No there's not otherwise the CCRC would have put it forward. Lets face it, this case is at a dead end!
The child murderer is the vile evil bastard in my book!
No, he is not evil, and he did not kill anybody, cops killed Sheila, they know it, I know it, and the whole wide world is going to be hearing about it...
Evil cops and relatives who framed him are the vile bastards, along with those who blindly follow cops like these, and those, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths...
-
Dad did make such a call, hence why when PC West requested J to go to the farmhouse, he told him not to approach the farmhouse until police arrived at the scene. Now, why would West tell J not to do this if J had supplied the information recorded in Malcolm Bonnets 3.26am phone log contents?
Jeremy reported an armed siege at the farmhouse, quite naturally West would have told him to go there immediately but stand back until police arrive.
-
I think I asked this question before but didn't get a satisfactory answer: at what time did WPC Jeapes see the Anschutz rifle in the window and was it before or after the Raid Team made their ingress into the Farm?
Just after her arrival at 7am, when she had been deployed as a containment officer...
-
No, he is not evil, and he did not kill anybody, cops killed Sheila, they know it, I know it, and the whole wide world is going to be hearing about it...
Evil cops and relatives who framed him are the vile bastards, along with those who blindly follow cops like these, and those, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths...
Yes, you've been claiming this for years but to no avail. Nobody believes you. Bamber brought his destruction down upon his own head by his own actions. He got his due desserts.
-
No, he didn't. You weren't there, and you are ignoring indisputable facts. Two bodies in the kitchen by 7.37am, a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. Cops involved stated that, there can be no further evidence required to get to the truth. Once a bent cop, always a bent cop. You know as well as I do, that cops fucked up big time by disclosing the police radio log messages which contain all this damning information. Worse still, despite disclosing these logs in error, nobody has come forward to deny the contents, except prosecution supporters. Er, why can't cops who passed the key messages speak for themselves?
Forgive the observation, Mike, but I don't recall that you were there, either...................and surely, if one is to say "once a bent copper................." one must also say "once a bent anyone................."?
-
Actually the police officer who initially looked in the kitchen window reported a female victim later changed to a male victim on entry.
NOTE: 'Changed to' and not 'In addition to'
ie One victim in the kitchen downstairs.
You don't get it do you, full of dishonesty, even in retirement. The mistake made by Collins at the kitchen window (outside) which he rectified once 'he' entered the kitchen. That body was 'only' one body, one of the two bodies reported as being present in the kitchen at that time 7.37am). Dads body reported first, followed by Sheila's body. A murder, and a suicide, by 7,45am...
After 8.10am, a further three bodies found upstairs...
-
You weren't there either. One body in the kitchen, any idiot can see that!
There's nothing damning in the police logs, merely your own twisted interpretation of them.
Once a bent cop, always a bent cop...
Cops passed the messages that two bodies found in kitchen upon entry (7.37 and 7.38am), within 7 minutes, cops were informing the control room that one of these two deaths was a murder, the other, the second death was a suicide...
Cops stated this, trained cops, who supposedly knew what they were doing...
Pathetic specimens of a human being.. Cowardly dishonest cops, bending the truth to keep themselves out of the shit. They shot an unharmed Sheila Caffell, twice, for gods sake, once downstairs whilst the anshuzt rifle was still resting against the upstairs bedroom window, and secondly, they shot her upstairs once the anshuzt rifle had been brought from the window to her body...
-
Jeremy reported an armed siege at the farmhouse, quite naturally West would have told him to go there immediately but stand back until police arrive.
Dad told West that ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'...
-
How about writing a Documented list of why Jeremy was guilty ? Factual evidence which was investigated to have reached a conclusion. ?
-
Yes, you've been claiming this for years but to no avail. Nobody believes you. Bamber brought his destruction down upon his own head by his own actions. He got his due desserts.
It doesn't matter how long I have been claiming anything. The truth is the truth, no matter how much time passes. Two bodies downstairs, a further three bodies upstairs between 7.37am and 8.10am. Nothing could be any clearer. Not just two bodies, but one male, and one female body, one a murder, the other a suicide (before 7.45am), now, which part don't you want to understand? Are you trying to imply that cops didn't pass these key messages?
-
Once a bent cop, always a bent cop...
Cops passed the messages that two bodies found in kitchen upon entry (7.37 and 7.38am), within 7 minutes, cops were informing the control room that one of these two deaths was a murder, the other, the second death was a suicide...
Cops stated this, trained cops, who supposedly knew what they were doing...
Pathetic specimens of a human being.. Cowardly dishonest cops, bending the truth to keep themselves out of the shit. They shot an unharmed Sheila Caffell, twice, for gods sake, once downstairs whilst the anshuzt rifle was still resting against the upstairs bedroom window, and secondly, they shot her upstairs once the anshuzt rifle had been brought from the window to her body...
Mike, the more you come out with these incredible imaginings, the less you're believed, because the more comes to mind "Forsooth, he doth protest too much"................if Shakespeare with forgive my paraphrasing.
-
Mike, the more you come out with these incredible imaginings, the less you're believed, because the more comes to mind "Forsooth, he doth protest too much"................if Shakespeare with forgive my paraphrasing.
I am only referring to messages that cops passed between 7.37am, and 8.10am...
You can refer to these 'facts' as incredible imaginings all you like. Not believing me about this, reflects upon the cops who passed those messages. Your suggesting that nobody should believe what the cops said, and what the cops wrote down regarding what cops had said...
-
I am only referring to messages that cops passed between 7.37am, and 8.10am...
You can refer to these 'facts' as incredible imaginings all you like. Not believing me about this, reflects upon the cops who passed those messages. Your suggesting that nobody should believe what the cops said, and what the cops wrote down regarding what cops had said...
I'm suggesting, what I perceive as being, your own amazing ability to reinterpret/juggle facts as others understand them.
-
You don't get it do you, full of dishonesty, even in retirement. The mistake made by Collins at the kitchen window (outside) which he rectified once 'he' entered the kitchen. That body was 'only' one body, one of the two bodies reported as being present in the kitchen at that time 7.37am). Dads body reported first, followed by Sheila's body. A murder, and a suicide, by 7,45am...
After 8.10am, a further three bodies found upstairs...
There only ever was one body in the kitchen and not your imaginary two.
-
Once a bent cop, always a bent cop...
Cops passed the messages that two bodies found in kitchen upon entry (7.37 and 7.38am), within 7 minutes, cops were informing the control room that one of these two deaths was a murder, the other, the second death was a suicide...
Cops stated this, trained cops, who supposedly knew what they were doing...
Pathetic specimens of a human being.. Cowardly dishonest cops, bending the truth to keep themselves out of the shit. They shot an unharmed Sheila Caffell, twice, for gods sake, once downstairs whilst the anshuzt rifle was still resting against the upstairs bedroom window, and secondly, they shot her upstairs once the anshuzt rifle had been brought from the window to her body...
You've lost the plot totally, nothing you can post will ever change the facts.
-
Dad told West that ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'...
In your dreams!
-
It doesn't matter how long I have been claiming anything. The truth is the truth, no matter how much time passes. Two bodies downstairs, a further three bodies upstairs between 7.37am and 8.10am. Nothing could be any clearer. Not just two bodies, but one male, and one female body, one a murder, the other a suicide (before 7.45am), now, which part don't you want to understand? Are you trying to imply that cops didn't pass these key messages?
You've got it all wrong. Sheila was never downstairs and there isn't an iota of evidence to say otherwise. Everybody knows what happened and why the police sent confusing radio despatches after being told they had found a female victim but later changed to a male victim. Little wonder they thought there were two bodies downstairs when there was only one and that was Nevill Bamber.
Your attempts to sow confusion and muddy the waters are pathetic, God help Jeremy Bamber.
-
I'm suggesting, what I perceive as being, your own amazing ability to reinterpret/juggle facts as others understand them.
The 'facts' speak for themselves, no amount of ability, or interpretation,to juggle anything, can alter the 'facts', as they occurred, and as the facts were 'recorded', not by me, but by the cops, themselves...
Two bodies in the kitchen upon first entry by cops, not one body mistaken for two. If PC Collins made such a mistake, he only made that mistake over one of the two bodies, not 'both of them'...
-
There only ever was one body in the kitchen and not your imaginary two.
Only, three bodies found upstairs, by 8.10am, five dead in total, by 'that' stage...
Cops, stated this, its all there in the police radio message logs...
Cops don't lie, do they?
Do they?
Did you?
-
The 'facts' speak for themselves, no amount of ability, or interpretation,to juggle anything, can alter the 'facts', as they occurred, and as the facts were 'recorded', not by me, but by the cops, themselves...
Two bodies in the kitchen upon first entry by cops, not one body mistaken for two. If PC Collins made such a mistake, he only made that mistake over one of the two bodies, not 'both of them'...
PC Collins never made a mistake, he reported what looked like a female but later found it was a male victim. Ranting on like some stuck record only makes you look stupid.
-
Only, three bodies found upstairs, by 8.10am, five dead in total, by 'that' stage...
Cops, stated this, its all there in the police radio message logs...
Cops don't lie, do they?
Do they?
Did you?
Is this what you do with the other evidence? You cannot find any evidence to support Bamber so you make it up, a bit like your claim of a photo of Sheila on the bed with one bullet hole in her neck...how preposterous. You could never produce such a photo because you made it all up. Next...
-
You've lost the plot totally, nothing you can post will ever change the facts.
Cops shot Sheila, who was 'unarmed, believe what your distorted mind wants to believe., I don't have to change anything, cops reported it, cops wrote it down. The truth hurts doesn't it?
I have no intention of changing the 'facts'. On the contrary, I am relying upon 'the facts' as reported, and documented by the cops themselves, do you understand? Cops say two bodies downstairs in the kitchen, a female body 'after' dads body has already been found and identified as the male body (not the female one). What part don't you understand? Your pathetic for taking the stance you are taking, because cops clearly stated that two bodies were found upon entry to the kitchen, and they stated thuis 'after' PC Collins could have made his mistake, and rectified it...
How could dads body, be described as a murder, and a suicide by 7.45am?
You 'thick' imbecile...
-
PC Collins never made a mistake, he reported what looked like a female but later found it was a male victim. Ranting on like some stuck record only makes you look stupid.
I don't mind what you say I look like. The facts are clear, two bodies present in the kitchen upon entry by cops. (7.37am) 'The body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry'. (7.38am) 'One dead male, one dead female'. Can you read? it clearly states that the body of 'one dead female' after reference has already been made to dads body. So, by that stage PC Collins' mistake was already resolved, he mistook dads body for the body of a female. He did not mistake the female body referred to after the mention of finding dads body, as a female body...
Once cops entered the kitchen, the body that Collins thought was female, turned out to be dad, he did not mistake the female body, for a female body. Since, whichever way you look at it, the female body mentioned could only have been a female body...
-
In your dreams!
That's what it states, in dads phone log, 3.26am...
-
You've got it all wrong. Sheila was never downstairs and there isn't an iota of evidence to say otherwise. Everybody knows what happened and why the police sent confusing radio despatches after being told they had found a female victim but later changed to a male victim. Little wonder they thought there were two bodies downstairs when there was only one and that was Nevill Bamber.
Your attempts to sow confusion and muddy the waters are pathetic, God help Jeremy Bamber.
Yes, there is evidence that two bodies were present downstairs upon entry by cops. Police logs are 'admissible evidence'. How dare you even imply that such logs are not evidence. Your losing it...
-
Yes, there is evidence that two bodies were present downstairs upon entry by cops. Police logs are 'admissible evidence'. How dare you even imply that such logs are not evidence. Your losing it...
Oh, I get it now, it's only evidence if it supports your point of view...
-
There is nothing that you or any of your followers, or supporters can say, that I don't have an answer for, yet you 'ignore' the 'facts' because you can't give a satisfactory answer...
Your losing it...
-
The problem you and those like you have got, is that 'cops found two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, one dead male (dad), and one dead female (Sheila), a murder (dad) and a suicide (Sheila) before 7.45am. In addition, by 8.10am, 'a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total'...
Cops found the bodies of the victims distributed as mentioned, according to their own police radio message log contents. The timed entries were hand written. Do cops have a habit of falsifying police records?
-
Nothing gives me a greater pleasure, than being able to expose cop corruption...
-
There is nothing that you or any of your followers, or supporters can say, that I don't have an answer for, yet you 'ignore' the 'facts' because you can't give a satisfactory answer...
Your losing it...
Mike your answers always involve exculpating Jeremy at humongous bending of the facts to his advantage at every opportunity, when as we've seen from Hillsborough and other less tragic instances the truth might be that those at the top and many others when push comes to shove are just not up to the job allocated to them.
-
I was watching 'Hillsboro' on BBC2 earlier, and in particular, the way police statements were 'altered' as part of the cover up. Somebody had drawn lines through sentences contained in the original versions of events, or been crossed out in complete paragraphs. Well, lo and behold, we have the same tactics in the Bamber case files...
-
That's what it states, in dads phone log, 3.26am...
Pure invention.
-
I don't mind what you say I look like. The facts are clear, two bodies present in the kitchen upon entry by cops. (7.37am) 'The body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry'. (7.38am) 'One dead male, one dead female'. Can you read? it clearly states that the body of 'one dead female' after reference has already been made to dads body. So, by that stage PC Collins' mistake was already resolved, he mistook dads body for the body of a female. He did not mistake the female body referred to after the mention of finding dads body, as a female body...
Once cops entered the kitchen, the body that Collins thought was female, turned out to be dad, he did not mistake the female body, for a female body. Since, whichever way you look at it, the female body mentioned could only have been a female body...
So where did this mysterious second body in the kitchen disappear to in your opinion?
-
Yes, there is evidence that two bodies were present downstairs upon entry by cops. Police logs are 'admissible evidence'. How dare you even imply that such logs are not evidence. Your losing it...
There only ever was one body in the kitchen.
-
Mike your answers always involve exculpating Jeremy at humongous bending of the facts to his advantage, when as we've seen from Hillsborough and other less tragic instances the truth might be that those at the top and many others when push comes to shove are just not up to the job allocated to them.
I have not bent any facts relating to the body count downstairs in the kitchen upon entry, by 7.37am, or the 'fact' that 'a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total'. The 'facts' are there in the police message logs, how can anyone suggest that I have bent these 'facts' to J's advantage?
The 'facts', are the facts, are they not?
-
Oh, I get it now, it's only evidence if it supports your point of view...
Confused police radio despatches is evidence of confused police radio despatches, nothing more and nothing less.
-
Pure invention.
It's not 'pure invention' as you put it, its 'fact'. Can you read?
-
Rubbish, the first call was made by Jeremy at 3.26am
The ONLY call.
-
There is nothing that you or any of your followers, or supporters can say, that I don't have an answer for, yet you 'ignore' the 'facts' because you can't give a satisfactory answer...
Your losing it...
So where is the photo of Sheila on the bed?
-
The problem you and those like you have got, is that 'cops found two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, one dead male (dad), and one dead female (Sheila), a murder (dad) and a suicide (Sheila) before 7.45am. In addition, by 8.10am, 'a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total'...
Cops found the bodies of the victims distributed as mentioned, according to their own police radio message log contents. The timed entries were hand written. Do cops have a habit of falsifying police records?
I don't have a problem. There was only one body in the kitchen and Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of murdering his entire family. That's good enough for me!
You're the one with the problem... a big one at that!
-
So where did this mysterious second body in the kitchen disappear to in your opinion?
If you can read, I suggest you read 'An Innocent Man'. ..
When you have done that, come back and lets thrash the truth out...
Your forum, versus, ours...
We could call it, the 'cup final of the forums', I volunteer to be the outsider...
-
Nothing gives me a greater pleasure, than being able to expose cop corruption...
Is that because they got the better of you in your pretendy burglary case?
-
There is nothing that you or any of your followers, or supporters can say, that I don't have an answer for, yet you 'ignore' the 'facts' because you can't give a satisfactory answer...
Your losing it...
Having an answer doesn't make you right. I don't think your answer that West regarded Jeremy as an 'informant' is satisfactory at all - in fact it's simply dismissive. We call all be dismissive - but that's a cop out (pardon the pun).
-
Confused police radio despatches is evidence of confused police radio despatches, nothing more and nothing less.
Let the cops who passed that information, 'speak for themselves in court', please. Now, I must insist...
-
If you can read, I suggest you read 'An Innocent Man'. ..
When you have done that, come back and lets thrash the truth out...
Your forum, versus, ours...
We could call it, the 'cup final of the forums', I volunteer to be the outsider...
I don't do fiction. I thought you had all the answers, its a simple question.
Where did the second imaginary body disappear to? You know, the one which everyone thought was dead but was magically able to walk upstairs and get shot again. :)
I can't wait to hear your explanation.
-
Let the cops who passed that information, 'speak for themselves in court', please. Now, I must insist...
No need, it's all very clear to most people what occurred. The CCRC certainly never found anything wrong with the police account.
-
Is that because they got the better of you in your pretendy burglary case?
They haven't got the better of me, I am not a broken man because of the corruption they employed to get me convicted. I am stronger than ever, still here doing what I do best...
Now that 'Hillsboro' is out in the open, we have the current CC of South Yorkshire police going public stating that because of the findings of the Hillsboro' inquest, that miners who were prosecuted during the miners strike (1985) at 'Orgreave Colliery' should also be compensated. So, we have now got 'Orgreave' in 1985, and 'Hillsboro' in 1989...
What about all the other 'atrocities and miscarriages of justice which occurred in
between these two events?
Oh, Look...
There's my prosecutions between 1986 and 1987, same tactics, same altering of witness statements, and the obtaining of extra notebooks so that cops could 're-write' their notes, tut, tut, tut...
-
They haven't got the better of me, I am not a broken man because of the corruption they employed to get me convicted. I am stronger than ever, still here doing what I do best...
Now that 'Hillsboro' is out in the open, we have the current CC of South Yorkshire police going public stating that because of the findings of the Hillsboro' inquest, that miners who were prosecuted during the miners strike (1985) at 'Orgreave Colliery' should also be compensated. So, we have now got 'Orgreave' in 1985, and 'Hillsboro' in 1989...
What about all the other 'atrocities and miscarriages of justice which occurred in
between these two events?
Oh, Look...
There's my prosecutions between 1986 and 1987, same tactics, same altering of witness statements, and the obtaining of extra notebooks so that cops could 're-write' their notes, tut, tut, tut...
So you werent out on the rob and it was just one huge mistake frame up. Tell me, why were you hiding in an attic when the police came to call? Most people would call that seriously bizarre behaviour?
-
Having an answer doesn't make you right. I don't think your answer that West regarded Jeremy as an 'informant' is satisfactory at all - in fact it's simply dismissive. We call all be dismissive - but that's a cop out (pardon the pun).
I beg your pardon...
-
No doubt Mike will come back with an answer to my question in the fullness of time.
-
So you werent out on the rob and it was just one huge mistake. Tell me, why were you hiding in an attic when the police came to call? Most people would call that bizarre behaviour?
That just really demonstrates how knowledgeable you really are...
Two pages 5 and 6, retyped by a totally different typewriter, and inserted into the middle of a statement which started off as a 9 page statement, which had its original page 5 'removed', had the original page 6's page number, tippexed out and altered to 7, the original page 7 had its page number tippexed out and altered to 8, the original page 8 had its page number tippexed out, and altered to 9, and the original page 9, having its page number tippexed out, and altered into 10...
The cop didn't even make his own witness statement, it was made 'for him' by another dodgy cop, who falsly claimed that he had a right to make the other cops statement for him, because they made their notes up together before they both went off duty in the early hours of 26th Januaury, 1987. But, hey, guess what, the cop who made the other cops witness statement on the premis that they had got the same notes recorded in each others notebooks which they made up together at the end of the shift, did not get his notebook issued to him until 31st January, 1987 by a Detective Inspector (Clough), so 'hey presto', cop lied on oath to the jury. Do you know what that means bozo? It means that not only did the cop not make his own statement, but the cop who made his statement for him in his absence, told 'a lie' to the court, to the judge, to the prosecution, to the defence, and to the jury, about the reason why he said he was entitled to make up another officers witness statement in his absence. He hadn't been issued with his notebook until the 31st January, 1987, so he could hardly have made those notes in it with the other officer before they had gone off duty that night...
Do things sound familiar, bozo?
South Yorkshire Police, 1987/ 1988, falls bang in the middle between the miners strike (Orgreave), 1985, and of course, 'Hillsboro', 1989...
I was on the picket line at Orgreave, bozo...
You can smirk all you like about my demise, bozo, but at least I am not a lying, evil, despicable, low life bent copper, and I will have my day of justice, sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, before cops from this region are made to answer for everything wrong that they have done to me, and others like me in their reign of terror and corruption. Bent cops in this region in this era made the law up as they went along...
I'll get my day of 'justice', sooner, or later, do you know why, bozo? Because I am still a very strong minded person. Bent cops haven't broken my spirit, neither has the fact that I served the sentences they threw at me like confetti. But I am still here, still complaining, still fighting, and that will be the case until I die...
-
I beg your pardon...
So it most certainly wasn't Nevill then.
-
That just really demonstrates how knowledgeable you really are...
Two pages 5 and 6, retyped by a totally different typewriter, and inserted into the middle of a statement which started off as a 9 page statement, which had its original page 5 'removed', had the original page 6's page number, tippexed out and altered to 7, the original page 7 had its page number tippexed out and altered to 8, the original page 8 had its page number tippexed out, and altered to 9, and the original page 9, having its page number tippexed out, and altered into 10...
The cop didn't even make his own witness statement, it was made 'for him' by another dodgy cop, who falsly claimed that he had a right to make the other cops statement for him, because they made their notes up together before they both went off duty in the early hours of 26th Januaury, 1987. But, hey, guess what, the cop who made the other cops witness statement on the premis that they had got the same notes recorded in each others notebooks which they made up together at the end of the shift, did not get his notebook issued to him until 31st January, 1987 by a Detective Inspector (Clough), so 'hey presto', cop lied on oath to the jury. Do you know what that means bozo? It means that not only did the cop not make his own statement, but the cop who made his statement for him in his absence, told 'a lie' to the court, to the judge, to the prosecution, to the defence, and to the jury, about the reason why he said he was entitled to make up another officers witness statement in his absence. He hadn't been issued with his notebook until the 31st January, 1987, so he could hardly have made those notes in it with the other officer before they had gone off duty that night...
Do things sound familiar, bozo?
South Yorkshire Police, 1987/ 1988, falls bang in the middle between the miners strike (Orgreave), 1985, and of course, 'Hillsboro', 1989...
I was on the picket line at Orgreave, bozo...
You can smirk all you like about my demise, bozo, but at least I am not a lying, evil, despicable, low life bent copper, and I will have my day of justice, sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, before cops from this region are made to answer for everything wrong that they have done to me, and others like me in their reign of terror and corruption. Bent cops in this region in this era made the law up as they went along...
I'll get my day of 'justice', sooner, or later, do you know why, bozo? Because I am still a very strong minded person. Bent cops haven't broken my spirit, neither has the fact that I served the sentences they threw at me like confetti. But I am still here, still complaining, still fighting, and that will be the case until I die...
;D you didn't answer my question about hiding in the attic?
So you are a career burglar with numerous convictions?
-
No need, it's all very clear to most people what occurred. The CCRC certainly never found anything wrong with the police account.
Why do you think the CCRC were formed in 2000?
-
;D you didn't answer my question about hiding in the attic?
So you were a serial burglar?
Get a brain, bozo...
The re-typed pages (5 & 6) which cop inserted into the body of the statement dealt with the man in the loft escaping out onto the roof, throwing roof tiles at cops, before making good his escape - bthere's nothing further to say...
-
Why do you think the CCRC were formed in 2000?
The CCRC found nothing capable of supporting Bamber and that includes the police radio despatches.
Now about that claimed photo of Sheila on the bed... are you going to back up your claim and post it?
-
I don't do fiction. I thought you had all the answers, its a simple question.
Where did the second imaginary body disappear to? You know, the one which everyone thought was dead but was magically able to walk upstairs and get shot again. :)
I can't wait to hear your explanation.
Funny, that...
You don't do fiction, yet you choose to accept that when cops entered the kitchen they only found dads body, and that when they got upstairs they found Sheila's body, without any consideration to the 'facts' reported and documented in these police radio message logs, that 'two bodies' had been found 'downstairs in the kitchen', a 'male' body and a 'female' body, a 'murder', and a 'suicide', and only 'a further three bodies found upstairs', by 8.10am, 'excluding Sheila', 'five dead, in total'?
-
Funny, that...
You don't do fiction, yet you choose to accept that when cops entered the kitchen they only found dads body, and that when they got upstairs they found Sheila's body, without any consideration to the 'facts' reported and documented in these police radio message logs, that 'two bodies' had been found 'downstairs in the kitchen', a 'male' body and a 'female' body, a 'murder', and a 'suicide', and only 'a further three bodies found upstairs', by 8.10am, 'excluding Sheila', 'five dead, in total'?
The two bodies found downstairs was an error. Shit happens...get over it ffs!
-
The CCRC was set up in 2000 to prevent cases like the Birmingham Six, and the Guidford Four, cases, reaching the court of appeal and getting their convictions overturned, thus causing damage to the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Government does not want any more 'big cases' like the Bamber case, getting convictions overturned. All the CCRC are concerned with is referring lesser known cases back to the court of appeal, on the flimsiest of grounds, to boost their referral figures, whilst the more serious cases hardly ever get a look in...
-
The two bodies found downstairs was an error. Shit happens...get over it ffs!
I suppose your also going to say, that only three bodies found upstairs by 8.10am, was also an error?
Garbage...
-
That just really demonstrates how knowledgeable you really are...
Two pages 5 and 6, retyped by a totally different typewriter, and inserted into the middle of a statement which started off as a 9 page statement, which had its original page 5 'removed', had the original page 6's page number, tippexed out and altered to 7, the original page 7 had its page number tippexed out and altered to 8, the original page 8 had its page number tippexed out, and altered to 9, and the original page 9, having its page number tippexed out, and altered into 10...
The cop didn't even make his own witness statement, it was made 'for him' by another dodgy cop, who falsly claimed that he had a right to make the other cops statement for him, because they made their notes up together before they both went off duty in the early hours of 26th Januaury, 1987. But, hey, guess what, the cop who made the other cops witness statement on the premis that they had got the same notes recorded in each others notebooks which they made up together at the end of the shift, did not get his notebook issued to him until 31st January, 1987 by a Detective Inspector (Clough), so 'hey presto', cop lied on oath to the jury. Do you know what that means bozo? It means that not only did the cop not make his own statement, but the cop who made his statement for him in his absence, told 'a lie' to the court, to the judge, to the prosecution, to the defence, and to the jury, about the reason why he said he was entitled to make up another officers witness statement in his absence. He hadn't been issued with his notebook until the 31st January, 1987, so he could hardly have made those notes in it with the other officer before they had gone off duty that night...
Do things sound familiar, bozo?
South Yorkshire Police, 1987/ 1988, falls bang in the middle between the miners strike (Orgreave), 1985, and of course, 'Hillsboro', 1989...
I was on the picket line at Orgreave, bozo...
You can smirk all you like about my demise, bozo, but at least I am not a lying, evil, despicable, low life bent copper, and I will have my day of justice, sooner or later. It's just a matter of time, before cops from this region are made to answer for everything wrong that they have done to me, and others like me in their reign of terror and corruption. Bent cops in this region in this era made the law up as they went along...
I'll get my day of 'justice', sooner, or later, do you know why, bozo? Because I am still a very strong minded person. Bent cops haven't broken my spirit, neither has the fact that I served the sentences they threw at me like confetti. But I am still here, still complaining, still fighting, and that will be the case until I die...
Oh, Look...
PS Woodcock added a page of content into his witness statement, typed out by use of a different type writer, at the very part of his statement when 'he entered the kitchen'. I suppose that's an error as well?
The truth is, bent cops are so useless at doing their job properly that they have to fabricate evidence here, there, and everywhere. Same tactics, no matter what the case they get involved in...
-
That's what it states, in dads phone log, 3.26am...
I really have no idea when it came to you that you'd appear more intimately involved and concerned by referring to Nevill as "dad" but it doesn't sit well at all.................if anything, it's a tad disrespectful given that he isn't your "Dad" and he belongs to that status of person whom you most despise. ie middle class, wealthy and a member of the judiciary.
-
There is nothing that you or any of your followers, or supporters can say, that I don't have an answer for, yet you 'ignore' the 'facts' because you can't give a satisfactory answer...
Your losing it...
Dear Mike, I'm certain, that given your penchant for word/fact manipulation, there is NOTHING you can't provide AN answer for, but the bottom line is about the truth -which you haven't yet provided- NOT about your undoubted ability to play word games.
-
You knew who I meant though, eh?
-
You knew who I meant though, eh?
The world and his wife are aware that Nevill Bamber was Jeremy's father but it doesn't earn them the right to refer to him as "dad".
-
Dear Mike, I'm certain, that given your penchant for word/fact manipulation, there is NOTHING you can't provide AN answer for, but the bottom line is about the truth -which you haven't yet provided- NOT about your undoubted ability to play word games.
Yes, I have gone a considerable way toward providing evidence of the truth. It's just that 'others' are in denial of the truth. They can't seem to see beyond the end of their own noses. The facts are clear and unambiguous, 'two bodies in the kitchen upon entry. It"s there in 'black and white' for all to see. Two bodies, including dads body. The second body after dads body has already been mentioned, I might add, in the very same sentences on two occasions, refers to 'and the body of one dead female', and 'one dead female'. No doubt whatsoever that a female was identified in the kitchen after cops inside the kitchen had already accounted for dads body. A fact reinforced by a further message timed at 8.10am, confirming only another 'three bodies found upstairs', by that stage. Two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, five dead in total...
That is the truth, confirmed in writing, confirmed by messages that were being passed from the scene back to the control room by cops, not J, not anybody who had no right to be there. Has anybody ever stopped to think about 'Why' if all the bodies had been found and accounted for by 8.10am, why it took so long for SOCO to be allowed to start taking photographs of where the bodies ended up after 8.10am? What was holding everything up inside the farmhouse for 'one hour and fifty minutes'?
-
Yes, I have gone a considerable way toward providing evidence of the truth. It's just that 'others' are in denial of the truth. They can't seem to see beyond the end of their own noses. The facts are clear and unambiguous, 'two bodies in the kitchen upon entry. It"s there in 'black and white' for all to see. Two bodies, including dads body. The second body after dads body has already been mentioned, I might add, in the very same sentences on two occasions, refers to 'and the body of one dead female', and 'one dead female'. No doubt whatsoever that a female was identified in the kitchen after cops inside the kitchen had already accounted for dads body. A fact reinforced by a further message timed at 8.10am, confirming only another 'three bodies found upstairs', by that stage. Two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs, five dead in total...
That is the truth, confirmed in writing, confirmed by messages that were being passed from the scene back to the control room by cops, not J, not anybody who had no right to be there. Has anybody ever stopped to think about 'Why' if all the bodies had been found and accounted for by 8.10am, why it took so long for SOCO to be allowed to start taking photographs of where the bodies ended up after 8.10am? What was holding everything up inside the farmhouse for 'one hour and fifty minutes'?
My Papa was brilliant at taking the headline and first paragraph of a newspaper and rearranging to to mean something entirely other than what was intended. It amused him to do it. You appear to have something of his talent but you can't blame ANYONE for not taking you seriously given the number of LUDICROUS and conflicting "facts" -TRUTHS!!!!!!!!!- that you've presented us with. A PERFECT example being the picture of "Sheila on the bed with one wound". You had it in your possession. I believe you said you nicked it from Jeremy's solicitor? -I recall, naive and trusting idiot that I was, begging you to pass it to Jeremy's team/the media. You said the time wasn't right!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then there was something about you being burgled? or was it to do with Special Branch or the KGB or Gremlins warning you off? Remind me please, exactly what WAS the outcome? Oh yes. Out of the blue came the information that Jeremy no longer needed said picture...................WHAT??? A pic of his dead -ALIVE, as you'd have us believe!!!!!!!- sister laying on a bed, genitals exposed, with only ONE bullet wound, and Jeremy no longer needs it?????????? Strange that all those agencies should have put themselves about for something so worthless don't you think? Nonetheless, you can spin a good story and I frequently find, what you say, both amusing and entertaining.............however I reserve the right to refuse to allow my intelligence to be insulted.
-
My Papa was brilliant at taking the headline and first paragraph of a newspaper and rearranging to to mean something entirely other than what was intended. It amused him to do it. You appear to have something of his talent but you can't blame ANYONE for not taking you seriously given the number of LUDICROUS and conflicting "facts" -TRUTHS!!!!!!!!!- that you've presented us with. A PERFECT example being the picture of "Sheila on the bed with one wound". You had it in your possession. I believe you said you nicked it from Jeremy's solicitor? -I recall, naive and trusting idiot that I was, begging you to pass it to Jeremy's team/the media. You said the time wasn't right!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then there was something about you being burgled? or was it to do with Special Branch or the KGB or Gremlins warning you off? Remind me please, exactly what WAS the outcome? Oh yes. Out of the blue came the information that Jeremy no longer needed said picture...................WHAT??? A pic of his dead -ALIVE, as you'd have us believe!!!!!!!- sister laying on a bed, genitals exposed, with only ONE bullet wound, and Jeremy no longer needs it?????????? Strange that all those agencies should have put themselves about for something so worthless don't you think? Nonetheless, you can spin a good story and I frequently find, what you say, both amusing and entertaining.............however I reserve the right to refuse to allow my intelligence to be insulted.
Good, you believe what you want to believe, and see in the facts what you either want to see, or for that matter, don't want to see. Have you ever stopped and thought just for a moment why J is declaring that he no longer needs one of the three photographs in existence, any further? How do you know he hasn't now got access to at least one of those three images that I have seen, and one which I did remove from the file in Ewen Smiths possession and sent to J but it got intercepted and confiscated. I don't have to prove that this took place, it certainly did take place, and when J found out about the existence of 'that' photograph having been in Ewen Smiths possession along with other photographs which J had obviously not seen before, he was 'hopping mad' that I should have sent it in to him in the guise of a 'privileged letter', (Rule 37A). He was not only angry with me for sending 'that' photograph into him, but he was mad at the time because the prison stopped his entitlement to post and receive privileged letters between himself and GDS. He was angry at Ewen because Ewen had not even told J that he had got access to all the previously 'unseen' photographs, including 'that' photograph of Sister on the bed. That photograph was confiscated along with my accompanying letter by prison security / discipline and placed into J's prison file. I ended up writing a letter to the governor at HMP Full Sutton, asking him not to hold J responsible for me sending in the photograph of Sheila on the bed, and its accompanying letter. I told him that I was still under the impression that I had 'rights' to use the privileged letter system from when I operated as J's McKenzie man back in 1990/ 1991, stating that the Home Office had not informed me that this privilege had been revoked. I found out that at the time I sent the sisters photograph of her on the bed in, that J had unbeknown to me, already been using that privilege to communicate with GDS, and because of that, for example, GDS being J's legal representative now, and not me, that J could only exercise that privilege with his appointed legal advisor at the time. To cut to the chase, my letter that accompanied the photograph of the sister on the bed, were placed on J's prison file. I do know that J himself made an application to the governor for him to be able to see the contents of the letter from me that was confiscated and placed on his prison file, and that the governor allowed him to read its contents but he was told that he could not see the photograph itself because it was too sensitive, and belonged to Essex police. Now, I'm not bothered what you choose to believe, but the sister 'was' photographed on the bed, and if what the pathologist stated that it was the second shot that killed her, I can tell you now that at the time she was photographed laying on the bed, she can't have been dead, yet. This is not me twisting words, this is me stating facts. For all you or anybody else knows, the cops have twisted the words of the facts. I certainly have not...
-
Good, you believe what you want to believe, and see in the facts what you either want to see, or for that matter, don't want to see. Have you ever stopped and thought just for a moment why J is declaring that he no longer needs one of the three photographs in existence, any further? How do you know he hasn't now got access to at least one of those three images that I have seen, and one which I did remove from the file in Ewen Smiths possession and sent to J but it got intercepted and confiscated. I don't have to prove that this took place, it certainly did take place, and when J found out about the existence of 'that' photograph having been in Ewen Smiths possession along with other photographs which J had obviously not seen before, he was 'hopping mad' that I should have sent it in to him in the guise of a 'privileged letter', (Rule 37A). He was not only angry with me for sending 'that' photograph into him, but he was mad at the time because the prison stopped his entitlement to post and receive privileged letters between himself and GDS. He was angry at Ewen because Ewen had not even told J that he had got access to all the previously 'unseen' photographs, including 'that' photograph of Sister on the bed. That photograph was confiscated along with my accompanying letter by prison security / discipline and placed into J's prison file. I ended up writing a letter to the governor at HMP Full Sutton, asking him not to hold J responsible for me sending in the photograph of Sheila on the bed, and its accompanying letter. I told him that I was still under the impression that I had 'rights' to use the privileged letter system from when I operated as J's McKenzie man back in 1990/ 1991, stating that the Home Office had not informed me that this privilege had been revoked. I found out that at the time I sent the sisters photograph of her on the bed in, that J had unbeknown to me, already been using that privilege to communicate with GDS, and because of that, for example, GDS being J's legal representative now, and not me, that J could only exercise that privilege with his appointed legal advisor at the time. To cut to the chase, my letter that accompanied the photograph of the sister on the bed, were placed on J's prison file. I do know that J himself made an application to the governor for him to be able to see the contents of the letter from me that was confiscated and placed on his prison file, and that the governor allowed him to read its contents but he was told that he could not see the photograph itself because it was too sensitive, and belonged to Essex police. Now, I'm not bothered what you choose to believe, but the sister 'was' photographed on the bed, and if what the pathologist stated that it was the second shot that killed her, I can tell you now that at the time she was photographed laying on the bed, she can't have been dead, yet. This is not me twisting words, this is me stating facts. For all you or anybody else knows, the cops have twisted the words of the facts. I certainly have not...
Which part of the cop radio message do you accuse me of twisting? That's an awful accusation to make, considering that cops passed the messages I seek to rely upon. The finding of two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, cannot in any way, shape or form, be an error. Such a suggestion is total bollocks. How can any sane person declare that (7.37am) 'the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry'? Worse still, (7.38am), ' the body of one dead male, one dead female'...
You need to quickly educate me and tell me how in the world did you arrive at the ludicrous situation that these references related to only one body being in the kitchen. Forgive me for stopping you in your tracks, but who said so? Not any cop inside the farmhouse at 7.38am, so where do you and the Looney from red forum get your delusional thoughts from? How utterly amazing that none of the cops who were inside the farmhouse at that stage, offer the same explanation as you and that clown from the red forum. I just want to get it out in the open that between you, the pair of you are just guilty of making things up, just for the sake of doing so. Nobody from the scene mentions the thing you seek to rely upon, so out of the blue you make something up, and expect everybody else to believe it...
Do you know what ' a fact', is?
Do you know, what constitutes ' evidence?
I suggest you gather your thoughts, take a deep breath, and get back to the drawing board...
-
Which part of the cop radio message do you accuse me of twisting? That's an awful accusation to make, considering that cops passed the messages I seek to rely upon. The finding of two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, cannot in any way, shape or form, be an error. Such a suggestion is total bollocks. How can any sane person declare that (7.37am) 'the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry'? Worse still, (7.38am), ' the body of one dead male, one dead female'...
You need to quickly educate me and tell me how in the world did you arrive at the ludicrous situation that these references related to only one body being in the kitchen. Forgive me for stopping you in your tracks, but who said so? Not any cop inside the farmhouse at 7.38am, so where do you and the Looney from red forum get your delusional thoughts from? How utterly amazing that none of the cops who were inside the farmhouse at that stage, offer the same explanation as you and that clown from the red forum. I just want to get it out in the open that between you, the pair of you are just guilty of making things up, just for the sake of doing so. Nobody from the scene mentions the thing you seek to rely upon, so out of the blue you make something up, and expect everybody else to believe it...
Do you know what ' a fact', is?
Do you know, what constitutes ' evidence?
I suggest you gather your thoughts, take a deep breath, and get back to the drawing board...
Nothing to forgive, Mike. You'll only stop me in my tracks if I allow you to.
Could you perhaps point me to the place at which I allegedly accused you of twisting any cop message. I feel it necessary to wonder why, if ALL those "cops" allegedly thought they saw two bodies in the kitchen, they didn't stick to the story. It also bothers me that IF there had been a female body when they first entered, it stands to reason that someone other than police were responsible. It also appears that the only proof you have is what has been told you by your alleged informants, ALL members/ex members of the police force you so despise and yet you appear to trust every word they've allegedly told you as being gospel truth whilst saying that all cops are liars, and yet you sent an allegedly HIGHLY confidential letter/evidence which could have cleared Jeremy's name through the police/prison system that you SO mistrust.
I really do feel that you need to decide on a story and stick to it without embellishment. For my own part, I've made up nothing. No stories/suggestions of incestuous relationships. No stories/suggestions of a late night foray to WHF by biological mother/grandmother. No stories/suggestions of an unnamed man hanging around to have illicit sex with Sheila. No stories/suggestions about illicit activities being carried out by the Brothers of a benign religious order causing a terrified Sheila to flee its vicinity. However, please feel free to provide proof of the afore mentioned and I will offer my profuse and sincere apologies. From where I'm sitting, John is doing no more than sticking to facts without any add-ons.
-
I can't believe that there are people who will 'not accept the facts', according to what cops themselves spoke about, passed messages about, yet who have failed to explain why such contradictions, inconsistences, and ambiguities exist, not only regarding what they said, but what they meant when they said what they said. It's no good cops saying that two bodies were found in the kitchen upon entry, if there was only one body, not two. The fact that cops have not sought to rectify that significant detail, cannot be overlooked easily. Its alright those supporters claiming there was only dads body downstairs in the kitchen, but that's not 'what it says in the police logs, now is it? These supporters of Bambers guilt, are just 'guessing', but when a mans liberty hangs in the balance over such fine detail, how dare they falsely claim there was only one body found upon entry to the kitchen, because by reference to the logs, two bodies were found. ' The body of one dead male (dad), 'and' (I think inclusion of this word here means the second body which was reported as being female, was 'in addition' to dads body, not in place of it...
-
I can't believe that there are people who will 'not accept the facts', according to what cops themselves spoke about, passed messages about, yet who have failed to explain why such contradictions, inconsistences, and ambiguities exist, not only regarding what they said, but what they meant when they said what they said. It's no good cops saying that two bodies were found in the kitchen upon entry, if there was only one body, not two. The fact that cops have not sought to rectify that significant detail, cannot be overlooked easily. Its alright those supporters claiming there was only dads body downstairs in the kitchen, but that's not 'what it says in the police logs, now is it? These supporters of Bambers guilt, are just 'guessing', but when a mans liberty hangs in the balance over such fine detail, how dare they falsely claim there was only one body found upon entry to the kitchen, because by reference to the logs, two bodies were found. ' The body of one dead male (dad), 'and' (I think inclusion of this word here means the second body which was reported as being female, was 'in addition' to dads body, not in place of it...
Well Mike, instead of trying to deposit a guilt trip on those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty, perhaps you could ponder on the fact, that had you done as I suggested in the first instance, ie sent the alleged picture -or copies of such- to the media, Jeremy, by now, COULD have enjoyed several years of freedom.
-
Nothing to forgive, Mike. You'll only stop me in my tracks if I allow you to.
Could you perhaps point me to the place at which I allegedly accused you of twisting any cop message. I feel it necessary to wonder why, if ALL those "cops" allegedly thought they saw two bodies in the kitchen, they didn't stick to the story. It also bothers me that IF there had been a female body when they first entered, it stands to reason that someone other than police were responsible. It also appears that the only proof you have is what has been told you by your alleged informants, ALL members/ex members of the police force you so despise and yet you appear to trust every word they've allegedly told you as being gospel truth whilst saying that all cops are liars, and yet you sent an allegedly HIGHLY confidential letter/evidence which could have cleared Jeremy's name through the police/prison system that you SO mistrust.
I really do feel that you need to decide on a story and stick to it without embellishment. For my own part, I've made up nothing. No stories/suggestions of incestuous relationships. No stories/suggestions of a late night foray to WHF by biological mother/grandmother. No stories/suggestions of an unnamed man hanging around to have illicit sex with Sheila. No stories/suggestions about illicit activities being carried out by the Brothers of a benign religious order causing a terrified Sheila to flee its vicinity. However, please feel free to provide proof of the afore mentioned and I will offer my profuse and sincere apologies. From where I'm sitting, John is doing no more than sticking to facts without any add-ons.
No, he is not sticking to 'the facts' and neither are you. The facts are that in accordance with these contemporaneously recorded police radio messages, that 'two bodies (not one) were 'found' upon entry to the kitchen. That's what it says, and those are the 'facts'. It seems to me that whenever its convenient to do so, those on your side of the fence, simply 'ignore the recorded facts, as though they never existed. And in place of the actual facts that are there for all to see, you people introduce a make believe story of which there isn't any truth contained anywhere in these police radio message logs to support what you allege and make up in your minds as you go along. Run that by me again, how do you make out a case for there only being one body downstairs by reference to anything that is said, in the police radio message logs?
You won't be able to find any reference there, to support your argument, basically because nowhere in the entire radio message logs does it refer to there only ever being one body downstairs in the kitchen, and four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms. The contents of these police radio logs is 'evidence', and none of the cops involved in this not being reported have come forward at any stage to say, the contents of these logs is wrong, there was an error, etc...
Despite what you think, you and the rest of your crew, are trying to turn this into, the body count downstairs and upstairs being as it is stated in cop witness statements, which outline the case, for only one body downstairs, the other four bodies were upstairs. As I say I can see what your game is, and I can see that you are reluctant to have to concede that according to the contents of these police radio message logs, that 'two bodies' were downstairs, 'three other bodies' upstairs, by 8.10am. You cannot see any further than the end of your own nose. The truth in this matter, is that raid officers have deliberately lied about the 'whereabouts' of Sheila's body when cops entered the kitchen. The message logs clearly place Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, as opposed to the witness statement contents which place Sheila on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle from the same bedroom window, on top of her body. Let me assure you, that cops could 'not' have come across Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle in her possession because lo and behold that rifle was resting close to the bedroom window and had been there ever since around 7.15am. The truth of the matter, is that stated in the police radio message logs, by 8.10am. The witness statement evidence is ' fraudulent', since cops did not find Sheila's body on the bedroom floor. The fact is, that that was where her body ended up after ' familiars' had been carried out by cops conducting a training exercise. What cops have done is unforgivable, they have substituted the knowledge regarding where Sheila's body 'ended up' at the end of 'that' training exercise, and made that location and position, as the same place they had first laid eyes on it...
This is the 'absolute truth'...
-
What an unholy mess the paperwork for this case is,with edits and lines through statements. That alone should have been questioned then put in some semblance of order. All this altering and editing of various statements tells me that all everyone was concerned about was assassinating Jeremy's character as thoughts about him being " master of all he surveyed " caused sporadic thoughts which were randomly written because there was bugger-all else to convict him with. Sheer bitterness and jealousy caused an innocent man to be incarcerated for something he DIDN'T do and he certainly wasn't aware of the outcome of such outpourings of greed and hatred.
-
No, he is not sticking to 'the facts' and neither are you. The facts are that in accordance with these contemporaneously recorded police radio messages, that 'two bodies (not one) were 'found' upon entry to the kitchen. That's what it says, and those are the 'facts'. It seems to me that whenever its convenient to do so, those on your side of the fence, simply 'ignore the recorded facts, as though they never existed. And in place of the actual facts that are there for all to see, you people introduce a make believe story of which there isn't any truth contained anywhere in these police radio message logs to support what you allege and make up in your minds as you go along. Run that by me again, how do you make out a case for there only being one body downstairs by reference to anything that is said, in the police radio message logs?
You won't be able to find any reference there, to support your argument, basically because nowhere in the entire radio message logs does it refer to there only ever being one body downstairs in the kitchen, and four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms. The contents of these police radio logs is 'evidence', and none of the cops involved in this not being reported have come forward at any stage to say, the contents of these logs is wrong, there was an error, etc...
Despite what you think, you and the rest of your crew, are trying to turn this into, the body count downstairs and upstairs being as it is stated in cop witness statements, which outline the case, for only one body downstairs, the other four bodies were upstairs. As I say I can see what your game is, and I can see that you are reluctant to have to concede that according to the contents of these police radio message logs, that 'two bodies' were downstairs, 'three other bodies' upstairs, by 8.10am. You cannot see any further than the end of your own nose. The truth in this matter, is that raid officers have deliberately lied about the 'whereabouts' of Sheila's body when cops entered the kitchen. The message logs clearly place Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, as opposed to the witness statement contents which place Sheila on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle from the same bedroom window, on top of her body. Let me assure you, that cops could 'not' have come across Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle in her possession because lo and behold that rifle was resting close to the bedroom window and had been there ever since around 7.15am. The truth of the matter, is that stated in the police radio message logs, by 8.10am. The witness statement evidence is ' fraudulent', since cops did not find Sheila's body on the bedroom floor. The fact is, that that was where her body ended up after ' familiars' had been carried out by cops conducting a training exercise. What cops have done is unforgivable, they have substituted the knowledge regarding where Sheila's body 'ended up' at the end of 'that' training exercise, and made that location and position, as the same place they had first laid eyes on it...
This is the 'absolute truth'...
It appears that you're avoiding the arguments I've raised, Mike. I WILL concede that it MAY be "fact" that whilst certain statements, erroneously say certain things, however, it far from makes those contents established facts. It is you who has raised this issue, NOT I, so who of the two of us is playing games? I notice you haven't yet addressed the point I made regarding the alleged finding of Sheila's BODY downstairs. "Body" suggesting DEAD, who do you believe shot her before the police arrived and shot her twice?
-
Well Mike, instead of trying to deposit a guilt trip on those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty, perhaps you could ponder on the fact, that had you done as I suggested in the first instance, ie sent the alleged picture -or copies of such- to the media, Jeremy, by now, COULD have enjoyed several years of freedom.
No, I did what I thought was for the best. I had previously had communication with, to and from J using the privileged letter writing system (Rule 37A) when I was his McKenzie man. So I honestly thought he would get my letter and the photograph of Sheila on the bed. I think things took a turn for the worst because on the evening I took the photograph of Sheila on the bed from 'The Senior Investigating officers album', in Ewens care which he was given access to because Ewen had applied to become a CCRC Commissioner, and the CCRC arranged it so that Ewen got to see all the previously unseen photographs. That evening J had booked a phone slot to call me, and when we spoke over the phone that evening, I told J what I had done and he asked me to post it into him. He said he was annoyed that Ewen had got access to these photographs without informing him. And J was not too happy about me seeing the photo's before he had. With J being a triple Category A prisoner, he was on the book, and all his calls were automatically monitored...
-
No, I did what I thought was for the best. I had previously had communication with, to and from J using the privileged letter writing system (Rule 37A) when I was his McKenzie man. So I honestly thought he would get my letter and the photograph of Sheila on the bed. I think things took a turn for the worst because on the evening I took the photograph of Sheila on the bed from 'The Senior Investigating officers album', in Ewens care which he was given access to because Ewen had applied to become a CCRC Commissioner, and the CCRC arranged it so that Ewen got to see all the previously unseen photographs. That evening J had booked a phone slot to call me, and when we spoke over the phone that evening, I told J what I had done and he asked me to post it into him. He said he was annoyed that Ewen had got access to these photographs without informing him. And J was not too happy about me seeing the photo's before he had. With J being a triple Category A prisoner, he was on the book, and all his calls were automatically monitored...
It didn't help matters, that on the phone 'that' particular evening that J said he was going to make an application in the morning to be able to telephone Ewen Smith up and talk to him about these photographs in his possession, and that he should not be showing 'me' any photographs without himself seeing them. I guess whilst our phone call was being monitored that the censor picked up on the fact that I had got one of the photographs, and that I was sending it in to J by post. In addition, J himself on the following morning made an application to make the aforementioned telephone call to Ewen. I don't know what J said to Ewen, or what Ewen said to J during that call, but the gist is that it must have included details of the unseen photographs in Ewens possession and the fact that I had viewed them, and J hadn't. Rest assured that his call to Ewen would have been monitored. In view of this it was hardly surprising that the censor intercepted my letter with the photograph inside on the following days post. Everything I have said about how I came into possession of the photograph of Sheila on the bed is true. I took that photograph from ' the senior investigating officers album' that was in Ewens possession with the intention of providing it to J as 'conclusive proof' that he could not have shot the bullet which killed her under the chin (the second shot) because in the photograph of Sheila on the bed, she only had what appeared to be a single bullet hole in her throat, with a very feint vertical blood flow that had dried running down that part of her neck that was visible. There was no additional wound present on her throat at that stage, so I know with 100% certainty, that J did 'not' kill his sister, because he could not possibly have fired the fatal bullet from that anshuzt rifle, because cops had control of the body from 8.30am, that morning inside the bedroom. Prior to this cops did not have control of Sheila's body upstairs at any stage. J could not have had anything at all to do with his sisters body at any time after it arrived upstairs around 8.30am. This being true, how did he shoot her on the second occasion? How could he have 'staged her body on the bedroom floor, and moved her body from atop the bed onto the bedroom floor after 9.10am? Impossible, he couldn't have, and he hadn't, nor did he do so...
Don't let it be overlooked, that the CCRC will have a record of the fact that prior to me obtaining the photograph of S on the bed, that 'the senior investigating officers album' had been loaned to Ewen Smith under 'privileged' circumstances. Secondly, that the prison authorities are obliged to keep an accurate record of all communications made by and from a prisoner of triple A category, and thirdly, that the prison confiscated my letter and the photograph of S on the bed. Her body was on the bed, and you can believe what you like. There isn't only me that saw her body laying there on the bed, Dr Craig, DI Miller, PS Adams, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clarke, and 'Annie' Eaton (who was told this by 'Stan" Jones, and, or, 'Mick' Clark, within minutes of them both having seen S's body there on the bed) as well as there being mention of S's body having been found on the bed defo' prior to 9.13am, that morning. Somebody moved the body from the bed after around 9.10am, and put it on the bedroom floor. I believe it was moved from bed to floor chiefly so that the bed could be searched for spent ammunition, and secondly because those responsible for hithching up the hem of her nightdress didn't want senior officers to see the 'prank' they had been responsible for carrying out, and photographing. J is defo' 100% innocent of killing sister anywhere at all inside that farmhouse, because S hadn't even been shot at all when cops entered the farmhouse, let alone the kitchen. Rest assured that what I have told you is 100% accurate, with no margin for error...
-
Nothing to forgive, Mike. You'll only stop me in my tracks if I allow you to.
Could you perhaps point me to the place at which I allegedly accused you of twisting any cop message. when you refer to there only having been one body downstairs not two, you deliberate 'ignore' the contents of the police radio message log contents which state that 'two bodies' were present there...I feel it necessary to wonder why, if ALL those "cops" allegedly thought Did)...they saw see...two bodies in the kitchen, they didn't stick to the story. Because at the debriefing held at Witham police station, later that same evening, cops were all told by senior officers to make sure that they all made their notes out with the bodies as shown in the video of the crime scene and in particular that the investigation that was going to be carried out was with it being a murder suicide scenario. So, cops changed the account of where Sheila's body was first come upon which was 'downstairs' in the kitchen, and adopted the scenario of her body having been found where PC Bird had photographed it on the bedroom floor alongside the edge of the bed...It also bothers me that IF there had been a female body when they first entered, it stands to reason that someone other than police were responsible.No, it doesn't necessarily mean that she was pretending to be dead, or that she had been shot at all by that stage. I think that in the context of the truth, the use of the word 'found' is ambiguous. What I mean is, it doesn't have to mean that they 'found her dead', but that they believed she was dead after she got shot during entry into the kitchen... It also appears that the only proof you have is what has been told you by your alleged informants, nonsense, there is clear definitive proof that S was downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37 and 7.38am, recorded in the police message log contents, and definitive proof that by 8.10am, her body was 'not' one of the 'other' three bodies found upstairs...ALL members/ex members of the police force you so despise be careful what you say about all the cops I despise, you can't possibly name all of them personally, whereas I can...and yet you appear to trust every word they've With the exception of DS 'Stan Jones, DI 'Ron' Cook, and members of the raid team that 'found' S's body in the kitchen when they entered, as far as I am aware no individual cops I truly despise were not involved in any way shape or form, unless you know otherwise...allegedly told you as being gospel truth whilst saying that all cops are liars these are 'your words', not mine. The simple truth of the matter is that I despise all cops who can be shown or known to have become engaged in corrupt practices. Not all cops are like that, and if the truth be known the cops that do lend a corrupt hand during an investigation, are not 'always' corrupt, they choose their moments and do it when they feel it necessary to do it, to benefit the prospects of getting a 'result', so to speak. Some people call this, ' feathering the goose, that laid the golden egg', others refer to it as ' noble cause corruption', but in truth it is an act, or a series of acts involving, ' Malfeance in public office', its dishonest, its an abuse of authority, and the cops that do these things have no lawful authority to do what they do... , and yet you sent an allegedly not allegedly, definitely... HIGHLY confidential letter/evidence which could have cleared Jeremy's name through the police/prison system that you SO mistrust. Something which I had done on many previous occasions without any bother, or fuss. J himself accepts that I sent that letter with the photograph inside with it. He got his privilege of using 'that' system of communicating with a legal advisor suspended because of me sending that 'explicit' image of S through the post along with my accompanying letter'. He made a governors request to have both, but the governor (I think it was Mr Staples) only allowed him to read my letter, he was 'not shown' the photograph that accompanied it. The contents of my letter clearly describe how I came into possession of the enclosed photograph of S on the bed, why I had taken it, and proof that I had taken it, and sent it to J under guise of the 'privileged' letter writing system that inmates and legal advisors may use. The truth is all documented in the CCRC, Ewen Smith, Jeremy and prison records, that I had the photograph of S on the bed, shot once, in keeping with the evidence of Dr Craig, DI Miller, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC Clark, and 'Annie' Eaton. You can choose to believe what you want. I would be willing to take a lie detector test to confirm what I have done, what I have seen, and what I am saying with regards to this matter, providing you pay for it because I'm skint...
I really do feel that you need to decide on a story I don't do stories, I'll leave that to all the people who don't know the truth. The thing is, I am a part of the truth in this case, because I have played a pivotal role in its investigation, seen the evidence for myself, got some of the evidence from the investigation in my possession, met and discussed in fine detail the various other key characters who have also been involved in these investigations, and inquiries, including J, himself, Rivlin, QC, Ewen Smith, Andrew Hunter, Roger Wilkes, the Relatives, and three ex cops who were their at the scene on the morning of the siege. I may not be directly involved with J now, but I am still part of the general movement aimed at ensuring that J gets his day of justice. You can believe what you want to. Mine is not a story, its a recitation of true events, involving real people, and items of evidential value. I feel overwhelmed at the number of web sites that have sprung up since those early days back at HMP Full Sutton, when J only had me to talk too, and to confide in. Now, there's loads and loads of people taking an interest in his plight, and I am so glad...and stick to it without embellishment. what do you mean, by embellishment? For my own part, I've made up nothing. neither have I...No stories/suggestions of incestuous relationships now, there's a funny thing, 'cos neither have I. If you are insinuating that I made it up, your wrong, because I had discussions with J himself about this... No stories/suggestions of a late night foray to WHF by biological mother/ggrandmotherSome evidence does exist in the police file of such a possibility having occurred, but its a matter of personal choice whether anybody wants to read into that further... No stories/suggestions of an unnamed man hanging around Let's get something straight. It is recorded that an 'unidentified male' was seen by PC Myall at the scene at 3.45am. According to an article published in the Daily Express by Kim Sengupta, this unidentified male had been hanging around outside the farmhouse for about an hour after cops arrived at the scene, before this man, who was described as scruffy looking and having hunched shoulders, walked away from the farmhouse in the general direct of Prentice farm. Now, that is what the records show, so don't be accusing me of making up anything to do with this. Concentrate on why the cops covered up the true circumstances of S's death upstairs in the bedroom, not downstairs in the kitchen... to have illicit sex with Sheila. No stories/suggestions about illicit activities being carried out by the Brothers of a benign religious order causing a terrified Sheila to flee its vvicinity. not stories, as you choose to put it. There is evidence in the police file, that S had a link to the monastery in question, two witnesses, one a delivery driver who regularly delivered goods to the monastery in question, the other witness a member of the public who had to hide behind a tree on a footpath when he heard and then saw an hysterical S running along the trail screaming obscenities as she ran along the footpath beyond him, and out of sight. The witness described this experience of 'putting the fear of god in him'... However, please feel free to provide proof of the afore mentioned and I will offer my profuse and sincere apologies. From where I'm sitting, John is doing no more than sticking to facts no, he is not. He completely ignores the 'evidence' of two bodies being present downstairs, and only three bodies being upstairs by 8.10, as confirmed, and documented in the form of the police radio message log contents. He chooses to rely upon what cops wrote in their witness statements which 'do not state' of whereabouts the officers themselves were inside the farmhouse at key times, such as 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.41am, 7.42am, 7.45am, and 8.10am. The 'evidence' contained in the radio logs do... without any add-ons. The facts are the facts, and I shall reiterate once more, what the basic facts are, without add on's, for your sake. In a nutshell, it comes down to this...
There are two different versions relating to where bodies 'were' when police entered the farmhouse, (1) - contents of police radio message log, and (2) - witness statement accounts. In the former, it only deal with where the body count was distributed inside the house at first contact with the bodies of the victims until and up to 8.10am. It is stated categorically that by 8.10am two bodies were present in the kitchen, and that a further three bodies were found upstairs, making five dead in total. From timed information contained in other message logs, it also states that at 7.42am, that morning a request was passed for the police surgeon, and the coroners officer, and the Divisional chief Superintendent to be notified that 'two Bodies' had been already found at the scene ( no mention of any of the other three bodies by this time). It states that one of the two bodies which were present in the kitchen at 7.37am and 7.38am, was a male body, and 'that' the second body in the kitchen was that of a 'female'. So it is a 'big' clue, that the reference 'in these timed messages' to two bodies is accurate, because these bodies are confirmed by the evidence in these contemporaneously recorded logs, that one of these two bodies was a male body, whilst the other body, the second one, was a female. That's not all because just prior to the control room contacting DS Davidson at home at 7.45am, the control room receives information from the scene, that relating to the two bodies already reported, that one of these deaths is reported to be a murder, whilst the other death being described as a suicide. Now, we know because it is documented with timed events, that when cops entered the kitchen there 'were' two bodies, one of these bodies was a male, the other body was a female. One of these two bodies was being described as a murder, the second body being referred to by 7.45am as a suicide. In a nutshell, the male body, was clearly a reference to dad, who had been murdered, and the reference to a female, was clearly a reference to S, who was thought to have committed suicide...
The second version of events, contained in the form of witness statements made by cops, describes only finding the body of dad downstairs in the kitchen, with June, S, and the children all upstairs. But the truly odd thing about each and all if these witness statements, is that the finding of dads body downstairs in the kitchen is not timed, nor are the find of the other four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms...
There's an old saying, ' if you want to know the time ask a policeman'...
Well, not in this case. You see cops in the witness statements do not mention specific timed events (for a reason). That reason is because Sheila's body was originally present downstairs in the kitchen from 7.37am until 8.10am. It was not relocated upstairs on the bed in the same bedroom where mums body had originally been found at 8.10am, until 8.30am. There was a period of about 15 minutes, between 8.15am and 8.30am, when cops did not 'have a clue' of the whereabouts inside the entire farmhouse S might be, other than she was not in the kitchen where she had originally been suspected of having committed suicide. Now, it seems to me that getting at the real truth may involve finding out what DCI 'George' Harris was talking to ACC 'Peter Simpson about using the kitchen phone for a duration of 15 minutes, between 8.15am, and 8.39am. To me obtaining the notes which deal with the topic of conversation which occurred at such a pivotal stage of the police operation ongoing inside the farmhouse at that stage, which if the truth be known as accepted as the real truth, involved how the circumstances explaining why the body count between the police radio message log account, up to and by 8.10am 'had been two bodies downstairs in kitchen, three bodies upstairs in bedroom', had become dramatically changed and became a scenario akin to that described in the witness statement accounts which describe only one body downstairs in the kitchen, and now four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms. Those crucial key moments between 8.10am, and 8.44am when Miller and Dr Craig saw S's body on the far side of the bed, with a single bullet wound to the throat, is J's 'Alibi', there waiting to be explored, and discovered. Everything that matters occurred at the scene, inside that farmhouse between 8.10am and 8.44am, that morning...
-
. . . what was being argued about during the trial, involving testimony from Malcolm Bonnet who told the court that at 3.26am he was contacted by PC West.
I don't recall that you've mentioned that before. What proof do you have that Mr Bonnett testified in person at Jeremy's trial?
Pc West consulted his log of Jeremy's call at trial, but what makes you think the jury were given a copy of that log?
-
Well actually you're wrong because Jerry phoned Julie just after 3am.
That's an opinion, not an established fact. Julie estimated at the time that the call occurred later, and her flatmates never agreed about the time of the call.
-
Facts dear boy...FACTS!! It was Jeremy who first informed police at Chelmsford HQ of a possible domestic shooting.
That's not a fact. Jeremy called Chelmsford police station, not Chelmsford police HQ, and he didn't report a possible domestic shooting.
-
Mike has Jeremy spoken to you about his 3am phone call to Julie ? He just said 'no comment' to the police.
That's untrue. Jeremy told the police that he telephoned Julie from his house at about 3.25a.m.
-
What reason would West have for not telling Jeremy that his father had already called?
He didn't need a reason for not doing something. He had no reason to tell him. How would saying "I've just heard about this from your father. Don't worry, we've already sent police to investigate . . . we're treating it as a domestic." help Jeremy or the police?
-
I don't recall that you've mentioned that before. What proof do you have that Mr Bonnett testified in person at Jeremy's trial?
Pc West consulted his log of Jeremy's call at trial, but what makes you think the jury were given a copy of that log?
J was provided with a full transcript of all the witness testimonies who gave evidence during his trial. I have a schedule amongst the documents in my possession naming all of them, and I have transcripts of the evidence in chief and their cross examination. I will look to see if Malcolm Bonnet testified, or if his witness statement was accepted by both parties, and tended...
I believe the judge mentioned something about that in his summing up...
-
He had to leave the handset off . . . to ensure that the phone rang long enough so that he could nip home and answer it. Since the phone was then disabled Jerry had to wait for a while before phoning Julie.
Jeremy couldn't possibly have made it home quickly enough to find that his telephone was still ringing. He wouldn't have had to wait to be able to dial out either.
-
J was provided with a full transcript of all the witness testimonies who gave evidence during his trial. I have a schedule amongst the documents in my possession naming all of them, and I have transcripts of the evidence in chief and their cross examination. I will look to see if Malcolm Bonnet testified, or if his witness statement was accepted by both parties, and tended...
I believe the judge mentioned something about that in his summing up...
l may be able to lay my hands on the aforementioned list by the end of tomorrow. I will photo' the complete list if I do..
-
I have previously said that J had no recollection of specific timings for when certain events happened, but that he could remember the sequence of events in which they happened. I questioned him thoroughly to try to nail him down on timings, but to no avail. What I did learn from carrying out these exercises was that during his interview, and by various references to mention of the time a phone call was received, or made, was that 'other people' were responsible for introducing the time events happened. During his interviews 'Stan' Jones tried his darndest to catch J out by trying to confuse him regarding the time he called his girlfriend. Was it before he had contacted police or after, and vice versa? This tactic of altering the time, even transcended into the question of the timing of J's 3.36am call to PC West, for example, was it at 3.26am, instead?
-
Your score for the above is as follows:-
Word smithing 9 out of 10
Factual accuracy 2 out of 10.
-
My facts are accurate, its just that everybody in the ' Bamber is guilty camp' ignore them because to acknowledge such 'facts' is suicidal to their own arguments and beliefs...
-
My facts are accurate, its just that everybody in the ' Bamber is guilty camp' ignore them because to acknowledge such 'facts' is suicidal to their own arguments and beliefs...
You're within your rights to hold that your "facts" are factually accurate. I and others are within our own rights to believe them otherwise.
-
One thing that I pride myself in, is that I consider 'all the facts'. Take the body count, 'downstairs' and 'upstairs'. I rely upon the information contained in the police radio message logs (two bodies downstairs, a further three bodies upstairs, between 7.37am and 8.10am), and the witness statement versions bearing ' untimed' references to the body count (one body downstairs, four bodies upstairs) to explain how this transition of 'one female from downstairs in the kitchen' to 'upstairs in the bedroom' occurred. Whereas, those in the 'Bamber is guilty camp', only rely on the latter. The true position is as follows, the contents of the police radio message logs, and information passed between cops at the scene and elsewhere between 7.37am and 8.10am is 100% accurate and reliable. The female downstairs in the kitchen was S, and later when the body count ' altered' and 'changed' from three bodies upstairs until 8.10am, into four bodies upstairs with the inclusion of S's body, from 8.30am (with absolute certainty) onward. Cop witness statements were not entirely accurate or honest, because at the debrief held at Witham police station that evening, senior officers who had knowledge about the migration of S's body from the kitchen to the bedroom, and from the bed in the bedroom, to the bedroom floor, where S eventually ended up and her body photographed there with the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window now upon her body, instructed all those present to make their notes up, as though the bodies had been found upon entry in the positions they ended up in, as per PC Birds crime scene photographs. This is why in the witness statement versions they claim they found S's body upstairs on the bedroom floor with the rifle on her body, and they deliberately do not include her body ever being present downstairs in the kitchen at all, or how for about a period of 15 minutes (between 8.15am and 8.30am), cops didn't know the 'whereabouts' inside the farmhouse S was, because once senior officers, Harris, Gibbons and Montgomery entered the kitchen at 8.15am after the 'all clear' message had been relayed to the forward control point by the search team inside the farmhouse, 'five dead in total', the named officers, went to survey the reported carnage, only to be met with dads body in the kitchen, not dads and daughters bodies. This was very serious, because now they had three 'unarmed' senior cops, trapped in the kitchen with dads body, and nobody had a clue of the 'whereabouts' of S or if she had armed herself with a loaded weapon in the meantime. I can tell you all now, that these senior officers were terrified, to find themselves trapped there in the kitchen, believing that the daughter might come back into the kitchen at any moment and shoot them all, and none of them had a weapon with which to defend themselves. It was possible for S to come back into the kitchen through three separate doors (1) - the door leading into the back hallway, on the 'den' side of the main kitchen (this was the door the raid team had entered, and later the three senior officers), this door opened inward on the kitchen side. (2) - the door to the set of spiral stairs (this door opened inward of the main kitchen) that provided access to the upstairs landing, and (3) - the door that led to the front hallway (through which the team of firearm officers had gone through to search other parts of the house, earlier)...
Now, I have already told you all that once the senior officers got into the kitchen (through door 1) and discovered the daughter 'missing', that DCI Harris used the cream coloured telephone in the kitchen to call ACC 'Peter' Simpson directly and give him a 'one to one', regarding how the operation had 'just gone pershaped'. Well, all of that is true, and I have reported these 'facts' accurately. I can also tell you, that upon sudden realisation that these three senior cops had got themselves caught up in what surely must have been a 'terrifying' experience, with Harris on the phone to Simpson, the other two (Montgomery and Gibbons) set about trying to 'block off access to the kitchen at two of the three aforementioned doors, (1) and (2), by jamming a large wooden chair against door (1), and shoving the kitchen table against door (2). In addition, it was they who placed clothing, a towel and seat cushions on the kitchen floor to contain the spread of blood on the kitchen floor that had spilled from dads head wounds, down the side of the coal hod...
-
What did Harris and Simpson talk about over the phone for 15 minutes between 8.15am and 8.30am?
-
What did Harris and Simpson talk about over the phone for 15 minutes between 8.15am and 8.30am?
Whatever it was, Gibbons and Montgomery overheard everything Harris was saying, and no doubt they concurred with whatever Harris was saying or describing about the current state of play they all found themselves in. I have it on good authority that part of that conversation involved mention of P'S Adams role as the Commander in the operation', how he had failed to police the raid adequately, and that the daughter had obviously not been killed as was first reported. From 'that' point onward, PI Montgomery took charge and became 'Commander' of the ongoing operation in the hunt to find the whereabouts inside of the farmhouse was the daughter. The mistakes that were made in the first part of the operation between 7.37am, and 8.10am, under Adams leadership, and the fact that within moments of senior officers entering the kitchen at 8.15am, and discovering the daughter no longer present, how Adams post as the Commander' was immediately curtailed, with 'Montgomery' taking over, was a source of bad feeling later on between Adams and Montgomery, that erupted at the debrief held later that same evening...
-
Adams was 'not a happy bunny' by the time the debrief came around later that same evening...
He had 'good reason' to feel annoyed, because at all times during the first part of the operation from 7am onwards to 8.15am when he got 'relieved of his duty', senior officers, at one time or another had been present alongside him at the forward control point, including Harris, Gibbons, DCI Clarke, and of course, PI Montgomery, himself. Adams reasoned, according to my source, that he was being 'singled out' to take the responsibility for the significant 'blunders' outlined, up to the cut off time of 8.15am, which culminated in three 'unarmed' senior officers becoming terrifyingly 'trapped' in the kitchen at peril of being shot at by the daughter, whose whereabouts at 'that' stage, was 'unknown'...
At the debrief Adams tried to exercise power over the senior officers who addressed the group, by pointing out that 'when he viewed S's body upstairs in the bedroom, she was laid in a different position relative to the edge of the bed, and the bedside cabinet, than when it was photographed an hour afterwards by PC Birds in his crime scene photographs. This annoyed the senior officers who were present and that was when they instructed everybody to make up their notes, as though they had first found each of the five victims in the positions shown in PC Birds photographs. This upset Adams, and he made a point of mentioning that it was 'wrong' of the senior officers to be telling all those present how to make up their notes about how the raid had ran smoothly when it obviously hadn't. He said that the photographic images showing the daughter laid by the edge of the bed on the floor in possession of the weapon was not how he remembered it. He stated that he had no recollection of the rifle being present upon the daughters body when he saw it. Senior officers took him to one side and had a word with him privately before the end of the debrief. They told him that dealing with the matter as 'they' were suggesting was the best way forward, for all concerned. It was to 'his benefit', they said, ' in the long run', that everybody was seen to be pulling together in the same direction over where the bodies had been 'discovered' by the officers when they went into that farmhouse. They needed to 'exclude anything and everything regarding reference to the daughters body being downstairs in the kitchen', at any time after cops set foot in the door', they told him. It was for 'his own good', they said, 'we are doing this, with a view to protecting you in any future disciplinary action being brought against you', they told him, ' now buckle down and toe the line, for everyone's sake'...
Reluctantly, he did...
-
Privately, many of those present resented being told what they could include in their notes, and what they couldn't. But when Adams later recited to them the gist of what senior officers had spoken to him about when he had been taken to one side. Everyone of them were 'happy to go along with it', if it helped 'him' dodge a disciplinary charge...
-
Adams wasn't to blame...
Officers who were present inside the farmhouse ' let him down'...
-
Adams wasn't to blame...
Officers who were present inside the farmhouse ' let him down'...
But, if they let 'him' down, he was 'not' responsible, since, at 'all' times he was in the company of Harris, Gibbons, Montgomery, and others...
-
It is very significant and telling, that the 'time' members of the raid team discovered each of the bodies of the five victims is 'ommitted from all of the witness statements made by raid team firearm officers. Yet, in DR Craig's witness statement he refers to the 'time' of 8.44am, when he pronounced S as being certified 'dead'. Her body being described as being, 'on the far side of the bed', upstairs in the main bedroom, sporting a single bullet wound in the throat by 'that' stage...
-
It is very significant and telling, that the 'time' members of the raid team discovered each of the bodies of the five victims is 'ommitted from all of the witness statements made by raid team firearm officers. Yet, in DR Craig's witness statement he refers to the 'time' of 8.44am, when he pronounced S as being certified 'dead'. Her body being described as being, 'on the far side of the bed', upstairs in the main bedroom, sporting a single bullet wound in the throat by 'that' stage...
No-one provides any information, about 'how' S's body, ended up on the 'far side of the bed' upstairs in the main bedroom, by 8.44am, from its reported earlier location downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, and 7.38am...
-
Confirmation, that a request for 'the police surgeon' to attend the scene (whf) in a radio message, 'timed' at 7.42am, in relation to the 'discovery' of only two of the five bodies, 'exists. These being the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen, as per the entries at 7.37am, and 7.38am, ' the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.37am), ' one dead male, one dead female (7.38am)...
-
Within 3 minutes of (7.42am) the police surgeon being summoned to attend the scene at whf relating to 'two bodies', a female employee working in the control room, named, 'Linda' was contacting DS Davidson at his home address by telephone, requesting him to 'come into the office ASAP because cops were dealing with a situation at whf involving, 'a murder', and ' a suicide'...
-
Confirmation, that a request for 'the police surgeon' to attend the scene (whf) in a radio message, 'timed' at 7.42am, in relation to the 'discovery' of only two of the five bodies, 'exists. These being the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen, as per the entries at 7.37am, and 7.38am, ' the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.37am), ' one dead male, one dead female (7.38am)...
By this stage, cops inside the farmhouse had not yet ventured upstairs to find the 'other' three bodies (June Bamber, and her two grandchildren)...
-
Within 3 minutes of (7.42am) the police surgeon being summoned to attend the scene at whf relating to 'two bodies', a female employee working in the control room, named, 'Linda' was contacting DS Davidson at his home address by telephone, requesting him to 'come into the office ASAP because cops were dealing with a situation at whf involving, 'a murder', and ' a suicide'...
By this stage, cops inside the farmhouse had not yet ventured upstairs to find the 'other' three bodies (June Bamber, and her two grandchildren)...
-
I am just about to start checking to find the witness list for those who testified during the October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial...
-
I am just about to start checking to find the witness list for those who testified during the October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial...
Good luck with that, you'll need it.
-
Good luck with that, you'll need it.
Well, because of your attempt to force me to post the list up, trying to think you can decide when I post up the full listings, I am now not going to be posting that information, 'until I am ready'. You don't control what I do, or what I say...
-
By the way, I have already found that information, so that's put you back in your red hole...
-
What I am prepared to do, in the meantime, is post up an extract from'Barbara Wilsons', witness statement, dated, 16th December, 1985. With particular reference to her sensing that when she telephoned 'dad' at 9.30pm, on the evening before trhe shootings, she thought that she might have called at the time of 'some sort of argument going on'...
-
So, here is 'independent evidence', that things were possibly 'not right' with the family back at whf, after J had left to go home...
-
So, here is 'independent evidence', that things were possibly 'not right' with the family back at whf, after J had left to go home...
This account given by Barbara Wilson, corroborates J's account that the family were arguing in the kitchen before he left to go home. J described this as a 'heated argument' over S's ability to 'look after her own children properly'...
This is very interesting, since half an hour later, at about 10 O'clock Pamela Boutflour speaks to June Bamber on the phone, and June tells Pamela (her sister) that she, along with Sheila and her boys were coming round for tea on the following day, and that June wanted to speak to Pam' about Sheila, because June told Pamela that Sheila was behaving very 'oddly' at the moment, and that she wanted to have a word with her sister about her...
-
So, here is 'independent evidence', that things were possibly 'not right' with the family back at whf, after J had left to go home...
The key word, of course, being "possibly" and we're all fully aware of how reliable a witness BW turned out to be.
-
This account given by Barbara Wilson, corroborates J's account that the family were arguing in the kitchen before he left to go home. J described this as a 'heated argument' over S's ability to 'look after her own children properly'...
This is very interesting, since half an hour later, at about 10 O'clock Pamela Boutflour speaks to June Bamber on the phone, and June tells Pamela (her sister) that she, along with Sheila and her boys were coming round for tea on the following day, and that June wanted to speak to Pam' about Sheila, because June told Pamela that Sheila was behaving very 'oddly' at the moment, and that she wanted to have a word with her sister about her...
Yes, I expect June would see as being rather odd Sheila's lack of energy and lack of interest in all things, including her own children. It would have put much more work onto June.
-
The key word, of course, being "possibly" and we're all fully aware of how reliable a witness BW turned out to be.
It's evidence, its contained in a witness statement. If a witness tells deliberate lies in such a witness statement, they 'might be liable to prosecution', if the statement in question is relied upon in court, if they have wilfully stated anything which they know not to be true...
Why would 'she make something up' like that?
-
Yes, I expect June would see as being rather odd Sheila's lack of energy and lack of interest in all things, including her own children. It would have put much more work onto June.
And so, this adequately fits in with what J said regarding other members of his family having heated words (at the time he left the farmhouse) over S's inability to be able to look after her two little boys, all by herself...
-
At least, I am satisfied with what J has said. There was an distinct attitude sensed during 'Jean Boutells' 9.30pm call to dad, that evening, and in 'Pamela Boutflours' call to her sister 'June' half an hour or so, later...
-
It's evidence, its contained in a witness statement. If a witness tells deliberate lies in such a witness statement, they 'might be liable to prosecution', if the statement in question is relied upon in court, if they have wilfully stated anything which they know not to be true...
Why would 'she make something up' like that?
MIKE!!!!! Are you suggesting people DON'T tell deliberate lies on the witness stand? Of course, it can be argued that it was just the truth as they believed it to be.
-
And so, this adequately fits in with what J said regarding other members of his family having heated words (at the time he left the farmhouse) over S's inability to be able to look after her two little boys, all by herself...
Well, it certainly formed part of the story he wanted to present.
-
At least, I am satisfied with what J has said. There was an distinct attitude sensed during 'Jean Boutells' 9.30pm call to dad, that evening, and in 'Pamela Boutflours' call to her sister 'June' half an hour or so, later...
And let me take the opportunity to clear other things up whilst I am in the mood...
Sheila did have a social worker, and child minders, all the information is in the file in my possession. Social services had been involved with Sheila, and her two boys previously...
-
Well, it certainly formed part of the story he wanted to present.
It wasn't 'a story', it was 'factual'...
-
Then of course, there is the matter of June Bambers nightdress (ND/5)...
-
And let me take the opportunity to clear other things up whilst I am in the mood...
Sheila did have a social worker, and child minders, all the information is in the file in my possession. Social services had been involved with Sheila, and her two boys previously...
Who ever said she didn't? That's hardly new information and it's certainly not been a secret.
-
It wasn't 'a story', it was 'factual'...
But it can't be proved, can it?
-
Then of course, there is the matter of June Bambers nightdress (ND/5)...
By reference to a submission of articles form, sent from Essex police to Huntingdon Lab' on the 30th September, 1985, Lab' item No. 111, ND/6 was a nightdress, taken from the body of June Bamber at 1145 hours on the 8th August, 1985, by DS Davidson at Chelmsford Hospital Mortuary, with instructions to 'examine the nightdress for bullets holes'...
However, in a witness statement made by DS Davidson, dated the 24th October, 1985, and DS Davidson, describes exhibit ND/6 as being 'the head, hands and feet bags, taken from June Bamber'. Elsewhere, documents exist that the nightdress being worn by June Bamber, had been sent along to the lab' to be examined, contained in the aforementioned heavily bloodstained bags, which was 'rejected by the lab' at 'that' stage, and returned to Essex police. Now this is very interesting, since it appears to show support that police officers abused the bodies of victims at the scene, undressing them, or arranging their positions in a provocative manner, as touched upon by J himself, who has accused the police of abusing the bodies of his family and using them as props in a stage production...
The 'head, hands and feet bags were placed upon June Bambers body at the scene, on the 7th August, 1985. So how did her nightdress end up inside these, later?
-
By reference to a submission of articles form, sent from Essex police to Huntingdon Lab' on the 30th September, 1985, Lab' item No. 111, ND/6 was a nightdress, taken from the body of June Bamber at 1145 hours on the 8th August, 1985, by DS Davidson at Chelmsford Hospital Mortuary, with instructions to 'examine the nightdress for bullets holes'...
However, in a witness statement made by DS Davidson, dated the 24th October, 1985, and DS Davidson, describes exhibit ND/6 as being 'the head, hands and feet bags, taken from June Bamber'. Elsewhere, documents exist that the nightdress being worn by June Bamber, had been sent along to the lab' to be examined, contained in the aforementioned heavily bloodstained bags, which was 'rejected by the lab' at 'that' stage, and returned to Essex police. Now this is very interesting, since it appears to show support that police officers abused the bodies of victims at the scene, undressing them, or arranging their positions in a provocative manner, as touched upon by J himself, who has accused the police of abusing the bodies of his family and using them as props in a stage production...
The 'head, hands and feet bags were placed upon June Bambers body at the scene, on the 7th August, 1985. So how did her nightdress end up inside these, later?
Well, he would (suggest such), wouldn't he?
-
Well, he would (suggest such), wouldn't he?
The evidential value of June Bambers nightdress (ND/5) ending up inside the body bags (ND/6) was ruined by cops...
-
How had June Bambers blue nightdress (ND/5) managed to get inside the body bags (ND/6)?
-
There's another thing that I want to clear up, and that is, no matter what J is saying now, at the time the news was broken to him that all his family were dead at the scene, and later on, he believed in his own mind that cops had kept things back from him, and he genuinely believed in his own mind that cops had shot dead members of his family...
-
There's another thing that I want to clear up, and that is, no matter what J is saying now, at the time the news was broken to him that all his family were dead at the scene, and later on, he believed in his own mind that cops had kept things back from him, and he genuinely believed in his own mind that cops had shot dead members of his family...
Evidence confirming this can be found in a statement given to COLP in 1991 by PS Saxby, and additionally, in the contents of the following witness statement extract made by 'Gerald Wiggins', dated, 8th October, 1985:-
-
Evidence confirming this can be found in a statement given to COLP in 1991 by PS Saxby, and additionally, in the contents of the following witness statement extract made by 'Gerald Wiggins', dated, 8th October, 1985:-
-
So, that's two separate occasions that J has accused the police of shooting dead his family, once at the scene 7th August, 1985, when he told PS Saxby, and secondly,on the 30th August, 1985, when he told Gerald Wiggins...
-
So, that's two separate occasions that J has accused the police of shooting dead his family, once at the scene 7th August, 1985, when he told PS Saxby, and secondly,on the 30th August, 1985, when he told Gerald Wiggins...
When I first became aware of these 'facts' I remember thinking to myself, why was J being so confident that cops shot his family? Was someone, supposed to have survived to take the rap? Of course, I was guided toward thinking that way because when I started to take an interest in his case back in 1989, and after learning all the facts about his case from him, he had asked me what I thought? At that time I blurted out that his sister could have had an accomplice, and J responded by saying, 'You Clever Bastard'. He didn't realise that I was saying that to him with me having it my mind that 'he' could have been Sheila's accomplice, not anybody else. Later when I discovered how he had accused the armed cops who went into the farmhouse for shooting his family, and later still, when he had 'that' conversation with Gerald Wiggins, in which he once more expressed the view that cops might have done something they weren't telling him about, including the possibility that cops shot members of his family, or as it were, one particular member of the family, his sister...
-
When I first became aware of these 'facts' I remember thinking to myself, why was J being so confident that cops shot his family? Was someone, supposed to have survived to take the rap? Of course, I was guided toward thinking that way because when I started to take an interest in his case back in 1989, and after learning all the facts about his case from him, he had asked me what I thought? At that time I blurted out that his sister could have had an accomplice, and J responded by saying, 'You Clever Bastard'. He didn't realise that I was saying that to him with me having it my mind that 'he' could have been Sheila's accomplice, not anybody else. Later when I discovered how he had accused the armed cops who went into the farmhouse for shooting his family, and later still, when he had 'that' conversation with Gerald Wiggins, in which he once more expressed the view that cops might have done something they weren't telling him about, including the possibility that cops shot members of his family, or as it were, one particular member of the family, his sister...
This is why I pursued that 'avenue of investigation', until I found out' the truth' surrounding the death of Sheila Caffell...
Cops shot her, no doubt in my mind, she couldn't have shot herself and end up on the bedroom floor in the position she was found in, with the rifle at the bedroom window, on top of her body - impossible...
-
When I first became aware of these 'facts' I remember thinking to myself, why was J being so confident that cops shot his family? Was someone, supposed to have survived to take the rap? Of course, I was guided toward thinking that way because when I started to take an interest in his case back in 1989, and after learning all the facts about his case from him, he had asked me what I thought? At that time I blurted out that his sister could have had an accomplice, and J responded by saying, 'You Clever Bastard'. He didn't realise that I was saying that to him with me having it my mind that 'he' could have been Sheila's accomplice, not anybody else. Later when I discovered how he had accused the armed cops who went into the farmhouse for shooting his family, and later still, when he had 'that' conversation with Gerald Wiggins, in which he once more expressed the view that cops might have done something they weren't telling him about, including the possibility that cops shot members of his family, or as it were, one particular member of the family, his sister...
Conversely, you COULD have asked yourself why it was that Jeremy wanted you to think he was so confident "that cops shot his family". I'm not surprised that he called you a "clever bastard" -always a point earner- when you'd given him an alternative scenario to play around with.
-
Conversely, you COULD have asked yourself why it was that Jeremy wanted you to think he was so confident "that cops shot his family". I'm not surprised that he called you a "clever bastard" -always a point earner- when you'd given him an alternative scenario to play around with.
J couldn't control what I was thinking...
Compared to me, he was 'pathetic'...
He didn't like the independent way I went about doing things. My life did not and does not rely on what he thought, or thinks about me. My 'involvement' in the investigation of his case', was not about 'me', it was about 'him'...
-
J couldn't control what I was thinking...
Compared to me, he was 'pathetic'...
He didn't like the independent way I went about doing things. My life did not and does not rely on what he thought, or thinks about me. My 'involvement' in the investigation of his case', was not about 'me', it was about 'him'...
Did I think, that J could have been Sheila's accomplice, dead right I did...
-
I pursued the investigation into these deaths, as though J was his sisters accomplice. It was, I assumed, the correct approach given the circumstances. J was the accomplice of his sister, she was 'mean't to have survived', she was meant to have survived, so she could take the 'rap' for the murders...
-
I pursued the investigation into these deaths, as though J was his sisters accomplice. It was, I assumed, the correct approach given the circumstances. J was the accomplice of his sister, she was 'mean't to have survived', she was meant to have survived, so she could take the 'rap' for the murders...
This approach could have been totally wrong, but it seemed like the best possible explanation to a 'worse case, scenario'...
-
What 'if', J had been S's accomplice, and although she was supposed to have 'survived' (to take the rap), cops effectively read into things wrongly, and ended up killing her?
-
What 'if', J had been S's accomplice, and although she was supposed to have 'survived' (to take the rap), cops effectively read into things wrongly, and ended up killing her?
Two bodies, downstairs, a male, female, a murder, a suicide, from 7.37am, and a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, all three were 'murders'...
-
Two bodies, downstairs, a male, female, a murder, a suicide, from 7.37am, and a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, all three were 'murders'...
In this, 'scenario' those from the 'guilty camp' would find themselves, on board...
-
They would find ' themselves on board' because J would be Sheila's accomplice...
-
They would find ' themselves on board' because J would be Sheila's accomplice...
But, what 'if' J was not Sheila's accomplice?
-
Which 'relative, 'impregnated' Sheila, which led to her having an 'abortion'?
Not, 'Colin'...
-
If not, 'Colin', then who?
-
It wasn't 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'...
-
It wasn't 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'...
It wasn't, 'Peter Eaton'...
-
It, wasn't Anthony Pargeter...
-
It, wasn't Anthony Pargeter...
Or, was, it?
-
Maybe it was, 'Daivd Boutflour?
-
But, what 'if' J was not Sheila's accomplice?
I have never thought he was.
-
Maybe it was, 'Daivd Boutflour?
During an 'abortion', do the experts take blood groups of the 'disposable' remnants?
Officially no, but me thinks, 'they do'...
-
I have never thought he was.
Well, at one stage, I assumed, he 'was'...
-
I adopted the approach, that J was Sheila's 'accomplice'...
Aren't I awful?
But, it turned out, he 'was not'...
-
I adopted the approach, that J was Sheila's 'accomplice'...
Aren't I awful?
But, it turned out, he 'was not'...
But, one of the 'relatives', could have been...
-
But, one of the 'relatives', could have been...
If 'not' a relative, then almost certainly, 'a boy friend'...
-
If 'not' a relative, then almost certainly, 'a boy friend'...
Who was the 'Scruffy looking', hunched shouldered male that was reported to have been observed 'walking away from the scene', about an hour 'after cops first arrived at the scene (3.48am), which makes it '4.58am'? We know, it wasn't J, because he 'arrived at the scene at 3.52am, sharp...
-
Now, the 'reconstruction' starts to get interesting...
-
I can tell you that 'David Boutflour' is ruled out of the equation'...
-
I can tell you that 'David Boutflour' is ruled out of the equation'...
Did I ever 'suspect him'?
Well, yes, but it wasn't him...
-
Did I ever 'suspect him'?
Well, yes, but it wasn't him...
I strongly 'suspect', 'Neville Bamber' as being, Sheila's, 'accomplice'. Yes, this was the chap that was 'knobbing Sheila'...
-
I strongly 'suspect', 'Neville Bamber' as being, Sheila's, 'accomplice'. Yes, this was the chap that was 'knobbing Sheila'...
He 'fled the country' on 'the very morning' of the shootings....
-
Jeremy, had 'no involvement' in the plot that was executed, the guy at the 'heart of this plot', was none other than, ' Neville Bamber'...
-
Jeremy, had 'no involvement' in the plot that was executed, the guy at the 'heart of this plot', was none other than, ' Neville Bamber'...
When he left the scene, at just before 5am, Sheila, was 'still, very much 'alive'...
-
I am certain, that ' Ralph Neville' was Sheila Caffells, 'accomplice'...
-
I am certain, that ' Ralph Neville' was Sheila Caffells, 'accomplice'...
'Ralph Neville', fled the country, he sought to 'run away' from the problem...
-
'Ralph Neville', fled the country, he sought to 'run away' from the problem...
He chose to do this, on the morning of the shootings...
-
Why would anyone, want to 'urgently' leave the country, on the very morning that three generations of the same family had been shot, if 'that' person had been staying with the family, in question?
-
Ralph Neville, had the best of both worlds...
He had 'his own camper van' parked up in the court yard, at whf (overnight), or the choice to 'bed down' in one of the caravans on the site of ' Osea Road' caravan park. Yet, he chose to leave the country, as fast as he coul, leaving his camper van, behind at the scene...
-
I am certain, that ' Ralph Neville' was Sheila Caffells, 'accomplice'...
Just shows how wrong you can be then doesn't it?
-
I feel certain that 'Ralph Neville' was the 'scruffy looking, hunched man' who was seen walking away from the farmhouse, just before the first wave of 'firearm officers arrived' at 5am...
-
I feel certain that 'Ralph Neville' was the 'scruffy looking, hunched man' who was seen walking away from the farmhouse, just before the first wave of 'firearm officers arrived' at 5am...
I do not believe that he drove the tractor all the way back to Osea Road Camp site late at night on the evening of the 6th August, 1985, when he had his camper van parked up in the courtyard of the farmhouse. It's a long way between whf and the campsite, for him to have driven a tractor at night. What's more no-one reports seeing him arrive there, or for that matter leave there on the following morning. The closest anyone sees him to whf is on the following morning when a Mr Chalmers picks him up, hitch-hiking. Ralph Neville flees the country, abandoning his camper van at the scene. He doesn't tell anyone that he's returning to South Africa on the day of the shootings, he just 'takes off, and high tails it out of the country...
-
I feel certain that 'Ralph Neville' was the 'scruffy looking, hunched man' who was seen walking away from the farmhouse, just before the first wave of 'firearm officers arrived' at 5am...
So it wasn't Neville in the kitchen. It was Sheila.
Why didn't the police catch up with the man seen walking away from WHF ?
-
So it wasn't Neville in the kitchen. It was Sheila.
No, not quite how you put it...
Dad was in the kitchen, but so was daughter. PC Collins misidentified dads body for the body of a female from his vantage point outside the kitchen window before cops entered the house and then the kitchen. When cops eventually entered the kitchen, PC Collins realised his mistake in identifying dads body as a female, but cops were also presented with as it turned out the body of Sheila. In a nutshell, there was dad and daughter present in the kitchen when PC Collins peered in through the kitchen window, but he could only see one of them, which he mistakenly thought was a female when as it turns out it was dad. He didn't see Sheila. Hence, why once all the commotion of cops getting into the kitchen itself because of the struggle between PS Woodcock and an unarmed Sheila, led to her being shot 'across the neck', and ended up with her being 'presumed' dead downstairs in the kitchen, in time for the police message to be passed at 7.37am, 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND UPON ENTRY TO KITCHEN'...
If this wasn't true, then cops would have reported finding 'four other bodies upstairs in the bedrooms' by 8.10am, but they only reported three. They could only find three bodies upstairs 'after 7.37am, because two bodies had already been reported as being 'dead' downstairs in the kitchen, earlier...
-
No, not quite how you put it...
Dad was in the kitchen, but so was daughter. PC Collins misidentified dads body for the body of a female from his vantage point outside the kitchen window before cops entered the house and then the kitchen. When cops eventually entered the kitchen, PC Collins realised his mistake in identifying dads body as a female, but cops were also presented with as it turned out the body of Sheila. In a nutshell, there was dad and daughter present in the kitchen when PC Collins peered in through the kitchen window, but he could only see one of them, which he mistakenly thought was a female when as it turns out it was dad. He didn't see Sheila. Hence, why once all the commotion of cops getting into the kitchen itself because of the struggle between PS Woodcock and an unarmed Sheila, led to her being shot 'across the neck', and ended up with her being 'presumed' dead downstairs in the kitchen, in time for the police message to be passed at 7.37am, 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND UPON ENTRY TO KITCHEN'...
If this wasn't true, then cops would have reported finding 'four other bodies upstairs in the bedrooms' by 8.10am, but they only reported three. They could only find three bodies upstairs 'after 7.37am, because two bodies had already been reported as being 'dead' downstairs in the kitchen, earlier...
The gun which fired the bullet across Sheila's neck downstairs in the kitchen, was not the anshuzt rifle, because at the time she got shot downstairs in the kitchen (at about 7.35am), the rifle in question was still resting against the upstairs bedroom window...
-
I have in my possession the 'original' reports and letters drafted up for J's benefit, from 'JUSTICE FOR ALL', dated, variously, as follows:-
May, 1996
28th May, 1994
27th January, 1994
29th November, 1993
25th May, 1993
12th October, 1993
20th September, 1993
29th August, 1991...
-
I can now report, that Special Branch arranged for whf and J's cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger, to be 'photographed, in rather mysterious circumstances, on the day before the shootings (the 6th August, 1985)
-
I can now report, that Special Branch arranged for whf and J's cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger, to be 'photographed, in rather mysterious circumstances, on the day before the shootings (the 6th August, 1985)
Why would photographs be being taken of the farmhouse and J's cottage on the day before the shootings?
What, did 'SB' know, that we don't?
-
I have in my possession a list of all the 'police action reports', which came into being in connection with the investigation, each 'action' being consecutively numbered in sequence. The dates all these actions were sanctioned are contained in the reports themselves, and the dates when information mentioned in these reports was obtained, is recorded in the various witness statements of other similar documents...
What I have been interested in especially during the past two decades is trying to 'reconstruct' when the silencer 'DRB/1' came into being. I am now going to share with you some of my work that I carried out with regard to the same. For example, by reference to the aforementioned 'police action report, log', I managed to trace and locate every reference made to a silencer, and these were the results of a trawl through those records:-
Action No.
0068 - speak to Bamber re sites and silencer
0088 - collection of silencer AE/11/9 to Wright
0195 - Oakley attitude whf David Boutflour
0200 - David Boutflour re cuts and silencer
0273 - T s/m David Boutflour re silencer
1190 - Peter Eaton, date when Jones took possession of silencer
1320 - gun would not fit into cupboard with silencer in place
1549 -T s/m HO forensic re properties of silencer, metal hard
1606 - method by which blood was transferred to inside of signed silencer
1627 - obtain blood samples from Robert and David Boutflour, Christine and Peter Eaton for X-ref silencer
-
I have in my possession a list of all the 'police action reports', which came into being in connection with the investigation, each 'action' being consecutively numbered in sequence. The dates all these actions were sanctioned are contained in the reports themselves, and the dates when information mentioned in these reports was obtained, is recorded in the various witness statements of other similar documents...
What I have been interested in especially during the past two decades is trying to 'reconstruct' when the silencer 'DRB/1' came into being. I am now going to share with you some of my work that I carried out with regard to the same. For example, by reference to the aforementioned 'police action report, log', I managed to trace and locate every reference made to a silencer, and these were the results of a trawl through those records:-
Action No.
0088 - collection of silencer AE/11/9 to Wright
What becomes clear, is 'that' the silencer (DRB/1) was not collected from Annie Eaton (AE) until the 11th September, 1985, and this is confirmed by the contents of police action No. 0088, and the following documented information...
-
No, not quite how you put it...
Dad was in the kitchen, but so was daughter. PC Collins misidentified dads body for the body of a female from his vantage point outside the kitchen window before cops entered the house and then the kitchen. When cops eventually entered the kitchen, PC Collins realised his mistake in identifying dads body as a female, but cops were also presented with as it turned out the body of Sheila. In a nutshell, there was dad and daughter present in the kitchen when PC Collins peered in through the kitchen window, but he could only see one of them, which he mistakenly thought was a female when as it turns out it was dad. He didn't see Sheila. Hence, why once all the commotion of cops getting into the kitchen itself because of the struggle between PS Woodcock and an unarmed Sheila, led to her being shot 'across the neck', and ended up with her being 'presumed' dead downstairs in the kitchen, in time for the police message to be passed at 7.37am, 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND UPON ENTRY TO KITCHEN'...
If this wasn't true, then cops would have reported finding 'four other bodies upstairs in the bedrooms' by 8.10am, but they only reported three. They could only find three bodies upstairs 'after 7.37am, because two bodies had already been reported as being 'dead' downstairs in the kitchen, earlier...
So Neville exited WHF after the raid team entered and is the hunched man ? Was he in his pyjama's. Why didn't the police outside apprehend him ?
The picture of Neville over a coal scuttle, is that a fake ?
Where did Neville go to ?
-
So Neville exited WHF after the raid team entered and is the hunched man ? Was he in his pyjama's. Why didn't the police outside apprehend him ?
The picture of Neville over a coal scuttle, is that a fake ?
Where did Neville go to ?
Adam think Mike is speaking about Nevill Bamber, a relative/cousin who was visiting the family at the time of the murders.
-
Jeremy's father was known as Nevill, not Neville.
-
. . . he 'arrived at the scene at 3.52am, sharp...
Nobody can know that, as the time when Jeremy arrived wasn't written down by any of the three police officers that he met.
-
So it was a fair trial ? NOT !
-
Thank God Jeremy's health is holding out ! That's all I can say.
-
So Neville exited WHF after the raid team entered and is the hunched man ? Was he in his pyjama's. Why didn't the police outside apprehend him ?
The picture of Neville over a coal scuttle, is that a fake ?
Where did Neville go to ?
Sorry, I must have confused you, I was referring to the relative, called, 'Ralph Neville', not dad...
-
Adam think Mike is speaking about Nevill Bamber, a relative/cousin who was visiting the family at the time of the murders.
Correct, thanks....
-
Jeremy's father was known as Nevill, not Neville.
Correct, sorry...
-
Nobody can know that, as the time when Jeremy arrived wasn't written down by any of the three police officers that he met.
That was the time 'information' received back in the communications room, that J was 'present' at the scene with cops...
-
I can now report, that Special Branch arranged for whf and J's cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger, to be 'photographed, in rather mysterious circumstances, on the day before the shootings (the 6th August, 1985)
Prove it!
-
No, not quite how you put it...
Dad was in the kitchen, but so was daughter. PC Collins misidentified dads body for the body of a female from his vantage point outside the kitchen window before cops entered the house and then the kitchen. When cops eventually entered the kitchen, PC Collins realised his mistake in identifying dads body as a female, but cops were also presented with as it turned out the body of Sheila. In a nutshell, there was dad and daughter present in the kitchen when PC Collins peered in through the kitchen window, but he could only see one of them, which he mistakenly thought was a female when as it turns out it was dad. He didn't see Sheila. Hence, why once all the commotion of cops getting into the kitchen itself because of the struggle between PS Woodcock and an unarmed Sheila, led to her being shot 'across the neck', and ended up with her being 'presumed' dead downstairs in the kitchen, in time for the police message to be passed at 7.37am, 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND UPON ENTRY TO KITCHEN'...
If this wasn't true, then cops would have reported finding 'four other bodies upstairs in the bedrooms' by 8.10am, but they only reported three. They could only find three bodies upstairs 'after 7.37am, because two bodies had already been reported as being 'dead' downstairs in the kitchen, earlier...
Absolute bullshit, Sheila was never downstairs. I hope PC Woodcock raises an action against you for defamation.
-
Ralph Neville, had the best of both worlds...
He had 'his own camper van' parked up in the court yard, at whf (overnight), or the choice to 'bed down' in one of the caravans on the site of ' Osea Road' caravan park. Yet, he chose to leave the country, as fast as he coul, leaving his camper van, behind at the scene...
So Ralph Nevill committed the massacre. Why did Neville ring Jeremy saying it was Sheila.
You're Youtube video says it was the police that killed Sheila. Did Ralph leave her alive by mistake ?
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
-
So which part of this convoluted/multi layered story is true, Mike?
-
So which part of this convoluted/multi layered story is true, Mike?
They all are! Mike has been studying quantum mechanics so he can now study the case as it unfolded in parallel universes.
-
So Ralph Nevill committed the massacre. Why did Neville ring Jeremy saying it was Sheila.
You're Youtube video says it was the police that killed Sheila. Did Ralph leave her alive by mistake ?
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
He was her accomplice...
-
So which part of this convoluted/multi layered story is true, Mike?
Your confusing yourself deliberately, and then expecting me to get you out of the mess you have got yourself into...
Ralph Neville was Sheila's accomplice. He was the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farm about an hour after cops first arrived there. He didn't kill S, cops shot her and she died from one of those shots...
-
They all are! Mike has been studying quantum mechanics so he can now study the case as it unfolded in parallel universes.
Refer to the contents of the police message logs, regarding two bodies downstairs by 7.37am, three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, versus the witness statement version of events with no timed entries when they came upon one body downstairs, and four bodies upstairs. Then think about the position of the rifle at the bedroom window from 7.15am. Where had it been until then?
-
I don't know if any of you will be interested in this:-
-
Your confusing yourself deliberately, and then expecting me to get you out of the mess you have got yourself into...
Ralph Neville was Sheila's accomplice. He was the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farm about an hour after cops first arrived there. He didn't kill S, cops shot her and she died from one of those shots...
And I suppose you're now going to say he was responsible for the pregnancy Sheila terminated, as you need to tie it in somewhere, having said Colin wasn't responsible for it.
-
I don't know if any of you will be interested in this:-
Reminds me of the inarticulate rubbish sent by a supposed PI who was allegedly accosted by Brothers sporting coshes and guard dogs at the Greek Monastery.
-
And I suppose you're now going to say he was responsible for the pregnancy Sheila terminated, as you need to tie it in somewhere, having said Colin wasn't responsible for it.
Sheila had an abortion when she was 15 years old. Cops carried out discreet enquiries to find out who the father was...
-
Reminds me of the inarticulate rubbish sent by a supposed PI who was allegedly accosted by Brothers sporting coshes and guard dogs at the Greek Monastery.
Sheila did have links to 'that' monastery...
We followed all the leads, and got confirmation that she had been there on the 6th August, 1985. She was observed on two occasions that day, once by a delivery driver who saw her come running out of the delivery gate, screaming like a banshee, running downhill along the track, in the general direction of Tolleshunt D'Arcy. Further along that track, a local resident hid behind a tree when he became aware of Sheila hurtling down the track towards him...
-
Have a look at this:-
-
Sheila had an abortion when she was 15 years old. Cops carried out discreet enquiries to find out who the father was...
Yeah, right!!! So cops found out about who fathered a pregnancy terminated 12 years earlier!!!!!!!!!!? Well. they wouldn't have found out from either Sheila, June or Nevill, would they. and even if they HAD known about it, why on earth would it have mattered?
-
Sheila did have links to 'that' monastery...
Like all of us here who know about it.
-
Yeah, right!!! So cops found out about who fathered a pregnancy terminated 12 years earlier!!!!!!!!!!? Well. they wouldn't have found out from either Sheila, June or Nevill, would they. and even if they HAD known about it, why on earth would it have mattered?
What needs to happen, is for people like you to get framed by cops, get convicted and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, and the CCRC, not able to refer your case back to the court of appeal. you would be singing from a different hymn sheet than the one your singing from at the moment. You personally have never had the misfortune to be the victim of 'corrupt criminal justice systems, servants'...
-
Everybody knows that a scruffy looking hunched shouldered man was seen walking away from the farm an hour after cops first arrived. So the dirty looking man was seen at around 4.50am, walking off in the direction of 'Prentice farm'. Who was he? What was he doing at the scene?Why couldn't cops trace him? Why hasn't he come forward?
-
Everybody knows that a scruffy looking hunched shouldered man was seen walking away from the farm an hour after cops first arrived. So the dirty looking man was seen at around 4.50am, walking off in the direction of 'Prentice farm'. Who was he? What was he doing at the scene?Why couldn't cops trace him? Why hasn't he come forward?
Why couldn't cops link that sighting of the scruffy looking hunched man at the scene, to the 'sudden disappearance' on the morning of the shootings, to the fact that 'Ralph Neville' suddenly 'fled the country', leaving his 'camper van' back in Essex, and hitch hiking to a port, so as to escape cops taking an interest in him. He got away with it at first, because cops treated the case as four murders, and 'a suicide'...
-
What needs to happen, is for people like you to get framed by cops, get convicted and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, and the CCRC, not able to refer your case back to the court of appeal. you would be singing from a different hymn sheet than the one your singing from at the moment. You personally have never had the misfortune to be the victim of 'corrupt criminal justice systems, servants'...
What you say, in this instance, is very true, Mike. I have never been in the vicinity of a crime when it was committed so there is no reason, unless my name is pulled out from a hat, to suspect the police will ever show an interest in what I do.
-
What you say, in this instance, is very true, Mike. I have never been in the vicinity of a crime when it was committed so there is no reason, unless my name is pulled out from a hat, to suspect the police will ever show an interest in what I do.
Just shows you what you know then, because 'you don't have to be in the vicinity of a crime that you did not commit', to be framed, charged, convicted, and sentenced, and until you do, or have, you cannot know with 100% certainty that everything a bad cop does is true, honest and fair...
-
I have been a victim of such 'abuse' at the hands of 'corrupt coppers', 'corrupt CPS', 'Corrupt Magistrates', 'corrupt Crown court Judges', and 'corrupt Court of appeal judges', so I am qualified to know what these 'despicable characters' can get up to...
-
Just shows you what you know then, because 'you don't have to be in the vicinity of a crime that you did not commit', to be framed, charged, convicted, and sentenced, and until you do, or have, you cannot know with 100% certainty that everything a bad cop does is true, honest and fair...
But I do know that maligning an innocent girl, and concocting "facts" which simply are NOT true, isn't right.
-
The corrupt practiceswhich eventually became exposed out of the 'Hillsboro' conspiracy involving corrupt South Yorkshire police, corrupt south Yorkshire CPS,corrupt South Yorkshire Coroner, and his officers, corrupt Prime Minister, corrupt Home Secretary, did not just happen for the one and only time on the 15th April, 1989, such despicable practices had been in evidence ever since the miners strike at Orgreave, in 1985, at 'Monkspring', Barnsley, in January, 1986; at 'Grenoside woods, Sheffield, in August 1986; at 'Ringstone grove, Brierley, Barnsley in January, 1987, and at 'Pealkey Hill', Derbyshire, in July, 1991...
-
But I do know that maligning an innocent girl, and concocting "facts" which simply are NOT true, isn't right.
Yes, and that is what cops did to Sheila, it was the cops who introduced the suicide claim, once downstairs in the kitchen, and secondly upstairs in the bedroom. The cops staged her body in the bedroom. There can be no doubt whatsoever about that...
-
Have you or any of your fellow supporters from the other camp, ever wondered why, not one solitary firearm officer has looked at PC Birds photographs that he took after 10 O'clock, and said, 'yes, that is how we found Sheila's body'...
-
In one of my prosecutions, two bent cops, 'DC Caulfield', and a 'DS Shepherd', both made witness statements, declaring that at '5.20pm', on Wednesday, 1986, that they were 'both inside' an 'observation van, when the court learn't that the said observation van was still parked up in the police compound at Barnsley police station, and one of the cops who had claimed to have been inside it at 5.20pm, was sent to collect the van at 5.55pm, returning with it, about an hour after he was supposed to have already been inside it...
Can you believe what these corrupt bastards get up to, and get away with?
And, if that is not bad enough, one of these corrupt cops (DC Robin Caulfield) later achieved the rank of Detective Inspector. It wasn't just a case of these cops being bad apples, the CPS who handled the case behaved like 'Criminals' by trying to stop the court case being heard. They sought a high court action known as a 'voluntary bill of indictment' to take the case straight to Crown court for trial, knowing that dodgy evil, vile scumbag corrupt cops had introduced 'false' evidence about two bad apple cops being inside an observation van, which wasn't even there when they both claimed they had been inside it. This is what victims of cop abuse have to put up with, lies, lies, and more lies. The more lies cops tell, the more they are believed by dodgy CPS representatives, dodgy Magistrates and dodgy Crown court judges. They make me fucking angry, the evil bastards, the lot of them are surely destined to go to hell if there is a heaven...
-
That's right, run away from the thread, hide your fucking heads in shame, because those of you in 'that' camp, haven't got a fucking clue about what really goes on, and how corrupted the Criminal justice system really is, and how it endeavours to get the upper hand on victims, like me, like Jeremy, like the Birmingham six, like the Guildford four, and the 96 victims of the Hillsboro' disaster, and many other cases...
-
That's right, run away from the thread, hide your fucking heads in shame, because those of you in 'that' camp, haven't got a fucking clue about what really goes on, and how corrupted the Criminal justice system really is, and how it endeavours to get the upper hand on victims, like me, like Jeremy, like the Birmingham six, like the Guildford four, and the 96 victims of the Hillsboro' disaster, and many other cases...
There needs to be a 'overhaul' of the Criminal justice system, to stop this 'rot' in its tracks...
Everybody who takes part in a trial, should be 'vulnerable' to the possibility of being convicted there and then for lying and fabricating evidence. Prosecution, and defence witnesses. It is not right or proper for somebody else to make a witness statement for another witness. It is not right that the CPS can edit the contents of witness statements without consulting the maker of the original witness statement...
The 'Citation' at the beginning of each witness statement, is very misleading because more often than not, the named person did not make their own statement...
If they did not make 'their own' witness statement, How (I ask) can they have made such a statement of their own free wiil?
It's a load of 'bollocks'...
-
That's right, run away from the thread, hide your fucking heads in shame, because those of you in 'that' camp, haven't got a fucking clue about what really goes on, and how corrupted the Criminal justice system really is, and how it endeavours to get the upper hand on victims, like me, like Jeremy, like the Birmingham six, like the Guildford four, and the 96 victims of the Hillsboro' disaster, and many other cases...
Who is running? And I beg to differ! I certainly DO know cops can be corrupt, but Jeremy is no B6 or G4 and certainly no victim.
-
Who is running? And I beg to differ! I certainly DO know cops can be corrupt, but Jeremy is no B6 or G4 and certainly no victim.
Yes, 'he is'...
Cops staged his sisters body in the bedroom with the rifle from the bedroom window, nothing could be any clearer. Where had 'that' rifle been prior to it suddenly appearing at the parents bedroom window at around 7.15am, and how did it get onto Sheila's body afterwards?
Oh, I see, your 'claiming that Jeremy put the rifle there', on her body...
Not from where 'I am sitting', he didn't...
-
Can I believe that a cop can lie?
'Yes'...
Do I believe that cops shot Sheila Downstairs in the kitchen, and that 'hers' was the female body mentioned in the police radio message timed log entries at '7.37am', and '7.38am'?
'Yes'...
Do I believe that the cop operation went 'pearshaped' at 8.15am, when Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery, entered the kitchen after the 'all clear' shout had been passed by firearm officers inside the premises at 8.10am?
'Yes'...
-
Yes, 'he is'...
Cops staged his sisters body in the bedroom with the rifle from the bedroom window, nothing could be any clearer. Where had 'that' rifle been prior to it suddenly appearing at the parents bedroom window at around 7.15am, and how did it get onto Sheila's body afterwards?
Oh, I see, your 'claiming that Jeremy put the rifle there', on her body...
Not from where 'I am sitting', he didn't...
That's very true Mike, he cartainly didn't put the rifle on Sheila's body from where you're sitting ;D
-
The way I see it, is that Sheila was involved in the plot to kill the other four members of her family (she must have had an accomplice. Identifying 'that' accomplice has been one of my 'bug bears' for the past 17 years)...
Did I ever think that J might have been her accomplice?
'Yes'...
Do I think 'that' now?
'No'...
Why, not?
Because, 'he wasn't the scruffy looking, hunched man' seen walking away from the farmhouse an hour after police first arrived there. He was with police at all times after his arrival there, at lets say 3.52am...
-
Over the years I have asked myself very searching questions, such as, 'Could J have been the killer, who almost got away with committing the perfect murders'?
'No'...
Why not?
Because, he is not half as clever as almost everyone is trying to make him out to be, or who he thinks he is. He just 'uses' people. He reminds me of a 'druggie'...
-
Over the years I have asked myself very searching questions, such as, 'Could J have been the killer, who almost got away with committing the perfect murders'?
'No'...
Why not?
Because, he is not half as clever as almost everyone is trying to make him out to be, or who he thinks he is. He just 'uses' people. He reminds me of a 'druggie'...
He displays all the 'characteristics' of being addicted to drugs...
-
He displays all the 'characteristics' of being addicted to drugs...
I have seen this 'condition' in many many people...
-
I don't honestly think, that someone in his 'condition' has got the bottle to carry out a crime of this nature. Basically, he is a coward, who can't see beyond the end of his own nose, and he can be very selfish at times, and 'forgetful'...
-
Your confusing yourself deliberately, and then expecting me to get you out of the mess you have got yourself into...
Ralph Neville was Sheila's accomplice. He was the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farm about an hour after cops first arrived there. He didn't kill S, cops shot her and she died from one of those shots...
Bunkum ;D
-
The corrupt practiceswhich eventually became exposed out of the 'Hillsboro' conspiracy involving corrupt South Yorkshire police, corrupt south Yorkshire CPS,corrupt South Yorkshire Coroner, and his officers, corrupt Prime Minister, corrupt Home Secretary, did not just happen for the one and only time on the 15th April, 1989, such despicable practices had been in evidence ever since the miners strike at Orgreave, in 1985, at 'Monkspring', Barnsley, in January, 1986; at 'Grenoside woods, Sheffield, in August 1986; at 'Ringstone grove, Brierley, Barnsley in January, 1987, and at 'Pealkey Hill', Derbyshire, in July, 1991...
None of which renders Jeremy Bamber innocent though. Still awaiting this evidence.
-
Yes, and that is what cops did to Sheila, it was the cops who introduced the suicide claim, once downstairs in the kitchen, and secondly upstairs in the bedroom. The cops staged her body in the bedroom. There can be no doubt whatsoever about that...
Wrong! It was Jeremy Bamber who set the scene, the silly cops just fell for it initially. ;D
-
Have you or any of your fellow supporters from the other camp, ever wondered why, not one solitary firearm officer has looked at PC Birds photographs that he took after 10 O'clock, and said, 'yes, that is how we found Sheila's body'...
They don't need to as they did nothing wrong.
-
Yes, 'he is'...
Cops staged his sisters body in the bedroom with the rifle from the bedroom window, nothing could be any clearer. Where had 'that' rifle been prior to it suddenly appearing at the parents bedroom window at around 7.15am, and how did it get onto Sheila's body afterwards?
Oh, I see, your 'claiming that Jeremy put the rifle there', on her body...
Not from where 'I am sitting', he didn't...
Nothing was staged by anyone except the killer Jeremy Bamber.
-
Can I believe that a cop can lie?
'Yes'...
Do I believe that cops shot Sheila Downstairs in the kitchen, and that 'hers' was the female body mentioned in the police radio message timed log entries at '7.37am', and '7.38am'?
'Yes'...
Do I believe that the cop operation went 'pearshaped' at 8.15am, when Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery, entered the kitchen after the 'all clear' shout had been passed by firearm officers inside the premises at 8.10am?
'Yes'...
You're obviously totally deluded then, no wonder all the former posters have gone!!
This case has totally bombed.
-
Wrong! It was Jeremy Bamber who set the scene, the silly cops just fell for it initially. ;D
I'm not wrong, your mind is corrupted, fabricating evidence means nothing to any bent cop...
-
You're obviously totally deluded then, no wonder all the former posters have gone!!
This case has totally bombed.
So, why are you still here then, on her bike...
-
Here is a list of all the police actions during the investigation.
-
I have copies of most hand written and signed police action reports, which I can put dates to, so that everything is put into sequence. Obviously, some 'actions' taking longer than others to be carried out or investigated further...
-
I have copies of most hand written and signed police action reports, which I can put dates to, so that everything is put into sequence. Obviously, some 'actions' taking longer than others to be carried out or investigated further...
Where it mentions about the 'taking of statements', I have most of the statements in question, bearing dates...
-
David Boutflour did not mention that 'he' had found a silencer to the gun until 'after' 11th September, 1985 - yet we are told the silencer in question had already been examined at the lab' by 'Glynis Howard' on the 13th August 1985, when she could not have because David Boutflour had not reported finding 'it' by that stage, and would not do so for almost 'another month'...
-
The 'Hand Swab Evidence', has always intrigued me. I can't help feeling that dodgy cops used 'this' evidence to strengthen the case for Sheila not having handled the additional bullets required for her to be the killer. On the 9th August 1985, the said swabs were rejected at the lab' because they arrived in the same packaging as firearms. At this stage (9th August) they had an exhibit reference of DRH/33, lab' item no. 17. Later when cops decided to resend the swabs, they altered the exhibit reference to DRH/44, with a lab' item no. of 75. This was basically a deception, to get the staff at the lab' to examine them (not for firearm discharge residue, but for lead deposited on her hands)...
-
I can now reveal for the very first time a rather 'startling discovery' which renders the handswab evidence, 'voided'...
-
I can now reveal for the very first time a rather 'startling discovery' which renders the handswab evidence, 'voided'...
It was basically 'fabricated', a fact provable by the following'observation'...
-
In a 'signed' witness statement made by DC Hammersley, dated, the 22nd October, 1985, on page 4, he states that on 'the 13th September, 1985 I caused the exhibit DRH/33 to be forwarded to the forensic Science Laboratory, at Huntingdon'...
But 'that was 'not true', because the driver who took it to the lab' (C. J HARVEY) took it the lab' on the 27th September, 1985. And, more to the point, when he arrived there with 'it', on 'that' date, A Detective Sergeant Lovell accepted 'it' (DRH/33) from him, as can be seen by the signatures, of both Harvey, and Lovell, that both originally dated their signatures with the date, 27th September, but the driver made an attempt to alter the date alongside his signature, into 13th September 1985, to match the fraudulent Laboratory stamp bearing the incorrect date, 13th September, 1985. DS Lovell, on the other hand, left the date alongside his signature (27th September, 1985), thus making a fundamental mistake exposing all parties as co-conspirators, including, DC Hammersley (soco), C. J. Harvey (the driver who took DRH/33 to the lab), as DS Lovell (the officer who accepted DRH/33 from C. J. Harvey, on 'that' (27th September, 1985) date...
It should also be pointed out, that this 'fraudulent' submission form, relating to 'hand swabs' which had already been previously rejected by the lab' on the 9th August, 1985, was created under the supervision, of DS 219, Davidson (soco). So here at long last, is 'clear evidence' that cops involved in the investigation 'tampered with the 'records' pertaining to the resubmission of the hand swabs. If these facts had been known about at the time of the trial, the hand swab evidence would have been thrown out, and almost certainly brought the trial to a halt for the reasons given...
-
DC Hammersley should be arrested, interviewed and charged with 'Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice', along with DS Davidson, C.J. Harvey, and DS Lovell, over this matter. Talk about it being a clear case of 'Malfeance in office' has to be an 'understatement. Of course, my discovery should go a long way towards getting J's case back to the court of appeal, because the 'hand swab' evidence was a key part of the prosecutions case, relied upon to demonstrate that Sheila could not possibly have handled the additional bullets required if the crimes had been committed with just one gun...
How can the CCRC reject this 'astonishing' piece of evidence, and fail to refer the case back to the court of appeal?
-
...
-
Can I believe that a cop can lie?
'Yes'...
Do I believe that cops shot Sheila Downstairs in the kitchen, and that 'hers' was the female body mentioned in the police radio message timed log entries at '7.37am', and '7.38am'?
'Yes'...
Do I believe that the cop operation went 'pearshaped' at 8.15am, when Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery, entered the kitchen after the 'all clear' shout had been passed by firearm officers inside the premises at 8.10am?
'Yes'...
Mike, over the years, you have provided us with a variety of different stories. Some MAY, temporarily, have been believable, some have been laughable, some have been TOTALLY unbelievable and some have boardered on being, if not libellous, pornographic. You have sworn that all have been the truth............correction! You have sworn that, at the time of the telling, you have BELIEVED all to be true. That's fine. It's your prerogative. We remain free to exercise our own.
-
Your confusing yourself deliberately, and then expecting me to get you out of the mess you have got yourself into...
Ralph Neville was Sheila's accomplice. He was the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farm about an hour after cops first arrived there. He didn't kill S, cops shot her and she died from one of those shots...
Which Police Officer reported this? I can´t find it in the archives.
-
Have a look at this:-
Strange that Sheila´s birth father seems to have disappeared without trace..
-
Which Police Officer reported this? I can´t find it in the archives.
And you won't either.
-
Strange that Sheila´s birth father seems to have disappeared without trace..
He couldn't have been much getting a young woman into trouble when he at 30 should have known better.
It was practically seen as an offence with an underage girl back then with 21 being the age of consent.
I wonder if he had/has mental health problems because seemingly her birth mother doesn't.
-
He couldn't have been much getting a young woman into trouble when he at 30 should have known better.
It was practically seen as an offence with an underage girl back then with 21 being the age of consent.
I wonder if he had/has mental health problems because seemingly her birth mother doesn't.
He's no more different/special/interesting than 100's of 1000's of other men who enjoy, what they believe to have been, a casual fling, then leave, having sown a lasting reminder of their presence.
-
He's no more different/special/interesting than 100's of 1000's of other men who enjoy, what they believe to have been, a casual fling, then leave, having sown a lasting reminder of their presence.
There still remains to be the " 100's of 1,000's " who have respect and consideration for their partners.
-
There still remains to be the " 100's of 1,000's " who have respect and consideration for their partners.
Why do you expect perfection from the rest of society whilst retaining the right to hang on to your own imperfections?
-
And you won't either.
'Kim Sengupta' reported this in an article penned in the Daily Express. You need to ask that journalist where they got that information from?
-
Just thought I'd mention that, 'there has never been' an internal investigation into what went wrong with the police raid, what specific mistakes were made, who by, and the consequences?
The cops keep such nasty details to themselves, so nobody can be disciplined, or prosecuted...
-
Just thought I'd mention that, 'there has never been' an internal investigation into what went wrong with the police raid, what specific mistakes were made, who by, and the consequences?
The cops keep such nasty details to themselves, so nobody can be disciplined, or prosecuted...
even when there is clear evidence to show a bent cop fabricated evidence and conspired to pervert the course of justice, their best friend the CPS drop any charges against them by committal stage. The system is corrupt, run by the real criminals...
-
Just thought I'd mention that, 'there has never been' an internal investigation into what went wrong with the police raid, what specific mistakes were made, who by, and the consequences?
The cops keep such nasty details to themselves, so nobody can be disciplined, or prosecuted...
And just thought I'd mention that, according to my information, there are no plans to hold one.
-
Well, Iv've got news for everybody, us victims can fight back...
It doesn't matter anymore that bent cops best friend is the DPP. The DPP can be prosecuted, for ' malfeance in office...
-
And just thought I'd mention that, according to my information, there are no plans to hold one.
You don't determine that, victims do...
-
Yes, us victims can take out a 'private criminal pprosecution' against the police, the CPS, a magistrate, a judge, an MP, a cabinet minister, the prime minister, the Home Secretary, in fact, anybody who is a public servant who we believe has acted unlawfully...
-
Yes, us victims can take out a 'private criminal pprosecution' against the police, the CPS, a magistrate, a judge, an MP, a cabinet minister, the prime minister, the Home Secretary, in fact, anybody who is a public servant who we believe has acted unlawfully...
But you didn't mention a private criminal prosecution. All you said was that there hadn't been an internal investigation. I understand that there are no plans to hold such. It seems strange that in 30 years, having, in your view, acted so unlawfully, none of "us victims" have sought to take out a PCP against them.
-
But you didn't mention a private criminal prosecution. All you said was that there hadn't been an internal investigation. I understand that there are no plans to hold such. It seems strange that in 30 years, having, in your view, acted so unlawfully, none of "us victims" have sought to take out a PCP against them.
That is because there is very little information in the public domain about how 'any individual' can take out a PCP against any public servant providing there are grounds for believing that such a person who holds office has committed a criminal offence. But I can assure you that all this is about to change, and the balance of fairness in any proceedings brought against any suspect or defendant, or an appellant, is about to change for the better...
Because I am going to start promoting how it 'can' be done...
Those in power who act like the criminals they profess to be prosecuting, will suddenly find that they have to Act' lawfully, with fairness and without bias. This will not only apply to cops, but to the CPS, the magistrates, Crown court judges, court of appeal judges, members of Parliament, the prime minister, the Home Secretary, the lord chief justice, the minister of justice, the CCRC, and whoever holds any position in cases where there has been dishonesty, and acts of corruption, including a coroner, and his / her staff...
The law is going to change for the better, from this point onward...
-
Every victim who believes that their case is a miscarriage of justice, who has evidence that a public servant involved in their prosecution and conviction has acted 'criminally' will from this day forward be able to say with confidence, 'watch out you vile, despicable criminal, because I am going to get you'...
-
There is undoubtedly, going to be a new body of case law, which deals with, 'what constitutes being a public servant'?
-
There is undoubtedly, going to be a new body of case law, which deals with, 'what constitutes being a public servant'?
I believe, that 'a jury' falls into this category, because they perform a public duty, on behalf of the public...
-
I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied....
-
I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied...
Where every accused person, is treated as 'being innocent, until found guilty'...
-
Every victim who believes that their case is a miscarriage of justice, who has evidence that a public servant involved in their prosecution and conviction has acted 'criminally' will from this day forward be able to say with confidence, 'watch out you vile, despicable criminal, because I am going to get you'...
Why? What has changed since yesterday?
-
Why? What has changed since yesterday?
I am going to be promoting it, to the vulnerable people in our society that are victims of official corruption, and pompous people who hold such office who all think that they are better than ordinary people. I am going to go out of my way to preach to victims of official corruption that we can fight back. Also, to inform those on benefits that they may not have to pay the £205 fee to take a summons out against those who hold office that have behaved like a criminal, and abused their authority. Not many ordinary folk know about this option, but I am going to make sure that they do from now on. Us victims have got to 'strike back' if we want any sort of justice. The cops ain't going to help us, neither is the CPS, because in the majority of these cases it is the cops and the CP's who are the root of the problem...
-
I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied....
I, too, have a picture. No more criminals believing they have the right to relieve others of their hard fought/worked for possessions/LIVES!!!!! No more people defrauding the NHS, excusing themselves by calling it a victimless crime -but nonetheless robbing me and other hard working citizens who have struggled through adversities to support themselves. Where there are people, there will always be corruption in EVERY walk of life, much of it springing from a mind set of "Why should they have more than me. It may be worth remembering that if there were no people breaking laws, there wouldn't be the necessity for others to ensure those laws are enforced/upheld.
-
I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied....
I'm afraid that utopia will never occur Mike.
Something I might have asked you previously but why do you persist with this case when the evidence is overwhelming?
What single aspect of it makes you think Jeremy is innocent and worth helping?
-
I, too, have a picture. No more criminals believing they have the right to relieve others of their hard fought/worked for possessions/LIVES!!!!! No more people defrauding the NHS, excusing themselves by calling it a victimless crime -but nonetheless robbing me and other hard working citizens who have struggled through adversities to support themselves. Where there are people, there will always be corruption in EVERY walk of life, much of it springing from a mind set of "Why should they have more than me. It may be worth remembering that if there were no people breaking laws, there wouldn't be the necessity for others to ensure those laws are enforced/upheld.
None of what you have said, gives 'anybody the right to fabricate evidence', which is if you don't already know a 'criminal offence'. The laws you mention are 'not' gods law, they are man made, and easily manipulated by a select few, whose livelihood is dependant upon them, and these man made laws are shaped and twisted to mean different things on different occasions. The few amongst us who benefit from the implementation of these 'man made laws', care very little if at all, to the consequences imposed on victims who become affected by daily acts of corruption by some of those who profess to administer and uphold the law. God did not empower the law makers and the servants of those law makers to be universally exempt from culpability in cases where it has clearly been a case of ' the good guys, have gone bad'. Most people know the difference between what's right, and what's wrong. We all pay tax's in one form or another, there isn't just a select few who pay tax. Even the unemployed, and the cripples on benefits, and the pensioners pay tax almost on everything we consume. So you can't single any one group of the public out and say, what this group of people do is good, and what that group of people do, or what they did, what he did, what she did, what they did and do is wrong, and bad. Every bodies life circumstances are different...
-
What single aspect of it makes you think Jeremy is innocent and worth helping?
He didn't shoot his sister...
-
The facts are there in full view of everybody, if you want to 'know the truth'. J was not inside the farmhouse when his sister got shot. He did not shoot his sister. He did not stage her body on the bedroom floor with use of the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window after 7.15am. He couldn't have staged his sisters body with use of it prior to that because how did 'it' manage to end up at the bedroom window before cops even went to try to get into the farmhouse? Who moved the anshuzt rifle to the bedroom window? Certainly 'not' Jeremy. Who moved the rifle from 'that' window after 7.15am, onto S's body? Certainly not J...
The results of J's lie detector test are accurate, he wasn't present inside the farmhouse when his family got shot. He didn't pay anyone any money to kill his family, and he 'did receive a telephone call, from his 'dad'...
What becomes clear, is that in the aftermath of this tragedy, the authorities have 'beefed him up' to be something which he is not, so that they can all pat themselves on the back, claiming that J was so clever, that he 'almost got away with the perfect murders', but 'we nailed him' in the end. That is not the image I have of Jeremy. He is a totally different person now to the one I got to know back then...
-
To be honest, the impression I got when I first got to know J was that he was a bit slow intellectually. If he'd have been 'that' clever, he would have pushed the 'sighting of the figure' at the upstairs bedroom window, all the way right from the off, as being evidence that someone was still alive inside the farmhouse after cops and J arrived just before 4am. I don't buy into the argument that J couldn't rely on 'that' sighting otherwise it would supposedly play right into the prosecutions hands, because Julie Mugford told the cops and court that J had hired a hitman and paid that person £2000 to do it - £400 per victim. I mean, who is going to kill five people for £400 per life? In any event, by the time the case came to court at Chelmsford Crown court in October, 1986, it was 'no longer' the prosecutions case that J had hired anybody at all to kill anybody. They were claiming that he acted alone, that he got into and out of the farmhouse via an insecure ground floor window. That he fought with his father in the kitchen, and that he had used a silencer fitted to the gun, removed it after killing his sister, and that he had 'hidden it' inside a box in the cupboard tucked away in 'the corner of the den'. So, if J had been as sharp as cops were making him out to be, he would have sought to rely on the sighting of the figure that there had been at least one adult alive in the upstairs bedrooms. He could have claimed it was his dad, but he didn't. He could have claimed it was his mum, or his sister, but he didn't. And the reason he didn't was because he wasn't sure who the figure had been...
-
To be honest, the impression I got when I first got to know J was that he was a bit slow intellectually. If he'd have been 'that' clever, he would have pushed the 'sighting of the figure' at the upstairs bedroom window, all the way right from the off, as being evidence that someone was still alive inside the farmhouse after cops and J arrived just before 4am. I don't buy into the argument that J couldn't rely on 'that' sighting otherwise it would supposedly play right into the prosecutions hands, because Julie Mugford told the cops and court that J had hired a hitman and paid that person £2000 to do it - £400 per victim. I mean, who is going to kill five people for £400 per life? In any event, by the time the case came to court at Chelmsford Crown court in October, 1986, it was 'no longer' the prosecutions case that J had hired anybody at all to kill anybody. They were claiming that he acted alone, that he got into and out of the farmhouse via an insecure ground floor window. That he fought with his father in the kitchen, and that he had used a silencer fitted to the gun, removed it after killing his sister, and that he had 'hidden it' inside a box in the cupboard tucked away in 'the corner of the den'. So, if J had been as sharp as cops were making him out to be, he would have sought to rely on the sighting of the figure that there had been at least one adult alive in the upstairs bedrooms. He could have claimed it was his dad, but he didn't. He could have claimed it was his mum, or his sister, but he didn't. And the reason he didn't was because he wasn't sure who the figure had been...
That's because it was all an invention. And by the way you haven't answered my question.
-
He didn't shoot his sister...
...in your opinion.
-
To be honest, the impression I got when I first got to know J was that he was a bit slow intellectually. If he'd have been 'that' clever, he would have pushed the 'sighting of the figure' at the upstairs bedroom window, all the way right from the off, as being evidence that someone was still alive inside the farmhouse after cops and J arrived just before 4am. I don't buy into the argument that J couldn't rely on 'that' sighting otherwise it would supposedly play right into the prosecutions hands, because Julie Mugford told the cops and court that J had hired a hitman and paid that person £2000 to do it - £400 per victim. I mean, who is going to kill five people for £400 per life? In any event, by the time the case came to court at Chelmsford Crown court in October, 1986, it was 'no longer' the prosecutions case that J had hired anybody at all to kill anybody. They were claiming that he acted alone, that he got into and out of the farmhouse via an insecure ground floor window. That he fought with his father in the kitchen, and that he had used a silencer fitted to the gun, removed it after killing his sister, and that he had 'hidden it' inside a box in the cupboard tucked away in 'the corner of the den'. So, if J had been as sharp as cops were making him out to be, he would have sought to rely on the sighting of the figure that there had been at least one adult alive in the upstairs bedrooms. He could have claimed it was his dad, but he didn't. He could have claimed it was his mum, or his sister, but he didn't. And the reason he didn't was because he wasn't sure who the figure had been...
Lol that'll be a first ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mike your boring posts that make no sense to man or beast have bored/frightened everyone off in case you haven't noticed!
Before you tell me to F**k off I'm off anyway to ride one of my two horses!
-
Lol that'll be a first ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mike your boring posts that make no sense to man or beast have bored/frightened everyone off in case you haven't noticed!
Before you tell me to F**k off I'm off anyway to ride one of my two horses!
;D go careful now!
Mike's posts boring? Neigh
-
That was the time 'information' received back in the communications room, that J was 'present' at the scene with cops...
That means little unless it can be shown that the police at the scene reported Jeremy's arrival promptly. The logs attributed to Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett don't seem to mention 03:52 at all. Are you referring to a contemporaneous police log or one that was made considerably later?
-
;D go careful now!
Mike's posts boring? Neigh
Yikes I love flying by the seat of my saddle!
Neigh indeed ;D
-
Lol that'll be a first ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mike your boring posts that make no sense to man or beast have bored/frightened everyone off in case you haven't noticed!
Before you tell me to F**k off I'm off anyway to ride one of my two horses!
;) ;D
-
;) ;D
;) ;) ;D ;D
-
I believe a message was passed by one of the three occupants of CA07 when Jeremy arrived at the scene, since only two of the three cops in that patrol car got out of the car to talk to Jeremy according to the available evidence. The two cops who got out of the patrol car at 'that' time, were PC Myall, and PS Bews, who both spoke to Jeremy outside of thier oqn car, and Jeremy's car...
-
I believe a message was passed by one of the three occupants of CA07 when Jeremy arrived at the scene, since only two of the three cops in that patrol car got out of the car to talk to Jeremy according to the available evidence. The two cops who got out of the patrol car at 'that' time, were PC Myall, and PS Bews, who both spoke to Jeremy outside of thier oqn car, and Jeremy's car...
In any event, since the occupants of CA07 confirmed their arrival at the scene over the police radio as having occurred at 3.48am, and that two of those three cops inside that police vehicle (CA07) state that Jeremy arrived in pages lane three or four minutes behind them, it was 'estimated' that J arrived there at 3.52. This is the most accurate estimation in which to pin the arrival of J to the scene that anybody can arrive at...
-
Lol that'll be a first ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mike your boring posts that make no sense to man or beast have bored/frightened everyone off in case you haven't noticed!
Before you tell me to F**k off I'm off anyway to ride one of my two horses!
'Boring' is not a word that springs to mind when reading one of Mike's posts.
'Eyebrow raising' are two words that spring to mind.
-
J believed cops must have shot his family. That was his first impression after cops told him that everybody in the house were dead from gun shot wounds. He complained to that effect when he spoke to PS Saxby after being told the news. J also spoke about this possibility to a local garage owner. If from an early stage, the contents of the police message logs had been disclosed causing a massive contradiction as to the distribution of bodies downstairs and upstairs, I have no doubt that during the October 1986 trial, that it would have been part of the defence case, that cops had shot and killed at least one of the five victims. A fact strengthened by the sighting of the figure in the upstairs bedroom, alive and with mobility. No 'shots' having been overheard to have emitted from inside the farmhouse after 'that' sighting. There was the ' mystery' surrounding how the 'open telephone line', had become inexplicably 'engaged', and details of a recorded police message, timed at 5.25am, that morning which stated that 'firearm officers' were engaged in 'a conversation' with 'a person' from 'inside the farm'. This could 'not' have been a reference to 'J', because by that stage he was no longer at the scene. He had left to go with a uniformed police officer to a local public telephone kiosk in order to make a telephone call to his then girlfriend, Julie Mugford...
-
'Boring' is not a word that springs to mind when reading one of Mike's posts.
'Eyebrow raising' are two words that spring to mind.
Repetitive?
-
J believed cops must have shot his family. That was his first impression after cops told him that everybody in the house were dead from gun shot wounds. He complained to that effect when he spoke to PS Saxby after being told the news. J also spoke about this possibility to a local garage owner. If from an early stage, the contents of the police message logs had been disclosed causing a massive contradiction as to the distribution of bodies downstairs and upstairs, I have no doubt that during the October 1986 trial, that it would have been part of the defence case, that cops had shot and killed at least one of the five victims. A fact strengthened by the sighting of the figure in the upstairs bedroom, alive and with mobility. No 'shots' having been overheard to have emitted from inside the farmhouse after 'that' sighting. There was the ' mystery' surrounding how the 'open telephone line', had become inexplicably 'engaged', and details of a recorded police message, timed at 5.25am, that morning which stated that 'firearm officers' were engaged in 'a conversation' with 'a person' from 'inside the farm'. This could 'not' have been a reference to 'J', because by that stage he was no longer at the scene. He had left to go with a uniformed police officer to a local public telephone kiosk in order to make a telephone call to his then girlfriend, Julie Mugford...
What a load of twaddle, he could say that wouldn't he. ;)
Had the police fired any shots everyone there would have known about it not to mention the immediate radio messages including the usual...
SHOTS FIRED !!! SHOTS FIRED !!!
-
J believed cops must have shot his family. That was his first impression after cops told him that everybody in the house were dead from gun shot wounds. He complained to that effect when he spoke to PS Saxby after being told the news. J also spoke about this possibility to a local garage owner. If from an early stage, the contents of the police message logs had been disclosed causing a massive contradiction as to the distribution of bodies downstairs and upstairs, I have no doubt that during the October 1986 trial, that it would have been part of the defence case, that cops had shot and killed at least one of the five victims. A fact strengthened by the sighting of the figure in the upstairs bedroom, alive and with mobility. No 'shots' having been overheard to have emitted from inside the farmhouse after 'that' sighting. There was the ' mystery' surrounding how the 'open telephone line', had become inexplicably 'engaged', and details of a recorded police message, timed at 5.25am, that morning which stated that 'firearm officers' were engaged in 'a conversation' with 'a person' from 'inside the farm'. This could 'not' have been a reference to 'J', because by that stage he was no longer at the scene. He had left to go with a uniformed police officer to a local public telephone kiosk in order to make a telephone call to his then girlfriend, Julie Mugford...
What did Bamber tell you about his 3am and 6am phone calls to Julie Mike ?
-
I don't believe that the unsubstantiated claim made by Julie Mugford, that J had told her that he had hired a hitman to kill his family for a £2000 fee, prevented J and his legal team from taking 'that' approach during the trial. I don't believe J had paid anyone to kill his family at all. The idea of introducing the hitman theory came about because 'Stan' Jones told Mugford that cops had seen an unidentified male inside the farmhouse soon after their arrival there. Jones reiterated to Mugford that cops knew that the person who was seen in the bedroom had not been one of the five victims, because about an hour later the same cops saw the man in question outside the farmhouse in the grounds walking away from the farmhouse. Armed with this information, and answers given to her by J during the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, Mugford knew about the sighting of the figure in the bedroom, by two of the cops and J himself, because J had told her on a couple of occasions about the person they had seen moving around in the bedroom. Mugford knew that whoever that person was, it could not have been J himself because J was outside in the grounds with the cops when all three of them had been observing this person via the bedroom window. 'Stan' had gone out of his way to persuade Mugford that by the time of 'that' sighting that all five victims were already dead, so it was 'obvious' that she must know the true identity of that ' unidentified male', person. From that point on, the only person Mugford could think might have been that person, was Mathew MacDonald...
-
I don't believe that the unsubstantiated claim made by Julie Mugford, that J had told her that he had hired a hitman to kill his family for a £2000 fee, prevented J and his legal team from taking 'that' approach during the trial. I don't believe J had paid anyone to kill his family at all. The idea of introducing the hitman theory came about because 'Stan' Jones told Mugford that cops had seen an unidentified male inside the farmhouse soon after their arrival there. Jones reiterated to Mugford that cops knew that the person who was seen in the bedroom had not been one of the five victims, because about an hour later the same cops saw the man in question outside the farmhouse in the grounds walking away from the farmhouse. Armed with this information, and answers given to her by J during the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, Mugford knew about the sighting of the figure in the bedroom, by two of the cops and J himself, because J had told her on a couple of occasions about the person they had seen moving around in the bedroom. Mugford knew that whoever that person was, it could not have been J himself because J was outside in the grounds with the cops when all three of them had been observing this person via the bedroom window. 'Stan' had gone out of his way to persuade Mugford that by the time of 'that' sighting that all five victims were already dead, so it was 'obvious' that she must know the true identity of that ' unidentified male', person. From that point on, the only person Mugford could think might have been that person, was Mathew MacDonald...
So it was the police who first put the idea into Julies head that it was a hit man. Because Ralph Nevill was in the farm house as Sheila's accomplice and was the hunched man seen leaving WHF.
Whose idea was it to say it was MM ? Whose ever it was it was a poor idea. He had an alibi.
-
What a load of twaddle, he could say that wouldn't he. ;)
Had the police fired any shots everyone there would have known about it not to mention the immediate radio messages including the usual...
SHOTS FIRED !!! SHOTS FIRED !!!
You don't know what was said, or who said anything, since the audio recording obtained via the kitchen telephone with its handset off its cradle, has never yet been disclosed. And, only ' one shot' was fired after cops entered the kitchen, so you need to 'rethink' your twaddle...
-
J believed cops must have shot his family. That was his first impression after cops told him that everybody in the house were dead from gun shot wounds. He complained to that effect when he spoke to PS Saxby after being told the news. J also spoke about this possibility to a local garage owner. If from an early stage, the contents of the police message logs had been disclosed causing a massive contradiction as to the distribution of bodies downstairs and upstairs, I have no doubt that during the October 1986 trial, that it would have been part of the defence case, that cops had shot and killed at least one of the five victims. A fact strengthened by the sighting of the figure in the upstairs bedroom, alive and with mobility. No 'shots' having been overheard to have emitted from inside the farmhouse after 'that' sighting. There was the ' mystery' surrounding how the 'open telephone line', had become inexplicably 'engaged', and details of a recorded police message, timed at 5.25am, that morning which stated that 'firearm officers' were engaged in 'a conversation' with 'a person' from 'inside the farm'. This could 'not' have been a reference to 'J', because by that stage he was no longer at the scene. He had left to go with a uniformed police officer to a local public telephone kiosk in order to make a telephone call to his then girlfriend, Julie Mugford...
I don't recall it ever being said -at any point- that there had been "sighting of the figure in the upstairs bedroom, alive and with mobility." My understanding has always been that it was a "trick of the light".
-
So it was the police who first put the idea into Julies head that it was a hit man. Because Ralph Nevill was in the farm house as Sheila's accomplice and was the hunched man seen leaving WHF.
Whose idea was it to say it was MM ? Whose ever it was it was a poor idea. He had an alibi.
I believe that the figure seen by Myall, Bews and J, was the same scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour later, was 'none other' than Ralph Neville. His leaving the country so suddenly on the morning police entered the farmhouse and discovered bodies (and shot one), leaving his camper vehicle locally, is too much of a coincidence. It was whilst Ralph Neville was hitch hiking towards a local port to flee the country that same morning, that Neville had bragged to Mr Chambers (man who gave him a lift) that he had been staying with a family on a farm where the family had all been killed, and that newsmen and TV crews had been reporting on it...
-
I believe that the figure seen by Myall, Bews and J, was the same scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour later, was 'none other' than Ralph Neville. His leaving the country so suddenly on the morning police entered the farmhouse and discovered bodies (and shot one), leaving his camper vehicle locally, is too much of a coincidence. It was whilst Ralph Neville was hitch hiking towards a local port to flee the country that same morning, that Neville had bragged to Mr Chambers (man who gave him a lift) that he had been staying with a family on a farm where the family had all been killed, and that newsmen and TV crews had been reporting on it...
Why did Neville flee the country, so suddenly?
-
I believe that the figure seen by Myall, News and J, was the same scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour later, was 'none other' than Ralph Neville. His leaving the country so suddenly on the morning police entered the farmhouse and discovered bodies (and shot one), leaving his camper vehicle locally, is too much of a coincidence. It was whilst Ralph Neville was hitch hiking towards a local port to flee the country that same morning, that Neville had bragged to Mr Chambers (man who gave him a lift) that he had been staying with a family on a farm where the family had all been killed, and that newsmen and TV crews had been reporting on it...
An hour later from when ? From when the police entered WHF, or from when they arrived at WHF.
Where did Ralph Nevill exit from ? All the doors and windows were locked from inside.
-
Why did Neville flee the country, so suddenly?
Leaving the country isn't tantamount to "fleeing" the country and what is there to suggest the leaving was "sudden".
-
I believe that the figure seen by Myall, Bews and J, was the same scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour later, was 'none other' than Ralph Neville. His leaving the country so suddenly on the morning police entered the farmhouse and discovered bodies (and shot one), leaving his camper vehicle locally, is too much of a coincidence. It was whilst Ralph Neville was hitch hiking towards a local port to flee the country that same morning, that Neville had bragged to Mr Chambers (man who gave him a lift) that he had been staying with a family on a farm where the family had all been killed, and that newsmen and TV crews had been reporting on it...
Something he was very unlikely to have made mention of had he been involved in the murders.
-
I believe that the figure seen by Myall, Bews and J, was the same scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour later, was 'none other' than Ralph Neville. His leaving the country so suddenly on the morning police entered the farmhouse and discovered bodies (and shot one), leaving his camper vehicle locally, is too much of a coincidence. It was whilst Ralph Neville was hitch hiking towards a local port to flee the country that same morning, that Neville had bragged to Mr Chambers (man who gave him a lift) that he had been staying with a family on a farm where the family had all been killed, and that newsmen and TV crews had been reporting on it...
So, there is a siege situation and the police let someone just walk away? That just isn't credible.
-
Mike why did Ralph Nevill agree to assist Sheila ?
When did Ralph and Sheila discuss this ?
Did Sheila let him in that evening ?
Why did Neville ring Jeremy ? He would have had enough on his plate up against Sheila and Ralph.
-
I don't recall it ever being said -at any point- that there had been "sighting of the figure in the upstairs bedroom, alive and with mobility." My understanding has always been that it was a "trick of the light".
It was 'not a trick of light', it was the sighting of Ralph Neville, moving around inside the bedroom. He 'was' Sheila's accomplice. He helped her to kill the others, including overpowering Mr Bamber, Snr...
Neville used 'Anthony Pargeters' .22 bolt action (Bruno) Rifle in the shootings, and his Parker hale silencer. I am correct in reporting that Neville may have been injured during the struggle with dad in the kitchen, and that 'his blood' might be the source of the blood attributed to the silencer (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, AK1)...
-
It was 'not a trick of light', it was the sighting of Ralph Neville, moving around inside the bedroom. He 'was' Sheila's accomplice. He helped her to kill the others, including overpowering Mr Bamber, Snr...
Neville used 'Anthony Pargeters' .22 bolt action (Bruno) Rifle in the shootings, and his Parker hale silencer. I am correct in reporting that Neville may have been injured during the struggle with dad in the kitchen, and that 'his blood' might be the source of the blood attributed to the silencer (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, AK1)...
We already know that Robert Woodwis Boutflour had these very same blood groups along with Sheila Caffell...
-
It was 'not a trick of light', it was the sighting of Ralph Neville, moving around inside the bedroom. He 'was' Sheila's accomplice. He helped her to kill the others, including overpowering Mr Bamber, Snr...
Neville used 'Anthony Pargeters' .22 bolt action (Bruno) Rifle in the shootings, and his Parker hale silencer. I am correct in reporting that Neville may have been injured during the struggle with dad in the kitchen, and that 'his blood' might be the source of the blood attributed to the silencer (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, AK1)...
Yeah, 'Coarse it was ::)!!!!!!!! I'd have thought you'd have chosen one of the villainous Brothers from the Monastery as your mystery man.
-
Mike why don't you create a Youtube video about this.
Sheila having an accomplice is not something that has been considered by the public.
-
We already know that Robert Woodwis Boutflour had these very same blood groups along with Sheila Caffell...
Ralph Neville's blood groups, need checking...
Why?
Because, somebody with blood on their hands, possibly 'their own blood' unscrewed the silencer from the end of the .22 bolt action (Bruno) Rifle, and their blood got onto and into the aperture of the silencers end cap, which in turn was the source for the flake which produced the key collection of blood group activity...
-
Mike why don't you create a Youtube video about this.
Sheila having an accomplice is not something that has been considered by the public.
Why are you always on about mike on youtube?
-
Paranoia.
-
So, there is a siege situation and the police let someone just walk away? That just isn't credible.
He dug himself a tunnel from under the farm and passed under all the police. This explains why he was so was so scruffy and had a bad back ::) ;D
-
Why are you always on about mike on youtube?
Mike's Youtube videos are very influential
-
Mike's Youtube videos are very influential
On what, or whom?
-
An hour later from when ? From when the police entered WHF, or from when they arrived at WHF.
Where did Ralph Nevill exit from ? All the doors and windows were locked from inside.
From one of the 'insecure' ground floor windows, same way that relatives and cops accused Jeremy of leaving the farmhouse after the killings...
-
An hour later from when ? From when the police entered WHF, or from when they arrived at WHF.
Neville was seen walking away from the farmhouse just before 5 am...
-
He dug himself a tunnel from under the farm and passed under all the police. This explains why he was so was so scruffy and had a bad back ::) ;D
Ha, ha!! So how did they see him then?
-
Neville was seen walking away from the farmhouse just before 5 am...
What? They just tipped their hats and let him walk past? Like I said, it really isn't credible.
-
Leaving the country isn't tantamount to "fleeing" the country and what is there to suggest the leaving was "sudden".
J told me that Neville had fled from South Africa in a cloud of suspicion involving shootings, and the like...
-
What? They just tipped their hats and let him walk past? Like I said, it really isn't credible.
Refer to 'Kim Sengupta's,' news article, and the first entry contained in the 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', ENTRY 001, 'unidentified male' seen at whf by PC Myall...
-
J told me that Neville had fled from South Africa in a cloud of suspicion involving shootings, and the like...
As MRD famously said "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"
-
From one of the 'insecure' ground floor windows, same way that relatives and cops accused Jeremy of leaving the farmhouse after the killings...
That must have been the kitchen window which could be banged shut from outside. It a surprise the police didn't see Ralph at 5pm.
-
Neville was seen walking away from the farmhouse just before 5 am...
So they just wished him "Good day, Sir" and let him go, did they?
-
Honestly! We seem to have plumbed new depths here!
-
Honestly! We seem to have plumbed new depths here!
I take it you don't mean depths of understanding, Neil?
-
Honestly! We seem to have plumbed new depths here!
Oh I am sure there is a lot further to fall yet. ;D
-
What did Bamber tell you about his 3am and 6am phone calls to Julie Mike ?
I paid particular attention in trying to establish the timing of calls made by J to Julie Mugford, that morning. He could not be specific as to the actual times these calls had been made, he could only refer me to times other people had said those two calls had been made. However, I did manage to extract the 'sequence' with which these calls had been made. I can say that J did 'not' call Mugford on the first occasion that morning, until 'after' his 'dad' had called him, and his attempt to contact Witham police station, but before J contacted cops at Chelmsford in the form of his conversation with PC West timed at 3.36am. He made a second call to Mugford after leaving the scene in the company of a cop before 5.30pm. In so much as the claim by Mugford that when J called her on that first occasion, he allegedly told her ' all is going well', my understanding is that she misunderstood what J had actually said on that occasion, because she was tired and high on drugs. What J actually said, was something along the lines ' Oh, I feel like hell'...
-
I take it you don't mean depths of understanding, Neil?
;D
-
Cops saw 'an unidentified male' at whf at about 3.45 / 3.55am, and the person who reported the sighting was PC Myall, not PS Bews, or PS Saxby. The timing of this sighting which became the first entry in the 'Major Incident Register' (3.45am) after the true timing of the sighting (3.55pm) was brought forward 10 minutes, to match the the bringing forward of J's 3.36am telephone call, forward by the same 10 minutes to 3.26am. PS Bews explanation for this sighting was that 'it' was 'a trick of light'...
How utterly 'astonishing' that at no stage has PC Myall, described the sighting of the 'unidentified male' as 'a trick of light', but instead, PC Myall, is in 'agreement' with Jeremy, that what they witnessed moving around inside the bedroom was 'a person', not a trick of light. An hour later PC Myall observed the same 'unidentified male' walking away from the farmhouse, just before PS Adams and the first group of firearm officers arrived at the scene at 5 am...
-
So they just wished him "Good day, Sir" and let him go, did they?
Refer to ' Kim Sengupta's news article', and the first entry, 001 of the 'Major Incident Register', relating to the sighting of the 'unidentified male'...
-
Refer to ' Kim Sengupta's news article', and the first entry, 001 of the 'Major Incident Register', relating to the sighting of the 'unidentified male'...
So that's the only reference? If you have the article, then post it - it's not available online. I don't believe the police would allow someone to walk away from a siege situation, it's just not credible at all. I don't believe that you believe it either.
-
So they just wished him "Good day, Sir" and let him go, did they?
;D ;D ;D ...in Mike's world probably yes.
-
In any event, since the occupants of CA07 confirmed their arrival at the scene over the police radio as having occurred at 3.48am, and that two of those three cops inside that police vehicle (CA07) state that Jeremy arrived in pages lane three or four minutes behind them, it was 'estimated' that J arrived there at 3.52. This is the most accurate estimation in which to pin the arrival of J to the scene that anybody can arrive at...
That's not the case. The phrase "three to four minutes" doesn't tell you whether to use "three" or "four", and suggests that the officers didn't agree amongst themselves about this estimate. Hence neither figure should be regarded as accurate, especially if there is reason to suppose it isn't. One such reason is that Ps Bews went to some trouble to point out in an additional statement that he meant this time period started when Jeremy was overtaken, not when CA07 parked in Pages Lane. More accurately, therefore, Jeremy was overtaken at 3:47½ and arrived at where CA07 was parked at 3:50.
-
Cops saw 'an unidentified male' at whf at about 3.45 / 3.55am, and the person who reported the sighting was PC Myall, not PS Bews, or PS Saxby. The timing of this sighting which became the first entry in the 'Major Incident Register' (3.45am) after the true timing of the sighting (3.55pm) was brought forward 10 minutes, to match the the bringing forward of J's 3.36am telephone call, forward by the same 10 minutes to 3.26am. PS Bews explanation for this sighting was that 'it' was 'a trick of light'...
How utterly 'astonishing' that at no stage has PC Myall, described the sighting of the 'unidentified male' as 'a trick of light', but instead, PC Myall, is in 'agreement' with Jeremy, that what they witnessed moving around inside the bedroom was 'a person', not a trick of light. An hour later PC Myall observed the same 'unidentified male' walking away from the farmhouse, just before PS Adams and the first group of firearm officers arrived at the scene at 5 am...
Is this what Jeremy told you Mike ? Why wasn't it brought up at trial ?
Why didn't Myall and others catch up with the man leaving WHF ?
-
Cops saw 'an unidentified male' at whf at about 3.45 / 3.55am, and the person who reported the sighting was PC Myall, not PS Bews, or PS Saxby. The timing of this sighting which became the first entry in the 'Major Incident Register' (3.45am) after the true timing of the sighting (3.55pm) was brought forward 10 minutes, to match the the bringing forward of J's 3.36am telephone call, forward by the same 10 minutes to 3.26am. PS Bews explanation for this sighting was that 'it' was 'a trick of light'...
How utterly 'astonishing' that at no stage has PC Myall, described the sighting of the 'unidentified male' as 'a trick of light', but instead, PC Myall, is in 'agreement' with Jeremy, that what they witnessed moving around inside the bedroom was 'a person', not a trick of light. An hour later PC Myall observed the same 'unidentified male' walking away from the farmhouse, just before PS Adams and the first group of firearm officers arrived at the scene at 5 am...
I don't recall seeing it reported by anyone that "a person" was seen moving around inside the bedroom and it's laughable that this alleged "same person" was allegedly allowed to walk freely from the farm house without being challenged.
-
Wasn't it Mayall/Meyall who saw the moving figure,when along with Jeremy,they had to duck down out of sight ? Wasn't it after that sighting that the firearms team were engaged ? Why,before this happened,did it take so long in bringing in the firearms team for a so-called siege ?
-
If you didn't see it reported,then it was never admitted.
-
Wasn't it Mayall/Meyall who saw the moving figure,when along with Jeremy,they had to duck down out of sight ? Wasn't it after that sighting that the firearms team were engaged ? Why,before this happened,did it take so long in bringing in the firearms team for a so-called siege ?
There is a thread on who spotted the 'trick of the light'. Most sources say it was Bamber.
Mike did Myall tell Bamber he saw a figure leaving WHF ? Or did Bamber see it as well.
-
If you didn't see it reported,then it was never admitted.
So we appear to have now accumulated several people -including Jeremy- who all "witnessed" an "unknown male (since when, Mike has actually named him) moving around the bedroom" yet not ONCE did any of them report it?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
People DO have selective memories if things don't go their way.
-
People DO have selective memory's if things don't go their way.
Which must include Jeremy............... unless he chose to withhold such important information for his own reasons.
-
Which must include Jeremy............... unless he chose to withhold such important information for his own reasons.
No. There's a difference between what little you know--------as in JB's case where he must have been puzzled as to why he was arrested in the first place,and those who spouted verbal diarrhoea to get him convicted.
When anyone is put on the spot about something they know nothing about,they are naturally hesitant, others had it all worked out before JB opened his mouth.
Criminals are always one step ahead and invariably have their " speeches " ready.
-
No. There's a difference between what little you know--------as in JB's case where he must have been puzzled as to why he was arrested in the first place,and those who spouted verbal diarrhoea to get him convicted.
When anyone is put on the spot about something they know nothing about,they are naturally hesitant, others had it all worked out before JB opened his mouth.
Criminals are always one step ahead and invariably have their " speeches " ready.
But it still remains that Jeremy -and others- allegedly saw "an unknown person (later identified by Mile as being Ralph Nevill) moving around in the bedroom" and not one of them reported it. It can't be said that Jeremy knew nothing about it if he was there and allegedly witnessed it for himself.
-
People DO have selective memories if things don't go their way.
They certainly DO! ::)
-
Wasn't it Mayall/Meyall who saw the moving figure,when along with Jeremy,they had to duck down out of sight ? Wasn't it after that sighting that the firearms team were engaged ? Why,before this happened,did it take so long in bringing in the firearms team for a so-called siege ?
Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement. They simply had the jitters (spurned on no doubt by Jeremy), you can imagine all sorts in those kinds of situations. However, here we have possible movement metamorphosing into a named individual who we are led to believe was allowed to leave a siege situation without any kind of questioning about what was going on inside the farm house. Complete RUBBISH! If anyone believes this, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself!
-
It must be heartening for you to always give the right answers------------considering you were there ?! ::) And to be so adamant about it too.
Maybe if you followed some EP statements once in a while instead of making out that JB's the liar in all this then perhaps you'd see past those blinkers of yours. That's always supposing you believe every word of EP and other cohorts.
-
Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement. They simply had the jitters (spurned on no doubt by Jeremy), you can imagine all sorts in those kinds of situations. However, here we have possible movement metamorphosing into a named individual who we are led to believe was allowed to leave a siege situation without any kind of questioning about what was going on inside the farm house. Complete RUBBISH! If anyone believes this, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself!
Caroline, the possibility presents itself of throwing RUBBISH out there to see if there are any takers who are prepared to believe it. Their belief apparently turning RUBBISH into fact.
-
Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement. They simply had the jitters (spurned on no doubt by Jeremy), you can imagine all sorts in those kinds of situations. However, here we have possible movement metamorphosing into a named individual who we are led to believe was allowed to leave a siege situation without any kind of questioning about what was going on inside the farm house. Complete RUBBISH! If anyone believes this, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself!
How bloody spiteful !
Don't you dare tell me to take a good long hard look at myself. At least I don't suffer from paranoia !!
-
Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement. They simply had the jitters (spurned on no doubt by Jeremy), you can imagine all sorts in those kinds of situations. However, here we have possible movement metamorphosing into a named individual who we are led to believe was allowed to leave a siege situation without any kind of questioning about what was going on inside the farm house. Complete RUBBISH! If anyone believes this, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself!
oh so very true caroline
-
Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement.
Stg Bews once let slip that is was PC Myall who spotted the movement
-
Stg Bews once let slip that is was PC Myall who spotted the movement
I know that, but he has said both of then said it - why would that mean it was defo Myall and not Jeremy? We simply can't be sure who it was. Also, 'movement' is not the same as seeing a 'figure'. It's important to quite what people actually said and not put your own slant on it. That happens a lot here!
-
I know that, but he has said both of then said it - why would that mean it was defo Myall and not Jeremy? We simply can't be sure who it was. Also, 'movement' is not the same as seeing a 'figure'. It's important to quite what people actually said and not put your own slant on it. That happens a lot here!
the dog was still moving about upstairs imo and movement may have been caused by shadows made by the dog.makes sense to me
-
the dog was still moving about upstairs imo and movement may have been caused by shadows made by the dog.makes sense to me
I think they were just spooked or Jeremy said it, he said it on purpose.
-
the dog was still moving about upstairs imo and movement may have been caused by shadows made by the dog.makes sense to me
What ? The dog wasn't that high off the floor,how could it cast shadows at the window ?
-
I think they were just spooked or Jeremy said it, he said it on purpose.
yes that makes sense sometimes if you convince someone you saw movement they may well start believing you did. good ploy by jb
-
What ? The dog wasn't that high off the floor,how could it cast shadows at the window ?
if the lights were on and pitch black outside the dog would not have to be 6ft6in to cast shadows
-
if the lights were on and pitch black outside the dog would not have to be 6ft6in to cast shadows
It was beneath the windowsill height,not a werewolf.
-
It was beneath the windowsill height,not a werewolf.
i will let you win this one lookout
-
I don't do winning.
-
It was beneath the windowsill height,not a werewolf.
;D ;D ;D
-
I don't do winning.
Now I would agree with that! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Now I would agree with that! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Pity you didn't either. ???
-
Pity you didn't either. ???
It's not my fault Lookout - it's just a knack! ;D ;D ;) 8)
-
So that's the only reference? If you have the article, then post it - it's not available online. I don't believe the police would allow someone to walk away from a siege situation, it's just not credible at all. I don't believe that you believe it either.
Who do you say was the 'unidentified male' that PC Myall refers to at whf, entry 001, timed at 3.45am, on 7th August, 1985?
Before you leap in with 'Jeremy' being 'that' person, think again, because that entry and all the entries contained in that 'Major Incident Register' were not compiled until 'after' J's first arrest, and 'obviously' PC Myall certainly knew Jeremy in person by 'that' stage (we are talking about from the end of the first week in September 1985). So, who was this 'unidentified male' who PC Myalls had seen on that early occasion? How come the other two eagle eyed cops (PS Bews and PS Saxby) ever put their names to any such sighting? We know because Jeremy was there when the 'person' was seen in the bedroom, at the behest of PC Myall, not by PS Bews, and that J himself has gone on record as saying they were clearly looking at a person who appeared to be looking out onto the front garden from the right hand edge of the window (as observed from their vantage point). I have been over what J can remember of that sighting many times with him, asking if it could have been his sister that they all saw, and he said that he couldn't be sure, he added that he couldn't say one way or the other, whether the person he could see was male or a female. I asked him if the person he saw whilst he was sat crouched down alongside PC Myall, and PS Bews, might have been his mum? Again, he reiterated that he couldn't say it was her, one way or another. I then put it to him, could the person he was looking at have been his dad? He repeated to me, that he could not say, other than it was a person they were observing, and that it was 'no trick of light'. I asked J if the person he had observed might have been someone other than any of the three members of his family? And, he repeated that he could not say because he didn't know. I then asked J why he was so sure that it was a person he was looking at, and not 'a trick of light'? He replied by saying that he and the two cops were crouched down and static, and that as they looked in the direction of the window in question, every now and then he could see the silhouette of the persons head, bobbing out into view from the right hand edge of the window, then darting back in again, out of sight for a few seconds. I said to J how long were you all observing this 'person' for as you were crouched down? He said 3 to 4 minutes. I said, were any of you moving or shifting about during that period you observed this person? He replied, 'no'. What happened to make you all get up and run off? He said, because the person at the right hand edge of the window suddenly moved very fast across the opening of the window...
-
Who do you say was the 'unidentified male' that PC Myall refers to at whf, entry 001, timed at 3.45am, on 7th August, 1985?
Before you leap in with 'Jeremy' being 'that' person, think again, because that entry and all the entries contained in that 'Major Incident Register' were not compiled until 'after' J's first arrest, and 'obviously' PC Myall certainly knew Jeremy in person by 'that' stage (we are talking about from the end of the first week in September 1985). So, who was this 'unidentified male' who PC Myalls had seen on that early occasion? How come the other two eagle eyed cops (PS Bews and PS Saxby) ever put their names to any such sighting? We know because Jeremy was there when the 'person' was seen in the bedroom, at the behest of PC Myall, not by PS Bews, and that J himself has gone on record as saying they were clearly looking at a person who appeared to be looking out onto the front garden from the right hand edge of the window (as observed from their vantage point). I have been over what J can remember of that sighting many times with him, asking if it could have been his sister that they all saw, and he said that he couldn't be sure, he added that he couldn't say one way or the other, whether the person he could see was male or a female. I asked him if the person he saw whilst he was sat crouched down alongside PC Myall, and PS Bews, might have been his mum? Again, he reiterated that he couldn't say it was her, one way or another. I then put it to him, could the person he was looking at have been his dad? He repeated to me, that he could not say, other than it was a person they were observing, and that it was 'no trick of light'. I asked J if the person he had observed might have been someone other than any of the three members of his family? And, he repeated that he could not say because he didn't know. I then asked J why he was so sure that it was a person he was looking at, and not 'a trick of light'? He replied by saying that he and the two cops were crouched down and static, and that as they looked in the direction of the window in question, every now and then he could see the silhouette of the persons head, bobbing out into view from the right hand edge of the window, then darting back in again, out of sight for a few seconds. I said to J how long were you all observing this 'person' for as you were crouched down? He said 3 to 4 minutes. I said, were any of you moving or shifting about during that period you observed this person? He replied, 'no'. What happened to make you all get up and run off? He said, because the person at the right hand edge of the window suddenly moved very fast across the opening of the window...
I say 'there was no unidentified male'. IF there had been, he's have been approached and questioned AND on finding 5 dead bodies - arrested and charged.
-
Who do you say was the 'unidentified male' that PC Myall refers to at whf, entry 001, timed at 3.45am, on 7th August, 1985?
Before you leap in with 'Jeremy' being 'that' person, think again, because that entry and all the entries contained in that 'Major Incident Register' were not compiled until 'after' J's first arrest, and 'obviously' PC Myall certainly knew Jeremy in person by 'that' stage (we are talking about from the end of the first week in September 1985). So, who was this 'unidentified male' who PC Myalls had seen on that early occasion? How come the other two eagle eyed cops (PS Bews and PS Saxby) ever put their names to any such sighting? We know because Jeremy was there when the 'person' was seen in the bedroom, at the behest of PC Myall, not by PS Bews, and that J himself has gone on record as saying they were clearly looking at a person who appeared to be looking out onto the front garden from the right hand edge of the window (as observed from their vantage point). I have been over what J can remember of that sighting many times with him, asking if it could have been his sister that they all saw, and he said that he couldn't be sure, he added that he couldn't say one way or the other, whether the person he could see was male or a female. I asked him if the person he saw whilst he was sat crouched down alongside PC Myall, and PS Bews, might have been his mum? Again, he reiterated that he couldn't say it was her, one way or another. I then put it to him, could the person he was looking at have been his dad? He repeated to me, that he could not say, other than it was a person they were observing, and that it was 'no trick of light'. I asked J if the person he had observed might have been someone other than any of the three members of his family? And, he repeated that he could not say because he didn't know. I then asked J why he was so sure that it was a person he was looking at, and not 'a trick of light'? He replied by saying that he and the two cops were crouched down and static, and that as they looked in the direction of the window in question, every now and then he could see the silhouette of the persons head, bobbing out into view from the right hand edge of the window, then darting back in again, out of sight for a few seconds. I said to J how long were you all observing this 'person' for as you were crouched down? He said 3 to 4 minutes. I said, were any of you moving or shifting about during that period you observed this person? He replied, 'no'. What happened to make you all get up and run off? He said, because the person at the right hand edge of the window suddenly moved very fast across the opening of the window...
And you define Jeremy as being a sandwich short of a picnic?!!!!!! Have you not considered just how clever of him it was NOT to state who he allegedly "saw" moving around in the bedroom? He just dropped the suggestion into the mix and left it to those, like you, to work it out on his behalf. He couldn't then be accused of saying he "saw" X. I'd be highly suspicious of that "You clever bastard" label.
-
How was the " trick of the light " at the front of the premises established, when the moon was at the backend of the farmhouse ? It wasn't only JB who'd seen it !!
Because the fact of the matter is that there WAS movement at the front bedroom window soon after JB had arrived at the farmhouse and whoever the person was must have seen JB outside with the police.
-
How was the " trick of the light " at the front of the premises established, when the moon was at the backend of the farmhouse ? It wasn't only JB who'd seen it !!
Because the fact of the matter is that there WAS movement at the front bedroom window soon after JB had arrived at the farmhouse and whoever the person was must have seen JB outside with the police.
And you know this for certain sure, HOW? Because Jeremy told you, just as he suggested it to the police that night, and then left it to them and you to make the decision about who it was he saw?
-
And you know this for certain sure, HOW? Because Jeremy told you, just as he suggested it to the police that night, and then left it to them and you to make the decision about who it was he saw?
Do you know different ? And from whom ?
-
Do you know different ? And from whom ?
Well, you probably heard the same interview as I and I have no recall of it being said that "an unknown person was seen moving around in the bedroom".
-
Well, you probably heard the same interview as I and I have no recall of it being said that "an unknown person was seen moving around in the bedroom".
That's what you think,but we'll leave it at that,shall we ?
-
How was the " trick of the light " at the front of the premises established, when the moon was at the backend of the farmhouse ? It wasn't only JB who'd seen it !!
Because the fact of the matter is that there WAS movement at the front bedroom window soon after JB had arrived at the farmhouse and whoever the person was must have seen JB outside with the police.
i will like to add my opinion the only thing alive and moving about that house while jb was outside with police is the DOG.no person could have left whf while police were outside case closed.
-
I say 'there was no unidentified male'. IF there had been, he's have been approached and questioned AND on finding 5 dead bodies - arrested and charged.
No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...
-
No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...
So, with the very first entry in 'that' Register stating - 001, 'unidentified male' seen at whf by PC Myall, at 3.45am?, it becomes clear that by the 7th September, 1985, that PC Myall still hadn't identified the person he had seen on that occasion. It can't have been a reference to 'Jeremy' because, by the 7th September, he already knew who J was. You can't describe somebody that you know, and spent time at the scene with for several hours a month to the day earlier, as an 'unidentified male'. So, the person that PC Myall saw, was clearly someone he had never met before, and whom he did not know the identity of...
-
No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...
ep are fools and at first were fooled by jb.how can you identify things after the event .the vehicles at the farm were accounted for and there were no unidentified males or females
-
No, stop adopting that nonsense approach. Have you seen the police document that ' I am referring to'? It's titled, 'MAJOR INCIDENT REGISTER', and it was put together by Essex police themselves, on the 7th September, 1985, onward. So, please take the matter seriously, because neither Jeremy, nor myself, or anybody representing his interests has had any input into how that 'Register' got compiled. The document itself was drafted up by cops who wanted to identify (a) unidentified males, (b) unidentified females, and (c) unidentified vehicles...
However, that doesn't explain why the alleged "unidentified person (who you have since named as being Ralph Nevill) moving around in the bedroom" was allowed to do such, unapprehended. Further more, it fails to explain why this alleged, still "unidentified person" was seen to be leaving from the vicinity of the farmhouse without being apprehended. Isn't there something here about closing the stable door after JP took the horses for a gallop?
-
So, with the very first entry in 'that' Register stating - 001, 'unidentified male' seen at whf by PC Myall, at 3.45am?, it becomes clear that by the 7th September, 1985, that PC Myall still hadn't identified the person he had seen on that occasion. It can't have been a reference to 'Jeremy' because, by the 7th September, he already knew who J was. You can't describe somebody that you know, and spent time at the scene with for several hours a month to the day earlier, as an 'unidentified male'. So, the person that PC Myall saw, was clearly someone he had never met before, and whom he did not know the identity of...
Well,he only had to ask.
-
Well,he only had to ask.
witty jane but true he only needed to ask who are you :))
-
ep are fools and at first were fooled by jb.the truth is, that they weren't fooled by J in the first instance. Nobody fooled the cops into thinking, or doing anything at all. Cops knew exactly what they were doing, and they took the approach they took because in the overall circumstances of how the police operation panned out inside the farmhouse, cops thought it was the best way to proceed with the handling of any investigation. The fact that the operation had seemingly 'ended' and been completed by 8.10am, that morning, with all five bodies accounted for, only for the 'search' for 'a body' to have been ressurected at 8.15am, until around 8.30am, give or take a few seconds, determined how the five deaths were investigated during 'that' first month, between 7th August and 7th September, 1985, which as we all know was one of the cops treating the five deaths, as ' four murders, and a suicide' (SC/688/85). But for the tenacity of the relatives, nobody would have blinked an eye with the manner with which cops investigated the five deaths during that first month. It was 'convenient' for cops to pin the responsibility for the other four deaths upon her, and for the cops to simply explain away Sheila's death, as a suicide...how can you identify things after the event . I think you may be misunderstanding, the nature of the content of 'that' Register. It was compiled from the 7th September, 1985, onward, so that further investigations might be carried out to try and identify any person not previously identified by name, be it a man, or a woman. The references to 'unidentified vehicles' in the same Register, were vehicles mentioned in witness statements, or officers Reports which had not been individually identified by index Registration No. Plate...the vehicles at the farm were accounted for yes, and one of the vehicles, was Ralph Neville's camper truck...and there were no unidentified males or females I'm afraid in the context of 'that' Register, there clearly were literally hundreds of examples of a male who had not been identified, or a female who had not been identified, or a vehicle which cops had a basic description of but not a registration. These 'unidentified' males, (with the exception of one example) females, and motor vehicles, were not all linked to the scene on the morning of the shootings, some of the enquiries that were listed in 'that' Register, related to sightings of unidentified people on dates before the day of the shootings, and afterwards...
-
However, that doesn't explain why the alleged "unidentified person (who you have since named as being Ralph Nevill) moving around in the bedroom" was allowed to do such, unapprehended. maybe, you just don't understand what is being referred to in 'that' Register, at that particular time (3.45am)? How could PC Myall apprehend the ' unidentified' male, he was observing inside the farmhouse, when by that stage, PC Myall was arguably outside in the grounds with PS Bews and Jeremy? Do you know something that I don't?Further more, it fails to explain why this alleged, still "unidentified person" was seen to be leaving from the vicinity of the farmhouse without being apprehended. You are mixing up one sighting, of an ' unidentified' male (3.45am), with another sighting of the same man which took place about an hour later (4.50pm) Isn't there something here about closing the stable door after JP took the horses for a gallop? According to Kim Senguptas news article, the sighting of the 'scruffy looking' hunch shouldered man was seen walking away from the vicinity of the farmhouse about an hour after police first arrived. Sengupta does not mention anything at all about the sighting of an 'unidentified' male seen by PC Myall shortly upon arrival at the scene. My reference to both of these sightings being related to the same man (Ralph Neville) are not to be interpreted as the same sighting, since there were clearly two different sightings, one of the 'unidentified' male inside the bedroom, and the other, of the same ' unidentified' man seen walking away from the farmhouse...
-
whoever it was maybe it could have been lord lucan.anyway its impossible to get the answer now and its not enough to get an appeal
-
What is more, the so called ' unidentified' man, and now I am referring specificly to the sighting of the 'scruffy looking, hunch shouldered man, seen walking away from the farmhouse, about 'an Hour' after cops first arrived upon the scene. This 'Scruufily' described man appeared to be carrying something with him at that time...
Now, what the hell could he have been carrying?
-
whoever it was maybe it could have been lord lucan.anyway its impossible to get the answer now and its not enough to get an appeal
Maybe, not enough on its own - but it seems rather strange that only PS Bews refers to the sighting of that man, as 'a trick of light', since, PC Myall does not, and neither does Jeremy...
-
What I would hope for, is that somebody ought to be checking into the real reasons why Ralph Neville left South Africa in a hurry, which according to what J told me involved a shooting incident which Neville thought cops over there might be wanting to question him about any role he had played in a murder, or a series of murders over there?
-
My only interest is in the allegation that certain members of the police -the names being irrelevant- "saw" an "unidentified person moving around in the bedroom" and I'm not stupid enough to suggest that any police IN the house was capable of seeing what was seen by those OUT of the house.
IF they saw an "unidentified person ect................" IN the house, surely they didn't think it was a different ect "LEAVING from the vicinity of the house" an hour later. They would have been perfectly within their rights to apprehend such a person.
-
What I would hope for, is that somebody ought to be checking into the real reasons why Ralph Neville left South Africa in a hurry, which according to what J told me involved a shooting incident which Neville thought cops over there might be wanting to question him about any role he had played in a murder, or a series of murders over there?
At one stage J himself was convinced that Ralph Neville might have played a role in the killing of three generations of the Bamber family...
-
What is more, the so called ' unidentified' man, and now I am referring specificly to the sighting of the 'scruffy looking, hunch shouldered man, seen walking away from the farmhouse, about 'an Hour' after cops first arrived upon the scene. This 'Scruufily' described man appeared to be carrying something with him at that time...
Now, what the hell could he have been carrying?
who saw him leaving and why was he allowed to wander near a crime scene and not be challanged.you forget in jb own words he had said it was shelia and no one else how did the person in the window leave whf and locked up as he left theres no doubt whf was locked and secure when police entered
-
What I would hope for, is that somebody ought to be checking into the real reasons why Ralph Neville left South Africa in a hurry, which according to what J told me involved a shooting incident which Neville thought cops over there might be wanting to question him about any role he had played in a murder, or a series of murders over there?
Which deflects very nicely from the shooting incident that Jeremy's in prison for. Does it not strike you as odd that he'd "FLEE" back to the very place that he was going to be questioned for murder?
-
At one stage J himself was convinced that Ralph Neville might have played a role in the killing of three generations of the Bamber family...
when was this because jb was screaming to the world press that it was his sister and she was quite mad and perfectly capable of using firearms that were in whf
-
Which deflects very nicely from the shooting incident that Jeremy's in prison for. Does it not strike you as odd that he'd "FLEE" back to the very place that he was going to be questioned for murder?
how did he leave whf i doubt if jb had told him about the self latching window and why would he lock up before leaving.just common sense
-
My only interest is in the allegation that certain members of the police -the names being irrelevant- "saw" an "unidentified person moving around in the bedroom" and I'm not stupid enough to suggest that any police IN the house was capable of seeing what was seen by those OUT of the house.
IF they saw an "unidentified person ect................" IN the house, surely they didn't think it was a different ect "LEAVING from the vicinity of the house" an hour later. They would have been perfectly within their rights to apprehend such a person.
You do not know whereabouts PC Myall was situated in the grounds as opposed to where the 'unidentified' male was seen walking away in the grounds of the house. You don't know where the only other officer known to have entered the grounds of the farmhouse by that stage (PS Bews') was situated in relation to PC Myall, or the 'unidentified' male. All we know is what Kim Sengupta published in 'that' news article. I am minded to believe that 'Neville' may have been in possession of a firearm, when he was seen leaving the grounds at 'that' time. If so, it would explain why PC Myall did not approach him, or try to speak to him...
-
who saw him leaving and why was he allowed to wander near a crime scene and not be challanged.you forget in jb own words he had said it was shelia and no one else how did the person in the window leave whf and locked up as he left theres no doubt whf was locked and secure when police entered
Good point, Sami. I think this is Jeremy pointing every finger away from his own part in this dreadful crime. First of all he gives police a rather warped CV of Sheila's mental health and her competency with firearms, THEN he thinks he sees movement in a bedroom but leaves others to sex and put a name to what was "a trick of light" which miraculously becomes "an unidentified person...................."
-
who saw him leaving and why was he allowed to wander near a crime scene and not be challanged.you forget in jb own words he had said it was shelia and no one else how did the person in the window leave whf and locked up as he left theres no doubt whf was locked and secure when police entered
PC Myall saw the 'unidentified' male walking away from the farmhouse in the grounds of the farm. There could be any number of different reasons why he did not approach the man. Was the 'unidentified' male carrying a gun? Kim Sengupta appeared to be suggesting that whoever 'that' man was was crouched as if carrying something partially concealed beneath the flap of a jacket...
-
Good point, Sami. I think this is Jeremy pointing every finger away from his own part in this dreadful crime. First of all he gives police a rather warped CV of Sheila's mental health and her competency with firearms, THEN he thinks he sees movement in a bedroom but leaves others to sex and put a name to what was "a trick of light" which miraculously becomes "an unidentified person...................."
correct jane ps bews says it was a trick of light and no one was at the window
-
Which deflects very nicely from the shooting incident that Jeremy's in prison for. Does it not strike you as odd that he'd "FLEE" back to the very place that he was going to be questioned for murder?
But...
That's just the point, he didn' flee back to South Africa, he ended up in Europe, and returned to the UK months after Jeremy had been arrested, and charged...
-
You do not know whereabouts PC Myall was situated in the grounds as opposed to where the 'unidentified' male was seen walking away in the grounds of the house. You don't know where the only other officer known to have entered the grounds of the farmhouse by that stage (PS Bews') was situated in relation to PC Myall, or the 'unidentified' male. All we know is what Kim Sengupta published in 'that' news article. I am minded to believe that 'Neville' may have been in possession of a firearm, when he was seen leaving the grounds at 'that' time. If so, it would explain why PC Myall did not approach him, or try to speak to him...
Mike, the sequence of their names is of no relevance. Call them policemen A, B, and C or 1, 2, and 3. It amounts to the same thing. Of course you believe the unidentified person, you insist is Ralph Nevill, was "in possession of a firearm" It equipped him better for shooting the family which is your other claim. I wonder when it was that Jeremy changed his mind from blaming it on Sheila to blaming it on the police to blaming it on the unidentified person ect................to NOW, once again blaming Sheila.
-
when was this because jb was screaming to the world press that it was his sister and she was quite mad and perfectly capable of using firearms that were in whf
During my interrogation of Jeremy between 1989 and July, 1991...
-
PC Myall saw the 'unidentified' male walking away from the farmhouse in the grounds of the farm. There could be any number of different reasons why he did not approach the man. Was the 'unidentified' male carrying a gun? Kim Sengupta appeared to be suggesting that whoever 'that' man was was crouched as if carrying something partially concealed beneath the flap of a jacket...
So KS was there at the time, was he?
-
PC Myall saw the 'unidentified' male walking away from the farmhouse in the grounds of the farm. There could be any number of different reasons why he did not approach the man. Was the 'unidentified' male carrying a gun? Kim Sengupta appeared to be suggesting that whoever 'that' man was was crouched as if carrying something partially concealed beneath the flap of a jacket...
fair enough mike but why did he and how did he lock up before leaving bedroom and wandering around the grounds .why would he do that .simple question,after seeing police from the bedroom window he would have fled as fast as he could and not lockup before leaving.common sense
-
But...
That's just the point, he didn' flee back to South Africa, he ended up in Europe, and returned to the UK months after Jeremy had been arrested, and charged...
Well, as Jeremy seems to have pointed a finger at just about everyone but the dog, I'm astounded he didn't mention that relative. Have you thought up a motive yet for RN slaughtering the family? I take it all you say re RN can be proved?
-
if pc myall saw someone leaving he would have chased him and apprehended him he knew back up was on its way
-
if pc myall saw someone leaving he would have chased him and apprehended him he knew back up was on its way
Let's look at the scenario. There's a siege situation in which an allegedly insane female is running around with a gun when all of a sudden an "uniden...............you know the rest" THEN is seen "leaving from ect..." and they let him walk past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! J, M & J have you ever heard such RUBBISH?????
-
Let's look at the scenario. There's a siege situation in which an allegedly insane female is running around with a gun when all of a sudden an "uniden...............you know the rest" THEN is seen "leaving from ect..." and they let him walk past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! J, M & J have you ever heard such RUBBISH?????
thats the correct word for that theory jane laughable and childish could also be used
-
jb said that his father had phoned him and said shelia had gone mad and had hold of a gun.so the theory of a male in the bedroom window is stone dead.common sense
-
Good point, Sami. I think this is Jeremy pointing every finger away from his own part in this dreadful crime. no, it isn't. Jeremy didn't bring up Ralph Neville's possible involvement in these shootings, I did...First of all he gives police a rather warped CV of Sheila's mental health Sheila's psychiatrist, Professor Ferguson, already had the details of Sheila's deteriorating mental health condition written up in his files, years before the shootings, or whatever. Jeremy did not tell cops anything they might not find out from her psychiatrist or her docter... and her competency with firearms, Well, according to Pamela Boutflour, her sister mentioned to her that J might have been teaching Sheila how to load bullets into the rifle, and shoot it. We have also heard from several different sources that you wouldn't need to be a competent marksman to load and fire that type of rifle at close quarters. Indeed, on you tube kids can be found to be doing that which Sheila supposedly could not do...THEN he thinks he sees movement in a bedroom no, you must report the facts correctly, it wasn't J who first saw 'Ralph Neville' (if it was him) at he bedroom window, and moving about in the bedroom. It was 'PC Myall' a fact confirmed by PS Bews at one time or another. So you have got that part wrong, because Jeremy has confirmed it to me himself on many occasions that it was PC Myall who drew PS Saxby's and Jeremy's attention to the bloke in the bedroom...but leaves others to sex that's a bit unfair. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for J to have lied, and said it was his sister, or his mother, or his dad, or as the case may be, Ralph Neville, or a complete stranger. The main thing was, is that it wasn't Jeremy moving around inside 'that' bedroom. What is more, When I asked Jeremy whether or not the anshuzt rifle was resting at the side of that 'same' bedroom window at the time they all saw the person there, Jeremy emphatically said, 'no', the rifle wasn't there at the bedroom window by that stage...and put a name to what was "a trick of light" I do not accept PS Bews account by which he dishonestly describes the sighting of the unidentified' man, as nothing more than 'a trick of light. Bews knows that that is 'not true'. How do I know that what he has since claimed to have been 'a trick of light, when he knows full well that in those moments that he and the others were observing the person standing to the side of the bedroom window at first, then walking briskly across the opening of the same window? I know Bews explanation is a dishonest one, because a part from the fact that he quite literally crapped in his trousers whilst dashing out of the grounds in a bid to return to the patrol car that was parked up in pages lane (CA07) manned by PS Saxby, Bews passed a message to the control room about what they had just witnessed. I understand that in that radio message that Bews described the person they had all seen, as an 'unidentified' male, who could possibly be armed with a gun. When Bews mentioned this, he added that the 'son' had not been able to identify the person they had been observing as his dad, or any other member of his family, and that as such he requested that the firearm officers be deployed to the incident, because it might turn into a siege...which miraculously becomes "an unidentified person the term, ' unidentified' male, was introduced by the cops, themselves, so please do not try to suggest that Jeremy somehow made them treat that person as 'unidentified'. Because by the time the 'Major incident Register' came into being on 7th September, 1985, PC Myall must surely have known what Ralph Bamber looked like, and what June and Sheila had both looked like, by that stage, to be able to have identified the 'unidentified' male, as Ralph Bamber, or not?...................."
-
jb said that his father had phoned him and said shelia had gone mad and had hold of a gun.so the theory of a male in the bedroom window is stone dead.common sense
Exactly!
-
once again i ask how did the person in the window leave whf while police were outside witch route did he exit from .without leaving a trace .whf was locked and secure when police broke in .bamber supporters please
-
once again i ask how did the person in the window leave whf while police were outside witch route did he exit from .without leaving a trace .whf was locked and secure when police broke in .bamber supporters please
I have also asked this but to no avail - there is no answer because it didn't happen.
-
At one stage J himself was convinced that Ralph Neville might have played a role in the killing of three generations of the Bamber family...
was it after he realised people were not convinced sc did it .i think so
-
But Jeremy had no idea of what Dr Ferguson had on file about Sheila. We've also been told that Sheila wasn't remotely interested in learning how to load a gun. I wasn't aware ANY police person knew RN well enough to identify him as being "the bloke in the bedroom". It was far better for Jeremy NOT to identify anyone in particular, but leave it to others..................I'm certain there's some sort of book in you, somewhere Mike, but when it comes to creating an authentic scenario with enough teeth to proclaim Jeremy innocent..............................
-
But Jeremy had no idea of what Dr Ferguson had on file about Sheila. We've also been told that Sheila wasn't remotely interested in learning how to load a gun. I wasn't aware ANY police person knew RN well enough to identify him as being "the bloke in the bedroom". It was far better for Jeremy NOT to identify anyone in particular, but leave it to others..................I'm certain there's some sort of book in you, somewhere Mike, but when it comes to creating an authentic scenario with enough teeth to proclaim Jeremy innocent..............................
thats witty jane.it was only a head appearing from the side as mike says but not only did jb see it but also identified it as a male the 2 trained to identify things for a living made no such obersavation.the 2 police officers
-
once again i ask how did the person in the window leave whf while police were outside witch route did he exit from .without leaving a trace .whf was locked and secure when police broke in .bamber supporters please
He was beamed up to the Starship Enterprise. ;D
-
I paid particular attention in trying to establish the timing of calls made by J to Julie Mugford, that morning. He could not be specific as to the actual times these calls had been made, he could only refer me to times other people had said those two calls had been made. However, I did manage to extract the 'sequence' with which these calls had been made. I can say that J did 'not' call Mugford on the first occasion that morning, until 'after' his 'dad' had called him, and his attempt to contact Witham police station, but before J contacted cops at Chelmsford in the form of his conversation with PC West timed at 3.36am. He made a second call to Mugford after leaving the scene in the company of a cop before 5.30pm. In so much as the claim by Mugford that when J called her on that first occasion, he allegedly told her ' all is going well', my understanding is that she misunderstood what J had actually said on that occasion, because she was tired and high on drugs. What J actually said, was something along the lines ' Oh, I feel like hell'...
This is hard to swallow again..
-
He was beamed up to the Starship Enterprise. ;D
thats the best answer to that one john :))witty
-
Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement. They simply had the jitters (spurned on no doubt by Jeremy), you can imagine all sorts in those kinds of situations. However, here we have possible movement metamorphosing into a named individual who we are led to believe was allowed to leave a siege situation without any kind of questioning about what was going on inside the farm house. Complete RUBBISH! If anyone believes this, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself!
Wrong. Bews said Myalls said "I think I saw someone". Skip about first 3 mins.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video
You don't believe the silencer Caroline. So I assume you think corruption noble is ok? Why did everyone need to make up the silencer if the case against Jeremy was strong? I will start a thread on this tomorrow.
Off to bed now. Up early to feed my two horses ::)
-
Wrong. Bews said Myalls said "I think I saw someone". Skip about first 3 mins.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video
You don't believe the silencer Caroline. So I assume you think corruption noble is ok? Why did everyone need to make up the silencer if the case against Jeremy was strong? I will start a thread on this tomorrow.
Off to bed now. Up early to feed my two horses ::)
That's what I said, they are talking about MOVEMENT and NOT a figure. Since then it's become a figure which has now grown legs and even has a name.
No I don't believe in the silencer and I do think he would still have been convicted without it - no I don't believe in noble cause corruption or in guilty people being allowed to get off scot free on a technicality.
Do I think faking the silencer was fair - no
Do I think Jeremy is guilty - yes
Do I think he should gain his freedom if the silencer is ever proven to have been faked - no
Do I think it would be fair for him to have a retrial - yes.
-
That's what I said, they are talking about MOVEMENT and NOT a figure. Since then it's become a figure which has now grown legs and even has a name.
No I don't believe in the silencer and I do think he would still have been convicted without it - no I don't believe in noble cause corruption or in guilty people being allowed to get off scot free on a technicality.
Do I think faking the silencer was fair - no
Do I think Jeremy is guilty - yes
Do I think he should gain his freedom if the silencer is ever proven to have been faked - no
Do I think it would be fair for him to have a retrial - yes.
i agree with all bar the last one caroline . i dont think he should be given a retrial this has gone on for long enough lets not forget the remaining members of the family.he was convicted and nothing new has come up to change that convictions our peers have refused him twice
-
nothing new has come up to change that convictions our peers have refused him twice
That's what you think !
-
i agree with all bar the last one caroline . i dont think he should be given a retrial this has gone on for long enough lets not forget the remaining members of the family.he was convicted and nothing new has come up to change that convictions our peers have refused him twice
I don't think he would win Sami and it would be an end to all of this.
-
nothing new has come up to change that convictions our peers have refused him twice
That's what you think !
where is it and will it come out in my lifetime iam 49years old
-
where is it and will it come out in my lifetime iam 49years old
I'm sure there wil be lots of little bits and pieces but nothing that will show Jeremy is innocent.
-
I don't think he would win Sami and it would be an end to all of this.
good point a chance to finish it for good
-
I'm sure there wil be lots of little bits and pieces but nothing that will show Jeremy is innocent.
what could it be caroline most of the evidence is gone and i cant think of anything jb could produce to get a retrial i think the supporters are just living in hope.but i cant see it
-
correct jane ps bews says it was a trick of light and no one was at the window
Let's get the facts right. PS Bews was a member of the CA07 crew, who relayed the messages from inside the farmhouse by members of the raid team, stating at 7.37am, ' THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND UPON ENTRY TO KITCHEN', followed by at 7.38am, 'ONE DEAD MALE, ONE DEAD FEMALE', and again at 8.10am, 'A FUTHER THREE BODIES FOUND UPSTAIRS, FIVE DEAD IN TOTAL'. Now, we have Bews talking nonsense about a supposed 'trick of light', when his colleague who was present at the time of the same sighting, described the sighting as involving an 'unidentified' male person. How come, PS Bews, PC Myall, or PS Saxby, have no recollection of receiving the aforementioned messages from inside the farmhouse at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, regarding how the 'bodies of the five victims' were 'distributed downstairs and upstairs' at the close of play by 8.10am?
Selective recall, by dodgy dishonest cops...
What is Bews, Myall and Saxby going to say about these messages 'they' received and relayed from the scene to the control room back in Chelmsford? A 'trick of sound', or some other 'dishonest' explanation...
-
Why hasn't the 'publicity seeking' stink bomb Bews given an explanation about the contents of these received and relayed messages from the scene to the control room, involving the 'declaration' that two bodies were downstairs, and the other three upstairs?
-
As JB says,it's hope that keeps his spirit alive. He's not doing all this research for nothing-------and neither are his team of barristers/lawyers/and various other members who are specifically trained in areas of which are seen as vital in investigating a very complex case.
-
Let's get the facts right. PS Bews was a member of the CA07 crew, who relayed the messages from inside the farmhouse by members of the raid team, stating at 7.37am, ' THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND UPON ENTRY TO KITCHEN', followed by at 7.38am, 'ONE DEAD MALE, ONE DEAD FEMALE', and again at 8.10am, 'A FUTHER THREE BODIES FOUND UPSTAIRS, FIVE DEAD IN TOTAL'. Now, we have Bews talking nonsense about a supposed 'trick of light', when his colleague who was present at the time of the same sighting, described the sighting as involving an 'unidentified' male person. How come, PS Bews, PC Myall, or PS Saxby, have no recollection of receiving the aforementioned messages from inside the farmhouse at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, regarding how the 'bodies of the five victims' were 'distributed downstairs and upstairs' at the close of play by 8.10am?
Selective recall, by dodgy dishonest cops...
What is Bews, Myall and Saxby going to say about these messages 'they' received and relayed from the scene to the control room back in Chelmsford? A 'trick of sound', or some other 'dishonest' explanation...
why didnt jb accuse them in court of lying about not seeing the figuer in the window.he made no mention of it in court why not.please explain
-
Why hasn't the 'publicity seeking' stink bomb Bews given an explanation about the contents of these received and relayed messages from the scene to the control room, involving the 'declaration' that two bodies were downstairs, and the other three upstairs?
Bews and the other two, passed the 'goddam' messages in question, why is Bews , and these other two, 'keeping their gobs shut' about messages they had involvement in receiving and relaying from one place to the other. Forget about the sighting of the 'unidentified' man, or the 'trick of light', for a moment, concentrate on what the occupants of CA07 did hear, did receive, and what they did relay from the scene to the control room. Why hasn't any of 'these blighters' made a witness statement giving details of these duties being carried out by them, and what it was they heard, what it was what they were told, and what it was what they told to the others in far away Chelmsford?
-
why didnt jb accuse them in court of lying about not seeing the figuer in the window.he made no mention of it in court why not.please explain
Funny that!
-
There's a Hell of a lot that JB didn't say in court------------because he was taken by surprise over the whole fiasco of being accused. How was he supposed to remember what he didn't do,or knew nothing about anything ? I suggest that those who put him away were much the same as those here------without empathy,void of humanity and as thick as two short planks.
-
There's a Hell of a lot that JB didn't say in court------------because he was taken by surprise over the whole fiasco of being accused. How was he supposed to remember what he didn't do,or knew nothing about anything ? I suggest that those who put him away were much the same as those here------without empathy,void of humanity and as thick as two short planks.
now dont go reporting to modarater when people insult you calling people thick as 2 planks is ok with you is it than you and jackie go crying to the modarater when it gets dished out to you
-
I've NEVER reported anyone yet,so shut it.What's more I don't gang up either,it's always one to one with me. I don't have to rely on " back-up " !! I refer to you because you're nothing but a troublemaker SHERLOCK !
-
I've NEVER reported anyone yet,so shut it.What's more I don't gang up either,it's always one to one with me. I don't have to rely on " back-up " !! I refer to you because you're nothing but a troublemaker SHERLOCK !
thats your opinion others on here iam sure would disagree with you.iam not sherlock use my correct name or i will call you some thing befitting you
-
Mike, the sequence of their names is of no relevance. Call them policemen A, B, and C or 1, 2, and 3. It amounts to the same thing. Of course you believe the unidentified person, you insist is Ralph Nevill, was "in possession of a firearm" It equipped him better for shooting the family which is your other claim. I wonder when it was that Jeremy changed his mind from blaming it on Sheila to blaming it on the police to blaming it on the unidentified person ect................to NOW, once again blaming Sheila.
Well, one things for sure, at the time news was broken to Jeremy at the scene that everyone was dead inside the farmhouse, that Jeremy believed in his own mind that cops had killed at least one member of his family, possibly even as many as two or three of the adult victims in a shoot out when cops entered the farmhouse. Then when cops proceeded with the 'four murders and a suicide' approach, that he eventually altered his view to accept it as cops were portraying it - that his sister had shot and killed the other four, then taken her own life. This belief continued right the way up to, and beyond the trial date, until 1989 when I first came into contact with him at HMP Full Sutton. At that time, he believed whole heartedly that his sister had killed herself. By the beginning of 1990, I had gleaned sufficient information from him about his case, what he had been prosecuted for, and the available evidence relied upon to convict him of the murders, to enable me to be satisfied that his sister had 'not' killed herself. Jeremy continued to promote his belief that Sheila had shot herself, but she couldn't have. He was wrong about that, but it wasn't part of my remit to destroy what he believed to be true. By the time of my release from custody on the 26th July, 1990, I had already convinced myself that the silencer, paint, and blood evidence was nothing but a red herring that was introduced to help secure the convictions for these murders. All my research into issues involving the silencer, paint and blood since that time, have strengthened my resolve that it was 'dodgy evidence'. Since, 1990, I have had many opportunities to interrogate Jeremy about his sisters death, and in due course I have leaked suggestions to him, about how his sister met her death upstairs in the so called Main bedroom. This was my way of trying to draw information from him which as a serving prisoner I had not been able to successfully find answers to questions at the fore surounding his sisters death, and her ability or otherwise to be able to have overpowered and slain the other four victims. Now, I was an outsider, on the other side of the fence, with more resources available to me. I initially toyed with the suggestion that Anthony Pargeter might have been responsible. I arrived at this juncture because of the sudden disappearance of his Bruno bolt action rifle from the farmhouse, overnight based on what Jeremy told cops about all the guns that cops would find once they got into the farmhouse and carried out a search. Jeremy had been adamant that 'Anthony's Bruno rifle' was present at the farmhouse at the time of the shootings, but cops didn't find it, and neither did the relatives...
-
There's a Hell of a lot that JB didn't say in court------------because he was taken by surprise over the whole fiasco of being accused. How was he supposed to remember what he didn't do,or knew nothing about anything ? I suggest that those who put him away were much the same as those here------without empathy,void of humanity and as thick as two short planks.
Taken by surprise? He had MONTHS to prepare and the reason why he SHOULD have remembered is that the memories were attached to an incident with was life changing. There is a hell of a lot that Jeremy didn't say - the TRUTH for starters!!
-
Well, one things for sure, at the time news was broken to Jeremy at the scene that everyone was dead inside the farmhouse, that Jeremy believed in his own mind that cops had killed at least one member of his family, possibly even as many as two or three of the adult victims in a shoot out when cops entered the farmhouse. Then when cops proceeded with the 'four murders and a suicide' approach, that he eventually altered his view to accept it as cops were portraying it - that his sister had shot and killed the other four, then taken her own life. This belief continued right the way up to, and beyond the trial date, until 1989 when I first came into contact with him at HMP Full Sutton. At that time, he believed whole heartedly that his sister had killed herself. By the beginning of 1990, I had gleaned sufficient information from him about his case, what he had been prosecuted for, and the available evidence relied upon to convict him of the murders, to enable me to be satisfied that his sister had 'not' killed herself. Jeremy continued to promote his belief that Sheila had shot herself, but she couldn't have. He was wrong about that, but it wasn't part of my remit to destroy what he believed to be true. By the time of my release from custody on the 26th July, 1990, I had already convinced myself that the silencer, paint, and blood evidence was nothing but a red herring that was introduced to help secure the convictions for these murders. All my research into issues involving the silencer, paint and blood since that time, have strengthened my resolve that it was 'dodgy evidence'. Since, 1990, I have had many opportunities to interrogate Jeremy about his sisters death, and in due course I have leaked suggestions to him, about how his sister met her death upstairs in the so called Main bedroom. This was my way of trying to draw information from him which as a serving prisoner I had not been able to successfully find answers to questions at the fore surounding his sisters death, and her ability or otherwise to be able to have overpowered and slain the other four victims. Now, I was an outsider, on the other side of the fence, with more resources available to me. I initially toyed with the suggestion that Anthony Pargeter might have been responsible. I arrived at this juncture because of the sudden disappearance of his Bruno bolt action rifle from the farmhouse, overnight based on what Jeremy told cops about all the guns that cops would find once they got into the farmhouse and carried out a search. Jeremy had been adamant that 'Anthony's Bruno rifle' was present at the farmhouse at the time of the shootings, but cops didn't find it, and neither did the relatives...
That fairy tale is well and truly blown apart by the fake telephone call in which Jeremy claims that his father said that Sheila had the gun or words to that effect. You and he best stop trying to make up new stories because you get caught out in the finer details every time.
ps found that Sheila on the bed photo yet?
-
There's a Hell of a lot that JB didn't say in court------------because he was taken by surprise over the whole fiasco of being accused. How was he supposed to remember what he didn't do,or knew nothing about anything ? I suggest that those who put him away were much the same as those here------without empathy,void of humanity and as thick as two short planks.
That's a little rich, coming from someone who lacks the humility to admit when they're wrong. Classic case of projection going on here, methinks.
-
Well, one things for sure, at the time news was broken to Jeremy at the scene that everyone was dead inside the farmhouse, that Jeremy believed in his own mind that cops had killed at least one member of his family, possibly even as many as two or three of the adult victims in a shoot out when cops entered the farmhouse. Then when cops proceeded with the 'four murders and a suicide' approach, that he eventually altered his view to accept it as cops were portraying it - that his sister had shot and killed the other four, then taken her own life. This belief continued right the way up to, and beyond the trial date, until 1989 when I first came into contact with him at HMP Full Sutton. At that time, he believed whole heartedly that his sister had killed herself. By the beginning of 1990, I had gleaned sufficient information from him about his case, what he had been prosecuted for, and the available evidence relied upon to convict him of the murders, to enable me to be satisfied that his sister had 'not' killed herself. Jeremy continued to promote his belief that Sheila had shot herself, but she couldn't have. He was wrong about that, but it wasn't part of my remit to destroy what he believed to be true. By the time of my release from custody on the 26th July, 1990, I had already convinced myself that the silencer, paint, and blood evidence was nothing but a red herring that was introduced to help secure the convictions for these murders. All my research into issues involving the silencer, paint and blood since that time, have strengthened my resolve that it was 'dodgy evidence'. Since, 1990, I have had many opportunities to interrogate Jeremy about his sisters death, and in due course I have leaked suggestions to him, about how his sister met her death upstairs in the so called Main bedroom. This was my way of trying to draw information from him which as a serving prisoner I had not been able to successfully find answers to questions at the fore surounding his sisters death, and her ability or otherwise to be able to have overpowered and slain the other four victims. Now, I was an outsider, on the other side of the fence, with more resources available to me. I initially toyed with the suggestion that Anthony Pargeter might have been responsible. I arrived at this juncture because of the sudden disappearance of his Bruno bolt action rifle from the farmhouse, overnight based on what Jeremy told cops about all the guns that cops would find once they got into the farmhouse and carried out a search. Jeremy had been adamant that 'Anthony's Bruno rifle' was present at the farmhouse at the time of the shootings, but cops didn't find it, and neither did the relatives...
Which is a curious and overly swift change of mind set given how he'd reported that his father had allegedly called him -sounding panicked- to report that his sister had gone mad and had got hold of a gun that according to Jeremy, she was more than competent to use because she knew how to fire every weapon in the house. Still, I suppose it didn't hurt to blame someone else. I all helped to deflect any blame which may have come his way. Still, at least you now seem to have accepted that Sheila didn't shoot herself. Now it just needs a quantum leap for you to realize it was Jeremy all along. One thing you've never explained is WHY, when the police must have at least been knowledgeable about gun suicides, did they place the gun across Sheila in such a posed way without considering the variables of length of gun and angle of shots in conjunction with the placement position.
-
That's what I said, they are talking about MOVEMENT and NOT a figure. Since then it's become a figure which has now grown legs and even has a name.
No I don't believe in the silencer and I do think he would still have been convicted without it - no I don't believe in noble cause corruption or in guilty people being allowed to get off scot free on a technicality.
Do I think faking the silencer was fair - no
Do I think Jeremy is guilty - yes
Do I think he should gain his freedom if the silencer is ever proven to have been faked - no
Do I think it would be fair for him to have a retrial - yes.
That wasn't what you said at all. You said the following
"Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg360534.html#msg360534
Bewes is on record by way of this audio recording saying Myalls said he saw "someone".
For those interested skip approx first 3 minutes
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video
Why wasn't this brought up at trial? Is it in Bews and Myalls statements? I will have a look later today or tomorrow. Off to give my two horses their breakfast now and then on to the office for a days work ::)
-
Taken by surprise? He had MONTHS to prepare and the reason why he SHOULD have remembered is that the memories were attached to an incident with was life changing. There is a hell of a lot that Jeremy didn't say - the TRUTH for starters!!
" Months " to prepare for what ? Something he knew nothing about ? It's pretty difficult if not nigh on impossible to defend yourself, against what ? One voice amid the world and its wife.
Jeremy told the TRUTH what more could he do under the circumstances ? The reason he " didn't say a lot " was because he WASN'T involved and knew NOTHING of what went on that night.
It was others who'd seemed to have had a lot to say,without the proof to back it up too. This trial was well biased in no uncertain terms.
Even to it having been held on " home ground "---Essex,which I've always thought as weird. Nearer for all the curtain-twitchers to add to the fray.
-
That fairy tale is well and truly blown apart by the fake telephone call in which Jeremy claims that his father said that Sheila had the gun or words to that effect. You and he best stop trying to make up new stories because you get caught out in the finer details every time.
ps found that Sheila on the bed photo yet?
very good point john by saying his father had said it was sheila he sealed his fate because once you look at the evidence it clearly shows it wasnt sheila than that only leaves jb.a case of trying to be too clever
-
That's right,go for the easiest option.
-
That's right,go for the easiest option.
its not the easiest but common sense how do you account for the lack of forensics on sc
-
thats your opinion others on here iam sure would disagree with you.iam not sherlock use my correct name or i will call you some thing befitting you
Okay rotti.
-
its not the easiest but common sense how do you account for the lack of forensics on sc
Because the forensic examinations in general were crap. If forensic material hadn't been destroyed,Jeremy wouldn't be where he is.
-
Because the forensic examinations in general were crap. If forensic material hadn't been destroyed,Jeremy wouldn't be where he is.
Hi lookout
what has always worried me was the nightie Sheila was wearing to me it seemed more fitting for it to be June's young ladies did not wear nighties like the one she was found in. Just a thought I have.
-
That wasn't what you said at all. You said the following
"Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg360534.html#msg360534
Bewes is on record by way of this audio recording saying Myalls said he saw "someone".
For those interested skip approx first 3 minutes
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video
Why wasn't this brought up at trial? Is it in Bews and Myalls statements? I will have a look later today or tomorrow. Off to give my two horses their breakfast now and then on to the office for a days work ::)
It was brought up at the trial - where do you think the 'trick of light' came from? Bews was questioned about it!! ::) - Note also that Jeremy said nothing about seeing a figure nor did he mention anyone else seeing 'a figure'. The whole this was based on 'someone' suggesting there might have been 'movement'.
-
It was brought up at the trial - where do you think the 'trick of light' came from? Bews was questioned about it!! ::) - Note also that Jeremy said nothing about seeing a figure nor did he mention anyone else seeing 'a figure'. The whole this was based on 'someone' suggesting there might have been 'movement'.
It wasn't based on 'someone' suggesting there might have been movement. Bews said Myalls said he saw someone. ::)
Why would Jeremy have to see what Myalls saw? Did Bews see it? No. Myalls happened to look up at the window and thought he saw "someone". He then alerted Bews and Jeremy to the sighting.
-
It wasn't based on 'someone' suggesting there might have been movement. Bews said Myalls said he saw someone. ::)
Why would Jeremy have to see what Myalls saw? Did Bews see it? No. Myalls happened to look up at the window and thought he saw "someone". He then alerted Bews and Jeremy to the sighting.
thats not right mike knows more about this case than you and he says jb saw a ,male, figure at the window.were there looking at the same window yes the upstairs bedroom so why shouldnt myall see what bamber claimed he saw .common sense jackie
-
thats not right mike knows more about this case than you and he says jb saw a ,male, figure at the window.were there looking at the same window yes the upstairs bedroom so why shouldnt myall see what bamber claimed he saw .common sense jackie
I'm not remotely interested in Mike's crazy views on the case. I am interested in evidence.
Bews is on record saying Myalls saw someone at the bedroom window. I've provided the audio what more evidence do you want?
-
I'm not remotely interested in Mike's crazy views on the case. I am interested in evidence.
Bews is on record saying Myalls saw someone at the bedroom window. I've provided the audio what more evidence do you want?
bews has also said when they checked they found it was a trick of ligh.if you gonna quote him than use all his quotes not only the ones that suit you and fellow supporters
-
It was brought up at the trial - where do you think the 'trick of light' came from? Bews was questioned about it!! ::) - Note also that Jeremy said nothing about seeing a figure nor did he mention anyone else seeing 'a figure'. The whole this was based on 'someone' suggesting there might have been 'movement'.
I've had a look through the documents on here and I can't find where Bews or Myalls made reference to the 'trick of light' at trial?
Why would Bews be questioned about it and not Myalls? Bews claims Myalls saw someone.
-
bews has also said when they checked they found it was a trick of ligh.if you gonna quote him than use all his quotes not only the ones that suit you and fellow supporters
If you want to quote him perhaps you would be kind enough to provide the link sami.
-
I'm not remotely interested in Mike's crazy views on the case. I am interested in evidence.
Bews is on record saying Myalls saw someone at the bedroom window. I've provided the audio what more evidence do you want?
And has Myall corroborated what Bews alleged of him?
-
Hi lookout
what has always worried me was the nightie Sheila was wearing to me it seemed more fitting for it to be June's young ladies did not wear nighties like the one she was found in. Just a thought I have.
hi susan i totally disagree low cut nighties were the fashon in the 80s for young women. and 60yearold bible reading june in such a low cut nightie i dont think so.just my opinion susan
-
I've had a look through the documents on here and I can't find where Bews or Myalls made reference to the 'trick of light' at trial?
Why would Bews be questioned about it and not Myalls? Bews claims Myalls saw someone.
We don't have Bew's statement here - I think it's in Wilke's book but he was definitely questioned about it.
-
If you want to quote him perhaps you would be kind enough to provide the link sami.
i didnt say he said it at trial he said it in a itv interview in docimentry.ive not worked out how to post links but i will get adam on the job.where did the figure at the window disappear to.pure fantasy
-
We don't have Bew's statement here - I think it's in Wilke's book but he was definitely questioned about it.
I'm no more interested in the views of book authors than I am Mike's views.
So bottom line is there's no documentary evidence by way of witness statements and trial transciprts confirming the 'trick of the light'?
-
i didnt say he said it at trial he said it in a itv interview in docimentry.ive not worked out how to post links but i will get adam on the job.where did the figure at the window disappear to.pure fantasy
Whose fantasy?
-
Whose fantasy?
the fantasy you are living there was no one at any window and you and fellow supporters cannot prove there was .movement at the window disappearing rifle from window .all pure fantasy
-
I'm no more interested in the views of book authors than I am Mike's views.
So bottom line is there's no documentary evidence by way of witness statements and trial transciprts confirming the 'trick of the light'?
Tell you what Jackie, you MAKE UP your own version of events and the rest of us will stick to the FACTS. Of course there is documented evidence of Bews mentioning the trick of light. People can't lie about it because it will be in the court transcripts but you carry on pretending it's not there. Perhaps NGB will confirm that it was mentioned in court?
-
the fantasy you are living there was no one at any window and you and fellow supporters cannot prove there was .movement at the window disappearing rifle from window .all pure fantasy
Jeremy never made reference to someone, movement or trick of the light in his witness statements or police interviews.
I've had a look through all the documents here relating to Bews and Myalls and I can't find anything about someone, movement or trick of the light at the window. Myalls trial transcript refers to whether or not windows were open, lights on, curtains open.
Why did Bews bring it up nearly a quarter of a century later in an audio recording with the Guardian newspaper?
-
Tell you what Jackie, you MAKE UP your own version of events and the rest of us will stick to the FACTS. Of course there is documented evidence of Bews mentioning the trick of light. People can't lie about it because it will be in the court transcripts but you carry on pretending it's not there. Perhaps NGB will confirm that it was mentioned in court?
Does NGB have access to documents that aren't here then?
Where is the documented evidence you refer to?
-
FAO NGB
Are you able to provide further evidence of the 'trick of light'
Thank you NGB, Jackie x :-*
-
I'm not remotely interested in Mike's crazy views on the case. I am interested in evidence.
Bews is on record saying Myalls saw someone at the bedroom window. I've provided the audio what more evidence do you want?
mike will be over the moon when he reads his views are regarded as crazy
-
Jeremy never made reference to someone, movement or trick of the light in his witness statements or police interviews.
I've had a look through all the documents here relating to Bews and Myalls and I can't find anything about someone, movement or trick of the light at the window. Myalls trial transcript refers to whether or not windows were open, lights on, curtains open.
Why did Bews bring it up nearly a quarter of a century later in an audio recording with the Guardian newspaper?
you will have to find him and ask him why mention it now.no one on here has the answer
-
. . . as they looked in the direction of the window in question, every now and then he could see the silhouette of the person's head, bobbing out into view from the right hand edge of the window, then darting back in again, out of sight for a few seconds. . . . the person at the right-hand edge of the window suddenly moved very fast across the opening of the window...
How come you've never posted these details of Jeremy's description before, especially the final very fast movement?
-
How come you've never posted these details of Jeremy's description before, especially the final very fast movement?
also why was it a silhouette was there not a light on in that room.you said earlier jb told you it was a male figure how could jb tell if it was a silhouette
-
Tell you what Jackie, you MAKE UP your own version of events and the rest of us will stick to the FACTS. Of course there is documented evidence of Bews mentioning the trick of light. People can't lie about it because it will be in the court transcripts but you carry on pretending it's not there. Perhaps NGB will confirm that it was mentioned in court?
It was mentioned in court at trial. Rivlin briefly touched upon it in cross examination of one of the police officers. Strangely in my view he sought to downplay it, supporting the assertion that it was a mere trick of the light and not seeking to explore any other possibility. I have never understood the reason for that. Even the possibility that someone might have been alive in the house at that time would have been enough to secure an acquittal.
-
Does NGB have access to documents that aren't here then?
Where is the documented evidence you refer to?
I think there is some section of the transcript relating to this posted here, but I may be wrong about that. I certainly recall seeing it somewhere as it struck me as odd the way in which Geoffrey Rivlin dealt with the issue. I suppose I might have seen it in documents provided to me when I was involved in the case, but I do not think so.
-
FAO NGB
Are you able to provide further evidence of the 'trick of light'
Thank you NGB, Jackie x :-*
Apart from what I have posted in response to the two earlier posts, it is something I discussed with Jeremy a while back. He recalled Bews taking the sighting very seriously. This again is a reason I am surprised at how the defence failed to use this to their advantage at trial. Rivlin may have had good reasons for the course he took, but I have no idea what that reason might be.
-
It was mentioned in court at trial. Rivlin briefly touched upon it in cross examination of one of the police officers. Strangely in my view he sought to downplay it, supporting the assertion that it was a mere trick of the light and not seeking to explore any other possibility. I have never understood the reason for that. Even the possibility that someone might have been alive in the house at that time would have been enough to secure an acquittal.
Thanks NGB.
-
Does NGB have access to documents that aren't here then?
Where is the documented evidence you refer to?
Everyone knows it was mentioned at trial - anyone who has bothered to read up on the case. I've have already told you where it is documented, IN THE TRAIL TRANSCRIPTS! ::)
-
It was mentioned in court at trial. Rivlin briefly touched upon it in cross examination of one of the police officers. Strangely in my view he sought to downplay it, supporting the assertion that it was a mere trick of the light and not seeking to explore any other possibility. I have never understood the reason for that. Even the possibility that someone might have been alive in the house at that time would have been enough to secure an acquittal.
thank you ngb
-
how did he leave whf i doubt if jb had told him about the self latching window and why would he lock up before leaving.just common sense
Jeremy described 'Ralph Neville' as a distant relative - but he didn't make it absolutely clear in what way he was related. I was left with the impression that he was related to Ralph Bamber...
-
It was mentioned in court at trial. Rivlin briefly touched upon it in cross examination of one of the police officers. Strangely in my view he sought to downplay it, supporting the assertion that it was a mere trick of the light and not seeking to explore any other possibility. I have never understood the reason for that. Even the possibility that someone might have been alive in the house at that time would have been enough to secure an acquittal.
Who made the first sighting of the 'trick of the light' ?
-
if pc myall saw someone leaving he would have chased him and apprehended him he knew back up was on its way
No, he wouldn't since by that stage Myall, Bews, and Saxby, didn't know that a shot had been fired by 'that' stage...
-
Let's look at the scenario. There's a siege situation in which an allegedly insane female is running around with a gun when all of a sudden an "uniden...............you know the rest" THEN is seen "leaving from ect..." and they let him walk past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! J, M & J have you ever heard such RUBBISH?????
Where has it be stated, that PC Myall let the 'unidentified' male, walk past? You should take time out to read, 'Kim Sengupta's news article. It reads, ' and who was the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the scene about an hour after police first arrived at the farmhouse'...
This information was 'published' in a national tabloid - are you suggesting it was 'not true', and if so, where is your evidence for saying that?
-
thats the correct word for that theory jane laughable and childish could also be used
Refer to 'Kim Senguptas' article...
-
Where has it be stated, that PC Myall let the 'unidentified' male, walk past? You should take time out to read, 'Kim Sengupta's news article. It reads, ' and who was the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the scene about an hour after police first arrived at the farmhouse'...
This information was 'published' in a national tabloid - are you suggesting it was 'not true', and if so, where is your evidence for saying that?
SWell, as KS wasn't at the SOC it can't be proved that it was true and as I'm not naming names, it stands to reason that if the SLHM was seen walking away -the emphasis being on SEEN- why didn't A police person stop them? However, when it comes to what newspapers report, are you honestly saying you believe every word they print is the truth?
-
Refer to 'Kim Senguptas' article...
who is she mike
-
Refer to 'Kim Senguptas' article...
Kim's a brilliant crime reporter.
-
Apart from what I have posted in response to the two earlier posts, it is something I discussed with Jeremy a while back. He recalled Bews taking the sighting very seriously. This again is a reason I am surprised at how the defence failed to use this to their advantage at trial. Rivlin may have had good reasons for the course he took, but I have no idea what that reason might be.
Thank you NGB
xxx :-* :-* :-* One from me and one from each of my horses :))
-
No, he wouldn't since by that stage Myall, Bews, and Saxby, didn't know that a shot had been fired by 'that' stage...
the person was leaving a crime scene doesnt matter if no shots were heard the police would have challanged him
-
SWell, as KS wasn't at the SOC it can't be proved that it was true and as I'm not naming names, it stands to reason that if the SLHM was seen walking away -the emphasis being on SEEN- why didn't A police person stop them? However, when it comes to what newspapers report, are you honestly saying you believe every word they print is the truth?
No-one has come forward to say anything which discredits what Kim Sengupta wrote about, so why shouldn't it be true?
-
Kim's a brilliant crime reporter.
would you say the same about crime reporters who say jb is guilty and a childkiller
-
Thank you NGB
xxx :-* :-* :-* One from me and one from each of my horses :))
(Hope NGB has a bucket handy! ::))
-
would you say the same about crime reporters who say jb is guilty and a childkiller
Of course not! ;D
-
(Hope NGB has a bucket handy! ::))
To pick up her poo and put on his roses?
-
the person was leaving a crime scene doesnt matter if no shots were heard the police would have challanged him
If cops reported finding 'two bodies downstairs in the kitchen' from as long ago as 7.37am, and the other 'three bodies upstairs' by 8.10am, they wouldn't deliberately lie about it, unless 'cops did something they ought not to have done', with 'one of the two bodies downstairs' ending 'up dead upstairs', is a far more 'compelling' argument, than your suggestion that 'if' an 'unidentified' male had walked away from the scene that PC Myalls would have challenged him, or even arrested him..
-
No-one has come forward to say anything which discredits what Kim Sengupta wrote about, so why shouldn't it be true?
Why pick out one person amongst all the other errors that were printed at the time?
-
To pick up her poo and put on his roses?
careful jane she will have you REPORTED to the gustapho
-
Everyone knows it was mentioned at trial - anyone who has bothered to read up on the case. I've have already told you where it is documented, IN THE TRAIL TRANSCRIPTS! ::)
Who's everyone?
You posted
"Only Jeremy has said it was a figure, it was described at the time as movement. They simply had the jitters (spurned on no doubt by Jeremy), you can imagine all sorts in those kinds of situations. However, here we have possible movement metamorphosing into a named individual who we are led to believe was allowed to leave a siege situation without any kind of questioning about what was going on inside the farm house. Complete RUBBISH! If anyone believes this, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself!"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg360534.html#msg360534
Where is the documentary evidence that Jeremy said it was a figure? Or that it was described at the time as movement? I've asked you to provide the documentary evidence. You referred me to a book by Silkes.
I've looked through all the trial transcripts here and nothing. Myalls trial transcript
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=304
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=306
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=308
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=310
Bewes trial transcript isn't here but why wouldnt Myall be tested on this?
Bewes said Myalls said he saw "someone"? Nothing about Jeremy seeing anyone and nothing about movement or tricks of the light?
-
If cops reported finding 'two bodies downstairs in the kitchen' from as long ago as 7.37am, and the other 'three bodies upstairs' by 8.10am, they wouldn't deliberately lie about it, unless 'cops did something they ought not to have done', with 'one of the two bodies downstairs' ending 'up dead upstairs', is a far more 'compelling' argument, than your suggestion that 'if' an 'unidentified' male had walked away from the scene that PC Myalls would have challenged him, or even arrested him..
If they made mistakes regarding whom they thought they saw where and tricks of light aka and unidentified (male)person moving around the bedroom, why should they not have made a mistake regarding the SLHM seen leaving the vicinity of the farm house?
-
careful jane she will have you REPORTED to the gustapho
Sami, is not horse poo the property of the horses owner?
-
the person was leaving a crime scene doesnt matter if no shots were heard the police would have challanged him
Frankly speaking, if J had been the killer he would have had to have been the 'last person' still alive inside the farmhouse. Yet, he was 'outside' with the cops at the time of the sighting of the person in the bedroom window (before 4am), and less than an hour later, when as per Kim Senguptas' report that a scruffy looking hunched man was seen walking away from the scene. Add to this, the fact that the window in question subject of the first sighting, is the exact same bedroom window where at 7.15am, the anshuzt rifle suddenly and unexpectedly appeared at the bedroom window. This 'fact' above all else establishes that somebody was 'still alive' inside the farmhouse 15 minutes before cops set off to enter the farmhouse...
-
would you say the same about crime reporters who say jb is guilty and a childkiller
I only mentioned her because she's clever------------and a woman ! The others will be licking their wounds before long.
-
Frankly speaking, if J had been the killer he would have had to have been the 'last person' still alive inside the farmhouse. Yet, he was 'outside' with the cops at the time of the sighting of the person in the bedroom window (before 4am), and less than an hour later, when as per Kim Senguptas' report that a scruffy looking hunched man was seen walking away from the scene. Add to this, the fact that the window in question subject of the first sighting, is the exact same bedroom window where at 7.15am, the anshuzt rifle suddenly and unexpectedly appeared at the bedroom window. This 'fact' above all else establishes that somebody was 'still alive' inside the farmhouse 15 minutes before cops set off to enter the farmhouse...
I don't understand your reasoning. WHY would he hang around after he'd killed everyone? SURELY the most sensible thing was to put space between himself and the soc -which he did- and use a fictitious phone call from his father as proof he was at home NOT at the soc......................which he also did?
-
(Hope NGB has a bucket handy! ::))
-
To pick up her poo and put on his roses?
-
careful jane she will have you REPORTED to the gustapho
-
yes half a dozen rats
-
Sami, is not horse poo the property of the horses owner?
yes thats correct in law
-
They are such beautiful creatures Jackie. I watched all the Queen's horses last Sunday and it was a magnificent show for her 90th birthday. Those horses were so clever,as were the riders in their acrobatic mode. Just brilliant.
-
I don't understand your reasoning. WHY would he hang around after he'd killed everyone? SURELY the most sensible thing was to put space between himself and the soc -which he did- and use a fictitious phone call from his father as proof he was at home NOT at the soc......................which he also did?
Your approach is all wrong - how could Jeremy force cops to report two bodies downstairs, from 7.37am, and the other three bodies upstairs at 8.10am? Why did the occupants of CA07 who were responsible for 'relaying' information received from inside the farmhouse at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, to the control room at far away Chelmsford police station, choose to stay silent, in the knowledge that by the time the case came to trial in October 1986, the body count downstairs and upstairs, was different to 'that' reported by them up to, and inclusive of 8.10am...
Odd that...
-
They are such beautiful creatures Jackie. I watched all the Queen's horses last Sunday and it was a magnificent show for her 90th birthday. Those horses were so clever,as were the riders in their acrobatic mode. Just brilliant.
Thank you Lookout x
-
Your approach is all wrong - how could Jeremy force cops to report two bodies downstairs, from 7.37am, and the other three bodies upstairs at 8.10am? Why did the occupants of CA07 who were responsible for 'relaying' information received from inside the farmhouse at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, to the control room at far away Chelmsford police station, choose to stay silent, in the knowledge that by the time the case came to trial in October 1986, the body count downstairs and upstairs, was different to 'that' reported by them up to, and inclusive of 8.10am...
Odd that...
Jeremy couldn't force but he encouraged and guided their thinking OUTside. Any mistakes made INside, probably because of confusion, were their own responsibility.
-
I've looked through the Dickinson book and there's nothing about someone, movement or tricks of light?
The following statements cover the time Bews and Myall arrived and before the officers with guns arrived.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5950
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5951
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5952
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5953
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5954
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5955
-
yes half a dozen rats
;D ;D ;D
-
Your approach is all wrong - how could Jeremy force cops to report two bodies downstairs, from 7.37am, and the other three bodies upstairs at 8.10am? Why did the occupants of CA07 who were responsible for 'relaying' information received from inside the farmhouse at 7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am, to the control room at far away Chelmsford police station, choose to stay silent, in the knowledge that by the time the case came to trial in October 1986, the body count downstairs and upstairs, was different to 'that' reported by them up to, and inclusive of 8.10am...
Odd that...
It gets worse, because the recipient of 'those' messages back in the control room, or the communications room (7.37am, 7.38am, and 8.10am), appears not to have raised an eyebrow, once the dust had settled and the body count downstairs and upstairs changed within the space of 34 minutes (between 8.10pm and 8.44pm) from two downstairs, three upstairs, into one downstairs, four upstairs...
Nobody has questioned this very serious discrepancy, not the officers inside the farmhouse, not CA07 who relayed the conflicting key messages, not the recipients back at Chelmsford, not the police surgeon, not the Coroners officer, and not the Divisional Chief Inspector?
What the 'bloody hell? has been going on here?
This is a very serious matter, that every cop involved in this investigation have ignored...
-
Why hasn't the Commander of the firearm operation (PS Adams) questioned it? Why hasn't PI Montgomery questioned it? Why hasn't DCI Harris questioned it? Why didn't Chief Inspector Gibbons question it? Why didn't DCI Wright question it? Why didn't ACC Peter Simpson question it?
Ah, maybe now the 'penny is beginning to sink in'...
At the very least, there must have been an internal enquiry into 'what went wrong' with the body count during a 'live firearm operation'. What was said by whoever inside the farmhouse, which led to CA07 relaying that information to the control room, which in turn led to SOCO being contacted at home about the discovery of two bodies downstairs by 7.45am, One body a dead male, one body a dead female, one body a murder, one body a suicide? The police surgeon, the coroners officer, and the Divisional Chief Inspector all notified of 'two bodies' found 'downstairs'. ..
Why has no police officer been disciplined over this matter?
-
Why hasn't the Commander of the firearm operation (PS Adams) questioned it? Why hasn't PI Montgomery questioned it? Why hasn't DCI Harris questioned it? Why didn't Chief Inspector Gibbons question it? Why didn't DCI Wright question it? Why didn't ACC Peter Simpson question it?
Ah, maybe now the 'penny is beginning to sink in'...
At the very least, there must have been an internal enquiry into 'what went wrong' with the body count during a 'live firearm operation'. What was said by whoever inside the farmhouse, which led to CA07 relaying that information to the control room, which in turn led to SOCO being contacted at home about the discovery of two bodies downstairs by 7.45am, One body a dead male, one body a dead female, one body a murder, one body a suicide? The police surgeon, the coroners officer, and the Divisional Chief Inspector all notified of 'two bodies' found 'downstairs'. ..
Why has no police officer been disciplined over this matter?
Don't tell me, that Jeremy forced this very serious matter, onto the police - how the hell could he have influenced any of this?
-
Why hasn't the Commander of the firearm operation (PS Adams) questioned it? Why hasn't PI Montgomery questioned it? Why hasn't DCI Harris questioned it? Why didn't Chief Inspector Gibbons question it? Why didn't DCI Wright question it? Why didn't ACC Peter Simpson question it?
Ah, maybe now the 'penny is beginning to sink in'...
At the very least, there must have been an internal enquiry into 'what went wrong' with the body count during a 'live firearm operation'. What was said by whoever inside the farmhouse, which led to CA07 relaying that information to the control room, which in turn led to SOCO being contacted at home about the discovery of two bodies downstairs by 7.45am, One body a dead male, one body a dead female, one body a murder, one body a suicide? The police surgeon, the coroners officer, and the Divisional Chief Inspector all notified of 'two bodies' found 'downstairs'. ..
Why has no police officer been disciplined over this matter?
could it be they made a mistake and there was only 1 body in the kitchen .not impossible
-
Why isn't ex cop Bews breaking his neck to pocket a few grand for his 'exclusive story' relating to what really happened? At least he can't claim it was another 'trick of light', can he?
Can he?
Can...
He?
-
Don't tell me, that Jeremy forced this very serious matter, onto the police - how the hell could he have influenced any of this?
Who of us is suggesting he did?
-
I've looked through the Dickinson book and there's nothing about someone, movement or tricks of light?
The following statements cover the time Bews and Myall arrived and before the officers with guns arrived.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5950
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5951
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5952
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5953
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5954
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5955
So what, it was mentioned at the trial - it's been confirmed by NGB - if you can't accept that then stay in denial.
-
careful jane she will have you REPORTED to the gustapho
Who are the gestapo?
-
They are such beautiful creatures Jackie. I watched all the Queen's horses last Sunday and it was a magnificent show for her 90th birthday. Those horses were so clever,as were the riders in their acrobatic mode. Just brilliant.
you should invite the clever ones to give you a hand in this case you might learn something from them.than you can say it came straight from the horses mouth :))
-
could it be they made a mistake and there was only 1 body in the kitchen .not impossible
If it had been a mistake, cops would have reported four bodies upstairs by 8.10am, but only three bodies upstairs by that time, and all five bodies accounted for by that stage...
Funny thing is, that when it was reported that only three bodies were found upstairs, nobody questioned it? Nobody said, 'hang on a minute, if there is only one body downstairs, where's the missing body gone'?
-
Who of us is suggesting he did?
He didn't...
-
Who are the gestapo?
iam not sure its a joke
-
iam not sure its a joke
Oh OK.
I have removed one of your posts. Please try not to make personal and abusive remarks to other posters.
Thank you.
-
Oh OK.
I have removed one of your posts. Please try not to make personal and abusive remarks to other posters.
Thank you.
sure maggie
-
He didn't...
I don't think any of us are concerned with what he didn't do.
-
iam not sure its a joke
sami the gestapol were Secret Police during the reign of Hilter and notorious for their methods of obtaining information :'(
-
So what, it was mentioned at the trial - it's been confirmed by NGB - if you can't accept that then stay in denial.
I don't doubt what NGB's saying and I'm not in denial. I just wanted to read what was said. It might be in Bews trial test but I can't find it here. It's not in Bews witness statement or Myalls or Jeremy's. It's not in Jeremy's police interviews. Its not in Myalls trial test. Its not in the Dickinson report.
-
I don't doubt what NGB's saying and I'm not in denial. I just wanted to read what was said. It might be in Bews trial test but I can't find it here. It's not in Bews witness statement or Myalls or Jeremy's. It's not in Jeremy's police interviews. Its not in Myalls trial test. Its not in the Dickinson report.
It's not on the forum, I have looked before. Perhaps Mike has a copy that he would kindly post?
-
Approaching this matter in the shoes of the police surgeon, Dr Craig, who as we all know was contacted at the behest of the firearm officers at the scene to attend the incident at whf involving two bodies, one dead male, one dead female, one a murder, one a suicide - then Dr Craig arrives at the scene and he is shown the bodies of the five victims in the following sequence. Firstly, the body of Ralph Bamber downstairs in the kitchen. His body being the only body downstairs by that stage. He had clearly been 'murdered'. Next, upstairs near to the bedroom door of the parents bedroom, Craig is shown the body of June Bamber, who had clearly been ' murdered'. On the far side of the bed in the same bedroom Sheila Caffell, supposedly already dead, sporting what appeared to be a single gunshot wound to her neck. He being satisfied at 'that' stage, that cops were treating her death as 'a suicide'. Dr Craig must have been stopped in his tracks at 'that' point. Surely, alarm bells would have started ringing in his head, since he had been informed that the first two bodies found, had been 'a murder' and 'a suicide'. Yet how had that come about when clearly the first two bodies he had been shown which he had come upon had clearly 'both been murders'?
-
Mike, do you have a copy of Bews's statement?
-
Mike, do you have a copy of Bews's statement?
Which one?
-
Which one?
How many have you got? But if you have one where he mentioned the movement in the bedroom, that would be great!
-
sami the gestapol were Secret Police during the reign of Hilter and notorious for their methods of obtaining information :'(
thanks sue i thought it was the little man with big mostauce and eyebrows .or is that gartcho marks
-
thanks sue i thought it was the little man with big mostauce and eyebrows .or is that gartcho marks
hahaha sami think that may have been the top man himself :)) :)) :))
-
Approaching this matter in the shoes of the police surgeon, Dr Craig, who as we all know was contacted at the behest of the firearm officers at the scene to attend the incident at whf involving two bodies, one dead male, one dead female, one a murder, one a suicide - then Dr Craig arrives at the scene and he is shown the bodies of the five victims in the following sequence. Firstly, the body of Ralph Bamber downstairs in the kitchen. His body being the only body downstairs by that stage. He had clearly been 'murdered'. Next, upstairs near to the bedroom door of the parents bedroom, Craig is shown the body of June Bamber, who had clearly been ' murdered'. On the far side of the bed in the same bedroom Sheila Caffell, supposedly already dead, sporting what appeared to be a single gunshot wound to her neck. He being satisfied at 'that' stage, that cops were treating her death as 'a suicide'. Dr Craig must have been stopped in his tracks at 'that' point. Surely, alarm bells would have started ringing in his head, since he had been informed that the first two bodies found, had been 'a murder' and 'a suicide'. Yet how had that come about when clearly the first two bodies he had been shown which he had come upon had clearly 'both been murders'?
Correction, Sheila was dead with two gunshots to her neck. Your claim that a photo exists showing her on the bed with a single gunshot wound is a lie. No such photo exists or has ever existed.
-
Why isn't ex cop Bews breaking his neck to pocket a few grand for his 'exclusive story' relating to what really happened? At least he can't claim it was another 'trick of light', can he?
Can he?
Can...
He?
Judging by the video I've seen he doesnt look like he has a neck to break!
You can see him here at about 3 mins in
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video
Not my type. Enough to make me look at my horses in a different light :o Each to their own I guess.
-
It's not on the forum, I have looked before. Perhaps Mike has a copy that he would kindly post?
If it's not on the forum how would I know about it? I'm not in the know and I dont read books.
-
Correction, Sheila was dead with two gunshots to her neck. Your claim that a photo exists showing her on the bed with a single gunshot wound is a lie. No such photo exists or has ever existed.
thats a interesting point john.has anyone seen this photo or like you said it doesnt exist
-
If it's not on the forum how would I know about it? I'm not in the know and I dont read books.
I thought you were or you said you were? You read the forum and it's been discussed many times.
-
I thought you were or you said you were? You read the forum and it's been discussed many times.
Where did I say I had access to documents that are not on the forum such as those Simon McKay might have had? If Simon had them he would not discuss with me why would he?
Lots of things are discussed on the forum that doesnt make them right. Most of what is discussed here is complete rubbish.
-
Where did I say I had access to documents that are not on the forum such as those Simon McKay might have had? If Simon had them he would not discuss with me why would he?
Lots of things are discussed on the forum that doesnt make them right. Most of what is discussed here is complete rubbish.
speak for youself tons of good points have been discussed on here.maybe not all supporting your views doesnt make them rubbish
-
Where did I say I had access to documents that are not on the forum such as those Simon McKay might have had? If Simon had them he would not discuss with me why would he?
Lots of things are discussed on the forum that doesnt make them right. Most of what is discussed here is complete rubbish.
Where did I say you did have access to documents? You're always bigging yourself up and making out you're an authority. Not sure why you're going on about this point, NGB has confirmed it was mentioned at trial - what more do you want?
-
Where did I say you did have access to documents? You're always bigging yourself up and making out you're an authority. Not sure why you're going on about this point, NGB has confirmed it was mentioned at trial - what more do you want?
At one time yes I was a player 8) I got Simon on board and MWT interested. Those days are over and we move on to pastures new with others to have conversations with 8) Where have I ever said I'm an authority? Book authors havent included my research :'(
Yes NGB has confirmed it was mentioned at trial, which I dont doubt, but as I said I would like to read word for word what was said.
-
Correction, Sheila was dead with two gunshots to her neck. Your claim that a photo exists showing her on the bed with a single gunshot wound is a lie. No such photo exists or has ever existed.
That's not what 'Dr Craig told the COLP investigators', or 'what he told Ewen Smith'...
He told them, that when he saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed, and he pronounced her as being dead, that by 'that' stage she only had what appeared to be a 'single' gunshot wound to her neck. He stated that it was not necessary for him to carry out a physical examination of her body, because it was obvious to him that she had been dead. Ewen Smith told me in person what Dr Craig had said to him, and the message was clear, Sheila had not been shot a second time by 8.44am, according to what Craig said to Ewen, who in turn recited chapter and verse to me in his Birmingham office. Within weeks of Ewen being able to glean this information from Dr Craig, the CCRC were arranging for Essex police to release all 581 case photographs to Ewen, who in turn gave me unsupervised access to them on two occasions. Once was when I viewed photographs in the 'Senior Investigating Officers Album' whilst in the 'conference room' at the solicitors, and secondly, in Ewen Smiths office. By 'that' stage Ewen had already confided in me that the police surgeon was saying that Sheila only had a single shotgun wound in her neck when he viewed her body and pronounced her dead at 8.44am...
I removed the image of Sheila's body laying on top of the bed on this second viewing. This photograph confirms that what Dr Craig told Ewen was correct. She had only been shot once...
-
Who are the gestapo?
The Secret Police of Nazi Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo)
-
It is easy to see why the police surgeon thought Sheila was dead, because there was very little if any blood at all which had run out of the wound...
-
speak for youself tons of good points have been discussed on here.maybe not all supporting your views doesnt make them rubbish
Regardless of views most of what is dicussed here is complee rubbish.
-
At one time yes I was a player 8) I got Simon on board and MWT interested. Those days are over and we move on to pastures new with others to have conversations with 8) Where have I ever said I'm an authority? Book authors havent included my research :'(
Yes NGB has confirmed it was mentioned at trial, which I dont doubt, but as I said I would like to read word for word what was said.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. What research ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't care what they say.......at least you have a sense of humour.
-
Everyone knows Dr. Craig was past it..
-
At one time yes I was a player 8) I got Simon on board and MWT interested. Those days are over and we move on to pastures new with others to have conversations with 8) Where have I ever said I'm an authority? Book authors havent included my research :'(
Yes NGB has confirmed it was mentioned at trial, which I dont doubt, but as I said I would like to read word for word what was said.
Then you will have to find a copy of the trial transcript or - unless Mike is will to post his statements. Have asked him.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. What research ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't care what they say.......at least you have a sense of humour.
Lets see what my 'trick of the light' research turns up! I might surprise you and turn out to be somwhat of a dark horse ::)
-
Lets see what my 'trick of the light' research turns up! I might surprise you and turn out to be somwhat of a dark horse ::)
Well, you're not doing that well so far, given you didn't know it was mentioned at trial. ;D ;D ;D ;D Still I've set you off on the right path - always happy to help, if you need anything else - just holler.
By the way, are you setting yourself a challenge to meniton 'horse' is every post? ;D ;D
-
Judging by the video I've seen he doesnt look like he has a neck to break!
You can see him here at about 3 mins in
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video
Not my type. Enough to make me look at my horses in a different light :o Each to their own I guess.
Have to agree with you ;D ;D ;D ;D although I don't have a horse but my cat is very pretty.
-
Have to agree with you ;D ;D ;D ;D although I don't have a horse but my cat is very pretty.
Maggie your cat is beautiful :))
-
As promised so time ago, I am reproducing the schedule of the witnesses who testitified during Jeremy's October 1986 Chelmsford Crown trial...
Reference on page 2 to M. J. Bennett, should read, 'M. J. Bonnett'...
Witness Order:-
(01) - Anthony Pargeter mentions silencer being fitted to barrel of anshuzt rifle on the penultimate week - end prior to the shootings. He also introduces the suggestion that Jeremy was considered by himself to be a competant marksman...
(02) - J. W. Hayward makes a statement declaring that the blood group results of the flake could have originated from Sheila, or Robert Woodwis Boutflour. What he failed to tell the court, was that there existed a very disturbing possibility that the silencer inside which the key blood group evidence had been obtained, had 'not' in fact been handed to cops by Peter Eaton on the 12 the August, 1985, but rather Ann Eaton had handed 'this' silencer over to cops on the 11th September, 1985...
(03) - J. J. Bradley
(04) - B. H. Knight told the court, that in his expert opinion, Sheila might have been able to move around for a period as long as half an hour after receiving the first non fatal shot across her neck, before the second 'fatal' shot was inflicted...
(05)- B. J. Cock
(06) - Dr P. Venezis has a 'dispute' with Malcolm Fletcher, regarding wounds, bullet dimensions, etc, which he fails to bring to the attention of the court...
(07) -J. Mugford Prosecution rejected Mugfords claim that a ' hitman' killed the five victims, and that the defendant had paid £2000 for a hitman to kill his family...
(08) - J. Mugford and the press (legal arguments) no comment, this witness was totally unreliable...
(09) - PC S. J. Myall saw 'unidentified male' in bedroom, and involved in communication duties at the scene, and relayed find of two bodies downstairs upon entry messages, 7.37 and 7.38am, and find of other three bodies upstairs by 8.10am - but he kept this evidence a secret from the court which tried the case...
(10) - Dr I. D. Craig he kept vital information back from the court which may have changed the course of the trial. For example, he was summoned to attend the scene in relation to two bodies, a male, and a female, a murder, and a suicide, but when he arrived at the scene, the 'suicide' could 'not' have been reported as the second body found. He failed to mention that the position of Sheila's body when he saw it was on the far side of the bed, as opposed to it being on the bedroom floor, and that at the time he had pronounced her as being dead (8.44am), that she only had a single gunshot wound to her neck. This was a startling omission considering that in the crime scene photographs that were taken over an hour and a quarter later on, not only showed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, with her by then sporting two gun shot wounds to her neck, and she clutching a rifle which Craig noted had not been with the body at that stage. It was also worthy of note that Craig never raised an eyebrow regarding exactly how and in what circumstances the second shot to her neck had occurred...
(11) - DI R. W. Cook He committed to inform the court that he had interfered with the integrity of the silencer, when he had dismantled it, separated the first six baffle plates from one another, and rebuilt it, before screwing it onto the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel. At this time no flake of blood had been observed inside the silencer. However, once Cook resubmitted the silencer to the lab' the key flake of blood miraculously appeared. Cook knew that other cops shot Sheila, and that it was some of these cops who had brought the rifle from the bedroom window and placed it on Sheila's body, but he kept silent about these matters whilst testifying during the trial...
(12) - Professor H. C. Ferguson
(13) - Malcolm D. Fletcher
(14) - Glynis M. A. Howard
(15) - Brian R. Elliot
(16) - J. R. Boutell
(17) - B. J. Wilson
(18) - D. R. Boutflour failed to mention to the court that he did not report the find of the silencer (DRB/1) and other items of evidential value until the 11th September, 1985
(19) - Christine A. Eaton She failed to inform the court that she had handed over the silencer (DRB/1) to DC Oakey on the 11th September, 1985, together with several other exhibits bearing the identifying marks, DRB/2, DRB/3, and DRB/4
(20) - Peter R. Eaton lied about handing over a silencer recovered from a cupboard at the scene by his brother in law. He committed to tell the court that he and Ralph Bamber didn't see eye to eye, or that prior to Mr Bambers death, how he had 'punched' Mr Bamber during one of many such arguments...
(21) - Robert W. Boutflour this guy, loathed Jeremy, the court should have rejected everything detrimental this crooked person had to say to the detriment of the defendant. Is it any wonder, that the trial judge did not touch upon anything spoken about by Boutflour (Snr) in his summing up?
(22) - DS N. Davidson this cop, failed to inform the court which tried this case, that he and DS Eastwood, had ' finger printed' the silencer inside which the key blood group results ( A, EAP BA, HP- 2, and AK/1) had been found, in tests conducted on the 14th September, 1985. This officer knew 'the truth' about the use of an additional silencer that relatives introduced, with the specific purpose of convicting Jeremy for these murders. He kept all this vital information a 'big' secret from the court which tried the case. Let's be Frank, DS Davidson behaved like ' a common criminal'. He lied, he deceived, he did what it took for him to do, to get a 'totally innocent man' convicted of murdering the family victims, that he moved, and adored...
(23) - DC D. R. Hammersley
(24) - DS S. B. Jones He obtained, 'an additional police notebook', and he purposefully 're- wrote' his pocketbook entries, contrary to force regulations, He falsified his account relating to his 'involvement' in the substituting of original crime scene ammunition, with test fired rounds, to enable his co - conspirator (The ballistics expert, Fletcher) to associate these with the act of them having been fired from the anshuzt rifle at the time of the shootings, but if the truth be known they were fired via that rifle in test firings after the shootings...
(25) - PS C. I. Bews sabotaged sighting of the 'unidentified' male via the bedroom window, by claiming it was 'a trick of light'. He also kept it from the court that he had been involved in relaying information from inside the farmhouse during the police search of the discovery of two bodies downstairs in the kitchen upon entry, (7.37am) ' the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, found upon entry', (7.38am) ' one dead male, one dead female', (8.10am) ' after a thorough search of the premises, a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total'...
(26 - DC D. Bird
(27) - PC M. J. West
(28) - M. J. Bonnet
(29) - J. N. Bamber
-
As promised so time ago, I am reproducing the schedule of the witnesses who testitified during Jeremy's October 1986 Chelmsford Crown trial...
Reference on page 2 to M. J. Bennett, should read, 'M. J. Bonnett'...
Witness Order:-
(01) - Anthony Pargeter
(02) - J. W. Hayward
(03) - J. J. Bradley
(04) - B. H. Knight
(05)- B. J. Cock
(06) - Dr P. Venezis
(07) -J. Mugford
(08) - J. Mugford and the press (legal arguments)
(09) - PC S. J. Myall saw 'unidentified male' in bedroom, and involved in communication duties at the scene, and relayed find of two bodies downstairs upon entry messages, 7.37 and 7.38am, and find of other three bodies upstairs by 8.10am - but he kept this evidence a secret from the court which tried the case...
(10) - Dr I. D. Craig
(11) - DI R. W. Cook
(12) - Professor H. C. Ferguson
(13) - Malcolm D. Fletcher
(14) - Glynis M. A. Howard
(15) - Brian R. Elliot
(16) - J. R. Boutell
(17) - B. J. Wilson
(18) - D. R. Boutflour
(19) - Christine A. Eaton
(20) - Peter R. Eaton
(21) - Robert W. Boutflour
(22) - DS N. Davidson
(23) - DC D. R. Hammersley
(24) - DS S. B. Jones
(25) - PS C. I. Bews
(26 - DC D. Bird
(27) - PC M. J. West
(28) - M. J. Bonnet
(29) - J. N. Bamber
Have you got Bew's statement or not? If now I will try and find it elsewhere.
-
Well, you're not doing that well so far, given you didn't know it was mentioned at trial. ;D ;D ;D ;D Still I've set you off on the right path - always happy to help, if you need anything else - just holler.
By the way, are you setting yourself a challenge to meniton 'horse' is every post? ;D ;D
[/glow]
Clever though, isn't it?
-
Have you got Bew's statement or not? If now I will try and find it elsewhere.
Bear with me, I am currently updating my last post...
-
Bear with me, I am currently updating my last post...
Ok - cheers
-
[/glow]
Clever though, isn't it?
Perhaps we should all choose an animal and feed it into every post in ever more clever and cunning ways ;D ;D.
-
Well, you're not doing that well so far, given you didn't know it was mentioned at trial. ;D ;D ;D ;D Still I've set you off on the right path - always happy to help, if you need anything else - just holler.
By the way, are you setting yourself a challenge to meniton 'horse' is every post? ;D ;D
I'm looking into purchasing the trial transcript. It might take a while.
I wonder what happened to horseydave ::)
-
Have to agree with you ;D ;D ;D ;D although I don't have a horse but my cat is very pretty.
I had a pretty pussy once :'(
-
[/glow]
Clever though, isn't it?
Just horsing around ::)
Anyway up early in the morning to feed my two horses.
Night all
-
Just horsing around ::)
Anyway up early in the morning to feed my two horses.
Night all
See ya...
-
Just horsing around ::)
Anyway up early in the morning to feed my two horses.
Night all
Good night Jackie.
-
That's not what 'Dr Craig told the COLP investigators', or 'what he told Ewen Smith'...
He told them, that when he saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed, and he pronounced her as being dead, that by 'that' stage she only had what appeared to be a 'single' gunshot wound to her neck. He stated that it was not necessary for him to carry out a physical examination of her body, because it was obvious to him that she had been dead. Ewen Smith told me in person what Dr Craig had said to him, and the message was clear, Sheila had not been shot a second time by 8.44am, according to what Craig said to Ewen, who in turn recited chapter and verse to me in his Birmingham office. Within weeks of Ewen being able to glean this information from Dr Craig, the CCRC were arranging for Essex police to release all 581 case photographs to Ewen, who in turn gave me unsupervised access to them on two occasions. Once was when I viewed photographs in the 'Senior Investigating Officers Album' whilst in the 'conference room' at the solicitors, and secondly, in Ewen Smiths office. By 'that' stage Ewen had already confided in me that the police surgeon was saying that Sheila only had a single shotgun wound in her neck when he viewed her body and pronounced her dead at 8.44am...
I removed the image of Sheila's body laying on top of the bed on this second viewing. This photograph confirms that what Dr Craig told Ewen was correct. She had only been shot once...
What a load of bollocks. Someone obviously needed to visit specsavers urgently!
No such photo exists!
-
What a load of bollocks. Someone obviously needed to visit specsavers urgently!
No such photo exists!
You are a complete fool, and idiotic...
-
Not so long ago, the idiot from red, sarcastically wished me luck, in producing a list of everybody who testified during Jeremy's trial, as though I would not be able to do so. Hey, but guess what, the idiot was proved 'wrong'...
Moreover, I have the transcripts somewhere in my possession, at least those handed over to the COLP investigators, as part of their investigation...
Oh, dear...
-
So...
Now I shall move on to the evidence and the sworn testimony given in previous witness statements and during trial testimony of PC David Bird, concerning the order with which he took all of his crime scene photographs relied upon, and attested to, during the trial...
He lied to the court that tried this case...
So, what's new?
Maybe he even got himself promoted for deceiving the court...
-
It was PC Bird who deceived the court which tried the case originally in October, 1986...
He introduced the so called 'master copy, album' consisting of only 223 photographs...
-
It was PC Bird who deceived the court which tried the case originally in October, 1986...
He introduced the so called 'master copy, album' consisting of only 223 photographs...
I can now report that he was actually responsible for 'editing' a total of 601 images, contained on 61 separate negative strips, and that in total there originally existed 610 exposures, but only 581 images making it into 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATIONG OFFICERS ALBUM'...
28 IMAGES WERE SUPPRESSED...
-
Here is a comprehensive list of the serial numbers of each of the 61 'negative strips' used as part of the investigation:-
020
0040
0015
0012
0034
0009
0037
0023
0002
0024
0039
0043
0003
0021
0065
0011
0014
0025
0035
0028
0016
0041
0033
0001
0002
0007
0006
0019
0031
0036
0032
0010
0030
0060
0059
0018
0017
0066
009
0026
0008
0027
005
0050
0051
0045
0040
0047
0046
0049
0062
0064
0061
0063
0052
0053
0054
0055
0056
0057
0013
There were exactly 10 negatives per each of the 61 strips...
-
This information was not made available to the court during the trial in October, 1986, but remained concealed by Essex police until at the very earliest, 18th December, 2001...
-
In a witness statement made by somebody purporting to be PC Bird, dated, 21st January, 2001, it is acknowledged that the order with which photographs had been taken as previously referred to by him, was 'incorrect'...
I shall take this opportunity to remind you all about photograph 23 which shows the anshuzt rifle leaning against the bedroom window, 'before' it was moved 'onto' the body and photographed. During trial both PC Bird and DI Cook falsely maintained that that photograph (23) had been taken 'after' Cook had removed it from the body...
Such a deception contributed to the jury convicting Jeremy of the murders, because they were persuaded that 'he' had staged his sisters death by placing the anshuzt rifle on her body to make it appear she had taken her own life. But, in actual fact, cops placed the rifle on Sheila's body to suggest she had killed herself...
-
...
-
In a witness statement made by somebody purporting to be PC Bird, dated, 21st January, 2001, it is acknowledged that the order with which photographs had been taken as previously referred to by him, was 'incorrect'...
I shall take this opportunity to remind you all about photograph 23 which shows the anshuzt rifle leaning against the bedroom window, 'before' it was moved 'onto' the body and photographed. During trial both PC Bird and DI Cook falsely maintained that that photograph (23) had been taken 'after' Cook had removed it from the body...
Such a deception contributed to the jury convicting Jeremy of the murders, because they were persuaded that 'he' had staged his sisters death by placing the anshuzt rifle on her body to make it appear she had taken her own life. But, in actual fact, cops placed the rifle on Sheila's body to suggest she had killed herself...
so who leaned it by the window in the first place where you claim it was .sheila after shooting her self she proped the rifle than laid down to die.highly unlikely
-
so who leaned it by the window in the first place where you claim it was .sheila after shooting her self she proped the rifle than laid down to die.highly unlikely
Sami, I don't believe it's unreasonable to say police removed it from her to A) ascertain it's safety and B) take pictures before replacing it.
-
Sami, I don't believe it's unreasonable to say police removed it from her to A) ascertain it's safety and B) take pictures before replacing it.
thats excatly my opinion jane.if it was by the window than it was taken from the body and put there by police after checking it and making it safe
-
Mike,you surpass any legal expert with the work that you've put in here. I congratulate you.
-
Mike,you surpass any legal expert with the work that you've put in here. I congratulate you.
i think jb and his team would disagree with you strongly
-
Mike,you surpass any legal expert with the work that you've put in here. I congratulate you.
So now you think the police did shoot Sheila?
-
i think jb and his team would disagree with you strongly
Shut the fuck up will you !
-
Shut the XXXX up will you !
Lookout, Sami has a right to post as any other member does.
-
Shut the fuck up will you !
now now ,iam free to post what i like when i like. iam not insulting any one or being rude
-
Just quit your inflammatory remarks and stop following my posts purposely to make them,or for the first time in over 4 years,I'll report you !
-
Just quit your inflammatory remarks and stop following my posts purposely to make them,or for the first time in over 4 years,I'll report you !
dont kid yourself iam not following your posts.i wont insult you back ,cause that would put me at the same level as you
-
bews does look like he is bungerling country cop.in one interview he was saying how he suspected jb from the begining and gives reasons why .but what he doest say is after feeling so strongly about jb .who did he tell what other officer ,he gives no names.being a country cop i think he was never involved in a armed siege.he must have been petrified after jb was reeling off his prepeard story.poor feller
-
So now you think the police did shoot Sheila?
We've just had documents posted which suggest Sheila could have shot herself twice because of low-recoil, yet the gun demonstrated at trial was stiff(who gave the demonstration I forget?); to explain this it has become a two-weapon crime and we now we have to swallow Police shot her, assumedly by mistake with their silencer, presumably to explain a purported silencer mark on Sheila's neck, the whole tale concocted to land Jeremy in the clear.
-
We've just had documents posted which suggests Sheila could have shot herself twice because of low-recoil, yet the gun demonstrated at trial was stiff(who gave the demonstration I forget?); to explain this it has become a two-weapon crime and we yet now we have to swallow Police shot her, assumedly by mistake with their silencer, presumably to explain a purported silencer mark on Sheila's neck, the whole tale concocted to land Jeremy in the clear.
And do we buy it?
-
We've just had documents posted which suggests Sheila could have shot herself twice because of low-recoil, yet the gun demonstrated at trial was stiff(who gave the demonstration I forget?); to explain this it has become a two-weapon crime and we yet now we have to swallow Police shot her, assumedly by mistake with their silencer, presumably to explain a purported silencer mark on Sheila's neck, the whole tale concocted to land Jeremy in the clear.
steve the police were happy with the suiside theory why than would they blame jb knowing that further scrutiny might unvail their hand in killing sc.i think if they did do it they would have said 4 murders 1 suiside case closed .why drag it on.imo
-
steve the police were happy with the suiside theory why than would they blame jb knowing that further scrutiny might unvail their hand in killing sc.i think if they did do it they would have said 4 murders 1 suiside case closed .why drag it on.imo
After the magnificent cock up EP made of the Diana Jones case, there's NO way they'd have done an about turn on the Bamber case without justifiable reason.
-
if they killed sheila ,they would have said their shot her they are within the law to do so.police shot lots of people in the 80s armed blaggers and ira terrorists,so why hide it even if it was a accident
-
steve the police were happy with the suiside theory why than would they blame jb knowing that further scrutiny might unvail their hand in killing sc.i think if they did do it they would have said 4 murders 1 suiside case closed .why drag it on.imo
The argument would be that they came under pressure from the relatives, but I don't see the chronology in this given that had the Police shot Sheila it would have been that morning and something they would just have claimed they did in self-defence.
-
And do we buy it?
Mike do you never doubt for one moment that Jeremy might be leading you up the garden path..
-
if they killed sheila ,they would have said their shot her they are within the law to do so.police shot lots of people in the 80s armed blaggers and ira terrorists,so why hide it even if it was a accident
if they killed sheila ,they would have said their shot her they are within the law to do so.police shot lots of people in the 80s armed blaggers and ira terrorists,so why hide it even if it was a accident
Sami/Steve, THAT is exactly right. They had no reason WHATSOEVER to cover up anything which occurred in the course of their duties. The bottom line would ALWAYS have been that she threatened them.
-
And do we buy it?
Not for a moment. The more convoluted Mike's stories become, the more impossible to believe they become.
-
Not for a moment. The more convoluted Mike's stories become, the more impossible to believe they become.
When you eliminate the impossible what remains, no matter how improbable - must be the truth.
It's impossible that Sheila killed the family (too clean, no energy, quite frail, never handled the gun before .......)
It seems improbable that Jeremy would tell his girlfriend of his plan to kill the family, carry it out, then dump her, that he would try to pass off two shots to Sheila's throat as a suicide, invent a hit man story, show no concern for the family tragedy (especially burning his parents clothes in the farm fire pit), try to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister and go on holiday at the drop of a hat. I could go on ..........
-
When you eliminate the impossible what remains, no matter how improbable - must be the truth.
It's impossible that Sheila killed the family (too clean, no energy, quite frail, never handled the gun before .......)
It seems improbable that Jeremy would tell his girlfriend of his plan to kill the family, carry it out, then dump her, that he would try to pass off two shots to Sheila's throat as a suicide, invent a hit man story, show no concern for the family tragedy (especially burning his parents clothes in the farm fire pit), try to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister and go on holiday at the drop of a hat. I could go on ..........
It tells a lot about Sheila when Colin said, she did not even like toy guns?
-
It tells a lot about Sheila when Colin said, she did not even like toy guns?
I think the twins did have some to play with at the White House, but in the full glare of the Press who can blame Colin for slipping up?
-
I think the twins did have some to play with at the White House, but in the full glare of the Press who can blame Colin for slipping up?
I think he meant away from the farm Steve?
-
I think the twins did have some to play with at the White House, but in the full glare of the Press who can blame Colin for slipping up?
They may have been part of a WHF toy chest created, for their stays there by the Bambers, who would have seen as being ridiculous, Sheila's aversion to guns
-
They may have been part of a WHF toy chest created, for their stays there by the Bambers, who would have seen as being ridiculous, Sheila's aversion to guns
Quite right Jane
-
I think the twins did have some to play with at the White House, but in the full glare of the Press who can blame Colin for slipping up?
I don't think the Bamber's would have coped with the now PC world we live in.
-
I don't think the Bamber's would have coped with the now PC world we live in.
I think they would have coped - might not have liked it but they'd have coped. Didn't get the chance though!!
-
I think he meant away from the farm Steve?
Yes, though she didn't have much contact with them during the week. In any case there's nothing to tie her to guns, however hard the Jeremy supporters try.
-
Sami/Steve, THAT is exactly right. They had no reason WHATSOEVER to cover up anything which occurred in the course of their duties. The bottom line would ALWAYS have been that she threatened them.
thank you jane.its common sense
-
if they killed sheila ,they would have said their shot her they are within the law to do so.police shot lots of people in the 80s armed blaggers and ira terrorists,so why hide it even if it was a accident
They shot an unarmed victim, I can't think of a better reason to cover up the true circumstances of Sheila's death...
-
They shot an unarmed victim, I can't think of a better reason to cover up the true circumstances of Sheila's death...
And which plod would have been stupid enough to reveal such a thing to anyone had that been the case?
-
You should pay attention to the facts rather than inventing things which were not true...
Sheila placed the rifle against the upstairs window as a signal that she was ready to give herself up. She then went downstairs and was shot by a cop who thought he had killed her in the kitchen. Hence, the radio messages that were passed at 7.37 and 7.38am, relating to there being two bodies downstairs before 7.45am. You will have to use your own intelligence to work out why there were only three other bodies upstairs in the bedrooms by 8.10am, and at 'that' time, five victims were all declared to have died, two bodies downstairs, a male and a female, a murder, and a suicide. I will leave you to try to fathom out exactly how that balance became adjusted after 8.10am, resulting in how the female from downstairs ended up on the far side of the bed by 8.44am, in time for the police surgeon, to confirm two dead females upstairs in the same bedroom, along with two dead children in another bedroom. All I can say is that if you can't see the truth in this matter, for what it was, and what it is, then you are basically totally thick, and no amount of evidence will ever persuade you to see sense. Stop pretending to be blind, stop pretending to be deaf, if you really are thick then all I can say is how sorry I am for you...
Are you saying that every word you've posted has been the total truth OR are you covering your back by saying you BELIEVE it to have been the total truth?
-
You should pay attention to the facts rather than inventing things which were not true...
Sheila placed the rifle against the upstairs window as a signal that she was ready to give herself up. She then went downstairs and was shot by a cop who thought he had killed her in the kitchen. Hence, the radio messages that were passed at 7.37 and 7.38am, relating to there being two bodies downstairs before 7.45am. You will have to use your own intelligence to work out why there were only three other bodies upstairs in the bedrooms by 8.10am, and at 'that' time, five victims were all declared to have died, two bodies downstairs, a male and a female, a murder, and a suicide. I will leave you to try to fathom out exactly how that balance became adjusted after 8.10am, resulting in how the female from downstairs ended up on the far side of the bed by 8.44am, in time for the police surgeon, to confirm two dead females upstairs in the same bedroom, along with two dead children in another bedroom. All I can say is that if you can't see the truth in this matter, for what it was, and what it is, then you are basically totally thick, and no amount of evidence will ever persuade you to see sense. Stop pretending to be blind, stop pretending to be deaf, if you really are thick then all I can say is how sorry I am for you...
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've just realized what you've said. Mike, I have to hand it to you. When it comes to twisting, you're certainly the champion :)) :)) :))
-
Hey! sami! will you watch how you speak to people on the forum, I have removed your post to Mike, it's unacceptable to speak to anyone like that.
-
Hey! sami! will you watch how you speak to people on the forum, I have removed your post to Mike, it's unacceptable to speak to anyone like that.
please also remove his post where he calls me thick and feels sorry for me.thanks
-
please also remove his post where he calls me thick and feels sorry for me.thanks
Sorry Sami, I think you've lost that one. He very carefully said it as "IF...................I feel sorry for you" A lesson in how to word things, though?
-
Sorry Sami, I think you've lost that one. He very carefully said it as "IF...................I feel sorry for you" A lesson in how to word things, though?
thanks jane lesson learnt
-
Of course there is documented evidence of Bews mentioning the trick of light. People can't lie about it because it will be in the court transcripts but you carry on pretending it's not there.
The only published source for it that I'm aware of is a brief quotation of the cross-examination of Ps Bews by Rivlin given here (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1) on the OS.
-
please also remove his post where he calls me thick and feels sorry for me.thanks
I didn't see that so will have to search for it but I will have a look. It doesn't excuse you though please don't speak to posters that way it's the second post of yours I've removed.
-
I didn't see that so will have to search for it but I will have a look. It doesn't excuse you though please don't speak to posters that way it's the second post of yours I've removed.
sure maggie
-
iam not thick mike just because i dont see the evidence the way you do doesnt make me thick keep that in your mind for future before you insult people for not agreeing with you.end of story
-
sure maggie
Don't try to make out that I am not being fair. I have read and removed Mike's post, you have accused me before of not being fair but I do my very best to judge the posts not the person.
-
Don't try to make out that I am not being fair. I have read and removed Mike's post, you have accused me before of not being fair but I do my very best to judge the posts not the person.
you do a good job maggie
-
iam not thick mike just because i dont see the evidence the way you do doesnt make me thick keep that in your mind for future before you insult people for not agreeing with you.end of story
Stop pretending that its the way I see things, as though what I am relying on never happened, did not exist, or could not possibly have occurred. I didn't shoot an unarmed Sheila downstairs in the kitchen after she had voluntarily given a signal by placing the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window, to give cops a basic clue that she had had enough and was on the verge of giving herself up. I didn't relay the messages timed at 7.37 and 7.38am, stating that two bodies ( a dead male, and a dead female) had been found downstairs in the kitchen upon entry, and only three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. People who sit on your side of the fence are always blaming someone else for things cop did. At first you blamed Jeremy, now its me, who next will you lot be picking on? Cops are constantly relying on a series of mistakes, errors, and behaviour akin to Essex police and the firearm officers having been trained alongside the keystone cops. There are too many mistakes, too many errors, and not any credible evidence which puts J in the frame. Any evidence there was was 'concocted', ambiguous and inconsistent. Most miscarriages of justice which end up being quashed do so by reference to one part of the prosecutions case that is proven to be fundamentally flawed. In this case, there is an abundance of different aspects of the prosecutions case which is beyond the threshold by which the convictions can be safe...
-
The only published source for it that I'm aware of is a brief quotation of the cross-examination of Ps Bews by Rivlin given here (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1) on the OS.
Thanks Reader but I have read it or have seen it somewhere else. I'll have to try and remember.
-
you do a good job maggie
Hi sami
very well said Maggie does a great job she is very fair.
-
Stop pretending that its the way I see things, as though what I am relying on never happened, did not exist, or could not possibly have occurred. I didn't shoot an unarmed Sheila downstairs in the kitchen after she had voluntarily given a signal by placing the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window, to give cops a basic clue that she had had enough and was on the verge of giving herself up. I didn't relay the messages timed at 7.37 and 7.38am, stating that two bodies ( a dead male, and a dead female) had been found downstairs in the kitchen upon entry, and only three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. People who sit on your side of the fence are always blaming someone else for things cop did. At first you blamed Jeremy, now its me, who next will you lot be picking on? Cops are constantly relying on a series of mistakes, errors, and behaviour akin to Essex police and the firearm officers having been trained alongside the keystone cops. There are too many mistakes, too many errors, and not any credible evidence which puts J in the frame. Any evidence there was was 'concocted', ambiguous and inconsistent. Most miscarriages of justice which end up being quashed do so by reference to one part of the prosecutions case that is proven to be fundamentally flawed. In this case, there is an abundance of different aspects of the prosecutions case which is beyond the threshold by which the convictions can be safe...
Mike, I don't recall that anyone has accused you of shooting Sheila...................however, at times you do speak as if you were there.
-
Stop pretending that its the way I see things, as though what I am relying on never happened, did not exist, or could not possibly have occurred. I didn't shoot an unarmed Sheila downstairs in the kitchen after she had voluntarily given a signal by placing the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window, to give cops a basic clue that she had had enough and was on the verge of giving herself up. I didn't relay the messages timed at 7.37 and 7.38am, stating that two bodies ( a dead male, and a dead female) had been found downstairs in the kitchen upon entry, and only three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. People who sit on your side of the fence are always blaming someone else for things cop did. At first you blamed Jeremy, now its me, who next will you lot be picking on? Cops are constantly relying on a series of mistakes, errors, and behaviour akin to Essex police and the firearm officers having been trained alongside the keystone cops. There are too many mistakes, too many errors, and not any credible evidence which puts J in the frame. Any evidence there was was 'concocted', ambiguous and inconsistent. Most miscarriages of justice which end up being quashed do so by reference to one part of the prosecutions case that is proven to be fundamentally flawed. In this case, there is an abundance of different aspects of the prosecutions case which is beyond the threshold by which the convictions can be safe...
no one else has mentioned the theory above or agreed to it.where is the male you say jb told you he saw at the bedroom window.how many killers were in that house
-
no one else has mentioned the theory above or agreed to it.where is the male you say jb told you he saw at the bedroom window.how many killers were in that house
Yes. If the "unidentified male was moving around the bedroom" how come A) he left the shooting of Sheila to the police an d B) how did he get out?
-
Yes. If the "unidentified male was moving around the bedroom" how come A) he left the shooting of Sheila to the police an d B) how did he get out?
its pure fantasy jane and complete RUBBISH.
-
no one else has mentioned the theory above or agreed to it.where is the male you say jb told you he saw at the bedroom window.how many killers were in that house
Stop being stupid...
-
Yes. If the "unidentified male was moving around the bedroom" how come A) he left the shooting of Sheila to the police an d B) how did he get out?
He didn't shoot Sheila, because he was her accomplice, and she, his...
-
who told sc that by placing the rifle by the window was the sign that she was ready to surrender and why wasnt it logged or heard by over 10 police and bamber himself.thats shes placed the rifle down and is surrendering.she should have open the back door for them.which she could not because she was allready dead.
-
He didn't shoot Sheila, because he was her accomplice, and she, his...
iam glad you said that .how did he escape police were swarming all over whf and a corden was in place
-
He didn't shoot Sheila, because he was her accomplice, and she, his...
So Sheila was assisted by a trick of light, was she?
-
There are several audio-tapes which recorded what went on inside the farmhouse. We've yet to know what their content is because they're held under the PII along with the other withheld evidence.
-
who told sc that by placing the rifle by the window was the sign that she was ready to surreder and why wasnt it logged or heard by over 10 police and bamber himself.thats shes placed the rifle down and is surrendering.she should have open the back door for them.which she could not because she was allready dead.
There was other communications not yet released, which at times during the siege were 'one sided challenges', involving instructions being directed at the occupants of the farmhouse. Some of these challenges went along the lines, ' this is the police, the house is completely surrounded, come out with your hands up, no-one will harm you', and ' give us a signal that you mean us no harm, put the weapon we know you have in your possession in one of the windows as a gesture of goodwill, to indicate you are willing to surrender to us'...
-
There are several audio-tapes which recorded what went on inside the farmhouse. We've yet to know what their content is because they're held under the PII along with the other withheld evidence.
Which means that you have a get out of jail free card even though Jeremy hasn't because you can play that card indefinitely.
-
There was other communications not yet released, which at times during the siege were 'one sided challenges', involving instructions being directed at the occupants of the farmhouse. Some of these challenges went along the lines, ' this is the police, the house is completely surrounded, come out with your hands up, no-one will harm you', and ' give us a signal that you mean us no harm, put the weapon we know you have in your possession in one of the windows as a gesture of goodwill, to indicate you are willing to surrender to us'...
You really are making this up as you go, aren't you. Please don't complain if you're not taken seriously.
-
Which means that you have a get out of jail free card even though Jeremy hasn't because you can play that card indefinitely.
You might have to eat those words yet.
-
Other 'challenges' were met with the sound of 'a dog barking' and 'howling'. Cops satisfied themselves that several of these responses may have been Sheila mimicking the dog she had with her inside the house...
-
There was other communications not yet released, which at times during the siege were 'one sided challenges', involving instructions being directed at the occupants of the farmhouse. Some of these challenges went along the lines, ' this is the police, the house is completely surrounded, come out with your hands up, no-one will harm you', and ' give us a signal that you mean us no harm, put the weapon we know you have in your possession in one of the windows as a gesture of goodwill, to indicate you are willing to surrender to us'...
if they are not released how do you know what they contain.and how do you know ep hasnt destroyed them
-
You really are making this up as you go, aren't you. Please don't complain if you're not taken seriously.
I don't have to make anything up, its what did happen. Its all documented...
-
Other 'challenges' were met with the sound of 'a dog barking' and 'howling'. Cops satisfied themselves that several of these responses may have been Sheila mimicking the dog she had with her inside the house...
sorry mike but iam in fits of laughter why would she be mimicking a dog you sure she wasnt talking to it.she must have been quite mad to do that but not mad enough not to understand the command about placing rifle by window
-
I don't have to make anything up, its what did happen. Its all documented...
WHERE
-
I don't have to make anything up, its what did happen. Its all documented...
Yes, and I can play all the notes in a piece of music but like you, I don't play/say them in the order they're written.
-
if they are not released how do you know what they contain.and how do you know ep hasnt destroyed them
Because I have been told by retired cops who were involved at the scene...
Why was it, do you think, that after 5.25am, that morning when firearm officers were engaged in a 'conversation' with a person from inside the farmhouse, that three ambulances were summoned to the scene, arriving at around 7am, with instructions for only one of these ambulances to go directly to the house, whilst the other two ambulances were parked up in Pages lane close to the farm cottages to await further instruction? Cops knew by around 6am that somebody had been shot, hence why one of the three ambulances was directed to go straight to the farmhouse? Cops had been communicating with Sheila, and she was all messed up and couldn't speak coherently, at times she was screaming, moaning, crying, laughing, howling and mimicking the dog barking. However, it was whilst communication of this sort was ongoing that they coaxed her into placing the rifle believed to be in her possession at one of the windows...
-
Because I have been told by retired cops who were involved at the scene...
Why was it, do you think, that after 5.25am, that morning when firearm officers were engaged in a 'conversation' with a person from inside the farmhouse, that three ambulances were summoned to the scene, arriving at around 7am, with instructions for only one of these ambulances to go directly to the house, whilst the other two ambulances were parked up in Pages lane close to the farm cottages to await further instruction? Cops knew by around 6am that somebody had been shot, hence why one of the three ambulances was directed to go straight to the farmhouse? Cops had been communicating with Sheila, and she was all messed up and couldn't speak coherently, at times she was screaming, moaning, crying, laughing, howling and mimicking the dog barking. However, it was whilst communication of this sort was ongoing that they coaxed her into placing the rifle believed to be in her possession at one of the windows...
which retired officers and will they be willing to repeat it in a court of law.other wise its hearsay or lies
-
Because I have been told by retired cops who were involved at the scene...
Why was it, do you think, that after 5.25am, that morning when firearm officers were engaged in a 'conversation' with a person from inside the farmhouse, that three ambulances were summoned to the scene, arriving at around 7am, with instructions for only one of these ambulances to go directly to the house, whilst the other two ambulances were parked up in Pages lane close to the farm cottages to await further instruction? Cops knew by around 6am that somebody had been shot, hence why one of the three ambulances was directed to go straight to the farmhouse? Cops had been communicating with Sheila, and she was all messed up and couldn't speak coherently, at times she was screaming, moaning, crying, laughing, howling and mimicking the dog barking. However, it was whilst communication of this sort was ongoing that they coaxed her into placing the rifle believed to be in her possession at one of the windows...
I feel inclined to say they're pulling your leg, Mike. If it WAS true, by now it would have reached far more influential ears than yours. Who knows, it could be that all those connected with WHF would disappear one by one.
-
Cops have lied in the handling of this investigation...
The rifle from the window was placed onto Sheila's body by cops. It was not photographed on her body until around 10.20am, that morning, whilst SOCO supposedly had control of the scene.
-
Cops have lied in the handling of this investigation...
The rifle from the window was placed onto Sheila's body by cops. It was not photographed on her body until around 10.20am, that morning, whilst SOCO supposedly had control of the scene.
But you omit to say they first took it off to make it safe and leaned it against a wall/window to take pictures before replacing it.
-
Cops have lied in the handling of this investigation...
The rifle from the window was placed onto Sheila's body by cops. It was not photographed on her body until around 10.20am, that morning, whilst SOCO supposedly had control of the scene.
[/quotewhat is this picture i cant make it out]
-
Cops have lied in the handling of this investigation...
The rifle from the window was placed onto Sheila's body by cops. It was not photographed on her body until around 10.20am, that morning, whilst SOCO supposedly had control of the scene.
[/quotewhat is this picture i cant make it out]
The clock on the bedside table.
-
The clock on the bedside table.
thank you caroline.ive asked if the retired officers will stand in court of law and repeat what they have told mike .but no reply to this question.what has this image got to do with things
-
mike youre anti police why would retired police officers tell you such things
-
The following sequence of events occurred:-
07.15am - Sheila placed rifle at window, as a signal that she was prepared to give herself up, and allow ambulance crew members into farmhouse to provide immediate care to a victim or victims who had been shot by that stage...
7.37am - Cop shot an unarmed Sheila in kitchen, and mistakenly presumed her to have been killed (rifle still at upstairs window)
7.38am - two bodies downstairs, a dead male, a dead female, a murder, a suicide (rifle still at upstairs window)
8.10am - the other three bodies were located upstairs, five dead in total (rifle still at window)
8.44am - police surgeon, Dr Craig, PI Miller, view Sheila's body on far side of the bed in the main bedroom, sporting a single gunshot wound by that stage. Craig pronounces Sheila dead (rifle still at window)
9.13am - Sheila's body removed from bed and placed on bedroom floor. The rifle is brought from window and placed onto Sheila's body for gauging purposes. Whilst her fingers are being manipulated upon and around the trigger mechanism, and muzzle of rifles barrel beneath victims chin, the weapon discharged a shot which penetrated into Sheila's brain, and killed her instantly. Rifle was immediately removed and placed at the bedroom window...
10am - PC Bird photographed the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window as per photograph number 23 (master copy album)
10.20am - rifle brought from bedroom window and placed onto Sheila's body by cops who tried to make it appear that she had taken her own life with use of 'that' gun...
-
mike youre anti police why would retired police officers tell you such things
I have a relative who was a police dog handler, are you suggesting that because I distrust the police that my uncle (the ex cop) never confided in me at all?
-
thank you caroline.ive asked if the retired officers will stand in court of law and repeat what they have told mike .but no reply to this question.what has this image got to do with things
It shows the time as 10:20 - other than that? Beats me :-\
-
But you omit to say they first took it off to make it safe and leaned it against a wall/window to take pictures before replacing it.
See below your post (above this reply)...
-
There are several audio-tapes which recorded what went on inside the farmhouse. We've yet to know what their content is because they're held under the PII along with the other withheld evidence.
Not true. What's your source for this? Not expecting anything convincing but amuse me?
-
It shows the time as 10:20 - other than that? Beats me :-\
IT WAS A CLOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I have a relative who was a police dog handler, are you suggesting that because I distrust the police that my uncle (the ex cop) never confided in me at all?
he might have done becsause he,s related to you.common sense
-
Not true. What's your source for this? Not expecting anything convincing but amuse me?
Why would there be an audio tape? This was 1985, don't think the raid team would have been quiped with radio head sets and mic's. or was someone running around with one of these? ;D
-
Why would there be an audio tape? This was 1985, don't think the raid team would have been quiped with radio head sets and mic's. or was someone running around with one of these? ;D
I guess that the claim is going to be that the BT operator recorded what they heard over the open line, or something like that. ;D
-
Clock showing time at 10.20am, is on bedside cabinet in main bedroom. This photograph was taken 'after' photograph number 23 (master copy album). The significance being that Rifle 'was' photographed leaning against bedroom window (23) before cops brought it to Sheila's body and allowed the cops to stage her death scene with her in possession of the same rifle, by now in her possession, at a time when she had two gunshot wounds to her neck...
-
Not true. What's your source for this? Not expecting anything convincing but amuse me?
It's true alright. It's part of a list of withheld materials that Trudi Benjamin and her team have compiled which is on their site. Ring her up or e-mail her if you're so interested.It's the only way you'll find out.
-
I guess that the claim is going to be that the BT operator recorded what they heard over the open line, or something like that. ;D
Guess they must be in on it too then!! ;D ;D
-
It's true alright. It's part of a list of withheld materials that Trudi Benjamin and her team have compiled which is on their site. Ring her up or e-mail her if you're so interested.It's the only way you'll find out.
If the CT are saying it, it MUST be true ::)
-
Clock showing time at 10.20am, is on bedside cabinet in main bedroom. This photograph was taken 'after' photograph number 23 (master copy album). The significance being that Rifle 'was' photographed leaning against bedroom window (23) before cops brought it to Sheila's body and allowed the cops to stage her death scene with her in possession of the same rifle, by now in her possession, at a time when she had two gunshot wounds to her neck...
i can see nothing in this photo just wording to make you think of something thats not there
-
If the CT are saying it, it MUST be true ::)
Go on------ask her. I dare you.
-
The clock is situated on the bedside cabinet to the right of the bed (when viewed from the foot of the bed)...
-
It's true alright. It's part of a list of withheld materials that Trudi Benjamin and her team have compiled which is on their site. Ring her up or e-mail her if you're so interested.It's the only way you'll find out.
But if they are withheld how does Trudi et al know what it is that is being held?
-
Go on------ask her. I dare you.
Ask her what? Of course I dare, why wouldn't I? ::)
-
i can see nothing in this photo just wording to make you think of something thats not there
Enlarge the image, the clock clearly shows the time 10.20am...
-
Ask her what? Of course I dare, why wouldn't I? ::)
That's fair enough.At least I won't see the egg on your face. :))
-
Enlarge the image, the clock clearly shows the time 10.20am...
Hmm It says that twice a day.
-
Enlarge the image, the clock clearly shows the time 10.20am...
so what if its 10.20am.that proves what
-
Hmm It says that twice a day.
thats witty jane :))
-
Now, before you get carried away, I can tell you that the photograph which includes the clock at its time of 10.20am, or just after, shows the anshuz rifle on Sheila's body and that this photograph was taken 20 minutes or so 'after' photograph number 23 which puts the rifle resting next to the bedroom window...
So, please explain to me in as much corrupt language that you or anybody else can think up, to convince me that it was Jeremy Bamber who placed 'that' rifle on his sisters body, and staged her death scene, between 10am and just after 10.20am, that morning?
-
Hmm It says that twice a day.
Stop being stupid, how could cops have photographed the bodies of June and Sheila insitu at just after 10.20pm, either on evening of 6th or 7th August 1985?
-
Now, before you get carried away, I can tell you that the photograph which includes the clock at its time of 10.20am, or just after, shows the anshuz rifle on Sheila's body and that this photograph was taken 20 minutes or so 'after' photograph number 23 which puts the rifle resting next to the bedroom window...
So, please explain to me in as much corrupt language that you or anybody else can think up, to convince me that it was Jeremy Bamber who placed 'that' rifle on his sisters body, and staged her death scene, between 10am and just after 10.20am, that morning?
post the photo so we can see the rifle the body and the clock
-
Clock showing time at 10.20am, is on bedside cabinet in main bedroom. This photograph was taken 'after' photograph number 23 (master copy album). The significance being that Rifle 'was' photographed leaning against bedroom window (23) before cops brought it to Sheila's body and allowed the cops to stage her death scene with her in possession of the same rifle, by now in her possession, at a time when she had two gunshot wounds to her neck...
Why have the bodies been blanked out of the picture Mike? They have been left in most of the others?
-
Stop being stupid, how could cops have photographed the bodies of June and Sheila insitu at just after 10.20pm, either on evening of 6th or 7th August 1985?
These cops are in 'big' trouble...
-
Why have the bodies been blanked out of the picture Mike? They have been left in most of the others?
For decency...
-
These cops are in 'big' trouble...
which cops and in trouble with who
-
Now, before you get carried away, I can tell you that the photograph which includes the clock at its time of 10.20am, or just after, shows the anshuz rifle on Sheila's body and that this photograph was taken 20 minutes or so 'after' photograph number 23 which puts the rifle resting next to the bedroom window...
So, please explain to me in as much corrupt language that you or anybody else can think up, to convince me that it was Jeremy Bamber who placed 'that' rifle on his sisters body, and staged her death scene, between 10am and just after 10.20am, that morning?
You may have failed to notice, Mike, but I would NEVER lower myself to using corrupt language. It matters little what time the clock say. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that the police removed said rifle FROM Sheila to make it safe, leaned it against the window, took pictures and returned it to where they'd originally found it. It makes far more sense that what you're saying. The more convoluted the tale -as with yours- the less likely it is to be true.
-
For decency...
But they aren't blanked out in any other pictures - we have lots of pictures in the archives so don't understand why in this particular picture, you have blanked them out?
-
You may have failed to notice, Mike, but I would NEVER lower myself to using corrupt language. It matters little what time the clock say. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that the police removed said rifle FROM Sheila to make it safe, leaned it against the window, took pictures and returned it to where they'd originally found it. It makes far more sense that what you're saying. The more convoluted the tale -as with yours- the less likely it is to be true.
thats exactly how it happened jane
-
post the photo so we can see the rifle the body and the clock
This evidence that I am talking about and which I have drawn your attention to is a compelling reason / grounds that 'will' lead to the quashing of Jeremy Banners convictions. This is because, it can now be proven by reference to two crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird, that the anshuzt rifle was photographed resting against the bedroom window (23), before the rifle was brought by the cops from the window, and placed on Sheila Caffells body, (photo's 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) and her death scene staged by 10.20am, or thereabouts, to make it appear as though Sheila had shot herself twice with 'that' rifle. But the truth of the matter was that she was only shot 'once' by use of 'that' gun upstairs in the bedroom. I will leave it to you to try to fathom out which gun was used to shoot her downstairs in the kitchen with the anshuzt rifle still resting at the window upstairs by the time cops reported a dead female downstairs in the kitchen from 7.37am, onward...
-
which cops and in trouble with who
I will leave you to try and work that out all by yourself...
-
At the bottom of the picture Mike, there is what looks like underlay, are you sure this wasn't taken after they removed the carpets? ;D Does anyone else think it looks like underlay?
-
At the bottom of the picture Mike, there is what looks like underlay, are you sure this wasn't taken after they removed the carpets? ;D Does anyone else think it looks like underlay?
yes that certainly looks like underlay
-
I will leave you to try and work that out all by yourself...
got too tough for you.because theres no answer
-
You may have failed to notice, Mike, but I would NEVER lower myself to using corrupt language. It matters little what time the clock say. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that the police removed said rifle FROM Sheila to make it safe, leaned it against the window, took pictures and returned it to where they'd originally found it. It makes far more sense that what you're saying. The more convoluted the tale -as with yours- the less likely it is to be true.
This is what let's you down, by declaring that it doesn't matter what time the clock says, or that it doesn't matter if cops removed the rifle from Sheila's body, took the photo (23) of the rifle against the window, then placed the rifle back on Sheila's body, before PC Bird took photo's 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, showing the rifle back on her body? Of course it matters. It matters because cops said that nobody touched Sheila's body, or the gun (with the exception of Cook, who moved Sheila's hand, so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of her nightdress), until after the body with the rifle in her possession, had all been taken. It matters because the jury were given these key photographs when they retired to reach a verdict, and they were told that Sheila's body had been staged exactly as her body with the rifle is depicted in these photographs, staged so as to fool the cops into thinking that Sheila had taken her own life, when all along it was just a charade, a mocked up death scene created by the cops themselves, I suppose one could now say now that we know with absolute certainty that cops staged Sheila's death scene, that it wasn't Jeremy after all who fooled the cops, it was the cops who as things stand fooled themselves into staging Sheila's death as a suicide...
-
This is what let's you down, by declaring that it doesn't matter what time the clock says, or that it doesn't matter if cops removed the rifle from Sheila's body, took the photo (23) of the rifle against the window, then placed the rifle back on Sheila's body, before PC Bird took photo's 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, showing the rifle back on her body? Of course it matters. It matters because cops said that nobody touched Sheila's body, or the gun (with the exception of Cook, who moved Sheila's hand, so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of her nightdress), until after the body with the rifle in her possession, had all been taken. It matters because the jury were given these key photographs when they retired to reach a verdict, and they were told that Sheila's body had been staged exactly as her body with the rifle is depicted in these photographs, staged so as to fool the cops into thinking that Sheila had taken her own life, when all along it was just a charade, a mocked up death scene created by the cops themselves, I suppose one could now say now that we know with absolute certainty that cops staged Sheila's death scene, that it wasn't Jeremy after all who fooled the cops, it was the cops who as things stand fooled themselves into staging Sheila's death as a suicide...
would the raid team not move and check any weapon found near a body.i think its beyond doubt they would and did in this case will have to go through raid team statements to see who did
-
so they never touched her to see if she was alive yet they left the murder weapon by her.so if she wasnt dead she could reach the rifle and shoot them.RUBBISH.armed officers are highly trained and will allways check and make safe any weapons found near a body wether its dead or alive.common sense
-
would the raid team not move and check any weapon found near a body.i think its beyond doubt they would and did in this case will have to go through raid team statements to see who did
Cops didn't touch or move bodies, or the gun as suggested by you, or so they claimed. With the exception of Cook who moved Sheila's hand so that his side kick PC Bird could take a photograph of bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of her nightdress, for example here...
-
Cops didn't touch or move bodies, or the gun as suggested by you, or so they claimed. With the exception of Cook who moved Sheila's hand so that his side kick PC Bird could take a photograph of bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of her nightdress, for example here...
ok so they didnt touch sc or the rifle so what does it prove
-
Cook testified that with the exception of him moving Sheila's hand, that nobody moved or touched any of the bodies, or the gun until after PC Bird had taken all his photographs in a particular subject. Cook stated that the rifle was not removed and made safe until 11.10am, that same date, when he himself removed the rifle and handed it to the firearm officers present to make it safe. When questioned about photograph number 23, Cook blurted out that that photograph was taken after the rifle had been removed from Sheila's body at 11.10am, and once the rifle had been made safe, how he himself had placed the rifle there at the window. Nobody was in a position to challenge what Cook said about this during the trial because cops had created a false photographic record, in the form of the so called 'master copy album' containing 223 photographs. It was a lie, there existed another album with far more photographs contained within it (581 in total) known as 'The senior investigating officers album'. This fact did not come to light until after the 2002 appeal. It was only from that point that it could be proven that photograph 23 which shows the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window was taken before the other photographs which show the same rifle upon Sheila's body as per photographs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32...
Cops staged Sheila Caffells death scene wpin the bedroom in possession of the anshuzt rifle without any prompting by Jeremy or anybody else
Now, ask yourselves a question, why did cops feel the need to have to do that?
Next question, Once it became clear that relatives were poking their noses into the alleged circumstances of the shootings, why did cops feel it necessary to pin the blame for them treating the killings as four murders and a suicide, onto Jeremy?
When you find the answers to these questions it will suddenly dawn on you, that Jeremy had 'not' killed his sister, and he had not staged her death on his parents bedroom floor to make her death seem like a suicide...
But, Cops had, and did...
-
Cook testified that with the exception of him moving Sheila's hand, that nobody moved or touched any of the bodies, or the gun until after PC Bird had taken all his photographs in a particular subject. Cook stated that the rifle was not removed and made safe until 11.10am, that same date, when he himself removed the rifle and handed it to the firearm officers present to make it safe. When questioned about photograph number 23, Cook blurted out that that photograph was taken after the rifle had been removed from Sheila's body at 11.10am, and once the rifle had been made safe, how he himself had placed the rifle there at the window. Nobody was in a position to challenge what Cook said about this during the trial because cops had created a false photographic record, in the form of the so called 'master copy album' containing 223 photographs. It was a lie, there existed another album with far more photographs contained within it (581 in total) known as 'The senior investigating officers album'. This fact did not come to light until after the 2002 appeal. It was only from that point that it could be proven that photograph 23 which shows the anshuzt rifle against the bedroom window was taken before the other photographs which show the same rifle upon Sheila's body as per photographs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32...
Cops staged Sheila Caffells death scene wpin the bedroom in possession of the anshuzt rifle without any prompting by Jeremy or anybody else
Now, ask yourselves a question, why did cops feel the need to have to do that?
Next question, Once it became clear that relatives were poking their noses into the alleged circumstances of the shootings, why did cops feel it necessary to pin the blame for them treating the killings as four murders and a suicide, onto Jeremy?
When you find the answers to these questions it will suddenly dawn on you, that Jeremy had 'not' killed his sister, and he had not staged her death on his parents bedroom floor to make her death seem like a suicide...
But, Cops had, and did...
he probaly got the time mixed up it can happen
-
he probaly got the time mixed up it can happen
Got the times mixed up conveniently, so that at trial the defence had no way of knowing or proving that Jeremy had not staged his sisters body to make it appear as though she had committed suicide, and that the cops had...
That would have caused the case to collapse because cops would be exposed as having tampered with victims bodies at the crime scene, and creating a fraudulent photographic record to help cover up what they had been responsible for doing...
-
J is the victim of a 'miscarriage of justice', I can see why, and how he got convicted, unless you have been a ''victim' of a miscarriage of justice, yourself, I suppose it is difficult to image that 'The State', and its witnesses, could 'lie', but they do, in 'certain circumstances'. I know, because on several 'different occasions' I have been the 'victim' of such tactics 'myself'...
I hear you
-
Mike, you know everything, and I mean everything about this case, you have thought about it from every possible angle. why do you lie?
-
This evidence that I am talking about and which I have drawn your attention to is a compelling reason / grounds that 'will' lead to the quashing of Jeremy Bambers convictions. This is because, it can now be proven by reference to two crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird, that the anshuzt rifle was photographed resting against the bedroom window (23), before the rifle was brought by the cops from the window, and placed on Sheila Caffells body, (photo's 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) and her death scene staged by 10.20am, or thereabouts, to make it appear as though Sheila had shot herself twice with 'that' rifle. But the truth of the matter was that she was only shot 'once' by use of 'that' gun upstairs in the bedroom. I will leave it to you to try to fathom out which gun was used to shoot her downstairs in the kitchen with the anshuzt rifle still resting at the window upstairs by the time cops reported a dead female downstairs in the kitchen from 7.37am, onward...
That you put "WILL" in inverts rather suggests........................it WON'T.
-
At the bottom of the picture Mike, there is what looks like underlay, are you sure this wasn't taken after they removed the carpets? ;D Does anyone else think it looks like underlay?
Without a shadow of doubt, Caroline. The Bambers would NEVER have had a carpet with such an avant garde design.
-
That you put "WILL" in inverts rather suggests........................it WON'T.
if it will as mike says what are they waiting for get it to his team asap.then we will see
-
This is what let's you down, by declaring that it doesn't matter what time the clock says, or that it doesn't matter if cops removed the rifle from Sheila's body, took the photo (23) of the rifle against the window, then placed the rifle back on Sheila's body, before PC Bird took photo's 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, showing the rifle back on her body? Of course it matters. It matters because cops said that nobody touched Sheila's body, or the gun (with the exception of Cook, who moved Sheila's hand, so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of her nightdress), until after the body with the rifle in her possession, had all been taken. It matters because the jury were given these key photographs when they retired to reach a verdict, and they were told that Sheila's body had been staged exactly as her body with the rifle is depicted in these photographs, staged so as to fool the cops into thinking that Sheila had taken her own life, when all along it was just a charade, a mocked up death scene created by the cops themselves, I suppose one could now say now that we know with absolute certainty that cops staged Sheila's death scene, that it wasn't Jeremy after all who fooled the cops, it was the cops who as things stand fooled themselves into staging Sheila's death as a suicide...
Well, as we all know, pictures can be said to tell any story we want them to. A picture captures a millisecond in time. The only "past" it has is the one we choose to give it.
-
Well, as we all know, pictures can be said to tell any story we want them to. A picture captures a millisecond in time. The only "past" it has is the one we choose to give it.
excellently put jane
-
I hear you
And I hear you! Come back soon Alias. Most of us miss you x
-
remember there are a lot of fake photos flying around .i saw one which claimed to show sheilas feet with blood on them but when you work out the carpet or matirial under her feet is green than theres no way its sheilas feet because the carpet in the bedroom at whf is not green
-
if it will as mike says what are they waiting for get it to his team asap.then we will see
Sami, within days of my joining Mike revealed that he had in his possession a surreptitiously obtained picture of Sheila on the bed, genitals revealed, one shot to neck. WE WERE AGOG with anticipation...........and Mike spun it out for WEEKS!!!!! You would NEVER belieeeeeeeve what a chequered story it was. I recall suggesting that -at the very least- a copy should be sent to someone who could do something with it on Jeremy's behalf. Mike said it wasn't the right time!!!! REALLY????? His mate had been in clink for YEARS for a crime he says he's innocent of. He holds in his hand the means of getting him released and withholds it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeremy wouldn't need an enemy, would he?
-
remember there are a lot of fake photos flying around .i saw one which claimed to show sheils feet with blood on them but when to work out the carpet or matirial under her feet is green than theres no way its sheilas feet because the carpet in the bedroom at whf is not green
By the age of the feet, they were, in all likelihood, June's. But don't forget Mike maintains that -because the furniture in the fake pics was clearly NOT WHF furniture- that a not yet dead Sheila and June were removed from the master bedroom to be photographed, then hauled back to the master bedroom where they eventually died.
-
Sami, within days of my joining Mike revealed that he had in his possession a surreptitiously obtained picture of Sheila on the bed, genitals revealed, one shot to neck. WE WERE AGOG with anticipation...........and Mike spun it out for WEEKS!!!!! You would NEVER belieeeeeeeve what a chequered story it was. I recall suggesting that -at the very least- a copy should be sent to someone who could do something with it on Jeremy's behalf. Mike said it wasn't the right time!!!! REALLY????? His mate had been in clink for YEARS for a crime he says he's innocent of. He holds in his hand the means of getting him released and withholds it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeremy wouldn't need an enemy, would he?
i think jb would want to get his hands around mikes throat and get that photo in that order.its laughble jane ive heard even the campain team have distanced themselfs from mike and this forum.says a lot doesnt.as you said 30years and the right time hasnt come yet
-
Mike, you know everything, and I mean everything about this case, you have thought about it from every possible angle. why do you lie?
For most people thinking and posting are two separate activities. Not so with Mike. Most people eliminate a lot of what they think about before posting as they can see it doesn't fit with known facts. Mike doesn't care he simply posts away.
-
For most people thinking and posting are two separate activities. Not so with Mike. Most people eliminate a lot of what they think about before posting as they can see it doesn't fit with known facts. Mike doesn't care he simply posts away.
..........and covers himself by saying that he writes, as in a diary, recording thoughts he believes to be true at the time he says them. Hmm?
-
For most people thinking and posting are two separate activities. Not so with Mike. Most people eliminate a lot of what they think about before posting as they can see it doesn't fit with known facts. Mike doesn't care he simply posts away.
well observed
-
That underlay would have been underneath the large Chinese rug/carpet which is shown rolled up alongside the bed and locker before being removed for burning.
This rug would have been saturated in blood.
-
That underlay would have been underneath the large Chinese rug/carpet which is shown rolled up alongside the bed and locker before being removed for burning.
This rug would have been saturated in blood.
With a fully carpeted room, WHY would one put underlay under a rug which sits on a carpet?
-
With a fully carpeted room, WHY would one put underlay under a rug which sits on a carpet?
puzzling.jane
-
With a fully carpeted room, WHY would one put underlay under a rug which sits on a carpet?
To lengthen the life of the rug. Some of those type of rugs have a cloth backing but the more expensive ones don't so therefore a piece of underlay could have been used for extra comfort too as well as to save wear.
The carpet underneath all this could well have been showing signs of wear/threadbare in the centre,if it had been there since first moving in,but remained decent around the edges where it would have been visible.
-
To lengthen the life of the rug. Some of those type of rugs have a cloth backing but the more expensive ones don't so therefore a piece of underlay could have been used for extra comfort too as well as to save wear.
The carpet underneath all this could well have been showing signs of wear/threadbare in the centre,if it had been there since first moving in,but remained decent around the edges where it would have been visible.
Poppycock!! Why would one need the "extra comfort" factor of an underlay when the rug is atop an already expensive carpet, whether or not, it was showing signs of wear.
-
Poppycock!! Why would one need the "extra comfort" factor of an underlay when the rug is atop an already expensive carpet, whether or not, it was showing signs of wear.
so lets get this right. first floorboards ,underlay ,carpet,underlay,rug
-
so lets get this right. first floorboards ,underlay ,carpet,underlay,rug
Gets a bit OCD, doesn't it. My mother used to have a runner in the hallway so the carpet didn't get dirty, THEN covered the runner.......................you get the picture. Me? I put several plastic liners in the waste bin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Well, as we all know, pictures can be said to tell any story we want them to. A picture captures a millisecond in time. The only "past" it has is the one we choose to give it.
Yes, now apply your logic to the impression those photographs of Sheila's 'staged' death scene, with her in possession of the rifle, muzzle of barrel close to 'two bullet wounds' on her neck, her right hand fingers close to the trigger mechanism, and the prosecution claiming that 'this' was how the defendant had set the scene, to make 'it look like Sheila had shot herself twice' with that rifle, so 'that' cops would be 'tricked' into believing she 'had' committed 'suicide'!!!
In the 'split seconds' it took for the jury to 'glance' at all the crime scene photographs (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) which showed Sheila's body in possession of the gun, armed with the powerful suggestion that Sheila's death scene 'had' been staged by Jeremy, intent on getting his hands on his adoptive parents wealth, the jury would have 'no problem' at all believing that the position Sheila's body had been left in by Jeremy was designed to make cops believe that his sister had taken her own life. But as everyone now must know, Jeremy ' had no involvement in the position' or 'the location inside the farmhouse' pertaining to where cops photographed Sheila's body in possession of the rifle which everyone now knows was at an upstairs window, from 7.15am onward. It doesn't matter which upstairs window 'that rifle' was placed at, the fact is somebody who was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at 7.15am placed that gun there as a 'signal' to the cops outside that they wanted to give themselves up...
Cops faked Sheila's death scene with the rifle from the window, then took the photographs which the cops claimed represented how armed police came upon her body once they got into the farmhouse. The prosecution relied upon this very powerful 'faked' evidence to help to convict Jeremy for killing her, and the others, whilst also seeking to rely upon the dodgy evidence given by Julie Mugford that Jeremy had 'hired' a hitman to kill Sheila and the others...
The 'Jury, have been deceived by use of these 8 staged crime scene photographs of Sheila's ' death scene'. Cops staged her body using the rifle from the window, to try to make it look like she had shot herself twice with 'that' gun. But she had only been shot 'once' by use of that gun, and that was when cops brought the rifle from the window to her body which had been moved onto the bedroom floor from on top of the bed whilst cops performed 'informatives'. They intended to use the length of the rifle to 'gauge' whether or not they could get away with suggesting that the single gunshot wound to her neck at that stage could have been the gun which had fired that solitary shot. Things went wrong because nobody by that stage had checked to see whether the rifle still had any ammunition loaded into the breach of it. This resulted in the rifle that had been at the window from 7.15am, discharging a shot into Sheila's neck, upward and into her brain. Cops put the rifle back at the bedroom window after realising that she might have 'still been barely alive' prior to that 'second shot' being inflicted upstairs in the bedroom. They rolled her body onto its right side so that it could bleed out. They left her body in that position for about 40 minutes, then moved her body onto its back and brought the rifle back from the bedroom window, and placed it onto her body after PC Bird had unwittingly captured its presence leaning against the wall next to the bedroom window (photograph number 23, master copy album). PC Bird then took photographs of Sheila's body in possession of the rifle, with the words of DI Cook ringing in his ears, ' make sure you get the position of the gun right' on the body...
-
Poppycock!! Why would one need the "extra comfort" factor of an underlay when the rug is atop an already expensive carpet, whether or not, it was showing signs of wear.
You might think it's poppycock,but I've actually done it myself to preserve an expensive rug from constant tread,and particularly where the fitted carpet beneath showed signs of wear in the centre. If the rug had been placed over this centre of wear,it too would have " sunk " in time so my obvious answer was to have a piece of underlay underneath the rug to keep it level.
I wasn't going to chuck out a perfectly good,fitted,26ft woollen Axminster just because the centre was losing its wool.
-
At the bottom of the picture Mike, there is what looks like underlay, are you sure this wasn't taken after they removed the carpets? ;D Does anyone else think it looks like underlay?
It isn't underlay, its the bedroom carpet. The floral designed pattern in the fore was an item resting on top of something in that part of the bedroom. I have found one of the crime scene photographs which confirms what I'm saying to be true...
-
morning mike
-
If we refer to the left hand side of the bed as 'Ralphs' side', and the right hand side of the bed as Junes side', the clock on the bedside cabinet which shows the time as being just after 10.20am is located on the cabinet at the side of Junes side of the bed...
-
morning mike
Morning...
-
It is illegal and constitutes a criminal offence for cops or anybody to interfere with or to stage a persons death scene, then take photographs of the scene they are responsible for having 'staged', and create a smaller version of all the photographs (223) cops claimed they had taken and bundle these into an inappropriately named ' master copy album', when all along they retain a true collection of the 581 photographs that cops took, hidden away inside ' the senior investigating officers album', and used the 'faked' photographs as evidence that Jeremy was responsible for staging his sisters body, which cops are responsible for having done...
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, springs to mind...
-
Yes, now apply your logic to the impression those photographs of Sheila's 'staged' death scene, with her in possession of the rifle, muzzle of barrel close to 'two bullet wounds' on her neck, her right hand fingers close to the trigger mechanism, and the prosecution claiming that 'this' was how the defendant had set the scene, to make 'it look like Sheila had shot herself twice' with that rifle, so 'that' cops would be 'tricked' into believing she 'had' committed 'suicide'!!!
In the 'split seconds' it took for the jury to 'glance' at all the crime scene photographs (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) which showed Sheila's body in possession of the gun, armed with the powerful suggestion that Sheila's death scene 'had' been staged by Jeremy, intent on getting his hands on his adoptive parents wealth, the jury would have 'no problem' at all believing that the position Sheila's body had been left in by Jeremy was designed to make cops believe that his sister had taken her own life. But as everyone now must know, Jeremy ' had no involvement in the position' or 'the location inside the farmhouse' pertaining to where cops photographed Sheila's body in possession of the rifle which everyone now knows was at an upstairs window, from 7.15am onward. It doesn't matter which upstairs window 'that rifle' was placed at, the fact is somebody who was still very much alive inside the farmhouse at 7.15am placed that gun there as a 'signal' to the cops outside that they wanted to give themselves up...
Cops faked Sheila's death scene with the rifle from the window, then took the photographs which the cops claimed represented how armed police came upon her body once they got into the farmhouse. The prosecution relied upon this very powerful 'faked' evidence to help to convict Jeremy for killing her, and the others, whilst also seeking to rely upon the dodgy evidence given by Julie Mugford that Jeremy had 'hired' a hitman to kill Sheila and the others...
The 'Jury, have been deceived by use of these 8 staged crime scene photographs of Sheila's ' death scene'. Cops staged her body using the rifle from the window, to try to make it look like she had shot herself twice with 'that' gun. But she had only been shot 'once' by use of that gun, and that was when cops brought the rifle from the window to her body which had been moved onto the bedroom floor from on top of the bed whilst cops performed 'informatives'. They intended to use the length of the rifle to 'gauge' whether or not they could get away with suggesting that the single gunshot wound to her neck at that stage could have been the gun which had fired that solitary shot. Things went wrong because nobody by that stage had checked to see whether the rifle still had any ammunition loaded into the breach of it. This resulted in the rifle that had been at the window from 7.15am, discharging a shot into Sheila's neck, upward and into her brain. Cops put the rifle back at the bedroom window after realising that she might have 'still been barely alive' prior to that 'second shot' being inflicted upstairs in the bedroom. They rolled her body onto its right side so that it could bleed out. They left her body in that position for about 40 minutes, then moved her body onto its back and brought the rifle back from the bedroom window, and placed it onto her body after PC Bird had unwittingly captured its presence leaning against the wall next to the bedroom window (photograph number 23, master copy album). PC Bird then took photographs of Sheila's body in possession of the rifle, with the words of DI Cook ringing in his ears, ' make sure you get the position of the gun right' on the body...
Included in the "past" we attribute to a picture, there is also any amount of conversation/dialogue that can be added. All a product of our own mind and none of which can be verified.
-
It isn't underlay, its the bedroom carpet. The floral designed pattern in the fore was an item resting on top of something in that part of the bedroom. I have found one of the crime scene photographs which confirms what I'm saying to be true...
It could well be the makers/manufacturers name underneath the carpet/rug.
Mike there was rather a large Chinese/Indian rug rolled up in one part of the bedroom by one of the bed-tables. It was " bunched-up " rather than rolled or folded.
-
It isn't underlay, its the bedroom carpet. The floral designed pattern in the fore was an item resting on top of something in that part of the bedroom. I have found one of the crime scene photographs which confirms what I'm saying to be true...
Are you really trying to have us believe that such a traditional pair as the Bambers, living in the most traditional of settings, would have contemplated such an avant garde design of carpet................with LETTERS as a design feature?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Are you really trying to have us believe that such a traditional pair as the Bambers, living in the most traditional of settings, would have contemplated such an avant garde design of carpet................with LETTERS as a design feature?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
would be a first ,jane most people have never seen a carpet with letters on it.its becoming laughable now.
-
That underlay would have been underneath the large Chinese rug/carpet which is shown rolled up alongside the bed and locker before being removed for burning.
This rug would have been saturated in blood.
Eh? The picture was obviously taken after the carpets had been cut and removed. Why have the bodies been blacked out - they haven't on any other of Mike's pictures. If Mike has the original, then he could post it to prove what he is saying.
-
Mike, you know everything, and I mean everything about this case, you have thought about it from every possible angle. why do you lie?
I don't lie, what you interpret as a lie, is in fact the 'truth'...
-
ok so they didnt touch sc or the rifle so what does it prove
But the fact is, that cops have lied, they did touch, move and restage Sheila's body, and they did bring the anshuzt rifle from the window and place 'it' upon Sheila's body...
-
remember there are a lot of fake photos flying around .i saw one which claimed to show sheilas feet with blood on them but when you work out the carpet or matirial under her feet is green than theres no way its sheilas feet because the carpet in the bedroom at whf is not green
Post up the image you are referring to, and allow me an opinion upon it...
-
Without a shadow of doubt, Caroline. The Bambers would NEVER have had a carpet with such an avant garde design.
It's the carpet in the bedroom, with spots of blood upon it...
-
excellently put jane
Cops introduced photo's ( 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) to try to persuade the jury that Sheila could not have shot herself twice with use of the rifle, and her body end up as it had done. Fact is, that Sheila was not shot twice by the use of 'that' gun...
-
I don't lie, what you interpret as a lie, is in fact the 'truth'...
Then let's put it another way. For every "truth" you post, you contradict it with another.
-
It's the carpet in the bedroom, with spots of blood upon it...
The carpet in the Bamber bedroom was not a letter printed, avant garde design.
-
Sami, within days of my joining Mike revealed that he had in his possession a surreptitiously obtained picture of Sheila on the bed, genitals revealed, one shot to neck. WE WERE AGOG with anticipation...........and Mike spun it out for WEEKS!!!!! You would NEVER belieeeeeeeve what a chequered story it was. I recall suggesting that -at the very least- a copy should be sent to someone who could do something with it on Jeremy's behalf. Mike said it wasn't the right time!!!! REALLY????? His mate had been in clink for YEARS for a crime he says he's innocent of. He holds in his hand the means of getting him released and withholds it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeremy wouldn't need an enemy, would he?
Why don't you criticize the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI Bob Miller for claiming that Sheila's body being on the far side of the bed? Why don't you criticise DS 'Stan' Jones for telling Anne Eaton for mentioning that Sheila's body was laid out on the bed with only a single gun shot wound to her throat. Why aren't you criticising the newspaper articles which place the discovery of Sheila's body on the bed? Funny how your not making fun of such claims as was made by them?
-
The carpet in the Bamber bedroom was not a letter printed, avant garde design.
The Capet in this image, is the carpet in the main bedroom on the morning of the shootings...
-
Why don't you criticize the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI Bob Miller for claiming that Sheila's body being on the far side of the bed? Why don't you criticise DS 'Stan' Jones for telling Anne Eaton for mentioning that Sheila's body was laid out on the bed with only a single gun shot wound to her throat. Why aren't you criticising the newspaper articles which place the discovery of Sheila's body on the bed? Funny how your not making fun of such claims as was made by them?
The police surgeon and those others you mention aren't posting on this forum for me to question them. I'm questioning your interpretations of what they said.
-
The police surgeon and those others you mention aren't posting on this forum for me to question them. I'm questioning your interpretations of what they said.
Without taking into consideration what 'they' are on record as having said,or stated..
-
The Capet in this image, is the carpet in the main bedroom on the morning of the shootings...
And is very clearly NOT a letter printed avant garde design. Caroline showed perfectly a piece of underlay.
-
Then let's put it another way. For every "truth" you post, you contradict it with another.
OK, for every lie you rely upon, you contradict it with yet another lie...
-
Without taking into consideration what 'they' are on record as having said,or stated..
What they said, and your interpretation of it, aren't necessarily the same thing.
-
OK, for every lie you rely upon, you contradict it with yet another lie...
I don't imagine that I tell any more lies than you, Mike.
-
I don't imagine that I tell any more lies than you, Mike.
I don't lie, and I don't profess to ignore anything, unlike you...
-
You can call it whatever you like, carpet, underlay, a rug...
It was still the carpet covering the floor of 'that' bedroom...
-
I don't lie, and I don't profess to ignore anything, unlike you...
I ignore nothing, Mike. I have a third ear and a third eye. I use both.
-
The cops have fucked up 'big time' by photographing the rifle (photo 23) against the bedroom window, before PC Bird took additional photographs showing the same rifle upon Sheila's body...
-
How did the anshuzt rifle get from the bedroom window (23) onto Sheila's body (32) if Jeremy staged the body of his sister with 'that' rifle?
-
What we are dealing with here is 'state corruption', where those in power take the letter of the law into their own hands...
-
How did the anshuzt rifle get from the bedroom window (23) onto Sheila's body (32) if Jeremy staged the body of his sister with 'that' rifle?
Simples! It was removed from the body in order to make it safe and render it secure. Later it was put back for the photo you refer to. No mystery, no conspiracy!
As or State corruption...PIFFLE!!
-
Simples! It was removed from the body in order to make it safe and render it secure. Later it was put back for the photo you refer to. No mystery, no conspiracy!
As or State corruption...PIFFLE!!
That's not what cops say...
They 'deceived the court' which tried the case, now 'that can't be right', unless of course you are corrupt...
-
Simples! It was removed from the body in order to make it safe and render it secure. Later it was put back for the photo you refer to. No mystery, no conspiracy!
As or State corruption...PIFFLE!!
excellently explained john
-
You can call it whatever you like, carpet, underlay, a rug...
It was still the carpet covering the floor of 'that' bedroom...
I don't see the same underlay on the second photograph. Why not post the original image without the blackouts?
-
mike please help me out .how did sheilas accomplice leave whf that morning the male jb told you was at the window.please please
-
It's true alright. It's part of a list of withheld materials that Trudi Benjamin and her team have compiled which is on their site. Ring her up or e-mail her if you're so interested.It's the only way you'll find out.
Oh, so you're just taking other peoples word for it and have no proof.
-
Oh, so you're just taking other peoples word for it and have no proof.
thats how it looks mat
-
thats how it looks mat
"The CT say so" doesn't really hold much water. :-\
-
Let's examine what cops said about moving bodies and items at the scene 'prior' to photographs being taken:-
-
Simples! It was removed from the body in order to make it safe and render it secure. Later it was put back for the photo you refer to. No mystery, no conspiracy!
As or State corruption...PIFFLE!!
That isn't the case.
Photograph 23 was taken after photograph 32.
The numerical references do not indicate the order in which they were taken.
-
I will now seek to post the trial transcript of the other 'SOCO's', DS Davidson, PC Bird, and DI 'Ron' Cook, so that we are all 'singing from the same hymn sheet' regarding whether or not, cops moved or touched bodies of victims, the gun, and other items of evidential value. It is my case that all these cops deny moving anything until 'after' PC Bird took his crime scene photographs, with the exception of 'Ron' Cook, who as I have said on previous occasions, moved Sheila's right hand, to allow PC Bird to take 'this photograph'...
-
That isn't the case.
Photograph 23 was taken after photograph 32.
The numerical references do not indicate the order in which they were taken.
Not according to the expert, Mr Sutherst...
In any event, we all now know that the only rifle found upstairs was 'the anshuzt rifle', and according to WPC Jeapes, and PC Brown, that rifle was leaning near the side of an upstairs window. So, you can perform as many exercises as you wish to try and muddy the waters regarding 'that' rifle being at an upstairs window, before cops brought it to the body. The fact is, who put the rifle at that window at 7.15am, if everybody was already dead inside the farmhouse by 'that' stage? More significantly, how did 'that rifle' end up on Sheila's body at and by 10.20am, that same morning? Because if Sheila had been dead since before 3am, it needs to be explained about the movement of 'that rifle' to the upstairs window by 7.15am, and then onto Sheila's body at just after 10.20am, that morning, because if Sheila was dead like you claim she must have been from a very early stage, then she couldn't have taken the rifle from the aforementioned window after her death and moved it onto her own body, because dead victims can't move around, and pick things up just so what they must have done became part of the prosecutions case, against Jeremy, or as the case may be, against Sheila herself. Cops brought 'that' rifle from the window and put it on Sheila's body, then photographs were taken, and eventually these very same 'faked' photographs were used to brainwash the jury into accepting that it had been Jeremy who had put the rifle onto his sisters body, placed there by him to supposedly fool cops into believing that Sheila had shot herself twice with use of 'that' same rifle and committed suicide. How can J have taken 'that' rifle from 'that' bedroom window after 7.15am, and put it onto his sisters body?
-
That isn't the case.
Photograph 23 was taken after photograph 32.
The numerical references do not indicate the order in which they were taken.
Been here before though, once or twice. :P
23 was taken after the other photographs. Numerical exhibit order is not time/date order.
-
Been here before though, once or twice. :P
Refer to Mr Sutherst's report, and PC Birds COLP interviews, and additional witness statements, about the order strips of serial numbers strips of negatives were used at the scene by him, and his admission that when he testified during the trial in 1986, how he had got the order with which particular photographs had been taken by him. In any event, everybody now knows that the only rifle found upstairs in each of the two versions mentioned by cops, was the anshuzt rifle - placed at an upstairs window by 7.15am, that would later that same morning be photographed on Sheila's body just after 10.20am...
How can Jeremy have put the rifle in question onto his sisters body?
-
Let's examine DI 'Ron' Cooks, 39 page, COLP witness statement, dated, Wednesday, 25th September, 1991, to find confirmation, that nobody moved anything or any bodies body until 'after' PC Bird have finished taking photographs:-
-
Been here before though, once or twice. :P
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3241;image)
Photograph 23 was taken at 'M'.
Photograph 32 was taken at 'B'.
Claims to the contrary are false.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3241;image)
Photograph 23 was taken at 'M'.
Photograph 32 was taken at 'B'.
Claims to the contrary are false.
You better get back to the drawing board then chummy, because PC Bird told the COLP investigators that he 'got the sequence with which photographs had been taken - 'WRONG'...
Oooops, yet another clanger by murder scene cops...
-
List of trial transcripts in my possession (somewhere)...
-
Trial transcript for DI 'Ron' Cook...
-
Trial transcript of DS Neil Davidson, will eventually appear her:-
-
Trial Transcript of PC David Bird will eventually appear here:-
-
COLP witness Statement of DS Neil Davidson, consisting of two pages, dated, 3rd September, 2002...
-
If we refer to the left hand side of the bed as 'Ralphs' side', and the right hand side of the bed as Junes side', the clock on the bedside cabinet which shows the time as being just after 10.20am is located on the cabinet at the side of Junes side of the bed...
How come this clock isn't visible in the photograph that you've also just posted that shows June's cabinet? Can you post the unedited photograph which shows this clock?
Did you deliberately make your post at 10:20am?
-
COLP witness statement for DS Neil Davidson, dated, 7th February, 2002...
-
How come this clock isn't visible in the photograph that you've also just posted that shows June's cabinet? Can you post the unedited photograph which shows this clock?
Did you deliberately make your post at 10:20am? No, what a coincidence, though...
Give me a few minutes...
-
Hand swab evidence was 'fundamentally flawed', because cops knew that the bloodied fingers of her right hand had been wiped upon the front lower right part of her nightdress. Most of any firearm residue and or lead deposit got wiped from the fingers of her right hand at this time...
-
In addition, bloodied fingermarks were found upon her own throat, and on the pages of the blue covered bible, and lastly but not least of all, her bloodied fingermarks got deposited on the edge of the kitchen worktop. Was it any wonder that the hand swabs that were eventually tested produced little if any firearm residue, or lead deposits?
-
In addition, bloodied fingermarks were found upon her own throat, and on the pages of the blue covered bible, and lastly but not least of all, her bloodied fingermarks got deposited on the edge of the kitchen worktop. Was it any wonder that the hand swabs that were eventually tested produced little if any firearm residue, or lead deposits?
In addition to all the possible sources where the fingers of Sheila's right hand were wiped, there was also the question of the protective plastic bags placed over both of her hands at the scene, and also the additional factor that cops fingerprinted her right hand...
-
...
-
We are now at the stage where even those who want Jeremy Bamber to be 'the killer', have come to accept that 'Cops moved Sheila's body', and 'they brought the rifle from the bedroom window and cops (not Jeremy) plonked it upon Sheila Caffells body', to give the impression when it came around to photographing her body on the bedroom floor, that 'she had taken her own life, with use of that rifle.'
-
We are now at the stage where even those who want Jeremy Bamber to be 'the killer', have come to accept that 'Cops moved Sheila's body', and 'they brought the rifle from the bedroom window and cops (not Jeremy) plonked it upon Sheila Caffells body', to give the impression when it came around to photographing her body on the bedroom floor, that 'she had taken her own life, with use of that rifle.'
This is very serious...
-
We have got members who think that 'it's alright for cops to stage manage the death scene of a victim', and then 'take photographs' claiming that the body with the rifle has been photographed unmoved, untouched, upstaged, without a cop, a police surgeon, a coroners officer, a firearms officer, or a member of the ambulance crew, so much 'as lift a single hair' on the victims body, until 'after' all the crime scene photographs of her body with that rifle in her possession had been taken...
Worse still...
Some of the images captured on the crime scene video were 'deliberately withheld', because it 'filmed Sheila Caffells body' in 'a different location upon the bed', before cops moved the body to the bedroom floor, at 'a time when the victim only 'sported one gunshot wound to her neck'...
Now...
pay particular attention, to what I am about to say next, because it is highly important and dramatically significant...
-
The CCRC were sensationally given access to 'the crime scene video' after two photographs/ images of Sheila's body upon the bed in the parents bedroom were 'presented to them' by way of being handed in at the CCRC reception to security officers on duty at reception. One of these images showed Sheila Caffells body laying on top of the bed with the hem of her nightie raised above the top of her thighs, so that her dignity was fully exposed, and the other image was a close up view of the region of her neck sporting 'only one gunshot wound', not two...
Once these were received by the CCRC, they contacted Essex police, and lo and behold, Cops produced the 'Crime Scene video footage', which includes scenes of Sheila's body on the bed, then it being moved onto the bedroom floor, including the first images of when 'two shotgun wounds' appeared on her neck after the rifle had been brought to her body from the window. The video footage captured Sheila's body then upon its right side, minus the rifle that fired the second fatal shot, until eventually about 40 minutes later, cops moved her body (again)into its final resting place, brought the rifle back to her body from the window where it had been placed after inflicting the second shot, and placed 'it' firmly into her possession with her hands positioned around or upon it to give an impression that she had shot herself with use of 'that' gun...
The CCRC 'know' that cops shot Sheila on that second (fatal) occasion, because the evidence I am talking about was provided in part to them (voluntarily) and since that pivotal moment reluctantly, in the form of 'that crime scene video footage'. They ended up having to acknowledge to Jeremy that such a video existed and that they had possession of it, but that 'he could not view the images it contains' because the content was too sensitive and upsetting. it is too sensitive, and too upsetting, because it shows Sheila's body being 'abused' by the cops who performed the so called, 'familiars'. They lifted the hem of her nightie whilst she was laid on the bed and exposed her dignity for the pleasure of these cops who are too embarrassed and ashamed to be named because of the despicable manner with which they abused Sheila's body whilst she was 'not even dead' by that stage. She was clearly, 'not yet dead' because at the time her body was being 'filmed on the bed' as described, she was only sporting one shotgun wound to her neck - cops didn't bring the rifle to her body until 'after' they shifted her body to the bedroom floor...
Cops are responsible for shooting Sheila Caffell and killing her, after they 'abused her body' as described by me. Jeremy himself knows this to be true because he himself has officially complained about it...
-
How come this clock isn't visible in the photograph that you've also just posted that shows June's cabinet? Can you post the unedited photograph which shows this clock?
Did you deliberately make your post at 10:20am?
I have asked for this too - but like the attempts to make communication with someone inside the farmhouse, my request has been met with 'no response'.
-
I have asked for this too - but like the attempts to make communication with someone inside the farmhouse, my request has been met with 'no response'.
I beg your pardon, the clock is clearly present on the bedside cabinet in the following images:-
-
You need access to the 'negative strip upon which these images originated from, not my department, cops in control, CCRC incompetent and 'not fit for purpose'...
-
I beg your pardon, the clock is clearly present on the bedside cabinet in the following images:-
I didn't say it wasn't - that was Reader. I asked to see the unedited picture because the picture you have posted looks (to me) like it was taken after the carpet samples were cut out (hence you can see the underlay) which would be AFTER the bodies were removed. This being the case, the time on the clock means nothing.
-
The clock is clearly there on June Bambers bedside Cabinet...
All Mr Sutherst had to do, was find out which 'negative strip' the main photograph was taken on, as opposed to the negative strip that photograph number 23 (anshuzt rifle shown leaning near bedroom window) was taken on, and then - establish which negative strips were used first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc...
Guess what, it gets even more 'interesting', because PC David Bird, and DI 'Ron' Cook, both lied about the sequence with which the anshuzt rifle photographed at the bedroom window from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main staircase (Photo' 23), as opposed to the same anshuzt rifle being photographed on Sheila's body in photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken. This can now be proven by reference to one of PC Birds witness statements which he made to COLP, and to the work carried out by Mr Sutherst...
-
I didn't say it wasn't - that was Reader. I asked to see the unedited picture because the picture you have posted looks (to me) like it was taken after the carpet samples were cut out (hence you can see the underlay) which would be AFTER the bodies were removed. This being the case, the time on the clock means nothing.
And they clearly didn't use professional carpet laying tools to remove that piece of carpet!!!!!!!
-
mike all the blooded photos of sheila your showing are jb ,s handi work if her fingers tips were blooded why was there no trace of blood near and on the trigger and also on the rifle.the killer punch is for you to take alook at the 2 bullets cases found near sheila.how could they be on either side of her body .that rifle ejects bullets forward and to the right of the rifle.clearly shows sheila did not fire the 2 shots.the case which is to the left of sheila as you look at it could not have been fired by sheila,impossible
-
I didn't say it wasn't - that was Reader. I asked to see the unedited picture because the picture you have posted looks (to me) like it was taken after the carpet samples were cut out (hence you can see the underlay) which would be AFTER the bodies were removed. This being the case, the time on the clock means nothing.
Which part do you think looks like carpet underlay?
-
I didn't say it wasn't - that was Reader. I asked to see the unedited picture because the picture you have posted looks (to me) like it was taken after the carpet samples were cut out (hence you can see the underlay) which would be AFTER the bodies were removed. This being the case, the time on the clock means nothing.
DS Davidson did not take carpet samples until 8th August 1985 (ND/10 and ND/11). The problem you are faced with by trying to go down that avenue is that the bodies are there in 'that' bedroom blanked out by somebody else not me. Also bear in mind that the bottom bed sheet and two pillow cases from June Bambers side of the bed were also seized, and most importantly of all, bear in mind that 'this particular photograph, was taken on a 'negative strip', which shows the rifle on Sheila's body insitu either side of this image. That negative strip has been put into the correct sequence by Mr Sutherst. Mr Sutherst is the expert, he not only can tell which strips of negatives were used before any other, or after any other, and he has the expertise to be able to tell which of the individual negative strips which cops cut up to try to conceal the deception they had practised in producing a false and very misleading photographic record to cover up for the 'tampering with the bodies and the rifle', during that training exercise, otherwise known as 'familiars'. In other words call that training exercise, call it 'familiars, but at the end of the day, 'that's when' cops committed the unforgivable naughty deeds that have now come back to bite their arses...
-
Which part do you think looks like carpet underlay?
First of all your mistaking a bag (B) or something similar which is resting on top of a suitcase or a unit of some kind, which is clearly visible as such in other crime scene photographs. I will post one for your benefit to put your mind at rest. Secondly, your (A) is the bedroom carpet, with drops of blood, and some kind of a drag mark, again which are clearly visible in some of the other crime scene photographs...
-
First of all your mistaking a bag (B) or something similar which is resting on top of a suitcase or a unit of some kind, which is clearly visible as such in other crime scene photographs. I will post one for your benefit to put your mind at rest. Secondly, your (A) is the bedroom carpet, with drops of blood, and some kind of a drag mark, again which are clearly visible in some of the other crime scene photographs...
Yes 'B' is a bag.
'A' appears to be a folded item of clothing.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4093;image)
-
Yes 'B' is a bag.
'A' appears to be a folded item of clothing.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4093;image)
I think its 'something placed on one of the chairs' could be a folded piece of paper, or an item of clothing, or something similar' for the following reasons....
-
I think its 'something placed on one of the chairs' could be a folded piece of paper, or an item of clothing, or something similar' for the following reasons....
Yeah, that's what I said.
-
Yeah, that's what I said.
You did, well done, so at least we are in agreement for once that what we have been dealing with is not a piece of carpet underlay...
-
I don't know what the bag is sitting on though, it doesn't look like a suitcase, nor a usual location for a piece of furniture.
Maybe a draw which has been removed from a unit?
-
You did, well done, so at least we are in agreement for once that what we have been dealing with is not a piece of carpet underlay...
Nah, I'm not having that. I think it's underlay. ;D
-
Nah, I'm not having that. I think it's underlay. ;D
I disagree...
-
Which part do you think looks like carpet underlay?
its also telling that there are drops of blood which end at where the carpet has been removed and the underlay is clearly visible
-
Nah, I'm not having that. I think it's underlay. ;D
I agree with you, H.
-
There didn't appear to be much room for manoeuvre in that room as regards dodging bullets. I can understand that the shots were at close quarters/contact.
-
Isn't there a full-on pic of that writing ? I can make out " were given " but it's odd,unless it's part of the advert for the underlay.
-
mike all the blooded photos of sheila your showing are jb ,s handi work if her fingers tips were blooded why was there no trace of blood near and on the trigger and also on the rifle.the killer punch is for you to take alook at the 2 bullets cases found near sheila.how could they be on either side of her body .that rifle ejects bullets forward and to the right of the rifle.clearly shows sheila did not fire the 2 shots.the case which is to the left of sheila as you look at it could not have been fired by sheila,impossible
The weapon in this case uses a deflector that ejects the cases forwards not sideways. It would only take a slight change of angle to alter the trajectory. I believe the Shell casings bounced off the bedside table
-
The weapon in this case uses a deflector that ejects the cases forwards not sideways. It would only take a slight change of angle to alter the trajectory. I believe the Shell casings bounced off the bedside table
i didnt say sideways .if you read it i said forward and to the right.cases bouncing off things most will find hard to believe it would be ejected with such power as to deflect it and fall on the other side.impossible.wheres the blood on the rifle if sheila had used it .she had blood on her fingertips mikes photo proves that
-
Isn't there a full-on pic of that writing ? I can make out " were given " but it's odd,unless it's part of the advert for the underlay.
Pssst Lookout ......... it's a bag.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4094;image)
-
Pssst Lookout ......... it's a bag.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4094;image)
I can see that is,Hartley.I was referring to the strip of what appears to be the underlay in the pic that Caroline posted.
-
Pssst Lookout ......... it's a bag.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4094;image)
It looks like a bag containing something?
-
It looks like a bag containing something?
A bag containing carpet underlay perhaps? :-\
-
Post 1291 Hartley.
-
A bag containing carpet underlay perhaps? :-\
Just appears to be bulkier than the strip in Caroline's picture. Also less hessian in colour? Hoptical hillusion?
-
)
I have asked for this too - but like the attempts to make communication with someone inside the farmhouse, my request has been met with 'no response'.
witty caroline :)) ;)
-
I don't know what the bag is sitting on though, it doesn't look like a suitcase, nor a usual location for a piece of furniture.
Maybe a draw which has been removed from a unit?
Thanks H - that clears that up! And yes, it does look like a drawer.
-
A bag containing carpet underlay perhaps? :-\
Or Portland cement. It's how their bags used to look with their logo,except the bags were a fawn colour.
I'll get my jewellers magnifier to try and see what that billet-doux reads atop it.
-
Or Portland cement. It's how their bags used to look with their logo,except the bags were a fawn colour.
I'll get my jewellers magnifier to try and see what that billet-doux reads atop it.
Not really the usual place for a bag of cement - but you never know.
-
A bag containing carpet underlay perhaps? :-\
You may mock but you have to be suspicious of everything posted in this place.
-
You may mock but you have to be suspicious of everything posted in this place.
Yes, that's for sure.
-
It's a pillow with something placed on it because I can see it stands proud on top of the pillow with a minute shadow on the wall of it being a loose object.
-
Yes, that's for sure.
Hi Hartley
I think what posters believe on the forum is down to whether they think JB is innocent or guilty. When a poster has changed their belief from innocent to guilty they can see it from both sides and believe none of it :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Remind you on 6th April 2017 about what?
-
Remind you on 6th April 2017 about what?
Dammit, I've forgotten. :( ;D
-
Dammit, I've forgotten. :( ;D
OK, then I'll remind you on 6th April 2017 that you forgot what you needed to be reminded of - IF I remember! :P
-
OK, then I'll remind you on 6th April 2017 that you forgot what you needed to be reminded of - IF I remember! :P
I think posts have at some point been deleted, but that will be a whole year after a certain persons claimed breakthrough. I think I was told to wait and see - this time next year .... something like that anyway.
-
I think posts have at some point been deleted, but that will be a whole year after a certain persons claimed breakthrough. I think I was told to wait and see - this time next year .... something like that anyway.
well david has claimed evidence for a new appeal has been made but will take 2 to 3 years to get it to court.i say not in my lifetime iam 49
-
well david has claimed evidence for a new appeal has been made but will take 2 to 3 years to get it to court.i say not in my lifetime iam 49
Blimey you should worry.I'm in my 76th year. :)) :)) :)) :)) But I've already told JB I want to see him before I cark it. We live in hope.
-
Blimey you should worry.I'm in my 76th year. :)) :)) :)) :)) But I've already told JB I want to see him before I cark it. We live in hope.
you could get your wish,nothing is impossible in life. ;)its just my opinion jb may die in prison
-
please can anyone tell me if nb had any traces of blood on his hands
-
Judging by the bloodied fingermarks on the phone table of the kitchen area,I would have said yes.
-
please can anyone tell me if nb had any traces of blood on his hands
This is from the PM: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919)
-
Judging by the bloodied fingermarks on the phone table of the kitchen area,I would have said yes.
they couldnt say who they belonged to i think lookout.i wanted to know if there was any on his palms,and fingertips.iam lazy like sue it must be on here somewhere
-
This is from the PM: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919)
thank very much hartley
-
i didnt say sideways .if you read it i said forward and to the right.cases bouncing off things most will find hard to believe it would be ejected with such power as to deflect it and fall on the other side.impossible.wheres the blood on the rifle if sheila had used it .she had blood on her fingertips mikes photo proves that
david 1 shot into sheila was fired from from the right hand side of sheila as you see her laying in the diagram and from several feet away the trajectory and path the bullet took show that.the other one may have been from directly in front of her
-
The " suicidal " shot was the one that went upwards,as most suicides using a gun are aimed up.
The first shot,in my belief,had been fired by someone else because of the angle as it hit a bone.
-
The " suicidal " shot was the one that went upwards,as most suicides using a gun are aimed up.
The first shot,in my belief,had been fired by someone else because of the angle as it hit a bone.
i totally agree with you on this one lookout ;) :)
-
there is a scenario where nb was on the phone making the call to jb when he heard the shots upstairs and ran up to investigate got shot but managed to get to the kitchen and collapsed or lost consisness and sc finished him off. theres a lot of theories .only jb knows for sure.iam sure alot of holes can be put in the scenario above
-
david 1 shot into sheila was fired from from the right hand side of sheila as you see her laying in the diagram and from several feet away the trajectory and path the bullet took show that.the other one may have been from directly in front of her
Unfortunatly we cannot conclude anything from the locations of shell casing in this respect. I have posted the relevant parts of a study below.
The authors of this research project intended to determine the level of precision that can
be reached and the significance that should be given to a spent cartridge case location alone as a
method of determining shooter location when unknown variables include how the firearm is held
and/or manipulated. Shooter location is often used in the process of homicide reconstruction and
other shooting-related cases, the results of which typically are submitted to the justice system
during the course of criminal or civil cases. Therefore, it is imperative to obtain the most
accurate shooter location that can be determined from the evidence. Until recently, the impact of
human factors, such as stance, firearm motion, firearm position and grip have not been given
proper analytical consideration when attempting to determine the shooter’s location from the
final resting location of a spent cartridge case.
The results of this study demonstrated how unpredictable spent cartridge casing ejection
patterns are even when many variables are controlled. A total number of 7,670 bullets were fired
from eight different firearms in the course of this study.
Conclusion
As this study has shown, factors previously listed including firearm design, firearm
condition, ammunition type, position firearm is held when fired, movement of the firearm and
person during firing, and grip factors such as how, where and how tightly the firearm is held
during firing can affect the locations of spent cartridge casings (Hueske, 2006). This study
illustrated that even when accounting for the above factors, significant variability occurred in the
landing locations of spent cartridge casings. This variability must be considered before efforts
are made to establish the location of a shooter based solely on the location of even an
undisturbed spent cartridge casing or a group of cartridge casings
-
Unfortunatly we cannot conclude anything from the locations of shell casing in this respect. I have posted the relevant parts of a study below.
The authors of this research project intended to determine the level of precision that can
be reached and the significance that should be given to a spent cartridge case location alone as a
method of determining shooter location when unknown variables include how the firearm is held
and/or manipulated. Shooter location is often used in the process of homicide reconstruction and
other shooting-related cases, the results of which typically are submitted to the justice system
during the course of criminal or civil cases. Therefore, it is imperative to obtain the most
accurate shooter location that can be determined from the evidence. Until recently, the impact of
human factors, such as stance, firearm motion, firearm position and grip have not been given
proper analytical consideration when attempting to determine the shooter’s location from the
final resting location of a spent cartridge case.
The results of this study demonstrated how unpredictable spent cartridge casing ejection
patterns are even when many variables are controlled. A total number of 7,670 bullets were fired
from eight different firearms in the course of this study.
Conclusion
As this study has shown, factors previously listed including firearm design, firearm
condition, ammunition type, position firearm is held when fired, movement of the firearm and
person during firing, and grip factors such as how, where and how tightly the firearm is held
during firing can affect the locations of spent cartridge casings (Hueske, 2006). This study
illustrated that even when accounting for the above factors, significant variability occurred in the
landing locations of spent cartridge casings. This variability must be considered before efforts
are made to establish the location of a shooter based solely on the location of even an
undisturbed spent cartridge casing or a group of cartridge casings
oh but we can david for the bullet case to fall where it did .it must have been fired feet away and from the right of sheila and nowhere else.your study above were they using the same rifle if not ,than its not worth anything
-
oh but we can david for the bullet case to fall where it did .it must have been fired feet away and from the right of sheila and nowhere else.your study above were they using the same rifle if not ,than its not worth anything
Hang on a moment, PI 'Bob' Miller, directed that DC Hammersley should replaced exhibits DRH/49, DRH/50, DRH/51. and DRH/52, with exhibits, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4...
So, were four spent cartridge cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) introduced into the main bedroom scenario, with the view of making up the numbers?
-
oh but we can david for the bullet case to fall where it did .it must have been fired feet away and from the right of sheila and nowhere else.your study above were they using the same rifle if not ,than its not worth anything
The Investigative Sciences Journal and Science Institute and Minnesota State University claims otherwise
-
Lets just get the facts right about the serial number of the 'strip of 10 negatives' which 'included' photograph No.23,which shows the anshuzt rifle resting near the bedroom window, as per the following view:-
Negative Strip bearing the serial No. 0012 (consisting of 10 images, including photograph N0. 23)...
-
The Investigative Sciences Journal and Science Institute and Minnesota State University claims otherwise
and what rifle were they using
-
Mike,isn't that the landing window which is the one between bedrooms ?
I've got a real problem with these damn windows because when you see the bedroom window,it's definitely different to this one.
If you see the bedroom window,there's no clutter in front of it either.
-
During the trial, both PC Bird, and DI 'Ron' Cook, deceived the court which tried Jeremy Bamber for these murders, by declaring that crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken 'prior to' crime scene photograph No. 23, but ladies and gentlemen, they both told a deliberate dishonest lie, since had they told the truth Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have been convicted of shooting dead his sister, and staging her death scene on the floor in the main bedroom with the rifle from the bedroom window, placed into Sheila's possession, with the specific purpose of fooling anybody and everybody into thinking that Sheila had taken her own life with use of 'that' rifle...
I can confirm to you all now, that photograph No.23 was taken before photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 - thus establishing that cops photographed the anshuzt rifle resting against the bedroom window, before cops had then photographed the same anshuzt rifle upon Sheila Caffells body and in her possession...
Cops staged Sheila Caffells death scene, and have 'shot themselves in the foot' because of the deliberate lies cops fed to the court at Chelmsfore in October 1985, and since...
I am highly delighted to be the person who has 'exposed' the cop conspiracy in this case...
I am, therefore, a self confessed 'genius'...
-
Mike,isn't that the landing window which is the one between bedrooms ?
I've got a real problem with these damn windows because when you see the bedroom window,it's definitely different to this one.
If you see the bedroom window,there's no clutter in front of it either.
thats a good point
-
During the trial, both PC Bird, and DI 'Ron' Cook, deceived the court which tried Jeremy Bamber for these murders, by declaring that crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken 'prior to' crime scene photograph No. 23, but ladies and gentlemen, they both told a deliberate dishonest lie, since had they told the truth Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have been convicted of shooting dead his sister, and staging her death scene on the floor in the main bedroom with the rifle from the bedroom window, placed into Sheila's possession, with the specific purpose of fooling anybody and everybody into thinking that Sheila had taken her own life with use of 'that' rifle...
I can confirm to you all now, that photograph No.23 was taken before photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 - thus establishing that cops photographed the anshuzt rifle resting against the bedroom window, before cops had then photographed the same anshuzt rifle upon Sheila Caffells body and in her possession...
Cops staged Sheila Caffells death scene, and have 'shot themselves in the foot' because of the deliberate lies cops fed to the court at Chelmsfore in October 1985, and since...
I am highly delighted to be the person who has 'exposed' the cop conspiracy in this case...
I am, therefore, a self confessed 'genius'...
well done mike, did they also shoot sheila's accomplice the one that was at the window
-
During the trial, both PC Bird, and DI 'Ron' Cook, deceived the court which tried Jeremy Bamber for these murders, by declaring that crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken 'prior to' crime scene photograph No. 23, but ladies and gentlemen, they both told a deliberate dishonest lie, since had they told the truth Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have been convicted of shooting dead his sister, and staging her death scene on the floor in the main bedroom with the rifle from the bedroom window, placed into Sheila's possession, with the specific purpose of fooling anybody and everybody into thinking that Sheila had taken her own life with use of 'that' rifle...
I can confirm to you all now, that photograph No.23 was taken before photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 - thus establishing that cops photographed the anshuzt rifle resting against the bedroom window, before cops had then photographed the same anshuzt rifle upon Sheila Caffells body and in her possession...
Cops staged Sheila Caffells death scene, and have 'shot themselves in the foot' because of the deliberate lies cops fed to the court at Chelmsfore in October 1985, and since...
I am highly delighted to be the person who has 'exposed' the cop conspiracy in this case...
I am, therefore, a self confessed 'genius'...
It gives me great satisfaction to say that crime scene photographs (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) were taken with the 'strip of negatives' bearing the serial No. 0034...
-
I have 'pinpointed' the evidence, which finally confirms the beliefs I have harboured for over two decades, that 'Cops placed the anshuzt rifle onto Sheila's body in the main bedroom', not Jeremy Bamber...
At long last, after all this time, we can all rest assured that Jeremy had 'not' killed his sister, and 'stage managed' her body by planting the rifle in her possession to make cops think Sheila had taken her own life. The truth is, that 'Cops staged Sheila's death', to enable 'them' to present her death as a suicide, when in fact, it was 'not'...
I can now 'prove' categorically that PC 'David' Bird (SOCO), and DI 'Ron' Cook (SOCO) deceived the court which tried Bamber for these murders, in particular, the murder of his sister, and the lie relied upon that 'he' had 'placed the rifle onto Sheila's body', to give the impression that she had shot herself with use of 'that' rifle, when if the truth be known, he could not possibly have been involved in that process, at all...
-
well done mike, did they also shoot sheila's accomplice the one that was at the window
No need for the sarcasm, I have found the 'needle in the haystack' that 'will' get these convictions quashed...
-
I have 'pinpointed' the evidence, which finally confirms the beliefs I have harboured for over two decades, that 'Cops placed the anshuzt rifle onto Sheila's body in the main bedroom', not Jeremy Bamber...
At long last, after all this time, we can all rest assured that Jeremy had 'not' killed his sister, and 'stage managed' her body by planting the rifle in her possession to make cops think Sheila had taken her own life. The truth is, that 'Cops staged Sheila's death', to enable 'them' to present her death as a suicide, when in fact, it was 'not'...
I can now 'prove' categorically that PC 'David' Bird (SOCO), and DI 'Ron' Cook (SOCO) deceived the court which tried Bamber for these murders, in particular, the murder of his sister, and the lie relied upon that 'he' had 'placed the rifle onto Sheila's body', to give the impression that she had shot herself with use of 'that' rifle, when if the truth be known, he could not possibly have been involved in that process, at all...
youve still not told us if the police shot sheila's accomplice aswell
-
All everybody has got to remember is that crime scene photograph No.23 was taken on the strip of negatives bearing the serial No.0012, and that crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken using the negative strip bearing the serial No. 0034...
During the trial, Bird and Cook lied by informing the court that photograph 23 was taken 'after' photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32...
But...
on 31st January, 2001, PC Bird made a witness statement to COLP stating that he had stated that the photographs taken with use of negative strip 0034 had been taken 'before' photographs taken by negative strip 0012, which, 'he admitted' was 'incorrect'. He re-affirmed that photographs relating to negative strip 0012 had been taken before photographs taken with use of negative strip 0034...
Bingo!!!!!
-
All everybody has got to remember is that crime scene photograph No.23 was taken on the strip of negatives bearing the serial No.0012, and that crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken using the negative strip bearing the serial No. 0034...
During the trial, Bird and Cook lied by informing the court that photograph 23 was taken 'after' photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32...
But...
on 31st January, 2001, PC Bird made a witness statement to COLP stating that he had stated that the photographs taken with use of negative strip 0034 had been taken 'before' photographs taken by negative strip 0012, which, 'he admitted' was 'incorrect'. He re-affirmed that photographs relating to negative strip 0012 had been taken before photographs taken with use of negative strip 0034...
Bingo!!!!!
is it a full house mike :)
-
All everybody has got to remember is that crime scene photograph No.23 was taken on the strip of negatives bearing the serial No.0012, and that crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken using the negative strip bearing the serial No. 0034...
During the trial, Bird and Cook lied by informing the court that photograph 23 was taken 'after' photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32...
But...
on 31st January, 2001, PC Bird made a witness statement to COLP stating that he had stated that the photographs taken with use of negative strip 0034 had been taken 'before' photographs taken by negative strip 0012, which, 'he admitted' was 'incorrect'. He re-affirmed that photographs relating to negative strip 0012 had been taken before photographs taken with use of negative strip 0034...
Bingo!!!!!
Rifle at bedroom window (23) was therefore photographed at the bedroom window, before cops photographed 'it' on the body of Sheila Caffell - Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have been responsible for staging his sisters body with use of 'that' rifle, to supposedly be able to fool cops into thinking that his sister had taken her own life. He didn't do that which cops have accused him of doing, they did it themselves, shame on the lot of all those rotten bastards...
-
is it a full house mike :)
Again, no need for the sarcasm, here look at this if you can read, and understand what you have read, or are reading...
PC Bird admits to COLP that the images taken in the negative strip 0034 was taken 'AFTER' the photographs taken in negative strip 0012...
-
As I say, I am a self confessed 'genius'...
-
As I say, I am a self confessed 'genius'...
I think, I shall get myself a stiff drink, and celebrate 'EUREKA, EUREKA, EUREKA'...
-
Nobody moved anything, or touched anything, until 'after' PC Bird had finished taking all of his photographs...
What a load of 'Codswallop'...
'Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive'...
-
I think, I shall get myself a stiff drink, and celebrate 'EUREKA, EUREKA, EUREKA'...
are you sure you havent already been on the bottle
-
Jeremy should be released immediately, give him 'home leave' so that he can return to live with dignity in the community. What we are dealing with here is corruption at its worst. But, hey listen up vile corrupt coppers, we are coming for you, we know what you did, how you did it, and how you have been hoping that nobody would ever be able to 'prove what you did' - but, you didn't bargain for somebody like me coming along, somebody who will never give up. Your all xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx they should bring back xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx like you lot...
-
are you sure you havent already been on the bottle
'Bushmills'...
-
'Bamber is innocent', he 'didn't kill his sister', and 'he didn't stage her death scene', I have known the truth for a long time now, but today is the day, that I can say with a degree of certainty, that PC 'David' Bird, has dropped a 'clanger' by declaring to COLP investigators that the negative strip 0034 was filmed 'after negative strip 0012...
Cops are xxx xxx ..
-
'Bamber is innocent', he 'didn't kill his sister', and 'he didn't stage her death scene', I have known the truth for a long time now, but today is the day, that I can say with a degree of certainty, that PC 'David' Bird, has dropped a 'clanger' by declaring to COLP investigators that the negative strip 0034 was filmed 'after negative strip 0012...
Cops are fukked...
CCRC should be disbanded, they are not fit for purpose...
-
This is what PC 'David Bird (SOCO), told COLP investigators, in his witness statement to them on the 31st January, 2001:-
'The photographs produced from strips numbered, 0020, 0040, 0015, 0034, 0012, 0009, 0037, were placed by me in an order to represent that in which the photographs were originally taken. I now know that order to be incorrect. Upon reviewing the photographs from negatives 0034, I find that those photographs should be placed in the folder DB/100, after those numbered 0012...
-
This is what PC 'David Bird (SOCO), told COLP investigators, in his witness statement to them on the 31st January, 2001:-
'The photographs produced from strips numbered, 0020, 0040, 0015, 0034, 0012, 0009, 0037, were placed by me in an order to represent that in which the photographs were originally taken. I now know that order to be incorrect. Upon reviewing the photographs from negatives 0034, I find that those photographs should be placed in the folder DB/100, after those numbered 0012...
So, 'the cat is now well and truly out of the bag', the anshuzt rifle was 'not' photographed against the bedroom window 'after' it had been photographed upon Sheila's body, it 'had been photographed' against the bedroom window 'before' it was photographed 'on Sheila's body'. That being the case, it establishes beyond doubt that cops placed the rifle from the bedroom window (23) in negative strip 0012, upon Sheila Caffells body (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) in negative strip 0034, 'after' it had been photographed at the bedroom window. proving beyond doubt that cops were responsible for putting the anshuzt rifle upon Sheila Caffells body, and that Jeremy could not have done, what cops themselves had done...
In a nutshell, cops framed Jeremy for the murder of his family because they framed him over the murder of his sister, by claiming that he staged his sisters death scene with use of the rifle to make cops think that his sister had killed herself. when all along the cops themselves had put the rifle onto her body (from the bedroom window)...
-
So, 'the cat is now well and truly out of the bag', the anshuzt rifle was 'not' photographed against the bedroom window 'after' it had been photographed upon Sheila's body, it 'had been photographed' against the bedroom window 'before' it was photographed 'on Sheila's body'. That being the case, it establishes beyond doubt that cops placed the rifle from the bedroom window (23) in negative strip 0012, upon Sheila Caffells body (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) in negative strip 0034, 'after' it had been photographed at the bedroom window. proving beyond doubt that cops were responsible for putting the anshuzt rifle upon Sheila Caffells body, and that Jeremy could not have done, what cops themselves had done...
In a nutshell, cops framed Jeremy for the murder of his family because they framed him over the murder of his sister, by claiming that he staged his sisters death scene with use of the rifle to make cops think that his sister had killed herself. when all along the cops themselves had put the rifle onto her body (from the bedroom window)...
For heavens sake, nobody is disputing the fact that the police lifted the rifle away from the body to render it and the scene safe and then replaced it later. Standard procedure old bean. No big deal!! ;D
Only you could make this very uncomplicated issue into one big conspiracy. If this is the best you can come up with there definately is no hope for Bamber.
-
I am, therefore, a self confessed 'genius'...
Then you'll be aware of the reverse side of the genius coin, won't you?
-
For heavens sake, nobody is disputing the fact that the police lifted the rifle away from the body to render it and the scene safe and then replaced it later. Standard procedure old bean. No big deal!! ;D
Only you could make this very uncomplicated issue into one big conspiracy. If this is the best you can come up with there definately is no hope for Bamber.
No they didn't.
Photograph 23 was taken after the series of photographs including photograph 32.
The numerical references are not indicative of the order in which photographs were taken.
Bird photographed the main bedroom (with rifle on Sheila) , he then photographed the rest of the house.
In the meantime, the rifle was removed and leant against the window.
Bird then returned to the main bedroom and took further photographs.
It is quite simple, there is no mystery.
-
No they didn't.
Photograph 23 was taken after the series of photographs including photograph 32. I am afraid not, since in his COLP Witness Statement, dated, 31st January, 2001, PC Bird corrects the mistake by declaring that he had got the order with which the negative strips (each containing 10 frames) had been taken at the scene by himself. He had originally maintained in keeping with his trial testimony that negative strip 0034 had been taken before the photographs in negative strip 0012. But, as I have pointed out, he corrected 'that mistake' in the aforementioned statement, and said, 'I NOW KNOW THAT ORDER TO BE INCORRECT'. He went further, 'UPON REVIEWING THE PHOTOGRAPHS PRODUCED FROM NEGATIVES 0034, I FIND THAT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOULD BE PLACED IN FOLDER DB/100 AFTER THOSE NUMBERED 0012'. Now, just to re-emphasize which photographs were from negative strip 0034 and 0012, I can confirm that photograph No.23 which shows the anshuzt rifle leaning near the side of the main bedroom window is from negative strip 0012. It shows a view looking into the main bedroom from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs, and in the background you can see the rifle in question leaning near the left hand edge of the bedroom window. Now, PC Bird has made a fresh witness statement declaring that he took all the photographs contained on negative strip 0012 before the other photographs he took which were taken by use of negative strip 0034, which contain the crime scene photographs which show the same rifle from the bedroom window now upon Sheila Caffells body. It there is with 100% certainty that cops staged Sheila Caffells death scene on the bedroom floor with use of the anshuzt rifle that had been at the bedroom window before it ended up on Sheila's body. Now, you can try as hard as you like to try and cast doubt upon this 'fact', but sadly the cat is now out of the bag, the rifle in question was at the bedroom window, and photographed at the bedroom window, before it was on the body, and photographed on the body. The order with which PC Bird took the key photographs (using negative strips 0012 and then 0034) gives confirmation of this. So, now we all know that what the prosecution brainwashed the jury with on the back of lies told during the trial by 'Ron' Cook, and 'David' Bird, regarding the sequence with which the rifle was 'allegedly photographed at the bedroom window', and 'on the body', was nothing but 'a pack of lies', lies which were introduced so that the bad cops and the prosecution could rely upon the false claim, that the photographic evidence being relied upon proved that Sheila Caffell could not have shot herself, and that there was only one other possibility as to culpability, and that was that 'Jeremy' had shot her, and staged his sisters death scene with use of the anshuzt rifle to fool cops into accepting that Sheila had taken her own life, when all along everyone now knows it was the cops who placed the rifle on her body and then took photographs themselves which purport that she had taken her own life. PC Bird and Ron Cook committed perjury whilst testifying during the trial, and 'Conspired to pervert the course of Justice'. Just like in the 'Hillsboro' cover up, a cop or two, or more will have to be prosecuted, and should go to jail for the evil, vile acts they committed. You cannot trust the poliuce, you cannot trust the CPS, they are the real criminals amongst us...
The numerical references are not indicative of the order in which photographs were taken. Yes, they are - negative strip 0012 includes the photograph (23) which places the anshuzt rifle at the bedroom window, before that same rifle is on the body (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) PC Bird confirms this himself...
Bird photographed the main bedroom (with rifle on Sheila) , he then photographed the rest of the house. No, he didn't, he took photographs in the kitchen first, then came up the main stairs and whist using negative strip 0012 he photographed the anshuzt rifle at the bedroom window, capturing its presence there in photograph No.23. Afterwards, he took photographs on negative strip 0034 showing the same rifle from the bedroom window, now on Sheila Caffells body. Try not to forget that at 9am PS Adams saw Sheila's body in the bedroom and that he had no recollection of the gun being with her body at 'that' stage. Similarly, after the arrival of DS Jones at the scene, he saw Sheila's body on the bed sporting a single gunshot wound to her neck, without the rifle on the body (at least thats what Ann Eaton was told by DS Jones later that same morning)...
In the meantime, the rifle was removed and leant against the window. You have got the sequence 'wrong'. Let me remind you of the 'facts'. The anshuzt rifle was placed at an upstairs window by Sheila at around 7.15am. I am not even bothered about arguing which upstairs window she had placed that rifle at. If she had placed that rifle at any other upstairs window other than at the main bedroom window, the case would be far more compelling for the cops to be responsible for shooting and killiung her, for bringing that rifle from a window elsewhere other than in the main bedroom itself, and bringing it into the main bedroom and placing it on Sheila's body so that cops could take photographs to show how Sheila had shot 'herself' by use of that gun. But,, hey hang on a minute. if Sheila died on the bedroom floor as a result of being shot by the anshuzt rifle once let alone twice, how did the anshuzt rifle get from the upstairs window of another room in the farmhouse, after 7.15am, onto her body 'after' photograph No.23, from negative strip 0012? You explain that away, and good luck with your attempts to do so. The problem the cops have now, and you are also restricted by what you can say because transcripts exist of the trial testimony given by both PC 'David' Bird, and DI 'Ron' Cook, regarding this very matter, together with relevant witness statements, and of course the undeniable 'fact' that, cops created a 'false photographic record' in the form of what became officially known as, 'THE MASTER COPY ALBUM' containing, as it were only 223 of the 581 photographs that cops took in connection with the so called investigation into this death, and the death of the other four victims. Good luck trying to make up excuses for what this bunch of corrupted cops did, and have done. You cannot falsify evidence like these cops have and expect the Criminal justice system to be seen to be doing nothing. 'Malfeance in office', that's what we are dealing with here, it isn't just corrupt cops that is the problem, its the criminal justice system itself, how it operates, how the rules of engagement can be bent and manipulated.../color]
Bird then returned to the main bedroom and took further photographs.Keep believing the lies that PC Bird and Ron Cook told to the court in October, 1986 - 'good luck'...
It is quite simple, there is no mystery. I agree, the truth is out in the open now, at long last...
-
For heavens sake, nobody is disputing Cops said on oath that nobody removed the anshuzt rifle at all from the body of Sheila Caffell until 'after' PC Bird (SOCO) had taken all of his photographs with her in possession of it, and that it was not until 11.10am that morning, that Cook asked PI Montgomery (or was it PS Woodcock) to check to see if the gun was still loaded, and to make it safe, so please do not try to justify lies which have been told by Bird and Cook whilst testifying about the time when the rifle was removed from the body. Forget the time it was removed from the body, instead try to concentrate on the time the gun was 'placed onto the body'. It was placed on the body of Sheila by cops after PC Bird photographed the same rifle (ansuzt) resting near the main bedroom window in photograph No.23 (negative strip 0012). Then the gun was put onto Sheila''s body (not by Jeremy) and PC Bird took photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, (negative strip 0034), which part don't you profess to understand? Are you trying to advocate that it is 'alright' for cops to interfere with a crime scene? Is it alright for cops to 'fabricate evidence by adopting these tactics'? Is that what your saying, and what your position is? This is a very serious matter, telling lies, fabricating evidence, just to secure a conviction for anything let alone five murders, but you say there's nothing wrong with what cops have done, and what cops did, oh well... the fact that the police lifted the rifle away from the body to render it and the scene safe and then replaced it later. Refer to the evidence that 'Ron' Cook did not remove the rifle from the body, and give it to whoever to check it and render it sage until 11.10pm, which if you did not but know was about 50 minutes after PC Bird photographed the rifle in Sheila Caffells possession as per photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, which in turn were photographs that PC Bird had taken 'after he had already photographed the same rifle at the main bedroom window as per photograph No.23 in negative strip 0012... Standard procedure old bean.Yes, standard procedure, but illegal, and diabolically evil. You can't tamper with a crime scene, then take photographs which you 'jiggle about' and present the time certain photographs had been taken, and make false witness statements, and give false testimony at court under oath, and expect not to be prosecuted. the things you are advocating are criminal offences 'old bean'. It's illegal, not acceptable, and I can't believe that you have taken that attitude... No big deal!! , It's a MASSIVE issue, not a big deal... ;D
Only you could make this very uncomplicated issue into one big conspiracy.I can't wait to see these cops defend what I have uncovered. I look forward to the CPS doing what they do best. We will see how trustworthy and 'honest' this set of evil bastards really are? It is 'not in the interests of justice' for Jeremy Bambers incarceration to continue a second longer, for these crimes that bent cops adopting corrupt practices, and the dodgy Crown Prosecution Service to get away with this... If this is the best you can come up with there definately is no hope for Bamber.You are obviously corrupt yourself, taking that view - shame on you...
-
Here is some correspondence about why Ralph Bamber had to give up his position as Chairman of the Witham Bench:-
-
Here is some correspondence about why Ralph Bamber had to give up his position as Chairman of the Witham Bench:-
It turned in to an extraordinarily long three month leave of absence. The letter appears to be dated January 1981.
-
It turned in to an extraordinarily long three month leave of absence. The letter appears to be dated January 1981.
Yes, because threats had been made against his life, and the lives of his family, and 'your point is'?
-
Then you'll be aware of the reverse side of the genius coin, won't you?
To 'coin a phrase', exactly...
-
morning mike ,iam disappointed you havent answered my post ,did police also shoot sheila's accomplice and how did he leave whf.thanks
-
Yes, because threats had been made against his life, and the lives of his family, and 'your point is'?
MY point was that Jan 1981 to Aug 1985 is a LITTLE more than three months. I do NOT accept that any threat would have gone on, uninvestigated, for that long. There appears to be no formal notice of his resignation, which after that length of time, would surely have been necessary.
-
Here is some correspondence about why Ralph Bamber had to give up his position as Chairman of the Witham Bench:-
mike the last letter above ,are you sure it was written by nb and not jb bescause jb is well know for writing in capital letters unless they both shared that trait
-
morning mike ,iam disappointed you havent answered my post ,did police also shoot sheila's accomplice and how did he leave whf.thanks
Morning Sami, 'no, they didn't shoot Sheila's accomplice. At just before 5am that morning cops with guns were not by that stage in position at the scene, and besides cops didn't even know that anybody had been shot by that stage, unless you know something that I don't. No, Sheila's accomplice just walked away from the farmhouse, cops did not know that the 'scruffy looking hunched shouldered man they saw on 'that' occasion, had been Sheila's accomplice, but rest assured that what I am saying is correct. I am surprised no-one has asked me more about him, his 'real identity', that is?
-
MY point was that Jan 1981 to Aug 1985 is a LITTLE more than three months. I do NOT accept that any threat would have gone on, uninvestigated, for that long. There appears to be no formal notice of his resignation, which after that length of time, would surely have been necessary.
Ah, you think there was only one set of threats?
Now, your thinking along the right lines - What about the 'Jimmy Bell' episode, when do you think that happenned?
-
Morning Sami, 'no, they didn't shoot Sheila's accomplice. At just before 5am that morning cops with guns were not by that stage in position at the scene, and besides cops didn't even know that anybody had been shot by that stage, unless you know something that I don't. No, Sheila's accomplice just walked away from the farmhouse, cops did not know that the 'scruffy looking hunched shouldered man they saw on 'that' occasion, had been Sheila's accomplice, but rest assured that what I am saying is correct. I am surprised no-one has asked me more about him, his 'real identity', that is?
thank you mike
-
Ah, you think there was only one set of threats?
Now, your thinking along the right lines - What about the 'Jimmy Bell' episode, when do you think that happenned?
You know the incident I am now referring too, when Jimmy Bell threw a handful of .22 ammunition at Ralph Bamber, and shouted at him, 'THE NEXT TIME THEY WILL BE FROM A GUN', or words to that effect. Are you pretending you never heard about 'that' threat?
-
Here is PC 'David' Birds trial testimony:-
-
your in overdrive today mike ;)
-
It was so 'easy' for DI 'Ron' Cook, and PC 'David' Bird to deceive the court about the 'order that photographs were taken it', and 'the jury were 'taken in' by cop deceit...
-
your in overdrive today mike ;)
I am in a mood to post up some of the evidence in my possession, because no-one is pressurising me...
-
You know the incident I am now referring too, when Jimmy Bell threw a handful of .22 ammunition at Ralph Bamber, and shouted at him, 'THE NEXT TIME THEY WILL BE FROM A GUN', or words to that effect. Are you pretending you never heard about 'that' threat?
I certanly have, it;s been argued here several times.
-
Before I go any further, I would just like to say that 'I don't have long left'. Soon, I will not be here, at least that's what I think...
I have had this 'overwhelming feeling' that my days are numbered...
Anyway, as a result, I promise to post up as much new information as possible so that 'others' who follow on behind me, can if necessary take up 'the cause'. With this in mind, I can tell each and everyone of you, that before my end of days comes to fruition, that I would like to hand over all the material in my possession, to a member of our forum. Somebody, as it were who is not afraid to say what needs to be said. I have'nt yet decided to whom I might trust the 50,000 documents to (some of them originals). It is a huge burden trying to fathom out who might be best placed to even want the burden of all this material in their possession. End of days is looming sharply, I can feel it in my bones...
-
Sheila's accomplice just walked away from the farmhouse
Are you saying you think he left the farmhouse via a door or window that wasn't being observed at the time, and then Sheila locked the door or fastened the window after he'd left?
-
Are you saying you think he left the farmhouse via a door or window that wasn't being observed at the time, and then Sheila locked the door or fastened the window after he'd left?
that is funny reader.john suggested he was beamed up to starship enterprise.i cant see any other way
-
It matters little as to the order in which the photos were taken. Only the police first responders and the culprit himself know where the rifle originally lay. Jeremy must be raging that he cannot add his tuppence worth to this for fear of incriminating himself.
-
It matters little as to the order in which the photos were taken. Only the police first responders and the culprit himself know where the rifle originally lay. Jeremy must be raging that he cannot add his tuppence worth to this for fear of incriminating himself.
good point john :)
-
It matters little as to the order in which the photos were taken. Only the police first responders and the culprit himself know where the rifle originally lay. Jeremy must be raging that he cannot add his tuppence worth to this for fear of incriminating himself.
On the contrary John,JB is in the " best place " in case he incriminates them------would have been the more correct version.
-
Are you saying you think he left the farmhouse via a door or window that wasn't being observed at the time, and then Sheila locked the door or fastened the window after he'd left?
Yes, I understand from what I have been able to find out that he left via a door on the opposite side of the farmhouse to where PC Myall was stationed about 10 minutes before the arrival of PS Adams and his squad of firearm officers who arrived at the scene at 5am prompt...
-
It matters little as to the order in which the photos were taken. Only the police first responders and the culprit himself know where the rifle originally lay. Jeremy must be raging that he cannot add his tuppence worth to this for fear of incriminating himself.
On the contrary, it does matter where the rifle was, at all times, especially after Sheila placed it at one of the upstairs window, where it remained without anyone touching it until 9.13am, when during a training exercise, otherwise known as ' familiars', the rifle was brought from the window upstairs to Sheila's body, which only had one gunshot wound to the neck by that stage. Cops had moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor, the rifle was placed on her body and it discharged the second shot which killed her. The rifle was then put near the main bedroom window until after PC Bird photographed it there (as per photograph 23 of negative strip 0012). After PC Bird took 'that' photograph (23) the rifle was brought from the window by cops and positioned onto Sheila's body, and by around 10.20am, PC Bird took 8 photographs of the rifle on Sheila's body (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, on negative strip 0034). Cops staged Sheila's death scene, then photographed the scene, and used the photographs dishonestly to convict Jeremy of the murders. That can't be right, it can't be legal, cops didn't explain to the court which tried the matter that it was they who had put the rifle from the upstairs window onto Sheila's body, and then took the photographs. The court was 'deceived' into accepting that Sheila's body had been left well alone after its first discovery by armed cops who entered the farmhouse soon after 7.30am, and not even the police surgeon, Dr Craig had been allowed to touch her body at 8.44am. Cops told the court that it was DI 'Ron' Cook who had first handled the rifle from Sheila's body at 11.10am, at which stage he said that he had handed the rifle to PI Montgomery (firearm officer) to check it, and make it safe. Cook said, 'he' had then placed the rifle at the bedroom window where PC Bird had photographed it (23, negative strip 0012), but we now know Cook lied, and deceived the court about that, and we also know that PC Bird aided him in deceiving the court about the time he had taken photograph 23 (negative strip 0012), stating that he had photographed the rifle at the bedroom window (23, negative strip 0012) after he had photographed Sheila's body in possession of the rifle, as per photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 (negative strip 0034). We have now found out that PC Bird came clean about the order with which he had photographed the rifle at the main bedroom window, and on Sheila's body, by making a new witness statement to the COLP investigators on the 31st January, 2001, when he had to tell the truth or be damned. At that stage, the truth relating to the fact that cops staged Sheila's death scene on the bedroom floor became common knowledge for the very first time (fifthteen and a half years later), that Jeremy Bamber 'had not afterall' placed the anshuzt rifle onto his sisters body with her on the bedroom floor, in order to fool cops into thinking that his sister had taken her own life. It wasn't Jeremy after all that tried to trick cops, it was all part and parcel of what the cops themselves had done, so it beggars belief how anyone can say that Jeremy almost got away with the perfect murders, by staging his sisters death on the bedroom floor so that police would accept that she had killed the others, then killed herself. He hadn't staged his sisters body at all, how could he have with the rifle that supposedly killed the others and then herself having been offered up at one of the first floor windows at 7.15am, where it remained until 9.13am. Cops had five dead victims inside the farmhouse by 8.10am, and setting the serious discrepancy to one side as to whether by that (8.10am) time, Sheila's body was downstairs, or upstairs, the fact still remains that the only rifle found upstairs by cops was the one at an upstairs window, how could Sheila have been dead by 'that' (8.10am) stage? The simple truth is that she couldn't possibly have been dead by 'that' (8.10am) time. How had she died? The rifle which had been at an upstairs bedroom window could not by that stage have also been with Sheila's body, either downstairs, or upstairs. She hadn't shot herself, and she hadn't killed herself by 'that' time, and Jeremy certainly could not have shot her either downstairs in the kitchen, or upstairs on the bed, or the floor and staged her body to fake her suicide, what with? Let's ignore the fact that Sheila was downstairs in the kitchen (7.37am, onward until just after 8.10am), or upstairs on the bed from around 8.30am, until just before 9.13am. Let's go with Sheila's body always having been on the bedroom floor with two shotgun wounds to her neck. How could Jeremy have tried to fake her death on the bedroom floor with the rifle that fired 'both' (ha, ha, ha) shots leaning against a window in another room? Get a life, or get a grip of yourselves, it didn't happen, and it couldn't have happened like the cops said it had happened. They made it up, and what they did has now been fully exposed. But the big question remains. Ask yourselves why cops did what they did, and rather than 'fess up to what they had done, and why, they chose to frame Jeremy Bamber as the killer. They tampered with Sheila's body, moved the rifle from the window onto the body, tampered with the order with which key photographs were taken, tampered with the ballistics, tampered with the hand swabs, tampered with the silencer, etc, etc, etc. The whole god damn case that cops built in order to frame Jeremy as the killer is rotten to the core...
-
You know the incident I am now referring too, when Jimmy Bell threw a handful of .22 ammunition at Ralph Bamber, and shouted at him, 'THE NEXT TIME THEY WILL BE FROM A GUN', or words to that effect. Are you pretending you never heard about 'that' threat?
I know WAY more about Jimmy Bell than you ever will but because of my close connection to his family -I've been with one of his sons today- I'm not prepared to discuss this with you. You may rest assured I fully cognisant with the precautions the police put in place to protect those who needed protecting. The Bambers didn't come anywhere close. Magistrates receive threats. It's par for the course.
-
I know WAY more about Jimmy Bell than you ever will but because of my close connection to his family -I've been with one of his sons today- I'm not prepared to discuss this with you. You may rest assured I fully cognisant with the precautions the police put in place to protect those who needed protecting. The Bambers didn't come anywhere close. Magistrates receive threats. It's par for the course.
Funny then, why Ralph Bamber was not practising his duties as a magistrate in the months leading up to his death, and that he should pass comments about having to keep his eye on 'those two' with the shooting season coming up...
Which two?
Jeremy is only one person...
-
Which two?
Robert Boutflour, and David Boutflour?
Anthony Pargeter, and Peter Eaton?
Robert Boutflour, and Peter Eaton?
David Boutflour, and Anthony Pargeter?
Anthony Pargeter, and Robert Boutflour?
-
Funny then, why Ralph Bamber was not practising his duties as a magistrate in the months leading up to his death, and that he should pass comments about having to keep his eye on 'those two' with the shooting season coming up...
Which two?
Jeremy is only one person...
Well, according to the date on the letter you posted, he hadn't been "practising his duties as a magistrate" for YEARS.
-
It is very satisfying knowing that at long last the truth is out about how the rifle at 'the' window (7.15am) photograph, 23 of negative strip 0012, ended up on Sheila's body in 8 photographs that were taken at around 10.20am ( 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of negative strip 0034). Now, nobody can say that Jeremy placed 'that' rifle on his sisters body after he had supposedly killed her on the bedroom floor, and that cops have the photographs to prove it. They don't have any photographs to prove it. The photographs they took only prove that 'they' (the cops) placed the rifle on Sheila's body and that cops then took photographs...
-
It is very satisfying knowing that at long last the truth is out about how the rifle at 'the' window (7.15am) photograph, 23 of negative strip 0012, ended up on Sheila's body in 8 photographs that were taken at around 10.20am ( 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of negative strip 0034). Now, nobody can say that Jeremy placed 'that' rifle on his sisters body after he had supposedly killed her on the bedroom floor, and that cops have the photographs to prove it. They don't have any photographs to prove it. The photographs they took only prove that 'they' (the cops) placed the rifle on Sheila's body and that cops then took photographs...
Had the jury known this it would almost certainly have impacted adversely upon the claims made by the Prosecution, who were blaming Jeremy for 'everything'. It was Jeremy's fault that his dad called him, it was his fault that he tried to call the cops at Witham, it was his fault he didn't dial 999, it was his fault that he called his girlfriend before he called cops at Chelmsford, it was his fault that he didn't drive fast enough to get to the scene despite being told by cops not to approach house until cops who were being despatched from Chelmsford got there, it was his fault PC Myall saw the unidentified male at the bedroom window, it was his fault that cops decided it was a siege, it was his fault lights were being switched on and off in different rooms of the house at different times, it was his fault, the phone mysteriously became engaged whilst the operator was checking the telephone line, it was his fault three ambulances were summoned to the scene at around 6am, one to go directly to the house, the other two on standby in pages lane, it was his fault cops reported two dead bodies in the kitchen, upon entry at 7.37am, and only three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. It was all Jeremy's fault, everything that went wrong for the cops they blamed it all on poor Jeremy. God knows how they came to the conclusion that Jeremy had almost got away with committing the perfect murders, because they blame him for so much it beggars belief that anybody who got blamed for so much mischief stood any chance whatsoever of getting away with anything...
It wasn't Jeremy who staged his sisters death scene on the bedroom floor with the rifle from the bedroom window...
I agree though, that 'whoever' staged her body, did have something to do with 'killing Sheila Caffell...
-
It has to make you think Mike as she'd have been like a mad woman,threatening, and police will open fire against a threat of someone who's armed.
-
'If' (ha, ha, ha) cops shot and killed Sheila Caffell they would have admitted to it, of course they would, cops don't lie do they? Cops don't fabricate evidence, do they? Cops don't doctor photographic records, do they? Cops don't alter witness statements, do they? Cops don't re-write their notes in dodgy notebooks do they? Cops don't tamper with bodies at a crime scene, do they? Cops don't 'plant guns on bodies of dead victims, and then take photographs, do they? Cops then don't deceive courts by claiming that the photographs they took showed how they found the body, untouched, do they? Nah, not cops, why on earth would anybody think cops had all this evil inside themselves?
-
Right, next up, 'the trial transcript of the ballistic expert', 'Malcolm Fletcher'...
It will be time consuming, so bear with me, and I think a few pages are missing (I haven't removed them), and in some of the other transcripts in my possession, somebody has cut out sections, which has infuriated me during the past two and a half decades (I didn't cut things out). Also, some of the pages are duplicated, so I might have to delete them where this occurs (again, not my doing)...
-
It has to make you think Mike as she'd have been like a mad woman,threatening, and police will open fire against a threat of someone who's armed.
Hi Lookout, I see the point you are making, but Sheila wasn't armed when she got shot downstairs in the kitchen, she had co-operated with the request from cops to show the gun at one of the windows as a gesture of goodwill, so that ambulance crews could enter the farmhouse to tend to the wounded. But cops tricked her, they didn't send the ambulance directly to the house once Sheila had put the gun on show, armed cops came to the house instead, they hammered in the door that Sheila was on her way downstairs to open, and when PS Woodcocks' weapon in the form of the barrel of his rifle came around the edge of the inner kitchen door, it incensed her because she thought cops were going to kill her. She grabbed the barrel, there was a desperate struggle involving Woodcock trying to get around the edge of the door to fix the muzzle of his weapon onto the 'target' (Sheila Caffell), she got shot, and Woodcock would claim in his report (shooting incident in the kitchen) that Sheila deliberately pulled the muzzle of his weapon into her own throat as if she 'wanted' to die. This is the reason why her death in the kitchen was described as 'a suicide', before 7.45am...
-
Well, according to the date on the letter you posted, he hadn't been "practising his duties as a magistrate" for YEARS.
well observed jane ;)
-
well observed jane ;)
Ask her on what date, Jimmy Bell, threw the handful of .22 ammunition at Ralph Bamber, and threatened him with, 'next time they will be fired from a gun'...
-
Ask her on what date, Jimmy Bell, threw the handful of .22 ammunition at Ralph Bamber, and threatened him with, 'next time they will be fired from a gun'...
Ask her 'how many weeks before Ralph, and three generations of the family, were all killed', did Jimmy make 'that' threat?
-
Ask her on what date, Jimmy Bell, threw the handful of .22 ammunition at Ralph Bamber, and threatened him with, 'next time they will be fired from a gun'...
You're splitting hairs. Nevill was allegedly on a few months "sick" leave from the bench in 1985. Yet the letter asking for the time off -a few months- was dated 1981. I believe Jimmy's trial was heard a Chelmsford Crown court.
-
Ask her on what date, Jimmy Bell, threw the handful of .22 ammunition at Ralph Bamber, and threatened him with, 'next time they will be fired from a gun'...
It's of no relevance what Jimmy threw where. You've already blamed Ralph Nevill'/the police en masse/ the hunch back man as culprits of the crime.
-
Ask her 'how many weeks before Ralph, and three generations of the family, were all killed', did Jimmy make 'that' threat?
are you now saying it was jimmy bell
-
You're splitting hairs. Nevill was allegedly on a few months "sick" leave from the bench in 1985. Yet the letter asking for the time off -a few months- was dated 1981. I believe Jimmy's trial was heard a Chelmsford Crown court.
Listen up, You don't tell me what to post, I do what I want in my end of life days. If you are truly in touch with the family of Jimmy Bell, tell us all, when the xxx xxxxxx did what he did, with them there .22 bullets - or are you making it up about being in direct contact with a member of Jim Bells family. Don't xxxxxxx with me, unless you got the ammunition to shoot me down dead in my tracks ( I am not frightened of dying). You have picked on the wrong person to play games with...
Now, either, 'put up', or 'shut up'...
-
Listen up, You don't tell me what to post, I do what I want in my end of life days. If you are truly in touch with the family of Jimmy Bell, tell us all, when the xxx xxxxxx did what he did, with them there .22 bullets - or are you making it up about being in direct contact with a member of Jim Bells family. Don't xxxxxxx xxxx with me, unless you got the ammunition to shoot me down dead in my tracks ( I am not frightened of dying). You have picked on the wrong person to play games with...
Now, either, 'put up', or 'shut up'...
you got a lot of life in you yet,mike
-
are you now saying it was Jimmy bell
No, no, no, Jim Bell was not Sheila's accomplice...
Forget, about 'Jimmy Bell', he didn't massacre 'two generations of the Bamber Clan', as 'xxxx as he was', Jimmy Bell was not the 'unidentified male, referred to by PC Myall. But, what I am saying is that in the weeks building up to the tragedy, Jimmy Bell and the threats he posed to the three generations of the Bamber family, were very real threats...
-
Listen up, You don't tell me what to post, I do what I want in my end of life days. If you are truly in touch with the family of Jimmy Bell, tell us all, when the xxx xxxxxx did what he did, with them there .22 bullets - or are you making it up about being in direct contact with a member of Jim Bells family. Don't xxxxxxx xxxxwith me, unless you got the ammunition to shoot me down dead in my tracks ( I am not frightened of dying). You have picked on the wrong person to play games with...
Now, either, 'put up', or 'shut up'...
Mike, if you're inviting me to shoot you, you've picked the wrong person. I couldn't shoot any one if I tried. Yes, I AM in touch with Jimmy's family. As I said I've been with one of his sons and his grandchildren today. I have no need to mess with you and no desire to play games with you.
-
Mike, if you're inviting me to shoot you, you've picked the wrong person. I couldn't shoot any one if I tried. Yes, I AM in touch with Jimmy's family. As I said I've been with one of his sons and his grandchildren today. I have no need to mess with you and no desire to play games with you.
OK, luv (figure of speech for a northerner of my elk), way things are at the moment I might welcome you shooting me dead, but I appreciate your apparent honesty by you saying you do not need to mess with me, or play games with me in my mindset. Ok, then, now please if you can, can you say from what you know, how many weeks, or days before the 7th August, 1985, did Jimmy throw them there .22 bullets at Mr Bamber (Snr)? Years before? Months before? Weeks before? Days before? Hours before? Minutes, before? Bearing in mind that I have the police files in my possession,and everything that Jeremy Bamber himself wishes he had never given me access to, because I am a low life 'scumbag', who will say what I want, when I want, irrespective of the consequences because I don't say anything I don't truly believe at the time I say it, unless I believe it to be true...
-
OK, luv (figure of speech for a northerner of my elk), way things are at the moment I might welcome you shooting me dead, but I appreciate your apparent honesty by you saying you do not need to mess with me, or play games with me in my mindset. Ok, then, now please if you can, can you say from what you know, how many weeks, or days before the 7th August, 1985, did Jimmy throw them there .22 bullets at Mr Bamber (Snr)? Years before? Months before? Weeks before? Days before? Hours before? Minutes, before? Bearing in mind that I have the police files in my possession,and everything that Jeremy Bamber himself wishes he had never given me access to, because I am a low life 'scumbag', who will say what I want, when I want, irrespective of the consequences because I don't say anything I don't truly believe at the time I say it, unless I believe it to be true...
No Mike, I really don't think I can but what I CAN say is that it's HIGHLY likely that the alleged incident with the bullets didn't have anything to do with Jimmy's sentence. However, I'm not prepared to say more because I have no proof.
-
You're splitting hairs. Nevill was allegedly on a few months "sick" leave from the bench in 1985. Yet the letter asking for the time off -a few months- was dated 1981. I believe Jimmy's trial was heard a Chelmsford Crown court.
Don't try that line with me luv, every case starts off in the magistrates court, then there is a committal to Crown court, cases don't go directly to the 'Crown Court' (unless by way of 'A voluntary bill of Indictment'). Now, when did 'Jimmy' throw them there .22 bullets, at Mr Bamber (Snr), was it in 1985? 1984? 1983? 1982? or 1981?
-
No Mike, I really don't think I can but what I CAN say is that it's HIGHLY likely that the alleged incident with the bullets didn't have anything to do with Jimmy's sentence. However, I'm not prepared to say more because I have no proof.
Ok...
-
It's of no relevance what Jimmy threw where. You've already blamed Ralph Nevill'/the police en masse/ the hunch back man as culprits of the crime.
'Ralph Neville' was not his real name...
-
On the contrary, it does matter where the rifle was, at all times, especially after Sheila placed it at one of the upstairs window, where it remained without anyone touching it until 9.13am, when during a training exercise, otherwise known as ' familiars', the rifle was brought from the window upstairs to Sheila's body, which only had one gunshot wound to the neck by that stage. Cops had moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor, the rifle was placed on her body and it discharged the second shot which killed her. The rifle was then put near the main bedroom window until after PC Bird photographed it there (as per photograph 23 of negative strip 0012). After PC Bird took 'that' photograph (23) the rifle was brought from the window by cops and positioned onto Sheila's body, and by around 10.20am, PC Bird took 8 photographs of the rifle on Sheila's body (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, on negative strip 0034). Cops staged Sheila's death scene, then photographed the scene, and used the photographs dishonestly to convict Jeremy of the murders. That can't be right, it can't be legal, cops didn't explain to the court which tried the matter that it was they who had put the rifle from the upstairs window onto Sheila's body, and then took the photographs. The court was 'deceived' into accepting that Sheila's body had been left well alone after its first discovery by armed cops who entered the farmhouse soon after 7.30am, and not even the police surgeon, Dr Craig had been allowed to touch her body at 8.44am. Cops told the court that it was DI 'Ron' Cook who had first handled the rifle from Sheila's body at 11.10am, at which stage he said that he had handed the rifle to PI Montgomery (firearm officer) to check it, and make it safe. Cook said, 'he' had then placed the rifle at the bedroom window where PC Bird had photographed it (23, negative strip 0012), but we now know Cook lied, and deceived the court about that, and we also know that PC Bird aided him in deceiving the court about the time he had taken photograph 23 (negative strip 0012), stating that he had photographed the rifle at the bedroom window (23, negative strip 0012) after he had photographed Sheila's body in possession of the rifle, as per photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 (negative strip 0034). We have now found out that PC Bird came clean about the order with which he had photographed the rifle at the main bedroom window, and on Sheila's body, by making a new witness statement to the COLP investigators on the 31st January, 2001, when he had to tell the truth or be damned. At that stage, the truth relating to the fact that cops staged Sheila's death scene on the bedroom floor became common knowledge for the very first time (fifthteen and a half years later), that Jeremy Bamber 'had not afterall' placed the anshuzt rifle onto his sisters body with her on the bedroom floor, in order to fool cops into thinking that his sister had taken her own life. It wasn't Jeremy after all that tried to trick cops, it was all part and parcel of what the cops themselves had done, so it beggars belief how anyone can say that Jeremy almost got away with the perfect murders, by staging his sisters death on the bedroom floor so that police would accept that she had killed the others, then killed herself. He hadn't staged his sisters body at all, how could he have with the rifle that supposedly killed the others and then herself having been offered up at one of the first floor windows at 7.15am, where it remained until 9.13am. Cops had five dead victims inside the farmhouse by 8.10am, and setting the serious discrepancy to one side as to whether by that (8.10am) time, Sheila's body was downstairs, or upstairs, the fact still remains that the only rifle found upstairs by cops was the one at an upstairs window, how could Sheila have been dead by 'that' (8.10am) stage? The simple truth is that she couldn't possibly have been dead by 'that' (8.10am) time. How had she died? The rifle which had been at an upstairs bedroom window could not by that stage have also been with Sheila's body, either downstairs, or upstairs. She hadn't shot herself, and she hadn't killed herself by 'that' time, and Jeremy certainly could not have shot her either downstairs in the kitchen, or upstairs on the bed, or the floor and staged her body to fake her suicide, what with? Let's ignore the fact that Sheila was downstairs in the kitchen (7.37am, onward until just after 8.10am), or upstairs on the bed from around 8.30am, until just before 9.13am. Let's go with Sheila's body always having been on the bedroom floor with two shotgun wounds to her neck. How could Jeremy have tried to fake her death on the bedroom floor with the rifle that fired 'both' (ha, ha, ha) shots leaning against a window in another room? Get a life, or get a grip of yourselves, it didn't happen, and it couldn't have happened like the cops said it had happened. They made it up, and what they did has now been fully exposed. But the big question remains. Ask yourselves why cops did what they did, and rather than 'fess up to what they had done, and why, they chose to frame Jeremy Bamber as the killer. They tampered with Sheila's body, moved the rifle from the window onto the body, tampered with the order with which key photographs were taken, tampered with the ballistics, tampered with the hand swabs, tampered with the silencer, etc, etc, etc. The whole god damn case that cops built in order to frame Jeremy as the killer is rotten to the core...
A lot of claims but nothing to back it up. A bit like the never to be seen photo of Sheila on the bed?
-
morning mike, you sad the police shot sheila but if she had leaned the rifle by the window showing as you put it that she was ready to surrender ,why than would police shoot her.doesnt make sense
-
morning mike, you sad the police shot sheila but if she had leaned the rifle by the window showing as you put it that she was ready to surrender ,why than would police shoot her.doesnt make sense
Cops deceived her. I understand she was requested to give a show of the gun believed to be in her possession at a window, and that upon the gun being put on show, the ambulance crew would then enter the farmhouse to tend to anyone who might be injured by that stage. Sheila put the gun on show at an upstairs window, then made her way downstairs intending to let the ambulance crew in, only to be confronted by a gun wielding PS Woodcock which incensed her, hence why there was a struggle between herself and woodcock over control and possession of 'that' gun. Whilst grabbing the muzzle end of Woodcocks weapon she appeared to draw the muzzle into her own neck and at that precise moment the cops gun discharged a shot across Sheila's neck, and she collapsed onto the kitchen floor as if dead. Hence why at 7.37am, messages were passed and relayed to the effect that the body of 'one dead male' and the body of 'one dead female had been confirmed. One of these deaths was being talked about in terms of a murder, whilst the second death was talked in terms of the death having been reported as a suicide...
-
Cops deceived her. I understand she was requested to give a show of the gun believed to be in her possession at a window, and that upon the gun being put on show, the ambulance crew would then enter the farmhouse to tend to anyone who might be injured by that stage. Sheila put the gun on show at an upstairs window, then made her way downstairs intending to let the ambulance crew in, only to be confronted by a gun wielding PS Woodcock which incensed her, hence why there was a struggle between herself and woodcock over control and possession of 'that' gun. Whilst grabbing the muzzle end of Woodcocks weapon she appeared to draw the muzzle into her own neck and at that precise moment the cops gun discharged a shot across Sheila's neck, and she collapsed onto the kitchen floor as if dead. Hence why at 7.37am, messages were passed and relayed to the effect that the body of 'one dead male' and the body of 'one dead female had been confirmed. One of these deaths was being talked about in terms of a murder, whilst the second death was talked in terms of the death having been reported as a suicide...
By 'that' stage (7.37am) the 'two deaths' being referred to were 'Ralph Bambers', and 'Sheila Caffells', a 'murder', and a 'suicide'...
Forget about 'June Bamber' being the 'second body found', because nobody can 'realistically hope to described her death' as a 'suicide'...
-
A lot of claims but nothing to back it up. A bit like the never to be seen photo of Sheila on the bed?
You fool, there's lots of evidence to back everything up - do you know what evidence is, because all you keep going on about, is that there is no evidence for this, or that. Get a grip of yourself, of course there is evidence, it's just that it pains you to have to acknowledge it exists...
Its only evidence if it supports your arguments, is that it, and its not evidence if it tends to prove Bambers innocence...
-
You fool, there's lots of evidence to back everything up - do you know what evidence is, because all you keep going on about, is that there is no evidence for this, or that. Get a grip of yourself, of course there is evidence, it's just that it pains you to have to acknowledge it exists...
Its only evidence if it supports your arguments, is that it, and its not evidence if it tends to prove Bambers innocence...
first two words are uncalled for mike
-
first two words are uncalled for mike
The next 74 weren't necessary either. ;D
-
There's an 'abundance of evidence supporting everything' I have said...
-
There's an abundance of evidence supporting everything I have said...
he was only asking to see the photo of sheila on the bed.we all would like to see it ;)
-
he was only asking to see the photo of sheila on the bed.we all would like to see it ;)
But we never will.
-
i should also like to ask ,sheila's accomplice who sneaked out before the main police force arrived,what was his role and what did sheila employ him to do
-
i should also like to ask ,sheila's accomplice who sneaked out before the main police force arrived,what was his role and what did sheila employ him to do
.......And who paid him, OR did he do it out of the goodness of his heart?
-
The next 74 weren't necessary either. ;D
:)) :)) :))
-
he was only asking to see the photo of sheila on the bed.we all would like to see it ;)
I have seen them, and she had only been shot once by that stage...
-
I have seen them, and she had only been shot once by that stage...
can you share them with us mike
-
Cops deceived her. I understand she was requested to give a show of the gun believed to be in her possession at a window, and that upon the gun being put on show, the ambulance crew would then enter the farmhouse to tend to anyone who might be injured by that stage. Sheila put the gun on show at an upstairs window, then made her way downstairs intending to let the ambulance crew in, only to be confronted by a gun wielding PS Woodcock which incensed her, hence why there was a struggle between herself and woodcock over control and possession of 'that' gun. Whilst grabbing the muzzle end of Woodcocks weapon she appeared to draw the muzzle into her own neck and at that precise moment the cops gun discharged a shot across Sheila's neck, and she collapsed onto the kitchen floor as if dead. Hence why at 7.37am, messages were passed and relayed to the effect that the body of 'one dead male' and the body of 'one dead female had been confirmed. One of these deaths was being talked about in terms of a murder, whilst the second death was talked in terms of the death having been reported as a suicide...
Now you're really into cloud cuckoo land. You haven't got a baldy clue have you? ROFL
-
You fool, there's lots of evidence to back everything up - do you know what evidence is, because all you keep going on about, is that there is no evidence for this, or that. Get a grip of yourself, of course there is evidence, it's just that it pains you to have to acknowledge it exists...
Its only evidence if it supports your arguments, is that it, and its not evidence if it tends to prove Bambers innocence...
You post some shite about this case. No wonder Bamber dumped you!!
-
There's an 'abundance of evidence supporting everything' I have said...
It's your interpretation of the evidence that is the problem. You really haven't got a clue have you? Bamber has used you for all these years, don't you feel a prize idiot?
-
I have seen them, and she had only been shot once by that stage...
Prize BOLLOCKS! ;D
You really must do better Mikey.
-
You post some shite about this case. No wonder Bamber dumped you!!
evening john ;)
-
evening john ;)
hi sami ;)
-
hi sami ;)
me and caroline have joined you in the call to see the photo of sheila on the bed ,but to no avail.would do so much for mikes credibilty if he could produce it
-
How about you producing some sensible posts,sami ? All you've done is to run Mike and myself down from day one,then merrily joined in with others who do the same.
I haven't seen anything constructive from you yet,you seem happier working in gangs,with gangs !!
-
How about you producing some sensible posts,sami ? All you've done is to run Mike and myself down from day one,then merrily joined in with others who do the same.
I haven't seen anything constructive from you yet,you seem happier working in gangs,with gangs !!
thats not true lookout ive posted on things i feel i know about and if someone makes a good point i tell them that ;)
-
i also dont mind addmiting it when iam wrong
-
as for me and mike we get on fine now
-
Which trial transcript, shall I post up next?
-
Which trial transcript, shall I post up next?
How about, B. R. Elliots testimony, dealing with the paint on the silencer, the window catch, and the hand swab evidence?
-
How about, B. R. Elliots testimony, dealing with the hand swab evidence?
on sheila mike please
-
Which trial transcript, shall I post up next?
Julie Mugford ;D
-
Before I go any further, I would just like to say that 'I don't have long left'. Soon, I will not be here, at least that's what I think...
I have had this 'overwhelming feeling' that my days are numbered...
Anyway, as a result, I promise to post up as much new information as possible so that 'others' who follow on behind me, can if necessary take up 'the cause'. With this in mind, I can tell each and everyone of you, that before my end of days comes to fruition, that I would like to hand over all the material in my possession, to a member of our forum. Somebody, as it were who is not afraid to say what needs to be said. I have'nt yet decided to whom I might trust the 50,000 documents to (some of them originals). It is a huge burden trying to fathom out who might be best placed to even want the burden of all this material in their possession. End of days is looming sharply, I can feel it in my bones...
Nothing you can post will ever change the fact that Bamber is guilty so I suggest you pack a suitcase and head to some lovely tropical destination and chill out. ;D
-
Before I go any further, I would just like to say that 'I don't have long left'. Soon, I will not be here, at least that's what I think...
I have had this 'overwhelming feeling' that my days are numbered...
Anyway, as a result, I promise to post up as much new information as possible so that 'others' who follow on behind me, can if necessary take up 'the cause'. With this in mind, I can tell each and everyone of you, that before my end of days comes to fruition, that I would like to hand over all the material in my possession, to a member of our forum. Somebody, as it were who is not afraid to say what needs to be said. I have'nt yet decided to whom I might trust the 50,000 documents to (some of them originals). It is a huge burden trying to fathom out who might be best placed to even want the burden of all this material in their possession. End of days is looming sharply, I can feel it in my bones...
lookout,david,or jackie are good candidates mike .but i feel theres a lot more life in the old dog yet ;)
-
Nothing you can post will ever change the fact that Bamber is guilty so I suggest you pack a suitcase and head to some lovely tropical destination and chill out. ;D
Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister, and he did 'not' stage her death scene, with the rifle from the window, that 'fact' is now established beyond doubt. It's all well and good you saying things like, 'so what, what if cops put the rifle on Sheila's body', are you for real. Can't you see how utterly ridiculous you are making yourself seem? Of course it makes a difference if cops brought the rifle from the window and 'planted it' on Sheila's body, followed by PC Bird who 'then' took photographs. What an utterly despicable character you are turning out to be. You remind me, of a corrupt copper, somebody who doesn't give a fuck about what they have to do, to guarantee securing a conviction at any cost. Times are changing, the public are getting wiser, slowly but surely the boot is on the other foot...
Were you an ex 'bent copper' by any chance?
-
Now you're really into cloud cuckoo land. You haven't got a baldy clue have you? ROFL
God help anyone who takes any notice of a xxxx xxxx xxxx like you...
-
How about, B. R. Elliots testimony, dealing with the paint on the silencer, the window catch, and the hand swab evidence?
I am ready to upload this testimony...
-
Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister, and he did 'not' stage her death scene, with the rifle from the window, that 'fact' is now established beyond doubt. It's all well and good you saying things like, 'so what, what if cops put the rifle on Sheila's body', are you for real. Can't you see how utterly ridiculous you are making yourself seem? Of course it makes a difference if cops brought the rifle from the window and 'planted it' on Sheila's body, followed by PC Bird who 'then' took photographs. What an utterly despicable character you are turning out to be. You remind me, of a corrupt copper, somebody who doesn't give a xxxx about what they have to do, to guarantee securing a conviction at any cost. Times are changing, the public are getting wiser, slowly but surely the boot is on the other foot...
Were you an ex 'bent copper' by any chance?
Yes he did shoot her and guess what, the evidence proves it. Have a nice holiday!
ps don't go climbing into any attics ;D ;D ;D
-
God help anyone who takes any notice of a xxxx xxxx xxxx like you...
You don't like the truth do you? You haven't provided the slightest piece of tangible evidence that Bamber is innocent in all the years you have been spouting this rubbish. Maybe it's time you retired...
-
Before I go any further, I would just like to say that 'I don't have long left'. Soon, I will not be here, at least that's what I think...
I have had this 'overwhelming feeling' that my days are numbered...
Anyway, as a result, I promise to post up as much new information as possible so that 'others' who follow on behind me, can if necessary take up 'the cause'. With this in mind, I can tell each and everyone of you, that before my end of days comes to fruition, that I would like to hand over all the material in my possession, to a member of our forum. Somebody, as it were who is not afraid to say what needs to be said. I have'nt yet decided to whom I might trust the 50,000 documents to (some of them originals). It is a huge burden trying to fathom out who might be best placed to even want the burden of all this material in their possession. End of days is looming sharply, I can feel it in my bones...
I'm just disappointed that you've had all of this data and spent so, so, so much time analysing it and coming up with theories without success, and then all of a sudden David turns up and uses the few documents available, that you yourself published, and totally gazumps you by finding the holy frail to set JB free.
You must be sick as a pigeon?
-
Julie Mugford ;D
He can't because he hasn't got it.
-
I am ready to upload this testimony...
-
I'm just disappointed that you've had all of this data and spent so, so, so much time analysing it and coming up with theories without success, and then all of a sudden David turns up and uses the few documents available, that you yourself published, and totally gazumps you by finding the holy frail to set JB free.
You must be sick as a pigeon?
;D ;D ;D in his dreams!!
-
He can't because he hasn't got it.
I have, but now you have tried to interfere, I shan't be posting it...
-
I'm just disappointed that you've had all of this data and spent so, so, so much time analysing it and coming up with theories without success, and then all of a sudden David turns up and uses the few documents available, that you yourself published, and totally gazumps you by finding the holy frail to set JB free.
You must be sick as a pigeon?
It's hard to understand this post H, get your tongue out of your cheek! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's hard to understand this post H, get your tongue out of your cheek! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry. :-[
-
I'm just disappointed that you've had all of this data and spent so, so, so much time analysing it and coming up with theories without success, and then all of a sudden David turns up and uses the few documents available, that you yourself published, and totally gazumps you by finding the holy frail to set JB free.
You must be sick as a pigeon?
Well, spoken, so you are now resigned to accepting Jeremy's innocence, what's it feel like to be a loser?
-
Well, spoken, so you are now resigned to accepting Jeremy's innocence, what's it feel like to be a loser?
I think there was quite a bit of sarcasm in H's post Mike.
-
I think there was quite a bit of sarcasm in H's post Mike.
I gathered that, like David Boutflour once said, 'nobody wins, we all lose'...
-
So, which trial transcript next?
-
So, which trial transcript next?
How about 'Julie Mugfords' trial testimony?
-
I gathered that, like David Boutflour once said, 'nobody wins, we all lose'...
Some more than others perhaps, the majority of us have nothing to gain and nothing to lose, it's just a forum which has an interesting subject, for one reason or another.
-
I gathered that, like David Boutflour once said, 'nobody wins, we all lose'...
To be fair, 'we' don't - we get on with out day to day lives. We just debate this case. It doesn't affect my life but I think at times people get too drawn in, I have myself from time to time but we need to keep things in perspective.
Don't you ever think 'why the hell do I bother'?
-
No, I am not posting it because of the attempt to undermine me...
-
To be fair, 'we' don't - we get on with out day to day lives. We just debate this case. It doesn't affect my life but I think at times people get too drawn in, I have myself from time to time but we need to keep things in perspective.
Don't you ever think 'why the hell do I bother'?
'Sometimes', I do yeah, but...
-
I have, but now you have tried to interfere, I shan't be posting it...
Pretty poor show Mike, you can fool some of the people some of the time... ;D
-
That transcript of the trial testimony by forensic scientist Brian Elliott certainly excludes Sheila from any involvement as both her hands were almost lead free proving she could not have loaded cartridges into the magazine but then we already knew that.
Back to the drawing board Mike!
-
I often sit alone during the night hours, with a smart glass of 'Bushmills' nector, and contemplate whether or not, everything I have put myself through just to get to the truth in this case, has been worth it?
Many times, I have been left thinking that having to deal with all this aggravation, isn't worth the input and the concern invested, but in my heart of hearts, I know that somebody has to try to get to the truth, I would never have been able to forgive myself if I hadn't gone that extra mile...
I know the truth about what really happened inside whf that night, but many of you can only guess...
-
That transcript of the trial testimony by forensic scientist Brian Elliott certainly excludes Sheila from any involvement as both her hands were almost lead free proving she could not have loaded cartridges into the magazine but then we already knew that.
Back to the drawing board Mike!
The fingers of Sheila's right hand, were 'wiped' on the front lower right hand side of her blue nightdress, so prey tell us all, how you have arrived at 'your theory'?
-
Sheila, wiped the fingers of the hand she loaded the additional rounds into the gun, so what explanation can you now offer to make sense of the experiment conducted by lab' volunteers, who 'did not' wipe their own hands after loading rounds into the ammunition magazine of the gun?
Oh, dear...
-
Next, trial transcript up, the pathologist, Peter Venezis:-
-
I often sit alone during the night hours, with a smart glass of 'Bushmills' nector, and contemplate whether or not, everything I have put myself through just to get to the truth in this case, has been worth it?
Many times, I have been left thinking that having to deal with all this aggravation, isn't worth the input and the concern invested, but in my heart of hearts, I know that somebody has to try to get to the truth, I would never have been able to forgive myself if I hadn't gone that extra mile...
I know the truth about what really happened inside whf that night, but many of you can only guess...
:(
-
That transcript of the trial testimony by forensic scientist Brian Elliott certainly excludes Sheila from any involvement as both her hands were almost lead free proving she could not have loaded cartridges into the magazine but then we already knew that.
Back to the drawing board Mike!
I am afraid you are significantly wrong, since (a) none of the volunteers fired the rifle after loading any of the bullets (whereas, Sheila did) and (b) all the volunteers loaded significantly more rounds into the magazine during the tests they conducted (than Sheila would have handled through the necessity to reload), and (c) none of the volunteers wiped the key fingers of the hand they had used to load rounds into the ammunition magazine, upon an item of their own clothing (which in Sheila's case was the front lower right part of her blue nightie)...
Failure by any of the volunteers at (a) removed the risk of contamination that had got onto their fingers during the loading process being systematically 'wiped' each time they had activated the trigger mechanism by a process of repeated friction between a volunteers index finger and the trigger mechanism. The fact that volunteers (b) loaded more bullets (18) than Sheila would have had to have handled and reloaded (14) was not reflected in the figures relied upon in the test results. Since, none of the volunteers 'wiped the key fingers of their hands (c) after completion of the exercise, nor were any of the volunteers hands or fingers masked by the presence blood upon their own hands / key fingers. Seems to me that these so called 'comparison tests, were badly handled, and the results obtained from these tests were 'misused', and very misleading in their execution...
-
Next, trial transcript up, the pathologist, Peter Venezis:-
Please note, that page number 8 of the transcript is missing (I have not removed it) - it may well be somewhere mixed up with other documents in my possession and if I come across it I will endeavour to attach it at the bottom of this post...
-
I found the following black and white image of the bedroom photograph with the clock on June Bambers bedside cabinet, where in the colour version of a similar photograph (it could be the actual photograph), the bodies of Sheila and June have been blacked out for reasons of decency). I am posting this here with the other coloured image to give everybody peace of mind with regard to 'were the bodies there in the colour image, or has it been made to look like bodies were still there'. Rest assured the bodies of Sheila, and June, were present in the colour version, exactly as shown in the black and white one (photo' took at just after 10.20am)...
'The devil is in the detail'...
-
'Ron' Cook and 'David' Birds account about moving Sheila's hand, so that PC Bird could photograph the bloodied finger marks on the front lower part of Sheila's nightdress is an 'interesting' feature in the grand scheme of things to do with the staging of Sheila Caffells death scene by the cops. According to both, Cook only moved Sheila's hand, nothing else, not the rifle, not the nightdress, but I think these next two images that were 'captured' on the same 'negative strip' (0034) illustrate the fine line between somebody trying to tell the truth with a lie, and the devil in the deep blue sea...
Cook did 'not' only move Sheila Caffells hand, he also 'moved' her arm, and disturbed her nightdress, which 'he tucked beneath her body'. The barrel end of the rifle was also moved slightly into a different position, as shown in photographs before Cook supposedly only moved her hand, and afterwards...
-
That transcript of the trial testimony by forensic scientist Brian Elliott certainly excludes Sheila from any involvement as both her hands were almost lead free proving she could not have loaded cartridges into the magazine but then we already knew that.
Back to the drawing board Mike!
john when i mentioned the above to david he replyed the 22.bullets used had bees wax on them not oil or lead.which i find strange
-
I found the following black and white image of the bedroom photograph with the clock on June Bambers bedside cabinet, where in the colour version of a similar photograph (it could be the actual photograph), the bodies of Sheila and June have been blacked out for reasons of decency). I am posting this here with the other coloured image to give everybody peace of mind with regard to 'were the bodies there in the colour image, or has it been made to look like bodies were still there'. Rest assured the bodies of Sheila, and June, were present in the colour version, exactly as shown in the black and white one (photo' took at just after 10.20am)...
'The devil is in the detail'...
mike we want to see the photo of sheila lying on the bed.lots of people have asked.but you dont post it 'why'
-
We have also heard, by reference to the testimony of 'Ron' Cook, and 'David Bird, that Cook removed the anshuzt rifle from the body at 11.10am, that morning, and that no-one had touched the rifle prior to that stage. No-one, as it were had checked it to see whether it was still loaded, or even taken measures to make it safe. We know that this cannot possibly be true, because 'that' rifle was photographed leaning against the 'main bedroom window (refer photograph, 23 of negative strip 0012), by PC Bird (SOCO) before he took photographs of it on Sheila's body (refer photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of negative strip 0034). There still exists some confusion as to which upstairs window Sheila had 'showed off' the rifle at around 7.15am, a rifle that was seen by both WPC Jeapes, and PC Brown. I will return to that matter shortly, but first please understand that cops only ever found 'one rifle' upstairs during their search that morning. So, if the only rifle that was upstairs had been 'shown off' at any one of the upstairs windows, does it not suggest in the strongest terms imaginable to man or beast, that there was somebody alive, inside the farmhouse at 'that' time (7.15am), and beyond? How utterly remarkable, therefore, that the only rifle found upstairs at the scene just so happens to get photographed in Sheila Caffells possession at around 10.20am...
If 'that' rifle had not been 'shown off' at the main bedroom window, but say another room upstairs, then what that means, is that cops must have brought 'that' rifle from the 'other upstairs room, into the main bedroom, and physically planted it upon Sheila's body. Indeed, during the 'familiars' exercise, cops had brought 'that' rifle to Sheila's body, placed it in her possession in the mistaken belief that she was already dead, and the weapon got discharged firing the so called fatal bullet that lodged in her brain. The rifle was 'then' placed at the main bedroom window where it remained until a short while after PC Bird photographed it there with photograph, 23 of negative 0012. We know or at least we have been told that 'Ron' Cook himself had removed 'that' rifle from Sheila's body at 11.10am, and with the assistance of PI Montgomery, how it had been checked at 'that' stage, made safe, given back to Cook, and how Cook had then replaced it at the main bedroom window. But hang on a minute, PS Woodcock states that 'he had removed the rifle from Sheila's body, that he had checked it and made the weapon safe...
Two different firearm officers, checking the anshuzt rifle, and making it safe after 'it' had been removed from Sheila's body, with only one of these two named officers being named by 'Ron' Cook as having done so in his presence. Now, 'Ron' Cook did not arrive at the scene until 9.20am, by which stage the rifle had already been brought from an upstairs window onto Sheila's body, and discharged killing her with certainty. Once the shot had been fired, it is understood that PS Woodcock removed the rifle at that stage, checked it, and made it safe, before placing it at the main bedroom window, where it remained until just before 10.20am, when 'somebody' brought it from the bedroom window 'after' PC Bird had captured its presence there in photograph, 23 of negative strip 0012, and proceeded to place 'it' into Sheila's possession so that PC Bird (SOCO) could get 'the position of the gun right on the body' - that's what 'Ron' Cook told PC Bird, when he had allowed PC Bird into the farmhouse for the very first time. He had said to PC Bird, 'make sure you get the position of the rifle right on the body'...
How utterly amazing, that Cook should admit 'that' to PC Bird (SOCO), 'make sure you get the position of the rifle right on the body'...
Cook told PC Bird that because Cook knew by 'that' stage the anshuzt rifle was not with the body. That rifle was leaning against the main bedroom window, where PS Woodcock had placed it soon after 9.13am, when it had discharged a round under Sheila's chin...
-
john when i mentioned the above to david he replyed the 22.bullets used had bees wax on them not oil or lead.which i find strange
The Eley Rimmington .22 rim fired ammo used for the shooting was wax coated sami. The wax is believed to make the shots more accurate..
-
The Eley Rimmington .22 rim fired ammo used for the shooting was wax coated sami. The wax is believed to make the shots more accurate..
thank you maggie ,i wasnt sure. appoliges to david ;)
-
mike we want to see the photo of sheila lying on the bed.lots of people have asked.but you dont post it 'why'
Yes, I am sure you do, and what is more, no doubt its 'existence' will be forming part of Jeremy's forthcoming appeal. What I can tell you all is that 'Sheila's body was captured in the crime scene video footage on the bed' and ' the moment cops moved her body to the bedroom floor' was also recorded, including the 'bringing of the anshuzt rifle to her body at 'that' stage, and the audible sound when the rifle in question discharged the fatal shot beneath her chin. 'Informatives', that was when cops killed Sheila. They don't want to talk about it. They have denied that video footage of that incident even exists, but the CCRC have it. If these bad apple cops had got nothing to hide they would have 'fessed up' 30 years ago. The CCRC had every reason for Jeremy not to be able to see those images captured in that footage, because bad apple cops were arranging Sheila's body and clothing in provocative positions for their own morbid sexual pleasures. Her body (former model) was a prize to them. Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister dead on the bedroom floor, or stage his sisters body with the anshuzt rifle from the window. She was killed during the aforementioned exercise. They moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor because top dog cop, 'Taff' Jones had just arrived at the scene, and the bad apple cops who abused Sheila's corpse, did not want top dog cop to see what they had been getting up to. They even abused Ralph Bambers body (Chairman of Witham Bench) by yanking down his pyjama bottoms and filmed him as though that had been how his body had been found. No wonder the CCRC wouldn't let Jeremy see the images contained in that footage...
-
The Eley Rimmington .22 rim fired ammo used for the shooting was wax coated sami. The wax is believed to make the shots more accurate..
maggie would she not have wax on her hands.wax is similar to oil .it leaves a coating on the hands
-
maggie would she not have wax on her hands.wax is similar to oil .it leaves a coating on the hands
Yes it does, I have some bees wax candles and it's quite soft.
-
Yes, I am sure you do, and what is more, no doubt its 'existence' will be forming part of Jeremy's forthcoming appeal. What I can tell you all is that 'Sheila's body was captured in the crime scene video footage on the bed' and ' the moment cops moved her body to the bedroom floor' was also recorded, including the 'bringing of the anshuzt rifle to her body at 'that' stage, and the audible sound when the rifle in question discharged the fatal shot beneath her chin. 'Informatives', that was when cops killed Sheila. They don't want to talk about it. They have denied that video footage of that incident even exists, but the CCRC have it. If these bad apple cops had got nothing to hide they would have 'fessed up' 30 years ago. The CCRC had every reason for Jeremy not to be able to see those images captured in that footage, because bad apple cops were arranging Sheila's body and clothing in provocative positions for their own morbid sexual pleasures. Her body (former model) was a prize to them. Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister dead on the bedroom floor, or stage his sisters body with the anshuzt rifle from the window. She was killed during the aforementioned exercise. They moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor because top dog cop, 'Taff' Jones had just arrived at the scene, and the bad apple cops who abused Sheila's corpse, did not want top dog cop to see what they had been getting up to. They even abused Ralph Bambers body (Chairman of Witham Bench) by yanking down his pyjama bottoms and filmed him as though that had been how his body had been found. No wonder the CCRC wouldn't let Jeremy see the images contained in that footage...
mike that might just free him if the ccrc have got it
-
i must add i cant believe police would be playing around with a loaded rifle or doing any placing with it .imo
-
mike that might just free him if the ccrc have got it
Yes, they have...
-
Yes, they have...
in that case youve got em mike
-
i must add i cant believe police would be playing around with a loaded rifle or doing any placing with it .imo
You don't believe cops would be playing around with a loaded rifle? How about 'they didn't realise it was a loaded weapon'?
Ok, lets approach the subject from a different angle...
Cops enter farmhouse at just after 7.30am, rifle has been put 'on show' at an upstairs window (I could argue which one, but what is the point, it matters not which upstairs window the rifle is 'shown at', all that matters is that 'it' was shown by somebody who was alive inside the farmhouse at 7.15am). Rifle (not a shotgun) is 'presented at the window' as a 'gesture of goodwill', a signal to the cops that the perpetrator was ready to capitulate, and more importantly allow access to the farmhouse of the ambulance crews to tend to the injured. Now, no sooner does somebody who must be alive by that stage 'show the rifle' at an upstairs window, than armed cops start to approach the farmhouse, not the ambulance or its crew...
Are you with me, thus far?
-
Cops 'betrayed' the trust they had negotiated, and tried to trick their way into the farmhouse, demonstrating that they cared very little, if anything at all, for any victim who was injured inside that farmhouse...
There was only one reason why armed cops 'betrayed' the negotiated truce, and it was not with trying to protect life, it can't have been, otherwise they would have 'sent in the ambulance which had been requested, with its crew to tend to the needy'. No, armed cops had only one thing in their minds, they were going to teach the 'goddam bitch' inside that farmhouse, that if you fuck with armed cops, you had better be prepared for a war'...
That's the way I see it...
I see it that way because despite what you might think, bad apple cops tell lies all of the time. Especially, a bad apple cop in possession of a loaded firearm...
-
You don't believe cops would be playing around with a loaded rifle? How about 'they didn't realise it was a loaded weapon'?
Ok, lets approach the subject from a different angle...
Cops enter farmhouse at just after 7.30am, rifle has been put 'on show' at an upstairs window (I could argue which one, but what is the point, it matters not which upstairs window the rifle is 'shown at', all that matters is that 'it' was shown by somebody who was alive inside the farmhouse at 7.15am). Rifle (not a shotgun) is 'presented at the window' as a 'gesture of goodwill', a signal to the cops that the perpetrator was ready to capitulate, and more importantly allow access to the farmhouse of the ambulance crews to tend to the injured. Now, no sooner does somebody who must be alive by that stage 'show the rifle' at an upstairs window, than armed cops start to approach the farmhouse, not the ambulance or its crew...
Are you with me, thus far?
i see what you mean
-
Cops 'betrayed' the trust they had negotiated, and tried to trick their way into the farmhouse, demonstrating that they cared very little, if anything at all, for any victim who was injured inside that farmhouse...
There was only one reason why armed cops 'betrayed' the negotiated truce, and it was not with trying to protect life, it can't have been, otherwise they would have 'sent in the ambulance which had been requested, with its crew to tend to the needy'. No, armed cops had only one thing in their minds, they were going to teach the 'goddam bitch' inside that farmhouse, that if you fuck with armed cops, you had better be prepared for a war'...
That's the way I see it...
I see it that way because despite what you might think, bad apple cops tell lies all of the time. Especially, a bad apple cop in possession of a loaded firearm...
murdering bastards
-
Cops 'betrayed' the trust they had negotiated, and tried to trick their way into the farmhouse, demonstrating that they cared very little, if anything at all, for any victim who was injured inside that farmhouse...
There was only one reason why armed cops 'betrayed' the negotiated truce, and it was not with trying to protect life, it can't have been, otherwise they would have 'sent in the ambulance which had been requested, with its crew to tend to the needy'. No, armed cops had only one thing in their minds, they were going to teach the 'goddam bitch' inside that farmhouse, that if you fuck with armed cops, you had better be prepared for a war'...
That's the way I see it...
I see it that way because despite what you might think, bad apple cops tell lies all of the time. Especially, a bad apple cop in possession of a loaded firearm...
I'll say it, as I truly believe it to be true...
PC Collins, was a bad apple cop in possession of a loaded firearm, he was 'unfit' to be given possession of a loaded firearm. Why? Well, the 'cracker jack officer' was clearly prepared to lie for the cause, and that makes him 'unsuitable', for him to be trusted with a loaded firearm. PS Woodcock, might as well have been one of the senior officers at 'Hillsboro' altering his witness statement to conceal what truly took place. Where are the original notes, of the substituted pages of his witness statement which deal with what really happened as he went around the edge of the internal kitchen door with the barrel of his gun having been 'grabbed' by Sheila, and he in a position at first, where he had no control of whether he could shoot her dead, or not...
He had no self - control because of the fact that until he physically got into the kitchen, he couldn't shoot Sheila, even if he had wanted to, by virtue of the fact that the muzzle end of his guns barrel was always pointing in the wrong direction, away from Sheila, until he got around the leading edge of 'that' door...
-
I'll say it, as I truly believe it to be true...
PC Collins, was a bad apple cop in possession of a loaded firearm, he was 'unfit' to be given possession of a loaded firearm. Why? Well, the 'cracker jack officer' was clearly prepared to lie for the cause, and that makes him 'unsuitable', for him to be trusted with a loaded firearm. PS Woodcock, might as well have been one of the senior officers at 'Hillsboro' altering his witness statement to conceal what truly took place. Where are the original notes, of the substituted pages of his witness statement which deal with what really happened as he went around the edge of the internal kitchen door with the barrel of his gun having been 'grabbed' by Sheila, and he in a position at first, where he had no control of whether he could shoot her dead, or not...
He had no self - control because of the fact that until he physically got into the kitchen, he couldn't shoot Sheila, even if he had wanted to, by virtue of the fact that the muzzle end of his guns barrel was always pointing in the wrong direction, away from Sheila, until he got around the leading edge of 'that' door...
i see what your saying
-
The way I see how it panned out, the way I see how it panned out, is like 'the waving of a white flag by the enemy', an enemy which has realised it cannot win, demoralised to the extent that they embarrassingly 'capitulate', they fly 'the flag of honour' with courage in that moment of defeat, expecting the 'victors', or the one who can taste 'victory', to be merciful, and sympathetic. Until ''that' moment, everyone's life hangs in the balance. life and death, could go this way, or that way in a shoot out...
It takes 'guts' to surrender...
-
The way I see how it panned out, the way I see how it panned out, is like 'the waving of a white flag by the enemy', an enemy which has realised it cannot win, demoralised to the extent that they embarrassingly 'capitulate', they fly 'the flag of honour' with courage in that moment of defeat, expecting the 'victors', or the one who can taste 'victory', to be merciful, and sympathetic. Until ''that' moment, everyone's life hangs in the balance. life and death, could go this way, or that way in a shoot out...
It takes 'guts' to surrender...
But it was the under the chin shot that was fatal, not the neck shot.
-
The way I see how it panned out, the way I see how it panned out, is like 'the waving of a white flag by the enemy', an enemy which has realised it cannot win, demoralised to the extent that they embarrassingly 'capitulate', they fly 'the flag of honour' with courage in that moment of defeat, expecting the 'victors', or the one who can taste 'victory', to be merciful, and sympathetic. Until ''that' moment, everyone's life hangs in the balance. life and death, could go this way, or that way in a shoot out...
It takes 'guts' to surrender...
Which is 'all the more' reason, for the defeated to take on a 'stance' of horror at being fooled and deceived by 'the enemy', into thinking that the enemy might honour the display of a 'white flag' type gesture, yet suddenly find themselves 'consumed' by the 'true nature' in the mindset of the enemy, 'concur, subdue, annihilate the enemy', at all costs, no matter what atrocities need to be committed, 'we can justify what we do, and what we have done, because 'we are the victors', and as everyone knows, it is from the side of the 'victors', that history is recorded...
-
Which is 'all the more' reason, for the defeated to take on a 'stance' of horror at being fooled and deceived by 'the enemy', into thinking that the enemy might honour the display of a 'white flag' type gesture, yet suddenly find themselves 'consumed' by the 'true nature' in the mindset of the enemy, 'concur, subdue, annihilate the enemy', at all costs, no matter what atrocities need to be committed, 'we can justify what we do, and what we have done, because 'we are the victors', and as everyone knows, it is from the side of the 'victors', that history is recorded...
well said mike. here here
-
Which is 'all the more' reason, for the defeated to take on a 'stance' of horror at being fooled and deceived by 'the enemy', into thinking that the enemy might honour the display of a 'white flag' type gesture, yet suddenly find themselves 'consumed' by the 'true nature' in the mindset of the enemy, 'concur, subdue, annihilate the enemy', at all costs, no matter what atrocities need to be committed, 'we can justify what we do, and what we have done, because 'we are the victors', and as everyone knows, it is from the side of the 'victors', that history is recorded...
Not always a good thing, look at American history - accounts written about the native American people have been re-written. History can be biased by an individuals view point at the time of writing.
-
Not always a good thing, look at American history - accounts written about the native American people have been re-written. History can be biased by an individuals view point at the time of writing.
Yeah. That's what often happens when the victors get to write the history of the vanquished, Caroline.
-
sorry everyone if iam a bit confused today ive been on the sauce .still abit groggy
-
sorry everyone if iam a bit confused today ive been on the sauce .still abit groggy
Tell us what's confusing you Sami. We'll see if we can sort you out :)
-
Ok, this is the way I view this particular case - Bamber is convicted, we start to believe everything that the prosecution has been saying, because, 'they won'...
-
Ok, this is the way I view this particular case - Bamber is convicted, we start to believe everything that the prosecution has been saying, because, 'they won'...
We all tend to believe that something is 'true' because. 'somebody won', and 'somebody lost'...
-
We all tend to believe that something is 'true' because. 'somebody won', and 'somebody lost'...
Sometimes, 'it is not always true', that 'what the winners say is true', but moreover, that what the losers say, has more 'truth' in it...
-
Sometimes, 'it is not always true', that 'what the winners say is true', but moreover, that what the losers say, has more 'truth' in it...
Did Jeremy Bamber kill his sister, 'No, Sir'...
-
Did Jeremy Bamber, stage his sisters, death scene?
'No,Sir'...
-
Did Jeremy Bamber, stage his sisters, death scene?
'No,Sir'...
Was, Jeremy Bamber, involved in the 'murder of his sister'?
No, Sir, 'He was not'...
-
Who, 'shot Sheila'?
'Cops, did'...
-
Did, 'Jeremy Bamber, legitimately pass the lie detector test'?
Yes...
-
Did, 'Jeremy Bamber, legitimately pass the lie detector test'?
Yes...
'Why, did he pass the lie detector test'?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, 'he was telling the truth'...
-
'Why, did he pass the lie detector test'?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, 'he was telling the truth'...
He, 'was telling the truth'...
-
Tell us what's confusing you Sami. We'll see if we can sort you out :)
if thinks mikes hypnotized me
-
That transcript of the trial testimony by forensic scientist Brian Elliott certainly excludes Sheila from any involvement as both her hands were almost lead free proving she could not have loaded cartridges into the magazine but then we already knew that.
Back to the drawing board Mike!
As I have pointed out to you before, .22 rim-fire ammunition does not use a conventional propellant that centre fire ammunition used rendering the tests useless. The American authorities never fully realised this until 1989 and got the manufactures to include the ingrediants that would work.
Here is part of page 208 of the book Forensic Science From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab by RICHARD SAFERSTEIN, PH.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel
(http://s11.postimg.org/ewxixnk1v/gsu1.jpg)
However, hand swabbing or the application of an adhesive cannot be
used to detect firings of most .22-caliber rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s
primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony
Here is an extract of page 101 of Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis by
A. J. Schwoeble and David L. Exline forensic scientists at RJ Lee Group
(http://s14.postimg.org/v2w82kir5/gsu2.jpg)
The manufactures of Remington rimfire ammunition is ELEY LTD
(http://s21.postimg.org/ykwtni7on/gsr3.jpg)
-
As I have pointed out to you before, .22 rim-fire ammunition does not use a conventional propellant that centre fire ammunition used rendering the tests useless. The American authorities never fully realised this until 1989 and got the manufactures to include the ingrediants that would work.
Here is part of page 208 of the book Forensic Science From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab by RICHARD SAFERSTEIN, PH.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel
(http://s11.postimg.org/ewxixnk1v/gsu1.jpg)
However, hand swabbing or the application of an adhesive cannot be
used to detect firings of most .22-caliber rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s
primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony
Here is an extract of page 101 of Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis by
A. J. Schwoeble and David L. Exline forensic scientists at RJ Lee Group
(http://s14.postimg.org/v2w82kir5/gsu2.jpg)
The manufactures of Remington rimfire ammunition is ELEY LTD
(http://s21.postimg.org/ykwtni7on/gsr3.jpg)
she should have had beeswax on her hands from loading the rifle beeswax is the same thing as oil.had they found beeswax would they not have mentioned it
-
'Why, did he pass the lie detector test'?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, 'he was telling the truth'...
There is no such thing as a lie detector - it's a polygraph and it measures stress and anxiety.
-
As I have pointed out to you before, .22 rim-fire ammunition does not use a conventional propellant that centre fire ammunition used rendering the tests useless. The American authorities never fully realised this until 1989 and got the manufactures to include the ingrediants that would work.
Here is part of page 208 of the book Forensic Science From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab by RICHARD SAFERSTEIN, PH.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel
(http://s11.postimg.org/ewxixnk1v/gsu1.jpg)
However, hand swabbing or the application of an adhesive cannot be
used to detect firings of most .22-caliber rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s
primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony
Here is an extract of page 101 of Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis by
A. J. Schwoeble and David L. Exline forensic scientists at RJ Lee Group
(http://s14.postimg.org/v2w82kir5/gsu2.jpg)
The manufactures of Remington rimfire ammunition is ELEY LTD
(http://s21.postimg.org/ykwtni7on/gsr3.jpg)
Well done, David - much respect...
-
There is no such thing as a lie detector - it's a polygraph and it measures stress and anxiety.
OK, the UK expert who performed the test, has gone on 'record' as saying that he 'believes Jeremy has told the truth' in response to the questions 'he has asked of him', and the 'answers he has given'...
Was the expert, right, or wrong?
Under the circumstances, 'did Jeremy lie'?
Or, 'did he tell the truth'...
-
This man (Jeremy Bamber) wasn't clever enough to carry out the murders in the way alleged by the prosecutions case, back in August, 1985. He was not intelligent enough, and did not possesses what it 'might take' to almost be 'the person capable of executing the near perfect murders'. For my part (since 1989, onward) Jeremy was incapable of being the 'intelligent monster' that police and the prosecution made him out to be. I found him to be 'lacking in status', 'not' to 'be that person', either 'intellectually', or 'psychologically', he would in my estimation have qualified to be nothing more than 'an amateur', the 'total opposite' to the kind of person required for him to be, to have carried out the 'atrocities' he has been accused and 'convicted' of having committed...
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would place 'Jeremy' at level 2 of being 'involved' in the shootings of his family...
Basically put, he was 'too thick' to have had the ability to have even attempted to 'carry out the murders' he has been 'accused of committing', and 'carried out'...
-
This man (Jeremy Bamber) wasn't clever enough to carry out the murders in the way alleged by the prosecutions case, back in August, 1985. He was not intelligent enough, and did not possesses what it 'might take' to almost be 'the person capable of executing the near perfect murders'. For my part (since 1989, onward) Jeremy was incapable of being the 'intelligent monster' that police and the prosecution made him out to be. I found him to be 'lacking in status', 'not' to 'be that person', either 'intellectually', or 'psychologically', he would in my estimation have qualified to be nothing more than 'an amateur', the 'total opposite' to the kind of person required for him to be, to have carried out the 'atrocities' he has been accused and 'convicted' of having committed...
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would place 'Jeremy' at level 2 of being 'involved' in the shootings of his family...
Basically put, he was 'too thick' to have had the ability to have even attempted to 'carry out the murders' he has been 'accused of committing', and 'carried out'...
Removed from the stifling, bragging atmosphere of Gresham's he did settle down to work at Colchester College, where he achieved 7 "0" Levels-no mean feat. If someone had the time, the nous and the motive they could well have planned this crime over a period of months as he mulled things over during solitary rides of the tractor..
-
This man (Jeremy Bamber) wasn't clever enough to carry out the murders in the way alleged by the prosecutions case, back in August, 1985. He was not intelligent enough, and did not possesses what it 'might take' to almost be 'the person capable of executing the near perfect murders'. For my part (since 1989, onward) Jeremy was incapable of being the 'intelligent monster' that police and the prosecution made him out to be. I found him to be 'lacking in status', 'not' to 'be that person', either 'intellectually', or 'psychologically', he would in my estimation have qualified to be nothing more than 'an amateur', the 'total opposite' to the kind of person required for him to be, to have carried out the 'atrocities' he has been accused and 'convicted' of having committed...
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would place 'Jeremy' at level 2 of being 'involved' in the shootings of his family...
Basically put, he was 'too thick' to have had the ability to have even attempted to 'carry out the murders' he has been 'accused of committing', and 'carried out'...
I have been 'incarcerated' with hundreds of people who have had 'the misfortune' to have killed people. Whether it be by 'acts of terrorism', 'spontaneous', or 'domestically orientated'...
Jeremy Bamber has come across to me, as 'being someone' lacking in the 'know how', intellectual and psychologically, of being 'capable' of having involvement in 'this type of' murder...
-
Removed from the stifling, bragging atmosphere of Gresham's he did settle down to work at Colchester College, where he achieved 7 "0" Levels-no mean feat. If someone had the time, the nous and the motive they could well have planned this crime over a period of months as he mulled things over during solitary rides of the tractor..
'Street wise', Jeremy Bamber was 'a wassock'. He was 'pathetic', a person who thought he was better than the average 'Joe', simply because he 'had people from a good background, behind him'...
-
This man (Jeremy Bamber) wasn't clever enough to carry out the murders in the way alleged by the prosecutions case, back in August, 1985. He was not intelligent enough, and did not possesses what it 'might take' to almost be 'the person capable of executing the near perfect murders'. For my part (since 1989, onward) Jeremy was incapable of being the 'intelligent monster' that police and the prosecution made him out to be. I found him to be 'lacking in status', 'not' to 'be that person', either 'intellectually', or 'psychologically', he would in my estimation have qualified to be nothing more than 'an amateur', the 'total opposite' to the kind of person required for him to be, to have carried out the 'atrocities' he has been accused and 'convicted' of having committed...
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would place 'Jeremy' at level 2 of being 'involved' in the shootings of his family...
Basically put, he was 'too thick' to have had the ability to have even attempted to 'carry out the murders' he has been 'accused of committing', and 'carried out'...
mike calling a friend a' thick' thats not very nice
-
mike calling a friend a' thick' thats not very nice
Sorry you take 'that view'...
I have many 'thick' friends, I do not describe them as such, detrimentally. I am just pointing out, that 'some of us have it, others, 'don't'...
-
Jeremy Bamber hasn't got it in him, to have been 'the killer'...
-
I 'know the profile', of a potential killer, 'Jeremy Bamber', doesn't fit into my 'category of being a killer'...
Ok, just for the record, I can tell you that 'I have personal experience' of having had 'contact' with many persons accused, and convicted, of 'murdering people'. Be it an 'individual murder', or 'mass murder'...
-
'Street wise', Jeremy Bamber was 'a wassock'. He was 'pathetic', a person who thought he was better than the average 'Joe', simply because he 'had people from a good background, behind him'...
This might all be true, but look at his allotted lifestyle compared to that which he craved. He saw a means to an end and he took it.
-
I 'prefer not to go into details', but rest assured 'I know what it takes, to know' what it takes to 'be a killer'...
-
This man (Jeremy Bamber) wasn't clever enough to carry out the murders in the way alleged by the prosecutions case, back in August, 1985. He was not intelligent enough, and did not possesses what it 'might take' to almost be 'the person capable of executing the near perfect murders'. For my part (since 1989, onward) Jeremy was incapable of being the 'intelligent monster' that police and the prosecution made him out to be. I found him to be 'lacking in status', 'not' to 'be that person', either 'intellectually', or 'psychologically', he would in my estimation have qualified to be nothing more than 'an amateur', the 'total opposite' to the kind of person required for him to be, to have carried out the 'atrocities' he has been accused and 'convicted' of having committed...
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would place 'Jeremy' at level 2 of being 'involved' in the shootings of his family...
Basically put, he was 'too thick' to have had the ability to have even attempted to 'carry out the murders' he has been 'accused of committing', and 'carried out'...
I've got in on a 9.5 - I agree that he wasn't clever enough to get away with it - which is why he didn't.
-
This might all be true, but look at his allotted lifestyle compared to that which he craved. He saw a means to an end and he took it.
You are 'attributing' to him, 'abilities' he simply did 'not possesses', by August, 1985...
-
You are 'attributing' to him, 'abilities' he simply did 'not possesses', by August, 1985...
What, he is like now (2016), is totally different to what he was like, in 'August, 1985'...
-
You are 'attributing' to him, 'abilities' he simply did 'not possesses', by August, 1985...
Well, not according to people who knew him at that time.
-
Well, not according to people who knew him at that time.
I 'knew' Jeremy from 1989 to 1990, (until early, 2004)...
Who are 'you referring to'?
Provide their names, and I will give my 'analysis' of 'them'...
-
I've got in on a 9.5 - I agree that he wasn't clever enough to get away with it - which is why he didn't.
The argument mike is putting forward is that he wasn't clever enough to formulate and engineer such a performance in the first place
-
The argument mike is putting forward is that he wasn't clever enough to formulate and engineer such a performance in the first place
I agree, Jeremy Bamber, was ' too thick, to have done 'what he was accused of doing', for him to have 'been the killer'...
-
Ok, just for the record, I have met many and many of people who 'killed people' in one way or another. All these 'murderers' do 'not fit' the profile of that which 'I' attribute to 'Jeremy'...
-
I agree, Jeremy Bamber, was ' too thick, to have done 'what he was accused of doing', for him to have 'been the killer'...
i disagree jb put in a masterful perfomance after robbing the caravan park ;)
-
I 'knew' Jeremy from 1989 to 1990, (until early, 2004)...
Who are 'you referring to'?
Provide their names, and I will give my 'analysis' of 'them'...
Well your analysis won't mean anything as you don't know them - only what you have read or Jeremy has told you.
-
Please allow me to name b'' ut a few of the 'killers' I have personal knowlege about...
(1) -''the black panther'...
(2) - 'Balcom Street, 'IRA' terrorists'
(3) - 'Captain', bomb delivery via postal service'
(4) - 'UDA', activists...
(5) - 'Other, cases, too many to list, individually...
-
Please allow me to name b'' ut a few of the 'killers' I have personal knowlege about...
(1) -''the black panther'...
(2) - 'Balcom Street, 'IRA' terrorists'
(3) - 'Captain', bomb delivery via postal service'
(4) - 'UDA', activists...
(5) - 'Other, cases, too many to list, individually...
mike your wasting your talent on here you should write a book.'killers ive known'would be a good title ;)
-
Well your analysis won't mean anything as you don't know them - only what you have read or Jeremy has told you.
I 'beg to differ'...
I have been described by the authorities, as 'a career criminal',' incorrigible', and incapable of being 'rehabilitated'...
Now, that 'entitles me', to be in a position, to form an opinion, about 'other' offenders...
How else, can anybody claim to be 'an expert', in this field?
-
I 'beg to differ'...
I have been described by the authorities, as 'a career criminal',' incorrigible', and incapable of being 'rehabilitated'...
Now, that 'entitles me', to be in a position, to form an opinion, about 'other' offenders...
How else, can anybody claim to be 'an expert', in this field?
if true it also entitles you to a bed at the scrubs.'wormwood'
-
I 'beg to differ'...
I have been described by the authorities, as 'a career criminal',' incorrigible', and incapable of being 'rehabilitated'...
Now, that 'entitles me', to be in a position, to form an opinion, about 'other' offenders...
How else, can anybody claim to be 'an expert', in this field?
Am I a career Criminal?
Am I an incorrigible criminal?
Is it 'impossible' for someone of my elk, to be 'rehabilitated'?
Does my position, in the 'grand scheme of things', entitle me to a worthwhile opinion?
Of course, it does...
-
I 'beg to differ'...
I have been described by the authorities, as 'a career criminal',' incorrigible', and incapable of being 'rehabilitated'...
Now, that 'entitles me', to be in a position, to form an opinion, about 'other' offenders...
How else, can anybody claim to be 'an expert', in this field?
We're all entitled to form an opinion Mike. Besides, you don't know what experiences the rest of us have had - the circles we have moved in and the people we have known or know.
-
if true it also entitles you to a bed at the scrubs.'wormwood'
'Yes', back in those dark days, but 'not now'...
-
We're all entitled to form an opinion Mike. Besides, you don't know what experiences the rest of us have had - the circles we have moved in and the people we have known or know.
Yes, that is right, but I doubt that you have had to put up with, 'everything' that has been directed in my direction, otherwise you would not (surely) be taking the stance you are 'currently taking'...
-
'Yes', back in those dark days, but 'not now'...
thats true mike.'just a joke' ;)
-
Yes, that is right, but I doubt that you have had to put up with, 'everything' that has been directed in my direction, otherwise you would not (surely) be taking the stance you are 'currently taking'...
Just because certain things happened to you, doesn't mean Jeremy is a MOJ.
-
Do 'any of you' appreciate the 'effect it can have on an individual' when a 'bad apple cop', or 'a vexatious witness' tells 'lies' about 'the behaviour of 'an accused person'?'
-
Just because certain things happened to you, doesn't mean Jeremy is a MOJ.
That's 'a good point', but surely it 'entitles me' to provide and to 'exercise' an 'opinion' about the 'possibility that 'in his case' (Jeremy), that he 'was a victim of police dishonesty', in a similar way to what I, and many others have 'experienced', in varying degrees of 'dishonestly'?
-
That's a good point, but surely it 'entitles me' to provide and to 'exercise' an 'opinion' about the 'possibility that 'in his case', that he 'was a victim of police dishonesty', in a similar way to what I, and many others have 'experienced'?
Of course it does and I have experience of the same - it happened to someone very close to me BUT I still don't believe it happened to Jeremy.
-
Of course it does and I have experience of the same - it happened to someone very close to me BUT I still don't believe it happened to Jeremy.
It 'did' luv, whether you choose to acknowledge it, or not...
-
That's a good point, but surely it 'entitles me' to provide and to 'exercise' an 'opinion' about the 'possibility that 'in his case', that he 'was a victim of police dishonesty', in a similar way to what I, and many others have 'experienced'?
You can have an opinion on anything you like, just like everybody else. I don't think your experiences give your opinions an added weight, if that's what you are suggesting?
It may be suggested that such experiences bias your views against the police.
-
You can have an opinion on anything you like, just like everybody else. I don't think your experiences give your opinions an added weight, if that's what you are suggesting?
It may be suggested that such experiences bias your views against the police.
i agree
-
Jeremy Bamber, is not a monster...
Why, then, did I volunteer to spend 6 hours locked in the same cell as Jeremy, over 'Christmas day' on the 25th December, 1989? Locked in the same cell, on Christmas day of 'that'' particular, year?
-
Jeremy Bamber, is not a monster...
Why, then, did I volunteer to spend 6 hours locked in the same cell as Jeremy, over 'Christmas day' on the 25th December, 1989? Locked in the same cell, on Christmas day of 'that'' particular, year?
that shows nothing mike jb is hardly going to attack you.is he
-
Jeremy Bamber, is not a monster...
Why, then, did I volunteer to spend 6 hours locked in the same cell as Jeremy, over 'Christmas day' on the 25th December, 1989? Locked in the same cell, on Christmas day of 'that'' particular, year?
You didn't have him written in your will, so you were probably safe. :P
Your affection towards JB is as irrelevant as the various supporters of other killers.
-
You didn't have him written in your will, so you were probably safe. :P
Your affection towards JB is as irrelevant as the various supporters of other killers.
witty :)) :))
-
You can have an opinion on anything you like, just like everybody else. I don't think your experiences give your opinions an added weight, if that's what you are suggesting?
It may be suggested that such experiences bias your views against the police.
You can never hope to achieve, anything that 'I have been subject to', and I am pleased for you...
But, please do 'not' try to insist, that 'my' experiences do 'not entitle me', to form a 'valid opinion'. How would you know, 'what I am talking about'?
Unless cops have stitched you up, you can't begin to imagine the consequences of such a lie, being advanced, and 'you' have 'no idea' how such lies can impact upon future life trends of 'such a victim'...
-
that shows nothing mike jb is hardly going to attack you.is he
Of course, He would have got more than he bargained for, if he had tried to attack me on 'that' occasion. A situation, I might add, that was being 'monitored' by prison security, on a 'moment to moment' basis, with 'my consent', I might add...
-
You can never hope to achieve, anything that 'I have been subject to', and I am pleased for you...
But, please do 'not' try to insist, that 'my' experiences do 'not entitle me', to form a 'valid opinion'. How would you know, 'what I am talking about'?
Unless cops have stitched you up, you can't begin to imagine the consequences of such a lie, being advanced, and 'you' have 'no idea' how such lies can impact upon future life trends of 'such a victim'...
Nobody is suggesting that your not entitled to an opinion, just that your opinion doesn't carry any greater authority.
-
Of course, He would have got more than he bargained for, if he had tried to attack me on 'that' occasion. A situation, I might add, that was being 'monitored' by prison security, on a 'moment to moment' basis, with 'my consent', I might add...
Did I negotiate with the authorities, the 6 hours I spent alone with Jeremy in 'his cell' on that (1989) 'Christmas day'?
Well, 'Yes'...
-
You can never hope to achieve, anything that 'I have been subject to', and I am pleased for you...
But, please do 'not' try to insist, that 'my' experiences do 'not entitle me', to form a 'valid opinion'. How would you know, 'what I am talking about'?
Unless cops have stitched you up, you can't begin to imagine the consequences of such a lie, being advanced, and 'you' have 'no idea' how such lies can impact upon future life trends of 'such a victim'...
they stitched me up .i was driving over the bow flyover when i saw in the distance a man in a floresant jacket at a known spot for a mobile speed trap ,so i threw a whole joint out the window,only to drive on an discover it was a road sweeper his cart was hidden from view around the corner.not a happy bunny
-
Nobody is suggesting that your not entitled to an opinion, just that your opinion doesn't carry any greater authority.
I 'disagree', my opinion in 'those circumstances', entitles me to a view, 'greater than your view', simply because, 'I was a victim of a miscarriage of justice', something which you and many others, like you, could 'not possibly' begin to imagine...
You, were not there, I have not had to treat you as a possible 'Conspirator'...
-
I 'disagree', my opinion in 'those circumstances', entitles me to a view, 'greater than your view', simply because, 'I was a victim of a miscarriage of justice', something which you and many others, like you, could 'not possibly' begin to imagine...
You, were not there, I have not had to treat you as a possible 'Conspirator'...
That is true so you have to admit that because of what happened to you, you could be biased in favour of anyone who claims a MOJ.
-
I 'disagree', my opinion in 'those circumstances', entitles me to a view, 'greater than your view', simply because, 'I was a victim of a miscarriage of justice', something which you and many others, like you, could 'not possibly' begin to imagine...
You, were not there, I have not had to treat you as a possible 'Conspirator'...
That's the thing about opinions, we all have them and they are seldom the same.
Honesty is something else to consider, given your criminality and perchance to manipulate, how can anybody be certain your voiced opinions are genuine?
Nope, sorry, doesn't work for me. I'm happy to listen and take your views on board, but I'll draw my own conclusions ta.
-
That's the thing about opinions, we all have them and they are seldom the same.
Honesty is something else to consider, given your criminality and perchance to manipulate, how can anybody be certain your voiced opinions are genuine?
Nope, sorry, doesn't work for me. I'm happy to listen and take your views on board, but I'll draw my own conclusions ta.
There you go, got it all wrong from the outset...
'My Criminality?
Just goes to prove, that you 'haven't got a clue' about the impact these 'miscarriages of justice' have on totally innocent people like me, and Jeremy Bamber...
Let's get the facts right, let us suppose that 'Anthony Pargeter', or 'David Boutflour', ended up being charged with 'perverting the course of justice', the 'truth' of the matter is that 'you' would find yourself 'on my side of the fence'...
-
That is true so you have to admit that because of what happened to you, you could be biased in favour of anyone who claims a MOJ.
No, not a biased view at all, but one better positioned than somebody like you, who has not had the misfortune to be 'stitched up', for something you did not do...
There is simply no correlation between what I have experienced, and what could have happened to you...
-
There you go, got it all wrong from the outset...
'My Criminality?
Oh, okay then. :-\
This is good, we need to talk, you are being patient, and I can see that you have found a way to tolerate my abusive manner, first of all let me apologise for calling you things in the past. I am sorry for doing that, but with my background, well, you should expect it. After all, I am a convicted criminal, Iam someone who cannot be trusted, I come from the gutter, I lie, I cheat, and I have a very fertile imagination.
-
Oh, okay then. :-\
Added to which, we have Mike's constant affirmation that everything he says is the truth. Some easier than others to take on board.
-
I have uploaded the full court transcript of the pathologist, Peter Venezis, now...
-
Perhaps, I might start uploading the blood experts court transcript (John Hayward), next. Then again, perhaps not...
-
Perhaps, I might start uploading the blood experts court transcript (John Hayward), next. Then again, perhaps not...
I also think at some stage, I might upload the full court transcript of Mr Justice Drakes summing up to the jury...
-
Everybody must be satisfied at this stage, that 'cops staged Sheila's body', and that they moved the gun onto and off the body, to allow PC 'David' Bird, to capture the gun in the right position, as 'instructed' by 'Ron' Cook...
We will no doubt be getting 'all the excuses under the sun' for them having done that, with very little consideration for the impact this had on the verdict of the jury, when bad apple cops were promoting the staging of Sheila Caffells death scene, as reinforced by a reliance upon a series of photographs, which supposedly captured the killers handy work, not their own...
-
I have just this minute laid my hands on a hand written report, made by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, which he made on the 12th November, 1986 (after he testified, and the conclusion of the trial, held at Chelmsford, Crown Court) that is interesting. I have just checked and a typed version of this report already exists on our forum, but nevertheless I shall post the hand written copy for the sake of completeness...
-
These people always use script that you're not supposed to understand or decipher. ::)
-
These people always use script that you're not supposed to understand or decipher. ::)
Here's the typed version:-
-
Next up, a hand written report (2 pages) by B. R. Elliot, dated, 30th September, 1985:-
-
Next up, witness statement (6 pages) of David John Pryor, dated 12th July, 1991:-
-
Further confirmation that the magazines associated with Pargetters BRNO rifle, were not compatible with Anshutz.
I thought they were likely to be interchangeable as magazines are often made to a standard design. However, when some time ago I posted my opinion on this Hartley replied saying that he had made enquiries and they were not interchangeable. I am therefore not sure.
-
Perhaps, I might start uploading the blood experts court transcript (John Hayward), next. Then again, perhaps not...
how about uploading the photo of sheila on the bed ;)
-
how about uploading the photo of sheila on the bed ;)
Shouldn't you be requesting 'public access' to the 'crime scene video'?
-
Shouldn't you be requesting 'public access' to the 'crime scene video'?
true tell me where i should make that request.and i will
-
Further confirmation that the magazines associated with Pargetters BRNO rifle, were not compatible with Anshutz.
No, it isn't...
Why didn't 'Pryor' examine the 14 spent cartridge casings (MDF/100) which were originally part of the 'batch of crime scene ammunition', spent cartridge casings which were phased out only to be 'replaced' by 14 bullet cases, from 'unofficial test firings of .22 ammunition', via the anshuzt rifle, on occasions prior to the 20th September, 1985...
-
true tell me where i should make that request.and i will
To (1) Essex police, and (2) to the CCRC in Birmingham...
-
No, it isn't...
Why didn't 'Pryor' examine the 14 spent cartridge casings ((MDF/100) which were originally part of the 'batch of crime scene ammunition', spent cartridge casings which were phased out only to be 'replaced' by 14 bullet cases, from 'unofficial test firings of .22 ammunition', via the anshuzt rifle, on occasions prior to the 20th September, 1985...
I think the confirmation is the bit where he says that the magazines of the two rifles were incompatible with each other.
-
To (1) Essex police, and (2) to the CCRC in Birmingham...
will do
-
I think the confirmation is the bit where he says that the magazines of the two rifles were incompatible with each other.
-
No, it isn't...
Why didn't 'Pryor' examine the 14 spent cartridge casings (MDF/100) which were originally part of the 'batch of crime scene ammunition', spent cartridge casings which were phased out only to be 'replaced' by 14 bullet cases, from 'unofficial test firings of .22 ammunition', via the anshuzt rifle, on occasions prior to the 20th September, 1985...
Let's get the facts right, so that there is 'nowhere to hide' for anyone who is professing to be telling the truth. According to the ballistic experts testimony, he carried out 'official test firing' of 'control ammunition' using the 'anshuzt rifle', on three key dates. Allow me to state what those three dates were, (1) 20th September, 1985, (2) 25th September, 1985, and (3) 2nd October, 1985...
Now, go to the 'individual, General Examination Records' pertaining to each of the 25 bullet casings...
You will there find, ' confirmation' that there had been 'an earlier test fire', prior to the 20th September, 1985, which involved 'comparison tests' being carried out, using 'test fired' ammunition, on the following dates, (1) 12th September, 1985, (2) 13th September, 1985, (3) 18th September, 1985, and (4) 19th September 1985...
On all these occasions, comparison tests were 'performed' using control ammunition test fired in the anshuzt rifle, on a date prior to the 20th September, 1985. Once you substitute 14 of the original bullet cases that were loaded, and fired via Anthony Pargeters .22 'Bruno, bolt action rifle', with spent cartridges that had been loafed into the anshuzt rifle and test fired on an occasion before the 20th September, 1985, you were always going to get confirmation that the 'substituted' bullet casings had been loaded and fired in the anshuzt rifle, because to be blunt, ' they had been'. But, what about the ' original 14 bullet casings (MDF/100), that had been loaded into Anthony Pargeters .22 Bruno rifle and fired during the killing spree?
Pryor never conducted 'tests' on those...
-
thank you for clearing that up,hartley
-
That bloke must be in on it too! ;) ;D
-
You 'still don't get it', do ya?
Forget what Pryor says, it is meaningless until he examines the 14 bullet cases (MDF/100) still safely retained at the lab'...
'These 14 bullet cases', were 14 of the 25 bullet cases associated with the 24 bullets fired between use of (a) the anshuzt rifle, and (b) the Bruno rifle. The other bullet case, was associated with / to (c) the cops gun...
-
You 'still don't get it', do ya?
Forget what Pryor says, it is meaningless until he examines the 14 bullet cases (MDF/100) still safely retained at the lab'...
'These 14 bullet cases', were 14 of the 25 bullet cases associated with the 24 bullets fired between use of (a) the anshuzt rifle, and (b) the Bruno rifle. The other bullet case, was associated with / to (c) the cops gun...
Tell me Mike, is there ONE person on the law enforcement/prosecution/legal team that you believe NOT to have made a royal cock-up?
-
That bloke must be in on it too! ;) ;D
No, don't you dare pull that stroke on here. He wasn't 'in on it too'...
That's where you are wrong. You ain't going to be allowed to 'introduce that stroke here', because he wasn't in on it, as you 'mockingly are trying to suggest'. Your attempt to 'trick' the general public at large will not be allowed to go 'unchallenged' on this forum. Why do you say, 'that he must be in on it', as well? Stop talking 'rubbish'. He didn't have to be in on it, as suggested by you. He was 'used'...
He examined 25 spent cartridge casings which had been loaded into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle, and 'fired', then 'extracted' and 'ejected' from it. But he would conclude that this was true because all 25 bullet casings had been loaded into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle, fired and extracted, then ejected from that gun, only 14 of them, did not go through that process until a month or so, 'after' the shootings. What Pryor failed to do, was carry out any sort of examination, confirming that all 25 spent cartridge casings that were subject of his examination, that proved 'an association' between all the casings, and all the bullets. Different ammunition manufacturers use different formula's to prime the rounds they manufacture, and the machines used in the manufacturing process, impose a different set of 'crimping marks' where the bullet and the primed cartridge are fixed together...
Tell you what...
Examination of the 14 bullet casings that are still held at the lab', have an 'intriging' part to play, in 'unravelling' the truth in this matter...
Ask yourself, why did the ballistic expert seek to 'retain' 14 spent bullet casings (MDF/100) that had 'not been fired' via the anshuzt rifle?
-
Tell me Mike, is there ONE person on the law enforcement/prosecution/legal team that you believe NOT to have made a royal cock-up?
xxxx xxx, you part...
-
xxxx xxx, you part...
Thank-you Mike. I'd like to wish you a very happy Bank Holiday. :-*
-
Who xxx xxxx do these people think they are?
Get the goddam 14 bullet cases examined, and when its discovered that they were loaded and fired, then ejected from the Bruno rifle, maybe only then will they see sense...
-
xxxx xxx, you part...
now now mike theres no need for that
-
No, don't you dare pull that stroke on here. He wasn't 'in on it too'...
That's where you are wrong. You ain't going to be allowed to 'introduce that stroke here', because he wasn't in on it, as you 'mockingly are trying to suggest'. Your attempt to 'trick' the general public at large will not be allowed to go 'unchallenged' on this forum. Why do you say, 'that he must be in on it', as well? Stop talking 'rubbish'. He didn't have to be in on it, as suggested by you. He was 'used'...
He examined 25 spent cartridge casings which had been loaded into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle, and 'fired', then 'extracted' and 'ejected' from it. But he would conclude that this was true because all 25 bullet casings had been loaded into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle, fired and extracted, then ejected from that gun, only 14 of them, did not go through that process until a month or so, 'after' the shootings. What Pryor failed to do, was carry out any sort of examination, confirming that all 25 spent cartridge casings that were subject of his examination, that proved 'an association' between all the casings, and all the bullets. Different ammunition manufacturers use different formula's to prime the rounds they manufacture, and the machines used in the manufacturing process, impose a different set of 'crimping marks' where the bullet and the primed cartridge are fixed together...
Tell you what...
Examination of the 14 bullet casings that are still held at the lab', have an 'intriging' part to play, in 'unravelling' the truth in this matter...
Ask yourself, why did the ballistic expert seek to 'retain' 14 spent bullet casings (MDF/100) that had 'not been fired' via the anshuzt rifle?
mike the only stroke here will be the one you get.calm down,its just a debate
-
Thank-you Mike. I'd like to wish you a very happy Bank Holiday. :-*
Listen, stop trying to take the piss. Your garbage attitude won't wash with me. I have drawn your attention to these 14 bullet cases (MDF/100), and told you and everybody else, that these were loaded into the magazines of the Bruno rifle at the time of the shootings. I have pointed it out to you and to everybody else, that there has been a 'test firing' of the anshuzt rifle, prior to the 20th September, 1985, which is 'the date' Fletcher claims he started to officially test fire control ammunition via the anshuzt rifle. It is a perfect good example, explaining from where these 14 mysterious bullet casings 'originated from'. Now which part do you not understand?
-
Fletcher knows the truth. He knows that more than one weapon was used in the shootings. He knows that bullet casings that had been loaded and fired in the Bruno rifle, were 'swapped over' with 14 bullet cases test fired in the anshuzt rifle afterwards. This is not some far fetched idea, there is substance in the claim, there exists 14 bullet cases at the lab' under the identifying mark MDF/100...
-
Fletcher knows the truth. He knows that more than one weapon was used in the shootings. He knows that bullet casings that had been loaded and fired in the Bruno rifle, were 'swapped over' with 14 bullet cases test fired in the anshuzt rifle afterwards. This is not some far fetched idea, there is substance in the claim, there exists 14 bullet cases at the lab' under the identifying mark MDF/100...
will fletcher stand up in court and admit that.cause if not how will we ever be able to prove this opinion of your
-
Jeremy Bamber, is not a monster...
Why, then, did I volunteer to spend 6 hours locked in the same cell as Jeremy, over 'Christmas day' on the 25th December, 1989? Locked in the same cell, on Christmas day of 'that'' particular, year?
He was trying to fit in somewhere, some space, whether it was White House Farm, Gresham's School or Gartree Prison. Always trying, from the earliest days when he would emulate this strange older man in his choice of breakfast food, before he was sent away on a fool's errand, trying to keep up with his father in farming, trying to understand June's wavelength, attempting to comprehend Sheila. Only when he realized he couldn't do any of these things did the practical jokes start, as he realized it was all a charade..
-
..eight wasted years, a failed scuba diving course, a dead end job at Little Chef, a failed relationship with Suzette. Julie I think he used from the outset to sound out for murder, to sell cannabis on the campus, to rob the caravan park, all the means to unlock money for which motive there was no moral distinction between any of these activities.
-
Sheila's " pedigree " didn't fare much better,Steve.
-
Sheila's " pedigree " didn't fare much better,Steve.
Not for much of the above criteria lookout, apart from the money motive.
-
He was trying to fit in somewhere, some space, whether it was White House Farm, Gresham's School or Gartree Prison. Always trying, from the earliest days when he would emulate this strange older man in his choice of breakfast food, before he was sent away on a fool's errand, trying to keep up with his father in farming, trying to understand June's wavelength, attempting to comprehend Sheila. Only when he realized he couldn't do any of these things did the practical jokes start, as he realized it was all a charade..
Could easily apply to Prince Charles if you substituted the practical jokes with talking to plants :-\
-
I am afraid you are significantly wrong, since (a) none of the volunteers fired the rifle after loading any of the bullets (whereas, Sheila did) and (b) all the volunteers loaded significantly more rounds into the magazine during the tests they conducted (than Sheila would have handled through the necessity to reload), and (c) none of the volunteers wiped the key fingers of the hand they had used to load rounds into the ammunition magazine, upon an item of their own clothing (which in Sheila's case was the front lower right part of her blue nightie)...
Failure by any of the volunteers at (a) removed the risk of contamination that had got onto their fingers during the loading process being systematically 'wiped' each time they had activated the trigger mechanism by a process of repeated friction between a volunteers index finger and the trigger mechanism. The fact that volunteers (b) loaded more bullets (18) than Sheila would have had to have handled and reloaded (14) was not reflected in the figures relied upon in the test results. Since, none of the volunteers 'wiped the key fingers of their hands (c) after completion of the exercise, nor were any of the volunteers hands or fingers masked by the presence blood upon their own hands / key fingers. Seems to me that these so called 'comparison tests, were badly handled, and the results obtained from these tests were 'misused', and very misleading in their execution...
Just more excuses on your part, any idiot can see that Sheila wasn't capable of doing what you have suggested, the whole videa is preposterous. The forensics are very clear despite people like lookout being in denial, they all point in one direction. As David Boutflour recently put it, Sheila ended up with barely a hair out of place!
Unlike you, most people who have taken the time to evaluate all the evidence usually come to the same conclusion and that is that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. Maybe in time you will come to realise how Bamber has made a prize fool out of you all these years.
-
Maybe in time you will come to realise how Bamber has made a prize fool out of you all these years.
[/quote] i fully agree john.but i fear when mike reads it you will be in for a lot of kisses fxxx xxx xxxt ;)
-
No, don't you dare pull that stroke on here. He wasn't 'in on it too'...
That's where you are wrong. You ain't going to be allowed to 'introduce that stroke here', because he wasn't in on it, as you 'mockingly are trying to suggest'. Your attempt to 'trick' the general public at large will not be allowed to go 'unchallenged' on this forum. Why do you say, 'that he must be in on it', as well? Stop talking 'rubbish'. He didn't have to be in on it, as suggested by you. He was 'used'...
He examined 25 spent cartridge casings which had been loaded into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle, and 'fired', then 'extracted' and 'ejected' from it. But he would conclude that this was true because all 25 bullet casings had been loaded into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle, fired and extracted, then ejected from that gun, only 14 of them, did not go through that process until a month or so, 'after' the shootings. What Pryor failed to do, was carry out any sort of examination, confirming that all 25 spent cartridge casings that were subject of his examination, that proved 'an association' between all the casings, and all the bullets. Different ammunition manufacturers use different formula's to prime the rounds they manufacture, and the machines used in the manufacturing process, impose a different set of 'crimping marks' where the bullet and the primed cartridge are fixed together...
Tell you what...
Examination of the 14 bullet casings that are still held at the lab', have an 'intriging' part to play, in 'unravelling' the truth in this matter...
Ask yourself, why did the ballistic expert seek to 'retain' 14 spent bullet casings (MDF/100) that had 'not been fired' via the anshuzt rifle?
He isn't the only one being used.
-
Just more excuses on your part, any idiot can see that Sheila wasn't capable of doing what you have suggested, the whole videa is preposterous. The forensics are very clear despite people like lookout being in denial, they all point in one direction. As David Boutflour recently put it, Sheila ended up with barely a hair out of place!
Unlike you, most people who have taken the time to evaluate all the evidence usually come to the same conclusion and that is that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. Maybe in time you will come to realise how Bamber has made a prize fool out of you all these years.
Get lost...
-
According to the pathologist, the killer of June Bamber had grabbed her by the throat - oh, look at the marks on the top of Sheila's right hand...
-
He was trying to fit in somewhere, some space, whether it was White House Farm, Gresham's School or Gartree Prison. Always trying, from the earliest days when he would emulate this strange older man in his choice of breakfast food, before he was sent away on a fool's errand, trying to keep up with his father in farming, trying to understand June's wavelength, attempting to comprehend Sheila. Only when he realized he couldn't do any of these things did the practical jokes start, as he realized it was all a charade..
I find that very sad, Steve and it may very possibly have been true. Just reading Colin's book... at last. I am loving it, I have great admiration for Colin's courage and understanding and willingness to shoulder some of wha he saw as his responsibility. They were all victims whoever pulled the trigger imo.
-
Cops and experts never explained the bloodied marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand. Is this evidence that Sheila had grabbed June by the throat during a struggle with her?
-
According to the pathologist, the killer of June Bamber had grabbed her by the throat - oh, look at the marks on the top of Sheila's right hand...
but mike if thats true than there should be blooded prints on the rifle or at least traces of sheila's blood on it
-
Recent documents posted by Mike have now been added to the archives.
-
Get lost...
ditto
-
Cops and experts never explained the bloodied marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand. Is this evidence that Sheila had grabbed June by the throat during a struggle with her?
Total fiction! Sheila never attacked anyone.
-
Total fiction! Sheila never attacked anyone.
john the key to this case is to show sheila could not have done it, despite lots of evidence showing sheila did not do it.they are in denial .but they cant show jb could not have done it.blood on her hand,'none on the rifle'violent fight in kitchen,'not a scratch on her'.the bullets were too small to get prints ,but the magazine should have had sc prints on it,ditto none ;)
-
Total fiction! Sheila never attacked anyone.
Refer to the pathologists trial testimony - somebody 'had grabbed' June Bamber by the throat', noe 'those marks' on Junes neck and the 'top part of Sheila's right hand' are 'a perfect match', so there can be no 'mistaking', who did what, and in any event 'why was Sheila trying to throttle her mother'?
Me thinks I know the answer...
You think whatever you like, the evidence is 'overwhelming', Sheila had not only shot her mother, but she had tried to throttle her, the corresponding hand marks on Junes throat, and the bloodstained marks on the top of Sheila's right hand, being 'all the evidence' required to prove an association between both parties, who must have been at conflict with one another, just before June Bamber had been killed. At that time, Sheila's actions being a telling factor in the role she played in her mother's death...
-
Total fiction! Sheila never attacked anyone.
Colin reckoned that she could use violence. What about punching walls,putting her hand though a glass window,what next-------------people ?
Even Freddie the Coke was scared of her.
You MUST have come across some violent women in your past ?
-
Colin reckoned that she could use violence. What about punching walls,putting her hand though a glass window,what next-------------people ?
Even Freddie the Coke was scared of her.
You MUST have come across some violent women in your past ?
I agree Colin said Sheila could and had used violence against inanimate objects and herself. Think he said that on one occasion she slapped his face but he admitted giving her a black eye and being physically violent towards her.
I accept many of the arguments the 'innocents' put up and indeed I have used many of them myself but my problem is that when these arguments are put together as one complete argument to prove JBs innocence imo they don't stand. up. When other facts and conflicting arguments come into play I fnd his innocence or much rather Sheila's guilt is difficult to accept. :-\
-
Colin reckoned that she could use violence. What about punching walls,putting her hand though a glass window,what next-------------people ?
Even Freddie the Coke was scared of her.
You MUST have come across some violent women in your past ?
walls and glass are not people.the word of a coke head means nothing.he will say anything to get another line up the nose
-
Refer to the pathologists trial testimony - somebody 'had grabbed' June Bamber by the throat', noe 'those marks' on Junes neck and the 'top part of Sheila's right hand' are 'a perfect match', so there can be no 'mistaking', who did what, and in any event 'why was Sheila trying to throttle her mother'?
Me thinks I know the answer...
You think whatever you like, the evidence is 'overwhelming', Sheila had not only shot her mother, but she had tried to throttle her, the corresponding hand marks on Junes throat, and the bloodstained marks on the top of Sheila's right hand, being 'all the evidence' required to prove an association between both parties, who must have been at conflict with one another, just before June Bamber had been killed. At that time, Sheila's actions being a telling factor in the role she played in her mother's death...
Could someone put the link up to this?
-
Could someone put the link up to this?
ive looked but failed to find it :(
-
Could someone put the link up to this?
Steve,it's in PS Woodcock's COLP statement where he states that he was,quote " struck by the fingermarks around her neck that appeared to be in blood,unquote ".
He then went on to say,quote, " there was bloodstaining on her legs and nightdress and HAVING SEEN THE BODY IN THE KITCHEN and thought of a struggle taking place as on seeing June's body,the thought of a struggle remained,unquote ."
-
Could someone put the link up to this?
It's in the autopsy report, it doesn't say someone grabbed her by the throat, just that she had 'linear marks on her neck'
-
Steve,it's in PS Woodcock's COLP statement where he states that he was,quote " struck by the fingermarks around her neck that appeared to be in blood,unquote ".
He then went on to say,quote, " there was bloodstaining on her legs and nightdress and HAVING SEEN THE BODY IN THE KITCHEN and thought of a struggle taking place as on seeing June's body,the thought of a struggle remained,unquote ."
-
Thanks Caroline.,x
-
Looking at #1724 again I would have thought had she grabbed her mother by the neck the nails might have been chipped. Were June's fingernails scrutinized for residue of any kind? It's unlikely Jeremy was involved in these marks had he worn gloves throughout.
-
Looking at #1724 again I would have thought had she grabbed her mother by the neck the nails might have been chipped. Were June's fingernails scrutinized for residue of any kind? It's unlikely Jeremy was involved in these marks had he worn gloves throughout.
Nails won't chip if they're sunk into flesh,unless you mean that had her nails been chipped prior to the neck-grab,they might have left signs ?
Unfortunately nobody's fingernails had scrapings taken from beneath them. :(
Maybe the said marks/prints weren't big enough in size to indicate that they were done by a male,or we'd have heard long before now.
-
Nails won't chip if they're sunk into flesh,unless you mean that had her nails been chipped prior to the neck-grab,they might have left signs ?
Unfortunately nobody's fingernails had scrapings taken from beneath them. :(
Maybe the said marks/prints weren't big enough in size to indicate that they were done by a male,or we'd have heard long before now.
I don't see why Jeremy needs to get into physical contact with June, and though it is a curious occurrence I think I'm with maggie in that on its own it's not enough to raise serious doubts as to guilt.
-
I don't see why Jeremy needs to get into physical contact with June, and though it is a curious occurrence I think I'm with maggie in that on its own it's not enough to raise serious doubts as to guilt.
Well you know my thoughts and it's these" forgotten occurrences" which all the more increase my views on it not having been Jeremy,because in my mind I see the two women fighting to the bitter end and with Sheila's loathing for her mother makes it seem far more likely.
-
Nails won't chip if they're sunk into flesh,unless you mean that had her nails been chipped prior to the neck-grab,they might have left signs ?
Unfortunately nobody's fingernails had scrapings taken from beneath them. :(
Maybe the said marks/prints weren't big enough in size to indicate that they were done by a male,or we'd have heard long before now.
they may chip or break if you try loading that magazine twice.which she has supposed to have done.without leaving any prints on it
-
Well you know my thoughts and it's these" forgotten occurrences" which all the more increase my views on it not having been Jeremy,because in my mind I see the two women fighting to the bitter end and with Sheila's loathing for her mother makes it seem far more likely.
yet theres no blood on the front of sheila's nightie .had they been fighting to the bitter end .there surely would be.imo ;)
-
yet theres no blood on the front of sheila's nightie .had they been fighting to the bitter end .there surely would be.imo ;)
There's also the accuracy of the shots and the way the victims were incapacitated. There's so much written about how easy Sheila would have found the gun to use, which just acts as smokescreen to Jeremy's shooting prowess.
-
yet theres no blood on the front of sheila's nightie .had they been fighting to the bitter end .there surely would be.imo ;)
Not when she was a rifle's length away.
-
But there's also the tale of her scampering around the kitchen and ascending some staircase, which does stretch credibility when you consider the state she was found.
-
She could well have only just changed into her nightdress after hurtling around. I think she'd been fully dressed prior to the shootings.
-
Not when she was a rifle's length away.
The how did she get close enough to put her hand around June's neck?
-
The how did she get close enough to put her hand around June's neck?
Possibly when June was on the ground,or even while in bed where there'd have been less body contact. Then again if Sheila still had her day clothes on,that's where the blood would have been.
-
The how did she get close enough to put her hand around June's neck?
After June was on the floor shot.
-
After June was on the floor shot.
She must have been still alive in this scenario, or what would be the point in strangling her? With that in mins; the first thing you would do if someone tried to strangle you or grab your neck, is to grab their arm. No hand prints on Sheila's arm but we don't know if Jeremy's arm was grabbed. We KNOW the forensic state of Sheila as she died - we don't know what forensic evidence was on Jeremy.
-
She must have been still alive in this scenario, or what would be the point in strangling her? With that in mins; the first thing you would do if someone tried to strangle you or grab your neck, is to grab their arm. No hand prints on Sheila's arm but we don't know if Jeremy's arm was grabbed. We KNOW the forensic state of Sheila as she died - we don't know what forensic evidence was on Jeremy.
Pure hatred.She was probably in no state to raise her arms poor woman.
-
I agree Colin said Sheila could and had used violence against inanimate objects and herself. Think he said that on one occasion she slapped his face but he admitted giving her a black eye and being physically violent towards her.
I accept many of the arguments the 'innocents' put up and indeed I have used many of them myself but my problem is that when these arguments are put together as one complete argument to prove JBs innocence imo they don't stand. up. When other facts and conflicting arguments come into play I fnd his innocence or much rather Sheila's guilt is difficult to accept. :-\
An excellent post Maggie. I'm glad to see you realise the claims just don't stack up. Throwing a strop, punching a window or throwing objects is quite common in many domestic disputes within dysfunctional families but what occurred at WHF was not a spur of the moment occurrence. It was a event planned to coincide with the entire family being together.
-
ive looked but failed to find it :(
Probably yet another Tesko myth. ;D
As regards June, the marks in blood on her throat were most probably from her own fingers when she put her hand up to protect herself. Noticeable that these same marks were absent from Sheila's neck proving that she never regained composure after the first shot and further proving that she never fired any second shot.
-
Looking at #1724 again I would have thought had she grabbed her mother by the neck the nails might have been chipped. Were June's fingernails scrutinized for residue of any kind? It's unlikely Jeremy was involved in these marks had he worn gloves throughout.
Had she done that she would have had blood from June all over her hands and nightdress.
-
There's also the accuracy of the shots and the way the victims were incapacitated. There's so much written about how easy Sheila would have found the gun to use, which just acts as smokescreen to Jeremy's shooting prowess.
Spot on!
-
Pure hatred.She was probably in no state to raise her arms poor woman.
June was literally covered in blood, there is no way Sheila could have gotten that close without getting blood on her nightdress. Sheila didn't strangle June.
-
She did..
-
Were there not marks around Sheila's neck too,as well as June's ?
-
Were there not marks around Sheila's neck too,as well as June's ?
No
-
She did..
Didn't (to infinity ::))
-
No
Oh, I think there were fingermarks.
-
June was literally covered in blood, there is no way Sheila could have gotten that close without getting blood on her nightdress. Sheila didn't strangle June.
Shiela didn't need to lay on her, just strangle her.
-
An outstretched arm would have sufficed,especially Sheila's long arm.
No need for bodily contact then.
-
they may chip or break if you try loading that magazine twice.which she has supposed to have done.without leaving any prints on it
You obviously have no idea how to load a magazine. You don't use your nails, just the flesh part of your thumb.
-
The pathologist Peter Venezia describes the five linear marks that were present upon June Bambers throat, which in his view had been caused by a hand grabbing Junes neck. At the time of he performed the autopsy upon June Bamber (8th August, 1985), he was satisfied that Sheila had had killed June and the other three victims, and then had taken her own life. He therefore would almost certainly have looked for any evidence confirming that 'the person responsible' for having murdered June Bamber, to have some evidence in the form of blood staining on the top part of the hand they had used in grabbing hold of June Bambers neck, and Venezis found that the corresponding bloodstained marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand, and to a further extent upon the right arm wrist of Sheila. The bloodied fingermarks present upon the the front lower part of her nightdress, being evidence that immediately after trying to subdue her mother, Sheila must have wiped her bloodied fingers on her own nightdress...
-
All that is required now, is for images of the five linear marks present upon June Bambers throat (photographs taken at scene, or during autopsy, or both) to be matched to these very distinctive marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand. If its a match -'BINGO'!!!!!!!?!!
-
All that is required now, is for images of the five linear marks present upon June Bambers throat (photographs taken at scene, or during autopsy, or both) to be matched to these very distinctive marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand. If its a match -'BINGO'!!!!!!!?!!
if the marks 'match' up, then its going to be almost impossible to resist accepting that Sheila was responsible for wanting to kill her mother, and indeed that she succeeded in doing so, a fact established by the marks on Junes throat, and upon the top part of Sheila's right hand...
-
Nobody could wish for any better evidence than this, to show Sheila's intent to want to do her mother serious harm...
Being a 'geniuos' comes naturally to me...
-
All that is required now, is for images of the five linear marks present upon June Bambers throat (photographs taken at scene, or during autopsy, or both) to be matched to these very distinctive marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand. If its a match -'BINGO'!!!!!!!?!!
...and if not...BONGO as in Ali Bongo ;D
-
Nobody could wish for any better evidence than this, to show Sheila's intent to want to do her mother serious harm...
Being a 'geniuos' comes naturally to me...
And a f00l to boot. Sheila had no blood on her fingers!!!!!!!!!
Ever tried to strangle someone with long finger nails?? Idiot!!
-
You obviously have no idea how to load a magazine. You don't use your nails, just the flesh part of your thumb.
i do thanks do you.with beeswax making them slippery and the force needed to load the last few.she could have and should have chipped thumb nail dont forget she was calm when doing this you and fellow supporters agree she was in a pyscotic state
-
And a f00l to boot. Sheila had no blood on her fingers!!!!!!!!!
Ever tried to strangle someone with long finger nails?? Idiot!!
and no blood on the trigger
-
False nails don't chip. One had detached itself.
-
i do thanks do you.with beeswax making them slippery and the force needed to load the last few.she could have and should have chipped thumb nail dont forget she was calm when doing this you and fellow supporters agree she was in a pyscotic state
Beeswax? I have loaded plenty of mags, never used beeswax, except for sexual purposes.
-
False nails don't chip. One had detached itself.
was it one of the thumbs.i also beg to disagree in the right circumstancese they will chip
-
June was literally covered in blood, there is no way Sheila could have gotten that close without getting blood on her nightdress. Sheila didn't strangle June.
its pure fantasy caroline :)) :))
-
was it one of the thumbs.i also beg to disagree in the right circumstancese they will chip
No it wasn't a thumb. No,acrylic nails don't chip whatever the circumstances.
-
Beeswax? I have loaded plenty of mags, never used beeswax, except for sexual purposes.
you might want to do some catching up .read maggies post on the .22 ely bullets.than you might have rephrase the above
-
And a f00l to boot. Sheila had no blood on her fingers!!!!!!!!!
She did have blood on her fingers, as the stains on her night dress show. Trial testimony below
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
A. That is right yes.
-
She did, as the stains on her night dress show. Trial testimony below
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
A. That is right yes.
in that case why was no blood found on the trigger
-
Beeswax? I have loaded plenty of mags, never used beeswax, except for sexual purposes.
in fact ask fellow supporter david :)) :))
-
in that case why was no blood found on the trigger
Why do you assume she would get her hands bloody then go straight back to touching the trigger?
As Mike already mentioned she wiped the blood onto her nightie, the material will absorb the blood easily.
-
Why do you assume she would get her hands bloody then go straight back to touching the trigger?
As Mike already mentioned she wiped the blood onto her nightie, the material will absorb the blood easily.
well she had to pull the trigger twice to kill herself blood does not conjeal that quickly as to leave no trace .and the amount of blood in the blooded hand mark on her nightie shows there would have been blood on her hands and the trigger
-
The temperature of the room was warm with the Aga having been on,which would dry blood quicker and also slow down rigor mortis.
-
The temperature of the room was warm with the Aga having been on,which would dry blood quicker and also slow down rigor mortis.
tha aga was in the kitchen not the bedroom
-
It heated the house.
-
in that case why was no blood found on the trigger
Think about the position of the hand and the gun and you will realise the easiest digit to use on the trigger is the thumb.
-
Think about the position of the hand and the gun and you will realise the easiest digit to use on the trigger is the thumb.
so her thumb didnt have blood on it
-
Why do you assume she would get her hands bloody then go straight back to touching the trigger?
As Mike already mentioned she wiped the blood onto her nightie, the material will absorb the blood easily.
Wiped her hand? That's only the fingers! Hmmmm, wonder where the palm print went? ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Wiped her hand? That's only the fingers! Hmmmm, wonder where the palm print went? ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
Don't say on the Bible.
-
Sheila had long slender fingers that matched her long slender feet. Those fingers and palm belonged to a smaller hand.
-
Sheila had long slender fingers that matched her long slender feet. Those fingers and palm belonged to a smaller hand.
Do you have the dimensions of the finger prints and the palm print Lookout?
-
When it had been said that there'd been small prints found on the Bible,they could have possibly been June's as opposed to the children's because it was her Bible,and speculatively,her blood on it.
-
Don't say on the Bible.
So, she managed to wipe her hand on her nightdress and only get her fingers to stain it - ending in a nice perfect straight line just before her palm? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sheila had long slender fingers that matched her long slender feet. Those fingers and palm belonged to a smaller hand.
The stain in smeared by movement making the fingers seem slightly fatter.
-
Wiped her hand? That's only the fingers! Hmmmm, wonder where the palm print went? ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
The palm print? why assume there is only one? The crime scene photos could prove more. Since they don't disclose some photos and have destroyed negatives its like they have something hide ;D
-
The stain in smeared by movement making the fingers seem slightly fatter.
I suppose allowances could be made for movement and also " spreading " of blood on an absorbent surface,but I still don't think it was Sheila's hand.
-
Why should,or would the Bible have so much significance ? Brcause it did,that's for sure.
-
Why do you assume she would get her hands bloody then go straight back to touching the trigger?
As Mike already mentioned she wiped the blood onto her nightie, the material will absorb the blood easily.
Yes, she did, and there is no way of 'knowing' how long had elapsed between Sheila 'grabbing' her mother by the throat and wiping her right hand upon her own nightdress and Sheila getting the index finger of her right hand 'back on the trigger'?
-
The palm print? why assume there is only one? The crime scene photos could prove more. Since they don't disclose some photos and have destroyed negatives its like they have something hide ;D
have you any proof such photos exsist
-
well she had to pull the trigger twice to kill herself blood does not conjeal that quickly as to leave no trace .and the amount of blood in the blooded hand mark on her nightie shows there would have been blood on her hands and the trigger
You can't make that assumption because in the first instance now that it looks odds on that Sheila had tried to 'throttle' her mother, no-one knows for sure, or with any degree of certainty, at which point Sheila had 'grabbed' her mother by the throat? Neither do we know at 'what time' June Banner was 'shot between the eyes', and killed. But, we do know what time Sheila was shot on each of the two occasions she got shot. We know for example, that Sheila sustained the first of two shots whilst she was present downstairs in the kitchen at around 7.37am, and in any event, certainly before 7.45am, because staff in the control room, were referring to the' death of the second body' mentioned as a 'suicide' by that stage ( refer Linda, contacting DS Davidson (soco) regarding police dealing with an incident at whf involving two bodies, one male, one female, a murder, and a suicide). Sheila could 'not' have committed suicide downstairs in the region of the kitchen, by 7.45am, with use of the anshuzt rifle, which was clearly on view at an upstairs window and had continuously been n view at that upstairs bedroom window from 7.15am, onward...
-
I thought after the first shot she involuntarily wiped the spot where the bullet had penetrated.
-
have you any proof such photos exsist
Yes, such photographs do exist, and yes, cops cut out damning negatives from two strips of 10 negatives, because to have left them alone, was akin to cops involved in this debacle 'cutting their own throats'...
-
You can't make that assumption because in the first instance now that it looks odds on that Sheila had tried to 'throttle' her mother, no-one knows for sure, or with any degree of certainty, at which point Sheila had 'grabbed' her mother by the throat? Neither do we know at 'what time' June Banner was 'shot between the eyes', and killed. But, we do know what time Sheila was shot on each of the two occasions she got shot. We know for example, that Sheila sustained the first of two shots whilst she was present downstairs in the kitchen at around 7.37am, and in any event, certainly before 7.45am, because staff in the control room, were referring to the' death of the second body' mentioned as a 'suicide' by that stage ( refer Linda, contacting DS Davidson (soco) regarding police dealing with an incident at whf involving two bodies, one male, one female, a murder, and a suicide). Sheila could 'not' have committed suicide downstairs in the region of the kitchen, by 7.45am, with use of the anshuzt rifle, which was clearly on view at an upstairs window and had continuously been n view at that upstairs bedroom window from 7.15am, onward...
why did the blood not drip on to the front of sheila's nightie after she wandered upstairs not a drop on the front
-
Yes, such photographs do exist, and yes, cops cut out damning negatives from two strips of 10 negatives, because to have left them alone, was akin to cops involved in this debacle 'cutting their own throats'...
so how we gonna prove this or how is jb's team going to
-
I thought after the first shot she involuntarily wiped the spot where the bullet had penetrated.
No, cops attempted to 'stem the flow of blood' immediately upon the anshuzt rifle discharging the second shot, but 'it was too late' by that stage, to having any real prospect of saving her life...
-
The palm print? why assume there is only one? The crime scene photos could prove more. Since they don't disclose some photos and have destroyed negatives its like they have something hide ;D
Indeed. They'd no right whatsoever to have destroyed anything,especially after having been told not to. What you can gather from this malicious and deliberate act was that it would have been in JB's favour had it been saved.
There MUST be something to hide,even now, that there's no response from EP regarding withheld files.
-
so how we gonna prove this or how is jb's team going to
What is going to happen, now that I have drawn attention to this key piece of evidence, is that people are going to start to think, ' there may be more to what this 'tesko' guy has been saying after all...
Then, after the dust settles, what is going to happen, is this...
-
I thought after the first shot she involuntarily wiped the spot where the bullet had penetrated.
No because that would have caused a large stain over the spot in question
-
why did the blood not drip on to the front of sheila's nightie after she wandered upstairs not a drop on the front
why
-
What is going to happen, now that I have drawn attention to this key piece of evidence, is that people are going to start to think, ' there may be more to what this 'tesko' guy has been saying after all...
Then, after the dust settles, what is going to happen, is this...
Bamber, is going to get 'blown up images', of the five leaner marks that are present upon June Bambers throat, which the pathologist believed had been made by Junes attacker, and he is going to get advice regarding the likelihood that one or more of those five leaner marks on Junes throat, is replicated on the top part of Sheila Caffells right hand...
If a match is found, then of course, Bamber will be able to prove an 'association' between the marks made by June Bambers killer upon her throat, and the corresponding marks on the top part of Sheila Caffells right hand. Such marks being 'compelling' evidence that 'proves beyond a shadow of a doubt' that 'sheila had an intent to kill, her mother'...
-
why
Because she didn't go anywhere after being shot.
-
so how we gonna prove this or how is jb's team going to
There's a letter/telephone message form from COLP to DCI wright SOCO, Chelmsford which states that there are negatives missing and 3 which couldn't be ID'd ?
Apparently,photo's were being used in lectures ( so they say ) then Wright went on to say that it shouldn't have happened that some went missing.
Photo's 21,22 and 23 ( of the fireplace ) weren't in the jury bundle-------really ?
-
Because she didn't go anywhere after being shot.
Yes, she did...
Sheila was shot downstairs by a different weapon than the anshuzt rifle, which we all know was at an upstairs window from 7.15am, onward. So, confirmation of a dead female by 'suicide' before 7.45am, could not possibly have been a mistaken reference to the bodies of either Ralph Bamber, or his wife, June Bamber, because both of these victims were clearly murdered...
-
There's a letter/telephone message form from COLP to DCI wright SOCO, Chelmsford which states that there are negatives missing and 3 which couldn't be ID'd ?
Apparently,photo's were being used in lectures ( so they say ) then Wright went on to say that it shouldn't have happened that some went missing.
Photo's 21,22 and 23 ( of the fireplace ) weren't in the jury bundle-------really ?
if they were used in lectures would they really show anything incriminating
-
There's a letter/telephone message form from COLP to DCI wright SOCO, Chelmsford which states that there are negatives missing and 3 which couldn't be ID'd ?
Apparently,photo's were being used in lectures ( so they say ) then Wright went on to say that it shouldn't have happened that some went missing.
Photo's 21,22 and 23 ( of the fireplace ) weren't in the jury bundle-------really ?
Yes, Lookout, what you are stating as a fact, is absolutely true...
-
if they were used in lectures would they really show anything incriminating
Why don't bad apple cops disclose the photographs so that everyone can see for themselves the images cops didn't want Bamber or his legal team to see, or to know about?
-
Yes, she did...
Sheila was shot downstairs by a different weapon than the anshuzt rifle, which we all know was at an upstairs window from 7.15am, onward. So, confirmation of a dead female by 'suicide' before 7.45am, could not possibly have been a mistaken reference to the bodies of either Ralph Bamber, or his wife, June Bamber, because both of these victims were clearly murdered...
well tell us why the nightie didnt have a drop of blood on the front.its the 3rd time ive asked you ,but you choose to ignore what doesnt suit your theory.imo ;)
-
I told you earlier.Sheila had changed from her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightdress.
-
I believe that the bloodstained marks that are clearly present upon the top part of Sheila Caffells right hand, replicate the hand marks present upon June Bambers throat...
-
I told you earlier.Sheila had changed from her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightdress.
what did she do with the blooded day clothes as you put it
-
I believe that the bloodstained marks that are clearly present upon the top part of Sheila Caffells right hand, replicate the hand marks present upon June Bambers throat...
You'd be wrong then as usual. :)
-
what did she do with the blooded day clothes as you put it
Maybe the day clothes fairy whisked them away. :)
-
what did she do with the blooded day clothes as you put it
Soaked some and hung a wet pair of joggers over the bannister.
-
Why don't bad apple cops disclose the photographs so that everyone can see for themselves the images cops didn't want Bamber or his legal team to see, or to know about?
Why don't you post the photo you claim you have of Sheila on the bed? Could your refusal to post it be because you lied?
-
Maybe the day clothes fairy whisked them away. :)
she's digging herself into a hole :)) :))
-
Soaked some and hung a wet pair of joggers over the bannister.
Get real ffs lookout. She murders four people then casually does her home laundry! I despair of you sometimes.
-
Once this 'association is proved', there will be 'no stopping the free Jeremy Bamber bandwagon', and all those who have been trying to promote his guilt, all left with egg on their sorry faces...
-
Why don't you post the photo you claim you have of Sheila on the bed? Could your refusal to post it be because you lied?
No, I didn't lie...
Sheila was on the bed until just after 9.10am, since about 8.30am...
Ask the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI 'Bob' Miller', and of course, DS 'Stan' Jones...
-
Soaked some and hung a wet pair of joggers over the bannister.
and why would she do that.the only thing found was kids joggers and her knicker blooded and in a bucket .can you show me where you found that infomation
-
No, I didn't lie...
Sheila was on the bed until just after 9.10am, since about 8.30am...
Ask the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI 'Bob' Miller', and of course, DS 'Stan' Jones...
the last two hero's are dead .whynot just post the photo youve been asked enough times :)
-
Get real ffs lookout. She murders four people then casually does her home laundry! I despair of you sometimes.
The way you put it was typical of the lack of common sense for the finer details of being educated to the fact that these would have been the actions of a woman who was out of her mind.
Cleansing is a well known fact in those who are sick in their mind that certain duties are carried out before they " meet their Maker ". Try reading about it.
-
and why would she do that.the only thing found was kids joggers and her knicker blooded and in a bucket .can you show me where you found that infomation
Sheila's top/blouse was also in one of the buckets.The joggers are the black object at the top of the stairs just inside the bedroom.
-
They might have been made in a struggle with her brother; we just don't know.
-
The way you put it was typical of the lack of common sense for the finer details of being educated to the fact that these would have been the actions of a woman who was out of her mind.
Cleansing is a well known fact in those who are sick in their mind that certain duties are carried out before they " meet their Maker ". Try reading about it.
Do try and understand the evidence...she had no opportunity to do any washing up never mind shower and dress.
-
The way you put it was typical of the lack of common sense for the finer details of being educated to the fact that these would have been the actions of a woman who was out of her mind.
Cleansing is a well known fact in those who are sick in their mind that certain duties are carried out before they " meet their Maker ". Try reading about it.
not at all its not a known fact other mentaltly ill people do not clean themselfs before commiting suicide.only a few cases in thousands
-
The marks on June Bambers throat, are 'replicated on the top part of Sheila Caffells right hand - so, now we all know who 'wanted to kill June Bamber'. It was 'Sheila Caffel', afterall, no-one else...
-
how could she throtle her with the part of the hand which you posted.your keen to post photos but not the one which we all like to see,sheila lying on top of the bed
Your full of shit, Sheila grabbed mother, and blood ran onto the top part of Sheila's hand, because when she grabbed her mother by the throat both were stood upright and because of gravity blood ran down onto the top part of Sheila's hand, that was firmly in position at that particular time, as it were throttling her mother - now which part don't you understand?
-
Your full of shit, Sheila grabbed mother, and blood ran onto the top part of Sheila's hand, because when she grabbed her mother by the throat both were stood upright and because of gravity blood ran down onto the top part of Sheila's hand, that was firmly in position at that particular time, as it were throttling her mother - now which part don't you understand?
Mike wasn't June pinned to the bed with the first few shots, which went through her body and the bedhead or pillow behind?
-
my last comment to you iam not carrying on your childess games .POST THE PHOTO OF SHEILA ON THE BED
Ask Essex police to disclose 'it' to Bambers legal team, with a truthful explanation...
-
Ask Essex police to disclose 'it' to Bambers legal team, with a truthful explanation...
And keep this image clearly imprinted in your mind, let it be a reminder that Sheila tried to throttle her mother. Why was that then, was it because Jeremy was the killer, not Sheila?
-
The police know that Sheila 'tried to throttle her mother'...
The visible evidence is there for all to see, upon Junes throat, and upon the top part of Sheila's right hand...
This is 'overwhelming evidence', which points to Sheila Caffells culpability...
-
my last comment to you iam not carrying on your childess games .POST THE PHOTO OF SHEILA ON THE BED
I'll tell you what to do--------find the pic of June's bed with the covers turned back showing the blood on Neville's side,then look for the pic which shows the BACK of Sheila's nightdress and see how the puzzle fits to her having been on the bed.
-
There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Sheila meant to harm her mother - you do not grab somebody by the throat unless you intend to cause the victim some harm. What we can also fathom out, by reference to these marks, is that June Bamber must have been upright on her feet when Sheila grabbed by the throat, which was at sometime after June had presumably already been shot no less than five times, already. So, by that stage, with five bullets pumped into her body, June appeared not to have wanted to die, Sheila was out of bullets, so she tried to throttle her...
-
I'll tell you what to do--------find the pic of June's bed with the covers turned back showing the blood on Neville's side,then look for the pic which shows the BACK of Sheila's nightdress and see how the puzzle fits to her having been on the bed.
That heavy bloodstain on the rear of Sheila's nightdress had to come from somewhere, other than her own wounds...
-
I'll tell you what to do--------find the pic of June's bed with the covers turned back showing the blood on Neville's side,then look for the pic which shows the BACK of Sheila's nightdress and see how the puzzle fits to her having been on the bed.
I WANT TO SEE THE PHOTO OF SHEILA LYING ON THE BED ,MIKE HAS IT
-
I'll tell you what to do--------find the pic of June's bed with the covers turned back showing the blood on Neville's side,then look for the pic which shows the BACK of Sheila's nightdress and see how the puzzle fits to her having been on the bed.
There is no blood on Nevill's side or any picture of the back of Sheila's ND. If there are, then post them here and no one will need to go looking for them.
-
Mike wasn't June pinned to the bed with the first few shots, which went through her body and the bedhead or pillow behind?
That's what cops say, they say she was shot as many as five times whilst laying in bed on her side, thats five shots all in one go, out of a maximum of 10 / 11 in a full load of the rifle. June got out of bed after that, and walked around in the bedroom. The killer had clearly not killed her off by that stage. So, with this new evidence what we have got is Sheila trying to throttle her mother after her mother had already been wounded by five bullets. Why would Sheila feel there was a need to throttle mother after mother had already been shot no less than five times? There was clearly an intent to do her mother harm in those circumstances. In my view the evidence regarding this is overwhelming, it puts Jeremy in the clear...
-
There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Sheila meant to harm her mother - you do not grab somebody by the throat unless you intend to cause the victim some harm. What we can also fathom out, by reference to these marks, is that June Bamber must have been upright on her feet when Sheila grabbed by the throat, which was at sometime after June had presumably already been shot no less than five times, already. So, by that stage, with five bullets pumped into her body, June appeared not to have wanted to die, Sheila was out of bullets, so she tried to throttle her...
Sheila never grabbed anyone but I'd have loved it if she grabbed the rifle and put two rounds right between Bamber's eyes.
-
That's what cops say, they say she was shot as many as five times whilst laying in bed on her side, thats five shots all in one go, out of a maximum of 10 / 11 in a full load of the rifle. June got out of bed after that, and walked around in the bedroom. The killer had clearly not killed her off by that stage. So, with this new evidence what we have got is Sheila trying to throttle her mother after her mother had already been wounded by five bullets. Why would Sheila feel there was a need to throttle mother after mother had already been shot no less than five times? There was clearly an intent to do her mother harm in those circumstances. In my view the evidence regarding this is overwhelming, it puts Jeremy in the clear...
And Nevill just stood there allowing it. What a load of nonsense you post.
-
Now that its been pointed out, that there is evidence that Sheila tried to throttle June, its got 'them lot' worried...
None of 'em can say where else those bloodied marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand came from? And the pathologist, he describes the marks on Junes throat as having been caused by a hand, oh dear, that's put the cat amongst the pigeons...
Sheila did try to throttle June Bamber, after Sheila had already shot her five times...
-
Sheila never grabbed anyone but I'd have loved it if she grabbed the rifle and put two rounds right between Bamber's eyes.
-
There is no blood on Nevill's side or any picture of the back of Sheila's ND. If there are, then post them here and no one will need to go looking for them.
-
And Nevill just stood there allowing it. What a load of nonsense you post.
-
Well let's see, Sheila left the rifle lying on the floor while she throttled June. ;D ;D ;D
You're getting worse!
-
Looks to me, like a clear case of Sheila having grabbed June by the throat with use of her right hand, after June had already been shot not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but after she had been shot five times, and both June and Sheila were standing upright, at a time when Sheila was no longer holding a loaded rifle...
-
Looks to me, like a clear case of Sheila having grabbed June by the throat with use of her right hand, after June had already been shot not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but after she had been shot five times, and both June and Sheila were standing upright, at a time when Sheila was no longer holding a loaded rifle...
Jeremy Bambers prospects of winning his appeal have just improved dramatically because of the 'fresh evidence' I have just uncovered...
-
Sheila caused corresponding marks in the shape of her right hand upon her mothers throat whilst trying to kill her mother off with her bare hands...
-
YOu can't grab someone with the back of your hand!
-
Lets get the facts right, Sheila can be now shown to have been trying to throttle her mother with her bare hands, but Sheila was responsible for placing the only rifle found upstairs at one of the upstairs windows at around 7.15am. She was also shot downstairs in the kitchen, a shooting which became subject of 'an officers report', her death being reported as 'a suicide' before 7.45am. Her body which was one of the two bodies downstairs in the kitchen from 7.37am, but which ended up in the bedroom upstairs from 8.30am, onward...
-
YOu can't grab someone with the back of your hand!
'Huston, we have contact'
Do ya, copy'?
-
The pathologist refers to these marks as being present on the top of Sheila's hand. He performed the autopsy on Sheila's corpse, why should I believe you, rather than him?
-
Access to the negatives of all the images taken of the marks on June Bambers throat will no doubt now be scrutinised by various experts to ascertain whether any marks there, and the marks on the top of Sheila's right hand are a perfect match or otherwise...
-
Oh, and before I forget, according to the pathologist, the gouge marks he examined on Ralph Bambers forearm were made by the end of the rifles barrel, minus the silencer, when the killer prodded his arm...
-
So, with no silencer on the guns barrel when Ralph was attacked and killed, it begs the question, who died first Ralph or Sheila?
-
So, with no silencer on the guns barrel when Ralph was attacked and killed, it begs the question, who died first Ralph or Sheila?
If Ralph died before Sheila, why would the killer put the silencer back on the barrel of the rifle, just to shoot Sheila? And then even more bizarrely remove it again after the killer had shot her?
-
So, we've got Sheila trying to strangle mother after mother had already been shot at least five times, and we've got the killer prodding Ralph with the barrel of the gun minus its silencer perhaps checking to see if dad was dead...
-
So, we've got Sheila trying to strangle mother after mother had already been shot at least five times, and we've got the killer prodding Ralph with the barrel of the gun minus its silencer perhaps checking to see if dad was dead...
Mother upstairs in the main bedroom, dad downstairs in the kitchen...
How can Sheila have ended up on the bedroom floor, shot with the anshuzt rifle with its silencer attached, if it was no longer fitted to the guns barrel when dad got attacked downstairs in the kitchen? This is an additional problem to the one involving the fact that at 7.15am, somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse 'showed' the anshuzt rifle minus its silencer at an upstairs window?
-
not at all its not a known fact other mentaltly ill people do not clean themselfs before commiting suicide.only a few cases in thousands
If you could post a source for that statement it might help me get my head around the triple negative.
-
'Huston, we have contact'
Do ya, copy'?
The " half-moon " shaped mark on Sheila's hand looks for all the world as though someone had dug their fingernail in it. They'd all been attacking each other by the look of things.The three adults.
-
It is also ,very telling, indeed, that 'bad apple cops' cut 7 negatives out of the bedroom (0021) negative strip, and a further 8 negatives out of the 'gun cupboard' (0039) negative strip. It should be obvious to everybody why cops would not want anybody outside the 'circle of corruption' to see 7 photographs taken in the main bedroom, and a further 8 photographs that were taken in the gun cupboard of the den, downstairs...
-
'Bad apple cops' took 7 photographs inside 'this bedroom' that they didn't want anyone outside their 'Circle of Corruption' to see or as it were find out about:-
This photograph was taken at around 10.20am, and contains three 'significant elements of evidential value'., in addition to the time on the the clock situated on June Bambers bedside cabinet?
-
'Bad apple cops' took 7 photographs inside 'this bedroom' that they didn't want anyone outside their 'Circle of Corruption' to see or as it were find out about:-
Which begs the question, why bother to take photos of things they didn't want seen?
-
Which begs the question, why bother to take photos of things they didn't want seen?
Because the photographs they took were never intended for use in any Criminal proceedings, as was made clear from the outset. That's why. But once the matter turned into a Criminal investigation, they weeded out any damaging or incriminating photographs, or is it your case that Jeremy fooled them into weeding out such photographs? I mean, you might as well be consistent and blame poor Jeremy because he gets blamed for everything...
-
'Bad apple cops' took 7 photographs inside 'this bedroom' that they didn't want anyone outside their 'Circle of Corruption' to see or as it were find out about:-
This photograph was taken at around 10.20am, and contains three 'significant elements of evidential value'., in addition to the time on the the clock situated on June Bambers bedside cabinet?
First significant element of evidential value (1) - Rifle on body 'alters in position in other photographs'...
Second significant element of evidential value (2) - Junes body 'alters in position near to doorway'...
Third significant element of evidential value (3) - Wet light blue leggings are 'not hanging over bannister'...
-
Wet light blue leggings are missing from the bannister, meaning cops placed them there - leggings were 'wet looking', as though somebody had soaked or tried to rinse them out...
Third significant element of evidential value (3) - Wet light blue leggings are 'not hanging over bannister'...
-
In response to those who say that if Sheila had been stood upright at all that there would have been more blood on the front of her nightdress, my response is 'not necessarily'. I am told that when she got shot in the kitchen, that she went to ground very quickly and appeared not to be breathing. There was very little external blood flow from the solitary wound that was inflicted at 'that' time, and her body remained there on the kitchen floor for about half an hour without moving. This having been the case, there was very little if any opportunity for much of her blood to run down the front of her nightdress...
About half an hour after she was shot downstairs in the kitchen (her death having already been described as 'a suicide' before 7.45am), she is known to have recovered consciousness and got to her feet, and gone upstairs to the bedroom where she collapsed into unconsciousness again onto her parents bed.The single wound she sustained downstairs in the kitchen half an hour previously would have become 'plugged' with congealed blood within 15 minutes of her being shot in the first instance...
-
Second significant element of evidential value (2) - Junes body 'alters in position near to doorway'...
-
I remember there having been blood on the door where she'd been " propped up ". A body doesn't slide down the door and end up in the position that she was " found ".
-
First significant element of evidential value (1) - Rifle on body 'alters in position in other photographs'...
'Ron' Cook said he only moved Sheila's right hand so that PC Bird (SOCO) could photograph the bloodied marks on the nightdress, (blood which came from Sheila having tried to throttle her mother earlier)...
-
If all this isn't enough, then the following images show the 'changing shape' of the heavy bloodstain on the armpit area of the upper right part of Sheila Caffells nightdress:-
-
That little rug underneath her had been put there probably to stop any further transfer of blood from the bed where she lay because the blood on the opposite side to where June was didn't belong to Neville and it wasn't June's. Who's to argue if these things weren't recorded,then destroyed/missing later ?
-
Wet light blue leggings are missing from the bannister, meaning cops placed them there - leggings were 'wet looking', as though somebody had soaked or tried to rinse them out...
Third significant element of evidential value (3) - Wet light blue leggings are 'not hanging over bannister'...
The tights/leggings are still there, the spindles are blacked out near to the door because of something hanging over the bannister - the tights/leggings!
-
Which were probably wet.
-
That little rug underneath her had been put there probably to stop any further transfer of blood from the bed where she lay because the blood on the opposite side to where June was didn't belong to Neville and it wasn't June's. Who's to argue if these things weren't recorded,then destroyed/missing later ?
Dear god! ::)
-
Even more significant, an 'area / region, of expiated blood spotting' close to the right breast are of her nightdress, consistent with her having been gasping for breath, or blood that was spurting, after she had been shot...
-
Even more significant, an 'area / region, of expiated blood spotting' close to the right breast are of her nightdress, consistent with her having been gasping for breath, or blood that was spurting, after she had been shot...
The pictures are from a different angle. they show nothing of the sort!
-
So, within the stroke of less than 24 hours, I have produced fresh arguments which are more than capable of being representative of 'evidence which shows Sheila's culpability', in the commissioning of these other four murders...
-
The tights/leggings are still there, the spindles are blacked out near to the door because of something hanging over the bannister - the tights/leggings!
The triumph of reality over fantasy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
So, within the stroke of less than 24 hours, I have produced fresh arguments which are more than capable of being representative of 'evidence which shows Sheila's culpability', in the commissioning of these other four murders...
Seriously? I don't think so!
-
The pictures are from a different angle. they show nothing of the sort!
Are you pretending to be blind?
Everyone can see that there is a multiple spotting of 'expiated blood, right there on the nightdress, where I have circled 'it' in yellow. Are you suggesting that there is no blood there? Are you going to be suggesting that Jeremy was responsible for making this 'expiated blood' appear there? Worse still, did 'I draw the spots of expiated blood on the nightdress'?
-
The triumph of reality over fantasy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody placed those 'wet light blue leggings' over the bannister, or removed them, in-between different photographs...
-
Are you pretending to be blind?
Everyone can see that there is a multiple spotting of 'expiated blood, right there on the nightdress, where I have circled 'it' in yellow. Are you suggesting that there is no blood there? Are you going to be suggesting that Jeremy was responsible for making this 'expiated blood' appear there? Worse still, did 'I draw the spots of expiated blood on the nightdress'?
Well, of course, you're fully entitled to call it what you like. However, I'D have said that "expiated" blood would have covered a far greater area.
-
Nothing is blacking out anything on the bannister, the 'wet looking light blue leggings' are clearly on the flat part of the bannister in one of the photographs, not the sloping part of the same bannister...
-
Are you pretending to be blind?
Everyone can see that there is a multiple spotting of 'expiated blood, right there on the nightdress, where I have circled 'it' in yellow. Are you suggesting that there is no blood there? Are you going to be suggesting that Jeremy was responsible for making this 'expiated blood' appear there? Worse still, did 'I draw the spots of expiated blood on the nightdress'?
Everyone can see that YOU are calling it expiated blood. Whatever the dots are, aren't even the same colour as the blood.
-
Nothing is blacking out anything on the bannister, the 'wet looking light blue leggings' are clearly on the flat part of the bannister in one of the photographs, not the sloping part of the same bannister...
Does "wet looking" mean wet or simply looking wet?
-
Nothing is blacking out anything on the bannister, the 'wet looking light blue leggings' are clearly on the flat part of the bannister in one of the photographs, not the sloping part of the same bannister...
I beg to differ!
-
Well, of course, you're fully entitled to call it what you like. However, I'D have said that "expiated" blood would have covered a far greater area.
How much extra blood do you require me to insert onto the heavily bloodstained area so that you will accept that the other blood which is clearly visible on her nightdress is 'expiated blood'?
-
How much extra blood do you require me to insert onto the heavily bloodstained area so that you will accept that the other blood which is clearly visible on her nightdress is 'expiated blood'?
As many as you like - it's NOT even the same colour.
-
I beg to differ!
...
-
Well, of course, you're fully entitled to call it what you like. However, I'D have said that "expiated" blood would have covered a far greater area.
Not coming from a dying person it wouldn't be everywhere,for obvious reasons.
-
As many as you like - it's NOT even the same colour.
Your explanation is a pathetic excuse for just wanting to oppose the fact that 'there was clearly expiated blood present upon that nightdress', and I'm not bothered what colour you say it has to be, or what it is, what else could it be?
-
I beg to differ!
The leggings are shown draped over the banister on the landing. There are only three newel posts level before the corner. The leggings by necessity are draped there. If the leggings had been hung where you suggest they would slide down the stairs.
-
The leggings are shown draped over the banister on the landing. There are only three newel posts level before the corner. The leggings by necessity are draped there. If the leggings had been hung where you suggest they would slide down the stairs.
I agree...
-
Were cops ' undressing the female victims', and rinsing away any incriminating evidence which might prove that cops had been abusing the victims in that bedroom?
-
Were cops ' undressing the female victims', and rinsing away any incriminating evidence which might prove that cops had been abusing the victims in that bedroom?
I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...
Who had been wearing them?
Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...
This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom, captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...
-
YOu can't grab someone with the back of your hand!
you can in mikes mind :)) :)) ;)
-
Jeremy Bambers prospects of winning his appeal have just improved dramatically because of the 'fresh evidence' I have just uncovered...
which appeal.he wont be getting anymore appeals
-
I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...
Who had been wearing them?
Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...
This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom, captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...
I see no evidence of a recently washed garment but I expect you'll say they were still dripping. In which case, such material would have doubled in length because it stretches when wet. It also occurs to me, if my memory is correct, that those who described Sheila's attire that afternoon made no mention of "light blue leggings".
-
common sense.tells me that if ep hid evidence for 30 years ,than they are hardly going to release it now or in the future.they will destroy it ,if they havent already done so,so where the evidence for a new appeal is going to come from.i dont know,mike might ;)
-
I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...
Who had been wearing them?
Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...
This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom, captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...
Who said they have just been washed? There is nothing in any of the pictures that she they had just been washed.
The rest of your post doesn't even warrant comment. None of that happened and I would hope that decent minded people would protest to your post - that is, if there are any left here!
-
you can in mikes mind :)) :)) ;)
stop being ridiculous...
It is quite obvious that Sheila was the person who had 'grabbed' her mother by the throat to try and kill her. The presence of corresponding linear marks upon Junes throat and the top part of Sheila's right hand provides confirmation of this. It is very obvious as to why Sheila's hand got marked as it did, because Junes neck was grabbed below where the corresponding blood on her throat was present. Sheila grabbed her mother slightly below where this blood was, and as a result of her mothers head lolling forwards and sideways trying to struggle free of Shiela's grip, marks were left on the top part of Sheila's right hand. Nothing could be clearer. The pathologist, Peter Venezis knew that the killer had grabbed June by the throat because he said as much when he testified during the trial. He would have known and did know about the blood that was present upon the top part of Sheila's right hand, and he would almost certainly have concluded that it had got there at the time Sheila was trying to throttle her mother, on that occasion since Sheila did not have possession or control of the loaded anshuzt rifle, otherwise she would have kept shooting at her mother, not trying to strangle her. We also know that the killer only shot June with Five bullets whilst June was in her bed. Which means does it not, that either the shooter was satisfied that enough bullets had been fired into her mother to have killed her, or that Sheila had run out of bullets...
This makes me think, that Sheila had already used five or six rounds up already, or that she knew she needed the other bullets still loaded in the gun to try to kill off her dad...
Had Sheila killed off dad, before she started to shoot her mother in bed?
I personally now do not think so, I think the remaining bullets were needed to try and kill her dad...
-
I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...
Who had been wearing them?
Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...
This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom, captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...
Have you been reading porn, Mike? The above suggestion is getting pretty close to you posting such.
-
Who said they have just been washed? There is nothing in any of the pictures that she they had just been washed.
The rest of your post doesn't even warrant comment. None of that happened and I would hope that decent minded people would protest to your post - that is, if there are any left here!
Now, first of all, don't you or anybody else try to tell me what to say. I have seen the disgusting photographs that these so called decent cops took of Sheila on the bed, you haven't so maybe that does not entitle you to the same view or opinion as me. Yes, the images they took are indecent, and no doubt that's why 7 associated images have been removed from the disclosed material. In so far as to whom did those blue leggings belong too, I don't think they belonged to June Bamber, or had been worn by her during her death struggle. I don't think they belonged to Ralph Bamber, because he was photographed downstairs in his pyjama bottoms. I don't think any of the cops had been wearing them, so that leaves Sheila Caffell. Now, it seems to me that you are not interested in getting at the truth in this case, because it is important to know which of the two females was wearing those blue leggings at the scene. I don't think it was June Bamber because of all the blood running down her legs. On the other hand, I am firmly of the belief that because Sheila Caffells legs appear to have been so clean, that 'she' was the wearer of them. Moving on from this, it needs to be found out, when, and whom had removed those key leggings, and lastly but not least, who had washed them or rinsed them out?
-
stop being ridiculous...
It is quite obvious that Sheila was the person who had 'grabbed' her mother by the throat to try and kill her. The presence of corresponding linear marks upon Junes throat and the top part of Sheila's right hand provides confirmation of this. It is very obvious as to why Sheila's hand got marked as it did, because Junes neck was grabbed below where the corresponding blood on her throat was present. Sheila grabbed her mother slightly below this blood was, and as a result of her mothers head lolling forwards and sideways trying to struggle free of Shiela's grip, marks were left on the top part of Sheila's right hand. Nothing could be clearer. The pathologist, Peter Venezis knew that the killer had grabbed June by the throat because he said as much when he testified during the trial. He would have known and did know about the blood that was present upon the top part of Sheila's right hand, and he would have almost certainly have concluded that it had got there at the time Sheila was trying to throttle her mother, on an occasion seven Sheila did not have possession or control of the loaded anshuzt rifle, otherwise she would have kept shooting at her mother, not trying to strangle her. We also know that the killer only shot June with Five bullets whilst June was in her bed. Which means does it not, that either the shooter was satisfied that enough bullets had been fired into her mother to have killed her, or that Sheila had run out of bullets...
This makes me think, that Sheila had already used five or six rounds up already, or that she knew she needed the other bullets still loaded in the gun to try to kill off her dad...
Had Sheila killed off dad, before she started to shoot her mother in bed?
I personally now do not think so, I think the remaining bullets were needed to try and kill her dad...
why did she not use the rifle to beat her.make no mistake some one used it on nb to give him a awful beating in the kitchen,black eyes,broken nose and other injurys ;)
-
Now, first of all, don't you or anybody else try to tell me what to say. I have seen the disgusting photographs that these so called decent cops took of Sheila on the bed, you haven't so maybe that does not entitle you to the same view or opinion as me. Yes, the images they took are indecent, and no doubt that's why 7 associated images have been removed from the disclosed material. In so far as to whom did those blue leggings belong too, I don't think they belonged to June Bamber, or had been worn by her during her death struggle. I don't think they belonged to Ralph Bamber, because he was photographed downstairs in his pyjama bottoms. I don't think any of the cops had been wearing them, so that leaves Sheila Caffell. Now, it seems to me that you are not interested in getting at the truth in this case, because it is important to know which of the two females was wearing those blue leggings at the scene. I don't think it was June Bamber because of all the blood running down her legs. On the other hand, I am firmly of the belief that because Sheila Caffells legs appear to have been so clean, that 'she' was the wearer of them. Moving on from this, it needs to be found out, when, and whom had removed those key leggings, and lastly but not least, who had washed them or rinsed them out?
care to post those disgusting photos police took ;)
-
Have you been reading porn, Mike? The above suggestion is getting pretty close to you posting such.
Ask the cops who undressed Sheila when her body was on top of the bed with only a single shot to her neck at 'that' stage. Ask the cops why they raised the hem of her nightdress and took lewd photographs of her body when she was unconscious. You seem to know what porn is...
-
care to post those disgusting photos police took ;)
Will cops disclose the 7 missing negatives of negative strip 00021 which captured some of those images?
Write and ask them too...
-
Will cops disclose the 7 missing negatives of negative strip 00021 which captured some of those images?
Write and ask them too...
ive already emailed them'ep' waiting for their reply
-
why did she not use the rifle to beat her.make no mistake some one used it on nb to give him a awful beating in the kitchen,black eyes,broken nose and other injurys ;)
After much contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that either at the time Sheila was shooting her mother who was in bed (first episode of 5 shots) that Sheila (a) thought that she had killed her mother, or (b) that Sheila was interrupted in what she was trying to do by her dad appearing in the bedroom?
If hard pushed I would be inclined to believe that she got interrupted as per scenario (b)...
So, she fired a shot or two off at dad...
Dad darts off downstairs to the kitchen phone, and Sheila fires a shot at him whilst he makes off down the main stairs. She eventually pursues him downstairs into the kitchen. By the time she enters the kitchen, dad has already made the very brief call to Jeremy, and he has started talking on the phone to the police at 3.26am. Sheila has four or five live rounds still in the rifle, and she manages to fire all four or five rounds off, killing dad outright. When she is out of bullets, she proceeded to hit dad with the empty weapon...
During this episode she prods dad with the muzzle end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, and jabs him on the back of his neck after warming the muzzle in the aga...
-
ive already emailed them'ep' waiting for their reply
Don't forget to let us know what they have to say about it...
-
ive a couple of FREINDS in ep.first i doubt if any evidence they have will free jb,secondly assuming there is evidence than they will destroy it,they will never give jb the chance to prove them corrupt and than have to pay him millions for false imprisonment,WILL NEVER HAPPEN ;)
-
Next, Sheila reloads the gun. She could get 10 rounds in the ammunition magazine, and one already loaded into the breach, providing her with a possible maximum of 11 shots at her disposal...
-
After much contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that either at the time Sheila was shooting her mother who was in bed (first episode of 5 shots) that Sheila (a) thought that she had killed her mother, or (b) that Sheila was interrupted in what she was trying to do by her dad appearing in the bedroom?
If hard pushed I would be inclined to believe that she got interrupted as per scenario (b)...
So, she fired a shot or two off at dad...
Dad darts off downstairs to the kitchen phone, and Sheila fires a shot at him whilst he makes off down the main stairs. She eventually pursues him downstairs into the kitchen. By the time she enters the kitchen, dad has already made the very brief call to Jeremy, and he has started talking on the phone to the police at 3.26am. Sheila has four or five live rounds still in the rifle, and she manages to fire all four or five rounds off, killing dad outright. When she is out of bullets, she proceeded to hit dad with the empty weapon...
During this episode she prods dad with the muzzle end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, and jabs him on the back of his neck after warming the muzzle in the aga...
Mike she was exhausted by the Tuesday night after attending two weekend parties, riding down to Essex and enduring a shopping expedition with June, along with additional duties caring for the twins. I just don't see her metamorphosing into this Lynda Carter Wonder Woman figure, when even Jeremy asserts that when he left she evinced her customary vacant stare..
-
Next, Sheila reloads the gun. She could get 10 rounds in the ammunition magazine, and one already loaded into the breach, providing her with a possible maximum of 11 shots at her disposal...
As Sheila reaches the top landing of the main stairs, she sees her mother near the entrance of her bedroom, her mother is staggering around, so Sheila must have felt very confident in being able to kill her off with her hand by grabbing her mother by the throat, forcing her down, and whilst she was down, only then did Sheila shoot her mother twice more, once directly between the eyes...
-
Mike she was exhausted by the Tuesday night after attending two weekend parties, riding down to Essex and enduring a shopping expedition with June, along with additional duties caring for the twins. I just don't see her metamorphosing into this Lynda Carter Wonder Woman figure, when even Jeremy asserts that when he left she evinced her customary vacant stare..
steve the excuse they will use is she was in a psychotic state
-
Ask the cops who undressed Sheila when her body was on top of the bed with only a single shot to her neck at 'that' stage. Ask the cops why they raised the hem of her nightdress and took lewd photographs of her body when she was unconscious. You seem to know what porn is...
Why? You're the one proclaiming their alleged misdoings?
-
Mike she was exhausted by the Tuesday night after attending two weekend parties, riding down to Essex and enduring a shopping expedition with June, along with additional duties caring for the twins. I just don't see her metamorphosing into this Lynda Carter Wonder Woman figure, when even Jeremy asserts that when he left she evinced her customary vacant stare..
She appears to have been somewhat disinterested in socialising with her aunty Pamela at about 10pm, and had gone upstairs to bed, but no-one really knows whether she went to bed, or not. If she went to bed, and let's say she hadn't been the killer, how did the real killer manage to coax her out of her bed in the middle of the night, and based upon cops official version of events (Sheila found dead on bedroom floor in possession of the rifle), how had the killer managed to persuade her to come past her badly wounded if not dead mother near the bedroom door, and waltz her to the other side of the bed, make her lay down to be shot, without any resistance whatsoever by Sheila in trying to stop herself from being shot, or even reacting to the shooting of her mother? She had sufficient energy and mobility to go shopping on that morning with her mother, and her two boys, and she was motivated that afternoon to visit her brother Jeremy who was on the tractor in a field that was farmed by the Banners...
-
Why? You're the one proclaiming their alleged misdoings?
No, I am not. Jeremy has already complained about these matters himself, he accused cops of using the bodies of his deceased family like 'props' in a stage production'. You should be pointing your finger at the cops, not me...
-
Now, first of all, don't you or anybody else try to tell me what to say. I have seen the disgusting photographs that these so called decent cops took of Sheila on the bed, you haven't so maybe that does not entitle you to the same view or opinion as me. Yes, the images they took are indecent, and no doubt that's why 7 associated images have been removed from the disclosed material. In so far as to whom did those blue leggings belong too, I don't think they belonged to June Bamber, or had been worn by her during her death struggle. I don't think they belonged to Ralph Bamber, because he was photographed downstairs in his pyjama bottoms. I don't think any of the cops had been wearing them, so that leaves Sheila Caffell. Now, it seems to me that you are not interested in getting at the truth in this case, because it is important to know which of the two females was wearing those blue leggings at the scene. I don't think it was June Bamber because of all the blood running down her legs. On the other hand, I am firmly of the belief that because Sheila Caffells legs appear to have been so clean, that 'she' was the wearer of them. Moving on from this, it needs to be found out, when, and whom had removed those key leggings, and lastly but not least, who had washed them or rinsed them out?
You've seen them? So where are they?
-
No, I am not. Jeremy has already complained about these matters himself, he accused cops of using the bodies of his deceased family like 'props' in a stage production'. You should be pointing your finger at the cops, not me...
Jeremy has 'alleged' a lot of things. He has nothing to lose by doing so and some people actually fall for it.
-
Jeremy has 'alleged' a lot of things. He has nothing to lose by doing so and some people actually fall for it.
OK, let's look at it another way then - where are the missing 7 photographic negatives of negative strip 00021 that were taken in the bedroom? Secondly, why hasn't there been a full disclosure of all the officers who partook in that training exercise 'familiars', regarding the actions they took during that hour long period inside 'that' bedroom, before the crime scene was handed over to SOCO?
-
OK, let's look at it another way then - where are the missing 7 photographic negatives of negative strip 00021 that were taken in the bedroom? Secondly, why hasn't there been a full disclosure of all the officers who partook in that training exercise 'familiars', regarding the actions they took during that hour long period inside 'that' bedroom, before the crime scene was handed over to SOCO?
Why has the CCRC 'refused' to let Jeremy have access to the 'crime scene video'?
Who was responsible for taking this key footage?
-
The bottom line, is that now there exists an opportunity for Jeremy's legal team to become engaged in the process of establishing 'contact' between Sheila Caffell, and her mother, during the occasion after blood had already been spilt, that Sheila had tried to throttle her mother by grabbing her by the throat, at which time blood which was present there became transferred onto the top part of Sheila's right hand...
What other reason would Sheila have been trying to throttle her mother, minutes before her mother's death?
-
No, I am not. Jeremy has already complained about these matters himself, he accused cops of using the bodies of his deceased family like 'props' in a stage production'. You should be pointing your finger at the cops, not me...
Sorry Mike. I had no idea that Jeremy has accused the police of sexually violating the dead body of his sister -indeed, how could he possibly have known unless one of them had bragged about it- I had thought the worst he'd accused them of was murdering her.
-
Sorry Mike. I had no idea that Jeremy has accused the police of sexually violating the dead body of his sister -indeed, how could he possibly have known unless one of them had bragged about it- I had thought the worst he'd accused them of was murdering her.
Jeremy complained when he found out that cops had been moving the bodies of his family about between 9 and 10am, before the official crime scene photographs were taken. One of the photographs which upset him, was a photograph of a banner on the roof of the farmhouse which read 'Mick was here' - a reference to Mick Clarke, one of the investigating cops...
-
Jeremy complained when he found out that cops had been moving the bodies of his family about between 9 and 10am, before the official crime scene photographs were taken. One of the photographs which upset him, was a photograph of a banner on the roof of the farmhouse which read 'Mick was here' - a reference to Mick Clarke, one of the investigating cops...
what was this banner written on .and how did they get it on the roof.
-
Jeremy complained when he found out that cops had been moving the bodies of his family about between 9 and 10am, before the official crime scene photographs were taken. One of the photographs which upset him, was a photograph of a banner on the roof of the farmhouse which read 'Mick was here' - a reference to Mick Clarke, one of the investigating cops...
Please can you confirm whether he did/didn't accuse police of the sexual violation of his sister's body post mortem.
-
Jeremy complained when he found out that cops had been moving the bodies of his family about between 9 and 10am, before the official crime scene photographs were taken. One of the photographs which upset him, was a photograph of a banner on the roof of the farmhouse which read 'Mick was here' - a reference to Mick Clarke, one of the investigating cops...
if thats true its not only immoral but also criminal.on the roof of the house where 5 were dead
-
police do get it wrong now and then,colin stagg,barry geoge,some others but not in this case.having said that i was one of the ones who thought stagg was guilty.after the dog walker identified him and his conviction for nude sunbathing on the common.interestingly when one looks at photos of stagg and the real killer its easy to see the dog walkers mistake .eareily simmilar looking
-
Then we have SOCO's photographing the gun cupboard under the back stairs, where on the 10th August, 1985, three days later, David Boutflour finding a silencer in the cupboard where three days earlier (7th August 1985), no silencer had been...
Only two photographs out of 10 were disclosed, those being photographs, 7 and 8. Negatives 1,2,3,4,5, 6 and 9, an 10 were all missing from negative strip 00039...
-
Please can you confirm whether he did/didn't accuse police of the sexual violation of his sister's body post mortem.
He did, on the basis of information received from Essex police, and input from me regarding the semi nude photograph of Sheila on the bed. Jeremy thought the blue leggings belonged to his mum, but I don't think so, I believe Sheila had been wearing them during the attacks. What puzzles me, is who washed them or rinsed them out? Her knickers were soaking downstairs in the kitchen where the body of her father ended up. A box of 9 tampons in a box on one of the two single beds in Sheila;s bedroom. A solitary empty tampon container found on a sofa in the lounge...
The pathologist confirmed that Sheila was in the first stages of her menstrual cycle, and that she had a tampon inserted at the time of her death...
That's why I think those light blue leggings were being worn by Sheila...
-
Do the missing photographs, 1,2,3,4,5,6,9, and 10, from negative strip 00039 prove that there was no silencer inside the gun cupboard on the morning of the shootings?
This is an important question, since if it wasn't, and the silencer was use during the shootings, then whoever introduced 'that' silencer into 'that' gun cupboard must have had something to do with the killings...
The relatives introduced the silencer, not Jeremy...
-
what was this banner written on .and how did they get it on the roof.
We had a copy of the photograph on the old forum, I believe it was written on a white coloured 'cotten or maybe a paper sheet'. It would help if somebody could lay their hands upon it...
-
Do the missing photographs, 1,2,3,4,5,6,9, and 10, from negative strip 00039 prove that there was no silencer inside the gun cupboard on the morning of the shootings?
This is an important question, since if it wasn't, and the silencer was used during the shootings, then whoever introduced 'that' silencer into 'that' gun cupboard must have had something to do with the killings...
The relatives introduced the silencer, not Jeremy...
Robert Boutflour was the first to make mention of a possible silencer having been use in the shootings, and as a result of his interest in a silencer, it was he who told the cops that one had been recovered from the farmhouse, which caused DS Jones to go and see Peter Eaton, and duly collect one on the evening of 12th August, 1985...
I don't know why Peter Eaton handed a silencer over because he wasn't there at the time of its alleged fine on the 10th August, 1985...
-
One of the problems faced by Essex police at that stage, was that 'all the relatives all owned their own parker hale silencers', and neither Robert Boutflour, nor David Boutflour, or Ann Eaton, knew to whom and to which rifle, the silencer they say was found in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985, belonged? Since, unbeknown to them, there were normally two identical looking parker hale silencers kept at the farmhouse, one belonging to Ralph Bambers .22 anshuzt rifle, and the other belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle...
-
One of the problems faced by Essex police at that stage, was that 'all the relatives all owned their own parker hale silencers', and neither Robert Boutflour, nor David Boutflour, or Ann Eaton, knew to whom and to which rifle, the silencer they say was found in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985, belonged? Since, unbeknown to them, there were normally two identical looking parker hale silencers kept at the farmhouse, one belonging to Ralph Bambers .22 anshuzt rifle, and the other belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle...
Jeremy was adamant that Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, and his parker hyale silencer were present at the farmhouse at the time of the shootings. You can see this, because Jeremy includes Anthony's rifle in the list of weapons that were inside the farmhouse which police asked him to draft up for them before they attempted to gain entry...
Why would Jeremy make something up, like that?
I don't think he did make that up. I am satisfied that Anthony Pargeters .22 bruno rifle, and his .22 parker hale silencer were there, in the farmhouse, exactly like Jeremy had said. So Why has Pargeter tried to distance his weapon and his own parker hale silencer from the incident?
I think the answer to that is that there is an excellent prospect that his weapon, and his silencer did play a pivotalo role in the shootings that night...
-
He did, on the basis of information received from Essex police, and input from me regarding the semi nude photograph of Sheila on the bed. Jeremy thought the blue leggings belonged to his mum, but I don't think so, I believe Sheila had been wearing them during the attacks. What puzzles me, is who washed them or rinsed them out? Her knickers were soaking downstairs in the kitchen where the body of her father ended up. A box of 9 tampons in a box on one of the two single beds in Sheila;s bedroom. A solitary empty tampon container found on a sofa in the lounge...
The pathologist confirmed that Sheila was in the first stages of her menstrual cycle, and that she had a tampon inserted at the time of her death...
That's why I think those light blue leggings were being worn by Sheila...
Thank-you, Mike, Then would I be correct in saying that it was you who told Jeremy that police had sexually violated his sister's body. I can't envisage a scenario in which police would admit to him that they'd done so.
I don't believe Sheila was wearing light blue leggings when she went to Tiptree that afternoon and you can take it as read that they wouldn't have belonged to a "twin set and pearls" lady like June.
-
Something which has stuck in my mind ever since I first heard mention of it back in 1989, when Jeremy first told me that there had been some sort of a discussion involving David Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter, regarding a silencer which cops had handed back to the family? From the research I have carried out spanning nearly 30 years, I have not come across any evidence where cops supposedly handed a silencer back to the family (at least not until after the trial, in October, 1986, when parker hale silencers belonging to Robert Boutflour, and David Boutflour, were returned to them, against signature).No, the instance that was originally mentioned to me, occurred I was led to believe after cops had seized a parker hale silencer from Peter Eaton, and prior to Jeremys re-arrest at Dover at the back end of September, 1985...
The only matter that I have been remotely able to link it too, is the possibility that the relatives seized the two parker hale silencers from the scene, but that they only handed one over to the cops at first...
.
In this respect, I am suggesting that Peter Eaton handed one of the two silencers over to DS Jones on the 12th August, 1985, and that in the meantime, Anthony Pargeter was 'enquiring' of the whereabouts of his own Parker hale silencer (the one he always had kept at the farm). I believe that David Boutflour may have shown Anthony Pargeter and told him that the cops had handed this silencer back to the family, which was not strictly true, because by that stage the cops didn't or might not have known about the existence of two identical parker hale silencers being kept at the farm. Upon being shown the second silencer, I believe Anthony Pargeter told David Boutflour that the silencer he was showing him, was not the one belonging to him, the one being shown to him belonged to the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle. I believe this exchange of words and the showing of the second parker hale silencer to Anthony Pargeter, sparked off the secondary activity involving the second parker hale silencer being handed over to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on the 11th September, 1985. I believe from the intense amount of research that I have carried out in this regard indicates in the strongest terms possible, that Peter Eaton handed over the wrong parker hale silencer to DS Jones on the 12th August 1985, he handed over the Anthony Pargeter silencer (DB/1). This mistake was not corrected until the 11th September, 1985, when Ann Eaton handed over the Bamber owned parker hale silencer (DRB/1)...
I know that I am right about all of this...
The Bamber owned parker hale silencer (DRB/1) was fingerprinted by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson, on the 13th September, 1985, and 'it' was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, until the 20th September, 1985. What all this means, is that the key flake of blood attributed to Sheila (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2/1) was not found inside the parker hale silencer bearing the identifying mark, DRB/1, but rather it had been recovered from the Anthony Pargeter owned parker hale silencer, marked DB/1...
The source of the key blood evidence in the form of the flake of blood, has been switched from DB/1 to DRB/1 at the stroke of a pen (on several occasions, which required alteration so that both parker hale silencers could be merged into the same one)...
-
Thank-you, Mike, Then would I be correct in saying that it was you who told Jeremy that police had sexually violated his sister's body. I think you have got the wrong end of the stick, in the sense that I did no such thing. Jeremy had by that stage received new photographs of his fathers body in the kitchen with his pyjama bottoms down around his ankles, and the other photographs, including the one with the banner on the roof at whf saying 'Mick was here', or words to that effect. I believe Jeremy had already got in his mind to complain before I obtained the image of Sheila on the bed which I recounted to him, over the phone on the evening that I came into possession of that photograph, and in the accompanying letter I addressed to Jeremy in the same A4 envelope that I posted the image of Sheila to him, which prison security intercepted. I don't have to keep explaining what I did regarding the possession I had of that photograph, the matter is well documented and Jeremy does not doubt my word that everything I have recounted to him about what I did, I thought that I was doing in Jeremys best interests. In any event, on the same evening of the day that I came into possession of the photograph which proves Sheila was on the bed, prior to her body becoming photographed on the bedroom floor, and during 'that' booked phone call, Jeremy himself had urged me to send 'it' in to him. He didn't tell me not to send the photograph by 'Rule 37A' method, and thats what he got upset about, about me using the privileged mail system between an inmate and his legal advisor. Anyway, I didn't invite or suggest to Jeremy that he should seek to make a complaint about the manner with which cops behaved at the farmhouse interfering with the bodies of the victims. So don't blame me for something I certainly did not do... I can't envisage a scenario in which police would admit to him that they'd done so But, how strange, don't you think that Ralphs pyjama bottoms were down around his ankles, and Sheila was on the bed with the hem of her nightie pulled up above the top of her thighs? To me, I think Jeremy is right to believe that such behaviour involving members of his family does amount to sexual abuse, and that bad apple cops did abuse the bodies of the victims, and showed little respect, if any for the farmhouse itself in the aftermath of the tragedy....
I don't believe Sheila was wearing light blue leggings when she went to Tiptree that afternoon No, she must have put them on for knocking around in at the farmhouse that evening, since I do not believe that she walked around without any knickers on, with it being that time of the month for her, without something beneath the hem of her nightie for a number of different reasons including decency and comfort...and you can take it as read that they wouldn't have belonged to a "twin set and pearls" lady like June.
-
Sheila caused corresponding marks in the shape of her right hand upon her mothers throat whilst trying to kill her mother off with her bare hands...
mike could the marks have been by june putting her hand up to the throat shot
-
The bottom line, is that now there exists an opportunity for Jeremy's legal team to become engaged in the process of establishing 'contact' between Sheila Caffell, and her mother, during the occasion after blood had already been spilt, that Sheila had tried to throttle her mother by grabbing her by the throat, at which time blood which was present there became transferred onto the top part of Sheila's right hand...
What other reason would Sheila have been trying to throttle her mother, minutes before her mother's death?
The only blood on Sheila was Sheila's blood and Sheila never throttled anyone. Fantasies don't count!
-
Sheila caused corresponding marks in the shape of her right hand upon her mothers throat whilst trying to kill her mother off with her bare hands...
A load of cobblers. :)
-
In response to those who say that if Sheila had been stood upright at all that there would have been more blood on the front of her nightdress, my response is 'not necessarily'. I am told that when she got shot in the kitchen, that she went to ground very quickly and appeared not to be breathing. There was very little external blood flow from the solitary wound that was inflicted at 'that' time, and her body remained there on the kitchen floor for about half an hour without moving. This having been the case, there was very little if any opportunity for much of her blood to run down the front of her nightdress...
About half an hour after she was shot downstairs in the kitchen (her death having already been described as 'a suicide' before 7.45am), she is known to have recovered consciousness and got to her feet, and gone upstairs to the bedroom where she collapsed into unconsciousness again onto her parents bed.The single wound she sustained downstairs in the kitchen half an hour previously would have become 'plugged' with congealed blood within 15 minutes of her being shot in the first instance...
That must be the most ridiculous story you have ever invented. It even surpasses your silly claim that Sheila was photgraphed with a single shot to her neck lying on a bed.
You and David Icke would get on well! (http://images.zaazu.com/img/daze-male-cross-eye-dizzy-smiley-emoticon-000296-medium.gif)
-
The only blood on Sheila was Sheila's blood and Sheila never throttled anyone. Fantasies don't count!
Psychotic episodes can last days with the person going through manic and calmer phases. It is possible that Sheila had tried to strangle June earlier in the evening and then had calmed down before becoming manic again later. You don't get blood on your hands strangling someone.
-
We had a copy of the photograph on the old forum, I believe it was written on a white coloured 'cotten or maybe a paper sheet'. It would help if somebody could lay their hands upon it...
definitely
-
It will be possible to replicate the manner with which blood that was present on June Bambers throat became transferred onto the top part of Sheila's right hand, in addition to the photographic evidence which already exists, thus further establishing there was direct contact between Sheila and her mother in June Bambers last few moments on this earth. Everyone knows that you don't try to throttle somebody by grabbing them at the throat if you are meaning to help them because they are hurt and injured. The intent has to be to do such a person serious harm. This was what Sheila was responsible for doing to her mother. Her trying to strangle her mother is consistent with trying to harm her mother. This in turn is consistent with the original opinion of the cops, and the pathologist, Peter Venezis, that Sheila was responsible for attacking and killing her mother, and the others...
-
It will be possible to replicate the manner with which blood that was present on June Bambers throat became transferred onto the top part of Sheila's right hand, in addition to the photographic evidence which already exists, thus further establishing there was direct contact between Sheila and her mother in June Bambers last few moments on this earth. Everyone knows that you don't try to throttle somebody by grabbing them at the throat if you are meaning to help them because they are hurt and injured. The intent has to be to do such a person serious harm. This was what Sheila was responsible for doing to her mother. Her trying to strangle her mother is consistent with trying to harm her mother. This in turn is consistent with the original opinion of the cops, and the pathologist, Peter Venezis, that Sheila was responsible for attacking and killing her mother, and the others...
Two highly 'significant features', now spring to mind regarding the handling of the original investigation, when 'cops' and the 'pathologist', Peter Venezis, agreed that the case they were dealing with involved 'four murders'. At this stage, I am going to resist referring to Sheila's death as 'a suicide', because with 100% certainty she had not killed herself.
Firstly, the failing in establishing who's blood was present on all parts of June Bambers throat, and secondly, who's blood was present on the top part of Sheila's right hand, wrist, and right forearm?
I am confident that the defence should be able to get access to the photographic negatives of all the images which have now been disclosed to them, and that it will be possible to establish an accurate comparison of the marks in blood that are present on the top part of Sheila's right hand, and the area on June Bambers throat, where the pathologist has already confirmed that somebody had grabbed her by the throat - evidenced by a series of five linear marks that were visible there. These linear marks will hopefully have been captured in crime scene photographs, and ones taken during autopsy...
In any event, due to the fact that the pathologist agreed with the murder/suicide interpretation of the case at that time. It follows on from this, that he would have been satisfied that the hand that had grabbed June Bamber by the throat and had left those corresponding linear marks, was a hand that belonged to Sheila Caffell, and nobody else. He would have paid attention to the detail in those five linear marks on Junes throat, and looked at the marks in blood that were on the top part of Sheila's right hand, and there is good reason to suggest that he was satisfied that those marks on Junes throat, and the top part of Sheilas right hand,were subject of one action involving both parties. Venezis would have known to look for evidence upon the hands of Ralph Bamber, or Sheila Caffell, for any evidence that either of them, or none of them, had got evidence which was capable of confirming that one or other had during the incident leading up to June Bambers death, attempted to strangle her. For example, if no such evidence had been found on the hands of either dad or daughter, the pathologist would almost certainly have raised the alarm, by saying another person had been involved in June Bambers death, because the killer had tried to strangle June...
Even 30 years down the line, the pathologist, Peter Venezis should be able to confirm the approach he took upon finding these five linear marks upon June Bambers throat, that he has already referred to as a hand mark, and make fresh comparisons with the linear marks that were present upon the top part of Sheila Caffells right hand, and be able to confirm, that Sheila had tried to throttle her mother...
-
Re. your last paragraph Mike,that blood * on Sheila's hand also showing the " half-moon " shape grab mark could well have belonged * to June as she battled to release the grip of Sheila's hand around her throat.
-
Do the missing photographs, 1,2,3,4,5,6,9, and 10, from negative strip 00039 prove that there was no silencer inside the gun cupboard on the morning of the shootings?
This is an important question, since if it wasn't, and the silencer was use during the shootings, then whoever introduced 'that' silencer into 'that' gun cupboard must have had something to do with the killings...
The relatives introduced the silencer, not Jeremy...
there has been some talk of the marks on the mantle not being visible in the original crime scene photos.but i feel had the relatives been involved they would have put far more blood on and in the silencer.they had the blood stain panties in the bucket.imo
-
does anyone know if there are photos of the inside of sheila's hands
-
does anyone know if there are photos of the inside of sheila's hands
If there are, they aren't in the public domain. Personally, I think EP forgot to photograph her hands which is why Venezis changed his original position from stating there was blood on her hands, to her hands being clean.
-
If there are, they aren't in the public domain. Personally, I think EP forgot to photograph her hands which is why Venezis changed his original position from stating there was blood on her hands, to her hands being clean.
good point caroline.hindsight is a good thing bad mistake by ep,but they were taken in by the masterful perfomance from jb
-
does anyone know if there are photos of the inside of sheila's hands
There was no need as they were clean.
-
There was no need as they were clean.
thanks john.thats interesting cause had the fingermarks in blood on her nightie been made by her hand than there should have been traces of blood on the inside of her hand.
-
thanks john.thats interesting cause had the fingermarks in blood on her nightie been made by her hand than there should have been traces of blood on the inside of her hand.
That's because it wasn't Sheila's hand.
-
She had lovely hands, whatever her personality may or may not have lacked.
-
Yes she did Steve,that's why I say that it wasn't her handprint on her nightdress/Bible because the blood fingermarks aren't long enough to be Sheila's. You've only to look at the length of her thumb to judge the length of the rest of her fingers.
Those prints were from a much smaller hand-----------------her mother's !
-
thanks john.thats interesting cause had the fingermarks in blood on her nightie been made by her hand than there should have been traces of blood on the inside of her hand.
That's right and there would have been bloody fingerprints on the rifle and on some of the bullet casings too but there wasn't. Maybe the supporters will claim she washed them too? :)
-
That's right and there would have been bloody fingerprints on the rifle and on some of the bullet casings too but there wasn't. Maybe the supporters will claim she washed them too? :)
Was every casing examined ? Didn't Sheila put clothes in soak ? Yes,the water would have washed off the blood. However,particles of GSR were found,but that was blamed on the handling of kitchen utensils.Yeah !
-
Was every casing examined ? Didn't Sheila put clothes in soak ? Yes,the water would have washed off the blood. However,particles of GSR were found,but that was blamed on the handling of kitchen utensils.Yeah !
Yes, every casing. No not GSR but background lead contaminants. Geeez you really need to do some proper reading up on the facts of this case lookout.
-
does anyone know if there are photos of the inside of sheila's hands
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=3222;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20300;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20301;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20302;image
Vanezis Autopsy note and Rivlins examination
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
Vanezis. That is right yes.
COA paragraph 517.
However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
-
If there are, they aren't in the public domain. Personally, I think EP forgot to photograph her hands which is why Venezis changed his original position from stating there was blood on her hands, to her hands being clean.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=3222;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20300;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20301;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20302;image
Vanezis Autopsy note and Rivlins examination
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
Vanezis. That is right yes.
COA paragraph 517.
However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
-
There was no need as they were clean.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=3222;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20300;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20301;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20302;image
Vanezis Autopsy note and Rivlins examination
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
Vanezis. That is right yes.
COA paragraph 517.
However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
-
That's because it wasn't Sheila's hand.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=3222;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20300;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20301;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20302;image
Vanezis Autopsy note and Rivlins examination
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
Vanezis. That is right yes.
COA paragraph 517.
However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
-
Thanks for that Jackie.It's always good to refresh the memory.
-
Exactly as I stated, there was no blood on Sheila Caffell's inner hand or fingers associated with any criminal activity. The only blood on her hands was on the back having come into contact with her bloodied nightdress.
NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to sustain any claim that Sheila Caffell wielded the rifle.
Glad we could clear that up before lookout got too excited! :))
-
Thanks for that Jackie.It's always good to refresh the memory.
You're welcome Lookout. I've been accused in the past of not knowing much about the case. I've recently been refreshing my memory. Made a lot of downloads to my lappy and just sit reading them down the stables. I prefer to be outdoors. 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
-
Exactly as I stated, there was no blood on Sheila Caffell's inner hand or fingers associated with any criminal activity. The only blood on her hands was on the back having come into contact with her bloodied nightdress.
NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to sustain any claim that Sheila Caffell wielded the rifle.
Glad we could clear that up before lookout got too excited! :))
How sad are you for a grown man. Don't worry,we'll see who has the last laugh !!
-
How sad are you for a grown man. Don't worry,we'll see who has the last laugh !!
Johns all right really Lookout. We've spoken on the phone.
Hey John isn't it about time you took me out to lunch or dinner if funds permit ;D Can you ride (a horse)? If so we could go for a ride afterwards. I've got two horses 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
-
Johns all right really Lookout. We've spoken on the phone.
Hey John isn't it about time you took me out to lunch or dinner if funds permit ;D Can you ride (a horse)? If so we could go for a ride afterwards. I've got two horses 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
Yes Jackie,something tells me he's okay---------just misguided, :)) :)) :)) :))
-
You're welcome Lookout. I've been accused in the past of not knowing much about the case. I've recently been refreshing my memory. Made a lot of downloads to my lappy and just sit reading them down the stables. I prefer to be outdoors. 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
I like the outdoors too,weather permitting,but not warm enough to go down to the beach yet,as I'm pretty near it.
-
I like the outdoors too,weather permitting,but not warm enough to go down to the beach yet,as I'm pretty near it.
How near are you to the beach? I'm only 30 min drive to Southend on Sea.
-
How near are you to the beach? I'm only 30 min drive to Southend on Sea.
Just down the road. ;D ;D I'm on a hill and can see the sea when I step out.
-
Liverpool is just across the water from me and I heard concerts 3 nights on the run coming from there.They sounded good too,with Pete Docherty playing.
-
Yes Jackie,something tells me he's okay---------just misguided, :)) :)) :)) :))
We won't hear from him now for a while Lookout if he thinks there's a chance he might have to open his wallet hahaha.
Next time we want shot we'll just tell him its his round....whoosh....gone :)) :)) :))
-
We won't hear from him now for a while Lookout if he thinks there's a chance he might have to open his wallet hahaha.
Next time we want shot we'll just tell him its his round....whoosh....gone :)) :)) :))
Oh like that is he ? Peel an orange in his pocket can he ?
-
Just down the road. ;D ;D I'm on a hill and can see the sea when I step out.
Nice. Did you watch Baywatch?
-
Liverpool is just across the water from me and I heard concerts 3 nights on the run coming from there.They sounded good too,with Pete Docherty playing.
Pete Docherty of the Libertines? A great talent. You're the coolest 76 yo I know Lookout. 8)
-
Nice. Did you watch Baywatch?
No.
-
Yes Jackie,something tells me he's okay---------just misguided, :)) :)) :)) :))
No, well informed!
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=3222;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20300;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20301;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20302;image
Vanezis Autopsy note and Rivlins examination
Rivlin - I am asking you about the staining, and I am asking you whether it occurred to you then, or if it didn't then whether it occurs to you now, that this staining which appears on that nightdress may have been caused by directly pressing blood-stained fingers against the cloth?
Vanezis - Yes, I mean of course it is an obvious position
Rivlin - It is an obvious position and it assumes that obvious appearance doesn't it?
Vanezis. That is right yes.
COA paragraph 517.
However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQhFnCFdUw
what is R hand.also youre given this answer in triplicate posts
-
what is R hand.also youre given this answer in triplicate posts
Right hand
-
Was every casing examined ? Didn't Sheila put clothes in soak ? Yes,the water would have washed off the blood. However,particles of GSR were found,but that was blamed on the handling of kitchen utensils.Yeah !
Someone put the clothes in the buckets but there is NO evidence that that someone was Sheila.
-
We won't hear from him now for a while Lookout if he thinks there's a chance he might have to open his wallet hahaha.
Next time we want shot we'll just tell him its his round....whoosh....gone :)) :)) :))
I don't think it will be the thought of opening his wallet that will send him into hiding. ::)
-
I don't think it will be the thought of opening his wallet that will send him into hiding. ::)
It will be the thought of my prowess on horseback 8)
-
It will be the thought of my prowess on horseback 8)
Yeah that will be it ::)
-
i think the public lost interest in jb.how long has it been now,and nothing has been in the press or tv.it happens they just dont give a toss anymore.for that reason i doubt if jb will ever be released
-
Exactly as I stated, there was no blood on Sheila Caffell's inner hand or fingers associated with any criminal activity. The only blood on her hands was on the back having come into contact with her bloodied nightdress.
NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to sustain any claim that Sheila Caffell wielded the rifle.
Glad we could clear that up before lookout got too excited! :))
Stop having yourself on, the blood got onto the top part of Sheila's hand whilst she was ' trying to throttle' her mother. Look, anybody can replicate what Sheila did to June, and get the same or similar marks on the top of the right hand, depending of course upon there being blood on the neck, similar to that which was present on June Bambers throat when Sheila grabbed her. Providing there is a supply of fresh blood higher up on the neck above where your hand gets positioned, the blood will automatically run or transfer onto the top part of your hand, just as it did with Sheila's hand. There are experts in blood staining and I am convinced that he or she will conclude that Sheila had indeed tried to throttle her mother, at a time when for one reason or another, the loaded anshuzt rifle was 'not availabe' to Sheila for her to shoot her mother at 'that' moment. Sheila had then subsequently wiped her hand on the front of her nightdress. As to how long afterwards, did Sheila take up possession of the rifle again, is any bodies guess, but she did handle the rifle after trying to strangle her mother. We know she did because I can't see Sheila trying to throttle her mother who would have been shot a total of 7 times in that scenario, once between the eyes. No, June was attacked by hand before she got finished off, and I believe that Sheila shot her two boys after trying to strangle her mother, then Sheila returned to her mother and finished her off. Then at about 7.15am, Sheila was persuaded to show the rifle in her possession as a gesture of goodwill because cops were wanting to gain access for the ambulance and its crew. Sheila appeared to be cooperating in this regard because she placed the said rifle at an upstairs window, then she made her way downstairs intending to unlock the back door, but armed cops smashed the door down, and were trying to force their way into the kitchen, which infuriated her because cops had convinced her that she could trust them. She grabbed the barrel of the cop gun as it appeared around the outside edge of the inner kitchen door and there was nothing PS Woodcock do do about it because at that time the muzzle of his gun was always pointing toward the outer wall of the kitchen, until he got around the edge of the door. However, at the precise moment that Woodcock thought he was about to reach that point,, the muzzle of his gun was pointing in the general direction of Sheila. But she made a sudden movement by trying to yank the gun out of his possession, which caused the weapon to discharge a solitary shot across Sheila's neck...
-
when jb came out of that field after been told his family was dead,he remarked to the doctor that the farm had a license to grow poppy for pharmaceutical company.the doc thought that strange and asked a senior officer ,if he knew of any such license,so he was suspicious about something
-
I think this another case for Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonnell..
-
I think this another case for Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonnell..
steve is they another a chinese american dr chan i think .would be good if he could cast his eyes on the photos in this case.it could tell us lots
-
Stop having yourself on, the blood got onto the top part of Sheila's hand whilst she was ' trying to throttle' her mother. Look, anybody can replicate what Sheila did to June, and get the same or similar marks on the top of the right hand, depending of course upon there being blood on the neck, similar to that which was present on June Bambers throat when Sheila grabbed her. Providing there is a supply of fresh blood higher up on the neck above where your hand gets positioned, the blood will automatically run or transfer onto the top part of your hand, just as it did with Sheila's hand. There are experts in blood staining and I am convinced that he or she will conclude that Sheila had indeed tried to throttle her mother, at a time when for one reason or another, the loaded anshuzt rifle was 'not availabe' to Sheila for her to shoot her mother at 'that' moment. Sheila had then subsequently wiped her hand on the front of her nightdress. As to how long afterwards, did Sheila take up possession of the rifle again, is any bodies guess, but she did handle the rifle after trying to strangle her mother. We know she did because I can't see Sheila trying to throttle her mother who would have been shot a total of 7 times in that scenario, once between the eyes. No, June was attacked by hand before she got finished off, and I believe that Sheila shot her two boys after trying to strangle her mother, then Sheila returned to her mother and finished her off. Then at about 7.15am, Sheila was persuaded to show the rifle in her possession as a gesture of goodwill because cops were wanting to gain access for the ambulance and its crew. Sheila appeared to be cooperating in this regard because she placed the said rifle at an upstairs window, then she made her way downstairs intending to unlock the back door, but armed cops smashed the door down, and were trying to force their way into the kitchen, which infuriated her because cops had convinced her that she could trust them. She grabbed the barrel of the cop gun as it appeared around the outside edge of the inner kitchen door and there was nothing PS Woodcock do do about it because at that time the muzzle of his gun was always pointing toward the outer wall of the kitchen, until he got around the edge of the door. However, at the precise moment that Woodcock thought he was about to reach that point,, the muzzle of his gun was pointing in the general direction of Sheila. But she made a sudden movement by trying to yank the gun out of his possession, which caused the weapon to discharge a solitary shot across Sheila's neck...
Don't post such ridiculous nonsense. Are you drunk?
-
I think this another case for Dr. Herbert Leon MacDonnell..
Herbert Leon MacDonnell was under the impression that Sheila's hand,s, and her feet were spotlessly clean, but we now know that wasn't true. Sheila had blood on the top part of her right hand, and spits of blood upon the sole of one of her feet. Whoever gets the task of trying to confirm or disprove where those marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand were caused when Sheila had tried to throttle her mother, it will hopefully put to bed the claims that Sheila could not have been culpable, once and for all...
-
Don't post such ridiculous nonsense. Are you drunk?
Wait until the expert takes up the challenge...
You can't even say how those marks got thereon the top part of her hand, your struggling because sooner or later, you are going to have to deal with the truth...
-
Wait until the expert takes up the challenge...
You can't even say how those marks got thereon the top part of her hand, your struggling because sooner or later, you are going to have to deal with the truth...
which expert mike .and when will he or she be taking on the challenge
-
which expert mike .and when will he or she be taking on the challenge
The one which the CCRC will be appointing, as a 'last throw of the dice'...
-
The one which the CCRC will be appointing, as a 'last throw of the dice'...
thanks,lets hope he can clear this up
-
Wait until the expert takes up the challenge...
You can't even say how those marks got thereon the top part of her hand, your struggling because sooner or later, you are going to have to deal with the truth...
Which particular truth in particular, Mike. You've offered so many. Most conflicting. To accept one, it would become necessary to deny many others....................which rather relegates them to the realms of UNtruth.
-
Which particular truth in particular, Mike. You've offered so many. Most conflicting. To accept one, it would become necessary to deny many others....................which rather relegates them to the realms of UNtruth.
Use that rhetoric on your own changing views once you come into possession of new information, or fresh evidence. Your attempt to turn me into the fool that I am, has thus backfired upon yourself. I am still the same fool I always ever was, but you have just exposed yourself as one. Having said that, always bear in mind the old saying - 'A fool may have the audience of kings'...
-
I have just laid my hands on PC West's, hand written witness statement, dated, 13th September, 1985, consisting of 10 pages, signed by him. Its contents at first blush appear to raise alarm bells over the authenticity of his claim that Jeremy had called police at 3.26am...
-
I have just laid my hands on PC West's, hand written witness statement, dated, 13th September, 1985, consisting of 10 pages, signed by him. Its contents at first blush appear to raise alarm bells over the authenticity of his claim that Jeremy had called police at 3.26am...
In view of what I have just seen, I can say that Jeremy's call was almost certainly first received by PC West at 3.36am, not at 3.26am...
-
I can also say, although I am not a hand writing expert, that the entire contents of the phone log purporting to have been made at 3.36am, by PC West appears not to have been written out by PC West himself - hand writing appears different. Additionally, whoever filled in the contents of the 3.36am phone log contents, only refers to PC West by his collar number (1990), not his name, and PC Wests signature does not appear anywhere at all on that phone log. My initial gut feeling is that 'somebody other than PC West has rewritten the contents of the 3.36am log for the purpose of editing out information about the sighting of the unidentified male at the bedroom window by PC Myall short after his arrival at the incident'...
-
There appears to be information contained on the 3.36am log that provide clues to the fact that the one (C1) disclosed is not the original C1 form, but a rewritten one...
-
There appears to be information contained on the 3.36am log that provide clues to the fact that the one (C1) disclosed is not the original C1 form, but a rewritten one...
I shall give my reasons for why I am suggesting that in a moment. First of all, until last night I had never seen the full handwritten witness statement of PC West, I had only seen the typed version...
-
Use that rhetoric on your own changing views once you come into possession of new information, or fresh evidence. Your attempt to turn me into the fool that I am, has thus backfired upon yourself. I am still the same fool I always ever was, but you have just exposed yourself as one. Having said that, always bear in my the old saying - 'A fool may have the audience of kings'...
is that quote from shakespear'mike,or dickens
-
I shall give my reasons for why I am suggesting that in a moment. First of all, until last night I had never seen the full handwritten witness statement of PC West, I had only seen the typed version...
I have just checked in our 'statements and transcripts' section, and only the typed (unsigned) statement version of that statement was public knowledge until now...
It makes me wonder why nobody asked to see the original hand written version of Wests, 13th September, 1985, witness statement before now, so that a comparison of the written word in the disclosed 'C1' form, could be compared to PC Wests' handwriting in his own witness statement. Anyway, I appear to be the first one to have had the opportunity to make 'that' comparison, and to me the contents recorded in that 'disclosed' C1 form bearing the time of 3.36am, was not written up by PC West himself. I believe the contents have been forged for whatever reason...
-
I have just checked in our 'statements and transcripts' section, and only the typed (unsigned) statement version of that statement was public knowledge until now...
It makes me wonder why nobody asked to see the original hand written version of Wests, 13th September, 1985, witness statement before now, so that a comparison of the written word in the disclosed 'C1' form, could be compared to PC Wests' handwriting in his own witness statement. Anyway, I appear to be the first one to have had the opportunity to make 'that' comparison, and to me the contents recorded in that 'disclosed' C1 form bearing the time of 3.36am, was not written up by PC West himself. I believe the contents have been forged for whatever reason...
The first thing that springs to mind, that is, in the mind of a highly suspicious old lag like me, is that 'PC West' was 'not the person who received Jeremy's 3.36am call', somebody else was. I have in my minds eye, as I am tapping away at the key pad of my tablet, that PC West was the recipient of the earlier call made to cops by Ralph Bamber at 3.26am, and that the obvious disparity between the contents of the disclosed 'C1' form (3.36am) and his own hand written witness statement (13th September,1985) where he 'recites' the purported conversation he had with Jeremy at 3.36am, is recorded in the latter by PC West having listened to the 'audio recording' of Jeremy's 3.36am call to somebody else...
That in my opinion is what has been done...
PC West has switched the role he played in this matter, by substituting his involvement with Ralph Bambers 3.26am call, by claiming instead that 'he' dealt with Jeremy's 3.36am, call...
That was why during the trial and since, great play has been made regarding the time of Jeremy's 3.36am, call, by suggesting it had happened 10 minutes earlier, when it had not. It was Ralph Bamber who had spoken to PC West at 3.26am, and it was as a result of that call from Ralph Bamber at 3.26am, which led to the occupants of CA05 being deployed to the incident (3.35am) before Jeremy had even spoken to the cops...
-
All efforts must now be geared to 'identifying' the person who received Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station at 3.36am. I am 99.9% certain it wasn't PC West, otherwise somebody would not have felt it necessary to 'forge' the contents of the disclosed 'C1' form (3.36am)...
-
There are clues contained in the 'disclosed' version of the C1 form which will point Bambers legal team, and the CCRC in the right direction...
-
There are clues contained in the 'disclosed' version of the C1 form which will point Bambers legal team, and the CCRC in the right direction...
(1) - wrong hand writing on the disclosed 'C1' form
(2) - no name and no signature of person who wrote out contents above
(3) - document was checked by PS 40, G. White
(4) - serial No. 6, on log, unlikely to have been sixth call dealt with at 3.36am, since 6pm previous evening
-
It is now all falling into place, and by that I am referring to why PC West created confusion during the trial regarding the timing of Jeremy's call (3.36 am or 3.26am)? Jeremy had not spoken to PC West at all, he had spoken to someone else. PC West had spoken to Ralph Bamber 10 minutes before Jeremy called the cops at 3.36am. PC West was pretending it had been him who Jeremy had called that morning, but it wasn't him. What PC West had done in the interim period between the actual timing of Jeremy's 3.36am call to 'another', and the 13th September, 1985, (with Jeremy now under arrest for the first time) when PC West, created a blow by blow account of what Jeremy had actually spoken about during his call to 'another', was that PC West had 'listened to the audio recording' of Jeremy's distress call, and West had substituted himself for the 'another' who had actually taken and dealt with Jeremy's call. By the time the matter came to Crown Court the 'substituted' C1 form had been forged to give the impression that it had indeed been PC West who had taken Jeremy's 3.36am call, and recorded it...
But...
The problem with that is that the content of the forge 'C1' form, is 'not' written out by PC West himself, somebody else has forged the contents of the 'disclosed' C1 form, and 'PS 40 G. White', knows the identity of that person. So does, 'PC West', and 'Malcolm Bonnett'...
-
PC West didn't know what to say during the trial when Rivlin QC took him to task about the discrepancies in the 'disclosed' C1 form, compared to the verbatim content of his 13th September, 1985, witness statement?
It now becomes apparent why...
-
It is now all falling into place, and by that I am referring to why PC West created confusion during the trial regarding the timing of Jeremy's call (3.36 am or 3.26am)? Jeremy had not spoken to PC West at all, he had spoken to someone else. PC West had spoken to Ralph Bamber 10 minutes before Jeremy called the cops at 3.36am. PC West was pretending it had been him who Jeremy had called that morning, but it wasn't him. What PC West had done in the interim period between the actual timing of Jeremy's 3.36am call to 'another', and the 13th September, 1985, (with Jeremy now under arrest for the first time) when PC West, created a blow by blow account of what Jeremy had actually spoken about during his call to 'another', was that PC West had 'listened to the audio recording' of Jeremy's distress call, and West had substituted himself for the 'another' who had actually taken and dealt with Jeremy's call. By the time the matter came to Crown Court the 'substituted' C1 form had been forged to give the impression that it had indeed been PC West who had taken Jeremy's 3.36am call, and recorded it...
But...
The problem with that is that the content of the forge 'C1' form, is 'not' written out by PC West himself, somebody else has forged the contents of the 'disclosed' C1 form, and 'PS 40 G. White', knows the identity of that person. So does, 'PC West', and 'Malcolm Bonnett'...
will they reveal who it is,mike
-
It also becomes apparent that the 'original hand written witness statement', to which Rivlin QC was referring was 'not made available to the defence during the trial, otherwise somebody of Rivlins stature and reputation would have taken PC West to task regarding the content of the 'disclosed' C1 form contents having been made out in somebody else's hand writing, and not his own...
-
will they reveal who it is,mike
I should think it sufficient for the purposes of the CCRC and the court of appeal, they might have to, but in any event the content of the 'disclosed' C1 form, was certainly not written out by PC West, and he is on record as stating that it was him who made 'that' log...
I am not an expert, but even somebody with a very low IQ like me can tell that somebody else has 'forged the contents' of the 'disclosed' C1 form attributable to PC West...
-
I should think it sufficient for the purposes of the CCRC and the court of appeal, they might have to, but in any event the content of the 'disclosed' C1 form, was certainly not written out by PC West, and he is on record as stating that it was him who made 'that' log...
I am not an expert, but even somebody with a very low IQ like me can tell that somebody else has 'forged the contents' of the 'disclosed' C1 form attributable to PC West...
sounds like perjury by west
-
sounds like perjury by west
Sounds like a 'Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice', by PC West, PS 40 G. White, and Malcolm Bonnet, and others (yet to be determined)...
-
It should also not be forgotten, that whilst being cross examined by Rivlin QC in the witness box at trial, that Rivlin tried to take him to task over the 'actual timing' of Jeremy's telephone call to him that particular morning. West was at pains to accept that he recorded the time of Jeremy's call at 3.36am, but West added that he must have read the timing wrong, because Malcolm Bonnet had said he (West) had contacted him (Bonnet) at 3.26am...
However, in the cold light of day, and with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that 'PC West' had not written out the content of the 'disclosed' C1 form, despite his insistence during the trial and since, that he did...
-
This 'fresh evidence' now puts paid to the argument that the two differently timed phone logs (3.26am, and 3.36am) related to the same telephone call made by Jeremy to the cops that morning, or in other words the claim by some that there had only ever been just the one phone call, and Jeremy had made it. That argument can no longer be a valid one, because it was presented on the basis that both PC West (3.26am) and Malcolm Bonnet (3.26am) had created separate logs pertaining to the same call. But we now find that PC West did 'not' make the 'disclosed 3.36am (C1) log, some as yet unidentified 'other person', had...
-
i think the ct team should ask colin stagg to join them.i say this because 90% of the public thought he was guilty because of the way police potrayed him .and we now all know he was innocent all along. i myself was 100% sure he was the killer
-
Yeah that will be it ::)
I was just being modest actually 8)
-
Use that rhetoric on your own changing views once you come into possession of new information, or fresh evidence. Your attempt to turn me into the fool that I am, has thus backfired upon yourself. I am still the same fool I always ever was, but you have just exposed yourself as one. Having said that, always bear in mind the old saying - 'A fool may have the audience of kings'...
Mike, I have no power to turn ANY other into a fool. I leave them to do it for themselves if they wish. As for my own CHANGED views. They came about partly because things were stated which were so highly improbable that it caused me to believe my intelligence was being insulted. HOWEVER, should valid and PROVED evidence come to light I'll be happy to concede.
-
Mike, I have no power to turn ANY other into a fool. I leave them to do it for themselves if they wish. As for my own CHANGED views. They came about partly because things were stated which were so highly improbable that it caused me to believe my intelligence was being insulted. HOWEVER, should valid and PROVED evidence come to light I'll be happy to concede.
Tell you what luv', here is the phone log 'PC West' said he recorded from 3.36am, onward, and just because I am taking pity on a fellow fool like me, I am throwing in the 10 pages of PC Wests, 13th September 1985, 'hand written witness statement for your opinion, as to whether or not the phone log 'C1 form' was written up by him as he claimed?
-
Note, also the 'distinctive differences' in the written number '7' in the phone log (C1 form) 3.36am, and the number '7' in PC Wests 'hand written witness statement', dated, 13th September, 1985...
Somebody has been telling 'porkies', somebody has been committing perjury, somebody has been conspiring to 'pervert the course of justice', some bodies 'lies' have for the past 30 years 'condemned an innocent man' to 'a life of incarceration', on the basis that they did not tell the truth about the timing of Jeremy's phone call and the fact that Ralph Bamber had contacted the police himself about the same matter 10 minutes before Jeremy did...
-
It's obvious to anybody who sees the content of the phone log (C1, form) 3.36am, and PC Wests hand written witness statement, dated, the 13th September, 1985, that PC West 'was not the author' of the phone log, despite his protestations that he was...
He has lied...
He is a condemned liar...
Who was he covering up for?
Why didn't or why wouldn't 'that' person testify themselves?
Is it, or was it because whoever that person is, refused to say cops had only received one call about the same incident 'that' morning? And is that the reason why PC West has taken up the dishonest mantle (as it now stands)' of claiming he took Jeremy's call (3.36am), and it was he who passed the information to Malcolm Bonnett (3.26am)? When all along it had been PC West himself who had taken Ralph Bambers call at around 3.26am, information he had relayed to Malcolm Bonnett at 3.26am, and that PC West hadn't been the person who had taken Jeremys call (3.36am) at all, somebody else had...
-
Cops lie, and when it can be proven that they have, they should be given stiff prison sentences...
-
Cops lie, and when it can be proven that they have, they should be given stiff prison sentences...
oh they do mike,when the bent cop who worked in liverpool was caught giving information to a drug dealer ,he got a 5 stretch .i must add he was a dci ,high rank
-
They usually are of a higher rank. They get too big for their boots and think they're untouchable.
-
You may all find this interesting, its diolog between David Shaw and myself from 2006...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
..
-
..
-
The gist of David Shaws account is different to what I have been told from other sources, in that David Shaw states that Sheila shot herself as the raid team approached the farmhouse, whilst she herself was in the kitchen, and that she shot herself using the anshuzt rifle downstairs. That she was mistakenly presumed dead in the kitchen, and that cops did not recognise her to be the daughter and left her unattended. She regained consciousness and got upstairs taking possession of a second rifle which was placed at the bedroom window earlier by Sheila. Cops had not checked the second rifle at the window, which Sheila then used to kill herself...
In his account, he states that the anshuzt rifle was present downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, when she was pronounced dead, and that it had remained in the kitchen until familiars at which time 'it' was brought upstairs to the bedroom and placed on her body under her control. The gun that Sheila used to kill herself with in the bedroom was not photographed with her body at all...
He contends that the guns barrell to which DS Davidson refers to having been found downstairs with what appeared to be red paint on the end of its barrel, was a reference to the anshuzt rifle...
If true, cops staged Sheila's death scene upstairs in the main bedroom, with use of the anshuzt rifle found downstairs in the kitchen...
-
If we could have all the pages in close up like in #2050 it would be appreciated.
-
If we could have all the pages in close up like in #2050 it would be appreciated.
I am uploading these from my tablet, but later on tonight, I will try to enlarge the images using my laptop and HP copier. Hang on, let me see what I can do with the editing software on my tab...
-
...
-
I think I had better reproduce everything on my laptop later...
-
I am just setting up my laptop and copier...
-
I am just setting up my laptop and copier...
Oh goody goody gum drops!
-
Oh goody goody gum drops!
Finally, after about 'two hours of trying to expose' MI5, and Essex police have given up trying to frustrate my attempts to 'expose them for the Criminals that they really are'...
It is now 20.27 hrs, and for the past two hours they have been trying to block me from informing the 'general public' how Essex police, and MI5, have 'framed Jeremy Bamber, for these murders'...
-
I have been 'tryin' for two xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxto 'post up on this thread, and the xxxxxxhave used 'technology' to 'try and block me from saying what I wanted to say'...
They are all xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...
Just because they work for 'MI5' does not make them tellers of the absolute truth...
-
I have been 'tryin' for two xxxxxxx solid hours' to 'post up on this thread, and the xxxxxxxxxxxx have used 'technology' to 'try and block me from saying what I wanted to say'...
They are all xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...
Just because they work for 'MI5' does not make them tellers of the absolute truth...
Please, do not shoot me, 'I am only the messenger'...
-
The person, or persons, who are responsible, for blocking me from posting, during the previous 'two hours', must be added to the group of Essex police, who are responsible for 'deliberately, framing Jeremy Bamber for 'murders he 100% had not committed'. Fuck the officers involved in this cover up, and fuck Essex police, because 'they' are the true criminals in 'this investigation'. They themselves are the real Criminals, and 'MI5' have got a 'lot of questions to answer' about how these five deaths, 'came about'...
'You think, that you are above suspicion, but hey listen up, xxxxxxxxxxxx 'I am coming for you all'...
-
MI5 don't like it, because, 'I am mentioning the truth'...
-
MI5 don't like it, because, 'I am mentioning the truth'...
MI5, are not 'fit for purpose'...
-
MI5, are not 'fit for purpose'...
In fact, none of the 'Uk's security services can be treated as 'honest', they are all compulsive liars...
-
In fact, none of the 'Uk's security services can be treated as 'honest', they are all compulsive liars...
Mike never mind all that. Caroline has removed some of my posts. She is not a mod. Apparently she's Zoso and resolves IT issues. What's going on? Kindest regards, Jackie.
-
Mike never mind all that. Caroline has removed some of my posts. She is not a mod. Apparently she's Zoso and resolves IT issues. What's going on? Kindest regards, Jackie.
Yes I did - Maggie isn't online and they NEEDED removing so I cleaned up for her. If you have a problem with that - you know where the door is!
-
Mike never mind all that. Caroline has removed some of my posts. She is not a mod. Apparently she's Zoso and resolves IT issues. What's going on? Kindest regards, Jackie.
Oh DO stop whinging and grow up, you stupid VULGAR woman .
-
Yes I did - Maggie isn't online and they NEEDED removing so I cleaned up for her. If you have a problem with that - you know where the door is!
You removed them because I humiliated you.
You might be shown the door when NGB finds out. Has NGB announced you have mod permissions?
-
Oh DO stop whinging and grow up, you stupid VULGAR woman .
Why do you and Caroline always have to resort to capitals? I would rather be vulgar than full of pretentious twaddle.
Oh my friends were friends of the Bambers
Oh my magistrate friends
Blah, blah, blah
Full of pretentious twaddle.
-
You removed them because I humiliated you.
You might be shown the door when NGB finds out. Has NGB announced you have mod permissions?
Ha, ha! The only person you ever humiliate is yourself - you continually prove that you have something lacking in your personality.
NGB and I get along fine and I feel sure that he will back my decision to remove the posts, but of course you are quite welcome to register your complaints. We're always happy to help!!
-
Why do you and Caroline always have to resort to capitals? I would rather be vulgar than full of pretentious twaddle.
Oh my friends were friends of the Bambers
Oh my magistrate friends
Blah, blah, blah
Full of pretentious twaddle.
It's for emphasis Jackie!
But people in glass houses "I used to be on Jeremy's Phone list" "I know Mark Williams Thomas" "I introduced Simon Mckay to Jeremy" "Jeremy is so funny, we spend hours on the phone" blah, blah - and ; BLAH (last one was for EMPHASIS!!)
-
Ha, ha! The only person you ever humiliate is yourself - you continually prove that you have something lacking in your personality.
NGB and I get along fine and I feel sure that he will back my decision to remove the posts, but of course you are quite welcome to register your complaints. We're always happy to help!!
If you want to take on the role of mod why engage in a number of posts that you then have to remove?
You've just said you're not here to wipe noses?
-
Why do you and Caroline always have to resort to capitals? I would rather be vulgar than full of pretentious twaddle.
Oh my friends were friends of the Bambers
Oh my magistrate friends
Blah, blah, blah
Full of pretentious twaddle.
But at least my friends are respectable and REAL. Unlike you, I don't have to resort to bragging about NAMES, to how much is my immense salary and how much my employers value me, NOR do I have to resort to lying about how desperate are authors to make contact with me.
-
If you want to take on the role of mod why engage in a number of posts that you then have to remove?
You've just said you're not here to wipe noses?
You're right, I shouldn't let myself get drawn into arguing the toss with a moron like you. If you don't want any more posts removed, I suggest you either shut up or posts about the case.
-
But at least my friends are respectable and REAL. Unlike you, I don't have to resort to bragging about NAMES, to how much is my immense salary and how much my employers value me, NOR do I have to resort to lying about how desperate are authors to make contact with me.
And if you had even one non-virtual friend why do you need to spend 24/7 on a forum that only 3.5 people read?
-
And if you had even one non-virtual friend why do you need to spend 24/7 on a forum that only 3.5 people read?
Stop being such a bitch to Lookout when she's your only support here.
-
Stop being such a bitch to Lookout when she's your only support here.
The only one that needs support is you - of the mental health variety.
-
The only one that needs support is you - of the mental health variety.
YOU clearly need a jacket of the straight variety.
-
In fact, none of the 'Uk's security services can be treated as 'honest', they are all compulsive liars...
...
-
Hang on...
if they don't interfere, here is page 2 of my exchanges with 'David Shaw, in 2006:-
-
That's it, I have had enough of the fukkers 'interfering with my posts, and the evidence'. Rot in hell MI5 and Special branch, you are 'all fukking corrupted, evil, lying bastards'
At least you have been copped trying to cover up the true circumstances of Sheila Caffells death...
-
How can any of you work for the Criminal justice system knowing that 'it depends upon who tells the biggest and the best lies'?
-
They're still hard to read Mike, if we could have a close-up.
-
It's no use Steve,you'll have to invest in a magnifying glass :)
-
They're still hard to read Mike, if we could have a close-up.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,776.0.html
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,776.0.html
Thanks Jon. I don't accept that had Sheila shot herself once in the kitchen she would have had enough strength to scamper back upstairs(and why return to June?) for Police (conveniently for Jeremy) to shoot her there by mistake.
-
Thanks Jon. I don't accept that had Sheila shot herself once in the kitchen she would have had enough strength to scamper back upstairs(and why return to June?) for Police (conveniently for Jeremy) to shoot her there by mistake.
I agree Steve.
-
Thanks Jon. I don't accept that had Sheila shot herself once in the kitchen she would have had enough strength to scamper back upstairs(and why return to June?) for Police (conveniently for Jeremy) to shoot her there by mistake.
I would think she may have been able to wander around for a bit but even standing up would have taken quite an effort never mind climbing stairs.
Her body would have been in shock, oxygen to her non vital extremities would be at a minimum and channeled to her vital organs at this time.
Obviously, I don't know but I find it difficult to believe she could have climbed a whole flight of stairs in this condition, I think any such attempts would have caused her to lose consciousness. :-\
-
Thanks Jon. I don't accept that had Sheila shot herself once in the kitchen she would have had enough strength to scamper back upstairs(and why return to June?) for Police (conveniently for Jeremy) to shoot her there by mistake.
Steve, one only needs to factor in "broken neck" to see just how impossible such action would have been.
-
According to Professor Knights testimony during the trial, he stated with the type of injury received by the bullet that was fired across Sheila's throat, that she may have been able to have stayed on her feet and moved around for a long time, for a period lasting up to half an hour after sustaining that initial shot. He is an expert in this field and he would not have said 'up to half an hour' if he was not sure. Of course, it appears that Knight was referring to constant upright movement after the first shot, until the second shot was inflicted which took her life instantaneously. He does not take into account that Sheila may have lapsed into temporarily unconsciousness, say from somewhere between 7.37am and 8.10am, and then been able to move around, or for how long?
What we do know, by reference to the police logs, is that Sheila's was the female body, reported after mention of a dead male body, in the kitchen by 7.37am, and that by 8.10am there were only three bodies upstairs by that stage (June, Nicholas, and Daniel). Some time after 8.10am, Sheila's body ended upstairs in the main bedroom. We know this because police passed messages to each other, and recorded these messages against timed events. Why would cops falsify an account of there having been two bodies in the kitchen, and a further three bodies upstairs between 7.37am and 8.10am, if by the time the police surgeon verified death in all five cases by 8.44am, with only one male body downstairs in the kitchen, and by that stage four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms? There would have been no need to introduce a contradictory scenario of 'two bodies' in the kitchen from as early as 7.37am, and only three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, if it didn't pan out like that during that specific period in time...
What is missing from those same police radio message logs, are the messages that were passed, received and relayed after 8.10am, to account for how and why the actual body count altered by the 'migration' of Sheila's body from the kitchen to the main bedroom. There was obviously other messages that were passed that are of key importance relating to the apparent movement of Sheila between the kitchen and the bedroom between 8.10am and 8.44am. Cops have 'edited out' this information, and in there haste to do so, they made a fatal mistake in that at no stage anywhere in any of the police logs does it account for a fourth body having been found upstairs - it just 'ends up there', as 'if by magic'...
Sheila's body was originally present in the kitchen, but ended up in the main bedroom. For that to be true, she would have had to have made her own way from the kitchen, to the bedroom. What I am trying to say, is that the testimony given by Professor knight regarding the length of time to have passed between the onset of the first shot across the neck, until the second shot might have been delivered, fits this criteria snugly...
Whether you adopt what David Shaw professes happened with regard to Sheila being shot in the kitchen by use of the anshuzt rifle, and later shot again upstairs by a different gun, or the account I have given that cops shot Sheila in the kitchen and Sheila was killed in the main bedroom by use of the anshuzt rifle, one thing we are both in agreement on, and that is, that the first shot received by Sheila downstairs in the kitchen was 'non fatal' in nature...
-
Steve, one only needs to factor in "broken neck" to see just how impossible such action would have been.
you know better than 'Professor Knight' then do ya?
-
Linked to the two shots inflicted upon Sheila, is the claim by myself, and David Shaw, that at least two different guns were used in the shooting of Sheila. I say first shot was inflicted with use of a cops gun, the second with use of the anshuzt rifle, whereas, David Shaw states she was shot first with the anshuzt rifle, and secondly with use of 'an unidentified' rifle...
-
you know better than 'Professor Knight' then do ya?
Vanezis currently says she never moved after the first shot. You know better than Vanezis then, do ya?
-
Linked to the two shots inflicted upon Sheila, is the claim by myself, and David Shaw, that at least two different guns were used in the shooting of Sheila. I say first shot was inflicted with use of a cops gun, the second with use of the anshuzt rifle, whereas, David Shaw states she was shot first with the anshuzt rifle, and secondly with use of 'an unidentified' rifle...
Set against this scenario are two bullets, PV/20 (a badly fragmented bullet), linked to the shot across the neck), and PV/19 (a whole bullet, recovered from victims brain)...
Mystery surrounds PV/20, since it had to grow into a whole bullet, from a badly fragmented one, before the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, could link 'it' as having been fired via the anshuzt rifle...
-
Vanezis currently says she never moved after the first shot. You know better than Vanezis then, do ya?
Venezis did not say that, so I'm saying I know better than what you are saying Venezia said, and by the way nobody claims that Sheila's neck was broken, only you...
How does Venezis account for the displacement of Sheila's body from the kitchen to the bedroom?
He doesn't say anything which could remotely account for how Sheila got from one place to the other, whereas, Professor Knights does (without even knowing the fact that she had and did)...
-
Set against this scenario are two bullets, PV/20 (a badly fragmented bullet), linked to the shot across the neck), and PV/19 (a whole bullet, recovered from victims brain)...
Mystery surrounds PV/20, since it had to grow into a whole bullet, from a badly fragmented one, before the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, could link 'it' as having been fired via the anshuzt rifle...
Exhibit PV/20 was 'tampered' with, it grew from originally being a 'badly fragmented bullet' on 7th August 1985, into a 'whole bullet' so that the ballistic expert could associate it to the anshuzt rifle. He was able to do this because the substituted whole bullet that replaced the badly fragmented one, had been test fired using the anshuzt rifle...
-
Venezia did not say that, so I'm saying I know better than what you are saying Venezia said, and by the way nobody claims that Sheila's neck was broken, only you...
How does Venezia account for the displacement of Sheila's body from the kitchen to the bedroom?
He doesn't say anything which could remotely account for how Sheila got from one place to the other, whereas, Professor Knights does (without even knowing the fact that she had and did)...
Have you read CAL? You are the only one placing Sheila in the kitchen.
-
Have you read CAL? You are the only one placing Sheila in the kitchen.
No, the police logs place a female in the kitchen from 7.37am, onward. That female could only have been a reference to Sheila, because nobody could hope to describe June Bambers death as a suicide...
-
Why didn't any cop question why there is no mention of a fourth body upstairs in any of the disclosed police logs?
-
Why didn't any cop question why there is no mention of a fourth body upstairs in any of the disclosed police logs?
Sheila's body appeared upstairs, as if by magic, to become the fourth body upstairs (after 8.10am)...
-
No, the police logs place a female in the kitchen from 7.37am, onward. That female could only have been a reference to Sheila, because nobody could hope to describe June Bambers death as a suicide...
But subsequently admitted to being in error? If those earlier logs were indeed FACT they would NEVER have seen the light of day. Wherever you believe you are with this, I'm confident that ALL the agencies you vilify, IF they're concerned by anything you say, will be several steps ahead of you, as they'll consider their own survival to be of greater import than the survival of an individual.
-
Had Sheila been shot by Police in error they could have made up a tale that their life had been threatened in some way and her shooting had been necessary in self-defence. Of course nobody has come forward amongst that coterie you ascribe her death to in thirty years. The boss DCI Taff Jones was perfectly happy with the scenario of Sheila being the culprit so I am intrigued as to why it became necessary to apportion blame to Jeremy by DS Jones and others.
-
Had Sheila been shot by Police in error they could have made up a tale that their life had been threatened in some way and her shooting had been necessary in self-defence. Of course nobody has come forward amongst that coterie you ascribe her death to in thirty years. The boss DCI Taff Jones was perfectly happy with the scenario of Sheila being the culprit so I am intrigued as to why it became necessary to apportion blame to Jeremy by DS Jones and others.
Steve, I'm also very surprised, that if all those agencies which Mike insists are marking him, REALLY see him as a threat, they'd have arranged for more than little accidents to befall him, they'd have done more than prevent him from posting on a public forum, they'd have done more than nick a lap top(?)............. rather than allow him to play any part in freeing someone responsible for killing 5 members of his family, they'd have silenced him for good. We must therefore be thankful that he isn't high on their "For Elimination" list.
-
But subsequently admitted to being in error? If those earlier logs were indeed FACT they would NEVER have seen the light of day. Wherever you believe you are with this, I'm confident that ALL the agencies you vilify, IF they're concerned by anything you say, will be several steps ahead of you, as they'll consider their own survival to be of greater import than the survival of an individual.
Cops don't make such glaring 'errors' as you pretend to call them, they make 'blunders' by 'recording things', either in 'document form', or 'photographically', or in 'message logs', all of which they wished they hadn't recorded the truth at these sources. They didn't make 'an error' in confirming that a female body was downstairs in the kitchen, when there wasn't one there at all. Your having a laugh trying to pretend that something so serious can be put down as a cop error. They can't even get the explanation they came up with to account for the suggestion that there had been some sort of a mistake, by claiming that Dads body had been mistaken for the daughters body, a so called error that was not supposedly cleared up until cops set foot into the kitchen. they claim it hadn't been a female body after all, only a male one, dad in fact. Ha, ha, ha, you expect us to believe such a tale, when according to that explanation, the female was mentioned before cops entered and discovered dad in the kitchen. So, why then did cops mention the body of a 'dead female' on two separate occasions after dads body had already been mentioned in the same sentences? Do you think we are all thick? If Dads body had been mistaken for the daughters body before cops even set foot inside the kitchen, then once cops got in the kitchen they would know it hadn't been the body of a female after all, and they would pass a message, that the body of dad had been found upon entry. They would not add to this, after they mention having found the body of one dead male, add, and the body of one dead female. The key word in that message (7.37am) being the word 'AND' followed by ' THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE'. No mystery there then, nothing could be any clearer. The claim that dads body was mistaken for the daughters body before cops even set foot inside the farmhouse, does not add up with bad apple cops later claiming they made an 'error' regarding 'that' first sighting of a body through the kitchen window, being a female, it had been dads body after all. I have no problem with that, but that mistake even if it had occurred in relation to dads body having been mistakenly identified as the daughters body, would have been cleared up as soon as cops entered the kitchen. So, they report the discovery of 'The body of one dead male' (mystery finished with), but they go on to say, 'AND', 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE'. Now the reference to this 'female' body being in the kitchen, follows on after sexuality of the body seen through the kitchen window has been rectified. If dads body turned out to be his body, when it was first reported that his body had been a female, a mistake rectified once cops entered the kitchen, then there is no need to make any mention of another female body being there in the kitchen, as well. The wording is absolutely clear, (7.37am) 'The body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found on entry'. That's two bodies, not one body that had been mistaken for two different ones, but one of the two bodies found in the kitchen having been mistakenly identified as a female body, which in fact turned out to be dads body, and a second (female) body which cops did not see from the vantage point of the kitchen window, but which they were confronted with upon entering the kitchen...
Which part don't you understand?
-
Had Sheila been shot by Police in error they could have made up a tale that their life had been threatened in some way and her shooting had been necessary in self-defence. Of course nobody has come forward amongst that coterie you ascribe her death to in thirty years. The boss DCI Taff Jones was perfectly happy with the scenario of Sheila being the culprit so I am intrigued as to why it became necessary to apportion blame to Jeremy by DS Jones and others.
There would be no reason other than they realised they had it wrong. Police don't like to admit to mistakes and they took a great deal of criticism when they changed from Sheila to Jeremy. They changed because they realised Jeremy was the culprit and they couldn't let him off the hook.
-
Cops don't make such glaring 'errors' as you pretend to call them, they make 'blunders' by 'recording things', either in 'document form', or 'photographically', or in 'message logs', all of which they wished they hadn't recorded the truth at these sources. They didn't make 'an error' in confirming that a female body was downstairs in the kitchen, when there wasn't one there at all. Your having a laugh trying to pretend that something so serious can be put down as a cop error. They can't even get the explanation they came up with to account for the suggestion that there had been some sort of a mistake, by claiming that Dads body had been mistaken for the daughters body, a so called error that was not supposedly cleared up until cops set foot into the kitchen. they claim it hadn't been a female body after all, only a male one, dad in fact. Ha, ha, ha, you expect us to believe such a tale, when according to that explanation, the female was mentioned before cops entered and discovered dad in the kitchen. So, why then did cops mention the body of a 'dead female' on two separate occasions after dads body had already been mentioned in the same sentences? Do you think we are all thick? If Dads body had been mistaken for the daughters body before cops even set foot inside the kitchen, then once cops got in the kitchen they would know it hadn't been the body of a female after all, and they would pass a message, that the body of dad had been found upon entry. They would not add to this, after they mention having found the body of one dead male, add, and the body of one dead female. The key word in that message (7.37am) being the word 'AND' followed by ' THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE'. No mystery there then, nothing could be any clearer. The claim that dads body was mistaken for the daughters body before cops even set foot inside the farmhouse, does not add up with bad apple cops later claiming they made an 'error' regarding 'that' first sighting of a body through the kitchen window, being a female, it had been dads body after all. I have no problem with that, but that mistake even if it had occurred in relation to dads body having been mistakenly identified as the daughters body, would have been cleared up as soon as cops entered the kitchen. So, they report the discovery of 'The body of one dead male' (mystery finished with), but they go on to say, 'AND', 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE'. Now the reference to this 'female' body being in the kitchen, follows on after sexuality of the body seen through the kitchen window has been rectified. If dads body turned out to be his body, when it was first reported that his body had been a female, a mistake rectified once cops entered the kitchen, then there is no need to make any mention of another female body being there in the kitchen, as well. The wording is absolutely clear, (7.37am) 'The body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found on entry'. That's two bodies, not one body that had been mistaken for two different ones, but one of the two bodies found in the kitchen having been mistakenly identified as a female body, which in fact turned out to be dads body, and a second (female) body which cops did not see from the vantage point of the kitchen window, but which they were confronted with upon entering the kitchen...
Which part don't you understand?
There would be no reason other than they realised they had it wrong. Police don't like to admit to mistakes and they took a great deal of criticism when they changed from Sheila to Jeremy. They changed because they realised Jeremy was the culprit and they couldn't let him off the hook.
I "understand" every part of what you say, but I don't believe it to be true in any way. Caroline's post says it very well.
-
There would be no reason other than they realised they had it wrong. Police don't like to admit to mistakes and they took a great deal of criticism when they changed from Sheila to Jeremy. They changed because they realised Jeremy was the culprit and they couldn't let him off the hook.
The Dickinson report makes it clear the major failing was that senior offices did not request a pathologist, biologist and ballistics expert at scene of crime. In the absence of these vital witnesses the relatives were able to fill the vacuum and the police were open to persuasion.
-
There would be no reason other than they realised they had it wrong. Police don't like to admit to mistakes and they took a great deal of criticism when they changed from Sheila to Jeremy. They changed because they realised Jeremy was the culprit and they couldn't let him off the hook.
You are wrong, cops would not have declared, 'the body of one dead male, AND the body of one dead female' at 7.37am, followed by a further confirmation a minute later (7.38am), 'One dead male, one dead female', and if it had been a mistake, they would almost certainly have passed a message saying that a fourth body had been found upstairs, but they never did. There are too many details involving timed events, bodies downstairs, bodies upstairs, all stacking up to a total of five by 8.10am, job done...
-
We all now know that Sheila had tried to 'throttle her mother, and it will soon be confirmed by experts...
-
The Dickinson report makes it clear the major failing was that senior offices did not request a pathologist, biologist and ballistics expert at scene of crime. In the absence of these vital witnesses the relatives were able to fill the vacuum and the police were open to persuasion.
You're right, because if they had, they would have realised that Sheila wasn't the killer a LOT sooner.
-
We all now know that Sheila had tried to 'throttle her mother, and it will soon be confirmed by experts...
An innocent man has been 'framed' for a crime he could not possibly have committed - cops got the right culprit first time around for the deaths of the other four...
-
We all now know that Sheila had tried to 'throttle her mother, and it will soon be confirmed by experts...
No we don't.
-
You're right, because if they had, they would have realised that Sheila wasn't the killer a LOT sooner.
How do you know that?
-
You're right, because if they had, they would have realised that Sheila wasn't the killer a LOT sooner.
No, your wrong again, because senior cops involved in the cover up at the scene did 'not want' a pathologist there, or a ballistic expert there, or any number of other parties there, because if they had turned up, bad apple cops would have had to cop for what they did. Instead of summoning all these experts, what did bad apple cops from Essex do, they brought in additional bad apple cops to perform ' familiars' ( informatives), abusing bodies, staging the crime scene, of course good old Dickenson, he makes no mention whatsoever to any of these factors. Dickenson himself was either in on it himself, or he knew absolutely nothing about what had truly happened...
-
No, your wrong again, because senior cops involved in the cover up at the scene did 'not want' a pathologist there, or a ballistic expert there, or any number of other parties there, because if they had turned up, bad apple cops would have had to cop for what they did. Instead of summoning all these experts, what did bad apple cops from Essex do, they brought in additional bad apple cops to perform ' in format ves, abusing bodies, staging the crime scene, of course good old Dickens on, he makes no mention whatsoever to these factors. Dickens on himself was either in on it himself, or he knew absolutely nothing about what had truly happened...
Who out of the cast of thousands - wasn't in on it? There was no reason to frame Jeremy Bamber - none at all.
-
Who out of the cast of thousands - wasn't in on it? There was no reason to frame Jeremy Bamber - none at all.
The cast is growing rapidly.
-
No, your wrong again, because senior cops involved in the cover up at the scene did 'not want' a pathologist there, or a ballistic expert there, or any number of other parties there, because if they had turned up, bad apple cops would have had to cop for what they did. Instead of summoning all these experts, what did bad apple cops from Essex do, they brought in additional bad apple cops to perform ' in format ves, abusing bodies, staging the crime scene, of course good old Dickens on, he makes no mention whatsoever to these factors. Dickens on himself was either in on it himself, or he knew absolutely nothing about what had truly happened...
They didn't want them there because the most senior officers and Dr Craig were happy to accept murder/suicide based on their analysis scene of crime. These individuals had around 100 years experience between them and I've no doubt they will ultimately be proved right.
There was no cover up on 7th Aug other than perhaps officers interfering with scene of crime and moving Sheila whilst she was on the floor.
Off to watch Supervet.
-
Who out of the cast of thousands - wasn't in on it? There was no reason to frame Jeremy Bamber - none at all.
Stop talking nonsense, your so predictable. Why is it that people like you always have to come up with lines like that. Each case is different, in cases where there has been only one bad apple cop, he sets out to use the others without their knowledge., so on and so forth. A lie by one in the fold, or one piece of fabricated evidence, here or there, introduced by one dodgy person, often involves a multitude of other cops, other experts, other witnesses, who go with the lie, or who promote the fabricated evidence. Stop trying to suggest that there was an ever increasing circle of conspirators as you would have us believe, all in on it from the moment they joined in. That's what people like you do, just like the CPS, nothing but fairy stories, that's all you can keep coming up with...
Sheila grabbed June by the throat and tried to throttle her. The evidence is there, and can be checked again and again, so why did Sheila try to strangle her mother? What story next will you come up with? Try sticking to the facts in the documents, and the photographic evidence, all of which Jeremy had no involvement in producing. ..
-
They didn't want them there because the most senior officers and Dr Craig were happy to accept murder/suicide based on their analysis scene of crime. These individuals had around 100 years experience between them and I've no doubt they will ultimately be proved right.
There was no cover up on 7th Aug other than perhaps officers interfering with scene of crime and moving Sheila whilst she was on the floor.
Off to watch Supervet.
When I said interfering with scene of crime I was meaning possibly moving the bible and bits in the kitchen.
-
Stop talking nonsense, your so predictable. Why is it that people like you always have to come up with lines like that. Each case is different, in cases where there has been only one bad apple cop, he sets out to use the others without their knowledge., so on and so forth. A lie by one in the fold, or one piece of fabricated evidence, here or there, introduced by one dodgy person, often involves a multitude of other cops, other experts, other witnesses, who go with the lie, or who promote the fabricated evidence. Stop trying to suggest that there was an ever increasing circle of conspirators as you would have us believe, all in on it from the moment they joined in. That's what people like you do, just like the CPS, nothing but fairy stories, that's all you can keep coming up with...
Sheila grabbed June by the throat and tried to throttle her. The evidence is there, and can be checked again and again, so why did Sheila try to strangle her mother? What story next will you come up with? Try sticking to the facts in the documents, and the photographic evidence, all of which Jeremy had no involvement in producing. ..
So which particular member of the cast told another member of the cast that Sheila had tried to strangle June but they had to keep it quiet because it had been decided to frame Jeremy?
-
So which particular member of the cast told another member of the cast that Sheila had tried to strangle June but they had to keep it quiet because it had been decided to frame Jeremy?
Look at the marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand, and the corresponding five linear marks on the front of June Bambers throat where the pathologist stated somebody had grabbed her there with a hand. Stop acting daft. If cops had asked the pathologist to attend he would have certainly picked up on the fact that the marks on the top part of Sheila's hand had been caused when she had grabbed her mother by the throat. A fact provable by the marks on Junes neck. If Sheila had done this, how could anybody say that Sheila wasn't capable of doing such a thing? Of course she was, because 'she did it'...
She did it alright, but I know she didn't kill herself and fall on the bedroom floor into the 'staged' position she was eventually photographed in...
You can believe what you like...
-
They're still hard to read Mike, if we could have a close-up.
-
yawn ::) always another expert :) Sheila never throttled anyone.
Good luck with your career as a psychic/fortune teller...
-
I have been reading a section of the material in my possession, and discovered some knew pieces of information that I had not come across before (because there are still loads of documents I never got around to reading, because Jeremy says I have got everything he has and he was going through it all). I found out the following:-
Sheila's natural mother (Jay)was visiting London at the time of the shootings, and went on a European tour until late September, 1985, without wanting to see Sheila her daughter). However, elsewhere I have read that on the night of the shootings, Sheila had spoken to her natural mother on the telephone. Elsewhere still there is mention by Sheila's friend 'Christine' that Sheila's natural mother visited Sheila at the farmhouse for a brief uninvited visit before any of the shootings started...
I have seen where during the 'COLP 1991 police investigation' they got confirmation that PC West 'did not' make a written record of the conversation he claims he had had with Jeremy - hence why we now find that 'somebody else' has fabricated the content of the 3.36am 'C1' form, relied upon during the trial. Also, that by 1991, Malcolm Bonnetts 'Communications log' had not yet surfaced...
Further...
That 'witness statements' were 'edited', 'undated', 'unsigned', made up by staff who worked for the DPP., and Essex police. The names of Three 'people' who were responsible for retyping the edited statements, and supervising this exercise, without the knowledge or consent of the witnesses themselves, is now known to me. The DPP sent the originals back to Essex police with brackets around parts of witness statements that needed to be edited out, and once these revised statements were received by Essex police, typists retyped them omitting the parts which the DPP wanted taking out, and the retyped witness statements were then duly sent back to the DPP for them to disclose the doctored versions of these witness statements to the defence. Essex police retained the original unedited statements (without disclosing them to the defence at all), and they retained the copies of all witness statements containing the bracketed sections which the DPP wanted taking out (again, without disclosing these to the defence). What happened was, according to a senior supervisory officer from Essex police, was that the final versions of the 'edited' witness statements which were sent to the DPP, ended up, undated, unsigned. The DPP giving instruction for this to be done, and the dates could be added later, and where necessary, signatures could be added later...
Let us all now take time out, to take stock and to bear in mind, the 'Citation' at the commencement of all witness statements:-
'WHO STATES;- THIS STATEMENT CONSISTING OF ( ) PAGES, EACH SIGNED BY ME, IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND I MAKE IT KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDERED INTO EVIDENCE I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING WHICH I KNOW TO BE FALSE OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE'.
There is something 'drastically' wrong here, in the way these witness statements have been 'tampered with' by other people without the knowledge or the consent of the people in who's names they are being produced under. It's a 'Hillsboro' scenario all over again, with as few as three, or as many as four different versions of the same statements in existence, yet the DPP and Essex cops only disclosed one version to the defence. This practice has to be 'nipped in the bud', but no doubt it won't be. I myself only very recently had to tell a bent copper from Barnsley to 'get out of my house and don't come back', because the bent copper refused to write down the statement I wanted to give, the evil cop wanted to put into my statement what she thought it should say...
Bent coppers, bent cps, bent judiciary, they all play a role in the way the evidence gets handled, tampered with and introduced, nobody seems bothered that when bent people from within the system commit criminal offences of this nature, that they repeatedly get away with it, unpunished...
Things have got to change, it is not in the public interest, or in the interests of justice that the very people who are supposed to be seen to be upholding the law and all its virtues, are the very ones breaking all those same laws...
-
I have also come across, 'Ann Eatons' full trial transcript, including her evidence in chief, and cross examination...
-
I have been reading a section of the material in my possession, and discovered some knew pieces of information that I had not come across before (because there are still loads of documents I never got around to reading, because Jeremy says I have got everything he has and he was going through it all). I found out the following:-
Sheila's natural mother (Jay)was visiting London at the time of the shootings, and went on a European tour until late September, 1985, without wanting to see Sheila her daughter). However, elsewhere I have read that on the night of the shootings, Sheila had spoken to her natural mother on the telephone. Elsewhere still there is mention by Sheila's friend 'Christine' that Sheila's natural mother visited Sheila at the farmhouse for a brief uninvited visit before any of the shootings started...
Hm. It's not new information. You presented it months ago avec embellishments of how Christine had kidnapped her aged mother from a nursing home to take her on a late night and uninvited visit to WHF to see her great grandsons.
-
The gunshots were made in absolute anger. Why the significance of two being shot between the eyes ,one including a child ? The hatred involved was absolute lunacy and had been an instant decision rather than a planned murder.
Remember,Sheila WASN'T the one who'd suggested foster care !! They were HER sons and she wanted them with HERSELF,nobody else. An animal will bite back if you remove its young.
-
Additionally, I have come across fresh hand written information from the lab' relating to the 'hand swab' evidence (kit 75), and noted that for some reason, the ballistic expert proceeded on the basis that there had only been 7 rounds loaded in the first magazine of bullets to the gun (now that's interesting). The volunteers all loaded 18 additional bullets into the magazine of the rifle but did 'not fire the gun', whereas, in Sheila's case, the magazine may have already been filled with 10 rounds with no bullet in the breach, or with 10 rounds and another bullet already in the breach...
Of course, this makes a difference also not only because of the apparent disparity between the number of bullets loaded by volunteers, as opposed to how many rounds had been loaded by Sheila, but also because of the fact that Sheila had fired the gun, whereas, none of the volunteers did...
If there was only 7 rounds loaded into the magazine of the gun from the outset, only June Bamber had been shot 7 times, albeit in two episodes, first she received 5 shots, with a delay, then a further two shots. Sandwiched in between both of these episodes, Sheila had 'physically tried to throttle her mother', according to the marks on Junes throat, and the top part of Sheila's right hand...
-
The gunshots were made in absolute anger. Why the significance of two being shot between the eyes ,one including a child ? The hatred involved was absolute lunacy and had been an instant decision rather than a planned murder.
Remember,Sheila WASN'T the one who'd suggested foster care !! They were HER sons and she wanted them with HERSELF,nobody else. An animal will bite back if you remove its young.
But it wasn't a new thing in her life. Girls like her always have others to care for their children. It leaves them free to follow other pursuits.
-
I have also for the very first time laid my hands on the following 'draft Report' of J. B. F. Lloyd, dated, 2nd July, 2002, as per 'FIREARMS CONTACT TRACES WITH REFERENCE TO SHEILA CAFFELL'...
Very Interesting content'...
-
But it wasn't a new thing in her life. Girls like her always have others to care for their children. It leaves them free to follow other pursuits.
What do you mean by "Girls like her"?
I've recently forced myself to read Lees book. Hate reading. It seems the only people that looked after the twins outside family and friends were foster carers provided by social services and the odd babysitter. Hardly
the sort of nanny the Waleses (not sure if that's how you spell it)have to look after George and Charlotte.
Sheila was taking on cleaning jobs to make ends meets.
I don't know what other pursuits Sheila followed? I keep asking if she was into horses, riding but no one seems to know.
-
Does anyone know whether JB's " extended sentence " which was voiced by Douglas Herd,was carried out in a legal manner------as in through a court ?
There is a law known as a " Slip Rule " in which a judge uses to give the courts the power to alter a sentence or order which is made within 56 days.
Was this ever implemented in this case ?
-
I have also for the very first time laid my hands on the following 'draft Report' of J. B. F. Lloyd, dated, 2nd July, 2002, as per 'FIREARMS CONTACT TRACES WITH REFERENCE TO SHEILA CAFFELL'...
Very Interesting content'...
Can you upload this please Mike? or is it allot of pages?
-
What do you mean by "Girls like her"?
I've recently forced myself to read Lees book. Hate reading. It seems the only people that looked after the twins outside family and friends were foster carers provided by social services and the odd babysitter. Hardly
the sort of nanny the Waleses (not sure if that's how you spell it)have to look after George and Charlotte.
Sheila was taking on cleaning jobs to make ends meets.
I don't know what other pursuits Sheila followed? I keep asking if she was into horses, riding but no one seems to know.
I mean girls of her class and social standing. They weren't high enough up the ladder to employ Norlands but there was always a motherly type in the village who'd bought up her own children and everyone else's OR a still at school youngster who adored children. I believe June had a series of French girls who au paired Sheila and Jeremy.
You're correct. There is much we don't know about Sheila's life, her tastes etc. A friend of mine had the hots for her but maintains that "she played with the big boys". Another friend came VERY close to calling off his wedding for her but came to the conclusion that she was "flakey." Neither of them were into riding horses.
-
Does anyone know whether JB's " extended sentence " which was voiced by Douglas Herd,was carried out in a legal manner------as in through a court ?
There is a law known as a " Slip Rule " in which a judge uses to give the courts the power to alter a sentence or order which is made within 56 days.
Was this ever implemented in this case ?
The sentencing judge made it very clear, at the time, that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be considered safe to set Jeremy free. The 25 years was a minimum sentence.
-
The sentencing judge made it very clear, at the time, that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be considered safe to set Jeremy free. The 25 years was a minimum sentence.
But he didn't go on to say that " he'll die in prison " which was more or less what the MP instructed.?
-
I mean girls of her class and social standing. They weren't high enough up the ladder to employ Norlands but there was always a motherly type in the village who'd bought up her own children and everyone else's OR a still at school youngster who adored children. I believe June had a series of French girls who au paired Sheila and Jeremy.
You're correct. There is much we don't know about Sheila's life, her tastes etc. A friend of mine had the hots for her but maintains that "she played with the big boys". Another friend came VERY close to calling off his wedding for her but came to the conclusion that she was "flakey." Neither of them were into riding horses.
I'm not sure about her class and social standing. I doubt the Eccleston or Middleton sisters had to wait on men in seedy diners, partake in soft (?) porn modelling or clean for people to make ends meet.
Lee tells of a woman in a job agency couldn't believe that someone like Sheila who was pretty and well spoken was looking for work as a cleaner.
-
But he didn't go on to say that " he'll die in prison " which was more or less what the MP instructed.?
Dying in prison is entirely relative. It stands to reason that it will be so if life means life. He'd have died in prison, anyway, had we still had the death sentence.
-
I'm not sure about her class and social standing. I doubt the Eccleston or Middleton sisters had to wait on men in seedy diners, partake in soft (?) porn modelling or clean for people to make ends meet.
Lee tells of a woman in a job agency couldn't believe that someone like Sheila who was pretty and well spoken was looking for work as a cleaner.
I guess I was referring to the life she'd been raised to expect to have. As for jobs, what was she qualified to do? She was trained for nothing, partly, I think, because she didn't apply herself. Maybe she'd only been encouraged to believe she'd meet Mr Right who'd take care of her.
-
Can you upload this please Mike? or is it allot of pages?
Yes, I know you are particularly interested in this, and I have also come across loads of other hand written documents relating to the hand swab issue that I had not seen before, or known about. I will try to upload Lloyd's Report to this thread at around 4pm today...
-
Dying in prison is entirely relative. It stands to reason that it will be so if life means life. He'd have died in prison, anyway, had we still had the death sentence.
Like the Birmingham 6 ? You'd have believed the judge et al in that case too !
Yes---------a bit like Ruth Ellis. Hang first and ask later ! Where was the empathy in her case ?
Don't talk to me about empathy.
-
I'm not sure about her class and social standing. I doubt the Eccleston or Middleton sisters had to wait on men in seedy diners, partake in soft (?) porn modelling or clean for people to make ends meet.
Lee tells of a woman in a job agency couldn't believe that someone like Sheila who was pretty and well spoken was looking for work as a cleaner.
That is true but being pretty or well spoken doesn't automatically protect you from poverty, maybe the woman in the job agency didn't appreciate this Jackie?
Sheila certainly didn't seem to manage what money she had very well, or maybe she did spend too much of it on drugs, we have no real way of knowing.
I wonder about the so called 'food parcels' said to have been delivered by June. Did she deliver food rather than send money because it was a way of her being sure they ate whereas money may be spent on other things, or was it June's way of controlling them? :-\
-
Like the Birmingham 6 ? You'd have believed the judge et al in that case too !
Yes---------a bit like Ruth Ellis. Hang first and ask later ! Where was the empathy in her case ?
Don't talk to me about empathy.
And don't talk to me about forgiveness when you believe in the death penalty. I can usually understand the reasons behind a crime but it doesn't mean I think the perpetrator should get off Scot free.
-
And don't talk to me about forgiveness when you believe in the death penalty.
I'm not asking you to.
-
I'm not asking you to.
So, to summarise:
You don't believe in forgiveness.
You believe in the death penalty whereby jb would have been executed. (Whatever you erroneously believe he is a convicted killer)
You lack empathy (in my opinion)
You choose to completely disregard all evidence or the opinions of any other people, or any experts as far far more important to you, you have known in your gut from day 1 that he is innocent.
You are not influenced at all by any other person.
Correct me if that is not a fair appraisal of your thoughts?
-
I'm not asking you to.
Can't you see the hypocrisy? You use Ruth Ellis as an example of wrong doing, but you support the very punishment which killed her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
So, to summarise:
You don't believe in forgiveness.
You believe in the death penalty whereby jb would have been executed. (Whatever you erroneously believe he is a convicted killer)
You lack empathy (in my opinion)
You choose to completely disregard all evidence or the opinions of any other people, or any experts as far far more important to you, you have known in your gut from day 1 that he is innocent.
You are not influenced at all by any other person.
Correct me if that is not a fair appraisal of your thoughts?
I have to correct you on one point petey and that is your belief that lookout has no empathy, in my experience that is absolutely not true.
Obviously you don't agree with lookout's take on the situation and that is fair enough but that is no excuse for you to attack her so personally.
-
I have to correct you on one point petey and that is your belief that lookout has no empathy, in my experience that is absolutely not true.
Obviously you don't agree with lookout's take on the situation and that is fair enough but that is no excuse for you to attack her so personally.
There is a massive difference between having no empathy and lacking empathy, so I strongly refute your correction.
You are well aware that Lookout lacked empathy with some of her Hillsborough posts so I'm surprised you have pulled me up on this!
-
I have to correct you on one point petey and that is your belief that lookout has no empathy, in my experience that is absolutely not true.
Obviously you don't agree with lookout's take on the situation and that is fair enough but that is no excuse for you to attack her so personally.
Maggie
I know lookout very well and IMO you could not find a nicer kinder person she has different takes on things than me but I know she is a person with a big heart.
-
According to some of the new stuff I am now reading, which involved the 'editing' en mass by Essex police secretaries, acting on the advice of the DPP, it appears that the DPP was requesting that all the 'tampered with' witness statements needed to be back in their possession very quickly, for one reason or another, hence why many 'altered' statements had to be returned to the DPP unsigned, and in many cases, undated...
What a set of Criminals they all were, 'tampering' with peoples witness statements, and presenting the version which best suited their own case, at the expense of fooling the defence, and everyone else that there could not have existed any other versions of the same statement. Evil, vile, public servants deceiving everybody into believing something which was not true. None of those involved in these immoral practices, have gone public since they carried out these deceptions, despite an innocent mans liberty hanging in the balance. But hey, I will soon redress the balance by naming all of them here on our forum. I shall name them in the 'interests of justice', and add that it is in 'the public interest' that the truth is no longer hidden away. Jeremy's human rights have been taken away from him, by the mere fact that a small few have conducted a 'tampering exercise ' on such a grand scale - what happened to 'Jeremy's right to a fair trial'?
-
Can't you see the hypocrisy? You use Ruth Ellis as an example of wrong doing, but you support the very punishment which killed her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No,not hypocrisy.Yes I believe in capital punishment----------when the " Powers that Be " GET IT RIGHT !!
In which case,how many times have THEY got it wrong !!??
-
No,not hypocrisy.Yes I believe in capital punishment----------when the " Powers that Be " GET IT RIGHT !!
In which case,how many times have THEY got it wrong !!??
And you can sit there blaming them for their mistake, without taking any responsibility, yet you'd applaud them when you agreed with their decision.
-
Thankyou Maggie and Susan. I've only just got back onto the forum to skim over posts. I won't be replying to petey's post as I'm totally ignoring him. That way it saves further unpleasantness from occurring.xx
-
Right, here is the 'Lloyd' Report, about 'FIREARM CONTACT TRACES WITH REFERENCE TO SHEILA CAFFELL', dated, July 2, 2002...
Apology for out of 'sync' order of pages..
-
Sorry for Quality of upload, but as one can see, 'Lloyd' does not think that the prosecutions expert testimony could establish that which it claimed during the trial, now there's a turn up for the books...
-
Sorry for Quality of upload, but as one can see, 'Lloyd' does not think that the prosecutions expert testimony could establish that which it claimed during the trial, now there's a turn up for the books...
Oh, dear...
I feel an 'appeal' is imminent, based on these findings which were never relied upon at the 2002 appeal hearing because it was 'overshadowed' by the DNA evidence issues which took up most of the appellate courts time...
-
It certainly does make a mockery of the supposed " findings ".What a swizz !
-
Yes I did - Maggie isn't online and they NEEDED removing so I cleaned up for her. If you have a problem with that - you know where the door is!
here here ;)
-
It certainly does make a mockery of the supposed " findings ".What a swizz !
The qualifications, and esteem of Dr Lloyd, are set out at points, (1) to (8), inclusive. I don't think anyone can possibly argue with his knowledge and expertise in this particular field of 'science'. (1) a Dr of philosophy (phd), a Dr of Science (DSc), a chartered chemist (CChem), and a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC)...
(2), at the time of producing his report (2002) he had more than 30 years experience in forensic science...
(3), had been instructed as an 'expert witness' in many cases previously, mostly in the United Kingdom, but also in Ireland, Germany, and the united States, as well as working in a similar capacity on government appointed judicial inquiries...
(4), his experience in particular in the examination and evaluation of chemical and physical forensic science evidence, including evidence due to firearms traces...
(5), he was at the time of producing this report, the author of over fifty scientific publications on his case work and research in the various areas of forensic science in which he worked...
(6), he was consulted as a reviewer and referee on forensic science topics by learned societies and publishers internationally...
(7), he was on the register of the Law Society's checked expert witnesses...
(8), was awarded an O. B. E., conferred in recognition of his work in forensic science...
-
(9), he was requested to consider the Crown's evidence concerning traces of substances that might have been transferred from the rifle and ammunition, which was used in the murders of members of the Bamber family, to the person responsible. Jeremy Bamber was convicted of the murders. But Lloyd was aware that Bamber was maintaining that the murders were committed by his sister, who then shot herself...
(10), Lloyd looked in particular at the evidence of the Crowns experts Fletcher, and Elliott...
-
(11), Fletcher had stated that if the wounds to Sheila Caffell were self inflicted he would have expected oil and discharge residue to have been transferred from the rifle to her nightdress, whereas he detected no such residue. Whilst testifying during the trial, Fletcher said, ' after 25 shots I think there would have been a good chance, of some {residue of the propellant or oil or both} being on the person firing, a very good chance (trial transcript page 56A) Also, you get visible residues on your hands from the loading procedure - from the material of the bullet and the lubricant on the bullet (56D). After a demonstration was made in court of a loading of blank ammunition into the magazine, Fletcher said, ... I still got black all over my hands, unfortunately' (61D). Presumably the ammunition was deactivated ammunition from the actual case (57C)...
-
(12), the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell, together with a blank control, were examined, but a fourth swab taken from her hair was not examined. Elliott arranged testing of hand swabs taken from two members of the Lab' staff who had loaded the magazine of the alleged murder weapon. Presumably the pertinent ammunition was used, but this is unclear. In his statement, Elliott said that higher levels of lead were found in the testees' swabs than in swabs taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell. At trial, he said that the results implied (Sheila Caffell) had not carried out a process of loading 18 or more cartridges into the magazine (119D)...
-
(13), On the 27th May, 2002, Lloyd had witnessed experiments conducted by Mr Peter Brooke's of the Forensic Science Service Metropolitan Laboritary. The experiments were an investigation into the possibility that Sheila Caffell's nightdress would have become contaminated by residue from the gun in the manner suggested in his evidence by Fletcher...
-
(14), Lloyd reviews the following documents, (3) APPRAISAL, (3.1.) LAB' NOTES, (3.2.) SWAB EXAMINATION PROCEDURE...
-
(15), the receipt date of the Sheila Caffell swabbing kit at the Lab', as 13th September, 1985, the '13 ' being a correction. The date on which the hand swabs were taken does not appear in the details noted from the labelling of the kit. Examination of swabs conducted on 24th October, 1985. Simultaneous experiments on members of Lab' staff who had loaded the magazine of the rifle concerned, conducted on the 29th October, 1985. Two persons have initialled the notes, 'AR', and an illegible initial presumed to be Elliott's...
-
Sorry for Quality of upload, but as one can see, 'Lloyd' does not think that the prosecutions expert testimony could establish that which it claimed during the trial, now there's a turn up for the books...
I can't make it out Mike.
-
(16), The notes state that the swabs were an acrylic wool moistened with petroleum ether. Each swab was extracted with 10 ml (10 millimetres) of dilute nitric acid, of unstated concentration, which was subsequently evaporated down to a fiftieth of its original volume. The residue was applied to a disc of filter paper for presentation to an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer, which analysed the chemical elements present on the filter paper...
-
I can't make it out Mike.
I am typing out the numbered details of the report...
-
(17), The condition e.g. the degree of soiling, of the Sheila Caffell swabs or of the testees' swabs, when they were examined, should have been recorded in the notes. The notes are silent in this respect: no such trecord was made...
-
(18), Although the Sheila Caffell swabs are described as 'moistened' (with petroleum ether) in the notes, it is likely that they would have become dry before they were extracted. Otherwise the petroleum ether was probably deliberately removed by evaporation. Petroleum ether does not mix with dilute nitric acid...
-
(19), As earlier noted, at the trial Fletcher gave evidence and demonstrated that when cartridges were loaded into the magazine an oily black deposit was transferred to the hands. Because of the paucity of the Lab' notes, it is unknown whether any such material became transferred to the testees' in Elliot's experiments, or had become transferred to the Sheila Caffell hand swabs.The effect should have been clearly evident from the condition of the swabs - a blackened oily soiling would have been present (petroleum ether is a good swabbing solvent for this kind of material). If such an obvious effect had occurred, or if the Sheila Caffell and the testees' swabs had differed significantly in appearance, then the absence of a record in the Lab' notes would be surprising. There appears to be no reason to suppose that there was any important differences between the condition of the Sheila Caffell swabs and the testees' swabs...
-
(20), At present there is no information by which the presumed absence of obvious soiling of the swabs from the testees' may be reconciled with Fletchers evidence...
-
(21), The cartridges used in the Brooke's recent experiments, which were of the same type and date as the original cartridges, were coated with a black lubricant. However, the cartridges could be loaded into the magazine of the rifle without their producing any obvious soiling of the hands.Inquiries may be made by Brooke's into the composition of the lubricant in order to determine whether some change in the consistency of the lubricant could have occurred as the lubricant aged...
-
(22), I understand that Sheila Caffells hands were blood stained but their condition at the time of the swabbing is unclear, on the information available. Possibly the hands could have been cleaned. Blood either wet or dry, is insoluble in petroleum ether. If dried blood was present, any residue from the gun or ammunition on the skin surface could have been shielded from the swabbing, although some flakes of blood probably would have been picked up. Wet blood would have been transferred to the swabs. Even so, it is doubtful that the areas of bloodstained skin would have been swabbed but, if so, this would have been apparent from the condition of the swabs, and should have been recorded...
-
(23), The principle chemical elements found in the swabs from the testees' were lead and bromine, together with smaller amounts of other elements...
(24), An XRF finding, under the circumstances, of a particular element, e.g. 'lead', does not show that metallic lead is present. The element may be present in substance that is chemical compound formed by the element with other elements - lead bromide or a lead carbonate, for example. Elliot's evidence (118F) that 'these peaks are indicative of metal lead' is open to misconstruction...
-
It's great seeing the supporters scrambling around making such valiant efforts to blame Sheila for the murders, after all, it was always going to end this way, it had to be Jeremy or Sheila.
Luckily there isn't a shred of evidence which points to Sheila being the culprit and loads of forensic evidence which clears her of any culpability whatsoever. ^-^
Dream on...
-
(25), The hands of the testees' had not been sampled before the experiment; hence there is no scientific evidence on which the possibility may be excluded that the lead and bromine were present already. Elliott made the assumption that no detectable lead would be present because there was no known proceeding contact of the testees' with lead metal (117D). However, trace amounts of lead are commonly encountered, and microgram amounts such as those in this case could be picked up unwittingly. A microgram ('ug') is a millionth of a gram...
-
(26), In a scientific experiment of the present kind, the levels of the relevant substances at the strategy and finish of the experiment should be validly established - effectively, the result should be a difference based on two actual measurements, and not based on the difference between an assumption and a measurement. Elliott's stated opinion, that he would expect the hands of a person loading cartridges into the rifle to bear appreciable levels of lead,rests on an untested assumption...
-
(27), In the Lab' notes are recorded the quantities of lead on the testees' swabs as between 3 and 15 micrograms, the larger amounts being present on the right hands. On the Sheila Caffell swabs the quantities were approximately 1 microgram. In the absence of any information on the reproduceability of the results or on the quantities usually encounter amongst the Lab' staff, the results are not interpretable in relation to the data that have been published from studies of lead contamination of hands under various circumstances...
-
(28), Given that the ammunition used in the recent Brookes' experiments was representative, the lubricant coating the bullets was of a waxy consistency. Unless the coating became damaged, the coating would have prevented a direct contact between the bullet lead and the hands of a person who loaded the bullets into the magazine...
-
(29), ( from Lab' notes, many more XRF spectra were run than are included in the available documentation. It would be of interest to see them if they still survive.)...
-
(30), According to Elliot's evidence, the bromine (strictly speaking, 'bromide') detected in the swabs from Sheila Caffell and from the testees' was a contaminated due to the liquids used in the swabbing (transcript, page 126B). This is unsupported by the XRF spectrum from the blank control sample. There is no significant response attributable to bromine in the spectrum...
-
(31), A likely source of bromine traces in a forensic science Laboratory is photographic processing. However, the finding would be accompanied by a finding of silver, whereas none is evident in the XRF spectra. Actual bromine has some limited use as a laboratory reagent...
-
(32), It has been known, at least since 1979, that an association of bromine with lead is indicative of residues from the combustion of leaded petrol ( a chemical compound of bromine was present in leaded petrol). Particles containing lead and bromine have been regularly encountered on hand swabs and clothing in firearms residue casework. The finding in the present case of both elements in all of the hand swabs, except the blank control, is the expected consequence of contaminations of this sort. So far as I am aware there is no published study with which the results can be directly compared; but, from casual observations made in casework, petrol residue traces are ubiquitous...
-
(33), On a qualitative basis the results from the testess' and from Sheila Caffell are not significantly different. There appears to be no reason why the varying results for lead or bromine should not be attributed to varying levels of contamination by traces of petrol combustion residue and to experimental variation...
-
(34), As noted before, at present the chemical composition of the coating on the bullets is unknown but is being investigated. I do not suppose that both lead and bromine are likely to have been components of the lubricant, but the present opinion may require revision if further information becomes available..
-
(35), Of the other elements detected in the samples, a result for zinc was given by the sample prepared from the blank control swab, as well as by the samples from all of the other swabs. Evidently, zinc in some chemical form was present ' inter alia' in one of several of the components of the swabbing kits, the nitric acid, the filter paper discs, and the laboratory equipment...
-
(36), In Elliot's evidence at trial, there is again an incorrect implication that the results were due to the presence of the detected elements in a metallic form: 'the test here is picking up particles or smears of metal on the hand. It is not picking up a hard metal unless unless it is an actual particle of material. A hard metal such as iron or copper would not smear on to the hands.' (123G). The test detects only the chemical element. The test does not distinguish between an element in a metallic form, and a substance containing a chemical combination of the element. For example a positive result four iron could be due eiuthger to a trace of the actual metal, or to a trace of rust...
-
(37), Neither would Elliot's procedure have detected particles. In whatever form an element may be on the swab, the sample is in solution when it is transferred to the filter paper disc, and probably in the form of a nitrate compound (from a chemical reaction with the nitric acid) by the time the paper has been dried and presented to the XRF spectrometer...
-
(38), Apart from the lead and bromine results, in my view, there is no significance attachable to any of the findings of the other trace elements. These elements are environmentally common (as indeed is lead) and none is necessarily attributable to contact with the rifle or the ammunition by either Sheila Caffell or the testees'. The quantiutiues are small, and I would endorse Elliott's comment that ' It ius difficult to draw any real conclusions about the levels, such small levels.' (123A)...
-
(39), In the absence of experiments indicating the contrary, any effect on the XRF results of the blood stains on the hands of Sheila Caffell is likely to be unimportant. As indicated previously, the presence of blood staining could have effected the efficiency of the swabbing, although there is no record in the notes that the swabs were bloodstained. If this was the circumstance, blood on the swabs could have contributed some of the elements detected, but the lead and bromine results are unlikely to have been materially affected...
-
(40), The recent experiments conducted at the Metropolitan Forensic Science Laboratory by Brooke's were concerned with the possibility that the rifle, if repeatedly fired by Sheila Caffell, would have contaminated her nightdress. In the event, no evidence was forthcoming that this would have occurred...
-
(41), At present, however, whether the state of the ammunition used in the experiments was representative of the original ammunition is open to question. There is a similar concern over the condition of the rifle...
-
(42), There is reason to suppose that the lead found by Elliott in the Sheila Caffell hand swabs and in the hand swabs collected from the testees' who had loaded ammunition into the magazine of the rifle was derived from petroleum combustion residues...
-
(43), On a qualitative basis, the Sheila Caffell hand swabs results were not significantly different from the results on the hand swabs collected from the testees'...
-
(44), Elliott's results are of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell discharged the rifle...
-
(45), There are inconsistencies between Fletchers evidence, Elliott's experimental results, and Brooke's recent investigation of the extent to which a person ipusing the rifle would become contaminated by residue from the rifle and from the ammunition. At present, no explanations are forthcoming...
J. B. F. Lloyd
July 2, 2002
-
That's the report...
Seems to me the court which tried and convicted Jeremy for the murders were significantly deceived by the hand swab evidence results...
-
I have the XRF spectrum readings for the tests, and the original notes of Fletcher and Elliott...
-
No it wasn't, the results were crystal clear, Sheila's hand swab results were consistent with someone who had NOT HANDLED A WEAPON OR AMMUNITION.
For the 4th time now!
As I have pointed out to you before, .22 rim-fire ammunition does not use a conventional propellant that centre fire ammunition used rendering the tests useless. The American authorities never fully realised this until 1989 and got the manufactures to include the ingrediants that would work.
Here is part of page 208 of the book Forensic Science From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab by RICHARD SAFERSTEIN, PH.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel
(http://s11.postimg.org/ewxixnk1v/gsu1.jpg)
However, hand swabbing or the application of an adhesive cannot be
used to detect firings of most .22-caliber rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s
primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony
Here is an extract of page 101 of Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis by
A. J. Schwoeble and David L. Exline forensic scientists at RJ Lee Group
(http://s14.postimg.org/v2w82kir5/gsu2.jpg)
The manufactures of Remington rimfire ammunition is ELEY LTD
(http://s21.postimg.org/ykwtni7on/gsr3.jpg)
-
No it wasn't, the results were crystal clear, Sheila's hand swab results were consistent with someone who had NOT HANDLED A WEAPON OR AMMUNITION.
No it didn't...
I choose to believe the findings by Dr Lloyd as set out in his report, that basically destroys the hand swab evidence relied upon to deceive the jury into thinking that Sheila could not have handled or loaded bullets into the gun. We now know that that suggestion by the prosecution and its supporters was a 'falsehood'. This chap Lloyd is more qualified than you, or anybody else who is still trying to rely upon the hand swab evidence at trial. The report has been published now, and your word against somebody as esteemed as Dr Lloyd (yes, he's one of those experts you recently mocked) in this particular field of his expertise, shuts you up good and proper. You can 'squeal' all you like, by claiming the evidence of Fletcher and Elliott was right, nobody with any sense will take note of the utter garbage that you keep spewing out of that lying gob of yours...
You have been well and truly put in your place on this occasion..,
Now, run along and tell all your pals how you got it wrong over the hand swab evidence...
-
(11), Fletcher had stated that if the wounds to Sheila Caffell were self inflicted he would have expected oil and discharge residue to have been transferred from the rifle to her nightdress, whereas he detected no such residue. Whilst testifying during the trial, Fletcher said, ' after 25 shots I think there would have been a good chance, of some {residue of the propellant or oil or both} being on the person firing, a very good chance (trial transcript page 56A) Also, you get visible residues on your hands from the loading procedure - from the material of the bullet and the lubricant on the bullet (56D). After a demonstration was made in court of a loading of blank ammunition into the magazine, Fletcher said, ... I still got black all over my hands, unfortunately' (61D). Presumably the ammunition was deactivated ammunition from the actual case (57C)...
Fletcher lied, and has been well and truly exposed as a con man...
-
(12), the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell, together with a blank control, were examined, but a fourth swab taken from her hair was not examined. Elliott arranged testing of hand swabs taken from two members of the Lab' staff who had loaded the magazine of the alleged murder weapon. Presumably the pertinent ammunition was used, but this is unclear. In his statement, Elliott said that higher levels of lead were found in the testees' swabs than in swabs taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell. At trial, he said that the results implied (Sheila Caffell) had not carried out a process of loading 18 or more cartridges into the magazine (119D)...
Elliott deceived the court with his findings...
-
(15), the receipt date of the Sheila Caffell swabbing kit at the Lab', as 13th September, 1985, the '13 ' being a correction. The date on which the hand swabs were taken does not appear in the details noted from the labelling of the kit. Examination of swabs conducted on 24th October, 1985. Simultaneous experiments on members of Lab' staff who had loaded the magazine of the rifle concerned, conducted on the 29th October, 1985. Two persons have initialled the notes, 'AR', and an illegible initial presumed to be Elliott's...
Lo and behold, lord strueth, the labelling on the hand swab kit didn't even have the details of the date the hand swabs were taken, and yet the Lab' accepted them...
-
(16), The notes state that the swabs were an acrylic wool moistened with petroleum ether. Each swab was extracted with 10 ml (10 millimetres) of dilute nitric acid, of unstated concentration, which was subsequently evaporated down to a fiftieth of its original volume. The residue was applied to a disc of filter paper for presentation to an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer, which analysed the chemical elements present on the filter paper...
Oh, the key ingredient in false positive results obtained when analysing the hand swab kit (75), was 'petroleum ether' and its concentration, in both examples (testees' and Sheila Caffell), and the disparity in the dates the Caffell swabs, and the testees' swabs were taken, before they were tested. A longer delay in the case of Sheila Caffells hand swabs, than the testees' handswabs, attracting a more significant rate of evaporation of the petroleum ether, hence why there was a difference in the results of both sets of results...
-
You can never change the fact that Sheila's hands and fingers were clean. No GSR, no blood! I go with Fletcher and Elliott any day, they examined the evidence from day one.
You are an idiot, Fletcher and Elliott did not conduct the tests in 'accordance with the Scientific procedure required' to entitle them to give the 'dishonest opinions' they gave, which by the way was introduced dishonestly for the 'specific purpose of trying to suggest that Sheila had not handled bullets', when 'she had'. Not only did these two crooked witnesses 'deceive the court' by a reliance on 'dodgy lead deposit' evidence, or 'a lack of it', which by the way 'originated almost certainly from the petroleum ether' (Lloyd 2002) used in the process, but these two dodgy so called experts, can't have checked the labels of the hand swab kit (75) otherwise they would have noticed that these 'very same hand swabs had been brought to the lab' on the 9th August 1985', and 'rejected', because of the possibility that they 'had been contaminated'. But, it appears as part of the conspiracy to introduce the hand swab evidence, that either (a) Fletcher and Elliott 'ignored this factor', or (b) bad apple cops 'changed the labelling' so that 'the information' and 'signatures' that accompanied the 'refused' submission of the 9th August 1985, debackle, at 'that' stage. There was no information at all on the labelling when the swabs were dishonestly 'resubmitted' by the '13th September, 1985', as to 'when the hand swabs had even been taken', which in itself should have been sufficient for them to 'have been rejected for a second time'. But, bad apple cops being 'bad apple cops', knew how to 'manipulate the system', and 'the scientists'. Once a bad apple cop, always a bad apple cop. You carry on believing 'the nonsense that you want to believe', you have to keep believing it because to have 'to accept the truth', the 'inevitable consequences will suddenly dawn in that corrupted mind of yours'...
-
(16), The notes state that the swabs were an acrylic wool moistened with petroleum ether. Each swab was extracted with 10 ml (10 millimetres) of dilute nitric acid, of unstated concentration, which was subsequently evaporated down to a fiftieth of its original volume. The residue was applied to a disc of filter paper for presentation to an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer, which analysed the chemical elements present on the filter paper...
The swabs themselves were an acrylic wool moistened in 'petroleum ether', and it was 'not recorded' the concentration' used to moisten the swabs, in either the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffells hands, or the testees' hands in Elliott's experiment, paving the way for the explanation to account for the disparity between the levels of lead deposit found upon Sheila Caffells handswabs, and the testees handswabs. In a nutshell, if a stronger concentration of petroleum spirit had been used during the taking of the testees' handswabs, than the strength of concentration on the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffells hands, this would account for the disparity in the levels of lead detected in one group of hand swabs (testees) as opposed to the other (Sheila Caffell). ..
-
(17), The condition e.g. the degree of soiling, of the Sheila Caffell swabs or of the testees' swabs, when they were examined, should have been recorded in the notes. The notes are silent in this respect: no such trecord was made...
I wonder why?
-
(18), Although the Sheila Caffell swabs are described as 'moistened' (with petroleum ether) in the notes, it is likely that they would have become dry before they were extracted. Otherwise the petroleum ether was probably deliberately removed by evaporation. Petroleum ether does not mix with dilute nitric acid...
If the hand swabs that were 'eventually, tested on the 24th October 1985, had been taken at either of the three different times (11 am, 2.30pm, or 3.15pm) on the 7th August 1985, the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell would have dried during the delay, or the petroleum ether would have evaporated to a far greater extent than the hand swabs taken from the testees which had been moistened with petroleum spirit on the same day they were tested. This may account for the differences in detected lead levels in the Caffell swabs, as opposed to the testees' swabs...
-
(19), As earlier noted, at the trial Fletcher gave evidence and demonstrated that when cartridges were loaded into the magazine an oily black deposit was transferred to the hands. Because of the paucity of the Lab' notes, it is unknown whether any such material became transferred to the testees' in Elliot's experiments, or had become transferred to the Sheila Caffell hand swabs.The effect should have been clearly evident from the condition of the swabs - a blackened oily soiling would have been present (petroleum ether is a good swabbing solvent for this kind of material). If such an obvious effect had occurred, or if the Sheila Caffell and the testees' swabs had differed significantly in appearance, then the absence of a record in the Lab' notes would be surprising. There appears to be no reason to suppose that there was any important differences between the condition of the Sheila Caffell swabs and the testees' swabs...
Why weren't the hand swabs themselves photographed?
-
(21), The cartridges used in the Brooke's recent experiments, which were of the same type and date as the original cartridges, were coated with a black lubricant. However, the cartridges could be loaded into the magazine of the rifle without their producing any obvious soiling of the hands.Inquiries may be made by Brooke's into the composition of the lubricant in order to determine whether some change in the consistency of the lubricant could have occurred as the lubricant aged...
Oh, yes, the 'ageing process' and the changing state of the lubricant - in the Elliott experiments it was not recorded whether or not the ammunition used by the testees' was of the same manufacturers type, from the same era, as the ammunition used in the actual shootings...
-
You can never change the fact that Sheila's hands and fingers were clean. No GSR, no blood! I go with Fletcher and Elliott any day, they examined the evidence from day one.
Facts, Sheila' hands were not clean, so stop kidding yourself on about that. Sheila's feet weren' clean so stop having yourself on about that. Two bodies, not one were found upon entry into the kitchen, a fact that was confirmed after the cops had got into the kitchen, not beforehand. Oh, and the 3.36am phone log purporting to be PC Wests record of his conversation with Jeremy which is being touted as he having recorded the wrong time on, wasn't even written up in PC Wests own hand writing. If all this isn't sufficient to send you scampering off holding your head in shame for trying to pull the wool over every bodies eyes, there are marks on the top part of Sheila Caffell right hand that are consistent with her having tried to strangle her mother...
-
Mike,some brilliant advice from a very good source : Today.
I quote,
" Never trust anybody,not a single soul. Namely,the smiling assassins ( the authorities ),unquote ".
Said recently by someone who KNOWS ! To someone who will find out as time goes on.
-
Let's not forget a silencer which in its history, has been referred to, or mention by the following different 'Exhibit References', SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, started off life as Lab' item no.22, that got changed to no.23, and by the end of the day 'reverted' back to becoming Lab' item no.22...
A silencer which got handed over to cops twice, once on 12th August 1985, and secondly on the 11th September, 1985...
The evidence against this chap Bamber has clearly been fabricated. I should know because I have over 40 years experience of having been framed by cops, the south Yorkshire CPS, and the judiciary. I am an expert in the true sense of the word at spotting police corruption and CPS dishonesty. I currently live in the worst part of the country where bad apple cops, deceitful CP's and local authorities have been practising dishonesty for decades (South Yorkshire, a hotbed of corruption)...
-
Facts, Sheila' hands were not clean, so stop kidding yourself on about that. Sheila's feet weren' clean so stop having yourself on about that. Two bodies, not one were found upon entry into the kitchen, a fact that was confirmed after the cops had got into the kitchen, not beforehand. Oh, and the 3.36am phone log purporting to be PC Wests record of his conversation with Jeremy which is being touted as he having recorded the wrong time on, wasn't even written up in PC Wests own hand writing. If all this isn't sufficient to send you scampering off holding your head in shame for trying to pull the wool over every bodies eyes, there are marks on the top part of Sheila Caffell right hand that are consistent with her having tried to strangle her mother...
I don't believe for one second that that is Sheila's foot. It's too old and too small.
-
Mike,some brilliant advice from a very good source : Today.
I quote,
" Never trust anybody,not a single soul. Namely,the smiling assassins ( the authorities ),unquote ".
Said recently by someone who KNOWS ! To someone who will find out as time goes on.
Assassins come in all shapes and sizes, they aren't always the authorities. The Bamber family found that out!
-
I don't believe for one second that that is Sheila's foot. It's too old and too small.
I agree with you, Sheila's hands and feet were long and very slim, that foot is a smaller wider foot and also does look like a foot belonging to an older woman.
-
I don't believe for one second that that is Sheila's foot. It's too old and too small.
Now that presents us with a conundrum, Caroline. WHO, knowing said foot was NOT Sheila's, would have presented it as being such?
-
Assassins come in all shapes and sizes, they aren't always the authorities. The Bamber family found that out!
As I said,a VERY good source,who I don't think you'd argue with at this juncture.
-
Now that presents us with a conundrum, Caroline. WHO, knowing said foot was NOT Sheila's, would have presented it as being such?
I have wondered that Jane because surely to anyone who has any familiarity with June and Sheila, even from looking at photos and reading general info about them, would be hard pushed to believe that was Sheila's foot.
No offence but maybe Andrew Hunter may be more easily convinced of this simply because he's a bloke and a foot to him is just a foot?? :-\
-
I've never been convinced that it was Sheila's foot,but------------------if that IS nail varnish that I can now see,and if it matches that which is on her fingernails,then it's questionable. I've seen feet,skin etc of the young deceased and after a few hours of being in a mortuary,they take on an appearance of an older person,for obvious physiological/biological reasons.
There's every possibility that it now is the foot belonging to Sheila because the former MP must have got his source from somewhere and someone he knew.
-
I've never been convinced that it was Sheila's foot,but------------------if that IS nail varnish that I can now see,and if it matches that which is on her fingernails,then it's questionable. I've seen feet,skin etc of the young deceased and after a few hours of being in a mortuary,they take on an appearance of an older person,for obvious physiological/biological reasons.
There's every possibility that it now is the foot belonging to Sheila because the former MP must have got his source from somewhere and someone he knew.
I do see your point lookout. If the muscles and ligaments have contracted it may look like that but I'm not convinced. :-\
-
hmm...let's see...who posts lies all the time on here ???
What are you insinuating John? Just because someone may post opinions you don't agree with, it certainly doesn't mean they are lying.
-
I do see your point lookout. If the muscles and ligaments have contracted it may look like that but I'm not convinced. :-\
It's quite a big foot and if it was stretched out in its live form,would prove to be longer. A large big toe too which usually denotes a taller person. I'm going by my own " size 7's " and the size is in conjunction with the toe and heel of the pic.
-
You mean you believe Tesko when he claims he has a photo of Sheila on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her throat?
In view of what was told to AE by Stan Jones,shall we wait and see if EP release what they shouldn't be hanging on to ?
-
I've never been convinced that it was Sheila's foot,but------------------if that IS nail varnish that I can now see,and if it matches that which is on her fingernails,then it's questionable. I've seen feet,skin etc of the young deceased and after a few hours of being in a mortuary,they take on an appearance of an older person,for obvious physiological/biological reasons.
There's every possibility that it now is the foot belonging to Sheila because the former MP must have got his source from somewhere and someone he knew.
They don't take on the appearance of an older person, those feet belong to an older woman - that is clear from the picture. June was covered in blood, her toenails probably have dried blood on them. The MP is quite an enthusiastic supporter and seems willing to believe quite a lot of things.
-
I do see your point lookout. If the muscles and ligaments have contracted it may look like that but I'm not convinced. :-\
The back of the heel looks particularly aged.
-
They don't take on the appearance of an older person, those feet belong to an older woman - that is clear from the picture. June was covered in blood, her toenails probably have dried blood on them. The MP is quite an enthusiastic supporter and seems willing to believe quite a lot of things.
June was plastered in blood from head to toe. That foot doesn't show blood which ran down her body or it would have been left saturated. Let's not forget that Junes injuries were greater from bullet wounds than that of her husband's.
As for the toenails,why wouldn't the rest of her foot be blood-soaked and not just her toenails ? That pic shows a foot with nail varnish,something that I doubt June would have worn.
-
The back of the heel looks particularly aged.
A deceased person's heel looks like that because the elasticity has diminished and as Maggie said,skin contracts.
My heel is still smooth.I'm " old ",but I ain't dead,so that's nothing to go by.
-
They don't take on the appearance of an older person, those feet belong to an older woman - that is clear from the picture. June was covered in blood, her toenails probably have dried blood on them. The MP is quite an enthusiastic supporter and seems willing to believe quite a lot of things.
You can only argue with that point if you've seen a cadaver and the texture of their skin after a few hours of death.
-
June didn't paint her toe nails...
-
A deceased person's heel looks like that because the elasticity has diminished and as Maggie said,skin contracts.
My heel is still smooth.I'm " old ",but I ain't dead,so that's nothing to go by.
Conversely, whilst I'm not as old as you, the skin on the back of my heels looks very much like that.
-
You mean you believe Tesko when he claims he has a photo of Sheila on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her throat?
I mean it's not ok to call anyone a liar on the public forum.
-
Feet age in comparatively younger people,with corns,calluses and bunions,to say nothing of ingrowing toenails and dropped arches. Wearing high heels adds to the strain.
-
I don't believe for one second that that is Sheila's foot. It's too old and too small.
no way is it.its been photo shoped her foot was never on top of any green carpet or blanket.when photos were taken
-
You mean you believe Tesko when he claims he has a photo of Sheila on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her throat?
Listen xxxxx, you do not know what I've had access to, or what I have got in my possession. Sheila and Junes bodies were originally on the bed together, with the rifle on the bed between them. June on top of the bed on 'her side', and Sheila on top of the bed on her dad's side,. Sheila had a bible on her chest. I haven't yet seen this image that cops captured on the crime scene video, but I have seen the photograph of Sheila on her dads side of the bed in an abused posture. No bible on her chest, no gun, only a solitary wound on her neck, so shut your gob you don't know what your talking about. Cops took abusive images of the victims as some sort of sick momento's. Those same vile sicko monster cops wouldn't like to have to admit that they abused the bodies of the deceased and a still alive victim (Sheila). Don't try to blame me for making something as sick as that up. Have a word with Annie Eaton, she can confirm that a cop she refuses to name through fear of the case having to be re-opened because cops have tampered with the bodies of the victims. DC Clarke and DS Jones saw Sheila's body and Junes body on the bed, the gun in the bed between them, the bible on Sheila' chest with her laid there on the bed. Ann Eaton even mentions this in one or more versions of her statements, and when she was cross examined during the trial, so confirmed to Rivlin QC that a cop had told her that Ralph's body had been found in the kitchen by the coal scuttle, and that Sheila's and Junes bodies found on the bed with the rifle on the bed between them both, and a bible at that time on Sheila's chest...
Those are the 'Facts', which were in evidence at about and by 9 O'clock that morning. Within an hour, both of the bodies had been put onto the bedroom floor either side of the bed where their respective bodies had been resting insitu...
Which part don't you understand?
-
Conversely, whilst I'm not as old as you, the skin on the back of my heels looks very much like that.
You must be shrinking.
-
You must be shrinking.
Please God ;D ;D ;D
-
no way is it.its been photo shoped her foot was never on top of any green carpet or blanket.when photos were taken
Think it might have been taken at the mortuary Sami - but it's still not Sheila's foot.
-
None of which helps Jeremy Bamber in any way but carry on pontificating and spouting crap!
Xxxxx
Can you read, xxxxx?
-
You only have her word on that one.
Well it was in her COLP statement,so everyone had her word.?
-
Cops who went to Jeremy's cottage were DC Clark and DS Jones, one of these two bent coppers, or both, told Annie Eaton what they had seen with their own two eyes at the scene, they having both entered the various rooms in the farmhouse where bodies were laid out before they left the farmhouse and went with Jeremy to his cottage at just after 9 am...
Sheila's and Junes bodies on the bed, as stated in Annie Eaton's witness statement, 8th September, 1985, but by 10am that same morning, unbeknown to Clark and Jones, the bodies of Sheila and Junes bodies had been moved to the bedroom floor either side of the bed, and captured in photographs taken by PC Bird...
Job integrity 'blown wide open', convictions can't stand on this basis - cops staged bodies of victims, then took photographs of staged bodies insitu, and blamed Jeremy for having done what the cops themselves had done.
There was a sex abuse feature associated with the cover up by these bad apple cops, a xxxxxxxxxxxcxxccx whose members were bad apple cops...
-
Think it might have been taken at the mortuary Sami - but it's still not Sheila's foot.
Would you be willing to ask the one responsible for putting it in the newspaper ?
-
June was plastered in blood from head to toe. That foot doesn't show blood which ran down her body or it would have been left saturated. Let's not forget that Junes injuries were greater from bullet wounds than that of her husband's.
As for the toenails,why wouldn't the rest of her foot be blood-soaked and not just her toenails ? That pic shows a foot with nail varnish,something that I doubt June would have worn.
You can't say that is nail varnish but looking at the pictures Mike posted, if after death you take on a wrinkled elderly appearance (which I don't believe for one second), how come Sheila's hand is still youthful? Or does this ageing process only affect feet? ;D ;D
Her feet would have been covered in blood, she was shot in the leg and walked around the bed. Gravity makes blood flow downwards. However, look at the picture below, there is something dark on her toe (hey, that rhymes!). It certainly looks more like the foot that is claimed to be Sheila's! I have posted a picture of Sheila's SMOOTH foot for comparison.
-
Would you be willing to ask the one responsible for putting it in the newspaper ?
Of course! Look at the two pictures above Lookout, look at the way the big toe sits and tell me you don't think it's June's foot?
-
ANN EATON (witness statement, 8th September, 1985), trial testimony, cross examination by Rivlin, QC:-
Rivlin - 'you made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I would like you to to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September 1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a type written document? Does it bear your signature'? A - 'no'.
Rivlin - 'I am told the original is outside'.
Arledge - 'I will have it checked with the original'.
Rivlin - 'Do you see that'? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows: 'One of the officers told me that uncle Neville Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her'. A 'yes'.
Rivlin - Does that help you to remember, Mrs Eaton? You did say that to the police? A 'yes, I must have done, because its written down here. I can remember the policeman telling me uncle Neville was beside the coal scuttle, the twins were in their beds, shot, auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do not know who told me...
-
Of course! Look at the two pictures above Lookout, look at the way the big toe sits and tell you you don't think it's June's foot?
The top pic is obviously June's because of the size of the foot and of course the amount of blood on it compared with Sheila's. But---------the pic " allegedly/arguably " of Sheila's only shows a mainly underneath shot,but at the same time,a foot which plainly shows nail varnish and is longer that what you think is Junes,also judging by the arch gives the impression of it being smaller.
The pics of Sheila's feet are over-emphasised to make them look much longer than what they are as the toes look more like fingers.
Sheila's toes will naturally appear scrunched up on account of her wearing high-heeled shoes where her feet would have eventually moulded to the shape of pointed toed shoes.
-
Far too much " hearsay " in this case. Where would everyone have been without it ? Up the creek !!
-
All merely hearsay. Ann had no reason to repeat other than what she heard or thought she heard. She was never in the farmhouse prior to the removal of the deceased. None of this has any relevance to Bamber's guilt.
It was also recorded in several tabloids that Sheila' body was found on the bed, and in addition at least three cops and the police surgeon Craig placed Sheila's body 'on the far side of the bed', comments which are recorded in their witness statements and notebook entries, which is 'not hearsay', but bona fide Evidence'...
-
The spot of blood circled inside the yellow ring in the attached image is replicated in the same part of the sole of Sheila's left foot..
-
Think it might have been taken at the mortuary Sami - but it's still not Sheila's foot.
I mentioned this allegation of authenticity about the photo of Sheilas Feet to AH. He laughed
The fact of the matter is he got that photograph from the CCRC who obtained it via Essex Police. He said the why would they give over false evidence in Jeremy's favour?
-
It was also recorded in several tabloids that Sheila' body was found on the bed, and in addition at least three cops and the police surgeon Craig placed Sheila's body 'on the far side of the bed', comments which are recorded in their witness statements and notebook entries, which is 'not hearsay', but bona fide Evidence'...
Look what DI 'Ron' Cook wrote at the beginning of the typed version of the 'Scenes of crime report'...
'Siege and persons shot dead. A person or persons shot dead - a person had committed suicide'. (source of information not known).
-
I mentioned this allegation of authenticity about the photo of Sheilas Feet to AH. He laughed
The fact of the matter is he got that photograph from the CCRC who obtained it via Essex Police. He said the why would they give over false evidence in Jeremy's favour?
I don't care what you mention to who - the picture is clearly NOT Sheila's foot.
-
I don't care what you mention to who - the picture is clearly NOT Sheila's foot.
Ask EP then.
-
I don't care what you mention to who - the picture is clearly NOT Sheila's foot.
Yes, it is -
-
I don't care what you mention to who - the picture is clearly NOT Sheila's foot.
You don't care that I mentioned it to the person who obtained the photograph from Essex police, the CCRC being the intermediary party between him and Essex Police?
Well you know someone is a complete zealot when they begin to ignore all factual lines of enquiry and remain entrenched in their false assumptions.
-
You don't care that I mentioned it to the person who obtained the photograph from Essex police, the CCRC being the intermediary party between him and Essex Police?
Well you know someone is a complete zealot when they begin to ignore all factual lines of enquiry and remain entrenched in their false assumptions.
It's Sheila's foot, let people believe what they want to, only then when the truth comes out will they realise how wrong they were about this or that, and only then can they learn from the mistakes they have made, or are making...
-
...
-
You don't care that I mentioned it to the person who obtained the photograph from Essex police, the CCRC being the intermediary party between him and Essex Police?
Well you know someone is a complete zealot when they begin to ignore all factual lines of enquiry and remain entrenched in their false assumptions.
Where have EP stated that it's Sheila's foot?
By the way, you would know well what a zealot is, you have become one in recent months.
-
Where have EP stated that it's Sheila's foot?
That's an interesting point, Caroline. EP haven't/aren't getting involved so it's possible to say "they" are responsible for whatever, as Mike has done. They maintain a dignified silent.
-
You only have to compare the photos on #2268 to know Sheila's feet are in the second picture.
-
You only have to compare the photos on #2268 to know Sheila's feet are in the second picture.
Exactly Steve, the skin texture along is completely different.
-
Where have EP stated that it's Sheila's foot?
By the way, you would know well what a zealot is, you have become one in recent months.
Detective Work 101.
1. Andrew Hunter obtained the photographs, So Instead of being a zealot and convincing myself it must be someone else's foot because what it represents does not favour my beliefs I made enquires
2. I spoke to Andrew Hunter on the phone he explained to me that he got that photo from the CCRC when they forced EP to turn it over.
3. So I then told him some people doubt its authenticity. His reply was why would Essex police and the CCRC hand over fabricated evidence that favours Jeremy? He then went on to say that those photos of the feet are not in isolation and can be seen in several other autopsy photos and you can clearly make out its Sheila in the entire autopsy photographs.
-
Exactly Steve, the texture along is completely different.
Makes sense as one photo was taken in the morning and the other in the early afternoon, Dead flesh changes texture very quickly
-
Well I'm sure that AH wouldn't have said it was Sheila's foot if it hadn't been.
-
Well I'm sure that AH wouldn't have said it was Sheila's foot if it hadn't been.
AH is an honest and reliable. and if AH was the dishonest type he would have by now come up with much more attention grabbing allegations like dodgy distefano's allegation that MI5 done the murders ect
-
The man doesn't strike me as being dishonest in any way. He's the type who wouldn't touch the case if he thought for one minute that JB was guilty. His qualities stand out from many others who think they know it all,as he remains quietly confident without the need to take centre stage.
-
Well I'm sure that AH wouldn't have said it was Sheila's foot if it hadn't been.
It seems pretty obvious that the pictures are both of Sheila's feet as David claims.
In support of David's argument we have the word of Andrew Hunter who obtained the photo's from the CCRC. The CCRC had used powers available to them to force EP to hand them over.
To counter this, it is claimed that EP could have handed over photo's of somebody else's feet to the CCRC based on the fact that EP have not publicly stated that the photo's are of Sheila. Secondly it has been pointed out that the texture is wrong in one photo, something which can easily be discerned simply by comparing the photo's in post 2268 apparently.(although this was seemingly not so obvious to the CCRC and Bamber's lawyers). I wonder why?
It is obviously too difficult to explain away if the photo's are accepted as genuine so all that is left is questioning the authenticity.
-
Detective Work 101.
1. Andrew Hunter obtained the photographs, So Instead of being a zealot and convincing myself it must be someone else's foot because what it represents does not favour my beliefs I made enquires
2. I spoke to Andrew Hunter on the phone he explained to me that he got that photo from the CCRC when they forced EP to turn it over.
3. So I then told him some people doubt its authenticity. His reply was why would Essex police and the CCRC hand over fabricated evidence that favours Jeremy? He then went on to say that those photos of the feet are not in isolation and can be seen in several other autopsy photos and you can clearly make out its Sheila in the entire autopsy photographs.
Have EP stated that the picture is of Sheila's foot?
-
Have EP stated that the picture is of Sheila's foot?
Do you doubt that it was handed to the CCRC by EP?
-
Do you doubt that it was handed to the CCRC by EP?
I asked if EP have stated that the picture is of Sheila's foot - it's a simple enough question.
-
It seems pretty obvious that the pictures are both of Sheila's feet as David claims.
In support of David's argument we have the word of Andrew Hunter who obtained the photo's from the CCRC. The CCRC had used powers available to them to force EP to hand them over.
To counter this, it is claimed that EP could have handed over photo's of somebody else's feet to the CCRC based on the fact that EP have not publicly stated that the photo's are of Sheila. Secondly it has been pointed out that the texture is wrong in one photo, something which can easily be discerned simply by comparing the photo's in post 2268 apparently.(although this was seemingly not so obvious to the CCRC and Bamber's lawyers). I wonder why?
It is obviously too difficult to explain away if the photo's are accepted as genuine so all that is left is questioning the authenticity.
And authority.
-
It seems pretty obvious that the pictures are both of Sheila's feet as David claims.
In support of David's argument we have the word of Andrew Hunter who obtained the photo's from the CCRC. The CCRC had used powers available to them to force EP to hand them over.
To counter this, it is claimed that EP could have handed over photo's of somebody else's feet to the CCRC based on the fact that EP have not publicly stated that the photo's are of Sheila. Secondly it has been pointed out that the texture is wrong in one photo, something which can easily be discerned simply by comparing the photo's in post 2268 apparently.(although this was seemingly not so obvious to the CCRC and Bamber's lawyers). I wonder why?
It is obviously too difficult to explain away if the photo's are accepted as genuine so all that is left is questioning the authenticity.
The perceived difference in texture has a very logical explanation. The crime scene photos are taken during the morning and the autopsy photos were taken during the early afternoon. Stages of biological death will alter the appearance of the skin. The difference in skin texture actually adds more weight to the authenticity rather than cast doubt
-
The perceived difference in texture has a very logical explanation. The crime scene photos are taken during the morning and the autopsy photos were taken during the early afternoon. Stages of biological death will alter the appearance of the skin. The difference in skin texture actually adds more weight to the authenticity rather than cast doubt
Of course it does David, with you being a qualified mortician! ::) ::) The difference in texture isn't 'perceived' you can SEE it!
-
This is what I've " unsuccessfully " been trying to explain that a body lying in a mortuary goes through immense changes of breaking down,which begins at the point of death anyway,hence there are dramatic changes in the visual appearance of everything that the person used to be,particularly the skin.
-
I asked if EP have stated that the picture is of Sheila's foot - it's a simple enough question.
You know that EP have made no public statement one way or the other and your "question" is simply a means to avoid the real questions that arise because of what the pictures show.
It is just as easy to ask if EP have denied that the photo is of Sheila's foot but equally as pointless. David has shared what Andrew Hunter had to say on the matter.
Do you think that either David or AH are lying?
-
This is what I've " unsuccessfully " been trying to explain that a body lying in a mortuary goes through immense changes of breaking down,which begins at the point of death anyway,hence there are dramatic changes in the visual appearance of everything that the person used to be,particularly the skin.
Of course the body changes Lookout but it doesn't wrinkle and shrivel to look 30 years older than when living. And heels that were smooth, don't dry out and become cracked.
If David is such good friends with AH, he could ask for a copy of the picture that shows it is attached to Sheila and prove me wrong. I don't mind being wrong, but I won't believe something just because I read it in the paper or a supporter tells me it's true. Been duped too many times on here for that.
-
You know that EP have made no public statement one way or the other and your "question" is simply a means to avoid the real questions that arise because of what the pictures show.
It is just as easy to ask if EP have denied that the photo is of Sheila's foot but equally as pointless. David has shared what Andrew Hunter had to say on the matter.
Do you think that either David or AH are lying?
I don't trust David as far as I could throw him. That good enough for you?
-
I don't trust David as far as I could throw him. That good enough for you?
Yes that is fair enough.
-
Yes that is fair enough.
Thanks.
-
Of course the body changes Lookout but it doesn't wrinkle and shrivel to look 30 years older than when living. And heels that were smooth, don't dry out and become cracked.
If David is such good friends with AH, he could ask for a copy of the picture that shows it is attached to Sheila and prove me wrong. I don't mind being wrong, but I won't believe something just because I read it in the paper or a supporter tells me it's true. Been duped too many times on here for that.
Have you ever been in a mortuary and seen a body which has been there 8+ hours ?
-
Have you ever been in a mortuary and seen a body which has been there 8+ hours ?
Yes Lookout.
-
Yes Lookout.
Did you look at the feet ?
-
Did you look at the feet ?
Not especially Lookout. However, you said earlier you didn't think they were Sheila's feet either. If they are, then it's provable.
-
The man doesn't strike me as being dishonest in any way. He's the type who wouldn't touch the case if he thought for one minute that JB was guilty. His qualities stand out from many others who think they know it all,as he remains quietly confident without the need to take centre stage.
AH is a gentleman, and as honest as the day is long...
-
Not especially Lookout. However, you said earlier you didn't think they were Sheila's feet either. If they are, then it's provable.
Because circulation has ceased,there are evident changes in the extremities,including the feet. In fact it's soon after death that these changes occur,and to be perfectly honest,what I've personally seen in someone deceased looked far different to the pics of Sheila in every way,which tells me that she hadn't been dead many hours at all. Even in the feet pics,there's no sign of spotting or discolouration,something which would have occurred if she'd been dead for the supposed length of time.
-
Because circulation has ceased,there are evident changes in the extremities,including the feet. In fact it's soon after death that these changes occur,and to be perfectly honest,what I've personally seen in someone deceased looked far different to the pics of Sheila in every way,which tells me that she hadn't been dead many hours at all. Even in the feet pics,there's no sign of spotting or discolouration,something which would have occurred if she'd been dead for the supposed length of time.
It's not Sheila's foot and until someone PROVES otherwise, I don't believe it.
-
AH is a gentleman, and as honest as the day is long...
He may well be, but any intellectual can be hoodwinked if the honeytrap is sweet enough. Just look at Hugh Trevor-Roper and the Hitler diaries.
-
It's not Sheila's foot and until someone PROVES otherwise, I don't believe it.
I hadn't believed it until I got my magnifying glass and saw the nail varnish.
-
I hadn't believed it until I got my magnifying glass and saw the nail varnish.
June also has something dark on her toe - you don't know it's nail varnish or that June didn't wear it. She wasn't a nun!
-
AH is a gentleman, and as honest as the day is long...
I can imagine, Mike.
-
The perceived difference in texture has a very logical explanation. The crime scene photos are taken during the morning and the autopsy photos were taken during the early afternoon. Stages of biological death will alter the appearance of the skin. The difference in skin texture actually adds more weight to the authenticity rather than cast doubt
Do the toes become so screwed up that they look like they've been squeezed into some inferior make of shoe for the past forty years..
-
Not especially Lookout. However, you said earlier you didn't think they were Sheila's feet either. If they are, then it's provable.
Why not ask EP if it's the right pic they sent. You think the sun shines out of them so go ahead. I must say,it would have gone against them if they'd sent the wrong pic,don't you think ?
-
Why not ask EP if it's the right pic they sent. You think the sun shines out of them so go ahead. I must say,it would have gone against them if they'd sent the wrong pic,don't you think ?
Really? Care to point to where I said that? Who said they sent the wrong photo? EP aren't making any claims about the picture, as far as I can see, EP handed over some pictures and grand assumptions have been made. It wouldn't be the first time! However, if I am PROVEN wrong, I will hold my hands up and say so - one day you might be able to do that too, although I won't hold my breath.
-
Really? Care to point to where I said that? Who said they sent the wrong photo? EP aren't making any claims about the picture, as far as I can see, EP handed over some pictures and grand assumptions have been made. It wouldn't be the first time! However, if I am PROVEN wrong, I will hold my hands up and say so - one day you might be able to do that too, although I won't hold my breath.
You haven't said so in as many words,but you certainly agree and go along with their investigating ( if that's what you can call it )
I'll CERTAINLY hold my hands up if I'm wrong,because that's what I'm like.
-
You haven't said so in as many words,but you certainly agree and go along with their investigating ( if that's what you can call it )
I'll CERTAINLY hold my hands up if I'm wrong,because that's what I'm like.
The ONLY thing I have agreed with - is that Jeremy is guilty. Please show me where I have gone along with their investigation? I have pointed out numerous flaws and I don't believe the silencer evidence.
So, you're wrong now - you won't admit it though and you never do.
-
The ONLY thing I have agreed with - is that Jeremy is guilty. Please show me where I have gone along with their investigation? I have pointed out numerous flaws and I don't believe the silencer evidence.
So, you're wrong now - you won't admit it though and you never do.
To admit that JB is guilty would obviously mean that you fully agreed with the police investigation,along with their shonky statements and all. Afterall,it was EP and the silencer that put JB where he is.?
-
To admit that JB is guilty would obviously mean that you fully agreed with the police investigation,along with their shonky statements and all. Afterall,it was EP and the silencer that put JB where he is.?
So because I think he's guilty, I believe the silencer evidence? Well, clearly I don't which makes your statement WRONG - now lets here you say it? ;D ;D ;D
-
So because I think he's guilty, I believe the silencer evidence? Well, clearly I don't which makes your statement WRONG - now lets here you say it? ;D ;D ;D
If you think the silencer was made up why would anyone do this if the case against Jeremy was strong?
-
He may well be, but any intellectual can be hoodwinked if the honeytrap is sweet enough. Just look at Hugh Trevor-Roper and the Hitler diaries.
Yeah, and the juries who convicted all the victims of miscarriages of justice...
-
It's no good anybody accepting that the silencer evidence is dodgy now, but still maintaining that Bamber is guilty, because the introduction of 'that' silencer, was designed to be the master stroke that would convince the jury that he did it. Without that silencer being introduced, Bamber would almost certainly have not been convicted, because the anshuzt rifle would not have been too long for her to have taken her own life. Let's not forget, that SOCO took at least 10 photographs inside that cupboard in the den, and that the negatives of 8 of such photographs have been removed from the negative strip. What this tells us is that SOCO did search that gun cupboard, and what is more they must have emptied that cupboard to enable them to have taken so many photographs in such a small dark space. They searched the cupboard alright, and the silencer wasn't there then (at least that is my expert opinion on the matter). That is why they got rid of the 8 photographic images which recorded all the contents of the gun cupboard on that first morning of the police investigation. It's no good people saying just because there are 8 out of 10 photographs that were taken of the contents of the cupboard 'missing' doesn't mean that the silencer wasn't there, but until those missing 8 negative strips are produced I am afraid no-one can believe that the silencer had been there in 'that' cupboard on that first morning. Now, if it wasn't there, who had possession of 'it'...
-
Well seemingly,it's been alleged that DB had said that he " had something up his sleeve "--------yes,probably the silencer !
-
Now, let's play devils advocate, let's assume that the silencer wasn't there in 'that' cupboard on that morning, and now let's also assume that it was Sheila's blood inside the silencer, and paint ingrained on the end of it, from the aga in the kitchen...
So, if the silencer was used in the shootings, and it wasn't in the gun cupboard that morning, the killer must have retained possession of it...
-
Now, let's play devils advocate, let's assume that the silencer wasn't there in 'that' cupboard on that morning, and now let's also assume that it was Sheila's blood inside the silencer, and paint ingrained on the end of it, from the aga in the kitchen...
So, if the silencer was used in the shootings, and it wasn't in the gun cupboard that morning, the killer must have retained possession of it...
Cops photographed the contents of the gun cupboard, and have 'removed' 8 of the negatives which captured all the contents of 'that' cupboard...
-
If we proceed on the basis that cops 'knew' that the silencer was 'not' amongst the contents of 'that' cupboard on that first morning, hence why they got rid of all 8 photographs and corresponding negatives, then we can all be assured that Jeremy 'had not' placed 'the silencer' there in that cupboard contrary to what the prosecution case relied upon during the trial. Let us not forget, that the prosecution, nor PC Bird, informed the court that cops had got rid of 8 negatives and photographs which captured the full contents of that cupboard, on that first morning...
-
So, where does leave 'the whereabouts' of that silencer at the time 'it had not been present in that gun cupboard, on that first morning'?
-
So, where does leave 'the whereabouts' of that silencer at the time 'it had not been present in that gun cupboard, on that first morning'?
only two possibilities fall to be considered, (firstly) that cops placed the silencer back into the cupboard after its contents had been emptied and photographed, or (secondly), that the silencer had never been present inside that gun cupboard 'at all', until (a) the killer returned it, or that (b) it was never physically present in the cupboard at the scene, but was at all times 'retained' by the killer...
-
A standard technique usually adopted when someone sets out to deliberately frame someone, is for that person to introduce a piece of evidence that links the target to having been present at the crime scene, or that the evidence in question can only lead to a particular conclusion - now, let's say, that the silencer was introduced under these circumstances, because with its potential use in the commissioning of these murders, it made it 'nigh on impossible' for Sheila to have shot herself, and then afterward she had unscrewed the silencer in question, and taken it all the way downs to hide it in the aforementioned cupboard, if she was already dead, after having been shot.If this is what somebody did, they went further by making sure that some of Sheila's blood would be found within the silencer, and that paint from the aga surround also be found upon the silencer...
-
A standard technique usually adopted when someone sets out to deliberately frame someone, is for that person to introduce a piece of evidence that links the target to having been present at the crime scene, or that the evidence in question can only lead to a particular conclusion - now, let's say, that the silencer was introduced under these circumstances, because with its potential use in the commissioning of these murders, it made it 'nigh on impossible' for Sheila to have shot herself, and then afterward she had unscrewed the silencer in question, and taken it all the way downs to hide it in the aforementioned cupboard, if she was already dead, after having been shot.If this is what somebody did, they went further by making sure that some of Sheila's blood would be found within the silencer, and that paint from the aga surround also be found upon the silencer...
My experience and personal knowledge of how 'red herrings' of this nature are slipped into the case by somebody dishonestly, is that in this instance Jeremy wasn't the one who used the silencer on the gun, went to the trouble of removing it from the barrell of the gun, and hid it away inside a box inside a small cupboard in a room known as the den, as far away as was possible from where Sheila is supposed to have been shot and killed on the bedroom floor. OK let's look at it from another angle, let's say that Jeremy was the killer, and he had gone to all that trouble to fake his sisters suicide, by staging her body with only the rifle on it, having removed the silencer after he had killed her, and taken it all the way downstairs to hide it in a small box in that cupboard, which was known as 'the gun cupboard', without making sure that there wasn't any blood from any of the victims upon it, in particular none of Sheila's blood upon the silencer? Why would he not go the extra mile and clean down that silencer before he put it away? Of course he would have...
If Jeremy had been the killer of his sister, and the silencer had been on the gun when he had shot her, he would have known that the end of the silencer had come into direct contact with his sisters neck. If he had been the killer who almost got away with carrying out the perfect murders (as alleged) and he being careful enough to know that he would have to remove the silencer from the gun when he staged his sisters body, and go to the lengths of going all the way downstairs to hide the silencer away, he would surely have had the basic intelligence to check the silencer to see if any of his sisters blood had got onto it...
I do not think that the silencer was fitted to the barrell of the rifle at any stage during the shootings, but that is another matter...
It certainly wasn't present in the gun cupboard on the morning of the shootings, because cops looked in that cupboard and took 10 photographs of its contents. We know that cops removed 8 photographic negatives from a strip of 10 that were taken of the cupboards contents that morning. Cops don't remove, conceal or destroy evidence that has evidential value which benefits their case, only when it might be beneficial a defendant...
-
There is only the word of the relatives that the silencer was ever present inside that gun cupboard on Saturday, the 10th September, 1985, when David Boutflour supposedly 'found it' there. The key players in its introduction into the folklore of this case, were (1) David Boutflour, (2) Ann Eaton, his sister, and (3) Robert Boutflour, their father...
-
There is only the word of the relatives that the silencer was ever present inside that gun cupboard on Saturday, the 10th September, 1985, when David Boutflour supposedly 'found it' there. The key players in its introduction into the folklore of this case, were (1) David Boutflour, (2) Ann Eaton, his sister, and (3) Robert Boutflour, their father...
In other versions of 'the find' the 'executor of the parents estates (Basil John Cock) was present'. But, he did not attend the house until September, 1985. He making mention of how much white fingerprint powder was on everything on that visit. Cops did not start fingerprinting until September 1985, so this sheds more light on when the true introduction of the silencer (DRB/1) must have occurred (September, not August)...
-
Whichever way you look at it, the relatives were solely responsible for the introduction of the silencer (DRB/1), containing the blood, and paint evidence...
-
Whichever way you look at it, the relatives were solely responsible for the introduction of the silencer (DRB/1), containing the blood, and paint evidence...
They introduced 'it' at best on the 12th August 1985, and at worst on the 11th September 1985...
-
Bamber and Bamber alone is responsible for his circumstances.
You'd better think again.
-
In other versions of 'the find' the 'executor of the parents estates (Basil John Cock) was present'. But, he did not attend the house until September, 1985. He making mention of how much white fingerprint powder was on everything on that visit. Cops did not start fingerprinting until September 1985, so this sheds more light on when the true introduction of the silencer (DRB/1) must have occurred (September, not August)...
Didn't Jeremy make some reference to the fingerprint powder?
-
No need, this allegation that he was framed is pure pish!
unfortunately it is not
-
unfortunately it is not
I agree - but he's still guilty.
-
I agree - but he's still guilty.
The only thing that JB's guilty of is not getting himself a decent defence.
-
The only thing that JB's guilty of is not getting himself a decent defence.
Perhaps his defence didn't feel he gave them enough to defend.
-
Perhaps his defence didn't feel he gave them enough to defend.
Hard to defend the indefensible.
-
Hard to defend the indefensible.
There certainly wouldn't be much enthusiasm, especially if it sounded as if the prosecution was going to wipe the floor with them.
-
I think the defence knew he did it. They certainly were of the opinion he had psychopathic tendencies.
I agree John. It's hard to hide the kind of resentment he must have been harbouring. Rejected at birth and packed off to boarding school - he didn't seem to have any of his own friends. People say he didn't show any anger, I think it's odd that he was so controlled - bit like a pressure cooker - calm on the outside, but boiling away on the inside. The crime scene showed a lot of anger. Sheila didn't bottle things up and she was willing to confront things from her past - like meeting her natural mother. Jeremy saying he wasn't bothered about meeting his, is hard to believe.
-
I agree John. It's hard to hide the kind of resentment he must have been harbouring. Rejected at birth and packed off to boarding school - he didn't seem to have any of his own friends. People say he didn't show any anger, I think it's odd that he was so controlled - bit like a pressure cooker - calm on the outside, but boiling away on the inside. The crime scene showed a lot of anger. Sheila didn't bottle things up and she was willing to confront things from her past - like meeting her natural mother. Jeremy saying he wasn't bothered about meeting his, is hard to believe.
Caroline, I can't help but feel that everything which affected Sheila re her adoption must also have affected Jeremy. We know very well that internalized feelings of anger and resentment, if not allowed to be expressed WILL at some point find their own way out in devastating ways. Sheila seems to have been capable of releasing hers in places she felt safe, ie Colin. I believe Jeremy kept his bottled. They'd both have had to live with the physical feelings of abandonment because it goes hand in hand with being adopted.
-
Perhaps his defence didn't feel he gave them enough to defend.
No-------------EP had most of it,hidden/undisclosed.
-
No-------------EP had most of it,hidden/undisclosed.
Well, you can go on using that one till the cows come home. It several purposes. If they had it but have since destroyed it. If they've never had it because it was never there to have OR if they've handed over, as Jeremy has said, everything they may have had.
-
Caroline, I can't help but feel that everything which affected Sheila re her adoption must also have affected Jeremy. We know very well that internalized feelings of anger and resentment, if not allowed to be expressed WILL at some point find their own way out in devastating ways. Sheila seems to have been capable of releasing hers in places she felt safe, ie Colin. I believe Jeremy kept his bottled. They'd both have had to live with the physical feelings of abandonment because it goes hand in hand with being adopted.
Jane I think the frustration was there smouldering under the surface, when he snapped the stalks on his mother's tulips and drove round in circles on the bicycle. Neither sibling could find the words to sum up their predicament faced with the unshakeable union of their parents. It's ironic that Sheila vented her frustrations at Colin and I wonder if Jeremy ever knew, because of course the tension which he felt came out to his partner, namely musings to Julie about wanting to do away with his family.
-
Caroline, I can't help but feel that everything which affected Sheila re her adoption must also have affected Jeremy. We know very well that internalized feelings of anger and resentment, if not allowed to be expressed WILL at some point find their own way out in devastating ways. Sheila seems to have been capable of releasing hers in places she felt safe, ie Colin. I believe Jeremy kept his bottled. They'd both have had to live with the physical feelings of abandonment because it goes hand in hand with being adopted.
Hi Jane, I agree with you that all children who are removed from their mother for whatever reason before they are aged 2 (I think) suffer from abandonment issues according to the bible about baby adoption The Primal Wound. E
Even babies who are premature and placed in an incubator suffer from feelings of loss and rejection which they don't consciously recognise but which cause them feelings of emptiness and loneliness. Of course Jeremy would have suffered at least as badly as Sheila but being a boy would have made it even harder for him.
I am sure he was brought up being told 'boy's don't cry' and to keep a 'stiff upper lip'. A terrible legacy for all little boys but particularly one like Jeremy who must have had really difficult feelings of loss and sadness and longing for love from something he couldn't remember.
I might add I remember reading in The Primal Wound that children who have such abandonment feelings and do not bond deeply with their replacement mother will look for replacement objects to bond with instead. It is not uncommon for such children to grow up loving money to fill in the empty void inside them.
-
Jane I think the frustration was there smouldering under the surface, when he snapped the stalks on his mother's tulips and drove round in circles on the bicycle. Neither sibling could find the words to sum up their predicament faced with the unshakeable union of their parents. It's ironic that Sheila vented her frustrations at Colin and I wonder if Jeremy ever knew, because of course the tension which he felt came out to his partner, namely musings to Julie about wanting to do away with his family.
I find it interesting that Jeremy has maintained that the fact of his adoption never troubled him but he tried to make contact with his biological parents after he was convicted. It's an interesting dichotomy. Sheila, on the other hand, went for it, quite openly. I wonder how much this would have affected Jeremy.
-
I find it interesting that Jeremy has maintained that the fact of his adoption never troubled him but he tried to make contact with his biological parents after he was convicted. It's an interesting dichotomy. Sheila, on the other hand, went for it, quite openly. I wonder how much this would have affected Jeremy.
I think Jeremy saw the lie of the land and as long as he was being subsidized was quite content with the status quo for a time. Julie in her statement then says that the talk about killing his parents resumed after a lull, which may have been when Nevill hinted about payback time for the loan and June refused to write out more personal cheques.
-
I find it interesting that Jeremy has maintained that the fact of his adoption never troubled him but he tried to make contact with his biological parents after he was convicted. It's an interesting dichotomy. Sheila, on the other hand, went for it, quite openly. I wonder how much this would have affected Jeremy.
I'm with you there Jane, I was thinking that myself. I think the fact they didn't get the real bonding love as babies and it seems they were never put first in their parents life as a constant, the longing must have been hard to bear and no doubt it hardened to anger in both of them but Sheila being a female didn't have the strictures placed on her that a middle class, public school boy did.
-
Hi Jane, I agree with you that all children who are removed from their mother for whatever reason before they are aged 2 (I think) suffer from abandonment issues according to the bible about baby adoption The Primal Wound. E
Even babies who are premature and placed in an incubator suffer from feelings of loss and rejection which they don't consciously recognise but which cause them feelings of emptiness and loneliness. Of course Jeremy would have suffered at least as badly as Sheila but being a boy would have made it even harder for him.
I am sure he was brought up being told 'boy's don't cry' and to keep a 'stiff upper lip'. A terrible legacy for all little boys but particularly one like Jeremy who must have had really difficult feelings of loss and sadness and longing for love from something he couldn't remember.
I might add I remember reading in The Primal Wound that children who have such abandonment feelings and do not bond deeply with their replacement mother will look for replacement objects to bond with instead. It is not uncommon for such children to grow up loving money to fill in the empty void inside them.
And Maggie, isn't it interesting that whilst Sheila has it heaped on her every which way -albeit for diverse reasons- Jeremy MUST have perceived it as being so and felt he had to work for every penny he earned.
-
I'm with you there Jane, I was thinking that myself. I think the fact they didn't get the real bonding love as babies and it seems they were never put first in their parents life as a constant, the longing must have been hard to bear and no doubt it hardened to anger in both of them but Sheila being a female didn't have the strictures placed on her that a middle class, public school boy.
But there was June telling her to "always think of God", which must have been difficult for an individual who was emerging as a stunning young woman, albeit one who had very little confidence, hence her delight in being told by others she was pretty.
-
But there was June telling her to "always think of God", which must have been difficult for an individual who was emerging as a stunning young woman, albeit one who had very little confidence, hence her delight in being told by others she was pretty.
I agree Steve but that particular teaching for little boys not to show their feelings leaves many men screwed up and unable to express themselves, whereas little girls do tend to express themselves whether they are encouraged to or not. Jeremy probably simply had no outlet for his emotions and the feelings he was unloveable and worthless hence him wafting his money around and playing the big I am for attention.
I find it very sad.
You should read the Primal Wound Steve, it's very interesting. :)
-
But there was June telling her to "always think of God", which must have been difficult for an individual who was emerging as a stunning young woman, albeit one who had very little confidence, hence her delight in being told by others she was pretty.
Steve, I truly believe it had less to do with focussing on God than an attempt to suppress Sheila's blossoming sexuality which she clearly used to validate her low sense of self worth. I guess the more worthless she felt, the more she sought affection in the form of sex.
-
Steve, I truly believe it had less to do with focussing on God than an attempt to suppress Sheila's blossoming sexuality which she clearly used to validate her low sense of self worth. I guess the more worthless she felt, the more she sought affection in the form of sex.
Absolutely Jane and in the same way Jeremy saw money as a way to validate his low sense of self worth.
-
Absolutely Jane and in the same way Jeremy saw money as a way to validate his low sense of self worth.
And it may just be possible that after Sheila got to meet Christine, Jeremy's sense of self worth went South and he thought that acquiring the family fortune would make it better.
-
And it may just be possible that after Sheila got to meet Christine, Jeremy's sense of self worth went South and he thought that acquiring the family fortune would make it better.
Good point, I can't imagine he would have been happy about Sheila's new relationship with her mother. More resentment!
-
Didn't Jeremy make some reference to the fingerprint powder?
Yes, he did, he pointed out that the farmhouse was not fingerprinted until September 1985, the inference to be drawn, therefore, was that if Basil John Cock was present when the silencer was found, then the silencer in question (DRB/1) could not have been found in August 1985, because Basil John Cock, did not go to the farmhouse until September 1985, after cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse...
-
Good point, I can't imagine he would have been happy about Sheila's new relationship with her mother. More resentment!
Personally I don't believe Jeremy was a psychopath, I used to think he would have to be to carry out the crime but after reading the Primal Wound and understanding on a deeper level the tragedy that occurs when a baby is removed from the mother who is still part of the baby's very being both mentally and physically I have come closer to being able to understand the depth of pain and bewilderment which can develop. It is believed if the replacement mother is able to bond deeply with the baby which is done by eye contact and facial expression the child will grow up feeling secure but I am afraid that this probably didn't happen to either baby with June. She was apparently a woman who struggled to show her feelings so it was unlikely her babies would be able to read the loving emotional map on her face.
With no secure bonding and feelings of safety the child can develop in a vacuum where low self worth and feelings of loss and rejection, resentment and replacement love of money and possesions can flourish.
-
Yes, he did, he pointed out that the farmhouse was not fingerprinted until September 1985, the inference to be drawn, therefore, was that if Basil John Cock was present when the silencer was found, then the silencer in question (DRB/1) could not have been found in August 1985, because Basil John Cock, did not go to the farmhouse until September 1985, after cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse...
Mike are you saying that solicitor Basil Cock was involved in the silencer conspiracy or was used by the relatives as a stooge?
-
Yes, he did, he pointed out that the farmhouse was not fingerprinted until September 1985, the inference to be drawn, therefore, was that if Basil John Cock was present when the silencer was found, then the silencer in question (DRB/1) could not have been found in August 1985, because Basil John Cock, did not go to the farmhouse until September 1985, after cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse...
This fits in snugly with the timing of the handing over of the silencer (DRB/1) by Annie Eaton on the 11th September 1985 (to DC Oakey). How amazing that 'she' has possession of a silencer at all, considering that cops had submitted 'it' to the lab' previously on the 30th August, 1985, under exhibit reference DB/1, lab' item no.23? Worse still this silencer that Annie had in her possession 'after' that date, was subsequently fingerprinted by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson, on the 13th September, 1985, and finally - cops submitted 'this' silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, on the 20th September, 1985, which was 8 days after the date the key flake of blood had supposedly 'already' been found inside 'it' at the lab' where it had been ever since the 30th August 1985. So, how can Annie still be in possession of a silencer on the 11th September 1985, to enable her to hand 'it' over to the cops, so that they can fingerprint 'it' by 13th September, 1985, and later submit 'it' to the same lab' (20th September 1985), to be checked for blood and fibers, despite the 'fact' it was already at the lab' and 'it' had been there three weeks before 'it' got sent there (again). Why check the silencer for blood, when its already been checked for blood?
-
Mike are you saying that solicitor Basil Cock was involved in the silencer conspiracy or was used by the relatives as a stooge?
As a result of interrogating Jeremy about the possible involvement of Basil John Cock at the farmhouse on the occasion when 'the' silencer was found by David Boutflour, he kept saying that Cock mentions white fingerprint dust on everything, and Jeremy told me that cops did not fingerprint whf until after Julie Mugford came forward in September, 1985. So, I checked the facts given to me by Jeremy, (a) when cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse, (b) the purpose of Cocks visit, and the earliest possible occasion there could have been white fingerprint dust at the scene, and (c) the date Annie handed over the silencer to cops (11th September, 1985), and I realised that, one of the silencers (DRB/1) must have been found in September, irrespective of the claim that 'it' had been found in August. I think that Cock inadvertently got caught up in the silencer exchange orchestrated between cops and relatives, without not knowing what was going down. Cock could not have been present at the farmhouse with white fingerprint dust all over the place any time in August, 1985, so he must have been at the farmhouse in September, when David Boutflour, and Annie Eaton found the silencer. Cock was a stooge, in the sense that he was supposed to be an independent witness to the find of the silencer, but his involvement became problematic because of the timing of the hand over of the silencer by Annie Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985. Especially, since it was not until 'after' the flake of blood had been found (12th September) in a different silencer and analysed (19th September) that the silencer that Basil John Cock witnessed being found, that 'it' got submitted to the lab' (20th September, 1985). By the time the matter came to trial (October, 1986), cops / DPP had edited Cocks witness statement, so that it seemed that Cock had been present at the farmhouse when David Boutflour had found the silencer on the 10th August, but alas, there had been no fingerprinting by that stage...
Fingerprint dust was 'edited out' in the final version of Cocks statement...
-
As a result of interrogating Jeremy about the possible involvement of Basil John Cock at the farmhouse on the occasion when 'the' silencer was found by David Boutflour, he kept saying that Cock mentions white fingerprint dust on everything, and Jeremy told me that cops did not fingerprint whf until after Julie Mugford came forward in September, 1985. So, I checked the facts given to me by Jeremy, (a) when cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse, (b) the purpose of Cocks visit, and the earliest possible occasion there could have been white fingerprint dust at the scene, and (c) the date Annie handed over the silencer to cops (11th September, 1985), and I realised that, one of the silencers (DRB/1) must have been found in September, irrespective of the claim that 'it' had been found in August. I think that Cock inadvertently got caught up in the silencer exchange orchestrated between cops and relatives, without not knowing what was going down. Cock could not have been present at the farmhouse with white fingerprint dust all over the place any time in August, 1985, so he must have been at the farmhouse in September, when David Boutflour, and Annie Eaton found the silencer. Cock was a stooge, in the sense that he was supposed to be an independent witness to the find of the silencer, but his involvement became problematic because of the timing of the hand over of the silencer by Annie Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985. Especially, since it was not until 'after' the flake of blood had been found (12th September) in a different silencer and analysed (19th September) that the silencer that Basil John Cock witnessed being found, that 'it' got submitted to the lab' (20th September, 1985). By the time the matter came to trial (October, 1986), cops / DPP had edited Cocks witness statement, so that it seemed that Cock had been present at the farmhouse when David Boutflour had found the silencer on the 10th August, but alas, there had been no fingerprinting by that stage...
Fingerprint dust was 'edited out' in the final version of Cocks statement...
Mike, I found this section of the trail transcript very interesting
Rivlins examination of Boutflour trial transcript
RIVLIN: When was the last time you saw the silencer before it was recovered by the police?
A. The last time i saw the silencer to my recall was in Ann's kitchen in the presence of Ann and my brother-in-law Peter.
JUSTICE DRAKE (To the Witness): Was that the occasion when you tried to undo the knurl?
A. I believe that must have been the occasion when I tried to undo the knurl, because that was the occasion when I noticed the spot of red on the end of the nut.
RIVLIN: If I may say so, it is now not too difficult to undo it? A. I notice that.
RIVLIN: Because I am doing it now am I not? A. You are.
RIVLIN: And therefore it is obviously not very tight at the moment? A. It is loose.
-
Mike, I found this section of the trail transcript very interesting
Rivlins examination of Boutflour trial transcript
RIVLIN: When was the last time you saw the silencer before it was recovered by the police?
A. The last time i saw the silencer to my recall was in Ann's kitchen in the presence of Ann and my brother-in-law Peter.
JUSTICE DRAKE (To the Witness): Was that the occasion when you tried to undo the knurl?
A. I believe that must have been the occasion when I tried to undo the knurl, because that was the occasion when I noticed the spot of red on the end of the nut.
RIVLIN: If I may say so, it is now not too difficult to undo it? A. I notice that.
RIVLIN: Because I am doing it now am I not? A. You are.
RIVLIN: And therefore it is obviously not very tight at the moment? A. It is loose.
Yet, in various versions of his witness statement, some undated, some not bearing his signature, he claims he saw the blood on the silencer at the time he found it...
And he States that ' later informed the police of the find of the 'telescopic site', and the 'sound moderator'..
-
So, depending upon which version of his witness statement you rely upon, he saw blood on the end of the silencer, at the scene when he found it, or at a later date at his sisters house, or the same day he supposedly found it when he saw it at his sisters house, and he himself (no-one else) informed the police by either the telephone, or verbally, that he had found the telescopic site and the sound moderator at a later date...
He supposedly finds the silencer in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985, but waits until the 12th September 1985, before he reports finding it along with a telescopic site?
-
Added to this, his sister Annie Eaton, hands over a silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985...
-
It should be clear to everyone, that David Boutflour informed the police on the 12th September 1985, that he had found the telescopic site and sound moderator that his sister had handed in to DC Oakey on the previous day (11th September 1985)...
-
Ann Eaton would not be handing over the same silencer that her husband Peter Eaton had handed over to DS Jones a month beforehand (12th August 1985) because cops already had that other silencer by the time Ann Eaton gave the telescopic site and the sound moderator to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985. In fact, cops had already sent 'that' other silencer to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, under an exhibit reference of DB/1 (23), so how could Annie Eaton have possession of 'that' silencer by 11th September, to enable her to be guvinbg it to DC Oakey on that date (Lab' had the other silencer by that stage)...
-
If I may remind you all of the fairy tale the jury and almost everybody else has been spun, that 'other' silencer had been found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, handed over by Peter Eaton to DS Jones on 12th August 1985, taken by 'Ron' Cook to the lab' where it was examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August, fingerprinted by 'Ron' Cook on the 15th and 23rd August, sent back to the lab' on 30th August, stripped down by Fletcher and Hayward on 12th September and the key flake of blood found inside it, that was analysed and produced blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP 2-1) between 12th to 19th September, yet Ann Eaton is handing 'it' over to DC Oakey on the 11th September, and her brother David is reporting 'it' to the police on the 12th September that he has found the telescopic site, and the silencer to the gun, and once Annie Eaton had given the silencer to DC Oakey on 11th September, why did DS Eastwood and DS Davidson then fingerprint 'that' silencer on the 13th September, when it had already supposedly been fingerprinted by 'Ron' Cook previously on the 15th and 23rd August, by superglue treatment on the latter occasion? Lo and behold, what we then find is that 'the silencer' Annie Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on 11th September, is retained by cops until 20th September 1985 (day after all blood grouping tests and results have been obtained from the flake found in the other silencer)...
Everything is out of 'sync'...
Cops, relatives, and somebody at the lab' have for 30 years got away with fabricating the silencer, blood and paint evidence, by merging at least two different parker hale silencers into one...
But, judgement day is looming fast...
-
These 'discrepancies' are too serious to be put down as errors or mistakes...
-
These 'discrepancies' are too serious to be put down as errors or mistakes...
On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most serious, the 'discrepancies' are of a '10' factor, in the same way that in one of my false prosecutions, ' two cops had claimed to be present inside an observation van, at 5.20pm, during a No.3 Regional Crimne Operation, when they declared that they both had identified me as the driver of a stolen car, that they said had parked up outside target premises they were monitoring, only to find five and a half months later, that the DI (Henshaw) who was running the surveillance at the scene, did not send for 'that' observation van to be collected from Barnsley police station compound until 5.55pm, and which wasn't put into position in the road outside the target premises until 6.30pm. So, how could the two bad apple cops have been inside the observation van one hour and 10 minutes beforehand, to enable them to identify the driver of a stolen car , as me?
The same logic that was eventually applied in that case, is 'on a par' to what has happened with these two Silencer's in the Bamber case...
I should know when things don't stack up, because I myself have been a victim of this kind of corruption by bad Apple coos on many occasions. I am an expert in knowing what signs to look for in the evidence, and if there has been any underhand tactics adopted by bad apple cops, then I will be able to tell. And, in this instance, Bamber has been stitched up with these silencers, blood and paint evidence, with 100% certainty...
-
Why were cops 'submitting a silencer to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers', in view of the 'fact' that cops had already submitted one silencer to the same (Huntingdon) lab 21 days earlier, inside which the key blood evidence had been found, analysed and the results already obtained before 'that' date...
-
And...
You don't phone the cops up, on the 12th September 1985, to tell them you have found the silencer to 'the' rifle, if by that stage, the silencer in question has already been handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on 12th August 1985, has been to the lab' to be examined once by Glynis Howard on the 13th August, and been fingerprinted twice (15th and 23rd August) and resubmitted back to the lab on 30th August 1985, and expect anybody to believe that cops didn't even know a silencer had been found by David Boutflour before 12th September?
-
There's still something nagging me about this fingerprint dust, a remark Jeremy made to Julie upon returning to the White House with Ann Eaton present about the Police not being thorough, if anyone recalls the chronology?
-
I can only think of Basil Cock complaining about the fingerprint dust.
I wonder if he did a Larry Grayson. ( the dust round here )
-
I can only think of Basil Cock complaining about the fingerprint dust.
I wonder if he did a Larry Grayson. ( the dust round here )
I always think of him when the phrase "you're not alone" is mentioned..
-
There's still something nagging me about this fingerprint dust, a remark Jeremy made to Julie upon returning to the White House with Ann Eaton present about the Police not being thorough, if anyone recalls the chronology?
The 'white dust' on everything, must have been a reference to the 'fingerprint dust', made by 'Basil John Cock'. Let's get the 'facts' right, cops didn't bother fingerinting the farmhouse, until after the ' first week in September, 1985'...
-
The 'white dust' on everything, must have been a reference to the 'fingerprint dust', made by 'Basil John Cock'. Let's get the 'facts' right, cops didn't bother fingerinting the farmhouse, until after the ' first week in September, 1985'...
'Are you with me, are you with me'...
-
Why would the ' executor of the parents estates', be fumbling around at the scene in August 1985, before the opening of the inquest, on the 14th August, 1985?
-
Why would the ' executor of the parents estates', be fumbling around at the scene in August 1985, before the opening of the inquest, on the 14th August, 1985?
Use your common sense...
-
Use your common sense...
The prosecutions case, was a 'shambolic' one...
-
I always think of him when the phrase "you're not alone" is mentioned..
I loved him Steve.
-
The prosecutions case, was a 'shambolic' one...
It was that alright Mike. They made it up as they went along. They had to do really because there was nothing to pin the crime on Jeremy except for the ones who'd hated Jeremy's guts and just wanted him out of their way so decided to sling as much mud as was humanely possible and call it " circumstantial " evidence.
-
It was that alright Mike. They made it up as they went along. They had to do really because there was nothing to pin the crime on Jeremy except for the ones who'd hated Jeremy's guts and just wanted him out of their way so decided to sling as much mud as was humanely possible and call it " circumstantial " evidence.
Yes, Lookout, you have hit the ' nail on its head'...
-
It was that alright Mike. They made it up as they went along. They had to do really because there was nothing to pin the crime on Jeremy except for the ones who'd hated Jeremy's guts and just wanted him out of their way so decided to sling as much mud as was humanely possible and call it " circumstantial " evidence.
Good gracious!!!! So there's these -TOP- professionals with a huge reputation who go into a big murder case blindly and allow "the ones who hated Jeremy's guts and wanted him out of the way" to dictate conditions and did sod all squared about it. You're saying, by the sound of it, that they deliberately threw the case. Will you be saying next that the rellies paid them to do it?
-
Good gracious!!!! So there's these -TOP- professionals with a huge reputation who go into a big murder case blindly and allow "the ones who hated Jeremy's guts and wanted him out of the way" to dictate conditions and did sod all squared about it. You're saying, by the sound of it, that they deliberately threw the case. Will you be saying next that the rellies paid them to do it?
Yes,I meant all that I said and as for your finale--------I'd say if the cap fits.
How strange that suggestion should come into your head.
-
Yes,I meant all that I said and as for your finale--------I'd say if the cap fits.
How strange that suggestion should come into your head.
Nah. I'm just reading what's in yours, Lookout.
-
For the benefit of those who do not know the circumstances of my own history, I would just like to mention that, as a result of being dishonestly targeted by South Yorkshire police, by the South Yorkshire CPS, and Barnsley Magistrates court, between 1986 and 1992 (six years of abuse, and state controlled dishonesty), that 'if' everything I had been saying to 'the cops', and 'the CPS', and Barnsley magistrates Court, and at Sheffield Crown court (September, 1988) had been ' listened too', and 'acted upon' then the families of the 'Hillsboro' 96 would not have had to wait a 'staggering ' 27 years for the truth about 'Hillsboro' to not only be told, but to be accepted...
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they 'sought to shut me up' about the tampering with witness statements by other bent coppers, and about the dishonest manipulation of the pocketbook issuing system, etc...
I stood against them all at Sheffield Crown court in September, 1988, With the help of my defence counsel, Shaun Spencer, Qc., insisting that ' cops had fabricated the contents of DS Highams witness statement. A witness stament that was made for DS Higham, by DC Richardson (evil lying scumbag), because he claimed that he was entitled to make another police officers witness statement on that other officers behalf, because DC Richardson claimed that he had made the same pocketbook entries as DS Higham, during the early hours of 26th January, 1987, along with DS Higham, before 'both' had gone off duty in the early hours of 26th January, 1987...
But...
This could not possibly have been trtue, for many reasons, including 'the fact' that DC Richardson's pocket book notes could 'not' have been recorded in his own pocketbook, relating to the alleged incident until after the 31st August, 1985, because the detail Richardson hopped to rely upon! Was not issued to DC Richardson, until ' that' (31st August, 1985) date...
-
Good gracious!!!! So there's these -TOP- professionals with a huge reputation who go into a big murder case blindly and allow "the ones who hated Jeremy's guts and wanted him out of the way" to dictate conditions and did sod all squared about it. You're saying, by the sound of it, that they deliberately threw the case. Will you be saying next that the rellies paid them to do it?
Irrelevant, use of excuses...
-
Nah. I'm just reading what's in yours, Lookout.
That'll be the day when someone knows what goes on inside my head/mind. Even my late husband struggled with that one.
-
That'll be the day when someone knows what goes on inside my head/mind. Even my late husband struggled with that one.
He'd probably have been too close, anyway. Besides which, I imagine he'd have seen you rather differently to the way I/others see you.
-
South Yorkshire police, South Yorkshire CPS, South Yorkshire Magistrates courts are arguably the ' most corrupted' throughout the country...
-
South Yorkshire police, South Yorkshire CPS, South Yorkshire Magistrates courts are arguably the ' most corrupted' throughout the country...
As I'm not au fait with court rooms and their procedures, I must take your word for that.
-
South Yorkshire police, South Yorkshire CPS, South Yorkshire Magistrates courts are arguably the ' most corrupted' throughout the country...
They certainly sat on their hands in the Rotherham scandal.
-
Good gracious!!!! So there's these -TOP- professionals with a huge reputation who go into a big murder case blindly and allow "the ones who hated Jeremy's guts and wanted him out of the way" to dictate conditions and did sod all squared about it. You're saying, by the sound of it, that they deliberately threw the case. Will you be saying next that the rellies paid them to do it?
This is why the bar has been raised so high on the case and the state keep moving the goal posts.
Its too embarrassing for the state to contemplate.
-
This is why the bar has been raised so high on the case and the state keep moving the goal posts.
Its too embarrassing for the state to contemplate.
And too ludicrous for me to contemplate.
-
As I'm not au fait with court rooms and their procedures, I must take your word for that.
Let's go further, the judicial system in South Yorkshire is a hot bed of corruption...
-
And too ludicrous for me to contemplate.
You wouldn't be taking that view if you were a victim of it...
-
Let's get the facts right - if the Crown Court had dealt with my allegations in September 1988, the families of the 96 Hillsboro' victims would 'not' have had to wait 27 years for justice...
DC Richardson had made DS Highams witness statement dated 25th August 1987 on behalf of DS Higham because 'both' officers claimed they had made their notes up together in their respective notebooks before they had gone off duty...
What a complete load of codswallop...
-
Let's get the facts right - if the Crown Court had dealt with my allegations in September 1988, the families of the 96 Hillsboro' victims would 'not' have had to wait 27 years for justice...
DC Richardson had made DS Highams witness statement dated 25th August 1987 on behalf of DS Higham because 'both' officers claimed they had made their notes up together in their respective notebooks before they had gone off duty...
What a complete load of codswallop...
Problem, the notes contained in DC Richardson's notebook, which he supposedly made up with DS Higham, during the early hours of 26th January, 1987, was not issued to DC Richardson until the 31st January, 1987, therefore, he could not have made his notes up with DS Higham, in 'it' during the early hours of the 26th January, 1987, because he hadn' t been issued by that stage with the pocketbook inside which was contained the so called same notes as DS Higham...
Cops are lying deceitful bastards, you can't believe anything they say, without at least checking out the facts, first...
-
DC Richardson made DS Highams witness statement, dated, 25th August, 1987, for him without DS Higham even being present...
That first version of DS Highams witness statement consisting of 9 pages, ended up being 'altered' by DC Richardson, turning into a 10 page witness statement - can you fucking believe what these bad apple cops did with that witness statement? Cops, not making ' their own' witness statements. Worse still, same bad apple cops not even responsible for 'editing' their own witness statements. DC Richardson, 'altering' the 9 page version, by adding 'two retyped pages' of evidence, and in the process, DC Richardson removing and disposing of the original page 5 contents, and retyping pages 5 and 6, of DS Highams witness statement, which effectively altered 'it' from an original 9 page statement, into a 10 page statement at the stroke of a pen...
-
And too ludicrous for me to contemplate.
Its not too ludicrous for you to contemplate since you believed it for almost 30 years lol
-
Its not too ludicrous for you to contemplate since you believed it for almost 30 years lol
I NEVER believed the rellies paid off Jeremy's defence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
If the Magistrates court and the Crown court had dealt with the issues relating to, an officer making another officers witness statement during my trial in September, 1988 (in his absence) and 'tampering' with its contents (without his knowledge), which included disposing of the original page 5 contents, never to see the light of day again, inserted 2 complete 'retyped' pages numbered 5 and 6, and altered the original page numbers, ( 6 to 7, 7 to 8, 8 to 9, and 9 to 10), then as I say, the families of the 96 victims of Hillsboro' on the 15th April 1989 would not have had to wait 27 years after the tragedy for justice to be done...
All the courts had to do, in my case was to accept that it was 'not lawful' for a cop to make another cops witness statement on his behalf, in his absence. It was not lawful for another cop to 'edit' such a statement on behalf of that other officer. It was not lawful for that other officer to 'tamper' with the layout and construction of that witness statement, or to remove altogether one full page of evidence (page 5) simply because it contained two words ('He's down') and 'insert' two full pages of evidence designed to support false allegations that I had supposedly assaulted two police officers by throwing roof tiles at them, causing mickey mouse injuries to them before allegedly jumping from the roof, and vanishing into the night like some sort of cult figure...
DC Richardson and DS Higham, told the court that tried my case, that they had the same notes as one another recorded in their pocketbooks, as though this entitled DC Richardson to make DS Highams witness statement on his behalf without DS Highams knowledge or consent. Later, Richardson 'altered' the format of the 9 page statement he had made for Higham, turning it into a 10 page statement. Two years later (one year after Hillsboro', April 15th, 1989) when interviewed ' under caution' by Greater Manchester police, DS Higham continued to say that both he and DC Richardson had made their notebooks up together before going off duty. But when it was pointed out to DC Richardson that the pocketbook in which his notes were recorded had not been issued to him until the 31st January 1987 (6 days after the event), DC Richardson 'changed' his story by declaring that he had made his notes up on pieces of foolscap paper, which he said he later copied into his pocketbook. When asked by Greater Manchester police as to the whereabouts of those pieces of foolscap paper, DC Richardson said, 'I do not know'...
He did not know of the whereabouts of the original page 5, either...
Cops reinterviewed DS Higham and put it to him, that DC Richardson was now saying that he made notes onto pieces of foolscap paper not directly into his notebook? DS Higham told cops that he (Richardson) did not record his notes onto pieces of foolscap paper, Higham said that DC Richardson had made notes directly into his notebook before both of them had gone off duty in the early hours of Monday the 26th January, 1987...
This could not possibly be true, because DC Richardson's notebook containing the 're-written' notes had not been issued to Richardson until the 31st January 1987...
South Yorkshire is a hotbed of corruption which extends right the way through the Criminal Justice System, from bad apple cop, dodgy local CPS, brain dead Magistrates, and pompous ( I am better than thou) Crown Court Judges who are out of touch with reality...
-
Why do you think all the 'major' public scandals occur in South Yorkshire?
-
how about uploading the photo of sheila on the bed ;)
Shouldn't you be requesting 'public access' to the 'crime scene video'?
I think sami was referring to the photograph you obtained from an album conditionally supplied to Jeremy's solicitor, and subsequently sent to Jeremy after you made an electronic copy. Is it correct that you don't currently know the location of that copy on your hard drives, and so can't post it on here at the moment?
-
Shouldn't you be requesting 'public access' to the 'crime scene video'?
I think sami was referring to the photograph you obtained from an album conditionally supplied to Jeremy's solicitor, and subsequently sent to Jeremy after you made an electronic copy. Is it correct that you don't currently know the location of that copy on your hard drives, and so can't post it on here at the moment?
Yes...
-
The case for cops 'tampering' with witness statements in another officers name was put on a plate at Sheffield Crown court during my trial between 12th and 22nd September 1988, but the trial judge (Hunt) was too far up his own arse, to deal with it as he 'should have done'. His failure to deal with it 'then' contributed to the wide scale practice of tampering with the contents of witness statements in the Hillsboro' tragedy cover up, which involved ' blanket interference' with 116 different witness statements...
-
Yes...
please ask jb to email you that photo ;)
-
The case for cops 'tampering' with witness statements in another officers name was put on a plate at Sheffield Crown court during my trial between 12th and 22nd September 1988, but the trial judge (Hunt) was too far up his own arse, to deal with it as he 'should have done'. His failure to deal with it 'then' contributed to the wide scale practice of tampering with the contents of witness statements in the Hillsboro' tragedy cover up, which involved ' blanket interference' with 116 different witness statements...
The Court of appeal got in on the act in 1994, by dismissing my appeal even though they were aware of the fact that DC Richardson was guilty of 'tampering' with the witness statement he had made for his side kick DS Higham, that he had 'edited pages contained within it, removing the contents of 'page 5', and 'inserting' two retyped pages, 5 and 6, and renumbering the original numbered pages, 6, 7, 8, and 9, as 7, 8, 9, and 10. He was allowed to do this because of his claim that both he and DS Higham had written up their pocketbook entries together in their respective notebooks before going off duty at 1am, on Monday, the 26th January 1987. So, when Colin Jackson of the CPS informed DC Richardson that there wasn't a witness statement by DS Higham in the 'Teskowski, file', on the 25th August 1985, DC Richardson made one for DS Higham...
But, Richardson and Higham did not make their notes up together as claimed, because the pocketbook inside which Richardson had relied on to make Highams witness statement had not been issued to DC Richardson until the 31st January, 1987, therefore, both Richardson and Higham had deliberately lied to the court during my trial. Additionally, when it was put to DC Richardson that he could not have made notes directly into his pocketbook before going off duty at 1am, on the 26th January, 1987, because his pocketbook containing the key information had not yet been issued to him by 'that' stage, DC Richardson changed his story by declaring that he had written his notes on pieces of foolscap paper, which he had copied into his notebook once that was issued to him four days later. When asked where those pieces of foolscap paper were with his original nots on, he said he did not know...
Armed with this new information Manchester police interviewed DS Higham and they put it to him, that DC Richardson had ' now' changed his account, he was now saying he had written up his notes on pieces of foolscap paper, and that he had not after all written his notes directly into his pocketbook. Higham refuted Richardson's claim that he had used pieces of paper to make his notes on. Higham continued to say that DC Richardson had made notes directly into his pocketbook, and that he had 'not used' pieces of foolscap paper...
By the time the court of appeal was doing 'its' part in trying to keep a lid on the corrupt practices adopted in my prosecution (1994), the families of the 96 Hillsboro' victims were only 5 years into a total of 27 years that they would have to wait before the same corrupt practices that were used to prosecute and to convict me, that had been adopted in the Hillsboro' cover up, were finally exposed publickly. In 2010 the CCRC turned down my application to send my case back to the court of appeal because they said that the judgement from my 1994 appeal had 'gone missing'. They cited the judgement as being 42 pages in length, and dated, February, 1994...
The truth is / was that although my appeal lasted one whole week in the Royal Courts of Justice, and I was represented at those proceedings by Michael Mansfield, QC, the court of appeal never issued a full judgement at all, only a provisional one (42 pages in length, dated February, 1994). This was because, Michael Mansfield, told the court that he would be considering taking the case to the house of Lords, and the bench responded by telling Mansfield QC that, although that was his right to do that, they told him that if he chose to do that, then the court would have no option but to ' implement the proviso'. As a result, the court would not be issuing a full judgement. This meant (according to what Mansfield QC told me afterwards) that without a judgement giving the courts reason for dismissing my appeal, he would be unable to take my case further to the House of Lords, because there was 'nothing' to argue with, or against. He said that adopting this tactic by the bench was only very rarely used, and on the occasions it was used, the appeal ended in its tracks there. When I asked him more about the proviso, he told me that when the court of appeal adopt this course of action, the court does not have to give its reasons for rejecting the appeal in a judgement, and that was for a number of different reasons, including, national security, the detection and prosecution of offenders in serious crime, to protect the identity of informants, etc, etc, etc...
I now know why they adopted this approach in my case in the court of appeal, it was because of the fact that my prosecution and conviction was linked to the cover up by South Yorkshire Police' handling of the Hillsboro' disaster (15th April, 1989), which involved the 'doctoring of police witness statements by other officers', so that the cops could blame the Liverpool fans for the tragedy. South Yorkshire is a hotbed of corruption, its been this way for well over three decades already, and it still prevails, despite the inquest findings earlier this year, which brought some closure of sorts to the families and friends of the 96 victims, after a 27 year long wait for the truth...
I am still waiting for justice to be done in my case, 28 years ago at Sheffield Crown court, in front of Judge Hunt and jury, South Yorkshire police, the local branch of the South Yorkshire CPS, got away with introducing doctored evidence. At those proceedings it was my defence that the cops had fabricated the evidence that was being used against me. Most of the trial was taken up arguing over the 'doctored' witness statement made by Richardson for Higham, and matters relating to pocketbook entries, when they were made, how they had been made up. The trial judge even got in on the act by telling the jury in his summing up, 'it is a matter for you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it was put to Sgt Higham that he had not made up his notes with DC Richardson that night, but that he had got some unnumbered notebook and used a lettreset to print the same serial number (44854) onto the front cover, and that he had rewritten his notes so that the contents of the added and retyped pages 5 and 6, that were introduced into the body of the original statement appeared in his notebook. You will have to decide, whether this is going into the realms of cloud cuckoo land, and you will bring your common sense to bear on it'...
As I say, this injustice has been hanging over me for the past 28 years, it is a burden that does not get any easier with the passing of time. It has embittered me, and filled me with a hatred for all things corrupt that evil men in shining uniforms, dark flowing gowns and wigs, impose on innocent victims, as though it doesn't matter...
But, 'it does matter'...
-
I NEVER believed the rellies paid off Jeremy's defence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
everyone involved is guilty bar 'jb' :)) :))
-
everyone involved is guilty bar 'jb' :)) :))
How RIGHT you are. At last you've admitted it.
-
How RIGHT you are. At last you've admitted it.
i think youve misunderstood me lookout,i was poking fun at that theory ;)
-
i think youve misunderstood me lookout,i was poking fun at that theory ;)
You don't say. :))
-
You don't say. :))
oh i do i do
-
(42), There is reason to suppose that the lead found by Elliott in the Sheila Caffell hand swabs and in the hand swabs collected from the testees' who had loaded ammunition into the magazine of the rifle was derived from petroleum combustion residues...
Not necessarily because they handled bullets...
-
(44), Elliott's results are of no assistance to the determination of whether or not Sheila Caffell discharged the rifle...
Whereas, those from the 'guilty camp' have always argued it did...
-
(28), Given that the ammunition used in the recent Brookes' experiments was representative, the lubricant coating the bullets was of a waxy consistency. Unless the coating became damaged, the coating would have prevented a direct contact between the bullet lead and the hands of a person who loaded the bullets into the magazine...
So, the truth is laid threadbare, no bullet lead would have got onto the hands of anyone handling or loading bullets into the ammunition magazine, because of the manufacturers 'WAX' coating on the ammunition...
So, now it becomes clear that Sheila could have handled those 'wax' coated bullets, and loaded them into the gun...
-
Not necessarily because they handled bullets...
mike can you explain what petroleuim combustion residue is.the bullets were coated with parafin wax
-
So, the truth is laid threadbare, no bullet lead would have got onto the hands of anyone handling or loading bullets into the ammunition magazine, because of the manufacturers 'WAX' coating on the ammunition...
would she not have the parafin wax on her hands having loaded 15 odd bullets
-
mike can you explain what petroleuim combustion residue is.the bullets were coated with parafin wax
I am not a chemist, but I think that what Dr Lloyd is referring to, is the change in the makeup of the 'petroleum ether' that gets applied to the swabs to moisten the swabs prior to their use. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think his reference to 'petroleum combustion residue' is the amount of the lead element present on the swabs once the swabs have been moistened, as described, and the rate with which the 'petroleum ether' evaporates. I think it is the quantity of the lead element on the swabs, at different stages starting with the moistening exercise which will produce high levels of lead element on the swab, that with the passing of time, the amount of lead element reduces. I think that is what is being talked about. In the hand swabs taken from Sheila on the 7th August 1985, there was a significant delay before Elliott examined them 29th October, 1985, as opposed to the relatively short period between the taking of the testees' hand swabs, and their examination...
I think what Dr Lloyd was saying was that the level of lead element in the results obtained from examination of Sheila's swabs were lower than the levels of the testees' due to the evaporation effect of the 'petroleum ether'. A delay of around 84 days in Sheila's case, as opposed to a few days in the cases of the testees...
-
I am not a chemist, but I think that what Dr Lloyd is referring to, is the change in the makeup of the 'petroleum ether' that gets applied to the swabs to moisten the swabs prior to their use. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think his reference to 'petroleum combustion residue' is the amount of the lead element present on the swabs once the swabs have been moistened, as described, and the rate with which the 'petroleum ether' evaporates. I think it is the quantity of the lead element on the swabs, at different stages starting with the moistening exercise which will produce high levels of lead element on the swab, that with the passing of time, the amount of lead element reduces. I think that is what is being talked about. In the hand swabs taken from Sheila on the 7th August 1985, there was a significant delay before Elliott examined them 29th October, 1985, as opposed to the relatively short period between the taking of the testees' hand swabs, and their examination...
I think what Dr Lloyd was saying was that the level of lead element in the results obtained from examination of Sheila's swabs were lower than the levels of the testees' due to the evaporation effect of the 'petroleum ether'. A delay of around 84 days in Sheila's case, as opposed to a few days in the cases of the testees...
thank you ,mike
-
[/quote]
that's the 5th time you have used that false claim. Try another answer
-
[/quote]the lab tests showed she would have had something on her hands ,call it lead. wax,oil,or gsr.i think john's right.the lights are on but theres no one home :))
-
Would not Jeremy have daubed Sheila's hands/nightdress with residue or whatever to make it appear that she'd" made full use of the rifle ?" If he'd wanted to blame her ?
He could have mustered up all kinds of clues pointing to the family's involvement,or even signs of a burglary which would have been simple to do,especially when there were various temporary workers during harvest-time to blame,but--------------he didn't because he wasn't involved.
He's being kept locked up to save the embarrassment of EP's duff investigation. Nothing to do with him " being a danger to the public ",or the relatives " fear " of him being released,but fear of him opening up to the REAL truth of the crime.Where he is is nothing but a convenience for everyone.
I've heard of a marriage of convenience,but never a conviction-------until now !!
-
Would not Jeremy have daubed Sheila's hands/nightdress with residue or whatever to make it appear that she'd" made full use of the rifle ?" If he'd wanted to blame her ?
He could have mustered up all kinds of clues pointing to the family's involvement,or even signs of a burglary which would have been simple to do,especially when there were various temporary workers during harvest-time to blame,but--------------he didn't because he wasn't involved.
He's being kept locked up to save the embarrassment of EP's duff investigation. Nothing to do with him " being a danger to the public ",or the relatives " fear " of him being released,but fear of him opening up to the REAL truth of the crime.Where he is is nothing but a convenience for everyone.
I've heard of a marriage of convenience,but never a conviction-------until now !!
he wasnt that clever.plus we are looking at it with modern day forensics in mind .people were not aware of such stuff in those days
-
he wasnt that clever.plus we are looking at it with modern day forensics in mind .people were not aware of such stuff in those days
Even with advanced technology,etc,there's still room for improvement of the human kind.
-
Even with advanced technology,etc,there's still room for improvement of the human kind.
totally agree ;)
-
the trouble i have with this case is why the police would turn 4 murders and a suicide in to 5 murders and than have the long job of proving it to a jury, and get egg on their faces if jb is found not guilty ,why would they do that.as for the family dictating to the police ,they would have been told where to go,like taff jones told them.no i think the police have got it right.imo ;)
-
the trouble i have with this case is why the police would turn 4 murders and a suicide in to 5 murders and than have the long job of proving it to a jury, and get egg on their faces if jb is found not guilty ,why would they do that.as for the family dictating to the police ,they would have been told where to go,like taff jones told them.no i think the police have got it right.imo ;)
You perhaps overlook the 'influence' of a 'close friend' and 'Associate' known to the family who was providing them with too much 'inside information' about 'things' that happened 'once cops had got into the farmhouse'...
That person being, PC Robert Carr (RC)...
-
PC Carr was the son of the manager of Osea Road Camp Site, that was owned 50/50 by June Bamber and her sister, Pamela Boutflour...
-
PC Carr was the son of the manager of Osea Road Camp Site, that was owned 50/50 by June Bamber and her sister, Pamela Boutflour...
He attended the farmhouse and took two paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) which he gave to 'Ron' Cook at the scene that day, who in turn handed these to DS Davidson whilst all present were still at the scene on the 8th August 1985.These two paint samples were taken by PC Robert Carr, because red coloured paint had been found ingrained onto the end of one of the shotgun barrels which had a rubber kitchen glove over the end of its wooden stock. During the first week of the original investigation (SC/688/85) PC Robert Carr was the source via which the relatives received sensitive information about the tragedy. This was why the relatives appeared to always be on the front foot, one step ahead of Essex police, at all times. There are strong grounds for believing that relatives quickly got to know about all the mistakes the cops who had entered the farmhouse had made, and afterwards, in the sense that they took certain measures which were 'puzzling' to any onlooker without the benefit of inside information. For example, take the identity of the policeman who told Annie Eaton that Sheila's and Junes bodies were on top of the bed when found with the rifle laid between them, and a bible on top of Sheila's chest. 'Annie' was told by DC Clarke and DS Jones at first, but this information was confirmed to her and the other relatives later on by PC Robert Carr ( the close friend of the family), and 'that' is why she makes out that she can't remember which cop told her that Sheila and June were found on the bed...
-
In possession of 'that' information, the relatives eventually gained the upper hand over Essex police, and were able to manipulate them to do what they wanted otherwise the relatives themselves would 'spill the beans'...
-
In possession of 'that' information, the relatives eventually gained the upper hand over Essex police, and were able to manipulate them to do what they wanted otherwise the relatives themselves would 'spill the beans'...
The 'hold' which the relatives gained over the investigating officers, was a similar one which professional informants eventually have over the cops they have 'grassed' to, or to whom they give information to in return for cash and favours. The power these informants have is that at any time they can come forward and effectively help to get many convictions quashed simply by saying that 'cops put me up to this, they told me to help them put this person away, or that person away. I personally know the identities of several paid police informants who acted in this capacity against me for the No.3 Regional Crime Squad, and South Yorkshire police when I was considered to be a target Criminal (Gordon Stanton, Graham Thompson, Harold Hawksworth, and Godfrey Lewis, to name but a few). I even have a transcript of when the cops interviewed Thompson whilst he was in prison, making a deal to get himself released on bail at the expense of being encouraged to 'tell cops lies about me'...
Gordon Stanton's wife, 'Debbie', even made covert taped recordings of her husband admitting that he was working for the No.3 RCS, to help convict me, and that they had paid him two payments already, one of £15,000 and the other of £10,000....
In a similar sort of a way, the relatives had the 'bargaining power' of PC Robert Carr, he was their 'informant'...
-
the trouble i have with this case is why the police would turn 4 murders and a suicide in to 5 murders and than have the long job of proving it to a jury, and get egg on their faces if jb is found not guilty ,why would they do that.as for the family dictating to the police ,they would have been told where to go,like taff jones told them.no i think the police have got it right.imo ;)
Certain posters credit the Boutflours with far too much power. ::)
-
Informants are dangerous people in the sense that whoever they are informing to, or upon, the people who they are providing the information too, want to believe what they are being told. It doesn't take such an informant long to realise this, and at that stage, many of these informants start to make things up because they know the people they are talking to want to hear it, and there is always a pay check at the end of it...
-
Informants are dangerous people in the sense that whoever they are informing to, or upon, the people who they are providing the information too, want to believe what they are being told. It doesn't take such an informant long to realise this, and at that stage, many of these informants start to make things up because they know the people they are talking to want to hear it, and there is always a pay check at the end of it...
PC Robert Carr found himself in 'this' position, by engaging in the investigation at the scene and after with the investigating cops, and 'informing' to his family and the relatives, providing to them information about the operation and the investigation, which entrusted great power over the investigating officers by virtue of the fact that the relatives 'knew' that cops at the scene had staged the death scenes of the two females in the bedroom by claiming both had been found on the bedroom floor either side of the bed, when they had good information that both had originally been on the bed...
-
PC Robert Carr found himself in 'this' position, by engaging in the investigation at the scene and after with the investigating cops, and 'informing' to his family and the relatives, providing to them information about the operation and the investigation, which entrusted great power over the investigating officers by virtue of the fact that the relatives 'knew' that cops at the scene had staged the death scenes of the two females in the bedroom by claiming both had been found on the bedroom floor either side of the bed, when they had good information that both had originally been on the bed...
As more time wore on, the relatives kept 'insisting more and more' that something was 'not right' with the claim that 'Sheila had killed herself' - they 'were' right by the way...
She had 'not' killed herself...
-
Armed with the knowledge of an informant in the form of PC Robert Carr, the relatives themselves gradually realised that (just like it happens in a working relationship of all professional informants who engage with the alleged criminal targets they are being asked to help put away) that the relatives themselves, by September 1985, knew that cops had got themselves too deeply entrenched in their cover up, which was why 'eventually' cops found themselves targeting Jeremy Bamber. The 'pay off' for the relatives was the inheritance...
-
Informants are dangerous people in the sense that whoever they are informing to, or upon, the people who they are providing the information too, want to believe what they are being told. It doesn't take such an informant long to realise this, and at that stage, many of these informants start to make things up because they know the people they are talking to want to hear it, and there is always a pay check at the end of it...
So presumably we can't rule that out as far as all your "informants" go?
I have no money to pay them, they don't ask for money, they don't expect money, so what is your point, now?
-
It was Jimmy Carr's daughter who happened to have been staying in the same flat as Jeremy when he was on a working holiday in New Zealand which paved the way for yet more tittle-tattle and hearsay which she obviously relayed back to the UK.
-
It was Jimmy Carr's daughter who happened to have been staying in the same flat as Jeremy when he was on a working holiday in New Zealand which paved the way for yet more tittle-tattle and hearsay which she obviously relayed back to the UK.
Working holiday? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Working holiday? ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's what they're called when you apply for a 12 month visa.
-
You're not allowed in either country if you have a criminal record.
-
You perhaps overlook the 'influence' of a 'close friend' and 'Associate' known to the family who was providing them with too much 'inside information' about 'things' that happened 'once cops had got into the farmhouse'...
That person being, PC Robert Carr (RC)...
mike how do you know this was the case,and can show a statement or anything that shows he passed info to the family
-
RWB was a friend of his. It was a known fact that the Carr brothers were friends of the family/relatives.
It's on one of the statements somewhere.
-
RWB was a friend of his. It was a known fact that the Carr brothers were friends of the family/relatives.
It's on one of the statements somewhere.
thank you lookout ,i will look for it and give it a read
-
Firstly, let's identify under who's authority these missing 77 images were systematically removed. We already know they cut the photographs of Sheila on the bed, and photographs that were taken of the gun cupboard contents, so somebody knows we are onto what they did with the bodies of the victims back at the scene before the bodies were staged by the cops and then photographed, as though the bodies of the two females in particular had been found where they ended up being photographed, but we all know that couldn't be true...
So far, we only have had evidence of 15 of the missing negatives / photographs, there's still another 62 that have been cut out of the negative strips...
-
Firstly, let's identify under who's authority these missing 77 images were systematically removed. We already know they cut the photographs of Sheila on the bed, and photographs that were taken of the gun cupboard contents, so somebody knows we are onto what they did with the bodies of the victims back at the scene before the bodies were staged by the cops and then photographed, as though the bodies of the two females in particular had been found where they ended up being photographed, but we all know that couldn't be true...
evening mike,would ep have destroyed the negitives by now.they wouldnt want that to come out
-
evening mike,would ep have destroyed the negitives by now.they wouldnt want that to come out
It isn't Essex police that Jeremy and his legal team have only got to worry about, the CCRC are a dab hand at destroying evidence once the application has been dismissed. You can't trust the CCRC, in 2010 when my application to the CCRC got turned down the CCRC said they were going to destroy all the files they had on my case, despite me contacting them asking them not to do any such thing. You can't 100% trust them, that's all I'm saying...
-
It isn't Essex police that Jeremy and his legal team have only got to worry about, the CCRC are a dab hand at destroying evidence once the application has been dismissed. You can't trust the CCRC, in 2010 when my application to the CCRC got turned down the CCRC said they were going to destroy all the files they had on my case, despite me contacting them asking them not to do any such thing. You can't 100% trust them, that's all I'm saying...
i see, good point there must still be some bad'ens in ep.theres allways a few
-
I can guarantee in the Liverpool Echo nearly every day there's a crime committed by a cop------usually sergeants. There's one today.
-
I can guarantee in the Liverpool Echo nearly every day there's a crime committed by a cop------usually sergeants. There's one today.
lookout you must remember the dci caught giving info to a friend who than passed it to cocky curtis warren.warren was no ordinary drug dealer ,he was a drug wholesaler not kgs but tons ,
-
It isn't Essex police that Jeremy and his legal team have only got to worry about, the CCRC are a dab hand at destroying evidence once the application has been dismissed. You can't trust the CCRC, in 2010 when my application to the CCRC got turned down the CCRC said they were going to destroy all the files they had on my case, despite me contacting them asking them not to do any such thing. You can't 100% trust them, that's all I'm saying...
I think it's about time they had a panel consisting of Michael Mansfield QC, Helena Kennedy QC, Peter Tatchell and one or two others to clear this up once and for all.
-
I think it's about time they had a panel consisting of Michael Mansfield QC, Helena Kennedy QC, Peter Tatchell and one or two others to clear this up once and for all.
absolutely
-
lookout you must remember the dci caught giving info to a friend who than passed it to cocky curtis warren.warren was no ordinary drug dealer ,he was a drug wholesaler not kgs but tons ,
There was always some jiggery-pokery going on with that guy and the police didn't seem to be in a hurry to track him down. He's still got assets intact too.
-
At the moment the CCRC have blocked me from contacting them with fresh evidence that has arisen out of the 'Hillsboro' inquests, relating to the 'tamperings' of 116 police officers witness statements (April, 1989), despite the fact that in September 1988 at my trial at Sheffield Crown court, before Judge Hunt and jury that my entire defence related to DC Richardson making a witness statement on behalf of DS Higham, which started off life as a 9 page witness statement, dated, 25th August 1987. By the time my trial got under way the statement had 'grown in size' to a 10 page statement, which arose because somebody had cannibalised the original witness statement, removed the original page 5 contents, added in two complete pages of additional evidence numbered 5 and 6, that had been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter, then altered the original page 5, 7, 8, and 9 page numbers, into page numbers, 7, 8, 9 and 10, without anyone knowing of the whereabouts of the original page 5 contents, or who had typed out the two retyped pages, or altered the page numbers. Nobody knew who was responsible for doing this, and I got convicted because the judge just carried on as though nothing unusual or out of the ordinary had happened. Can you honestly believe what lengths cops, the CP's and the judiciary will go to get their pounds worth of meat? Less than 7 months later, along comes the 'Hillsboro' tragedy, cops adopt same tactics used to prosecute me, they 'tamper' with and 'doctor' 116 police statements...
If judge Hunt had had the bottle at my trial to call a halt to the proceedings because cops weren't making their own statements, or editing them, I don't think the families, friends and the supporters would have had to wait 27 years for justice. It gets worse because at my appeal in 1994 , at the Royal Courts of justice, I being represented by Michael Mansfield QC, after an appeal lasting one week, the court dismissed my appeal, citing that if Mansfield sought to take the matter to the 'House of Lords' as he had indicated, then the court would have no option but to implement the 'priviso', which effectively resulted in no revised judgement of the findings in my appeal. This was done because the judiciary knew there was a tenuos lunk between the tactics used by South Yorkshire police, and the 'Hillsboro cover up tragedy, involving the unscrupoloys practice of cops making each others witness statements, and editing them, etc. At the time of my appeals refusal (February, 1994), the families of the 'Hillsboro' 96, were only coming up to the 5 year point of their 27 year long wait for justice. What I am saying that even at that stage (1994) the courts had the opportunity to open up the witness statement scandal now self evidence in the 'Hillsboro' co er up, by quashing my convictions for a similar evidential rwason. But, the various agencies of the state involved in these despicable practices were not yet prepared to yield to the as it now turns out to be the absolute truth and the injustice which the fabricating of these witness statements imposed upon so many victims and their families...
In 2010, the CCRC dragged out my application to have my case referred back to the court of appeal from as long ago as 2008 when I first lodged it. They eventually dismissed my application by deliberately lying to me saying that although the 42 page judgement, from the appeal, dated, February, 1994, had ' gone missing' and could not be found, they pursued my application on the basis that the court had dealt with all my grounds of appeal, despite me repeatedly informing them that my own grounds of appeal that the Registrar at the appeal court had asked me to submit, had not even got a mention during the week long appeal hearing. The CCRC were having none of it, their view prevailed and my application was dismissed...
However, since that time, a 42 page unedited version of the courts judgement at my appeal dated February, 1994, surfaced...
The court did not produce a Judgement because of the threat that they would implement the 'proviso' should Mansfield QC take the matter to the 'House of Lords'...
I have relodged my application to the CCRC, pointing out all the errors they made when dealing with my previous application (2008 / 2010), adding that I would be adding additional grounds to support my new application once the Inquests into the deaths of the 'Hillsboro' 96 victims. The CCRC have blocked me from sending them any more material or information because they are saying it is taking up too much of their time and is interfering with other applications that they are having to deal with...
Oh, its OK, I've only been waiting 28 years for justice to be done...
-
There was always some jiggery-pokery going on with that guy and the police didn't seem to be in a hurry to track him down. He's still got assets intact too.
he also made it into the times rich list,cant remember what number he was,i must say liverpudlians are the most warm and caring people ive ever met.imo
-
At the moment the CCRC have blocked me from contacting them with fresh evidence that has arisen out of the 'Hillsboro' inquests, relating to the 'tamperings' of 116 police officers witness statements (April, 1989), despite the fact that in September 1988 at my trial at Sheffield Crown court, before Judge Hunt and jury that my entire defence related to DC Richardson making a witness statement on behalf of DS Higham, which started off life as a 9 page witness statement, dated, 25th August 1987. By the time my trial got under way the statement had 'grown in size' to a 10 page statement, which arose because somebody had cannibalised the original witness statement, removed the original page 5 contents, added in two complete pages of additional evidence numbered 5 and 6, that had been typed out by use of a completely different typewriter, then altered the original page 5, 7, 8, and 9 page numbers, into page numbers, 7, 8, 9 and 10, without anyone knowing of the whereabouts of the original page 5 contents, or who had typed out the two retyped pages, or altered the page numbers. Nobody knew who was responsible for doing this, and I got convicted because the judge just carried on as though nothing unusual or out of the ordinary had happened. Can you honestly believe what lengths cops, the CP's and the judiciary will go to get their pounds worth of meat? Less than 7 months later, along comes the 'Hillsboro' tragedy, cops adopt same tactics used to prosecute me, they 'tamper' with and 'doctor' 116 police statements...
If judge Hunt had had the bottle at my trial to call a halt to the proceedings because cops weren't making their own statements, or editing them, I don't think the families, friends and the supporters would have had to wait 27 years for justice. It gets worse because at my appeal in 1994 , at the Royal Courts of justice, I being represented by Michael Mansfield QC, after an appeal lasting one week, the court dismissed my appeal, citing that if Mansfield sought to take the matter to the 'House of Lords' as he had indicated, then the court would have no option but to implement the 'priviso', which effectively resulted in no revised judgement of the findings in my appeal. This was done because the judiciary knew there was a tenuos lunk between the tactics used by South Yorkshire police, and the 'Hillsboro cover up tragedy, involving the unscrupoloys practice of cops making each others witness statements, and editing them, etc. At the time of my appeals refusal (February, 1994), the families of the 'Hillsboro' 96, were only coming up to the 5 year point of their 27 year long wait for justice. What I am saying that even at that stage (1994) the courts had the opportunity to open up the witness statement scandal now self evidence in the 'Hillsboro' co er up, by quashing my convictions for a similar evidential rwason. But, the various agencies of the state involved in these despicable practices were not yet prepared to yield to the as it now turns out to be the absolute truth and the injustice which the fabricating of these witness statements imposed upon so many victims and their families...
In 2010, the CCRC dragged out my application to have my case referred back to the court of appeal from as long ago as 2008 when I first lodged it. They eventually dismissed my application by deliberately lying to me saying that although the 42 page judgement, from the appeal, dated, February, 1994, had ' gone missing' and could not be found, they pursued my application on the basis that the court had dealt with all my grounds of appeal, despite me repeatedly informing them that my own grounds of appeal that the Registrar at the appeal court had asked me to submit, had not even got a mention during the week long appeal hearing. The CCRC were having none of it, their view prevailed and my application was dismissed...
However, since that time, a 42 page unedited version of the courts judgement at my appeal dated February, 1994, surfaced...
The court did not produce a Judgement because of the threat that they would implement the 'proviso' should Mansfield QC take the matter to the 'House of Lords'...
I have relodged my application to the CCRC, pointing out all the errors they made when dealing with my previous application (2008 / 2010), adding that I would be adding additional grounds to support my new application once the Inquests into the deaths of the 'Hillsboro' 96 victims. The CCRC have blocked me from sending them any more material or information because they are saying it is taking up too much of their time and is interfering with other applications that they are having to deal with...
Oh, its OK, I've only been waiting 28 years for justice to be done...
thats scandalous mike
-
he also made it into the times rich list,cant remember what number he was,i must say liverpudlians are the most warm and caring people ive ever met.imo
Yes,I can appreciate that after the travelling I've done over the years both home and abroad
-
he also made it into the times rich list,cant remember what number he was,i must say liverpudlians are the most warm and caring people ive ever met.imo
Very friendly, and very helpful to anybody in need. I used to do a lot of hitchhiking from city to city, town to town, village to village all over the UK when I worked, and you could guarantee that no matter where I was standing or walking with my trade plate displayed, often in the middle of nowhere, it'd be a Liverpudlian who would stop and 'ask me, if they could help me...
Great people in general...
Not only that but they would very often go out of their way, off their intended route, to help me out when time was running out...
-
Witness statements have been 'tampered' with and 'edited' in Bambers case, just like 'Hillsboro' and my own case...
Nothing has changed much during the last three decades...
-
As I say, you can't trust the CCRC, who were put into place to delay big cases coming to the appeal court quickly catching the judiciary and the government of the day, off guard, in the manner with which the Birmingham six, Guildford fours, and all the other major miscarriages of justice did in that era...
In my opinion, the CCRC are not fit for purpose, it should be disbanded...
-
77 negatives cut from the original strips of 10...
You don't deliberately remove all those (77) photographs 'unless' you have 'got something to hide'...
I am telling you all now, that Sheila's body was on the bed before cops moved 'it' to the bedroom floor. She had only been shot once by that stage (on bed). She got shot a second time after cops moved her body onto the bedroom floor. Ask yourself how could she have shot herself a second time in the bedroom after cops had moved her body from the bed to the bedroom floor, if she had a!ready been dead from the first shot?
-
Looks like PC Bird fabricated the contents of the so called 'MASTER COP ALBUM' containing only 223 of the overall 581 photographs that were taken in pursuance of this investigation...
Just imagine, cops deliberately withheld 358 photographs from the court which tried and convicted Bamber of these murders?
-
Looks like PC Bird fabricated the contents of the so called 'MASTER COP ALBUM' containing only 223 of the overall 581 photographs that were taken in pursuance of this investigation...
Just imagine, cops deliberately withheld 358 photographs from the court which triad and convicted Bamber of these murders?
Mike did you discuss this with Ewen Smith or any other legal team?
-
Looks like PC Bird fabricated the contents of the so called 'MASTER COP ALBUM' containing only 223 of the overall 581 photographs that were taken in pursuance of this investigation...
Just imagine, cops deliberately withheld 358 photographs from the court which triad and convicted Bamber of these murders?
It would appear that each one of the 'missing' images and negatives, all individually and collectively potentially damning in favour of Banner ha ing been framed for killing and staging the death scenes of his parents and his sister, when all along it had been the cops who had staged the death scenes...
-
Mike did you discuss this with Ewen Smith or any other legal team?
Yes, with Ewen Smith, and thereafter with GDS via telephone and email in the latter's case because GDS was either in the middle east representing 'Saddam', or at his home in Rome...
-
We found out about the 'existence' of 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM' which contained 581 images quite by chance in a report that was mixed up in papers that had been disclosed as part of the build up to Jeremy's failed 2002 appeal. We were 'gobsmacked' that there existed another 358 photographs no-one other than the cops had seen before. However, I now gather that a total of 504 images have been made available to Jeremy and his current legal advisors, or at least he has access to those...
But the other 'missing' 77 are another matter. These must contain damning evidence which almost certainly points to the fact that cops at the scene have not told the truth regarding the circumstances surrounding Sheila Caffells death, and that Jeremy was not responsible for shooting dead his sister. Cops know that Jeremy did not do what the prosecutions case alleged during the trial. That is why those 77 photograph negatives have ' gone missing'. It shouldn't be too difficult or time consuming to figure out who the culprit was or is? My monies on former ACC Peter Simpson taking the rap for it...
-
he also made it into the times rich list,cant remember what number he was,i must say liverpudlians are the most warm and caring people ive ever met.imo
Cheers for that Sami :) Maybe not quite all of them 8)
-
Looks like PC Bird fabricated the contents of the so called 'MASTER COP ALBUM' containing only 223 of the overall 581 photographs that were taken in pursuance of this investigation...
Just imagine, cops deliberately withheld 358 photographs from the court which tried and convicted Bamber of these murders?
thats criminal
-
thats criminal
mike do they still exist,i feel they would have destroyed them.and in its self not enough to prove jb is innocent,but it does raise doubt about the ineigrity of ep
-
Yes, with Ewen Smith, and thereafter with GDS via telephone and email in the latter's case because GDS was either in the middle east representing 'Saddam', or at his home in Rome...
mike is gds. de stefpno.if so i think he is not the right man for the job
-
mike is gds. de stefpno.if so i think he is not the right man for the job
Yes...
-
Yes...
is he part of the ct
-
is he part of the ct
No Sami, he isn't.
-
No Sami, he isn't.
thanks caroline,he is a proper fruit cake
-
thanks caroline,he is a proper fruit cake
Don't worry,there are still a few of him ( fruit cakes ) left, practicing.
-
Don't worry,there are still a few of him ( fruit cakes ) left, practicing.
very true lookout
-
very true lookout
And fools who pay them.
-
As far as I can see, the mode of trial needs to be amended. The current format appears to be conducive toward 'mis carriages of justice', occurring. We need to stop any witness on either side who attend court thinking that even if what they say is 'not believed' they should realise that where it can be clearly shown that a witness must have lied, then they will automatically receive a mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment, rising in length dependant upon the extent of the 'lies' they told. Only then will the floodgates of dishonest witness statement evidence be halted dead in its tracks. So, witnesses to be at peril of instant terms of imprisonment within the duration of the same proceedings, that would be 'a beginning'. Secondly, the defendant (through his or her lawyer) should be able to question the evidence which a witness gives, and be provided with answers by the witness, so that in the event that a defendant gets convicted, the questions posed, and the answers given, would be the focal point of any subsequent appeal...
-
As far as I can see, the mode of trial needs to be amended. The current format appears to be conducive toward 'mis carriages of justice', occurring. We need to stop any witness on either side who attend court thinking that even if what they say is 'not believed' they should realise that where it can be clearly shown that a witness must have lied, then they will automatically receive a mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment, rising in length dependant upon the extent of the 'lies' they told. Only then will the floodgates of dishonest witness statement evidence be halted dead in its tracks. So, witnesses to be at peril of instant terms of imprisonment within the duration of the same proceedings, that would be 'a beginning'. Secondly, the defendant (through his or her lawyer) should be able to question the evidence which a witness gives, and be provided with answers by the witness, so that in the event that a defendant gets convicted, the questions posed, and the answers given, would be the focal point of any subsequent appeal...
here here
-
As far as I can see, the mode of trial needs to be amended. The current format appears to be conducive toward 'mis carriages of justice', occurring. We need to stop any witness on either side who attend court thinking that even if what they say is 'not believed' they should realise that where it can be clearly shown that a witness must have lied, then they will automatically receive a mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment, rising in length dependant upon the extent of the 'lies' they told. Only then will the floodgates of dishonest witness statement evidence be halted dead in its tracks. So, witnesses to be at peril of instant terms of imprisonment within the duration of the same proceedings, that would be 'a beginning'. Secondly, the defendant (through his or her lawyer) should be able to question the evidence which a witness gives, and be provided with answers by the witness, so that in the event that a defendant gets convicted, the questions posed, and the answers given, would be the focal point of any subsequent appeal...
From a prosecution stand point, and later from a defence stand point, the evidence of each witness should be categorised on a level of reliability by the prosecution (for prosecution witnesses), and the defence who call witnesses in support of the defendants case, on a scale of either being a 'class 1, class 2, or a class 3 type of witness ( where class 1 is considered to be truthful, class 2 a case of 'its' and 'buts', and class 3, potentially doubtful). Appeals could be settled far more quickly than at present, simply by the defence producing evidence which is capable of altering the category of key witnesses, from 1 to 2, or from 1 to 3, or 2 to 3...
-
In the Bamber case, for example, the prosecution have placed much emphasis on the claim that David Boutflour found the key silencer inside the gun cupboard on Saturday the 10th August, 1985. The prosecution clearly relied upon his evidence as though he was a 'class 1' witness. But since the time of the trial, his account appears to fall far short of what he claimed, since, he did not report finding the silencer until the 12th September, 1985 (a month later). In addition, his sister handed over the silencer to DC Oakley, on the 11th September 1985, almost exactly one month after her husband had handed 'it' over to DS Jones. Now, clearly, there is something wrong with the information supplied to Essex police by David Boutflour, Peter Eaton, Ann Eaton, DS Jones, DI Cook, and DC Oakey...
In these circumstances, the evidence of David Boutflour falls into the category of class 2, or even class 3, because the information he provides, relies on arguments of 'ifs' and 'buts', or to be as 'blunt' as I possibly can, 'doubtful'...
-
In the Bamber case, for example, the prosecution have placed much emphasis on the claim that David Boutflour found the key silencer inside the gun cupboard on Saturday the 10th August, 1985. The prosecution clearly relied upon his evidence as though he was a 'class 1' witness. But since the time of the trial, his account appears to fall far short of what he claimed, since, he did not report finding the silencer until the 12th September, 1985 (a month later). In addition, his sister handed over the silencer to DC Oakley, on the 11th September 1985, almost exactly one month after her husband had handed 'it' over to DS Jones. Now, clearly, there is something wrong with the information supplied to Essex police by David Boutflour, Peter Eaton, Ann Eaton, DS Jones, DI Cook, and DC Oakey...
In these circumstances, the evidence of David Boutflour falls into the category of class 2, or even class 3, because the information he provides, relies on arguments of 'its' and 'buts', or to be as 'blunt' as I possibly can, 'doubtful'...
class 3 mike would be correct
-
class 3 mike would be correct
Maybe so, but at least in the suggested system, questions could have been asked of David Boutflour by Jeremy himself, which could have been put to David Boutflour on his behalf, toward the end of David Boutflours testimony, with a view to soliciting the truth from the defendants perspective...
Clearly, David Boutflours account that he had found 'the' silencer in the cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, does 'not' hold water. I am sorry but if there had only been the one silencer, I can't for the life of me, see how Peter Eaton had handed over 'that' silencer to DS Jones, on the evening of the 12th August 1985, and that David Boutflour did not contact the police until a month later to 'tell them' that he had found the silencer to the gun (12th SeptemBer 1985). Sorry, I am 'not' buying into 'that' story...
-
Maybe so, but at least in the suggested system, questions could have been asked of David Boutflour by Jeremy himself, which could have been put to David Boutflour on his behalf, toward the end of David Boutflours testimony, with a view to soliciting the truth from the defendants perspective...
Clearly, David Boutflours account that he had found 'the' silencer in the cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, does 'not' hold water. I am sorry but if there had only been the one silencer, I can't for the life of me, see how Peter Eaton had handed over 'that' silencer to DS Jones, on the evening of the 12th August 1985, and that David Boutflour did not contact the police until a month later to 'tell them' that he had found the silencer to the gun (12th SeptemBer 1985). Sorry, I am 'not' buying into 'that' story...
If some want to believe 'that' argument, all well and good, but to me, it 'stinks' of a deception...
-
City of London police (COLP) could find no police record to confirm that the relatives had found a silencer, and had handed it over to cops by the 12th August 1985...
Think about 'that' for a moment...
-
Think about the 'tall story' told by Robert Boutflour, PI 'Bob' Miller, D's 'Stan' Jones, DI 'Ron' Cook, and 'Glynis Howard', who all provide input to 'that' earlier alleged handing over of the 'first' silencer to cops by Peter Eaton?
'It' goes to the lab' on the 13th August, 1985 ( we are told), and 'Glynis Howard' inspects it, then returns 'it' back into 'Ron' Cooks possession, but Cook doesn't seek to place 'that' silencer into storage as he 'should' have done. Oh, no...
Cook decides to keep the said silencer in his jacket pocket, not for one day, or two days, or three days or four days, not for five days, not for six days, or seven days or eight days, not for nine days or ten days, not for eleven days or twelve days, or thirteen days or fourteen days, on and on until we come to the 30th August, 1985, when finally, 'Ron' Cook does the decent thing by sending 'that' silencer to the lab' on 'that' date, 17 days after 'Glynis Howard' handed 'it' back to him (allegedly, on the 13th August, 1985). In all 'that' time, 'Ron' Cook has been carrying 'that' silencer around in his jacket pocket ( between the 13th August and the 30th August, 1985). This is the person who admittedly by his own account did not wear gloves when he handled the bloodstained rifle by ' removing it' from Sheila's body, handing it to PI Montgomery to supposedly make it safe, before he himself (Cook) placed the rifle at the main bedroom window (if you believe 'that' version of events). We are not told whether Montgomery was wearing gloves when Cook handed him the rifle to make it safe, before Cook himself retook possession of the rifle in his 'ungloved' hands and he placed it at the bedroom window...
Bearing in mind, that 'Ron' Cook admits to it being 'he' who had moved the 'bloodstained' right hand of Sheila off the gun, so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied finger / hand marks on the front lower right part of Sheila's nightdress...
Why on earth, did the lab' accept the silencer from Cook on the 30th August, 1985, when it had clearly been at a very high risk of having been contaminated with blood, via the direct handling and carrying of 'it' in 'Ron' Cooks jacket pocket for around 17 days and nights, too and fro, between the police station and the scene?
-
Think about the 'tall story' told by Robert Boutflour, PI 'Bob' Miller, D's 'Stan' Jones, DI 'Ron' Cook, and 'Glynis Howard', who all provide input to 'that' earlier alleged handing over of the 'first' silencer to cops by Peter Eaton?
'It' goes to the lab' on the 13th August, 1985 ( we are told), and 'Glynis Howard' inspects it, then returns 'it' back into 'Ron' Cooks possession, but Cook doesn't seek to place 'that' silencer into storage as he 'should' have done. Oh, no...
Cook decides to keep the said silencer in his jacket pocket, not for one day, or two days, or three days or four days, not for five days, not for six days, or seven days or eight days, not for nine days or ten days, not for eleven days or twelve days, or thirteen days or fourteen days, on and on until we come to the 30th August, 1985, when finally, 'Ron' Cook does the decent thing by sending 'that' silencer to the lab' on 'that' date, 17 days after 'Glynis Howard' handed 'it' back to him (allegedly, on the 13th August, 1985). In all 'that' time, 'Ron' Cook has been carrying 'that' silencer around in his jacket pocket ( between the 13th August and the 30th August, 1985). This is the person who admittedly by his own account did not wear gloves when he handled the bloodstained rifle by ' removing it' from Sheila's body, handing it to PI Montgomery to supposedly make it safe, before he himself (Cook) placed the rifle at the main bedroom window (if you believe 'that' version of events). We are not told whether Montgomery was wearing gloves when Cook handed him the rifle to make it safe, before Cook himself retook possession of the rifle in his 'ungloved' hands and he placed it at the bedroom window...
Bearing in mind, that 'Ron' Cook admits to it being 'he' who had moved the 'bloodstained' right hand of Sheila off the gun, so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied finger / hand marks on the front lower right part of Sheila's nightdress...
Why on earth, did the lab' accept the silencer from Cook on the 30th August, 1985, when it had clearly been at a very high risk of having been contaminated with blood, via the direct handling and carrying of 'it' in 'Ron' Cooks jacket pocket for around 17 days and nights, too and fro, between the police station and the scene?
And, 'he' having handled a bloodstained anshuzt Rifle, and the bloodied right hand of Sheila Caffell?
-
Worse, still...
'Ron' Cook had taken it upon himself to 'strip the silencer' down, before he sent it away to the lab' to be 'examined by Fletcher', on 30th August, 1985...
At 'that' stage, Cook had stripped the silencer and he had separated the top seven baffle plates, and the top washer, and the silencers 'end cap', so that there was a visible gap between them. At 'that' stage, Cook did 'not' report finding, or seeing any blood on any of the internal baffle plates he had 'removed' and 'separated'...
How remarkable then...
That once Fletcher receives the 'rebuilt' silencer that Cook had sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, that Fletcher 'examines' on the 11th September, 1985, that Fletcher discovers the 'loose flake' of dried blood trapped between baffles one and two? Odd, that when Cook had stripped the silencer down prior to its rebuild and submission to the lab' by 30th August, 1985, 'that flake' was 'not' there on that occasion when Cook had stripped it down and separated the baffles?
-
What, if anything, had 'Ron' Cook done with the silencer 'after' he had stripped the silencer down, and separated the baffle plates, at a time when there could not have been any blood anywhere at all upon the first seven or eight baffle plates which Cook himself had separated...
-
Cook was in possession of a 'third' blood sample that was taken from Sheila Caffells body...
Only two blood samples had been taken from the other four victims...
-
Cook was in possession of a 'third' blood sample that was taken from Sheila Caffells body...
Only two blood samples had been taken from the other four victims...
Why did cops take a third blood sample from Sheila's body during autopsy on the 7th August, 1985, if they only needed to take two?
-
Maybe so, but at least in the suggested system, questions could have been asked of David Boutflour by Jeremy himself, which could have been put to David Boutflour on his behalf, toward the end of David Boutflours testimony, with a view to soliciting the truth from the defendants perspective...
Clearly, David Boutflours account that he had found 'the' silencer in the cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, does 'not' hold water. I am sorry but if there had only been the one silencer, I can't for the life of me, see how Peter Eaton had handed over 'that' silencer to DS Jones, on the evening of the 12th August 1985, and that David Boutflour did not contact the police until a month later to 'tell them' that he had found the silencer to the gun (12th SeptemBer 1985). Sorry, I am 'not' buying into 'that' story...
was the above not done mike,jb should have got his team to ask,i fully agree
-
The blood samples were kept in the 'Scenes of Crime Department', of which 'Ron' Cook was in charge...
-
was the above not done mike,jb should have got his team to ask,i fully agree
Defence did not know that Ann Eaton had handed over the second silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September, 1985, at the time of the trial. This information did not come to light until 'after' the failed 2002 appeal hearing...
-
The blood samples were kept in the 'Scenes of Crime Department', of which 'Ron' Cook was in charge...
COLP mentioned the 'third' blood sample to SOCO during their 1991 / 1992 investigation, they inquired why it had been taken, and more importantly, 'what had happened to it'...
-
Defence did not know that Ann Eaton had handed over the second silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September, 1985, at the time of the trial. This information did not come to light until 'after' the failed 2002 appeal hearing...
in that case the judge should have throwen the silencer evidence out,what a farce
-
Now, I am not suggesting that 'Ron' Cook deliberately sanitised the baffles with blood from that 'third' blood sample that was taken from Sheila's corpse during autopsy performed on the 7th August, 1985, but it does seem to be a somewhat 'appealing' prospect...
-
However, more intriguing, was the fact that when 'David Boutfour' himself was spoken to by the COLP investigators, he told them that he had used a 'razor blade' to scrape off a small 'flake of dried blood' from the end of the silencer, and that Essex police were aware of what 'he' had 'done'...
-
Now, I am not suggesting that 'Ron' Cook deliberately sanitised the baffles with blood from that 'third' blood sample that was taken from Sheila's corpse during autopsy performed on the 7th August, 1985, but it does seem to be a somewhat 'appealing' prospect...
the point is mike ,he could have done ,which would make it unsafe evidence,i never knew that,but than theres a lot to this case that doent make sense
-
However, more intriguing, was the fact that when 'David Boutfour' himself was spoken to by the COLP investigators, he told them that he had used a 'razor blade' to scrape off a small 'flake of dried blood' from the end of the silencer, and that Essex police were aware of what 'he' had 'done'...
Rather intriguingly, no mention of what David Boutflour had done with 'that' flake of dried blood, nor what Essex police did in relation to the same, upon being told about it...
Did Essex police, ask David Boutflour where the flake of blood was, or what he had done with it?
-
Cops haven't released 'that' information' officially, yet...
-
Cops haven't released 'that' information' officially, yet...
But I have received information from a reliable source, that the flake which David Boutflour scraped from the end of the silencers end cap, was the same flake of dried blood analysed by the blood expert, John Hayward...
-
But I have received information from a reliable source, that the flake which David Boutflour scraped from the end of the silencers end cap, was the same flake of dried blood analysed by the blood expert, John Hayward...
In other words, Fletcher did 'not' find the flake inside the silencer that Cook had stripped down, rebuilt, and submitted to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, the flake was sent to the lab' after 'it' had been 'recovered' from David Boutflour...
-
The key issue now being, that the blood (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP2-1) from examination of the flake, was by default found on the 'outside of the silencer', not the 'inside', as claimed...
-
The key issue now being, that the blood (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP2-1) from examination of the flake, was by default found on the 'outside of the silencer', not the 'inside', as claimed...
A number of questions arise, as a result of what 'David Boutflour' told the 'COLP' investigators about this 'flake of dried blood' that he had 'scraped from the end of the silencer'...
For example, (1) at what stage did he scrape the flake off the silencer? (2) was it in August or September 1985? (3) if he scraped it off in August 1985, was it before Peter Eaton handed over the first parker hale silencer to DS Jones on the 12th August? (4) following on from this, did the lab' get informed that David Boutflour had scraped a flake of dried blood off the end of the silencer? If so, or if not, why would David Boutflour be 'tampering' with the integrity of the silencer, before 'it' was handed over to police, who in turn handed 'it' over to the lab'? (5) had David Boutflour 'scraped' the flake of dried blood from the end of the silencer, before 'Ron' Cook had dismantled the same, and separated the first seven baffle plates?, and his rebuilding of the same, and subsequent submission of it to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, (6) if not, where is 'that' flake now, what happened to it, why was this information kept from the defence during the trial?
-
In a separate issue, David Boutflour admitted to trying to unscrew the silencer so that he could look inside at the same baffles that 'Ron' Cook, eventually separated...
-
It doesn't sound right that David Boutflour, and 'Ron' Cook, should both be 'tampering' with a silencers integrity before 'it' is going to be examined forensically at the lab'...
Surely, this sort of deceiptfullness cannot be tolerated...
-
You see, because I am a thinker, I can't for the life of me bring myself to accept that at the heart of this investigation into these five deaths or imagine that two small flakes of dried blood, existed separate to one another, and that one was scraped off the end of the silencer by David Boutflour using a razor blade, whilst the other was allegedly found by Fletcher inside one of the two silencers on the 11th September 1985? I am Sorry, but I simply do not believe or accept such utter garbage...
There wasn't two small flakes, there was only one...
-
You see, because I am a thinker, I can't for the life of me bring myself to accept that at the heart of this investigation into these five deaths or imagine that two small flakes of dried blood, existed separate to one another, and that one was scraped off the end of the silencer by David Boutflour using a razor blade, whilst the other was allegedly found by Fletcher inside one of the two silencers on the 11th September 1985? I am Sorry, but I simply do not believe or accept such utter garbage...
There wasn't two small flakes, there was only one...
There was only one flake, this was the flake David Boutflour had scraped from the end of the silencer using a razor blade. This must have been the same flake that was analysed by John Hayward, which produced the key blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK/1, and HP 2-1). Fletcher never found it in any of the silencers, he received the flake directly from 'Ron' Cook. Fletcher lied about finding the flake in either of the two silencers. He did so deceiptfully so as to dishonestly permit him to introduce his ' backspsatter' theory...
-
Of course, it makes a big difference to the outcome of the trial, as to whether the blood group evidence was found inside, or removed from outside (by use of a razor blade) of the silencer...
-
Of course, it makes a big difference to the outcome of the trial, as to whether the blood group evidence was found inside, or removed from outside (by use of a razor blade) of the silencer...
If it was 'removed' from the end of the silencer with use of a razor blade by David Boutflour, it makes it all the more likely that the blood had got there by a process of contamination during transportation and mishandling...
-
The information I have received is that 'Fletcher' knew about the flake having been removed from one of the silencers by David Boutflour, and that in discussions about it with 'Ron' Cook, it was raised by Fletcher that Cook himself 'had' dismantled the silencer himself before the silencer itself had been rebuilt and sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, and that if those facts became public knowledge both Cook and himself would be for the high jump...
-
The information I have received is that 'Fletcher' knew about the flake having been removed from one of the silencers by David Boutflour, and that in discussions about it with 'Ron' Cook, it was raised by Fletcher that Cook himself 'had' dismantled the silencer himself before the silencer itself had been rebuilt and sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, and that if those facts became public knowledge both Cook and himself would be for the high jump...
Cook had had words with David Boutflour, regarding the problems he had created by tampering with the blood on the end of the silencer, and to overcome these problems, the second silencer got introduced (DRB/1), but alas, it got sent to, and arrived at the lab' (20th September, 1985) much too late, because the flake had by that stage already been analysed (between 12th and 19th September, 1985). How therefore, could the flake be said to have been found inside that particular silencer? A silencer that did not get sent to the lab' until 9 days or so, after the flake had supposedly been found inside 'it'...
-
This is what can happen when somebody is telling lies, or the evidence has been 'fabricated', or 'tampered with'...
-
This is what can happen when somebody is telling lies, or the evidence has been 'fabricated', or 'tampered with'...
i agree mike
-
What I want to know is why David Boutflour failed to make mention in any of his trial versions of his witness statements, anything at all about him scraping a flake of blood off the end of the silencer? More importantly, how could he have done so, without the knowledge of the other relatives? They all must have known what David had done, and every one of them kept their gobs tightly shut regarding 'it'...
It must follow on from this, that all the relatives knew that blood which was attributal to Sheila had not been found 'inside' the silencer, but rather it had been found on the outside of 'it'...
But they all kept their gobs tightly clamped shut....
'Loose lips, sink ships', or so the saying goes..
-
In his COLP witness statement, David Boutflour makes mention of the original investigating officers wanting to see his rifle, without him naming the officers concerned. Although he did say that the cops wanted to see his rifle to see whether or not it had got damage upon it. Again, when he told COLP what he had done by scraping the dried flake of blood from the silencer, he failed to identify the cops that he had informed regarding this. But we know that the relatives had close ties with a number of police officers, in addition to PC Robert Carr, for example, DS 'Stan' Jones, PI 'Bob' Miller, DC Barlow, and DCS 'Mick' Ainsley...
-
In his COLP witness statement, David Boutflour makes mention of the original investigating officers wanting to see his rifle, without him naming the officers concerned. Although he did say that the cops wanted to see his rifle to see whether or not it had got damage upon it. Again, when he told COLP what he had done by scraping the dried flake of blood from the silencer, he failed to identify the cops that he had informed regarding this. But we know that the relatives had close ties with a number of police officers, in addition to PC Robert Carr, for example, DS 'Stan' Jones, PI 'Bob' Miller, DC Barlow, and DCS 'Mick' Ainsley...
Make no mistake about it, this lot were all in on the deception...
-
This begs the question, as to whether or not the cops that were told by David Boutflour that 'he had scraped a small flake of dried blood from the end of the silencer' with 'use of a razor blade', told the CPS about this?
-
So, this little matter of David Boutflour tampering with the silencer long before 'it' eventually got sent to the lab' (30th August 1985) to be examined by the ballistic expert (11th September 1985), also had him 'trying to unscrew the metal cap', to look inside it, but he claims he failed because the cap was screwed on too tightly, at least that is what he told COLP. If what David Boutflour claims he did to that silencer is true, it beggars belief that the lab' even accepted the silencer on either the 13th or the 30th August, and the 20th September, 1985, let alone examine it. Not only this, but there is one thing which no-one should overlook, and that is that because it is now on record that David Boutflour 'interfered' with the integrity of the silencer before it had been handed over to the cops, let alone being sent to the lab', and the fact that he told COLP that Essex cops knew he had done to the silencer what he had done, Why would David Boutflour be contacting the Essex cops on the 12th September 1985, to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun, unless he had scraped the flake of blood from the silencer in his sisters possession that she had given to DC Oakey on the previous day? What I mean is, that David Boutflour can't have told Essex police that he had 'removed' a small flake of blood from the silencer before he had contacted them on the 12th September 1985, otherwise cops would have 'already known that he had found the silencer to the gun', beforehand (before, 12th September, 1985)?
-
This makes me wonder...
-
This makes me wonder...
Perhaps, Ann Eaton handed over the silencer (DRB/1) and 'the flake of dried blood' that her brother David Boutflour had scraped from 'it', to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985? Then on the following day (12th September 1985) David Boutflour himself phones the cops up to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun?
Sounds good to me...
-
This would help to explain why Fletcher then claims 'he' had found the flake in the silencer on 'that' (11th September 1985) same date...
Yes, its looking good, it fits...
-
This would help to explain why Fletcher then claims 'he' had found the flake in the silencer on 'that' (11th September 1985) same date...
Yes, its looking good, it fits...
Between 12th and 19th September, 1985, the flake gets analysed...
In the meantime, the silencer from which Boutflour had scraped the flake, gets submitted to the lab' to be checked for blood (20th September, 1985)...
So, cops, and lab' had to make a false story about there only being 'one' silencer, knowing that if the truth came out, that David Boutflour had tampered with the silencer before it got sent to the lab' that the silencer, blood evidence allegedly obtained from out would be worthless...
-
This would help to explain why Fletcher then claims 'he' had found the flake in the silencer on 'that' (11th September 1985) same date...
Yes, its looking good, it fits...
like a glove mike,i see what what you mean
-
Between 12th and 19th September, 1985, the flake gets analysed...
In the meantime, the silencer from which Boutflour had scraped the flake, gets submitted to the lab' to be checked for blood (20th September, 1985)...
So, cops, and lab' had to make a false story about there only being 'one' silencer, knowing that if the truth came out, that David Boutflour had tampered with the silencer before it got sent to the lab' that the silencer, blood evidence allegedly obtained from out would be worthless...
Where does he say he scraped the flake?
-
Where does he say he scraped the flake?
in the...
It is nice to see that it has been noticed that David Boutflour doesn't mention anything whatsoever about him scraping the flake of dried blood from the end of the silencer using a razor blade, in any of his Essex police witness statements, since it shows plainly how keen he must have been not for anyone to get wind of it, either until after the trial, or not at all...
He tells the COLP investigators about this, in 1992, about six years after Bambers trial...
-
in the...
It is nice to see that it has been noticed that David Boutflour doesn't mention anything whatsoever about him scraping the flake of dried blood from the end of the silencer using a razor blade, in any of his Essex police witness statements, since it shows plainly how keen he must have been not for anyone to get wind of it, either until after the trial, or not at all...
He tells the COLP investigators about this, in 1992, about six years after Bambers trial...
He told COLP that Essex police knew what he had done...
-
What a sorry lot these relatives and bent cops are, having to resort to being deceitful, to try to get somebody convicted of something...
The fact is, that the silencer evidence, with blood and paint associated with it, can no longer be considered reliable enough to say the 'it' had been used in the shootings at all. Nothing stands up to scrutiny, there are too many false leads going nowhere, and far too many contradictions in who found what, who handed what where, and whether or not 'the' silencer was already at the lab', yet still in Ann Eaton's possession to enable her to hand it to the cops 12 days after the cops had already sent 'the same' silencer to the lab' (30th August 1985). Nothing could be any clearer, there were two silencers involved at the lab' which got merged into the same one,. However, the ' merging process' adopted by these conspirators falls foul of scrutiny, since the second silencer did not get sent by cops to the lab' until (20th September 1985) 9 days 'after' Fletcher had already found the key flake of blood inside 'it' on the 11th September, 1985...
'Dickheads'...
-
We have all 'seen' the documentation which shows that Ann Eaton handed a silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September,1985. We have all seen the documentation which confirms that David Boutflour contacted police on the 12th September, 1985, to tell them that 'he' had found the silencer to the gun. We have all seen documentation that Fletcher claims that he stripped the silencer down on the 11th September, 1985, and that 'he' it was who discovered the flake of dried blood, says he, that it was trapped in between baffles 1 and 2...
We have all seen how Fletcher then handed the flake and the silencer to John Hayward the blood expert, on the following day (12th September, 1985), and how it took a further 7 days of analysis, so that by 19th September, 1985, a total of four separate blood groups had been identified ( A, EAP BA, AK/1, and HP 2-1) which were subsequently attributed has having originated from Sheila Caffell - but hang on a minute, before anyone starts to get carried away here with such a statement. First of all, by the time the matter came to trial at Chelmsford Crown court in October, 1986, cops were claiming that the flake of recovered blood had been found inside a silencer bearing the exhibit mark of DRB/1, but that exhibit reference did not get introduced until November 1987. The silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, along with other exhibits taken from the same gun cupboard all bore 'DRB' exhibit references, and the silencer which was part of this batch was not sent to the lab' until the flake had already supposedly already been found inside it, which an impossibility...
They have lied...
-
Yes, we know that cops did not send the second silencer to the lab' until the 20th September, 1985, but the cop who transported it there currently remains, unidentified...
It was sent to the lab' on 'that' occasion, to 'be checked for blood and fibers'...
We currently do not have the name of the 'expert' who received it at the lab', or the name of the person or persons who examined 'it' on or after that occasion...
-
Yes, we know that cops did not send the second silencer to the lab' until the 20th September, 1985, but the cop who transported it there currently remains, unidentified...
It was sent to the lab' on 'that' occasion, to 'be checked for blood and fibers'...
We currently do not have the name of the 'expert' who received it at the lab', or the name of the person or persons who examined 'it' on or after that occasion...
They have deliberately not provided this information because to have done so, would destroy the 'myth' of there only being one silencer...
-
They sought to hide away, and conceal the fact that Ann Eaton handed the second silencer over to DC Oakey on the 11th September, along with the other exhibits she handed over to cops on that same day...
-
They sought to hide away, and conceal the fact that Ann Eaton handed the second silencer over to DC Oakey on the 11th September, along with the other exhibits she handed over to cops on that same day...
They played around with the exhibit references of items DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, to try to conceal for the fact that the second silencer (DRB/1) had been handed over at this stage, by altering the exhibit references of the other 'DRB' exhibits, into AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4. The issue became an even more confused and convoluted one, by these same items sometimes being referred to by the conflicting exhibit references of CAE/2, CAE/3, and CAE/4, or HGO/1, and HGO1(a)...
-
In addition, some items were given lab' item numbers, such as, the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell (17 and later on, 75), or the silencer (22 and 23, then back to 22, again)...
-
In addition, some items were given lab' item numbers, such as, the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell (17 and later on, 75), or the silencer (22 and 23, then back to 22, again)...
Sometimes, the hand swabs, aforementioned, had an exhibit reference of DRH/33, at other times, DRH/44...
Sometimes the bible photographed alongside Sheila's body, had the exhibit reference of DRH/44, at other times, DRH/33...
-
These were not accidental errors, but deliberate attempts to confuse anyone who might come along at a later date, trying to reconstruct events...
-
I have fresh material...
-
I have fresh material...
I have previously mentioned that DS 'Stan' Jones, left Jeremy's cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Essex, to return to the scene, where he recovered four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and ,a silencer', SBJ/1). Other people have claimed that DS Jones never went back to the scene 'that' morning but I am afraid 'he did'. What's more, he seized or took a total of four exhibits whilst there, including a 'silencer'. Conformation that he did leave Jeremys cottage on that first morning can be found on page 4 of his witness statement, dated, 3rd October, 1985. For example he left Jeremys cottage at 11.35am, that morning and did not return until 3.15pm, that same date...
When COLP interviewed him about this in 1992, DS Jones said that he could not then remember why he had returned to the scene, but he accepted that he must have gone back there from Jeremys cottage that morning - oh, yeah, he took four exhibits on that particular occasion and one of them was a silencer (SBJ/1), and he 'forgot'?
-
I have fresh material...
Between 11.45am and 3.05pm, that date, DS Jones who had returned to the farmhouse from Jeremys cottage, took possession of 'a silencer' from the downstairs toilet, he took 'a photograph' inside the downstairs toilet, he took possession of 'a calendar' that was hanging on the left hand side of the red painted aga surround, and 'one other item' from the kitchen...
According to police documentation, the 'photograph that DS Jones took on that occasion' was 'DESTROYED'...
SBJ/1 - a silencer
SBJ/2 -
SBJ/3 -
SBJ/4 -
-
I have fresh material...
I will update the exhibit descriptions for these four key exhibits in due course, but in any event they have been identified 'elsewhere' on the forum...
Why would police feel the need to 'DESTROY' a photograph that was taken by DS Jones at the scene of the downstairs toilet? Well, for a start the downstairs toilet was the normal location for where Anthony Pargeter kept his guns, ammunitions, and firearm accessories. What this tells us, is that if Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle was there at the farm that morning, then DS Jones almost certainly captured its presence there in the downstairs toilet on the same morning of the shootings. If Pargters .22 rifle was there, why has Pargeter himself claimed he took it away from the farmhouse on the penultimate week-end prior to the shootings occurring?
Something is dramatically wrong with what Pargeter has said about the whereabouts of his rifle at the time of the shootings. He Told Essex police in a witness statement that he had purchased his .22 bolt action bruno make rifle in 1980, and had always kept it at whf in the downstairs toilet, but that he made it his practice to always remove the bolt from the rifle and take that away with him to his home in Buckinghamshire, so that 'no-one else could fire 'it' in his absence'. Now, why would he make a statement like that if at the time of the shootings, his .22 bruno bolt action rifle was 'not present at the scene at the time of the shootings'?
It doesn't make sense for him to say to Essex police that although his rifle is always kept at the farm, he made it a habit to take out the bolt and take 'that' home with him, so that 'no-one could fire it in his absence'. Yet by the time COLP interview him in 1992, he is saying something complately different, he then starts to say his rifle wasn't at the farmhouse at the time of the shootings, because he had taken it home on the penultimate week-end before the shootings occurred?
It doesn't sound convincing enough to me...
-
I have previously mentioned that DS 'Stan' Jones, left Jeremy's cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Essex, to return to the scene, where he recovered four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and ,a silencer', SBJ/1). Other people have claimed that DS Jones never went back to the scene 'that' morning but I am afraid 'he did'. What's more, he seized or took a total of four exhibits whilst there, including a 'silencer'. Conformation that he did leave Jeremys cottage on that first morning can be found on page 4 of his witness statement, dated, 3rd October, 1985. For example he left Jeremys cottage at 11.35am, that morning and did not return until 3.15pm, that same date...
When COLP interviewed him about this in 1992, DS Jones said that he could not then remember why he had returned to the scene, but he accepted that he must have gone back there from Jeremys cottage that morning - oh, yeah, he took four exhibits on that particular occasion and one of them was a silencer (SBJ/1), and he 'forgot'?
mike i can see where it says he left and returned ,but not where he went or what he collected
-
mike i can see where it says he left and returned ,but not where he went or what he collected
I will source the Colp interview notes, and the 'MIPR' entries confirming that he took three of the four exhibits, 'SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2', since exhibit 'SBJ/1' is self explanatory...
'SBJ/1' being 'a silencer'...
-
I will source the Colp interview notes, and the 'MIPR' entries confirming that he took three of the four exhibits, 'SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2', since exhibit 'SBJ/1' is self explanatory...
'SBJ/1' being 'a silencer'...
thanks mike
-
please all bear in mind, that although four exhibits were taken at the scene by DS 'Stan' Jones on the 7th August, 1985, that he 'never' produced a witness statement making mention that he had seized any of these (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4) exhibits in a witness statement, although, close scrutiny of these 'MIPR' entries do, and if you look at the dates of issue of his notebook, it becomes clear that he either was given, or obtained an additional blank notebook so that he could 'write out' and omit the taking of these four exhibits at the scene when the case was being investigated as 'four murders, and a suicide'...
DS 'Stan' Jones certainly had possession of 'a silencer (SBJ/1) on the 7th August 1985, when he performed work at the scene on behalf of SOC between 11.45am and 3.05pm. This was the only period during the investigation when DS Jones was seconded to work with SOC, and cops have gone to great lengths to try to conceal these 'rogue' duties...
-
...
-
What we have are 'two' silencers, 'not' one...
-
There exist three key dates when cops and relatives, or cops and relatives say that a silencer came into the possession of Essex police, and when these were sent or taken to the lab'to be examined:-
(1) - 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1) kept on top of DCI 'Taff' Jones desk at With am police station...
(2) - 12th August 1985 (SJ/1, that subsequently became, DB/1) taken to lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985
(3) - 11th September 1985 (DRB/1, that subsequently replaced, DB/1, SJ/1, and SBJ/1) submitted to lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood...
-
David Boutflour scraped a small flake of dried blood using a razor blade from the silencer (DRB/1) that his sister Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985...
-
yes,i see what you mean mike
-
The flake that 'David Boutflour' scraped from the DRB/1 silencer, using a razor blade, was scraped from 'the outside' of the silencer, 'not' found inside 'it'. He told COLP investigators that Essex cops 'knew' what he had done. But he didn't name the Essex cops who knew, or what was done with the flake. Boutflour did not have time to scrape the said flake from the other silencer taken to his sisters house on the 10th August 1985, because he said he only looked at the silencer at the kitchen table in the presence of his sister, Ann Eaton, and her husband, Peter Eaton, before they put it away in a wardrobe upstairs for safe keeping. What this means is that David Boutflour could not have scraped the flake from 'this/ that' silencer, without Ann Eaton and Peter Eaton knowing about 'it'. What's more on the evening of the 12th August August 1985 when Peter Eaton saw DS Jones and gave him the silencer, he would have told 'him' about the small flake of blood that his brother in law had scraped from 'it', and if he had got 'it' he would have handed 'it' to Jones on that occasion, and in all probability the flake would have been analysed a month before it eventually was...
No, David Boutflour scraped the flake from the 'other' silencer, the one he and his sister introduced on the 11th September 1985, the silencer (DRB/1) which his sister handed over along with the the other 'DRB' exhibits to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, that David Boutflour contacted cops about on the 12th September 1985. It is my belief, that in addition to Ann Eaton handing over that silencer to DC Oakey on that occasion was that she 'also' handed over 'the flake' her brother had claimed to have scraped from it. Cops must have transported the flake to the lab' in time for the blood expert to start analysing the flake between the 12th and 19th September 1985...
Cops, relatives and at least two lab' experts, Fletcher and Hayward must have been in on 'the frame up', because the flake of blood attributed as being exclusive and unique to Sheila Caffell, was 'not' found inside the silencer. There is every reason to suppose that It was not originally scraped from the outside of the silencer (either), we only have the word of David Boutflour, he could have made the story up, he had access to the bloody crime scene, and the bloodied knickers belonging to Sheila Caffell...
-
My monies on the flake introduced by David Boutflour is the flake which produced the blood grouping results that were attributable to Sheila Caffell...
-
My monies on the flake introduced by David Boutflour is the flake which produced the blood grouping results that were attributable to Sheila Caffell...
yes it looks that way,mike
-
Make your mind up sami.
-
Make your mind up sami.
i like to keep a open mind,if thats ok with you.when i asked notsure if he had made up his mind oneway or the other,you told me it was a bit childess ,but now youre doing the same.i was agreeing to some points mike made,doesnt mean to say i dont think jb is innocent,police did make some mistakes.youre very jumpie today lookout :)
-
i like to keep a open mind,if thats ok with you.when i asked notsure if he had made up his mind oneway or the other,you told me it was a bit childess ,but now youre doing the same.i was agreeing to some points mike made,doesnt mean to say i dont think jb is innocent,police did make some mistakes.youre very jumpie today lookout :)
But your mind is NOT open. It's very clearly a closed shop when posting with Caroline and Jane.
I'm not jumpy at all,it's just that I can't believe that you're saying one thing on Mike's thread,then something entirely different on the others. You lack consistency.
Having an open mind means not agreeing with guilt as well as innocence----------but when push comes to shove you still find the man guilty which isn't an open mind.
-
But your mind is NOT open. It's very clearly a closed shop when posting with Caroline and Jane.
I'm not jumpy at all,it's just that I can't believe that you're saying one thing on Mike's thread,then something entirely different on the others. You lack consistency.
Having an open mind means not agreeing with guilt as well as innocence----------but when push comes to shove you still find the man guilty which isn't an open mind.
youre wrong again lookout,i have an open mind about some aspects of the case,you keep trying to judge me ,and getting it wrong,i am always consistent in saying jb is guilty,sorry
-
youre wrong again lookout,i have an open mind about some aspects of the case,you keep trying to judge me ,and getting it wrong,i am always consistent in saying jb is guilty,sorry
Come off it,you've agreed with Mike about the blood flake which was " introduced " by DB making JB the killer. Planted in other words. ?
-
Come off it,you've agreed with Mike about the blood flake which was " introduced " by DB making JB the killer. Planted in other words. ?
as i have said before i dont believe the silencer was used :)i think the family may have sured up the evidence ,which is fair enough,they were just making sure jb didnt get away with it :) :)) :)) :))
-
Make your mind up sami.
But by saying Mike makes it look a certain way, Sami ISN'T saying any more than that. He's certainly not saying he agrees with it. If he is, I feel certain he'll tell me.
-
as i have said before i dont believe the silencer was used :)i think the family may have sured up the evidence ,which is fair enough,they were just making sure jb didnt get away with it :) :)) :)) :))
This makes no sense. how can you strongly believe Jeremy is guilty when you believe the evidence against him has been made up?
-
as i have said before i dont believe the silencer was used :)i think the family may have sured up the evidence ,which is fair enough,they were just making sure jb didnt get away with it :) :)) :)) :))
It was impossible for the relatives to frame Bamber with the silencer. Several threads created.
It is also an outrageous suggestion where there is no proof.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5328.msg230839.html#msg230839
-
This makes no sense. how can you strongly believe Jeremy is guilty when you believe the evidence against him has been made up?
my beliefs are my own,you dont have to agree with them.i know jb is guilty.even without the silencer theres still enough for me to say jb is guilty,this case doesnt just hang on a silencer. :)
-
my beliefs are my own,you dont have to agree with them.i know jb is guilty.even without the silencer theres still enough for me to say jb is guilty,this case doesnt just hang on a silencer. :)
There is nothing wrong with believing. Aslong as you realise you are taking a leap of faith somewhat to come to your conclusions :)
-
There is nothing wrong with believing. Aslong as you realise you are taking a leap of faith somewhat to come to your conclusions :)
dont we all do that,david
-
as i have said before i dont believe the silencer was used :)i think the family may have sured up the evidence ,which is fair enough,they were just making sure jb didnt get away with it :) :)) :)) :))
hi sami, if you truly believe the family did that then he should be freed ! You cannot have any tom dick or harry putting thier oar in and making things up just because they ghink someone is guilty.
-
hi sami, if you truly believe the family did that then he should be freed ! You cannot have any tom dick or harry putting thier oar in and making things up just because they ghink someone is guilty.
hi notsure.because of the way it was found i feel it could be not right,but theres still some things that convince me jb is guilty.but like you said in the other post ,people will look at the evidence differently :)
-
hi sami, if you truly believe the family did that then he should be freed ! You cannot have any tom dick or harry putting thier oar in and making things up just because they ghink someone is guilty.
Notsure, you appear to be saying that it doesn't matter if Jeremy is guilty of 5 murders. He should be freed because of the method used to convict him?
-
Notsure didn't " appear " to say that at all.
-
Notsure didn't " appear " to say that at all.
I couldn't quite believe she was, which is why I questioned her.
-
Notsure, you appear to be saying that it doesn't matter if Jeremy is guilty of 5 murders. He should be freed because of the method used to convict him?
no im not saying that at all jane. Of course it matters if hes guilty!
However we cant havevpeople making things up or embellishing things to get someone convicted just because they believe in his guilt. Surely you agree witb that.
-
no im not saying that at all jane. Of course it matters if hes guilty!
However we cant havevpeople making things up or embellishing things to get someone convicted just because they believe in his guilt. Surely you agree witb that.
iam notsure on that one notsure :)
-
no im not saying that at all jane. Of course it matters if hes guilty!
However we cant havevpeople making things up or embellishing things to get someone convicted just because they believe in his guilt. Surely you agree witb that.
But what if they ARE guilty and it's the only way to get a conviction? I'm not saying it's ethical.
-
But what if they ARE guilty and it's the only way to get a conviction? I'm not saying it's ethical.
correct jane.its not ethical but what would we do if in their shoes,they all knew sheila was not capable of the events that took place
-
no im not saying that at all jane. Of course it matters if hes guilty!
However we cant havevpeople making things up or embellishing things to get someone convicted just because they believe in his guilt. Surely you agree witb that.
I agree not sure, however wrong it may be for a guilty person to walk free, we cannot allow anyone to be convicted on contrived evidence or our whole legal system will lose all credibility.
-
But what if they ARE guilty and it's the only way to get a conviction? I'm not saying it's ethical.
How can you possibly know if someone is guilty if there is no evidence to convict in the first place?
A conviction should be based on a fair trial and not stuff people made up because they assumed the defendant guilty.
-
How can you possibly know if someone is guilty if there is no evidence to convict in the first place?
A conviction should be based on a fair trial and not stuff people made up because they assumed the defendant guilty.
Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't get, what you believe to be a fair trial, they must be said to be innocent?
-
But what if they ARE guilty and it's the only way to get a conviction? I'm not saying it's ethical.
i cant quite believe youe said that jane. It must be this god awful weather!
-
Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't get, what you believe to be a fair trial, they must be said to be innocent?
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a fair trial is a fundamental human right
-
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a fair trial is a fundamental human right
I have no proof, but I suspect there MAY be more guilty people who walk free than innocent who are convicted. I FULLY accept that neither is right but I also accept that we don't live in a perfect world and as human beings, both defence and prosecution barristers are fallible.
-
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a fair trial is a fundamental human right
in a ideal world,david,he was proven guilty in a fair trial,just because i say the silencer was not used doesnt make it fact ,its just my opinion
-
But what if they ARE guilty and it's the only way to get a conviction? I'm not saying it's ethical.
The trouble with this approach, Jane, is that we already have a system in place to decide guilt. That it is not the ideal system is something that I think we all probably agree on. Having said that I don't think it is improved by the fabrication of evidence against suspects.
Who decides whether we know if someone is guilty or not? There is a long and shameful history of people "known to be guilty" who were convicted after evidence was introduced or fabricated by police officers. How can we be sure that evidence isn't just concocted against people for other reasons?
There really is no such thing as noble cause corruption. It is just corruption.
-
i think its each to their own,if a police officer or member of the family fabricated evidence against ian brady moors childkiller.would we be questioning the rights and wrongs of it
-
The trouble with this approach, Jane, is that we already have a system in place to decide guilt. That it is not the ideal system is something that I think we all probably agree on. Having said that I don't think it is improved by the fabrication of evidence against suspects.
Who decides whether we know if someone is guilty or not? There is a long and shameful history of people "known to be guilty" who were convicted after evidence was introduced or fabricated by police officers. How can we be sure that evidence isn't just concocted against people for other reasons?
There really is no such thing as noble cause corruption. It is just corruption.
Gringo, it would be a sad indictment if it had to come down to a choice between the guilty walking free and the innocent being imprisoned.
-
my own opinion is ,if somebody my extended family brought up like a son ,then went on to kill them and others.and i knew it,i would be fabricating evidence :)
-
my own opinion is ,if somebody my extended family brought up like a son ,then went on to kill them and others.and i knew it,i would be fabricating evidence :)
I think we'd all be sick to the stomach to see them walk free.
-
Gringo, it would be a sad indictment if it had to come down to a choice between the guilty walking free and the innocent being imprisoned.
Unfortunately, this is the case though, Jane. The ultimate consequence of fabricating evidence is jailing the innocent and there is a long list that demonstrates the case.
I fail to understand how we can possibly "know" someone to be guilty if we don't have evidence against them. If evidence needs to "introduced" to prove the charges then by definition it cannot be "known" that the suspect is guilty. You need actual evidence to make that decision.
Nobody likes to see guilty people walk free but it is a greater stain to jail the innocent especially if that is achieved through corruption, no matter how noble the cause is thought to be.
-
my own opinion is ,if somebody my extended family brought up like a son ,then went on to kill them and others.and i knew it,i would be fabricating evidence :)
But how do you know it without evidence?
-
But how do you know it without evidence?
for me theres enough evidence there even without the silencer.i must remind you that adam is the one that knows the in's and out's of the silencer evidence
-
Unfortunately, this is the case though, Jane. The ultimate consequence of fabricating evidence is jailing the innocent and there is a long list that demonstrates the case.
I fail to understand how we can possibly "know" someone to be guilty if we don't have evidence against them. If evidence needs to "introduced" to prove the charges then by definition it cannot be "known" that the suspect is guilty. You need actual evidence to make that decision.
Nobody likes to see guilty people walk free but it is a greater stain to jail the innocent especially if that is achieved through corruption, no matter how noble the cause is thought to be.
Well put,gringo.
-
for me theres enough evidence there even without the silencer.i must remind you that adam is the one that knows the in's and out's of the silencer evidence
This doesn't explain why you think fabricating evidence is ok.
If you believe that Adam is the expert on the silencer evidence on this forum then you have a lot to learn. Adam is possibly the only poster in either camp that believes the silencer evidence isn't fabricated.
-
Well put,gringo.
I can't even believe that the point is debated, lookout. It is beyond ridiculous to argue that fabricating evidence can sometimes be alright.
-
for me theres enough evidence there even without the silencer.i must remind you that adam is the one that knows the in's and out's of the silencer evidence
This is a strawman argument, if there is enough evidence then there is no need to manufacture evidence in the first place. secondly once you realise evidence has been manufactured it proves corruption making a conviction even more unsafe
-
I can't even believe that the point is debated, lookout. It is beyond ridiculous to argue that fabricating evidence can sometimes be alright.
It jolly well isn't alright at all and how those who dish it out can sleep I don't know,knowing that a life hangs in the balance. I'd rat on anyone if I thought they had reneged on their statement.
-
This is a strawman argument, if there is enough evidence then there is no need to manufacture evidence in the first place. secondly once you realise evidence has been manufactured it proves corruption making a conviction even more unsafe
send an email to the remaining family and tell them that,iam talking about my own opinion ,many would disagree including people in the guilty camp.we cant be 100% sure if they did or not.in my book its fine if they did.everyone to their own
-
send an email to the remaining family and tell them that,iam talking about my own opinion ,many would disagree including people in the guilty camp.we cant be 100% sure if they did or not.in my book its fine if they did.everyone to their own
Sami, it is this kind of attitude and indifference to police fabricating evidence thats ends up with people like Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham 6, Eddie Gilfoyle and far too many more to mention individually being convicted for crimes that they didn't commit.
It is not only those convicted who suffer. The families and loved ones of both the victims and of those wrongly convicted suffer equally. It is grotesque to believe that police corruption is ok under any circumstances.
I would assume that you are unaware of the many perversions of justice, which would go some way to explaining your indefensible stance on this. If this is the case then it would be a good starting point if you want to have an informed debate.
The alternative is that you are aware of the many cases where police have been proven to have fabricated evidence but you are untroubled by these. If this is the case and you believe that fabricating evidence is an acceptable way to gain a conviction then you are part of the problem.
-
Sami, it is this kind of attitude and indifference to police fabricating evidence thats ends up with people like Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham 6, Eddie Gilfoyle and far too many more to mention individually being convicted for crimes that they didn't commit.
It is not only those convicted who suffer. The families and loved ones of both the victims and of those wrongly convicted suffer equally. It is grotesque to believe that police corruption is ok under any circumstances.
I would assume that you are unaware of the many perversions of justice, which would go some way to explaining your indefensible stance on this. If this is the case then it would be a good starting point if you want to have an informed debate.
The alternative is that you are aware of the many cases where police have been proven to have fabricated evidence but you are untroubled by these. If this is the case and you believe that fabricating evidence is an acceptable way to gain a conviction then you are part of the problem.
did the jury convict him only on the basis of the silencer alone,if it were your family and you knew the person did it and might getaway with it,would you do the same.iam saying i can understand if they took that route and have no trouble sleeping over it,first you must prove the silencer evidence was fabricated and by who
-
Sheila was the one who'd said that " all people are evil and should die " and also written to Ann from her hospital bed,Sheila had added " God had a purpose for her ".
Because of those former words,Sheila had displayed an extreme indifference to human life--------resulting in the manslaughter of her family then the predictable suicide of herself. Although suicides aren't always predictable as most of the time they're unavoidable too,but this one had been a last resort in this case.
A rifle was the option because they were there in the farmhouse and it mattered not about the size of Sheila against the size of her father as a gun eliminates the physical difference between the sexes and would not have been as easily retrievable as any other weapon/implement,which would have required a closer contact.
Because of the position/angle of Sheila and because most suicides aim for the side of the head or the mouth or chest, she'd positioned herself lying full length to accommodate the rifle towards her neck as she'd have been aiming for the jugular vein. There was a close contact shot because of the visible burn mark around it. Most suicide shots are angled upwards as was in Sheila's case. In a suicide,the weapon is normally close by.If it had been murder,it would have been missing or in this case cleaned and put back to where it was left, but because there was also a print of Sheila's finger found on the rifle,it was the weapon used along with its dead killer.
Suicide notes and personal problems are indicators of suicide. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse also. A person's medical/personal history is vital in confirming that it was suicide/murder.
Scratches,cuts and bruises usually indicate murder as were found on both parents.
-
Sheila was the one who'd said that " all people are evil and should die " and also written to Ann from her hospital bed,Sheila had added " God had a purpose for her ".
Because of those former words,Sheila had displayed an extreme indifference to human life--------resulting in the manslaughter of her family then the predictable suicide of herself. Although suicides aren't always predictable as most of the time they're unavoidable too,but this one had been a last resort in this case.
A rifle was the option because they were there in the farmhouse and it mattered not about the size of Sheila against the size of her father as a gun eliminates the physical difference between the sexes and would not have been as easily retrievable as any other weapon/implement,which would have required a closer contact.
Because of the position/angle of Sheila and because most suicides aim for the side of the head or the mouth or chest, she'd positioned herself lying full length to accommodate the rifle towards her neck as she'd have been aiming for the jugular vein. There was a close contact shot because of the visible burn mark around it. Most suicide shots are angled upwards as was in Sheila's case. In a suicide,the weapon is normally close by.If it had been murder,it would have been missing or in this case cleaned and put back to where it was left, but because there was also a print of Sheila's finger found on the rifle,it was the weapon used along with its dead killer.
Suicide notes and personal problems are indicators of suicide. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse also. A person's medical/personal history is vital in confirming that it was suicide/murder.
Scratches,cuts and bruises usually indicate murder as were found on both parents.
Well, there is no doubt that they were murdered Lookout - they were shot to death so I guess the cuts and bruises weren't really that mush of a giveaway.
However, given that you're big on forensics - what forensic evidence proves that the killer was Sheila?
-
It was impossible for the relatives to frame Bamber with the silencer. Several threads created.
It is also an outrageous suggestion where there is no proof.
Sorry, but there is proof that relatives were at the heart of the frame up by introducing the second silencer, and the flake of blood that David Boutflour scraped from the second silencer that his family handed over to the cops on the 11th September 1985. Nothing could be any clearer, actually...
Relatives still had a silencer, when the other silencer was already at the lab', so what in your mind set does 'that' mean?
Cops still had the second silencer in their possession whilst the other silencer was already at the lab', so, once again, what in your mind set does 'that' mean to somebody like you?
There are many examples by referring to the 'evidence' produced by the cops themselves, which contradict the suggestion that they only ever received one silencer from the relatives that the relatives claim was recovered from the farmhouse. It would takes ages to list each and every 'contradiction', just get it out of your head that there was only one silencer handed over to cops by relatives, because they handed over two different ones, one in August, the other in September 1985...
-
Sorry, but there is proof that relatives were at the heart of the frame up by introducing the second silencer, and the flake of blood that David Boutflour scraped from the second silencer that his family handed over to the cops on the 11th September 1985. Nothing could be any clearer, actually...
Relatives still had a silencer, when the other silencer was already at the lab', so what in your mind set does 'that' mean?
Cops still had the second silencer in their possession whilst the other silencer was already at the lab', so, once again, what in your mind set does 'that' mean to somebody like you?
There are many examples by referring to the 'evidence' produced by the cops themselves, which contradict the suggestion that they only ever received one silencer from the relatives that the relatives claim was recovered from the farmhouse. It would takes ages to list each and every 'contradiction', just get it out of your head that there was only one silencer handed over to cops by relatives, because they handed over two different ones, one in August, the other in September 1985...
All these contradictions that I am referring to, can't all be put down to 'cop errors', these were not cop errors, these were deliberate acts where the cops tried to generate that much confusion that most people would give up trying to make some sense out of it all, and generally accept that these references must all be to the same, one and only silencer...
But, cops overlooked many things...
-
All these contradictions that I am referring to, can't all be put down to 'cop errors', these were not cop errors, these were deliberate acts where the cops tried to generate that much confusion that most people would give up trying to make some sense out of it all, and generally accept that these references must all be to the same, one and only silencer...
But, cops overlooked many things...
So did David Boutflour, and the other relatives...
-
You see...
Most people tend to overlook the most obvious of 'tell tale signs' in situations of this nature, whereas, somebody like me, 'hones in' on whatever it is, that jumps out of the scenario, or situation...
I noticed this ' tell tale sign' within moments of first being 'given the information' by Jeremy, himself in 1989...
-
David Boutflour, nor any of the other relatives, 'did not even know' that Ralph Bamber had purchased the .22 semi - automatic rifle, until 'after they recovered one of the silencers from the scene on the 10th August 1985'. Nobody told them which weapon had been used to shoot the victims with, until much later. In fact, the relatives were led to believe originally that Sheila had killed everyone with use of a shotgun, including herself...
Jeremy couldn't have told them, because even he did not know, nor was he told by cops about 'which' gun had fired any of the shots, but the closest cops got to telling anyone about the identity of the type of weapon that may have been used, was when DCI 'Taff' Jones, and DS 'Stan' Jones went to see Jeremy at his cottage on the afternoon of the 9th August 1985, and questioned him about (a) was the telescopic site fitted to the rifle on the evening just prior to the shootings, (b) was the silencer fitted to that rifle, at that stage, (c) how many rounds were already in that gun when he first took possession of it, (d) how many more rounds did he load into the ammunition magazine, if at all, and (e) where did he get any additional ammunition from?
At the end of these questions, cops then asked him where he thought five additional bullets which they knew had been fired during the killings had originated from, because they said there was still 30 full rounds with the ammunition box he had left on the kitchen side before going home?
-
David Boutflour, nor any of the other relatives, 'did not even know' that Ralph Bamber had purchased the .22 semi - automatic rifle, until 'after they recovered one of the silencers from the scene on the 10th August 1985'. Nobody told them which weapon had been used to shoot the victims with, until much later. In fact, the relatives were led to believe originally that Sheila had killed everyone with use of a shotgun, including herself...
Jeremy couldn't have told them, because even he did not know, nor was he told by cops about 'which' gun had fired any of the shots, but the closest cops got to telling anyone about the identity of the type of weapon that may have been used, was when DCI 'Taff' Jones, and DS 'Stan' Jones went to see Jeremy at his cottage on the afternoon of the 9th August 1985, and questioned him about (a) was the telescopic site fitted to the rifle on the evening just prior to the shootings, (b) was the silencer fitted to that rifle, at that stage, (c) how many rounds were already in that gun when he first took possession of it, (d) how many more rounds did he load into the ammunition magazine, if at all, and (e) where did he get any additional ammunition from?
At the end of these questions, cops then asked him where he thought five additional bullets which they knew had been fired during the killings had originated from, because they said there was still 30 full rounds with the ammunition box he had left on the kitchen side before going home?
So, armed with this information, how did David Boutflour know that he had found the silencer to the gun, if at that stage he did not even know that such a gun existed, or had been bought?
-
Even when the relatives were at Jeremys cottage on the 7th August, 1985, there was absolutely no talk or mention of the anshuz rifle having been the murder weapon, albeit I am prepared to accept although from the top of my head I can't think of any examples to back it up, that somebody may have mentioned a .22 rifle. For example, when Jeremy was making his witness statement, maybe relatives overheard him talking about having seen rabbits near the Dutch barn, how he had gone for the rifle, loaded it, and gone outside intending to shoot them? I will have to check...
-
So, armed with this information, how did David Boutflour know that he had found the silencer to the gun, if at that stage he did not even know that such a gun existed, or had been bought?
Given all the other tit bits of information which was dripped from various sources about what had allegedly occurred in WHF your question is rhetorical.
-
Well, there is no doubt that they were murdered Lookout - they were shot to death so I guess the cuts and bruises weren't really that mush of a giveaway.
However, given that you're big on forensics - what forensic evidence proves that the killer was Sheila?
Given the sloppy work of the forensic team it doesn't surprise me that an innocent man was charged. However,there had been trace signs of gsr on Sheila's hand/s which was cleverly/cunningly put down as having been the use of kitchen utensils-----yes,Sheila must have washed all the pans after supper,but wouldn't that have also washed away any residue from the pans anyway too ? ::)
That trace must have come from somewhere ?? Her nightdress wasn't tested.
-
Given the sloppy work of the forensic team it doesn't surprise me that an innocent man was charged. However,there had been trace signs of gsr on Sheila's hand/s which was cleverly/cunningly put down as having been the use of kitchen utensils-----yes,Sheila must have washed all the pans after supper,but wouldn't that have also washed away any residue from the pans anyway too ? ::)
That trace must have come from somewhere ?? Her nightdress wasn't tested.
i think this has been explained to you before,lookout
-
Even when the relatives were at Jeremys cottage on the 7th August, 1985, there was absolutely no talk or mention of the anshuz rifle having been the murder weapon, albeit I am prepared to accept although from the top of my head I can't think of any examples to back it up, that somebody may have mentioned a .22 rifle. For example, when Jeremy was making his witness statement, maybe relatives overheard him talking about having seen rabbits near the Dutch barn, how he had gone for the rifle, loaded it, and gone outside intending to shoot them? I will have to check...
Yes, I have just checked and Jeremy makes mention in his 7th August 1985 witness statement that he went to get his .22 rifle, (he uses the word 'my'), but there is no mention that he was referring to the .22 anshuzt rifle, he could just as easily have been referring to his .22 BSA air rifle. In any event, David Boutflour makes mention in one of his witness statements, that he did not know that Ralph Bamber had purchased a .22 anshuzt rifle, and I shall try to locate that particular comment and place it in its rightful position in time, so that we can all be sure of the very first occasion that David Boutflour knew about the existence of Ralph Bambers .22 anshuzt rifle, because that information is very important. It is important because when he takes possession of the first silencer at the scene on the 10th August 1985, how could he have known that that silencer was the one belonging to the anshuzt rifle which was supposedly the only murder weapon used in the shootings?
-
Same logic applies to his father, Robert Boutflour, who writes notes involving the possible use of the silencer, without knowing that Ralph Bamber had even purchased a .22 aqnshuzt rifle with a silencer...
The relatives know about the silencer (in my opinion) before they were entitled to know about it. Not only that, but they appear to have known about its possible use in the crime long before they knew that such a silencer belonged with the anshuzt rifle...
-
Same logic applies to his father, Robert Boutflour, who writes notes involving the possible use of the silencer, without knowing that Ralph Bamber had even purchased a .22 aqnshuzt rifle with a silencer...
The relatives know about the silencer (in my opinion) before they were entitled to know about it. Not only that, but they appear to have known about its possible use in the crime long before they knew that such a silencer belonged with the anshuzt rifle...
I have narrowed it down to them being told about the anshuzt rifle, and its silencer, by them coming into contact with Anthony Pargeter, at a time when the relatives thought that the silencer that David had got his hands on belonged to Anthony Pargters .22 (Bruno) bolt action rifle. Yes, they thought it belonged to Anthony, and that first silencer got handed to cops by Peter Eaton on the evening of the 12th August 1985, before relatives got time to speak to Anthony Pargeter about it. It was only later, on the following month, when cops went to speak to Anthony Pargeter about his bolt action rifle, and he made a witness statement to Essex cops that he always had kept his rifle at whf but had the habit of removing the bolt and taking 'it' home to Buckinghamshire, so that no-one could fire it in his absence, that Anthony became aware that cops had got his silencer (the one Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones). It was immediately after this visit to see his bruno rifle, that Anthony Pargeter went to see the other relatives to try to find out whether or not, cops had been given his silencer, or the one belonging to Ralph Bambers anshuzt rifle...
This is what caused David Boutflour to return to the scene to search for the second silencer (September, 1985)...
When he found it, he must have showed it to Anthony Pargeter, only to have it confirmed to him, that cops had got the wrong parker hale silencer. They had been given Anthony Pargeters silencer, not the Bamber owned one...
-
I have narrowed it down to them being told about the anshuzt rifle, and its silencer, by them coming into contact with Anthony Pargeter, at a time when the relatives thought that the silencer that David had got his hands on belonged to Anthony Pargters .22 (Bruno) bolt action rifle. Yes, they thought it belonged to Anthony, and that first silencer got handed to cops by Peter Eaton on the evening of the 12th August 1985, before relatives got time to speak to Anthony Pargeter about it. It was only later, on the following month, when cops went to speak to Anthony Pargeter about his bolt action rifle, and he made a witness statement to Essex cops that he always had kept his rifle at whf but had the habit of removing the bolt and taking 'it' home to Buckinghamshire, so that no-one could fire it in his absence, that Anthony became aware that cops had got his silencer (the one Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones). It was immediately after this visit to see his bruno rifle, that Anthony Pargeter went to see the other relatives to try to find out whether or not, cops had been given his silencer, or the one belonging to Ralph Bambers anshuzt rifle...
This is what caused David Boutflour to return to the scene to search for the second silencer (September, 1985)...
When he found it, he must have showed it to Anthony Pargeter, only to have it confirmed to him, that cops had got the wrong parker hale silencer. They had been given Anthony Pargeters silencer, not the Bamber owned one...
I suspect, that this is where the folklore regarding David Boutflour telling Anthony Pargeter that cops had given the silencer back to the family. I think that when David Boutflour eventually got his hands on the second silencer, that he showed it to Anthony because he wanted to know which silencer the cops had got possession of, and with Jeremy then in custody I think David Boutflour and his sister felt that it would bolster up the case against Jeremy, if cops had possession of the Bamber owned silencer, rather than the Pargeter owned one...
At that point, David Boutflour got his sister to hand over the second silencer to DC Oakey (11th September, 1985). At that stage, the lab' already had possession of the first silencer (DB/1), whilst cops had possession of the second silencer (DRB/1)...
-
The key flake of blood trick, which David Boutflour sought to introduce found its way to the lab' by 12th September, 1985, at the latest, but could have been given to cops by Ann Eaton the day before..
-
John Hayward and his assistants analyse the flake for blood grouping results between the 12th an 19th September 1985, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1). The flake was not recovered from inside the Pargeter owned silencer (DB/1) or the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1). All the cops and the experts at the lab' had to go on was the fact that David Boutflour claimed he had scraped the small flake from the end of the silencers end cap (not inside it). But, David Boutflour had had opportunity to get his hands on some of Sheila's menstrual blood. This was because his sister had removed the heavily bloodstained panties belonging to Sheila, in a bucket from the scene, to her home (what a very strange thing for Ann Eaton to want to have to do)?
-
John Hayward and his assistants analyse the flake for blood grouping results between the 12th an 19th September 1985, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1). The flake was not recovered from inside the Pargeter owned silencer (DB/1) or the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1). All the cops and the experts at the lab' had to go on was the fact that David Boutflour claimed he had scraped the small flake from the end of the silencers end cap (not inside it). But, David Boutflour had had opportunity to get his hands on some of Sheila's menstrual blood. This was because his sister had removed the heavily bloodstained panties belonging to Sheila, in a bucket from the scene, to her home (what a very strange thing for Ann Eaton to want to have to do)?
Since, the results obtained from the examination of the 'Boutflour flake' matched the same four blood groups 'belonging to Sheila', and Boutflour had removed 'it' from a silencer the cops had got back in Essex, they sent for it (DRB/1) because they wanted to see if there was any matching blood (same as from the flake) on any of the internal baffle plates, of 'that' particular silencer, so cops submitted it to the lab' on the 20th September 1985...
-
Can it simply be an error that David Boutflour never 'uttered a word' in any of his Essex police witness statements, to the effect that 'he had used a razor blade to scrape a small dried flake of blood from the end of the silencer'? Nobody during the 1986 trial knew David Boutflours 'dark secret', other than the cops, and the lab' experts...
-
Can it simply be an error that David Boutflour never 'uttered a word' in any of his Essex police witness statements, to the effect that 'he had used a razor blade to scrape a small dried flake of blood from the end of the silencer'? Nobody during the 1986 trial knew David Boutflours 'dark secret', other than the cops, and the lab' experts...
Based upon what David Boutflour tells the COLP investigators about this flake, him removing it from the silencer, using a razor blade, him saying Essex cops knew what he had done, but why did Boutflour himself, and the cops from Essex not mention anything about these matters, either in witness statement format, pocketbook entries, reports, or whilst testifying during the trial? Didn't the scientists who were charged with examining the silencers and the flake itself have a right to know the truth regarding what David Boutflour had done, to arguable the most important exhibit in the entire case?
-
What if...
the flake of blood that Boutflour scraped from the silencer had 'not' been the flake that was analysed, instead what if it had been retrieved from Boutflour, and it had turned out to be one of the other victims bloods, or an intimate mixtures of the other victims bloods, excluding Sheila's? Doesn't it matter, that somebody like David Boutflour who stood to gain financially by helping to get Jeremy Bamber convicted for the murders, that such a person deliberately admitted to 'tampering' with the silencer evidence?
-
What if...
the flake of blood that Boutflour scraped from the silencer had 'not' been the flake that was analysed, instead what if it had been retrieved from Boutflour, and it had turned out to be one of the other victims bloods, or an intimate mixtures of the other victims bloods, excluding Sheila's? Doesn't it matter, that somebody like David Boutflour who stood to gain financially by helping to get Jeremy Bamber convicted for the murders, that such a person deliberately admitted to 'tampering' with the silencer evidence?
If I were Bamber, I would be wanting to know:-
(1) - On what date did David Boutflour scrape the flake of blood from the end of the silencer?
(2) - Which Essex police officers did he tell of him scraping the flake off the silencer?
(3) - What did he do with the flake, and how long was it in his possession?
-
Surely, we are not going to end up with egg on our faces again, Oh please, not another trick, surely not 'a trick of blood'...
-
A trick of light
A trick of the camera
A trick of the pen
A trick of memory
A trick of blood...
What ever, next?
-
A trick up his sleeve ?
-
If I were Bamber, I would be wanting to know:-
(1) - On what date did David Boutflour scrape the flake of blood from the end of the silencer?
(2) - Which Essex police officers did he tell of him scraping the flake off the silencer?
(3) - What did he do with the flake, and how long was it in his possession?
i hink if jb asked the above from ep,he will be told where to go
-
i hink if jb asked the above from ep,he will be told where to go
Well, I am being absolutely serious when I say there ought to be an independent police investigation into this matter. One that delves into which police officers knew the truth, which officers decided to either, (a) inform the scientists at the lab', or (b) withhold this key information from the DPP, or (c) its representative?
You simply can't have dodgy coppers practicing dishonesty at this level, when an innocent mans liberty for the rest of his life is at stake. What David Boutflour did was 'dishonest' to say the least. Any copper who knew what David Boutflour had done, and kept quiet about it, needed to be sacked, and prosecuted. If they are now retired, their police pensions taken off them, and they should be made to pay back every penny they have defrauded from the police pensions scheme, and prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment...
-
Well, I am being absolutely serious when I say there ought to be an independent police investigation into this matter. One that delves into which police officers knew the truth, which officers decided to either, (a) inform the scientists at the lab', or (b) withhold this key information from the DPP, or (c) its representative?
You simply can't have dodgy coppers practicing dishonesty at this level, when an innocent mans liberty for the rest of his life is at stake. What David Boutflour did was 'dishonest' to say the least. Any copper who knew what David Boutflour had done, and kept quiet about it, needed to be sacked, and prosecuted. If they are now retired, their police pensions taken off them, and they should be made to pay back every penny they have defrauded from the police pensions scheme, and prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment...
And of course, Jeremy Bambers convictions 'quashed' ASAP...
-
I have no doubt whatsoever, that former DCS 'Mick' Ainsley, had knowledge of David Boutflours, dishonesty!!!
-
Well, I am being absolutely serious when I say there ought to be an independent police investigation into this matter. One that delves into which police officers knew the truth, which officers decided to either, (a) inform the scientists at the lab', or (b) withhold this key information from the DPP, or (c) its representative?
You simply can't have dodgy coppers practicing dishonesty at this level, when an innocent mans liberty for the rest of his life is at stake. What David Boutflour did was 'dishonest' to say the least. Any copper who knew what David Boutflour had done, and kept quiet about it, needed to be sacked, and prosecuted. If they are now retired, their police pensions taken off them, and they should be made to pay back every penny they have defrauded from the police pensions scheme, and prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment...
at any level mike
-
I have no doubt whatsoever, that former DCS 'Mick' Ainsley, had knowledge of David Boutflours, dishonesty!!!
After his retirement from the police, Ainsley worked as a security advisor for the relatives at Osea Road Camp site. He rumoured to have been one of several officers who upon 'Bamber being convicted of the murders', received 'gifts from the relatives' as a token of their gratitude...
Say, no more...
-
After his retirement from the police, Ainsley worked as a security advisor for the relatives at Osea Road Camp site. He rumoured to have been one of several officers who upon 'Bamber being convicted of the murders', received 'gifts from the relatives' as a token of their gratitude...
Say, no more...
nudge nudge wink wink
-
at any level mike
Yes, but we all know that it won't happen because this 'army' of bent cops receives the support of people in high places, who are themselves dishonest, and corrupt. The lot of ' em ought to be locked away and the key destroyed, or concealed, and all of them told, 'oh, its just an error, but you are going to have to stay in prison until we can find out what went wrong!!!
-
After his retirement from the police, Ainsley worked as a security advisor for the relatives at Osea Road Camp site. He rumoured to have been one of several officers who upon 'Bamber being convicted of the murders', received 'gifts from the relatives' as a token of their gratitude...
Say, no more...
Unless he retired during the investigation, I see no reason for him not to. After all, having suffered burglary and arson, their clearly needed to employ someone who knew what they were doing re security. Saying "he was rumoured to have been..................." proves nothing but I feel quite certain that I'd have wished to say a personal "Thank-you" to those who'd supported my family through a difficult period.
-
Unless he retired during the investigation, I see no reason for him not to. After all, having suffered burglary and arson, their clearly needed to employ someone who knew what they were doing re security. Saying "he was rumoured to have been..................." proves nothing but I feel quite certain that I'd have wished to say a personal "Thank-you" to those who'd supported my family through a difficult period.
Cops can't accept personal gifts, whether you or the relatives wanted to give them anything, or not...
Think again...
It stinks, the relatives used the wealth that rightly belonged to Jeremy, to pay for the gifts they purchased for the cops who helped the relatives to frame Jeremy with use of the two parker hale silencers, and the dried flake of Sheila Caffells menstual blood...
-
Let's hear a public statement from David Boutflour before he dies, confirming that he scraped a small flake of blood from the outside of the silencer using a razor blade. Let him appear on national TV and tell the truth about what he told COLP in 1992, that he had 'tampered' with the silencer / blood evidence because he wanted to make sure that Jeremy Bamber got convicted...
David Boutflour isn't that honest, he daren't tell the truth to the world because he knows the consequences of having to admit publicly to what he did in 'tampering' with blood on the 'outside' of the silencer, blood which he knew was dishonestly suggested as having been found inside the silencer, not outside of it. His sister also knows the truth about this flake, so that's at least two members of this family in the shit. They robbed poor Jeremy of his freedom, and his right to inherit his parents estate(s). What a sick family these people belonged to...
-
Cops can't accept personal gifts, whether you or the relatives wanted to give them anything, or not...
Think again...
It stinks, the relatives used the wealth that rightly belonged to Jeremy, to pay for the gifts they purchased for the cops who helped the relatives to frame Jeremy with use of the two parker hale silencers, and the dried flake of Sheila Caffells menstual blood...
It's academic because, as you pointed out, such was only rumoured? But as you seem to be so hung up on Sheila's menstrual cycle I expect you're going to tell us from where "they" extracted the blood and say it was all part of their unfolding plan?
-
There has to be a fresh independent police inquiry to get to the bottom of this 'Conspiracy', no matter how long it takes...
-
It's academic because, as you pointed out, such was only rumoured? But as you seem to be so hung up on Sheila's menstrual cycle I expect you're going to tell us from where "they" extracted the blood and say it was all part of their unfolding plan?
This is not a joke, it is a very serious matter. DCS 'Mick' Ainsley knew the truth, which is why Ann Eaton made mention in her COLP witness statement, that when she was testifying at the forthcoming trial, that if she was asked about the blood in Sheila' s heavily blood stained knickers being the source from where the relatives had contaminated the silencer (DRB/1) with Sheila's blood, that she was advised by Ainsley to respond by saying that you could tell the difference between normal blood and menstrual blood by the smell of it...
Don't try to embarrass me, with your tactics, I didn't tamper with the silencer by introducing Sheila's blood to it...
I am not an expert on this, perhaps you ought to question Annie Eaton, or former DCS 'Mick' Ainsley about it, but I don't think there is much if any difference in smell between a small dried flake of someone's menstual blood, and a small dried flake of that persons normal blood...
Let common sense prevail...
Why was DCS Ainsley giving such advice to Annie Eaton about the blood? Did he know something which he wasn't telling the rest of us?
Sure, he did...
-
This is not a joke, it is a very serious matter. DCS 'Mick' Ainsley knew the truth, which is why Ann Eaton made mention in her COLP witness statement, that when she was testifying at the forthcoming trial, that if she was asked about the blood in Sheila' s heavily blood stained knickers being the source from where the relatives had contaminated the silencer (DRB/1) with Sheila's blood, that she was advised by Ainsley to respond by saying that you could tell the difference between normal blood and menstrual blood by the smell of it...
Don't try to embarrass me, with your tactics, I didn't tamper with the silencer by introducing Sheila's blood to it...
I am not an expert on this, perhaps you ought to question Annie Eaton, or former DCS 'Mick' Ainsley about it, but I don't think there is much if any difference in smell between a small dried flake of someone's menstual blood, and a small dried flake of that persons normal blood...
Let common sense prevail...
Why was DCS Ainsley giving such advice to Annie Eaton about the blood? Did he know something which he wasn't telling the rest of us?
Sure, he did...
I have no experience at sniffing at small flakes of someone's menstrual blood, ask DCS 'Mick' Ainsley, and Annie' Eaton, they seem to know what's what. Ask yourselves why Ainsley would be suggesting such a thing to Annie Eaton to say if she was asked about the source of the blood in the silencer coming from Sheila's menstrual blood that was apparently present in Sheila's knickers that 'Annie' had taken these away from the scene, to her own home, the same place where the first silencer was kept between 10th and 12th August 1985...
-
This is not a joke, it is a very serious matter. DCS 'Mick' Ainsley knew the truth, which is why Ann Eaton made mention in her COLP witness statement, that when she was testifying at the forthcoming trial, that if she was asked about the blood in Sheila' s heavily blood stained knickers being the source from where the relatives had contaminated the silencer (DRB/1) with Sheila's blood, that she was advised by Ainsley to respond by saying that you could tell the difference between normal blood and menstrual blood by the smell of it...
Don't try to embarrass me, with your tactics, I didn't tamper with the silencer by introducing Sheila's blood to it...
I am not an expert on this, perhaps you ought to question Annie Eaton, or former DCS 'Mick' Ainsley about it, but I don't think there is much if any difference in smell between a small dried flake of someone's menstual blood, and a small dried flake of that persons normal blood...
Let common sense prevail...
Why was DCS Ainsley giving such advice to Annie Eaton about the blood? Did he know something which he wasn't telling the rest of us?
Sure, he did...
mike surely if they did plant blood in the silencer,they would have used more than just 1 flake.it doesnt make sense,why did they not smear blood on the outside of the silence to show it had been in contact with sheila
-
mike surely if they did plant blood in the silencer,they would have used more than just 1 flake.it doesnt make sense,why did they not smear blood on the outside of the silence to show it had been in contact with sheila
Hang on a minute, give me chance to put the full argument...
-
This is not a joke, it is a very serious matter. DCS 'Mick' Ainsley knew the truth, which is why Ann Eaton made mention in her COLP witness statement, that when she was testifying at the forthcoming trial, that if she was asked about the blood in Sheila' s heavily blood stained knickers being the source from where the relatives had contaminated the silencer (DRB/1) with Sheila's blood, that she was advised by Ainsley to respond by saying that you could tell the difference between normal blood and menstrual blood by the smell of it...
Don't try to embarrass me, with your tactics, I didn't tamper with the silencer by introducing Sheila's blood to it...
I am not an expert on this, perhaps you ought to question Annie Eaton, or former DCS 'Mick' Ainsley about it, but I don't think there is much if any difference in smell between a small dried flake of someone's menstual blood, and a small dried flake of that persons normal blood...
Let common sense prevail...
Why was DCS Ainsley giving such advice to Annie Eaton about the blood? Did he know something which he wasn't telling the rest of us?
Sure, he did...
Are you really asking us to believe that it took a MAN to point out the difference, to a WOMAN!!!! between menstrual and other blood!!!!!!!!! I fail to see why you think I'd try to embarrass you OR why you feel the need to point out that you had no dealings with the silencer. However, I'm very interested to know from where you believe the menstrual blood was obtained, as I can tell you now that it wouldn't have been obtained from a pair of knickers soaking in water.
As you say. Let common sense prevail.
-
What we then find, is that in 1986, Glynis Howard, and John Hayward, amongst others, carry out an examination upon the internal baffle plates of the second silencer...
I believe this examination was conducted on the 29th April 1986...
-
Hang on a minute, give me chance to put the full argument...
sorry please continue
-
Are you really asking us to believe that it took a MAN to point out the difference, to a WOMAN!!!! between menstrual and other blood!!!!!!!!! I fail to see why you think I'd try to embarrass you OR why you feel the need to point out that you had no dealings with the silencer. However, I'm very interested to know from where you believe the menstrual blood was obtained, as I can tell you now that it wouldn't have been obtained from a pair of knickers soaking in water.
Well, before you start accusing me of anything, you ought to read what 'Annie' said about 'it' in her COLP witness statement. She didn't just pluck that comment out of thin air. There was obviously some comment between 'Annie' and Mick Ainsley in 1986, about blood clots in Sheila's knickers. Why else would Ainsley single 'Annie' out to say what he had advised her to say...
-
Well, before you start accusing me of anything, you ought to read what 'Annie' said about 'it' in her COLP witness statement. She didn't just pluck that comment out of thin air. There was obviously some comment between 'Annie' and Mick Ainsley in 1986, about blood clots in Sheila's knickers. Why else would Ainsley single 'Annie' out to say what he had advised her to say...
Perhaps you can tell me exactly where there was ever any suggestion of such and what makes you think "there was obviously some comment". I wasn't aware of having started to accuse you of anything.
-
Well, before you start accusing me of anything, you ought to read what 'Annie' said about 'it' in her COLP witness statement. She didn't just pluck that comment out of thin air. There was obviously some comment between 'Annie' and Mick Ainsley in 1986, about blood clots in Sheila's knickers. Why else would Ainsley single 'Annie' out to say what he had advised her to say...
can you show proof of that comment being made ,is it written down somewhere,or are we just assuming it took place :)
-
Well, before you start accusing me of anything, you ought to read what 'Annie' said about 'it' in her COLP witness statement. She didn't just pluck that comment out of thin air. There was obviously some comment between 'Annie' and Mick Ainsley in 1986, about blood clots in Sheila's knickers. Why else would Ainsley single 'Annie' out to say what he had advised her to say...
The 'truth' is there, in 'Annies' COLP witness statement, she made her statement to them, I did not her statement on her behalf, I am not a South Yorkshire police officer, who are experts at this type of dishonesty...
-
can you show proof of that comment being made ,is it written down somewhere,or are we just assuming it took place :)
I can post the extracts of her COLP statement, she certainly made it clear that Mick Ainsley told her what to say if it was put to her during the trial that the relatives had contaminated the silencer themselves whilst the silencer was in their possession between 10th and 12th August 1985...
-
I can post the extracts of her COLP statement, she certainly made it clear that Mick Ainsley told her what to say if it was put to her during the trial that the relatives had contaminated the silencer themselves whilst the silencer was in their possession between 10th and 12th August 1985...
But...
Have you got 'any idea'how many pages her COLP witness statement consists of?
-
I can post the extracts of her COLP statement, she certainly made it clear that Mick Ainsley told her what to say if it was put to her during the trial that the relatives had contaminated the silencer themselves whilst the silencer was in their possession between 10th and 12th August 1985...
please do mike ,it will be interesting to read
-
please do mike ,it will be interesting to read
Hang on, then, I will have to now source 'that' witness statement somewhere in storage. I know its not posted in the archives, because I've just checked. It will take quite some time mind you...
-
Hang on, then, I will have to now source 'that' witness statement somewhere in storage. I know its not posted in the archives, because I've just checked. It will take quite some time mind you...
thats ok mike,it will settle it once n for all
-
Right, I have got some bad news, and some good news...
-
Right, I have got some bad news, and some good news...
bad news first please ,mike :)
-
bad news first please ,mike :)
Have you ever tried searching through 50,000 documents looking for the 72 hand written version of a witness statement? I could allocate only two hours to this task. The bad news is that I have not located the 72 page hand written version. I know it exists and that I have had sight of it during the past 12 months, and that I have noted salient points contained within it...
-
Have you ever tried searching through 50,000 documents looking for the 72 hand written version of a witness statement? I could allocate only two hours to this task. The bad news is that I have not located the 72 page hand written version. I know it exists and that I have had sight of it during the past 12 months, and that I have noted salient points contained within it...
Have you ever considered borrowing an office scanner? ones that can you just leave a pile of several hundred pages in the feed and it scans them all to PDF?
-
Have you ever considered borrowing an office scanner? ones that can you just leave a pile of several hundred pages in the feed and it scans them all to PDF?
...
I am a bankruptee, nobody would do me a favour like borrow me such equipment
-
Please be patient, I feel as though I have psychic involvement, in all matters of life and death, issues...
-
Please be patient, I feel as though I have psychic involvement, in all matters of life and death, issues...
It is not an enjoyable experience being in my position...
-
I am, outside looking in, sensing as it were issues of significance...
I cannot appear to disassociate myself from the images, and the information that is being directed toward me, as though I am the focal point for all this information...
-
I am, outside looking in, sensing as it were issues of significance...
I cannot appear to disassociate myself from the images, and the information that is being directed toward me, as though I am the focal point for all this information...
like a telepathic link mike
-
It was DC 'Mick' Clark who told 'Annie' Eaton, that the bodies of June and Sheila had both been found on the bed (he had entered the farmhouse and viewed the bodies shortly after arriving at the scene, before leaving with Jeremy to go to Jeremy's cottage on the first morning of the investigation. Apparently, DC 'Mick' Clark told 'Annie' Eaton this...
here is evidence that by the 12th August 1985, that 'Annie' Eaton is still thinking that Sheila had used a 12 bore shotgun...
-
Here is the relevant part of 'Annie' Eaton's, 72 page witness statement that she made to the COLP investigators, regarding Sheila's bloodstained knickers, and how she could tell the difference between ordinary blood, and menstrual blood:-
please note, the advice DSS 'Mick' Ainsley gave her to make sure she told the court about the different smells of ordinary blood, as opposed to menstrual bloodDCS
-
Why was DCS Ainsley 'thinking' that Annie Eaton would be asked whether the relatives had 'contaminated the silencer' with Sheila's 'menstrual blood' in her 'heavily soiled knickers' that they had taken away from the scene to Annie Eaton's house, on the same occasion they removed the first silencer?
-
Why was DCS Ainsley 'thinking' that Annie Eaton would be asked whether the relatives had 'contaminated the silencer' with Sheila's 'menstrual blood' in her 'heavily soiled knickers' that they had taken away from the scene to Annie Eaton's house, on the same occasion they removed the first silencer?
Why didn't the cops get the blood expert (John Hayward) to deal with this matter - in any event, the fact is that it is irrelevant whether the small dried flake of blood that was 'eventually' tested, and analysed, was normal blood, or menstrual blood, if it came from Sheila's body by any means, it would produce the exact same blood group activity belonging to her ( A, EAP BA, AK/1 and HP 2-1)...
Relatives removed Sheila's heavily bloodstained knickers from the scene, and one of the silencers, on the same occasion. They had the opportunity and desire to get Jeremy arrested for the killings - this feature was never aired in the presence of the jury, but it was certainly a significant issue that should have been taken into account...
-
It seems to me that once DCS 'Mick' Ainsley took control of the investigation (SC/786/85), that that was when all the dodgy evidence started to get introduced...
-
Have you ever considered borrowing an office scanner? ones that can you just leave a pile of several hundred pages in the feed and it scans them all to PDF?
Speaking of which,there's one for sale but it's in Coventry.
-
It was DC 'Mick' Clark who told 'Annie' Eaton, that the bodies of June and Sheila had both been found on the bed (he had entered the farmhouse and viewed the bodies shortly after arriving at the scene, before leaving with Jeremy to go to Jeremy's cottage on the first morning of the investigation. Apparently, DC 'Mick' Clark told 'Annie' Eaton this...
here is evidence that by the 12th August 1985, that 'Annie' Eaton is still thinking that Sheila had used a 12 bore shotgun...
what annoys me about AE is that she suffers from selective memory. This is the woman that immediately started making notes and keeping a diary and yet she cant remember who told her who was on the bed etc
-
Speaking of which,there's one for sale but it's in Coventry.
Oh no problem. We'll have to send Mike to Coventry.
-
Oh no problem. We'll have to send Mike to Coventry.
may also have to pay for his ticket steve ,as mike has said he's bankrupt. :)
-
Oh no problem. We'll have to send Mike to Coventry.
Oh dear. :-[
-
Oh no problem. We'll have to send Mike to Coventry.
By the number of responders - I think we already have ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, at least everyone now knows that the cops and Annie Eaton and the rest of the clan relatives must have been aware that once the defence got wind of the silencer having been taken away from the scene at the same time as Sheila's heavily bloodstained knickers by the relatives, that they might be a strong suspicion that they had deliberately contaminated the silencer, with Sheila's blood...
This becomes a very serious matter, when according to Annie Eaton's Colp witness statement, the head of the investigation (DCS Ainsley) is schooling her on what to say to the court if the defence question her about this during the trial, ' make sure you bring that to the courts attention' - it stinks of dodgy evidence, every aspect and feature of the silencer, blood and paint...
-
The original cop files which are being withheld, are filed under different crime references, in the individual names of the five victims (not SC/688/85 or SC/786/85)...
-
The original cop files which are being withheld, are filed under different crime references, in the individual names of the five victims (not SC/688/85 or SC/786/85)...
The individual crime numbers that I have been able to track down, are as follows:-
All files are retained in storage at 'Southend on sea, police station'...
SHEILA JEAN CAFFELL - 8260/85C22E
NICHOLAS CAFFELL - 6806/85/C22E
RALPH NEVILLE BAMBER - 6807/85/C22E
JUNE BAMBER - 6808/85/C22E
DANIEL CAFFELL - 6809/85/C22E
-
Other files, 8259/85/C22E, and 8261/85/C22E, either side of Sheila's file, will pinpoint the date when Cops at Southend on sea, concealed the documents, files and photographs pertaining to the true circumstances surrounding Sheila Caffells death inside the bedroom upstairs, after she had originally been declared deceased downstairs in the kitchen, full unedited truth is contained at Southend on sea police station under the crime reference of 8260/85/C22E...
-
Other files, 6805/85/C22E and 6810/85/C22E, either side of the other four victims of the tragedy, Nicholas, Raplh, June, and Daniel, will provide dates when edited material was removed from the files which tended to show association with these four deaths and Sheila Caffell, and concealed in files, '6806/85/C22E, 6807/85/C22E, 6808/85/C22E, and 6809/85/C22E'...
-
In particular, Ralph Bambers file ( 6807/85/C22E) was treated as ' 'THE MASTER CRIME FILE', into which was incorporated the original file contents of Chelmsford police stations files under crime references, SC/688/85' and 'SC/786/85'...
-
In particular, Ralph Bambers file ( 6807/85/C22E) was treated as ' 'THE MASTER CRIME FILE', into which was incorporated the original file contents of Chelmsford police stations files under crime references, SC/688/85' and 'SC/786/85'...
-
As you can all see, there is no reference to either of the Crime Report No's SC/688/85, or SC/786/85, in the copies of the typed conviction and case reports..
-
Why would there be so much confusion regarding these crime report numbers, if it was a straight forward case of Jeremy Bamber being the killer?
-
One of several notes passed to the judge during the trial from the jury (dated, 17th October 1986):-
-
The Judge never did give a response to this particular note...
-
It must be clear that the jury were unsure as to the possible motive behind why Robert Boutflour made a witness statement to cops about Jeremy supposedly having told him that he could easily kill his parents?
-
PC Chaplin's log at scene, dated, 7th August, 1985 (typed version)...
-
I would imagine at that particular point prior to summing up that two members of the jury changed their minds,particularly as no answer came forthwith.
-
We can see on the second page, timed at 11.45am, that DS 'Stan' Jones returned to the scene (from Jeremy's cottage), and that an entry on the third page of the same log, timed at 1.37pm, he left the scene again. Jones was therefore at the scene for two hours and fifty two minutes, at which time he took possession of a silencer (SBJ/1), and a further three exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3,and SBJ/4. How utterly remarkable that DS 'Stan' Jones could not remember why he returned to the scene having left earlier to go to Jeremy's cottage with DC 'Mick' Clark, and of course Jeremy, when COLP interviewed him in 1992? You don't forget something like that so easily. He returned to the scene at 11.45am that particular morning and took photographs in the kitchen, and the downstairs toilet, took possession of a calendar, and a silencer. One or other of the photographs, or both were 'DESTRYOED' according to police documentation. Now, why would the cops want to destroy any of these pieces of evidence taken at the crime scene earlier that morning?
If 'Stan' left the scene at 1.37pm, that date, where did he go from there, before he eventually arrived back at Jeremy's cottage? Bearing in mind that Jeremy's cottage was only three and a half miles away?
Did 'Stan' take the silencer and deposit it along with the other three exhibits (SBJ/1,SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4) either at Witham police station, or Chelmsford police station?
-
Nobody should trust anything that DS 'Stan' Jones did in helping to change the course of the investigation. He was a 'bad apple' cop. He had his fingers into almost everything that is dodgy with key components of the evidence. Nobody should trust anything he had to say. He was a crook wearing a badge.
He had his fingers in the crime scene ammunition, he had his fingers in the silencer evidence, and he had his fingers into Julie Mugford and her evidence. To cap it wall off, he used a dodgy notebook which had been issued to him on or before the 5th November 1984, which he saved in his possession in a blank condition, so that he could rewrite his notes about the bambercase inside it, hiding his true involvement in the investigation of the so called Bamber case, from 7th August 1985, onwards...
-
'Stan' Jones, was at the heart of the 'tamperings' of the batch of crime scene ammunition - his signature appears on many of the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' drafted at the lab'. What was somebody like 'him' doing at the lab' signing these records, he shouldn't have been at the lab' inferring with the ballistics evidence. He re-wrote his notebook to conceal for the fact that he took part at the lab' in producing a lie to the effect that there had only been one gun used in the shootings, when he knew that at least two, possibly three different ones had been used...
For example, you can't fire bullets which make 1/2 inch diameter entry wound holes from a .22 rifle...
Yet, several of the bullet entry wounds on some of the victims are confirmed as having been 1/2 inch in diameter. Now, considering that almost every wound on every victim has been described as being 'contact' or 'near contact' in nature, how is it possible for a bullet to start 'yawing' to such a significant extent immediately upon exiting the .22 rifles barrel?
It can't have done...
A different gun, other than the .22 anshuzt rifle fired the bullets which made the 1/2 inch diameter wounds, there can be no doubt whatsoever, about that...
-
List of witnesses seen since 15th August 1985:-
-
'Stan' Jones, was at the heart of the 'tamperings' of the batch of crime scene ammunition - his signature appears on many of the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' drafted at the lab'. What was somebody like 'him' doing at the lab' signing these records, he shouldn't have been at the lab' inferring with the ballistics evidence. He re-wrote his notebook to conceal for the fact that he took part at the lab' in producing a lie to the effect that there had only been one gun used in the shootings, when he knew that at least two, possibly three different ones had been used...
For example, you can't fire bullets which make 1/2 inch diameter entry wound holes from a .22 rifle...
Yet, several of the bullet entry wounds on some of the victims are confirmed as having been 1/2 inch in diameter. Now, considering that almost every wound on every victim has been described as being 'contact' or 'near contact' in nature, how is it possible for a bullet to start 'yawing' to such a significant extent immediately upon exiting the .22 rifles barrel?
It can't have done...
A different gun, other than the .22 anshuzt rifle fired the bullets which made the 1/2 inch diameter wounds, there can be no doubt whatsoever, about that...
According to the Pathologists (Venezis) witness statement, dated, 30th September, 1985, he described the dimensions of the following bullet entry wounds as being precisely 1/2 inch :-
Ralph Bamber ..
Page 6 - (3) 1/2 inch
Page 6 - (4) 1/2 inch, and 1/2 inch
Page 7 - (8) 1/2 inch graze
June Bamber ..
Page 13 - (8) 1/2 inch
Daniel Caffell ..
Page 15 - (second para') 1/2 inch
-
Full list of bullet entry wound 'DIMENSIONS' to all victims:-
Sheila Caffell..
Page 2 - (last para') 3/16 inch (1)
Page 3 - (second para') 1/4 inch (1)
Ralph Bamber
Page 6 - (1) 3/16 inch (2)
Page 6 - (2) 3/16 inch (3)
Page 6 - (3) 1/2 inch (1)
Page 6 - (4) 1/2 inch (2) and 1/2 inch (3)
Page 7 - (5) 5/16 inch (1)
Page 7 - (6) 5/16 inch (2)
Page 7 - (7) 3/16 inch (4)
Page 7 - (8) 1/2 inch graze near left elbow
June Bamber
Page 11 - (1) 3/16 inch (5)
Page 12 - (2) 3/16 inch (6)
Page 12 - (3) 1/4 inch (2)
Page 12 - (4) 3/16 inch (7)
Page 12 - (6) 3/16 inch (8)
Page 13 - (7) 1/2 inch (4)
Daniel Caffell
Page 15 - (first para') all 5 were 3/16 inch's (9 to 13)
Page 15 - (second para) 1/2 inch exit wound
Page 15 - (second para) 5/16 inch exit wound
Nicholas's Caffell
Page 16 - (fourth para') 3/16 inch (14)
Page 16 - (fourth para') 3/16 inch (15)
Page 16 - ( fourth para') 3/16 inch (16)
Page 16 - (fifth para') 3/8 inch exit wound
-
Essex police originally took an interest in the following weapons in connection with this investigation:-
(1) - a police issue weapon and accessories, ammunition
(2) - anshuzt rifle, accessories, and .22 ammunition
(3) - Bruno rifle, accessories, and .22 ammunition
(4) - BSA air rifle, and pellets
(5) - 12 bore shot gun, and a spent Raker cartridge
-
It was pointed out to DS Davidson during his COLP interview, that the silencer (item 22) had originally been item 12, but that somebody had altered this. Davidson did not know whom?
Relevance being that items (1) to (12) were recovered from the scene on the first day of the investigation, for example, at the same time when DS 'Stan' Jones took possession of the first silencer (SBJ/1) and the other exhibits (SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4). This seems to suggest that the silencer (SBJ/1) recovered at the scene on 7th August 1985 by DS 'Stan' Jones originally had the item number of 12, and that the silencer SJ/1 handed to 'Ron' Cook on the 13th August 1985, from Peter Eaton was numbered 22...
-
It was pointed out to DS Davidson during his COLP interview, that the silencer (item 22) had originally been item 12, but that somebody had altered this. Davidson did not know whom?
Relevance being that items (1) to (12) were recovered from the scene on the first day of the investigation, for example, at the same time when DS 'Stan' Jones took possession of the first silencer (SBJ/1) and the other exhibits (SBJ/2, SBJ/3, and SBJ/4). This seems to suggest that the silencer (SBJ/1) recovered at the scene on 7th August 1985 by DS 'Stan' Jones originally had the item number of 12, and that the silencer SJ/1 handed to 'Ron' Cook on the 13th August 1985, from Peter Eaton was numbered 22...
-
DS Davidson lied about his involvement with 'the' silencer. He told a deliberate lie because he knew that if he had admitted to fingerprinting 'it' along with DS Eastwood on the 13th September 1885, the ' game would be up'. Since, why were they re-fingerprinting 'the' silencer on the 13th September, when in the first instance cops didn't have the silencer (DB/1) in their possession at that stage, they had supposedly sent DB/1 to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, and the ballistic expert had allegedly discovered the loose flake inside it. In addition, 'Ron' Cook had already fingerprinted the silencer, once by oblique light test on the 15th August 1985, and second by superglue treatment on the 23rd August 1985. So, why would Davidson and Eastwood be flogging a dead horse red fingerprinting it yet again on the 13th September 1985?
Davidson, lied about the role he and DS Eastwood have played in the silencer substitution process...
Here is one document which places DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to the substitution silencer (DRB/1)...
'Hands up', the game is over...
-
On the 13th August 1985, one of 'Glynis Howards' assistants (S. R. BAKER) discovered 'three different types of animals blood' on the silencer tubing...
Glynis Howard contacted Essex police on the 14th August 1985, and told them that she had detected human blood (stain 1) on the silencer, but omitted to say that there were also three different types of animal blood on it as well as 'Rabbit' (stain 1 and stain 2), dog (stain 2) and hen (unspecified stain) blood...
It therefore falls to be taken into account, that even from as early as the 13th August 1985, that Glynis Howards assistant, 'S. R. BAKER', had identified a potential conflict involving stain 1 on the silencer, by confirming that the blood could have been either (a) animal blood (rabbit), or human blood, in particular, we are primary talking about a presence of the 'AK1' enzyme which is exactly the same in humans and 'rabbits blood'...
-
On the 13th September 1985, Human blood, and the blood from one animal (dog) was detected on the silencer...
A different assistant on this occasion ('A BIRCH')...
Human
Dog
Hen?
-
How utterly remarkable, that two different assistants ('BAKER' and 'BIRCH') confirm the presence of animal bloods on the silencer on both the 13th August, and the 13th September 1985, and nobody remembers to tell the defence about this? Worse still, the jury were not given this vital information either...
Was it of interest that, for example, one of the four blood groups enzymes detected in the flake (AK1) belonged to both animals (rabbits), and humans?
Of course'it was', but the court was not told about it by the blood experts, 'Glynis Howard', or 'John Hayward', but had they been, the jury would have surely been warned about relying upon the AK1 type blood found inside the silencer in the form of the flake, because it was a 50 / 50 chance of 'it' being animal blood, or human blood. A feature strengthened by the presence of rabbits blood found on the outside of the same silencer...
That would have left the prosecution, and the defence with only three blood group results to argue with, A, EAP BA and HP 2-1...
Of course it would have made a huge difference, since it then became an equal possibility for these three blood results to have originated from both June Bamber or Sheila Caffell, or both of them, or an intimate mixture of June Bambers and Ralph Bambers blood, or Ralph Bambers and Sheila Caffells bloods. Certainly not the nailed on certainty that was presented to the court at trial, along the lines of it belonged 'exclusively' to Sheila Caffell...
So, the blood experts, Howard and Hayward, along with their assistants BAKER and BIRCH, sought to deceive the court, and it worked in favour of the prosecutions case to a treat, a dishonest treat...
-
How utterly remarkable, that two different assistants ('BAKER' and 'BIRCH') confirm the presence of animal bloods on the silencer on both the 13th August, and the 13th September 1985, and nobody remembers to tell the defence about this? Worse still, the jury were not given this vital information either...
Was it of interest that, for example, one of the four blood groups enzymes detected in the flake (AK1) belonged to both animals (rabbits), and humans?
Of course'it was', but the court was not told about it by the blood experts, 'Glynis Howard', or 'John Hayward', but had they been, the jury would have surely been warned about relying upon the AK1 type blood found inside the silencer in the form of the flake, because it was a 50 / 50 chance of 'it' being animal blood, or human blood. A feature strengthened by the presence of rabbits blood found on the outside of the same silencer...
That would have left the prosecution, and the defence with only three blood group results to argue with, A, EAP BA and HP 2-1...
Of course it would have made a huge difference, since it then became an equal possibility for these three blood results to have originated from both June Bamber or Sheila Caffell, or both of them, or an intimate mixture of June Bambers and Ralph Bambers blood, or Ralph Bambers and Sheila Caffells bloods. Certainly not the nailed on certainty that was presented to the court at trial, along the lines of it belonged 'exclusively' to Sheila Caffell...
So, the blood experts, Howard and Hayward, along with their assistants BAKER and BIRCH, sought to deceive the court, and it worked in favour of the prosecutions case to a treat, a dishonest treat...
The documents I have posted stand testimony to the fact that the blood experts knew about the presence of animals blood upon and inside the silencer, yet this vital information was deliberately concealed from the court which tried the case. We now know that the blood of the flake was 'not unique', it was 'not exclusive' to Sheila Caffell...
There has clearly been a massive deception involving the interpretation of the blood group results by the prosecutions blood experts, and their assistants...
Heads must roll, somebody has to be seen to be made accountable for carrying out this deception...
-
A Report...
-
...
-
A Report...
....By whom?
-
....By whom?
Presumably, by someone named 'Roland Topping', otherwise, 'unknown'. I just found this material amongst the 50,000 doc's in my possession (sorry I can't be of any further assistance on that point). I am merely posting it because it is contained in the material in my possession, and I shall be commenting upon its contents in due course, to 'rectify' errors contained within it, which have come to light since the author of 'it' put pen to paper, as it were (or to be more precise, typed it out). I am just in the process of formatting the 'other' page contents, which I hope to upload to the forum within the next hour, or so...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
just heard from my contact in ep mike,the person says theres nothing in the evidence that they hold ,that could free jb or even lead to another appeal,anything that could cause doubt have been destroyed,also to stop any embarasment to the officers that worked on the case,they go on to say all jb's team can do is find the officer responsible for destroying evidence and charge him ,'if he is still alive' :)
-
According to this version of David Boutflours witness statement, dated, 17th November, 1985 - he gave exhibits DRB/1 (sound moderator), along with guns (exhibit references missing), and ammunition (DRB/3 and DRB/4), to Annie and Peter Eaton, stating that when he handed these over to Mr and Mrs Eaton, that it already included the telescopic sight (DRB/2)...
None of the items supposedly taken from the scene by the relatives on the 10th August 1985, had 'DRB' exhibit references, this is evidence that the cops and the relatives were responsible for 'cooking the books', and merging different items which came to light much later but which were written into the script dishonestly, as though the items in question had always had that particular exhibit reference. The so called sound moderator, for example, was 'not always' 'DRB/1'. It was referred to as 'SJ/1', at one time, as 'SBJ/1', at another time, and 'DB/1' on other occasions. We know that PI 'Bob' MILLER was responsible for notifying officers to alter exhibit reference numbers in existing witness statements. MILLER it was who was the brains behind the plot to merge different sound moderators, into only one...
Annie Eaton handed over all the 'DRB/1' exhibits to DC OAKEY on the 11th September, 1985...
-
In an effort to try and disguise what the relatives had done with 'that' silencer on the 11th September, 1985, all the other exhibits bar the sound moderator, were given different exhibit references, such as AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4, and or CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, and HGO/1(a), from originally being, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 - the sound moderator kept 'its' original exhibit reference 'DRB/1', which subsequently was slotted into the diary where ever one or other of the other silencers had been handed over, transported to the lab', fingerprinted, etc, etc, etc...
-
The finding of a toy gun alongside an empty tampon packet in the living room, by Annie Eaton, perhaps give an insight into what Sheila was thinking about in the build up to the tragedy...
-
just heard from my contact in ep mike,the person says theres nothing in the evidence that they hold ,that could free jb or even lead to another appeal,anything that could cause doubt have been destroyed,also to stop any embarasment to the officers that worked on the case,they go on to say all jb's team can do is find the officer responsible for destroying evidence and charge him ,'if he is still alive' :)
case closed! ::) ::)
-
Overtime bill - 'Cops put in extra shifts to frame Bamber'...
-
Overtime bill - 'Cops put in extra shifts to frame Bamber'...
Who is 'Patrick' McDonald? ;D
-
The finding of a toy gun alongside an empty tampon packet in the living room, by Annie Eaton, perhaps give an insight into what Sheila was thinking about in the build up to the tragedy...
what was she thinking of mike,with the above in her mind,i cant see the connection
-
Who is 'Patrick' McDonald? ;D
Just shows you that even 'thick' cops, don't even know who they are talking about, but they still falsify the evidence, no matter what or when they are put under pressure...
-
Just shows you that even 'thick' cops, don't even know who they are talking about, but they still falsify the evidence, no matter what or when they are put under pressure...
Well, it does show that they make admin errors and get things wrong.
-
Who is 'Patrick' McDonald? ;D
That's the real hitman Jeremy hired all along! :o ;D
-
what was she thinking of mike,with the above in her mind,i cant see the connection
The picture I have of her in my minds eye, whilst she was alone and isolated in the living room where she obviously felt comfortable enough to insert a tampon without being disturbed, and the sudden realisation of her 'impending menstrual period', heavily bloodstained knickers which she had removed there in the living room, must have been one of the triggers which set the circumstances of these shootings into motion. The sudden realisation that she had started to bleed, that she had sat there, or stood there, already brooding, and angry inside, about any suggestion that her parents were going to find a care home so that she could be professionally looked after, and separated from her two young children. There in the living room, in a private moment, a moment of pain, anguish, changes which were taking effect in her body, her attempt to bring sort of sanity to the developments, removal of her bloodied undergarment, the tearing open of the tampon holder, her inserting it with use of one hand, and one of her boys toy gun in the other. Then, after replacing the empty tampon holder on the table, she laid the toy gun down alongside it, before then making her way toward the kitchen, where she placed her heavily bloodstained knickers in a bucket there which had already got other items of clothing soaking in it, belonging to her two boys. After depositing her bloodstained undergarment there in the soak, her attention was drawn to the pile of loose bullets upon the kitchen worktop. Real bullets, loads and loads of real bullets, there in front of her. Where was the gun? If she could find the rifle, she could load it with real bullets just like Jeremy had showed her, where was the rifle? Out she went through the door which connected the main kitchen to the back kitchen in the location of the downstairs office, and the back door entrance to the farmhouse. As she passed through the aforementioned opening to her right was a wooden settle, upon which she captured sight of the rifle. She picked it up, realising that this was 'not a toy', but the real thing, she could do people real harm with this in her possession, she thought...
-
Well, it does show that they make admin errors and get things wrong.
Just extend 'admin' errors', and it doesn't take much to realise that these buffoons also make defendant errors, on an equally large scale...
-
The picture I have of her in my minds eye, whilst she was alone and isolated in the living room where she obviously felt comfortable enough to insert a tampon without being disturbed, and the sudden realisation of her 'impending menstrual period', heavily bloodstained knickers which she had removed there in the living room, must have been one of the triggers which set the circumstances of these shootings into motion. The sudden realisation that she had started to bleed, that she had sat there, or stood there, already brooding, and angry inside, about any suggestion that her parents were going to find a care home so that she could be professionally looked after, and separated from her two young children. There in the living room, in a private moment, a moment of pain, anguish, changes which were taking effect in her body, her attempt to bring sort of sanity to the developments, removal of her bloodied undergarment, the tearing open of the tampon holder, her inserting it with use of one hand, and one of her boys toy gun in the other. Then, after replacing the empty tampon holder on the table, she laid the toy gun down alongside it, before then making her way toward the kitchen, where she placed her heavily bloodstained knickers in a bucket there which had already got other items of clothing soaking in it, belonging to her two boys. After depositing her bloodstained undergarment there in the soak, her attention was drawn to the pile of loose bullets upon the kitchen worktop. Real bullets, loads and loads of real bullets, there in front of her. Where was the gun? If she could find the rifle, she could load it with real bullets just like Jeremy had showed her, where was the rifle? Out she went through the door which connected the main kitchen to the back kitchen in the location of the downstairs office, and the back door entrance to the farmhouse. As she passed through the aforementioned opening to her right was a wooden settle, upon which she captured sight of the rifle. She picked it up, realising that this was 'not a toy', but the real thing, she could do people real harm with this in her possession, she thought...
i see
-
Baxendale Report:-
-
The picture I have of her in my minds eye, whilst she was alone and isolated in the living room where she obviously felt comfortable enough to insert a tampon without being disturbed, and the sudden realisation of her 'impending menstrual period', heavily bloodstained knickers which she had removed there in the living room, must have been one of the triggers which set the circumstances of these shootings into motion. The sudden realisation that she had started to bleed, that she had sat there, or stood there, already brooding, and angry inside, about any suggestion that her parents were going to find a care home so that she could be professionally looked after, and separated from her two young children. There in the living room, in a private moment, a moment of pain, anguish, changes which were taking effect in her body, her attempt to bring sort of sanity to the developments, removal of her bloodied undergarment, the tearing open of the tampon holder, her inserting it with use of one hand, and one of her boys toy gun in the other. Then, after replacing the empty tampon holder on the table, she laid the toy gun down alongside it, before then making her way toward the kitchen, where she placed her heavily bloodstained knickers in a bucket there which had already got other items of clothing soaking in it, belonging to her two boys. After depositing her bloodstained undergarment there in the soak, her attention was drawn to the pile of loose bullets upon the kitchen worktop. Real bullets, loads and loads of real bullets, there in front of her. Where was the gun? If she could find the rifle, she could load it with real bullets just like Jeremy had showed her, where was the rifle? Out she went through the door which connected the main kitchen to the back kitchen in the location of the downstairs office, and the back door entrance to the farmhouse. As she passed through the aforementioned opening to her right was a wooden settle, upon which she captured sight of the rifle. She picked it up, realising that this was 'not a toy', but the real thing, she could do people real harm with this in her possession, she thought...
Sheila must have known the difference between St. Andrew's and a Bournemouth care home. The boys were going to Norway with their dad for a holiday so she would get a rest of sorts; this was never a permanent arrangement. As for the bullets, there were too many left to have any connection with the massacre, so obviously staged as had Nevill seen them he would have put them out of harm's way along
with this gun which Jeremy so carelessly left out, yet never expressed any regret about so doing, his hallmark trademark of never apologizing for anything..
-
Sheila must have known the difference between St. Andrew's and a Bournemouth care home. The boys were going to Norway with their dad for a holiday so she would get a rest of sorts; this was never a permanent arrangement. As for the bullets, there were too many left to have any connection with the massacre, so obviously staged as had Nevill seen them he would have put them out of harm's way along
with this gun which Jeremy so carelessly left out, yet never expressed any regret about so doing, his hallmark trademark of never apologizing for anything..
yes i agree steve,also the bullets were right next to the phone june was useing to talk to her sister after jb had left ,she surely would heve seen them while on the phone and removed them from worktop and put them somewhere safe :)
-
yes i agree steve,also the bullets were right next to the phone june was useing to talk to her sister after jb had left ,she surely would heve seen them while on the phone and removed them from worktop and put them somewhere safe :)
Yes the bedroom telephone had been moved, hadn't it..
-
yes i agree steve,also the bullets were right next to the phone june was useing to talk to her sister after jb had left ,she surely would heve seen them while on the phone and removed them from worktop and put them somewhere safe :)
Excellent point Sami!
-
Sheila must have known the difference between St. Andrew's and a Bournemouth care home. The boys were going to Norway with their dad for a holiday so she would get a rest of sorts; this was never a permanent arrangement. As for the bullets, there were too many left to have any connection with the massacre, so obviously staged as had Nevill seen them he would have put them out of harm's way along
with this gun which Jeremy so carelessly left out, yet never expressed any regret about so doing, his hallmark trademark of never apologizing for anything..
The relatives knew more than they have let on about June Bambers intention to try to find a care home where Sheila would be looked after, whilst her boys were away with their father in the planned Norway trip. But with Sheila being paranoid she must have believed that that was the last time she would probably ever see her children again. She must have reflected upon the circumstances of her own life, and how she herself had been whisked away to become the adopted child of the Bambers. Everything that Jeremy said he had overheard his parents and Sheila talking about that night at the supper table was absolutely true. Foster carers had in the past been brought in to help Sheila to cope with looking after her two boys. And, Pamela her sister had spoken to June Bamber at around 10pm that night and been told by June that she thought there was 'something wrong' with Sheila. So much so, that between them they had arranged to visit Pamela on the following afternoon for tea and a chat with a view of trying to sort something out...
Cops say 20 bullets that were missing from that box of ammunition on the worktop had been used during the shootings, so obviously based on what Jeremy had already said about loading bullets into the gun from a new box of ammunition, Sheila must have taken an interest in at least 10 of the bullets that were there on the side, or possibly as many as 15 such bullets if you choose to believe the 'one gun' crime presented by cops. We now know that a lack of lead deposit upon Sheila's hands from the examination of the hand swabs does not exclude her from having handled or loaded bullets into the magazine of the rifle. The higher levels of lead deposit on the testees hands now having a different meaning associated to them than at the time of the trial, because of the delay between the timing of the hand swabs that were taken from Sheila on the 7th August 1985, and the actual time these were eventually analysed on the 29th October, 1985, and the relatively short delay between the time when the testees hands had been swabbed, and then analysed? The key to unlocking that particular mystery, being the use of 'petroleum ether' with and upon swabs and rates of its evaporation...
It can no longer be relied upon by anybody to suggest that Sheila had 'not handled any bullets' that night. It can now be established scientifically that Sheila could have handled the bullets necessary to enable her to have been accountable for the deaths of the other four victims...
And, she was...
-
That really is a an excellent point Sami, so simple but I don't think anyone has mentioned it before.
-
yes i agree steve,also the bullets were right next to the phone june was useing to talk to her sister after jb had left ,she surely would heve seen them while on the phone and removed them from worktop and put them somewhere safe :)
Pause, for a moment, think carefully about what you are saying, why would June Bamber have put the bullets away at the time she was speaking to her sister Pamela at around 10 pm that night? Sheila also used the phone to have a sort of one sided exchange with her auntie Pam, which is all the more reason why her mind turned to the idea of shooting her family. She saw the bullets, on the worktop close to the telephone that Sheila at one stage had in her hand.
-
The relatives knew more than they have let on about June Bambers intention to try to find a care home where Sheila would be looked after, whilst her boys were away with their father in the planned Norway trip. But with Sheila being paranoid she must have believed that that was the last time she would probably ever see her children again. She must have reflected upon the circumstances of her own life, and how she herself had been whisked away to become the adopted child of the Bambers. Everything that Jeremy said he had overheard his parents and Sheila talking about that night at the supper table was absolutely true. Foster carers had in the past been brought in to help Sheila to cope with looking after her two boys. And, Pamela her sister had spoken to June Bamber at around 10pm that night and been told by June that she thought there was 'something wrong' with Sheila. So much so, that between them they had arranged to visit Pamela on the following afternoon for tea and a chat with a view of trying to sort something out...
Cops say 20 bullets that were missing from that box of ammunition on the worktop had been used during the shootings, so obviously based on what Jeremy had already said about loading bullets into the gun from a new box of ammunition, Sheila must have taken an interest in at least 10 of the bullets that were there on the side, or possibly as many as 15 such bullets if you choose to believe the 'one gun' crime presented by cops. We now know that a lack of lead deposit upon Sheila's hands from the examination of the hand swabs does not exclude her from having handled or loaded bullets into the magazine of the rifle. The higher levels of lead deposit on the testees hands now having a different meaning associated to them than at the time of the trial, because of the delay between the timing of the hand swabs that were taken from Sheila on the 7th August 1985, and the actual time these were eventually analysed on the 29th October, 1985, and the relatively short delay between the time when the testees hands had been swabbed, and then analysed? The key to unlocking that particular mystery, being the use of 'petroleum ether' with and upon swabs and rates of its evaporation...
It can no longer be relied upon by anybody to suggest that Sheila had 'not handled any bullets' that night. It can now be established scientifically that Sheila could have handled the bullets necessary to enable her to have been accountable for the deaths of the other four victims...
And, she was...
we are not talking about lead deposits,she should have had parafin WAX ON HER HANDS,just like the testees did
-
Pause, for a moment, think carefully about what you are saying, why would June Bamber have put the bullets away at the time she was speaking to her sister Pamela at around 10 pm that night? Sheila also used the phone to have a sort of one sided exchange with her auntie Pam, which is all the more reason why her mind turned to the idea of shooting her family. She saw the bullets, on the worktop close to the telephone that Sheila at one stage had in her hand.
again mike i disagree june spoke first and would have spotted the bullets so we can just as easily say after handing the phone to sheila she picked up the bullets and placed them in a safe place,after all the twins were staying :)
-
again mike i disagree june spoke first and would have spotted the bullets so we can just as easily say after handing the phone to sheila she picked up the bullets and placed them in a safe place,after all the twins were staying :)
Or asked Nevill to.
-
Or asked Nevill to.
thats correct caroline :)
-
again mike i disagree june spoke first and would have spotted the bullets so we can just as easily say after handing the phone to sheila she picked up the bullets and placed them in a safe place,after all the twins were staying :)
June Bamber did not have any lead deposits found on her hands, neither did Ralph Bamber, so are you trying to suggest that June, or Ralph both wore gloves when they handled the bullets, in your scenario?
-
we are not talking about lead deposits,she should have had parafin WAX ON HER HANDS,just like the testees did
Lead deposits was the prosecution argument at trial, which if you would take the care to read what Dr Lloyd had to say in his report, was nothing but a red herring. No tests were done for the presence of parrafin wax on either the testees or Sheila, or June, or Ralph...
-
June Bamber did not have any lead deposits found on her hands, neither did Ralph Bamber, so are you trying to suggest that June, or Ralph both wore gloves when they handled the bullets, in your scenario?
not at all ,iam saying there were no bullets on the worktop jb planted them there before leaving
-
Maybe you have seen evidence that parrafin wax was found upon June or Ralph Bambers hands to confirm, as your scenario suggests that one or other parent handled the bullets at around or shortly after 10pm, on the last night they would ever spend on this earth together...
if so, post up the evidence, lets see it...
-
not at all ,iam saying there were no bullets on the worktop jb planted them there before leaving
Hang on a minute, why would he do that?
-
Hang on a minute, why would he do that?
There were no rabbits, there was no rifle left on the settle and no bullets spilled out onto the blue and white chequered worktop. Jeremy, according to Julie, was the instigator of a story round the kitchen table that the next time she fell ill she would be incarcerated in an NHS hospital and not private care. Sheila wrote her last diary entry entitled "I didn't mean to be horrible to Jeremy" but apart from that we know nothing save there was no emergency around 10pm when Pamela Boutflour rang and Jeremy had ostensibly left.
-
June Bamber did not have any lead deposits found on her hands, neither did Ralph Bamber, so are you trying to suggest that June, or Ralph both wore gloves when they handled the bullets, in your scenario?
and why should they have had,ive already told you they never touched any bullets because there was non on the counter :)
-
There were no rabbits, there was no rifle left on the settle and no bullets spilled out onto the blue and white chequered worktop. Jeremy, according to Julie, was the instigator of a story round the kitchen table that the next time she fell ill she would be incarcerated in an NHS hospital and not private care. Sheila wrote her last diary entry entitled "I didn't mean to be horrible to Jeremy" but apart from that we know nothing save there was no emergency around 10pm when Pamela Boutflour rang and Jeremy had ostensibly left.
thats a good summing up ,steve
-
we are not talking about lead deposits,she should have had parafin WAX ON HER HANDS,just like the testees did
Not if her hands were contaminated with blood
-
Hang on a minute, why would he do that?
what do you think why
-
Not if her hands were contaminated with blood
if so,why was there no blood on the rifle :)) :))
-
if so,why was there no blood on the rifle :)) :))
there was
-
There were no rabbits, there was no rifle left on the settle and no bullets spilled out onto the blue and white chequered worktop. Jeremy, according to Julie, was the instigator of a story round the kitchen table that the next time she fell ill she would be incarcerated in an NHS hospital and not private care. Sheila wrote her last diary entry entitled "I didn't mean to be horrible to Jeremy" but apart from that we know nothing save there was no emergency around 10pm when Pamela Boutflour rang and Jeremy had ostensibly left.
You obviously have not read the COLP versions of all the relatives evidence, maybe you should take time to read the now known facts. Yes, there was an air of worry in the tone of June Bambers voice when she spoke to her sister late that last evening. Ralph was also abrupt on the telephone around the same time - Jeremy had left the farmhouse by that stage, Sheila had sank back into the far corners of her own mind, was untalkative, brooding, and evasive. Sheila's handbag was also on the kitchen worktop, near the telephone, and the bullets. Why would Jeremy tip 30 bullets out onto the kitchen worktop after he supposedly shot and killed everyone?
Some of the bullets were partially covered by an overlaying packet...
-
You obviously have not read the COLP versions of all the relatives evidence, maybe you should take time to read the now known facts. Yes, there was an air of worry in the tone of June Bambers voice when she spoke to her sister late that last evening. Ralph was also abrupt on the telephone around the same time - Jeremy had left the farmhouse by that stage, Sheila had sank back into the far corners of her own mind, was untalkative, brooding, and evasive. Sheila's handbag was also on the kitchen worktop, near the telephone, and the bullets. Why would Jeremy tip 30 bullets out onto the kitchen worktop after he supposedly shot and killed everyone?
Some of the bullets were partially covered by an overlaying packet...
maybe you can explain where she got the extra bullets from
-
June Bamber did not have any lead deposits found on her hands, neither did Ralph Bamber, so are you trying to suggest that June, or Ralph both wore gloves when they handled the bullets, in your scenario?
Of course she didn't because they were never there in the first place - least not at that point.
-
Hang on a minute, why would he do that?
Because of his scenario that he had seen the rabbits etc.
-
Of course she didn't because they were never there in the first place - least not at that point.
exactly caroline
-
there was
On the trigger?
-
there was
your saying there was blooded prints on the rifle
-
what do you think why
By your scenario, Jeremy would have to be so devious and clever to 'plant' the bullets on the kitchen worktop, with exactly 30 remaining bullets, set against the fact that there are 50 bullets in a newly opened box, and 25 rounds fired during the incident, with five of the corresponding bullet cases bearing double magazine marks indicating that at least 5 of the 25 shots fired came from a different source, and yet the same Jeremy supposedly hid the silencer away in a cupboard in the den containing all the damned blood and paint evidence that was visible to the naked eye. The two scenarios do not sit well together, it couldn't have happened like your suggesting, unless of course that Jeremy had been Sheila's accomplice...
But he wasn't, because 'Ralph Neville' was...
-
By your scenario, Jeremy would have to be so devious and clever to 'plant' the bullets on the kitchen worktop, with exactly 30 remaining bullets, set against the fact that there are 50 bullets in a newly opened box, and 25 rounds fired during the incident, with five of the corresponding bullet cases bearing double magazine marks indicating that at least 5 of the 25 shots fired came from a different source, and yet the same Jeremy supposedly hid the silencer away in a cupboard in the den containing all the damned blood and paint evidence that was visible to the naked eye. The two scenarios do not sit well together, it couldn't have happened like your suggesting, unless of course that Jeremy had been Sheila's accomplice...
But he wasn't, because 'Ralph Neville' was...
He wasn't clever at all - that's why he got caught.
-
You obviously have not read the COLP versions of all the relatives evidence, maybe you should take time to read the now known facts. Yes, there was an air of worry in the tone of June Bambers voice when she spoke to her sister late that last evening. Ralph was also abrupt on the telephone around the same time - Jeremy had left the farmhouse by that stage, Sheila had sank back into the far corners of her own mind, was untalkative, brooding, and evasive. Sheila's handbag was also on the kitchen worktop, near the telephone, and the bullets. Why would Jeremy tip 30 bullets out onto the kitchen worktop after he supposedly shot and killed everyone?
Some of the bullets were partially covered by an overlaying packet...
post the statement of pamela saying there was a air of worry in junes tone,any arguement that night involved jb not sheila
-
He wasn't clever at all - that's why he got caught.
I disagree, he didn't get caught as you put it, the relatives, bent cops, and dodgy experts framed him with the silencer, blood and paint evidence. Today, there exists no scientific evidence which proves his culpability in these murders...
-
post the statement of pamela saying there was a air of worry in junes tone,any arguement that night involved jb not sheila
No, I won't because I don't like your tone...
-
You obviously have not read the COLP versions of all the relatives evidence, maybe you should take time to read the now known facts. Yes, there was an air of worry in the tone of June Bambers voice when she spoke to her sister late that last evening. Ralph was also abrupt on the telephone around the same time - Jeremy had left the farmhouse by that stage, Sheila had sank back into the far corners of her own mind, was untalkative, brooding, and evasive. Sheila's handbag was also on the kitchen worktop, near the telephone, and the bullets. Why would Jeremy tip 30 bullets out onto the kitchen worktop after he supposedly shot and killed everyone?
Some of the bullets were partially covered by an overlaying packet...
Does anyone know what that packet is? my first guess was a packet of crisps but I think it may be too small
(http://homepages.bw.edu/~jcurtis/Golden_Wonder_comics_crisps_packs.gif)
-
I am not uploading any more material until I am ready too...
-
Does anyone know what that packet is? my first guess was a packet of crisps but I think it may be too small
(http://homepages.bw.edu/~jcurtis/Golden_Wonder_comics_crisps_packs.gif)
Does it have 'WILKINSONS' on it?
-
No, I won't because I don't like your tone...
By your scenario, Jeremy would have to be so devious and clever to 'plant' the bullets on the kitchen worktop, with exactly 30 remaining bullets, set against the fact that there are 50 bullets in a newly opened box, and 25 rounds fired during the incident, with five of the corresponding bullet cases bearing double magazine marks indicating that at least 5 of the 25 shots fired came from a different source, and yet the same Jeremy supposedly hid the silencer away in a cupboard in the den containing all the damned blood and paint evidence that was visible to the naked eye. The two scenarios do not sit well together, it couldn't have happened like your suggesting, unless of course that Jeremy had been Sheila's accomplice...
But he wasn't, because 'Ralph Neville' was...
why did jb's team not mention it in court that 5 of the 25 bullets were not fired by that rifle,you would think something like that would be mentioned
-
No, I won't because I don't like your tone...
no its junes tone we are interested in :)
-
Does anyone know what that packet is? my first guess was a packet of crisps but I think it may be too small
(http://homepages.bw.edu/~jcurtis/Golden_Wonder_comics_crisps_packs.gif)
whats your point on the packets
-
I disagree, he didn't get caught as you put it, the relatives, bent cops, and dodgy experts framed him with the silencer, blood and paint evidence. Today, there exists no scientific evidence which proves his culpability in these murders...
and the same goes for sheila,not a hair of evidence against her :)
-
Does anyone know what that packet is? my first guess was a packet of crisps but I think it may be too small
(http://homepages.bw.edu/~jcurtis/Golden_Wonder_comics_crisps_packs.gif)
Looks like the packaging says 'Whitworths chopped .......' and the contents look like some kind of nuts (maybe).
-
and the same goes for sheila,not a hair of evidence against her :)
That's not what the original investigation concluded, in fact all the evidence pointed to her culpability...
Once the investigation changed after the relatives influenced the cops to arrest Jeremy, false photographic records were presented, exhibits tampered with in a variety of different ways, and lies told about the bloodstained feet, and the bloodstained hand of Sheila. Lies told about lead deposit levels found on the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell which were wrongly portrayed as only meaning that she could not have handled any bullets before she herself had died. Bullets and empty cartridge cases from the crime scene interfered with so as to present the investigation as a one gun crime. The bodies of the victims moved around by cops during a training exercise with the bodies of the victims still insitu...
Freemason involvement changed the course of the police investigation, with Robert Boutflour, Mick Ainsley, Peter Simpson, and Morris Drake (all mason's from the same lodge) at the heart of the conspiracy...
-
What is highly significant is the 'fact' that human blood and animal bloods were found on the outside of the silencer which David Boutflour and the other relatives extricated from the crime scene. We know, for example, that David Boutflour physically handled this silencer without wearing gloves. We know this because other relatives of his witnessed him handling this silencer, along with the Executor of thhe estate, Basil John Cock, and the house cleaner, Jean Boutell. In addition, David Boutflour openly admitted both in all the versions of his witness statements that he made,and whilst testifying during the trial, that he 'handled' that silencer...
A Silencer which had 'blood' of varying sources all over it, as specified in the Lab' diagram, dated, the 13th August 1985...
One paint stain
Four blood stains...
-
So, we have David Boutflour, either handling a silencer which had allready got these key bloodstains, and the paint, or else the blood was on his hands when he picked up the silencer from inside the gun cupboard, and of course, the paint was added to the silencer much later. Boutflour himself has gone on record as stating that 'I tried to unscrew the cap from the end of the silencer to look inside, but it was screwed on too tightly'...
He must have had his hands against parts of the silencer in order to try to 'unscrew' the cap from it (in my opinion). One hand at the top, the other hand at the bottom of the silencer in question. Funny how the silencer was contaminated with blood at both ends where David Boutflours hands must have been when he performed his, 'I must look inside the silencer', trick that he is on record as boasting about...
-
Now, lets look at these four different stained areas that are documented on the outside of the silencer - we need to make sure that what we are talking about is accurately considered. The positioning of these four areas of bloodstaining were not documented as being present upon the silencer until 'Ron' Cook had taken it to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, and Glynis Howard, had examined it, and recorded the positioning of the four bloodstains that we are now interested in, on a diagram...
-
The relatives knew more than they have let on about June Bambers intention to try to find a care home where Sheila would be looked after, whilst her boys were away with their father in the planned Norway trip. But with Sheila being paranoid she must have believed that that was the last time she would probably ever see her children again. She must have reflected upon the circumstances of her own life, and how she herself had been whisked away to become the adopted child of the Bambers. Everything that Jeremy said he had overheard his parents and Sheila talking about that night at the supper table was absolutely true. Foster carers had in the past been brought in to help Sheila to cope with looking after her two boys. And, Pamela her sister had spoken to June Bamber at around 10pm that night and been told by June that she thought there was 'something wrong' with Sheila. So much so, that between them they had arranged to visit Pamela on the following afternoon for tea and a chat with a view of trying to sort something out...
What you say about the relatives' knowledge of Sheila's illness is quite contrary to what Colin says of it -ALL of which is well documented- and it seems to me that you have no proof of any of the above, OTHER than using Jeremy as your source!!!!! I believe June's words to her sister were more along the lines of her being concerned about Sheila and her lack of interest/involvement than stating that there was "something wrong" with her per se and there was no visit arranged to specifically "sort things out," as you put it, because it's quite plausible that Pam, as with Ann, had known nothing of Sheila's illness and recent hospitalisation.
-
Here are the results of tests on these four stained areas, as analysed by Glynis Howrads assistant, A. BAKER, on the 13th August 1985...
Stain (1) - human / rabbit?
Stain (2) - rabbit?
Stain (3) - dog?
Stain (4) - hen?
The key significance are the result obtained from the examination of the stained (1) area on the flat surface of the silencers (top) end cap, where the blood found there belonged to, or had originated from either a mixture of rabbits and human blood (inclusive of the shared identical AK/1 enzyme), or human blood (containing its own human equivilent of the AK/1 enzyme)...
-
What you say about the relatives' knowledge of Sheila's illness is quite contrary to what Colin says of it -ALL of which is well documented- and it seems to me that you have no proof of any of the above, OTHER than using Jeremy as your source!!!!! I believe June's words to her sister were more along the lines of her being concerned about Sheila and her lack of interest/involvement than stating that there was "something wrong" with her per se and there was no visit arranged to specifically "sort things out," as you put it, because it's quite plausible that Pam, as with Ann, had known nothing of Sheila's illness and recent hospitalisation.
I have all the documentary proof required to support what I am saying, but I won't be posting it up for general reading until I am ready too...
-
This is the stain (1) that I am focussing on:-
Stain (1) - human / rabbits blood?
David Boutflour handled the silencer according to his own evidence using his bear hands on the 10th August 1985, some three days 'before' Glynis Howard found stain (1) there on the end of 'that' silencer. Human / animal blood? In particular, the possibility that 'he' was responsible for contaminating the silencer by way of reference to the analysis of stain (1), and how utterly remarkable, no not remarkable, but 'astonishing', that we find that with the benefit of hindsight, the results obtained from the examination of the flake should bear this very self same 'contradiction' where one of the four blood grouping results (AK/1) from examination of the flake, is conducive in animal and human blood? Rabbit / human?
-
So, we now know something that the jury were never made aware of during the trial. We know that there was human / animal blood (rabbit) on the outside of the silencer, at the exact place where David Boutflour must have handled the silencer without wearing gloves when he attempted to unscrew the cap from the end of the silencer, 'so that he could look inside'...
-
We also know that David Boutflour used a razor blade to 'scrape' a small dried flake of blood from the same flat surface of the same silencer, and that Essex police were aware of what he had done, and what's more, we know that this flake of blood was the size of a match head, and that David Boutflour had removed it from the end of the silencer because he said, it 'fascinated' him...
So, he handles the silencer and afterwards human / animal blood is found to be present on the outside of it, in the exact location where he would have needed to place one of his hands whilst attempting to 'unscrew' it. He then, supposedly uses a razor blade to remove a small flake of blood from the end cap of the same silencer, which he says he 'retained' because it fascinated him. He adds that Essex cops knew about all of this, and we have 'Ron' Cook taking this silencer to the lab' to be examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985, minus the small flake that Boutflour has removed from it. At the Lab', on that date (13th August 1985) we have Howards lab' assistant, 'A BAKER' confirming that the blood from stain (1) originated from an intimate mixture human / animal (rabbit) bloods...
(A) - Human / animals (rabbit) blood at stain (1) by 13th August 1985...
(B) - Human / animals (rabbit) blood in flake (AK/1) examined at lab' between 12th to 19th September, 1985...
The flake which David Boutflour had scraped from the extreme end of the silencer, could only have originated from the same area as stain (1) as depicted in the diagram, dated, 13th August 1985, so therefore, it would be fair to assume that 'the flake' Boutflour took from the outside of the silencer must have also contained the same human / animal (AK/1) bloods, found in stain (1) by 'A. BAKER', on the 13th August, 1985, and which were also present in the flake...
This raises a serious question which requires rigorous investigation into trying to establish whether or not (a) the flake David Boutflour took from the silencer, and (b) the flake results relied upon during the trial, were, one and the same?
-
What happened to the flake Boutflour took from the extreme end of the silencer?
-
The other relatives must have known what David Boutflour had done...
-
The other relatives must have known what David Boutflour had done...
This puts David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Peter Eaton, Robert Boutflour, and Anthony Pargeter in the frame. All of these prosecution witnesses must have known what David Boutflour had done, and what had at the end of the day happened to 'that' flake of blood...
-
It then falls to be confirmed, the names of the police officers who 'knew' about the 'Boutflour flake'?
-
It then falls to be confirmed, the names of the police officers who 'knew' about the 'Boutflour flake'?
To my mind, the following cops knew of the existence of the 'Boutflour flake':-
DC Barlow
DS Jones
DC 'Mick' Clark
PI 'Bob' Miller
DI 'Ron' Cook
DCS 'Mick' Ainsley
ACC 'Peter' Simpson
DCI 'Taff' Jones
DCI Harris
DCI 'Terry' Gibbons
DCI Wright
-
Also, staff at the lab' would have known about the 'Boutflour flake' if it had been taken to, and received at the lab', and it was the actual source of the blood grouping results relied upon during trial. If so, the blood relied upon obtained from the 'Boutflour flake' was 'EXTERNAL' to the silencer, 'not internal'...
-
Also, staff at the lab' would have known about the 'Boutflour flake' if it had been taken to, and received at the lab', and it was the actual source of the blood grouping results relied upon during trial. If so, the blood relied upon obtained from the 'Boutflour flake' was 'EXTERNAL' to the silencer, 'not internal'...
The ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, would have certainly have to have been in on the big secret, possibly also John Hayward (blood expert), and perhaps, Elliott...
-
How did the 'Boutflour flake' get to the lab', thats something which needs looking into?
-
How did the 'Boutflour flake' get to the lab', thats something which needs looking into?
I have a strong hunch, that Annie Eaton may have handed over the 'Boutflour Flake' to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985, under the exhibit reference, 'DRB/1', and that she might not have handed over a silencer at 'that' stage, as was first assumed. If she did, then she handed over all the exhibits, DRB/1 , DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985, maybe including the second silencer/Boutflour flake, as one item (DRB/1), which of course, then makes it possible for the 'Boutflour flake' to be present at the lab' between 12th to 19th September, 1985, to be analysed...
But who took the 'Boutflour flake' to the lab' after Annie Eaton had given it to the police, on the 11th September, 1985?
-
I have a strong hunch, that Annie Eaton may have handed over the 'Boutflour Flake' to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985, under the exhibit reference, 'DRB/1', and that she might not have handed over a silencer at 'that' stage, as was first assumed. If she did, then she handed over all the exhibits, DRB/1 , DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985, maybe including the second silencer/Boutflour flake, as one item (DRB/1), which of course, then makes it possible for the 'Boutflour flake' to be present at the lab' between 12th to 19th September, 1985, to be analysed...
But who took the 'Boutflour flake' to the lab' after Annie Eaton had given it to the police, on the 11th September, 1985?
Police courier, with surname of 'CRANWELL'?
-
If this were true, then what do I make of 'this'?
-
Right, how about the possibility that the 'Boutflour flake' was handed over to DC Oakey by Annie Eaton on the 11th September, 1985. 'That' flake in one form or another gets taken to the lab' to enable it to be analysed between 12th to 19th September, 1985 (producing the key blood groups, A, EAP BA, 'AK/1', and HP 2-1. So lets put that to one side for the moment...
This leaves cops still in possession of part of DRB/1 (2nd silencer), and DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4...
-
Right, how about the possibility that the 'Boutflour flake' was handed over to DC Oakey by Annie Eaton on the 11th September, 1985. 'That' flake in one form or another gets taken to the lab' to enable it to be analysed between 12th to 19th September, 1985 (producing the key blood groups, A, EAP BA, 'AK/1', and HP 2-1. So lets put that to one side for the moment...
This leaves cops still in possession of part of DRB/1 (2nd silencer), and DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4...
It states on the document, that 'SOC' are to examine the items listed and checked for 'blood, fibres and fingerprints'...
(1) - Ammunition box
(2) - Carboard box containing silencer, and ammunition
(3) - Check Silencer for blood, and fibres...
Earliest date recorded on this document, is the 13th September, 1985, latest date, the 20th September, 1985...
-
It states on the document, that 'SOC' are to examine the items listed and checked for 'blood, fibres and fingerprints'...
(1) - Ammunition box
(2) - Carboard box containing silencer, and ammunition
(3) - Check Silencer for blood, and fibres...
Earliest date recorded on this document, is the 13th September, 1985, latest date, the 20th September, 1985...
It is therefore, safe to assume that cops still had all of these items in their possession between 13th to 20th September, 1985...
-
Forget about the 'Boutflour flake', for now, and forget about the exhibit references of all the items aforementioned, that 'must have' still been in police possession until 20th September, 1985...
-
The silencer which cops still had in their possession until 20th September, 1985, could 'not' possibly have been the self same silencer which they had already submitted to the lab' at Huntingdon, on the '30th August, 1985' (DB/1 - item, 23)...
-
The silencer which cops still had in their possession until 20th September, 1985, could 'not' possibly have been the self same silencer which they had already submitted to the lab' at Huntingdon, on the '30th August, 1985' (DB/1 - item, 23)...
That being so, logic dictates that silencers 'DB/1' (23), and 'DRB/1' (22) cannot be the same silencers. This is because by 11th September to the 20th September, 1985, one of these two silencers (DB/1 - 23) was already at the lab', it having been sent there by cops on the 30th August 1985, whilst the other silencer (DRB/1 - 22), had always been in police possession from the 11th September, 1985, until the 20th September, 1985, at which stage cops then sent the second silencer to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, an exercise which had 'already' been performed on the first silencer, in any event...
This establishes the 'existence' of 'two separate identical looking silencers', at the 'heart of this investigation'...
-
Let us examine the document in more detail for 'other' clues:-
Originating from 'OM'
Document Number '181'
Index Number '823'
'DS DAVIDSON' (SOCO) 13/9/85 1800hrs 'DS EASTWOOD'
Above 'items forwarded' to Lab' 20/9/85
'SC/786/85' Refers
-
The Operations Manager (OM) for this investigation, was none other than one PI 'Bob' Miller...
-
The Operations Manager (OM) for this investigation was none other than one PI 'Bob' Miller...
So, now we have three named cops to put against the knowledge that a second silencer (subject of the 'info' contained in this legally binding with evidential value) document, namely, PI 'Bob' Miller, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, who all knew about the existence of this '2nd' silencer. They all knew about it at the very least between the 13th to the 20th September, 1985...
-
So, now we have three named cops to put against the knowledge that a second silencer (subject of the 'info' contained in this legally binding with evidential value) document, namely, PI 'Bob' Miller, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, who all knew about the existence of this '2nd' silencer. They all knew about it at the very least between the 13th to the 20th September, 1985...
This '2nd' silencer had to have originated from somewhere, somebody had to have found it, retained it, handed it over to cops. It had to be put into police storage, and documented as such. DI 'Ron' Cook had kept the other silencer (DB/1 - 23) in his coat pocket for 17 days before he sent that one off to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, so we know that Cook supposedly had nothing more to do with 'that' silencer. So where was this '2nd' silencer kept? Surely nobody is going to try to claim that 'Ron' Cook kept the '2nd' silencer in his other coat pocket? What ever next? I can picture it now, the headline, 'A TRICK OF TWO POCKETS'...
-
And then, we have the document number, 181, which like the index number, 823, can be checked against the 'other' consecutively numbered documents (179, 180 / 182, 183), and indexed (821, 822 / 824, 825), so that its place in order of date and time can be pinpointed accurately, thereby, confirming that on this particular date and time, that cops still had possession of the '2nd' silencer, at a time when the '1st' silencer was already at the lab'...
'Two' silencers then, 'not' only one...
-
And then, we have the document number, 181, which like the index number, 823, can be checked against the 'other' consecutively numbered documents (179, 180 / 182, 183), and indexed (821, 822 / 824, 825), so that its place in order of date and time can be pinpointed accurately, thereby, confirming that on this particular date and time, that cops still had possession of the '2nd' silencer, at a time when the '1st' silencer was already at the lab'...
'Two' silencers then, 'not' only one...
It was necessary for the prosecution to produce information to the defence in readiness for the trial, on exactly how this '2nd' silencer had come into police possession, and what had happened to it whilst in police possession, and rather more importantly, what had happened to it once cops had sent 'it' to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985?
Since, if there were 'two silencers', handed over, examined, and both merged into one silencer, then what of it?
-
Somebody has deliberately set out to deceive the court which tried this case, into believing that there was only ever just the one silencer, when all along there had been two different ones. The dated and timed events relating to each of these two silencers were merged together, as though there had only ever been just the one. This 'trick' is what contributed to Bamber being convicted. It does not stand up to scrutiny for anybody to argue that 'oh well, it doesn't matter anyway, because there is other evidence which makes him guilty'...
The fact that it can now be established that the prosecutions case relied upon a 'TRICK OF SILENCERS', can only lead to one inevitable conclusion. Convictions must be quashed, otherwise the Criminal Justice System itself is brought into disrepute...
-
David Boutflour needs to be made to say what he did with 'that' flake (the Boutflour flake), he needs to identify the cops who knew about it, and do it quickly, otherwise now that the cat is out of the bag, he will commit the criminal offence, of 'perverting the course of justice'...
-
So, now we have three named cops to put against the knowledge that a second silencer (subject of the 'info' contained in this legally binding with evidential value) document, namely, PI 'Bob' Miller, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, who all knew about the existence of this '2nd' silencer. They all knew about it at the very least between the 13th to the 20th September, 1985...
is bob miller not dead,i dont know about the other two
-
is bob miller not dead,i dont know about the other two
Yes, I think he died last year.
-
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/obituaries/article4227569.ece
-
Yes, I think he died last year.
what a great man,
-
what a great man,
Hardly the kind of man who would be party to a massive conspiracy?
-
Hardly the kind of man who would be party to a massive conspiracy?
an unwitting accessory 8)
-
an unwitting accessory 8)
Spo not only do we have Uncle Tom Cobbly et al as an army of conspirators, we now have the start of a company of conspirators by default.
-
an unwitting accessory 8)
Just like yourself 8)
-
Spo not only do we have Uncle Tom Cobbly et al as an army of conspirators, we now have the start of a company of conspirators by default.
It does not take many people to construct a conspiracy in this case. in theory only takes one person to put blood in the moderator. Then you have convincing "proof" that Sheila could not have killed herself, then once the news spreads every rank will believe it so
-
Just like yourself 8)
Haha, you wish ;D
-
It does not take many people to construct a conspiracy in this case. in theory only takes one person to put blood in the moderator. Then you have convincing "proof" that Sheila could not have killed herself, then once the news spreads every rank will believe it so
Just about anything is possible "in theory". Theory, as opposed to fact, CAN produce con artists and glory seekers.
-
It does not take many people to construct a conspiracy in this case. in theory only takes one person to put blood in the moderator. Then you have convincing "proof" that Sheila could not have killed herself, then once the news spreads every rank will believe it so
Takes more than one - it would have to include the relatives and the police. But you also suggest that the police (and relatives) got JM to lie, so that would also mean that SB, LR et al lied too. Then it just gets silly.
-
Hardly the kind of man who would be party to a massive conspiracy?
he read the case well caroline,even congratulated jb on his performance ,had he found anything which caused doubt than he would have taken over from taff jones in proclaiming jb's innocence :)
-
what a great man,
A 'fucking evil, vile lying, bastard'...
-
It does not take many people to construct a conspiracy in this case. in theory only takes one person to put blood in the moderator. Then you have convincing "proof" that Sheila could not have killed herself, then once the news spreads every rank will believe it so
A 'correct, analysis'...
-
No, we don't, what we have is a group of relatives, 'hell bent' on portraying Jeremy, as the killer, and for this reason, or 'that' reason, 'there is a clear case for Jeremy being 'framed' for having killed his family...
Not true, 100%...
OR they read him a lot more clearly than those whose eyes he pulled/is still pulling wool over.
-
Takes more than one - it would have to include the relatives and the police. But you also suggest that the police (and relatives) got JM to lie, so that would also mean that SB, LR et al lied too. Then it just gets silly.
You believe no sound moderator was used therefore you accept a conspiracy has taken place to manufacture evidence. If you don't believe in a conspiracy then you haven't thought your position through.
Manipulating JM and SB is the easiest part.
-
The relatives, and the cops (under pressure), manipulated the 'truth', which can be emphasized in clear unambiguous terms...
-
'Fabricating, the silencer, the blood, the paint evidence, is not the answer on how to approach this scenario - stop right there, if anybody pursues their argument on this basis, you have not thought through your argument correctly, your belief is a 'fraudulent' one...
-
Just about anything is possible "in theory". Theory, as opposed to fact, CAN produce con artists and glory seekers.
beautifully worded jane, :) :)
-
Lets bring back 'hanging' for all lying prosecution witnesses, and its supporters, who support such a scenario...
-
The relatives, and the cops (under pressure), manipulated the 'truth', which can be emphasized in clear unambiguous terms...
OR the truth told has been manipulated, misrepresented and emphasised in WHOLLY ambiguous terms.
-
beautifully worded jane, :) :)
The facts are that, the prosecution witnesses, hadn't got a clue about the deception being introduced, or relied upon by any of the prosecutions, witnesses...
-
Lets bring back 'hanging' for all lying prosecution witnesses, and its supporters, who support such a scenario...
AND for all those who scream their innocence when in fact they're guilty as hell.
-
OR the truth told has been manipulated, misrepresented and emphasised in WHOLLY ambiguous terms.
My position, has always been to 'try and establish the truth', I will leave the 'bullshit' to others...
-
Lets bring back 'hanging' for all lying prosecution witnesses, and its supporters, who support such a scenario...
yes and also for child killers like jb,iam all for that :)
-
Just about anything is possible "in theory". Theory, as opposed to fact, CAN produce con artists and glory seekers.
And what "facts" may these be ::)
-
AND for all those who scream their innocence when in fact they're guilty as hell.
No, stop right there, how can you say such a thing without referring to the circumstances of individual prosecutions? THE CPS and cops are 'not' as white, as somebody like you, would have us 'all' believe...
-
And what "facts" may these be ::)
the facts are 10 out of 12 jury members found jb guilty and and he still is guilty,nothing can change that,he has had appeals and failed them :)
-
No, stop right there, how can you say such a thing without referring to the circumstances of individual prosecutions? THE CPS and cops are 'not' as white, as somebody like you, would have us 'all' believe...
You are 'swiftly' making yourself as appearing to be 'an agitator', someone who is only interested in anything that makes somebody appear as though 'they were, or are, guilty'...
You come across as someone, not 'interested', in the truth - 'good luck' with the deception you are trying to pull off...
-
You believe no sound moderator was used therefore you accept a conspiracy has taken place to manufacture evidence. If you don't believe in a conspiracy then you haven't thought your position through.
Manipulating JM and SB is the easiest part.
I know exactly what I think and who I think was responsible. I wouldn't share that with you though, you would be the last person! They had/have enough without the silencer to show Jeremy is guilty - it was insurance. Whether you agree with it or not - a man who kills 5 people including two small boys deserves a whole life tariff.
I didn't just mention JM and SB - you know that though!
Oh by the way, I have done a list of circumstantial evidence with just a little more to do - however, I will post it AFTER you show us the evidence that points to Sheila.
-
the facts are 10 out of 12 jury members found jb guilty and and he still is guilty,nothing can change that,he has had appeals and failed them :)
Having a conviction does mean you committed the crime, only in an ideal world is that the case
-
I know exactly what I think and who I think was responsible. I wouldn't share that with you though, you would be the last person! They had/have enough without the silencer to show Jeremy is guilty - it was insurance. Whether you agree with it or not - a man who kills 5 people including two small boys deserves a whole life tariff.
I didn't just mention JM and SB - you know that though!
Oh by the way, I have done a list of circumstantial evidence with just a little more to do - however, I will post it AFTER you show us the evidence that points to Sheila.
You keep saying this but when asked to elaborate or show evidence your like.............
(https://media.serious.io/9eb2024a828dac5c/serious.gif)
-
You are 'swiftly' making yourself as appearing to be 'an agitator', someone who is only interested in anything that makes somebody appear as though 'they were, or are, guilty'...
You come across as someone, not 'interested', in the truth - 'good luck' with the deception you are trying to pull off...
And why not when someone is guilty? You are trying to make someone, who MANY believe to be guilty, appear to be innocent. Where is the truth in that? Your accusation works both ways, Mike.
-
You are 'swiftly' making yourself as appearing to be 'an agitator', someone who is only interested in anything that makes somebody appear as though 'they were, or are, guilty'...
You come across as someone, not 'interested', in the truth - 'good luck' with the deception you are trying to pull off...
Jane isn't an agitator at all, she, like me and others, believe that Jeremy is guilty as sin and don't want him walking the streets.
-
Having a conviction does mean you committed the crime, only in an ideal world is that the case
your talking nonsense now,whats the point of having a jury if people like you cannot accept their decision ,had they gone the other way you would be happy now,no david we cant have a legal system that only suits people like you ;D
-
You keep saying this but when asked to elaborate or show evidence your like.............
Bit like you when it comes to showing Sheila was responsible YOU CAN'T! Keep posting your silly pictures and laughing like a fool - laugh this up!
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrtuyk4T0m1r3251wo1_500.gif#laughing%20my%20ass%20off%20gif%20499x342)
-
the facts are 10 out of 12 jury members found jb guilty and and he still is guilty,nothing can change that,he has had appeals and failed them :)
'Oh, what a revelation', tell you what, xxxx the prosecutions case, 'Victor Temple' (who once represented me, is an xxxx individual), why the xxxx, did I agree to him representing me?
He was from'their camp' the xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx!!!
-
You keep saying this but when asked to elaborate or show evidence your like.............
(https://media.serious.io/9eb2024a828dac5c/serious.gif)
you could have posted a better picture of your self,your head is to long in this one,at least your honest about youself :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
your talking nonsense now,whats the point of having a jury if people like you cannot accept their decision ,had they gone the other way you would be happy now,no david we cant have a legal system that only suits people like you ;D
Sorry, but it depends what is put before the jury, so don't blame the jury, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting, what your suggesting...
Tell you what, let me stitch you up, and fabricate evidence against you, and you be at peril of being 'convicted' and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment', then lets see how the xxxx you feel about 'it'...
-
'Oh, what a revelation', tell you what, xxxx the prosecutions case, 'Victor Temple' (who once represented me, is an xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx), why the xxxx, did I agree to him representing me?
He was from'their camp' the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!!!
why would the jury be biased ,they dont work for the prosecution.they were 12 good men n women otherwise they would not have been picked,ive a criminal record and would never get picked for jury service :)
-
Prosecution witnesses, are all xxxxxxx, and it seems that supporters of 'that' view, are also all xxxxxxxx, shallow in their opinion, and brainwashed by a pack of prosecution lies...
-
Sorry, but it depends what is put before the jury, so don't blame the jury, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting, what your suggesting...
Tell you what, let me stitch you up, and fabricate evidence against you, and you be at peril of being 'convicted' and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment', then lets see how the xxxx you feel about 'it'...
mike if they did not agree with the police's case they would have found jb not guilty :)
-
Prosecution witnesses, are all xxxxxxx, and it seems that supporters of 'that' view, are also all xxxxxxxx, shallow in their opinion, and brainwashed by a pack of prosecution lies...
well iam in the group above ,some may like it ,some may not,but i wont change my beliefs to suit someone else :)
-
Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent', he did not kill anyone, he did not plan to kill anyone, there is no 'evidence' that he did...
It's all lies...
-
Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent', he did not kill anyone, he did not plan to kill anyone, there is no 'evidence' that he did...
It's all lies...
Tell you what, lets introduce another silencer, and another, and another, and another...
No matter how many silencers you want to add into the equation, Jeremy Bamber will not be the killer...
-
Tell you what, lets introduce another silencer, and another, and another, and another...
No matter how many silencers you want to add into the equation, Jeremy Bamber will not be the killer...
Hasn't that already happened? They've been breeding by the sound of it.
-
Dishonest witnesses, and dishonest members of this forum will not be tolerated by me...
If you want to talk xxxxx, xxxx xxx to the 'red forum' and practice you skills there...
I have little time for anybody who is just talking xxxxxxxx xxxx!!!
-
I am xxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxx, of any members who cannot appreciate that 'bent' cops, often get dodgy witnesses to say exactly what 'the bent cop' wants them to say...
I xxxxxxx 'hate' a bent cop, be 'it' a man, or a woman...
xxxxxxxxx'...
-
Dishonest witnesses, and dishonest members of this forum will not be tolerated by me...
If you want to talk xxxxx xxxx xx to the 'red forum' and practice you skills there...
I have little time for anybody who is just talking xxxxxxxx xxxx!!!
I was bought up to tell the truth. I fail to see how stating one's beliefs can be said to be dishonest. It WOULD be dishonest, though, if I was to say I believed Jeremy to be innocent, when I, in fact, believe him to be guilty.
-
I was bought up to tell the truth. I fail to see how stating one's beliefs can be said to be dishonest. It WOULD be dishonest, though, if I was to say I believed Jeremy to be innocent, when I, in fact, believe him to be guilty.
I would respond to someone like you by asking you what convinces you that Jeremy was 'guilty'?
There is no 'direct' evidence which points to his culpability!!!
People like you rely upon supposed evidence, from never never land, you fool yourselves into believing something is true, despite there existing contradictory evidence, to the effect that no such evidence exists, at all. Good luck with your fantasies...
Jeremy Bamber did not shoot and kill anybody...
-
I am xxxxxxx sick to death, of any members who cannot appreciate that 'bent' cops, often get dodgy witnesses to say exactly what 'the bent cop' wants them to say...
I xxxxxxx 'hate' a bent cop, be 'it' a man, or a woman...
xxxxxxx xxxx'...
Just because people don't agree with you on this matter, doesn't mean that we think the police aren't capable of corruption. I think Bamber is guilty and I am sure if you did, you would spend a second feeling sorry for him. If you can't have a debate without being sworn at, what's the point?
-
I would respond to someone like you by asking you what convinces you that Jeremy was 'guilty'?
There is no 'direct' evidence which points to his culpability!!!
People like you rely upon supposed evidence, from never never land, you fool yourselves into believing something is true, despite there existing contradictory evidence,, to the effect that no such evidence exists, at all. Good luck with your fantasies...
This works both ways
-
Just because people don't agree with you on this matter, doesn't mean that we think the police aren't capable of corruption. I think Bamber is guilty and I am sure if you did, you would spend a second feeling sorry for him. If you can't have a debate without being sworn at, what's the point?
You haven't got any xxxxxxx reliable evidence to support the nonsense you are advocating...
-
What a friend you turned out to be, Jeremy is certainly better off without you on his side...
-
What a friend you turned out to be, Jeremy is certainly better off without you on his side...
Why don't you follow in the other members footsteps, and practice your acts of deception on the alternative 'red' forum...
-
This works both ways
How would you feel if the prosecution 'stitched you up? And you were convicted of a series of crimes, and sentenced to any term of imprisonment, or life imprisonment?
You would be almost certainly be 'singing' from an entirely different hymn sheet, if that occurred...
Be thankful...
-
How would you feel if the prosecution 'stitched you up? And you were convicted of a series of crimes, and sentenced to any term of imprisonment, or life imprisonment?
You would be almost certainly be 'singing' from an entirely different hymn sheet, if that occurred...
Be thankful...
Of course I would IF I were innocent but I believe that Jeremy is guilty!
-
Why don't you follow in the other members footsteps, and practice your acts of deception on the alternative 'red' forum...
I have no acts of deception - but that's fine, I'll leave you to it.
-
Bit like you when it comes to showing Sheila was responsible YOU CAN'T!
The police concluded it was Sheila. They found NOTHING to contradict this. Supt Kenneally then reviewed the situation AGAIN and found Sheila responsible.
It was only when the discovery of blood in the sound moderator (the realtives found) around mid September did they have anything to contradict their original conclusions. and to this day it remains the only thing.
The whole case rests on the fact that Sheila could not have committed suicide if the moderator was attached thus Jeremy must have killed her and everyone else. Ironically the only thing that shows Sheila could not have commited the crime you believe to be fake.
-
Mike that is not a very nice way to talk to sami he just happens to think Jeremy is guilty and surely he is allowed that on a forum it is all about freedom of speech.
-
I second that Susan. Could I just say that many of us are unsure of the silencer evidence, but even without it this does not make Jeremy innocent-it means that others introduced false evidence in an attempt to shore up their case.
-
Mike that is not a very nice way to talk to sami he just happens to think Jeremy is guilty and surely he is allowed that on a forum it is all about freedom of speech.
Quite true Susan, Mike likes a forum of yes men and cannot handle true debate. We all cannot be like David, I was never brought up to swear and esp at ladies and I worked in the mines
-
I second that Susan. Could I just say that many of us are unsure of the silencer evidence, but even without it this does not make Jeremy innocent-it means that others introduced false evidence in an attempt to shore up their case.
Sure you can believe Jeremy is guilty without the sound moderator, But you must realise that no sound moderator then makes it possible for Sheila to have committed the crime.
-
Quite true Susan, Mike likes a forum of yes men and cannot handle true debate. We all cannot be like David, I was never brought up to swear and esp at ladies and I worked in the mines
Justice I have always known you were a gentleman but David is a nice guy too and never swears Mike gets so cross and forgets who he is talking to bet he feels awful afterwards when I thought Jeremy innocent he never said a wrong word to me just think he has loads to deal with I know that is no excuse but I always try and understand why people behave like they do.
-
I second that Susan. Could I just say that many of us are unsure of the silencer evidence, but even without it this does not make Jeremy innocent-it means that others introduced false evidence in an attempt to shore up their case.
Hello steve I have always thought EP knew he was guilty but lacked evidence to prove it so kinda engineered some so they had a case for Court
-
Sure you can believe Jeremy is guilty without the sound moderator, But you must realise that no sound moderator then makes it possible for Sheila to have committed the crime.
There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence that shows it wasn't Sheila.
You know this. So I don't know why you say things that are wrong.
-
Hello steve I have always thought EP knew he was guilty but lacked evidence to prove it so kinda engineered some so they had a case for Court
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Probably more than in 99% of other cases. Excluding criminals caught red handed or who pleaded guilty.
-
There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence that shows it wasn't Sheila.
You know this. So I don't know why you say things that are wrong.
Things you make up do not count as forensic evidence Adam.
-
Things you make up do not count as forensic evidence Adam.
It's documented evidence. I don't need to make up 'forensic evidence breakthroughs'.
-
Hello steve I have always thought EP knew he was guilty but lacked evidence to prove it so kinda engineered some so they had a case for Court
I think Taff Jones just wanted a quiet life and took the easy way out on the day. It looked like a murder suicide and of course who could possibly differentiate on first inspection when a diabolical brother puts a rifle into the hands of his schizophrenic sister and pulls the trigger? It's despicable that he used a mentally ill person to cover his tracks. If anyone has ever witnessed someone like Sheila, struggling bravely with her illness yet not "all there" it's quite conceivable that the crime progressed as it did.
-
It's documented evidence. I don't need to make up 'forensic evidence breakthroughs'.
No its not, you list things with nothing to support your claims whatsoever. If your saying you have found 99 exhibits of smoking gun evidence that the CPS has missed in the last 30 years maybe you should apply to run the place ;D
-
No its not, you list things with nothing to support your claims whatsoever. If your saying you have found 99 exhibits of smoking gun evidence that the CPS has missed in the last 30 years maybe you should apply to run the place ;D
Well go into the the 35 forensic evidence threads showing over 100 pieces of incriminating evidence. Based on documentation. And prove them all wrong.
Rather than pretending they don't exist and claiming the silencer is the only piece. Although I appreciate this is the tactic of all supporters.
-
The police concluded it was Sheila. They found NOTHING to contradict this. Supt Kenneally then reviewed the situation AGAIN and found Sheila responsible.
It was only when the discovery of blood in the sound moderator (the realtives found) around mid September did they have anything to contradict their original conclusions. and to this day it remains the only thing.
The whole case rests on the fact that Sheila could not have committed suicide if the moderator was attached thus Jeremy must have killed her and everyone else. Ironically the only thing that shows Sheila could not have commited the crime you believe to be fake.
The police concluded it was Sheila because Jeremy staged the scene that way. So what evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) shows that Sheila is guilty?
-
I think Taff Jones just wanted a quiet life and took the easy way out on the day. It looked like a murder suicide and of course who could possibly differentiate on first inspection when a diabolical brother puts a rifle into the hands of his schizophrenic sister and pulls the trigger? It's despicable that he used a mentally ill person to cover his tracks. If anyone has ever witnessed someone like Sheila, struggling bravely with her illness yet not "all there" it's quite conceivable that the crime progressed as it did.
Steve excellent post one which I agree with
-
Sure you can believe Jeremy is guilty without the sound moderator, But you must realise that no sound moderator then makes it possible for Sheila to have committed the crime.
Without any forensic evidence on her to show she even fired one shot!
-
The police concluded it was Sheila because Jeremy staged the scene that way. So what evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) shows that Sheila is guilty?
I've already gone through the crime scene of each individual. Using the 2002 appeal as a source. Each crime scene shows it was not Sheila.
David knows this but constantly claims the silencer is the only piece. Although all supporters do this to deflect from the other evidence.
As it happens David rejected my invitation to explain how the silencer was fabricated. Along with everyone else.
-
Without any forensic evidence on her to show she even fired one shot!
Ive explained the GSR about two dozen times already I'm not going to repeat myself
But answer me this.... Who's prints did they find on the empty shell casings? They cannot be Jeremy's because if they were the police would not claim to this day they never found any prints despite there own results saying otherwise. So why then did Robert Boutfour ask the police to then show him Sheila's fingerprints on the shell casings and then write in his dairy about Jeremy getting Sheila's prints on the bullet casings?
So who's prints were on the bullet cases?...... ::)
Does not take much detective work to figure out 8)
-
Ive explained the GSR about two dozen times already I'm not going to repeat myself
But answer me this.... Who's prints did they find on the empty shell casings? They cannot be Jeremy's because if they were the police would not claim to this day they never found any prints despite there own results saying otherwise. So why then did Robert Boutfour ask the police to then show him Sheila's fingerprints on the shell casings and then write in his dairy about Jeremy getting Sheila's prints on the bullet casings?
So who's prints were on the bullet cases?...... ::)
Does not take much detective work to figure out 8)
What results? And I wasn't talking about GSR
-
What results? And I wasn't talking about GSR
Ive explained the GRS about 20 times now. if its not going to sink in why repeat myself
As for my last post you simply have no answer then I take it?
-
Ive explained the GRS about 20 times now. if its not going to sink in why repeat myself
As for my last post you simply have no answer then I take it?
Read my post again - I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT GSR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You said the Police had results that there were prints on the bullet cases - where are their results - NOT YOURS!
-
Read my post again - I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT GSR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You said the Police had results that there were prints on the bullet cases - where are their results - NOT YOURS!
-
Positive result doesn't mean 'identifiable'. There were FP on the rifle that could not be identified. Smudged prints can be classified as a positive result, but they can't be identified as belonging to a particular person. Jeremy said he filled the magazine, they are more likely to be his prints but would mean nothing as he already said he filled it - even if they could be identified.
-
The technology didn't exist back in 1985 to extract latent fingerprints from spent casings. This article was written in 2012!
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/
" Ask any latent print examiner about imaging fingerprints from expended shell casings, and they will tell you it’s most likely futile. Any latent prints that have been deposited on cartridges before, or during, loading into the firearm are “erased” by the firing temperatures experienced by the shell casing. Studies with thermal imaging cameras have shown that the exterior of a brass 9mm cartridge casing will reach approximately 145° F. This is apparently enough to break down or vaporize the skin oils of which a fingerprint is comprised."
However, it is is now possible to extract finger prints from spent casings (even old ones), so IF the casings still exist, perhaps Jeremy's legal team or the CT can look into have them tested.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/03/fingerprints.bullets
-
The technology didn't exist back in 1985 to extract latent fingerprints from spent casings. This article was written in 2012!
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/
" Ask any latent print examiner about imaging fingerprints from expended shell casings, and they will tell you it’s most likely futile. Any latent prints that have been deposited on cartridges before, or during, loading into the firearm are “erased” by the firing temperatures experienced by the shell casing. Studies with thermal imaging cameras have shown that the exterior of a brass 9mm cartridge casing will reach approximately 145° F. This is apparently enough to break down or vaporize the skin oils of which a fingerprint is comprised."
However, it is is now possible to extract finger prints from spent casings (even old ones), so IF the casings still exist, perhaps Jeremy's legal team or the CT can look into have them tested.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/03/fingerprints.bullets
Yes it did exist. They just used conventional methods just not the specialist equipment invented in the article you mentioned. That article just says its hard not impossible
I can find studies going back to 1968.
Fingerprints on Cartridges" JV Vandiver, Identification News, June 1976.
Latent fingerprints on cartridges and expended cartridge casings. 1976.
The effects of time and detonation on latent fingerprints from cartridges and cartridge castings were explored. Time alone did not appear to seriously degrade latent fingerprint quality over the three-week period of experimental trials. The greatest effect of detonation seemed to stem from hot gaseous blowback on the external surface of the cartridge casings. Nickel-plated casings, because of their greater chemical resistance and more polished surface, were found less satisfactory as a substrate for latent impressions than brass casings.
Eley rimfire ammunition happens to be brass.
Crim. Police Rev., 217, 106, Theys et al 1968
techniques for detecting both eccrine and sebaceous latent prints
deposited on cartridge cases prior to firing the cartridges in the appropriate
firearm. Some identifiable prints could be developed on brass cases, but
generally, these were difficult surfaces
The Shell casings in this case no longer exist if I remember Holly correctly :(
-
Yes it did exist. They just used conventional methods just not the specialist equipment invented in the article you mentioned. That article just says its hard not impossible
I can find studies going back to 1968.
Fingerprints on Cartridges" JV Vandiver, Identification News, June 1976.
Latent fingerprints on cartridges and expended cartridge casings. 1976.
The effects of time and detonation on latent fingerprints from cartridges and cartridge castings were explored. Time alone did not appear to seriously degrade latent fingerprint quality over the three-week period of experimental trials. The greatest effect of detonation seemed to stem from hot gaseous blowback on the external surface of the cartridge casings. Nickel-plated casings, because of their greater chemical resistance and more polished surface, were found less satisfactory as a substrate for latent impressions than brass casings.
Eley rimfire ammunition happens to be brass.
Crim. Police Rev., 217, 106, Theys et al 1968
techniques for detecting both eccrine and sebaceous latent prints
deposited on cartridge cases prior to firing the cartridges in the appropriate
firearm. Some identifiable prints could be developed on brass cases, but
generally, these were difficult surfaces
The Shell casings in this case no longer exist if I remember Holly correctly :(
It doesn't matter if you can find 'studies' you have no evidence that they found any identifiable prints on any casings and the likelihood of of then having done so, it next to zero. If they don't exist then it would prove nothing either way - but Jeremy admits to handling at least 10 or 11 and most likely touched more.
-
It doesn't matter if you can find 'studies' you have no evidence that they found any identifiable prints on any casings and the likelihood of of then having done so, it next to zero. If they don't exist then it would prove nothing either way - but Jeremy admits to handling at least 10 or 11 and most likely touched more.
First off we have the form of identified positive results for fingerprints from Essex police
Then we have Michael turner QC appeal notes 2002
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
Then we have police notes about discussions of having the casings tested for prints.
-
There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence that shows it wasn't Sheila.
You know this. So I don't know why you say things that are wrong.
There is no reliable scientific evidence which proves that Sheila wasn't the killer. You had better start listing it all, so that I can analyse it here on the open forum...
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Probably more than in 99% of other cases. Excluding criminals caught red handed or who pleaded guilty.
You forgot to mention that the mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence, is in the main 'imaginary'...
-
Lets get the facts right, many of you do not realize or appreciate the fact that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, received 25 cartridge cases from 'Ron' Cook which had been fingerprinted, and of which 14 of them contained 'partial fingerprints' belonging to 'Sheila Caffell' upon them. These 14 cartridge cases are 'still being retained' at 'Huntingdon Lab', according to ballistic expert, 'RENSHAW' who attended tests that were carried out at Birdwell armoury in 2004. They were given an exhibit reference of 'MDF/100', and are still retained there to this day...
Mention of these 14 bullet cases (MDF/100) is made by 'RENSHAW' in one of his reports...
The existence of these 'missing' 14 cartridge cases with partial fingerprints of Sheila upon them, raises concern about the '14 corresponding cartridge cases' which were used in a substitution process of the batch of crime scene ammunition whilst at the lab'...
'Ron' Cook fingerprinted all the cartridge cases by oblique light test on the 15th August, 1985, and by 'superglue treatment' on the 23rd August 1985. What this tells us, is that the original batch of 25 bullet cases were 'all' tarnished and 'coated in white' residue from the superglue testing (23rd August, 1985) before 'Ron' Cook sent them all off to Malcolm Fletcher at the lab' (30th August, 1985). Yet we find that many of the current batch do not have any 'white residue' anywhere upon their surfaces. These are the cartridge cases which were obtained during 'unofficial' test firing of the rifle with control ammunition, resulting in 'unblemished cartridges' (no white residue) becoming introduced into the batch of crime scene ammunition at the lab' under the ballistic experts control - he being responsible for substituting 14 of the original 25 casings (all of which were tarnished and coated with 'white residue' and which contained part fingerprints of Sheila Caffell), these 14 cartridge cases (MDF/100) were kept in storage separately at the lab, and did not form part of the ballistic evidence relied upon in this prosecution...
You can check for a presence of 'white residue' on all of the 25 revised batch of crime scene cartridge cases, for yourselves...
-
The technology didn't exist back in 1985 to extract latent fingerprints from spent casings. This article was written in 2012!
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/
" Ask any latent print examiner about imaging fingerprints from expended shell casings, and they will tell you it’s most likely futile. Any latent prints that have been deposited on cartridges before, or during, loading into the firearm are “erased” by the firing temperatures experienced by the shell casing. Studies with thermal imaging cameras have shown that the exterior of a brass 9mm cartridge casing will reach approximately 145° F. This is apparently enough to break down or vaporize the skin oils of which a fingerprint is comprised."
However, it is is now possible to extract finger prints from spent casings (even old ones), so IF the casings still exist, perhaps Jeremy's legal team or the CT can look into have them tested.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/03/fingerprints.bullets
Fingerprints obtained during 'superglue treatment' on the 14 'positive' findings, were 'photographed', which was a 'standard procedure' back in August, 1985. Nothing more needs to be considered...
-
I shall be reposting the 25 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS', which pertain to the 25 cartridge cases, some (in one group) with 'white residue' deposited on them, others (in another group), without any 'white residue' upon them. The point I am advancing, is that those cartridge casings with no 'white residue' upon them, were not the 'actual' cartridges recovered from the scene, but were, and are cartridge cases obtained as a result of cops and ballistics expert (Malcolm Fletcher) performing 'unreported' test firing of the anshuzt rifle, with control ammunition, prior to the 20th September 1985 (the date Malcolm Fletcher claims he first performed the official 'test firing'). Unfortunately, for Fletcher, his evidence is 'undone' because he himself confirmed matches of cartridge cases, on dates which included, 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September, 1985...
Why 'did' the ballistic expert, 'Fletcher' lie deliberately?
-
I shall be reposting the 25 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS', which pertain to the 25 cartridge cases, some (in one group) with 'white residue' deposited on them, others (in another group), without any 'white residue' upon them. The point I am advancing, is that those cartridge casings with no 'white residue' upon them, were not the 'actual' cartridges recovered from the scene, but were, and are cartridge cases obtained as a result of cops and ballistics expert (Malcolm Fletcher) performing 'unreported' test firing of the anshuzt rifle, with control ammunition, prior to the 20th September 1985 (the date Malcolm Fletcher claims he first performed the official 'test firing'). Unfortunately, for Fletcher, his evidence is 'undone' because he himself confirmed matches of cartridge cases, on dates which included, 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September, 1985...
Why 'did' the ballistic expert, 'Fletcher' lie deliberately?
Was there really '25 cartridge cases', associated to the 'Anshuzt rifle'?
-
We will 'test' the evidence...
-
Lets start with the ballistic experts claim, that 'he had no idea' when the anshuzt rifle had 'last been fired', prior to the date (20th September, 1985) he allegedly performed the 'official test fire' of the same with 'control ammunition'?
-
Lets start with the ballistic experts claim, that 'he had no idea' when the anshuzt rifle had 'last been fired', prior to the date (20th September, 1985) he allegedly performed the 'official test fire' of the same with 'control ammunition'?
'That' is a rather huge statement for 'Malcolm Fletcher' to have made...
He is on record as saying that, 'he didn't know when the anshhuzt rifle had last been fired', prior to 'the 20th September, 1985'...
-
'Fletcher', lied...
-
'Fletcher', lied...
Information contained upon some of the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' (aforementioned), clearly proves that 'Fletcher', is a compulsive 'liar'...
How could 'he' confirm a match of certain cartridge cases, had been 'identified', as having been 'loaded' into the 'magazine of the anshuzt rifle', 'fired', 'extracted' and 'ejected' from 'it', on dates prior to the 20th September, 1985. For example, 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September, 1985, without him 'knowing' that there must have been an earlier 'test fire' of the rifle with 'control ammunition', on an occasion prior to the 20th September, 1985?
-
'Fletcher', lied...
But, 'Why'?
-
Fletcher, 'lied', because he knew that the cartridge casings in these 'unofficial' test firings of control ammunition, were being used in a substitution process, where the said test fired cartridge casings (14 in total) were being used in a substitution process, designed to make it appear as though it was a 'one gun crime', when it wasn't...
-
What I would like to do at this stage, is to present the evidence contained in these 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS'. That is, those cartridge cases with 'white residue' upon them, and the 'remaining ones' which 'had no white residue' upon them...
The point I am trying to draw attention to, is that those spent cartridges with 'white residue' upon them, were cartridges upon which 'no fingerprints' belonging to 'Sheila' had been found. However, those with 'no reference' at all to a presence at all of 'white residue' upon them, must be, and are cartridge cases introduced by the cops / Fletcher, with the sole intention of turning the investigation into a 'one gun crime'...
-
What I would like to do at this stage, is to present the evidence contained in these 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS'. That is, those cartridge cases with 'white residue' upon them, and the 'remaining ones' which 'had no white residue' upon them...
The point I am trying to draw attention to, is that those spent cartridges with 'white residue' upon them, were cartridges upon which 'no fingerprints' belonging to 'Sheila' had been found. However, those with 'no reference' at all to a presence at all of 'white residue' upon them, must be, and are cartridge cases introduced by the cops / Fletcher, with the sole intention of turning the investigation into a 'one gun crime'...
Bearing in mind, that 'Fletcher' has 'lied', and that not all the cartridge cases had got the 'white residue', upon them, this is despite all 25 cartridge cases supposedly being exposed to 'superglue treatment' on the 23rd August, 1985...
How could such 'a scenario' be true?
-
'Fletcher', has lied...
He 'knows' full well, that there 'had been' an earlier test fire of the anshuzt rifle prior to the 20th September, 1985...
-
First off we have the form of identified positive results for fingerprints from Essex police
Then we have Michael turner QC appeal notes 2002
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
Then we have police notes about discussions of having the casings tested for prints.
Positive results for finger prints does NOT mean they were identified. You can have a positive result for blood but not be able to type it - which also happened in this case.
Robert Boutflour was writing one of his mad scenario's, in the SAME passage as you're quoting he had Jeremy knocking on the door and attacking Nevill from that point. You would also have to wonder why, if they were able to identify prints, Jeremy's weren't recovered given that he admits to loading the magazine.
-
Jeremy's part fingerprints were found upon 11 of the original 25 cartridge cases...
-
Jeremy's part fingerprints were found upon 11 of the original 25 cartridge cases...
Do you have any documentation on that? Or even better, any documentation to indicate they found Sheila's?
-
Do you have any documentation on that? Or even better, any documentation to indicate they found Sheila's?
When you combine the evidence we have together its rather obvious they did.
Lets revise things
1. Police notes have Ron Cook talking about supergluing the casings
2. Police documents show positive results found on casings
3. RB comes up with theories as to how Sheila's prints get on the casings
4. Then at a much later date, RB sais that Pamela and June had told him that Jeremy had Sheila load the rifle infront of them. Pamela never gave testimony to this and why does he not mention it in the diary he had written before he decided to reveal this? He seems to be going to great length at fabricating an explanantion as to how sheilas prints got on the shell casings
5. Malcom Flecthers lab reports only has sixteen shell cases with fingerprint glue residue on them! The other nine have no finger print glue residue. How can this be when they tested all 25 shell casings?
6. The police then deny any prints were found and we now know otherwise. Whatever the results were they surely did not benefit the prosecution. Denying that prints were found and withholding evidence that suggests otherwise is further proof of a conspiracy.
-
When you combine the evidence we have together its rather obvious they did.
Lets revise things
1. Police notes have Ron Cook talking about supergluing the casings
2. Police documents show positive results found on casings
3. RB comes up with theories as to how Sheila's prints get on the casings
4. Then at a much later date, RB sais that Pamela and June had told him that Jeremy had Sheila load the rifle infront of them. Pamela never gave testimony to this and why does he not mention it in the diary he had written before he decided to reveal this? He seems to be going to great length at fabricating an explanantion as to how sheilas prints got on the shell casings
5. Malcom Flecthers lab reports only has sixteen shell cases with fingerprint glue residue on them! The other nine have no finger print glue residue. How can this be when they tested all 25 shell casings?
6. The police then deny any prints were found and we now know otherwise. Whatever the results were they surely did not benefit the prosecution. Denying that prints were found and withholding evidence that suggests otherwise is further proof of a conspiracy.
So no documentation then? Just another one of your putting two and two together and coming up with conspiracy. ::)
-
When you combine the evidence we have together its rather obvious they did.
Lets revise things
1. Police notes have Ron Cook talking about supergluing the casings
2. Police documents show positive results found on casings
3. RB comes up with theories as to how Sheila's prints get on the casings
4. Then at a much later date, RB sais that Pamela and June had told him that Jeremy had Sheila load the rifle infront of them. Pamela never gave testimony to this and why does he not mention it in the diary he had written before he decided to reveal this? He seems to be going to great length at fabricating an explanantion as to how sheilas prints got on the shell casings
5. Malcom Flecthers lab reports only has sixteen shell cases with fingerprint glue residue on them! The other nine have no finger print glue residue. How can this be when they tested all 25 shell casings?
6. The police then deny any prints were found and we now know otherwise. Whatever the results were they surely did not benefit the prosecution. Denying that prints were found and withholding evidence that suggests otherwise is further proof of a conspiracy.
Except that is not what he said, he said June said Sheila didn't have anything to do with loading the rifle, just that Jeremy TRIED to get her to load it.
-
Except that is not what he said, he said June said Sheila didn't have anything to do with loading the rifle, just that Jeremy TRIED to get her to load it.
Which puts a VERY different complexion on the whole thing, doesn't it?
-
So no documentation then? Just another one of your putting two and two together and coming up with conspiracy. ::)
Plenty of documentation, I'm putting two and two together to make four while you are trying to argue that two and two equals zero ::)
A) Why does Pam not corroborate this claim when RWB states she was present?
B) Why does he not mention this in his diary when writing about Jeremy planting her prints?
Answer to A is because it never happened, He imagined it and he could not get Pam to go along with it.
Answer to B is because he had not yet imagined it.
A supports B and B supports A 8)
-
Which puts a VERY different complexion on the whole thing, doesn't it?
No
-
No
Indeed it does. The documentation says something entirely different from that which you're implying, using your own spin, at point 4.
-
Plenty of documentation, I'm putting two and two together to make four while you are trying to argue that two and two equals zero ::)
A) Why does Pam not corroborate this claim when RWB states she was present?
B) Why does he not mention this in his diary when writing about Jeremy planting her prints?
Answer to A is because it never happened, He imagined it and he could not get Pam to go along with it.
Answer to B is because he had not yet imagined it.
A supports B and B supports A 8)
Why did you misquote his statement? Here you go again, because you think something should happen and didn't, it's obviously a conspiracy - A and B are YOUR questions and the answers are just your opinion. ::)
-
No
Yes! You misquoted his statement for your own ends - you do this often!
-
Yes! You misquoted his statement for your own ends - you do this often!
How?
-
How?
Were YOUR words not something along the lines of Pam and June TELLING RWB that they had seen Jeremy getting Sheila to load a rifle? The statement has June -alone- ASKING him what he would have thought if he'd observed such. She THEN says Sheila didn't do it because she wasn't interested. Something YOU failed to include. You altered the meaning to suit your own purposes, I believe.
-
How?
I'm not sure Pam ever verified this.
-
Why did you misquote his statement? Here you go again, because you think something should happen and didn't, it's obviously a conspiracy - A and B are YOUR questions and the answers are just your opinion. ::)
I'm not misquoting. The points and evidence I put forward when combined form a cohesive argument for Sheila's being present on the shell casings. Its no good nitpicking minor details of one aspect, because that does not refute or challenge the argument I put forward.
-
I'm not sure Pam ever verified this.
That's the whole point
-
How?
HERE!
"4. Then at a much later date, RB sais that Pamela and June had told him that Jeremy had Sheila load the rifle infront of them. Pamela never gave testimony to this and why does he not mention it in the diary he had written before he decided to reveal this? He seems to be going to great length at fabricating an explanantion as to how sheilas prints got on the shell casings"
For starters, Pamela told him nothing and June made it clear that Sheila refused to have anything to do with loading the rifle. In your version "Jeremy had Sheila load the rifle in front of them". Ir's misleading and not factual - bending the truth won't help your argument!
-
That's the whole point
Tje whole point is that you misquoted. There is no reason for her to corroborate because it's hearsay. Also, we don't have every statement on this forum - you have no idea if she corroborated this or not.
-
Were YOUR words not something along the lines of Pam and June TELLING RWB that they had seen Jeremy getting Sheila to load a rifle? The statement has June -alone- ASKING him what he would have thought if he'd observed such. She THEN says Sheila didn't do it because she wasn't interested. Something YOU failed to include. You altered the meaning to suit your own purposes, I believe.
The argument comes from Michael Turners COA notes in 2002 I quote
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
That's where the argument comes from I am simply quoting him.
Then you must consider this
A) RWB never wrote this in his August dairy when discussing the Jeremy planting prints
B) Pam never corroborated this
C) Police tested the casings for prints, that's on record both forensic and written
D) Police found prints on the shell casings and RB was given information "in confidence" by the police
E) Later on the Police denied the existence of and covered up the testing of the prints and never mentioned.
F) Jeremy denied ever showing Sheila how to reload a rifle. (I can introduce testimony from Jeremy because its corroborated by points ABCDE)
Does ABCDEF prove Jeremy innocent? No but what it does prove is
1. The fingerprints on the shell casings was something they wanted to cover up
2. Police are dishonest
3. RWB is being untruthful
4. Jeremy is being truthful (on this issue at least)
-
The argument comes from Michael Turners COA notes in 2002 I quote
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
That's where the argument comes from I am simply quoting him.
Then you must consider this
A) RWB never wrote this in his August dairy when discussing the Jeremy planting prints
B) Pam never corroborated this
C) Police tested the casings for prints, that's on record both forensic and written
D) Police found prints on the shell casings and RB was given information "in confidence" by the police
E) Later on the Police denied the existence of and covered up the testing of the prints and never mentioned.
F) Jeremy denied ever showing Sheila how to reload a rifle. (I can introduce testimony from Jeremy because its corroborated by points ABCDE)
Does ABCDEF prove Jeremy innocent? No but what it does prove is
1. The fingerprints on the shell casings was something they wanted to cover up
2. Police are dishonest
3. RWB is being untruthful
4. Jeremy is being truthful (on this issue at least)
Whether you're quoting him or Turner, it makes no odds, the quote is incorrect - you're just dismissing what was actually said - it's there in black and white! He said that June said she would have NOTHING to so with loading the rifle!
You have nothing to suggest that identifiable prints were obtained and certainly nothing to show they identified Sheila's prints.
Where does RB state he was given confidential information from police that Sheila's prints were on the casings?
-
Whether you're quoting him or Turner, it makes no odds, the quote is incorrect - you're just dismissing what was actually said - it's there in black and white! He said that June said she would have NOTHING to so with loading the rifle!
And before that it Claims Jeremy was showing her how to load the rifle. Loading a rifle requires putting fingertips on bullets BTW
You have nothing to suggest that identifiable prints were obtained and certainly nothing to show they identified Sheila's prints.
They identified positive results for fingerprints on shell casings. In this situation you only have two suspects Sheila and Jeremy. Determining between Jeremy and Sheila would be rather easy even with partial prints and size of the prints alone.
To show they identified Sheila's prints is the fact RWB tried to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings and the Police then covering up any testing on shell casings took place. Are you saying police found all prints consistent with Jeremy and then covered up the evidence for the fun of it?
Where does RB state he was given confidential information from police that Sheila's prints were on the casings?
I did not say that. RWB sais he was given information in confidence from the police. full stop
-
And before that it Claims Jeremy was showing her how to load the rifle. Loading a rifle requires putting fingertips on bullets BTW
They identified positive results for fingerprints on shell casings. In this situation you only have two suspects Sheila and Jeremy. Determining between Jeremy and Sheila would be rather easy even with partial prints and size of the prints alone.
To show they identified Sheila's prints is the fact RWB tried to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings and the Police then covering up any testing on shell casings took place. Are you saying police found all prints consistent with Jeremy and then covered up the evidence for the fun of it?
I did not say that. RWB sais he was given information in confidence from the police. full stop
take a look david,the link is below
-
take a look david,the link is below
More details on that can be found here.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf (http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf)
notice it sais
After processing, no useable or identifiable prints were developed
what is their standard or benchmark for useable or identifiable prints?
In this case you only have two suspects, even the size/width of poor quality prints could help establish whether it be Sheila or Jeremy. We know they found prints and it begs the question as to why they covered up the results and never disclosed them.
-
And before that it Claims Jeremy was showing her how to load the rifle. Loading a rifle requires putting fingertips on bullets BTW..............................
...................But then we have June STATING -not just CLAIMING- that Sheila would have NOTHING to do with loading the rifle. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Jeremy surreptitiously got Sheila to handle a bullet or bullets. After all, his only aim would have been to get her fingerprints.
-
More details on that can be found here.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf (http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf)
notice it sais
After processing, no useable or identifiable prints were developed
what is their standard or benchmark for useable or identifiable prints?
In this case you only have two suspects, even the size/width of poor quality prints could help establish whether it be Sheila or Jeremy. We know they found prints and it begs the question as to why they covered up the results and never disclosed them.
it clearly says NO identifiable prints can be found on .22 shellcases,as to standing up in court and saying the size n width are the same as one of the above 2 ,would be throwen out of court ,cause size n width can never show who a print belongs to,i think there has to be a certain amount of ridge lines for positive id
-
In the instant matter, (whf) there were a total of 'nine cartridge cases' amongst the 'finalised batch of crime scene ammunition' (FCSA) which had 'not' been exposed to 'superglue treatment', and 'fifthteen cartridge cases' which 'had'...
-
In the instant matter, (whf) there were a total of 'nine cartridge cases' amongst the 'finalised batch of crime scene ammunition' (FCSA) which had 'not' been exposed to 'superglue treatment', and 'fifthteen cartridge cases' which 'had'...
Yet, according to 'Ron' Cook, 'all of the 25 originall cartridge cases', were fingerprinted twice, once on the 15th August 1985 by 'oblique light test', and secondly, on the 25th August 1985, by 'superglue technique'. This being true then why did a total of nine cartridge cases in the batch of 'fcsa' have 'no white residue' upon them?
-
The only possible solution to this discrepancy was that at least these nine cartridge cases had 'not' formed part and parcel of the batch of the original batch of ammunition ('OBA') fingerprinted by way of 'superglue treatment' by 'Ron' Cook on the 25th August 1985, otherwise they would have 'all been coated in white residue' from the superglue treatment. This suggests that nine cartridge cases may have been 'swapped over', and there has to be a reason for the cops and the ballistic expert to have to have done that? The only conclusion that I am drawn to, is that (a) the 'originals of these nine cartrge cases' had 'Sheila Caffells part fingerprints upon them', and or, (b) that at least nine of the original batch of 25 cartridges had been loaded into and fired from a different weapon than the anshuzt rifle...
-
How 'remarkable, that two of these nine cartridge cases which 'do not' have 'white residue' upon them were 'DRH/1' and 'DRH/2', supposedly found with Sheila Caffells body...
-
How 'remarkable, that two of these nine cartridge cases which 'do not' have 'white residue' upon them were 'DRH/1' and 'DRH/2', supposedly found with Sheila Caffells body...
Here is a comprehensive list of 'these' eight dodgy bullet cases:-
(1) - DRH/1 - next to Sheila Caffells body
(2) - DRH/2 - next to Sheila Caffells body
(3) - DRH/6
(4) - DRH/8
(5) - DRH/10
(6) - DRH/11
(7) - DRH/39 (1)
(8) - DRH/41
(9) - DRH/43
-
Surely, one would expect the cops to fingerprint these two cartridge (DRH/1, and DRH/2) cases found with Sheila's body, yet neither were coated in white residue from superglue treatment. How can that be right?
-
I'm not misquoting. The points and evidence I put forward when combined form a cohesive argument for Sheila's being present on the shell casings. Its no good nitpicking minor details of one aspect, because that does not refute or challenge the argument I put forward.
It is clear you are being dishonest David - RB said that June told him that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. So using that as a basis for your argument is dead in the water. What is more, you had his statement in front of you were you would have read what he said, instead you chose to post a misquote from Michael Turner. You're bow even trying to change what the experts say. It doesn't really matter because your argument would fail for all of the above reasons. To suggest 25 bullets all had identifiable prints when that's clearly not possible is just silly.
When you post something, I always check it out - so there is no point in misquoting to suit your own ends.
-
And before that it Claims Jeremy was showing her how to load the rifle. Loading a rifle requires putting fingertips on bullets BTW
They identified positive results for fingerprints on shell casings. In this situation you only have two suspects Sheila and Jeremy. Determining between Jeremy and Sheila would be rather easy even with partial prints and size of the prints alone.
To show they identified Sheila's prints is the fact RWB tried to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings and the Police then covering up any testing on shell casings took place. Are you saying police found all prints consistent with Jeremy and then covered up the evidence for the fun of it?
I did not say that. RWB sais he was given information in confidence from the police. full stop
So you have no evidence to show they got Sheila's prints from the casings! The best they 'could' have achieved were partial prints and as RB stated that Jeremy was showing Sheila how to load the rifle, they would have been his because RB stated that June was clear that in saying 'Sheila would have nothing to do with it'.
I am saying that they found no IDENTIFIABLE prints and you jumping the gun to suggest RB's statement proves they found Sheila's is ridiculous.
you suggested that RB was given 'information in confidence' by the police and you are suggesting he was told that they found Sheila's prints on the casings!!' You only 'proof' of this is one of RB mad scenario's which at any other point, you would ridicule! ;D ;D ;D ;D
D) Police found prints on the shell casings and RB was given information "in confidence" by the police
-
More details on that can be found here.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf (http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/lpdnactg.pdf)
notice it sais
After processing, no useable or identifiable prints were developed
what is their standard or benchmark for useable or identifiable prints?
In this case you only have two suspects, even the size/width of poor quality prints could help establish whether it be Sheila or Jeremy. We know they found prints and it begs the question as to why they covered up the results and never disclosed them.
Now you know better than the experts? The evidence posted shows that the likelihood of obtaining an identifiable print from a bullet casing is zero - the best that can be hoped for is a partial but to suggest that they found partial or whole prints on all of the casings is silly. There is zero evidence of Sheila's prints on the casings.
I posted this link a few days ago but Sami has asked me to post it again.
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/
-
Now you know better than the experts? The evidence posted shows that the likelihood of obtaining an identifiable print from a bullet casing is zero - the best that can be hoped for is a partial but to suggest that they found partial or whole prints on all of the casings is silly. There is zero evidence of Sheila's prints on the casings.
I posted this link a few days ago but Sami has asked me to post it again.
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/
i think that kills the arguement STONEDEAD,CAROLINE :)
-
Fingerprints have been found on cartridge cases in a lot of investigations. Not only that, but 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted these 25 original cartridge cases from the scene at whf, on two separate occasions, once by 'oblique light test' (15th August 1985), and secondly by 'cynoacrylate fumes', on the 25th August 1985 - these are the 'facts' in this investigation. Therefore we should expect all 25 cartridge cases to have been coated in 'white residue', but we find at least eight such cartridges were 'white residue' free...
Cartridges, DRH/1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 39 (1), 41 and 43, were 'all' residue 'free'...
Whereas, cartridges, DRH/3, 4, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 37, 38, 39 (2), and 46, all had residue upon them...
A further four cartridges still under 'review', DRH/6, 13, 14 and 40...
-
Fingerprints have been found on cartridge cases in a lot of investigations. Not only that, but 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted these 25 original cartridge cases from the scene at whf, on two separate occasions, once by 'oblique light test' (15th August 1985), and secondly by 'cynoacrylate fumes', on the 25th August 1985 - these are the 'facts' in this investigation. Therefore we should expect all 25 cartridge cases to have been coated in 'white residue', but we find at least eight such cartridges were 'white residue' free...
Cartridges, DRH/1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 39 (1), 41 and 43, were 'all' residue 'free'...
Whereas, cartridges, DRH/3, 4, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 37, 38, 39 (2), and 46, all had residue upon them...
A further four cartridges still under 'review', DRH/6, 13, 14 and 40...
Location of the nine 'residue free' cartridges were found at, 'main bedroom', (DRH/1, 2, 6, 8, 10 11, and 43), 'Children's bedroom', (DRH/39 {2}), and the 'Kitchen' (DRH/41)...
-
Alternatively, 'all' of the 'residue' contaminated cartriges were found at, 'main bedroom', DRH/3, 4, 7, and 12, Children's bedroom', DRH/16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39 {1}, and 46, 'Kitchen', DRH/19 and 20...
-
The following three cartridges have yet to be 'categorised', but were found at, 'main bedroom' , DRH/13, 'Upstairs Landing', DRH/14, 'Children's bedroom', DRH/40...
-
It doesn'y make any sense that at least nine of these 24 cartridge cases end up 'residue free', considering that 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted them on the 23rd August 1985, using 'superglue treatment'. Alarm bells are 'ringing', it wreaks of 'the originals which had residue upon them', being 'substituted', for one reason, or another...
-
It doesn'y make any sense that at least nine of these 24 cartridge cases end up 'residue free', considering that 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted them on the 23rd August 1985, using 'superglue treatment'. Alarm bells are 'ringing', it wreaks of 'the originals which had residue upon them', being 'substituted', for one reason, or another...
Why would they substitute eight of the cartridge cases?
Was it to cover up for the use of a totally separate weapon that was used in the shootings?
Or, Did cops find Sheila's fingerprints on the eight original ones, (or both)?
-
...
-
It seems to me, that there are strong grounds for believing that there were 'two shooters' involved in these killings...
-
It seems to me, that there are strong grounds for believing that there were 'two shooters' involved in these killings...
Lets look at the 'emerging pattern' involving 'white residue' contaminated cartridges in locations inside the farmhouse, as opposed to the other lot of cartridges, minus, 'white residue'?
-------------------------
White residue cartridges in 'main bedroom', DRH/3, 4, 6, 7 and 12 (fired from gun 1)
None white residue cartridges in same room, DRH/1, 2, 8, 10, 11, and 43 (fired from gun 2)
--------------------------
White residue cartridges in 'children's bedroom', DRH/16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39 (1), and 46 (gun 1)
None white residue cartridges in same room, DRH/39 (2), (gun 2)
-------------------------
White residue cartridges in the 'kitchen', DRH/19, and 20 (gun 1)
None white residue cartridges in same room, DRH/41 (gun 2)
-------------------------
The three 'uncategorised' cartridges were found, 'main bedroom', DRH/13, 'upstairs landing', DRH/14, and 'Children's bedroom', DRH/40...
This brings me back to the point I have previously expounded on the forum - Did Sheila Caffell, have 'an accomplice' in the murders of the other four victims? I strongly believe 'that such an accomplice did exist. Cops knew this to be true, but they couldn't pin that role on the person they had set their hearts on charging (Matthew McDonald). In any event, it was the right decision not to pursue him for involvement in the murders, so they turned on Jeremy, in the full knowledge that 'he' had 'not' had anything whatsoever to do with the death of his sister. In order to achieve prosecuting Jeremy cops had to turn the investigation into a one gun crime, which involved swapping spent cartridge cases, for obvious reasons. Identifying the second weapon used seems so obvious, it beggars belief that for 30 years everyone has been thinking there had only been one gun used in the shootings. The only other gun that could have been used in these shootings is the Anthony Pargeter .22 Bruno rifle. His conflicting accounts that he has given to cops, at one stage or another, as to the whereabouts of his gun at the time of the shootings, how he had always kept his rifle at the farmhouse since he purchased it in 1980, but that he made it his habit to 'always' remove the bolt from it and to take that home with him to his home in Buckinghamshire, so that 'no-one' could fire his rifle in his absence (Essex police statement) as opposed to the suggestion that he had taken it home with him on the penultimate week-end prior to the shootings (COLP statement). My own personal belief, is that the Pargeter gun was present at the farmhouse at the time of the shootings. Although I now do not believe he had personal involvement in the killing of the other four victims, other than he has lied deliberately as to the whereabouts of his gun at the time of the shootings...
-
It is clear you are being dishonest David - RB said that June told him that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. So using that as a basis for your argument is dead in the water.
I am not misquoting anyone. You are nitpicking the semantics of what I post because you have no legitimate argument to put forward
You're bow even trying to change what the experts say. It doesn't really matter because your argument would fail for all of the above reasons. To suggest 25 bullets all had identifiable prints when that's clearly not possible is just silly.
Lets revise things (again)
Police discuss the importance of finding prints and discuss glue fumigation on the shell casings
https://s32.postimg.org/m0elnbuhh/fing1_001.jpg (https://s32.postimg.org/m0elnbuhh/fing1_001.jpg)
Police find positive fingerprint results on the casings
https://s31.postimg.org/565oiymi3/fingerprintform.png (https://s31.postimg.org/565oiymi3/fingerprintform.png)
Police then denied ever doing this and never disclosed the information. why?
When you post something, I always check it out - so there is no point in misquoting to suit your own ends.
No you nitpick a sentence or two then bury your head in the sand. Now and then you pop your head out the sand to call me a pigeon or something, that's about it ;D
-
I am not misquoting anyone. You are nitpicking the semantics of what I post because you have no legitimate argument to put forward
Lets revise things (again)
Police discuss the importance of finding prints and discuss glue fumigation on the shell casings
https://s32.postimg.org/m0elnbuhh/fing1_001.jpg (https://s32.postimg.org/m0elnbuhh/fing1_001.jpg)
Police find positive fingerprint results on the casings
https://s31.postimg.org/565oiymi3/fingerprintform.png (https://s31.postimg.org/565oiymi3/fingerprintform.png)
Police then denied ever doing this and never disclosed the information. why?
No you nitpick a sentence or two then bury your head in the sand. Now and then you pop your head out the sand to call me a pigeon or something, that's about it ;D
where is the rest of that page david,cause it doesnt say how many prints were on the items in the POSITIVE report
-
The 'two principle guns' used in the shootings, were (a) Anshuzt rifle, and (b) Bruno rifle...
-
The 'two principle guns' used in the shootings, were (a) Anshuzt rifle, and (b) Bruno rifle...
Cops arranged for the cartridge cases loaded, fired, and ejected from the bruno (during the shootings), to be 'replaced' with control ammunition that was fired during 'unreported' test firings which took place prior to the date of the first official test fire performed by 'Malcolm Fletcher' on the 20th September, 1985...
-
Cops arranged for the cartridge cases loaded, fired, and ejected from the bruno (during the shootings), to be 'replaced' with control ammunition that was fired during 'unreported' test firings which took place prior to the date of the first official test fire performed by 'Malcolm Fletcher' on the 20th September, 1985...
Clear 'evidence' exists, to prove that this was / is the case...
-
In 2004 I brought this 'evidence' to the attention of 'Ewen Smith', who agreed with the significance of my findings...
-
In 2004 I brought this 'evidence' to the attention of 'Ewen Smith', who agreed with the significance of my findings...
Fletchers signature appears on the lab' records, dated, prior to the first occasion he claims to have had contact with the batch of crime scene ammunition - why would he deliberately lie about such a thing?
But lie he did, lie he has...
-
According to the ballistic expert, 'Malcolm Fletcher', he did not receive or have contact with the batch of crime scene ammunition, (25 bullets and 25 cartridge cases), until on and after the 20th September, 1985, but his (dated) signatures which are present on the lab' records, 'tells a completely different story'...
-
According to the ballistic expert, 'Malcolm Fletcher', he did not receive or have contact with the batch of crime scene ammunition, (25 bullets and 25 cartridge cases), until on and after the 20th September, 1985, but his (dated) signatures which are present on the lab' records, 'tells a completely different story'...
Lets deal with the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' of all the spent cartridge cases, that 'Fletcher' has put his name against by 'signing' the relevant lab' records, on each occasion, clearly dated...
DRH/1 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)
DRH/2 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)
DRH/3 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good so far)
(1) - DRH/4 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear, Something went seriously wrong, here)...
(2) - DRH/6 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(3) - DRH/7 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(4) - DRH/8 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
DRH/10 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...
DRH/11 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...
(5) - DRH/12 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(6) - DRH/16 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(7) - DRH/17 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(8) - DRH/18 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(9) - DRH/19 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(10) - DRH/20 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(11) - DRH/39 (1) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(12) - DRH/39 (2) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(13) - DRH/37 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(14) - DRH/38 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(15) - DRH/36 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(16) - DRH/41 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(17) - DRH/43 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985...
What more can anybody say, other than, Jeremy Bamber is the victim of 'arguably' one of the worst 'miscarriages of justice' in the history of the 'Criminal Justice System...
-
It seems to me, that there are strong grounds for believing that there were 'two shooters' involved in these killings...
Don't make life harder for yourself Mike. ;D
-
I am not misquoting anyone. You are nitpicking the semantics of what I post because you have no legitimate argument to put forward
Lets revise things (again)
Police discuss the importance of finding prints and discuss glue fumigation on the shell casings
https://s32.postimg.org/m0elnbuhh/fing1_001.jpg (https://s32.postimg.org/m0elnbuhh/fing1_001.jpg)
Police find positive fingerprint results on the casings
https://s31.postimg.org/565oiymi3/fingerprintform.png (https://s31.postimg.org/565oiymi3/fingerprintform.png)
Police then denied ever doing this and never disclosed the information. why?
No you nitpick a sentence or two then bury your head in the sand. Now and then you pop your head out the sand to call me a pigeon or something, that's about it ;D
Semantics? It is NOTHING to do with semantics, RB said June told him that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. You suggesting she did is just dishonest and people will see that!
They discuss the importance of finding prints that's all! Had they been IDENTIFIED, they would have said so. Finding prints and identifying them are two VERY different things AND if they had identified them, they would be less likely to allow Cook to use superglue - they clearly did this to see if they could be enhanced for identification!
Positive prints (again) doesn't mean 'identifiable'
Police denied they were able to IDENTIFY the prints.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3782.msg152739.html#msg152739
You twist the sentences to suit your own ends - which makes you dishonest. I don't think you're in denial about Bambers guilt, I just don't think you care if he's guilty or not - David is working for David!
-
I have 'targeted' the evidence, which 'proves' that Jeremy 'was framed', in relation to these murders...
-
Lets deal with the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' of all the spent cartridge cases, that 'Fletcher' has put his name against by 'signing' the relevant lab' records, on each occasion, clearly dated...
DRH/1 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)
DRH/2 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)
DRH/3 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good so far)
(1) - DRH/4 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear, Something went seriously wrong, here)...
(2) - DRH/6 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(3) - DRH/7 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(4) - DRH/8 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
DRH/10 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...
DRH/11 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...
(5) - DRH/12 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(6) - DRH/16 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(7) - DRH/17 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(8) - DRH/18 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(9) - DRH/19 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(10) - DRH/20 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(11) - DRH/39 (1) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(12) - DRH/39 (2) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(13) - DRH/37 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(14) - DRH/38 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(15) - DRH/36 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(16) - DRH/41 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...
(17) - DRH/43 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985...
What more can anybody say, other than, Jeremy Bamber is the victim of 'arguably' one of the worst 'miscarriages of justice' in the history of the 'Criminal Justice System...
The evidence which 'I' have uncovered is 'Overwhelming' - Cops were dishonest in the presentation of the evidence...
'Fletcher' has deceived the courts on '17 counts' relating to his involvement with the spent cartridge cases in this investigation, since he claims not to have received them to enable him to have made 'comparison tests' until on and after the 20th September, 1985, yet he clearly had dealings with 25 cartridge cases beforehand, which were 'all' successfully compared to test cartridges fired and ejected from the 'anshuzt rifle', 17 of which were successfully compared on dates preceding 20th September, 1975, for example, 17 successfully compared on dates ranging between and inclusive of, 13th, 18th and the 19th September, 1985...
-
The prosecutions, 'expert', was/is nothing no more, or no less, than nothing but a ''pathological liar'...
-
The prosecutions, 'expert', was/is nothing no more, or no less, than nothing but a ''pathological liar'...
'HE' has got 'huge secrets' which he is 'afraid', that might be exposed, damaging his reputation...
I am the person, who 'will bring him to his knees'...
-
'HE' has got 'huge secrets' which he is 'afraid', that might be exposed, damaging his reputation...
I am the person, who 'will bring him to his knees'...
I can't stand, 'CORRUPTION' at any level...
-
Semantics? It is NOTHING to do with semantics, RB said June told him that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. You suggesting she did is just dishonest and people will see that!
No I am not, I am saying such conversation claimed by RWB never took place. Your allegations are once again false!
(https://s32.postimg.org/6olwldwid/rwbstatement.png)
They discuss the importance of finding prints that's all! Had they been IDENTIFIED, they would have said so. Finding prints and identifying them are two VERY different things AND if they had identified them, they would be less likely to allow Cook to use superglue - they clearly did this to see if they could be enhanced for identification!
Positive prints (again) doesn't mean 'identifiable'
Police denied they were able to IDENTIFY the prints.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3782.msg152739.html#msg152739
This does not explain why they decided to deny ever finding any prints nor does that COLP document elaborate on the shell casings. Why hide the positive results and why deny ever getting positive results.
Why does RWB try to find ways to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings
You twist the sentences to suit your own ends - which makes you dishonest. I don't think you're in denial about Bambers guilt, I just don't think you care if he's guilty or not - David is working for David!
Caroline your a very poor Judge of character . But then again if you cant provide adequate answers for the posts I guess all you can do is attack the person posting them, and that's what you are doing now ::)
-
No I am not, I am saying such conversation claimed by RWB never took place. Your allegations are once again false!
(https://s32.postimg.org/6olwldwid/rwbstatement.png)
This does not explain why they decided to deny ever finding any prints nor does that COLP document elaborate on the shell casings. Why hide the positive results and why deny ever getting positive results.
Why does RWB try to find ways to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings
Caroline your a very poor Judge of character . But then again if you cant provide adequate answers for the posts I guess all you can do is attack the person posting them, and that's what you are doing now ::)
It's only your opinion that the conversation didn't take place!
They didn't find any IDENTIFIABLE prints. Where is it denied that they found prints at all?
RWB said a lot of things, most of them you laugh at, why did he say Jeremy used a bike, wore a wet suit ...... etc? However, it does show that the conversation with June is likely to have happened and he is hedging his bets in case they did find Sheila's prints because of what June told him. If he wanted to make a story up that puts Sheila's prints on the bullets, he wouldn't have said she didn't want anything to do with it and that she did indeed load the magazine as Jeremy requested.
I'm a good judge of character and your posts are easy to rip apart because you have rubber goal posts.
-
I'm a good judge of character and your posts are easy to rip apart because you have rubber goal posts.
Oh Dear...
-
Oh Dear...
Made me laugh
-
It is important that we get the 'facts' right with regard to the handling of the batch of crime scene ammunition, for example, in 'Fletchers' case. Thus far, I have only dealt with the supposed batch of spent cartridge cases from the crime scene. In due course I will deal with all the 'bullets', and 'Fletchers' involvement with them...
For now though, let us see which particular spent cartridge cases the official lab' documents confirm 'Fletchers' involvement with prior to the 20th September, 1985?
-
It is important that we get the 'facts' right with regard to the handling of the batch of crime scene ammunition, for example, in 'Fletchers' case. Thus far, I have only dealt with the supposed batch of spent cartridge cases from the crime scene. In due course I will deal with all the 'bullets', and 'Fletchers' involvement with them...
For now though, let us see which particular spent cartridge cases the official lab' documents confirm 'Fletchers' involvement with prior to the 20th September, 1985?
He had involvement with 6 cartridge cases at the Lab' on the 13th September 1985, DRH/4, 36, 39(1), 39(2), 41 and 43...
He had involvement with 5 cartridge cases at the lab' on the 18th September 1985, DRH/8, 19, 20, 37 and 38...
He had involvement with 6 cartridge cases at the lab' on the 19th September 1985, DRH/6, 7, 12, 16, 17 and 18...
-
There had to have been an 'unofficial' test fire of the anshuzt rifle with control ammunition which took place either on, or before the 13th September 1985, in order for the 'comparison' tests which were all performed before the 20th September 1985, which 'Fletcher' knew about, which for one reason or another, he chose to conceal the details of, by falsely claiming that he did not receive the bullets and cartridge cases, along with 29 control rounds that he proceeded to test fire in the anshuzt rifle on the 20th September 1985, 25th September 1985, and the 2nd October 1985...
He lied, since if that be the case, how come 17 cartridge cases were 'confirmed' as having been loaded, fired, and ejected from the anshuzt rifle by 'comparisons with control ammunition on 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985?
Worse still, in one of his statements, or it might be in his lab' notes, he states that before he proceeded to test fire the anshuzt rifle on the 20th September 1985, that he did not know when the anshuzt rifle had last been fired prior to him testing it on 20th and 25th September, 2nd October, 1985. Again, a blatant lie on his part, since he must have known the rifle had been test fired with control ammunition either on or before the date when the cartridge cases had been 'compared' on the 13th September 1975, against which his dated signature appears on each of the official lab' documents...
-
I have spent close to three decades researching all the evidence in this case. I have had the benefit of interrogating Jeremy Bamber face to face, one to one,. I have around 50,000 case documents, some of the material in my possession are the original documents. I have all the original correspondence between Jeremy and his solicitors, nobody and I mean nobody could ever wish or dream to have access to all this material. On top of this, I have my life experience, I am now 60 years old, and I myself have witnessed at first hand how easily a miscarriage of justice can happen. Yes, cops framed me with dody identification evidence, falsifying the contents of witness statements, tampering with exhibits, rewriting dodgy notebooks, you name it, I have had it done to me. If any of you were in my shoes,you would start off when looking into the rights and wrongs in the so called ' Bamber' case, and suspect everyone of lying, or of having fabricated some evidence or other. That would be your starting point, and you would work through the evidence looking for things that were true, honest and indestructible. Only when everything checked out, would you have to accept that it must be true. Over the many decades that I have lived through my life experiences, particularly in my dealings with cops, CP's, magistrates, judges, home office, etc, I have learnt valuable lessons. When I research any case that I have been asked to look into, I rely on a rather simple but very effective approach, I use key words to help me arrive at the truth, which are 'ambiguous', ' contradictory', and 'inconsistent'. The truth cannot be misinterpreted when you adopt this approach. If something is true, there will be no ambiguities, no contradictions, or any inconsistencies...
When I look at the 'Bamber' case, I see ambiguities, contradictions, and inconsistencies, in the case which the prosecution brought to court to nail 'Bamber'. No such ambiguities, contradictions, or inconsistencies, would have arisen if the case that was brought had been true - because no matter how you approach the truth it cannot ever be exposed as a lie, truth is universal, no matter from which angle you investigate it, or adopt an approach to try to show 'it' to be a lie...
The case brought against 'Bamber' was a false one, full of ambiguities, contradictions, and inconsistencies...
If 'he' had been truly guilty, none of these ambiguities, contradictions, and inconsistencies would have arisen, and to be frank, would not exist?...
-
There isn't any part of the prosecutions case which stands up to scrutiny, adopting my approach...
-
There isn't any part of the prosecutions case which stands up to scrutiny, adopting my approach...
Everywhere you look, things quite simply do not add up...
-
It's only your opinion that the conversation didn't take place!
They didn't find any IDENTIFIABLE prints. Where is it denied that they found prints at all?
RWB said a lot of things, most of them you laugh at, why did he say Jeremy used a bike, wore a wet suit ...... etc? However, it does show that the conversation with June is likely to have happened and he is hedging his bets in case they did find Sheila's prints because of what June told him. If he wanted to make a story up that puts Sheila's prints on the bullets, he wouldn't have said she didn't want anything to do with it and that she did indeed load the magazine as Jeremy requested.
I'm a good judge of character and your posts are easy to rip apart because you have rubber goal posts.
has the habit of moving the rubber goal posts as well ;D
-
has the habit of moving the rubber goal posts as well ;D
Yes, they 'stretch' pretty far from fact.
-
Yes, they 'stretch' pretty far from fact.
into the realms of alice in wonder land ;)
-
Oh Dear...
Where is it denied that they found any prints?
-
Two spent cartridge cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) were found at the side of Sheila's body, and a bible DRH/44), if we accept that Sheila's body was found as shown in the police photographs. As can be clearly seen, there is reference to positive fingerprint results having been found upon these items. This is consistent with the cops finding Sheila's part fingerprints upon them...
Fingerprint Ref:- 31340/85, Page 53198, refers...
-
The changing size of bullets belonging to the batch of crime scene ammunition which 'altered' in appearance after they were re over from the bodies of the victims during autopsy performed on 7th/8th August 1985, and the 20th September 1985, when ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher took possession of them all:-
-
Two spent cartridge cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) were found at the side of Sheila's body, and a bible DRH/44), if we accept that Sheila's body was found as shown in the police photographs. As can be clearly seen, there is reference to positive fingerprint results having been found upon these items. This is consistent with the cops finding Sheila's part fingerprints upon them...
Fingerprint Ref:- 31340/85, Page 53198, refers...
This is rather puzzling, because both of the cartridge cases, DRH/1 and DRH/2, did not have any 'white residue' upon them, even though 'Ron' Cook supposedly fingerprinted these on the 23rd August 1985., by 'Superglue' method...
-
Where is it denied that they found any prints?
DS Gilbert report on Bamber enquiry 2000
"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints"
Michael turner appeal notes 2002
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
-
What is also known, is that DS 'Stan' Jones, had direct involvement with the batch of crime scene cartridge cases, as evidenced by the presence of his, dated signature...
Here is DS 'Stan' Jones signature, on the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD' , of DRH/2 and DRH/1 (spent cartridge case, found next to Sheila Caffells body)...
Cops found Sheila's fingerprints on several cartridge cases recovered from the scene, as evidenced by the 'fingerprint' reference (31340/85), and Page (53158) location
Michael turner appeal notes 2002
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
-
Made me laugh
your not the only one ;D
-
The changing size of bullets belonging to the batch of crime scene ammunition which 'altered' in appearance after they were re over from the bodies of the victims during autopsy performed on 7th/8th August 1985, and the 20th September 1985, when ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher took possession of them all:-
Nothing in this case adds up. They also tested the silencer for prints yet apparenty found nothing, How?
Is this yet another reason why DI Cooks 1990 COLP interview tapes happened to disappear without explanation?
-
Nothing in this case adds up. They also tested the silencer for prints yet apparenty found nothing, How?
Is this yet another reason why DI Cooks 1990 COLP interview tapes happened to disappear without explanation?
Maybe Bamber wore gloves. If the police were going to lie they would say Bamber's prints were on the silencer.
1990 interview. Why should these be kept ?
-
Cops 'withheld' the fingerprint evidence, aforementioned, because its existence portrayed Sheila as the killer who had loaded additional bullets into one of the two guns that were used in the shootings. The fingerprint reference I have drawn attention too, is not imaginary. Cops knew that Sheila was responsible for the deaths of the other four victims, and secondly they knew that Jeremy had played no role in his sisters death because Sheila was still alive when cops entered the farmhouse. The 'fingerprint evidence' which belonged to her, made a 'mockery' of the hand swab evidence ( which was chiefly one of the reasons why the fingerprint evidence from the cartridges were withheld ), since how could the prosecution seek to rely on the lack of lead deposit on the hand swabs taken from Sheila to suggest that she could not have handled the additional bullets needed to carry out the murders, when her fingerprints were all over several of the cartridges?
-
Maybe Bamber wore gloves. If the police were going to lie they would say Bamber's prints were on the silencer.
The silencer was handled by other people after the murders! so how can they find nothing?
plus they would have to somehow plant prints on the silencer to then present in court. It much easier to deny they found anything
1990 interview. Why should these be kept ?
Same reason why everything else is kept
-
Arguably, the biggest mistake made by Essex police, a part from their involvement in the extraordinary circumstances of Sheila Caffells death after cops entered the farmhouse, is the 'fact' that they 'overlooked' the pact involving Sheila herself in the murders of the others with the help of an accomplice. She had not overpowered and out fought her father all by herself, she had been helped and supported in the carrying out of these murders, not with use of a single gun, but two different ones. She used one of the guns, her accomplice used the other...
I originally believed that Jeremy was Sheila's accomplice, but he wasn't...
The South African 'Ralph Neville' who was Sheila's accomplice, had been involved in a series of shooting incidents back in South Africa, and he had fled to the UK to try to put the recent past behind him. Ralph Neville was the figure seen moving around in the main bedroom, when Bews, Myall and Jeremy himself went to recce the farmhouse. He was the 'scruffy looking hunched man' seen walking out of the grounds of the farmhouse about an hour after the occupants of CA07 first arrived....
The 'hitman' theory was born out of the sighting of Sheila's accomplice. It was the correct decision not to prosecute Matthew MacDonald. But having to let him go, left a void that needed filling. The sighting of Sheila's accomplice at the bedroom window, and about an hour later when her accomplice walked away from the scene unchallenged, was 'problematic' in the case of arresting Bamber as the killer who had acted alone, because he was with the police outside the farmhouse at around 4am, with the accomplice in the main bedroom at that time. Furthermore, Bamber was sat with PS Saxby in the patrol car that was parked up in pages lane, when the accomplice was seen walking away from the farmhouse. Hence, why Bews promoted the 'trick of light', explanation...
-
The silencer was handled by other people after the murders! so how can they find nothing?
plus they would have to somehow plant prints on the silencer to then present in court. It much easier to deny they found anything
Same reason why everything else is kept
Why would the police report that AE's or Neville's fingerprints were on the silencer ? Everyone knows they handled it and it does not prove any guilt or innocence.
What did you think of Bamber's 90's dirty protest over a police decision ?
-
Why would the police report that AE's or Neville's fingerprints were on the silencer ? Everyone knows they handled it and it does not prove any guilt or innocence.
What did you think of Bamber's 90's dirty protest over a police decision ?
exactly adam. ;D
-
Cops did get ' fingerprints' from the two cartridge cases (DRH/1, DRH/2) found alongside Sheila's body. It's documented, there exist the fingerprint reference relating to these fingerprints having been found...
Hand swab evidence was dodgy, existence of the fingerprint reference ( 31340/85 ) providing 'contradictory' evidence' of that fact..
-
Why would the police report that AE's or Neville's fingerprints were on the silencer ? Everyone knows they handled it and it does not prove any guilt or innocence. Wrong, the presence of their fingerprints on the second silencer that Ann Eaton handed to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, took place 'long after' 'Ron' Cook had exposed the 'first silencer' to 'superglue treatment' on the 23rd August 1985.The truth of the matter is, that DS Davidson (SOCO) and DS Eastwood (SOCO)fingerprinted the second silencer at 1800 hrs on the 13th September 1985, by which stage the first silencer which 'Ron' Cook had fingerprinted using an 'oblique light test' on the 15th August 1985, and by 'superglue treatment' on the 23rd August 1985, had already been submitted to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. If Davidson and Eastwood had tried to fingerprint the first silencer again, it would have been a pointless exercise because by the 13th September 1985, the first silencer was already coated with the white residue of the cynoacrylate fumes from Cooks test on the 23rd August 1985. The tests performed by Davidson and Eastwood on the second silencer (13th September) were carried out to try to confirm who had actually handled 'it', at a time when cops suspected the relatives of trying to frame Jeremy for the murders. David Boutflours, Ann Eaton's, Robert Boutflours, and Peter Eaton's fingerprints were found on the second silencer. The reason the cops did not disclose this 'fingerprint' evidence obtained from examination of the second silencer, was because to have done so, would conflict with the claim made by the relatives and the cops, that David Boutflour had only found one silencer, not two. If Davidson and Eastwood had come forward to say that they had found relatives fingerprints on the silencer when they examined it on the 13th September 1985, it would have inadvertently exposed the claim that there had only been one silencer, the truth hinging on the date 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted the first silencer (23rd August 1985) by way of superglue treatment, which would have left the first silencer coated in white residue and rendering it impossible for anyone to get access to fingerprints beneath the coating of white reside...
The game would have been well and truly up...
-
Why would the police report that AE's or Neville's fingerprints were on the silencer ? Everyone knows they handled it and it does not prove any guilt or innocence.
That's the whole point there would be prints on it so how comes they did not report finding any?
What did you think of Bamber's 90's dirty protest over a police decision ?
Not allot
-
That's the whole point there would be prints on it so how comes they did not report finding any?
Not allot
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6097.msg270722.html#msg270722
There is a five page thread on his dirty protest. But I appreciate Bamber's supporters like to portray him as a model prisoner.
If the police reported no prints, then there were no prints that could be distinguished.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6097.msg270722.html#msg270722
There is a five page thread on his dirty protest. But I appreciate Bamber's supporters like to portray him as a model prisoner.
Well, how would you react if you had been wrongly banged up then only to hear the police deny any wrongdoing?
id be pretty pissed off wont you?
-
Well, how would you react if you had been wrongly banged up then only to hear the police deny any wrongdoing?
id be pretty pissed off wont you?
When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed Jeremy's concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “FREE BAMBER HE IS INNOCENT” in excrement on the walls.
It seems that the 'independent' Police Complaints Authority, 7 years later, thought the police handled the investigation correctly
-
DS 'Stan' Jones's fingerprints, would also have been present on the first silencer, as opposed to DC Oakeys fingerprints being present upon the second silencer...
-
Cops and relatives can insist there was only ever the 'one silencer' found at the scene, but the truth of the matter is that two different identical looking ones were recovered, the first belonging to Anthony Pargeters ,Bruno rifle', and the second one belonging to the Bamber family owned 'anshuzt rifle'. The first one handed over to DS 'Stan' Jones, by Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, the second one handed over to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985. None of the items which eventually were given 'DRB' exhibit references, found their way into police possession until on or after the 11th September 1985. This 'triggered' widespread editing of documentary evidence in the investigation, where the exhibit references to the first silencer (SJ or SBJ/1) were abruptly 'altered' because there had originally been some confusion over who had found 'this' silencer (DS 'Stan' Jones, or David Boutflour) and so 'it' got made into 'DB/1' by the 30th August 1985. However, once the second silencer was handed over to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, which DS Davidson and DS Eastwood had 'fingerprinted' on the 13th September 1985, and then which had been submitted to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for 'blood' and 'fibres, cops decided to 'merge' both of these identical looking silencers into one. By the 17th November 1985, further steps were taken to 'alter' documentary evidence, thereby making it possible for the authorities to present the silencer as 'exhibit DRB/1'...
PI 'Bob' Miller (Operations manager) was tasked with trying to make sure that the exhibit reference to the silencer that was to be relied upon at the forthcoming trial, would all be 'DRB/1'. This can be verified by independent hand written notes upon which 'Miller' gives instruction for various witness statements to be 'altered' by making the silencer exhibit references into DRB/1', from, 'DB/1', and 'SBJ/1'. What this demonstrates is that cops did not simply swap over the key silencers, but that a lot of effort had gone into trying to create a false 'continuity' trail by 'altering' witness statement, as well as lab' records, as can be evidenced by the aforementioned explanation. During the trial, the silencer was always referred to, and mentioned, by referring to 'its' exhibit reference of 'DRB/1', lab' item number 22. There was no clues available at that stage for anyone to know about the full history behind the covert introduction of the second silencer, which had replaced the first one. No incline that the silencer exhibited during the trial, had in fact not been the same silencer which Peter Eaton had handed over to 'Stan' Jones on the 12th August 1985. The silencer relied upon during the trial, had not been the same silencer which 'Stan' Jones had shown to 'Bob' Miller on the morning of the 13th August 1985, which Miller had instructed Jones to give 'it' to 'Ron' Cook that same date ('it' being a different silencer than the one which would eventually be relied upon during the trial). The silencer relied upon during the October 1986 trial was not the same silencer which 'Ron' Cook had taken to the lab'at Huntingdon for Glynis Howard to examine on that same date, upon which was found 'animals' and Human' bloods. The silencer which was eventually relied upon during the trial was not the same silencer which Glynis Howard had handed back to 'Ron' Cook on the 13th August 1985. Neither was 'that' particular silencer which Cook had 'fingerprinted on the 15th August 1985' by way of an oblique light test, the same silencer relied on during the trial, nor was 'it' the same silencer that 'Ron' Cook once more had ' fingerprinted' by 'superglue technique' on the 23rd August 1985. The silencer relied upon during the October 1986 trial (DRB/1) was not the same silencer which Cook had been carrying around in his grubby coat pocket for 17 days and nights (between 13th to 30th August 1985), and which he had himself dismantled, rebuilt and had screwed ' that' silencer directly onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle. The silencer (DB/1) that Cook had sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985, for the attention of the ballistic expert, 'Malcolm' Fletcher, inside which it has been claimed the key flake of dried blood was subsequently obtained on the 12th September 1975, cannot and was not the same silencer relied upon during the trial on the following year. No, none of those events involved 'the silencer' which came to be relied upon during the trial...
The silencer (DRB/1) that came to be relied upon during the trial, was the one Ann Eaton handed to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985. It was ' the silencer' (DRB/1) which DS Davidson and DS Eastwood had 'fingerprinted at 1800 hrs on the 13th September 1985. 'It' was the silencer (DRB/1) which got sent to the lab'' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, to be 'checked' for 'blood' and 'fibers'. The silencer (DRB/1) which found itself at the heart of the prosecutions case when Bamber stood trial in October 1986, was the same silencer which was 'examined' at the lab' on I think was the 29th April 1986, by amongst others, Glynis Howard, in the company of a defence expert, at a time when the internal baffle plates of 'it' had the jaws of the baffles upward facing, whereas, when 'Ron' Cook had dismantled the 'other' silencer on the 29th August 1985, the jaws of the baffle plates of 'that' silencer had been 'downward facing'...
What we now know, is that the key blood group evidence ( A, EAP BA, AK/1, and HP2/1) could 'not' have been recovered from inside the silencer (DRB/1) relied upon during the trial, quite simply because by the time 'that' (DRB/1) silencer got sent to the lab' (20th September 1985) to be checked for 'blood', the key flake of dried blood had 'already been 'found' inside the 'other' silencer (DB/1) 9 days beforehand, and furthermore, the flake itself, had 'already' been analysed, and the aforementioned blood group activity 'obtained', long before the second silencer (DRB/1) had even been sent to be examined at the lab'. So, there it is, laid out threadbare, 'the flake' was 'not' found' inside the silencer (DRB/1) relied upon during the trial. His flake had and must have been found in the other silencer (DB/1), the silencer that cops had sent to the lab' 21 days before the second silencer (DRB/1) got sent there. The court was therefore, deceived by the relatives, the cops, and scientific staff at Huntingdon, because they all knew that there had been two different identical parker hale silencers at the heart of the police investigation and that the key blood group evidence surounding the flake ( A, EAP BA, AK/1, and HP2/1) did 'not' originate from inside 'DRB/1', but rather, that it originated from inside the 'other' silencer (DB/1)...
The confusion over who had 'found' the silencer which 'Ron' Cook had taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985, arose because Cook had it in his mind 'on that date' that DS Jones had been the finder of 'that' silencer (SJ, or SBJ/1). This was because on the 7th August 1985, DS 'Stan' Jones had returned to the scene from Jeremy's cottage, and whilst present at the farmhouse DS Jones had seized or taken four exhibits (SBJ/1, 2, 3 and 4). One of those items (SBJ/1) being 'a silencer'. What Cook did not know on the 13th August 1985, was that Peter Eaton had handed the first of the two silencers over to DS Jones, on the previous evening. Hence why, according to Cook, upon arriving at the lab' with 'that' silencer, he attached an exhibit label, and marked it with the identifying mark oi 'SJ/1', not SBJ/1. The reason Cook marked that silencer 'SJ/1' was because Cook told COLP that he was 'unaware' that DS Jones had another Christian name other than 'Stan' (Brian). What this tells us, is that by the 7th August 1985, cops 'already' had possession of one silencer (SBJ/1) linked to the police investigation. This was the silencer which 'Stan' Jones took from the scene along with the other three 'SBJ' exhibits. Then by 12th August 1985, cops received the first of two different identical looking silencers from Peter Eaton (his wife, Ann would eventually hand over the second of the two silencers, to DC Oakey, on the 11th September 1985). What becomes clear to me, is that the silencer given to Jones by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August 1985, was the one that 'Ron' Cook had taken to the lab' on the following day. This brings me onto the whereabouts of the silencer (SBJ/1) which 'Stan' Jones had seized from the scene on the first morning of the investigation? I am confident that 'this' particular silencer, (SBJ/1) found its way onto DCI 'Taff' Jones desk, at Witham police station. Much later, when the confusion regarding the finder of the silencer which 'Ron' Cook had marked up, 'SJ/1' at the lab' came to light, to save further confusion, 'that' silencer (SJ/1) was reallocated exhibit reference, 'DB/1', and sent back to the lab' on the 30th August 1985...
-
When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed Jeremy's concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “FREE BAMBER HE IS INNOCENT” in excrement on the walls.
It seems that the 'independent' Police Complaints Authority, 7 years later, thought the police handled the investigation correctly
so he was using the dirty tactics of the ira.i hope the screws gave them a good hiding and than straight down the BLOCK ;) ;D
-
Having been incarcerated myself, and having been he victim of physical abuse at the hands of 'screws' at Armley prison (Leeds) around the time of large numbers of so called suicides of young offenders, I would like to say that 'beatings' of anybody, by screws, is unforgivable. I have served parts of my sentences in the same prisons as the IRA, UDA, and Jeremy, himself. They did their dirty protests and nobody got hurt by any of them. Rather than villify them, learn to respect what they all did during those protests, and the reason why they all felt they had to take such action. The IRA considered themselves as 'prisoners of war', as bad as the atrocities they were convicted of carrying out, you have to ask yourselves, whether or not, when countries like ours drop bombs which murder and maim innocent victims or by standers, that the forces our country have deployed is akin to us being responsible for causing similar attrocties?
-
Having been incarcerated myself, and having been he victim of physical abuse at the hands of 'screws' at Armley prison (Leeds) around the time of large numbers of so called suicides of young offenders, I would like to say that 'beatings' of anybody, by screws, is unforgivable. I have served parts of my sentences in the same prisons as the IRA, UDA, and Jeremy, himself. They did their dirty protests and nobody got hurt by any of them. Rather than villify them, learn to respect what they all did during those protests, and the reason why they all felt they had to take such action. The IRA considered themselves as 'prisoners of war', as bad as the atrocities they were convicted of carrying out, you have to ask yourselves, whether or not, when countries like ours drop bombs which murder and maim innocent victims or by standers, that the forces our country have deployed is akin to us being responsible for causing similar attrocties?
Ask yourselves why the British Government agreed to release convicted IRA activists early, as part of the Good Friday, agreement?
-
When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed Jeremy's concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “FREE BAMBER HE IS INNOCENT” in excrement on the walls.
It seems that the 'independent' Police Complaints Authority, 7 years later, thought the police handled the investigation correctly
Adam what are you talking about? Independent Police Complaints Commission did not exist back then! It was formed in 2004 thus could not have done anything in 1992 as it did not exist
(http://i.giphy.com/Iw6aBmYGRwFX2.gif)
-
When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed Jeremy's concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “FREE BAMBER HE IS INNOCENT” in excrement on the walls.
It seems that the 'independent' Police Complaints Authority, 7 years later, thought the police handled the investigation correctly
never mind joining him.if i was banged up with him i would iron him out'spark out' ;)
-
Well, how would you react if you had been wrongly banged up then only to hear the police deny any wrongdoing?
id be pretty pissed off wont you?
Or this could suggest he was angry at having been found guilty of his crimes and he did it for attention...
-
Adam what are you talking about? Independent Police Complaints Commission did not exist back then! It was formed in 2004 thus could not have done anything in 1992 as it did not exist
(http://i.giphy.com/Iw6aBmYGRwFX2.gif)
From Wikipedia.
The Police Complaints Authority (PCA), was an independent body in the United Kingdom with the power to investigate public complaints against the Police in England and Wales as well as related matters of public concern. It was formed in 1985, replacing the Police Complaints Board and was then itself replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in April 2004.
Get you're facts right. Or did you think I wouldn't check ?
Anyway Bamber made his 'dirty protest' after not getting what he wanted. Which Bamber has admitted to.
-
DS Gilbert report on Bamber enquiry 2000
"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints"
Michael turner appeal notes 2002
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
And yet you don't have to look too far to find documentation to see mention of testing the casings for fingerprints. You have posted such yourself. The above means nothing.
The document you keep posting (partially) documents that they tested the casings for finger prints
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7292.msg352972.html#msg352972
You have even tried to argue that they found Sheila's prints on the bible! ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
-
Or this could suggest he was angry at having been found guilty of his crimes and he did it for attention...
yes he has always been a attention seeker ;)
-
From Wikipedia.
The Police Complaints Authority (PCA), was an independent body in the United Kingdom with the power to investigate public complaints against the Police in England and Wales as well as related matters of public concern. It was formed in 1985, replacing the Police Complaints Board and was then itself replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in April 2004.
Get you're facts right. Or did you think I wouldn't check ?
Anyway Bamber made his 'dirty protest' after not getting what he wanted. Which Bamber has admitted to.
Well done Adam, here is a PDF that David might like to read so he can get his facts right ;D ;D
http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/catalogerfiles/the-police-complaints-system/complaints_briefing.pdf
-
Well done Adam, here is a PDF that David might like to read so he can get his facts right ;D ;D
http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/catalogerfiles/the-police-complaints-system/complaints_briefing.pdf
Having, in the past, condemned many of Adam's posts, I'd like to add my own compliments to him for his tenacity.
-
From Wikipedia.
The Police Complaints Authority (PCA), was an independent body in the United Kingdom with the power to investigate public complaints against the Police in England and Wales as well as related matters of public concern. It was formed in 1985, replacing the Police Complaints Board and was then itself replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in April 2004.
Get you're facts right. Or did you think I wouldn't check ?
Anyway Bamber made his 'dirty protest' after not getting what he wanted. Which Bamber has admitted to.
well spotted adam,how many of his other posts need scrutiny,will always be caught out when he deals with someone who knows the facts ;D.
-
Is this where your argument comes from David? ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7266.msg343547.html#msg343547
-
Is this where your argument comes from David? ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7266.msg343547.html#msg343547
Where would we be without our sharp-eyed scrutineers?
-
And yet you don't have to look too far to find documentation to see mention of testing the casings for fingerprints. You have posted such yourself. The above means nothing.
The document you keep posting (partially) documents that they tested the casings for finger prints
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7292.msg352972.html#msg352972
You have even tried to argue that they found Sheila's prints on the bible! ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
The above means nothing to you because of your zealotry and stonewalling
Hartley posted that form to try and prove they never found prints on the bible because it its not listed on there even tho we now know they did check it later.
You have even tried to argue that they found Sheila's prints on the bible! ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
As for prints on the bible I think Sheila may have been caught 'red handed' ;D
-
Where would we be without our sharp-eyed scrutineers?
here here,jane
-
Where would we be without our sharp-eyed scrutineers?
Oh Dear...
-
The above means nothing to you because of your zealotry and stonewalling
Hartley posted that form to try and prove they never found prints on the bible because it its not listed on there even tho we now know they did check it later.
As for prints on the bible I think Sheila may have been caught 'red handed' ;D
zealotry n stonewalling,WHERE'david david david i believe your getting a bit hot under the collar :))
-
Is this where your argument comes from David? ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7266.msg343547.html#msg343547
Wrong (Again)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2546 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2546)
-
From Wikipedia.
The Police Complaints Authority (PCA), was an independent body in the United Kingdom with the power to investigate public complaints against the Police in England and Wales as well as related matters of public concern. It was formed in 1985, replacing the Police Complaints Board and was then itself replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in April 2004.
Get you're facts right. Or did you think I wouldn't check ?
Anyway Bamber made his 'dirty protest' after not getting what he wanted. Which Bamber has admitted to.
Independent Police Complaints Commission still did not exist until 2004. Whatever existed before then is not the IPCC
-
Independent Police Complaints Commission still did not exist until 2004. Whatever existed before then is not the IPCC
Adam wasn't talking about IPCC - YOU mentioned them when you tried to ridicule his post with your laughing Ricky Gif (which is getting a bit old now).
When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed Jeremy's concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “FREE BAMBER HE IS INNOCENT” in excrement on the walls.
It seems that the 'independent' Police Complaints Authority, 7 years later, thought the police handled the investigation correctly
-
The above means nothing to you because of your zealotry and stonewalling
Hartley posted that form to try and prove they never found prints on the bible because it its not listed on there even tho we now know they did check it later.
As for prints on the bible I think Sheila may have been caught 'red handed' ;D
Ha, ha!! You're the zealot!! Desperate to find ANYTHING which might show Bamber to be innocent - you have no proof that police denied they tested the bullets for fingerprints. In fact, you have posted documents in which they have admitted they DID. They simply found no identifiable prints either on the casings or the bible. However, the prints on the bible mean nothing so your report (for all your boasting) means nothing.
-
Wrong (Again)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2546 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2546)
Given that Holly (on the red forum) has been discussing this in some depth, I'd say you got it from her - you're good at doing that. Oh don't tell me - you didn't know she had discussed it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Given that Holly (on the red forum) has been discussing this in some depth, I'd say you got it from her - you're good at doing that. Oh don't tell me - you didn't know she had discussed it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Nope new to me. Id say your losing your marbles tho ;D
-
have no proof that police denied they tested the bullets for fingerprints.
DS Gilbert report on Bamber enquiry 2000
"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints"
I'm going round in circles with a xxxxxxx :o ???
-
Hartley posted that form to try and prove they never found prints on the bible because it its not listed on there even tho we now know they did check it later.
Oy!!!! Xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx!!
I didn't try to prove anything one way or the other, merely showed you that there were alternative possibilities when you claimed something was a fact.
-
Oy!!!! xx xxx xxx xxxxxx!!!
I didn't try to prove anything one way or the other, merely showed you that there were alternative possibilities when you claimed something was a fact.
You said it was not on the results list therefore not checked.. (A reasonable assumption). And I replied not necessarily
-
You said it was not on the results list therefore not checked.. (A reasonable assumption). And I replied not necessarily
No David. You posted this image:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-whVHET9LEX4/UPu2KikYDUI/AAAAAAAAADw/RlwgWOIQ4vM/s1600/504975715.jpg)
Claiming it to be evidence that Sheila's fingerprints were found on the bible.
Like Sheila's fingerprints found on the bible?
I then posted this document:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4452.0;attach=33007;image)
Which is the same type of form, listing a number of items, however, not all items listed were found to have fingerprints.
My reasoning was that what you posted, could simply have referred to a form which listed a number of items, one of them being the bible. The bible then may or may not have been found to have contained relevant fingerprints.
I am not trying to prove one thing or another, merely suggested that the evidence you were using to reinforce your assertions, was at best, a bit flimsy.
......................................................................
Feel free to name drop me if you think it adds weight to your posts, but please quote me accurately. :)
-
DS Gilbert report on Bamber enquiry 2000
"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints"
I'm going round in circles with a xxxxxxx :o ???
I'm going round in circles with a x xxxx xxxxx.
You have posted documents that show they admit to testing for prints! What you haven't been able to show, is that they got identifiable prints.
By the way, post the document that the above quote you keep posting, comes from.
-
No David. You posted this image:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-whVHET9LEX4/UPu2KikYDUI/AAAAAAAAADw/RlwgWOIQ4vM/s1600/504975715.jpg)
Claiming it to be evidence that Sheila's fingerprints were found on the bible.
I then posted this document:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4452.0;attach=33007;image)
Which is the same type of form, listing a number of items, however, not all items listed were found to have fingerprints.
My reasoning was that what you posted, could simply have referred to a form which listed a number of items, one of them being the bible. The bible then may or may not have been found to have contained relevant fingerprints.
I am not trying to prove one thing or another, merely suggested that the evidence you were using to reinforce your assertions, was at best, a bit flimsy.
......................................................................
Feel free to name drop me if you think it adds weight to your posts, but please quote me accurately. :)
David makes a lot of claims and assumptions none of them have any weight!
-
David makes a lot of claims and assumptions none of them have any weight!
Your getting me mixed up with yourself
-
David makes a lot of claims and assumptions none of them have any weight!
That's true.
He never did comment on this either:
The 2002 appeal judgement states the following:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
-
David makes a lot of claims and assumptions none of them have any weight!
yes i can agree with that ;D
-
You have posted documents that show they admit to testing for prints! What you haven't been able to show, is that they got identifiable prints.
If they were not identifiable why hide them? ::)
I'm going round in circles with a lying idiot.
A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that photos of Sheila's feet are not Sheila's feet.... OH WAIT!
A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that Julie is a credible witness when they are on record proving she is not a credible witness at all
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658)
Fantastic post Neil - I think it speak volumes that even the most ardent guilty supporters can't bring themselves to defend the actions of Julie Mugford - Your own words
Caroline you are a xxxx!
-
If they were not identifiable why hide them? ::)
A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that photos of Sheila's feet are not Sheila's feet.... OH WAIT!
A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that Julie is a credible witness when they are on record proving she is not a credible witness at all
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658)
Fantastic post Neil - I think it speak volumes that even the most ardent guilty supporters can't bring themselves to defend the actions of Julie Mugford - Your own words
Caroline you are a xxxx!
i think the xxxxx is you david ,you dwell on peoples past ,the thing is they have cleared the wool from their eyes ,you havnt ;D
-
If they were not identifiable why hide them? ::)
A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that photos of Sheila's feet are not Sheila's feet.... OH WAIT!
A xxx xxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that Julie is a credible witness when they are on record proving she is not a credible witness at all
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658)
Fantastic post Neil - I think it speak volumes that even the most ardent guilty supporters can't bring themselves to defend the actions of Julie Mugford - Your own words
Caroline you are a xxxx!
You're the xxxx! The documents you posted make your own argument null and void but you keep repeating them!
You posted a misquote of RWB's words to support your argument even thought you MUST have read what he actually said and chose to ignore it - that makes you dishonest and someone who is dishonest is a xxxx.
What is the point in posting stuff I wrote when I thought Bamber was innocent? I haven't denied I once thought that - everyone here knows that. You're just desperate because your argument SUCKS and you can't back it up!
By the way, I'm no fan of Julie Mugford, nor do I think she was 100% truthful and clearly what she said about the visit to the bank isn't the full truth. However, most of what she said was stuff she was told by Jeremy, so that can hardly be truthful but that's not down to her. He didn't tell her the full truth either. If you have to bend the truth to make a point, you have no point to make and you do that frequently. If you want to search through my posts, feel free - you never know, you might get enough to write another report! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
You're the one who got personal David - if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
-
That's true.
He never did comment on this either:
How heartbreaking that those little boys put their trust in God as they went to sleep that night..
-
How heartbreaking that those little boys put their trust in God as they went to sleep that night..
very true steve,did he ever say words to the effect,i love my nephews and could never harm them >:(
-
very true steve,did he ever say words to the effect,i love my nephews and could never harm them >:(
I can't remember him ever talking about them..
-
I can't remember him ever talking about them..
just as i thought,innocent children used in a evil game of GREED
-
PURE EVIL TO SHOOT 2 KIDS IN THE HEAD WHILE THEY SLEPT.I CANT THINK OF A WORSE CRIME
-
You're the xxxx! The documents you posted make your own argument null and void but you keep repeating them!
You posted a misquote of RWB's words to support your argument even thought you MUST have read what he actually said and chose to ignore it - that makes you xxxxxxxxx and someone who is xxxxxxxxx is a xxxx.
I am not misquoting anything. You are simply making up excuses to avoid finding a plausible alternative answer because you cant find one. You say I am a xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxx simply to manipulate the forum members in the hope they wont listen to me. You cant debate me so you resort to tenuous smear xxxx xxxx xxxxxx against me instead.
What is the point in posting stuff I wrote when I thought Bamber was innocent? I haven't denied I once thought that - everyone here knows that. You're just desperate because your argument SUCKS and you can't back it up!
Oh no Caroline ;D The significance of posting what you have written in the past shows everyone here that you KNOW Julie Mugford has no credibility and you KNOW and FULLY UNDERSTAND in great detail why her testimony does not add up. Thus you KNOW the case against Jeremy is bogus 8) it is you that is the insidious one.
You know there is not a shred evidence that's why you post xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx, No substancial evidence worth the time of day. Just xxxxxxxxxx, xxxx and xxxxxxxxx to try and stain Jeremy's character and then diverting attention away from genuine evidence you don't like to discuss. There is certainly an underlying motive here, as you do not produce any valid reason as to why you believe Jeremy is guilty, Then when pressed on it you become evasive.
If you want to search through my posts, feel free - you never know, you might get enough to write another report! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
You're the one who got personal David - if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Still accusing me of stealing things you never thought of or never worked out ;D another xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxx of yours
Your the one who got personal because what I bring the forum gets in the way of your xxxxxxxxxx xxx you have xxxxxxxxxxxx committed yourself to.
-
You have xxxx on here several times David. Most recently yesterday when trying to ridicule my post and deflect attention away from Bamber's dirty protest.
Prior to that you created you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough', xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx to try to give it a tiny bit of gravitas. Then saying you couldn't disclose what it was because you knew it would be dismissed.
There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which means it was Bamber as to suggest Neville phoned him is ridiculous. You agreed as you could only answer 6 of my recent 30 questions on Neville's mysterious phone call. Then there is the motives, opportunity and no alibi.
Julie's WS and testimony is 100% solid. To suggest she read AE's and RB's diaries, or colluded with them while also with Bamber for a month is again very weak. Suggesting she should have been wired up after splitting up with Bamber is something Mike or Lookout have not suggested There is no way she would go as a lone wolf and try to frame an innocent Bamber one month after the massacre, just because she was perhaps jilted.
-
Julie's WS and testimony is 100% solid.
And the Earth is flat ;)
-
Fingerprints were found on several of the bullet cases, which were 'not' Jeremy Bambers, but partial fingerprints belonging to Sheila Caffell. The prints that were found did not contain sufficient ridge characteristics to warrant them being used in evidence, but cops were convinced that the results they did obtain had originated from Bambers sister. There still exist 14 original spent cartridge cases (MDF/100) at Huntingdon Lab' which contained these fingerprints. The information about the existence of these 14 cartridges at the Lab' came to light in 2004 when ballistic expert, 'RENSHAW' attended 'Birdwell Armoury', near Barnsley to carry out tests relating to 'expansion rates' of Eley .22 LR bullet cases fired in a series of .22 semi automatic type weapons, both with use of a Sound Moderator, and minus the same. RENSHAW was in charge at the Lab' at Huntingdon when Fletcher took control of the ballistics in 1985. RENSHAW stated in a report that he produced for Jeremy that it may be possible to obtain the required data regarding the expansion rates from 14 of the original cartridge cases still held at the lab'. Now, if this was / is true, it means that 14 cartridge cases in the batch of crime scene ammunition were 'tampered with', and swapped over, and that 'not all' the original cartridge cases from the shootings had in fact been destroyed. In other words, 14 of the original 24 / 25 bullet cases are still in existence, and everybody involved at the lab' with the crime scene ammunition, including cops, knew about 14 cartridge cases that were 'swapped over'...
Now, by anybodies standards, that can't be right, or lawful...
What we then find, after cops staged Sheila's body on the bedroom floor from the bed, is that they 'infer' that the two cartridge cases found alongside her body (DRH/1 and DRH/2) do 'not' have a single grain of 'white residue' upon them, from them having been exposed to 'superglue treatment' on the 23rd August 1985. Now, that is 'astonishing'...
Where are the original two cartridge cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) which 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted using 'cynoacrylate fumes, on the 23rd August 1985?
-
You have xxxx on here several times David. Most recently yesterday when trying to ridicule my post and deflect attention away from Bamber's dirty protest.
Prior to that you created you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough', xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx to try to give it a tiny bit of gravitas. Then saying you couldn't disclose what it was because you knew it would be dismissed.
There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which means it was Bamber as to suggest Neville phoned him is ridiculous. You agreed as you could only answer 6 of my recent 30 questions on Neville's mysterious phone call. Then there is the motives, opportunity and no alibi.
Julie's WS and testimony is 100% solid. To suggest she read AE's and RB's diaries, or colluded with them while also with Bamber for a month is again very weak. Suggesting she should have been wired up after splitting up with Bamber is something Mike or Lookout have not suggested There is no way she would go as a lone wolf and try to frame an innocent Bamber one month after the massacre, just because she was perhaps jilted.
youve done tons of excellent posts adam,and made it so much easier for novices like me to find the facts on the case,sad to say as usual when the people cant argue with the facts you provide ,they resort to mockery ,like david's post above,good work keep it up
-
All metal objects which get exposed to 'cynoacrylate fumes' (superglue treatment) get coated in white residue, which is a permanent coating. So, why is it, that the two bullet cases which Cook fingerprinted with the superglue technique, did not show any evidence of either having been fingerprinted by this technique?
These two cartridge cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) would almost certainly have been amongst the first bullet cases to be examined for fingerprints, if we believe what 'Ron' Cook himself has stated that he had done, and which official police records confirm had taken place, and that positive results had been obtained along with the fingerprint Reference number and clear mention that these prints had been found on items next to Sheila Caffells body on the bedroom floor, which included a bible...
-
I am not misquoting anything. You are simply making up excuses to avoid finding a plausible alternative answer because you cant find one. You say I am a xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxx simply to manipulate the forum members in the hope they wont listen to me. You cant debate me so you resort to tenuous smear xxxx xxxx xxxxxx against me instead.
Oh no Caroline ;D The significance of posting what you have written in the past shows everyone here that you KNOW Julie Mugford has no credibility and you KNOW and FULLY UNDERSTAND in great detail why her testimony does not add up. Thus you KNOW the case against Jeremy is bogus 8) it is you that is the insidious one.
You know there is not a shred evidence that's why you post xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx, No substancial evidence worth the time of day. Just xxxxxxxxxx, xxxx and xxxxxxxxx to try and stain Jeremy's character and then diverting attention away from genuine evidence you don't like to discuss. There is certainly an underlying motive here, as you do not produce any valid reason as to why you believe Jeremy is guilty, Then when pressed on it you become evasive.
Still accusing me of stealing things you never thought of or never worked out ;D another xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxx of yours
Your the one who got personal because what I bring the forum gets in the way of your xxxxxxxxxx xxx you have xxxxxxxxxxxx committed yourself to.
You are misquoting, RB said that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. You're dishonest David - completely dishonest. Instead of quoting what he actually said, you chose to post an inaccurate account, even though you must have seen his actual words but chose to post what suited your agender.
You have become obsessed but not because you think Jeremy is innocent, but because you think you might get something out of it. You're not even a supporter!!
Telling me what I think makes you look like an idiot, you can keep saying there is no evidence and misquote things to serve that purpose but your arguments fall flat every time and your dishonesty becomes more and more obvious which makes your comment about 'genuine evidence' laughable. You bend the truth to defend Jeremy but have nothing to support that Sheila was responsible - if you think her palm print on the bible makes her look guilty, then you are more deluded than I thought you were. Stain Jeremy's character? I think a lot of people got there before me on that one - he's a convicted murderer for gods sake and one that EVEN YOU can't say is innocent! ::) ;D ;D
Let me make this plain for you and draw you a picture so that you can understand once and for all and that other members will be clear also - I first brought up the notion of the palm print, you cottoned onto it and thought you could use it to your OWN advantage. You quizzed me about it and used what I said (implications for the hand swabs etc.) as a BASIS for your report - you even included the dimensions of the bible from one of my posts. I made a guess when you asked me that question and the dimensions in your report are incorrect! I have PM's where you admitted "There is some truth to my accusations", even going so far as to suggest we collaborate! Like that would EVER be an option when I believe Jeremy is guilty!
I'm laughing at your last sentence - 'what you bring to the forum' you mean misquotes and twisting of the truth? And I'm not the only one who had noticed! If EVER you are called to be a witness at any appeal (like that's going to happen!) - your behaviour here will be brought into question and you will be discredited. I'd have thought you would have wanted to keep a low profile, given what you were 'supposedly' told but you have done nothing but brag and become ever more obsessed as the days go on.
-
You have xxxx on here several times David. Most recently yesterday when trying to ridicule my post and deflect attention away from Bamber's dirty protest.
Prior to that you created you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough', xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx to try to give it a tiny bit of gravitas. Then saying you couldn't disclose what it was because you knew it would be dismissed.
There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which means it was Bamber as to suggest Neville phoned him is ridiculous. You agreed as you could only answer 6 of my recent 30 questions on Neville's mysterious phone call. Then there is the motives, opportunity and no alibi.
Julie's WS and testimony is 100% solid. To suggest she read AE's and RB's diaries, or colluded with them while also with Bamber for a month is again very weak. Suggesting she should have been wired up after splitting up with Bamber is something Mike or Lookout have not suggested There is no way she would go as a lone wolf and try to frame an innocent Bamber one month after the massacre, just because she was perhaps jilted.
Her friends would also have to have lied to frame Bamber and David avoids the hit man aspect because it doesn't fit his agender.
-
Witness statements are not always recorded in the exact words that a witness says. The truth of the matter is that a cop will ask a question, and the witness will answer, and then the cop who is seeking a particular approach, will paraphrase what the witness says...
-
Witness statements are not always recorded in the exact words that a witness says. The truth of the matter is that a cop will ask a question, and the witness will answer, and then the cop who is seeking a particular approach, will paraphrase what the witness says...
It is 'unusual' for a witness to make their own witness statement, using their own words, or phrases. It is time that legal changes were brought into force to prevent deceptions of this nature continuing. A better approach would be to record the questions a cop puts to a witness and the exact answers the witness gives...
-
Sometimes cops make a witness statement for a witness who is not even present, acting on the advice of the DPP. These 'bastards' think they are above the law...
-
Silencer Logic
-
There was an 'unofficial / unreported' test fire of the Anshuzt rifle and control ammunition:-
-
DS Gilbert report on Bamber enquiry 2000
"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints"
Dickinson's Report seems to have been able to find out about the cartridges being tested for fingerprints. :-\
Maybe Gilbert is either mistaken or is his "quote" being taken out of context?
-
Dickinson's Report seems to have been able to find out about the cartridges being tested for fingerprints. :-\
Maybe Gilbert is either mistaken or is his "quote" being taken out of context?
I asked for the 'original document' from which the quote was taken - still waiting.
-
Point 74 of Dickinson's Report seems to disagree with this postulation.
Michael turner appeal notes 2002
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5944;image)
-
This particular paragraph originates from the official campaign website and is not actually a quote from the document claimed.
Michael turner appeal notes 2002
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases.
Can be found here: https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/ (https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/)
It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims. ::)
-
This particular paragraph originates from the official campaign website and is not actually a quote from the document claimed.
Can be found here: https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/ (https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/)
It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims. ::)
Oh dear ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This particular paragraph originates from the official campaign website and is not actually a quote from the document claimed.
Can be found here: https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/ (https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/)
It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims. ::)
now theres a surprise . :)) :))
-
It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims. ::)
Surely not.. ;D
-
It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims. ::)
You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so. 8)
The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.
-
You are misquoting, RB said that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. You're dishonest David - completely dishonest. Instead of quoting what he actually said, you chose to post an inaccurate account, even though you must have seen his actual words but chose to post what suited your agender.
You have become obsessed but not because you think Jeremy is innocent, but because you think you might get something out of it. You're not even a supporter!!
Telling me what I think makes you look like an idiot, you can keep saying there is no evidence and misquote things to serve that purpose but your arguments fall flat every time and your dishonesty becomes more and more obvious which makes your comment about 'genuine evidence' laughable. You bend the truth to defend Jeremy but have nothing to support that Sheila was responsible - if you think her palm print on the bible makes her look guilty, then you are more deluded than I thought you were. Stain Jeremy's character? I think a lot of people got there before me on that one - he's a convicted murderer for gods sake and one that EVEN YOU can't say is innocent! ::) ;D ;D
Let me make this plain for you and draw you a picture so that you can understand once and for all and that other members will be clear also - I first brought up the notion of the palm print, you cottoned onto it and thought you could use it to your OWN advantage. You quizzed me about it and used what I said (implications for the hand swabs etc.) as a BASIS for your report - you even included the dimensions of the bible from one of my posts. I made a guess when you asked me that question and the dimensions in your report are incorrect! I have PM's where you admitted "There is some truth to my accusations", even going so far as to suggest we collaborate! Like that would EVER be an option when I believe Jeremy is guilty!
I'm laughing at your last sentence - 'what you bring to the forum' you mean misquotes and twisting of the truth? And I'm not the only one who had noticed! If EVER you are called to be a witness at any appeal (like that's going to happen!) - your behaviour here will be brought into question and you will be discredited. I'd have thought you would have wanted to keep a low profile, given what you were 'supposedly' told but you have done nothing but brag and become ever more obsessed as the days go on.
Caroline you KNOW Mugford's testimony is false and you have demonstrated you UNDERSTAND why Mugfords testimony does not add up. Sure you now concede that not everything she sais is true, but only in order for you to appear somewhat honest and reasonable.
So this brings me to one very important question and its the one question you refuse to give a straight answer to because you know the true answer directly threatens the coherency and validity of the position you currently hold. Question - What is it that makes you believe Jeremy is guilty?
Since you have dedicated yourself so much in time and effort trying to persuade people that Jeremy is guilty. The forum is anticipating an enthralling answer ::) its ok Caroline don't be shy ;D
-
You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so. 8)
The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.
As it must surely follow that you saying something is fact does not make it so.
It's incredibly naive and trusting of you to accept that all those working on Jeremy's team are real, authentic -and have control of Jeremy's actions- whilst holding the belief that all those against him are liars.
-
As it must surely follow that you saying something is fact does not make it so.
It's incredibly naive and trusting of you to accept that all those working on Jeremy's team are real, authentic -and have control of Jeremy's actions- whilst holding the belief that all those against him are liars.
here here well said jane :)
-
Caroline you KNOW Mugford's testimony is false and you have demonstrated you UNDERSTAND why Mugfords testimony does not add up. Sure you now concede that not everything she sais is true, but only in order for you to appear somewhat honest and reasonable.
So this brings me to one very important question and its the one question you refuse to give a straight answer to because you know the true answer directly threatens the coherency and validity of the position you currently hold. Question - What is it that makes you believe Jeremy is guilty?
thats a silly question,david,youve read enough posts of caroline's and others to know why they think jb is guilty.if not than the people on the forum that have debated the case with you over months or years have been debating with a brick wall :)
Since you have dedicated yourself so much in time and effort trying to persuade people that Jeremy is guilty. The forum is anticipating an enthralling answer ::) its ok Caroline don't be shy ;D
-
'The mob' claimed Sheila's body was found upstairs in the bedroom, but we now know something the original court which tried this case did not know at the time of trial, 'she was confronted' downstairs in the kitchen, a fact supported by the cops own logs, and radio messages. Not only was it known by those at the scene that Sheila had been reportedly killed downstairs in the kitchen, but a police surgeon, a coroners officer, and high ranking detectives or police officers elsewhere were informed of the presence of a 'dead female' body downstairs in the kitchen. Of course, the prosecution and its witnesses did everything to conceal the truth about this highly important and significant part of the police investigation, because later on Sheila's body had ended up in the bedroom, becoming the fourth body upstairs, after police inside the farmhouse had already confirmed there had only been three bodies upstairs by 8.10am...
Bambers innocence was encapsulated in the outright truth of these circumstances...
Cops don't make such enormous mistakes, and nobody can realistically put the circumstances involving the movement of Sheila Caffells body, down as 'an error'. You can't mistake where five bodies were upon entry, downstairs and upstairs, and then because something went 'pearshaped' in the police operation inside the farmhouse, resulting in the body count becoming different downstairs and upstairs, decide to dismiss 'that' part of the operation which no longer fits where the five bodies ended up...
It was necessary in the circumstances of these events for the defence and for the court to be given access to all the police material gathered during that initial part of the police operation which took place inside the farmhouse between 7.30 and 8.10am. Forget about what took place inside the farmhouse after 'that' time. What we have is, during this period 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen, the body of 'one dead male' AND the 'body of one dead female'. One of these two bodies was being described as 'a murder', whilst the second body was described as 'a suicide'...
The smokescreen introduced by PC plod that he had made an error in wrongly identifying the body he had seen from his vantage point outside the kitchen window looking inward of the main kitchen itself, has no bearing whatsoever on the reporting of a second body that was present inside the kitchen once the body of Ralph Bamber had been reported (the body of one dead male). If such a mistake had been made, cops would not then have gone on to report 'the body of one dead female (7.37am). There were clearly 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen by that stage (7.37am). This 'fact' was reaffirmed at 7.38am, by confirmation 'one dead male, one dead female'. So, here again we have admissible evidence that at precisely 7.37am, and 7.38am, that there had indeed been 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen, and both of these bodies could not have been a reference to the solitary body of Ralph Bamber because he was 'not a female', and his death could only be described as 'a murder'. By 8.10am, a 'further three bodies' were found 'upstairs', five dead in total, with an accompanying report that ' no police officers had been hurt', at 'that' stage...
Everything reported above was true, was admissible in evidence, but was deliberately withheld and concealed from the defence and the court, because the dastardly prosecution knew full well, that for this information and documentary evidence to have been disclosed, would effectively hand Bamber the 'perfect alibi', in respect of murdering his sister. This is because the prosecution would then have to rely upon witnesses to give an account for how Sheila's dead body had managed to end up in the upstairs main bedroom with the rifle photographed on her body on the floor by the edge of the bed? Additionally, cops would have had to explain why all of them had made 'false witness statements' declaring that they had all come upon Sheila's body in the bedroom as described, when they hadn't?
Case would have been 'thrown out of court'...
-
Caroline you KNOW Mugford's testimony is false and you have demonstrated you UNDERSTAND why Mugfords testimony does not add up. Sure you now concede that not everything she sais is true, but only in order for you to appear somewhat honest and reasonable.
So this brings me to one very important question and its the one question you refuse to give a straight answer to because you know the true answer directly threatens the coherency and validity of the position you currently hold. Question - What is it that makes you believe Jeremy is guilty?
Since you have dedicated yourself so much in time and effort trying to persuade people that Jeremy is guilty. The forum is anticipating an enthralling answer ::) its ok Caroline don't be shy ;D
Oh come on! ::) Don't try this BS on me. You are quite laughable. You don't have the first clue about what I know or think!
Get one thing straight! I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, I couldn't give a flying F what you or anyone else thinks. I'm not dedicated and spend far less time on here than you and a few others try to suggest because you think it would belittle me. Do your own time management and understand that I am less bothered about convincing anyone of anything than I am about people posting lies and misquotes and I hate people with an agender.
Why do I believe Jeremy is guilty? Too much circumstantial evidence against him, no evidence against Sheila (unless you would like to post some). He's guilty - end of!
-
You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so. 8)
The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.
You really have sunk to the depths if you're posting stuff from the OS. I asked you were you were getting this stuff from and you didn't reply. I guess you were embarrassed! Take your own advice, you saying something, doesn't make it so!
-
You posted some text from the Campaign Teams website (written by them) and presented it as being a direct quote from "Michael Turner appeal notes 2002".
You then used the "quoted" text to attempt to reinforce your arguments.
Whether the above was unintentional or not, I felt it important to correct your misjudgement.
You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so. 8)
I didn't say it 'is' fictitious. I said (and you even quoted my post):
It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims. ::)
Which is an opinion, based largely on what has gone before. I did not suggest that you were required to subscribe to such an opinion.
The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.
Well that's an assumption on a number of different levels. The campaign team haven't actually quoted Michael Turner QC at all, they simply added a reference suggesting that some information came from his notes, which particular bit of information, is however a mystery.
Michael Turner QC put forward a number of utterly ludicrous grounds in the 2002 appeal, which in the end he couldn't even continue to argue himself, as can be seen from the following extract from the 2002 appeal judgement:
170. As observed by Mr Temple, QC, who has represented the prosecution at this appeal, there was a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf of the appellant in the opening of this appeal in the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner, QC, on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined. It should be understood, particularly since his closing remarks did not attract the same degree of media coverage, that the appeal in this regard is a very different one that we now have to consider than might have been anticipated from the opening. Some of the very serious allegations made against police officers were manifestly wrong, and Mr Turner has recognised that position by not pursuing such matters once the fact became apparent.
You no doubt think that Mr Turner's involvement in the case (if that is the case) somehow adds weight or reinforces an 'innocent Bamber' view, hence your reference to one of his former roles. It doesn't 'in my opinion' add or detract from either a guilty or innocent view.
The article linked below is worth a read. The following extracts seem to sum it up quite well:
Doesn’t he feel just as sick when he has helped a guilty man go free? “Of course I do. There are people who I’ve got off murder who have gone on to murder again. I feel s--- about that.
What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html)
-
Oh come on! ::) Don't try this BS on me. You are quite laughable. You don't have the first clue about what I know or think!
Get one thing straight! I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, I couldn't give a flying F what you or anyone else thinks. I'm not dedicated and spend far less time on here than you and a few others try to suggest because you think it would belittle me. Do your own time management and understand that I am less bothered about convincing anyone of anything than I am about people posting lies and misquotes and I hate people with an agender.
;D
You hate people with agenda's but it ok for you to have one?
Why do I believe Jeremy is guilty? Too much circumstantial evidence against him, no evidence against Sheila (unless you would like to post some). He's guilty - end of!
Circumstantial evidence you KNOW does not exist thus you fail to elaborate or explain. So that's it? two sentences is all you have to say? Not very convincing is it Caroline ::)
-
Circumstantial evidence:
1:
Was there a motive - Several.
2:
Was there an opportunity - Yes.
3:
Was there an alibi - No.
4:
Did Bamber ring Julie before the police - Yes.
5:
Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.
6:
Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.
7:
Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.
8:
Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.
9:
Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.
10:
Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.
11:
Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.
12:
Are there just two suspects - Yes.
13:
Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.
14:
Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy - Yes.
15:
Is a multiple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes.
16:
Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.
17:
Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.
18:
Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No.
19:
Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No.
20:
Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.
21:
Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No.
22:
Have there been several failed appeals - Yes.
23:
Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No.
24:
Was 12 - 2pm the only time scale option for Bamber - Yes.
25:
Did Bamber party and go on two holidays soon after the massacre - Yes.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6334.msg280047.html#msg280047
-
Of course there is also the forensic evidence. A lot in the library.
-
;D
You hate people with agenda's but it ok for you to have one?
Circumstantial evidence you KNOW does not exist thus you fail to elaborate or explain. So that's it? two sentences is all you have to say? Not very convincing is it Caroline ::)
What agender do I have?
Circumstantial evidence doesn't exist? Now you really are in denial.
Yep only two sentences, what is the point in discussing anything with you? You're hell bent on arguing the case for innocence even though you don't even believe that yourself. You're doing so for your own benefit and to justify yourself.
Oh by the way, can't you read? I'm not interested in convincing anyone of any thing - east of all - YOU! Now perhaps you would like to detail the evidence that points to Sheila, other than her illness?
-
'The mob' claimed Sheila's body was found upstairs in the bedroom, but we now know something the original court which tried this case did not know at the time of trial, 'she was confronted' downstairs in the kitchen, a fact supported by the cops own logs, and radio messages. Not only was it known by those at the scene that Sheila had been reportedly killed downstairs in the kitchen, but a police surgeon, a coroners officer, and high ranking detectives or police officers elsewhere were informed of the presence of a 'dead female' body downstairs in the kitchen. Of course, the prosecution and its witnesses did everything to conceal the truth about this highly important and significant part of the police investigation, because later on Sheila's body had ended up in the bedroom, becoming the fourth body upstairs, after police inside the farmhouse had already confirmed there had only been three bodies upstairs by 8.10am...
Bambers innocence was encapsulated in the outright truth of these circumstances...
The mob deceived the court...
The mob introduced evidence that was not properly documented, or the right precautions taken to guarantee its integrity...
The mob lied about the condition of Sheila' feet, and her hands...
The mob tampered with the original batch of crime scene ammution...
The mob merged different silencers into one...
-
You posted some text from the Campaign Teams website (written by them) and presented it as being a direct quote from "Michael Turner appeal notes 2002".
You then used the "quoted" text to attempt to reinforce your arguments.
Whether the above was unintentional or not, I felt it important to correct your misjudgement.
I didn't say it 'is' fictitious. I said (and you even quoted my post):
Which is an opinion, based largely on what has gone before. I did not suggest that you were required to subscribe to such an opinion.
Well that's an assumption on a number of different levels. The campaign team haven't actually quoted Michael Turner QC at all, they simply added a reference suggesting that some information came from his notes, which particular bit of information, is however a mystery.
Simply put your suggesting that the CT are fabricating or misrepresenting Michael Turner QC notes? Fair enough that's a plausible opinion but I don't see any good reason to believe that is the case.
Michael Turner QC put forward a number of utterly ludicrous grounds in the 2002 appeal, which in the end he couldn't even continue to argue himself, as can be seen from the following extract from the 2002 appeal judgement:
The appeal Judgment put forward to the public is a white wash, Like everything in this case you must dig deeper than what is said on the surface to the public. Michael Turner's accusations against the police and CPS conduct are perfectly valid arguments, However MT did not aggressively attack the sound moderator evidence, believing the absence of Sheila's DNA would be sufficient. The COA upheld the conviction based on the sound moderator thus the COA are not going accept allegations of corruption if they believe the sound moderator evidence to be genuine.
You no doubt think that Mr Turner's involvement in the case (if that is the case) somehow adds weight or reinforces an 'innocent Bamber' view, hence your reference to one of his former roles. It doesn't 'in my opinion' add or detract from either a guilty or innocent view.
Put it this way if the argument about the shell casings came from Distefano's notes I would no problem agreeing with your opinion on the matter. :))
The article linked below is worth a read. The following extracts seem to sum it up quite well:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html)
What you quote there is not specific to JB, However you fail to quote the one extract that is, for some reason ::)
Does he believe Bamber is innocent? “Passionately.”
-
Nobody at the trial, other than the prosecution, the cops and the relatives, knew that court exhibit 9 (DRB/1) the silencer, had supposedly had several different exhibit references (SBJ/1' SJ/1 and DB/1), previously. They kept 'that' information quiet, because they knew that if the defence had got wind of it, that the jury would almost certainly have rejected it as a reliable piece of evidence...
-
Simply put your suggesting that the CT are fabricating or misrepresenting Michael Turner QC notes? Fair enough that's a plausible opinion but I don't see any good reason to believe that is the case.
There are a large number of claims and accusations written on the campaign teams website. They provide references apparently justifying their claims, however when those references are actually examined, it is usually the case that the reference either doesn't corroborate their claims at all, or a very one sided assumption has been made, or something is being viewed out of context.
A classic example is their claim that the police were in conversation with somebody inside the house.
I suspect that the information which you attempted to pass off as a direct quote from Turners appeal notes, follows this same pattern.
The appeal Judgment put forward to the public is a white wash .....
Oh, well that settles that then, let's all go home. ::)
Needless to say, I do not agree with your view.
Put it this way if the argument about the shell casings came from Distefano's notes I would no problem agreeing with your opinion on the matter. :))
I am not asking you to agree. You seem to be derisory towards people/groups sporadically, as if it's an attempt to come across as being reasonable.
It's not that long ago when you were rubbishing both Mike and the Campaign Teams claims. Now you tell us that you see no reason why the Campaign Team would lie.
It's a bit weird to tell you the truth.
What you quote there is not specific to JB, However you fail to quote the one extract that is, for some reason ::)
I quoted two extracts which were relevant to him representing people who were not innocent, which was the subject of my preceding paragraph, which offered my opinion that his involvement didn't impact in any way on the likely guilt or innocence of Jeremy. You appeared to have suggested his involvement scored you some points.
-
What you quote there is not specific to JB, However you fail to quote the one extract that is, for some reason ::)
Quote from Michael Turner after being asked the following question;
But he has also represented the likes of Jeremy Bamber, who on Thursday lost his latest appeal against a whole-term life sentence for the murder of five relatives. So what is it like to stand up in court and plead the case for a killer?
“Everybody asks me that,” says this expert cross-examiner, looking sternly over the top of his half-moon glasses. “The answer is that you don’t know if someone’s guilty. You take instructions from your client. You think: 'Oh no, this sounds really unlikely.’ Then you test it and find out that what he says might actually be true. A jury might believe him. So you give it everything you’ve got.”
His quote doesn't seem to apply to JB given that ......
170. As observed by Mr Temple, QC, who has represented the prosecution at this appeal, there was a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf of the appellant in the opening of this appeal in the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner, QC, on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined. It should be understood, particularly since his closing remarks did not attract the same degree of media coverage, that the appeal in this regard is a very different one that we now have to consider than might have been anticipated from the opening. Some of the very serious allegations made against police officers were manifestly wrong, and Mr Turner has recognised that position by not pursuing such matters once the fact became apparent.
-
What everyone has to remember, is that at all times, a QC has to bear in mind, the 'damage' which can be caused to 'the Criminal Justice System', and the very livelihood they themselves rely upon. I have been represented by solicitors, barristers and Queens Counsel, on many occasions. The overall impression I get, is that these people from these groups although supposedly there to represent their clients best interests, invariably (but not always) tend to think about their own interests, and in particular, the 'integrity' of the system that they operate and work, within...
These representatives are scared that the judges they appear before, might report them (but not always) to the law society, with a view to getting their fees stopped (this applies in cases which involve legal aid fees)...
-
What everyone has to remember, is that at all times, a QC has to bear in mind, the 'damage' which can be caused to 'the Criminal Justice System', and the very livelihood they themselves rely upon. I have been represented by solicitors, barristers and Queens Counsel, on many occasions. The overall impression I get, is that these people from these groups although supposedly there to represent their clients best interests, invariably (but not always) tend to think about their own interests, and in particular, the 'integrity' of the system that they operate and work, within...
These representatives are scared that the judges they appear before, might report them (but not always) to the law society, with a view to getting their fees stopped (this applies in cases which involve legal aid fees)...
Jeremy's case, turned out to be, ' one of these cases'...
-
Jeremy's case, turned out to be, ' one of these cases'...
Only, because he ended up, being convicted of killing his sister, even though his sister was still alive inside the farmhouse after cops forced their way in, at around 7.30am...
-
I think there should be changes made, to stop judges reporting solicitors, barristers, and Queens Counsel to the law society (legal aid board), with a view to getting fees stopped. This is because a defendant should receive the best defence they could expect to receive when placed into such a scenario. In Jeremy's case, MT was ' fearfull' that he might not get the fees he was entitled to receive. I have been there myself, with solicitors, barristers, and QC's, where they 'could only go so far'...
-
I think there should be changes made, to stop judges reporting solicitors, barristers, and Queens Counsel to the law society (legal aid board), with a view to getting fees stopped. This is because a defendant should receive the best defence they could expect to receive when placed into such a scenario. In Jeremy's case, MT was ' fearfull' that he might not get the fees he was entitled to receive. I have been there myself, with solicitors, barristers, and QC's, where they 'could only go so far'...
I was represented, by 'Michael Mansfield, QC' in my February, 1994, appeal, when the judges at the appeal, threatened to implement the proviso, if Mansfield, QC exercised his right to take the circumstances of my case, to ' The House of Lords'...
-
There are 'different' types of justice, depending upon who you are, whether or not you pay for being legally represent, or if you get legal aid...
-
There are 'different' types of justice, depending who you are, whether or not you pay for being legally represent, or if you get legal aid...
Let's get the facts right, those who purport to represent your interests, especially those who are receiving 'legal aid', are affiliated to the 'system'...
This, 'restricts' what they can actually do for you...
-
In Jeremy's case, he too was so 'restricted'...
This is 'because' his defence was funded by 'legal aid'...
-
In Jeremy's case, he too was so 'restricted'...
This is 'because' his defence was funded by 'legal aid'...
As a result, MT could only go 'so far'...
-
When you are a 'QC', and you are expecting to receive 'legal aid fees' of £3,500 + per hour, you do not upset the very system that is paying your salary, to pay you for your services, if what you are doing, is 'bringing the Criminal Justice System Into disrepute'...
-
When you are a 'QC', and you are expecting to receive 'legal aid fees' of £3,500 + per hour, you do not upset the very system that is paying your salary, to pay you for your services, if what you are doing, is 'bringing the Criminal Justice System Into disrepute'...
It's all about money, not justice...
-
The 'haves', and the 'have nots'...
-
The 'haves', and the 'have nots'...
Different levels of justice, for different types of paying, or not paying personally, defendants...
-
What I want to know, is why if Jeremy was potentially so wealthy, that his defence was paid for by legal aid?
-
What I want to know, is why if Jeremy was potentially so wealthy, that his defence was paid for by legal aid?
How, utterly remarkable that not a penny was 'forked out in costs' from the parents estate toward the costs of representing Jeremy right up to the point of him being convicted?
-
The relatives who all 'benefitted' as a result of Jeremy being convicted, surely would be liable to have to pay his 'legal costs' incurred up until the time he got convicted?
-
The relatives who all 'benefitted' as a result of Jeremy being convicted, surely would be liable to have to pay his 'legal costs' incurred up until the time he got convicted?
But, they didn't, and the legal aid board, did not pursue the relatives for these costs, even though the relatives ended up being 'hundreds of thousands of pounds in pocket' through 'inheritance'...
-
But, they didn't, and the legal aid board, did not pursue the relatives for these costs, even though the relatives ended up being 'hundreds of thousands of pounds in pocket' through 'inheritance'...
Relatives, had the best of both world's, they paid for 'nothing', but gained, 'everything'...
-
Relatives, had the best of both world's, they paid for 'nothing', but gained, 'everything'...
Make them pay now, with interest, that's what I say...
-
The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-
(a) Cops, experts, and relatives had to frame him, because they 'thought' he might have had something to do with it, so they improvised the evidence, acting with a touch of 'noble cause corruption' in mind'...
(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...
1 - Occupants of CA07 were deployed to scene prior to J making his call, evidence which confirms that cops received other intelligence and information regarding what was transpiring at the farmhouse from a different source...
(c) no evidence to place J at the scene at the time any of the victims got shot or were killed...
(d) no evidence to show that he loaded any of the 15 additional bullets required to carry out the murders into the gun which cops have identified as the murder weapon...
(e) closest cops could put J to the scene at any stage of their investigation was when the occupants of CA07 overtook him on their way to the farmhouse. At this time J was driving his astra car at 30 MPH when cops overtook his car. J was travelling toward the farmhouse, not from it. The occupants (CA07) were not deployed to the incident as a result of J's call to cops at 3.36am, they were deployed to the scene before J called cops. Occupants of CA05 were deployed to the scene as a result of J's 3.36am call, and they did not arrive there until 4.22am (30 minutes after J arrived there. So, if anything got from his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse, faster than the occupants of CA05 did. But at trial prosecution presented the argument that J had been taking his time to get to the farm because the cops overtook him. Wrongs cops overtook J, just shows how devious and sly prosecution of J was...
(f) Pathologist, police doctor, Coroners officer, Senior cops, firearm officers, SOCO's, ambulance paramedics, who all attended the scene, could not confirm that any of the victims had died any sooner, or earlier than the occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene at 3.48am, that morning...
(g) cops had to do an 'officers report' about the shooting incident which took place upon first entry into the kitchen of the farmhouse. A victim was presumed 'dead' as a result of the discharge of a raid team members firearm. The person that got shot was alive before the cop shot them, the person who got shot was Sheila Caffell, therefore J could not have shot and killed her, either downstairs in the kitchen (in accordance with the specifics of the aforementioned officers report), or upstairs in the main bedroom, either whilst she was on the bed, or later when cops moved her body to the floor...
(h) J passed a lie detector test, answering 'No' to key questions relating to his potential culpability. He did not shoot his dad. He did not shoot his mum. He did not shoot his sister. He did not shoot her two young children. He was not at the farmhouse when any of them or all of them had been shot...
(I) J had no injuries consistent with him being involved in a supposed 'struggle' in a matter of life or death, with his dad, before dad succumbed to his fate...
(j) PC Mercers police dog failed to detect a presence of firearm discharge residue upon J or his clothing whilst J was with other cops in the grounds of the farmhouse, confirming that J had not fired a firearm recently, nor had J been any closer to the farmhouse itself other than where he was stood when PC Mercers dog was brought to 'check him out'...
(k) no firearm discharge residue or lead deposits was found to be present upon J's hands or clothing, nor upon the handle bar and grips of the pushbike it was alleged J had used to make good his escape after allegedly killing everyone...
(l) dads call to cops at 3.26am...
(m) activation of Special Branch attack alarm from farmhouse at 3.29am...
(n) DS 'Stan' Jones was at the heart of everything corrupt regarding the evidence used to help convict J as the killer. He had to obtain another pocketbook and rewrite all his notes because the original contents which he originally recorded in his pocketbook would have guaranteed an acquittal had Rivlin QC ever got his hands upon it and seen its original contents...
(o) person seen at bedroom window by Bews, Myall and J, obviously at least one of the victims was still alive inside the farmhouse by that stage (around 4am)...
(p) phone suddenly became engaged when operator was checking line for cops, obviously somebody still alive using the phone inside the farmhouse, whilst cops and J were outside in the grounds or at Pages Lane, near farm cottages. Closest victim to kitchen phone when bodies of victims ended up by 10 am was dad. But the person cops shot upon entry to the kitchen may have been the person who was using the phone at the specified time, thus helping to establish that Sheila was responsible for the death of dad, mum and her kids. Sheila was the person shot by cops in the kitchen. There exists an 'officers report' confirming this which nobody should ignore. The phone suddenly became 'engaged' when the operator was checking the line for cops without so much as an explanation as to how the line had become engaged whilst the operator had control of the line?
-
What I want to know, is why if Jeremy was potentially so wealthy, that his defence was paid for by legal aid?
I thought he hired Kingsley Napley, as narrated in Roger Wilkes' Blood Relations.
-
I thought he hired Kingsley Napley, as narrated in Roger Wilkes' Blood Relations.
Paid for by legal aid...
-
Circumstantial evidence doesn't exist? Now you really are in denial.
There is no meaningful circumstantial evidence, That is why you now refuse to list it or elaborate what it is what you come up with is too embarrassing and nothing worth considering. Pointing out things like he had a video of Fatal Vision (a popular film at the time) ::) is not circumstantial evidence
Yep only two sentences, what is the point in discussing anything with you? You're hell bent on arguing the case for innocence even though you don't even believe that yourself. You're doing so for your own benefit and to justify yourself.
Once again you try to blacken my character with lies, what I post on here gets in the way of your agenda so you try to undermine my credibility so people wont read my posts. You say I cant even say Jeremy is innocent, well yes there is a reason for that its called honesty, I don't make bold claims without anything to back them up.
Oh by the way, can't you read? I'm not interested in convincing anyone of any thing - east of all - YOU!
Then why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the idea of guilt down everyone's necks? ::)
perhaps you would like to detail the evidence that points to Sheila, other than her illness?
Since you failed to adequately answer my last two points is there even need for me to move onto number three? 8) How about we see you produce some evidence that points to Jeremy for a change?
Don't be shy Caroline the list is "massive" ;D
-
There is no meaningful circumstantial evidence, That is why you now refuse to list it or elaborate what it is what you come up with is too embarrassing and nothing worth considering. Pointing out things like he had a video of Fatal Vision (a popular film at the time) ::) is not circumstantial evidence
Once again you try to blacken my character with lies, what I post on here gets in the way of your agenda so you try to undermine my credibility so people wont read my posts. You say I cant even say Jeremy is innocent, well yes there is a reason for that its called honesty, I don't make bold claims without anything to back them up.
Then why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the idea of guilt down everyone's necks? ::)
Since you failed to adequately answer my last two points is there even need for me to move onto number three? 8) How about we see you produce some evidence that points to Jeremy for a change?
Don't be shy Caroline the list is "massive" ;D
theres no agenda,its all in your head david,did you manage to ask jb how he knew how much money was in nb's wallet,the clip you posted from youtube clearly shows spent cases being ejected forward to the right in the same direction ,but you still deny it
-
Circumstantial evidence:
1:
Was there a motive - Several.
2:
Was there an opportunity - Yes.
3:
Was there an alibi - No.
4:
Did Bamber ring Julie before the police - Yes.
5:
Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.
6:
Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.
7:
Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.
8:
Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.
9:
Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.
10:
Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.
11:
Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.
12:
Are there just two suspects - Yes.
13:
Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.
14:
Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy - Yes.
15:
Is a multiple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes.
16:
Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.
17:
Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.
18:
Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No.
19:
Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No.
20:
Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.
21:
Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No.
22:
Have there been several failed appeals - Yes.
23:
Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No.
24:
Was 12 - 2pm the only time scale option for Bamber - Yes.
25:
Did Bamber party and go on two holidays soon after the massacre - Yes.
-
1:
Was there a motive - Several.
Was there motive for Sheila - Several
2:
Was there an opportunity - Yes.
Was there an opportunity for Shelia - Certainly
Was there an alibi - No.
That alone is not circumstacial evidence
4:
Did Bamber ring Julie before the police - Yes.
NO! see 2002 appeal files and AEs notes
5:
Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.
Have there been other psychotic killers - Yes
6:
Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.
Was Sheila certainly in the house that night - Yes
7:
Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes
Was Sheila's medication reduced just before the massacre - Yes
8:
Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.
Did they find any evidence of forced entry and exit? - No.
Was Sheila certainly in the house - Yes
9:
Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.
Allegedly 8)
Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.
NO
11:
Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.
Did Sheila have access to that lethal weapon - Yes
13:
Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes
NO. Does the forensic evidence show that false evidence was made? - Yes
14:
Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy - Yes.
Did the police find any incriminating evidence against Jeremy? - NO!
17:
Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.
Sheila getting hold of the gun while psychotic
20:
Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.
Yes! see trail transcripts of Vanezis and Knight
21:
Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No.
Could Sheila have committed the massacre - Yes.
-
25 excellent points, adam
-
theres no agenda,its all in your head david
Its not in my head.
did you manage to ask jb how he knew how much money was in nb's wallet,
That's another dubious claim involving those who found all the evidence against him
,the clip you posted from youtube clearly shows spent cases being ejected forward to the right in the same direction ,but you still deny it
When you hold the gun upsidedown they eject to the left! ::) we have been through this already :)
-
25 excellent points, adam
Thank you.
David asked what circumstantial evidence there was. I gave 25 pieces.
Not sure why he countered some of them by trying to implicate Sheila. It doesn't then mean they are no longer valid as circumstantial evidence against Bambe.
-
Its not in my head.
That's another dubious claim involving those who found all the evidence against him
When you hold the gun upsidedown they eject to the left! ::) we have been through this already :)
so i take it you have no asked jb about it,even if she did turn the rifle upside down the case would not have landed there it would be past her head near the wall
-
Thank you.
David asked what circumstantial evidence there was. I gave 25 pieces.
Not sure why he countered some of them by trying to implicate Sheila. It doesn't then mean they are no longer valid as circumstantial evidence against Bambe.
Some of them were completely false or repeats. Id say you gave 8 or 9 give or take.
-
Some of them were completely false or repeats. Id say you gave 8 or 9 give or take.
They are all facts.
Are you not aware of the found hacksaw by the bathroom window ? It was Bamber's.
When do you consider the perfect execution time for Bamber was then ?
-
I have given circumstantial evidence.
You have not denied any of them. Just mentioned circumstantial evidence for Sheila. Which is common knowledge and the reason why Bamber attempted the frame.
So there is circumstantial evidence against Bamber.
-
There is no meaningful circumstantial evidence, That is why you now refuse to list it or elaborate what it is what you come up with is too embarrassing and nothing worth considering. Pointing out things like he had a video of Fatal Vision (a popular film at the time) ::) is not circumstantial evidence
There is a mass of Circ evidence against Bamber. But no matter what anyone said, you would simply do your usual childish denial's regardless. But I have done the list (although still adding to it) - have you started yours yet? Have you seen Fatal Vision? Not only is there a frantic phone call but on finding that his family are dead, MacDonald goes into little boy mode and asks 'why he can't talk to his family' - I recall someone else doing that! ;D ;D
Once again you try to blacken my character with lies, what I post on here gets in the way of your agenda so you try to undermine my credibility so people wont read my posts. You say I cant even say Jeremy is innocent, well yes there is a reason for that its called honesty, I don't make bold claims without anything to back them up.
I thought it was Bambers character I was trying to blacken? (Although that would be difficult). If you misquote something I will point it out, if you don't like that then you're the one with the agender. If you misquote or suggest something must be a fact simply because you think so - then you should expect to get criticised but it's not just me who has pointed out your failings. Credibility? What credibility? Oh by the way - what is my agender?
Then why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the idea of guilt down everyone's necks? ::)
Why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the opposite? While boasting about a revelation that was already known and discussed?
Since you failed to adequately answer my last two points is there even need for me to move onto number three? 8) How about we see you produce some evidence that points to Jeremy for a change?
Don't be shy Caroline the list is "massive" ;D
What two points? I've just answered your last two points, I've also done the list and am still adding to it - when are you going to even START showing how Sheila 'could' be guilty - without resorting to misquotes and twisting other people's words? By the way - you didn't comment on Michael Turner's comment and his decision to drop much of what he intended to bring to the 2002 appeal. Or couldn't you think of a good enough misquote? ;D ;D ;D
Here it is again - in case you missed it! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg367079.html#msg367079
-
I have given circumstantial evidence.
You have not denied any of them. Just mentioned circumstantial evidence for Sheila. Which is common knowledge and the reason why Bamber attempted the frame.
So there is circumstantial evidence against Bamber.
I wonder why Jeremy didn't call 999? Or how he knew he had been on the phone to West for 11 minutes but couldn't remember the 'exact' time of his fathers call?
The 2002 appeal suggests that Jeremy called the police at around 03:26 (03:36 - 10 mins) - he argued the same at trial but now in order to 'fit in' a call from his father to police, he's now suggesting that the time on West's log is correct and he called the police at 03:36. He is quite specific on times when it suits but evasive when it doesn't! Which is odd really given that he had his watch on and timed the call to West - which was how he knew it took 11 minutes. ;)
-
I wonder why Jeremy didn't call 999? Or how he knew he had been on the phone to West for 11 minutes but couldn't remember the 'exact' time of his fathers call?
The 2002 appeal suggests that Jeremy called the police at around 03:26 (03:36 - 10 mins) - he argued the same at trial but now in order to 'fit in' a call from his father to police, he's now suggesting that the time on West's log is correct and he called the police at 03:36. He is quite specific on times when it suits but evasive when it doesn't! Which is odd really given that he had his watch on and timed the call to West - which was how he knew it took 11 minutes. ;)
good point caroline.he also found it difficult to say who he phoned first jm or the police.fathers phoned him for help and he calls the local police unless he had the number in his mind 'which i doubt' he would have had to look the number up.na dont buy it ;D
-
There is a mass of Circ evidence against Bamber. But no matter what anyone said, you would simply do your usual childish denial's regardless. But I have done the list (although still adding to it) - have you started yours yet? Have you seen Fatal Vision? Not only is there a frantic phone call but on finding that his family are dead, MacDonald goes into little boy mode and asks 'why he can't talk to his family' - I recall someone else doing that! ;D ;D
Your refusal to post any substantial circumstantial evidence speaks volumes ;D
If you misquote something I will point it out, if you don't like that then you're the one with the agender. If you misquote or suggest something must be a fact simply because you think so -
Correction, if I quote something you will desperately try to distort it. If you try to deceive the forum I will point it out, So no more trying to portray Julie as a credible witness when you know she isn't.
then you should expect to get criticised but it's not just me who has pointed out your failings. Credibility? What credibility? Oh by the way - what is my agender?
Your not pointing out any "failings" your just trying very hard to make it seem that way.
You know what your Agenda is ;D
Why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the opposite? While boasting about a revelation that was already known and discussed?
This does not answer the question I asked but nevermind
What two points? I've just answered your last two points, I've also done the list and am still adding to it - when are you going to even START showing how Sheila 'could' be guilty - without resorting to misquotes and twisting other people's words? By the way - you didn't comment on Michael Turner's comment and his decision to drop much of what he intended to bring to the 2002 appeal. Or couldn't you think of a good enough misquote?
The two points you failed to answer. I don't have to remind you ;D
-
here we go again.lets face when jm said jb was into growing cannabis she was right we have all seen the propagator in the office ;D
-
Your refusal to post any substantial circumstantial evidence speaks volumes ;D
Correction, if I quote something you will desperately try to distort it. If you try to deceive the forum I will point it out, So no more trying to portray Julie as a credible witness when you know she isn't.
Your not pointing out any "failings" your just trying very hard to make it seem that way.
You know what your Agenda is ;D
This does not answer the question I asked but nevermind
The two points you failed to answer. I don't have to remind you ;D
I distort things? And yet you're the master of the MISQUOTE! By the way, the reason why Julie noted down 'wetsuit' in her diary notes was because (as I told you!) she was ASKED ABOUT IT!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4952.0;attach=34829
Your agender is that you want to gain something from this - now, please tell me what mine would be or is such an accusation just more wind and pxss from you?
-
I distort things? And yet you're the master of the MISQUOTE! By the way, the reason why Julie noted down 'wetsuit' in her diary notes was because (as I told you!) she was ASKED ABOUT IT!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4952.0;attach=34829
Your agender is that you want to gain something from this - now, please tell me what mine would be or is such an accusation just more wind and pxss from you?
The implication with the wetsuit was that it was worn during the murders and part of it left in situ at the murder scene to lighten the load for Jeremy's return journey on the bicycle.
-
The implication with the wetsuit was that it was worn during the murders and part of it left in situ at the murder scene to lighten the load for Jeremy's return journey on the bicycle.
Yes, but David has argued that Julie Mugford got the idea for the wetsuit from RB, however, as we can now see, she was asked about it by police - nothing sinister at all.
-
Yes, but David has argued that Julie Mugford got the idea for the wetsuit from RB, however, as we can now see, she was asked about it by police - nothing sinister at all.
But undoubtedly David will twist it out of shape until it becomes so!!!
-
But undoubtedly David will twist it out of shape until it becomes so!!!
I think most people have the intelligence to see through such tactics?
-
Circumstantial evidence:
1:
Was there a motive for the relatives to frame Jeremy? - Yes, there was Several.
2:
Was there an opportunity for the relatives to frame Jeremy for the murders with the introduction of the bloodstained, paint contaminated silencers? - Yes. that is right, that's exactly what they did
3:
Was there an alibi Yes, Jeremy had a strong alibi, he was with the police at all times at the scene, when someone was still alive inside the farmhouse. Cops have yet to explain in their own way, how Sheila's body got from the kitchen downstairs after 7.38am, upstairs onto the bed by 8.30am, and how her body ended upon the bedroom floor by 9.14am?- No. That's right, police have not explained the movement of Sheila's body from downstairs to upstairs, from it being on the bed, then ends up on the bedroom floor?
4:
Did Bamber ring Julie before the police Er, Jeremy rang Julie, after he attempted to contact Witham police station, but before he contacted Chelmsford police station - Yes. study the facts, the correct answer is no and yes
5:
Have there been other inheritance killers Nothing to do with Jeremy, the only people who set out to benefit from the inheritance in this case were the relatives, and they succeeded - Yes. No
6:
Was there a way to WHF without being seen Was there a way to anywhere without being seen? It means nothing, and proves nothing. Sheila's accomplice could have arrived at whf unseen, so could one of the relatives, so could Peter Pan- Yes.
7:
Was a bike brought over just before the massacre incorrect, bike was borrowed for Julie Mugford to use- Yes. No
8:
Was there a way into WHF through a window Was there a key to the farmhouse door that the relatives admitted to knowing about which would have allowed one or more of them to enter whf through the door, rather than a window? Yes, such a key existed, and relatives admitted they had knowledge of it - Yes.
9:
Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside Relatives knew about this, but there was no sign of any of the glass or the wooden window frame being bloodstained as a result of anyone having climbed out of any window after the shootings. On the other hand, there was the sighting of the scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from the farmhouse just before 5am (refer Kim Sengupta article)- Yes.
10:
Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time Ralph was still alive at 3.26am when he made his call to Chelmsford police. Sheila did not die inside the bedroom upstairs until after armed police entered the building - Yes. No
11:
Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF There were several lethal weapons inside the farmhouse. Sheila's fingerprints were found on three such weapons, (a) the anshuzt rifle, (b) the 12 bore shotgun, and (c) the .22 BSA air rifle- Yes.
12:
Are there just two suspects incorrect, on the basis that there was Sheila, her accomplice, and the cop who was responsible for shooting Sheila dead in the bedroom - Yes. No
13:
Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes. The scientific and forensic evidence relied upon is open to question, and the pathologist, Peter Venezis was of the opinion that she could have killed herself. So, No, there is no such forensic evidence which ultimately excludes Sheila from being involved in the killing of the others, or herself
14:
Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy Incorrect, there is no forensic or scientific evidence which proves that Jeremy had even fired one of the 25 shots used in the killings. Speculation is not evidence - Yes.
15:
Is a multiple frame attempt unprecedented untrue, there are many examples where a number of people have been involved in framing a person. Cops do it all the time, and the relatives certainly set out from day one to get their hands on the inheritance, and to put Jeremy in the frame - Yes. No
16:
Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence Did the relatives, and the cops? Yes, of course they did. They even tampered with the silencer and the bullet cases to try to make it into a one gun crime...- Yes.
17:
Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy was there any reason why Ralph should not call Jeremy. Afterall, at about 3.25am when Ralph called Jeremy he didn't hang about chatting away as people like you try to make out. It was a sharp, short phone call, then Ralph Called police immediately, at 3.26am. I think somebody in Ralphs position would call their son, and speak to them briefly before cutting the call short to enable them to call the police. Not only that, but as Jeremy pointed out once the call got terminated at his fathers end, Jeremy had tried to phone back but had got the engaged tone. He got the engaged tone at that time because Ralph had phoned the police (3.26am) immediately after managing to blurt out a few words alerting Jeremy to the developing situation- No. Yes
18:
Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc Jeremy didn't need any options, because he played no role at all in the killing of the other four members of his family, and he certainly did not play a hand in his sisters death which took place at 9.14am, that morning in the bedroom upstairs - No.
19:
Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt Since, Sheila and her accomplice were already inside whf when the shootings started, I can't see wow one dog inside the farmhouse could have made a difference in preventing the shooting of the original four victims - No.
20:
Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage incorrect, since the pathologist, Peter Venezis thought that she could have killed herself, and Professor Knight, was of the same opinion - No.
21:
Could Sheila have committed the massacre Yes, she was involved in the killing of the other four victims - No.
22:
Have there been several failed appeals that means nothing, it only takes there to be one successful one- Yes.
23:
Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied Lots of them - No.
24:
Was 12 - 2pm the only time scale option for Bamber Yes, he was a sleep at home in his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, between these times - Yes.
25:
Did Bamber party and go on two holidays soon after the massacre Did the relatives celebrate when they got Bamber convicted? Did they party and throw gifts at the cops who investigated the case? Yes, they did - Yes.
-
But undoubtedly David will twist it out of shape until it becomes so!!!
The wet suit played no part in the killings, there is no evidence that it did, or had - its all just speculation...
-
The wet suit played no part in the killings, there is no evidence that it did, or had - its all just speculation...
Such trivialities will mean nothing to David.
-
The wet suit played no part in the killings, there is no evidence that it did, or had - its all just speculation...
I think most people agree with that.
-
off hand what is the thinking behind the fact the wetsuit was not used.i wouldnt say its impossible ,and as jm said it seemed a bit odd for it to be in jb's room,it was very well planned by jb.anyone who's father has phoned them for HELP would never ring the police and ask to be PICKED UP,they would make their own way there as quickly as possible
-
off hand what is the thinking behind the fact the wetsuit was not used.i wouldnt say its impossible ,and as jm said it seemed a bit odd for it to be in jb's room,it was very well planned by jb.anyone who's father has phoned them for HELP would never ring the police and ask to be PICKED UP,they would make their own way there as quickly as possible
Sami, it has previously been suggested that Jeremy committed the crime disguised/protected by a wet/dry suit and riding a bike to WHF. He may have thought that by asking police to pick him up it would confirm that he'd been at home in Goldhanger and POSSIBLY why he dawdled in order to reach WHF after the police.
-
I distort things? And yet you're the master of the MISQUOTE! By the way, the reason why Julie noted down 'wetsuit' in her diary notes was because (as I told you!) she was ASKED ABOUT IT!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4952.0;attach=34829
Caroline you KNOW and UNDERSTAND why Julie is not a credible witness yet you have made efforts to make her out to be a credible witness, That is very much distorting things.
The Mention of a wetsuit in her diary prove the police were asking her questions based on RBs theories. Theories that happen to make up allot of Mugford's testimony ::)
Your misrepresenting my arguments to make them easier to attack. guess this one backfired on you.
Your agender is that you want to gain something from this - now, please tell me what mine would be or is such an accusation just more wind and pxss from you?
I have no agenda. But if you want to con people into thinking I have an agenda its not working.
I am not to sure what your agenda is, But your relentless efforts to try and portray JB as guilty despite having no evidence at all must me fuelled by something 8)
-
I think most people have the intelligence to see through such tactics?
Its your tactics that people are seeing through. How fortunate for you Jane don't seem to have a mind of her own ::)
-
Its your tactics that people are seeing through. How fortunate for you Jane don't seem to have a mind of her own ::)
OK, how's this for someone "who don't appear to have a mind of her own"? Not only do I think you're wrong, I think you've acted in the most abominably deceitful way since you started your crusade of self aggrandisement. So far, all you've managed to post are misrepresentations of what people have said in their statements, presuming to know better than they what they meant. Oh, and one more thing. Your grammar is appalling.
-
OK, how's this for someone "who don't appear to have a mind of her own"? Not only do I think you're wrong, I think you've acted in the most abominably deceitful way since you started your crusade of self aggrandisement. So far, all you've managed to post are misrepresentations of what people have said in their statements, presuming to know better than they what they meant. Oh, and one more thing. Your grammar is appalling.
youve settled that once and for all jane, :)
-
Sami, it has previously been suggested that Jeremy committed the crime disguised/protected by a wet/dry suit and riding a bike to WHF. He may have thought that by asking police to pick him up it would confirm that he'd been at home in Goldhanger and POSSIBLY why he dawdled in order to reach WHF after the police.
yes i will have to hold my hands up to the above jane,i was one of them that thought the above.until i realised just how absurd the idea was,riding to the farm in a wetsuit :'(
-
yes i will have to hold my hands up to the above jane,i was one of them that thought the above.until i realised just how absurd the idea was,riding to the farm in a wetsuit :'(
One only has to think about how tightly fitted is a wet suit to realize just how uncomfortable/impossible(?) it would be to ride a bike whilst wearing one. It MIGHT be said that he didn't want his family to know who was killing them. It may ALSO be said that, as he was going to kill them, why would he care if they saw him. Perfect revenge, perhaps?
-
One only has to think about how tightly fitted is a wet suit to realize just how uncomfortable/impossible(?) it would be to ride a bike whilst wearing one. It MIGHT be said that he didn't want his family to know who was killing them. It may ALSO be said that, as he was going to kill them, why would he care if they saw him. Perfect revenge, perhaps?
yes ive often wondered if jb was wearing a mask.i also side with caroline's idea that he may have stayed the night at whf.sounds logical
-
yes ive often wondered if jb was wearing a mask.i also side with caroline's idea that he may have stayed the night at whf.sounds logical
A VERY strong possibility, and one which throws out with other trash, any thoughts about a wet suit being worn.
-
yes ive often wondered if jb was wearing a mask.i also side with caroline's idea that he may have stayed the night at whf.sounds logical
JB was afraid to enter whf after the murders, so it is ridiculous to suggest that he stayed the night.
-
JB was afraid to enter whf after the murders, so it is ridiculous to suggest that he stayed the night.
Could you expand that so it becomes clear, please? I can understand that he may have had the wobbles about going into rooms where a massacre -at his hands- occurred but it's my understanding that the only threshold on which he wobbled was at a door to a room in which no one had. I can't imagine why he'd be concerned about sleeping in his old home whilst they were all still alive.
-
Could you expand that so it becomes clear, please? I can understand that he may have had the wobbles about going into rooms where a massacre -at his hands- occurred but it's my understanding that the only threshold on which he wobbled was at a door to a room in which no one had. I can't imagine why he'd be concerned about sleeping in his old home whilst they were all still alive.
If that is so then it blows the hacksaw theory out of the water.
-
If that is so then it blows the hacksaw theory out of the water.
If it is so, it certainly does.
-
JB was afraid to enter whf after the murders, so it is ridiculous to suggest that he stayed the night.
Hi Buddy
I think it was suggested by Caroline that he told his family he was staying over because he was working late but this was just a ploy to be in the house without dogs barking when he entered through a window being in the house was perfect for him to be there when they were all sleeping. Just to say I think it was Caroline who suggested it somebody did and it sounded quite feasible to me.
-
If it is so, it certainly does.
You see Jane I am not a 100% Innocent, but I question some of the evidence, the hacksaw blade being one of them. It was suggested that JB entered the house with the use of this item. JB knew the house better than any of the family, who rarely visited and could not tell the twins apart. Not a close relationship imo.
-
Hi Buddy
I think it was suggested by Caroline that he told his family he was staying over because he was working late but this was just a ploy to be in the house without dogs barking when he entered through a window being in the house was perfect for him to be there when they were all sleeping. Just to say I think it was Caroline who suggested it somebody did and it sounded quite feasible to me.
Hi Susan, who do you mean by the family?
-
Hi Susan, who do you mean by the family?
Hi Buddy
we discussed that he may have told his parents and Sheila that he was working late so would stay over hence he could walk into the house and wait till they were all sleeping this does make sense in that I think Sheila was still up when he was there I am not too sure whether he coerced her into going along with him with regard to killing Ralph and June.
-
Hi Buddy
we discussed that he may have told his parents and Sheila that he was working late so would stay over hence he could walk into the house and wait till they were all sleeping this does make sense in that I think Sheila was still up when he was there I am not too sure whether he coerced her into going along with him with regard to killing Ralph and June.
Hi Susan we do not know if he told his parents anything they were dead.
-
Caroline you KNOW and UNDERSTAND why Julie is not a credible witness yet you have made efforts to make her out to be a credible witness, That is very much distorting things.
The Mention of a wetsuit in her diary prove the police were asking her questions based on RBs theories. Theories that happen to make up allot of Mugford's testimony ::)
Your misrepresenting my arguments to make them easier to attack. guess this one backfired on you.
I have no agenda. But if you want to con people into thinking I have an agenda its not working.
I am not to sure what your agenda is, But your relentless efforts to try and portray JB as guilty despite having no evidence at all must 'me' (Freudian Slip? ;D ;D) fuelled by something 8)
Of course they were asking her questions based on what other witnesses had said - there is nothing wrong with that at all. You're trying to make it into some grand conspiracy and it's not! As though the all colluded to get their story to be the same. No one is misrepresenting your argument, you just change it each time you hit a brick wall (which is often). The basis of Julie's statement was that Jeremy told her he hired a hit man. If Jeremy wasn't supposed to be at the scene, he couldn't give her a detailed account could he?
I am not to sure what your agenda is (although I feel it's self serving), But your relentless efforts to try and portray JB as innocent despite having no evidence at all must be fuelled by something 8)
-
Hi Susan we do not know if he told his parents anything they were dead.
Not before he killed them.
-
You see Jane I am not a 100% Innocent, but I question some of the evidence, the hacksaw blade being one of them. It was suggested that JB entered the house with the use of this item. JB knew the house better than any of the family, who rarely visited and could not tell the twins apart. Not a close relationship imo.
It's good that you have an open mind about it, Buddy. I, too, question some of the evidence. I believe that, POSSIBLY aided and abetted by RWB, the police may have made several "two and two make five" type moves. However, it doesn't mean that Jeremy is innocent. A long time member here ONLY has the feeling in their gut that Jeremy is entirely innocent -and they don't know Jeremy- so it's entirely possibly that family members who had known him all his life experienced a similar gut feeling that he was guilty.
-
Hi Susan we do not know if he told his parents anything they were dead.
Hi Buddy
it was suggested he told his Dad earlier in the evening. I have often wondered why Sheila's bed did not look like it was slept in and why she was found in her Mother's bedroom and the spare bed in Sheila's room was made up as AE was surprised when she discovered it. So many unanswered questions.
-
Of course they were asking her questions based on what other witnesses had said - there is nothing wrong with that at all.
Yes there is. Giving over too much information inadvertently is a leading factor in producing coerced statements, That is why today police don't use the same methods
You're trying to make it into some grand conspiracy and it's not! As though the all colluded to get their story to be the same. No one is misrepresenting your argument, you just change it each time you hit a brick wall (which is often). The basis of Julie's statement was that Jeremy told her he hired a hit man. If Jeremy wasn't supposed to be at the scene, he couldn't give her a detailed account could he?
There has been a conspiracy, you would have to be a simpleton not to see it. And I am not saying your simpleton because you KNOW the silencer is false evidence thus you KNOW a conspiracy has taken place.
You KNOW and UNDERSTAND that Julie is not a credible witness. If your trying to build a brick wall based on Julie Mugford (because you have nothing else) I'm just flying over it 8)
I am not to sure what your agenda is (although I feel it's self serving), But your relentless efforts to try and portray JB as innocent despite having no evidence at all must be fuelled by something 8)
Yes its fuelled by the status quo. I don't believe Jeremy should be in prison. The Jury made their decision on false evidence and false testimony. To support the guilty position requires one to oppose the experts and deny the circumstances pointing to Sheila. The state is practicing illegal confinement of the highest order.
-
Yes there is. Giving over too much information inadvertently is a leading factor in producing coerced statements, That is why today police don't use the same methods - They didn't give TOO much away, they asked about a wet suit, you're just trying to make more of it. It's in her statement that she was asked about it - NO CONSPIRACY!
There has been a conspiracy, you would have to be a simpleton not to see it. And I am not saying your simpleton because you KNOW the silencer is false evidence thus you KNOW a conspiracy has taken place. I believe it's false yes, but I also believe Bamber is guilty. Because I believe it to be false, doesn't mean it is and unless someone can PROVE it was false - there's no freedom party!!
You KNOW and UNDERSTAND that Julie is not a credible witness. If your trying to build a brick wall based on Julie Mugford (because you have nothing else) I'm just flying over it 8). You're the one who has NOTHING, your arguments have been flown over and shat on, but you still try and pass them off as fact.
Yes its fuelled by the status quo. I don't believe Jeremy should be in prison. The Jury made their decision on false evidence and false testimony. To support the guilty position requires one to oppose the experts and deny the circumstances pointing to Sheila. The state is practising illegal confinement of the highest order. I believe he should, he killed 5 people - the state is doing nothing of the sort, believing the silencer is false and proving it are two different things and there is no way to prove it now.
-
Yes there is. Giving over too much information inadvertently is a leading factor in producing coerced statements, That is why today police don't use the same methods
There has been a conspiracy, you would have to be a simpleton not to see it. And I am not saying your simpleton because you KNOW the silencer is false evidence thus you KNOW a conspiracy has taken place.
You KNOW and UNDERSTAND that Julie is not a credible witness. If your trying to build a brick wall based on Julie Mugford (because you have nothing else) I'm just flying over it 8)
Yes its fuelled by the status quo. I don't believe Jeremy should be in prison. The Jury made their decision on false evidence and false testimony. To support the guilty position requires one to oppose the experts and deny the circumstances pointing to Sheila. The state is practicing illegal confinement of the highest order.
Saying you don't believe Jeremy should be in prison because of what you believe to be technicalities is rather different from saying he shouldn't be kin prison because he's innocent. As it stands it appears that you'd be happy to see a convicted prisoner, a child killer walk free just to prove your point. It screams of self aggrandisement.
-
They didn't give TOO much away, they asked about a wet suit, you're just trying to make more of it. It's in her statement that she was asked about it - NO CONSPIRACY!
Your misrepresenting my arguments again.
I believe it's false yes, but I also believe Bamber is guilty. Because I believe it to be false, doesn't mean it is and unless someone can PROVE it was false - there's no freedom party!!
It has been proven false
You're the one who has NOTHING, your arguments have been flown over and shat on, but you still try and pass them off as fact.
That's what you want the forum to believe but the reality is different and you know it.
I believe he should, he killed 5 people - the state is doing nothing of the sort, believing the silencer is false and proving it are two different things and there is no way to prove it now.
Where is the proof he killed five people beyond a reasonable doubt?
You are claiming step 9 when you are on step 1 ;D
(http://www.voiceforthedefenseonline.com/sites/default/files/June13-feature3-image2.jpg)
-
Saying you don't believe Jeremy should be in prison because of what you believe to be technicalities is rather different from saying he shouldn't be kin prison because he's innocent. As it stands it appears that you'd be happy to see a convicted prisoner, a child killer walk free just to prove your point. It screams of self aggrandisement.
I am not talking about technicalities I am talking about serious doubt. The state failing to justify Habeas corpus is not a technicality
-
off hand what is the thinking behind the fact the wetsuit was not used.i wouldnt say its impossible ,and as jm said it seemed a bit odd for it to be in jb's room,it was very well planned by jb.anyone who's father has phoned them for HELP would never ring the police and ask to be PICKED UP,they would make their own way there as quickly as possible
There is no big advantage or disadvantage in wearing a wet suit.
It would not hinder his movement. Surfers and divers wear them. The material is quite thick and skin tight. So may protect his torso if anything got past his clothes.
-
I am not talking about technicalities I am talking about serious doubt. The state failing to justify Habeas corpus is not a technicality
What you call "serious doubt" DOESN'T add up to his innocence. Whatever you claim as being unjustified by the state obviously wasn't transferred to the jury's consciousness.
-
If that is so then it blows the hacksaw theory out of the water.
Bamber testified he used the found hacksaw to get into WHF through the bathroom window. After the massacre. This explained the window marks. I don't know why Bamber didn't just use front door keys.
The judge suggested the marks may have been made before the massacre to give Bamber easy access. On the night.
The judge had a point.
-
There is no big advantage or disadvantage in wearing a wet suit.
Advantages: Stop blood getting on clothes, have shower after massacre wash all blood evidence off.
-
Advantages: Stop blood getting on clothes, have shower after massacre wash all blood evidence off.
The wet suit would be underneath the clothes. So blood would hit the clothes first.
I doubt he would be wearing just a wet suit. Suspect a balaclava, gloves, dark clothes and perhaps a wet suit underneath.
A wet suit being skin tight would not prevent him from getting too big to fit through the windows. And would not effect his mobility.
-
The found hack saw is important forensic evidence.
Backed up by Jeremy who never claimed it was a plant and agreed the bathroom window marks were made by him. Amazingly he decided not to use front door keys after the massacre to gain entrance to his own property.
I have put the hack saw thread into the library.
-
JB was afraid to enter whf after the murders, so it is ridiculous to suggest that he stayed the night.
thats rubbish was is he a pansy or a poof,lets get it right jb did not enter whf because he didnt know how to react to the scene inside ,the eyes of the police would be on him to see how he would act.to suggest any thing else is nonsense
-
If that is so then it blows the hacksaw theory out of the water.
not really it may have been used to slide the catch into the closed position when jb left whf
-
not really it may have been used to slide the catch into the closed position when jb left whf
No it was used on the bathroom window. Which is why there were hack saw marks on it.
Bamber testified he used it to gain entrance into WHF via the bathroom window. After the massacre ;D
-
i would like to ask david why he thinks the silencer wasnt used
-
The wet suit would be underneath the clothes. So blood would hit the clothes first.
I doubt he would be wearing just a wet suit. Suspect a balaclava, gloves, dark clothes and perhaps a wet suit underneath.
A wet suit being skin tight would not prevent him from getting too big to fit through the windows. And would not effect his mobility.
adam there would be no point in wearing the wetsuit underneath the clothes,cause he would still have to dispose of any blooded clothing.if he did stay the night all he had to do was get up around 2am put the wetsuit and the other stuff youve mentioned on and carry out his work taking all the time he needed.people will disagree with me but its not impossible that he showered after the event.imo
-
adam there would be no point in wearing the wetsuit underneath the clothes,cause he would still have to dispose of any blooded clothing.if he did stay the night all he had to do was get up around 2am put the wetsuit and the other stuff youve mentioned on and carry out his work taking all the time he needed.people will disagree with me but its not impossible that he showered after the event.imo
That is what I said to David just now.
The wet suit would just protect his body. And not pad him out too much for the windows.
-
That is what I said to David just now.
The wet suit would just protect his body. And not pad him out too much for the windows.
Protect his body from what? He wouldn't have been expecting to come in to body contact with his victims. I can understand that he may have wanted to protect his clothes from getting bloodied, though.
-
That is what I said to David just now.
The wet suit would just protect his body. And not pad him out too much for the windows.
oh sorry adam.still waiting for david to say why he thinks silencer was not used.so there were contact shots and shots at close range yet not a trace of blood in the barrel.puzzling ;)
-
adam there would be no point in wearing the wetsuit underneath the clothes,cause he would still have to dispose of any blooded clothing.if he did stay the night all he had to do was get up around 2am put the wetsuit and the other stuff youve mentioned on and carry out his work taking all the time he needed.people will disagree with me but its not impossible that he showered after the event.imo
As I said. It is strong material. So would protect him if he did end up in a scuffle. As it happened, he did have one. And it would not bulk him up too much.
-
You mean David.
sorry adam.thats correct
-
thanks to caroline for catching him out on the wallet,cause it shows us jb was in no hurry to leave whf that morning. :)
-
Your misrepresenting my arguments again.
I don't know what your argument is David, you keep changing it! If Boutflour mentioned the wetsuit idea to the police, how else were they suppose to test it other than to ask? They didn't know it was used or not and as such, it wasn't crucial evidence, just a theory to be tested. You crashed and burned on this one ...... on and 'YOU KNOW IT' 8)
It has been proven false
No it hasn't
That's what you want the forum to believe but the reality is different and you know it.
David, I don't give a rats arse what you or anyone else on the forum believes. I have my own thooughts and don't need yours or anyone else's approval. Don't pretend to know what I think - you'd be way off - like with most things!
Where is the proof he killed five people beyond a reasonable doubt?
Where's the proof he didn't or that Sheila did? If he wants to get out, that's what needs proving
You are claiming step 9 when you are on step 1 ;D
You're not even on step one. Once again, you just saying something doesn't make it a fact and you can post and may silly pictures as you like - it was funny at first, now it's just old and predictable - bit like your arguments, whatever they are ::) ::) ::)
-
I don't know what your argument is David, you keep changing it!
i dont think he knows himself.caroline :)) :))
-
on the silencer again.we dont know where it was or why police didnt find it.he may have taken it with him and returned it later.people must remember the case of that girl stabbing her boyfriend to death than blaming another motorist 'road rage' anyway she hid the murder weapon a small knife in her boot and than disposed of it so police would never find the murder weapon.cant remember her name
-
on the silencer again.we dont know where it was or why police didnt find it.he may have taken it with him and returned it later.people must remember the case of that girl stabbing her boyfriend to death than blaming another motorist 'road rage' anyway she hid the murder weapon a small knife in her boot and than disposed of it so police would never find the murder weapon.cant remember her name
Yes sami that was the Tracie Andrews case, not forgetting her namesake Jane Andrews. It would be one huge risk for the relatives to take. Why were the sights removed from the rifle anyhow?
-
Yes sami that was the Tracie Andrews case, not forgetting her namesake Jane Andrews. It would be one huge risk for the relatives to take. Why were the sights removed from the rifle anyhow?
thanks steve,thats the girl .she had it in her boot while talking to police telling them what had happened.now thats one cool murderer.imo steve the sights might have been a hinderence but not the silencer so jb removed the sights
-
i must say i miss being insulted and abused its been about 2 weeks now.ps come back soon lookout :)
-
No it was used on the bathroom window. Which is why there were hack saw marks on it.
Bamber testified he used it to gain entrance into WHF via the bathroom window. After the massacre ;D
And its important to note that the scratches on the bathroom window used as evidence against him in court were created after the massacre when he had no keys ;D
-
What you call "serious doubt" DOESN'T add up to his innocence.
you think I don't understand that?
I don't claim flat out JB is innocent because that's a claim I cannot prove. I don't mislead people and I am not concerned if people tell you otherwise , they are the ones that are misleading.
I believe JBs innocence is a strong possibility but no certainty.
-
i would like to ask david why he thinks the silencer wasnt used
that's a fair enough question I will come to it.
-
adam there would be no point in wearing the wetsuit underneath the clothes,cause he would still have to dispose of any blooded clothing.if he did stay the night all he had to do was get up around 2am put the wetsuit and the other stuff youve mentioned on and carry out his work taking all the time he needed.people will disagree with me but its not impossible that he showered after the event.imo
In the behind mansion walls documentary reconstruction, they have him wearing it. It does look and seem rather ridiculous. However it would make sense if you argue that all he had on was the wetsuit, Takes a shower after and then has no need to dispose of anything. :-\
-
still waiting for david to say why he thinks silencer was not used.
Fowlers report does show the sound moderator was not attached during the fatal shots
The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. Bamber vs CCRC 2012
New evidence obtained by Bamber's lawyers seem to rule out the possibility of the silencer being attached to the rifle during the killings. Three reports, by eminent experts, suggest the shots were fired without the silencer attached. One, compiled by David Fowler, the chief medical examiner of the US state of Maryland, has examined photographs of the victim's wounds and concluded they were caused by the rifle without the silencer attached.
Fowler, who has reviewed 3,000 shooting murders, says the wounds are consistent with "the rifle not having a silencer-attached". His conclusions are corroborated by two other American experts and a leading British forensic scientist.
Guardian article
Below is a suicide under the chin with a surpressor (only one I could find) the blood has been cleared but you can see the marks it has left
(http://s33.postimg.org/v983d303z/sm1.jpg)
The muzzle marks show that what is being played out bellow cannot have taken place
(http://s33.postimg.org/v5rn67ubz/sm2.jpg)
(http://s33.postimg.org/4h19u9qof/sm3.jpg)
(http://s33.postimg.org/xar2zayjz/muzzleburn.jpg)
so there were contact shots and shots at close range yet not a trace of blood in the barrel.puzzling ;)
Puzzling? no not really
Blood is more often detected on the outside of the muzzle than inside the barrel. In a
study of 653 revolvers, 242 pistols, 181 shotguns, and 124 rifles used in suicides, blood was
detected on the barrel 74% of the time for revolvers, 76% for pistols, 85% for shotguns, and
81% for rifles.4 In contrast, blood was detected inside the barrel in 53% of the revolvers, 57%
of pistols, 72% of shotguns, and 58% of rifles. The presence of blood inside the barrel of a
gun indicates that the weapon was within a few inches of the body at the time of discharge.
Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound.[/color]
Page 362 of Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio
splashes of such blood that
have been propelled into a firearm’s barrel by force of
projectile impact take a comparably long period of time to
dry. If this time is not conceded before sample collection,
the still liquid droplets of blood may be blasted out of the
barrel by force of subsequent shots
For samples taken after the first shot DNA-analysis yielded STR profiles eligible for reliable
individualization in 17 of 20 cases. After a second shot had been fired 8 or more STR systems were
amplified successfully in 14 of 20 barrels.
Persistence of biological traces in gun barrels Int J Legal Med. 2012 May
Firstly, that as I have already stated, the basic use of the cloth in
the PULL-THROUGH is insuf?cient for cleaning purposes,
since this does not get into the many inaccessible areas in the
corners of the lands and grooves, or to the very bottom of the
?ne tooling marks that are engrained into the surface of the
barrel.
If the rifle was used in the shooting of Sheila Caffell without the
use of the silencer, and because of the nature of the wounds
inflicted upon her, there is every chance that some form of
BACKSPATTER occurred and that very ?ne sprays of blood,
tissue and bone fragmentations were forced back into the open
end of the barrel.
These traces of blood would dry inside the lining of the barrel
and be partially concealed in the corners of the lands and
grooves, ri?ing and ?ne tooling marks. It would only be
possible to detect their presence if the cleaning process
involving the cloth PULL-TROUGH was applied shortly after
the blood had entered the end of the barrel, in its wet condition.
Once the blood had had an opportunity to dry, I would expect
the cloth to simply glide over the top of the blood without any of
it being transferred onto the cloth.
More specifically, if some of the blood had seeped into the
inaccessible areas aforementioned, it is possible that the cloth
did not even touch the surface of the dried blood, since the dried
blood may have been engrained on the shallowest parts of the
marks beneath the level of the surface on the inner Wall of the
barrel.
Mallison report page 7
-
And its important to note that the scratches on the bathroom window used as evidence against him in court were created after the massacre when he had no keys ;D
That is wrong.
No one knows when Bamber put the scatch marks on the bathroom window with his hack saw. Just that it was definately Bamber who did this.
Bamber makes the ridiculous suggestion he made them after the massacre to get inside. Quite why he could not get front door keys for his own property, no one knows. Telephones did exist in 1985.
The judge suggested Bamber used his hack saw prior to the massacre to ensure a quiet and easy access on the night.
-
David knows the evidence shows the silencer was certainly on the rifle during the massacre. He also knows the evidence could not be wrong due to human error, or by creating false evidence which would fool the lab.
This is why he didn't comment on my silencer threads.
However he believes if he posts a long post with a lot of pictures on this thread it may convince people. Unfortunately since the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' fiasco all credibility has been lost.
-
David knows the evidence shows the silencer was certainly on the rifle during the massacre. He also knows the evidence could not be wrong due to human error, or by creating false evidence which would fool the lab.
This is why he didn't comment on my silencer threads.
However he believes if he posts a long post with a lot of pictures on this thread it may convince people. Unfortunately since the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' fiasco all credibility has been lost.
thanks to your work on the silencer topic theres no doubt it was on the rifle when used.getting other experts to look at it and come to a very different conclusion .who the heck should believe dr fowler.and your wrong again if silencer was not used than the barrel should have contained blood
-
david thats a poor excuse for not detecting blood in the barrel ,but at least you admit theres a chance of it getting in the barrel,as for detecting it iam sure the lab was not staffed by idiots there for i assume they would have moisten the fabric and barrel before the pull through ;)
-
thanks to your work on the silencer topic theres no doubt it was on the rifle when used.getting other experts to look at it and come to a very different conclusion .who the heck should believe dr fowler.and your wrong again if silencer was not used than the barrel should have contained blood
Who the heck should believe Dr Fowler? Dr Dragovich, Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
They agree with him and to this date his conclusions have remained unchallenged.
https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=49s (https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=49s)
Your position requires you to deny forensic evidence. Like the other day when I explained to you how the shell casing could be ejected to the left. You accepted my argument but you still decided the shell casing should not be there anyway.
-
david thats a poor excuse for not detecting blood in the barrel ,but at least you admit theres a chance of it getting in the barrel,as for detecting it iam sure the lab was not staffed by idiots there for i assume they would have moisten the fabric and barrel before the pull through ;)
How is that a poor excuse? A study of 124 rifles used in suicides and 58% of them had blood in the barrel the other 42% did not.
I am not saying the lab is staffed by idiots but you have to bare in mind that gun related murders in the country are very rare compared to that in the states. in 1985 they will have had limited knowledge and only a handful of cases as experience.
-
How is that a poor excuse? A study of 124 rifles used in suicides and 58% of them had blood in the barrel the other 42% did not.
I am not saying the lab is staffed by idiots but you have to bare in mind that gun related murders in the country are very rare compared to that in the states. in 1985 they will have had limited knowledge and only a handful of cases as experience.
yes but iam sure they knew how to recover dried blood from a rifle barrel.common sense will tell you that if they attempted it a while after the murders than the cloth would have been sprayed before the attempt
-
iam sure you know in usa one can get an expert to say just about anything one would ask them to say.you only qoute studies which favour you
-
Is it not possible to get backspatter from a non-contact shot with silencer attached? Isn't it also possible that after the rifle was damaged after the fight with Nevill Jeremy unscrewed the silencer and made his way back upstairs to Sheila, killing her sans silencer?
-
iam sure you know in usa one can get an expert to say just about anything one would ask them to say.you only qoute studies which favour you
That's not how it works. The American experts have not been challenged by the CCRC. If you can pay anyone to say anything why don't they? ::)
-
Is it not possible to get backspatter from a non-contact shot with silencer attached? Isn't it also possible that after the rifle was damaged after the fight with Nevill Jeremy unscrewed the silencer and made his way back upstairs to Sheila, killing her sans silencer?
The Crowns case was that Sheila was shot with the Silencer on therefore she could not have shot herself.
The CCRC's position now is. Well just because the silencer was not attached when Sheila injuries were inflicted does not nessisarily mean it was not on at all during the murders ::)
The scenario you have suggested does not make sense, because if Jeremy and Neville are downstairs fighting, What is Sheila doing? You would have to argue that Sheila and the twins slept through it all. Reason being the twins were shot while asleep and if Sheila woke up she would realise they are all in danger and go to check on the twins and as a result wake them up and try to get them to safety. This is incompatible with the facts of the crime.
Another factor is one of the twins had a contact shot to the head, yet no evidence of their blood or brain tissue in the moderator
-
That's not how it works. The American experts have not been challenged by the CCRC. If you can pay anyone to say anything why don't they? ::)
no need too the jury believed it was on the rifle.and nothing about dr fowler 's report will change that ;D
-
The Crowns case was that Sheila was shot with the Silencer on therefore she could not have shot herself.
The CCRC's position now is. Well just because the silencer was not attached when Sheila injuries were inflicted does not nessisarily mean it was not on at all during the murders ::)
The scenario you have suggested does not make sense, because if Jeremy and Neville are downstairs fighting, What is Sheila doing? You would have to argue that Sheila and the twins slept through it all. Reason being the twins were shot while asleep and if Sheila woke up she would realise they are all in danger and go to check on the twins and as a result wake them up and try to get them to safety. This is incompatible with the facts of the crime.
Another factor is one of the twins had a contact shot to the head, yet no evidence of their blood or brain tissue in the moderator
where does it say that is the ccrc position now
-
where does it say that is the ccrc position now
They didn't word it like that, I was summarising it in a very simplistic term, but if you want to read the details and make your own mind up.
10. The issue before us can be summarised as follows: the only alternative suspect to Jeremy Bamber was his sister, Sheila Caffell. It was said at the trial, and has been said subsequently, that she was the person who killed the other four members of the family and then committed suicide. The issue, therefore, upon which this application is concentrated, goes to the question of whether there is now a basis for reference to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in relation to whether it can be shown that she was the person who was the murderer. The issue has narrowed to an extent to an even further degree, because it has turned upon the evidence relating to the way in which the father, Mr Bamber senior, was killed.
11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
12. The approach that has been taken, and very properly taken by both the Commission to the way in which the case has been put, and by Mr McKay, on behalf of Mr Bamber, has therefore concentrated on this one aspect. The argument before us has proceeded on a first assumption, namely that if there was evidence that the silencer was on the gun when the fatal shot was fired, then there would be little doubt about the safety of the conviction. But if there was no silencer on it, then there was, for the purposes of this application, sufficient that it might be necessary to refer it to the Court of Appeal on the basis that there was a real possibility that the sister was the murderer. I say that at the outset because it is extremely important to understand that assumption upon which this judicial review is proceeding.
13. The question as to whether the silencer was used or not turns again on a relatively narrow issue. That relates to the finding of circular wounds on the father. These are said, and were said at the time by one of the experts, to possibly be burn marks. At the time those were unexplained. But it was the prosecution case that the silencer must have been on the gun, first by reference to a flake of blood that was found in the baffles of the silencer that could be attributed to the blood group of the sister, and secondly, that there was red paint on the curled end and a mark on the mantelpiece, which, given the other evidence, showed that the silencer must have been on. As is accepted, on the basis of that evidence at the time of the trial, that part of the Crown’s case was not seriously challenged at trial.
-
thanks steve,thats the girl .she had it in her boot while talking to police telling them what had happened.now thats one cool murderer.imo steve the sights might have been a hinderence but not the silencer so jb removed the sights
https://youtu.be/xS-mX5fq858
-
https://youtu.be/xS-mX5fq858
very cunning steve,maybe if jb had confessed he might be out now.
-
David knows the evidence shows the silencer was certainly on the rifle during the massacre. He also knows the evidence could not be wrong due to human error, or by creating false evidence which would fool the lab.
This is why he didn't comment on my silencer threads.
However he believes if he posts a long post with a lot of pictures on this thread it may convince people. Unfortunately since the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' fiasco all credibility has been lost.
The fiasco around the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' was orchestrated deliberately by crazy guilter's. The objective was to reduce my credibility by any means, they failed
However I have made other discoveries and breakthrough's since then and due to the past fiasco I am not going to post any updates . So they have succeeded somewhat in preventing new information coming onto the board. However they are now in the dark as to what is happening 8)
-
The fiasco around the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' was orchestrated deliberately by crazy guilter's. The objective was to reduce my credibility by any means, they failed
However I have made other discoveries and breakthrough's since then and due to the past fiasco I am not going to post any updates . So they have succeeded somewhat in preventing new information coming onto the board. However they are now in the dark as to what is happening 8)
sounds fishy david,
-
sounds fishy david,
Fishy things happen allot on this forum unfortunately Sami.
I have realised that revealing new information to the board, is not worth the effort I will have to put in to defending my character against the campaigns of lies that will result.
Like Socrates said "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
-
Fishy things happen allot on this forum unfortunately Sami.
I have realised that revealing new information to the board, is not worth the effort I will have to put in to defending my character against the campaigns of lies that will result.
Like Socrates said "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
Hello David
will we be told what your new information is?
-
The Crowns case was that Sheila was shot with the Silencer on therefore she could not have shot herself.
The CCRC's position now is. Well just because the silencer was not attached when Sheila injuries were inflicted does not nessisarily mean it was not on at all during the murders ::)
The scenario you have suggested does not make sense, because if Jeremy and Neville are downstairs fighting, What is Sheila doing? You would have to argue that Sheila and the twins slept through it all. Reason being the twins were shot while asleep and if Sheila woke up she would realise they are all in danger and go to check on the twins and as a result wake them up and try to get them to safety. This is incompatible with the facts of the crime.
Another factor is one of the twins had a contact shot to the head, yet no evidence of their blood or brain tissue in the moderator
The Crown's case was that Sheila could not have shot four with silencer, shot herself then returned the silencer to the gun cupboard. It's very much my contention that Sheila and the twins slept through the massacre, and as for the boys' blood group which was O (the same as Nevill's) I thought the Defence were now saying the blood in the silencer could have been an intimate mix of June and Nevill's , therefore not precluding that Sheila had shot them all, returned the silencer to the gun cupboard then proceeded upstairs to shoot herself. If this is the case then the Blood Group O found in the silencer could have belonged to the twins I would have thought.
-
The fiasco around the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' was orchestrated deliberately by crazy guilter's. The objective was to reduce my credibility by any means, they failed
However I have made other discoveries and breakthrough's since then and due to the past fiasco I am not going to post any updates . So they have succeeded somewhat in preventing new information coming onto the board. However they are now in the dark as to what is happening 8)
Well aren't you just a regular Sherlock Holmes ::). Don't believe a word of it - more lies from David. Your report is about the palm print, something that was already known, something I introduced and something you quizzed me on. You can't help promoting yourself - "Look at ME everyone" - All I see is 'blah, blah, blah, ME, Blah, More about ME Blah. You've got bugger all that would get further than the post room- you know it and we know it! ;D ;D ;D ;D. You can't even manage to understand how Julie was asked about the wet suit - claiming that it should have been kept secret!! It was JUST a theory ;D ;D ;D
You need to think about your new quote and go back and check your posts - you insult people quite regularly. This forum isn't about you! Get a grip!!
-
Well aren't you just a regular Sherlock Holmes ::). Don't believe a word of it - more lies from David. Your report is about the palm print, something that was already known, something I introduced and something you quizzed me on. You can't help promoting yourself - "Look at ME everyone" - All I see is 'blah, blah, blah, ME, Blah, More about ME Blah. You've got bugger all that would get further than the post room- you know it and we know it! ;D ;D ;D ;D. You can't even manage to understand how Julie was asked about the wet suit - claiming that it should have been kept secret!! It was JUST a theory ;D ;D ;D
You need to think about your new quote and go back and check your posts - you insult people quite regularly. This forum isn't about you! Get a grip!!
ouch,we wont hear the NEW evidence now thats for sure.what the palm print about caroline :)
-
ouch,we wont hear the NEW evidence now thats for sure.what the palm print about caroline :)
No, but David will be able to claim he has new evidence and use lame excuses to keep from posting it. I worked out what his last 'breakthrough' was about and he doesn't like it because I questioned him on the open forum. Had he not been underhanded, I wouldn't have done that - only has himself to blame. Not interested in what else he thinks he has - couldn't give a monkies!
One of the (many) threads that mentioned the palm print.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6884.msg320619.html#msg320619
-
if it is a palm print what will it prove ;)
-
if it is a palm print what will it prove ;)
Nothing.
-
But David said it was a 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
-
The Crown's case was that Sheila could not have shot four with sileincer, shot herself then returned the silencer to the gun cupboard.
That's more or less what I said.
It's very much my contention that Sheila and the twins slept through the massacre,
How?
I thought the Defence were now saying the blood in the silencer could have been an intimate mix of June and Nevill's , therefore not precluding that Sheila had shot them all, returned the silencer to the gun cupboard then proceeded upstairs to shoot herself.
That was the defence strategy, to cast doubt on the blood group results. It almost worked when the Jury could not reach a verdict however they asked the Judge go over the blood in silencer again and he did so controversially but it was not crossing the line.
Who knows what would happen if JB had a different barrister :-\ Rivlin QC was a prosecutor and apparently according to one source his first defence for a murder case. He felt it would be too outrageous to argue to the Jury that all the evidence was made up to frame Jeremy. We know now it more or less was but what you gonna do 30 years later? ;D
-
The last piece of independent information we have about Sheila comes from the telephone conversation between Pamela and June in which June tells her sister her daughter was tired and was going to bed. This tallies with the stories of Sheila's behaviour all week from the two parties to the car ride down to the Farm to the Tiptree excursion. It may be inconvenient for the Innocent Brigade but this is the reality. Nobody can seriously suggest that the twins moved from their beds that morning. So we have them slain, the struggle with Nevill in the kitchen and a June shot initially as she lies in bed, the first shots going through her body and the pillow. After Jeremy reloads he finishes off his parents then enters Sheila's room(he has three nights to check the daily and nocturnal routine before the Wednesday morning). He leads an exhausted Sheila to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, with the added bonus that he has woken her up in the middle of the night in retribution for one Christmas when she got him similarly out of bed to proceed downstairs in order to eat chocolate together.
-
But David said it was a 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
It was NGB that described it as a 'Forensic Breakthrough'. It's an accurate description.
-
The last piece of independent information we have about Sheila comes from the telephone conversation between Pamela and June in which June tells her sister her daughter was tired and was going to bed. This tallies with the stories of Sheila's behaviour all week from the two parties to the car ride down to the Farm to the Tiptree excursion. It may be inconvenient for the Innocent Brigade but this is the reality. Nobody can seriously suggest that the twins moved from their beds that morning. So we have them slain, the struggle with Nevill in the kitchen and a June shot initially as she lies in bed, the first shots going through her body and the pillow. After Jeremy reloads he finishes off his parents then enters Sheila's room(he has three nights to check the daily and nocturnal routine before the Wednesday morning). He leads an exhausted Sheila to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, with the added bonus that he has woken her up in the middle of the night in retribution for one Christmas when she got him similarly out of bed to proceed downstairs in order to eat chocolate together.
That does not explain how three people can sleep through a rampage. Bullets shooting, dog going nuts and June screaming (i assume she was as she walked around after being shot)
-
That does not explain how three people can sleep through a rampage. Bullets shooting, dog going nuts and June screaming (i assume she was as she walked around after being shot)
June had been shot in bed while asleep. In the neck and head. So doubtful she would make much noise.
How do you know a small dog made any noise ?
The rifle with the silencer on was silent. Video supplied.
-
June had been shot in bed while asleep. In the neck and head. So doubtful she would make much noise.
The blood patterns show June got out of bed after she was shot and walked around for a bit before collapsing.
How do you know a small dog made any noise ?
That's what dogs do when they get frightened
The rifle with the silencer on was silent. Video supplied.
Your video contains a different rifle and a different silencer.
The one in the case makes very little difference
-
I know June moved a few feet from the bed. I doubt she was screaming. She had been shot seceral times. In the head and throat. It's doubtful Sheila or the twins would hear June. They were asleep in other rooms with their doors shut.
My video has what looks like a very similar rifle and silencer to the the ones used. Unless you can find a video of the exact same massacre rifle being used loudly with a silencer, you have to accept it.
The dog was either barking, in another room, or cowering somewhere underneath the bed, where it was found. Either way there is no reason why it would wake the sleeping twins and Sheila. Who were in other rooms.
-
My video has what looks like a very similar rifle and silencer to the the ones used. Unless you can find a video of the exact same massacre rifle being used loudly with a silencer, you have to accept it.
https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=53s (https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=53s) 8)
-
I know June moved a few feet from the bed. I doubt she was screaming. She had been shot seceral times. In the head and throat. It's doubtful Sheila or the twins would hear June. They were asleep in other rooms with their doors shut.
Your really grasping at straws here Adam. Perhaps you are beginning to realise the scene suggests Sheila shooting the twins first rather than Jeremy shooting them last. but i'm not holding my breath
-
It was NGB that described it as a 'Forensic Breakthrough'. It's an accurate description.
It's you're thread called 'Forensic evidence breakthrough'.
-
Your really grasping at straws here Adam. Perhaps you are beginning to realise the scene suggests Sheila shooting the twins first rather than Jeremy shooting them last. but i'm not holding my breath
Yes it is gasping at straws to say a person shot several times in the head and neck (while asleep) would not be screaming.
Perhaps you can elaboarate on Sheila shooting the twins first in you're 'detailed' account of how Sheila did it. Nineteenth request.
-
https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=53s (https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=53s) 8)
This is nothing to do with the noise. Although the rifle when it was fired was not loud enough to wake people asleep behind closed doors in other rooms.
-
The video says Neville's burn back marks were inflicted on the night. Which I agree with.
I wonder if Sheila decided to do this before or after her shower ?
-
Yes it is gasping at straws to say a person shot several times in the head and neck (while asleep) would not be screaming.
Perhaps you can elaboarate on Sheila shooting the twins first in you're 'detailed' account of how Sheila did it. Nineteenth request.
I would imagine a person shot as you describe would not necessarily scream. I would think they would be stunned and disoriented, they would probably not feel any pain as we recognise it and their reactions would be reflex rather than reasoned because their body and mind would be deeply shocked. I do wonder what caused June to walk round the foot of the bed and back when wounded. If she was trying to escape or reach the twins, why walk back? It makes me wonder what or who was there which caused such a reaction. Sheila may have already been shot in the throat and she went to help her, realised she couldn't and in her confusion staggered back the way she had come? It's impossible to know but makes me wonder.
-
It was NGB that described it as a 'Forensic Breakthrough'. It's an accurate description.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg355281.html#msg355281 ::)
NGB cut the thread and changed it to the title of what YOU described it as.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg355281.html#msg355281 ::)
NGB cut the thread and changed it to the title of what YOU described it as.
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/here-is-a-list-of-all-the-people-who-asked-for-your-opinion-20c3c.png)
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg355281.html#msg355281 ::)
NGB cut the thread and changed it to the title of what YOU described it as.
It's interesting that David says he "KNOWS there will be a forensic break though soon" and Lookout responds with "Being an ex cop I know you know". From the age David has given himself as being, if he's telling the truth, he's hardly had time to be an EX anything, other than a schoolboy who still relies on his father's input.
-
It's interesting that David says he "KNOWS there will be a forensic break though soon" and Lookout responds with "Being an ex cop I know you know". From the age David has given himself as being, if he's telling the truth, he's hardly had time to be an EX anything, other than a schoolboy who still relies on his father's input.
Lookout know's I used to work for someone in the Police, I think she may have got the wrong end of the stick there.
Talking of Lookout, Where is Lookout?
-
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/here-is-a-list-of-all-the-people-who-asked-for-your-opinion-20c3c.png)
That's your answer? Ha, ha, just shows how honest you are, now you're trying to pass the buck onto NGB - YOU called it a 'forensic breakthrough' - Adam was right!! ;D ;D ;D ;D.
-
Lookout know's I used to work for someone in the Police, I think she may have got the wrong end of the stick there.
Talking of Lookout, Where is Lookout?
But you didn't correct her?
Talking of diversions - why didn't you correct her?
-
Lookout know's I used to work for someone in the Police, I think she may have got the wrong end of the stick there.
Talking of Lookout, Where is Lookout?
work for 'someone' in the police.not as a grass i hope.carolines opinions are allways helpful to people who want to know the truth,many members will agree with me :)
-
It's interesting that David says he "KNOWS there will be a forensic break though soon" and Lookout responds with "Being an ex cop I know you know". From the age David has given himself as being, if he's telling the truth, he's hardly had time to be an EX anything, other than a schoolboy who still relies on his father's input.
yes jane he said he was 27.i must say he's very keen for some one who wasnt alive at the time :)
-
yes jane he said he was 27.i must say he's very keen for some one who wasnt alive at the time :)
Imo this discussion is getting a bit personal.
It's not the business of other posters where David has worked or how old he is or anything else of a personal nature unless he chooses to tell.
Cheers
-
anyway if the NEW evidence is about the palm print.i cant see how it can prove anything :)
-
Lookout know's I used to work for someone in the Police, I think she may have got the wrong end of the stick there.
Talking of Lookout, Where is Lookout?
I am becoming increasingly concerned over her absence and hope she can reassure us that she has not become the victim of a new Brian Blackwell.
-
I am becoming increasingly concerned over her absence and hope she can reassure us that she has not become the victim of a new Brian Blackwell.
He is eligible for parole soon Brian Blackwell :o
-
I am becoming increasingly concerned over her absence and hope she can reassure us that she has not become the victim of a new Brian Blackwell.
Hi lookout is fine enjoying a holiday
-
He is eligible for parole soon Brian Blackwell :o
I don't think he'll get it. https://youtu.be/kXBAOTn5iPE
-
Hi lookout is fine enjoying a holiday
I thought there would be a straightforward answer.
No Brian Blackwell copy cat then Steve :)
-
I don't think he'll get it. https://youtu.be/kXBAOTn5iPE
Me neither. I wonder what he is up to now? Model prisoner or institutionalised lunatic?
-
Hi lookout is fine enjoying a holiday
Oh that's good to know susan. I hope she has a well earned rest.
-
I thought there would be a straightforward answer.
No Brian Blackwell copy cat then Steve :)
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Dr Lloyd, exposed the prosecution experts 'LEAD DEPOSIT' evidence, as 'UNRELIABLE', because of the delay (83 days) between when the swabs were taken from Sheila Caffell (7th August, 1985), and the date the swabs in question were analysed for 'Levels of Lead Deposit (29th October, 1985), as compared to the date, hand swabs were obtained, from testtees, Hayward and Woodroffe (18th October, 1985), and the date these swabs were analysed (29th October, 1985) only being 11 days - the results were bound to be significantly different because of the delays involved between the date swabs were obtained, and the date all swabs were analysed. In this respect, the prosecutions case relied upon a dishonest argument which certainly deceived the jury regarding the potential for Sheila Caffell to have handled bullets, and loaded them into the ammunition magazine of the anshuzt rifle...
-
Dr Lloyd is correct, when he talks about the 'evaporation rates' of 'PETROLEUM ETHER' on the swabs making a 'significant' difference to any results obtained from hand swabs that are analysed over different time frames...
-
Dr Lloyd is correct, when he talks about the 'evaporation rates' of 'PETROLEUM ETHER' on the swabs making a 'significant' difference to any results obtained from hand swabs that are analysed over different time frames...
What we have got in this case, are hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell, some 83 days before they were tested and analysed, as opposed to a delay of only 11 days between the taking of the testees hand swabs (J. Hayward and S. Woodroffe). The court was certainly deceived in this instance, since it was fed 'misleading' and 'inaccurate' evidence...
-
Testee, Sue Woodroffe's hand swab results, were obtained '11 days' after the swabs were taken from her!!!
-
Testee, John Hayward', (corrupted bastard), hand swabs, were analysed (29th October, 1983), 11 days after they had been obtained from him (18th October, 1985), lets get the facts right...
-
The 'Prosecution Experts', deceived the courts, in my book, this amounts to an of offence, of 'MALFEANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE', including the deliberate involvement of the CPS / DPP, and the Crown Prosecutor - nothing could be any clearer, in my opinion...
-
The 'Prosecution Experts', deceived the courts, in my book, this amounts to an of offence, of 'MALFEANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE', including the deliberate involvement of the CPS / DPP, and the Crown Prosecutor - nothing could be any clearer, in my opinion...
Everyone involved in this 'Conspiracy' should be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and the key thrown away, so that each and everyone of these 'BASTARDS' get what they deserve for manufacturing evidence, to get an innocent man (Jeremy Bamber), convicted for these murders, because they deliberately falsified the 'LEAD DEPOSIT' results, to suggest that Sheila had not handled bullets and loaded them into the gun, when in actual fact, 'SHE HAD DONE', and 'DID'...
-
Everyone involved in this 'Conspiracy' should be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and the key thrown away, so that each and everyone of these 'BASTARDS' get what they deserve for manufacturing evidence, to get an innocent man (Jeremy Bamber), convicted for these murders, because they deliberately falsified the 'LEAD DEPOSIT' results, to suggest that Sheila had not handled bullets and loaded them into the gun, when in actual fact, 'SHE HAD DONE', and 'DID'...
Any other case, where these experts have had involvement on behalf of the dodgy prosecuting authorities will, 'have to be reviewed'...
-
What we are dealing with here, is corruption, and 'malfeance in office', from bottom to the top, and the Criminal Justice System has been brought into disrepute by these 'official Criminals'...
-
Yesterday, I attended Barnsley Magistrates Court for trial - I was charged with causing Criminal Damage to the windscreen of a 7.5 ton truck (Car Transporter). The South Yorkshire Police, and the South Yorkshire CPS have had this slur hanging over my head since the 5th September, last year. I admitted smashing the windscreen in 'self - defence', but they charged me, and despite the driver of the 7.5 ton truck attempting to knock me down twice, succeeding on the third attempt, and he getting two of his 'hoodie criminals' to hold me at gun point, and slash me with use of a stanley blade, and push me into a ravine, left for dead, the cunt was not even charged with anything, or being at peril of being convicted of anything. The Criminal justice system is 'fucked up'. South Yorkshire police, and the CPS, are a fucking joke. In fairness to the CPS, yesterday, they offered 'no evidence', and the magistrates threw the case out. But let it be noted, that at the time the driver of the 7.5 ton truck tried to knock me down, and did eventually knock me down, the bastard increased his speed. I was demanding the 'tacho' as evidence to establish this fact, but South Yorkshire Police said they had not bothered to seize it, or to get it analysed. Can you imagine that? I am not entitled to any compensation for what these bastards have done to me, an what they have put me through. I am fucking fuming...
22 stitches to the right hand side of my head/face, I am scarred for the rest of my life, and the bastards get away with it 'scot - free'...
-
Yesterday, I attended Barnsley Magistrates Court for trial - I was charged with causing Criminal Damage to the windscreen of a 7.5 ton truck (Car Transporter). The South Yorkshire Police, and the South Yorkshire CPS have had this slur hanging over my head since the 5th September, last year. I admitted smashing the windscreen in 'self - defence', but they charged me, and despite the driver of the 7.5 ton truck attempting to knock me down twice, succeeding on the third attempt, and he getting two of his 'hoodie criminals' to hold me at gun point, and slash me with use of a stanley blade, and push me into a ravine, left for dead, the cunt was not even charged with anything, or being at peril of being convicted of anything. The Criminal justice system is 'fucked up'. South Yorkshire police, and the CPS, are a fucking joke. In fairness to the CPS, yesterday, they offered 'no evidence', and the magistrates threw the case out. But let it be noted, that at the time the driver of the 7.5 ton truck tried to knock me down, and did eventually knock me down, the bastard increased his speed. I was demanding the 'tacho' as evidence to establish this fact, but South Yorkshire Police said they had not bothered to seize it, or to get it analysed. Can you imagine that? I am not entitled to any compensation for what these bastards have done to me, an what they have put me through. I am fucking fuming...
22 stitches to the right hand side of my head/face, I am scarred for the rest of my life, and the bastards get away with it 'scot - free'...
Still, the truth won out in the end...
-
That is what 'justice' is all about - sticking to the truth, standing your ground against all the odds stacked against you by the opposition. Prosecution witnesses are believed by the courts 100%, but if you are a defendant, or a defence witness, you do not get afforded the same consideration - a defendant is 'guilty' until proven 'innocent', no matter what the tofts of this world say otherwise...
This applied to Jeremy Bamber, and all the other victims of 'miscarriages of justice'...
Bamber, was 'certainly framed' for these murders...
-
I am on his side, anyway. I truly believe that he did not kill his family, and I am 99.9% certain that he did not put up someone else to carry out the killings on his behalf...
-
I am on his side, anyway. I truly believe that he did not kill his family, and I am 99.9% certain that he did not put up someone else to carry out the killings on his behalf...
I am convinced of Bambers innocence, since I don't know of anybody who adopts the approach that I rely upon when looking into cases which are deemed to be potential miscarriages of justice. Bamber is not that clever that he made so many 'simple mistakes'. It is misleading for anybody, particularly, the Home Secretary of the Day, to say that Bamber almost got away with the perfect murder. What was perfect about these murders? Nothing...
-
Cops xxx xxx xx relatives conspired, and Bamber was 80% convicted even before any evidence was given during his trial, because when you are a defendant in the dock, you are treated as being 'guilty', and it is up to you, and those representing you to prove your innocence, anybody who says anything different does not know what they are talking about...
-
Cops fucked up, relatives conspired, and Bamber was 80% convicted even before any evidence was given during his trial, because when you are a defendant in the dock, you are treated as being 'guilty', and it is up to you, and those representing you to prove your innocence, anybody who says anything different does not know what they are talking about...
I have been the victim of many miscarriages of justice, I have been in the dock, and the truth of the matter is that a jury will always think there must be some truth in why you are being tried. Juries don't think cops fabricate evidence, and that prosecution witnesses can tell lies, or that the defendant will admit to what he / she has done, etc, etc...
-
More information:-
-
More related, documents:-
-
That is wrong.
No one knows when Bamber put the scatch marks on the bathroom window with his hack saw. Just that it was definately Bamber who did this.
Bamber makes the ridiculous suggestion he made them after the massacre to get inside. Quite why he could not get front door keys for his own property, no one knows. Telephones did exist in 1985.
The judge suggested Bamber used his hack saw prior to the massacre to ensure a quiet and easy access on the night.
Bamber made the scratch marks on the window weeks after the shooting, whilst he was under surveillance by the drugs squad...
-
Bamber made the scratch marks on the window weeks after the shooting, whilst he was under surveillance by the drugs squad...
Why were the drugs squad following Bamber Mike ?
Is it poppygate ?
-
Why were the drugs squad following Bamber Mike ?
Is it poppygate ?
A neighbour of his at Head Street, Goldhanger, reported the fact that Jeremy was growing Opium poppies, in his back garden. Neighbour took photographs and gave these to the cops, which resulted in Jeremy being under surveillance by the drugs squad. He was followed back to white house farm on one occasion and they observed him using a piece of broken hacksaw blade to open the window catch - which left the scratch marks, on the frame that were found later on...
-
The Bambers had a license to grow opium poppies on the land they farmed, but this license did not extend to the garden of Jeremy's cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger...
-
Bit strong isn't it. Putting a minor alleged opium grower under surveillance.
A bit of luck Bamber finding a hack saw by the bathroom window and letting himself into WHF. Otherwise it would have been a wasted journey for him. I thought he just needed a penknife to gain access ?
A bit of luck the surveillance team saw him find the hack saw and let himself in as well.
-
Bit strong isn't it. Putting a minor alleged opium grower under surveillance.
A bit of luck Bamber finding a hack saw by the bathroom window and letting himself into WHF. Otherwise it would have been a wasted journey for him. I thought he just needed a penknife to gain access ?
A bit of luck the surveillance team saw him find the hack saw and let himself in as well.
a member has said no license to grow opium .but to grow hemp
-
Bit strong isn't it. Putting a minor alleged opium grower under surveillance.
A bit of luck Bamber finding a hack saw by the bathroom window and letting himself into WHF. Otherwise it would have been a wasted journey for him. I thought he just needed a penknife to gain access ?
A bit of luck the surveillance team saw him find the hack saw and let himself in as well.
a member has said no license to grow opium .but to grow hemp
I'm not 100% sure that they grew hemp but neither am I convinced that they grew opium poppies. To be honest, I don't think their crops had anything to do with the murders so it's just a distraction.
-
I'm not 100% sure that they grew hemp but neither am I convinced that they grew opium poppies. To be honest, I don't think their crops had anything to do with the murders so it's just a distraction.
iam sure ive read somewhere that one of the doctors asked a top police officer if he knew of a license to grow poppys when he saw jb return from the field
-
Bit strong isn't it. Putting a minor alleged opium grower under surveillance.
A bit of luck Bamber finding a hack saw by the bathroom window and letting himself into WHF. Otherwise it would have been a wasted journey for him. I thought he just needed a penknife to gain access ?
A bit of luck the surveillance team saw him find the hack saw and let himself in as well.
Bit of luck that the prosecution used the expert opinion of 'Elliot' regarding the scratch marks on the window, which were created 'after' the killings...
Think, before you open your gob...
-
Bit of luck, that although 'red paint' was supposedly present on the end of one of the silencers found on the 10th August, 1985, that it should take until the 2nd October, 1985, for expert opinion to be gathered linking the red paint of the aga surround, to one, or two of the silencers?
-
Bit of luck, that although 'red paint' was supposedly present on the end of one of the silencers found on the 10th August, 1985, that it should take until the 2nd October, 1985, for expert opinion to be gathered linking the red paint of the aga surround, to one, or two of the silencers?
Lets go the whole hog, red paint from the aga surround, upon silencer SBJ/1, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, SJ/1, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, DB/1, and finally, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, DRB/1?
That's an awful lot of different silencers (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) fitted to the only weapon used in the shootings...
You forgot to take into account that whilst one, or more of these different silencers had already been submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon Forensic Science Laboratory (30th August, 1985), that 'THE RELATIVES' (11th September, 1985) and 'ESSEX POLICE' still had possession of at least a second silencer (until the 20th September, 1985)...
Don't try to fuck with me, or anybody else, by making up utter nonsense...
The bad apple cops, and the bad apple relatives, could not possibly still have had possession or access to a silencer, which had already been recieved by the cops, and already submitted to the lab' for examination by the 30th August, 1985, by the 11th September, 1985, onward...
-
Lets go the whole hog, red paint from the aga surround, upon silencer SBJ/1, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, SJ/1, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, DB/1, and finally, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, DRB/1?
That's an awful lot of different silencers (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) fitted to the only weapon used in the shootings...
You forgot to take into account that whilst one, or more of these different silencers had already been submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon Forensic Science Laboratory (30th August, 1985), that 'THE RELATIVES' (11th September, 1985) and 'ESSEX POLICE' still had possession of at least a second silencer (until the 20th September, 1985)...
Don't try to fuck with me, or anybody else, by making up utter nonsense...
The bad apple cops, and the bad apple relatives, could not possibly still have had possession or access to a silencer, which had already been recieved by the cops, and already submitted to the lab' for examination by the 30th August, 1985, by the 11th September, 1985, onward...
DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, could not possibly have been tasked with 'fingerprinting' a silencer that the cops never had possession of by the 13th September, 1985. This is because cops had supposedly already submitted a silencer to Huntingdon Lab' by the 30th August, 1985, so prey tell, enlighten me please, try to educate someone of my experience, how DS Eastwood and DS Davidson, were able to 'fingerprint' a silencer on the 13th September, 1985, when if there had only been just the one silencer, and 'it' had already been fingerprinted by DI 'Ron' Cook, on the 15th and the 23rd August, 1985, and submitted to the lab' on the 30th August 1985,how Essex police could submit 'that very same silencer' to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, if the lab' at Huntingdon, already had examined a silencer sent to them by Essex police on the 30th August 1985, and inside which had already been found the key flake of blood which produced the key blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK/1 and HP 2-1)?
You can't possibly submit the only silencer (DRB/1) in the police investigation, to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, and request that it be checked for blood and fibers, if blood has already been found in a different silencer (DB/1), and then attribute the discovery of 'that' blood in the other silencer (DB/1), by claiming when the matter came to trial that the flake in question had been found inside a different silencer (DRB/1) not sent to the lab' at Huntingdon, to be checked for blood and fibers on the 20th September, 1985, after the blood in the form of the flake (12th September, 1985) had already been found in the other silencer (DB/1) and which had already been analysed and producing the results, A, EAP BA, AK/1 and HP 2-1, (between the 12th andd 19th September, 1985) before the silencer bearing the identifying mark, DRB/1 was even submitted to the lab,' on the 20th September, 1985?
Please do not try to insult my intelligence...
-
Here is an interesting document:-
-
Doesn't suprise me that DS 'Stan' Jones had involvement with the taking of these blood samples...
-
DS 'Stan' Jones, had his hands into 'everything' that was 'dishonest' about this case...
-
DS 'Stan' Jones, was literally, nothing more, nothing less, than a common crook, in this matter..
-
DS 'Stan' Jones, was literally, nothing more, nothing less, than a common crook, in this matter..
Nothing, could be any clearer...
-
His notebook, that was issued to him on the 5th November, 1984, purportedly contained the details of his involvement in the case, from 7th August, 1985, onwards...
'Sorry', pal, you are a 'pathological liar'...
-
Lets recap the facts - The pathologist, Peter Venezis, has not said a silencer was used in the shootings, the eight members of the raid team have not leaned toward a silencer being used in the shootings. This 'baby' of a silencer argument, is the brainchild of the wealth hungry relatives, SOCO, and dodgy Lab' experts. Without the silencer, the case would have been treated as four murders and a suicide, and put to be a long long time ago...
All the relatives were gun enthusiasts, target shooters, Game shooters, or gun dealers - only somebody from this background could come up with introducing a silencer into the case, to put the cat amongst the pigeons. Relatives gambled on introducing the silencer, blood and paint evidence associated with it, to secure their prize. But 'they fucked up', big time. Two silencers which between them the relatives handed over to dodgy cops at different times, were merged into one silencer, but the one bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1 arrived at the lab't at Huntingdon too late (20th September, 1985) for the crucial flake of blood matching Sheila's blood to have been found inside 'it'...
There will have to be an independant police inquiry into how cops, relatives, and lab' experts, attributed a key flake of dried blood, to a silencer that was not even submitted to the lab' in order for the said flake to be inside it, and found inside it, in time for individual blood group activity to obtained from examination of the flake, on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September, 1985. Somebody has got a hell of a lot of questions to answer for. Heads will roll, somebody will have to be made into the scapegoat. You can't find a flake by the 12th September, 1985, in order to enable it to be analysed from then until the 19th September, 1985, considering that the silencer Annie Eaton handed over to cops on the 11th September, 1985 did not get sent to the lab' to be checked for blood until the 20th September, 1985...
Game Over!!!
-
Don't shoot me, 'I'm only the messenger'...
-
Reliance on the silencer, blood, and paint confirmation, was akin to the prosecution putting the cart before the horse. They claimed Sheila's blood had been found inside a silencer (DRB/1) that wasn't even present at the lab' until eight days after the alleged 'find' date of the flake. Nobody on the defence side, nor the court itself had to concern itself with any other exhibit reference belonging to a silencer other than, DRB/1, court exhibit No.9. Supposedly found by Davy Boutflour on the 10th August, 1985, retained by the relatives, until dodgy 'Stan' Jones collected it on evening of 12th August, who in turn showed it to PI 'Bob' Miller on the following morning. Miller had advised 'Stan' to give the silencer to 'Ronny' Cook who would take 'it' along to Huntingdon lab' later that same day, for Glynis Howard to work her magic, before she returned 'it' to 'Ronny' to fill his jacket pocket for 17 days with its covert presence there...
-
Reliance on the silencer, blood, and paint confirmation, was akin to the prosecution putting the cart before the horse. They claimed Sheila's blood had been found inside a silencer (DRB/1) that wasn't even present at the lab' until eight days after the alleged 'find' date of the flake. Nobody on the defence side, nor the court itself had to concern itself with any other exhibit reference belonging to a silencer other than, DRB/1, court exhibit No.9. Supposedly found by Davy Boutflour on the 10th August, 1985, retained by the relatives, until dodgy 'Stan' Jones collected it on evening of 12th August, who in turn showed it to PI 'Bob' Miller on the following morning. Miller had advised 'Stan' to give the silencer to 'Ronny' Cook who would take 'it' along to Huntingdon lab' later that same day, for Glynis Howard to work her magic, before she returned 'it' to 'Ronny' to fill his jacket pocket for 17 days with its covert presence there...
It was 'Bob' Miller, himself who was tasked with creating a false paper trail, where he attempted to merge different silencer references (SBI/1, SJ/1, DB/1, and DRB/1) as relating to a solitary silencer. However, the plot does not stand up to scrutiny, for a number of fundamental reasons - for example, (a) Annie Eaton handing over all the DRB exhibits including a silencer (DRB/1) to the cops on 11th September, 1985, despite the fact that her husband, Peter Eaton had already handed a silencer (SJ/1) to 'dodgy Stan' Jones, on the 12th August, (b) cops submitted a silencer (DB/1) to the lab' on 30th August, 1985, yet still had possession of a silencer to enable cops to submit it to the lab' on the 20th September, to be checked for blood, (c) found a flake of blood inside silencer DB/1, yet made out a false case for the flake being found in a different silencer (DRB/1), (d) wrongly attributed blood group activity obtained from examination of the flake as being unique and exclusive to Sheila Carrell, when the experts knew that one of the blood groups (AK/1) could have originated from animal blood...
'Johnny' Hayward, the blood expert, went a step too far, by claiming that if the blood from the silencer had been an intimate mixture of the Bamber parents blood, he would have expected to find June Bambers AK 2/1 rather than AK/1 having been detected, on the basis that it was considered to be a more stable enzyme. He deliberately withheld significant information about the fact that at least two samples of animal blood had been found in the silencer when it was tested, opening up the case for the strong likelihood that the 'AK/1' part of the result had originated from an animal, and 'not' from Sheila Carrell, or any other human...
-
It was 'Bob' Miller, himself who was tasked with creating a false paper trail, where he attempted to merge different silencer references (SBI/1, SJ/1, DB/1, and DRB/1) as relating to a solitary silencer. However, the plot does not stand up to scrutiny, for a number of fundamental reasons - for example, (a) Annie Eaton handing over all the DRB exhibits including a silencer (DRB/1) to the cops on 11th September, 1985, despite the fact that her husband, Peter Eaton had already handed a silencer (SJ/1) to 'dodgy Stan' Jones, on the 12th August, (b) cops submitted a silencer (DB/1) to the lab' on 30th August, 1985, yet still had possession of a silencer to enable cops to submit it to the lab' on the 20th September, to be checked for blood, (c) found a flake of blood inside silencer DB/1, yet made out a false case for the flake being found in a different silencer (DRB/1), (d) wrongly attributed blood group activity obtained from examination of the flake as being unique and exclusive to Sheila Carrell, when the experts knew that one of the blood groups (AK/1) could have originated from animal blood...
'Johnny' Hayward, the blood expert, went a step too far, by claiming that if the blood from the silencer had been an intimate mixture of the Bamber parents blood, he would have expected to find June Bambers AK 2/1 rather than AK/1 having been detected, on the basis that it was considered to be a more stable enzyme. He deliberately withheld significant information about the fact that at least two samples of animal blood had been found in the silencer when it was tested, opening up the case for the strong likelihood that the 'AK/1' part of the result had originated from an animal, and 'not' from Sheila Carrell, or any other human...
Once blood group 'AK/1' is isolated on the basis that it may have originated from an animal, this leaves the following three blood groups ( A, EAP BA, and HP-2/1) which are shared by Sheila Carrell and June Bamber, and if the parents bloods had intimately mixed together in keeping with the defence case during trial, then Ralph Bambers 'O' type blood would in any event have become 'masked' by June Bambers 'A' type...
-
Once blood group 'AK/1' is isolated on the basis that it may have originated from an animal, this leaves the following three blood groups ( A, EAP BA, and HP-2/1) which are shared by Sheila Carrell and June Bamber, and if the parents bloods had intimately mixed together in keeping with the defence case during trial, then Ralph Bambers 'O' type blood would in any event have become 'masked' by June Bambers 'A' type...
This being the case...
-
This being the case...
It would allow for the use of a silencer, in the shootings - but not necessarily or uniquely involve the shooting of Sheila Carrell at all...
-
The aga surround in the kitchen could have been scratched with use of or by the knurl of the silencers end cap, coming into direct contact with it during a struggle involving Ralph and Sheila...
-
An 'intimate mixture' of the 'Bamber parent bloods' could have got into the silencer at the time Sheila shot her parents...
-
The aga surround in the kitchen could have been scratched with use of or by the knurl of the silencers end cap, coming into direct contact with it during a struggle involving Ralph and Sheila...
There is no debris from the damage on the aga or carpet 8)
-
There is no debris from the damage on the aga or carpet 8)
was there no paint flakes on the floor near the aga
-
There is no debris from the damage on the aga or carpet 8)
No but remember the Police were traipsing all round the house that morning and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that these paint residues were caught up on someone's shoe.
-
What appears to have happened which certainly stacked the odds against Jeremy Bamber ever receiving a fair trial involved a somewhat 'dishonest approach' in maintaining that the results obtained from the examination of the flake were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell...
But, it wasn't...
It was just as much unique to Sheila, as it was to June Bamber, it was perhaps more unique and exclusive to an 'intimate mixture' of the parent bloods', and 'not' exclusive to Sheila as was originally presented....
-
No but remember the Police were traipsing all round the house that morning and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that these paint residues were caught up on someone's shoe.
yes i agree steve. their werent looking for it
-
Bamber was 'ambushed' during his trial by the introduction of the blood / paint contaminated silencer, with the rider that the blood was unique and exclusive to Sheila, when of course it was not. This enabled the prosecution to rely on an argument that Sheila could not have shot herself and had been murdered, because when the rifle was found on Sheila's body it did not have the silencer in question, or any silencer for that matter, attached to its barrel. The murderer, her murderer, had removed the silencer after killing her, and had taken it away to a different part of the farmhouse and concealed it...
But, for the fact that two lots of animal bloods' had been confirmed to be present inside the silencer, and the rather huge potential for the 'AK/1' blood type originating from one or more of these animals having intimately merged with the blood of the parents, it would have made for a clinical analysis proving that Sheila had been murdered, and had not committed suicide. But, but, but...
We now know that the blood from the flake was 'not' unique or 'exclusive' to Sheila...
She 'could have killed herself', on that footing...
-
Bamber was 'ambushed' during his trial by the introduction of the blood / paint contaminated silencer, with the rider that the blood was unique and exclusive to Sheila, when of course it was not. This enabled the prosecution to rely on an argument that Sheila could not have shot herself and had been murdered, because when the rifle was found on Sheila's body it did not have the silencer in question, or any silencer for that matter, attached to its barrel. The murderer, her murderer, had removed the silencer after killing her, and had taken it away to a different part of the farmhouse and concealed it...
But, for the fact that two lots of animal bloods' had been confirmed to be present inside the silencer, and the rather huge potential for the 'AK/1' blood type originating from one or more of these animals having intimately merged with the blood of the parents, it would have made for a clinical analysis proving that Sheila had been murdered, and had not committed suicide. But, but, but...
We now know that the blood from the flake was 'not' unique or 'exclusive' to Sheila...
She 'could have killed herself', on that footing...
You're relying on her either shooting everyone (with silencer attached), returning the silencer to the gun cupboard and then shooting herself, or being a contortionist and shooting herself with silencer and an unknown removing it, or the silencer not used at all and planted by relatives post murders.
-
You're relying on her either shooting everyone (with silencer attached), returning the silencer to the gun cupboard and then shooting herself, or being a contortionist and shooting herself with silencer and an unknown removing it, or the silencer not used at all and planted by relatives post murders.
steve the cupboard where the silencer was found.is it in the kitchen where the bullets were on the worktop
-
steve the cupboard where the silencer was found.is it in the kitchen where the bullets were on the worktop
It was in the den which I think was part of Nevill's new office-members will correct me if I've got this wrong.
-
Bamber was 'ambushed' during his trial by the introduction of the blood / paint contaminated silencer, with the rider that the blood was unique and exclusive to Sheila, when of course it was not. This enabled the prosecution to rely on an argument that Sheila could not have shot herself and had been murdered, because when the rifle was found on Sheila's body it did not have the silencer in question, or any silencer for that matter, attached to its barrel. The murderer, her murderer, had removed the silencer after killing her, and had taken it away to a different part of the farmhouse and concealed it...
But, for the fact that two lots of animal bloods' had been confirmed to be present inside the silencer, and the rather huge potential for the 'AK/1' blood type originating from one or more of these animals having intimately merged with the blood of the parents, it would have made for a clinical analysis proving that Sheila had been murdered, and had not committed suicide. But, but, but...
We now know that the blood from the flake was 'not' unique or 'exclusive' to Sheila...
She 'could have killed herself', on that footing...
However, if the truth be known, she was 'unlawfully killed'...
-
The same tactics used in the 'Hillsboro' cover up (after 15th April, 1989), were adopted in the ' Bamber case cover up' (after 7th August, 1985) - blame was to be apportioned onto 'innocent parties'. You must ask yourselves with the benefit of hindsight, 'could the police rely upon such tactics, to enable them to cover up what had actually taken place?
The answer, is a resounding, 'Yes'...
-
Did Jeremy Bamber kill five members of his family, in a plot to lay his hands upon his adoptive parents estate?
No, he did not...
How can I be so sure that Jeremy Bamber is not a mass murderer?
Basically put, he is much 'too thick' for anyone to suggest he 'almost got away' with the perfect murders. The truth of the matter, is that he didn't, he couldn't, and he wouldn't...
-
I have lived with murderers, terrorists, and basically put, with criminals reviled by the general public, and chummy Bamber, ain't clever enough to have attempted to get away with what he is accused of having done. He is, or should I say was, too thick to even be in a position to try to get away with what he had been accused of having carried out. He did not kill anyone, he was not the killer of Ralph, he was not the killer of June, he was not the killer of Sheila, and he was not the killer of his nephews, Daniel and Nicholas...
But, they made him into the unwitting shooter...
Just like South Yorkshire police, tried to blame 'Liverpool fans', for the 'disaster', Essex police targeted Jeremy as being the killer...
-
Cops who shot and killed Sheila, have effectively waived their right to a reliance upon 'self-defence' because of the cop cover up...
-
Cops who shot and killed Sheila, have effectively waived their right to a reliance upon 'self-defence' because of the cop cover up...
Misuse of the blood / paint contaminated silencer with its introduction was enough of a distraction to fool the jury into convicting Bamber of the murders. The most damning piece of the prosecutions case being a reliance upon the disturbing claim that the blood found inside 'the' silencer belonged uniquely and exclusively to Sheila Caffell, when as we have now learned that it was 'not'. This deception of the prosecution caused intolerable damage to the prospect of Jeremy Bamber being acquitted by the jury because the responsibility for the killings, including his sister's, was put to the jury on the footing that 'it' could only have been Bamber or his sister who did it. This proposition was clearly wrong similar in its seriousness and magnitude to the 'cut off time' of 3.15pm in the 'Hillsboro' tragedy. Use and a reliance upon the suggestion that either, and only Jeremy or his sister was the killer served to mislead the jury, firstly because Sheila had been one of the victims and she was not on trial or ever in peril of being convicted in law of anything, and secondly, unbeknown to the jury at the time of the October 1986 Chelmsford Crown court trial, that Sheila's body was at the centre of a significant controversy involving it's whereabouts inside the farmhouse when armed cops first came upon it. This related to the reported presence of a dead female body downstairs in the kitchen, initially based upon a mistaken sighting by PC Collins on looking in through the kitchen window, which was immediately cleared up once armed cops entered the kitchen of the farmhouse, because PC Collins realised by that stage that the body he had seen in the kitchen from his original vantage point outside the kitchen window looking in, had been the body of Ralph Bamber, not as was first thought to have been the body of a female. However, that was not the end of the controversy because another report of an 'additional' females body was reported as being present inside the kitchen in addition to when Ralph Bambers body had been confirmed as being found there (7.37am) 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND ON ENTRY TO KITCHEN'. (7.38am) 'One dead male, ONE DEAD FEMALE'. (7.42am) 'Can someone contact the police surgeon and Coroner's Officer, regarding TWO BODIES'. Within minutes of these messages being passed, a Civilian employee who was on duty back in the control room at Chelmsford police station, had contacted DS Davidson (SOCO) at his home address by telephone at 7.45am, requesting that he ' attend the office because police were dealing with an incident at whf' involving a murder, and 'A SUICIDE'. By 8.10am the remaining three bodies were reportedly found upstairs...
Had this well documented account not been deliberately concealed from the court during the trial, the jury would have been entitled to ask the question, ' if Sheila's body had originally been downstairs in the kitchen from first entry into the kitchen by armed cops, how had her body managed to end up on the bedroom floor upstairs in her parents bedroom'? Another question would surely have been, was Sheila still alive at 'the' time, and if not why had police carried her body from the kitchen up to the bedroom, and more significantly, at what stage had this ' displacement' of her body from the kitchen downstairs to the bedroom upstairs, occurred? Linked to this issue, is the damning admission known about back in the control room that police at the scene by 7.45am were already dealing with the discovery of two bodies, one' a murder', the other 'a suicide'. All the other four victims in the tragedy had suffered multiple gun shot wounds, so the reference to one of the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen had to have been (female body) a specific reference to Sheila.
-
Misuse of the blood / paint contaminated silencer with its introduction was enough of a distraction to fool the jury into convicting Bamber of the murders. The most damning piece of the prosecutions case being a reliance upon the disturbing claim that the blood found inside 'the' silencer belonged uniquely and exclusively to Sheila Caffell, when as we have now learned that it was 'not'. This deception of the prosecution caused intolerable damage to the prospect of Jeremy Bamber being acquitted by the jury because the responsibility for the killings, including his sister's, was put to the jury on the footing that 'it' could only have been Bamber or his sister who did it. This proposition was clearly wrong similar in its seriousness and magnitude to the 'cut off time' of 3.15pm in the 'Hillsboro' tragedy. Use and a reliance upon the suggestion that either, and only Jeremy or his sister was the killer served to mislead the jury, firstly because Sheila had been one of the victims and she was not on trial or ever in peril of being convicted in law of anything, and secondly, unbeknown to the jury at the time of the October 1986 Chelmsford Crown court trial, that Sheila's body was at the centre of a significant controversy involving it's whereabouts inside the farmhouse when armed cops first came upon it. This related to the reported presence of a dead female body downstairs in the kitchen, initially based upon a mistaken sighting by PC Collins on looking in through the kitchen window, which was immediately cleared up once armed cops entered the kitchen of the farmhouse, because PC Collins realised by that stage that the body he had seen in the kitchen from his original vantage point outside the kitchen window looking in, had been the body of Ralph Bamber, not as was first thought to have been the body of a female. However, that was not the end of the controversy because another report of an 'additional' females body was reported as being present inside the kitchen in addition to when Ralph Bambers body had been confirmed as being found there (7.37am) 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE, AND THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND ON ENTRY TO KITCHEN'. (7.38am) 'One dead male, ONE DEAD FEMALE'. (7.42am) 'Can someone contact the police surgeon and Coroner's Officer, regarding TWO BODIES'. Within minutes of these messages being passed, a Civilian employee who was on duty back in the control room at Chelmsford police station, had contacted DS Davidson (SOCO) at his home address by telephone at 7.45am, requesting that he ' attend the office because police were dealing with an incident at whf' involving a murder, and 'A SUICIDE'. By 8.10am the remaining three bodies were reportedly found upstairs...
Had this well documented account not been deliberately concealed from the court during the trial, the jury would have been entitled to ask the question, ' if Sheila's body had originally been downstairs in the kitchen from first entry into the kitchen by armed cops, how had her body managed to end up on the bedroom floor upstairs in her parents bedroom'? Another question would surely have been, was Sheila still alive at 'the' time, and if not why had police carried her body from the kitchen up to the bedroom, and more significantly, at what stage had this ' displacement' of her body from the kitchen downstairs to the bedroom upstairs, occurred? Linked to this issue, is the damning admission known about back in the control room that police at the scene by 7.45am were already dealing with the discovery of two bodies, one' a murder', the other 'a suicide'. All the other four victims in the tragedy had suffered multiple gun shot wounds, so the reference to one of the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen had to have been (female body) a specific reference to Sheila.
Additionally, the jury were entitled to know that prior to Sheila's body ending up on the floor of her parents bedroom with the anshuzt rifle upon it, that some evidence existed to suggest that her body had at one stage been laid on top of the bed, with the body of her mother, and with a Bible on her chest. The rifle said to have been laid in-between the two bodies there. If true then Sheila's body had been reportedly found downstairs in the kitchen upon entry along with the body of her adoptive father Ralph Bamber, and 'it' had also been upstairs on the bed in her parents bedroom with the body of her adoptive mother, and 'it' had ended up on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle on her body. The jury were entitled to know about these facts in coming to a decision as to whether or not, Jeremy had been responsible for killing her, or whether or not she had taken her own life? Additionally, it opened the door for the argument that police might have shot her...
-
Key prosecution witnesses collectively and deliberately kept the truth hidden from the jury regarding the positioning of Sheila's body at different stages of the police operation in-between 7.37am, and 10 am, during which time Sheila's body had 'migrated' from its original position of being present in the kitchen, to being present on her parents bed (after 8.10am), to 'it' ending up on the floor to the left hand edge of the bed as viewed from the foot of the bed. Ironically, her mother's body had ended up on the bedroom floor near the doorway of the bedroom, to the right hand side of the bed, if viewed from the same vantage point....
-
One by one, the prosecution witnesses filed into the courtroom, guarding secrets which would almost certainly have collapsed the case, if anyone of them had made mention of, or blurted out, the fact that at a particular time Sheila's body was in this place, or that place, other than it eventually ending up on the bedroom floor with the rifle from the window upon it...
-
One by one, the prosecution witnesses filed into the courtroom, guarding secrets which would almost certainly have collapsed the case, if anyone of them had made mention of, or blurted out, the fact that at a particular time Sheila's body was in this place, or that place, other than it eventually ending up on the bedroom floor with the rifle from the window upon it...
What a wicked, awful thing to do, all such witnesses are vile evil monsters...
-
Let's identify all of these vile evil monsters that call themselves 'human beings'...
-
Let's identify all of these vile evil monsters that call themselves 'human beings'...
The eight members of the armed raid team, Collins, Woodcock, Manners, Rozga, Webb, Hall, Delgado, and Alexander - Smart. These eight armed coppers know with 100% certainty that Ralph and Sheila's body were both present downstairs in the so called main kitchen long before Sheila's body became displaced upstairs onto the bed...
-
The eight members of the armed raid team, Collins, Woodcock, Manners, Rozga, Webb, Hall, Delgado, and Alexander - Smart. These eight armed coppers know with 100% certainty that Ralph and Sheila's body were both present downstairs in the so called main kitchen long before Sheila's body became displaced upstairs onto the bed...
Then you had the following senior officers situated in the forward control point which was situated in an outbuilding close by in the vicinity of the barns. These included Adams, Montgomery, Harris, Gibbons and Wright. All of these senior officers knew the truth regarding the 'migrating' features involving the body of Sheila Caffell from one location inside white house farm, from 'it' original position downstairs in the kitchen, to the bed upstairs in the so called main bedroom, until 'it' was eventually moved onto the bedroom floor...
-
Then you had the occupants of CA07 (News, Myall, and Saxby) who between them whilst babysitting Jeremy, who performed Communication duties, relaying messages that were being passed from the armed raid team inside the farmhouse, to the senior officers situated in the forward control point, to staff back in the control room. All these people belonging to all these groups knew the 'absolute truth', regarding the 'migrating facets involving the body of Sheila Caffell...
-
Other senior Officers who arrived at the scene 'after' 9am, learned the history of events regarding the movement of Sheila from and into other parts of the farmhouse, but they witnessed Sheila's body on the bed before 'it' was moved onto the bedroom floor, from the bed. These included DCI 'Taff' Jones, DI 'Bob' Cook, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clarke, DC Hammered, DS Davidson, and PC 'David' Bird...
-
Other senior Officers who arrived at the scene 'after' 9am, learned the history of events regarding the movement of Sheila from and into other parts of the farmhouse, but they witnessed Sheila's body on the bed before 'it' was moved onto the bedroom floor, from the bed. These included DCI 'Taff' Jones, DI 'Bob' Cook, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clarke, DC Hammered, DS Davidson, and PC 'David' Bird...
Later that same morning, between them, DS 'Stan' Jones, and DC 'Mick' Clark, were present at Jeremy's cottage, when when between them, one or other, or both of them informed Ann Eaton and the other relatives who were present there that the bodies of Sheila and June had been on the bed, with the rifle laid on the bed between them, and that Sheila had got a Bible on her chest - so, the relatives themselves knew about Sheila's body being 'on the bed's, before it somehow ended up on the floor to the left hand side of the bed. Yet, despite later finding out that Sheila's body was photographed on the bedroom floor in possession of the anshuzt rifle, none of the relatives chose to try to make an issue of them being told on the same morning of the shootings that Sheila's body had been on the bed, along with the body of her adoptive mother. It is somewhat puzzling as to why the relatives should all remain mute in this matter considering that at every available opportunity they complained to Essex police about this, that, and the other? Why didn't the relatives mention any of this whilst testifying during the October, 1986 trial?
'Selective', that's the approach these relatives took, they only saw fit to mention things which strengthened their own position, and if they had alerted the court to the 'fact' that cops had told them that Sheila's body had been on the bed in the bedroom when 'Stan' Jones, and 'Mick' Clark had seen it there before leaving the scene to come to Jeremy's cottage, it would have tended to favour Jeremy's innocence in her death circumstances...
-
Newspaper reports of the day, place the bodies of Sheila and June, on the bed with the anshuzt rifle between both bodies, and with a Bible on top of Sheila's body...
-
One of the 'Commanders' of the police operation at the scene (from 5am to 8.30am), PS Adams did not enter the farmhouse until around 9am. At this time, he visited the main bedroom where the bodies of Sheila and June ended up. At a debriefing held later that same evening at Witham police station, Adams voiced his concern that the position of Sheila's body which was captured in PC Birds crime scene photographs shown to everyone present, appeared to suggest that her body had been moved after he had viewed it, for Sheila's body to have ended up in the position shown in the photographs...
Years later (1991) when Adams was interviewed as part of the 'COLP' inquiry, he told them that when he first viewed the scene in the main bedroom that in discussion with other officers present there at the time, how it appeared that June and Sheila had been engaged in Bible study shortly before the mayhem ensued. Now, this is very interesting because it involves mention of a Bible, which despite 30 years having already elapsed still remains 'unaccounted' for. In total it is known that there should have been four separate Bibles in use at the farmhouse, yet one of them (either, DRH/33, or DRH/44) is 'missing. If Sheila and June had been Bible reading as touched upon by Adams in his 'COLP' interview, it suggests the use of two Bibles in the main bedroom, not only one. I am tending to favour a different Bible on Sheila's chest when her body was on the bed, and a different Bible near her body when cops moved her body from the bed to the floor. Locating the whereabouts of this missing Bible is paramount toward reconstructing what cops did with, to, or in response to Sheila's body, right up until the moment PC Bird started to take photographs after the bodies had been staged by the cops themselves. Then there is the issue of the anshuzt rifle which ended up on Sheila's body, where just prior to this and in accordance with what 'Stan' Jones, and 'Mick' Clark told relatives at Jeremy's cottage on that first morning of the investigation, that the rifle was laid on the bed in-between the bodies of Sheila and June...
At 7.15am that morning, APC Julia Healed spotted the barrel of 'that' rifle leaning against the side of a first floor window. It is irrelevant for the purposes of trying to keep things simple, at which upstairs window the barrel of this rifle was seen at. All that matters is that 'the rifle was at one of the upstairs windows at around 7.15am, where previously no such rifle had been present. The rifle therefore which was at an upstairs window at that stage, could not also have been laid on the bed in-between the bodies of Sheila and June, or upon Sheila's body on the bedroom floor clasped hug tight against her abdomen by her right hand, since the said rifle was either leaning against an upstairs window, or it was laid on the bed, or it was on top of Sheila's body, at around or by 7.15am, the same rifle could not have been in two places at one and the same time. No, I will rephrase that for the purpose of being entirely specific, ' the said rifle could not be in three different places all at the same time (window, bed, floor). At 7.15am, however, WPC Jeapes had accurately trained her eye with use of the scope afixed to her rifle on one particular first floor window where the barrel of a rifle had abruptly appeared out of nowhere...
Whilst in the process of reporting what she could see back to the Commander (Seargent. Adams) at the forward control point, Jeapes noticed the armed six man raid party making its approach to enter the farmhouse. Without any doubt then long before the first cop set foot inside the farmhouse, of key importance to all and sundry was the presence of the rifle at one of the upstairs windows. A rifle had abruptly appeared there out of the blue, at a window at which for the previous three hours or so, no rifle had been present...
This tells a trained investigator a lot of things...
-
Where had 'that' rifle been for the previous three hours, or so?
-
How utterly bizarre, therefore, that once armed cops trespassed beyond the threshold of the back door which had been battered from its two hinges by five heavy and consecutive sledge hammer blows, that at no stage or any point did any member of the six / eight man raid team mention seeing, or finding any rifle leaning near any upstairs window? The only rifle found upstairs in any of the first floor rooms, so we are led to believe, was the .22 anshuzt rifle which after 10 am, PC 'David' Bird, had photographed upon Sheila's body once cops had moved Sheila and the rifle, from the bed. So, let's be clear about what I am reporting here, the journey of 'that' rifle which ended up at just after 10 am, being plonked on Sheila's body, presumably by PC Bird himself, since upon first entering the farmhouse, 'Ron' Cook had told him, 'to make sure that he got photographs showing the correct position of the gun on Sheila's body's...
-
How utterly bizarre, therefore, that once armed cops trespassed beyond the threshold of the back door which had been battered from its two hinges by five heavy and consecutive sledge hammer blows, that at no stage or any point did any member of the six / eight man raid team mention seeing, or finding any rifle leaning near any upstairs window? The only rifle found upstairs in any of the first floor rooms, so we are led to believe, was the .22 anshuzt rifle which after 10 am, PC 'David' Bird, had photographed upon Sheila's body once cops had moved Sheila and the rifle, from the bed. So, let's be clear about what I am reporting here, the journey of 'that' rifle which ended up at just after 10 am, being plonked on Sheila's body, presumably by PC Bird himself, since upon first entering the farmhouse, 'Ron' Cook had told him, 'to make sure that he got photographs showing the correct position of the gun on Sheila's body's...
Five heavy consecutive sledge hammer blows on the back farmhouse door served to detach it from its two hinges...
One blow each, for the five deaths inside the farmhouse, two hinges detached akin to the two suspects responsible for all the deaths, Sheila, or Jeremy...
-
The journey of the anshuzt rifle, lies at the heart of what really did happen to Sheila Caffell, a journey which had begun on the previous evening with Jeremy loading bullets into its magazine, intent on using it to shoot rabbits he had seen whilst driving the tractor and trailer into one of the barns...
'Run rabbit, run rabbit, run run run, the farmers son, has gone to get the gun, gun, gun...
Too late, rabbits had bolted by the time Jeremy returned with the loaded rifle...
-
The journey of the anshuzt rifle, lies at the heart of what really did happen to Sheila Caffell, a journey which had begun on the previous evening with Jeremy loading bullets into its magazine, intent on using it to shoot rabbits he had seen whilst driving the tractor and trailer into one of the barns...
'Run rabbit, run rabbit, run run run, the farmers son, has gone to get the gun, gun, gun...
Too late, rabbits had bolted by the time Jeremy returned with the loaded rifle...
Jeremy returned the rifle back to the farmhouse without firing a shot off. He placed the rifle on a wooden settle situated in the back hallway near the den. Somebody referred the place where he had left the loaded rifle as being on the kitchen table. When I questioned J regarding this discrepancy he reaffirmed that he had left the loaded rifle on the aforementioned wooden settle. When asked what he did regarding the bullets he had loaded into the magazine of the rifle J told me he detached it, and that he also removed the round in the breach - I did not believe him when he told me this...
-
One part of Jeremy's account which is a bit of a grey area, involves him leaving the farmhouse to go home to his cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger, on Tuesday evening, after returning the loaded rifle to the aforementioned settle. For example, he only refers to seeing both his parents and Sheila sat around the kitchen table discussing Sheila's inability to look after her two boys, and the suggestion that she needed help with bringing them up, on one occasion and that was when he loaded up the rifle with bullets intent on doing a spot of vermin control. He had returned to the farmhouse on the tractor and trailer which he had left in one of the barns. He supposedly seen some rabbits hopping about. He had gone into the farmhouse gathered the rifle and box of bullets, gone into the main kitchen, tipped the box of ammunition out on the kitchen worktop, and proceeded to load fresh rounds into the guns ammunition magazine. Somewhere amongst all of this, in-between his parents discussing with Sheila the help she needed, Jeremy had presumably informed his father that there was one last trailer load of crop to be collected from the field. All we know with a degree of certainty is that Jeremy left the farmhouse to go home to his cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger, at about 9.30pm, albeit, no-one actually claims to have physically seen him leaving. However, an occupant of one of the farm cottages did report that she heard Jeremy's Vauxhall Astra GTE speeding off down pages lane at about half past nine that evening...
We know that when Barbara Wilson spoke to Ralph Bamber on the phone at just before 10pm that evening that Ralph appeared rather abrupt in his tone of voice, which she put down to the possibility that something had upset him, or that her call had interrupted an argument of sorts...
A local resident, named Smith, reported to the cops that he heard a single shotgun blast come from the vicinity of whf on that very same evening, between 9.30 and 10.15pm...
When cops searched the farmhouse after the shootings they noted a 12 bore shotgun in the gun cupboard with an empty cartridge case...
-
Although Jeremy says he removed the round from the breach of the rifle, it is a bit of a grey area as to what he did with the round he had removed...
-
Although Jeremy says he removed the round from the breach of the rifle, it is a bit of a grey area as to what he did with the round he had removed...
One version of events making the rounds, is that he placed the round he removed, back into the ammunition magazine. Another version has J placing the said round on the kitchen worktop with the other live bullets...
But, there was only one occasion when Jeremy went into the kitchen that evening, and that was to load bullets into the ammunition magazine of the rifle...
How then could he have returned the round he removed from the breach of the rifle to place it with the other live ammunition on the kitchen worktop, if he only entered the kitchen, once...
-
The contents of the various police logs which were being contemporaneously recorded as and when events unfolded were deliberately kept from the jury which tried the case. This ploy of non disclosure, and a policy of all concerned or involved to keep their mouths silent regarding the changing body count downstairs and upstairs, from it originally have been two down, three up, how it became altered to a ratio of one down, four up - 'loose lips, sink Ships...
-
The contents of the various police logs which were being contemporaneously recorded as and when events unfolded were deliberately kept from the jury which tried the case. This ploy of non disclosure, and a policy of all concerned or involved to keep their mouths silent regarding the changing body count downstairs and upstairs, from it originally have been two down, three up, how it became altered to a ratio of one down, four up - 'loose lips, sink Ships...
Then, of course, the journey of the anshuzt rifle fell to be considered, but the prosecution did not disclose the witness statement of APC Julia Jeapes, who reported that she could see what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle leaning against an upper floor window (x) before the raid team entered the premises. Once inside there were conflicting accounts regarding the whereabouts of the said rifle, for example, it was on the bed between the bodies of Sheila and June. It ended up on top of Sheila's body where PC Bird (SOCO) photographed it after 10am that morning...
-
A Report...
This is just someone's opinion, this person lives up the road from me, what would he know?
-
....By whom?
He lives 5 mins from me Jane, I shall do some digging.
-
He lives 5 mins from me Jane, I shall do some digging.
I don't think Mike should have uploaded the label for privacy reasons. But anyway what a small world :))
-
I don't think Mike should have uploaded the label for privacy reasons. But anyway what a small world :))
Neither do I. I haven't read it all yet but it's not a report, just this persons view of the case.
-
He lives 5 mins from me Jane, I shall do some digging.
Definitely, Caroline.
-
In AE's 72 page COLP statement she mentions asking DS Jones some questions which he didn't answer such as why he wanted to know which brand of cigarettes Neville smoked. No such reticence when it came to DS Ainsley who told AE that the prosecution might suggest she was the one who put Sheila's blood from the knickers inside the silencer. [page 54] AE makes no indication that this is new information to her.
AE would not have known there being any blood inside the silencer as this was before the trial. AE claims that menstrual blood smells different [although, after soaking for some days I'm not sure it would smell at all]. Ainsley then goes on to suggest what she should say when giving evidence. She mentions a statement [14/5/86] that isn't in the archive when dating the conversation.
Sharing such information seems highly unethical to me.
-
Hi lebaleb------in Jeremy's words " the shit's going to hit the fan and the use of Febreeze won't touch the stink that'll emanate from the corruption involving the relatives,Essex police,forensics,Colp,CPS,DPP,judges and the Home Office,who ALL knew what had gone on involving the sound moderators.
Two were switched,as there's rock solid proof that DB/1 had been switched with SBJ/1 between the 20th and 25th of September. DB/1 was used to scratch/score the mantle shelf in order to implicate Jeremy.
The blood that you mentioned,I'll leave to you to figure how it got into the silencer. The point being that everyone had worked together to corrupt evidence and actively assist in concealing the fact that EP found SBJ/1.
BTW,it was also KNOWN that AP's silencer WAS at WHF in the same gun cupboard as Neville Bamber's.
Documentation from primary PII documents as well as hundreds of crooked secondary PII documents.
These are with the legal team who are working for Jeremy.
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out what happened when the proof is right under your nose and straight from the horse's mouth.
-
Hi lebaleb------in Jeremy's words " the shit's going to hit the fan and the use of Febreeze won't touch the stink that'll emanate from the corruption involving the relatives,Essex police,forensics,Colp,CPS,DPP,judges and the Home Office,who ALL knew what had gone on involving the sound moderators.
Two were switched,as there's rock solid proof that DB/1 had been switched with SBJ/1 between the 20th and 25th of September. DB/1 was used to scratch/score the mantle shelf in order to implicate Jeremy.
The blood that you mentioned,I'll leave to you to figure how it got into the silencer. The point being that everyone had worked together to corrupt evidence and actively assist in concealing the fact that EP found SBJ/1.
BTW,it was also KNOWN that AP's silencer WAS at WHF in the same gun cupboard as Neville Bamber's.
Documentation from primary PII documents as well as hundreds of crooked secondary PII documents.
These are with the legal team who are working for Jeremy.
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out what happened when the proof is right under your nose and straight from the horse's mouth.
Yeah ::)
-
Hi lebaleb------in Jeremy's words " the shit's going to hit the fan and the use of Febreeze won't touch the stink that'll emanate from the corruption involving the relatives,Essex police,forensics,Colp,CPS,DPP,judges and the Home Office,who ALL knew what had gone on involving the sound moderators.
Two were switched,as there's rock solid proof that DB/1 had been switched with SBJ/1 between the 20th and 25th of September. DB/1 was used to scratch/score the mantle shelf in order to implicate Jeremy.
The blood that you mentioned,I'll leave to you to figure how it got into the silencer. The point being that everyone had worked together to corrupt evidence and actively assist in concealing the fact that EP found SBJ/1.
BTW,it was also KNOWN that AP's silencer WAS at WHF in the same gun cupboard as Neville Bamber's.
Documentation from primary PII documents as well as hundreds of crooked secondary PII documents.
These are with the legal team who are working for Jeremy.
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out what happened when the proof is right under your nose and straight from the horse's mouth.
I saw Bambertweets yeasterday appealling for the release fo the PII. So the CT don't have them.
-
Hi lebaleb------in Jeremy's words " the shit's going to hit the fan and the use of Febreeze won't touch the stink that'll emanate from the corruption involving the relatives,Essex police,forensics,Colp,CPS,DPP,judges and the Home Office,who ALL knew what had gone on involving the sound moderators.
Two were switched,as there's rock solid proof that DB/1 had been switched with SBJ/1 between the 20th and 25th of September. DB/1 was used to scratch/score the mantle shelf in order to implicate Jeremy.
The blood that you mentioned,I'll leave to you to figure how it got into the silencer. The point being that everyone had worked together to corrupt evidence and actively assist in concealing the fact that EP found SBJ/1.
BTW,it was also KNOWN that AP's silencer WAS at WHF in the same gun cupboard as Neville Bamber's.
Documentation from primary PII documents as well as hundreds of crooked secondary PII documents.
These are with the legal team who are working for Jeremy.
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to work out what happened when the proof is right under your nose and straight from the horse's mouth.
i thought it was you lookout.welcome back everyones missed you.poor david was on his own.oh apart from mike :)
-
I saw Bambertweets yeasterday appealling for the release fo the PII. So the CT don't have them.
Yes they do,the ones I've read from,otherwise how would I know what was on them ? The letter was only received yesterday. It's taken an age to put together,in some semblance of order,those that were already in the possession of the CT.
-
Yeah ::)
Yeah what ??
-
Welcome back lookout. You have been sorely missed.
-
Yeah what ??
nice to see nothings changed kidder :)
-
Welcome back lookout. You have been sorely missed.
Thankyou Steve. By whom,I ask myself ?
-
Thankyou Steve. By whom,I ask myself ?
both sides.the innocent camp because your on their side.and the guilty camp who enjoy debating with you :)
-
nice to see nothings changed kidder :)
What do you suppose the " yeah " meant then ? I didn't say it did I ?
-
What do you suppose the " yeah " meant then ? I didn't say it did I ?
correct you didnt,iam sure caroline will explain what she meant :)
-
Yes they do,the ones I've read from,otherwise how would I know what was on them ? The letter was only received yesterday. It's taken an age to put together,in some semblance of order,those that were already in the possession of the CT.
hi lookout, im pleased your back for one. are you saying that jb now has all pii and everythings been released or are you saying that thd ct have assembled all previous information and have realised some information is in them that they didnt know of before hand.
The bit where you quote jeremys words, are they recent or is this something hes said before?
-
correct you didnt,iam sure caroline will explain what she meant :)
I meant I don't believe a word of it.
-
hi lookout, im pleased your back for one. are you saying that jb now has all pii and everythings been released or are you saying that thd ct have assembled all previous information and have realised some information is in them that they didnt know of before hand.
The bit where you quote jeremys words, are they recent or is this something hes said before?
He told me ages ago he has all the PII stuff and the quote has been used many times before.
-
I meant I don't believe a word of it.
thanks caroline,thats that sorted :)
-
hi lookout, im pleased your back for one. are you saying that jb now has all pii and everythings been released or are you saying that thd ct have assembled all previous information and have realised some information is in them that they didnt know of before hand.
The bit where you quote jeremys words, are they recent or is this something hes said before?
Hi notsure,so far as can gather, when relevant documents were obtained it was a case of them being put into consecutive order to make them legible and once it was realised that things didn't add up as regards who found what silencer,it was beginning to sink in as JB continued to read the twisted evidence of the silencer of which all who were involved in the testing,etc were either directly corrupting the evidence or assisting EP in concealing that it had been Stan Jones who'd found it in the gun cupboard on the morning of the 7th of August. ( SBJ/1 ) If that wasn't bad enough,over a month later the DB/1 cropped up which proved to be the catalyst that implicated JB,as it had red paint on it from where the fireplace had been scratched because the marks weren't there on the night of the murders.
JB hasn't got all the documents as yet,but he went on to admit that he " wasn't a very bright spark " prior to him having read the said documents,but as soon as he lay his hands on them he could see exactly what had been done,then piecing them together became an easy process.
This is recent progress and he's limited to anything else he could say. He did say the fan would get a hit,but politely said " poo " and not what I quoted.
JB naturally wants complaints to be made to the Home Office,COLP ( who knew all along of the false evidence regarding the silencer ) plus the IPCC,as JB went on to say that it's a " rats nest of corruption ".
-
Oh i see thanks for tbat.
-
Hi notsure,so far as can gather, when relevant documents were obtained it was a case of them being put into consecutive order to make them legible and once it was realised that things didn't add up as regards who found what silencer,it was beginning to sink in as JB continued to read the twisted evidence of the silencer of which all who were involved in the testing,etc were either directly corrupting the evidence or assisting EP in concealing that it had been Stan Jones who'd found it in the gun cupboard on the morning of the 7th of August. ( SBJ/1 ) If that wasn't bad enough,over a month later the DB/1 cropped up which proved to be the catalyst that implicated JB,as it had red paint on it from where the fireplace had been scratched because the marks weren't there on the night of the murders.
JB hasn't got all the documents as yet,but he went on to admit that he " wasn't a very bright spark " prior to him having read the said documents,but as soon as he lay his hands on them he could see exactly what had been done,then piecing them together became an easy process.
This is recent progress and he's limited to anything else he could say. He did say the fan would get a hit,but politely said " poo " and not what I quoted.
JB naturally wants complaints to be made to the Home Office,COLP ( who knew all along of the false evidence regarding the silencer ) plus the IPCC,as JB went on to say that it's a " rats nest of corruption ".
Could we just reiterate that the silencer evidence does not automatically make Jeremy innocent, but might indicate that the relatives planted this evidence when in the early days of the investigation their suspicions of Jeremy had not been taken seriously by DCI Taff Jones. Of course this is not necessarily the case, and I would welcome full disclosure to a team of experts including Michael Mansfield QC, if he could be persuaded to take up the case.
-
It'll get worse as more info emerges.
-
It'll get worse as more info emerges.
yes but will it be enough to free jb
-
Hi notsure,so far as can gather, when relevant documents were obtained it was a case of them being put into consecutive order to make them legible and once it was realised that things didn't add up as regards who found what silencer,it was beginning to sink in as JB continued to read the twisted evidence of the silencer of which all who were involved in the testing,etc were either directly corrupting the evidence or assisting EP in concealing that it had been Stan Jones who'd found it in the gun cupboard on the morning of the 7th of August. ( SBJ/1 ) If that wasn't bad enough,over a month later the DB/1 cropped up which proved to be the catalyst that implicated JB,as it had red paint on it from where the fireplace had been scratched because the marks weren't there on the night of the murders.
JB hasn't got all the documents as yet,but he went on to admit that he " wasn't a very bright spark " prior to him having read the said documents,but as soon as he lay his hands on them he could see exactly what had been done,then piecing them together became an easy process.
This is recent progress and he's limited to anything else he could say. He did say the fan would get a hit,but politely said " poo " and not what I quoted.
JB naturally wants complaints to be made to the Home Office,COLP ( who knew all along of the false evidence regarding the silencer ) plus the IPCC,as JB went on to say that it's a " rats nest of corruption ".
Jeremy worked this out in 2010, its not exactly anything new
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html)
-
Hi notsure,so far as can gather, when relevant documents were obtained it was a case of them being put into consecutive order to make them legible and once it was realised that things didn't add up as regards who found what silencer,it was beginning to sink in as JB continued to read the twisted evidence of the silencer of which all who were involved in the testing,etc were either directly corrupting the evidence or assisting EP in concealing that it had been Stan Jones who'd found it in the gun cupboard on the morning of the 7th of August. ( SBJ/1 ) If that wasn't bad enough,over a month later the DB/1 cropped up which proved to be the catalyst that implicated JB,as it had red paint on it from where the fireplace had been scratched because the marks weren't there on the night of the murders.
JB hasn't got all the documents as yet,but he went on to admit that he " wasn't a very bright spark " prior to him having read the said documents,but as soon as he lay his hands on them he could see exactly what had been done,then piecing them together became an easy process.
This is recent progress and he's limited to anything else he could say. He did say the fan would get a hit,but politely said " poo " and not what I quoted.
JB naturally wants complaints to be made to the Home Office,COLP ( who knew all along of the false evidence regarding the silencer ) plus the IPCC,as JB went on to say that it's a " rats nest of corruption ".
yes jb is quite fond of rats .remember bw interview 8)
-
Jeremy worked this out in 2010, its not exactly anything new
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html)
You make it sound as if everything Jeremy says is Gospel truth..
-
Jeremy worked this out in 2010, its not exactly anything new
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html)
It's new to the public though.
-
You make it sound as if everything Jeremy says is Gospel truth..
i agree steve
-
You make it sound as if everything Jeremy says is Gospel truth..
Read the article and check the date its written
-
It's new to the public though.
It's not new, he's been saying this since I wrote to him and no doubt before that.
-
Read the article and check the date its written
Do elucidate as to the significance of the date..
-
I disagree with the suggestion that even without the silencer evidence, and everything which was pinned to it, insofar as the prosecutions case was concerned, does not prove Bambers innocence. I think the opposite argument is true, since it is much too late for anybody to be able to ignore all the dishonesty associated with the silencer evidence on the part of the relatives, Essex Police, and Experts. If this dishonesty had been noted during the trial, and the jury might well have gone on to convict him, but that proposition did not happen. What this means is that the silencer, blood and paint evidence, has to stand up to scrutiny, otherwise, the convictions have to be quashed, as unsafe. If that occurs, it is equivalent to him having been found 'not' guilty' by the original jury, or to put it another way, that he is innocent...
-
I disagree with the suggestion that even without the silencer evidence, and everything which was pinned to it, insofar as the prosecutions case was concerned, does not prove Bambers innocence. I think the opposite argument is true, since it is much too late for anybody to be able to ignore all the dishonesty associated with the silencer evidence on the part of the relatives, Essex Police, and Experts. If this dishonesty had been noted during the trial, and the jury might well have gone on to convict him, but that proposition did not happen. What this means is that the silencer, blood and paint evidence, has to stand up to scrutiny, otherwise, the convictions have to be quashed, as unsafe. If that occurs, it is equivalent to him having been found 'not' guilty' by the original jury, or to put it another way, that he is innocent...
A lot hangs on the admissibility or otherwise of the silencer argument with everything that was pinned upon it...
-
One of the puzzling features of the silencer, or the silencers that were 'merged' into being reference to the same silencer, was the fact that two identical Parker hale silencers were normally kept at the farmhouse around the time of the murders. One of these Parker hale silencers belonged to a relative (a beneficiary of Ralph Bambers inheritance estate), which according to what Anthony Pargeter told Essex police in one of his witness statements, he had purchased in 1980, and it was 'always' kept at the farmhouse. It had 17 internal baffle plates. It did not have a serial number. It could be fitted to the barrel of most .22 rifles. The other Parker hale silencer, was purchased by Ralph Bamber at the end of November, 1984. It has not been determined how many internal baffle plates this silencer had got, since the manufacturers production run of silencers containing 17 baffle plate went from 1980, until the beginning of November 1984. From the beginning of November 1984, only 15 baffle plates were present in the updated version. Externally the older type silencers, and the new ones, were identical in appearance, but different in their internal design, since the former ones had 17 baffle plates internally, whereas, the latter only had 15...
It fell to be established, therefore, whether or not the Parker hale silencer which Ralph Bamber ordered from Radcliffe the gun dealers, Colchester, on the 24th November, 1984, was a silencer from old stock,cor the newer design with less internal baffle plates? What is rather telling is that on the 24th November, 1984, when Ralph Bamber went to buy the anshuzt rifle, and it's Parker hale silencer, that the gun dealer did not have any Parker hale silencers in stock and told Me Bamber, that he would have to order one from the manufacturers which could be delivered a week later. It is rather amusing that Essex police did not go all out to identify how many baffle plates were inside the silencer purchased by Ralph Bamber. For some reason cops steered clear of this feature. Jeremy has told me on several occasions that his father ordered the latest Parker hale silencer which was why he had to wait a week before Radcliffe delivered it to and a week later. If true, then the Bamber owned silencer would have only had 15 internal baffle plates, not 17...
The key flake of blood, and the red paint have at one time or another been associated with a 17 Baffled silencer, not a 15 Baffled one...
-
It's not new, he's been saying this since I wrote to him and no doubt before that.
So has it made headline news then,for the public to see ? NO ! Now it should spread like ivy considering that corruption is there for all to see,written by the supposed law of the land.
Because of " other things that have come to light " it's safe to spread this evidence for all to see,including those who chose to commit perjury !!
Sooner or later as JB said----" they've ALL got to face the music ".
It's utterly treacherous.
My own thoughts are that because of JB's work over the years in pinpointing what's been done,with more to come,that there's a possibility that he could be kept in prison------------for obvious reasons and not for any crime HE committed,but that of others. I hope I'm wrong.
-
It's not new, he's been saying this since I wrote to him and no doubt before that.
So has it made headline news then,for the public to see ? NO ! Now it should spread like ivy considering that corruption is there for all to see,written by the supposed law of the land.
Because of " other things that have come to light " it's safe to spread this evidence for all to see,including those who chose to commit perjury !!
Sooner or later as JB said----" they've ALL got to face the music ".
It's utterly treacherous.
My own thoughts are that because of JB's work over the years in pinpointing what's been done,with more to come,that there's a possibility that he could be kept in prison------------for obvious reasons and not for any crime HE committed,but that of others. I hope I'm wrong.
-
Oooops.
-
When senior police officers can withhold vital evidence from the French authorities regarding Princess Diana's death,they can certainly do the same for the ordinary man in the street !! Because they can !
-
Oooops.
why what have you done
-
When senior police officers can withhold vital evidence from the French authorities regarding Princess Diana's death,they can certainly do the same for the ordinary man in the street !! Because they can !
i fully agree with that.if diana was pregnant by doodi.than it makes sense .because we cant have the future king of england having a muslim half brother ;)
-
Diana wasn't pregnant, ( gutter press will always lie to get a better story ! ) she had more blue blood than our present royals !
Still no excuse for withholding evidence which seems to be peculiar to our justice system.
-
I disagree with the suggestion that even without the silencer evidence, and everything which was pinned to it, insofar as the prosecutions case was concerned, does not prove Bambers innocence. I think the opposite argument is true, since it is much too late for anybody to be able to ignore all the dishonesty associated with the silencer evidence on the part of the relatives, Essex Police, and Experts. If this dishonesty had been noted during the trial, and the jury might well have gone on to convict him, but that proposition did not happen. What this means is that the silencer, blood and paint evidence, has to stand up to scrutiny, otherwise, the convictions have to be quashed, as unsafe. If that occurs, it is equivalent to him having been found 'not' guilty' by the original jury, or to put it another way, that he is innocent...
Derek Bentley-found guilty of murder under joint enterprise law. Hanged . Given posthumous pardon.
http://links.laws.londoninternational.ac.uk/bookmarkpress/derek-bentley-case-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia/
Stephen Downing. Confessed to killing the "Bakewell Tart." Wendy Sewell. Retracted confession but found guilty. Served 27 years before conviction deemed unsafe because a solicitor was not present when he confessed and a pathology report was withheld from the jury which confirmed she had been strangled, which Downing never admitted to. Awarded £500000 compensation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/6054330.stm
Barry George. Found guilty of the murder of Jill Dando. Spent eight years in jail. Found not guilty at a retrial but "not innocent enough to be compensated."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/not-innocent-enough-to-be-compensated-barry-george-loses-legal-battle-for-compensation-over-wrongful-8697397.html
Colin Stagg. Charged with murder of Rachel Nickell in 1992 and stood trial. Honeytrap evidence ruled inadmissible by judge. Stagg awarded £706000 compensation.
What is the moral of these stories? That it has to be proven that Police lied or withheld evidence which could have made a material difference to a jury's verdict, or in Barry George's case the onus was on the Defendant himself to prove he couldn't have done it beyond reasonable doubt rather than the Crown having to prove he did.
For Jeremy Bamber to be declared innocent on any of the above categories the Defence would have to prove that new facts so undermined previous evidence that no conviction could ever have been based on it.
-
So has it made headline news then,for the public to see ? NO ! Now it should spread like ivy considering that corruption is there for all to see,written by the supposed law of the land.
Because of " other things that have come to light " it's safe to spread this evidence for all to see,including those who chose to commit perjury !!
Sooner or later as JB said----" they've ALL got to face the music ".
It's utterly treacherous.
My own thoughts are that because of JB's work over the years in pinpointing what's been done,with more to come,that there's a possibility that he could be kept in prison------------for obvious reasons and not for any crime HE committed,but that of others. I hope I'm wrong.
Of course not because there is nothing in it. If this had been the incredible find that it being suggested, and as he has know all about it since at LEAST 2010, why didn't it form part of the 2012 submissions to the CCRC? I'll tell you why, because Simon McKay must have told him it was a no go.
-
It wasn't known about in 2012 or it would then have come to light----also the reason why Simon McKay didn't include it.
Nothing to do with it being a " no-go " as would typically have you believe.
-
It wasn't known about in 2012 or it would then have come to light----also the reason why Simon McKay didn't include it.
Nothing to do with it being a " no-go " as would typically have you believe.
i think we should take carolines word for it.jb knew all this.she has a written to him so she should know :)
-
Of course not because there is nothing in it. If this had been the incredible find that it being suggested, and as he has know all about it since at LEAST 2010, why didn't it form part of the 2012 submissions to the CCRC? I'll tell you why, because Simon McKay must have told him it was a no go.
It did, they used forensic work to demonstrate the evidence was produced after the murder's.
-
i think we should take carolines word for it.jb knew all this.she has a written to him so she should know :)
Caroline isn't the only one he writes to,or who writes to him. I'm sure I've gained a bit more info this last couple of weeks too !
-
Caroline isn't the only one he writes to,or who writes to him. I'm sure I've gained a bit more info this last couple of weeks too !
you werent holidaying with him in the nick were you.i hope not. ;)
-
Caroline isn't the only one he writes to,or who writes to him. I'm sure I've gained a bit more info this last couple of weeks too !
can i correct you,caroline does not write him anymore and nor has he written to her anymore.that just leaves you and mike :))
-
It did, they used forensic work to demonstrate the evidence was produced after the murder's.
The forensic evidence proved nothing of the sort - had that been the case, Jeremy wouldn't be in prison. However, Lookout was talking about Stan Jones finding the silencer etc. had they had proof of THAT, SM would have mentioned it and shown the evidence to the CCRC during the last submissions.
-
Caroline isn't the only one he writes to,or who writes to him. I'm sure I've gained a bit more info this last couple of weeks too !
I don't write to him now, but he's telling you stuff he told me years ago ;D ;D ;D
-
The forensic evidence proved nothing of the sort - had that been the case, Jeremy wouldn't be in prison. However, Lookout was talking about Stan Jones finding the silencer etc. had they had proof of THAT, SM would have mentioned it and shown the evidence to the CCRC during the last submissions.
If you read Bamber vs CCRC 2012, It explains it. The ballistic evidence shows the silencer was not attached when Sheila's wounds were inflicted. The CCRC accepted this evidence and never challenged it.
BUT
Because the scratches under the mantle piece are consistent with being caused by a silencer they argued that it was used on the night and that if the silencer was used the chances of Sheila being responsible were 'nil' thus they rejected the application.
The scratches in question appear in a location that is covered by a top hanging on the clothes line in the original photo's taken on the 7th, very convenient ::)
-
If you read Bamber vs CCRC 2012, It explains it. The ballistic evidence shows the silencer was not attached when Sheila's wounds were inflicted. The CCRC accepted this evidence and never challenged it.
BUT
Because the scratches under the mantle piece are consistent with being caused by a silencer they argued that it was used on the night and that if the silencer was used the chances of Sheila being responsible were 'nil' thus they rejected the application.
The scratches in question appear in a location that is covered by a top hanging on the clothes line in the original photo's taken on the 7th, very convenient ::)
Could you quote the relevant passage?
-
Could you quote the relevant passage?
I have quoted three separate passages. Hope this makes sense
34. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
35. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence
38. Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge,
11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
-
I would like to see the context of 38. Are they saying that Bamber is innocent just because there is no silencer mark on Nevill's back? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge
-
Derek Bentley-found guilty of murder under joint enterprise law. Hanged . Given posthumous pardon.
http://links.laws.londoninternational.ac.uk/bookmarkpress/derek-bentley-case-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia/
Stephen Downing. Confessed to killing the "Bakewell Tart." Wendy Sewell. Retracted confession but found guilty. Served 27 years before conviction deemed unsafe because a solicitor was not present when he confessed and a pathology report was withheld from the jury which confirmed she had been strangled, which Downing never admitted to. Awarded £500000 compensation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/6054330.stm
Barry George. Found guilty of the murder of Jill Dando. Spent eight years in jail. Found not guilty at a retrial but "not innocent enough to be compensated."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/not-innocent-enough-to-be-compensated-barry-george-loses-legal-battle-for-compensation-over-wrongful-8697397.html
Colin Stagg. Charged with murder of Rachel Nickell in 1992 and stood trial. Honeytrap evidence ruled inadmissible by judge. Stagg awarded £706000 compensation.
What is the moral of these stories? That it has to be proven that Police lied or withheld evidence which could have made a material difference to a jury's verdict, or in Barry George's case the onus was on the Defendant himself to prove he couldn't have done it beyond reasonable doubt rather than the Crown having to prove he did.
For Jeremy Bamber to be declared innocent on any of the above categories the Defence would have to prove that new facts so undermined previous evidence that no conviction could ever have been based on it.
New facts 'have come to light' since the jury convicted Jeremy of the murders. To begin with, the jury were totally unaware that the key and very crucial flake of blood that they were told was found inside a silencer bearing the identifying mark 'DRB/1', could not possibly have been found inside 'that' particular silencer because the silencer bearing the identifying mark 'DRB/1' did not get sent to the lab' at Huntingdon, until long after the said flake had already been found inside a different silencer bearing the identifying mark, 'DB/1' which cops had sent to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985. Silencer, 'DRB/1' was not submitted to the lab' by cops until the '20th September, 1985', by which stage, the flake found in the other silencer ('DB/1') had already been analysed, producing blood group activity, A, EAP BA, 'AK/1, and HP 2-1, on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September, 1985. The blood was not tested to see whether or not it was human blood, until the 20th September, 1985 - but which blood had been tested on that date? It remains a distinct possibility, that the silencer, 'DRB/1' that was sent along to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for blood, was the source of the human blood, confirmed that same date. The lab' records confirm the sequence with which the blood group activity was analysed, followed by a test to see 'if' the blood was human, or not? Normally, such a test would be done at the outset, followed by individual blood group analysis, but in this instance that procedure is out of sequence. The bottom line, is that the individual blood group activity obtained from examination of 'the flake', was not found in the silencer 'DRB/1' at all. The jury were 'conned' into accepting there had only been one silencer at the heart of the case , a silencer bearing the identifying mark, 'DRB/1', court exhibit No.9, which had the following history associated with it - found by David Boutflour in a cupboard in the den at and, kept safe at his sister's house for a couple of days, then handed to DS 'Stan' Jones, who in turn had shown it to PI 'Bob' Miller, before handing it to DI 'Ron' Cook, who in turn took it along for Glynis Howard to examine. How after she took a swab from it, how she had returned it into the possession of 'Ron' Cook, who took it away, fingerprinted it, before returning it back to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August, 1985. After its receipt at the lab' at Huntingdon on this date, the flake of blood was discovered inside it. Once analysed the blood of the flake produced four blood group results (obtained on the 13th, 14th, 18th and 19th September) said to be blood that was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell...
But...
None of the foregoing related to 'the silencer', 'DRB/1'...
Nothing could be any clearer, the jury have been deceived into accepting a 'cock and bull story' about there being only one silencer, which only had one exhibit reference ('DRB/1'), when all along there were clearly at least two different silencers in the possession of the relatives, Essex Police, and the lab' experts, at one time or another. All miscarriages of justice involve the use of a deception by cops or prosecution witnesses. More often than not the prosecution seek to rely upon a strategy of choice, where they invite the jury to decide between one outcome, against another. In Bambers case, they ran with the argument, that the killer could only have been Sheila, or Jeremy. But they sought to stack the odds in 'their' favour, by presenting the blood group activity found inside 'the' silencer, as being unique and exclusive to Sheila. Which when coupled with the fact that no silencer had been attached to the barrel of the rifle when it was supposedly found on Sheila's body, but rather 'it' had been removed from the gun and taken downstairs to another part of the farmhouse and concealed in a cupboard - it was hardly surprising that the jury convicted Bamber, but it was all a huge deception from start to finish...
-
It was deception on a huge scale and I don't know how they got away with it. When you read more into everything that went on and how the investigation had been carried out you do come to realise that there's a lot that doesn't add up.
-
It was deception on a huge scale and I don't know how they got away with it. When you read more into everything that went on and how the investigation had been carried out you do come to realise that there's a lot that doesn't add up.
the judges in jb's appeals didnt think so.and they werent involved in the case
-
How would/could appeal judges know anything ? They'll have skim-read this massive complex case in so little time that it was easier to follow the guilty trail.
-
How would/could appeal judges know anything ? They'll have skim-read this massive complex case in so little time that it was easier to follow the guilty trail.
They will? I think that comes under personal opinion rather than proven fact.
-
It was deception on a huge scale and I don't know how they got away with it. When you read more into everything that went on and how the investigation had been carried out you do come to realise that there's a lot that doesn't add up.
Lookout. You previously have never believed in the conspiracy theories, you seem to be changing stance on this now? ???
-
Lookout. You previously have never believed in the conspiracy theories, you seem to be changing stance on this now? ???
It's against my better judgement to think about conspiracy theories because it's used as an excuse to get away from the real truth of the matter as well as something to cling to for those who can't make up their minds one way or another. Well this isn't for me and I would rather use the word deception which is more definite and covers a wide range of investigations.
-
I know for a fact that police can and have been known to use deception but I can't say that anyone else did,therefore the phrase conspiracy theory doesn't come into it.
-
I would like to see the context of 38. Are they saying that Bamber is innocent just because there is no silencer mark on Nevill's back? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge
Well, had David posted the WHOLE of point 38, it would have had more context, this is the rest of it and a a follow on to the nest point.
"..... it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis.
39. I would add, in relation to the assumption about the receipt by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of fresh evidence, it is ready to receive evidence of an expert nature where there has been appropriate scientific advances. It is much more cautious about expert evidence which is accepted as not new science, but the result of more research on the specific case or another view. I say that because the assumption upon which the Commission has proceeded is one that is as favourable and as generous as could be made to Mr Bamber"
Basically, what they are saying is, that they considered the 'new evidence' carefully (and as such have given Bamber the benefit of the doubt), however, because it is simply a rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective, they are cautious to accept it and that they felt the research was incomplete. What they aren't saying it what David claims because had they been able to convince the CCRC that the silencer wasn't on the rifle when Sheila shot herself, it would indicate the blood wasn't Sheila's and the whole silencer evidence was null. On that basis, they would have had to grant an appeal - they didn't because they saw the 'new' evidence as simple the perceptive of another expert and that they did Bamber a favour was agreeing to look at it.
-
I know for a fact that police can and have been known to use deception but I can't say that anyone else did,therefore the phrase conspiracy theory doesn't come into it.
yes but can you show police used deception in this case.has any officer ever been reprimanded apart from taffy :)
-
yes but can you show police used deception in this case.has any officer ever been reprimanded apart from taffy :)
More to the point, has ANY member of the team, despite what Mike has said, ever intimated or offered tangible proof that deception was employed to convict Jeremy?
-
The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, told the jury that no evidence had been placed before the court that if the blood from the flake of the silencer had been an 'intimate mixture' of the parents bloods', that Sheila could not have removed the silencer herself and placed it in the cupboard. He told the jury that if they came to the conclusion that the blood in question was a mixture of the parents blood, then they should accept that Sheila had put the silencer, away...
-
Police were party to switching the badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) with a whole test fired round, to fool everyone into accepting that both of Sheila's wounds had been inflicted by use of the same anshuzt rifle...
-
yes but can you show police used deception in this case.has any officer ever been reprimanded apart from taffy :)
During the investigation two or three officers were pulled to oneside and cautioned.
No matter how out of line an officer can be it's rare that he faces disciplinary hearings,or loses his pension and status.
It's normally the top brass who are found to be reneging but because of their positions,they remain untouchable for some unknown reason. Take Hillsborough for instance.
-
Red paint from the aga in the main kitchen, was found ingrained upon the barrel of a gun that was found 'downstairs' - source 'COLP' interviews of DS Neil Davidson (SOCO)...
Which of course, puts 'the cat amongst the pigeons'...
-
Well, had David posted the WHOLE of point 38, it would have had more context, this is the rest of it and a a follow on to the nest point.
"..... it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis.
39. I would add, in relation to the assumption about the receipt by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of fresh evidence, it is ready to receive evidence of an expert nature where there has been appropriate scientific advances. It is much more cautious about expert evidence which is accepted as not new science, but the result of more research on the specific case or another view. I say that because the assumption upon which the Commission has proceeded is one that is as favourable and as generous as could be made to Mr Bamber"
Basically, what they are saying is, that they considered the 'new evidence' carefully (and as such have given Bamber the benefit of the doubt), however, because it is simply a rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective, they are cautious to accept it and that they felt the research was incomplete. What they aren't saying it what David claims because had they been able to convince the CCRC that the silencer wasn't on the rifle when Sheila shot herself, it would indicate the blood wasn't Sheila's and the whole silencer evidence was null. On that basis, they would have had to grant an appeal - they didn't because they saw the 'new' evidence as simple the perceptive of another expert and that they did Bamber a favour was agreeing to look at it.
No they would not. No silencer on Sheila's wounds does not mean it was never used on the night," the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence" The silencer had paint on it and the kitchen mantle had scratches consistent with it being caused by a silencer. Bambers expert could not prove the scratches do not appear in the photos on the 7th. This brings us back to point 11
11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
That is their reasoning. If the silencer was used at any time then Jeremy is guilty thus there was no possibility of the COA quashing the conviction.
Fowlers report is not a "rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective" the abrasions to the wounds had never been used as evidence before.
-
The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, told the jury that no evidence had been placed before the court that if the blood from the flake of the silencer had been an 'intimate mixture' of the parents bloods', that Sheila could not have removed the silencer herself and placed it in the cupboard. He told the jury that if they came to the conclusion that the blood in question was a mixture of the parents blood, then they should accept that Sheila had put the silencer, away...
It stretches credibility that a woman in psychosis would have the presence of mind to do this.
-
It's only when a psychotic attack is imminent that a woman with a depressive illness is likely to inflict harm.
They usually have no recollection of what they're doing or what they've done.
-
It stretches credibility that a woman in psychosis would have the presence of mind to do this.
There is no presence of mind needed. There is simply no reason for Sheila to do this. But several reasons why Bamber would.
-
So JB is now suffering from psychosis ? Strange that it hasn't been reported in 30 years.
-
So JB is now suffering from psychosis ? Strange that it hasn't been reported in 30 years.
would jb tell you or others if he had been suffering psychosis.he may be or may have done ,we cant tell
-
By that stage there's only one way out for them: they have to kill their family aka David Bain. Who knows what complex they are suffering from?
-
No they would not. No silencer on Sheila's wounds does not mean it was never used on the night," the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence" The silencer had paint on it and the kitchen mantle had scratches consistent with it being caused by a silencer. Bambers expert could not prove the scratches do not appear in the photos on the 7th. This brings us back to point 11
11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
That is their reasoning. If the silencer was used at any time then Jeremy is guilty thus there was no possibility of the COA quashing the conviction.
Fowlers report is not a "rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective" the abrasions to the wounds had never been used as evidence before.
I think you have got what they are saying completely wrong,
-
I think you have got what they are saying completely wrong,
What makes you say that?
-
What makes you say that?
I just told you ....
35. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence, to which I have referred; second, it does not grapple with the contemporaneous evidence of Mr Fletcher and Dr Vanezis at the trial, which dealt with these issues; third, the Commission took the view that the injuries could well have been caused by another process. They are saying that they don't understand why Fowler didn't deal with evidence of residue inside the silencer (the flake) but not the rifle and that they were prepared to consider there might be a problem with the flake of blood (mixture of June's and Nevill's). They are saying he didn't tackle the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence or directly challenge the evidence of Dr Fletcher and Venezis but that they have already considered that Nevill's injuries could have occurred by another process.
36. It is accepted realistically by Mr McKay that those are formidable points. I cannot see how one can begin to say those are points that the Commission can in any way be criticised for arriving at. They must be plainly within that ambit of judgment open to the Commission. It therefore seems to me very, very difficult to see how, on the analysis that I have briefly summarised, the conclusion in relation to the evidence of Dr Fowler is susceptible to challenge. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowlers report isn't open to challenge. They then go on to say .....
37. Conclusion on the main issues
38. Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge, it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis. They are saying that there consideration of the report was favourable to Jeremy given that they made the assumption that it would be admissible. They considered the report on that basis - however .....
39. I would add, in relation to the assumption about the receipt by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of fresh evidence, it is ready to receive evidence of an expert nature where there has been appropriate scientific advances. It is much more cautious about expert evidence which is accepted as not new science, but the result of more research on the specific case or another view. I say that because the assumption upon which the Commission has proceeded is one that is as favourable and as generous as could be made to Mr Bamber. They are saying, that they are cautious to accept evidence which isn't new science but basically just further research of what has gone before leading to a different view but that they gave Bamber the benefit of the doubt anyway.
The alleged failure to make further enquiries
40. I turn, therefore, having dealt at some length with that first ground of challenge, to the other remaining ground of challenge. That relates to the failure to make further enquiries. As is apparent from the summary I have given of the report of Dr Fowler and the report of Dr Caruso, both are preliminary in nature. It is argued, again attractively by Mr Simon McKay, that it was the duty of the Commission, as these reports were preliminary, to have made further enquiries. However, again the question is not whether this court thinks further enquiries should be made, but whether the judgment of the Commission is one that is open to challenge. Basically they are saying the work is incomplete but that don't believe it would challenge their decision anyway.
41. It seems to me that a challenge is impossible to make for two primary reasons. First, the Commission has spent a very, very considerable time, namely from March 2004 until April 2012, examining for a second time the safety of the convictions. It must be a matter for the Commission's judgment whether, in those circumstances, it is right to prolong the investigation. Secondly, and more importantly, there is the question of the Commission's judgment as to whether such enquiries would actually advance the matter further. It seems to me that their decision that further enquiries would not advance the matter further is a matter that on the evidence before this court was a decision plainly open to them on the circumstances. I sought to illustrate that in the observations I have made in relation to heating up the barrel of the rifle.
42. Overall conclusion
43. In my judgment, therefore, this is a case where Mr McKay has taken a very responsible attitude. He has advanced points that could properly be made to the Commission. He has pursued those points with considerable vigour and provided to the Commission two areas where they had to consider the new evidence very carefully. But having reviewed with his considerable assistance, and that of the Commission, the Commission's approach to these matters, I cannot see any way in which on the assumptions that have been made, all of which are entirely favourable to Mr Bamber, or any proper challenge can be made to this decision. They are saying that they looked at the evidence and it's not enough, it's just further research and an alternative view.
44. For these reasons, which in the light of the length of time that this case has been going on, and its notoriety, I have given at some length, I would refuse this renewed application. They refused the application - had they given a 'no contest' approach to Fowler's report, they couldn't have denied an application for an appeal.
-
The court of appeal has never dealt with or considered the introduction of a second silencer into the case. One which the key blood group results were falsely attributed to...
-
The court of appeal has never dealt with or considered the introduction of a second silencer into the case. One which the key blood group results were falsely attributed to...
-
Non of the experts at the lab' have recorded that they examined the silencer once it had been submitted to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, (for the first time) to be checked for blood...
-
Non of the experts at the lab' have recorded that they examined the silencer ('DRB/1') once it had been submitted to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, (for the first time) to be checked for blood...
DS Eastwood was involved with fingerprinting 'this' particular silencer, on the 13th September, 1985. But, he does not make a witness statement confirming this...
-
When DS Davidson was interviewed by COLP he told them that he never saw the silencer or had anything to do with it. He stated that the silencer was at all times in the possession and under the control of 'Ron' Cook. But, a document exists which confirms that DSDavodson, and DS Eastwood, 'fingerprinted ' a silencer, on the 13th September, 1985. So, Davidson deceived the COLP investigators..
-
During the investigation two or three officers were pulled to oneside and cautioned.
No matter how out of line an officer can be it's rare that he faces disciplinary hearings,or loses his pension and status.
It's normally the top brass who are found to be reneging but because of their positions,they remain untouchable for some unknown reason. Take Hillsborough for instance.
what is your souce for your first statement above
-
They refused the application - had they given a 'no contest' approach to Fowler's report, they couldn't have denied an application for an appeal.
Yes they could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence
A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.
Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
Dr Caruso and Peter Suthurst's evidence is not 100% conclusive. But in my view they show a high probablility of the scratches being made after the 7th.
The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.
If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.
-
what is your souce for your first statement above
The Dickinson Enquiry.
Sunday Express 20th October 1985-------made headline news. ( the jobs of at least 3 senior officers at risk)
-
During the investigation two or three officers were pulled to oneside and cautioned.
No matter how out of line an officer can be it's rare that he faces disciplinary hearings,or loses his pension and status.
It's normally the top brass who are found to be reneging but because of their positions,they remain untouchable for some unknown reason. Take Hillsborough for instance.
I have personal experience of this type of cop dishonesty, backed up by documentation. For example, two crooked cops claimed they were inside an observation van at 5.20pm, situated outside target premises in Monkspring, Worsborough Dale, Barnsley, on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1986, when the two police officers (DS Shepherd, and DC Caulfield) claimed they saw a stolen Alfa Romeo motor vehicle pull up outside the target premises containing two men. Both men, they said were 'identical looking' and both wore similar clothing and foot wear. One of the two identical looking men, was 4" taller than the other man. The cops inside the van at 5.20pm, that date, later claimed for the very first time on the 17th March, 1986, that I was one of these two men, that I was the driver of the stolen vehicle, and that I was the taller of the two men...
However, after having spent five and a half months on remand on trumped up charges, the Stipendiary Magistrate, 'Ron' Barry, threw the case out. One of the reasons for throwing the case out was because the observation van both Shepherd and Caulfield claimed they were in at 5.20pm, was still parked up in the police compound back at Barnsley police station, and was not even sent for from the scene until 5.55pm by DI Henshaw (No.3 Regional Crime Squad) and not physically in place at the scene until 6.30pm. one of the two coppers (DC 'Ron' Caulfield) who committed perjury in this matter, later went on to become a Detective Inspector. Neither of these two criminals in uniform ever got prosecuted. They should both have been charged with perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, convicted, and the key thrown away. But the Criminal Justice System is so corrupt nothing hardly ever happens to crooks like Shepherd and Caulfield...
-
Corruption and dishonesty is rife all the way through the Criminal Justice System, cops, CPS, magistrates, and judges...
Let's put it this way, if your cards get marked, for whatever reason, you won't get any justice...
-
Despite attempts made by me, to incorporate the facts of the aforementioned prosecution (observation van matters) as part of my defence during my trial at Sheffield Crown Court, 12th to 22nd September, 1988 (bungalow matters) I was prevented from doing so, because the CPS stated that it intended to resurrect the earlier failed prosecution of me. I was therefore, denied a reliance upon established facts which showed how utterly dishonest police officers in South Yorkshire had been, by making false claims of identification from inside an observation van that was not even present at the scene at the time the so called identification of one of two identical looking men, as being me. It would have been very beneficial for the jury which tried and convicted me in 1988, to have been presented with the stark facts arising out of the earlier matter, in particular, it would have alerted the jury to the possibility or the likelihood that cops had just made up the identification evidence in the bungalow matters, in the same way they had in the observation van matter. More importantly, I was denied a reliance on the claim that in the observation van matters, there were 'two men both identical in appearance, both wearing similar clothing and foot wear, the only difference being, that one of the two identical looking men was 4" taller than the other...
In the bungalow matters, the man who barricaded himself into the loft of the bungalow, and broke out onto the roof, who jumped from the roof of the bungalow and fled the scene, was not given a height at all by any of the identifying officers. This was problematic for the cops because it was on the police record that another person identical to me, had allegedly accompanied me in the observation van matters. Yet, here in the bungalow matters, involving only one suspect all the cops were saying I was 'that' man, without making any reference whatsoever to the height of the man in the loft, the height of the man on the roof, etc...
Without any reference at all, to the height of the suspect involved in the bungalow matters, how could police be certain that the man involved in these bungalow matters, was not the shorter of the two identical looking men involved in the observation van matter?
-
Despite attempts made by me, to incorporate the facts of the aforementioned prosecution (observation van matters) as part of my defence during my trial at Sheffield Crown Court, 12th to 22nd September, 1988 (bungalow matters) I was prevented from doing so, because the CPS stated that it intended to resurrect the earlier failed prosecution of me. I was therefore, denied a reliance upon established facts which showed how utterly dishonest police officers in South Yorkshire had been, by making false claims of identification from inside an observation van that was not even present at the scene at the time the so called identification of one of two identical looking men, as being me. It would have been very beneficial for the jury which tried and convicted me in 1988, to have been presented with the stark facts arising out of the earlier matter, in particular, it would have alerted the jury to the possibility or the likelihood that cops had just made up the identification evidence in the bungalow matters, in the same way they had in the observation van matter. More importantly, I was denied a reliance on the claim that in the observation van matters, there were 'two men both identical in appearance, both wearing similar clothing and foot wear, the only difference being, that one of the two identical looking men was 4" taller than the other...
In the bungalow matters, the man who barricaded himself into the loft of the bungalow, and broke out onto the roof, who jumped from the roof of the bungalow and fled the scene, was not given a height at all by any of the identifying officers. This was problematic for the cops because it was on the police record that another person identical to me, had allegedly accompanied me in the observation van matters. Yet, here in the bungalow matters, involving only one suspect all the cops were saying I was 'that' man, without making any reference whatsoever to the height of the man in the loft, the height of the man on the roof, etc...
Without any reference at all, to the height of the suspect involved in the bungalow matters, how could police be certain that the man involved in these bungalow matters, was not the shorter of the two identical looking men involved in the observation van matter?
The CPS pulled a flanker by making out it intended to reinstate the observation van matters, knowing that by presenting this lie to the trial judge in September, 1988, that I would be prevented from relying on such a damning piece of evidence which was capable of seriously undermining the identification evidence of cops in the instant case...
The CPS never went on to reinstate the so called observation van matters...
I believe this provides me with a fresh ground of appeal. Since, I was prevented from relying upon the fact that dishonest South Yorkshire police officers (DS Shepherd, and DC Caulfield) had 'fabricated identification evidence' against me, in an earlier No.3 Regional Crime Squad / Barnsley CID, operation. It now being my case, that had it been properly allowed during my trial, that the jury would have been swayed by the fact that, according to South Yorkshire police themselves, there existed two identical looking men, who looked like me (that made for three versions of myself), without any reference by any of the identifying officers to the height of the man involved in the bungalow matters. With no mention of the suspects height by any of the identifying officers, how could anyone of them have been sure that the man they claim they saw, had been me?
-
Failure to provide a height, or as it were an estimated height of the suspect in the bungalow matters, is pivotal in relation to the question of whether or not, my convictions are safe, or not. Cops and the CPS knew this from the failure to convict me in the observation van matters, and sought to deliberately deprive me of access to this material during my 1988 trial...
-
Yes they could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence
A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.
Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
Dr Caruso and Peter Suthurst's evidence is not 100% conclusive. But in my view they show a high probablility of the scratches being made after the 7th.
The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.
If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.
You have read it incorrectly. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowler's report isn't open to challenge. They stated the work was incomplete and that it failed to challenge or account for previous considerations such as the flake in the silencer/no residue on the gun and Fletcher and Venezis's findings. They also stated that the COA prefer evidence based on new scientific methods not simple a fresh look.
-
You have read it incorrectly. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowler's report isn't open to challenge. They stated the work was incomplete and that it failed to challenge or account for previous considerations such as the flake in the silencer/no residue on the gun and Fletcher and Venezis's findings. They also stated that the COA prefer evidence based on new scientific methods not simple a fresh look.
The 'flake' was not found inside the silwncer bearing the exhibit reference 'DRB/1', it was found inside the other silencer which bore the exhibit reference, 'DB/1'...
Silencers, 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1' were clearly not the same silencer, since the former ('DB/1') was sent to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, and the latter ('DRB/1') was not sent to the lab' until the 20th September, 1985!!!
Anyone, who is remotely corrupt, needs to ask themselves, how one silencer ('DB/1') can be sent to the lab' on the 30th Augfust, 1985, without any evidence that 'it' was ever returned to the possession of Essex police, afterwards, to enable them to resend 'it' to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for 'blood and fibers'?
-
Xxxx xxx that applies to everybody, and anybody who is trying to xxxx with the truth, in this instance...
Those of you, who are, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves, for trusting and believing in such a dishonest proposition...
-
Those who believe in such a bias and untrustworthy proposition, are all vile, evil monsters, that the world can do without...
Why don't you xxxxxxxxxxx and die a lingering, horrible death, conducive to the type of individual you really are...
-
I want 'liars', all liars, to be prosecuted...
-
I want 'liars', all liars, to be prosecuted...
Including, 'guilty' suspects...
-
The 'absolute truth' is, that between them, the relatives, the cops, and the lab' experts, stitched up, Jeremy Bamber, for these murders, by use of the 'introduction' of the silencer argument. You do not have to be a 'rocket scientist' to be able to fathom out what the prosecution set out to prove' in this particular case...
What we are dealing with here, is clearly 'an act of deception'...
-
The 'absolute truth' is, that between them, the relatives, the cops, and the lab' experts, stitched up, Jeremy Bamber, for these murders, by use of the 'introduction' of the silencer argument. You do not have to be a 'rocket scientist' to be able to fathom out what the prosecution set out to prove' in this particular case...
What we are dealing with here, is clearly 'an act of deception'...
On the part of the prosecution, and 'it's' witnesses...
-
If I am honest, 'I don't particularly agree, with everything that Jeremy has said, but what I know to be the truth, is that 'he', did not shoot, and kill his sister, Sheila Caffell...
He couldn't have, and he did not kill his sister, as alleged...
-
Listen up, Cops were not 'angels'...
they lied, to make it into a simple case of 'four murders, and a suicide', nothing more, nothing less...
-
The 'flake' was not found inside the silwncer bearing the exhibit reference 'DRB/1', it was found inside the other silencer which bore the exhibit reference, 'DB/1'...
Silencers, 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1' were clearly not the same silencer, since the former ('DB/1') was sent to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, and the latter ('DRB/1') was not sent to the lab' until the 20th September, 1985!!!
Anyone, who is remotely corrupt, needs to ask themselves, how one silencer ('DB/1') can be sent to the lab' on the 30th Augfust, 1985, without any evidence that 'it' was ever returned to the possession of Essex police, afterwards, to enable them to resend 'it' to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for 'blood and fibers'?
Unless it has escaped you, I don't believe the silencer evidence, I wasn't talking about what I believe as far as the silencer goes, I was posing my interpretation of what the 2012 submissions were referring to.
-
You have read it incorrectly. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowler's report isn't open to challenge. They stated the work was incomplete and that it failed to challenge or account for previous considerations such as the flake in the silencer/no residue on the gun and Fletcher and Venezis's findings. They also stated that the COA prefer evidence based on new scientific methods not simple a fresh look.
No I haven't, You need to look at the big picture to understand the CCRCs reasoning. In 2002 Jeremy went to the COA on basis that the blood in the silencer could be a mix of June and Neville's.
The COA in 2002 accepted that is was a possibility but argued that Sheila would not go into the gun cupboard put the silencer on before killing everyone then put it away in the cupboard before shooting herself. With Dr Fowlers evidence alone the COA would make the same argument and come to the same conclusion.
In my opinion Fowlers evidence shows the blood was planted, but its not Fowlers job to make those allegations and point the finger, That's what Mckay in hindsight should have done.
-
No I haven't, You need to look at the big picture to understand the CCRCs reasoning. In 2002 Jeremy went to the COA on basis that the blood in the silencer could be a mix of June and Neville's.
The COA in 2002 accepted that is was a possibility but argued that Sheila would not go into the gun cupboard put the silencer on before killing everyone then put it away in the cupboard before shooting herself. With Dr Fowlers evidence alone the COA would make the same argument and come to the same conclusion.
In my opinion Fowlers evidence shows the blood was planted, but its not Fowlers job to make those allegations and point the finger, That's what Mckay in hindsight should have done.
I agree with the COA. There is no way Sheila would have put the silencer on. Neville was already awake and she would not know how to insert it. She also would not put it away and would not know how to take it off.
It being human blood shows Bamber 100% guilty.
Do you agree with Bamber that his cousins somehow brilliantly fabricated the silencer evidence. Or agree with Mike, Lookout and Caroline that the 'treacherous' Stan Jones did.
-
No I haven't, You need to look at the big picture to understand the CCRCs reasoning. In 2002 Jeremy went to the COA on basis that the blood in the silencer could be a mix of June and Neville's.
The COA in 2002 accepted that is was a possibility but argued that Sheila would not go into the gun cupboard put the silencer on before killing everyone then put it away in the cupboard before shooting herself. With Dr Fowlers evidence alone the COA would make the same argument and come to the same conclusion.
In my opinion Fowlers evidence shows the blood was planted, but its not Fowlers job to make those allegations and point the finger, That's what Mckay in hindsight should have done.
Nor, I believe, is it yours to re interpret the CCRC's reasoning, but it doesn't stop you.
-
The blood evidence cannot be taken in isolation - it is attached to the existence of at least two different Parker hale silencers. Inside one of these silencers ('DB/1') that cops sent to the lab' on the 30th August1985, was the crucial dried flake of blood which produced the key blood group activity as a result of the flake being analysed between the 12th to the 19th September 1985. In stark contrast, human blood was found on the second silencer ('DRB/1') that cops sent to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, with specific instruction for it to be checked for blood. Both of these silencers originated from possession of the relatives. If these murders were only carried out by a single firearm, then why is it that blood in one form or another ends up in or on two different silencers, if only one silencer was supposedly found and recovered from the scene by relatives? Oddly enough, in September when David Boutflour contacted the police to tell them about him finding the silencer to 'the Gun's, he gives two possible locations inside the cupboard where he supposedly only found one silencer. Now, you do not need to be a brain surgeon, or for that matter a South Yorkshire police officer obtaining an extra pocketbook to rewrite his notes, to see that there is plainly something dramatically wrong with the 'one silencer' story. More significantly, in their haste to 'stitch' Bamber up as the murderer, the damn fools made a bollocks of attributing the key blood group evidence to 'the wrong silencer' ('DRB/1'), which as it turns out, did not even get sent to the lab' to be checked for blood, until after the flake had already been found and removed from the other silencer ('DB/1'), and the blood group evidence obtained from the flake - all done and dusted by the 19th September 1985, a day before the second silencer ('DRB/1') was sent to the lab' by cops to be checked for blood...
-
It is typical of the kind of dishonest tactic which bent cops use when they stitch a person up. They introduce a piece of damning evidence that wasn't really there to start off with. In Bambers case, it was the introduction of a second silencer ('DRB/1') in which it was falsely claimed had been found the flake of dried blood, which prosecution experts were prepared to say was blood that was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell...
-
And nobody argues with the law even if they knowingly KNOW they are wrong do they !!?? Unless it's an aspersion cast at them.
-
No I haven't, You need to look at the big picture to understand the CCRCs reasoning. In 2002 Jeremy went to the COA on basis that the blood in the silencer could be a mix of June and Neville's.
The COA in 2002 accepted that is was a possibility but argued that Sheila would not go into the gun cupboard put the silencer on before killing everyone then put it away in the cupboard before shooting herself. With Dr Fowlers evidence alone the COA would make the same argument and come to the same conclusion.
In my opinion Fowlers evidence shows the blood was planted, but its not Fowlers job to make those allegations and point the finger, That's what Mckay in hindsight should have done.
This is just your opinion David, , the commission didn't state that they accepted Fowlers report without question, they were talking about their decision. So, what the COA would or would not do, is simply down to speculation. Your so called 'looking at the bigger picture' leaves the way forward to make all sorts of grand claims, however, if we stick to the facts as they are (not how we would like them to be), we can't go wrong.
-
And nobody argues with the law even if they knowingly KNOW they are wrong do they !!?? Unless it's an aspersion cast at them.
Yes, they do.
-
Yes, they do.
The relatives didn't,did they ? They happily and merrily went along with the law.
-
This is just your opinion David, , the commission didn't state that they accepted Fowlers report without question.
The commission did not and could not challenge Fowlers evidence, That is why Jeremy took them to court.
So, what the COA would or would not do, is simply down to speculation.
No its not because the COA have already made a judgment back in 2002 on the relevant issue
The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
This brings us back the 2012 Judgment
That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
This is why the appeal was denied and the court sided with the CCRC
-
It is typical of the kind of dishonest tactic which bent cops use when they stitch a person up. They introduce a piece of damning evidence that wasn't really there to start off with. In Bambers case, it was the introduction of a second silencer ('DRB/1') in which it was falsely claimed had been found the flake of dried blood, which prosecution experts were prepared to say was blood that was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell...
But they made the mistake of attributing the results that were obtained from the examination of the flake of dried blood, to the wrong silencer ('DRB/1'), which alas arrived at the lab' to be checked over for a possible presence of blood a few days too late..
-
The Court of appeal, nor the CCRC, have yet entertained the notion that two different identical looking silencers lay at the heart of the matter. They have only considered issues surrounding the possible use of a solitary silencer...
-
" The case of Jeremy Bamber---22.08.11 ".
Page 150.--Similarly David Boutflour has described the sound moderator he gave to the police as being damaged and with a scratch on it ( see David Boutflour's trial transcript page 33 at E,F,G and H document S 12 or P--20 ) It is submitted that this infers that the sound moderator that David Boutflour describes was not the one belonging to Neville Bamber as stated by COLP ( paragraph 5.3 )
-
The relatives didn't,did they ? They happily and merrily went along with the law.
because they had no doubt jb was the killer :)
-
because they had no doubt jb was the killer :)
No Sami they wanted JB to be the killer, that is why they introduced the silencer.
The police falsely used the silencer to obtain a conviction.
-
The Court of appeal, nor the CCRC, have yet entertained the notion that two different identical looking silencers lay at the heart of the matter. They have only considered issues surrounding the possible use of a solitary silencer...
DS 'Stan' Jones, returned to the farmhouse mid morning, and he took possession of four 'SBJ' exhibits, including a silencer 'SBJ/1', on the 7th August, 1985. Of course, when he was interviewed by COLP in 1991, he conveniently could not remember the reason for him having returned to the farmhouse, on that first morning', nor what he had done on that occasion. Interestingly enough, non of the SOCO's on duty at the scene, remembered that 'Stan' Jones had returned to the scene when he had done. It creates an air of suspicion concerning the possibility that the find and recovery of a silencer ('SBJ/1') at the scene on that first morning, had occurred, but for one reason or another, cops decided to cover it up. One thing is absolutely true, and that is the fact that 'Stan' Jones recovered exhibits, 'SBJ/1', 'SBJ/2', 'SBJ/3', and 'SBJ/4', at the scene on the 7th August, 1985...
-
No Sami they wanted JB to be the killer, that is why they introduced the silencer.
The police falsely used the silencer to obtain a conviction.
Although suspicious I believe it was too much of a risk for the relatives to take.
-
No Sami they wanted JB to be the killer, that is why they introduced the silencer.
The police falsely used the silencer to obtain a conviction.
That's more like it buddy. Right answer.
-
Although suspicious I believe it was too much of a risk for the relatives to take.
Why do you think it was a risk Steve. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
-
because they had no doubt jb was the killer :)
I think it's about time you realised that DB's statement had been edited to such an extent that it was deemed necessary to interview personnel from the DPP's office. Now figure out why.
The same statements were undated and unsigned.
-
Also while you're at it,ask yourself why AP had lied about the whereabouts of his rifle and giving two or three locations on its whereabouts at the time of the tragedy.
BTW his rifle and silencer were at WHF during the tragedy----all AP took home was the bolt ! Why lie ??
-
Why do you think it was a risk Steve. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
It was impossible for the relatives to expertly put Sheila's blood into the silencer. Thread created.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained ? They would certainly be seriously prosecuted as criminals for trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family.
Then again, Julie was doing to same because Bamber apparently jilted her and the 'treacherous' Stan Jones was ahead of everyone, secretly taking a silencer out of WHF on the 7th August for no apparent reason.
-
It is conceded that one of the two silencers found at the scene by relatives was handed over to 'Stan' Jones by Peter Eaton, and via 'Bob' Miller, it found its way into the possession of 'Ron' Cook, who in turn took the said silencer to the lab' for the attention of Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985. At this time, according to 'Ron' Cook, this particular silencer did not have a signed exhibit label attached to it, so Cook himself attached a brown CJA exhibit label to it, marking it, ' SJ/1'. He states that he did not know that 'Stan' Jones had a middle Christian name, hence why he marked the label, 'SJ/1'...
-
It was impossible for the relatives to expertly put Sheila's blood into the silencer. Thread created.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained ? They would certainly be seriously prosecuted as criminals for trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family.
Then again, Julie was doing to same because Bamber apparently jilted her and the 'treacherous' Stan Jones was ahead of everyone, secretly taking a silencer out of WHF on the 7th August for no apparent reason.
What do you mean expertly? an idiot could have done that.
Anyway the silencer was a red herring.
-
It is conceded that one of the two silencers found at the scene by relatives was handed over to 'Stan' Jones by Peter Eaton, and via 'Bob' Miller, it found its way into the possession of 'Ron' Cook, who in turn took the said silencer to the lab' for the attention of Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985. At this time, according to 'Ron' Cook, this particular silencer did not have a signed exhibit label attached to it, so Cook himself attached a brown CJA exhibit label to it, marking it, ' SJ/1'. He states that he did not know that 'Stan' Jones had a middle Christian name, hence why he marked the label, 'SJ/1'...
We also learn, that both Cook and Howard signed 'that' brown CJA label which Cook had marked with the exhibit reference of 'SJ/1', at positions, two and three. Cook leaving the first position empty so that the finder of this silencer could sign the label there...
-
What do you mean expertly? an idiot could have done that.
Anyway the silencer was a red herring.
No Buddy. You need to create the back splatter effect into the silencer baffles. With Sheila's blood. Thread already created.
-
It was impossible for the relatives to expertly put Sheila's blood into the silencer. Thread created.
The silencer can be unscrewed and taken apart without any tools. They took possession of Sheila's blood stained underwear. means motive and opportunity is all there.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained ? They would certainly be seriously prosecuted as criminals for trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family.
If you believe Jeremy took the risk of trying to frame an innocent women of the killing her family then there is nothing to preclude you to believe the alternative.
Its a much easier task to plant blood in a moderator than it its to murder five people and engineer it to look like a murder suicide
-
We also learn, that both Cook and Howard signed 'that' brown CJA label which Cook had marked with the exhibit reference of 'SJ/1', at positions, two and three. Cook leaving the first position empty so that the finder of this silencer could sign the label there...
Here, we can view the brown CJA label that both Cook, and Howard signed at positions, two and three. The signature which appears at position one of the same label belongs to the gun dealer, Radcliffe...
-
The silencer can be unscrewed and taken apart without any tools. They took possession of Sheila's blood stained underwear. means motive and opportunity is all there.
If you believe Jeremy took the risk of trying to frame an innocent women of the killing her family then there is nothing to preclude you to believe the alternative.
Its a much easier task to plant blood in a moderator than it its to murder five people and engineer it to look like a murder suicide
Bamber is an 'Inheritance Killer'. Of which there are several. The rewards were worth the small risks.
I have yet to know of relatives who had nothing to with a crime, try to frame another innocent relative after the event. Espescially of 5x murder.
-
No Buddy. You need to create the back splatter effect into the silencer baffles. With Sheila's blood. Thread already created.
OK Adam from memory it was about the fourth baffle the blood was found, so by some miracle the blood passed three baffles without touching. How about using an eye dropper with blood in it, pushing past the first three baffles. That is what I think Jones did, after all he had access to Sheila's blood.
-
Bamber is an 'Inheritance Killer'. Of which there are several. The rewards were worth the small risks.
I have yet to know of relatives who had nothing to with a crime, try to frame another innocent relative after the event. Espescially of 5x murder.
Don't you get it the family were relatives Adam.
-
Why did the family give Jones a job as head of security at the caravan park when they knew he was a drunkard?
-
That's just it buddy,they weren't " blood " relatives,which was motive enough " to help police with their enquiries ".
I'm sure I would have done if I'd been that way inclined and the result was half a million !!
-
Peter eaton certainly was not impressed by Jones when he just chucked the silencer [tainted] into the boot of the car
-
No Sami they wanted JB to be the killer, that is why they introduced the silencer.
The police falsely used the silencer to obtain a conviction.
wrong again.they supported jb at first only changing their minds when listening to jb's lies .like how competent sc with all the guns at whf.did boutflour give him a hug and kind words when he met jb
-
Or when he nearly polished off a bottle of their whisky ! Then drove himself home after refusing a lift.
-
Has there ever been a case where -
There are innocent people who had nothing to do with a major crime.
These innocent people quickly decide to attempt to forensically frame another innocent person of the crime. Even though the police already had a totally different suspect ?
Can't think of any myself.
-
What do you mean expertly? an idiot could have done that.
Anyway the silencer was a red herring.
according to you it was
-
according to you it was
Thought you was undecided. COBBLERS.
-
OK Adam from memory it was about the fourth baffle the blood was found, so by some miracle the blood passed three baffles without touching. How about using an eye dropper with blood in it, pushing past the first three baffles. That is what I think Jones did, after all he had access to Sheila's blood.
Have you got a source that he access to Sheila's blood ?
He was a middle ranking police man. Not CSI.
Or did he scrape it off Sheila's neck on the same day he secretly took a silencer.
-
Thought you was undecided. COBBLERS.
yea i need my shoes mended .i will send them to you :))
-
yea i need my shoes mended .i will send them to you :))
Yes you need a soul.
-
Hahahahaha----nice one.
-
The commission did not and could not challenge Fowlers evidence, That is why Jeremy took them to court.
No its not because the COA have already made a judgment back in 2002 on the relevant issue
The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
This brings us back the 2012 Judgment
That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
This is why the appeal was denied and the court sided with the CCRC
I'm just stating what they said and they SAID, the COA preferred new scientific evidence, not just new research offering a different opinion. No, they didn't challenge it, they dismissed it - however you said they accepted it and that isn't the case. You basically said that they knew it proved the silencer wasn't used to shoot Sheila and that certainly is NOT the case and I don't believe the silencer was used!
-
I'm just stating what they said and they SAID, the COA preferred new scientific evidence, not just new research offering a different opinion. No, they didn't challenge it, they dismissed it - however you said they accepted it and that isn't the case. You basically said that they knew it proved the silencer wasn't used to shoot Sheila and that certainly is NOT the case and I don't believe the silencer was used!
They didn't dismiss it. That is why they resorted to the kitchen/paint evidence as justification for a non referral. And the COA has already made judgement on the paint evidence
2002 Appeal
The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
Bamber vs CCRC 2012
That there was red paint on the curled end and a mark on the mantelpiece, which, given the other evidence, showed that the silencer must have been on.
The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence
That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
-
'The CCRC rejected the new expert submissions, saying they did not give rise to a real possibility that the court of appeal would find Bamber's convictions unsafe' It described the new evidence as "matters of pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations".
-
'The CCRC rejected the new expert submissions, saying they did not give rise to a real possibility that the court of appeal would find Bamber's convictions unsafe' It described the new evidence as "matters of pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations".
Anyone who looks beneath the words of the CCRC can see that's not the case at all.
Ironically part of the 2012 new evidence submissions was the marks on Neville being caused with the rifle sans sound moderator, And this you believe yourself thus even you disagree with the CCRC.
Since you believe Dr Caruso's evidence. If Jeremy did cause those marks without a silencer why did he wait 25 years sitting in a gloomy cell for someone else to work it out?
-
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
Sheila could have crawled inside the gun cupboard and tried to shoot herself. Realising that the gun was too long she unscrewed it and dropped it in the box. Then she became distracted and went up to the bedroom.
-
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
Sheila could have crawled inside the gun cupboard and tried to shoot herself. Realising that the gun was too long she unscrewed it and dropped it in the box. Then she became distracted and went up to the bedroom.
I never thought of that.
-
Other that a few chairs and a couple of broken dishes which could easily have been caused by a severely wounded man staggering through the kitchen. What is the "evidence of the fight in the kitchen"?
-
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
Sheila could have crawled inside the gun cupboard and tried to shoot herself. Realising that the gun was too long she unscrewed it and dropped it in the box. Then she became distracted and went up to the bedroom.
Nah! ;D
-
They didn't dismiss it. That is why they resorted to the kitchen/paint evidence as justification for a non referral. And the COA has already made judgement on the paint evidence
2002 Appeal
The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
Bamber vs CCRC 2012
That there was red paint on the curled end and a mark on the mantelpiece, which, given the other evidence, showed that the silencer must have been on.
The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence
That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
They did David, you put your own emphasis on something that was never there.
-
Also while you're at it,ask yourself why AP had lied about the whereabouts of his rifle and giving two or three locations on its whereabouts at the time of the tragedy.
BTW his rifle and silencer were at WHF during the tragedy----all AP took home was the bolt ! Why lie ??
you always think the worst of people .could it be he just couldnt remember where he left the rifle.its not impossible is it.also he gave different locations for the rifle simply cause if he said it was differenatly in one place and it wasnt found there ,because someone in the bamber household moved it .how would that look
-
They did David, you put your own emphasis on something that was never there.
That's what your doing not me
-
Nah! ;D
'Nah!', is not a valid argument.
-
Anyone who looks beneath the words of the CCRC can see that's not the case at all.
Ironically part of the 2012 new evidence submissions was the marks on Neville being caused with the rifle sans sound moderator, And this you believe yourself thus even you disagree with the CCRC.
Since you believe Dr Caruso's evidence. If Jeremy did cause those marks without a silencer why did he wait 25 years sitting in a gloomy cell for someone else to work it out?
There is already a thread on the rifle burn marks.
Bamber didn't want to bring these up as he knew there was no way Sheila would have the presence of mind to cause them. She was apparently in a psychotic rage. Out of desperation he brought it up 25 years later. Therefore admitting they were caused on the massacre night.
The rifle burn marks were Bamber's calculated way of checking to see if Neville was still alive. Why didn't he do that with everyone ? Thread already created.
-
There is already a thread on the rifle burn marks.
Bamber didn't want to bring these up as he knew there was no way Sheila would have the presence of mind to cause them. She was apparently in a psychotic rage. Out of desperation he brought it up 25 years later.
The rifle burn marks were Bamber's calculated way of checking to see if Neville was still alive. Why didn't he do that with everyone ? Thread already created.
Yes you have created many threads. what does creating a thread prove? nothing
Why would Jeremy need to check to see if Neville is still alive if he rests motionless shot in head and face five times? There is no rational reason to inflict those marks, This indicates the perpetrator was irrational.
-
Yes you have created many threads. what does creating a thread prove? nothing
Why would Jeremy need to check to see if Neville is still alive if he rests motionless shot in head and face five times? There is no rational reason to inflict those marks, This indicates the perpetrator was irrational.
You know there is no way Sheila would burn Neville's back. It is another preposturous suggestion.
She didn't have time to do all the things she was supposed to have done, (22 minutes) prior to the police arriving. Now she was supposed to have taken the silencer off to burn Neville's back.
Bamber had either already taken the silencer off when he realised upstairs that he had to. Or took it off to burn Neville's back to check for signs of life. This is just as easy as reloading and shooting Neville again.
The silencer was not cleaned by Bamber for several reasons, the latest strong reason given by NGB last week. It was then put away, for several more obvious reasons.
-
Yes you have created many threads. what does creating a thread prove? nothing
Why would Jeremy need to check to see if Neville is still alive if he rests motionless shot in head and face five times? There is no rational reason to inflict those marks, This indicates the perpetrator was irrational.
It doesn't indicate that at all. There is no proof that the wounds were part of the murders, it's an assumption. If they were burns, the skin would have been red around the mark, regardless if Nevill had already died when they were inflicted. I read a report by an expert who said the same but his name escapes me. I'll post it
-
It doesn't indicate that at all. There is no proof that the wounds were part of the murders, it's an assumption. If they were burns, the skin would have been red around the mark, regardless if Nevill had already died when they were inflicted. I read a report by an expert who said the same but his name escapes me. I'll post it
I am not 100% convinced the marks were part of the murder either. I am just explaining to Adam why his version of events do not make sense.
-
I am not 100% convinced the marks were part of the murder either. I am just explaining to Adam why his version of events do not make sense.
Bamber says the burn marks were part of the massacre. Dr Caruso believes the burn marks were caused on the night.
Neville was in the perfect position to have his back burnt, with just a pyjama top covering his back. Which could be easily lifted.
What were the burn marks then ?
-
Other that a few chairs and a couple of broken dishes which could easily have been caused by a severely wounded man staggering through the kitchen. What is the "evidence of the fight in the kitchen"?
how do you account for the broken lamp shade
-
how do you account for the broken lamp shade
Neville was bludgeoned with the rifle. The rifle could easily have broken the lampshade. Another thing is the sugar bowl. It was filled with Demerara sugar which is sticky and dense. If dropped on the floor it doesn't spread out very far.
-
'Nah!', is not a valid argument.
Neither is "Sheila could have crawled inside the gun cupboard and tried to shoot herself. Realising that the gun was too long she unscrewed it and dropped it in the box. Then she became distracted and went up to the bedroom." That makes no sense whatsoever.
-
That's what your doing not me
We will have to agree to disagree on this, I don't think the CCRC were saying they accepted Fowlers report, you do - neither of us is going to budge.
-
Neither is "Sheila could have crawled inside the gun cupboard and tried to shoot herself. Realising that the gun was too long she unscrewed it and dropped it in the box. Then she became distracted and went up to the bedroom." That makes no sense whatsoever.
I said earlier today that I had never thought of that scenario from Lebaleb before. I suspect I wasn't the only one.
-
What were the burn marks then ?
I believe the marks were caused by the rifle sans silencer its the only plausible explanation put forward to date. Tho I am open to other possibilities if they come to light.
You believe the experts when it comes to the muzzle marks on Neville but not on Sheila. Why?
There is no rational reason to poke Nevilles back with a heated barrel. If this took place it points to Sheila doing it, because it shows the killer is not thinking rationally.
-
I believe the marks were caused by the rifle sans silencer its the only plausible explanation put forward to date. Tho I am open to other possibilities if they come to light.
You believe the experts when it comes to the muzzle marks on Neville but not on Sheila. Why?
There is no rational reason to poke Nevilles back with a heated barrel. If this took place it points to Sheila doing it, because it shows the killer is not thinking rationally.
Good. We both agree Neville's burn marks were caused on the night.
You believe Sheila did it with the Sans silencer because she was not thinking rationally.
I believe Bamber did it with the rifle nozzle to check for signs of life.
What is a sans silencer ?
-
Good. We both agree Neville's burn marks were caused on the night.
You believe Sheila did it with the Sans silencer because she was not thinking rationally.
I believe Bamber did it with the rifle nozzle to check for signs of life.
What is a sans silencer ?
Sans silencer = Without silencer
-
I've agreed for a long time the burn marks on Neville were carried out without the silencer attached.
You believe Sheila took the silencer off and put it away. Then burnt Neville's back. Because she was not acting rationally.
I believe Bamber took it off either upstairs when shooting Sheila. Or downstairs when deciding to burn Neville's back to check for signs of life. Before exiting via the kitchen window. Either way he had to put the silencer away, but had no time to clean it.
-
I've agreed for a long time the burn marks on Neville were carried out without the silencer attached.
You believe Sheila took the silencer off and put it away. Then burnt Neville's back. Because she was not acting rationally.
I believe Bamber took it off either upstairs when shooting Sheila. Or downstairs when deciding to burn Neville's back before exiting the kitchen window. Either way he had to put the silencer away.
No I believe in such scenario Sheila would not place the silencer on the rifle nor remove it. The silencer would be on cupboard the entire event untouched. The same can be said in a situation with Jeremy, however there is no rational or plausible reason for Jeremy to burn Nevilles back. I am sure Jeremy would be satisfied Neville was dead after shooting him three times in the head and twice in the face don't you?
-
No I believe in such scenario Sheila would not place the silencer on the rifle nor remove it. The silencer would be on cupboard the entire event untouched. The same can be said in a situation with Jeremy, however there is no rational or plausible reason for Jeremy to burn Nevilles back. I am sure Jeremy would be satisfied Neville was dead after shooting him three times in the head and twice in the face don't you?
Well the judge correctly said Neville put up a 'tremendous fight for life' in the kitchen. After being shot 4 times. So there is no harm in Bamber checking for signs of life just before he leaves via the kitchen window. He had the time to do this.
How did human/Sheila's blood, the aga paint and a grey hair get in the silencer then ?
Do you agree the 'treacherous' Stan Jones secretly took a silencer from WHF on the 7th August 1985, as Lookout said ?
-
Actually Bamber may have burnt Nevilles back prior to firing all bullets into him.
Perhaps after Bamber immobilised Neville with the rifle butt and after Bamber returned downstairs from finishing things off with everyone else upstairs.
Neville may have moved from the burns, people tend to. So Bamber shot him a few more times.
-
Neville was bludgeoned with the rifle. The rifle could easily have broken the lampshade. Another thing is the sugar bowl. It was filled with Demerara sugar which is sticky and dense. If dropped on the floor it doesn't spread out very far.
yes neville staggering around couldnt have broken the lampshade ,the broken rifle stock tells us the rifle was used with extreme power for it to break.far more than what sheila had.'power i mean'
-
A silencer 'was' fitted to the barrel of the rifle which fired the 'non fatal ' shot (bullet PV/20) - it left its mark upon Sheila's neck, whereas, there was no such circular mark around the 'fatal' wound associated with bullet PV/19. The corresponding mark around the lower 'non fatal' wound had a radius which matched that of the end of a silencer...
-
I've agreed for a long time the burn marks on Neville were carried out without the silencer attached.
You believe Sheila took the silencer off and put it away. Then burnt Neville's back. Because she was not acting rationally.
I believe Bamber took it off either upstairs when shooting Sheila. Or downstairs when deciding to burn Neville's back to check for signs of life. Before exiting via the kitchen window. Either way he had to put the silencer away, but had no time to clean it.
Hi Adam, how do you believe JB was able to heat the rifle end to such a temperature it caused those burns on Nevill's back?
-
A silencer 'was' fitted to the barrel of the rifle which fired the 'non fatal ' shot (bullet PV/20) - it left its mark upon Sheila's neck, whereas, there was no such circular mark around the 'fatal' wound associated with bullet PV/19. The corresponding mark around the lower 'non fatal' wound had a radius which matched that of the end of a silencer...
The original investigation which presented the case as 'four murders, and a suicide ' was rocked before the end of the first week, by sensitive information concerning the mark made by a silencer at the time cops shot Sheila in the kitchen, was leaked to relatives, by PC 'Bobby, Carr (Metropolitan police officer, and close friend of the relatives)
-
Good. We both agree Neville's burn marks were caused on the night.
You believe Sheila did it with the Sans silencer because she was not thinking rationally.
I believe Bamber did it with the rifle nozzle to check for signs of life.
What is a sans silencer ?
I find it really hard to believe that either JB or Sheila would have gone to all the trouble of heating up the end of the rifle to test for signs of life. Surely there are far more efficient ways of checking, such as a bullet between the eyes. To heat the rifle end to the required temperature would mean shoving it into a very hot fire such as the aga fire but surely that would waste time. I am not convinced by this at all.
-
He let the cat out of the bag, information which stunned senior officers, because leaked information about the mark around the lower entry wound on Sheila's neck meant that she could not have shot herself 'twice' with use of the same rifle that cops had photographed on her body, since 'it' had no silencer attached to it...
-
He let the cat out of the bag, information which stunned senior officers, because leaked information about the mark around the lower entry wound on Sheila's neck meant that she could not have shot herself 'twice' with use of the same rifle that cops had photographed on her body, since 'it' had no silencer attached to it...
What became apparent when news about the mark was leaked to relatives by PC 'Bobby ' Carr, was that cops knew the mark existed, and they knew that it had been caused by the silencer on the weapon which cops had shot Sheila with in the kitchen upon entry...
-
Hi Adam, how do you believe JB was able to heat the rifle end to such a temperature it caused those burns on Nevill's back?
I have no idea. But me, David, Bamber and Dr Caroso believe they were caused on the massacre night.
Do you have another explanation for Neville's burn marks ?
-
Hi Adam, how do you believe JB was able to heat the rifle end to such a temperature it caused those burns on Nevill's back?
was there a fire poker in the kitchen.maggie
-
I have no idea. But me, David, Bamber and Dr Caroso believe they were caused on the massacre night.
Do you have another explanation for Neville's burn marks ?
i have read ,that they were not made at the time of the murders but before.did neville's pyjamas top show signs of burnt fabric cause it surely had to burn the fabric first before reaching the skin
-
I find it really hard to believe that either JB or Sheila would have gone to all the trouble of heating up the end of the rifle to test for signs of life. Surely there are far more efficient ways of checking, such as a bullet between the eyes. To heat the rifle end to the required temperature would mean shoving it into a very hot fire such as the aga fire but surely that would waste time. I am not convinced by this at all.
Bamber had time. Sheila didn't.
-
i have read ,that they were not made at the time of the murders but before.did neville's pyjamas top show signs of burnt fabric cause it surely had to burn the fabric first before reaching the skin
There were no signs of burnt fabric.
Bamber pulled up Neville's pyjama top. He didn't want the burn marks to become an issue as he knew Sheila in a rage would not be calculated enough to do this.
-
Sheila would have just burnt through the fabric. Or burnt his head or neck.
-
There were no signs of burnt fabric.
Bamber pulled up Neville's pyjama top. He didn't want the burn marks to become an issue as he knew Sheila in a rage would not be calculated enough to do this.
i respect your opinion adam.but my view is there was no need for it so he didnt do it.rather than burning him he could have made sure with a shot to the heart.
-
i respect your opinion adam.but my view is there was no need for it so he didnt do it.rather than burning him he could have made sure with a shot to the heart.
So what are the three burn marks on Neville's back ?
-
There were no signs of burnt fabric.
Bamber pulled up Neville's pyjama top. He didn't want the burn marks to become an issue as he knew Sheila in a rage would not be calculated enough to do this.
I would have thought, given that it was his neck area which was burned, it would have been far easier to have pulled the pyjama top down from the neck-line rather than up from the waist. In fact I can't imagine, as he was wearing the top, which wouldn't have been other than fitted, that it would have gone up far enough, the arm pits restricting further movement, to allow for burning skin without burning material.
-
As said earlier, burning Neville's back was just as easy as reloading and firing more shots.
Or he was burning and then firing another shot. Until he was confident Neville was dead.
-
As said earlier, burning Neville's back was just as easy as reloading and firing more shots.
Or he was burning and then firing another shot. Until he was confident Bamber was dead.
But NOT by pulling the jacket up, and exposing the area above the shoulder blades, from the waist.
-
But NOT by pulling the jacket up, and exposing the area above the shoulder blades, from the waist.
Someone would have had to take off the PJ jacket make the burn marks and then put it back on. I think those marks are a red herring.
-
So what are the three burn marks on Neville's back ?
i havent a clue adam.but the post i read said they were made before because something about the edges showing signs of healing.thats what i read
-
i havent a clue adam.but the post i read said they were made before because something about the edges showing signs of healing.thats what i read
It's ok for people to refute Dr Caroso, Bamber, the 2002 appeal and other supporters/guilters such as me and David.
But just saying 'I don't know' when asked about what else the burn marks are, is insufficient.
-
Someone would have had to take off the PJ jacket make the burn marks and then put it back on. I think those marks are a red herring.
I can go with that. There's still remains the possibility that he may have had moles/skin tags/blemishes/pre cancerous growths cauterised/frozen off/chemically removed at some point.
-
To me it just seems like common sense that Bamber burnt Neville's back. Which matches the evidence. There was an aga next to Neville and Bamber chose this way to check for signs of life.
But what do I know ? I always thought the evidence showed Neville was sleeping next to June on the massacre night.
-
Why would Bamber have to take off Neville's pyjama top ?
Pyjama tops are loose. Not skin tight. It would be easy to pull it up high to the top of the torso.
-
To me it just seems like common sense that Bamber burnt Neville's back. Which matches the evidence. There was an aga next to Neville and Bamber chose this way to check for signs of life.
But what do I know ? I always thought the evidence showed Neville was sleeping next to June on the massacre night.
It may seem like common sense to you but you can't explain, in any sensible way, how it was done. You ask what do you know. Perhaps you'd care to tell us?
-
It may seem like common sense to you but you can't explain, in any sensible way, how it was done. You ask what do you know. Perhaps you'd care to tell us?
It was done by Bamber pulling up Neville's pyjama top. Then burning his back. With the help of an aga.
Dr Caroso, the 2002 appeal and even Bamber and David agrees the marks were inflicted on the night.
But appreciate you, Caroline and Sami will not accept it.
-
Why would Bamber have to take off Neville's pyjama top ?
Pyjama tops are loose. Not skin tight. It would be easy to pull it up high to the top of the torso.
They weren't flared tops. They were straight. They weren't made of stretchy material. WHY would Jeremy have gone to the bother of pulling it up, when it wouldn't have gone higher than arm pit level and would have needed to be held in position, leaving only one hand free, if the simple alternative was to pull it down from the collar?
-
It was done by Bamber pulling up Neville's pyjama top. Then burning his back. With the help of an aga.
Dr Caroso, the 2002 appeal and even Bamber and David agrees the marks were inflicted on the night.
But appreciate you, Caroline and Sami will not accept it.
OK I challenge you to try pulling UP a straight, non stretchy pyjama jacket -or use a shirt- from the waist to get at the neck area.
-
I have no idea. But me, David, Bamber and Dr Caroso believe they were caused on the massacre night.
Do you have another explanation for Neville's burn marks ?
No I don't have an explanation, I just question the acceptance that the burns were done on the night by either Jeremy or Sheila. It just seems to be another of those accepted 'facts' which cannot be proven either way and are possibly red herrings leading people up a gum tree ;D
-
OK I challenge you to try pulling UP a straight, non stretchy pyjama jacket -or use a shirt- from the waist to get at the neck area.
With due respect to Nevill, Jane your post does conjure up a comic picture.
-
It was done by Bamber pulling up Neville's pyjama top. Then burning his back. With the help of an aga.
Dr Caroso, the 2002 appeal and even Bamber and David agrees the marks were inflicted on the night.
But appreciate you, Caroline and Sami will not accept it.
no adam i do accept it 'could' have happened.but i also accept it may have nothing to do with the murders.there is a theory he gave june a shot between the eyes to make sure she was dead he could have done the same to neviile.but than we know he liked torturing animals so he might have done
-
With due respect to Nevill, Jane your post does conjure up a comic picture.
Maggie, Adam seems to hold the thought in his head that if HE believes 'IT' happened, ergo, 'IT' happened but gives no thought as to HOW. If poor Nevill was SO incapacitated, it's doubtful he'd have been sitting up straight -more slumped forward, thus tightening the jacket and making it harder to raise from the waist. I guess it does rather conjure up a comic picture.
-
Maggie, Adam seems to hold the thought in his head that if HE believes 'IT' happened, ergo, 'IT' happened but gives no thought as to HOW. If poor Nevill was SO incapacitated, it's doubtful he'd have been sitting up straight -more slumped forward, thus tightening the jacket and making it harder to raise from the waist. I guess it does rather conjure up a comic picture.
Neville was face down. His head on a coal scuttle. His back facing Bamber, several feet off the ground. So easy for Bamber to pull his loose pyjama top up.
-
Neville was face down. His head on a coal scuttle. His back facing Bamber, several feet off the ground. So easy for Bamber to pull his pyjama top up.
With a body in a bent over position it would have been far harder to pull the jacket up from the waist because it would have tightened around the shoulder area. Had the burns been inflicted around the waist area, the act you describe would have made sense but you can test it out for yourself, can't you?
-
With a body in a bent over position it would have been far harder to pull the jacket up from the waist because it would have tightened around the shoulder area. Had the burns been inflicted around the waist area, the act you describe would have made sense but you can test it out for yourself, can't you?
I just did.
I put myself in a similar position to Neville and then pulled my shirt up. It easily went up to the top of my shoulder blades. My shirt is certainly tighter than pyjamas would be. It would be even easier for another person to do it, such as Bamber on Neville.
I'm sorry but for me there was no difficulty in Bamber pulling up Neville's top and burning his back. Using the rifle and aga. Neville was in the perfect position and had the perfect top.
Dr Caruso, Bamber and the 2002 appeal agree. Although Bamber claims Sheila did this.
-
The mark...
-
That poor body in the pic looked as stiff as a board,so how would anyone get on with arranging his clothing ?
In fact,going by the pics of the two women,I'd have said that Neville had been dead for quite some time before them.
-
Essex police found themselves at a cross roads by 6th to 11th September, 1985...
Did they continue with 'the four murders and a suicide' investigation, and risk incorporating themselves in a massive deception and cover up, or did they run with the alternative scenario, that Sheila did not kill herself, because whoever killed her, removed the silencer after killing her, and staged her body with the rifle, minus the silencer to make it appear like she had taken her own life?
-
Essex police found themselves at a cross roads by 6th to 11th September, 1985...
Did they continue with 'the four murders and a suicide' investigation, and risk incorporating themselves in a massive deception and cover up, or did they run with the alternative scenario, that Sheila did not kill herself, because whoever killed her, removed the silencer after killing her, and staged her body with the rifle, minus the silencer to make it appear like she had taken her own life?
Faced with the inevitable consequences, Essex police decided upon the latter course of action...
-
No-one should ever underestimate the 'inevitable consequences' of any act of deception...
-
No-one should ever underestimate the 'inevitable consequences' of any act of deception...
In the instant case, 'Essex police's got to clever to their own good...
-
What do I mean, when I say they were 'two clever, for their own good'?
They botched the attempt to merge the different silencers into the same one. In particular, they attributed the blood group evidence to the 'wrong' silencer ('DRB/1') which was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood for the first time until the 20th September, 1985. 'DRB/1', was not the same silencer removed from the scene by 'Stan' Jones, on the 7th August, 1985 ('SBJ/1), nor was it the same silencer 'SJ/1' which 'Glynis' Howard examined on the 13th August, 1985. Neither was it the same silencer ('DB/1') sent back to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, inside which was eventually found the crucial small flake of dried blood, from which subsequently produced blood group evidence was obtained between the 12th to 19th September, 1985...
'DRB/1', was not sent to the lab' until 'after' the blood group evidence had already been obtained from examination of the flake taken from the other ('DB/1') silencer, some eight days or so, 'before' silencer 'DRB/1' arrived at the lab'...
-
Police Inspector 'Bob' Miller was given the task of trying to produce a paper trail which would merge all of the different silencer references ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1') into the same one. He would have succeeded but for one rather simple but fatal miscalculation which blows the conspiracy right out of the water - the silencer upon which was pinned so much damning evidence, in the form of blood group activity, and red paint from the kitchen aga, did not arrive at the Lab' (20th September, 1985) until it was too late for what they wanted everyone to believe, to have been true...
-
Maggie, Adam seems to hold the thought in his head that if HE believes 'IT' happened, ergo, 'IT' happened but gives no thought as to HOW. If poor Nevill was SO incapacitated, it's doubtful he'd have been sitting up straight -more slumped forward, thus tightening the jacket and making it harder to raise from the waist. I guess it does rather conjure up a comic picture.
I just find it difficult to imagine how anyone could have held the pyjama top up above the shoulders while holding the gun in the appropriate position . It would take 3 hands wouldn't it?
-
Police Inspector 'Bob' Miller was given the task of trying to produce a paper trail which would merge all of the different silencer references ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1') into the same one. He would have succeeded but for one rather simple but fatal miscalculation which blows the conspiracy right out of the water - the silencer upon which was pinned so much damning evidence, in the form of blood group activity, and red paint from the kitchen aga, did not arrive at the Lab' (20th September, 1985) until it was too late for what they wanted everyone to believe, to have been true...
The list of named Conspirators, included:-
The eight man raid team
PS Adams
PI Montgomery
DCI Gibbons
DCI Harris
DCI Wright
DI Cook
PC Bird
DC Hammersley
DS Davidson
DS Eastwood
DCI Jones
DS Jones
DC Clark
PC Carr
PI Miller
ACC Simpson
Glynis Howard
John Hayward
Malcolm Fletcher
B. R. Elliot
David About flour
Ann Eaton
Robert About flour
Peter Eaton
Anthony Pargeter
-
Key dates, in the history of the silencers:-
(a) 7th August 1985 ('SBJ/1') DS Jones returns to scene to collect
(b) 9th August 1985 (keys to whf handed over to relatives)
(c) 10th August 1985 (relatives recovered two silencers from scene)
(d) 12th August 1985 (Peter Eaton, hands a silencer over to DS Jones)
(e) 13th August 1985 ('SJ/1') human and animals blood detected
(f) 15th August 1985 ('SJ/1' fingerprinted by oblique light test)
(g) 23rd August 1975 ('SJ/1' fingerprinted by super glue technique)
(h) 29th August 1985 ('SJ/1' dismantled, rebuilt by DI Cook)
(I) 30th August 1985 ('DB/1') sent to lab', flake found inside it
(j) 11th September 1985 Ann Eaton hands over 'DRB/1' to DC Oakey
(k) 12th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1'
(l) 13th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1' (DS Eastwood/DS Davidson fingerprint 'DRB/1')
(m) 18th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1'
(n) 19th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1'
-----------------------------------
(o) 20th September 1985 ('DRB/1') sent to lab' to be checked for blood (red paint from aga ingrained in end caps knurl)
-
Key dates, in the history of the silencers:-
(a) 7th August 1985 ('SBJ/1') DS Jones returns to scene to collect
(b) 9th August 1985 (keys to whf handed over to relatives)
(c) 10th August 1985 (relatives recovered two silencers from scene)
(d) 12th August 1985 (Peter Eaton, hands a silencer over to DS Jones)
(e) 13th August 1985 ('SJ/1') human and animals blood detected
(f) 15th August 1985 ('SJ/1' fingerprinted by oblique light test)
(g) 23rd August 1975 ('SJ/1' fingerprinted by super glue technique)
(h) 29th August 1985 ('SJ/1' dismantled, rebuilt by DI Cook)
(I) 30th August 1985 ('DB/1') sent to lab', flake found inside it
(j) 11th September 1985 Ann Eaton hands over 'DRB/1' to DC Oakey
(k) 12th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1'
(l) 13th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1' (DS Eastwood/DS Davidson fingerprint 'DRB/1')
(m) 18th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1'
(n) 19th September 1985 blood group obtained from flake of 'DB/1'
-----------------------------------
(o) 20th September 1985 ('DRB/1') sent to lab' to be checked for blood (red paint from aga ingrained in end caps knurl)
It should be noted that after its recovery ('SBJ/1') from the incident at the scene by DS 'Stan' Jones (a), this particular silencer is phased out. It is believed this particular item was retained by DCI Jones on his desk at Witham police station, where he proceeded to use it as a paper weight. It was subsequently sent to the lab' at (I) under the guise of 'DB/1' and the flake of blood from which the blood group activity (k), (l), (m) and (n) were obtained. Silencer 'SBJ/1' and 'DB/1', being the same silencer...
-
The blood group activity obtained from the examination of the flake from 'DB/1', therefore being unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell, and not an 'intimate mixture' of the parents bloods'. Since, in the guise of 'SBJ/1' it was used to inflict the 'non fatal' wound upon Sheila's neck, which left the damning circular mark. None of the other four victims had a similar mark associated with any of their wounds...
-
'DRB/1' was not used on the gun at all during the shootings, it remained in the cupboard in the den where it was normally kept, until the relatives recovered it on the 10th August 1985...
-
On the 10th / 11th September 1985, 'DRB/1' was used to deliberately scratch the kitchen aga surround marking it...
-
We therefore end up with the flake and it's blood group activity associated with 'DB/1', and red paint from the scratched aga surround associated with 'DRB/1' - two different silencers...
-
That poor body in the pic looked as stiff as a board,so how would anyone get on with arranging his clothing ?
In fact,going by the pics of the two women,I'd have said that Neville had been dead for quite some time before them.
How do you believe the rifle burn marks got onto Neville's back Mike ?
-
I just find it difficult to imagine how anyone could have held the pyjama top up above the shoulders while holding the gun in the appropriate position . It would take 3 hands wouldn't it?
Maybe Sheila's accomplice Mike mentioned, assisted her.
In Neville's position, once the pyjama top was pulled up, it would stay up.
-
We therefore end up with the flake and it's blood group activity associated with 'DB/1', and red paint from the scratched aga surround associated with 'DRB/1' - two different silencers...
The former ('DB/1') at the lab' from 30th August 1985, and the latter ('DRB/1') not at the lab' until 20th September 1985...
-
How do you believe the rifle burn marks got onto Neville's back Mike ?
I believe that the so called burn marks on the back of Ralph Bambers neck were caused by use of the 'BSA' air rifles barrel, being prodded into position, and fired without a pellet loaded in its chamber, and that compressed air was forced against the neck whilst the muzzle of the air rifle was in a contact, or close contact position with the neck at different times. I believe that if tests are done on pigskin using or adopting this technique the so called burn marks that were found will be replicated. Hence, proof that these murders and Sheila's death were not 'a one gun crime'...
-
I just find it difficult to imagine how anyone could have held the pyjama top up above the shoulders while holding the gun in the appropriate position . It would take 3 hands wouldn't it?
Maggie, to say I don't believe Adam is an understatement. Having done stats, though, I do understand how it's possible to 'organise' anything to fall the way one wishes it to be. Might have been interesting to see how many buttons he undid to make it possible, or the convenient position he employed to make it a possibility.
Before we take another step here, logic says it's unreasonable to pull the bottom of the jacket up to expose a part of the body which would be more easily revealed by moving the collar. Unless the jacket had been pulled up away from arm pits and over head, it remains a fact that the arm pits would have restricted further movement. Jeremy would then have been faced with having to hold all the bunched up material out of the way with one hand whilst manipulating the length of the rifle with the other. IF those marks occurred during the massacre, it's perfectly possible that Jeremy MAY have tried to do it in the way Adam insists that he did but them gave up and took the more simple option, ie moving the collar SLIGHTLY.
-
No buttons were undone by me.
The experiment took 10 seconds. I already knew I could pull my shirt up to the top of my back, if in Neville's position.
If Bamber burnt Neville any higher than the top of his shoulder blades, it would be on his neck. However all reports are that Neville's back was burnt.
-
What would be the point in burning someone as well as shooting them as well ? What crosses the mind of anyone who resorts to such torture on another human being ?
The answer is : someone who is mentally ill and who doesn't realise what they are doing as their mind isn't in normal mode.
Quite some time had been spent/involved in various methods of abuse which were not the " norm " of someone whose intention was to go in and quickly wipe out everyone then make a swift exit.
What kind of a killer bothers putting down towels/cushions to cover areas of blood.?
-
Maggie, to say I don't believe Adam is an understatement. Having done stats, though, I do understand how it's possible to 'organise' anything to fall the way one wishes it to be. Might have been interesting to see how many buttons he undid to make it possible, or the convenient position he employed to make it a possibility.
Before we take another step here, logic says it's unreasonable to pull the bottom of the jacket up to expose a part of the body which would be more easily revealed by moving the collar. Unless the jacket had been pulled up away from arm pits and over head, it remains a fact that the arm pits would have restricted further movement. Jeremy would then have been faced with having to hold all the bunched up material out of the way with one hand whilst manipulating the length of the rifle with the other. IF those marks occurred during the massacre, it's perfectly possible that Jeremy MAY have tried to do it in the way Adam insists that he did but them gave up and took the more simple option, ie moving the collar SLIGHTLY.
I see your points but I still cannot understand why anyone would do something so time consuming and awkward when there were quicker and easier alternatives. Why burn someone to make sure they are dead? If Nevill had shown signs of life on burning a well placed bullet would have been necessary as in June's case, so why go through such a performance for no reason? I might add that a deeply unconscious Nevill may not have responded to the pain of burning but may have stayed alive until the police entered hours later therefore it was a poor and inconclusive test for someone who needed to be absolutely certain he had not left any witnesses alive.
I am not saying it didn't happen but I am perplexed why so many have accepted that was the reason for the burns.
-
None of the eight man raid party described finding items such as a towel, clothing, or seat cushions, on the floor around the base of the coal bucket inside which was contained Ralph Bambers head _ and all of them later made fresh witness statements stating that a part from moving two wooden stools none of them touched anything at all in the kitchen. If the kitchen had been set as it was depicted in the photographs taken by PC Bird from around 10 O'clock, cops would have been alerted immediately to foul play in the staged death scene in the kitchen because why would the killer, be it Sheila, Jeremy, or Sheila's accomplice place a towel, clothing and seat cushions on the kitchen floor in such a strategic position for the purpose of controlling the spread of blood on the kitchen floor? They would not. Also if the kitchen scene was photographed undisturbed, how did the raid party enter the main kitchen via the internal door which led to the back hallway, considering that there is a large wooden chair pushed up against it preventing that door from being opened?
-
I see your points but I still cannot understand why anyone would do something so time consuming and awkward when there were quicker and easier alternatives. Why burn someone to make sure they are dead? If Nevill had shown signs of life on burning a well placed bullet would have been necessary as in June's case, so why go through such a performance for no reason? I might add that a deeply unconscious Nevill may not have responded to the pain of burning but may have stayed alive until the police entered hours later therefore it was a poor and inconclusive test for someone who needed to be absolutely certain he had not left any witnesses alive.
I am not saying it didn't happen but I am perplexed why so many have accepted that was the reason for the burns.
Hi Maggie, I completely agree, the killer would have to waste time heating up the gun, and why would they need to burn Nevill three times? I can't see why would they bother in the first place when just prodding them with a sharp object, a kick or numerous other things would yield faster results? I don't think the injuries were part of the murders.
-
I've always thought it was perfectly feasible that Bamber burnt Neville's back. He had time and it was a way to check for life. It was easy to do and Neville was in the perfect body position. Neville was also next to an aga.
Bamber either did it after firing all shots into Neville and just before exiting the kitchen window. Or burnt him while continuing to shoot him if he thought there were still signs of life.
Either way, the back burning was done after Bamber returned downstairs from shooting June, the twins and Sheila. Neville had put up a tremendous fight for life earlier so Bamber had to make sure.
Similar to Sheila sleeping with June, no one off the board has ever suggested the burn marks were not inflicted on the night. Even Bamber and several guilters agree it was. But appreciate people on here like to think outside the box.
-
I've always thought it was perfectly feasible that Bamber burnt Neville's back. He had time and it was a way to check for life. It was easy to do and Neville was in the perfect body position. Neville was also next to an aga.
Bamber either did it after firing all shots into Neville and just before exiting the kitchen window. Or burnt him while continuing to shoot him if he thought there were still signs of life.
Either way, the back burning was done after Bamber returned downstairs from shooting June, the twins and Sheila. Neville had put up a tremendous fight for life earlier so Bamber had to make sure.
Similar to Sheila sleeping with June, no one off the board has ever suggested the burn marks were not inflicted on the night. Even Bamber and several guilters agree it was. But appreciate people on here like to think outside the box.
Just because "no one off the board has ever suggested the burn marks were not inflicted on the night" it's neither indication nor clarification that they were. You MAY believe all you say is correct. As there is no way of you proving such, SOME of what you say maybe. EQUALLY so, it also maybe that others are correct.
-
What would be the point in burning someone as well as shooting them as well ? What crosses the mind of anyone who resorts to such torture on another human being ?
The answer is : someone who is mentally ill and who doesn't realise what they are doing as their mind isn't in normal mode.
Quite some time had been spent/involved in various methods of abuse which were not the " norm " of someone whose intention was to go in and quickly wipe out everyone then make a swift exit.
What kind of a killer bothers putting down towels/cushions to cover areas of blood.?
Exactly, what would be the point?
-
How do you believe the rifle burn marks got onto Neville's back Mike ?
It's an assumption that they are rifle marks.
-
I've always thought it was perfectly feasible that Bamber burnt Neville's back. He had time and it was a way to check for life. It was easy to do and Neville was in the perfect body position. Neville was also next to an aga.
Bamber either did it after firing all shots into Neville and just before exiting the kitchen window. Or burnt him while continuing to shoot him if he thought there were still signs of life.
Either way, the back burning was done after Bamber returned downstairs from shooting June, the twins and Sheila. Neville had put up a tremendous fight for life earlier so Bamber had to make sure.
Similar to Sheila sleeping with June, no one off the board has ever suggested the burn marks were not inflicted on the night. Even Bamber and several guilters agree it was. But appreciate people on here like to think outside the box.
So, you're saying no one has previously mentioned Sheila sleeping with June? Then how come one of you own posts from last year, refers to it? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7124.msg336489.html#msg336489
I first mentioned it when we discovered Nevill's slippers in the room Sheila was supposed to be sleeping in. It could be that he slept in Sheila's room and Sheila slept in the main room with June (for reasons already laid out). You then got the whole thing AAF and thought people were suggesting Sheila slept with Nevill - which NO ONE ever suggested.
-
Tests on pig skin will confirm that the so called 'burn mark's on Ralph's neck' were caused by use of the BSA air rifles barrel being 'pressed into the neck' and the weapon 'discharged' minus a pellet. The air rifle was found on the spiral staircase only feet away from where Ralphs body ended up being photographed with his head in the coal bucket...
-
Tests on pig skin will confirm that the so called 'burn mark's on Ralph's neck' were caused by use of the BSA air rifles barrel being 'pressed into the neck' and the weapon 'discharged' minus a pellet. The air rifle was found on the spiral staircase only feet away from where Ralphs body ended up being photographed with his head in the coal bucket...
Sheila's fingerprints were found on the .22 air rifle, and the .22 anshuzt rifle, and the 12 bore shotgun - now that should tell everyone a thing or two...
-
.22 BSA air rifle with Sheila's fingerprints on, found on the spiral stair in the kitchen, .22 anshuzt rifle with Sheila's fingerprints on, seen at a first floor window some 15 minutes before armed cops went to the house, then it found its way onto her body in an upstairs bedroom, and then there was the 12 bore shotgun with her fingerprints upon it, found in the gun cupboard in the den...
Sheila handled an awful lot of guns before her death, considering that according to the relatives that 'she didn't know one end of a gun to the other's...
-
So, you're saying no one has previously mentioned Sheila sleeping with June? Then how come one of you own posts from last year, refers to it? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7124.msg336489.html#msg336489
I first mentioned it when we discovered Nevill's slippers in the room Sheila was supposed to be sleeping in. It could be that he slept in Sheila's room and Sheila slept in the main room with June (for reasons already laid out). You then got the whole thing AAF and thought people were suggesting Sheila slept with Nevill - which NO ONE ever suggested.
I said no one 'off' the board. Meaning away from the board.
Three people posted about Sheila sleeping with Neville. You, Jan and Susan. I quoted you're posts after people wrongly accused me of bringing it up.
You then panicked and said I should read you're posts and realise what you really meant.
I am sorry what you write is taken at face value. You are not important enough for anyone to second guess you're posts. Even though you used to send nice letters to famous murderer Jeremy Bamber, in you're passionate Bamerette days.
-
And then, there was the metal 'end cap' belonging to the muzzle end of the anshuzt rifles barrel - David Boutflour recovered 'it' from the gun cupboard in the den. It was upon this metal ring that red paint from the kitchen aga had been found, something which DS Davidson had commented about in his 'COLP' interviews, when they questioned him about a paint sample, 'RC/1' taken at the scene by 'Ron' Cook on the 8th August. Davidson told 'COLP' that that paint sample ('RC/1') was taken then because of red paint found on the 'end of a guns barrel's found downstairs. When queried by 'COLP' whether he was referring to red paint on the end of a silencer? Davidson responded by saying, 'no, the paint was on the end of a guns barrel'...
The metal ring, which fits onto the threaded barrel end of the anshuzt rifle, had red paint upon it from the aga. Cops must have had possession of it by the 8th August 1985, for 'Ron' Cook to take that ('RC/1') paint sample on the 8th August, but that Cook must have put the guns end cap back in the cupboard prior to the hand back of the farmhouse to relatives on evening of 9th August 1985, to enable David Boutflour to recover it later on...
-
How could the guns end cap (metal ring) and a silencer both have been fitted to the same anshuzt rifle so that the end cap and the silencer both made marks on the red painted kitchen aga, during a purported struggle between Ralph Bamber, and his killer?
-
For me its the similarity in both size and shape that has me believe its caused by the barrel of the gun.
What are the odds of it being caused by something same size and same shape? and not during the murders?
Its also possible to inflict those wounds with the pajama top on. fabrics don't react to heat like skin does and the top could be flexible. An Iron does not burn a top so why would a hot gun barrel burn a top/
-
For me its the similarity in both size and shape that has me believe its caused by the barrel of the gun.
What are the odds of it being caused by something same size and same shape? and not during the murders?
Its also possible to inflict those wounds with the pajama top on. fabrics don't react to heat like skin does and the top could be flexible. An Iron does not burn a top so why would a hot gun barrel burn a top/
The marks on the left are uniform the ones on the right are not, they aren't even the same size as each other. How would you test to see if someone was dead? Would you automatically think about heating up the rifle barrel?
-
For me its the similarity in both size and shape that has me believe its caused by the barrel of the gun.
What are the odds of it being caused by something same size and same shape? and not during the murders?
Its also possible to inflict those wounds with the pajama top on. fabrics don't react to heat like skin does and the top could be flexible. An Iron does not burn a top so why would a hot gun barrel burn a top/
the first one on the right is not even round,what rifle could have made that.
-
the first one on the right is not even round,what rifle could have made that.
A rife pressed at an angle.
-
It seems this Dr Caruso knows a thing or two about burns
http://azburncenter.org/our-burn-team/daniel-m--caruso-md-facs (http://azburncenter.org/our-burn-team/daniel-m--caruso-md-facs)
-
It seems this Dr Caruso knows a thing or two about burns
http://azburncenter.org/our-burn-team/daniel-m--caruso-md-facs (http://azburncenter.org/our-burn-team/daniel-m--caruso-md-facs)
He didn't look at any burn, he looked at a photograph which was 'presumed' to be a burn.
-
He didn't look at any burn, he looked at a photograph which was 'presumed' to be a burn.
He looked at a photograph and saw what he believed to be a burn
-
He looked at a photograph and saw what he believed to be a burn
I just said that. He saw what had already been surmised to be a burn, doesn't mean it is.
-
For me its the similarity in both size and shape that has me believe its caused by the barrel of the gun.
What are the odds of it being caused by something same size and same shape? and not during the murders?
Its also possible to inflict those wounds with the pajama top on. fabrics don't react to heat like skin does and the top could be flexible. An Iron does not burn a top so why would a hot gun barrel burn a top/
I agree with that.
I would have to see how those three burn marks could be inflicted without marking the pyjamas. I doubt that Bamber would risk doing that. He didn't want the burn marks to be an issue as it's obvious Sheila wouldn't be calculated enough to inflict them to check for signs of life.
Anyway it was easy for Bamber to pull Neville's pyjama top up and inflict them.
-
Another reason Bamber may have taken the silencer off, is he was worried it might melt if burnt.
The police would ask why the silencer on the rifle or next to Sheila, was burnt, and then relate it to Neville's burn marks. A rifle nozzle would be more resistant.
-
Another reason Bamber may have taken the silencer off, is he was worried it might melt if burnt.
The silencer is made of steel. That only melts past 1300 degrees C
-
The silencer is made of steel. That only melts past 1300 degrees C
I didn't know that. It seems very small and weak. I wonder if Bamber did ?
I assume the rifle nozzle was just as strong.
-
I wonder why the defence did not bring up Neville's burn marks ? They could get an expert to claim the burn marks were caused without the silencer.
The trouble is the jury would not believe Sheila would suddenly stop to heat a rifle in the middle of a crazy rage.
-
Spider bites?
(http://www.outdoorlivingnashville.com/spiderbitepictures.org/images/Brown-Recluse-Spider-Bites-Pictures.jpg)
(https://www.doomandbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/brown-recluse-spider-bite.jpg)
-
The trouble is they are 'burn marks' on Neville's back.
-
Maybe they are rabbit bites. Or from Crispy.
-
Maybe they are rabbit bites. Or from Crispy.
Don't get me wrong I do think they were caused by the barrel of the gun. However from your point of view it poses problems.
1. It shows the silencer being off the gun
2. There is no rational or level headed reason to inflict those wounds. Thus indicating the killer was irrational and unbalanced (Sheila)
-
Don't get me wrong I do think they were caused by the barrel of the gun. However from your point of view it poses problems.
1. It shows the silencer being off the gun
2. There is no rational or level headed reason to inflict those wounds. Thus indicating the killer was irrational and unbalanced (Sheila)
1. A silencer can be screwed on and unscrewed.
2. The reason was to check whether Nevill was dead. Why do you think Jeremy told Police his sister had recently indulged in target practice if he did not want to delay the Raid Team entry and deny first aid of any kind?
-
Don't get me wrong I do think they were caused by the barrel of the gun. However from your point of view it poses problems.
1. It shows the silencer being off the gun
2. There is no rational or level headed reason to inflict those wounds. Thus indicating the killer was irrational and unbalanced (Sheila)
:) I've agreed the burn marks were caused by Bamber after he took the silencer off.
It's why the silencer was found in a box in the gun cupboard with human/Sheila's blood, aga paint and a grey hair in.
Or was that due to the 'treacherous' Stan Jones ?
-
1. A silencer can be screwed on and unscrewed.
2. The reason was to check whether Nevill was dead. Why do you think Jeremy told Police his sister had recently indulged in target practice if he did not want to delay the Raid Team entry and deny first aid of any kind?
I think Jeremy could work out Neville would be dead after five shots to the head.
It makes no sense to heat up the barrel and poke someone
Jeremy told Police his sister had recently indulged in target practice? were did you get that from?
Why would Jeremy sit in his cell for 25 years to wait for someone else to work this out when it shows the silencer being off?
-
:) I've agreed the burn marks were caused by Bamber after he took the silencer off.
It's why the silencer was found in a box in the gun cupboard with human/Sheila's blood, aga paint and a grey hair in.
Or was that due to the 'treacherous' Stan Jones ?
There is no rational reason for Jeremy to heat up the barrel and poke Neville.
1. He could have worked out Neville was motionless with shots to the face/head
2. If he wanted to make sure he could just have fired a few more rounds
-
But you are attributing a routine and a logic to a paranoid schizophrenic who had no such reason. It's documented by one of the cops outside White House Farm how Jeremy embellished Sheila's shooting prowess.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5948.msg264525.html#msg264525
There is a thread on the Aizona Tests. Talk about a waste of money. And time.
I suspect Bamber waited 25 years to bring it up because it didn't really assist him. People will also immediately ask whether an out of control Sheila would suddenly stop going 'crazy' and have the thought and composure to burn Neville's back. It is much more likely Bamber would, to check for signs of life. Thread created.
The results from Bamber's experts just means Bamber took off the silencer prior to burning Neville's back. However as David said the silencer would not melt in the aga so he may have burnt Neville's back with the silencer attached. Then fired more shots into June, Neville, & Sheila.
The CCRC agreed the Arizona tests meant nothing.
-
But you are attributing a routine and a logic to a paranoid schizophrenic who had no such reason. It's documented by one of the cops outside White House Farm how Jeremy embellished Sheila's shooting prowess.
Hey, Sheila -
Loaded twice.
Chambered twice.
Fired 26 bullets killing her family.
Brutally beat Neville.
Had a shower.
Changed.
Got the bible.
Read the bible.
Wrote a suicide note.
Shot herself once in the kitchen.
Put the silencer away.
All in 22 minutes after Neville had phoned the forth furthest away police station. Which is the exact same forth furthest away police station Bamber had phoned.
If she can do all that in 22 minutes, surely she can heat the rifle and burn Neville's back as well, can't she ?
-
For me its the similarity in both size and shape that has me believe its caused by the barrel of the gun.
What are the odds of it being caused by something same size and same shape? and not during the murders?
Its also possible to inflict those wounds with the pajama top on. fabrics don't react to heat like skin does and the top could be flexible. An Iron does not burn a top so why would a hot gun barrel burn a top/
I am not claiming the burn marks were not caused by the gun barrel, rather that I find the explanation it was done to test for signs of life difficult to believe.... again that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.
If an iron is hot enough it will scorch cloth causing brown scorch marks.
Imo a barrell end hot enough to cause such burns to the body would definitely have at the least scorched any cotton clothing covering the burned skin, however because of the depth of the burns on the flesh the material would more likely have been burned through.
-
I am not claiming the burn marks were not caused by the gun barrel, rather that I find the explanation it was done to test for signs of life difficult to believe.... again that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.
If an iron is hot enough it will scorch cloth causing brown scorch marks.
Imo a barrell end hot enough to cause such burns to the body would definitely have at the least scorched any cotton clothing covering the burned skin, however because of the depth of the burns on the flesh the material would more likely have been burned through.
I agree totally. If someone has a fractured skull and is unconscious, then they wouldn't necessarily even feel being burned.
Vanezis obviously doesn't do much ironing otherwise he would know how quickly one can scorch material.
Imo I think it may have been the poker that was used.
-
I'd said the poker years ago too as nobody in their right mind heats the end of a rifle over the fire,nor does it get red-hot after firing,well certainly not as hot as to cause superficial burns as shown. Whereas a poker if it's been left in the heat will retain that heat.
Blimey,JB hadn't hated his parents that much to have inflicted such injury,I don't care what anyone says.
Only someone deranged and unbalanced would have even thought of such harm to another human .JB hadn't/hasn't got it in him.
Now if JB had planted JM when she threw things at him and put a pillow over his face, I would have questioned his retaliative behaviour. JM couldn't show any injuries caused by violence in their 18 month courtship. Speaks for itself really.
-
I'd said the poker years ago too as nobody in their right mind heats the end of a rifle over the fire
But Lookout the person who you believe was responsible was not in her right mind at the time
-
But Lookout the person who you believe was responsible was not in her right mind at the time
I know that David and I can't stress enough that it was she and not Jeremy who'd committed that horrendous crime.
-
I'm not sure but I would have thought heating up the rifle would have damaged the patina as it does if you heat up a knife.
-
That's right,lebaleb. It would have shown discolouration.
Not enough attention was given to the " fresh " graze on one of the silencers either as I imagine that this sort of thing occurs when the handler misuses it,but can't imagine how a " bona-fide " owner/handler would cause such a visible graze, or with what and how a non-handler would have caused it.
It's the smaller/finer details which were omitted in this case.
-
I said no one 'off' the board. Meaning away from the board.
Three people posted about Sheila sleeping with Neville. You, Jan and Susan. I quoted you're posts after people wrongly accused me of bringing it up.
You then panicked and said I should read you're posts and realise what you really meant.
I am sorry what you write is taken at face value. You are not important enough for anyone to second guess you're posts. Even though you used to send nice letters to famous murderer Jeremy Bamber, in you're passionate Bamerette days.
I have NEVER suggested that Sheila slept with Nevill but this isn't the first time -in order to deflect blame from yourself?- you've stated someone has said something they haven't said.
As far as importance goes, by dint of the fact that you go out of your way to present yourself as a xxxxx, xxxxxx and xxxxx xxxxxxx who delights in putting others down, you're probably at the bottom of the pile.
-
I said no one 'off' the board. Meaning away from the board.
Three people posted about Sheila sleeping with Neville. You, Jan and Susan. I quoted you're posts after people wrongly accused me of bringing it up.
You then panicked and said I should read you're posts and realise what you really meant.
I am sorry what you write is taken at face value. You are not important enough for anyone to second guess you're posts. Even though you used to send nice letters to famous murderer Jeremy Bamber, in you're passionate Bamerette days.
NO ONE EVER suggested that - it came from YOU because you couldn't grasp what was being said (as usual). Find a post where I suggested Sheila slept with Nevill and post the link!
Nice letters? You really are a snide little shxt!
-
NO ONE EVER suggested that - it came from YOU because you couldn't grasp what was being said (as usual). Find a post where I suggested Sheila slept with Nevill and post the link!
Nice letters?
You really are a snide little shxt!
----------I can go along with that Caroline.
-
----------I can go along with that Caroline.
We could run a poll on how important/popular members consider Adam to be.
-
We could run a poll on how important/popular members consider Adam to be.
I'd be banned for my answer. :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I'd be banned for my answer. :)) :)) :)) :))
Or highly commended :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Or highly commended :)) :)) :)) :))
Well I suppose my recognition has to start somewhere. ;D ;D ;)
-
I have NEVER suggested that Sheila slept with Nevill but this isn't the first time -in order to deflect blame from yourself?- you've stated someone has said something they haven't said.
As far as importance goes, by dint of the fact that you go out of your way to present yourself as a xxxxx, xxxxxx and xxxxx xxxxxxx who delights in putting others down, you're probably at the bottom of the pile.
I said Jan. Not Jane. Get you're facts right please.
-
NO ONE EVER suggested that - it came from YOU because you couldn't grasp what was being said (as usual). Find a post where I suggested Sheila slept with Nevill and post the link!
Nice letters? You really are a snide little shxt!
Please get you're facts right. 'Off' the board means away from the board. 'Of' the board means within the board.
You were so proud of thinking you had corrected me, you included a nice little link and was confident enough to goad me about something from months ago. Where I did nothing wrong.
Sadly for you, my post was correct. No one 'off' the board has ever suggested Sheila slept with June.
You didn't suggest it. Another poster did. You and Jan then discussed it. A couple of days later you, Jan and a moderator accused me of bringing it up, after I said it wouldn't have happened. I then quoted three posts from other posters, you included.
-
I said Jan. Not Jane. Get you're facts right please.
Please get you're facts right. 'Off' the board means away from the board. 'Of' the board means within the board.
You were so proud of thinking you had corrected me, you included a nice little link and was confident enough to goad me about something from months ago. Where I did nothing wrong.
Sadly for you, my post was correct. No one 'off' the board has ever suggested Sheila slept with June.
You didn't suggest it. Another poster did. You and Jan then discussed it. A couple of days later you, Jan and a moderator accused me of bringing it up, after I said it wouldn't have happened. I then quoted three posts from other posters.
But sadly, for you, what goes around, comes around. Such is the reputation you've earned yourself for wanting to be right at all costs, and to that end, being devious and untrustworthy, that it's easy to believe you may have altered your original posts.
As for your insistence that no one off/away from THIS board has ever suggested that Sheila slept with June, A) Doesn't mean she didn't and B) Just because you haven't read it anywhere doesn't mean it hasn't been said elsewhere.
-
But sadly, for you, what goes around, comes around. Such is the reputation you've earned yourself for wanting to be right at all costs, and to that end, being devious and untrustworthy, that it's easy to believe you may have altered your original posts.
As for your insistence that no one off/away from THIS board has ever suggested that Sheila slept with June, A) Doesn't mean she didn't and B) Just because you haven't read it anywhere doesn't mean it hasn't been said elsewhere.
My post where I said 'Jan' was last edited at 4.28pm. Yesterday.
You quoted this post and accused me of mentioning you. Today.
-
My post where I said 'Jan' was last edited at 4.28pm. Yesterday.
You quoted this post and accused me of mentioning you. Today.
My error -IF that's what it was- doesn't make you less devious and self seeking OR more trustworthy.
-
My error -IF that's what it was- doesn't make you less devious and self seeking OR more trustworthy.
Thank you Jane J.
-
Thank you Jane J.
My pleasure, Adam. At last you do me the courtesy -perhaps unintended- of using my real name.
-
adam its my opinion that sheila slept with june .one reason is neville getting past jb and running to the kitchen.i dont believe he would have done that.he would have fought him there and then and not in the kitchen where a fight took place.its only my opinion.but if ever in the future jb confessed neville was sleeping in the bedroom .then i would just say 'adam was right all along' :)
-
Wounds made by compressed air with muzzle of air rifle in a contact position with the surface of the skin?
-
Images
-
The marks on the back of Ralph Bambers neck were caused by the muzzle of the BSA .22 air rifle held in position at different angles, and fired minus a pellet. The killer adopted this technique to test for a response from Ralph after being shot in the head...
-
The marks on the back of Ralph Bambers neck were caused by the muzzle of the BSA .22 air rifle held in position at different angles, and fired minus a pellet. The killer adopted this technique to test for a response from Ralph after being shot in the head...
Here is one set of comparison images, confirming it...
-
Here is a second comparison image...
-
Here is the third comparison image...
-
In my view, the three burn marks made to the back of Ralph Bambers neck, were caused when the muzzle of the (.22) BSA air rifle, were held a different angles to the back of his neck at different times, and the weapon (minus a pellet) was discharged...
-
Please get you're facts right. 'Off' the board means away from the board. 'Of' the board means within the board.
You were so proud of thinking you had corrected me, you included a nice little link and was confident enough to goad me about something from months ago. Where I did nothing wrong.
Sadly for you, my post was correct. No one 'off' the board has ever suggested Sheila slept with June.
You didn't suggest it. Another poster did. You and Jan then discussed it. A couple of days later you, Jan and a moderator accused me of bringing it up, after I said it wouldn't have happened. I then quoted three posts from other posters, you included.
Where is the link to the post where Jan and I discussed Sheila sleeping with Nevill?
No, no one off the board has suggested it - AND? Why are you so surprised? Probably because you have never had an original thought in your life!
-
Where is the link to the post where Jan and I discussed Sheila sleeping with Nevill?
No, no one off the board has suggested it - AND? Why are you so surprised? Probably because you have never had an original thought in your life!
I'm not going to spend hours looking for something. It's water under the bridge now.
I only said in one post that I didn't believe Sheila slept with Neville. After, in my view it had been discussed earlier.
Several posters then ganged up on me and a moderator accused me of making a 'sick joke'. The alleged 'sick joke' was never quoted despite my request.
I don't mind you and other posters ganging up on me. It happened from day one when you and other supporters spent months ferouciously defending Bamber and saying he was innocent.
All these supporters have now either changed stance or left the forum. The remaining ex supporters will automatically disagree with a lot of what I post as routine. Most recently disagreeing with me and saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
You brought Sheila and Neville up earlier this week to goad me, as you were so chuffed when you thought you had proven me wrong on another issue. Not realising that you were wrong and 'off' means away from the board.
-
I'm not going to spend hours looking for something. It's water under the bridge now.
I only said in one post that I didn't believe Sheila slept with Neville. After, in my view it had been discussed a couple of days earlier.
Several posters then ganged up on me and a moderator accused me of making a 'sick joke'. The alleged 'sick joke' was never quoted despite my request.
I don't mind you and other posters ganging up on me. It happened from day one when you and other supporters spent months ferouciously defending Bamber and saying he was innocent.
All these supporters have now either changed stance or left the forum. The remaining ex supporters will automatically disagree with a lot of what I post as routine. Most recently disagreeing with me and saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
You brought Sheila and Neville up earlier this week to goad me, as you were so chuffed when you thought you had proven me wrong. Not realising that you were wrong and 'off' means away from the board.
So you're not prepared to "spend hours looking for something" -yet you expect it of others- you prefer to post your own, twisted version and insist that other versions are wrong.
To say you "didn't believe Sheila slept with Nevill was sly -but that's how you present yourself so naturally it's what you're perceived to be- because it implies that others had said she did.
I think you'll find it's possible that many -both supporters and detractors- here regard you as being the "sick joke".
I still insist that it wouldn't be possible to pull up a pj jacket -to perform some kind of ritual- from a body slumped over at the waist. It MIGHT be possible to raise it as far as the arm pits but keeping it in that position would be questionable. However, you present yourself as being far too dishonest to admit to being wrong, so I'm not at all surprised that you say you accomplished it on yourself.
It surprises me that although you've just said that you're "not going to spend hours looking for something" you're able to make such a sweeping statement that no one "off"/AWAY FROM the board has made mention of Sheila and Nevill. Away from this board covers a vast area. Surely you'll have done a search to prove your point? Why do I doubt it?
-
So you're not prepared to "spend hours looking for something" -yet you expect it of others- you prefer to post your own, twisted version and insist that other versions are wrong.
To say you "didn't believe Sheila slept with Nevill was sly -but that's how you present yourself so naturally it's what you're perceived to be- because it implies that others had said she did.
I think you'll find it's possible that many -both supporters and detractors- here regard you as being the "sick joke".
I still insist that it wouldn't be possible to pull up a pj jacket -to perform some kind of ritual- from a body slumped over at the waist. It MIGHT be possible to raise it as far as the arm pits but keeping it in that position would be questionable. However, you present yourself as being far too dishonest to admit to being wrong, so I'm not at all surprised that you say you accomplished it on yourself.
It surprises me that although you've just said that you're "not going to spend hours looking for something" you're able to make such a sweeping statement that no one "off"/AWAY FROM the board has made mention of Sheila and Nevill. Away from this board covers a vast area. Surely you'll have done a search to prove your point? Why do I doubt it?
I'm sorry but you're the 'sick joke'.
Spending 29 years supporting Bamber because you didn't like Julie's court outfit. Now spending more time than anyone else on this board, all day every day, saying not very much.
My 10 second 'forensic evidence breakthrough' showed it is possible to pull my shirt up to the top of my shoulder blades in Neville's position. It stayed there. I knew this would be the case beforehand, but did this as you were pointlessly saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
I have said no one 'off' the board has ever said Sheila slept with June. But will be delighted to be proved wrong.
-
In my view, the three burn marks made to the back of Ralph Bambers neck, were caused when the muzzle of the (.22) BSA air rifle, were held a different angles to the back of his neck at different times, and the weapon (minus a pellet) was discharged...
In all three examples, shown of the actual so called burn marks on the back of his neck, display evidence of 'blistering' where the air from the blast was captured beneath, or around the flesh associated with each of his wounds:-
-
I'm sorry but you're the 'sick joke'.
Spending 29 years supporting Bamber because you didn't like Julie's court outfit. Now spending more time than anyone else on this board, all day every day, saying not very much.
My 10 second 'forensic evidence breakthrough' showed it is possible to pull my shirt up to the top of my shoulder blades in Neville's position. It stayed there. I knew this would be the case beforehand, but did this as you were pointlessly saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
I have said no one 'off' the board has ever said Sheila slept with June. But will be delighted to be proved wrong.
I imagine a poll would tell us exactly how popular you are, Adam. You've certainly got the prize for being the only one here whose removal has been requested by members.
Yes, many things about me have changed in the past 30 years, but Julie's taste in clothes remains questionable.Perhaps you're a stalker? WEIRD to even be bothered to look at how often people are here.
Of course your top remained up when you Oh, SO easily accomplished it. From you, I wouldn't have expected otherwise. So much easier on one's own, living body, from a position of ease of access, than another's dead and slumped body, isn't it?
My question was -given that you refuse to spend hours looking- how do you know that Sheila and Nevill haven't been mentioned OFF/away from this board?
PS Have just seen that Mike has mentioned the back of Nevill's neck as being the site of the "burns". WHY would the jacket have needed to be pulled up from the waist -getting stuck at arm pit level- to burn the neck area?
-
In all three examples, shown of the actual so called burn marks on the back of his neck, display evidence of 'blistering' where the air from the blast was captured beneath, or around the flesh associated with each of his wounds:-
Look closely, here...
-
I'm sorry but you're the 'sick joke'.
Spending 29 years supporting Bamber because you didn't like Julie's court outfit. Now spending more time than anyone else on this board, all day every day, saying not very much.
My 10 second 'forensic evidence breakthrough' showed it is possible to pull my shirt up to the top of my shoulder blades in Neville's position. It stayed there. I knew this would be the case beforehand, but did this as you were pointlessly saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
I have said no one 'off' the board has ever said Sheila slept with June. But will be delighted to be proved wrong.
Hi Adam, even if 'no one off the board has ever said Sheila slept with June' that is not proof it didn't happen.
Posters do not need to slavishly follow other people's beliefs. Original thought can open up new areas of thought and suggestion.
The suggestion that Sheila MAY have slept in the main bedroom to be within earshot of the twins is not incredible or impossible unless you can disprove this with hard evidence rather than just your opinions and theories.
The fact you may be able to pull your shirt up to the top of your shoulder blades proves nothing except that you can do this thing.
Nevill would have been a dead weight by the time anyone tried to pull up his pyjama top, he was very probably a different build and age to you and as far as we know he was bent forward therefore pretty much impossible for one person to move into the position as he would have been very heavy and cumbersome.
I don't say it didn't happen but rather am questioning how and why anyone would bother to do such a thing at such a time.
-
Hi Adam, even if 'no one off the board has ever said Sheila slept with June' that is not proof it didn't happen.
Posters do not need to slavishly follow other people's beliefs. Original thought can open up new areas of thought and suggestion.
The suggestion that Sheila MAY have slept in the main bedroom to be within earshot of the twins is not incredible or impossible unless you can disprove this with hard evidence rather than just your opinions and theories.
The fact you may be able to pull your shirt up to the top of your shoulder blades proves nothing except that you can do this thing.
Nevill would have been a dead weight by the time anyone tried to pull up his pyjama top, he was very probably a different build and age to you and as far as we know he was bent forward therefore pretty much impossible for one person to move into the position as he would have been very heavy and cumbersome.
I don't say it didn't happen but rather am questioning how and why anyone would bother to do such a thing at such a time.
For all Adam's bombast and bluster, I can't recall him EVER posting anything other than his own opinion which he masks as facts. He leaves original thought to others and then, for the most part, sneers and derides them.
-
Look closely, here...
The burns are graduated in that whatever it was was hot to start with then lost so much of its intensity----as in a metal object which cools slowly,going from a second degree burn to a first degree.
A poker would have caused more of a third/subcutaneous degree wound as heat is held in iron, so although I've said a poker I realise that heat damage/levels when used towards abusing someone would have gone deeper.
It's either the end of a lit cigar or barrel of a rapidly fired rifle-------------without the silencer.
-
I'm not going to spend hours looking for something. It's water under the bridge now.
I only said in one post that I didn't believe Sheila slept with Neville. After, in my view it had been discussed earlier.
Several posters then ganged up on me and a moderator accused me of making a 'sick joke'. The alleged 'sick joke' was never quoted despite my request.
I don't mind you and other posters ganging up on me. It happened from day one when you and other supporters spent months ferouciously defending Bamber and saying he was innocent.
All these supporters have now either changed stance or left the forum. The remaining ex supporters will automatically disagree with a lot of what I post as routine. Most recently disagreeing with me and saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
You brought Sheila and Neville up earlier this week to goad me, as you were so chuffed when you thought you had proven me wrong on another issue. Not realising that you were wrong and 'off' means away from the board.
They ganged up on you because no one said that Sheila slept with Nevill. What was said that that Nevill may have selt in Sheila's room - THUS Sheila slept in the main bedroom. I would never even contemplate that Sheila would sleep with Nevill and Jan wouldn't either. I'm sure you have searched for the so called 'discussion' you mentioned in your last post but couldn't find any such posts. The reason you couldn't find them is because they didn't exist in the first place!
-
My 10 second 'forensic evidence breakthrough' showed it is possible to pull my shirt up to the top of my shoulder blades in Neville's position. It stayed there. I knew this would be the case beforehand, but did this as you were pointlessly saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
Wahay! For the first time ever you have some real forensic evidence for your 'library'. You can pull your pajamas over your head!
-
If there were any evidence of sexual relationships within the family and if it had a bearing on the case then one shouldn't close ones mind because it's distasteful. However, in this case there is no evidence. Speculating on such things is pointless and takes the discussion into fantasy land.
-
If there were any evidence of sexual relationships within the family and if it had a bearing on the case then one shouldn't close ones mind because it's distasteful. However, in this case there is no evidence. Speculating on such things is pointless and takes the discussion into fantasy land.
No one other than Adam was/is speculating on it.
-
If there were any evidence of sexual relationships within the family and if it had a bearing on the case then one shouldn't close ones mind because it's distasteful. However, in this case there is no evidence. Speculating on such things is pointless and takes the discussion into fantasy land.
Fantasy land may be Adam's place of residence.
-
I have said no one 'off' the board has ever said Sheila slept with June. But will be delighted to be proved wrong.
What has THAT got to do with anything?
-
What has THAT got to do with anything?
Caroline, I think it has foundations in Adam's assertion that he's not going to spend hours looking................. but IS perfectly prepared to let others do it for him, ergo, he's waiting for you to prove him right by your spending hours looking for something he doesn't believe exists.
-
I'm sorry but you're the 'sick joke'.
Spending 29 years supporting Bamber because you didn't like Julie's court outfit. Now spending more time than anyone else on this board, all day every day, saying not very much.
My 10 second 'forensic evidence breakthrough' showed it is possible to pull my shirt up to the top of my shoulder blades in Neville's position. It stayed there. I knew this would be the case beforehand, but did this as you were pointlessly saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
I have said no one 'off' the board has ever said Sheila slept with June. But will be delighted to be proved wrong.
adam are you serious. ' your 10 second forensic evidence breakthrough' you behave like a child saying people are ganging up on you.
its not ganging up its adults responding to your silly self promoting posts.
-
See whats happeneing.
Caroline mentioned something from months or years ago last Thursday, to goad me.
It was her 'cherry on the cake' after being so chuffed about believing she had proved me wrong on another issue. She will be the first to admit she was wrong - 'off', not 'of'.
Now the same issue is being discussed and I'm getting all the blame again.
-
See whats happeneing again.
Caroline mentioned something from months or years ago last Thursday, to goad me.
It was her 'cherry on the cake' after being so chuffed about believing she had proved me wrong on another issue. She will be the first to admit she was wrong - 'off', not 'of'.
Now the same issue is being discussed and I'm getting all the blame again.
Aww, diddums.
-
See whats happeneing.
Caroline mentioned something from months or years ago last Thursday, to goad me.
It was her 'cherry on the cake' after being so chuffed about believing she had proved me wrong on another issue. She will be the first to admit she was wrong - 'off', not 'of'.
Now the same issue is being discussed and I'm getting all the blame again.
WHAHHHHH!! WHAH, WHAH, WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!! :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
You're talking about me being wrong when you can't even back up your own argument - you can't find a post stating that Jan and I discussed Nevill Sleeping with Sheila or any post mentioning it - other than your OWN!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Teee heee!!!
-
I'm not going to spend hours looking for something. It's water under the bridge now.
I only said in one post that I didn't believe Sheila slept with Neville. After, in my view it had been discussed earlier.
Several posters then ganged up on me and a moderator accused me of making a 'sick joke'. The alleged 'sick joke' was never quoted despite my request.
I don't mind you and other posters ganging up on me. It happened from day one when you and other supporters spent months ferouciously defending Bamber and saying he was innocent.
All these supporters have now either changed stance or left the forum. The remaining ex supporters will automatically disagree with a lot of what I post as routine. Most recently disagreeing with me and saying Bamber couldn't pull Neville's pyjama top up.
You brought Sheila and Neville up earlier this week to goad me, as you were so chuffed when you thought you had proven me wrong on another issue. Not realising that you were wrong and 'off' means away from the board.
Hi Adam as I am the only moderator on the forum I guess you are talking about me. I cannot remember what you are talking about so much has happened in my life in the past month.
I would question I 'accused' you of making a sick joke but rather pointed out it was in bad taste. however as I cant remember the incident it is difficult for me to really comment.
-
lets get back to the topic.kiss n makeup :)
-
lets get back to the topic.kiss n makeup :)
I'd rather kiss a rattle snake.
-
I'd rather kiss a rattle snake.
ouch :)
-
I don't blame her.
-
I don't blame her.
you never know adam could be a roger moore lookalike :)
-
I very much doubt it-------------considering he has to use JB's pic.Says a lot really.
-
I very much doubt it-------------considering he has to use JB's pic.Says a lot really.
i keep saying goodnight,but you keep making me laugh so i have to acknowledge it. :)) :))goodnight
-
you never know adam could be a roger moore lookalike :)
Rog is a bit before my time Sami however, he could look like Tom Hardy for all I care but would still have the personality of f a wet lettuce. (No offence to wet lettuces).
-
I don't blame her.
Yes, I think there is one thing we can ALL agree on? ;)
-
I'd rather kiss a rattle snake.
It'd be the healthier option.
-
Rog is a bit before my time Sami however, he could look like Tom Hardy for all I care but would still have the personality of f a wet lettuce. (No offence to wet lettuces).
we are the about same age than caroline.so true 'its not only looks that count' :)
-
It'd be the healthier option.
than the lettuce :))
-
I very much doubt it-------------considering he has to use JB's pic.Says a lot really.
I don't get why he does that :-\
Adam why is JB your avatar?
-
I don't get why he does that :-\
Adam why is JB your avatar?
Well, he always reckons he knows what was going on in Jeremy's head. Personally, I think he secretly hero worships him.
-
Well, he always reckons he knows what was going on in Jeremy's head. Personally, I think he secretly hero worships him.
Like having pictures of Jeremy all over the wall and gets the prison to send him JBs hair clippings and used chewing gum to collect?
-
It highlights the superficial charisma which Julie fell for and which is unfortunately the threnody of the human condition.
-
liar.. ;)
-
liar.. ;)
Bit of a random post.
-
Bit of a random post.
First and last probably ;D
-
lol...
-
Act your age please, not your shoe size !