Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on April 23, 2016, 06:43:PM
-
He and Neville were next to the aga.
Neville's body was in the perfect position for Bamber to burn his back.
Neville put up most resistance and put up a 'tremendous' fight for life. So may have still had signs of life
The twins were shot 5 and 8 times all shots in the head, and were only 6. So unlikely to survive.
Bamber couldn't burn Sheila's back. She was supposed to have committed suicide.
The twins were lying on their backs. Bamber would have to move them.
Bamber couldn't burn everyone's backs. It would look too suspicious.
The burning instrument may not stay hot enough to be effective while being taken upstairs.
Bamber may not have had time to burn everyones back.
Bamber was satisfied June was dead. She had been shot several times in the head.
Bamber burnt Neville's back just before he left WHF as he had to exit the kitchen window and pass Neville. This is if he did not use the rifle head.
If Bamber used the rifle head on Neville before returning upstairs, he didn't want to burn it too much in case he damaged it.
Neville showed signs of life after each burn. So had to be burnt three times. No one upstairs showed signs of life after their 2, 3, 5 and 7 shots.
Bamber was shooting a dead or knocked out Neville next to the aga. Why not burn his back as well ?
-
Ahhhhh,but the three adults all had marks of sorts on their arms ?
-
The burn marks are very important.
Bamber agrees they are from the rifle minus the silencer. Which means he could have put the silencer away after using it to commit the massacre. Then decided to burn Neville's back with the rifle minus the silencer.
So is another very strong reason why the silencer was in the box at the back of the gun cupboard. With blood and paint in.
Supporters then say why didn't Bamber burn everyone's back ? Answers are now above.
-
The burn marks are very important.
Bamber agrees they are from the rifle minus the silencer. Which means he could have put the silencer away after using it to commit the massacre. Then decided to burn Neville's back with the rifle minus the silencer.
So is another very strong reason why the silencer was in the box at the back of the gun cupboard. With blood and paint in.
Supporters then say why didn't Bamber burn everyone's back ? Answers are now above.
I'm not sure his supporters are asking that question. Didn't someone try an experiment to replicate the burn marks but couldn't heat the gun to a high enough temperature?
-
I'm not sure his supporters are asking that question. Didn't someone try an experiment to replicate the burn marks but couldn't heat the gun to a high enough temperature?
Sherlock has. And Holly did just now on the Red forum. It's a natural thing for supporters to say as a defence mechanism. So supporters have said it.
The only experiment I know of is the one Bamber carried out. Which had him saying the burn marks were from the end of the rifle without the silencer attached.
-
Bamber's experiment was to try to discredit the blood evidence. By showing Sheila may have committed the massacre without the silencer attached. This failed on many levels.
If it wasn't Sheila's blood, whose human blood was it ?
Who put the aga paint into the silencer if it was not attached during the kitchen fight ?
Who put the white hair in the silencer ?
Sheila may have simply committed the massacre with the silencer on. Then taken it off to burn Neville. But why would Sheila bother taking it off at all ? And why bother putting it away, almost out of sight ?
-
Bamber's experiment was to try to discredit the blood evidence. By showing Sheila may have committed the massacre without the silencer attached. This failed on many levels.
If it wasn't Sheila's blood, whose human blood was it ?
Who put the aga paint into the silencer if it was not attached during the kitchen fight ?
Who put the white hair in the silencer ?
Sheila may have simply committed the massacre with the silencer on. Then taken it off to burn Neville. But why would Sheila bother taking it off at all ? And why bother putting it away, almost out of sight ?
Think if we knew the answer to all your questions this forum wouldn't exist Adam. ;)
-
Bamber's experiment was to try to discredit the blood evidence. By showing Sheila may have committed the massacre without the silencer attached. This failed on many levels.
If it wasn't Sheila's blood, whose human blood was it ?
Who put the aga paint into the silencer if it was not attached during the kitchen fight ?
Who put the white hair in the silencer ?
Sheila may have simply committed the massacre with the silencer on. Then taken it off to burn Neville. But why would Sheila bother taking it off at all ? And why bother putting it away, almost out of sight ?
I don't think Sheila did put it away. I also can't see her messing with a stiff gun and burning Nevill's back without at least getting a couple of fingernails chipped. But don't forget the relatives had possession of the house post-murders and had time to scratch the mantelshelf with the silencer if they so wished. But if the Defence is arguing that the silencer is a red herring in the case it has to explain whether there was a silencer mark on Sheila's neck as depicted in the Andrew Hunter book draft..
-
There is a thread on why Sheila would not burn Neville's back.
Now there is a thread on why Bamber would only burn Neville's back and no one else's.
Bamber believes Neville's back was burnt without the silencer on. So indirectly agreeing he took the silencer off after committing the massacre to burn Neville's back. All simple.
Why did Bamber hide the silencer away after taking it off ? Surely another thread is not needed ?
-
One pathologist seemed to think the burns were done on another occasion,not necessarily on the night of the murders.
-
There is a thread on why Sheila would not burn Neville's back.
Now there is a thread on why Bamber would only burn Neville's back and no one else's.
Bamber believes Neville's back was burnt without the silencer on. So indirectly agreeing he took the silencer off after committing the massacre to burn Neville's back. All simple.
Why did Bamber hide the silencer away after taking it off ? Surely another thread is not needed ?
Surely not, Adam!!
-
One pathologist seemed to think the burns were done on another occasion,not necessarily on the night of the murders.
That's interesting lookout. I wonder if Jeremy gave his parents a talking to for how he perceived they had treated him down the years before any shots were discharged, giving June a black eye in the process.
-
That's interesting lookout. I wonder if Jeremy gave his parents a talking to for how he perceived they had treated him down the years before any shots were discharged, giving June a black eye in the process.
Presumably it would also include Sheila's abdominal injury too ? I think there was a fracas the night before the murders.
Who was it who'd said that there were always rows going on ? I take it between June and Neville as the other two weren't always there. Maybe Neville was a shouty man.
-
Presumably it would also include Sheila's abdominal injury too ? I think there was a fracas the night before the murders.
Who was it who'd said that there were always rows going on ? I take it between June and Neville as the other two weren't always there. Maybe Neville was a shouty man.
Maybe it was just gossip.
-
Maybe it was just gossip.
Ohhh,a lot of gossip round there I'm sure. Some folk thrive on it.
-
Ohhh,a lot of gossip round there I'm sure. Some folk thrive on it.
Well, when trying to prove someone is innocent, I guess destroying the reputations on all those connected to that person requires gossip.
-
Well, when trying to prove someone is innocent, I guess destroying the reputations on all those connected to that person requires gossip.
I'm afraid it was just that which got JB convicted----gossip/hearsay.
-
The burn marks are very important.
Bamber agrees they are from the rifle minus the silencer. Which means he could have put the silencer away after using it to commit the massacre. Then decided to burn Neville's back with the rifle minus the silencer.
So is another very strong reason why the silencer was in the box at the back of the gun cupboard. With blood and paint in.
Neville was shot multiple times in the head. Testing to see if he is alive makes no sense
And most importantly if the marks are caused with the rifle muzzle without a silencer, why does it take a forensics expert after 25 years to point it out to him? Surely he would have hinted to his defence counsel at trial to have a closer look? Or at least his first appeal
-
Neville was shot multiple times in the head. Testing to see if he is alive makes no sense
And most importantly if the marks are caused with the rifle muzzle without a silencer, why does it take a forensics expert after 25 years to point it out to him? Surely he would have hinted to his defence counsel at trial to have a closer look? Or at least his first appeal
It does to this authoritative figure, who had influenced him all his life, and whether Jeremy knew in his heart he couldn't quite bring himself to believe his achievement, so prodded him with some implement to check he was finally gone.
-
I'm afraid it was just that which got JB convicted----gossip/hearsay.
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
Indeed.
-
It does to this authoritative figure, who had influenced him all his life, and whether Jeremy knew in his heart he couldn't quite bring himself to believe his achievement, so prodded him with some implement to check he was finally gone.
That is pure speculation in the absence of evidence.
-
Neville was shot multiple times in the head. Testing to see if he is alive makes no sense
And most importantly if the marks are caused with the rifle muzzle without a silencer, why does it take a forensics expert after 25 years to point it out to him? Surely he would have hinted to his defence counsel at trial to have a closer look? Or at least his first appeal
I agree 100%. It makes no sense.
On the balance of probability it is more likely than not that he was tortured.
It would be horrific - just try to imagine being burnt like that 3 times.
If someone was burnt like that they would most likely do what they were told.
It fits with the call being abruptly terminated after he had said the "necessary words".
It fits with Jeremy's account of the phone call.
It fits with someone wanting ALL the family dead.
The three burn marks are very strange indeed.
At the moment there is NO other possible explanation for them.
Therefore we simply cannot rule the POSSIBILITY of torture out.
-
Assuming Nevill was under duress of some sort why would he telephone Jeremy?
-
Assuming Nevill was under duress of some sort why would he telephone Jeremy?
The theory is that he was burnt 3 times to force him to phone Jeremy.
This was to lure Jeremy to the farm.
It almost worked - except Jeremy phoned the Police.
Presumably the torturer wanted all the family dead including Jeremy.
Whoever this person was knew there was 2 possibilities.
1) Jeremy would turn up alone and would therefore be killed
2) Jeremy would turn up with the Police and the killer would leave the farm under the cover of darkness.
possibility 2) fits with WPC Jeaves seeing a rifle in the window
possibility 2) fits with the possible sighting of movement in the window
possibility 2) fits with the Police reporting a hunched up man seen leaving shortly after their arrival
If this theory is true then it is highly likely that this person
a) threatened Julie to make her confession
b) was somehow involved in the planting of the silencer
As a theory it fits a lot of known evidence ...
ANYBODY that somehow benefited from Neville and June's estate would have to be on the suspect list if this theory is true.
If it is true then the inheritance would presumably be the motive.
Some of the people who benefited from the inheritance knew the farmhouse and the family well.
Some of these people were very familiar with guns and regularly shooting animals etc.
They may have done it personally or employed a person or persons to do it for them.
-
This person or persons unknown could have killed Jeremy with the others the previous evening so why go to the palaver of the telephone call, which to my mind smacks far more of establishing Jeremy's alibi than any other scenario one could conjecture.
-
This person or persons unknown could have killed Jeremy with the others the previous evening so why go to the palaver of the telephone call, which to my mind smacks far more of establishing Jeremy's alibi than any other scenario one could conjecture.
In the evening everybody would have been awake - including 4 adults.
Very difficult to kill them all without major problems.
It would be much easier when most if not all of them were asleep.
I am not saying this is what happened.
BUT it would explain a few of the unexplained features of this case.
There is NOTHING to rule this theory out.
Therefore it should be considered as a POSSIBILTY.
The only thing we know for sure about this case is there was a very murderous person on the loose that night.
Who that person (or people) was we simply cannot be SURE.
-
Are you SURE you're not making all this up as you go along..
-
Are you SURE you're not making all this up as you go along..
Absolutely SURE.
What holes do you see in the theory then Steve ?
I would love someone to logically state why this theory is not realistically possible.
So far NO ONE can ...
-
Absolutely SURE.
What holes do you see in the theory then Steve ?
I would love someone to logically state why this theory is not realistically possible.
So far NO ONE can ...
I'm no weapons expert as members already know, but I doubt I would have chosen the Anschutz rifle to kill five people, which proved to be messy. The story about the rabbits is controversial to say the least, and the sights removed suggested pre-planning and not a young woman in psychosis, whose fingerprints would have remained on the rifle as proof she was the shooter.
-
I'm no weapons expert as members already know, but I doubt I would have chosen the Anschutz rifle to kill five people, which proved to be messy. The story about the rabbits is controversial to say the least, and the sights removed suggested pre-planning and not a young woman in psychosis, whose fingerprints would have remained on the rifle as proof she was the shooter.
Whoever it was obviously saw the anschutz as the best choice ...
Rabbit shooting was a VERY regular activity on the farm ...
IF Sheila did not do it then it makes the theory MORE likely not LESS likely ...
So can you state any holes in the theory ?
If you cannot then do you accept it is at least POSSIBLE ?
-
Whoever it was obviously saw the anschutz as the best choice ...
Rabbit shooting was a VERY regular activity on the farm ...
IF Sheila did not do it then it makes the theory MORE likely not LESS likely ...
So can you state any holes in the theory ?
If you cannot then do you accept it is at least POSSIBLE ?
I think the relatives were in a quandary post-murders and certainly had they been behind this massacre if that's what you're suggesting they would have planned the affair better. As for other third party involvement, there was no need to kill the twins, who presented no threat to anyone save Jeremy. It really is too awful to contemplate Hannah Arendt's quote: "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."
-
Are you SURE you're not making all this up as you go along..
The theory of a third party being responsible is possible BUT its is extremely improbable so improbable I do not worry about it
-
I think the relatives were in a quandary post-murders and certainly had they been behind this massacre if that's what you're suggesting they would have planned the affair better. As for other third party involvement, there was no need to kill the twins, who presented no threat to anyone save Jeremy. It really is too awful to contemplate Hannah Arendt's quote: "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."
IF it was someone related to the Bambers how could they have planned it better ?
Seems like a perfectly executed plan to me ...
And IF it was one or more of them it worked - they got the money ...
Almost no one suspects them ...
Unless it was Sheila then the motive was most likely money ...
So why rule out the people that actually got all the money ?
I have outlined a theory that explains all the evidence against Jeremy and explains a few of the unexplained "facts" of this case ...
And NO ONE can logically state why the theory is not possible ...
I would love some one to rip holes in the theory ...
But NO ONE can ...
IF it was not Sheila and IF Jeremy is innocent then it is far and away the most likely explanation ...
It is POSSIBLE ...
-
The theory of a third party being responsible is possible BUT its is extremely improbable so improbable I do not worry about it
Are you saying it must have been Sheila or Jeremy ?
If so please try to logically rip holes in my theory ...
I am not at all interested in whether you think it is improbable or not ...
I am however VERY interested in WHY you think it is improbable ...
So please explain your reasons ...
-
IF it was someone related to the Bambers how could they have planned it better ?
Seems like a perfectly executed plan to me ...
And IF it was one or more of them it worked - they got the money ...
Almost no one suspects them ...
Unless it was Sheila then the motive was most likely money ...
So why rule out the people that actually got all the money ?
I have outlined a theory that explains all the evidence against Jeremy and explains a few of the unexplained "facts" of this case ...
And NO ONE can logically state why the theory is not possible ...
I would love some one to rip holes in the theory ...
But NO ONE can ...
IF it was not Sheila and IF Jeremy is innocent then it is far and away the most likely explanation ...
It is POSSIBLE ...
Sheila, it seemed to me, was the least money-oriented person in this whole drama. Why leave Jeremy alive anyway if the relatives or some other third party wished to inherit by default?
-
Are you saying it must have been Sheila or Jeremy ?
If so please try to logically rip holes in my theory ...
I am not at all interested in whether you think it is improbable or not ...
I am however VERY interested in WHY you think it is improbable ...
So please explain your reasons ...
What is the third parties motive?
-
Are you saying it must have been Sheila or Jeremy ?
If so please try to logically rip holes in my theory ...
I am not at all interested in whether you think it is improbable or not ...
I am however VERY interested in WHY you think it is improbable ...
So please explain your reasons ...
Jeremy said he left the gun out near the kitchen, what a coincidence the third party happened to strike on this night.
-
What is the third parties motive?
Most likely money
-
Jeremy said he left the gun out near the kitchen, what a coincidence the third party happened to strike on this night.
It might just be a coincidence ...
One possible person is Anthony - he also knew the gun was there ...
He knew there was a lot of ammunition for it at the farm ...
He was there days before with it at the farm ...
He was shooting an anshulz at the farm a few days before ...
He was an expert marksman - much more so than Jeremy ...
He ended up with a lot of the money ...
He was very much Neville's "second son" ...
He knew as much about the farm and the family as Jeremy ...
Why for example could it not have been Anthony ?
-
Sheila, it seemed to me, was the least money-oriented person in this whole drama. Why leave Jeremy alive anyway if the relatives or some other third party wished to inherit by default?
The theory i outlined involved killing Jeremy ...
When that failed they simply set him up for the murders so he lost his right to inherit ...
They therefore achieved their aim - ie to inherit the money ...
If this crime was for money why suspect Jeremy more than the people who actually got the money ?
They were the ones who "found" the silencer ...
And it would not have been hard for them to persuade Julie to "confess" ...
What other evidence is there that Jeremy was involved in any way ?
None at all really ...
After hearing ALL the evidence the Jury only had 2 questions
One related to the blood in the silencer ...
The second was "if Jeremy is convicted will Robert Boutflour inherit the money ?"
The Jury were totally deceived in relation to their second question ...
And only then convicted on a 10 to 2 majority ...
Ask yourselves why after hearing ALL the evidence the Jury only wanted to know if Robert Boutflour was going to inherit the money - believe me they had their reasons for asking ...
And if they had not been totally deceived on this point then it is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they would NOT have convicted Jeremy Bamber ...
And don't forget that Robert and Anthony basically shared the large inheritance after Jeremy was convicted as they would have done had Jeremy been killed that night along with the rest of his family ...
Why do you therefore rule out the theory ?
-
Sheila, it seemed to me, was the least money-oriented person in this whole drama. Why leave Jeremy alive anyway if the relatives or some other third party wished to inherit by default?
That could explain the call to bring Jeremy to WHF.
-
Jeremy said he left the gun out near the kitchen, what a coincidence the third party happened to strike on this night.
Wherever the gun was it was easily accessible, even from the gun cupboard. Many people testified that Neville was fastidious and would have put the gun away.
-
Wherever the gun was it was easily accessible, even from the gun cupboard. Many people testified that Neville was fastidious and would have put the gun away.
In which case, it has to mean that whoever you are thinking to throw accusations at, must have known that the space under the stairs had been turned into a gun cupboard.
-
Bamber must have taken the silencer off and burned Neville's back after shooting Sheila. As the silencer had Sheila's blood in.
He may have realised on the night, or knew beforehand the he had to take off the silencer after completing the massacre. As the rifle was too long for her.
He could have just left the silencer next to Sheila. But people were already going to ask how did Sheila know how to re load and chamber. People then also asking how Sheila knew how to remove the silencer, just made things worse for him.
Once he had decided to burn Neville's back, he had no option to put the silencer away. If the burn marks were discussed and determined they were from the rifle, there was no way anyone would believe Sheila took the silencer off to inflict them.
-
Bamber either put the silencer away straight after killing Sheila. Then made a spontaneous decision to burn Neville's back with the rifle end prior to leaving.
Or he left the silencer next to Sheila. And went back downstairs with the rifle to check on Neville. He burnt his back three times to check for signs of life. He then correctly changed his mind and decided to put the silencer away. As no one would believe Sheila took the silencer off downstairs to burn Neville's back. Then took it back upstairs with her.
-
In which case, it has to mean that whoever you are thinking to throw accusations at, must have known that the space under the stairs had been turned into a gun cupboard.
They must have known that they would easily find a gun and ammunition readily available ...
And they would have to be very competent with an anschuz rifle ...
-
Bamber either put the silencer away straight after killing Sheila. Then made a spontaneous decision to burn Neville's back with the rifle end prior to leaving.
Or he left the silencer next to Sheila. And went back downstairs with the rifle to check on Neville. He burnt his back three times to check for signs of life. He then correctly changed his mind and decided to put the silencer away. As no one would believe Sheila took the silencer off downstairs to burn Neville's back. Then took it back upstairs with her.
All very interesting Adam ...
But i am more interested that not even you can even begin to put the smallest hole in the theory i have put forward ...
All you can do is put other possibilities ...
Why can't you even begin to put a hole in the theory Adam ?
Or explain why it is not possible ?
Or even explain why it is not likely ?
Now that is interesting Adam ...
-
They must have known that they would easily find a gun and ammunition readily available ...
And they would have to be very competent with an anschuz rifle ...
Where is there proof that Jeremy ever left the gun where he said he did. His cover story needed it to be somewhere in which Sheila's deranged eyes would fall on it, but it's unlikely that any of the three remaining adults would have left a gun laying around. If Jeremy left it anywhere, I suspect it would have been in a place where he could easily lay hands on it later, which may -or not- have been the gun cupboard.
-
Where is there proof that Jeremy ever left the gun where he said he did. His cover story needed it to be somewhere in which Sheila's deranged eyes would fall on it, but it's unlikely that any of the three remaining adults would have left a gun laying around. If Jeremy left it anywhere, I suspect it would have been in a place where he could easily lay hands on it later, which may -or not- have been the gun cupboard.
It is possible Jeremy left the gun out ...
I would be shocked if Neville had not put it away in the gun cupboard ...
Only because his grandchildren were in the house ...
But if this theory is correct then the person or people would have known they would find an anshuz and ammunition in the gun cupboard ...
Anthony was there days before paying great attention to were the 2 anshuz rifles and ammunition were ...
Read his own statement about it - it's in the forum ...
He claims that he took his own anshuz rifle away on that occasion ...
Coincidence - maybe ...
Maybe not ...
-
All very interesting Adam ...
But i am more interested that not even you can even begin to put the smallest hole in the theory i have put forward ...
All you can do is put other possibilities ...
Why can't you even begin to put a hole in the theory Adam ?
Or explain why it is not possible ?
Or even explain why it is not likely ?
Now that is interesting Adam ...
This is a thread about Neville's burnt back.
What theory is that ? That the relatives killed the family to make it look like murder/suicide. Then framed Bamber afterwards ? This is certainly a new theory.
-
It is possible Jeremy left the gun out ...
I would be shocked if Neville had not put it away in the gun cupboard ...
Only because his grandchildren were in the house ...
But if this theory is correct then the person or people would have known they would find an anshuz and ammunition in the gun cupboard ...
Anthony was there days before paying great attention to were the 2 anshuz rifles and ammunition were ...
Read his own statement about it - it's in the forum ...
He claims that he took his own anshuz rifle away on that occasion ...
Coincidence - maybe ...
Maybe not ...
Unless he was working as Jeremy's accomplice, what would have been AP's motive for wiping out the entire family?
-
Everyone is in agreement with Bamber that Neville's burns are from the rifle minus the silencer.
There is no way Neville would accidentially inflict three injuries on his back in the same location. And no way anyone else would prior to the massacre.
One option is Bamber used one of the other rifles to burn Neville. The murder weapon was by now lying on top of Sheila. The gun cupboard was close to the kitchen, aga and Neville and there were a lot of available guns.
-
Everyone is in agreement with Bamber that Neville's burns are from the rifle minus the silencer.
There is no way Neville would accidentially inflict three injuries on his back in the same location. And no way anyone else would prior to the massacre.
One option is Bamber used one of the other rifles to burn Neville. The murder weapon was by now lying on top of Sheila. The gun cupboard was close to the kitchen, aga and Neville and there were a lot of available guns.
But it's very possible that a doctor/surgeon MAY have to remove small growths.
-
But it's very possible that a doctor/surgeon MAY have to remove small growths.
That's something that's never been mentioned before.
I have to still agree with Bamber. Unless I see a source that Neville had three small growths removed from his back, in the same location. And see images that removing these causes scars that look just like a gun marks.
-
That's something that's never been mentioned before.
I have to still agree with Bamber. Unless I see a source that Neville had three small growths removed from his back, in the same location. And see images that removing these causes scars that look just like a gun marks.
That would be the same as the source which tells us that June was being treated for depression at the time of her death, would it? Doctors don't usually divulge -patient confidentiality- and IF those three wounds had nothing to do with the massacre there'd be no reason for anything to be said about them.
Incidentally, it HAS been previously mentioned because it was I who mentioned it as a possibility.
-
That would be the same as the source which tells us that June was being treated for depression at the time of her death, would it? Doctors don't usually divulge -patient confidentiality- and IF those three wounds had nothing to do with the massacre there'd be no reason for anything to be said about them.
Incidentally, it HAS been previously mentioned because it was I who mentioned it as a possibility.
I don't know anything about those claims about June.
Everyone agrees with Bamber, after his Arizona tests that the burn marks were caused by a rifle end. Although Bamber will not agree with the certainty that he inflicted the marks. There is no way Sheila would do it. Thread already created.
However if there is a source that people can have three growths in the same location, and removing them causes scars that look just like a rifle burn, that would be very interesting.
-
I don't know anything about those claims about June.
Everyone agrees with Bamber, after his Arizona tests that the burn marks were caused by a rifle end. Although Bamber will not agree with the certainty that he inflicted the marks. There is no way Sheila would do it. Thread already created.
However if there is a source that people can have three growths in the same location, and removing them causes scars that look just like a rifle burn, that would be very interesting.
Well, to be fair to Jeremy, he's hardly going to say that he didn't inflict the burn marks because they'd occurred when Nevill had had moles/warts removed. I've had cause to see numerous patches of skin that have had "things" removed. I would guess that one burn, in the process of healing/not being freshly new, would look much like any other.
-
But it's very possible that a doctor/surgeon MAY have to remove small growths.
It is very possible Jane but I would query a doctor would remove a growth by burning it off. I ma be wrong but I was under the impression such moles or growths were usually cut out.
-
It is very possible Jane but I would query a doctor would remove a growth by burning it off. I ma be wrong but I was under the impression such moles or growths were usually cut out.
I've had one frozen off, Maggie. It caused a burn. I've sent 5 clients to their doctors over the years because of scalp areas which have troubled me. I've been right 4 times and they have been cut out under general anaesthetic. I don't believe the the 5th person took my advice.
-
I've had one frozen off, Maggie. It caused a burn. I've sent 5 clients to their doctors over the years because of scalp areas which have troubled me. I've been right 4 times and they have been cut out under general anaesthetic. I don't believe the the 5th person took my advice.
Really? I didn't know they did that but it sounds a better option than the knife :o
-
Surely a pathologist would have been able to tell if they'd been recent procedures which were performed on Neville's back/neck,either by cauterization or" razor",depending what the growths were. ? Local anaesthetics are usually given, and results set to the lab.
Only Neville's case notes would solve that one.
-
Surely a pathologist would have been able to tell if they'd been recent procedures which were performed on Neville's back/neck,either by cauterization or" razor",depending what the growths were. ? Local anaesthetics are usually given, and results set to the lab.
Only Neville's case notes would solve that one.
I know that "locals" are used on sebaceous cysts which really only require draining -although my father had one removed with no anaesthetic but scalp legions have to be cut out and until they begin, they're not always certain of how wide or deep a cut will be required. There is also the point that scalps bleed profusely which could cause distress to the patient, raising blood pressure and causing more bleeding.
-
Surely a pathologist would have been able to tell if they'd been recent procedures which were performed on Neville's back/neck,either by cauterization or" razor",depending what the growths were. ? Local anaesthetics are usually given, and results set to the lab.
Only Neville's case notes would solve that one.
'Razor'! Lookout.... ew!, ew! :o makes me feel ill. :'( :'( ;D
-
Unless he was working as Jeremy's accomplice, what would have been AP's motive for wiping out the entire family?
Because Jeremy was convicted Anthony inherited half the money ...
As he would have done if Jeremy had been killed that night ...
So his motive would have been money ...
It is possible he acted as Jeremy's accomplice ...
It is also possible he acted alone and wanted Jeremy dead or convicted ...
-
Because Jeremy was convicted Anthony inherited half the money ...
As he would have done if Jeremy had been killed that night ...
So his motive would have been money ...
It is possible he acted as Jeremy's accomplice ...
It is also possible he acted alone and wanted Jeremy dead or convicted ...
I was aware that after court proceedings(?) AP got something. Are you saying he got half of the approximate £450,000?
-
Because Jeremy was convicted Anthony inherited half the money ...
As he would have done if Jeremy had been killed that night ...
So his motive would have been money ...
It is possible he acted as Jeremy's accomplice ...
It is also possible he acted alone and wanted Jeremy dead or convicted ...
I have always had anirrational feeling that AP was involved someway but although there is a slight possibility he could have been there is little or nothing concrete pointing in his direction :-\
-
The legal position was unclear and to avoid years of legal entanglement it was agreed that Pamela would inherit all of June's estate and Anthony and Jackie the same with Nevill's, so Anthony essentially inherited a quarter of the whole legacy.
-
The legal position was unclear and to avoid years of legal entanglement it was agreed that Pamela would inherit all of June's estate and Anthony and Jackie the same with Nevill's, so Anthony essentially inherited a quarter of the whole legacy.
Thank-you, Steve.
-
Even AP came near to being fleeced. Didn't he go to court for what he was owed ? I wonder how that happened ?
-
I have always had anirrational feeling that AP was involved someway but although there is a slight possibility he could have been there is little or nothing concrete pointing in his direction :-\
AP has always been a bit of mystery.
-
Even AP came near to being fleeced. Didn't he go to court for what he was owed ? I wonder how that happened ?
Wasn't he the one with the alleged drugs problem and didn't the poor boy go on to blow what money he had on a bar in Ibiza?
-
Wasn't he the one with the alleged drugs problem and didn't the poor boy go on to blow what money he had on a bar in Ibiza?
No that was cousin Roland, though Anthony did end up in Ibiza courtesy of Jeremy.
-
Wasn't he the one with the alleged drugs problem and didn't the poor boy go on to blow what money he had on a bar in Ibiza?
I thought he was doing well in Ibiza,with his own property and bar/restaurant,so it didn't all go on drugs. He even invited a couple of EP officers there when they questioned him ( all very amicable,of course ) I wouldn't have called him poor either.
How many more of them had drug problems ? ::)
-
The legal position was unclear and to avoid years of legal entanglement it was agreed that Pamela would inherit all of June's estate and Anthony and Jackie the same with Nevill's, so Anthony essentially inherited a quarter of the whole legacy.
Why didn't Colin Inherit anything? For argument sake if he argued that Jeremy could have killed the Twins last would that not make him the sole beneficiary if true?
-
AP has always been a bit of mystery.
I do agree David. He was at the farm the week before the massacre and practised target shooting at the back of the barn with Jeremy. He regarded himself as Nevill and June's second son because his mother (Nevill's sister) died when he was very young and his father travelled a lot with his job. Most of his holidays from boarding school were spent with Nevill and June.
Have always thought, when it is claimed adamantly that JB is a psychopath and I don't deny he may be, that there was no real proof he is anymore than AP may be, quite simply we do not know.
-
I thought he was doing well in Ibiza,with his own property and bar/restaurant,so it didn't all go on drugs. He even invited a couple of EP officers there when they questioned him ( all very amicable,of course ) I wouldn't have called him poor either.
How many more of them had drug problems ? ::)
As far as we know don't think he particularly had a drug problem, Lookout.
-
Why didn't Colin Inherit anything? For argument sake if he argued that Jeremy could have killed the Twins last would that not make him the sole beneficiary if true?
This is where time of death comes in----------which there wasn't ! This has always annoyed me greatly because it's the first thing that's carried out.
I notice that the relatives didn't force that issue !!
-
Why didn't Colin Inherit anything? For argument sake if he argued that Jeremy could have killed the Twins last would that not make him the sole beneficiary if true?
I have heard contrary stories about whether it's the last person to have been killed whose wishes are granted but in this case from what I have read the eldest person to have been killed takes priority, and as June was older than Nevill by a few days her wishes had pre-eminence. It must have been dodgy legal advice because in this scenario everything went to Pamela, but she must have been instructed that this could have been challenged legally, hence the compromise that was made.
-
I have heard contrary stories about whether it's the last person to have been killed whose wishes are granted but in this case from what I have read the eldest person to have been killed takes priority, and as June was older than Nevill by a few days her wishes had pre-eminence. It must have been dodgy legal advice because in this scenario everything went to Pamela, but she must have been instructed that this could have been challenged legally, hence the compromise that was made.
Just to clarify: the estate was essentially made up of June and Nevill's fortune, amounting to a combined total of £436,000. Nevill's estate was willed to his wife, so upon the deaths of five it was June's next of kin who stood to inherit, her sister Pamela Boutflour.
-
The will should have followed the rules of someone dying intestate. That would have shaken things up a bit. This is where you get such terms as " per sterpes " along with all the other jargon that follows.
-
The will should have followed the rules of someone dying intestate. That would have shaken things up a bit. This is where you get such terms as " per sterpes " along with all the other jargon that follows.
The problem with per sterpes here was that Sheila didn't have anything to leave in her own right, nor did the twins, and of course with Sheila and Colin being divorced Sheila's next of kin were Nevill and June. I assume that with the death of June and Sheila being the main beneficiary of her mother's will that had the boys survived they would then have had a claim.
-
Just to clarify: the estate was essentially made up of June and Nevill's fortune, amounting to a combined total of £436,000. Nevill's estate was willed to his wife, so upon the deaths of five it was June's next of kin who stood to inherit, her sister Pamela Boutflour.
I think you are wrong. If a person dies intestate then inheritance goes to the children. However in this case both Neville and June had written wills that gave the bulk of the estate to Jeremy. Only 10% for Sheila and some minor sums for the relatives. Pamela Boutflour would only ever be the beneficiary if she were named or if June and Neville had no children. The fact that they were adopted makes no difference.
-
You're right,lebaleb,as my late husband and myself found that out in 1986 when his sister suddenly died.
As per the law/rules,he'd always thought that he was next of kin to his sister after the loss of the eldest brother,but it didn't/doesn't work out that way.
It was the children of the eldest ( deceased ) brother who benefitted,where no will was found ( and believe me the solicitor nearly broke his neck looking everywhere for a will ) This was a family who the sister was never very close to---------but the law was the law and the estate was divided between the children/adults and my late husband and I.
The family solicitor left the room so that husband and I could have a good swear.We had been attending the poor woman during her short illness,nobody else went near just because she was " eccentric ".
The private doctor who we'd sent for had diagnosed muscle pain in her back and left painkillers. I rang for an ambulance,urgently at 4pm in the afternoon when she was vomiting,and at 8.20,the ambulance arrived----------the call having been forgotten !! A 999 one at that. Then at 3am the following morning,the 59 year old was dead.If anyone could have sued for incompetency,it was us,but we were too upset to deal with anything other than the shock of the death of a beautiful woman.
-
I think you are wrong. If a person dies intestate then inheritance goes to the children. However in this case both Neville and June had written wills that gave the bulk of the estate to Jeremy. Only 10% for Sheila and some minor sums for the relatives. Pamela Boutflour would only ever be the beneficiary if she were named or if June and Neville had no children. The fact that they were adopted makes no difference.
I think this is a common misconception, though I await correction. The main estate was made up of Nevill and June's cash deposits(as it turned out they had very similar amounts in liquid assets) which totalled £436,000, which I'm guessing would be worth around £3 million today. Remember that the Bambers were tenants so didn't own the White House Farm building. Nevill had left his money not to Jeremy but to June,so if as was likely in the natural scheme of things Nevill died before June then it would be June in the driving seat, so to speak. As far as I'm aware June had left her money to Sheila, so the only way Jeremy could inherit the total amount was to do away with all of them, as is what happened.
-
I think this is a common misconception, though I await correction. The main estate was made up of Nevill and June's cash deposits(as it turned out they had very similar amounts in liquid assets) which totalled £436,000, which I'm guessing would be worth around £3 million today. Remember that the Bambers were tenants so didn't own the White House Farm building. Nevill had left his money not to Jeremy but to June,so if as was likely in the natural scheme of things Nevill died before June then it would be June in the driving seat, so to speak. As far as I'm aware June had left her money to Sheila, so the only way Jeremy could inherit the total amount was to do away with all of them, as is what happened.
£1.25 Million
-
Something which really got my back up on re-reading AE's COLP statement was the fact that she seemed miffed to be doing it as she " didn't wish to be reminded of the tragedy ". What ? She was living in the damn place where the tragedy happened ! Couldn't get there quick enough.
-
I think this is a common misconception, though I await correction. The main estate was made up of Nevill and June's cash deposits(as it turned out they had very similar amounts in liquid assets) which totalled £436,000, which I'm guessing would be worth around £3 million today. Remember that the Bambers were tenants so didn't own the White House Farm building. Nevill had left his money not to Jeremy but to June,so if as was likely in the natural scheme of things Nevill died before June then it would be June in the driving seat, so to speak. As far as I'm aware June had left her money to Sheila, so the only way Jeremy could inherit the total amount was to do away with all of them, as is what happened.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3773.0;attach=28056;image)
-
£1.25 Million
Depends how you calculate the value of 1985 money into today's value ...
There are many different ways of doing this that will give you very different values ...
For example Julie bought a flat in London with her £25,000
That flat today must be worth £500,000
At that rate the inheritance would be worth over 8 million pounds in today's money ...
What is certain is that in 1985 the inheritance could have brought almost 20 flats in central London ...
There was a lot less money about in the 1980's than today ...
Big money was a lot harder to make then than now - there were far less opportunities to do so ...
The Bamber inheritance was a huge fortune whatever way you look at it ...
-
https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo
This is the video regarding Neville's back burns. Saying it was caused on the night. Bamber's legal team saying it was caused by the rifle without the silencer attached. Which all means nothing except for highlighting Bamber's guilt, as there is no way Sheila would have been composed enough to stop and do this.
It also is another source saying Bamber was the one who saw the window movement.
An indeoendent expert Mick Gradwell says the evidence quite significantly points to Bamber's guilt.
I agree with Simon Mckay when he says it would be the biggest MOJ ever. It seems the best he was going for was to show the conviction was unsafe.
-
https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo
This is the video regarding Neville's back burns. Saying it was caused on the night. Bamber's legal team saying it was caused by the rifle without the silencer attached. Which all means nothing except for highlighting Bamber's guilt, as there is no way Sheila would have been composed enough to stop and do this.
What makes you believe that?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7341.msg347887.html#msg347887
It's preposturous to believe Sheila took the silencer off to burn Neville's back. Then put it back on and got someone else to shoot her twice so her blood was in the silencer. Then whoever shot her then took the silencer off and put it away.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7341.msg347887.html#msg347887
It's preposturous to believe Sheila took the silencer off to burn Neville's back. Then put it back on and got someone else to shoot her twice so her blood was in the silencer. Then whoever shot her then took the silencer off and put it away.
Since Jeremy said he left the rifle in the scullery without a silencer. The marks on Neville corroborate what Jeremy has said. It also makes no sense for Jeremy to inflict those wounds, Neville was shot multiple times in the head, who in their right mind would need to check if he is still alive? Only someone out of their right mind - Sheila.
-
My thread post already says why Bamber chose to just burn Neville's back.
Bamber would tell the police he left the rifle out without the silencer. Because he knew he had taken it off after the massacre.
So Sheila in her crazy rage has now burnt Neville's back. After Neville.phoned Bamber. Was that after or before she had a shower, got changed, got the bible, read the bible, wrote a suicide note and killed everyone else,
How did Sheila's blood get into the silencer ?
-
Just watching a documentary on the Menendez brothers.
They shot their mother and father several times with a shot gun. In the head, knee cap and torso. Then rang the police.
They both disliked their rich parents and then spent freely straight after the massacre.
The police made the mistake of not testing the hands of the brothers for gun shot residue on the night.
Unlike Bamber, both eventually admitted their crimes.
-
Just watching a documentary on the Menendez brothers.
They shot their mother and father several times with a shot gun. In the head, knee cap and torso. Then rang the police.
They both disliked their rich parents and then spent freely straight after the massacre.
The police made the mistake of not testing the hands of the brothers for gun shot residue on the night.
Unlike Bamber, both eventually admitted their crimes.
So you like to make comparisons to other crimes? Two can play at that game 8)
Several other researchers have confirmed some of Resnick’s (1969, 1970) findings. For instance, Marleau, Roy, Laporte, Webanck, and Poulin (1995) examined a sample of 17 women who killed or attempted to kill their children, concluding that most of the women had a history of mental illness and killed for ‘‘altruistic’’ reasons. Rohde, Raic, Varchmin- Schultheib, and Marneros (1998) investigated 33 cases of child murder and found that 9 cases involved ‘‘extended suicide,’’ that is, a type of filicide whereby the mother experiences suicidal ideation, which is carried out on her children. Of the 9 cases, 78% involved mental illness, with 44% involving some form of psychosis (Rohde et al., 1998). These findings suggest that filicide involves a common theme of mental illness, and in many cases psychosis, which is much different than simply ‘‘not wanting’’ the child, as is usually the case with mothers in the neonaticide group.
Clinical features of parricide in patients with schizophrenia
In terms of denial, the psychotic individual exhibits a ‘‘complete lack of concern, anxiety, or emotional reaction about an immediate, serious, pressing need, conflict, or danger in [his or her] life’’ (Kernberg, 1984, p. 17). An example of denial includes a psychotic individual, who just murdered someone, with a complete lack of remorse or emotional reaction to the gravity of his or her action. Finally, with regard to omnipotence and devaluation, the psychotic individual experiences an exaggerated, inflated, grandiose self, and an emotionally degrading view of others (Kernberg, 1984). For example, the psychotic individual may believe that he or she is the ‘‘messiah,’’ or has some sort of special mission from God, and is responsible for killing ‘‘evil’’ people.
Motives for maternal filicide: Results from a study
with female forensic patients
16 of the 20 cases of filicide offenders were found to have psychiatric symptoms prior to their crime (Farooque & Ernst, 2003; Meyer & Oberman, 2001). Marks (1996) showed in his study of 45 mothers who killed their newborns that 77% used non wounding violence, such as suffocating and drowning. In contrast, women who killed older children tended to use more violent methods, such as killing by shaking, throwing to the ground, hitting, srangling, stabbing, and shooting
Motives for maternal filicide: Results from a study
with female forensic patients
-
So you like to make comparisons to other crimes? Two can play at that game 8)
Several other researchers have confirmed some of Resnick’s (1969, 1970) findings. For instance, Marleau, Roy, Laporte, Webanck, and Poulin (1995) examined a sample of 17 women who killed or attempted to kill their children, concluding that most of the women had a history of mental illness and killed for ‘‘altruistic’’ reasons. Rohde, Raic, Varchmin- Schultheib, and Marneros (1998) investigated 33 cases of child murder and found that 9 cases involved ‘‘extended suicide,’’ that is, a type of filicide whereby the mother experiences suicidal ideation, which is carried out on her children. Of the 9 cases, 78% involved mental illness, with 44% involving some form of psychosis (Rohde et al., 1998). These findings suggest that filicide involves a common theme of mental illness, and in many cases psychosis, which is much different than simply ‘‘not wanting’’ the child, as is usually the case with mothers in the neonaticide group.
Clinical features of parricide in patients with schizophrenia
In terms of denial, the psychotic individual exhibits a ‘‘complete lack of concern, anxiety, or emotional reaction about an immediate, serious, pressing need, conflict, or danger in [his or her] life’’ (Kernberg, 1984, p. 17). An example of denial includes a psychotic individual, who just murdered someone, with a complete lack of remorse or emotional reaction to the gravity of his or her action. Finally, with regard to omnipotence and devaluation, the psychotic individual experiences an exaggerated, inflated, grandiose self, and an emotionally degrading view of others (Kernberg, 1984). For example, the psychotic individual may believe that he or she is the ‘‘messiah,’’ or has some sort of special mission from God, and is responsible for killing ‘‘evil’’ people.
Motives for maternal filicide: Results from a study
with female forensic patients
16 of the 20 cases of filicide offenders were found to have psychiatric symptoms prior to their crime (Farooque & Ernst, 2003; Meyer & Oberman, 2001). Marks (1996) showed in his study of 45 mothers who killed their newborns that 77% used non wounding violence, such as suffocating and drowning. In contrast, women who killed older children tended to use more violent methods, such as killing by shaking, throwing to the ground, hitting, srangling, stabbing, and shooting
Motives for maternal filicide: Results from a study
with female forensic patients
..and how many of these women had a brother determined to kill not just her children but their whole family as well?
-
And where is the updated research? Most of David's statistically quoted evidence is from the 80's and 90's and doesn't take into account those individuals whom have murdered and remained in 'denial.' There's also the confirmation bias of the 'expert' who collated the material in the first instance to take into consideration IMHO.