Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on November 23, 2016, 09:27:AM
-
Firstly thank you to the poster who gave an account of how Sheila could have committed the massacre. Supporters usually refuse point blank to do this, and refuse to answer questions on how Sheila committed the massacre. Or give very basic accounts such as 'by shooting them'.
Anyway the new explanation is below and deserves to be looked at.
" After Sheila fires several rounds at the twins, Neville realises he cannot handle the situation and proceeds to call for assistance (Jeremy and Police) from the kitchen phone. While Neville is on the phone June is in bed awake, but too afraid of what is happening to get out. Sheila then goes to the gun cupboard to reload the weapon. Once reloaded she goes back upstairs to the main bedroom and fires a volley of bullets at June. The sound of gunshots and June screaming prompts Neville to leave the phone and run towards the stairs. While Neville is rushing up the stairs, Sheila is in the main bedroom close to the hallway and fires the remaining four bullets in the magazine at Neville. Neville then retreats back towards the kitchen badly injured he staggers across the kitchen then collapses were his body was found. Sheila then goes back to the gun cupboard to reload for the final time. Finds Neville injured and slumped near the cooker, then fires the three more shots to Nevilles head. Then she makes her way back upstairs to fire the remaining two shots to Junes head. Then finally turns the gun on herself as the police are about the break the door down. "
-
The explanation states Neville was already up and awake, although still bare footed and in pyjamas when Sheila opened fire on the twins.
Neville had obviously not attempted to get the rifle off Sheila beforehand, and then allowed her to go into the twins bedroom and open fire. June was awake but apparently too afraid to assist Neville or the twins.
Neville watches Sheila open fire into the heads of the twins. However still decides to not attempt to restrain Sheila. Instead allowing the twins to die while he goes downstairs and spends several minutes ringing a 'sleeping like a log' Bamber'. Then the police 16 minutes later.
No request is made by Neville for medical assistance to Bamber or the police.
Sheila for some reason had only fired 8 of the 11 bullets into the twins, before deciding to reload. Neville does not notice Sheila reloading. Or does notice and does nothing, preferring to wait for Bamber and then the police 16 minutes later to answer the phone.
Sheila firing 8 bullets into the twins and then reloading takes well over 16 minutes, as Neville has by now rang and said 11 words to Bamber, and rang and spoken to the police 16 minutes later.
June has still not left the bed, although the twins have been shot and Sheila has been downstairs reloading for over 16 minutes.
June is laying down with her head on the pillow as Sheila goes back upstairs and fires into June's head and body. There is no evidence of any resistance from June.
Neville has let Sheila re load and go back upstairs with a fully loaded rifle. Or had not noticed Sheila doing this over the last 16 minutes.
Neville has excellent ears and when hearing upstairs gun shots finally decides to confront Sheila. It is a tradedy and massive error that Neville did not confront Sheila pre shooting.
Neville rushes upstairs unprotected, barefooted and in pyjamas.
Upon arriving upstairs Sheila accurately fires four bullets into a moving target. Two shots hitting Neville's head.
Despite rushing upstairs to confront Sheila and Neville's upstairs shots being from close range, he still does not physically confront Sheila, but instead runs straight back downstairs.
Although there is a mass of evidence of a brutal kitchen fight - bruises, abrasions, black eyes, broken nose, broken rifle stock, bloodied rifle, broken watch, smashed and upturned furniture, Neville apparently just collapses when arriving in the kitchen and there is no fight.
After firing several final shots into a dead/immobilised June and Neville, Sheila for some unexplained reason decides to stay awake until the raid team enter WHF. Which is convinient for supporters.
_______________
Obviously these are many obstacles in this account of how Sheila committed the massacre. But if these can be overcome, maybe there was a way for Sheila to have committed the massacre.
One option is to say Neville did not call the police. However only Sherlock and Holly from Red have agreed this did not happen. But never too late to amend. You're calls.
-
The explanation states Neville was already up and awake, although still bare footed and in pyjamas when Sheila opened fire on the twins.
Neville had obviously not attempted to get the rifle off Sheila beforehand, and then allowed her to go into the twins bedroom and open fire. June was awake but apparently too afraid to assist Neville or the twins.
Neville watches Sheila open fire into the heads of the twins. However still decides to not attempt to restrain Sheila. Instead allowing the twins to die while he goes downstairs and spends several minutes ringing a 'sleeping like a log' Bamber'. Then the police 16 minutes later.
No request is made by Neville for medical assistance to Bamber or the police.
Sheila for some reason had only fired 8 of the 11 bullets into the twins, before deciding to reload. Neville does not notice Sheila reloading. Or does notice and does nothing, preferring to wait for Bamber and then the police 16 minutes later to answer the phone.
Sheila firing 8 bullets into the twins and then reloading takes well over 16 minutes, as Neville has by now rang and said 11 words to Bamber, and rang and spoken to the police 16 minutes later.
June has still not left the bed, although the twins have been shot and Sheila has been downstairs reloading for over 16 minutes.
June is laying down with her head on the pillow as Sheila goes back upstairs and fires into June's head and body. There is no evidence of any resistance from June.
Neville has let Sheila re load and go back upstairs with a fully loaded rifle. Or had not noticed Sheila doing this over the last 16 minutes.
Neville has excellent ears and when hearing upstairs gun shots finally decides to confront Sheila. It is a tradedy and massive error that Neville did not confront Sheila pre shooting.
Neville rushes upstairs unprotected, barefooted and in pyjamas.
Upon arriving upstairs Sheila accurately fires four bullets into a moving target. Two shots hitting Neville's head.
Despite rushing upstairs to confront Sheila and Neville's upstairs shots being from close range, he still does not physically confront Sheila, but instead runs straight back downstairs.
Although there is a mass of evidence of a brutal kitchen fight - bruises, abrasions, black eyes, broken nose, broken rifle stock, bloodied rifle, broken watch, smashed and upturned furniture, Neville apparently just collapses when arriving in the kitchen and there is no fight.
After firing several final shots into a dead/immobilised June and Neville, Sheila for some unexplained reason decides to stay awake until the raid team enter WHF. Which is convinient for supporters.
_______________
Obviously these are many obstacles in this account of how Sheila committed the massacre. But if these can be overcome, maybe there was a way for Sheila to have committed the massacre.
One option is to say Neville did not call the police. However only Sherlock and Holly from Red have agreed this did not happen. But never too late to amend. You're calls.
Having skimmed through this, there are no obstacles.
June being in bed has two explanations. Either A) She was awake but too afraid to get out or B)was on her sleeping pills.
You say it would take over 16 minutes to reload the weapon? what was it a musket?
-
Having skimmed through this, there are no obstacles.
June being in bed has two explanations. Either A) She was awake but too afraid to get out or B)was on her sleeping pills.
You say it would take over 16 minutes to reload the weapon? what was it a musket?
Obviously you have to do more than skim through it and then claim 'there are no obstacles' without justifying this claim. I didn't do this with you're account.
You said Sheila re loaded while Neville was phoning Bamber and the police. There was a 16 minute gap between these phone calls. As stated by Bamber. Each call would have also taken several minutes to complete.
Have you got a source that June took sleeping pills ? Supporters have said June was a light sleeper and would have heard Bamber. But if awake, as you're account says, she must have completely fozen and offerred no resistance or assistance.
-
Another issue with the proposed account is that it says Neville went to phone Bamber and then the police after Sheila had started shooting the twins. Sheila also reloaded while Neville was making these phone calls.
Phoning Bamber at 3.10am would have taken between 2 - 5 minutes. Dependant totally on how long it was before Bamber answered the phone, as only 11 words were said once answered.
This means there is a period of between 11 and 14 minutes before Neville then called the police at 3.26am. Was Neville just watching Sheila re load for this period. If not, what was he doing ?
-
Hopefully there will be some opinions on this new proposed scenario. From both camps.
I invited Lookout to contribute today as she has never discussed how Sheila committed the massacre, but my invitation was declined.
David said he skim read my 15 obstacles, didn't address any of them and claimed his account had no obstacles. Which is disappointing.
It is a big issue when a supporter gives an account of how Sheila could have committed the massacre. As supporters and former supporters always refuse point blank to get drawn on this.
Only Mike, Sherlock and David have attempted accounts. Mike's was very brief, just saying 'by shooting them'. Sherlock amended his account and agreed Neville did not phone the police after his account was questioned.
Hopefully David will put forward 15 good counter arguments to my points or be flexible in amending his account.
-
Another issue with the proposed account is that it says Neville went to phone Bamber and then the police after Sheila had started shooting the twins. Sheila also reloaded while Neville was making these phone calls.
Phoning Bamber at 3.10am would have taken between 2 - 5 minutes. Dependant totally on how long it was before Bamber answered the phone, as only 11 words were said once answered.
This means there is a period of between 11 and 14 minutes before Neville then called the police at 3.26am. Was Neville just watching Sheila re load for this period. If not, what was he doing ?
I don't believe Neville rang the police. Problem solved
-
I don't believe Neville rang the police. Problem solved
Then you must believe Jeremy is guilty.
-
Then you must believe Jeremy is guilty.
Explain.
-
I don't believe Neville rang the police. Problem solved
Great. That's a start. It was always wildly optimistic for Bamber to make this claim 24 years after the event. Although he didn't include it in his CCRC application.
My 15 obstacles are still valid, the only difference is Sheila spent 2 - 5 minutes reloading after shooting the twins. Neville phoning Bamber while Sheila was reloading.
-
Explain.
Oh you believe Nevill rang Jeremy first but not the Police? You believe Nevill got to a phone that morning? Well that's up to you..
-
Oh you believe Nevill rang Jeremy first but not the Police? You believe Nevill got to a phone that morning? Well that's up to you..
I believe so not because I take Jeremy's word for it, but because the forensic evidence indirectly shows it took place.
-
It's good that a supporter has agreed that Bamber did not ring the police. I have often offerred people the opportunity to refute this claim from the CT. But supporters still say that the police deliberatly did not tell Bamber Neville had called them. Not even Taff Jones. It's really more loyal to agree with the 2012 CCRC application, which does not include this claim.
Anyway my 15 obstacles still exist. The main difference is Sheila spent 2 - 5 minutes reloading while Neville was ringing Bamber. Rather than 16 minutes.
It will be good if me and David can get some assistance. There is a lot to go through.
-
It's good that a supporter has agreed that Bamber did not ring the police. I have often offerred people the opportunity to refute this claim from the CT. But supporters still say that the police deliberatly did not tell Bamber Neville had called them. Not even Taff Jones. It's really more loyal to agree with the 2012 CCRC application, which does not include this claim.
Anyway my 15 obstacles still exist. The main difference is Sheila spent 2 - 5 minutes reloading while Neville was ringing Bamber. Rather than 16 minutes.
It will be good if me and David can get some assistance. There is a lot to go through.
There is not much to go through at all.
-
In conclusion, everyone should be pleased that a new scenario of how Sheila could have committed the massacre was created. Which is something which has hardly ever been offerred.
This scenario is a lot more detailed than Mike's, which just said 'by shooting them'. However there are at least 15 major flaws which have not been tackled. Not even by other supporters. Which is a shame as everyone wants to give a credible account of how Sheila could have committed the massacre.
I did ask another supporter to contribute, or simply agreed with the suggestion that Neville rang Bamber after Sheila started shooting the sleeping twins. But got no response. Some progress was made when it was agreed that Neville did not ring the police. Agreed by one poster anyway.
-
In conclusion, everyone should be pleased that a new scenario of how Sheila could have committed the massacre was created. Which is something which has hardly ever been offerred.
This scenario is a lot more detailed than Mike's, which just said 'by shooting them'. However there are at least 15 major flaws which have not been tackled. Not even by other supporters. Which is a shame as everyone wants to give a credible account of how Sheila could have committed the massacre.
I did ask another supporter to contribute, or simply agreed with the suggestion that Neville rang Bamber after Sheila started shooting the sleeping twins. But got no response. Some progress was made when it was agreed that Neville did not ring the police. Agreed by one poster anyway.
I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.
That should extinguish many of your "obstacles".
-
I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.
That should extinguish many of your "obstacles".
Only one of the 15 obstacles mentions the kitchen fight. Point 14.
-
There has been another proposed account that was posted on another forum yesterday. Credit to Samson over at IA.
Sheila was not up all night, she went to bed as usual.
However, she felt her period begin, and rose to deal with it.
Finding significant blood staining, she went to the kitchen with her knickers and filled a new bucket with water to soak the garment.
She made enough noise, filling it, or putting the heavy bucket on the floor, to alert Nevill, who at 3 am not only was alarmed sufficiently by noise to investigate a possible intruder, but remembered that gun in the kitchen.
At this point I will remind everyone of a representative passage from Carol Anne Lee.
‘We had coffee at the kitchen table, just the three of us. Sheila was at the head, opposite the door, where she usually sat, I was on her left and her mother was on her right. For a while she just sat there, looking very weak. Mrs Bamber and I were chatting and suddenly Sheila said: “All people are bad and deserve to be killed.” She just came out with it. But she wasn’t herself anyway. Her eyes would look right past you. I only saw her once more after that. I was indoors, watching her cross the yard. The geese were about – perishing things, they used to cackle and chase people. But on this particular occasion I saw Sheila walking across the yard, her body and legs very stiff, staring straight ahead. She moved through the geese as if they weren’t there.’
This is the Sheila of mid 1986, taciturn, catatonic, alarming.
What occurred in that kitchen is speculative, but Jeremy has told us of the fractious conversations earlier in the evening.
How did going crazy manifest itself, was there much said? Clues can be wrested from the fact June never woke up again.
There was not enough to wake the "light sleeping" June, though 3 am is a time when sleep is now deep.
As Sheila glides up the stairs Nevill is phoning Jeremy. He takes a while to answer , and by the time he does, Sheila has figured how to load that gun, and the shooting begins.
Nevill gets to the top of the stairs, and takes those terrible and debilitating wounds to his face, turns, and as the last two bullets catch his left arm from behind, slithers to his resting place in the coal scuttle. Sheila beats him or reloads to finish. It is irrelevant what injuries besides gun shots were inflicted, she is capable of everything without a blemish to her person.
This account fits the known evidence, Jeremy in Goldhanger, June asleep, Nevill being disabled with gravity to assist to his resting place, no controversy about a phone call by an injured man, no bikes or wetsuits, no clothes to disappear, no shots by another to an awake human being matching suicide trajectory.
Absent a point by point counter to this with sensible and considered reason, I will contact the Home Office and resolve the WHF mystery for them.
-
BTW what was to have stopped June from soaking the children's clothes previously ? Wouldn't that have accounted for the 2 buckets ( AE had said 3 ) ?
-
That's the whole point of soaking, they could have been there all day.
I would have said at bathtime.
-
There has been another proposed account that was posted on another forum yesterday. Credit to Samson over at IA.
I was waiting for your account David, not some cut and paste drivel from someone whom I don't know. How on earth a Sheila in that state of Tardive Dyskinesia can overpower five people reloading a rifle in the process is beyond me.
You have all been hoisted on your own petard.
-
I was waiting for your account David, not some cut and paste drivel from someone whom I don't know. How on earth a Sheila in that state of Tardive Dyskinesia can overpower five people reloading a rifle in the process is beyond me.
You have all been hoisted on your own petard.
I will withdraw "drivel", but consider the scenario highly inaccurate.
-
I would have said at bathtime.
You can say anytime you like, it wouldn't make any difference because we don't know.
-
I will withdraw "drivel", but consider the scenario highly inaccurate.
that's fair steve.
-
I was waiting for your account David, not some cut and paste drivel from someone whom I don't know. How on earth a Sheila in that state of Tardive Dyskinesia can overpower five people reloading a rifle in the process is beyond me.
You have all been hoisted on your own petard.
Tardive Dyskinesia never prevented Sheila from doing anything. If she can roll her own cigarettes then she can use a gun. If she can go to a party she can use a gun. if she can put her own clothes on then she can use a gun.
I don't know where you get the figure of 5 people from. The twins and June were all fatally shot while in bed. That leaves Neville already shot 4 times unable to use his left arm.
-
Tardive Dyskinesia never prevented Sheila from doing anything. If she can roll her own cigarettes then she can use a gun. If she can go to a party she can use a gun. if she can put her own clothes on then she can use a gun.
I don't know where you get the figure of 5 people from. The twins and June were all fatally shot while in bed. That leaves Neville already shot 4 times unable to use his left arm.
Yes sorry it was Jeremy who killed five..
-
Tardive Dyskinesia never prevented Sheila from doing anything. If she can roll her own cigarettes then she can use a gun. If she can go to a party she can use a gun. if she can put her own clothes on then she can use a gun.
I don't know where you get the figure of 5 people from. The twins and June were all fatally shot while in bed. That leaves Neville already shot 4 times unable to use his left arm.
But not that particular gun. It was so stiff Malcolm Fletcher broke a nail demonstrating to the jury how it worked.
-
Sheila broke a nail too,albeit a false one which AE found lying around and to which she put into a make-up bag.
-
Also,what would a chunk of Sheila's toenail be doing on the kitchen floor too ?
-
Also,what would a chunk of Sheila's toenail be doing on the kitchen floor too ?
I don't know. Maybe she stubbed her toe. Wasn't it red nail varnish as opposed to a piece of nail?
-
I don't know. Maybe she stubbed her toe. Wasn't it red nail varnish as opposed to a piece of nail?
It was described as a 'red particle' by Suthurst and he 'theorised' that it may have come from Sheila's toe nail. However, he later said that it could have come from anywhere. It was never proven to be nail varnish - this is just a myth.
-
It was described as a 'red particle' by Suthurst and he 'theorised' that it may have come from Sheila's toe nail. However, he later said that it could have come from anywhere. It was never proven to be nail varnish - this is just a myth.
It's interesting nonetheless. When I was talking about cut and paste I wasn't including your brilliant I.T. skills Caroline.
-
It was described as a 'red particle' by Suthurst and he 'theorised' that it may have come from Sheila's toe nail. However, he later said that it could have come from anywhere. It was never proven to be nail varnish - this is just a myth.
I quite liked Sutherst. He seemed like kind of bloke who would reach in to his pocket and hand you a Werther's Original. Pity he overstepped his remit with his remarks about an 'innocent man in prison'. Regardless of the scratch-marks fiasco, Mike Tesko once said Sutherst helped the defence understand the sequence of photography. I've always wanted to know more about this (I.e. Sutherst's opinion of the sequence) but I don't agree with Mike about his repeated claims, regarding the rifle photographed at the window.
-
I wonder if the " meeting " ever took place on the night before the murders took place ? This meeting had been arranged between Betty Howie and Pam,with June obviously being present. It was in regard to Sheila's health and future plans.
I remember it being listed as note 1212 T ?
-
I was waiting for your account David, not some cut and paste drivel from someone whom I don't know. How on earth a Sheila in that state of Tardive Dyskinesia can overpower five people reloading a rifle in the process is beyond me.
You have all been hoisted on your own petard.
David did give an account, which is on page 1. But did not adress any of my 15 points. Or provide the evidence that there was no kitchen fight which was a committment made in reply 15.
-
We are being spoiled with new scenarios -
"Sheila was not up all night, she went to bed as usual.
However, she felt her period begin, and rose to deal with it.
Finding significant blood staining, she went to the kitchen with her knickers and filled a new bucket with water to soak the garment.
She made enough noise, filling it, or putting the heavy bucket on the floor, to alert Nevill, who at 3 am not only was alarmed sufficiently by noise to investigate a possible intruder, but remembered that gun in the kitchen.
At this point I will remind everyone of a representative passage from Carol Anne Lee.
‘We had coffee at the kitchen table, just the three of us. Sheila was at the head, opposite the door, where she usually sat, I was on her left and her mother was on her right. For a while she just sat there, looking very weak. Mrs Bamber and I were chatting and suddenly Sheila said: “All people are bad and deserve to be killed.” She just came out with it. But she wasn’t herself anyway. Her eyes would look right past you. I only saw her once more after that. I was indoors, watching her cross the yard. The geese were about – perishing things, they used to cackle and chase people. But on this particular occasion I saw Sheila walking across the yard, her body and legs very stiff, staring straight ahead. She moved through the geese as if they weren’t there.’
This is the Sheila of mid 1986, taciturn, catatonic, alarming.
What occurred in that kitchen is speculative, but Jeremy has told us of the fractious conversations earlier in the evening.
How did going crazy manifest itself, was there much said? Clues can be wrested from the fact June never woke up again.
There was not enough to wake the "light sleeping" June, though 3 am is a time when sleep is now deep.
As Sheila glides up the stairs Nevill is phoning Jeremy. He takes a while to answer , and by the time he does, Sheila has figured how to load that gun, and the shooting begins.
Nevill gets to the top of the stairs, and takes those terrible and debilitating wounds to his face, turns, and as the last two bullets catch his left arm from behind, slithers to his resting place in the coal scuttle. Sheila beats him or reloads to finish. It is irrelevant what injuries besides gun shots were inflicted, she is capable of everything without a blemish to her person.
This account fits the known evidence, Jeremy in Goldhanger, June asleep, Nevill being disabled with gravity to assist to his resting place, no controversy about a phone call by an injured man, no bikes or wetsuits, no clothes to disappear, no shots by another to an awake human being matching suicide trajectory.
Absent a point by point counter to this with sensible and considered reason, I will contact the Home Office and resolve the WHF mystery for them".
-
Agree Sheila went to bed. As evidenced by being in a nightdress and bare footed when found, the time of night and that June told another person Sheila had gone to bed.
Was Sheila on her period ? I would have expected her to put on footware and a nightdress if going downstairs in the dark. Did she have underware under her nightdress when found by the police ? Was it her underware in the bucket ?
If Neville heard Sheila downstairs, would he have not put on footware and a dressing gown before going downstairs ? Why didn't June wake ?
There is then no description of what then occurred downstairs. Just that Neville ended up phoning Bamber and said 11 words to him. Sheila loaded a rifle (which was already loaded). June, (a light sleeper) did not wake and Sheila was allowed to go upstairs with the rifle. Nevill did not tackle Sheila at all while downstairs, prefering to ring up Bamber.
It seems to be saying that Nevill was shot first after he went upstairs. Having apparently not seen Sheila take a loaded rifle and go upstairs. This contradicts him saying 'Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun' to Bamber.
If Nevill was shot first, Sheila had 11 bullets to play with, but only fired 4 into him before having the brutal fight.
This description rules out Nevill phoning Chelmsford police. Something two other supporters have also recently ruled out. Hopefully all other supporters will now dismiss this ridiculous claim.
-
I wonder if the " meeting " ever took place on the night before the murders took place ? This meeting had been arranged between Betty Howie and Pam,with June obviously being present. It was in regard to Sheila's health and future plans.
I remember it being listed as note 1212 T ?
So no further advance on the above then ? Thought not----not interested.
-
So no further advance on the above then ? Thought not----not interested.
Advance on what? I've never heard of any such meeting and you don't have a link to the letter.
-
Advance on what? I've never heard of any such meeting and you don't have a link to the letter.
I was just wondering who did know seeing that it had a referral number--- part of an exhibit ? It was mentioned/posted on the forum in 2011 somewhere and I had a vague recollection of it,but no info as such apart from the said content re.a meeting.
-
David's quote from Samson is very interesting & gives much food for thought.
However, I haven't come across IA. Is this a widely accessed forum?
Can any one assist?
-
David's quote from Samson is very interesting & gives much food for thought.
However, I haven't come across IA. Is this a widely accessed forum?
Can any one assist?
injustice anywhere .
-
I quite liked Sutherst. He seemed like kind of bloke who would reach in to his pocket and hand you a Werther's Original. Pity he overstepped his remit with his remarks about an 'innocent man in prison'. Regardless of the scratch-marks fiasco, Mike Tesko once said Sutherst helped the defence understand the sequence of photography. I've always wanted to know more about this (I.e. Sutherst's opinion of the sequence) but I don't agree with Mike about his repeated claims, regarding the rifle photographed at the window.
agreed roch, I would like to know more on the sequence of photos and I have a feeling that maybe the ct are looking at that further. I liked him too, he has a wealth of experience and I believe his findings haven't been looked into in enough detail. He came across as a gentleman didn't he .
-
I was just wondering who did know seeing that it had a referral number--- part of an exhibit ? It was mentioned/posted on the forum in 2011 somewhere and I had a vague recollection of it,but no info as such apart from the said content re.a meeting.
I tried searching the forum but can't find anything. Will try later.
-
I tried searching the forum but can't find anything. Will try later.
It would be interesting to find out if this meeting had taken place-----the evening before the murders.
-
It would be interesting to find out if this meeting had taken place-----the evening before the murders.
Had such a meeting been arranged, Pam would have said so in her statement. There was no meeting the night before the murders unless you're talking about Monday night? But again, there was no mention of any meeting by anyone.
-
Had such a meeting been arranged, Pam would have said so in her statement. There was no meeting the night before the murders unless you're talking about Monday night? But again, there was no mention of any meeting by anyone.
There was a possibility that the meeting could well have been arranged for the actual night of the murders.
-
There was a possibility that the meeting could well have been arranged for the actual night of the murders.
But Pam doesn't mention anything about it?
-
But Pam doesn't mention anything about it?
[/quote
She may not have thought it relevant after what had happened-----as no-one would,would they ?
-
There was a possibility that the meeting could well have been arranged for the actual night of the murders.
Then I think it a certainty that it would have been mentioned. Given that no one knew murders were going to occur, any meeting would have taken place prior to the murders and would have had no bearing on what subsequently transpired...................unless you're trying to make additions to those allegedly in on the alleged conspiracy.
-
Then I think it a certainty that it would have been mentioned. Given that no one knew murders were going to occur, any meeting would have taken place prior to the murders and would have had no bearing on what subsequently transpired...................unless you're trying to make additions to those allegedly in on the alleged conspiracy.
What " alleged conspiracy" is that ?. I don't do conspiracies anyway. It's only another word for an excuse.
-
What " alleged conspiracy" is that ?. I don't do conspiracies anyway. It's only another word for an excuse.
As I said, Lookout. IF some sort of family conference had been arranged for the night of the massacre, (putting aside everyone's apologies for non attendance) I see no reason for it not going ahead. That being the case, I see NO reason for it not to be mentioned and it wouldn't have been Pam's decision to make, anyway. Your suggestion that speaking of it may have been seen as being non relevant is suggestive of cover-up.
-
As I said, Lookout. IF some sort of family conference had been arranged for the night of the massacre, (putting aside everyone's apologies for non attendance) I see no reason for it not going ahead. That being the case, I see NO reason for it not to be mentioned and it wouldn't have been Pam's decision to make, anyway. Your suggestion that speaking of it may have been seen as being non relevant is suggestive of cover-up.
Do you think Pam was rather a bossy person being the elder sister, whom June was desperately trying to emulate, hence the adoptions in the first place? I ask because 10pm is late for anyone to telephone a relative, especially in the farming community.
-
As I said, Lookout. IF some sort of family conference had been arranged for the night of the massacre, (putting aside everyone's apologies for non attendance) I see no reason for it not going ahead. That being the case, I see NO reason for it not to be mentioned and it wouldn't have been Pam's decision to make, anyway. Your suggestion that speaking of it may have been seen as being non relevant is suggestive of cover-up.
Well Betty Howie was in on it and I note that there was little,if any input from her during the trial. For all we know it could have been decided between her and Pam to say nothing,though it's strange that it had been noted but by whom,I don't know.
RWB could have known as he had his ear to the phone when Pam rang June on the night of the murders.
-
Well Betty Howie was in on it and I note that there was little,if any input from her during the trial. For all we know it could have been decided between her and Pam to say nothing,though it's strange that it had been noted but by whom,I don't know.
RWB could have known as he had his ear to the phone when Pam rang June on the night of the murders.
THAT being the case, it would have been conspiracy. Is no one -other than Jeremy- free of falling under suspicion?
-
Do you think Pam was rather a bossy person being the elder sister, whom June was desperately trying to emulate, hence the adoptions in the first place? I ask because 10pm is late for anyone to telephone a relative, especially in the farming community.
Steve, I've spoken previously about sibling rivalry. It's perfectly possible that the reason June forged out such a successful career for herself was because she was trying to be as good as she may have seen Pam as being. It might follow that she felt the need to emulate her in all things. I would agree that 10pm is rather late to make a phone call but without knowing what may have been her usual practice, and taking harvest time into consideration as a possible variable, I can't make any further comment.
-
Steve, I've spoken previously about sibling rivalry. It's perfectly possible that the reason June forged out such a successful career for herself was because she was trying to be as good as she may have seen Pam as being. It might follow that she felt the need to emulate her in all things. I would agree that 10pm is rather late to make a phone call but without knowing what may have been her usual practice, and taking harvest time into consideration as a possible variable, I can't make any further comment.
There was something going on under the surface. The Boutflours and Bambers rarely socialized together, which may have increased June's anxiety and increased the feeling of isolation among her children. It was Betty Howie who stood bail for Jeremy, possibly as a reaction against Robert's "cuckoo in the nest" remark, which may have hit home to Betty, who herself was taken into the family by Auntie Mabel after her real mother died shortly after childbirth.
-
There was something going on under the surface. The Boutflours and Bambers rarely socialized together, which may have increased June's anxiety and increased the feeling of isolation among her children. It was Betty Howie who stood bail for Jeremy, possibly as a reaction against Robert's "cuckoo in the nest" remark, which may have hit home to Betty, who herself was taken into the family by Auntie Mabel after her real mother died shortly after childbirth.
Steve, there is ALWAYS something going on under the surface. Very rarely does one get what one sees. It may well be that Betty Howie reacted to -and took personally- what RWB said.
-
But Pam doesn't mention anything about it?
[/quote
She may not have thought it relevant after what had happened-----as no-one would,would they ?
It would have been completely relevant.
-
It would have been completely relevant.
I'm thinking back about Pam when she asked how Jeremy was,knowing how the others had felt. I've often wondered what made her say this as it's most odd that someone should ask after the health of someone who'd " killed her sister ".
Meaning that Pam would have been unlikely to have mentioned any meeting after already speaking out of place once. Pam has kept a lot to herself to my mind.
-
It seems no one is going to dispute the 15 points highlighting the impossibilites associated with a Sheila committing the massacre scenario on page 1. Or the alternative scenario on page 3. Even by David who submitted both.
People are entitled to still support Bamber. Because they believe the police somehow fabricated evidence. However there is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Bamber, together with no credible explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre. It would be wrong to still support Bamber on the basis that he is innocent.
-
It seems no one is going to dispute the 15 points highlighting the impossibilites associated with a Sheila committing the massacre scenario on page 1. Or the alternative scenario on page 3. Even by David who submitted both.
People are entitled to still support Bamber. Because they believe the police somehow fabricated evidence. However there is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Bamber, together with no credible explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre. It would be wrong to still support Bamber on the basis that he is innocent.
There are no impossibilities to address. No one is obliged to counter fictitious claims.
-
No amount of circumstantial evidence or irrelevant scientific evidence can change the fact that Bamber could not have had anything whatsoever to do with the shooting and the killing of his sister in the main bedroom. Police records which were withheld from the court which tried the case prove that Sheila was in the kitchen at 7.37am, and certainly her body was not not laid out on the bedroom floor upstairs before 8.10am, otherwise four bodies would have been accounted for upstairs by this time, when the police records confirm there were only three. With the rifle used to kill her by way of bullet PV/19 resting at a first floor window from 7.15am, onward, it becomes plain to see that Bamber did not shoot her, he did not kill her, he did not stage her death scene on the bedroom floor after 8.10am. He did not remove the silencer from the barrel of the rifle and conceal it in a cupboard downstairs in the den. He had nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. How could he have when from around 3.52am, he had always been in the company of police officers outside the farmhouse? How did he manage to move his sister's body from the kitchen after 7.37am, and deposit her body in the bedroom after 8.10am, and how did he manage to shoot her dead there on the main bedroom floor with a rifle which was at some first floor window, or wherever, and manage to get back outside the farmhouse without cops suspecting anything? Forget about Bamber having played any role in his sister's demise, and death. He didn't shoot her, he simply could not have done so - that's why the cops had to withhold the key police message long contents (7.37 - 8.10am), that's why they had to lie about the order particular photographs were taken in, that's why cops had to swap over one of the two bullets used in his sister's killing with a control round test fired in the rifle (18), so that they could make the case into a one gun crime...
As I say, no amount of circumstantial evidence can go towards showing that Bamber had shot and killed his sister on the bedroom floor at any stage after 8.10am, or beforehand. The guy simply did not have the time or the opportunity to kill his sister as alleged. It is impossible to even contemplate that he could have done such a thing...
This leaves the deaths of the other four victims, namely Ralph, June, Daniel and Nicholas...
I believe that setting aside the shooting and the killing of Sheila Caffell, that it was feasible for Sheila to be responsible for these other deaths. It doesn't matter how big and strong anybody makes out a case for Ralph Bamber being too strong for Sheila to overpower and subdue. With 8 bullets pumped into various parts of his body, and with Sheila being the shooter, of course she could have shot him, and murdered him! Same principle, involving June Bambers death - Sheila could easily have taken control of her mother. Same principles relating to the deaths of her two sons. The sticking point prior to now has been the killing of his sister, and the staging of her death scene in the main bedroom. Until very recently it was not known that there existed some police message logs which make it all the more unlikely that Bamber could have committed his sister's murder, even if he had wanted to? The prosecutions case at trial was that Sheila Caffells body was staged in the main bedroom, and I agree with that view. Her body was staged to make it appear as though she had shot herself twice in the throat with the use of the family owned anshuzt rifle. However, that rifle from its position against a first floor window had only fired one shot into Sheila's throat.
-
With Sheila armed with a loaded rifle, you would be considered to be a fool if you thought that she couldn't have dispatched her parents. Of course she could have, and I believe that she did...
With the first full load of the rifle with 10 bullets, she had the means to shoot her mother on the bed with five repeated shots, and then kill Ralph with the next 5 rounds. With this being the possible scenario, the next load of 10 bullets, were in all probability used to finish of June Bamber with 2 shots, and the child victims with the remaining 8 bullets. This would mean that all Sheila had to do was to load sufficient rounds to finish the job, three more bullets into Ralphs head, then back upstairs to place the loaded rifle against a first floor window - 1 bullet in the breech which would later be fired beneath the point of her chin whilst she lay unconscious on the bedroom floor...
Four episodes then in the shootings (1) shooting of June and Ralph (2) shooting of June and children (3) shooting of Ralph (4) shooting of Sheila. ..
-
Information in red taken from officers report concerning the shooting incident in the kitchen. A decision was taken amongst Senior officer Harris and ACC Peter Simpson, that shooting in kitchen could be explained away as having occurred in the bedroom, and that the same gun had fired both shots (the reason for the removal of the silencer by police was purely for technical reasons, designed to conceal use of a police issue weapon in the killing of Sheila Caffell)...
We can only assume that once Sheila had placed the loaded rifle at a first floor window, that she made her way downstairs to the kitchen (unarmed). This must be true because at 7.37am, cops reported the body of one female in the kitchen. This could only be reference to Sheila being present in the kitchen. Cops must have known she had been shot at that stage, because they reported her as being dead. Sheila can't have been shot twice at that time, because otherwise she could never have made it upstairs to the main bedroom after 8.10am. The fact that her body ended up on the main bedroom floor, informs us that the second fatal shot ('PV/19) was not fired until she was back in her parents bedroom. The photographs which show the rifle (23) at the main bedroom window, prior to it being photographed in Sheila's possession (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33) confirms that the rifle was brought from the window and was retained by the victim. The crux in all this, rests with the original placement of the rifle at the first floor window at 7.15am, and the fact that somebody must have placed the rifle there prior to police entering the farmhouse. It's later position upon Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photograph it there after 10.00 am can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that either Sheila herself collected the rifle from the first floor window herself, or that somebody else brought the rifle from that first floor window. Alarm bells should be ringing, because if Sheila collected the rifle herself from the first floor window, she must have done so at some point after 7.15am, when Jeapes and Brown both saw the rifle resting against a first floor window. If Sheila took the rifle from that window as described, then of course, Jeremy Bamber could not have shot and killed her. Next - if somebody else brought the rifle to Sheila's body whilst she lay on the main bedroom floor, again this could only have happened after 8.10am, because by that stage there was only three bodies upstairs. The only people who could have brought the rifle from the first floor window was the cops, themselves. Ask yourselves 'why would cops bring the rifle from a first floor window and place the rifle with Sheila's body? The only possible explanation is that they thought they might be able to get away with saying that Sheila had shot herself once in the throat with use of the family rifle upstairs, rather than by a police issue weapon downstairs in the kitchen. Hence, why the rifle was brought from that first floor window and positioned upon Sheila's body. It was positioned along the front of her body during the performance of 'informatives', which commenced in the bedroom at 9 O'clock sharp. The rifle was laid upon Sheila's body with the muzzle in the general area of the solitary bullet wound situated there. It is believed that the silencer was attached to the barrel of the gun at this time. This had the effect of making the length from muzzle to trigger a greater distance than normal. However, with manipulation of the fingers of Sheila Caffells right hand, the trigger could be reached and with a little help from a police officer, her fingers could activate the trigger mechanism. This is what did occur. With the silencer fitted, cops couldn't get the muzzle of the silencer and Sheila's trigger finger to match the distance from her trigger finger and the position of the single bullet wound on her throat. This was because with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel the distance between Sheila's outreached trigger finger and the bullet entry hole in her throat was shorter than the distance between her outstretched trigger finger and the muzzle of the silencer - hence, when her trigger finger activated the trigger which fired the fatal round (PV/19), it produced a second bullet wound higher up in the throat of Sheila Caffell than the original bullet entry wound. Once the second shot got activated it startled everybody present. Although it was an accidental shooting in bizarre circumstances it could have been prevented if someone had checked and made the rifle from the first floor window safe before it was placed upon the body. The cops found themselves now with two bullet wounds in Sheila's neck. Senior officers gathered around the body on the floor pondering how best to proceed in presenting the death of Sheila there on the bedroom floor? Harris, Gibbons, Clarke and Jones huddled close to the body, pondering, until Harris said, 'well, there's nothing else for it', he said, 'But' to take the damn silencer off the barrel' (of the rifle). Gibbons questioned his decision, 'Why that, then'?
Harris countered, 'because, with the damn silencer still engaged upon the barrel', he said, ' the damn gun is too long to enable her to have shot herself with the bloody gun because it's too long', said he, 'the length doesn't effect the last shot and the distance between the muzzle end of the silencer to the furthest position of her trigger finger, because that last wound', he says, ' is higher up on the throat', says he, 'But' that distance between the same position of her outstretched trigger finger and the position of the lower entry wound, is shorter', he sighed, adding, 'the same gun can't have fired both of these shots because the distances from her outstretched trigger finger to the lower entry wound is too shot', there's nothing for it but to take off the 'silencer', he said, 'then get the rifle photographed with the body, minus the 'silencer', he says, 'then we can present the death as a shooting where the victim committed suicide using the same gun', he finishes...
Silencer was removed from gun after this conversation, and the rifle gauged using the victims outstretched trigger finger and the clean threaded muzzle of the barrel, so as to verify that it was possible for the rifle in question to have inflicted both wounds...
Clarke, 'the fact that there are two shots to the throat could be explained away, as recoil', he said. 'YES' responded Harris, 'sounds like a damn good explanation' , says he, 'right, I'll leave it in your capable hands, I'm leaving'...
'We can sort the ballistics out later', said Harris, adding, ' now, get rid of that damn silencer, put it away, somewhere', he said, 'preferrably as far away from the body, as possible', his trembling voice tailing off..
-
Now that the real reason for why the silencer was taken off the barrel of the gun has been made public knowlege, maybe the powers that be, will take steps to get Bambers case, back to the court of appeal. The distance between Sheila's maximised trigger finger against the trigger mechanism with a silencer attached to the barrel of the rifle, could only have permitted her to have shot herself once, not twice. This is because the distance between the lower bullet entry hole on Sheila's throat, to the extended and maximised trigger finger upon the trigger, to the muzzle of the fitted silencer was to big - Sheila couldn't have shot herself across the neck on that first occasion...
-
Now that the real reason for why the silencer was taken off the barrel of the gun has been made public knowlege, maybe the powers that be, will take steps to get Bambers case, back to the court of appeal. The distance between Sheila's maximised trigger finger against the trigger mechanism with a silencer attached to the barrel of the rifle, could only have permitted her to have shot herself once, not twice. This is because the distance between the lower bullet entry hole on Sheila's throat, to the extended and maximised trigger finger upon the trigger, to the muzzle of the fitted silencer was to big - Sheila couldn't have shot herself across the neck on that first occasion...
And what's more, she didn't...
-
The first shot across Sheila's neck occurred in the kitchen whilst she was upright and struggling with a person who was in possession of a rifle. The rifle discharged a shot (the original PV/20). That rifle was not the one seen by Jeapes and Brown at a first floor window at 7.15am. The rifle at the first floor window was the family owned Anshuzt Rifle which had a silencer fitted to the end of its barrel. This rifle fired the second shot whilst Sheila lay unconscious and perhaps close to death, but not actually dead up through chin, mouth and deposited itself in Sheila's brain killing her instantly (PV/19) this occurred without her knowlege or direct involvement....
-
To my knowlege Bamber always believed his sister had only been shot once in the throat. He only learned about the second shot existing just prior to his trial in October 1986.
-
To my knowlege Bamber always believed his sister had only been shot once in the throat. He only learned about the second shot existing just prior to his trial in October 1986.
He was told this by Julie Mugford upon her return from the morgue...
-
In my opinion, if Bamber had any input in these murders, and I once thought this might be true, he was Sheila's accomplice, and by that I mean he coached her on how to load the bullets into the magazine of the rifle, he taught her how to fire the gun. It would have been to Bambers advantage for his sister to have lived, because in those circumstances she would almost certainly have been barred from being a beneficiary of the parents estates because she had killed them. Somebody like Sheila with all the mental issues she had just before her death could perhaps easily be pushed over the edge, and be responsible for what transpired. The way I see it, now in the cold light of day, is that if Bamber encouraged his sister to shoot the family, the role he played may have been one of teaching her about the rifle, how to load it, and how to fire it. If this was the case, I believe it would have proved more beneficial for him, if she had not died at all. In any event, she did not kill herself, and Bamber himself did not kill her. The evidence which proves his innocence is there in the undisclosed material. The family owned anshuzt rifle was resting against a first floor window at 7.15am. it could not have been with Sheila's body on the bedroom floor at this time. Sheila was in the kitchen at 7.37am. She was not upstairs in the main bedroom at 8.10am. Her body was in the main bedroom at 8.44am, when Dr Craig, pronounced her dead, her body on the far side of the bed with what appeared to be a wound on her throat. PC Bird (SOCO) photographed the family rifle resting against the main bedroom window (23). 'DC Oakey' photographed the rifle from the window on Sheila's body with the barrel of the rifle resting against the left side of her neck. PC Bird photographed the same rifle in a different position on the body...
Cops shot Sheila. Cops brought rifle from first floor window and placed it on the body before Oakey and Bird took photographs of the body in possession of the rifle. Firearm officers based the position and location where they first came upon the five bodies of the victims, by referring to the photographs taken by Oakey and Bird which amounts to a deception...
-
I don't think Bamber was clever enough to think about the maximum distance from Sheila's extended trigger finger to the tip of the silencer, making it impossible for his sister to have shot herself on the first occasion, which forced him to remove the silencer from the barrel of the rifle? The reason for this is that the angle of the first shot which suggest that the shooter discharged the weapon whilst ot was being waved around in the air, rather than being hugged close to the body. Alternatively, that gap did not apply in relation to the second shot because the bullet entry wound was higher up on the throat accommodating the aforementioned distance. With this in mind, why would Bamber remove the silencer after the second shot had been fired?
-
However, if Sheila was shot during a struggle with a member of the firearm team as he entered the kitchen, there is really no need to argue for Bambers innocence because the writing would be on the wall that Bamber did not play a role in the shooting and killing of his sister...
Contents of an officers report exists which provide details of the shooting incident in the kitchen. This relates to the infliction of the first shot across Sheila's throat. The existence of this particular report exonerates Bamber as the killer because it proves that Sheila had still been alive inside the farmhouse after armed police entered the kitchen. I have already touched upon chief reason why cops got rid of the silencer once 'Informatives' had been performed...
-
The fact that Sheila had been shot twice was a problem created by the police, not any would be killer, or for that matter, Jeremy to have been the killer of his sister?
Why would Bamber feel the need to shoot Sheila a second occasion, if his intention was to make it look like his sistsr had taken her own life?
-
People are entitled to still support Bamber. Because they believe the police somehow fabricated evidence.
Thanks for allowing people to support Bamber - but don't most of your fellow 'guilters' also believe that the police somehow fabricated evidence? A lot of people on your side of the fence believe that the silencer evidence is dud.
-
Thanks for allowing people to support Bamber - but don't most of your fellow 'guilters' also believe that the police somehow fabricated evidence? A lot of people on your side of the fence believe that the silencer evidence is dud.
Did the police fabricate evidence or didn't they? That question can only be answered by Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has the answers to the many unanswered questions. But will he ever answer them? Answering them will undoubtedly show his guilt.
Does anyone know if he is due to write another blog this side of Christmas? I'm looking forward to him blogging about his case, in detail, as opposed to the see through sympathy seeking blogs he tends to favour. Someone really needs to tell him they aren't working anymore and that he's losing support.
If anyone does write or speak to him. Can they ask him to also blog about his moral compass and compare his to that of Sheila's. He's avoided it for 32 years. Wonder why? ::)
We need to know about the real Jeremy Bamber. What makes him tick. No more pity plays please!
-
If you don't believe Jeremy, then you don't believe him and that's that ! Why go on ? I certainly wouldn't if I thought he was guilty. It would have been the end,as afterall the jury found him guilty and he's in prison------so what exactly is your point ? It makes no sense to me apart from the fact that you want to argue with others and tell them how wrong they all are and that it's you who's right.
-
Did the police fabricate evidence or didn't they? That question can only be answered by Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has the answers to the many unanswered questions. But will he ever answer them? Answering them will undoubtedly show his guilt.
Does anyone know if he is due to write another blog this side of Christmas? I'm looking forward to him blogging about his case, in detail, as opposed to the see through sympathy seeking blogs he tends to favour. Someone really needs to tell him they aren't working anymore and that he's losing support.
If anyone does write or speak to him. Can they ask him to also blog about his moral compass and compare his to that of Sheila's. He's avoided it for 32 years. Wonder why? ::)
We need to know about the real Jeremy Bamber. What makes him tick. No more pity plays please!
We don't need to know any more about what Jeremy Bamber is really like as a person because it has no bearing upon the now known facts regarding who really killed his sister. The jury which tried and convicted him, did so based on a trail of lies and deceit as presented by Essex police, it's experts, and some prosecution witnesses. Sheila did not die in the bedroom until 'after' 8.10am. we now know this to be true because at 7.37am she was present in the kitchen as confirmed by the deliberately withheld police message log contents. Sheila in the kitchen then prior to 8.10am, and only three bodies present upstairs by that stage - now imagine the jury having to take that on board? It doesn't matter 'a jot' where Sheila's body ended up after the period between 7.37 and 8.10am, fact is she wasn't laid on the main bedroom floor with the rifle from the first floor window (7.15am onward) on her body throughout this 33 minute period. He may be many things to different people, a monster, a charmer, a child killer, a nonce, a user, an abuser, but nothing can alter hard facts written in stone. Sheila, that's his sister, was not laid out on the bedroom floor at any stage between 7.37am, and 8.10am, that morning with the family rifle in her possession. I am not saying her body didn't end up there later on, with the rifle from the first floor window in her possession but that's another story. If the jury had got a whiff of these now known facts, recorded in official police records, it would have proved pivotal in their verdict. 'Doubt', that is all a defendants case has to show and prove. In this case, it can be said with 100% certainty that Bambers sister's body wasn't laid out on the main bedroom floor with the family rifle clutched against her body at any stage between 7.37am and 8.10am, on that first morning. Anything after that can't have involved Bamber at all. Essex police are to blame for this miscarriage of justice, by lying about the true circumstances of Sheila's death in the main bedroom. This is not Bamber trying to get away with it, or anything. He simply could not have had anything whatsoever to do with Sheila's body laid out in the main bedroom in possession of any rifle, any silencer, or any ammunition of this type, or that type. Which part don't you understand?
This explanation I am giving, is similar to my own case from yesteryear, where two Barnsley CID officers claimed to have been present in an observation van outside some target premises at 5.20pm, on the 22nd January, 1986. I was kept in custody for five and a half months on remand because cops withheld a surveillance log, which showed that a Detective Inspector in the No.3 Regional Crime Squad had not passed a message for officers to go and collect the observation van in question from the compound at Barnsley police station. This request was recorded in a timed message at 5.55pm, that date. The observation van was not put into position in the road outside the target premises until 6.30pm, that date. So, obviously the two South Yorkshire cops couldn't have been inside that observation van at 5.20pm, outside the target premises on that date, and they could not have seen a stolen motor vehicle pull up outside the target premises being driven, they both said, by none other than myself...
Cops withheld the log of messages, which could have prevented the loss of my liberty for a period of about five and a half months. I know there is a vast difference in the length of time that Bamber has been in custody (over 30 years) compared to my predicament, but nevertheless, the overlaying principles are the same. There existed and there exists police message log contents which place Sheila in the kitchen with Ralph Bamber at 7.37am, onward. She was not upstairs in the bedroom by 8.10am, since by that stage there were only three bodies upstairs, not four...
Surely, if there is any justice, this man Bamber should be released from custody immediately. He cannot have shot and killed his sister in that main bedroom using the family owned rifle. It's impossible based upon the material contained in these previously withheld message logs. Bamber was never inside the farmhouse at all after 8.10am. This is like in my case, aforementioned, when I now say, that the two Barnsley CID men couldn't have been inside the observation van at 5.20pm on the 22nd January, 1986. They couldn't have been in that observation van at 5.20pm, that date, because the observation van was not there until much later on. Similarly, and without doubt or question, Sheila's body did not arrive inside the main bedroom until after 8.10am. The rifle which was later photographed at a first floor window, then upon his sisters body, did not leave it's resting place against a first floor window until after 7.15am. Therefore, this rules Bamber out of being the person who murdered his sister, and who allegedly staged her death scene, there on the main bedroom floor - But, how could he have? You tell me exactly how Bamber could possibly have shot and killed his sister with use of the family rifle after 8.10am, that morning?
He couldn't possibly have shot and killed his sister, in the same way Cops couldn't have seen me driving a stolen vehicle from inside an observation van that wasn't there, when they said it was...
Bamber, for all his faults did not shoot, or kill his sister, that's a fact, it's the truth. It's factual, it's logical, and it's the absolute truth...
-
Did the police fabricate evidence or didn't they? That question can only be answered by Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has the answers to the many unanswered questions. But will he ever answer them? Answering them will undoubtedly show his guilt.
In relation to the police allegedly fabricating evidence - I don't get your point. If the police or others were involved in fabricating evidence - then they would know that to be the case themselves. They wouldn't unknowingly fabricate evidence. Therefore how is it correct to claim only JB knows whether evidence was fabricated? You could claim - 'only JB knows whether a silencer was ever used in the killings'. However, even this would not be a true claim - if JB was not the killer.
-
There wasn't time or opportunity for Bamber to have shot his sister twice, once downstairs, and once upstairs, using the same family owned rifle, apart from the fact that Sheila was not ever present upstairs on the first floor of the farmhouse until after 8.10am, which is when the 'upstairs three body count' increased by one to four. We still haven't yet learned which firearm officers pronounced 'the male and the female dead upon entry to kitchen'. The identity of that person is being kept a closely guarded secret...
-
In relation to the police allegedly fabricating evidence - I don't get your point. If the police or others were involved in fabricating evidence - then they would know that to be the case themselves. They wouldn't unknowingly fabricate evidence. Therefore how is it correct to claim only JB knows whether evidence was fabricated? You could claim - 'only JB knows whether a silencer was ever used in the killings'. However, even this would not be a true claim - if JB was not the killer.
I'm unsure if you are familiar with the case against SH but the police believed the kitchen window had been smashed with an ornamental garden frog. This item was sent away for forensic testing and the theory remained that the frog was used to smash the window. In the last ever BBC Rough Justice documentary, Professor Peter Bull put together an experiment showing how the fibre evidence would have also contained glass particles.
The garden ornament had been knocked over and there was a patch of grass where it appeared the frog once sat. I can put a photo up later.
During the police search of the SOC and surrounding areas, the police found a long metal pole in one of the neighbours garden. Although exhibited it was never sent away for forensics.
Also arguments continued over the years in relation to the actual murder weapon. Some people may recall in 2010 the innocent project found a witness statement from a carer of an elderly gentleman who had been burgled on the same night as the murder, suggesting the knife didn't belong to the victim. I will post a link later.
SH disclosed he had used the metal pole to smash the window. So did police fabricate the frog evidence or is that what they genuinely believed had been used
? Was the frog evidence unknowingly fabricated? Why did they fail to test the pole (budget?) and why was it ruled out (Human error?)
-
There wasn't time or opportunity for Bamber to have shot his sister twice, once downstairs, and once upstairs, using the same family owned rifle, apart from the fact that Sheila was not ever present upstairs on the first floor of the farmhouse until after 8.10am, which is when the 'upstairs three body count' increased by one to four. We still haven't yet learned which firearm officers pronounced 'the male and the female dead upon entry to kitchen'. The identity of that person is being kept a closely guarded secret...
Is was once the belief SH did not have the time or opportunity to carry out the murder and the police failed to ascertain the actual motive, instead pursuing the burglary gone wrong theory? Was this also fabricated by the police in order to ensure they got their conviction?
-
If you don't believe Jeremy, then you don't believe him and that's that ! Why go on ? I certainly wouldn't if I thought he was guilty. It would have been the end,as afterall the jury found him guilty and he's in prison------so what exactly is your point ? It makes no sense to me apart from the fact that you want to argue with others and tell them how wrong they all are and that it's you who's right.
Just like you're doing. What a coincidence!!!!
-
Just like you're doing. What a coincidence!!!!
I've never rammed the issue down anyone's throat. I don't think my posts are anything like Stephanie's,do you ?
-
I've never rammed the issue down anyone's throat. I don't think my posts are anything like Stephanie's,do you ?
That is best judged by how they're perceived by the person on the receiving end. Whether or not they resemble another's posts is irrelevant.
-
We don't need to know any more about what Jeremy Bamber is really like as a person because it has no bearing upon the now known facts regarding who really killed his sister. The jury which tried and convicted him, did so based on a trail of lies and deceit as presented by Essex police, it's experts, and some prosecution witnesses...
Mike - do you think that both CA5 and CA7 were dispatched to the scene, prior to PC West have received Jeremy Bamber's call?
-
I'm unsure if you are familiar with the case against SH but the police believed the kitchen window had been smashed with an ornamental garden frog. This item was sent away for forensic testing and the theory remained that the frog was used to smash the window. In the last ever BBC Rough Justice documentary, Professor Peter Bull put together an experiment showing how the fibre evidence would have also contained glass particles.
The garden ornament had been knocked over and there was a patch of grass where it appeared the frog once sat. I can put a photo up later.
During the police search of the SOC and surrounding areas, the police found a long metal pole in one of the neighbours garden. Although exhibited it was never sent away for forensics.
Also arguments continued over the years in relation to the actual murder weapon. Some people may recall in 2010 the innocent project found a witness statement from a carer of an elderly gentleman who had been burgled on the same night as the murder, suggesting the knife didn't belong to the victim. I will post a link later.
SH disclosed he had used the metal pole to smash the window. So did police fabricate the frog evidence or is that what they genuinely believed had been used
? Was the frog evidence unknowingly fabricated? Why did they fail to test the pole (budget?) and why was it ruled out (Human error?)
That is an interesting read Steph. Though I could not personally state that these circs match the circs regarding the sound moderator in the Bamber case.
-
That is best judged by how they're perceived by the person on the receiving end. Whether or not they resemble another's posts is irrelevant.
That's one way of worming out of it.
-
I'm unsure if you are familiar with the case against SH but the police believed the kitchen window had been smashed with an ornamental garden frog. This item was sent away for forensic testing and the theory remained that the frog was used to smash the window. In the last ever BBC Rough Justice documentary, Professor Peter Bull put together an experiment showing how the fibre evidence would have also contained glass particles.
The garden ornament had been knocked over and there was a patch of grass where it appeared the frog once sat. I can put a photo up later.
During the police search of the SOC and surrounding areas, the police found a long metal pole in one of the neighbours garden. Although exhibited it was never sent away for forensics.
Also arguments continued over the years in relation to the actual murder weapon. Some people may recall in 2010 the innocent project found a witness statement from a carer of an elderly gentleman who had been burgled on the same night as the murder, suggesting the knife didn't belong to the victim. I will post a link later.
SH disclosed he had used the metal pole to smash the window. So did police fabricate the frog evidence or is that what they genuinely believed had been used
? Was the frog evidence unknowingly fabricated? Why did they fail to test the pole (budget?) and why was it ruled out (Human error?)
That is an interesting read Steph. Though I could not personally state that these circs match the circs regarding the sound moderator in the Bamber case.
Hi Roch, I thought you may find it of interest.
When I talk of the similarities between the two cases, I am mainly referring to how they have played out in the public arena; the news stories, the documentaries, the appeals, the forensic experts disagreeing over the years and of course the online feuds etc.
And not least of all the men behind it all = Jeremy Bamber & Simon Hall.
Though the fibre evidence & sound moderator cirs are both a matter of opinion, depending on what argument one favours maybe? http://news.humanrightstv.com/news/2011/innocence-simon-hall-judgement-response
http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/SL55-Naughton-Innocence-pp30-31.pdf
It's clear David doesn't know much about the SH case because if he did, he would understand the irony of his post below? I've witnessed numerous experts put their reputations on the line over the years..
Your unqualified opinion proves nothing.
Here is part of Proffessor Egan's university/work profile.
HCPC-accredited forensic and clinical psychologist. Expert in the administration of forensic risk assessment instruments (PCL-R, HCR-20, SVR-20), assessment of personality disorder (IPDE), and the assessment of intelligence (WASI, WAIS-IV, Wechsler Memory Scale).
He was prepared to put his reputation on the line concluding Jeremy was no psychopath.
What does Stephanie do? Ignore him ::)
But it gets worse. Stephanie then claimed (without evidence) that Bamber had fooled him. In other words making up an excuse to ignore the evidence to suit ones own bias.
Stephanie Bon says: "The truth is they wanted to extend their career, they had a weird interest about crime and were only too happy to latch on to a good campaign and put their name to it. One has to stand by their convictions all the way but most can’t.
Whilst I appreciate many readers may not have the knowledge, understanding and time line of events regarding the twists and turns of all that went on in relation to the SH case, there is simply no getting away from the similarities and strong sense Jeremy Bamber is exploiting the criminal justice system and indeed his supporters - just as Simon Hall did.
I am not suggesting the circs (Above) match the circs regarding the sound moderator in the Bamber case but I am suggesting because of the flaws in the police investigations (And they are common in many other cases) it has given Bamber and people like him (Hall) the opportunity to deny their guilt and use that old cliche reasonable doubt to support their false claims.
Many posters here witnessed the SH campaign turn into a car crash. And many posters (2012/13) blamed me for the car crash that became the campaign.
Stephanie Bon posted: "Simon made his choices and there is nothing any of us can do, to this day, although she is aware of what is happening, Mrs Hall still hasn’t made contact or returned calls from Simon’s family and friends and is therefore still playing mind games because who in their right mind would think that this is not affecting everyone?! This is not normal behaviour and I am sure that this message will be relayed however, who can tell me that they have not witnessed this whole thing going t**ts up for the last few years?
What most of those posters failed to recognise was that I was being exploited by SH and used to do his bidding - for want of a better word.
The only person playing mind games was SH. And people like Stephanie Bon & Shaun Hall, for example, had their own agenda's. Many of their posts at the time are now in hidden threads but some are still available for posters to read, digest and understand.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.msg187623.html#msg187623
What most posters here won't know, is that at one time, the SH campaign had possibly the biggest online presence than any other UK case; including Jeremy Bamber's. Note: I did not start campaigning for SH until 2009; prior to this Stephanie Bon ran the campaign. Following the confession she posted: If you think that anyone who campaigned for Simon in the first 6-7 years did it knowing that this latest episode would ever happen you really are mean and judgemental? Tell me Paris, how do you think we all feel? We have had no contact with Simon for years other than the terrible letters that Stephanie Hall posted online, crass, rude and so disgusting towards anyone who ever cared for him. Where you there at the beginning? Do you remember how it feels to hear the words guilty when in your gut you don’t know if isn’t true? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.msg187623.html#msg187623
Before facebook and twitter there were other social media sites, which those people campaigning for SH's release, used at the time.
The Court of Last Resort
A dark and rainy late afternoon in December, and in a café opposite the Royal Courts of Justice in London I meet Dr Michael Naughton. He is a fast-talking man in his late 40s, a former machine-shop foreman and mechanical engineer from a large Irish Catholic family. When an industrial injury forced him to change careers Naughton studied criminology and became interested in miscarriages of justice. "Coming from my background, I'd had experience of the criminal justice system," he says. "Then I started meeting members of the Birmingham Six, and the shared connection of our biographies made a huge impact. What started as a theoretical interest suddenly became very personal."
"The more we researched, the more concerns grew," continues Tan. "We learned that the fibres are easily transferable and susceptible to contamination, that they were not collected from Hall's addresses until six months after the murder." As a result of their investigation, Hall had his case referred back to the Court of Appeal, and it is while attending the hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice that I meet Naughton and Tan. The judgment on whether he will have his conviction quashed is announced this month. If Hall is freed, it will be the first time that the Innocence Project will have succeeded in overturning a conviction in six years of existence.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jan/09/innocence-project-conviction-hilary-swank
-
That's one way of worming out of it.
I'm not concerned with whose posts you think your posts don't resemble. It was never the point of my post, ergo, I can't be said to be worming OUT of anything I was never in.
-
The Court of Last Resort
A dark and rainy late afternoon in December, and in a café opposite the Royal Courts of Justice in London I meet Dr Michael Naughton. He is a fast-talking man in his late 40s, a former machine-shop foreman and mechanical engineer from a large Irish Catholic family. When an industrial injury forced him to change careers Naughton studied criminology and became interested in miscarriages of justice. "Coming from my background, I'd had experience of the criminal justice system," he says. "Then I started meeting members of the Birmingham Six, and the shared connection of our biographies made a huge impact. What started as a theoretical interest suddenly became very personal."
"The more we researched, the more concerns grew," continues Tan. "We learned that the fibres are easily transferable and susceptible to contamination, that they were not collected from Hall's addresses until six months after the murder." As a result of their investigation, Hall had his case referred back to the Court of Appeal, and it is while attending the hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice that I meet Naughton and Tan. The judgment on whether he will have his conviction quashed is announced this month. If Hall is freed, it will be the first time that the Innocence Project will have succeeded in overturning a conviction in six years of existence.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jan/09/innocence-project-conviction-hilary-swank
[/quote]
Dr Michael Nauhgton published numerous books over the years, many of which featured the SH case https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zsi9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT168&lpg=PT168&dq=simon+hall+innocence+project+bristol+murder+weapon&source=bl&ots=UNPAi65PjA&sig=UR7I4Ow3DriH_I1lIdoju0e60u4&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=simon%20hall%20innocence%20project%20bristol%20murder%20weapon&f=false
It should be reminded; I met SH in February 2002. He was arrested a few months later. Although we wrote to one another infrequently over the years, we did not begin a 'relationship' until around the end of 2007. By which time, his campaign had already gained momentum. I started campaigning in 2009. And from the moment I started campaigning, so did a few others, only their campaign was aimed at discrediting me. One has to ask, why?
-
I'm unsure if you are familiar with the case against SH but the police believed the kitchen window had been smashed with an ornamental garden frog. This item was sent away for forensic testing and the theory remained that the frog was used to smash the window. In the last ever BBC Rough Justice documentary, Professor Peter Bull put together an experiment showing how the fibre evidence would have also contained glass particles.
The garden ornament had been knocked over and there was a patch of grass where it appeared the frog once sat. I can put a photo up later.
During the police search of the SOC and surrounding areas, the police found a long metal pole in one of the neighbours garden. Although exhibited it was never sent away for forensics.
Also arguments continued over the years in relation to the actual murder weapon. Some people may recall in 2010 the innocent project found a witness statement from a carer of an elderly gentleman who had been burgled on the same night as the murder, suggesting the knife didn't belong to the victim. I will post a link later.
SH disclosed he had used the metal pole to smash the window. So did police fabricate the frog evidence or is that what they genuinely believed had been used
? Was the frog evidence unknowingly fabricated? Why did they fail to test the pole (budget?) and why was it ruled out (Human error?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6542885.stm
-
Many posters here witnessed the SH campaign turn into a car crash. And many posters (2012/13) blamed me for the car crash that became the campaign.
Stephanie Bon posted: "Simon made his choices and there is nothing any of us can do, to this day, although she is aware of what is happening, Mrs Hall still hasn’t made contact or returned calls from Simon’s family and friends and is therefore still playing mind games because who in their right mind would think that this is not affecting everyone?! This is not normal behaviour and I am sure that this message will be relayed however, who can tell me that they have not witnessed this whole thing going t**ts up for the last few years?
What most of those posters failed to recognise was that I was being exploited by SH and used to do his bidding - for want of a better word.
The only person playing mind games was SH. And people like Stephanie Bon & Shaun Hall, for example, had their own agenda's. Many of their posts at the time are now in hidden threads but some are still available for posters to read, digest and understand.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.msg187623.html#msg187623
What most posters here won't know, is that at one time, the SH campaign had possibly the biggest online presence than any other UK case; including Jeremy Bamber's. Note: I did not start campaigning for SH until 2009; prior to this Stephanie Bon ran the campaign. Following the confession she posted: If you think that anyone who campaigned for Simon in the first 6-7 years did it knowing that this latest episode would ever happen you really are mean and judgemental? Tell me Paris, how do you think we all feel? We have had no contact with Simon for years other than the terrible letters that Stephanie Hall posted online, crass, rude and so disgusting towards anyone who ever cared for him. Where you there at the beginning? Do you remember how it feels to hear the words guilty when in your gut you don’t know if isn’t true? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.msg187623.html#msg187623
Before facebook and twitter there were other social media sites, which those people campaigning for SH's release, used at the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6527713.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4457187.stm
-
Hi All
Think we have drifted off topic :o
Pleas can you discuss to the thread topic or start a different thread.
Thanks :)
-
We don't need to know any more about what Jeremy Bamber is really like as a person because it has no bearing upon the now known facts regarding who really killed his sister. The jury which tried and convicted him, did so based on a trail of lies and deceit as presented by Essex police, it's experts, and some prosecution witnesses. Sheila did not die in the bedroom until 'after' 8.10am. we now know this to be true because at 7.37am she was present in the kitchen as confirmed by the deliberately withheld police message log contents. Sheila in the kitchen then prior to 8.10am, and only three bodies present upstairs by that stage - now imagine the jury having to take that on board? It doesn't matter 'a jot' where Sheila's body ended up after the period between 7.37 and 8.10am, fact is she wasn't laid on the main bedroom floor with the rifle from the first floor window (7.15am onward) on her body throughout this 33 minute period. He may be many things to different people, a monster, a charmer, a child killer, a nonce, a user, an abuser, but nothing can alter hard facts written in stone. Sheila, that's his sister, was not laid out on the bedroom floor at any stage between 7.37am, and 8.10am, that morning with the family rifle in her possession. I am not saying her body didn't end up there later on, with the rifle from the first floor window in her possession but that's another story. If the jury had got a whiff of these now known facts, recorded in official police records, it would have proved pivotal in their verdict. 'Doubt', that is all a defendants case has to show and prove. In this case, it can be said with 100% certainty that Bambers sister's body wasn't laid out on the main bedroom floor with the family rifle clutched against her body at any stage between 7.37am and 8.10am, on that first morning. Anything after that can't have involved Bamber at all. Essex police are to blame for this miscarriage of justice, by lying about the true circumstances of Sheila's death in the main bedroom. This is not Bamber trying to get away with it, or anything. He simply could not have had anything whatsoever to do with Sheila's body laid out in the main bedroom in possession of any rifle, any silencer, or any ammunition of this type, or that type. Which part don't you understand?
This explanation I am giving, is similar to my own case from yesteryear, where two Barnsley CID officers claimed to have been present in an observation van outside some target premises at 5.20pm, on the 22nd January, 1986. I was kept in custody for five and a half months on remand because cops withheld a surveillance log, which showed that a Detective Inspector in the No.3 Regional Crime Squad had not passed a message for officers to go and collect the observation van in question from the compound at Barnsley police station. This request was recorded in a timed message at 5.55pm, that date. The observation van was not put into position in the road outside the target premises until 6.30pm, that date. So, obviously the two South Yorkshire cops couldn't have been inside that observation van at 5.20pm, outside the target premises on that date, and they could not have seen a stolen motor vehicle pull up outside the target premises being driven, they both said, by none other than myself...
Cops withheld the log of messages, which could have prevented the loss of my liberty for a period of about five and a half months. I know there is a vast difference in the length of time that Bamber has been in custody (over 30 years) compared to my predicament, but nevertheless, the overlaying principles are the same. There existed and there exists police message log contents which place Sheila in the kitchen with Ralph Bamber at 7.37am, onward. She was not upstairs in the bedroom by 8.10am, since by that stage there were only three bodies upstairs, not four...
Surely, if there is any justice, this man Bamber should be released from custody immediately. He cannot have shot and killed his sister in that main bedroom using the family owned rifle. It's impossible based upon the material contained in these previously withheld message logs. Bamber was never inside the farmhouse at all after 8.10am. This is like in my case, aforementioned, when I now say, that the two Barnsley CID men couldn't have been inside the observation van at 5.20pm on the 22nd January, 1986. They couldn't have been in that observation van at 5.20pm, that date, because the observation van was not there until much later on. Similarly, and without doubt or question, Sheila's body did not arrive inside the main bedroom until after 8.10am. The rifle which was later photographed at a first floor window, then upon his sisters body, did not leave it's resting place against a first floor window until after 7.15am. Therefore, this rules Bamber out of being the person who murdered his sister, and who allegedly staged her death scene, there on the main bedroom floor - But, how could he have? You tell me exactly how Bamber could possibly have shot and killed his sister with use of the family rifle after 8.10am, that morning?
He couldn't possibly have shot and killed his sister, in the same way Cops couldn't have seen me driving a stolen vehicle from inside an observation van that wasn't there, when they said it was...
Bamber, for all his faults did not shoot, or kill his sister, that's a fact, it's the truth. It's factual, it's logical, and it's the absolute truth...
Hi Mike,
Have you ever considered that after listening to your story, Jeremy Bamber mirrored you in order to have you believe he had suffered a similar fate to you?
Have you ever considered the possibility that Jeremy murdered his entire family and that Sheila was/is an innocent victim?
It's easy for many of us to compare our circumstances/experiences to that of others but it is equally possible that when we compare our our situations with other people, we are wrong in our conclusions.
You suggest it doesn't matter what type of person Jeremy is, but what if it does? What if he is a con artist who lies to anyone who will listen?
I've read many of your posts over the years Mike and there's no doubting you have been through a lot in your life. There are also times when you are really angry and it appears to me you have suffered injustice.
I don't get this from Jeremy Bamber! Like SH, the anger is missing!? And one has to ask the question; Why? Most people who are angry, show it in other ways, for example; through ill health. But in over 30 years Jeremy Bamber is relatively well. How does he manage to stay so well? I've seen with my own eyes the toll injustice can do to a person over the years; Paddy Hill, Gerry Conlon - to name but a few.
-
Hi Mike,
Have you ever considered that after listening to your story, Jeremy Bamber mirrored you in order to have you believe he had suffered a similar fate to you? yes, his case has very similar features to those relied upon to secure his convictions. Similarly, so do my case and his case have something in common with very many of the other know known miscarriages of justice. Exhibits tampered with, witness statements tampered with, mistaken identification evidence, misinterpreted scientific conclusions, bias opinion, lying witnesses, withholding of vital and necessary in all formats, stage managing of crime scene's, mis-production of crime scene photographs which benefit the prosecutions case, and bias summing up by trial judges are amongst the very causes of these miscarriages of justice. Now, it depends what you mean by Bamber mirroring what happened in my case? Firstly, prior to meeting up with him at HMP Full Sutton, on B Wing in 1989, I did not know of Bamber and I assume he did not know anything about me, or the offences I was convicted of. I certainly had never heard in the news anything about the tragedy at whf, or what he was convicted of. He was just another inmate who happened to be in a single cell across the corridor from me. As it turned out there were one or two other notorious inmates in cells next door to me, or somewhere along the landing. IRA, bank robbers, murderers, domestic killers, serial killers if you like, including the black panther, and the like. It was a newly built institution that came on stream in the mid to late 1980's. At the time of my incarceration there, from early 1989 onward, there were only four main windows in operation, each wing capable of housing around 100 inmates (50 downstairs, and 50 upstairs) All four wings were a replica in design as the other three. When I arrived there each wing only had a handful of prisoners incarcerated in them. This was because the institution was a new build, and the home office wanted to get the place up and running before it flooded the place with inmates who for one reason or another were considered to be incorrigible criminals who could not be rehabilitated, or as the case may be, who was considered to be dangerous to the public, and peace. It was a very strange atmosphere at first because one of the things which struck me about the place, was that the staff did not wear uniforms, and they asked us to call them by there Christian names, Bill, Jane, John, Julie, Peter, Sandra, Phillip, and so on, and so forth. We only had to act formally when seeing the prison governor, Me Staples, when we addressed him as 'Sir'. It soon became clear that although there were workshops which had been built for use, that the prison was geared up in the main to provide educational facilities for the other prisoners like myself, considered to be worthless members of society. When I first arrived at Full Sutton, I helped clean up the wing along with the handful of other inmates. Later I enrolled in the education programme, English, Mathematics, English literature, English Speaking, cooking, philosophy, sociology. It was whilst I was busy trying to educate myself, that I got to know one or two, or three or more of my fellow prisoners a little better. Jeremy Bamber was one of those people. I could name more names, but I shan't. Names didn't really matter to me at that time of my life. I was more interested in the stories many of the people I had come into contact with had to tell. Most of them were people just like myself, claiming that they had been stitched up, or framed, or that this witness, or that witness had deliberately lied, or deceived the court which had tried them. Some, however, were resigned to their fate, they were guilty of the things they had been arrested for, tried for, and convicted of. I became a people watcher, a people listener. The more I watched other people, and the more I listened to them, it somehow made me look at myself like I had never done so before. I came to recognise things about myself that I didn't know previously. I don't think that Bamber tried to mirror what had happenned to me in his case at the hands of South Yorkshire police. But he was interested in the fact that there was an independent police investigation ongoing at that time into my case, as ordered by my trial judge after representations were made to him by my counsel, Mr Shaun Spencer, QC...
Have you ever considered the possibility that Jeremy murdered his entire family and that Sheila was/is an innocent victim? yes, I have, but I have always believed that his sister could easily have shot and killed the other four victims dead. I did at one stage have doubts about Sheila being able to shoot herself twice with a silencer fitted to the rifles barrel (on the basis that it was Sheila's blood inside the silencer which got there at the time she was shot) on the proviso that the weapon might have been too long with the silencer fitted. But these concerns were brushed aside once experiments involving Amy Holland at Birdwell Armoury, Barnsley were conducted at the beginning of 2004, which established that someone of a similar build and height as Sheila Caffell could have shot herself with the anshuzt rifle and silencer so configured. That was a game changer for me, because once those experiments had been conducted, I knew that the court which had convicted Bamber had technically been deceived. This is because it would have been impossible for her to have shot herself with the silencer fitted to the gun, but the actual truth was that she could have, it was possible. This itself did not prove to me that Sheila had not shot herself, only that contrary to popular belief, she could have. At the beginning of 2004, we discovered the mark around the lower entry wound site which appeared to have the exact dimensions as the muzzle end of the silencer. After taking advice from gun enthusiasts and a gun dealer, I became satisfied that a silencer must have been attached to the gun which caused the lower wound. A similar mark was absent from around the upper entry wound on the same throat. This suggested to me one of two things, (1) either the silencer was still attached to the gun when the second shot was fired, but if it was its muzzle was not in contact with the surface of the skin when the second fatal shot had been fired, or (2) the silencer had been removed by that stage. Armed with this information I started to consider how this might impact upon the argument that Sheila might still have killed herself? What I discovered in the judges summing up to the jury was some mention or other where the judge said that nobody had suggested, and there had been no evidence adduced in the case, to say that Sheila could not have taken the silencer off the gun after she had killed the others, or that she couldn't have placed the silencer in the cupboard herself, before shooting herself dead afterwards, or words to that effect. Which got me thinking...
Could the silencer have been fitted to the rifle at the time of the first shot, but it had been removed before the second shot had been fired? If so, could Sheila still have killed herself?
Well, yes. But in order to show this, it required a great deal of thought which led me to conclude that although it might have been possible, I doubted that Sheila had removed the silencer herself in-between shots, or that she had then taken it to the cupboard and hid it away...
In my opinion, it required the hand of another person, if the silencer had been used, to conceal the silencer in that cupboard...
Armed with this information I went to see Ewen Smith at his office in Birmingham. He appeared satisfied with the discovery that the circular mark around the lower entry wound on Sheila's neck could have been caused by the muzzle of the silencer coming into contact with the skin on the throat at the time the first shot had been fired. If true, he said, it was ominous that when matched with Sheila's blood in the silencer, it didn't look good for Jeremy...
At this juncture, I satisfied myself, that Sheila could have shot herself with the silencer on the gun, but I couldn't bring myself to believe that she had removed the silencer and hid it in a cupboard. This is despite the fact that the trial judge had said she might have been able to do this, if the jury concluded that the blood in the silencer had been an intimate mixture of the parents bloods', rather than Sheila's...
It's easy for many of us to compare our circumstances/experiences to that of others but it is equally possible that when we compare our our situations with other people, we are wrong in our conclusions. not when you are comparing timed events, which show that something could not possibly be true. In my case, the two cops couldn't have been in that observation van at 5.20pm, because the observation van wasn't there for them to be inside it. Therefore they could not have seen me driving a stolen motor vehicle from inside that observation van, because the observation van in question was still parked up in a police compound until 5.55pm that same date, and did not get parked in position outside target premises until 6.30pm, that same date. Conclusions which can be drawn from this set of facts, is that (a) the observation van wasn't there at 5.20pm, (b) cop one wasn't inside the observation van at 5.20pm, outside target premises, (c) cop two wasn't inside the observation van at 5.20pm, outside target premises, (d) cop one and cop two were not together inside the observation van parked outside target premises at 5.20pm, (e) they did not see me at the target premises from inside the observation van at 5.20pm, (f) they didn't see me driving a stolen vehicle from the vantage point inside the observation van, (G) the evidence used to prosecute me was 'fabricated, (h) cops made false witness statements, (I) cops committed perjury, and sought to pervert the course of justice...
In Bambers case, (a) The rifle was seen at a first floor window at 7.15am, (b) Sheila was the female body which was present in the kitchen at 7.37am, (c) hers could not have been one of the three bodies found upstairs at 8.10am, (d) Since Sheila's body was present in the kitchen at 7.37am, the rifle from the first floor window could not have been laid upon Sheila's body on the bedroom floor at 7.37am, (e) since Sheila's body could not have been one of the three bodies found upstairs at 8.10am, the rifle from the first floor window could not have been laid out on Sheila's body on the main bedroom floor until some stage after 8.10am, (f) Sheila was being spoken about in terms of her being dead in the kitchen, from as early as 7.37am, (g) DR Craig pronounced Sheila dead upstairs at 8.44am, (h) the rifle was photographed by PC Bird resting against the first floor bedroom window in photograph number 23, before 'DC Oakey' photographed the same rifle upon Sheila's body with its barrel resting against the left side of Sheila's neck (25). Then PC Bird took additional photographs which show the barrel of the rifle in an elevated position above the neck (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33). These facts all being true, establish that Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have shot and killed his sister in the main bedroom, or staged her death scene there with use of the rifle, anytime after 8.10am. His convictions are unsafe...
You suggest it doesn't matter what type of person Jeremy is, but what if it does? What The type of person Jeremy was and is has no bearing whatsoever on his ability to have been able to shoot his sister with the rifle in the bedroom after 8.10am. The facts are as described by me, above. The type of person Bamber might have been can't impact in any way whatsoever upon his ability to have killed his sister in the main bedroom after 8.10am, that morning. All that matters, is that he had no opportunity to kill his sister in the bedroom or to stage his sister's body in that bedroom. .. if he is a con artist who lies to anyone who will listen? Whether or not Bamber is a 'con artist's, he could not have fooled the police into thinking that his sister had taken her own life with use of the rifle, in the bedroom, at any stage after 8.10am, that morning. The man simply could not have killed and staged his sister's body there, and that is the bottom line. Nobody can make up the facts of this matter. Jeremy Bamber didn't try to con the police into thinking his sister had taken her own life, after she had shot and killed the other four victims. The cops themselves staged Sheila's body to make it look like it was a suicide. If the truth be known, it was a case of the cops fooling Bamber, the relatives, and the court which tried the matter, and the general public at large that Sheila Caffell, had taken her own life. Cops even had photographic evidence to back up there claims. Jeremy didn't know that cops had seen the rifle at a first floor window prior to the firearm officers entering the farmhouse. Jeremy didn't know that cops found Sheila's body in the kitchen by 7.37am. Jeremy didn't know that his sister's body was excluded from being present upstairs before 8.10am, or that the rifle was photographed leaning against the main bedroom window (23), prior to cops planting it on his sister's body and only then taking photographs showing her body in possession of the rifle losing as if she had taken her own life. What else can you blame him for? The man Bamber may be many things to many different people, but he most definitely did not shoot his sister dead in the main bedroom, with the rifle from a first floor window after the only time he could possibly have done, which was/is 8.10am...
I don't get this from Jeremy Bamber! Like SH, the anger is missing!? And one has to ask the question; Why? Most people who are angry, show it in other ways, for example; through ill health. But in over 30 years Jeremy Bamber is relatively well. How does he manage to stay so well? I agree that Jeremy may have a personality disorder. I have not spent any time with him for over a decade, so I can't say how he is now. But what I can say is that he appears to lack the ability to show emotion. This does not mean however that it proves he's a killer, a mass murderer. I have learned something as a result of my experiences and the influence of other people who have been relatively successful in their lives. I'm not talking about famously successful people, but rather ordinarily successful people. The secret is to live by the truth, live it in your heart, live it in your mind, live it in your actions. If you do this, you will in the main be happy in everything you do. I know the truths in my life. I have an opinion regarding the truths in other people's lives. I know the difference between right and wrong. I know the difference between good and bad. I know the difference between up and down. I know the difference between hot and cold. I know the difference between big and small. I know the difference between justice and injustice, I know the difference between freedom and imprisonment. I know a lot of things, and I do not consider myself to be a fool anymore, maybe I was a fool before, maybe I was many things that I no longer am. One thing I know, with 100% certainty and that is this, Jeremy Bamber only had one opportunity to shoot dead his sister, Sheila Jean Caffell with the family rifle inside the main bedroom. He only had one opportunity to stage her death scene there on the bedroom floor. He only had one opportunity to remove a silencer and take it to the cupboard in the den, and conceal it in an ammunition box. He could have only done all of these things after 8.10am, at a time when there were four bodies upstairs (thereafter) not only three... I've seen with my own eyes the toll injustice can do to a person over the years; Paddy injustice in any form eats away at you, every moment from the point when the injustice occurs, and it continues long after such an injustice gets rectified. Your physical, mental well-being deteriorate with alarming intensity. It can make you withdraw from the company of others, it can kill you, it can also motivate you to try to ensure that it can't happen again... Hill, Gerry Conlon - to name but a few.
-
Hi Mike,
Many thanks for what appears to be an honest account of how you met Jeremy and for sharing some of your life experiences and a bit about yourself.
I want to make it clear to you, and anyone else who may be reading this, that I do not think you are a 'fool' nor do I think other people are fools for having the belief they have regarding Jeremy Bamber's innocence.
I have been called a fool by some people regarding SH (With the intent to belittle) but this is a throw away and dismissive comment and does not come anywhere close to explaining just how convincing, highly manipulative and cunning (Disordered) these people can be. Further, imo it is also a comment made by someone who has no understanding, or indeed interest, as to how & why someone can be duped/conned or whatever other word you can think of to describe a betrayal such as this
I don't have time to reply fully to your post at the moment but I hope to come back to this later on.
However, there is one crucial point you have made that I want to highlight right now;
You stated: "injustice in any form eats away at you, every moment from the point when the injustice occurs, and it continues long after such an injustice gets rectified. Your physical, mental well-being deteriorate with alarming intensity. It can make you withdraw from the company of others, it can kill you, it can also motivate you to try to ensure that it can't happen again
I agree with you Mike.
On reflection, this is what SH had missing. After he confessed he wrote how after he had been caught and convicted he said; "he died a little each day.
He did indeed make several attempts on his life following his conviction and almost succeeded, not dissimilar to 2013 and 2014 when he succeeded.
But he did not die a little each day as he stated; at least certainly not how you nor I would expect someone to behave following an injustice. I know because I witnessed this with my owns eyes and have said elsewhere, he went from strength to strength. He did not isolate himself. He did not present inwardly or indeed outwardly what one would expect. Overall, he was in excellent physical health . His PM confirmed this. His inquest concluded he did not have any mental health issues. Amazing really isn't it!?
Jeremy Bamber in 32 years has never once mentioned any of the things you mention with regards his alleged injustice; in relation to his mental and physical health, just like SH did not.
Yet we only need look at those people who have had their convictions overturned having been found innocent to see the effects the years of wrongful incarceration have caused. There appears to be no getting away from it. So how then does Jeremy Bamber?
-
Hi again Mike,
Thanks for sharing so much information about your time in prison and for answering how you met Jeremy.
You said he was in the cell opposite you and that it was during education that you got to know him. Can you give us some more information with regards who approached who and how you became involved in his case. You said he was interested in the independent police investigation of your case at the time. Is this what gave him the idea to appeal his case?
When did Jeremy first start looking into the details of his conviction. Had he ever contacted anyone outside of prison before meeting you? How did you get involved? Was it him that asked you to help him or did you offer to help him?
You've suggested on another thread he may be personality disordered. What makes you think this? What was Jeremy like in prison? Who did he hang around with? What did he do; ie: work, education etc (At the time you were living opposite one another). Did he have any visitors when you knew him inside?
In one of your previous replies to me you posted:
"I don't think that Bamber tried to mirror what had happenned to me in his case at the hands of South Yorkshire police. But he was interested in the fact that there was an independent police investigation ongoing at that time into my case, as ordered by my trial judge after representations were made to him by my counsel, Mr Shaun Spencer, QC...
You then talk about meeting up with Ewen Smith in Birmingham. Interestingly I also met with Ewen Smith in Birmingham re the SH case. I had a meeting with several members of the CCRC, who at the time were looking into SH's conviction for a second time.
What happened in between meeting Jeremy and meeting with Ewen Smith? How long did you know Jeremy by the time you met with Mr Smith? How did you get some of his case files? How often did he write and phone you and what sort of things would he talk about?
The other question for now is you talk about the anger felt following a wrongful conviction and the affect on your mental and physical well being. How was Jeremy affected, if at all?