Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Scales on March 15, 2017, 03:00:PM
-
Recently read this and was very impressed by it, I do have a few questions about certain parts the first one that springs to mind is at Chapter 18 first paragraph the author recounts a private conversation between Barbara Wilson and Neville Bamber.
Barbara states "I must have caught him at a vulnerable time" she then goes on to say that he told her something that she has never told anyone else since, she says Neville may have been hoping she went to the Police "but I had no proof".
The author as far as I can see dose not explain what was said surely it could be very important?
As an aside in the book there is an overhead shot of WHF taken the day before the killings ( I cannot seem to find the image online), in it at the top there is a perfectly ploughed field, now I'm no farmer but that field is so perfectly ploughed I'd be interested if Bamber ploughed that, and what a psychologist would make of it.
Also separate from the book, Bambers apparent escape route is interesting he lived 3.5 miles from that farm, over the fields would be impractical, that leaves a road who is going to take the risk of being seen going to a murder and who in their right mind would seriously risk riding back on that road after killing five people?
EDIT, SORRY I GOT THE NAME WRONG, ITS NOW CORRECTED
-
Recently read this and was very impressed by it, I do have a few questions about certain parts the first one that springs to mind is at Chapter 18 first paragraph the author recounts a private conversation between a person named Tora and Neville Bamber.
Tora states "I must have caught him at a vulnerable time" she then goes on to say that he told her something that she has never told anyone else since, she says Neville may have been hoping she went to the Police "but I had no proof".
The author as far as I can see dose not explain what was said surely it could be very important?
As an aside in the book there is an overhead shot of WHF taken the day before the killings ( I cannot seem to find the image online), in it at the top there is a perfectly ploughed field, now I'm no farmer but that field is so perfectly ploughed I'd be interested if Bamber ploughed that, and what a psychologist would make of it.
Also separate from the book, Bambers apparent escape route is interesting he lived 3.5 miles from that farm, over the fields would be impractical, that leaves a road who is going to take the risk of being seen going to a murder and who in their right mind would seriously risk riding back on that road after killing five people?
Will have a look at the book later but why would it be impracticable to go over the fields? I live in the countryside and take the same type of journey everyday walking my dog. Jeremy knew the area well and would have been familiar with pathways and shortcuts across the land.
-
Tora was Sheila's friend.
-
Will have a look at the book later but why would it be impracticable to go over the fields? I live in the countryside and take the same type of journey everyday walking my dog. Jeremy knew the area well and would have been familiar with pathways and shortcuts across the land.
Hi, yes I also grew up and live in a very rural area which backs onto fields and have lived here for many years, I do have friends at the other ends of these fields which is a similar distance, but even with my local knowledge I could not find them across these fields in the dark, it would also surely rule out another piece of evidence, that of the bike, you simply cannot take a old ladies bike like that over fields.
And even if he had gone across on foot, this would greatly increase time to and from and presumably if he was a intelligent as we know he is he would know a police dog would potentially follow that scent to his doorstep.
-
Hi, yes I also grew up and live in a very rural area which backs onto fields and have lived here for many years, I do have friends at the other ends of these fields which is a similar distance, but even with my local knowledge I could not find them across these fields in the dark, it would also surely rule out another piece of evidence, that of the bike, you simply cannot take a old ladies bike like that over fields.
And even if he had gone across on foot, this would greatly increase time to and from and presumably if he was a intelligent as we know he is he would know a police dog would potentially follow that scent to his doorstep.
I don't agree, he farmed the land there and on foot, would easily be able to make his way across. I don't farm the land here but have crossed the fields many times in the dark.
-
I don't agree, he farmed the land there and on foot, would easily be able to make his way across. I don't farm the land here but have crossed the fields many times in the dark.
But what about times on foot compared to a time on a bike? what about scent?
-
Tora was Sheila's friend.
Sorry my mistake wrong name it was Barbara Wilson
-
Sorry my mistake wrong name it was Barbara Wilson
Okay. Neville's conversation with Barbara Wilson has done its rounds with what was said and about whom. Whichever side of the fence one is,it's referred to as a worry on Neville's part and has been translated in " the son " ( Jeremy ) giving his father grief. The other side of the fence is a worry that Neville had involving some other threat which had seemingly been delivered via a phone-call/s.
Then of course the poor man also had concerns over the illnesses of both his wife June and daughter Sheila.
-
But what about times on foot compared to a time on a bike? what about scent?
Takes me about 35 mins and that's stopping quite a few times waiting for the dog. Scent? What of it? They never sent a dog to trace anything across the fields - Jeremy made sure they thought his sister was responsible. They lost precious time and evidence because of that.
-
Sorry my mistake wrong name it was Barbara Wilson
To be fair, BW is a bit unreliable, she changed her story from liking Jeremy, to being afraid of him. I believe he's guilty but such a discrepancy can't be ignored.
-
Okay. Neville's conversation with Barbara Wilson has done its rounds with what was said and about whom. Whichever side of the fence one is,it's referred to as a worry on Neville's part and has been translated in " the son " ( Jeremy ) giving his father grief. The other side of the fence is a worry that Neville had involving some other threat which had seemingly been delivered via a phone-call/s.
Then of course the poor man also had concerns over the illnesses of both his wife June and daughter Sheila.
She said "I think he was hoping that I would go to the police about it. But I had no proof", the focus on the word Proof.
Giving your father grief is hardly worth a worried person considering going to the Police, and Proof suggests a criminal intent of some sorts or crime, its potentially a vital piece of information, that could damn or at least help Bamber.
PS whats Bamber's handle here, (I'm half joking)
-
She said "I think he was hoping that I would go to the police about it. But I had no proof", the focus on the word Proof.
Giving your father grief is hardly worth a worried person considering going to the Police, and Proof suggests a criminal intent of some sorts, its potentially a vital piece of information, that could damn of at least help Bamber.
PS whats Bamber's handle here, (I'm half joking)
BW's inconsistent claims won't help Bamber - it's simply her word against his and if she is saying that Nevil was referring to Jeremy (which I believe she was), that won't help him at all - far from it.
-
Takes me about 35 mins and that's stopping quite a few times waiting for the dog. Scent? What of it? They never sent a dog to trace anything across the fields - Jeremy made sure they thought his sister was responsible. They lost precious time and evidence because of that.
Bamber had absolutely no way of knowing that it would all run like clock work as it apparently did, to fool a seasoned murder detective ( a man who's job it is to pull up a chair and look at a corpse until he's satisfied with the way of death, however long that takes ) is stretching credulity.
Bamber had no way of knowing the police reaction, that day.
-
She said "I think he was hoping that I would go to the police about it. But I had no proof", the focus on the word Proof.
Giving your father grief is hardly worth a worried person considering going to the Police, and Proof suggests a criminal intent of some sorts, its potentially a vital piece of information, that could damn of at least help Bamber.
PS whats Bamber's handle here, (I'm half joking)
First of all it's JB,for short if you prefer.
Barbara Wilson had noted how " ill " Neville had looked at the time,so he may well have confided in her at that point,I don't know,but whatever it was she wasn't going to open up about it,though nothing to do with JB or he wouldn't be working there amongst guns.
In BW's last appearance on video,she looked so uncomfortable it was bordering on being cringeworthy,so it was blatently obvious that she'd been coerced by others for the interview.
-
First of all it's JB,for short if you prefer.
Barbara Wilson had noted how " ill " Neville had looked at the time,so he may well have confided in her at that point,I don't know,but whatever it was she wasn't going to open up about it,though nothing to do with JB or he wouldn't be working there amongst guns.
In BW's last appearance on video,she looked so uncomfortable it was bordering on being cringeworthy,so it was blatently obvious that she'd been coerced by others for the interview.
Which is kind of my point, NB could easily have said Shelia had told him she was planning to shoot the kids or herself.
-
Which is kind of my point, NB could easily have said Shelia had told him she was planning to shoot the kids or herself.
Not so much that,but both parents were worried about the company that Sheila was keeping/mixing with,but that wasn't elaborated on so nobody knows about that side of things,unless BW does as the suggestion had to come from somewhere.
-
Sheila had told her psychiatrist that she could harm her children,but then again she was living in London and not at the farmhouse surrounded by guns,except when she and the twins stayed there.
NB was certainly scared of something or someone though.
-
Recently read this and was very impressed by it, I do have a few questions about certain parts the first one that springs to mind is at Chapter 18 first paragraph the author recounts a private conversation between Barbara Wilson and Neville Bamber.
Barbara states "I must have caught him at a vulnerable time" she then goes on to say that he told her something that she has never told anyone else since, she says Neville may have been hoping she went to the Police "but I had no proof".
The author as far as I can see dose not explain what was said surely it could be very important?
As an aside in the book there is an overhead shot of WHF taken the day before the killings ( I cannot seem to find the image online), in it at the top there is a perfectly ploughed field, now I'm no farmer but that field is so perfectly ploughed I'd be interested if Bamber ploughed that, and what a psychologist would make of it.
Also separate from the book, Bambers apparent escape route is interesting he lived 3.5 miles from that farm, over the fields would be impractical, that leaves a road who is going to take the risk of being seen going to a murder and who in their right mind would seriously risk riding back on that road after killing five people?
EDIT, SORRY I GOT THE NAME WRONG, ITS NOW CORRECTED
Goldhanger to WHFis shaped like a "D" the curve being the road.The straight side is the path along the sea wall. He wouldn't have needed to take the road route.
-
Hi, yes I also grew up and live in a very rural area which backs onto fields and have lived here for many years, I do have friends at the other ends of these fields which is a similar distance, but even with my local knowledge I could not find them across these fields in the dark, it would also surely rule out another piece of evidence, that of the bike, you simply cannot take a old ladies bike like that over fields.
And even if he had gone across on foot, this would greatly increase time to and from and presumably if he was a intelligent as we know he is he would know a police dog would potentially follow that scent to his doorstep.
He wasn't expecting to be suspected. You have to remember that the whole thing was carried out to look as if Sheila had done it. Why would dogs have been used to sniff out Sheila in the fields?
-
Bamber had absolutely no way of knowing that it would all run like clock work as it apparently did, to fool a seasoned murder detective ( a man who's job it is to pull up a chair and look at a corpse until he's satisfied with the way of death, however long that takes ) is stretching credulity.
Bamber had no way of knowing the police reaction, that day.
It wasn't a television series where the script make it all come right. Jeremy had the best part of a month to get rid of everything which might have incriminated him. He'd got it right enough that they didn't immediately suspect him which gave him breathing space.
-
Sheila had told her psychiatrist that she could harm her children,but then again she was living in London and not at the farmhouse surrounded by guns,except when she and the twins stayed there.
NB was certainly scared of something or someone though.
Yes, she did. In 1983 when she had her first breakdown and PRIOR to being put on medication. In 1985 she made no mention of it.
-
At 04.04,a shooting incident had been reported either by someone from within WHF or from someone outside the premises to the information room at Essex HQ. JB had been outside with officers so it clearly wasn't him on the rampage.
For a siege to have taken place, two people had to be alive inside the farmhouse at that time.
-
Recently read this and was very impressed by it, I do have a few questions about certain parts the first one that springs to mind is at Chapter 18 first paragraph the author recounts a private conversation between Barbara Wilson and Neville Bamber.
Barbara states "I must have caught him at a vulnerable time" she then goes on to say that he told her something that she has never told anyone else since, she says Neville may have been hoping she went to the Police "but I had no proof".
The author as far as I can see dose not explain what was said surely it could be very important?
As an aside in the book there is an overhead shot of WHF taken the day before the killings ( I cannot seem to find the image online), in it at the top there is a perfectly ploughed field, now I'm no farmer but that field is so perfectly ploughed I'd be interested if Bamber ploughed that, and what a psychologist would make of it.
Also separate from the book, Bambers apparent escape route is interesting he lived 3.5 miles from that farm, over the fields would be impractical, that leaves a road who is going to take the risk of being seen going to a murder and who in their right mind would seriously risk riding back on that road after killing five people?
EDIT, SORRY I GOT THE NAME WRONG, ITS NOW CORRECTED
There were three easy cycle routes to/from WHF which avoided the roads. They also avoided going near any dwellings.
-
There were three easy cycle routes to/from WHF which avoided the roads. They also avoided going near any dwellings.
Can you describe/name the three easy routes either on foot or bicycle ?
-
Can you describe/name the three easy routes either on foot or bicycle ?
I was hoping he'd show a guided image, i'v looked on google maps and I see a lot of routes none of them look easy or ideal for a multiple killer (on an old bike or foot)
-
I was hoping he'd show a guided image, i'v looked on google maps and I see a lot of routes none of them look easy or ideal for a multiple killer (on an old bike or foot)
Especially a mentally and physically exhausted individual struggling/ panting and shaking for 3 miles. ::)
The man in question was nearly sick with shock as it was when told about his family,goodness only knows what his reaction would have been on seeing them all lying there dead,let alone going through the gruesome task of having also killed them. It's just so ludicrous to even think about.
-
I was hoping he'd show a guided image, i'v looked on google maps and I see a lot of routes none of them look easy or ideal for a multiple killer (on an old bike or foot)
It's never easy when looking at things from a distance. If you lived there you'd know how simple it was.
-
Can you describe/name the three easy routes either on foot or bicycle ?
No. RB's WS says this. He should know.
Trudie Benjamin's Vlog also shows a footpath which is so well kept it even has a bench.
The prosecution would not have said Bamber cycled to/from WHF if it was not easy. Supported by Bamber taking June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre.
-
Especially a mentally and physically exhausted individual struggling/ panting and shaking for 3 miles. ::)
The man in question was nearly sick with shock as it was when told about his family,goodness only knows what his reaction would have been on seeing them all lying there dead,let alone going through the gruesome task of having also killed them. It's just so ludicrous to even think about.
I find talk of him wearing a wet suit then showering in it then hanging it up (presumably wet) in his old wardrobe at WHF baffling as well.
Also the fact that he never left any foot prints, I mean when you are killing folk your hardly going to be looking down where your standing?
As I say I'm not convinced of his guilt or innocence, just that we all know the police lie to get the results they want, as we have seen over the years.
-
No. RB's WS says this. He should know.
Trudie Benjamin's Vlog also shows a footpath which is so well kept it even has a bench.
The prosecution would not have said Bamber cycled to/from WHF if it was not easy. Supported by Bamber taking June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre.
Yes they would, it fitted into their bike being purposely placed there scenario, they never said that the gun used was like a toy that a child of about ten or over could work out and use within ten minutes of instruction, because that did not fit into their case.
-
I find talk of him wearing a wet suit then showering in it then hanging it up (presumably wet) in his old wardrobe at WHF baffling as well.
Also the fact that he never left any foot prints, I mean when you are killing folk your hardly going to be looking down where your standing?
As I say I'm not convinced of his guilt or innocence, just that we all know the police lie to get the results they want, as we have seen over the years.
There are myths aplenty circulating this board, the wet suit being just one. I don't recall that there were any of Sheila's footprints either. Jeremy had spent time, from his call to the police to the hours he spent outside with them, educating them in the belief that, if they found them all dead, Sheila would more than likely be responsible.
We've all been made aware that police DO lie. It's become a convenient bandwagon to ride for those who are anti establishment and/or bear grudges against them but it doesn't mean that ALL police lie.
-
Yes they would, it fitted into their bike being purposely placed there scenario, they never said that the gun used was like a toy that a child of about ten or over could work out and use within ten minutes of instruction, because that did not fit into their case.
But could that same child, who had no pre interest in guns, reload and fit the magazine onto it?
-
No. RB's WS says this. He should know.
Trudie Benjamin's Vlog also shows a footpath which is so well kept it even has a bench.
The prosecution would not have said Bamber cycled to/from WHF if it was not easy. Supported by Bamber taking June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre.
Of course,silly me,RWB seemed to have known everything and where to find " things " too,so how about a run down on how JB managed either of the three directions that you must have studied.
-
There are myths aplenty circulating this board, the wet suit being just one. I don't recall that there were any of Sheila's footprints either. Jeremy had spent time, from his call to the police to the hours he spent outside with them, educating them in the belief that, if they found them all dead, Sheila would more than likely be responsible.
We've all been made aware that police DO lie. It's become a convenient bandwagon to ride for those who are anti establishment and/or bear grudges against them but it doesn't mean that ALL police lie.
As for footprints, I wonder if the police looked at his footwear afterwards when they arrested him? I mean sure he could have worn others and discarded them but many folk who knew him would have known what footwear he wore either at work or Play, were these ever tested for blood?
And if and I do say IF JB is to be believed he had a phone call stating that his sister had gone mad (that and the fact she was seriously mentally ill) so his words "educating" the police outside were absolutely not with out good reason
-
But could that same child, who had no pre interest in guns, reload and fit the magazine onto it?
Yes.
and the "reload" issue takes me onto another point, could Bamber have covertly acquired a second or third rifle mag from somewhere?
-
Yes they would, it fitted into their bike being purposely placed there scenario, they never said that the gun used was like a toy that a child of about ten or over could work out and use within ten minutes of instruction, because that did not fit into their case.
Bike being purposely placed where ?
Bamber said in his police interviews he took June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre.
-
Yes.
and the "reload" issue takes me onto another point, could Bamber have covertly acquired a second or third rifle mag from somewhere?
What is the point of the question ?
-
At 04.04,a shooting incident had been reported either by someone from within WHF or from someone outside the premises to the information room at Essex HQ. JB had been outside with officers so it clearly wasn't him on the rampage.
For a siege to have taken place, two people had to be alive inside the farmhouse at that time.
It wasn't at 04:04 at all and it wasn't reported to Essex Police either - a neighbour heard a shotgun the previous evening! If I go out now, I'll hear the same thing - more than once. ::) ::)
-
I was hoping he'd show a guided image, i'v looked on google maps and I see a lot of routes none of them look easy or ideal for a multiple killer (on an old bike or foot)
Ideal?
-
Bamber had absolutely no way of knowing that it would all run like clock work as it apparently did, to fool a seasoned murder detective ( a man who's job it is to pull up a chair and look at a corpse until he's satisfied with the way of death, however long that takes ) is stretching credulity.
Bamber had no way of knowing the police reaction, that day.
But he didn't fool them - he's now reaping the consequences. Of course he had no way of knowing but he DID have the confidence that he could pull it off. If crime worked on the basis that the offender could work out police reaction, there'd be no one in prison.
-
Which is kind of my point, NB could easily have said Shelia had told him she was planning to shoot the kids or herself.
But he didn't say that - BW has said that she believes he was talking about Jeremy.
-
Bike being purposely placed where ?
Bamber said in his police interviews he took June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre.
The Prosecution argument was that it was Bambers intention to use as the "getaway" vehicle.
-
Especially a mentally and physically exhausted individual struggling/ panting and shaking for 3 miles. ::)
The man in question was nearly sick with shock as it was when told about his family,goodness only knows what his reaction would have been on seeing them all lying there dead,let alone going through the gruesome task of having also killed them. It's just so ludicrous to even think about.
A consummate actor indeed! ::)
-
I find talk of him wearing a wet suit then showering in it then hanging it up (presumably wet) in his old wardrobe at WHF baffling as well.
Also the fact that he never left any foot prints, I mean when you are killing folk your hardly going to be looking down where your standing?
As I say I'm not convinced of his guilt or innocence, just that we all know the police lie to get the results they want, as we have seen over the years.
I agree about the wet suit, it's a silly theory.
None of the victims left footprints either.
Of course there have been genuine MOJ and police have lied. They have probably lied during this investigation but not about Jeremy being guilty.
-
The Prosecution argument was that it was Bambers intention to use as the "getaway" vehicle.
Perhaps it was, tat isn't set in stone and his most likely didn't both to use it.
-
But he didn't fool them - he's now reaping the consequences. Of course he had no way of knowing but he DID have the confidence that he could pull it off. If crime worked on the basis that the offender could work out police reaction, there'd be no one in prison.
But it is arguably the most high profile on going case in the British system, look at this forum, Essex police made such a balls up that no one is likely to ever know if a man has wasted his life in jail. Forensically there is nothing.
-
The Prosecution argument was that it was Bambers intention to use as the "getaway" vehicle.
They said it was a vehicle he used to get to and from WHF. Julie Mugford said that was his plan.
-
But it is arguably the most high profile on going case in the British system, look at this forum, Essex police made such a balls up that no one is likely to ever know if a man has wasted his life in jail. Forensically there is nothing.
Most of my friends don't (or didn't) know who Jeremy Bamber is. What about this forum? There is only a handful of regular posters. I'm as confident as I can be that they have the right perpetrator.
-
But it is arguably the most high profile on going case in the British system, look at this forum, Essex police made such a balls up that no one is likely to ever know if a man has wasted his life in jail. Forensically there is nothing.
Agreed,there's nothing on the man except supposition/circumstantial and hearsay " evidence ".
The whole justice system is in a mess !
-
Agreed,there's nothing on the man except supposition/circumstantial and hearsay " evidence ".
The whole justice system is in a mess !
Just like a lot of other cases then!
-
But it is arguably the most high profile on going case in the British system, look at this forum, Essex police made such a balls up that no one is likely to ever know if a man has wasted his life in jail. Forensically there is nothing.
There is a mountain of forensic evidence against Bamber. Some of it in the library.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7204.msg375403.html#msg375403
-
What is the point of the question ?
Well if he'd got another mag from somewhere, he could have loaded them up before hand hence instead of having to run downstairs? or have the loose rounds in his pocket?
Completely hypothetical of course.
-
Just like a lot of other cases then!
Absolutely.
-
Well if he'd got another mag from somewhere, he could have loaded them up before hand hence instead of having to run downstairs? or have the loose rounds in his pocket?
Completely hypothetical of course.
He didn't have two.
-
Absolutely.
So Jeremy is no different - lots of cases rely on circumstantial evidence.
-
Well if he'd got another mag from somewhere, he could have loaded them up before hand hence instead of having to run downstairs? or have the loose rounds in his pocket?
Completely hypothetical of course.
The rifle was fully loaded when Bamber went upstairs. He would have expected to kill or negate everyone with 11 bullets. But Nevill got downstairs.
-
But he didn't say that - BW has said that she believes he was talking about Jeremy.
But she has not told anyone according to the book what he told her.
-
Well if he'd got another mag from somewhere, he could have loaded them up before hand hence instead of having to run downstairs? or have the loose rounds in his pocket?
Completely hypothetical of course.
Indeed,why would he take the box of bullets upstairs ? An empty box was found in the bedroom.
-
The rifle was fully loaded when Bamber went upstairs. He would have expected to kill or negate everyone with 11 bullets. But Nevill got downstairs.
Not with 22 he won't, only head shots count a body shot will just bleed you to death over minutes, for an instant kill you'd go for a pump action shotgun.
-
Well if he'd got another mag from somewhere, he could have loaded them up before hand hence instead of having to run downstairs? or have the loose rounds in his pocket?
Completely hypothetical of course.
How do you believe Sheila committed the massacre ?
Please include one/two phone calls from Nevill, two rifle reloads and a kitchen fight.
-
Not with 22 he won't, only head shots count a body shot will just bleed you to death over minutes, for an instant kill you'd go for a pump action shotgun.
I know. Bamber went for head shots. Shooting June in the throat and head and Nevill in the jaw upstairs, before Nevill moved.
He was expecting clear head shots. Everyone was asleep. It was 2am.
-
How do you believe Sheila committed the massacre ?
Please include one/two phone calls from Nevill, two rifle reloads and a kitchen fight.
Okay, IMO, Shelia had a psychotic breakdown killed her children first without the silencer, then that commotion woke her parents, she met Neville coming out of his bedroom she shot him in the body, he then rushed downstairs (possibly to use the phone) meantime shelia went into the parents room shot her mother dead, then went down stairs where a violent scuffle began, ultimately killing her father, then she went upstairs and shot herself, its hardly out of the question?. Perhaps NB was already down stairs who knows I don't.
But the silencer imo was not on the rifle at any time
-
But she has not told anyone according to the book what he told her.
Given her opinions of Jeremy, it wasn't about Sheila.
-
Okay, IMO, Shelia had a psychotic breakdown killed her children first without the silencer, then that commotion woke her parents, she met Neville coming out of his bedroom she shot him in the body, he then rushed downstairs (possibly to use the phone) meantime shelia went into the parents room shot her mother dead, then went down stairs where a violent scuffle began, ultimately killing her father, then she went upstairs and shot herself, its hardly out of the question?. Perhaps NB was already down stairs who knows I don't.
But the silencer imo was not on the rifle at any time
Hi Scales, I cannot believe that NB would have left Sheila upstairs after she had shot him while he ran to the phone leaving June and the boys in proven real danger.
It would have made more sense for him to grab a gun than the phone. What would be the point of him phoning Jeremy after Sheila had already shot him once?
Why would he want to put Jeremy in danger as well?
I would have thought if things were as desperate as you say he would have phoned 999 if he phoned anyone.
-
Okay, IMO, Shelia had a psychotic breakdown killed her children first without the silencer, then that commotion woke her parents, she met Neville coming out of his bedroom she shot him in the body, he then rushed downstairs (possibly to use the phone) meantime shelia went into the parents room shot her mother dead, then went down stairs where a violent scuffle began, ultimately killing her father, then she went upstairs and shot herself, its hardly out of the question?. Perhaps NB was already down stairs who knows I don't.
But the silencer imo was not on the rifle at any time
Sheila was taking medication for her PS and described by her psychiatrist as 'over seated'.
-
Okay, IMO, Shelia had a psychotic breakdown killed her children first without the silencer, then that commotion woke her parents, she met Neville coming out of his bedroom she shot him in the body, he then rushed downstairs (possibly to use the phone) meantime shelia went into the parents room shot her mother dead, then went down stairs where a violent scuffle began, ultimately killing her father, then she went upstairs and shot herself, its hardly out of the question?. Perhaps NB was already down stairs who knows I don't.
But the silencer imo was not on the rifle at any time
Please explain how she managed to shoot herself twice when the first bullet smashed two vertebrae. Moving her head/adjusting her arms/fixing the rifle in place/stretching to pull the trigger for the second shot -and probably with her mouth cavity filling with blood- with a wound which although wasn't instantly fatal, was certainly mortal? Hmm!
-
Okay, IMO, Shelia had a psychotic breakdown killed her children first without the silencer, then that commotion woke her parents, she met Neville coming out of his bedroom she shot him in the body, he then rushed downstairs (possibly to use the phone) meantime shelia went into the parents room shot her mother dead, then went down stairs where a violent scuffle began, ultimately killing her father, then she went upstairs and shot herself, its hardly out of the question?. Perhaps NB was already down stairs who knows I don't.
But the silencer imo was not on the rifle at any time
Thanks.
So Sheila woke out of the blue at 3am Had a breakdown without any provecation and shot her sleeping sons.
Nevill woke and was shot in the body. He didn't tackle Sheila. But went downstairs to.....phone Bamber which would take several minutes.
While Nevill was on the phone waiting for Bamber to answer, Sheila shot and killed June with the remaining 4 bullets. Although June was shot 8 times.
You say June was woken from Sheila shooting her sons, although she was shot in bed with her head on the pillow. Suggesting she wasn't.
Sheila then went downstairs and brutally beat Nevill and knocked him out, although he had only been shot in the body. Sheila did not have a mark on her from this fight.
The evidence is that Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs before going downstairs. And was unable to speak after these shots as two were face shots.
As you have not mentioned the police, I assume you don't believe Nevill phoned the police 16 minutes after phoning Bamber ?
-
Given her opinions of Jeremy, it wasn't about Sheila.
Which makes it all the more unusual.
-
Which makes it all the more unusual.
What is all the more unusual?
-
Hi Scales, I cannot believe that NB would have left Sheila upstairs after she had shot him while he ran to the phone leaving June and the boys in proven real danger.
It would have made more sense for him to grab a gun than the phone. What would be the point of him phoning Jeremy after Sheila had already shot him once?
Why would he want to put Jeremy in danger as well?
I would have thought if things were as desperate as you say he would have phoned 999 if he phoned anyone.
Hi Maggie I agree if he phoned anyone it would have been 999
-
Thanks.
So Sheila woke out of the blue at 3am Had a breakdown without any provecation and shot her sleeping sons.
Nevill woke and was shot in the body. He didn't tackle Sheila. But went downstairs to.....phone Bamber which would take several minutes.
You say June was now awake although she was shot in bed with her head on the pillow.
Sheila then went downstairs and brutally beat Nevill and knocked him out, although he had been just been shot in the body. Sheila did not have a mark on her from this fight.
The evidence is that Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs before going downstairs. And was unable to speak after these shots.
As you have not mentioned the police, I assume you don't believe Nevill phoned the police 16 minutes after phoning Bamber ?
I was reading a case toady of a 28 year old woman with mental health issues that burned down her fathers house while he was in it.
You say NB did not tackle shelia upstairs why did he not tackle Jeremy then?
I don't recall bamber having any injuries either afterwards.
NB injuries could just as well have been dashed out afterwards, also that unexplained burn mark on his back, that was quite possibly some sort of ritual post mortem torture.
I also think that if the family was asleep they would have been awake VERY quickly once the shooting began.
Lastly that bible, I mean that speaks volumns, her Psychiatric doctor even said that had he read that at the time in would have changed his mind as to her mind, I mean Bamber would have to have been truly brilliant assassin to think of these things and avoid all these potential pitfalls.
As I say I don't know if he is guilty and I don't feel good besmirching the dead but having read the book its hard to know where the truth really lays.
-
According to one of the firearms team,once inside WHF,he told BT to close down the open line which had been used for a 999 call-----so said BT.
It's written on one of the wireless logs which can be seen in the archives.
-
I was reading a case toady of a 28 year old woman with mental health issues that burned down her fathers house while he was in it.
You say NB did not tackle shelia upstairs why did he not tackle Jeremy then?
I don't recall bamber having any injuries either afterwards.
NB injuries could just as well have been dashed out afterwards, also that unexplained burn mark on his back, that was quite possibly some sort of ritual post mortem torture.
I also think that if the family was asleep they would have been awake VERY quickly once the shooting began.
Lastly that bible, I mean that speaks volumns, her Psychiatric doctor even said that had he read that at the time in would have changed his mind as to her mind, I mean Bamber would have to have been truly brilliant assassin to think of these things and avoid all these potential pitfalls.
As I say I don't know if he is guilty and I don't feel good besmirching the dead but having read the book its hard to know where the truth really lays.
Nevill didn't tackle Bamber because a man was shooting bullets in his face.
Bamber didn't have a mark on him because he was padded up. And fighting Nevill who had been shot 4 times. Bamber wasn't tested for a long time.
Why would Sheila give Nevill black eyes, a broken nose and bruises on the arms, head and neck afterwards ?
There is a thread on Nevill's burn marks. Bamber was checking for signs of life.
Why would the family wake if Bamber used a silencer ? The rifle would be impossible to hear behind closed doors.
There is also a thread on the bible. It was part of Bamber staging the scene.
You need to find another scenario as you're one did not match the crime scene. But thanks for trying. A lot of supporters never have. My scenario of how Bamber did it is available upon request.
-
I was reading a case toady of a 28 year old woman with mental health issues that burned down her fathers house while he was in it.
You say NB did not tackle shelia upstairs why did he not tackle Jeremy then?
I don't recall bamber having any injuries either afterwards.
NB injuries could just as well have been dashed out afterwards, also that unexplained burn mark on his back, that was quite possibly some sort of ritual post mortem torture.
I also think that if the family was asleep they would have been awake VERY quickly once the shooting began.
Lastly that bible, I mean that speaks volumns, her Psychiatric doctor even said that had he read that at the time in would have changed his mind as to her mind, I mean Bamber would have to have been truly brilliant assassin to think of these things and avoid all these potential pitfalls.
As I say I don't know if he is guilty and I don't feel good besmirching the dead but having read the book its hard to know where the truth really lays.
Why would they have looked for injuries on Jeremy? He's told them Sheila was the culprit. He was standing outside with the police.
Whilst every case involving the mentally ill may have similarities, the psychological uniqueness of each makes them ENTIRELY different.
It's highly likely that the burn marks had nothing to do with the crime since no one has given an adequate reason for how they could have occurred.
It's possible to make much of what's in the bible relate to whatever one wants to relate it to, which was probably how June used it.
-
According to one of the firearms team,once inside WHF,he told BT to close down the open line which had been used for a 999 call-----so said BT.
It's written on one of the wireless logs which can be seen in the archives.
Perhaps you could find it. There are numerous statements form TFG.
-
Perhaps you could find it. There are numerous statements form TFG.
The logs are here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html - no such comment exists.
-
Please explain how she managed to shoot herself twice when the first bullet smashed two vertebrae. Moving her head/adjusting her arms/fixing the rifle in place/stretching to pull the trigger for the second shot -and probably with her mouth cavity filling with blood- with a wound which although wasn't instantly fatal, was certainly mortal? Hmm!
Easily firstly a semi automatic discharges rounds with a squeeze of the trigger and nerve reaction can cause this, at Deepcut military barracks a soldier there committed suicide with an SA80 5.56 rifle he shot himself twice, a 22 is a peashooter, unless its the head/ brain it likely wont be immediately fatal.
-
The logs are here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html - no such comment exists.
It does,at 07.47.
-
Easily firstly a semi automatic discharges rounds with a squeeze of the trigger and nerve reaction can cause this, at Deepcut military barracks a soldier there committed suicide with an SA80 5.56 rifle he shot himself twice, a 22 is a peashooter, unless its the head/ brain it likely wont be immediately fatal.
But Sheila wasn't a trained soldier. She was a very girly girl.
-
It does,at 07.47.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D that's the open line they were listening in on! ::) ::)
-
Recently read this and was very impressed by it, I do have a few questions about certain parts the first one that springs to mind is at Chapter 18 first paragraph the author recounts a private conversation between Barbara Wilson and Neville Bamber.
Barbara states "I must have caught him at a vulnerable time" she then goes on to say that he told her something that she has never told anyone else since, she says Neville may have been hoping she went to the Police "but I had no proof".
The author as far as I can see dose not explain what was said surely it could be very important?
As an aside in the book there is an overhead shot of WHF taken the day before the killings ( I cannot seem to find the image online), in it at the top there is a perfectly ploughed field, now I'm no farmer but that field is so perfectly ploughed I'd be interested if Bamber ploughed that, and what a psychologist would make of it.
Also separate from the book, Bambers apparent escape route is interesting he lived 3.5 miles from that farm, over the fields would be impractical, that leaves a road who is going to take the risk of being seen going to a murder and who in their right mind would seriously risk riding back on that road after killing five people?
EDIT, SORRY I GOT THE NAME WRONG, ITS NOW CORRECTED
There's no doubt Nevill had a premonition about a premature death and maybe he hinted to Barbara so that a posthumous record would exist. Both husband and wife were trying to economize due to the cost of renovating Clifton House, and the failure of June to write out personal cheques in her son's favour led to her demise.
There's more on the routes Jeremy might have chosen here: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
Note on the official site it says Jeremy had watched the television programmes which formed an alibi as they were transmitted, but as far as I can see there was nothing to prevent him from recording them, watching them when he got back and then destroying the video tape. It was the same with the telephone call from White House Farm to Bourtree Cottage, except for that Police took the tapes from Jeremy's answerphone to analyse. Of course they might have proved that there was such a call made, but not who made it.
As for the perfectly ploughed field, it was Jeremy's intention that last year to beat Nevill and June at their own game, namely to pretend to settle down to the farming lifestyle, yet secretly plotting their liquidation. He justified it to himself as mercy killings, and was helped in this by Sheila's second illness in March 1985, June's depression which she was trying hard to conceal, and Nevill's fatigue which gave his son the excuse he needed to finish him off.
-
Nevill didn't tackle Bamber because a man was shooting bullets in his face.
Bamber didn't have a mark on him because he was padded up. And fighting Nevill who had been shot 4 times. Bamber wasn't tested for a long time.
Why would Sheila give Nevill black eyes, a broken nose and bruises on the arms, head and neck afterwards ?
There is a thread on Nevill's burn marks. Bamber was checking for signs of life.
Why would the family wake if Bamber used a silencer ? The rifle would be impossible to hear behind closed doors.
There is also a thread on the bible. It was part of Bamber staging the scene.
You need to find another scenario as you're one did not match the crime scene. But thanks for trying. A lot of supporters never have. My scenario of how Bamber did it is available upon request.
A woman was shooting him in the face and he did not tackle her either, personally I would have bullrushed the person he was quite capable of it being a relatively fit healthy farmer, he was also a former WW2 man so retreating in the face of danger is quite unexplainable really, whether it was bamber or shelia. You could probable walk through 22 fire if your life depends on it. It seems NB would of had time to either get out of the house or arm himself while the shooting was carrying on, or of course make a phone call.
As to marks, yes body marks may have been coverable but facial or hand marks, no, again NB was a former serviceman punching a man in the face who was attacking him would have been a natural reaction as would using a makeshift weapon, bamber did not have black eyes or a broken nose.
The silencer is the ultimate red herring, it was almost certainly never used.
-
A woman was shooting him in the face and he did not tackle her either, personally I would have bullrushed the person he was quite capable of it being a relatively fit healthy farmer, he was also a former WW2 man so retreating in the face of danger is quite unexplainable really, whether it was bamber or shelia. You could probable walk through 22 fire if your life depends on it. It seems NB would of had time to either get out of the house or arm himself while the shooting was carrying on, or of course make a phone call.
As to marks, yes body marks may have been coverable but facial or hand marks, no, again NB was a former serviceman punching a man in the face who was attacking him would have been a natural reaction as would using a makeshift weapon, bamber did not have black eyes or a broken nose.
The silencer is the ultimate red herring, it was almost certainly never used.
Jeremy had the benefit of a rifle's length between himself and his father.
-
A woman was shooting him in the face and he did not tackle her either, personally I would have bullrushed the person he was quite capable of it being a relatively fit healthy farmer, he was also a former WW2 man so retreating in the face of danger is quite unexplainable really, whether it was bamber or shelia. You could probable walk through 22 fire if your life depends on it. It seems NB would of had time to either get out of the house or arm himself while the shooting was carrying on, or of course make a phone call.
As to marks, yes body marks may have been coverable but facial or hand marks, no, again NB was a former serviceman punching a man in the face who was attacking him would have been a natural reaction as would using a makeshift weapon, bamber did not have black eyes or a broken nose.
The silencer is the ultimate red herring, it was almost certainly never used.
If Nevill is anxious about Sheila or even suspecting that she might do harm to herself or others he would never have left the gun in situ that night. The whole episode is a story concocted by Jeremy which could never be verified by another as Jeremy himself knew perfectly well. If Sheila did manage to grab hold of a weapon Nevill's first thought would be to protect his wife and the twins instantly and not waste time on a fool's errand summoning the very person who had reduced him to tears through recent behaviour.
-
But Sheila wasn't a trained soldier. She was a very girly girl.
A bad-tempered one too !
-
A woman was shooting him in the face and he did not tackle her either, personally I would have bullrushed the person he was quite capable of it being a relatively fit healthy farmer, he was also a former WW2 man so retreating in the face of danger is quite unexplainable really, whether it was bamber or shelia. You could probable walk through 22 fire if your life depends on it. It seems NB would of had time to either get out of the house or arm himself while the shooting was carrying on, or of course make a phone call.
As to marks, yes body marks may have been coverable but facial or hand marks, no, again NB was a former serviceman punching a man in the face who was attacking him would have been a natural reaction as would using a makeshift weapon, bamber did not have black eyes or a broken nose.
The silencer is the ultimate red herring, it was almost certainly never used.
The 'forensic' evidence is it was human blood in the silencer. Certainly Sheila's according to the judge.
An awake an out of bed Nevill is much more likely to confront Sheila upstairs. Rather than run downstairs to phone Bamber :)). Leaving Sheila upstairs with a loaded rifle for several minutes.
It's doubtful Nevill punched Bamber. Nevill had been shot 4 times & was bare footed in pyjamas. Bamber had the rifle which he hit Nevill with. So hard the stock broke.
-
If Nevill is anxious about Sheila or even suspecting that she might do harm to herself or others he would never have left the gun in situ that night. The whole episode is a story concocted by Jeremy which could never be verified by another as Jeremy himself knew perfectly well. If Sheila did manage to grab hold of a weapon Nevill's first thought would be to protect his wife and the twins instantly and not waste time on a fool's errand summoning the very person who had reduced him to tears through recent behaviour.
It is very odd that bamber left that rifle like that, I mean it was almost like he knew she could actually use it. But the flip side is that bamber would not have known when he came through that window if NB moved it and put it under lock and key, if he had bamber would have had a hell of a dilemma.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D that's the open line they were listening in on! ::) ::)
Left open after a 999 call !
-
It is very odd that bamber left that rifle like that, I mean it was almost like he knew she could actually use it. But the flip side is that bamber would not have known when he came through that window if NB moved it and put it under lock and key, if he had bamber would have had a hell of a dilemma.
But more likely Bamber knew the rifle wasn't there at all. He probably hid it in the barn for collection later or put it back in the downstairs bathroom or gun cupboard with the same intention.
-
Left open after a 999 call !
Not the sort you want it to be. It's written in inverts.
-
The 'forensic' evidence is it was human blood in the silencer. Certainly Sheila's according to the judge.
An awake an out of bed Nevill is much more likely to confront Sheila upstairs. Rather than run downstairs to phone Bamber :)). Leaving Sheila upstairs with a loaded rifle for several minutes.
It's doubtful Nevill punched Bamber. Nevill had been shot 4 times & was bare footed in pyjamas. Bamber had the rifle which he hit Nevill with. So hard the stock broke.
As to the blood in the silencer, that's not what I have read, its highly contentious if it is even human, when you shoot a rat or fox often the first thing I person will do is nudge it with something ie the barrel.
All assertions of NB reactions are just opinion, but as said it might / would not matter who was holding it, the bullets are the issue not the holder.
And the stock could have been broken post mortem.
-
It is very odd that bamber left that rifle like that, I mean it was almost like he knew she could actually use it. But the flip side is that bamber would not have known when he came through that window if NB moved it and put it under lock and key, if he had bamber would have had a hell of a dilemma.
You are focusing on trying to magnify minor obstacles Bamber may have had. But it seems you have given up on creating a scenario of how Sheila committed the massacre to match the crime scene.
-
Not the sort you want it to be. It's written in inverts.
It doesn't say what she said it does and it certainly does NOT mean what she is implying. Once again it has to be pointed out that she is wrong!
-
Jeremy had the benefit of a rifle's length between himself and his father.
Man or woman " has the benefit of a rifle's length between them and their quarry. Nobody argues with ANYONE who's armed.
-
A bad-tempered one too !
Bad temper requires mental energy. Something Sheila had lacked during her last fortnight.
-
It is very odd that bamber left that rifle like that, I mean it was almost like he knew she could actually use it. But the flip side is that bamber would not have known when he came through that window if NB moved it and put it under lock and key, if he had bamber would have had a hell of a dilemma.
You're using your own mental processes and portraying those things which would have worried you. Jeremy wouldn't have had your concerns.
-
As to the blood in the silencer, that's not what I have read, its highly contentious if it is even human, when you shoot a rat or fox often the first thing I person will do is nudge it with something ie the barrel.
All assertions of NB reactions are just opinion, but as said it might / would not matter who was holding it, the bullets are the issue not the holder.
And the stock could have been broken post mortem.
The blood was human blood. Which means it was used on the massacre night. It was almost certainly Sheila's, who received a contact shot. There was no blood on the rifle end.
What do you mean the rifle could have been broken post mortem ?
It is correct Nevill may retreat if someone is shooting him. Especially if it's dark. Less likely if it is light, Nevill is up & awake and sees it's his daughter.
Why do you think Nevill chose to ring Bamber ?
-
Not the sort you want it to be. It's written in inverts.
Emphasis.
-
You are focusing on trying to magnify minor obstacles Bamber may have had. But it seems you have given up on creating a scenario of how Sheila committed the massacre to match the crime scene.
I've already done this for you.
You cannot even prove how Jeremy entered the house.
-
I've already done this for you.
You cannot even prove how Jeremy entered the house.
Jeremy said he knew how to enter the bathroom and kitchen windows. Locked or unlocked.
-
Bad temper requires mental energy. Something Sheila had lacked during her last fortnight.
Those with " mental energy " have the strength of an ox,and Sheila possessed that. She fooled everyone,including yourself.
-
Emphasis.
Why so, Lookout? 999 is it's own emphasis.
-
Those with " mental energy " have the strength of an ox,and Sheila possessed that. She fooled everyone,including yourself.
No she didn't - she was over sedated and didn't kill anyone.
-
Those with " mental energy " have the strength of an ox,and Sheila possessed that. She fooled everyone,including yourself.
Why would she have set out to "fool everyone" during her last fortnight, Lookout? Why would this girl who loved to look pretty and to be told she looked pretty walk around smelling and looking like a bag lady? Why would she move through the party as if she wasn't there, ignoring her child when he wanted to sit on her lap? Why would she remain silent, ignoring her children and he ex husband all the way from London to Essex?
-
Why so, Lookout? 999 is it's own emphasis.
It was a way of pointing out that the line had been left open on a 999 call as at 04.04 someone knew that call came through to HQ.Was Targrass ever questioned ?
-
His Method of entry is interesting as well,i used to live in a house with an old Yale lock, I knew that if I leaned on it it would pop the door open, I also had a friend who's parents owned a caravan, he could get into that with a knife under the window, boys often know these things.
To me its quite possible Mugfords conversation with the plod was just a tailoring of what she has heard him say previously, which she then put in a big soup.
-
Jeremy said he knew how to enter the bathroom and kitchen windows. Locked or unlocked.
Indeed. Jeremy said you can use a thin metal blade to force open the window the catch. However BEFORE and AFTER the murders took place there were no scratch marks found on those windows. The scratch marks found on the 1st of October were put there on the 16th of September when Jeremy had no keys.
So can you please prove how he entered the farm that night?
-
It was a way of pointing out that the line had been left open on a 999 call as at 04.04 someone knew that call came through to HQ.Was Targrass ever questioned ?
I'd have said that you can't make these things up, but you obviously do. I doubt anyone would leave the emergency line open for all that time. According to the TFG, they convened at the pub in Tiptree at around 5am. It would have taken several minutes to get to WHF from there. They also said they were advised that the family were probably all dead. Whoever told them that had it right.
-
His Method of entry is interesting as well,i used to live in a house with an old Yale lock, I knew that if I leaned on it it would pop the door open, I also had a friend who's parents owned a caravan, he could get into that with a knife under the window, boys often know these things.
To me its quite possible Mugfords conversation with the plod was just a tailoring of what she has heard him say previously, which she then put in a big soup.
That is correct. Julie said what Bamber had told her pre massacre. And then afterwards. It is called a Witness Statement.
-
Indeed. Jeremy said you can use a thin metal blade to force open the window the catch. However BEFORE and AFTER the murders took place there were no scratch marks found on those windows. The scratch marks found on the 1st of October were put there on the 16th of September when Jeremy had no keys.
So can you please prove how he entered the farm that night?
You know Bamber entered WHF via the bathroom window. Which he said he knew how to.
The judge said the found hacksaw, which was Bamber's, and the scratch marks, which Bamber made, may have been used on the massacre night.
There is also a strong chance Bamber left the bathroom window ajar when he visited for the last supper. No one would notice. If they did they may not bothered shutting it. It was summer.
-
Indeed. Jeremy said you can use a thin metal blade to force open the window the catch. However BEFORE and AFTER the murders took place there were no scratch marks found on those windows. The scratch marks found on the 1st of October were put there on the 16th of September when Jeremy had no keys.
So can you please prove how he entered the farm that night?
Didn't Julie say you could bang on the window and it would unhook from the lock? And didn't one of the Police attempt this himself?
-
You know Bamber entered WHF via the bathroom window. Which he said he knew how to.
The judge said the found hacksaw, which was Bamber's, and the scratch marks, which Bamber made, may have been used on the massacre night.
There is also a strong chance Bamber left the bathroom window ajar when he visited for the last supper. No one would notice. If they did they may not bothered shutting it. It was summer.
Adam. If the scratch marks were not there on the 22nd of August or from the 8th to the 10th of September. Confirmed by Lunn what was wound on the 1st of October was not there when he looked from the 8th to the 10th of September. What does that mean?
June to July - Windows freshly painted
-
-
-
-
-
August 7th 1985 - Massacre
-
-
-
-
-
-
August 22nd - Police examine windows find no scratch marks.
-
-
-
-
-
September 8th 9th 10th - Police re-examine bathroom windows after JM "comes forward" they find nothing.
-
-
-
-
-
September 16th Jeremy needed to get travel documents from WHF forgot key. Used hacksaw to enter via bathroom window
-
-
-
-
-
October 1st DI Cook and Brian Elliot discover scratch marks and hack saw.
So can you please prove how Jeremy entered the farm.
-
I'd have said that you can't make these things up, but you obviously do. I doubt anyone would leave the emergency line open for all that time. According to the TFG, they convened at the pub in Tiptree at around 5am. It would have taken several minutes to get to WHF from there. They also said they were advised that the family were probably all dead. Whoever told them that had it right.
Two separate logs were made pertaining to EP and the TFG. One set were EP communications log and the other set were the wireless communications log,the latter not having been exhibited at court.
Bonnett had referred to the Incident log which was part of EP communications log so the confusion of these two totally separate and different documents led to police obscuring facts about the 03.26 phone call.
EP communications log and incident log were one and the same but had been treated as two logs. Is it any wonder that EP made a pigs ear of everything ?
-
Why would his passport be held at White House Farm anyway? And why not telephone the relatives and ask to be let in to retrieve them?
-
Two separate logs were made pertaining to EP and the TFG. One set were EP communications log and the other set were the wireless communications log,the latter not having been exhibited at court.
Bonnett had referred to the Incident log which was part of EP communications log so the confusion of these two totally separate and different documents led to police obscuring facts about the 03.26 phone call.
EP communications log and incident log were one and the same but had been treated as two logs. Is it any wonder that EP made a pigs ear of everything ?
FGS! ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Why would his passport be held at White House Farm anyway?
It was not just his passport. It was also something to do with hiring a car abroad. So I am assuming it was the counterpart driving licence.
Also consider Jeremy had only moved in headstreet cottage the previous year.
And why not telephone the relatives and ask to be let in to retrieve them?
Seriously?
Why drive to a telephone box, call his relatives drive back to WHF and then wait for them to drive down from Wix if he can just climb through the window?
-
Two separate logs were made pertaining to EP and the TFG. One set were EP communications log and the other set were the wireless communications log,the latter not having been exhibited at court.
Bonnett had referred to the Incident log which was part of EP communications log so the confusion of these two totally separate and different documents led to police obscuring facts about the 03.26 phone call.
EP communications log and incident log were one and the same but had been treated as two logs. Is it any wonder that EP made a pigs ear of everything ?
In a case where, at times, the left hand never knew what the right hand was doing, I wonder how long it took them -and who they found to do it- to link it all together and then deconstruct it to the point where they could frame an -allegedly- innocent man. The police, theoretically, could do their own dirty work, internally, but who was going to make certain that pathologists/psychiatrists/legal counsel/judge/witnesses were nobbled and would remain so -without breaking silence- for 30+ years..........................but Hang On!!! They didn't remain silent did they? What about all those late night visitors with silly names Mike allegedly played host to? What about all those he had secret assignations with, requiring him to travel all over all over England, Spain and Turkey(?) Every man Jack of them swearing they knew that Jezza wuz dun over. Swearing they were there -or they knew a man that was! Swearing they'd seen pictures. Eager to tell their story (probably recommended by their counselors as a way of dealing with their collective PTSD)..................but not quite so concerned that they rushed to use the information to get an -allegedly- innocent man released................
................So where are we now? We have a CT beating the drum for Jeremy by organizing Bake June's Cakes days. We have a blond woman spouting about lovely Jeremy in front of a camera and reading a letter from Jeremy over the graves of the parents he slaughtered. Tasteful, that. We have those hoping to coin it in via highly secret "scientific breakthroughs" carried out in their bedroom using a laptop and material he's filched from someone else's research. We have those creating so many bullets and so many switched numbers it would make Pythagarus blink. We have a legal team working their way through the 3.5 million pages of documents and the God knows how many thousand pages of PII stuff -that Jeremy told Caroline were in his possession but supporters STILL insist are being held by EP- because there is nothing that points to his innocence.......................
................To answer the question, we appear to be back to where we were at the beginning. Because every one is hoping to go down in legal history as the person responsible for freeing Jeremy Bamber -and the dosh that will go with it!!!- the left hand STILL doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Folks, we have ourselves a farce that Brian Rix would be proud of.
-
FGS! ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D
You might well gasp,but this is the sort of " mistake " that DOES happen when there are " too many cooks " !! The right hand clearly didn't know what the left hand was doing in this situation and for once,they had to WORK ! Because it began as an utter shambles,it continued that way.
-
In a case where, at times, the left hand never knew what the right hand was doing, I wonder how long it took them -and who they found to do it- to link it all together and then deconstruct it to the point where they could frame an -allegedly- innocent man. The police, theoretically, could do their own dirty work, internally, but who was going to make certain that pathologists/psychiatrists/legal counsel/judge/witnesses were nobbled and would remain so -without breaking silence- for 30+ years..........................but Hang On!!! They didn't remain silent did they? What about all those late night visitors with silly names Mike allegedly played host to? What about all those he had secret assignations with, requiring him to travel all over all over England, Spain and Turkey(?) Every man Jack of them swearing they knew that Jezza wuz dun over. Swearing they were there -or they knew a man that was! Swearing they'd seen pictures. Eager to tell their story (probably recommended by their counselors as a way of dealing with their collective PTSD)..................but not quite so concerned that they rushed to use the information to get an -allegedly- innocent man released................
................So where are we now? We have a CT beating the drum for Jeremy by organizing Bake June's Cakes days. We have a blond woman spouting about lovely Jeremy in front of a camera and reading a letter from Jeremy over the graves of the parents he slaughtered. Tasteful, that. We have those hoping to coin it in via highly secret "scientific breakthroughs" carried out in their bedroom using a laptop and material he's filched from someone else's research. We have those creating so many bullets and so many switched numbers it would make Pythagarus blink. We have a legal team working their way through the 3.5 million pages of documents and the God knows how many thousand pages of PII stuff -that Jeremy told Caroline were in his possession but supporters STILL insist are being held by EP- because there is nothing that points to his innocence.......................
................To answer the question, we appear to be back to where we were at the beginning. Because every one is hoping to go down in legal history as the person responsible for freeing Jeremy Bamber -and the dosh that will go with it!!!- the left hand STILL doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Folks, we have ourselves a farce that Brian Rix would be proud of.
You've veered off somewhat,apart from your final line as Neville named EP the " Keystone Cops ",a very apt description !
-
You've veered off somewhat,apart from your final line as Neville named EP the " Keystone Cops ",a very apt description !
VERY difficult to veer off in a circle, and I did a complete one. :)
-
VERY difficult to veer off in a circle, and I did a complete one. :)
Oh,I noticed that,360 degrees.
-
Oh,I noticed that,360 degrees.
Which is exactly how circles fit ;D
-
You might well gasp,but this is the sort of " mistake " that DOES happen when there are " too many cooks " !! The right hand clearly didn't know what the left hand was doing in this situation and for once,they had to WORK ! Because it began as an utter shambles,it continued that way.
In the words of Jim Royal - "My a*se"!
-
In the words of Jim Royal - "My a*se"!
You know what they say when posts resort to insults,etc. !!
-
You know what they say when posts resort to insults,etc. !!
Which yours generally do so I guess they say someone is doing 'A Lookout'! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Which yours generally do so I guess they say someone is doing 'A Lookout'! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Once again,we have the forced laughter ::)
-
Why don't you spend more time conversing with Holly ? You might just learn something. Surely it's better for you than reading what I've got to say ??
I then dare you to tell her that what she posts in " all my a**e ".
-
Because this forum exists there MUST be reasonable doubt over the conviction.Therefore the conviction MUST be unsafe.
If you don't agree then what are you arguing for ? He's where you WANT him to be. No argument !
-
Because this forum exists there MUST be reasonable doubt over the conviction.Therefore the conviction MUST be unsafe.
Seriously. What kind of logic is that?
Because this forum exists there MUST be reasonable doubt over the earth being round.
Therefore the earth could be flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/)
-
Seriously. What kind of logic is that?
Because this forum exists there MUST be reasonable doubt over the earth being round.
Therefore the earth could be flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/)
Blimey,who's rattled your cage too ? ::)
Meaning that unless there'd been hard evidence to prove JB guilty-----which there wasn't,there remains to be an element of doubt as to the safety of the conviction given the amount of anomalies that have come to light.
What's up with everyone today ? Brain-Block ? Or just stupidity ?
-
Once again,we have the forced laughter ::)
It isn't forced ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Is there any truth about a suicide note written by Shelia?, but dismissed by the police? if so does it still survive?
-
What I do find especially stomach churning is Julie Mugford apparently knowing about the deaths of two kids for a month or so, how could woman who I believe actually now works with kids do this? an what sort of person could go into a morgue and identify them apparently knowing this.
-
Is there any truth about a suicide note written by Shelia?, but dismissed by the police? if so does it still survive?
There are four handwritten pages with somewhat similar to Sheila's handwriting. It's ambiguous with no mention of suicide.
I don't put much weight on it TBH.
-
Notes written by those who commit suicide don't often contain the word " suicide ".
-
It has been posted on the forum before, though I can't access it. I think it's worth pursuing, though it does not prove anything conclusively, but may be indicative of her state of mind. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/707781/Jeremy-Bamber-supporters-claim-police-ignored-sister-suicide-note-white-farm-Essex
I read today of the death of Tom Orchard and it reminded me of the case of Mike's nephew. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/14/he-was-really-really-let-down-thomas-orchards-family-speak-out
These things are happening with too great a frequency. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/police-taser-shooting-contributed-to-mans-death-jury-finds
-
It wouldn't be so bad if the police held thier hands up and admit they got it wrong g but as in all these cases they never ever do that, I stead making the families suffer years of investigations and trials.
I would certainly have a lot more support and trust I the police if they would admit thier mistakes.
-
It wouldn't be so bad if the police held thier hands up and admit they got it wrong g but as in all these cases they never ever do that, I stead making the families suffer years of investigations and trials.
I would certainly have a lot more support and trust I the police if they would admit thier mistakes.
This is why I say that the IPCC are a waste of time and money. Complaints to the police fall on deaf ears.
-
What I do find especially stomach churning is Julie Mugford apparently knowing about the deaths of two kids for a month or so, how could woman who I believe actually now works with kids do this? an what sort of person could go into a morgue and identify them apparently knowing this.
Scales, this has been debated ad nauseum. ALL of us, from across the divide, find her actions hard to swallow. However, to fully understand her reasons, we need to have been in her shoes at the time, NOT, however, coming from a place where we say we'd never have got into that situation.
-
Notes written by those who commit suicide don't often contain the word " suicide ".
And your experience of suicide notes comes from?
-
If you read the latest news,you'll see that again,it was the lies of a young woman in the States that had a poor chap imprisoned for 32 years before his recent release and exoneration. The man in question is Andrew Wilson. This man had claimed he was innocent from day one and for the rest of the time that followed.
A 17 year old girl was the ONLY PROSECUTION witness at the time,in 1984.
If it is found that he's" factually" innocent at the next hearing in May,he'll be compensated.
-
And your experience of suicide notes comes from?
I think it unlikely that a potential suicide would leave a note saying "I am going to commit suicide". Their intention would, MORE likely, be couched in other terms.
-
If you read the latest news,you'll see that again,it was the lies of a young woman in the States that had a poor chap imprisoned for 32 years before his recent release and exoneration. The man in question is Andrew Wilson. This man had claimed he was innocent from day one and for the rest of the time that followed.
A 17 year old girl was the ONLY PROSECUTION witness at the time,in 1984.
If it is found that he's" factually" innocent at the next hearing in May,he'll be compensated.
I fail to see why you appear to believe that every similar case you can put forward, automatically means that Jeremy is innocent.
-
I think it unlikely that a potential suicide would leave a note saying "I am going to commit suicide". Their intention would, MORE likely, be couched in other terms.
::) That's what I said and also meant ! It's Caroline who's questioning it.,
-
::) That's what I said and also meant ! It's Caroline who's questioning it.,
No, I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning what experience you have had of suicide letters?
-
I fail to see why you appear to believe that every similar case you can put forward, automatically means that Jeremy is innocent.
It seems pretty strange that those who are,or have been released after countless years,have been innocent ! Yet those who are PROVEN murderers do half the time and USUALLY go on to murder again,some doing as little as 8 years-------so somebody can't see sense can they ??
-
It seems pretty strange that those who are,or have been released after countless years,have been innocent ! Yet those who are PROVEN murderers do half the time and USUALLY go on to murder again,some doing as little as 8 years-------so somebody can't see sense can they ??
But those who've engaged in multiplicities of murders aren't generally released.
-
No, I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning what experience you have had of suicide letters?
I haven't personally had experience of suicide letters,but have seen enough either printed in the media, copies online or real crime programmes on TV. Enough to tell me that the intention to kill/or commit suicide is in the note/letter/script or scrawled elsewhere.
-
I haven't personally had experience of suicide letters,but have seen enough either printed in the media, copies online or real crime programmes on TV. Enough to tell me that the intention to kill/or commit suicide is in the note/letter/script or scrawled elsewhere.
And how many of those have actually contained the word "suicide"?
-
Also there are those who take their own lives without even mentioning it to anyone,unless their issue forces them to say how they feel and I'd like to think that those in this category get all the help and assistance they need,as this is yet another area of mental health.
-
Also there are those who take their own lives without even mentioning it to anyone,unless their issue forces them to say how they feel and I'd like to think that those in this category get all the help and assistance they need,as this is yet another area of mental health.
Well, they don't!
-
Well, they don't!
What sort of an answer is that ? Can't you elaborate ??
-
What sort of an answer is that ? Can't you elaborate ??
I have personal experience of suicide and here is not the place to elaborate of such experiences.
-
I have personal experience of suicide and here is not the place to elaborate of such experiences.
Why bring the question up in the first place instead of giving me your usual blunt reply ??
-
Why bring the question up in the first place instead of giving me your usual blunt reply ??
You haven't had any experience of suicide but you always write in such a way that makes it seem you are some authority.
-
You haven't had any experience of suicide but you always write in such a way that makes it seem you are some authority.
Maybe it was because I was a nurse and saw/experienced situations ??
-
Maybe it was because I was a nurse and saw/experienced situations ??
How did your patients phrase their suicide notes?
-
How did your patients phrase their suicide notes?
What sort of an idiotic question is that ? Their places of suicide were investigated by the police.That includes their homes too,to which we obviously weren't privvy to-------we just dealt with the person.
-
What sort of an idiotic question is that ? Their places of suicide were investigated by the police.That includes their homes too,to which we obviously weren't privvy to-------we just dealt with the person.
My point was simply that as I didn't feel it likely that they committed suicide in your care, you CLEARLY couldn't have been privy to any suicide notes they may have left so you wouldn't know how they were worded ie If they contained the word SUICIDE.
-
My point was simply that as I didn't feel it likely that they committed suicide in your care, you CLEARLY couldn't have been privy to any suicide notes they may have left so you wouldn't know how they were worded ie If they contained the word SUICIDE.
What I do know is the way a note is worded/put together,not necessarily with any mention of suicide,but other indicators which point to whether a person has intentions of taking their lives or whether they have,if there's a scene of crime. It's down to a forensic psychologist to piece together certain elements that point towards the person having taken their lives.
-
Maybe it was because I was a nurse and saw/experienced situations ??
But not suicide situations that required a note? A simple 'no I have no experience of sufficed' would have sufficed.
-
But not suicide situations that required a note? A simple 'no I have no experience of sufficed' would have sufficed.
I'd take more water with it next time if I were you.
Why should a note be required ?
-
I'd take more water with it next time if I were you.
Why should a note be required ?
I wasn't aware that there was any ruling which said that those who commit suicide should leave a note. It was YOU, initially, who raised the subject of 'notes'.
-
I wasn't aware that there was any ruling which said that those who commit suicide should leave a note. It was YOU, initially, who raised the subject of 'notes'.
Without telling tales out of school,it was Scales who'd first broached the subject of notes yesterday,followed by David's post then the subject continued 24hrs later but feel free to blame me,as per.
-
Without telling tales out of school,it was Scales who'd first broached the subject of notes yesterday,followed by David's post then the subject continued 24hrs later but feel free to blame me,as per.
I don't respond to David as I have him on ignore. Ergo, I have no idea what he says. I responded to one of Scales' posts in which I believe that I said the subject, whatever it was, had been discussed AD NAUSEUM........................NOW, and here, I AM going to change the subject because this one is becoming boring and I'm not afraid of admitting when I change a subject. A friend of mine has just informed me that, residing at Her Majesty's pleasure in Ford Open Prison, Sussex, are 3 High Court Judges and 67 -yes, sixty seven- solicitors. I thought you might enjoy sticking that in you arsenal of anti establishment views.
-
I'd take more water with it next time if I were you.
Why should a note be required ?
Unbelievable! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't respond to David as I have him on ignore. Ergo, I have no idea what he says. I responded to one of Scales' posts in which I believe that I said the subject, whatever it was, had been discussed AD NAUSEUM........................NOW, and here, I AM going to change the subject because this one is becoming boring and I'm not afraid of admitting when I change a subject. A friend of mine has just informed me that, residing at Her Majesty's pleasure in Ford Open Prison, Sussex, are 3 High Court Judges and 67 -yes, sixty seven- solicitors. I thought you might enjoy sticking that in you arsenal of anti establishment views.
Nothing shocks nor surprises me anymore as in the Liverpool Echo on a regular basis,there are police involved in all kinds of horrors. It's becoming quite a regular occurrence,so judges and solicitors aren't much better anyway,as two solicitors who dealt with separate conveyancing in the past both ended up in prison and a third who I knew of who was just coming up to retirement, also ended up doing time instead of landscaping his enormous garden.
-
Nothing shocks nor surprises me anymore as in the Liverpool Echo on a regular basis,there are police involved in all kinds of horrors. It's becoming quite a regular occurrence,so judges and solicitors aren't much better anyway,as two solicitors who dealt with separate conveyancing in the past both ended up in prison and a third who I knew of who was just coming up to retirement, also ended up doing time instead of landscaping his enormous garden.
I would have thought you're pretty safe engaging them with conveyancing, though I wouldn't trust them with much else.
-
I would have thought you're pretty safe engaging them with conveyancing, though I wouldn't trust them with much else.
My conveyancer -a girl at a call centre- tried to take me down a road which would have cost me double figure thousands....................until a real solicitor took over and it cost me a couple of hundred.
-
My conveyancer -a girl at a call centre- tried to take me down a road which would have cost me double figure thousands....................until a real solicitor took over and it cost me a couple of hundred.
Well I was fobbed off at the doctor's surgery with a nurse three years ago which ultimately cost a life. I know these legal advisors can dispense the wrong advice which might hit you in the wallet but how can you possibly play Russian roulette with someone's life?
-
Well I was fobbed off at the doctor's surgery with a nurse three years ago which ultimately cost a life. I know these legal advisors can dispense the wrong advice which might hit you in the wallet but how can you possibly play Russian roulette with someone's life?
How strange you should say that, Steve. The doctor friend who I was speaking with today, retired from NHS 20 years ago because he said he found it impossible to have to spend more time on paper work than on patients. He said he could foresee tragedies. He's been proved right.
-
How strange you should say that, Steve. The doctor friend who I was speaking with today, retired from NHS 20 years ago because he said he found it impossible to have to spend more time on paper work than on patients. He said he could foresee tragedies. He's been proved right.
Jane I don't want to disparage nurses but they are not doctors and should not set themselves up as such; neither should teaching assistants pretend to be teachers. I'm sure there are more examples.
-
Jane I don't want to disparage nurses but they are not doctors and should not set themselves up as such; neither should teaching assistants pretend to be teachers. I'm sure there are more examples.
I totally agree, Steve, albeit with the rider that, for the most part, I believe they do sterling work. Sadly, it seems that circumstances may be forcing them to make decisions that really aren't theirs to make.
-
I would have thought you're pretty safe engaging them with conveyancing, though I wouldn't trust them with much else.
Embezzlement
-
Well I was fobbed off at the doctor's surgery with a nurse three years ago which ultimately cost a life. I know these legal advisors can dispense the wrong advice which might hit you in the wallet but how can you possibly play Russian roulette with someone's life?
I've just been on the phone with my g/daughter whose partner was treated with a " chest infection " last November--------which turned out to be Sepsis ! He was hospitalized for a while but since being discharched,which was before Christmas,he didn't feel right so went back to the GP who told him to take Paracetamol.
The poor lad has what appears to be Lymphoma------with every gland in his body swollen and he's lost about 2 stone in weight because he can't keep anything down. An emergency CT scan was ordered and he has a biopsy on Monday,under general anaesthetic,so the outlook is a long-haul of chemo and radiotherapy.
So the " chest infection " turned out to be something worse if they'd taken the trouble to look in the first place !!
His white blood count at the time would have been sky high.
-
I've just been on the phone with my g/daughter whose partner was treated with a " chest infection " last November--------which turned out to be Sepsis ! He was hospitalized for a while but since being discharched,which was before Christmas,he didn't feel right so went back to the GP who told him to take Paracetamol.
The poor lad has what appears to be Lymphoma------with every gland in his body swollen and he's lost about 2 stone in weight because he can't keep anything down. An emergency CT scan was ordered and he has a biopsy on Monday,under general anaesthetic,so the outlook is a long-haul of chemo and radiotherapy.
So the " chest infection " turned out to be something worse if they'd taken the trouble to look in the first place !!
His white blood count at the time would have been sky high.
I picked up a leaflet in Boots the other day stating that any unexplained pain which doesn't go away for a protracted period could be cancer and should be investigated. I won't go into personal circumstances but had I been aware of this three years ago it might have saved a life. I also think there's a hidden agenda whereby these scans are rationed due to resources and that in itself is a scandal.
-
Jane I don't want to disparage nurses but they are not doctors and should not set themselves up as such; neither should teaching assistants pretend to be teachers. I'm sure there are more examples.
I really dispute that Steve. A Registered Nurse is a highly trained and highly skilled individual. Nursing is one of the few true professions and should be recognised as such.
A good Sister in charge of a ward should know everything about every patient and understand every part of their diagnosis and treatment. Most doctors recognise Ward Sisters know far more about their patients and treatment required than they do.
-
Jane I don't want to disparage nurses but they are not doctors and should not set themselves up as such; neither should teaching assistants pretend to be teachers. I'm sure there are more examples.
I saw a " junior " doctor last week and I told him in my" Miss Faversham" way that I was sorry I wasted his time,because he kept leaving the room to speak with " his colleague next door !" So I then said he'd have done well listening to what I had to say.
It's a frightening situation for anyone when their GP doesn't know what's going on.
-
I really dispute that Steve. A Registered Nurse is a highly trained and highly skilled individual. Nursing is one of the few true professions and should be recognised as such.
A good Sister in charge of a ward should know everything about every patient and understand every part of their diagnosis and treatment. Most doctors recognise Ward Sisters know far more about their patients and treatment required than they do.
I have nothing but praise for how my mother was treated by the nursing staff in her last few weeks but my anger is reserved for the nurse at the doctor's surgery setting herself up as a doctor and misdiagnosing my mother's cancer as a kidney infection. On the second occasion I took her to the surgery after insistence that there was something wrong the doctor himself failed to diagnose the cancer. A scan which might well have detected it was not forthcoming until it was too late.
-
I picked up a leaflet in Boots yesterday stating that any unexplained pain which doesn't go away for a protracted period could be cancer and should be investigated. I won't go into personal circumstances but had I been aware of this three years ago it might have saved a life. I also think there's a hidden agenda whereby these scans are rationed due to resources and that in itself is a scandal.
Steve,I've only just realised how scandalous this is,and it is,without question. Shameful.
-
I've just been on the phone with my g/daughter whose partner was treated with a " chest infection " last November--------which turned out to be Sepsis ! He was hospitalized for a while but since being discharched,which was before Christmas,he didn't feel right so went back to the GP who told him to take Paracetamol.
The poor lad has what appears to be Lymphoma------with every gland in his body swollen and he's lost about 2 stone in weight because he can't keep anything down. An emergency CT scan was ordered and he has a biopsy on Monday,under general anaesthetic,so the outlook is a long-haul of chemo and radiotherapy.
So the " chest infection " turned out to be something worse if they'd taken the trouble to look in the first place !!
His white blood count at the time would have been sky high.
He's very lucky to be alive. My partner died of Sepsis.
-
I have nothing but praise for how my mother was treated by the nursing staff in her last few weeks but my anger is reserved for the nurse at the doctor's surgery setting herself up as a doctor and misdiagnosing my mother's cancer as a kidney infection. On the second occasion I took her to the surgery after insistence that there was something wrong the doctor himself failed to diagnose the cancer. A scan which might well have detected it was not forthcoming until it was too late.
I'm so sorry Steve, they should listen to the patient and those that know them best. I get Maggie's point also but until they fully investigate an illness, they shouldn't fob people off and in your case, i had such tragic circumstances. I have had similar experiences with our local practice but the consequences weren't as serious.
-
He's very lucky to be alive. My partner died of Sepsis.
I feel quite ill to be honest,he's only 27.
-
I saw a " junior " doctor last week and I told him in my" Miss Faversham" way that I was sorry I wasted his time,because he kept leaving the room to speak with " his colleague next door !" So I then said he'd have done well listening to what I had to say.
It's a frightening situation for anyone when their GP doesn't know what's going on.
My advice to anyone with concerns about a relative is not to be fobbed off but to keep pestering if necessary until you get a date for a scan which may save a life.
-
I feel quite ill to be honest,he's only 27.
That feeling of impotence and helplessness is the same whether they're 27 or 77, Lookout.
-
In my experience they're far likelier to take a younger person seriously, which is ironic when you consider an elderly patient has paid into the system all their lives and need to avail themselves of this service when they're at their most vulnerable.
-
I have nothing but praise for how my mother was treated by the nursing staff in her last few weeks but my anger is reserved for the nurse at the doctor's surgery setting herself up as a doctor and misdiagnosing my mother's cancer as a kidney infection. On the second occasion I took her to the surgery after insistence that there was something wrong the doctor himself failed to diagnose the cancer. A scan which might well have detected it was not forthcoming until it was too late.
Steve,for me personally and at my age,I have nothing but praise for both the hospitals where I live as they genuinely pulled out all the stops in finding out where my problem lay. Money had been no object with 4xCT scans, 2xUltrasound scans and a full body ( PET ) scan which was carried out by Alliance Medical,a private firm,but through Clatterbridge cancer centre.
I wish your mother had been treated the same. I feel so sorry.
This is why,when I hear of what happens,that I don't understand because of the swiftness I had been seen . Cancer had been suspected,but most fortunately there wasn't,anywhere,just kidney failure which happens to any elderly person and that was diagnosed a few years ago,caused by years of high blood-pressure,so nothing compared to what others suffer and I count myself the luckiest person and thankful too.
-
In my experience they're far likelier to take a younger person seriously, which is ironic when you consider an elderly patient has paid into the system all their lives and need to avail themselves of this service when they're at their most vulnerable.
I absolutely agree, Steve, yet that concept is at odds with the scientists doing everything in their power to keep us living longer. It's not about quantity -OK, longevity- it's about quality. My friend, who's in his mid 70's says his next partner must have the emotional strength to take his to Dignitas when he thinks the time is right.
-
I absolutely agree, Steve, yet that concept is at odds with the scientists doing everything in their power to keep us living longer. It's not about quantity -OK, longevity- it's about quality. My friend, who's in his mid 70's says his next partner must have the emotional strength to take his to Dignitas when he thinks the time is right.
I would only go to Dignitas if I had terminal cancer and not for any other reason. I think any mental illness could and should be treated in a different way. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127413/Cashing-despair-Suicide-clinic-Dignitas-profit-obsessed-killing-machine-claims-ex-worker.html
-
I would only go to Dignitas if I had terminal cancer and not for any other reason. I think any mental illness could and should be treated in a different way. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127413/Cashing-despair-Suicide-clinic-Dignitas-profit-obsessed-killing-machine-claims-ex-worker.html
That makes for gut wrenching reading, Steve. I'm afraid I could only skim it. I suspect that if I was desperate to die, though, I might not feel as I do now.
-
That makes for gut wrenching reading, Steve. I'm afraid I could only skim it. I suspect that if I was desperate to die, though, I might not feel as I do now.
If I'm no longer in control of my bodily functions I think it's time to call it a day.
-
I can't read anything like that before bedtime or I'll be up and down like a fiddlers elbow.
-
It wasn't a television series where the script make it all come right. Jeremy had the best part of a month to get rid of everything which might have incriminated him. He'd got it right enough that they didn't immediately suspect him which gave him breathing space.
And here is the crux of the matter. In these cases it appears so as an axiom, here is a real case, Shaun Attwood and drug dealing from his book Hard Time.
“Detective Reid even admits that you never talk on the phone, in emails, or have people at your home. That you’re beyond surveillance. They’re using the gist of the conversations of the co-defendants as the main evidence against you.
The prosecutor’s trying to say the lack of evidence against you proves you’re a criminal mastermind, too clever to be detected. So the lack of evidence against you is actually evidence against you, which is ridiculous!”
Here is a passage from the Lundy book.
August 29th, 2000, right up to just before he left on his alleged murderous rampage –
“He appeared to be his normal self”.
“He was his normal bubbly self”.
“He seemed as good as gold”
“He was the same as usual – happy, chatty, just normal Mark. He is one of our favourite reps”
“Every time the accused came in here he was always cheery, bubbly and happy. I never saw him in a bad mood. He was always the same, happy and chatty”.
“He always had a big smile and was always talkative. His visit on the day was no different from usual. I would describe him as a big teddy bear. He was a genuine, gentle, nice guy”.
“He appeared to be happy as usual”
“The accused was exactly like he usually is. He has a casual, easygoing manner about him”.
Now, by later that evening of course, Mark had allegedly hacked Christine to death and he had had a major hiccup in his “meticulous” plan – he had unfortunately had to chop to death his “adored”, “loved” and “worshipped” daughter Amber. The “apple of his eye”. Soul destroying stuff. Shattering. Plus, the frantic drives “in extremis that nobody could replicate” (and worried stiff that people must have seen him – what an idiot!), and the frantic hiding of all the incriminating evidence. What a night! Mark would be a right mess. Correct? He is visited by a prostitute at about midnight. He discusses his business, and talks about what role Christine plays in it.
The woman’s statement states “There was nothing unusual in his behaviour”. “To deal with, I found him to be very nice and pleasant to be around even though he stank of alcohol”. “He was very nice the whole time I was there”. “I wouldn’t have anything bad to say about him”.
So, to the next morning when Lundy had to visit more customers.
Firstly, the motel manager said that Mark “appeared well” when he checked out at 8:09am. The following are comments, which the police had, from customers Mark visited on the morning of August 30th, the morning after the murders –
“The accused is a very friendly, caring person. He is very gentle and very nice. He always mentioned Christine and Amber and spoke of them fondly”.
“I asked him how his wife and kids were …….his usual self…..always cheerful and good to deal with”.
“I found him to be really chatty. He was very happy and smiley like he usually is. His demeanour was the same as it always was”.
“The accused appeared to be his normal self. He was well dressed as usual and friendly. There didn’t appear to be anything wrong”.
- and from the notebook of Sweeney (not disclosed) who visited and spoke to the two customers in Wellington city (when Lundy was alleged to be in the Hutt) “Absolutely nothing strange about Lundy. Sweet/Normal”
.................................
So you see why he almost got away with it too, and it took 6 months to arrest him?
Like Jeremy Bamber he was not there.
-
Carol Ann Lee's book has this reconstruction by the police, for those who have not had the pain of reading this logistically completely impossible concoction...............................
After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, thereby disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table. The rifle was where Jeremy had left it earlier that evening; he either loaded it then or had already fully loaded it. Climbing the stairs, he steeled himself to kill the greatest threats first: his parents. A thin film of moonlight glimmered through the curtains in the master bedroom, where his parents lay sleeping. He stood in the doorway, lifted the rifle, and fired. The first two shots pierced the right side of June’s chest, embedding themselves in the pillow. Another shot hit her in the arm and a third travelled up inside her leg, lodging in her knee. The terrible impact woke Nevill, who lurched out of bed. Jeremy turned the gun on his father, firing four shots that caught him on his left side: two bullets penetrated his forearm and shoulder, and two tore into his lip and jaw. Jeremy left the room, heading down the first flight of stairs and through the corridor to the twins’ bedroom, firing one shot into each slumbering child. With all ten cartridges expended, he made his way down to the kitchen to reload. He managed to slot four cartridges into the magazine before his father stumbled into the room. A fierce fight for possession of the weapon ensued: they fell against the table, knocking it into the dresser and sending crockery to the floor. The rifle struck the overhead lampshade, shattering it. Jeremy used the gun to beat his father about the arms, head and face; Nevill’s watch broke and skittered across the lino. The struggle came to a brutal end near the Aga, where the rifle damaged the underside of the mantel. As Nevill collapsed over a chair, landing at an impossible angle with his pyjamas tangling around his feet, Jeremy brought the gun down on his skull, then fired four shots into his head. The last produced a stovepipe jam, trapping the empty cartridge case in the ejection port. Jeremy removed the magazine and loaded it to its full capacity, then inserted it into the magazine well. Climbing the stairs again, he cleared the jammed cartridge by working the bolt. It fell out, rolling towards the skirting board on the first landing. While father and son were fighting in the kitchen, June had managed to force herself up from the bed. The commotion had also woken Sheila, who crossed the landing to her parents’ bedroom, drowsy and confused. At the sight of her mother bleeding profusely as she steadied herself on the edge of the bed, Sheila rushed to the other side of the room, where the door to the box room was the quickest route to the twins. June staggered round the bed after her, but before she could reach Sheila, Jeremy returned with the gun. Sheila froze. June started towards her son, who fired three more shots into her neck, head, and finally between the eyes. June hit her shoulder against the door as she slumped to the floor. Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat. With six cartridges left in the rifle, he headed back down the corridor where he fired two further shots into Nicholas and four into Daniel, emptying the magazine. The element of ‘overkill’ would help his story that Sheila, in the grip of psychosis, was the guilty party. He then retraced his footsteps to the master bedroom, intending to finish setting the scene. To his shock he found his sister incapacitated but still alive. Quickly, he returned to the kitchen, loading a single cartridge into the magazine.
Upstairs once more, he crouched down and took aim. The bullet went into Sheila’s brain, killing her instantly. He then placed his mother’s bible at his sister’s side, unscrewed the silencer and positioned the empty rifle on her body. After showering, he changed into some clothes from his old bedroom, pushing the others into a bag for disposal later. He replaced the silencer in a box in the den cupboard, since to dispose of it might raise questions about its whereabouts. To account for his father’s death downstairs and the fact that he hadn’t been able to use the bedside telephone, Jeremy hid the kitchen telephone in a pile of magazines, then placed the bedroom telephone on the kitchen work surface. He dialled his own number, pressing the cradle to cut the call, and left the receiver off the hook. Removing all the household paraphernalia from the area around the sink, he then climbed out of the window. He reached back in to return everything more or less to its usual spot, then banged the window shut, causing the lock to fall into place. In the garden, he collected the bicycle and headed home along the same route as before. Just after 3am he called Julie. He chose his words carefully in case anyone else should overhear but said enough to let the reality of what he had done sink in. Then, to ensure that his version of events was the first, he rang Chelmsford Police Station, telling Constable West: ‘You’ve got to help me, my father has just phoned me saying, “please come over, your sister has gone crazy and has the gun”, then the phone went dead. My father sounded terrified, I don’t think he was kidding.’ ‘Where does your father live?’ West asked. ‘White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy
...................................................................
What a load of crap.
-
No, neither was Macavity.
-
It's no more c*** than any scenario you can concoct with Sheila as the perpetrator.
-
What I do find especially stomach churning is Julie Mugford apparently knowing about the deaths of two kids for a month or so, how could woman who I believe actually now works with kids do this? an what sort of person could go into a morgue and identify them apparently knowing this.
Julie Mugford is a fascinating study in pure evil. There is no explanation other than this since Jeremy Bamber did not do the crime, and she knows it.
-
Of course JM knows he didn't commit the crime.I've said this all along.
-
Julie Mugford is a fascinating study in pure evil. There is no explanation other than this since Jeremy Bamber did not do the crime, and she knows it.
You are as unknowledgeable about England as I am about New Zealand. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5528.msg240763#msg240763
-
You are as unknowledgeable about England as I am about New Zealand. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5528.msg240763#msg240763
I read that eloquent post Steve. If I didn't know better I might think your name was Carol ;)
-
I read that eloquent post Steve. If I didn't know better I might think your name was Carol ;)
No I'm staying the male gender thanks.
-
It's no more c*** than any scenario you can concoct with Sheila as the perpetrator.
How about
Just after 3am he called Julie. He chose his words carefully in case anyone else should overhear but said enough to let the reality of what he had done sink in.
Noone believes that she would passionately embrace a killer of two children, so this part is plain wrong.
He then retraced his footsteps to the master bedroom, intending to finish setting the scene. To his shock he found his sister incapacitated but still alive. Quickly, he returned to the kitchen, loading a single cartridge into the magazine.
Upstairs once more, he crouched down and took aim. The bullet went into Sheila’s brain, killing her instantly.
Yet the blood staining shows she hadn't moved between shots. Gravity feeds the blood in the expected way for a one position death.
The terrible impact woke Nevill, who lurched out of bed. Jeremy turned the gun on his father, firing four shots that caught him on his left side: two bullets penetrated his forearm and shoulder, and two tore into his lip and jaw.
Noone believes he would fire 5 shots to June leaving his father able. The reason she took 5 shots is because she was alone in the room and Nevill was downstairs. He raced up and took the face shots, turned and took the arm shots.
The commotion had also woken Sheila, who crossed the landing to her parents’ bedroom, drowsy and confused.
Let us parse this then. He shot June first and took the real risk, that Nevill would attack. Of course he would, but this would be certain to wake Sheila, who was never going to be a compliant victim. There is no such thing, and is contrary to a plan. With hindsight you lot have created this catatonic robot to slaughter, forgetting she has a history of violence, and was off her meds. Can't you see what a stupid plan it would be, leaving the simplest explanation being there was no plan. I have detailed how I see Sheila doing this crime with no planning, just one sad circumstance rolling to the next till they are all at peace.
................................
I could go from point to ridiculous point, but I am wasting my time. You have all persuaded your prime minister the conviction is right and proper, so who am I to care?
-
Nevill could have been downstairs but Jeremy killed him before he could get to a telephone. Sheila doesn't need to have moved for Jeremy to have shot her twice. The conviction is safe in my eyes.
-
Nevill could have been downstairs but Jeremy killed him before he could get to a telephone. Sheila doesn't need to have moved for Jeremy to have shot her twice. The conviction is safe in my eyes.
Too many bullets wasted on June for this. Extreme risk. You are glossing over everything I wrote. You do not address the fact that a plan to replicate suicide has too many moving parts, and that Sheila could be relied on to be completely non compliant, resulting in physical injury beyond just gun shots.
It just does not work, you know this. It is called cognitive dissonance and is tragic for Jeremy and your legal system. The sooner you all face your demons the better.
The conviction is neither safe nor unsafe, these words are unsuitable for this outrage.
-
Too many bullets wasted on June for this. Extreme risk. You are glossing over everything I wrote. You do not address the fact that a plan to replicate suicide has too many moving parts, and that Sheila could be relied on to be completely non compliant, resulting in physical injury beyond just gun shots.
It just does not work, you know this. It is called cognitive dissonance and is tragic for Jeremy and your legal system. The sooner you all face your demons the better.
The conviction is neither safe nor unsafe, these words are unsuitable for this outrage.
I have had experience of a young schizophrenic in psychosis and that person was barely capable of holding a conversation, let alone committing all the crimes attributed to Sheila that morning. Sheila was ill but she was passive rather than proactive: she was silent on the journey down to White House Farm, she was vacant and staring at the shop in Tiptree, she was vacant around the kitchen table and worn out with the telephone call from Pam. She went to her death like a lamb to the slaughter after being led by the hand into the master bedroom where a rifle was thrust into her hands and the trigger pulled.
-
I have had experience of a young schizophrenic in psychosis and that person was barely capable of holding a conversation, let alone committing all the crimes attributed to Sheila that morning. Sheila was ill but she was passive rather than proactive: she was silent on the journey down to White House Farm, she was vacant and staring at the shop in Tiptree, she was vacant around the kitchen table and worn out with the telephone call from Pam. She went to her death like a lamb to the slaughter after being led by the hand into the master bedroom where a rifle was thrust into her hands and the trigger pulled.
Yes that is what Harry hindsight serves up. But hindsight is not available when planning. Do you understand this point? Foresight simply deems the plan implausible.
Your experience would encourage you to rely on a catatonic cooperator for a major endeavour of this nature?
You know what I am saying but cognitive dissonance separates you from the inevitable.
-
Yes that is what Harry hindsight serves up. But hindsight is not available when planning. Do you understand this point? Foresight simply deems the plan implausible.
Your experience would encourage you to rely on a catatonic cooperator for a major endeavour of this nature?
You know what I am saying but cognitive dissonance separates you from the inevitable.
Sheila's remark gave Jeremy the moral legitimacy he needed to execute his plan. He had been devising his scheme for months as he ploughed yonder field on the tractor, his lone, solitary figure silhouetted against the shimmering sun, the brilliant marsh marigolds now bent on slumber, belying that evil intent harbouring in his mind as White House Farm was set in relief, soon to be transformed into a charnel house of death..
-
Sheila's remark gave Jeremy the moral legitimacy he needed to execute his plan. He had been devising his scheme for months as he ploughed yonder field on the tractor, his lone, solitary figure silhouetted against the shimmering sun, the brilliant marsh marigolds now bent on slumber, belying that evil intent harbouring in his mind as White House Farm was set in relief, soon to be transformed into a charnel house of death..
Now you're just being naughty.
What are we planning for our next great hoax, Galileo should be hanged?
-
Sheila's remark gave Jeremy the moral legitimacy he needed to execute his plan. He had been devising his scheme for months as he ploughed yonder field on the tractor, his lone, solitary figure silhouetted against the shimmering sun, the brilliant marsh marigolds now bent on slumber, belying that evil intent harbouring in his mind as White House Farm was set in relief, soon to be transformed into a charnel house of death..
Whats is this. An insight into Robert Boutflours imagination?
On a serious note, you have lost your marbles.
-
Whats is this. An insight into Robert Boutflours imagination?
On a serious note, you have lost your marbles.
I think we can take Steve in hand and make something of them. That lyrical outpouring is wasted on the hoaxers, and usually everyone can be bought.
-
Now you're just being naughty.
What are we planning for our next great hoax, Galileo should be hanged?
CAL's scenario is a LOT better than the one you served up - where Sheila is guilty because she had some washing in a bucket. ::)
-
Whats is this. An insight into Robert Boutflours imagination?
On a serious note, you have lost your marbles.
To be admonished by you is like being told to sit up straight by The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
I used to enjoy marbles as a kid. Young people today don't know what they missed, and I suppose in a sense it's good thing..
-
I used to enjoy marbles as a kid. Young people today don't know what they missed, and I suppose in a sense it's good thing..
They'd be a health and safety issue with stupid kids swallowing them.
-
Yet there's no issue to allow violent games to be sold !
-
They'd be a health and safety issue with stupid kids swallowing them.
Why don't you take a look at the stupid parents who allow their children to play with them, unsupervised.
-
Why don't you take a look at the stupid parents who allow their children to play with them, unsupervised.
Well there's those too, but I never remember being " supervised " when playing games of any sort,as we knew what was not right to do. We only had to be told once ! I've heard parents saying the word " no " half a dozen times and it still doesn't penetrate. The child does it all the more.
-
Well there's those too, but I never remember being " supervised " when playing games of any sort,as we knew what was not right to do. We only had to be told once ! I've heard parents saying the word " no " half a dozen times and it still doesn't penetrate. The child does it all the more.
Well, unless you were born with the brain of Methuselah, at some moment, SOMEONE would undoubtedly have instructed you..................and if the OBSTINATE woman you are now was in embryonic form, I have my doubts that you'd have ever been 100% obedient. You'd have insisted on pushing boundaries. If parents keep saying "No" without giving children their attention, "No" means nothing. By disobeying, at least the child gains parental attention, even if it's negative.
-
Yet there's no issue to allow violent games to be sold !
Get yourself and X Box Lookout and have a few games of Call of Duty - might mellow you out a bit! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yet there's no issue to allow violent games to be sold !
Offering something for sale is one thing. No one forces anyone to buy.
-
Offering something for sale is one thing. No one forces anyone to buy.
Going by the horrendous news on a daily basis, I'd have thought there was little or no need to purchase such games ! Only for those who want more,eh ??
-
Going by the horrendous news on a daily basis, I'd have thought there was little or no need to purchase such games ! Only for those who want more,eh ??
I can quite see that those who buy them MAY have the kind of disordered personality which draws them to violence. I suppose it COULD be posited that participating in such games prevents them from carrying their dark fantasies into real life....................on the other hand they COULD encourage such. Ya pays ya money. Ya takes ya choice.
-
I can quite see that those who buy them MAY have the kind of disordered personality which draws them to violence. I suppose it COULD be posited that participating in such games prevents them from carrying their dark fantasies into real life....................on the other hand they COULD encourage such. Ya pays ya money. Ya takes ya choice.
They are just popular games. Yes, people with violent personalities will no doubt to drawn to them but not everyone who plays then acts out violent behaviour. While they will affect some people (and also violent movies), they will have no effect on most. People are responsible for their own behaviour, it's not a game or a movie that makes them violent - they already were.
-
They are just popular games. Yes, people with violent personalities will no doubt to drawn to them but not everyone who plays then acts out violent behaviour. While they will affect some people (and also violent movies), they will have no effect on most. People are responsible for their own behaviour, it's not a game or a movie that makes them violent - they already were.
Heheheee. Well, we may not have the government telling us what we should/shouldn't amuse ourselves with........................we've got Lookout ;D ;D ;D
-
What happened to Happy Families and Tiddlywinks ?
-
What happened to Happy Families and Tiddlywinks ?
They're more likely to turn someone into a serial killer! :o ;D ;D
-
Hi there again Y'all
I've read this book once, however I'm in the process of reading it again on my kindle, taking notes etc. I though it might be a good idea to run my considerations past the experts here prior to posting a review on Amazon. One thing that strikes me as curious is the fact that with regard to Sheila's neck wounds, one is described as being smaller than the other "The upper wound, was smaller with firearm residue and slight bruising. The bullet had gone upwards throught the hard palate of her mouth and skull to embed itself in the upper part of the brain". I'm just wondering how one wound would be smaller than the other when both were described as "very loose contact wounds" both allegedly being from the same gun and the same ammunition used. Curiously enough the photograph of Sheila's wounds seem to indicate that it is the upper wound that appears the larger of the two, not the other way around as Lee describes it.
Anyway, your considerations are most welcome.
Hoots!
-
Hi there again Y'all
I've read this book once, however I'm in the process of reading it again on my kindle, taking notes etc. I though it might be a good idea to run my considerations past the experts here prior to posting a review on Amazon. One thing that strikes me as curious is the fact that with regard to Sheila's neck wounds, one is described as being smaller than the other "The upper wound, was smaller with firearm residue and slight bruising. The bullet had gone upwards throught the hard palate of her mouth and skull to embed itself in the upper part of the brain". I'm just wondering how one wound would be smaller than the other when both were described as "very loose contact wounds" both allegedly being from the same gun and the same ammunition used. Curiously enough the photograph of Sheila's wounds seem to indicate that it is the upper wound that appears the larger of the two, not the other way around as Lee describes it.
Anyway, your considerations are most welcome.
Hoots!
If you read through the post mortem reports for all the victims, the bullet wounds vary in size, the location that they impact seems to be a factor, I.e. through hard muscular tissue or through soft flesh.
-
See here for more:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919)
-
Excellent! Thank you indeed!
Hoots!
-
There are myths aplenty circulating this board, the wet suit being just one. I don't recall that there were any of Sheila's footprints either. Jeremy had spent time, from his call to the police to the hours he spent outside with them, educating them in the belief that, if they found them all dead, Sheila would more than likely be responsible.
We've all been made aware that police DO lie. It's become a convenient bandwagon to ride for those who are anti establishment and/or bear grudges against them but it doesn't mean that ALL police lie.
Jane why do you keep reminding us you know the area well.
We all get it by now.
Maybe if the police or the authorities released file 1 everyone would get a clearer picture of what happened the night of the murders
How long would you say Jeremy spent persuading a bunch of police officers Sheila was responsible for the murders
Or would you say it was a few remarks about Sheila's mental health
Would you not say Jeremy should not have mentioned Sheila's mental health problems in the circumstances
You do not seem to accept the monumental police blunders in this case
Do you not accept that the silencer evidence was dodgy to say the least?
Who do you think planted the silencer?
Do you accept it could have been someone local or someone other than Jeremy who had access to the farm house
I would appreciate answers to my individual questions
-
There are myths aplenty circulating this board, the wet suit being just one. I don't recall that there were any of Sheila's footprints either. Jeremy had spent time, from his call to the police to the hours he spent outside with them, educating them in the belief that, if they found them all dead, Sheila would more than likely be responsible.
We've all been made aware that police DO lie. It's become a convenient bandwagon to ride for those who are anti establishment and/or bear grudges against them but it doesn't mean that ALL police lie.
What are your thoughts on police accepting gifts when 'solving' crimes
Or police accepting job offers after 'solving' crimes or police editing statements
-
But could that same child, who had no pre interest in guns, reload and fit the magazine onto it?
Jane j you are fully aware of the answer
This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions
As you know Ngb is very knowledgable in guns and would never support JB if he thought Sheila could not reload the gun
-
As for footprints, I wonder if the police looked at his footwear afterwards when they arrested him? I mean sure he could have worn others and discarded them but many folk who knew him would have known what footwear he wore either at work or Play, were these ever tested for blood?
And if and I do say IF JB is to be believed he had a phone call stating that his sister had gone mad (that and the fact she was seriously mentally ill) so his words "educating" the police outside were absolutely not with out good reason
Very good point scales, I wonder why Mugford wouldn't have mentioned the shoes/boots Jeremy was wearing that night?
-
The Prosecution argument was that it was Bambers intention to use as the "getaway" vehicle.
LOL
-
I agree about the wet suit, it's a silly theory.
None of the victims left footprints either.
Of course there have been genuine MOJ and police have lied. They have probably lied during this investigation but not about Jeremy being guilty.
There you go again
You do NOT know JB is guilty
-
Given her opinions of Jeremy, it wasn't about Sheila.
What opinions?
-
Hi Maggie I agree if he phoned anyone it would have been 999
Nothing in Sheila's past showed she would ever have actually shot anyone
All through Sheila's illness she was surrounded by guns at WHF
No way would Neville have guessed the tragedy that unfolded that night
-
Why would they have looked for injuries on Jeremy? He's told them Sheila was the culprit. He was standing outside with the police.
Whilst every case involving the mentally ill may have similarities, the psychological uniqueness of each makes them ENTIRELY different.
It's highly likely that the burn marks had nothing to do with the crime since no one has given an adequate reason for how they could have occurred.
It's possible to make much of what's in the bible relate to whatever one wants to relate it to, which was probably how June used it.
At no point in Mugfords numerous statements did Mugford EVER mention Jeremy had any injuries
Not even a bruise
-
I was reading a case toady of a 28 year old woman with mental health issues that burned down her fathers house while he was in it.
You say NB did not tackle shelia upstairs why did he not tackle Jeremy then?
I don't recall bamber having any injuries either afterwards.
NB injuries could just as well have been dashed out afterwards, also that unexplained burn mark on his back, that was quite possibly some sort of ritual post mortem torture.
I also think that if the family was asleep they would have been awake VERY quickly once the shooting began.
Lastly that bible, I mean that speaks volumns, her Psychiatric doctor even said that had he read that at the time in would have changed his mind as to her mind, I mean Bamber would have to have been truly brilliant assassin to think of these things and avoid all these potential pitfalls.
As I say I don't know if he is guilty and I don't feel good besmirching the dead but having read the book its hard to know where the truth really lays.
Scales Jeremy is not very bright
I think he would admit that himself
-
At no point in Mugfords numerous statements did Mugford EVER mention Jeremy had any injuries
Not even a bruise
Did Bamber have injuries ?
-
There's no doubt Nevill had a premonition about a premature death and maybe he hinted to Barbara so that a posthumous record would exist. Both husband and wife were trying to economize due to the cost of renovating Clifton House, and the failure of June to write out personal cheques in her son's favour led to her demise.
There's more on the routes Jeremy might have chosen here: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
Note on the official site it says Jeremy had watched the television programmes which formed an alibi as they were transmitted, but as far as I can see there was nothing to prevent him from recording them, watching them when he got back and then destroying the video tape. It was the same with the telephone call from White House Farm to Bourtree Cottage, except for that Police took the tapes from Jeremy's answerphone to analyse. Of course they might have proved that there was such a call made, but not who made it.
As for the perfectly ploughed field, it was Jeremy's intention that last year to beat Nevill and June at their own game, namely to pretend to settle down to the farming lifestyle, yet secretly plotting their liquidation. He justified it to himself as mercy killings, and was helped in this by Sheila's second illness in March 1985, June's depression which she was trying hard to conceal, and Nevill's fatigue which gave his son the excuse he needed to finish him off.
What evidence have you got that Jeremy PRETENDED to settle down to farming
Provide evidence of him pretending
How ridulous, you an Adam have a lot in common
-
Jane why do you keep reminding us you know the area well.
We all get it by now.
Maybe if the police or the authorities released file 1 everyone would get a clearer picture of what happened the night of the murders
How long would you say Jeremy spent persuading a bunch of police officers Sheila was responsible for the murders
Or would you say it was a few remarks about Sheila's mental health
Would you not say Jeremy should not have mentioned Sheila's mental health problems in the circumstances
You do not seem to accept the monumental police blunders in this case
Do you not accept that the silencer evidence was dodgy to say the least?
Who do you think planted the silencer?
Do you accept it could have been someone local or someone other than Jeremy who had access to the farm house
I would appreciate answers to my individual questions
Do you think the relatives or Stan Jones fabricated the silencer. Or was it a joint effort ?
-
Did Bamber have injuries ?
Well apparently he was meant to have had a ferocious fight with Neville
-
Very good point scales, I wonder why Mugford wouldn't have mentioned the shoes/boots Jeremy was wearing that night?
Julie would not know what shoes Bamber wore on that night. She was in Lewisham.
-
Do you think the relatives or Stan Jones fabricated the silencer. Or was it a joint effort ?
I have no idea
I am pretty sure JB the criminal mastermind would not have put a dirty silencer back in the cupboard and then hand over the keys to supersleuth Anne Eaton
We are meant to accept that JB was a master of forensic evidence ir the wetsuit and then acts like an idiot and puts the uncleaned silencer back in the cupboard
I'm no Perry Mason but my guess would be someone who has keys to the farm
-
Julie would not know what shoes Bamber wore on that night. She was in Lewisham.
I think she would have a pretty good idea what shoes Jeremy was wearing as men do not usually have a large collection of shoes and as someone with inside knowledge would know if he destroyed any shoes
If she had been telling the truth there would probably still evidence of blood four weeks later
-
A woman was shooting him in the face and he did not tackle her either, personally I would have bullrushed the person he was quite capable of it being a relatively fit healthy farmer, he was also a former WW2 man so retreating in the face of danger is quite unexplainable really, whether it was bamber or shelia. You could probable walk through 22 fire if your life depends on it. It seems NB would of had time to either get out of the house or arm himself while the shooting was carrying on, or of course make a phone call.
As to marks, yes body marks may have been coverable but facial or hand marks, no, again NB was a former serviceman punching a man in the face who was attacking him would have been a natural reaction as would using a makeshift weapon, bamber did not have black eyes or a broken nose.
The silencer is the ultimate red herring, it was almost certainly never used.
But so far nobody has been charged with planting the silencer
-
But more likely Bamber knew the rifle wasn't there at all. He probably hid it in the barn for collection later or put it back in the downstairs bathroom or gun cupboard with the same intention.
Probably
-
You're using your own mental processes and portraying those things which would have worried you. Jeremy wouldn't have had your concerns.
You have no idea
Stick to facts on this case
-
No she didn't - she was over sedated and didn't kill anyone.
You do not know
Stick to facts
-
Why would she have set out to "fool everyone" during her last fortnight, Lookout? Why would this girl who loved to look pretty and to be told she looked pretty walk around smelling and looking like a bag lady? Why would she move through the party as if she wasn't there, ignoring her child when he wanted to sit on her lap? Why would she remain silent, ignoring her children and he ex husband all the way from London to Essex?
You have no idea
-
I have no idea
I am pretty sure JB the criminal mastermind would not have put a dirty silencer back in the cupboard and then hand over the keys to supersleuth Anne Eaton
We are meant to accept that JB was a master of forensic evidence ir the wetsuit and then acts like an idiot and puts the uncleaned silencer back in the cupboard
I'm no Perry Mason but my guess would be someone who has keys to the farm
Stan Jones gave AE keys & asked her to do a tidy up. Bamber was abroad.
Bamber didn't clean the silencer. He didn't see blood splatter inside the silencer. Or the paint which was small.
He also was not expecting the police to check. They didn't.
-
Indeed. Jeremy said you can use a thin metal blade to force open the window the catch. However BEFORE and AFTER the murders took place there were no scratch marks found on those windows. The scratch marks found on the 1st of October were put there on the 16th of September when Jeremy had no keys.
So can you please prove how he entered the farm that night?
Another mystery
-
Adam. If the scratch marks were not there on the 22nd of August or from the 8th to the 10th of September. Confirmed by Lunn what was wound on the 1st of October was not there when he looked from the 8th to the 10th of September. What does that mean?
June to July - Windows freshly painted
-
-
-
-
-
August 7th 1985 - Massacre
-
-
-
-
-
-
August 22nd - Police examine windows find no scratch marks.
-
-
-
-
-
September 8th 9th 10th - Police re-examine bathroom windows after JM "comes forward" they find nothing.
-
-
-
-
-
September 16th Jeremy needed to get travel documents from WHF forgot key. Used hacksaw to enter via bathroom window
-
-
-
-
-
October 1st DI Cook and Brian Elliot discover scratch marks and hack saw.
So can you please prove how Jeremy entered the farm.
Thank you David
-
I think it unlikely that a potential suicide would leave a note saying "I am going to commit suicide". Their intention would, MORE likely, be couched in other terms.
Thinking again Jane
Let's try sticking to facts
Maybe you could try googling suicide notes
-
I really dispute that Steve. A Registered Nurse is a highly trained and highly skilled individual. Nursing is one of the few true professions and should be recognised as such.
A good Sister in charge of a ward should know everything about every patient and understand every part of their diagnosis and treatment. Most doctors recognise Ward Sisters know far more about their patients and treatment required than they do.
I agree Maggie
My niece trained at Addenbrookes and now works in the transplant wards at Barts
She is very knowledgable and has great responsibilities and a lot of nights does not get home until 12 although she is meant to leave at six
-
I read that eloquent post Steve. If I didn't know better I might think your name was Carol ;)
Same
-
Whats is this. An insight into Robert Boutflours imagination?
On a serious note, you have lost your marbles.
I have been saying that for ages
-
I agree Maggie
My niece trained at Addenbrookes and now works in the transplant wards at Barts
She is very knowledgable and has great responsibilities and a lot of nights does not get home until 12 although she is meant to leave at six
Sounds as though she has a fantastic career Jackie. Nursing is a profession on a par with doctors, teachers, lawyers etc..
Health Care Assistants are on a par with Teaching Assistants who are well trained and can be excellent at their job but they are not professionals.
Recent governments have devalued the status of nurses, they deserve proper recognition and respect for the amazing job they do.
-
Back to the book, the author refers to cop doc Dr Craig as "Seeing ‘only one gunshot wound at that stage’, he felt reasonably satisfied that she had taken her own life. He pronounced both women dead at 8.44am and the twins at 8.50am" So, the only wound he saw must have been the top fatal wound or he wouldn't have pronounced her dead, with the other non-fatal wound not yet inflicted. This is all a bit strange since I thought it was the other way around. Please advise.
Hoots!
-
Sounds as though she has a fantastic career Jackie. Nursing is a profession on a par with doctors, teachers, lawyers etc..
Health Care Assistants are on a par with Teaching Assistants who are well trained and can be excellent at their job but they are not professionals.
Recent governments have devalued the status of nurses, they deserve proper recognition and respect for the amazing job they do.
I do worry about her as she works so hard and gets very close to her patients who very often don't come out of hospital
-
What evidence have you got that Jeremy PRETENDED to settle down to farming
Provide evidence of him pretending
How ridulous, you an Adam have a lot in common
Jeremy told some of the hired hands that if anything happened to his parents he would just "pack up and sell the whole thing off". It's strange that a few months later something did happen (I can't help but think of the remark he made on that first morning-"well I didn't know what was going to happen, did I?"). It's this infantile idiot savant intellect that pervades the case and which makes Jeremy so difficult to analyse. But you're in good company Jackie: he fooled Nevill for a time, he fooled Pamela, Thomas and Betty Howie, and tragically Julie. But it's quite clear to me that his new-found enthusiasm for anything farm-related was solely an expedient for the future time he could be rid of it all.
-
Jane j you are fully aware of the answer
This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions
As you know Ngb is very knowledgable in guns and would never support JB if he thought Sheila could not reload the gun
It's not just the physical act of reloading. It's running downstairs to reload and having the time to do that and incapacitate Nevill further and additionally cut off a telephone call, all from a young woman who could barely walk straight..
-
Very good point scales, I wonder why Mugford wouldn't have mentioned the shoes/boots Jeremy was wearing that night?
She was in Lewisham.
-
Well apparently he was meant to have had a ferocious fight with Neville
Nevill was sixty-one years old, had recently been ill and had put in long hours at the Farm. He had been shot with pellets in his head. Is it any wonder that there was no physical contact with his son?
-
I think she would have a pretty good idea what shoes Jeremy was wearing as men do not usually have a large collection of shoes and as someone with inside knowledge would know if he destroyed any shoes
If she had been telling the truth there would probably still evidence of blood four weeks later
But there was evidence four weeks later-spots of blood on a shirt collar hanging up in the wardrobe at Bourtree Cottage, which were too badly decomposed by that stage for John Hayward to analyse conclusively.
-
Back to the book, the author refers to cop doc Dr Craig as "Seeing ‘only one gunshot wound at that stage’, he felt reasonably satisfied that she had taken her own life. He pronounced both women dead at 8.44am and the twins at 8.50am" So, the only wound he saw must have been the top fatal wound or he wouldn't have pronounced her dead, with the other non-fatal wound not yet inflicted. This is all a bit strange since I thought it was the other way around. Please advise.
Hoots!
Quite simply Dr. Craig was an elderly gentleman GP probably with failing eyesight and who was just about up to writing prescriptions for antibiotics and flattering old ladies' egos in the surgery.
A professional who is not up to the job. What a surprise!
-
Quite simply Dr. Craig was an elderly gentleman GP probably with failing eyesight and who was just about up to writing prescriptions for antibiotics and flattering old ladies' egos in the surgery.
A professional who is not up to the job. What a surprise!
What are you trying to tell me? Did he see the lower non-fatal wound and mistakenly pronounce Sheila dead, or did he correctly pronounce Sheila dead on the evidence of the top wound, with the non-fatal wound yet to be inflicted? Or did he see only one wound, even though being a cop surgeon for 30 years there were actually two?
Hoots!
-
There you go again
You do NOT know JB is guilty
Yes, I do but by your argument, you don't know he's innocent!
-
Thinking again Jane
Let's try sticking to facts
Maybe you could try googling suicide notes
You have no idea what you're talking about - 'googling suicide notes'? Try googling xxxxx'!
-
Back to the book, the author refers to cop doc Dr Craig as "Seeing ‘only one gunshot wound at that stage’, he felt reasonably satisfied that she had taken her own life. He pronounced both women dead at 8.44am and the twins at 8.50am" So, the only wound he saw must have been the top fatal wound or he wouldn't have pronounced her dead, with the other non-fatal wound not yet inflicted. This is all a bit strange since I thought it was the other way around. Please advise.
Hoots!
Completely wrong, both wounds were fatal, the top immediately so. But why would he not have pronounced her dead when she was dead? AND even if one of the wounds were non fatal, how would he know simply from looking at it? She was dead and he saw a hole in her neck - doesn't take a genius.
-
Jeremy told some of the hired hands that if anything happened to his parents he would just "pack up and sell the whole thing off". It's strange that a few months later something did happen (I can't help but think of the remark he made on that first morning-"well I didn't know what was going to happen, did I?"). It's this infantile idiot savant intellect that pervades the case and which makes Jeremy so difficult to analyse. But you're in good company Jackie: he fooled Nevill for a time, he fooled Pamela, Thomas and Betty Howie, and tragically Julie. But it's quite clear to me that his new-found enthusiasm for anything farm-related was solely an expedient for the future time he could be rid of it all.
Excellent post Steve.
-
What are you trying to tell me? Did he see the lower non-fatal wound and mistakenly pronounce Sheila dead, or did he correctly pronounce Sheila dead on the evidence of the top wound, with the non-fatal wound yet to be inflicted? Or did he see only one wound, even though being a cop surgeon for 30 years there were actually two?
Hoots!
She didn't have a non fatal wound and he didn't mistakenly pronounce her dead - she was dead!
-
Nevill was sixty-one years old, had recently been ill and had put in long hours at the Farm. He had been shot with pellets in his head. Is it any wonder that there was no physical contact with his son daughter?
Yes, I do but by your argument, you don't know he's innocent!
If she is aware of deliberate concealment of specific evidence - that pertains to Sheila having committed the killings - then it is a safe bet that she knows he's innocent.
Things have to be looked at in context. In this case - they were only able to successfully argue it was Jeremy by concealing the evidence that clearly showed it was actually Sheila.
-
If she is aware of deliberate concealment of specific evidence - that pertains to Sheila having committed the killings - then it is a safe bet that she knows he's innocent.
Things have to be looked at in context. In this case - they were only able to successfully argue it was Jeremy by concealing the evidence that clearly showed it was actually Sheila.
What evidence was concealed ?
-
What are you trying to tell me? Did he see the lower non-fatal wound and mistakenly pronounce Sheila dead, or did he correctly pronounce Sheila dead on the evidence of the top wound, with the non-fatal wound yet to be inflicted? Or did he see only one wound, even though being a cop surgeon for 30 years there were actually two?
Hoots!
I'm saying that the guy was past it, which is why he missed the second wound. He was a GP, not a pathologist. He did state that all deaths had occurred within a short space of one another, which excludes any fanciful theories about Sheila scampering up the back staircase, which pervade this site from time to time.
-
Completely wrong, both wounds were fatal, the top immediately so. But why would he not have pronounced her dead when she was dead? AND even if one of the wounds were non fatal, how would he know simply from looking at it? She was dead and he saw a hole in her neck - doesn't take a genius.
Sorry! I'm still a bit perplexed with this being the rookie that I am, and not nearly as clued up as you. Craig is quoted in the book as "Seeing only one gunshot wound at that stage" I wanted to know what one it was. You are referring to "both wounds"; however Dr. Craig sees only one, which one does he see?
-
She didn't have a non fatal wound and he didn't mistakenly pronounce her dead - she was dead!
Can you refer me to source material that indicates conclusively that the lower wound would have definitively fatal regardless of the upper wound?
Hoots!
-
Jeremy told some of the hired hands that if anything happened to his parents he would just "pack up and sell the whole thing off". It's strange that a few months later something did happen (I can't help but think of the remark he made on that first morning-"well I didn't know what was going to happen, did I?"). It's this infantile idiot savant intellect that pervades the case and which makes Jeremy so difficult to analyse. But you're in good company Jackie: he fooled Nevill for a time, he fooled Pamela, Thomas and Betty Howie, and tragically Julie. But it's quite clear to me that his new-found enthusiasm for anything farm-related was solely an expedient for the future time he could be rid of it all.
You're xxxxxxxxxx
Your posts are xxxxxxxxx
He had a wonderful job, his own space and money in the bank
This JB person you describe is in your own mind and not reality because I have spent years researching him from people he grew up with
Jeremy Bambers only crime is being naive and stupid
I doubt JB would ever have been convicted if he hadn't made one stupid comment at trial
The relatives were laughing all the way to the bank
But one day someone will regret their actions regarding the silencer
-
It's not just the physical act of reloading. It's running downstairs to reload and having the time to do that and incapacitate Nevill further and additionally cut off a telephone call, all from a young woman who could barely walk straight..
I will go along with Ngb that Sheila was capable
-
You're xxxxxxxxxx
Your posts are xxxxxxxxx
He had a wonderful job, his own space and money in the bank
This JB person you describe is in your own mind and not reality because I have spent years researching him from people he grew up with
Jeremy Bambers only crime is being naive and stupid
I doubt JB would ever have been convicted if he hadn't made one stupid comment at trial
The relatives were laughing all the way to the bank
But one day someone will regret their actions regarding the silencer
No he had a job he loathed, surrounded by people he hated and who had controlled every second of his life almost from the cradle. He blamed June for sending him away to Gresham's at eight years old, she was unable to communicate with him and express her love openly because of her illness, but he had to conform to her standards of morality, which is why he blamed her for driving Suzette away. Nobody could fail to get along with Nevill, but he was still the boss, which Jeremy resented, though as he told Julie on the way to Pevensey: "I do miss the old man occasionally." He saw an opportunity to start anew and put people he thought would be better off dead out of their misery, and availed himself of this aperture to commit such heinous crimes he's really better off dead himself now, instead of going through the daily motions of his charade with a few diehard acolytes like yourself in tow.
-
She was in Lewisham.
Well if he was guilty she would certainly have given the police a good idea what shoes or boots Jeremy might have been wearing the night of the murders which would most likely still have evidence on them
-
If she is aware of deliberate concealment of specific evidence - that pertains to Sheila having committed the killings - then it is a safe bet that she knows he's innocent.
Things have to be looked at in context. In this case - they were only able to successfully argue it was Jeremy by concealing the evidence that clearly showed it was actually Sheila.
If evidence was ever concealed, how would she or anyone else be party to it? Like you said yourself, there isn't an envelope with 'concealed evidence' written on it. And like I said, I think your new vigour is simply to try and readdress a conceived imbalance on the forum.
Arguing that evidence exists without evidence to back it up, isn't a strong argument. For your theory to be correct, not only did EP conspire but the conspiracy went from brass tacks up to senior level, spreading to the civilian section and the lab workers. And even today 30 years on the echelons are working to keep one Jeremy Bamber (farmer) in prison. But it's OK, this theory doesn't need a 'why' - it just is? ???
-
Well if he was guilty she would certainly have given the police a good idea what shoes or boots Jeremy might have been wearing the night of the murders which would most likely still have evidence on them
Now this is laughable! How the hell would she know what he was wearing? ::)
-
No he had a job he loathed, surrounded by people he hated and who had controlled every second of his life almost from the cradle. He blamed June for sending him away to Gresham's at eight years old, she was unable to communicate with him and express her love openly because of her illness, but he had to conform to her standards of morality, which is why he blamed her for driving Suzette away. Nobody could fail to get along with Nevill, but he was still the boss, which Jeremy resented, though as he told Julie on the way to Pevensey: "I do miss the old man occasionally." He saw an opportunity to start anew and put people he thought would be better off dead out of their misery, and availed himself of this aperture to commit such heinous crimes he's really better off dead himself now, instead of going through the daily motions of his charade with a few diehard acolytes like yourself in tow.
You have read too much Enid Blyton
There is no evidence loathed his adoptive parents and he saw no need to look for his real parents
Your posts are just fairy stories
-
Sorry! I'm still a bit perplexed with this being the rookie that I am, and not nearly as clued up as you. Craig is quoted in the book as "Seeing only one gunshot wound at that stage" I wanted to know what one it was. You are referring to "both wounds"; however Dr. Craig sees only one, which one does he see?
He didn't say which wound he was referring to. Your mistake (and a lot of people make it) is thinking that the lower wound was not fatal. It wasn't immediately fatal BUT the bullet caught the jugular she it would have eventually killed her.
-
Now this is laughable! How the hell would she know what he was wearing? ::)
I have given my answer yet you seem unable to comprehend plain English
Any police force acting on information Mugford was claiming would want to know what clothes the accused person was wearing
-
Nevill was sixty-one years old, had recently been ill and had put in long hours at the Farm. He had been shot with pellets in his head. Is it any wonder that there was no physical contact with his son?
So no ferocious fight with Neville then?
-
You have read too much Enid Blyton
There is no evidence loathed his adoptive parents and he saw no need to look for his real parents
Your posts are just fairy stories
There's plenty of evidence from Michael Deckers at the Frog and Beans in Colchester to James Richards in Lewisham, even if you don't want to believe Julie, Robert Boutflour or Mary Mugford.
-
You have read too much Enid Blyton
There is no evidence loathed his adoptive parents and he saw no need to look for his real parents
Your posts are just fairy stories
You clearly haven't read enough, I don't recall "Five Blast Their Family To Kingdom Come (Then Had Lashings of Lemonade)" but maybe I missed that one? ;D
There is evidence, he said so to others, he talked of killing them and they ended up dead.
Your posts are repetitive.
-
But there was evidence four weeks later-spots of blood on a shirt collar hanging up in the wardrobe at Bourtree Cottage, which were too badly decomposed by that stage for John Hayward to analyse conclusively.
So are you suggesting the blood could have come from Jeremy cutting himself shaving or are you suggesting he wore the shirt under the wetsuit
-
I have given my answer yet you seem unable to comprehend plain English
Any police force acting on information Mugford was claiming would want to know what clothes the accused person was wearing
And they asked him, clearly he didn't give Julie the fashion low-down! ::)
-
Quite simply Dr. Craig was an elderly gentleman GP probably with failing eyesight and who was just about up to writing prescriptions for antibiotics and flattering old ladies' egos in the surgery.
A professional who is not up to the job. What a surprise!
What a disgraceful post
Who are you to judge a professional person
-
So no ferocious fight with Neville then?
Jeremy told Julie that "Matthew" was wearing gloves. Why would they be contact crimes? Nevill was lucky to get a hand on the gun, which necessitated "Matthew" wiping the gun down. The ferocious fight was rather one-sided as an unarmed 61-year-old man with lead pellets lodged in his head struggled with a man half his age bent on revenge.
-
At no point in Mugfords numerous statements did Mugford EVER mention Jeremy had any injuries
Not even a bruise
Other than the two bullet holes in her throat, neither did Sheila!
-
Yes, I do but by your argument, you don't know he's innocent!
That's why nobody takes your posts seriously
You do NOT know JB is guilty
FACT
-
You have no idea what you're talking about - 'googling suicide notes'? Try googling 'idiot'!
Once again another ridiculous post
Nobody can predict who would leave a suicide note and who wouldn't
Nobody can tell
FACT
-
There's plenty of evidence from Michael Deckers at the Frog and Beans in Colchester to James Richards in Lewisham, even if you don't want to believe Julie, Robert Boutflour or Mary Mugford.
There was plenty of evidence to say the opposite
Barbara Wilson for one, people JB went to school with
People JB grew up with who have given testimonials
-
If evidence was ever concealed, how would she or anyone else be party to it? Like you said yourself, there isn't an envelope with 'concealed evidence' written on it. And like I said, I think your new vigour is simply to try and readdress a conceived imbalance on the forum.
Arguing that evidence exists without evidence to back it up, isn't a strong argument. For your theory to be correct, not only did EP conspire but the conspiracy went from brass tacks up to senior level, spreading to the civilian section and the lab workers. And even today 30 years on the echelons are working to keep one Jeremy Bamber (farmer) in prison. But it's OK, this theory doesn't need a 'why' - it just is? ???
To imply that my recent posts are related an imbalance on the forum is a bit below the belt. I'm not a liar Caroline and I'm not an attention seeker. I don't use tactics.
I still do not understand why you have a problem with so called 'conspiracies' involving police corruption / forensics etc. The police do and have fit people up over the years. It probably does require a joint effort, involving prosecution witnesses and technicians or experts of some sort giving one-sided evidence or asking loaded questions etc. It probably also involves various examples of non-disclosure and obstruction / using the system to impede rather than to assist an accused etc. There do not seem to be many whistle-blowers for this kind of thing. It either gets uncovered or it does not. To pretend it doesn't exist - I just don't get. i have asked on here whether anyone knows any police whistle-blowers regarding specific cases. There probably aren't because they probably raise concerns internally and their concerns are simply noted!
Regarding Jacqui - I meant if she was aware of specific evidence that clearly indicated Sheila - then she would of course be right in saying 'I know Jeremy didn't kill his family'.
-
You have read too much Enid Blyton
There is no evidence loathed his adoptive parents and he saw no need to look for his real parents
Your posts are just fairy stories
It almost was a 1960s time warp as Jeremy and Sheila frolicked in the fields, though boys being later developers he struggled to find the emotional reassurance which eluded him. He attempted in vain to garner his mother's attention by snapping the stalks of her dahlias, but to no avail as June was as emotionally barren without as she was within. It was somehow fitting that post-murders the one keepsake Jeremy insisted upon was the milk teeth belonging to himself and Sheila, relics of a bygone age when all seemed normal and secure, mementoes of that unassailable fortress which was White House Farm.
-
You clearly haven't read enough, I don't recall "Five Blast Their Family To Kingdom Come (Then Had Lashings of Lemonade)" but maybe I missed that one? ;D
There is evidence, he said so to others, he talked of killing them and they ended up dead.
Your posts are repetitive.
No your posts are boring and repetitive
The only evidence came from a bitter twisted women who saw a way to make some big money
It's because of people like her rules on cheque book journolism changed
-
So are you suggesting the blood could have come from Jeremy cutting himself shaving or are you suggesting he wore the shirt under the wetsuit
He had twenty minutes to clean himself up, when he claimed to be flicking calmly through the Yellow Pages to get the number of Chelmsford Police Station. His collected manner continued at the beginning of the call to PC West, only to turn to a more flustered tone when he embellished his tale to his dad "sounded frightened" and was not "kidding around".
-
I have been told by a senior police officer that JB is innocent and most senior police officers know this
This police officer is currently writing a book and I have no idea what the content will be
I do not care if anyone on this forum believes me or not but it confirms what I have believed for a long time
I think it is plain scary if these cover ups happen
-
He had twenty minutes to clean himself up, when he claimed to be flicking calmly through the Yellow Pages to get the number of Chelmsford Police Station. His collected manner continued at the beginning of the call to PC West, only to turn to a more flustered tone when he embellished his tale to his dad "sounded frightened" and was not "kidding around".
20 minutes isn't really a great deal of time when you consider the carnage in the farmhouse. How did he manage to successfully guess that the police wouldn't suspect him from the off - given that he had left Sheila with two gunshot wounds to the throat after having set her up as a suicide victim?
How did he know that the police wouldn't forensically check his person or cottage for traces of blood or excessive washing? He apparently knew that he had completely botched Sheila's 'suicide' when he was washing himself!
-
It almost was a 1960s time warp as Jeremy and Sheila frolicked in the fields, though boys being later developers he struggled to find the emotional reassurance which eluded him. He attempted in vain to garner his mother's attention by snapping the stalks of her dahlias, but to no avail as June was as emotionally barren without as she was within. It was somehow fitting that post-murders the one keepsake Jeremy insisted upon was the milk teeth belonging to himself and Sheila, relics of a bygone age when all seemed normal and secure, mementoes of that unassailable fortress which was White House Farm.
Please no more
We are discussing a serious subject
-
He had twenty minutes to clean himself up, when he claimed to be flicking calmly through the Yellow Pages to get the number of Chelmsford Police Station. His collected manner continued at the beginning of the call to PC West, only to turn to a more flustered tone when he embellished his tale to his dad "sounded frightened" and was not "kidding around".
We were discussing blood on JB s shirt
-
No your posts are boring and repetitive
The only evidence came from a bitter twisted women who saw a way to make some big money
It's because of people like her rules on cheque book journolism changed
Oh something you both have in common! That's nice! ;D
-
20 minutes isn't really a great deal of time when you consider the carnage in the farmhouse. How did he manage to successfully guess that the police wouldn't suspect him from the off - given that he had left Sheila with two gunshot wounds to the throat after having set her up as a suicide victim?
How did he know that the police wouldn't forensically check his person or cottage for traces of blood or excessive washing? He apparently knew that he had completely botched Sheila's 'suicide' when he was washing himself!
Roch
good points and does make one to think about who did kill the family.
-
I have been told by a senior police officer that JB is innocent and most senior police officers know this
This police officer is currently writing a book and I have no idea what the content will be
I do not care if anyone on this forum believes me or not but it confirms what I have believed for a long time
I think it is plain scary if these cover ups happen
Of course you have Jackie ;D ;D. Was this errrrr 'senior police officer' one that worked on the Bamber case or just someone with an opinion?
-
He didn't say which wound he was referring to. Your mistake (and a lot of people make it) is thinking that the lower wound was not fatal. It wasn't immediately fatal BUT the bullet caught the jugular she it would have eventually killed her.
Hi Caroline, I don't mind making mistakes. I've got a lot to learn about this case, so I see this as a fact finding mission. So I can assume that the "one gunshot wound" that Dr Craig sees is the lower one, that allegedly was inflicted by JB some hours earlier which although not killing Sheila instantly rendered her unconcious. Sheila bleeds to death internally and dies, sometime later as I understand it. This is the "one gunshot wound" that Dr.Craig sees some hours later; however what about the second GSW that Dr Craig doesn't see at 8.44am? When does that get inflicted?
Hoots!
-
Of course you have Jackie ;D ;D. Was this errrrr 'senior police officer' one that worked on the Bamber case or just someone with an opinion?
I have given Ngb the details that's all I can post on here and your opinion means nothing to me
-
20 minutes isn't really a great deal of time when you consider the carnage in the farmhouse. How did he manage to successfully guess that the police wouldn't suspect him from the off - given that he had left Sheila with two gunshot wounds to the throat after having set her up as a suicide victim?
How did he know that the police wouldn't forensically check his person or cottage for traces of blood or excessive washing? He apparently knew that he had completely botched Sheila's 'suicide' when he was washing himself!
He didn't KNOW they wouldn't suspect him, he believed they wouldn't. Like any criminal, there would be no crime IF criminals though they would be suspected from the off. What was he supposed to do after the two shots happened? He had no choice but to go ahead and make sure that he put himself some place else when the murders were supposed to be happening - hence the phone call.
He didn't know, but he couldn't turn the clock back, he just had to crack on. They were too busy to suspect him from the off.
-
Roch
good points and does make one to think about who did kill the family.
Sheila Caffell murdered her family - though I imagine it might have been considered 'diminished responsibility' (for example if she had survived and gone on trial). She may never have become fit for trial if she had survived - so I don't know the legalities of what would have been done in those circs. Maybe ngb could provide an opinion?
-
20 minutes isn't really a great deal of time when you consider the carnage in the farmhouse. How did he manage to successfully guess that the police wouldn't suspect him from the off - given that he had left Sheila with two gunshot wounds to the throat after having set her up as a suicide victim?
How did he know that the police wouldn't forensically check his person or cottage for traces of blood or excessive washing? He apparently knew that he had completely botched Sheila's 'suicide' when he was washing himself!
I could turn that around and ask why there was a twenty-minute delay in telephoning Police, which is explained, of course, if there were no telephone call from Nevill in the first place. His attitude to Police had been conditioned by his father, who labelled the local constabulary "Dad's Army", and his recent brush with Police when he crashed his Vauxhall Astra only weeks before confirmed this interpretation that they were impressed by the wealth and status which Jeremy's association with White House Farm afforded.
-
20 minutes isn't really a great deal of time when you consider the carnage in the farmhouse. How did he manage to successfully guess that the police wouldn't suspect him from the off - given that he had left Sheila with two gunshot wounds to the throat after having set her up as a suicide victim?
How did he know that the police wouldn't forensically check his person or cottage for traces of blood or excessive washing? He apparently knew that he had completely botched Sheila's 'suicide' when he was washing himself!
Bamber had all the time in the world. Both at WHF & when he got back to his cottage. He would leave WHF & phone the police when he was ready.
He took the chance that the police wouldn't check him on the night. They didn't as he was ever so helpful to them.
-
Hi Caroline, I don't mind making mistakes. I've got a lot to learn about this case, so I see this as a fact finding mission. So I can assume that the "one gunshot wound" that Dr Craig sees is the lower one, that allegedly was inflicted by JB some hours earlier which although not killing Sheila instantly rendered her unconcious. Sheila bleeds to death internally and dies, sometime later as I understand it. This is the "one gunshot wound" that Dr.Craig sees some hours later; however what about the second GSW that Dr Craig doesn't see at 8.44am? When does that get inflicted?
Hoots!
Sheila had two GS wounds when Craig saw her. She died because of the second shot, they were inflicted within seconds of each other. If Craig only noticed one GS wound at the time, you would have to ask him why. However, he clearly wasn't giving her a full examination and simply wanted to pronounce death so that the police could do their job (as it turned out - not very well).
-
I have given Ngb the details that's all I can post on here and your opinion means nothing to me
I'm sure he was thrilled. ::)
-
He didn't KNOW they wouldn't suspect him, he believed they wouldn't. Like any criminal, there would be no crime IF criminals though they would be suspected from the off. What was he supposed to do after the two shots happened? He had no choice but to go ahead and make sure that he put himself some place else when the murders were supposed to be happening - hence the phone call.
He didn't know, but he couldn't turn the clock back, he just had to crack on. They were too busy to suspect him from the off.
Sorry but that doesn't ring true. You cant just say that he believed they wouldn't suspect him. So he totally botches her 'suicide' - and his mental response to this is merely to believe that the police wont suspect him?
It makes far more sense that the police didn't suspect him because:
(a) They were fully aware Sheila was the killer
and
(b) They were comfortable with the fact that her second gunshot wound wasn't foul play.
-
Sheila Caffell murdered her family - though I imagine it might have been considered 'diminished responsibility' (for example if she had survived and gone on trial). She may never have become fit for trial if she had survived - so I don't know the legalities of what would have been done in those circs. Maybe ngb could provide an opinion?
The evidence is?
-
Sorry but that doesn't ring true. You cant just say that he believed they wouldn't suspect him. So he totally botches her 'suicide' - and his mental response to this is merely to believe that the police wont suspect him?
It makes far more sense that the police didn't suspect him because:
(a) They were fully aware Sheila was the killer
and
(b) They were comfortable with the fact that her second gunshot wound wasn't foul play.
You seem to be saying he would have botched it on purpose? Clearly that was accidental but what would you imagine him to do after that happened? Phone the police and give himself up or just carry on in the hope that he got away with it?
That makes sense to you, but you have made a massive leap with no evidence to support it. I get where you are coming from now, you think the police made the second shot? Nah, they had no reason to cover that up, none whatsoever.
-
Sheila had two GS wounds when Craig saw her. She died because of the second shot, they were inflicted within seconds of each other. If Craig only noticed one GS wound at the time, you would have to ask him why. However, he clearly wasn't giving her a full examination and simply wanted to pronounce death so that the police could do their job (as it turned out - not very well).
Hi Caroline.
This thread is supposed to be about the book; therefore the points I raise are from the book. At kindle location 3005 the Author makes it quite clear that Dr. Craig sees only "one gunshot wound" at 8.44am. Why did he manage to get it so catastrophically wrong? Or how did the Author get it so catastrophically wrong?
-
Hi Caroline.
This thread is supposed to be about the book; therefore the points I raise are from the book. At kindle location 3005 the Author makes it quite clear that Dr. Craig sees only "one gunshot wound" at 8.44am. Why did he manage to get it so catastrophically wrong? Or how did the Author get it so catastrophically wrong?
How is is seeing only one GS wound 'catastrophically wrong'? Sheila was dead and she had been shot in the throat. He was only pronouncing death so that the police could continue the investigation. Not sure what you're suggesting? Do you think she did only have one GS wound at this stage? That being the case, where did the other one come from and when?
-
You seem to be saying he would have botched it on purpose? Clearly that was accidental but what would you imagine him to do after that happened? Phone the police and give himself up or just carry on in the hope that he got away with it?
That makes sense to you, but you have made a massive leap with no evidence to support it. I get where you are coming from now, you think the police made the second shot? Nah, they had no reason to cover that up, none whatsoever.
No I'm not saying he botched it deliberately - Not sure how you come to that conclusion. You've missed one of my other posts also.
I left the option open. How would police have explained .22 ammunition allegedly from the murder weapon was inside Sheila, as a result of being shot by police? That would go down well at an inquest. How would they explain the trajectory and circumstances?
-
Sheila had two GS wounds when Craig saw her. She died because of the second shot, they were inflicted within seconds of each other. If Craig only noticed one GS wound at the time, you would have to ask him why. However, he clearly wasn't giving her a full examination and simply wanted to pronounce death so that the police could do their job (as it turned out - not very well).
I am a bit perplexed about your conclusions that the shots "were within seconds of each other" when Carol Ann lee quotes this from Venizis "He was unable to specify how much time had elapsed between the shots: ‘All I can say is there was enough time for there to be a fairly large build up of blood in the neck area". So how was did a large build up of blood from the first GSW occur if the second GSW was inflicted only seconds later as you say?
-
No I'm not saying he botched it deliberately - Not sure how you come to that conclusion. You've missed one of my other posts also.
I left the option open. How would police have explained .22 ammunition allegedly from the murder weapon was inside Sheila, as a result of being shot by police? That would go down well at an inquest. How would they explain the trajectory and circumstances?
Sorry but that doesn't ring true. You cant just say that he believed they wouldn't suspect him. So he totally botches her 'suicide' - and his mental response to this is merely to believe that the police wont suspect him?
That sounds like you're saying he did it on purpose, but either way, once it was botched, he couldn't turn back could he? It was done and he's have to proceed. The best that he could do was to make them believe he was elsewhere - hence the phone call.
I guess they could have said it happened while they tried to get the gun off her, but that's not for me to explain given that I don't think the police did shoot her - Jeremy did.
-
I doubt the raid team entered WHF with rifles for shooting rabbits.
If EP shot Sheila, the bullet would be different.
-
No I'm not saying he botched it deliberately - Not sure how you come to that conclusion. You've missed one of my other posts also.
I left the option open. How would police have explained .22 ammunition allegedly from the murder weapon was inside Sheila, as a result of being shot by police? That would go down well at an inquest. How would they explain the trajectory and circumstances?
The murder weapon was stiff-so stiff in fact that Malcolm Fletcher broke a nail trying to clear the magazine. You also fail to explain the lack of gunshot residue on Sheila's hands.
-
How is is seeing only one GS wound 'catastrophically wrong'? Sheila was dead and she had been shot in the throat. He was only pronouncing death so that the police could continue the investigation. Not sure what you're suggesting? Do you think she did only have one GS wound at this stage? That being the case, where did the other one come from and when?
It's clear that according to Dr. Craig's testimony that Carol Ann Lee is clearly endorsing, is there was only one GSW when he pronouned her dead. You are emphatically suggesting that there were 2. Am I to assume that he was wrong and you are correct? With reference to your question, that's what you should be answering not me.
-
It's clear that according to Dr. Craig's testimony that Carol Ann Lee is clearly endorsing, is there was only one GSW when he pronouned her dead. You are emphatically suggesting that there were 2. Am I to assume that he was wrong and you are correct? With reference to your question, that's what you should be answering not me.
If there was one gun shot wound when prononced dead, why would the police shoot her again ? She was dead.
-
That sounds like you're saying he did it on purpose, but either way, once it was botched, he couldn't turn back could he? It was done and he's have to proceed. The best that he could do was to make them believe he was elsewhere - hence the phone call.
What I was trying to say was - that if he had botched her suicide by failing to kill her outright - then that's a MASSIVE blunder in his plans. Quite why he would think she would immediately die from one shot is beyond me anyway - as he had just pumped multiple shots in to all the other victims! So where is his reasoning going - by thinking he could finish off Sheila as the last victim with just one shot? Again - it doesn't add-up.
I guess they could have said it happened while they tried to get the gun off her, but that's not for me to explain given that I don't think the police did shoot her - Jeremy did.
Aah but this is getting to the crux of the matter though. You have consistently argued that hypothetically, the police would have no need to explain or hide the fact that they shot Sheila in the course of their duty.
However it's not that simple is it? If it's the murder weapon that actually killed her - it's not that simple to explain. Yes - they could say struggle etc. Nevertheless - those in the know about tactical firearms operations and police tactics might raise an eyebrow or two.
-
What I was trying to say was - that if he had botched her suicide by failing to kill her outright - then that's a MASSIVE blunder in his plans. Quite why he would think she would immediately die from one shot is beyond me anyway - as he had just pumped multiple shots in to all the other victims! ? Again - it doesn't add-up. So where is his reasoning going - by thinking he could finish off Sheila as the last victim with just one shot
Aah but this is getting to the crux of the matter though. You have consistently argued that hypothetically, the police would have no need to explain or hide the fact that they shot Sheila in the course of their duty.
However it's not that simple is it? If it's the murder weapon that actually killed her - it's not that simple to explain. Yes - they could say struggle etc. Nevertheless - those in the know about tactical firearms operations and police tactics might raise an eyebrow or two.
If the bullet goes through the brain wouldn't death be instantaneous? He was on an adrenaline high anyway after despatching four people so he could drive a Porsche. Strange that there were no more bullets left in the gun..
-
Bamber could have killed Sheila with one shot. The second shot was instantly fatal. He was just around an inch away from a fatal shot with the first bullet.
As mentioned today on red, he may have been looking to complete the massacre without reloading. This was possible. However it didn't happen but there was no going back.
-
If the bullet goes through the brain wouldn't death be instantaneous? He was on an adrenaline high anyway after despatching four people so he could drive a Porsche. Strange that there were no more bullets left in the gun..
Then why didn't he aim the only shot intended for her at her brain? It wasn't travelling towards her brain was it?
-
If there was one gun shot wound when prononced dead, why would the police shoot her again ? She was dead.
I don't know how the second GSW was inflicted, did I say it was the cops? If not who was it? There is no doubt what Carol Ann Lee is saying; one GSW at the time of pronouncement of death by a Police surgeon of 30 years experience. I'm the rookie asking posters with tons of knowledge. What happened next?
-
Then why didn't he aim the only shot intended for her at her brain? It wasn't travelling towards her brain was it?
Because he's not an expert gun shot.
Are you saying the police fired the second bullet with the rifle Sheila was holding. After Sheila was prononced dead.
-
I don't know how the second GSW was inflicted, did I say it was the cops? If not who was it? There is no doubt what Carol Ann Lee is saying; one GSW at the time of pronouncement of death by a Police surgeon of 30 years experience. I'm the rookie asking posters with tons of knowledge. What happened next?
Perhaps it was Bamber who fired the second shot.
Supporters are trying to say EP shot Sheila. Not with their own high tech rifles. But with Sheila's own rifle. After she was prononced dead !
This is because it was impossible for Sheila to shoot herself twice.
-
Then why didn't he aim the only shot intended for her at her brain? It wasn't travelling towards her brain was it?
I think he just got carried away in the excitement and probably shot as she turned her neck away. Whether he was wearing his mask or Sheila recognized her attacker, or he spun her a quick story that there had been intruders he was in a rush as he didn't want her asking questions, neither did he wish to hang around White House Farm.
-
Perhaps it was Bamber.
How could it have been Bamber after the pronouncement of death at 8.44?
Hoots!
-
Because he's not an expert gun shot.
Since when have you argued on here that Bamber wasn't a crack-shot? Since today? :))
Are you saying the police fired the second bullet with the rifle Sheila was holding. After Sheila was pronounced dead.
No I am not saying that definitely took place. Personally though - I leave it open as an option. Just like I leave it open as an option - that Jeremy may have had foreknowledge of Sheila's plans - and assisted her by concocting a reason to leave a loaded weapon out.
-
I think he just got carried away in the excitement and probably shot as she turned her neck away. Whether he was wearing his mask or Sheila recognized her attacker, or he spun her a quick story that there had been intruders he was in a rush as he didn't want her asking questions, neither did he wish to hang around White House Farm.
Steve, sorry mate but the REAL evidence says otherwise. No need for all this flannel about Jeremy wearing scuba masks and leading a zombie-like Sheila to her death... and then missing the target!
-
How could it have been Bamber after the pronouncement of death at 8.44?
Hoots!
So EP shot her with the massacre rifle. After Sheila had been prononced dead.
This issue is a waste of time. It's universally agreed Sheila was shot twice. An expert at the time mistakedly putting in his notes it was one shot is conspiracy theory making of the highest order.
-
How could it have been Bamber after the pronouncement of death at 8.44?
Hoots!
Eh? That's when she was pronounced dead, not when she died! The doc couldn't know the exact time of death given that he wasn't there.
-
So EP shot her with the massacre rifle. After Sheila had been prononced dead.
This issue is a waste of time. It's universally agreed Sheila was shot twice. An expert at the time mistakedly putting in his notes it was one shot is conspiracy theory making of the highest order.
The doc only mentioned one gunshot wound for all the victims I think. It was probably practice to do so.
-
Since when have you argued on here that Bamber wasn't a crack-shot? Since today? :))
No I am not saying that definitely took place. Personally though - I leave it open as an option. Just like I leave it open as an option - that Jeremy may have had foreknowledge of Sheila's plans - and assisted her by concocting a reason to leave a loaded weapon out.
Bamber testified he was proficient with the murder weapon. However I don't believe he had killed anyone prior to the massacre with one shot. As mentioned, the first shot was effective but not fatal. So what ?
Ok. You believe EP may have shot Sheila after she had been pronounced dead. That is fine.
-
So EP shot her with the massacre rifle. After Sheila had been prononced dead.
This issue is a waste of time. It's universally agreed Sheila was shot twice. An expert at the time mistakedly putting in his notes it was one shot is conspiracy theory making of the highest order.
We're talking about a cop surgeon with 30 years experience. I don't beleive he got it wrong. Why on earth would the cops want to shoot her again with the "massacre rifle" as you put it.
Hoots!
-
The doc only mentioned one gunshot wound for all the victims I think. It was probably practice to do so.
Great. So TomG's question is answered. EP did not shoot Sheila with the murder weapon after she had been prononced dead.
-
What I was trying to say was - that if he had botched her suicide by failing to kill her outright - then that's a MASSIVE blunder in his plans. Quite why he would think she would immediately die from one shot is beyond me anyway - as he had just pumped multiple shots in to all the other victims! So where is his reasoning going - by thinking he could finish off Sheila as the last victim with just one shot? Again - it doesn't add-up.
Aah but this is getting to the crux of the matter though. You have consistently argued that hypothetically, the police would have no need to explain or hide the fact that they shot Sheila in the course of their duty.
However it's not that simple is it? If it's the murder weapon that actually killed her - it's not that simple to explain. Yes - they could say struggle etc. Nevertheless - those in the know about tactical firearms operations and police tactics might raise an eyebrow or two.
They might raise an eyebrow if Sheila was killed in a siege situation by a police officer, but would be OK about framing an innocent man? I'm really not sure where you are going with this? If she were shot in a struggle or by accident, it wouldn't warrant the framing of an innocent man.
-
The doc only mentioned one gunshot wound for all the victims I think. It was probably practice to do so.
No, he did actually state that he only noticed one.
-
Bamber testified he was proficient with the murder weapon. However I don't believe he killed anyone prior to the massacre. As mentioned, the first shot was effective but not fatal. So what ?
So what?? He's just gone to enormous trouble to plan and stage a multiple murder, involving ferocious fighting and multiple gunshots, getting out of a building totally secured from the inside, phone calls, alleged phone calls, night bike rides etc etc, leading the police a merry dance...
And he cant even hit the target for an over sedated woman - who is arguably the most crucial of his victims in his plan?
Ok. You believe EP may have shot Sheila after she had been pronounced dead. That is fine.
That's not my theory - it's one of Mike Tesko's theories.
-
So what?? He's just gone to enormous trouble to plan and stage a multiple murder, involving ferocious fighting and multiple gunshots, getting out of a building totally secured from the inside, phone calls, alleged phone calls, night bike rides etc etc, leading the police a merry dance...
And he cant even hit the target for an over sedated woman - who is arguably the most crucial of his victims in his plan?
That's not my theory - it's one of Mike Tesko's theories.
You said in post 339 that 'you leave the door open' to the theory that EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon after she had been prononced dead.
This was before then saying in another post it was practice for the crime scene expert to say everyone had been killed with one shot.
-
They might raise an eyebrow if Sheila was killed in a siege situation by a police officer, but would be OK about framing an innocent man? I'm really not sure where you are going with this? If she were shot in a struggle or by accident, it wouldn't warrant the framing of an innocent man.
OK. Do you agree that if she was shot in an 'alleged struggle' (as a cover for having been shot accidentally), the police at the scene (when it actually occurred), would have likely experienced stress, as to how to proceed? Especially given that it was the alleged murder weapon. Stress that could impact upon decision making - which was effectively on the hoof.
I do think some police will have baulked at the idea of framing Jeremy Bamber. However disconcerted that individual officers may have felt, bar raising their concerns internally - what other options do they have (options that will not effectively destroy their career?). It was the ACC who sanctioned the investigation of Bamber - therefore the pressure was created from the top of the command structure.
-
So what?? He's just gone to enormous trouble to plan and stage a multiple murder, involving ferocious fighting and multiple gunshots, getting out of a building totally secured from the inside, phone calls, alleged phone calls, night bike rides etc etc, leading the police a merry dance...
And he cant even hit the target for an over sedated woman - who is arguably the most crucial of his victims in his plan?
That's not my theory - it's one of Mike Tesko's theories.
He did hit the target. It was an inch away from the fatal bullet.
It was impossible for Sheila to have fired the second shot. To suggest EP fired the second shot after she had been prononced dead, rather than Bamber, carries no weight.
-
He did hit the target. It was an inch away from the fatal bullet.
It was impossible for Sheila to have fired the second shot. To suggest EP fired the second shot after she had been prononced dead, rather than Bamber, carries no weight.
Considering they were in the farmhouse and he wasn't - I think it carries some knd of weight
-
OK. Do you agree that if she was shot in an 'alleged struggle' (as a cover for having been shot accidentally), the police at the scene (when it actually occurred), would have likely experienced stress, as to how to proceed? Especially given that it was the alleged murder weapon. Stress that could impact upon decision making - which was effectively on the hoof.
I do think some police will have baulked at the idea of framing Jeremy Bamber. However disconcerted that individual officers may have felt, bar raising their concerns internally - what other options do they have (options that will not effectively destroy their career?). It was the ACC who sanctioned the investigation of Bamber - therefore the pressure was created from the top of the command structure.
The raid team under stress ? Ahhh. I know what, let's frame the son.
There would be no struggle with Sheila. Any hostility from her & she would be shot. With a bullet from a raid team rifle.
Anyway Sheila was on Haloperidol & unable to do basic things.
-
Eh? That's when she was pronounced dead, not when she died! The doc couldn't know the exact time of death given that he wasn't there.
Caroline. At 8.44am Dr Craig makes it quite clear Sheila had one GSW regardless of when the first shot was fired. It has been suggested by others that JB inflicted the second shot. I am pointing out that JB couldn't have inflicted the second shot when he was outside with the cops. So who fired the second shot after 8.44am when there was only one GSW?
Hoots!
-
OK. Do you agree that if she was shot in an 'alleged struggle' (as a cover for having been shot accidentally), the police at the scene (when it actually occurred), would have likely experienced stress, as to how to proceed? Especially given that it was the alleged murder weapon. Stress that could impact upon decision making - which was effectively on the hoof.
I do think some police will have baulked at the idea of framing Jeremy Bamber. However disconcerted that individual officers may have felt, bar raising their concerns internally - what other options do they have (options that will not effectively destroy their career?). It was the ACC who sanctioned the investigation of Bamber - therefore the pressure was created from the top of the command structure.
There's no way the murder weapon would have discharged accidentally. Had Sheila been alive and resisted the Police would have simply claimed self-defence. Their boss DCI Taff Jones was content with a guilty Sheila anyway, so where on earth does the cover up start?
-
Great. So TomG's question is answered. EP did not shoot Sheila with the murder weapon after she had been prononced dead.
So you're saying that it was standard practice for a police surgeon the conclude one GSW to all the victims even though they had been riddled with bullets?
-
Caroline. At 8.44am Dr Craig makes it quite clear Sheila had one GSW regardless of when the first shot was fired. It has been suggested by others that JB inflicted the second shot. I am pointing out that JB couldn't have inflicted the second shot when he was outside with the cops. So who fired the second shot after 8.44am when there was only one GSW?
Hoots!
He missed the second shot due to his doddery status. You are either being deliberately provocative or inadvertently obtuse.
-
Caroline. At 8.44am Dr Craig makes it quite clear Sheila had one GSW regardless of when the first shot was fired. It has been suggested by others that JB inflicted the second shot. I am pointing out that JB couldn't have inflicted the second shot when he was outside with the cops. So who fired the second shot after 8.44am when there was only one GSW?
Hoots!
Roch answered this in post 343. Did you miss it ?
If you don't agree with Roch, then feel free to believe EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon. After she had been prononced dead.
-
So you're saying that it was standard practice for a police surgeon the conclude one GSW to all the victims even though they had been riddled with bullets?
I'm not saying this. Roch is.
Although he's also leaving the 'door open' that EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon after she was prononced dead.
-
TomG, is this the biggest issue for you in CAL's book ?
That one expert mistakedly wrote that Sheila had one gun shot wound when prononced dead.
Thought there would have been more & better things in a big unbiased book for conspiracy theorists.
-
Caroline. At 8.44am Dr Craig makes it quite clear Sheila had one GSW regardless of when the first shot was fired. It has been suggested by others that JB inflicted the second shot. I am pointing out that JB couldn't have inflicted the second shot when he was outside with the cops. So who fired the second shot after 8.44am when there was only one GSW?
Hoots!
No, he said he only NOTICED one shot not that she only had one shot.
-
There's no way the murder weapon would have discharged accidentally. Had Sheila been alive and resisted the Police would have simply claimed self-defence. Their boss DCI Taff Jones was content with a guilty Sheila anyway, so where on earth does the cover up start?
I think it starts with vultures who were used to getting their own way and were over-familiar with some police officers while disdainful of others. Perhaps it started by accident when the police decided to not be totally truthful about what happened in the farmhouse. Perhaps Jeremy Bamber lost any sympathy that he once had from among the original officers - because of his behaviour or his alleged / perceived behaviour. Maybe it's a lot easier to send a shit down for something he hasn't done, as opposed to an angel.
-
Roch answered this in post 343. Did you miss it ?
If you don't agree with Roch, then feel free to believe EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon. After she had been prononced dead.
My point was a response to Caroline. I would expect Caroline to defend her own post. It might be a good idea to let her respond as appropriate.
Hoots
-
No, he said he only NOTICED one shot not that she only had one shot.
How would he have failed to notice the other one? It was only a couple of inches away?
Hoots!
-
I think it starts with vultures who were used to getting their own way and were over-familiar with some police officers while disdainful of others. Perhaps it started by accident when the police decided to not be totally truthful about what happened in the farmhouse. Perhaps Jeremy Bamber lost any sympathy that he once had from among the original officers - because of his behaviour or his alleged / perceived behaviour. Maybe it's a lot easier to send a shit down for something he hasn't done, as opposed to an angel.
You mean the angel who burgled his own family's caravan park and went for richer pickings? Had Police shot a dying Sheila by mistake they would have claimed self-defence. There was certainly no reason to cover it up because Sheila being the culprit tallied with their boss DCI Taff Jones' point of view.
-
OK. Do you agree that if she was shot in an 'alleged struggle' (as a cover for having been shot accidentally), the police at the scene (when it actually occurred), would have likely experienced stress, as to how to proceed? Especially given that it was the alleged murder weapon. Stress that could impact upon decision making - which was effectively on the hoof.
I do think some police will have baulked at the idea of framing Jeremy Bamber. However disconcerted that individual officers may have felt, bar raising their concerns internally - what other options do they have (options that will not effectively destroy their career?). It was the ACC who sanctioned the investigation of Bamber - therefore the pressure was created from the top of the command structure.
No, I don't agree at all - it would have been accidental and I certainly don't think it would warrant the framing of Bamber. Yes, there might have been an enquiry but given the circumstances, a killer was killed during a siege situation, no careers needed to have been ruined. However, if it is hard for you to believe that Bamber would try and pass off two shots to Sheila as suicide, why would you believe the police would?
However the two shots happened, Bamber would have little choice in going ahead with his plan as you say what other option would he have'?
-
TomG, is this the biggest issue for you in CAL's book ?
That one expert mistakedly wrote that Sheila had one gun shot wound when prononced dead.
Thought there would have been more & better things in a big unbiased book for conspiracy theorists.
There are other considerations with CAL's book. How can you conclude emphatically that Dr. Craig made a mistake?
Hoots!
-
How would he have failed to notice the other one? It was only a couple of inches away?
Hoots!
Either he was extremely hyperopic or sheila sustained a second GSW after he had visited her corpse.
-
No, I don't agree at all - it would have been accidental and I certainly don't think it would warrant the framing of Bamber. Yes, there might have been an enquiry but given the circumstances, a killer was killed during a siege situation, no careers needed to have been ruined. However, if it is hard for you to believe that Bamber would try and pass off two shots to Sheila as suicide, why would you believe the police would?
However the two shots happened, Bamber would have little choice in going ahead with his plan as you say what other option would he have'?
Aha!!! Maybe THAT'S why he accused the police of doing the shooting? He was trying to find a convincing reason for the two shots to Sheila?
-
How would he have failed to notice the other one? It was only a couple of inches away?
Hoots!
Not that I can answer for him and I certainly wasn't there BUT, we don't know what angle he was looking from, whether he was bent over her or how close he was. He said he only noticed one shot and I don't think anyone is suggesting that she received the second shot after the doc left. Or maybe they are? Good luck with that particular theory! ::)
-
My point was a response to Caroline. I would expect Caroline to defend her own post. It might be a good idea to let her respond as appropriate.
Hoots
You either believe Roch. That it was practice for an expert to say every dead body had been shot once.
Believe the expert made a mistake & there were two gun shots.
Believe the expert was correct & EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon after she had been prononced dead.
Which is it ?
-
Either he was extremely hyperopic or sheila sustained a second GSW after he had visited her corpse.
How on earth would Sheila have sustained a second GSW if she was already dead for some hours as Caroline alleges?
Hoots!
-
I think it starts with vultures who were used to getting their own way and were over-familiar with some police officers while disdainful of others. Perhaps it started by accident when the police decided to not be totally truthful about what happened in the farmhouse. Perhaps Jeremy Bamber lost any sympathy that he once had from among the original officers - because of his behaviour or his alleged / perceived behaviour. Maybe it's a lot easier to send a shit down for something he hasn't done, as opposed to an angel.
Perceived? Trying to sell dodgy pictures of his recently dead sister wasn't perceived. Burning his parents clothes in the farm fire pit wasn't perceived. Leaving the running of the farm to PE and running off to enjoy himself wasn't perceived. Jumping into Sheila's flat at the earliest opp wasn't perceived. Bagging up the twins belongings in bin bags for Colin to pick up wasn't perceived. His whole behaviour was not that of a grieving son - quite the opposite.
-
No, I don't agree at all - it would have been accidental and I certainly don't think it would warrant the framing of Bamber. Yes, there might have been an enquiry but given the circumstances, a killer was killed during a siege situation, no careers needed to have been ruined. However, if it is hard for you to believe that Bamber would try and pass off two shots to Sheila as suicide, why would you believe the police would?
However the two shots happened, Bamber would have little choice in going ahead with his plan as you say what other option would he have'?
This is missing the point though. If the police decide to not bother mentioning the second shot - they unwittingly walk in to a Pandora's box situation further down the line. Because by that time, they have gone to inquest regarding Sheila having been killed by a single gunshot wound and haven't told the press or relatives or Jeremy what happened. Clearly the reason why he blamed the raid team was because he was given the impression somebody was still alive before they went in. That hope was extinguished after they came out. This is suggestive that somebody (probably Sheila) was indeed alive until the raid commenced.
Once they had dug a hole for themselves, they ended up playing in to the chief vulture's hands. Bobby was out and out going to protect the interests of his own brood - not the wishes of June and Nevill.
-
How on earth would Sheila have sustained a second GSW if she was already dead for some hours as Caroline alleges?
Hoots!
This is silly ;D
-
I believe that supporters on Bamber forums believe debate between supporters & guilters is better than no debate at all. It means Bamber is at least still being talked about.
So ridiculous suggestions are made. Such as EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon after she was prononced dead. Which is the latest in a long line.
This is similar to the CT's view that any publicity is better than none. So bake offs & grave side readings are publicised.
-
Not that I can answer for him and I certainly wasn't there BUT, we don't know what angle he was looking from, whether he was bent over her or how close he was. He said he only noticed one shot and I don't think anyone is suggesting that she received the second shot after the doc left. Or maybe they are? Good luck with that particular theory! ::)
Caroline. I'm not asking others, I'm asking you. You are emphatically saying there were two GSW at 8.44am Dr. Craig says clearly one GSW. I am asking you to resolve that anomaly since you are the one who emphatically states 2 GSW at 8.44am.
Hoots
-
This is missing the point though. If the police decide to not bother mentioning the second shot - they unwittingly walk in to a Pandora's box situation further down the line. Because by that time, they have gone to inquest regarding Sheila having been killed by a single gunshot wound and haven't told the press or relatives or Jeremy what happened. Clearly the reason why he blamed the raid team was because he was given the impression somebody was still alive before they went in. That hope was extinguished after they came out. This is suggestive that somebody (probably Sheila) was indeed alive until the raid commenced.
Once they had dug a hole for themselves, they ended up playing in to the chief vulture's hands. Bobby was out and out going to protect the interests of his own boord - not the wishes of June and Nevill.
It's not missing the point at all, it's the SAME point you're making. Once two shots are present you can't go back. Clearly the reason he blamed the raid team was simply bad acting on his behalf. Point to where he claimed in his statements or interviews that he was made to believe someone was alive inside the farmhouse? He has only made such claims since the comment 'in conversation with a 'person' inside the farm' has been highlighted from Bonnett's log. Of course there is a distinction made on the log between 'farm' and 'house'. It goes on to state that 'Challenge to 'persons' inside the HOUSE was met with no response'. It is clear that the PERSON inside the farm was Jeremy and the PERSONS inside the house were the family.
-
Caroline. I'm not asking others, I'm asking you. You are emphatically saying there were two GSW at 8.44am Dr. Craig says clearly one GSW. I am asking you to resolve that anomaly since you are the one who emphatically states 2 GSW at 8.44am.
Hoots
Asking me why Craig only noticed one? How the bloody hell would I know and I am NOT the only one who is saying there were two shots before Craig saw Sheila! That is the official stance. You are bent on making a conspiracy out of it - good luck with that! ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline. I'm not asking others, I'm asking you. You are emphatically saying there were two GSW at 8.44am Dr. Craig says clearly one GSW. I am asking you to resolve that anomaly since you are the one who emphatically states 2 GSW at 8.44am.
Hoots
Was not "One GSW" followed by the word "Then"? Implying that the other was seen later?
-
This is missing the point though. If the police decide to not bother mentioning the second shot - they unwittingly walk in to a Pandora's box situation further down the line. Because by that time, they have gone to inquest regarding Sheila having been killed by a single gunshot wound and haven't told the press or relatives or Jeremy what happened. Clearly the reason why he blamed the raid team was because he was given the impression somebody was still alive before they went in. That hope was extinguished after they came out. This is suggestive that somebody (probably Sheila) was indeed alive until the raid commenced.
Once they had dug a hole for themselves, they ended up playing in to the chief vulture's hands. Bobby was out and out going to protect the interests of his own brood - not the wishes of June and Nevill.
Well hindsight is a great thing, but DS Stan Jones wasn't taken in by his play-acting, neither were former pupils and teachers at Gresham's when they saw the funeral on television.
-
This is missing the point though. If the police decide to not bother mentioning the second shot - they unwittingly walk in to a Pandora's box situation further down the line. Because by that time, they have gone to inquest regarding Sheila having been killed by a single gunshot wound and haven't told the press or relatives or Jeremy what happened. Clearly the reason why he blamed the raid team was because he was given the impression somebody was still alive before they went in. That hope was extinguished after they came out. This is suggestive that somebody (probably Sheila) was indeed alive until the raid commenced.
Once they had dug a hole for themselves, they ended up playing in to the chief vulture's hands. Bobby was out and out going to protect the interests of his own brood - not the wishes of June and Nevill.
As I said earlier. Jeremy accused the police of shooting Sheila. This COULD have been an attempt to cover up his bungle in having to shoot her twice.
-
You either believe Roch. That it was practice for an expert to say every dead body had been shot once.
Believe the expert made a mistake & there were two gun shots.
Believe the expert was correct & EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon after she had been prononced dead.
Which is it ?
The first point is unbelievable, The second is scarcely credible, With reference to the third, why would the cops want to despatch another shot into an already dead body, if they did do it? If they didn't do it who did?
Hoots!
-
The first point is unbelievable, The second is scarcely credible, With reference to the third, why would the cops want to despatch another shot into an already dead body, if they did do it? If they didn't do it who did?
Hoots!
For goodness sake! Collins was the first raid team member to enter the bedroom and this was BEFORE Craig saw Sheila. His statement shows that he saw INJURIES to Sheila's neck and chin.
-
The first point is unbelievable, The second is scarcely credible, With reference to the third, why would the cops want to despatch another shot into an already dead body, if they did do it? If they didn't do it who did?
Hoots!
It's got to be one of the three. You can't say you don't believe any.
Saying Sheila was shot a second time after being prononced dead, but not by EP is taking a conspiracy too far.
Hopefully Roch will provide his source saying it was police protocol for a crime scene expert to say all victims had been shot once.
-
For goodness sake! Collins was the first raid team member to enter the bedroom and this was BEFORE Craig saw Sheila. His statement shows that he saw INJURIES to Sheila's neck and chin.
Hopefully TomG & Roch will now accept Sheila had been shot twice prior to being prononced dead.
Roch actually agrees with this. Saying it was police proticol for scene of crimes officers to say everyone had been shot once. Hopefully he will provide his source soon.
Saying EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon after she had been prononced dead is a non starter. But as stated, supporters have created discussion on the case.
-
Hopefully TomG & Roch will now accept Sheila had been shot twice prior to being prononced dead.
Roch actually agrees with this. Saying it was police proticol for scene of crimes officers to say everyone had been shot once.
Saying EP shot Sheila with the murder weapon after she had been prononced dead is a non starter. But as stated, supporters have created discussion on the case.
Craig did only mention one shot for each of the victims if TomG would care to read his statement http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html - he wasn't there to describe the state of the bodies, just to pronounce death and to give a reason.
-
Craig did only mention one shot for each of the victims if TomG would care to read his statement http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html - he wasn't there to describe the state of the bodies, just to pronounce death and to give a reason.
Thanks. That's the end of the matter.
-
Was not "One GSW" followed by the word "Then"? Implying that the other was seen later?
I've posted the relevant quotes from the book upthread. If the other GSW was seen later it would have to have been inflicted in the interim if Dr. Craig is accurate. No-one has come up with any reason to cast doubts on on his conclusions.
Hoots!
-
Thanks. That's the end of the matter.
At last!! For people who have literally thousands of posts to your names, you certainly took your time about it. I will read the source material through and come to my own conclusions, though I can't promise it will be the end of the matter.
Hoots!
-
Perceived? Trying to sell dodgy pictures of his recently dead sister wasn't perceived. Burning his parents clothes in the farm fire pit wasn't perceived. Leaving the running of the farm to PE and running off to enjoy himself wasn't perceived. Jumping into Sheila's flat at the earliest opp wasn't perceived. Bagging up the twins belongings in bin bags for Colin to pick up wasn't perceived. His whole behaviour was not that of a grieving son - quite the opposite.
Change the record
There is no proof JB tried to sell photos
Please post evidence
I wouldn't blame ANYBODY for going away after the murders, nobody would want to be near that farm
Oh I forget Anne did with her children making fresh beds up
If Sheila carried out the murders Jeremy would certainly have felt Colin was partly to blame
Personally I find Colin's behaviour towards Sheila appalling
With her serious mental issues and Colin's behaviour she must have been in a dreadful place
-
I've posted the relevant quotes from the book upthread. If the other GSW was seen later it would have to have been inflicted in the interim if Dr. Craig is accurate. No-one has come up with any reason to cast doubts on on his conclusions.
Hoots!
So what? If Craig had listed EVERY gun shot wound on ALL the other victims, you MAY have yourself a point worth examining. However, as he only gives the other victims as having a/one shot, I don't think you, or anyone else suggesting what you are, have a leg to stand on.
-
Well hindsight is a great thing, but DS Stan Jones wasn't taken in by his play-acting, neither were former pupils and teachers at Gresham's when they saw the funeral on television.
Hi Steve whatever the former pupils and teachers at Gresham's thought of Jeremy's behaviour at the funeral does not make him a murderer it could make him a person who likes attention and was unsure of how to behave in such a situation. Not saying this is right just it could be I am trying to look at things now from both sides.
-
So what? If Craig had listed EVERY gun shot wound on ALL the other victims, you MAY have yourself a point worth examining. However, as he only gives the other victims as having a/one shot, I don't think you, or anyone else suggesting what you are, have a leg to stand on.
Jane. My considerations are regarding the book and the relevant narrative. At that part of the book CAL does not go into detail about the GSW to the other victims but does specifically mention "Seeing ‘only one gunshot wound at that stage" as debated above.
CAL goes on to say "Dr Craig could only estimate that the deaths at White House Farm had occurred ‘some hours’ before, within ‘a short time’ of each other; the twins and their grandparents had died ‘due to gunshot wounds inflicted by another person’, while in Sheila’s case ‘the wound had been inflicted by her own hand’. Again we have CAL stating Dr. Craig's use of the word "wound" not wounds. Why was CAL specific about the wound Sheila received while being non-specific of the others in that part of the narrative?
Hoots!
-
Jane. My considerations are regarding the book and the relevant narrative. At that part of the book CAL does not go into detail about the GSW to the other victims but does specifically mention "Seeing ‘only one gunshot wound at that stage" as debated above.
CAL goes on to say "Dr Craig could only estimate that the deaths at White House Farm had occurred ‘some hours’ before, within ‘a short time’ of each other; the twins and their grandparents had died ‘due to gunshot wounds inflicted by another person’, while in Sheila’s case ‘the wound had been inflicted by her own hand’. Again we have CAL stating Dr. Craig's use of the word "wound" not wounds. Why was CAL specific about the wound Sheila received while being non-specific of the others in that part of the narrative?
Hoots!
Hmm. But in my opinion, Craig's WS dated Aug 7th '85 supercedes what CAL has to say. He gives Sheila as having a gunshot wound, AS he does with both Nicholas and Daniel and they each had more than two. He gives the times that he certifies their deaths.
-
Change the record
There is no proof JB tried to sell photos
Please post evidence
I wouldn't blame ANYBODY for going away after the murders, nobody would want to be near that farm
Oh I forget Anne did with her children making fresh beds up
If Sheila carried out the murders Jeremy would certainly have felt Colin was partly to blame
Personally I find Colin's behaviour towards Sheila appalling
With her serious mental issues and Colin's behaviour she must have been in a dreadful place
Errrr,yes there is! There is evidence from both Colin )in his book) and Fielder (CAL) and Jeremy has never denied it. The fact that you defend him even from this disgusting act, shows how obsessed you are.
Jeremy wasn't near the farm, he had his own house, he went away to buy drugs and to just have a good time.
Ann didn't move into WHF until 4 years after the murders.
Sheila didn't carry out the murders and Jeremy clearly had no respect for the memory of the twins, bagging up there belongings in bin liners.
Colin and Sheila divorced, it happens everyday but he was still there for her - what would you know!
She is certainly in a dreadful place now. Her illness almost helped Jeremy get away with it - almost!
-
At last!! For people who have literally thousands of posts to your names, you certainly took your time about it. I will read the source material through and come to my own conclusions, though I can't promise it will be the end of the matter.
Hoots!
I am not here to look for information for you. Instead of reading books which only have half the story and then jumping to massive conclusions, try reading the statements that are on this forum! Also when someone finds something for you, have the decency to say thanks! The next time, look yourself or stay ignorant! >:(
-
Errrr,yes there is! There is evidence from both Colin )in his book) and Fielder (CAL) and Jeremy has never denied it. The fact that you defend him even from this disgusting act, shows how obsessed you are.
Jeremy wasn't near the farm, he had his own house, he went away to buy drugs and to just have a good time.
Ann didn't move into WHF until 4 years after the murders.
Sheila didn't carry out the murders and Jeremy clearly had no respect for the memory of the twins, bagging up there belongings in bin liners.
Colin and Sheila divorced, it happens everyday but he was still there for her - what would you know!
She is certainly in a dreadful place now. Her illness almost helped Jeremy get away with it - almost!
You read to many books and believe everything you read, you have clearly got time on your hands
Sheila did commit the murders and in my opinion Colin did not treat Sheila well
-
Hi Steve whatever the former pupils and teachers at Gresham's thought of Jeremy's behaviour at the funeral does not make him a murderer it could make him a person who likes attention and was unsure of how to behave in such a situation. Not saying this is right just it could be I am trying to look at things now from both sides.
Susan
A former Gresham pupil contacted me who is now a well known journalist and is absolutely convinced Jeremy did not carry out the murders
I didn't get that out of a book by the way
-
Susan
A former Gresham pupil contacted me who is now a well known journalist and is absolutely convinced Jeremy did not carry out the murders
I didn't get that out of a book by the way
Err, don't you mean YOU contacted HIM. Like you did Paul Harrison? Remember that do you Jackie? When you told him you could be of use to him?
-
You read to many books and believe everything you read, you have clearly got time on your hands
Sheila did commit the murders and in my opinion Colin did not treat Sheila well
I haven't read a book in quite some time however, how much time I have or don't have on my hands has sweet FA to do with you. You should try reading up on the case, then you might know more. Sheila didn't commit the murders and I don't give a nick about your opinion - its coming from an uninformed mind!
-
Err, don't you mean YOU contacted HIM. Like you did Paul Harrison? Remember that do you Jackie? When you told him you could be of use to him?
Are you barking mad?
He contacted me through twitter
Like Simon McKay and Mark Williams Thomas
You are obsessed with Paul Harrison
Caroline had her 5 minutes of fame being mentioned in his dreadful book
-
I haven't read a book in quite some time however, how much time I have or don't have on my hands has sweet FA to do with you. You should try reading up on the case, then you might know more. Sheila didn't commit the murders and I don't give a nick about your opinion - its coming from an uninformed mind!
Sheila did commit the murders unless you can show other wise
-
Are you barking mad?
He contacted me through twitter
Like Simon McKay and Mark Williams Thomas
You are obsessed with Paul Harrison
Caroline had her 5 minutes of fame being mentioned in his dreadful book
Jackie, we ALL saw the emails and some of us have a good enough grasp of the English language to recognize a letter of introduction, be it hand written or email.
-
Sheila did commit the murders unless you can show other wise
Can you prove Jeremy didn't. Judge and jury were satisfied that he did.
-
Are you barking mad?
He contacted me through twitter
Like Simon McKay and Mark Williams Thomas
You are obsessed with Paul Harrison
Caroline had her 5 minutes of fame being mentioned in his dreadful book
The only time PH gets mentioned is when you and David bring him up. I don't believe anyone has contacted you re this case, you don't know enough about it for anyone to take you seriously.
-
You read to many books and believe everything you read, you have clearly got time on your hands
Sheila did commit the murders and in my opinion Colin did not treat Sheila well
It's very easy to judge others and cast the first stone. Sheila had serious mental health issues, she used to bait Colin when they were behind closed doors and under those circumstances sad as it was they were right to separate.
-
Susan
A former Gresham pupil contacted me who is now a well known journalist and is absolutely convinced Jeremy did not carry out the murders
I didn't get that out of a book by the way
Jackie the point I was making to Steve was whatever ex pupils said about Jeremy in a negative way and his behaviour after the funeral does not make him a murderer just a rather objectionable young man without feelings but I cannot say this is true or not true I did not know him.
-
Hi Steve whatever the former pupils and teachers at Gresham's thought of Jeremy's behaviour at the funeral does not make him a murderer it could make him a person who likes attention and was unsure of how to behave in such a situation. Not saying this is right just it could be I am trying to look at things now from both sides.
Hi susan I agree we all grieve differently, but it's strange that more than one person felt he was acting and Colin described him as copying his own way of grieving. Len Foakes said shortly after the murders had been discovered Jeremy told him to carry on working and didn't show any outward signs of sadness, we have David Boutflour's account where Jeremy looks at his watch in church and says "Time's up", then is seen smirking at a distance when the cameras are no longer filming.
-
Susan
A former Gresham pupil contacted me who is now a well known journalist and is absolutely convinced Jeremy did not carry out the murders
I didn't get that out of a book by the way
How would he know? Someone else who contacted you eh? Funny that all these people contact you just to tell you they didn't think Jeremy did it? And then what? ::)
-
Hi susan I agree we all grieve differently, but it's strange that more than one person felt he was acting and Colin described him as copying his own way of grieving. Len Foakes said shortly after the murders had been discovered Jeremy told him to carry on working and didn't show any outward signs of sadness, we have David Boutflour's account where Jeremy looks at his watch in church and says "Time's up", then is seen smirking at a distance when the cameras are no longer filming.
Hi Steve I agree with every word you are saying but his strange behaviour does not make him a murderer.Steve I am not saying he did not commit the murders how would I know that for sure but I think he should be judged on factual evidence not what he said or did.
-
Perceived? Trying to sell dodgy pictures of his recently dead sister wasn't perceived. Burning his parents clothes in the farm fire pit wasn't perceived. Leaving the running of the farm to PE and running off to enjoy himself wasn't perceived. Jumping into Sheila's flat at the earliest opp wasn't perceived. Bagging up the twins belongings in bin bags for Colin to pick up wasn't perceived. His whole behaviour was not that of a grieving son - quite the opposite.
Bagging up the twins' belongings for the man who cheated on, rejected and abandoned his sister to her fate? I don't condone Jeremy's actions here - they were unthinking to the level of callousness. None of this is evidence of having slaughtered his family, leaving them in a house secured from the inside.
-
Hi Steve I agree with every word you are saying but his strange behaviour does not make him a murderer.Steve I am not saying he did not commit the murders how would I know that for sure but I think he should be judged on factual evidence not what he said or did.
Hi susan, I agree that anyone who watched JB at the funeral or anywhere else was judging him via their own thoughts and preconceptions at that time and therefore what they expressed were opinions not facts.
-
Sheila did commit the murders unless you can show other wise
There was blatant physical evidence that Sheila slaughtered her children and parents during a violent frenzy. There was no physical evidence regarding Jeremy (unless the finger print on the Anschutz is classed as such).
-
Bagging up the twins' belongings for the man who cheated on, rejected and abandoned his sister to her fate? I don't condone Jeremy's actions here - they were unthinking to the level of callousness. None of this is evidence of having slaughtered his family, leaving them in a house secured from the inside.
Hi Roch
I posted earlier that Jeremy Bambers dreadful behaviour did not make him a murderer maybe he was a young man who felt very sad and hurt deep within and behaved in this matter as to show he did not care but just maybe he did care.
-
Hi susan, I agree that anyone who watched JB at the funeral or anywhere else was judging him via their own thoughts and preconceptions at that time and therefore what they expressed were opinions not facts.
Hi Maggie could not put it better myself :))
-
Hi Roch
I posted earlier that Jeremy Bambers dreadful behaviour did not make him a murderer maybe he was a young man who felt very sad and hurt deep within and behaved in this matter as to show he did not care but just maybe he did care.
I think he probably felt a sense of release. That doesn't condone any negative aspects of his behaviour. But in a world were not being a member of the young farmer's club was a black mark, it is, at the very least mitigating!
-
There was blatant physical evidence that Sheila slaughtered her children and parents during a violent frenzy. There was no physical evidence regarding Jeremy (unless the finger print on the Anschutz is classed as such).
I would have thought the crimes would have to be non-contact looking at Sheila's hands, nightie and fingernails. Under those circumstances I just don't see it: some people want Sheila to be psychotic to the extent that she had control of herself and others, yet conscious enough to have planned the removal of the sights, the bedroom telephone and to avoid Police upon their arrival.
-
Jackie, we ALL saw the emails and some of us have a good enough grasp of the English language to recognize a letter of introduction, be it hand written or email.
What a liar you know exactly who I am referring to
The person who grew up with Jeremy at Greshams
-
Susan
A former Gresham pupil contacted me who is now a well known journalist and is absolutely convinced Jeremy did not carry out the murders
I didn't get that out of a book by the way
Explain your self
-
I would have thought the crimes would have to be non-contact looking at Sheila's hands, nightie and fingernails. Under those circumstances I just don't see it: some people want Sheila to be psychotic to the extent that she had control of herself and others, yet conscious enough to have planned the removal of the sights, the bedroom telephone and to avoid Police upon their arrival.
(a) Collins' assertion was right and she never was actually downstairs at 7.30am
(b) Sheila was downstairs but only 'playing possum' - which is how she managed to get upstairs when the opportunity arose. But how was she assessed as being dead - if she didn't yet have any gunshot wound?
(c) Sheila was downstairs but her initial gunshot wound, whether a botched suicide attempt or the result of a Mike Tesko / Woodcock theory, was superficial (in the sense that it allowed her travel upstairs before collapsing etc).
-
Caught out again Jane J how many times is that now
Now provide proof that I contacted the journolist who went to Greshams with JB
How the **** would I know the names of people JB went to school with
You idiot
-
Explain your self
It was your post, if you don't know what you're rambling on about who does? ;D ;D ;D
-
Get a life Caroline
Try using some intelligence and read your mates post
-
Caught out again Jane J how many times is that now
Now provide proof that I contacted the journolist who went to Greshams with JB
How the **** would I know the names of people JB went to school with
You idiot
Because you never tire of telling us how Jeremy used to call you on the phone, you could have asked him or he could have told you and given that you haven't mentioned any names, how do we know you know his name? You idiot!
-
Still waiting Jane J for the proof I got in touch with the guy who went to school at Greshams
Caroline you are sounding desperate as usual
-
Get a life Caroline
Try using some intelligence and read your mates post
I'd tell you to do the same but there is little point - there was a raccoon on Gogglebox, who would give you a run for your money! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What a liar you know exactly who I am referring to
The person who grew up with Jeremy at Greshams
Haha! You really have question dodging down to a fine art, don't you.................but then politicians and liars -is there a defining difference, I ask myself- have to.
I WASN'T speaking of a school boy 'friend' -who incidentally was missing from those who stood up in court to give Jeremy a character witness. Ooops, my mistake. There weren't any- I was speaking of the email you sent to Paul Harrison.
-
Still waiting Jane J for the proof I got in touch with the guy who went to school at Greshams
Caroline you are sounding desperate as usual
You're the one trying desperately to name drop (without mentioning names) and I'm sounding desperate? You crack me up! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Bagging up the twins' belongings for the man who cheated on, rejected and abandoned his sister to her fate? I don't condone Jeremy's actions here - they were unthinking to the level of callousness. None of this is evidence of having slaughtered his family, leaving them in a house secured from the inside.
I didn't say it was evidence of his guilt, I said it wasn't exactly the behaviour of a grieving man. Colin and Sheila got divorced it happens to lots of people - it's called life. The twins were still his dead sons and bagging up their belongings like they were rubbish shows that Jeremy is devoid of empathy - and there is a word for that.
-
(a) Collins' assertion was right and she never was actually downstairs at 7.30am
(b) Sheila was downstairs but only 'playing possum' - which is how she managed to get upstairs when the opportunity arose. But how was she assessed as being dead - if she didn't yet have any gunshot wound?
(c) Sheila was downstairs but her initial gunshot wound, whether a botched suicide attempt or the result of a Mike Tesko / Woodcock theory, was superficial (in the sense that it allowed her travel upstairs before collapsing etc).
No I don't accept this at all. The first shot blew half her jaw off and would have killed her anyway. It's far more likely that she was sitting down during both shots, and again we're back to how you can prove she shot herself twice or whether Jeremy's hand was on the gun when the shots were discharged.
-
The only time PH gets mentioned is when you and David bring him up. I don't believe anyone has contacted you re this case, you don't know enough about it for anyone to take you seriously.
So another one of your lies. They come thick and fast.
You are looking stupider by the minute
A complete laughing stock
I suggest tomorrow you ask Ngb if Simon and Mark contacted me and then you can post an apology
-
Hi susan I agree we all grieve differently, but it's strange that more than one person felt he was acting and Colin described him as copying his own way of grieving. Len Foakes said shortly after the murders had been discovered Jeremy told him to carry on working and didn't show any outward signs of sadness, we have David Boutflour's account where Jeremy looks at his watch in church and says "Time's up", then is seen smirking at a distance when the cameras are no longer filming.
Good old David
Is that the David that announced he had spent all the Bamber fortunes
FACT
Everyone grieves definately
-
So another one of your lies. They come thick and fast.
You are looking stupider by the minute
A complete laughing stock
I suggest tomorrow you ask Ngb if Simon and Mark contacted me and then you can post an apology
You are renowned for making stuff up and you are stupider then a stupid thing at a stupid things convention!
How would NBG know if you contacted them or if they contacted you? Seriously Jackie, no one cares! ;D ;D ;D
-
Good old David
Is that the David that announced he had spent all the Bamber fortunes
FACT
Everyone grieves definately
Where did he announce that or did he contact you as well - through Twitter? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Where did he announce that or did he contact you as well - through Twitter? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
If you were more aware of this case you would know he announced on tv
-
You are renowned for making stuff up and you are stupider then a stupid thing at a stupid things convention!
How would NBG know if you contacted them or if they contacted you? Seriously Jackie, no one cares! ;D ;D ;D
You don't care because you are and never have been interested in the truth
Your credibility once and for all has gone right out of the window
Ngb knows everything, I tell him everything
I have every message Simon sent me and I have every message Mark sent me
You will have egg in your face tomorrow
-
If you were more aware of this case you would know he announced on tv
Are you sure he wasn't just a contestant on 'Family Fortunes'? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
On which TV prog did he admit this?
-
You don't care because you are and never have been interested in the truth
Your credibility once and for all has gone right out of the window
Ngb knows everything, I tell him everything
I have every message Simon sent me and I have every message Mark sent me
You will have egg in your face tomorrow
Only if I have an egg sandwich! ;D ;D ;D
Even if you do have messages from a Simon and a Mark - so what? So two more people think he's innocent - woop de doo!!
-
Poor old desperate Caroline has made herself look stupid again and trying to stir up trouble on the forum
Thank goodness buddy and Roch are back posting to challenge the numerous lies and misinformation
Gogglebox Caroline you really nead to get out more
-
Poor old desperate Caroline has made herself look stupid again and trying to stir up trouble on the forum
Thank goodness buddy and Roch are back posting to challenge the numerous lies and misinformation
Gogglebox Caroline you really nead to get out more
Look I'm up late again! Watching 'Hatton Garden The Hiest' but I thought I would leave you a little note! Stupid how? For not believing anything you say? That's most of the forum Jackie - people just humour you!
You wouldn't know if something was a lie, misinformation or the truth because you haven't bothered to learn anything about the case. Why would anyone with any REAL information seek YOU out? Please - dream on!
Well, when Gogglebox was on (with the rather entertaining Raccoon), you were posting on the forum so we were both home. Kind of makes your point about getting out just a tad moot. However, I'm out all weekend as of tomorrow night so no need to worry about me! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8) ;) :-*
-
There was blatant physical evidence that Sheila slaughtered her children and parents during a violent frenzy. There was no physical evidence regarding Jeremy (unless the finger print on the Anschutz is classed as such).
Was that the evidence that Ainsley concealed ? Although 'it's not you're job to say what motivates him'.
What evidence was concealed or was submitted that shows Sheila was the killer.
-
Hmm. But in my opinion, Craig's WS dated Aug 7th '85 supercedes what CAL has to say. He gives Sheila as having a gunshot wound, AS he does with both Nicholas and Daniel and they each had more than two. He gives the times that he certifies their deaths.
There is this from CAL's sources: Ian Craig, notes for Essex Police, ‘A Review of the Bamber Killings’, November 1986. Unless indicated otherwise, all quotes from Ian Craig in this chapter are from this source. This is not the one brought to my attention, I would have to see that particular document if you have it. That's probably the one that CAL draws her conclusions from.
The one posted is also referred to in the book and does refer to the "wound" singular as it does with the other victims. I have absolutely no idea why he would write a report in that manner. since it is totally misleading. It's not outright lying but it's certainly economy with the truth. Is this the whole document? The reason I'm asking is that I can see no signature where one is required. Why is the text crossed out?
In terms of a pro-guilt argument I would say that this is a lucky document rather than a credible one.
Hoots!
-
There is this from CAL's sources: Ian Craig, notes for Essex Police, ‘A Review of the Bamber Killings’, November 1986. Unless indicated otherwise, all quotes from Ian Craig in this chapter are from this source. This is not the one brought to my attention, I would have to see that particular document if you have it. That's probably the one that CAL draws her conclusions from.
The one posted is also referred to in the book and does refer to the "wound" singular as it does with the other victims. I have absolutely no idea why he would write a report in that manner. since it is totally misleading. It's not outright lying but it's certainly economy with the truth. Is this the whole document? The reason I'm asking is that I can see no signature where one is required. Why is the text crossed out?
In terms of a pro-guilt argument I would say that this is a lucky document rather than a credible one.
Hoots!
Surely there is something better to discuss in CAL's book. Either for or against Bamber. It is a long book.
-
There is this from CAL's sources: Ian Craig, notes for Essex Police, ‘A Review of the Bamber Killings’, November 1986. Unless indicated otherwise, all quotes from Ian Craig in this chapter are from this source. This is not the one brought to my attention, I would have to see that particular document if you have it. That's probably the one that CAL draws her conclusions from.
The one posted is also referred to in the book and does refer to the "wound" singular as it does with the other victims. I have absolutely no idea why he would write a report in that manner. since it is totally misleading. It's not outright lying but it's certainly economy with the truth. Is this the whole document? The reason I'm asking is that I can see no signature where one is required. Why is the text crossed out?
In terms of a pro-guilt argument I would say that this is a lucky document rather than a credible one.
Hoots!
So I'd guess that most of the above is about you thinking out loud. I can only guess at what the answers are, to the questions you ask and as I believe Jeremy is guilty, you won't want to hear them. You COULD contact CAL. She's the one most likely to give the answer......................though there's no guarantee you'll accept that either.
-
I am not here to look for information for you. Instead of reading books which only have half the story and then jumping to massive conclusions, try reading the statements that are on this forum! Also when someone finds something for you, have the decency to say thanks! The next time, look yourself or stay ignorant! >:(
Hi Caroline. First of all let me make it clear where I'm coming from in this particular debate. I think JB was framed, however there is a considerable number of people who think that he massacred the family; therefore in order to accommodate this I have to be open to the pro-guilt point of view. I thought the best way to do this was to read a pro-guilt book and discuss the contents here. I chose Carol Ann Lee's book because it is certainly pro-guilt as far as JB is concerned and that you recommended it to me some months ago. Can you complain that I now challenge you on it's contents?
This forum has no supporting web pages of any worth regarding the case, the existing archives are poor, there is no information Wiki either; therefore resourcing information is going to be difficult. There is a great opportunity for supporting web pages on the basis of a for and against argument since this site is unique in accommodating both arguments; however it would be up to the more knowledgeable and dedicated posters, like yourself, to get together and make that work. If you do that then I would find it a lot easier to source infomation myself without having to ask for it.
Now is that not a constructive comment?
Hoots
-
So I'd guess that most of the above is about you thinking out loud. I can only guess at what the answers are, to the questions you ask and as I believe Jeremy is guilty, you won't want to hear them. You COULD contact CAL. She's the one most likely to give the answer......................though there's no guarantee you'll accept that either.
I can only refer you to the post I made upthread at 10.31 this morning.
Hoots!
-
Surely there is something better to discuss in CAL's book. Either for or against Bamber. It is a long book.
Well Ok. lets try another one. There is this from the kindle location 4781 of CAL'S book referring to a conversation between JB and JM.
"‘I’ve had a wonderful day at work,’ she told him. ‘How was your day?’ ‘As best as can be expected,’ he replied, explaining that he had spent the entire day inside the tractor with the sun beating down. ‘You sound pissed off,’ she said. Jeremy told her, ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’"
I've often wondered what was so special about the night of 6th to the 7th of August 1985. Was it the last time that the family would all be together, would there never be another opportunity like that particular night to commit the crime?
Hoots!
-
Hi Caroline. First of all let me make it clear where I'm coming from in this particular debate. I think JB was framed, however there is a considerable number of people who think that he massacred the family; therefore in order to accommodate this I have to be open to the pro-guilt point of view. I thought the best way to do this was to read a pro-guilt book and discuss the contents here. I chose Carol Ann Lee's book because it is certainly pro-guilt as far as JB is concerned and that you recommended it to me some months ago. Can you complain that I now challenge you on it's contents?
This forum has no supporting web pages of any worth regarding the case, the existing archives are poor, there is no information Wiki either; therefore resourcing information is going to be difficult. There is a great opportunity for supporting web pages on the basis of a for and against argument since this site is unique in accommodating both arguments; however it would be up to the more knowledgeable and dedicated posters, like yourself, to get together and make that work. If you do that then I would find it a lot easier to source infomation myself without having to ask for it.
Now is that not a constructive comment?
Hoots
If you think Bamber was framed, that's up to you, I'm not here to change anyone's mind. Personally I think it's screamingly obvious that he's guilty once to get passed the myths that have been perpetuated in books, by the TV and on the internet.
I am not sure how you cn say the archives here are poor? Are you looking in the right place?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html
-
Well Ok. lets try another one. There is this from the kindle location 4781 of CAL'S book referring to a conversation between JB and JM.
"‘I’ve had a wonderful day at work,’ she told him. ‘How was your day?’ ‘As best as can be expected,’ he replied, explaining that he had spent the entire day inside the tractor with the sun beating down. ‘You sound pissed off,’ she said. Jeremy told her, ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’"
I've often wondered what was so special about the night of 6th to the 7th of August 1985. Was it the last time that the family would all be together, would there never be another opportunity like that particular night to commit the crime?
Hoots!
Sheila didn't stay at the farm that often and the twins were living with Colin, that week was ideal for such a plan.
-
Well Ok. lets try another one. There is this from the kindle location 4781 of CAL'S book referring to a conversation between JB and JM.
"‘I’ve had a wonderful day at work,’ she told him. ‘How was your day?’ ‘As best as can be expected,’ he replied, explaining that he had spent the entire day inside the tractor with the sun beating down. ‘You sound pissed off,’ she said. Jeremy told her, ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’"
I've often wondered what was so special about the night of 6th to the 7th of August 1985. Was it the last time that the family would all be together, would there never be another opportunity like that particular night to commit the crime?
Hoots!
Presumably, she believed the 2K hitman must have been on standby, simply waiting by the phone - ready to strike with minimal notice.
-
Presumably, she believed the 2K hitman must have been on standby, simply waiting by the phone - ready to strike with minimal notice.
She didn't know the hit man story at that point.
-
She didn't know the hit man story at that point.
But she did (allegedly) take it in afterwards - implying that she therefore must have believed Jeremy could click his fingers at a moment's notice.
-
But she did (allegedly) take it in afterwards - implying that she therefore must have believed Jeremy could click his fingers at a moment's notice.
And?
-
And?
Well it's hardly a credible scenario is it? After being pissed off in heat of the tractor, he decided 'it's tonight' - and the hitman just happens to be ready to go at a moment's notice.
-
If you think Bamber was framed, that's up to you, I'm not here to change anyone's mind. Personally I think it's screamingly obvious that he's guilty once to get passed the myths that have been perpetuated in books, by the TV and on the internet.
I am not sure how you cn say the archives here are poor? Are you looking in the right place?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html
If your not here to change anyone's mind, what on earth are you doing here? I'm perfectly open to having my mind changed if it so screaming obvious, that's what I want you and others to do. If you can't debate with an open mind then there's no point in debating at all is there? As far as supporting web pages go I suppose I've been a bit spoiled by the excellent Injustice in Perugia Website/forum and it supporting wiki that was put together by members. It has to be said also that the True justice for Meredith site was equally well presented and maintained. This is a pale shadow of what could be achieved.
-
Well it's hardly a credible scenario is it? After being pissed off in heat of the tractor, he decided 'it's tonight' - and the hitman just happens to be ready to go at a moment's notice.
I'm not sure where you are heading with this, it's pretty clear that there are three main possibilities relating to Julie coming forward. In no particular order:
1. Julie is just telling lies, either off her own back or coerced by others.
2. Whilst JB had told her about the murders, she didn't believe him and thought he was making things up, even after the incident.
3. She knew all about it and was happy to stay with JB anyway.
-
Well Ok. lets try another one. There is this from the kindle location 4781 of CAL'S book referring to a conversation between JB and JM.
"‘I’ve had a wonderful day at work,’ she told him. ‘How was your day?’ ‘As best as can be expected,’ he replied, explaining that he had spent the entire day inside the tractor with the sun beating down. ‘You sound pissed off,’ she said. Jeremy told her, ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’"
I've often wondered what was so special about the night of 6th to the 7th of August 1985. Was it the last time that the family would all be together, would there never be another opportunity like that particular night to commit the crime?
Hoots!
Sounds as if he'd been psyching himself up to put a pre-laid plan into action, doesn't it? That night MAY have been his last chance. They were due to leave on the Thursday.
-
Well it's hardly a credible scenario is it? After being pissed off in heat of the tractor, he decided 'it's tonight' - and the hitman just happens to be ready to go at a moment's notice.
How does that matter? Whether or not in hindsight it is credible or not, it's what he told Julie.
-
But she did (allegedly) take it in afterwards - implying that she therefore must have believed Jeremy could click his fingers at a moment's notice.
Or just for a second, clinging to the hope that he hadn't done it?
-
Hi Caroline. First of all let me make it clear where I'm coming from in this particular debate. I think JB was framed, however there is a considerable number of people who think that he massacred the family; therefore in order to accommodate this I have to be open to the pro-guilt point of view. I thought the best way to do this was to read a pro-guilt book and discuss the contents here. I chose Carol Ann Lee's book because it is certainly pro-guilt as far as JB is concerned and that you recommended it to me some months ago. Can you complain that I now challenge you on it's contents?
This forum has no supporting web pages of any worth regarding the case, the existing archives are poor, there is no information Wiki either; therefore resourcing information is going to be difficult. There is a great opportunity for supporting web pages on the basis of a for and against argument since this site is unique in accommodating both arguments; however it would be up to the more knowledgeable and dedicated posters, like yourself, to get together and make that work. If you do that then I would find it a lot easier to source infomation myself without having to ask for it.
Now is that not a constructive comment?
Hoots
If you want propaganda then I suggest you peruse the official Jeremy Bamber site. If you read the Statements and Transcripts library here you should find most of what you're looking for, and that is raw data from which you can make up your own mind.
-
If your not here to change anyone's mind, what on earth are you doing here? I'm perfectly open to having my mind changed if it so screaming obvious, that's what I want you and others to do. If you can't debate with an open mind then there's no point in debating at all is there? As far as supporting web pages go I suppose I've been a bit spoiled by the excellent Injustice in Perugia Website/forum and it supporting wiki that was put together by members. It has to be said also that the True justice for Meredith site was equally well presented and maintained. This is a pale shadow of what could be achieved.
I may be being unfair to you and if so, I apologise. If you are here for serious debate and not to take the piss then I will try and answer you posts as best I can. Your remarks yesterday about not being quick enough to respond annoyed me because I read the board on and off throughout the day, I'm not here on a permanent basis (as some idiots believe). Why am I here, it's habit forming I guess but even though I believe he's 100% guilty, I'm still interested in the case and often people post things that just aren't true and where possible, I point it out. I'm sure you would rather read facts than fiction?
Also Maggie, I found out that someone did See Sheila skipping up the lane - not a myth. It was one of the Foakes's.
-
Sounds as if he'd been psyching himself up to put a pre-laid plan into action, doesn't it? That night MAY have been his last chance. They were due to leave on the Thursday.
Hmmm! That's interesting, both you and Caroline have mentioned JB having a "plan" and a "pre-laid plan". So if you were JB sitting on the tractor that afternoon what would your plan be?
Hoots!
-
I'm struggling to debate with an open mind.
Roch you are not alone in this respect most posters on here don't have an open mind.
-
Well Ok. lets try another one. There is this from the kindle location 4781 of CAL'S book referring to a conversation between JB and JM.
"‘I’ve had a wonderful day at work,’ she told him. ‘How was your day?’ ‘As best as can be expected,’ he replied, explaining that he had spent the entire day inside the tractor with the sun beating down. ‘You sound pissed off,’ she said. Jeremy told her, ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’"
I've often wondered what was so special about the night of 6th to the 7th of August 1985. Was it the last time that the family would all be together, would there never be another opportunity like that particular night to commit the crime?
Hoots!
No because there had been a lightning strike which gave him a pretext to move the telephones without arousing suspicion, Nevill's portable brick-type telephone was out of order, and Sheila was in a lethargic state he would have noticed when she and the twins came into the fields to chat to him. Was it the twins' idea to go out and speak to Uncle Jeremy and see the new tractor in operation..
-
I'm struggling to debate with an open mind.
I'm not certain that it's possible, if one feels passionately, to debate with a 100% open mind. I said I had an open mind when I joined, but quickly became persuaded of innocence. It was when I realized I was being told lies, that I started to question my beliefs. Even then, 'conversion' didn't come easily or quickly. It was quite a painful process.
-
Hmmm! That's interesting, both you and Caroline have mentioned JB having a "plan" and a "pre-laid plan". So if you were JB sitting on the tractor that afternoon what would your plan be?
Hoots!
The plan was to kill everyone. Then attempt to frame Sheila.
But that's just a guess.
-
Hmmm! That's interesting, both you and Caroline have mentioned JB having a "plan" and a "pre-laid plan". So if you were JB sitting on the tractor that afternoon what would your plan be?
Hoots!
D'ya know, TomG, I have no difficulties with idling away time with fantasies, but the slaughter of my family has never been one of them! I can't begin -OR, rather, I don't want- to imagine what is someone's mind set if it leads them to think of murder.
-
Hmmm! That's interesting, both you and Caroline have mentioned JB having a "plan" and a "pre-laid plan". So if you were JB sitting on the tractor that afternoon what would your plan be?
Hoots!
My plan would be to go to the pub after work - you see, I'm not a murderer.
-
Well Ok. lets try another one. There is this from the kindle location 4781 of CAL'S book referring to a conversation between JB and JM.
"‘I’ve had a wonderful day at work,’ she told him. ‘How was your day?’ ‘As best as can be expected,’ he replied, explaining that he had spent the entire day inside the tractor with the sun beating down. ‘You sound pissed off,’ she said. Jeremy told her, ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’"
I've often wondered what was so special about the night of 6th to the 7th of August 1985. Was it the last time that the family would all be together, would there never be another opportunity like that particular night to commit the crime?
Hoots!
What was special ?
Everyone was at WHF. For a few days.
Bamber had been to WHF that night for supper. Probably a rare appearance.
Bamber had loaded the rifle.
The bike was at his cottage.
He saw Sheila was non responsive & under Haloperidol.
Bamber had plucked up the courage after having to sit on his tractor all day.
Bamber had rang Julie for the first time in 3 days.
He could have done it tomorrow. But had decided 'tonights the night'.
-
D'ya know, TomG, I have no difficulties with idling away time with fantasies, but the slaughter of my family has never been one of them! I can't begin -OR, rather, I don't want- to imagine what is someone's mind set if it leads them to think of murder.
I'm looking for a strategy at this point not a motive. If you like to fantasize as you say, imagine the murders have not taken place, now what is JB's strategy according to your "pre-laid plan"?
Hoots!
-
My plan would be to go to the pub after work - you see, I'm not a murderer.
And here's me thinking I was the piss-taker!
Hoots!
-
I'm looking for a strategy at this point not a motive. If you like to fantasize as you say, imagine the murders have not taken place, now what is JB's strategy according to your "pre-laid plan"?
Hoots!
To kill everyone at the perfect & only possible time - while they are asleep.
Stage the scene.
Then ring the police & insinuate Sheila.
But that is just a guess.
-
I'm looking for a strategy at this point not a motive. If you like to fantasize as you say, imagine the murders have not taken place, now what is JB's strategy according to your "pre-laid plan"?
Hoots!
OK. I imagine the fantasy would always have been that an accident would befall them all in the same place. A car accident, perhaps? He may have toyed with such an idea. He certainly appears to have briefly voiced thoughts of a major fire and, with a 'loan' of them from Julie, sleeping pills. He certainly seems, at some point, to have become aware of how serious was Sheila's mental condition. He'd been to the party that weekend. Had been in Sheila's company. He and Julie had taken Sheila home -we've never been made privy to the conversation which took place during that journey. MIGHT something have been said then that pushed his fantasy up a gear? COULD he have realized that Sheila's mental state changed the possibility of the fantasy, into reality? All he'd then have needed to do to refine it, was to work out the best way to do it to make it appear as if Sheila had.
-
I'm looking for a strategy at this point not a motive. If you like to fantasize as you say, imagine the murders have not taken place, now what is JB's strategy according to your "pre-laid plan"?
Hoots!
To kill the family, blame it on his sister and inherit the cash, get rid of the farm and live the high life!
-
OK. I imagine the fantasy would always have been that an accident would befall them all in the same place. A car accident, perhaps? He may have toyed with such an idea. He certainly appears to have briefly voiced thoughts of a major fire and, with a 'loan' of them from Julie, sleeping pills. He certainly seems, at some point, to have become aware of how serious was Sheila's mental condition. He'd been to the party that weekend. Had been in Sheila's company. He and Julie had taken Sheila home -we've never been made privy to the conversation which took place during that journey. MIGHT something have been said then that pushed his fantasy up a gear? COULD he have realized that Sheila's mental state changed the possibility of the fantasy, into reality? All he'd then have needed to do to refine it, was to work out the best way to do it to make it appear as if Sheila had.
So, did he make his way to WHF that evening with that as his strategy and pre-laid plan?
-
To kill the family, blame it on his sister and inherit the cash, get rid of the farm and live the high life!
If Jeremy is going to massacre his family he has to know exactly how he's going to do this. How not to alert Bruce, how to stop Crispy barking at him as he climbed in and alerting Nevil who would waste no time in coming down stairs to investigate with JB finding a shotgun pressed against his nose. What order he is going to eliminate each of his family etc. That sort of thing. I'm getting baloney so far!
Hoots!
-
If Jeremy is going to massacre his family he has to know exactly how he's going to do this. How not to alert Bruce, how to stop Crispy barking at him as he climbed in and alerting Nevil who would waste no time in coming down stairs to investigate with JB finding a shotgun pressed against his nose. What order he is going to eliminate each of his family etc. That sort of thing. I'm getting baloney so far!
Hoots!
Why are you assuming that he DIDN'T know all that he felt was necessary for him know to accomplish it? You're viewing this from the only place you know, which is your own frame of reference. Jeremy's was quite different from your own.
-
If Jeremy is going to massacre his family he has to know exactly how he's going to do this. How not to alert Bruce, how to stop Crispy barking at him as he climbed in and alerting Nevil who would waste no time in coming down stairs to investigate with JB finding a shotgun pressed against his nose. What order he is going to eliminate each of his family etc. That sort of thing. I'm getting baloney so far!
Hoots!
Why don't you work these out for yourself ? Bamber would have & spent months doing it. There are threads on the dogs, window & people waking at 2pm.
I've posted my scenario of how Bamber committed the massacre. It was easy to do. Although Bamber would have expected it to be even easier. Without Nevill waking.
It is impossible to submit a Sheila scenario which matches the crime scene from anyone. I've been trying to get this from people since joining. Nugs & Susan have refused, Mike just said 'by shooting them' & Roch said 'he can't explain' Nevill's phone calls.
But feel free to tell me how Sheila did it.
-
Why are you assuming that he DIDN'T know all that he felt was necessary for him know to accomplish it? You're viewing this from the only place you know, which is your own frame of reference. Jeremy's was quite different from your own.
OK let me put it this way. If I were to conclude that JB murdered his family in cold blood, I would have to be fairly certain that I knew what his strategy was and exactly how he went about killing his family in a fairly detailed moment by moment, location by location scenario.
I would conclude that if I didn't know that with some degree of certainty, I would have no right to conclude that JB was guilty. I don't think that JB committed the murders and subsequently no such plan exists; therefore I am asking others in their pro-guilt stance to take that responsibility since the "plan" was their terminology, not mine.
However it is clear that judging by the responses I'm getting that the pro-guilt members do not consider that knowing what JB's plan was is crucial to their conclusion of his guilt, I think that lack's integrity and seriously weakens the pro-guilt stance but hey-ho. So I think I see where your coming from JaneJ. People arrive at their specific conclusions for very different reasons, so I can deal with that.
I don't want to be posting much more here for the time being, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hoots!
-
OK let me put it this way. If I were to conclude that JB murdered his family in cold blood, I would have to be fairly certain that I knew what his strategy was and exactly how he went about killing his family in a fairly detailed moment by moment, location by location scenario.
I would conclude that if I didn't know that with some degree of certainty, I would have no right to conclude that JB was guilty. I don't think that JB committed the murders and subsequently no such plan exists; therefore I am asking others in their pro-guilt stance to take that responsibility since the "plan" was their terminology, not mine.
However it is clear that judging by the responses I'm getting that the pro-guilt members do not consider that knowing what JB's plan was is crucial to their conclusion of his guilt, I think that lack's integrity and seriously weakens the pro-guilt stance but hey-ho. So I think I see where your coming from JaneJ. People arrive at their specific conclusions for very different reasons, so I can deal with that.
I don't want to be posting much more here for the time being, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hoots!
I didn't read this. But a strategy is actually an interesting point.
Bamber had months to plan the massacre. It was easy to cycle without being seen, enter without being heard & shoot sleeping people at 2am with a silencer attached. Only Nevill threw a spanner in the works by waking seconds before fatal bedroom shots. However people still refuse to believe Bamber did it.
However Sheila had no plan, was up against an awake man twice as big her & was taking Haloperidol. However was supposed to have committed this highly difficult massacre. Letting Nevill spend 10 minutes making two phone calls 16 minutes apart prior to brutally beating his face & body.
-
Some good posting TomG. Thanks for your contributions. I'm going to miss some decent posts.
-
Why don't you work these out for yourself ? Bamber would have & spent months doing it. There are threads on the dogs, window & people waking at 2pm.
I've posted my scenario of how Bamber committed the massacre. It was easy to do. Although Bamber would have expected it to be even easier. Without Nevill waking.
It is impossible to submit a Sheila scenario which matches the crime scene from anyone. I've been trying to get this from people since joining. Nugs & Susan have refused, Mike just said 'by shooting them' & Roch said 'he can't explain' Nevill's phone calls.
But feel free to tell me how Sheila did it.
* That is a very good point and probably redresses the balance of my post above. I think it's probably the responsibility of both sides of the argument to come up with a plausible scenario for both possibilities. If we can't do this then how can we reasonably conclude that either of them were to blame; we could only conclude that maybe it was one and maybe it was the other? We would be in no position to judge.
Hoots!
-
OK let me put it this way. If I were to conclude that JB murdered his family in cold blood, I would have to be fairly certain that I knew what his strategy was and exactly how he went about killing his family in a fairly detailed moment by moment, location by location scenario.
I would conclude that if I didn't know that with some degree of certainty, I would have no right to conclude that JB was guilty. I don't think that JB committed the murders and subsequently no such plan exists; therefore I am asking others in their pro-guilt stance to take that responsibility since the "plan" was their terminology, not mine.
However it is clear that judging by the responses I'm getting that the pro-guilt members do not consider that knowing what JB's plan was is crucial to their conclusion of his guilt, I think that lack's integrity and seriously weakens the pro-guilt stance but hey-ho. So I think I see where your coming from JaneJ. People arrive at their specific conclusions for very different reasons, so I can deal with that.
I don't want to be posting much more here for the time being, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hoots!
Well, I'd have to argue that you'd need to be him before you understood. One of us MIGHT, accidentally hit on it -even share it with you- but unless you were open to believing it, you'd probably deny it but just because you wouldn't want to believe it wouldn't mean it didn't happen. I don't believe it falls to any of us to make you believe that which you may choose not to. As neither of us are forcing our views down the other's throats, I remain perfectly happy to agree to disagree.
-
* That is a very good point and probably redresses the balance of my post above. I think it's probably the responsibility of both sides of the argument to come up with a plausible scenario for both possibilities. If we can't do this then how can we reasonably conclude that either of them were to blame; we could only conclude that maybe it was one and maybe it was the other? We would be in no position to judge.
Hoots!
Basically Bamber planned to -
Cycle to WHF on June's bike.
Get in through the loose/open bathroom window.
Pick up his loaded rifle with silencer.
Shoot everyone while they slept at 2am.
Stage the scene.
Bang the kitchen window shut behind him.
Cycle home.
Clean up.
Ring the police & insinuate Sheila.
-
I didn't read this. But a strategy is actually an interesting point.
Bamber had months to plan the massacre. It was easy to cycle without being seen, enter without being heard & shoot sleeping people at 2am with a silencer attached. Only Nevill threw a spanner in the works by waking seconds before fatal bedroom shots. However people still refuse to believe Bamber did it.
However Sheila had no plan, was up against an awake man twice as big her & was taking Haloperidol. However was supposed to have committed this highly difficult massacre. Letting Nevill spend 10 minutes making two phone calls 16 minutes apart prior to brutally beating his face & body.
With reference to my more recent posts; I would be obliged to offer a Sheila did it scenario to counter your points, however I would see it as my responsibility to be as thorough as reasonably possible, I don't have that thoroughness yet, do you? I don't think anyone posting here has that thoroughness required to back up our conclusions of guilt or innocence. I've been wondering why people here have clocked up an astonishing number of posts asserting either JB's guilt or innocence. If they were so certain they'd have no need to post anymore. My guess is that it's the fact that deep down the case is still a mystery that keeps them glued to it.
Hoots!
-
Some good posting TomG. Thanks for your contributions. I'm going to miss some decent posts.
Hi lookout welcome back. I'm sure I speak for many when I say this site is simply not the same without you.
-
With reference to my more recent posts; I would be obliged to offer a Sheila did it scenario to counter your points, however I would see it as my responsibility to be as thorough as reasonably possible, I don't have that thoroughness yet, do you? I don't think anyone posting here has that thoroughness required to back up our conclusions of guilt or innocence. I've been wondering why people here have clocked up an astonishing number of posts asserting either JB's guilt or innocence. If they were so certain they'd have no need to post anymore. My guess is that it's the fact that deep down the case is still a mystery that keeps them glued to it.
Hoots!
Jeremy picks up the Anschutz he had left in the barn earlier(was this why Nevill was short with Barbara because he noticed a gun missing?) enters by a downstairs window, one he had previously left ajar or which could be prised open with a jemmy without leaving a mark, makes his way to the twins room, shoots them both once each, enters the master bedroom where he blasts both his parents, rushes downstairs to reload whereupon he meets Nevill who has managed to stagger downstairs, they struggle for control of the rifle, during which time the lightshade gets smashed, Jeremy taken aback pumps more shots into Nevill, rushes back upstairs, encounters June in the doorway, shoots her between the eyes, re-enters the twins room where he produces the arc pattern to the heads, opens Sheila's door, leads her to her death like a lamb to the slaughter, proceeds downstairs again where he bashes Nevill with the stock, then prods him with a heated rifle to ascertain his demise, goes back upstairs to stage the death scene but finds Sheila alive, shoots her once again and tosses the bible atop her body along with the rifle,dials his Goldhanger number from the kitchen telephone then exits the property the way he came, bangs the window shut and heads home.
-
With reference to my more recent posts; I would be obliged to offer a Sheila did it scenario to counter your points, however I would see it as my responsibility to be as thorough as reasonably possible, I don't have that thoroughness yet, do you? I don't think anyone posting here has that thoroughness required to back up our conclusions of guilt or innocence. I've been wondering why people here have clocked up an astonishing number of posts asserting either JB's guilt or innocence. If they were so certain they'd have no need to post anymore. My guess is that it's the fact that deep down the case is still a mystery that keeps them glued to it.
Hoots!
There is a recent thread regarding how Sheila did it. Buddy kindly provided a new scenario on it. Unfortunately it had to be dismissed as Nevill couldn't speak after receiving his upstairs shots. Buddy's counter claim that Nevill was not shot upstairs has also been dismissed.
You are aware of the crime scene, body positions, bullet allocation, kitchen fight, reloads & 1/2 phone calls. So it should be easy to create you're scenario.
Look forward to reading it.
-
Hi lookout welcome back. I'm sure I speak for many when I say this site is simply not the same without you.
Steve,how lovely of you to say that. I'd never want another week like it,I felt about 90 !
-
There is a recent thread regarding how Sheila did it. Buddy kindly provided a new scenario on it. Unfortunately it had to be dismissed as Nevill couldn't speak after receiving his upstairs shots. Buddy's counter claim that Nevill was not shot upstairs has also been dismissed.
You are aware of the crime scene, body positions, bullet allocation, kitchen fight, reloads & 1/2 phone calls. So it should be easy to create you're scenario.
Look forward to reading it.
Well it won't be any time soon, I could certainly respond to the mouth shot scenario right now, but I'm out of here for the time being.
Good day to you Sir!
Hoots
-
If Jeremy is going to massacre his family he has to know exactly how he's going to do this. How not to alert Bruce, how to stop Crispy barking at him as he climbed in and alerting Nevil who would waste no time in coming down stairs to investigate with JB finding a shotgun pressed against his nose. What order he is going to eliminate each of his family etc. That sort of thing. I'm getting baloney so far!
Hoots!
I don't get it either tom. How did he even know they'd all be asleep? How did this happen without the twins so much as stirring? Or were they killed first? They were the least threat?
-
Neville would have lambasted Jeremy if he'd entered the farmhouse via a window,especially given the alleged conversation between BW and himself about " not turning his back " and all that. It would have been expected I'd have thought--------forewarned is forearmed and all that.
Whereas with Sheila,it would have been unexpected,a nasty surprise. Anyone taken aback by shock or surprise just isn't prepared for the unexpected.
-
Neville would have lambasted Jeremy if he'd entered the farmhouse via a window,especially given the alleged conversation between BW and himself about " not turning his back " and all that. It would have been expected I'd have thought--------forewarned is forearmed and all that.
Whereas with Sheila,it would have been unexpected,a nasty surprise. Anyone taken aback by shock or surprise just isn't prepared for the unexpected.
Lookout we have discussed this before when Nevill said I must never turn my back on that young man he could have meant I will always be there for him these kind of statements can be read which ever way fits
-
Lookout we have discussed this before when Nevill said I must never turn my back on that young man he could have meant I will always be there for him these kind of statements can be read which ever way fits
Indeed Susan. It's what I think too. Statements only need a few twists and turns and before you know it you're the accused.
-
Lookout we have discussed this before when Nevill said I must never turn my back on that young man he could have meant I will always be there for him these kind of statements can be read which ever way fits
In the context of the remark about "the shooting season's coming up" I think that's a very generous interpretation.
-
In the context of the remark about "the shooting season's coming up" I think that's a very generous interpretation.
Hi Steve I am just trying to look at both sides of the coin and not see everything in black and white I am looking at the grey area.
-
Hi Steve I am just trying to look at both sides of the coin and not see everything in black and white I am looking at the grey area.
The tragedy is so many people had premonitions but nothing ended up being done.
-
Lookout we have discussed this before when Nevill said I must never turn my back on that young man he could have meant I will always be there for him these kind of statements can be read which ever way fits
Exactly Susan
-
OK. I imagine the fantasy would always have been that an accident would befall them all in the same place. A car accident, perhaps? He may have toyed with such an idea. He certainly appears to have briefly voiced thoughts of a major fire and, with a 'loan' of them from Julie, sleeping pills. He certainly seems, at some point, to have become aware of how serious was Sheila's mental condition. He'd been to the party that weekend. Had been in Sheila's company. He and Julie had taken Sheila home -we've never been made privy to the conversation which took place during that journey. MIGHT something have been said then that pushed his fantasy up a gear? COULD he have realized that Sheila's mental state changed the possibility of the fantasy, into reality? All he'd then have needed to do to refine it, was to work out the best way to do it to make it appear as if Sheila had.
I really struggle with this scenario Jane. Could it be possible that he was just being a caring brother by taking her home and that there really wasn't much of a conversation only to know that she was home safely.
-
Some good posting TomG. Thanks for your contributions. I'm going to miss some decent posts.
Some very good and interesting posts by tomg
-
Well, I'd have to argue that you'd need to be him before you understood. One of us MIGHT, accidentally hit on it -even share it with you- but unless you were open to believing it, you'd probably deny it but just because you wouldn't want to believe it wouldn't mean it didn't happen. I don't believe it falls to any of us to make you believe that which you may choose not to. As neither of us are forcing our views down the other's throats, I remain perfectly happy to agree to disagree.
That works both ways Jane. If someone posted a credible scenario of how Shiela committed the massacre the guilters still wouldn't be open to considering it. Stalemates
-
That works both ways Jane. If someone posted a credible scenario of how Shiela committed the massacre the guilters still wouldn't be open to considering it. Stalemates
There has been no credible scenarios of how Sheila committed the massacre. From the posters who have been kind enough to try.
Mike saying 'by shooting them' or Roch saying 'Sheila shot them but I can't explain Nevill's phone calls', is not enough.
More detailed scenarios have been dismissed. No one believes Nevill rang Bamber & the police after Sheila started shooting the twins or after he had been shot himself.
But feel free to submit you're scenario.
-
I really struggle with this scenario Jane. Could it be possible that he was just being a caring brother by taking her home and that there really wasn't much of a conversation only to know that she was home safely.
Caring brother? Notsure, he told police that he didn't like her and she didn't like him. He told an employee that he wasn't sharing any money with Sheila. Does either sound caring?
-
Caring brother? Notsure, he told police that he didn't like her and she didn't like him. He told an employee that he wasn't sharing any money with Sheila. Does either sound caring?
So
Why take her home then.
If he disliked her that much he didn't have to bother.
-
I really struggle with this scenario Jane. Could it be possible that he was just being a caring brother by taking her home and that there really wasn't much of a conversation only to know that she was home safely.
The usual brotherly/sisterly " love ". I didn't like my brother and he didn't like me-------until we were well older. Nothing unusual in brother versus sister squabbles. All part of life and perfectly normal.
Another thing we mustn't forget is that it always seemed to have been Jeremy that took Sheila home and not Colin who was always too drunk,so we have to ask ourselves if these were also Jeremy's thoughts rather than him openly remarking ?
-
There has been no credible scenarios of how Sheila committed the massacre. From the posters who have been kind enough to try.
Mike saying 'by shooting them' or Roch saying 'Sheila shot them but I can't explain Nevill's phone calls', is not enough.
More detailed scenarios have been dismissed. No one believes Nevill rang Bamber & the police after Sheila started shooting the twins or after he had been shot himself.
But feel free to submit you're scenario.
Where is your scenario, I will read it
-
So
Why take her home then.
If he disliked her that much he didn't have to bother.
Colin asked him to because she'd asked him but he'd had too much to drink. Besides which, I'm sure we've all found ourselves doing things for people we don't care very much for. It's been insisted here that Jeremy hadn't spoken to June for years because he hated her. Life isn't that simple. It isn't black or white.
-
Where is your scenario, I will read it
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6549.msg295162.html#msg295162
Reply 4.
-
The tragedy is so many people had premonitions but nothing ended up being done.
Hearsay
-
Caring brother? Notsure, he told police that he didn't like her and she didn't like him. He told an employee that he wasn't sharing any money with Sheila. Does either sound caring?
Jeremy showed on many occasions his caring side and there are many fall outs between siblings that does not mean he ever considered murdering her
-
So
Why take her home then.
If he disliked her that much he didn't have to bother.
Exactly Not sure, he didn't have to take her home and he wouldn't have if he didn't care about her
Nearly everything written on this forum regarding Sheila and Jeremy's relationship is purely speculation
As early everyone on this forum doesn't give there real names so people posting pure speculation could be connected to the people trying to keep JB in prison
-
So
Why take her home then.
If he disliked her that much he didn't have to bother.
One of the most fascinating things on this forum is the way people profess to know about Jeremy and Sheila's relationship and Sheila's health issues yet apparently nobody saw Sheila enough to identify the twins when they were killed
-
So
Why take her home then.
If he disliked her that much he didn't have to bother.
Because he hadn't drank very much and Colin had, not sure how just giving her a lift home proves they got on? Interesting that when he returned, he started asking Colin about Sheila's illness. So much for not knowing anything about it.
-
Because he hadn't drank very much and Colin had, not sure how just giving her a lift home proves they got on? Interesting that when he returned, he started asking Colin about Sheila's illness. So much for not knowing anything about it.
Unfortunately you weren't there so you were not privy to the conversation so you don't know what was said
It was a very kind gesture from Jeremy
-
Unfortunately you weren't there so you were not privy to the conversation so you don't know what was said
It was a very kind gesture from Jeremy
Neither were you but Colin was!
He didn't offer, he was asked.
-
Colin asked him to because she'd asked him but he'd had too much to drink. Besides which, I'm sure we've all found ourselves doing things for people we don't care very much for. It's been insisted here that Jeremy hadn't spoken to June for years because he hated her. Life isn't that simple. It isn't black or white.
I keep seeing posts from supporters about how Jeremy's words, about his relationship with Sheila, have been misinterpreted. I suppose there are those here who wish they'd tried harder to see/speak with a friend/relative who subsequently died before that happened. Jeremy was given that chance by police who didn't know Sheila was already dead. Jeremy turned down the opportunity to try to speak to her -understandably. It seems strange to me that, at 25, he hadn't got over what could have been no more than childhood dislike of a sibling. Given how serious was the situation, it suggests there may have been a much deeper dislike that he wasn't prepared to set aside
Attempts are being made to second guess what was the meaning of his words. In a world where I believe nothing is said for nothing, I believe he meant every word of what he said about her. Especially those he said whilst he was under pressure.
-
I keep seeing posts from supporters about how Jeremy's words, about his relationship with Sheila, have been misinterpreted. I suppose there are those here who wish they'd tried harder to see/speak with a friend/relative who subsequently died before that happened. Jeremy was given that chance by police who didn't know Sheila was already dead. Jeremy turned down the opportunity to try to speak to her -understandably. It seems strange to me that, at 25, he hadn't got over what could have been no more than childhood dislike of a sibling. Given how serious was the situation, it suggests there may have been a much deeper dislike that he wasn't prepared to set aside
Attempts are being made to second guess what was the meaning of his words. In a world where I believe nothing is said for nothing, I believe he meant every word of what he said about her. Especially those he said whilst he was under pressure.
I also get this feeling Jane, reading between the lines of the books and the statements. Julie said he had told her "she had done some horrible things to him in the past, but wouldn't elaborate on what these things were". I think as long as Jeremy was as Gresham's and not achieving much, which would have dented his self-confidence, and of course the distance that put between them, an uneasy modus vivendi was reached, though once he realized how his future had been mapped out as opposed to Sheila's comparative autonomy the resentment increased. Strange how from relatively trivial matters such as being made to buy carpets and refurbish Bourtree Cottage an insidious rancour can develop.
-
The usual brotherly/sisterly " love ". I didn't like my brother and he didn't like me-------until we were well older. Nothing unusual in brother versus sister squabbles. All part of life and perfectly normal.
Another thing we mustn't forget is that it always seemed to have been Jeremy that took Sheila home and not Colin who was always too drunk,so we have to ask ourselves if these were also Jeremy's thoughts rather than him openly remarking ?
Hi lookout after reading all the posts on the relationship between Jeremy and Sheila it totally amazes me that if he intended to murder her and the rest of the family he would have pretended to really liked her and he would have told the police positive stories and would not have been saying how he disliked her and that she was a nutter I suspect he would have played his cards smarter than that.
-
Hi lookout after reading all the posts on the relationship between Jeremy and Sheila it totally amazes me that if he intended to murder her and the rest of the family he would have pretended to really liked her and he would have told the police positive stories and would not have been saying how he disliked her and that she was a nutter I suspect he would have played his cards smarter than that.
But Police had to be presented with a fait accompli: five dead bodies with a rifle and bible atop her.
-
I have removed posts from this thread due to yesterdays punch up........
Nothing new to say really except to remind you that forum members can be banned for personal abuse. Some are close to a warning. Thanks.
-
Neither were you but Colin was!
He didn't offer, he was asked.
And Jeremy kindly obliged to help Sheila. Hardly the behaviour of Simeon who hated his sister
-
I keep seeing posts from supporters about how Jeremy's words, about his relationship with Sheila, have been misinterpreted. I suppose there are those here who wish they'd tried harder to see/speak with a friend/relative who subsequently died before that happened. Jeremy was given that chance by police who didn't know Sheila was already dead. Jeremy turned down the opportunity to try to speak to her -understandably. It seems strange to me that, at 25, he hadn't got over what could have been no more than childhood dislike of a sibling. Given how serious was the situation, it suggests there may have been a much deeper dislike that he wasn't prepared to set aside
Attempts are being made to second guess what was the meaning of his words. In a world where I believe nothing is said for nothing, I believe he meant every word of what he said about her. Especially those he said whilst he was under pressure.
Pure speculation
No facts
You believe??
I am interested in facts
Please explain what the phrase I believe means???
-
And Jeremy kindly obliged to help Sheila. Hardly the behaviour of Simeon who hated his sister
It was a lift home not the offer of a kidney! ::)
-
But Police had to be presented with a fait accompli: five dead bodies with a rifle and bible atop her.
Hi Steve sorry I don't quite understand your post my ignorance I would say. The point I have been trying to make if Jeremy intended and did kill his family he would not have been telling the police he did not like her or she was a nutter that was so disrespectful he would have changed his behaviour and behaved like one would expect a grieving brother to behave and if guilty he would not have been trying to sell nude pictures of her that is not the behaviour of a guilty man he would have done everything that was expected then when the case was closed he could have started behaving like he seemed to have done quite appalling IMO
-
Hi Steve sorry I don't quite understand your post my ignorance I would say. The point I have been trying to make if Jeremy intended and did kill his family he would not have been telling the police he did not like her or she was a nutter that was so disrespectful he would have changed his behaviour and behaved like one would expect a grieving brother to behave and if guilty he would not have been trying to sell nude pictures of her that is not the behaviour of a guilty man he would have done everything that was expected then when the case was closed he could have started behaving like he seemed to have done quite appalling IMO
If others knew they didn't get along, him saying they did, would look suspicious.
-
It was a lift home not the offer of a kidney! ::)
10 out of 10 for observation
-
Hi Steve sorry I don't quite understand your post my ignorance I would say. The point I have been trying to make if Jeremy intended and did kill his family he would not have been telling the police he did not like her or she was a nutter that was so disrespectful he would have changed his behaviour and behaved like one would expect a grieving brother to behave and if guilty he would not have been trying to sell nude pictures of her that is not the behaviour of a guilty man he would have done everything that was expected then when the case was closed he could have started behaving like he seemed to have done quite appalling IMO
Perfect Susan
-
Hi Steve sorry I don't quite understand your post my ignorance I would say. The point I have been trying to make if Jeremy intended and did kill his family he would not have been telling the police he did not like her or she was a nutter that was so disrespectful he would have changed his behaviour and behaved like one would expect a grieving brother to behave and if guilty he would not have been trying to sell nude pictures of her that is not the behaviour of a guilty man he would have done everything that was expected then when the case was closed he could have started behaving like he seemed to have done quite appalling IMO
Well he did try the grieving bit in front of PC Myall and Dr. Craig. But others testified he didn't seem bothered about the deaths at all (Len Foakes, Karen Boutflour, DS Stan Jones heard what could have been a chuckle). He had to be given the chance to emphasize his sister's emotional instability, her confinement to hospital and he embellished the story about target practice. In fact all was concocted to delay entry into the Farm until he hoped she had bled to death.
As far as the nude pictures were concerned he thought it was all over by that stage, and as Caroline has said he has never denied that story.
-
Perfect Susan
Jackie I am not sure if the friends and family knew much about the relationship between Jeremy and Sheila they would know they had the normal spats but nothing serious. God forbid if I decided to murder my family I would make sure it looked like I loved them to bits and I would not say one wrong word people might think then I had committed the murders. It is said he was play acting after the funerals IMO that was not the behaviour of a guilty man.
-
Well he did try the grieving bit in front of PC Myall and Dr. Craig. But others testified he didn't seem bothered about the deaths at all (Len Foakes, Karen Boutflour, DS Stan Jones heard what could have been a chuckle). He had to be given the chance to emphasize his sister's emotional instability, her confinement to hospital and he embellished the story about target practice. In fact all was concocted to delay entry into the Farm until he hoped she had bled to death.
As far as the nude pictures were concerned he thought it was all over by that stage, and as Caroline has said he has never denied that story.
Well we can only take Caroline's word for that. She had plenty of time between to Christmas cards to push for an answer
The story of the nude photos has been doing the rounds for years
She didn't seem to believe it when she thought Jeremy was innocent
-
Well he did try the grieving bit in front of PC Myall and Dr. Craig. But others testified he didn't seem bothered about the deaths at all (Len Foakes, Karen Boutflour, DS Stan Jones heard what could have been a chuckle). He had to be given the chance to emphasize his sister's emotional instability, her confinement to hospital and he embellished the story about target practice. In fact all was concocted to delay entry into the Farm until he hoped she had bled to death.
As far as the nude pictures were concerned he thought it was all over by that stage, and as Caroline has said he has never denied that story.
Steve I was not implying he denied the appalling act of selling photo's of Sheila I know very little about that he was correct in talking about her hospital treatment but to call her a nutter was disrespectful and showed him in a bad light surely he must have known that his behaviour infront of Len and the others was not very clever a guilty man would not behave like that IMO
-
Steve I was not implying he denied the appalling act of selling photo's of Sheila I know very little about that he was correct in talking about her hospital treatment but to call her a nutter was disrespectful and showed him in a bad light surely he must have known that his behaviour infront of Len and the others was not very clever a guilty man would not behave like that IMO
Or the fact that he believed the police had shot his family when the bodies were found
If the plan was to blame Sheila he would have done that straight awaySteve I was not implying he denied the appalling act of selling photo's of Sheila I know very little about that he was correct in talking about her hospital treatment but to call her a nutter was disrespectful and showed him in a bad light surely he must have known that his behaviour infront of Len and the others was not very clever a guilty man would not behave like that IMO
-
Or the fact that he believed the police had shot his family when the bodies were found
If the plan was to blame Sheila he would have done that straight away
He more or less did, by saying she had recently indulged in target practice.
-
Well he did try the grieving bit in front of PC Myall and Dr. Craig. But others testified he didn't seem bothered about the deaths at all (Len Foakes, Karen Boutflour, DS Stan Jones heard what could have been a chuckle). He had to be given the chance to emphasize his sister's emotional instability, her confinement to hospital and he embellished the story about target practice. In fact all was concocted to delay entry into the Farm until he hoped she had bled to death.
As far as the nude pictures were concerned he thought it was all over by that stage, and as Caroline has said he has never denied that story.
Not a scientific study, I know, but it would be interesting to know how many believed he truly grieved as opposed to those who thought he didn't. I totally concur with your view of his story telling. He had the stage. He could say what he wanted. Describe her as he wanted her to be seen..................and he DID say he should have been a actor. This, then, was one of his finest roles.
-
Not a scientific study, I know, but it would be interesting to know how many believed he truly grieved as opposed to those who thought he didn't. I totally concur with your view of his story telling. He had the stage. He could say what he wanted. Describe her as he wanted her to be seen..................and he DID say he should have been a actor. This, then, was one of his finest roles.
What do you mean
He DID say he should have been an actor
Absolute hearsay from the liar and fraudster Mugford
Show proof he said that
I don't believe he said that at all because of the source
Absolute rubbish
-
I've read that it always appeared to be Jeremy who took Sheila home from parties because Colin had drunk too much.
It has to be remembered -IF this is to be believed- that Colin and Sheila had been divorced for circa 5 years. Sheila WASN'T his responsibility. What interests me more is to learn about how many other parties did Jeremy attend, where the guest also included Sheila and Colin, and where, because of Colin's over imbibing, he was required to escort Sheila home.
-
What do you mean
He DID say he should have been an actor
Absolute hearsay from the liar and fraudster Mugford
Show proof he said that
I don't believe he said that at all because of the source
Absolute rubbish
Stan Jones also verified this, although you don't want to believe it.
"On the second day after the shooting I spoke out and said it was Bamber who did it. I was ostracised and (I) spent a month of hell.
"When I chatted to Bamber I didn't get the reaction of someone who had lost all his family. On the day of the discovery I was chatting to him at his home in Goldhanger when Julie turns up."
As the couple spoke he thought he heard Bamber laugh.
"I thought 'was that a laugh or a cough' and later she confirmed it was a laugh and Jeremy said 'what an actor I am'."
That's two people who was there.
-
Stan Jones also verified this, although you don't want to believe it.
"On the second day after the shooting I spoke out and said it was Bamber who did it. I was ostracised and (I) spent a month of hell.
"When I chatted to Bamber I didn't get the reaction of someone who had lost all his family. On the day of the discovery I was chatting to him at his home in Goldhanger when Julie turns up."
As the couple spoke he thought he heard Bamber laugh.
"I thought 'was that a laugh or a cough' and later she confirmed it was a laugh and Jeremy said 'what an actor I am'."
That's two people who was there.
Justice I agree - it's an interesting anecdote (especially his month of being sent to Coventry). But these two were like Torvill and Dean - inextricably linked to Julie formulating several statements. What's the betting that he actually heard a cough (as he stated) - and then when formulating her statements, he suggested to Julie that the cough should be reinterpreted as a laugh - and that to accentuate this - Bamber would have needed to have said something like 'I should have been an actor'.
No disrespect meant - but when this man wasn't with Julie, he was downing whiskey at the farm and collecting a certain exhibit.
-
Stan Jones also verified this, although you don't want to believe it.
"On the second day after the shooting I spoke out and said it was Bamber who did it. I was ostracised and (I) spent a month of hell.
"When I chatted to Bamber I didn't get the reaction of someone who had lost all his family. On the day of the discovery I was chatting to him at his home in Goldhanger when Julie turns up."
As the couple spoke he thought he heard Bamber laugh.
"I thought 'was that a laugh or a cough' and later she confirmed it was a laugh and Jeremy said 'what an actor I am'."
That's two people who was there.
Thanks for that, Justice :)
-
Justice I agree - it's an interesting anecdote (especially his month of being sent to Coventry). But these two were like Torvill and Dean - inextricably linked to Julie formulating several statements. What's the betting that he actually heard a cough (as he stated) - and then when formulating her statements, he suggested to Julie that the cough should be reinterpreted as a laugh - and that to accentuate this - Bamber would have needed to have said something like 'I should have been an actor'.
No disrespect meant - but when this man wasn't with Julie, he was downing whiskey at the farm and collecting a certain exhibit.
Get back later Roch, football on soooon. I agree but it's a little more proof than just denying what was sai without evidence? I don't take everything for granted but all we have to go on is statements and interpret from them without arguing. Love your posts by the way good to see you back on form.
-
Get back later Roch, football on soooon. I agree but it's a little more proof than just denying what was sai without evidence? I don't take everything for granted but all we have to go on is statements and interpret from them without arguing. Love your posts by the way good to see you back on form.
Yes - he certainly was able to seem convincing - PH claimed to have quite liked him. And thanks for your view on said posts.
-
Well we can only take Caroline's word for that. She had plenty of time between to Christmas cards to push for an answer
The story of the nude photos has been doing the rounds for years
She didn't seem to believe it when she thought Jeremy was innocent
I didn't know enough about it then, I do now! Also like you, I was in denial!
-
Stan Jones also verified this, although you don't want to believe it.
"On the second day after the shooting I spoke out and said it was Bamber who did it. I was ostracised and (I) spent a month of hell.
"When I chatted to Bamber I didn't get the reaction of someone who had lost all his family. On the day of the discovery I was chatting to him at his home in Goldhanger when Julie turns up."
As the couple spoke he thought he heard Bamber laugh.
"I thought 'was that a laugh or a cough' and later she confirmed it was a laugh and Jeremy said 'what an actor I am'."
That's two people who was there.
Let's recap shall we
One of the people was Mugford not known for her honesty and made a fortune out of cheque book journolism
The other Stan Jones
Police don't lie do they???
Try to remember all the people that have spent years in prison because of police cover ups
Could you remind me of which police officers got reprimanded for accepting gifts
Why do you think police get reprimanded for accepting gifts ?
Do you really think Mugford would have done a double page spread scantily dressed if Jeremy had really informed her he was responsible for the death of two babies she could have saved
The guilt would have killed anyone but apparently not Mugford she put her hand straight up so she could see the bodies
-
I didn't know enough about it then, I do now! Also like you, I was in denial!
I don't believe you
The subject of the photos of Sheila has been discussed on this forum for years
-
I don't believe you
The subject of the photos of Sheila has been discussed on this forum for years
I don't care if you believe me or not, funnily enough, I don't believe anything you say either.
Not even sure what the point of the last comment is but SO?
-
I keep seeing posts from supporters about how Jeremy's words, about his relationship with Sheila, have been misinterpreted. I suppose there are those here who wish they'd tried harder to see/speak with a friend/relative who subsequently died before that happened. Jeremy was given that chance by police who didn't know Sheila was already dead. Jeremy turned down the opportunity to try to speak to her -understandably. It seems strange to me that, at 25, he hadn't got over what could have been no more than childhood dislike of a sibling. Given how serious was the situation, it suggests there may have been a much deeper dislike that he wasn't prepared to set aside
Attempts are being made to second guess what was the meaning of his words. In a world where I believe nothing is said for nothing, I believe he meant every word of what he said about her. Especially those he said whilst he was under pressure.
hey Jane have I missed something. Are you saying that he was asked to speak to shiela on the loudspeaker outside?
-
hey Jane have I missed something. Are you saying that he was asked to speak to shiela on the loudspeaker outside?
One of the policemen suggested that Jeremy might try to make contact with her. I think it was a question of the police or Jeremy, and yes, I guess by loudspeaker. Jeremy declined on the grounds that he didn't like her and she didn't like him.
-
One of the policemen suggested that Jeremy might try to make contact with her. I think it was a question of the police or Jeremy, and yes, I guess by loudspeaker. Jeremy declined on the grounds that he didn't like her and she didn't like him.
I must read up on that, if it was a suggestion I don't see why he wouldn't of done .
-
One of the policemen suggested that Jeremy might try to make contact with her. I think it was a question of the police or Jeremy, and yes, I guess by loudspeaker. Jeremy declined on the grounds that he didn't like her and she didn't like him.
Have you got a source for this ?
The latest CT video says Bamber was taken 400 yards from WHF.
-
Have you got a source for this ?
The latest CT video says Bamber was taken 400 yards from WHF.
Bews reflects: "He asked if we-myself and Steve-would go in, and told us "You can get in at the back." I said "No, we're not going in, we'll do a recoinnoitre." There was no way any of us were going in there unarmed."
Bews and Myall set off on foot, retracing their steps when Jeremy made no attempt to follow. "Is it likely you sister's in there with a gun?" Myall asked.
Jeremy nodded.
"Who is she more likely to be annoyed at seeing, you or us?"
"Both of us. I don't get on with her at all. I don't like her and she doesn't like me."
"I think as it's your family, you ought to come in with us."
"Alright," Jeremy said, and they headed towards the farmhouse.
One has to ask why, if there was animosity between brother and sister Nevill would ask Jeremy to intercede in the first place, unless he was blissfully unaware of any problems, which knowing his conversations with Barbara Wilson this was not the case. His whole story begins to unravel, it was a plan which would not stand up to scrutiny and relied on Police accepting his version of events from the outset.
-
Bews reflects: "He asked if we-myself and Steve-would go in, and told us "You can get in at the back." I said "No, we're not going in, we'll do a recoinnoitre." There was no way any of us were going in there unarmed."
Bews and Myall set off on foot, retracing their steps when Jeremy made no attempt to follow. "Is it likely you sister's in there with a gun?" Myall asked.
Jeremy nodded.
"Who is she more likely to be annoyed at seeing, you or us?"
"Both of us. I don't get on with her at all. I don't like her and she doesn't like me."
"I think as it's your family, you ought to come in with us."
"Alright," Jeremy said, and they headed towards the farmhouse.
One has to ask why, if there was animosity between brother and sister Nevill would ask Jeremy to intercede in the first place, unless he was blissfully unaware of any problems, which knowing his conversations with Barbara Wilson this was not the case. His whole story begins to unravel, it was a plan which would not stand up to scrutiny and relied on Police accepting his version of events from the outset.
Nevill calling Bamber, lol.
-
Hi there y'all I got this from CAL's book again:
"The bullet wound to Nevill’s lower lip had penetrated his left jaw into his backbone, producing severe fractures in his jawbone, shattering his teeth, disrupting neck tissue, the structures of his larynx and the main gland beneath his neck. Later forensic evidence would indicate that he sustained those injuries in the bedroom".
I know that this would be a major point if it were true; however I'd need to know the source of this exactly and how accurate it is. Sorry if this has been covered ad nauseam in the past, any takers?
Hoots!
-
I don't remember seeing any large patches of blood on his pyjamas in that area ?
-
Hi there y'all I got this from CAL's book again:
"The bullet wound to Nevill’s lower lip had penetrated his left jaw into his backbone, producing severe fractures in his jawbone, shattering his teeth, disrupting neck tissue, the structures of his larynx and the main gland beneath his neck. Later forensic evidence would indicate that he sustained those injuries in the bedroom".
I know that this would be a major point if it were true; however I'd need to know the source of this exactly and how accurate it is. Sorry if this has been covered ad nauseam in the past, any takers?
Hoots!
41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
-
Where was his heavily blood-stained pyjama jacket ?
-
Show me a pic of a heavily-stained jacket which Neville had worn,where he was allegedly shot in the mouth/jaw.
-
41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
Thanks Adam; however I'm still struggling with CAL's statement that the wounds to Nevill's mouth were inflicted upstairs. For instance, did the cops find fragments of Nevill's shattered teeth upstairs? What else could constitute the "forensic evidence" that CAL refers to?
I'm in the process of reading CAL's book for the second time and this is as far as I've got. If this is a fact then it's something that I have to take seriously. Does anyone know of anywhere in the book where the "forensic evidence" for Nevill being shot in the mouth in the bedroom is described in detail?
Hoots
Hoots.
-
Show me a pic of a heavily-stained jacket which Neville had worn,where he was allegedly shot in the mouth/jaw.
It seems to be more than simply "alleged" that Nevill was shot in the mouth/jaw.
-
Thanks Adam; however I'm still struggling with CAL's statement that the wounds to Nevill's mouth were inflicted upstairs. For instance, did the cops find fragments of Nevill's shattered teeth upstairs? What else could constitute the "forensic evidence" that CAL refers to?
I'm in the process of reading CAL's book for the second time and this is as far as I've got. If this is a fact then it's something that I have to take seriously. Does anyone know of anywhere in the book where the "forensic evidence" for Nevill being shot in the mouth in the bedroom is described in detail?
Hoots
It's likely that he could have swallowed tooth fragments along with a mouthful of blood.
Hoots.
-
Thanks Adam; however I'm still struggling with CAL's statement that the wounds to Nevill's mouth were inflicted upstairs. For instance, did the cops find fragments of Nevill's shattered teeth upstairs? What else could constitute the "forensic evidence" that CAL refers to?
I'm in the process of reading CAL's book for the second time and this is as far as I've got. If this is a fact then it's something that I have to take seriously. Does anyone know of anywhere in the book where the "forensic evidence" for Nevill being shot in the mouth in the bedroom is described in detail?
Hoots
Hoots.
The police weren't exactly thorough in their evidence gathering because of what they initially believed.
-
A reaction would have been to spit out,as he'd have been aware of a mouthful of blood and teeth ?
-
Well, I was looking for something a bit more conclusive. I'll press on with re-reading the book to see if CAL comes up with something more definitive, though I didn't see anything the first time.
Hoots.
-
A reaction would have been to spit out,as he'd have been aware of a mouthful of blood and teeth ?
I guess there's the blood stains on his PJ jacket, then.
-
Thanks Adam; however I'm still struggling with CAL's statement that the wounds to Nevill's mouth were inflicted upstairs. For instance, did the cops find fragments of Nevill's shattered teeth upstairs? What else could constitute the "forensic evidence" that CAL refers to?
I'm in the process of reading CAL's book for the second time and this is as far as I've got. If this is a fact then it's something that I have to take seriously. Does anyone know of anywhere in the book where the "forensic evidence" for Nevill being shot in the mouth in the bedroom is described in detail?
Hoots
Hoots.
The wounds to the top and right side of Nevill's head would have been inflicted downstairs. After the kitchen fight.
The lip & jaw shots would be caused in the bedroom.
-
I guess there's the blood stains on his PJ jacket, then.
The forensic pic of the jacket doesn't show the quantity of blood that there would have been on the frontal area of the jacket. What I remember was an "L-shaped " tear and a broken button but no blood stain that would have accounted for a facial shot ?
Would it have been that he hadn't been wearing his jacket at that time and had been taken unawares ?
-
The forensic pic of the jacket doesn't show the quantity of blood that there would have been on the frontal area of the jacket. What I remember was an "L-shaped " tear and a broken button but no blood stain that would have accounted for a facial shot ?
Would it have been that he hadn't been wearing his jacket at that time and had been taken unawares ?
So are you saying that you don't believe there to have been any facial shots? I fail to see how, with such injuries, he'd have been able to put on a PJ jacket -had he not been wearing one- as if nothing untoward was happening.
-
The wounds to the top and right side of Nevill's head would have been inflicted downstairs. After the kitchen fight.
The lip & jaw shots would be caused in the bedroom.
Adam were the lip and jaw shots inflicted in the bedroom or the stairs?
-
So are you saying that you don't believe there to have been any facial shots? I fail to see how, with such injuries, he'd have been able to put on a PJ jacket -had he not been wearing one- as if nothing untoward was happening.
Before his phone-call to Jeremy,there wouldn't have been any facial injuries.
-
Before his phone-call to Jeremy,there wouldn't have been any facial injuries.
So if he put his PJ jacket on prior to his alleged call to Jeremy, how would that preclude blood stains on the jacket from an injury which occurred later?
-
So if he put his PJ jacket on prior to his alleged call to Jeremy, how would that preclude blood stains on the jacket from an injury which occurred later?
There's no way of knowing when,or at what point the jacket went on,if at all during the shootings. It's just that I've never understood why it hadn't been blood-soaked like June had been in her nightdress.
-
Had it been Neville who was caught off-guard in the shower ? We don't know.
-
Had it been Neville who was caught off-guard in the shower ? We don't know.
We don't know if the shower came into the equation but IF it does nand IF someone other than Nevill was "caught off-guard" in it, who are you suggesting it may have been and why?
-
We don't know if the shower came into the equation but IF it does nand IF someone other than Nevill was "caught off-guard" in it, who are you suggesting it may have been and why?
Other than Neville it could well have been Sheila before Neville returned from walking the dogs-----which would have been late as his chores on the farm had continued long after JB had gone home. Either Sheila or Neville could have displaced the showerhead which had come detached or broken.
-
Other than Neville it could well have been Sheila before Neville returned from walking the dogs-----which would have been late as his chores on the farm had continued long after JB had gone home. Either Sheila or Neville could have displaced the showerhead which had come detached or broken.
Possibly, but June had told Pam that Sheila was going to bed. Were there not hand basins in the bedrooms? A bathroom upstairs? Why would Sheila have come downstairs to shower?
-
Possibly, but June had told Pam that Sheila was going to bed. Were there not hand basins in the bedrooms? A bathroom upstairs? Why would Sheila have come downstairs to shower?
So that the children wouldn't have been disturbed.
Speaking of Pam's late night call,tyler had suggested that Sheila may have thought it to be Colin which is why Sheila hadn't at that juncture decided to go to bed--------also hence Sheila's non-conversation with her aunt. Well you would feel deflated I'd guess.
Also,according to tyler June had rang someone at the Bible class to say that she wouldn't be attending,so no mystery there ?
-
So that the children wouldn't have been disturbed.
Speaking of Pam's late night call,tyler had suggested that Sheila may have thought it to be Colin which is why Sheila hadn't at that juncture decided to go to bed--------also hence Sheila's non-conversation with her aunt. Well you would feel deflated I'd guess.
Also,according to tyler June had rang someone at the Bible class to say that she wouldn't be attending,so no mystery there ?
Well, I think you'll agree that -with all due respect- we need rather more than Tyler's "thought" to ascertain what Sheila may -or not- have thought. Personally, I can't think WHY Colin would have left it so late to call, when, had he called earlier, he might have spoken to the boys.
I think I've seen it suggested that June rang "someone" to give her apologies for not attending Bible study. If this is the case, there will undoubtedly be verification.
-
In Wilkes book,it makes reference to the £40,000 drug debt--------page 156.
The Mirror had reported " The Bambi Bloodbath-----Murder or Suicide ,that Sheila also took hard drugs and had owed two notorious drug barons £40,000 ".
No wonder there was mayhem------I bet Jeremy hadn't known that.
-
In Wilkes book,it makes reference to the £40,000 drug debt--------page 156.
The Mirror had reported " The Bambi Bloodbath-----Murder or Suicide ,that Sheila also took hard drugs and had owed two notorious drug barons £40,000 ".
No wonder there was mayhem------I bet Jeremy hadn't known that.
I bet Jeremy may have provided the information.
-
In Wilkes book,it makes reference to the £40,000 drug debt--------page 156.
The Mirror had reported " The Bambi Bloodbath-----Murder or Suicide ,that Sheila also took hard drugs and had owed two notorious drug barons £40,000 ".
No wonder there was mayhem------I bet Jeremy hadn't known that.
All such stories turned out to be vicious gossip and given that he bought all the newspapers about the murders, of course he knew. If you're suggesting he didn't know she owed £40,000.00 to drug barons then no, he didn't because it wasn't true
-
Hi Y'all.
I'm still trying to make sense of CAL's book, she gives a dramatized account of the murder allegedly committed by Jeremy and has Nevill receiving the wounds to his arm and shoulder as well the ones to his lip and jaw upstairs. The pro-guilt argument is that Nevill couldn't have got a phone call away if he had been shot in the jaw and mouth, fair enough.
To shoot someone in the mouth and jaw is a pretty cruel thing to do, with the shooter allegedly no more than a couple of feet away it seems that there was an element of malice involved. Two shots to the mouth isn't going to kill Nevill, only prolong his agony.
I tend to think that Nevill did get the phone calls away and was shot in the mouth deliberately simply because he managed to do so. A possible scenario might be Sheila screaming "Oh you've been shooting your mouth off have you? You b*****d! Well I'm going to make sure you don't do anything that stupid again", Sheila then fires the two shots into his mouth to shut him up. Anyway, just a thought.
I'm looking for reasons why this would be totally implausible. Caroline or JaneJ perhaps?
Hoots!
-
Hi Y'all.
I'm still trying to make sense of CAL's book, she gives a dramatized account of the murder allegedly committed by Jeremy and has Nevill receiving the wounds to his arm and shoulder as well the ones to his lip and jaw upstairs. The pro-guilt argument is that Nevill couldn't have got a phone call away if he had been shot in the jaw and mouth, fair enough.
To shoot someone in the mouth and jaw is a pretty cruel thing to do, with the shooter allegedly no more than a couple of feet away it seems that there was an element of malice involved. Two shots to the mouth isn't going to kill Nevill, only prolong his agony.
I tend to think that Nevill did get the phone calls away and was shot in the mouth deliberately simply because he managed to do so. A possible scenario might be Sheila screaming "Oh you've been shooting your mouth off have you? You b*****d! Well I'm going to make sure you don't do anything that stupid again", Sheila then fires the two shots into his mouth to shut him up. Anyway, just a thought.
I'm looking for reasons why this would be totally implausible. Caroline or JaneJ perhaps?
Hoots!
The upstairs face shots were from inches away.
The most implausible thing is Nevill rang Bamber.
You are saying Sheila shot Nevill soon after Nevill phoned Bamber. Therefore ruling out Nevill phoning the police.
This is the first scenario where Sheila speaks. Which is a surprise as a few hours earlier she was like a little mouse with a sore throat.
-
Hi Y'all.
I'm still trying to make sense of CAL's book, she gives a dramatized account of the murder allegedly committed by Jeremy and has Nevill receiving the wounds to his arm and shoulder as well the ones to his lip and jaw upstairs. The pro-guilt argument is that Nevill couldn't have got a phone call away if he had been shot in the jaw and mouth, fair enough.
To shoot someone in the mouth and jaw is a pretty cruel thing to do, with the shooter allegedly no more than a couple of feet away it seems that there was an element of malice involved. Two shots to the mouth isn't going to kill Nevill, only prolong his agony.
I tend to think that Nevill did get the phone calls away and was shot in the mouth deliberately simply because he managed to do so. A possible scenario might be Sheila screaming "Oh you've been shooting your mouth off have you? You b*****d! Well I'm going to make sure you don't do anything that stupid again", Sheila then fires the two shots into his mouth to shut him up. Anyway, just a thought.
I'm looking for reasons why this would be totally implausible. Caroline or JaneJ perhaps?
Hoots!
Hmm. One would need to be a very competent shot to deliberately aim for the mouth area and hit it on target. I'm more inclined to think that they were distance shots aimed at the head, intending to kill. I don't accept that a phone call was made.
-
The upstairs face shots were from inches away.
How can that be ascertained as fact? I was under the impression that there was no ballistics expert at the autopsy? If they indeed were from only inches away, then it seems they were a deliberate attempt to shut Nevill up.
Hoots!
-
How can that be ascertained as fact? I was under the impression that there was no ballistics expert at the autopsy? If they indeed were from only inches away, then it seems they were a deliberate attempt to shut Nevill up.
Hoots!
I imagine that killing him would have done that sufficiently.
-
How can that be ascertained as fact? I was under the impression that there was no ballistics expert at the autopsy? If they indeed were from only inches away, then it seems they were a deliberate attempt to shut Nevill up.
Hoots!
"Deliberate attempt to shut Neville up". You can say that again.
-
From the 2002 appeal.
64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body.
-
As I understand it the only real evidence that Nevill was shot upstairs is the number of cartridge cases found upstairs compared to the number found downstairs. Is there any other evidence that supports Nevill being in bed when June was shot?
-
As I understand it the only real evidence that Nevill was shot upstairs is the number of cartridge cases found upstairs compared to the number found downstairs. Is there any other evidence that supports Nevill being in bed when June was shot?
What more should there be ?
-
As I understand it the only real evidence that Nevill was shot upstairs is the number of cartridge cases found upstairs compared to the number found downstairs. Is there any other evidence that supports Nevill being in bed when June was shot?
Nope.
-
If Bamber opened fire on June, as is likely, I'm not sure where else Nevill would have been. Other than in bed.
-
Try downstairs.
-
What more should there be ?
Well, for instance was there any of Nevill's blood on the bed?
-
Well, for instance was there any of Nevill's blood on the bed?
No one is saying Neville was shot in bed. If he was in bed Bamber would have got 4 face shots.
Nevill was probably in the process of getting out of bed & standing up. Bamber retreating slightly as Nevill stood, but continuing to fire, hitting Nevill in the arm and shoulder.
-
No one is saying Neville was shot in bed. If he was in bed Bamber would have got 4 face shots.
Nevill was probably in the process of getting out of bed & standing up. Bamber retreating slightly as Nevill stood, but continuing to fire, hitting Nevill in the arm and shoulder.
Is there any evidence that Nevill was even in the room when June was shot?
-
Is there any evidence that Nevill was even in the room when June was shot?
Yes, 4 casings it was 2am & Nevill & June shated a bed every night.
-
Yes, 4 casings it was 2am & Nevill & June shated a bed every night.
Is that the best you've got?
-
Is that the best you've got?
I know where you're going.
Nevill rang up Bamber. Then went upstairs & Sheila put the rifle inches from his face & fired. Nevill doing nothing except go back downstairs.
-
No one is saying Neville was shot in bed. If he was in bed Bamber would have got 4 face shots.
Nevill was probably in the process of getting out of bed & standing up. Bamber retreating slightly as Nevill stood, but continuing to fire, hitting Nevill in the arm and shoulder.
It's highly unlikely that Nevill was standing when he received the jaw shots as they are at a downward angle therefore he must have been lower than his assailant, so lying, sitting etc. or lower on the stairs than the shooter.
IMO you would expect heavy blood drips and staining around or near where he was shot as mouth and face injuries do bleed copiously.
-
It's highly unlikely that Nevill was standing when he received the jaw shots as they are at a downward angle therefore he must have been lower than his assailant, so lying, sitting etc. or lower on the stairs than the shooter.
IMO you would expect heavy blood drips and staining around or near where he was shot as mouth and face injuries do bleed copiously.
Hi Maggie
There is the possibility that Nevill was cradling the dying June in his arms telling her that help was on it's way when he was shot in the mouth for getting a call away. It's clear that the mouth shots were malicious and deliberate. It can be argued that JB hated his father and that's why he did it but these wounds were particularly spiteful, I don't think that JB could have done that to his Father. It would have to be someone who was absolutely unhinged.
-
Hi Maggie
There is the possibility that Nevill was cradling the dying June in his arms telling her that help was on it's way when he was shot in the mouth for getting a call away. It's clear that the mouth shots were malicious and deliberate. It can be argued that JB hated his father and that's why he did it but these wounds were particularly spiteful, I don't think that JB could have done that to his Father. It would have to be someone who was absolutely unhinged.
I wonder why you would think there was not reason for Jeremy being "particularly spiteful" to Nevill.
-
Hi Maggie
There is the possibility that Nevill was cradling the dying June in his arms telling her that help was on it's way when he was shot in the mouth for getting a call away. It's clear that the mouth shots were malicious and deliberate. It can be argued that JB hated his father and that's why he did it but these wounds were particularly spiteful, I don't think that JB could have done that to his Father. It would have to be someone who was absolutely unhinged.
Nevill was cradling June after Sheila had shot her 7 times in bed ? That is a new theory. Is that when Sheila started moaning at Nevill for phoning Bamber ?
All the wounds were spiteful. June in the throat & between the eyes. The twins 8 times in the head. Sheila twice in the neck. There is no reason why Bamber would treat Nevill differently. It wasn't just spite. It was money.
It's doubtful Sheila had thr strenght to pull the trigger. She was Haloperidol.
-
Hi Maggie
There is the possibility that Nevill was cradling the dying June in his arms telling her that help was on it's way when he was shot in the mouth for getting a call away. It's clear that the mouth shots were malicious and deliberate. It can be argued that JB hated his father and that's why he did it but these wounds were particularly spiteful, I don't think that JB could have done that to his Father. It would have to be someone who was absolutely unhinged.
Speaking of books and their authenticity I think there's space for you yet, perched somewhere between Carol Ann Lee and Claire Powell.
-
Let's try another one. In CAL's dramatized account she has JB killing June and Nevill first, while the kids slept on oblivious. You can say what you like about the noise of the gun, perhaps it was minimal. But when people die of multiple GSW's it's doubtful if they do it all quietly, there may have be screaming, shouting, crying and pleading going on.
In the real world, with real world logic Jeremy would have realised during his approach to WHF that the twins could be alerted, running about the house looking for places to hide while all this was going on, but no, jeremy had all sussed out and included sorcery in his pre-laid plan (remember that one Jane J, the pre-laid plan that needs no definition), the twins slept on oblivious, and were compliant enough to die the same way.
Jeremy used the same sorcery on the dogs who despite the quote below from CAL's book didn't even offer a bark to alert Nevill who in the real world would have found Jeremy climbing through the window with a shotgun barrel pressed against his nose. In the real world it was Sheila who did the dirty deed, but this isn't the real world is it?
It's the fantasy world of of the pro-guilt argument where cunning pre-laid plans and sorcery exist, or perhaps Nevill and June decided that it was best to die quietly in their agony rather than wake the twins.
From CAL's book:
"Both dogs were habitually alert to intruders. Crispy was variously described as ‘very noisy’, ‘lively and always nipping at people’s ankles’ with a ‘high-pitched yappy bark’ that he used to good effect on callers. Bruce would also bark when anyone approached the house".
Hoots
-
Hi Maggie
There is the possibility that Nevill was cradling the dying June in his arms telling her that help was on it's way when he was shot in the mouth for getting a call away. It's clear that the mouth shots were malicious and deliberate. It can be argued that JB hated his father and that's why he did it but these wounds were particularly spiteful, I don't think that JB could have done that to his Father. It would have to be someone who was absolutely unhinged.
Hi Tom, I'm not convinced the shots to Nevill or June were particularly aimed. I believe it's hard to hit a moving target even if the shooter is used to guns but if June was already on the floor and badly injured when Nevill was shot your suggestion is a possibility.
I know some on here have a map of how the attack panned out and never deviate from it and
it's true the evidence left by bullet casings tell a story but we cannot know for sure how and when individual events/attacks occurred imo
-
Let's try another one. In CAL's dramatized account she has JB killing June and Nevill first, while the kids slept on oblivious. You can say what you like about the noise of the gun, perhaps it was minimal. But when people die of multiple GSW's it's doubtful if they do it all quietly, there may have be screaming, shouting, crying and pleading going on.
In the real world, with real world logic Jeremy would have realised during his approach to WHF that the twins could be alerted, running about the house looking for places to hide while all this was going on, but no, jeremy had all sussed out and included sorcery in his pre-laid plan (remember that one Jane J, the pre-laid plan that needs no definition), the twins slept on oblivious, and were compliant enough to die the same way.
Jeremy used the same sorcery on the dogs who despite the quote below from CAL's book didn't even offer a bark to alert Nevill who in the real world would have found Jeremy climbing through the window with a shotgun barrel pressed against his nose. In the real world it was Sheila who did the dirty deed, but this isn't the real world is it?
It's the fantasy world of of the pro-guilt argument where cunning pre-laid plans and sorcery exist, or perhaps Nevill and June decided that it was best to die quietly in their agony rather than wake the twins.
From CAL's book:
"Both dogs were habitually alert to intruders. Crispy was variously described as ‘very noisy’, ‘lively and always nipping at people’s ankles’ with a ‘high-pitched yappy bark’ that he used to good effect on callers. Bruce would also bark when anyone approached the house".
Hoots
I think that's fair comment Tom.
-
I wonder why you would think there was not reason for Jeremy being "particularly spiteful" to Nevill.
If there was that much venom between the two, where did it come from?
-
Let's try another one. In CAL's dramatized account she has JB killing June and Nevill first, while the kids slept on oblivious. You can say what you like about the noise of the gun, perhaps it was minimal. But when people die of multiple GSW's it's doubtful if they do it all quietly, there may have be screaming, shouting, crying and pleading going on.
In the real world, with real world logic Jeremy would have realised during his approach to WHF that the twins could be alerted, running about the house looking for places to hide while all this was going on, but no, jeremy had all sussed out and included sorcery in his pre-laid plan (remember that one Jane J, the pre-laid plan that needs no definition), the twins slept on oblivious, and were compliant enough to die the same way.
Jeremy used the same sorcery on the dogs who despite the quote below from CAL's book didn't even offer a bark to alert Nevill who in the real world would have found Jeremy climbing through the window with a shotgun barrel pressed against his nose. In the real world it was Sheila who did the dirty deed, but this isn't the real world is it?
It's the fantasy world of of the pro-guilt argument where cunning pre-laid plans and sorcery exist, or perhaps Nevill and June decided that it was best to die quietly in their agony rather than wake the twins.
From CAL's book:
"Both dogs were habitually alert to intruders. Crispy was variously described as ‘very noisy’, ‘lively and always nipping at people’s ankles’ with a ‘high-pitched yappy bark’ that he used to good effect on callers. Bruce would also bark when anyone approached the house".
Hoots
Perhaps you were unaware that this particular area of Essex is renown for witchcraft? However, as Jeremy took so long to bring his plan to 'perfection' he probably had no need of its assistance. He could, for instance, have employed some Pavlov-type persuasion on the dogs -I wonder from whom came the information that they barked? I wonder who, of all who gave information re the daily routine of WHF, OTHER than Jeremy, was actually privy to the daily routine. Of course there were risks. NOTHING is risk free. Jeremy must have reckoned that he could handle any he could think of. Those he couldn't, he naturally wouldn't have worried about until it was too late. Rather like having to shoot Sheila twice, actually. It's possible, even in the real world to (almost) get away with murder.
-
If there was that much venom between the two, where did it come from?
That Jeremy wanted to be master of his own fate and not be tied to an occupation which didn't particularly interest him. He would have checked the routine on the Sunday and Monday nights: the twins had their bath and were in bed by half past seven, probably overawed by their surroundings, which is why Daniel was discovered sucking his thumb as comforter, trapped and unable to turn to either mother or grandmother for solace. Jeremy had been in and out of those windows a hundred times, the dogs knew his smell: they were all sitting ducks for someone who despised them all.
I noted how difficult it is to be a successful parent whilst watching the Three Girls programme this week concerning the Rochdale abuse scandal. Here were girls at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder yet exhibited some of the same problems associated with Sheila and Jeremy who were near the top (there were anecdotes that Sheila would climb out of White House Farm by means of a ladder to meet schoolfriends during the holidays, not unlike the Rochdale girls who attempted to flee parental authority for an evening). Maybe for some teenagers this is just part of the process of growing up, though add criminality into the equation and grudges can smoulder into the final tragedy.
-
If there was that much venom between the two, where did it come from?
According to Jane J she is 'eminently qualified to know' its was from Robert Boutflour.
MYYYYY GOD!!!!! Steve there are times when your sense of your own superiority and your condescension stagger me. Maggie has said that she is NOT writing from personal experience, I, however, AM, because I can't write from anyone else's experience and I trust my own judgement. I grew up with a female RWB who called herself my mother. I can spot a similar from a mile away. I was constantly compared to members of "our" family. Financial "gifts" came with the reminder that it was "family" money. I was told, on a regular basis that "we don't do/think/say/dress/speak/VOTE!!!!! like that in OUR family" and best of all "You're not one of us and never will be." I believe I'm eminently qualified to know what RWB thought of Jeremy. It was he who dripped poison in Nevill's ear regarding Jeremy, just as my mother did about me, to the rest of her family. You appear to have an out of context soundbite for every occasion. I have just one and it tells everything there is to know. "HOW I LOATHE THAT BOY."
David, I have edited out your emoji. I am sure you won't be happy about it but my decision is purely because I believe Jane's arguments from 2013 may be in direct contrast to her present arguments but for all that I don't believe her childhood experiences shared within that post should ever be a laughing matter. 8)
-
Nevill was cradling June after Sheila had shot her 7 times in bed ? That is a new theory. Is that when Sheila started moaning at Nevill for phoning Bamber ?
All the wounds were spiteful. June in the throat & between the eyes. The twins 8 times in the head. Sheila twice in the neck. There is no reason why Bamber would treat Nevill differently. It wasn't just spite. It was money.
It's doubtful Sheila had thr strenght to pull the trigger. She was Haloperidol.
I think that the theory of Nevill being shot in the mouth for getting a call away is compelling, especially if it was only inches away. If it was Jeremy who did the dirty deed, he had to make every shot count, having only one totally inappropriate weapon and one magazine, spiteful shots to the mouth don't come in that category, I don't think a lust for money could cause that sort of hatred either.
Hoots
-
If there was that much venom between the two, where did it come from?
Eh!!! To understand that one, TomG, you need to be adopted into a family into which you feel your only role is to fulfill the life they've prescribed for you, presuming that you'll do it without question. From Jeremy's desire to travel and/or do any sort of menial work he could get, it seems to me that he'd have undertaken anything rather than farm. Unfortunately, his inheritance hung on him doing just that. If he wanted the dosh, it seems he'd have to work for it. Might it have seemed unbalanced that he had to work at something which wasn't to his taste, whilst his sister had it handed to her on a plate and did nothing to earn it? I'm not suggesting such was true. I'm suggesting that it MAY have been how Jeremy saw it. We have him telling someone he had no intention of sharing his money with Sheila so I think it's fair to assume he wasn't prepared to see the family fortune being squandered on her and the boys, NOR was he prepared to work to keep her.
-
I think that the theory of Nevill being shot in the mouth for getting a call away is compelling, especially if it was only inches away. If it was Jeremy who did the dirty deed, he had to make every shot count, having only one totally inappropriate weapon and one magazine, spiteful shots to the mouth don't come in that category, I don't think a lust for money could cause that sort of hatred either.
Hoots
Maybe you've never felt trapped enough or hungry enough.
-
I think that the theory of Nevill being shot in the mouth for getting a call away is compelling, especially if it was only inches away. If it was Jeremy who did the dirty deed, he had to make every shot count, having only one totally inappropriate weapon and one magazine, spiteful shots to the mouth don't come in that category, I don't think a lust for money could cause that sort of hatred either.
Hoots
It was a combination of lust for money and indifference to the fate of all within. Jeremy had the opportunity to reload the gun, whereas Sheila's feebleness prevents her from accomplishing this task.
-
Perhaps you were unaware that this particular area of Essex is renown for witchcraft? However, as Jeremy took so long to bring his plan to 'perfection' he probably had no need of its assistance. He could, for instance, have employed some Pavlov-type persuasion on the dogs -I wonder from whom came the information that they barked? I wonder who, of all who gave information re the daily routine of WHF, OTHER than Jeremy, was actually privy to the daily routine. Of course there were risks. NOTHING is risk free. Jeremy must have reckoned that he could handle any he could think of. Those he couldn't, he naturally wouldn't have worried about until it was too late. Rather like having to shoot Sheila twice, actually. It's possible, even in the real world to (almost) get away with murder.
No Jane, it's not risk it's imperative.
It's imperative that Jeremy gets past the dogs without them barking and alerting Nevill.
It's imperative that while Jeremy slaughters Nevill and June first, they die quietly, so that the twins don't wake up and run amok about the farmhouse looking for places to hide and ruin his pre-laid plan.
It's imperative that his completely unpredictable schizophrenic sister is going to be completely compliant and allow him to shoot her in the neck, making it look like suicide.
None of these can be achieved logically, it can only be done magically, which is idiotic, that's why JB didn't do the crime.
If any of these obligatory scenarios don't work it's a total F**K-up. JB has got to know these things in his strategy and still find go through with it anyway. If you are suggesting he had contingency plans for the above, what were they? You're the originator of the "pre-laid plan" but failed to define what it was.
Hoots
-
No Jane, it's not risk it's imperative.
It's imperative that Jeremy gets past the dogs without them barking and alerting Nevill.
It's imperative that while Jeremy slaughters Nevill and June first, they die quietly, so that the twins don't wake up and run amok about the farmhouse looking for places to hide and ruin his pre-laid plan.
It's imperative that his completely unpredictable schizophrenic sister is going to be completely compliant and allow him to shoot her in the neck, making it look like suicide.
None of these can be achieved logically, it can only be done magically, which is idiotic, that's why JB didn't do the crime.
If any of these obligatory scenarios don't work it's a total F**K-up. JB has got to know these things in his strategy and still find go through with it anyway. If you are suggesting he had contingency plans for the above, what were they? You're the originator of the "pre-laid plan" but failed to define what it was.
Hoots
You have been selective of your reading of the book if you didn't follow Sheila's mental health those last few days. To suggest that a pair of dogs is going to stand in the way of a pre-conceived plan months in the making is absurd.
-
No Jane, it's not risk it's imperative.
It's imperative that Jeremy gets past the dogs without them barking and alerting Nevill.
It's imperative that while Jeremy slaughters Nevill and June first, they die quietly, so that the twins don't wake up and run amok about the farmhouse looking for places to hide and ruin his pre-laid plan.
It's imperative that his completely unpredictable schizophrenic sister is going to be completely compliant and allow him to shoot her in the neck, making it look like suicide.
None of these can be achieved logically, it can only be done magically, which is idiotic, that's why JB didn't do the crime.
If any of these obligatory scenarios don't work it's a total F**K-up. JB has got to know these things in his strategy and still find go through with it anyway. If you are suggesting he had contingency plans for the above, what were they? You're the originator of the "pre-laid plan" but failed to define what it was.
Hoots
These are things that are imperative to you because you have no control of them.
Jeremy may have devised a way to circumvent the dogs barking a la Pavlov.
He'd disabled the bedroom phone so no emergency call could be made.
What were the twins going to do, that he with a gun, couldn't have coped with, if they woke up?
Sheila could be controlled proxy of the twins.
NO pre-laid plan can be an absolute where human beings are involved.
-
Let's try another one. In CAL's dramatized account she has JB killing June and Nevill first, while the kids slept on oblivious. You can say what you like about the noise of the gun, perhaps it was minimal. But when people die of multiple GSW's it's doubtful if they do it all quietly, there may have be screaming, shouting, crying and pleading going on.
In the real world, with real world logic Jeremy would have realised during his approach to WHF that the twins could be alerted, running about the house looking for places to hide while all this was going on, but no, jeremy had all sussed out and included sorcery in his pre-laid plan (remember that one Jane J, the pre-laid plan that needs no definition), the twins slept on oblivious, and were compliant enough to die the same way.
Jeremy used the same sorcery on the dogs who despite the quote below from CAL's book didn't even offer a bark to alert Nevill who in the real world would have found Jeremy climbing through the window with a shotgun barrel pressed against his nose. In the real world it was Sheila who did the dirty deed, but this isn't the real world is it?
It's the fantasy world of of the pro-guilt argument where cunning pre-laid plans and sorcery exist, or perhaps Nevill and June decided that it was best to die quietly in their agony rather than wake the twins.
From CAL's book:
"Both dogs were habitually alert to intruders. Crispy was variously described as ‘very noisy’, ‘lively and always nipping at people’s ankles’ with a ‘high-pitched yappy bark’ that he used to good effect on callers. Bruce would also bark when anyone approached the house".
Hoots
My dog goes mad at anyone passing the house - never barks when I or my partner come home - no matter what time.
-
Perhaps you were unaware that this particular area of Essex is renown for witchcraft? However, as Jeremy took so long to bring his plan to 'perfection' he probably had no need of its assistance. He could, for instance, have employed some Pavlov-type persuasion on the dogs -I wonder from whom came the information that they barked? I wonder who, of all who gave information re the daily routine of WHF, OTHER than Jeremy, was actually privy to the daily routine. Of course there were risks. NOTHING is risk free. Jeremy must have reckoned that he could handle any he could think of. Those he couldn't, he naturally wouldn't have worried about until it was too late. Rather like having to shoot Sheila twice, actually. It's possible, even in the real world to (almost) get away with murder.
You have obviously forgotton about the infamous Barbara Wilson
-
You have obviously forgotton about the infamous Barbara Wilson
That would be she who seemed not to know her a()e from her elbow?
-
That would be she who seemed not to know her a()e from her elbow?
Perhaps you would like to elaborate?
Are you talking about now or over 30 years ago
-
Perhaps you would like to elaborate?
Are you talking about now or over 30 years ago
I'm talking a 360 degree turnaround.
-
My dog goes mad at anyone passing the house - never barks when I or my partner come home - no matter what time.
Well, I'm not talking about your dog. I've pasted the relevant paragraph from CAL's book upthread, it's pretty clear on the behaviour of both dogs.
-
Jeremy may have devised a way to circumvent the dogs barking a la Pavlov.
Really? Tell me more.
Hoots
-
Sheila could be controlled proxy of the twins.
Really? Tell me more.
Hoots
-
What were the twins going to do, that he with a gun, couldn't have coped with, if they woke up?
Ah! the old reversal of responsibility trick.
Well after all the noise that those die-hards Nevill and June made in their protracted demise, Jeremy now looks into their room only to find that they are not there and have ran away and hid somewhere. Surely Jeremy had all this possibility worked out in his pre-laid plan. I didn't originate the pre-laid plan theory, you did, you must know it's contents.
Hoots
-
Well, I'm not talking about your dog. I've pasted the relevant paragraph from CAL's book upthread, it's pretty clear on the behaviour of both dogs.
With strangers!
-
Really? Tell me more.
Hoots
Simple really - he was familiar to them!
-
Ah! the old reversal of responsibility trick.
Well after all the noise that those die-hards Nevill and June made in their protracted demise, Jeremy now looks into their room only to find that they are not there and have ran away and hid somewhere. Surely Jeremy had all this possibility worked out in his pre-laid plan. I didn't originate the pre-laid plan theory, you did, you must know it's contents.
Hoots
Oh. I didn't have the plan. Jeremy did. As it seems you already know. It nearly worked.
-
Oh. I didn't have the plan. Jeremy did. It nearly worked.
Had dogs all my life Jane, they don't bark at their owners and those who are familiar to them. Long before they saw Jeremy - they would have smelled him.
-
As I understand it the only real evidence that Nevill was shot upstairs is the number of cartridge cases found upstairs compared to the number found downstairs. Is there any other evidence that supports Nevill being in bed when June was shot?
I'm just struggling to understand if the facial shots were caused upstairs, where is all the blood? Heads/faces bleed profusely and id of thought there would of been a lot more blood on the landing down the stairs etc?
-
I'm just struggling to understand if the facial shots were caused upstairs, where is all the blood? Heads/faces bleed profusely and id of thought there would of been a lot more blood on the landing down the stairs etc?
The blood was on the bedspread, on the wallpaper in the hall downstairs and on the floor in the kitchen by the telephone.
-
The blood was on the bedspread, on the wallpaper in the hall downstairs and on the floor in the kitchen by the telephone.
Do we have crime scene photos of this Steve? I'm sure I read there were 2 spots in the bedroom that couldn't be positively identified, never heard of the wallpaper or hallway
-
Let's try another one. In CAL's dramatized account she has JB killing June and Nevill first, while the kids slept on oblivious. You can say what you like about the noise of the gun, perhaps it was minimal. But when people die of multiple GSW's it's doubtful if they do it all quietly, there may have be screaming, shouting, crying and pleading going on.
In the real world, with real world logic Jeremy would have realised during his approach to WHF that the twins could be alerted, running about the house looking for places to hide while all this was going on, but no, jeremy had all sussed out and included sorcery in his pre-laid plan (remember that one Jane J, the pre-laid plan that needs no definition), the twins slept on oblivious, and were compliant enough to die the same way.
Jeremy used the same sorcery on the dogs who despite the quote below from CAL's book didn't even offer a bark to alert Nevill who in the real world would have found Jeremy climbing through the window with a shotgun barrel pressed against his nose. In the real world it was Sheila who did the dirty deed, but this isn't the real world is it?
It's the fantasy world of of the pro-guilt argument where cunning pre-laid plans and sorcery exist, or perhaps Nevill and June decided that it was best to die quietly in their agony rather than wake the twins.
From CAL's book:
"Both dogs were habitually alert to intruders. Crispy was variously described as ‘very noisy’, ‘lively and always nipping at people’s ankles’ with a ‘high-pitched yappy bark’ that he used to good effect on callers. Bruce would also bark when anyone approached the house".
Hoots
How would the twins be alerted by Bamber approaching WHF ? It was 2am & they would be in a deep sleep.
Where was the outside dog based ? If it was on the other side of WHF then there is no reason why it would bark.
There is a thread on Crispy. Dogs do sleep. If it did wake there is no guarantee it would wake Nevill & June.
There is no reason why a slseping Sheila or the twins would wake from behind closed doors. The silencer was on. Nevill was shot in the jaw & ran downstsirs & June shot 7 times & in the throat. So no shouting. David persuaded me that the twins may have been shot first. I agreed but believe Bamber would have shot each one just once before entering the main bedroom. So both twins already dead.
All these are small risks. Bamber was prepared to take them.
-
Do we have crime scene photos of this Steve? I'm sure I read there were 2 spots in the bedroom that couldn't be positively identified, never heard of the wallpaper or hallway
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
-
People seem to think Bamber wouldn't have attempted the massacre because there may be risks involved.
Of course there were risks. He was attempting a 2am massacre. But the huge financial & emotional rewards meant it was worth attempting.
As it happened things didn't go to plan. Nevill put up a fight, Bamber had to re load twice & take the silencer off.
-
Simple really - he was familiar to them!
Our family had a dog too, who barked at everybody, it's their way of welcoming someone, It's also their way of defending their territory, they do both by barking, that's all they can do. It has to be said that a dog gets to know a persons habits; however there is nothing habitual in Jeremy's movements that night if he did commit the crime. If Jeremy made a habit of climbing through a window in the dead of night at WHF and the dogs were used to it I'd understand, but I think you're havering as we would say up here.
Hoots!
-
I'm just struggling to understand if the facial shots were caused upstairs, where is all the blood? Heads/faces bleed profusely and id of thought there would of been a lot more blood on the landing down the stairs etc?
I do wonder about that Lucy, as you say mouths etc. bleed profusely and Nevill lost some teeth as well. They were horrendous injuries and he would have bled profusely and also struggled to cope with the shock and trauma. It's only in films that people carry on as normal. Chances are he wouldn't have felt the pain but it's no joke to have bullets pumped into you face breaking your jaw bone and your teeth and he must have been traumatised by it. Poor man.
-
Oh. I didn't have the plan. Jeremy did. As it seems you already know. It nearly worked.
I'm sorry, what was the plan again?
Hoots!
-
Had dogs all my life Jane, they don't bark at their owners and those who are familiar to them. Long before they saw Jeremy - they would have smelled him.
That's true - but they might bark if they just heard him.
-
I'm talking a 360 degree turnaround.
So you have never given an opinion on Barbara Wilson on here
-
How would the twins be alerted by Bamber approaching WHF ? It was 2am & they would be in a deep sleep.
Where was the outside dog based ? If it was on the other side of WHF then there is no reason why it would bark.
There is a thread on Crispy. Dogs do sleep. If it did wake there is no guarantee it would wake Nevill & June.
There is no reason why a slseping Sheila or the twins would wake from behind closed doors. The silencer was on. Nevill was shot in the jaw & ran downstsirs & June shot 7 times & in the throat. So no shouting. David persuaded me that the twins may have been shot first. I agreed but believe Bamber would have shot each one just once before entering the main bedroom. So both twins already dead.
All these are small risks. Bamber was prepared to take them.
Sorry Adam, you seem to have misunderstood my post. I don't think it's that impenetrable.
Hoots!
-
So you have never given an opinion on Barbara Wilson on here
Barbara Wilson feels guilty that she didn't speak out early enough to save five lives. She was a survivor of the massacre but a victim of the economic climate of the time whereby if you lost your job at her age you were finished.
-
I'm out of here for the night. Thanks to you all for your comments.
Nighty-Night.
Hoots.
-
I'm out of here for the night. Thanks to you all for your comments.
Nighty-Night.
Hoots.
Night Tom :)
-
I do wonder about that Lucy, as you say mouths etc. bleed profusely and Nevill lost some teeth as well. They were horrendous injuries and he would have bled profusely and also struggled to cope with the shock and trauma. It's only in films that people carry on as normal. Chances are he wouldn't have felt the pain but it's no joke to have bullets pumped into you face breaking your jaw bone and your teeth and he must have been traumatised by it. Poor man.
Yes it doesn't bear thinking about, I would of thought though with half of your jaw blown off the blood would be pumping, there are so many veins and blood vessels etc i would of expected a lot of It, have we ever seen the front of his pyjamas, there are also no bloody prints anywhere which is strange as first instinct would be tocput your hand to the wound? Surely his blood should of been on the gun? As he was already seriously injured?
-
Yes it doesn't bear thinking about, I would of thought though with half of your jaw blown off the blood would be pumping, there are so many veins and blood vessels etc i would of expected a lot of It, have we ever seen the front of his pyjamas, there are also no bloody prints anywhere which is strange as first instinct would be tocput your hand to the wound? Surely his blood should of been on the gun? As he was already seriously injured?
I've said this many times, Lucy. I get the feeling that some posters don't see it as being much more than a scratch.
-
Yes it doesn't bear thinking about, I would of thought though with half of your jaw blown off the blood would be pumping, there are so many veins and blood vessels etc i would of expected a lot of It, have we ever seen the front of his pyjamas, there are also no bloody prints anywhere which is strange as first instinct would be tocput your hand to the wound? Surely his blood should of been on the gun? As he was already seriously injured?
I agree Lucy they were horrendous injuries and as you say the face and mouth are copiouslysupplied with blood vessels which would bleed profusely. He would have put his hand on the wounds as an involuntary action spreading blood onto his hands and beyond. I would guess it was the blood from his hands on the kitchen worktop. How he continued to function is hard to imagine.
I would guess it was possible the 'struggle' in the kitchen may have been a bit one sided. Maybe Neill fell against the table, overturning the chairs as he struggled to protect himself against the killer before he collapsed in a chair when he was shot, beaten and killed.
-
I agree Lucy they were horrendous injuries and as you say the face and mouth are copiouslysupplied with blood vessels which would bleed profusely. He would have put his hand on the wounds as an involuntary action spreading blood onto his hands and beyond. I would guess it was the blood from his hands on the kitchen worktop. How he continued to function is hard to imagine.
I would guess it was possible the 'struggle' in the kitchen may have been a bit one sided. Maybe Neill fell against the table, overturning the chairs as he struggled to protect himself against the killer before he collapsed in a chair when he was shot, beaten and killed.
Hi Maggie
excellent post which makes so much sense to me I think Nevil would have fell against the table and crockery fell to the floor poor Nevil so so sad :(
-
Barbara Wilson feels guilty that she didn't speak out early enough to save five lives. She was a survivor of the massacre but a victim of the economic climate of the time whereby if you lost your job at her age you were finished.
Could you supply a source for this statement?
-
Our family had a dog too, who barked at everybody, it's their way of welcoming someone, It's also their way of defending their territory, they do both by barking, that's all they can do. It has to be said that a dog gets to know a persons habits; however there is nothing habitual in Jeremy's movements that night if he did commit the crime. If Jeremy made a habit of climbing through a window in the dead of night at WHF and the dogs were used to it I'd understand, but I think you're havering as we would say up here.
Hoots!
Yes, I thought you might ::) - He did make a habit of climbing through the window - the time of day is irrelevant. I think you're 'havering' too - havering a laugh that is!
Why aye man!
-
Barbara Wilson feels guilty that she didn't speak out early enough to save five lives. She was a survivor of the massacre but a victim of the economic climate of the time whereby if you lost your job at her age you were finished.
Steve don't you also think that Julie would have a pang of guilt at the fact that she too could have saved 5 lives if she'd spoken up during the many months that she'd " known of JB's plans ?"
-
Could you supply a source for this statement?
It's in Chapter 28 of Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes. In the event that part of her evidence was ruled inadmissible as hearsay but she did feel strongly enough to attend court and testify to Jeremy's arrogance post-murders, in particular when ordering her to clear everything out of Nevill's desk lest Jeremy be reminded of him on any future occasion, whilst simultaneously swinging round on a swivel chair and ending up with feet on the desk.
-
Steve don't you also think that Julie would have a pang of guilt at the fact that she too could have saved 5 lives if she'd spoken up during the many months that she'd " known of JB's plans ?"
Yes I do. It's a testament to the Bamber's upbringing of their son that he dithered for so long and possibly one explanation for Julie's prevarication that this public schoolboy who outwardly appeared so normal could harbour such wicked thoughts.
-
Hi Maggie
excellent post which makes so much sense to me I think Nevil would have fell against the table and crockery fell to the floor poor Nevil so so sad :(
Thanks Susan, you can imagine a big man like Nevil falling against the table and chairs knocking the crockery etc. off the table as he staggered around maybe still trying to grab the gun before he collapsed.
Ghastly pictures it conjures up.
-
Yes, I thought you might ::) - He did make a habit of climbing through the window - the time of day is irrelevant. I think you're 'havering' too - havering a laugh that is!
Why aye man!
Our dog was a labrador mix, his name was Jude after the Beatles song Hey Jude, he was the most amazing friendly gentle dog in the world. There was not a dry eye in the house when we had to get him put to sleep at 15 years old. He barked to welcome people, he barked at people he didn't know as well; however you don't have to tell me about your dog, I believe you. :) I'm not so sure about JB jumping in and out of windows at WHF. The word "havering" doesn't mean having a laugh, it means to talk nonsense. I don't know what "Why aye man! means, perhaps you picked it up when you last visited Brigadoon.
-
Our dog was a labrador mix, his name was Jude after the Beatles son Hey Jude, he was the most amazing friendly gentle dog in the world. There was not a dry eye in the house when we had to get him put to sleep at 15 years old. He barked to welcome people, he barked at people he didn't know as well; however you don't have to tell me about your dog, I believe you. :) I'm not so sure about JB jumping in and out of windows at WHF. The word "havering" doesn't mean having a laugh, it means to talk nonsense. I don't know what "Why aye man! means, perhaps you picked it up when you last visited Brigadoon.
I believe he made a point of saying he could -had- accessed the house via various windows. Indeed, he made a point of doing so, post murders. My friend's dog only barks when the next door neighbour's dog barks.
Bee' ayve!
-
Eh!!! To understand that one, TomG, you need to be adopted into a family into which you feel your only role is to fulfill the life they've prescribed for you, presuming that you'll do it without question. From Jeremy's desire to travel and/or do any sort of menial work he could get, it seems to me that he'd have undertaken anything rather than farm. Unfortunately, his inheritance hung on him doing just that. If he wanted the dosh, it seems he'd have to work for it. Might it have seemed unbalanced that he had to work at something which wasn't to his taste, whilst his sister had it handed to her on a plate and did nothing to earn it? I'm not suggesting such was true. I'm suggesting that it MAY have been how Jeremy saw it. We have him telling someone he had no intention of sharing his money with Sheila so I think it's fair to assume he wasn't prepared to see the family fortune being squandered on her and the boys, NOR was he prepared to work to keep her.
What we're discussing her is why JB decided to shoot Nevill in the mouth and jaw knowing that neither of them were kill shots, while using a weapon that was totally inappropriate and using only one magazine. JB couldn't afford to fire wasteful shots. I would be looking at something more like "here's one in the mouth for all the violence I had to suffer when I was a kid, and here's another for all the sexual abuse I had to put up with just to satisfy your perversions, you old b*****d, but according to CAL's book which is pretty thorough on family history, none of it exists. Nevill was a thoroughly decent guy, even Jeremy would have known that.
I think Nevill was shot deliberately in the mouth from very close range for a reason and that was simply that he got calls away.
-
What we're discussing her is why JB decided to shoot Nevill in the mouth and jaw knowing that neither of them were kill shots, while using a weapon that was totally inappropriate and using only one magazine. JB couldn't afford to fire wasteful shots. I would be looking at something more like "here's one in the mouth for all the violence I had to suffer when I was a kid, and here's another for all the sexual abuse I had to put up with just to satisfy your perversions, you old b*****d, but according to CAL's book which is pretty thorough on family history, none of it exists. Nevill was a thoroughly decent guy, even Jeremy would have known that.
I think Nevill was shot deliberately in the mouth from very close range for a reason and that was simply that he got calls away.
Inappropriate though the weapon may have been, it was still capable of killing. It may have been blind rage which prevented those mouth shots from being accurate enough to kill. To understand how any person FEELS, it becomes necessary to ignore what may be a totally different 'truth' as experienced by others. You'll get no argument from me that Nevill was anything other than "a thoroughly decent guy". You clearly see violence and sexual perversions as being the only forms of abuse inflicted on a child. Believe me, there are others and the effects go just as deep and are equally as lasting.
-
From a psychological point of view,I'd have said that shots to the mouth were to shut that person up and largely depends on the shooters state of mind.
A person intent of killing someone wouldn't go for the mouth,it's nonsensical.
-
What we're discussing her is why JB decided to shoot Nevill in the mouth and jaw knowing that neither of them were kill shots, while using a weapon that was totally inappropriate and using only one magazine. JB couldn't afford to fire wasteful shots. I would be looking at something more like "here's one in the mouth for all the violence I had to suffer when I was a kid, and here's another for all the sexual abuse I had to put up with just to satisfy your perversions, you old b*****d, but according to CAL's book which is pretty thorough on family history, none of it exists. Nevill was a thoroughly decent guy, even Jeremy would have known that.
I think Nevill was shot deliberately in the mouth from very close range for a reason and that was simply that he got calls away.
Or maybe he tried to grab the gun from the killer. Both JB and Sheila were shorter than he was therefore if he managed to get hold of the rifle he may have been shot in the face while it was at very close range and he was trying to get control of it? Just a thought. We assume the face shots were aimed but maybe they were random. Just trying to think outside the box.
-
What we're discussing her is why JB decided to shoot Nevill in the mouth and jaw knowing that neither of them were kill shots, while using a weapon that was totally inappropriate and using only one magazine. JB couldn't afford to fire wasteful shots. I would be looking at something more like "here's one in the mouth for all the violence I had to suffer when I was a kid, and here's another for all the sexual abuse I had to put up with just to satisfy your perversions, you old b*****d, but according to CAL's book which is pretty thorough on family history, none of it exists. Nevill was a thoroughly decent guy, even Jeremy would have known that.
I think Nevill was shot deliberately in the mouth from very close range for a reason and that was simply that he got calls away.
There is no deciding about it. The allocation of bullets in the main bedroom shows June was shot first. Perhaps 7 times.
By the time he got to his father Nevill was already getting out of bed. Bamber still managed to get two head shots from inches away.
Where in the head would have killed Nevill with one shot ? He needed two shots to kill a zonked out Sheila. Who was shot in the neck.
-
There is no deciding about it. The allocation of bullets in the main bedroom shows June was shot first. Perhaps 7 times.
By the time he got to his father Nevill was already getting out of bed. Bamber still managed to get two head shots from inches away.
Where in the head would have killed Nevill with one shot ? He needed two shots to kill a zonked out Sheila. Who was shot in the neck.
I cannot imagine it all went smoothly and to plan as you do Adam. OK the casings leave clues but we're talking about free thinking people and have no idea exactly how things panned out in that bedroom.
You have it controlled down to every nano second but things rarely work that way in my experience.
-
I cannot imagine it all went smoothly and to plan as you do Adam. OK the casings leave clues but we're talking about free thinking people and have no idea exactly how things panned out in that bedroom.
You have it controlled down to every nano second but things rarely work that way in my experience.
I agree with that, I've noticed a bit of rigid thinking here. There is no evidence, that anyone here has argued so far, that Nevill was even in the bedroom when June was shot, they also may have been shot in installments with the twins shot first perhaps only taking a couple of shots each at that stage. The casings offer a fair clue to where they were shot but the timeline and movements of Nevill are more fluid. One thing that is for certain is that the theory of Nevill not being able to get a call away after he was shot in the mouth is questionable.
-
I agree with that, I've noticed a bit of rigid thinking here. There is no evidence, that anyone here has argued so far, that Nevill was even in the bedroom when June was shot, they also may have been shot in installments with the twins shot first perhaps only taking a couple of shots each at that stage. The casings offer a fair clue to where they were shot but the timeline and movements of Nevill are more fluid. One thing that is for certain is that the theory of Nevill not being able to get a call away after he was shot in the mouth is questionable.
I agree with most of that but I question strongly whether Neil would be able to speak at all but certainly not clearly with a fractured jaw. Think after a hit like that he would be struggling really badly.
-
Calls made by Neville would have obviously been done before he'd been shot in the mouth ?
-
Calls made by Neville would have obviously been done before he'd been shot in the mouth ?
I agree, if there was a call surely it was made before Neil was aware any shots had been fired otherwise the phone call would have been completely different imo.
-
I cannot imagine it all went smoothly and to plan as you do Adam. OK the casings leave clues but we're talking about free thinking people and have no idea exactly how things panned out in that bedroom.
You have it controlled down to every nano second but things rarely work that way in my experience.
I agree with that, I've noticed a bit of rigid thinking here. There is no evidence, that anyone here has argued so far, that Nevill was even in the bedroom when June was shot, they also may have been shot in installments with the twins shot first perhaps only taking a couple of shots each at that stage. The casings offer a fair clue to where they were shot but the timeline and movements of Nevill are more fluid. One thing that is for certain is that the theory of Nevill not being able to get a call away after he was shot in the mouth is questionable.
Maggie and Tom, I couldn't agree more. Adam's entire scenario and lists are devoid of the emotions of the victims -I think they have to be to make them work- and I think they'd certainly have put a spanner in the works. The 'plan' undoubtedly wouldn't have gone to plan because he wouldn't have allowed for the victims acting in any way other than how he'd imagined they would to facilitate the crime.
-
I agree with most of that but I question strongly whether Neil would be able to speak at all but certainly not clearly with a fractured jaw. Think after a hit like that he would be struggling really badly.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm saying that theory of Nevill not being able to get a call away after the mouth shots is questionable, since it implies that Nevill was shot at the same time as June. CAL makes a great deal of this in her book with reference to Vanezis.
It's clear that he could have had the opportunity to get calls away before he was shot in the mouth.
-
I agree with that, I've noticed a bit of rigid thinking here. There is no evidence, that anyone here has argued so far, that Nevill was even in the bedroom when June was shot, they also may have been shot in installments with the twins shot first perhaps only taking a couple of shots each at that stage. The casings offer a fair clue to where they were shot but the timeline and movements of Nevill are more fluid. One thing that is for certain is that the theory of Nevill not being able to get a call away after he was shot in the mouth is questionable.
I have said Nevill was in the bedroom when June started to get shot.
It was 2am.
He slept next to June. Every night.
There were 4 bullet casings in the bedroom.
He was found bare footed in his pyjamas. As if he had been sleeping next to June at 2am & had to quickly get out of bed. Due to being shot at.
Anyway, if this is you're strongest argument from CAL's book. That no one knows where Nevill was when June started getting shot, it must be very pro guilt. But I agree, no one knows as no one from here was there.
-
Maggie and Tom, I couldn't agree more. Adam's entire scenario and lists are devoid of the emotions of the victims -I think they have to be to make them work- and I think they'd certainly have put a spanner in the works. The 'plan' undoubtedly wouldn't have gone to plan because he wouldn't have allowed for the victims acting in any way other than how he'd imagined they would to facilitate the crime.
Exactly Jane, totally agree.
-
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm saying that theory of Nevill not being able to get a call away after the mouth shots is questionable, since it implies that Nevill was shot at the same time as June. CAL makes a great deal of this in her book with reference to Vanezis.
It's clear that he could have had the opportunity to get calls away before he was shot in the mouth.
It's ages since I read her book Tom. Sorry I misunderstood you.
-
At this moment in time I'm trying to work out a plausible scenario of the crime from beginning to end. I think it's the responsibility of everyone posting here to do the same regardless of who they think did the killings, not maybe this or maybe that. I think that if people are going to refer to a pre-laid plan, they had better flesh it out and stand by it or lose integrity.
As it stands, with the information I've got, I think Sheila committed the crime. The theory repeatedly asserted in CAL's pro-guilt book is that Sheila had no knowledge of guns; this is only partly true since a child can load the weapon and fire it, in the U.S. they most certainly do with this type of gun. What Sheila didn't know was how completely inadequate the weapon and ammunition was for killing adult human beings, while Jeremy would have known with his experience of guns. What we have here is not "overkill" but underkill.
Sheila would have discovered this as the shots that she thought would kill outright were only resulting in cripplings and maimings, that's why I think she revisited each body and fired a coup de grace when they were all in no position to fight back. From that point onwards Sheila would have been utterly demented, she wanted to die, and perhaps needed to die, but she had a gun that was was not guaranteed to kill her if she turned the gun on herself. She could have ended up with crippling brain injuries or paralysis, not the instant deliverance to God and her twins as she wanted.
She was alive when the cops broke in.
-
At this moment in time I'm trying to work out a plausible scenario of the crime from beginning to end. I think it's the responsibility of everyone posting here to do the same regardless of who they think did the killings, not maybe this or maybe that. I think that if people are going to refer to a pre-laid plan, they had better flesh it out and stand by it or lose integrity.
As it stands, with the information I've got, I think Sheila committed the crime. The theory repeatedly asserted in CAL's pro-guilt book is that Sheila had no knowledge of guns; this is only partly true since a child can load the weapon and fire it, in the U.S. they most certainly do with this type of gun. What Sheila didn't know was how completely inadequate the weapon and ammunition was for killing adult human beings, while Jeremy would have known with his experience of guns. What we have here is not "overkill" but underkill.
Sheila would have discovered this as the shots that she thought would kill outright were only resulting in cripplings and maimings, that's why I think she revisited each body and fired a coup de grace when they were all in no position to fight back. From that point onwards Sheila would have been utterly demented, she wanted to die, and perhaps needed to die, but she had a gun that was was not guaranteed to kill her if she turned the gun on herself. She could have ended up with crippling brain injuries or paralysis, not the instant deliverance to God and her twins as she wanted.
She was alive when the cops broke in.
Can you give you're Sheila scenario. To match the body & casing locations.
It needs to include 1/2 phone calls. A kitchen fight & two chambers/breaches/reloads.
Just saying Sheila committed the crime because Bamber's first two shots into Nevill were in the face & no one knows where Nevill was when June was shot, is not enough.
You will also need to adequately dispute the 50+ pieces of incriminating evidence in the library & justify why Nevill would phone Bamber.
I have already done my Bamber scenario.
-
It used to be 100 pieces of evidence,then it was reduced to 60,now it's whittled down to 50.What happened ?
I've never seen the 100 pieces listed,let alone the 50 ?
-
It used to be 100 pieces of evidence,then it was reduced to 60,now it's whittled down to 50.What happened ?
I've never seen the 100 pieces listed,let alone the 50 ?
Well there are 42 threads in the library. But some of the threads relate to several pieces of evidence. So I've generously said 50.
-
Can you give you're Sheila scenario. To match the body & casing locations.
It needs to include 1/2 phone calls. A kitchen fight & two chambers/breaches/reloads.
Just saying Sheila committed the crime because Bamber's first two shots into Nevill were in the face & no one knows where Nevill was when June was shot, is not enough.
You will also need to adequately dispute the 50+ pieces of incriminating evidence in the library & justify why Nevill would phone Bamber.
Do you have a strategy that Jeremy surely must have had as he approached WHF from begining to end, or are you just going to say that he wanted to make it look like his mad sister had done it, with the results speaking for themselves, as others seem to be content to do?
I know I have to do a lot more, but at least I've had the integrity to make a start. To imply that the responsibility is all mine merely compounds the fact that the pro-guilt argument has a nice cozy comfort zone in that it needs no responsibility to explain JB's strategy at all. The pro-guilt argument is the sanctuary of those who don't want to do to much thinking, or put in much effort, it doesn't need any.
-
Do you have a strategy that Jeremy surely must have had as he approached WHF from begining to end, or are you just going to say that he wanted to make it look like his mad sister had done it, with the results speaking for themselves, as others seem to be content to do?
I know I have to do a lot more, but at least I've had the integrity to make a start. To imply that the responsibility is all mine merely compounds the fact that the pro-guilt argument has a nice cozy comfort zone in that it needs no responsibility to explain JB's strategy at all. The pro-guilt argument is the sanctuary of those who don't want to do to much thinking, or put in much effort, it doesn't need any.
Do you recall how Les Dawson played the piano incredibly badly? Have you any idea how necessary it was for him to play it well, in order to be able to play it badly? The same would have been true of Jeremy's plan.
-
Do you have a strategy that Jeremy surely must have had as he approached WHF from begining to end, or are you just going to say that he wanted to make it look like his mad sister had done it, with the results speaking for themselves, as others seem to be content to do?
I know I have to do a lot more, but at least I've had the integrity to make a start. To imply that the responsibility is all mine merely compounds the fact that the pro-guilt argument has a nice cozy comfort zone in that it needs no responsibility to explain JB's strategy at all. The pro-guilt argument is the sanctuary of those who don't want to do to much thinking, or put in much effort, it doesn't need any.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6549.msg295162.html#msg295162
Reply 4.
Not sure what you mean by strategy. What he did, how he travelled there/back & how he got in/out were all decided beforehand from information he already had.
-
Do you recall how Les Dawson played the piano incredibly badly? Have you any idea how necessary it was for him to play it well, in order to be able to play it badly? The same would have been true of Jeremy's plan.
Ok, now you've at least made a start. Jeremy based his entire strategy on the inspiration he received from Les Dawson's wonky piano playing.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6549.msg295162.html#msg295162
Reply 4.
Not sure what you mean by strategy. What he did, how he travelled there/back & how he got in/out were all decided beforehand from information he already had.
If you don't know what strategy is, look it up. Or has the pro-guilt malaise gone too far with you?
-
If you don't know what strategy is, look it up. Or has the pro-guilt malaise gone too far with you?
I assume it's similar to 'decide beforehand'. Which I put in my last post.
Look forward to reading you're Sheila scenario.
-
Ok, now you've at least made a start. Jeremy based his entire strategy on the inspiration he received from Les Dawson's wonky piano playing.
Did I say that or did you THINK I said it? OR perhaps you just made up that I said it?
-
Did I say that or did you THINK I said it? OR perhaps you just made up that I said it?
Or perhaps you made a poor analogy in the first place.
-
Or perhaps you made a poor analogy in the first place.
Or perhaps it's just your opinion that I did.
-
What I'm struggling to understand is, if Neville was shot upstairs first and had half of his jaw blown off THEN was beaten around the head with the weapon, then where is all the blood on it??
-
Ok, now you've at least made a start. Jeremy based his entire strategy on the inspiration he received from Les Dawson's wonky piano playing.
Had Jeremy taken up a musical instrument it might have afforded a modicum of release from repressed emotion. He hated the place, forlorn, secluded, its shabby chic interior which belied the material worth of his parents, both too preoccupied without to furnish the attention it needed within. He sought solace in his foreign trips, only to be admonished upon return that he was neglecting his duties, his responsibilities as their son, the boy they had chosen yet failed to nurture, and his indifference gradually turned to hate as he came to see them as the true obstacle to fulfilment which lay in the bright lights of London, which Sheila the indigent sibling enjoyed.
-
What I'm struggling to understand is, if Neville was shot upstairs first and had half of his jaw blown off THEN was beaten around the head with the weapon, then where is all the blood on it??
Although Nevill would have been standing up there is a possibly he may have swallowed quite a lot of the blood from his mouth wound.... just a suggestion.
-
Although Nevill would have been standing up there is a possibly he may have swallowed quite a lot of the blood from his mouth wound.... just a suggestion.
That's what I suggested but was told he have spat it out. IF so, where did he spit it? DRIBBLED maybe? Down the front of his pyjamas?
-
That's what I suggested but was told he have spat it out. IF so, where did he spit it? DRIBBLED maybe? Down the front of his pyjamas?
I had a really bad mouth injury when I was 19 and it bled profusely, I can confirm that when standing/sitting the blood settles in the base of your mouth. It's an automatic reflex action to swallow when you have fluid in your mouth therefore even standing much of the blood could be swallowed. Nevil obviously would have spat out blood straight after the injury, I'm sure but it's difficult to know without knowing more about his facial wound ie whether it bled outwardly down his face or rather into his mouth or both. There's certainly no doubt mouth and facial wounds bleed profusely.
Awful injury imo, it must have been horrific for Nevil to cope with.
-
I had a really bad mouth injury when I was 19 and it bled profusely, I can confirm that when standing/sitting the blood settles in the base of your mouth. It's an automatic reflex action to swallow when you have fluid in your mouth therefore even standing much of the blood could be swallowed. Nevil obviously would have spat out blood straight after the injury, I'm sure but it's difficult to know without knowing more about his facial wound ie whether it bled outwardly down his face or rather into his mouth or both. There's certainly no doubt mouth and facial wounds bleed profusely.
Awful injury imo, it must have been horrific for Nevil to cope with.
I wouldn't argue with that, Maggie.
-
That's what I suggested but was told he have spat it out. IF so, where did he spit it? DRIBBLED maybe? Down the front of his pyjamas?
No one can say either was what he would have done, however, if he spat it out there would be evidence of it.
-
No one can say either was what he would have done, however, if he spat it out there would be evidence of it.
Indeed, and as his mouth muscles wouldn't have been working properly he may not have been able to spit.
-
If he spat it out there would be a lot of it, you have huge veins in your tongue alone, also you would be pumped full of adrenalin so your heart would be beating faster and harder, for him to of got downstairs with those injuries I am surprised there are no bloodied hand prints on the walls or bannister, let alone a fight for life would of seen him put his hands on the walls table and or floor your reaction is to put your hands out to steady yourself, it makes no sense, even breathing blood would of cone out in droplets he would of been coughing as well I'd imagine so where is all the blood from the bedroom to the kitchen? I'd say those injuries were caused in the kitchen hence the blood pooling from his head into the coal scuttle?? It makes no sense
-
Or perhaps it's just your opinion that I did.
I know baloney when I read it, and I've had enough for one day.
Good day to you!
-
I know baloney when I read it, and I've had enough for one day.
Good day to you!
Bee'ayve!
-
If he spat it out there would be a lot of it, you have huge veins in your tongue alone, also you would be pumped full of adrenalin so your heart would be beating faster and harder, for him to of got downstairs with those injuries I am surprised there are no bloodied hand prints on the walls or bannister, let alone a fight for life would of seen him put his hands on the walls table and or floor your reaction is to put your hands out to steady yourself, it makes no sense, even breathing blood would of cone out in droplets he would of been coughing as well I'd imagine so where is all the blood from the bedroom to the kitchen? I'd say those injuries were caused in the kitchen hence the blood pooling from his head into the coal scuttle?? It makes no sense
I can see your point Lucy. I am trying to remember but I'm sure you don't necessarily cough from blood in your mouth but he lost some teeth as well and they would probably have splintered I imagine. I agree he would probably have tried to spit them out. I agree he would have put his hands to his face and mouth, he probably didn't have pain but would have been aware of an injury.
He would probably have swallowed a lot of blood tho' if you drink water and hold it in your mouth your first instinct is to swallow rather than to spit, you spit if you think you're going to choke. It's difficult but as I say I get your argument, there was the bloody hand print on the work top in the kitchen which looks as though someone was maybe steadying themselves. Imo it's the kind of injury which would really traumatise and make a person unsteady on their feet or even faint. As I said earlier it could have meant Nevil fell against the table and chairs and knocked stuff about in the kitchen.
The 'struggle in the kitchen' may have been very one sided with Nevil unable to fight back at all. Possibly finally collapsing in a chair where he was beaten around the head and shot. He would have to have been lower than his assailant to be shot in the head as he was such a tall guy.
-
I can see your point Lucy. I am trying to remember but I'm sure you don't necessarily cough from blood in your mouth but he lost some teeth as well and they would probably have splintered I imagine. I agree he would probably have tried to spit them out. I agree he would have put his hands to his face and mouth, he probably didn't have pain but would have been aware of an injury.
He would probably have swallowed a lot of blood tho' if you drink water and hold it in your mouth your first instinct is to swallow rather than to spit, you spit if you think you're going to choke. It's difficult but as I say I get your argument, there was the bloody hand print on the work top in the kitchen which looks as though someone was maybe steadying themselves. Imo it's the kind of injury which would really traumatise and make a person unsteady on their feet or even faint. As I said earlier it could have meant Nevil fell against the table and chairs and knocked stuff about in the kitchen.
The 'struggle in the kitchen' may have been very one sided with Nevil unable to fight back at all. Possibly finally collapsing in a chair where he was beaten around the head and shot. He would have to have been lower than his assailant to be shot in the head as he was such a tall guy.
It's hard to form an opinion as there are no photos of Neville or what he was wearing, I imagine by the time hed got downstairs hed be extremely weak and disorientated so if presume it was very one sided, perhaps that's why there were no defence wounds on Sheila?
-
It's hard to form an opinion as there are no photos of Neville or what he was wearing, I imagine by the time hed got downstairs hed be extremely weak and disorientated so if presume it was very one sided, perhaps that's why there were no defence wounds on Sheila?
I agree it was probably very one sided whoever fought Nevil. JB didn't have any defensive injuries. I cannot believe Sheila would stand a chance against Nevil even if psychotic because of his height and reach although she was reasonably tall she was very slight but if he was badly injured she would have had the advantage and it changes everything imo.
-
I agree it was probably very one sided whoever fought Nevil. JB didn't have any defensive injuries. I cannot believe Sheila would stand a chance against Nevil even if psychotic because of his height and reach although she was reasonably tall she was very slight but if he was badly injured she would have had the advantage and it changes everything imo.
Yes most definitely, Its just overkill again though, why batter him as well? Why shoot the boys 4/5 times and her mother and father so many? She had to be psychotic, the staging makes no sense if he could of got in and out why not just leave it as murder why the suicide set up? I really don't think Jeremy did it but I have wondered this week whether IF that pbonevall was made, Neville had a gun to his head and whoever had it wanted Jeremy there,?
-
It's hard to form an opinion as there are no photos of Neville or what he was wearing, I imagine by the time hed got downstairs hed be extremely weak and disorientated so if presume it was very one sided, perhaps that's why there were no defence wounds on Sheila?
He was wearing PJ's
-
Yes most definitely, Its just overkill again though, why batter him as well? Why shoot the boys 4/5 times and her mother and father so many? She had to be psychotic, the staging makes no sense if he could of got in and out why not just leave it as murder why the suicide set up? I really don't think Jeremy did it but I have wondered this week whether IF that pbonevall was made, Neville had a gun to his head and whoever had it wanted Jeremy there,?
Lucy, the whole point was to make it look as if Sheila had done it.
-
Lucy, the whole point was to make it look as if Sheila had done it.
Or maybe she had
-
He was wearing PJ's
I know but we have no pictures of them or the front of them
-
I agree it was probably very one sided whoever fought Nevil. JB didn't have any defensive injuries. I cannot believe Sheila would stand a chance against Nevil even if psychotic because of his height and reach although she was reasonably tall she was very slight but if he was badly injured she would have had the advantage and it changes everything imo.
Hi Maggie
I agree with your post whoever battered poor Nevil would have had to do it when Nevil was so badly injured he could not fight back he was a big strong man and would have defended himself. Just a thought if Jeremy had murdered his family would he have been so stupid as to make up the story of the phone call he would have thought maybe the phones could be tested and it would have been obvious he was lying. IMO had he committed the murders he would have gone home to bed gone to work next morning and discover the horrendous scene on his arrival.
-
Hi Maggie
I agree with your post whoever battered poor Nevil would have had to do it when Nevil was so badly injured he could not fight back he was a big strong man and would have defended himself. Just a thought if Jeremy had murdered his family would he have been so stupid as to make up the story of the phone call he would have thought maybe the phones could be tested and it would have been obvious he was lying. IMO had he committed the murders he would have gone home to bed gone to work next morning and discover the horrendous scene on his arrival.
He probably did telephone his answerphone at Bourtree Cottage from White House Farm and rushed back to destroy the tape, which of course would not have had Nevill's voice on it. It was possible Jeremy was hoping that the blue telephone would have recorded the last number dialled as proof, but one of the Police used the telephone that first morning erasing that facility from memory.
-
I know but we have no pictures of them or the front of them
I saw a picture of Nevill some years back. Not nice!
-
Hi Maggie
I agree with your post whoever battered poor Nevil would have had to do it when Nevil was so badly injured he could not fight back he was a big strong man and would have defended himself. Just a thought if Jeremy had murdered his family would he have been so stupid as to make up the story of the phone call he would have thought maybe the phones could be tested and it would have been obvious he was lying. IMO had he committed the murders he would have gone home to bed gone to work next morning and discover the horrendous scene on his arrival.
This is my thought Susan why not leave it to the morning it wouldn't of took long for someone to find
-
This is my thought Susan why not leave it to the morning it wouldn't of took long for someone to find
He wanted to have the police think he was elsewhere, if he was home answering a call from his dad - he couldn't be at WHF killing them. The call was his alibi.
-
He wanted to have the police think he was elsewhere, if he was home answering a call from his dad - he couldn't be at WHF killing them. The call was his alibi.
Not really because it couldn't be known if it happened or not
-
I know baloney when I read it, and I've had enough for one day.
Good day to you!
Bit disappointed TomG didn't address my scenario or give me his scenario I requested. Considering he said supporters don't put in much effort.
Saying Bamber is innocent because Nevill's first two face shots didn't kill him isn't exactly exerting himself.
-
I saw a picture of Nevill some years back. Not nice!
I'm sure it wasn't, I tried not to picture anything when I posted abut his injuries, I'm thankful there are no photos on here. I find the photos of June bad enough and I'm sure they are easy to look at compared to Nevill.
-
Not really because it couldn't be known if it happened or not
But they DID accept that he was at home in Goldhanger when he called to tell them about the alleged call from Nevill. Had he not done, he'd have had no way of proving where he was the previous night.
-
Hi Maggie
I agree with your post whoever battered poor Nevil would have had to do it when Nevil was so badly injured he could not fight back he was a big strong man and would have defended himself. Just a thought if Jeremy had murdered his family would he have been so stupid as to make up the story of the phone call he would have thought maybe the phones could be tested and it would have been obvious he was lying. IMO had he committed the murders he would have gone home to bed gone to work next morning and discover the horrendous scene on his arrival.
If Nevill couldn't fight back he wouldn't have got downstairs and been brutally beaten.
Bamber was there to execute everyone. Not waste time beating up people who couldn't fight back.
-
Has anyone ever thought he paid someone to commit the massacre
-
Has anyone ever thought he paid someone to commit the massacre
He told Julie he'd paid Malcolm Mcdonald £2000 to do it.
-
He told Julie he'd paid Malcolm Mcdonald £2000 to do it.
I had a discussion with my dad the other night, one of the scenarios we came up with was this could of been the case and a gun was held to Neville head and he was made to call Jeremy leaving the trail of calls
-
Has anyone ever thought he paid someone to commit the massacre
Err. Yes there are threads. Does it not say this in the books you have read ?
Mike suggested an SAS style hit man team killed everyone.
My thread yesterday asked if it was a hit woman as Bamber told the police after his arrest Nevill may have said "She" rather than "Sheila".
-
I had a discussion with my dad the other night, one of the scenarios we came up with was this could of been the case and a gun was held to Neville head and he was made to call Jeremy leaving the trail of calls
No Jeremy was a one man band. Sociable enough outside the confines of the Farm but a loner within.
-
I had a discussion with my dad the other night, one of the scenarios we came up with was this could of been the case and a gun was held to Neville head and he was made to call Jeremy leaving the trail of calls
What self respecting hit man is going to kill 5 people, including twin children for £2000. That's £400 a body!
-
Reasons why Bamber didn't hire a hit man:
It would be very expensive. It was killing five people.
He would not have the contacts to find one.
Hit men have some morals, either killing other criminals, or the top hit men killing political people. A request to kill innocent men, women and children so Bamber can inherit may be refused by a hit man.
A hit man would want a big up front payment.
A hit man may take an up front payment and then disappear.
Bamber would have to find the money to make an up front payment, discreetly.
Bamber would have arranged for an alibi to prove he was not at WHF all night.
Bamber would have arranged for the hit man to telephone him, which his alibi would also hear.
Hiring a hit man takes total control away from Bamber. He is now reliant on another person.
A hit man could keep demanding more money to keep quiet.
Everything a hit man would do, Bamber had access to do himself and was capable of doing himself.
A hit man may pull out if things got difficult mid massacre. Such as when Neville got out of bed. The hit man has already been part paid and would not be as motivated as Bamber.
A hit man may refuse point blank Bamber's offer. Bamber is now aware that someone else knows/knew about his plans, pre or post massacre.
A hit man who is restrained by Neville, June and Sheila will implement Bamber.
Bamber didn't inherit, so didn't pay the alleged hit man. However the hit man has not contacted the police anonymously, and implicated Bamber as revenge.
Bamber would have to engage with other people when investigating where to find a hit man. This could be reported to the police.
If Bamber had the courage to pay for a hit man to have his family killed, he would have the courage to do it himself.
Bamber was only three miles from WHF and could get there without being seen.
If not going to arrange an alibi to stay with him at his cottage, and get the hit man to phone him, he would have made sure he was miles away, with witnesses. Perhaps in London where he often spent time.
Bamber knew how to use the murder weapon, so did not need to hire an expert.
Bamber was fit and strong enough to carry out the massacre himself.
If Bamber did arrange for himself to be miles away, that would create suspision. It was harvest time which was the busiest time of the year.
A hit man may make mistakes in creating the post massacre frame.
A hit man may get restless if not quickly paid after the massacre. Bamber may become the target. If the hit man can kill five people, then he would not hesitate with Bamber.
A hit man could easily implicate Bamber without implicating himself. By simply writing to the police anonymously.
A delay in payment post massacre, will mean the hit man may decide to implicate Bamber.
A hit man would know that his post massacre payment was reliant on Bamber's inheritance. This could take months or years. Or may never happen. So the hit man may refuse or request 100% payment up front.
The hit man may be arrested for another crime in the future. He may decide to make a deal with the police for a lesser sentence, and admit to previous crimes.
Hit men usually just fire a bullet, from a distance. To kill one person. This job was expecting the hit man to force entry to a house with five people inside , kill them all and arrange a frame. A massive departure from the norm. Many hit men would refuse to do this.
A hit man will want lots of notice and time to plan his hit. However Bamber would have only got short notice of Sheila's visit. Sheila was also only staying for a short period.
There are no advantages in Bamber hiring a hit man, and then not giving himself an alibi.
The evidence shows he did not hire a hit man.
-
Reasons why Bamber didn't hire a hit man:
It would be very expensive. It was killing five people.
He would not have the contacts to find one.
Hit men have some morals, either killing other criminals, or the top hit men killing political people. A request to kill innocent men, women and children so Bamber can inherit may be refused by a hit man.
A hit man would want a big up front payment.
A hit man may take an up front payment and then disappear.
Bamber would have to find the money to make an up front payment, discreetly.
Bamber would have arranged for an alibi to prove he was not at WHF all night.
Bamber would have arranged for the hit man to telephone him, which his alibi would also hear.
Hiring a hit man takes total control away from Bamber. He is now reliant on another person.
A hit man could keep demanding more money to keep quiet.
Everything a hit man would do, Bamber had access to do himself and was capable of doing himself.
A hit man may pull out if things got difficult mid massacre. Such as when Neville got out of bed. The hit man has already been part paid and would not be as motivated as Bamber.
A hit man may refuse point blank Bamber's offer. Bamber is now aware that someone else knows/knew about his plans, pre or post massacre.
A hit man who is restrained by Neville, June and Sheila will implement Bamber.
Bamber didn't inherit, so didn't pay the alleged hit man. However the hit man has not contacted the police anonymously, and implicated Bamber as revenge.
Bamber would have to engage with other people when investigating where to find a hit man. This could be reported to the police.
If Bamber had the courage to pay for a hit man to have his family killed, he would have the courage to do it himself.
Bamber was only three miles from WHF and could get there without being seen.
If not going to arrange an alibi to stay with him at his cottage, and get the hit man to phone him, he would have made sure he was miles away, with witnesses. Perhaps in London where he often spent time.
Bamber knew how to use the murder weapon, so did not need to hire an expert.
Bamber was fit and strong enough to carry out the massacre himself.
If Bamber did arrange for himself to be miles away, that would create suspision. It was harvest time which was the busiest time of the year.
A hit man may make mistakes in creating the post massacre frame.
A hit man may get restless if not quickly paid after the massacre. Bamber may become the target. If the hit man can kill five people, then he would not hesitate with Bamber.
A hit man could easily implicate Bamber without implicating himself. By simply writing to the police anonymously.
A delay in payment post massacre, will mean the hit man may decide to implicate Bamber.
A hit man would know that his post massacre payment was reliant on Bamber's inheritance. This could take months or years. Or may never happen. So the hit man may refuse or request 100% payment up front.
The hit man may be arrested for another crime in the future. He may decide to make a deal with the police for a lesser sentence, and admit to previous crimes.
Hit men usually just fire a bullet, from a distance. To kill one person. This job was expecting the hit man to force entry to a house with five people inside , kill them all and arrange a frame. A massive departure from the norm. Many hit men would refuse to do this.
A hit man will want lots of notice and time to plan his hit. However Bamber would have only got short notice of Sheila's visit. Sheila was also only staying for a short period.
There are no advantages in Bamber hiring a hit man, and then not giving himself an alibi.
The evidence shows he did not hire a hit man.
And a hit man would want to use his own efficient 'piece' rather than what he may have thought of as nothing more than a pea shooter.
-
And a hit man would want to use his own efficient 'piece' rather than what he may have thought of as nothing more than a pea shooter.
That is right. Bamber would need the hit man to use the farm rifle to support his frame. So may have to pay him more for the extra risk.
-
And a hit man would want to use his own efficient 'piece' rather than what he may have thought of as nothing more than a pea shooter.
Yes I hadn't thought of that before Jane. And no need to blame Sheila..
-
No Jeremy was a one man band. Sociable enough outside the confines of the Farm but a loner within.
This doesn't make him a murderer Steve. I love my friends and when we meet up for the day I'm in my element,but other than that I could be classed as a loner in some respects,preferring my own company than " joining social circles " with those my age-------I couldn't think of anything worse to be honest,I'd rather the company of my cats. My brother happens to be the same,but probably more so than myself. We're not particularly social or sociable people except to those who we know well.
-
Has anyone ever thought he paid someone to commit the massacre
Hi Lucy
IMO no professional hit man would kill in the manner the family were killed in and I don't think anyone would kill two wee boys for any amount of money IMO these murders were carried out by a deranged person with mental health issues :(
-
This doesn't make him a murderer Steve. I love my friends and when we meet up for the day I'm in my element,but other than that I could be classed as a loner in some respects,preferring my own company than " joining social circles " with those my age-------I couldn't think of anything worse to be honest,I'd rather the company of my cats. My brother happens to be the same,but probably more so than myself. We're not particularly social or sociable people except to those who we know well.
None of which equates with the personality type Jeremy presents ie a gregarious and wealthy young blade who enjoyed being seen and being the centre of attention.
-
If Nevill couldn't fight back he wouldn't have got downstairs and been brutally beaten.
Bamber was there to execute everyone. Not waste time beating up people who couldn't fight back.
Adam that is one of the reasons I don't think Jeremy murdered his family he would not waste time beating up people his aim would have been to kill them as quickly as possible then flee the scene before he was caught glad we agree Adam.
-
Hi Lucy
IMO no professional hit man would kill in the manner the family were killed in and I don't think anyone would kill two wee boys for any amount of money IMO these murders were carried out by a deranged person with mental health issues :(
Susan I totally agree with you, there is nothing that makes me think Sheila COULDN'T of done it
-
This is my thought Susan why not leave it to the morning it wouldn't of took long for someone to find
Hi Lucy
if Bamber made up the call from his Dad to create an alibi it did not work because IMO this is one of the main reasons why many thought he was guilty because he made up the call surely he would have known that would happen.
-
Hi Lucy
if Bamber made up the call from his Dad to create an alibi it did not work because IMO this is one of the main reasons why many thought he was guilty because he made up the call surely he would have known that would happen.
He had to weigh up the risks of no alibi with being in situ within minutes and feeding Police his well-rehearsed story.
-
Adam that is one of the reasons I don't think Jeremy murdered his family he would not waste time beating up people his aim would have been to kill them as quickly as possible then flee the scene before he was caught glad we agree Adam.
Do you think Sheila spent several minutes beating Nevill after he was passed out ?
How do you think the stolls, sugar bowl, crockery got knocked over, and the aga got scratched & lightshade smashed if there was no fight ?
The judge said "Nevill put up a tremendous fight for life".
-
Hi Lucy
if Bamber made up the call from his Dad to create an alibi it did not work because IMO this is one of the main reasons why many thought he was guilty because he made up the call surely he would have known that would happen.
If he didn't make the call, he would still be the number 1 suspect. And he couldn't spend all night insinuating Sheila beforehand.
-
Do you think Sheila spent several minutes beating Nevill after he was passed out ?
How do you think the stolls, sugar bowl, crockery got knocked over, and the aga got scratched & lightshade smashed if there was no fight ?
The judge said "Nevill put up a tremendous fight for life".
Did I say Nevill did not put up a fight I think he did hence why he fell against the table and broke the light shade why did Jeremy not have marks on him or Sheila infact because Nevill was near death with gun shot wounds when he was TRYING to fend off his attacker
-
If he didn't make the call, he would still be the number 1 suspect. And he couldn't spend all night insinuating Sheila beforehand.
Adam I do not agree with you lets leave it at that for now as I have to be elsewhere.
-
Susan I totally agree with you, there is nothing that makes me think Sheila COULDN'T of done it
You're getting carried away with you're conspiracy.
You're scenario where a fully fit Nevill loses a fight with Sheila. Then rang Bamber & let Sheila go upstairs with a rifle got no support.
The forensic evidence shows it wasn't Sheila.
-
He had to weigh up the risks of no alibi with being in situ within minutes and feeding Police his well-rehearsed story.
There was no time of death though, they could of been there from as early as 1030 pm though,
-
Adam I do not agree with you lets leave it at that for now as I have to be elsewhere.
Wouldn't Bamber be first at WHF the following day anyway ? So the first to find the bodies. Unless he stayed away that day.
OJ was in Chicago when Nicole Simpson was found dead in LA. But was doing the same thing Bamber was 3 miles away when the actual crime was committed - sleeping, alone.
-
You're getting carried away with you're conspiracy.
You're scenario where a fully fit Nevill loses a fight with Sheila. Then rang Bamber & let Sheila go upstairs with a rifle got no support.
The forensic evidence shows it wasn't Sheila.
He's nor fully.fit if half of his lower face has been blown off is he! The forensic evidence shows he was shot upstairs first so this figjt for life was after her been gravely injured he was NOT fully fit at all, you can't have it both ways
-
He's nor fully.fit if half of his lower face has been blown off is he! The forensic evidence shows he was shot upstairs first so this figjt for life was after her been gravely injured he was NOT fully fit at all, you can't have it both ways
You're scenario had a fully fit Nevill fighting Sheila. And losing.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8307.msg395245.html#msg395245
If you want to dismiss you're own scenario, there is nothing wrong with creating a new one.
David has spent 6 months creating his 5th.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8307.msg395245.html#msg395245
If you want to dismiss you're own scenario, there is nothing wrong with creating a new one.
David has spent 6 months creating his 5th.
Adam I'm not submitting a scenario, you are now saying Neville hadn't been shot prior to the kitchen fight?
-
Adam I'm not submitting a scenario, you are now saying Neville hadn't been shot prior to the kitchen fight?
You've already submitted one.
Saying Sheila injured Nevill in the kitchen but no shots were fired. Nevill then rings Bamber while Sheila goes upstairs with the rifle.
-
At the age of 61,Neville had done a full day harvesting,still working into the night after his supper. I would have doubted very much if he'd been up to struggling with anyone by the time he'd returned from taking the dogs out even later.
He might have been 6' 4,but he wasn't superman. Plus,as BW had remarked,he wasn't looking well.
-
You've already submitted one.
Saying Sheila injured Nevill in the kitchen but no shots were fired. Nevill then rings Bamber while Sheila goes upstairs with the rifle.
So was Neville shot upstairs first or not Adam? And yes I did say that
-
So was Neville shot upstairs first or not Adam? And yes I did say that
The shell casings show he was shot upstairs four times.
-
The shell casings show he was shot upstairs four times.
So by the time the fight for life occurred downstairs he was NOT fully fit
-
The shell casings show he was shot upstairs four times.
On what part of his body ?
-
So by the time the fight for life occurred downstairs he was NOT fully fit
Correct. But still put up "a tremendous fight for life" according to the judge. And crime scene evidence.
-
Correct. But still put up "a tremendous fight for life" according to the judge. And crime scene evidence.
A struggle had occurred agreed but the person who hadn't been blasted 4 times by a shotgun would of got the upper hand
-
Correct. But still put up "a tremendous fight for life" according to the judge. And crime scene evidence.
Show the trial transcript.
-
Show the trial transcript.
It's in Wilkes's book.
-
It's in Wilkes's book.
The transcript verbatim?
-
Neville after receiving 4 wounds wouldn't of been able to put up a fight, more like Sheila swinging wildly with a gun in the kitchen smashing things, Neville probably fell onto the table
-
Show the trial transcript.
Why don't you get Wilkes's or CAL's book. Justice ordered Wilkes's book for £0.01p last week.
It will give you a more rounded view of the case than creating you're own diagrams to back up you're own theories does.
TomG says from reading CAL's book he believes Bamber is innocent because Nevill's first two face shots from inches away didn't kill him.
-
Neville after receiving 4 wounds wouldn't of been able to put up a fight, more like Sheila swinging wildly with a gun in the kitchen smashing things, Neville probably fell onto the table
You have not read the 2002 appeal section on Nevill's injuries. Although I have posted it several times.
Or taken into account the crime scene of knocked over chairs & bowls, smashed crockery & ceiling lights & a scratched aga. Or that Nevill was able to get downstairs after two of his upstairs shots had only hit his body.
Of course Nevill put up a massive fight for life and would have overcome a recovering anorexic on Haloperidol.
-
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
-
Upstairs or downstairs ?
-
Essex mental health has come under fire for their lack of care to those patients who are suicidal.
-
Essex mental health has come under fire for their lack of care to those patients who are suicidal.
More correctly, it's only just found its way into the press. There have long been whispers. I believe, and see no reason to doubt, that a certain number of suicides are regarded as being within the parameters of acceptable.
-
More correctly, it's only just found its way into the press. There have long been whispers. I believe, and see no reason to doubt, that a certain number of suicides are regarded as being within the parameters of acceptable.
What ? At least 20 deaths ? It's unacceptable. Staff have probably ignored those who've spoken of suicide-----the same as Ferguson had done with Sheila when she told him she could murder her sons,etc etc.
-
I don't care what you or anyone else says,these people were let down,as usual. Incompetence reigns !!
-
More correctly, it's only just found its way into the press. There have long been whispers. I believe, and see no reason to doubt, that a certain number of suicides are regarded as being within the parameters of acceptable.
I would guess the usual reason is to blame Lookout. Underfunding, shortage of staff leading to those trying to do their best being overworked and stressed out.
-
What ? At least 20 deaths ? It's unacceptable. Staff have probably ignored those who've spoken of suicide-----the same as Ferguson had done with Sheila when she told him she could murder her sons,etc etc.
He couldn't safeguard against what hadn't occurred. Sheila didn't mention children or family during her 1985 stay. Sheila's confusion re her sons was in 1983. Ferguson couldn't have preempted a problem which no longer existed. He went with the immediacy.
-
He couldn't safeguard against what hadn't occurred. Sheila didn't mention children or family during her 1985 stay. Sheila's confusion re her sons was in 1983. Ferguson couldn't have preempted a problem which no longer existed. He went with the immediacy.
Until we see medical records of 1985,we don't know who Sheila had mentioned in those notes,but it was reported that her state of mental health had been more of a concern than had been at previous times. In CC's book the doctor had explained that the psychotic attacks would be more frequent. It would have appeared that staff had reached " the end of the line " regarding treatment.
-
Until we see medical records of 1985,we don't know who Sheila had mentioned in those notes,but it was reported that her state of mental health had been more of a concern than had been at previous times. In CC's book the doctor had explained that the psychotic attacks would be more frequent. It would have appeared that staff had reached " the end of the line " regarding treatment.
Wwe know who she didn't mention - she didn't mention the twins or the family because Ferguson.
-
Wwe know who she didn't mention - she didn't mention the twins or the family because Ferguson.
It's quite clear that JB hadn't previously known of Sheila's conversation about killing the twins or he'd have " used " that from the beginning ?
-
People had only heard of JB's alleged " threats ".
-
People had only heard of JB's alleged " threats ".
As, too, it would seem, are Sheila's. What she said to Ferguson, re her thoughts about them, was that she was afraid she might do them harm, which isn't quite the same as threatening to kill them.
-
As, too, it would seem, are Sheila's. What she said to Ferguson, re her thoughts about them, was that she was afraid she might do them harm, which isn't quite the same as threatening to kill them.
A sick mind is very different from normal thinking. Sheila,in her own mind was telling Ferguson what she might do to them by way of a cry for help--------which he hadn't understood.
-
A sick mind is very different from normal thinking. Sheila,in her own mind was telling Ferguson what she might do to them by way of a cry for help--------which he hadn't understood.
In 1983. NOT 1985.
-
In 1983. NOT 1985.
Very likely BOTH. We've yet to know. Her prognosis according to what Ferguson told CC wasn't so hot.
-
Very likely BOTH. We've yet to know. Her prognosis according to what Ferguson told CC wasn't so hot.
But he never said it was unmanageable.
-
TomG says from reading CAL's book he believes Bamber is innocent because Nevill's first two face shots from inches away didn't kill him.
This comment is completely unacceptable. I didn't say any such thing. I request that you delete the post. If you don't I request that the moderator do so.
Please make no further comments regarding my posts without using the quote function.
-
But he never said it was unmanageable.
He didn't mention manageable either---------just that the "episodes" would be more frequent.
-
He didn't mention manageable either---------just that the "episodes" would be more frequent.
Which, with the correct medication, doesn't mean unmanageable. I see you're attempting to put word in his mouth that he didn't say.
-
This comment is completely unacceptable. I didn't say any such thing. I request that you delete the post. If you don't I request that the moderator do so.
Please make no further comments regarding my posts without using the quote function.
Get off you're high horse, or rather donkey. You big drama queen.
And can you please provide you're Sheila scenario which I requested yesterday. I have already given you my Bamber scenario.
-
What we're discussing her is why JB decided to shoot Nevill in the mouth and jaw knowing that neither of them were kill shots, while using a weapon that was totally inappropriate and using only one magazine. JB couldn't afford to fire wasteful shots. I would be looking at something more like "here's one in the mouth for all the violence I had to suffer when I was a kid, and here's another for all the sexual abuse I had to put up with just to satisfy your perversions, you old b*****d, but according to CAL's book which is pretty thorough on family history, none of it exists. Nevill was a thoroughly decent guy, even Jeremy would have known that.
I think Nevill was shot deliberately in the mouth from very close range for a reason and that was simply that he got calls away.
-
This chosen rifle argument which TomG has mentioned was brought up by Roch recently. The argument was dismissed. I will find the thread post in a minute.
There is no evidence Bamber knew where the kill shots would be. He needed two shots to kill Sheila & 7 to kill June. Shooting Nevill in the lip & jaw from inches away is pretty gruesome & not exactly wasting a shot.
It's no secret Nevill's arm & shoulder shots were because Nevill was on the move.
Not sure why sexual perversions are being brought up by TomG.
-
For TomG
Roch yesterday said Bamber would not have chosen the murder weapon to commit the massacre.
This was because Bamber chose to fire a second shot into Sheila an inch higher than the first. Although the first shot may have eventually killed her.
No suggestion of what other available weapon Bamber should have used was forthcoming. Despite three requests. Which was disappointing.
There are several reasons why Bamber chose this weapon:
It was light.
A silencer could be fitted.
It could store 11 bullets.
Bamber could load it at supper to pretend to go to shoot rabbits.
Bamber could give the police his rabbit story.
Bamber testified he knew how to use the murder weapon.
There was a possibility of completing the massacre without having to reload.
If he did have to re load there were bullets available.
There were not many other rifles at WHF. It was a farm, not a military base.
------------------------
Do other people believe Bamber chose the correct weapon to committ the massacre ? If not, what available weapon should he have used ?
-
I'm not surprised there's no evidence that JB hadn't known where the shots where-------he wasn't there !!
-
I'm not surprised there's no evidence that JB hadn't known where the shots where-------he wasn't there !!
He was sleeping "like a log".
-
This chosen rifle argument which TomG has mentioned was brought up by Roch recently. The argument was dismissed. I will find the thread post in a minute.
There is no evidence Bamber knew where the kill shots would be. He needed two shots to kill Sheila & 7 to kill June. Shooting Nevill in the lip & jaw from inches away is pretty gruesome & not exactly wasting a shot.
It's no secret Nevill's arm & shoulder shots were because Nevill was on the move.
Not sure why sexual perversions are being brought up by TomG.
Adam, in your opinion how did JB shoot Sheila? I mean, how did he manage to get close enough to her to make it possible for him to shoot her in the throat at very close range. There is no evidence of her struggling at all, don't you find that a bit curious? Look forward to reading your scenario. 8)
-
It's quite clear that JB hadn't previously known of Sheila's conversation about killing the twins or he'd have " used " that from the beginning ?
He did use it from the beginning - he set her up for it.
-
He did use it from the beginning - he set her up for it.
I thought he just said she was a " nutter ",because he wouldn't have known about anything else until he'd been imprisoned and applying for documents.
It was JB who'd been set-up.
-
I thought he just said she was a " nutter ",because he wouldn't have known about anything else until he'd been imprisoned and applying for documents.
It was JB who'd been set-up.
and that she thought she was Joan of Arc etc.
-
I would guess the usual reason is to blame Lookout. Underfunding, shortage of staff leading to those trying to do their best being overworked and stressed out.
Absolutely
-
I thought he just said she was a " nutter ",because he wouldn't have known about anything else until he'd been imprisoned and applying for documents.
It was JB who'd been set-up.
Not according to the rubbish he told Colin. It seems he was leading the game with stories of the things the Bambers said about him and their alleged plans to remove the children from him.
-
and that she thought she was Joan of Arc etc.
But he knew nothing of her " wanting to kill her children " !
-
But he knew nothing of her " wanting to kill her children " !
She didn't 'want' to kill her children and we don't k ow Jeremy didn't know about all she said when she was ill 2 YEARS previously.
-
Get off you're high horse, or rather donkey. You big drama queen.
And can you please provide you're Sheila scenario which I requested yesterday. I have already given you my Bamber scenario.
I've not got the time to dedicate my life to this forum like you seem to have done judging by the number of posts you've made. I also don't have the idle time on my hands to respond pronto, pronto to your petty demands for a Sheila scenario, since I've got more important things to do; however I will review CAL's book on Amazon in due course. I don't want to get into any arguments about this or further posting on the matter, all I want you to do is take responsibility, amend your original post (if you have not already done so in the interim), since it contains a gross distortion of what I said, if not absolute lies. I will remove my relevant posts in response, and we'll all live happily ever after.
-
But he knew nothing of her " wanting to kill her children " !
You can go on insisting that she phrased it that way, but I've yet to read it said, by those who had contact with her, that those were the words she said.
-
You can go on insisting that she phrased it that way, but I've yet to read it said, by those who had contact with her, that those were the words she said.
Yes but Jane it isn't the way she said it is it it's why she was thinking about it that was the problem. You and Caroline insist that she hadn't said anything about those kind of feelings since her previous hospital visit but we can't be sure can we and it was said she was worse. I would like to see All her medical records.
-
Yes but Jane it isn't the way she said it is it it's why she was thinking about it that was the problem. You and Caroline insist that she hadn't said anything about those kind of feelings since her previous hospital visit but we can't be sure can we and it was said she was worse. I would like to see All her medical records.
She had the thoughts because she had schizophrenia but since taking medication for this illness, she didn't express such thoughts again. She was worse - that is 'more agitated' because she hadn't been taking her medication - hence the injections. But we can be sure that she didn't express thoughts about killing her children. parents because her psychiatrist said he didn't.
-
Adam
I posted what I would describe as the epicentre of the crime in a few short paragraphs hoping for some decent debate on the subject. I mostly got baloney in return, to which you made a considerable contribution. I'd be a hell of a lot more forthcoming with a more complete Sheila scenario if I receieved some sensible responses yesterday, but I had to content myself with the pre-laid plan that Jeremy had cunningly thought out had something to do with Les Dawson's wonky piano playing, I know not why. So If you really would like a Sheila scenario, I'd like a bit more in the way of serious debate from the likes of yourself before I make further effort. Finally, I'd be very much obliged if you amended your post like I requested like the gentleman you are so that I can remove my responses, (if you haven't done so already).
-
Yes but Jane it isn't the way she said it is it it's why she was thinking about it that was the problem. You and Caroline insist that she hadn't said anything about those kind of feelings since her previous hospital visit but we can't be sure can we and it was said she was worse. I would like to see All her medical records.
Then we must look at WHY she was worse. We'll find the answer lays in that she didn't take her medication. THIS was why she had a second breakdown. THIS time, they took no chances. She received her meds intravenously. With reference to her feelings. Dr Ferguson -unless you're suggesting he lied deliberately- could only go by what she told him ie he dealt with the immediacy.
-
Adam wasn't impressed with my Sheila scenario. Sheila retains control of the rifle. Once both of the other adults have received non-fatal gunshot wounds, they quichkly lose any advantage that they might have had either individually or collectively. Sheila has an element of suprise on her side in the conflict: despite any animosity or tenseness during the previous evening, it was clearly not envisaged that she would get hold of one or more of the guns.
-
She had the thoughts because she had schizophrenia but since taking medication for this illness, she didn't express such thoughts again. She was worse - that is 'more agitated' because she hadn't been taking her medication - hence the injections. But we can be sure that she didn't express thoughts about killing her children. parents because her psychiatrist said he didn't.
Show evidence.
-
During Sheila's first hospital admittance,Ferguson had said that her medication would" show some improvement, but there would be relapses which would be more frequent and more intense as time went on "------as stated in CC's book after he'd had a conversation with the psychiatrist.
Meaning,that another 2 years on,her condition gradually worsened and was so on her last admission.
-
Then we must look at WHY she was worse. We'll find the answer lays in that she didn't take her medication. THIS was why she had a second breakdown. THIS time, they took no chances. She received her meds intravenously. With reference to her feelings. Dr Ferguson -unless you're suggesting he lied deliberately- could only go by what she told him ie he dealt with the immediacy.
But he told them to give her 150mg and she only got 100. ( I think that's right) this woman was seriously ill and I cannot see your reasoning that she wasnt capable of doing it.
He probably didn't lie but I don't think we have seen all her medical records which would show us where she was at.
-
Adam wasn't impressed with my Sheila scenario. Sheila retains control of the rifle. Once both of the other adults have received non-fatal gunshot wounds, they quichkly lose any advantage that they might have had either individually or collectively. Sheila has an element of suprise on her side in the conflict: despite any animosity or tenseness during the previous evening, it was clearly not envisaged that she would get hold of one or more of the guns.
Well you're last scenario was "Sheila shot them but I can't explain the phone calls". Which didn't impress me.
-
Adam wasn't impressed with my Sheila scenario. Sheila retains control of the rifle. Once both of the other adults have received non-fatal gunshot wounds, they quichkly lose any advantage that they might have had either individually or collectively. Sheila has an element of suprise on her side in the conflict: despite any animosity or tenseness during the previous evening, it was clearly not envisaged that she would get hold of one or more of the guns.
I really don't see what's so alarming about that? There was another gun upstairs where it wouldn't of been left, maybe Sheila was running amok with that one to and couldn't load it? Once shot whoever had the gun had the advantage be it a schizophrenic weighing 8 stone or a 20 stone man.
-
Adam wasn't impressed with my Sheila scenario. Sheila retains control of the rifle. Once both of the other adults have received non-fatal gunshot wounds, they quichkly lose any advantage that they might have had either individually or collectively. Sheila has an element of suprise on her side in the conflict: despite any animosity or tenseness during the previous evening, it was clearly not envisaged that she would get hold of one or more of the guns.
Regarding the gun roch, I just don't see why jb would have even mentioned the gun if he had done it. I mean he could have just said his dad had called and said she got hold of one of the guns as per, he didn't need to mention that he'd left one out. Doesn't make sense to me. It was a farm with plenty of guns around. If he planned it surely he would have asked himself ' what will the think if I say I was outside shooting rabbits and left the loaded gun in the kitchen'
-
Adam
I posted what I would describe as the epicentre of the crime in a few short paragraphs hoping for some decent debate on the subject. I mostly got baloney in return, to which you made a considerable contribution. I'd be a hell of a lot more forthcoming with a more complete Sheila scenario if I receieved some sensible responses yesterday, but I had to content myself with the pre-laid plan that Jeremy had cunningly thought out had something to do with Les Dawson's wonky piano playing, I know not why. So If you really would like a Sheila scenario, I'd like a bit more in the way of serious debate from the likes of yourself before I make further effort. Finally, I'd be very much obliged if you amended your post like I requested like the gentleman you are so that I can remove my responses, (if you haven't done so already).
Don't mind us Tom: one of my bugbears is the implication that someone's time is more valuable than another's. A possible Sheila scenario is crucial to the case so how about reading the book fully, dipping into the library and archives here and constructing a manuscript worthy of critical appraisal.
-
Regarding the gun roch, I just don't see why jb would have even mentioned the gun if he had done it. I mean he could have just said his dad had called and said she got hold of one of the guns as per, he didn't need to mention that he'd left one out. Doesn't make sense to me. It was a farm with plenty of guns around. If he planned it surely he would have asked himself ' what will the think if I say I was outside shooting rabbits and left the loaded gun in the kitchen'
Because he was trying to simplify the scenario in the minds of his auditors, knowing full well that his sister was physically and mentally incapable of loading and firing a gun.
-
But he told them to give her 150mg and she only got 100. ( I think that's right) this woman was seriously ill and I cannot see your reasoning that she wasnt capable of doing it.
He probably didn't lie but I don't think we have seen all her medical records which would show us where she was at.
All the way through, from conversations with Colin to court testimony, he never believed Sheila was capable of violence. Incidentally, neither did Colin.
-
Show evidence.
You've read Ferguson's statements - if not, they're in the archives.
-
Because he was trying to simplify the scenario in the minds of his auditors, knowing full well that his sister was physically and mentally incapable of loading and firing a gun.
Steve I think you underestimated the strength of Sheila. Because her mind was sick was no indicator that her physical strength was interrupted in any way as she was more than capable of doing all of the things which people say were impossible.
-
Steve I think you underestimated the strength of Sheila. Because her mind was sick was no indicator that her physical strength was interrupted in any way as she was more than capable of doing all of the things which people say were impossible.
Sheila couldn't get off sofa's without help. Source aleady supplied.
-
Sheila couldn't get off sofa's without help. Source aleady supplied.
One of AE's little gems.What would she know ? Sheila came to life at night------did AE see her then ?
-
One of AE's little gems.What would she know ? Sheila came to life at night------did AE see her then ?
It was not AE but Sheila's best friend.
-
Sheila couldn't get off sofa's without help. Source aleady supplied.
Sheila walked down to see Jeremy in the fields the afternoon before the murders so she wasn't completely incapacitated. Think any difficulties she may have had have been highly exaggerated.
We don't know if she had any problems with her movements at that time. Personally I doubt it.
Haloperidol CAN cause muscle twitches, stiffness and facial gurning but this usually occurs in older people who have taken it for a long time ie. years. There is a possibility that there may be some muscle twitching in short term, low level doses but it's much more unusual.
I know there have been a few references by friends and AE to her having difficulties but these were mainly in the past when she was taking Stelazine rather than Haloperidol. She had been prescribed meds which would help with such problems but we know from her autopsy that she had only been taking Haloperidol which makes me think she was free of symptoms at that time.
I wouldn't think for a minute that someone like Sheila who minded so much about her appearance would not bother to take tablets which could stop these very unattractive side effects if they were happening..
-
Sheila walked down to see Jeremy in the fields the afternoon before the murders so she wasn't completely incapacitated. Think any difficulties she may have had have been highly exaggerated.
We don't know if she had any problems with her movements at that time. Personally I doubt it.
Haloperidol CAN cause muscle twitches, stiffness and facial gurning but this usually occurs in older people who have taken it for a long time. There is a possibility that there may be some muscle twitching in low level doses but it's much more unusual.
I know there have been a few references by friends and AE to her having difficulties but these were mainly in the past when she was taking Stelazine rather than Haloperidol. She had been prescribed meds which would help with such problems but we know from her autopsy that she had only been taking Haloperidol which makes me think she was free of symptoms at that time.
I wouldn't think for a minute that someone like Sheila who minded so much about her appearance would not bother to take tablets which could stop these very unattractive side effects if they were happening..
Hi Maggie
I agree Sheila was not as Adam has described her she did walk to the fields in the afternoon I think to show the twins Uncle Jeremy's tractor.
-
Sheila walked down to see Jeremy in the fields the afternoon before the murders so she wasn't completely incapacitated. Think any difficulties she may have had have been highly exaggerated.
We don't know if she had any problems with her movements at that time. Personally I doubt it.
Haloperidol CAN cause muscle twitches, stiffness and facial gurning but this usually occurs in older people who have taken it for a long time. There is a possibility that there may be some muscle twitching in low level doses but it's much more unusual.
I know there have been a few references by friends and AE to her having difficulties but these were mainly in the past when she was taking Stelazine rather than Haloperidol. She had been prescribed meds which would help with such problems but we know from her autopsy that she had only been taking Haloperidol which makes me think she was free of symptoms at that time.
I wouldn't think for a minute that someone like Sheila who minded so much about her appearance would not bother to take tablets which could stop these very unattractive side effects if they were happening..
Sheila's best friend said Sheila needed help getting off sofa's a week before the massacre.
The evidence from Bamber & PB on the massacre night was Sheila was sufferring from severe drowiness which is a common effect of Haloperidol.
-
Sheila walked down to see Jeremy in the fields the afternoon before the murders so she wasn't completely incapacitated. Think any difficulties she may have had have been highly exaggerated.
We don't know if she had any problems with her movements at that time. Personally I doubt it.
Haloperidol CAN cause muscle twitches, stiffness and facial gurning but this usually occurs in older people who have taken it for a long time ie. years. There is a possibility that there may be some muscle twitching in short term, low level doses but it's much more unusual.
I know there have been a few references by friends and AE to her having difficulties but these were mainly in the past when she was taking Stelazine rather than Haloperidol. She had been prescribed meds which would help with such problems but we know from her autopsy that she had only been taking Haloperidol which makes me think she was free of symptoms at that time.
I wouldn't think for a minute that someone like Sheila who minded so much about her appearance would not bother to take tablets which could stop these very unattractive side effects if they were happening..
There's a plethora of evidence from Barbara Wilson noticing Sheila waded through a gaggle of geese to house painter Michael Horsnell and Tiptree shopkeeper Barry Parker through to Pamela Boutflour herself that last night to note that Sheila was either acting strangely or physically incapacitated in some way.
-
Sheila's best friend said Sheila needed help getting off sofa's a week before the massacre.
The evidence from Bamber & PB on the massacre night was Sheila was sufferring from severe drowiness which is a common effect of Haloperidol.
I know it was her best friend who reported she had difficulty getting up off the sofa the week before but to be honest we don't know why that was. I needed help getting up off the sofa a few weeks ago but I'm OK now, thanks for asking.
I don't remember PB saying she had severe drowsiness, June told Pamela she wanted to talk to her about Sheila the next day and think it was said that she was disconnected and not interested in anything, JB said she was very quiet and not joining in with the conversation at the table when day fostering was being discussed but as many don't believe the scene he speaks of ever happened that is irrelevant. No point saying JB invented the conversation then quote him to prove a point.
I am well aware that Haloperidol can cause severe drowsiness but it's an assumption to my mind that was what was wrong with Sheila. Others who saw her that week commented Sheila appeared the same as she always had been, so any disconnect may have only occurred the day or a few days before before the massacre.
I am just saying that sometimes assumptions are made that are more about proving a point than sticking to facts. 8) 8)
-
There's a plethora of evidence from Barbara Wilson noticing Sheila waded through a gaggle of geese to house painter Michael Horsnell and Tiptree shopkeeper Barry Parker through to Pamela Boutflour herself that last night to note that Sheila was either acting strangely or physically incapacitated in some way.
I didn't say Sheila wasn't acting strangely but we don't know why that was or what the cause was imo.
We don't know how Sheila was physically the week of the murders, as far as \I can remember walking through the geese and putting beans on toast were not that week. Even if haloperidol had made her muscles stiff her dose had been dropped a lot and therefore her symptoms may have already subsided. I am not saying it was definitely the case but rather suggesting that we just don't know what Sheila's physical condition was like the day f the murders and we shouldn't make assumptions. :-\
-
I didn't say Sheila wasn't acting strangely but we don't know why that was or what the cause was imo.
We don't know how Sheila was physically the week of the murders, as far as \I can remember walking through the geese and putting beans on toast were not that week. Even if haloperidol had made her muscles stiff her dose had been dropped a lot and therefore her symptoms may have already subsided. I am not saying it was definitely the case but rather suggesting that we just don't know what Sheila's physical condition was like the day f the murders and we shouldn't make assumptions. :-\
Sorry but this is well-documented, and I'm afraid the customary excuse that everybody is lying except Jeremy just won't wash:
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned in at the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs. Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house." June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."
How can you possibly square this with the frenzied activity running up and downstairs and reloading a gun twice only a few hours later?
-
Sorry but this is well-documented, and I'm afraid the customary excuse that everybody is lying except Jeremy just won't wash:
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned in at the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs. Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house." June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."
How can you possibly square this with the frenzied activity running up and downstairs and reloading a gun twice only a few hours later?
Its a long time since I thought or said 'everybody is lying except Jeremy'? It's clear enough that was Michael Horsnell's opinion, who is he by the way? I was not as convinced or enthused by CALs book as some in fact it was just the same old stuff rolled out again. I gave up halfway through.
She went shopping with June in the afternoon, there is a statement from the shopkeeper but no mention ShEila having a strange gait.
I just believe in keeping an open mind and I'm not convinced Sheila was as disabled by Haloperidol at that time as some claim.
-
Michael Horsnell was a builder and painter who did odd jobs for the Bambers. He was the first to discover the break-in at the Osea Road office.
-
Michael Horsnell was a builder and painter who did odd jobs for the Bambers. He was the first to discover the break-in at the Osea Road office.
Cheers for that.
-
Sorry but this is well-documented, and I'm afraid the customary excuse that everybody is lying except Jeremy just won't wash:
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned in at the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs. Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house." June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."
How can you possibly square this with the frenzied activity running up and downstairs and reloading a gun twice only a few hours later?
Is this from CAL's book as well ?
Surely people can't still believe Sheila was capable of committing the massacre.
There is a mountain of evidence that she couldn't. This extract relates to the massacre day together with Bamber's & PB's WS's. Sheila's best friends ststement relates to only a week earlier.
Sheila did not committ the massacre but the Haloperidol made her easy to control.
-
Sorry but this is well-documented, and I'm afraid the customary excuse that everybody is lying except Jeremy just won't wash:
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned in at the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs. Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house." June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."
How can you possibly square this with the frenzied activity running up and downstairs and reloading a gun twice only a few hours later?
With the part of the chapter you have deliberately missed out.
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Len Foakes saw Sheila and one of the boys walking along Pages Lane with Crispy at half-past twelve: ‘I slowed down the van that I was driving. The window was down and Sheila said to me, “Hello Len” and smiled. She seemed very happy then.’3 Throughout the day, there would be conflicting accounts of Sheila’s mood and general appearance. At some points she seemed fine, yet others recall odd behaviour.
-
With the part of the chapter you have deliberately missed out.
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Len Foakes saw Sheila and one of the boys walking along Pages Lane with Crispy at half-past twelve: ‘I slowed down the van that I was driving. The window was down and Sheila said to me, “Hello Len” and smiled. She seemed very happy then.’3 Throughout the day, there would be conflicting accounts of Sheila’s mood and general appearance. At some points she seemed fine, yet others recall odd behaviour.
Thanks for that David. I think Len Foakes knew Sheila well as they were close neighbours and he worked for Nevill. However to be fair we should take both or all comments about Sheila with a pinch of salt as people do quite often and embroider their memories not realising they are influenced by events. Makes you think tho'.
-
With the part of the chapter you have deliberately missed out.
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Len Foakes saw Sheila and one of the boys walking along Pages Lane with Crispy at half-past twelve: ‘I slowed down the van that I was driving. The window was down and Sheila said to me, “Hello Len” and smiled. She seemed very happy then.’3 Throughout the day, there would be conflicting accounts of Sheila’s mood and general appearance. At some points she seemed fine, yet others recall odd behaviour.
It's not particularly relevant. You have a young woman with severe motor difficulties only hours before the massacre and none of you will accept this but try to focus on a smile she gave to Len Foakes.
-
Don't mind us Tom: one of my bugbears is the implication that someone's time is more valuable than another's. A possible Sheila scenario is crucial to the case so how about reading the book fully, dipping into the library and archives here and constructing a manuscript worthy of critical appraisal.
One of my bugbears is posters answering comments that are clearly intended for others; however since that is the done thing here I might as well do the same. I have read CAL's book fully, I am now reading it a second time, taking notes and will post a review of the book on Amazon, in my own time that is.
If I do construct a manuscript of the crime what makes you think I'd be doing myself any justice in submitting it for your consideration?
-
One of my bugbears is posters answering comments that are clearly intended for others; however since that is the done thing here I might as well do the same. I have read CAL's book fully, I am now reading it a second time, taking notes and will post a review of the book on Amazon, in my own time that is.
If I do construct a manuscript of the crime what makes you think I'd be doing myself any justice in submitting it for your consideration?
This is a public forum, Tom. Feel free to contribute as and when. Whether or not you "construct a manuscript" and submit it, is entirely your choice. It probably won't matter to us, one way or the other but it might be a waste of your, obviously precious and valuable time, if you put all that work into something you're likely to feel proud of, and don't present it for comment. Just a thought.
-
I really don't see what's so alarming about that? There was another gun upstairs where it wouldn't of been left, maybe Sheila was running amok with that one to and couldn't load it? Once shot whoever had the gun had the advantage be it a schizophrenic weighing 8 stone or a 20 stone man.
Yes, exactly.
Regarding the gun roch, I just don't see why jb would have even mentioned the gun if he had done it. I mean he could have just said his dad had called and said she got hold of one of the guns as per, he didn't need to mention that he'd left one out. Doesn't make sense to me. It was a farm with plenty of guns around. If he planned it surely he would have asked himself ' what will the think if I say I was outside shooting rabbits and left the loaded gun in the kitchen'
Well he is supposed to have done this to 'set the scene' - as if to say he inadvertently provided Sheila with the opportunity to go on the killing spree. He then apparently didn't express remorse about his 'unforeseen error' (although I recently read a transcript on here where he does - perhaps he then didn't go on to repeat any similar sentiments afterwards).
I suppose you could look at it both ways. The way you have expressed above and the way some people think it was scene-setting.
I tried to find a middle way - which was that he had foresight of her intentions... and aided her by finding an excuse to leave out a loaded weapon for her.
-
Yes, exactly.
Well he is supposed to have done this to 'set the scene' - as if to say he inadvertently provided Sheila with the opportunity to go on the killing spree. He then apparently didn't express remorse about his 'unforeseen error' (although I recently read a transcript on here where he does - perhaps he then didn't go on to repeat any similar sentiments afterwards).
I suppose you could look at it both ways. The way you have expressed above and the way some people think it was scene-setting.
I tried to find a middle way - which was that he had foresight of her intentions... and aided her by finding an excuse to leave out a loaded weapon for her.
And Julie gets slaughtered for not revealing Jeremy's intentions!!!! I wonder which is worse? A girlfriend failing to reveal her boyfriends is harbouring thoughts of killing his parents, sister and nephews, OR a brother not revealing that his sister is planning to kill her parents, her twin sons, commit suicide, AND he's left her the means to do it!!!!!
-
One of my bugbears is posters answering comments that are clearly intended for others; however since that is the done thing here I might as well do the same. I have read CAL's book fully, I am now reading it a second time, taking notes and will post a review of the book on Amazon, in my own time that is.
If I do construct a manuscript of the crime what makes you think I'd be doing myself any justice in submitting it for your consideration?
Sorry for answering your post - but I felt Bill Robertson's review of the book was worth a read. It was pretty scathing though.
-
Yes, exactly.
Well he is supposed to have done this to 'set the scene' - as if to say he inadvertently provided Sheila with the opportunity to go on the killing spree. He then apparently didn't express remorse about his 'unforeseen error' (although I recently read a transcript on here where he does - perhaps he then didn't go on to repeat any similar sentiments afterwards).
I suppose you could look at it both ways. The way you have expressed above and the way some people think it was scene-setting.
I tried to find a middle way - which was that he had foresight of her intentions... and aided her by finding an excuse to leave out a loaded weapon for her.
[/quote
Hi Roch
why would Jeremy suspect Sheila was going to murder her entire family leaving the rifle out was IMO nothing to do with the murders as I am sure Jeremy would know his Dad would remove it to a safe place especially with the two wee boys in the house.
-
Sorry for answering your post - but I felt Bill Robertson's review of the book was worth a read. It was pretty scathing though.
Do you have it to hand Roch?
-
Sorry but this is well-documented, and I'm afraid the customary excuse that everybody is lying except Jeremy just won't wash:
Chapter 19 Tuesday 6 August 1985
Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned in at the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs. Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house." June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."
How can you possibly square this with the frenzied activity running up and downstairs and reloading a gun twice only a few hours later?
This is very influential.
David fought back saying Sheila looked happy when she saw Len Foakes. But all the evidence shows Sheila couldn't mentally or physically function in the hours and days leading up to the massacre.
This is not surprising as she was on Haloperidol.
-
This is very influential.
David fought back saying Sheila looked happy when she saw Len Foakes. But all the evidence shows Sheila couldn't mentally or physically function in the hours and days leading up to the massacre.
This is not surprising as she was on Haloperidol.
Of course Adam. It's no wonder some members have since taken the huff..
-
Hi Maggie
I agree Sheila was not as Adam has described her she did walk to the fields in the afternoon I think to show the twins Uncle Jeremy's tractor.
Susan that is such a sad post
-
Its a long time since I thought or said 'everybody is lying except Jeremy'? It's clear enough that was Michael Horsnell's opinion, who is he by the way? I was not as convinced or enthused by CALs book as some in fact it was just the same old stuff rolled out again. I gave up halfway through.
She went shopping with June in the afternoon, there is a statement from the shopkeeper but no mention ShEila having a strange gait.
I just believe in keeping an open mind and I'm not convinced Sheila was as disabled by Haloperidol at that time as some claim.
Thank you for those posts Maggie
-
Michael Horsnell was a builder and painter who did odd jobs for the Bambers. He was the first to discover the break-in at the Osea Road office.
So???
-
Is this from CAL's book as well ?
Surely people can't still believe Sheila was capable of committing the massacre.
There is a mountain of evidence that she couldn't. This extract relates to the massacre day together with Bamber's & PB's WS's. Sheila's best friends ststement relates to only a week earlier.
Sheila did not committ the massacre but the Haloperidol made her easy to control.
Absolutely 100%
-
It's not particularly relevant. You have a young woman with severe motor difficulties only hours before the massacre and none of you will accept this but try to focus on a smile she gave to Len Foakes.
Can you guide me to any reliable source that says Len Foakes who knew Sheila very says she was walking like a zombie
Another point Len Foakes who lived locally was probably someone that could have identify the bodies
-
Can you guide me to any reliable source that says Len Foakes who knew Sheila very says she was walking like a zombie
Another point Len Foakes who lived locally was probably someone that could have identify the bodies
He'd have had to have known them REALLY well to know that one had a small scar the other didn't. Even better to know which. Odd that a farmhand, who would have only had the same opportunity to see them as the family, would know what family didn't, don't you think?
-
So???
Follow the grain of the thread Jackie and you won't need to post #840 either.
-
This is a public forum, Tom. Feel free to contribute as and when. Whether or not you "construct a manuscript" and submit it, is entirely your choice. It probably won't matter to us, one way or the other but it might be a waste of your, obviously precious and valuable time, if you put all that work into something you're likely to feel proud of, and don't present it for comment. Just a thought.
Jane I'm utterly perplexed by your comment. My time is no more precious than any other working man. The thing that astonishes me is the total number of posts made by others that run into thousands and in some cases tens of thousands. Thats not a indictment of my "precious and valuable time", it's the profligacy of other peoples time on this forum that astonishes me. Of course it's up to the individual how they spend their time; however I can't help but notice the inordinate amount of time spent on this forum by the pro-guilt community who have nothing to gain by further discussion, since JB is banged up good and proper in their opinion.
I think it's only right that I should have a "Sheila scenario", but since I have only recently been able to pay more attention to it, that commitment will take more time, apologies to Adam and Steve UK. Both have been insisting that I post a Sheila scenario, yet you say in your post that it "probably won't matter to us". So hey-ho what do I do? I'll post a review of CAL's book on Amazon for you all to slaughter at will. It won't be a total Sheila scenario but it's as far as I can go at the moment. No more posting for the time being.
And please Adam, no more making gross misrepresentations of my posts in the meantime, it tends to get me a bit upset, you may have noticed.
-
Jane I'm utterly perplexed by your comment. My time is no more precious than any other working man. The thing that astonishes me is the total number of posts made by others that run into thousands and in some cases tens of thousands. Thats not a indictment of my "precious and valuable time", it's the profligacy of other peoples time on this forum that astonishes me. Of course it's up to the individual how they spend their time; however I can't help but notice the inordinate amount of time spent on this forum by the pro-guilt community who have nothing to gain by further discussion, since JB is banged up good and proper in their opinion.
I think it's only right that I should have a "Sheila scenario", but since I have only recently been able to pay more attention to it, that commitment will take more time, apologies to Adam and Steve UK. Both have been insisting that I post a Sheila scenario, yet you say in your post that it "probably won't matter to us". So hey-ho what do I do? I'll post a review of CAL's book on Amazon for you all to slaughter at will. It won't be a total Sheila scenario but it's as far as I can go at the moment. No more posting for the time being.
And please Adam, no more making gross misrepresentations of my posts in the meantime, it tends to get me a bit upset, you may have noticed.
Well I did quote the post you wrote. After you complained.
From what I've read you're main points for doubting Bamber's guilt is no one knows where Nevill was when June was being shot, and Nevill's first two shots from inches away hit his jaw and lip. But feel free to correct me.
A scenario from a guilter or supporter will make no difference to the case. Just as all the other posts won't. However everyone should supply one if they feel strongly one way or the other. It's surprising how many supporters still don't budge after their scenario is dismantled.
-
Jane I'm utterly perplexed by your comment. My time is no more precious than any other working man. The thing that astonishes me is the total number of posts made by others that run into thousands and in some cases tens of thousands. Thats not a indictment of my "precious and valuable time", it's the profligacy of other peoples time on this forum that astonishes me. Of course it's up to the individual how they spend their time; however I can't help but notice the inordinate amount of time spent on this forum by the pro-guilt community who have nothing to gain by further discussion, since JB is banged up good and proper in their opinion.
I think it's only right that I should have a "Sheila scenario", but since I have only recently been able to pay more attention to it, that commitment will take more time, apologies to Adam and Steve UK. Both have been insisting that I post a Sheila scenario, yet you say in your post that it "probably won't matter to us". So hey-ho what do I do? I'll post a review of CAL's book on Amazon for you all to slaughter at will. It won't be a total Sheila scenario but it's as far as I can go at the moment. No more posting for the time being.
And please Adam, no more making gross misrepresentations of my posts in the meantime, it tends to get me a bit upset, you may have noticed.
After four and a half years on this site I'd have thought you'd have had ample time to provide a Sheila scenario. We are actually all friends here, which might sound incredible to you. However much or little time members spend here is really none of your business, neither is the rationale, but at least you've stopped your hoots (albeit I suspect only temporarily), so all has not been in vain.
-
He'd have had to have known them REALLY well to know that one had a small scar the other didn't. Even better to know which. Odd that a farmhand, who would have only had the same opportunity to see them as the family, would know what family didn't, don't you think?
Absolutely not
How many times did Julie meet the twins then
-
Follow the grain of the thread Jackie and you won't need to post #840 either.
Your post was irrelevant and as per usual everything comes from a book
-
Your post was irrelevant and as per usual everything comes from a book
I'll let members judge the first. As for the second books can be useful to fill gaps in the archive and library here.
-
Absolutely not
How many times did Julie meet the twins then
I imagine Julie to have had quality time with them. Interesting that the last time Colin and the boys were together, Julie read a bedtime story to ONE twin. I think, as she'd had a one on one relationship with A twin, it makes her eminently capable of identifying them both.
-
Your post was irrelevant and as per usual everything comes from a book
Let me say now, having crossed swords with Steve on several occasions, his posts are NEVER irrelevant. Controversial, maybe. NEVER irrelevant.
-
Do you have it to hand Roch?
It's entitled "utter garbage"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0283072210/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent&filterByStar=one_star&pageNumber=1
There's a review by Malcolm Fletcher in there somewhere. I think it's just a few words though. There are many good reviews as well. I didn't finish the book but I thought it was well written and the early part regarding the farmhouse history was eerie.
-
I imagine Julie to have had quality time with them. Interesting that the last time Colin and the boys were together, Julie read a bedtime story to ONE twin. I think, as she'd had a one on one relationship with A twin, it makes her eminently capable of identifying them both.
As I have pointed out on numerous times before there would have an endless stream of people who knew the twins far better than Julie. You cannot have forgotten the foster parents the twins stayed with
Yet you still continue to make excuses for Julie putting her hand up to identify the bodies when apparently Jeremy told Julie he was responsible for the twins murder
I have just added Len to the list
-
Let me say now, having crossed swords with Steve on several occasions, his posts are NEVER irrelevant. Controversial, maybe. NEVER irrelevant.
Well absolutely irrelevant to me.
All he does is quote from books which I have no interest in and probably feel the same as Maggie
I have filled in the gaps by actually talking to Jeremy himself and talking one to one with other people related to the case
I have found this a much more reliable source to fill in the gaps rather than read a book from someone out to make money
-
Well absolutely irrelevant to me.
All he does is quote from books which I have no interest in and probably feel the same as Maggie
I have filled in the gaps by actually talking to Jeremy himself and talking one to one with other people related to the case
I have found this a much more reliable source to fill in the gaps rather than read a book from someone out to make money
Yet you seem to be rejecting Essex man Michael Horsnell's eyewitness account so once again I'll let members make up their own minds.
-
Yet you seem to be rejecting Essex man Michael Horsnell's eyewitness account so once again I'll let members make up their own minds.
Obviously you are aware there are several different accounts of Sheila's demeanor
A bit of advice Steve don't believe everything you read
I meant to ask, how did you get on with Paul Harrison's book?
-
Yet you seem to be rejecting Essex man Michael Horsnell's eyewitness account so once again I'll let members make up their own minds.
JackieD prefers to quote from a book called 'An innocent man' & from apparently speaking to Bamber herself. Rather than accept unbiased books.
-
Obviously you are aware there are several different accounts of Sheila's demeanor
A bit of advice Steve don't believe everything you read
I meant to ask, how did you get on with Paul Harrison's book?
I wasn't very impressed really. But I do believe Michael Horsnell.
-
JackieD prefers to quote from a book called 'An innocent man' & from apparently speaking to Bamber herself. Rather than accept unbiased books.
Once again you are wrong
I posted a passage from an innocent man and said I didn't know how accurate/reliable it was
Numerous quotes are made from numerous books on the Whitehouse Farm Murders as if these are fact
They are not, there is usually nothing to back up these quotes
Most of the time books are written to make money for the author
I am only interested in facts
Go back to the drawing board and prove Neville did not call Jeremy
That should keep you busy for the day
-
As I have pointed out on numerous times before there would have an endless stream of people who knew the twins far better than Julie. You cannot have forgotten the foster parents the twins stayed with
Yet you still continue to make excuses for Julie putting her hand up to identify the bodies when apparently Jeremy told Julie he was responsible for the twins murder
I have just added Len to the list
You can add Jack Frost to the list as, undoubtedly in their short lives, the boys would have experienced him, but it doesn't mean he could tell them apart. As no one as yet come forward to say they "knew the twins far better than Julie" I have to assume that when push came to shove they A) weren't QUITE certain, B) as they weren't directly involved decided they didn't want to be involved. It's all very well you sitting there offering the services of numerous -and unnamed- unknown 'others', it's more telling that others didn't offer their own services. Apart from ANY other consideration, it seems important to me, that it was a task which required IMMEDIACY. To leave them laying there waiting until an 'appropriate' person came forward to offer their services might have meant a very long wait.
-
Well I did quote the post you wrote. After you complained.
From what I've read you're main points for doubting Bamber's guilt is no one knows where Nevill was when June was being shot, and Nevill's first two shots from inches away hit his jaw and lip. But feel free to correct me.
A scenario from a guilter or supporter will make no difference to the case. Just as all the other posts won't. However everyone should supply one if they feel strongly one way or the other. It's surprising how many supporters still don't budge after their scenario is dismantled.
Adam, you need to have a look at the title of this thread again, which is about CAL's book. The comments I've made so far are primarily about the book. The book asserts that there is forensic evidence to suggest the shots to Nevill's mouth were inflicted upstairs. CAL also indicates in her interview with Vanesis that he thinks it would have been impossible for Nevill to have gotten calls away after being shot in the mouth, the book does not offer any flexibility in that respect.
I offered another possible scenario regarding the shots to the mouth as an act of vengeance courtesy of Sheila Caffell. I did not say that I thought Jeremy was innocent specifically for these reasons, this is where it seems you are misunderstanding me. I think there are a other reasons why I think Sheila did the crime, I will get to these when I can.
I'm sorry I can't offer more time to discuss the subject with you at the moment; therefore I hope you can accept this as an explanation of where I'm coming from, without the needing to post any more on the subject.
Kind regards
TomG
-
Adam, you need to have a look at the title of this thread again, which is about CAL's book. The comments I've made so far are primarily about the book. The book asserts that there is forensic evidence to suggest the shots to Nevill's mouth were inflicted upstairs. CAL also indicates in her interview with Vanesis that he thinks it would have been impossible for Nevill to have gotten calls away after being shot in the mouth, the book does not offer any flexibility in that respect.
I offered another possible scenario regarding the shots to the mouth as an act of vengeance courtesy of Sheila Caffell. I did not say that I thought Jeremy was innocent specifically for these reasons, this is where it seems you are misunderstanding me. I think there are a other reasons why I think Sheila did the crime, I will get to these when I can.
I'm sorry I can't offer more time to discuss the subject with you at the moment; therefore I hope you can accept this as an explanation of where I'm coming from, without the needing to post any more on the subject.
Kind regards
TomG
Well you have said "JB didn't do the crime".
I know Nevill got shot in the mouth upstairs & would not have been able to speak afterwards.
-
No Jane, it's not risk it's imperative.
It's imperative that Jeremy gets past the dogs without them barking and alerting Nevill.
It's imperative that while Jeremy slaughters Nevill and June first, they die quietly, so that the twins don't wake up and run amok about the farmhouse looking for places to hide and ruin his pre-laid plan.
It's imperative that his completely unpredictable schizophrenic sister is going to be completely compliant and allow him to shoot her in the neck, making it look like suicide.
None of these can be achieved logically, it can only be done magically, which is idiotic, that's why JB didn't do the crime.
If any of these obligatory scenarios don't work it's a total F**K-up. JB has got to know these things in his strategy and still find go through with it anyway. If you are suggesting he had contingency plans for the above, what were they? You're the originator of the "pre-laid plan" but failed to define what it was.
Hoots
-
No Jane, it's not risk it's imperative.
It's imperative that Jeremy gets past the dogs without them barking and alerting Nevill.
It's imperative that while Jeremy slaughters Nevill and June first, they die quietly, so that the twins don't wake up and run amok about the farmhouse looking for places to hide and ruin his pre-laid plan.
It's imperative that his completely unpredictable schizophrenic sister is going to be completely compliant and allow him to shoot her in the neck, making it look like suicide.
None of these can be achieved logically, it can only be done magically, which is idiotic, that's why JB didn't do the crime.
If any of these obligatory scenarios don't work it's a total F**K-up. JB has got to know these things in his strategy and still find go through with it anyway. If you are suggesting he had contingency plans for the above, what were they? You're the originator of the "pre-laid plan" but failed to define what it was.
Hoots
Thanks to Adam's diligence in finding the above:-
A) He obviously did.
B) Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Whichever, the twins slept.
C) He managed it seemingly with undue effort, other than the need for the second shot.
We KNOW it could have been "a total f**k-up" and it MAY have ended up as being more by good luck than good judgement. Whatever, job still done.
-
Adam
This is a total straw-man argument. The closest you've got to the truth is the fact that I believe JB is innocent.
TomG says from reading CAL's book he believes Bamber is innocent because Nevill's first two face shots from inches away didn't kill him.
What we're discussing here is why JB decided to shoot Nevill in the mouth and jaw knowing that neither of them were kill shots, while using a weapon that was totally inappropriate and using only one magazine. JB couldn't afford to fire wasteful shots. I would be looking at something more like "here's one in the mouth for all the violence I had to suffer when I was a kid, and here's another for all the sexual abuse I had to put up with just to satisfy your perversions, you old b*****d, but according to CAL's book which is pretty thorough on family history, none of it exists. Nevill was a thoroughly decent guy, even Jeremy would have known that.
I think Nevill was shot deliberately in the mouth from very close range for a reason and that was simply that he got calls away.
Hoots!
-
Adam
This is a total straw-man argument. The closest you've got to the truth is the fact that I believe JB is innocent.
Hoots!
You have just quoted you're own posts.
-
Thanks to Adam's diligence in finding the above:-
A) He obviously did.
B) Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Whichever, the twins slept.
C) He managed it seemingly with undue effort, other than the need for the second shot.
We KNOW it could have been "a total f**k-up" and it MAY have ended up as being more by good luck than good judgement. Whatever, job still done.
All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible. He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill. The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.
Hoots
-
You have just quoted you're own posts.
Adam, you have ceased to make any sense. You made precious little in the first place.
Hoots!
-
All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible. He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill. The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.
Hoots
There have already been threads on the rifle (which I posted for you). As well as threads on who had the better chance of avoiding injury in the kitchen fight.
Bamber obviously had a plan. I guess it was to travel to WHF, kill everyone & frame Sheila.
-
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
It was light.
A silencer could be fitted.
It could store 11 bullets.
Bamber could load it at supper to pretend to go to shoot rabbits.
Bamber could give the police his rabbit story.
Bamber testified he knew how to use the murder weapon.
There was a possibility of completing the massacre without having to reload.
There were not many other rifles at WHF. It was a farm, not a military base.
-
All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible. He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill. The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.
Hoots
Bee'ayve!
-
After four and a half years on this site I'd have thought you'd have had ample time to provide a Sheila scenario. We are actually all friends here, which might sound incredible to you. However much or little time members spend here is really none of your business, neither is the rationale, but at least you've stopped your hoots (albeit I suspect only temporarily), so all has not been in vain.
I have only posted 150 approx. messages in 4.5 years, for around 18 months I posted virtually nothing at all, so I'm intrigued by the Bamber case, not obsessed with it. I do have a Sheila scenario, though not yet thorough enough. It beggars beleif that you would submit thousands of posts yet suggest that your reason for doing so is none of my business, what other purpose would there be to spend time on a forum other than to make posts? I do think you have something special with this forum that can accommodate both points of view without WW3 breaking out. I'm sorry if the friendship you refer to doesn't extend to me; however that's something that I am willing to sacrifice if it means disagreeing with to pro-guilt argument. "Hoots" is just a friendly way of saying cheerio or hello in much the same way that "Ciao" is used in Italy. I hope this clarifies matters.
Hoots
-
I have only posted 150 approx. messages in 4.5 years, for around 18 months I posted virtually nothing at all, so I'm intrigued by the Bamber case, not obsessed with it. I do have a Sheila scenario, though not yet thorough enough. It beggars beleif that you would submit thousands of posts yet suggest that your reason for doing so is none of my business, what other purpose would there be to spend time on a forum other than to make posts? I do think you have something special with this forum that can accommodate both points of view without WW3 breaking out. I'm sorry if the friendship you refer to doesn't extend to me; however that's something that I am willing to sacrifice if it means disagreeing with to pro-guilt argument. "Hoots" is just a friendly way of saying cheerio or hello in much the same way that "Ciao" is used in Italy. I hope this clarifies matters.
Hoots
Ok Duck
-
All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible. He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill. The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.
Hoots
We don't all believe the same thing .....
Well, I have a suggestion for that but will start from the beginning. I think Jeremy deliberately fell out with Nevill, leaving him to bring in the last trailer - I think they had words before he left for home. Nevill was clearly in a bad mood when BW called.
I think the whole thing was a ruse to buy some time - he needed Nevill to be up later than usual because after dropping off his car, he planned to make his way back (I think on foot) and get their before Nevill had his shower and went to bed. I think he came back on the pretence of an apology. Perhaps they talked for a while in the kitchen but when Nevill went in the shower, Jeremy climbed the stairs with the loaded rifle (11 shots). He shoots the twins once (9 shots), quickly makes his way into his parents room and shoots June 3 times, one in the neck and twice in the chest area (six shots). He forces Sheila into the main bedroom - perhaps seeing June shot and rifle in Jeremy's hand she realises that he might have hurt the twins or maybe he tells her he has. She makes her way to the other door to go and check but he pushes her to the floor and shoots her in the throat, unfortunately for him, the rifle goes off twice leaving two wounds (4 shots).
Nevill doesn't hear any of it but as he makes his way to the bedroom, perhaps he hears June cry out? Jeremy hides in the shadows and as Nevill leans over June, Jeremy shoots him 4 times, once in the arm, once in the shoulder and twice in the jaw. He goes to fire again but the rife is now empty, giving Nevill the chance to escape down to the kitchen. Jeremy clubs him with the rifle braking the stock and Nevill falls over the chair. Jeremy quickly loads a few rounds and empties them in to Nevill's head. He fills the magazine one last time (10 shots).
While the fight ensued downstairs, June made her way around the bed and realises Sheila is dead, perhaps she goes out onto the landing as Jeremy makes his way back - tries to make her way into Sheila's room (perhaps it was June's blood outside this room) but Jeremy drags her back and shoots her 4 times once in the leg to make her fall to the ground, once in the arm as she raises her arm to protect herself and then twice in the head (6 shots). For good measure he decides to shoot the twins several more times so it looks less 'execution style' and more schizophrenic psychosis style. He stages the scene to make it look like Sheila and leaves through the bathroom window - (I don't believe all of the windows were thoroughly checked) He then makes his way home over the fields.
If he came back earlier, he didn't have to get passed barking dogs or worry about being caught breaking in.
-
Ok Duck
Don't you mean owl? :-\
Ducks quack, they don't hoot.
-
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
It was light.
Suits just about everone on the planet I would think but not so efficent for bludgeoning Nevill.
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
A silencer could be fitted.
Though there's diminishing reasons to think that one was fitted
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
It could store 11 bullets.
Handy for Sheila as much as JB
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
Bamber could load it at supper to pretend to go to shoot rabbits.
There's no evidence to suggest that this is untrue.
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
Bamber could give the police his rabbit story.
Non-sequitur, if you take the above into account.
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
Bamber testified he knew how to use the murder weapon.
Of course he would! There is reasonable commonsense reasons to think that Sheila could fire the weapon too.
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
There was a possibility of completing the massacre without having to reload.
Doubtful when JB would certainly know how ineffective the weapons was.
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
There were not many other rifles at WHF. It was a farm, not a military base.
There were other guns in use at WHF for various reasons.
After thousands of posts Adam, is this the best you've got?
Hoots!
-
We don't all believe the same thing .....
Caroline, why has your original 8.26 post of yesterday, disappeared?
-
Don't you mean owl? :-\
Ducks quack, they don't hoot.
Ha Ha, Hartley not in Derbyshire they don't?
-
Caroline, why has your original 8.26 post of yesterday, disappeared?
It hasn't - it's in another thread ;D
-
Reasons why Bamber chose his murder weapon:
Bamber could load it at supper to pretend to go to shoot rabbits.
Bamber could give the police his rabbit story.
So if you take into account the eight points that Adam made, you can then offer the straw-man argument in his own style, that he thinks that JB is guilty simply because the bunny population at WHF didn't testify in court for the defence.
Hoots
-
Don't you mean owl? :-\
Ducks quack, they don't hoot.
Yeah but 'OK owl' doesn't sound right. ;D
-
So if you take into account the eight points that Adam made, you can then offer the straw-man argument in his own style, that he thinks that JB is guilty simply because the bunny population at WHF didn't testify in court for the defence.
Hoots
I think the Bunnies would have testified for prosecution, I mean he did go out to shoot them! Duck
-
We don't all believe the same thing .....
Thank you Caroline. This is certainly worth consideration, more of the same please.
Hoots!
-
JackieD prefers to quote from a book called 'An innocent man' & from apparently speaking to Bamber herself. Rather than accept unbiased books.
Here is another of Adam's straw-man arguments. It's easy all you do is take previous comment's totally unconnected, add them together with total conjecture, post it and expect the original poster to come back and fight their way out of it. I'ts not exactly lying but it's certainly economy with the truth and mischeivous.
He suckered me upthread with this tactic, he won't be doing it again!
Bee-ayve!
Hoots!
-
I think the Bunnies would have testified for prosecution, I mean he did go out to shoot them! Duck
Justice what have you taken today I could do with some too hehehe :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Here is another of Adam's straw-man arguments. It's easy all you do is take previous comment's totally unconnected, add them together with total conjecture, post it and expect the original poster to come back and fight their way out of it. I'ts not exactly lying but it's certainly economy with the truth and mischeivous.
Bee-ayve!
Hoots!
Are you only reading and commenting on Adam's scenarios?
-
Are you only reading and commenting on Adam's scenarios?
Hi Caroline
I particularly resent Adams tactic of straw-man arguments, I've posted another example of that particular tactic so it's not just me he does this with. I hope that the moderator on this forum can take it into account.
On the other hand, if you look just upthread you will notice that I thanked you for your theory of the crime. I will certainly give it due consideration.
Hoots!
-
Hi Caroline
I particularly resent Adams tactic of straw-man arguments, I've posted another example of that particular tactic so it's not just me he does this with. I hope that the moderator on this forum can take it into account.
On the other hand, if you look just upthread you will notice that I thanked you for your theory of the crime. I will certainly give it due consideration.
Hoots!
Hi Tom, soz - I missed you comment and cheers!
-
Here is another of Adam's straw-man arguments. It's easy all you do is take previous comment's totally unconnected, add them together with total conjecture, post it and expect the original poster to come back and fight their way out of it. I'ts not exactly lying but it's certainly economy with the truth and mischeivous.
He suckered me upthread with this tactic, he won't be doing it again!
Bee-ayve!
Hoots!
Well it's a fact JackieD recently copied and pasted a long section from a book called 'An Innocent Man'. I preferred to read an unbiased book.
You have read CAL's book & have so far come up with complete rubbish.
I'm sorry but Nevill reveiving his first two shots from inches away in the lip & jaw does not make Bamber innocent. Unless Nevill didn't notice a raging woman in a nightie & carrying a long rifle coming towards him. I always thought she was on Haloperidol.
-
So if you take into account the eight points that Adam made, you can then offer the straw-man argument in his own style, that he thinks that JB is guilty simply because the bunny population at WHF didn't testify in court for the defence.
Hoots
What available weapon should he have used ?
You have said he chose the wrong one.
-
Altnough TomG posts a lot of rubbish, he's actually made a point about the lightness of the weapon.
It would have beneffitted Bamber who wanted to move quickly around WHF. As previously posted.
However to cause the horrific face & body damage Nevill received with such a light rifle in the kitchen fight, would have required extreme force.
Sheila was a recoveting anorexic on Haloperidol. So doubtful she could wave around a tin of sardines.
Hoots.
-
TomG had also suggested Bamber would not have emerged from a big fight with Nevill unscratched. Although has not said how Sheila managed to.
I will copy my thread on this. I do wish he would keep up.
I will also quote TomG's post on this as he often denies saying things.
-
All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible. He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill. The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.
Hoots
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8311.msg395436.html#msg395436
Look forward to TomG's response.
-
Altnough TomG posts a lot of rubbish, he's actually made a point about the lightness of the weapon.
It would have beneffitted Bamber who wanted to move quickly around WHF. As previously posted.
However to cause the horrific face & body damage Nevill received with such a light rifle in the kitchen fight, would have required extreme force.
Sheila was a recoveting anorexic on Haloperidol. So doubtful she could wave around a tin of sardines.
Hoots.
Hello Adam source please confirming Sheila was a recovering anorexic and a light weapon would benefit Sheila more than Jeremy.
-
What available weapon should he have used ?
You have said he chose the wrong one.
Same question to Roch. Who has also said Bamber chose the wrong weapon. But has never offerred any alternatives despite being asked.
-
What available weapon should he have used ?
You have said he chose the wrong one.
This sounds like more straw-man argument. He didn't use any weapon, all were inappropriate, he didn't do the crime. Can you quote where I suggested that JB had opted for the wrong choice of weapon.
Hoots!
-
Hello Adam source please confirming Sheila was a recovering anorexic and a light weapon would benefit Sheila more than Jeremy.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw
Err, I never said a light weapon would benefit Bamber more than Sheila. I said Bamber chose a light weapon as he had to move quickly.
Bamber's vastly superior strenght would mean only he could cause the damage to Nevill with a light rifle.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8311.msg395436.html#msg395436
Look forward to TomG's response.
I don't know what you're referring to, you have posted a link to another part of the thread.
Hoots
-
This sounds like more straw-man argument. He didn't use any weapon, all were inappropriate, he didn't do the crime. Can you quote where I suggested that JB had opted for the wrong choice of weapon.
Hoots!
Can you answer my question. What rifle should Bamber have used ?
-
TomG had also suggested Bamber would not have emerged from a big fight with Nevill unscratched. Although has not said how Sheila managed to.
I will copy my thread on this. I do wish he would keep up.
I will also quote TomG's post on this as he often denies saying things.
Again another mischievous straw-man argument. Where did I suggest that there was a fight?
Hoots!
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw
Err, I never said a light weapon would benefit Bamber more than Sheila. I said Bamber chose a light weapon as he had to move quickly.
Bamber's vastly superior strenght would mean only he could cause the damage to Nevill with a light rifle.
Adam where is the source for Sheila being a recovering anorexic? A light weapon would suit Sheila more than Jeremy.
-
Adam where is the source for Sheila being a recovering anorexic? A light weapon would suit Sheila more than Jeremy.
Read it. I know it's a lot of words. But it never did me any harm.
-
TomG had also suggested Bamber would not have emerged from a big fight with Nevill unscratched. Although has not said how Sheila managed to.
I will copy my thread on this. I do wish he would keep up.
I will also quote TomG's post on this as he often denies saying things.
I thought TomG would deny saying something again.
He posts rubbish and then denies saying it after reading counter arguments.
And no Bamber is not innocent because Nevill's first two shots were from inches away were in the lip and jaw.
-
All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible. He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill. The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.
Hoots
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw
Err, I never said a light weapon would benefit Bamber more than Sheila. I said Bamber chose a light weapon as he had to move quickly.
Bamber's vastly superior strenght would mean only he could cause the damage to Nevill with a light rifle.
For Susan. I already posted it for you but you then asked for it again.
-
Altnough TomG posts a lot of rubbish, he's actually made a point about the lightness of the weapon.
It would have beneffitted Bamber who wanted to move quickly around WHF. As previously posted.
However to cause the horrific face & body damage Nevill received with such a light rifle in the kitchen fight, would have required extreme force.
Sheila was a recoveting anorexic on Haloperidol. So doubtful she could wave around a tin of sardines.
Hoots.
Nevill probably received these injuries when he was in no position to fight back, there is nothing to contradict that as yet.
Can you cite the source for your claim that Sheila was anorexic. CAL's book is very thorough regarding Sheila's life prior to the the killings, yet nothing is said about anorexia. The book is very pro-guilt.
Hoots!
-
All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible. He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill. The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.
Hoots
As requested TomG. Here is where you said Bamber chose the wrong weapon.
You were insinuating you had not said this.
What weapon should he have used. Second request.
-
For Susan. I already posted it for you but you then asked for it again.
Adam thank you for the link I apologise for not reading it first time round but I have read it now and have noted what it said about Sheila. Thank you.
-
Nevill probably received these injuries when he was in no position to fight back, there is nothing to contradict that as yet.
Can you cite the source for your claim that Sheila was anorexic. CAL's book is very thorough regarding Sheila's life prior to the the killings, yet nothing is said about anorexia. The book is very pro-guilt.
Hoots!
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw
-
Nevill probably received these injuries when he was in no position to fight back, there is nothing to contradict that as yet.
Can you cite the source for your claim that Sheila was anorexic. CAL's book is very thorough regarding Sheila's life prior to the the killings, yet nothing is said about anorexia. The book is very pro-guilt.
Hoots!
Hi Tom
Adam's link to me states that Sheila was anorexic but I took it all with a pinch of salt as so much of the article was over the top IMO
-
Adam
I think you appear to have a problem with mental flexibility. You seem to be suggesting that if I suggest that the Anschutz 0.22 rifle was inappropriate that means there must have been another rifle that was appropriate, thereby trying to imply that I am unwittingly implicating JB in the crime.
I think your a bit over-excited.
Hoots!
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw
Are you serious? I was hoping that you'd come up with something from Sheila's medical records, or some other reliable proof. Can you indicate where the author of this article might have gotten this factoid from?
Hoots!
-
Adam
I think you appear to have a problem with mental flexibility. You seem to be suggesting that if I suggest that the Anschutz 0.22 rifle was inappropriate that means there must have been another rifle that was appropriate, thereby trying to imply that I am unwittingly implicating JB in the crime.
I think your a bit over-excited.
Hoots!
You said the gun was 'totally inappropriate'.
So I assume you know there were more appropriate weapons available.
So what should he have used ? Third request.
-
And no Bamber is not innocent because Nevill's first two shots were from inches away were in the lip and jaw.
I never said this. The quotes that you post seem to have your warped spin on them. You do know what a straw-man argument is?
Hoots
-
You said the gun was 'totally inappropriate'.
So I assume you know there were more appropriate weapons available.
So what should he have used ?
None of them, and he didn't. I've already said this.
Hoots!
-
I never said this. The quotes that you post seem to have your warped spin on them. You do know what a straw-man argument is?
Hoots
There is a LOT of that on the innocent side too, it isn't an exclusive guilty feature.
-
I never said this. The quotes that you post seem to have your warped spin on them. You do know what a straw-man argument is?
Hoots
This was dealt with a few days ago.
Can you please tell me what would have been a more 'appropriate' available weapon of choice for Bamber. Forth request.
As well as say how Bamber would not come out of a fight with Nevill unscathed but Sheila would. Second request.
-
None of them, and he didn't. I've already said this.
Hoots!
So none of the weapons would suit a 2am massacre ?
Sheila with her shooting, chambering, breaching & reloading skills showed otherwise. And she did so without getting any oil or gun shot residue on her.
Then again, she did go on a shooting expedition 10 years earlier.
-
It's disappointing that TomG tried to imply that Bamber had better weapon options available to him. And the fact that he didn't choose one of these shows he's innocent.
He even tried to make counter arguments to my reasons why Bamber choose the weapon he did.
However when it came to the crunch TomG couldn't offer a better weapon alternative. This was after trying to deny that he made the claim in the first place.
Roch made the same weapon argument recently. But stonewalled all questions on better alternative weapons.
-
This was dealt with a few days ago.
Can you please tell me what would have been a more 'appropriate' available weapon of choice for Bamber. Forth request.
As well as say how Bamber would not come out of a fight with Nevill unscathed but Sheila would. Second request.
Adam. None of these scenarios exist as facts, they are merely hypothetical situations. It seems that you think that if I offered any solutions to these hypothetical situations then I would be breathing life into them which would then transform them into facts in your mind. This would then give you a springboard to argue that I'd conceded these points as facts.
I have answered your points upthread but you seem to have a problem comprehending them. It also seems that you attach the most tenous interpretations of my posts and come to the most bizarre conclusions. It seems that you are not so much offering a decent counter argument but exposing a flaw in your logic that I can't comprehend.
I can't offer any further argument simply because you don't make any sense.
Hoots!
-
Caroline
Thanks for your theory of the crime, I'll copy and paste it and add my considerations to it. I might be so convinced of it that I'll change my mind entirely and become pro-guilt. In the meantime I have a stir-fry and a bottle of spiced rum that I intend to make significant inroads into, so I won't post any more this evening.
Adam
It's been a hot day up here, I take it its been warm down south too. Take it easy!
Hoots!
-
Adam. None of these scenarios exist as facts, they are merely hypothetical situations. It seems that you think that if I offered any solutions to these hypothetical situations then I would be breathing life into them which would then transform them into facts in your mind. This would then give you a springboard to argue that I'd conceded these points as facts.
I have answered your points upthread but you seem to have a problem comprehending them. It also seems that you attach the most tenous interpretations of my posts and come to the most bizarre conclusions. It seems that you are not so much offering a decent counter argument but exposing a flaw in your logic that I can't comprehend.
I can't offer any further argument simply because you don't make any sense.
Hoots!
I just asked what would be a better weapon for Bamber after you said the murder weapon was 'totally inappropriate'. You intially denied saying it & eventually said there were no better options for Bamber.
The other question was after you suggested Bamber wouldn't come out of the kitchen fight unscathed. I asked why Bamber wouldn't but Sheila did & left a link to a thread on this for you to contribute to. You didn't answer this question.
-
Caroline
Thanks for your theory of the crime, I'll copy and paste it and add my considerations to it. I might be so convinced of it that I'll change my mind entirely and become pro-guilt. In the meantime I have a stir-fry and a bottle of spiced rum that I intend to make significant inroads into, so I won't post any more this evening.
Adam
It's been a hot day up here, I take it its been warm down south too. Take it easy!
Hoots!
Enjoy! :)
-
Caroline
Thanks for your theory of the crime, I'll copy and paste it and add my considerations to it. I might be so convinced of it that I'll change my mind entirely and become pro-guilt. In the meantime I have a stir-fry and a bottle of spiced rum that I intend to make significant inroads into, so I won't post any more this evening.
Adam
It's been a hot day up here, I take it its been warm down south too. Take it easy!
Hoots!
Well said Tom G
Hoots
-
You intially denied saying it & eventually said there were no better options for Bamber.
Substantiate this.
Hoots!
-
This sounds like more straw-man argument. He didn't use any weapon, all were inappropriate, he didn't do the crime. Can you quote where I suggested that JB had opted for the wrong choice of weapon.
Hoots!
-
Substantiate this.
Hoots!
You keep denying saying things. Probably because you have realised it is another rubbish idea.
I have had to look and re quote you're posts on 5 different things. It takes time to find them. So I won't be doing it again.
Either come up with valid arguments or quit posting.
-
See what I mean ? Centre stage,or else !! Tsk.
-
Things TomG denied saying -
Bamber used the wrong weapon.
Bamber "did not committ the crime".
Bamber is innocent because Nevill was shot from inches away in the mouth & jaw.
Bamber is innocent because no one knows where Nevill was when June was being shot.
Bamber would not have got through a fight with Nevill unscathed.
-
See what I mean ? Centre stage,or else !! Tsk.
TomG keeps saying on this/ the only thread he is posting on, I have 'straw man arguments'.
But I'm just asking questions or reacting to his weak posts on Bamber's innocence.
He initially denies saying things & asks me to find & quote his post. Which takes time.
When I do find his former posts, he won't back up his claims with any answers.
-
You keep denying saying things. Probably because you have realised it is another rubbish idea.
I have had to look and re quote you're posts on 5 different things. It takes time to find them. So I won't be doing it again.
Either come up with valid arguments or quit posting.
Good night Adam.
Hold on to something tight.
Hoots!
-
TomG keeps saying on this/ the only thread he is posting on, I have 'straw man arguments'.
But I'm just asking questions or reacting to his posts on Bamber's innocence.
He initially denies saying things & asks me to quote his post. When I do, he won't back up his claims with any answers.
To be fair TomG did post counter arguments to my reasons why Bamber chose the actual murder weapon. Claiming my reasons were a straw man argument.
However when I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber used the wrong weapon. Asking me (again) to find proof he said this.
When I quoted his post saying Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' he still wouldn't answer or even say what other weapons were available at WHF.
This can only mean Bamber used the best available weapon at WHF and all my reasons were right.
TomG's & Roch's claim that Bamber would have chosen another weapon has been dismissed.
-
To be fair TomG did post counter arguments to my reasons why Bamber chose the actual murder weapon. Claiming my reasons were a straw man argument.
However when I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber used the wrong weapon. Asking me (again) to find proof he said this.
When I quoted his post saying Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' he still wouldn't answer or even say what other weapons were available at WHF.
This can only mean Bamber used the best available weapon at WHF and all my reasons were right.
TomG's & Roch's claim that Bamber would have chosen another weapon has been dismissed.
The only other weapons were shotguns - they would be inappropriate given the number of times you would need to reload. He also wouldn't be able to use his story about leaving out the rifle out. He factored in the rifle in his plan, not the shot gun.
-
The only other weapons were shotguns - they would be inappropriate given the number of times you would need to reload. He also wouldn't be able to use his story about leaving out the rifle out. He factored in the rifle in his plan, not the shot gun.
One of my 8 reasons why Bamber chose this rifle was that loading it & apparently leaving it out wouldn't create suspision. Either to the relatives earlier or police when he started insinuating Sheila. As the rifle was used for shooting rabbits.
Hopefully TomG has realised if he is going to claim other peoples reasons are 'straw man', he must have alternatives. Rather than just denying posting something when asked for these alternatives.
Roch has also said Bamber used the wrong weapon. But wisely did not get involved in a debate on the subject after I created a thread.
-
One of my 8 reasons why Bamber chose this rifle was that loading it & apparently leaving it out wouldn't create suspision. Either to the relatives earlier or police when he started insinuating Sheila. As the rifle was used for shooting rabbits.
Hopefully TomG has realised if he is going to claim other peoples reasons are 'straw man', he must have alternatives. Rather than just denying posting something when asked for these alternatives.
Roch has also said Bamber used the wrong weapon. But wisely did not get involved in a debate on the subject after I created a thread.
Adam
Jeremy shooting rabbits and leaving out the rifle may mean nothing at all it could be just a coincidence or not of course we need to look at this from both angles :)
-
To be fair TomG did post counter arguments to my reasons why Bamber chose the actual murder weapon. Claiming my reasons were a straw man argument.
However when I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber used the wrong weapon. Asking me (again) to find proof he said this.
When I quoted his post saying Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' he still wouldn't answer or even say what other weapons were available at WHF.
This can only mean Bamber used the best available weapon at WHF and all my reasons were right.
TomG's & Roch's claim that Bamber would have chosen another weapon has been dismissed.
Jeremy Bamber didn't use any weapon to shoot his sister, either downstairs in the kitchen, or later at 9.13am, when she got killed by the shot under the chin with her body n the main bedroom floor!
-
The only other weapons were shotguns - they would be inappropriate given the number of times you would need to reload. He also wouldn't be able to use his story about leaving out the rifle out. He factored in the rifle in his plan, not the shot gun.
Hi Caroline :)
I sent you a personal message in response to you theory of the crime. It is rather long, it also includes a few diverse references, but be patient and give it a thorough reading. I would normally have posted this sort of thing on the forum, but I'm a bit concerned about the inclinations that some members have of responding to posts that are not intended for them.
All this can be aggravated by the possibility that one or perhaps two people on the forum seem to be unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say, or is it me that has the problem? I don't know, but a personal message is the only way in this instance since my PM is a direct response to your post upthread. If you can understand it grammatically at least let me know. I think I'd be vindicated if you do.
Oh I've also removed my avatar, I'm aware that it might be giving people the wrong impression of me.
Hoots!
-
Hi Caroline :)
I sent you a personal message in response to you theory of the crime. It is rather long, it also includes a few diverse references, but be patient and give it a thorough reading. I would normally have posted this sort of thing on the forum, but I'm a bit concerned about the inclinations that some members have of responding to posts that are not intended for them.
All this can be aggravated by the possibility that one or perhaps two people on the forum seem to be unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say, or is it me that has the problem? I don't know, but a personal message is the only way in this instance since my PM is a direct response to your post upthread. If you can understand it grammatically at least let me know. I think I'd be vindicated if you do.
Oh I've also removed my avatar, I'm aware that it might be giving people the wrong impression of me.
Hoots!
This is ridiculous. We're not going to change Forum rules exclusively for your benefit and have a hundred private conversations circulating simultaneously. If you don't have confidence in yourself or your posts then don't bother to post at all.
-
This is ridiculous. We're not going to change Forum rules exclusively for your benefit and have a hundred private conversations circulating simultaneously. If you don't have confidence in yourself or your posts then don't bother to post at all.
Unusual to see you stroppy,Steve. ???
For what it's worth--------nothing and nobody is worth the effort of caring two " Hoots ".
-
This is ridiculous. We're not going to change Forum rules exclusively for your benefit and have a hundred private conversations circulating simultaneously. If you don't have confidence in yourself or your posts then don't bother to post at all.
Quite right Steve, why come on the forum to tell someone they have sent them a personal message, why not just send it, strange way to have a dig at other posters.
-
Unusual to see you stroppy,Steve. ???
For what it's worth--------nothing and nobody is worth the effort of caring two " Hoots ".
Yes sorry I do seem to have become cantankerous of late. Let him send it I suppose. But secrecy on here seems to have become ingrained with so many developments not now in the public domain and this forum has suffered as a result.
-
Quite right Steve, why come on the forum to tell someone they have sent them a personal message, why not just send it, strange way to have a dig at other posters.
Yes those were my thoughts.
-
Yes sorry I do seem to have become cantankerous of late. Let him send it I suppose. But secrecy on here seems to have become ingrained with so many developments not now in the public domain and this forum has suffered as a result.
No need to apologise Steve. Where ignorance is bliss,etc etc. Bad manners,but there you are.
Pity you didn't see his remark on Twitter ! But we won't go into that.
-
Yes sorry I do seem to have become cantankerous of late. Let him send it I suppose. But secrecy on here seems to have become ingrained with so many developments not now in the public domain and this forum has suffered as a result.
Sometimes this forum is its' own worst enemy. It cannot afford to exist in a silo, separate from developments, when there are other people either willing to give insight and information or at least participate. Well it can actually exist like that - but at what price? Ever-decreasing relevance to the case?
-
Sometimes this forum is its' own worst enemy. It cannot afford to exist in a silo, separate from developments, when there are other people either willing to give insight and information or at least participate. Well it can actually exist like that - but at what price? Ever-decreasing relevance to the case?
But they aren't they just saying they have more insight and information.
-
Unfortunately Roch, because there's no information forthcoming as yet, the tendency is to go over old ground ( not a good idea for those of us/me, whose memory isn't as sharp as it was ) and sadly it just produces the same repetitive arguments as before. It's quite easy to lose interest this way.
This is my view anyway.
-
But they aren't they just saying they have more insight and information.
Well if we use a recent example, I suppose that might depend on whether there is any images or information in the 36 page report that hasn't previously been noticed, examined or debated before. I'm not sure. But that's just one example - from one member. Who knows what would happen and what might end up on here, if the place was more inclusive and less dismissive?
-
Well if we use a recent example, I suppose that might depend on whether there is any images or information in the 36 page report that hasn't previously been noticed, examined or debated before. I'm not sure. But that's just one example - from one member. Who knows what would happen and what might end up on here, if the place was more inclusive and less dismissive?
Perhaps people wouldn't be so dismissive if they hadn't had the wool pulled so many times and people actually posted substance and not unsubstantiated claims.
-
Perhaps people wouldn't be so dismissive if they hadn't had the wool pulled so many times and people actually posted substance and not unsubstantiated claims.
I think once you catch sight of certain evidence - you will ask yourself (in at least some of these situations you may be referring to) - were the claims actually lacking in substance and did I really have the wool pulled over my eyes?
-
I think once you catch sight of certain evidence - you will ask yourself (in at least some of these situations you may be referring to) - were the claims actually lacking in substance and did I really have the wool pulled over my eyes?
It would help if we could examine this evidence in open forum, instead of some clique deciding themselves what they will release into the public domain.
-
It would help if we could examine this evidence in open forum, instead of some clique deciding themselves what they will release into the public domain.
Hi steve I get the impression that any new evidence would need to go to JB's legal team before it is put into the public domain I honestly don't think a clique exists on the forum with regard to this issue.
-
It would help if we could examine this evidence in open forum, instead of some clique deciding themselves what they will release into the public domain.
Steve I cant argue with that. That's a fair point. I'm afraid it's not in my remit to do that and hate to admit it - I'd be dubious about posting it up on here anyway. I think it will come out in good time but I dont necessarily feel it will lead to the release of Jeremy - because I believe the case is so political - every possible dirty trick, dismissive attitude and due process red tape would be employed to ensure he stayed inside.
-
I think once you catch sight of certain evidence - you will ask yourself (in at least some of these situations you may be referring to) - were the claims actually lacking in substance and did I really have the wool pulled over my eyes?
Maybe, maybe not - but that is the acid test and unless it is tested we'll never know.
-
Hi steve I get the impression that any new evidence would need to go to JB's legal team before it is put into the public domain I honestly don't think a clique exists on the forum with regard to this issue.
Susan they are very slow. How long does it take for an expert to analyse Sheila's alleged suicide letter? That's just one example.
-
Steve I cant argue with that. That's a fair point. I'm afraid it's not in my remit to do that and hate to admit it - I'd be dubious about posting it up on here anyway. I think it will come out in good time but I dont necessarily feel it will lead to the release of Jeremy - because I believe the case is so political - every possible dirty trick, dismissive attitude and due process red tape would be employed to ensure he stayed inside.
But if this evidence is so compelling, they would have no choice.
-
But if this evidence is so compelling, they would have no choice.
Judging by the attitude of DCI Stuart Smith of the Serious Crime Directorate - I'm not so certain. I felt his 'Dear Tatchell' letter was basically battening down the hatches and sticking up two fingers.
-
Steve I cant argue with that. That's a fair point. I'm afraid it's not in my remit to do that and hate to admit it - I'd be dubious about posting it up on here anyway. I think it will come out in good time but I dont necessarily feel it will lead to the release of Jeremy - because I believe the case is so political - every possible dirty trick, dismissive attitude and due process red tape would be employed to ensure he stayed inside.
Hi Roch if the evidence is strong enough how can the case be dismissed. I am not aware of any new evidence but I get the feeling more than your's has been discovered and if his supporters and legal team shout loud enough they will be heard.
-
It would help if we could examine this evidence in open forum, instead of some clique deciding themselves what they will release into the public domain.
Don't we ridiculous. If Roch is not posting the information there will obviously be a reason
This is not a game, some information has to be confidential
-
Don't we ridiculous. If Roch is not posting the information there will obviously be a reason
This is not a game, some information has to be confidential
Don't you read anything properly? Roch has said on MORE than one occasion that this info is already in the public domain! ::)
-
Susan they are very slow. How long does it take for an expert to analyse Sheila's alleged suicide letter? That's just one example.
Steve I get the feeling more than that is involved and as I have no idea what the evidence is I don't know if they are slow or not.
-
I think it's all to do with cost. Because of various funds which have been set up both online and on TV those organisations which are at the bottom of the pile,such as Jeremy's, face a long wait when compared with more pressing charities. Criminal investigations cost a lot !
-
Hi Y'all :)
Well I'm sorry if I've caused so much consternation with people over my PM to Caroline post. It was posted merely to indicate that I'd sent the PM to her, with the realisation that I had received personal messages that I'd inadvertantly overlooked in the past, all my own fault of course, since I'm not particularly familiar with these things. I'm sorry if anyone thinks that I was having a dig at anyone in particular, when, if you read the post, you would see that I was also having a dig at myself as much as anyone else.
That concept extends to the posts I exchanged with Adam yesterday, when I concluded that I was either dealing with an incredibly quick-thinking genius who had me entirely sussed out before I could even think straight, or I was encountering an idiot. I then had to consider the possibility that it was ME who was the idiot.
It may be myself who is the idiot with regard to Adams posts; however regardless of who is at fault, I am not prepared to go through anything like that kind of insanity again regardless of who is responsible. if I am as nuts as Adam's post seem to indicate, I'd better get it sorted out. If that is indeed the case Adam, I find myself recoiling in abject humiliation at the absolute superiority of your debating skills, you truly are a genius in that respect.
So you can consider this to be my last hoot, I can't compete with that level of genius or idiocy, I really just can't tell, I'm so stupid.
I extend my warmest wishes to all the members of the forum, whatever their point of view. I'm out of here. I will leave you with a few words of a Randy Newman song that is a warning against insular thinking and tribalism that may or may not be appropriate, depending on your point of view. My guess is that it would be totally inappropriate since I think JB is innocent. Here it is anyway.
Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show
With some smart-ass New York Jew
And the Jew laughed at Lester Maddox
And the audience laughed at Lester Maddox too
Well, he may be a fool but he's our fool
If they think they're better than him they're wrong
So I went to the park and I took some paper along
And that's where I made this song
A kindly final hoot.
TomG
-
Hi Y'all :)
Well I'm sorry if I've caused so much consternation with people over my PM to Caroline post. It was posted merely to indicate that I'd sent the PM to her, with the realisation that I had received personal messages that I'd inadvertantly overlooked in the past, all my own fault of course, since I'm not particularly familiar with these things. I'm sorry if anyone thinks that I was having a dig at anyone in particular, when, if you read the post, you would see that I was also having a dig at myself as much as anyone else.
That concept extends to the posts I exchanged with Adam yesterday, when I concluded that I was either dealing with an incredibly quick-thinking genius who had me entirely sussed out before I could even think straight, or I was encountering an idiot. I then had to consider the possibility that it was ME who was the idiot.
It may be myself who is the idiot with regard to Adams posts; however regardless of who is at fault, I am not prepared to go through anything like that kind of insanity again regardless of who is responsible. if I am as nuts as Adam's post seem to indicate, I'd better get it sorted out. If that is indeed the case Adam, I find myself recoiling in abject humiliation at the absolute superiority of your debating skills, you truly are a genius in that respect.
So you can consider this to be my last hoot, I can't compete with that level of genius or idiocy, I really just can't tell, I'm so stupid.
I extend my warmest wishes to all the members of the forum, whatever their point of view. I'm out of here. I will leave you with a few words of a Randy Newman song that is a warning against insular thinking and tribalism that may or may not be appropriate, depending on your point of view. My guess is that it would be totally inappropriate since I think JB is innocent. Here it is anyway.
Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show
With some smart-ass New York Jew
And the Jew laughed at Lester Maddox
And the audience laughed at Lester Maddox too
Well, he may be a fool but he's our fool
If they think they're better than him they're wrong
So I went to the park and I took some paper along
And that's where I made this song
A kindly final hoot.
TomG
Come on Tom, we all start somewhere, show some of that Brave Heart spirit and get debating, people like you, I certainly do and always read your posts, I'm only hear to make numbers up and when I reach 5 stars I can retire, ps I liked Gibson better in Patriot?
Now don't you dare Hoot off
-
Come on Tom, we all start somewhere, show some of that Brave Heart spirit and get debating, people like you, I certainly do and always read your posts, I'm only hear to make numbers up and when I reach 5 stars I can retire, ps I liked Gibson better in Patriot?
Now don't you dare Hoot off
Hi Justice I agree with you I would like Tom to stay and start posting with us I always read his posts and enjoyed them. Hope you have a change of heart Tom :)
-
TomG will be the first to agree his recent reasons why Bamber 'did not commit the crime' have been extremely weak. So much so that he instantly denies saying them when I post counter arguments & asks me to post proof he said it. Rather than defend his reasons.
To be fair all other recent 'innocent' reasons on the forum have also been weaker than usual. TomG has not claimed he has information he won't post or told other posters to f--- off, which has happened elsewhere on the forum this week.
Although he was rude saying I make 'straw man' arguments when I gave 8 facts why Bamber chose the murder weapon he did. He then (again) denied saying Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' & asked me to post proof he said it, after being unable to give me better alternative weapons.
-
Carol Ann Lee's book has this reconstruction by the police, for those who have not had the pain of reading this logistically completely impossible concoction...............................
After gaining entry, he took the kitchen phone off the hook, thereby disabling all the farmhouse telephones, including the one on Nevill’s bedside table. The rifle was where Jeremy had left it earlier that evening; he either loaded it then or had already fully loaded it. Climbing the stairs, he steeled himself to kill the greatest threats first: his parents. A thin film of moonlight glimmered through the curtains in the master bedroom, where his parents lay sleeping. He stood in the doorway, lifted the rifle, and fired. The first two shots pierced the right side of June’s chest, embedding themselves in the pillow. Another shot hit her in the arm and a third travelled up inside her leg, lodging in her knee. The terrible impact woke Nevill, who lurched out of bed. Jeremy turned the gun on his father, firing four shots that caught him on his left side: two bullets penetrated his forearm and shoulder, and two tore into his lip and jaw. Jeremy left the room, heading down the first flight of stairs and through the corridor to the twins’ bedroom, firing one shot into each slumbering child. With all ten cartridges expended, he made his way down to the kitchen to reload. He managed to slot four cartridges into the magazine before his father stumbled into the room. A fierce fight for possession of the weapon ensued: they fell against the table, knocking it into the dresser and sending crockery to the floor. The rifle struck the overhead lampshade, shattering it. Jeremy used the gun to beat his father about the arms, head and face; Nevill’s watch broke and skittered across the lino. The struggle came to a brutal end near the Aga, where the rifle damaged the underside of the mantel. As Nevill collapsed over a chair, landing at an impossible angle with his pyjamas tangling around his feet, Jeremy brought the gun down on his skull, then fired four shots into his head. The last produced a stovepipe jam, trapping the empty cartridge case in the ejection port. Jeremy removed the magazine and loaded it to its full capacity, then inserted it into the magazine well. Climbing the stairs again, he cleared the jammed cartridge by working the bolt. It fell out, rolling towards the skirting board on the first landing. While father and son were fighting in the kitchen, June had managed to force herself up from the bed. The commotion had also woken Sheila, who crossed the landing to her parents’ bedroom, drowsy and confused. At the sight of her mother bleeding profusely as she steadied herself on the edge of the bed, Sheila rushed to the other side of the room, where the door to the box room was the quickest route to the twins. June staggered round the bed after her, but before she could reach Sheila, Jeremy returned with the gun. Sheila froze. June started towards her son, who fired three more shots into her neck, head, and finally between the eyes. June hit her shoulder against the door as she slumped to the floor. Jeremy then forced Sheila down beside the bed and shot her once in the throat. With six cartridges left in the rifle, he headed back down the corridor where he fired two further shots into Nicholas and four into Daniel, emptying the magazine. The element of ‘overkill’ would help his story that Sheila, in the grip of psychosis, was the guilty party. He then retraced his footsteps to the master bedroom, intending to finish setting the scene. To his shock he found his sister incapacitated but still alive. Quickly, he returned to the kitchen, loading a single cartridge into the magazine.
Upstairs once more, he crouched down and took aim. The bullet went into Sheila’s brain, killing her instantly. He then placed his mother’s bible at his sister’s side, unscrewed the silencer and positioned the empty rifle on her body. After showering, he changed into some clothes from his old bedroom, pushing the others into a bag for disposal later. He replaced the silencer in a box in the den cupboard, since to dispose of it might raise questions about its whereabouts. To account for his father’s death downstairs and the fact that he hadn’t been able to use the bedside telephone, Jeremy hid the kitchen telephone in a pile of magazines, then placed the bedroom telephone on the kitchen work surface. He dialled his own number, pressing the cradle to cut the call, and left the receiver off the hook. Removing all the household paraphernalia from the area around the sink, he then climbed out of the window. He reached back in to return everything more or less to its usual spot, then banged the window shut, causing the lock to fall into place. In the garden, he collected the bicycle and headed home along the same route as before. Just after 3am he called Julie. He chose his words carefully in case anyone else should overhear but said enough to let the reality of what he had done sink in. Then, to ensure that his version of events was the first, he rang Chelmsford Police Station, telling Constable West: ‘You’ve got to help me, my father has just phoned me saying, “please come over, your sister has gone crazy and has the gun”, then the phone went dead. My father sounded terrified, I don’t think he was kidding.’ ‘Where does your father live?’ West asked. ‘White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy
...................................................................
What a load of crap.
"A thin film of moonlight glimmered through the curtains in the master bedroom,"
Correct.
-
Carol Ann Lee has appeared in an HBO podcast to accompany the recent TV series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76jxCp_F6o
The content speaks for itself: she clearly believes strongly that Jeremy is guilty. She parrots all the standard pro-guilt arguments.
My question for Carol Ann Lee is: If you're so sure he's guilty, why isn't that the conclusion of your own book on the case?
-
Carol Ann Lee has appeared in an HBO podcast to accompany the recent TV series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76jxCp_F6o
The content speaks for itself: she clearly believes strongly that Jeremy is guilty. She parrots all the standard pro-guilt arguments.
My question for Carol Ann Lee is: If you're so sure he's guilty, why isn't that the conclusion of your own book on the case?
I see that is Episode 3. Do you know the links to Episode 1 and 2?
-
Carol Ann Lee has appeared in an HBO podcast to accompany the recent TV series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76jxCp_F6o
The content speaks for itself: she clearly believes strongly that Jeremy is guilty. She parrots all the standard pro-guilt arguments.
My question for Carol Ann Lee is: If you're so sure he's guilty, why isn't that the conclusion of your own book on the case?
When?
Does that mean more people in America and Canada will learn about the case?
That could be a good thing?
-
I see that is Episode 3. Do you know the links to Episode 1 and 2?
Episode 1 - https://youtu.be/WKcPBcZdMYo
Episode 2 - https://youtu.be/SBOQNCLBm9c
Episode 3 - https://youtu.be/E76jxCp_F6o
-
TomG was a strange short term poster.
He posted Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon'. When I asked him what was a more appropriate available weapon, he denied saying it & asked me to quote his post. When I quoted it, he said none of the weapons were appropriate.
-
Luminous Wanderer was around at around the same time. He was another short term poster.
He at least created a Sheila scenario in his own distictive way. When I quoted the COA, showing him Nevill was shot upstairs, that really upset him & he left the forum!
-
Do people write neutral books about, say, the Yorkshire Ripper, hedging their bets about whether he did it? I don't believe so. I think almost-everybody is sure.
If, based on her research, Carol Ann Lee is sure of Jeremy's guilt, then why the need for caution in her book? It's certain, isn't it? He did it, according to Carol Ann Lee [and Adam and Steve and Essex Police, etc., etc., etc.].
I really don't understand. Perhaps somebody could help me by explaining the inconsistency? It would be like Adam writing a book on the case, but ending it by saying: "Well, no-one is really sure that Jeremy did it. He denies it. Lots of people think he did it. And lots of people who knew Sheila in London miss her. The End." Thanks Adam.
Why all the reticence and caution? Is there a risk Jeremy could sue her? I am not a lawyer, still less a libel lawyer, but I really doubt that this could be considered a serious legal risk. Any such action would be dismissed as vexatious, surely? And anyway, so what? If she and her publishers were sued as part of some sort of defence strategy, it's more publicity for the book.
To my knowledge, James MacNeish has not been sued by David Bain over his book, albeit that is New Zealand law. Sorry to labour the point, but I simply don't understand.
-
Luminous Wanderer was around at around the same time. He was another short term poster.
He at least created a Sheila scenario in his own distictive way. When I quoted the COA, showing him Nevill was shot upstairs, that really upset him & he left the forum!
No, Luminous Wanderer was banned after he fell out with NGB. Your posts have never persuaded or influenced anyone.
-
No, Luminous Wanderer was banned after he fell out with NGB. Your posts have never persuaded or influenced anyone.
I remember that Tom G who Adam mentioned. I struggled to get him to respond but he seemed happy to engage with Adam.
-
No, Luminous Wanderer was banned after he fell out with NGB. Your posts have never persuaded or influenced anyone.
Stick to putting pictures up of yourself. Makes me feel handsome.
Better still, create another 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Then refuse to say what it is.
Luminous Wanderer asked to have his account deleted. He was certainly upset when I showed him a source that Nevill was shot upstairs.
-
2018:
'This is clown world stuff. I genuinely do not believe you have any interest in a serious discussion of the forum.
Please ban me. I have asked you to delete my account before. I sent the request three times through the admin function.'
-
No, Luminous Wanderer was banned after he fell out with NGB. Your posts have never persuaded or influenced anyone.
I do not think he was banned. As I recall he demanded that his account be deleted.
-
I remember that Tom G who Adam mentioned. I struggled to get him to respond but he seemed happy to engage with Adam.
;D ;D ;D
-
Stick to putting pictures up of yourself. Makes me feel handsome.
Better still, create another 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Then refuse to say what it is.
Luminous Wanderer asked to have his account deleted. He was certainly upset when I showed him a source that Nevill was shot upstairs.
To be fair Adam he is good looking
-
Stick to putting pictures up of yourself. Makes me feel handsome.
Thanks Adam, but you're not as handsome as Jeremy when he's wearing those industrial style frames. He looks very modish and fashionable.
-
I do not think he was banned. As I recall he demanded that his account be deleted.
If I remember correctly he made some absurd PMs to you threatening to take the forum down. Or did I imagine this?
-
If I remember correctly he made some absurd PMs to you threatening to take the forum down. Or did I imagine this?
He did post some really absurd and threatening nonsense. He was very argumentative and seemed a bit unhinged.
-
He did post some really absurd and threatening nonsense. He was very argumentative and seemed a bit unhinged.
He went and started his own Bamber forum. He has since took it down because nobody joined. :(
-
Carol Ann Lee has appeared in an HBO podcast to accompany the recent TV series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76jxCp_F6o
The content speaks for itself: she clearly believes strongly that Jeremy is guilty. She parrots all the standard pro-guilt arguments.
My question for Carol Ann Lee is: If you're so sure he's guilty, why isn't that the conclusion of your own book on the case?
I have been rather critical of her book, there is so much omitted and some evidence distorted also.
You can read more of my views on this from the link below.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10153.msg475000.html#msg475000 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10153.msg475000.html#msg475000)
-
I have been rather critical of her book, there is so much omitted and some evidence distorted also.
You can read more of my views on this from the link below.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10153.msg475000.html#msg475000 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10153.msg475000.html#msg475000)
I've now listened to her in two or three different interviews, and she doesn't come across as piercingly intelligent. I think her talent is in writing rather than critical thinking. She is not a denker. Probably half the people who post regularly on this Forum have a better grasp of the case than she does, notwithstanding all the interviews and research she did. I love how in the podcast she got worked up about Jeremy having the dog put down. People have dogs destroyed every day for all sorts of frivolous reasons. As if that proves somebody is a mass murderer.
I doubt she carries out all the research herself for these books anyway. I expect it will be more of a team/committee effort and she is the figurehead/chair, she interviews the key players, she pulls it all together in a manuscript, it's then edited by somebody else, and her name goes on it.
I've been thinking over the point I raised earlier.
To recap:
Book - Affects to be neutral, but strongly implies guilt.
Dramatisation - He's guilty, but door left open for some doubt. Maybe it was Sheila? See zombie scene when she looks out of the bedroom window at Colin. What was going on there then, eh? Who knows? Isn't Jeremy a cad, though? On second thoughts, he must be guilty.
Newspaper articles, podcast, social media - He's definitely guilty, it's so obvious you numpty. What's wrong with you?
The puzzle is: If she's so sure, then why all the caution? Let's face it - a book or TV drama can be just as gripping even when we know who the killer is from the start. If anything, knowing who it is can make it all the more interesting. It all boils down to how you want to write it, whether it's a book or screenplay.
One possible explanation is to do with propaganda. Roch may have some input here, as he takes an interest in these things.
A theory I have about this is that, if the subject-matter is complex, propaganda is optimal when they (whoever 'they' are) use implication to encourage people to come to the desired conclusion, rather than straight-out telling them what to think. This sort of subtle, implied propaganda requires a credo or ethos that brings people to a particular coda: in this case, Jeremy is guilty. The reader or viewer thinks he is watching something neutral and he is being allowed to form his own view that he can then debate with friends, family and work colleagues, when in fact he is being manipulated. This is far more effective than the more explicit, in-your-face type of propaganda used by guilters online that relies on simplifications and mantras repeated over and over and that can get people's backs up.
In the podcast and in her newspaper articles and on social media, Carol Ann Lee perhaps falls into an error of strategy, possibly under encouragement from her anxious backers. She reverts to the strategy of overt propaganda, and many viewers, regardless of IQ/intelligence, will find this obnoxious and annoying. A lot of people don't like having their thinking done for them and are offended by such efforts - one of the reasons I sometimes find dogmatic guilters offensive.
The book and dramatisation are 'smarter' in the sense that the propagandising is more implied, allowing the viewer to believe that what they are watching or reading is truly 'neutral', so that when they do what they are supposed to do and make up their minds that Jeremy is guilty, that conclusion is self-validating and self-affirming.
-
Do people write neutral books about, say, the Yorkshire Ripper, hedging their bets about whether he did it? I don't believe so. I think almost-everybody is sure.
If, based on her research, Carol Ann Lee is sure of Jeremy's guilt, then why the need for caution in her book? It's certain, isn't it? He did it, according to Carol Ann Lee [and Adam and Steve and Essex Police, etc., etc., etc.].
I really don't understand. Perhaps somebody could help me by explaining the inconsistency? It would be like Adam writing a book on the case, but ending it by saying: "Well, no-one is really sure that Jeremy did it. He denies it. Lots of people think he did it. And lots of people who knew Sheila in London miss her. The End." Thanks Adam.
Why all the reticence and caution? Is there a risk Jeremy could sue her? I am not a lawyer, still less a libel lawyer, but I really doubt that this could be considered a serious legal risk. Any such action would be dismissed as vexatious, surely? And anyway, so what? If she and her publishers were sued as part of some sort of defence strategy, it's more publicity for the book.
To my knowledge, James MacNeish has not been sued by David Bain over his book, albeit that is New Zealand law. Sorry to labour the point, but I simply don't understand.
No wonder you wanted members to concentrate on Episode 3, given the exceptionally moving interview with Colin in Episode 2, whom you accused of contributing to Sheila's schizophrenia. As for David Bain, you are once again woefully ignorant of the case. After the retrial and the Binnie report came the devastating Callinan report, which you may wish to read here: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/08/bain_found_most_likely_to_have_killed_his_family_but_gets_925000_anyway.html/comment-page-1
-
No wonder you wanted members to concentrate on Episode 3, given the exceptionally moving interview with Colin in Episode 2, whom you accused of contributing to Sheila's schizophrenia. As for David Bain, you are once again woefully ignorant of the case. After the retrial and the Binnie report came the devastating Callinan report, which you may wish to read here: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/08/bain_found_most_likely_to_have_killed_his_family_but_gets_925000_anyway.html/comment-page-1
(i). Where do I accuse Colin of contributing to Sheila's schizophrenia? Could you please quote both the post and also link to the thread for context.
(ii). The Callinan report is one opinion, the Binnie report is another. I have not expressed a view on Bain's guilt or innocence. Why do you persist in misrepresenting what I actually say/misquoting me?
(iii). Why do you come on here picking fights with me?
Moderators - could you also comment on the above, and as a precaution, I have also reported Steve's post.
Thank you.
-
re: Bain
Just to be clear, Steve has misunderstood the analogy I made in the earlier post.
I pointed out that Bain did not sue MacNeish. Steve seems to be implying that the analogy is flawed due to the Callinan Report, but Steve is wrong, for two reasons:
First, MacNeish published his book in 1997. The Callinan Report was published in 2016, nearly 20 years later, which means Bain had almost 20 years to bring litigation against MacNeish, either as a convicted man as part of a legal strategy to attract attention and bring the case back to the New Zealand courts, or after 2009, as an acquitted man. He didn't.
Second, Callinan did not conclude that Bain was guilty. That was not within his remit. He was not convening a court to re-convict Bain. Rather, he was asked to determine a slightly different question: whether Bain was innocent. His conclusion was that David Bain was not innocent "beyond reasonable doubt", which is not the same as concluding that somebody is guilty.
I think Steve has assumed that I have taken a certain view about Bain's guilt or innocence that conflicts with his own, but I have not expressed any such view on here, still less a view that differs with Steve's own. If anything, my observation that David Bain never sued James MacNeish ought to chime with Steve's belief in Bain's guilt.
I would like to ask that Steve stops wasting my time on here, and if he can't stop, then I would kindly request that the moderators step in.
Thank you.
-
No wonder you wanted members to concentrate on Episode 3, given the exceptionally moving interview with Colin in Episode 2, whom you accused of contributing to Sheila's schizophrenia. As for David Bain, you are once again woefully ignorant of the case. After the retrial and the Binnie report came the devastating Callinan report, which you may wish to read here: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/08/bain_found_most_likely_to_have_killed_his_family_but_gets_925000_anyway.html/comment-page-1
If like me you believe Jeremy is most likely to be innocent Colin has a lot to answer for, the violence, the affairs and trying to mislead the media with lies for over 30 years to deflect blame from himself
-
Why even quote his stupid comments, Jackie? He addressed it at me, not you, so I have replied to him and set him straight once again.
I've just remembered something else fatuous that he said. He says I want people to focus on episode 3, and I don't want anybody to watch episodes 1 and 2. Like most of what Steve says, this makes no sense whatsoever. If you follow my link to episode 3, you can then easily find episodes 1 and 2 if you want. There's also this thing called Google that been around for a good few years. We've established on a different thread that Steve doesn't know how to use Google, but I'm sure most other people here are quite capable and competent in doing so and can use their own initiative without my assistance.
Just for the avoidance of doubt - Please feel free to watch episodes 1 and 2 and start your own threads on these and have whatever discussions you like about it. I'm really not stopping you, and there are also things I would like to discuss about those episodes, but I don't have the time right now.
I am sorry, but I'm struggling to articulate Steve's fatuousness and stupidity. He is clearly here to needle and goad me. I don't understand why this is tolerated. Could one of the moderators please come on the thread and provide an explanation?
Thank you.
-
Why even quote his stupid comments, Jackie? He addressed it at me, not you, so I have replied to him and set him straight once again.
I've just remembered something else fatuous that he said. He says I want people to focus on episode 3, and I don't want anybody to watch episodes 1 and 2. Like most of what Steve says, this makes no sense whatsoever. If you follow my link to episode 3, you can then easily find episodes 1 and 2 if you want. There's also this thing called Google that been around for a good few years. We've established on a different thread that Steve doesn't know how to use Google, but I'm sure most other people here are quite capable and competent in doing so and can use their own initiative without my assistance.
Just for the avoidance of doubt - Please feel free to watch episodes 1 and 2 and start your own threads on these and have whatever discussions you like about it. I'm really not stopping you, and there are also things I would like to discuss about those episodes, but I don't have the time right now.
I am sorry, but I'm struggling to articulate Steve's fatuousness and stupidity. He is clearly here to needle and goad me. I don't understand why this is tolerated. Could one of the moderators please come on the thread and provide an explanation?
Thank you.
I am trying not to worsen the situation. I agree that Steve_uk's post contained an unnecessary personal dig at you. You have responded to that. I hope this does not now escalate. I try not to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary because if I edit or remove posts there is often an adverse reaction. I have not edited or removed the posts here but hope there is no tit for tap response with escalating personal attacks.
-
I've now listened to her in two or three different interviews, and she doesn't come across as piercingly intelligent. I think her talent is in writing rather than critical thinking. She is not a denker. Probably half the people who post regularly on this Forum have a better grasp of the case than she does, notwithstanding all the interviews and research she did. I love how in the podcast she got worked up about Jeremy having the dog put down. People have dogs destroyed every day for all sorts of frivolous reasons. As if that proves somebody is a mass murderer.
I doubt she carries out all the research herself for these books anyway. I expect it will be more of a team/committee effort and she is the figurehead/chair, she interviews the key players, she pulls it all together in a manuscript, it's then edited by somebody else, and her name goes on it.
I've been thinking over the point I raised earlier.
To recap:
Book - Affects to be neutral, but strongly implies guilt.
Dramatisation - He's guilty, but door left open for some doubt. Maybe it was Sheila? See zombie scene when she looks out of the bedroom window at Colin. What was going on there then, eh? Who knows? Isn't Jeremy a cad, though? On second thoughts, he must be guilty.
Newspaper articles, podcast, social media - He's definitely guilty, it's so obvious you numpty. What's wrong with you?
The puzzle is: If she's so sure, then why all the caution? Let's face it - a book or TV drama can be just as gripping even when we know who the killer is from the start. If anything, knowing who it is can make it all the more interesting. It all boils down to how you want to write it, whether it's a book or screenplay.
One possible explanation is to do with propaganda. Roch may have some input here, as he takes an interest in these things.
A theory I have about this is that, if the subject-matter is complex, propaganda is optimal when they (whoever 'they' are) use implication to encourage people to come to the desired conclusion, rather than straight-out telling them what to think. This sort of subtle, implied propaganda requires a credo or ethos that brings people to a particular coda: in this case, Jeremy is guilty. The reader or viewer thinks he is watching something neutral and he is being allowed to form his own view that he can then debate with friends, family and work colleagues, when in fact he is being manipulated. This is far more effective than the more explicit, in-your-face type of propaganda used by guilters online that relies on simplifications and mantras repeated over and over and that can get people's backs up.
In the podcast and in her newspaper articles and on social media, Carol Ann Lee perhaps falls into an error of strategy, possibly under encouragement from her anxious backers. She reverts to the strategy of overt propaganda, and many viewers, regardless of IQ/intelligence, will find this obnoxious and annoying. A lot of people don't like having their thinking done for them and are offended by such efforts - one of the reasons I sometimes find dogmatic guilters offensive.
The book and dramatisation are 'smarter' in the sense that the propagandising is more implied, allowing the viewer to believe that what they are watching or reading is truly 'neutral', so that when they do what they are supposed to do and make up their minds that Jeremy is guilty, that conclusion is self-validating and self-affirming.
I think CAL underestimated how much her book would be scrutinized. I would not be surprised if she one day comes to regret writing it the way she did.
-
I think CAL underestimated how much her book would be scrutinized. I would not be surprised if she one day comes to regret writing it the way she did.
I doubt it. The spin-off program won a Best Drama award.
-
I doubt it. The spin-off program won a Best Drama award.
Who else was in the category? They must of been shit
-
I doubt it. The spin-off program won a Best Drama award.
Hardly means anything. Making a Murderer won FOUR Emmy awards back in 2016 . Now the creators are being sued and their credibility as documentary makers are in tatters.
-
(i). Where do I accuse Colin of contributing to Sheila's schizophrenia? Could you please quote both the post and also link to the thread for context.
(ii). The Callinan report is one opinion, the Binnie report is another. I have not expressed a view on Bain's guilt or innocence. Why do you persist in misrepresenting what I actually say/misquoting me?
(iii). Why do you come on here picking fights with me?
Moderators - could you also comment on the above, and as a precaution, I have also reported Steve's post.
Thank you.
Certainly I can. Clicking on your name and trawling through your posts it's #1185:
Is there a case to be made that Colin was a factor in Sheila developing schizophrenia? Isn't it true that she first saw a psychiatrist during or after the marriage? This probably needs a new thread, though, as with respect we are majorly going off on a tangent here.
This was such an important observation to you that you thought it deserved a new thread. You had already commented on a previous post that you never liked Colin:
The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell. I've never taken to him. I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him. (#1294)
These posts are concomitant in that you are developing a thought process. The process evolves into you believing that Colin was the person who caused Sheila to develop schizophrenia.
The Moderators won't remove this post because it's my right to free speech, and I've given my view on how you expressed yourself.
-
Certainly I can. Clicking on your name and trawling through your posts it's #1185:
Is there a case to be made that Colin was a factor in Sheila developing schizophrenia? Isn't it true that she first saw a psychiatrist during or after the marriage? This probably needs a new thread, though, as with respect we are majorly going off on a tangent here.
This was such an important observation to you that you thought it deserved a new thread. You had already commented on a previous post that you never liked Colin:
The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell. I've never taken to him. I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him. (#1294)
These posts are concomitant in that you are developing a thought process. The process evolves into you believing that Colin was the person who caused Sheila to develop schizophrenia.
The Moderators won't remove this post because it's my right to free speech, and I've given my view on how you expressed yourself.
Wrong again Steve!!!
QCC said
Is there a case?
A few questions for you Steve
Do you believe it’s ok for a man to physically attack a women?
Do you believe a women would almost certainly suffer mental health problems after being physically attacked by her husband?
Why do you think Colin misled the media feeding them the idea Sheila and him could be getting back together?
Why do you think Colin misled the media saying Sheila could not have been responsible for the murders because she would have had to be a marksmen to carry out the murders?
Do you not think it’s really bad to lie to the media just to sell a book?
Why was there talk of fostering and previous fostering when the children had Colin?
-
Can you imagine the outcry there'd be today if headlines read " that a young woman had to have an abortion, then went on to suffer 2/3 further miscarriages and nobody cared or looked after her mentally or physically ?" Because this is what had happened to Sheila. The seed was sown for mental health problems to develop as time went on. Is it any wonder she flipped ? Her situation would have tried the strongest of people.
Sheila's story should have been told, then people could judge for themselves !
-
Can you imagine the outcry there'd be today if headlines read " that a young woman had to have an abortion, then went on to suffer 2/3 further miscarriages and nobody cared or looked after her mentally or physically ?" Because this is what had happened to Sheila. The seed was sown for mental health problems to develop as time went on. Is it any wonder she flipped ? Her situation would have tried the strongest of people.
Sheila's story should have been told, then people could judge for themselves !
Your right Lookout. Colins had his say, he has courted the media to sell his book and it’s about time Sheilas story is told especially as we are focusing on Mental Health at this moment. I have always thought a new documentary about the WHF should focus on Julie Mugfords part in Jeremys conviction but maybe the real focus should start with Sheila. It’s hard to imagine the state of Sheilas mind on that last trip to WHF and what led up to the events that night.
To be honest I am still shell shocked by the events last Friday at Little Baddow Fruit Farm which involved someone I saw every single day
30 years on and we are still not doing enough
-
Your right Lookout. Colins had his say, he has courted the media to sell his book and it’s about time Sheilas story is told especially as we are focusing on Mental Health at this moment. I have always thought a new documentary about the WHF should focus on Julie Mugfords part in Jeremys conviction but maybe the real focus should start with Sheila. It’s hard to imagine the state of Sheilas mind on that last trip to WHF and what led up to the events that night.
To be honest I am still shell shocked by the events last Friday at Little Baddow Fruit Farm which involved someone I saw every single day
30 years on and we are still not doing enough
Not enough is known about mental health and the triggers which cause people to take their own lives as well as those of others . It's not as though such cases are rare either.
-
Wrong again Steve!!!
QCC said
Is there a case?
A few questions for you Steve
Do you believe it’s ok for a man to physically attack a women?
Do you believe a women would almost certainly suffer mental health problems after being physically attacked by her husband?
Why do you think Colin misled the media feeding them the idea Sheila and him could be getting back together?
Why do you think Colin misled the media saying Sheila could not have been responsible for the murders because she would have had to be a marksmen to carry out the murders?
Do you not think it’s really bad to lie to the media just to sell a book?
Why was there talk of fostering and previous fostering when the children had Colin?
I understand Colin retaliated only once, after what must have been months or even years of abuse. He evidently couldn't live with her, and in her state I doubt anyone could. Apart, Sheila realized that she had gone too far, and Colin realized that he had to step in with childcare responsibilities as his ex-wife just wasn't capable of looking after Nicholas and Daniel full time.
-
One possible explanation is to do with propaganda. Roch may have some input here, as he takes an interest in these things.
I've read her book. Though I thought it was well written, I felt it was a poor representation of the case. I sense that she has a pro-police / pro-authorities confirmation bias. One could be forgiven for wondering whether she either led JB on, and he then placed too much trust in her which she exploited. I wonder whether she was unable to grasp the complexities of the issues he was trying to inform her about - so she reached for the more familiar world of police explanations - a bit like a CCRC caseworker, who has been assured by EP that all is above board regarding curation of the negatives and therefore dismisses the explanation by the defence as to why the missing images of a particular location are so important.
Let's say there were five key aspects of the case that defence researchers could agree on, that were damaging to the police / prosecution / conviction. If they tried to get that in to a quality documentary, I do not believe it would happen. Contrast that with the adaptation of CAL's book, with all its investment and stars, which for all intents and purposes will be seen by the majority of a mass audience as being an accurate representation of the facts. In that sense, it is propaganda. The program makers were allowed to shut out the defence. They should have been made to mention that in captions.
Then we have Roy Tyzack (if he's bona-fide) who's been inside EP, knows that this case is fetid and is a very sensitive matter to bring up behind closed doors. If I was CAL, I would be contemplating 'how come this senior ex-detective from within EP has come to that view... have I missed something?'.
She's done alright out of it. Whether she lives to regret it - who knows. I like to think she could do in old age.
-
I understand Colin retaliated only once, after what must have been months or even years of abuse. He evidently couldn't live with her, and in her state I doubt anyone could. Apart, Sheila realized that she had gone too far, and Colin realized that he had to step in with childcare responsibilities as his ex-wife just wasn't capable of looking after Nicholas and Daniel full time.
As usual your post is a joke?
“You understand”
What? Have you got a hot line to Colin?
Where do you understand this from?
The fact is you don’t know do you?
If a man is capable of violence it’s likely to have happened more than once but Colin likes to make things up doesn’t he?
How big was Colin and how small was Sheila?
Why were her children fostered why didn’t he look after his children when his wife was seriously ill?
Did Colin have a girlfriend at the time of the murders? Or was he planning to get back with Sheila as he told the press?
Why did Colin only include Jeremys letters in his book not his replies?
EVERYTHING Colin did would have had an affect on Sheilas mental health
Let’s post some facts and the truth on here Steve because I am sick to death of your “I understands”
-
I've read her book. Though I thought it was well written, I felt it was a poor representation of the case. I sense that she has a pro-police / pro-authorities confirmation bias. One could be forgiven for wondering whether she either led JB on, and he then placed too much trust in her which she exploited. I wonder whether she was unable to grasp the complexities of the issues he was trying to inform her about - so she reached for the more familiar world of police explanations - a bit like a CCRC caseworker, who has been assured by EP that all is above board regarding curation of the negatives and therefore dismisses the explanation by the defence as to why the missing images of a particular location are so important.
Let's say there were five key aspects of the case that defence researchers could agree on, that were damaging to the police / prosecution / conviction. If they tried to get that in to a quality documentary, I do not believe it would happen. Contrast that with the adaptation of CAL's book, with all its investment and stars, which for all intents and purposes will be seen by the majority of a mass audience as being an accurate representation of the facts. In that sense, it is propaganda. The program makers were allowed to shut out the defence. They should have been made to mention that in captions.
Then we have Roy Tyzack (if he's bona-fide) who's been inside EP, knows that this case is fetid and is a very sensitive matter to bring up behind closed doors. If I was CAL, I would be contemplating 'how come this senior ex-detective from within EP has come to the view... have I missed something?'.
She's done alright out of it. Whether she lives to regret it - who knows. I like to think she could do in old age.
What do you mean if Roy Tyzack is bona-fide ??
He 100% is, I have met him and he was on a training course and the person and his wife who were training him as a paramedic stayed at Little Baddow Fruit Farm and he discussed the problems he had run into investigating the case
Find him on Facebook and ask him
-
I've read her book. Though I thought it was well written, I felt it was a poor representation of the case. I sense that she has a pro-police / pro-authorities confirmation bias. One could be forgiven for wondering whether she either led JB on, and he then placed too much trust in her which she exploited. I wonder whether she was unable to grasp the complexities of the issues he was trying to inform her about - so she reached for the more familiar world of police explanations - a bit like a CCRC caseworker, who has been assured by EP that all is above board regarding curation of the negatives and therefore dismisses the explanation by the defence as to why the missing images of a particular location are so important.
Let's say there were five key aspects of the case that defence researchers could agree on, that were damaging to the police / prosecution / conviction. If they tried to get that in to a quality documentary, I do not believe it would happen. Contrast that with the adaptation of CAL's book, with all its investment and stars, which for all intents and purposes will be seen by the majority of a mass audience as being an accurate representation of the facts. In that sense, it is propaganda. The program makers were allowed to shut out the defence. They should have been made to mention that in captions.
Then we have Roy Tyzack (if he's bona-fide) who's been inside EP, knows that this case is fetid and is a very sensitive matter to bring up behind closed doors. If I was CAL, I would be contemplating 'how come this senior ex-detective from within EP has come to that view... have I missed something?'.
She's done alright out of it. Whether she lives to regret it - who knows. I like to think she could do in old age.
But there is very little of a personal nature involving Jeremy's side of the story: the relationship he had with his mother, father and sister, why he thought Suzette went back to Jersey..we just don't know. It's my opinion that he clammed up the moment the white prison van arrived late and sped away to Wormwood Scrubs, the expression on his face revealing more than he has ever divulged since, as he came to the realization he had been rumbled, just as his secret at Gresham's had been discovered all those years before. Never again would he put his trust in any individual, preferring to languish in jail on his own terms rather than confide. It's why successive lawyers have drawn a blank, along with Trudi, her predecessors and successors, condemned to extracting trivia rather than addressing head-on the fundamentals of the case.
-
As usual your post is a joke?
“You understand”
What? Have you got a hot line to Colin?
Where do you understand this from?
The fact is you don’t know do you?
If a man is capable of violence it’s likely to have happened more than once but Colin likes to make things up doesn’t he?
How big was Colin and how small was Sheila?
Why were her children fostered why didn’t he look after his children when his wife was seriously ill?
Did Colin have a girlfriend at the time of the murders? Or was he planning to get back with Sheila as he told the press?
Why did Colin only include Jeremys letters in his book not his replies?
EVERYTHING Colin did would have had an affect on Sheilas mental health
Let’s post some facts and the truth on here Steve because I am sick to death of your “I understands”
Nobody with any heart could not fail to be moved by what may be his last ever interview on the case. He has a genuine insight into this story and its major protagonists, and it's clear to me that though June might not have caused Sheila's schizophrenia her condition was exacerbated every time she spent time in her mother's company. The irony was that by the end there had been an improvement in relations between the two as June relented somewhat: she was making arrangements for an allowance for her daughter to be paid quarterly, Sheila had, after all, been bought a flat in London, which would not have happened without June's approval and she seemed to be given free rein there. I could imagine the Bambers also paying for the boys' private education and wishing to see more of them during the school holidays involving longer stays at the Farm in the future.
Nobody really knows what pertains in a marriage apart from the two who are in it. Sheila was ill and needed help. Colin may have been unprepared fo the onslaughts he faced and immature in having a fling when the opportunity presented itself. I'm unconvinced of these so-called "alternative cures" for what is undoubtedly a serious mental illness. But he grew into the part: he kept on amicable terms with her and her parents and shouldered the responsibilities of parenthood exceptionally well when the full implications of her illness became clear.
-
What do you mean if Roy Tyzack is bona-fide ??
He 100% is, I have met him and he was on a training course and the person and his wife who were training him as a paramedic stayed at Little Baddow Fruit Farm and he discussed the problems he had run into investigating the case
Find him on Facebook and ask him
I hope that he is bona-fide. But given his former pay grade etc, by posting his remark on Change.Org, he will have no doubt drawn the attentions of defence supporters like moths round a lamp. And if people are sharing appeal related info, they might want to exercise caution just to be on the safe side. I think they will be cautious tbh, from what I have heard.
When you say investigate the case, do you mean in the capacity of a retired, former officer?
-
Nobody with any heart could not fail to be moved by what may be his last ever interview on the case. He has a genuine insight into this story and its major protagonists, and it's clear to me that though June might not have caused Sheila's schizophrenia her condition was exacerbated every time she spent time in her mother's company. The irony was that by the end there had been an improvement in relations between the two as June relented somewhat: she was making arrangements for an allowance for her daughter to be paid quarterly, Sheila had, after all, been bought a flat in London, which would not have happened without June's approval and she seemed to be given free rein there. I could imagine the Bambers also paying for the boys' private education and wishing to see more of them during the school holidays involving longer stays at the Farm in the future.
Nobody really knows what pertains in a marriage apart from the two who are in it. Sheila was ill and needed help. Colin may have been unprepared fo the onslaughts he faced and immature in having a fling when the opportunity presented itself. I'm unconvinced of these so-called "alternative cures" for what is undoubtedly a serious mental illness. But he grew into the part: he kept on amicable terms with her and her parents and shouldered the responsibilities of parenthood exceptionally well when the full implications of her illness became clear.
Let’s deal with the violence and affairs that Sheila had to deal with. That breaks my heart.
Mental health statistics: domestic violence
Some 1.2 million women and 700,000 men experience domestic violence each year, according to the Office for National Statistics.1
However, these figures relate only for official reports of violence, with the real figure likely to be much higher. The effect on survivors' mental health is profound and obvious.
Domestic violence has an estimated overall cost to mental healthcare of £176 million.2
Research suggests that women experienceing domestic abuse are more likely to experience a mental health problem, while women with mental health problems are more likely to be domestically abused, with 30-60% of women with a mental health problem having experienced domestic violence.3
Domestic violence is associated with depression, anxiety, PTSD and substance abuse in the general population.4
Exposure to domestic violence has a significant impact on children's mental health. Many studies have found strong links with poorer educational outcomes and higher levels of mental health problems.5
-
Sheila suffered domestic abuse fact and don’t even try to excuse his behaviour.
Is there any evidence Jeremy punched women?
Your arguments are always so weak
-
Nobody with any heart could not fail to be moved by what may be his last ever interview on the case. He has a genuine insight into this story and its major protagonists, and it's clear to me that though June might not have caused Sheila's schizophrenia her condition was exacerbated every time she spent time in her mother's company. The irony was that by the end there had been an improvement in relations between the two as June relented somewhat: she was making arrangements for an allowance for her daughter to be paid quarterly, Sheila had, after all, been bought a flat in London, which would not have happened without June's approval and she seemed to be given free rein there. I could imagine the Bambers also paying for the boys' private education and wishing to see more of them during the school holidays involving longer stays at the Farm in the future.
Nobody really knows what pertains in a marriage apart from the two who are in it. Sheila was ill and needed help. Colin may have been unprepared fo the onslaughts he faced and immature in having a fling when the opportunity presented itself. I'm unconvinced of these so-called "alternative cures" for what is undoubtedly a serious mental illness. But he grew into the part: he kept on amicable terms with her and her parents and shouldered the responsibilities of parenthood exceptionally well when the full implications of her illness became clear.
You keep quoting the Bambers bought Sheila a flat in London and the Bamber bought Jeremy a cottage so I hope you can prove that or instead of trying to mislead the forum do you mean the Bambers bought the flat and the cottage to add to there property portfolio or do you mean the Bambers bought the properties and handed over the deeds to Sheila and Jeremy
-
Jeremy is now taking legal action with prison services for refusing to downgrade him from maximum security status.
" In written documents before the court JB's barrister Matthew Stanbury said his client, who is being held at HMP Wakefield, " is a model prisoner ", " He acts as a peer mentor teaching other prisoners to read and write " said Mr Stanbury.
He has a partner and support network within the community.
Mr. Stanbury said that an independent psychologist's report commissioned by JB's solicitor concluded that JB had met the test for downgrading a Cat.A prisoner and that these conditions were no longer necessary for managing him.
The rest of this news can be found in the DM online.
-
You keep quoting the Bambers bought Sheila a flat in London and the Bamber bought Jeremy a cottage so I hope you can prove that or instead of trying to mislead the forum do you mean the Bambers bought the flat and the cottage to add to there property portfolio or do you mean the Bambers bought the properties and handed over the deeds to Sheila and Jeremy
I doubt Sheila owned the flat outright, but I just don't know. Bourtree Cottage was part of the Bamber portfolio because Len Foakes was moved out to make way for Jeremy Bamber. It had also been mooted by June to install Sheila therein at one point but this idea must have fallen through.
-
Jeremy is now taking legal action with prison services for refusing to downgrade him from maximum security status.
" In written documents before the court JB's barrister Matthew Stanbury said his client, who is being held at HMP Wakefield, " is a model prisoner ", " He acts as a peer mentor teaching other prisoners to read and write " said Mr Stanbury.
He has a partner and support network within the community.
Mr. Stanbury said that an independent psychologist's report commissioned by JB's solicitor concluded that JB had met the test for downgrading a Cat.A prisoner and that these conditions were no longer necessary for managing him.
The rest of this news can be found in the DM online.
Isn't this all academic lookout? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-54512137
-
Julie wasn't consulted..https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7984669/Jeremy-Bambers-girlfriend-helped-jail-murders-seen-Canadian-home.html
-
Jeremy is now taking legal action with prison services for refusing to downgrade him from maximum security status.
" In written documents before the court JB's barrister Matthew Stanbury said his client, who is being held at HMP Wakefield, " is a model prisoner ", " He acts as a peer mentor teaching other prisoners to read and write " said Mr Stanbury.
He has a partner and support network within the community.
Mr. Stanbury said that an independent psychologist's report commissioned by JB's solicitor concluded that JB had met the test for downgrading a Cat.A prisoner and that these conditions were no longer necessary for managing him.
The rest of this news can be found in the DM online.
That’s brilliant news Lookout and well overdue. Hopefully he will have a lot more free time to work on his case
-
I doubt Sheila owned the flat outright, but I just don't know. Bourtree Cottage was part of the Bamber portfolio because Len Foakes was moved out to make way for Jeremy Bamber. It had also been mooted by June to install Sheila therein at one point but this idea must have fallen through.
Well let’s make that clear, nobody bought any property for Sheila or Jeremy so don’t mislead posters
-
Well let’s make that clear, nobody bought any property for Sheila or Jeremy so don’t mislead posters
I wasn't intending to mislead. The fact that June was in the process of giving her daughter a quarterly allowance for the 28th birthday and doing this through legal means might raise the possibility that sometime in the future the flat would also become legally hers.
Let's not distract from the bigger picture though. With Sheila and the twins dispatched and their worldly possessions put in black bin bags for the dustmen to collect the flat became Jeremy's property on 7 August 1985, along with Bourtree Cottage and £436,000 of his parents' savings.
-
Julie wasn't consulted..https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7984669/Jeremy-Bambers-girlfriend-helped-jail-murders-seen-Canadian-home.html
I bet she was gutted Steve. She must of thought she would get paid for being portrayed in the drama?
-
I wasn't intending to mislead. The fact that June was in the process of giving her daughter a quarterly allowance for the 28th birthday and doing this through legal means might raise the possibility that sometime in the future the flat would also become legally hers.
Let's not distract from the bigger picture though. With Sheila and the twins dispatched and their worldly possessions put in black bin bags for the dustmen to collect the flat became Jeremy's property on 7 August 1985, along with Bourtree Cottage and £436,000 of his parents' savings.
Let’s not distract, maybe you should wonder a bit more why Jeremy is still fighting to clear his name and use the legal process to do so.
If you believe Jeremy to be innocent like me you should look at Sheila’s husband and the part in her demise
Could you answer two questions
Why did Colin allow the children to be fostered
Why did Colin lie in his media interview
-
Isn't this all academic lookout? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-54512137
Whether or not Steve, surely at this juncture you'd go for anything so long as it kept your name in the public arena. Nobody has listened nor given him a chance to have his say in his own words for all these years, instead, the public are fed by the media, tv or in books which has been a one-sided affair now for 35 years.
-
Whether or not Steve, surely at this juncture you'd go for anything so long as it kept your name in the public arena. Nobody has listened nor given him a chance to have his say in his own words for all these years, instead, the public are fed by the media, tv or in books which has been a one-sided affair now for 35 years.
But why has he shunned so many legal advisors heretofore, and dumped friends when they tried to probe a little deeper into the massacre? What is the purpose of these long letters written in capitals if their contents are not going to be pursued legally but fall on deaf ears?
-
At least this time JB won't have that interfering old buzzard sticking his oar in !
-
Let’s not distract, maybe you should wonder a bit more why Jeremy is still fighting to clear his name and use the legal process to do so.
If you believe Jeremy to be innocent like me you should look at Sheila’s husband and the part in her demise
Could you answer two questions
Why did Colin allow the children to be fostered
Why did Colin lie in his media interview
I think the fostering was only for a brief period. Maybe Colin's girlfriend didn't wish to take them on, or she was working, or Colin was working on his parents' market stall and was pushed for money. I don't know. What I do know is that when it became clear to him that Sheila's illness was impacting on the boys' welfare he did step in.
As for your second question, I think Colin had the vision of the ideal family and yearned to have those times back. He suffered three bereavements don't forget. I think he wanted the Sheila he knew and loved in 1974 but was powerless to affect events as they spiralled out of his control.
-
At least this time JB won't have that interfering old buzzard sticking his oar in !
To whom are you alluding lookout?
-
I think the fostering was only for a brief period. Maybe Colin's girlfriend didn't wish to take them on, or she was working, or Colin was working on his parents' market stall and was pushed for money. I don't know. What I do know is that when it became clear to him that Sheila's illness was impacting on the boys' welfare he did step in.
As for your second question, I think Colin had the vision of the ideal family and yearned to have those times back. He suffered three bereavements don't forget. I think he wanted the Sheila he knew and loved in 1974 but was powerless to affect events as they spiralled out of his control.
What an absolute charmer
-
What an absolute charmer
I have no idea Jackie whether this is true or not. Speaking generally it's far better to say from the outset that you don't wish to undertake childcare responsibilities than to let children know through the atmosphere created in the home that you resent their presence.
-
To whom are you alluding lookout?
RWB when he hit the roof at the thought of JB being de-categorised from A to C as was once suggested.
-
Reading Chapter 7 again I came across this:
In summer 1980, Camden social services brought a "day fostering" scheme into effect for Nicholas and Daniel. Far from fostering in the usual sense, it simply involved child-minding on a daily basis with extra support for Sheila. Twenty-three-year-old Judith Jackson, married with two children of her own, cared for the twins every weekday for a few hours. Her home near Parliament Hill fields was a fifteen minute walk for Sheila and the twins; when Judith later moved to Highgate, social services arranged transport.
Of course those wishing to go on painting Colin in a bad light, or rubbishing Carol Ann Lee's book can go on making up their own stories.
-
RWB when he hit the roof at the thought of JB being de-categorised from A to C as was once suggested.
Arrogance personified. He's guilty because we say he is. Because we got the police personnel changed and they proved us right. Watching from above, I'm sure Nevill and June are absolutely thrilled that JB was framed and imprisoned for life. Well done Robert & Co Ltd.
-
Arrogance personified. He's guilty because we say he is. Because we got the police personnel changed and they proved us right. Watching from above, I'm sure Nevill and June are absolutely thrilled that JB was framed and imprisoned for life. Well done Robert & Co Ltd.
No, it's because Jeremy Bamber committed what he called "the perfect crime" and had everybody duped for a short time period, then some loyal diehards remained duped thereafter.
-
No, it's because Jeremy Bamber committed what he called "the perfect crime" and had everybody duped for a short time period, then some loyal diehards remained duped thereafter.
The point is you can’t provide ANY evidence that Jeremy is guilty
-
The point is you can’t provide ANY evidence that Jeremy is guilty
I believe Julie, shocking as her evidence was.
-
I believe Julie, shocking as her evidence was.
There is no possibility Julie would have done what she did just because she was jilted. It is not even clear she was jilted.
As everyone knows, the police could not threaten to prosecute her for anything else. As they didn't know about them.
-
'I DO NOT ACCEPT, THIS AUTHORS POINT OF VIEW, SHE HAS NEVER HAD ANY EXPERIENCES OF POLICE/ WITNESS/ CPS/ JUDICIARY/ GOVERNMENTAL, CORRUPTION'...
Please, stop trying to 'take the piss', the equivalent of the point I am making, is akin to the present pandemic principle, of 'BLACK LIVES, MATTER'..
UNLESS, YOU HAVE BEEN A VICTIM, YOURSELF BECAUSE YOUR SKIN IS NOT WHITE, THERE IS NO WAY 'THE CURRENT JURY SELECTION SYSTEM, IS FAIR, HONEST, OR TRUE'..
IT'S A 'RIGGED SYSTEM', RUN BY THE CRIMINAL ELITE, LYING, SELFISH FAT CAT BASTARDS WHO ALL WILL EVENTUALLY 'rot in hell' ( the homest decent public servants shall/ should be rightfully excluded from the consequences of my aforementioned comments).
..
'BASTARDS', the 'LOT OF THEM'...
-
She said "I think he was hoping that I would go to the police about it. But I had no proof", the focus on the word Proof.
Giving your father grief is hardly worth a worried person considering going to the Police, and Proof suggests a criminal intent of some sorts or crime, its potentially a vital piece of information, that could damn or at least help Bamber.
PS whats Bamber's handle here, (I'm half joking)
You have got, 'it all wrong'
Listen up, and pay particular attention, this person (jeremy Bamber, 'DID NOT, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE, FOR FIRING THE SECOND SHOT TO HER NECK, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY LODGED IN HER BRAIN. This is because, police crime scene photographs exist, and which were taken by the police, which proves/confirm that Sheila (CAFFELL) was photographed laid on top of her parents bed, with a solitary bullet wound to her neck/throat, with an absence of 'blood runs', or additional blood staining upon her face, or nightdress'...
Now, please, are you 'a fucking idiot', or is it possible for someone like you, to understand the significance of what I am telling you? Listen to the words I am saying from here on in....
I would not like to think, that people like you, were a member of the jury deciding whether or not, I was guilty of any alleged offence that I personally was on trial for..
People like you (and there are many) believe every bit of bullshit that is part of the prosecutions case! In particular, you and those, believe every lying word that (some police officers and favoured witnesses might say 'in favour of guilt'), in my mindset, how is it possible at all, for someone like you to comprehend the wickedness of a police officer, or an 'onboard' witness, to tell the truth? Bearing in mind, that in any circumstance, or situation, that neither me, you, or any other fucker, sees, or knows, or can tell, what 'THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH' in any matter can be, or is resolved by one persons account?
There is a basic principle, at the heart of this (important) issue...
There are, a minimum/ :-\ :-X :-\ maximum of three different versions of the 'ABOLUTE TRUTH', (1) your version, (2) my version, and (3) a little bit of (1) and (2)...
-
You have got, 'it all wrong'
Listen up, and pay particular attention, this person (jeremy Bamber, 'DID NOT, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE, FOR FIRING THE SECOND SHOT TO HER NECK, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY LODGED IN HER BRAIN. This is because, police crime scene photographs exist, and which were taken by the police, which proves/confirm that Sheila (CAFFELL) was photographed laid on top of her parents bed, with a solitary bullet wound to her neck/throat, with an absence of 'blood runs', or additional blood staining upon her face, or nightdress'...
Now, please, are you 'a fucking idiot', or is it possible for someone like you, to understand the significance of what I am telling you? Listen to the words I am saying from here on in....
I would not like to think, that people like you, were a member of the jury deciding whether or not, I was guilty of any 'alleged offence' that I personally was on trial for..
People like you (and there are many) believe every bit of bullshit that is part of the prosecutions case! In particular, you and those, 'believe every lying word' that (some police officers and favoured witnesses might say 'in favour of guilt'), in my mindset, how is it possible at all, for someone like you to comprehend the wickedness of a police officer, or an 'onboard' witness, to tell the truth? Bearing in mind, that in any circumstance, or situation, that neither me, you, or any other fucker, sees, or knows, or can tell, what 'THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH' in any matter can be, or is resolved by one persons account?
There is a basic principle, at the heart of this (important) issue...
There are, a minimum-\ maximum of three different versions of the 'ABOLUTE TRUTH', (1) your version, (2) my version, and (3) a little bit of (1) and (2)...
You have never been a victim, of police, CPS, Magistrates, Judiciary, governmental, racial, 'Injustice'
-
You have never been a victim, of police, CPS, Magistrates, Judiciary, governmental, racial, 'Injustice'
When, if you are misfortune enough to experience, such 'a wonderful experience' please get in touch with me personally ([email protected])...
People are being abused, people are dying, people are being falsely prosecuted, and incarcerated, and in the distant past, people have been hanged, because one politician, or other, was 'a selfish bastard', and relied on 'his/her view' of the reality...
The unlawfull killing/murder of 'DEREK BENTLEY', SPRINGS TO MIND..
Imagine, what this 'young man' went through, because of the singular view of the then, 'Home secretary's
Please, I don't even need a response from you, because 'I already know', that 'my view' is aligned with 'THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH' in this particular matter..
YES, I AM TELLING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, IN THIS MATTER!!!
-
When, if you are misfortune enough to experience, such 'a wonderful experience' please get in touch with me personally ([email protected])...
People are being abused, people are dying, people are being falsely prosecuted, and incarcerated, and in the distant past, people have been hanged, because one politician, or other, was 'a selfish bastard', and relied on 'his/her view' of the reality...
The unlawfull killing/murder of 'DEREK BENTLEY', SPRINGS TO MIND..
Imagine, what this 'young man' went through, because of the singular view of the then, 'Home secretary's
Please, I don't even need a response from you, because 'I already know', that 'my view' is aligned with 'THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH' in this particular matter..
YES, I AM TELLING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, IN THIS MATTER!!!
You can also, phone, or text me, on the following mobile number...
07857500071
-
I will respond to any queries, from supporters, or adversaries, police, CPS, judiciary, home office, or governmental question(s) as soon as possible...
-
I will respond to any queries, from supporters, or adversaries, police, CPS, judiciary, home office, or governmental question(s) as soon as possible...
Please note, I am 'not available' for talk to talk on my mobile until 10.00pm (onwards) this evening!
Thank You...
-
Jeremy is now taking legal action with prison services for refusing to downgrade him from maximum security status.
" In written documents before the court JB's barrister Matthew Stanbury said his client, who is being held at HMP Wakefield, " is a model prisoner ", " He acts as a peer mentor teaching other prisoners to read and write " said Mr Stanbury.
He has a partner and support network within the community.
Mr. Stanbury said that an independent psychologist's report commissioned by JB's solicitor concluded that JB had met the test for downgrading a Cat.A prisoner and that these conditions were no longer necessary for managing him.
The rest of this news can be found in the DM online.
The bid has failed: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/courts/white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-bamber-loses-bid-to-be-freed-from-maximum-security-prison/ar-BB1axoXc?ocid=msedgntp
-
The bid has failed: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/courts/white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-bamber-loses-bid-to-be-freed-from-maximum-security-prison/ar-BB1axoXc?ocid=msedgntp
Yes, I read it earlier and get so annoyed when I read the same drivel about the " rifle with silencer attached was too long for Sheila to have shot herself with " Hasn't it yet dawned on anyone that no silencer was attached and even if it had been, it would have been removed ::)
It's the same old gubbins which gets churned out ad infinitum. This Covid is proving to be a blessing in di
guise for many areas, particularly all things judiciary.
There are far more dangerous individuals walking our streets !
-
Years ago he was seen fit to be downgraded but a stiff letter from RWB when he was alive had made doubly sure that it wasn't going to take place----and it didn't.
I sincerely hope that this lot is going to blow up in someone's face before long.
-
Do you think he should have a face-to-face evaluation, as suggested by his lawyers?
-
Yes I do Steve. The only way anyone can draw any conclusions from anyone is to face them.
-
Been watching this up until the inquest when the bodies are about to be released. Obviously it's skewed towards Jeremy being guilty. The found silencer being the most compelling.
Would the Eatons have known the silencer was always kept where it was ? Jeremy could have just disposed of it.
Also the silencer could have simply been placed next to Sheila, to make it look as though she'd removed it when being unable to reach the trigger.
-
Been watching this up until the inquest when the bodies are about to be released. Obviously it's skewed towards Jeremy being guilty. The found silencer being the most compelling.
Would the Eatons have known the silencer was always kept where it was ? Jeremy could have just disposed of it.
Also the silencer could have simply been placed next to Sheila, to make it look as though she'd removed it when being unable to reach the trigger.
I can't think of any reason why he would not have done as you suggest.
A further point is that if we assume he is guilty and he did replace the silencer in the gun cupboard, then why was no blood found on the carpet of the den or in the gun cupboard itself, or even in the cardboard box in which the silencer was found? Both Jeremy and the silencer would have had blood on them.
And why did Jeremy allow the family to take the keys to the house after the police had completed their search? Surely, even if the silencer had been noticed as missing, that in itself is not concrete evidence and he could plead ignorance. (I suppose that raises the more fundamental point of why he would put the silencer back at all).
There is also the prior question of whether a silencer was used in the first place to execute the killings.
Personally, I doubt it would have had much of a mitigating effect acoustically, but I think NG1066 takes a different view, and I also must acknowledge that Jeremy would not necessarily have known about the acoustic effect (even with all his firearms experience) and may have just assumed it would significantly muffle the weapon. He also had no realistic way to test the point beforehand, even if he had planned the whole thing through to that extent. The matter would have to be properly tested. We do have the finding of human blood in the silencer. Assuming it was human blood, and if we are sceptical about the involvement of a silencer, then one must ask: How did the blood get there? The way that the blood dispersed in the silencer (on the outer side of the baffles) would be consistent with the blood having been planted, but how would a conspirator know that the blood being planted is consistent with Sheila's blood type? And would a family member take such a risk? What could motivate them? They weren't threatened with homelessness or some comparable catastrophe. Could the blood have got in there accidentally, either from cross-contamination or something else that occurred prior to the incident?
The DNA testing that was undertaken in the 1990s does not really help because it was inconclusive and not linked to blood.
-
Thanks for your reply QCChevalier.
Blood groups are determined by genes inherited from parents, with both Sheila & Jeremy being adopted it would be interesting to know their blood groups.
If Sheila's wasn't 'O' (48% of Brits) it would obviously increase the odds of it being her blood.
Is it possible that whilst rummaging around the house the Eatons came across a blood patch they believed to be Sheila's, and simply smeared the silencer with it ?
"And why did Jeremy allow the family to take the keys to the house after the police had completed their search?
"
I don't find this odd at all.
A young free spirited 24 year old recently returned from a back packing trip around Oz & NZ, would be happy to off load the responsibility onto the more mature older members of the family.
How was he to know there was a risk of evidence being planted against him.
Also why would Neville contact Jeremy and not simply phone 999 if the situation was serious ?
Maybe it was because Neville didn't deem it serious.
Jeremy couldn't be bothered dealing with another issue involving his sister, so just phones the local Police Station.
-
Been watching this up until the inquest when the bodies are about to be released. Obviously it's skewed towards Jeremy being guilty. The found silencer being the most compelling.
Would the Eatons have known the silencer was always kept where it was ? Jeremy could have just disposed of it.
Also the silencer could have simply been placed next to Sheila, to make it look as though she'd removed it when being unable to reach the trigger.
To my mind Julie's evidence is the most compelling aspect of the case, but to each his own. He used a sound moderator because he felt it offered him a better chance of successfully overcoming five individuals that morning. The Defence case that Sheila attached the silencer to the murder weapon then returned it to the gun cupboard before proceeding back upstairs to shoot herself next to the woman she didn't particularly get along with is plainly a nonsense. If the silencer was not used in the killings the Defence has to explain why there was no blood in the barrel of the gun.
-
I can't think of any reason why he would not have done as you suggest.
A further point is that if we assume he is guilty and he did replace the silencer in the gun cupboard, then why was no blood found on the carpet of the den or in the gun cupboard itself, or even in the cardboard box in which the silencer was found? Both Jeremy and the silencer would have had blood on them.
And why did Jeremy allow the family to take the keys to the house after the police had completed their search? Surely, even if the silencer had been noticed as missing, that in itself is not concrete evidence and he could plead ignorance. (I suppose that raises the more fundamental point of why he would put the silencer back at all).
There is also the prior question of whether a silencer was used in the first place to execute the killings.
Personally, I doubt it would have had much of a mitigating effect acoustically, but I think NG1066 takes a different view, and I also must acknowledge that Jeremy would not necessarily have known about the acoustic effect (even with all his firearms experience) and may have just assumed it would significantly muffle the weapon. He also had no realistic way to test the point beforehand, even if he had planned the whole thing through to that extent. The matter would have to be properly tested. We do have the finding of human blood in the silencer. Assuming it was human blood, and if we are sceptical about the involvement of a silencer, then one must ask: How did the blood get there? The way that the blood dispersed in the silencer (on the outer side of the baffles) would be consistent with the blood having been planted, but how would a conspirator know that the blood being planted is consistent with Sheila's blood type? And would a family member take such a risk? What could motivate them? They weren't threatened with homelessness or some comparable catastrophe. Could the blood have got in there accidentally, either from cross-contamination or something else that occurred prior to the incident?
The DNA testing that was undertaken in the 1990s does not really help because it was inconclusive and not linked to blood.
Not strictly true, though we are dealing with Low Copy Number DNA. The DNA found in the silencer was 3500 times more likely to have emanated from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour. As far as Sheila Caffell was concerned seventeen out of twenty markers were found, higher than a random result of thirteen.
-
A young free spirited 24 year old recently returned from a back packing trip around Oz & NZ, would be happy to off load the responsibility onto the more mature older members of the family.
How was he to know there was a risk of evidence being planted against him.
Of course. I was commenting from the starting-point of assuming that Jeremy is guilty and I was asking why a guilty person would grant that concession. It could be arrogance or a miscalculation, but it does seem odd. Surely a rational calculation would be that the risk of suspicion arising from a missing silencer is much easier to deal with than the risk of an incriminating silencer being found?
Furthermore, if Jeremy was supposed to have put the silencer back, then logically we must assume he cleaned it, but by the family's own admission, it wasn't clean.
The whole thing simply doesn't make sense.
Also why would Neville contact Jeremy and not simply phone 999 if the situation was serious ?
Maybe it was because Neville didn't deem it serious.
Jeremy couldn't be bothered dealing with another issue involving his sister, so just phones the local Police Station.
[In bold] I've never understood the fuss people make about that part of Jeremy's story. The ITV drama made a lot out of it in the courtroom scene of Jeremy's cross-examination. To me, it's a total non-point, for two reasons:
First, if Jeremy is telling the truth and Nevill did ring him, it needn't have been an emergency at that point.
Second, there are a number of sound reasons why Nevill would have been reluctant to bring official attention on a gun-related incident involving Sheila (obviously on the caveat that she wasn't harming anybody at a given point). Anybody who has looked into the case in some depth will know what those reasons are. If Sheila was just waving the gun around but had not yet actually harmed anybody, ringing Jeremy does not seem an unreasonable thing to do.
A related point is that people ask why Nevill would not just take the gun off her. I went into that question on another thread. For reasons I won't go into, I know a thing or two about this sort of thing.
I explained that taking a loaded gun off somebody weaker and smaller than you is not necessarily as simple as it sounds. The closest analogy I can offer you is, if you are a man, think back - assuming this applies to you - to a time you had a fight with another man who was shorter than you. It's quite hard. Sheila may have been running around with the gun, and Nevill may have called Jeremy as a way of distracting Sheila from the children upstairs or as a way of encouraging her to give up (not appreciating that bringing Jeremy into it could aggravate her and make things worse), etc., etc.
-
Not strictly true, though we are dealing with Low Copy Number DNA. The DNA found in the silencer was 3500 times more likely to have emanated from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour. As far as Sheila Caffell was concerned seventeen out of twenty markers were found, higher than a random result of thirteen.
You are welcome to your opinion, but the 2002 appeal judges took the same view as me about it and dismissed the findings.
Your own post undermines the point you are trying to advance. You admit it is Low Copy Number DNA, which cannot be considered reliable, and you ignore the second part of my comment, that the DNA was not linked to the blood.
Even if we assume it was Sheila's DNA, so what? Sheila lived at the house where the silencer was stored. Her DNA could have got in there via all sorts of means.
-
If anybody wants a downloadable PDF copy of the full Carol Ann Lee book (2015 hardback edition), by all means PM me. I have tried to upload it here on the Forum but can't due to format issues.
If Mike or Neil would like to PM me, I can also let either or both of you have a copy for uploading to the Forum, if that can be achieved technically from your end.
-
If anybody wants a downloadable PDF copy of the full Carol Ann Lee book (2015 hardback edition), by all means PM me. I have tried to upload it here on the Forum but can't due to format issues.
If Mike or Neil would like to PM me, I can also let either or both of you have a copy for uploading to the Forum, if that can be achieved technically from your end.
Life’s too short