Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on July 17, 2017, 09:31:AM
-
It was 7.30am in the summer. Therefore full daylight.
They are highly trained & trained to not to knock things over.
They said they didn't knock anything over.
There was no resistance in the kitchen as Bamber shot her upstairs.
There was no resistance in the kitchen according to the CT's/Bamber's own version.
Nevill was found in the kitchen with multiple horrific injuries not created by bullet shots. Suggesting there was a huge fight.
The raid team just had to walk through the kitchen on the way to go upstairs.
There was a smashed ceiling light & aga scratches. Again suggesting a kitchen fight. The raid team would not smash ceiling lights & scratch aga's.
The 2002 COA dismissed the suggestion the police disturbed the kitchen crime scene.
-----------------
Hopefully the rather lame claim that the police disturbed the crime scene will no longer be made.
-
Hopefully there will be some good discussion on this.
It was briefly discussed by me & Jan yesterday & the allegation has been made before.
I've never believed the police knocked anything over prior to the crime scene photo's being taken.
-
It was 7.30am in the summer. Therefore full daylight.
They are highly trained & trained to not to knock things over.
They said they didn't knock anything over.
There was no resistance in the kitchen as Bamber shot her upstairs.
There was no resistance in the kitchen according to the CT's/Bamber's own version.
Nevill was found in the kitchen with multiple horrific injuries not created by bullet shots. Suggesting there was a huge fight.
The raid team just had to walk through the kitchen on the way to go upstairs.
There was a smashed ceiling light & aga scratches. Again suggesting a kitchen fight. The raid team would not smash ceiling lights & scratch aga's.
The 2002 COA dismissed the suggestion the police disturbed the kitchen crime scene.
-----------------
Hopefully the rather lame claim that the police disturbed the crime scene will no longer be made.
Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh
-
I forgot to mention Nevill's watch. Which I understand was in the kitchen & damaged.
Nevill's arms had several bruises, probably defence bruises which must be when the watch fell off his arm.
-
Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh
A recent thread was created on the advantages Bamber had over Sheila in the kitchen fight.
-
Bamber's massacre clothes may have had damage, blood & oil on them. And certainly gun shot residue on. He had a month to dispose them.
Sheila's nightdress was totally unmarked. Supporters seem to be in divided on this. Susan & Lookout believing Sheila committed the massacre naked or just in underwear she then took off. While David's 3D diagrams have Sheila committing massacre in the nightdress she was found in.
Sheila not wearing a nightdress during the 4x murder obviously means she had even less protection to potential injuries. However the pathologist said she had no injuries.
-
its all covered in the appeal basically some officers admitted the raid team did it and others said they did not. Take your pick .
Nothing else on the table broken though .
249. We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
250. DI Cook's comments on the Action 94 are unsatisfactory in themselves. The words "There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same. Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around" are in themselves potentially contradictory depending upon how they are read. It should not be forgotten that DI Cook was one of the officers who had supported the murder/suicide conclusion and that at the date of Action 94, different officers had taken over responsibility for the inquiry and concluded that the original investigation had missed significant evidence. In such circumstances DI Cook had every motive to seek to support his original view by reading into matters that had been reported to him more than was the reality of the situation.
Report to moderator Logged
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offline mike tesko
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 38503
View Profile
Email
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2013, 10:47:PM »
Quote
251. We find that there is nothing in the hearsay comments recorded in the Action 94 that even if they could have been introduced into evidence could realistically have been thought to lead to a conclusion other than that there had been a violent struggle in the kitchen.
252. Looking at the Ainsley Reports, we consider that the comment "there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance" was entirely in accord with the evidence of the TFG officers. A sledgehammer was taken to a door, a window opened, a door unlocked, a chair moved, stools moved, a cellar door forced, a window unlocked and the door opposite the children's room forced. We reject the submission that Ainsley's reports in any way support the appellant's submission that the firearms officers "knocked over the chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl".
253. As to the Essex Police Report, we can find no evidential support for the hearsay suggestion that "It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG". By the time of that inquiry, there must have been a number of officers who had every motive to down play the failure to spot important factors in the early stage of the inquiry and the situation was such that just such a proposition might very well be floated. However there is nothing to cause us to believe that it originated from anyone who could give first hand information about the matter.
254. As already explained Ann Eaton's recollection years after the event of what she had been told cannot be factually right whether or not she correctly recalled that which she was told.
-
You forgot to post this section of the COA.
DCI Cook - ". We have been supplied with statements from every member of the firearms team all of whom positively assert that save for moving two stools they moved nothing and disturbed nothing upon entering the kitchen".
239. We have considered with great care the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado who must have been the two officers who entered first at about 7.30 a.m. on the 7 August. PC Collins in a statement of the same date describes forcing an entry into the house and seeing the body of a male person positioned over an upturned chair, which balanced against a cupboard. Having described that person and concluding that he was dead he said:
"On looking around the kitchen I saw upturned chairs and stools and broken crockery on the floor, and on the floor on the far side of the room there were small spots of what appeared to be blood. It appeared that a violent struggle had taken place within this room".
241. On 30 September PC Collins made a second statement in which he said:
"I moved two kitchen stools which were laying down near to the hallway entrance. I moved these stools about 2 or 3 feet but left them in a similar position as they were found.
-
Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh
Or maybe Sheila was marked, scratched, scraped, bruised and cut.
-
its all covered in the appeal basically some officers admitted the raid team did it and others said they did not. Take your pick .
Nothing else on the table broken though .
249. We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
250. DI Cook's comments on the Action 94 are unsatisfactory in themselves. The words "There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same. Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around" are in themselves potentially contradictory depending upon how they are read. It should not be forgotten that DI Cook was one of the officers who had supported the murder/suicide conclusion and that at the date of Action 94, different officers had taken over responsibility for the inquiry and concluded that the original investigation had missed significant evidence. In such circumstances DI Cook had every motive to seek to support his original view by reading into matters that had been reported to him more than was the reality of the situation.
Report to moderator Logged
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offline mike tesko
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 38503
View Profile
Email
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2013, 10:47:PM »
Quote
251. We find that there is nothing in the hearsay comments recorded in the Action 94 that even if they could have been introduced into evidence could realistically have been thought to lead to a conclusion other than that there had been a violent struggle in the kitchen.
252. Looking at the Ainsley Reports, we consider that the comment "there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance" was entirely in accord with the evidence of the TFG officers. A sledgehammer was taken to a door, a window opened, a door unlocked, a chair moved, stools moved, a cellar door forced, a window unlocked and the door opposite the children's room forced. We reject the submission that Ainsley's reports in any way support the appellant's submission that the firearms officers "knocked over the chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl".
253. As to the Essex Police Report, we can find no evidential support for the hearsay suggestion that "It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG". By the time of that inquiry, there must have been a number of officers who had every motive to down play the failure to spot important factors in the early stage of the inquiry and the situation was such that just such a proposition might very well be floated. However there is nothing to cause us to believe that it originated from anyone who could give first hand information about the matter.
254. As already explained Ann Eaton's recollection years after the event of what she had been told cannot be factually right whether or not she correctly recalled that which she was told.
It is also another point that the rifle stock broke. Again suggesting a huge kitchen fight.
Point 252 which you underlined just states what is already known - the door was knocked down, a window opened, another door opened & upturned stools moved three feet.
Do you believe there was a huge kitchen fight ?
-
Bamber's massacre clothes may have had damage, blood & oil on them. And certainly gun shot residue on. He had a month to dispose them.
Sheila's nightdress was totally unmarked. Supporters seem to be in divided on this. Susan & Lookout believing Sheila committed the massacre naked or just in underwear she then took off. While David's 3D diagrams have Sheila committing massacre in the nightdress she was found in.
Sheila not wearing a nightdress during the 4x murder obviously means she had even less protection to potential injuries. However the pathologist said she had no injuries.
Adam please stick to the facts I have NEVER said I thought Sheila killed her family either naked or in her underclothes I did say I thought she had changed her clothes
-
Adam please stick to the facts I have NEVER said I thought Sheila killed her family either naked or in her underclothes I did say I thought she had changed her clothes
So what did she commit the massacre in ?
-
Huge fight but jb didn't have a mark on him. I suppose your going to say he was dressed in a wetsuit or something that would have stopped any marks but that is just pure rubbish . If jb had a huge fight with Neville he would have marks the same as Shiela would of done. So maybe there was no huge fight eh
Notsure if Jeremy had marks anywhere on his body Julie would have mentioned it I am sure. We have been told by an excellent poster that Sheila had numerous marks on her being and we did see grazes and scratches on her hand well I and some others did too.
-
So what did she commit the massacre in ?
Like Susan I cannot believe Sheila would have carried out the murders naked anymore than JB would have worn a wetsuit. Both are flights of fancy with nothing to back either theory up.
-
So what did she commit the massacre in ?
Adam none of us mortal beings knows if some of Sheila's clothes were removed from the crime scene or indeed maybe more evidence on her nightie that is being denied to us I have no source and neither have you keep an open mind like I do.
-
Adam none of us mortal beings knows if some of Sheila's clothes were removed from the crime scene or indeed maybe more evidence on her nightie that is being denied to us I have no source and neither have you keep an open mind like I do.
There are no reports of clothes being removed.
The pictures of Sheila's nightie don't show any damage or oil. But it may have been covered in GSR & other people's blood. The Industrial frame ensuring this evidence was withheld.
I have tried to find out more about how the industrial frame was organised. As it was gigantic. Roch posted one post on it & then said he would not post about it again. No one else has said much.
Perhaps you can take the lead on the industrial frame.
-
There are no reports of clothes being removed.
The pictures of Sheila's nightie don't show any damage or oil. But it may have been covered in GSR & other people's blood. The Industrial frame ensuring this evidence was withheld.
I have tried to find out more about how the industrial frame was organised. As it was gigantic. Roch posted one post on it & then said he would not post about it again. No one else has said much.
Perhaps you can take the lead on the industrial frame.
Adam the only lead I can take is on my neighbours dog :))
-
There are no reports of clothes being removed.
The pictures of Sheila's nightie don't show any damage or oil. But it may have been covered in GSR & other people's blood. The Industrial frame ensuring this evidence was withheld.
I have tried to find out more about how the industrial frame was organised. As it was gigantic. Roch posted one post on it & then said he would not post about it again. No one else has said much.
Perhaps you can take the lead on the industrial frame.
You aren't in the least bit interested in anything Roch had to say. You denied point blank that Sheila had scratches and cuts on her hand which could be seen on the photo put up by Bill or that the marks on her arm from photos in the archives just maybe have been nail marks which had bled. Why should anyone bother to say anymore about it if people are just going to ridicule it?
I thought the debate was about the truth not about scoring points.
-
Adam the only lead I can take is on my neighbours dog :))
;D ;D ;D
-
You aren't in the least bit interested in anything Roch had to say. You denied point blank that Sheila had scratches and cuts on her hand which could be seen on the photo put up by Bill or that the marks on her arm from photos in the archives just maybe have been nail marks which had bled. Why should anyone bother to say anymore about it if people are just going to ridicule it?
I thought the debate was about the truth not about scoring points.
Maggie this forum is not about the truth because posters who are adamant Jeremy is guilty are not even prepared to debate on posts that do not please them. I can fully understand why Bill and Roch will not bother posting as their posts are ridiculed. I understand this forum is about a MOJ not Jeremy is guilty and don't even disagree or you are for it.
-
You aren't in the least bit interested in anything Roch had to say. You denied point blank that Sheila had scratches and cuts on her hand which could be seen on the photo put up by Bill or that the marks on her arm from photos in the archives just maybe have been nail marks which had bled. Why should anyone bother to say anymore about it if people are just going to ridicule it?
I thought the debate was about the truth not about scoring points.
Totally unconvinving.
The photo's showed smudges on the back of her hand.
I am interested in what Roch has to say. I asked him several times what other weapon Bamber should have used. As well as whether the evidence he saw in March 2017 has been passed to Bamber's legal advisors.
I got no response although Roch brought these issues up.
-
You forgot to post this section of the COA.
DCI Cook - ". We have been supplied with statements from every member of the firearms team all of whom positively assert that save for moving two stools they moved nothing and disturbed nothing upon entering the kitchen".
239. We have considered with great care the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado who must have been the two officers who entered first at about 7.30 a.m. on the 7 August. PC Collins in a statement of the same date describes forcing an entry into the house and seeing the body of a male person positioned over an upturned chair, which balanced against a cupboard. Having described that person and concluding that he was dead he said:
"On looking around the kitchen I saw upturned chairs and stools and broken crockery on the floor, and on the floor on the far side of the room there were small spots of what appeared to be blood. It appeared that a violent struggle had taken place within this room".
241. On 30 September PC Collins made a second statement in which he said:
"I moved two kitchen stools which were laying down near to the hallway entrance. I moved these stools about 2 or 3 feet but left them in a similar position as they were found.
Like I said ainsley said yes the others said no . So what is your point ? We know there were injuries to Neville very severe , but some of them could have been caused whilst collapsed in the chair ? Or even unconscious ? And like I said there was nothing else on the table disturbed or items around the fire place ?
So where are you going with this ?
-
A recent thread was created on the advantages Bamber had over Sheila in the kitchen fight.
Not if he had been shot he didn't ?
-
No I don't think there was a HUGE kitchen fight .
There is nothing else in the room that indicates that?
Perhaps Neville stumbled around in his pain after being shot knocked over some furniture , blood on the floor , and then collapsed in the chair ? Then was attacked .
Or perhaps as ainsley said ( the man in charge) the raid team knocked some things over ?
We have no idea what happened earlier in the evening if it was Sheila ? They may have had an argument earlier in the night and Neville thought he had calmed her down ? She may have thrown the sugar bowl at him ?
Who knows?
I don't think there is anything that indicates who was responsible .
-
It was 7.30am in the summer. Therefore full daylight.
They are highly trained & trained to not to knock things over. I would like to see that part of the training manual .
They said they didn't knock anything over. Disputed in police records not by posters
There was no resistance in the kitchen as Bamber shot her upstairs. ? Are you not contradicting your self?
There was no resistance in the kitchen according to the CT's/Bamber's own version. See your next point which is correct?
Nevill was found in the kitchen with multiple horrific injuries not created by bullet shots. Suggesting there was a huge fight. . When were those injuries caused in relation to the shots?
The raid team just had to walk through the kitchen on the way to go upstairs. Yes I expect they took a leisurely stroll after all they had waited for hours why rush in now?
There was a smashed ceiling light & aga scratches. Again suggesting a kitchen fight. The raid team would not smash ceiling lights & scratch aga's. Assumption .
The 2002 COA dismissed the suggestion the police disturbed the kitchen crime scene. Yes well it was ainsley report that made them discuss it in the first place .
-----------------
Hopefully the rather lame claim that the police disturbed the crime scene will no longer be made.
-
Totally unconvinving.
The photo's showed smudges on the back of her hand.
I am interested in what Roch has to say. I asked him several times what other weapon Bamber should have used. As well as whether the evidence he saw in March 2017 has been passed to Bamber's legal advisors.
I got no response although Roch brought these issues up.
Funny that, ngb seemed to think he could see something other than smudges but what does he know.
-
Totally unconvinving.
The photo's showed smudges on the back of her hand.
I am interested in what Roch has to say. I asked him several times what other weapon Bamber should have used. As well as whether the evidence he saw in March 2017 has been passed to Bamber's legal advisors.
I got no response although Roch brought these issues up.
You probably didn't get any response from Roch because you didn't show him any respect about the photo,
-
No I don't think there was a HUGE kitchen fight .
There is nothing else in the room that indicates that?
Perhaps Neville stumbled around in his pain after being shot knocked over some furniture , blood on the floor , and then collapsed in the chair ? Then was attacked .
Or perhaps as ainsley said ( the man in charge) the raid team knocked some things over ?
We have no idea what happened earlier in the evening if it was Sheila ? They may have had an argument earlier in the night and Neville thought he had calmed her down ? She may have thrown the sugar bowl at him ?
Who knows?
I don't think there is anything that indicates who was responsible .
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.
----------------
Broken stock of rifle, damaged & removed watch, upturned chairs & stools, smashed ceiling light, spilled sugar, aga scratch marks. A man fighting for his & his families life after being shot. Nevill's head on top of a coal scuttle.
Not sure what else needs to be supplied.
-
Reasons why Bamber would not get injured in the kitchen fight
He was wearing shoes.
He was wearing protective clothing.
He would have hands and head protection. Gloves & a balaclava.
He was physically as strong as Nevill.
He was mentally alert and not on Haloperidol.
He was physically alert & not on Haloperidol.
Nevill did not have the chance to restrain Bamber prior to being shot four times.
The fight was 'ferocious' however Bamber could defend himself if he needed to.
Bamber was not checked for a long time.
He was fully focused and determined.
Reasons why Sheila would get injured
She was bare footed.
She was 8 stone lighter than Nevill.
She was 9 inches shorter.
Nevill was over twice as strong.
She had no protective clothing.
She had no head or hand protection.
A fully fit Nevill had the option of physically confronting Sheila prior to shots being fired. This is what was suggested happened by Lucy. It would be a million to one that a fully fit Nevill would lose this confrontation.
Sheila had no physical co ordinaton due to Haloperidol.
Sheila had no mental alertness due to Haloperidol.
The fight was 'ferocious' and was 'life or death'. One person dying with horrific injuries while Sheila had no injuries is not credible.
The crime scene shows a big fight occurred.
-
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.
----------------
Broken stock of rifle, damaged & removed watch, upturned chairs & stools, smashed ceiling light, spilled sugar, aga scratch marks. A man fighting for his & his families life after being shot. Nevill's head on top of a coal scuttle.
Not sure what else needs to be supplied.
Adam we have discussed the watch before Nevill may have removed it before retiring and left it on the table. We have also discussed and agreed that Nevill was beaten with the rifle so hard the stock of the rifle was broken. The raid team admitted to some of the spilled sugar and it is not difficult to knock chairs over. Scratch marks on Aga not conclusive as far as I am concerned
-
Adam we have discussed the watch before Nevill may have removed it before retiring and left it on the table. We have also discussed and agreed that Nevill was beaten with the rifle so hard the stock of the rifle was broken. The raid team admitted to some of the spilled sugar and it is not difficult to knock chairs over. Scratch marks on Aga not conclusive as far as I am concerned
The watch was smashed & on the floor.
The aga scratch marks were made at the time the ceiling light was smashed. While the rifle was being wrestled over.
-
You probably didn't get any response from Roch because you didn't show him any respect about the photo,
Maggie that is quite right and if a person is so sure a photograph is not authentic and the marks are just smudges why is it necessary to make a joke of it and dismiss it in that way this tells a story as far as I am concerned.
-
The watch was smashed & on the floor.
The aga scratch marks were made at the time the ceiling light was smashed. While the rifle was being wrestled over.
Adam the watch was damaged as it was knocked on the floor during the scuffle (off the table) or it has been said it was knocked off the worktop near the phone when Nevill was phoning Jeremy I wish I could be as certain about matters as you are considering neither of us were there.
-
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.
----------------
Broken stock of rifle, damaged & removed watch, upturned chairs & stools, smashed ceiling light, spilled sugar, aga scratch marks. A man fighting for his & his families life after being shot. Nevill's head on top of a coal scuttle.
Not sure what else needs to be supplied.
Would guess that at least some of the bruising and black eyes would have been caused by Nevill being shot in the face, such horrendous injuries and massively traumatic for him.
I doubt he was fit to fight anyone after that, he was probably in a state of collapse and unable to put up much if any resistance.
-
Maggie that is quite right and if a person is so sure a photograph is not authentic and the marks are just smudges why is it necessary to make a joke of it and dismiss it in that way this tells a story as far as I am concerned.
Yes. I cannot imagine Roch would be so gullible as to make such claims unless he was absolutely certain in his own mind that what he had seen was valid and worth supporting. He's not a fool.
Anyone can accept there may be something in it but argue that even if they can see the marks there may be other reasons why Sheila was marked other than her being guilty of the killings, that is fair enough as we are all free to have our own opinions but I believe the claims still deserved serious consideration.
-
You probably didn't get any response from Roch because you didn't show him any respect about the photo,
I asked those questions weeks & months before Bill's thread.
To be fair TomG did a similar thing with the rifle. Denying he said Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' & asking me to find proof he said that. When I quoted his post he left the forum !
-
Adam if Jeremy had his face covered how do you explain that he quietly led Sheila into the bedroom made her lay down and shot her? What was the point of him covering his face? They all would of known it was him anyway? I'm sure Sheila would of been a lot more alarmed by a masked intruder and wouldnt of gone anywhere willingly
-
Reasons why Bamber would not get injured in the kitchen fight
He was wearing shoes.
He was wearing protective clothing.
He would have hands and head protection. Gloves & a balaclava.
He was physically as strong as Nevill.
He was mentally alert and not on Haloperidol.
He was physically alert & not on Haloperidol.
Nevill did not have the chance to restrain Bamber prior to being shot four times.
The fight was 'ferocious' however Bamber could defend himself if he needed to.
Bamber was not checked for a long time.
He was fully focused and determined.
Reasons why Sheila would get injured
She was bare footed.
She was 8 stone lighter than Nevill.
She was 9 inches shorter.
Nevill was over twice as strong.
She had no protective clothing.
She had no head or hand protection.
A fully fit Nevill had the option of physically confronting Sheila prior to shots being fired. This is what was suggested happened by Lucy. It would be a million to one that a fully fit Nevill would lose this confrontation.
Sheila had no physical co ordinaton due to Haloperidol.
Sheila had no mental alertness due to Haloperidol.
The fight was 'ferocious' and was 'life or death'. One person dying with horrific injuries while Sheila had no injuries is not credible.
The crime scene shows a big fight occurred.
You are completely choosing to ignore points that have been put to you . So your are not discussing at all . You are lecturing. Most of your points are assumptions . Nothing more nothing less .
Where is your source that Jeremy was wearing " protective clothing". ?
What shoes was he wearing ? None were ever found with any forensic link to the crime ?
Where is your source that he was wearing gloves and a balaclava?
Let's start with those. SOURCE PLEASE
Otherwise we can close the thread down.
Only joking ::)
-
And if he was wearing gloves Adam how hard do you think it would be to reload a rifle 3 times, what sort of gloves were They? Marigolds? Gardening?
-
Would guess that at least some of the bruising and black eyes would have been caused by Nevill being shot in the face, such horrendous injuries and massively traumatic for him.
I doubt he was fit to fight anyone after that, he was probably in a state of collapse and unable to put up much if any resistance.
I once hit my face on a kitchen cupboard Maggie right on the nose and I ended up with 2 of the biggest black eyes ever!!
-
You are completely choosing to ignore points that have been put to you . So your are not discussing at all . You are lecturing. Most of your points are assumptions . Nothing more nothing less .
Where is your source that Jeremy was wearing " protective clothing". ?
What shoes was he wearing ? None were ever found with any forensic link to the crime ?
Where is your source that he was wearing gloves and a balaclava?
Let's start with those. SOURCE PLEASE
Otherwise we can close the thread down.
Only joking ::)
No sources. Just common sense that Bamber would wear suitable clothes and shoes.
Gloves & a balaclava would also make sense. Didn't Julie say Bamber said one of the gloves fell off mid massacre.
I also believe Bamber could have worn a wet suit under his clothes. He would not lose any flexibility & the skin tight thickness would be a protective barrier for the skin. He also had a wet suit available.
-
Adam do you realise how hard it would be to reload and shoot a rifle that many times in gloves?
Julie would say anything, first of all she said it was someone hed paid!!! How does she know what happened? She doesn't.
-
And if he was wearing gloves Adam how hard do you think it would be to reload a rifle 3 times, what sort of gloves were They? Marigolds? Gardening?
Bamber would know what gloves would be suitable. He may not have worn any. Who knows.
-
Bamber would know what gloves would be suitable. He may not have worn any. Who knows.
I don't think anyone wore gloves as there were prints on the gun.
As for the wetsuit it would have restricted him apparently coming through the window, if he were wearing a wetsuit and clothes gloves and hat I'm surprised he didn't pass out from heat exhaustion after the exertion of the massacre
-
Re: Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee.
« Reply #294 on: April 14, 2017, 01:39:PM »
SteveUk
Jeremy told Julie that "Matthew" was wearing gloves. Why would they be contact crimes?
-
I once hit my face on a kitchen cupboard Maggie right on the nose and I ended up with 2 of the biggest black eyes ever!!
Lucy I can understand how that could happen.
-
Lucy I can understand how that could happen.
Bloody hurt lol
-
Notsure if Jeremy had marks anywhere on his body Julie would have mentioned it I am sure. We have been told by an excellent poster that Sheila had numerous marks on her being and we did see grazes and scratches on her hand well I and some others did too.
Hi Susan yes I agree completely. I have no doubt that if Julie had seen any marks on jb she would have said so. Adam can't argue that point
So it is dismissed lol .
-
Hi Susan yes I agree completely. I have no doubt that if Julie had seen any marks on jb she would have said so. Adam can't argue that point
So it is dismissed lol .
I think the pictures of Sheila show a lot more than a woman who layed down willingly and allowed herself to be shot, did they ever scrape her nails for DNA?
-
I think the pictures of Sheila show a lot more than a woman who layed down willingly and allowed herself to be shot, did they ever scrape her nails for DNA?
In 1985?
-
No sources. Just common sense that Bamber would wear suitable clothes and shoes.
Gloves & a balaclava would also make sense. Didn't Julie say Bamber said one of the gloves fell off mid massacre.
I also believe Bamber could have worn a wet suit under his clothes. He would not lose any flexibility & the skin tight thickness would be a protective barrier for the skin. He also had a wet suit available.
This is hilarious
-
No sources. Just common sense that Bamber would wear suitable clothes and shoes.
Gloves & a balaclava would also make sense. Didn't Julie say Bamber said one of the gloves fell off mid massacre.
I also believe Bamber could have worn a wet suit under his clothes. He would not lose any flexibility & the skin tight thickness would be a protective barrier for the skin. He also had a wet suit available.
No sources . Tut tut
Wet suit was tested . It was not used in the crime .
-
In 1985?
They could of scraped them and tested them for blood etc what was the point of the bags on the hands then,?
-
In 1985?
Not that far out
In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[62] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[63]
I am sure that EP knew that the ability to use DNA in criminal cases was not far off .
-
Not that far out
In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[62] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[63]
I am sure that EP knew that the ability to use DNA in criminal cases was not far off .
So it wouldn't of been that far away at trial Jan? And could of been used in appeals?
-
Not that far out
In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[62] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[63]
I am sure that EP knew that the ability to use DNA in criminal cases was not far off .
OK, now EP have to have the power to read the future? It doesn't matter how far off it was, it was far enough off not to be something that was done at the time. Sheila was cremated at Jeremy's request so no chance of getting any further evidence from an exhumation at a later date. It was pre DNA as far as the police were concerned.
-
So it wouldn't of been that far away at trial Jan? And could of been used in appeals?
How could they have taken DNA swabs in 1985 when they didn't do DNA testing then? Sheila was cremated shortly after her death so any such tests were out of the question.
-
How could they have taken DNA swabs in 1985 when they didn't do DNA testing then? Sheila was cremated shortly after her death so any such tests were out of the question.
I'm pretty sure they could of scraped her nails and tested for blood, they managed to ascertain "or not" who's blood was in the silencer; there were nail marks on Neville dodged
-
I'm pretty sure they could of scraped her nails and tested for blood, they managed to ascertain "or not" who's blood was in the silencer; there were nail marks on Neville dodged
The police already had Sheila's blood. In a fridge.
-
So it wouldn't of been that far away at trial Jan? And could of been used in appeals?
Yes if they had kept everything .
-
How could they have taken DNA swabs in 1985 when they didn't do DNA testing then? Sheila was cremated shortly after her death so any such tests were out of the question.
DNA testing wAs in existence it just had not been used in criminal trials . And if they had taken samples they could have been kept for other testing if necessary . That's how other old cases have been solved .
-
The police already had Sheila's blood. In a fridge.
That was not the question.
-
DNA testing wAs in existence it just had not been used in criminal trials . And if they had taken samples they could have been kept for other testing if necessary . That's how other old cases have been solved .
The key words, surely, are "if necessary". Why, when they believed the case was solved, would they consider further testing "necessary"?
-
The key words, surely, are "if necessary". Why, when they believed the case was solved, would they consider further testing "necessary"?
Yes well the answer to that is obvious . But I am sure they learnt from their mistakes .
-
DNA testing wAs in existence it just had not been used in criminal trials . And if they had taken samples they could have been kept for other testing if necessary . That's how other old cases have been solved .
I know when DNA was discovered (it was known about as early as 1860) but you're expecting EP to have miraculously decided to apply it to a criminal case when it hadn't been applied before. They hadn't been trained in the collection of DNA nor the study of it. To expect that they would have had the afore thought for this is a bit much. Sheila had also already been cremated when Jeremy became a suspect.
-
DNA testing wAs in existence it just had not been used in criminal trials . And if they had taken samples they could have been kept for other testing if necessary . That's how other old cases have been solved .
That's what I was getting at jan
Cases have been solved decades on as new testing has come in
-
That's what I was getting at jan
Cases have been solved decades on as new testing has come in
Unless it has escaped your notice, Lucy, as far as the police are concerned, this case HAS been solved.
-
That's what I was getting at jan
Cases have been solved decades on as new testing has come in
And they did do DNA testing on some of the items but they didn't collect those items in the hope that DNA testing would be used in criminal cases.
-
Nevill retreated downstairs while Bamber held the rifle & followed. They wrestled with the rifle resulting in the aga scratch marks and ceiling light smashing. There has never been any suggestion that Nevill ever had control of the rifle.
Once Bamber had control of the rifle again he hit Nevill multiple times with such force it broke the rifle stock, smashed & dislodged Nevill's watch & gave him multiple & horrific arm, face, torso & head injuries.
The only way Nevill could have inflicted injuries to Bamber was if he punched him in the face, once or several times with sufficient force to cause an injury. But Nevill just wrestled with Bamber over the rifle & then defended himself from a barage of violent rifle blows.
It is even less likely Bamber would get a body injury, as he had appropriate clothes on.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Bamber's clothes would be covered in blood, GSR, oil & may be damaged. But he disposed of them.
-
None of the above would apply to Sheila, once they were both in the kitchen.
Nevill would just use his 8 stone weight & 9 inch height advantages to bring Sheila to the floor. Rather than rifle wrestle. BW saying he could do this with one arm. This is really something Nevill would have done hours earlier.
-
Nevill retreated downstairs while Bamber held the rifle & followed. They wrestled with the rifle resulting in the aga scratch marks and ceiling light smashing. There has never been any suggestion that Nevill ever had control of the rifle.
Once Bamber had control of the rifle again he hit Nevill multiple times with such force it broke the rifle stock, smashed & dislodged Nevill's watch & gave him multiple & horrific arm, face, torso & head injuries.
The only way Nevill could have inflicted injuries to Bamber was if he punched him in the face, once or several times with sufficient force to cause an injury. But Nevill just wrestled with Bamber over the rifle & then defended himself from a barage of violent rifle blows.
It is even less likely Bamber would get a body injury, as he had appropriate clothes on.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Bamber's clothes would be covered in blood, GSR, oil & may be damaged. But he disposed of them.
Where are the aga scratches in the original photos
-
None of the above would apply to Sheila, once they were both in the kitchen.
Nevill would just use his 8 stone weight & 9 inch height advantages to bring Sheila to the floor. Rather than rifle wrestle. BW saying he could do this with one arm. This is really something Nevill would have done hours earlier.
Adam I really wish you would stop repeating this . It is such an insult to any one or family of people who has been shot or in fact knifed to death to just assume that a bigger person would overpower a smaller person who is facing them with a weapon.
I find your assumptions about what a person would do in a situation like this quite abhorrent .
Its like saying that everyone should have ganged together and overpowered the attackers with knives in London. There is a very good reason why it does not happen.
And like I suggested before look at videos of how people do change when in a psychotic episode - but I know I am wasting my breath because you are really just not interested. you think by repeating things over and over again people will believe it.
-
Where are the aga scratches in the original photos
The original photo's are unable to determine whether the scratches were there.
-
Adam I really wish you would stop repeating this . It is such an insult to any one or family of people who has been shot or in fact knifed to death to just assume that a bigger person would overpower a smaller person who is facing them with a weapon.
I find your assumptions about what a person would do in a situation like this quite abhorrent .
Its like saying that everyone should have ganged together and overpowered the attackers with knives in London. There is a very good reason why it does not happen.
And like I suggested before look at videos of how people do change when in a psychotic episode - but I know I am wasting my breath because you are really just not interested. you think by repeating things over and over again people will believe it.
Each situation is different.
The evidence shows Nevill & Sheila wrestled for the rifle. Meaning he had the opportunity to use his gigantic weight, height & strenght advantages to just fall onto her as they both went to ground.
-
Each situation is different.
The evidence shows Nevill & Sheila wrestled for the rifle. Meaning he had the opportunity to use his gigantic weight, height & strenght advantages to just fall onto her as they both went to ground.
An example of why you are correct to say every situation is different and not apply your theories just to the cases that suit you
2008, an 8-year-old boy, whose name was not released, was arrested and charged with shooting and killing his father and his father’s friend . The young boy confessed to shooting both men with a .22 caliber rifle, but police felt something bigger caused the boy to commit such a premeditated murder. The boy also kept a tally of spankings he received from his father, but there was not enough evidence to support the possibility of abuse.
So why did the father or his friend overpower an 8 year old boy with a .22 rifle?
Obviously not such a difficult weapon to use .
-
An example of why you are correct to say every situation is different and not apply your theories just to the cases that suit you
2008, an 8-year-old boy, whose name was not released, was arrested and charged with shooting and killing his father and his father’s friend . The young boy confessed to shooting both men with a .22 caliber rifle, but police felt something bigger caused the boy to commit such a premeditated murder. The boy also kept a tally of spankings he received from his father, but there was not enough evidence to support the possibility of abuse.
So why did the father or his friend overpower an 8 year old boy with a .22 rifle?
Obviously not such a difficult weapon to use .
Where does it say the 8 year boy & father wrestled for the rifle ?
The two adults may have been shot in their sleep. And the rifle would have been more powerful than a rifle for shooting vermin.
-
Where does it say the 8 year boy & father wrestled for the rifle ?
The two adults may have been shot in their sleep. And the rifle would have been more powerful than a rifle for shooting vermin.
So now you are saying that the rifle was not powerful ? Because it was designed for vermin?
And yet 5 people are dead ? Is that not powerful enough ?
Where is your source for wrestling with the rifle?
-
So now you are saying that the rifle was not powerful ? Because it was designed for vermin?
And yet 5 people are dead ? Is that not powerful enough ?
Where is your source for wrestling with the rifle?
26 bullets killed 5 people. A shot gun would need only five bullets.
How else did the aga scratches & smashed ceiling light occur ?
-
26 bullets killed 5 people. A shot gun would need only five bullets.
How else did the aga scratches & smashed ceiling light occur ?
I don't believe the aga scratches were there in the original photos
And has been said before either the raid team entering or someone raising the gun to hit Neville .
It was not a big room .
-
I don't believe the aga scratches were there in the original photos
And has been said before either the raid team entering or someone raising the gun to hit Neville .
It was not a big room .
If the aga scratches are not in the original photo's, Bamber would be a free and rich man.
The judge said the aga scratches were caused during the rifle wrestle.
-
If the aga scratches are not in the original photo's, Bamber would be a free and rich man.
The judge said the aga scratches were caused during the rifle wrestle.
He also did not instruct the jury correctly on the silencer evidence . And as has been shown a lot of photos were left out of the evidence ,source list of court photos , then you could be wrong.
-
He also did not instruct the jury correctly on the silencer evidence . And as has been shown a lot of photos were left out of the evidence ,source list of court photos , then you could be wrong.
Don't you think they usually select a series of photos or do you imagine the jury usually gets to see the lot?
-
Guidelines of police crime scene photography
(source) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TBMlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=crime+scene+photographs,+court+album&source=bl&ots=3pHQpHlwtZ&sig=odvwgI4roulnb0gl1EiRsnYLM88&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdo6mwtZPVAhXHaFAKHahoAVAQ6AEISDAH#v=onepage&q=crime%20scene%20photographs%2C%20court%20album&f=false
-
Don't you think they usually select a series of photos or do you imagine the jury usually gets to see the lot?
Of course not , but as you said if you are determined to get your man for any reason telling lies is apparently acceptable so why not leaving out specific photos.
Or changing the order that they were taken .
Possibly , allegedly .
-
Of course not , but as you said if you are determined to get your man for any reason telling lies is apparently acceptable so why not leaving out specific photos.
Or changing the order that they were taken .
Possibly , allegedly .
But no evidence of that = it's common practice not to use all of the photographs - quality over quantity.
-
If the aga scratches are not in the original photo's, Bamber would be a free and rich man.
The judge said the aga scratches were caused during the rifle wrestle.
Read what the pathologist said about Nevills arm.
(https://s29.postimg.org/42sygpzzb/ventrial.jpg)
A 'wrestle' is not possible.
-
Read what the pathologist said about Nevills arm.
(https://s29.postimg.org/42sygpzzb/ventrial.jpg)
A 'wrestle' is not possible.
Of course Nevill & Bamber wrestled over the rifle. How do you think the aga scratches & smashed ceiling light occurred ?
Nevill was shot twice in the torso & got downstairs to put up what the judge described as a 'tremendous fight for life'. Part of which would be to try to get control of a deadly weapon.
-
Of course not , but as you said if you are determined to get your man for any reason telling lies is apparently acceptable so why not leaving out specific photos.
Or changing the order that they were taken .
Possibly , allegedly .
Do you agree with Roch that Taff was replaced by Peter Simpson who brought in Ainsley to hide evidence ?
This is part of the 200+ piece of false evidence of the industrial frame.
-
Of course Nevill & Bamber wrestled over the rifle. How do you think the aga scratches & smashed ceiling light occurred ?
Nevill was shot twice in the torso & got downstairs to put up what the judge described as a 'tremendous fight for life'. Part of which would be to try to get control of a deadly weapon.
David is right, of course Nevill couldn't 'wrestle' with anyone with such a dreadful injury to his arm. It is a farce that it was ever claimed he could have. He had shocking injuries by that time.
-
David is right, of course Nevill couldn't 'wrestle' with anyone with such a dreadful injury to his arm. It is a farce that it was ever claimed he could have. He had shocking injuries by that time.
Of course Nevill & Bamber wrestled for the rifle.
The judge said the aga scratch marks on the silencer shows it was on during the massacre. Why would Bamber scratch the aga & smash a ceiling light if he always had total control of the rifle ?
Nevill was fighting for his life & would use one arm & his body weight or both arms to try to gain control of the rifle. Regardless of the pain which I doubt he would notice in the heat of the moment.
-
Of course Nevill & Bamber wrestled for the rifle.
The judge said the aga scratch marks on the silencer shows it was on during the massacre. Why would Bamber scratch the aga & smash a ceiling light if he always had total control of the rifle ?
Nevill was fighting for his life & would use one arm & his body weight or both arms to try to gain control of the rifle. Regardless of the pain which I doubt he would notice in the heat of the moment.
why are his prints not on the rifle then ?
and we have no proof of how the damage happened to the light
or when the scratches arrived .
Show me a crime scene photo from the actual day of the crime showing the scratches .
-
why are his prints not on the rifle then ?
and we have no proof of how the damage happened to the light
or when the scratches arrived .
Show me a crime scene photo from the actual day of the crime showing the scratches .
The photos don't show the aga clearly enough to determine one way or the other. As you said in reply 83, specific photos may have been hidden.
Hardly any traceable finger prints were on the rifle.
-
why are his prints not on the rifle then ?
and we have no proof of how the damage happened to the light
or when the scratches arrived .
Show me a crime scene photo from the actual day of the crime showing the scratches .
Because of his injuries, I'm not certain about the fight said to have happened by the Judge. But if there HAD been a struggle, there's no guarantee that so badly an injured Nevill would have got his hands anywhere near the gun.
-
why are his prints not on the rifle then ?
and we have no proof of how the damage happened to the light
or when the scratches arrived .
Show me a crime scene photo from the actual day of the crime showing the scratches .
There were two prints found on the rifle. The green is roughly where Jeremy's print was found while the red is where Sheila's was found.
-
So no prints from Neville even though adam has him grappling with the rifle.
Mind you everyone said he would have put the gun away that night . So perhaps he did not?
-
The photos don't show the aga clearly enough to determine one way or the other. As you said in reply 83, specific photos may have been hidden.
Hardly any traceable finger prints were on the rifle.
Whichever the scenario that seems quite odd to be honest because Jeremy had no need to wipe his prints off as he had apparently used the rifle and everyone said Neville would have put the gun away . Also the gun was supposedly used to batter Neville and as far as I know not much blood on it either ? And there would have been no need to clean that off if as alleged to make it look like Sheila had gone mad? More reason to leave it on there?
It's almost as if someone else cleaned the gun ?
-
why are his prints not on the rifle then ?
and we have no proof of how the damage happened to the light
or when the scratches arrived .
Show me a crime scene photo from the actual day of the crime showing the scratches .
Not sure what=y they would think scratches were significant at that time?
-
Whichever the scenario that seems quite odd to be honest because Jeremy had no need to wipe his prints off as he had apparently used the rifle and everyone said Neville would have put the gun away . Also the gun was supposedly used to batter Neville and as far as I know not much blood on it either ? And there would have been no need to clean that off if as alleged to make it look like Sheila had gone mad? More reason to leave it on there?
It's almost as if someone else cleaned the gun ?
Sounds exactly like that jan
-
Sounds exactly like that jan
Also as you Say, a weapon that had come into contact with Nevilles head would of had blood/tissue/hair?
-
Sounds exactly like that jan
Hi Lucy I agree with you and Jan it does look like somebody did attempt to clean the rifle maybe to remove Sheila's fingerprints
-
Hi Lucy I agree with you and Jan it does look like somebody did attempt to clean the rifle maybe to remove Sheila's fingerprints
Hi Susan, I'd maybe expect Nevilles prints to be on it to? Surely he would of attempted to grab it?
-
Hi Susan, I'd maybe expect Nevilles prints to be on it to? Surely he would of attempted to grab it?
Hi Lucy
I think June tried to grab the gun from Sheila not sure about Neville he was too badly injured but it is possible
-
Hi Lucy
I think June tried to grab the gun from Sheila not sure about Neville he was too badly injured but it is possible
June was shot 8 times. In bed.
-
So no prints from Neville even though adam has him grappling with the rifle.
Mind you everyone said he would have put the gun away that night . So perhaps he did not?
..because Jeremy had to wipe the gun down after a glove came off in the scuffle with Nevill.
-
Hi Susan, I'd maybe expect Nevilles prints to be on it to? Surely he would of attempted to grab it?
Only two prints were found on the rifle.
The judge agrees the rifle was wrestled for in the kitchen. Which caused the aga scratches.
-
Hi Lucy
I think June tried to grab the gun from Sheila not sure about Neville he was too badly injured but it is possible
It would have more than 2 prints on, I don't buy Jeremy wearing gloves as it would be to hard to reload and shoot that many times without leaving more than a lone print?
-
Only two prints were found on the rifle.
The judge agrees the rifle was wrestled for in the kitchen. Which caused the aga scratches.
Do you not think there would of been more than a lone print then if they were grappling?
-
It would have more than 2 prints on, I don't buy Jeremy wearing gloves as it would be to hard to reload and shoot that many times without leaving more than a lone print?
That is a good point. If Sheila reloaded twice. Surely the rifle would be covered in oil from Sheila's hands.
-
It would have more than 2 prints on, I don't buy Jeremy wearing gloves as it would be to hard to reload and shoot that many times without leaving more than a lone print?
He had a couple of pairs of mitts, which I think would have been less cumbersome than gloves for the task in hand.
-
That is a good point. If Sheila reloaded twice. Surely the rifle would be covered in oil from Sheila's hands.
Whoever reloaded the weapon would of had oil on there hands which would be transferred, no mention of oil on the weapon, I find it so hard to believe that after all these shots at close range and contact, and all this blood, that weapon looked mighty clean
-
Whoever reloaded the weapon would of had oil on there hands which would be transferred, no mention of oil on the weapon, I find it so hard to believe that after all these shots at close range and contact, and all this blood, that weapon looked mighty clean
And there were only two finger prints.
Bamber must have wiped down the rifle. Probably worried about his prints being located within the oil.
-
And there were only two finger prints.
Bamber must have wiped down the rifle. Probably worried about his prints being located within the oil.
That's your opinion,
I disagree
-
That's your opinion,
I disagree
Who wiped down the rifle ?
-
Who wiped down the rifle ?
"Possibly" Sheila before she turned it on herself
-
"Possibly" Sheila before she turned it on herself
Why would Sheila wipe the rifle down ?
-
Whoever reloaded the weapon would of had oil on there hands which would be transferred, no mention of oil on the weapon, I find it so hard to believe that after all these shots at close range and contact, and all this blood, that weapon looked mighty clean
Yes, especially as Sheila had blood on her right arm/hand which didn't seem to transfer to the rifle. Perhaps the blood had already dried as he staged various scenes until he found one he was happy with? No mention of oil on Sheila's hands and Jeremy had time to clean up.
-
Hopefully someone can explain why Sheila wiped all oil off the rifle. Which her hands would have transferred onto it after reloading twice.
I first asked the question in reply 114.
-
And there were only two finger prints.
Bamber must have wiped down the rifle. Probably worried about his prints being located within the oil.
? Does not make sense ? Thought the whole point of using the rifle earlier in the evening was to leave his prints on there? Why wipe them off .he had put himself using the rifle anyway .
-
It would have more than 2 prints on, I don't buy Jeremy wearing gloves as it would be to hard to reload and shoot that many times without leaving more than a lone print?
He had no reason to wear gloves as his prints would be on there anyway
-
? Does not make sense ? Thought the whole point of using the rifle earlier in the evening was to leave his prints on there? Why wipe them off .he had put himself using the rifle anyway .
Do you think Sheila wiped the oil off the rifle. Which her fingers would have on from reloading twice ?
Maybe she wiped the rifle after having her shower.
-
Do you think Sheila wiped the oil off the rifle. Which her fingers would have on from reloading twice ?
Maybe she wiped the rifle after having her shower.
perhaps ?
As I don't profess to be an expert in that particular rifle I would not know .
Never seen people on shoots wiping their hands though.
-
perhaps ?
As I don't profess to be an expert in that particular rifle I would not know .
Never seen people on shoots wiping their hands though.
I have just done a google search called 'ritualistic cleansing before suicide'. Nothing came up. Unless I missed it.
Hopefully someone else can provide a religious source which relates to Sheila cleansing herself prior to suicide. Preferably related to the bible.
The crime scene shows she was apparently a reader of the bible. Although she didn't bring her own to WHF & used June's.
-
Sheila's nightdress had spots of June's and Neville Bambers blood upon it!!
-
Sheila's nightdress had spots of June's and Neville Bambers blood upon it!!
I tried to show adam the blood evidence on the nightdress . He ignored it.
-
I have just done a google search called 'ritualistic cleansing before suicide'. Nothing came up. Unless I missed it.
Hopefully someone else can provide a religious source which relates to Sheila cleansing herself prior to suicide. Preferably related to the bible.
The crime scene shows she was apparently a reader of the bible. Although she didn't bring her own to WHF & used June's.
There have been posts on this before . Perhaps you could just have a look yourself . Just look at ritual cleansing Christianity . It is to do with confessing your sins and cleansing yourself in all ways I think , but you may need to know more about how June was in her interpretation of the bible and what she passed on to Sheila to understand it more .
For a hint on that remember Colin's letter about the children and June influencing them with her beliefs .
-
There have been posts on this before . Perhaps you could just have a look yourself . Just look at ritual cleansing Christianity . It is to do with confessing your sins and cleansing yourself in all ways I think , but you may need to know more about how June was in her interpretation of the bible and what she passed on to Sheila to understand it more .
For a hint on that remember Colin's letter about the children and June influencing them with her beliefs .
'Crime scene photographs of Sheila have inappropriately been put on the internet and much has been made of her ‘cleanliness.' The Defence and some writers have suggested that she had washed ritualistically. This is of course a possibility. However, I would like to approach this matter in a different way.'
I agree with the OS.
It was good of June to apparently pass on religious knowledge to Sheila about the bible. A pity Bamber called June a 'religious maniac' & was not so interested.
-
There have been posts on this before . Perhaps you could just have a look yourself . Just look at ritual cleansing Christianity . It is to do with confessing your sins and cleansing yourself in all ways I think , but you may need to know more about how June was in her interpretation of the bible and what she passed on to Sheila to understand it more .
For a hint on that remember Colin's letter about the children and June influencing them with her beliefs .
Hi Jan
we did discuss this before maybe Adam was not with us then I believe a ritual cleansing to do with menstruating does take place all this is tied in with religion I remember Patti told us her Aunt committed suicide but before she did she bathed and changed into her best clothes so this does happen.Sheila would have considered her self unclean in the eyes of God
-
Hi Jan
we did discuss this before maybe Adam was not with us then I believe a ritual cleansing to do with menstruating does take place all this is tied in with religion I remember Patti told us her Aunt committed suicide but before she did she bathed and changed into her best clothes so this does happen.Sheila would have considered her self unclean in the eyes of God
If she did ritually cleanse she must have washed her arms and hands therefore maybe disturbing the nail wounds and causing them to run with blood again. If she cleansed and there were no wounds the blood trails would surely have been washed away?
-
It was 7.30am in the summer. Therefore full daylight.
They are highly trained & trained to not to knock things over.
They said they didn't knock anything over. they disturbed two stools which they moved out of the way..
There was no resistance in the kitchen as Bamber shot her upstairs. the police message logs confirm two bodies in the kitchen upon entry (7.35am), the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.37am), one dead male, one dead female (7.38am) request for someone to contact the police surgeon, and Coroner's officer regarding two bodies (7.42am) a murder and a suicide (7.45am) a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total (8.10am)
There was no resistance in the kitchen according to the CT's/Bamber's own version. Sheila struggled with Neville Bamber in the kitchen, she also struggled with a police officer prior to her being shot across the throat with a bullet fired from his gun..
Nevill was found in the kitchen with multiple horrific injuries not created by bullet shots. Suggesting there was a huge fight. or that he had fallen several times and hit his hard and face against some hard object!
A typical example is how his head came to be resting inside the rim of a metal coal bucket! If he plunged forward into that metal bucket with his head, untold damage would have been caused to his head and face!
The raid team just had to walk through the kitchen on the way to go upstairs. no they didn't, they remained in the kitchen for several minutes whilst other officers checked the rooms at the top of the back stairway!
There was a smashed ceiling light & aga scratches. Again suggesting a kitchen fight. The raid team would not smash ceiling lights & scratch aga's.
The 2002 COA dismissed the suggestion the police disturbed the kitchen crime scene. the 2002 appeal were not told that police and CpS had withheld 358 photographs and one crime scene video!
-----------------
Hopefully the rather lame claim that the police disturbed the crime scene will no longer be made.Cops staging a crime scene might appear a lame thing for them to have done in your view, but what they did was dishonest and despicable!!