This is a bit of a puzzle - do stop me if you think I'm mistaken.
I previously said that I thought the twins were shot first, but I'm rethinking that.
The magazine held 10 bullets. We know that Nevill was shot four times upstairs, but not fatally, and we know that June was shot seven times. However, IMO June was shot five times at first, and the other two bullets came later. I think that because two of the bullets would have been pretty fatal, and we know she managed to move around the bedroom for a while.
So that's nine bullets. What happened to the tenth one?
The "fight" in the kitchen presumably happened because the killer had run out of bullets, so they had to hit Nevill with the gun instead, until he collapsed. the killer then had the chance to reload the gun, and then shoot Nevill four more times. That left six bullets - not enough to go and shoot the twins eight times between them.
Is it possible the magazine wasn't fully filled? It can hold 10, but it can also hold less. :-\
Is it possible the magazine wasn't fully filled? It can hold 10, but it can also hold less. :-\How I understand it as well Hartley, also the fact it was harder to load the full magazine
There must have been noise, would you not expect the twins to have been woken?
The "fight" in the kitchen presumably happened because the killer had run out of bullets, so they had to hit Nevill with the gun instead, until he collapsed. the killer then had the chance to reload the gun, and then shoot Nevill four more times. That left six bullets - not enough to go and shoot the twins eight times between them.
The "fight" in the kitchen presumably happened because the killer had run out of bullets, so they had to hit Nevill with the gun instead, until he collapsed. the killer then had the chance to reload the gun, and then shoot Nevill four more times. That left six bullets - not enough to go and shoot the twins eight times between them.I agree with this, but Jeremy is reported by Julie to have said "Matthew" said Nevill put up a good fight for his age, though others here have said his injuries would have proved life-threatening at that stage. I think it's possible Jeremy shot one bullet each into the twins, maybe to check the weapon was working, then returned after he had finished the main threat off, pumping more bullets into the twins after the fight and shooting June right between the eyes as he vowed never to see her again.
How I understand it as well Hartley, also the fact it was harder to load the full magazine
The killer could have reloaded again after firing four shots.
Let's say then that there were nine bullets available, which would account for four shots to Nevill and five to June. That makes sense.
Alternatively, if the twins were shot first, there could have been eight bullets available, but then the killer had to go downstairs to reload before going back up and shooting Nevill and June.
Let's say then that there were nine bullets available, which would account for four shots to Nevill and five to June. That makes sense.You mean to finish them off. Remember it had to look like Nevill had attempted to make a call so he was either marched down at gunpoint or he fled and Jeremy had the option of returning the bedroom telephone to its natural place.
Alternatively, if the twins were shot first, there could have been eight bullets available, but then the killer had to go downstairs to reload before going back up and shooting Nevill and June.
I agree with this, but Jeremy is reported by Julie to have said "Matthew" said Nevill put up a good fight for his age, though others here have said his injuries would have proved life-threatening at that stage. I think it's possible Jeremy shot one bullet each into the twins, maybe to check the weapon was working, then returned after he had finished the main threat off, pumping more bullets into the twins after the fight and shooting June right between the eyes as he vowed never to see her again.
Or he/she reloaded in the twins bedroom having carried additional ammunition on their person.
Do you mean that they only put four more bullets in the magazine and then shot Nevill, and then reloaded again, or do you mean they put more than that in the magazine, shot Nevill, and then put another five or six in it?
Hmmm, that could apply to Jeremy of course, but not to Sheila.
I think the possibilities are many. The killer could have filled the magazine, shot NB 4 times and then reloaded. With a bullet in the breach, it then could have held 11.
Why not to Sheila?
Where would she have put them on her person? She didn't have pockets.
They came in plastic tray. Why couldn't a tray have been carried up the stairs?
Do you mean after the four shots in the kitchen? So they would end up with ten or eleven bullets again - enough for the twins and Sheila.
Didn't Colin say that there was an empty bullet box ( container ) in the bedroom ?
It's possible I suppose, but I doubt we'll ever know.
There were bullets emptied out in the kitchen onto the surface. Of course, I don't know enough about guns to know how bullets are packed.
If you're right, yes, she could have carried them upstairs with her. What was Nevill doing whilst she was reloading in the twin's bedroom though? Still sleeping? He wasn't asleep when he was shot in the bedroom IMO.
Did he? I haven't heard about that.
I agree, but I'm trying to picture the scenario where the gun was reloaded and when it was reloaded.
Had he been woken, and was out of bed but still in the bedroom maybe?
It's strange that the shell casings are all in that corner of the room.
It must have been reloaded at least twice.
It makes sense for one of the reloads to have been after the kitchen incident. Maybe both.
10 shots, then reloaded. 4 shots, then reloaded. With 1 in the breach that makes 25.
If Jeremy did it, yes, I think Nevill had got out of bed just before he was shot. If Sheila did it, I think he had been downstairs to ring Jeremy, and then came back upstairs into the bedroom and was shot four times by Sheila.
I haven't even had much chance to look at the casings yet. I did so years ago, but I've forgotten their position now.
I make it nine shots, reloaded with ten, four shots in the kitchen, possibly reloaded with another four, making ten in total in the second lot, then eight for the twins and two more for June. The reloaded again - with two bullets? That seems a bit strange to me.
I'm not sure about putting another one in the breach really.
I'll dig out the diagram, but from memory there are two near Sheila. Two on the landing (apparently associated with June), 9 in the corner of the main bedroom on Junes side, 8 in the kids room, 3 in the kitchen and 1 on the kitchen stairs.
When the cases are ejected, how far out to the right do they go? I suppose we have to take into account the possibility of them bouncing off objects.
I personally don't know, but Fletcher says (again from memory) about 4-6 feet.
Quite a long way then. I'll have to take that into account when I think about it.
Are the ones without black shading the cases? If so, there are too many - there are fourteen.
I can't make sense of that - there are fourteen cases then.
Seems to be 1 extra.
Exactly. ???
Making 26 shots? :-\
But 25 wounds to victims.
I think I'll have to go into the archives and read exactly where these cases were found. I could be some time - I think I'll leave it until tomorrow now.
Good luck. I'm confused a bit now. :-\Wasnt the rifle known to jam sometimes Hartley? Could the extra one be from that?
Wasnt the rifle known to jam sometimes Hartley? Could the extra one be from that?
If it's a spent shell case then it must be a fired bullet.Thats what I was thinking, if it was a bullet unused, it maybe came from the rifle jamming?
3 in kitchen.
1 on kitchen stairs.
8 in twins room.
14 in main bedroom/landing.
I wonder if a shot missed it's target and we've been calculating it wrong all these years, or one of the unshaded references in the bedroom is a bullet rather than a shell case. :-\
Thats what I was thinking, if it was a bullet unused, it maybe came from the rifle jamming?
It's 14 cases according to Hammersley.
I wonder what the reference was for the one on the kitchen stairs, that seems to be the rogue one which doesn't show up anywhere.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,373.msg5090.html#msg5090
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,373.msg5090.html#msg5090)
Yeah, I think the black shaded ones are bullets.
If I remember correctly the black shaded ones are samples of the carpet and bedsheets for blood testing. One of the DRH exhibits is two casings merged into one exhibit.
I could be wrong but that's how I remember it last time I looked.
You are incorrect David. They are bullets.
So they are. I wonder what that arrow leading to DRH/5 is supposed to mean?
It's 14 cases according to Hammersley.
I wonder what the reference was for the one on the kitchen stairs, that seems to be the rogue one which doesn't show up anywhere.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,373.msg5090.html#msg5090
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,373.msg5090.html#msg5090)
If the list of cases found is correct, we have a scenario where Nevill suffered a serious head wound from a bullet upstairs, and yet he managed to get downstairs.
In the appeal document, it says there were 13 cases in the bedroom or just outside it, and three in the kitchen, with a further one on the stairs leading from the kitchen.
One bullet case seems to have moved from the kitchen stairs to the bedroom at some point. ???
Yes, I make it 14 cases in the bedroom or landing, 3 in the kitchen, and 8 in the twins' bedroom. That makes 25 altogether. However, the one on the kitchen stairs is not mentioned. That makes no sense because four of the shots to Nevill would have killed him quickly.
Hi Kaldin
wow this is so strange is this the bullet case that was transferred on somebody's foot :-\ this has been posted Patti and hartley discussed the bullet casings in great length wish she was here
The only reference to the one on the kitchen stairs is what you had pointed out to me the other day.
If the kitchen stairs shell case is real, then does it point to a missed shot maybe?
The one on the kitchen stairs is the one which was allegedly transferred there on someone's foot, yes. DC Hammersley didn't mention that one in his statement or in his court evidence as far as I can see. This is very odd as it makes even less sense than it did before.
Yeah, thanks for that. >:( :))
It is odd.
I know. :-\
If there were only three cases in the kitchen, that means that Nevill was shot five times upstairs, including one serious shot to his head, and yet he went downstairs to the kitchen.
I'll so some more research because the info in the appeal document seemed quite clear.
I know. :-\
If there were only three cases in the kitchen, that means that Nevill was shot five times upstairs, including one serious shot to his head, and yet he went downstairs to the kitchen.
I'll so some more research because the info in the appeal document seemed quite clear.
Nevill was most likely shot four times in kitchen. The trajectories to his head are all similar. It's far more likely they never found the fourth casing. The alternative is Nevill moving around with a head shot, very unlikely imo.
There has to be something wrong here. If there were only three cartridge cases in the kitchen, how could Nevill have been shot four times in the head in the kitchen? I don't know where the appeal judges got their information from, but I can't find a reference to another cartridge case being found on the stairs leading from the kitchen other than in the appeal document.
But if there were 13 cases in the bedroom, and one just outside the bedroom, making 14 in total, 7 would be associated with June, 2 would be associated with Sheila, and the other 5 must be associated with Nevill, so how can he have been shot four times in the kitchen?
Malcolm Fletcher also recorded a total of 13 bullet cases in the bedroom, and one on the stairs. He didn't specify which stairs, but DC Hammersley said it was on the landing outside the bedroom.
I know. :-\
If there were only three cases in the kitchen, that means that Nevill was shot five times upstairs, including one serious shot to his head, and yet he went downstairs to the kitchen.
I'll so some more research because the info in the appeal document seemed quite clear.
June had a grazewound. It was mentioned at trial she could have been shot 8 times.
Kaldin hope you can get to the bottom of this I am totally out of my depth here.
I haven't yet Susan - sorry. ???
Here is Mr Fletcher's statement.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4019.0.html
It lists DRH/14 as being found on the stairs, but he didn't say which stairs. That same item was described by DC Hammersley as being found on the floor on the landing. They both list DRH/19, DRH/20, and DRH/41 as being found in the kitchen. I assume that Mr Fletcher simply followed what DC Hammersley had written down, although he did miss out a cartridge case in the children's bedroom.
I miss Patti what a lovely girl. You would have liked her Kaldin
I think I've been here before over the years, leading me to think that DRH14 was maybe the case transferred from the kitchen.
I must admit (bar a memory issue) the shell case on the kitchen stairs was new to me.
Yes. I do remember something about a bullet case moving around. I'll carry on tomorrow though.
Good night!
I think I've been here before over the years, leading me to think that DRH14 was maybe the case transferred from the kitchen.
I must admit (bar a memory issue) the shell case on the kitchen stairs was new to me.
If DRH/14 was originally in the kitchen, is there anything else to suggest that Nevill was shot on the main stairs?
I didn't mean to single out DRH14. They actually say that shell was associated with June.
There is a lack of blood identified as belonging to Neville. There are drips in the bedroom, which 'could' in part belong to NB, drips on the landing outside the bedroom and a smear on the wallpaper outside the kitchen door (on the hall side).
Associated with June? Do you have a link for that? It's not clear whereabouts on the landing the cartridge was found.
So is there nothing to suggest that Nevill was shot on the stairs? If not, it's possible that the killer didn't pursue Nevill, and that Nevill pursued the killer. That actually makes more sense to me because I'm sure the killer could have caught up with Nevill before he got to the kitchen, given his injuries.
It's noted on the diagram with the bullets shaded black, posted earlier in the thread.
How could the killer have shot June and the cartridge end up on the landing though?By being stood in the doorway facing in to the bedroom maybe.
By being stood in the doorway facing in to the bedroom maybe.
Position of the shooter. Cartridge rolling. Cartridge being kicked. Lot's of variables really. But June WAS shot and the casing was there. Not too sure it really matters.Quite true Matt, it’s impossible to say who was shot first or from where, the raid team could easily have kicked anything about unknowingly, we do know they were close range shots, the two shells that interest me are the ones found either side of Sheila, one to the left and one to the right. The rifle jamming as I stated before could also have played a part who knows? Welcome back by the way.
It matters because it would mean that Nevill was not shot four times in the kitchen.
That's not possible though.
He could not have 'received one of the instantly fatal shots, anywhere else.
Either a shell case was somehow relocated, or a shot in the bedroom missed and a case in the kitchen disappeared.
Mike discussed this " missing bullet case " in a thread " Exit Wound Conundrum " in 2011.
Mike discussed this " missing bullet case " in a thread " Exit Wound Conundrum " in 2011.
I agree with you Hartley. The only explanations are that Mr Vanezis was mistaken about the shots to Nevill's head (unlikely), or that one of the cartridges was moved upstairs by mistake. As you say, there could have been a shot upstairs which missed, and the cartridge in the kitchen disappeared. I think it's imporant because it has a bearing on the number of bullets in the magazine and/or the issue of whether or not Nevill was shot on the stairs - something which a lot of people seem to believe.
Hartley this lack of blood had baffled me until I saw the rolled-up rug in the bedroom. I gathered it had been rolled/folded and put to one side because it would have been saturated and not ideal for officers to have walked on. This rug/carpet would have originally covered a large area of the room,such as demonstrated in Sheila's room.
The lack of blood staining is still an issue for me. Other than two bloodstains on the carpet immediately outside the master bedroom door, and a blood stain on the wall next to the hall door leading in to the kitchen, there isn't any.
Hartley this lack of blood had baffled me until I saw the rolled-up rug in the bedroom. I gathered it had been rolled/folded and put to one side because it would have been saturated and not ideal for officers to have walked on. This rug/carpet would have originally covered a large area of the room,such as demonstrated in Sheila's room.
I still haven't see the rolled up rug lookout. There was a rug there but not rolled up - it was on the floor at the bottom of the bed, so where would another one have been?
The large rug folded/rolled up ( a Turkish ? patterened one ) would have originally been over/on top of the existing pale coloured fitted one in which Sheila is lying on.
It matters because it would mean that Nevill was not shot four times in the kitchen.
Quite true Matt, it’s impossible to say who was shot first or from where, the raid team could easily have kicked anything about unknowingly, we do know they were close range shots, the two shells that interest me are the ones found either side of Sheila, one to the left and one to the right. The rifle jamming as I stated before could also have played a part who knows? Welcome back by the way.
Not possible.
Thanks. I agree "who knows".
By being stood in the doorway facing in to the bedroom maybe.
There was no rug there at the time of the killings though - there are spots of blood on the carpet.
Only spots of blood though and not really what you'd have expected from the many shots that June took ? I'm aware that June may have already been deceased after other shots were fired as there'd have been no pumping of blood at all.
The only conclusion I can come to was that most of the blood had been in the kitchen,but from one wounded person ?
I don't know the answer to the lack of blood in the bedroom. Or why that carpet had been put to one side.
I remember a few years ago saying that EP had moved that top carpet and on doing so had created those spots of blood as it dripped off the carpet.
If you notice,Sheila was lying on a small makeshift rug which was obviously to contain most of the staining beneath her.
There were quite a lot spots of blood though, and there wouldn't have been any around Nevill's side of the bed if a large rug had been there. I don't think the spots could have dripped off a rug - they would have been dry by then. Also, why would there be a small rug underneath a large rug?
Can you find the photo of the rolled up rug?
On searching through for that carpet,there's a pic of the Bible behind the door ? It gets worse ::)
Anyway, here's what could have happened.
The killer goes upstairs and shoots June five times. Nevill is either in the room at the time or he's in the kitchen and goes upstairs. He's shot four times. The killer runs out of bullets, so he/she goes downstairs - possible to reload or possibly just to escape. Nevill follows the killer to the kitchen to disarm him/her, and that's when the "struggle" takes place. Nevill becomes unconscious or too badly hurt to be a danger to the killer, so the killer reloads the magazine and shoots Nevill four times. The missing empty cartridge is ejected or transferred upstairs somehow.
It could have but it didn't!
Next
Do you have an alternative explanation?
Do you have an alternative explanation ::)
That's what I asked you. You clearly don't then, you're just posting for the sake of it. If you don't have an alternative explanation, there was no need for you to say anything in response to my post.
I could come up with as many alternatives as you Kaldin and possibly more
The point it you are cherry picking as Mat has clearly pointed out to you
You ever - as I pointed out to you
If you want to have a sensible debate, you'll need to debate sensibly
Anyway, here's what could have happened.
The killer goes upstairs and shoots June five times. Nevill is either in the room at the time or he's in the kitchen and goes upstairs. He's shot four times. The killer runs out of bullets, so he/she goes downstairs - possible to reload or possibly just to escape. Nevill follows the killer to the kitchen to disarm him/her, and that's when the "struggle" takes place. Nevill becomes unconscious or too badly hurt to be a danger to the killer, so the killer reloads the magazine and shoots Nevill four times. The missing empty cartridge is ejected or transferred upstairs somehow.
I have Neville being chased downstairs, rather than him pursuing the killer.
That's what I used to think or assume Hartley. I'm not sure where the notion came from in the first place, but wasn't there an assumption that Nevill had been shot on the stairs which would imply that he was shot from behind whilst going down the stairs?
Now that there's confusion about the empty cartridge on the landing, I'm not at all sure that he was shot on the stairs.
I'm now considering that it was the killer who went down the stairs because he/she ran out of bullets, and that Nevill followed.
How quickly could Nevill have gone down the stairs? If the killer was Jeremy, surely he would have caught up with Nevill before he even got to the kitchen.
Kaldin,Nevill must have been quicker to have possibly phoned JB at that point,albeit hurriedly.
Even Nevill phoning a " killer " while being threatened doesn't make sense to me.
After Simon Hall murdered he alledgedly went home, sat and had a cup of tea with his Mum and a natter (looked fine, sounded fine) before he then went off up to bed
Read the evidence in the COA judgement
Personally, I still think he was in flight rather than in pursuit. I don't think he was in any fit state to have done anything if he caught up with the killer.
He wouldn't have been in a fit state to escape either. His aim would have been to stop the killer getting more bullets - he would have known the killer had run out.
He wouldn't have been in a fit state to escape either. His aim would have been to stop the killer getting more bullets - he would have known the killer had run out.
None of them put up much of a fight did they ? No matter who it had been,I'd have left my mark on the killer,but JB went unscathed-----------even showing no signs of Sheila's " long,strong manicured nails " strange that or a couple of black eyes from Nevill.
3 adults ? It beggars belief really.
None of them put up much of a fight did they ? No matter who it had been,I'd have left my mark on the killer,but JB went unscathed-----------even showing no signs of Sheila's " long,strong manicured nails " strange that or a couple of black eyes from Nevill.
3 adults ? It beggars belief really.
None of them put up much of a fight did they ? No matter who it had been,I'd have left my mark on the killer,but JB went unscathed-----------even showing no signs of Sheila's " long,strong manicured nails " strange that or a couple of black eyes from Nevill.
3 adults ? It beggars belief really.
None of them put up much of a fight did they ? No matter who it had been,I'd have left my mark on the killer,but JB went unscathed-----------even showing no signs of Sheila's " long,strong manicured nails " strange that or a couple of black eyes from Nevill.
3 adults ? It beggars belief really.
Nevill was an ex-serviceman,big,strong and fit.What stopped him ? Had it been because it was a woman ??
Kaldin and co were debating Sheila's clothes recently. They mocked the fact that they didn't believe Sheila's clothes would fit Jeremy Bamber
So on that basis - Jeremy Bamber was a big, strapping young lad - do you think his family would have stood much of a chance?
And don't forget the gun he left out with all those bullets ::)
Perhaps he routinely, lazily left the gun out? Or perhaps he occasionally, lazily left the gun out - on previous occasions? Anyone considered that?
Perhaps he routinely, lazily left the gun out? Or perhaps he occasionally, lazily left the gun out - on previous occasions? Anyone considered that?
Perhaps he routinely, lazily left the gun out? Or perhaps he occasionally, lazily left the gun out - on previous occasions? Anyone considered that?
Perhaps he routinely, lazily left the gun out? Or perhaps he occasionally, lazily left the gun out - on previous occasions? Anyone considered that?
Perhaps he routinely, lazily left the gun out? Or perhaps he occasionally, lazily left the gun out - on previous occasions? Anyone considered that?
The criminal justice system is deeply flawed and is getting away with convictions on the flimsiest of evidence - that's not justice for anyone. Trying to address those flaws and ensure true justice for all is, in my opinion, a responsibility that belongs to all of us.
The rifle being left out all again shows Bamber as the 'unluckiest man ever' -
Bambers see rabbits.
Bamber decides to fully load a rifle to look for & kill these man eaters.
The rabbits have gone.
Bamber leaves loaded rifle in kitchen rather than putting it back where he got it from.
Neither June or Nevill put rifle away.
Sheila has 3am psychotic rage & uses rifle to commence 25 bullet massacre.
------------------
Bad luck or as the judge said some of the cases 'curious coincidences'.
He didn't leave it in the kitchen, he left it on or near the settle in the "back kitchen" or whatever you want to call it.
He didn't leave it in the kitchen, he left it on or near the settle in the "back kitchen" or whatever you want to call it.
Whatever.
Not only are Bamber's family killed by murder/suicide, but he inadvertedly sets it up by loading & leaving a rifle laying about.
Then he gets framed for the massacre although he was in bed sleeping. Nevill's mysterious call rounding the suspects down to two.
I've heard of bad days but.....
Sheila wasn't usually there though. He might have left that gun out a few times when she wasn't there.
Sheila wasn't usually there though. He might have left that gun out a few times when she wasn't there.
Bamber certainly saw rabbits on the massacre night. After a hard day at work he didn't hesitate to fully load a rifle & go hunting for these man eaters. As you do.
However they had all disappeared meaning a loaded rifle was laying around. Available for a psychotic woman bare footed in her nightie to run amok with at 3am.
Bamber certainly saw rabbits on the massacre night. After a hard day at work he didn't hesitate to fully load a rifle & go hunting for these man eaters. As you do.
However they had all disappeared meaning a loaded rifle was laying around. Available for a psychotic woman bare footed in her nightie to charge around with at 3am.
Do you know what I mean Adam ;D ;D who did he think he was, Mr Magoo
Do you know what I mean Adam ;D ;D who did he think he was, Mr Magoo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bBJ3HmMi00
He obviously had not seen 'Watership Down'.
Oh don't Adam. I cried my eyes out to that "bright eyes" :'(
Jeremy "ELMER FUDD" Bamber
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=17ocaZb-bGg
And Bamber probably doesn't know even when it's rabbit season
And probably doesn't even know what ingredients to use in order to bake a cake but it sounds good to his listeners.
A bloke in a prison full of murderers and rapists who can bake a cake
HMPS DO NOT PROVIDE CAKE INGREDIENTS TO INMATES
Plus he doesn't work in a prison kitchen
He used to bake cakes in prison. Paddy Conroy told me that.
He might indeed...................assuming that A) he'd used the gun whenever he was there B) he saw bunnies every time he was there (ok, not difficult. It was their home) C) he went bunny bashing every time he was there.
There was obviously a lot of rabbits & Bamber was on a mission.
He had loaded the rifle so was going for a big rabbit massacre.
However all of the rabbits had quickly disappeared.
It wouldn't have to be every time he was there.
Hmmm. Home made rabbit pie, or rabbit slow-cooked in cognac and cream with apples? Nothing to beat it..................until you get pellets in your mouth. Since when did people waste bullets on bunnies?
Once would have set the precedent.
There could be many explanations for where he left it KaldinBamber used the word lackadaisical in court for the reason he left the rifle out, in his statements he said he was in a hurry?
Did you see Bamber with your owns eyes baking a cake Roch?
I don't care what Paddy Conroy told you http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/paddy-conroy-im-no-angel-1361472
I too know hard men like Paddy Conroy and they can't half tell a story
There was clearly a lot of shooting going on at that farm, what with so many guns around.
I don't approve of it myself.
You appear to be suggesting that there was an unusually high number of weapons and an unusually high amount of shooting taking place at the farm prior to the murders.
I don't believe that to true.
Yuk Jane
I've tried pigeon but I'm not a meat lover. Much prefer fish
I can't imagine what he'd gain by casually volunteering that Jeremy used to bake cakes in prison.
Oh, as do I, but rabbit isn't dissimilar to chicken. Pigeon is quite strong, isn't it.
I can't imagine what he'd gain by casually volunteering that Jeremy used to bake cakes in prison.
I can't imagine what he'd gain by casually volunteering that Jeremy used to bake cakes in prison.
He used to bake cakes in prison. Paddy Conroy told me that.
Quite a character... was in HMP Full Sutton early 90's. I've swapped a few messages with him about Jeremy.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000605413389
http://paddyconroy.awardspace.co.uk/index.html
VORTEX / Grahame
In a nutshell, while he immediately expressed it was a disgraceful fit up / railroading, he also added that he had a doubt about Jeremy's innocence. Though he was not aware of several developments in recent years and upon pointing those out, he dispelled that doubt. He actually volunteered the opinion that Freemasons would likely be behind any cover up. I had not mentioned that subject to him my self. He is looking to take a lie detector test on television with regards to his own case. He mentioned that there is a new British built device, tried to send me the link for this but the link wouldn't show.
Just to add, he posted up my logs vid and he has about 450 subscribers to his page / posts. His posts often touch upon corruption, usually relating to police / criminal relationships etc.
I think the cops have tried to pin murders on him. He has alleged that his former rivals / enemies (the Sayers) were in collusion with police.
About which bit?
Sorry - I may have misinterpretted, but the way you said "I think the cops have tried to pin murders on him." suggested that he said that to you and you believed him?
Right, I see what you mean. It's no secret in these parts. But I'm just not that much of an expert on Newcastle underworld figures, so I don't know the ins and outs of exactly what has taken place. But there was a long running feud between several families. Cops were involved on one side (info exchanged etc). Donal McIntyre might know more about it.
I have paraphrased Paddy here. But he does have a point. How on earth do the authorities contemplate dealing with a fit up of the magnitude of the Bamber case? How on earth do they admit to the British public that numerous others of good standing, from an ACC downwards, had some involvement. Or that the DPP attempted to obstruct the release of even the edited logs? Or that there is no evidence trail for the main prosecution exhibit that corresponds to when it was supposedly found / tested?
In this climate of financial cuts also. 'We cant afford a scandal' takes on a monetary meaning.
I think Paddy is referring to obdurate obstructions. A brick wall. A wall of silence. A wall of excuses. A wall of fobbing off. A wall of delays. A wall of passing the buck. A wall of lies.
Not unusually high, just high compared to a standard household.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1690.0.html
It wasn't a standard household.
It was a farmhouse on a working farm, not a house on a housing estate.
A couple of shotguns, a 22, another 22 belonging to a nephew and an air rifle. I don't think that should be considered unusual.
He wouldn't have been in a fit state to escape either. His aim would have been to stop the killer getting more bullets - he would have known the killer had run out.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1690.0.html
I'm not sure I agree with that. I mean, how could you possibly know?
I don't know whether he was upstairs or downstairs, or whether he ran or chased. Personally I believe he fled.
I'm cautious that people are trying to place NB downstairs alone simply to place him near the telephone.
Not unusually high, just high compared to a standard household.
I read there were seven guns there.
I'm not saying Nevill went downstairs to call Jeremy at that point - if he did so, he must have done so earlier.
He wouldn't have been in a fit state to escape either. His aim would have been to stop the killer getting more bullets - he would have known the killer had run out.
What other reason would he have for following the killer downstairs? Where is the source for saying that Nevill went downstairs followed by the killer?
I'm not saying Nevill went downstairs to call Jeremy at that point - if he did so, he must have done so earlier.
I don't understand why Bamber baking cakes in prison is a problem. Or why another ex-prisoner would be in on some kind of cake conspiracy.
Good post, Jackiepreece! +1
Unless those members of the jury are aware of any of the controversies in the 26 years since the trial, such as inconsistencies debated on this forum, they may still hold what I would call the 'conventional' view. Some may have took some notice when he passed the polygraph. Some may not even be alive today. The version sold to the masses is the cliched 'ice cold, calculating, psycho child-killer'. The general public need villains. People, including jury members, may not easily relinquish the conventional version of events as told at trial. The info debated on this forum is not going reach that many people in the wider sense. Personally I still fail to see how public immunity, in this particular case, can be anything else other than a serious attempt to impede the truth being known. I've not read a single good reason on this forum as to why it is has been used. I'm also very dubious about the official version of the crime scene ammo / entry wounds etc. It seems a bit sad to me that posters may be falling in to the trap of debating a staged crime scene, for the purpose of reinforcing Bamber's guilt. All this stuff about the prosecution having done its' job and guilty til proven innocent. To me it seems like people are more concerned with the state's selective version of due legal process rather than gaining a true picture of what really happened. Call me naive or idealist if you like.
Possibly 8.
There is no source Kaldin.
I just believe he had been shot several times, including one which shattered his jaw, and he fled the bedroom and managed to get as far as the kitchen before being set upon.
So it's just as likely that the killer went downstairs first. He was severely injured when he left the bedroom, so I'm not convinced he could have gone downstairs very fast.
Some people may have that view, but I do not.
If the killer left the scene, then I would think it more likely that NB would check on the other occupants of the household and see to his severely injured wife.
He would want to make sure the killer wasn't able to do any more harm. If he fled before the killer, he had no chance of checking the other occupants or seeing to June.
For what reason do you think he fled? Just to save himself, or to phone the police, or what?
That is at best guesswork.
I just think he fled the scene of the threat, in severe pain. I don't think there was an thought processes going on, just a desire to get away.
But you said he wouldn't have left June when she'd been shot, or he would have checked the other occupants, so do you think that he left his severely injured wife in the hands of a killer? If she hadn't been shot at the point he left the room, do you think he would have left her to her fate?
If you think he fled before he realised there were no bullets left, he would have had to just abandon them all.
I just think that if the killer was Jeremy, he could have caught up with Nevill before he got to the kitchen - if Nevill had left the bedroom first.
I just think that if the killer was Jeremy, he could have caught up with Nevill before he got to the kitchen - if Nevill had left the bedroom first.
That is at best guesswork.I agree Harters, I'm sure Nevill would have been very traumatised and as you say probably unable to think beyond his own flight or fight mechanism.
I just think he fled the scene of the threat, in severe pain. I don't think there was an thought processes going on, just a desire to get away.
In a Sheila guilty scenario, do you think that she would go off and reload? Or just continue her attack with what she had to hand.
I guess I'm thinking that a schizophrenic rage possibly doesn't allow the calmness of thought to decide to plan ahead and go downstairs to reload.
In a Sheila guilty scenario, do you think that she would go off and reload? Or just continue her attack with what she had to hand.
I guess I'm thinking that a schizophrenic rage possibly doesn't allow the calmness of thought to decide to plan ahead and go downstairs to reload.
I agree Harters, I'm sure Nevill would have been very traumatised and as you say probably unable to think beyond his own flight or fight mechanism.
Good question, and I'm not sure. Perhaps she didn't intend to reload, but then Nevill followed her to the kitchen, which she might have seen as a threat, so she hit him, and then decided to shoot him again.
It's the same old thing though, none of us can really know.
I guess I could concoct a scenario where NB thought that his wife was already dead, he then decides to charge after her killer to exact revenge/judgement.
I guess such rules out the elusive "gun kept under the bed in case of foxes" theory?
I'm not sure I agree with that. I mean, how could you possibly know?Surely if Nevill did call JB it had to be before any shooting started. Once anyone had been injured it would have been a very different situation.
I don't know whether he was upstairs or downstairs, or whether he ran or chased. Personally I believe he fled.
I'm cautious that people are trying to place NB downstairs alone simply to place him near the telephone.
Surely if Nevill did call JB it had to be before any shooting started. Once anyone had been injured it would have been a very different situation.
It would have been possible with an arm injury to make a call. It certainly wouldn't have been possible with injuries to his mouth/jaw.No his injuries to his mouth and jaw were profound, poor man. I have never considered he would have made that call unless it was before the stiuation deteriorated into a nightmare.
Surely if Nevill did call JB it had to be before any shooting started. Once anyone had been injured it would have been a very different situation.
That is a good point.
Sheila in her crazy rage would just continue attacking Nevill upstairs once she ran out of bullets. Rather than go downstairs to reload.
No his injuries to his mouth and jaw were profound, poor man. I have never considered he would have made that call unless it was before the stiuation deteriorated into a nightmare.
It doesn't bear thinking about. An injury to an arm is one thing, but having your mouth and jaw shattered must have been absolutely terrifying and traumatic. I'm surprised he managed to do anything after that.I know kaldin, he must have been so traumatised and disorientated, it's likely he was close to collapse which is why I would guess he was easy to over power once he got to the kitchen.
I know kaldin, he must have been so traumatised and disorientated, it's likely he was close to collapse which is why I would guess he was easy to over power once he got to the kitchen.
Whether Sheila or Jeremy was the killer I don't believe there would have been much of a fight.
If Nevill was fit and strong he could have over powered either of them imo. He was so much taller than either of them with a long reach but in such an injured state and losing blood he must have been very weak and at a huge disadvantage.
A lot would have depended how Nevill had first been put out of action as further injury would have been easier to inflict.Those bullets in the face and a compound fracture to his arm were horrendous injuries, he was a sitting duck after that. It must have been such a dreadful end for the poor man.
June had a bullet between the eyes as did one of the twins,but Nevill and the other twin hadn't.
Those bullets in the face and a compound fracture to his arm were horrendous injuries, he was a sitting duck after that. It must have been such a dreadful end for the poor man.
Those bullets in the face and a compound fracture to his arm were horrendous injuries, he was a sitting duck after that. It must have been such a dreadful end for the poor man.
What do you think Jeremy Bamber archives when he volunteers casually in his blogs or letters that he loves to bake cakes
Makes him sound soft doesn't it
Domesticated almost
He's a teller of tales Roch
Notorious Paddy Conroy hey Roch
Do you still exchange messages with him?
I know Maggie,a good man who'd helped everyone. I felt the most sorry for him because he struggled to keep the peace in the household as well as having the farm and other businesses to see to.
What happened to June was horrendous too. I don't know if she conscious when the killer came back, but if she was, she must have been terrified to hear them coming up the stairs.
Kaldin,Nevill must have been quicker to have possibly phoned JB at that point,albeit hurriedly.
Even Nevill phoning a " killer " while being threatened doesn't make sense to me.
Missed this post before - sorry about that.
If the phone call happened, I don't think it happened when Nevill went to the kitchen after the shooting started, I think it must have happened before that. There was no blood on the phone, and Nevill couldn't have spoken after the two shots to his face.
What happened to June was horrendous too. I don't know if she was conscious when the killer came back, but if she was, she must have been terrified to hear them coming up the stairs.It was, just awful poor woman. The whole thing was horrific and tragic.
It was, just awful poor woman. The whole thing was horrific and tragic.
She fought gamely in a horrific situation.
No she didn't. No one did
Your info is out of date.
The idea of a fight happening was demolished long ago. You are going backwardsWell do tell us Solomon..
Look at Sheila's night dress in relation to the blood that was running down her before her back hit the floor. Its rather obvious how the blood got on her forearm.
Well do tell us Solomon..
It spurts/falls downwards from the neck and then onto her dress and arm. Before she hits the ground.
It spurts/falls downwards from the neck and then onto her dress and arm. Before she hits the ground.David, the blood from Sheila's neck wounds would run, it would not spurt. Her external jugular VEIN was shaved/severed not an ARTERY.
Spurting blood cannot break the skin. Nor can it explain the wounds on the back of her hand which are gouge / scrape marks made by a fingernail. I've already explained this to you on numerous occasions. She has marks on her upper arm (bloodied cuts) completely independent from any run or smear nearby. How likely is it that a victim has cuts on her upper up and hand - but the rest of the blood on her arm is merely formed by spurts / runs? If you insist on holding with your position - you will at some point have to concede that Sheila Caffell's skin was broken in several places from her upper arm down to her hand - but the runs on her arm are from the spurting neck wound. You will then be saying that although you believe the runs on her arm are from the spurting neck wound, she must still have been in a fight / scuffle in order to have obtained the other areas of broken skin.
Furthermore - her earring was ripped from here ear and her necklace / pendant was yanked from behind in the struggle. June has shin kick / cuts right leg. On left leg she has curved cuts. She also has a gashed chin, possibly from a thumbnail.
The area of Sheila's hand where the blood is supposed to have transferred to the runs on her wrist, hardly has any blood on it. It's more like smudged blood and has a thin cut and a couple of nick marks (literally the skin is broken).Spurting blood does not break human skin
I can't agree with this I'm afraid. I think the runs on Sheila's arm are from the first shot when she was sitting up, I don't think they're from injuries. The blood on her upper arm trickled to the side when she fell back.
It's difficult to accurately discern from the images on this forum. The runs peter-out from the the dark spots, to somewhere on the underside of Sheila's wrist. The spots on the wrist and further up her arm are actually quite 'angry' looking. There is more to the spots than meets the eye (i.e. on the forum images).
I think the dark spots are where the blood stopped running and pooled - a bit like the dark spots on her neck.
Sheila could not have moved after the second shot which was fatal.So how would venous blood be transferred onto her arm from her neck in such a precise nature ? I.E. lines.
It couldn't have, the blood on her arm could only have come from the first shot - if it came from a shot at all.
This is the question," if it came from a shot at all ". Or if it was even hers ?
It's difficult to accurately discern from the images on this forum. The runs peter-out from the the dark spots, to somewhere on the underside of Sheila's wrist. The spots on the wrist and further up her arm are actually quite 'angry' looking. There is more to the spots than meets the eye (i.e. on the forum images).I am with you on this Roch, however I can understand it is difficult to believe from the grainy photos on the forum.
I think it was her blood, and I don't think it came from an injury, so it must have come from the first shot.
I'm not so sure Kaldin,as even after the first shot IF she'd been lying down,her ability to sit with her head up in order for the blood to drop as it did,would have been severely impaired. As in shock.
Spurting blood cannot break the skin.Spurting blood does not break human skin
Yes I understand. This is also the view of David. However, the nature of the dark spots on her arm/wrist cannot be properly assessed from the low quality images that exist on the forum. Nor can the wrist runs. Likewise, the marks/wounds on the back of her hand cannot logically have been formed via the same process as per David argues. Then in addition as I have mentioned, there are other cuts / nicks in the area of her hand that is supposed to have transferred blood from her neck wound to form the runs on her wrist we are debating.
She wasn't lying down before and after the first shot though - that's how the blood went down her nightdress. If she leaned forward at all, the blood could have dripped onto her arm.
Yes,I remember saying a while back that the first shot was " delivered " while she'd been standing. I say delivered because it hit the jawbone and fragmented. What hasn't been explained is the appx distance that shot had been fired from.
My idea that it had been a defence shot as opposed to it having been self-administered.I've always been of the belief that Sheila had fatally shot herself only the once.
Mr Vanezis didn't mention any wounds on Sheila's arms though, and he couldn't have missed such injuries.
Yes,I remember saying a while back that the first shot was " delivered " while she'd been standing. I say delivered because it hit the jawbone and fragmented. What hasn't been explained is the appx distance that shot had been fired from.
My idea that it had been a defence shot as opposed to it having been self-administered.I've always been of the belief that Sheila had fatally shot herself only the once.
Not just David
His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo.
Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect. He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion. However - this exchange must have occurred very early on.
Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer. I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults. By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.
Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed. His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.
Indeed, just as well the skin is not broken 8)
If you are also referring to these marks on the hand shown below, that's another subject. They look like scratch marks and as expected look very different from the runnels of blood nearby. This I have never disputed
His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo.
Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect. He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion. However - this exchange must have occurred very early on.
Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer. I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults. By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.
Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed. His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.
His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo.
Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect. He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion. However - this exchange must have occurred very early on.
Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer. I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults. By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.
Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed. His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.
I still maintain that Sheila only self- administered one suicide shot.
Really? You're ignoring the facts - he went into great detail about marks on Nevil, he mentioned old scarring on Sheila and an injury covered by a plaster. They were his autopsy notes, they covered the state of the bodies as he SAW them. Had Sheila had cuts, he'd have mentioned them.
There are no mention of them in the original autopsy notes because no such wounds existed!
The defence pathologist at trial Prof Knight never disputed Vanezis opinion either. So was he under Ainsley and Co also?
Which one - the first or second shot?
You do not have a complete copy of his PM notes in relation to Sheila. He also omits to mention wounds that June has. You cannot undo the presence of wounds (regardless of their omission in the written record).
If she has scratchmarks... then she has wounds upon her hands. You cannot have it both ways. I'll bet serious money with any member on here - that Sheila's skin was broken at several places along the length of her arm. The offer is there and has been for many months.
Really? You're ignoring the facts - he went into great detail about marks on Nevil, he mentioned old scarring on Sheila and an injury covered by a plaster. They were his autopsy notes, they covered the state of the bodies as he SAW them. Had Sheila had cuts, he'd have mentioned them.Would you not consider that Vanezis actually just didn't bother to record the cuts and scratches? He maybe assumed it was an open and shut case ie. murder/suicide, recorded Nevill's defense wounds, picked out Sheila's wound covered with a dressing and left it at that? It may be hard for the general public to appreciate such sloppiness but it quite possibly does happen at times.
The second.
If she has scratchmarks... then she has wounds upon her hands. You cannot have it both ways. I'll bet serious money with any member on here - that Sheila's skin was broken at several places along the length of her arm. The offer is there and has been for many months.
I do find it interesting that the statement of Dr Vanezis was not made until 30th September - seven weeks after the post mortem. His handwritten notes are difficult to read and I can't see a date on them, so I don't know when they were made. These handwritten notes do contain a part which says that Sheila killed the others and then herself, but the typed statement does not. I can't find a typed version of his handwritten notes.
As his handwritten notes do not mention injuries on Sheila other than the gunshot wounds, do you really think that he deliberately left out such injuries? Why would he do that at the time, or even later?
Scratches on her hand do not prove a fight took place, there are numerous possible causes such as accidental or even self inflicted.I am curious why you won't even contemplate that Roch MAY be right about Sheila's defence wounds? As you are certain JB was not the killer why do you dismiss the fact that Sheila may have fought over the rifle with the other victims?
What is the point of making a bet that can never be settled? The only way you can win is if Vanezis comes forward and admits to the foul play you allege. That's not going to happen.
What possible reason was there for such a delay in Dr Vanezis statement
I am curious why you won't even contemplate that Roch MAY be right about Sheila's defence wounds? As you are certain JB was not the killer why do you dismiss the fact that Sheila may have fought over the rifle with the other victims?Why should he, if they aren’t there it’s no use saying they are just for Roch.
I am genuinely interested not trying to score points.
Why should he, if they aren’t there it’s no use saying they are just for Roch.I am not saying he should say anything 'just for Roch' however surely we should all have our minds open to possibilities or do we automatically believe someone is lying because what they say does not fit in with our personal opinion?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Roch is lying. I'm certainly not. We only have the photos to go on, and they're open to interpretation. It's my opinion that the blood on Sheila's lower arm are from drops of blood which have trickled, not from injuries, but that's just me.That's fair enough, I was not saying we don't all have a right to our opinion, of course we do. I was just wondering how some can be adamant that Roch is wrong when he has seen the original photos and others haven't.
So who shot her the first time?
I am curious why you won't even contemplate that Roch MAY be right about Sheila's defence wounds? As you are certain JB was not the killer why do you dismiss the fact that Sheila may have fought over the rifle with the other victims?
I am genuinely interested not trying to score points.
That's fair enough, I was not saying we don't all have a right to our opinion, of course we do. I was just wondering how some can be adamant that Roch is wrong when he has seen the original photos and others haven't.
Why should he, if they aren’t there it’s no use saying they are just for Roch.
That first shot could well have happened if June had tried to wrestle/retrieve the rifle from Sheila. At first I'd said her father,but Sheila wouldn't have been able to have climbed two sets of stairs after that.There must have been some sort of struggle to obtain the rifle because of defence marks on both June and Nevill.
Or,it could have been a deliberate shot from the angle that it went in.Obviously I'm only surmising because if Sheila aimed to shoot herself,she wouldn't have hit her jawbone.This is why I say the first shot wasn't self-administered.
It's got nothing to do with saying it for me. The wounds are there.It was Maggie who brought you up Roch, I don’t for one minute think your lying, it’s how each one see’s and interprets, it’s not against you ive always told you if I thought they were I would say so.
Just like the wound on June's chin and the wounds on her legs (as described). Just like I said about the earring being ripped out of Sheila's ear etc. etc. It's all true.
There cannot be a fight between mother and daughter at the trial of Jeremy Bamber... otherwise Bamber walks out of the court a free man. Mick Ainsley was brought on to the case to prevent that from happening. Therefore - any action taken under the stewardship of Ainsley had to conceal Sheila's involvement; conceal June's response and accentuate anything bad or suspicious about Jeremy.
They hid the fight between mother / daughter.
That's fair enough, I was not saying we don't all have a right to our opinion, of course we do. I was just wondering how some can be adamant that Roch is wrong when he has seen the original photos and others haven't.
His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo.
Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect. He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion. However - this exchange must have occurred very early on.
Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer. I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults. By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.
Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed. His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.
It's got nothing to do with saying it for me. The wounds are there.
Just like the wound on June's chin and the wounds on her legs (as described). Just like I said about the earring being ripped out of Sheila's ear etc. etc. It's all true.
There cannot be a fight between mother and daughter at the trial of Jeremy Bamber... otherwise Bamber walks out of the court a free man. Mick Ainsley was brought on to the case to prevent that from happening. Therefore - any action taken under the stewardship of Ainsley had to conceal Sheila's involvement; conceal June's response and accentuate anything bad or suspicious about Jeremy.
They hid the fight between mother / daughter.
I don't dismiss the possibility that Sheila fought over the rifle. I dismiss the possibility that those "wounds" on her arm were caused by such event.
It's got nothing to do with saying it for me. The wounds are there.
Just like the wound on June's chin and the wounds on her legs (as described). Just like I said about the earring being ripped out of Sheila's ear etc. etc. It's all true.
There cannot be a fight between mother and daughter at the trial of Jeremy Bamber... otherwise Bamber walks out of the court a free man. Mick Ainsley was brought on to the case to prevent that from happening. Therefore - any action taken under the stewardship of Ainsley had to conceal Sheila's involvement; conceal June's response and accentuate anything bad or suspicious about Jeremy.
They hid the fight between mother / daughter.
Dr Vanezis said that there were earrings in both of Sheila's ears. ???
I am not saying he should say anything 'just for Roch' however surely we should all have our minds open to possibilities or do we automatically believe someone is lying because what they say does not fit in with our personal opinion?Ive never said Roch is lying, I’ve said he’s got it wrong.
I can understand it is difficult to believe when one has not seen the photos but I cannot understand how anything can be dismissed out of hand.
Given the amount of times we've been assured that "evidence exists" only to find out that it's only in someones' imagination, I feel -under the rules of "You caught me once. You won't do it twice"- we have every right to be skeptical. Roch -giving him benefit of doubt- may believe he's been shown original pictures, but Hey! we've been shown enough -alleged- originals to prevent us accepting all we're told.Nothing wrong with being sceptical Jane, think we should all be sceptical but to my mind that is different from dismissing out of hand.
There were. Stud type earrings. But they are not the only earrings she wore.
But you don't give any reason why and saying it's not within your remit isn't good enough. Nothing happens for nothing. There's always a reason. It's highly unlikely that you don't have an opinion.
Ive never said Roch is lying, I’ve said he’s got it wrong.I may have used the wrong word there but as he says he has seen these photos and you say you haven't, how can you say Roch is wrong? You haven't seen them therefore you haven't had the opportunity to make up your own mind therefore surely you don't know if he is right or wrong.
Which earring was ripped from her ear then? If she wearing earrings at the post mortem, that can't have happened.
Roch, this is dreadful rubbish. This advances the whole conspiracy to such an early start - that you're saying people lied when they had no reason to. V's reports were detailed. There is no reason he would have failed to list these wounds on Sheila - the reason he didn't is because they do not exist.
This all sounds like something that the despicable official campaign team would promote.
I've seen the clearer photos. They do not show anything that you alledge. I do not understand how anyone looking at them can see what you claim so am glad to see both sides mostly disagreeing with this.
Ive never said Roch is lying, I’ve said he’s got it wrong.
I may have used the wrong word there but as he says he has seen these photos and you say you haven't, how can you say Roch is wrong? You haven't seen them therefore you haven't had the opportunity to make up your own mind therefore surely you don't know if he is right or wrong.Well he’s asking us to make our minds up on the photos he and Bill put out, saying he has others I can’t comment, we’ve been down this road before too many times, if he has fair do, until then he has it wrong.
Roch, this is dreadful rubbish. This advances the whole conspiracy to such an early start - that you're saying people lied when they had no reason to. V's reports were detailed. There is no reason he would have failed to list these wounds on Sheila - the reason he didn't is because they do not exist.
This all sounds like something that the despicable official campaign team would promote.
I've seen the clearer photos. They do not show anything that you alledge. I do not understand how anyone looking at them can see what you claim so am glad to see both sides mostly disagreeing with this.
It's not my work Jane (i.e. any fit-up of a suspect in this case...is not my work). Therefore, I cannot provide you with the bonafide reasons. Sorry but that is an honest and factual answer. If another person does some wrongdoing - that person knows the motivation and reason behind the wrongdoing.
If you put a window through in your neighbourhood - I cannot explain why you did it.
I may have used the wrong word there but as he says he has seen these photos and you say you haven't, how can you say Roch is wrong? You haven't seen them therefore you haven't had the opportunity to make up your own mind therefore surely you don't know if he is right or wrong.
I understand you are not calling me a liar. Thanks for that. I have got it right though.Its a bit like the psychiatrist who worked with Bamber who confided in me, I can’t prove it so I had to let it drop.
Mat, with respect... you are are entitled to your opinions. I would not waste my time arguing dreadful rubbish for six months.
Unless you have the original pm reports from Vaneziz.. submitted at the time police were dealing with the coroner, I suggest you rethink your remarks.
Why does that sound to me like a cop out? If I thought you were being paid, it would cross my mind that you weren't being paid to think.
Are you saying that V's handwritten notes are different from an apparent original PM report? And that the PM report isn't the original PM report?
That is quite a large leap from "I see scratches."
You know that in order for them to be wounds, they would have to be documented as such - which has been pointed out by Kaldin, Caroline, David etc.
It seems in order to get around this - you're not saying there is an "original PM report."
I believe fully you've seen better quality photos - I do not in anyway believe you or anyone on the campaign team has seen an PM report by V that is different than his actual PM report or his handwritten notes.
Its a bit like the psychiatrist who worked with Bamber who confided in me, I can’t prove it so I had to let it drop.
I don't agree with your point that a wound is only a wound if it is documented as such. You cannot undo a wound by omitting it from any later written record.
The original PM report when DCI Jones headed the investigation and the police were trying to push the matter through a Coroner's inquest, is not available. The 'later' PM report will have been in line with the aims of Ainsley. You know all this already - so I'm not sure why you are pretending you don't.
It wouldn't bother me about being investigated because I've NOTHING to hide.
I can safely bet I'm the only one !!
Hang on a second...
WAS I PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF JEREMY BAMBER?
If the answer is no - then how can I have been privy to whatever machinations took place among those who were involved?
I do understand your point. Maybe I should drop it. People would no doubt soon forget the claims etc.Its a good debating topic you have bought up, I genuinely feel you have and know more, I have been honest and would have liked to have said I could see them and believe they are there, up to now I’m sorry I don’t, I would have liked to have said more myself about the psychiatrist I have a lot to offer from both of them, but it’s a bit like you mate you get hounded and it’s not worth the hassle. Caroline found this out regarding the wallet as well.
So how can you possibly know that there were any? It sounds like you've been told there were and you've accepted without question.....................Oh! Just to be clear, I don't think anyone from this forum was present, either, but it doesn't prevent us from having opinions.
I'm not pretending anything. I just wish to understand your position. I was more shocked than anyone that you've now working with the OCT - I thought they were the enemy to both sides on here.
The wounds would have been documented - the other victims wounds were. I feel strongly about that.
I don't think there is an original PM report. You've just said it isn't available. What makes you think it exists?
Is it simply because you disagree with the PM report, that you think there must be an original, that would be a fair position I guess but just wondering what makes you think there is an original. Is it referred to anywhere?
Its a good debating topic you have bought up, I genuinely feel you have and know more, I have been honest and would have liked to have said I could see them and believe they are there, up to now I’m sorry I don’t, I would have liked to have said more myself about the psychiatrist I have a lot to offer from both of them, but it’s a bit like you mate you get hounded and it’s not worth the hassle. Caroline found this out regarding the wallet as well.
I don't know whether you are trying to get a bite out of me - but I am not connected to the CT and do not work with them or alongside them or underneath them.
The wounds are present. Yes I do believe there was an original PM report when SC was the only suspect. It's not just Sheila who has wounds not disclosed - it's also June.
OK, a fair post. I can see where you're coming from. Though I think that the images put up for hand - the wounds were easy to spot. A person either wanted to recognise them as wounds or didn't want to recognise them as wounds.
I too know someone in the Met,who strangely has the same surname as a poster. Whether related I don't know I've never found out.
You're not connected to the CT? If you're not then I apologise.. But :-\
As for the original PM report. It's an important point I don't want it to get lost in the mess this topic is becoming.
Do you think that there must be because :
A) You believe 100% they are wounds on Sheila so there MUST be a report.
B) You're seen it reffered to elsewhere?
or C) another?
Roch I believe you 100%
Thank you. Well I suppose it's only natural for people to be cautious, sceptical and to believe in the authority and integrity of pathologists.I agree it is only natural for people to be sceptical especially when we have been duped so many times one way and another. For all that I do think complete refusal to contemplate any other possibility points to cognitive dissonance and bias. :-\
However, people on here would be surprised as to who is aware of the wounds; who treat the matter seriously; and who was involved in high level discussions relating to this issue and the associated gate-keeping antics.
Wounds that you say she had but haven't seen?
You can lead a horse to water...
It's got nothing to do with saying it for me. The wounds are there.
Just like the wound on June's chin and the wounds on her legs (as described). Just like I said about the earring being ripped out of Sheila's ear etc. etc. It's all true.
There cannot be a fight between mother and daughter at the trial of Jeremy Bamber... otherwise Bamber walks out of the court a free man. Mick Ainsley was brought on to the case to prevent that from happening. Therefore - any action taken under the stewardship of Ainsley had to conceal Sheila's involvement; conceal June's response and accentuate anything bad or suspicious about Jeremy.
They hid the fight between mother / daughter.
But a pencil must be lead.
I still don't get this earring business. Dr Vanzis said Sheila had an earring in each ear when he did the post mortem. Was the earring which got ripped out a third one she was wearing?She may have done kaldin, in the '80s lots of women had their ears pierced a couple of times. I used to wear a stud and a dangley ear ring in each ear back then. Stopped wearing the dangley ones once I had babies in case they grabbed one and ripped it out.
She may have done kaldin, in the '80s lots of women had their ears pierced a couple of times. I used to wear a stud and a dangley ear ring in each ear back then. Stopped wearing the dangley ones once I had babies in case they grabbed one and ripped it out.
I agree it is only natural for people to be sceptical especially when we have been duped so many times one way and another. For all that I do think complete refusal to contemplate any other possibility points to cognitive dissonance and bias. :-\
She may have done kaldin, in the '80s lots of women had their ears pierced a couple of times. I used to wear a stud and a dangley ear ring in each ear back then. Stopped wearing the dangley ones once I had babies in case they grabbed one and ripped it out.
This isn't about being duped. You don't have to take Roch's opinion on it. You can see the photos for yourself on the red. And they've been posted on here but seem to have been removed. You commented on the photos did you not? You agreed that they now look to you like scratches and that you can't believe you hadn't noticed that before?
A&B
People have previously sought to obtain the original PM report from when Sheila was a suspect and from when Vanezis expressed he was 'unimpressed' with the suggestion Jeremy was behind the killings.
What you are asking for is almost a trick question though - as EP are unlikely to refer to two different PM reports are they? Since to do so would imply there was an original PM report that pre-dated the statement used under Ainsley, dated 30/9/85.
It cannot have taken PV 8 weeks to complete a PM report - if the police were trying to push the incident through a coroner's inquest in August?
Aye ? To lead. To be led.
If B is the answer too, that the PM report is refered to elsewhere - then where else is it refered to? I'm guessing a document the CT have?
That was just two of the right hand images. The only reason they were posted up was because they already existed on the forum (albeit in lesser definition). Somebody on the red then posted a video still comparison of the back of her hand - which is actually not too bad an image - and is the image generally used on here (when referring to this particular argument).
I cannot recall it being specifically referred to elsewhere - though as you know, there was a separate case file for when Sheila Caffell - when she was the sole suspect for the killings. Surely in order to complete and inquest, the coroner would need to have sight, of the PM report in some way or form?
Meaning PV's first statement detailing the bodies of the victims cannot have been 30/9/85? Eight weeks after the killings?
It's a Laurel and Hardy Joke Lookout
Do you think the blood marks on the clearer images posted are injuries? The ones on her hands.
This isn't my recollection of how things actually happened. But maybe my memory needs re-freshing. Maybe Caroline or Hartley can confirm if there was actually seperate case files.
Do you think the blood marks on the clearer images posted are injuries? The ones on her hands.
Are you another fan ? :)) :)) :)) :))
Off topic interlude .....
Totally! My dad loved them so have many happy memories of watching as a kid - I have the complete set of movies on hard drive - love em! Stan went to school for a while in Bishop Auckland and we have a statue of him in the town center :) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stan+laurel+statue+bishop+auckland&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOqpaakPPWAhULI8AKHVXECnkQ7AkIPQ&biw=911&bih=409#imgrc=GSpkHeDITMjQNM:
Hi Mat, Roch is correct, the case on Jeremy was treated as a new investigation and I believe there were two case files.
Patently. They are fingernail wounds. One has connected fully and the other is as if the fingernail has connected partially. Both have resulting scrape marks, the same width as the associated wounds.
The mark on her forefinger finger is different. Close-up, it appears to be an angled cut.
But not two PM reports? The PM report regarding the bodies would be the same no matter who was being investigated.
No, no. Absolutely not. I respect your opinion, Roch. But I do not see it that way, maggie can call is bias but hand on heart looking at those photos that is not what I see.
I will post a link to the photos from the red forum and others can look.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg415881#msg415881
Off topic interlude .....
Totally! My dad loved them so have many happy memories of watching as a kid - I have the complete set of movies on hard drive - love em! Stan went to school for a while in Bishop Auckland and we have a statue of him in the town center :) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stan+laurel+statue+bishop+auckland&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOqpaakPPWAhULI8AKHVXECnkQ7AkIPQ&biw=911&bih=409#imgrc=GSpkHeDITMjQNM:
So where's his associated statement, made for the original investigation / case-file? The one that presumably, EP would be relying on, to get the incident through the coroner's inquest?
So where's his associated statement, made for the original investigation / case-file? The one that presumably, EP would be relying on, to get the incident through the coroner's inquest?
Then you have to explain, what they are and how they were formed, imo.
But a pencil must be lead.;D ;D ;D
So where's his associated statement, made for the original investigation / case-file? The one that presumably, EP would be relying on, to get the incident through the coroner's inquest?
How would you know if I hadn't seen them?
If I stated I had seen wounds for June - you would say I was wrong regarding the marks and it was just my interpretation.
If I stated I hadn't seen wounds for June - you would say I was wrong and was too trusting of other people's interpretation.
I started two threads for June's wounds - you can see her chin wound and you can definitely see her right shin wounds on the forum images (even though they are poor).
There's a lovely statue of them both in Ulverston too.
Not sure what you mean here - there weren't two autopsy's. Two police investigations has nothig to do with the coroner. He made his report, it didn't change so there aren't two.
I agree, which is what I was trying to say. There wouldn't be two. An autopsy is an autopsy.
Spurting blood cannot break the skin. Nor can it explain the wounds on the back of her hand which are gouge / scrape marks made by a fingernail. I've already explained this to you on numerous occasions. She has marks on her upper arm (bloodied cuts) completely independent from any run or smear nearby. How likely is it that a victim has cuts on her upper up and hand - but the rest of the blood on her arm is merely formed by spurts / runs? If you insist on holding with your position - you will at some point have to concede that Sheila Caffell's skin was broken in several places from her upper arm down to her hand - but the runs on her arm are from the spurting neck wound. You will then be saying that although you believe the runs on her arm are from the spurting neck wound, she must still have been in a fight / scuffle in order to have obtained the other areas of broken skin. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8745.msg419337.html#msg419337
Furthermore - her earring was ripped from here ear and her necklace / pendant was yanked from behind in the struggle. June has shin kick / cuts right leg. On left leg she has curved cuts. She also has a gashed chin, possibly from a thumbnail.
The area of Sheila's hand where the blood is supposed to have transferred to the runs on her wrist, hardly has any blood on it. It's more like smudged blood and has a thin cut and a couple of nick marks (literally the skin is broken).Spurting blood does not break human skin
Who knows?
Maybe it's been posted. Maybe it hasn't. Maybe Mike has it, maybe Jeremy has it. Jeremy said he has everything.
Do you think V's handwritten notes are faked? Made at a later date?
I don't think you'll get any expert to say they can see cuts on those hands, nevermind being able to actually say they were caused by fingernails.
And seeing as reports mean more than photographs to the CCRC and take precedent I don't see this as a huge deal. It's more for internet debate than actually being anything Bamber could/would ever try to actually use in an appeal.
I have to explain to you what drips of blood are?
I think a good few people already have.
What do you mean by 'her earring was 'ripped' from here ear do you mean it was split? Because that's not what the xray shows.
OK Mat, I'm going to be honest with you. Firstly I regard you as quite predictable. Your presence here is always to shore-up the official case, the agencies involved and the processes involved. You don't deviate from that line. In this sense, I regard you as not very transparent. You're like some kind of PR man for this conviction.
Secondly, I'm not involved in trying to get any professional to say that the marks on the back of Sheila's hand are this or that.
Thirdly, you highlighted a point I have previously tried to make, regarding what I would term as 'keeping Bamber in on a technicality'. I've been very clear that my personal opinion is that JB will never get out - precisely because of the play-dirty tactics that you've highlighted above. But you see, this isn't about the CCRC or legal technicalities that can be used to keep a person in prison. To me it's about searching for the truth of what took place at WHF. You're so concerned with shoring up the CCRC and their legal technicalities - that you don't really seem to care about finding out what really took place. That's your prerogative Mat. Personally I do not feel that such an approach is in anyway respectful to Daniel, Nicholas, June and Nevill. But that's just my slant on things.
Lastly - you're claiming that the marks on the back of her right hand are drips of blood? OK if that works for you and you are comfortable with playing along with that .. again - your prerogative. I guarantee you one thing - if those marks were on the back of your own bairn's hand - there's no way on earth you would consider them or label them as drips of blood.
I do care about what really took place Roch. I just do not believe what you are saying is visible. It isn't. People can label me as a PR man or whatever they like. But I am never going to agree with something I don't agree with. I didn't see a palm print on the bible, and I fought with Caroline about it. I'll never say I can see something if I can't and if I don't agree with it whoever posts it.
I dont see anyone else jumping up to defend those marks as nail marks.
I think it's a bit rich to mention being respectful to Daniel, Nicholas, June and Nevill. You're offering financial bets on the case, do I don't think I need preaching to in that regard. I've spoken up repeatedly whenver I have felt anyone was disrespectful to the victims.
You'd have to be member of the red forum in order to see the images in the link you put up. They changed their settings at some point.
Feel free to post them here, it will be interesting to see if anyone else sees nail marks. If they don't I hope you'll be grumpy with them too.
This isn't about being duped. You don't have to take Roch's opinion on it. You can see the photos for yourself on the red. And they've been posted on here but seem to have been removed. You commented on the photos did you not? You agreed that they now look to you like scratches and that you can't believe you hadn't noticed that before?I am not taking Roch's opinion for it at all. It is my own opinion which I have made all on my own. I do not intend to state on here what I have or have not seen but I certainly don't need to look at anything on the red forum to confirm my opinion. Thanks anyway..
I am not taking Roch's opinion for it at all. It is my own opinion which I have made all on my own. I do not intend to state on here what I have or have not seen but I certainly don't need to look at anything on the red forum to confirm my opinion. Thanks anyway..
Imo, the blood could not stop running like that. Sheila was a young woman her blood would be quite fluid. Not sure if a side effect of Haldol is that it thinned the blood but either way it's highly unlikely Sheila's blood would be sticky enough to behave in that way. To me and because my pics on my tablet seem to be clearer than most, they're certainly clearer than on my laptop, the source of the blood is from the darker, thicker spots and those marks appear to be cuts or tears made by sharp nails or something similar.
I can see bruising higher up her arm as though the arm has been grabbed and pulled or scraped as well as a few gouge marks that have bled, I think my pics on this 'dyslexic' tablet are really clear, not much use otherwise! :)
Nor me lookout. I cannot agree because it makes no sense and I can see she has small wounds probably caused by something sharp like finger nails.
But as I have said before, my pics must be clearer than yours Adam
Do you have an opinion on the photos that you're willing to share?
Edit : Nevermind, I managed to find your posts where you say you can see bruising and nail marks.
The only marks on her hand that look like scratches are the ones below. June does not appear to have long nails, so if they are nail marks they are self inflicted.
I am guessing you don't believe the nail mark breaking news? Because I seem to remember you also don't believe any call from Neville so are willing to seperate from supporter group think.
What's the "nail mark breaking news"?
This apparent new discovery that on clearer photos you can see gouges on Sheila that Roch has been posting about, dating back to July.
Maggie can see " those marks appear to be cuts or tears made by sharp nails or something similar." "I can see bruising higher up her arm as though the arm has been grabbed and pulled or scraped as well as a few gouge marks that have bled," "small wounds probably caused by something sharp like finger nails."
Also, what do you make of there being an apparent original post mortem report for Sheila that has been edited.
I don't know whether Sheila's ear was split. I've not heard that it was - but that XRay doesn't really show much regarding her ears anyway?
This apparent new discovery that on clearer photos you can see gouges on Sheila that Roch has been posting about, dating back to July.
Maggie can see " those marks appear to be cuts or tears made by sharp nails or something similar." "I can see bruising higher up her arm as though the arm has been grabbed and pulled or scraped as well as a few gouge marks that have bled," "small wounds probably caused by something sharp like finger nails."
Also, what do you make of there being an apparent original post mortem report for Sheila that has been edited.
It's an excuse for the FACT that Venezis doesn't mention any such marks on Sheila.
You forgot to mention the wounds he omitted regarding June.
They don't exist either.
It's an excuse for the FACT that Venezis doesn't mention any such marks on Sheila.
The only marks on her hand that look like scratches are the ones below. June does not appear to have long nails, so if they are nail marks they are self inflicted.
I am guessing you don't believe the nail mark breaking news? Because I seem to remember you also don't believe any call from Neville so are willing to seperate from supporter group think.I am not part of a 'supporter group', I am on the fence. I was very much leaning to guilty until I saw Sheila's wounds and now am pretty much 50/50.
I am not part of a 'supporter group', I am on the fence. I was very much leaning to guilty until I saw Sheila's wounds and now am pretty much 50/50.
If Sheila has defense wounds that does not on its own prove JB innocent but does strongly suggest Sheila was at least involved.
I am sceptical that Vanezis consciously hid the fact that Sheila and apparently June had defense wounds but rather mentioned them on Nevill's body but omitted to mention them on Sheila and June. As far as he was concerned it was a murder/suicide, an open and shut case... who knows. Professionals are not always perfectionists in their work. Anyway, I can't answer why this happened but I can say I support Roch on the fact the gouges and cuts are there.
Sorry, I would rather go by the pathologist report. Who examined the bodies at the time & did not mention any wounds on Sheila.
Rather than Roch saying 32 years later Sheila has cuts & scratches. Which even other supporters don't agree with.
They don't exist either.
I am not part of a 'supporter group', I am on the fence. I was very much leaning to guilty until I saw Sheila's wounds and now am pretty much 50/50.
If Sheila has defense wounds that does not on its own prove JB innocent but does strongly suggest Sheila was at least involved.
I am sceptical that Vanezis consciously hid the fact that Sheila and apparently June had defense wounds but rather mentioned them on Nevill's body but omitted to mention them on Sheila and June. As far as he was concerned it was a murder/suicide, an open and shut case... who knows. Professionals are not always perfectionists in their work. Anyway, I can't answer why this happened but I can say I support Roch on the fact the gouges and cuts are there.
As the assalient, it was important to get the facts of her autopsy correct and as a professional with no reason to lie (as he wasn't part of EP anyway).I am not saying he lied Caroline and neither am I unaware that it was important he got the fact right.
As the assalient, it was important to get the facts of her autopsy correct and as a professional with no reason to lie (as he wasn't part of EP anyway).
I am not saying he lied Caroline and neither am I unaware that it was important he got the fact right.
His position speaks for itself and of course we would expect the utmost professionalism from him. We the Public rightly expect the utmost professionalism from the establishment but many of us know to our cost that this is not always the case.
My point is that he MAY have not recorded the wounds for a completely innocent reason, I do not believe he would have hidden them as it is difficult/impossible to suggest any reason he would have for doing so.
So he saw the wounds. But didn't record them. However recorded all of Nevill's wounds.I agree it is 'a pity he didn't record Sheila's wounds.'
It's a pity he didn't record Sheila's wounds. It would have supported her having a kitchen fight with Nevill.
It's lucky Roch has spotted them 32 years later & I assume passed them onto Bamber's legal advisors.
I agree it is 'a pity he didn't record Sheila's wounds.'
And bad luck for Jeremy.Absolutely.
I am not saying he lied Caroline and neither am I unaware that it was important he got the fact right.
His position speaks for itself and of course we would expect the utmost professionalism from him. We the Public rightly expect the utmost professionalism from the establishment but many of us know to our cost that this is not always the case.
My point is that he MAY have not recorded the wounds for a completely innocent reason,rather than a premeditated reason. I do not believe he would have hidden them on urpose as it is difficult/impossible to suggest any reason he would have for doing so.
He mentioned old scars and the wound with the paster Maggie - there is no reason for him not to mention such cuts and every reason why he would as they would perhaps add support to her using the rifle.I know he did Caroline, I have no idea why what happened did happen and I understand your reasoning. That is why I have said before that I have no idea what happened. :-[
He mentioned old scars and the wound with the paster Maggie - there is no reason for him not to mention such cuts and every reason why he would as they would perhaps add support to her using the rifle.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19355106
He mentioned old scars and the wound with the paster Maggie - there is no reason for him not to mention such cuts and every reason why he would as they would perhaps add support to her using the rifle.
Nobody can say he didn't mention wounds, unless they can produce the original pm report from the period when police were dealing with coroner's inquest. Scribbled notes referring to a lack of contaminates are not necessarily in the context of wounds. Perhaps the plaster was a contaminate and this is why he mentions it?
He had every reason to omit the wounds to Sheila and June under Ainsley. Ainsley cannot succeed if Vanezis doesn't omit the wounds. I suspect Stan Jones persuaded Vanezis that no phone call took place between Nevill and Jeremy and that he (Vanezis) needed to assist police to catch the devious Bamber.
However, as this about what MIGHT have happened, perhaps he thought, and just because we don't KNOW it happened it's not to say it didn't happen, it IS all conjecture.
Well we know that Jones pursued Vanezis, with an agenda. And we know that Vanezis was initially unimpressed. Why?
Could that not be reworded as "We think we know that............."?
Nobody can say he didn't mention wounds, unless they can produce the original pm report from the period when police were dealing with coroner's inquest. Scribbled notes referring to a lack of contaminates are not necessarily in the context of wounds. Perhaps the plaster was a contaminate and this is why he mentions it?
He had every reason to omit the wounds to Sheila and June under Ainsley. Ainsley cannot succeed if Vanezis doesn't omit the wounds. I suspect Stan Jones persuaded Vanezis that no phone call took place between Nevill and Jeremy and that he (Vanezis) needed to assist police to catch the devious Bamber.
Those are his notes from the original autopsy - not sure what you are talking about by 'lack of contaminates'? It has nothing to do with Ainsley - he was no where near the case when those notes were written. Whoever placed them in the archives has typed the wrong date.
The notes regarding Sheila relate to contaminates. That is my point.
Not to be forgotten is Bob Holland was disciplined for misleading the coroner .
Now why would he ?
Not heard about that - you would have to explain more?Yes , MT as posted some paperwork up here about it before , maybe he could again .
Yes , MT as posted some paperwork up here about it before , maybe he could again .
If I remember correctly EP would not reveal the outcome .
Is it here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1240.msg38881.html#msg38881No
No
Nobody can say he didn't mention wounds, unless they can produce the original pm report from the period when police were dealing with coroner's inquest. Scribbled notes referring to a lack of contaminates are not necessarily in the context of wounds. Perhaps the plaster was a contaminate and this is why he mentions it?
He had every reason to omit the wounds to Sheila and June under Ainsley. Ainsley cannot succeed if Vanezis doesn't omit the wounds. I suspect Stan Jones persuaded Vanezis that no phone call took place between Nevill and Jeremy and that he (Vanezis) needed to assist police to catch the devious Bamber.
Those "Scribbled notes" are the original PM report, to make matters worse for your theory they actually contain more details than the later typed up one.
No they're not.
What if the Coroner had asked for sight of the pathology report? Do you honestly believe that Miller would have just handed Tompkins some scribbled notes from Vanezis?
Vanezis hadn't mentioned about the marks on Nevill's arm in his pm report.
No they're not. What if the Coroner had asked for sight of the pathology report? Do you honestly believe that Miller would have just handed Tompkins some scribbled notes from Vanezis?
Yes he did.
Yes they are! The pathology report was typed up from his notes and would have been used at the inquest which was held BEFORE Bamber became a suspect!
Wasn't the pic of Nevill's arm with the abrasions missing from the jury/judge ?
David & Caroline... No it is not.
You do not know whether the handwritten notes have survived in full.
You do not know whether Vanezis used a dictaphone as well as scribbling notes down.
The pathology report would have been a typed document and would have probably been required for inquest proceedings in August.
The only typed document we have appears to be the statement dated 30/9/85, eights weeks after the killings; and produced when the case was under the stewardship of Ainsley & Jones (who attempted to interfere with Vanezis and influence his views).
Unless you two can show me the original, intact pathology report from August '85, prior to when Jeremy officially became a suspect, then your claims are not bonafide, imho.
I'm sure you will exercise your right to disagree.
David & Caroline... No it is not.
You do not know whether the handwritten notes have survived in full.
You do not know whether Vanezis used a dictaphone as well as scribbling notes down.
The pathology report would have been a typed document and would have probably been required for inquest proceedings in August.
The only typed document we have appears to be the statement dated 30/9/85, eights weeks after the killings; and produced when the case was under the stewardship of Ainsley & Jones (who attempted to interfere with Vanezis and influence his views).
Unless you two can show me the original, intact pathology report from August '85, prior to when Jeremy officially became a suspect, then your claims are not bonafide, imho.
I'm sure you will exercise your right to disagree.
Is there a date on the handwritten notes? I couldn't see one .
Roch's obviously passed these pictures onto Bamber's legal advisors & advised them no one has noticed Sheila's cuts.
There will be an annoncement in the media soon from the Campaign Team that Sheila was covered in cuts & this shows she fought Nevill.
Her nightdress untouched as she read the bible, had a shower & changed after the massacre. Then dialled 999 at 6.09am.
You have been shown the origional autopsy. Would it make any difference to you if someone neatly typed a copy? ::)
Perhaps the CT will use this , but I doubt this will be used in any future appeal.
I also don't think there will ever be another appeal.
Perhaps the CT will use this , but I doubt this will be used in any future appeal.
I also don't think there will ever be another appeal.
Perhaps the CT will use this , but I doubt this will be used in any future appeal.
I also don't think there will ever be another appeal.
There will not be another appeal. The bar set by the 2002 appeal was deliberately high. The authorities have a stranglehold on the case and can simply resort to rejecting submissions based on a technicality. Similarly, they can impose impossible further requests that cannot be met nor funded within whatever deadline is set. It is not the remit of the CCRC or the COA to seek the truth of what took place.
I wouldn't bother replying to him. He just spouts repetitive, nonsensical remarks.
I wouldn't bother replying to him. He just spouts repetitive, nonsensical remarks.
There will not be another appeal. The bar set by the 2002 appeal was deliberately high. The authorities have a stranglehold on the case and can simply resort to rejecting submissions based on a technicality. Similarly, they can impose impossible further requests that cannot be met nor funded within whatever deadline is set. It is not the remit of the CCRC or the COA to seek the truth of what took place.
I wouldn't bother replying to him. He just spouts repetitive, nonsensical remarks.
There will not be another appeal. The bar set by the 2002 appeal was deliberately high. The authorities have a stranglehold on the case and can simply resort to rejecting submissions based on a technicality. Similarly, they can impose impossible further requests that cannot be met nor funded within whatever deadline is set. It is not the remit of the CCRC or the COA to seek the truth of what took place.
Yes they are his original notes made on the day of the autopsies. You can believe what you like but in the end this is your stumbling block not mine. Just because you refuse to take on board that these are his original notes it's not for me to convince you - I don't think anything would convince you.
What do you think were used at the first inquest?
The inquest was adjourned I think. Then other events took over.
The inquest was adjourned I think. Then other events took over.
Have you ever thought about submitting your findings to the CCRC Roch; bypass the CT
No they weren't there was a verdict of four murders and a suicide.
When was the coroner's verdict delivered?
What date was the inquest adjourned and what date was Bamber arrested
Also, what was the date JM went to police
about a week after the muders
You are certain it wasn't adjourned?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
Cant spot anything about inquest but my eyes are tired
NO... I have not been shown the original PM report. I have had sight of handwritten notes, which came via the CT to this forum. I do not know whether the notes are complete. They are not dated. The only other thing I have seen is a statement dated within the case stewardship of Ainsley. All statements were vetted by Ainsley... for the purpose of PROSECUTING.
Cant spot anything about inquest but my eyes are tired
8th paragraph
could be why you've seen things most of us haven't re the photos
Could be time for a visit to the optician
Good spot but I'm still not certain.
Well, can't help you with that I'm afraid - it's a fact you can easily check out.
CAL reckons adjouned.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=deputy+coroner+tompkin+caffell&source=bl&ots=jQz_J4EevY&sig=LU-UYjb4CCeVhq0BCf7QgNZJbeM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw-u7PgPbWAhUCvRoKHXDLBU4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=deputy%20coroner%20tompkin%20caffell&f=false
Wilkes also states the verdict was 4 murders and a suicide
As to where - try here http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/coroners-inquests/
If the coroner adjourned it for two months - how could they have reached a verdict? I tried contacting the HM coroners office directly about the original findings of the pathologist. They basically told me to go away. They've probably had many similar enquiries over the years.
CAL reckons adjouned.When they say "vital evidence was recorded on film" do they mean rolls of photographs or video footage?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=deputy+coroner+tompkin+caffell&source=bl&ots=jQz_J4EevY&sig=LU-UYjb4CCeVhq0BCf7QgNZJbeM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw-u7PgPbWAhUCvRoKHXDLBU4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=deputy%20coroner%20tompkin%20caffell&f=false