Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on October 12, 2017, 07:49:PM
-
does mugfords evdence about the order of death conenect with davids cliam of her having contact with rwb.
-
does mugfords evdence about the order of death conenect with davids cliam of her having contact with rwb.
I never claimed she made contact with RWB. Just that her evidence can be traced to back to either him or AE. Whether she got this directly from them or from a proxy such like Stan Jones ect is anyone's guess.
The twins being shot first (as Julie said) would rule out Colin being entitled to part of the Bamber estate. It is indeed another suspicious coincidence. However, in one of the newspapers published shorty after the killings. It was reported that the police believed the twins were shot first. Whether that newspaper got that from the police or not I don't know. But it is an alternative source to where Julie could have got that information from.
-
I think it's being surmised that the twins died first and not a fact that we're likely to get to know.
-
I never claimed she made contact with RWB. Just that her evidence can be traced to back to either him or AE. Whether she got this directly from them or from a proxy such like Stan Jones ect is anyone's guess.
The twins being shot first (as Julie said) would rule out Colin being entitled to part of the Bamber estate. It is indeed another suspiscios coincidence. However, in one of the newspapers published shorty after the killings. It was reported that the police believed the twins were shot first. Whether that newspaper got that from the police or not I don't know. But it is an alternative source to where Julie could have got that information from.
Where does Julie say the twins were shot first ? I will include it in my list below of things Julie wouldn't have read in the papers -
There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF.
The outside doors were locked every night.
There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting.
There was a kitchen fight during the massacre.
Neville received seven shots.
The twins were shot in their sleep.
Sheila had a bible by her chest.
There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM.
There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record.
Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering.
Sheila was shot last.
June was shot in her bed.
Everyone was asleep. Except Neville.
Sheila was shot under the chin.
-
If Julie said Bamber told her the twins were shot first, that is very interesting.
All of the other things Julie said in her WS which would not have been in the papers was correct.
-
Shooting the twins first, in my view Bamber would have shot each twin once - 2 bullets.
Then shot June 5 times in bed & Nevill 4 times in the bedroom - 9 bullets.
That is the first 11 bullets used. Which the rifle could hold.
He later re loaded & shot Nevill in the kitchen 4 more times & June out of bed 2 more times.
The massacre had become more of a bullet fest than Bamber has anticipated. There had also been a violent fight with Nevill.
Bamber returned to the twins & fired 6 more shots into them to highlight Sheila was out of control.
-
Shooting the twins first once each may not have posed any risk of waking up anyone to Bamber.
Bamber had the silencer on & Nevill, June & Sheila were in other rooms behind closed doors & walls. Asleep.
Bamber also had the option of shutting the twins bedroom door behind him prior to shooting them.
It would be impossible for anyone to hear the two shots into the twins through at least two shut doors & walls in a big house. Even if awake.
It was also only two shots into the twins, rather than 8.
-
Only a maniac would have shot twins in the way that they had been.
JB has been assessed for any such trait.
-
Bamber may have & in my view should have attempted to complete the massacre with 11 bullets -
2 into the twins.
8 into June & Nevill.
1 into Sheila.
Once complete he could stage the scene to make it look like Nevill had called him.
Everyone who knew Sheila knew she couldn't chamber, breach & load a rifle. And there is no evidence on her or her nightie she did.
However Nevill waking seconds before receiving fatal shots saw Bamber use up all his bullets upstairs.
After knocking Nevill out downstairs he now had no option but to re load for Sheila. So now decided to fire more shots into Nevill, June & the twins. To make it look more like an out of control massacre & make sure they were dead.
The second shot into Sheila he reluctantly had to take as the first shot didn't kill her.
-
Whatever ::)
-
I originally didn't agree with David that the twins were shot first. Espescially after he suggested Nevill only telephoned Bamber after Sheila started shooting the twins.
But have had second thoughts about Bamber shooting the twins first & created a thread on this.
When David provides the source that Julie said Bamber said the twins were shot first, that will be more compelling information.
-
I had a browse of Julie's WS. The closest thing I can find is -
'I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest.
-------------------
Unless David provides an alternative source, then his reply 1 is wrong. Julie did not say Bamber told her the twins were shot first.
-
If Julie said Bamber told her the twins were shot first, that is very interesting.
All of the other things Julie said in her WS which would not have been in the papers was correct.
Indeed Adam
What supporters appear to ignore or gloss over to suit their theory at any given time is that Bamber had access to JM witness statements along with the rest of the case files whilst he was on remand.
He had ample time to plot and scheme;
Having read Jeremy Bamber's recent blog about his memories of time on remand I'd like to ask him why he hasn't written about his memories of time on remand and appears to have digressed, writing instead about prisoners who cannot read or write. What has this got to do with his innocence campaign/Anniversary?
Can anyone else see how he avoids the obvious?
He begins:
"Something which I have been thinking about a lot recently is the fact that while I was held on remand I was able to read through much of the very limited 'disclosed' documentation on my case. If you’re charged with a crime you’ll need to read the charge sheet and indictment, your own statement or transcripts of interviews for signing, all statements against you and forensic reports both for and against your innocence. This material might be quite extensive and require many hours of reading. Forensic and legal documents often contain technical language, which can be difficult to follow without specialist knowledge or a dictionary. I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/on-30th-anniversary-of-jeremys.html
No mentions again of his family members who have been murdered.
No mention of his fears regarding his forthcoming trial?
No mention of his innocence?
And no mention of reading statements by, for example Julie Mugford, and not agreeing with her statements?
He then goes on to write:
"In today’s society there’s always help available for people with disabilities such as partial vision or hearing difficulties and similarly if you can’t read or write you should be able to ask for someone to read it to you. The problem is that the vast majority of people charged with crimes who are not literate will not tell anyone about it. This means that the situation arises where many people have no idea of the detailed charges against them and this places greater difficulty on formulating a defence strategy. The bigger issue of course is that some people go through police interviews facing often very serious charges, and end up tried and convicted without really knowing the many factors of how this came about. Imagine not knowing the reasons why you were convicted, maybe wrongly, of serious crimes and imprisoned for even the shortest period or as long as whole life sentence.
Most people faced with criminal charges will have a solicitor who will explain in layman's terms the charges against them and who will also explain in layman's terms anything the person arrested doesn't understand. I therefore do not agree with what he has written.
I further would like him to explain what he means when he states 'formulating a defence strategy?' What about telling the truth? Or are these his projections?
What examples can he give of someone having been convicted, maybe wrongly, of serious crimes and imprisoned and them not knowing why they have been convicted?
I think this whole piece is yet more smoke and mirrors and only serves to show him in a poor light to people like me who believes he is a con artist.
And the following makes no sense at all:
"This can also have impact on the victims of crime because admission of guilt by the perpetrator often helps victims to understand what happened to their loved one. Many of the accused won't understand the nature of the evidence against them and will not make confessions, where as if they had been able to read they might have done. Confessions also help the prisoner to rehabilitate and work towards better prison conditions and long-term objectives of building a new life on release.
In other words Jeremy Bamber is suggesting prisoners do no confess to their crimes because they cannot read or write? What a load of twaddle.
Is this his attempt at showing empathy to the victims of crime?
He concludes:
"Being able to read and write should be one of the basic human rights, every citizen should have. Prisoners should never be prosecuted until they are literate – hold them on remand and teach them how to read and write, and hold the prosecution until they can. It’s simple, some will simply delay but the prison system has ways to encourage compliance and then the country has a chance of another 50% of prosecutions being fair. Alternatives could be providing audio transcripts of all material but this doesn’t solve the long-term problem of illiterate prisoners hoping for rehabilitation and release.
Jeremy Bamber is suggesting prosecutions aren't fair if those prisoners who committed the crimes are illiterate yet he admits to not having had any problems with reading and understanding his case papers?
I do not see the point in this blog nor do I understand it's relevance?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7969.msg377999.html#msg377999
-
Bambers states clearly he is referring to his memories from his time of remand -
"and this places greater difficulty on formulating a defence strategy"
The above statement was how he was thinking during his time on remand
He was strategising whilst on remand
What does this statement tell us about Bambers character, as a 23/24 year old, facing a murder trial?
-
I've seen no evidence to suggest JM was upset with Bamber for having alledgedly dumped her.
What "defence strategy" did Bamber use during his trial re JM's evidence?
Any negative accusations towards JM's damming evidence which helped convict Bamber was and is no more than a ruse
-
Indeed Adam
What supporters appear to ignore or gloss over to suit their theory at any given time is that Bamber had access to JM witness statements along with the rest of the case files whilst he was on remand.
He had ample time to plot and scheme;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7969.msg377999.html#msg377999
You commented on David going silent after being asked if he believes Sheila had a shower. As he 'hadn't figured it out yet'.
Hopefully he won't go silent on this issue which he brought up himself.
Either there is a source that Julie said Bamber told her the twins were shot first. Which David will supply.
Or there is no source & David will confirm his error.
An expected no response at all from David will mean he's either refusing to supply the source as it's assisting a guilter. Or he never had a source in the first place.
No response & I will have to assume there was never a source in the first place, as I have never seen one
-
You commented on David going silent after being asked if he believes Sheila had a shower. As he 'hadn't figured it out yet'.
Hopefully he won't go silent on this issue which he brought up himself.
Either there is a source that Julie said Bamber told her the twins were shot first. Which David will supply.
Or there is no source & David will confirm his error.
No response at all from David will mean he's either refusing to supply the source as it's assisting a guilter. Or he never had a source in the first place.
No response & I will have to assume there was never a source in the first place, as I have never seen one
He may be pondering his conflicting cognitive reasoning Adam
The following could be beneficial to David https://bigthink.com/delancey-place/the-two-systems-of-cognitive-processes
He has a choice to dismiss my posts and "psychobabble" as he and Gringo like to refer them ::) but he might just learn something if he takes off the blinkers - as I did in 2013
-
He may be pondering his conflicting cognitive reasoning Adam
The following could be beneficial to David https://bigthink.com/delancey-place/the-two-systems-of-cognitive-processes
He has a choice to dismiss my posts and "psychobabble" as he and Gringo like to refer them ::) but he might just learn something if he takes off the blinkers - as I did in 2013
Taken from the CIA website; which may be more up David's street?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-56-no.-2/thinking-fast-and-slow.html
Will he be quick to dismiss this as "psychobabble" I wonder
Who are the CIA https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia
Just a glimpse of your poor comprehension. ;)
What do you KNOW of my comprehension David
What I know of Jeremy Bamber is that he had a criminal mind prior to the murders
-
Taken from the CIA website; which may be more up David's street?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-56-no.-2/thinking-fast-and-slow.html
Will he be quick to dismiss this as "psychobabble" I wonder
Who are the CIA https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia
What do you KNOW of my comprehension David
What I know of Jeremy Bamber is that he had a criminal mind prior to the murders
He certainly did Steph, on more than one occasion.
-
I have always believed what Julie has said.
If David supplies his source that Julie said Bamber said the twins were shot first, then I will amend my scenario slightly.
-
Come to think of it I have to amend my scenario slightly anyway.
I always thought Bamber entered the main bedroom first & fired 7 shots into June & 4 into Nevill - 11 shots.
I have since found out that 2 of Junes head shots were instantly fatal. Meaning they couldn't have been fired while she was in bed as she was able to leave the bed.
So Bamber shot each twin once before entering the main bedroom & shooting June 5 times & Nevill 4 times - 11 shots.
-
If there is a source where Julie says Bamber told her the twins were shot first, this just backs up the evidence.
-
He certainly did Steph, on more than one occasion.
And Justice all his supporters have to offer in relation to JM's evidence is nothing more than a character assassination https://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/ which s clearly ill thought out and shows their bias towards her.
The fact she told the police she put a pillow over his head or whatever it is she said she did after an argument with him, isn't evidence of her being a dangerous or scorned women or indeed a criminal of any description. What it actually shows is evidence she had feelings/emotions and acted on her emotions. She didn't plot to put a pillow over his head. Like Bamber plotted to rob his families business for example. It's further supportive evidence of her honesty.
-
He certainly did Steph, on more than one occasion.
Julie Mugford had a cunning criminal mind and was carrying out serious crimes way before Jeremy decided to steal anything (partly belong to him anyway)
No doubt Mugford with her cunning and criminal mind encouraged Jeremy into illegal activities
-
I've seen no evidence to suggest JM was upset with Bamber for having alledgedly dumped her.
What "defence strategy" did Bamber use during his trial re JM's evidence?
Any negative accusations towards JM's damming evidence which helped convict Bamber was and is no more than a ruse
In your world I am sure trying to smother someone with a pillow is quite normal just because you have been dumped and your boyfriend has no intention of marrying you
-
In your world I am sure trying to smother someone with a pillow is quite normal just because you have been dumped and your boyfriend has no intention of marrying you
Nor have I seen evidence she was fickle
-
Taken from the CIA website; which may be more up David's street?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-56-no.-2/thinking-fast-and-slow.html
Will he be quick to dismiss this as "psychobabble" I wonder
Who are the CIA https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia
What do you KNOW of my comprehension David
What I know of Jeremy Bamber is that he had a criminal mind prior to the murders
Yes and he roped Julie in for a time, possibly due to the folie à deux psychiatric phenomenon. The effort of System 2 in the planning and execution of the crime led to the mistake of the returned silencer, or if you don't believe that the telling of the story to Julie, whereby he returned to System 1 behaviour. The fact that he was cognitively busy on the occasion of the funerals (System 2) led to the sexist language directed at the waitresses, and the selfish act of refusing one of the grieving relatives access to his funeral car (both System 1).
-
Yes and he roped Julie in for a time, possibly due to the folie à deux psychiatric phenomenon.
Agreed Steve and there's no getting away from the fact that Jeremy Bambers anti social behaviour was on the increase prior to the murders.
Maybe someone would create a timeline in order to show this to his supporters.
-
You commented on David going silent after being asked if he believes Sheila had a shower. As he 'hadn't figured it out yet'.
Hopefully he won't go silent on this issue which he brought up himself.
Either there is a source that Julie said Bamber told her the twins were shot first. Which David will supply.
Or there is no source & David will confirm his error.
An expected no response at all from David will mean he's either refusing to supply the source as it's assisting a guilter. Or he never had a source in the first place.
No response & I will have to assume there was never a source in the first place, as I have never seen one
Source supplied 8) and stop putting words in my mouth.
-
Source supplied 8) and stop putting words in my mouth.
You have already supplied this on another thread. But have only posted the segment & won't say where it is from.
Words in you're mouth ? It's no secret you won't say whether Sheila had a shower or not. So more like 'lack of words'.
-
I never claimed she made contact with RWB. Just that her evidence can be traced to back to either him or AE. Whether she got this directly from them or from a proxy such like Stan Jones ect is anyone's guess.
The twins being shot first (as Julie said) would rule out Colin being entitled to part of the Bamber estate. It is indeed another suspiscios coincidence. However, in one of the newspapers published shorty after the killings. It was reported that the police believed the twins were shot first. Whether that newspaper got that from the police or not I don't know. But it is an alternative source to where Julie could have got that information from.
well im thinking its rather coveniant that the death order mugford lists is the one that suits pams cliam best
a difrent order of death would of seen the money going to ap.
its only that precise order of death that gives pam b a cliam.
-
And Justice all his supporters have to offer in relation to JM's evidence is nothing more than a character assassination https://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/ which s clearly ill thought out and shows their bias towards her.
The fact she told the police she put a pillow over his head or whatever it is she said she did after an argument with him, isn't evidence of her being a dangerous or scorned women or indeed a criminal of any description. What it actually shows is evidence she had feelings/emotions and acted on her emotions. She didn't plot to put a pillow over his head. Like Bamber plotted to rob his families business for example. It's further supportive evidence of her honesty.
its shes ethere a perjer or an acomplice to child murder thats pretty clear whatever bullshit spin you try and put on it.
-
well im thinking its rather coveniant that the death order mugford lists is the one that suits pams cliam best
a difrent order of death would of seen the money going to ap.
its only that precise order of death that gives pam b a cliam.
Maybe Bamber had a soft spot for Pam or favoured her more than the others
-
Yes and he roped Julie in for a time, possibly due to the folie à deux psychiatric phenomenon. The effort of System 2 in the planning and execution of the crime led to the mistake of the returned silencer, or if you don't believe that the telling of the story to Julie, whereby he returned to System 1 behaviour. The fact that he was cognitively busy on the occasion of the funerals (System 2) led to the sexist language directed at the waitresses, and the selfish act of refusing one of the grieving relatives access to his funeral car (both System 1).
Her criminal activity has been well documented, showing what she was capable of
I doubt the caravan robbery would ever have happened if Jeremy had never met her
June recognised a bad influence on her son
-
Her criminal activity has been well documented, showing what she was capable of
I doubt the caravan robbery would ever have happened if Jeremy had never met her
June recognised a bad influence on her son
I bet he wouldn’t have done drug dealing and broke into the jewellers shop in New Zealand as well?
-
Julie's statement about the twins dying first, made 23 September 1985. Page 3.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3729.0.html
-
He certainly did Steph, on more than one occasion.
The only mention of the CIA had been that Sheila had thought they were spying on her. She makes reference to the CIA in a letter to AE. This is not unique in those suffering from paranoia who think they're being followed by them or indeed spied upon by them.
-
It's commonly known as PARANOIA !! When people make things up about you,THEY have a problem !
-
It's also a CONTROL mechanism where they imagine what they want you to be,say and do.
Override it because they know what they're doing. They're living their past in YOU !
-
This business about writing books about murders doesn't sit well with me, unless they're by people who refute the evidence or who are not connected.
-
Nor me Kaldin.
-
Julie's statement about the twins dying first, made 23 September 1985. Page 3.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3729.0.html
Thanks.
Obviously my scenario was wrong when I said Bamber emptied 11 bullets into June & Nevill in the opening salvo. I had already realised this months earlier after being informed 2 of June's head shots would have killed her very quickly. Meaning she couldn't have walked around the bed.
Easy mistake to make as Nevill & June received 11 shots between them upstairs. Which is the same amount of bullets the rifle holds.
It makes no sense for Bamber to shoot the twins 8 times, then go downstairs to reload. So he shot each twin once, leaving him 8 bullets for June & Nevill & 1 for Sheila.
Nevill waking & moving resulted in Bamber using all of his remaining 9 bullets in the main bedroom. Rather than his allocated 8.
The twins, Nevill & June received 12 later shots between them, once Bamber's attempt to complete the massacre with only 11 bullets had failed.
After having to re load, the next plan was to fire lots of bullets. To suggest overkill & highlight Sheila being out of control.
-
Of course Bamber may not have attempted to complete the massacre within 11 shots.
It would still make no sense to shoot the twins 8 times, then go downstairs to re load.
If I was Bamber I would have attempted to complete the massacre within 11 shots. There is no harm in trying.
Everyone who knew Sheila knew she couldn't load, chamber & breach a rifle. And there would be no evidence on her that she had done this.
If I failed to complete the massacre within 11 shots, it doesn't mean the massacre can't be completed. It just means the less convincing plan B comes into play - over kill.
-
Who "knew" that Sheila couldn't do any of that, other than the relatives? Ann didn't know that Jeremy was interested in guns either.
-
Her criminal activity has been well documented, showing what she was capable of
I doubt the caravan robbery would ever have happened if Jeremy had never met her
June recognised a bad influence on her son
I bet he wouldn’t have done drug dealing and broke into the jewellers shop in New Zealand as well?
It was Bamber who grew and cultivated the weed. No one else.
So if JEREMY BAMBER hadn't grown the stuff in the first place Jackie there would have been NONE TO SELL.
Again if she hadn't met him she would probably never heard of the caravan site in the first place.
I suspect Jackie is basing JM's standards xx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx; hence why she is so far off the mark
A bad influence on her son ha ha ha - like I was to Simon Hall - drop me out ::) ::)
-
It's commonly known as PARANOIA !! When people make things up about you,THEY have a problem !
I agree Lookout! Great post btw!
-
Julie's statement about the twins dying first, made 23 September 1985. Page 3.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3729.0.html
This business about writing books about murders doesn't sit well with me, unless they're by people who refute the evidence or who are not connected.
So it seems Kaldin ::) ???
-
Who "knew" that Sheila couldn't do any of that, other than the relatives? Ann didn't know that Jeremy was interested in guns either.
Colin Caffell for one.
Anyway, it just needed one person to tell the police Sheila couldn't load, chamber & breach a rifle. The relatives happy to oblige.
-
So it seems Kaldin ::) ???
Only when the posts are written by you Stephanie. :))
-
Sheila went on shoots. I'm sure she didn't just stand looking into space,she'd have been watching each and every member loading up ready to shoot their target. When someone sees how it's done on many occasions,the farm too,they DO grasp how it's done. Her father may have shown her,who knows ? Sheila had been brought up on a farm so she WOULD have known how to load a rifle,even if it had been one at a time.
-
Colin Caffell for one.
Anyway, it just needed one person to tell the police Sheila couldn't load, chamber & breach a rifle. The relatives happy to oblige.
The problem Bambers supporters have Adam is they cherry pick at the evidence then make the rest up as they go along
-
Colin Caffell for one.
Anyway, it just needed one person to tell the police Sheila couldn't load, chamber & breach a rifle. The relatives happy to oblige.
Colin Caffell was her ex-husband. He didn't live with her so he wouldn't know whether she could handle a gun or not.
-
Colin Caffell was her ex-husband. He didn't live with her so he wouldn't know whether she could handle a gun or not.
Of course he could.
-
Only when the posts are written by you Stephanie. :))
As usual Kaldin, your posts makes no sense whatsoever
-
Of course he could.
Agreed, and he wasn't the only one Mat
Those members who appear fixated on posting about those little boys riddled with bullets, sicken me. They appear so far removed from reality to comprehend what they are doing
-
It's like this claim that the "guilters" make that Nevill wouldn't have left guns lying around the house, but didn't Ann Eaton said there were guns lying around the house when she went there?
-
As usual Kaldin, your posts makes no sense whatsoever
I do like the way you play innocent when it suits you. :))
-
Colin Caffell was her ex-husband. He didn't live with her so he wouldn't know whether she could handle a gun or not.
well he never qustioned her guilt to begin with so i think he must of thought she could.
-
well he never qustioned her guilt to begin with so i think he must of thought she could.
Anyone is capable of murder., even you
-
It's like this claim that the "guilters" make that Nevill wouldn't have left guns lying around the house, but didn't Ann Eaton said there were guns lying around the house when she went there?
You need to provide a source.
It's less likely both Nevill & June would leave a loaded rifle in the kitchen when there were women & child guests.
It's a pity Bamber didn't put the rifle back where he got it from. As people do in another persons house.
-
These are your projections Kaldin
Own them instead on attempting to dump them on to others
Says the person who made a snidy comment about me. That's your MO though isn't it? You make a snidy comment and then you don't like it when the person replies to you.
-
It's like this claim that the "guilters" make that Nevill wouldn't have left guns lying around the house, but didn't Ann Eaton said there were guns lying around the house when she went there?
Yes,the shotgun was upstairs,found by AE. I think it was in the upstairs office.
-
Sheila went on shoots. I'm sure she didn't just stand looking into space,she'd have been watching each and every member loading up ready to shoot their target. When someone sees how it's done on many occasions,the farm too,they DO grasp how it's done. Her father may have shown her,who knows ? Sheila had been brought up on a farm so she WOULD have known how to load a rifle,even if it had been one at a time.
That's a VERY sweeping statement. It's simply NOT a given that all those bought up on farms know how to load guns or shoot.
-
It's like this claim that the "guilters" make that Nevill wouldn't have left guns lying around the house, but didn't Ann Eaton said there were guns lying around the house when she went there?
Sweeping statements are no more universally true from "guilters" than they are from supporters.
-
It's like this claim that the "guilters" make that Nevill wouldn't have left guns lying around the house, but didn't Ann Eaton said there were guns lying around the house when she went there?
AE saw a loaded weapon left on the kitchen table whilst the twins were over? If not, you're comparing apples and oranges. Because it is the fact that the weapon was left loaded on the kitchen table that "guilters" sturggle to believe.
-
That's a VERY sweeping statement. It's simply NOT a given that all those bought up on farms know how to load guns or shoot.
Sweeping statement nothing.A child of three who's brought up on a farm knows how to use guns.Get real !
-
Of course he could.
I imagine one of his attractions for Sheila might have been that he couldn't have been further away from the farming society that a quirk of fate had assigned her to.
-
AE saw a loaded weapon left on the kitchen table whilst the twins were over? If not, you're comparing apples and oranges. Because it is the fact that the weapon was left loaded on the kitchen table that "guilters" sturggle to believe.
I thought the rifle was left by the settle not on the kitchen table.
-
Yes,the shotgun was upstairs,found by AE. I think it was in the upstairs office.
Ann said it one statement that David collected all the guns from around the house. Does that not suggest that the guns were not in one place?
-
AE saw a loaded weapon left on the kitchen table whilst the twins were over? If not, you're comparing apples and oranges. Because it is the fact that the weapon was left loaded on the kitchen table that "guilters" sturggle to believe.
That's not what I said. See my previous post.
The gun was not left on the kitchen table anyway. It can't have been - there were bowls left on the table. The gun was left on or near to the settle in the adjacent room.
-
That's not what I said. See my previous post.
The gun was not left on the kitchen table anyway. It can't have been - there were bowls left on the table. The gun was left on or near to the settle in the adjacent room.
Exactly kaldin
-
Exactly kaldin
I see you just said that yourself. :))
-
I thought the rifle was left by the settle not on the kitchen table.
The case has been out of my mind for a year. But the point remains the same. Loaded weapon left out.
DO you have an opinion on it? Or just posting to correct me? ;D
-
The case has been out of my mind for a year. But the point remains the same. Loaded weapon left out.
DO you have an opinion on it? Or just posting to correct me? ;D
The question is - did Nevill really put all guns away at night or not?
-
Ann said it one statement that David collected all the guns from around the house. Does that not suggest that the guns were not in one place?
It does indeed.
-
That's not what I said. See my previous post.
The gun was not left on the kitchen table anyway. It can't have been - there were bowls left on the table. The gun was left on or near to the settle in the adjacent room.
Not sure why you're attempting to group together AE's comment with guilters comments on the loaded weapon being left in the kitchen.
They're different.
The question is - did Nevill really put all guns away at night or not?
Don't know if he put the weapon away bamber has used, or if he unloaded it.
-
Not sure why you're attempting to group together AE's comment with guilters comments on the loaded weapon being left in the kitchen.
They're different.
Don't know if he put the weapon away bamber has used, or if he unloaded it.
What is the point you're making mat?
The gun was not left on the kitchen table anyway.
-
Of course he could.
Why would he know that? He hadn't lived with her for five years or so. How would he know what she did when she went to the farm?
-
What is the point you're making mat?
The gun was not left on the kitchen table anyway.
I know, I have already said the case has been out of my mind for a year, I got the placement of the gun wrong. Can we stop with the stupid tar and feathering. ;D
The point I am making is you're attempting to group something with the "guilters" when it doesn't fit in with what the "guilters" have actually said.
-
I bet he wouldn’t have done drug dealing and broke into the jewellers shop in New Zealand as well?
but theres abslutly no evdence he did other than a cliam made by an anon auther.
-
I know, I have already said the case has been out of my mind for a year, I got the placement of the gun wrong. Can we stop with the stupid tar and feathering. ;D
The point I am making is you're attempting to group something with the "guilters" when it doesn't fit in with what the "guilters" have actually said.
I was actually responding to this post:
The problem Bambers supporters have Adam is they cherry pick at the evidence then make the rest up as they go along
I just didn't quote the person who made it.
-
That's not what I said. See my previous post.
The gun was not left on the kitchen table anyway. It can't have been - there were bowls left on the table. The gun was left on or near to the settle in the adjacent room.
Only if JB is telling the truth.
If he is guilty, then it is likely that the story about the gun being left out is made up.
-
but theres abslutly no evdence he did other than a cliam made by an anon auther.
Really? Are you saying that he wasn't dealing drugs? Do you not recall that Suzette Ford said he gave her a choice of watches that he bought back with him?
-
Only if JB is telling the truth.
If he is guilty, then it is likely that the story about the gun being left out is made up.
I don't see where else the gun would have been. If he didn't leave the gun there, it would have been in the gun cupboard, but then he ran the risk of someone hearing him open the cupboard and get it out. If he's innocent, I doubt that Sheila would have gone to the gun cupboard either.
-
Only if JB is telling the truth.
If he is guilty, then it is likely that the story about the gun being left out is made up.
If the rifle had been left on the table before JB left,who moved it after he'd gone ? It would have had to have been moved for the table to have been set for breakfast.
-
Ann said it one statement that David collected all the guns from around the house. Does that not suggest that the guns were not in one place?
Some weapons were stored in the understair cupboard, others were stored in the downstairs bathroom. There is also a description of a broken down shotgun being located in the upstairs office.
-
If the rifle had been left on the table before JB left,who moved it after he'd gone ? It would have had to have been moved for the table to have been set for breakfast.
JB didn't say he had left it on the table.
-
Some weapons were stored in the understair cupboard, others were stored in the downstairs bathroom. There is also a description of a broken down shotgun being located in the upstairs office.
Stored in the downstairs bathroom? I didn't know that. So Nevill wasn't that particular about where he stored the guns then.
-
I was actually responding to this post:
I just didn't quote the person who made it.
Doesn't really matter who you were responding to. Your point about guilters cherry picking is attempting to lump AE's apparent comment with guilters saying Neville wouldn't have left a loaded gun out - they don't go together, just seems like an attempted knock at guilters.
There is a big different between guns being in the gun cupboard or a shotgun under the bed........and a gun being loaded and left out in the kitchen.
-
JB didn't say he had left it on the table.
No, he didn't. I have seen comments about it being left on the table, but I think it might have been comments from other websites or books possibly. If it's from a book, the author should check their facts.
-
Stop trying to cause arguments all the time. You're supposed to have me on "ignore".
Kaldin your knowledge and research is amazing that's why you are getting the abuse
It's just brilliant your work, I know so many people on twitter are reading all your posts and I know NGB love reading posts that are gun related
I know bullies would never worry you
-
Doesn't really matter who you were responding to. Your point about guilters cherry picking is attempting to lump AE's apparent comment with guilters saying Neville wouldn't have left a loaded gun out - they don't go together, just seems like an attempted knock at guilters.
There is a big different between guns being in the gun cupboard or a shotgun under the bed........and a gun being loaded and left out in the kitchen.
So you don't mind "guilters" accusing "non-guilters" of cherry picking then. Another poster who doesn't see some posts. ::)
-
Kaldin your knowledge and research is amazing that's why you are getting the abuse
It's just brilliant your work, I know so many people on twitter are reading all your posts and I know NGB love reading posts that are gun related
I know bullies would never worry you
Who and what is EDP
-
JB didn't say he had left it on the table.
Many guilters think this is so,Hartley. That's why I asked the question,but I expect those who say he did leave it on the table,to give their answer instead of having referred to a " book " which also states this.
-
Kaldin your knowledge and research is amazing that's why you are getting the abuse
It's just brilliant your work, I know so many people on twitter are reading all your posts and I know NGB love reading posts that are gun related
I know bullies would never worry you
Thank you Jackie. I do try to check sources before I make a statement, and then try to think what would be logical.
-
Stored in the downstairs bathroom? I didn't know that. So Nevill wasn't that particular about where he stored the guns then.
They had their usual places.
I'm going from memory, but I think two shotguns and Pargetter's BRNO were usually stored in the downstairs bathroom. The one with the shower in I mean.
-
So you don't mind "guilters" accusing "non-guilters" of cherry picking then. Another poster who doesn't see some posts. ::)
What are you talking about? I didn't say I don't mind guilters cherry picking. Are you saying you cherry picked because you've seen guilters cherry pick?
I responded to your post because I saw it. And as a "guilter" I knew that the point you were making wasn't true.
-
Kaldin your knowledge and research is amazing that's why you are getting the abuse
You are projecting Jackie
Ha ha ha - gotcha ;)
-
What are you talking about? I didn't say I don't mind guilters cherry picking. Are you saying you cherry picked because you've seen guilters cherry picked?
I responded to your post because I saw it. And as a "guilter" I knew that the point you were making wasn't true.
I was responding to another post, and the point I'm making is true. Are you going to discuss the subject or my posts?
-
We never did see pics of the bathroom " scene " did we ? More pics missing ? Or not shown to the jury like 22 and 23 ? Kept buried in the master file.
-
They had their usual places.
I'm going from memory, but I think two shotguns and Pargetter's BRNO were usually stored in the downstairs bathroom. The one with the shower in I mean.
I don't know why they needed so many guns really. The best place to store guns would be in one cupboard with a lock.
-
I was responding to another post, and the point I'm making is true. Are you going to discuss the subject or my posts?
No it isn't true. Guns in the gun cupboard or under the bed is much different than a loaded weapon left out. The topic hasn't been about the subject long before I started to reply to your post, but I can understand why you'd now want to change it back to the subject and away from your post.
-
I don't know why they needed so many guns really. The best place to store guns would be in one cupboard with a lock.
Kaldin your knowledge and research is amazing that's why you are getting the abuse
It's just brilliant your work, I know so many people on twitter are reading all your posts and I know NGB love reading posts that are gun related
I know bullies would never worry you
-
I don't know why they needed so many guns really. The best place to store guns would be in one cupboard with a lock.
I don't know, but I don't think the gun laws were as strict at the time.
I don't think the number of firearms owned was unusual.
-
I don't know, but I don't think the gun laws were as strict at the time.
I don't think the number of firearms owned was unusual.
I was just about to point out that I don't think there was the same enforcement on locked gun cupboards as there now is. It was my experience that any guns left laying around were broken first.
-
I don't know, but I don't think the gun laws were as strict at the time.
I don't think the number of firearms owned was unusual.
Yes, but one of the points that at least one of the relatives made was that Nevill would have not left a rifle on the settle, and that he would have put it away. That's just guesswork on their part, especially as it seems that the guns weren't put away very securely anyway.
-
Thank you Jackie. I do try to check sources before I make a statement, and then try to think what would be logical.
I know you do and I know all the impartial members think so to
-
I was just about to point out that I don't think there was the same enforcement on locked gun cupboards as there now is. It was my experience that any guns left laying around were broken first.
After the Dunblane masacre of children the Firearms Amendment (2) 1997 was introduced. Before the amendment there was no legal requirement for owners to lock their guns away. After the Amendment all owners/holders of guns were required to be issued with a license by law and are required to lock their guns in metal gun cupboards when not in use.
-
Maybe Nevill was tired. Hadn't been out doing some more work on the farm? Maybe he didn't see the gun, or maybe he thought he'd put it away in the morning.
-
Maybe Nevill was tired. Hadn't been out doing some more work on the farm? Maybe he didn't see the gun, or maybe he thought he'd put it away in the morning.
Or he was too tired to notice that his son had left a loaded gun on the settle, or the gun wasn't immediately visible, or he saw it and thought, quite reasonably, that Jeremy, who'd been the last to use it, would put it away, then became distracted and didn't check.................all of which is only possible if the gun was left out.
-
He wasn't too tired to notice that it was " Sheila with one of his guns " when he rang Jeremy?
-
Or he was too tired to notice that his son had left a loaded gun on the settle, or the gun wasn't immediately visible, or he saw it and thought, quite reasonably, that Jeremy, who'd been the last to use it, would put it away, then became distracted and didn't check.................all of which is only possible if the gun was left out.
Yes. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the gun was left out - contrary to what some of the relatives had said.
-
Do we know for absolute certainty it was the killer weapon ?
-
Do we know for absolute certainty it was the killer weapon ?
After 33 years...
What does your common sense tell you Lookout
What's your gut feeling?
-
Do we know for absolute certainty it was the killer weapon ?
I think that was established without much doubt lookout. Mr Fletcher went through that in his statements.
-
Yes. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the gun was left out - contrary to what some of the relatives had said.
Does one EVER know enough of another person to say, without lying, that they would NEVER do something? The best any of us can say, surely, is "To the best of my knowledge................."
-
He wasn't too tired to notice that it was " Sheila with one of his guns " when he rang Jeremy?
Hold that thought Lookout
-
Does one EVER know enough of another person to say, without lying, that they would NEVER do something? The best any of us can say, surely, is "To the best of my knowledge................."
That's why I take a lot of what the relatives said with a pinch of salt. Once they had decided that Jeremy was guilty, they made a lot of assumptions and made some sweeping statements.
-
He wasn't too tired to notice that it was " Sheila with one of his guns " when he rang Jeremy?
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that the reason he wasn't too tired was because the phone call never happened?
Or are you on a wind up
-
That's why I take a lot of what the relatives said with a pinch of salt. Once they had decided that Jeremy was guilty, they made a lot of assumptions and made some sweeping statements.
Many peoples comments should be taken with a pinch of salt Kaldin as many people make assumptions and sweeping statements, whether knowingly or knowingly
-
I think that was established without much doubt lookout. Mr Fletcher went through that in his statements.
I thought that Fletcher wasn't up to the mark when it came to guns ?
-
In Fletcher's testimony,it seems he couldn't say which shots had been contact ones or not. Hadn't he been the expert ?
-
Do we know for absolute certainty it was the killer weapon ?
If it wasn't Lookout Sheila could not have been the killer.
-
If it wasn't Lookout Sheila could not have been the killer.
Buddy my friend, the voice of reason ;D
-
If it wasn't Lookout Sheila could not have been the killer.
How do you make that out buddy with a few to choose from ? The way I see it is that the rifle pictured on Sheila's body doesn't appear to have been the one with the broken stock ? No matter from which angle,it looks intact.
-
Logic really.
-
How do you make that out buddy with a few to choose from ? The way I see it is that the rifle pictured on Sheila's body doesn't appear to have been the one with the broken stock ? No matter from which angle,it looks intact.
Well Lookout, Who placed THAT gun on Sheila?
-
That's why I take a lot of what the relatives said with a pinch of salt. Once they had decided that Jeremy was guilty, they made a lot of assumptions and made some sweeping statements.
If they were speaking from their own experience, who are we to say that their statements -or which of them- were sweeping? ie whilst I CAN testify that not all farmers daughters know how to use a gun, I CAN'T say that Jeremy/Sheila?Nevill/June/The Relatives always/never/wouldn't because I simply don't know.
-
I've always been puzzled by the broken rifle as very little information was ever given about it with the piece broken off having been found in the kitchen,so it had taken a knock.
-
In Fletcher's testimony,it seems he couldn't say which shots had been contact ones or not. Hadn't he been the expert ?
Couldn't he? I know he said he couldn't tell if any of the bullets had been fired through a silencer.
-
I've always been puzzled by the broken rifle as very little information was ever given about it with the piece broken off having been found in the kitchen,so it had taken a knock.
Yes, and I haven't seen a photo of the rifle with the piece missing.
-
If they were speaking from their own experience, who are we to say that their statements -or which of them- were sweeping? ie whilst I CAN testify that not all farmers daughters know how to use a gun, I CAN'T say that Jeremy/Sheila?Nevill/June/The Relatives always/never/wouldn't because I simply don't know.
Well they were sweeping, that's obvious. They decided Jeremy was guilty and they helped to convince the police of that by making sweeping statement. How much weight those statements carried I don't know - hopefully not a lot.
-
If they were speaking from their own experience, who are we to say that their statements -or which of them- were sweeping? ie whilst I CAN testify that not all farmers daughters know how to use a gun, I CAN'T say that Jeremy/Sheila?Nevill/June/The Relatives always/never/wouldn't because I simply don't know.
Do you honestly believe that JB said to RWB that he could easily kill his parents. I don't.
-
Well they were sweeping, that's obvious. They decided Jeremy was guilty and they helped to convince the police of that by making sweeping statement. How much weight those statements carried I don't know - hopefully not a lot.
What about the statements made by Simon Halls relatives
Were they sweeping
Were they being honest
Or did they knowingly lie in order to protect Simon Hall
How much weight do you give their statements
-
Well Lookout, Who placed THAT gun on Sheila?
I don't know buddy,but you're right,it was placed whatever gun it was.
-
Well they were sweeping, that's obvious. They decided Jeremy was guilty and they helped to convince the police of that by making sweeping statement. How much weight those statements carried I don't know - hopefully not a lot.
The evidence processed over one month after the massacre persuaded the police, DPP, jury, CCRC & COA.
-
Do you honestly believe that JB said to RWB that he could easily kill his parents. I don't.
I do buddy
I learned an awful lot about things Simon Hall had said and didn't say to other people - once he'd confessed
It was a real eye opener
The police seized a letter from his old girlfriends house and it was apparently about "rape"
None of the witness statements mentioned it
When he confessed he told me it was about ROPE Ffs
What 24 yeR old write a story about rope? And what can you write about rope exactly?
Though I suspect Kaldin could write reams
-
Do you honestly believe that JB said to RWB that he could easily kill his parents. I don't.
Yes, buddy, I do. I'm inclined to think he felt trapped in a position he didn't want to be in, doing a job he didn't have any interest in with the money carrot -God knows HOW many years down the line- being dangled to keep him there, and I think he felt cheated and angry.
-
Do you honestly believe that JB said to RWB that he could easily kill his parents. I don't.
No I don't. The man may well have been in the throes of dementia over a few things he'd said or suggested. ( the wetsuit,the bicycle,his obsession with JB's sexual activities )
-
No I don't. The man may well have been in the throes of dementia over a few things he'd said or suggested. ( the wetsuit,the bicycle,his obsession with JB's sexual activities )
I'm not entirely certain that such can't be said of some of those who post things here as fact when it's only their opinion.
-
One would have thought he would have mentioned it to Neville.
He would surely mentioned it to the police at the earliest opportunity. He didn't.
-
Especially with a home full of guns.
-
One would have thought he would have mentioned it to Neville.
He would surely mentioned it to the police at the earliest opportunity. He didn't.
You've lost me, buddy. Who'd have mentioned what?
-
What about the statements made by Simon Halls relatives
Were they sweeping
Were they being honest
Or did they knowingly lie in order to protect Simon Hall
How much weight do you give their statements
I know very little about Simon Hall or his parents. This is the Jeremy Bamber section.
-
I know very little about Simon Hall or his parents. This is the Jeremy Bamber section.
When you say you know very little.
Explain what you mean by "little"
-
The evidence processed over one month after the massacre persuaded the police, DPP, jury, CCRC & COA.
Yes, but we don't know which evidence. I just hope it wasn't opinions of the relatives which persuaded them.
-
When you say you know very little.
Explain what you mean by "little"
I know the basics.
-
I know the basics.
What basics?
-
What basics?
He was convicted of killing an old lady, imprisoned, confessed later, and then killed himself.
-
One would have thought he would have mentioned it to Neville.
He would surely mentioned it to the police at the earliest opportunity. He didn't.
I'd have mentioned it to the police. What was in the mind of RWB to have said that anyway ?
-
You've lost me, buddy. Who'd have mentioned what?
Sorry poorly put.
RWB should have mentioned it.
-
Sorry poorly put.
RWB should have mentioned it.
Certainly, but I'm not entirely convinced that they thought it WAS Jeremy at the start. I think it was when Ann heard him telling the police something she knew to be untrue that their suspicions were aroused.
-
Yes, but one of the points that at least one of the relatives made was that Nevill would have not left a rifle on the settle, and that he would have put it away. That's just guesswork on their part, especially as it seems that the guns weren't put away very securely anyway.
Yes, possibly so. I don't think their opinion on the matter really carried any weight though.
-
That's not what I said. See my previous post.
The gun was not left on the kitchen table anyway. It can't have been - there were bowls left on the table. The gun was left on or near to the settle in the adjacent room.
In his statement he says he left the rifle in the kitchen near the Wellington boots?
-
In his statement he says he left the rifle in the kitchen near the Wellington boots?
Yes, but I think he meant the "back kitchen" as he called it. He left it leaning against a wall, and left the magazine on the settle.
-
Yes, but I think he meant the "back kitchen" as he called it. He left it leaning against a wall, and left the magazine on the settle.
You could be right because later he says he didn't pop his head around? Confusing.
-
If JB was the killer then the least threat would have been the twins. The killer would have targeted Neville first, and then June. It was important to the relatives that the twins were first because of the inheritance.
-
If JB was the killer then the least threat would have been the twins. The killer would have targeted Neville first, and then June. It was important to the relatives that the twins were first because of the inheritance.
They were the least threat but needed to be asleep in their beds for Bambers plan to make sense to the police. He had to stick to his story. The story he had planned and run over and over in his mind.
This was a pre meditated murder Buddy, Bamber had been planning it for months
He wanted to get away with the perfect crime
You have to think like the killer that he was Buddy not how you and I would imagine it
-
You could be right because later he says he didn't pop his head around? Confusing.
This is the area he meant.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37257;image
-
This is the area he meant.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37257;image
It's strange that he'd refer to it as the back kitchen. He seemed to usually call it the Laundry.
-
It's strange that he'd refer to it as the back kitchen. He seemed to usually call it the Laundry.
Yes, he did call it the laundry on his plan. Maybe someone else called it the back kitchen.
-
They were the least threat but needed to be asleep in their beds for Bambers plan to make sense to the police. He had to stick to his story. The story he had planned and run over and over in his mind.
This was a pre meditated murder Buddy, Bamber had been planning it for months
He wanted to get away with the perfect crime
You have to think like the killer that he was Buddy not how you and I would imagine it
That's an excellent point, Steph. Probably another reason for hanging onto innocent as long as I did. I couldn't see beyond what I'D have done and the concerns about doing it I'd have experienced.
-
They were the least threat but needed to be asleep in their beds for Bambers plan to make sense to the police. He had to stick to his story. The story he had planned and run over and over in his mind.
This was a pre meditated murder Buddy, Bamber had been planning it for months
He wanted to get away with the perfect crime
You have to think like the killer that he was Buddy not how you and I would imagine it
I think I've also always thought that the children were the first victims because it was easier if they were asleep, than if they were awake and looking at you, maybe even talking to you.
That is perhaps giving the killer more sensitivities and feelings than they actually have/had.
-
I think I've also always thought that the children were the first victims because it was easier if they were asleep, than if they were awake and looking at you, maybe even talking to you.
That is perhaps giving the killer more sensitivities and feelings than they actually have/had.
I believe Bamber to be without conscience Hartley whether they were awake, looking in his eyes, made no difference to him.
If the sight of a small child sucking it's thumb in their sleep doesn't put you off, nothing will.
The judge described him well "evil beyond belief"
You obviously emote Hartley - Bamber doesn't!
It's hard to explain unless you've experienced pathology first hand.
-
They were the least threat but needed to be asleep in their beds for Bambers plan to make sense to the police. He had to stick to his story. The story he had planned and run over and over in his mind.
This was a pre meditated murder Buddy, Bamber had been planning it for months
He wanted to get away with the perfect crime
You have to think like the killer that he was Buddy not how you and I would imagine it
Excellant post Steph, psychopaths plan a murder they don't do it on spur moment usually.
-
I think I've also always thought that the children were the first victims because it was easier if they were asleep, than if they were awake and looking at you, maybe even talking to you.
That is perhaps giving the killer more sensitivities and feelings than they actually have/had.
if jereremy was the killer I don't see how they could of been he would of had of got past the adults to get to them.
the only way I think they could of died first is if Sheila did it.
-
Excellant post Steph, psychopaths plan a murder they don't do it on spur moment usually.
Like you, I've lived it Justice.
We are probably more expert than the experts ;D
-
if jereremy was the killer I don't see how they could of been he would of had of got past the adults to get to them.
the only way I think they could of died first is if Sheila did it.
That doesn't make sense Nugnug. Everybody was asleep and in bed.
I don't think the children being the first victims, necessarily identifies the likely killer.
-
You don't necessarily have to be psychopathic to commit murder.
Bronson is an evil individual but he's not a psychopath.
Sweeney is a born psychopath,and will NEVER change.
JB can't be compared to either.
-
Like you, I've lived it Justice.
We are probably more expert than the experts ;D
Experts tend to only look at facts, which is fine, but facts are about knowledge. They're not about necessarily about understanding. That takes a deeper degree of knowledge.
-
You don't necessarily have to be psychopathic to commit murder.
Bronson is an evil individual but he's not a psychopath.
Sweeney is a born psychopath,and will NEVER change.
JB can't be compared to either.
There's no text book -to my knowledge- which says that every psychopath commits murder. In fact, many SAVE lives.
-
Experts tend to only look at facts, which is fine, but facts are about knowledge. They're not about necessarily about understanding. That takes a deeper degree of knowledge.
Very true however no one knows what others on the forum may have experienced or what knowledge they have unless they choose to share it.
-
You don't necessarily have to be psychopathic to commit murder.
Bronson is an evil individual but he's not a psychopath.
Sweeney is a born psychopath,and will NEVER change.
JB can't be compared to either.
https://youtu.be/_LNqtwFjFBM
Bamber is an inheritance killer. And can be compared to other inheritance killers.
-
That doesn't make sense Nugnug. Everybody was asleep and in bed.
I don't think the children being the first victims, necessarily identifies the likely killer.
Neville clearly wasn't.
and if jb was the killer surely his main priority would be getting they adults out the way first becoiuse there the ones who can stop him the kids cant.
-
Neville clearly wasn't.
and if jb was the killer surely his main priority would be getting they adults out the way first becoiuse there the ones who can stop him the kids cant.
I get that you want JB to be innocent.
I just don't agree that the children being killed first sheds any light on who was most likely to be responsible for the murders.
-
Maggie, there are those who will always lack those qualities necessary for understanding. They may find it scary or the simply may not want to.
I agree Jane and we either learn from our experiences or we close our minds and carry on as before, which achieves nothing.
-
I get that you want JB to be innocent.
I just don't agree that the children being killed first sheds any light on who was most likely to be responsible for the murders.
the order of death as I see it is only correct on the assumption Sheila did it.
otherwise its highly improble
but of course it just happens to be the order of death that best suits the inheritance claims of the wife of the main prosecution witness.
why sneak past the adults to kill the kids when he can just kill the adults first.
-
JB would have had to have entered the house unheard------but for the dog who would have wakened the household prompting Nevill to be at the ready with a rifle ?
When a dog barks in the middle of the night you wouldn't ignore it would you ?
-
JB would have had to have entered the house unheard------but for the dog who would have wakened the household prompting Nevill to be at the ready with a rifle ?
When a dog barks in the middle of the night you wouldn't ignore it would you ?
well the simplest answer to that would be to shoot the dog but for some reason that dident happen.
-
Jane can you help me out :o
I think I can, Steph. I hear what Maggie is saying. She simply paraphrased what I said. It's no easy journey -opening our eyes, learning, changing is often a painful process- but once we're on the road, we're beginning to get there. I guess the best we can say, who are on that road, is that we're closer to getting there than we were when we started.
-
I get that you want JB to be innocent.
I just don't agree that the children being killed first sheds any light on who was most likely to be responsible for the murders.
It doesn't. Either way, I think that a magazine-full was used on Nevill/June and Nicholas/Daniel. I don't know which order it happened in though.
-
I think I can, Steph. I hear what Maggie is saying. She simply paraphrased what I said. It's no easy journey -opening our eyes, learning, changing is often a painful process- but once we're on the road, we're beginning to get there. I guess the best we can say, who are on that road, is that we're closer to getting there than we were when we started.
Of that there is no doubt Jane
-
the order of death as I see it is only correct on the assumption Sheila did it.
otherwise its highly improble
but of course it just happens to be the order of death that best suits the inheritance claims of the wife of the main prosecution witness.
why sneak past the adults to kill the kids when he can just kill the adults first.
I disagree with your conclusion. I can't see why the order of deaths of the children excludes either of the potential perpetrators.
The killer did not need to sneak past anybody, everybody was in bed.
The inheritance side of things doesn't make any sense either. The only relative in line to inherit was Pamela, she refused the inheritance which then filtered down to others. The 'others' couldn't possibly know that Pamela would refuse.
-
well the simplest answer to that would be to shoot the dog but for some reason that dident happen.
I don't understand why it didn't happen as killers don't care and would have shut the dog up once and for all,especially considering that JB hated the animal.
-
I disagree with your conclusion. I can't see why the order of deaths of the children excludes either of the potential perpetrators.
The killer did not need to sneak past anybody, everybody was in bed.
The inheritance side of things doesn't make any sense either. The only relative in line to inherit was Pamela, she refused the inheritance which then filtered down to others. The 'others' couldn't possibly know that Pamela would refuse.
Not true. Nevill's relatives were in line too. Also, if it could have been proved that the twins died last, there might have been complications - it depends on the law and the wording of the Wills.
-
Not true. Nevill's relatives were in line too. Also, if it could have been proved that the twins died last, there might have been complications - it depends on the law and the wording of the Wills.
I think the point's been lost.
-
I think the points been lost.
Probably. ???
-
Probably. ???
It started out as the children were killed first therefore JB is innocent.
It then deviated to inheritance, implying that the relatives had a motive as they inherited. I don't know how we got there.
-
It started out as the children were killed first therefore JB is innocent.
It then deviated to inheritance, implying that the relatives had a motive as they inherited. I don't know how we got there.
the newspaper headline David referred to said the twins died first but that newspaper was working on the assumption of the killer.
-
the newspaper headline David referred to said the twins died first but that newspaper was working on the assumption of the killer.
I don't understand what you mean.
I don't know what order the children were murdered in. I think there is a good chance that they were first simply because they do not appear to have been woken.
-
I don't understand what you mean.
I don't know what order the children were murdered in. I think there is a good chance that they were first simply because they do not appear to have been woken.
wich would point to Sheila because she was nearer to them.
-
wich would point to Sheila because she was nearer to them.
Oh, okay, that makes sense.
-
I don't understand why it didn't happen as killers don't care and would have shut the dog up once and for all,especially considering that JB hated the animal.
Forget the dog, Lookout. Jeremy did. Yes, Jeremy hated it. I'm certain that had he not cared about getting caught he happily have shot it but in order for it to look as if Sheila had been responsible, he had to let it live because Sheila didn't hate it.
-
If Sheila did it, what we don't know is if she intended to kill everyone, including herself. Maybe one killing led to another in her mind.
-
Forget the dog, Lookout. Jeremy did. Yes, Jeremy hated it. I'm certain that had he not cared about getting caught he happily have shot it but in order for it to look as if Sheila had been responsible, he had to let it live because Sheila didn't hate it.
but she dident hate her children ethere so does that one work out.
so people she shoot her children but not a dog why would they believe that.
-
If Sheila did it, what we don't know is if she intended to kill everyone, including herself. Maybe one killing led to another in her mind.
If Sheila did it I would imagine she was out of control in some way although not necessarily raging around in an obvious psychotic state. It may have started small and become a roller coaster.
-
If Sheila did it, what we don't know is if she intended to kill everyone, including herself. Maybe one killing led to another in her mind.
There are three motives that overlap
Motive A) Believes the twins are possessed by the devil, Hatred against June, and also wants to end her life. No known hatred for Neville however in the house he is an obstacle that needs to be eliminated in order to kill June, the twins and herself.
Motive B) The threat of having her children taken away from her combined with her parents suggesting and supporting the idea. This creates the motive for altruistic filicide and could also create a dislike of Neville.
Motive C) She could also have killed the twins in an act of what is know as spouse revenge filicide. Wanting to make Colin suffer for one reason or another by killing the children.
Mothers, particularly, are the group with the highest risk
of becoming victims of homicide by patients with schizophrenia
(Devaux et al., 1974; Estroff et al., 1998; McKnight
et al., 1966). In this study, the rate of matricide was also
higher than the rate of patricide, and female sex of the victim
was a significant factor that raised the risk of parricide
20-fold. Raising a child is primarily the mother’s responsibility
and they are the caregivers who spend the most time
with the patients. Thus, they play major roles in forcing
medications, forcing hospitalisations, and providing discipline.
In this process, long-term conflicts between mothers
and patients can occur, and mothers can be direct targets of
longstanding delusional ideas of persecution or paranoid
ideation or both.
source- Clinical features of parricide in
patients with schizophrenia (2008)
All of the women in the NGRI group described psychotic motivations for
their murders. Common themes included the delusional conviction that the
child was defective or monstrous in some way (such as possessed by Satan, or
half human and half dog), hallucinatory commands to kill the child, and the
idea that the child could be saved from disaster (fates such as being raped,
becoming a prostitute, or undergoing torture) only through death. In contrast,
the women found CR described a variety of nonpsychotic motives. Two of the
eight (25 percent) indicated that the child was simply unwanted; three (37 percent)
asserted that the child died by accident, in the course of a beating; one
(13 percent) reported that the child died after an accidental fall; and two (25
percent) blamed another for the death.
source- Insanity and Filicide: Women Who Murder Their Children
Carol E. Holden, Andrea Stephenson Burland, Craig A. Lemme
In this case, the reasons for attempted suicide and extended
filicide seem to be two: (1) altruistic in the light of concern
about the welfare of the children and (2) spouse revenge in
the background of marital problems and infidelity, and intent
to induce pain, sorrow, and guilt in the husband by taking
away children. The demographic characteristics and the
background history are similar to common features reported
in the literature such as lack of social support, primary care
giver status, and relationship problems between the couple.
The reasons for not giving any hint may be spousal infidelity,
wanting to take revenge, depression, and lack of knowledge
about availability of help.[6?8
[/color]
Source - Filicide as a part of extended suicide: An experience of psychotherapy with
the survivor. M. Manjula, C. R. Chandrasheka
"Her complaints during her prior hospitalizations included command hallucinations
(which told her to kill herself), depression, agitation, and paranoid
delusional ideation. She was being followed by Community Mental Health and
was taking antipsychotic medication at the time of the murder.
The defendant was evaluated on the issue of legal insanity approximately
five months after the murder. At this time, she described the voices as suggesting
that she kill her daughter and indicating that her daughter would be
better off and happier dead."
Insanity and Filicide: Women Who Murder Their Children. American Journal of psychiatry. Published in 1996.
-
If Sheila did it I would imagine she was out of control in some way although not necessarily raging around in an obvious psychotic state. It may have started small and become a roller coaster.
This is how I see it Maggie.
-
but she dident hate her children ethere so does that one work out.
so people she shoot her children but not a dog why would they believe that.
Because it was designed to look as if A) she'd gone mad and shot them all B) she shot her parents because they were allegedly going to arrange foster care for the children and she allegedly shot the children so no one else would have them. She wasn't concerned about the dog but it wasn't hers so it didn't matter.
-
Forget the dog, Lookout. Jeremy did. Yes, Jeremy hated it. I'm certain that had he not cared about getting caught he happily have shot it but in order for it to look as if Sheila had been responsible, he had to let it live because Sheila didn't hate it.
That doesn't make sense at all.
-
Because it was designed to look as if A) she'd gone mad and shot them all B) she shot her parents because they were allegedly going to arrange foster care for the children and she allegedly shot the children so no one else would have them. She wasn't concerned about the dog but it wasn't hers so it didn't matter.
so people will belive shes mad enough to kill her family but not a pet that makes avslutly no sense at all.
-
so people will belive shes mad enough to kill her family but not a pet that makes avslutly no sense at all.
Well now, Nugs. Let's look at what the dog might have been doing. Might it have been nipping at ankles/biting at heels/yapping/snarling/howling -generally making a nuisance of itself- difficult one for Jeremy as he hated it but he'd have focused on what he thought Sheila would have done. OR might it just have slunk out the way? Should such have been the case, why would you think it SO important for the killer to hunt it out and shoot it? What makes no sense to you doesn't necessarily make no sense to others.
-
The dog hadn't posed a threat to Sheila.
Whereas her parents had by talking about fostering for her boys,and she'd killed her boys because she'd wanted them with her.
-
What would be interesting is where was the dog put every night.
Did it sleep behind closed bedroom doors with Nevill & June. Or put into a separate room behind a shut door ?
I doubt it would be allowed to roam around WHF farm all night while everyone slept.
-
All that is known is Crispy was found cowering underneath a bed when the police arrived.
Bamber didn't want it as it would mess up his stereo equipment & suggested it be put down.
He later suggested to the police Crispy fired the second shot into Sheila.
-
Bamber wouldn't be interested in Crispy. He was an inheritance killer.
Sheila would have fired shots at Crispy if Crispy was aggravating her more by barking or jumping around her. Or both.
Sheila was aggravated enough to kill June, Nicholas & Daniel & all they were doing was sleeping.
The evidence shows Sheila did not fire any shots at crispy. Which is interesting.
-
The dog hadn't posed a threat to Sheila.
Whereas her parents had by talking about fostering for her boys,and she'd killed her boys because she'd wanted them with her.
I always saw June and Nevill's relationship with their children as a balancing act: Sheila was given the flat at Maida Vale but minimal financial assistance, whereas Jeremy had a less glamorous cottage but a salary with the expectation that he would inherit the Farm. Given this I don't see that there was any malicious intent in inviting their daughter and grandsons down for the week, certainly not issuing an ultimatum which would have been further detrimental to her health.
-
Do we know when/if,as a family,Sheila,Colin and the twins had a holiday together ?
-
I always saw June and Nevill's relationship with their children as a balancing act: Sheila was given the flat at Maida Vale but minimal financial assistance, whereas Jeremy had a less glamorous cottage but a salary with the expectation that he would inherit the Farm. Given this I don't see that there was any malicious intent in inviting their daughter and grandsons down for the week, certainly not issuing an ultimatum which would have been further detrimental to her health.
Steve, I really don't think there was any more to the village than Grandma and Grandpa seeing the boys -and probably slipping them some pocket money- before their father took them on holiday.
-
Do we know when/if,as a family,Sheila,Colin and the twins had a holiday together ?
It's one of the numerous things we don't know. It sounds highly likely that there were holidays at the farm with Sheila and holidays with Colin anywhere other. There would have been no reason for Sheila and Colin to holiday together.
-
My reason for asking was that June had been insistent on seeing the twins before their forthcoming holiday. Had June been as insistent on other occasions ?
Had June envisaged a tragedy ? When did she write her letter to the family,to be read on her death,though the twins hadn't been included in her letter ? June had been a healthy woman,and even if she'd written her letter before the twins were born there was nothing to say that she'd have died before anyone else. Was there ?
-
My reason for asking was that June had been insistent on seeing the twins before their forthcoming holiday. Had June been as insistent on other occasions ?
Had June envisaged a tragedy ? When did she write her letter to the family,to be read on her death,though the twins hadn't been included in her letter ? June had been a healthy woman,and even if she'd written her letter before the twins were born there was nothing to say that she'd have died before anyone else. Was there ?
A little misleading as she'd been in St. Andrew's twice as a patient. I think she sensed the atmosphere: both children going through the motions, neither on her wavelength, though both dependent financially on her. She realized towards the end that her expectations had been too high and her self-flagellation evident in the letter was typical of her basic Christian beliefs, as she finally tried to make amends.
-
A little misleading as she'd been in St. Andrew's twice as a patient. I think she sensed the atmosphere: both children going through the motions, neither on her wavelength, though both dependent financially on her. She realized towards the end that her expectations had been too high and her self-flagellation evident in the letter was typical of her basic Christian beliefs, as she finally tried to make amends.
If the letter had been written before the twins were born, June wouldn't have been old at all. It's not what someone in good health would really consider,except for perhaps an inclusion when writing their will but not usually as a separate entity.
-
If the letter had been written before the twins were born, June wouldn't have been old at all. It's not what someone in good health would really consider,except for perhaps an inclusion when writing their will but not usually as a separate entity.
It was written towards the end of her life as she reminisced perhaps a little too sentimentally on times gone by.
-
My reason for asking was that June had been insistent on seeing the twins before their forthcoming holiday. Had June been as insistent on other occasions ?
Had June envisaged a tragedy ? When did she write her letter to the family,to be read on her death,though the twins hadn't been included in her letter ? June had been a healthy woman,and even if she'd written her letter before the twins were born there was nothing to say that she'd have died before anyone else. Was there ?
Well, "insistent" maybe too strong a word. As grandparents I'd have thought it pretty natural for them to want to see the boys before their holiday. I imagine they had enough control of Sheila for her to arrange visits when they were 'invited'.
We don't know, despite that you frequently remind us of her visits to her doctor, how ill -or not- June actually was. She appeared to be a fully functioning member of society. She ran her home. She shopped. She drove. She was a church warden. She oversaw various church activities. She was a busy, busy woman, none of which equates with a depressive. Maybe it was no more than low level anxiety. Maybe she was a hypochondriac. We can speculate from here to eternity but I doubt we'll ever know when she wrote that letter.
-
Also,murder/suicides are mainly committed where there are children involved when/if either partner feels that they're getting a bad deal as regards visiting,etc.
Such a tragedy has taken place in Australia where a wife wanted her husband out of the property and it had been school holiday time where the husband thought his wife would relent until the children returned to school,but that hadn't been an option and the husband gassed the family and killed himself.
So very tragic and so avoidable.
-
Also,murder/suicides are mainly committed where there are children involved when/if either partner feels that they're getting a bad deal as regards visiting,etc.
Such a tragedy has taken place in Australia where a wife wanted her husband out of the property and it had been school holiday time where the husband thought his wife would relent until the children returned to school,but that hadn't been an option and the husband gassed the family and killed himself.
So very tragic and so avoidable.
Really, no single one of these tragedies is any more sad than another. Depression happens. If the patient is lucky enough to live in an area where the correct medication is used in combination with therapy in a safe and caring environment, they'll stand a greater chance of making a full recovery than in places where care is sporadic. However, as a rule of thumb, if someone is determined to commit suicide, they will. NOT just because they feel life isn't worth living. It could be revenge. It could be a desire to make someone feel guilty. It could be fear. It's often those who are left behind who suffer most the effects of someone's suicide.
-
Well, "insistent" maybe too strong a word. As grandparents I'd have thought it pretty natural for them to want to see the boys before their holiday. I imagine they had enough control of Sheila for her to arrange visits when they were 'invited'.
We don't know, despite that you frequently remind us of her visits to her doctor, how ill -or not- June actually was. She appeared to be a fully functioning member of society. She ran her home. She shopped. She drove. She was a church warden. She oversaw various church activities. She was a busy, busy woman, none of which equates with a depressive. Maybe it was no more than low level anxiety. Maybe she was a hypochondriac. We can speculate from here to eternity but I doubt we'll ever know when she wrote that letter.
In CAL's book we get:
"In the car he told me he didn't like being threatened and that I scared him," Julie remembered. She picked up an envelope from the cassette compartment but he took it off her. "He told me that it was from his mother June and was to be opened in the event of her death. He told me it had been written recently and was a letter apologizing for the way his mother had sometimes treated him. He said that his mother loved him, but he said that it didn't make any difference about the way he felt about her."
This tallies with Jeremy telling Julie that his parents had "forfeited the right to live" for the way he had been treated. One can only surmise that he blamed his mother for the break up of his relationship with Suzette and possibly even the miscarriages due to stress, whilst Sheila had produced two healthy young boys, who seemed the apple of June's eye. Nevill gave orders to be followed on the commencement of each working day, which Jeremy tolerated in the cannabis-filled haze of the tractor, longing for the moment when he could escape to the bright lights of London.
I think something just snapped in Jeremy as he sought a way out of his predicament. The eight wasted years at Gresham's came back to haunt him as he realized his lowly social status amongst his work colleagues, and he was determined not to grow old prematurely, which is what he discerned when he looked around his environs. Maybe he was taken for granted as a skivvy on the Farm, his only pleasure in the workplace in bending the rules with his flowery garb and cosmetics, but his portal to absconsion was evil personified. It entailed the loss of two bright, young lives, twins mature beyond their years who would have remained firm and constant friends throughout life's journey, the destruction of two people who deserved to wind down in their twilight years with their own gratifications, and a mother who desperately needed care, not the barbaric annihilation that was to become her fate. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6961.0.html
-
That letter as far as I can remember didn't go into any detail,individually and certainly hadn't contained anything specific about Jeremy at all. It had been a short note to Nevill,Sheila and Jeremy and began with " Darlings ". I have a copy of it somewhere.
-
That letter as far as I can remember didn't go into any detail,individually and certainly hadn't contained anything specific about Jeremy at all. It had been a short note to Nevill,Sheila and Jeremy and began with " Darlings ". I have a copy of it somewhere.
Yes it's here on #75: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3323.75
-
Yes it's here on #75: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3323.75
That's it,but it made no reference to Jeremy or behaviour etc.
-
In CAL's book we get:
"In the car he told me he didn't like being threatened and that I scared him," Julie remembered. She picked up an envelope from the cassette compartment but he took it off her. "He told me that it was from his mother June and was to be opened in the event of her death. He told me it had been written recently and was a letter apologizing for the way his mother had sometimes treated him. He said that his mother loved him, but he said that it didn't make any difference about the way he felt about her."
This tallies with Jeremy telling Julie that his parents had "forfeited the right to live" for the way he had been treated. One can only surmise that he blamed his mother for the break up of his relationship with Suzette and possibly even the miscarriages due to stress, whilst Sheila had produced two healthy young boys, who seemed the apple of June's eye. Nevill gave orders to be followed on the commencement of each working day, which Jeremy tolerated in the cannabis-filled haze of the tractor, longing for the moment when he could escape to the bright lights of London.
I think something just snapped in Jeremy as he sought a way out of his predicament. The eight wasted years at Gresham's came back to haunt him as he realized his lowly social status amongst his work colleagues, and he was determined not to grow old prematurely, which is what he discerned when he looked around his environs. Maybe he was taken for granted as a skivvy on the Farm, his only pleasure in the workplace in bending the rules with his flowery garb and cosmetics, but his portal to absconsion was evil personified. It entailed the loss of two bright, young lives, twins mature beyond their years who would have remained firm and constant friends throughout life's journey, the destruction of two people who deserved to wind down in their twilight years with their own gratifications, and a mother who desperately needed care, not the barbaric annihilation that was to become her fate. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6961.0.html
Your last paragraph paints an excellent word picture of how I think he felt. I think he probably did feel he had no higher status on the farm than a skivvy -although he tried to present himself as a gentleman farmer- and I think he probably saw an unending future of the same old, stretching out before him as he grew into maturity and middle age before he received his inheritance. It doesn't have to be how things were. It's about how he saw them as being.
-
In CAL's book we get:
"In the car he told me he didn't like being threatened and that I scared him," Julie remembered. She picked up an envelope from the cassette compartment but he took it off her. "He told me that it was from his mother June and was to be opened in the event of her death. He told me it had been written recently and was a letter apologizing for the way his mother had sometimes treated him. He said that his mother loved him, but he said that it didn't make any difference about the way he felt about her."
This tallies with Jeremy telling Julie that his parents had "forfeited the right to live" for the way he had been treated. One can only surmise that he blamed his mother for the break up of his relationship with Suzette and possibly even the miscarriages due to stress, whilst Sheila had produced two healthy young boys, who seemed the apple of June's eye. Nevill gave orders to be followed on the commencement of each working day, which Jeremy tolerated in the cannabis-filled haze of the tractor, longing for the moment when he could escape to the bright lights of London.
I think something just snapped in Jeremy as he sought a way out of his predicament. The eight wasted years at Gresham's came back to haunt him as he realized his lowly social status amongst his work colleagues, and he was determined not to grow old prematurely, which is what he discerned when he looked around his environs. Maybe he was taken for granted as a skivvy on the Farm, his only pleasure in the workplace in bending the rules with his flowery garb and cosmetics, but his portal to absconsion was evil personified. It entailed the loss of two bright, young lives, twins mature beyond their years who would have remained firm and constant friends throughout life's journey, the destruction of two people who deserved to wind down in their twilight years with their own gratifications, and a mother who desperately needed care, not the barbaric annihilation that was to become her fate. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6961.0.html
::)
(http://davidchislett.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/once-upon-a-time-in-a-land-far-far-away.jpg)
-
Yes it's here on #75: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3323.75
I wonder how he knew it to have been written recently?
-
Well he hasn't snapped at the thought of being fleeced and swindled out of his inheritance as many would have done,so it proves to me that he's never been in the habit of snapping.
Who knows,his huge loss could well have been the making of him and his success but he wasn't even given the chance.
-
I wonder how he knew it to have been written recently?
Which makes me think even more.
-
Your last paragraph paints an excellent word picture of how I think he felt. I think he probably did feel he had no higher status on the farm than a skivvy -although he tried to present himself as a gentleman farmer- and I think he probably saw an unending future of the same old, stretching out before him as he grew into maturity and middle age before he received his inheritance. It doesn't have to be how things were. It's about how he saw them as being.
Jane do you think Nevill realized the effect this was having on Jeremy, tying him to the Farm for the duration of his own life? He was rumoured to have foretold his own death to Barbara Wilson, so why not attempt to alleviate the pressure somewhat by sitting down with his son to map out a compromise acceptable to all parties?
-
As Jane had said 5 years ago,the letter " raises more questions than answers ".I'll say it does.
Why does a healthy woman say " if I have to leave you ?"
-
At least 5 years differentiates between the sublime to the utterly ridiculous.
-
Jane do you think Nevill realized the effect this was having on Jeremy, tying him to the Farm for the duration of his own life? He was rumoured to have foretold his own death to Barbara Wilson, so why not attempt to alleviate the pressure somewhat by sitting down with his son to map out a compromise acceptable to all parties?
I'm speculating again, Steve, but I'm certain of one thing. Nevill had to have known that Jeremy's heart wasn't in farming the way he'd hoped it would be. My neighbour told me many times about the tensions which he witnessed between father and son which Nevill brushed aside. It was only after a particularly heated exchange when Nevill finally broke down and cried that he realized how serious it had become. I think Nevill had always been too close to see it for how it was. He must have imagined Jeremy would settle down eventually. He probably hoped by letting him have time off to spread his wings he'd return to his duties. I don't imagine it ever occurred to him that he was forcing a round peg into a square hole. Possibly, by the time he finally broke down, he may have become resigned. I have a sense of him having given up.
-
As Jane had said 5 years ago,the letter " raises more questions than answers ".I'll say it does.
Why does a healthy woman say " if I have to leave you ?"
It depends what you mean by healthy, Lookout. I've offered several possibilities. There's a vast space between hypochondria/anxiety at one end of the scale and full blown depression at the other. However, before you choose the latter, please remember all the things she was involved with regularly in her very busy life. I've known full blown depressives who can't get themselves out of bed even for therapy sessions. June appeared to be leading an active and fulfilling life.
-
It depends what you mean by healthy, Lookout. I've offered several possibilities. There's a vast space between hypochondria/anxiety at one end of the scale and full blown depression at the other. However, before you choose the latter, please remember all the things she was involved with regularly in her very busy life. I've known full blown depressives who can't get themselves out of bed even for therapy sessions. June appeared to be leading an active and fulfilling life.
That's true but I think the operative word is "appeared". There's conflicting information on her daughter's visit in the CAL book: to Regine Pargeter she told she was looking forward to it but privately to Agnes Low she knew it would not be straightforward dealing with Sheila and her illness.
-
That's true but I think the operative word is "appeared". There's conflicting information on her daughter's visit in the CAL book: to Regine Pargeter she told she was looking forward to it but privately to Agnes Low she knew it would not be straightforward dealing with Sheila and her illness.
Oh, I really don't see that upcoming visit as being anything BUT difficult. Thrown into the mix has to be Sheila's meeting with Christine. Still, we have no indication that June was doing less than usual, indeed with the imminent visit of Sheila and the boys, she was doing more. I concur that things are rarely what they "appear" to be but June hadn't become so paralyzed and incapacitated by depression that she couldn't function.
-
If JB was the killer then the least threat would have been the twins. The killer would have targeted Neville first, and then June. It was important to the relatives that the twins were first because of the inheritance.
100% right ...
Who on earth would Jeremy (or Malcolm) shoot the twins before Neville ?
Neville was the obvious threat ...
It is obvious that Jeremy (or Malcolm) would have shot Nevill First ....
On the assumption that Nevill was in bed when first shot then June would have been second ...
I assume (I may be wrong) that had the twins died last then Colin would have inherited a large slice ....
Jeremy and Robert Boutflour had motive for wanting people to think the twins died first ....
Julie stating Jeremy told her that the twins died first could not however benefit Jeremy ...
Why would Jeremy have gone into so much detail with Julie ?
Julie stating Jeremy told her that the twins died first could however benefit Robert Boutflour ...
I believe the relatives planted the silencer and persuaded Julie to confess ...
The above point is one of many details that fits this having been the case ...
The only real evidence against Jeremy was the silencer and Julie's confession ...
Also consider this - why the hell is that detail not in Sheils's statements of 12/13 th September ?
Did she really forget that detail for 11 days - I doubt it very much ...
And she allegedly forgets what order Jeremy said the others were killed in ?
Unbelievable that she would "forget" - she remembers she was told the order - but "can't remember" ?
It was very convenient for Robert Boutflour that Julie remembered this detail 11 days later ....
When it came to arguing about the inheritance that "detail" stopped Colin getting a large share ...
-
I think money and order of deaths was the least of anyone's worry that night.
-
I think money and order of deaths was the least of anyone's worry that night.
it was certanly a worry for rwb and he was the main player in all this.
and without the right order of death pam had no cliam for her to have a cliam sheila or june had to die last and of course jeremy had to have killed them.
-
it was certanly a worry for rwb and he was the main player in all this.
Oh yes,those outside who hadn't got a clue,knowing nothing about the family but pretending they did.
-
and if no death order had been established pam wouldent have a cliam so reather convienant that 1 was.
-
and if no death order had been established pam wouldent have a cliam so reather convienant that 1 was.
By the 23rd September it was clear that there was no evidence as to what order they died in ...
Then 11 days after her original confession - Julie conveniently remembers ...
Conveniently for the relatives that is ....
On the 7th/8th/9th and 10th September she simply "forgot" all mention of the order they had died in ...
I do not believe it ...
Because it is unbelievable ...
Look at this :
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,374.msg5109.html#msg5109
Julie had spent the 7th - the 8th - the 9th and the 10th of September 1985 with DC Stan Jones ...
And you believe she did not mention Jeremy saying what order they all died in ?
About 2 weeks later she suddenly "remembers" ...
Can people not see how unlikely this is ?
4 days with Police and she completely forgot to mention it - for 4 days ?
There is a simple explanation ...
Julie was lying ...
By the 23rd September Robert Boutflour knew how important the order of death would be ...
He simply asked Julie to "remember" this all important detail ...
Which version sounds more likely ?
Honestly ? In your heart of hearts you should probably actually know the answer to this ...
-
I think that just might of been the time that rwb relised that even if Jeremy is convicted without a order of death the money was rightfully colins.
-
I think that just might of been the time that rwb relised that even if Jeremy is convicted without a death the money was rightfully colins.
It probably took Robert a little while to find that out - he did not have the advantage in those days of Wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_death
In particular you will see that :
" The common law provision that, without evidence, there can be no presumption as to which of the commorientes died first, was superseded by the passage of the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 184. Under this statute, where the order of death of two persons is uncertain, the elder of the two is deemed to have died first. "
So without Julie's sudden return of memory the law would have assumed the twins died last ...
Not good for Robert or the relatives at all ...
How convenient that Julie suddenly remembered this detail ....
She did not remember during 4 days with Police ...
That is because it did not happen ...
It is unbelievable ...
-
it also explians the sudden hurry to change the speakman will
if bamber had been convicted and the speakman will hadn't been changed colin would of had a claim on that estate too.
-
it also explians the sudden hurry to change the speakman will
if bamber had been convicted and the speakman will hadn't been changed colin would of had a claim on that estate too.
Robert certainly had wills on his mind at that exact time ...
He lied to grandma Speakman saying that Jeremy had died ...
That was actually fraud ...
Does anyone want to try and claim that was not fraud by Robert ?
So we all know Robert committed fraud on one will that month ...
So how can any of you be sure he did not commit fraud on the other will (with Julie's help) ?
The facts speak for themselves ....
-
Some interesting theories here. I don't know what the position would have been if the twins had died last, inheritance-wise, it depends on whether there were 30-day clauses in the Wills. Would it have been assumed that Sheila died last even without the testimony of Julie Mugford? If so, then anything she inherited from her parents who died before her (excluding a 30-day clause) would go to her next of kin - her grandmother.
-
Some interesting theories here. I don't know what the position would have been if the twins had died last, inheritance-wise, it depends on whether there were 30-day clauses in the Wills. Would it have been assumed that Sheila died last even without the testimony of Julie Mugford? If so, then anything she inherited from her parents who died before her (excluding a 30-day clause) would go to her next of kin - her grandmother.
As the assumed murderer I think Sheila would have not inherited anything ...
A strong principle in UK law is that no person can benefit in any way from a crime they commit ...
So it would be assumed that as the youngest the twins died last and Colin would have inherited a big slice ...
This principle also explains why it was so important for Robert to see Jeremy convicted of the murders ...
Jeremy's conviction stopped him from inheriting in line with this legal principle ...
So to Robert (a known will fraudster) it was important that Jeremy was convicted and that there was some evidence (Julie's "remembered" statement) that the twins died first ...
It makes no sense (other than to a deranged Sheila perhaps) for anyone to shoot the twins before Nevill ...
Julie did not "remember" Jeremy telling her the twins died first during 4 days with Police ...
Julie was telling lies that Robert Boutflour asked her to tell ...
The truth is easy to see when looking at these details ...
Robert was a known liar (he lied in court about the money and lied to grandma Speakman about Jeremy having died)
Robert was a known will fraudster (his lies to grandma Speakman about Jeremy dying)
Robert was behind the planting of the silencer ...
Robert was behind Julie's lies to the Police ...
His motive was very simple - money ....
-
Some interesting theories here. I don't know what the position would have been if the twins had died last, inheritance-wise, it depends on whether there were 30-day clauses in the Wills. Would it have been assumed that Sheila died last even without the testimony of Julie Mugford? If so, then anything she inherited from her parents who died before her (excluding a 30-day clause) would go to her next of kin - her grandmother.
Given that Sheila was believed to have committed suicide after committing murder, it might have been a little difficult for her to have died anywhere other than last?
-
As the assumed murderer I think Sheila would have not inherited anything ...
A strong principle in UK law is that no person can benefit in any way from a crime they commit ...
So it would be assumed that as the youngest the twins died last and Colin would have inherited a big slice ...
I mean after the conviction of Jeremy. If Sheila had been the culprit, Jeremy would have inherited everything, not Colin.
-
I mean after the conviction of Jeremy. If Sheila had been the culprit, Jeremy would have inherited everything, not Colin.
Robert knew that unless Jeremy was convicted that Jeremy would inherit the lions share ...
That is why he planted the silencer and got Julie to lie ...
To be fair to the man he probably had convinced himself Jeremy was guilty ...
After all to Robert Jeremy was a "queer" criminal drug dealing illegitimate "bastard" ...
I believe Robert's family were facing impending poverty at that time ...
Robert believed what he wanted to believe ...
He lied to grandma Speakman ...
He convinced David, Julie, possibly Anne and certain Police Officers that Jeremy did it ...
The rest is history ...
People can point to Jeremy and Julie and the caravan break in or their drug dealing or Julies cheque frauds - but by far the biggest proven fraudster in all this by a very long way indeed is Robert Boutflour lying to grandma Speakman telling her that her beloved grandson was dead ...
What sort of man was Robert Boutflour ?
-
It probably took Robert a little while to find that out - he did not have the advantage in those days of Wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_death
In particular you will see that :
" The common law provision that, without evidence, there can be no presumption as to which of the commorientes died first, was superseded by the passage of the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 184. Under this statute, where the order of death of two persons is uncertain, the elder of the two is deemed to have died first. "
So without Julie's sudden return of memory the law would have assumed the twins died last ...
Not good for Robert or the relatives at all ...
How convenient that Julie suddenly remembered this detail ....
She did not remember during 4 days with Police ...
That is because it did not happen ...
It is unbelievable ...
But this is surely irrelevant as Julie would be quoting the word of a convicted child killer, which would be deemed worthless.
-
Robert certainly had wills on his mind at that exact time ...
He lied to grandma Speakman saying that Jeremy had died ...
That was actually fraud ...
Does anyone want to try and claim that was not fraud by Robert ?
So we all know Robert committed fraud on one will that month ...
So how can any of you be sure he did not commit fraud on the other will (with Julie's help) ?
The facts speak for themselves ....
This isn't in any of the books.
-
100% right ...
Who on earth would Jeremy (or Malcolm) shoot the twins before Neville ?
Neville was the obvious threat ...
It is obvious that Jeremy (or Malcolm) would have shot Nevill First ....
On the assumption that Nevill was in bed when first shot then June would have been second ...
I assume (I may be wrong) that had the twins died last then Colin would have inherited a large slice ....
Jeremy and Robert Boutflour had motive for wanting people to think the twins died first ....
Julie stating Jeremy told her that the twins died first could not however benefit Jeremy ...
Why would Jeremy have gone into so much detail with Julie ?
Julie stating Jeremy told her that the twins died first could however benefit Robert Boutflour ...
I believe the relatives planted the silencer and persuaded Julie to confess ...
The above point is one of many details that fits this having been the case ...
The only real evidence against Jeremy was the silencer and Julie's confession ...
Also consider this - why the hell is that detail not in Sheils's statements of 12/13 th September ?
Did she really forget that detail for 11 days - I doubt it very much ...
And she allegedly forgets what order Jeremy said the others were killed in ?
Unbelievable that she would "forget" - she remembers she was told the order - but "can't remember" ?
It was very convenient for Robert Boutflour that Julie remembered this detail 11 days later ....
When it came to arguing about the inheritance that "detail" stopped Colin getting a large share ...
He could test that the murder weapon was working; as it was it was known to be stiff.
-
But this is surely irrelevant as Julie would be quoting the word of a convicted child killer, which would be deemed worthless.
Not at all ...
When it came to disputing the will it would be done in a civil court not a criminal court ...
In a civil court - without any other evidence - Julie's statement would be accepted as fact ...
-
Not at all ...
When it came to disputing the will it would be done in a civil court not a criminal court ...
In a civil court - without any other evidence - Julie's statement would be accepted as fact ...
I'm not sure any court would accept testimony which emanated from a convicted child killer, who in any case was allegedly reporting what the proxy killer Matthew Macdonald had told him.
-
I'm not sure any court would accept testimony which emanated from a convicted child killer, who in any case was allegedly reporting what the proxy killer Matthew Macdonald had told him.
In the absence of any other evidence they would ...
Jeremy would not benefit from this in any way ...
If he was convicted on the basis of this statement there is no reason why in the absence of any other evidence why the civil court would not accept it ...
Civil courts work on the basis of what is more than 50% likely - not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the criminal courts use ...
When there is very little evidence to go on then the civil courts must use whatever little evidence is available ....
-
Robert knew that unless Jeremy was convicted that Jeremy would inherit the lions share ...
That is why he planted the silencer and got Julie to lie ...
To be fair to the man he probably had convinced himself Jeremy was guilty ...
After all to Robert Jeremy was a "queer" criminal drug dealing illegitimate "bastard" ...
I believe Robert's family were facing impending poverty at that time ...
Robert believed what he wanted to believe ...
He lied to grandma Speakman ...
He convinced David, Julie, possibly Anne and certain Police Officers that Jeremy did it ...
The rest is history ...
People can point to Jeremy and Julie and the caravan break in or their drug dealing or Julies cheque frauds - but by far the biggest proven fraudster in all this by a very long way indeed is Robert Boutflour lying to grandma Speakman telling her that her beloved grandson was dead ...
What sort of man was Robert Boutflour ?
He was certainly very determined, but how do you think he managed to plant the silencer evidence, and do you know for a fact that he told Mabel that Jeremy was dead?
-
He was certainly very determined, but how do you think he managed to plant the silencer evidence, and do you know for a fact that he told Mabel that Jeremy was dead?
Poor Jeremy.
Can a man not go to Eastbourne, Burnham, Pevensey, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez straight after a massacre, without half of EP & his relatives plotting against him.
-
Not at all ...
When it came to disputing the will it would be done in a civil court not a criminal court ...
In a civil court - without any other evidence - Julie's statement would be accepted as fact ...
and a civel court is not bound by the verdict of a crimnal court.
plenty of people have beeen inoncent in a criminal court and guilty in a civel court.
-
He was certainly very determined, but how do you think he managed to plant the silencer evidence, and do you know for a fact that he told Mabel that Jeremy was dead?
I'm not so much of the opinion that RWB told Grannie that Jeremy was dead, as much as he allowed her to believe he'd died with the rest of the family. I have a feeling she never actually asked the question, saying the deaths were "the devil's work".
-
I'm not so much of the opinion that RWB told Grannie that Jeremy was dead, as much as he allowed her to believe he'd died with the rest of the family. I have a feeling she never actually asked the question, saying the deaths were "the devil's work".
But this begs the question: why change the will at all? It was only because the contingency plan was made due to the possibility that if Jeremy got off he would have a claim on Mabel's estate by inheriting part or all of his mother's share.
-
But this begs the question: why change the will at all? It was only because the contingency plan was made due to the possibility that if Jeremy got off he would have a claim on Mabel's estate by inheriting part or all of his mother's share.
Yes. RB made it quite clear that he didn't want Jeremy to profit from his crime.
-
He was certainly very determined, but how do you think he managed to plant the silencer evidence, and do you know for a fact that he told Mabel that Jeremy was dead?
He got his son David Boutflour to "find" it in the cupboard - despite it having blood on David did not "remember" which box he found it in - again hard to believe ...
The relatives had the keys to the farm and according to David's statement they went to the farm to look for other guns and any "clues" ...
His statement said he went first of all to the cupboard and found the silencer with blood on it straight away ... (despite the Police who say they searched that cupboard not finding it) ...
It took me years to realise it is true but Mike is right that there were 4 identical silencers in this case ...
Reading the statements proves he is right - Anthony owned one, David owned one, Robert owned one and Nevill owned one - it is all there in their statements ...
It looks like the Police took one silencer from the farm straight after the murders ...
Which one of the 4 silencers was found in the cupboard by David is anyone's guess in my opinion ...
I am going to start a separate thread about grandma Speakman's will and Robet getting her to change it on her deathbed in hospital ....
-
He got his son David Boutflour to "find" it in the cupboard - despite it having blood on David did not "remember" which box he found it in - again hard to believe ...
The relatives had the keys to the farm and according to David's statement they went to the farm to look for other guns and any "clues" ...
His statement said he went first of all to the cupboard and found the silencer with blood on it straight away ... (despite the Police who say they searched that cupboard not finding it) ...
It took me years to realise it is true but Mike is right that there were 4 identical silencers in this case ...
Reading the statements proves he is right - Anthony owned one, David owned one, Robert owned one and Nevill owned one - it is all there in their statements ...
It looks like the Police took one silencer from the farm straight after the murders ...
Which one of the 4 silencers was found in the cupboard by David is anyone's guess in my opinion ...
I am going to start a separate thread about grandma Speakman's will and Robet getting her to change it on her deathbed in hospital ....
How did RB get blood into the moderator, and how did he get June's DNA in there?
-
He got his son David Boutflour to "find" it in the cupboard - despite it having blood on David did not "remember" which box he found it in - again hard to believe ...
The relatives had the keys to the farm and according to David's statement they went to the farm to look for other guns and any "clues" ...
His statement said he went first of all to the cupboard and found the silencer with blood on it straight away ... (despite the Police who say they searched that cupboard not finding it) ...
It took me years to realise it is true but Mike is right that there were 4 identical silencers in this case ...
Reading the statements proves he is right - Anthony owned one, David owned one, Robert owned one and Nevill owned one - it is all there in their statements ...
It looks like the Police took one silencer from the farm straight after the murders ...
Which one of the 4 silencers was found in the cupboard by David is anyone's guess in my opinion ...
I am going to start a separate thread about grandma Speakman's will and Robet getting her to change it on her deathbed in hospital ....
Well it wasn't changed in hospital but in her bedroom at Vaulty Manor with doctor and solicitor present. I do have some sympathy with the view that Robert Boutflour left the silencer for his son to find, but if it is true he has taken the secret with him to his deathbed.
-
I'm not so much of the opinion that RWB told Grannie that Jeremy was dead, as much as he allowed her to believe he'd died with the rest of the family. I have a feeling she never actually asked the question, saying the deaths were "the devil's work".
I think your version is most likely accurate ...
I am going to start a separate thread on this point ...
We do know he persuaded grandma Speakman to change her will on her deathbed leaving Jeremy out all together ...
Her will was massive - much much larger than Nevill and June's - every one knew she was very old and on her death bed - every one knew Jeremy was set to inherit some of this - why was Jeremy in a rush then to kill his family for a relatively small amount ?
-
I think your version is most likely accurate ...
I am going to start a separate thread on this point ...
We do know he persuaded grandma Speakman to change her will on her deathbed leaving Jeremy out all together ...
Her will was massive - much much larger than Nevill and June's - every one knew she was very old and on her death bed - every one knew Jeremy was set to inherit some of this - why was Jeremy in a rush then to kill his family for a relatively small amount ?
That's wrong I'm afraid. Mabel left her entire estate to her two blood daughters: Pamela and June.
-
I think your version is most likely accurate ...
I am going to start a separate thread on this point ...
We do know he persuaded grandma Speakman to change her will on her deathbed leaving Jeremy out all together ...
Her will was massive - much much larger than Nevill and June's - every one knew she was very old and on her death bed - every one knew Jeremy was set to inherit some of this - why was Jeremy in a rush then to kill his family for a relatively small amount ?
I'm not certain that -other than a bequest- Jeremy was ever in her will. The will would have been changed because June was dead and her portion had to be redirected.
-
Well it wasn't changed in hospital but in her bedroom at Vaulty Manor with doctor and solicitor present. I do have some sympathy with the view that Robert Boutflour left the silencer for his son to find, but if it is true he has taken the secret with him to his deathbed.
I am 100% convinced David knew that the silencer was a set up - there is a slight chance he did not find out until after the trial - but his not "remembering" which box he found it in virtually rules that out for me though ...
I am 100% convinced David has a guilty conscience about that silencer ...
-
That's wrong I'm afraid. Mabel left her entire estate to her two blood daughters: Pamela and June.
Do you have a source for that please ?
-
He got his son David Boutflour to "find" it in the cupboard - despite it having blood on David did not "remember" which box he found it in - again hard to believe ...
The relatives had the keys to the farm and according to David's statement they went to the farm to look for other guns and any "clues" ...
His statement said he went first of all to the cupboard and found the silencer with blood on it straight away ... (despite the Police who say they searched that cupboard not finding it) ...
It took me years to realise it is true but Mike is right that there were 4 identical silencers in this case ...
Reading the statements proves he is right - Anthony owned one, David owned one, Robert owned one and Nevill owned one - it is all there in their statements ...
It looks like the Police took one silencer from the farm straight after the murders ...
Which one of the 4 silencers was found in the cupboard by David is anyone's guess in my opinion ...
I am going to start a separate thread about grandma Speakman's will and Robet getting her to change it on her deathbed in hospital ....
Shouldn't you be contacting Bamber instead ?
After all 'you've solved the case at last'. Which will please Bamber as he's been trying for 32 years to get his conviction overturned.
Posting on here is not 'letting the world know'. Similar to Nugs & David's posts & threads, it may make guilters even more convinced. Although you're cocaine thread was interesting but very optimistic.
-
Poor Jeremy.
Can a man not go to Eastbourne, Burnham, Pevensey, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez straight after a massacre, without half of EP & his relatives plotting against him.
Typically Adam when you have no answers to the points raised you change the topic ...
Do you think Jeremy should have :
a) stayed at the Farm ?
b) stayed in his cottage ?
c) took some holidays to get his mind off the tragedy ?
What would you have actually done in his situation Adam ?
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
I would have done exactly what Jeremy did - and it was also in line with his new and short lived status as a wealthy man ...
-
Do you have a source for that please ?
It's documented in Chapter 31 of CAL's book.
-
It's documented in Chapter 31 of CAL's book.
I will check it out - and the source used for the book - thank you ...
-
Typically Adam when you have no answers to the points raised you change the topic ...
Do you think Jeremy should have :
a) stayed at the Farm ?
b) stayed in his cottage ?
c) took some holidays to get his mind off the tragedy ?
What would you have actually done in his situation Adam ?
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
I would have done exactly what Jeremy did - and it was also in line with his new and short lived status as a wealthy man ...
There isn't really an answer to the question Kaldin asked you, about ways of getting June's DNA into the silencer, and why that would be necessary.
-
Typically Adam when you have no answers to the points raised you change the topic ...
Do you think Jeremy should have :
a) stayed at the Farm ?
b) stayed in his cottage ?
c) took some holidays to get his mind off the tragedy ?
What would you have actually done in his situation Adam ?
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
I would have done exactly what Jeremy did - and it was also in line with his new and short lived status as a wealthy man ...
Nothing wrong with taking 6 holidays within a month of you're family being massacred.
I understand a splendid time was had by all.
-
There isn't really an answer to the question Kaldin asked you, about ways of getting June's DNA into the silencer, and why that would be necessary.
No DNA was found - only blood ...
It has not been established 100% that it was human blood ....
Somebody put some blood in that silencer to make it look like it had been used ....
Whose blood it was and how it was added to the silencer we simply cannot be sure ...
Or do you see the blood evidence differently to that ?
-
It's documented in Chapter 31 of CAL's book.
I don't know how anyone would expect Bamber to inherit from his grandmother.
However if everyone else was dead.....
-
No DNA was found - only blood ...
It has not been established 100% that it was human blood ....
Somebody put some blood in that silencer to make it look like it had been used ....
Whose blood it was and how it was added to the silencer we simply cannot be sure ...
Or do you see the blood evidence differently to that ?
It was human blood. And Sheila's.
Sheila received a contact shot & there was no blood on the rifle end. Bamber would use the silencer for the massacre.
RB sneeking around trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family ???
-
Nothing wrong with taking 6 holidays within a month of you're family being massacred.
I understand a splendid time was had by all.
Answer my question Adam ...
Where EXACTLY would you have stayed in that time ?
a) the farm ?
b) his cottage ?
What would you have actually done in his situation Adam ?
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
You simply have not thought it through have you Adam ?
He would not want to live at the farm would he ? obviously not !!!
He would not want to live in the cottage on his own - and do what ? obviously not !!!
So he needed some where new to live - obviously !!!!!
He was suddenly rich - and as we know he loved travelling (like most of us do)
So why not go on holiday ?
Like I say on this point you simply have not thought it through from Jeremy's point of view based on the situation he was in - have you Aadam ?
Anyway answer my question :
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
Come on Adam I am interested in your answer ....
-
It's documented in Chapter 31 of CAL's book.
How much would Bamber have inherited from Mable Speakman. After the massacre ?
The amount of 435k is banded about a lot regarding Nevill & June.
However it seems like it would have been a lot more for Bamber.
-
How much would Bamber have inherited from Mable Speakman. After the massacre ?
The amount of 435k is banded about a lot. However it seems like it would have been a lot more.
Her estate apparently was 1.25 million - a vast sum in 1985 ...
Plenty of motive for Robert to get her to change her will on her deathbed - which he did do ...
-
No DNA was found - only blood ...
It has not been established 100% that it was human blood ....
Somebody put some blood in that silencer to make it look like it had been used ....
Whose blood it was and how it was added to the silencer we simply cannot be sure ...
Or do you see the blood evidence differently to that ?
DNA was found later - not at the time because they couldn't find it then. DNA was found and there was a strong possibility that it was June's DNA. Male DNA was also found. Sheila's DNA was not found.
-
Answer my question Adam ...
Where EXACTLY would you have stayed in that time ?
a) the farm ?
b) his cottage ?
What would you have actually done in his situation Adam ?
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
You simply have not thought it through have you Adam ?
He would not want to live at the farm would he ? obviously not !!!
He would not want to live in the cottage on his own - and do what ? obviously not !!!
So he needed some where new to live - obviously !!!!!
He was suddenly rich - and as we know he loved travelling (like most of us do)
So why not go on holiday ?
Like I say on this point you simply have not thought it through from Jeremy's point of view based on the situation he was in - have you Aadam ?
Anyway answer my question :
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
Come on Adam I am interested in your answer ....
Unfortunately the police don't agree with you. As his antics made them suspicious.
But appreciate you will justify his actions. As 'you have 'solved the case at last'.
To be fair to Bamber, he didn't go on his first jolly up until he had chatted to the police & his accountant.
-
How much would Bamber have inherited from Mable Speakman. After the massacre ?
The amount of 435k is banded about a lot regarding Nevill & June.
However it seems like it would have been a lot more for Bamber.
Had he not been convicted and Mabel Speakman not altered her will I assume he might have been in line for half her estate. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/killer-s-greed-over-claim-for-163-1-3m-1-2524887
-
Had he not been convicted and Mabel Speakman not altered her will I assume he might have been in line for half her estate. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/killer-s-greed-over-claim-for-163-1-3m-1-2524887
Probably via June, not directly. It was important for the relatives to get that changed.
-
Answer my question Adam ...
Where EXACTLY would you have stayed in that time ?
a) the farm ?
b) his cottage ?
What would you have actually done in his situation Adam ?
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
You simply have not thought it through have you Adam ?
He would not want to live at the farm would he ? obviously not !!!
He would not want to live in the cottage on his own - and do what ? obviously not !!!
So he needed some where new to live - obviously !!!!!
He was suddenly rich - and as we know he loved travelling (like most of us do)
So why not go on holiday ?
Like I say on this point you simply have not thought it through from Jeremy's point of view based on the situation he was in - have you Aadam ?
Anyway answer my question :
Where exactly would you have stayed in that month or so ?
Come on Adam I am interested in your answer ....
I think it's highly likely that once Jeremy was free of all restraints, the farm and all those connected to it ceased to exist.He was young, carefree, and RICH. Nowhere he couldn't go. Nothing he couldn't do. Nothing he couldn't have. Heady thought, eh?
-
Her estate apparently was 1.25 million - a vast sum in 1985 ...
Plenty of motive for Robert to get her to change her will on her deathbed - which he did do ...
Is that what Bamber would have inherited. Together with 435k & several properties.
No wonder Bamber didn't step onto a tractor post 7th August 1985.
-
I think it's highly likely that once Jeremy was free of all restraints, the farm and all those connected to it ceased to exist.He was young, carefree, and RICH. Nowhere he couldn't go. Nothing he couldn't do. Nothing he couldn't have. Heady thought, eh?
I am sure you are right ...
But do you agree with Adam's ill thought out assertion that this points to Jeremy being guilty ?
-
DNA was found later - not at the time because they couldn't find it then. DNA was found and there was a strong possibility that it was June's DNA. Male DNA was also found. Sheila's DNA was not found.
That's not strictly true, as 17 markers were found consistent with Sheila, following her birth mother giving her DNA and blood sample to authorities.
-
I am sure you are right ...
But do you agree with Adam's ill thought out assertion that this points to Jeremy being guilty ?
I don't see the point you're trying to make.
-
Is that what Bamber would have inherited. Together with 435k & several properties.
No wonder Bamber didn't step onto a tractor post 7th August 1985.
Do you get it now Adam ?
He was RICH ...
Rich people travel and go on holiday all the time Adam ...
It is very normal behaviour for rich people ...
Why would he want to drive a tractor or work in a mc donald's or a car wash ?
I am glad you get it now Adam ...
-
Had he not been convicted and Mabel Speakman not altered her will I assume he might have been in line for half her estate. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/killer-s-greed-over-claim-for-163-1-3m-1-2524887
I think that's probably right, Steve. Jeremy was June's next of kin, but whilst she was living, he wasn't Mabel Speakman's next of kin. She was entitled to leave her own money to whomsoever she chose.
-
I am sure you are right ...
But do you agree with Adam's ill thought out assertion that this points to Jeremy being guilty ?
Certainly, "This", in my opinion, is what Jeremy was prepared to kill for, although "this" alone doesn't automatically point to his guilt.
-
Do you get it now Adam ?
He was RICH ...
Rich people travel and go on holiday all the time Adam ...
It is very normal behaviour for rich people ...
Why would he want to drive a tractor or work in a mc donald's or a car wash ?
I am glad you get it now Adam ...
Yes, Brett & other buddies quickly joined Bamber. Julie had been whisked over to WHF at 5am in the morning.
It was time to go on 6 holidays in one month, party & buy cannabis. After chatting to the police & his accountant first of course.
-
That's not strictly true, as 17 markers were found consistent with Sheila, following her birth mother giving her DNA and blood sample to authorities.
Fair enough, but nobody could say for sure that Sheila's DNA was in there.
-
It's a pity Bamber did decide to party & travel non stop straight after his mother, father, sister & 2 nephews had been massacred.
Half of EP, the relatives & experts commenced an industrial frame as soon as his back was turned.
Unlucky for Bamber.
-
Certainly, "This", in my opinion, is what Jeremy was prepared to kill for, although "this" alone doesn't automatically point to his guilt.
It highlights a motive - money.
His post massacre jolly ups were brought up at trial. The prosecution supporting their motive.
-
That's not strictly true, as 17 markers were found consistent with Sheila, following her birth mother giving her DNA and blood sample to authorities.
Were these 17 markers in the silencer blood ?
-
Were these 17 markers in the silencer blood ?
I don't think they could tell if it was from blood or not.
-
I think it's highly likely that once Jeremy was free of all restraints, the farm and all those connected to it ceased to exist.He was young, carefree, and RICH. Nowhere he couldn't go. Nothing he couldn't do. Nothing he couldn't have. Heady thought, eh?
But still haunted deep down by the memories of those blissful early years, gone forever and now impossible to re-enact, before the banishment to Gresham's and the onset of mother's illness, dad's moroseness engendered by Diana's death and Sheila possessed by the Devil, from which Jeremy first shrank.
If only he could go back, return to those simpler times and pleasures, when he was not labelled a failure at school, was not pushed to produce more on the Farm, impress Nevill's cronies or understand the nature of mental illness. Restore the Farm as it was, with mum, dad and two burgeoning children, their milk teeth placed under the pillow replaced with a sixpence in the morning, a morning he now urged would repeat as he asked Pamela for those mementoes, averting his eyes as he stared simultaneously into the abyss of his own diablerie.
-
I am 100% convinced David knew that the silencer was a set up - there is a slight chance he did not find out until after the trial - but his not "remembering" which box he found it in virtually rules that out for me though ...
I am 100% convinced David has a guilty conscience about that silencer ...
I think you could be proven right on that score.
-
theres not just the qustion of jeremy being left out of the will everybody exept pam was left out.
and rwb just happens to helping her with changing it now if that doesnt suggest fraud im not sure what does.
the explaination for jeremy being writtan out only makes sense if he was the only one left out.
-
But still haunted deep down by the memories of those blissful early years, gone forever and now impossible to re-enact, before the banishment to Gresham's and the onset of mother's illness, dad's moroseness engendered by Diana's death and Sheila possessed by the Devil, from which Jeremy first shrank.
If only he could go back, return to those simpler times and pleasures, when he was not labelled a failure at school, was not pushed to produce more on the Farm, impress Nevill's cronies or understand the nature of mental illness. Restore the Farm as it was, with mum, dad and two burgeoning children, their milk teeth placed under the pillow replaced with a sixpence in the morning, a morning he now urged would repeat as he asked Pamela for those mementoes, averting his eyes as he stared simultaneously into the abyss of his own diablerie.
I think that may have come some time further down the line, Steve. There's only so much satisfaction to be had from what money can buy when there's nothing it CAN'T buy. It maybe then -if he actually had a soul- that he'd start to yearn for those things no amount of money CAN buy.
-
theres not just the qustion of jeremy being left out of the will everybody exept pam was left out.
and rwb just happens to helping her with changing it now if that doesnt suggest fraud im not sure what does.
the explaination for jeremy being writtan out only makes sense if he was the only one left out.
What would have given Jeremy precedence over Granny Speakman's other grandchildren, Ann and David, both older than Jeremy and Sheila, therefore first in line to inherit, perhaps?
-
Robert knew that unless Jeremy was convicted that Jeremy would inherit the lions share ...
That is why he planted the silencer and got Julie to lie ...
To be fair to the man he probably had convinced himself Jeremy was guilty ...
After all to Robert Jeremy was a "queer" criminal drug dealing illegitimate "bastard" ...
I believe Robert's family were facing impending poverty at that time ...
Robert believed what he wanted to believe ...
He lied to grandma Speakman ...
He convinced David, Julie, possibly Anne and certain Police Officers that Jeremy did it ...
The rest is history ...
People can point to Jeremy and Julie and the caravan break in or their drug dealing or Julies cheque frauds - but by far the biggest proven fraudster in all this by a very long way indeed is Robert Boutflour lying to grandma Speakman telling her that her beloved grandson was dead ...
What sort of man was Robert Boutflour ?
Cutting... but spot-on.
Though I doubt Ann needed any convincing. She had already earmarked Jeremy as a threat prior to the killings. I see her as 'dad's cohort'. The relatives in general as arrogant, ignorant, savy, connected and conniving. Their self-interest fed their suspicions and their suspicions inevitably furthered their self interest. Not sure about the poverty bit.
Bamber didn't see them coming.
-
What would have given Jeremy precedence over Granny Speakman's other grandchildren, Ann and David, both older than Jeremy and Sheila, therefore first in line to inherit, perhaps?
Their mother was still alive though.
-
I think that may have come some time further down the line, Steve. There's only so much satisfaction to be had from what money can buy when there's nothing it CAN'T buy. It maybe then -if he actually had a soul- that he'd start to yearn for those things no amount of money CAN buy.
I'm not sure how much further down the line as he was musing soon post-murders about a sojourn in an East Asian Buddhist monastery. Sometimes when you do have everything disappointment and fatigue can set in in his case after the early euphoria of the murders. Did he suggest a co-operative venture with Julie in a fashionable West End wine bar as her spoils or was he as I'm suggesting completely unsure of the way forward after yet more foreign jaunts, his brain messed up with cannabis and as Julie remarked, moody without it.
-
What would have given Jeremy precedence over Granny Speakman's other grandchildren, Ann and David, both older than Jeremy and Sheila, therefore first in line to inherit, perhaps?
the point im making is jeremy was not the only person left out the will.
jeremy being the killer was a good excuse for him to be excluded but why were the others excluded.
-
To link this with the word "death" in this thread I don't know the psychiatrists' terms for the coping mechanisms of Jeremy, Sheila or June. Some people do seem to turn inwards on themselves, with tragic results, whilst others vent their anger on others with similar tragic outcomes. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/st-pauls-cathedral-death-student-who-fell-100ft-pictured-as-family-say-she-found-world-a-bad-place-to-live/ar-AAtytX6?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
-
I'm not sure how much further down the line as he was musing soon post-murders about a sojourn in an East Asian Buddhist monastery. Sometimes when you do have everything disappointment and fatigue can set in in his case after the early euphoria of the murders. Did he suggest a co-operative venture with Julie in a fashionable West End wine bar as her spoils or was he as I'm suggesting completely unsure of the way forward after yet more foreign jaunts, his brain messed up with cannabis and as Julie remarked, moody without it.
It was probably a bit too early in the proceedings for him to have been jaded, but I think there could have been a moment of anti climax despite all the trappings.
-
I don't think they could tell if it was from blood or not.
Hopefully Steve will answer.
My understanding is there were 13 out of 17 markers. Which made it a 1 in a billion chance that it was not Sheila's blood.
As the rifle hadn't been passed around 10 people, let alone a billion, it was Sheila's blood.
-
Their mother was still alive though.
Yes she was. Maybe Granny didn't want ANY of her grandchildren to inherit on her death. If Jeremy had June's share, she may have felt it was unfair on Ann and David.
-
the point im making is jeremy was not the only person left out the will.
jeremy being the killer was a good excuse for him to be excluded but why were the others excluded.
Well I think Mabel Speakman was one of those old-fashioned dyed in the wool types who probably traced her family tree back generations and therefore had an historic if not emotional attachment to blood ties. It's why she left her estate divided between blood daughters and not the cuckoos in the nest Betty Howie and Alice Binks, whom she probably felt their husbands and not herself should provide for.
-
the point im making is jeremy was not the only person left out the will.
jeremy being the killer was a good excuse for him to be excluded but why were the others excluded.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Surely we leave wherever WE choose, NOT where others think we should?
-
Hopefully Steve will answer.
My understanding is there were 13 out of 17 markers. Which made it a 1 in a billion chance that it was not Sheila's blood.
As the rifle hadn't been passed around 10 people, let alone a billion, it was Sheila's blood.
Well by law it wasn't 100% certain to be Sheila's DNA, which I assume the Defence latched onto, but as you say it was as good as her blood.
-
Now there's a saying I haven't heard for a long time " dyed in the wool " a brilliant description.
I can tell you're a Lancastrian Steve.
-
Hopefully Steve will answer.
My understanding is there were 13 out of 17 markers. Which made it a 1 in a billion chance that it was not Sheila's blood.
As the rifle hadn't been passed around 10 people, let alone a billion, it was Sheila's blood.
The appeal judges concluded that they couldn't tell one way or another if Sheila's DNA was in there.
-
Now there's a saying I haven't heard for a long time " dyed in the wool " a brilliant description.
I can tell you're a Lancastrian Steve.
I didn't know it was Lancastrian Lookout. ;D I know Pot herb is. ;D
-
The appeal judges concluded that they couldn't tell one way or another if Sheila's DNA was in there.
Its more or less been proven the blood was planted. The only problem now is the paint from the mantle.
I have quoted three separate passages. Hope this makes sense
34. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
35. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence
38. Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge,
11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
they could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence
A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.
Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
Dr Caruso and Peter Suthurst's evidence is not 100% conclusive. But in my view they show a high probablility of the scratches being made after the 7th.
The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.
If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.
the COA have already made a judgment back in 2002 on the relevant issue
The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
This brings us back the 2012 Judgment
That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
This is why the appeal was denied and the court sided with the CCRC
-
Well by law it wasn't 100% certain to be Sheila's DNA, which I assume the Defence latched onto, but as you say it was as good as her blood.
Was this DNA test on the silencer blood. Or just inside the silencer generally ?
-
David has said the blood was planted. He has also provided a source that the police had Sheila's blood.
Guilters believe the blood was due to Bamber using a silencer & Sheila's contact shot. With the 13 out of 17 markers & the rifle end having no blood on.
Either way, both guilters & supporters believe it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. Rather than 'not human blood' which Sherlock suggested.
-
Now there's a saying I haven't heard for a long time " dyed in the wool " a brilliant description.
I can tell you're a Lancastrian Steve.
Yes Ophelia brought us an Indian summer today. Sorry about Ireland though.
-
Was this DNA test on the silencer blood. Or just inside the silencer generally ?
Well I thought they matched Sheila's blood with her birth mother's, Christine Sykora. I still don't see how the relatives could have replicated what happened when the gun fired with a silencer attached to them allegedly introducing A type blood through a pipette.
-
Its more or less been proven the blood was planted. The only problem now is the paint from the mantle.
I have quoted three separate passages. Hope this makes sense
34. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
35. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence
38. Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge,
11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
they could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence
A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.
Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
Dr Caruso and Peter Suthurst's evidence is not 100% conclusive. But in my view they show a high probablility of the scratches being made after the 7th.
The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.
If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.
the COA have already made a judgment back in 2002 on the relevant issue
The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
This brings us back the 2012 Judgment
That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.
This is why the appeal was denied and the court sided with the CCRC
Why would there be "distinctive marks" if a silencer were used but they were non-contact shots?
-
With both guilters & supporters agreeing it was Sheila's blood in the silencer, a plant could only have been the police's idea.
They had Sheila's blood & would have asked the relatives to lie in their WS's & say they found it.
There is no reason why the relatives would know that the police had Sheila's blood.
-
Well I thought they matched Sheila's blood with her birth mother's, Christine Sykora. I still don't see how the relatives could have replicated what happened when the gun fired with a silencer attached to them allegedly introducing A type blood through a pipette.
It's all very ludicros. But a few people fall for it.
-
I didn't know it was Lancastrian Lookout. ;D I know Pot herb is. ;D
I said that because of coming from over the water myself I used to hear it in conversation with aunts and uncles of yore when they spoke of " ancestors ". Yes,pot-herbs too. ;D
-
Yes Ophelia brought us an Indian summer today. Sorry about Ireland though.
Yes,I feel sorry for Ireland. I felt sorry for us this morning too when it looked like Doomsday outside.
-
Well I thought they matched Sheila's blood with her birth mother's, Christine Sykora. I still don't see how the relatives could have replicated what happened when the gun fired with a silencer attached to them allegedly introducing A type blood through a pipette.
are talking later tests or the orignal becouse this case happend dna testing.
before dna testing they couldent tell exactly whose blood it was only the blood group.
-
Yes,I feel sorry for Ireland. I felt sorry for us this morning too when it looked like Doomsday outside.
We had a yellow sky as well Lookout. It seems it was sand from the Sahara which caused it. Very strange.
-
Well I thought they matched Sheila's blood with her birth mother's, Christine Sykora. I still don't see how the relatives could have replicated what happened when the gun fired with a silencer attached to them allegedly introducing A type blood through a pipette.
They didn't. The blood was in the form of flakes not a fine mist. There has never been a case in history that involves analysing blood inside a silencer. The investigators would not know what to expect would no know if it was real or false as there was no previous instance/examples to go on.
-
Why would there be "distinctive marks" if a silencer were used but they were non-contact shots?
"He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds"
-
I said that because of coming from over the water myself I used to hear it in conversation with aunts and uncles of yore when they spoke of " ancestors ". Yes,pot-herbs too. ;D
Of course you're a Cheshire girl now. ;D
-
It seems everyone agrees that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer.
The simple explanation is Bamber is an 'inheritance killer' & the silencer was on the rifle when he gave Sheila a contact shot.
The much more complex & outlandish reason is an industrial frame commenced the minute Bamber went on his first holiday. Involving half of EP & dozens of experts.
The 'treacherous' Stan Jones was in charge of fabricating one piece of evidence - the silencer. He persuaded the relatives to agree to lie in their WS's & under oath & say that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard.
-
It seems everyone agrees that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer.
The simple explanation is Bamber is an 'inheritance killer' & the silencer was on the rifle when he gave Sheila a contact shot.
The much more complex & outlandish reason is an industrial frame commenced the minute Bamber went on his first holiday. Involving half of EP & dozens of experts.
The 'treacherous' Stan Jones was in charge of fabricating one piece of evidence - the silencer. He persuaded the relatives to agree to lie in their WS's & under oath & say that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard.
no not everybody agreas it could of been her blood in the silencer it could of been somone else all you can say for certan is it was her blood group in the silencer.
-
no not everybody agreas it could of been her blood in the silencer it could of been somone else all you can say for certan is it was her blood group in the silencer.
13 out of 17 markers seems conclusive to me Nugs. Sheila received a contact shot & there was no blood on the rifle nozzle. All the experts say it's Sheila's blood.
A fabrication would still be Sheila's blood as the police had samples of her blood at the station.
The view that the relatives expertly put someone else's blood into the silencer & hoped it would be similar to Sheila's, whose blood type they wouldn't even know, is a non starter.
-
13 out of 17 markers seems conclusive to me Nugs. Sheila received a contact shot & there was no blood on the rifle nozzle. All the experts say it's Sheila's blood.
A fabrication would still be Sheila's blood as the police had samples of her blood at the station.
The view that the relatives expertly put someone else's blood into the silencer & hoped it would be similar to Sheila's, whose blood type they wouldn't even know, is a non starter.
i dont know what your talking about marker for dna testing did not exist back then.
they could test for a blood group and that was it fact its sheilas group.
but thats all that can be said.
-
QC Michael Turner was strong in his support when he said that the" DNA in the silencer was Junes with a possible mixture of that belonging to her husband,Nevill ".
Blood-based exhibits couldn't be proved as they'd been destroyed.
-
13 out of 17 markers seems conclusive to me Nugs. Sheila received a contact shot & there was no blood on the rifle nozzle. All the experts say it's Sheila's blood.
A fabrication would still be Sheila's blood as the police had samples of her blood at the station.
The view that the relatives expertly put someone else's blood into the silencer & hoped it would be similar to Sheila's, whose blood type they wouldn't even know, is a non starter.
No, the relatives also took Sheila's bloodstained underwear with them back to their farm.
That's two possible sources.
-
i dont know what your talking about marker for dna testing did not exist back then.
they could test for a blood group and that was it fact its sheilas group.
but thats all that can be said.
How did the relatives know Sheila's blood group ?
Or did they just hope the blood they put in there would match.
-
No, the relatives also took Sheila's bloodstained underwear with them back to their farm.
That's two possible sources.
Oh yes. The clothes in the bucket of water.
The relatives were very determined to frame an innocent man of murdering his family. Days after the massacre.
Wet clothes, silencer, blood, rifle lenght, Sheila's contact shot, the rifle nozzle not having any blood on. They had all angles covered.
I hope my family never turn on me like that.
-
How did the relatives know Sheila's blood group ?
Or did they just hope the blood they put in there would match.
facts is fact the same blood group does not prove for fact its the same person.
-
facts is fact the same blood does not prove for fact its the same person.
Yes but how did they even know Sheila's blood group ? I doubt they even knew her birthday as she was not immediate family.
And tests were done later on the blood = 13 out of 17.
-
How did the relatives know Sheila's blood group ?
Or did they just hope the blood they put in there would match.
Sheila hadn't been the only one with the same components in her blood.That's why it was dodgy.
-
Yes but how did they even know Sheila's blood group ? I doubt they even knew her birthday as she was not immediate family.
And tests were done later on the blood = 13 out of 17.
well they cliamed to know almost everyting else about her why wouldent they know her blood group.
-
well they cliamed to know almost everyting else about her why wouldent they know her blood group.
Hahahahahaha,I bet they hadn't bargained for the result.
-
well they cliamed to know almost everyting else about her why wouldent they know her blood group.
No one knows anyone's blood group. I don't know my own blood group, my fathers, mothers or sisters. There is no need to know.
The remaining relatives would not know Sheila's blood group.
-
No one knows anyone's blood group. I don't know my own blood group, my fathers, mothers or sisters. There is no need to know.
The remaining relatives would not know Sheila's blood group.
They'll know now.
-
The relatives could have taken a huge risk and -
Hoped Sheila received a contact shot.
Hoped the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer.
Hoped the rifle nozzle had no blood on.
Hoped they could convincingly put blood into a silencer creating the back splatter effect.
Hoped there were no crime scene photos of the aga.
Hoped the blood they put in would be a match to Sheila's.
Hoped there was no other evidence that showed Sheila was the killer.
----------------------
It was a 1 in a million shot.
If they gambled & amazingly got lucky with all of this, it could mean a successful fabrication of one piece of evidence.
If the 99.9% chance of being unsuccessful happened as expected, they could go to prison.
-
No one knows anyone's blood group. I don't know my own blood group, my fathers, mothers or sisters. There is no need to know.
The remaining relatives would not know Sheila's blood group.
you cat possbly say that for a fact.
and im sure they could of asked.
-
you cat possbly say that for a fact.
and im sure they could of asked.
Do you know you're aunts, uncles, nieces & nephews, cousins blood groups ? Thought not.
Asked who ?
-
Do you know you're aunts, uncles, nieces & nephews, cousins blood groups ? Thought not.
Asked who ?
well the police would of known for a start.
and yes i dont every blood group in my family but i do know a few.
-
well the police would of known for a start.
and yes i dont every blood group in my family but i do know a few.
Asked the police. Which officers would know. Or did they just keep asking different officers until someone could tell them ?
Bit suspiscious asking EP what blood group Sheila was just before handing in a silencer with Sheila's blood on. Espescially as Taff Jones was not listening to them.
-
I don't know why Nugs is entertaining the idea that the relatives put someone else's blood into the silencer.
It is conclusive that it was Sheila's blood. However that doesn't mean Bamber has to be guilty.
David has already put up a source that the police had samples of Sheila's blood at the police station.
Maybe Nugs believes the police were not involved in the industrial frame & RB is the real 'treacherous' one, working as a lone framer.
This is the wrong approach as there is so much more other evidence which the police had to have helped fabricate.
-
Nugs is the only person I know who claims to know the blood types of non immediate relatives.
Always an important thing to know. You never know when it will come in handy.
-
I don't know why Nugs is entertaining the idea that the relatives put someone else's blood into the silencer.
It is conclusive that it was Sheila's blood. However that doesn't mean Bamber has to be guilty.
David has already put up a source that the police had samples of Sheila's blood at the police station.
Maybe Nugs believes the police were not involved in the industrial frame & RB is the real 'treacherous' one, working as a lone framer.
This is the wrong approach as there is so much more other evidence which the police had to have helped fabricate.
The court of appeal took the view that it couldn't be said the DNA found later was from blood. They took the view that it couldn't be.
-
No one knows anyone's blood group. I don't know my own blood group, my fathers, mothers or sisters. There is no need to know.
The remaining relatives would not know Sheila's blood group.
Mothers know their childrens blood groups-------or they should.
Those with rare/unusual blood groups are given a card to keep in case of an accident which needs a transfusion. Because of the enzyme in Sheila's and RWB's blood,they would have had cards for cross-matching purposes,so most would have known that over the years.
-
Mothers know their childrens blood groups-------or they should.
Those with rare/unusual blood groups are given a card to keep in case of an accident which needs a transfusion. Because of the enzyme in Sheila's and RWB's blood,they would have had cards for cross-matching purposes,so most would have known that over the years.
You're absolutely correct in that those with something different about their blood would very likely know about it, but I can't begin to think under what circumstances Sheila and RWB might have had a conversation about a similarity in theirs.
-
The relatives could have taken a huge risk and -
Hoped Sheila received a contact shot.
Hoped the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer.
Hoped the rifle nozzle had no blood on.
Hoped they could convincingly put blood into a silencer creating the back splatter effect.
Hoped there were no crime scene photos of the aga.
Hoped the blood they put in would be a match to Sheila's.
Hoped there was no other evidence that showed Sheila was the killer.
----------------------
It was a 1 in a million shot.
If they gambled & amazingly got lucky with all of this, it could mean a successful fabrication of one piece of evidence.
If the 99.9% chance of being unsuccessful happened as expected, they could go to prison.
Not at all. It was not until after Jeremy stated that he left the rifle in WHF without a silencer attached. Was the silencer then "discovered". By putting Sheila's blood in the silencer that was kept in a cupboard, it could then be convincingly argued that Sheila could not have shot herself. And Jeremy's recollection then appears untruthful.
Had the conspirators known the following -
1. Nicholas Caffell suffered two contact wounds.
2. Crime scene photos show no debris on the carpet under the cooker.
3. Contact wounds leave abrasion patterns of the muzzle.
4. Neville had three burns on his back caused by the barrel without a silencer.
5. A .22 rifle is least likely to produce backspatter.
6. Backspatter is most commonly caused by gunshot wounds to the head.
They probably wound not have dared try. The only thing they got lucky about was Rivlin QC deciding to follow a defence strategy with the silencer being attached on the gun.
-
You're absolutely correct in that those with something different about their blood would very likely know about it, but I can't begin to think under what circumstances Sheila and RWB might have had a conversation about a similarity in theirs.
Once it was known,after Sheila had died,it would have been told to them--------the silencer ?
-
Once it was known,after Sheila had died,it would have been told to them--------the silencer ?
Of what possible interest, to the wider family, would have been the knowledge of the victims blood groups?
-
Not at all. It was not until after Jeremy stated that he left the rifle in WHF without a silencer attached. Was the silencer then "discovered". By putting Sheila's blood in the silencer that was kept in a cupboard, it could then be convincingly argued that Sheila could not have shot herself. And Jeremy's recollection then appears untruthful.
Had the conspirators known the following -
1. Nicholas Caffell suffered two contact wounds.
2. Crime scene photos show no debris on the carpet under the cooker.
3. Contact wounds leave abrasion patterns of the muzzle.
4. Neville had three burns on his back caused by the barrel without a silencer.
5. A .22 rifle is least likely to produce backspatter.
6. Backspatter is most commonly caused by gunshot wounds to the head.
They probably wound not have dared try. The only thing they got lucky about was Rivlin QC deciding to follow a defence strategy with the silencer being attached on the gun.
So why would the relatives fabricate a silencer if Bamber had already said Sheila massacred everyone without a silencer ?
Taff Jones believed Bamber. Not the relatives.
-
Not at all. It was not until after Jeremy stated that he left the rifle in WHF without a silencer attached. Was the silencer then "discovered". By putting Sheila's blood in the silencer that was kept in a cupboard, it could then be convincingly argued that Sheila could not have shot herself. And Jeremy's recollection then appears untruthful.
Had the conspirators known the following -
1. Nicholas Caffell suffered two contact wounds.
2. Crime scene photos show no debris on the carpet under the cooker.
3. Contact wounds leave abrasion patterns of the muzzle.
4. Neville had three burns on his back caused by the barrel without a silencer.
5. A .22 rifle is least likely to produce backspatter.
6. Backspatter is most commonly caused by gunshot wounds to the head.
They probably wound not have dared try. The only thing they got lucky about was Rivlin QC deciding to follow a defence strategy with the silencer being attached on the gun.
Well aren't your statements 1 and 6 contradictory?
-
Of what possible interest, to the wider family, would have been the knowledge of the victims blood groups?
I didn't say it would have been of interest,you did,but you can't deny that it would have been a surprise to find someone else connected to the Bambers intimately,to have the same blood group.
-
For those who are convinced that Jeremy is innocent, the silencer is the real sticking point.
For them, there are only three alternatives.
Sheila shot her family, took the moderator off and put it back in the cupboard before she shot herself.
Sheila shot her family, took the moderator off and left it nearby, and nobody noticed it.
The blood was planted on and in the moderator. The problem with that option is that June's DNA was found in it later, and the DNA of a male person. That DNA might not have come from blood, but then how did it get there? Where would anyone get such an amount of blood, and how did they get it into the moderator?
-
Not at all. It was not until after Jeremy stated that he left the rifle in WHF without a silencer attached. Was the silencer then "discovered". By putting Sheila's blood in the silencer that was kept in a cupboard, it could then be convincingly argued that Sheila could not have shot herself. And Jeremy's recollection then appears untruthful.
Had the conspirators known the following -
1. Nicholas Caffell suffered two contact wounds.
2. Crime scene photos show no debris on the carpet under the cooker.
3. Contact wounds leave abrasion patterns of the muzzle.
4. Neville had three burns on his back caused by the barrel without a silencer.
5. A .22 rifle is least likely to produce backspatter.
6. Backspatter is most commonly caused by gunshot wounds to the head.
They probably wound not have dared try. The only thing they got lucky about was Rivlin QC deciding to follow a defence strategy with the silencer being attached on the gun.
I don't know how Bamber saying Sheila must have used the rifle minus silencer, makes any of the below less risky -
Hoped Sheila received a contact shot.
Hoped the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer.
Hoped the rifle nozzle had no blood on.
Hoped they could convincingly put blood into a silencer creating the back splatter effect.
Hoped there were no crime scene photos of the aga.
Hoped the blood they put in would be a match to Sheila's.
Hoped there was no other evidence that showed Sheila was the killer.
--------------------
The other 6 points are fine. It had to be Sheila's blood in the silencer.
The most obvious way is through Bamber's contact shot into Sheila with the silencer attached.
Supporters & even one guilter will say the 'treacherous' Stan Jones expertly put Sheila's blood into the silencer. Then persuaded the relatives to create false WS's & commit perjury.
-
For those who are convinced that Jeremy is innocent, the silencer is the real sticking point.
For them, there are only two alternatives.
Sheila shot her family, took the moderator off and put it back in the cupboard before she shot herself.
Sheila shot her family, took the moderator off and left it nearby, and nobody noticed it.
The blood was planted on and in the moderator. The problem with that option is that June's DNA was found in it later, and the DNA of a male person. That DNA might not have come from blood, but then how did it get there? Where would anyone get such an amount of blood, and how did they get it into the moderator?
Could it have been Nicholas' DNA?
-
Could it have been Nicholas' DNA?
If they were contact shots, I don't see why not.
-
For those who are convinced that Jeremy is innocent, the silencer is the real sticking point.
For them, there are only two alternatives.
Sheila shot her family, took the moderator off and put it back in the cupboard before she shot herself.
Sheila shot her family, took the moderator off and left it nearby, and nobody noticed it.
The blood was planted on and in the moderator. The problem with that option is that June's DNA was found in it later, and the DNA of a male person. That DNA might not have come from blood, but then how did it get there? Where would anyone get such an amount of blood, and how did they get it into the moderator?
Perhaps an inheritance killer attempted a silent massacre with a silencer attached. Makes sense to me.
Sheila did receive a contact shot.
Law abiding relatives & EP plotting & working against Bamber while he partied. In a massively complicated idea, so they could frame an innocent man. Really.
-
Perhaps an inheritance killer attempted a silent massacre with a silencer attached. Makes sense to me.
Sheila did receive a contact shot.
Law abiding relatives & EP plotting & working against Bamber while he partied. In a massively complicated idea, so they could frame an innocent man. Really.
I meant three alternatives, not two.
-
I meant three alternatives, not two.
Do you agree that someone attempting a silent massacre would use a silencer ?
-
Do you agree that someone attempting a silent massacre would use a silencer ?
It wasn't actually a silencer, it was a sound moderator, and apparently it didn't make much difference to the noise the gun made.
-
It wasn't actually a silencer, it was a sound moderator, and apparently it didn't make much difference to the noise the gun made.
Really ?
So that's why it's called a 'sound moderstor' or 'silencer'.
-
Do we know when the sights were removed exactly?
-
Really ?
So that's why it's called a 'sound moderstor' or 'silencer'.
It's called a sound moderator. Some people say "silencer" because it's easier to type.
-
It's called a sound moderator. Some people say "silencer" because it's easier to type.
How so?
-
Do we know when the sights were removed exactly?
Not really Steve,but they wouldn't have been needed in the dark when JB heard rabbits. It's removed with a special screwdriver isn't it ? And fiddly too if you don't know how.
-
It's called a sound moderator. Some people say "silencer" because it's easier to type.
People say people inside WHF would have woken if it was Bamber. However then say he wouldn't use a 'sound moderator' as it would apparently make little difference.
Not sure why the twins & June didn't wake if Sheila had been up a long time. Nevill certainly woke & got out of bed. Then went & woke Bamber from sleeping 'like a log'.
Do you agree with the judge that Nevill's call to Bamber was 'mysterious' ?
-
Not really Steve,but they wouldn't have been needed in the dark when JB heard rabbits. It's removed with a special screwdriver isn't it ? And fiddly too if you don't know how.
That's true but you don't start messing with the sights if you've made a split-second decision to chase rabbits. It suggests to me that even at that stage incredibly Jeremy had still yet to make up his mind on the massacre, the "it's now or never" remark to Julie during that first telephone call tending to confirm this. The tragedy is that it almost was "never", but I think the chance programme on miscarriages tipped the balance of his mind and he was determined to reserve the most vitriol for June, whom he blamed for causing his and Suzette's shared heartbreak.
It's possible that Jeremy took the murder weapon home to dismantle, this being the cause of Nevill's anger when Barbara rang, as he looked around for the missing gun. It's possible that Jeremy kept the silencer on (remember his lies that first morning about it not fitting into the gun cupboard with silencer attached, suggesting he had a guilty conscience over something to hide) and cleaned it with a tampon cut in two, before replacing it in the gun cupboard lest Anthony Pargeter reported it missing.
-
That's true but you don't start messing with the sights if you've made a split-second decision to chase rabbits. It suggests to me that even at that stage incredibly Jeremy had still yet to make up his mind on the massacre, the "it's now or never" remark to Julie during that first telephone call tending to confirm this. The tragedy is that it almost was "never", but I think the chance programme on miscarriages tipped the balance of his mind and he was determined to reserve the most vitriol for June, whom he blamed for causing his and Suzette's shared heartbreak.
It's possible that Jeremy took the murder weapon home to dismantle, this being the cause of Nevill's anger when Barbara rang, as he looked around for the missing gun. It's possible that Jeremy kept the silencer on (remember his lies that first morning about it not fitting into the gun cupboard with silencer attached, suggesting he had a guilty conscience over something to hide) and cleaned it with a tampon cut in two, before replacing it in the gun cupboard lest Anthony Pargeter reported it missing.
I was under the impression that what JB actually said was it would not fit into the gun case with the silencer attached but I may be remembering that wrong..
-
I was under the impression that what JB actually said was it would not fit into the gun case with the silencer attached but I may be remembering that wrong..
Well he had to backtrack on that point when picked up on it.
-
Well he had to backtrack on that point when picked up on it.
Did he, I don't remember that. I agree it is a poor argument to say it wouldn't fit in the cupboard with the moderator on unless it was true. :-\
-
David has said the blood was planted.
He is correct.
-
He is correct.
Do you think it was the relatives or EP who planted the blood ?
-
Could have been either.The left hand never knew what the right hand was ever doing in both cases.
It could well have come from RWB's finger--------------same group as Sheila's. Depends whether he'd cut his finger before the silencer had been handed in. I imagine they'd have known what blood group Sheila had been,beforehand.
Hadn't DB said that he " had something up his sleeve " when he " found " the silencer ?
-
People say people inside WHF would have woken if it was Bamber. However then say he wouldn't use a 'sound moderator' as it would apparently make little difference.
Not sure why the twins & June didn't wake if Sheila had been up a long time. Nevill certainly woke & got out of bed. Then went & woke Bamber from sleeping 'like a log'.
Do you agree with the judge that Nevill's call to Bamber was 'mysterious' ?
Yes, I do find it mysterious. It can only have happened if no shooting had started IMO and Sheila hadn't gone "berserk". I don't think that Jeremy used that word did he? If she hadn't gone "berserk" and shot anyone, Nevill should have been able to take it off her.
-
That's true but you don't start messing with the sights if you've made a split-second decision to chase rabbits. It suggests to me that even at that stage incredibly Jeremy had still yet to make up his mind on the massacre, the "it's now or never" remark to Julie during that first telephone call tending to confirm this. The tragedy is that it almost was "never", but I think the chance programme on miscarriages tipped the balance of his mind and he was determined to reserve the most vitriol for June, whom he blamed for causing his and Suzette's shared heartbreak.
It's possible that Jeremy took the murder weapon home to dismantle, this being the cause of Nevill's anger when Barbara rang, as he looked around for the missing gun. It's possible that Jeremy kept the silencer on (remember his lies that first morning about it not fitting into the gun cupboard with silencer attached, suggesting he had a guilty conscience over something to hide) and cleaned it with a tampon cut in two, before replacing it in the gun cupboard lest Anthony Pargeter reported it missing.
I don't think any of that happened. David Boutflour said he saw red paint on it and/or blood. If Jeremy had cleaned it, he would have done a better job. I don't think he cleaned it with a tampon either.
-
Yes, I do find it mysterious. It can only have happened if no shooting had started IMO and Sheila hadn't gone "berserk". I don't think that Jeremy used that word did he? If she hadn't gone "berserk" and shot anyone, Nevill should have been able to take it off her.
I agree that Nevill could only speak to Bamber if no shooting had started.
However Nevill's words contradict this - 'Sheila's gone crazy & she's got the gun'.
If 'crazy' didn't mean shooting. What was Sheila 'crazily' doing with the gun ?
-
That's true but you don't start messing with the sights if you've made a split-second decision to chase rabbits. It suggests to me that even at that stage incredibly Jeremy had still yet to make up his mind on the massacre, the "it's now or never" remark to Julie during that first telephone call tending to confirm this. The tragedy is that it almost was "never", but I think the chance programme on miscarriages tipped the balance of his mind and he was determined to reserve the most vitriol for June, whom he blamed for causing his and Suzette's shared heartbreak.
It's possible that Jeremy took the murder weapon home to dismantle, this being the cause of Nevill's anger when Barbara rang, as he looked around for the missing gun. It's possible that Jeremy kept the silencer on (remember his lies that first morning about it not fitting into the gun cupboard with silencer attached, suggesting he had a guilty conscience over something to hide) and cleaned it with a tampon cut in two, before replacing it in the gun cupboard lest Anthony Pargeter reported it missing.
AP had also shot rabbits without a telescopic attached. Guess he must be a mass murderer also :-\
-
I agree that Nevill could only speak to Bamber if no shooting had started.
However Nevill's words contradict this - 'Sheila's gone crazy & she's got the gun'.
If 'crazy' didn't mean shooting. What was Sheila doing with the gun ?
"Crazy" could mean anything really. She could have been threatening to shoot someone, or shoot herself, but Nevill didn't take that seriously enough to call the police.
-
"Crazy" could mean anything really. She could have been threatening to shoot someone, or shoot herself, but Nevill didn't take that seriously enough to call the police.
Ok. So Sheila could have been threatening to shoot other people or herself.
No wonder Nevill phoned Bamber at 3am.
-
AP had also shot rabbits without a telescopic attached. Guess he must be a mass murderer also :-\
But this is Bamber's Defence counsel, and in any case any corroboration on the evening was impossible because all the witnesses at the Farm had died.
-
Ok. So Sheila could have been threatening to shoot other people or herself.
No wonder Nevill phoned Bamber at 3am.
I think that if the phone call did happen, Nevill had come downstairs maybe for some water, or maybe because he heard Sheila go downstairs. We know he didn't alert June at the time, or if he did, he clearly wasn't worried, and neither was June. Sheila could have had got the gun and been saying strange things or something. However, I would have thought Nevill would get the gun off her.
-
I'm not sure that the telescopic sight is relevant. Why would Jeremy take it off anyway?
-
I'm not sure that the telescopic sight is relevant. Why would Jeremy take it off anyway?
..to facilitate the execution of the murders.
-
I think that if the phone call did happen, Nevill had come downstairs maybe for some water, or maybe because he heard Sheila go downstairs. We know he didn't alert June at the time, or if he did, he clearly wasn't worried, and neither was June. Sheila could have had got the gun and been saying strange things or something. However, I would have thought Nevill would get the gun off her.
Nevill came downstairs for some water ?
Yes AE said Nevill would have used a chair, stool or tray as he charged & smothered Sheila. Using his 9 inch height & 8 stone weight advantage to get her to the floor.
Ringing Bamber ???
-
Nevill came downstairs for some water ?
Yes AE said Nevill would have used a chair, stool or tray as he charged & smothered Sheila. Using his 9 inch height & 8 stone weight advantage to get her to the floor.
Ringing Bamber ???
People do drink water at night you know. I'm just saying he went downstairs for a reason - if the phone call happened.
Some people on here say that one shouldn't guess what anyone else would do, so AE was just guessing.
However, as I said, I do find the phone call quite mysterious.
-
Reasons why Nevill would not call Bamber -
1: Jeremy may not answer. Regardless of whether he heard the phone ringing or not.
2:Neville may not have time. Sheila was going crazy. There were five people inside WHF who were the priority.
3:He may not answer for a long time as was 'sleeping like a log'.
4: Neville may only get the answering machine.
5: Neville will assume the answering machine is switched on. Making it impossible for Jeremy to answer the phone within 3 - 8 rings as he was 'sleeping like a log'.
6: Jeremy did not like Sheila or understand her illness. So would just make things worse when trying to talk her down.
7: Sheila did not like Jeremy.
8: Another adult, June was available at WHF.
9: The rifle was not powerful, being used for vermin. Neville would know this. So Neville would tackle Sheila prior to shots being fired.
10: Sheila had 'limited'/ no experience with guns. So Neville would tackle Sheila prior to shots being fired.
11: Neville could restrain Sheila easily. If fully or even partially fit.
12: Neville and June together could restrain Sheila easily. If fully or even partially fit.
13: Jeremy was three miles away and not dressed.
14: The police had been called by Neville ten minutes earlier.
15: Neville would be putting his only son in danger.
16: Jeremy may be scared to go over. He told Liz Rimmington that Sheila was going 'back to the nut house' and told the police she had committed child abuse. Now Neville had told him she had 'gone crazy' with a gun.
17: Jeremy did not have a key to WHF so would have to smash the door down, or smash a window. Or shout through the letter box. Making Sheila more excitable. Neville may not have been aware that Jeremy could get in through windows.
18: Sheila would not be pleased to see him.
19: Jeremy would be reluctant to rush over if answering the phone. Having poor relations with all the family.
20: Jeremy may refuse to go over. Being tired and upset at being woken.Lookout said it was common for Sheila to have 'one of her turns' so he may have decided to go back to bed.
21: Jeremy may not rush over. Maybe wasting up to 26 minutes doing strange things.
22: Jeremy may just ring nearby farm workers and tell them to go over. Something Neville could do himself and may consider a better option.
23: Jeremy may just ring the Foakes's and tell them to go over. Something Neville could do and may consider a better option.
24: Neville calling someone would antagonise Sheila. She may even brutally beat someone.
25: Neville could call the Foakes's. Who were two adults living at WHF.
26: There was no time to make any calls if Sheila had 'gone' crazy with a gun.
27: When there was time to make a call Neville had the option of restraining Sheila. Getting June to assist.
28: There was no time to wait for someone to arrive. Sheila had 'gone 'crazy'.
28: Relations between the two were poor and getting worse. After Jeremy robbed the caravan site and spent the money.
30: Neville would be prepared to take a torso bullet in order to restrain Sheila. Knowing the gun was for shooting vermin/rabbits and a torso shot would not kill him.
31: The kitchen phone was downstairs. Meaning everyone would be left upstairs. Unless Sheila had accompanied him downstairs.
32: If the answering machine was switched off, as his supporters claim. Jeremy would not hear his downstairs phone. If his bedroom door was shut.
33: Neville was bigger and stronger than Jeremy and the head of the family.
34: Sheila would have to let Neville open the door when Jeremy arrives. Or Neville would have to put himself in danger by getting to the front door against Sheila's wishes.
35: Sheila is more likely to fire bullets if more people start pressurising her and arriving on the scene.
36: Neville would be aware that he was the person who always had most success in calming down an excited Sheila. If he couldn't, then someone who thought Sheila was a 'looney' certainly could not.
37: Jeremy was not known to be especially brave. So may refuse to go anywhere near the inside of WHF. Preferring to stay 50 yards from the entrance. This is what happened.
38: Neville would be implicating his son if there were any injuries or fatalities. As Jeremy would be first on the scene and first witness. This is what happened.
39: Jeremy was not known for being especially brave. So may have just phoned the police. Neville had either already done this. Or wanted to keep things private. Jeremy did in fact call the police.
40: It is not standard practice to call relations on the phone at 3am when you're life is in danger. There are no other examples of this happening.
41: Sheila may get more crazy while Nevill was waiting to answer.
42: Nevill may only be able to say 8 or 11 words to Bamber. This is what happened.
-
I think that if the phone call did happen, Nevill had come downstairs maybe for some water, or maybe because he heard Sheila go downstairs. We know he didn't alert June at the time, or if he did, he clearly wasn't worried, and neither was June. Sheila could have had got the gun and been saying strange things or something. However, I would have thought Nevill would get the gun off her.
was he going to confront somebody or was he runing away from somebody.
or it be possble he just couldent sleep.
-
Sheila could have been ranting to herself in the kitchen and her father could have heard her so went to investigate. Paranoia would cause this if Sheila couldn't sleep. There's nothing worse than sleep deprivation for causing mental problems. Hallucinations are common,as are hearing voices-------all connected to lack of sleep or generally poor sleeping patterns/routines.
-
but we don't know what neviles sleeping patterns were like going downstairs might of been something he normally did.
-
but we don't know what neviles sleeping patterns were like going downstairs might of been something he normally did.
'Might have been'. 'Could have been'. 'If'. 'Maybe'.
All words just on this page. Supporters ever hopeful.
-
'Might have been'. 'Could have been'. 'If'. 'Maybe'.
All words just on this page. Supporters ever hopeful.
oh so you know what a man you never met sleeping patterns were like then do you.
-
oh so you know what a man you never met sleeping patterns were like then do you.
I don't.
As you said 'might have been'.
-
Sheila had a meltdown--------it does happen and had been bound to happen sooner or later.
-
but we don't know what neviles sleeping patterns were like going downstairs might of been something he normally did.
He was in the habit of falling asleep on the settee with cigarette in hand. Such a pity we still don't have any photographs of the lounge.
-
He was in the habit of falling asleep on the settee with cigarette in hand. Such a pity we still don't have any photographs of the lounge.
Also the bathroom the way it was left with the broken showerhead.
-
From the time that Nevill rang JB,to the time when police arrived at WHF,Nevill would/could have still been alive ?
-
Also the bathroom the way it was left with the broken showerhead.
I don't think it was broken, it was left dangling from the fitting.
-
I don't think it was broken, it was left dangling from the fitting.
Kaldin that is what I thought too.
-
Kaldin that is what I thought too.
I thought maybe someone used it to wash their hair or something.
-
I don't think it was broken, it was left dangling from the fitting.
AE had asked what it was doing on the floor ?
-
AE had asked what it was doing on the floor ?
It would be on the floor of the shower if the hose was long enough though. I'll have to see what she said.
-
AE had asked what it was doing on the floor ?
lookout maybe the shower head fell off the hose it can happen.
-
I thought maybe someone used it to wash their hair or something.
Kaldin good point and if the shower head was attached to a long hose it could appear to be resting on the floor mystery solved :)
-
This is the reason I'd have liked to have seen the bathroom to see what sort of a fitment the shower was.
-
This is the reason I'd have liked to have seen the bathroom to see what sort of a fitment the shower was.
Pop round, I'm sure AE will be more than happy to let you have a nose around her house
-
Pop round, I'm sure AE will be more than happy to let you have a nose around her house
Knowing how that group of society like things to last, they're probably still using the same shower ;)
-
This is what Ann said:
"I then saw in this room, which is large, that the shower unit was hanging loose and not affixed to its bracket"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24615;image
-
This is what Ann said:
"I then saw in this room, which is large, that the shower unit was hanging loose and not affixed to its bracket"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24615;image
Well, unless we know when Ann was last a visitor to WHF, we can't know how long it had been that way.
-
This is what Ann said:
"I then saw in this room, which is large, that the shower unit was hanging loose and not affixed to its bracket"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24615;image
I've wondered about the belt before, and whether it was Jeremy's intention to hang his sister from the banisters. As far as the shower fitting is concerned one wonders why he didn't affix it to its proper place, unless he was no longer wearing gloves at that point, which doesn't seem likely, or he was maybe pressed for time.
-
This is what Ann said:
"I then saw in this room, which is large, that the shower unit was hanging loose and not affixed to its bracket"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24615;image
Kaldin thanks for the link it appears to me somebody usually a female removed the shower head to rinse their hair and did not return it to the bracket where it fits.
-
Kaldin thanks for the link it appears to me somebody usually a female removed the shower head to rinse their hair and did not return it to the bracket where it fits.
Yes, it depends on what she means by the "shower unit" and the "bracket". I took it to mean that the shower head had been removed from the bit which holds it and left in the shower tray. That's what someone would do if they used it to wash their hair.
-
Or if it had been a 1950's fitting,the actual showerhead not having been mentioned,would have come off.
-
Yes, it depends on what she means by the "shower unit" and the "bracket". I took it to mean that the shower head had been removed from the bit which holds it and left on in the shower tray. That's what someone would do if they used it to wash their hair.
Kaldin that is how my showers are and I remove the head to rinse my hair but always replace it :))
-
Kaldin that is how my showers are and I remove the head to rinse my hair but always replace it :))
Of course someone should replace it, but if they have to step into the wet shower tray to do so, they might not bother. :))
-
Kaldin that is how my showers are and I remove the head to rinse my hair but always replace it :))
I remove it to rinse the shower doors down but then I leave it hanging because it drips and it’s driving me nuts. My hubby is a bit slow on getting it fixed ! Must moan at him a bit more.
-
I can't imagine anyone moaning about a showerhead not being replaced------but perhaps if the whole fitment had been ripped off its original fitting then maybe so,but even then there had been 5 murders so why even mention a blooming misplaced shower ?
There's no understanding some folk at all.
-
I can't imagine anyone moaning about a showerhead not being replaced------but perhaps if the whole fitment had been ripped off its original fitting then maybe so,but even then there had been 5 murders so why even mention a blooming misplaced shower ?
There's no understanding some folk at all.
What Ann said is a bit ambiguous lookout, so it could mean that the fixing was actually broken.
-
What Ann said is a bit ambiguous lookout, so it could mean that the fixing was actually broken.
That is what I imagined Kaldin,or why would you say anything at all ? Nobody would as it's by far the least of anyone's worries.
-
That is what I imagined Kaldin,or why would you say anything at all ? Nobody would as it's by far the least of anyone's worries.
She seemed to notice a lot of things, so maybe it stuck in her mind. I don't know if there any other references to the shower which could clarity it.
-
She seemed to notice a lot of things, so maybe it stuck in her mind. I don't know if there any other references to the shower which could clarity it.
AE had also complained about the pieces of carpet which were cut out for blood-testing too.
I'm going to try and find some sort of reference to the broken shower as this would indicate a " struggle " ?
-
AE had also complained about the pieces of carpet which were cut out for blood-testing too.
I'm going to try and find some sort of reference to the broken shower as this would indicate a " struggle " ?
A struggle with whom, Lookout, and over what?
-
A struggle with whom, Lookout, and over what?
Oh God,here we go ::) Are you new to this case ?
-
Oh God,here we go ::) Are you new to this case ?
Here we go, nothing! What do you think was happening, Lookout. Was Sheila trying to prevent Nevill from having a shower, or vice versa? A shower makes an excellent weapon, especially when on turns it on. I can't imagine Nevill, with a useless arm and have his jaw blown away, could have put up much of a fight, and how would he have got back to the kitchen? Why would Sheila have taken a gun into the shower with her? If she hadn't got the gun, there'd have been no reason for a struggle, surely? Perhaps you need to think your tableau through to some sort of a conclusion.
-
Here we go, nothing! What do you think was happening, Lookout. Was Sheila trying to prevent Nevill from having a shower, or vice versa? A shower makes an excellent weapon, especially when on turns it on. I can't imagine Nevill, with a useless arm and have his jaw blown away, could have put up much of a fight, and how would he have got back to the kitchen? Why would Sheila have taken a gun into the shower with her? If she hadn't got the gun, there'd have been no reason for a struggle, surely? Perhaps you need to think your tableau through to some sort of a conclusion.
Whatever I say or answer with you create an inquest, and this has all been done to death before so until something new or different emerges I'm going to refrain from continually repeating myself.
If you want/need the answers look back at old posts,they're bound to be there somewhere.
-
Whatever I say or answer with you create an inquest, and this has all been done to death before so until something new or different emerges I'm going to refrain from continually repeating myself.
If you want/need the answers look back at old posts,they're bound to be there somewhere.
Surely you can't believe anyone will accept sweeping statements with no explanation other than it's "all been done to death" as an excuse for having nothing to back it up. Continually repeating -and hiding behind- your own long held, immutable beliefs, putting your faith in people like Poppy, doesn't make them right, NOR does it make Jeremy innocent.
-
Surely you can't believe anyone will accept sweeping statements with no explanation other than it's "all been done to death" as an excuse for having nothing to back it up. Continually repeating -and hiding behind- your own long held, immutable beliefs, doesn't make them right, NOR does it make Jeremy innocent.
And if you think you're always right,you're sorely mistaken. !
-
And if you think you're always right,you're sorely mistaken. !
Ah, but the thing is, Lookout, it's not about what I think, but as I don't think I'm ALWAYS right, it doesn't come as a shock at those times I'm not.
-
The shower head wasn't broken or ripped off anything, it was just hanging off the fitting.
-
The shower head wasn't broken or ripped off anything, it was just hanging off the fitting.
Which of course, puts a rather different complexion on things, doesn't it?..................unless it takes us into a lengthy discussion about whether Nevill/Sheila would 'always' have put it back onto the fitting after they'd used it.
-
The shower head wasn't broken or ripped off anything, it was just hanging off the fitting.
That's what I assumed Ann meant, but I could be wrong. If it was just hanging off the fitting, that could suggest that someone had used the shower to just wash a specific part of them - hair, feet? It could also mean that someone merely used it to rinse down the shower walls and didn't put the shower head back in the fitting.
-
That's what I assumed Ann meant, but I could be wrong. If it was just hanging off the fitting, that could suggest that someone had used the shower to just wash a specific part of them - hair, feet? It could also mean that someone merely used it to rinse down the shower walls and didn't put the shower head back in the fitting.
It suggests several things, Kaldin, but not by any stretch of the imagination, does it suggest a "struggle".
-
That's what I assumed Ann meant, but I could be wrong. If it was just hanging off the fitting, that could suggest that someone had used the shower to just wash a specific part of them - hair, feet? It could also mean that someone merely used it to rinse down the shower walls and didn't put the shower head back in the fitting.
I think that's all it means, someone took it off the fitting and just didn't put it back.
-
I think that's all it means, someone took it off the fitting and just didn't put it back.
Yes, but there's usually a reason they take it off.
-
Yes, but there's usually a reason they take it off.
They probably had a reason but it doesn't need to be related to the murders and we'll certainly never what that reason was.
-
They probably had a reason but it doesn't need to be related to the murders and we'll certainly never what that reason was.
I read somewhere that Nevill usually had a shower at night, so if the shower had been taken off that night, it might be important - or it might not be.
-
I read somewhere that Nevill usually had a shower at night, so if the shower had been taken off that night, it might be important - or it might not be.
He may have been in the habit of taking it off the fitting to rinse himself. But we can never know who took it off or why. Perhaps Nevil did, perhaps there are more sinister reasons but we'll never know.
-
He may have been in the habit of taking it off the fitting to rinse himself. But we can never know who took it off or why. Perhaps Nevil did, perhaps there are more sinister reasons but we'll never know.
I guess not. Nobody seemed to have examined the shower tray so we'll never know.
-
He may have been in the habit of taking it off the fitting to rinse himself. But we can never know who took it off or why. Perhaps Nevil did, perhaps there are more sinister reasons but we'll never know.
Perhaps the children were the last ones to be showered and maybe, because whoever showered them, was helping them into their 'jama's', the shower wasn't replaced.
-
Perhaps the children were the last ones to be showered and maybe, because whoever showered them, was helping them into their 'jama's', the shower wasn't replaced.
There was a bathroom upstairs, so wouldn't that have been used for the twins?
-
There was a bathroom upstairs, so wouldn't that have been used for the twins?
Perhaps they preferred a shower?
-
There was a bathroom upstairs, so wouldn't that have been used for the twins?
Kaldin we discussed this yesterday and quite often a woman with long hair will take the head off to rinse her hair so maybe Sheila washed her hair none of us know and never will know sadly.
-
Kaldin we discussed this yesterday and quite often a woman with long hair will take the head off to rinse her hair so maybe Sheila washed her hair none of us know and never will know sadly.
Yes, and also if they only want to wash their hair and not have a whole shower. I wondered if Sheila had washed just her hair because she'd had a hair cut which apparently she wasn't happy with, and I think a lot of people do wash their hair in that circumstance in the hope of being able to style it differently. I don't know when she had her hair cut though.
-
My argument is why would it have been mentioned at all if it hadn't been relevant to something ? What's a shower got to do with a mass murder I'd like to know ??
-
Yes, and also if they only want to wash their hair and not have a whole shower. I wondered if Sheila had washed just her hair because she'd had a hair cut which apparently she wasn't happy with, and I think a lot of people do wash their hair in that circumstance in the hope of being able to style it differently. I don't know when she had her hair cut though.
Sometime within the fortnight prior to her death. She could have shampooed her hair -as a matter of course- several times since. She MAY have been one of those who shampooed daily, although reports of her hair appearing unwashed suggest otherwise.
-
Can anyone explain why the shower itself came under scrutiny ?
-
My argument is why would it have been mentioned at all if it hadn't been relevant to something ? What's a shower got to do with a mass murder I'd like to know ??
Yes, it is odd, but then Ann went around the house just noticing all kinds of things.
-
Yes, it is odd, but then Ann went around the house just noticing all kinds of things.
I think she says exactly that in her statements, she was looking for clues.
There's an odd one where she finds a piece of paper in a key hole, which she extracts thinking it might be a note giving her a clue. It turned out to be a technologically advanced draft excluder.
-
I think she says exactly that in her statements, she was looking for clues.
There's an odd one where she finds a piece of paper in a key hole, which she extracts thinking it might be a note giving her a clue. I turned out to be a technologically advanced draft excluder.
:))
-
Yes, it is odd, but then Ann went around the house just noticing all kinds of things.
Suggesting that she may not have visited for some time or she'd have known about them in advance?
-
Suggesting that she may not have visited for some time or she'd have known about them in advance?
Or that she didn't normally pay much attention to details when she visited.
-
Or that she didn't normally pay much attention to details when she visited.
Certainly the circumstances of her visit, on this occasion, were somewhat irregular.
-
I think she says exactly that in her statements, she was looking for clues.
There's an odd one where she finds a piece of paper in a key hole, which she extracts thinking it might be a note giving her a clue. It turned out to be a technologically advanced draft excluder.
That figures. ::)
-
My argument is why would it have been mentioned at all if it hadn't been relevant to something ? What's a shower got to do with a mass murder I'd like to know ??
AE and RWB mentioned a lot of things that were nothing to do with the murders, they were just brainstorming.
-
AE and RWB mentioned a lot of things that were nothing to do with the murders, they were just brainstorming.
Kinda like what happens here, really.
-
AE and RWB mentioned a lot of things that were nothing to do with the murders, they were just brainstorming.
It certainly looked bad on EP that outsiders were doing the investigations for them. The end result being that it was the family who'd set out to convict him,nobody else. It couldn't be more obvious.
How many people here would go out of their way in seeing a " hated " family member who meant nothing to you, being put away under false pretences in order to receive a fortune for the rest of your life ? Tempting,isn't it ?
-
It certainly looked bad on EP that outsiders were doing the investigations for them. The end result being that it was the family who'd set out to convict him,nobody else. It couldn't be more obvious.
How many people here would go out of their way in seeing a " hated " family member who meant nothing to you, being put away under false pretences in order to receive a fortune for the rest of your life ? Tempting,isn't it ?
No!
-
No!
Not even worth a try ?
-
Not even worth a try ?
Clearly you and I are very different.
-
Clearly you and I are very different.
Yes,I'm very different because I wouldn't have gone near the place ! In fact the further away the better.
-
Yes,I'm very different because I wouldn't have gone near the place ! In fact the further away the better.
You seemed to be suggesting that you would try to gain financially from the situation and that this would be so normal to you that you think everyone would do the same.
-
You seemed to be suggesting that you would try to gain financially from the situation and that this would be so normal to you that you think everyone would do the same.
No,I wasn't suggesting anything. Just interested that's all.
-
Yes,I'm very different because I wouldn't have gone near the place ! In fact the further away the better.
I wouldn't have lived there either. But I think the older generations of my family would have moved into the home, simply because they'd hold an attachment to it and wouldn't want Bamber to win in the end.
-
It certainly looked bad on EP that outsiders were doing the investigations for them. The end result being that it was the family who'd set out to convict him,nobody else. It couldn't be more obvious.
How many people here would go out of their way in seeing a " hated " family member who meant nothing to you, being put away under false pretences in order to receive a fortune for the rest of your life ? Tempting,isn't it ?
Not under ANY circumstances unless I believed/knew he/she had killed 5 members of my family - then they would be toast!