Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: vidvic on June 06, 2011, 01:52:PM
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
I can only speak for myself. I was quite shocked when I read this, and asked (not very politely) whether this was the Twilight Zone.
How can you argue rationally when a so-called psychic is involved? This psychic, by the way, conveniently just left out one letter from the note:
Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead Unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm
A "G" is missing... + a "T" has been added.
I can´t take this seriously, it makes no sense whatsoever in my opinion.
This is Mike Tesko´s board, he can write what he wants; but I have to say that I am puzzled, to put it mildly.
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r318/astabasta_2006/vyy.jpg)
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
I can only speak for myself. I was quite shocked when I read this, and asked (not very politely) whether this was the Twilight Zone.
How can you argue rationally when a so-called psychic is involved? This psychic, by the way, conveniently just left out one letter from the note:
Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead Unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm
A "G" is missing... + a "T" has been added.
I can´t take this seriously, it makes no sense whatsoever in my opinion.
This is Mike Tesko´s board, he can write what he wants; but I have to say that I am puzzled, to put it mildly.
Spot on Abs. Ali Bongo doesn't even seem to have bothered to put much effort in - the solution to the puzzle is clearly:
No Mistaking David Boutflour's Grand Design: Police Lie Unto God - Get Jeremy Convicted Forever.
I should imagine he'll be freed later this afternoon now I've cracked it ;)
-
Made me laugh Bob....... ;D
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
-
+1 bob, you nailed it! ;)
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
-
Vidvic - Interesting questions in your original post & I look forward to Mikes replies (I didn't notice Mike's comments before as they were on the Maddie thread)
If any of this JB getting SC to do it theory holds any water, how culpable (legally) would JB be under this scenario - after all he would not have actually done it?
Setting up this scenario would also be very tricky for JB as
1) Would SC do it (without grassing on JB)?
2) Would SC kill them all (the risk to JB still being in a position of sharing the inheritance)?
3) would SC kill herself?
With this theory we are still back to SC overpowering NB and her blood in the moderator (but then the same counter arguments would exist - SC could overpower an injured NB and the relatives set up the moderator :P)
-
When did you change your mind, vidvic? I seem to remember that you found the theory of a hit-man quite laughable, just a few days before.
-
When did you change your mind, vidvic? I seem to remember that you found the theory of a hit-man quite laughable, just a few days before.
Shona, I've not changed my mind at all. I'm asking Mike these questions from the point of view of this theory. Hope that makes sense, sometimes I'm not too good at explaining myself.
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Grahame, I have always believed JM. I still believe that JB was totally responsible. I do not believe what Mike is putting forward as a theory, but he obviously does and that's a massive shift from where he was over the last few years. Basically he's saying JB did it by priming Sheila.
-
Vidvic - Interesting questions in your original post & I look forward to Mikes replies (I didn't notice Mike's comments before as they were on the Maddie thread)
If any of this JB getting SC to do it theory holds any water, how culpable (legally) would JB be under this scenario - after all he would not have actually done it?
Setting up this scenario would also be very tricky for JB as
1) Would SC do it (without grassing on JB)?
2) Would SC kill them all (the risk to JB still being in a position of sharing the inheritance)?
3) would SC kill herself?
With this theory we are still back to SC overpowering NB and her blood in the moderator (but then the same counter arguments would exist - SC could overpower an injured NB and the relatives set up the moderator :P)
Don't get me wrong Newbury I completely understand and agree. I think it's utter BS.
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Dear Grahame,
What mike actually said is.....
Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...
This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Grahame, I have always believed JM. I still believe that JB was totally responsible. I do not believe what Mike is putting forward as a theory, but he obviously does and that's a massive shift from where he was over the last few years. Basically he's saying JB did it by priming Sheila.
Vic, what do you think Julie Mugford meant by this cryptic statement? "The appellant said to her, “Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven’t had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots”. Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep." Does this mean that she was implying that Jeremy was not at the farm that night? If so and she was implying that a hitman was involved, then if her statement of a hitman was incorrect then surely Jeremy couldn't have been responsible for the murders?
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Dear Grahame,
What mike actually said is.....
Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...
This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....
Vic... no offence meant... I'm interested in your approach to the case and welcome your slant on it. But the thing is, how would Jeremy or for that matter anyone else, 'prime' Sheila? It's all getting a bit 'Manchurian Candidate' or '39 Steps' isn't it? Do you think that Jeremy, upon scrapping his idea of drugging the family and setting fire to the farmhouse, decided that it would be far easier to use some kind of ju ju mental projection? Perhaps he saw a window of opportunity, when he realised Sheila's Haloperidol dose had been reduced?
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Dear Grahame,
What mike actually said is.....
Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...
This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....
Vic... no offence meant... I'm interested in your approach to the case and welcome your slant on it. But the thing is, how would Jeremy or for that matter anyone else, 'prime' Sheila? It's all getting a bit 'Manchurian Candidate' or '39 Steps' isn't it? Do you think that Jeremy, upon scrapping his idea of drugging the family and setting fire to the farmhouse, decided that it would be far easier to use some kind of ju ju mental projection? Perhaps he saw a window of opportunity, when he realised Sheila's Haloperidol dose had been reduced?
That's the film I was thinking of Roch. Seems were were thinking on the same lines. I just couldn't think of the name of the film. Had Lawrence Harvey and Frank Sinatra in it?
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
I can only speak for myself. I was quite shocked when I read this, and asked (not very politely) whether this was the Twilight Zone.
How can you argue rationally when a so-called psychic is involved? This psychic, by the way, conveniently just left out one letter from the note:
Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead Unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm
A "G" is missing... + a "T" has been added.
I can´t take this seriously, it makes no sense whatsoever in my opinion.
This is Mike Tesko´s board, he can write what he wants; but I have to say that I am puzzled, to put it mildly.
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r318/astabasta_2006/vyy.jpg)
I agree with you, abs +1
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
I can only speak for myself. I was quite shocked when I read this, and asked (not very politely) whether this was the Twilight Zone.
How can you argue rationally when a so-called psychic is involved? This psychic, by the way, conveniently just left out one letter from the note:
Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead Unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm
A "G" is missing... + a "T" has been added.
I can´t take this seriously, it makes no sense whatsoever in my opinion.
This is Mike Tesko´s board, he can write what he wants; but I have to say that I am puzzled, to put it mildly.
Spot on Abs. Ali Bongo doesn't even seem to have bothered to put much effort in - the solution to the puzzle is clearly:
No Mistaking David Boutflour's Grand Design: Police Lie Unto God - Get Jeremy Convicted Forever.
I should imagine he'll be freed later this afternoon now I've cracked it ;)
+1 Bob
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
+1 Grahame
-
Those letters could mean anything or nothing.
Regarding the ones that look like '3's, some of them look like lower-case 'z's to me!
-
Those letters could mean anything or nothing.
Regarding the ones that look like '3's, some of them look like lower-case 'z's to me!
It looks like my science paper. No wonder I didn't pass. ::)
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Dear Grahame,
What mike actually said is.....
Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...
This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....
Vic... no offence meant... I'm interested in your approach to the case and welcome your slant on it. But the thing is, how would Jeremy or for that matter anyone else, 'prime' Sheila? It's all getting a bit 'Manchurian Candidate' or '39 Steps' isn't it? Do you think that Jeremy, upon scrapping his idea of drugging the family and setting fire to the farmhouse, decided that it would be far easier to use some kind of ju ju mental projection? Perhaps he saw a window of opportunity, when he realised Sheila's Haloperidol dose had been reduced?
That's the film I was thinking of Roch. Seems were were thinking on the same lines. I just couldn't think of the name of the film. Had Lawrence Harvey and Frank Sinatra in it?
Not seen it Graeme. Think I've seen the remake with Denzil Washington.
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Dear Grahame,
What mike actually said is.....
Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...
This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....
Vic... no offence meant... I'm interested in your approach to the case and welcome your slant on it. But the thing is, how would Jeremy or for that matter anyone else, 'prime' Sheila? It's all getting a bit 'Manchurian Candidate' or '39 Steps' isn't it? Do you think that Jeremy, upon scrapping his idea of drugging the family and setting fire to the farmhouse, decided that it would be far easier to use some kind of ju ju mental projection? Perhaps he saw a window of opportunity, when he realised Sheila's Haloperidol dose had been reduced?
That's the film I was thinking of Roch. Seems were were thinking on the same lines. I just couldn't think of the name of the film. Had Lawrence Harvey and Frank Sinatra in it?
Not seen it Graeme. Think I've seen the remake with Denzil Washington.
Oh yeah, I was forgetting you were a lot younger than me. I think it was the first one made because it was in black and white. ;D
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
Hi Vic,
You surely don't expect Mike to give you free quotes for your documentary? Shouldn't you offer him a fee for this?
You haven't yet answered my question: Do you agree with those who believe that Jeremy is guilty yet believe that after almost 26 years in prison he's served his time and should be released?
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
Hi Vic,
You surely don't expect Mike to give you free quotes for your documentary? Shouldn't you offer him a fee for this?
You haven't yet answered my question: Do you agree with those who believe that Jeremy is guilty yet believe that after almost 26 years in prison he's served his time and should be released?
ooh is there going to be a film made of this? Can I play the judge? can I? can I?
-
bella emberg can play jm
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Grahame, I have always believed JM. I still believe that JB was totally responsible. I do not believe what Mike is putting forward as a theory, but he obviously does and that's a massive shift from where he was over the last few years. Basically he's saying JB did it by priming Sheila.
Vic, what do you think Julie Mugford meant by this cryptic statement? "The appellant said to her, “Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven’t had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots”. Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep." Does this mean that she was implying that Jeremy was not at the farm that night? If so and she was implying that a hitman was involved, then if her statement of a hitman was incorrect then surely Jeremy couldn't have been responsible for the murders?
Sorry, I think I'm missing your point. Yes, I believe he phoned her and later told her about the hitman because of the children being involved to try and distance himself from what he'd done to them, in Julie's eyes.
-
Dear Mike,
I have read with great interest some of your posts on this forum over the last few days.
Here are your postings. Some have the questions, your answers in bold.;
But why? (Do you want to take this to a more appropriate thread?)
... When I spoke to Jeremy originally about this matter, he actually said, ' Clever b---s---d', as though he was surprised by the ease with which my psychic friend interpreted the note
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:36:PM »
Quote from: Rochford Shields on May 31, 2011, 10:29:PM
Mike, have you ever broached the psychic's opinion with Jeremy? And do you have an opinion on their view re Jeremy?
--------------------------
I only ever broached the subject once with Jeremy, and that was in an indirect way when I was once speaking to him about the so called suicide note (rows and columns of capital letters) - "Now Make Dad, Go Downstairs, Bedroom Phone Lead unplugged, Get Jeremy to Come To Farm", I told Jeremy that my friend interpreted the note to mean this, and Jeremy appeared shocked at first and then he beamed back one of those massive grins that are characteristic of him, and he simply said, words to the effect, my friend and I should keep such comments to ourselves...
Back on the Jeremy trail, I too came across someone who thought Jeremy somehow put Shelia up to the killings.
----------------------
My friend says that Jeremy answered all the questions truthfully and honestly when he took the lie detector test - but Jeremy was not asked directly if he put up Sheila to shoot everyone at some stage. Friends says Jeremy did receive call from Ralph, at which stage it was the signal that Sheila might have started to carry out the shootings as she had been primed to do...
Yes, psychic friend is of the opinion that Jeremy encouraged Sheila to do it, friend says Jeremy was not there when family shot, and he did not pay anyone to carry out the shootings, friend says there was no need to pay anyone, Sheila was primed to carry out the shootings, and she snapped when her parents started talking about getting her some help to look after the children, or that foster parents could be found to take care of them...
So on this basis I have some questions for you;
a) Am I right to assume that indirectly you believe Jeremy bamber to be the cause of these murders?
b) You have described Jeremy Bamber as a friend. If JB was your friend, you've dedicated vast amounts of your time over the years to defending him, do you not feel a little 'mislead'
c) Would you not agree that Julie Mugfords testimony is now completely believable.
d) Would you not agree that the families feeling 'that something wasn't right' is now perfectly valid.
e) Would you not agree that you should have disclosed those conversations with JB earlier as I firmly believe you sincerely seek the truth, why did you not consider those conversations relevant sooner?
I obviously have many more questions but am a little surprised that these postings haven't attracted anymore of a reaction from other members of the forum.
Hi Vic,
You surely don't expect Mike to give you free quotes for your documentary? Shouldn't you offer him a fee for this?
You haven't yet answered my question: Do you agree with those who believe that Jeremy is guilty yet believe that after almost 26 years in prison he's served his time and should be released?
No I don't believe someone who murdered 5 people should ever be released.
-
And you dont make tv documentarys do you
-
And you dont make tv documentarys do you
hey jack!!! glad youre back with us xx
-
And you dont make tv documentarys do you
I've filmed on a few Jackie and I made one myself for the history channel. Whats your point?
-
Thankyou Andrea I got tempted by the fondling thing with the doctors it wasnt like that for me but I do have a funny story.
I had to have an operation and I was in this posh hospital in Brentwood because I am under Bupa and before the operation the consultant anesthetist came to see me to tell me the procedures. After the operation he left me his business card asking for a date. I thought why not because he looked really good looking as I was going under the gas. Anyway he took me out for this posh meal and during the meal he told me he had lost his front teeth at university playing rugby. It put me right off and I got rid of him as soon as possible he didnt even get a kiss (because of the false teeth thing) and he pestered me for another date for ages after and I am dreading having an accident at any time and being rushed into hospital and seeing him leaning over me
-
Thankyou Andrea I got tempted by the fondling thing with the doctors it wasnt like that for me but I do have a funny story.
I had to have an operation and I was in this posh hospital in Brentwood because I am under Bupa and before the operation the consultant anesthetist came to see me to tell me the procedures. After the operation he left me his business card asking for a date. I thought why not because he looked really good looking as I was going under the gas. Anyway he took me out for this posh meal and during the meal he told me he had lost his front teeth at university playing rugby. It put me right off and I got rid of him as soon as possible he didnt even get a kiss (because of the false teeth thing) and he pestered me for another date for ages after and I am dreading having an accident at any time and being rushed into hospital and seeing him leaning over me
ha ha jackie at least he wont bite ya ;) anyway im off to bed or i will sleep in and the kids will be late for school, take care xxxx
-
Night nightxxx
-
I didn't realise that some of the pictures posted were in the public domain. Truly horrible.
It's a fair while since I've seen them but what is striking is three things;
There is no blood at all on Sheila's nightdress around her chest or breast area. Surely if she was initially in the kitchen as is claimed and 'came round' and went upstairs to shoot herself the 2nd time, then there is remarkably little blood.
Her feet are spotless.
And yes, i'll say it, her hands look remarkably clean for someone who's supposedly fired all those shots. Any nails broken in fighting her father? Striking him with a rifle butt?
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
It's called Merlins over Malta. Martin Shaw narrated for me. Nice Bloke.
-
Thankyou Andrea I got tempted by the fondling thing with the doctors it wasnt like that for me but I do have a funny story.
I had to have an operation and I was in this posh hospital in Brentwood because I am under Bupa and before the operation the consultant anesthetist came to see me to tell me the procedures. After the operation he left me his business card asking for a date. I thought why not because he looked really good looking as I was going under the gas. Anyway he took me out for this posh meal and during the meal he told me he had lost his front teeth at university playing rugby. It put me right off and I got rid of him as soon as possible he didnt even get a kiss (because of the false teeth thing) and he pestered me for another date for ages after and I am dreading having an accident at any time and being rushed into hospital and seeing him leaning over me
Note: Things not to say on a first date.
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3sk7fGHPXdk&rct=j&q=merlins%20over%20malta&ei=0WjtTcNjj7SEB9bU2YkD&usg=AFQjCNGTTIu2A9zi6kaM2XUAv78Upg9s_w&sig2=1jmx88SIcSv2SNOST4QTHA&cad=rja
-
I didn't realise that some of the pictures posted were in the public domain. Truly horrible.
It's a fair while since I've seen them but what is striking is three things;
There is no blood at all on Sheila's nightdress around her chest or breast area. Surely if she was initially in the kitchen as is claimed and 'came round' and went upstairs to shoot herself the 2nd time, then there is remarkably little blood.
Her feet are spotless.
And yes, i'll say it, her hands look remarkably clean for someone who's supposedly fired all those shots. Any nails broken in fighting her father? Striking him with a rifle butt?
If she was clutching the wound with her hand then that would staunch the blood. The is a bloody hand print on her night dress. Perhaps she wiped her hand on that? Also there are a pair of socks by her side. Perhaps the police mistook them for Ralph's, but in actual fact they were hers? That would`explain the lack of blood on her feet? Look at the blood around her on the floor. Can you honestly believe her feet would be that clean if she did not have them covered?
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3sk7fGHPXdk&rct=j&q=merlins%20over%20malta&ei=0WjtTcNjj7SEB9bU2YkD&usg=AFQjCNGTTIu2A9zi6kaM2XUAv78Upg9s_w&sig2=1jmx88SIcSv2SNOST4QTHA&cad=rja
Who's James Blatch?
-
There is no blood at all on She
ila's nightdress around her chest or breast area. Surely if she was initially in the kitchen as is claimed and 'came round' and went upstairs to shoot herself the 2nd time, then there is remarkably little blood.
Mike has suggested that a Plug of blood formed while Sheila was lying down, hence less bleeding.
Her feet are spotless.
Someone will need to help me with the reference for this, but I'm sure I've read that Sheila's feet were not spotless. In any case, a pair socks lay next to
Sheila's body, Vic. You can see them in some of the photographs.
And yes, i'll say it, her hands look remarkably clean for someone who's supposedly fired all those shots. Any nails broken in fighting her father? Striking him with a rifle butt?
That's your subjective opinion, Vic, however I disagree with you.
1. Only one of her hands can be seen with any clarity.
2. We cannot see all of either hand.
3. The hand we have a better view of is clearly blood stained and has oil
stains or other marks or bruises.
4. Ann Eaton found a fingernail.
5. Nail varnish on one of Sheila's toe nails was chipped - as shown in a
photograph
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3sk7fGHPXdk&rct=j&q=merlins%20over%20malta&ei=0WjtTcNjj7SEB9bU2YkD&usg=AFQjCNGTTIu2A9zi6kaM2XUAv78Upg9s_w&sig2=1jmx88SIcSv2SNOST4QTHA&cad=rja
Who's James Blatch?
He's my partner on aviation projects. We have a company called roundal productions.
-
Vic you really need to be able to spell your own production company
Home
Hello and welcome to the home of Roundel Productions. We are the producers of the acclaimed Merlins Over Malta DVD, the special edition of which can be purchased from this site.
We have years of experience producing work for television and video. Our specialist areas include AVIATION and TRANSPORT.
If you are in aviation and require video or television services, you are in the right place! We can produce work from short length promotions through to long form documentaries and series.
This website includes samples of our work, details of our services and a place to purchased our publicly released DVDs.
James & Vic.
13 Euston Street
HUNTINGDON
Cambridgeshire
PE29 3QR
To contact us:
Phone: +44 1480 455433
E-mail: [email protected]
-
Vic
If you want to break into that business you seriously need help why dont you pop over to Mark McQueens show reel to see how its done and he is the person I want to do the next documentary about Jeremy
I am pretty good at home videos if you need any help
-
So now we have
dodgy relatives
dodgy police
dodgy ccrc
dodgy trial judge
dodgy forensics
now dodgy documentary makers
Bloody hell
Plus 1 Grahame you made me really laugh yeah it was a bad move I hope he learnt his lesson
-
There is no blood at all on Sheila's nightdress around her chest or breast area. Surely if she was initially in the kitchen as is claimed and 'came round' and went upstairs to shoot herself the 2nd time, then there is remarkably little blood.
Mike has suggested that a Plug of blood formed while Sheila was lying down, hence less bleeding.
I'm no blood expert but come on!! Her chest area is almost clean. She shoots herself, passes out, runs upstairs, no blood running down her chest area???
Her feet are spotless.
Someone will need to help me with the reference for this, but I'm sure I've read that Sheila's feet were not spotless. In any case, a pair socks lay next to
Sheila's body, Vic. You can see them in some of the photographs.
I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???
And yes, i'll say it, her hands look remarkably clean for someone who's supposedly fired all those shots. Any nails broken in fighting her father? Striking him with a rifle butt?
That's your subjective opinion, Vic, however I disagree with you.
1. Only one of her hands can be seen with any clarity.
2. We cannot see all of either hand.
3. The hand we have a better view of is clearly blood stained and has oil
stains or other marks or bruises.
Her hands were swabbed.......Even JB was clever enough to rub her hand on the dirty rifle. But there was nowhere near enough powder on her hands.
4. Ann Eaton found a fingernail.
5. Nail varnish on one of Sheila's toe nails was chipped - as shown in a
photograph - She had the fight with Nevill in the kitchen and she had a chipped toe nail?
-
Night everyone bored with Bafta winning Vic
-
Vic
If you want to break into that business you seriously need help why dont you pop over to Mark McQueens show reel to see how its done and he is the person I want to do the next documentary about Jeremy
I am pretty good at home videos if you need any help
Jackie. I have worked for all the major networks in the UK and many European ones too.
I am amused by your fixation with my career. You are desperate to in some way discredit me.
Quite honestly I find you a nasty and vindictive individual.
Quite the school ground bully.
-
Vic, I'll cover point by point as the quotes are becoming confusing.
"I'm no blood expert but come on!! Her chest area is almost clean. She shoots herself, passes out, runs upstairs, no blood running down her chest area???"
You're right, you are no blood expert, neither am I. I would be surprised if Mike had not checked his view out with such an expert prior to suggesting this. I know too little and so do you to comment on this either way, hence I've simply drawn on Mike's claim.
-
Vic, I'll cover point by point as the quotes are becoming confusing.
"I'm no blood expert but come on!! Her chest area is almost clean. She shoots herself, passes out, runs upstairs, no blood running down her chest area???"
You're right, you are no blood expert, neither am I. I would be surprised if Mike had not checked his view out with such an expert prior to suggesting this. I know too little and so do you to comment on this either way, hence I've simply drawn on Mike's claim.
Keira, surely, if you shoot yourself in the neck, and you're standing up, blood will flow downwards.
-
Vic
I am not obsessed with your career at all because he doesnt seem very interesting but I am obsessed with the truth and I will get to it eventually
You can choose what people you believe and think are wonderful, I am looking at the facts
Not one tiny bit of evidence julie mugford was telling the truth not one and even in your film fantasy world you have not got one bit piece of evidence. So we can rule her out of the equation as she has lied in the past to get money
The amazing silencer. What did the relatives do when they found it, took it home to have a play with
in my opinion shouldnt have been used in evidence
Sheila was very ill and people her size have been known to carry out acts like this case
Ngb1066 a legal expert and gun expert has explained carefully in detail that it was possible for Sheila to shoot everyone
As far as I am concerned this was a simple case until the relatives involved the police in the coverups
There is only one alternative that I can see if one of the relatives forced Neville to make that call and stupid young naive Jeremy was being set up all along.
Simple story really Vic not one piece of evidence that stands up to Jeremy being guilty its as much as a farce as David Boutflour coming out of court saying we are all liars here and the crap you come out with saying Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death
What a ridiculous thing to say why do you think I do not find you a credible person to post on this forum I wish we had another barrister on the relatives side to post up against Ngb1066 but you wont be able to find one will you Vic
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
-
Vic
I am not obsessed with your career at all because he doesnt seem very interesting but I am obsessed with the truth and I will get to it eventually
You can choose what people you believe and think are wonderful, I am looking at the facts
Not one tiny bit of evidence julie mugford was telling the truth not one and even in your film fantasy world you have not got one bit piece of evidence. So we can rule her out of the equation as she has lied in the past to get money As has Jeremy
The amazing silencer. What did the relatives do when they found it, took it home to have a play with
in my opinion shouldnt have been used in evidence Your opinion
Sheila was very ill and people her size have been known to carry out acts like this case
Ngb1066 a legal expert and gun expert has explained carefully in detail that it was possible for Sheila to shoot everyone
As far as I am concerned this was a simple case until the relatives involved the police in the coverups Lots and lots of liars, no one ever has come forward
There is only one alternative that I can see if one of the relatives forced Neville to make that call and stupid young naive Jeremy was being set up all along. Yeah right
Simple story really Vic not one piece of evidence that stands up to Jeremy being guilty its as much as a farce as David Boutflour coming out of court saying we are all liars here and the crap you come out with saying Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death He said losers They were very close (You wouldn't know that though as you don't know them)
What a ridiculous thing to say why do you think I do not find you a credible person to post on this forum I wish we had another barrister on the relatives side to post up against Ngb1066 but you wont be able to find one will you Vic Jeremy must be very proud of your support. Well done.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
-
Vic... you've got to be kidding about Sheila's right hand being clean. Please zoom in. And that's not even a very clear photograph. Plus it's also a photograph of a photograph.
-
Vic, I'll cover point by point as the quotes are becoming confusing.
"I'm no blood expert but come on!! Her chest area is almost clean. She shoots herself, passes out, runs upstairs, no blood running down her chest area???"
You're right, you are no blood expert, neither am I. I would be surprised if Mike had not checked his view out with such an expert prior to suggesting this. I know too little and so do you to comment on this either way, hence I've simply drawn on Mike's claim.
Keira, surely, if you shoot yourself in the neck, and you're standing up, blood will flow downwards.
(1) perhaps she was lying down? (2) she more than likely staunched the blood with her hands and (3) there is plenty of blood on her nightdress anyway. and as an afterthought by me (4) she may have changed her nightdress?
-
Vic... you've got to be kidding about Sheila's right hand being clean. Please zoom in. And that's not even a very clear photograph. Plus it's also a photograph of a photograph.
I've said this before, but the only suggestion that Sheila's hand was not clean is a blown up scan of a photograph of a photograph etc. It's also since been suggested that the defences copies of photographs were of inferior quality in comparison to the prosecutions copies, this blown up image is likely to originate from the defences copies.
Not that it isn't interesting of course, but the reality is that without access to the original or without scientific examination of the negatives, then the discovery of grey/brown smudges on this blown up third hand image is somewhat unreliable and misleading and certainly shouldn't be quoted as evidence of bruising or oil and dirt on Sheila's hands.
It could be oil or dirt or bruising, but I would suggest that it's far more likely that from the quality of the image and the manipulation the resized image has been subjected to, that the variation in colour and tone is due to pixel distortion and/or blooming.
Examination of the negatives which JB's legal team are now in possession of, should be able to clear this matter up. If bruises/oil/dirt were found then it would be quite a breakthrough for the defences argument, as nothing has yet been released/mentioned by the defence then I'm sceptical that the photograph shows what is being suggested.
In addition to the above, we do also have the hand swabs which indicated that Sheila's hands did not contain oil, lead or residue consistent with the handling and use of a firearm.
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.
To cover all bases, Mike T has a theory (which you can find on these forums with a bit of digging around) that the hand swabs were dismissed and that the newly submitted swabs were not the same ones as those previously submitted, possibly control swabs. His theory basically suggests that the hand swab evidence was manufactured and falsified.
Anyway, I think I've rambled on enough, I only intended to pop back in to check out the latest. ;)
-
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.
If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).
-
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.
If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).
It is reasonable in this situation, purely on logic grounds. A positive test had the posibility of being flawed, whereas a negative one didn't. So a negative test adds reliable evidence whereas a positive one wouldn't have.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
-
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.
If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).
It is reasonable in this situation, purely on logic grounds. A positive test had the posibility of being flawed, whereas a negative one didn't. So a negative test adds reliable evidence whereas a positive one wouldn't have.
But they would have come to the same conclusion if it was positive.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.
It has to be one or the other.
-
But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?
-
It makes no difference she was either wearing socks or not wearing socks.
-
But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?
An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints ???
Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!
-
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.
If that was the case that if they were resubmitted and were found to be positive then they would have been considered contaminated. But if they were resubmitted and found to be clean then they would be accepted? That is a bit unequal to say the least. If that was going to be the case then why resubmit them at all. Oh, we'll reject them if they are positive, but we'll accept them if they're clean. What is really boils down to is this. another cock up where evidence is concerned. This evidence should have been rejected just like that of the contaminated silencer(s).
It is reasonable in this situation, purely on logic grounds. A positive test had the posibility of being flawed, whereas a negative one didn't. So a negative test adds reliable evidence whereas a positive one wouldn't have.
But they would have come to the same conclusion if it was positive.
They could logically draw no conclusions from a positive test.
-
But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?
An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints ???
Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!
Yes I brought that point up about no footprints at all. But we still have to explain why her feet were apparently so clean with so much blood around? I haven't heard of this fleck of varnish story myself?
-
But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?
An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints ???
Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!
Yes I brought that point up about no footprints at all. But we still have to explain why her feet were apparently so clean with so much blood around? I haven't heard of this fleck of varnish story myself?
I beleive it is referred to in one of the videos of Peter Sutherst. Additionally I think the fleck of red toe nail polish is mentioned in some of the threads on this forum.
-
But in either case you must ultimately ask the question why are her feet so clean whether she was in the bedroom or downstairs? There was still blood on the bedroom floor but apparently none on her feet. Why?
An intriguing point here, and has been raised a few times before on the Forum, is that there appears to be no bloody footprints anywhere in the house. How did the murderer (whoever it was) move around without treading in blood and leaving prints ???
Is this more significant of JB (or an other) doing it (by making sure he/they did not leave incriminating larger foot prints), as SC doing it she wouldn't be so bothered - with leaving foot prints!
Yes I brought that point up about no footprints at all. But we still have to explain why her feet were apparently so clean with so much blood around? I haven't heard of this fleck of varnish story myself?
So if SC did it its possible she either wore socks or washed her feet.
If JB did it why would he clean her feet. In fact he would have wanted to smear blood on them, as he may have done with her hands - that's if he was staging it properly - did JB overlook marking her feet? If JB did it we are still left with the problem of where SC was when all this was happening? Surely if she was killed last she would have attempted to run - anywhere - whilst the others were being shot!
I was saddened at the tragedy in the news today of the mother and child killed by the father with a shotgun, but pleased to hear the 10 year old daughter got away. Fight or flight, and if the opposition has a gun then flight seems most probable.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.
It has to be one or the other.
There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
No, we can't see the soles of her feet. What we can see is that the claim of the police that Sheila's hands were spotless is nonsense. I am not therefore inclined to trust the description of her feet as clean either.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
No, we can't see the soles of her feet. What we can see is that the claim of the police that Sheila's hands were spotless is nonsense. I am not therefore inclined to trust the description of her feet as clean either.
We also have the problem of the handprint on her night dress. Was it Sheila's or not? If it was Sheila's then her hands could not posibly have been spotlessly clean.
-
No, we can't see the soles of her feet. What we can see is that the claim of the police that Sheila's hands were spotless is nonsense. I am not therefore inclined to trust the description of her feet as clean either.
Is it Abs blown up image alone that indicates to you that Sheila's hands were not clean? Or is there another source?
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
No, we can't see the soles of her feet. What we can see is that the claim of the police that Sheila's hands were spotless is nonsense. I am not therefore inclined to trust the description of her feet as clean either.
As I said on a previous thread - as far as I know this "spotlessly clean" quote is based on one policeman isn't it? Could easily just be exagerated or hearsay on his part.
What about the Forensics people and the Pathologist? What did they have to say at trial? I haven't seen anything about general dirt or bruises, but I know they testified that no firearms residue was present on her hands - that is pretty damning.
If people want to attribute that to her hands having been washed after the event then you have to explain why they would have done that given that the scene was being treated as a murder-suicide at the time.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.
It has to be one or the other.
There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them.
This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.
At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.
Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.
It has to be one or the other.
There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them.
This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.
At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.
Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide
So what IS the problem then?
-
Quote from Grahame "We also have the problem of the handprint on her night dress. Was it Sheila's or not? If it was Sheila's then her hands could not posibly have been spotlessly clean."
If the swabs taken from Sheila's hands did not show blood, if tested for blood, then as you point out the hand print on Sheila's night dress would indicate that it belonged to a third party. To make such a hand print there must have been some fresh blood contact with the third party hand and then Sheila's nightdress.
-
In Peter Venezis Autopsy notes he states "Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains."
So that is a little different to this "spotlessly clean" comment.
The Autopsy Notes can be found in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html
The above quote in purple, is on the fourth attached image in that thread.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.
It has to be one or the other.
There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them.
This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.
At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.
Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide
So what IS the problem then?
There is not a problem.
In my opinion the defence need to decide if Sheila was wearing socks or not wearing socks. It seems totally ridiculous to have Sheila wearing socks to commit murder then not wearing socks in order to shower and soak her clothes in water and to then wear some different socks to go back upstairs in order to take the socks off to commit suicide.
-
In Peter Venezis Autopsy notes he states "Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains."
So that is a little different to this "spotlessly clean" comment.
The Autopsy Notes can be found in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html
The above quote in purple, is on the fourth attached image in that thread.
Thanks for digging that up Hartley. Welcome back (again!).
-
In Peter Venezis Autopsy notes he states "Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains."
So that is a little different to this "spotlessly clean" comment.
The Autopsy Notes can be found in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html
The above quote in purple, is on the fourth attached image in that thread.
Thanks for digging that up Hartley. Welcome back (again!).
Thanks also from me........ and welcome back also.
-
A couple of points to bring up they might have been covered already
1 Ngb1066Is it usual for different qualities of photos to be given to defence and prosecution.
If so how can this be fair or is this just a red herring? Or could this also point to
an unfair trial
2 It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse. If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders. Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime. Which one of the police
officers were suspicious? Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away. In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman. I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly
clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly
come to the conclusion it was not a suicide. Her feet could have been clean and she could
have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of
their noses. If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw
would have fallen into place. For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were
cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal
system to make an example. You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help
of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man
in prison
Lets have everyones notebooks out in the open who was in WHF that day and see
if even one policeman was suspicious
-
A couple of points to bring up they might have been covered already
1 Ngb1066Is it usual for different qualities of photos to be given to defence and prosecution.
If so how can this be fair or is this just a red herring? Or could this also point to
an unfair trial
2 It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse. If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders. Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime. Which one of the police
officers were suspicious? Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away. In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman. I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly
clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly
come to the conclusion it was not a suicide. Her feet could have been clean and she could
have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of
their noses. If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw
would have fallen into place. For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were
cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal
system to make an example. You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help
of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man
in prison
Lets have everyones notebooks out in the open who was in WHF that day and see
if even one policeman was suspicious
It is documented that one Policeman was suspicious and felt things were not as quite as they seemed to be..........that was Stan Jones.
Threads on this forum are not very complimentary towards Stan Jones.
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.
It has to be one or the other.
There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them.
This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.
At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.
Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide
So what IS the problem then?
There is not a problem.
In my opinion the defence need to decide if Sheila was wearing socks or not wearing socks. It seems totally ridiculous to have Sheila wearing socks to commit murder then not wearing socks in order to shower and soak her clothes in water and to then wear some different socks to go back upstairs in order to take the socks off to commit suicide.
But I never suggested that?
-
Curiousessex
So has stan jones notebook pages been posted
What lengths did he go to stop a bucket of bloody clothes being removed
What reasons did he give for being suspicious
Was nobody interested in what he had to say or was he overuled and who by because if it was me and I was a good policewomen and I had any suspicions I would have put in my notebook I didnt want anything removed from WHF
Lets dig into Stan Jones a bit more. Has anyone got any more information re his notebook
-
"I can also see a close up of the bottom of her feet, look at it, clean. And if she wore Nevill's socks, why oh why would she have taken them off before shooting herself again?? Did she beg the police not to shoot before removing her socks???"
I cannot see the bottoms of Sheila's feet with sufficient clarity to comment, on their condition neither, I believe, can you.
In any case, it appears she may have worn socks. We cannot state with any certainty that these socks were Nevill's and even if they were Nevill's, Sheila may still have worn these - ask on the forum how many women have worn or do wear men's socks, the answer will surprise you. I do not believe the examination of the scene by the police was anywhere near vigorous enough to establish who these socks belonged to - do you? But we do know that they lay beside Sheila's body, so these may have been her socks and if they were Nevill's she may still have worn them. No, they would not have been too large for Sheila, most men's socks are horribly shrunk and they have to stretch them when they put them on. Of course women wear men's socks, I agree.
Why would Sheila take these socks off before killing herself? For the same reason that a significant proportion of suicides, prior to killing themselves, shower or engage in ritualistic cleaning and fold their clothes neatly, it's common, ritualistic practice for suicides to do such things. An expert testified about this at the trial. Sheila was surrounded by blood spots, yet the mat she lay on was clean of blood. Did she place a clean mat there before lying or sitting down to kill herself? My guess is that she removed these socks because they were bloody, you can see what may be blood stains on them. But according to Mike, the police shot her. There was no time for ritualistic cleaning.
I'm not in the least suicidal, but if I was of a mind to kill myself, I would want to pray first. It would be very important to me to first make my peace with God. I would regard this as a sacred time. I would want to shower first, if possible, and to sit somewhere clean where I could feel sufficiently clean and pure to focus on my last communication with God and my last confession of my sins. I believe that Sheila would have had a similar view to mine as she also had very strong faith.
So, she shot herself twice in the bedroom where the photo is taken?
I'm too tired to reply and my last few posts are nonsense and will probably need qualifying tomorrow but, being a glutton for punishment, I'll post one last reply now.
I agree with Mike's view that Sheila may have put her blood stained clothes in buckets to soak and showered, as part of ritualistic cleaning, prior to shooting herself for the first time downstairs. Look at her hair in the photos of her body, it's newly washed.
As an expert testified at the trial, the first shot resulted in a soft tissue injury which would not have immediately killed Sheila and which would even have allowed her to walk around for a time. So, as Mike has said, Sheila would have been at first concussed or stunned, then later revived and moved upstairs where she shot herself for the second time - having first removed the blood stained socks.
Why did she put the socks on again after showering? My guess is that she didn't. Had those buckets of clothes been examined by the police and had the officer concerned not astonishingly allowed AE to take home blood stained scene of crime evidence and destroy this, I would think they would have found black socks and a black top in one bucket, tangled up with the jogging trousers.
Did Sheila grab a pair of Nevill's socks - which were perhaps airing in the kitchen? - because these were the only clean ones at hand after she'd showered? Did she walk through the blood stained kitchen wearing these? I don't know, no one knows, but a pair of socks which appear to be stained lie next to Sheila's body upstairs.
If Sheila wore socks as an explanation for her clean feet which are depicted in the pictures in the public domain then , in my opinion, such an explanation would undermine the statements being considered by the CCRC from the photgraphic expert Peter Sutherst.
Is it not the case a part of the statements being considered by the CCRC is that the photographs of the kitchen, allegedly not showing the scratches in the red paint work under the mantelpiece, also include a red speck which can be seen on the kitchen floor. If I understand correctly, this red speck is being claimed to be a chipping from Sheila's painted red toenails. As such it would allegedly be proof that Sheila was in the kitchen and had a confrontation with Nevill.
If Sheila was wearing socks any chipping from her red painted toenails would have been contained within the socks she was wearing and would not be on the kitchen floor to appear in photographs taken on the morning of the murders.
But the point is they look perfectly clean in the photos so you must ask why? in light of the fact there was so much blood on the floor around her feet. Logically you would expect that there should have been at least some blood on her feet. But there wasn't, therefore there must have been another element in the story. Also I don't think they show the souls of her feet properly?
From the defence's point of view Sheila must either have been wearing socks or not wearing socks. She cannot have been wearing socks to explain her clean feet and then not wearing socks to explain a fleck of her toe nail polish in the kitchen.
It has to be one or the other.
There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them.
This is speculation. The evidence as fact are pictures of Sheila's body with feet in view. A pair of socks laying close to the body.
At the time of the photographs it was / had been assumed based on telephone calls received by the Police that Sheila had murdered 4 and then committed suicide. Jeremy was not a suspect at this point in time so why would the Police clean her feet if they were dirty etc.
Sheila with dirty feet would not be a problem if Sheila had commited the murders and then suicide. Sheila with clean feet would also not be a problem if Sheila had committed the murders and then suicide
So what IS the problem then?
There is not a problem.
In my opinion the defence need to decide if Sheila was wearing socks or not wearing socks. It seems totally ridiculous to have Sheila wearing socks to commit murder then not wearing socks in order to shower and soak her clothes in water and to then wear some different socks to go back upstairs in order to take the socks off to commit suicide.
But I never suggested that?
I did not say you did. However Chochokeira detailed the following earlier today -
"There was a shower room downstairs, wasn't there? Sheila could have removed her socks in the kitchen before she showered, then wore a clean pair from the kitchen - that she found airing there? Though the socks would presumably not stay clean for long given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor. The chip could have fallen out of her socks when she removed them."
-
Curiousessex
So has stan jones notebook pages been posted
What lengths did he go to stop a bucket of bloody clothes being removed
What reasons did he give for being suspicious
Was nobody interested in what he had to say or was he overuled and who by because if it was me and I was a good policewomen and I had any suspicions I would have put in my notebook I didnt want anything removed from WHF
Lets dig into Stan Jones a bit more. Has anyone got any more information re his notebook
Jackie
Have you read the book 'Blood Relations' by Roger Wilkes? It is quite detailed in this book.
As for postings of Stan Jones's notebook I do not know but I guess Mike would know best or have possible copies.
Mind you this may draw a blank as have the requests for copies of Jeremy's original statement to be posted. I seem to recall Mike has mentioned he has copy of Jeremy's original statement but will not post a copy because of some personal things that were detailed regarding Colin Caffell or something like that.
-
Vic... you've got to be kidding about Sheila's right hand being clean. Please zoom in. And that's not even a very clear photograph. Plus it's also a photograph of a photograph.
I've said this before, but the only suggestion that Sheila's hand was not clean is a blown up scan of a photograph of a photograph etc. It's also since been suggested that the defences copies of photographs were of inferior quality in comparison to the prosecutions copies, this blown up image is likely to originate from the defences copies.
Not that it isn't interesting of course, but the reality is that without access to the original or without scientific examination of the negatives, then the discovery of grey/brown smudges on this blown up third hand image is somewhat unreliable and misleading and certainly shouldn't be quoted as evidence of bruising or oil and dirt on Sheila's hands.
It could be oil or dirt or bruising, but I would suggest that it's far more likely that from the quality of the image and the manipulation the resized image has been subjected to, that the variation in colour and tone is due to pixel distortion and/or blooming.
Examination of the negatives which JB's legal team are now in possession of, should be able to clear this matter up. If bruises/oil/dirt were found then it would be quite a breakthrough for the defences argument, as nothing has yet been released/mentioned by the defence then I'm sceptical that the photograph shows what is being suggested.
In addition to the above, we do also have the hand swabs which indicated that Sheila's hands did not contain oil, lead or residue consistent with the handling and use of a firearm.
However to add to the confusion, the hand swabs were originally refused by the lab as they were packaged up with firearms evidence from another case and therefore exposed to a risk of contamination. It was then considered that if the swabs were resubmitted and tested, and they did not show up firearms residue then any risk of contamination would have been removed.
If positive test results were obtained then it would indicate that the sample was contaminated or that Sheila had used and handled the weapon. If negative test results were obtained then it would indicate that Sheila had not handled and used the weapon.
So the swabs were resubmitted and tested, the results were negative.
To cover all bases, Mike T has a theory (which you can find on these forums with a bit of digging around) that the hand swabs were dismissed and that the newly submitted swabs were not the same ones as those previously submitted, possibly control swabs. His theory basically suggests that the hand swab evidence was manufactured and falsified.
Anyway, I think I've rambled on enough, I only intended to pop back in to check out the latest. ;)
::)
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
-
It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse. If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders. Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime. Which one of the police
officers were suspicious? Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away. In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.
The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.
I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide. Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses. If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.
Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.
In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.
For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example. You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison
More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.
-
A couple of points to bring up they might have been covered already
1 Ngb1066Is it usual for different qualities of photos to be given to defence and prosecution.
If so how can this be fair or is this just a red herring? Or could this also point to
an unfair trial
2 It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse. If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders. Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime. Which one of the police
officers were suspicious? Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away. In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman. I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly
clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly
come to the conclusion it was not a suicide. Her feet could have been clean and she could
have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of
their noses. If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw
would have fallen into place. For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were
cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal
system to make an example. You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help
of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man
in prison
Lets have everyones notebooks out in the open who was in WHF that day and see
if even one policeman was suspicious
Jackie - I have never come across an instance of lower quality photographs being given to the defence than those in the possession of the prosecution. Both prosecution and defence should be working from the same material. I am not sure in this case that it is suggested that the defence were given lower quality prints at the original trial. My reading of what has been said recently by Jeremy Bamber's team is that the CCRC provided lower definition prints to the defence than were provided to the prosecution for the purpose of allowing them to respond to Peter Sutherst's report. I may be wrong on this and I believe it would be very useful to have the point clarified. If my interpretation is correct and the allegation itself is true it reflects very badly upon the CCRC as they have in effect tried to hamper the defence in presenting submissions on behalf of Jeremy Bamber. The position now appears to have been rectified by the release of the negatives to the defence for laboratory analysis but I am surprised that it has taken so much time and effort to persuade the CCRC to do this. They should be anxious for the defence to have the best possible opportunity to analyse evidence, particularly new material only recently (and apparently very reluctantly) disclosed by Essex Police.
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
-
Thankyou Ngb this is what was posted on bambertweets
@Bambertweets
Jeremy Bamber Jeremy Bamber: Low resolution images originally provided to the Defence by the CCRC £2.50 per image but gave the prosecution high resolution
I think I understand now I just wanted it clarified
Curiousessex I to would like everything out in the open if it helps JB or not I am trying to get to the truth
If Stan Jones was suspicious then he must of been suspicious it was a murder not a suicide what on earth was going on that Ann Eaton was allowed to walk off with a bucket of bloody clothes
this must have been documented by stan jones as him being suspicious of ann eaton surely
-
It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse. If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders. Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime. Which one of the police
officers were suspicious? Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away. In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.
The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.
I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide. Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses. If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.
Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.
In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.
For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example. You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison
More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.
... Police sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement has been doctored and falsified, its original pages have been removed, not disclosed, at the very point in the proceedings, when according to the contents of several different police message logs, the body of a dead female was found in the kitchen, along with the body of RB - in addition to pages which have gone missing from Woodcocks statement, others have been retyped by use of a different typewriter and inserted at the very point in the statement, when the police entered the kitchen. Now, that can't just be a coincidence - the police have covered something signficant up, something which was so serious, (1) they could not disclose the original page contents, because to do so, would prove SC was still alive when the police got into the kitchen. And (2) it would prove that the police knew all along exactly when and how SC died in the bedroom, and that Jeremy Bamber, is not only innocent, but it also must mean that the police framed him.,
-
Ngb I am going to pick your brains again Stan Jones notebook and entries would surely have been a very important part of the trial. Surely if he was suspicious (it sounds like he was the only one) it must be recorded somewhere that he was quite happy to let ann Eaton walk out with that bucket or was he all part of what went on.Surely if you were suspicious there was a murder you would speak to your collegues and say no way is that women walking off with evidence
-
Ngb I am going to pick your brains again Stan Jones notebook and entries would surely have been a very important part of the trial. Surely if he was suspicious (it sounds like he was the only one) it must be recorded somewhere that he was quite happy to let ann Eaton walk out with that bucket or was he all part of what went on.Surely if you were suspicious there was a murder you would speak to your collegues and say no way is that women walking off with evidence
Jackie
It would appear you have assumed that Stan Jones will have kown Ann Eaton had walked off with a bucket of SCs clothes soaking in water.
-
Thankyou Mike
It is to ridiculous for words
Sheilas feet were either clean because she was wearing socks before she shot herself
or
they were not spotless because the keystone cops would have noticed her feet and realised something suspicious was going on
That bloody Bob Miller sitting all cocky on tv its disgusting and he acts like he is so proud of himself
So are we to believe Stan Jones didnt have the balls to stop Ann Eaton walking away with the evidence
-
Curiousessex I am not sure of the timings but I think Ann Eaton scurried away quite quickly with that bucket, does anyone know the timings of the dissapearing bucket
-
I am trying to get to the bottom of three things at the moment
1 Stan Jones and when he recorded in his notebook he was suspicious
2 What possible reasons did the relatives have to take the silencer home than hand it to the police
3 It was recently posted on here details of an article Mugford did as to why she sold her
newspaper story. It seems she was being hassled by the press everywhere she went so her
solicitor told her to sell the story. Nobody can find that story which is strange but if jb had
been found guilty could she legally have had that same story printed or legally would it have
not been allowed. I dont know if Ngb could help with that
-
Curiousessex I am not sure of the timings but I think Ann Eaton scurried away quite quickly with that bucket, does anyone know the timings of the dissapearing bucket
Ann Eaton could only have got possession of the bucket when she had possession of the keys to White House Farm. As I understand it the keys to White House Farm were only given to Ann Eaton because Jeremy did not want them. I am sure I have also read somewhere that Jeremy had already made arrangements for Peter Eaton to become Farm Manager. This having been organised / agreed with a Basil Cock the accountant.
-
Ngb I am going to pick your brains again Stan Jones notebook and entries would surely have been a very important part of the trial. Surely if he was suspicious (it sounds like he was the only one) it must be recorded somewhere that he was quite happy to let ann Eaton walk out with that bucket or was he all part of what went on.Surely if you were suspicious there was a murder you would speak to your collegues and say no way is that women walking off with evidence
Stan Jones would have been unlikely to record his opinions in his notebook. Normal practice is to record key facts and observations in the notebook so that this can be used in preparing witness statements if necessary and also so that if court proceedings follow the notebook can be referred to by the Police Officer in order to refresh his memory. If Stan Jones had concerns and especially if he believed that Sheila had been murdered his duty was to refer those concerns immediately to his superior officer on the case, and if not satisfied with the response of that officer to take the matter up with a more senior officer.
Whatever Stan Jones thought at the time the treatment by the police of what was on any view a crime scene was appalling. I sense that this is something which is common ground between all those with an interest in this case. Destruction of exhibits and allowing relatives to remove items (including items which could have important evidential value) was clearly very poor police work.
-
Ngb1066
What about Julie Mugfords story would she have legally been able to sell her story as it came out after the trial and he had been found guilty
-
I am trying to get to the bottom of three things at the moment
1 Stan Jones and when he recorded in his notebook he was suspicious
2 What possible reasons did the relatives have to take the silencer home than hand it to the police
3 It was recently posted on here details of an article Mugford did as to why she sold her
newspaper story. It seems she was being hassled by the press everywhere she went so her
solicitor told her to sell the story. Nobody can find that story which is strange but if jb had
been found guilty could she legally have had that same story printed or legally would it have
not been allowed. I dont know if Ngb could help with that
Jackie - I take your question to be if Jeremy Bamber had been found not guilty could Julie Mugford's story still have been printed in the News of the World. The answer to that is that I doubt very much if the story would have been published because it would leave both JM and the NOW to a libel action by Jeremy Bamber. Because JB was found guilty there is no legal bar to anyone saying he is guilty, but obviously the position is very different in the event of an acquittal.
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what you're are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
-
It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse. If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders. Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime. Which one of the police
officers were suspicious? Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away. In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.
The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.
I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide. Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses. If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.
Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.
In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.
For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example. You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison
More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.
... Police sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement has been doctored and falsified, its original pages have been removed, not disclosed, at the very point in the proceedings, when according to the contents of several different police message logs, the body of a dead female was found in the kitchen, along with the body of RB - in addition to pages which have gone missing from Woodcocks statement, others have been retyped by use of a different typewriter and inserted at the very point in the statement, when the police entered the kitchen. Now, that can't just be a coincidence - the police have covered something signficant up, something which was so serious, (1) they could not disclose the original page contents, because to do so, would prove SC was still alive when the police got into the kitchen. And (2) it would prove that the police knew all along exactly when and how SC died in the bedroom, and that Jeremy Bamber, is not only innocent, but it also must mean that the police framed him.,
I'd be interested to see hartley and vic's view of this ::) I too feel that the the term 'coincidence' flags up so many times when dissecting the official version, that it becomes fantastical.
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it runs a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
-
Ngb1066
So that really had to be an oscar winning performance to get that £25,000 in 1986
Thank you I think I am 105% Jeremy is innocent now
Not guilty no payout probably
The girl that had carried out cheque fraud with her friend just months before to the tune of £700 really upped her game didnt she with the newspaper deal
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
Thanks hartley. I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.
-
It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse. If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders. Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime. Which one of the police
officers were suspicious? Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away. In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.
The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.
I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide. Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses. If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.
Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.
In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.
For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example. You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison
More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.
... Police sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement has been doctored and falsified, its original pages have been removed, not disclosed, at the very point in the proceedings, when according to the contents of several different police message logs, the body of a dead female was found in the kitchen, along with the body of RB - in addition to pages which have gone missing from Woodcocks statement, others have been retyped by use of a different typewriter and inserted at the very point in the statement, when the police entered the kitchen. Now, that can't just be a coincidence - the police have covered something signficant up, something which was so serious, (1) they could not disclose the original page contents, because to do so, would prove SC was still alive when the police got into the kitchen. And (2) it would prove that the police knew all along exactly when and how SC died in the bedroom, and that Jeremy Bamber, is not only innocent, but it also must mean that the police framed him.,
I'd be interested to see hartley and vic's view of this ::) I too feel that the the term 'coincidence' flags up so many times when dissecting the official version, that it becomes fantastical.
I don't really have a view which I haven't already shared before, it's old ground. With regards to coincidences though we could apply that to anything, for example it's a coincidence that JB loaded the gun, or that JB broke into whf, or that the Ann found the silencer and not someone else, or that the chordless phone was in for repair.
The coincidences and oddities in this case are remarkable and endless, but not necessarily in unanimous support of one view or another concerning JB's guilt or innocence.
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
Thanks hartley. I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.
Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
Thanks hartley. I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.
Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.
Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check. I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?
-
Ngb1066
So that really had to be an oscar winning performance to get that £25,000 in 1986
Thank you I think I am 105% Jeremy is innocent now
Not guilty no payout probably
The girl that had carried out cheque fraud with her friend just months before to the tune of £700 really upped her game didnt she with the newspaper deal
It is almost certainly the case that the contract signed with the News of the World will have provided for the fee to be paid only in the event of a conviction. Nowadays newspapers are not supposed to enter into such agreements but as I recall there was no specific prohibition on those agreements at the time of the trial (I am not 100% sure on this and will try to look it up). However, the jury were not told about the News of the World contract and that is something which they should have known about as it could have affected their view of whether or not JM was telling the truth.
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
Thanks hartley. I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.
Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.
Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check. I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?
Oh God, you are right. I have been trying to find it after I saw Hartley´s post. There is another version of the same photo in my thread, but it is not as clear as the one I enlarged from. On the clear one (pre-enlargement), the greyish spot on her fingers is clear - that is why I noticed it and enlarged in the first place. I have to FIND it.
I know that clearer picture is somewhere in a thread (sigh!) - I THINK I have it in my waste basket on my comp.
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
Thanks hartley. I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.
Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.
Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check. I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?
Oh God, you are right. I have been trying to find it after I saw Hartley´s post. There is another version of the same photo in my thread, but it is not as clear as the one I enlarged from. On the clear one (pre-enlargement), the greyish spot on her fingers is clear - that is why I noticed it and enlarged in the first place. I have to FIND it.
I know that clearer picture is somewhere in a thread (sigh!) - I THINK I have it in my waste basket on my comp.
Well at least me and hartley have served a purpose abs ;)
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
Thanks hartley. I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.
Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.
Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check. I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?
Oh God, you are right. I have been trying to find it after I saw Hartley´s post. There is another version of the same photo in my thread, but it is not as clear as the one I enlarged from. On the clear one (pre-enlargement), the greyish spot on her fingers is clear - that is why I noticed it and enlarged in the first place. I have to FIND it.
I know that clearer picture is somewhere in a thread (sigh!) - I THINK I have it in my waste basket on my comp.
Well at least me and hartley have served a purpose abs ;)
I won´t find it today - and not in my recycle bin! Too many pictures there (I have to restore them to see them - and I call the pics all kids of very unsystematic things!)!!! It will be easier to find it here in the thread where I saw it. Jeezaz, why didn´t I just keep that pic. Hartley won´t believe me! :P
-
This thread?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,697.0.html
Yes I can see the two grey marks between thumb and forefinger on those. :P
It's worth noting that those images have already been scientifically examined by the defence when they super imposed the images.
-
This thread?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,697.0.html
Yes I can see the two grey marks between thumb and forefinger on those. :P
It's worth noting that those images have already been scientifically examined by the defence when they super imposed the images.
Yes, thanks a lot!
OK, the defence has looked at this (of course).
-
I'm almost certain that this photo was part of the photo bundles at the 2002 appeal.
This is the preface to the 2002 appeal;
48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands.
49. DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased's feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar.
50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.
51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
The swabs were transported with other firearms I believe, so when the swabs were sent to the lab they were initially rejected because of the risk of contamination. There was a note from Mike Ainsley;
"The hands – were swabbed – swabs rejected by the laboratory. Later raised by D/Superintendent Ainsley in conference at the laboratory when the laboratory again stated that it was too costly to do and that it would be expected to show a positive result as the body of Sheila was in a room contaminated by gunfire. D/Superintendent Ainsley made issue that the swabs should be examined and if not done he wished a statement to explain why it had not been done. As a result they were examined and found to be virtually negative of residue, i.e. lead, oil and propellant."
I think this has been well and truly examined, re examined and certainly indicates there was no evidence of Sheila fireing a rifle that night.
-
Vidvic
1 What details do you have with regard to Stan Jones being suspicious the suicide was a murder
2 How soon after the murders did Ann Eaton remove the bucket
3 Why did the relatives take the silencer home (presumably home is the same place the bucket went)
rather than get the police involved straight away it is generally known by most people that
handling evidence that could be used in a court case might ruin the forensic evidence available
Could you answer the questions 1 2 and 3 so it is very easy for me to understand
-
Vidvic could you tell me exactly how many police officers were at WHF the day of the murders who were so convinced Sheila was responsible for the murders. I am sure they would all have noticed her fee and her hands
Was it 5, 7 8 police officers convinced what they saw that it was a suicide
-
Jackie, not intending to be funny, or rude, but you do appear to be more interested in picking people out for an argument than actually discussing the case.
Just saying :P
Constructive critisism for you: You would be taken a little more seriously if you didn't keep trying to turn things into your own personal battle and trying to beat up on people who don't share your view, instigating conflicts, you've done it enough with me. :-\
I mean seriously, what are you going to gain by finding out how many police officers were involved and what makes you think another poster has that information? I seem to recall Mr T stating how many cops were involved, you could give the search button a go, worth a try isn't it? :-\
-
Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.
No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.
I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.
Try it yourself.
Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it. Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing. Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? :P
Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.
In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.
Thanks hartley. I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.
We must not forget that the original negatives were not digital but old style 35mm film. So in actual fact you cannot say for sure that, that is so.
-
Jackie, not intending to be funny, or rude, but you do appear to be more interested in picking people out for an argument than actually discussing the case.
Just saying :P
Constructive critisism for you: You would be taken a little more seriously if you didn't keep trying to turn things into your own personal battle and trying to beat up on people who don't share your view, instigating conflicts, you've done it enough with me. :-\
I mean seriously, what are you going to gain by finding out how many police officers were involved and what makes you think another poster has that information? I seem to recall Mr T stating how many cops were involved, you could give the search button a go, worth a try isn't it? :-\
I think her questions are something to do with the fact that Vic has known the family from the start?
-
Extract from 'Blood Relations' to back up what I was saying a few days ago about the so called 'greedy' relations.....Why any inheritance was not a motive for them to frame JB...
"Of the dozens of wealthy farming dynasties that owned the rich arable farmland of Essex between the wars, the speakmans were among the wealthiest.........In total they owned or rented 6 farms covering many hundreds of acres........they had land and money in abundance"
-
Extract from 'Blood Relations' to back up what I was saying a few days ago about the so called 'greedy' relations.....Why any inheritance was not a motive for them to frame JB...
"Of the dozens of wealthy farming dynasties that owned the rich arable farmland of Essex between the wars, the speakmans were among the wealthiest.........In total they owned or rented 6 farms covering many hundreds of acres........they had land and money in abundance"
That may be so. But didn't someone say that Peter Boutflour had nothing of his own? And granny Speakman only died a few years ago. She was the one with the money not the Boutflours.
-
Extract from 'Blood Relations' to back up what I was saying a few days ago about the so called 'greedy' relations.....Why any inheritance was not a motive for them to frame JB...
"Of the dozens of wealthy farming dynasties that owned the rich arable farmland of Essex between the wars, the speakmans were among the wealthiest.........In total they owned or rented 6 farms covering many hundreds of acres........they had land and money in abundance"
That may be so. But didn't someone say that Peter Boutflour had nothing of his own? And granny Speakman only died a few years ago. She was the one with the money not the Boutflours.
The Speakmans, The Bambers, The Boutflours and the Eatons, pretty much drank from the same Jug. Hence there was nothing unusual about Nevill buying a piece of land for the Eatons, etc etc. Both Bobby Boutflour and Peter Eaton came from less wealthy backgrounds but only comparatively and was irrelevant once they married into the Speakman family. All the farms were originally Speakman farms and tenancy's were given to the Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eatons on Marriage. By the time Granny Speakman died most of her wealth had already been transferred to the surviving families.
-
Extract from 'Blood Relations' to back up what I was saying a few days ago about the so called 'greedy' relations.....Why any inheritance was not a motive for them to frame JB...
"Of the dozens of wealthy farming dynasties that owned the rich arable farmland of Essex between the wars, the speakmans were among the wealthiest.........In total they owned or rented 6 farms covering many hundreds of acres........they had land and money in abundance"
That may be so. But didn't someone say that Peter Boutflour had nothing of his own? And granny Speakman only died a few years ago. She was the one with the money not the Boutflours.
The Speakmans, The Bambers, The Boutflours and the Eatons, pretty much drank from the same Jug. Hence there was nothing unusual about Nevill buying a piece of land for the Eatons, etc etc. Both Bobby Boutflour and Peter Eaton came from less wealthy backgrounds but only comparatively and was irrelevant once they married into the Speakman family. All the farms were originally Speakman farms and tenancy's were given to the Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eatons on Marriage. By the time Granny Speakman died most of her wealth had already been transferred to the surviving families.
I thought she left in her will her money to her two daughters? What I am saying is that at the time of the trial Peter Boutflour made out he didn't need the money because he gave the impression that he was wealthy, but in fact he had nothing of his own? He even said himself that the conviction of Jeremy Bamber made him quite rich or words to that effect and he also said he spent most of it.
-
Extract from 'Blood Relations' to back up what I was saying a few days ago about the so called 'greedy' relations.....Why any inheritance was not a motive for them to frame JB...
"Of the dozens of wealthy farming dynasties that owned the rich arable farmland of Essex between the wars, the speakmans were among the wealthiest.........In total they owned or rented 6 farms covering many hundreds of acres........they had land and money in abundance"
That may be so. But didn't someone say that Peter Boutflour had nothing of his own? And granny Speakman only died a few years ago. She was the one with the money not the Boutflours.
The Speakmans, The Bambers, The Boutflours and the Eatons, pretty much drank from the same Jug. Hence there was nothing unusual about Nevill buying a piece of land for the Eatons, etc etc. Both Bobby Boutflour and Peter Eaton came from less wealthy backgrounds but only comparatively and was irrelevant once they married into the Speakman family. All the farms were originally Speakman farms and tenancy's were given to the Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eatons on Marriage. By the time Granny Speakman died most of her wealth had already been transferred to the surviving families.
------------------------
The monies loaned to the Boutflours, Eaton's, and Pargeters, in connection with land deals, by Ralph Bamber, was not included in his estate, and amounted to several cases of fraud. In other words, the value of Ralph Bambers estate at the time of his death was "falsified to exclude these amounts", it is irrelevant that the same relatives to whom the loans were given, would later benefit from those monies - an example of what I am talking about, relates to the monies loaned to the Eatons to pay off the Land, which was not included in Ralph Bambers estate at the time of his death, and the fact that Anthony Pargeter and his sister inherited Ralph's estate that was owed monies by the Eatons...
Yet to be determined...
Is whether or not, the Eatons repaid the Monies they borrowed from Ralph Bamber that should have been part of his estate, was repaid at any stage, or by way of agreement to the Pargeters?
The jury which tried Jeremy for these murders, had a right to know about these deceptions, especially since it was the relatives who introduced the motive for Jeremy being the killer (so that he could get his hands on his parents estates - funny how the estate of Ralph Bamber was drafted up to exclude hundreds of thousands of pounds, loaned to the Eatons, and the Pargeters...
But for Jeremys arrest and conviction for these murders, I understand that he would have been demanding the return of these monies, from all parties concerned - to be pondered, is where would the relatives have raised all that money from to repay it back to Ralph Bambers estate...
-
hartley I am sure vicvid is more than capable of sticking up for himself, the point is he is defending the family, he says he knows the family and this is a brilliant chance to get the answers
grahame is quite right
vicvid please answer my questions we are discussing someones life here or Hartley are you his back up guy
I am a girl
-
There was a legal battle between the relatives (Eatons, Boutflours / Pargeters) which gained considerable momentum once Jeremy was convicted by a reliance upon their evidence, and subsequently taken out of the equation...
There are many who believe that this is what motivated the relatives to testify in support of the prosecutions case, to help get Jeremy convicted of these murders...
-
hartley I am sure vicvid is more than capable of sticking up for himself, the point is he is defending the family, he says he knows the family and this is a brilliant chance to get the answers
grahame is quite right
vicvid please answer my questions we are discussing someones life here or Hartley are you his back up guy
I am a girl
I'm not sticking up for anybody. You just seem to have lost your ability to discuss things with anybody who holds a different view to your own, hence your reference to my good self in your above post.
Jackie, whilst we in the demanding answers mode, would you care to answer why you think the defence decided not to question JM at the 2002 appeal trial?
-
Been a bit busy so taken a while to respond.
Yes, I am a TV Producer and yes, I have known the family for many many years. I originally worked for Anglia TV and Sky News (right from it's very beginning) though in 2004 concentrated on sport.
I am proud to say I know this family. They are good people. I probably get more annoyed than I should when I read about them as 'greedy', 'liars' and the like, because it is unrecognisable to the people that I know.
Please don't accuse me of not listening to the JB version of events either. I read and view everything I can lay my hands on and I respect Mike Tesko for his tenacity, though obviously I believe misguided.
Yes, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the Police made many errors, but JB is in prison despite these errors, not because of them.
I know many journalists that have spent thousands of hours doing exactly what some of you do, asking questions, reading statements, testing theories. The vast majority that I have met agree with me and the appeal court judges, in that the more you know about this case, the more convinced you become of JB's guilt.
Hartley
If you will read the above you will know why I am asking the questions I am and yes I am quite capable of sticking up for myself but I put a number of questions to vicvid and I would like an answer. He seems to know all the details of everything and when I get my answers I will deal with yours
-
You didn't answer my question. ???
-
Vicvid as you havent answered my previous questions I just wanted to slip one more in
After reading Ngb1066 post saying that Mugford most likely would not have been able to sell a story on JB if he was found to be not guilty
Do you think JB had a fair trial in view of this and the fact that JM would get a bonus decided by the outcome of the trial.
As I understand it the jururs were not told of the newspaper deal or the bonus on Jeremys conviction
Do you think this was fair
Hartley read my post CAREFULLY I will answer your question after all mine have been answered.
I WAS FIRST
-
Been a bit busy so taken a while to respond.
Yes, I am a TV Producer and yes, I have known the family for many many years. I originally worked for Anglia TV and Sky News (right from it's very beginning) though in 2004 concentrated on sport.
I am proud to say I know this family. They are good people. I probably get more annoyed than I should when I read about them as 'greedy', 'liars' and the like, because it is unrecognisable to the people that I know.
Please don't accuse me of not listening to the JB version of events either. I read and view everything I can lay my hands on and I respect Mike Tesko for his tenacity, though obviously I believe misguided.
Yes, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the Police made many errors, but JB is in prison despite these errors, not because of them.
I know many journalists that have spent thousands of hours doing exactly what some of you do, asking questions, reading statements, testing theories. The vast majority that I have met agree with me and the appeal court judges, in that the more you know about this case, the more convinced you become of JB's guilt.
Hartley
If you will read the above you will know why I am asking the questions I am and yes I am quite capable of sticking up for myself but I put a number of questions to vicvid and I would like an answer. He seems to know all the details of everything and when I get my answers I will deal with yours
Jackie, since I started posting on the forum you have done nothing other than try to discredit me.
I have enjoyed debating with many people on here who hold exactly the opposite view to myself, but can debate in a sensible and inteligent manner.
If you want to only hear from people who agree with your own view, go somewhere else.
Like I said yesterday, I find your attitude as one of a school ground bully.
-
There was a legal battle between the relatives (Eatons, Boutflours / Pargeters) which gained considerable momentum once Jeremy was convicted by a reliance upon their evidence, and subsequently taken out of the equation...
There are many who believe that this is what motivated the relatives to testify in support of the prosecutions case, to help get Jeremy convicted of these murders...
It is quite clear to me that money was more important to the Eaton's, Boutflour's and the Pargeter's than anything else. They argued fiercely about it long after Jeremy was sentenced in 1986. Anthony Pargeter has suffered his own mental anguish which was all brought about by fighting about money with the rest of the
family. Pargeter fell out with them in a big way...........guess what it was all about.........money again.
-
There was a legal battle between the relatives (Eatons, Boutflours / Pargeters) which gained considerable momentum once Jeremy was convicted by a reliance upon their evidence, and subsequently taken out of the equation...
There are many who believe that this is what motivated the relatives to testify in support of the prosecutions case, to help get Jeremy convicted of these murders...
It is quite clear to me that money was more important to the Eaton's, Boutflour's and the Pargeter's than anything else. They argued fiercely about it long after Jeremy was sentenced in 1986. Anthony Pargeter has suffered his own mental anguish which was all brought about by fighting about money with the rest of the
family. Pargeter fell out with them in a big way...........guess what it was all about.........money again.
You know this for a fact?
Would like to see your evidence ;)
-
Also Jackie, as I've told you before, whilst I don't agree with your views, I respect that you have them. Personally, if someone came on here saying they are good friends with the family, then instead of butting heads at every opportunity, I would consider entering into discussions to try and glean some of that inside information, he might not be around forever and the chance to obtain an insight might not present itself again for a long time if at all. You desperate for the truth aren't you?
That's just my view though. :-\
-
Vicvid as you havent answered my previous questions I just wanted to slip one more in
After reading Ngb1066 post saying that Mugford most likely would not have been able to sell a story on JB if he was found to be not guilty
Do you think JB had a fair trial in view of this and the fact that JM would get a bonus decided by the outcome of the trial.
As I understand it the jururs were not told of the newspaper deal or the bonus on Jeremys conviction
Do you think this was fair
Hartley read my post CAREFULLY I will answer your question after all mine have been answered.
I WAS FIRST
No that's not acceptable to me, I asked you before Vic was even on here and I'd like an answer please.
-
Hartley
Its like old times I love fighting with you
I think it was vicvids comments that Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death that maybe made me feel a bit hostile
Next he will be telling me JM gave her £25,000 to charity because she was a wonderful person
-
What do you mean Hartley not acceptable go and find the post and the date and then I will go back and check all my old posts to see if you have answered all my questions
Now you are being a silly boy
I think vicvid is probably on the verge of giving me long detailed responses to all my questions he might even have a photo tucked away of the bucket and then I will answer yours if your not tucked up in bed with the missus and a cup of cocoa
-
just going back to the picures that abs blew up of sheilas hands, if you look on youtube and find the video where one of the coppers is being interviewed (bews?) he is shown pics of sheila on a laptop, you can see the marks on sheilas hands even on that. i paused it otherwise i would have missed it, but they're there. oh and good evening all :) ive just got home from work.
-
Hartley
Its like old times I love fighting with you
I think it was vicvids comments that Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death that maybe made me feel a bit hostile
Next he will be telling me JM gave her £25,000 to charity because she was a wonderful person
And it's horrible comments like that, and it's Nevill, no E, about a relationship you have absolutely NO knowledge about, are wrong about and are spreading lies about, that lose all my respect.
-
Hartley
Its like old times I love fighting with you
I think it was vicvids comments that Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death that maybe made me feel a bit hostile
Next he will be telling me JM gave her £25,000 to charity because she was a wonderful person
You too, have a virtual :beer: on me :)
All I'm saying Jackie is that there isn't really any need to be hostile is there? Instead you could ask Vic how this 'never got over it' has manifested itself, you never know you may learn some inside knowledge that you can't get anywhere else.
You know JM bought a flat, what you don't know is if anything Vic has posted is innaccurate, sure you don't need to take it as gospel without it being corroborated, but his views are just as valid as yours or mine.
You are a bully though. ;D
-
just going back to the picures that abs blew up of sheilas hands, if you look on youtube and find the video where one of the coppers is being interviewed (bews?) he is shown pics of sheila on a laptop, you can see the marks on sheilas hands even on that. i paused it otherwise i would have missed it, but they're there. oh and good evening all :) ive just got home from work.
EVENING ALL, ignorant gits ;D ;D
-
just going back to the picures that abs blew up of sheilas hands, if you look on youtube and find the video where one of the coppers is being interviewed (bews?) he is shown pics of sheila on a laptop, you can see the marks on sheilas hands even on that. i paused it otherwise i would have missed it, but they're there. oh and good evening all :) ive just got home from work.
EVENING ALL, ignorant gits ;D ;D
EVENING!! ;D ;D ;D
-
thats ace thanks abs ;D ;D
-
just going back to the picures that abs blew up of sheilas hands, if you look on youtube and find the video where one of the coppers is being interviewed (bews?) he is shown pics of sheila on a laptop, you can see the marks on sheilas hands even on that. i paused it otherwise i would have missed it, but they're there. oh and good evening all :) ive just got home from work.
Here is the +1 that I promised last night.
Smiters eat your hearts out.
EVENING ALL, ignorant gits ;D ;D
-
that +1 for me cliff ?
-
just going back to the picures that abs blew up of sheilas hands, if you look on youtube and find the video where one of the coppers is being interviewed (bews?) he is shown pics of sheila on a laptop, you can see the marks on sheilas hands even on that. i paused it otherwise i would have missed it, but they're there. oh and good evening all :) ive just got home from work.
EVENING ALL, ignorant gits ;D ;D
Evening Andrea! I've read your post and I'll be reviewing the YouTube clip of Bews again. I'm sure you're right as you've got previous form of spotting things :D
-
that +1 for me cliff ?
Of course Andrea.
-
that +1 for me cliff ?
Of course Andrea.
thanks cliff, my little lovely ,even though you could be built like a cheftain tank!!! +1 for you back ;D ;D
-
for VORTEX
the marks are deffinately there.
-
Vic... do you have an opinion about the marks upon Sheila's right hand in the said photograph? What i mean is, what do you think these marks might be?
-
for VORTEX
the marks are deffinately there.
They are...
-
that +1 for me cliff ?
Of course Andrea.
thanks cliff, my little lovely ,even though you could be built like a cheftain tank!!! +1 for you back ;D ;D
Shame on you Adrea. I am a slim Jim. 12 stone of Essex beef [cat].
Every one kicks sand in my face, and I say sorry.
-
kick it back cliff twice as hard ;)
-
Hartley
If bullying gets someone a retrial so be it and I would definately been called a bully if I had been the person cross examining Mugford I wouldnt have fallen for the tears
Vicvid has stated many things on this forum which blatently contradicts everything I had read or even what people have told me in person.
There is not one single thing that Neville could have done to deserve getting punched nothing I hate any kind of violence and to say that Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death I personally do not believe it. As a friend of the family why doesnt Vic post some happy family photos when all the families spent Christmas together.
I am also quite disturbed about Nanny Speakman I want to look into that more this doesnt sound nice at all.
What do you think about what Grahame posted about that.
I will keep asking questions
I really only found out about JM and the newspaper deal today from Ngb1066
I have not asked anything difficult in my questions to Vicvid I would like his thoughts
-
What do you mean Hartley not acceptable go and find the post and the date and then I will go back and check all my old posts to see if you have answered all my questions
Now you are being a silly boy
I think vicvid is probably on the verge of giving me long detailed responses to all my questions he might even have a photo tucked away of the bucket and then I will answer yours if your not tucked up in bed with the missus and a cup of cocoa
mmmm cocoa. :)
-
EVENING ANDREA YOU ARE A CLEVER GIRL
-
just going back to the picures that abs blew up of sheilas hands, if you look on youtube and find the video where one of the coppers is being interviewed (bews?) he is shown pics of sheila on a laptop, you can see the marks on sheilas hands even on that. i paused it otherwise i would have missed it, but they're there. oh and good evening all :) ive just got home from work.
EVENING ALL, ignorant gits ;D ;D
Good evening Andrea. ;D
-
hi grahame hi jackie ;D
its the journeyman video, pause the vid at 9mins 28sec
-
Hartley
If bullying gets someone a retrial so be it and I would definately been called a bully if I had been the person cross examining Mugford I wouldnt have fallen for the tears
Vicvid has stated many things on this forum which blatently contradicts everything I had read or even what people have told me in person.
There is not one single thing that Neville could have done to deserve getting punched nothing I hate any kind of violence and to say that Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death I personally do not believe it. As a friend of the family why doesnt Vic post some happy family photos when all the families spent Christmas together.
I am also quite disturbed about Nanny Speakman I want to look into that more this doesnt sound nice at all.
What do you think about what Grahame posted about that.
I will keep asking questions
I really only found out about JM and the newspaper deal today from Ngb1066
I have not asked anything difficult in my questions to Vicvid I would like his thoughts
Jackie crack on and ask away.
My only advice to you is that if you are indeed actually asking for information from somebody then you get better results if you were a little more polite when asking your questions.
At the end of the day I couldn't care either way, now that your attention is elsewhere it takes the heat off me.
With regards to the two marks between thumb and forefinger on Sheila's right hand, hold your hand out as if you are waving at somebody, do you see two shadows either side of your tendons? It could be a possibilty.
-
plus 1 Andrea
-
Hartley
I will take your comments on board and try and be a bit more easier on people
If you met me in person you would like me I promise
-
Hartley
I will take your comments on board and try and be a bit more easier on people
If you met me in person you would like me I promise
Fair play to you Jackie. 8)
-
Good evening, Andy, my little duck.
-
hello shona ;D hows tha doing ?
-
Crappy day, but the tablets are kicking now. Thanks for asking!!
-
Shona as you are a definately guilty I wanted to ask you about something I bought up with Ngb this deal Mugford had with the newspaper. Ngb1066 with his legal background said it was very unlikely that Mugford would have got the NOTW £25,000 deal if JB was found not guilty. The jury as I am aware did not know this I would like your thoughts and also I would like your thoughts about the nanny speakman thing
-
Hartley
If bullying gets someone a retrial so be it and I would definately been called a bully if I had been the person cross examining Mugford I wouldnt have fallen for the tears
Vicvid has stated many things on this forum which blatently contradicts everything I had read or even what people have told me in person.
There is not one single thing that Neville could have done to deserve getting punched nothing I hate any kind of violence and to say that Peter Eaton never got over Nevilles death I personally do not believe it. As a friend of the family why doesnt Vic post some happy family photos when all the families spent Christmas together.
I am also quite disturbed about Nanny Speakman I want to look into that more this doesnt sound nice at all.
What do you think about what Grahame posted about that.
I will keep asking questions
I really only found out about JM and the newspaper deal today from Ngb1066
I have not asked anything difficult in my questions to Vicvid I would like his thoughts
Well, for a start, Granny Speakman was never in a nursing home in Maldon
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Dear Grahame,
What mike actually said is.....
Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...
This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....
Vic... no offence meant... I'm interested in your approach to the case and welcome your slant on it. But the thing is, how would Jeremy or for that matter anyone else, 'prime' Sheila? It's all getting a bit 'Manchurian Candidate' or '39 Steps' isn't it? Do you think that Jeremy, upon scrapping his idea of drugging the family and setting fire to the farmhouse, decided that it would be far easier to use some kind of ju ju mental projection? Perhaps he saw a window of opportunity, when he realised Sheila's Haloperidol dose had been reduced?
You deserve +10 for this, Rocky
-
Hartley
I will take your comments on board and try and be a bit more easier on people
If you met me in person you would like me I promise
Fair play to you Jackie. 8)
Aha! he's got his cool shades on now. ;D
-
Do you know what, Jack? I'm not a definitely guilty. I wobble.
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3sk7fGHPXdk&rct=j&q=merlins%20over%20malta&ei=0WjtTcNjj7SEB9bU2YkD&usg=AFQjCNGTTIu2A9zi6kaM2XUAv78Upg9s_w&sig2=1jmx88SIcSv2SNOST4QTHA&cad=rja
Good film, Vic! I love the vertiginous shots from the planes.
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3sk7fGHPXdk&rct=j&q=merlins%20over%20malta&ei=0WjtTcNjj7SEB9bU2YkD&usg=AFQjCNGTTIu2A9zi6kaM2XUAv78Upg9s_w&sig2=1jmx88SIcSv2SNOST4QTHA&cad=rja
Good film, Vic! I love the vertiginous shots from the planes.
lol.....I had to look up vertiginous.......rofl
-
Vidvic
I would like to watch the history one whats it called?
Chochkeira into history too I know she would love to as well I just mess about making jb videos I like to see professionals at work
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3sk7fGHPXdk&rct=j&q=merlins%20over%20malta&ei=0WjtTcNjj7SEB9bU2YkD&usg=AFQjCNGTTIu2A9zi6kaM2XUAv78Upg9s_w&sig2=1jmx88SIcSv2SNOST4QTHA&cad=rja
Good film, Vic! I love the vertiginous shots from the planes.
lol.....I had to look up vertiginous.......rofl
Blimey... ::)
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
That he's ignoring you. He does that to all of us much of the time. If Mike answered every question he was asked:
1. He'd never get to bed
2. He'd be doing the defence's work for them - and they should work for their fat fees.
Woops, I meant to say that he'd be doing the prosecution's work for them
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? ;D
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? ;D
I'm not writing a doco
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? ;D
I'm not writing a doco
So you're filming and producing it then...?
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
Maybe he didnt feel that he needed to,as you seem to know all the answers already?
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
I think that we must realise that you and I are not the only people on this forum and that although we may think that our questions are the be all and end all of everything, Mike may not think the same? ;)
-
+1 Grahame ;)
-
I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that????
Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? ;D
I'm not writing a doco
So you're filming and producing it then...?
Just to be clear. I am not writing, producing, filming or making any kind of video or audio material, TV programme or webcast on anything to do with this case.
-
Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?
The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.
Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?
But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.
Dear Grahame,
What mike actually said is.....
Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...
This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....
Vic... no offence meant... I'm interested in your approach to the case and welcome your slant on it. But the thing is, how would Jeremy or for that matter anyone else, 'prime' Sheila? It's all getting a bit 'Manchurian Candidate' or '39 Steps' isn't it? Do you think that Jeremy, upon scrapping his idea of drugging the family and setting fire to the farmhouse, decided that it would be far easier to use some kind of ju ju mental projection? Perhaps he saw a window of opportunity, when he realised Sheila's Haloperidol dose had been reduced?
You deserve +10 for this, Rocky
Thanks, 8) Some good to n fro on here at the moment. both sides being represented.
-
Rochy I think you are right it is much better with the to and fro but I have asked the same question of Vidvic numerous times and he will not answer me.
The question is (and I am hope I get an answer as he keeps saying he knows the family) why would the relatives take the silencer home. I think it is such an important question in the case maybe the most important thing none of us understand it and I dont think there is one person on this forum who does not want an answer on this subject.
I think when you add to this Ann Eaton taking a bucket of bloody clothes home to the same place the question seems even more important as there are numerous questions over the blood silencer evidence
That is two pieces of evidence tampered with by relatives
I might start a petition to get a straight answer from Vicvid about the above
I would like to know any forum members who are not interested why the silencer was taken home
-
Rochy I think you are right it is much better with the to and fro but I have asked the same question of Vidvic numerous times and he will not answer me.
The question is (and I am hope I get an answer as he keeps saying he knows the family) why would the relatives take the silencer home. I think it is such an important question in the case maybe the most important thing none of us understand it and I dont think there is one person on this forum who does not want an answer on this subject.
I think when you add to this Ann Eaton taking a bucket of bloody clothes home to the same place the question seems even more important as there are numerous questions over the blood silencer evidence
That is two pieces of evidence tampered with by relatives
I might start a petition to get a straight answer from Vicvid about the above
I would like to know any forum members who are not interested why the silencer was taken home
They are all relevant questions to my mind Jackie. I can see know problems as to why they can't be answered by someone who is so close to the family? Also they are all unusual actions. I'm sure if I found a bucket full of bloody clothes after a murder or suicide I would rather the police deal with it. Jeremy's actions are rather more normal. His reaction was not to be eager to get into the house but rather allowed Ann Eaton to have them. He wanted everything to be disposed of by the police. He wanted to get away from it all by going abroad for a time. Exactly the things I would have done. The relatives did some very weird and macabre things after those tragic events to be sure?
-
Excellent points Grahame maybe I am going to have chase Vic around the forum all day to get the answer to that vital question
vic
Why did the relatives take the silencer home
-
Excellent points Grahame maybe I am going to have chase Vic around the forum all day to get the answer to that vital question
vic
Why did the relatives take the silencer home
WHOOOAH. I should've gone to Specsavers. :o
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
-
Rochy I think you are right it is much better with the to and fro but I have asked the same question of Vidvic numerous times and he will not answer me.
The question is (and I am hope I get an answer as he keeps saying he knows the family) why would the relatives take the silencer home. I think it is such an important question in the case maybe the most important thing none of us understand it and I dont think there is one person on this forum who does not want an answer on this subject.
I think when you add to this Ann Eaton taking a bucket of bloody clothes home to the same place the question seems even more important as there are numerous questions over the blood silencer evidence
That is two pieces of evidence tampered with by relatives
I might start a petition to get a straight answer from Vicvid about the above
I would like to know any forum members who are not interested why the silencer was taken home
They are all relevant questions to my mind Jackie. I can see know problems as to why they can't be answered by someone who is so close to the family? Also they are all unusual actions. I'm sure if I found a bucket full of bloody clothes after a murder or suicide I would rather the police deal with it. Jeremy's actions are rather more normal. His reaction was not to be eager to get into the house but rather allowed Ann Eaton to have them. He wanted everything to be disposed of by the police. He wanted to get away from it all by going abroad for a time. Exactly the things I would have done. The relatives did some very weird and macabre things after those tragic events to be sure?
Isn't there this saying (at least there is in my country): A criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.
I think they want to see if there is something they overlooked, to have some illusion of control over the situation, anxious about being caught. It is a well known fact that very often criminals do this.
The fact that Jeremy did not want a key to WHF does suggest innocence in my opinion.
I know that he entered the farm through a window (which is slightly odd), but his explanation makes some sense. How long after the tragedy was this?
But bottom line is that it speaks in his favour that he did not want the key.
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
It is still strange. And she did not hand any of the clothing over, did she?
-
Hartley
You have stated recently that we we all wrong and you dont personally know the family but vicvid has says he does that is why I am asking him
Surely they must have been worried the silencer might have become contaminated with the blood from the bucket
That must have been a worry
-
Hartley
You have stated recently that we we all wrong and you dont personally know the family but vicvid has says he does that is why I am asking him
Please can you stop posting rubbish and if you are going to quote me then quote me, don't make stuff up.
I have said no such thing.
-
Excellent points Grahame maybe I am going to have chase Vic around the forum all day to get the answer to that vital question
vic
Why did the relatives take the silencer home
I'm not sure the 36pt maroon is going to get you some magic answer Jackie but it's certainly given me a headache.
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
That's a good point Bob, the house had been handed over and clean up was in progress, if the police wanted to make anything of the clothes soaking in a bucket then they had ample opportunity. The relatives were responsible for tidying up, I don't think it's odd at all they they dealt with the clothes in soak, what else were they supposed to do with them?
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.
A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?
Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?
If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?
If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?
AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?
What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?
Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.
A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?
Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?
If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?
If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?
AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?
What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?
Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?
Choch, I think you may have misinterpreted the post which you quoted. I am referring to the silencer in that instance and not the clothes in soak.
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.
A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?
Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?
If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?
If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?
AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?
What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?
Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?
She was cleaining up the house after an apparent murder-suicide. In her mind that was a positive thing to do. As has been said before on here, people cope with shock and grief in different ways - keeping busy by cleaning things is quite a common reaction in fact.
I don't think anyone has said that the removal of dirty washing was done to "protect the evidence" have they? (sorry if I'm wrong)
Are you suggesting that by the time she came to remove the dirty washing the plan to frame Jeremy was already in full swing and this was part of it?
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
So, you find buckets of blood stained clothing Which the police have missed at the site of a masacre.
The clothing belongs to the person believed to have been the killer.
You recognise that this may be significant evidence, sufficiently significant for you to be worried that someone else may remove and destroy it (Hartley).
So you keep this important evidence secure by taking it home, washing and disposing of it...???
Is that what you're saying?
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
So, you find buckets of blood stained clothing Which the police have missed at the site of a masacre.
The clothing belongs to the person believed to have been the killer.
You recognise that this may be significant evidence, sufficiently significant for you to be worried that someone else may remove and destroy it (Hartley).
So you keep this important evidence secure by taking it home, washing and disposing of it...???
Is that what you're saying?
Choc, As I've already said, my previous post is referring to the silencer and is a response to Jackie.
So no that is not what I am saying at all!
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
That's a good point Bob, the house had been handed over and clean up was in progress, if the police wanted to make anything of the clothes soaking in a bucket then they had ample opportunity. The relatives were responsible for tidying up, I don't think it's odd at all they they dealt with the clothes in soak, what else were they supposed to do with them?
Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.
It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
That's a good point Bob, the house had been handed over and clean up was in progress, if the police wanted to make anything of the clothes soaking in a bucket then they had ample opportunity. The relatives were responsible for tidying up, I don't think it's odd at all they they dealt with the clothes in soak, what else were they supposed to do with them?
In actual fact it is the police's responsibility to remove everything connected with the crime and yes it was a crime scene even if it was murder and suicide. It was never police policy to let relatives clean up blood from the premises. And back in the eighties police policy concerning crime scene preservation was exactly the same as today. What? did you think we all wore stiff shirt collars and bowler hats back then and all had pipes filled with dark shag tobacco, deer stalker hats and magnifying glasses? Well magnifying glass we did have. ::) ;D
-
Spot on Chocho sometimes I feel like people think we are idiots plus 1 for you
What EXACT time did Stan Jones get suspicious about it could been a murder
What time did Ann Eaton dissapear with the bucket
So Stan Jones thought it could be murder not a one off husband kills wife type murder but the murder of 5 people
Probably the biggest murder in EP history Sta Joneswould have gone to any lengths to preserve that crime scene
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
So, you find buckets of blood stained clothing Which the police have missed at the site of a masacre.
The clothing belongs to the person believed to have been the killer.
You recognise that this may be significant evidence, sufficiently significant for you to be worried that someone else may remove and destroy it (Hartley).
So you keep this important evidence secure by taking it home, washing and disposing of it...???
Is that what you're saying?
Who said the police missed it?
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
That's a good point Bob, the house had been handed over and clean up was in progress, if the police wanted to make anything of the clothes soaking in a bucket then they had ample opportunity. The relatives were responsible for tidying up, I don't think it's odd at all they they dealt with the clothes in soak, what else were they supposed to do with them?
Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.
It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.
I have no idea, I think the house was handed back to the relatives (which included JB at that time), they then went about their business of doing whatever, cleaning up, selling items, planting evidence or whatever you decide to believe.
It wasn't a crime scene any more SOCO had released it, if the police missed the buckets then that's their mistake. They also left a shotgun in the office, another mistake in a long list of them.
-
Spot on Chocho sometimes I feel like people think we are idiots plus 1 for you
What EXACT time did Stan Jones get suspicious about it could been a murder
What time did Ann Eaton dissapear with the bucket
So Stan Jones thought it could be murder not a one off husband kills wife type murder but the murder of 5 people
Probably the biggest murder in EP history Sta Joneswould have gone to any lengths to preserve that crime scene
I've afraid it is a case of taking credit after the fact. ;)
-
Who said the police missed it?
Again, no idea, I not convinced that they did miss it, but I don't know. I thought there was a photograph of them, but I may be mistaken.
-
@Bambertweets
Jeremy Bamber Jeremy Bamber todays latest : Freedom of information request to Essex Police for original logs and statements turned down
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.
A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?
Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?
If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?
If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?
AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?
What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?
Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?
She was cleaining up the house after an apparent murder-suicide. In her mind that was a positive thing to do. As has been said before on here, people cope with shock and grief in different ways - keeping busy by cleaning things is quite a common reaction in fact.
I don't think anyone has said that the removal of dirty washing was done to "protect the evidence" have they? (sorry if I'm wrong)
Are you suggesting that by the time she came to remove the dirty washing the plan to frame Jeremy was already in full swing and this was part of it?
Bob, what was removed was not just 'dirty washing', it was blood stained clothing belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer and it was removed from the site of a very bloody masacre. That clothing should have been subjected to forensic examination.
I mistakenly thought Hartley had suggested that the clothing was removed to protect it from being removed by someone else - sorry about that. Apologies to Hartley etc too.
I have never said that I believe that there was a conspiracy, Bob, indeed I've always said that I'm unconvinced by that view - the only one mentioning a conspiracy here is you. I'm not responsible for what's running through your mind.
-
Bambertweets
Jeremy Bamber @John_Cooper_QC Jeremy's latest application of FOI requests rejected by police why are the CCRC refusing to obtain these from Essex Police
-
@Bambertweets
Jeremy Bamber @JusticeGap Why are the CCRC refusing to intervene to obtain documents today Jeremy's latest request to Essex Police was declined
35 minutes ago via web
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mentioned in this Tweet
JusticeGap Jon Robins
Location: Brighton
Journalist and author. I run specialist research company www.jures.co.uk. .
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
My first thought is that you may be right about that. My second, that since they had fiddled with it at home and done who knows what for who knows how long - the silencer should simply not have been allowed as evidence in a trial.
-
Bambertweets
Jeremy Bamber @John_Cooper_QC Jeremy's latest application of FOI requests rejected by police why are the CCRC refusing to obtain these from Essex Police
Well according to some posters on here, the documents he's asking for might not even exist. It's all a ploy by the defence to muddy the waters.... Apparently.
-
@Bambertweets
Jeremy Bamber Jeremy Bamber todays latest : Freedom of information request to Essex Police for original logs and statements turned down
BAH
-
Plus 1 Abbs I think Law Students must look at this case and shake their heads in disbelief
-
Hartley when talking about the silencer you said the reason they took it home was they had to wait till after the weekend or some other excuse
Go a step further why did they start fiddling with it
-
I have no idea, I think the house was handed back to the relatives (which included JB at that time)
What an extraordinary statement.
-
Hartley when talking about the silencer you said the reason they took it home was they had to wait till after the weekend or some other excuse
Go a step further why did they start fiddling with it
I have no idea, I've said on several occasions that I thought it was madness to go fiddling it.
-
I have no idea, I think the house was handed back to the relatives (which included JB at that time)
What an extraordinary statement.
Why is that Choc?
-
I rest my case Hartley
-
I rest my case Hartley
What case? ???
-
Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.
I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.
Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.
My first thought is that you may be right about that. My second, that since they had fiddled with it at home and done who knows what for who knows how long - the silencer should simply not have been allowed as evidence in a trial.
I agree - the silencer would surely be inadmissible these days!
-
Hartley when talking about the silencer you said the reason they took it home was they had to wait till after the weekend or some other excuse
Go a step further why did they start fiddling with it
My guess is they were up to a bit of amateur sleuthing - not unlike ourselves :)
-
I have never said that I believe that there was a conspiracy, Bob, indeed I've always said that I'm unconvinced by that view - the only one mentioning a conspiracy here is you. I'm not responsible for what's running through your mind.
What were you alluding to then when you questioned why AE was removing evidence with the police's consent?
Sorry if my running mind foolishly interpretted that as suggestion of conspiracy! :)
-
Bob at this very moment in time forensic scientists are studying these photos re the scratch marks
Jeremy has absolute faith those scratches were made after the murders. If in the next few days it is confirmed 100% those scratches were not there where do you think we go from there.
I think an application can be made to fast track his case to appeal and he could be bailed in the next week or two is that correct
-
Jackie, thanks for +1 - one back on this sad day.
-
Bob at this very moment in time forensic scientists are studying these photos re the scratch marks
Jeremy has absolute faith those scratches were made after the murders. If in the next few days it is confirmed 100% those scratches were not there where do you think we go from there.
I think an application can be made to fast track his case to appeal and he could be bailed in the next week or two is that correct
I guess that depends on how important those scratches are to the safety of the conviction Jackie. Do you think they are an essential part of the silencer evidence?
Would the conviction remain "safe" if the silencer evidence was removed? I suspect not, which is ironic really as I think the silencer evidence is pretty rocky anyway by today's standards.
However, if the case was referred back to court, I personally doubt that he would be bailed prior to a retrial - Kenneth Clarke is in a spot of bother himself at the moment, and he could do without the publicity that bailing a notorious convict would attract!
-
Hartley when talking about the silencer you said the reason they took it home was they had to wait till after the weekend or some other excuse
Go a step further why did they start fiddling with it
My guess is they were up to a bit of amateur sleuthing - not unlike ourselves :)
Nearly posted before bob... they were sleuthing for justice... from their own standpoint
-
Bob at this very moment in time forensic scientists are studying these photos re the scratch marks
Jeremy has absolute faith those scratches were made after the murders. If in the next few days it is confirmed 100% those scratches were not there where do you think we go from there.
I think an application can be made to fast track his case to appeal and he could be bailed in the next week or two is that correct
I guess that depends on how important those scratches are to the safety of the conviction Jackie. Do you think they are an essential part of the silencer evidence?
Would the conviction remain "safe" if the silencer evidence was removed? I suspect not, which is ironic really as I think the silencer evidence is pretty rocky anyway by today's standards.
However, if the case was referred back to court, I personally doubt that he would be bailed prior to a retrial - Kenneth Clarke is in a spot of bother himself at the moment, and he could do without the publicity that bailing a notorious convict would attract!
well put bob. jackie, i was hoping that it wasn't just the scratch marks issue that they would be looking at from the crime scene negatives. But then again, he was told to narrow down and concentrate his submissions.
-
Bob I think this is very important as regards the safety of the conviction and could lead to a pack of cards tumbling down even maybe some arrests
It wouldnt look good on the ccrc either would it I think Jeremy being bailed would be the least of Ken Clarkes worries I would like my money back if I have paid towards an innocent man being in prison for 26 years I wonder how much thats adds up as well as I suppose we have to cough up towards compensation
-
Bob I think this is very important as regards the safety of the conviction and could lead to a pack of cards tumbling down even maybe some arrests
It wouldnt look good on the ccrc either would it I think Jeremy being bailed would be the least of Ken Clarkes worries I would like my money back if I have paid towards an innocent man being in prison for 26 years I wonder how much thats adds up as well as I suppose we have to cough up towards compensation
(+ 1) jackie. In the event of the conviction being rendered unsafe due to new submissions...the money spent incarcerating jeremy bamber, effectively rigging two of his appeals, dealing with his previous submissions to ccrc, playing cat and mouse with essex police etc etc etc... it must be some bill. Could have been spent on a children's ward. That's the way I look at it.
-
Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.
It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.
Choc, Jackie et el.
This is taken from Ann Eatons COLP statement, it seems that people who are saying she took the soaked clothes home with her are somewhat mistaken. She clearly states that she rinsed them out and put them in the bin.
Well I'm glad that's been cleared up!
-
Ann Eatons complete COLP statement can be viewed here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
Lots of interesting stuff, such as why JM went with Ann to identify the bodies.
-
Also the soaked clothes are not described as blood soaked, Sheila's knickers looked as if she had a period and been caught out. That is a hundred million miles away from a bucket full of blood soaked clothes!
-
Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.
It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.
Choc, Jackie et el.
This is taken from Ann Eatons COLP statement, it seems that people who are saying she took the soaked clothes home with her are somewhat mistaken. She clearly states that she rinsed them out and put them in the bin.
Well I'm glad that's been cleared up!
There were two statements, weren't there Harters, or another section of this statement on this issue? In one of these I'm sure I recall AE mentioning how she persuaded a police officer present that the blood on the clothes was menstrual blood - which would have meant it was of little or no significance in respect of the murders. AE suggested that she could smell the difference between menstrual and non-menstrual blood.
-
Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.
It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.
Choc, Jackie et el.
This is taken from Ann Eatons COLP statement, it seems that people who are saying she took the soaked clothes home with her are somewhat mistaken. She clearly states that she rinsed them out and put them in the bin.
Well I'm glad that's been cleared up!
There were two statements, weren't there Harters, or another section of this statement on this issue? In one of these I'm sure I recall AE mentioning how she persuaded a police officer present that the blood on the clothes was menstrual blood - which would have meant it was of little or no significance in respect of the murders. AE suggested that she could smell the difference between menstrual non-menstrual blood.
I'm not sure Choc, I've lost track of what's on here and what isn't. I'll have a search around to see if I can find anything else.
-
Thanks, Harters. Weren't there also two buckets of clothes?
-
Ann Eatons complete COLP statement can be viewed here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
Lots of interesting stuff, such as why JM went with Ann to identify the bodies.
You're living up to your legend status Harts ;)
+1
-
Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.
It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.
Choc, Jackie et el.
This is taken from Ann Eatons COLP statement, it seems that people who are saying she took the soaked clothes home with her are somewhat mistaken. She clearly states that she rinsed them out and put them in the bin.
Well I'm glad that's been cleared up!
There were two statements, weren't there Harters, or another section of this statement on this issue? In one of these I'm sure I recall AE mentioning how she persuaded a police officer present that the blood on the clothes was menstrual blood - which would have meant it was of little or no significance in respect of the murders. AE suggested that she could smell the difference between menstrual and non-menstrual blood.
I have read that too, but I cannot remember where - it was when I was completely new to the case.
-
Thanks, Harters. Weren't there also two buckets of clothes?
That's what I thought too, but I can't find any reference to two buckets now, I'll keep digging though. :)
-
Ann Eatons complete COLP statement can be viewed here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
Lots of interesting stuff, such as why JM went with Ann to identify the bodies.
You're living up to your legend status Harts ;)
+1
Haha I don't know about that so much but cheers have a +1 back at ya. ;)
-
Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.
It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.
Choc, Jackie et el.
This is taken from Ann Eatons COLP statement, it seems that people who are saying she took the soaked clothes home with her are somewhat mistaken. She clearly states that she rinsed them out and put them in the bin.
Well I'm glad that's been cleared up!
There were two statements, weren't there Harters, or another section of this statement on this issue? In one of these I'm sure I recall AE mentioning how she persuaded a police officer present that the blood on the clothes was menstrual blood - which would have meant it was of little or no significance in respect of the murders. AE suggested that she could smell the difference between menstrual non-menstrual blood.
I'm not sure Choc, I've lost track of what's on here and what isn't. I'll have a search around to see if I can find anything else.
Here you are, Harters, from the '[Sheila's feet thread:
Re: Sheila's feet
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2011, 10:13:PM »Quote Quote from: andrea on February 13, 2011, 10:05:PM
there is mention also on the sleuthing site of conversation and a police officer. anne eaton says "menstrual blood smells different doesnt it" officer replies "well you make sure you tell the that in court if your asked" im sure mike could locate the document for us to see?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Ann Eaton spoke about this when COLP interviewed her in 1991 - she said that the defense would probably try to suggest that the silencer had been deliberately contaminated with the blood from the knickers which she had taken away from whf, and how she had told DCS Ainsley that she could tell the difference between ordinary blood, and menstrual blood because of the smell, to which Ainsley is supposed to have said to her something along the lines "you remember to say that in the witness box if you are asked about it"...
Yes, I will try to locate that document for viewing...
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 10:14:PM by mike tesko »
Report to moderator Logged
-
Thanks Choc, so that's just somebodies (Mike T's) post is it? Or is there a document in which it's stated?
-
As far as I can see (which means nothing) Anns COLP statement does not mention this at all.
-
It's from the same statement that I posted above: here's an extract:
-
I think that pretty much concludes the matter now though.
So back to what people were saying about how they thought the relatives were weird because they took a bucket of bloody clothes home and washed them. It doesn't seem to be the case!
Perhaps people shouldn't believe everything they read, check things out yourself, then double check and then still keep an open mind. ::)
-
Thanks Hartley - this is exactly what I saw.
Something else. Why on Earth would Jones ask Ann Eaton if she had had an affair with Jeremy??? :o
-
It's from the same statement that I posted above: here's an extract:
Thanks, Harters, you're a sweetheart - said merely in a friendly way, shona! I don't suppose you happen to have the section/s leading up to this too, Harters?
-
Thanks Hartley - this is exactly what I saw.
Something else. Why on Earth would Jones ask Ann Eaton if she had had an affair with Jeremy??? :o
yeah that statement contains loads of information, it probably poses more questions than it answers though. >:(
-
Thanks Hartley - this is exactly what I saw.
Something else. Why on Earth would Jones ask Ann Eaton if she had had an affair with Jeremy??? :o
Because she obviously loved him so much......? ;D
-
It's from the same statement that I posted above: here's an extract:
Thanks, Harters, you're a sweetheart - said merely in a friendly way, shona! I don't suppose you happen to have the section/s leading up to this too, Harters?
Yeah I posted a link to it, 72 pages in total, see below:
Ann Eatons complete COLP statement can be viewed here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
Lots of interesting stuff, such as why JM went with Ann to identify the bodies.
-
Thanks Hartley - this is exactly what I saw.
Something else. Why on Earth would Jones ask Ann Eaton if she had had an affair with Jeremy??? :o
Because she obviously loved him so much......? ;D
Another jilted woman... ;) ;)
She WAS practically stalking him and snooping around his cottage after the murders, wasn´t she? Maybe it was just an excuse to bump into handsome Jeremy! ;) ;) ;)
-
Maybe. ;)
-
Touch wood I havent had much to with blood (like when you get shot pools of blood)
so does it smell different and if blood was put in the silencer does anyone know if foresically the same?
menstrual blood and normal blood
Do you know what I have about 20 foresic scientists following me on twitter I am going to ask them but I would be grateful if anyone knows the answer
-
I wouldn't know I don't think I've ever menstrated. :-\
-
Touch wood I havent had much to with blood (like when you get shot pools of blood)
so does it smell different and if blood was put in the silencer does anyone know if foresically the same?
menstrual blood and normal blood
Do you know what I have about 20 foresic scientists following me on twitter I am going to ask them but I would be grateful if anyone knows the answer
There is a difference (I think it is about hormones in menstrual blood, but I am not sure, but I know there is a difference) - but I think you´d have to test specifically for that. It is still the same blood-group, obviously. And who would be testing for hormones inside a silencer!
-
I have never said that I believe that there was a conspiracy, Bob, indeed I've always said that I'm unconvinced by that view - the only one mentioning a conspiracy here is you. I'm not responsible for what's running through your mind.
What were you alluding to then when you questioned why AE was removing evidence with the police's consent?
Sorry if my running mind foolishly interpretted that as suggestion of conspiracy! :)
?
-
Thanks Hartley - this is exactly what I saw.
Something else. Why on Earth would Jones ask Ann Eaton if she had had an affair with Jeremy??? :o
My view....
Jones was probably sensing a very high level of hostility /hatred from Ann Eaton. Love and Hate can be very much linked at times so when persons who were previously lovers fall out then it can become intense hate due to the emotions involved. It seems a legitimate question to ask in the circumstances.
Though if AE replies in the negative about an affair..something needs to be offered to explain the high level of hostility /hate that Jones was most likely observing. Why was she so very strongly motivated in
maligning JB for it to be perceived that AE may be a spurned lover?
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
-------------------------------
Yes, Grahame, I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed...
I know that Sheila was on the bed before the police put her on the bedroom floor, I can't be one hundred per cent certain but I also suspect that they moved June Bambers body and placed it by the bedroom door - to enable the police to make a search of the bed...
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
What a moron.
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
-------------------------------
Yes, Grahame, I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed...
I know that Sheila was on the bed before the police put her on the bedroom floor, I can't be one hundred per cent certain but I also suspect that they moved June Bambers body and placed it by the bedroom door - to enable the police to make a search of the bed...
How do you know that the photo of her on the bed, wasn't after they picked her up off the floor?
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
Grahame
Do you have a copy of the statement to which you refer?
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
-------------------------------
Yes, Grahame, I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed...
I know that Sheila was on the bed before the police put her on the bedroom floor, I can't be one hundred per cent certain but I also suspect that they moved June Bambers body and placed it by the bedroom door - to enable the police to make a search of the bed...
How do you know that the photo of her on the bed, wasn't after they picked her up off the floor?
Paulg, why would they do that. Make her more comfortable?
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
-------------------------------
Yes, Grahame, I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed...
I know that Sheila was on the bed before the police put her on the bedroom floor, I can't be one hundred per cent certain but I also suspect that they moved June Bambers body and placed it by the bedroom door - to enable the police to make a search of the bed...
How do you know that the photo of her on the bed, wasn't after they picked her up off the floor?
Paulg, why would they do that. Make her more comfortable?
Previously alleged, I think: Blood was not running from her mouth, as depicted on known photos? Therefore blood running from mouth was result of body being moved to floor?
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
-------------------------------
Yes, Grahame, I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed...
I know that Sheila was on the bed before the police put her on the bedroom floor, I can't be one hundred per cent certain but I also suspect that they moved June Bambers body and placed it by the bedroom door - to enable the police to make a search of the bed...
How do you know that the photo of her on the bed, wasn't after they picked her up off the floor?
----------------
Photo I saw of Sheila laid out on the bed did not show her with blood running from the corners of her mouth, picture was taken by someone who I presume could have been PC David Bird, who was stood at the foot of the bed and Sheila was laid on top of the blanket / cover with the hem of her nightie riding up, and she was not wearing any underwear to protect her decency. I was literally shocked to see this picture, and I spoke to Jeremy on the phone that very same evening and reported to him what I had seen that afternoon in Ewen Smiths office. This image and other material was disclosed to Ewen by Essex police in confidence, but Ewen allowed me to view some of it because he valued the time and effort I was putting in trying to help his client (my pal Jeremy)...
Sheila was definitely on the bed, before she was on the floor, no doubt about it, police moved her body from one place to the other, it was not my pal Jeremy who moved the body, or anybody else, not no hit-man or any unknown third party...
-
ewen smith should have made a copy of that picture, its unbelievable that he sent it back to essex police, what on earth was he thinking of. He was supposed to be fighting for jb then he does a stupid thing like that, on another note, why would ep send a picture like that to jbs solicitor? you would have thought the defence is the last person they would want to see it....strange.
-
ewen smith should have made a copy of that picture, its unbelievable that he sent it back to essex police, what on earth was he thinking of. He was supposed to be fighting for jb then he does a stupid thing like that, on another note, why would ep send a picture like that to jbs solicitor? you would have thought the defence is the last person they would want to see it....strange.
---------------------
Essex police sent a lot of material to JB's solicitor in confidence, which upset Jeremy a great deal because Ewen did not pass that information on to Jeremy. It was one of the reasons why Jeremy got another legal representative lined up (GDS)...
-
Well when I read the statement Ann seemed to be hostile towards Jeremy already. Because it seemed he made advances of friendship towards her telling her she was his favourite cousin and she didn't seem to count him as such as she wrote that she already had first cousins and she didn't think of him as being a cousin?
Also interesting is the statement that a policeman told her about both Sheila and June being on the bed with the gun between them.
Grahame
Do you have a copy of the statement to which you refer?
Its in this thread. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443