4. Points affirming Bamber's culpability
The evidence affirming Bamber’s culpability is the fact that we can see from both the photograph and also the autopsy report that there were no recorded signs of struggle evident. That does require that we place faith in the recorded findings, but in that regard we have no choice.
That being the case, to believe Jeremy Bamber, we would have to accept that a disorganised affective-disordered psychotic would run amok and then, before killing herself, calmly:
(i). replace the moderator in the gun cupboard; and,
(ii). dispose of the incriminating clothes and put on a clean nightdress.
Point (i) above is extremely unlikely, but in fairness to Bamber, he need not worry about that as there is also the possibility that there was no moderator in the first place. So let's lean in Bamber's favour and dismiss (i).
It is point (ii) that causes Bamber the real problem. We can accept that Sheila may have cleaned herself up before committing suicide – even the staunchest anti-Bamber poster could accept this. That is not where we find the difficulty. Where the difficulty arises is in the fact that we have no recorded factual or forensic signature of the disposal of the incriminating clothes. Such a ‘signature’ might be wet clothes found somewhere nearby, or burnt clothes in the Aga, or clothes in the washing machine. Where is the signature?
There is also a second major problem with (ii). Why would Sheila bother with disposal at all? She’s cleaned herself up and put on a clean nightdress, and she now wants to kill herself. Why does she need to dispose of or clean the clothes? Why would she be concerned with the prospect of incrimination when she will shortly be dead?
Point 4(ii) rests on the assumption that an old man already shot three times would damage Sheila's clothes.
Ive got into fights before. On one occasion I broke my hand but my clothes were undamaged. Only one time can I recall my clothes getting in state from a fight and that's because I ended up on the floor.
Point 4(ii) rests on the assumption that an old man already shot three times would damage Sheila's clothes.
Ive got into fights before. On one occasion I broke my hand but my clothes were undamaged. Only one time can I recall my clothes getting in state from a fight and that's because I ended up on the floor.
Yet we must accept that Nevill was able to make it back to the kitchen, meaning he was able to move around, yet we must also believe he would not have been able to do the instinctive and obvious thing: struggle with Sheila for the gun?
I have got into many fights myself, too numerous to recall - including knife/razor fights inside prison. I can only speak from experience and say that when somebody is fighting for their life, they are like a wild animal and formidable. But even in a non-lethal situation, people have their clothes torn and get scratched in fights, you know that. It's a matter of common knowledge.
If we can see that Sheila barely has a mark on her - and given that we must accept this evidence - it does raise the natural question of how she could have been in a struggle with Nevill. Surely Nevill, even if shot, would have been trying to grab the gun off her, or at least force the barrel of the gun away from him or whichever target? How could Sheila emerge from such a struggle without a mark on her and with her nightdress immaculate, looking like she's just had it ironed and creased? Maybe she changed into the nightdress in order to commit suicide - I accept that's a serious possibility - but that being so, where is the 'signature' for this contingency? Where are the wet clothes? The clothes in the washing machine? The burnt clothes in the Aga? You will say there aren't any because the police weren't looking for that. Perhaps, but we have to rely on the evidence that is available.
Nevill may or may not have been shot three times already before she even began to struggle with him. I think that's extremely unlikely given the calibre of the rifle being used, but you can't establish that particular anyway, and even if he was already shot several times, the absence of any sign of struggle is still a ripe issue. He wouldn't have given up without a fight and nobody will believe it.
Personally, I do not believe this point is assailable by the pro-Bamber side and it's probably not wise to pursue it further. I think if Jeremy Bamber's conviction is to be found unsafe, it will be using a different line of attack. The reality is that even if we assume that Sheila could have left Nevill without so much as a scratch, mark or a hair out of place on her pretty head, it does not assist Jeremy. The point is damning.
Nevill may or may not have been shot three times already before she even began to struggle with him. I think that's extremely unlikely given the calibre of the rifle being used, but you can't establish that particular anyway, and even if he was already shot several times, the absence of any sign of struggle is still a ripe issue. He wouldn't have given up without a fight and nobody will believe it.
Yes it can. There were only three shell casings found in the kitchen. But thirteen shell casings found upstairs (excluding the twins room). Nevill was shot a total of 7 times. Four of them where shots to the head. Its a process of elimiation whereby the other three shots to the arm and jaw must have been inflicted upstairs otherwise it would be impossible for Neville to get himself to that location where he was found.It's a stretch to say Nevill reached the telephone only to summon Jeremy, even if he did know the number by heart, then race back upstairs to be shot. It's my belief in the few seconds he did have in the kitchen alone he hid his watch under the rug then returning to face Jeremy managed to get a grip on the weapon, raising it enough to smash the lampshade before finally succumbing to the last three shots, slumping in the chair in the process.
It's a stretch to say Nevill reached the telephone only to summon Jeremy, even if he did know the number by heart, then race back upstairs to be shot. It's my belief in the few seconds he did have in the kitchen alone he hid his watch under the rug then returning to face Jeremy managed to get a grip on the weapon, raising it enough to smash the lampshade before finally succumbing to the last three shots, slumping in the chair in the process.
Why would he hide his watch ?As a clue to who the perpetrator was. My guess is that it had got round the pub that Jeremy had stolen two Cartier watches on his trip to New Zealand.
I thought the watch was smashed. Nevill's forearms had defensive bruises from when Bamber was hitting him with the rifle. This is when the watch smashed and fell off & rifle butt broke.
As a clue to who the perpetrator was. My guess is that it had got round the pub that Jeremy had stolen two Cartier watches on his trip to New Zealand.OR the watch was knocked off the worktop or table possibly when Nevill stumbled trying to defend himself. Cannot see how he could have put up much of a fight with the dreadful injuries he had sustained.
249.Given the number of Police who traipsed the area it could have got scrunched underfoot.
We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle.
Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle.
And there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
Given the number of Police who traipsed the area it could have got scrunched underfoot.
It is conmon for people to wear their watch to bed.No it doesn't Adam, you don't know anymore than I do whether Nevill took his watch off in the kitchen every evening or just that evening or not. Your are making assumptions as usual.
If Nevill did take off before bed, he would do it simultaneously while getting undressed in the bedroom. He wouldn't leave his watch in the kitchen as just suggested. If he did, it still highlights a kitchen fight as the watch was damaged, bloodstained and on the floor.
However all logic points to Nevill having the watch on during most of the kitchen fight.
I would have thought it was hard to get a watch under a rug, though I suppose it would depend from what material the rug was made.Surely the possibility is that it was either knocked off a surface or fell off Nevill's wrist and was kicked under the rug.
Surely the possibility is that it was either knocked off a surface or fell off Nevill's wrist and was kicked under the rug.Did Sheila come down on her period and Nevill take off his watch to soak the washing? Was she behaving strangely then? Or did June put the washing in the buckets earlier that evening? Who kicked the watch under the rug and for what reason?
Blood would obviously get on Nevill's watch. He was bleeding from the face and body after 4 upstairs shots.Imo it doesn't prove there was a fight or much of one. poor Nevill had horrendous, massive injuries I doubt he could possibly have put up much of a fight and it's more likely that he stumbled and maybe fall against work surface just because a fight fits your theory doesn't mean that's what happened imo.
However if there was no kitchen fight, the watch would not be damaged or have fallen off his wrist.
Nevill attempted to protect himself from Bamber's blows with the rifle butt, using his arms. This simultaneously resulted in -
Blood from Nevill's jaw falling onto the watch.
The watch getting damaged.
The watch falling off.
The bruises on Nevill's wrists and forearms.
The rifle butt falling off.
No it doesn't Adam, you don't know anymore than I do whether Nevill took his watch off in the kitchen every evening or just that evening or not. Your are making assumptions as usual.
Did Sheila come down on her period and Nevill take off his watch to soak the washing? Was she behaving strangely then? Or did June put the washing in the buckets earlier that evening? Who kicked the watch under the rug and for what reason?I doubt it was deliberate in any way. At some point someone's foot may have caught the watch that was lying on the floor and it was unintentionally kicked under the carpet by someone in the kitchen including one of the policemen. I'm not saying this is what happened I am simply saying this is a possibility as well.
Come on Maggie. Even by you're standards you're earlier post was pathetic.No need to be so rude
Saying the watch was on the work surface but still somehow ended up bloodstained, damaged and on the floor is complete unsourced rubbish.
Why would Nevill get ready for bed & then take his watch downstairs to the kitchen ?
Anyway it makes no difference. The bloodstained, damaged and on the floor watch convincingly highlights a kitchen fight. My post above shows this also matches Nevill's bruised wrists and forearms and broken rifle butt. Which is 'sourced' information.
I was surprised yesterday to read the various altercations mentioned by male members in their lives, some from unexpected quarters and it reminded me what a violent society we live amongst. I can only surmise that both Jeremy and Sheila were searching for some facial reaction from their parents whilst growing up and when this was not forthcoming the overkill in the kitchen that morning was the culmination of all that pent-up frustration which had built up over the years, whomever you believe the culprit to be.It is believed that empathetic facial reaction of a permanent primary carer towards the baby and in particular an adopted baby who will already be suffering loss, forms the basis of crucial deep bonding and security for the child.
Just read this -It proves nothing except there is a 52% percent possibility that Nevill wore his watch to bed therefore a 48% possibility that he didn't. You can repeat it over and over but it still doesn't prove anymore than that.
'Men wear their watch to bed about 52% of the time while women average only 39% of the time. Men are more likely to wear watches on a daily basis than women.'
----------
Following the evidence logically -
Nevill wore his watch to bed. Source - 52% of men do.
Nevill's blood went onto his watch during Bamber's attack. Source - Nevill was shot 7 times.
Nevill's watch got damaged while he was protecting himself. Source -Nevill's wrists and forearms were bruised while being attacked with the rifle butt (which broke).
Nevill's watch fell off his arm while he was protecting himself. Source -Nevill's wrists and forearms were bruised while being attacked with the rifle butt (which broke).
---------
There is no doubt that Bamber repeatedly hitting Nevill's arms & wrists with such force the rifle butt broke, would result in Nevill's already blood stained watch getting damaged and falling off.
Nevill could have just removed his watch before showering after finishing his jobs at that late stage.Exactly lookout. There are various possibilities why Nevill may have removed his watch
It proves nothing except there is a 52% percent possibility that Nevill wore his watch to bed therefore a 48% possibility that he didn't. You can repeat it over and over but it still doesn't prove anymore than that.
Not sure how Nevill's watch got bloodstained and damaged by 'falling off the work top'.I know this is supposition, but if Nevill took off his watch to have a shower in the downstairs cloakroom he would surely have noticed the ammunition spilled out on the blue and white chequered worktop and put it away. Likewise with the gun on the settle.
Blood must have travelled several feet from Nevill across the room landing on the watch. Then the watch somehow got knocked onto the floor.
All this happening after Nevill got ready for bed & put his watch in the kitchen. Or took it off earlier & left it in there !
It must have been a very weak watch, to smash after travelling from a work surface to the floor. Where did he get it from 'Toys r Us' ?
I prefer to believe the watch was smashed while Nevill's wrists and forearms were getting brutally hit and bruised by the rifle butt. The rifle butt breaking in the process.
The watch could have fallen from the table onto the rug where it wouldn't have smashed. Do we know it was smashed ? If so,what part did it truthfully play in a mass murder,it's just an incidental.
The broken rifle butt occurred due to the skull blows Bamber made on Nevill. It is very doubtful the rifle butt would break due to the wrist and forearm blows.Yes that's true. How could Sheila, a recovering anorexic, exhausted and keeping up appearances that week possibly have applied so much force that the rifle stock broke? Have any experiments ever been conducted in this area?
However the butt breaking due to the skull blows on Nevill's head show how powerfully Bamber would have been hitting Nevill's forearms, wrists and the watch seconds earlier.
No------Bamber would have pocketed the watch. Remember,greed ? His main reason for " committing murder " ? Therefore he'd have lifted anything that had been saleable at the time ? You can't have a greedy thief leaving valuables behind,it doesn't work.But he left the wallet behind remember. Maybe he thought better not to remove it lest it could be traced back forensically to him, so hid it under the rug to retrieve it at leisure at a future date.
Yes that's true. How could Sheila, a recovering anorexic, exhausted and keeping up appearances that week possibly have applied so much force that the rifle stock broke? Have any experiments ever been conducted in this area?
But he left the wallet behind remember. Maybe he thought better not to remove it lest it could be traced back forensically to him, so hid it under the rug to retrieve it at leisure at a future date.
249.
We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle.
Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, that is not true! There was and is no evidence whatsoever that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for toppling over Neville Bambers body on the chair so that his head ended up inside the rim of the metal coal hod without injuring his face or head! It's quite obvious that Neville's body was toppled forward against the pressure of the internal door which projected his body in a cross between a forward and a slightly angled direction, by people pressing on the other side of the door!the light fitting was broken, which could have been broken during any struggle over the possession of the gun!there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, which occurred when he got shot, as would be the case no matter who was responsible for shooting him! there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, which cannot be put down to any one specific individual, other than at the time it occurred Neville Bamber must have been involved..there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle. which first appeared a month after the date of the tragedy!
And there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
which became detached from his wrist during the struggle he had with somebody! No evidence to prove that that other person was Jeremy Bamber, the other person could just so easily have been Sheila Caffell!
---------
34.
Subsequent searches of this room revealed Nevill Bamber's blood stained wristwatch under a rug and a piece of broken butt from the rifle on the floor.
Bamber may have become a suspect on the morning of the massacre. Several policemen were immediately suspiscious. this statement cannot possibly be true, because police knew that Sheila was still alive inside the farmhouse long after her death was called downstairs in the kitchen (7.35am to 8.10am), on the far side of the bed (8.44am), on the bed (9.05am), and eventually she did die on the main bedroom floor (9.13am)...
The police searching Bamber's cottage on the morning and finding a silencer, Nevill's watch & wallet would have been game over. But instead, Stan Jones took possession of the Sound Moderator from the scene that first morning, and he was infuriated that police at the scene would not tell him (at around 11.15am) why Sheila's body had been moved to the floor from the bed, and why she now had two bullet entry wounds, where previously at 9.05 am she only had one...
He went back later to collect the watch and wallet. A good job he did otherwise the relatives would have snatched these!
Bamber may have become a suspect on the morning of the massacre. Several policemen were immediately suspiscious.
The police searching Bamber's cottage on the morning and finding a silencer, Nevill's watch & wallet would have been game over.
He went back later to collect the watch and wallet.