Author Topic: The main prosecution forensic case  (Read 37704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #390 on: February 28, 2015, 08:57:AM »
My dog is VERY protective, he goes nuts if someone knocks on the door or even passes the house. He's very territorial.





You should hear my cat growling when she doesn't recognise a knock on the door.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #391 on: February 28, 2015, 10:29:AM »
My dog is VERY protective, he goes nuts if someone knocks on the door or even passes the house. He's very territorial.
Sorry Caroline I read that wrong. I thought you wrote, "He goes for nuts"? ;D

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #392 on: February 28, 2015, 10:53:AM »
Sorry Caroline I read that wrong. I thought you wrote, "He goes for nuts"? ;D

He probably would - burglars beware!!  ;D ;D ;D
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #393 on: February 28, 2015, 04:24:PM »
My dog is VERY protective, he goes nuts if someone knocks on the door or even passes the house. He's very territorial.

If someone who it is used to is in the house does it bark at it though?  The suggestion is that if it saw Jeremy in the bedroom it would have been barking away at him even though it recognized him.  Barking at cars and the doorbell until they realize someone they know is home is one thing. Continuously barking at someone they know is another.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44329
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #394 on: February 28, 2015, 04:36:PM »
I have never read Jeremy claim he could not commit the massacre due to the barking dog/s. The only time I have read him refer to  the dog was when he told the police to 'get rid of it/put it down' directly after the massacre, as he didn't want it 'messing up his stereo equipment'.

The only other mention of the dog was the police hearing a barking dog when the phone line was disengaged. Crispy was found cowering underneath a bed upon the raid teams entrance.

Would Crispy really prevent Jeremy from attempting the massacre ?

It was not a guard dog, may not have woken, or if it did wake may have recognised Jeremy and not made much noise.

It may have been put in another room at night time, behind a shut door. Dogs often are to prevent them charging around unattended.  Jeremy letting the dog out after the massacre to make it seem like Neville had not gone to bed.

Or it may have slept with Neville & June, meaning by the time the shooting started it was too late for it to make any warning barks.

An awake Crispy is unlikely to do much once the shooting started. It was a small dog and not a guard dog. It would sense that Jeremy was firing a lethal weapon and it could be next.  So would no doubt run away.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 04:37:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #395 on: February 28, 2015, 04:42:PM »
It is likely that the dog would bark when the shooting started at least - risking to wake up Sheila. I have been bashed plenty for that statement, but I do stand by it. Can´t see it is far fetched at all.
Barking, shouting, screaming, gunshots, moving downstairs, one in agony, the other in a frenzy - who´d sleep through that?
I don´t think people tiptoed around whispering that night.

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #396 on: February 28, 2015, 04:44:PM »
In fact Bamber never mentioned the dogs doing anything during the murders. He quite ignored them when alleging his father phoned him. Whether that point is of significance or not I don't know?

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #397 on: February 28, 2015, 04:46:PM »
It is likely that the dog would bark when the shooting started at least - risking to wake up Sheila. I have been bashed plenty for that statement, but I do stand by it. Can´t see it is far fetched at all.
Barking, shouting, screaming, gunshots, moving downstairs, one in agony, the other in a frenzy - who´d sleep through that?
I don´t think people tiptoed around whispering that night.
No it isn't far fetched Alias. It is your opinion. Those who will tell you it is far fetched are those who are not capable of all round thinking, but rather think their opinion is spot on.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #398 on: February 28, 2015, 04:47:PM »
In fact Bamber never mentioned the dogs doing anything during the murders. He quite ignored them when alleging his father phoned him. Whether that point is of significance or not I don't know?





He'd drugged them,silly. ::)

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #399 on: February 28, 2015, 04:55:PM »
No it isn't far fetched Alias. It is your opinion. Those who will tell you it is far fetched are those who are not capable of all round thinking, but rather think their opinion is spot on.
I agree, I also cannot see how anyone can be certain Crispy wouldn't have barked his head off if anyone climbed through the window in the middle of the night.
Does anyone know where crispy used to sleep? If he slept in the bedroom with June and Nevill he may not have wakened, he was an old dog so his senses may not have been too good.  I tend to think he was more likely to have slept in the kitchen near the Aga but have never seen a dog's bed in any of the photos??

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #400 on: February 28, 2015, 05:02:PM »
I agree, I also cannot see how anyone can be certain Crispy wouldn't have barked his head off if anyone climbed through the window in the middle of the night.
Does anyone know where crispy used to sleep? If he slept in the bedroom with June and Nevill he may not have wakened, he was an old dog so his senses may not have been too good.  I tend to think he was more likely to have slept in the kitchen near the Aga but have never seen a dog's bed in any of the photos??

Perhaps Jeremy knows where Crispy used to sleep. I don´t have contact with him, but perhaps someone who does could ask him?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #401 on: February 28, 2015, 05:07:PM »
I really don't think Crispy the dog is going to prove anything conclusive. Once again going off course on a pointless subject

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #402 on: February 28, 2015, 05:10:PM »
Perhaps Jeremy knows where Crispy used to sleep. I don´t have contact with him, but perhaps someone who does could ask him?
Good idea Alias, have often wondered about that.  The walls in |WHF are really thick and often sound doesn't travel well in these old houses especially as WHF is such a mishmash. 
Later the operator said she could hear a dog barking, if it was the kitchen phone off the hook was it the outside dog she could hear or was crispy in the kitchen? Did he run upstairs when the raid team broke down the door or was he always upstairs and it was the office phone which was off the hook.......  just speculating?  We know the last number stored in the office phone was the police station but no one knows which phone the police used that morning???

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #403 on: February 28, 2015, 05:10:PM »
I really don't think Crispy the dog is going to prove anything conclusive. Once again going off course on a pointless subject

I don´t think it is pointless to talk about the noise that must have been there. It was right beside Sheila´s bedroom. Would she really have slept through it as is claimed?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #404 on: February 28, 2015, 05:23:PM »
I don´t think it is pointless to talk about the noise that must have been there. It was right beside Sheila´s bedroom. Would she really have slept through it as is claimed?

BT checked the line and 4.30am since the phone was off the hook they could hear what was happening all they heard was a dog barking.

If Bamber was the culprit one could easily claim he approached the dog and as the dog was familiar with him as a family member the dog would not have raised any alarm