Jeremy Bamber White House Farm...Innocent or Evil scumbag?



Linus

Striker
Fingernail wound /scrapes.
You see wounds / scrapes made by fingernails? Why fingernails?

I see undamaged hands / skin, with dried blood smears.
Her hands certainly don't look clean.
Looks like some struggle against her....maybe?
Those hands look clean apart from the small blood smears.
Again... another leap, what evidence of "struggle"?
 
Last edited:

Nukehasslefan

Central Defender
You see wounds / scrapes made by fingernails? Why fingernails?

I see undamaged hands / skin, with dried blood smears.


Those hands look clean apart from the small blood smears.
Again... another leap, what evidence of "struggle"?
If you take a look at those blood smears it's easy to speculate by the way they appear to be staggered, almost laddered, kind of thing, rather than just blood dropped onto them and running off.
It actually does appear to be almost as if her hands or hand was grabbed.

That doesn't have to mean she was the murderer but it does look a bit odd.
The police logs appear to show two separate calls.

Read them here.

Then there's this:
.

There's definitely something really odd about this carry on.
 
Last edited:
Maybe he did this upon Sheila going beserk and grabbing the gun when he was downstairs having his drink and smoke like he always, apparently did...and phoned Jeremy to let him know, maybe thinking Sheila wouldn't use the gun, only threaten and not wanting to involve the police because he liked to keep family matter private.
At 3 o'clock in the morning?
 

Nukehasslefan

Central Defender
At 3 o'clock in the morning?
Good point, I suppose we could rule that out.

About what I said earlier about the way NB was found by police.
It was said that he had one leg in his pyjamas and one leg out with pyjamas around his ankle, or something to that effect.
I can't find the article.

Can you shed any light on this?
 
Good point, I suppose we could rule that out.

About what I said earlier about the way NB was found by police.
It was said that he had one leg in his pyjamas and one leg out with pyjamas around his ankle, or something to that effect.
I can't find the article.

Can you shed any light on this?
Can only speculate on that. Perhaps they came down during the struggle or maybe it was a final act of humiliation from the killer who pulled them down. No idea. However, it is in contrast to how Sheila was found and the evidence that she was pulled by her feet into a more horizontal position on her back. This would have caused her nightie to ride up exposing her genital area so the killer then pulled her nightie down to cover her up whereas the killer had not done this with Neville.
 

Roker Skate

Goalkeeper
You see wounds / scrapes made by fingernails? Why fingernails?

I see undamaged hands / skin, with dried blood smears.


Those hands look clean apart from the small blood smears.
Again... another leap, what evidence of "struggle"?
Have you actually enlarged the image? You've got to be kidding?

Also, look at the little nick on the inside span of her hand. Next week I'll put an image up of that.
Her hands certainly don't look clean.
Looks like some struggle against her....maybe?
There are other wounds on her also, including some still visible after post mortem washing of her body. There's also a pendent earring snagged on her nightdress (not mentioned by Vanezis). June also has wounds not mentioned by Vanezis.

Of course, when the case was four murders and a suicide, and when Kenneally was asked to review the evidence (producing his report to top brass, that all the evidence implicated Sheila), for all we know, these things may have been included.

There is no way that Ainsley can allow any evidence of a struggle between Sheila and June to reach court, as this would completely undermine the prosecution's case against Bamber. Ainsley was ruthless and struck out all the evidence indicating Sheila. Statements were retyped or not disclosed, logs withheld, negatives not disclosed etc. etc.

This is the detective who was later witnessed at the family run caravan park as a security advisor, after he retired from police, after the first appeal (coast clear).
 
Last edited:

Nukehasslefan

Central Defender
Have you actually enlarged the image? You've got to be kidding?

Also, look at the little nick on the inside span of her hand. Next week I'll put an image up of that.


There are other wounds on her also, including some still visible after post mortem washing of her body. There's also a pendent earring snagged on her nightdress (not mentioned by Vanezis). June also has wounds not mentioned by Vanezis.

Of course, when the case was four murders and a suicide, and when Kenneally was asked to review the evidence (producing his report to top brass, that all the evidence implicated Sheila), for all we know, these things may have been included.

There is no way that Ainsley can allow any evidence of a struggle between Sheila and June to reach court, as this would completely undermine the prosecution's case against Bamber. Ainsley was ruthless and struck out all the evidence indicating Sheila. Statements were retyped or not disclosed, logs withheld, negatives not disclosed etc. etc.

This is the detective who was later witnessed at the family run caravan park as a security advisor, after he retired from police, after the first appeal (coast clear).
I haven't seen any of the crime scene pictures apart from Sheila laid dead in the house with the gun and the gun propped up against the window, plus a shot of the kitchen after NB was taken away.

Can you describe the wounds and where they were exactly?
 

Linus

Striker
Have you actually enlarged the image? You've got to be kidding?

Also, look at the little nick on the inside span of her hand. Next week I'll put an image up of that.
Of course I have, and have told you what I see.
I do NOT see wounds, they are small blood smears on the surface of undamaged skin.

You asked why the pathologist hadn't mentioned the 'wounds' on her hands...?

Have a think.

You want a pathologist to mention something that isn't there?

You're a conspiracy theorist, and as such, you have an absense of reason and logic, you'll see things that aren't there and be blind to things that are if it doesn't support your view.

You mentioned 'Italian Professors' upthread as if that in itself was a convincing endorsement? They were hired by one of Jeremy Bamber's lawyers who wasn't even a lawyer who also now finds himself in jail, which you then conceded when I brought it up, so forgive my scepticism.
I'm happy that the killer of 5 people, including two six year old boys who were shot repeatedly in the head, will likely die in prison.

Posting pictures of the dead girl's hand is enough for me on this thread, so I'm done.
 
Last edited:
Of course I have, and have told you what I see.
I do NOT see wounds, they are small blood smears on the surface of undamaged skin.

You asked why the pathologist hadn't mentioned the 'wounds' on her hands...?

Have a think.

You want a pathologist to mention something that isn't there?

You're a conspiracy theorist, and as such, you have an absense of reason and logic, you'll see things that aren't there and be blind to things that are if it doesn't support your view.

You mentioned 'Italian Professors' upthread as if that in itself was a convincing endorsement? They were hired by one of Jeremy Bamber's lawyers who wasn't even a lawyer who also now finds himself in jail, which you then conceded when I brought it up, so forgive my scepticism.
I'm happy that the killer of 5 people, including two six year old boys who were shot repeatedly in the head, will likely die in prison.

Posting pictures of the dead girl's hand is enough for me on this thread, so I'm done.
I am sure we could go on forever challenging people's speculation but the evidence is what counts and that is what was considered by the jury at the original trial and who could judge the sincerity of witness testimony. The Appeal Court can only consider evidence that was witheld from the jury at the time that can challenge the verdict they arrived at. They cannot even consider evidence that could have been available at the time that supports the verdict. Their entire role is to determine if the verdict of guilty was correct. New evidence could be considered that undermines that verdict of guilty but that is what is needed and until that emerges you could go round in circles forever.
 

Roker Skate

Goalkeeper
Of course I have, and have told you what I see.
I do NOT see wounds, they are small blood smears on the surface of undamaged skin.

You asked why the pathologist hadn't mentioned the 'wounds' on her hands...?

Have a think.

You want a pathologist to mention something that isn't there?

You're a conspiracy theorist, and as such, you have an absense of reason and logic, you'll see things that aren't there and be blind to things that are if it doesn't support your view.

You mentioned 'Italian Professors' upthread as if that in itself was a convincing endorsement? They were hired by one of Jeremy Bamber's lawyers who wasn't even a lawyer who also now finds himself in jail, which you then conceded when I brought it up, so forgive my scepticism.
I'm happy that the killer of 5 people, including two six year old boys who were shot repeatedly in the head, will likely die in prison.

Posting pictures of the dead girl's hand is enough for me on this thread, so I'm done.
Good. Your input will not be missed, as you bring nothing to the thread except moronic comments.

Using the term 'conspiracy theorist' is just a generic bat that gets welded against anyone who questions the evidence used to convict. I might as well label you a 'copper's nark' for sucking up the prosecution's case like mother's milk.

There are crime scenes in the public domain. You can't see the gouges because your stance on the case won't let you see them.

I was open about the two professors, ie in regard to Di-Stefano.
I am sure we could go on forever challenging people's speculation but the evidence is what counts and that is what was considered by the jury at the original trial and who could judge the sincerity of witness testimony. The Appeal Court can only consider evidence that was witheld from the jury at the time that can challenge the verdict they arrived at. They cannot even consider evidence that could have been available at the time that supports the verdict. Their entire role is to determine if the verdict of guilty was correct. New evidence could be considered that undermines that verdict of guilty but that is what is needed and until that emerges you could go round in circles forever.
The thing is, this so called new evidence you're referring to is old evidence. It's been around since 1985 (unless it's been destroyed of course) . For example, if DS Jones tells Met investigators in 2001, that there was a note saying she'd killed herself, then even if that note turns up somewhere in some police archive, it's hardly new is it? The jury in 1986 should have had sight of it.
Legally, procedurally, morally, how is that difficult to work out?
 
Last edited:
The thing is, this so called new evidence you're referring to is old evidence. It's been around since 1985 (unless it's been destroyed of course) . For example, if DS Jones tells Met investigators in 2001, that there was a note saying she'd killed herself, then even if that note turns up somewhere in some police archive, it's hardly new is it? The jury in 1986 should have had sight of it.
Legally, procedurally, morally, how is that difficult to work out?
Well if that note was not made available to the jury that could have affected the verdict of guilty if it is significant and authentic and is therefore valid to be considered by an Appeal Court. That would effectively be new evidence in the context of the original trial.

However, expert opinion at the Appeal in 2002 concluded that Sheila had been pulled by her feet into a more horizontal position on her back and her nightie subsequently pulled down to cover her exposed body. The Appeal Court could not consider this as evidence as it could have been available in 1986 as could evidence regarding blood splatter. The role of the Appeal Court is to consider if the original verdict of guilty by the jury was sound.

An ideal situation would be for a re-trial in which both defence and prosecution could present additional evidence but that is now unlikely due to the passage of time and that several of the original people are now deceased.

Personally, I remain convinced that he is guilty.
 
Last edited:

Roker Skate

Goalkeeper
I haven't seen any of the crime scene pictures apart from Sheila laid dead in the house with the gun and the gun propped up against the window, plus a shot of the kitchen after NB was taken away.

Can you describe the wounds and where they were exactly?
There are marks on her wrist that were passed off as streams, ie caused by the gunshot wounds. They end in congealed spots. On clearer images, the congealed spots look like the actual source of the streams. They appear to be in a grab formation, ie fingernail gouges. The streams of blood that would appear to emanate from these spots, fade, the further away they travel from the spots.

There are similar marks further up her arms but not in a grab formation, they are more random. On her upper arm there are two or three thin cuts that are in complete isolation from any stream of blood.

There's a mark below one of her gunshot wounds as if her neck-chain has been yanked from behind and the pendant / clasp has dug in to her throat.

Her mother June has a purple blemish on her chin with a line through it, as of it's been dug with a thumbnail. There are curious cuts on her mother's shins.

Nevill also has arm injuries that Vanezis states were caused by rifle. There are pictures of these in the public domain.
Well if that note was not made available to the jury that could have affected the verdict of guilty if it is significant and authentic and is therefore valid to be considered by an Appeal Court. That would effectively be new evidence in the context of the original trial.

However, expert opinion at the Appeal in 2002 concluded that Sheila had been pulled by her feet into a more horizontal position on her back and her nightie subsequently pulled down to cover her exposed body. The Appeal Court could not consider this as evidence as it could have been available in 1986 as could evidence regarding blood splatter. The role of the Appeal Court is to consider if the original verdict of guilty by the jury was sound.

An ideal situation would be for a re-trial in which both defence and prosecution could present additional evidence but that is now unlikely due to the passage of time and that several of the original people are now deceased.

Personally, I remain convinced that he is guilty.
The police staged her corpse prior to crime scene photograph. The photographs used to convict Bamber do not represent the scene encountered by the tactical firearms group when they entered the building. Again, nobody new this prior to trial or at trial.

*knew
 
Last edited:

Nukehasslefan

Central Defender
There are marks on her wrist that were passed off as streams, ie caused by the gunshot wounds. They end in congealed spots. On clearer images, the congealed spots look like the actual source of the streams. They appear to be in a grab formation, ie fingernail gouges. The streams of blood that would appear to emanate from these spots, fade, the further away they travel from the spots.

There are similar marks further up her arms but not in a grab formation, they are more random. On her upper arm there are two or three thin cuts that are in complete isolation from any stream of blood.

There's a mark below one of her gunshot wounds as if her neck-chain has been yanked from behind and the pendant / clasp has dug in to her throat.

Her mother June has a purple blemish on her chin with a line through it, as of it's been dug with a thumbnail. There are curious cuts on her mother's shins.

Nevill also has arm injuries that Vanezis states were caused by rifle. There are pictures of these in the public domain.
Hmmm, it appears there was a struggle, but is it between the family or with some murderer, like JB or other.

It's a bit head scratching trying to ascertain the lead up.

I'm still bang in the middle in terms of knowing whether it was Jeremy or Sheila or an assassin set up by Jeremy or something else outside of them all, whether it's relative(s) or something a bit higher up on scale.

There's just too much dodginess about it all.
 
The police staged her corpse prior to crime scene photograph. The photographs used to convict Bamber do not represent the scene encountered by the tactical firearms group when they entered the building. Again, nobody knew this prior to trial or at trial.
As the Police initially determined it was suicide if they staged the crime scene it would not have been to convict Jeremy of murder so I'm not convinced the photos contain anything that would change the trial verdict. The evidence that Sheila was moved postmortem was not presented at trial so was not influential in the verdict. It was either the killer or the Police and it would require evidence of substance to claim it was the Police.
 

Top