Sheila would not have gone to bed while wearing bloodied underwear.
But she could have had a menstrual accident in bed or while upstairs doing whatever she was doing; equally, it could have happened while she was downstairs. For reasons already given, I consider it unlikely that it happened in bed as the bed does not look like it was slept in that night.
Sheila would not have left her bloodied underwear in a bucket downstairs without first changing into clean underwear or making other arrangements, even if the latter meant not wearing underwear at all.
This is not a topic I like discussing, but presumably the purpose of leaving the underwear to soak is to make them easier to wash later, by steeping the garment(s) in water to enable removal of debris. Is that correct? Was it just the one pair of knickers in the bucket?
The chronology could be:
1. She realises she has had a menstrual accident. She is either upstairs already, or she immediately goes upstairs or to the downstairs washroom.
2. She changes out of the bloodied underwear. If downstairs, she may have no clean underwear to hand to replace it/them with until she is back in her bedroom. If already upstairs, or if she goes upstairs, she presumably changes.
3. She then returns to the kitchen and leaves the bloodied underwear in the buckets to soak.
If she is rushing upstairs or already upstairs, normally you would expect her to change into clean underwear, but if she is downstairs, then she might not have changed, she might just have taken off the underwear there and then, or may have gone to the downstairs washroom and taken them off, in either case without having a clean pair available.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 12:38:25 AMSheila would not have gone to bed while wearing bloodied underwear.
But she could have had a menstrual accident in bed or while upstairs doing whatever she was doing; equally, it could have happened while she was downstairs. For reasons already given, I consider it unlikely that it happened in bed as the bed does not look like it was slept in that night.
Sheila would not have left her bloodied underwear in a bucket downstairs without first changing into clean underwear or making other arrangements, even if the latter meant not wearing underwear at all.
This is not a topic I like discussing, but presumably the purpose of leaving the underwear to soak is to make them easier to wash later, by steeping the garment(s) in water to enable removal of debris. Is that correct? Was it just the one pair of knickers in the bucket?
The chronology could be:
1. She realises she has had a menstrual accident. She is either upstairs already, or she immediately goes upstairs or to the downstairs washroom.
2. She changes out of the bloodied underwear. If downstairs, she may have no clean underwear to hand to replace it/them with until she is back in her bedroom. If already upstairs, or if she goes upstairs, she presumably changes.
3. She then returns to the kitchen and leaves the bloodied underwear in the buckets to soak.
If she is rushing upstairs or already upstairs, normally you would expect her to change into clean underwear, but if she is downstairs, then she might not have changed, she might just have taken off he underwear there and then, or may have gone to the downstairs washroom and taken them off, in either case without having a clean pair available.
And to expand a little on this topic.If the accident as it were happened after everyone was in bed and Sheila is innocent,that means even if she changed her underwear upstairs she did not want to leave the dirty panties lying around and took them down to the kitchen to soak in the bucket.
She then goes back upstairs and it is claimed that she is sound asleep again by the time JB enters the Whitehouse.Quite possible if the accident happened between about 11.00 and 1.30.
But if Sheila was indeed the assailant,June may have heard her clattering about in the upstair toilet and woke Nevill to tell him to go see what was going on,or indeed Nevill may have woken himself and caught up with Sheila in the kitchen.
Needless to say,Sheila being caught out and having to wash and change would not have helped her mood which was already withdrawn.The point is,there was a good chance that Sheila and Nevill ended up in the kitchen that night no matter who the killer was,and this is where your Sheila scenario begins Erik.
So just to recap,if Sheila is innocent,she was back in bed after getting cleansd up before JB entered,as indeed Nevill was if he was also up.But if Sheila was guilty,we know she was in the kitchen that night near the rifle and may have been confronted by Nevill.
So what is most likely,Sheila being back in bed when Bamber entered,even when the bed looks un slept in.Or Sheila and Nevill ending up in the kitchen and things kicking off from there?
Let us think about one other thing while we are on this topic.We are told that Sheila was found at the crime scene without any knickers,now just what does this suggest? If she was innocent and in a reasonable state of mind,why didn,t she put on clean underware before returning to bed?
On the other hand,if Sheila was guilty,did things kick off in the kitchen before she got back upstairs to put on fresh underwear.
So in other words,if Sheila was innocent,why on earth wasn't she wearing panties?
And it must be reasonable to assume that Sheila retrieved the bucket from the scullery to soak her panties in.You dont leave buckets lying around in a kitchen willy-nilly.Needless to say she must have seen the rifle propped up against the bench at this time.
Some points to consider:
(i). Dr. Vanezis' pathology report states that a tampon was found inserted. You can read the report here: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=809.0
(ii). Women don't normally go to bed with tampons in, due to the risk of toxic shock. Instead they use pads held inside their underwear. At least, that's the case today. I'm not sure if the advice for women was the same back in 1985.
(iii). Sheila was found in a nightie with no underwear on.
(iv). No underwear was found other than in the buckets, but there appear to be blue leggings hanging from the bannister of the main landing. See the first photograph in this thread: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=496.0
Taking all this into consideration, if Jeremy is guilty, we have one of the following possibilities:
1. Sheila went to bed with a tampon inserted but not wearing underwear; or,
2. Jeremy or somebody else has removed her underwear as she lay on the bedroom floor and then hidden this article of clothing somewhere it cannot be found; or,
3. Sheila did not go to bed.
Taking each of these in turn, it's unlikely Sheila would have gone to bed with a tampon inserted. I appreciate she was mentally-ill, but she would know simply out of force of habit that she should not do so.
If we imagine a scenario in which Jeremy is guilty, there seems no obvious rational motive for him to remove Sheila's underwear and hide it. However, killers do sometimes like to keep trophies of their victims, and if Sheila's underwear had been found later amongst Jeremy's things, he could have claimed plausibly that they belonged to Julie, who was known to have stayed at Bourtree Cottage. But would Jeremy go to the trouble of killing Sheila then removing her underwear? If we say Sheila's underwear was removed but not by Jeremy, then that would only leave one or some of the police officers at the scene as the culprits for that particular act, but that would involve interfering with the body.
That does leave option 3 as the more likely of the three possibilities. I am not saying 1 and 2 could not happen, but 1 seems unlikely for the reasons given and there is no rational motive for 2 and no evidence for it either.
Now, if we are saying that Sheila likely was not only awake, but remained out of bed, that in itself does not establish that she was perambulating around. She may have remained in her bedroom and simply sat on the bed itself or sat at a chair. This was in the pre-internet days.
Microcomputers and video games were just emerging and becoming available, but to my knowledge nothing of that kind was found in the house, which suggests that Sheila and Jeremy may have entertained themselves during their down time with books, among other things.
Here's a link to images of the bedroom: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?board=414.0
It does look like there is a book on the bedside table and there are cosmetics on the other bed. Sheila was a schizophrenic and I am aware from personal experience of living with a schizophrenic that, in dead hours, they perambulate around the house and sometimes in the garden, and sometimes stand and stare, for no apparent reason or constructive purpose. But Sheila could have been occupied in her room. She may have heard something and closed the book to investigate and at that moment she may have been interrupted by her attacker.
Here we encounter a further problem. For reasons, it is somewhat unlikely that Jeremy would have attacked Sheila first, as that would have presented all sorts of difficulties for him in subduing her and staging her body. Yet it seems likely that Sheila did not retire to bed and was awake.
To my knowledge, the blood in the bucket was never tested. This means that the only sources for the blood in the bucket are Anne Eaton and Stan Jones, and the only source for it being period blood is Anne Eaton, who simply stated to Stan Jones that in her opinion it was period blood. He asked how she could tell and she said due to the smell. What's strange about this is that it must have been some days later, and after the police had supposedly searched the house. I don't recall reading anything in police statements about bloodied clothing left in buckets.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on September 14, 2022, 01:17:46 PMSome points to consider:
(i). Dr. Vanezis' pathology report states that a tampon was found inserted. You can read the report here: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=809.0
(ii). Women don't normally go to bed with tampons in, due to the risk of toxic shock. Instead they use pads held inside their underwear. At least, that's the case today. I'm not sure if the advice for women was the same back in 1985.
(iii). Sheila was found in a nightie with no underwear on.
(iv). No underwear was found other than in the buckets, but there appear to be blue leggings hanging from the bannister of the main landing. See the first photograph in this thread: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=496.0
Taking all this into consideration, if Jeremy is guilty, we have one of the following possibilities:
1. Sheila went to bed with a tampon inserted but not wearing underwear; or,
2. Jeremy or somebody else has removed her underwear as she lay on the bedroom floor and then hidden this article of clothing somewhere it cannot be found; or,
3. Sheila did not go to bed.
Taking each of these in turn, it's unlikely Sheila would have gone to bed with a tampon inserted. I appreciate she was mentally-ill, but she would know simply out of force of habit that she should not do so.
If we imagine a scenario in which Jeremy is guilty, there seems no obvious rational motive for him to remove Sheila's underwear and hide it. However, killers do sometimes like to keep trophies of their victims, and if Sheila's underwear had been found later amongst Jeremy's things, he could have claimed plausibly that they belonged to Julie, who was known to have stayed at Bourtree Cottage. But would Jeremy go to the trouble of killing Sheila then removing her underwear? If we say Sheila's underwear was removed but not by Jeremy, then that would only leave one or some of the police officers at the scene as the culprits for that particular act, but that would involve interfering with the body.
That does leave option 3 as the more likely of the three possibilities. I am not saying 1 and 2 could not happen, but 1 seems unlikely for the reasons given and there is no rational motive for 2 and no evidence for it either.
Now, if we are saying that Sheila likely was not only awake, but remained out of bed, that in itself does not establish that she was perambulating around. She may have remained in her bedroom and simply sat on the bed itself or sat at a chair. This was in the pre-internet days.
Microcomputers and video games were just emerging and becoming available, but to my knowledge nothing of that kind was found in the house, which suggests that Sheila and Jeremy may have entertained themselves during their down time with books, among other things.
Here's a link to images of the bedroom: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?board=414.0
It does look like there is a book on the bedside table and there are cosmetics on the other bed. Sheila was a schizophrenic and I am aware from personal experience of living with a schizophrenic that, in dead hours, they perambulate around the house and sometimes in the garden, and sometimes stand and stare, for no apparent reason or constructive purpose. But Sheila could have been occupied in her room. She may have heard something and closed the book to investigate and at that moment she may have been interrupted by her attacker.
Here we encounter a further problem. For reasons, it is somewhat unlikely that Jeremy would have attacked Sheila first, as that would have presented all sorts of difficulties for him in subduing her and staging her body. Yet it seems likely that Sheila did not retire to bed and was awake.
To my knowledge, the blood in the bucket was never tested. This means that the only sources for the blood in the bucket are Anne Eaton and Stan Jones, and the only source for it being period blood is Anne Eaton, who simply stated to Stan Jones that in her opinion it was period blood. He asked how she could tell and she said due to the smell. What's strange about this is that it must have been some days later, and after the police had supposedly searched the house. I don't recall reading anything in police statements about bloodied in buckets.
The thing is Erik,one of your Sheila scenarios starts in the kitchen.Isn't it reasonable to assume it was Sheilas menstrual accident that brought her and Nevill there? Both were in night clothes so were probably in bed beforehand,although as you have pointed out,Sheila may have been sitting on the edge of her bed awake.
The point is,Sheila was wearing knickers before her accident so you would expect her to put a fresh pair on again after cleaning up.Surely she had a spare pair.If she was waiting for the leggings to dry,why didn't she hang them up beside the Aga,they weren't going to dry much hanging over the bannister.
I have never thought about the trophy angle,possible I suppose.
Even if Sheila did not go back to bed I cant think of a reason not to put on underwear again.Is it a possibility the accident happened after the massacre? Or indeed,are you looking at the possibility that the knickers were a clean pair used along with the bucket of water to wash bloodied items by the police,and had therefore nothing to do with Sheila?
Quote from: Leslie Aalders on September 14, 2022, 10:52:59 PMThe thing is Erik,one of your Sheila scenarios starts in the kitchen.Isn't it reasonable to assume it was Sheilas menstrual accident that brought her and Nevill there? Both were in night clothes so were probably in bed beforehand,although as you have pointed out,Sheila may have been sitting on the edge of her bed awake.
The point is,Sheila was wearing knickers before her accident so you would expect her to put a fresh pair on again after cleaning up.Surely she had a spare pair.If she was waiting for the leggings to dry,why didn't she hang them up beside the Aga,they weren't going to dry much hanging over the bannister.
I have never thought about the trophy angle,possible I suppose.
Even if Sheila did not go back to bed I cant think of a reason not to put on underwear again.Is it a possibility the accident happened after the massacre? Or indeed,are you looking at the possibility that the knickers were a clean pair used along with the bucket of water to wash bloodied items by the police,and had therefore nothing to do with Sheila?
If Sheila was the killer, we can't say for sure what she was wearing before the massacre because it's quite likely she cleaned herself afterwards and changed into the nightie. She could have been wearing the same tampon throughout the act and when washing herself. There may have been no menstrual accident and the 'period blood' in the buckets was a fabrication. Bear in mind what Dr. Vanezis says in his pathology report: Sheila was in the early menstrual phase. Unfortunately, despite having been married several times, I know little about menstrual cycles and the volume of blood involved, but the claim about the blood in the buckets seems to imply that there was ample blood, which to me seems inconsistent with what Dr. Vanezis is saying.
Sheila would not have gone to bed with the tampon still in, and she would not have inserted the tampon after the massacre started (regardless of whether the killer was her or Jeremy). What this tells me is that Sheila did not sleep that night. She may, however, have showered with a tampon still inserted.
If Jeremy is guilty, then Sheila may have showered that evening then retired to her bedroom where she remained awake, perhaps reading. When she heard noise, she may have stayed in her bedroom out of fear, but wouldn't she think of her boys? It could be in fact that Sheila emerged on to the main landing or ran to the master bedroom, and Jeremy caught her, but wouldn't there then be a struggle with a risk of Sheila escaping, meaning the possibility of injuries to Sheila?
Quote from: Erik Narramore on September 15, 2022, 01:42:34 AMQuote from: Leslie Aalders on September 14, 2022, 10:52:59 PMThe thing is Erik,one of your Sheila scenarios starts in the kitchen.Isn't it reasonable to assume it was Sheilas menstrual accident that brought her and Nevill there? Both were in night clothes so were probably in bed beforehand,although as you have pointed out,Sheila may have been sitting on the edge of her bed awake.
The point is,Sheila was wearing knickers before her accident so you would expect her to put a fresh pair on again after cleaning up.Surely she had a spare pair.If she was waiting for the leggings to dry,why didn't she hang them up beside the Aga,they weren't going to dry much hanging over the bannister.
I have never thought about the trophy angle,possible I suppose.
Even if Sheila did not go back to bed I cant think of a reason not to put on underwear again.Is it a possibility the accident happened after the massacre? Or indeed,are you looking at the possibility that the knickers were a clean pair used along with the bucket of water to wash bloodied items by the police,and had therefore nothing to do with Sheila?
If Sheila was the killer, we can't say for sure what she was wearing before the massacre because it's quite likely she cleaned herself afterwards and changed into the nightie. She could have been wearing the same tampon throughout the act and when washing herself. There may have been no menstrual accident and the 'period blood' in the buckets was a fabrication. Bear in mind what Dr. Vanezis says in his pathology report: Sheila was in the early menstrual phase. Unfortunately, despite having been married several times, I know little about menstrual cycles and the volume of blood involved, but the claim about the blood in the buckets seems to imply that there was ample blood, which to me seems inconsistent with what Dr. Vanezis is saying.
Sheila would not have gone to bed with the tampon still in, and she would not have inserted the tampon after the massacre started (regardless of whether the killer was her or Jeremy). What this tells me is that Sheila did not sleep that night. She may, however, have showered with a tampon still inserted.
If Jeremy is guilty, then Sheila may have showered that evening then retired to her bedroom where she remained awake, perhaps reading. When she heard noise, she may have stayed in her bedroom out of fear, but wouldn't she think of her boys? It could be in fact that Sheila emerged on to the main landing or ran to the master bedroom, and Jeremy caught her, but wouldn't there then be a struggle with a risk of Sheila escaping, meaning the possibility of injuries to Sheila?
OK,so obviously you are dubious that a menstrual accident ever happened Erik,well thinking things through,so am I.The thing is,if it isn't period blood it can only be blood mopped up after the shootings by Sheila.Now obviously the police would have to hide this fact at ALL costs or the case against Bamber would fall appart.
So is it likely the blood in the bucket was from the shooting's? Well,I think yes,if we take a look at the evidence.For one thing,we are supposed to believe that the bucket was still in the kitchen for Ann Eaton to find undisturbed upon entry to the Whitehouse.But is it really conceivable to believe that the bucket was not emptied out and searched by the police in the days following the trajedy?
Surely in their search for the missing shell casings they would have searched the bucket/s,or for any evidence in general.Then the buckets would have been placed in a more suitable place like the scullery.It is virtually inconceivable to believe that the buckets were left intact for AE to find,inconceivable!
The police didn;t even know who would enter the farm house first,we are told they cleaned the house for the sake of JB,again it is very unlikely they would leave a bucket of blood to greet him.
Now you could ask,why mention the bucket at all and what was in it? Well the thing is every police officer who entered the hose after the shooting's may have observed the bucket and its contents,none of course would have known if there was a pair of knickers in it or not,but they could have seen it.
Therefore,incase the defence asked about the bucket,the prosecution had to have an answer ready to explain why there was blood in it.Period blood was the only way to get round about it.and by saying there was a pair of bloodied knicker's in the bucket as well was perfect.And AE was prepared to swear under oath that she knew it was period blood by the smell,so she was the perfect witness to find them,all very convenient.
And it is worth pointing out again,that the silencer,the scratch marks and the knickers were all discoveries by the relatives after the police left the crime scene.
So,let us just point out again that it is inconceivable to suggest that the police did not search the bucket for evidence.Hence,we can conclude that no buckets were found by AE upon entry to the house,couldn't have been.I think common sense tells us that the police were dead scared the pail of bloodied water would come under scrutiny at some stage,and that an elaborate story about knickers soaked with period blood had to be invented.
Obviously any mention of Sheilas hands being near a bucket of water would destroy the prosecution evidence about the lack of bees wax and gunpowder residue on her fongers.
So,taking everything into account,I believe there probably never was a menstrual accident nor any bloodied knickers found in the bucket by AE.
I mean realistically,if it was the victims blood in the bucket,JB must be innocent.So it was of the utmost importance for the prosecution to make it clear that it was Sheilas period blood.Vital!More than we may realise at first sight.
I mean,if everything is above board,the soco team members must have been down on their knees looking under kitchen units for shell casing's IGNORING the buckets as if they weren't there.Didn't it occur to them to search inside them? Of course it did.
I mean,the more you think about it,the more nonsensical it is to believe the buckets were not searched immediately.Anything could have landed in them from the alleged struggle,jewelery etc. After all Nevills watch went flying.
Isn't it a coincidence that most of the evidence was found by the relatives once the police had left the crime scene,but before JB entered again? This was the window of oppertunity that the police had to invent some evidence.I dont think the silencer was ever in the gun cupboard and there was never a pair of knickers in the bucket.
After the funerals,it was decided that Bamber was guilty and the police set out to get him at any cost.They knew the relatives thought JB was guilty,so back tracked to their window of oppertunity as it were and got the relatives to write out statements about finding the silencer and blood stained knickers on the days before JB entered the house again.This way it was impossible for JB to contradict when or indeed if the relatives found a silencer or bloodied knickers.
I am not sure if the scratch marks were reported before or after JB entered the house again or not,will have to check.
It's also possible that there really was period-stained clothing in the buckets and Sheila washed her hands in those same buckets.
I agree that Jeremy would not have washed his hands in the buckets and left them there, so if the blood in the buckets was from the victims, it indicates Jeremy is innocent.
Now how likely is it that the blood was other than period blood? I would say quite likely because of the factors I mention above, including:
1. Sheila was in the early phase of menstruation.
2. Sheila had a tampon inserted, which indicates she did not sleep that night.
On the other hand, if it is victims' blood, wouldn't that deepen the puzzle as to why the police did not notice it? To be fair, if it was period blood, officers may have noticed the buckets and realised what it was. Nevertheless, I do find it extraordinary that if buckets were there, they were not picked up on, doubly so because not only were there police officers crawling over the house, but the police even claimed to have had the house cleaned!
Some buckets are photographed in the kitchen: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=3383.0 I believe those are the same buckets and they were emptied by Ann Eaton prior to the return of the housekeeper, Jean Boutell, though the housekeeper would assist Ann Eaton in cleaning the house.
Interestingly, Ann Eaton's statement of 8th. September 1985 (pages 41 to 47) makes no mention of the buckets: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=71.0
For sure none of it adds up.
Continuing with my post above, I have to say, the buckets look empty in those photographs! It's not possible to tell for sure, though.
I also wonder why DS Jones would need to ask Ann Eaton how she could tell it was period blood.
What all this means, I cannot say. One point I will need to double-check is the source for the conversation between Stan Jones and Ann Eaton. I have a feeling it may be the Bamber Inquiry.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on September 16, 2022, 06:38:55 PMContinuing with my post above, I have to say, the buckets look empty in those photographs! It's not possible to tell for sure, though.
I also wonder why DS Jones would need to ask Ann Eaton how she could tell it was period blood.
What all this means, I cannot say. One point I will need to double-check is the source for the conversation between Stan Jones and Ann Eaton. I have a feeling it may be the Bamber Inquiry.
Well,AE says in her statement she found the buckets beside the sink and that the green one had the knickers,the other one a pair of the boy's track suit bottoms and a pair of socks.I cant tell if they are empty or not,that would be highly suspicious.I had a feeling that it was Ainsley who mentioned to AE about the different smell of period blood,but I may be wrong.
And yes,it is strange that there is an emphasis on the fact it is period blood in the bucket.Oh,and in one statement you will notice AE says there was two pairs of knickers in the bucket.
Quote from: Leslie Aalders on September 16, 2022, 07:45:02 PMQuote from: Erik Narramore on September 16, 2022, 06:38:55 PMContinuing with my post above, I have to say, the buckets look empty in those photographs! It's not possible to tell for sure, though.
I also wonder why DS Jones would need to ask Ann Eaton how she could tell it was period blood.
What all this means, I cannot say. One point I will need to double-check is the source for the conversation between Stan Jones and Ann Eaton. I have a feeling it may be the Bamber Inquiry.
Well,AE says in her statement she found the buckets beside the sink and that the green one had the knickers,the other one a pair of the boy's track suit bottoms and a pair of socks.I cant tell if they are empty or not,that would be highly suspicious.I had a feeling that it was Ainsley who mentioned to AE about the different smell of period blood,but I may be wrong.
And yes,it is strange that there is an emphasis on the fact it is period blood in the bucket.Oh,and in one statement you will notice AE says there was two pairs of knickers in the bucket.
You have better eyes than mine. I couldn't see it in the statements, though I was only scanning them as short of time.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on September 16, 2022, 08:04:47 PMQuote from: Leslie Aalders on September 16, 2022, 07:45:02 PMQuote from: Erik Narramore on September 16, 2022, 06:38:55 PMContinuing with my post above, I have to say, the buckets look empty in those photographs! It's not possible to tell for sure, though.
I also wonder why DS Jones would need to ask Ann Eaton how she could tell it was period blood.
What all this means, I cannot say. One point I will need to double-check is the source for the conversation between Stan Jones and Ann Eaton. I have a feeling it may be the Bamber Inquiry.
Well,AE says in her statement she found the buckets beside the sink and that the green one had the knickers,the other one a pair of the boy's track suit bottoms and a pair of socks.I cant tell if they are empty or not,that would be highly suspicious.I had a feeling that it was Ainsley who mentioned to AE about the different smell of period blood,but I may be wrong.
And yes,it is strange that there is an emphasis on the fact it is period blood in the bucket.Oh,and in one statement you will notice AE says there was two pairs of knickers in the bucket.
You have better eyes than mine. I couldn't see it in the statements, though I was only scanning them as short of time.
Do you mean the two pairs of knickers Erik? That may have been in her colp statement,I think it is also in CALS book.
Yes,it was Ainsley who told AE that the Defence would claim she contaminated the silencer with blood from Sheilas knickers.He asks her how she knew it was menstrual blood,and she answers,it has a different smell,to which he responds,remember that if asked in court.
But again,could all this discussion about period blood simply be a red herring to hide the fact it may have been the victims blood? Another strange remark that AE makes is where she found the buckets.She didn't FIND the buckets,they were in plain sight,just as they were to the police on entry.I still say it is most unlikely the police did not empty out the buckets to look for evidence.Something just does not add up as you have said Erik.But what?
I believe the explanation the police/prosecution would try, if asked, is that the officers at the scene must have deduced it was period blood, and given that everybody assumed it was a murder-suicide, the contents of the buckets were not considered relevant and it was ignored. In the alternative, it may also be that it was not obvious that the clothing was bloodied.
The problem with this explanation is that:
(i). as far as I can tell (this will need to be re-checked), none of the police statements mention the buckets or bloodied clothing in the buckets;
(ii). you don't expect police officers to ignore bloodied clothing at a violent crime scene. Even if we can accept that there was no obvious immediate connection to the crime, wouldn't it have been recorded anyway?
(iii). if it was not obvious that the clothing was bloodied, wouldn't an officer have checked the bucket as a matter of routine and discovered that the clothing was bloodied?
(iv). a more thorough examination and recording of the crime scene than DCI Jones had allowed was undertaken by the Scene of Crime officers, at the initiative of DI Cook.
Turning to the question of the source for the claim, I am referring to both the buckets and their contents. I agree it's probably in a COLP (Bamber Inquiry) statement or interview by or of Ann Eaton. The documents are on this Forum. I know Carol Ann Lee mentions it in her book, but she can't be considered a reliable source for claims (regardless of whether the claims are true or not).
Finding the source is going to be very important to an evaluation of the whole claim. A/DCI Ainsley must have been made aware of the bloodied clothing because he asked Ann Eaton how she would tell if it is period blood, but what was the context of that conversation? Was it Ann Eaton who told him? Or did he learn about it from an officer at the scene? Bear in mind that A/DCI Ainsley did not attend the scene on the morning of 7th. August or in the days after. Therefore, he was never at the scene while it was under police control.
If A/DCI Ainsley learned about the bloodied clothing only from Ann Eaton, then the entire narrative rests on Ann Eaton. We know that part of what she says is true, as buckets were photographed in the kitchen by the police. Would she lie about the contents of the buckets, knowing that the police had already searched there and observed the buckets, and for all she knew, may even have accidentally left the buckets behind?
I agree that we don't know for sure that it ever was period blood and we should question this, but if we're questioning it at that level, then the whole thing circles back to the questions I ask above. If we posit that it may not have been period blood, why didn't the officers at the scene also raise that suspicion and record it?
Extracts here from Ann Eaton's statement to the Bamber Inquiry: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=775.0
The good news is that I also do have the full statements she gave to the Inquiry - both typed and handwritten, and also a typed draft. They are in a 'private' area of the forum, and I will upload them in due course. I will update this thread again when that happens.
Well,let us look at the official story Erik.Ok,we know that two buckets were in the kitchen,they are in the crime scene photos.Now Ann Eaton say's one bucket had blood stainsd knickers and the other track suit bottoms and socks.
Now the thing is,WHEN were the buckets filled and placed on the kitchen floor? Were they placed at the same time before everyone went to bed? Surely Sheila wouldn't bother putting the boy's clothes in to seep if she was up during the small hours,so can we take it that one bucket at least was in the kitchen prior to everyone retiring to bed?
So,was the bucket with Sheilas knickers also in the kitchen at that time,or did she place the second bucket and knickers sometime through the night after a menstrual accident? I dont suppose it really matters that much,but that takes us back to the question of why the buckets were apparently left undisturbed till AE emptied them out days later.
In fact it wasnt even the day she got the keys to the Whitehouse that they were emptied,in fact there was no mention of the buckets when she was shown through the house even when she was asked to point out anything different.I think it was the next day AE washed the kitchen floor and allegedly discovered the contents of the buckets.
Now,is it possible that the soco officers emptied out the buckets in the sink then replaced them to soak again? As you pointed out there seems to be no mention of this,and why would there need to be any kind of statement from Ann Eaton if this was the case?
There definately seems to be a need for AE to be the first to discover what was in the buckets,and have the ability to identify period blood without question.
So thats the official story,two buckets of dirty washing sit on the kitchen floor of a major crime scene.One probably with the water coloured by blood.The buckets sit undisturbed and ignored by the police even as they clean up the house.The buckets are finally emptied days later when Ann Eaton gets access to the house,she discovers track suit bottoms in one bucket and blood stained knickers in the other.
Ann Eaton is the only one to see the contents of the buckets,there dosen't seem to be any documentation of the police checking what was in them at all.
So,what are we think? Are we to suppose that the buckets were more evidence that the police should have checked but didn't? Again left to the relatives to report.But why did AE feel the need to report what was in the buckets for her statements? Did she know the police hadn't already rummaged through the buckets,did she ask?
The police had vacated the scene,why wasn't she happy to accept the police must have seen no evidential evidence in the buckets? Why didn't she just bin the knickers and forget about them?
Isn't the kitchen a srtange place to leave blood stained knickers soaking? Wouldn't you rather put them in a back scullery or toilet out of sight? If nothing else Crispy slept in the kitchen,you wouldnt want him going near a bucket of blood stained water.
Besides would you really advertise the fact you had a menstrual accident by leaving your knickers in the kitchen,a place where everyone sits down to eat? All very strange.I think we need to look deeper Erik.
Quote from: Erik Narramore on September 17, 2022, 01:00:39 PMExtracts here from Ann Eaton's statement to the Bamber Inquiry: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=775.0
The good news is that I also do have the full statements she gave to the Inquiry - both typed and handwritten, and also a typed draft. They are in a 'private' area of the forum, and I will upload them in due course. I will update this thread again when that happens.
Very good Erik,hope you can shed some more light on the topic.
I suppose personally,there is really only one question I am asking about the blood stained knickers.Why did Ann Eaton feel the need to make a statement about them? Was she told to? Well that's two!
Two apparently inconsequential buckets of clothing that the soco team didn't think worthy of a mention,yet a year later Ann Eaton is giving evidence at Jeremy Bambers trial about them. Why?
The buckets in the SOC photographs look empty. I think if they had tracksuit bottoms in them, for instance, it would be more obvious there was something.
I can see why it is possible the police overlooked bloodied clothing. Remember they were working on the assumption that it was a murder-suicide, so bloodied clothing in buckets may not have seemed relevant evidence if it was thought or assumed to be period blood. Yet as we know, they also made a point of conducting a search of the house and a thorough photograph album was compiled, and how could they be sure it was period blood? As I explain, if it wasn't obvious on sight that the clothing was bloodied, they must have checked the contents of the bucket anyway, so would have known the clothing was bloodied. The buckets are right there in the kitchen and were even photographed. It must have been obvious, even if it meant they had to handle the clothing to find out.
It does all seem quite awry, and like you, I have that nagging feeling that there is something wrong here. The problem is, I can't make sense of all this as a malign conspiracy. It only makes sense if she was indeed honest and it all happened as she says: i.e. she simply found bloodied clothing in buckets that the police overlooked for reasons I give above. Otherwise, why bring bloodied clothing to anyone's attention at all? Surely she could have just not mentioned it and nobody would have known. If it was later brought to her attention by, say, a passing reference to bloodied clothes in a bucket in a police statement, note or report, she could have claimed ignorance or even said that she'd forgotten all about it.
I need to get Ann Eaton's statements up on the Forum. I also have the transcript of her trial evidence, so will upload that too.
All Bamber Inquiry documents are now uploaded and on the Forum.
Statements and interviews of Christine Ann Eaton to the Bamber Inquiry:
https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?board=552.0
Trial evidence of Christine Ann Eaton:
https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=2451.0
Link to the Operation Bamber/Bamber Inquiry board: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?board=5.0
Quote from: Erik Narramore on September 18, 2022, 03:12:02 AMThe buckets in the SOC photographs look empty. I think if they had tracksuit bottoms in them, for instance, it would be more obvious there was something.
I can see why it is possible the police overlooked bloodied clothing. Remember they were working on the assumption that it was a murder-suicide, so bloodied clothing in buckets may not have seemed relevant evidence if it was thought or assumed to be period blood. Yet as we know, they also made a point of conducting a search of the house and a thorough photograph album was compiled, and how could they be sure it was period blood? As I explain, if it wasn't obvious on sight that the clothing was bloodied, they must have checked the contents of the bucket anyway, so would have known the clothing was bloodied. The buckets are right there in the kitchen and were even photographed. It must have been obvious, even if it meant they had to handle the clothing to find out.
It does all seem quite awry, and like you, I have that nagging feeling that there is something wrong here. The problem is, I can't make sense of all this as a malign conspiracy. It only makes sense if she was indeed honest and it all happened as she says: i.e. she simply found bloodied clothing in buckets that the police overlooked for reasons I give above. Otherwise, why bring bloodied clothing to anyone's attention at all? Surely she could have just not mentioned it and nobody would have known. If it was later brought to her attention by, say, a passing reference to bloodied clothes in a bucket in a police statement, note or report, she could have claimed ignorance or even said that she'd forgotten all about it.
I need to get Ann Eaton's statements up on the Forum. I also have the transcript of her trial evidence, so will upload that too.
Well,if you think about it,if the buckets were empty in the crime scene photos,that can only
mean two things.Either the soco officers or whoever cleaned up used the buckets and put the clothing
in them to soak,but made no note of this or,AE also found them empty but for some reason made up a
story about clothing soaking in them.
Either way,I still say it should have been the soco officers who should have been in the Dock giving
evidence about the buckets.And why mention them at all if they held no evidential importance?
Knickers stained with period blood would have proved nothing.Besides it was a prosecution witness
who brought the knickers to the attention of the police,why? There had to be a reason for putting
them in a witness statement.All that I can think of,is making it loud and clear it was period
blood and not that from any of the victims.
One thing is for sure,the prosecution wanted the buckets mentioned at Jeremy Bambers trial,or they
would have omitted them from AEs witness statement.Very strange.
ater the autopsies the soco team knew how many times each victim had been shot.Nevill Bamber had been shot eight times,but only three bullets were found in the kitchen.The soco team returned to WHF a second time looking for the missing shell casings to account for all shots inflicted.
Surely the officers would have checked the buckets at this stage if they hadn't done so before.I think they even had a metal detector with them.They had no reason to think Nevill had been shot anywhere but the kitchen,and would have checked there upon entry you would think.
Yet we are supposed to believe they once again ignored the buckets and did not check them.I dont buy this.
Unless the buckets were empty at this stage of course,as Erik suggests.
Leslie, what we can say is as follows:
(i). If SOCO officers found clothes bearing significant blood-staining, this would normally be treated as evidence and logged, not simply placed in buckets and forgotten about.
(ii). If we suppose that Sheila did have blood-stained clothes due to a period, this clothing would not be in her bedroom, it would be in the laundry, which is in the scullery. This is because if it was found in the bedroom, it would have been treated as evidence. If it was found in the scullery, officers might well have concluded the stains were due to menstruation and left them; in any event, they would not be expected to transfer those clothes to buckets in the kitchen.
(iii). However, we are engaged here in logical guesswork. Even expert and experienced people sometimes act illogically and make mistakes and slips that seem puzzling to outsiders, like us, who have the luxury of hindsight. For instance, it is possible the officers found blood-stained clothes in the laundry, decided to examine those clothes, then realised the blood was probably due to menstruation; they might then have accidentally left the clothes in the buckets in the kitchen, perhaps intending to log these articles and take them away, purely for form purposes. Even when officers decide a piece of evidence is not particularly relevant, it's normally still a good idea to record it and seize it because you never know if it might later become more relevant as the investigation progresses. It could be that somebody forgot to do this. This could have happened after the crime scene photography was completed and it could be explained by the prevailing belief that Sheila had committed murder-suicide anyway, so the bloodied clothes were perceived, at least at that stage, as having no evidential value and were forgotten about for this reason.
(iv). If we reject my supposition in (iii) above (I accept it is supposition), then we have to conclude it is unlikely the SOCO officers tampered with the buckets by putting clothes in them after the crime scene photography. They simply had no reason to do this otherwise.
(v). It is not unreasonable to proceed on an assumption that the buckets must have been checked if they were in situ at the time the crime scene was being searched by officers - and we must assume they were in situ, given the evidence in the photographs. However, I am not sure we have to treat that as axiomatic, as I also must concede there is a small possibility the officers simply didn't check the buckets - and that could well be the mundane explanation for it all. We can't be sure the buckets in the photograph are empty, and it is possible there were clothes in there but it was not obvious they were blood-stained, or it may not have been obvious the items were clothing. That sounds crazily unlikely, but it actually is possible.
(vi). A final observation is that it appears that Ann Eaton made no mention of the buckets in her contemporaneous witness statements. I will re-read those statements more carefully and must check her evidence at trial to be sure. I must also re-read her statements to both the Dickinson Inquiry and the Bamber Inquiry, and possibly also the Stokenchurch Inquiry. If it did not come up at trial, this may help answer one possible objection to my supposition in (iii) above, which is that surely a police officer would make an additional statement explaining the mistake in order to put Ann Eaton's evidence into context and validate and reinforce it. In other words, what the objector is saying is that the police had no motive to conceal their mistake. Quite the opposite: they had a clear motive to admit to it! And if A/DCI Ainsley was aware of the blood (having asked Ann Eaton about it), why not raise it at trial? The answer to this is in the fact that Ann Eaton did not include it in any of her contemporaneous statements: it either wasn't considered important in the scheme of things, or it was considered important and it was omitted for that reason. Either way, a decision has been made to exclude this from the defence, which I find disturbing in itself.
In closing, I'd like to focus on point (iii) above in particular. If we take an Occam's razor approach to this and assume mistake is the explanation for the police not noticing the blood-soaked clothing, this does open up the possibility that Sheila was downstairs that night in order to deposit her clothes in the laundry and that is when she saw the rifle, on the bench in the back corridor area. Weren't tampons also found in the living room? Of course, I appreciate that we may only have Ann Eaton's word that the blood was menstrual in origin, and it is unclear why A/DCI Ainsley raised the issue with her and came to know about it in the first place, especially given that she did not trouble to mention it in her contemporaneous statements.
It's one of those topics that could be everything or nothing because there is, we must admit, a mundane explanation for it all - i.e. they just missed the evidence by mistake - but at the same time, great reliance is placed on Ann Eaton in the assertion that it was period blood, and as you say, why raise it at all? Was that just honesty and integrity on her part? Sometimes when people do wrong, their consciences can't help but 'speak'. Yet, I have demonstrated in the preceding paragraph that Ann Eaton's evidence in regard to the blood-soaked clothing could be seen as consistent with a Sheila scenario.