The Menstrual Blood

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Leslie Aalders]

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 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?

[Leslie Aalders]

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?

[Leslie Aalders]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Leslie Aalders]

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 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?

[Erik Narramore]

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?

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?

[Leslie Aalders]

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?

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.

[Leslie Aalders]

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.

[Leslie Aalders]

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.

[Leslie Aalders]

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.

[Leslie Aalders]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

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.

[Leslie Aalders]

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.

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.