UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => Twenty years on, the mystery of who shot Jill Dando still prevails. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on April 07, 2019, 11:16:42 PM
-
I know I've posted previously about the fact jurors were taken to Jill Dando's home to view soc which wasn't the case at WHF. It would have been helpful to jurors to see how easy, difficult or impossible it was for JB to enter WHF and exit leaving the window secured from within.
Also just reading that in the case of Jill Dando;
“The post-mortem report, the injuries to her head, the markings (on the bullet) indicated a silencer couldn’t have been on the gun.”
I wonder why in one case it was possible to say a silencer wasn't used and in another the firearms 'expert' *Malcolm Fletcher was unable to say one way or another?
*Told the court his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy.
-
I know I've posted previously about the fact jurors were taken to Jill Dando's home to view soc which wasn't the case at WHF. It would have been helpful to jurors to see how easy, difficult or impossible it was for JB to enter WHF and exit leaving the window secured from within.
Also just reading that in the case of Jill Dando;
“The post-mortem report, the injuries to her head, the markings (on the bullet) indicated a silencer couldn’t have been on the gun.”
I wonder why in one case it was possible to say a silencer wasn't used and in another the firearms 'expert' *Malcolm Fletcher was unable to say one way or another?
*Told the court his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy.
I'm interested that something which still appears to be worrying you is what Malcolm Fletcher said in court and from which you seem to conclude -and would like us to believe- that his ONLY experience with firearms MAY stem from "a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy". However, what he actually said was that his relevant experience INCLUDED...........which suggests to me that he'd had an interest in firearms which started in childhood.
I'm not going to begin to suggest what prompted one expert to be restrained in their assertions whilst another was so confident, but I can point out several variables. The skin covering a skull is tight. I imagine a firearm pressed, and fired, anywhere against it, the nozzle being unlikely to move, would leave very definite/measurable marks on skin or equally discernable marks where hair has been. Skin around the neck and throat is looser, the victim has time to move, their movements possibly blurring any definite marks, making it difficult to make finite claims on the use of a silencer. For others, we need to know what was the expert's mindset. If they're of the school that believes, and holds onto, one and one ALWAYS makes two, they will be firm and confident. If they believe there's a margin for error, their claims are likely to be less forceful. At the end of the day, it's down to a jury to come to a decision on what they've heard.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0003w40/the-murder-of-jill-dando
@ 21 mins in the lead detective on the Jill Dando case, Chief Sup Hamish Campbell, talks about the fact a silencer wasn't used based on pathological evidence and the markings on the bullet.
@ 48 mins in a forensic scientist, Angela Shaw, who specialises in gunshot residue, talks about particles. In JB's case we have no particles!
https://www.csofs.org/Angela-Shaw
-
I'm interested that something which still appears to be worrying you is what Malcolm Fletcher said in court and from which you seem to conclude -and would like us to believe- that his ONLY experience with firearms MAY stem from "a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy". However, what he actually said was that his relevant experience INCLUDED...........which suggests to me that he'd had an interest in firearms which started in childhood.
I have posted MF's intro to the court numerous times so anyone can make of it what they will - attached below. If you or a loved one were due to have some surgery and the surgeon said I work in the heart department and have done so for the past 13 years. If you then asked what experience he/she had prior to this and they said a small amount of experience of 'Operation' (the game) as a child how reassured would you be you were in safe hands?
I'm not going to begin to suggest what prompted one expert to be restrained in their assertions whilst another was so confident, but I can point out several variables. The skin covering a skull is tight. I imagine a firearm pressed, and fired, anywhere against it, the nozzle being unlikely to move, would leave very definite/measurable marks on skin or equally discernable marks where hair has been. Skin around the neck and throat is looser, the victim has time to move, their movements possibly blurring any definite marks, making it difficult to make finite claims on the use of a silencer. For others, we need to know what was the expert's mindset. If they're of the school that believes, and holds onto, one and one ALWAYS makes two, they will be firm and confident. If they believe there's a margin for error, their claims are likely to be less forceful. At the end of the day, it's down to a jury to come to a decision on what they've heard.
Yes there's the pathology of the wounds but there's also the markings on the bullets. In the case of WHF either 25 or 26 bullets were fired. Many fragmented but some were whole or virtually whole and yet according to Malcolm Fletcher he was unable to discern whether or not a silencer was used? Has anyone ever carried out any independent tests in an attempt to check MF's findings and see if it is possible to determine whether or not a silencer was used?
-
I have posted MF's intro to the court numerous times so anyone can make of it what they will - attached below. If you or a loved one were due to have some surgery and the surgeon said I work in the heart department and have done so for the past 13 years. If you then asked what experience he/she had prior to this and they said a small amount of experience of 'Operation' (the game) as a child how reassured would you be you were in safe hands?
Yes there's the pathology of the wounds but there's also the markings on the bullets. In the case of WHF either 25 or 26 bullets were fired. Many fragmented but some were whole or virtually whole and yet according to Malcolm Fletcher he was unable to discern whether or not a silencer was used? Has anyone ever carried out any independent tests in an attempt to check MF's findings and see if it is possible to determine whether or not a silencer was used?
Well naturally, should I have believed the surgeon's only prior experience had been that which you describe, I would, undoubtedly, have had grave concerns. However, whilst I feel I'd be unlikely to challenge an expert, I do accept that some can slip through nets, as in a recent case of an NHS 'psychiatrist' in this area who'd been treating patients for years when it was discovered she had no psychiatric qualifications -one assumes she got away with it -albeit it's arguable that the potential for damage may be greater- because damage done to an already damaged mind shows rather less than damage done to an already damaged body? I don't believe she was struck off, simply returned to what her medical qualifications allowed. I think that in most circumstances there may be found a margin for error.
In answer to your question regarding independent tests being carried out to test MF's findings. HAD such been carried out and discrepancies found, we'd surely be straying into the realms of (even more) conspiracy theories -involving high finance?- if it's being suggested that the results were hidden? Surely there must be some forensic scientists/firearms specialists out there who are more concerned about the integrity of their work, than financial reward?
There's an interesting programme presently being aired in which living relatives of the previously convicted -and hanged- challenge the courts decision. The evidence accrued by two barristers is then heard by a, now retired, High Court judge. Thus far, of those I've watched, he's only found one conviction unsafe.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0003w40/the-murder-of-jill-dando
@ 21 mins in the lead detective on the Jill Dando case, Chief Sup Hamish Campbell, talks about the fact a silencer wasn't used based on pathological evidence and the markings on the bullet.
@ 48 mins in a forensic scientist, Angela Shaw, who specialises in gunshot residue, talks about particles. In JB's case we have no particles!
https://www.csofs.org/Angela-Shaw
And I've no idea why it was deemed relevant for jurors to visit Jill Dando's doorstep along with other relevant sites but not relevant for jurors to visit WHF, Bourtree Cottage and the route JB supposedly took on his mother's bike?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2106301/Jill-Dando-killer-Barry-George-visits-streets-where-she-died.html
-
Well naturally, should I have believed the surgeon's only prior experience had been that which you describe, I would, undoubtedly, have had grave concerns. However, whilst I feel I'd be unlikely to challenge an expert, I do accept that some can slip through nets, as in a recent case of an NHS 'psychiatrist' in this area who'd been treating patients for years when it was discovered she had no psychiatric qualifications -one assumes she got away with it -albeit it's arguable that the potential for damage may be greater- because damage done to an already damaged mind shows rather less than damage done to an already damaged body? I don't believe she was struck off, simply returned to what her medical qualifications allowed. I think that in most circumstances there may be found a margin for error.
In answer to your question regarding independent tests being carried out to test MF's findings. HAD such been carried out and discrepancies found, we'd surely be straying into the realms of (even more) conspiracy theories -involving high finance?- if it's being suggested that the results were hidden? Surely there must be some forensic scientists/firearms specialists out there who are more concerned about the integrity of their work, than financial reward?
There's an interesting programme presently being aired in which living relatives of the previously convicted -and hanged- challenge the courts decision. The evidence accrued by two barristers is then heard by a, now retired, High Court judge. Thus far, of those I've watched, he's only found one conviction unsafe.
I've no idea what tests, if any, the defence expert Major Mead undertook. But it seems to me it would be something black and white: discharge rifle with ammo used 26 times with and without silencer and then microscopically examine the bullets in an attempt to determine whether or not any differences exist between those fired with a silencer and those fired without a silencer. For all I know it may well have been done and MF may well have been right in this regard. I've never seen the Major's trial testimony.
That prog sounds interesting but I would prefer to hear the opinions of forensic scientists rather than barristers and judges whose opinions are no more valid than ours. They are trained in law and many have no more than O levels, or the equivalent of, in science subjects.
-
I've no idea what tests, if any, the defence expert Major Mead undertook. But it seems to me it would be something black and white: discharge rifle with ammo used 26 times with and without silencer and then microscopically examine the bullets in an attempt to determine whether or not any differences exist between those fired with a silencer and those fired without a silencer. For all I know it may well have been done and MF may well have been right in this regard. I've never seen the Major's trial testimony.
That prog sounds interesting but I would prefer to hear the opinions of forensic scientists rather than barristers and judges whose opinions are no more valid than ours. They are trained in law and many have no more than O levels, or the equivalent of, in science subjects.
Which begs the question, which is it better to have, a decision in law, or justice?
-
Which begs the question, which is it better to have, a decision in law, or justice?
An idea might be that lawyers have to undertake further qualifications in whatever areas of law they wish to practice in and stop flitting about being a jack of everything and a master of nothing. Eg lawyers working on cases involving firearms: WHF, Rettendon Murders, Jill Dando, Carl Bridgwater undertake qualifications in ballistics.
-
An idea might be that lawyers have to undertake further qualifications in whatever areas of law they wish to practice in and stop flitting about being a jack of everything and a master of nothing. Eg lawyers working on cases involving firearms: WHF, Rettendon Murders, Jill Dando, Carl Bridgwater undertake qualifications in ballistics.
I hear what you say and in theory, I think it's a good idea. It could work well in large city firms, but in the rural provinces? Wouldn't this mean that they'd have to choose, in advance, which area to specialize in? Could it mean that they were prevented from taking on other cases because they lacked the qualifications held by others who had chosen them? Might not doing such put limitations on their careers?
-
And I've no idea why it was deemed relevant for jurors to visit Jill Dando's doorstep along with other relevant sites but not relevant for jurors to visit WHF, Bourtree Cottage and the route JB supposedly took on his mother's bike?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2106301/Jill-Dando-killer-Barry-George-visits-streets-where-she-died.html
Showing the jurors the whole route Bamber cycled, would mean walking them 3 miles. Although there was more than one route he could take.
Suspect both the prosecution & defence accepted it was possible to cycle. Did the prosecution ever dispute Bamber could cycle the route?
-
Showing the jurors the whole route Bamber cycled, would mean walking them 3 miles. Although there was more than one route he could take.
Suspect both the prosecution & defence accepted it was possible to cycle. Did the prosecution ever dispute Bamber could cycle the route?
Yes I guess taking jurors on a number of possible cycle routes wasn't practical and wouldn't really prove much if anything but I don't see why jurors were not taken to WHF to check out the windows.
-
I have posted MF's intro to the court numerous times so anyone can make of it what they will - attached below. If you or a loved one were due to have some surgery and the surgeon said I work in the heart department and have done so for the past 13 years. If you then asked what experience he/she had prior to this and they said a small amount of experience of 'Operation' (the game) as a child how reassured would you be you were in safe hands?
Yes there's the pathology of the wounds but there's also the markings on the bullets. In the case of WHF either 25 or 26 bullets were fired. Many fragmented but some were whole or virtually whole and yet according to Malcolm Fletcher he was unable to discern whether or not a silencer was used? Has anyone ever carried out any independent tests in an attempt to check MF's findings and see if it is possible to determine whether or not a silencer was used?
I don't know why you keep dwelling on this. It sounds to me that MF was being flippant and with good reason; 13 years is a long time to work in a particular field and Aldridges question seems to be dismissive of his 13 years experience.
-
Yes I guess taking jurors on a number of possible cycle routes wasn't practical and wouldn't really prove much if anything but I don't see why jurors were not taken to WHF to check out the windows.
Especially the shower room window which Sergeant Stephen Golding found unlocked. The same window that Bamber used when he returned to WHF to collect documents.
-
I don't know why you keep dwelling on this. It sounds to me that MF was being flippant and with good reason; 13 years is a long time to work in a particular field and Aldridges question seems to be dismissive of his 13 years experience.
Holly's favourite motto: "Never waste an opportunity to take a pop at MF"
-
Especially the shower room window which Sergeant Stephen Golding found unlocked. The same window that Bamber used when he returned to WHF to collect documents.
I see you're trying to wake the dead with a question on the shower room window lock. I think the actual lock was probably more like the one we discussed earlier rather than the complicated screwed one in your recent photo, whether re-secured by string, hacksaw blade or whatever.
If we had a high-res picture of it instead of this blurred one, then it might be easier to answer... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502)
My own view is that he left by the kitchen window for two reasons: he told Julie about it, and that in the SoC photo the plastic crockery drainer, liquid soap bottle, etc. weren't in their usual positions according to the housekeeper, as if they'd been rearranged to make it appear as if no-one had exited through that window. Banging the window shut from outside to lock it is also a reasonable assumption. Years ago, before I ever studied this case I carried out the same trick when painting some wooden casements from outside, so maybe I'm biased.
-
I see you're trying to wake the dead with a question on the shower room window lock. I think the actual lock was probably more like the one we discussed earlier rather than the complicated screwed one in your recent photo, whether re-secured by string, hacksaw blade or whatever.
If we had a high-res picture of it instead of this blurred one, then it might be easier to answer... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502)
My own view is that he left by the kitchen window for two reasons: he told Julie about it, and that in the SoC photo the plastic crockery drainer, liquid soap bottle, etc. weren't in their usual positions according to the housekeeper, as if they'd been rearranged to make it appear as if no-one had exited through that window. Banging the window shut from outside to lock it is also a reasonable assumption. Years ago, before I ever studied this case I carried out the same trick when painting some wooden casements from outside, so maybe I'm biased.
Don't you think that exiting from the bathroom window -which had uncluttered access- might have been easier that climbing onto a draining board, which, if the rest of the kitchen is anything to go by, was likely to have been well covered? Stuff not being in usual positions? Mmm. Well, with Sheila and the children there, the usual routine had probably been turned on it's head. Isn't it also possible that if a conversation of a provocative nature had ensued the previous evening, the usual washing up routine may not have been adhered to?
-
I don't know why you keep dwelling on this. It sounds to me that MF was being flippant and with good reason; 13 years is a long time to work in a particular field and Aldridges question seems to be dismissive of his 13 years experience.
I would hardly think a high profile criminal trial involving 5 deaths was the time and place for flippancy.
The fact MF said he was working in the firearms dept for 13 years does not tell us anything about what he actually did, what his experience involved.
-
Holly's favourite motto: "Never waste an opportunity to take a pop at MF"
I'm not having a pop at MF per se just questioning his credentials to provide credible and reliable expert testimony.
-
I see you're trying to wake the dead with a question on the shower room window lock. I think the actual lock was probably more like the one we discussed earlier rather than the complicated screwed one in your recent photo, whether re-secured by string, hacksaw blade or whatever.
If we had a high-res picture of it instead of this blurred one, then it might be easier to answer... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502)
My own view is that he left by the kitchen window for two reasons: he told Julie about it, and that in the SoC photo the plastic crockery drainer, liquid soap bottle, etc. weren't in their usual positions according to the housekeeper, as if they'd been rearranged to make it appear as if no-one had exited through that window. Banging the window shut from outside to lock it is also a reasonable assumption. Years ago, before I ever studied this case I carried out the same trick when painting some wooden casements from outside, so maybe I'm biased.
The screw lock is less complicated not more and works with the description much better. Bamber (by his own admission) used the bathroom window to gain entry to WHF and I'm not sure that he told Julie which window he used? However, Bamber also told Julie that he hired MM so his version isn't really reliable.
-
I'm not having a pop at MF per se just questioning his credentials to provide credible and reliable expert testimony.
His credentials were 13 years of experience.
-
I would hardly think a high profile criminal trial involving 5 deaths was the time and place for flippancy.
The fact MF said he was working in the firearms dept for 13 years does not tell us anything about what he actually did, what his experience involved.
It may not be the time or place for you, but you're not the one having your credentials questioned.
What do you imagine he did in the FA's dept? He would have carried out the same kind of investigations and he did in the Bamber case. He certainly didn't sweep the floor and make the tea.
-
Especially the shower room window which Sergeant Stephen Golding found unlocked. The same window that Bamber used when he returned to WHF to collect documents.
At 9.15am DCI Jones checked all the windows and other than the dairy window (covered by wire mesh and cobwebs) he found all windows locked and secured.
At 2.30pm Sgt Golding found the catch open on the ground floor window and the kitchen transom window was opened halfway.
-
I see you're trying to wake the dead with a question on the shower room window lock. I think the actual lock was probably more like the one we discussed earlier rather than the complicated screwed one in your recent photo, whether re-secured by string, hacksaw blade or whatever.
If we had a high-res picture of it instead of this blurred one, then it might be easier to answer... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg238502#msg238502)
My own view is that he left by the kitchen window for two reasons: he told Julie about it, and that in the SoC photo the plastic crockery drainer, liquid soap bottle, etc. weren't in their usual positions according to the housekeeper, as if they'd been rearranged to make it appear as if no-one had exited through that window. Banging the window shut from outside to lock it is also a reasonable assumption. Years ago, before I ever studied this case I carried out the same trick when painting some wooden casements from outside, so maybe I'm biased.
DCI Ainsley concluded:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
Whoever opened the transom window may well have moved the items around the sink either deliberately to reach up to the window or accidentally knocked things over.
-
It may not be the time or place for you, but you're not the one having your credentials questioned.
What do you imagine he did in the FA's dept? He would have carried out the same kind of investigations and he did in the Bamber case. He certainly didn't sweep the floor and make the tea.
All other expert witnesses eg Glynis Howard, John Hayward, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Mark Webster at 2002 appeal provided the court with info re high level qualifications ie degrees and membership of professional bodies. MF was the odd one out in this regard. I don't think he was being flippant. I think he was under qualified and unfit to provide the court with credible and reliable evidence.
He didn't carry out the same kind of investigations as he did in the Bamber case. This case involved the drawback phenomenon which by MF's own admission was complicated and not them fully appreciated. I can't find a case anywhere in the world, ever, that has hinged on blood in a silencer.
-
DCI Jones Notebook Re Windows.
-
And why were jurors not taken to WHF to see for themselves how easy, difficult or impossible it would have been for JB to enter and exit leaving the windows secured from within?
-
I'm not having a pop at MF per se just questioning his credentials to provide credible and reliable expert testimony.
I wonder would you be having the kind of pop you appear to be if you believed JB was guilty?
-
I wonder would you be having the kind of pop you appear to be if you believed JB was guilty?
It has nothing to do with whether I believe anyone is guilty or not guilty. It's to do with whether experts are fit for purpose. Do I support the so-called wet blood theory provided by the Italiam professors Cavalli and Melloni instructed by bogus lawyer and convicted fraudster GDS? No I don't on the basis I don't trust anything put forward directly or indirectly by GDS.
-
At 9.15am DCI Jones checked all the windows and other than the dairy window (covered by wire mesh and cobwebs) he found all windows locked and secured.
At 2.30pm Sgt Golding found the catch open on the ground floor window and the kitchen transom window was opened halfway.
Exactly, Golding found the shower room window not locked so Jones didn't check properly because there was no reason to unlock the shower room window and yet it was unlocked.
-
Exactly, Golding found the shower room window not locked so Jones didn't check properly because there was no reason to unlock the shower room window and yet it was unlocked.
What makes you think DCI Jones didn't check properly?
-
All other expert witnesses eg Glynis Howard, John Hayward, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Mark Webster at 2002 appeal provided the court with info re high level qualifications ie degrees and membership of professional bodies. MF was the odd one out in this regard. I don't think he was being flippant. I think he was under qualified and unfit to provide the court with credible and reliable evidence.
He didn't carry out the same kind of investigations as he did in the Bamber case. This case involved the drawback phenomenon which by MF's own admission was complicated and not them fully appreciated. I can't find a case anywhere in the world, ever, that has hinged on blood in a silencer.
MF has qualifications but he wasn't asked about those, the question was in respect to what he had done prior to 13 years of experience working in the FA's dept. I'd have given a flippant answer had I been asked the same question under those circumstances.
The case didn't just hinge on blood in the silencer, there was also Julie.
-
What makes you think DCI Jones didn't check properly?
Because the shower room window was not secured.
-
MF has qualifications but he wasn't asked about those, the question was in respect to what he had done prior to 13 years of experience working in the FA's dept. I'd have given a flippant answer had I been asked the same question under those circumstances.
I believe MF obtained further qualifications prior to retirement but there's no evidence at the time of JB's trial he possessed those qualifications.
The case didn't just hinge on blood in the silencer, there was also Julie.
Julie was and always will be a lay witness in terms of JB's trial. Her testimony was not something that required an expert to decipher in order that the jury could make sense of it. The blood in the silencer required experts to explain the relevance of a flake of blood representing SC's blood serology results and how it came to be there.
-
Because the shower room window was not secured.
DCI Ainsley:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
If an officer wanted to use the loo, maybe for a number 2 poo, he may have opened the window out of courtesy to anyone who went in thereafter especially if a queue was forming outside. It was the height of summer too. 5 dead bodies and a load of men wanting to use the loo in the height of summer. Afaik portaloos were not brought in and/or outside toilets made available?
The fact remains DCI Jones was senior to Sgt Golding. DCI Jones made specific notes in his notebook about checking the windows some 5 hours prior to Sgt Golding's check. By the time Sgt Golding checked numerous officers had been in and out of WHF.
-
Does anyone agree with me that jurors should have been taken to WHF to have an opportunity to look at the windows?
Can anyone explain why jurors are often taken to soc but not to WHF? Eg the jury was taken to Kenneth Noye's house at his trial for the murder of police officer John Fordham. The jury was taken to the home of Jill Dando.
-
I believe MF obtained further qualifications prior to retirement but there's no evidence at the time of JB's trial he possessed those qualifications.
Julie was and always will be a lay witness in terms of JB's trial. Her testimony was not something that required an expert to decipher in order that the jury could make sense of it. The blood in the silencer required experts to explain the relevance of a flake of blood representing SC's blood serology results and how it came to be there.
You believe or you know? Regardless - he had 13 years experience working in the field. I have a degree in psychology, does that make my opinion on the topic more valid than yours even though I have never worked in the field?
I don't think it would matter whether Julie was an expert or a lay witness, she was the only living person close to Bamber and her words put him at the center not the silencer.
-
DCI Ainsley:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
If an officer wanted to use the loo, maybe for a number 2 poo, he may have opened the window out of courtesy to anyone who went in thereafter especially if a queue was forming outside. It was the height of summer too. 5 dead bodies and a load of men wanting to use the loo in the height of summer. Afaik portaloos were not brought in and/or outside toilets made available?
The fact remains DCI Jones was senior to Sgt Golding. DCI Jones made specific notes in his notebook about checking the windows some 5 hours prior to Sgt Golding's check. By the time Sgt Golding checked numerous officers had been in and out of WHF.
The window wasn't open, it was closed, the lock was open not the window. What does Jones's seniority have to do with anything? Ainsley didn't see Jones check the windows and no one admitted to opening the SR window. I don't believe that Jones physically checked it.
The following is from The Murders at White House Farm: by CAL (p. 190) and is Goldings account ....
"The narrow window that opened horizontally above the kitchen sink was noticeably ajar: ‘To my knowledge no other police officer had opened the fanlight or indeed had reason to place the catch on the bathroom window in the insecure position.’ Sergeant Golding fastened the kitchen window as well, but omitted to inform a senior officer of his actions.
The passage goes on to state that .....
"DCI Jones made no mention of either window in his witness statement, declaring that he had entered ‘every room in the house’ at about 9.15am for a security check. The only window he found unlocked was the one in the dairy, covered by wire mesh with dirt and cobwebs on the gauze and sill. Considering the issue several weeks later, Acting Chief Superintendent Mike Ainsley concluded that the kitchen window must have been opened after Jones’s inspection of the house: ‘I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened.'
But it was open
-
Does anyone agree with me that jurors should have been taken to WHF to have an opportunity to look at the windows?
Can anyone explain why jurors are often taken to soc but not to WHF? Eg the jury was taken to Kenneth Noye's house at his trial for the murder of police officer John Fordham. The jury was taken to the home of Jill Dando.
Long way to go just to look at a window . Bamber said in his police interviews he knew how to get into WHF through windows.
Julie, the relatives & police would have all testified about the kitchen window. If they were not challenged on this, then there is no point taking the jurors to WHF.
If both the prosecution & defence agreed it was possible to bang shut the kitchen window, the jurors would accept it. But know just because it was possible, does not mean he did.
-
Long way to go just to look at a window . Bamber said in his police interviews he knew how to get into WHF through windows.
Julie, the relatives & police would have all testified about the kitchen window. If they were not challenged on this, then there is no point taking the jurors to WHF.
If both the prosecution & defence agreed it was possible to bang shut the kitchen window, the jurors would accept it. But know just because it was possible, does not mean he did.
The jury went to Fingringhoe firing range, arguably of less importance than visiting WHF to get an impression of the rooms and events discussed at trial.
Chelmsford to Fingringhoe: 28 miles.
Chelmsford to Tolleshunt D'Arcy: 19 miles.
-
Don't you think that exiting from the bathroom window -which had uncluttered access- might have been easier that climbing onto a draining board, which, if the rest of the kitchen is anything to go by, was likely to have been well covered? Stuff not being in usual positions? Mmm. Well, with Sheila and the children there, the usual routine had probably been turned on it's head. Isn't it also possible that if a conversation of a provocative nature had ensued the previous evening, the usual washing up routine may not have been adhered to?
But it wasn't uncluttered. There was a net curtain and toiletries on the window sill which had every chance of being knocked off onto the floor and difficult to reach from outside because the drop was farther than that of the kitchen window. Hence plastic drainer, soap bottle, etc. could be relocated more easily. Bamber was fit, well used to climbing in and out of tractors so no problem getting onto a kitchen sink. I've no idea about the last question.
-
DCI Ainsley:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
If an officer wanted to use the loo, maybe for a number 2 poo, he may have opened the window out of courtesy to anyone who went in thereafter especially if a queue was forming outside. It was the height of summer too. 5 dead bodies and a load of men wanting to use the loo in the height of summer. Afaik portaloos were not brought in and/or outside toilets made available?
The fact remains DCI Jones was senior to Sgt Golding. DCI Jones made specific notes in his notebook about checking the windows some 5 hours prior to Sgt Golding's check. By the time Sgt Golding checked numerous officers had been in and out of WHF.
Now, Now!... it was a crime scene. I know they messed up initially, but contaminating it further is stretching things a bit.
-
The window wasn't open, it was closed, the lock was open not the window. What does Jones's seniority have to do with anything? Ainsley didn't see Jones check the windows and no one admitted to opening the SR window. I don't believe that Jones physically checked it.
The following is from The Murders at White House Farm: by CAL (p. 190) and is Goldings account ....
"The narrow window that opened horizontally above the kitchen sink was noticeably ajar: ‘To my knowledge no other police officer had opened the fanlight or indeed had reason to place the catch on the bathroom window in the insecure position.’ Sergeant Golding fastened the kitchen window as well, but omitted to inform a senior officer of his actions.
The passage goes on to state that .....
"DCI Jones made no mention of either window in his witness statement, declaring that he had entered ‘every room in the house’ at about 9.15am for a security check. The only window he found unlocked was the one in the dairy, covered by wire mesh with dirt and cobwebs on the gauze and sill. Considering the issue several weeks later, Acting Chief Superintendent Mike Ainsley concluded that the kitchen window must have been opened after Jones’s inspection of the house: ‘I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened.'
But it was open
Sgt Golding states he found the catch open but DCI Jones said when he checked some 5 hours earlier they were all secured. The chances are that someone had used the loo, opened the window and either forgot to put the catch back, couldn't be bothered, or tried and found it difficult so left it perhaps fearing they may damage the window/catch by using brute force.
According to DCI Jones' notebook he stated he went round the house observing each victim in situ. The next thing he did was look for signs of forced entry. He found none other than in the kitchen ie door broken down by officers. He clearly checked all windows evidenced by his notes and the fact he went into detail re what he referred to as the pantry window which on the official layout is described at the dairy.
The fact he looked for signs of forced entry shows imo he was keeping an open mind and not automatically running with the idea SC was responsible.
If you or others want to say something along the lines he was looking for signs of forced entry but not meticulously inspecting the window catches so be it.
As we all know by the time of the trial sadly DCI Jones had died in a tragic accident at home carrying out some diy. Therefore a statement was read out on his behalf:
264. In contrast with Sergeant Golding, DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy. That statement was read to the Jury as part of the Defence case.
Yes DCI Jones made a stat dated 7th Oct '85 re the windows but he also made notes in his notebook presumably on the day of the murders re the windows.
263. Police Sergeant Golding gave evidence that at 2.30 p.m. on 7 August he commenced to secure the ground floor and found all windows to be secure and fastened with the exception of two windows. One was in the ground floor bathroom, which was in a closed position with the catch open. He secured the window by closing the latch. The other was a transom window, which formed part of a casement type window in the kitchen. The transom window was open approximately halfway. He secured the window.
Did Sgt Golding make notes in his notebook on the day of the murders re the windows or did he make a wit stat from memory at a time when the investigation changed from murder/suicide to murder?
-
You believe or you know? Regardless - he had 13 years experience working in the field. I have a degree in psychology, does that make my opinion on the topic more valid than yours even though I have never worked in the field?
I don't think it would matter whether Julie was an expert or a lay witness, she was the only living person close to Bamber and her words put him at the center not the silencer.
Unless I was able to carry out background checks on MF, which I'm not, how could I possibly know for sure what qualifications he had and when he obtained them? What I do know for sure is how MF introduced himself at trial which was in sharp contrast to all the other expert witnesses.
MF said he had 13 years experience working in the firearms dept but this doesn't tell us exactly what his experience covered or what qualified him to provide reliable and credible testimony on very complex aspects of ballistics ie the drawback phenomenon, gunshot residues and pathology of gunshot wounds.
I don't know what you mean by Julie was the only living person close to JB? By the time JM provided her damning testimony the relationship was over. The pair were in their late teens/early twenties during the 18 month relationship. They never lived together full-time. Most of the time there was some considerable geographic distance between them. Afaik they didn't even holiday together other than the odd weekend away? How would any of know their true feelings towards one another at any stage of the relationship and/or whether either party saw it as long-term?
If JM's testimony was stronger than the silencer the CCRC would not have referred JB's case to CoA on the back of the silencer/blood.
-
Long way to go just to look at a window . Bamber said in his police interviews he knew how to get into WHF through windows.
Julie, the relatives & police would have all testified about the kitchen window. If they were not challenged on this, then there is no point taking the jurors to WHF.
If both the prosecution & defence agreed it was possible to bang shut the kitchen window, the jurors would accept it. But know just because it was possible, does not mean he did.
Yes JB said he knew he could gain entry through windows but he did not know of a way of exiting leaving windows/doors secured from within.
There was a lot for jurors to look at at WHF not just the windows eg blood stains on carpets and other exhibits, casings, location of victims found and likely locations when they sustained non-fatal gsw's along with info re trajectories showing perp/victim location.
Other cases involving shooting incidents jurors were taken to soc:
Tony Martin's home:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/711870.stm
And Jill Dando's home:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1323186.stm
-
Now, Now!... it was a crime scene. I know they messed up initially, but contaminating it further is stretching things a bit.
But when you look at other cases you find the police always seem to have an excuse for the fact the soc was compromised. In the case of the Rettendon murders it was melting snow. In the case of Jill Dando it was the ambulance service that arrived first. Imo the chief investigating officers appear to be some of the thickest people I've ever encountered. In the case of Jill Dando Hamish Campbell said the perp only had 1 cartridge on the basis the casing found at soc had been tampered with. How could he possibly know the perp did not have other cartridges in his/her pocket also tampered with? He went on to say it was probably tampered with to reduce its contents thus reducing the sound of gunfire but then ruled out a professional hit as a silencer wasn't used instead. Silencers are difficult to come by and anyone planning to murder Jill Dando would realise that if they did manage to procure a silencer it would be all over the press silencer used. This might then alert whoever passed on the silencer to tip off the police. In the case of the Rettendon murders Insp Dibly said the victims were unarmed because a firearm wasn't found. How could he know the perp didn't search the vehicle and take any firearms?
I've no reason to have any grievances with the police. I've never been involved in any criminality in my life nor been involved with anyone who has been involved in any criminality.
-
Unless I was able to carry out background checks on MF, which I'm not, how could I possibly know for sure what qualifications he had and when he obtained them? What I do know for sure is how MF introduced himself at trial which was in sharp contrast to all the other expert witnesses.
MF said he had 13 years experience working in the firearms dept but this doesn't tell us exactly what his experience covered or what qualified him to provide reliable and credible testimony on very complex aspects of ballistics ie the drawback phenomenon, gunshot residues and pathology of gunshot wounds.
I don't know what you mean by Julie was the only living person close to JB? By the time JM provided her damning testimony the relationship was over. The pair were in their late teens/early twenties during the 18 month relationship. They never lived together full-time. Most of the time there was some considerable geographic distance between them. Afaik they didn't even holiday together other than the odd weekend away? How would any of know their true feelings towards one another at any stage of the relationship and/or whether either party saw it as long-term?
If JM's testimony was stronger than the silencer the CCRC would not have referred JB's case to CoA on the back of the silencer/blood.
We will have to disagree on MF - if 13 years experience isn't enough for you, then nothing would be.
I didnt say JM's testimony was stronger, I said it was a big part of the case and it was.
-
But it wasn't uncluttered. There was a net curtain and toiletries on the window sill which had every chance of being knocked off onto the floor and difficult to reach from outside because the drop was farther than that of the kitchen window. Hence plastic drainer, soap bottle, etc. could be relocated more easily. Bamber was fit, well used to climbing in and out of tractors so no problem getting onto a kitchen sink. I've no idea about the last question.
The drop wasn't father then the kitchen window? We don't know how many toiletries were on the sill but they can easily be moved and replaced. Clambering over the sink is a lot more difficult and I hate to keep repeating myself but we know Bamber frequently used the shower room window, the hacksaw was found near it and it was found to be unlocked.
-
Yes JB said he knew he could gain entry through windows but he did not know of a way of exiting leaving windows/doors secured from within.
There was a lot for jurors to look at at WHF not just the windows eg blood stains on carpets and other exhibits, casings, location of victims found and likely locations when they sustained non-fatal gsw's along with info re trajectories showing perp/victim location.
Other cases involving shooting incidents jurors were taken to soc:
Tony Martin's home:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/711870.stm
And Jill Dando's home:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1323186.stm
In the case of Tony Martin a reconstruction was made involving the same defence firearms expert at JB's trial Major Mead. Although it isn't clear to me whether Major Mead was actually involved in the trial or just the documentary. The latter only I think. In any event he obviously had access to Bleak Farm. The reconstruction involves the evidence I have queried in the past and asked why a reconstruction wasn't/hasn't been presented to date: casings, trajectories and wound tracks. Anthony Scrivener QC then goes on to talk about the wounds to the back of Fred Barras and how the evidence taken as a whole casings, trajectories and wound tracks supported the prosecution case against Tony Martin.
Imo a similar reconstruction at WHF would show NB was shot on the landing stairs facing towards his bedroom door with the perp already in the bedroom. This would support JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB potentially came from downstairs having been in the kitchen calling JB with the perp already in the bedroom shooting June.
Interesting how many of these cases generate good quality tv docs but in JB's case we get a lot of silly drama type progs.
-
In the case of Tony Martin a reconstruction was made involving the same defence firearms expert at JB's trial Major Mead. Although it isn't clear to me whether Major Mead was actually involved in the trial or just the documentary. The latter only I think. In any event he obviously had access to Bleak Farm. The reconstruction involves the evidence I have queried in the past and asked why a reconstruction wasn't/hasn't been presented to date: casings, trajectories and wound tracks. Anthony Scrivener QC then goes on to talk about the wounds to the back of Fred Barras and how the evidence taken as a whole casings, trajectories and wound tracks supported the prosecution case against Tony Martin.
Imo a similar reconstruction at WHF would show NB was shot on the landing stairs facing towards his bedroom door with the perp already in the bedroom. This would support JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB potentially came from downstairs having been in the kitchen calling JB with the perp already in the bedroom shooting June.
Interesting how many of these cases generate good quality tv docs but in JB's case we get a lot of silly drama type progs.
It wouldn't support the telephone call, just that the killer was upstairs at the time. There can be many permutations of how and why Bamber might be upstairs and NB downstairs. My own thoughts (for what they are worth) is that Bamber didn't slink back in the night, he arrived back prior to Nevil going to bed - I think he forced an argument on purpose earlier and came back under the guise of an apology. He waited for Nevil to head off to the shower and went to work on the others - leaving only Nevil to deal with.
-
The jury went to Fingringhoe firing range, arguably of less importance than visiting WHF to get an impression of the rooms and events discussed at trial.
Chelmsford to Fingringhoe: 28 miles.
Chelmsford to Tolleshunt D'Arcy: 19 miles.
Why did they go to the firing range. To see how much quieter the rifle was with a silencer on? Pretty important although the court could have just played a video.
Taking the jurors out again is a bit extreme. The case was discussed for weeks in court. It seems that neither the jurors, prosecution, judge & defence felt a visit to WHF was needed.
-
Yes JB said he knew he could gain entry through windows but he did not know of a way of exiting leaving windows/doors secured from within.
There was a lot for jurors to look at at WHF not just the windows eg blood stains on carpets and other exhibits, casings, location of victims found and likely locations when they sustained non-fatal gsw's along with info re trajectories showing perp/victim location.
Other cases involving shooting incidents jurors were taken to soc:
Tony Martin's home:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/711870.stm
And Jill Dando's home:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1323186.stm
If Bamber knew how to & often entered & exited WHF through windows, it is surprising he did not know how to bang shut a window.
Leaving his exit window open makes it vulnerable to burglary. It also highlights to a returning Nevill & June that someone has entered WHF. Doubtful Bamber left them a note.
Julie said Bamber knew he could bang shut the kitchen window.
-
In the case of Tony Martin a reconstruction was made involving the same defence firearms expert at JB's trial Major Mead. Although it isn't clear to me whether Major Mead was actually involved in the trial or just the documentary. The latter only I think. In any event he obviously had access to Bleak Farm. The reconstruction involves the evidence I have queried in the past and asked why a reconstruction wasn't/hasn't been presented to date: casings, trajectories and wound tracks. Anthony Scrivener QC then goes on to talk about the wounds to the back of Fred Barras and how the evidence taken as a whole casings, trajectories and wound tracks supported the prosecution case against Tony Martin.
Imo a similar reconstruction at WHF would show NB was shot on the landing stairs facing towards his bedroom door with the perp already in the bedroom. This would support JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB potentially came from downstairs having been in the kitchen calling JB with the perp already in the bedroom shooting June.
Interesting how many of these cases generate good quality tv docs but in JB's case we get a lot of silly drama type progs.
I forgot to add the link for the above!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemcOAg53eM
The reconstruction evidence starts at 40:40
-
It wouldn't support the telephone call, just that the killer was upstairs at the time. There can be many permutations of how and why Bamber might be upstairs and NB downstairs. My own thoughts (for what they are worth) is that Bamber didn't slink back in the night, he arrived back prior to Nevil going to bed - I think he forced an argument on purpose earlier and came back under the guise of an apology. He waited for Nevil to head off to the shower and went to work on the others - leaving only Nevil to deal with.
Yes it would support the telephone call in more ways than one.
The prosecution case is that NB was shot in his bedroom. Two of the gsw's NB sustained UPSTAIRS, lip and jaw, meant that purposeful speech thereafter was impossible so how could NB call JB "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun"? Furthermore these two gsw's produced heavy blood loss and no blood was found on the mouthpiece.
At trial Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if any of the victims sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the main bedroom (obviously excl the twins). MF replied no. Ed Lawson did not ask MF how he arrived at this conclusion or challenge him in any way. I have not read Major Mead's (firearms expert for the the defence) testimony to know what he said or didn't say. However given Michael Turner QC at the 2002 appeal attempted to argue an officer used the kitchen phone to call out and inadvertently removed the blood it would seem unlikely Major Mead put up a robust defence at trial in this regard.
I've posted the link above re the construction at Bleak Farm. Anthony Scrivener QC comments that the totality of the physical evidence at soc by way of gunshot trajectories, casings and the gsw to the back of Fred Barras may well have caused Joe (ie average Joe/juror, I assume) to side with the prosecution as together it was strongly suggestive that Tony Martin did not fire all the shots whilst he was on the stairs as he claimed and fired whilst Fred Barras was attempting to escape.
-
I forgot to add the link for the above!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemcOAg53eM
The reconstruction evidence starts at 40:40
Actually its 46:40
-
Yes it would support the telephone call in more ways than one.
The prosecution case is that NB was shot in his bedroom. Two of the gsw's NB sustained UPSTAIRS, lip and jaw, meant that purposeful speech thereafter was impossible so how could NB call JB "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun"? Furthermore these two gsw's produced heavy blood loss and no blood was found on the mouthpiece.
At trial Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if any of the victims sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the main bedroom (obviously excl the twins). MF replied no. Ed Lawson did not ask MF how he arrived at this conclusion or challenge him in any way. I have not read Major Mead's (firearms expert for the the defence) testimony to know what he said or didn't say. However given Michael Turner QC at the 2002 appeal attempted to argue an officer used the kitchen phone to call out and inadvertently removed the blood it would seem unlikely Major Mead put up a robust defence at trial in this regard.
I've posted the link above re the construction at Bleak Farm. Anthony Scrivener QC comments that the totality of the physical evidence at soc by way of gunshot trajectories, casings and the gsw to the back of Fred Barras may well have caused Joe (ie average Joe/juror, I assume) to side with the prosecution as together it was strongly suggestive that Tony Martin did not fire all the shots whilst he was on the stairs as he claimed and fired whilst Fred Barras was attempting to escape.
You're assuming a phone-call was made. Had there not been one it would explain why there was no blood on it.
-
You're assuming a phone-call was made. Had there not been one it would explain why there was no blood on it.
No it doesn't. A careful analysis of the physical evidence at soc by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks shows without any doubt NB did not sustain any gsw's in his bedroom. Instead he sustained the two facial gsw's whilst he was facing towards the bedroom with the perp already in the bedroom. He then sustained the two gunshot wounds to the rear of his body: shoulder and elbow/chest whilst he was descending the main stairs with the perp behind. In other words NB made the call from the kitchen before he sustained any gsw's or indeed any shots had been fired.
What physcial evidence do you have that supports the prosecution case that the perp entered the main bedroom, opened fire and inflicted the four non-fatal gsw's NB sustained?
-
It wouldn't support the telephone call, just that the killer was upstairs at the time. There can be many permutations of how and why Bamber might be upstairs and NB downstairs. My own thoughts (for what they are worth) is that Bamber didn't slink back in the night, he arrived back prior to Nevil going to bed - I think he forced an argument on purpose earlier and came back under the guise of an apology. He waited for Nevil to head off to the shower and went to work on the others - leaving only Nevil to deal with.
Approx what time do you believe JB arrived back at WHF and by what means eg car, bike, walk etc?
-
Yes it would support the telephone call in more ways than one.
The prosecution case is that NB was shot in his bedroom. Two of the gsw's NB sustained UPSTAIRS, lip and jaw, meant that purposeful speech thereafter was impossible so how could NB call JB "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun"? Furthermore these two gsw's produced heavy blood loss and no blood was found on the mouthpiece.
At trial Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if any of the victims sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the main bedroom (obviously excl the twins). MF replied no. Ed Lawson did not ask MF how he arrived at this conclusion or challenge him in any way. I have not read Major Mead's (firearms expert for the the defence) testimony to know what he said or didn't say. However given Michael Turner QC at the 2002 appeal attempted to argue an officer used the kitchen phone to call out and inadvertently removed the blood it would seem unlikely Major Mead put up a robust defence at trial in this regard.
I've posted the link above re the construction at Bleak Farm. Anthony Scrivener QC comments that the totality of the physical evidence at soc by way of gunshot trajectories, casings and the gsw to the back of Fred Barras may well have caused Joe (ie average Joe/juror, I assume) to side with the prosecution as together it was strongly suggestive that Tony Martin did not fire all the shots whilst he was on the stairs as he claimed and fired whilst Fred Barras was attempting to escape.
None of that supports NB making any phone calll - all it would ever show is that NB was outside of the bedroom.
-
None of that supports NB making any phone calll - all it would ever show is that NB was outside of the bedroom.
A reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc would turn the prosecution case heard at trial on its head in this regard.
The prosecution case at trial as quoted from the CoA 2002 doc:
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
The above is based on the perp entering the main bedroom and opening fire on NB and June where it is claimed NB sustained his 4 non-fatal gsw's.
The above did not happen. NB sustained his 2 non-fatal gsw's, lip and jaw, on the landing stairs facing towards the bedroom with the perp firing out from the bedroom. NB sustained the other 2 non-fatal gsw's to the rear of his shoulder and elbow/chest whilst descending the main stairs with the perp behind.
-
A reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc would turn the prosecution case heard at trial on its head in this regard.
The prosecution case at trial as quoted from the CoA 2002 doc:
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
The above is based on the perp entering the main bedroom and opening fire on NB and June where it is claimed NB sustained his 4 non-fatal gsw's.
The above did not happen. NB sustained his 2 non-fatal gsw's, lip and jaw, on the landing stairs facing towards the bedroom with the perp firing out from the bedroom. NB sustained the other 2 non-fatal gsw's to the rear of his shoulder and elbow/chest whilst descending the main stairs with the perp behind.
I'm afraid you omitted several imos there. ?8)@)-)
-
The drop wasn't father then the kitchen window? We don't know how many toiletries were on the sill but they can easily be moved and replaced. Clambering over the sink is a lot more difficult and I hate to keep repeating myself but we know Bamber frequently used the shower room window, the hacksaw was found near it and it was found to be unlocked.
Items on the kitchen sink drainer were more easily accessible from outside than reaching in for toiletries knocked onto the floor of the shower room. All in my opinion of course.
(https://i.imgur.com/wjWxrdX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/a2nWZX5.jpg)
-
Items on the kitchen sink drainer were more easily accessible from outside than reaching in for toiletries knocked onto the floor of the shower room. All in my opinion of course.
(https://i.imgur.com/wjWxrdX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/a2nWZX5.jpg)
Do we have a breakdown of the toiletries which were on the bathroom windowsill?
-
Do we have a breakdown of the toiletries which were on the bathroom windowsill?
Have you got a magnifying glass handy?
(https://i.imgur.com/Oh9EbNq.jpg)
-
Have you got a magnifying glass handy?
(https://i.imgur.com/Oh9EbNq.jpg)
Mea culpa! I had always assumed that to be the upstairs, family bathroom. The shower rooms downstairs in these old farmhouses are, in my experience, more masculine domains with Life Bouy soap to scrub off the day's dirt, rather than perfumed shower gels and body creams.
PS His close relative Des Cartes sends regards
-
A reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc would turn the prosecution case heard at trial on its head in this regard.
The prosecution case at trial as quoted from the CoA 2002 doc:
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
The above is based on the perp entering the main bedroom and opening fire on NB and June where it is claimed NB sustained his 4 non-fatal gsw's.
The above did not happen. NB sustained his 2 non-fatal gsw's, lip and jaw, on the landing stairs facing towards the bedroom with the perp firing out from the bedroom. NB sustained the other 2 non-fatal gsw's to the rear of his shoulder and elbow/chest whilst descending the main stairs with the perp behind.
Maybe but it still wouldn't prove the phone call.
-
Items on the kitchen sink drainer were more easily accessible from outside than reaching in for toiletries knocked onto the floor of the shower room. All in my opinion of course.
(https://i.imgur.com/wjWxrdX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/a2nWZX5.jpg)
Why would they be on the floor? They could have been just pushed to one side.
-
Have you got a magnifying glass handy?
(https://i.imgur.com/Oh9EbNq.jpg)
I'm pretty sure this is the upstairs bathroom Myster.
-
Why would they be on the floor? They could have been just pushed to one side.
He might have knocked them off the sill when first climbing through, which resulted in the dog barking and hence wakening his parents in bed.
-
The window looks the same from inside & outside. With the net curtains covering the bottom half of the window.
-
The window looks the same from inside & outside. With the net curtains covering the bottom half of the window.
There is a gap at the bottom of the net in the picture taken from the inside and no gap on the outside shot.
-
I'm pretty sure this is the upstairs bathroom Myster.
Don't think so. Look at the book cupboard on the left next to the toilet and compare with this downstairs plan. The Shower room is indicated as Washroom. Also, the U bend of the toilet is actually an S bend which penetrates the floor rather than passing directly through the outside wall like the toilets in the upstairs bathroom and toilet room, as can be seen on external views of the house.
(https://i.imgur.com/H37tW2C.png)
Compare with the upstairs bathroom which has no book cupboard...
(https://i.imgur.com/ERw2soI.png)
-
Don't think so. Look at the book cupboard on the left next to the toilet and compare with this downstairs plan. The Shower room is indicated as Washroom. Also, the U bend of the toilet is actually an S bend which penetrates the floor rather than passing directly through the outside wall like the toilets in the upstairs bathroom and toilet room, as can be seen on external views of the house.
(https://i.imgur.com/H37tW2C.png)
Compare with the upstairs bathroom which has no book cupboard...
(https://i.imgur.com/ERw2soI.png)
You might be right but I am sure on the blue forum they have that down as the upstairs bathroom. The curtains are certainly the same colour.
-
I know one thing, you would need extra long arms to reach that bod roll! @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
You might be right but I am sure on the blue forum they have that down as the upstairs bathroom. The curtains are certainly the same colour.
Spending too much time over there will definitely drive you loo-py!
Another pointer... the wall behind the old fireplace (partly-hidden) on the left in the downstairs Shower room is thick to allow for a chimney flue, whereas there is no such thickening of the left-hand wall in the upstairs Bathroom.
-
Also just reading that in the case of Jill Dando;
“The post-mortem report, the injuries to her head, the markings (on the bullet) indicated a silencer couldn’t have been on the gun.”
I wonder why in one case it was possible to say a silencer wasn't used and in another the firearms 'expert' *Malcolm Fletcher was unable to say one way or another?
Why do you appear to continuely cherry pick?
“JILL DANDO was shot dead by someone using a hollow-point bullet fired from a 9mm handgun fitted with a silencer
“......But it is understood that officers believe the killer almost certainly used a silencer. One witness reported hearing a clicking noise, a sound associated with guns fitted with such devices.
“Police sources said yesterday that a semi-automatic handgun fitted with a silencer and ammunition could be bought illegally for pounds 1,000. Without a silencer the gun - most likely a Browning, Glock or a Tanfoglio - could be purchased for as little as pounds 500.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/dando-shooting-killer-waited-an-hour-to-strike-1090049.html
An idea might be that lawyers have to undertake further qualifications in whatever areas of law they wish to practice in and stop flitting about being a jack of everything and a master of nothing. Eg lawyers working on cases involving firearms: WHF, Rettendon Murders, Jill Dando, Carl Bridgwater undertake qualifications in ballistics.
-
Spending too much time over there will definitely drive you loo-py!
Another pointer... the wall behind the old fireplace (partly-hidden) on the left in the downstairs Shower room is thick to allow for a chimney flue, whereas there is no such thickening of the left-hand wall in the upstairs Bathroom.
OK Myster, I agree that it's the downstairs shower room - don't go on about it 8)><( @)(++(*
-
Mea culpa! I had always assumed that to be the upstairs, family bathroom. The shower rooms downstairs in these old farmhouses are, in my experience, more masculine domains with Life Bouy soap to scrub off the day's dirt, rather than perfumed shower gels and body creams.
PS His close relative Des Cartes sends regards
Who's that? Never 'eard of 'im. 8(8-))
-
Maybe but it still wouldn't prove the phone call.
In the absence of digital/satellite technology there will never be any proof that a call was or wasn't made. But the judicial system doesn't work on absolutes. A jury decides what is more or less likely based on the evidence heard at trial. As it stands jurors were led to believe:
- There was no tel in NB and June's bedroom
- The phone normally kept in the above bedroom was found in the kitchen with the handset off the cradle
- There was no obvious blood stains to the above phone
- The perp entered NB and June's bedroom and opened fire inflicting the facial gsw's to NB's face rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter
- The above gsw's produced heavy blood loss
If I was a juror and heard that I would think it unlikely NB called JB. But the physical evidence shows the above is wildly wrong. The physical evidence shows NB was shot on the landing stairs with the perp already in the main bedroom firing out onto the landing. This puts a whole different complexion on what jurors heard at trial.
-
I'm afraid you omitted several imos there. ?8)@)-)
But it is not really my imo. All I've done is sew together strands of evidence from the various experts. Eg how would I know or be able to work out gsw trajectories if Dr Vanezis had not made this info available? I would have zero idea. Dr Vanezis' trial testimony re the gsw to NB's shoulder shows it was impossible for the perp to fire at that sort of trajectory unless the perp was in some really bizarre postion eg shooting from the top of a wardrobe or through the loft hatch but we know the stairs provide the answer for the trajectory supported by the blood stains and casings.
-
Why do you appear to continuely cherry pick?
“JILL DANDO was shot dead by someone using a hollow-point bullet fired from a 9mm handgun fitted with a silencer
“......But it is understood that officers believe the killer almost certainly used a silencer. One witness reported hearing a clicking noise, a sound associated with guns fitted with such devices.
“Police sources said yesterday that a semi-automatic handgun fitted with a silencer and ammunition could be bought illegally for pounds 1,000. Without a silencer the gun - most likely a Browning, Glock or a Tanfoglio - could be purchased for as little as pounds 500.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/dando-shooting-killer-waited-an-hour-to-strike-1090049.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg520266#msg520266
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg520266#msg520266
Why do you appear to continuely cherry pick?
Remind me, what was the conclusion of the silencer evidence in the Bamber case that helped convict him?
-
I know I've posted previously about the fact jurors were taken to Jill Dando's home to view soc which wasn't the case at WHF. It would have been helpful to jurors to see how easy, difficult or impossible it was for JB to enter WHF and exit leaving the window secured from within.
Also just reading that in the case of Jill Dando;
“The post-mortem report, the injuries to her head, the markings (on the bullet) indicated a silencer couldn’t have been on the gun.”
I wonder why in one case it was possible to say a silencer wasn't used and in another the firearms 'expert' *Malcolm Fletcher was unable to say one way or another?
*Told the court his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy.
Could it be because of the differences in the cases, ie.?
Jill Dando murder - stranger homicide
WHF Murders - parricide
-
In the absence of digital/satellite technology there will never be any proof that a call was or wasn't made. But the judicial system doesn't work on absolutes. A jury decides what is more or less likely based on the evidence heard at trial. As it stands jurors were led to believe:
- There was no tel in NB and June's bedroom
- The phone normally kept in the above bedroom was found in the kitchen with the handset off the cradle
- There was no obvious blood stains to the above phone
- The perp entered NB and June's bedroom and opened fire inflicting the facial gsw's to NB's face rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter
- The above gsw's produced heavy blood loss
If I was a juror and heard that I would think it unlikely NB called JB. But the physical evidence shows the above is wildly wrong. The physical evidence shows NB was shot on the landing stairs with the perp already in the main bedroom firing out onto the landing. This puts a whole different complexion on what jurors heard at trial.
Regardless - NB being on the stairs doesn't make the call more likely - it simply means he was running away from 'someone'.
-
Regardless - NB being on the stairs doesn't make the call more likely - it simply means he was running away from 'someone'.
How do the gsw's NB sustained to his face suggest he was "running away"?
NB on the stairs means it was possible NB made a call before sustaining gsw's which made purposeful speech thereafter impossible and accounts for the lack of any obvious blood on the mouthpiece from those wounds.
-
How do the gsw's NB sustained to his face suggest he was "running away"?
NB on the stairs means it was possible NB made a call before sustaining gsw's which made purposeful speech thereafter impossible and accounts for the lack of any obvious blood on the mouthpiece from those wounds.
Or that he made no call at all!
-
Or that he made no call at all!
That's for a jury to decide based on accurate info. You appreciate NB did not sustain any of his gsw's in his bedroom.
-
That's for a jury to decide based on accurate info. You appreciate NB did not sustain any of his gsw's in his bedroom.
I never thought he did but.I don;t think that makes a difference to the phone call claim. Even if he were shot in the bedroom, it could have been after the call so where he was, makes no difference. I am sure members of the jury thought about that
-
I never thought he did but.I don;t think that makes a difference to the phone call claim. Even if he were shot in the bedroom, it could have been after the call so where he was, makes no difference. I am sure members of the jury thought about that
Jurors are only able to make decisions/reach verdicts based on what is adjudicated on at trial.
Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if anyone was shot upstairs outside NB and June's bedroom to which he replied no. See attached trial testimony.
The CoA 2002 doc states:
60. Found in or just outside the bedroom were thirteen cartridge cases. Seven would account for the shots into June Bamber, two for the wounds suffered by Sheila Caffell, leaving four cartridge cases that had been fired at Nevill Bamber. Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen. If one accepts that the four shots to the head which would have immobilised and killed Nevill Bamber were fired in the kitchen where his body was recovered,it would follow that he had received the less serious injuries upstairs in the bedroom and was then able to make his way downstairs where he was subsequently killed.
41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
There can be no doubt jurors were led to believe the perp crept into the main bedroom under stealth and opened fire on a sleeping June and NB where NB sustained his not immediately fatal gsw's rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter with these wounds producing heavy blood loss. This is wrong based on a careful analysis of the physical evidence at soc.
-
Forgot to add MF's trial testimony!
-
No, it isn't! We've been over this numerous times and I've no intention of going through it all yet again. MF's and EP's explanation is the most logical and consistent with the casing location. Off to mow the lawn, BFN.
-
No, it isn't! We've been over this numerous times and I've no intention of going through it all yet again. MF's and EP's explanation is the most logical and consistent with the casing location. Off to mow the lawn, BFN.
Afaik at trial MF/EP didn't provide any detailed explanation re the location of casings let alone the other physical evidence? Nor it seems did JB's defence challenge the lack of explanation and/or propose any explanation?
I need to sort the lawn out too. It's in a dreadful state with dandelions popping up 8)><( Without my contacts in/glasses I imagine daffodils ?{)(** I've been asking my Pete all week to get the mower out! I'm investigating the possibility of artificial lawn in some areas but unsure whether this is environmentally friendly?
-
Anyway all is not lost. We can see how it is possible for a reconstruction to be carried out post trial as evidenced by the reconstruction at Bleak Farm in the case of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemcOAg53eM
@ 46:40
And in the WHF/JB case there's far more physical evidence and data to draw on with 25/26 gunshots fired and only 3 fired at Bleak Farm/Tony Martin case.
-
Not only were jurors not taken to WHF but afaik the only experts to visit pre-trial were Dr Vanezis, pathologist, and Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution.
-
High profile cases involving shooting incidents:
Case Jury taken to soc Reconstruction
WHF/Jeremy Bamber No No
Bleak Farm/Tony Martin Yes Yes
Gowan Ave/Barry George Yes ?
Rettendon murders/Steele & Whomes ? * see link below
The system needs a consistent approach. I will be writing to Sajid Javid ?>)()<
* http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6020.msg510061#msg510061
-
Jurors are only able to make decisions/reach verdicts based on what is adjudicated on at trial.
Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if anyone was shot upstairs outside NB and June's bedroom to which he replied no. See attached trial testimony.
The CoA 2002 doc states:
60. Found in or just outside the bedroom were thirteen cartridge cases. Seven would account for the shots into June Bamber, two for the wounds suffered by Sheila Caffell, leaving four cartridge cases that had been fired at Nevill Bamber. Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen. If one accepts that the four shots to the head which would have immobilised and killed Nevill Bamber were fired in the kitchen where his body was recovered,it would follow that he had received the less serious injuries upstairs in the bedroom and was then able to make his way downstairs where he was subsequently killed.
41. Nevill Bamber, who was wearing his pyjamas had been shot eight times. There were two wounds to the right side and two to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these four injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and the larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist's opinion, that Nevill Bamber would not have been able to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
There can be no doubt jurors were led to believe the perp crept into the main bedroom under stealth and opened fire on a sleeping June and NB where NB sustained his not immediately fatal gsw's rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter with these wounds producing heavy blood loss. This is wrong based on a careful analysis of the physical evidence at soc.
They can also think outside of the box like you and I. Just because NB was shot outside of the bedroom does not mean there eas a call from Jeremy. You seem to be saying that there is no alternative but there are many and I don't believe that a jury would have turned by simply being told that NB was outside of the bedroom when shot.
-
Apparently the Bamber case will feature in a new book Bullet Proof?! http://gunfire-graffiti.co.uk/the-white-house-farm-murders-caffel-or-bamber/
http://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=116154&headline=Former%20Marine%27s%20%27graffiti%20gunfire%27%20fears§ionIs=news&searchyear=2016
-
Apparently the Bamber case will feature in a new book Bullet Proof?! http://gunfire-graffiti.co.uk/the-white-house-farm-murders-caffel-or-bamber/ (http://gunfire-graffiti.co.uk/the-white-house-farm-murders-caffel-or-bamber/)
http://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=116154&headline=Former%20Marine%27s%20%27graffiti%20gunfire%27%20fears§ionIs=news&searchyear=2016 (http://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=116154&headline=Former%20Marine%27s%20%27graffiti%20gunfire%27%20fears§ionIs=news&searchyear=2016)
Thank you for that, Nick. 8(0(*
Holly isn't going to be too happy, especially with the bit about SC's long fingernails! I can see she'll soon be firing off numerous angry emails to Andy Rigsby.
The part I don't agree with is his suggestion that there might have been two extra magazines. Wouldn't EP have checked with Radcliffe's or other gunsmiths to see if they'd sold spare ones to Jeremy Bamber? I think he planned on killing all the family with just one full magazine of ten rounds, i.e. two bullets to the head of each sleeping individual, but everything went banana-shaped because his parents were awake and aware, hence the inaccuracy of the shots.
-
Thank you for that, Nick. 8(0(*
Holly isn't going to be too happy, especially with the bit about SC's long fingernails! I can see she'll soon be firing off numerous angry emails to Andy Rigsby.
The part I don't agree with is his suggestion that there might have been two extra magazines. Wouldn't EP have checked with Radcliffe's or other gunsmiths to see if they'd sold spare ones to Jeremy Bamber? I think he planned on killing all the family with just one full magazine of ten rounds, i.e. two bullets to the head of each sleeping individual, but everything went banana-shaped because his parents were awake and aware, hence the inaccuracy of the shots.
I found it very interesting. D'ya think Jeremy used the road signs as target practice?
-
Apparently the Bamber case will feature in a new book Bullet Proof?! http://gunfire-graffiti.co.uk/the-white-house-farm-murders-caffel-or-bamber/
http://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=116154&headline=Former%20Marine%27s%20%27graffiti%20gunfire%27%20fears§ionIs=news&searchyear=2016
Interesting! 8((()*/
-
Thank you for that, Nick. 8(0(*
Holly isn't going to be too happy, especially with the bit about SC's long fingernails! I can see she'll soon be firing off numerous angry emails to Andy Rigsby.
The part I don't agree with is his suggestion that there might have been two extra magazines. Wouldn't EP have checked with Radcliffe's or other gunsmiths to see if they'd sold spare ones to Jeremy Bamber? I think he planned on killing all the family with just one full magazine of ten rounds, i.e. two bullets to the head of each sleeping individual, but everything went banana-shaped because his parents were awake and aware, hence the inaccuracy of the shots.
Interesting! 8((()*/
Caroline and Myster, now begins a hunt to find out what AR's background is, what axe he's grinding, and his (possible?) agenda!!!
-
Caroline and Myster, now begins a hunt to find out what AR's background is, what axe he's grinding, and his (possible?) agenda!!!
She must be busy... either out jogging, watching androgynous footballers, or herself mooching with James Bond in Muckraker.
-
Thank you for that, Nick. 8(0(*
Holly isn't going to be too happy, especially with the bit about SC's long fingernails! I can see she'll soon be firing off numerous angry emails to Andy Rigsby.
The part I don't agree with is his suggestion that there might have been two extra magazines. Wouldn't EP have checked with Radcliffe's or other gunsmiths to see if they'd sold spare ones to Jeremy Bamber? I think he planned on killing all the family with just one full magazine of ten rounds, i.e. two bullets to the head of each sleeping individual, but everything went banana-shaped because his parents were awake and aware, hence the inaccuracy of the shots.
“How can anyone make this comment and expect to be taken seriously.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg520837#msg520837
-
They can also think outside of the box like you and I. Just because NB was shot outside of the bedroom does not mean there eas a call from Jeremy. You seem to be saying that there is no alternative but there are many and I don't believe that a jury would have turned by simply being told that NB was outside of the bedroom when shot.
I don't think criminal trials are the place for 'thinking outside the box'. Afaik jurors are told in no uncertain terms that they must follow the evidence heard during the trial only. In any event jurors have a lot to take in over a short period of time. You and I have had the luxury of poring over this stuff for years 8)><(
I agree the fact NB was shot on the landing and main stairs does not mean NB necessarily made a call to JB but it does offer up at the very least a level playing field. As it stood at trial with NB in bed and shot in the bedroom how could he have made the call given the pathological evidence ie incapable of purposeful speech and producing heavy blood loss from the mouth?
-
Thank you for that, Nick. 8(0(*
Holly isn't going to be too happy, especially with the bit about SC's long fingernails! I can see she'll soon be firing off numerous angry emails to Andy Rigsby.
The part I don't agree with is his suggestion that there might have been two extra magazines. Wouldn't EP have checked with Radcliffe's or other gunsmiths to see if they'd sold spare ones to Jeremy Bamber? I think he planned on killing all the family with just one full magazine of ten rounds, i.e. two bullets to the head of each sleeping individual, but everything went banana-shaped because his parents were awake and aware, hence the inaccuracy of the shots.
Funny how the pathologist stated he was unqualified to comment re SC's nails and yet the likes of the above are more than happy to offer up opinion.
-
“How can anyone make this comment and expect to be taken seriously.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg520837#msg520837
It's true. Its a daft statement to make when the perp got clean away and has done so for some 20 years.
Non-experts who write books about true-crime whether they be pro or anti any particular individual/group can offer very little by way of evidential value. Coupled with the fact most of them are bias eg Michelle Bates believes her brother innocent so she offers a narrative that supports this view. Even those who claim to be non-bias eg Carol Ann Lee reveal their true colours!
-
It's true. Its a daft statement to make when the perp got clean away and has done so for some 20 years.
Non-experts who write books about true-crime whether they be pro or anti any particular individual/group can offer very little by way of evidential value. Coupled with the fact most of them are bias eg Michelle Bates believes her brother innocent so she offers a narrative that supports this view. Even those who claim to be non-bias eg Carol Ann Lee reveal their true colours!
In your opinion!
It’s not a daft statement to make if you believe Barry George carried out the murder!
Let’s face it Holly you come across like you don’t think much of the “experts” or the “non experts” in these cases therefore your apparent biases cloud your arguments - imo
-
In your opinion!
It’s not a daft statement to make if you believe Barry George carried out the murder!
Its not my opinion. Its a fact. The perp got away. Barry George was convicted but has since had his conviction quashed because the forensic evidence underpinning the conviction was fatally flawed.
The point here is whether the soc, 29 Gowan Ave, afforded the perp an opportunity to carry out the crime undetected and the answer is most definitely yes. If this wasn't the case a reliable e-fit would have been produced and Barry George or a.n.other would have been interviewed/charged at a much earlier stage.
-
Its not my opinion. Its a fact. The perp got away. Barry George was convicted but has since had his conviction quashed because the forensic evidence underpinning the conviction was fatally flawed.
The point here is whether the soc, 29 Gowan Ave, afforded the perp an opportunity to carry out the crime undetected and the answer is most definitely yes. If this wasn't the case a reliable e-fit would have been produced and Barry George or a.n.other would have been interviewed/charged at a much earlier stage.
I rest my case
-
Its not my opinion. Its a fact. The perp got away. Barry George was convicted but has since had his conviction quashed because the forensic evidence underpinning the conviction was fatally flawed.
The point here is whether the soc, 29 Gowan Ave, afforded the perp an opportunity to carry out the crime undetected and the answer is most definitely yes. If this wasn't the case a reliable e-fit would have been produced and Barry George or a.n.other would have been interviewed/charged at a much earlier stage.
The point was actually:
“If Jill Dando was killed by a so called professional who would have been highly mobile, Gowan Avenue was the worst choice of location. Her partners home in Chiswick would have been far easier to identify and log her movement routine. A local, close to Gowan Avenue however and without transport would have the time to loiter and plot for, days, weeks, months. If Jill Dando had been approached by nothing more threatening than a busy autograph hunter where would they have chosen to wait for her.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg520795#msg520795
But never mind hey.
-
I don't think criminal trials are the place for 'thinking outside the box'. Afaik jurors are told in no uncertain terms that they must follow the evidence heard during the trial only. In any event jurors have a lot to take in over a short period of time. You and I have had the luxury of poring over this stuff for years 8)><(
I agree the fact NB was shot on the landing and main stairs does not mean NB necessarily made a call to JB but it does offer up at the very least a level playing field. As it stood at trial with NB in bed and shot in the bedroom how could he have made the call given the pathological evidence ie incapable of purposeful speech and producing heavy blood loss from the mouth?
Is that how you would think if you were a juror? I doubt it.
Bottom line is that is still doesn't prove the phone call.
-
The point was actually:
“If Jill Dando was killed by a so called professional who would have been highly mobile, Gowan Avenue was the worst choice of location. Her partners home in Chiswick would have been far easier to identify and log her movement routine. A local, close to Gowan Avenue however and without transport would have the time to loiter and plot for, days, weeks, months. If Jill Dando had been approached by nothing more threatening than a busy autograph hunter where would they have chosen to wait for her.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg520795#msg520795
But never mind hey.
A professional would have tracked her routine and not spent time outside her house on spec. I believe she called home out of the blue?
-
Funny how the pathologist stated he was unqualified to comment re SC's nails and yet the likes of the above are more than happy to offer up opinion.
Probably because the pathologist had never loaded an Anschutz rifle magazine in his life before, whereas AR, as a life-long firearm user, had far more experience!
-
Non-experts who write books about true-crime whether they be pro or anti any particular individual/group can offer very little by way of evidential value.
I disagree! - though can see how your reluctance to consider alternatives to your preferred line of thought would leave you thinking this way.
It might be worth considering keeping an open mind to all possibilities.
-
Non-experts who write books about true-crime whether they be pro or anti any particular individual/group can offer very little by way of evidential value. Coupled with the fact most of them are bias eg Michelle Bates believes her brother innocent so she offers a narrative that supports this view. Even those who claim to be non-bias eg Carol Ann Lee reveal their true colours!
Confirmation bias can contaminate all of us, including the experts! Maybe you should read up on historical cases of factual innocence after a guilty verdict has been overturned.
-
Confirmation bias can contaminate all of us, including the experts! Maybe you should read up on historical cases of factual innocence after a guilty verdict has been overturned.
https://www.bustle.com/p/5-writers-reporters-who-helped-solve-the-cases-they-investigated-8894598
-
Apparently the Bamber case will feature in a new book Bullet Proof?! http://gunfire-graffiti.co.uk/the-white-house-farm-murders-caffel-or-bamber/
http://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=116154&headline=Former%20Marine%27s%20%27graffiti%20gunfire%27%20fears§ionIs=news&searchyear=2016
Pure Evil
“A rare, chilling and utterly fascinating look inside the minds of some of the world’s most notorious criminals and serial killers, based on years of original research
Pure Evil takes a close look at the country's deadliest criminals, from those who horrified the nation to those less famous but equally brutal, such as Jeremy Bamber, Joanna Dennehy and Ian Huntley.
http://www.geoffreywansell.com/currentprojects.html
-
Gunfire Graffiti are on Twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/MatthewSeiber