J B Campaign Ltd - Much Ado About Nothing...

[Nicholas]

Maybe Bamber will one day tell us why he insisted the police burn the bedding etc so soon after the murders

And was the reason for burning his parents clothing a ruse in order for him to burn incriminating evidence linking him forensically

[Caroline]

Do you know I thought that when I watched the Natalie Gray news article

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2015-08-10/the-bamber-killings-30-years-on-part-2/

Bamber burned his parents clothes the week after the murders. The fire mentioned in the video happened the day after the murders but Bamber didn't return to WHF until the following week where he gathered various items of his parents belongings onto and old trailer and had them burned in the farm fire pit..

[Nicholas]

Bamber burned his parents clothes the week after the murders. The fire mentioned in the video happened the day after the murders but Bamber didn't return to WHF until the following week where he gathered various items of his parents belongings onto and old trailer and had them burned in the farm fire pit..

So he had ample opportunity to also destroy clothing or other items he was wearing when he murdered his family, like for example gloves

He could have hidden them in a field or out building or anywhere away from WHF and his place, then went back for them before he returned to WHF a week after he'd murdered to burn his parents clothing - which in itself is questionable

[Caroline]

So he had ample opportunity to also destroy clothing or other items he was wearing when he murdered his family, like for example gloves

He could have hidden them in a field or out building or anywhere away from WHF and his place, then went back for them before he returned to WHF a week after he'd murdered to burn his parents clothing - which in itself is questionable

Exactly - why 'burn' his parents clothes unless there was an ulterior motive for doing so?

[Holly Goodhead]

Bamber burned his parents clothes the week after the murders. The fire mentioned in the video happened the day after the murders but Bamber didn't return to WHF until the following week where he gathered various items of his parents belongings onto and old trailer and had them burned in the farm fire pit..

All victims sustained multiple gsw's in their nightwear as found.  What evidential value do you think day clothes in wardrobes/drawers may have held? 

What was JB supposed to do with victims' clothes?  Don't think charity shops/recycling were available then. 

According to AE DS Jones removed items belonging to SC (dress? shoes?) and said 'you haven't seen this'.  Then there was the blood stained clothes soaking in buckets destroyed by AE.  The drugs found in the safe, which the relatives thought was cannabis resin, were destroyed.  Why didn't the relatives hand the substance found at soc to EP?

More importantly forensic exhibits which the police were duty bound to retain indefinitely were destroyed.  The COA took a dim view of this:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Fast forward from 1996 and today new forensic techniques could almost certainly conclude the case:

CETRA would reveal whose fingerprints on the casings:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwiHV7nnG8g

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DlVhSCu1sSE

DNA testing SC's nightdress would confirm the absence or presence of victims' blood other than her own. 

[Caroline]

All victims sustained multiple gsw's in their nightwear as found.  What evidential value do you think day clothes in wardrobes/drawers may have held? 

What was JB supposed to do with victims' clothes?  Don't think charity shops/recycling were available then. 

According to AE DS Jones removed items belonging to SC (dress? shoes?) and said 'you haven't seen this'.  Then there was the blood stained clothes soaking in buckets destroyed by AE.  The drugs found in the safe, which the relatives thought was cannabis resin, were destroyed.  Why didn't the relatives hand the substance found at soc to EP?

More importantly forensic exhibits which the police were duty bound to retain indefinitely were destroyed.  The COA took a dim view of this:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Fast forward from 1996 and today new forensic techniques could almost certainly conclude the case:

CETRA would reveal whose fingerprints on the casings:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwiHV7nnG8g

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DlVhSCu1sSE

DNA testing SC's nightdress would confirm the absence or presence of victims' blood other than her own.

Are you saying there were no charity shops in 1985? I find that hard to believe. However, getting rid of my parents clothes would have been the last thing on my mind week after their murder. When my dad died in 2009, I gave most of his clothes to charity, I kept his favourite a jacket (which I still have) - anything that couldn't be reused, I did bin. From the description in CAL's book, Jeremy had a trailer 'piled high' - it is initself pretty callous however, it's not really the fact that he burned them, it's the opportunity that it gave him to destroy other evidence. If he did have evidence to get rid of, you have to admit, it would have been the 'perfect' opportunity?

[Holly Goodhead]

Are you saying there were no charity shops in 1985? I find that hard to believe. However, getting rid of my parents clothes would have been the last thing on my mind week after their murder. When my dad died in 2009, I gave most of his clothes to charity, I kept his favourite a jacket (which I still have) - anything that couldn't be reused, I did bin. From the description in CAL's book, Jeremy had a trailer 'piled high' - it is initself pretty callous however, it's not really the fact that he burned them, it's the opportunity that it gave him to destroy other evidence. If he did have evidence to get rid of, you have to admit, it would have been the 'perfect' opportunity?

I can't recall the number of charity shops in '85 but they were certainly fewer in number than now.  At least in the south anyway and I can't recall many in Manchester in the early/mid 80's.  Today most people take stuff to charity shops or the relevant section at tips where I think clothes are recycled.  How people deal with practical matters after death is IMO subjective.  I could highlight AE going into the twins room to remake their beds in the days following the tragedy.  Personally I would find this more difficult than throwing out victims' clothes.

I understand JB asked BW's son, Philip Wilson, to put a trailer under the first floor windows and items were thrown out of windows and taken to a pit used regularly on the farm to burn things.  I can't see what evidence JB could destroy other than his own clothes if you believe him guilty.  As far as I can see everything of evidential value was removed from WHF by soc officers eg bedding, carpet samples etc.

[Caroline]

I can't recall the number of charity shops in '85 but they were certainly fewer in number than now.  At least in the south anyway and I can't recall many in Manchester in the early/mid 80's.  Today most people take stuff to charity shops or the relevant section at tips where I think clothes are recycled.  How people deal with practical matters after death is IMO subjective.  I could highlight AE going into the twins room to remake their beds in the days following the tragedy.  Personally I would find this more difficult than throwing out victims' clothes.

I understand JB asked BW's son, Philip Wilson, to put a trailer under the first floor windows and items were thrown out of windows and taken to a pit used regularly on the farm to burn things.  I can't see what evidence JB could destroy other than his own clothes if you believe him guilty.  As far as I can see everything of evidential value was removed from WHF by soc officers eg bedding, carpet samples etc.

The trailer wasn't take straight to the pit, it was there for a while and what other things would Bamber need to destroy other than his own clothes?

By the way, I could make the beds - it's not destroying or removing anything. Looking at a stripped bed would be more of a reminder of what happened than looking at a made one.

[Holly Goodhead]

The trailer wasn't take straight to the pit, it was there for a while and what other things would Bamber need to destroy other than his own clothes?

By the way, I could make the beds - it's not destroying or removing anything. Looking at a stripped bed would be more of a reminder of what happened than looking at a made one.

If you believe JB guilty what incriminating evidence could he destroy other than his clothes and footwear? 

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think the link I posted earlier includes JM's 'verbatim' testimony so here it is:

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/julie-mugford-volunteer-witness

Thanks to JaneJ on Blue for highlighting this. 

It doesn't sound very 'verbatim'!

I haven't listened to the audio clip yet just read the blurb quickly.  If it is true MW instigated contact with EP this supports my theory that EP used the drug angle to coerce witnesses. 

It is well documented that JB's circle smoked cannabis with JB and JM selling.  MM's WS and CAL re CB show how heavy EP played the drug card when suited eg knocking CB up at dawn to interview under caution and obtaining a warrant to search her home.  Bearing in mind CB wasn't MM's alibi that was Mavis Southgate and there's no evidence she was interviewed under caution and/or had her home searched.  IMO this heavy handed approach was done to intimidate witnesses into supporting the prosecution. 

MW and MD were co-owners of Sloppy Joes and Frog and Bean with LR as manageress.  Given JB's and JM's close relationship with these people were they:

- using cannabis on licensed premises?
- allowing others to use cannabis on licensed premises?
- dealing on licensed premises?

If EP obtained a warrant and searched the premises and 'found' some cannabis they could then threaten to close the businesses down.  No idea of the set up with MD/MW but likely they had rent to pay on the premises, business loans and wages to pay.  Lose a liquor licence and that's the end of the business.  It would be all over the local rags. 

According to WS's JB, JM, MM and CB smoked cannabis with the first 3 dealing.  Based on WS's it appears LR and CM smoked cannabis.  Did others in the circle smoke the stuff: SB, JR, MW and MD?  Even if they didn't EP would know some patrons of Sloppy Joes/Frog and Bean were using on the premises which MW/MD were responsible for.  And they knew for a fact the house SB and JR shared with JM contained the presence of drugs.  SB tells in her WS she didn't like JB/JM bringing drugs into the house due to JR's link with the army.  Were these SB's words or the words put to her by EP eg 'we've found cannabis in the property and you will all end up getting charged:

- JM/SB kicked out of teaching profession
- JR kicked out of army

If I'm right about the above this would be in addition to EP selling it hard that JB was responsible.  Most wouldn't grass someone up for multiple murder unless they believed it.

If anything is held under pii does it relate to the above along with copies of search warrants? 

[Holly Goodhead]

I've always thought JB's/CT's claims of info held under pii relating to phone logs etc rubbish.  If such info existed EP would dispose of as they did with exhibits. 

Search warrants and immunity against prosecution would be more difficult to conceal as it involves others outside EP or the small number of officers possibly involved in wrongdoing.  Search warrants are issued by magistrates courts and copies held there.

[Caroline]

If you believe JB guilty what incriminating evidence could he destroy other than his clothes and footwear?

That would be incriminating! What else would you need?

[Holly Goodhead]

That would be incriminating! What else would you need?

If JB left blood stained clothes at WHF he was taking a huge risk.  Likewise if he dumped them elsewhere then decided to recover later to take to WHF to destroy.  Anyway there's no evidence the perp's clothes would contain any debris.  GSR would be lost from movement and time delays.  .22 rifle unlikely to deposit bloodstains on perp due to low velocity as evidenced by the fact there was no blood found on the rifle whereby the stains resembled high impact back spatter.  And what little blood was present on rifle was unable to be grouped it was of such limited quantity.  No footprints found either.  Either JB or SC was responsible and whether they were bare footed or not they had to move around. Contrast the blood produced from the shotgun used in the Rettendon murders.

[John]

If JB left blood stained clothes at WHF he was taking a huge risk.  Likewise if he dumped them elsewhere then decided to recover later to take to WHF to destroy.  Anyway there's no evidence the perp's clothes would contain any debris.  GSR would be lost from movement and time delays.  .22 rifle unlikely to deposit bloodstains on perp due to low velocity as evidenced by the fact there was no blood found on the rifle whereby the stains resembled high impact back spatter.  And what little blood was present on rifle was unable to be grouped it was of such limited quantity.  No footprints found either.  Either JB or SC was responsible and whether they were bare footed or not they had to move around. Contrast the blood produced from the shotgun used in the Rettendon murders.

I think it is beyond the bounds of possibilities to believe that a barefooted Sheila could have wandered all over the farmhouse shooting family members at will, fighting with her father over the kitchen table, walking on broken glass and blood yet end up with spotlessly clean uncut feet.  Jeremy on the other hand would have had shoes or boots on which would have been disposed of afterwards.

Which of the two makes sense Holly?

[Caroline]

If JB left blood stained clothes at WHF he was taking a huge risk.  Likewise if he dumped them elsewhere then decided to recover later to take to WHF to destroy.  Anyway there's no evidence the perp's clothes would contain any debris.  GSR would be lost from movement and time delays.  .22 rifle unlikely to deposit bloodstains on perp due to low velocity as evidenced by the fact there was no blood found on the rifle whereby the stains resembled high impact back spatter.  And what little blood was present on rifle was unable to be grouped it was of such limited quantity.  No footprints found either.  Either JB or SC was responsible and whether they were bare footed or not they had to move around. Contrast the blood produced from the shotgun used in the Rettendon murders.

He was taking a risk when he decided to murder his family. Criminals take risks, it's an occupational hazard.

There was blood smears on the rifle which would indicate that the 'perp' had blood on their person. It only takes a small splash of blood to link a perp to a crime and whether there would be evidence of not - the fire pit and the destruction of June and Nevil clothes, was an ideal time to destroy any clothing he may have wore.