Lets review the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber.

[goatboy]

We often hear the mantra "there were no marks on Jeremy" from his supporters but he wasn't forensically examined in the aftermath of the murders so how do we know for sure?

What adds to the picture of his guilt for me is his evasive "no comment" responses during his police interviews. Compare and contrast this with Matthew McDonald's willingness to answer every question to reinforce his innocence (though I think he may have known more than he let on and am intrigued by the fact that he said "Jeremy" to the police when he was arrested-yet he did not claim to have been more than a passing acquaintance of Bamber's). And then the famous "that is for you to establish" comment in the courtroom. Emphatically NOT the actions of an innocent man.

[puglove]

We often hear the mantra "there were no marks on Jeremy" from his supporters but he wasn't forensically examined in the aftermath of the murders so how do we know for sure?

What adds to the picture of his guilt for me is his evasive "no comment" responses during his police interviews. Compare and contrast this with Matthew McDonald's willingness to answer every question to reinforce his innocence (though I think he may have known more than he let on and am intrigued by the fact that he said "Jeremy" to the police when he was arrested-yet he did not claim to have been more than a passing acquaintance of Bamber's). And then the famous "that is for you to establish" comment in the courtroom. Emphatically NOT the actions of an innocent man.

And, unless Bamber murdered his family while wearing a short, sleeveless nightie, there isn't much point in comparing his condition to Sheila's. By blaming Sheila from the word go, he gave himself ample time and opportunity to hide, then dispose of whatever he had been wearing, probably farm overalls and gloves. If Sheila was responsible the gun would have been covered in her prints, as she supposedly used it to shoot everyone, then turn it around and batter Ralph, then shoot herself. Twice. Amazingly, without any blood being inhaled or swallowed. In the words of John Le Mesurier, "a pretty neat trick."

[Holly Goodhead]

Thanks for the full response above Holly but I'm afraid some are far of the mark and don't equate with the evidence.

1.  Nevile was shot a total of 8 times, five of which relate to the bedroom and upstairs landing and three relate to the kitchen.  All evidenced by the dispersal of the empty shells. According to the pathologist he put up a brave struggle with his assailant again evidenced by the damage to the rifle stock and the various items strewn around, smashed lampshade etc.  Nevile was effectively beaten up something which Sheila could not have done, she loved and adored her father, Jeremy hated him.

Yes I highlighted discrepancies in bullet location in my post above.  The bullets indicate NB was shot 4 times in the bedroom, once on or around the stairs and 3 times in the kitchen but the pathologist seems to be of the opinion that he received 3 shots in the bedroom, 1 on or around the stairs and 4 in the kitchen.  Either way by the time he arrived in the kitchen he had lost complete use of his left arm, was losing a lot of blood internally and externally and in extreme pain.  This would surely put him at a disadvantage struggling with anyone regardless of build.  If he sustained a head shot before arriving in the kitchen then he was surely at a greater disadvantage.

No other nightdress or any other garment were found in the house with blood spatter on them, your comment is simply wishful thinking.  Jeremy Bamber wore gloves but one fell off at one stage...at least this is what he told Julie Mugford.

Do we know what exactly was soaking in the buckets?  These apparently contained some blood stained garments?  Over on Blue they seem to think clothes were destroyed in the aga?

2.  The lampshade was smashed with shards and pieces of all sizes being spread all over the floor.  The assailants boots crunched the glass into the flooring...this was not achieved by a bare footed woman.  The lampshade was smashed when Nevile fought with his attacker as both struggled with the rifle.  It can only be surmised that the assailant resorted to beating Nevile when he ran out of bullets.

I have difficulty reconciling NB in a fight and struggling for the rifle due to his physical state. I just don't see the need for anyone to have beaten NB into submission as the poor man was so badly injured in the bedroom.  Is there any documented evidence about the lampshade breaking into multiple shards instead of a few pieces?

3. There is no way Sheila's DNA could have got on the baffles by contamination since Sheila  never had any other contact with it.  The contamination argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny.  June's DNA was not found in the silencer.

It was not possible to eliminate contamination due to LCN-DNA not being envisaged in 85/86.  Therefore the necessary precautions were not taken by staff at FSS, court officials and jurors when handling the various exhibits.  June's DNA was found in the silencer as per point 497 of the CoA doc:

We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male

4. The judges were bound by the law relating to DNA markers. The unequivocal fact is that the DNA markers found in the silencer did not belong to any other member of the family.  Sheila had no genetic link to anyone except her twin sons.  No one else had access to the silencer, it was bought new and only used by Jeremy.  As I have stated, the chance that the DNA found in the silencer belonged to anyone else is so remote as to be not worthy of serious consideration.

Plse see 3 above. 

A final point worth noting is that Nevile was supposed to have used the phone.  Given his injuries from the initial assault upstairs he would not have been able to speak properly, Jeremy never mentioned this in his version of what happened which proves he made it all up. There would have been blood all over the phone and the sideboard had Nevile used the phone, again, no blood was found on or near the phone or the sideboard.

I agree it is extremely unlikely that NB could speak having sustained the injuries in the bedroom.  Futhermore why would he have called JB having been shot?  No he would call emergency services.  If the call was made imo it had to have been made before any shots were fired.  Please see my post above re my sequence of events.

In addition, according to the pathologist Sheila was stunned by the first shot to her neck. The bullet fragmented and left her effectively paralysed.  She was semi conscious and could never have taken a second shot.  There was no blood smear on her neck, no blood on her fingers, no blood on the rifle trigger and no blood spatter caused by coughing up blood from her shattered throat.

The pathologist states it would have been possible for SC to have walked about for a while after the first shot and he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.

I'm afraid that whichever way you look at it the evidence points to Jeremy being the shooter.  There isn't a single piece of evidence which can implicate Sheila. The testimony of the other witnesses simply adds to the plot.  If Jeremy were ever to be retried I have no doubt a jury would convict him all over again.

The case as it stood back in '85/86 would never get near a court of law today.  I am convinced we are talking about the greatest MoJ in British criminal history and that JB's conviction will be quashed by CoA in the coming months.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi holly.

As for JB not having any marks on him, he would have been fully clothed. A jumper to cover his arms, maybe gloves.

Sheila was bare footed and sleevless. There was no blood down her front which suggests she didnt move after the first shot. She didnt have anyone elses blood on her either.

Even Mike Tesco knows Sheila didnt kill herself, he just thinks the coppers did it.

Hi Andrea

I'm not sure about the buckets of blood stained clothing?  Over on Blue they seem to think the AGA may have been used?

Is it possible SC may have showered and changed?

I just think if its so obvious why didn't the pathologist state this or even say suicide was unlikely?  He states he is unable to confirm murder or suicide. 

(Btw I now understand the yellow fruit comments  )

[puglove]

Dont forget, Holly, that the pathologist also stated that if he had seen Sheila's body in situ, rather than in the mortuary, he could not have gone with "suicide."

And, if Bamber is the greatest MOJ of recent times, then I'm a banana. It's always the let-out clause, that he's a political prisoner.

[puglove]

Hi Andrea

I'm not sure about the buckets of blood stained clothing?  Over on Blue they seem to think the AGA may have been used?

Is it possible SC may have showered and changed?

I just think if its so obvious why didn't the pathologist state this or even say suicide was unlikely?  He states he is unable to confirm murder or suicide. 

(Btw I now understand the yellow fruit comments  )

There were some leggings and pants soaking in a bucket, because Sheila was "caught short." She had an IUD, which in those days (I remember!) caused heavy, painful periods.

[puglove]

There were some leggings and pants soaking in a bucket, because Sheila was "caught short." She had an IUD, which in those days (I remember!) caused heavy, painful periods.

And, at the risk of sounding like Hairy Mary lookout, (not by the hairs on her chinny chin chin) the fact that Sheila had an IUD might explain why her handbag was turned out on the bed, looking for a tampon and/or painkillers. AND....the torn tampon. That has never been properly explained. A)...why would Sheila tear a tampon? What would be the point? And....B)...Have you ever tried to tear a tampon? It's like tearing a phone book. Not Sheila, with her slim arms with absolutely no muscle tone.

[puglove]

Holly, I've just read your last point, that Bamber's conviction will be quashed by CoA in the coming months. Not a hope in hell. You've got more chance seeing Lord Lucan winning the 2ft 9 jumping at pony club. On Shergar. And thanks to Mike Tesko, we can all see the reason why.

It really isn't rocket science!!  xxx

[puglove]

And, at the end of the day, who truly supports Bamber?

A fat little burglar, a barrister who sold people down the river, a couple of old bints who will die alone, and an old lady who looks like a goat.

And you wonder why he's angry?

[sika]

Hi Holly, I can only presume that you are playing devils advocate.

The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous and desperate it has become.  Believing that Bamber was not guilty beyond absolute forensic proof, is quite different from believing that, on the balance of probability, Shelia was responsible rather than Jeremy. 

I think it's quite telling that after all these years Bamber has failed spectacularly to find anything, that could perhaps suggest his innocence. 

Holly, if you are prepared to put your money where your strongly held belief is, I'll have a £50 Save the Children donation with you, that Bambers conviction is not quashed this year!

[John]

Holly, my mistake in respect of all the DNA referred to by the appeal court as having been in the silencer.  I am going from memory in my posts and like Jeremy's chances of ever walking free, are fading.

I am not going to regurgitate all the pathology reports. The blood trails on Sheilas neck evidence very clearly that she never walked about following delivery of the first shot which stunned her and caused substantial damage. The second shot was according to the pathologist Dr Venezis, "instantaneously fatal".

To be fair, the pathologist Peter Venezis actually stated that the first shot didn't exclude the possibility of Sheila being about to move around, he didn't say she had done.  This overtly non-comittal phrase opened the proverbial floodgates for people like Bamber and Tesko to come up with all manner of ever-increasingly ridiculous scenarios. We all know that Sheila didn't move after that first shot - Venezis was, as most pathologists are - being over-cautious in their reports. DS Stan Jones shrewdly commented that 'pathologists shouldn't be told anything by the police. They should figure it out for themselves'

I have attached the relevant part of the pathologists report below.

All pathology reports can be viewed here.

[puglove]

Hi Holly, I can only presume that you are playing devils advocate.

The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous and desperate it has become.  Believing that Bamber was not guilty beyond absolute forensic proof, is quite different from believing that, on the balance of probability, Shelia was responsible rather than Jeremy. 

I think it's quite telling that after all these years Bamber has failed spectacularly to find anything, that could perhaps suggest his innocence. 

Holly, if you are prepared to put your money where your strongly held belief is, I'll have a £50 Save the Children donation with you, that Bambers conviction is not quashed this year!

Ho ho!! And I'll bet a monkey that Bamber will be eating mushy sprouts for the next 20 Christmases. If I'm wrong, the money can go to the Grahame Belton Big Red Bum Fund.

[John]

The case as it stood back in '85/86 would never get near a court of law today.  I am convinced we are talking about the greatest MoJ in British criminal history and that JB's conviction will be quashed by CoA in the coming months.

I was taking you seriously up until you made the above comments which have more to do with semantics that they have to do with hard evidence.

The advances in DNA back up the original trial verdict, the jury have been effectively vindicated and continue to be so every time this case goes before an appeal court.  The recent knock back by the SCCRC says it all...brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'grasping at straws'.

I don't believe Bamber's case will never come before the Court of Appeal again let alone be quashed.  I also don't believe there is ever going to be a time when he will ever be deemed suitable for release because he still poses a grave risk to his remaining family.

Anyone who can shoot twin six-year-old boys in the head deserves to rot.

[Holly Goodhead]

Dont forget, Holly, that the pathologist also stated that if he had seen Sheila's body in situ, rather than in the mortuary, he could not have gone with "suicide."

And, if Bamber is the greatest MOJ of recent times, then I'm a banana. It's always the let-out clause, that he's a political prisoner.

A pathologist should have visited the soc with the victims in situ and ascertained times of death. 

Point 46 from CoA doc 2002:

"From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life."

This was not contested by Mr Victor Temple QC representing the prosecution at the CoA 2002 hearing. 

[Holly Goodhead]

There were some leggings and pants soaking in a bucket, because Sheila was "caught short." She had an IUD, which in those days (I remember!) caused heavy, painful periods.

Maybe, but bucket(s) of blood stained clothing found at soc should surely have been taken away for analysis?