UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: tbl on September 22, 2018, 06:08:08 PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence)
Is there anything new here?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence)
Is there anything new here?
In the liberal lefty Gordion?!... no, not much... especially when written by Bamber aficionados. 8((()*/
-
Most of the article is giving a history of what happened from 1985. Which most people interested enough to read the article, will already know.
The article says 'Both silencers are believed to contain blood that could belong to either Caffell or Boutflour.'
Not sure why the relatives & police would hand in two silencers with Sheila's/Boutflour's blood in. They only needed to hand in one.
There is no mention of a CCRC application, just the repeated requests for mysterious withheld documents to be released.
It says Bamber had written to the Guardian. He would know Eric Allison may write (another) article.
-
I lose the will to live with JB and those who claim to represent him lay and professional. %#&%4%
If any of you read the forum may I ask do you actually read any of the case related material? Imo the lot of you are either bone idle and/or thick.
Dr Lincoln (defense expert) wrote to the defense on 27th May '86 stating:
"About 8% of unrelated white British people would be expected to have this combination of groups." (Attached below). Ie not statistically individualizing.
As a result of the above and the fact the relatives found the silencer the defense asked all relatives to provide a blood sample which they agreed to do. Unsurprisingly, based on the statistics, one of the relatives shared the blood groups matching the sample supposedly found in the silencer (and SC's blood groups) Robert Boutflour (RB). This is all covered in Roger Wilkes' book based on original documents which JB's defense were made aware of pre trial. There was more than enough for Geoffrey Rivlin QC to put to the jury accidental or deliberate contamination. Instead he made the decision to adopt the sole strategy of SC using the silencer to murder her adoptive parents and twin sons before removing and returning to the gun cupboard and then taking her own life.
Geoffrey Rivlin under estimated jurors' ability to see through this ill though out strategy which relied on the blood sample supposedly found inside the silencer pertaining to an "intimate mix" of NB and June's blood despite the fact neither sustained any wound which was likely to result in blood ending up inside the silencer. Moreover if it did work out this way why would SC have removed the silencer returning it to the gun cupboard before taking her own life? Rivlin's strategy required jurors to drift off into la la land and as we know they operate on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Afaik it is not now possible for an appellant to challenge the above based on the notion of accidental or deliberate contamination when the opportunity to do so existed pre trial.
I have no idea whether more than one silencer was involved. If more than one I can see the courts simply waving this away on the basis of the one exhibited at trial said to contain blood, paint and a hair!
-
The above was covered in posts on Blue some 5 years ago by
KNGB and Naughty Nun:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg169803.html#msg169803
-
Not sure how there could be an 'accidential contamination' of human blood into the silencer.
Either RB knew he had a similar blood type to Sheila & had the blood/paint idea which the relatives went with. Although none of them knew whether dozens of other factors fell into place to ensure a successful frame.
Or the police decided to put Sheila's blood into a silencer then asked the relatives to pretend they found it. Although not sure why the police would want to frame Bamber, & then want the relatives involved.
Even Mike has not gone with David's suggestion that the relatives put diluted blood from a bucket of water into the silencer.
-
Not sure how there could be an 'accidential contamination' of human blood into the silencer.
It doesn't need to be factually correct, and imo it didn't happen, but it was a possibility and could have been put to jurors. The fact is blood tested by way of serology isn't statistically individualizing unlike DNA tests. NB was a regular at shoots and known throughout the local community. For all we know he may have lent his silencer to someone who may have done the decent thing and opened up the silencer for cleaning prior to returning. Upon cleaning he/she catches skin on the wire cleaning brush with blood depositing which matches the blood found in the silencer and SC's/RB's blood groups. I'm known to have an active imagination! This would still leave the paint but coincidences do happen! It's not impossible that someone within WHF innocently scratched the Aga surround with the silencer. To my mind all of this is as plausible as Rivlin's strategy above. Bottom line blood serology tests are not statistically individualizing which opened up numerous possibilities to put to jurors accidental or deliberate contamination.
Either RB knew he had a similar blood type to Sheila & had the blood/paint idea which the relatives went with. Although none of them knew whether dozens of other factors fell into place to ensure a successful frame.
At a max RB might have known he shared the same blood group as SC by way of antigens but extremely unlikely he would know he shared the same enzyme and protein groups. I think you're looking at a frame through the eyes of someone who has 21st century forensic awareness and has all the info to hand. Eg you will say how would the relatives know SC sustained a contact wound, unlikely they did, but this wouldn't prevent them accidentally or deliberately contaminating the silencer. I don't think this happened but there was enough for Rivlin to sow the seeds in minds of jurors! Remember SC was also in the early stages of menses as per pm a fact AE was aware of from blood stained clothing in bucket, tampon applicator in lounge and box of tampons on bed. And no I am not going to speculate how all of this might have played out but there was enough for Rivlin to diplomatically put to jurors as a possibility for them to either accept as a possibility or reject as they saw fit.
Or the police decided to put Sheila's blood into a silencer then asked the relatives to pretend they found it. Although not sure why the police would want to frame Bamber, & then want the relatives involved.
Possible but unlikely.
Even Mike has not gone with David's suggestion that the relatives put diluted blood from a bucket of water into the silencer.
The typical woman loses between 10ml - 35ml of blood per cycle. This volume of blood diluted with the volume of water in the bucket would not be able to yield the results.
I have my own theory about the blood flake supposedly found within the silencer but at this stage theories are useless to JB unless they can be proven!
-
It doesn't need to be factually correct, and imo it didn't happen, but it was a possibility and could have been put to jurors. The fact is blood tested by way of serology isn't statistically individualizing unlike DNA tests. NB was a regular at shoots and known throughout the local community. For all we know he may have lent his silencer to someone who may have done the decent thing and opened up the silencer for cleaning prior to returning. Upon cleaning he/she catches skin on the wire cleaning brush with blood depositing which matches the blood found in the silencer and SC's/RB's blood groups. I'm known to have an active imagination! This would still leave the paint but coincidences do happen! It's not impossible that someone within WHF innocently scratched the Aga surround with the silencer. To my mind all of this is as plausible as Rivlin's strategy above. Bottom line blood serology tests are not statistically individualizing which opened up numerous possibilities to put to jurors accidental or deliberate contamination.
At a max RB might have known he shared the same blood group as SC by way of antigens but extremely unlikely he would know he shared the same enzyme and protein groups. I think you're looking at a frame through the eyes of someone who has 21st century forensic awareness and has all the info to hand. Eg you will say how would the relatives know SC sustained a contact wound, unlikely they did, but this wouldn't prevent them accidentally or deliberately contaminating the silencer. I don't think this happened but there was enough for Rivlin to sow the seeds in minds of jurors! Remember SC was also in the early stages of menses as per pm a fact AE was aware of from blood stained clothing in bucket, tampon applicator in lounge and box of tampons on bed. And no I am not going to speculate how all of this might have played out but there was enough for Rivlin to diplomatically put to jurors as a possibility for them to either accept as a possibility or reject as they saw fit.
Possible but unlikely.
The typical woman loses between 10ml - 35ml of blood per cycle. This volume of blood diluted with the volume of water in the bucket would not be able to yield the results.
I have my own theory about the blood flake supposedly found within the silencer but at this stage theories are useless to JB unless they can be proven!
Do tell you're theory.
It is a discussion forum & will be discussed.
-
Do tell you're theory.
It is a discussion forum & will be discussed.
It has all been discussed previously. I've alluded to it above ie "supposedly" meaning I am skeptical about the labs claim of finding blood inside the silencer. If the lab did find blood inside then I am skeptical about how it deposited there.
Firstly the means by which it is claimed the blood deposited inside ie 'drawback' does not usually feature with a small caliber firearm, low velocity ammo, neck wounds and without the presence of skin tissue. A silencer makes it less likely still given the whole phenomenon is based on the proposition that firearm discharge gases blast into a wound forcing blood back against the line of fire. A silencer allows the hot discharge gases to slow and cool within the silencer therefore slowing the rate at which discharge gases will enter the wound. When blood does present through drawback it usually presents as fine blood droplets resembling high impact blood spatter not a flake said to measure a 1/4". The lab claim to have found blood as deep as the 5th baffle and maybe deeper up to 8th baffle. The distance of the 5th baffle from aperture exceeds firearms testing in forensic lit showing shorter distances.
Secondly the blood flake was analysed by way of blood serology which was the standard method used in a pre dna era. This type of testing requires samples of a certain quantity and quality. Samples are easily degraded by way of heat, humidity and light. Even if the combi of firearm, ammo, wound site and silencer was capable of generating the drawback phenomenon it is unlikely a flake of blood said to measure 1/4" would withstand not only the hot gases from firearm discharge but also the humidity in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber and time spent at ambient temp between and after these events.
The blood flake produced results for ABO, AK, and EAP with an inconclusive result for HP. It was unable to produce a result for PGM. And yet arguably the world's expert on blood serology has advised that in dried stains that haven't been environmentally insulted eg heat and humidity, ABO stains are good for approx 2 years, HP and PGM 1 year and AK and EAP 6 months which is the opposite of the blood flake test results ie the flake was unable to yield a result of PGM and a partial/inconclusive result for HP and yet turned up results for AK and EAP which are less stable.
The normal method at that time for analyzing blood was to dissolve the flake whole and use the resultant material for the 5 tests. In this case the flake was divided into 5 and then each portion dissolved to run the 5 tests. No explanation has ever been provided why this unorthodox method was chosen along with any advantages/disadvantages. One reason may have been to circumvent internal systems in generating a required set of results that generate photographic evidence by way of bands.
Post trial and pre 1989 appeal JB's defence challenged whether the blood would be altered after firearm discharge. This was in connection with Rivlin's crazy theory that the blood flake represented an "intimate" mix of NB and June's blood. As a result the FSS claim to have placed blood in a number of silencers and then discharged the rifle 25 times with the blood results remaining unaltered. The rifle/ammo combi has a muzzle velocity of 1080 ft/s meaning the internal explosion has to be capable of firing a bullet out of the barrel at 1080 feet per sec with hot discharge gases blasting down the barrel and through the silencer/baffles and yet the little blood flake was hardy to enough to withstand beeing environmentally insulted over and over and still able to return a full set of results 8)-))) Not forgetting all the other blood stained exhibits eg rifle, carpets, nightdress, socks etc were in the main unable to yield any sort of result other than confirmation the blood was human in origin and these had not been environmentally insulted.
Mark Webster biologist for the defence at 2002 appeal said when he examined the silencer he found soot within which gives some idea of the heat generated. This is one of the reasons barrels and silencers are cleaned regularly.
This is one of the many reasons I say the lawyers at trial and appeal were grossly incompetent and negligent. It's not rocket science to be able to read Dr Lincoln's letter to the defense pre trial and spot a significant inconsistency in that the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer was able to yield significantly more results than any other exhibit and ask why?!
Mid 80's and before forensic science wasn't what it is today. The staff as FSS were woefully unqualified and the defence were somewhat hampered in that FSS had a monopoly. Today in the UK we have several forensic service providers eg Cellmark, Key and LGC where FSS findings could be checked and challenged. The defence at trial relied upon Dr Lincoln for the blood/biology and Major Mead for the rifle/silencer ballistics and it is doubtful the two ever met which again comes back to a poor defence in not managing the case properly.
Parliament has already acknowledged high profile quality failings at FSS mid 80's:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
The above is currently being reviewed by forensic scientists. If new info comes to light which could assist JB's case it will be forwarded to a lawyer to be dealt with appropriately.
-
Adam throws a snowball and gets an avalanche. 8(8-))
-
Adam throws a snowball and gets an avalanche. 8(8-))
The avalanche will soon melt away to nothing unless it can be underpinned by forensic evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny by 3 appeal court judges 8((()*/
-
The avalanche will soon melt away to nothing unless it can be underpinned by forensic evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny by 3 appeal court judges 8((()*/
I don't agree Holly, forensics was not always an exact science and especially so back in the late eighties. I ignored the forensic evidence relating to blood and the sound moderators long ago. AFAIAC the crucial evidence is what occurred prior to the murders, the logistics of the murders and what occurred afterwards.
Taking everything into account it was nigh impossible for an outsider to have carried out these murders so it had to be someone inside or someone with a special knowledge of how to get inside when all the doors were locked. That ultimately leaves only two persons who in theory could have done it and one of them can be ruled out by other factors.
Regardless of whether a sound moderator was used or not, only Jeremy Bamber ticks all the boxes.
-
I don't agree Holly, forensics was not always an exact science and especially so back in the late eighties. I ignored the forensic evidence relating to blood and the sound moderators long ago. AFAIAC the crucial evidence is what occurred prior to the murders, the logistics of the murders and what occurred afterwards.
Taking everything into account it was nigh impossible for an outsider to have carried out these murders so it had to be someone inside or someone with a special knowledge of how to get inside when all the doors were locked. That ultimately leaves only two persons who in theory could have done it and one of them can be ruled out by other factors.
Regardless of whether a sound moderator was used or not, only Jeremy Bamber ticks all the boxes.
I don't really understand what you mean by forensics was not always an exact science? Experts provide testimony at trial which jurors and judge rely upon. If at some later stage expert testimony is found to be wrong then the appeals process will swing into action.
You and others might have decided to ignore the blood/silencer evidence but this wasn't so for the trial judge and jurors. In the judges summing up he told jurors:
"He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty".
We know the silencer loomed large in the minds of jurors based on their questions to the judge:
Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
We know the CCRC view the blood/silencer as pivotal to the case given this was the sole reason for referral to CoA in 2002. Albeit the DNA results inside the silencer turned out to be meaningless:
Grounds 14 and 15 – blood in the sound moderator 452. Grounds 14 and 15 each relate to different aspects of the evidence relating to the blood in the sound moderator. They are distinct matters but clearly need to be considered together because they relate to the same important aspect of the prosecution case. Ground 14 is an attack upon the blood testing evidence called at trial based upon fresh evidence which it is suggested would have cast doubt upon the prosecution evidence in this regard if it had been available to the jury. Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
If new forensic evidence emerges which undermines the blood/silencer evidence presented at trial then undoubtedly the case will be referred back to CoA. In fact I would go further and say such evidence might be capable of fast-tracking the case to CPS/DPP for bail pending a full CoA hearing. A referral to CoA will also pave the way for many other aspects of the case to be challenged which alone or collectively might not be sufficient for a referral but added to the blood/silencer have the potential to demolish the entire prosecution case.
I do agree with you the perp was either JB or SC. Many who believe JB innocent say there's no forensic evidence against him which isn't true. The blood/silencer evidence taken at face value is very strong evidence against him.
-
I don't really understand what you mean by forensics was not always an exact science? Experts provide testimony at trial which jurors and judge rely upon. If at some later stage expert testimony is found to be wrong then the appeals process will swing into action.
You and others might have decided to ignore the blood/silencer evidence but this wasn't so for the trial judge and jurors. In the judges summing up he told jurors:
"He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty".
We know the silencer loomed large in the minds of jurors based on their questions to the judge:
Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
We know the CCRC view the blood/silencer as pivotal to the case given this was the sole reason for referral to CoA in 2002. Albeit the DNA results inside the silencer turned out to be meaningless:
Grounds 14 and 15 – blood in the sound moderator 452. Grounds 14 and 15 each relate to different aspects of the evidence relating to the blood in the sound moderator. They are distinct matters but clearly need to be considered together because they relate to the same important aspect of the prosecution case. Ground 14 is an attack upon the blood testing evidence called at trial based upon fresh evidence which it is suggested would have cast doubt upon the prosecution evidence in this regard if it had been available to the jury. Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
If new forensic evidence emerges which undermines the blood/silencer evidence presented at trial then undoubtedly the case will be referred back to CoA. In fact I would go further and say such evidence might be capable of fast-tracking the case to CPS/DPP for bail pending a full CoA hearing. A referral to CoA will also pave the way for many other aspects of the case to be challenged which alone or collectively might not be sufficient for a referral but added to the blood/silencer have the potential to demolish the entire prosecution case.
I do agree with you the perp was either JB or SC. Many who believe JB innocent say there's no forensic evidence against him which isn't true. The blood/silencer evidence taken at face value is very strong evidence against him.
Advances are made all of the time - the sceince doesn't have to be wrong but not as accurate by todays standards.
As a side issue, according to David, it's accepted that the silencer wasn't used ........
-
Advances are made all of the time - the sceince doesn't have to be wrong but not as accurate by todays standards.
As a side issue, according to David, it's accepted that the silencer wasn't used ........
Yes advances are made all of the time and JB has been deprived of the opportunity to carry out further tests eg fingerprinting technique known as CERA LT (fingerprints from cartridges) since all exhibits excl rifle and silencer have been destroyed against all protocols. Conversely if JB is guilty we could end the whole circus and seal his fate using 21st century technology. Anyway shall we agree on undermine?
I believe David has misunderstood the CCRC/Judicial Appeal judgement from circa 2012. David has interpreted the CCRC's decision on the basis it has accepted the evidence of Dr Caruso (marks (burns?) to NB's back) and Dr Fowler SC's abrasion rings inconsistent with a silencer but rejected overall on the basis this evidence doesn't overcome the paint/scratches. This is not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the CCRC highlighted the brevity of Dr Caruso's evidence which by his own admission required further testing. In respect of Dr Fowler's evidence the CCRC relied upon the lack of residue found in the rifle and the blood flake found in the silencer. The judges at judicial review were prepared to accept there may have been a problem with the blood flake but in reaching their overall decision relied upon the lack of residue in the rifle (not sure what they mean by residue (blood?) and the paint/scratches. The judges refer to evidence at trial provided by Malcolm Fletcher and Dr Vanezis. I think they are referring to Malcolm Fletcher's testimony where he told the court that he would expect to find blood inside the barrel if a silencer had not been used. In any event the CCRC application/judicial review did not result in any concessions about the blood/silencer which can assist JB going forward.
-
Yes advances are made all of the time and JB has been deprived of the opportunity to carry out further tests eg fingerprinting technique known as CERA LT (fingerprints from cartridges) since all exhibits excl rifle and silencer have been destroyed against all protocols. Conversely if JB is guilty we could end the whole circus and seal his fate using 21st century technology. Anyway shall we agree on undermine?
I believe David has misunderstood the CCRC/Judicial Appeal judgement from circa 2012. David has interpreted the CCRC's decision on the basis it has accepted the evidence of Dr Caruso (marks (burns?) to NB's back) and Dr Fowler SC's abrasion rings inconsistent with a silencer but rejected overall on the basis this evidence doesn't overcome the paint/scratches. This is not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the CCRC highlighted the brevity of Dr Caruso's evidence which by his own admission required further testing. In respect of Dr Fowler's evidence the CCRC relied upon the lack of residue found in the rifle and the blood flake found in the silencer. The judges at judicial review were prepared to accept there may have been a problem with the blood flake but in reaching their overall decision relied upon the lack of residue in the rifle (not sure what they mean by residue (blood?) and the paint/scratches. The judges refer to evidence at trial provided by Malcolm Fletcher and Dr Vanezis. I think they are referring to Malcolm Fletcher's testimony where he told the court that he would expect to find blood inside the barrel if a silencer had not been used. In any event the CCRC application/judicial review did not result in any concessions about the blood/silencer which can assist JB going forward.
On your first point, I very much doubt that Bamber is the only one to have had evidence destroyed. However, as that is now gone, you can't presume A. that he's innocent and such evidence would have shown it or B. there were sinister reasons for the destruction. He has had other research undertaken but should have gone further with it. The stuff carried out in the USA was rendered useless because it was incomplete or just didn't go far enough.
Oh I agree that David misunderstood the 2012 CCRC Judicial Revue judgement.
-
On your first point, I very much doubt that Bamber is the only one to have had evidence destroyed. However, as that is now gone, you can't presume A. that he's innocent and such evidence would have shown it or B. there were sinister reasons for the destruction. He has had other research undertaken but should have gone further with it. The stuff carried out in the USA was rendered useless because it was incomplete or just didn't go far enough.
Oh I agree that David misunderstood the 2012 CCRC Judicial Revue judgement.
I have no idea what % of cases have exhibits destroyed? My understanding is that it is the prosecutions (police) responsibility to maintain exhibits indefinitely regardless of whether or not any appeals are pending? I haven't made any assumptions about the destroyed exhibits that's why I said if they hadn't been destroyed they may have ended the circus and sealed his fate. However it was something the appeal court judges took a dim view of to the extent they agreed to rule in JB's favour in the absence of exhibits:
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.
I agree he should have progressed the work carried out by Dr Fowler (silencer/SC's wounds) and Peter Sutherest (scratches/paint). Instead it appears the CT have been spending donations on windows, a fragmented bullet and so-called suicide notes whilst at the same time making a lot of noise about 2 silencers, RB's blood groups and non-disclosure of this, that and the other none of which have a cat in hells chance of assisting JB.
-
I have no idea what % of cases have exhibits destroyed? My understanding is that it is the prosecutions (police) responsibility to maintain exhibits indefinitely regardless of whether or not any appeals are pending? I haven't made any assumptions about the destroyed exhibits that's why I said if they hadn't been destroyed they may have ended the circus and sealed his fate. However it was something the appeal court judges took a dim view of to the extent they agreed to rule in JB's favour in the absence of exhibits:
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.
I agree he should have progressed the work carried out by Dr Fowler (silencer/SC's wounds) and Peter Sutherest (scratches/paint). Instead it appears the CT have been spending donations on windows, a fragmented bullet and so-called suicide notes whilst at the same time making a lot of noise about 2 silencers, RB's blood groups and non-disclosure of this, that and the other none of which have a cat in hells chance of assisting JB.
I'm not sure that they are obliged to keep 'ALL' exhibits indefinitely? Key exhibits maybe, but I doubt all. If this were the case they would quickly run out of room.
-
I'm not sure that they are obliged to keep 'ALL' exhibits indefinitely? Key exhibits maybe, but I doubt all. If this were the case they would quickly run out of room.
I wonder, is the keeping and/or disposing of exhibits pertinent only to the Jeremy Bamber case? It occurs to me that if every piece of information, from every case, was kept indefinitely, a storage facility the size of a village would be necessary. I also question EP's refusal to release what they allegedly still have. Surely, by now, a court order could have been procured and sheriffs sent in to retrieve them.
-
Some useful information on the destruction of exhibits;
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits
-
Does it really matter if no silencer was used or even two or more were used? The fact that a silencer was used at all and that that silencer had human blood in it points yet again to Jeremy Bamber having committed the crime and not Sheila Caffell.
The logistics involved in the killings clearly points to Jeremy Bamber as being the perpetrator as does the first hand undisputed evidence of Julie Mugford. He also had a motive, the means and the opportunity to carry out the killings. His story of what happened that night is inconsistent and riddled with contradictions while that of Miss Mugford has been consistent throughout the entire period.
The fact that the Guardian article was co written by Eric Allison is enough to ignore it completely IMO.
-
Does it really matter if no silencer was used or even two or more were used? The fact that a silencer was used at all and that that silencer had human blood in it points yet again to Jeremy Bamber having committed the crime and not Sheila Caffell.
The logistics involved in the killings clearly points to Jeremy Bamber as being the perpetrator as does the first hand undisputed evidence of Julie Mugford. He also had a motive, the means and the opportunity to carry out the killings. His story of what happened that night is inconsistent and riddled with contradictions while that of Miss Mugford has been consistent throughout the entire period.
The fact that the Guardian article was co written by Eric Allison is enough to ignore it completely IMO.
100% agree!
-
The fact that the Guardian article was co written by Eric Allison is enough to ignore it completely IMO.
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs)
-
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs)
Sissel is far to good for them!!!!
-
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs)
Not the old 'Sheila was alive' routine! %56&
-
Also in the Guardian (July 2018):
"They Walk Among Us
This British true-crime podcast has been so successful that it is hard to believe it started life as a hobby in the spare room of its mysterious creators, Ben and Rosie. Season three opens with more juicy investigations, forensically examined and delivered by Ben in his flat but intriguing style and promises an in-depth look at unsolved crimes. New episodes will drop every week this time around, including the cases of Jeremy Bamber, Donald “the Black Panther” Neilson and the Hungerford massacre. The first episode takes on the Kray twins.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jul/13/juicy-true-crime-series-recorded-spare-room-podcasts-of-the-week-they-walk-among-us
-
Also in the Guardian (July 2018):
"They Walk Among Us
This British true-crime podcast has been so successful that it is hard to believe it started life as a hobby in the spare room of its mysterious creators, Ben and Rosie. Season three opens with more juicy investigations, forensically examined and delivered by Ben in his flat but intriguing style and promises an in-depth look at unsolved crimes. New episodes will drop every week this time around, including the cases of Jeremy Bamber, Donald “the Black Panther” Neilson and the Hungerford massacre. The first episode takes on the Kray twins.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jul/13/juicy-true-crime-series-recorded-spare-room-podcasts-of-the-week-they-walk-among-us
Unsolved? Epic fail already! @)(++(*
-
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs)
Listened to the first two minutes of it to where Allison claimed it was impossible for Jeremy Bamber to have killed his family and then I knew he was taking the piss!
-
Not the old 'Sheila was alive' routine! %56&
Agreed, he's absolutely bonkers %56&
-
Some useful information on the destruction of exhibits;
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits
Thanks. I've copied the relevant section:
General Guidance: After Production In Court
Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.
The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).
I think the key words are:... it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice.
Once convicted the appellant has the legal right to challenge the conviction through the appeals process at any stage of his/her sentence. He/she could be deprived of the opportunity for doing so if the prosecution was able to destroy trial exhibits. But we know from JB's case where trial exhibits have been destroyed the appeal court judges will find in favour of the appellant which obviously isn't best for the purposes of justice.
If JB's case is referred back to CoA it will almost certainly be on the back of the blood/silencer evidence given this underpins his conviction. 2 additional grounds of appeal could be fingerprints on casings and the blood stained bible all of which have been destroyed. The defence could argue SC's fingerprints were on the casings and June's blood stained the pages of the bible. Unless the blood/silencer evidence is upheld it would seem the CoA would have to rule in JB's favour over casings and bible given since they have been destroyed.
-
I'm not sure that they are obliged to keep 'ALL' exhibits indefinitely? Key exhibits maybe, but I doubt all. If this were the case they would quickly run out of room.
My interpretation of above is ALL exhibits exhibited at trial. Does exhibited at trial mean physically at court or discussed at court or both? I would say both.
In JB's case the exhibits in terms of quantity and size are fairly small. In any event the logistics are part and parcel of operating a justice system.
-
I wonder, is the keeping and/or disposing of exhibits pertinent only to the Jeremy Bamber case? It occurs to me that if every piece of information, from every case, was kept indefinitely, a storage facility the size of a village would be necessary. I also question EP's refusal to release what they allegedly still have. Surely, by now, a court order could have been procured and sheriffs sent in to retrieve them.
No it is pertinent to all cases.
I think there's a difference between destruction of exhibits and non-disclosure of documents.
JB/CT seem confused about material that may have been collected and seen by the defence but left out of trial in which case my understanding of this is that it's redundant so to speak. Eg JB/CT claim evidence has surfaced that RB's blood groups matched that found in the silencer and SC's. This might be new info to JB/CT but according to Roger Wilkes JB's defence was made aware of this fact pre trial but chose not to use it instead relying on the NB/June intimate mix of blood. Therefore JB can't at some stage post trial decide he wants to use at appeal when it was available to defence pre trial.
-
Thanks. I've copied the relevant section:
General Guidance: After Production In Court
Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.
The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).
I think the key words are:... it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice.
Once convicted the appellant has the legal right to challenge the conviction through the appeals process at any stage of his/her sentence. He/she could be deprived of the opportunity for doing so if the prosecution was able to destroy trial exhibits. But we know from JB's case where trial exhibits have been destroyed the appeal court judges will find in favour of the appellant which obviously isn't best for the purposes of justice.
If JB's case is referred back to CoA it will almost certainly be on the back of the blood/silencer evidence given this underpins his conviction. 2 additional grounds of appeal could be fingerprints on casings and the blood stained bible all of which have been destroyed. The defence could argue SC's fingerprints were on the casings and June's blood stained the pages of the bible. Unless the blood/silencer evidence is upheld it would seem the CoA would have to rule in JB's favour over casings and bible given since they have been destroyed.
The blood stained bible was handed back to relatives according to CAL. There is a document (I think posted by David) that suggests the bible was about to be destroyed but nothing to confirm it. There is a reference in CAL's book that states it was given back to relatives.
-
The blood stained bible was handed back to relatives according to CAL. There is a document (I think posted by David) that suggests the bible was about to be destroyed but nothing to confirm it. There is a reference in CAL's book that states it was given back to relatives.
My understanding is that all exhibits have been destroyed apart from rifle and silencer which can be found in EP's museum.
-
Back to OP and claims of 2 silencers, according to Mark Webster, biologist who acted for the defence at JB's 2002 appeal, his twitter account states this was investigated by COLP as part of its investigation:
https://twitter.com/ForSciCon/status/1043854166895063043
https://twitter.com/ForSciCon/status/1043855396362948608
-
My understanding is that all exhibits have been destroyed apart from rifle and silencer which can be found in EP's museum.
Apparently not. I did also read that Bamber had the oppotunity to stop the destruction of certain exhibits but declined. Not sure how true this is but is worth persuing.
-
It seems to me Glynis Howard dealt with this here too:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=169.msg1778#msg1778
CAL states DS Jones circumvented internal processes and sytems by entering the silencer into the wrong property book to avoid the silencer coming under the sort of scrutiny it might have done had it been entered into the correct property book.
My understanding is that it was initially given the exhibit number SBJ/1. SBJ being DS Jones' initials: Stanley Brian Jones. It was then given the exhibit number DB/1 being David Boutflour's initials as the actual finder of the silencer. Finally it was given the exhibit number DRB/1 the R reflecting David Boutflour's middle name to distinguish between him from police photographer DC David Bird who shared the same initials for first name and surname.
I always refer to it as silencer as its shorter than typing sound moderator but the names are interchangeable and mean the same thing. Sound moderator is perhaps the correct technical name. Even the judges use both. The fact two different names are used when referring to the silencer does not support the idea there were two or more.
-
Apparently not. I did also read that Bamber had the oppotunity to stop the destruction of certain exhibits but declined. Not sure how true this is but is worth persuing.
JB did send me a list of destroyed exhibits from some official doc but I can't now recall whether or not the bible was on it.
The CoA doc states exhibits were destroyed without ref to JB or his legal reps:
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.
-
JB did send me a list of destroyed exhibits from some official doc but I can't now recall whether or not the bible was on it.
The CoA doc states exhibits were destroyed without ref to JB or his legal reps:
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.
Sorry, my mistake - it was more to do with having EP investigated re: the destruction of material. The CCRC were 'apparently' willing to investigate why exhibits had been destroyed (at their expense) but Jeremy declined the offer.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html
-
Were some of the items Bamber handed out to AA exhibits at one time?
-
Sorry, my mistake - it was more to do with having EP investigated re: the destruction of material. The CCRC were 'apparently' willing to investigate why exhibits had been destroyed (at their expense) but Jeremy declined the offer.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html
I don't know anything about this. If it is so was it JB's decision alone or was he advised by lawyers/MT QC to take this approach?
-
Were some of the items Bamber handed out to AA exhibits at one time?
AA has said in the past she received JB's wetsuit which I understand was examined by EP although I haven't seen any formal docs to this effect. I don't believe AA received anything which was included in trial.
-
AA has said in the past she received JB's wetsuit which I understand was examined by EP although I haven't seen any formal docs to this effect. I don't believe AA received anything which was included in trial.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271
Wouldn't all items seized by police have been exhibits?
-
So that's how they made Freddie Fox's syrup of figs. Shame about that missing Cartier though... Have you looked at the bottom of your freezer, AA?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271
Wouldn't all items seized by police have been exhibits?
I guess only if they were deemed relevant to the investigation. In any event clear rules surround exhibits exhibited at trial which isn't the case for items not not exhibited at trial.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits
-
I don't know anything about this. If it is so was it JB's decision alone or was he advised by lawyers/MT QC to take this approach?
No idea Holly, found the post by accident yesterday - I'm trying to find out more.
-
Were some of the items Bamber handed out to AA exhibits at one time?
Not sure Steph but I recall one of those item was a Cartier watch - other than that not sure what items she had/has.
-
The blood stained bible was handed back to relatives according to CAL. There is a document (I think posted by David) that suggests the bible was about to be destroyed but nothing to confirm it. There is a reference in CAL's book that states it was given back to relatives.
So what of the rifle, wetsuit, watch and other items handed to AA? Were they once police exhibits?
-
So what of the rifle, wetsuit, watch and other items handed to AA? Were they once police exhibits?
I think the only important items are those relied upon at trial and Afaik none of the exhibits handed over to AA were relied upon at trial.
-
I think the only important items are those relied upon at trial and Afaik none of the exhibits handed over to AA were relied upon at trial.
If you think this then what do you make of the new claims re ‘two silencers’ ?
How many silencers were ‘relied upon at trial’?
-
I guess only if they were deemed relevant to the investigation. In any event clear rules surround exhibits exhibited at trial which isn't the case for items not not exhibited at trial.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits
What items did Bamber deem ‘relevant to the investigation’ and what items did he have destroyed, why and when?
-
If you think this then what do you make of the new claims re ‘two silencers’ ?
How many silencers were ‘relied upon at trial’?
The only silencer relevant to this case is the one exhibited at trial. And only when this can be undermined will JB's conviction be quashed.
-
The only silencer relevant to this case is the one exhibited at trial. And only when this can be undermined will JB's conviction be quashed.
You believe 5 murder convictions carried out in 1985 and a whole life tariff prisoner, diagnosed a psychopath pre-trial, will have their multiple murder convictions ‘quashed’ on the basis of the silencer evidence alone
-
You believe 5 murder convictions carried out in 1985 and a whole life tariff prisoner, diagnosed a psychopath pre-trial, will have their multiple murder convictions ‘quashed’ on the basis of the silencer evidence alone
JB has never been diagnosed with psychopathy.
In answer to your question yes evidenced by the fact it was the reason CCRC referred the case to CoA in 2001/2 and the reason Coa heard it in 2002. If other evidence was strong then the CCRC/Coa would fall back on this but there isn't any.
-
JB has never been diagnosed with psychopathy.
In answer to your question yes evidenced by the fact it was the reason CCRC referred the case to CoA in 2001/2 and the reason Coa heard it in 2002. If other evidence was strong then the CCRC/Coa would fall back on this but there isn't any.
Only a psychopath could murder two small children as they slept by shooting them in the head. If ever there was a reason to bring back hanging then Bamber is it imo.
-
JB has never been diagnosed with psychopathy.
Yes he was/is Holly pre trial 1986
“His former brother-in-law Colin Caffell, Sheila's ex-husband and father of murdered Nicholas and Daniel, six, said Bamber was "charismatic" and "charming".
He said: "He was incredibly charismatic and I am sure he is just as charming today as he was then.
"Psychopaths, and while I am not an expert I think he is one, are naturally charismatic."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-51024716
-
You believe 5 murder convictions carried out in 1985 and a whole life tariff prisoner, diagnosed a psychopath pre-trial, will have their multiple murder convictions ‘quashed’ on the basis of the silencer evidence alone
I excluded the silencer long ago as insignificant. It's the other evidence which matters and that will never be overturned.
-
Only a psychopath could murder two small children as they slept by shooting them in the head. If ever there was a reason to bring back hanging then Bamber is it imo.
JB has never been diagnosed with any personality disorder or mental illness.
-
Yes he was/is Holly pre trial 1986
“His former brother-in-law Colin Caffell, Sheila's ex-husband and father of murdered Nicholas and Daniel, six, said Bamber was "charismatic" and "charming".
He said: "He was incredibly charismatic and I am sure he is just as charming today as he was then.
"Psychopaths, and while I am not an expert I think he is one, are naturally charismatic."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-51024716
CC is not qualified to say whether or not someone has a personality disorder.
-
I excluded the silencer long ago as insignificant. It's the other evidence which matters and that will never be overturned.
That's not the view ofCCRC/Coa. If it was there would not have been a 2002 appeal hearing.
-
JB has never been diagnosed with any personality disorder or mental illness.
Does it matter?
-
Does it matter?
In what regard?
-
That's not the view ofCCRC/Coa. If it was there would not have been a 2002 appeal hearing.
That was 17 years ago and nothing has changed.
-
In what regard?
We know Bamber is delusional, putting an official label on him won't make any difference. It is a known medical fact that young psychopaths can change in middle age.
-
That was 17 years ago and nothing has changed.
Exactly nothing has changed and nothing will change in this regard as JB's conviction is underpinned by the blood/silencer evidence.
A vid clip existed of Ewan Smith confirming as far as the judiciary are concerned the silencer is be all and end all.
-
We know Bamber is delusional, putting an official label on him won't make any difference. It is a known medical fact that young psychopaths can change in middle age.
People can label JB however they wish but it doesn't make it factually correct.
-
People can label JB however they wish but it doesn't make it factually correct.
What is factually correct is that he murdered five people and that renders him a nutter in my book.
-
JB has never been diagnosed with any personality disorder or mental illness.
How do you know?
-
CC is not qualified to say whether or not someone has a personality disorder.
If he murdered the family then you don't need to be qualified to realise he's a psychopath.
-
I think the only important items are those relied upon at trial and Afaik none of the exhibits handed over to AA were relied upon at trial.
What efforts did Bamber make over the years to keep hold of material exhibits?
What year was Aunt Agatha ‘visited by police’ with the wetsuit, watch and rifle etc she claimed were given to her?
-
My understanding is that all exhibits have been destroyed apart from rifle and silencer which can be found in EP's museum.
Seems your ‘understanding‘ is wrong Holly
-
Yes advances are made all of the time and JB has been deprived of the opportunity to carry out further tests eg fingerprinting technique known as CERA LT (fingerprints from cartridges) since all exhibits excl rifle and silencer have been destroyed against all protocols. Conversely if JB is guilty we could end the whole circus and seal his fate using 21st century technology. Anyway shall we agree on undermine?
I believe David has misunderstood the CCRC/Judicial Appeal judgement from circa 2012. David has interpreted the CCRC's decision on the basis it has accepted the evidence of Dr Caruso (marks (burns?) to NB's back) and Dr Fowler SC's abrasion rings inconsistent with a silencer but rejected overall on the basis this evidence doesn't overcome the paint/scratches. This is not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the CCRC highlighted the brevity of Dr Caruso's evidence which by his own admission required further testing. In respect of Dr Fowler's evidence the CCRC relied upon the lack of residue found in the rifle and the blood flake found in the silencer. The judges at judicial review were prepared to accept there may have been a problem with the blood flake but in reaching their overall decision relied upon the lack of residue in the rifle (not sure what they mean by residue (blood?) and the paint/scratches. The judges refer to evidence at trial provided by Malcolm Fletcher and Dr Vanezis. I think they are referring to Malcolm Fletcher's testimony where he told the court that he would expect to find blood inside the barrel if a silencer had not been used. In any event the CCRC application/judicial review did not result in any concessions about the blood/silencer which can assist JB going forward.
Of course they didn't accept that the silencer wasn't used - that would have been major news and a massive point for appeal.
-
Seems your ‘understanding‘ is wrong Holly
I was referring to trial exhibits.
-
A vid clip existed of Ewan Smith confirming as far as the judiciary are concerned the silencer is be all and end all.
What did Keir Starmer say in the Simon Hall case?
-
That was 17 years ago and nothing has changed.
A journalist who sat through parts of Bamber’s original trial stated the trial judge concluded,
“For one so young, you have a warped, callous and evil mind, concealed behind an outwardly presentable appearance."
-
I was referring to trial exhibits.
Yes and seems your ‘understanding’ is wrong
My understanding is that all exhibits have been destroyed apart from rifle and silencer which can be found in EP's museum.
My reply to you was clear http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10186.msg573710#msg573710
Still waiting to hear what ‘rifle’ Aunt Agatha is meant to have received and what year?
-
Yes and seems your ‘understanding’ is wrong
My reply to you was clear http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10186.msg573710#msg573710
Still waiting to hear what ‘rifle’ Aunt Agatha is meant to have received and what year?
What evidence exists showing trial exhibits have been retained other than the rifle and silencer which I understand are in the EP museum?
I don't believe the items returned to AA were exhibited at trial.
-
What evidence exists showing trial exhibits have been retained other than the rifle and silencer which I understand are in the EP museum?
I don't believe the items returned to AA were exhibited at trial.
Was the bible an exhibit ?
If it was seized by police, listed in disclosure docs - it would have been a trial exhibit Holly
If you don’t know the answer please say so instead of - ‘i don’t believe’
Maybe you don’t believe but as has been showed numerous times over the years on the forum, more often than not what you post is wrong
And when your posts have been showed to be wrong you don’t appear to correct them or state you have something wrong, why?
For example, re the vets WS you stated,
I've never looked for it.
Yet you’ve posted on the topic of Crispy and made false claims
Crispy was offered to the wider family but no one wanted him so sadly he was put down 8(8-)). Bruce was found a home outside the family.
The above it a lie
-
Was the bible an exhibit ?
If it was seized by police, listed in disclosure docs - it would have been a trial exhibit Holly
If you don’t know the answer please say so instead of - ‘i don’t believe’
Maybe you don’t believe but as has been showed numerous times over the years on the forum, more often than not what you post is wrong
And when your posts have been showed to be wrong you don’t appear to correct them or state you have something wrong, why?
For example, re the vets WS you stated,
Yet you’ve posted on the topic of Crispy and made false claims
The bible was a trial exhibit. Defence complaints about the bible were that they didn't get to see the pictures, however, the actual bible was an exhibit so they had the op to examine it and didn't.
-
The bible was a trial exhibit. Defence complaints about the bible were that they didn't get to see the pictures, however, the actual bible was an exhibit so they had the op to examine it and didn't.
Bamber’s choice
-
Was the bible an exhibit ?
If it was seized by police, listed in disclosure docs - it would have been a trial exhibit Holly
If you don’t know the answer please say so instead of - ‘i don’t believe’
Maybe you don’t believe but as has been showed numerous times over the years on the forum, more often than not what you post is wrong
And when your posts have been showed to be wrong you don’t appear to correct them or state you have something wrong, why?
Nicholas please refrain from making comments of a personal nature.
People are free to express themselves how they wish so long as it doesn't break forum rules.
The blood stained bible depicted in soc images was referred to at trial as DRH/44 from memory.
June had a number of bibles that weren't mentioned at trial but may have been looked at by EP so maybe it was one of these handed back to the relatives.
-
June had a number of bibles that weren't mentioned at trial but may have been looked at by EP so maybe it was one of these handed back to the relatives.
We weren’t discussing a ‘number of bibles’ though were we?
My understanding is that all exhibits have been destroyed apart from rifle and silencer which can be found in EP's museum.
And ‘all exhibits’ weren’t ‘destroyed’
-
Bamber’s choice
Not sure but it wasn't until after it was reported that the bible was destroyed that he seems keen to include it as an issue.
-
Not sure but it wasn't until after it was reported that the bible was destroyed that he seems keen to include it as an issue.
Ngb1066 may have the answer to this, it may have been an intellectual property issue or what belongs to who argument
Was there a reason the bible was handed to the relatives as opposed to being kept by Bamber for a possible future appeal?
“in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate. What reason has JB given for his decision?
Why did Bamber appear to allow the bible go to the relatives in 2006
-
We weren’t discussing a ‘number of bibles’ though were we?
And ‘all exhibits’ weren’t ‘destroyed’
What exhibits exist other than the rifle/silencer?
-
The bible was a trial exhibit. Defence complaints about the bible were that they didn't get to see the pictures, however, the actual bible was an exhibit so they had the op to examine it and didn't.
It was referred to at trial by way of soc images but was it physically presented?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=221
I think the above was as far as it went with the bible at trial.
-
Ngb1066 may have the answer to this, it may have been an intellectual property issue or what belongs to who argument
Was there a reason the bible was handed to the relatives as opposed to being kept by Bamber for a possible future appeal?
Intellectual property?
What evidence exists showing DRH/44 was returned to the relatives?
-
Ngb1066 may have the answer to this, it may have been an intellectual property issue or what belongs to who argument
Was there a reason the bible was handed to the relatives as opposed to being kept by Bamber for a possible future appeal?
“in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate. What reason has JB given for his decision?
Why did Bamber appear to allow the bible go to the relatives in 2006
The Jeremy Bamber official website also offers the following in relation to the Bible and the blood stains thereon...
At Jeremy’s trial in 1986 no evidence was called relating to the Bible that was discovered next to Sheila. After Jeremy’s legal team reviewed the note that was protruding from between the pages it could also be seen that a piece of crocheted material was between or underneath one of its pages. Essex Police concealed the existence of this note
Mr Terzeon was Jeremy’s Solicitor in 1986, he requested to see photographs of the Bible next to Sheila. On a visit to Witham Police station he had requested to see the master bundle of photographs of the crime scene but no pictures of the Bible were given for him to view and he was told there were none. It is odd then, that years later these pictures were eventually released by Essex police.
(http://i.imgur.com/yov5Gg2.jpg)
In 2005 research began into the photographs. No mention was made in the incident property register of this note or the cloth in the photographs. Essex Police should have carried out forensic analysis on these articles. DI Cook’s finger print tests on items found at WHF makes no mention of the Bible or the other items being fingerprinted. As Jeremy was accused of staging the crime scene, surely a vital piece of evidence might have been found on these articles? Mysteriously this document (http://twitpic.com/8cndr7) has surfaced which tells us the articles were in fact fingerprinted but whose prints were on the bible? There is no possibility that they were Jeremy's because the prosecution would have used this at trial. The Bible was either returned to Jeremy’s relatives the Boutflour's or destroyed as part of the destruction of exhibits during 1996 despite a court order to preserve them.
There were a number of bloody fingerprints on certain pages of the Bible as you can see in the pictures, so who did these belong to?
The paper protruding from the bible shows the words ‘Love one another’. These words come from the passage John Chapter 13. We know that according to Dr Ferguson (Sheila’s Psychiatrist) Sheila’s mental illness was often influenced by conflicts of good and evil and ideas of the devil being in people as well as her being obsessed about God and religion.
The above post was made by John in 2013 ergo the CT were claiming in 2013 as per.... ^ ^ ^
Why have the CT claimed,
’The Bible was either returned to Jeremy’s relatives the Boutflour's or destroyed as part of the destruction of exhibits during 1996 despite a court order to preserve them.
When it’s known it was handed to relatives in 2006
This is what is now claimed by the OS
[12] A5-08-06 Details that the Bible was not destroyed, but given to the relatives who were ‘unable to locate it for the Appeal of 2002.’ (foot of page) https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
The relatives didn’t have the bible in 2002 so how did the CT expect them to produce it for 2002 appeal?
And why are the relatives being blamed for this?
The OS states,
“Evidence suggests that the Bible in question was not destroyed back in the 1980’s moreover, it is probable that it is in existence today. Police gave possession of it back to Jeremy’s extended relatives who benefited financially from his conviction.”
Has Bamber told the CT to publish these words or are they the words of a CT member?
There should be documentation related to the relatives receiving the bible and it’s highly likely Bamber has copies
-
There should be documentation related to the relatives receiving the bible and it’s highly likely Bamber has copies
and I suspect Bamber would have been aware of this at the time
This letter https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0 refers to the ‘destruction of exhibits’ and Bamber writing to ?Mike T that’s he’s got the originals - with a smiley face