Forensic evidence. Was there really none ?

[adam]

Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre.

Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ?

Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.

Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.

The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.

June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.

There is the silencer evidence.

There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night. As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more  forensic evidence.


So the answer to the question is -

There is forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime



54

[Holly Goodhead]

Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre.

Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ?

Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.

Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.

The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.

June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.

There is the silencer evidence.

There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night. As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more  forensic evidence.


So the answer to the question is -

There is forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime

I am not sure what you mean by a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not SC?

SC's appearance does not lend itself to her being the perp but who is to say she didn't take a shower?  And put her clothes in the buckets that AE disposed of?  It was not for AE to cherry pick eg oh here's some buckets with bloody clothing in so I'll dispose of those oh and here's a bloody silencer which I'll hand over to EP for forensic examination.  Why was AE/rellies allowed to determine which bloody items were forensically examined and which were not?

There is no forensic evidence linking JB to the crime.  The silencer was presented as such at trial but when I break it down imo it is flawed.

[david1819]

you need to consider that DNA/forensics was still in its infancy back then. If Bamber was to get a retrial today there would be no forensic evidence presented to a Jury and if it was it can be easily rendered unreliable by a defence. There never was a thorough investigation and all forensic evidence would be considered contaminated by today's standards.

Making it a very difficult case 

[Holly Goodhead]

you need to consider that DNA/forensics was still in its infancy back then. If Bamber was to get a retrial today there would be no forensic evidence presented to a Jury and if it was it can be easily rendered unreliable by a defence. There never was a thorough investigation and all forensic evidence would be considered contaminated by today's standards.

Making it a very difficult case

DNA hadn't even been envisaged at JB's trial.

It is often said DCI Jones too readily went along with the 4 murders/suicide theory and the soc should have been investigated further etc but I'm not sure what more what could have been done?  Certainly the pathologist and ballistics/firearms at soc might have helped.  Lots of talk about carpets and bedding burned but 5 blood stained carpet samples from the bedroom were analysed.  I believe AE said in her WS there was some blood staining on the stair carpet (might have been hall/landing) which would almost certainly be NB's so what would this prove?  The soc photos show the blood staining on the bed and its pretty obvious it was from June so again what would this prove?

SC and JB had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle all the contents.  What about fingerprints on the bullet casings?

A difficult case indeed!

[scipio_usmc]

I am not sure what you mean by a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not SC?

SC's appearance does not lend itself to her being the perp but who is to say she didn't take a shower?  And put her clothes in the buckets that AE disposed of?  It was not for AE to cherry pick eg oh here's some buckets with bloody clothing in so I'll dispose of those oh and here's a bloody silencer which I'll hand over to EP for forensic examination.  Why was AE/rellies allowed to determine which bloody items were forensically examined and which were not?

There is no forensic evidence linking JB to the crime.  The silencer was presented as such at trial but when I break it down imo it is flawed.

1) If she changed clothing she committed the murders in then the blood/GSR stained clothes she changed out of would have been found but the only clothing in buckets was panties that had been stained int he crotch from menstrual bleeding and children's jogging clothing.

2) How could she change out of the clothing she killed herself in?  Quite clearly that is no more possible than putting the moderator away after her death.  Her clothing has no GSR because someone else shot her and no blood from the victims because she didn't shoot them. The killer putting away the moderator is further proof of course.

3) why would someone who decided to commit murder suicide wash up and change in order to kill herself?  It makes no sense at all and despite your pathetic babble that it has happened before you can't prove a single example except cult members in mass religious ritualistic suicide.

[Holly Goodhead]

1) If she changed clothing she committed the murders in then the blood/GSR stained clothes she changed out of would have been found but the only clothing in buckets was panties that had been stained int he crotch from menstrual bleeding and children's jogging clothing.

2) How could she change out of the clothing she killed herself in?  Quite clearly that is no more possible than putting the moderator away after her death.  Her clothing has no GSR because someone else shot her and no blood from the victims because she didn't shoot them. The killer putting away the moderator is further proof of course.

3) why would someone who decided to commit murder suicide wash up and change in order to kill herself?  It makes no sense at all and despite your pathetic babble that it has happened before you can't prove a single example except cult members in mass religious ritualistic suicide.

Hello Scipio.  Lovely to see you 

1)  As far as I am aware the only person to examine the contents of the buckets was AE.  Here's the link:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309

You make reference to "children's jogging clothing".  Can you provide some documentary evidence showing that the bucket(s) contained children's jogging clothing?  I can only find reference to tracksuit bottoms and the only name mentioned is Sheila's.

2)  We will never know what the buckets contained as AE disposed of them.  Why are they not noted on the raid team statements?  Buckets containing bloody clothing/water at a soc would seem like something to be noted?  Why did a member of the raid team not fish in the bucket and come to the same conclusion as AE did? 

3)  A precedent is not required for something to be a possibility.  I am sure there are many cases where individuals have carried out mundane tasks eg cleaning themselves and their surroundings before committing suicide. 

[Caroline]

Hello Scipio.  Lovely to see you 

1)  As far as I am aware the only person to examine the contents of the buckets was AE.  Here's the link:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309

You make reference to "children's jogging clothing".  Can you provide some documentary evidence showing that the bucket(s) contained children's jogging clothing?  I can only find reference to tracksuit bottoms and the only name mentioned is Sheila's.

2)  We will never know what the buckets contained as AE disposed of them.  Why are they not noted on the raid team statements?  Buckets containing bloody clothing/water at a soc would seem like something to be noted?  Why did a member of the raid team not fish in the bucket and come to the same conclusion as AE did? 

3)  A precedent is not required for something to be a possibility.  I am sure there are many cases where individuals have carried out mundane tasks eg cleaning themselves and their surroundings before committing suicide.

AE mentions they were the childrens jogging bottoms.

[Holly Goodhead]

AE mentions they were the childrens jogging bottoms.

Where?  Please provide the relevant WS.

[scipio_usmc]

Hello Scipio.  Lovely to see you 

1)  As far as I am aware the only person to examine the contents of the buckets was AE.  Here's the link:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309

You make reference to "children's jogging clothing".  Can you provide some documentary evidence showing that the bucket(s) contained children's jogging clothing?  I can only find reference to tracksuit bottoms and the only name mentioned is Sheila's.

2)  We will never know what the buckets contained as AE disposed of them.  Why are they not noted on the raid team statements?  Buckets containing bloody clothing/water at a soc would seem like something to be noted?  Why did a member of the raid team not fish in the bucket and come to the same conclusion as AE did? 

3)  A precedent is not required for something to be a possibility.  I am sure there are many cases where individuals have carried out mundane tasks eg cleaning themselves and their surroundings before committing suicide.

Why would the raid team look in the buckets?  It is the job of the crime scene investigators to go room to room looking for evidence. The crime scene investigators only mentioned what they found that was useful not what they found that wa snot useful so had no reaosn to mention the contents or the clothing on Sheila's bed for that matter.  They saw the clothing as irrelevant so didn't take it.  That also helps explain why the police did not take the clothing when they went through the garbage bin with AE.  She said she showed them the rubbish bin that she took (which is where she tossed the clothing) and they declined to salvage the clothing.

Ann Eaton's statement said the jogging pants were children jogging pants that were diry, not bloody. The only bloody clothing she found was the panties.

People do things for a reaosn.  The only peopel who wash after killing others do so in order to wash away evidence in contemplation of trying to get away with the crime.  people who decide to commit murder suicide have no reaosn to wash away evidence before killing themselves and don't bother to do so.

Why are you so desperate to pretend Jeremy is inoocent that is the only relevant quesiton in relation to you...

 

[scipio_usmc]

Where?  Please provide the relevant WS.

Her trial testimony for starters:

[Holly Goodhead]

Her trial testimony for starters:

Thanks Paul.

1. May I ask where you obtained AE's trial testimony from?

2. Are you able and willing to provide a full copy of AE's trial testimony for posters on the UK Justice forum?

3.  In her WS's AE makes absolutely no reference to children's tracksuit bottoms or indeed children's clothes.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309

4. In her trial testimony above she makes reference to washing out children's clothes and putting them back in soak as they were still not clean.  Why would she do this when she knew the owners were deceased?  Again she makes no reference to putting items of clothing back in soak in her WS.

5.  Also she makes ref to a single episode in her WS.  In her trial testimony she makes ref to two episodes where on the second occasion RB is consulted.  In her WS this was all one single episode.

[APRIL]

Her trial testimony for starters:

You say that the [police didn't take the soaked clothes because the saw them as being irrelevant and it explains why they didn't take them when they went through the rubbish bin. You say AE showed them the rubbish bin but they declined to salvage the clothing. I can only find reference to AE disposing of them, NOT the police declining to go through them.

[david1819]

SC and JB had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle all the contents.  What about fingerprints on the bullet casings?

Problem is .22 calibre rimfire bullets are very small. You could not leave a full fingerprint or even a fraction of a fingerprint on one of them as they are smaller than your prints themselves.



The first one to the left of the 1 cent coin a .22 caliber. Its purpose is to kill pests like rabbits foxes or target shooting ect. Hence why its small and legal to posses if licensed 


 

[scipio_usmc]

You say that the [police didn't take the soaked clothes because the saw them as being irrelevant and it explains why they didn't take them when they went through the rubbish bin. You say AE showed them the rubbish bin but they declined to salvage the clothing. I can only find reference to AE disposing of them, NOT the police declining to go through them.

She said that she went through the rubbish sack (that she had saved from WHF- the one she had tossed the clothes in) in front of police to look for a letter.  police thus had the opportunity to see all the items that had been tossed in the rubbish sack.  The police didn't attempt to salvage anything that was inside of it and she got rid of the sack after that since police apparently didn't care about any of the things inside.



As of 1991 she had not thrown away clothing that she assumed Sheila had worn the day of the 12th. That clothing was not stained though so not even the defense cared about it.  Neither the defense nor prosecution made any effort o obtian such clothing from her after seeing her 1991 statement where she referenced the clothing so maybe she disposed of that clothing eventually as well. 

[scipio_usmc]

Problem is .22 calibre rimfire bullets are very small. You could not leave a full fingerprint or even a fraction of a fingerprint on one of them as they are smaller than your prints themselves.



The first one to the left of the 1 cent coin a .22 caliber. Its purpose is to kill pests like rabbits foxes or target shooting ect. Hence why its small and legal to posses if licensed 

Fingerprints have been obtained from 22 bullet casings and used in prosecutions.  It is relatively uncommon to find prints on bullet casings of any caliber but it does happen and thus it is worth a try to look for prints on casings.