Top Three Reasons Why You Believe JB Guilty Or Innocent

[Samson]

"Are you suggesting that her current career with children in Canada is therapeutic?" Try, if you can, to look at this from the both sides. It starts from the point where, whatever you believe were her motives, she WAS involved in, what can only be described as, a nightmare situation -I will add, here, that whilst I DO believe she told the truth, I don't believe she told ALL the truth- and from my understanding, none of us can leave them, totally, behind, SO, IF you're going to persist in the belief that she's the Wicked Witch of the East, she'll have no less of an internal struggle with what she did than if she's pure as driven snow. Coming from a position of both extremes -personally, I don't think she's at either end, rather she falls somewhere in the middle- it's not unlikely that she'd need long term therapy to help her work it though.

It is necessary to look at the circumstance she finds herself in at the time of the crime, and how it relates to the testimony she delivered in court.
If she is truth telling, she knew as soon as the murders were confirmed that Jeremy was responsible.
Therefore warm embraces and planning of holidays means she was cool with the killings. Why is she working with children now?

I can't understand how you don't all see this, this is the elephant in the room.
I can tell you, she both
1. Did not know Jeremy had done this on the morning, so was lying in court when furnishing lurid detail about the well formed plan.
2. Because this is true, she can not possibly know to this day that he is guilty. Indeed she has conveniently buried all the straightforward evidence proving he is innocent, including the fact the telephone call did not alert her to a completed slaughter, but rather said to her "not more trouble with Sheila please, just let me sleep".

[APRIL]

It is necessary to look at the circumstance she finds herself in at the time of the crime, and how it relates to the testimony she delivered in court.
If she is truth telling, she knew as soon as the murders were confirmed that Jeremy was responsible.
Therefore warm embraces and planning of holidays means she was cool with the killings. Why is she working with children now?

I can't understand how you don't all see this, this is the elephant in the room.
I can tell you, she both
1. Did not know Jeremy had done this on the morning, so was lying in court when furnishing lurid detail about the well formed plan.
2. Because this is true, she can not possibly know to this day that he is guilty. Indeed she has conveniently buried all the straightforward evidence proving he is innocent, including the fact the telephone call did not alert her to a completed slaughter, but rather said to her "not more trouble with Sheila please, just let me sleep".

Please don't presume to lecture me on things about which you know precisely NOTHING. How DARE you sit over there and tell us that "I can't understand how you don't all see this" when you haven't even got the basic facts straight. I'm willing to bet Julie has better reason to believe him guilty than you have to believe him innocent.

I think, if he'd been voicing his plans to her for several months, she'd have been FULLY aware,after that silly o'clock phone call, that he's carried them through. How do you KNOW that the embraces were warm? He said the relationship had cooled. She MAY have had her arms round him but you have NO idea what was going through her mind. You seem to only be able to see anything at all in terms of black or white. In my world black and white are only the extremes of grey. Believe me, there are MANY more than fifty.

[Samson]

Please don't presume to lecture me on things about which you know precisely NOTHING. How DARE you sit over there and tell us that "I can't understand how you don't all see this" when you haven't even got the basic facts straight. I'm willing to bet Julie has better reason to believe him guilty than you have to believe him innocent.

I think, if he'd been voicing his plans to her for several months, she'd have been FULLY aware,after that silly o'clock phone call, that he's carried them through. How do you KNOW that the embraces were warm? He said the relationship had cooled. She MAY have had her arms round him but you have NO idea what was going through her mind. You seem to only be able to see anything at all in terms of black or white. In my world black and white are only the extremes of grey. Believe me, there are MANY more than fifty.

I think this is interesting, and an ideal discussion point. What do others think of APRIL's bet?

I read CAL's book pretty carefully for its well researched conversations, and behaviour descriptions. At the point of the embrace therefore she knows he has shot two sleeping Angels in the head, and still works with Jeremy with the happy foursome holiday plans. You see I don't buy it, but you and others may.

[APRIL]

I think this is interesting, and an ideal discussion point. What do others think of APRIL's bet?

I read CAL's book pretty carefully for its well researched conversations, and behaviour descriptions. At the point of the embrace therefore she knows he has shot two sleeping Angels in the head, and still works with Jeremy with the happy foursome holiday plans. You see I don't buy it, but you and others may.

Does CAL have a background in psychology to back up her behavioural descriptions? I think Julie was well aware, at the point of embrace that he'd shot the boys -can we cut the crap with the "Angels"- but I'll refrain from jumping to the conclusion that she'd have been happy. I fail to see what your problem is.

A) She didn't have any hand in killing them. B) She was nowhere near WHF when they were killed. C) If there's been anyone else, ie FAMILY, who were willing to identify them, Julie wouldn't have had to.

[Samson]

Does CAL have a background in psychology to back up her behavioural descriptions? I think Julie was well aware, at the point of embrace that he'd shot the boys -can we cut the crap with the "Angels"- but I'll refrain from jumping to the conclusion that she'd have been happy. I fail to see what your problem is.

A) She didn't have any hand in killing them. B) She was nowhere near WHF when they were killed. C) If there's been anyone else, ie FAMILY, who were willing to identify them, Julie wouldn't have had to.

She did not for one instant think he was involved that morning, after all, a few hours previously she had told him to go back to sleep.
And a warm or cold embrace is one thing, but well documented plans that involve retaining him as boyfriend and holidaying are inconsistent with the proposition this woman should rise to high places in child management if she knew at the time he was a child killer.

It saddens me to see people so blinded by all this, when the simple explanation is the tale told from day one of the crime by Jeremy Bamber himself.

[Holly Goodhead]

Lack of blood in the gun barrel is probably something Holly or David can help with. I know that there was blood in the silencer in Bain. This may be attributed to the rigid surface at the temple creating a different physical dynamic to throat shots. To force blood back a rigid contact point may be required.
Obviously I disagree with the rest, the most extreme reason for abandoning Mugford is that she appeared complicit until dumped in a hideous crime against children. Are you suggesting her current career with children in Canada is therapeutic?

According to Dr Vincent DiMaio an absence of blood in or on a barrel doesn't preclude a contact shot - see attached.

Re DB I can't find anything about blood in the silencer.  N-NZ seemed to think blood was found in the barrel and travelled all the way through the silencer which way exceeds the maximum distance in Prof Herb MacDonell's research for .22 calibre firearms.

By the time of 65 Every St, DNA testing was available but I can't find anything about anyone's DNA in or on silencer/rifle? 

[Holly Goodhead]

I think this is interesting, and an ideal discussion point. What do others think of APRIL's bet?

I read CAL's book pretty carefully for its well researched conversations, and behaviour descriptions. At the point of the embrace therefore she knows he has shot two sleeping Angels in the head, and still works with Jeremy with the happy foursome holiday plans. You see I don't buy it, but you and others may.

I tend to try and stick to aspects of the case that have some basis in science.  I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness. 

You can listen to solicitor Ewan Smith's views on JM's testimony in the following.  ES represented JB before joining the CCRC as a commissioner.

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1

According to ES the judge warned the jury about the reliability of JM's testimony.   Samson I think most in the legal world agree the silencer/blood flake underpins JB's conviction.

[APRIL]

She did not for one instant think he was involved that morning, after all, a few hours previously she had told him to go back to sleep.
And a warm or cold embrace is one thing, but well documented plans that involve retaining him as boyfriend and holidaying are inconsistent with the proposition this woman should rise to high places in child management if she knew at the time he was a child killer.

It saddens me to see people so blinded by all this, when the simple explanation is the tale told from day one of the crime by Jeremy Bamber himself.

I think she'd seen Jeremy as a knight in shining armour or a Porsche? who was going to give her a life she'd only dreamed of. I'm not sure that she didn't support his fantasy about how much better his life would be without his parents on his back but I doubt it became real until that phone call. I appreciate that she'd have been reluctant to accuse him over the phone when others were present, and I'm not entirely certain that we know the WHOLE conversation which took place. What we're told of it sounds disjointed. He didn't seem to ring to hear a friendly voice. He did most of the talking. I think she played an ace card by speaking to the police first. It means she only told them what she wanted them to know. I'm inclined to think she may have left a lot out.  I don't believe she could have prevented it from happening because she could offer nothing by way of proof, and I know, from others' experiences that the police can do nothing until a crime is committed. The most she could have done would have been to walk away, but she was 21. Women TWICE her age have been known to stay with criminals/murderers. Not for one moment do I believe she'll ever be entirely free of it.

[Samson]

According to Dr Vincent DiMaio an absence of blood in or on a barrel doesn't preclude a contact shot - see attached.

Re DB I can't find anything about blood in the silencer.  N-NZ seemed to think blood was found in the barrel and travelled all the way through the silencer which way exceeds the maximum distance in Prof Herb MacDonell's research for .22 calibre firearms.

By the time of 65 Every St, DNA testing was available but I can't find anything about anyone's DNA in or on silencer/rifle?

I just spoke to NNZ.
The blood did reach the barrel, through the silencer.
The ammunition was the same velocity as Bamber.
Robin Bain had the full weight of his head, rigid skull/temple sealing the point of entry IMO.
Sheila was resting the gun in a proximate position to find her throat, missed, and realigned to find her brain.
This is soft tissue vs hard, and there is no implied seal. Think the difference between punching cotton wool and a steel door.

Therefore if they truly did swab the barrel in Bamber, there is a common sense physical explanation for no blowback of blood.

Furthermore, when it is blown back it is in the form of mist, not globule. The 1/4 inch flake is a hoax.

This is all my attempt at eating from the tin with common sense on the label.

[david1819]

2) You ignore all the forensic evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed everyone else and herself and only care about the trajectory of her shots nothing else.  That is very shortsighted. If she hugged the weapon to shoot herself then GSR would have been all over her gown.

Wrong.



The above confirms my initial theory.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6965.msg300125#msg300125

and her blood would have been inside the barrel of the rifle.

Wrong.

Instead her blood was in the moderator and it was put away by the killer in the closet, she could not have shot herself with it attached and certainly didn't go put it in the closet after she was dead.

The forensic and circumstantial evidence around the moderator allows an inference to be drawn that provides an alternative explanation for the blood inside in the moderator.

None of your arguments exclude the alternative suspect.

[Samson]

I tend to try and stick to aspects of the case that have some basis in science.  I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness. 

You can listen to solicitor Ewan Smith's views on JM's testimony in the following.  ES represented JB before joining the CCRC as a commissioner.

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1

According to ES the judge warned the jury about the reliability of JM's testimony.   Samson I think most in the legal world agree the silencer/blood flake underpins JB's conviction.

Holly, I can see everywhere the testimony of JM being of vital importance in keeping him in jail. This testimony completely captured Clive Wismayer, who is an enormously sane poster. He is eloquent on Nyki Kish, and solved Dewani before the trial judge sent everyone packing when she saw straight through the hoax. Yet Clive could not see how such detailed testimony could be manufactured and I totally understand that. But of course I agree, the testimony is ultimately consistent with JB innocence, so the kind of deconstruction David has pointed out is vital in the ongoing battle, where he can show that she was told everything because she repeated details with errors.
I have just posted above on the blood flake and Bain.
I can't hear that ES report, something about adobe flash. I would like to hear it if there is another vehicle.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, I can see everywhere the testimony of JM being of vital importance in keeping him in jail.  This testimony completely captured Clive Wismayer, who is an enormously sane poster. He is eloquent on Nyki Kish, and solved Dewani before the trial judge sent everyone packing when she saw straight through the hoax. Yet Clive could not see how such detailed testimony could be manufactured and I totally understand that. But of course I agree, the testimony is ultimately consistent with JB innocence, so the kind of deconstruction David has pointed out is vital in the ongoing battle, where he can show that she was told everything because she repeated details with errors.
I have just posted above on the blood flake and Bain.
I can't hear that ES report, something about adobe flash. I would like to hear it if there is another vehicle.

As I said I think you will find most lawyers will agree the blood/silencer is the sticking point.  We don't have access to JM's and JB's testimony.  I thought transcipts had to be made available upon request but in this case it appears not. 

Journalist David Connett who attended much of the trial and heard JM provide her testimony wasn't impressed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

No I don't have access to the vid in another format.  Do you have adobe on your device?  If not then you will need to download.   

[Holly Goodhead]

I just spoke to NNZ.
The blood did reach the barrel, through the silencer.
The ammunition was the same velocity as Bamber.
Robin Bain had the full weight of his head, rigid skull/temple sealing the point of entry IMO.
Sheila was resting the gun in a proximate position to find her throat, missed, and realigned to find her brain.
This is soft tissue vs hard, and there is no implied seal. Think the difference between punching cotton wool and a steel door.

Therefore if they truly did swab the barrel in Bamber, there is a common sense physical explanation for no blowback of blood.

Furthermore, when it is blown back it is in the form of mist, not globule. The 1/4 inch flake is a hoax.

This is all my attempt at eating from the tin with common sense on the label.

No disrespect to N-NZ but I would like to see some official docs re the silencer/blood and I've been unable to find any.  The rifle with silencer attached ? was used to shoot multiple victims with SB sustaining a beating and RB a contact shot so surely the blood on/in rifle/silencer was analysed?

[Samson]

No disrespect to N-NZ but I would like to see some official docs re the silencer/blood and I've been unable to find any.  The rifle with silencer attached ? was used to shoot multiple victims with SB sustaining a beating and RB a contact shot so surely the blood on/in rifle/silencer was analysed?

As I said a mist of blood went right down silencer to gun barrel. There is definitely documentation and proof or NNZ would never say it.
There was no debate about whether there was a silencer attached, so the science is not dispute, but of course the fact of blood in the barrel entailed a contact shot for the finale. Each previous bullet cleans the barrel, if not the silencer baffles. It is curious that DB was jailed on a non contact shot to Robin, which is impossible with both ring of soot and blood in gun barrel.

NNZ's point is simple. There will be blood in both silencer and barrel, or blood in neither as a probability. Once the drawn in mist is travelling it does not stop at the end of the silencer, therefore the silencer was not attached when Sheila shot herself.

[Samson]

From NNZ

Peter Ross, p3653-3654 Bain retrial

A. It wasn’t provided to me, so it’s something which I haven't seen.
Q. If the case note records that, “Blood was found on the silencer, extensive smearing and traces of blood were also found inside the barrel, positive,” that’s what it’s saying here. Does that accord with the answer you gave Mr Mander in relation to the vacuum effect and hard contact wound?
A. Oh it does, it indicates that, I mean, there are a number of people who have been shot. It indicates that at least one of those suffered a relatively hard contact wound.


questions from the court: 3653 -54

Q. One of those Mr Ross, I take it that if there's blood in the barrel it would have to be from the last firing of the rifle that it was vacuumed in?
A. It is far more likely sir because of the movement of the gases, the bullet is designed that it fits very, very snugly into the barrel so any biological material would largely be removed, so it really comes down to the final shot.