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: LuminousWanderer on March 20, 2018, 10:40:38 AM
-
I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions.
First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there. I don't know if he is guilty or not. If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread. My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe.
If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.
Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence. However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions. I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained. That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.
Some questions that spring to mind are below. These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice. My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues.
Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions. I will expand on my thoughts later.
Questions:
Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both?
Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims? If so, which of the victims?
Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood? If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?
Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call? Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect? If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?
Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly. The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.
Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?
Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths? If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions? What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance? What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?
Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths? If so, what are the details?
Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm? If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?
Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?
I may have more questions later, but that will do for now. I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.
-
Questions:
Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both?
Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims? If so, which of the victims?
Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood? If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?
Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call? Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect? If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?
Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly. The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.
Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?
Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths? If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions? What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance? What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?
Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths? If so, what are the details?
Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm? If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?
Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?
I may have more questions later, but that will do for now. I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.
Q1 There is no forensic evidence which can link JB directly to the murders as he had access to the farmhouse and the rifle on a daily basis so any connection to him could easily be explained away.
Q2 No contact gunshot wounds on any of the other victims.
Q3 The sound moderator did contain Sheila's blood. As far as I am aware JB doesn't dispute this as he claims she shot herself.
Q4 From memory, NB told Jeremy to come over quickly, that Sheila had gone crazy and had the rifle. His version of events has not changed.
Q5 The police are very clear about the telephone logs. Only JB telephoned the police and not both of them. No police officer or civilian operator received any call from Nevill Bamber. Only Bamber supporters have claimed that NB phoned the police but this is not supported by the evidence.
Q6 As the local telephone exchange was of the old switch type there was no way of checking JB's claim.
Q7 Jeremy Bamber sought out his parents wills prior to the murders, he knew that he and Sheila would inherit from their adoptive parents. He knew that if Sheila and her son's also died that he would inherit the lot.
Q8 Nevill Bamber kept Jeremy on a tight leash. He got his wages from the farm, was given a cottage in Goldhanger rent free and was given several thousand pounds to pay debts and travel costs associated with his trip to New Zealand. He also had a car bought for him plus was given some help to furnish his cottage.
Q9 Sheila hated guns to the extent she wouldn't even allow her twin sons to play with toy guns. She had no recent experience of guns. She did handle a gun previously on a shooting trip but she had no real knowledge of how they worked.
Q10 We know from the evidence that only Jeremy or Sheila could have done it. Jeremy blames Sheila off course. The evidence however shows that Sheila could not have done it.
-
Thanks. Your responses seem to represent what might be characterised as the 'anti-Bamber' side (apologies if that's clumsy in your case), so I'll be interested to know what others with a different view think.
For now, let me briefly respond to your points: please see below. This is not to initiate some sort of lengthy debate/argument, and let me stress again, I take NO definitive view on Bamber's culpability, as I do not believe that is a fruitful avenue. My interest purely is in the legal safety of the conviction, a different question.
Q1 There is no forensic evidence which can link JB directly to the murders as he had access to the farmhouse and the rifle on a daily basis so any connection to him could easily be explained away.
Noted, but isn't this just another way of saying that the crime scene wasn't adequately controlled and investigated by the police? Surely, if Bamber did this (and to be clear, I'm NOT saying he did or didn't), there would be ample forensic opportunities, including (inter alia) evidence of a physical altercation with at least Nevill. Looking at this objectively, would you accept that the absence of forensic evidence is a major flaw in the Crown's case? (You can treat that as an isolated question - I am not trying to back you into a corner or trick you).
Q2 No contact gunshot wounds on any of the other victims.
My question was: Were contact wounds inflicted on ANY of the victims. Are you saying there were no contact wounds? Sorry but I'm not quite clear on your reply.
Q3 The sound moderator did contain Sheila's blood. As far as I am aware JB doesn't dispute this as he claims she shot herself.
For me, this raises at least one further question, but I will defer on that for now. I'd like to have an answer to Q2 above first, please.
Q4 From memory, NB told Jeremy to come over quickly, that Sheila had gone crazy and had the rifle. His version of events has not changed.
Noted.
Q5 The police are very clear about the telephone logs. Only JB telephoned the police and not both of them. No police officer or civilian operator received any call from Nevill Bamber. Only Bamber supporters have claimed that NB phoned the police but this is not supported by the evidence.
Thanks, but unfortunately I will have to differ from you on this point. The telephone logs, on their face, are evidence of two separate phone calls from two different people. That is clear to anybody who looks at the documents, which read the same way whether you are pro- or anti-Bamber, or indifferent like me. That is not to say the telephone logs record the whole story: there's a context to this, I appreciate, and we must leave open the possibility that these documents in fact only recorded one telephone call.
And on that last point, let's assume you are probably right about this; we'll assume - just for the moment - that we think only one phone call was made. Is there any witness evidence from a police operator confirming this, that the telephone logs are evidence of only one call? This should preferably come from the operator who actually took the call and spoke at length to Bamber. Does such evidence exist?
Q6 As the local telephone exchange was of the old switch type there was no way of checking JB's claim.
Yes, but would it be technically possible for such a call to be diverted to a local police operator? I appreciate this is nitpicking, but there may be something in it. My initial thought would be that when dialling 999 it is necessary to speak to an operator to identify the emergency service required, so Bamber can't have been diverted in the way I speculate, but the set-up back then might have been different in some parts of the country. Alternatively, Bamber may have called 999, got through to the emergency operator, who then put him through to a local police station.
Q7 Jeremy Bamber sought out his parents wills prior to the murders, he knew that he and Sheila would inherit from their adoptive parents. He knew that if Sheila and her son's also died that he would inherit the lot.
Noted. Did Bamber receive formal confirmation of the legal position from Nevill's solicitors or from his own lawyer, or was he reliant on Nevill's word on the matter?
Q8 Nevill Bamber kept Jeremy on a tight leash. He got his wages from the farm, was given a cottage in Goldhanger rent free and was given several thousand pounds to pay debts and travel costs associated with his trip to New Zealand. He also had a car bought for him plus was given some help to furnish his cottage.
Noted.
Q9 Sheila hated guns to the extent she wouldn't even allow her twin sons to play with toy guns. She had no recent experience of guns. She did handle a gun previously on a shooting trip but she had no real knowledge of how they worked.
Noted, but you've just contradicted yourself. She clearly did have experience of guns, as you yourself state. If she did handle guns previously, that means she must have had at least a rudimentary working knowledge of how they worked. How recent was the shooting trip, and how many of these shooting trips and other gun-related excursions had she been on? How old were these twin sons whom she didn't allow to play with guns?
Q10 We know from the evidence that only Jeremy or Sheila could have done it. Jeremy blames Sheila off course. The evidence however shows that Sheila could not have done it.
How do we know from the evidence that only Jeremy or Sheila could have done it? Not that I doubt this, but I wish to establish why precisely. A painfully obvious question, perhaps, but important.
-
Q1. No.
Q2. NC sustained at least 1 contact gsw
Q3. The blood found inside the silencer was tested by way of blood serology. This type of testing was the precursor to DNA although the method used is the same. Enzymes and proteins present in blood are analysed using gel electrophoresis which measures size and charge of macromolecules. SC's blood serology groups were shared by about 8% of unrelated white British people.
Q4. In the absence of a recording we are reliant upon listening skills and memories. The most reliable seems to be:
NB: "Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun".
There are various takes in this link:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
Q5. If you drill down a call from NB to EP doesn't stack up.
Q6. Why would there be? By JB's own admission he looked up the number for the local station and dialled it.
Q7. JB said he was aware of the contents of the wills having looked at them although I don't believe that was recent to the murders. Broadly speaking once NB and June passed, SC and JB would inherit 50:50.
Q8. Putting aside JB's remuneration for working at WHF and OCP I understand his parents helped fund his trips to Oz and NZ.
Q9. How would anyone know SC's level of experience with firearms? She may have let off a few shots in NB's company or in the company of others over the years eg school friends etc. JB said SC had some experience. The soc is indicative of an inexperienced shooter compared with other mass shootings inside private dwellings eg Bain and DeFeo. By this I mean number of cartridges used and number of shots sustained by NB and June. JB was a marksman at Greshams so if he's responsible he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and manic.
Q10. Not really, no. JB's claims of a phone call from NB:
"Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun"
pretty much narrows it down to JB or SC.
-
I came here initially with interest of The Bamber Case. I got diverted. But that's another thing.
I have read more about Jeremy Bamber than I can remember. But others are more au fait.
I still don't know what I believe, but it for certain sure it was an unsafe conviction.
-
Q1. No.
Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?
Q2. NC sustained at least 1 contact gsw
But not Sheila? If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox? How did it get there?
Q3. The blood found inside the silencer was tested by way of blood serology. This type of testing was the precursor to DNA although the method used is the same. Enzymes and proteins present in blood are analysed using gel electrophoresis which measures size and charge of macromolecules. SC's blood serology groups were shared by about 8% of unrelated white British people.
It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this. What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's. A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.
Q4. In the absence of a recording we are reliant upon listening skills and memories. The most reliable seems to be:
NB: "Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun".
There are various takes in this link:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
Noted. The gun? Did the family have only one gun in the house? Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?
Q5. If you drill down a call from NB to EP doesn't stack up.
This doesn't address the telephone logs. How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill? Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999?
Q6. Why would there be? By JB's own admission he looked up the number for the local station and dialled it.
Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked. Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did? Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points. He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented. It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.
Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility. Looks like nobody has.
Q7. JB said he was aware of the contents of the wills having looked at them although I don't believe that was recent to the murders. Broadly speaking once NB and June passed, SC and JB would inherit 50:50.
Noted. The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway? The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill. I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented. You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait. Motive is not probative anyway, of course.
Q8. Putting aside JB's remuneration for working at WHF and OCP I understand his parents helped fund his trips to Oz and NZ.
Noted.
Q9. How would anyone know SC's level of experience with firearms? She may have let off a few shots in NB's company or in the company of others over the years eg school friends etc. JB said SC had some experience. The soc is indicative of an inexperienced shooter compared with other mass shootings inside private dwellings eg Bain and DeFeo. By this I mean number of cartridges used and number of shots sustained by NB and June. JB was a marksman at Greshams so if he's responsible he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and manic.
Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself. You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms! I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.
Q10. Not really, no. JB's claims of a phone call from NB:
"Sheilas gone crazy she's got the gun"
pretty much narrows it down to JB or SC.
Sorry, but again on this point I must – very respectfully – disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty.
If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle. That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it – that would just be a further assumption on your part. I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it needn’t follow. To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.
If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people? You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, that’s easy, Bamber ISN’T telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did. I’m not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard – you may well be right – but I’m saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.
It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside. That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila. But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?
-
I came here initially with interest of The Bamber Case. I got diverted. But that's another thing.
I have read more about Jeremy Bamber than I can remember. But others are more au fait.
I still don't know what I believe, but it for certain sure it was an unsafe conviction.
Well, let's see!
-
Nevill - No contact shots.
June - No contact shots.
Daniel - No contact shots.
Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter.
Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9056.msg428397.html#msg428397
-
It is human blood in the silencer & Sheila's.
Some supporters say the relatives scrapped period blood off soaking wet underwear into the silencer. Then scratched the aga without knowing what the already taken kitchen crime scene photos showed.
Others say the police fabricated the silencer then asked the relatives to sign false witness statements saying they found the silencer. Why the police did this no one has said.
-
Nevill - No contact shots.
June - No contact shots.
Daniel - No contact shots.
Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter.
Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.
Thanks. The implications from the blood-splattered moderator do require that we accept the provenance of the find and also rely on the conclusion of the forensics, but looking at this narrowly in terms of legal safety, it does not look good for Bamber. If you put all this together and accept the relevant evidence at face value, Sheila could not have killed herself with the moderator attached to the firearm, nor could she have detached the moderator before shooting herself, as the moderator was found elsewhere.
-
It is human blood in the silencer & Sheila's.
Is it, though? That's the question. Somebody else in one of the comments above seems to be admitting that it wasn't an exact match, more of a broad statistical match.
Has there been any attempt to independently re-verify the test result?
Also, has anybody run tests with the same firearm to evaluate the extent of noise suppression when using the moderator? We can assume Bamber was familiar with these types of guns, so if I follow this correctly, the presumed motive in utilising the moderator was to avoid alerting anybody near the farmhouse to what was going on. He then placed the moderator back in the cupboard (or wherever it was) as he realised it would not make sense for the theory of 'Sheila-as-shooter' to leave it on the firearm. But why leave the moderator around to be found? Why not just take it and dispose of it?
-
Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?
No. The jury no doubt found the blood/silencer very compelling as evidenced by questions to the judge. I agree the whole crux of the case IMO is how the test results from the lab came about!?
But not Sheila? If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox? How did it get there?
Apologies I thought you had some basic understanding of the case. I took it as read you were aware SC sustained a contact gsw. I agree the whole crux of the case is how the test results from the lab came about!?
It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this. What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's. A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.
A more neutral way? I quoted from expert testimony.
Noted. The gun? Did the family have only one gun in the house? Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?
The murder weapon was actually a rifle so you could ask why NB didn't say 'Sheilas gone crazy she's got the rifle'. You might also ask why Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution referred to the rifle as a shotgun during the trial. If you're expecting all concerned demonstrating attention to detail you will be sorely disappointed.
This doesn't address the telephone logs. How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill? Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999?
The receive and send boxes make no mention to NB. It's obvious to me the logs are referring to JB's call. Had NB called EP I'm pretty sure word would have gone around on morning of 7th Aug when the gravity of the situation was appreciated.
Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked. Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did? Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points. He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented. It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.
Was he confused? It seems to me he was quite clear in his WS he looked up the number for the local police station in his directory. I'm not sure how one get confused about this?
Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility. Looks like nobody has.
Noted. The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway? The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill. I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented. You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait. Motive is not probative anyway, of course.
Noted.
Think all of this is subjective. Most parents leave their estates to each other and thereafter in equal shares to children. During parents lifetime most are happy to help/indulge their children (adoptive, birth, foster or step) if they're in a position to do so. Today we have the 'bank of mum and dad'.
How many middle class families end up like the Bambers ie murdered to fast-forward an inheritance? It's statistically rare.
Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself. You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms! I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.
Where have I given a potted rundown of SC's experience with firearms?
Sorry, but again on this point I must – very respectfully – disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty.
If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle. That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it – that would just be a further assumption on your part. I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it needn’t follow. To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.
If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people? You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, that’s easy, Bamber ISN’T telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did. I’m not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard – you may well be right – but I’m saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.
It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside. That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila. But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?
The defence and prosecution at trial agreed it was either SC or JB. I think most reasonable minded would agree with this. I'm not in the business of drifting into bizarre conspiracies and theories.
6. Unusually in a case of this kind, it was accepted at trial that there were only two possible explanations for the dreadful events of that night. The first, as alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant had killed all five members of his family, shooting them with a .22 rifle with the probable motive of inheriting the whole of the family estate. The second, the defence case, was that Sheila Caffell, who had a history of mental illness, had murdered her parents and her two sons with the rifle, and had then turned the gun upon herself in an act of suicide. The view realistically accepted by all at trial was that the facts that were common ground enabled any other possibility to be ruled out.
I don't think it was difficult at all (logistically) for SC to murder her parents and children if you understand the soc, whereabouts of victims. Far more difficult for JB based on the prosecution case of all victims sleeping in their respective bedrooms.
-
Most murder cases are in essence very simple and the White House Farm murders are no different. As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila. In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party. This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame. However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.
Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered. A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was. In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress. In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.
These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away. As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him. Either way, he is still guilty.
-
No. The jury no doubt found the blood/silencer very compelling as evidenced by questions to the judge. I agree the whole crux of the case IMO is how the test results from the lab came about!?
I'm not sure I agree. We're left with the indisputable fact that no forensic evidence directly links Bamber to the scene. That is highly significant in its own right. Given the facts alleged, I think the police should have been able to produce some.
Apologies I thought you had some basic understanding of the case. I took it as read you were aware SC sustained a contact gsw. I agree the whole crux of the case is how the test results from the lab came about!?
On this point, I think I agree.
A more neutral way? I quoted from expert testimony.
I don't see how that makes it neutral. The plain fact is that if your summary of the forensic evidence is correct, then the expert testimony does not confirm who the blood was from.
The murder weapon was actually a rifle so you could ask why NB didn't say 'Sheilas gone crazy she's got the rifle'. You might also ask why Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution referred to the rifle as a shotgun during the trial. If you're expecting all concerned demonstrating attention to detail you will be sorely disappointed.
But I'm not appealing for greater attention to detail. You misrepresent my point, which was to query why he might refer to THE [rifle/firearm/shotgun]. Was there just one such weapon in the house? It's a relevant question.
The receive and send boxes make no mention to NB. It's obvious to me the logs are referring to JB's call. Had NB called EP I'm pretty sure word would have gone around on morning of 7th Aug when the gravity of the situation was appreciated.
"Obvious to you" is quite telling, suggesting that it's not obvious at all. If it were, then it would not just be obvious to you, would it. For my part, I am sure of what I have seen. No doubt in my mind. The telephone logs that I have seen are definitely written as if there were two calls from two different people. As I have been at pains to emphasise, that does not mean there were two calls, but in the absence of corroboration for only one call (see my request for this above), it is not unreasonable to take the records on the face of it. If you disagree, then produce the telephone logs on which you base your opinion. That would seem to me the way to resolve this. I will err on the side of caution and rely on your version.
Was he confused? It seems to me he was quite clear in his WS he looked up the number for the local police station in his directory. I'm not sure how one get confused about this?
Means nothing. People get it wrong in witness statements every day of the week and on Sundays. I've already explained why he might have got it wrong. It's a reasonable point that I make.
Think all of this is subjective. Most parents leave their estates to each other and thereafter in equal shares to children. During parents lifetime most are happy to help/indulge their children (adoptive, birth, foster or step) if they're in a position to do so. Today we have the 'bank of mum and dad'.
Of course it's subjective - and that being the case, you'll see that I have pointed out how the argument can be put both ways! Yes, on the face of it, Bamber had a motive to kill. He also had a motive not to kill.
How many middle class families end up like the Bambers ie murdered to fast-forward an inheritance? It's statistically rare.
I don't see your point. You seem to be assuming things backwards. Yes, if we say Bamber killed his parents, inheritance is the obvious motive. The word there is 'if'.
Where have I given a potted rundown of SC's experience with firearms?
The point is that this idea that Sheila wasn't capable of firing a gun is groundless. She had fired guns. I take issue both with you and a commenter above on this point because, the way I read the relevant parts of your posts, you seem keen to give the impression that she couldn't or absolutely wouldn't have fired a gun. In reality, there is no basis for this conclusion.
The defence and prosecution at trial agreed it was either SC or JB. I think most reasonable minded would agree with this. I'm not in the business of drifting into bizarre conspiracies and theories.
Tell me where I have advanced a conspiracy theory here? Nowhere! What I gave you is logic. It is a mere assumption, nothing more, that Sheila must have been the killer if Bamber couldn't have been, or vice versa. That does not mean I think it was a third party. I only speculate.
6. Unusually in a case of this kind, it was accepted at trial that there were only two possible explanations for the dreadful events of that night. The first, as alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant had killed all five members of his family, shooting them with a .22 rifle with the probable motive of inheriting the whole of the family estate. The second, the defence case, was that Sheila Caffell, who had a history of mental illness, had murdered her parents and her two sons with the rifle, and had then turned the gun upon herself in an act of suicide. The view realistically accepted by all at trial was that the facts that were common ground enabled any other possibility to be ruled out.
I disagree with what the court said here - and I have explained why, using logic. As stated, the phone call does not exclude the possibility of a third party. What would make third party involvement improbable is if the farmhouse was secured, and my understanding is that there were no reports of any signs of forced entry, but in that regard I ask again: do we know if the farmhouse was fully locked?
I don't think it was difficult at all (logistically) for SC to murder her parents and children if you understand the soc, whereabouts of victims. Far more difficult for JB based on the prosecution case of all victims sleeping in their respective bedrooms.
Noted.
-
Most murder cases are in essence very simple
Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make? I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple. I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging.
No need to reveal your identity and you can keep it brief. I assume you must have worked as a detective (or in a closely-related role) on murder/manslaughter and unlawful killing investigations?
and the White House Farm murders are no different. As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila.
I agree this is probably the case, but I disagree that it is strictly the case. I have explained above why. I believe third party involvement is possible, but I'm not seriously advancing any theories in that regard, so it's a minor point.
In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party.
No he didn't. You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.
This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame.
Now you are making sense. I agree that if the farmhouse was fully locked, then third party involvement can be excluded, but then that naturally raises the question: was the farmhouse locked? We might never have the answer to that question.
However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.
I also agree with you on this point, but it doesn't prove he did.
Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered.
Excellent! Now all you need to do is tell me where the forensic evidence is. See my complaint above. If Bamber had an altercation with Nevill, there will be forensic traces of Bamber all over the place, yes? Doubtful that Bamber, having just shot five people, would be on his hands and knees, with a pair of tweezers, picking up his own hairs or that he could remove fingerprint and maybe blood traces from the items broken. Indeed, as you seem to be confirming, the crime scene was a mess. If Bamber is the killer, then forensic scruple doesn't seem to have been his strong point - he supposedly left a moderator lying around with blood in it - yet oddly, the police came up with nothing in that department on Bamber himself. Why?
A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was. In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress. In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.
I think you make this point well, but I have three observations:
First, the fact that Nevill was taller/stronger does not preclude the possibility of an altercation. Daughters do have physical 'fights' with their male immediate family members - especially brothers, but sometimes even fathers - and in their own minds, it might not matter that the man or teenage brother, or whatever, is stronger. In fact, that might add to a sense that she can 'push the envelope' a little. Isn't it true that Sheila had mental health issues, or do I have that wrong (apologies if I'm wrong on that point)?
Second, also the fact that Nevill was stronger does not preclude the possibility that, if she did carry out these killings, Sheila might have got the best of him by arming herself. For the purposes of our hypothetical scenario of Sheila as killer, we must remember that Nevill was a Magistrate, therefore he would have had to be doubly cautious for that reason and on account that Sheila had a gun. Also, like any man, Nevill would have been quite reticent, maybe even reluctant, about harming Sheila. His aim would have been to overpower her, but we go back to the fact that in our scenario she is the one with a gun. (For now, I will assume it's the only gun in the house: I did query that point above, but have not had a reply).
Maybe Sheila managed to fend Nevill off and then kill him, despite him being stronger? Maybe that explains the mess in the kitchen? Thinking about it, would an altercation between Jeremy, a strong young man, and Nevill, an elderly man, result in such a struggle? Wouldn't Jeremy be able to overpower him easily? I know when I was about the age Jeremy was at that time, I could have overpowered my late father very easily, had I wanted to, and he was only in his late 40s/early 50s.
Third, what Sheila's remains reveal is that she was shot. I see no reason why her clothing would include traces of her father's blood, given the manner in which we would presume she would have shot him - if she did (and I am NOT saying she did). And I don't see what "signs of a struggle" would entail, but let's say we can agree on that point, I don't believe the absence of superficial signs of a struggle proves she didn't struggle with her father and other individuals in the house. The lack of glass shards on her feet would only be significant if she should have had such on her feet, which in turn depends on where the glass was in the kitchen in relation to her. My point is that it's not conclusive. A different example I would come up with is the lack of torn clothing - that doesn't prove that she didn't struggle, either with Bamber (assuming he is the culprit) or with Nevill (assuming she is the culprit).
These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away.
Sorry to disagree, but this case is NOT indisputable. Bamber has not confessed or made admissions. He vigorously protests his innocence and there are points of issue with almost everything you have said here.
As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him. Either way, he is still guilty.
I am not interested in pronouncing the guilt or innocence of people. You may have some kind of personal interest in the case. If you are a member of the victims' family, then I sincerely apologise and offer you my genuine condolences.
-
Am I correct in thinking that the scene wasn't thoroughly, forensically examined?
Other than the silencer, which was obviously recovered some time after the clean up, we seem to have nothing more than a few photographs.
How long did it take for 'the relatives' to raise their concerns about Jeremy, to the Police?
-
Re Nevill -allegedly- saying "THE gun" as opposed to "A gun". THE gun may well have been an earlier bone of contention between Nevill and Jeremy. It's not impossible that Nevill had told Jeremy to put THE gun away, as in he was fed up with tidying up behind him. Psychologically, though, it may be Jeremy's way of reminding us -as a part of his alibi, it's an important part of the story- that he'd left A gun laying around and it was this -THE gun- that Sheila was said to have been in possession of.
-
Most murder cases are in essence very simple and the White House Farm murders are no different. As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila. In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party. This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame. However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.
Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered. A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was. In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress. In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.
These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away. As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him. Either way, he is still guilty.
There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.
Bamber protests his innocence & like any other convicted criminal in a famous case who does this, will attract a few supporters. Supporting him for different reasons such as 'gut feelings', conspiracy theories, wanting a purpose in life or believing they are smarter than the law. Always trying to find a way to achieve the impossible.
LuminousWanderer is obviously not very well read on the case & is looking for a way out for Bamber. Going through things which have been discussed before.
-
There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.
I agree Adam.
Jeremy Bamber has made numerous Freudian slips over the years and continues to do so
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6620.0
An example:
Caroline posts -
"According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
Luminouswanderer does not appear to have taken the above into account?
-
Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make? I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple. I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging.
No need to reveal your identity and you can keep it brief. I assume you must have worked as a detective (or in a closely-related role) on murder/manslaughter and unlawful killing investigations?
I agree this is probably the case, but I disagree that it is strictly the case. I have explained above why. I believe third party involvement is possible, but I'm not seriously advancing any theories in that regard, so it's a minor point.
No he didn't. You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.
Now you are making sense. I agree that if the farmhouse was fully locked, then third party involvement can be excluded, but then that naturally raises the question: was the farmhouse locked? We might never have the answer to that question.
I also agree with you on this point, but it doesn't prove he did.
Excellent! Now all you need to do is tell me where the forensic evidence is. See my complaint above. If Bamber had an altercation with Nevill, there will be forensic traces of Bamber all over the place, yes? Doubtful that Bamber, having just shot five people, would be on his hands and knees, with a pair of tweezers, picking up his own hairs or that he could remove fingerprint and maybe blood traces from the items broken. Indeed, as you seem to be confirming, the crime scene was a mess. If Bamber is the killer, then forensic scruple doesn't seem to have been his strong point - he supposedly left a moderator lying around with blood in it - yet oddly, the police came up with nothing in that department on Bamber himself. Why?
I think you make this point well, but I have three observations:
First, the fact that Nevill was taller/stronger does not preclude the possibility of an altercation. Daughters do have physical 'fights' with their male immediate family members - especially brothers, but sometimes even fathers - and in their own minds, it might not matter that the man or teenage brother, or whatever, is stronger. In fact, that might add to a sense that she can 'push the envelope' a little. Isn't it true that Sheila had mental health issues, or do I have that wrong (apologies if I'm wrong on that point)?
Second, also the fact that Nevill was stronger does not preclude the possibility that, if she did carry out these killings, Sheila might have got the best of him by arming herself. For the purposes of our hypothetical scenario of Sheila as killer, we must remember that Nevill was a Magistrate, therefore he would have had to be doubly cautious for that reason and on account that Sheila had a gun. Also, like any man, Nevill would have been quite reticent, maybe even reluctant, about harming Sheila. His aim would have been to overpower her, but we go back to the fact that in our scenario she is the one with a gun. (For now, I will assume it's the only gun in the house: I did query that point above, but have not had a reply).
Maybe Sheila managed to fend Nevill off and then kill him, despite him being stronger? Maybe that explains the mess in the kitchen? Thinking about it, would an altercation between Jeremy, a strong young man, and Nevill, an elderly man, result in such a struggle? Wouldn't Jeremy be able to overpower him easily? I know when I was about the age Jeremy was at that time, I could have overpowered my late father very easily, had I wanted to, and he was only in his late 40s/early 50s.
Third, what Sheila's remains reveal is that she was shot. I see no reason why her clothing would include traces of her father's blood, given the manner in which we would presume she would have shot him - if she did (and I am NOT saying she did). And I don't see what "signs of a struggle" would entail, but let's say we can agree on that point, I don't believe the absence of superficial signs of a struggle proves she didn't struggle with her father and other individuals in the house. The lack of glass shards on her feet would only be significant if she should have had such on her feet, which in turn depends on where the glass was in the kitchen in relation to her. My point is that it's not conclusive. A different example I would come up with is the lack of torn clothing - that doesn't prove that she didn't struggle, either with Bamber (assuming he is the culprit) or with Nevill (assuming she is the culprit).
Sorry to disagree, but this case is NOT indisputable. Bamber has not confessed or made admissions. He vigorously protests his innocence and there are points of issue with almost everything you have said here.
I am not interested in pronouncing the guilt or innocence of people. You may have some kind of personal interest in the case. If you are a member of the victims' family, then I sincerely apologise and offer you my genuine condolences.
Are these your projections Luminouswanderer?
-
I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions.
First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there. I don't know if he is guilty or not. If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread. My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe.
If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.
Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence. However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions. I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained. That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.
Some questions that spring to mind are below. These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice. My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues.
Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions. I will expand on my thoughts later.
Questions:
Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both?
Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims? If so, which of the victims?
Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood? If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?
Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call? Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect? If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?
Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly. The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.
Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?
Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths? If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions? What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance? What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?
Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths? If so, what are the details?
Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm? If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?
Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?
I may have more questions later, but that will do for now. I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.
Are you legally qualified?
-
Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make? I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple. I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging.
No need to reveal your identity and you can keep it brief. I assume you must have worked as a detective (or in a closely-related role) on murder/manslaughter and unlawful killing investigations?
I agree this is probably the case, but I disagree that it is strictly the case. I have explained above why. I believe third party involvement is possible, but I'm not seriously advancing any theories in that regard, so it's a minor point.
No he didn't. You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.
Now you are making sense. I agree that if the farmhouse was fully locked, then third party involvement can be excluded, but then that naturally raises the question: was the farmhouse locked? We might never have the answer to that question.
I also agree with you on this point, but it doesn't prove he did.
Excellent! Now all you need to do is tell me where the forensic evidence is. See my complaint above. If Bamber had an altercation with Nevill, there will be forensic traces of Bamber all over the place, yes? Doubtful that Bamber, having just shot five people, would be on his hands and knees, with a pair of tweezers, picking up his own hairs or that he could remove fingerprint and maybe blood traces from the items broken. Indeed, as you seem to be confirming, the crime scene was a mess. If Bamber is the killer, then forensic scruple doesn't seem to have been his strong point - he supposedly left a moderator lying around with blood in it - yet oddly, the police came up with nothing in that department on Bamber himself. Why?
I think you make this point well, but I have three observations:
First, the fact that Nevill was taller/stronger does not preclude the possibility of an altercation. Daughters do have physical 'fights' with their male immediate family members - especially brothers, but sometimes even fathers - and in their own minds, it might not matter that the man or teenage brother, or whatever, is stronger. In fact, that might add to a sense that she can 'push the envelope' a little. Isn't it true that Sheila had mental health issues, or do I have that wrong (apologies if I'm wrong on that point)?
Second, also the fact that Nevill was stronger does not preclude the possibility that, if she did carry out these killings, Sheila might have got the best of him by arming herself. For the purposes of our hypothetical scenario of Sheila as killer, we must remember that Nevill was a Magistrate, therefore he would have had to be doubly cautious for that reason and on account that Sheila had a gun. Also, like any man, Nevill would have been quite reticent, maybe even reluctant, about harming Sheila. His aim would have been to overpower her, but we go back to the fact that in our scenario she is the one with a gun. (For now, I will assume it's the only gun in the house: I did query that point above, but have not had a reply).
Maybe Sheila managed to fend Nevill off and then kill him, despite him being stronger? Maybe that explains the mess in the kitchen? Thinking about it, would an altercation between Jeremy, a strong young man, and Nevill, an elderly man, result in such a struggle? Wouldn't Jeremy be able to overpower him easily? I know when I was about the age Jeremy was at that time, I could have overpowered my late father very easily, had I wanted to, and he was only in his late 40s/early 50s.
Third, what Sheila's remains reveal is that she was shot. I see no reason why her clothing would include traces of her father's blood, given the manner in which we would presume she would have shot him - if she did (and I am NOT saying she did). And I don't see what "signs of a struggle" would entail, but let's say we can agree on that point, I don't believe the absence of superficial signs of a struggle proves she didn't struggle with her father and other individuals in the house. The lack of glass shards on her feet would only be significant if she should have had such on her feet, which in turn depends on where the glass was in the kitchen in relation to her. My point is that it's not conclusive. A different example I would come up with is the lack of torn clothing - that doesn't prove that she didn't struggle, either with Bamber (assuming he is the culprit) or with Nevill (assuming she is the culprit).
Sorry to disagree, but this case is NOT indisputable. Bamber has not confessed or made admissions. He vigorously protests his innocence and there are points of issue with almost everything you have said here.
I am not interested in pronouncing the guilt or innocence of people. You may have some kind of personal interest in the case. If you are a member of the victims' family, then I sincerely apologise and offer you my genuine condolences.
It's common for many prisoners to not confess to their crimes and maintain their innocence.
There are points of issue with almost everything John has said in your opinion. Maybe you should familiarise yourself with some of the Court of appeals docs and those written by the CCRC in relation to this case?
Maybe it is you who has some kind of personal interest in this case and are unable to be objective in this case?
Further re Jeremy Bamber and his Freudian slips http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5265.0.html
Caroline posts - "They say every criminal makes at least one mistake which gives them away. It may be subtle and on the face of it, may seem unimportant until you think about it. The following excerpt from one of Ann Eaton's statements has bugged me since first reading it - a perfectly innocent comment about his father's wallet doesn't seem too sinister on the surface. However, how did Jeremy know how much was in the wallet? Is it likely that Neville would broadcast the contents of his wallet? Such things are surely not discussed - but Jeremy knew how much was in the wallet and the other contents - as though he had recently looked inside it.
Did he count it after killing five people, leaving it behind to claim later? And in his haste to find it, did he make a Freudian slip?
-
Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?
But not Sheila? If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox? How did it get there?
It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this. What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's. A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.
Noted. The gun? Did the family have only one gun in the house? Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?
This doesn't address the telephone logs. How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill? Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999?
Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked. Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did? Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points. He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented. It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.
Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility. Looks like nobody has.
Noted. The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway? The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill. I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented. You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait. Motive is not probative anyway, of course.
Noted.
Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself. You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms! I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.
Sorry, but again on this point I must – very respectfully – disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty.
If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle. That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it – that would just be a further assumption on your part. I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it needn’t follow. To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.
If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people? You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, that’s easy, Bamber ISN’T telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did. I’m not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard – you may well be right – but I’m saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.
It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside. That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila. But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?
Do you have excuses for the numerous contradictions Jeremy Bamber has made?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6631.0
Numerous Freudian slips and contradictions etc made by Jeremy Bamber are surely all basic questions any jury member or indeed non legally qualified person would want answers to?
-
There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.
That's a sweeping statement of amazing encyclopaedic scope. You must realise that all you are doing there is expressing an idle opinion that is completely worthless.
protests his innocence & like any other convicted criminal in a famous case who does this, will attract a few supporters. Supporting him for different reasons such as 'gut feelings', conspiracy theories, wanting a purpose in life or believing they are smarter than the law. Always trying to find a way to achieve the impossible.
I've already stated my purpose: which is to form my own view about the legal safety of Bamber's convictions. Inevitably, this means I am going to want to 'test' the assumptions being made here. The reason you disagree with this approach is because, like John (see above) you have appointed yourself judge and jury, because it fulfils your emotional needs. Yours is not a rational or intellectual approach to the case.
LuminousWanderer is obviously not very well read on the case & is looking for a way out for Bamber. Going through things which have been discussed before.
This is nonsense. I have no view about his guilt or innocence, and if at any stage my comments come across as leaning towards Bamber, that will only be because there is a clear bias on this Forum against him, which I need to compensate for. It arises from the tone of the Forum, no other reason.
For instance, somebody on here might say: "Bamber definitely did X and absolutely is guilty, no question". If I am approaching the Bamber case as a skeptic, I will then have to respond by demolishing this, not because I think Bamber is innocent (I take no view one way or the other), but because the initial statement requires it.
I notice there is also another forum on the web where the bias is in the other direction, towards Bamber. If I was posting on there, the compensation would go the other way, and probably commenters of low intelligence, like you, would accuse me of being 'anti-Bamber'. I can't win!
Again, to reiterate - I am neither pro- nor anti-Bamber. I'm not taking sides.
Do you actually have anything useful to say about this case, or are you just opinionating?
-
Am I correct in thinking that the scene wasn't thoroughly, forensically examined?
Other than the silencer, which was obviously recovered some time after the clean up, we seem to have nothing more than a few photographs.
How long did it take for 'the relatives' to raise their concerns about Jeremy, to the Police?
I think the lack of direct forensic implication of Bamber is a major hole in the Crown's case. Quite simply, there is nothing to link Jeremy Bamber to the crime.
But probably Bamber came under suspicion from the start. To be fair, he is intuitively a reasonable suspect and personally I would be wary of going down this route of 'blaming the relatives' without hard proof. My interest here is in the legal safety of the conviction, therefore hard evidence.
If you want to develop your comment further, you could for instance try and find out what forensic work was done at the crime scene, when and how police suspicions about Bamber formed, and also when and what the relatives were saying to the police, when they became involved, what the statements say, etc.
Did any evidence change hands between the police and the relatives? We know about the moderator. Anything else?
-
Then the same question to you: would you accept that, when considered in isolation, the lack of direct forensic evidence against Bamber is a major flaw in the Crown's case, given the facts alleged by the police?
But not Sheila? If not Sheila, then doesn't the blood found in the moderator present a glaring paradox? How did it get there?
It's the last sentence of your response that I think unravels this. What you're really telling us is that the blood found was not definitely Sheila's. A more neutral way of saying the same thing would be: We don't know whose blood it was.
Noted. The gun? Did the family have only one gun in the house? Wouldn't he have said: "She's got one of my guns..."?
This doesn't address the telephone logs. How do you explain the entries in the log that appear to record the call from Nevill? Why are you so sure that Nevill could not have dialled 999?
Yes, but Bamber was confused about this, and (in my view, unfairly) has had his statements on the point nick-picked. Was it actually his own admission or did he in fact dial 999 and then later was told he had been speaking to the local station, and he then tried to explain this, having forgotten what he actually did? Perfectly plausible.
People under stress can have defective memories on such points. He was woken in the middle of the night, would have been tired and disoriented. It's not difficult to see that he might have got it completely wrong about a detail like this, or made an odd decision about who to ring, etc.
Anyway, my question was whether anybody had looked into the possibility. Looks like nobody has.
Noted. The question this raises in my mind is would he be so callous as to kill the others as well as (bad enough) his adoptive parents, and would he have done this knowing that somewhere down the line he was inheriting 50% anyway? The other gentleman who replied to me above explained that Bamber was already being kept by Nevill. I'm not convinced that the financial motive is as straight-forward as often presented. You could argue that he simply killed for the inheritance and there was no more to it, in which case his actions were naive as much as evil, but you could equally turn that logic on its side and point out that Bamber was already a kept man and just had to wait. Motive is not probative anyway, of course.
Noted.
Noted, but again, like the commenter above, you contradict yourself. You plaintively ask how anyone could know Sheila's experience with firearms, before giving me a potted rundown of her experience - with firearms! I'm not convinced that Sheila was naive with firearms.
Sorry, but again on this point I must – very respectfully – disagree: not necessarily with your conclusion, but with your reasoning, which I find faulty.
If we start from the assumption that Bamber is telling the truth about the phone call, that means we know Sheila was going crazy with the rifle. That does not mean she killed anybody with the rifle, or even fired it – that would just be a further assumption on your part. I accept that, if Bamber is telling the truth, it probably does follow in reality that Sheila was the killer, but it needn’t follow. To be clear, there is an assumption at work that has led you to that conclusion, and assumptions of that kind can be dangerous.
If we start from the premise that the telephone logs are correct on their face, ergo Bamber is telling the truth, that raises an obvious question: how did Sheila manage to kill all those people? You will circumvent this difficulty by saying: Oh, that’s easy, Bamber ISN’T telling the truth and we can resolve the equation by making him responsible and fitting the evidence around that hypothesis: which is exactly what the police did. I’m not necessarily doubting your judgement in that regard – you may well be right – but I’m saying that that is not the only way of resolving the equation.
It seems to me that the key fact here is that the farmhouse was supposedly locked-up from the inside. That, and not the phone call, is what leads people to the conclusion that Bamber is the only alternative to Sheila. But do we know if the farmhouse actually was fully locked, all entrances?
Why did Jeremy Bamber insist on having things like carpets and bedding from WHF burned so soon after the murders?
And why has he never commented on this fact since his conviction?
If he were innocent surely he would have regret in this regard?
-
I agree Adam.
Jeremy Bamber has made numerous Freudian slips over the years and continues to do so
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6620.0
An example:
Caroline posts -
"According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
Luminouswanderer does not appear to have taken the above into account?
The projection is found in this post. I am asking questions about the case because I want to form an opinion about the legal safety of the conviction. You, on the other hand, have appointed yourself as judge and jury. If you have something relevant to say, then say it. This is not a wrestling bout, or shouldn't be. It's people like you who turn it into one.
Turning to the information you provide, what do you mean by a "Freudian slip"? You may want to examine your use of the phrase, as it's more helpful to Bamber than you realise. Verily, Bamber may have made a Freudian slip there. He was recollecting a night in which he claims (I'm not suggesting he is telling the truth) that he had received a call from Nevill telling him that Sheila was going mad with the gun. That being the case, he WOULD have had fearful feelings of being shot. The subconscious feelings at work might have been a more deep-seated and irrational anxiety about his adoptive family, whom he was in tension with and whom he might have feared could kill him to secure his inheritance.
Looking at it that way, Bamber's hesitant and apparently odd behaviour on receiving the very strange call from Nevill doesn't seem so out-of-place. Not that I am affirming Bamber's version of events, of course.
-
Nevill - No contact shots.
June - No contact shots.
Daniel - No contact shots.
Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter.
Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.
At the end of the day the distance of shots was gauged by Malcolm Fletcher based on the abrasion rings and powder tattooing depicted in soc images. This is MF "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
Most likely anatomical location for 'drawback' to occur is the head. Although I have read hair can impede blood flight.
-
I think the lack of direct forensic implication of Bamber is a major hole in the Crown's case. Quite simply, there is nothing to link Jeremy Bamber to the crime.
Your statement is not legally factual
Quite simply, a jury found Jeremy Bamber guilty in a court of law therefore the Crowns case was clearly stronger than that of the defence.
-
Re Nevill -allegedly- saying "THE gun" as opposed to "A gun". THE gun may well have been an earlier bone of contention between Nevill and Jeremy. It's not impossible that Nevill had told Jeremy to put THE gun away, as in he was fed up with tidying up behind him. Psychologically, though, it may be Jeremy's way of reminding us -as a part of his alibi, it's an important part of the story- that he'd left A gun laying around and it was this -THE gun- that Sheila was said to have been in possession of.
That's a very good comment.
Thank you.
-
Are these your projections Luminouswanderer?
And they would be projections of what? Is asking questions now evidence of neurotic behaviour? What unwanted feelings have I shown evidence of in these supposed "projections"?
-
The projection is found in this post. I am asking questions about the case because I want to form an opinion about the legal safety of the conviction. You, on the other hand, have appointed yourself as judge and jury. If you have something relevant to say, then say it. This is not a wrestling bout, or shouldn't be. It's people like you who turn it into one.
Turning to the information you provide, what do you mean by a "Freudian slip"? You may want to examine your use of the phrase, as it's more helpful to Bamber than you realise. Verily, Bamber may have made a Freudian slip there. He was recollecting a night in which he claims (I'm not suggesting he is telling the truth) that he had received a call from Nevill telling him that Sheila was going mad with the gun. That being the case, he WOULD have had fearful feelings of being shot. The subconscious feelings at work might have been a more deep-seated and irrational anxiety about his adoptive family, whom he was in tension with and whom he might have feared could kill him to secure his inheritance.
Looking at it that way, Bamber's hesitant and apparently odd behaviour on receiving the very strange call from Nevill doesn't seem so out-of-place. Not that I am affirming Bamber's version of events, of course.
That's exactly what you are doing.
If you were being objective you would argue from both sides, as opposed to what you think Jeremy Bamber felt that night.
-
Are you legally qualified?
The particulars of my background would be what? I have not appointed myself as judge and jury. I'm not assuming anything about guilt or innocence. I don't purport to have expertise and I claim none.
-
And they would be projections of what? Is asking questions now evidence of neurotic behaviour? What unwanted feelings have I shown evidence of in these supposed "projections"?
Please explains how you have come to the above conclusions? What is your understanding of what I posted previously?
There is no need to go on the attack. I am merely questioning your reasoning and perceptions.
-
And they would be projections of what? Is asking questions now evidence of neurotic behaviour? What unwanted feelings have I shown evidence of in these supposed "projections"?
What makes you ask such a question?
-
The particulars of my background would be what? I have not appointed myself as judge and jury. I'm not assuming anything about guilt or innocence. I don't purport to have expertise and I claim none.
First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there. I don't know if he is guilty or not. If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread. My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe.
How do you know what is "legally safe?"
-
That's exactly what you are doing.
If you were being objective you would argue from both sides, as opposed to what you think Jeremy Bamber felt that night.
No, I'm not. First, your assertion is plainly not true. I have already acknowledged various points that harm Bamber's position. If it becomes clear to me that Bamber's position is difficult, I will say so, and I have already mentioned that possibility above.
Second, my purpose here is to assess, so far as my modest abilities allow, whether Bamber's conviction stands up to scrutiny. The position is that Bamber stands convicted, so an objective examination of the case (from the point of view of legal safety) does mean attacking the Crown's case in order to test it. Also, objectivity does not necessarily mean arguing both sides equally. I've explained above that if a pro-Bamber assertion is made, I'm going to tackle it in order to test it.
Again, I am not taking sides about his guilt or innocence, simply because in the absence of incontestable either way, we just can't know. Therefore, I can't exonerate him, neither can you; nor can I pronounce him culpable, and neither can you.
-
I am sensing tension on the forum when normally I don't.
Please choose words carefully so as not to inadvertently antagonise fellow posters.
Thank you.
-
No, I'm not. First, your assertion is plainly not true. I have already acknowledged various points that harm Bamber's position. If it becomes clear to me that Bamber's position is difficult, I will say so, and I have already mentioned that possibility above.
"Bambers position is difficult?"
Doesn't the fact he's been incarcerated for over 3 decades already suggest that?
-
How do you know what is "legally safe?"
It's a legal test, look it up.
-
Second, my purpose here is to assess, so far as my modest abilities allow, whether Bamber's conviction stands up to scrutiny. The position is that Bamber stands convicted, so an objective examination of the case (from the point of view of legal safety) does mean attacking the Crown's case in order to test it. Also, objectivity does not necessarily mean arguing both sides equally. I've explained above that if a pro-Bamber assertion is made, I'm going to tackle it in order to test it.
so get tackling and testing and answer the questions posed instead of appearing to make things personal
-
There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.
Bamber protests his innocence & like any other convicted criminal in a famous case who does this, will attract a few supporters. Supporting him for different reasons such as 'gut feelings', conspiracy theories, wanting a purpose in life or believing they are smarter than the law. Always trying to find a way to achieve the impossible.
LuminousWanderer is obviously not very well read on the case & is looking for a way out for Bamber. Going through things which have been discussed before.
Luminous thinks that a third party can be ruled out just because the farmhouse appeared to be securely locked from within but that isn't the case. Jeremy Bamber admitted that he could get in and out without leaving any trace so there is no reason why he couldn't have provided access to a third party before scarpering off home.
-
I am sensing tension on the forum when normally I don't.
Please choose words carefully so as not to inadvertently antagonise fellow posters.
Thank you.
Since posting the above I have just removed several posts.
Please remain on topic and refrain from making any comments of a personal nature and/or comments that are likely to antagonise others.
Thank you.
-
Luminous thinks that a third party can be ruled out just because the farmhouse appeared to be securely locked from within but that isn't the case. Jeremy Bamber admitted that he could get in and out without leaving any trace so there is no reason why he couldn't have provided access to a third party before scarpering off home.
I was not referring to the possibility of Bamber using somebody else. Similarly to John above, I put that theory under the 'Bamber' heading. To that extent, I would accept what you say.
As I understand it, there were no signs of forced entry. If the farmhouse was locked from within, then it makes sense to exclude third party involvement on that basis - but yes, allowing for the caveat that Bamber could have got somebody else to do it for him.
Was the farmhouse fully-locked, though? Probably we'll never know.
-
I have just removed numerous posts.
Everyone is welcome here to discuss the case whatever their case related views. However posts about "peanut gallery" and "projections" and such like will not be tolerated as it simply escalates and takes the thread off-topic.
-
Again, I am not taking sides about his guilt or innocence, simply because in the absence of incontestable either way, we just can't know. Therefore, I can't exonerate him, neither can you; nor can I pronounce him culpable, and neither can you.
A judge and indeed a jury did just that 30 odd years ago so there's no need for either of us to come to that conclusion.
This is a public debating forum - not a court of law.
-
I was not referring to the possibility of Bamber using somebody else. Similarly to John above, I put that theory under the 'Bamber' heading. To that extent, I would accept what you say.
As I understand it, there were no signs of forced entry. If the farmhouse was locked from within, then it makes sense to exclude third party involvement on that basis - but yes, allowing for the caveat that Bamber could have got somebody else to do it for him.
Was the farmhouse fully-locked, though? Probably we'll never know.
The farmhouse was fully locked, all external doors were secured from the inside, there is no dispute about this. The police had to use a sledgehammer to gain entry via the back door.
With due respect Luminous, could I repeat what Adam has already suggested and that is that you swat up on the case from the threads already available.
-
The farmhouse was fully locked, all external doors were secured from the inside, there is no dispute about this. The police had to use a sledgehammer to gain entry via the back door.
And Jeremy Bamber told police his father Neville had telephoned him indicating his sister Sheila had a gun.
-
The particulars of my background would be what? I have not appointed myself as judge and jury. I'm not assuming anything about guilt or innocence. I don't purport to have expertise and I claim none.
Could you please, just briefly, give me a summary of your professional experience in criminal detection, in support of this assertion you make? I'm not being facetious, I'm just very interested in this idea that murder cases are in essence very simple. I have no experience of police or investigative work whatsoever, but general life experience and common-sense would tell me that murder investigations in which the happenings are a mystery are going to be factually complex and intellectually-challenging.
The happenings of this case aren't a mystery.
Jeremy Bamber set the scene early on suggesting to police it was his sister who had a gun - ergo was the perp.
The police originally went with this until they realised they had been conned/set up by Jeremy Bamber.
-
Please keep posts harmonious everyone, there is no need for aggressive posting.
-
And Jeremy Bamber told police his father Neville had telephoned him indicating his sister Sheila had a gun.
Most murder cases are in essence very simple and the White House Farm murders are no different. As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila. In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party. This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame. However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.
Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered. A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was. In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress. In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.
These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away. As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him. Either way, he is still guilty.
No he didn't. You, and probably almost everybody who has commented on this case - including the police and courts - are wrong on this point.
How are we all wrong? I'm intrigued
-
I'm not sure I agree. We're left with the indisputable fact that no forensic evidence directly links Bamber to the scene. That is highly significant in its own right. Given the facts alleged, I think the police should have been able to produce some.
I don't rate the lawyers at trial but I'm pretty sure they were offay with whether or not sufficient 'evidence' existed to bring a case against JB. Here's the guide. Where do you think it falls short?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488508/Evidence_v3.0EXT_clean.pdf
On this point, I think I agree.
I don't see how that makes it neutral. The plain fact is that if your summary of the forensic evidence is correct, then the expert testimony does not confirm who the blood was from.
I'm not sure what you mean by "neutral"? It seems to me the lawyers at trial, and certainly the trial judge, had a poor understanding of the blood evidence. It appears inferences were made that the blood test results were exclusive to SC which isn't the case. Statistically a member of the jury would share the same test results/blood groups. Rivlin's strategy was IMO an own goal. Instead of repudiating the silencer he corregraphed it into the soc/case.
But I'm not appealing for greater attention to detail. You misrepresent my point, which was to query why he might refer to THE [rifle/firearm/shotgun]. Was there just one such weapon in the house? It's a relevant question.
I believe the shotgun was the only Bamber owned working gun.
"Obvious to you" is quite telling, suggesting that it's not obvious at all. If it were, then it would not just be obvious to you, would it. For my part, I am sure of what I have seen. No doubt in my mind. The telephone logs that I have seen are definitely written as if there were two calls from two different people. As I have been at pains to emphasise, that does not mean there were two calls, but in the absence of corroboration for only one call (see my request for this above), it is not unreasonable to take the records on the face of it. If you disagree, then produce the telephone logs on which you base your opinion. That would seem to me the way to resolve this. I will err on the side of caution and rely on your version.
I have looked at the logs in the past and IMO they are internal messages about 1 tel call from JB. As I said given how events unfolded on 7th Aug I'm pretty certain officers would be aware if NB called EP. A large number of officers were deployed to WHF including senior personnel, firearms and air response. Given this backdrop I'm sure word would get round NB called EP but not a word.
Means nothing. People get it wrong in witness statements every day of the week and on Sundays. I've already explained why he might have got it wrong. It's a reasonable point that I make.
I can understand JB getting times mixed up but to go into such detail
about looking up a number and how long it took him to do so IMO is fairly conclusive evidence that this is what he did. Whether he did or didn't I don't think it implicates him in any way.
Of course it's subjective - and that being the case, you'll see that I have pointed out how the argument can be put both ways! Yes, on the face of it, Bamber had a motive to kill. He also had a motive not to kill.
I don't see your point. You seem to be assuming things backwards. Yes, if we say Bamber killed his parents, inheritance is the obvious motive. The word there is 'if'.
I think lay witness testimony from JM and others about a taste for the finer things in life and having money whilst you're young had an effect at trial. Along with JB's conversations with police officers about a proposed purchase of a Porsche.
The point is that this idea that Sheila wasn't capable of firing a gun is groundless. She had fired guns. I take issue both with you and a commenter above on this point because, the way I read the relevant parts of your posts, you seem keen to give the impression that she couldn't or absolutely wouldn't have fired a gun. In reality, there is no basis for this conclusion.
Which part of my post leads you to this conclusion?
A 2 year old girl recently used FaceTime to summon help for her mother. Apparently she had simply observed her mother using it.
I find it difficult to envisage a situation where SC, growing up on the farm with NB and JB, wasn't able to operate the rifle as per soc. I've always said the lawyers could perhaps have tested how long it would take novices to load mag, chamber round and fire shots at close range targets to test the level of skill required.
Tell me where I have advanced a conspiracy theory here? Nowhere! What I gave you is logic. It is a mere assumption, nothing more, that Sheila must have been the killer if Bamber couldn't have been, or vice versa. That does not mean I think it was a third party. I only speculate.
I disagree with what the court said here - and I have explained why, using logic. As stated, the phone call does not exclude the possibility of a third party. What would make third party involvement improbable is if the farmhouse was secured, and my understanding is that there were no reports of any signs of forced entry, but in that regard I ask again: do we know if the farmhouse was fully locked?
Noted.
I don't believe I asserted you advanced a conspiracy? But plenty of others have eg Mike Tesko has suggested a scruffy hunched up man supposedly seen running from WHF. Bogus lawyer GDS suggested UK intelligence services were responsible.
I think the courts work on plausibility and most find claims the perp(s) was anyone other than JB or SC implausible including myself.
-
This continually dragged out nonsense claiming Neville phoned the police is rather pathetic. Had such a call been made the person who received it would have said so long ago. We have all looked at the call logs which went from the civilian controller in the communications suite to police HQ, there is no mystery about it yet some still try to muddy the waters.
-
This continually dragged out nonsense claiming Neville phoned the police is rather pathetic. Had such a call been made the person who received it would have said so long ago. We have all looked at the call logs which went from the civilian controller in the communications suite to police HQ, there is no mystery about it yet some still try to muddy the waters.
I can't lose the feeling that much of this case has become nothing more than a game of semantics. Words -indeed whole sentences- have become twisted in order to give them a meaning other than what was intended, the phone call from Nevill -or rather, the LACK of a phone call from Nevill- and it's non existent documentation, other than the relevant logs re Jeremy's call, being an example, as is the ongoing debate about an alleged personal panic alarm for Nevill's sole use, surveillance by SB, the drugs squad, MI5, Uncle Tom Cobley et al, and Robin Hood and his Merry Men.
-
The farmhouse was fully locked, all external doors were secured from the inside, there is no dispute about this. The police had to use a sledgehammer to gain entry via the back door.
With due respect Luminous, could I repeat what Adam has already suggested and that is that you swat up on the case from the threads already available.
Sorry but I'm not sure I agree. I have read about the case. I have already explained that the information available is contradictory and confusing. This thread was an attempt on my part to obtain answers and clarification on specific points. Sometimes it pays to start from square one and ask questions. Is there something wrong with that?
But thank you for the information. If the farmhouse was locked from the inside, to my mind that excludes a third party (other than perhaps Bamber contracting somebody else to do it).
-
How are we all wrong? I'm intrigued
We've already gone over this and the relevant part of the thread was complex. I can't go over it again, as I can barely even remember what I said. If you look at the comments from Angelo222 and even John, on this point, it seems the farmhouse was locked from the inside, so that being the case the culprit can't have been a third party other than under the direction of Bamber.
-
I have looked at the logs in the past and IMO they are internal messages about 1 tel call from JB. As I said given how events unfolded on 7th Aug I'm pretty certain officers would be aware if NB called EP. A large number of officers were deployed to WHF including senior personnel, firearms and air response. Given this backdrop I'm sure word would get round NB called EP but not a word.
As requested, can you please produce a copy of the logs you are relying on?
-
This continually dragged out nonsense claiming Neville phoned the police is rather pathetic. Had such a call been made the person who received it would have said so long ago. We have all looked at the call logs which went from the civilian controller in the communications suite to police HQ, there is no mystery about it yet some still try to muddy the waters.
Then, as requested above, let's see the logs. Just post a link to the documents you rely on in forming this opinion.
I have also asked whether there are statements from the relevant police or emergency operators. Are there?
-
Post the links to the telephone logs on which you rely, then I will look at them.
-
Info re tel logs from JB's 'official site' run by his campaign team:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6L4Kvql9s
-
Post the links to the telephone logs on which you rely, then I will look at them.
All the information is on the forum but in any event here is a helping hand to get you started.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=175.msg1784#msg1784
-
Info re tel logs from JB's 'official site' run by his campaign team:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6L4Kvql9s
Thank you, but I'm not terribly interested in what the Bamber campaign have to say. I have perused Bamber's own website and also the 'blue' forum, and I am unimpressed.
-
All the information is on the forum but in any event here is a helping hand to get you started.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=175.msg1784#msg1784
Thank you, but my belief is that this is not the full record. It is part of it, but not all of it. I must admit, I can't quite remember where I saw the other parts of the telephone log. It must have been on one of the pro-Bamber sites, either the video posted above by Holly Goodhead or perhaps the 'blue' forum.
What I can say is that the records I saw definitely appeared to record two telephone calls from two different people. Again, let me stress that I am not suggesting they do record two calls, I am saying that they appear to.
I will have to find it, then I will post further comments on it here.
-
Sorry but I'm not sure I agree. I have read about the case. I have already explained that the information available is contradictory and confusing. This thread was an attempt on my part to obtain answers and clarification on specific points. Sometimes it pays to start from square one and ask questions. Is there something wrong with that?
But thank you for the information. If the farmhouse was locked from the inside, to my mind that excludes a third party (other than perhaps Bamber contracting somebody else to do it).
I agree that the information available is contradictory and confusing but that is down to pro Bamber websites who twist everything to suit their own agenda. Only this forum relays the facts correctly and offers those with opposing views the opportunity to discuss the case sensibly.
The facts involved in the case are basically very straightforward. Those who promote Bamber's agenda have never been able to provide any evidence capable of overturning the original verdict as being unsafe. The facts taken together clearly point to Jeremy Bamber being the main character behind the murders regardless of whether he pulled the trigger or not. Sheila was nothing more than an unfortunate patsy for Bamber's greed.
Everything that occurred is further corroborated by Bamber's former girlfriend Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) who revealed a very detailed insight into Jeremy Bamber and his murderous ambitions.
-
We've already gone over this and the relevant part of the thread was complex. I can't go over it again, as I can barely even remember what I said.
What part of the thread was "complex?"
Jeremy Bamber could barely remember what he'd said and tied himself in knots with his lies. If he were innocent, his story would have remained the same.
-
I can't think of any famous cases where a convicted person has been acquited on appeal & the actual murderer was then found.
Sion Jenkins, Barry George & Michael O'Brien were acquited after years of trying but no one else haa been convicted. OJ was convicted in a civil court and found innocent in a criminal trial. He protests his innocemce but no one else has ever been convicted.
The conviction of Robert Napper exonerated Colin Stagg, but he was just a suspect and never convicted.
Bamber is at a disadvantage in that he is the only alive suspect & can't claim the killer/s are roaming free & could be any one of the millions of people in the world. He can only say it was Sheila but has no evidence to support this.
-
I can't think of any famous cases where a convicted person has been acquited on appeal & the actual murderer was then found.
Sion Jenkins, Barry George & Michael O'Brien were acquited after years of trying but no one else haa been convicted. OJ was convicted in a civil court and found innocent in a criminal trial. He protests his innocemce but no one else has ever been convicted.
The conviction of Robert Napper exonerated Colin Stagg, but he was just a suspect and never convicted.
Bamber is at a disadvantage in that he is the only alive suspect & can't claim the killer/s are roaming free & could be any one of the millions of people in the world. He can only say it was Sheila but has no evidence to support this.
Stefan kiszko:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
-
I agree that the information available is contradictory and confusing but that is down to pro Bamber websites who twist everything to suit their own agenda. Only this forum relays the facts correctly and offers those with opposing views the opportunity to discuss the case sensibly.
The facts involved in the case are basically very straightforward. Those who promote Bamber's agenda have never been able to provide any evidence capable of overturning the original verdict as being unsafe. The facts taken together clearly point to Jeremy Bamber being the main character behind the murders regardless of whether he pulled the trigger or not. Sheila was nothing more than an unfortunate patsy for Bamber's greed.
Everything that occurred is further corroborated by Bamber's former girlfriend Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) who revealed a very detailed insight into Jeremy Bamber and his murderous ambitions.
According to Jeremy Bambers latest blog he was convicted of murder due to "non disclosure"
"Another birthday has almost arrived, my 33rd in prison, all because Essex Police, the Forensic Science Service (as once was) and many others chose the non-disclosure of thousands of pieces of case evidence in order to mount a prosecution for murder against me. https://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk
-
If members wish to 'ignore' other members they can adjust their forum profile as follows:
Go into your profile - top of home page
Go into account settings under modify profile which is on the left hand side and it enables members to place other members on ignore.
-
I agree that the information available is contradictory and confusing but that is down to pro Bamber websites who twist everything to suit their own agenda. Only this forum relays the facts correctly and offers those with opposing views the opportunity to discuss the case sensibly.
The facts involved in the case are basically very straightforward. Those who promote Bamber's agenda have never been able to provide any evidence capable of overturning the original verdict as being unsafe. The facts taken together clearly point to Jeremy Bamber being the main character behind the murders regardless of whether he pulled the trigger or not. Sheila was nothing more than an unfortunate patsy for Bamber's greed.
Everything that occurred is further corroborated by Bamber's former girlfriend Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) who revealed a very detailed insight into Jeremy Bamber and his murderous ambitions.
Many of those promoting Jeremy Bambers agenda are living an illusion.
Rather than face this fact and deal with all it brings, it's far easier for them to continue, appearing oblivious to what is really starring them in the face - a murderer
-
According to Jeremy Bambers latest blog he was convicted of murder due to "non disclosure"
"Another birthday has almost arrived, my 33rd in prison, all because Essex Police, the Forensic Science Service (as once was) and many others chose the non-disclosure of thousands of pieces of case evidence in order to mount a prosecution for murder against me. https://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk
It seems that Bamber is saying the released evidence shows he is guilty. But after 33 years there is still evidence which hasn't been released. This evidence amazingly negates the mountain of released evidence over the last 33 years.
It can only be unreleased evidence showing an industrial frame.
-
It seems that Bamber is saying the released evidence shows he is guilty. But after 33 years there is still evidence which hasn't been released. This evidence amazingly negates the mountain of released evidence over the last 33 years.
It can only be unreleased evidence showing an industrial frame.
You and I see through his BS Adam but there are a few who don't. Thankfully the criminal justice system also see through him and as a result of this fact, Jeremy Bamber has been given a full life term.
He will continue with his deluded versions of events whilst he has an audience, though it seems his audience has dwindled considerably.
-
Many of those promoting Jeremy Bambers agenda are living an illusion.
Rather than face this fact and deal with all it brings, it's far easier for them to continue, appearing oblivious to what is really starring them in the face - a murderer
Mike met Bamber in prison & has supported him passionately for most of the 33 years. Creating forums, internet articles & Youtube videos. Nothing will effect his support.
Nugs is a conspiracy theorist & Lookout has had a 'gut feeling' for 33 years. Evidence will have no influence on these.
David was a hardcore guilter & is the only person I know who has changed stance to supporter. This was a quiet stance change attempt for non evidence reasons, to give him the future option of changing stance back to guilty. However after the stance change was exposed, he has no option but to continue to support Bamber.
-
It can only be unreleased evidence showing an industrial frame.
Jeremy Bamber clearly has delusions of grandeur
-
It seems that Bamber is saying the released evidence shows he is guilty. But after 33 years there is still evidence which hasn't been released. This evidence amazingly negates the mountain of released evidence over the last 33 years.
It can only be unreleased evidence showing an industrial frame.
The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least. If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed. All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork. An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.
Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images. Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.
-
Mike met Bamber in prison & has supported him passionately for most of the 33 years. Creating forums, internet articles & Youtube videos. Nothing will effect his support.
Nugs is a conspiracy theorist & Lookout has had a 'gut feeling' for 33 years. Evidence will have no influence on these.
David was a hardcore guilter & is the only person I know who has changed stance to supporter. This was a quiet stance change attempt for non evidence reasons, to give him the future option of changing stance back to guilty. However after the stance change was exposed, he has no option but to continue to support Bamber.
Some people aren't able to admit defeat and publicly admitting to having been conned isn't so appealing.
I guess it's down to each individual and their personnel agenda.
-
The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least. If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed. All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork. An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.
Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images. Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.
Have you seen ALL 4 million documents to which Jeremy Bamber has referred to over the years?
-
The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least. If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed. All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork. An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.
Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images. Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.
If you believe this to be true, how you do you dismiss Julie Mugfords evidence for example?
-
The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least. If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed. All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork. An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.
Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images. Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.
"As far as you know?" Have you seen the photographic evidence/images or are you taking the word of a n other?
-
The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least. If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed. All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork. An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.
Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images. Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.
[/b]
His time in prison will be regimented. He will only be able to "pore over these doc" during the time he is banged up. Providing of course he has access to all 4 million docs to which he has referred to.
According to him they were in a massive warehouse. Do his supporters really believe HMP service have provided Jeremy Bamber will a space this size to keep all his docs and they are at his disposal at any given time?
-
[/b]
His time in prison will be regimented. He will only be able to "pore over these doc" during the time he is banged up. Providing of course he has access to all 4 million docs to which he has referred to.
According to him they were in a massive warehouse. Do his supporters really believe HMP service have provided Jeremy Bamber will a space this size to keep all his docs and they are at his disposal at any given time?
Simon Hall said for years about "going over his case files with a fine tooth comb," many of us did. It turned out, Simon Hall didn't have his case files in his possession. They had been destroyed long before he'd moved to open prison conditions.
I learned after his death that many prisons have incinerators which they use to destroy prisoners docs on request (of a prisoner).
-
I think this thread has now gone off-track a bit with pro- and anti- arguments, which don't interest me.
I have now had time to re-look at the telephone logs and I will start a new thread about that shortly. I have one specific question about the documents.
-
I think this thread has now gone off-track a bit with pro- and anti- arguments, which don't interest me.
What other argument is there if not pro or anti?
What "interests" you exactly?
Jeremy Bamber is either innocent or guilty - there is nothing in between!
-
What other argument is there if not pro or anti?
What "interests" you exactly?
Jeremy Bamber is either innocent or guilty - there is nothing in between!
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty. Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense. The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.
"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John! Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty! OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"
"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko. Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"
I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks. I'm not pro-Bamber. I'm not anti-Bamber. I don't care.
And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right. I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to. This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.
Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?
-
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty. Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense. The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.
"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John! Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty! OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"
"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko. Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"
I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks. I'm not pro-Bamber. I'm not anti-Bamber. I don't care.
And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right. I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to. This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.
Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?
Have you considered applying your reasoning to my posts?
-
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty. Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense. The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.
"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John! Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty! OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"
"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko. Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"
I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks. I'm not pro-Bamber. I'm not anti-Bamber. I don't care.
And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right. I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to. This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.
Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?
Are you suggesting Jeremy Bamber has no "sense" or that you are superior to Bamber because you believe you have "sense?"
IMO Mike Tesco is a con man who now knows he's been conned by another con man but his fragile ego won't allow him to admit he's been conned.
He could of course also be in denial but i don't believe that.
Your interest in this case may be an "idle interest" but for many of us we are mindful 5 people were murdered (including 2 sleeping children) and many lives have been profoundly affected by Jeremy Bambers callous, cold and calculating actions.
-
If members wish to 'ignore' other members they can adjust their forum profile as follows:
Go into your profile - top of home page
Go into account settings under modify profile which is on the left hand side and it enables members to place other members on ignore.
LuminousWanderer is lucky to not be posting on the Blue forum.
My posts & threads brutally highlighted Bamber's guilt & passionate supporters called me every name under the sun to try to deflect from this. David posting his abusive images.
I did recently suggest abusive images shouldn't be allowed on the forum, as is the case on this forum. But these images are still allowed. I also suggested that 3 or more moderstors should be in agreement prior to making a big decision on a poster, rather than one moderator acting independently. But got no response.
One of the moderator supporters doesn't like me and is fiercely protective of former moderator collegues, women, elderly posters or posters with learning disabilities. Which is basically everyone else. There is no point complaining to Mike as he is too wrapped up posting to himself. I have complained to another moderator but just get a standard response that a moderator collegue will always be supported.
These days I just let 'The Famous Five', Mike, David, Nigel, Nugs & Lookout solve the case amongst themselves.
-
Are you suggesting Jeremy Bamber has no "sense" or that you are superior to Bamber because you believe you have "sense?"
IMO Mike Tesco is a con man who now knows he's been conned by another con man but his fragile ego won't allow him to admit he's been conned.
He could of course also be in denial but i don't believe that.
Your interest in this case may be an "idle interest" but for many of us we are mindful 5 people were murdered (including 2 sleeping children) and many lives have been profoundly affected by Jeremy Bambers callous, cold and calculating actions.
Very good post.
-
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty. Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense. The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.
"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John! Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty! OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"
"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko. Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"
I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks. I'm not pro-Bamber. I'm not anti-Bamber. I don't care.
And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right. I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to. This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.
Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?
"We" aren't discussing the basics of this case YOU are!
There are far more deserving cases and indeed causes than mass murderer and psychopath Jeremy Bamber!
As you'll find out quite quickly, if you haven't already, there are only a handful of "supporters" left.
-
LuminousWanderer is lucky to not be posting on the Blue forum.
My posts & threads brutally highlighted Bamber's guilt & passionate supporters called me every name under the sun to try to deflect from this. David posting his abusive images.
I did recently suggest abusive images shouldn't be allowed on the forum, as is the case on this forum. But these images are still allowed. I also suggested that 3 or more moderstors should be in agreement prior to making a big decision on a poster, rather than one moderator acting independently. But got no response.
One of the moderator supporters doesn't like me and is fiercely protective of former moderator collegues, women, elderly posters or posters with learning disabilities. Which is basically everyone else. There is no point complaining to Mike as he is too wrapped up posting to himself. I have complained to another moderator but just get a standard response that a moderator collegue will always be supported.
These days I just let 'The Famous Five', Mike, David, Nigel, Nugs & Lookout solve the case amongst themselves.
Having recently read some earlier posts on this thread I can see that some unacceptable comments were levelled at your post content and you personally Adam which I overlooked and apologise for not taking action earlier:
The comments
"This is nonsense"
and
..."and probably commentators of low intelligence, like you..."
I need to make it crystal clear comments of this nature and style of posting will not be tolerated.
We are all intelligent adults here and it shouldn't be necessary, nor do I want to, micro-manage posts/posters. Anyone who persists along the lines above will start to receive written warnings with the potential for a ban.
If you disagree with a post it's sufficient to say you disagree setting out your reasons why. Alternatively there's always the 'ignore' function.
-
These days I just let 'The Famous Five', Mike, David, Nigel, Nugs & Lookout solve the case amongst themselves
After over 3 decades Jeremy Bamber is still solely focused on Jeremy Bamber and financial gain, you only need refer to his campaign team https://mobile.twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/977229561707597824?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (all 5 or 6 of them) and his repetitive blogs.
-
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty. Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense. The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
I'm not pro-Bamber. I'm not anti-Bamber. I don't care.
And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right. I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to. This is just an idle interest..............
I think I've stripped away enough of the frills to get to what you mean.
I imagine MOST people are under the illusion that the legal system actually cares about guilt or innocence. You highlight how I believe it works in your comments re not caring about his guilt or innocence. I'm inclined to think that, owing to the time Jeremy has been in prison, Jeremy would share your opinions -which maybe why he believes that he'll eventually be released. NONE of us are thick enough to believe that an unsafe trial means a guilty person is innocent, anymore than does a technicality. I will, however, agree that it's an entirely separate question.
Playing semantics is an interesting enough way of idling away time. Who knows? You may just find the T which hasn't been correctly crossed, or even the I which has a dot in the wrong place, but it won't mean that Jeremy is innocent.
You sum it up succinctly. You're neither pro nor anti Bamber. You don't care.
-
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works. To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty. Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense. The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
I'm not pro-Bamber. I'm not anti-Bamber. I don't care.
And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right. I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to. This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.
Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?
Is this a fact?
I thought you had decided to place Stephanie on ignore?
-
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty. Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense. The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
If innocent, I think he'd be VERY interested in proving himself such and if guilty, he'd be VERY interested in trying to convince others. In what way do you think the conviction is unsafe? If you believe it is, then there must be evidence that points you in that direction?
-
Is this a fact?p
Then show me the evidence that exonerates him.
-
Then show me the evidence that exonerates him.
You asserted:
"That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him".
I'm asking you if this is a fact? I'm not the one making that assertion.
-
And why would I be provoked into making comments like that?
The unacceptable comments started against me.
In which case you report the relevant post to a moderator.
-
I know that the case can invoke strong sentiments guys but please can we all remain calm and refrain from posting anything deemed inappropriate. Thank you.
-
I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions.
First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there. I don't know if he is guilty or not. If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread. My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe.
If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.
Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence. However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions. I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained. That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.
Some questions that spring to mind are below. These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice. My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues.
Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions. I will expand on my thoughts later.
Questions:
Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both?
Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims? If so, which of the victims?
Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood? If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?
Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call? Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect? If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?
Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly. The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.
Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?
Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths? If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions? What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance? What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?
Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths? If so, what are the details?
Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm? If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?
Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?
I may have more questions later, but that will do for now. I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.
According to Jeremy Bamber, Sheila could have used the gun after having simply watched a cowboy movie - or words to that effect.
-
I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions.
First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there. I don't know if he is guilty or not. If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread. My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe.
If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.
Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence. However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions. I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained. That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.
Some questions that spring to mind are below. These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice. My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues.
Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions. I will expand on my thoughts later.
Questions:
Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both?
Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims? If so, which of the victims?
Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood? If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?
Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call? Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect? If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?
Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly. The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.
Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?
Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths? If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions? What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance? What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?
Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths? If so, what are the details?
Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm? If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?
Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?
I may have more questions later, but that will do for now. I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.
I come here less frequently than I would like, Holly is doing "god"'s work.
I think it is vital to understand that in contentious cases it is an aborted mission to state only the accused knows if he (her) is guilty.
Jeremy Bamber is innocent because science has delivered a verdict.
Demeanour evidence, which is poorly understood, strongly favours the resolute proclaimer of innocence.
Damien Echolls watched many fellow inmates marched to the needle, and his book "Life after Death", states that not a single one proclaimed innocence. Indeed in modern times, it is possible only Cameron Todd Willingham has been executed, and is innocent. Richard Glossip came close but lives on. Please google those cases to understand this matter.
Here is a chaplain from San Quentin:
"Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, studied at California Institute of Technology
Answered Dec 18 2014
I was a prison chaplain at San Quentin. None of the inmates I talked with ever protested full innocence. There were two cases where, had they been white, good chance they'd have been convicted of a lesser offense, or maybe even found innocent, but these were cases where they had actually killed someone, in self-defense, arguably, but ... there were other circumstances that made it murder, such as a police station being across the street! (I.e., there were options other than killing the attacker.)
I knew inmates whose parole had been violated, returning them to prison, who possibly had not done anything wrong. But none who ever denied the original crime. Now, that doesn't mean that there were none. In prison, I would guess it is not popular to protest innocence, because you will be in the minority and attempting to separate yourself from the rest. It might not be safe. I talked to a lot of inmates, walking the cell blocks, which is where I heard one of the "overcharged" stories (murder vs manslaughter). That kind of story is a little different, it would still convey a message of "don't mess with me."
My guess is that actually being innocent and being in prison with a conviction is a terrible position. A defacto requirement for parole may be a display of remorse. So what do you do?"
...
Please all be kind to Holly, I know you are. She is unassailably correct, and Jeremy Bamber may find his fortunes reside with people like Holly who have the brains and time to champion their cause.
-
Nevill - No contact shots.
June - No contact shots.
Daniel - No contact shots.
Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter.
Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.
When Robin Bain shot himself blood ended in silencer. Touch your temple then your throat to feel the physical/scientific difference Adam. It is the difference between hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall and a hedge.
-
Most murder cases are in essence very simple and the White House Farm murders are no different. As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila. In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party. This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame. However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.
Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered. A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was. In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress. In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.
These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away. As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him. Either way, he is still guilty.
A petite Sheila Caffell had delivered 4 shots to her father, two in the mouth from the landing, and two as he retreated, to the arm and shoulder, totally disabling him. She was well able to reload as he collalpsed in the coal bucket and shoot 4 times in the head where she chose.
-
Dear Holly, I am reading the thread, and arrived at the point where you say you removed several posts. This is most unfortunate. I would like to help Jeremy Bamber, but do not believe this is possible the way this forum is moderated. I realise you are in an invidious position where you disagree with the forum owner, but am perplexed, and would like to see how the removed posts were constructed. Maybe you could pm or email me.
I see Jeremy's position as bleak while these forums bicker, it is essential to have a naked discourse as we had on IA to make progress.
-
Samson - I welcome your posts because you balance the perspective, but in my opinion you are (or appear to be - sorry if I'm misjudging) falling into the same trap as the majority of other posters on here.
You've appointed yourself judge and jury. I'm not interested. I know it's human nature and I don't blame you because the crime was absolutely horrific, so I don't mean this offensively and I do appreciate the information you have provided.
But my purpose here isn't to be pro-Bamber or anti-Bamber. I'm really not taking sides.
Thanks.
Luminous, There are no sides to be taken, because opinions and facts occupy different orbits.
There is a thread on Injustice anywhere, completely unmoderated where the case was examined closely. Noone had a dog in the fight, and it was shown incontrovertibly that Neville ascended into gunfire.
The crown case was that Neville was shot in bed, so the crown case was false. That is modal logic and science operating.
-
LuminousWanderer, my interest is in many parallel commonwealth cases. Today I read in North and South magazine in New Zealand a letter stating only David Bain could ever know who killed his family. 5 bodies, a dichotomy, David Bain, age 23 like Jeremy front running the estate, or his father Robin.
All forensic evidence shows Robin killed the family then himself, and this is true with Sheila Caffel.
Sometimes we are better to let science control the rules of the game.
-
LuminousWanderer, my interest is in many parallel commonwealth cases. Today I read in North and South magazine in New Zealand a letter stating only David Bain could ever know who killed his family. 5 bodies, a dichotomy, David Bain, age 23 like Jeremy front running the estate, or his father Robin.
All forensic evidence shows Robin killed the family then himself, and this is true with Sheila Caffel.
Sometimes we are better to let science control the rules of the game.
In your opinion Samson! *&^^&
A basic question I've always had regarding Jeremy Bamber is why he's never ever been affected by the deaths of his victims and why he's never once showed an ounce of compassion for his innocent surviving relatives.
And those 2 little boys - words fail me
Did you read and absorb the contents of the letter he wrote to Colin Caffell?
Bambers behaviour has always been suspect and indeed self centred
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43044412
-
In your opinion Samson! *&^^&
A basic question I've always had regarding Jeremy Bamber is why he's never ever been affected by the deaths of his victims and why he's never once showed an ounce of compassion for his innocent surviving relatives.
And those 2 little boys - words fail me
Did you read and absorb the contents of the letter he wrote to Colin Caffell?
Bambers behaviour has always been suspect and indeed self centred
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43044412
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1045.0
"Letter written by Jeremy Bamber to Colin Caffell...this letter published in Colin's book, "In search of the rainbow's end".
Dear Colin
I read the articles in yesterdays independence with much sadness, the same sadness I always feel when I read about you and what you've been through in the last 3 years. Your letter today, Colin, was a touch premature,your writing to me, hoping, I guess, for the last few pieces of the jigsaw, so that you may hold the picture of what happened is not possible...if I could furnish you with what you wanted then I would gladly do so-whatever happened that fateful night will never be fully explained, in fact you could probably tell me more than I could you.
The paper did mention in the article yesterday that I was appealing, and no doubt you knew that anyway...how are you going to react when they quash my conviction Colin,because its very probable they will do so? you may believe me guilty, you may not, but I hope that if nothing else you will try and keep an open mind because at my appeal I will prove my innocence and by doing that the corner stone of the prosecution evidence was fabricated, by whom I cant prove yet and its not necessary to do so for my appeal, but eventually I'll find out because it can only be one of five people...it sounds like I'm talking riddles, and I'm sorry I can't explain in a letter to you. It seems so pointless me sending you this letter as it will only add to your confusion but for you to write to me must have taken a great deal, so my replying is the least I can do.
Jeremy continues in the same block capital style for another page or so and then closes wih these paragraphs.
In the same that you question what was written about Sheila in the newspapers so you should question what was said about me...I'm not gay or bisexual, I wasn't a cocaine smuggler, I didn't know half the people I had been associated with, I didn't break someone's arm at school, I didn't kite cheques and I didn't rape Julie.What other odious stuff they wrote I can't recall-even during my trial they couldn't get it right.
I won't go on, you know me and what I was like and I didn't write to you to convince you of my innocence even though I am, just well whatever.
Love Jeremy
P.S. I truly wish I could help you
There's more on Colin Caffell's thoughts here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6489.0
-
On page 29 of PH's book Deviant:
"My cynicism was aroused that Bamber was toying with me and trying to manipulate my research when he volunteered, without any provocation, that he felt it would be of no benefit in me viewing crime scene or post mortem images of the murdered children, since these images were as such irrelevant to my investigation and research. This struck me as odd, I had never once mentioned images of any description, and since he knew I was an ex-police officer, and through my profession had seen and attended countless post-mortems and violent scenes of death, it felt as thought he was trying to manage and control what I saw. The message he tried to portray was of someone showing consideration for my feelings, but why should he do that? In reality it is in fact a trait among child killers that they don't like to discuss the brutality of their crimes on a defenceless child. Bamber, from the outset, was setting his own parameters and letting me know he didn't want to discuss the murder of the children. Child killers attempt to dissociate from any or all direct or visual evidence of their acts, they know it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify the consequences of their crimes against a child since such acts arouse public revulsion, and for someone like Bamber who seeks public support and sympathy, it puts him at a distinct disadvantage".
"Conversely his strategy permitted him to seemingly believe it acceptable for me to see the crime scene images of the other (adult) victims, and whilst these people may not be children they were his closest family. This displays a total lack of sensitivity and personal empathy with the victims who he continues to use to his advantage even in death. It was a devious act employed by the killer and provided an early insight into what I was dealing with" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6489.0
-
Dear Holly, I am reading the thread, and arrived at the point where you say you removed several posts. This is most unfortunate. I would like to help Jeremy Bamber, but do not believe this is possible the way this forum is moderated. I realise you are in an invidious position where you disagree with the forum owner, but am perplexed, and would like to see how the removed posts were constructed. Maybe you could pm or email me.
I see Jeremy's position as bleak while these forums bicker, it is essential to have a naked discourse as we had on IA to make progress.
If what you say about helping Bamber is true; Why don't you contact him direct? You can do so by email nowadays at a small cost.
And can you explain how and why an Internet forum like this could possibly make any difference to Bambers "position."
I'm gathering the reason you've posted what you have, was in the hope of manipulating Holly.
Does the forum you refer to reflect the same bias you hope to achieve here by any chance?
-
I come here less frequently than I would like, Holly is doing "god"'s work.
I think it is vital to understand that in contentious cases it is an aborted mission to state only the accused knows if he (her) is guilty.
Jeremy Bamber is innocent because science has delivered a verdict.
Demeanour evidence, which is poorly understood, strongly favours the resolute proclaimer of innocence.
Damien Echolls watched many fellow inmates marched to the needle, and his book "Life after Death", states that not a single one proclaimed innocence. Indeed in modern times, it is possible only Cameron Todd Willingham has been executed, and is innocent. Richard Glossip came close but lives on. Please google those cases to understand this matter.
Here is a chaplain from San Quentin:
"Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, studied at California Institute of Technology
Answered Dec 18 2014
I was a prison chaplain at San Quentin. None of the inmates I talked with ever protested full innocence. There were two cases where, had they been white, good chance they'd have been convicted of a lesser offense, or maybe even found innocent, but these were cases where they had actually killed someone, in self-defense, arguably, but ... there were other circumstances that made it murder, such as a police station being across the street! (I.e., there were options other than killing the attacker.)
I knew inmates whose parole had been violated, returning them to prison, who possibly had not done anything wrong. But none who ever denied the original crime. Now, that doesn't mean that there were none. In prison, I would guess it is not popular to protest innocence, because you will be in the minority and attempting to separate yourself from the rest. It might not be safe. I talked to a lot of inmates, walking the cell blocks, which is where I heard one of the "overcharged" stories (murder vs manslaughter). That kind of story is a little different, it would still convey a message of "don't mess with me."
My guess is that actually being innocent and being in prison with a conviction is a terrible position. A defacto requirement for parole may be a display of remorse. So what do you do?"
...
Please all be kind to Holly, I know you are. She is unassailably correct, and Jeremy Bamber may find his fortunes reside with people like Holly who have the brains and time to champion their cause.
@)(++(* 8(0(*
I take it you aren't aware of how Jeremy Bamber treats those who champion his cause
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=785.msg24543#msg24543
"No matter what people" he's quite clearly referring to Julie Mugford
And
"There's not a chance anyone would hear news before me" even though he's in prison? Surely even you can see he's referring to his crimes.
Have a read of his letters to Mike http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0
-
I come here less frequently than I would like, Holly is doing "god"'s work.
I think it is vital to understand that in contentious cases it is an aborted mission to state only the accused knows if he (her) is guilty.
Jeremy Bamber is innocent because science has delivered a verdict.
Demeanour evidence, which is poorly understood, strongly favours the resolute proclaimer of innocence.
Damien Echolls watched many fellow inmates marched to the needle, and his book "Life after Death", states that not a single one proclaimed innocence. Indeed in modern times, it is possible only Cameron Todd Willingham has been executed, and is innocent. Richard Glossip came close but lives on. Please google those cases to understand this matter.
Here is a chaplain from San Quentin:
"Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, studied at California Institute of Technology
Answered Dec 18 2014
I was a prison chaplain at San Quentin. None of the inmates I talked with ever protested full innocence. There were two cases where, had they been white, good chance they'd have been convicted of a lesser offense, or maybe even found innocent, but these were cases where they had actually killed someone, in self-defense, arguably, but ... there were other circumstances that made it murder, such as a police station being across the street! (I.e., there were options other than killing the attacker.)
I knew inmates whose parole had been violated, returning them to prison, who possibly had not done anything wrong. But none who ever denied the original crime. Now, that doesn't mean that there were none. In prison, I would guess it is not popular to protest innocence, because you will be in the minority and attempting to separate yourself from the rest. It might not be safe. I talked to a lot of inmates, walking the cell blocks, which is where I heard one of the "overcharged" stories (murder vs manslaughter). That kind of story is a little different, it would still convey a message of "don't mess with me."
My guess is that actually being innocent and being in prison with a conviction is a terrible position. A defacto requirement for parole may be a display of remorse. So what do you do?"
...
Please all be kind to Holly, I know you are. She is unassailably correct, and Jeremy Bamber may find his fortunes reside with people like Holly who have the brains and time to champion their cause.
Define your perception of "demeanour evidence" and why you believe it's "poorly understood."
-
Further to the following from yesterday it is disappointing to see one poster retrieving posts that have been dealt with here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9293.msg453751#msg453751
Reposts have been removed.
The link above also deals with off-topic posts. Posts 114 - 118 inclusive are totally irrelevant to the thread/original post. Please look up existing threads to add to or create new ones. Final warning, any off-topic posts where not even a tenuous link exists will be edited or removed on sight.
-
MODERATORS - COULD YOU PLEASE STOP THIS IDIOT POSTING ON THIS FORUM??
Sorry, but the situation is a joke. I've looked back at some of the threads, and this person has been a frequent troublemaker over a long period of time. It's obvious that she needs to be dealt with.
Further to the following from yesterday it is disappointing to see one poster retrieving posts that have been dealt with here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9293.msg453751#msg453751
Reposts have been removed.
The link above also deals with off-topic posts. Posts 114 - 118 inclusive are totally irrelevant to the thread/original post. Please look up existing threads to add to or create new ones. Final warning, any off-topic posts where not even a tenuous link exists will be edited or removed on sight.
The above post was not dealt with and may have been an oversight on your part Holly?
However I have now reported it and trust you will deal with it accordingly
-
The above post was not dealt with and may have been an oversight on your part Holly?
However I have now reported it and trust you will deal with it accordingly
It was dealt with collectively here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9293.msg453751#msg453751
The offending posts haven't been edited or removed yet but will be in due course. Yours remain too. As an example:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9273.msg453455#msg453455
Stephanie a line needs to be drawn under this now.
-
On page 29 of PH's book Deviant:
"My cynicism was aroused that Bamber was toying with me and trying to manipulate my research when he volunteered, without any provocation, that he felt it would be of no benefit in me viewing crime scene or post mortem images of the murdered children, since these images were as such irrelevant to my investigation and research. This struck me as odd, I had never once mentioned images of any description, and since he knew I was an ex-police officer, and through my profession had seen and attended countless post-mortems and violent scenes of death, it felt as thought he was trying to manage and control what I saw. The message he tried to portray was of someone showing consideration for my feelings, but why should he do that? In reality it is in fact a trait among child killers that they don't like to discuss the brutality of their crimes on a defenceless child. Bamber, from the outset, was setting his own parameters and letting me know he didn't want to discuss the murder of the children. Child killers attempt to dissociate from any or all direct or visual evidence of their acts, they know it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify the consequences of their crimes against a child since such acts arouse public revulsion, and for someone like Bamber who seeks public support and sympathy, it puts him at a distinct disadvantage".
"Conversely his strategy permitted him to seemingly believe it acceptable for me to see the crime scene images of the other (adult) victims, and whilst these people may not be children they were his closest family. This displays a total lack of sensitivity and personal empathy with the victims who he continues to use to his advantage even in death. It was a devious act employed by the killer and provided an early insight into what I was dealing with" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6489.0
Stephanie threads exist for just about everything under the sun! Here's the existing thread for 'Deviant' by PH:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6384.msg246801#msg246801
I don't want it to be said that I'm removing material anti-JB but I will do so in the future, whether it be anti or pro, if it's off-topic. I will dig out existing threads for you on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill. Going forward if you google the name of the forum along with key words of what it is you're looking for the search engine will hopefully turn it up. Alternatively pm me as I can remember most and their location.
-
When Robin Bain shot himself blood ended in silencer. Touch your temple then your throat to feel the physical/scientific difference Adam. It is the difference between hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall and a hedge.
But did it? I haven't seen any evidence for this?
-
Stephanie threads exist for just about everything under the sun! Here's the existing thread for 'Deviant' by PH:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6384.msg246801#msg246801
I don't want it to be said that I'm removing material anti-JB but I will do so in the future, whether it be anti or pro, if it's off-topic. I will dig out existing threads for you on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill. Going forward if you google the name of the forum along with key words of what it is you're looking for the search engine will hopefully turn it up. Alternatively pm me as I can remember most and their location.
Yet you suggest Jeremy Bamber cannot? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg454139#msg454139
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1045.0
"Letter written by Jeremy Bamber to Colin Caffell...this letter published in Colin's book, "In search of the rainbow's end".
Dear Colin
I read the articles in yesterdays independence with much sadness, the same sadness I always feel when I read about you and what you've been through in the last 3 years. Your letter today, Colin, was a touch premature,your writing to me, hoping, I guess, for the last few pieces of the jigsaw, so that you may hold the picture of what happened is not possible...if I could furnish you with what you wanted then I would gladly do so-whatever happened that fateful night will never be fully explained, in fact you could probably tell me more than I could you.
The paper did mention in the article yesterday that I was appealing, and no doubt you knew that anyway...how are you going to react when they quash my conviction Colin,because its very probable they will do so? you may believe me guilty, you may not, but I hope that if nothing else you will try and keep an open mind because at my appeal I will prove my innocence and by doing that the corner stone of the prosecution evidence was fabricated, by whom I cant prove yet and its not necessary to do so for my appeal, but eventually I'll find out because it can only be one of five people...it sounds like I'm talking riddles, and I'm sorry I can't explain in a letter to you. It seems so pointless me sending you this letter as it will only add to your confusion but for you to write to me must have taken a great deal, so my replying is the least I can do.
Jeremy continues in the same block capital style for another page or so and then closes wih these paragraphs.
In the same that you question what was written about Sheila in the newspapers so you should question what was said about me...I'm not gay or bisexual, I wasn't a cocaine smuggler, I didn't know half the people I had been associated with, I didn't break someone's arm at school, I didn't kite cheques and I didn't rape Julie.What other odious stuff they wrote I can't recall-even during my trial they couldn't get it right.
I won't go on, you know me and what I was like and I didn't write to you to convince you of my innocence even though I am, just well whatever.
Love Jeremy
P.S. I truly wish I could help you
There's more on Colin Caffell's thoughts here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6489.0