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: ISpyWithMyEye on June 05, 2020, 11:43:22 AM
-
Been busy so haven’t caught up...
I can’t see Champagne corks flying on court steps with the old (as he calls himself) Jeremy Bamber hobbling down the stairs flanked by Holly and the Fab Four..
Have I missed it?
https://mol.im/a/8392497
-
I'm also waiting for the reserved decision to be announced. Seems like more than a week already.
-
I'm also waiting for the reserved decision to be announced. Seems like more than a week already.
Tad quiet...
Ominously so..😌
-
Tad quiet...
Ominously so..😌
IT'S A "NO" FROM KNOWLES
-
IT'S A "NO" FROM KNOWLES
Good, and rightly so. tribunal shopping indeed.
Where to now?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/05/jeremy-bamber-refused-access-to-documents-on-essex-family-murders
-
Good, and rightly so. tribunal shopping indeed.
Where to now?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/05/jeremy-bamber-refused-access-to-documents-on-essex-family-murders (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/05/jeremy-bamber-refused-access-to-documents-on-essex-family-murders)
Downhill, of course. It seems Trudi B. wasn't prepared to wait ten years in the queue before another submission was rejected by the CCRC.
-
Oh dear, where does this leave his appeal? Perhaps we can get an update from those on the forum who are working on securing his release.
-
Downhill, of course. It seems Trudi B. wasn't prepared to wait ten years in the queue before another submission was rejected by the CCRC.
She may have seen the writing on the wall and jumped before she was pushed.
-
Mr Justice Julian Knowles judgement in detail... https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.pdf (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.pdf)
-
Mr Justice Julian Knowles judgement in detail... https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.pdf (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.pdf)
Looks like this saga will run and run.
-
Good, and rightly so. tribunal shopping indeed.
Where to now?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/05/jeremy-bamber-refused-access-to-documents-on-essex-family-murders
Was there a chance being given to him?
"In his judgment, delivered a week after the hearing held on Skype at Leeds administrative court, Knowles said: “I am unable to say that the CPS erred in law in refusing to make the disclosure sought.”
However, the judge provided hope to Bamber in his quest to clear his name and ruled that new evidence in the case could be used to make fresh submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). He said: “This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe."
-
Oh dear.
Looks like Jeremy Bamber and his campaign team have egg on their face again...😡
So what will be his next reason for an appeal when he’s 75 and has “fresh evidence? (&^&
-
Was there a chance being given to him?
"In his judgment, delivered a week after the hearing held on Skype at Leeds administrative court, Knowles said: “I am unable to say that the CPS erred in law in refusing to make the disclosure sought.”
However, the judge provided hope to Bamber in his quest to clear his name and ruled that new evidence in the case could be used to make fresh submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). He said: “This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe."
Julian is taking the pee, me thinks
It says”
“ But Mr Justice Knowles added: 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way.”
Meaning, if there were 40 moderators found in WHF it wouldn’t make a jot of difference.
Joe Stone, acting for JB, said: “ It seems ‘almost’ certain there was another moderator “ But he isn’t SURE. And even if there was, it wouldn’t change a thing.
The moderator the court are interested in is the one which contained Sheila’s blood, and which fitted the murder weapon...as Julian Knowles rightly pointed out,
Julian just wants shot of Bamber’s continuous weak pleas...he gets on everyone’s nerves.
He’s effectively telling JB to FO and moan to the CCRC so they can tell him to FO Too @)(++(*
-
Yup, he’s more or less slapped him down as a vexatious litigant. Feel free to appeal via the CCRC, Mr Bamber.
-
Was there a chance being given to him?
"In his judgment, delivered a week after the hearing held on Skype at Leeds administrative court, Knowles said: “I am unable to say that the CPS erred in law in refusing to make the disclosure sought.”
However, the judge provided hope to Bamber in his quest to clear his name and ruled that new evidence in the case could be used to make fresh submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). He said: “This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe."
Robby, I truly think Julian Knowles is having a laugh to himself.
Read between the lines.
He said:
“This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”
“Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm.”[b[/b]
“....UNQUALIFIED report from Mr Boyce...”
Julian Knowles also said:
“'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way”
So, he’s effectively saying — “Doesn’t matter if another 1000 moderators were found at WHF — the one found that had been attached to the murder weapon and which contained Sheila’s blood is the only one the court is interested in. If the other 1000 moderators have no blood inside, that reinforces the obvious: Sheila was shot with the moderator which contained her blood. IF the other moderator which you’re only ‘sure’ exists but you don’t know for certain that it does, but if this fitted the murder weapon (despite Nevill Bamber only buying one moderator when purchasing that rifle), and it ALSO contained Sheila’s blood, that would simply prove the murderer used two moderators to shoot Sheila. Maybe, for some unknown reason, the murderer changed the moderator when loading the second bullet to kill Sheila? Seems unlikely the murderer would hide one moderator and not the other, unless they deliberately planted an identical moderator which they never used in the shootings to try and bamboozle the police.”
Whichever way you look at it, and if another moderator does indeed exist, Jeremy Bamber is digging an even bigger hole for himself....
Julian Knowles is definitely taking the pee
He knows Jeremy Bamber ain’t going anywhere, ever ^*&&
-
Robby, I truly think Julian Knowles is having a laugh to himself.
Read between the lines.
He said:
“This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”
“Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm.”[b[/b]
“....UNQUALIFIED report from Mr Boyce...”
Julian is taking the pee
He knows Jeremy Bamber ain’t going anywhere, ever ^*&&
I read that as if you can find this second moderator then you may have a basis.
-
I read that as if you can find this second moderator then you may have a basis.
Well, the gun leaning against the window has a sound moderator on it IMO. If there is one attached to the gun in the photo and the other in a box in the gun cabinet that adds up to two doesn't it.
-
I think Knowles is humouring him about a new submission to the CCRC ie leave us in the Admin Court alone and go and annoy the CCRC - we have no interest now or in the future. It really is telling that Bamber hasn’t even been able to get permission to apply(the preliminary filter stage) in his last two JRs. He is generally very poorly represented
-
Well, the gun leaning against the window has a sound moderator on it IMO. If there is one attached to the gun in the photo and the other in a box in the gun cabinet that adds up to two doesn't it.
It doesn't.
-
It doesn't.
I'll need to have another look at it. Do you have a link to a high-resolution photo of it?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The end of that gun is wider at the bit obscured by the window frame. To me, that is because there is a silencer attached to it.
So there is without a doubt a second sound moderator.
-
Robby, I truly think Julian Knowles is having a laugh to himself.
Read between the lines.
He said:
“This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”
“Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm.”[b[/b]
“....UNQUALIFIED report from Mr Boyce...”
Julian Knowles also said:
“'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way”
So, he’s effectively saying — “Doesn’t matter if another 1000 moderators were found at WHF — the one found that had been attached to the murder weapon and which contained Sheila’s blood is the only one the court is interested in. If the other 1000 moderators have no blood inside, that reinforces the obvious: Sheila was shot with the moderator which contained her blood. IF the other moderator which you’re only ‘sure’ exists but you don’t know for certain that it does, but if this fitted the murder weapon (despite Nevill Bamber only buying one moderator when purchasing that rifle), and it ALSO contained Sheila’s blood, that would simply prove the murderer used two moderators to shoot Sheila. Maybe, for some unknown reason, the murderer changed the moderator when loading the second bullet to kill Sheila? Seems unlikely the murderer would hide one moderator and not the other, unless they deliberately planted an identical moderator which they never used in the shootings to try and bamboozle the police.”
Whichever way you look at it, and if another moderator does indeed exist, Jeremy Bamber is digging an even bigger hole for himself....
Julian Knowles is definitely taking the pee
He knows Jeremy Bamber ain’t going anywhere, ever ^*&&
-
I'll need to have another look at it. Do you have a link to a high-resolution photo of it?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image
That rifle does not have a moderator on it
You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila
They’re identical
The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel — you must have seen photos of it?
And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?
There’s absolutely nothing whatsoever that Jeremy Bamber has to suggest he is innocent, nothing. He’s just trying it on and he won’t stop until he pops his clogs in prison.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The end of that gun is wider at the bit obscured by the window frame. To me, that is because there is a silencer attached to it.
So there is without a doubt a second sound moderator.
Yes there is doubt no one can prove it existence.
-
I think Knowles is humouring him about a new submission to the CCRC ie leave us in the Admin Court alone and go and annoy the CCRC - we have no interest now or in the future. It really is telling that Bamber hasn’t even been able to get permission to apply(the preliminary filter stage) in his last two JRs. He is generally very poorly represented
Absolutely agree, Jelgoon.
Quality Jordan Solicitors (who can’t even spell the word “particularly” on their bio) have sent a barrister to court without any ammunition. They haven’t said the know for fact there’s a second moderator — they said they “think” there could be one. Which would make no difference anyway.
The prosecution took convicted Bamber’s latest boring attempt so ludicrously weak and inane, that they sent a junior barrister with scant experience to represent them. That alone speaks volumes...and must also dent JB’s ego.
-
I read that as if you can find this second moderator then you may have a basis.
That’s how it sounds, but it’s Julian Knowles sending the evil Bamber on another wild goose chase. He knows JB hasn’t a hope in hell.
Before adding that Julian said:
“ 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way”
In which case, if JB tries yet again to trowel through 4M papers and apply to the CCRC AGAIN, and somehow manages to prove there’s another moderator, which no-one’s ever heard of, it won’t make any difference.
-
Yes there is doubt no one can prove it existence.
There’s certainly no moderator on the end of that gun by the window. That’s clear to see.
If there was a moderator on it, that’s even more proof Sheila couldn’t have shot herself.
But why would/could the police remove the rifle from Sheila’s body with it having no moderator on, then go and find one from somewhere, screw it on the murder weapon, then place it by the wall/window? For what reason?
All these insane grasping lies/distortions stem from Jeremy Bamber’s twisted head. All of them.
He’s a typical psychopath who will lie, lie, lie about everything. Some of his lies and behaviour are identical to John Canaan’s and Christian Buireck (?) who all share the same determined litigious traits, lie the same way, distort, try to plant seeds, have no remorse — and have giant egos.
-
That rifle does not have a moderator on it
You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila
They’re identical
The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel — you must have seen photos of it?
And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?
There’s absolutely nothing whatsoever that Jeremy Bamber has to suggest he is innocent, nothing. He’s just trying it on and he won’t stop until he pops his clogs in prison.
I think you are so wrong when you say "The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel"
Look at this animation as an example https://www.blaser.de/en/products/silencer/silencer-moderator/
You said: "And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?"
Yes they were with the intention of hiding the truth IMO.
You say: "You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila
They’re identical " IMO they are different guns different length barrels.
But get this point straight the silencer is always wider than the standard barrel. It has to be as there are baffles in it.
-
I think you are so wrong when you say "The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel"
Look at this animation as an example https://www.blaser.de/en/products/silencer/silencer-moderator/ (https://www.blaser.de/en/products/silencer/silencer-moderator/)
You said: "And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?"
Yes they were with the intention of hiding the truth IMO.
You say: "You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila
They’re identical " IMO they are different guns different length barrels.
But get this point straight the silencer is always wider than the standard barrel. It has to be as there are baffles in it.
The Blaser moderator you linked to is NOT a Parker-Hale, and it also has a larger diameter - 42.9mm (4.29cm) compared to 22mm (2.2cm) for the PH, i.e. nearly twice as wide. Neither was a Blaser, nor any other make of moderator found as evidence.
In the last attachment, using a piece of paper measure the lengths of both barrels on screen to compare and you'll find they're pretty much the same. Both have no fitted moderator and the scaling of the rifle on the right is as near as damn it to the one in the CS photo on the left.
(https://i.imgur.com/poeQTj4.jpg)
Parker-Hale Moderator attached to an Anschutz 525...
(https://i.imgur.com/zeGr4eU.png)
-
Quality Jordan Solicitors (who can’t even spell the word “particularly” on their bio)
Latest from Mark Newby
Posted on June 5, 2020
‘The High Court has today declined to grant an order requiring the Director of Prosecution to make disclosure but in doing so significantly left the door open for Jeremy Bamber to now pursue his application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission . Jeremy's Solicitor , Mark Newby has made this statement :
‘Today the High Court declined a request by the those representing Jeremy Bamber to order disclosure which would have answered a very material aspect of this case namely prima facie conclusions reached by an eminent Ballistics Expert that there may have been two Silencers examined in this investigation . The issue could have been answered by disclosing just 27 documents out of an overall case file running to several million pages.
It remains our view that this would have been the most expedient and resource sensitive way to address this important issue , however the High Court has concluded that the high water mark imposed in the case of Nunn R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk [2015] AC 225 has not in this case been crossed . Indeed The Honourable Mr Justice Knowles who decided the case considered that this case was so uniquely complex that the Court could simply not itself do justice to a determination one way or the other of whether Jeremy Bamber could establish in the end whether he had the required evidence to demonstrate to the Court that he and his expert are correct and that accordingly the material would make a decisive difference .
Counsel for Jeremy Bamber said that the existence of a second moderator would potentially undermine the safety of the convictions. Whilst the prosecution also relied on other evidence, the question of whether Ms Caffell could have shot herself with the moderator affixed to the rifle inevitably became a prominent one. He said there were questions surrounding the correctness of the attribution of the blood to Ms Caffell, and the attribution of the paint to a struggle with Nevill Bamber. Jeremy Bamber had advanced a detailed assessment of why this would make a material difference to the safety of the conviction.
The essence was that Jeremy Bamber was very sure that the conclusion with the 27 documents seen would have supported his case, however we could not say for certainty without seeing the documents and this remained the problem.
The argument was strongly contested by the Crown, but, the real thrust of the argument was that it was only the CCRC who could consider this uniquely complex case.
His Lordship significantly summarised the position as it stands as this:
“55. I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties and have read and considered all of the material that has been lodged. I have carefully considered the decision of Saini J and for the reasons that he gave, with which I agree, and for the following reasons, I have concluded that permission should be refused. This does not leave the Claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”
Whilst the decision is disappointing, we agree with his Lordships assessment that Jeremy Bamber certainly does have the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC. Indeed there is material which still simply cannot be put into the public domain and a significant amount of further material which will now be added to the application to now be put to the Commission which we consider will require a thorough investigation by the Commission .
The net consequence of what is about to be delivered in the months ahead is to afford the commission an opportunity to be able to look at key areas of this uniquely complex case again, but with the benefit of fresh material which we submit raises the required possibility that the Court would not now uphold the conviction if the case was referred .
As part of the run into this case there was criticism that Jeremy Bamber was advancing a narrative of misconduct by Essex Police which was unsubstantiated , yet it was revealed just 24 hours before the hearing , following concerns that had been raised by Jeremy Bamber , that a former senior investigating officer in the case Michael Ainsley had not only taken sensitive material from the investigation home , but he had passed documents to the author of the Book , Carol Ann Lee , which led to the ITV Drama and then taken it upon himself to destroy evidence .
This is a deeply concerning chain of events, which is subject to an ongoing investigation.
Accordingly despite the overall outcome to this review , it is our view that the Jeremy Bamber’s case has moved forward as result of these proceedings and the team look forward to the now pivotal next step of being able to start to engage with the commission over this case in the months ahead .
The Onus is now on the Commission once it is seized of the case as His Lordship noted:
“57. If ever there was a case where the CCRC should be approached to make a decision on what is said to be new evidence, it is this one. This is a massively complex case which has been investigated and re-investigated by more than one police force over some 35 years. The body of material is vast. After so many years, and so much litigation, the CCRC is the body undoubtedly best placed to consider the Claimant’s arguments. This case is so complicated, and has so many overlapping layers, that judicial review is a hopelessly blunt tool with which to address and determine the Claimant’s arguments. Even deciding what disclosure has, or has not, been made is fraught with difficulty Even if the Claimant were right on his primary case, the Court is hardly in a position to say whether the CPS’s determination that it would not mean the convictions are unsafe, is one which was not reasonably open to it. It simply does not have the material or understanding of all the detail of the case to be able to make that determination.”
Jeremy Bamber is represented by Mark Newby of QualitySolicitors Jordans – https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby
His Counsel are:
Joe Stone QC https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc http://kbgchambers.co.uk/members-Exeter-Plymouth-Truro
Matt Stanbury https://gcnchambers.co.uk/barrister/matthew-stanbury/
https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/news/2020/06/jeremy-bamber-high-court-in-declining-disclosure-leaves-door-firmly-open-to-ccrc
-
The Blaser moderator you linked to is NOT a Parker-Hale, and it also has a larger diameter - 42.9mm (4.29cm) compared to 22mm (2.2cm) for the PH, i.e. nearly twice as wide. Neither was a Blaser, nor any other make of moderator found as evidence.
In the last attachment, using a piece of paper measure the lengths of both barrels on screen to compare and you'll find they're pretty much the same. Both have no fitted moderator and the scaling of the rifle on the right is as near as damn it to the one in the CS photo on the left.
(https://i.imgur.com/poeQTj4.jpg)
Parker-Hale Moderator attached to an Anschutz 525...
(https://i.imgur.com/zeGr4eU.png)
The only reason I selected the "Blaser" was to show how in general a silencer is wider than the gun's barrel.
There is some reason the barrel looks wider once it gets up near the window frame. I can't actually see where the barrel ends as there isn't enough light on the subject.
Measurements would depend on the distance and magnification of the image. Just because those two guns look the same length does not prove they are one and the same.
-
I think Knowles is humouring him about a new submission to the CCRC ie leave us in the Admin Court alone and go and annoy the CCRC - we have no interest now or in the future. It really is telling that Bamber hasn’t even been able to get permission to apply(the preliminary filter stage) in his last two JRs. He is generally very poorly represented
Yep - I reckon that's yer lot!!
8((()*/
-
The only reason I selected the "Blaser" was to show how in general a silencer is wider than the gun's barrel.
There is some reason the barrel looks wider once it gets up near the window frame. I can't actually see where the barrel ends as there isn't enough light on the subject.
Measurements would depend on the distance and magnification of the image. Just because those two guns look the same length does not prove they are one and the same.
It's a shadow on the or a distortion on a bad copy of the photograph. The originals made it to the court room where they were scrutinised by the defence. Don't you think that one of them might have noticed that there was a silencer attached to it?
-
There’s certainly no moderator on the end of that gun by the window. That’s clear to see.
If there was a moderator on it, that’s even more proof Sheila couldn’t have shot herself.
But why would/could the police remove the rifle from Sheila’s body with it having no moderator on, then go and find one from somewhere, screw it on the murder weapon, then place it by the wall/window? For what reason?
All these insane grasping lies/distortions stem from Jeremy Bamber’s twisted head. All of them.
He’s a typical psychopath who will lie, lie, lie about everything. Some of his lies and behaviour are identical to John Canaan’s and Christian Buireck (?) who all share the same determined litigious traits, lie the same way, distort, try to plant seeds, have no remorse — and have giant egos.
Hes just desperate to get out. The whole thing is pathetic now.I think this decision by Knowles is quite important. He is clearly indicating that the Administrative Court don’t want to hear from Bamber again.
-
I'll need to have another look at it. Do you have a link to a high-resolution photo of it?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image
What window is that gun near? Hanging pot plant near window, top frame pulled down 6 inches.
Looking at the photos of the WHF homestead it was only the windows at the front of the house that had 4 panes of glass across them, so this window is the dining room IMO.
And the window is open so it is a possible entry and exit point.
-
What window is that gun near? Hanging pot plant near window, top frame pulled down 6 inches.
Looking at the photos of the WHF homestead it was only the windows at the front of the house that had 4 panes of glass across them, so this window is the dining room.
The window with the gun leaning up against the frame is the main bedroom window! Clouseau strikes again! @)(++(*
-
The window with the gun leaning up against the frame is the main bedroom window! Clouseau strikes again! @)(++(*
OK so you are right. Upstairs bedroom window with the top sash pulled down partially. Vegetation in the photo is the trees some distance away.
-
The window with the gun leaning up against the frame is the main bedroom window! Clouseau strikes again! @)(++(*
We don't need any funny business around here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMSnfeNf8c
-
We don't need any funny business around here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMSnfeNf8c
Or any bull shit!
-
That rifle does not have a moderator on it
You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila
They’re identical
The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel — you must have seen photos of it?
And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?
There’s absolutely nothing whatsoever that Jeremy Bamber has to suggest he is innocent, nothing. He’s just trying it on and he won’t stop until he pops his clogs in prison.
This is the first time I have sen this photograph, quite chilling. You can see by the way her arms are placed this was NOT a suicide using that gun. It looks like her arms can't reach (already mentioned- I know),but the left arm is really in a non natural position. The blast would have thrown her left arm up and away from the body. If she only used one arm to pull the trigger, again having been injured it this was the allegedly second shot which did caused the death.
On another observation, anyone committing suicide with a gun would put it into an open mouth, IF they were experienced in these matters which JB claimed Sheila was...This shows that story to be untrue.
-
This is the first time I have sen this photograph, quite chilling. You can see by the way her arms are placed this was NOT a suicide using that gun. It looks like her arms can't reach (already mentioned- I know),but the left arm is really in a non natural position. The blast would have thrown her left arm up and away from the body. If she only used one arm to pull the trigger, again having been injured it this was the allegedly second shot which did caused the death.
On another observation, anyone committing suicide with a gun would put it into an open mouth, IF they were experienced in these matters which JB claimed Sheila was...This shows that story to be untrue.
Stage management doesn't require accuracy to the nth degree -unless you're a pedantic stage manager- suggestion is enough to create illusion. It's difficult to imagine any sort of pedantry going on in the chaos and confusion which must have been WHF that morning, with police personnel who would only have been in such a situation in role plays and theory. That Sheila was dead, and had a rifle laying on her pointing in -roughly- the right area, was enough to suggest she'd comitted suicide.
-
This is the first time I have sen this photograph, quite chilling. You can see by the way her arms are placed this was NOT a suicide using that gun. It looks like her arms can't reach (already mentioned- I know),but the left arm is really in a non natural position. The blast would have thrown her left arm up and away from the body. If she only used one arm to pull the trigger, again having been injured it this was the allegedly second shot which did caused the death.
On another observation, anyone committing suicide with a gun would put it into an open mouth, IF they were experienced in these matters which JB claimed Sheila was...This shows that story to be untrue.
The SOC is unreliable.
The police admit they probably inadvertently moved the bible. A fact I don't believe jurors were made aware of.
Blood stain analysis wasn't used in the way it would be today. Some years later a bsa concluded SC was moved post second fatal gsw.
A first respondent noted SC's head raised against the bedside cabinet whereas the soc image shows flat to the floor. Who moved SC? It wasn't JB since he was outside with EP.
All to play for at what will be a historic third appeal and undoubtedly successful.
-
Second attachment to above:
-
Second attachment to above:
I'd like to see how the Bible was thrown across the room as the police entered the house.
-
I'd like to see how the Bible was thrown across the room as the police entered the house.
It tells you in the attached how it came about.
-
It tells you in the attached how it came about.
Was the Bible close to an opening door?
-
Was the Bible close to an opening door?
Please refer to the doc I uploaded along with the layout of WHF to draw your own conclusion. Other relevant material includes the wit stats of A/PS Woodcock and PC's Collins and Delgado.
There's also a note from A/PS Adams re movement of soc.
-
Was the Bible close to an opening door?
Lookingthrough the case related photos again I see this photo with Sheila obscured but the Bible is still visible and the door that may have pushed the Bible up against Sheila's arm.
The fact that the Bible is partly on top of Sheila's arm has no evidentiary value IMO.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4093;image)
-
Lookingthrough the case related photos again I see this photo with Sheila obscured but the Bible is still visible and the door that may have pushed the Bible up against Sheila's arm.
The fact that the Bible is partly on top of Sheila's arm has no evidentiary value IMO.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4093;image)
Exactly.
The bible might well have contained a lot of evidential value if we knew whose blood stained the pages.
-
Exactly.
The bible might well have contained a lot of evidential value if we knew whose blood stained the pages.
Well I will agree with you there especially if there was blood from some 3rd party on the Bible
-
Well I will agree with you there especially if there was blood from some 3rd party on the Bible
The blood either originated from SC or June. The latter imo.
There's no evidence of any 3rd party involvement.
-
The blood either originated from SC or June. The latter imo.
There's no evidence of any 3rd party involvement.
So how did the Bible get on Sheila's side of the room? Did Sheila throw it? The owner of a Bible doesn't normally throw it around, so I wouldn't think June would throw it at Sheila.
-
Exactly.
The bible might well have contained a lot of evidential value if we knew whose blood stained the pages.
8)-)))
-
Latest from Mark Newby
Posted on June 5, 2020
‘The High Court has today declined to grant an order requiring the Director of Prosecution to make disclosure but in doing so significantly left the door open for Jeremy Bamber to now pursue his application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission . Jeremy's Solicitor , Mark Newby has made this statement :
‘Today the High Court declined a request by the those representing Jeremy Bamber to order disclosure which would have answered a very material aspect of this case namely prima facie conclusions reached by an eminent Ballistics Expert that there may have been two Silencers examined in this investigation . The issue could have been answered by disclosing just 27 documents out of an overall case file running to several million pages.
It remains our view that this would have been the most expedient and resource sensitive way to address this important issue , however the High Court has concluded that the high water mark imposed in the case of Nunn R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk [2015] AC 225 has not in this case been crossed . Indeed The Honourable Mr Justice Knowles who decided the case considered that this case was so uniquely complex that the Court could simply not itself do justice to a determination one way or the other of whether Jeremy Bamber could establish in the end whether he had the required evidence to demonstrate to the Court that he and his expert are correct and that accordingly the material would make a decisive difference .
Counsel for Jeremy Bamber said that the existence of a second moderator would potentially undermine the safety of the convictions. Whilst the prosecution also relied on other evidence, the question of whether Ms Caffell could have shot herself with the moderator affixed to the rifle inevitably became a prominent one. He said there were questions surrounding the correctness of the attribution of the blood to Ms Caffell, and the attribution of the paint to a struggle with Nevill Bamber. Jeremy Bamber had advanced a detailed assessment of why this would make a material difference to the safety of the conviction.
The essence was that Jeremy Bamber was very sure that the conclusion with the 27 documents seen would have supported his case, however we could not say for certainty without seeing the documents and this remained the problem.
The argument was strongly contested by the Crown, but, the real thrust of the argument was that it was only the CCRC who could consider this uniquely complex case.
His Lordship significantly summarised the position as it stands as this:
“55. I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties and have read and considered all of the material that has been lodged. I have carefully considered the decision of Saini J and for the reasons that he gave, with which I agree, and for the following reasons, I have concluded that permission should be refused. This does not leave the Claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”
Whilst the decision is disappointing, we agree with his Lordships assessment that Jeremy Bamber certainly does have the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC. Indeed there is material which still simply cannot be put into the public domain and a significant amount of further material which will now be added to the application to now be put to the Commission which we consider will require a thorough investigation by the Commission .
The net consequence of what is about to be delivered in the months ahead is to afford the commission an opportunity to be able to look at key areas of this uniquely complex case again, but with the benefit of fresh material which we submit raises the required possibility that the Court would not now uphold the conviction if the case was referred .
As part of the run into this case there was criticism that Jeremy Bamber was advancing a narrative of misconduct by Essex Police which was unsubstantiated , yet it was revealed just 24 hours before the hearing , following concerns that had been raised by Jeremy Bamber , that a former senior investigating officer in the case Michael Ainsley had not only taken sensitive material from the investigation home , but he had passed documents to the author of the Book , Carol Ann Lee , which led to the ITV Drama and then taken it upon himself to destroy evidence .
This is a deeply concerning chain of events, which is subject to an ongoing investigation.
Accordingly despite the overall outcome to this review , it is our view that the Jeremy Bamber’s case has moved forward as result of these proceedings and the team look forward to the now pivotal next step of being able to start to engage with the commission over this case in the months ahead .
The Onus is now on the Commission once it is seized of the case as His Lordship noted:
“57. If ever there was a case where the CCRC should be approached to make a decision on what is said to be new evidence, it is this one. This is a massively complex case which has been investigated and re-investigated by more than one police force over some 35 years. The body of material is vast. After so many years, and so much litigation, the CCRC is the body undoubtedly best placed to consider the Claimant’s arguments. This case is so complicated, and has so many overlapping layers, that judicial review is a hopelessly blunt tool with which to address and determine the Claimant’s arguments. Even deciding what disclosure has, or has not, been made is fraught with difficulty Even if the Claimant were right on his primary case, the Court is hardly in a position to say whether the CPS’s determination that it would not mean the convictions are unsafe, is one which was not reasonably open to it. It simply does not have the material or understanding of all the detail of the case to be able to make that determination.”
Jeremy Bamber is represented by Mark Newby of QualitySolicitors Jordans – https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby
His Counsel are:
Joe Stone QC https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc http://kbgchambers.co.uk/members-Exeter-Plymouth-Truro
Matt Stanbury https://gcnchambers.co.uk/barrister/matthew-stanbury/
https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/news/2020/06/jeremy-bamber-high-court-in-declining-disclosure-leaves-door-firmly-open-to-ccrc
Dr Michael Naughton on the Jeremy Bamber case
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
This decision could exacerbate the harm of a potential wrongful conviction if Jeremy Bamber is innocent by keeping him incarcerated for longer. There will be much interest in how the
@ccrcupdate deal with his claim of innocence if and when another application is submitted.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1268970497846521857
-
This is the first time I have sen this photograph, quite chilling. You can see by the way her arms are placed this was NOT a suicide using that gun. It looks like her arms can't reach (already mentioned- I know),but the left arm is really in a non natural position. The blast would have thrown her left arm up and away from the body. If she only used one arm to pull the trigger, again having been injured it this was the allegedly second shot which did caused the death.
On another observation, anyone committing suicide with a gun would put it into an open mouth, IF they were experienced in these matters which JB claimed Sheila was...This shows that story to be untrue.
Absolutely, Miss Taken.
Sheila never shot herself at all.
Anyone shooting themselves with a long rifle need to hold it with two hands; Sheila’s left arm was bent over by the side of her head, meaning it was impossible for her to have killed herself.
Furthermore, her right arm would have splayed out by her side, and the gun would have dropped onto the floor. The rifle would have jerked upwards once fired, and Sheila’s body would have twitched like she was having an epileptic fit as she died. No WAY would that rifle and her arm have been laying all relaxed on her lap, while her left arm was bent by her head.
Her feet were also pointed too (like a ballerina) where Jeremy had pulled her body downwards. He forgot that her nightdress would bunch up underneath her as he pulled her down, and so only pulled the front of it down towards her knees.
It’s there in black and white, yet some people will deny it until they’re blue in the face.
-
The first shot could have been without the silencer in place.
-
The first shot could have been without the silencer in place.
Impossible.
Both shots to Sheila were carried out with the moderator attached, hence why NO blood/back spatter was inside the barrel.
Like I tell you repeatedly, this has all been established almost half a century ago
-
The first shot could have been without the silencer in place.
I think the silencer was in place throughout his killing spree and was only removed with the realisation when setting up the 'suicide' scenario that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself with it in place.
I'm a bit bemused why Bamber 'hid' it in the cupboard ... obviously it never occurred to him that it had become contaminated with the blood of his victims.
I don't know how many bullets he thought it would take to wipe out his family but even if he had initially calculated two each (although the number he used on the boys might negate my supposition) that would have been ten shots, each one increasing the potential of being heard and couldn't have been mistaken for a poacher or someone taking a pot shot at a fox.
Twenty five shots certainly increased that risk.
I don't think he would have started shooting without the moderator being in place.- use of the moderator lessened the risk of the shootings being heard from outside
- it may have bought him time inside the house with the confused victims not processing what was happening until too late that is if they had wakened at all ... and he nearly miscalculated that one.
-
Impossible.
Both shots to Sheila were carried out with the moderator attached, hence why NO blood/back spatter was inside the barrel.
Like I tell you repeatedly, this has all been established almost half a century ago
You don't always get back spatter.
-
I think the silencer was in place throughout his killing spree and was only removed with the realisation when setting up the 'suicide' scenario that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself with it in place.
I'm a bit bemused why Bamber 'hid' it in the cupboard ... obviously it never occurred to him that it had become contaminated with the blood of his victims.
I don't know how many bullets he thought it would take to wipe out his family but even if he had initially calculated two each (although the number he used on the boys might negate my supposition) that would have been ten shots, each one increasing the potential of being heard and couldn't have been mistaken for a poacher or someone taking a pot shot at a fox.
Twenty five shots certainly increased that risk.
I don't think he would have started shooting without the moderator being in place.- use of the moderator lessened the risk of the shootings being heard from outside
- it may have bought him time inside the house with the confused victims not processing what was happening until too late that is if they had wakened at all ... and he nearly miscalculated that one.
You've forgotten the hair and paint!
-
You've forgotten the hair and paint!
I was referring to what Bamber had it in his power to control. Such as whether or not to use the moderator inside the farm bearing in mind the noise level.
I was not referring to where his plans went awry such as when Nevill's valiant attempt to stop him resulted in a fierce fight in the kitchen resulting in Nevill being beaten with the rifle barrel and the moderator damaging the painted mantel during the struggle.
But it does indicate that whether used as a club or used to shoot, the moderator was attached to the rifle.
-
You don't always get back spatter.
Perhaps not but we're not talking about 'always'.
-
Perhaps not but we're not talking about 'always'.
Where is the science of back spatter explained? Especially the pattern of back spattering expected inside a sound moderator. I've found that the basics is understood but is there a scientific study done on it?
-
The first shot could have been without the silencer in place.
Oh Rob that made me laugh out loud. She tries to kill her self causing an injury- than goes to find a silencer...
Noooooooooo please stop it already...
-
Oh Rob that made me laugh out loud. She tries to kill her self causing an injury- than goes to find a silencer...
Noooooooooo please stop it already...
You said that, so rightly so, laugh at yourself. I say she shot herself the first time and then later someone else shoots her dead with the second shot.
-
I was referring to what Bamber had it in his power to control. Such as whether or not to use the moderator inside the farm bearing in mind the noise level.
I was not referring to where his plans went awry such as when Nevill's valiant attempt to stop him resulted in a fierce fight in the kitchen resulting in Nevill being beaten with the rifle barrel and the moderator damaging the painted mantel during the struggle.
But it does indicate that whether used as a club or used to shoot, the moderator was attached to the rifle.
There's no reliable evidence re difference in noise with/without silencer. Firearm discharge within a normal dwelling ie soft furnishings etc will sound completely different from how it sounds outside in open space.
If we are to believe the silencer was found with blood, paint and a strand of hair attached to the outside we also have to believe that JB overlooked all of this despite having to turn the silencer a number of times to detach it from the rifle.
The pathological evidence doesn't support a "fierce fight" in the kitchen or anything approaching.
-
There's no reliable evidence re difference in noise with/without silencer. Firearm discharge within a normal dwelling ie soft furnishings etc will sound completely different from how it sounds outside in open space.
If we are to believe the silencer was found with blood, paint and a strand of hair attached to the outside we also have to believe that JB overlooked all of this despite having to turn the silencer a number of times to detach it from the rifle.
The pathological evidence doesn't support a "fierce fight" in the kitchen or anything approaching.
No because a cracked skill is just a minor injury. You are being ridiculous.
-
No because a cracked skill is just a minor injury. You are being ridiculous.
Am I?
The pathologist confirms he did not observe anything SC was incapable of.
-
Am I?
The pathologist confirms he did not observe anything SC was incapable of.
With, what you fail to mention, the rider that it without knowing the sequence of injuries.
-
With, what you fail to mention, the rider that it without knowing the sequence of injuries.
Well do you know if the injuries were in a different sequence to that?
The injuries to Mr Bamber's arm, do we have a photo of them? Or are the burn marks already photographed the ones the pathologists called "injuries to his arm caused by the barrel of the gun"?
-
Well do you know if the injuries were in a different sequence to that?
The injuries to Mr Bamber's arm, do we have a photo of them? Or are the burn marks already photographed the ones the pathologists called "injuries to his arm caused by the barrel of the gun"?
Well, given that the experts never commit themselves 100% but cover themselves with "may have", "could have". "It's possible that", I'm going to join them and take a similar position. The only thing which is an undeniable certainty, is that IF Nevill made a call, it had to have been before he sustained the injury to his mouth.
-
Am I?
The pathologist confirms he did not observe anything SC was incapable of.
Yip!
What does that sentence actually mean?
-
Well, given that the experts never commit themselves 100% but cover themselves with "may have", "could have". "It's possible that", I'm going to join them and take a similar position. The only thing which is an undeniable certainty, is that IF Nevill made a call, it had to have been before he sustained the injury to his mouth.
I think that is a fair assumption. OK, we know when Jeremy made his call to the police timed at 3:36 AM so when does Jeremy say his Dad called him?
The police break into the house and Nevill's body is in rigor mortis then (7:30 AM or thereabouts) That is 4 plus hours later, which is more than enough time for rigor to set in.
What is the latest time a third party could shoot Nevill and still have rigor at 7:30 AM?
-
I think that is a fair assumption. OK, we know when Jeremy made his call to the police timed at 3:36 AM so when does Jeremy say his Dad called him?
The police break into the house and Nevill's body is in rigor mortis then (7:30 AM or thereabouts) That is 4 plus hours later, which is more than enough time for rigor to set in.
What is the latest time a third party could shoot Nevill and still have rigor at 7:30 AM?
I don't know that we do know what time Jeremy called police because he changed his mind. He says his father called 3(ish)?
-
I don't know that we do know what time Jeremy called police because he changed his mind. He says his father called 3(ish)?
It's on the police logs, though.
-
It's on the police logs, though.
Thank you, Mrswah. I'll pass that information on to Robittybobittybooboobear as it was he who asked the question.
-
I think that is a fair assumption. OK, we know when Jeremy made his call to the police timed at 3:36 AM so when does Jeremy say his Dad called him?
The police break into the house and Nevill's body is in rigor mortis then (7:30 AM or thereabouts) That is 4 plus hours later, which is more than enough time for rigor to set in.
What is the latest time a third party could shoot Nevill and still have rigor at 7:30 AM?
Mrswah says the answer is in the police logs!
-
Mrswah says the answer is in the police logs!
Ah, sorry! I thought you meant the time when Jeremy called the police. My mistake.
-
It's on the police logs, though.
West admitted that he had probably written the time he wrote the log, not the time he received the call.
-
West admitted that he had probably written the time he wrote the log, not the time he received the call.
Don't the police call someone from the phone company to get them to isolate the phone line into WHF? What time does the phone company say they were called? What time did the police set out to WHF?
I used to think to establish the time of death was a really important aspect of any police investigation. All three adults were out of bed two of them lying in the same room. Surely physics of cooling would mean Sheila and June would cool at similar rates. Take their body temperatures and room temperature and use the cooling rate formula to find out when they deceased.
If my theory is correct Sheila would be warmer than the other two adults so it would seem that Sheila died last provided it was possible for her to pull the trigger to fire her last and fatal shot. That must have been an assessment based on gun position.
The final shot sprayed blood onto the door behind her head. She was lying on the floor when the final shot occurred. The gun would need to be in line with the trajectory, but I don't think that was the case. Taf Jones should have realised the gun had been placed on her body to make it look like a suicide when it wasn't.
So did the bodies feel like they were at different temperatures?
-
I don't know that we do know what time Jeremy called police because he changed his mind. He says his father called 3(ish)?
So depending on if he made the call to Julie before or after the call to the police, and how many calls to the police did he make before he found a station that was manned that time of the morning. We might be able to estimate when Nevill rang Jeremy (whether fact or fiction).
Personally I think Jeremy rang Julie before he rang the police. Does she mention that he rang the police?
He gave two versions in his statements. If he wasn't too concerned that Sheila had a gun, he might have given her the maximum amount of time to do damage.
-
So depending on if he made the call to Julie before or after the call to the police, and how many calls to the police did he make before he found a station that was manned that time of the morning. We might be able to estimate when Nevill rang Jeremy (whether fact or fiction).
Personally I think Jeremy rang Julie before he rang the police. Does she mention that he rang the police?
He gave two versions in his statements. If he wasn't too concerned that Sheila had a gun, he might have given her the maximum amount of time to do damage.
Hm. Could it be possible that the killings were actually done by Sheila, but that Jeremy wasn't too upset about it? I have to admit, I have often wondered that.
-
Hm. Could it be possible that the killings were actually done by Sheila, but that Jeremy wasn't too upset about it? I have to admit, I have often wondered that.
It is all possible up to the point of Sheila killing herself. That second shot IMO had to be from someone else. She didn't move after the first shot.
-
I think the silencer was in place throughout his killing spree and was only removed with the realisation when setting up the 'suicide' scenario that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself with it in place.
I'm a bit bemused why Bamber 'hid' it in the cupboard ... obviously it never occurred to him that it had become contaminated with the blood of his victims.
I don't know how many bullets he thought it would take to wipe out his family but even if he had initially calculated two each (although the number he used on the boys might negate my supposition) that would have been ten shots, each one increasing the potential of being heard and couldn't have been mistaken for a poacher or someone taking a pot shot at a fox.
Twenty five shots certainly increased that risk.
I don't think he would have started shooting without the moderator being in place.- use of the moderator lessened the risk of the shootings being heard from outside
- it may have bought him time inside the house with the confused victims not processing what was happening until too late that is if they had wakened at all ... and he nearly miscalculated that one.
He had to use the moderator for all the reasons you mentioned, Brietta:
He didn’t want neighbours hearing gunshots
And certainly didn’t want to wake the family
He clearly figured out that Sheila couldn’t have killed herself with the moderator attached, besides which, he also realised Sheila wouldn’t have thought about attaching the moderator had she gone berserk and lost her mind, hence why he placed it waayyy back in the cupboard tucked away in a box.
He obviously wiped/rinsed it before hiding it, but clearly didn’t realise back spatter would be deep inside the baffles.
-
You don't always get back spatter.
Well, they did in this case as it was in the moderator.
-
You've forgotten the hair and paint!
That one grey hair and tiny particle of red paint was almost invisible to the eye: it only got noticed by close inspection — something Jeremy didn’t have time or thought to do.
-
Where is the science of back spatter explained? Especially the pattern of back spattering expected inside a sound moderator. I've found that the basics is understood but is there a scientific study done on it?
The experts who studied the moderator in the laboratory established that the blood inside and on the baffles was the exact pattern of how back spatter blows back.
-
The experts who studied the moderator in the laboratory established that the blood inside and on the baffles was the exact pattern of how back spatter blows back.
So it goes inside the sound moderator but not onto the hands holding the gun. Why? It wasn't Sheila holding the gun when the moderator was attached.
"The experts who studied the moderator in the laboratory established that the blood inside and on the baffles was the exact pattern of how back spatter blows back." When I read that in a statement I might believe it.
-
There's no reliable evidence re difference in noise with/without silencer. Firearm discharge within a normal dwelling ie soft furnishings etc will sound completely different from how it sounds outside in open space.
If we are to believe the silencer was found with blood, paint and a strand of hair attached to the outside we also have to believe that JB overlooked all of this despite having to turn the silencer a number of times to detach it from the rifle.
The pathological evidence doesn't support a "fierce fight" in the kitchen or anything approaching.
I think you’ll find there is reliable evidence that firing a rifle with a silencer attached reduces the sound significantly, hence why people buy them 🙂
They’re always used to shoot rabbits, so as not to scare them off target
I think we should believe the silencer was found with blood inside, unless you’re suggesting the police, ballistics, forensics and scientists had a mass hallucination when discovering the blood inside and sending it for analysis. Likewise the paint, which turned out to be an exact match of the paint on the mantel — and came from where the scratches were found underneath the mantel. They established the scratches were made in a pattern conducive to there having been a struggle.
The pathological evidence from Nevill’s body which showed his skull smashed in exposing his brain, including the injuries where he desperately tried to defend himself is consistent with more than a fierce beating/struggle/fight — so the pathologist and police said.
-
It is all possible up to the point of Sheila killing herself. That second shot IMO had to be from someone else. She didn't move after the first shot.
I agree. I'd like to know how long after the first shot, the second one was fired. I think that could tell us rather a lot!
-
I agree. I'd like to know how long after the first shot, the second one was fired. I think that could tell us rather a lot!
The first bullet hit the jugular vein. OK so it will bleed a lot but there is a fair chance it will stop bleeding once a decent clot forms.
-
I agree. I'd like to know how long after the first shot, the second one was fired. I think that could tell us rather a lot!
The pathologists agreed at least a few seconds based on haemorrhaging and could have been up to a few minutes.
-
The pathologists agreed at least a few seconds based on haemorrhaging and could have been up to a few minutes.
"Could" we note. Not "WOULD". It's their 'get out of jail free' card.
-
So it goes inside the sound moderator but not onto the hands holding the gun. Why? It wasn't Sheila holding the gun when the moderator was attached.
"The experts who studied the moderator in the laboratory established that the blood inside and on the baffles was the exact pattern of how back spatter blows back." When I read that in a statement I might believe it.
As you rightly say, Sheila had no back spatter on her hands, which means she couldn’t have possibly shot herself.
The perp, Jeremy Bamber wore gloves and was obviously covered in BS, which he showered off before changing and then disposed of his gloves miles away.
The blood inside the moderator was definitely consistent with back spatter pattern. It’s in the official notes — take a look and you’ll find them 🙂
-
I think you’ll find there is reliable evidence that firing a rifle with a silencer attached reduces the sound significantly, hence why people buy them 🙂
The sound of firearm discharge with and without a silencer will sound completely different inside WHF as opposed to discharging outside. Soft items absorb sound.
https://youtu.be/rn8[Name removed]Ul9imY
https://www.factmonster.com/dk/encyclopedia/science/acoustics
-
The sound of firearm discharge with and without a silencer will sound completely different inside WHF as opposed to discharging outside. Soft items absorb sound.
https://youtu.be/rn8[Name removed]Ul9imY
https://www.factmonster.com/dk/encyclopedia/science/acoustics
We know that.
What’s your point?
-
We know that.
What’s your point?
My point is there's no reliable evidence of the difference in sound with and without silencer based on the shootings that took place INSIDE WHF.
Jurors were taken to the firing range at Fingringhoe to hear the rifle fired with and without the silencer which isn't comparable with the inside of WHF.
-
My point is there's no reliable evidence of the difference in sound with and without silencer based on the shootings that took place INSIDE WHF.
Jurors were taken to the firing range at Fingringhoe to hear the rifle fired with and without the silencer which isn't comparable with the inside of WHF.
I can't see how if it worked outside it wouldn't work inside too.
-
I can't see how if it worked outside it wouldn't work inside too.
The discharge of a firearm within the confines of a normal private dwelling complete with fixtures, fittings, furnishings: hard and soft will sound completely different compared with the sound of a firearm discharged outside in open space.
Acoustics!
-
The discharge of a firearm within the confines of a normal private dwelling complete with fixtures, fittings, furnishings: hard and soft will sound completely different compared with the sound of a firearm discharged outside in open space.
Acoustics!
The fact the trial involved such a ridiculous piece of 'evidence' shows what a complete farce it was! Another fine mess created by Malcom Fletcher.
A more worthwhile exercise would have been to take jurors to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging in respect of exiting a window and securing it from within.
-
The fact the trial involved such a ridiculous piece of 'evidence' shows what a complete farce it was! Another fine mess created by Malcom Fletcher.
A more worthwhile exercise would have been to take jurors to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging in respect of exiting a window and securing it from within.
I asked before but didn't get a definite answer,what was to stop JB exiting through a door,is there pictures of all doors secured from with in with a bolt? keys in lock's?
-
I asked before but didn't get a definite answer,what was to stop JB exiting through a door,is there pictures of all doors secured from with in with a bolt? keys in lock's?
The police found all doors bolted from within and/or had the key in the lock.
-
The police found all doors bolted from within and/or had the key in the lock.
Yet there are reports of a spare key hidden somewhere outside. So it is possible someone uses the spare key and locks the door from the inside and is still inside the building or escaped via a window if there was one that would latch behind him.
-
The police found all doors bolted from within and/or had the key in the lock.
The door they entered through just had the key in the mortice lock.
-
The door they entered through just had the key in the mortice lock.
Would that have stopped another key being used from the outside?
-
Would that have stopped another key being used from the outside?
Yes
-
Yes
I think you are right in the case of some mortice locks. The key on the inside would have stopped another key being used from the outside.
But the problem then is working out at what time the key was left in that position. Nevill had to finish work so they wouldn't put the keys in the locks and lock him out.
-
I think you are right in the case of some mortice locks. The key on the inside would have stopped another key being used from the outside.
But the problem then is working out at what time the key was left in that position. Nevill had to finish work so they wouldn't put the keys in the locks and lock him out.
You can't 'work it out' - you can just speculate.
-
You can't 'work it out' - you can just speculate.
The safest guess would be he didn't finish till around 2:00 - 3:00 AM He has put his pyjamas on so the problems didn't hit him as soon as he walked into the house. Was he planning to sleep in Sheila's room? There is little to no evidence he had actually tucked into his bed.
-
The safest guess would be he didn't finish till around 2:00 - 3:00 AM He has put his pyjamas on so the problems didn't hit him as soon as he walked into the house. Was he planning to sleep in Sheila's room? There is little to no evidence he had actually tucked into his bed.
How is that safest?
-
How is that safest?
We have suggestions from 11:00 PM up to my 2:00 AM. 3 hours of uncertainty.
-
The sound of firearm discharge with and without a silencer will sound completely different inside WHF as opposed to discharging outside. Soft items absorb sound.
https://youtu.be/rn8[Name removed]Ul9imY
https://www.factmonster.com/dk/encyclopedia/science/acoustics
But there is no hard and fast rule for determining the sound of a gun when fired indoors as so much makes it variable.
A concrete-walled shooting range will be louder than shooting a gun inside your home in a self-defense setting due to the way different materials and construction absorb and reflect sound.
This is why silencers are increasingly popular for home defence in America as it protects the hearing of the shooter in dangerous situations.
IMO Jeremy used the silencer to carry out the murders as he wanted to kill them as quietly as possible.
-
The fact the trial involved such a ridiculous piece of 'evidence' shows what a complete farce it was! Another fine mess created by Malcom Fletcher.
A more worthwhile exercise would have been to take jurors to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging in respect of exiting a window and securing it from within.
That’s what Peter Sutcliffe said about his trial too:: “it was a complete farce!” *%87
I think you’ll find that it would have been deemed far, far too dangerous to take 12 jurors inside WHF while a police officer fired aimlessly in the bedrooms, on the landing, staircase, and in the kitchen...
Would have only needed one bullet to ricochet faster than the speed of sound and shoot dead the judge or a juror...that would have looked good, wouldn’t it?
Not to mention all the damage they’d do to walls and furniture firing 25 bullets all over the house...
But I’m sure the ballistic experts explained to the 12 jurors when shooting in the range, that the sound would have been considerably less inside the house due to the soft furnishings, carpets, beds etc...😊
Re: Jeremy’s entrance & escape route — I believe the police had already proved to the jury how he broke into WHF, especially as Jeremy eventually admitted to the police how he’d broken in, albeit making out he’d done so weeks after the murder. Strange that he had to break into his own house, don’t you think? He hadn’t been charged with murder, so why would he have broken into his own property? Using a hacksaw? Then hiding it in overgrowth? Why not go to the family or workers and tell them he needed to get in? Sounds very strange...especially as undercover police had him under surveillance and saw he was in London when he claimed he’d broken into WHF...
And the court weren’t going to order a reconstruction and break another window when they had diagrams and were able to understand how he got in on the night he killed them. Likewise, when he climbed out the kitchen window and made it appear shut by banging it...it was clear to see by the jury without having to be shown a demonstration
-
That’s what Peter Sutcliffe said about his trial too:: “it was a complete farce!” *%87
I think you’ll find that it would have been deemed far, far too dangerous to take 12 jurors inside WHF while a police officer fired aimlessly in the bedrooms, on the landing, staircase, and in the kitchen...
Would have only needed one bullet to ricochet faster than the speed of sound and shoot dead the judge or a juror...that would have looked good, wouldn’t it?
Not to mention all the damage they’d do to walls and furniture firing 25 bullets all over the house...
But I’m sure the ballistic experts explained to the 12 jurors when shooting in the range, that the sound would have been considerably less inside the house due to the soft furnishings, carpets, beds etc...😊
Re: Jeremy’s entrance & escape route — I believe the police had already proved to the jury how he broke into WHF, especially as Jeremy eventually admitted to the police how he’d broken in, albeit making out he’d done so weeks after the murder. Strange that he had to break into his own house, don’t you think? He hadn’t been charged with murder, so why would he have broken into his own property? Using a hacksaw? Then hiding it in overgrowth? Why not go to the family or workers and tell them he needed to get in? Sounds very strange...especially as undercover police had him under surveillance and saw he was in London when he claimed he’d broken into WHF...
And the court weren’t going to order a reconstruction and break another window when they had diagrams and were able to understand how he got in on the night he killed them. Likewise, when he climbed out the kitchen window and made it appear shut by banging it...it was clear to see by the jury without having to be shown a demonstration
Holly (or anyone else for that matter) could you explain why Jeremy would have hunted out a hacksaw to break-in to WHF when all he had to do was call at the Eatons’; Housekeeper; Secretary; Len’s etc...to ask for the keys?😳
Wonder why he didn’t do that?
Any ideas?
-
Holly (or anyone else for that matter) could you explain why Jeremy would have hunted out a hacksaw to break-in to WHF when all he had to do was call at the Eatons’; Housekeeper; Secretary; Len’s etc...to ask for the keys?😳
Wonder why he didn’t do that?
Any ideas?
What date are you referring to?
-
What date are you referring to?
I think Ispy is referring to an event after the murders.
-
Holly (or anyone else for that matter) could you explain why Jeremy would have hunted out a hacksaw to break-in to WHF when all he had to do was call at the Eatons’; Housekeeper; Secretary; Len’s etc...to ask for the keys?😳
Wonder why he didn’t do that?
Any ideas?
Afaik no key holder existed.
-
Afaik no key holder existed.
Peter Eaton was running the farm, of course they would have had keys.
-
Afaik no key holder existed.
Yes, there was a key holder.
One of the farm workers who lived on the estate.
You’ll find the cite somewhere.
-
Peter Eaton was running the farm, of course they would have had keys.
I think the cite is in CAL’s book, Caroline, but I’m not home at the moment
Whatever, I definitely read that one of the workers had a key, and it was remarked how Nevill trusted them with a key and not Jeremy.
I also read that there was another key which was kept hidden outside somewhere.
It’s naive of anyone to think no-one else had a key to the farm house when it was a business! Actually, didn’t the secretary have one too?