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: Holly Goodhead on January 21, 2014, 04:25:49 PM
-
OMG Thought Grahame and Mat put paid to this but its back with a vengeance:
The very nature of conspiracies such as this though is that those involved play their part when necessary. There are only two options in this case really.
Either JB is innocent and was framed as part of a conspiracy or JB is guilty and the discrepancies and anomalies in the case are because police were duped by a manipulative and convincing psychopath.
There is no middle ground where Jeremy is innocent and his finding of guilt is down to honest mistakes.
If you believe that Bamber was framed then by extension you also believe that there were co conspirators involved and therefore that all of those involved in the conspiracy have much to lose should the truth ever be revealed.
Why cant it be a MoJ with flawed group thinking and herd mentality. The prosecution's case was built around the silencer and I agree the finding of the silencer and all that went with it leaves more questions than answers. The silencer as an exhibit would never get inside a court of law today. It was this and this alone that convicted JB. Without it he would have walked.
We all are aware of the destruction of much evidence in 1996 and how this prevented DNA testing of exhibits, coincidentally just at the time of great developments in DNA testing. This looks suspicious anyway but on it's own even more so. If you were amongst the conspirators then you would be afraid of this new development knowing that it would expose your plot and your role in the conspiracy.
Even if the exhibits hadn't been destroyed it's likely any evidential value would have been lost through contamination rendering any dna testing on other exhibits as useless
If however a couple of books and various newspaper articles preceded this destruction then the idea of a manipulative psychopath looking for loopholes and blaming police and relatives for framing him
becomes fixed in the mind of the public who largely believe whatever narrative is given to them by the media and the authorities.
Who would orchestrate the anti JB propaganda machine? Yes perhaps in the case of Julian Assange or some anti-establishment figure or something or someone that could damage national interest, but JB...Why? I think the public are little more sceptical and discerning than you give them credit for.
The destruction of evidence can then be portrayed in a different light. Instead of the conspirators covering up their plot, it can now be portrayed as Bamber the arch manipulator, with one failed appeal and the COLP investigation already behind him attempting to muddy the waters by suggesting the destroyed evidence would clear him. The conspirators are then able to trot out their meme about Bamber, the evil manipulative psychopath who duped the police into not investigating properly, as a malevolent puppet master controlling his gullible supporters.
Imagine for a moment that you are one of those involved in this gross perversion of justice believing that your work is done and that Bamber is now locked away with his appeal already failed and you are home and dry . With the great strides being made at this time in DNA testing, you would be well aware that the advances in forensic techniques would blow your conspiracy wide open if the evidence still held were to be tested, so it would be beneficial to you if this evidence were to be taken out of the equation.
See above re DNA
It would also be in your interests to have as much negative publicity as possible about Bamber in the public mind so as to propagate the idea that the evidence was somehow legitimately destroyed. Cue a couple of books and newspaper articles which tell of how those who "knew" him believe him guilty; throw in a few embellished accounts from the same sources of his inherent evil to fix in the public mind the picture of a controlling evil psychopath . Add in the failed appeal and COLP investigation and you are able to paint the picture of JB clutching at straws.
This makes it much easier for EP to claim that the evidence was not thought relevant anymore hence it's destruction . Instead of disposing of incriminating evidence against themselves , EP have now managed to convince enough people that there was no relevance in the evidence destroyed and that JB is just using whatever he can to win his freedom and get away with murder. Without the books and negative reporting many more people would have been suspicious of this action by EP .
EP would be keen to convince the public of Bamber's turpitude to divert attention from their own and other conspirators malevolence.
One need only think back to Hillsborough to see how police and press collude to protect their own interests and get their retaliation in first when events threaten to work against them.
Again this is another reason why knowing the background of a writer is important because for all we know Claire Powell could be a ghostwriter employed by EP . I am of the opinion that the books by Wilkes and the mysterious Powell did not happen in a vacuum and that there is nefarious intent behind them quite likely sponsored by those with an interest in hiding the truth.
As I said on another thread I read the books and was then even more convinced of JB's innocence. Powell was equally negative about Sheila.
Why cant it just be a perfect storm eg rellies not wanting estate going to a non-blood relly, scorned girlfriend given immunity from criminal past, shoddy police investigation, lazy media, bungling judiciary, incompetent expert witnesses, JB having no family support to support his MoJ, JB as scapegoat as he was adopted and went to boarding school and therefore he must have done it coz I don't know anyone who was adopted and went to boarding school and it sounds weird so he must be weird and must have dun it. The End.
102
-
I read somewhere, I think, that Claire Powell who wrote 'Murder at White House Farm' worked for the BBC. Is this her?
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/claire-powell/17/2b0/176
-
Holly, i know you believe Bamber is innocent.
Can you explain how Sheila was able to cause the carnage in WHF and not have a mark on her?
-
Holly, i know you believe Bamber is innocent.
Can you explain how Sheila was able to cause the carnage in WHF and not have a mark on her?
Hiya Andrea
Well as far as I'm aware JB had no marks either.
I think it's quite possible that SC was in the kitchen (or elsewhere) with NB and with SC in possession of the gun waving it about with threats to kill herself or others that NB thinks he can handle. NB phones JB. Meanwhile SC goes upstairs and shoots June rendering her defenceless. NB drops the phone and runs upstairs and is himself shot. Despite managing to get downstairs he is already mortally wounded by the 4 or 5 shots (bullet allocation) in and outside the bedroom. Once in the kitchen he stumbles knocking into things and heads for his comfort zone - his favourite chair 8(8-)) where he is shot another 3 or 4 times (bullet allocation). If blows rained down on NB with the gun things could easily have been broken and moved eg crockery, light fitting, chairs, tables etc and/or raid team could have caused.
I don't go in for police wrongdoing on a grand scale and/or conspiracy theories but I do believe that mistakes were made and I don't place much reliance on anything from the soc eg sugar spill, chairs up turned etc. Burly armed police officers all pumped up knocking the door down all apprehensive about what they were to find were not going to be wiping their feet before entering 8(0(*
I feel a drubbing coming on 8)><( 8)><( Is this where you and puglove put on a united front and duff me up 8)><( 8)><(
-
Hiya Andrea
Well as far as I'm aware JB had no marks either.
I think it's quite possible that SC was in the kitchen (or elsewhere) with NB and with SC in possession of the gun waving it about with threats to kill herself or others that NB thinks he can handle. NB phones JB. Meanwhile SC goes upstairs and shoots June rendering her defenceless. NB drops the phone and runs upstairs and is himself shot. Despite managing to get downstairs he is already mortally wounded by the 4 or 5 shots (bullet allocation) in and outside the bedroom. Once in the kitchen he stumbles knocking into things and heads for his comfort zone - his favourite chair 8(8-)) where he is shot another 3 or 4 times (bullet allocation). If blows rained down on NB with the gun things could easily have been broken and moved eg crockery, light fitting, chairs, tables etc and/or raid team could have caused.
I don't go in for police wrongdoing on a grand scale and/or conspiracy theories but I do believe that mistakes were made and I don't place much reliance on anything from the soc eg sugar spill, chairs up turned etc. Burly armed police officers all pumped up knocking the door down all apprehensive about what they were to find were not going to be wiping their feet before entering 8(0(*
I feel a drubbing coming on 8)><( 8)><( Is this where you and puglove put on a united front and duff me up 8)><( 8)><(
Now, why would you think that? Do you really believe in what you've just posted?
-
Now, why would you think that? Do you really believe in what you've just posted?
Show me the error of my ways...
-
You forgot to mention that Nevill struggled with his assailant Holly. Do you really believe a petite Sheila clad only in a nightdress could have taken on an angry man over 6' tall and bleeding profusely and not ended up with a single mark or a spot of his blood on her? Not to mention shoot and reload the rifle three times yet never cracked a nail? Also none of Sheila's fingerprints on any bullets.
What about the soles of her feet? The kitchen floor was strewn with small glass shards as a consequence of a glass lampshade being smashed in the struggle yet Sheila's feet were both free from glass or cuts. Sheila's naked footprints were not found in the kitchen.
It's interesting you mention the silencer, if Mike Tesko is to believed there were three. Lets consider the one you refer to in your post. DNA analysis wasn't available in 1985 so the trial had to rely on blood grouping and enzyme analysis. It was determined that the blood on the silencer and the blood found within the silencer was human (not animal) and could have been Sheila's. This formed the basis of the Crown case.
A few years later a sample taken from the baffles deep inside the silencer was tested using DNA analysis and returned a 13 marker match to Sheila. Although this falls below the 20 marker threshold required for a conviction in the UK it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood did belong to Sheila. The chance of that DNA belonging to anyone else is something like 1 in 10,000,000 To remind the reader, the significance of this is that the only way Sheila's DNA could have got so far into the silencer is if she was shot using it. Sheila was shot twice in the neck, the end of the silencer almost touching her skin. The suction following the shots drew minute particles of blood into the silencer where it was deposited on baffles and later recovered by forensic scientists using the latest techniques.
The point in all of this is simple, whoever shot Sheila unscrewed the silencer from the rifle when they realised that with it fitted the weapon was too long for Sheila to have used it to shoot herself in the neck. The silencer was found a few days after the murder in a shelf inside a gun cabinet.
Maybe you can address these points Holly?
-
You forgot to mention that Nevillnstruggled with his assailant Holly. Do you really believe a petite Sheila clad only in a nightdress could have taken on an angry man over 6' tall and bleeding profusely and not ended up with a single mark or a spot of his blood on her? Not to mention shoot and reload the rifle three times yet never cracked a nail? Also none of Sheila's fingerprints on any bullets.
NB was badly injured in the bedroom with two wounds causing substantial blood loss internally and externally and extreme pain; along with another wound causing total impairment of his left arm. By the time he reached the kitchen I don't believe he was capable of engaging in a struggle with anyone. SC may not have worn the nightdress she was found in throughout the above. A typical female will carry out hundreds of activities during the course of her lifetime ranging from domestic chores to childcare to recreational activities. All can be performed without any damage to nails. I do not see loading and using a gun anymore hazardous to nails. None of JB's fingerprints on bullets either?
What about the soles of her feet? The kitchen floor was strewn with small glass shards as a consequence of a glass lampshade being smashed in the struggle yet Sheila's feet were both free from glass or cuts. Sheila's naked footprints were not found in the kitchen.
Did the lampshade produce small chards or a few broken pieces? When/how was it broken? Why would her footprints be found in the kitchen? Blood appears to have pooled around NB only?
It's interesting you mention the silencer, if Mike Tesko is to believed there were three. Lets consider the one you refer to in your post. DNA analysis wasn't available in 1985 so the trial had to rely on blood grouping and enzyme analysis. It was determined that the blood on the silencer and the blood found within the silencer was human (not animal) and could have been Sheila's. This formed the basis of the Crown case.
Mike Tesko says a lot of things, doesn't mean I agree with all of them. Yes I agree Sheila's blood COULDhave been in the silencer but COULD isn't good enough for me. It COULD have belonged to a.n other. The judge misled the jury into thinking there was no COULD about it. It also seems to be taken as a given that if it was Sheila's blood it was produced by back spatter alone and not deposited by way of contamination at a later stage
A few years later a sample taken from the baffles deep inside the silencer was tested using DNA analysis and returned a 13 marker match to Sheila. Although this falls below the 20 marker threshold required for a conviction in the UK it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood did belong to Sheila. The chance of that DNA belonging to anyone else is something like 1 in 10,000,000 To remind the reader, the significance of this is that the only way Sheila's DNA could have got so far into the silencer is if she was shot using it. Sheila was shot twice in the neck, the end of the silencer almost touching her skin. The suction following the shots drew minute particles of blood into the silencer where it was deposited on baffles and later recovered by forensic scientists using the latest techniques.
LCN-DNA is incapable of identifying the source of DNA eg blood. The three appeal court judges agreed with the scientists representing prosecution and defence that SC's DNA MAY have been in the silencer and that June's DNA was definitely present. However as contamination could not be ruled out the DNA analysis was deemed "utterly meaningless" by the three appeal court judges. The suction known as back spatter is interesting as I understand it is a rare phenomenon. When it does occur the following are usually contributory factors: large calibre weapon, direct contact shot, head shot and accompanying skin tissue. None of these factors apply in this case?
The point in all of this is simple, whoever shot Sheila unscrewed the silencer from the rifle when they realised that with it fitted the weapon was too long for Sheila to have used it to shoot herself in the neck. The silencer was found a few days after the murder in a shelf inside a gun cabinet.
I don't believe the silencer ever left the cupboard. If it did then why was none of Nicholas' blood found in it; he was the only victim to suffer a direct contact shot. Why was no accompanying skin tissue found? Yet a "blob of blood" was found on the outside with a grey hair attached?
Maybe you can address these points Holly?
-
Thanks for the full response above Holly but I'm afraid some are far of the mark and don't equate with the evidence.
1. Nevill was shot a total of 8 times, five of which relate to the bedroom and upstairs landing and three relate to the kitchen. All evidenced by the dispersal of the empty shells. According to the pathologist he put up a brave struggle with his assailant again evidenced by the damage to the rifle stock and the various items strewn around, smashed lampshade etc. Nevill was effectively beaten up something which Sheila could not have done, she loved and adored her father, Jeremy hated him.
No other nightdress or any other garment were found in the house with blood spatter on them, your comment is simply wishful thinking. Jeremy Bamber wore gloves but one fell off at one stage...at least this is what he told Julie Mugford.
2. The lampshade was smashed with shards and pieces of all sizes being spread all over the floor. The assailants boots crunched the glass into the flooring...this was not achieved by a bare footed woman. The lampshade was smashed when Nevill fought with his attacker as both struggled with the rifle. It can only be surmised that the assailant resorted to beating Nevill when he ran out of bullets.
3. There is no way Sheila's DNA could have got on the baffles by contamination since Sheila never had any other contact with it. The contamination argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. June's DNA was not found in the silencer.
4. The judges were bound by the law relating to DNA markers. The unequivocal fact is that the DNA markers found in the silencer did not belong to any other member of the family. Sheila had no genetic link to anyone except her twin sons. No one else had access to the silencer, it was bought new and only used by Jeremy. As I have stated, the chance that the DNA found in the silencer belonged to anyone else is so remote as to be not worthy of serious consideration.
A final point worth noting is that Nevill was supposed to have used the phone. Given his injuries from the initial assault upstairs he would not have been able to speak properly, Jeremy never mentioned this in his version of what happened which proves he made it all up. There would have been blood all over the phone and the sideboard had Nevill used the phone, again, no blood was found on or near the phone or the sideboard.
In addition, according to the pathologist Sheila was stunned by the first shot to her neck. The bullet fragmented and left her effectively paralysed. She was semi conscious and could never have taken a second shot. There was no blood smear on her neck, no blood on her fingers, no blood on the rifle trigger and no blood spatter caused by coughing up blood from her shattered throat.
I'm afraid that whichever way you look at it the evidence points to Jeremy being the shooter. There isn't a single piece of evidence which can implicate Sheila. The testimony of the other witnesses simply adds to the plot. If Jeremy were ever to be retried I have no doubt a jury would convict him all over again.
-
Got to dispute point 1 John. I don't think the shell case positions are reliable. Nevills four head shots were fired in pairs according to the trajectory of the bullets. There is a diagram floating around showing the trajectory. The damage caused by one of the head shots would have rendered him dead or near to death. He was certainly not going to be moving anywhere voluntarily after any one of those shots. All of them entered his brain and caused severe damage. This must have happened in the kitchen. The shell case on the stairs has been moved from the kitchen.
-
I don't know why JB's assorted legal teams over the years have never looked at the trajectory of bullets in more depth. It must be possible by studying the crime scene photos and through measurements of the various rooms to establish the height at which they were fired from. Not sure what the height of Sheila and Jeremy were/ are but if there is a significant difference, establishing who fired the gun to a fair degree of certainty must be possible. Of course, JB's legal teams may have done this and not liked the results!
-
Got to dispute point 1 John. I don't think the shell case positions are reliable. Nevill's four head shots were fired in pairs according to the trajectory of the bullets. There is a diagram floating around showing the trajectory. The damage caused by one of the head shots would have rendered him dead or near to death. He was certainly not going to be moving anywhere voluntarily after any one of those shots. All of them entered his brain and caused severe damage. This must have happened in the kitchen. The shell case on the stairs has been moved from the kitchen.
The shell casing positions are reliable in that what possible reason would anyone have to move them? The only questionable one for me was the casing which ended up on the stairs. There is no way to determine bullet trajectory, all we can establish is roughly where the gunman was when each bullet was discharged.
According to the pathologist the head and shoulder shots which Nevill sustained on attempting to exit the bedroom were not debilitating. His mouth and jaw were damaged, not his skull, this would have limited his ability to speak properly, he certainly wasn't making any phone calls summoning help. He was able to walk down the stairs leaving blood on the wallpaper as he went. He was able to confront his attacker again in the kitchen where he was beaten with the rifle stock before being executed.
The final three/four shots which killed him were delivered as he lay slumped in the kitchen easy chair. I agree there is every possibility the casing found on the stairs could have been carried on the sole of someones boot.
-
Hi holly.
As for JB not having any marks on him, he would have been fully clothed. A jumper to cover his arms, maybe gloves.
Sheila was bare footed and sleevless. There was no blood down her front which suggests she didnt move after the first shot. She didnt have anyone elses blood on her either.
Even Mike Tesco knows Sheila didnt kill herself, he just thinks the coppers did it.
-
Hi holly.
As for JB not having any marks on him, he would have been fully clothed. A jumper to cover his arms, maybe gloves.
Sheila was bare footed and sleevless. There was no blood down her front which suggests she didnt move after the first shot. She didnt have anyone elses blood on her either.
Even Mike Tesco knows Sheila didnt kill herself, he just thinks the coppers did it.
Good points Andrea. And not forgetting the abandoned wet suit found on the farm which some suggest the killer might have worn before washing and discarding it.
-
JB went to WHF prepared. There is no way Sheila could have shot them all and not end up with another persons blood on her.
Jb probably dumped the clothes he was wearing or washed them, his home wasnt searched for nearly a month after the murders, thats plenty of time to get rid of any incriminating evidence.
-
We often hear the mantra "there were no marks on Jeremy" from his supporters but he wasn't forensically examined in the aftermath of the murders so how do we know for sure?
What adds to the picture of his guilt for me is his evasive "no comment" responses during his police interviews. Compare and contrast this with Matthew McDonald's willingness to answer every question to reinforce his innocence (though I think he may have known more than he let on and am intrigued by the fact that he said "Jeremy" to the police when he was arrested-yet he did not claim to have been more than a passing acquaintance of Bamber's). And then the famous "that is for you to establish" comment in the courtroom. Emphatically NOT the actions of an innocent man.
-
We often hear the mantra "there were no marks on Jeremy" from his supporters but he wasn't forensically examined in the aftermath of the murders so how do we know for sure?
What adds to the picture of his guilt for me is his evasive "no comment" responses during his police interviews. Compare and contrast this with Matthew McDonald's willingness to answer every question to reinforce his innocence (though I think he may have known more than he let on and am intrigued by the fact that he said "Jeremy" to the police when he was arrested-yet he did not claim to have been more than a passing acquaintance of Bamber's). And then the famous "that is for you to establish" comment in the courtroom. Emphatically NOT the actions of an innocent man.
And, unless Bamber murdered his family while wearing a short, sleeveless nightie, there isn't much point in comparing his condition to Sheila's. By blaming Sheila from the word go, he gave himself ample time and opportunity to hide, then dispose of whatever he had been wearing, probably farm overalls and gloves. If Sheila was responsible the gun would have been covered in her prints, as she supposedly used it to shoot everyone, then turn it around and batter Ralph, then shoot herself. Twice. Amazingly, without any blood being inhaled or swallowed. In the words of John Le Mesurier, "a pretty neat trick."
-
Thanks for the full response above Holly but I'm afraid some are far of the mark and don't equate with the evidence.
1. Nevile was shot a total of 8 times, five of which relate to the bedroom and upstairs landing and three relate to the kitchen. All evidenced by the dispersal of the empty shells. According to the pathologist he put up a brave struggle with his assailant again evidenced by the damage to the rifle stock and the various items strewn around, smashed lampshade etc. Nevile was effectively beaten up something which Sheila could not have done, she loved and adored her father, Jeremy hated him.
Yes I highlighted discrepancies in bullet location in my post above. The bullets indicate NB was shot 4 times in the bedroom, once on or around the stairs and 3 times in the kitchen but the pathologist seems to be of the opinion that he received 3 shots in the bedroom, 1 on or around the stairs and 4 in the kitchen. Either way by the time he arrived in the kitchen he had lost complete use of his left arm, was losing a lot of blood internally and externally and in extreme pain. This would surely put him at a disadvantage struggling with anyone regardless of build. If he sustained a head shot before arriving in the kitchen then he was surely at a greater disadvantage.
No other nightdress or any other garment were found in the house with blood spatter on them, your comment is simply wishful thinking. Jeremy Bamber wore gloves but one fell off at one stage...at least this is what he told Julie Mugford.
Do we know what exactly was soaking in the buckets? These apparently contained some blood stained garments? Over on Blue they seem to think clothes were destroyed in the aga?
2. The lampshade was smashed with shards and pieces of all sizes being spread all over the floor. The assailants boots crunched the glass into the flooring...this was not achieved by a bare footed woman. The lampshade was smashed when Nevile fought with his attacker as both struggled with the rifle. It can only be surmised that the assailant resorted to beating Nevile when he ran out of bullets.
I have difficulty reconciling NB in a fight and struggling for the rifle due to his physical state. I just don't see the need for anyone to have beaten NB into submission as the poor man was so badly injured in the bedroom. Is there any documented evidence about the lampshade breaking into multiple shards instead of a few pieces?
3. There is no way Sheila's DNA could have got on the baffles by contamination since Sheila never had any other contact with it. The contamination argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. June's DNA was not found in the silencer.
It was not possible to eliminate contamination due to LCN-DNA not being envisaged in 85/86. Therefore the necessary precautions were not taken by staff at FSS, court officials and jurors when handling the various exhibits. June's DNA was found in the silencer as per point 497 of the CoA doc:
We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male
4. The judges were bound by the law relating to DNA markers. The unequivocal fact is that the DNA markers found in the silencer did not belong to any other member of the family. Sheila had no genetic link to anyone except her twin sons. No one else had access to the silencer, it was bought new and only used by Jeremy. As I have stated, the chance that the DNA found in the silencer belonged to anyone else is so remote as to be not worthy of serious consideration.
Plse see 3 above.
A final point worth noting is that Nevile was supposed to have used the phone. Given his injuries from the initial assault upstairs he would not have been able to speak properly, Jeremy never mentioned this in his version of what happened which proves he made it all up. There would have been blood all over the phone and the sideboard had Nevile used the phone, again, no blood was found on or near the phone or the sideboard.
I agree it is extremely unlikely that NB could speak having sustained the injuries in the bedroom. Futhermore why would he have called JB having been shot? No he would call emergency services. If the call was made imo it had to have been made before any shots were fired. Please see my post above re my sequence of events.
In addition, according to the pathologist Sheila was stunned by the first shot to her neck. The bullet fragmented and left her effectively paralysed. She was semi conscious and could never have taken a second shot. There was no blood smear on her neck, no blood on her fingers, no blood on the rifle trigger and no blood spatter caused by coughing up blood from her shattered throat.
The pathologist states it would have been possible for SC to have walked about for a while after the first shot and he was unable to confirm murder or suicide.
I'm afraid that whichever way you look at it the evidence points to Jeremy being the shooter. There isn't a single piece of evidence which can implicate Sheila. The testimony of the other witnesses simply adds to the plot. If Jeremy were ever to be retried I have no doubt a jury would convict him all over again.
The case as it stood back in '85/86 would never get near a court of law today. I am convinced we are talking about the greatest MoJ in British criminal history and that JB's conviction will be quashed by CoA in the coming months.
-
Hi holly.
As for JB not having any marks on him, he would have been fully clothed. A jumper to cover his arms, maybe gloves.
Sheila was bare footed and sleevless. There was no blood down her front which suggests she didnt move after the first shot. She didnt have anyone elses blood on her either.
Even Mike Tesco knows Sheila didnt kill herself, he just thinks the coppers did it.
Hi Andrea
I'm not sure about the buckets of blood stained clothing? Over on Blue they seem to think the AGA may have been used?
Is it possible SC may have showered and changed?
I just think if its so obvious why didn't the pathologist state this or even say suicide was unlikely? He states he is unable to confirm murder or suicide.
(Btw I now understand the yellow fruit comments 8(0(* )
-
Dont forget, Holly, that the pathologist also stated that if he had seen Sheila's body in situ, rather than in the mortuary, he could not have gone with "suicide."
And, if Bamber is the greatest MOJ of recent times, then I'm a banana. It's always the let-out clause, that he's a political prisoner.
-
Hi Andrea
I'm not sure about the buckets of blood stained clothing? Over on Blue they seem to think the AGA may have been used?
Is it possible SC may have showered and changed?
I just think if its so obvious why didn't the pathologist state this or even say suicide was unlikely? He states he is unable to confirm murder or suicide.
(Btw I now understand the yellow fruit comments 8(0(* )
There were some leggings and pants soaking in a bucket, because Sheila was "caught short." She had an IUD, which in those days (I remember!) caused heavy, painful periods.
-
There were some leggings and pants soaking in a bucket, because Sheila was "caught short." She had an IUD, which in those days (I remember!) caused heavy, painful periods.
And, at the risk of sounding like Hairy Mary lookout, (not by the hairs on her chinny chin chin) the fact that Sheila had an IUD might explain why her handbag was turned out on the bed, looking for a tampon and/or painkillers. AND....the torn tampon. That has never been properly explained. A)...why would Sheila tear a tampon? What would be the point? And....B)...Have you ever tried to tear a tampon? It's like tearing a phone book. Not Sheila, with her slim arms with absolutely no muscle tone.
-
Holly, I've just read your last point, that Bamber's conviction will be quashed by CoA in the coming months. Not a hope in hell. You've got more chance seeing Lord Lucan winning the 2ft 9 jumping at pony club. On Shergar. And thanks to Mike Tesko, we can all see the reason why.
It really isn't rocket science!! xxx
-
And, at the end of the day, who truly supports Bamber?
A fat little burglar, a barrister who sold people down the river, a couple of old bints who will die alone, and an old lady who looks like a goat.
And you wonder why he's angry?
-
Hi Holly, I can only presume that you are playing devils advocate.
The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous and desperate it has become. Believing that Bamber was not guilty beyond absolute forensic proof, is quite different from believing that, on the balance of probability, Shelia was responsible rather than Jeremy.
I think it's quite telling that after all these years Bamber has failed spectacularly to find anything, that could perhaps suggest his innocence.
Holly, if you are prepared to put your money where your strongly held belief is, I'll have a £50 Save the Children donation with you, that Bambers conviction is not quashed this year!
-
Holly, my mistake in respect of all the DNA referred to by the appeal court as having been in the silencer. I am going from memory in my posts and like Jeremy's chances of ever walking free, are fading.
I am not going to regurgitate all the pathology reports. The blood trails on Sheilas neck evidence very clearly that she never walked about following delivery of the first shot which stunned her and caused substantial damage. The second shot was according to the pathologist Dr Venezis, "instantaneously fatal".
To be fair, the pathologist Peter Venezis actually stated that the first shot didn't exclude the possibility of Sheila being about to move around, he didn't say she had done. This overtly non-comittal phrase opened the proverbial floodgates for people like Bamber and Tesko to come up with all manner of ever-increasingly ridiculous scenarios. We all know that Sheila didn't move after that first shot - Venezis was, as most pathologists are - being over-cautious in their reports. DS Stan Jones shrewdly commented that 'pathologists shouldn't be told anything by the police. They should figure it out for themselves'
I have attached the relevant part of the pathologists report below.
All pathology reports can be viewed here. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=28.0)
-
Hi Holly, I can only presume that you are playing devils advocate.
The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous and desperate it has become. Believing that Bamber was not guilty beyond absolute forensic proof, is quite different from believing that, on the balance of probability, Shelia was responsible rather than Jeremy.
I think it's quite telling that after all these years Bamber has failed spectacularly to find anything, that could perhaps suggest his innocence.
Holly, if you are prepared to put your money where your strongly held belief is, I'll have a £50 Save the Children donation with you, that Bambers conviction is not quashed this year!
Ho ho!! And I'll bet a monkey that Bamber will be eating mushy sprouts for the next 20 Christmases. If I'm wrong, the money can go to the Grahame Belton Big Red Bum Fund.
-
The case as it stood back in '85/86 would never get near a court of law today. I am convinced we are talking about the greatest MoJ in British criminal history and that JB's conviction will be quashed by CoA in the coming months.
I was taking you seriously up until you made the above comments which have more to do with semantics that they have to do with hard evidence.
The advances in DNA back up the original trial verdict, the jury have been effectively vindicated and continue to be so every time this case goes before an appeal court. The recent knock back by the SCCRC says it all...brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'grasping at straws'.
I don't believe Bamber's case will never come before the Court of Appeal again let alone be quashed. I also don't believe there is ever going to be a time when he will ever be deemed suitable for release because he still poses a grave risk to his remaining family.
Anyone who can shoot twin six-year-old boys in the head deserves to rot.
-
Dont forget, Holly, that the pathologist also stated that if he had seen Sheila's body in situ, rather than in the mortuary, he could not have gone with "suicide."
And, if Bamber is the greatest MOJ of recent times, then I'm a banana. It's always the let-out clause, that he's a political prisoner.
A pathologist should have visited the soc with the victims in situ and ascertained times of death.
Point 46 from CoA doc 2002:
"From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life."
This was not contested by Mr Victor Temple QC representing the prosecution at the CoA 2002 hearing.
-
There were some leggings and pants soaking in a bucket, because Sheila was "caught short." She had an IUD, which in those days (I remember!) caused heavy, painful periods.
Maybe, but bucket(s) of blood stained clothing found at soc should surely have been taken away for analysis?
-
Holly, my mistake in respect of all the DNA referred to by the appeal court as having been in the silencer. I am going from memory in my posts and like Jeremy's chances of ever walking free, are fading.
I am not going to regurgitate all the pathology reports. The blood trails on Sheilas neck evidence very clearly that she never walked about following delivery of the first shot which stunned her and caused substantial damage. The second shot was according to the pathologist Dr Venezis, "instantaneously fatal".
To be fair, the pathologist Peter Venezis actually stated that the first shot didn't exclude the possibility of Sheila being about to move around, he didn't say she had done. This overtly non-comittal phrase opened the proverbial floodgates for people like Bamber and Tesko to come up with all manner of ever-increasingly ridiculous scenarios. We all know that Sheila didn't move after that first shot - Venezis was, as most pathologists are - being over-cautious in their reports. DS Stan Jones shrewdly commented that 'pathologists shouldn't be told anything by the police. They should figure it out for themselves'
I have attached the relevant part of the pathologists report below.
All pathology reports can be viewed here. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=28.0)
Awww that's ok. As an adoptee I have to accept that I am the embodiment of a mistake so I tend not to worry too much about little mistakes 8(0(*
I don't believe for one moment SC walked about having shot herself once. I was just making the point that the pathologist said she was capable of walking around to illustrate the fact that she was certainly capable of firing a second shot.
-
And, at the risk of sounding like Hairy Mary lookout, (not by the hairs on her chinny chin chin) the fact that Sheila had an IUD might explain why her handbag was turned out on the bed, looking for a tampon and/or painkillers. AND....the torn tampon. That has never been properly explained. A)...why would Sheila tear a tampon? What would be the point? And....B)...Have you ever tried to tear a tampon? It's like tearing a phone book. Not Sheila, with her slim arms with absolutely no muscle tone.
Not heard about the tearing of a tampon? I thought it was just the applicator being found in the lounge?
-
Holly, I've just read your last point, that Bamber's conviction will be quashed by CoA in the coming months. Not a hope in hell. You've got more chance seeing Lord Lucan winning the 2ft 9 jumping at pony club. On Shergar. And thanks to Mike Tesko, we can all see the reason why.
It really isn't rocket science!! xxx
Did I really say that? 8()-000( Must have been the 4 x pack of Special Brew that kicked in @)(++(*
-
And, at the end of the day, who truly supports Bamber?
A fat little burglar, a barrister who sold people down the river, a couple of old bints who will die alone, and an old lady who looks like a goat.
And you wonder why he's angry?
F***k me where do I fit in? You're a creative thinker puglove please make it something more original than a Bamberette!
The one that amazes me is Andrew Hunter. Now that is strange...a right wing tory... >@@(*&)
-
F***k me where do I fit in? You're a creative thinker puglove please make it something more original than a Bamberette!
The one that amazes me is Andrew Hunter. Now that is strange...a right wing tory... >@@(*&)
@)(++(*
Swearing? Boozing? You fit in just fine!!
-
Not heard about the tearing of a tampon? I thought it was just the applicator being found in the lounge?
The applicator contained half of a torn tampon.
-
Maybe, but bucket(s) of blood stained clothing found at soc should surely have been taken away for analysis?
There's no denying that Essex Police were massively out of their depth...poor old Taff Jones was nearly late for golf. But thankfully, justice was eventually served (mushysproutsnomnomnom).
-
Hi Holly, I can only presume that you are playing devils advocate.
The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous and desperate it has become. Believing that Bamber was not guilty beyond absolute forensic proof, is quite different from believing that, on the balance of probability, Shelia was responsible rather than Jeremy.
I think it's quite telling that after all these years Bamber has failed spectacularly to find anything, that could perhaps suggest his innocence.
Imo Geoffrey Rivlin QC made the fatal mistake of not presenting to the jury the distinct possibility of contamination. Overriding the silencer 'evidence' has proved understandably difficult ie if at the heart of the prosecution's case is an exhibit that was deliberately or accidentally contaminated and this was not presented to the jury at trial it is difficult to introduce it later at appeal.
Holly, if you are prepared to put your money where your strongly held belief is, I'll have a £50 Save the Children donation with you, that Bambers conviction is not quashed this year!
Good idea. Nice gesture. Agreed. ?{)(**
-
@)(++(*
Swearing? Boozing? You fit in just fine!!
Ya forgot decking the Scouse one. Swearing, boozing and fighting and I thought I was the epitome of a sophisticated southerner before posting here. I was obviously keeping bad company @)(++(*
-
Holly, have you got any evidence which can support what Jeremy claims and can stand up to scrutiny? The claims by Tesko that he has this photo or saw that one are very tiresome as I'm sure you will agree and do little for his credibility. The fact that Jeremy asked that he close down the blue forum followed by his subsequent refusal to do so is most revealing.
-
Holly, have you got any evidence which can support what Jeremy claims and can stand up to scrutiny? The claims by Tesko that he has this photo or saw that one are very tiresome as I'm sure you will agree and do little for his credibility. The fact that Jeremy asked that he close down the blue forum followed by his subsequent refusal to do so is most revealing.
I do not know exactly what Jeremy claims other than he is innocent and Sheila responsible which I agree with.
I do not believe a photo of Sheila with one bullet wound has ever existed.
With the exception of posts from the likes of NGB, Reader, Bridget and Hartley much of the rest are mainly comic value. Others have made significant contributions eg Abs creating the photo thread, Patti's research into Sheila's birth/family, Hartley creating the witness statement thread.
I do not know what JB's views are on the forum. I have told him via my letters (half a dozen over 2 years) that I post on it but he has made no comment whatsoever.
I am personally grateful to Mike for making the forum available and uploading the documents. What he chooses to post is a matter for him and admin/mods. NGB is on record stating that he rarely deletes or censors posts as it stimulates debate. It is difficult to see how it could be improved upon with a disparate group of posters and no clear objectives. I guess there's always a chance that someone could come along and find something that proves whether JB is the victim of the worst ever MoJ in British criminal history or he is as the judge at his trial described him, "Evil, almost beyond belief".
-
I do not know exactly what Jeremy claims other than he is innocent and Sheila responsible which I agree with.
But you have to have valid reasons for that statement Holly. Why do you think he is a miscarriage of justice?
-
But you have to have valid reasons for that statement Holly. Why do you think he is a miscarriage of justice?
Good evening 'M' 8**8:/:
Apologies I thought I was being asked for evidence to support JB's claims in terms of what he believes not what I believe.
My reasons for thinking JB's conviction is the worst MoJ in British criminal history:
Judge's summing up/Geoffrey Rivlin's fatal mistake in his defence strategy
As we know the blood sample found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group. With conflicting opinion about a remote possibility of the sample representing an intimate mix of June and NB's blood type/group.
Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
I have been unable to find anywhere in the judge's summing up or CoA doc any reference to what % of the population share blood type/groups. However my own perhaps rather crude methods and calculations indicate about 10% but the above results are certainly not exclusive to the individuals ie they are shared by many others.
As the relatives found the silencer they were asked to provide samples, which they did, to rule out contamination. I am unsure as to who exactly provided samples but RB did and his sample ie blood type/group matched the sample found in the silencer and Sheila Caffell's blood type/group.
Furthermore there is no audit trail as to who had access to and handled the silencer from manufacture to it arriving at FSS for analysis. For example at the manufacturing stage, transportation, gun shop, others that Nevill may have lent the gun/silencer to eg farm workers, friends etc
If 10% of the population share the same blood type/group then imo this should have been made clear to the jury ie spelled out in no uncertain terms. For example:
10% of the population will share the same blood type/group found in the silencer which matched SC's blood type/group and RB's blood type/group. Put another way 1 in 10 or statistically at least one member of the jury.
However this is part of the judge's summing up and imo is very misleading:
Page 12 of summing up
"Now I think that does complete the evidence of those experts, so it all comes down to this, does it not? Mr Hayward says, "Well to begin with, merely analysing the blood inside the moderator, it correponds with Sheila Caffell's.
Page 13 of summing up
"then come to Mr Fletcher's evidence: "*One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound", so that is entirely consistent with it being her blood in the end of the moderator".
The above statements imply that the evidence points to Sheila's blood being found in the moderator. This is WRONG as it was impossible to conclude then that Sheila's blood was in the moderator. It was only possible to state that the blood found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group which is not exclusive to her and also matched RB's.
It appears that the possibility of contamination and the fact that it could never be proved that Sheila's blood was in the silencer was never presented to the jury?
*The judge states above "One of Sheila's wounds clearly was a contact wound". That is not what the pathologist stated. He states "There were two gunshot entry wounds which appear to have been fired at contact or near contact".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=672
(Judge's summing up on Blue)
Back shortly to add further. Just getting my glass refilled.
-
Exerting undue pressure on EP by the late Robert Boutflour
Imo Robert Boutflour's diary entries are frightening in terms of the level of hatred and bigotry shown towards Jeremy for no reason other than he was different from the Boutflours/Eatons eg
- Was referred to as a b........ at school
- Didn't join Young Farmers
- Took time out to go travelling
- Worked in Little Chef
- Had a gay friend
- Had a friend who wore a feather in his ear
Robert Boutflour had the ear of EP.
RB's diary on Blue.
-
Unreliable main prosecution witness
I don't believe the jury were made aware that JM was given immunity from her criminal past in exchange for acting as a prosecution witness or that a deal had been struck with NoW for 25k if Jeremy was sent down?
-
Adoption psychology; June's mental illness/depression circa 1959; Adoption reunions
The expert witnesses called at trial made no reference to the above: Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley, Prof Knight.
Adoption psychology
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/about/dbrodzinsky.php
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Psychology-Adoption-David-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737
June's mental illness/depression circa 1959
See attached pdf
Lack of empathy/attachment disorder potentially caused by June's mental illness/depression/neglect
http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Simon-Baron-Cohen.htm
Adoption reunions
http://www.videojug.com/interview/nicky-campbell-on-adoption
Nicky Campbell (adoptee) radio and tv presenter and patron of British Association Adoption and Fostering states in his video above re his reunion with his birth parents:
"You have to feel right about it and you've got to protect yourself because it is tough, it can be very, very tough. You're talking about raw emotional truths that your confront".
How did Sheila cope with the above just weeks before the murders?
-
Suffering from depression is one thing, killing four people in cold blood is quite another.
The fact is it is highly unlikely that Sheila would have had the physical coordination and dexterity to load the rifle so many times in the midst of a killing spree. It beggars belief that she could have done all of this (including battering Bamber senior senseless) without showing any signs of a struggle or any blood, gun oil residue etc on her. Bringing up the possibility she had a shower seems like grasping at straws to me. I feel that if she had had a weapon that didn't need reloading and that was more powerful then potentially she could have committed the shootings. However, the fact that the killer hit the target so many times leads me to believe a flaky and psychotic person couldn't have done this. They would have panicked and missed. Also we've discussed this at length, you believe a petite an uncoordinated model could have beaten Nevill severely, including clubbing him on the head with the rifle butt with such power that it broke a bit off. I don't think so. Moreover, Sheila wouldn't have been concerned about cleaning up after them. Who would have gone to great lengths to tidy up after themselves? There's your answer.
Do you believe Mugford's testimony was a complete fabrication Holly? What was the motivation if so? A woman scorned?
-
You would make an excellent lawyer Holly, everything except evidence. 8@??)( @)(++(*
-
Suffering from depression is one thing, killing four people in cold blood is quite another.
The fact is it is highly unlikely that Sheila would have had the physical coordination and dexterity to load the rifle so many times in the midst of a killing spree. It beggars belief that she could have done all of this (including battering Bamber senior senseless) without showing any signs of a struggle or any blood, gun oil residue etc on her. Bringing up the possibility she had a shower seems like grasping at straws to me. I feel that if she had had a weapon that didn't need reloading and that was more powerful then potentially she could have committed the shootings. However, the fact that the killer hit the target so many times leads me to believe a flaky and psychotic person couldn't have done this. They would have panicked and missed. Also we've discussed this at length, you believe a petite an uncoordinated model could have beaten Nevill severely, including clubbing him on the head with the rifle butt with such power that it broke a bit off. I don't think so. Moreover, Sheila wouldn't have been concerned about cleaning up after them. Who would have gone to great lengths to tidy up after themselves? There's your answer.
Do you believe Mugford's testimony was a complete fabrication Holly? What was the motivation if so? A woman scorned?
I don't think I explained very well; I wasn't claiming Sheila was suffering from depression which resulted in the murders (although she may well have been suffering from depression). I was putting forward a theory that as a result of June suffering from depression circa 1959 when Sheila was circa 2 yoa that this caused changes in sheila's brain circuitry due to what is known as "serve and return" interactions or rather lack of them. The PDF above from Harvard university/National scientific council explains far better than I can.
Prof Knight in CoA doc made reference to murderers going about mundane or "ritualistic" tasks such as cleaning up before committing suicide:
91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide.
I believe most of the shots were very close range? Colin Caffell's witness statement states that Sheila threw pots and pans at him but he doesn't say whether or not she missed.
I don't think anyone beat Nevill while he was alive. It was not necessary as he was so badly injured in the bedroom that by the time he reached the kitchen he was unable to put up any sort of defence whether it be Sheila or Jeremy.
Yes I believe JM's testimony was a complete fabrication. I think she was probably told by Stan Jones that EP had the evidence to nail JB and if she didn't cooperate she was in BIG trouble. The fact that she was also given immunity from prosecution over her criminal past preserved her teaching career. It appears that her mother accompanied her throughout the trial. Where was her father? A young 21 yoa woman with no male/father present other than EP. Did she receive independent legal advice? JB claims she told him she was physically abused by her step-father. She claims she suffered a brutal anonymous rape while on holiday in France. Then she claims that her boyfriend of some 2 years brutally murdered his entire immediate adoptive family. That's a lot of violence for one young woman born and bred in UK from a middle classish background who attended grammar school and university. If its true she was certainly very, very unlucky and I am pleased she has been able to move on with her life.
-
You would make an excellent lawyer Holly, everything except evidence. 8@??)( @)(++(*
We shall see who wins the wager! All to be played for my friend, all to be played for 8(0(* ?>)()<
-
Thinking this and believing that and quoting mental health theory won't get JB off the hook Holly. The real evidence has him dead to rights. Don't you realise he destroyed any chance of parole the moment he wrote to the Eatons threatening them too??
No Justice Secretary worth his salt will ever let a mass murderer back out onto the Essex streets and as for going to New Zealand, good luck to him with that one!!! Afraid as puglove has already posted it will be many mushy sprout Christmases to come for Jerry. @)(++(*
...but then you know different eh??
-
Thinking this and believing that and quoting mental health theory won't get JB off the hook Holly. The real evidence has him dead to rights. Don't you realise he destroyed any chance of parole the moment he wrote to the Eatons threatening them too??
No Justice Secretary worth his salt will ever let a mass murderer back out onto the Essex streets and as for going to New Zealand, good luck to him with that one!!! Afraid as puglove has already posted it will be many mushy sprout Christmases to come for Jerry. @)(++(*
...but then you know different eh??
I don't want him getting off the hook. If a MoJ has occurred then procedures are in place for this to be remedied. Nothing to do with me.
I wasn't aware that he threatened the Eatons other than with perjury? No idea about anything to do with New Zealand?
I heard he has given up on soap on the rope and is back on the old slippery bars so he's probably as happy as a pig in s**t @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
He will be well institutionalised after all these years but then that's what happens when you shoot your entire family. Don't get me wrong though, if evidence of his innocence is ever found I will be one of the first to welcome it.
-
Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?
It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?
It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.
-
Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?
It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?
It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.
A pretty concise evaluation of it all goatboy. Something which isn't widely understood by many casual readers of the case though is the fact that Jeremy Bamber created a situation whereby the guilty party could only ever be him or his sister Sheila. That for me was the fatal flaw in his master plan.
By introducing the story that his father Nevill had phoned him and told him that his sister had the gun and had lost control he effectively destroyed his case. It always came down to this. If it was true then Sheila did it all then committed suicide by shooting herself in the neck twice. If it was untrue then Jeremy made it all up and he was guilty of mass murder. Even if he had an accomplice and didn't pull the trigger he was still guilty in terms of joint venture.
The evidence is substantial which supports the latter scenario. Jeremy is guilty and has spent the last 28½ years trying to persuade anyone that will listen that he isn't.
Short of a miracle, his case will never be referred back to the Appeal Court ever again.
-
Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?
It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?
It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.
Your posts are consistently excellent, goatboy. In the last few years that I've had an interest in the Bamber case (and consequently changed my view from horribly stitched-up to glaringly, obviously guilty) I've read REAMS of "new evidence found", "exciting new break-throughs" and some utter, utter jaw-dropping crap. And nothing has changed, it never will. Bamber continues to plead his innocence because he is an arrogant psychopath, he has nothing else to do, and it amuses him. With the exception of Aggie, Holly and maybe a couple of others, his supporters are a bunch of fruitcakes.
-
Is there really any prospect of the conviction being quashed this year? Numerous CCRC referrals have come up with nothing constructive enough to convince anyone in the judiciary of his innocence. Why would an appeal happen now?
It seems the Bamber is innocent brigade feel the need to discredit and query the validity of the evidence against him. But the DNA and blood evidence is strong enough to prove it was Sheila's blood in the silencer. You think Bamber's legal team hasn't tried to contest this before without success?
It's easy to get bogged down with details but the fact is Bamber had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murders. We know he was greedy and obsessed with money as illustrated by his robbery of the caravan park, not to mention contemptuous of his parents. He didn't want to share his inheritance with Sheila so he killed his family. And what a piece of luck that all of the people standing in the way of his inheritance just happened to be in the same place at the same time on the night of the murders. He refused to answer simple questions that could incriminate himself in police interviews, he didn't deny he was lying in a court of law. If you add all of this together it points pretty conclusively to his guilt. And if Julie Mugford was lying to convict Jeremy all she had to do was say she heard him admit to the killings. That's what I would have done if I wanted to convict someone with the sort of statement she was making. Yet she doesn't say this at all in her testimony.
The blood evidence only shows that SC's blood type/group matched the sample found in the silencer. Many others share SC's blood type/group. For example Robert Boutflour's blood/type group matched SC's and the sample found in the silencer. Imo this is an important point as Robert Boutflour had a hand in finding the silencer. Why did Geoffrey Rivlin QC not present to the jury the realistic possibility that the silencer had been contaminated either accidentally or deliberately? (Why does Misty's owner bang on about EP but seems oblivious to the cock up at trial by Geoffrey Rivlin QC?) It is also clear from RB's diary that he hated JB for no reason other than he was different in terms of lifestyle choices all of which were acceptable and legitimate.
How does the DNA analysis support JB's conviction? The findings of the DNA analysis show that SC's DNA MAY have been in the silencer. Operative words are MAY and DNA. DNA does not equate to blood. The DNA testing in this instance, LCN-DNA, is not capable of identifying the source of DNA eg skin cell, blood, saliva, perspiration or any other biological matter. It's a completely moot point as the scientists involved and 3 appeal court judges ruled that the DNA analysis was "completely meaningless". The Court of Appeal concluded:
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
There haven't been "numerous" CCRC referrals. JB has made two submissions. One of which was referred to CoA. Since the CCRC's formation only 2.97% (source below) of cases submitted are referred to CoA. The fact that JB's case fell into that small % tells me its a close call along with the jury's verdict of 10-2. All of these facts will just make the eventual quashing of the conviction even more sensational 8)--))
http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/criminal-cases-review-commission
-
Well, it certainly would be sensational, one thing we can all agree on!
-
How does the DNA analysis support JB's conviction? The findings of the DNA analysis show that SC's DNA MAY have been in the silencer. Operative words are MAY and DNA. DNA does not equate to blood. The DNA testing in this instance, LCN-DNA, is not capable of identifying the source of DNA eg skin cell, blood, saliva, perspiration or any other biological matter. It's a completely moot point as the scientists involved and 3 appeal court judges ruled that the DNA analysis was "completely meaningless". The Court of Appeal concluded:
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
It very simple actually. DNA found deep within the silencer was found to have 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell. In plain English this means that the chances that it doesn't belong to her is something like 10 million to 1. Not enough for a British judge to confirm it in terms of English Law but the numbers speak for themselves.
Another point which I don't believe has ever been touched on before is the matter of the positioning of the rifle before that all important last fatal shot. We know that it isn't easy to shoot oneself in the neck with a rifle and Sheila would have struggled as much if not more than anyone. To carry out such a shot the person has to make sure the muzzle is on target. The only way someone can do this is to hold the muzzle against their neck. For Sheila to have taken a second shot would have been nigh impossible given her condition, for her to have positioned the muzzle properly was impossible since there were no blood smear marks on her neck.
In addition, there was no gun shot residue (GSR) on her hands or fingers or any indication that her finger tips had come into contact with what by then would have been a hot muzzle. Taken together, these facts indicate that Sheila never fired that rifle.
-
It very simple actually. DNA found deep within the silencer was found to have 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell. In plain English this means that the chances that it doesn't belong to her is something like 10 million to 1. Not enough for a British judge to confirm it in terms of English Law but the numbers speak for themselves.
Another point which I don't believe has ever been touched on before is the matter of the positioning of the rifle before that all important last fatal shot. We know that it isn't easy to shoot oneself in the neck with a rifle and Sheila would have struggled as much if not more than anyone. To carry out such a shot the person has to make sure the muzzle is on target. The only way someone can do this is to hold the muzzle against their neck. For Sheila to have taken a second shot would have been nigh impossible given her condition, for her to have positioned the muzzle properly was impossible since there were no blood smear marks on her neck.
I don't know why everyone, pro and anti, can't accept the LCN DNA findings of the scientists and three appeal court judges ie that they were "utterly meaningless". The reason for this is that in 85/86 LCN DNA was not even envisaged. As such exhibits were not protected against contamination by those who handled them eg staff at fss, court officials, and jurors who handled the silencer along with other exhibits such as the victims' nightwear. LCN DNA is so sensitive that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat.
-
I don't know why everyone, pro and anti, can't accept the LCN DNA findings of the scientists and three appeal court judges ie that they were "utterly meaningless". The reason for this is that in 85/86 LCN DNA was not even envisaged. As such exhibits were not protected against contamination by those who handled them eg staff at fss, court officials, and jurors who handled the silencer along with other exhibits such as the victims' nightwear. LCN DNA is so sensitive that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat.
So how exactly could the baffles deep inside a silencer be contaminated with Sheila Caffell's DNA when she never had it open and probably never even handled it as she hated guns. It doesn't matter how small the tested sample was, it will still return an accurate result. DNA is a bit like digital TV, you either have it or you don't. The only part which is unknown is where the DNA came from. There was not enough of the sample remaining after previous tests to prove it came from blood and what was left was tested to destruction.
-
So how exactly could the baffles deep inside a silencer be contaminated with Sheila Caffell's DNA when she never had it open and probably never even handled it as she hated guns. It doesn't matter how small the tested sample was, it will still return an accurate result. DNA is a bit like digital TV, you either have it or you don't. The only part which is unknown is where the DNA came from. There was not enough of the sample remaining after previous tests to prove it came from blood and what was left was tested to destruction.
My previous post explains the small (not visible to naked eye) samples required to produce an LCN-DNA reading. Sheila is unlikely to have ever had any direct contact with the silencer but the fact that others had contact with items that had been in contact with Sheila and then had contact with the silencer could give rise to contamination.
The blood sample found in the silencer did not match June's blood type/group but all agreed ie scientists and 3 x appeal court judges that June's DNA was in the silencer. Again probably from secondary contamination.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html
-
My previous post explains the small (not visible to naked eye) samples required to produce an LCN-DNA reading. Sheila is unlikely to have ever had any direct contact with the silencer but the fact that others had contact with items that had been in contact with Sheila and then had contact with the silencer could give rise to contamination.
The blood sample found in the silencer did not match June's blood type/group but all agreed ie scientists and 3 x appeal court judges that June's DNA was in the silencer. Again probably from secondary contamination.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html
As I have already indicated Holly, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila are many millions to one. You cannot corrupt DNA results unless of course you are suggesting that someone planted Sheila's blood in the silencer?
-
Adoption psychology; June's mental illness/depression circa 1959; Adoption reunions
The expert witnesses called at trial made no reference to the above: Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley, Prof Knight.
Adoption psychology
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/about/dbrodzinsky.php
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Psychology-Adoption-David-Brodzinsky/dp/0195082737
June's mental illness/depression circa 1959
See attached pdf
Lack of empathy/attachment disorder potentially caused by June's mental illness/depression/neglect
http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Simon-Baron-Cohen.htm
Adoption reunions
http://www.videojug.com/interview/nicky-campbell-on-adoption
Nicky Campbell (adoptee) radio and tv presenter and patron of British Association Adoption and Fostering states in his video above re his reunion with his birth parents:
"You have to feel right about it and you've got to protect yourself because it is tough, it can be very, very tough. You're talking about raw emotional truths that your confront".
How did Sheila cope with the above just weeks before the murders?
Hi Holly,
I have read a lot about how her mental state would have made her capable of killing but rarely does anyone actually explain what she did that night. For someone going crazy, there seems to have been a fair degree of decsion making and panic going on.
I know its a bit maccabre but would you mind possibly explaining what happened that night if Sheila was the killer. I have listed some things below that i would like explained.
1. At what point, before, during or after the carnage did she eat the part digested food found in her body?
2. Did Nevills body happen to end up on a chair by chance or was it deliberately placed there?
3. The order of the shootings and the gun reloads.
4. Did she carry ammunition or did she return to the kitchen to reload?
5. At what point during 'Sheila going beserk' did Nevill call Jeremy.
6. Did Nevill pursue Sheila to the kitchen or did she chase him?
7. The lack of Nevills blood from the ferocious beating on her clothing.
8. The trail of Junes blood from her side of the bedroom to Nevills side where Sheilas body was found.
Many thanks
-
As I have already indicated Holly, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila are many millions to one. You cannot corrupt DNA results unless of course you are suggesting that someone planted Sheila's blood in the silencer?
I don't really see the blood and DNA test results connected. The blood sample found in the silencer matched Sheila's blood type/group but as we know it also matched Robert Boutflour's. The blood type/group test results available in 85/86 are not exclusive to individuals.
As we know the CoA ruled that Sheila's DNA may have been in the silencer but they were unable to confirm either way. DNA results can identify a positive match normally to about 0.3% making it pretty damn conclusive.
Lets assume for argument sake Sheila's DNA was in the silencer it by no means proves that her blood was ever in the silencer due to the potential for contamination. By contamination I mean that when staff at fss, court officials or jurors handled the silencer they did not take the necessary precautions to prevent contamination as DNA testing was not even envisaged in 85/86. So it was possible when jurors were handling the silencer along with other exhibits that contained Sheila's dna eg blood, skin etc that the silencer was contaminated.
Confirmation from CoA doc re potential for contamination:
504. Mr Webster then reviewed in detail the history of the handling of the moderator and the various opportunities for contamination. He considered the fact that Dr Lincoln had taken out all the baffles and tested them all. He referred to the fact that both Mr Hayward and Mr Fletcher had handled the moderator in the witness box, a place where other exhibits were produced without any precautions being taken to avoid contact. He pointed to the fact that the judge specifically told the jury that they could "empty the baffles out later" and that it could not be established what use had been made of the moderator by the jury during their deliberations or what other exhibits may have been in their possession. He observed that the judge had told the jury that if they handled any of the clothing, they should put on plastic gloves for their own protection, thus giving rise to the possibility that blood stained items were examined by the jury with no precautions being taken to ensure that if they then went to handle the baffles there was not contamination
End
Futhermore the DNA detected by the LCN-DNA testing did not reflect the distribution of blood found in the silencer in 85/86:
Confirmation from CoA doc re distribution of DNA not reflecting distribution of blood within the silencer
72. Even given these limitations of LCN profiling, I do consider that the tests were worth attempting. The results obtained would have been of value if the distribution of DNA within the sound moderator detected by the LCN DNA profiling test reflected the distribution of blood within the sound moderator when it was originally tested. Unfortunately they do not.
-
Hi Holly,
I have read a lot about how her mental state would have made her capable of killing but rarely does anyone actually explain what she did that night. For someone going crazy, there seems to have been a fair degree of decsion making and panic going on.
I know its a bit maccabre but would you mind possibly explaining what happened that night if Sheila was the killer. I have listed some things below that i would like explained.
1. At what point, before, during or after the carnage did she eat the part digested food found in her body?
2. Did Nevills body happen to end up on a chair by chance or was it deliberately placed there?
3. The order of the shootings and the gun reloads.
4. Did she carry ammunition or did she return to the kitchen to reload?
5. At what point during 'Sheila going beserk' did Nevill call Jeremy.
6. Did Nevill pursue Sheila to the kitchen or did she chase him?
7. The lack of Nevills blood from the ferocious beating on her clothing.
8. The trail of Junes blood from her side of the bedroom to Nevills side where Sheilas body was found.
Many thanks
Good questions Simong. Hope my answers will be worthy 8-)(--)
1. Yes as per the pathologist's report, Sheila was the only victim to have partially digested food in her stomach meaning she ate later than the other victims but how much later I don't know. If I had to guess I would say she didn't actually get into bed ie pull the covers. Rather she laid on top and may have drifted in and out of sleep or not. I feel she got up around midnight/very early hours had a snack and started to brood on her life/situation and as was the case at Maida Vale, as reported by neighbours, started to get agitated in the early hours. The SoC photos show the bed made or rather covers pulled right over the bed but to my eye the pillow appears to have an indentation in it.
2. I would say NB sought solace in his favourite chair of his own accord. I note that the pathologist states that if the 3 or 4 gunshot wounds received in the kitchen hadn't supervened then the first 4 or 5 received in the bedroom/stairs would have killed him. EP reported seeing Nevill in his chair through the window pretty much ruling out EP moving him. I think it would have been impossible for SC to position him in the chair. Why would either SC or JB place NB in the chair?
3. There appears to be a lot of conflicting reports about how many bullets JB left in the mag and breach ranging from 10 in total to 7. I think SC was in the kitchen with NB who was on the phone to JB. SC went upstairs and shot June probably 5 times while in bed. NB appeared and he was then shot 4 or 5 times. At this point I believe NB attempted to get downstairs to the phone. SC followed him and fired the shot down the stairs. NB arrived in the kitchen and slumped in the chair. SC may then have bashed NB with the rifle. SC then reloaded from the kitchen. I understand as more bullets are pushed into the mag it gets progressively difficult. I think once Sheila was faced with any difficulty she would have made further shots and then refilled. Firing another 3 or 4 shots into NB and a further 2 to June and continuing refilling from the kitchen and firing shots with the twins shot last.
4. I think she reloaded from the kitchen as I don't think she was able to carry bullets on her person.
5. If NB called JB then imo it was well before any shots were fired. Please see 3 above. I really struggle to believe that NB would have called JB after he was shot. This imo sounds too incredulous in terms of being physically able to do so and it would make no logical sense to phone a family member if a gun was going off. He would surely call emergency services?
6. After NB was shot in the bedroom imo he attempted to escape to phone emergency services of flee the property to the nearby cottages to raise the alarm and was followed by SC hence the downward shot around the stairs.
7. If SC was responsible I feel certain she must have showered, possibly washing her hair, and changing her clothes. The clothes left to soak in buckets in the kitchen should have been analysed.
8. Its not clear to me whether June was trying to reason with the shooter or escape for self-preservation and/or to protect the twins.
Obviously the above are just my opinions of what may have happened.
-
Hi Holly, I can only presume that you are playing devils advocate.
The longer this charade goes on, the more ridiculous and desperate it has become. Believing that Bamber was not guilty beyond absolute forensic proof, is quite different from believing that, on the balance of probability, Shelia was responsible rather than Jeremy.
I think it's quite telling that after all these years Bamber has failed spectacularly to find anything, that could perhaps suggest his innocence.
Holly, if you are prepared to put your money where your strongly held belief is, I'll have a £50 Save the Children donation with you, that Bambers conviction is not quashed this year!
https://mydonatetelethonsappeals.bt.com/donate/cin2014/donationAcknowledgedSuccess.html?peid=DYL-50007844&amount=5000¤cy=GBP&rc=0
-
https://mydonatetelethonsappeals.bt.com/donate/cin2014/donationAcknowledgedSuccess.html?peid=DYL-50007844&amount=5000¤cy=GBP&rc=0
Lets double the original bet for the end of 2015 ie £100?
-
I would put your money to better use Holly, the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber is unassailable as Simon McKay has recently discovered. He isn't going anywhere any time soon.
-
I would put your money to better use Holly, the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber is unassailable as Simon McKay has recently discovered. He isn't going anywhere any time soon.
Either way I think the Children in Need appeal is a good use of money? Actually I see the bet was based on Save the Children but Myster made recent ref to CiN and so I donated to CiN.
As far as I'm aware SM and JB parted on good times. I have no idea who JB's current legal representatives are. I think SM was a one man band and perhaps couldn't commit the resources the case requires on a pro bono basis.
I don't see the evidence that convicted JB as unassailable. I see the verdict as a MoJ based on a very poor defence.
-
Either way I think the Children in Need appeal is a good use of money? Actually I see the bet was based on Save the Children but Myster made recent ref to CiN and so I donated to CiN.
As far as I'm aware SM and JB parted on good times. I have no idea who JB's current legal representatives are. I think SM was a one man band and perhaps couldn't commit the resources the case requires on a pro bono basis.
I don't see the evidence that convicted JB as unassailable. I see the verdict as a MoJ based on a very poor defence.
The best defence in the world wouldn't have made any difference and had the jury had access to DNA testing back in 1986 the verdict would have been unanimous.
-
The best defence in the world wouldn't have made any difference and had the jury had access to DNA testing back in 1986 the verdict would have been unanimous.
We will have to agree to disagree. Had GR decided upon a different strategy with the silencer the verdict may have been entirely different. GR decided to go with SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard before turning the gun on herself. The blood in the silencer being an intimate mix of NB's and June's. This to my mind just doesn't sound credible at all. Had GR have presented the jury with the potential for contamination the verdict may have been entirely different.
As far as I am aware we have no way of measuring a barrister's competence either on a particular case or generally. A year or two after JB's trial GR became a judge. Perhaps he realised advocacy wasn't for him!?
If the trial was conducted today the soc and exhibits would be properly protected against contamination and it would be possible to use SGM Plus DNA testing instead of LCN DNA testing on the blood found in the silencer. This would have concluded whether or not the blood found in the silencer belonged to SC. However it wouldn't necessarily be capable of proving how the blood came to be there. If the police and/or others wanted to fabricate evidence they might have been able to if they had access to SC's blood which EP did as the pathologist handed the samples to EP for forwarding to FSS.
-
I don't see the silencer having a major part in the conviction in any event Holly, rather, it is the other circumstantial evidence taken together which convicted him. There isn't a shred of evidence to support his innocence even after all these years, what does that tell you?
Don't you think Collins would have hung around had he thought him innocent of the murders?
-
I don't see the silencer having a major part in the conviction in any event Holly, rather, it is the other circumstantial evidence taken together which convicted him. There isn't a shred of evidence to support his innocence even after all these years, what does that tell you?
Don't you think Collins would have hung around had he thought him innocent of the murders?
It appears from the judge's summing up, jury's deliberations and questions for the judge that the silencer played a pivotal role in the jury's verdict. The way in which the silencer was presented to the jury might be considered 'direct evidence' along with JM's testimony. The rest eg phone calls, bike, window, dislike of family, motivation etc was circumstantial/indirect evidence. We don't really know what weight the jury gave to the various elements.
Our legal system is adversarial. The defendant is either found guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not guilty. Innocence doesn't really come into it. This tells me it is a system, like any other, that is fallible and as such capable of producing long running MoJ's as evidenced by those that we have witnessed over the years.
The prosecution and defence agreed that either JB or SC were responsible and no one else. Only JB went on trial.
Brett Collins supported JB throughout his trial. He simply returned home to New Zealand post trial.
-
It appears from the judge's summing up, jury's deliberations and questions for the judge that the silencer played a pivotal role in the jury's verdict. The way in which the silencer was presented to the jury might be considered 'direct evidence' along with JM's testimony. The rest eg phone calls, bike, window, dislike of family, motivation etc was circumstantial/indirect evidence. We don't really know what weight the jury gave to the various elements.
Our legal system is adversarial. The defendant is either found guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not guilty. Innocence doesn't really come into it. This tells me it is a system, like any other, that is fallible and as such capable of producing long running MoJ's as evidenced by those that we have witnessed over the years.
The prosecution and defence agreed that either JB or SC were responsible and no one else. Only JB went on trial.
Brett Collins supported JB throughout his trial. He simply returned home to New Zealand post trial.
You have missed the important evidence yet again. We know that the killer had to be Jeremy or Sheila, nobody else could gain access to the property. The substantial evidence provided by Sheila rules her out leaving only one other person.
It is unnecessary to prove Jeremy did it, all we have to prove is that Sheila most certainly didn't do it!
-
You have missed the important evidence yet again. We know that the killer had to be Jeremy or Sheila, nobody else could gain access to the property. The substantial evidence provided by Sheila rules her out leaving only one other person.
It is unnecessary to prove Jeremy did it, all we have to prove is that Sheila most certainly didn't do it!
Yes, I've never believed in a third party was involved in any shape or form.
For a whole month plus the official line was SC was responsible. DS Jones might have been considered a "dissenter" but even he was unsure either way as follows:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5616.msg199700#msg199700
As you are no doubt aware following on from the relatives 'concerns' Det Supt Ainsley instructed a case review. This was led by Det Supt Kenneally. On Friday 6th September 1985 a meeting was held to discuss the outcome. Those present included:
Chief Constable Bunyard
ACC Simpson
Det Supt Ainsely
Det Supt Kenneally
CONCLUSION: SC was responsible
If the evidence proved SC most certainly didn't do it then how can we account for the above?
-
Yes, I've never believed in a third party was involved in any shape or form.
For a whole month plus the official line was SC was responsible. DS Jones might have been considered a "dissenter" but even he was unsure either way as follows:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5616.msg199700#msg199700
As you are no doubt aware following on from the relatives 'concerns' Det Supt Ainsley instructed a case review. This was led by Det Supt Kenneally. On Friday 6th September 1985 a meeting was held to discuss the outcome. Those present included:
Chief Constable Bunyard
ACC Simpson
Det Supt Ainsely
Det Supt Kenneally
CONCLUSION: SC was responsible
If the evidence proved SC most certainly didn't do it then how can we account for the above?
They must have felt like complete idiots when Julie came forward the next day and made a full 24-page statement two days later. As usual it was the grassroots detectives who made the difference!
-
They must have felt like complete idiots when Julie came forward the next day and made a full 24-page statement two days later. As usual it was the grassroots detectives who made the difference!
I doubt they felt like complete idiots - why would they?
Why should JM's WS, that came a month after the tragedy and completely contradicted her WS of 8th Aug '85, take automatic precedence over a review carried out by senior investigating officers which concluded SC was responsible?
It was a highly unusual case in that even if more care had been taken with the soc I'm not sure much more could be gleaned? Both SC and JB had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents.
Had the pathologist and ballistics attended and communicated with officers at the soc this may have resolved any doubts in the early stages.
In JB's case his relatives putting pressure on police so much that they effectively led the investigation in the end and his girlfriend coming forward claiming JB was responsible put him in an unenviable position.
There was no real forensic and in the absence of such of course the relatives and ex-girlfriend carried a lot of weight.
-
Julie had everything to lose by telling likes to the police and what's more she knew it. It was a case of cooperate with the police or go down with Bamber.
What would you choose Holly?
-
Julie had everything to lose by telling likes to the police and what's moire she knew it. It was a case of cooperate with the police or go down with Bamber.
What would you choose Holly?
Why would she have gone down with him?
-
Why would she have gone down with him?
Had she not cooperated with police and turned Queen's evidence, she could very well have been prosecuted too.
-
Why would she have gone down with him?
One of her friends went to police and told them about how Julie told her that Bamber confessed to her...
That naturally made the police wonder if she was involved in some manner even as an accessory and whether she obstructed justice. She basically had to come clean at that point to avoid liability herself. But TO BE SURE she had told her friend in the first place and didn't feel that bad about telling on him because she felt bad and wanted to relieve her conscience and they had broken up already. If they were still together she probably would have still tried to see if she could find a way to protect him. She had no need to lie for him anymore though and that made a huge difference. In fact, if they had still been together she could have told him that if he married her then they could not force her to testify against him so he should marry her ASAP.
There are relatives who initially cover for relatives who commit crimes but then turn on them and spill the beans when their conscience is too much for them, when they realize the offender is a s..mbag who doesn't deserve protection (usually because of the way the offender acts afterwards), when the offender does something to piss off the relative helping or a combination of these. That is the same mix that resulted in Julie not wanting to protect him anymore.
If Jeremy was aware of the mistakes he made and aware of what the lab would find then he might have played things different and tried to keep Julie in his corner and perhaps even marry her. But he was unaware of his mistakes and figured it would just be her word not any evidence to support her claims. He was wrong though quite obviously.
-
You have missed the important evidence yet again. We know that the killer had to be Jeremy or Sheila, nobody else could gain access to the property. The substantial evidence provided by Sheila rules her out leaving only one other person.
It is unnecessary to prove Jeremy did it, all we have to prove is that Sheila most certainly didn't do it!
What i love about being the only person who feels this was carried out by a third person is they way everyone on the Jeremy/ Sheila did it camps, dismisses the third party theory so easily. Everyone has this impression of a hollywood style hitman. Which if this crime wasn't so grotesque, i would find laughable!
Sheila had partly digested food in her body. Her post mortem shows traces of cannabis in her system. She was obviously in the kitchen to prepare her food. Could she not have simply let someone in whilst everyone else was sleeping, who was bringing her some weed to smoke. Maybe this is why there is no evidence of forced entry? Could this late night drug deal have been pre-arranged by perhaps Jeremy? Maybe Sheila eat some food whilst waiting for someone? I wonder who admits to cultivating weed in their statement? It would seem easier to me to subdue all three adults in the house by leading one at gunpoint into the bedroom where the other two adults are gathered/sleeping. Dismissing a third party carrying out the crime is odd when the Police looked into this very seriously. Whether you believe Sheila or Jeremy did this, everyone from both sides of the argument has to admit that the Police investigation was poor/ incompetent at best. Dismissing the chances of Police incompetence when checking out alibi's for third party involvement would seem odd also.
-
What i love about being the only person who feels this was carried out by a third person is they way everyone on the Jeremy/ Sheila did it camps, dismisses the third party theory so easily. Everyone has this impression of a hollywood style hitman. Which if this crime wasn't so grotesque, i would find laughable!
Sheila had partly digested food in her body. Her post mortem shows traces of cannabis in her system. She was obviously in the kitchen to prepare her food. Could she not have simply let someone in whilst everyone else was sleeping, who was bringing her some weed to smoke. Maybe this is why there is no evidence of forced entry? Could this late night drug deal have been pre-arranged by perhaps Jeremy? Maybe Sheila eat some food whilst waiting for someone? I wonder who admits to cultivating weed in their statement? It would seem easier to me to subdue all three adults in the house by leading one at gunpoint into the bedroom where the other two adults are gathered/sleeping. Dismissing a third party carrying out the crime is odd when the Police looked into this very seriously. Whether you believe Sheila or Jeremy did this, everyone from both sides of the argument has to admit that the Police investigation was poor/ incompetent at best. Dismissing the chances of Police incompetence when checking out alibi's for third party involvement would seem odd also.
1) The results prove she smoked the cannabis several days before the murders because it was not in her bloodstream only her urine. It was smoked before she went to visit WHF. What relevance does this have to anything?
2) Her last known meal was at 9-9:30, according to Jeremy she was in the kitchen eating. The food was partially digested so was eaten at least 2 hours prior to her death. It takes 6 hours to clear the stomach so the food in her stomach simply establishes she ate 2-6 hours prior to her death. So the food could have been the last meal Jeremy described. As long as she was killed by 3AM that was her last meal. What does this prove? Nothing at all.
3) The reason why the third person theory is rejected is because it is not credible.
A) For a third person to be responsible Neville had to call Jeremy and lie stating Sheila was going crazy to try to get him to come over. Why would Neville lie and say she was going crazy to get his son to come over and be killed instead of telling his son they are being held hostage call police?
B) Why would someone break in to kill the entire family including the children? Who would have a motive to kill them all? No one except Jeremy and the house clearly wasn't broken into. Who would know how to lock the kitchen window let alone decide to leave through it and lock it and try to stage it as Sheila killing everyone? The only one who would want everyone dead and stage it as a murder suicide would be Jeremy and he even told Julie he was going to do that.
There is nothing at all to support a third party doing it what do you have to support your position? Nothing at all which is why everyone else rejects it.
-
I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read. I will also say that, that applies to most of your post. I would love to debate and question your points in more detail but i have got to say that i find your debating style, a bit long winded. You can consider that victory if you want and i can look back on my life and say i have saved myself a lot of valuable time. 8(0(*
-
I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read. I will also say that, that applies to most of your post. I would love to debate and question your points in more detail but i have got to say that i find your debating style, a bit long winded. You can consider that victory if you want and i can look back on my life and say i have saved myself a lot of valuable time. 8(0(*
Doesn't have to be long winded. Why do you think that Neville lied to Jeremy during the phone call?
-
There could very well have been a third party there that night, maybe even a lookout. The point is however that only Jeremy knew how to get into and out of the house undetected. Only Jeremy was capable of approaching the farmhouse without setting off the dog.
I have always believed that Jeremy had encouragement with his murderous scheme, he should not have stood alone in that dock.
-
I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read. I will also say that, that applies to most of your post. I would love to debate and question your points in more detail but i have got to say that i find your debating style, a bit long winded. You can consider that victory if you want and i can look back on my life and say i have saved myself a lot of valuable time. 8(0(*
Your debating style consists of you making unsubstantiated allegations that make no sense then mentioning a bunch of points that have no relevance at all to the murders let alone to the allegations you made in an attempt to distract from the fact you have no evidence to support your nonsense claims.
My debating style is the norm. You make claims and present evidence to support them and you evaluate the relvant factors.
You can't debate me because you have n oway of refuting my points.
You didn't even make any sense in your response to me.
Let's recap:
You made allegations about a third pary being involved. Then you mentioned she smoked cannabis some unspecified time prior to the murders implying it was shortly before and seeming to imply she had done so with some third party who committed the crimes.
My response:
1) The results prove she smoked the cannabis several days before the murders because it was not in her bloodstream only her urine. It was smoked before she went to visit WHF. What relevance does this have to anything?
All I did was post evidence that she smoked pot before she vistied WHF and that it has no relevance to the murders at all. I didn't bother to go into more detail about where you were trying to go with it. I nipped your efforts in the bud by pointing out it had no relevance and challenging you to establish otherwise.
You seem to admit it has no relevance, seem to suggest you mentioned it for no reaosn at all thus wasting everyone's time including your own by posting it then make this stupid claim:
"I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read."
I didn't read anything itno it I pointed out merely that she smoked it days earlier and tha tit had no relevance.
You won't debate me in detail because you can;t you would be humiliated if you tried debating in detail. You are a hit and run poster. You make unsubstantiated allegations then run away so you can try to pretend you didn't get defeated in debate.
-
Doesn't have to be long winded. Why do you think that Neville lied to Jeremy during the phone call?
The only person who ever put forth a reason claimed that Neville knew he was going to die and as long as everyone else was going to die he wanted Jeremy to die with them.
That sounds absurd of course. No one else asked such question was willing to even venture an excuse.
-
Doesn't have to be long winded. Why do you think that Neville lied to Jeremy during the phone call?
One of either of these theories. Either Nevill got to the phone and tried to make a call. The killer not knowing if Nevill had made a call or not, panicked and rang JB as they were not sure of how to proceed. They concocted the flimsy Nevill to JB phonecall story. Or....
Nevill didn't call Jeremy. The third party called Jeremy to establish JB's alibi. Jeremy seems shocked, almost disappointed in his interview, that the Police/ BT do not have the technology to ascertain whether a call was made from WHF.
-
One of either of these theories. Either Nevill got to the phone and tried to make a call. The killer not knowing if Nevill had made a call or not, panicked and rang JB as they were not sure of how to proceed. They concocted the flimsy Nevill to JB phonecall story. Or....
Nevill didn't call Jeremy. The third party called Jeremy to establish JB's alibi. Jeremy seems shocked, almost disappointed in his interview, that the Police/ BT do not have the technology to ascertain whether a call was made from WHF.
So you are saying Jeremy was still involved and lied about receiving a call from Neville. Your third person theory isn't a third person theory at all it is a theory that Jeremy had an accomplice merely.
-
Several people including myself who don't take sides in this, cannot understand why the CCRC has not passed his case on to the court of appeal. With all the evidence and information that exists today that did not at the time of the conviction.
The CCRC does state that it will only refer cases on that they believe might possibly lead to the conviction being quashed by the court of appeal. Therefore I can only speculate that the appeal courts have in advance broke protocol due to the nature of this case and told the CCRC that they will never ever change their mind as there is too much at stake. So what ever is produced by JB legal team they will just have to make up reasons why.
Has anyone got or seen the CCRC 109 page document from 2011/12? That would be an interesting read
-
Several people including myself who don't take sides in this, cannot understand why the CCRC has not passed his case on to the court of appeal. With all the evidence and information that exists today that did not at the time of the conviction.
What evidence exists today that did not exist at the time of his trial that establishes he is innocent?
The most recent submissision to the CCRC had no such evidence tha tis why the application was rejected. The CCRC trashed the position of the defense so badly that Jeremy's lawyers will not even allow it to be published on his website because they don't want anyone to see how pathetic their arguments were.
The CCRC does state that it will only refer cases on that they believe might possibly lead to the conviction being quashed by the court of appeal. Therefore I can only speculate that the appeal courts have in advance broke protocol due to the nature of this case and told the CCRC that they will never ever change their mind as there is too much at stake. So what ever is produced by JB legal team they will just have to make up reasons why.
Has anyone got or seen the CCRC 109 page document from 2011/12? That would be an interesting read
Your claim you are not tkaing sides is a joke. You don't even know what was in the latest CCRC submission but have decided it was evidence of Jeremy's innocence and decided that wrongdoing by the Court of Appeals resulted in the CCRC not passing the matter over to the Court of Appeals. You are indeed taking sides and making ridiculous allegations form a position of complete ignorance.
-
Several people including myself who don't take sides in this, cannot understand why the CCRC has not passed his case on to the court of appeal. With all the evidence and information that exists today that did not at the time of the conviction.
The CCRC does state that it will only refer cases on that they believe might possibly lead to the conviction being quashed by the court of appeal. Therefore I can only speculate that the appeal courts have in advance broke protocol due to the nature of this case and told the CCRC that they will never ever change their mind as there is too much at stake. So what ever is produced by JB legal team they will just have to make up reasons why.
Has anyone got or seen the CCRC 109 page document from 2011/12? That would be an interesting read
Scipio is correct, the CCRC will these days only refer a case to the Appeal Court where there is an excellent chance of success. In past years the Court has criticised the agency for referring cases too readily.
In Bambers case regardless of the crap produced across on blue, there is NO EVIDENCE to support any referral. Basically, short of someone coming forward and confessing, I cannot realistically see the case being referred to the Court ever again.
I fear the old get-out of claiming a conviction is unsafe won't wear where JB is concerned.
-
What evidence exists today that did not exist at the time of his trial that establishes he is innocent?
The most recent submissision to the CCRC had no such evidence tha tis why the application was rejected. The CCRC trashed the position of the defense so badly that Jeremy's lawyers will not even allow it to be published on his website because they don't want anyone to see how pathetic their arguments were.
Your claim you are not tkaing sides is a joke. You don't even know what was in the latest CCRC submission but have decided it was evidence of Jeremy's innocence and decided that wrongdoing by the Court of Appeals resulted in the CCRC not passing the matter over to the Court of Appeals. You are indeed taking sides and making ridiculous allegations form a position of complete ignorance.
You misunderstand the English legal system. It is not necessary to establish innocence. At trial it is based on beyond reasonable guilt or guilt. At CoA it is based on the conviction being unsafe.
-
What evidence exists today that did not exist at the time of his trial that establishes he is innocent?
The most recent submissision to the CCRC had no such evidence tha tis why the application was rejected. The CCRC trashed the position of the defense so badly that Jeremy's lawyers will not even allow it to be published on his website because they don't want anyone to see how pathetic their arguments were.
Your claim you are not tkaing sides is a joke. You don't even know what was in the latest CCRC submission but have decided it was evidence of Jeremy's innocence and decided that wrongdoing by the Court of Appeals resulted in the CCRC not passing the matter over to the Court of Appeals. You are indeed taking sides and making ridiculous allegations form a position of complete ignorance.
Hang on! where did I claim there is proof he is innocent? If there was such 'proof' he would be released. What I meant was there is evidence that puts doubt on his guilt, And that the Jury was misled 'unintentionaly' by the Judge making several claims that we now no are false and several prosecution claims. I'm not going to go into detail about it. we will just go off topic and back into the same circles.
I don't take sides or at least I try not to. Sometimes I sway from one side to the other slightly and its always circumstantial or opinianted claims that makes me do so. I was not there that night so I don't know what took place. Fact of the matter is the only one who knows is what took place is Jeremy. The only reason I would want a retrial is for the sake of my own entertainment to see what happens TBH.
Have you seen the latest CCRC report? can I get it anywhere?
Just for the record if such 'proof' existed that he was innocent which it don't but if it did knowing this bizarre saga it would probably leave more questions than answers @)(++(*
-
Scipio is correct, the CCRC will these days only refer a case to the Appeal Court where there is an excellent chance of success. In past years the Court has criticised the agency for referring cases too readily.
In Bambers case regardless of the crap produced across on blue, there is NO EVIDENCE to support any referral. Basically, short of someone coming forward and confessing, I cannot realistically see the case being referred to the Court ever again.
I fear the old get-out of claiming a conviction is unsafe won't wear where JB is concerned.
Ched Evans' case is currently with the CCRC - we will see!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929795/Rapist-Ched-Evans-submitted-fresh-evidence-previously-unavailable-appeal-against-sex-attack-conviction.html
Since its inception the CCRC have referred just over 3% of applications to the CoA. Obviously one of these cases was JB's.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/about/criminal-cases-review-commission
-
Hang on! where did I claim there is proof he is innocent? If there was such 'proof' he would be released. What I meant was there is evidence that puts doubt on his guilt, And that the Jury was misled 'unintentionaly' by the Judge making several claims that we now no are false and several prosecution claims. I'm not going to go into detail about it. we will just go off topic and back into the same circles.
I don't take sides or at least I try not to. Sometimes I sway from one side to the other slightly and its always circumstantial or opinianted claims that makes me do so. I was not there that night so I don't know what took place. Fact of the matter is the only one who knows is what took place is Jeremy. The only reason I would want a retrial is for the sake of my own entertainment to see what happens TBH.
Have you seen the latest CCRC report? can I get it anywhere?
Just for the record if such 'proof' existed that he was innocent which it don't but if it did knowing this bizarre saga it would probably leave more questions than answers @)(++(*
An unsafe verdict is one where there is new evidence that establishes the defendant is innocent or where evidence made it in front of the jury that should not have and without it a jury could potentially choose to acquit.
The former results in someone being released period the latter results in the state being able to retry a case if prosecutors so choose.
There is no new evidence that undercuts the case against Jeremy. Jeremy supporters make a large number of allegations but none that are legally significant or have any solid support evidence wise.
For instance the allegation from Laurel and Hardy that based on a photo they can tell the wounds occurred 2 hours earlier is not scientifically valid or reliable. Worse yet, in order to be true her wounds had to be inflicted after she was declared dead by Dr Craig.
The defense is long on allegations short on valid evidence to back up any of their claims.
-
An unsafe verdict is one where there is new evidence that establishes the defendant is innocent or where evidence made it in front of the jury that should not have and without it a jury could potentially choose to acquit.
The former results in someone being released period the latter results in the state being able to retry a case if prosecutors so choose.
There is no new evidence that undercuts the case against Jeremy. Jeremy supporters make a large number of allegations but none that are legally significant or have any solid support evidence wise.
For instance the allegation from Laurel and Hardy that based on a photo they can tell the wounds occurred 2 hours earlier is not scientifically valid or reliable. Worse yet, in order to be true her wounds had to be inflicted after she was declared dead by Dr Craig.
The defense is long on allegations short on valid evidence to back up any of their claims.
You know, I don't know why I am bothering trying to have a constructive conversation with you. If your comparing medical expert opinion to the likes of Laurel and Hardy then the CCRC report was put together by the Chuckle Brothers and Mr Bean!
If this case was such a 'slam dunk' as you put it why are you wasting your time on this forum ranting about it?
Don't expect a reply from me on this board in future unless I find a fair reason to do so, our exchange of words seem rather meaningless.
-
You misunderstand the English legal system. It is not necessary to establish innocence. At trial it is based on beyond reasonable guilt or guilt. At CoA it is based on the conviction being unsafe.
That's what I am getting at. By legal definition Bamber's conviction is unsafe but that is not in anyway implying he is innocent. Not guilty is not synonymous with innocence.
-
You know, I don't know why I am bothering trying to have a constructive conversation with you. If your comparing medical expert opinion to the likes of Laurel and Hardy then the CCRC report was put together by the Chuckle Brothers and Mr Bean!
If this case was such a 'slam dunk' as you put it why are you wasting your time on this forum ranting about it?
Don't expect a reply from me on this board in future unless I find a fair reason to do so, our exchange of words seem rather meaningless.
I called irrational opinion totally lacking in any scientific foundation Laurel and Hardy claims. You are either too foolish or too dishonest to face that there is no way to look at a photo and assess time of death or when blood dried based upon the photo. Either way it doesn't bode well for you. That you are too dishonest or topo clueless doesn't mean the courts are so hapless. The Courts did not consider any of their claims to have any merit because they were not scientifically valid.
That you can't comprehend such demonstrates why you are foolish enough to believe all the other claims of the defense as well. But the best of all was when you claimed to be objective, you ar enot objective you are someone who is peddling the BS that Jeremy supporters peddle.
-
That's what I am getting at. By legal definition Bamber's conviction is unsafe but that is not in anyway implying he is innocent. Not guilty is not synonymous with innocence.
A verdict is unsafe where someone is established as innocent or there is new evidence that undercuts the case to the point where a jury should retry it.
You have not pointed to a single thing that undercuts the verdict and renders it unsafe. Rather you have made vague allegations and the few things you did mention ended up being complete BS that the defense made up such as the BS claim form the Iatlian Laurel and hardy claiming they coudl tell time of death by looking at a photo. What's worse the time of death they assessed would put it after she was declared dead by Dr Craig.
Anything specific you identify to suggest the verdict was unsafe can easily be shown to be utter BS and that is why such has been rejected already or was not even argued to the CCRC.
-
I have been following the blue forum for several years and occasionally someone comes up with the 'new evidence' claim. Of course those of us who are wise to it all know immediately that it is simply another ruse. The one thing the blue forum has achieved in all this time is to dispel any possibility that the Bamber conviction is unsafe.
-
Several people including myself who don't take sides in this, cannot understand why the CCRC has not passed his case on to the court of appeal. With all the evidence and information that exists today that did not at the time of the conviction.
The CCRC does state that it will only refer cases on that they believe might possibly lead to the conviction being quashed by the court of appeal. Therefore I can only speculate that the appeal courts have in advance broke protocol due to the nature of this case and told the CCRC that they will never ever change their mind as there is too much at stake. So what ever is produced by JB legal team they will just have to make up reasons why.
Has anyone got or seen the CCRC 109 page document from 2011/12? That would be an interesting read
-
Hang on! where did I claim there is proof he is innocent? If there was such 'proof' he would be released. What I meant was there is evidence that puts doubt on his guilt, And that the Jury was misled 'unintentionaly' by the Judge making several claims that we now no are false and several prosecution claims. I'm not going to go into detail about it. we will just go off topic and back into the same circles.
I don't take sides or at least I try not to. Sometimes I sway from one side to the other slightly and its always circumstantial or opinianted claims that makes me do so. I was not there that night so I don't know what took place. Fact of the matter is the only one who knows is what took place is Jeremy. The only reason I would want a retrial is for the sake of my own entertainment to see what happens TBH.
Have you seen the latest CCRC report? can I get it anywhere?
Just for the record if such 'proof' existed that he was innocent which it don't but if it did knowing this bizarre saga it would probably leave more questions than answers @)(++(*
-
Ched Evans' case is currently with the CCRC - we will see!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929795/Rapist-Ched-Evans-submitted-fresh-evidence-previously-unavailable-appeal-against-sex-attack-conviction.html
Since its inception the CCRC have referred just over 3% of applications to the CoA. Obviously one of these cases was JB's.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/about/criminal-cases-review-commission
What did you make of the Ched Evans case?
Having re-visited what stands out for me is this,
“During the retrial the jury was afforded glimpses into the Evans campaign – they knew there was a reward and heard something of how the two crucial witnesses’ evidence surfaced.
They were not allowed to hear about Massey’s approach to a vital prosecution witness, Gavin Burrough, who was on the hotel reception desk when the complainant arrived that night and who later said she was “out of it”.
and this
‘Evans’ defence said he was in prison at the time and there was no evidence he knew anything of the messages or that they were sent at his behest. The trial judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, allowed the existence of the reward to go before the jury but not Massey’s approach and rejected the claim it had the “flavour of a bribe”.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/14/campaigners-fear-evans-case-will-stop-women-reporting
And Don Hale - always a red flag for me
”But the Downing case would eventually change the law, win Hale an OBE and make him a go-to journalist to investigate major miscarriages of justice.
In the years since the release of Mr Downing, Hale has also helped to free Barry George, the man who spent eight years in jail for the murder of Jill Dando, and to clear the name of footballer, Ched Evans, after a controversial rape retrial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38581779
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/former-weekly-editor-claims-role-in-ched-evans-rape-retrial-acquittal/
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/ched-evans-rape-case-not-guilty-verdict-no-winners-compensation-a7362306.html
-
Afaik I've never expressed any views on CE's case as I don't know any of the detail. I just looked it up and see he was found not guilty at retrial and is suing his trial lawyers.
-
Afaik I've never expressed any views on CE's case as I don't know any of the detail. I just looked it up and see he was found not guilty at retrial and is suing his trial lawyers.
I asked
What did you make of the Ched Evans case?
At the time, did you wonder how and why the CCRC referred the case in the first place given John had posted this?
Scipio is correct, the CCRC will these days only refer a case to the Appeal Court where there is an excellent chance of success. In past years the Court has criticised the agency for referring cases too readily.
-
Afaik I've never expressed any views on CE's case as I don't know any of the detail. I just looked it up and see he was found not guilty at retrial and is suing his trial lawyers.
You did
Professional football is totally dependent on sponsors. It should be evident that no sponsor is going to allow its brand to effectively be damaged by condoning a convicted rapist. Wayne Rooney and Tiger Woods lost sponsors on the back of their behaviour which wasn't even criminal.
Even if the sex was consensual, as CE claims, surely the fact that he turned up the hotel to watch his mate have sex with the victim then ended up having sex with her himself while being watched from a window by his brother and mates says it all!
Perhaps professional football clubs could consider chaperones when players have a night on the town. Its surely a recipe for disaster: young fit looking guys, young attractive females, celeb culture, money, booze and recreational drugs being freely available.
-
You forgot to mention that Nevill struggled with his assailant Holly. Do you really believe a petite Sheila clad only in a nightdress could have taken on an angry man over 6' tall and bleeding profusely and not ended up with a single mark or a spot of his blood on her? Not to mention shoot and reload the rifle three times yet never cracked a nail? Also none of Sheila's fingerprints on any bullets.
What about the soles of her feet? The kitchen floor was strewn with small glass shards as a consequence of a glass lampshade being smashed in the struggle yet Sheila's feet were both free from glass or cuts. Sheila's naked footprints were not found in the kitchen.
It's interesting you mention the silencer, if Mike Tesko is to believed there were three. Lets consider the one you refer to in your post. DNA analysis wasn't available in 1985 so the trial had to rely on blood grouping and enzyme analysis. It was determined that the blood on the silencer and the blood found within the silencer was human (not animal) and could have been Sheila's. This formed the basis of the Crown case.
A few years later a sample taken from the baffles deep inside the silencer was tested using DNA analysis and returned a 13 marker match to Sheila. Although this falls below the 20 marker threshold required for a conviction in the UK it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood did belong to Sheila. The chance of that DNA belonging to anyone else is something like 1 in 10,000,000 To remind the reader, the significance of this is that the only way Sheila's DNA could have got so far into the silencer is if she was shot using it. Sheila was shot twice in the neck, the end of the silencer almost touching her skin. The suction following the shots drew minute particles of blood into the silencer where it was deposited on baffles and later recovered by forensic scientists using the latest techniques.
The point in all of this is simple, whoever shot Sheila unscrewed the silencer from the rifle when they realised that with it fitted the weapon was too long for Sheila to have used it to shoot herself in the neck. The silencer was found a few days after the murder in a shelf inside a gun cabinet.
Maybe you can address these points Holly?
"You forgot to mention that Nevill struggled with his assailant Holly. Do you really believe a petite Sheila clad only in a nightdress could have taken on an angry man over 6' tall and bleeding profusely and not ended up with a single mark or a spot of his blood on her? Not to mention shoot and reload the rifle three times yet never cracked a nail? Also none of Sheila's fingerprints on any bullets.
What about the soles of her feet? The kitchen floor was strewn with small glass shards as a consequence of a glass lampshade being smashed in the struggle yet Sheila's feet were both free from glass or cuts. Sheila's naked footprints were not found in the kitchen."
The very idea a woman attacked a man much larger and stronger than herself while under sedentary medication (If she was having a hyper experience this is what she would have been taking) is laughable.
I would like to know where Sheila stored the bullets on her person while running around out of her mind up and down stairs beating people up and loading /reloading a rifle. (as John mentions not even breaking a manicured nail!)
My other observation was motive: the father was violently slaughtered and the children had one bullet to the head. If she was acting like a crazed manic totally out of her mind, all recipients would have been equally violently slaughtered. And the alternative 'real motive was'? robbery?
I still smile when I read that he still bangs on about seeing someone moving in the house while the police were there...
-
"You forgot to mention that Nevill struggled with his assailant Holly. Do you really believe a petite Sheila clad only in a nightdress could have taken on an angry man over 6' tall and bleeding profusely and not ended up with a single mark or a spot of his blood on her? Not to mention shoot and reload the rifle three times yet never cracked a nail? Also none of Sheila's fingerprints on any bullets.
What about the soles of her feet? The kitchen floor was strewn with small glass shards as a consequence of a glass lampshade being smashed in the struggle yet Sheila's feet were both free from glass or cuts. Sheila's naked footprints were not found in the kitchen."
The very idea a woman attacked a man much larger and stronger than herself while under sedentary medication (If she was having a hyper experience this is what she would have been taking) is laughable.
I would like to know where Sheila stored the bullets on her person while running around out of her mind up and down stairs beating people up and loading /reloading a rifle. (as John mentions not even breaking a manicured nail!)
My other observation was motive: the father was violently slaughtered and the children had one bullet to the head. If she was acting like a crazed manic totally out of her mind, all recipients would have been equally violently slaughtered. And the alternative 'real motive was'? robbery?
I still smile when I read that he still bangs on about seeing someone moving in the house while the police were there...
The twins were shot in the head more than one, Daniel received 5 shots and Nicholas 3.
-
The twins were shot in the head more than one, Daniel received 5 shots and Nicholas 3.
Bamber tries to convince, their own mother did that?
-
The twins were shot in the head more than one, Daniel received 5 shots and Nicholas 3.
Thank you for correcting that Caroline.
Very strange one had 5 and another 3. OMG horror of horrors. Even worse as if the mother was deranged and kicking off on a protection of children story. It would be difficult to believe she was so violent towards them.
Can I ask how many times did the gun need to be reloaded after emptying?
-
Thank you for correcting that Caroline.
Very strange one had 5 and another 3. OMG horror of horrors. Even worse as if the mother was deranged and kicking off on a protection of children story. It would be difficult to believe she was so violent towards them.
Can I ask how many times did the gun need to be reloaded after emptying?
You're welcome! I couldn't imagine Sheila doing that, yes, she had issues but a suicide that included the order of her two children would have been more intimate, not so cold and calculating. This was carried out by someone devoid of empathy and without understanding of close relationships. Sheila would have had to reload twice.
-
You're welcome! I couldn't imagine Sheila doing that, yes, she had issues but a suicide that included the order of her two children would have been more intimate, not so cold and calculating. This was carried out by someone devoid of empathy and without understanding of close relationships. Sheila would have had to reload twice.
So she would have to have been carrying a box with bullets or loose bullets in her hand. I wonder where this box was found. It is very difficult to shoot and hold box of bullets or loose large bullets in ones hands.
-
So she would have to have been carrying a box with bullets or loose bullets in her hand. I wonder where this box was found. It is very difficult to shoot and hold box of bullets or loose large bullets in ones hands.
The box was on the counter top in the kitchen next to the phone. So would have either had to take sheets with her or return to the counter top to refill the magazine twice.
-
The box was on the counter top in the kitchen next to the phone. So would have either had to take sheets with her or return to the counter top to refill the magazine twice.
Indeed! So, she didn't do it.
-
Indeed! So, she didn't do it.
of course not.