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: adam on December 28, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
-
Jeremy's supporters often claim Taff Jones went to his grave knowing privileged information which showed Jeremy was innocent.
Taff believed in Bamber's innocence up until the day of his premature death. Being head of the investigation the other officers fell fell into line, although people like Stan Jones disagreed.
The relatives believed it was Jeremy. But Taff dismissed them. Taff could not have been very convincing as the relatives did not give up.
Robert Boutflour went to Essex Police HQ at Chelmsford. Telling Peter Simpson his concerns. Peter Simpson agreed straight away to look at the case again. Sending CID over to assist the police. Headed by Jim Kinelly.
Despite Taff's belief Jeremy was innocent, he did the first interviews with Bamber. After some light probing Bamber did not confess. 'Julie must be telling lies' Taff said to Stan !
Peter Simpson got everyone together and asked every police officer in the room who they thought was responsible. Everyone said Bamber. Except Taff, although he had no evidence to change anyone's mind.
Taff was still allowed to continue interviewing Bamber.
Eventually Clarke and Stan Jones took over interviewing tasks. Taff being quietly removed from the case. The way he had tried to quietly remove Stan.
The ousting seems above board. Outside individuals being brought into the case and everyone following the evidence. Taff may have been the corrupt one. Refusing to change stance, perhaps worried about his golf, repercussions from above and the chance Bamber would walk. As well as being too proud to admit his early mistake.
29
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5616.msg199700#msg199700
I would imagine given all JB's surviving relatives put pressure on EP to reinvestigate and were convinced of JB's involvement it was quite powerful stuff. However according to CC they knew nothing about the severity of SC's mental illness:
The Bambers were private people as stated in CC's book:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
Perhaps sub-consciously they found the idea of wealth that had been in the Speakman dynasty for generations leaving and going to a non-blood family member unacceptable.
I assume with a name like Taff Jones he was a Welshman? Perhaps he just didn't he see himself as part of the English establishment and protector of the English landowners as the other Essex/English born cops did and remained objective and undeterred by the relatives?
I don't think Taff had any privileged information which showed JB was innocent.
-
EP got a lot of criticism after securing a guilty verdict at court. They bravely changed direction, around a month after the massacre.
Taff should take most of the criticism. He was leading it and dismissed the relatives and other officers. The direction was only changed after EP headquarters got involved.
-
EP got a lot of criticism after securing a guilty verdict at court. They bravely changed direction, around a month after the massacre.
Taff should take most of the criticism. He was leading it and dismissed the relatives and other officers. The direction was only changed after EP headquarters got involved.
They might one day be in for a lot more criticism 8(0(*
I don't think there was anything brave in what they did; they simply caved into pressure from the relatives and allowed them to dominate the direction of the investigation and effectively take over. Who identified the supposed entry and exit point? Who identified the mode of transport supposedly used to get JB to and from the soc/WHF? Who 'found' the silencer supposedly complete with blood, paint and a hair on it? Who said SC's coordination was so poor she couldn't bang beans on toast or pour a cup of tea? Who said SC would have no idea how to load and fire the rifle? And if she had she would have damaged her nails/polish? etc, etc, etc...
DCI Jones was one of many police officers who believed SC was responsible along with Dr Craig and Dr Vanezis.
See my post here re AE's WS confirming DCI Jones and DS Jones thought SC responsible along with a WS from DI Cook who also thought SC was responsible:
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
The following thread, post #7 by NGB confirms that the above had been held under PII 8(0(*
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2158.msg66504.html#msg66504
-
AE and RB couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding. Let alone get Taff to change his mind. Although I'm sure AE's eye fluttering would have buttered many parsnips.
EP HQ agreed to look at the case again after RB rang them. It was then that other officers said they believed Taff had been wrong.
-
AE and RB couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding. Let alone get Taff to change his mind. Although I'm sure AE's eye fluttering would have buttered many parsnips.
EP HQ agreed to look at the case again after RB rang them. It was then that other officers said they believed Taff had been wrong.
Unless you have intimate knowledge of both AE and RB you're really not qualified to make that assessment of them................unless, of course, you're repeating someone else's words.
-
AE and RB couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding. Let alone get Taff to change his mind. Although I'm sure AE's eye fluttering would have buttered many parsnips.
EP HQ agreed to look at the case again after RB rang them. It was then that other officers said they believed Taff had been wrong.
I think my posts above speak for themselves. Have you sources for your "other officers said they believed Taff had been wrong"?
-
AE and RB couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding. Let alone get Taff to change his mind. Although I'm sure AE's eye fluttering would have buttered many parsnips.
EP HQ agreed to look at the case again after RB rang them. It was then that other officers said they believed Taff had been wrong.
Sorry . what is your point here - one minute you are saying their arguments were in effectual - then you are saying one phone call did it? So which was it? And how come they did have so much influence in the end. ?
The blood on the silencer was discovered earlier -so why did it take until early sept to remove him from the case?
You are obviously extremely well read on the case so perhaps you could be a bit clearer about the point you are making?
-
It is strange that the relatives met Taff but he refused to change stance. Yet Peter Simpson at EP HQ was just spoken to on the phone, and ordered the case to be investigated again.
Simpson was right to do this.
Taff was obviously wrong to not even agree to look at the case again. If the relatives can see things are not right, a senior police officer should. Poor policing, stubbornness and laziness.
-
It is strange that the relatives met Taff but he refused to change stance. Yet Peter Simpson at EP HQ was just spoken to on the phone, and ordered the case to be investigated again.
Simpson was right to do this.
Taff was obviously wrong to not even agree to look at the case again. If the relatives can see things are not right, a senior police officer should. Poor policing, stubbornness and laziness.
And the outcome of the re-investigation, instructed by ACC Simpson, supported DCI Jones' view that SC was responsible.
The relatives were amateur sleuths without remit not trained and experienced detectives with full remit. The relatives knew nothing about the severity of SC's mental illness and none of them could tell the twins Daniel and Nicholas apart hence JM had to identify them at the morgue which perhaps gives an indication of how little time they had spent in the company of SC and the twins.
"Poor policing, laziness and stubbornness" or determination on the part of the relatives that the Speakman dynasty should remain intact and not be carved up with the Bambers' adopted son?
-
And the outcome of the re-investigation, instructed by ACC Simpson, supported DCI Jones' view that SC was responsible.
The relatives were amateur sleuths without remit not trained and experienced detectives with full remit. The relatives knew nothing about the severity of SC's mental illness and none of them could tell the twins Daniel and Nicholas apart hence JM had to identify them at the morgue which perhaps gives an indication of how little time they had spent in the company of SC and the twins.
"Poor policing, laziness and stubbornness" or determination on the part of the relatives that the Speakman dynasty should remain intact and not be carved up with the Bambers' adopted son?
Have you got a source saying Simpson thought Sheila was responsible ?
He ordered an immediate reinvestigation after speaking to RB on the phone. Later bringing everyone connected to the case into a room and asking for their view. They all said they believed Bamber responsible. Except Taff.
Taff was taken off the case, a change of direction took place and Bamber successfully prosecuted.
So not sure when Simpson said Sheila was responsible.
-
After Julie approached the police, Bamber was brought in for questioning. Taff asking the questions.
After a few minutes of light questioning, Bamber did not admit to the massacre. 'Julie must be lying', Taff said to everyone !
Good police work.
-
The silencer evidence showed the blood was specific to Sheila. The rifle therefore too long for her to shoot herself. At the time no one disputed the blood evidence.
It was therefore impossible for Jeremy to be innocent. But Taff still believed this. Was this guy for real ?
-
Have you got a source saying Simpson thought Sheila was responsible ?
He ordered an immediate reinvestigation after speaking to RB on the phone. Later bringing everyone connected to the case into a room and asking for their view. They all said they believed Bamber responsible. Except Taff.
Taff was taken off the case, a change of direction took place and Bamber successfully prosecuted.
So not sure when Simpson said Sheila was responsible.
As far as I am aware the outcome of the investigation and review instructed by ACC Simpson was that SC was responsible.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5855.msg208866#msg208866
-
After Julie approached the police, Bamber was brought in for questioning. Taff asking the questions.
After a few minutes of light questioning, Bamber did not admit to the massacre. 'Julie must be lying', Taff said to everyone !
Good police work.
Sounds reasonable and logical.
-
The silencer evidence showed the blood was specific to Sheila. The rifle therefore too long for her to shoot herself. At the time no one disputed the blood evidence.
It was therefore impossible for Jeremy to be innocent. But Taff still believed this. Was this guy for real ?
The "silencer evidence" didn't show the blood was specific to Sheila. It was not possible to prove in 85/86 that blood found at the soc belonged to a specific individual. It was limited to showing that any blood found at a soc matched an individual's blood type/group only which will be shared by many members of the human population.
The following table shows the blood type/group, enzymes and a protein for all victims including the sample found in the silencer and RB's. As you will see SC's and RB's both match the sample found in the silencer. The reason for this is that the blood/type group, enzymes and protein are shared by many members of the human population and are not unique to individuals.
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 In Silencer A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boutflour A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABO = Blood Group System
PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme) Breaks down quickly outside the body hence blood in silencer was unable to produce a reading
EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)
AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)
HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)
As the silencer was found by the relatives JB's defence asked all to provide a blood sample to rule out contamination. The relatives obliged and a match was found between SC and RB.
The jury were misled on this point by the judge in his summing up:
Page 12 of summing up
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=273.0;attach=899
"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
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=273.0;attach=901
"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?
-
Jury's deliberations and questions for judge:
Page 1, 2nd para of summing up/questions from jury
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
The Jury sound confused, very confused "Perfect match".
The jury were led to believe that the blood sample 'found' in the silencer was a "perfect match" to SC's. There was no "perfect match" 8(8-))
-
8)-))). So no source.
Yes there is a source:
The following thread, post #7 by NGB confirms that the above had been held under PII 8(0(*
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2158.msg66504.html#msg66504
Follow it through to twitter
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1916.msg59550.html#msg59550
-
Yes there is a source:
The following thread, post #7 by NGB confirms that the above had been held under PII 8(0(*
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2158.msg66504.html#msg66504
Follow it through to twitter
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1916.msg59550.html#msg59550
That is another policeman. Not Simpson
An apparent Bambertweet is not a source. It is Bamber saying he is innocent.
-
It is very conclusive that the blood was Sheila's. A remote possibility it included a mixture of Neville & June's.
Even Bamber didn't start contesting this until years later. After the 89 appeal. He made no in roads.
-
That is another policeman. Not Simpson
An apparent Bambertweet is not a source. It is Bamber saying he is innocent.
ACC Simpson instructed the review and that review concluded SC was responsible.
The tweet provides documentary evidence.
-
It is very conclusive that the blood was Sheila's. A remote possibility it included a mixture of Neville & June's.
Even Bamber didn't start contesting this until years later. After the 89 appeal. He made no in roads.
No it isn't. If you think otherwise please provide a statistical probability?
The remote possibility of the blood representing an intimate mix of June's and NB's is just that a remote possibility. Without any statistical probability given it is meaningless. Surely the idea that SC would use the silencer to shoot her children and parents, remove it and return it to the gun cupboard and then return to the bedroom to shoot herself is in itself a remote possibility without the need for another remote possibility? This was just an absurd notion dreamt up by Geoffrey Rivlin QC as he lacked the balls to go for contamination and take on the relatives in the witness box.
A jury needs to be in a position to evaluate the information they are presented with in a meaningful way. They were not presented with any meaningful data by way of statistical probability for:
- The blood sample found in the silencer belonging to SC as a result of blow back/back spatter
- The blood sample found in the silencer being an intimate mix of NB's and June's blood as a result of blow back/back spatter
- The blood sample found in the silencer belonging to a third party as a result of contamination either accidental or deliberate
- The blood sample found in the silencer belonging to SC but there as a result of contamination either accidental or deliberate as opposed to blow back/back spatter
I don't think JB is in a position to contest very much at all. He is largely without access to the outside world. No books or internet. All services pro bono. And reliant on others who may not always have his best interests at heart ie emotionally unstable women and cranks like Tesco.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6316.msg278522.html#msg278522
I rest my case...FFS...no the bodies of Daniel and Nicholas do not need to be exhumed.
The unidentified male DNA in the silencer could belong to one of the many males who have handled the silencer during its lifetime to date (I believe it still exists) Eg manufacturers, retailers, NB, JB, relatives, police officers, staff at FSS, court officials, jurors and absolutely any male who ever handled the silencer. It could even belong to the twins and be there as a result of contamination. Even if it was shown to belong to the twins it would prove absolutely nothing.
In any event I think you will find that the unidentified male DNA referred to means that the DNA was insufficient to put together a complete DNA profile rather than a complete profile available but unable to identify the individual it belonged to. Either way it is irrelevant as nothing can be proved or disproved using LCN DNA due to the potential for contamination.
Understand how LCN DNA works and the potential for contamination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html
Dr Michael Haughton @ 9.15 in explains the high potential for contamination with LCN DNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EVLJNUGQM
-
It is very conclusive that the blood was Sheila's. A remote possibility it included a mixture of Neville & June's.
Even Bamber didn't start contesting this until years later. After the 89 appeal. He made no in roads.
If there is even a remote possibility of it being a mixture of blood then it is not CONCLUSIVE that the blood was Sheilas. Your post does not make sense.
The DNA that was found was not from blood as there was none left in the silencer - so how did Junes Dna get inside the silencer?
-
If there is even a remote possibility of it being a mixture of blood then it is not CONCLUSIVE that the blood was Sheilas. Your post does not make sense.
The DNA that was found was not from blood as there was none left in the silencer - so how did Junes Dna get inside the silencer?
Yes I believe the blood was all swabbed away from the initial testing. However there are different types of DNA testing. The ones I am aware of are LCN, SGM and SGM plus. LCN testing was used in the COA 2002 appeal as this is capable of providing a result from a DNA sample as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint. LCN testing is unable to identify the source of DNA eg blood, sweat etc. I think it might have been possible that traces of blood not visible to the naked eye remained but personally I think the idea that June's blood was ever in the silencer as a result of blow back/back spatter from the rifle/silencer is a non-starter. This would mean SC would have needed to have recovered the silencer from the back of the cupboard (in a box in a bag) attach it to the rifle (not in itself difficult) shoot her parents and children and then replace it before shooting herself. To mind this does not seem credible. It seems to involve two remote possibilities: the aforementioned and NB's and June's blood being in the silencer as a result of back spatter/blow back from the rifle/silencer and then creating an intimate mix to match the reading produced by the blood sample found in the silencer &%&£(+
I understand the main downside with LCN testing is the potential for contamination. As DNA testing was not even envisaged at JB's trial no precautions were taken to eliminate this. For example the jury were allowed to handle June's blood stained nightie along with the silencer which they may well have dissembled. A skin cell or blood soaked cotton fibre invisible to the naked eye could be the source of June's DNA. The judge advised the jury to wear protective gloves but this was to protect the jury as opposed to exhibits.
The best sources of material re the blood and dna are the CoA doc at point 452, section 12 and 13. Oh and Wilkes' book. I don't have it to hand but the relevant chapters are near the back. You need to do a bit of your own research into LCN DNA. You might find the black stuff helps as it can make for heavy reading. Almost as heavy as 'Bear Snores On' 8(0(*
-
Back on topic. It will never be known why Taff Jones stubbornly stuck to the 'Sheila done it' belief but one thing's for sure and that is that it wasn't based on the evidence which he clearly was unable to properly process. His namesake Stan Jones did the job in the end and Taff was reassigned. That must have gone down like a lead balloon!
Question is, was Taff Jones really up to the job?
(Taff Jones later fell off a ladder while working at home sustaining fatal injuries)
-
Back on topic. It will never be known why Taff Jones stubbornly stuck to the 'Sheila done it' belief but one thing's for sure and that is that it wasn't based on the evidence which he clearly was unable to properly process. His namesake Stan Jones did the job in the end and Taff was reassigned. That must have gone down like a lead balloon!
Question is, was Taff Jones really up to the job?
(Taff Jones later fell off a ladder while working at home sustaining fatal injuries)
If DCI Jones wasn't up to the job it surely begs the question of how he reached the level of DCI in the first place?
Following RB's concerns a review was instructed by Det Supt Ainsley. The review was led by Det Supt Kenneally and concluded that SC was responsible.
-
Back on topic. It will never be known why Taff Jones stubbornly stuck to the 'Sheila done it' belief but one thing's for sure and that is that it wasn't based on the evidence which he clearly was unable to properly process. His namesake Stan Jones did the job in the end and Taff was reassigned. That must have gone down like a lead balloon!
Question is, was Taff Jones really up to the job?
(Taff Jones later fell off a ladder while working at home sustaining fatal injuries)
Taff had never had such a big case. There was little or no crime in that area, the CTSB video said.
He went to play golf the weekend after the massacre. The case was closed to him.
Refusing to change stance could be many reasons -
Embarrassed about being wrong in the first place.
More paperwork. Less golf.
Knowing the police will be criticised for getting it wrong at first.
Believing Bamber was guilty but not believing there was enough for a conviction.
Not liking the fact that people below him were right.
Not understanding the new evidence presented.
Refusing to read the new evidence. He dismissed AE and RB.
Being convinced by Bamber's acting.
A combination of all these.
-
If DCI Jones wasn't up to the job it surely begs the question of how he reached the level of DCI in the first place?
Following RB's concerns a review was instructed by Det Supt Ainsley. The review was led by Det Supt Kenneally and concluded that SC was responsible.
I agree but many promotions are based on factors regardless of ability unfortunately. Nod nod... wink wink.
-
Taff had never had such a big case. There was little or no crime in that area, the CTSB video said.
He went to play golf the weekend after the massacre. The case was closed to him.
Refusing to change stance could be many reasons -
Embarrassed about being wrong in the first place.
More paperwork. Less golf.
Knowing the police will be criticised for getting it wrong at first.
Believing Bamber was guilty but not believing there was enough for a conviction.
Not liking the fact that people below him were right.
Not understanding the new evidence presented.
Refusing to read the new evidence. He dismissed AE and RB.
Being convinced by Bamber's acting.
A combination of all these.
Absolutely, the going off to play golf instead of properly investigating such dastardly deeds says it all!