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 January 19, 2015, 07:38:20 PM
-
Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre.
Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ?
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night. As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more forensic evidence.
So the answer to the question is -
There is forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime
54
-
Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre.
Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ?
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night. As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more forensic evidence.
So the answer to the question is -
There is forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime
I am not sure what you mean by a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not SC?
SC's appearance does not lend itself to her being the perp but who is to say she didn't take a shower? And put her clothes in the buckets that AE disposed of? It was not for AE to cherry pick eg oh here's some buckets with bloody clothing in so I'll dispose of those oh and here's a bloody silencer which I'll hand over to EP for forensic examination. Why was AE/rellies allowed to determine which bloody items were forensically examined and which were not?
There is no forensic evidence linking JB to the crime. The silencer was presented as such at trial but when I break it down imo it is flawed.
-
you need to consider that DNA/forensics was still in its infancy back then. If Bamber was to get a retrial today there would be no forensic evidence presented to a Jury and if it was it can be easily rendered unreliable by a defence. There never was a thorough investigation and all forensic evidence would be considered contaminated by today's standards.
Making it a very difficult case
-
you need to consider that DNA/forensics was still in its infancy back then. If Bamber was to get a retrial today there would be no forensic evidence presented to a Jury and if it was it can be easily rendered unreliable by a defence. There never was a thorough investigation and all forensic evidence would be considered contaminated by today's standards.
Making it a very difficult case
DNA hadn't even been envisaged at JB's trial.
It is often said DCI Jones too readily went along with the 4 murders/suicide theory and the soc should have been investigated further etc but I'm not sure what more what could have been done? Certainly the pathologist and ballistics/firearms at soc might have helped. Lots of talk about carpets and bedding burned but 5 blood stained carpet samples from the bedroom were analysed. I believe AE said in her WS there was some blood staining on the stair carpet (might have been hall/landing) which would almost certainly be NB's so what would this prove? The soc photos show the blood staining on the bed and its pretty obvious it was from June so again what would this prove?
SC and JB had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle all the contents. What about fingerprints on the bullet casings?
A difficult case indeed!
-
I am not sure what you mean by a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not SC?
SC's appearance does not lend itself to her being the perp but who is to say she didn't take a shower? And put her clothes in the buckets that AE disposed of? It was not for AE to cherry pick eg oh here's some buckets with bloody clothing in so I'll dispose of those oh and here's a bloody silencer which I'll hand over to EP for forensic examination. Why was AE/rellies allowed to determine which bloody items were forensically examined and which were not?
There is no forensic evidence linking JB to the crime. The silencer was presented as such at trial but when I break it down imo it is flawed.
1) If she changed clothing she committed the murders in then the blood/GSR stained clothes she changed out of would have been found but the only clothing in buckets was panties that had been stained int he crotch from menstrual bleeding and children's jogging clothing.
2) How could she change out of the clothing she killed herself in? Quite clearly that is no more possible than putting the moderator away after her death. Her clothing has no GSR because someone else shot her and no blood from the victims because she didn't shoot them. The killer putting away the moderator is further proof of course.
3) why would someone who decided to commit murder suicide wash up and change in order to kill herself? It makes no sense at all and despite your pathetic babble that it has happened before you can't prove a single example except cult members in mass religious ritualistic suicide.
-
1) If she changed clothing she committed the murders in then the blood/GSR stained clothes she changed out of would have been found but the only clothing in buckets was panties that had been stained int he crotch from menstrual bleeding and children's jogging clothing.
2) How could she change out of the clothing she killed herself in? Quite clearly that is no more possible than putting the moderator away after her death. Her clothing has no GSR because someone else shot her and no blood from the victims because she didn't shoot them. The killer putting away the moderator is further proof of course.
3) why would someone who decided to commit murder suicide wash up and change in order to kill herself? It makes no sense at all and despite your pathetic babble that it has happened before you can't prove a single example except cult members in mass religious ritualistic suicide.
Hello Scipio. Lovely to see you 8)--))
1) As far as I am aware the only person to examine the contents of the buckets was AE. Here's the link:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309
You make reference to "children's jogging clothing". Can you provide some documentary evidence showing that the bucket(s) contained children's jogging clothing? I can only find reference to tracksuit bottoms and the only name mentioned is Sheila's.
2) We will never know what the buckets contained as AE disposed of them. Why are they not noted on the raid team statements? Buckets containing bloody clothing/water at a soc would seem like something to be noted? Why did a member of the raid team not fish in the bucket and come to the same conclusion as AE did?
3) A precedent is not required for something to be a possibility. I am sure there are many cases where individuals have carried out mundane tasks eg cleaning themselves and their surroundings before committing suicide.
-
Hello Scipio. Lovely to see you 8)--))
1) As far as I am aware the only person to examine the contents of the buckets was AE. Here's the link:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309
You make reference to "children's jogging clothing". Can you provide some documentary evidence showing that the bucket(s) contained children's jogging clothing? I can only find reference to tracksuit bottoms and the only name mentioned is Sheila's.
2) We will never know what the buckets contained as AE disposed of them. Why are they not noted on the raid team statements? Buckets containing bloody clothing/water at a soc would seem like something to be noted? Why did a member of the raid team not fish in the bucket and come to the same conclusion as AE did?
3) A precedent is not required for something to be a possibility. I am sure there are many cases where individuals have carried out mundane tasks eg cleaning themselves and their surroundings before committing suicide.
AE mentions they were the childrens jogging bottoms.
-
AE mentions they were the childrens jogging bottoms.
Where? Please provide the relevant WS.
-
Hello Scipio. Lovely to see you 8)--))
1) As far as I am aware the only person to examine the contents of the buckets was AE. Here's the link:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309
You make reference to "children's jogging clothing". Can you provide some documentary evidence showing that the bucket(s) contained children's jogging clothing? I can only find reference to tracksuit bottoms and the only name mentioned is Sheila's.
2) We will never know what the buckets contained as AE disposed of them. Why are they not noted on the raid team statements? Buckets containing bloody clothing/water at a soc would seem like something to be noted? Why did a member of the raid team not fish in the bucket and come to the same conclusion as AE did?
3) A precedent is not required for something to be a possibility. I am sure there are many cases where individuals have carried out mundane tasks eg cleaning themselves and their surroundings before committing suicide.
Why would the raid team look in the buckets? It is the job of the crime scene investigators to go room to room looking for evidence. The crime scene investigators only mentioned what they found that was useful not what they found that wa snot useful so had no reaosn to mention the contents or the clothing on Sheila's bed for that matter. They saw the clothing as irrelevant so didn't take it. That also helps explain why the police did not take the clothing when they went through the garbage bin with AE. She said she showed them the rubbish bin that she took (which is where she tossed the clothing) and they declined to salvage the clothing.
Ann Eaton's statement said the jogging pants were children jogging pants that were diry, not bloody. The only bloody clothing she found was the panties.
People do things for a reaosn. The only peopel who wash after killing others do so in order to wash away evidence in contemplation of trying to get away with the crime. people who decide to commit murder suicide have no reaosn to wash away evidence before killing themselves and don't bother to do so.
Why are you so desperate to pretend Jeremy is inoocent that is the only relevant quesiton in relation to you...
-
Where? Please provide the relevant WS.
Her trial testimony for starters:
(http://s8.postimg.org/76pmxsyzp/annt.jpg)
-
Her trial testimony for starters:
(http://s8.postimg.org/76pmxsyzp/annt.jpg)
Thanks Paul.
1. May I ask where you obtained AE's trial testimony from?
2. Are you able and willing to provide a full copy of AE's trial testimony for posters on the UK Justice forum?
3. In her WS's AE makes absolutely no reference to children's tracksuit bottoms or indeed children's clothes.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309
4. In her trial testimony above she makes reference to washing out children's clothes and putting them back in soak as they were still not clean. Why would she do this when she knew the owners were deceased? Again she makes no reference to putting items of clothing back in soak in her WS.
5. Also she makes ref to a single episode in her WS. In her trial testimony she makes ref to two episodes where on the second occasion RB is consulted. In her WS this was all one single episode.
-
Her trial testimony for starters:
(http://s8.postimg.org/76pmxsyzp/annt.jpg)
You say that the [police didn't take the soaked clothes because the saw them as being irrelevant and it explains why they didn't take them when they went through the rubbish bin. You say AE showed them the rubbish bin but they declined to salvage the clothing. I can only find reference to AE disposing of them, NOT the police declining to go through them.
-
SC and JB had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle all the contents. What about fingerprints on the bullet casings?
Problem is .22 calibre rimfire bullets are very small. You could not leave a full fingerprint or even a fraction of a fingerprint on one of them as they are smaller than your prints themselves.
(http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2013/04/29/1541060_02__22_lead_bullets_thousands__640.jpg)
The first one to the left of the 1 cent coin a .22 caliber. Its purpose is to kill pests like rabbits foxes or target shooting ect. Hence why its small and legal to posses if licensed
(http://thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bullets-courtesy-thefirearmsblog.com_.jpg)
-
You say that the [police didn't take the soaked clothes because the saw them as being irrelevant and it explains why they didn't take them when they went through the rubbish bin. You say AE showed them the rubbish bin but they declined to salvage the clothing. I can only find reference to AE disposing of them, NOT the police declining to go through them.
She said that she went through the rubbish sack (that she had saved from WHF- the one she had tossed the clothes in) in front of police to look for a letter. police thus had the opportunity to see all the items that had been tossed in the rubbish sack. The police didn't attempt to salvage anything that was inside of it and she got rid of the sack after that since police apparently didn't care about any of the things inside.
(http://s16.postimg.org/8vqjfuoc5/anntrash.jpg)
As of 1991 she had not thrown away clothing that she assumed Sheila had worn the day of the 12th. That clothing was not stained though so not even the defense cared about it. Neither the defense nor prosecution made any effort o obtian such clothing from her after seeing her 1991 statement where she referenced the clothing so maybe she disposed of that clothing eventually as well.
-
Problem is .22 calibre rimfire bullets are very small. You could not leave a full fingerprint or even a fraction of a fingerprint on one of them as they are smaller than your prints themselves.
(http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2013/04/29/1541060_02__22_lead_bullets_thousands__640.jpg)
The first one to the left of the 1 cent coin a .22 caliber. Its purpose is to kill pests like rabbits foxes or target shooting ect. Hence why its small and legal to posses if licensed
(http://thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bullets-courtesy-thefirearmsblog.com_.jpg)
Fingerprints have been obtained from 22 bullet casings and used in prosecutions. It is relatively uncommon to find prints on bullet casings of any caliber but it does happen and thus it is worth a try to look for prints on casings.
-
Thanks Paul.
1. May I ask where you obtained AE's trial testimony from?
2. Are you able and willing to provide a full copy of AE's trial testimony for posters on the UK Justice forum?
3. In her WS's AE makes absolutely no reference to children's tracksuit bottoms or indeed children's clothes.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309
4. In her trial testimony above she makes reference to washing out children's clothes and putting them back in soak as they were still not clean. Why would she do this when she knew the owners were deceased? Again she makes no reference to putting items of clothing back in soak in her WS.
5. Also she makes ref to a single episode in her WS. In her trial testimony she makes ref to two episodes where on the second occasion RB is consulted. In her WS this was all one single episode.
Her witness statements don't refer to a single episode. Her statements detail that she) a) visited the house and found the dirty tracksuit bottoms/bloody panties; 2) decided to try cleaning same and left them to soak as she went back home; 3) she returned later with her father among others; 4) that the stains didn't come out and she asked her father what to do with the clothes and he said to throw them away so she did.
Obviously she thought that the clothing could be cleaned and then given away and used by someone else- that is the only reaosn to wash them instead of throwing them away immediately.
As for her trial testimony a portion is on blue and that is where the snippet I posted came from. I extensively debated this issue on blue and cut and pasted snippets from her statements and testimony that referenced the clothing and how she disposed of it. The things I cut and pasted from are all on blue.
-
In this case forensic evidence is impossible to obtain linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the murders because his prints and DNA were all over the farmhouse and the rifle from the start.
What forensics we do have however point to Jeremy Bamber being the culprit.
-
In this case forensic evidence is impossible to obtain linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the murders because his prints and DNA were all over the farmhouse and the rifle from the start.
What forensics we do have however point to Jeremy Bamber being the culprit.
Such as?
-
Such as?
Evidence that Sheila did not kill herself or anyone else. That evidence proves someone else did it. It also proves Jeremy lied about his father calling to blame Sheila and proves he had knowledge of the crimes which is strong evidence he is the one who did it. When you add Julie's testimony to the mix the case was a slam dunk. His supporters choose to ignore all the evidence though they have nothing to discredit it they just don't want to face it.
-
Such as?
Basically everything collected from the kitchen, hall, stairs, landing and bedrooms. Because Jeremy had access to the property and the guns it is to be expected that his fingerprints and DNA be call over them.
One thing which is unusual though is the absence of his fingerprints on the murder weapon. Clearly this rifle had been wiped and Sheilas prints put on it to incriminate her. Sometimes it isn't the forensics one collects from the scene of a crime which is crucial but what is missing.
-
Evidence that Sheila did not kill herself or anyone else. That evidence proves someone else did it. It also proves Jeremy lied about his father calling to blame Sheila and proves he had knowledge of the crimes which is strong evidence he is the one who did it. When you add Julie's testimony to the mix the case was a slam dunk. His supporters choose to ignore all the evidence though they have nothing to discredit it they just don't want to face it.
There is no evidence proving Shelia did not kill herself. Multiple gunshot suicides have been recorded many times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide)
I could not disagree more with your summing up of the trial. Julie's word against Jeremy's, a contaminated forensic exhibit. much new evidence has come to light since the trial and even back then it was 10-2 despite all the controversy hardy a 'slam dunk'
-
There is no evidence proving Shelia did not kill herself. Multiple gunshot suicides have been recorded many times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide)
I could not disagree more with your summing up of the trial. Julie's word against Jeremy's, a contaminated forensic exhibit. much new evidence has come to light since the trial and even back then it was 10-2 despite all the controversy hardy a 'slam dunk'
The evidence which proves Sheila could not have shot herself is everywhere. A person who is effectively stunned/paralysed by a bullet in the neck is incapable of targeting a second shot. Sheila never moved after the first shot evidenced by the undisturbed blood trails.
ps. please familiarise yourself with the facts.
-
The evidence which proves Sheila could not have shot herself is everywhere. A person who is effectively stunned/paralysed by a bullet in the neck is incapable of targeting a second shot. Sheila never moved after the first shot evidenced by the undisturbed blood trails.
ps. please familiarise yourself with the facts.
It is possible its called a nervous reflex action producing more gunshots. as stated in Brogdon's Forensic Radiology, Second Edition edited by Michael J. Thali, M.D., Mark D. Viner, B.G. Brogdon
How do you think multiple suicide shots to the head happen despite having ones brains hit by a bullet?
"One particular case has been documented from Australia. In February 1995, a man committed suicide on parkland in Canberra, Australia. He took a pump action shotgun and shot himself in the chest. The load passed through the chest without hitting a rib, and went out the other side. He then walked fifteen meters, pulled out a pistol and shot himself in the head. After reloading the shotgun, he leaned the shotgun against his throat, and shot his throat and part of his jaw. He then reloaded a final time, walked 200 meters to a hill, sat down on the slope, held the gun against his chest with his hands and operated the trigger with his toes. This shot entered the thoracic cavity and demolished the heart, killing him."
-
Suicidal individuals who manage to shoot themselves twice have without exception not sustained a near fatal injury following the first shot. The wound to Sheila's neck incapacitated her otherwise there would have been copious amounts of blood all over her neck, throat, mouth, rifle, nightie and fingers.
People fail to realise the enormous physiological disruption that a bullet fired at point blank range can cause to a body. The suggestion that she simply picked up the rifle again, put it to her neck once more and fired it without smearing any blood is pure fantasy.
-
There is no evidence proving Shelia did not kill herself. Multiple gunshot suicides have been recorded many times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide)
I could not disagree more with your summing up of the trial. Julie's word against Jeremy's, a contaminated forensic exhibit. much new evidence has come to light since the trial and even back then it was 10-2 despite all the controversy hardy a 'slam dunk'
This site recounts the evidence thousands of times including many posts from myself listing same.
I can understand being a newbie but a newbie should not come to conclusions without doing some research and the most basic research of all is to research the evidence that convicted the defendant.
Relevant facts:
A) Sheila was shot with the moderator attached to the gun. The fatal shot was a contact wound. The location of the fatal shot and it being a contact wound means that drawback would have resulted. Drawback means blood is drawn several inches into the weapon. The blood sprays into the weapon. The moderator had her blood on the first 8 baffles. The lab scraped all visible blood from these baffles. The defense expert still managed to find microscopic traces on the first 8 baffles. In contrast there was no blood in the barrel of the rifle. had she been shot with the rifle sans moderator then her blood would have been in the rifle not inside the moderator.
B) If Sheila loaded the rifle she would have had elevated lead deposits on her hand and in fact there would have been visible black marks on her hands
C) If Sheila fired the rifle she would have had GSR on her hands and clothing. In order to kill herself she would have to have hugged the rifle and her gown would have had GSR deposited on it. Her gown and hands were negative for GSR though she didn't even have a single particle though.
D) If Sheila had shot June and Neville then she would have had high velocity impact blood spatter from these victims on her clothing. The shooter was close enough that the backspatter would have gotten on the shooter.
E) If Sheila had beaten Neville then she would have had medium velocity impact spatter on her clothing. During the beating from the rifle his blood got all over the weapon and would have gotten on the killer as well.
F) Since the weapon was covered in blood the killer's fingerprints would have been found in such blood unless the killer was wearing gloves. There were no gloves at the scene that Sheila could have worn and no reason for her to wear gloves if she planned to commit murder suicide. People wear gloves when they hope to avoid liability.
G) After the murders the moderator was removed from the rifle and put away in the downstairs closet. Quite obviously Sheila could not have done this after she was dead.
H) After the murders the bible was placed in a pool of blood that formed after Sheila's death and while the blood was still wet the bible was closed then reopened. The closing of the bible resulted in a mirror image on 2 adjacent pages. The blood did not flow around the bible the bible was placed in the blood pool. Quite obviously Sheila could not have done such after she was dead.
I) Jeremy claims that he took a box of ammo that was full or near full from the closet and dumped it out in the kitchen. A full box contained 50 rounds so that is the maximum. 25 rounds were used during the murders. There thus should have been no more than 25 rounds remaining. There were 30 rounds remaining. This proves Jeremy staged these bullets after the murders because there is no way the killer would have used 20 bullets form this supply and decided to go to the closet to get 5 additional rounds instead of continuing to use the same supply.
J) Sheila would have damaged her nails while beating Nevill with the rifle and would have cut her hand when the stock of the rifle broke. Only if the killer was wearing gloves would the stock cracking not result in cutting or at least scratching the hand of the killer that was on the stock. It broke exactly where one of the killer's hands would have been while using it to bludgeon Neville. This is likely what tore off Jeremy's glove which he told julie had happened.
The evidence shows that Sheila didn't load the weapon, didn't fire the weapon, wasn't near her mother or father when they were shot, wasn't near her father when he was beaten, and can't have shot herself. Someone else killed everyone then afterwards removed the moderator, put it int he closet and while her blood was sitll wet placed the bible in pool of her blood.
There is no question of Jeremy's guilt to anyone who actually is aware of the facts and evidence and is objective enough to face it instead of irrationally ignoring it.
-
In this case forensic evidence is impossible to obtain linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the murders because his prints and DNA were all over the farmhouse and the rifle from the start.
What forensics we do have however point to Jeremy Bamber being the culprit.
The thread post shows there is forensic evidence.
-
What the forensic evidence demonstrates happened:
1) The killer removed the phone from the bedroom in advance to make sure that the parents would not be able to call for help
2) The killer removed the scope in advance and loaded 10 or 11 rounds into the weapon.
3) The killer entered the master bedroom and shot June 6 times (or 7 times if the gun had 11 rounds) 4 for sure were delivered while June was in bed. 2 more could have been delivered as she was in bed or as she got up. The last was delivered between her eyes when she was lying on the floor. Neville was shot 4 times after he got out of bed. His left profile was facing the killer.
4) The gun was empty and either the killer ran away to get more ammo and Neville gave chase or somehow Neville got out the bedroom door past the killer and ran to the Kitchen to grab a weapon and the killer gave chase
5) In the kitchen Neville grabbed the weapon and tried to take it away from the killer. As they struggled over control of the weapon it broke the ceiling light, scratched the mantle and knocked things onto the floor so that the floor had shards of glass and crockery.
6) Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon and bashed Neville with it. The killer struck him with the butt of the weapon. Neville tried to block the blows with his left arm. In the process his arm was gauged and his watch torn off. Medium velocity impact blood spatter got on the weapon and killer in the process. The killer bashed the butt of the weapon into Neville’s head with such force that part of the stock broke. It broke exactly where the killer was holding the stock. Neville was knocked out in the process. The killer was wearing gloves and that prevented the killer’s fingerprints from being found in the blood that was on the weapon. Furthermore it protected the killer’s hand when the stock broke otherwise the killer’s hand would have been cut or at least scratched when it broke.
7) After Neville was unconscious the killer partially reloaded and fired 4 shots into Neville’s head (killing him) before he could wake up.
8) The killer then reloaded so that the gun had either 10 or 11 rounds and went upstairs. If 11 rounds that means the gun only had 10 at the outset and the killer went to June’s dead body and fired a shot between her eyes to make sure she was dead. If only 10 then that means the gun had 11 at the outset and that all 7 shots to June happened initially. The killer then went to the boy’s room and fired 8 rounds into them. That means only 2 bullets left in the gun.
9) The killer either dragged Sheila into her parents’ room, chased her in, or she was in there already and she ran to the other side of the room before the killer caught her. The killer had her sit down propped against something, held the gun an inch or so from her neck and fired into her neck at nearly a 90 degree angle. The shot thus traveled from the front of her neck to the back, and thus failed to immediately kill her. The killer then stuck the gun into her chin, pushed her head back so that the gun was aiming at her brain and fired. The bullet traveled into her head as desired this time instantly killing her. Because it was a contact wound her blood was deposited into the moderator. Her blood sprayed onto each of the first 8 baffles.
10) The killer then removed the moderator and put it in the closet.
11) Because she was seated blood dripped down her neck onto her gown. The killer wanted to place the gun on her body but could not do so with her seated thus dragged Sheila’s body flat and placed the gun on her. The blood flow changed after she was moved flat it went down the side of her neck onto the floor and pooled near her shoulder.
12) After the blood pooled the killer sat the bible in such pool of blood. The killer accidentally closed it and reopened it. Closing it while wet result in mirror image stains on both sides of adjacent pages. It was then placed in the wet pool of blood again and left there. Has Sheila been reading it the bible would have been by her waste sticking it by her head was a dead giveaway it was placed there after but even worse placing it in the pool of blood that formed after her death proves she didn’t place it there but rather someone else did.
13) The killer staged 30 unspent rounds in the kitchen.
This is what the physical evidence demonstrates occurred.
The killer only could be Jeremy.
-
What the forensic evidence demonstrates happened:
1) The killer removed the phone from the bedroom in advance to make sure that the parents would not be able to call for help
2) The killer removed the scope in advance and loaded 10 or 11 rounds into the weapon.
3) The killer entered the master bedroom and shot June 6 times (or 7 times if the gun had 11 rounds) 4 for sure were delivered while June was in bed. 2 more could have been delivered as she was in bed or as she got up. The last was delivered between her eyes when she was lying on the floor. Neville was shot 4 times after he got out of bed. His left profile was facing the killer.
4) The gun was empty and either the killer ran away to get more ammo and Neville gave chase or somehow Neville got out the bedroom door past the killer and ran to the Kitchen to grab a weapon and the killer gave chase
5) In the kitchen Neville grabbed the weapon and tried to take it away from the killer. As they struggled over control of the weapon it broke the ceiling light, scratched the mantle and knocked things onto the floor so that the floor had shards of glass and crockery.
6) Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon and bashed Neville with it. The killer struck him with the butt of the weapon. Neville tried to block the blows with his left arm. In the process his arm was gauged and his watch torn off. Medium velocity impact blood spatter got on the weapon and killer in the process. The killer bashed the butt of the weapon into Neville’s head with such force that part of the stock broke. It broke exactly where the killer was holding the stock. Neville was knocked out in the process. The killer was wearing gloves and that prevented the killer’s fingerprints from being found in the blood that was on the weapon. Furthermore it protected the killer’s hand when the stock broke otherwise the killer’s hand would have been cut or at least scratched when it broke.
7) After Neville was unconscious the killer partially reloaded and fired 4 shots into Neville’s head (killing him) before he could wake up.
8) The killer then reloaded so that the gun had either 10 or 11 rounds and went upstairs. If 11 rounds that means the gun only had 10 at the outset and the killer went to June’s dead body and fired a shot between her eyes to make sure she was dead. If only 10 then that means the gun had 11 at the outset and that all 7 shots to June happened initially. The killer then went to the boy’s room and fired 8 rounds into them. That means only 2 bullets left in the gun.
9) The killer either dragged Sheila into her parents’ room, chased her in, or she was in there already and she ran to the other side of the room before the killer caught her. The killer had her sit down propped against something, held the gun an inch or so from her neck and fired into her neck at nearly a 90 degree angle. The shot thus traveled from the front of her neck to the back, and thus failed to immediately kill her. The killer then stuck the gun into her chin, pushed her head back so that the gun was aiming at her brain and fired. The bullet traveled into her head as desired this time instantly killing her. Because it was a contact wound her blood was deposited into the moderator. Her blood sprayed onto each of the first 8 baffles.
10) The killer then removed the moderator and put it in the closet.
11) Because she was seated blood dripped down her neck onto her gown. The killer wanted to place the gun on her body but could not do so with her seated thus dragged Sheila’s body flat and placed the gun on her. The blood flow changed after she was moved flat it went down the side of her neck onto the floor and pooled near her shoulder.
12) After the blood pooled the killer sat the bible in such pool of blood. The killer accidentally closed it and reopened it. Closing it while wet result in mirror image stains on both sides of adjacent pages. It was then placed in the wet pool of blood again and left there. Has Sheila been reading it the bible would have been by her waste sticking it by her head was a dead giveaway it was placed there after but even worse placing it in the pool of blood that formed after her death proves she didn’t place it there but rather someone else did.
13) The killer staged 30 unspent rounds in the kitchen.
This is what the physical evidence demonstrates occurred.
The killer only could be Jeremy.
I'm not going round in circles with you Paul covering the same ground. Regular posters are offay with my stance and anyone new can read my posts. I am only responding to new points.
Where's the evidence that JB staged 30 unspent rounds in the kitchen? The CoA doc at point 32 states:
32. Reconnaissance of the farmhouse revealed all the doors to be shut, as were the windows save for one in the main bedroom on the first floor. At about 7.30 a.m., the decision was made to enter the farmhouse and not long afterwards officers moved into place. Through the kitchen window, an officer observed the body of what appeared to be a woman but was in fact Mr. Bamber. Entry was then forced through the rear door which had been locked from the inside.
The discovery of the bodies and the scene within the house 33. In the kitchen the police found Nevill Bamber's body slumped forward over an overturned chair next to the hearth, so that his head was just above a coal scuttle. The police evidence was that there were other chairs and stools upturned and broken crockery, sugar and what appeared to be spots of blood on the floor. A ceiling light lampshade had also been broken. It will be necessary to address further these matter later but on the evidence available at trial, it appeared as though a violent struggle had taken place. On one of the surfaces there was a telephone with the receiver off the cradle. A quantity of .22 shells was beside it.
-
This site recounts the evidence thousands of times including many posts from myself listing same.
I can understand being a newbie but a newbie should not come to conclusions without doing some research and the most basic research of all is to research the evidence that convicted the defendant.
Relevant facts:
A) Sheila was shot with the moderator attached to the gun. The fatal shot was a contact wound. The location of the fatal shot and it being a contact wound means that drawback would have resulted. Drawback means blood is drawn several inches into the weapon. The blood sprays into the weapon. The moderator had her blood on the first 8 baffles. The lab scraped all visible blood from these baffles. The defense expert still managed to find microscopic traces on the first 8 baffles. In contrast there was no blood in the barrel of the rifle. had she been shot with the rifle sans moderator then her blood would have been in the rifle not inside the moderator.
B) If Sheila loaded the rifle she would have had elevated lead deposits on her hand and in fact there would have been visible black marks on her hands
C) If Sheila fired the rifle she would have had GSR on her hands and clothing. In order to kill herself she would have to have hugged the rifle and her gown would have had GSR deposited on it. Her gown and hands were negative for GSR though she didn't even have a single particle though.
D) If Sheila had shot June and Neville then she would have had high velocity impact blood spatter from these victims on her clothing. The shooter was close enough that the backspatter would have gotten on the shooter.
E) If Sheila had beaten Neville then she would have had medium velocity impact spatter on her clothing. During the beating from the rifle his blood got all over the weapon and would have gotten on the killer as well.
F) Since the weapon was covered in blood the killer's fingerprints would have been found in such blood unless the killer was wearing gloves. There were no gloves at the scene that Sheila could have worn and no reason for her to wear gloves if she planned to commit murder suicide. People wear gloves when they hope to avoid liability.
G) After the murders the moderator was removed from the rifle and put away in the downstairs closet. Quite obviously Sheila could not have done this after she was dead.
H) After the murders the bible was placed in a pool of blood that formed after Sheila's death and while the blood was still wet the bible was closed then reopened. The closing of the bible resulted in a mirror image on 2 adjacent pages. The blood did not flow around the bible the bible was placed in the blood pool. Quite obviously Sheila could not have done such after she was dead.
I) Jeremy claims that he took a box of ammo that was full or near full from the closet and dumped it out in the kitchen. A full box contained 50 rounds so that is the maximum. 25 rounds were used during the murders. There thus should have been no more than 25 rounds remaining. There were 30 rounds remaining. This proves Jeremy staged these bullets after the murders because there is no way the killer would have used 20 bullets form this supply and decided to go to the closet to get 5 additional rounds instead of continuing to use the same supply.
J) Sheila would have damaged her nails while beating Nevill with the rifle and would have cut her hand when the stock of the rifle broke. Only if the killer was wearing gloves would the stock cracking not result in cutting or at least scratching the hand of the killer that was on the stock. It broke exactly where one of the killer's hands would have been while using it to bludgeon Neville. This is likely what tore off Jeremy's glove which he told julie had happened.
The evidence shows that Sheila didn't load the weapon, didn't fire the weapon, wasn't near her mother or father when they were shot, wasn't near her father when he was beaten, and can't have shot herself. Someone else killed everyone then afterwards removed the moderator, put it int he closet and while her blood was sitll wet placed the bible in pool of her blood.
There is no question of Jeremy's guilt to anyone who actually is aware of the facts and evidence and is objective enough to face it instead of irrationally ignoring it.
As previously stated Paul I am only answering new points raised. You claim NB's blood was all over the rifle. Can you provide evidence of this? The CoA doc as follows:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful. A "pull-through" on the barrel of the rifle was conducted for any traces of blood within the weapon. There were none.
With regard to the ammo found on the kitchen top please provide evidence as your assertion of 30 unspent cartridges contradicts the CoA doc:
On one of the surfaces there was a telephone with the receiver off the cradle. A quantity of .22 shells was beside it.
-
Why do you insist on calling scipio ~ Paul, when he's told you that his name is John?
(http://i.imgur.com/A3IkEIR.jpg)
-
Why do you insist on calling scipio ~ Paul, when he's told you that his name is John?
(http://i.imgur.com/A3IkEIR.jpg)
Why does Scipio insist that I have "problems" stemming from the fact that I am adoptee?
"You spend your life ignoring evidence and procedures to try to support your pretense of Jeremy being innocent so you cna use that to make your silly arguments about people who are adopted because you have whatever problems from your own adoption".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5914.msg214325#msg214325
This is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last!
*&(+(+ for the image. It seems a reasonable assumption that the blood found on the weapon was from NB being beaten with it but there's no conclusive evidence of this.
-
"The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding."
Now let me think who that person could have been? &%+((£
Mmmm... defence wounds from a narrow object on his right arm, and some frontal skull fractures inconsistent with being caused just by bullet damage according to the pathologist.
-
This site recounts the evidence thousands of times including many posts from myself listing same.
I can understand being a newbie but a newbie should not come to conclusions without doing some research and the most basic research of all is to research the evidence that convicted the defendant.
Relevant facts:
A) Sheila was shot with the moderator attached to the gun. The fatal shot was a contact wound. The location of the fatal shot and it being a contact wound means that drawback would have resulted. Drawback means blood is drawn several inches into the weapon. The blood sprays into the weapon. The moderator had her blood on the first 8 baffles. The lab scraped all visible blood from these baffles. The defense expert still managed to find microscopic traces on the first 8 baffles. In contrast there was no blood in the barrel of the rifle. had she been shot with the rifle sans moderator then her blood would have been in the rifle not inside the moderator.
B) If Sheila loaded the rifle she would have had elevated lead deposits on her hand and in fact there would have been visible black marks on her hands
C) If Sheila fired the rifle she would have had GSR on her hands and clothing. In order to kill herself she would have to have hugged the rifle and her gown would have had GSR deposited on it. Her gown and hands were negative for GSR though she didn't even have a single particle though.
D) If Sheila had shot June and Neville then she would have had high velocity impact blood spatter from these victims on her clothing. The shooter was close enough that the backspatter would have gotten on the shooter.
E) If Sheila had beaten Neville then she would have had medium velocity impact spatter on her clothing. During the beating from the rifle his blood got all over the weapon and would have gotten on the killer as well.
F) Since the weapon was covered in blood the killer's fingerprints would have been found in such blood unless the killer was wearing gloves. There were no gloves at the scene that Sheila could have worn and no reason for her to wear gloves if she planned to commit murder suicide. People wear gloves when they hope to avoid liability.
G) After the murders the moderator was removed from the rifle and put away in the downstairs closet. Quite obviously Sheila could not have done this after she was dead.
H) After the murders the bible was placed in a pool of blood that formed after Sheila's death and while the blood was still wet the bible was closed then reopened. The closing of the bible resulted in a mirror image on 2 adjacent pages. The blood did not flow around the bible the bible was placed in the blood pool. Quite obviously Sheila could not have done such after she was dead.
I) Jeremy claims that he took a box of ammo that was full or near full from the closet and dumped it out in the kitchen. A full box contained 50 rounds so that is the maximum. 25 rounds were used during the murders. There thus should have been no more than 25 rounds remaining. There were 30 rounds remaining. This proves Jeremy staged these bullets after the murders because there is no way the killer would have used 20 bullets form this supply and decided to go to the closet to get 5 additional rounds instead of continuing to use the same supply.
J) Sheila would have damaged her nails while beating Nevill with the rifle and would have cut her hand when the stock of the rifle broke. Only if the killer was wearing gloves would the stock cracking not result in cutting or at least scratching the hand of the killer that was on the stock. It broke exactly where one of the killer's hands would have been while using it to bludgeon Neville. This is likely what tore off Jeremy's glove which he told julie had happened.
The evidence shows that Sheila didn't load the weapon, didn't fire the weapon, wasn't near her mother or father when they were shot, wasn't near her father when he was beaten, and can't have shot herself. Someone else killed everyone then afterwards removed the moderator, put it int he closet and while her blood was sitll wet placed the bible in pool of her blood.
There is no question of Jeremy's guilt to anyone who actually is aware of the facts and evidence and is objective enough to face it instead of irrationally ignoring it.
If you want to maintain that SC's "gown" was free of GSR and high/medium velocity impact spatter you need to overcome the conundrum of the contents of the buckets. Fact is you are unable to. See your posts below along with AE's WS and trial testimony which are both highly contradictory and in places wrong ie the photos.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg214332#msg214332
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg214336#msg214336
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214258#msg214258
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214298#msg214298
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214299#msg214299
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214312#msg214312
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214726#msg214726
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214735#msg214735
-
Problem is .22 calibre rimfire bullets are very small. You could not leave a full fingerprint or even a fraction of a fingerprint on one of them as they are smaller than your prints themselves.
(http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2013/04/29/1541060_02__22_lead_bullets_thousands__640.jpg)
The first one to the left of the 1 cent coin a .22 caliber. Its purpose is to kill pests like rabbits foxes or target shooting ect. Hence why its small and legal to posses if licensed
(http://thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bullets-courtesy-thefirearmsblog.com_.jpg)
*&(+(+ for the explanation David.
-
Why does Scipio insist that I have "problems" stemming from the fact that I am adoptee?
"You spend your life ignoring evidence and procedures to try to support your pretense of Jeremy being innocent so you cna use that to make your silly arguments about people who are adopted because you have whatever problems from your own adoption".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5914.msg214325#msg214325
This is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last!
*&(+(+ for the image. It seems a reasonable assumption that the blood found on the weapon was from NB being beaten with it but there's no conclusive evidence of this.
I don't have a problem with your adoption you do. You are the one who constantly talks about the troubles your adoption caused you and then try to use that to say Sheila had problems because of her adoption and this caused her to commit the crimes. You ignore all the evidence of this case to suit in order to advance your adoption agenda. I have repeatedly railed against your attack on adoptees.
As for them not proving through blood tests that the blood was Nevill's, so what?
WHo else's blood could it be? The blood was medium velociy impact spatter and got there from the victim being beated with the rifle. Other than Nevill who was beaten with the rifle? Nevill was the only one beaten and bleeding from such wounds period. teh only wounds to the other victms were gunshot wounds and gunshot wounds do not result in medium velicty impact spatter. There is no need to confirm it is Neville's blood via a test we already know because he is the only one who could have deposited such blood. Beyond a reaosnable doubt it is his blood. It is not reasonable to believe that there was a third party, that this third party was beaten with the rifle and it is this third party's blood. It is not reaosnable to believe Jeremy was beaten with the rifle and it was his blood. If jeremy bled on it then the blood would have dripped not been medium velocity spatter. If he did get a small cut and bleed on it and his blood was mixed with Neville's so no one noticed the passive drip and thus they missed a chance to test it and prove it was Jeremy's blood that error benefits Jeremy and doesn't change the fact that other blood was surely Neville's.
It also doesn't change the fact that Neville's blood would have gotten on the killer as well not just the weapon. Moreover, unless the killer were wearing gloves the killer would have gotten his/her prints in the blood and since blood would have been on his/her fingers there was a strong likelihood of leaving bloody fingerprints on more than just the weapon. When the stock broke it would have cut or at least scratched the hand of the person holding the gun. Only gloves would prevent such. In combination this proves the killer was wearing gloves.
-
I don't have a problem with your adoption you do. You are the one who constantly talks about the troubles your adoption caused you and then try to use that to say Sheila had problems because of her adoption and this caused her to commit the crimes. You ignore all the evidence of this case to suit in order to advance your adoption agenda. I have repeatedly railed against your attack on adoptees.
As for them not proving through blood tests that the blood was Nevill's, so what?
WHo else's blood could it be? The blood was medium velociy impact spatter and got there from the victim being beated with the rifle. Other than Nevill who was beaten with the rifle? Nevill was the only one beaten and bleeding from such wounds period. teh only wounds to the other victms were gunshot wounds and gunshot wounds do not result in medium velicty impact spatter. There is no need to confirm it is Neville's blood via a test we already know because he is the only one who could have deposited such blood. Beyond a reaosnable doubt it is his blood. It is not reasonable to believe that there was a third party, that this third party was beaten with the rifle and it is this third party's blood. It is not reaosnable to believe Jeremy was beaten with the rifle and it was his blood. If jeremy bled on it then the blood would have dripped not been medium velocity spatter. If he did get a small cut and bleed on it and his blood was mixed with Neville's so no one noticed the passive drip and thus they missed a chance to test it and prove it was Jeremy's blood that error benefits Jeremy and doesn't change the fact that other blood was surely Neville's.
It also doesn't change the fact that Neville's blood would have gotten on the killer as well not just the weapon. Moreover, unless the killer were wearing gloves the killer would have gotten his/her prints in the blood and since blood would have been on his/her fingers there was a strong likelihood of leaving bloody fingerprints on more than just the weapon. When the stock broke it would have cut or at least scratched the hand of the person holding the gun. Only gloves would prevent such. In combination this proves the killer was wearing gloves.
Perhaps you would like to retrieve some of my posts where I have made reference to having problems with adoption.
You ignore all the evidence, supported by research from your 8(0(* Ivy league unis, pertaining to ADOPTION, ATTACHMENT and NEUROSCIENCE and want to live in the past discussing the bike, phone calls, and windows like a Neanderthal man. Move on... 30 years have passed since the WHF murders. You are living in the past if you think what applied in 1985/6 is relevant in 2015.
I agree the blood found on the outside of the rifle most likely originated from NB.
You have no idea how the stock broke so please stop claiming that it would have caused damage to the perp's hand as you don't know, no more than I do. And you don't know whether or not EP followed procedures to preserve prints on the weapon, made mistakes, backtracked and wiped thus removing prints.
-
Perhaps you would like to retrieve some of my posts where I have made reference to having problems with adoption.
You ignore all the evidence, supported by research from your 8(0(* Ivy league unis, pertaining to ADOPTION, ATTACHMENT and NEUROSCIENCE and want to live in the past discussing the bike, phone calls, and windows like a Neanderthal man. Move on... 30 years have passed since the WHF murders. You are living in the past if you think what applied in 1985/6 is relevant in 2015.
I agree the blood found on the outside of the rifle most likely originated from NB.
You have no idea how the stock broke so please stop claiming that it would have caused damage to the perp's hand as you don't know, no more than I do. And you don't know whether or not EP followed procedures to preserve prints on the weapon, made mistakes, backtracked and wiped thus removing prints.
I do know how it broke because of the way it broke and the way Nevill was being bashed.
The way you bash someone with the butt of the rifle is you hold one hand on the stock where the stock narrows so you can get your hand around it and the other hand will be on the forward grip. That is the way Neville's head was bashed in and the damage done to his arms.
The stock cracked in several places. One crack was inside the stock. The stock is partially hollow and a piece of metal from the gun slides inside the stock. The stock is then screwed to the gun. There is a crack inside where the stock hit the gun because the killer was pushing the butt into Neville's head so you have Neville's head pushing one way and the killer pushing the other so the stock and the rifle are being pressed together. The other crack was where the gun met the stock as well. Both cracks were lateral. The crack near the top actually tore off part of the stock because of where it broke and it broke right on the narrow portion where the killer's hand was. Both cracks in the stock were made as the stock was compressed from being bashed into Neville.
(http://images.delcampe.com/img_large/auction/000/205/530/959_001.jpg?v=2) The knob at the left end rests inside the hole that is in the stock.
We went over this in the past. You ignore it because you always ignore all evidence that works against your agenda which is to blame Sheila so you can present your pathetic adoption theories.
You ridiculously suggest she using it like a club. Aside from that making no sense, had someone used it as a club then the breaks would have been up and down in the stock instead of side to side. In fact the stock would have likely broken off if used as a club because the hollow part would have cracked. Moreover, the gun itself would have been damaged if used as a club. The gun itself is actually 2 halves held together by a screw. The barrel could be bent or broken from the receiver if the weapon is used as a bat.
With the screw removed the weapon looks like this:
(http://www.asesivut.net/kuvaboksi/albums/userpics/10001/normal_ansu525_5.jpg)
If I take a bat and I whack the floor with it hard enough to crack the bat which way will the cracks run? The will run width wise.
handle _______________________________
[______I_________________________ Tip
The crack will run like the I. That is why bats snap in half if you hit them hard enough against something.
What if the head of the bat were hit into the ground instead of the sides of the bat? Then if you manage to crack the bat the cracks will run lengthwise like the dotted line.
handle _______________________________
-----------------------------------------
________________________________ Tip
The cracks in the stock ran lengthwise and that is because the butt of the weapon was being thrust into Nevill it was not being used like a bat.
-
I'm also adopted myself as it goes. I don't think its of any importance of this case. thou I could be wrong
Sef Gonzales, Brian Blackwell and the Manendez Brothers to name a few killed their parents and other family members. None of them where adopted.
Sef Gonzales before he was suspected sang the song 'One Sweet Day' infront the whole church at this families funeral! What a freak! you could not make it up
-
I'm also adopted myself as it goes. I don't think its of any importance of this case. thou I could be wrong
Sef Gonzales, Brian Blackwell and the Manendez Brothers to name a few killed their parents and other family members. None of them where adopted.
Sef Gonzales before he was suspected sang the song 'One Sweet Day' infront the whole church at this families funeral! What a freak! you could not make it up
No, you're right david - the WHF murders were motivated solely by greed, as in those perpetrated by Stephen Seddon and Roderick Newall, not by any crackpot adoption theories. Sef Gonzales is Jeremy Bamber down to a tee, even visiting the family accountant shortly after the murders to see how much he was worth, pawning his mother's jewellery, selling off his parents' cars and placing a deposit on a new luxury Lexus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8TF1t4ZaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8TF1t4ZaA)
Cue Holly: - "I see no connection with these cases and Jeremy Bamber's!"
-
Another inheritance killing which has some similarities with the Bamber case is Steve Benson -
Same year.
Benson also tried to kill his sister.
He also tried and succeeded in killing another relative.
Benson tried to look upset at the televised funeral.
Benson had been committing financial crimes against his family. Similar to Neville & June finding out about the caravan site.
His mother was also considering disinheriting him.
The jury reached a verdict quickly, as also in the Bamber case.
Benson also wanted to live beyond his means. And did not like having to depend on his mother. Another video says he did not like the controlling influence his mother tried to exert. Similar to what Jeremy told Julie.
Benson planted a car bomb. Surely he would have been the number one suspect. But as Jeremy said after robbing the caravan site 'they will never be able to prove it'. However they could prove it was Benson. It just takes one mistake.
-
Just when you mention disinheriting, that could very well have been the trigger for Jeremy. With the twins growing up fast there was every likelihood that they would also have inherited which would see Jeremy's share diluted even further.
-
Just when you mention disinheriting, that could very well have been the trigger for Jeremy. With the twins growing up fast there was every likelihood that they would also have inherited which would see Jeremy's share diluted even further.
Julie's mother Mary Mugford testified that Jeremy said June was planning to give the twins a larger share of her will.
-
No, you're right david - the WHF murders were motivated solely by greed, as in those perpetrated by Stephen Seddon and Roderick Newall, not by any crackpot adoption theories. Sef Gonzales is Jeremy Bamber down to a tee, even visiting the family accountant shortly after the murders to see how much he was worth, pawning his mother's jewellery, selling off his parents' cars and placing a deposit on a new luxury Lexus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales)
Cue Holly: - "I see no connection with these cases and Jeremy Bamber's!"
Sef Gonzales singing at the funeral. Makes Jeremy seem well adjusted in comparison
http://youtu.be/-YV8uQIgbYE?t=22m53s (http://youtu.be/-YV8uQIgbYE?t=22m53s)
But Jeremy never sang at the funeral is this another clue in the riddle? &%+((£ @)(++(*
-
I'm also adopted myself as it goes. I don't think its of any importance of this case. thou I could be wrong
Sef Gonzales, Brian Blackwell and the Manendez Brothers to name a few killed their parents and other family members. None of them where adopted.
Sef Gonzales before he was suspected sang the song 'One Sweet Day' infront the whole church at this families funeral! What a freak! you could not make it up
Some argue that because Jeremy was adopted he had less attachment to his family and was thus able to kill them. Of course bilogical children commit the same crimes of greed so trying to say it was because of his adoption doesn't really work.
When adoption plays a role it is usually because the parents treat their adopted children like crap and they kill for revenge or to prevent future abuse. That is not exclusive to adopted kids either though, abuse can happen whether kids are biological or not.
None of this is implicated in this case though.
-
No, you're right david - the WHF murders were motivated solely by greed, as in those perpetrated by Stephen Seddon and Roderick Newall, not by any crackpot adoption theories. Sef Gonzales is Jeremy Bamber down to a tee, even visiting the family accountant shortly after the murders to see how much he was worth, pawning his mother's jewellery, selling off his parents' cars and placing a deposit on a new luxury Lexus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8TF1t4ZaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8TF1t4ZaA)
Cue Holly: - "I see no connection with these cases and Jeremy Bamber's!"
David/Myster
If you wish to draw on other cases and compare them with WHF you need to compare apples with apples; not apples with pears. The cases you mention:
- Sef Gonzales
- Brian Blackwell
- Menendez Brothers
- Stephen Seddon
- Roderick Newall
did not involve a trial where the jury had to decide whether the prosecution were right and one sibling, JB, murdered his family out of greed and hatred, or the defence were right and the other sibling, SC, murdered her family due to her state of mind. In the WHF case the prosecution and defence ruled out any third party.
Cue Myster: - I doubt David's adoptive mother suffered severe depression, requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment, as a result of adopting him.
I still love you Myster despite our differences x
-
I'm also adopted myself as it goes. I don't think its of any importance of this case. thou I could be wrong
Sef Gonzales, Brian Blackwell and the Manendez Brothers to name a few killed their parents and other family members. None of them where adopted.
Sef Gonzales before he was suspected sang the song 'One Sweet Day' infront the whole church at this families funeral! What a freak! you could not make it up
I think you might be mistaken David:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
-
I think you might be mistaken David:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
Since you have nothing to refute the evidence that Sheila didn't even load a gun let alone fired one and that she can't have shot herself then moved herself flat, put the mdoerator away and put the bible in a pool of her blood you have an enromous problem.
You want to skip the physical evidence, skip Julie's testimony and just ASSUME that Sheila did it so you can then advance your anti-adoption agenda.
You are not fooling anyone and just making your self look bad in the process.
-
Just when you mention disinheriting, that could very well have been the trigger for Jeremy. With the twins growing up fast there was every likelihood that they would also have inherited which would see Jeremy's share diluted even further.
There was every likelihood that JB would have gone on to have a family of his own and I am sure NB and June would have ensured all their grandchildren were treated equally.
Grandparents often leave their grandchildren a legacy but the bulk of the estate normally goes to children. The reason for this is that grandparents usually have no idea how many grandchildren they might end up with post will (although this could obviously be changed) and post death, so the fairest way is seen as the bulk of the estate split equally between children. In the case of the Bamber family SC might well have had further children and JB might well have had a family of his own.
-
There was every likelihood that JB would have gone on to have a family of his own and I am sure NB and June would have ensured all their grandchildren were treated equally.
Grandparents often leave their grandchildren a legacy but the bulk of the estate normally goes to children. The reason for this is that grandparents usually have no idea how many grandchildren they might end up with post will (although this could obviously be changed) and post death, so the fairest way is seen as the bulk of the estate split equally between children. In the case of the Bamber family SC might well have had further children and JB might well have had a family of his own.
I don't think he would have lasted that long Holly. It is not unusual for inheritance to skip a generation and that could very well have been what was on the cards in this family.
Jerry wanted it all and he wanted it NOW!
-
Since you have nothing to refute the evidence that Sheila didn't even load a gun let alone fired one and that she can't have shot herself then moved herself flat, put the mdoerator away and put the bible in a pool of her blood you have an enromous problem.
You want to skip the physical evidence, skip Julie's testimony and just ASSUME that Sheila did it so you can then advance your anti-adoption agenda.
You are not fooling anyone and just making your self look bad in the process.
If the above is as strong as you claim it is then why did the CCRC refer the case to the CoA in 2002? Why not say:
'ok her DNA might not have been in the silencer but hey SC couldn't load a gun, move herself flat, put the moderator away, and put the bible in a pool of her blood? And, and, and what about JM's testimony and, and, and the physical evidence?'
"Agenda"...what may I ask is yours? A man serving a life sentence, with as far as I am aware no light at the end of the tunnel, and yet you wish to spend copious amounts of time reinforcing the prosecution's position &%+((£
Closed adoptions reached their peak in 1968 and are pretty much non-existent now.
-
If the above is as strong as you claim it is then why did the CCRC refer the case to the CoA in 2002? Why not say:
'ok her DNA might not have been in the silencer but hey SC couldn't load a gun, move herself flat, put the moderator away, and put the bible in a pool of her blood? And, and, and what about JM's testimony and, and, and the physical evidence?'
"Agenda"...what may I ask is yours? A man serving a life sentence, with as far as I am aware no light at the end of the tunnel, and yet you wish to spend copious amounts of time reinforcing the prosecution's position &%+((£
Closed adoptions reached their peak in 1968 and are pretty much non-existent now.
The relatives and COA were very critical of the CCRC referring the case to the COA.
-
I don't think he would have lasted that long Holly. It is not unusual for inheritance to skip a generation and that could very well have been what was on the cards in this family.
Jerry wanted it all and he wanted it NOW!
If you mean that NB and June were effectively going to disown JB, and I don't see any evidence of this at all, then what about any children JB may have had? Are you saying effectively NB and June would disown them as well?
Inheritance usually skips a generation as in the RB/PB scenario, when for example, they claimed they already had a significant inheritance tax liability and did not wish to add to their estate, but that was not the case with SC and JB ie they had no significant assets of their own and were much younger.
-
If the above is as strong as you claim it is then why did the CCRC refer the case to the CoA in 2002? Why not say:
'ok her DNA might not have been in the silencer but hey SC couldn't load a gun, move herself flat, put the moderator away, and put the bible in a pool of her blood? And, and, and what about JM's testimony and, and, and the physical evidence?'
"Agenda"...what may I ask is yours? A man serving a life sentence, with as far as I am aware no light at the end of the tunnel, and yet you wish to spend copious amounts of time reinforcing the prosecution's position &%+((£
Closed adoptions reached their peak in 1968 and are pretty much non-existent now.
1) Her DNA should not have been in the moderator because her blood was already removed in 1985 and 1986 and tests in 1998-99 revealed no blood remaining. What matters is whether the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 was hers.
2) Despite her DNA not supposed to be there it was. The court had no need to bother deciding whethe rit was or wasn't so said maybe it was maybe it wasn't but from the scientific standpoint enough markers matched to say it was her DNA. The defense expert intentionally chose to ignore scientific standards to say maybe it was her maybe it wasn't in order to try to give the defense some false hope.
3) Since her DNA was there despite no blood remaining it means her DNA was transferred by contamination.
Why do people bother to point out these facts and others? Because we care about the truth and facts.
Why should we stand by wathcing Jeremy supporters lie and distort in an effort to pretend he is the victim of an MOJ when the facts and evidence say otherwise?
-
1) Her DNA should not have been in the moderator because her blood was already removed in 1985 and 1986 and tests in 1998-99 revealed no blood remaining. What matters is whether the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 was hers.
2) Despite her DNA not supposed to be there it was. The court had no need to bother deciding whethe rit was or wasn't so said maybe it was maybe it wasn't but from the scientific standpoint enough markers matched to say it was her DNA. The defense expert intentionally chose to ignore scientific standards to say maybe it was her maybe it wasn't in order to try to give the defense some false hope.
3) Since her DNA was there despite no blood remaining it means her DNA was transferred by contamination.
Why do people bother to point out these facts and others? Because we care about the truth and facts.
Why should we stand by wathcing Jeremy supporters lie and distort in an effort to pretend he is the victim of an MOJ when the facts and evidence say otherwise?
A recent thread has comprehensively covered all aspects of DNA and I don't propose to add to it:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209101#msg209101
Why would you care if a bunch of mavericks on a couple of forums that about 0.000000000000000000001% of the population read think JB is the victim of a MoJ? The people you need to worry about are those at the CCRC and CoA. who are actually capable of overturning JB's conviction. If as you say the facts and evidence say otherwise, ie JB is not a MOJ, then its game, set and match surely?
-
A recent thread has comprehensively covered all aspects of DNA and I don't propose to add to it:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209101#msg209101
Why would you care if a bunch of mavericks on a couple of forums that about 0.000000000000000000001% of the population read think JB is the victim of a MoJ? The people you need to worry about are those at the CCRC and CoA. who are actually capable of overturning JB's conviction. If as you say the facts and evidence say otherwise, ie JB is not a MOJ, then its game, set and match surely?
Why do you care about posting BS on forums?
I don't care what you or other Jeremy supporters choose to believe. I do however care whether Jeremy supporters' lies fool others and the best way to prevent such is to present the truth so that people can see all the issues and make their own informed choice of whether to believe the truth or decide to irrationally believe the crap Jeremy supporters spew.
The fact I care about the truth being out there is not an odd thing to wonder about. I like truth as should all people. What is odd is why Jeremy supporters like yourself are so desperate to convince others to drink the same koolaid.