UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on February 01, 2016, 06:51:39 PM
-
Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?
1. The work carried out by Peter Sutherst on the scratches to the mantle was, as far as I'm aware, not concluded as opposed to being rejected. See point 5 below:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence
2. If JB was the perp then it seems clear he must have committed the murders in quick succession. 25 shots fired in total with a silencer attached is a fair bit of heat inside the silencer (exact temperature inside the silencer unknown). The purpose of the silencer is to allow the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slowly release through a series of baffle plates before exiting thus reducing the sound. Therefore the blood must have been drawn back inside the silencer before the hot gasses had fully exited. What effect would the temperature and the hot gasses have on the blood:
- None
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while retaining its appearance
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
- Maintain its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
46
-
Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?
1. The work carried out by Peter Sutherst on the scratches to the mantle was, as far as I'm aware, not concluded as opposed to being rejected. See point 5 below:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence
2. If JB was the perp then it seems clear he must have committed the murders in quick succession. 25 shots fired in total with a silencer attached is a fair bit of heat inside the silencer (exact temperature inside the silencer unknown). The purpose of the silencer is to allow the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slowly release through a series of baffle plates before exiting thus reducing the sound. Therefore the blood must have been drawn back inside the silencer before the hot gasses had fully exited. What effect would the temperature and the hot gasses have on the blood:
- None
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while retaining its appearance
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
- Maintain its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything. Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained. A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time. Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading? There is no way to know for sure it may have.
-
The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything. Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained. A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time. Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading? There is no way to know for sure it may have.
http://www.slideshare.net/ProfdrElghamry/forensic-serology-blood-11179461 - see slide 25
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1033.msg208873#msg208873
I am currently in contact with forensic scientists about carrying out tests - see slide 25.
-
Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?
What happened about the tests on the shell casings you were talking about?
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/donate
The OS says Jeremy urgently requires £10k. Don't we all.
If the OS says there is 'no' forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime, I don't know what the point of further forensic tests are. It must show Sheila was the killer, with the conviction being based on circumstantial evidence and the allegation that Bamber manipulated the crime scene to implicate Sheila.
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/donate
The OS says Jeremy urgently requires £10k. Don't we all.
If the OS says there is 'no' forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime, I don't know what the point of further forensic tests are. It must show Sheila was the killer, with the conviction being based on circumstantial evidence and the allegation that Bamber manipulated the crime scene to implicate Sheila.
It's all becoming a bit of a farce.
-
Holly's gone quiet. &%+((£ I can smell something fishy! She's probably doing a fiendish experiment on her AGA...
-
... such as how to cook kippers without causing a stink.
-
It's all becoming a bit of a farce.
I know you think the moderator evidence was a bit dodgy, Caroline... but can you explain why?
The police obviously didn't pay enough attention to the gun cupboard. They'd got their woman culprit before releasing WHF back to the relatives after only a couple of days, so why would they want to frame Jeremy?
Ann Eaton and David Boutflour seemed genuine enough, both in written statements and at trial.
Do you believe that blood was introduced into the moderator on purpose, and these marks on the mantle-shelf were caused deliberately?
-
Is there any new forensic work or completion of existing work capable of making JB's conviction unsafe?
1. The work carried out by Peter Sutherst on the scratches to the mantle was, as far as I'm aware, not concluded as opposed to being rejected. See point 5 below:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence
2. If JB was the perp then it seems clear he must have committed the murders in quick succession. 25 shots fired in total with a silencer attached is a fair bit of heat inside the silencer (exact temperature inside the silencer unknown). The purpose of the silencer is to allow the hot gasses to expand in the expansion chamber and slowly release through a series of baffle plates before exiting thus reducing the sound. Therefore the blood must have been drawn back inside the silencer before the hot gasses had fully exited. What effect would the temperature and the hot gasses have on the blood:
- None
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while retaining its appearance
- Destroy its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
- Maintain its evidential value by way of blood serology while changing its appearance
I can't think of anything which can usefully be undertaken now given the passage of time and the destruction of evidence. The problem is that there are innocent reasons why both Jeremy's and Sheila's prints were found on the rifle. Had there been third party fingerprints found then there might have been something to follow.
The case is basically very easy to follow as are the very sound reasons why Jeremy was involved in the murders. It matters little whether he did it or directed it, he is still very much guilty and deserves to be where he is today without any hope of parole any time in the foreseeable future.
-
Holly's gone quiet. &%+((£ I can smell something fishy! She's probably doing a fiendish experiment on her AGA...
Awww you've missed me ?{)(** Just had a busy week with other things on.
Scipio has gone quiet too! I'm surprised tongues haven't been wagging 8)-)))
-
... such as how to cook kippers without causing a stink.
Soak in cold milk 20 mins before cooking, remove and pat dry with kitchen towel.
-
The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything. Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained. A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time. Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading? There is no way to know for sure it may have.
Yes according to John Hayward's test for the 2002 appeal rapid fire of the rifle did not dry blood that was introduced onto the baffles. This test was carried out in connection with Mark Webster's theory that John Hayward might have mistaken the flake of blood for a flake of soot splattered with blood from both June and NB which might not have intimately mixed providing a false reading which represented SC's blood type/group. Statistical likelihood of the following occurring:
Blood finding its way inside the silencer from gunshot wounds sustained by June and NB.
Blood finding its way inside the silencer from gunshot wounds sustained by June and NB and overlaying a piece of soot.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.0%
Then John Hayward's theory re the mixing:
He started from the proposition clearly supported by evidence that within the sound moderator there would be a very turbulent motion when the rifle was discharged. This by its very nature would produce forces that would tend to mix the blood from the two sources. In addition, the unscrewing of the sound moderator to remove it involved a twisting motion through a number of complete turns, which again would facilitate mixing.
I think I'll stick with pursuing my own testing 8((()*/
John Hayward clearly didn't assess, pre trial or appeal hearing, the effect of heat from firing the rifle on the flake and the fact it had been kept at ambient temperature for over a month. And whether or not this would cause it to degrade so much so it wasn't possible to yield any results from it. He simply assessed whether the heat would cause rapid drying in connection with blood from June and NB splattering a flake of soot.
- As far as I'm aware it's well established that blood starts to dry within 3 to 5 minutes of exposure to air. In any event this is unimportant in connection with what I plan to test.
- I haven't seen any diagrams and/or photos of the flake only a vague description measuring a 1/4 of an inch. I understand a greater quantity is required for serological analysis.
- I understand any exposure to heat will cause degradation.
- The norm is for blood found at soc to be sent to lab asap. In the case of the silencer the norm would be for blood on a non-porous item to be scraped and sent to lab asap and/or kept refridgerated.
- Under no circumstances should blood be placed in the boot (trunk to you) of a car due to potential exposure to heat. I believe something like this happened in the OJ Simpson case. AE's WS confirms she placed silencer in boot and transported to Oak Farm. Unlikely to be any mileage in this as no way of knowing whether her car was parked in shade and/or whether she had windows open etc. Could probably establish the temp that day.
- No other exhibit was capable of serological results by way of ABO grouping, Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase, Adenylate Kinase and Haptoglobin. Why? The blood on the rifle was incapable of grouping and could only be confirmed as human in origin. I want to know why? Why? Why? Why?
-
The short answer is the heat was not even sufficient to rapidly dry the blood let alone to change anything. Extreme heat will not change blood it will make results unable to be obtained. A great number of factors affect how quickly it will break down and results not be obtainable including passage of time. Had they tested the blood much sooner would they have been able to get a stronger AK1 reading? There is no way to know for sure it may have.
I forgot to say I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger AK1 reading"? Are the "readings"/results on a scale of strength?
Silencer: A, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1
SC : A, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1
June : A, EAP BA, AK2-1, HP2-1
NB : O, EAP BA, AK1, HP2-1
If the blood from NB and June became "intimately mixed" this would mean June's A grouping dominated NB's O grouping and NB's AK1 enzyme dominated June's AK2-1. How were they intimately mixed? I have thought for a long time John Hayward's trial testimony might well end up the same way as that of Prof Roy Meadows in the case of Sally Clark.
Forensic scientist George Schiro:
http://www.forensicscienceresources.com/georgecv.htm
with some 30 years experience states:
"Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing".
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/blood-print.html
But the CoA doc states:
"464. Mr Webster made a number of points:
i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood. His one basis for this rather surprising suggestion was that he had noted a flake of soot on one of the baffles".
"Large" sample quarter size
= diameter = 24.26mm
= width = 1.75mm
Flake
= 1/4 inch = 6.35mm
&%+((£
Too many anomalies for my liking:
- Size
- Condition eg exposed to heat and prolonged ambient temperature (above from George Schiro states need "good condition" and don't expose to heat)
- Only exhibit capable of conventional serological analysis. Why the silencer and not the rifle? Especially when the rifle was tested within the first week and the 'flake' in the silencer one month plus later.
-
I was just trying to get straight in my own mind what forensic testing has been done to date:
- DNA - Mark Webster - 2002 CoA
- Photo(shop) 'wet' blood on SC - Profs Meloni and Cavali -
- Scratches on mantle - Peter Sutherst - CCRC App
- SC's GSW's to neck - Dr Fowler - abrasion rings/dirt collars caused by barrel end of rifle not silencer - CCRC app
- NB's burns to neck - Dr Caruso - caused by barrel end of rifle not silencer - CCRC app
Have I missed any?
All made formal submission to CoA or CCRC other than the 'wet' blood photo and all rejected other than Peter Sutherst's scratches which needs further work to advance?
-
So it doesn't appear any direct challenge has been made on the blood/flake. Possible reasons why not:
- No mileage from a biological perspective
- No mileage from a legal perspective in that John Hayward's evidence could have been challenged pre trial or at trial.
- Overlooked due in part to over reliance on John Hayward's testimony
-
"Since blood and other body fluid evidence is biological and is rapidly decomposed by bacteria and mold, it is absolutely essential that such evidence is handled properly".
"Deliver biological evidence to the laboratory as rapidly as possible, since certain blood group factors decompose within a few days".
"It is best to deliver the evidence in person; however, if this is impossible, the evidence should be sent in a styrofoam cooler containing a freezer brick, not ice, by certified mail to that laboratory".
But the blood flake wasn't analysed for some 5 weeks and was subjected to heat and hot gasses in the silencer and ambient temperature over some 5 weeks &%+((£
http://www.firearmsid.com/KSP%20Evidence%20Manual/Biological%20Evidence.htm
-
I was just re-reading my JB books 8)><( well actually only the bits about the blood. According to SL's book Geoffrey Rivlin arranged tests to determine the affect of heat from the rifle/firing/silener/gases for JB's '88/'89 appeal. No mention of the method or results/conclusion and more importantly who carried out these tests. No mention of the fact the flake wasn't analysed until 10th Sept and in the interim had been kept at ambient temperature.
-
I was just re-reading my JB books 8)><( well actually only the bits about the blood. According to SL's book Geoffrey Rivlin arranged tests to determine the affect of heat from the rifle/firing/silener/gases for JB's '88/'89 appeal. No mention of the method or results/conclusion and more importantly who carried out these tests. No mention of the fact the flake wasn't analysed until 10th Sept and in the interim had been kept at ambient temperature.
Here's another potboiler for you to read. Spot the deliberate mistakes. I'll give you a clue to the first one... it's on the cover!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01AT0A71W/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B01AT0A71W&linkCode=as2&tag=sellmescouk-21#reader_B01AT0A71W (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01AT0A71W/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B01AT0A71W&linkCode=as2&tag=sellmescouk-21#reader_B01AT0A71W)
-
Here's another potboiler for you to read. Spot the deliberate mistakes. I'll give you a clue to the first one... it's on the cover!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01AT0A71W/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B01AT0A71W&linkCode=as2&tag=sellmescouk-21#reader_B01AT0A71W (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01AT0A71W/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B01AT0A71W&linkCode=as2&tag=sellmescouk-21#reader_B01AT0A71W)
Thanks but I think I'll give this one a miss!
-
The 'flake' of blood 'found' in the silencer was incapable of withstanding the environment from the claimed 'draw-back' on 7th Aug to 13th Sep when it was analysed by John Hayward at the lab and produced results for antigens, enzymes and a protein: ABO groupings, Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase, Adenylate Kinase and Haptoglobin. Meaning the silencer was accidentally or deliberately contaminated.
- Heat from discharge of 25 cartridges fired in quick succession
- Hot gasses from fatal wound
- Ambient temperature from 7th Aug to 13th Sept
- Cyanoacrylate fuming at Sandridge using the prototype cabinet evaporating ethyl cyanoacrylate at 120 degrees Celsius and venting to the atmosphere.
-
Thanks but I think I'll give this one a miss!
He/she must have changed the previous misleading cover - a knife in a bloody pool - after reading here. Other mistakes in the text still remain.
-
The 'flake' of blood 'found' in the silencer was incapable of withstanding the environment from the claimed 'draw-back' on 7th Aug to 13th Sep when it was analysed by John Hayward at the lab and produced results for antigens, enzymes and a protein: ABO groupings, Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase, Adenylate Kinase and Haptoglobin. Meaning the silencer was accidentally or deliberately contaminated.
- Heat from discharge of 25 cartridges fired in quick succession
- Hot gasses from fatal wound
- Ambient temperature from 7th Aug to 13th Sept
- Cyanoacrylate fuming at Sandridge using the prototype cabinet evaporating ethyl cyanoacrylate at 120 degrees Celsius and venting to the atmosphere.
How do you know all 25 were fired so quickly? There must have been lulls in shooting when the barrel and moderator cooled down - loading the magazine twice, moving from room to room, up and down stairs, the struggle and beating in the kitchen. Even when experts fired the rifle rapidly many times, the moderator only remained slightly warm to the touch.
What were the ambient temperatures during those seven days? Were you in the EPHQ and Home Office lab in 1985?
-
He/she must have changed the previous misleading cover - a knife in a bloody pool - after reading here. Other mistakes in the text still remain.
Oh yeah &%+((£
-
How do you know all 25 were fired so quickly? There must have been lulls in shooting when the barrel and moderator cooled down - loading the magazine twice, moving from room to room, up and down stairs, the struggle and beating in the kitchen. Even when experts fired the rifle rapidly many times, the moderator only remained slightly warm to the touch.
What were the ambient temperatures during those seven days? Were you in the EPHQ and Home Office lab in 1985?
The CoA seemed to set a precedence at JB's 2002 appeal in this regard:
472. Mr Hayward, in contrast, has we are satisfied taken some steps to satisfy himself that he is right. He started from the proposition clearly supported by evidence that within the sound moderator there would be a very turbulent motion when the rifle was discharged. This by its very nature would produce forces that would tend to mix the blood from the two sources. In addition, the unscrewing of the sound moderator to remove it involved a twisting motion through a number of complete turns, which again would facilitate mixing. Starting from this proposition, it seemed to Mr Hayward that the only likelihood of an unmixed flake of blood would be if the blood from one source dried and blood from the other source then fell upon it. That possibility was recognised and experiments were carried out to see what happened when blood was in the moderator and other shots were discharged. First the temperature of the sound moderator was established after 25 shots had been fired through it. The temperature was found to be 24.5 degrees centigrade, which is substantially less than body temperature, and hence not likely to result in any speedy drying of the blood on the moderator. The further test that was carried out was to introduce blood onto the baffles and cause the rifle to be fired to see whether the blood did in fact dry. It did not and hence the conclusion was drawn that the blood would not have dried more quickly in the moderator than on some other non-porous surface. Having regard to the time span involved, it was therefore unlikely that blood from one person would have dried before the other person was shot. It seems to us that this investigative approach is precisely the sort of experimentation that one would expect from a scientist before a theory was advanced as being capable of being relied upon.
Where do you get 7 days from? The blood on the outside of the silencer was tested on 13th Aug the 'flake' inside was not identified and tested until 12th Sept.
On the 15th August the silencer underwent Cyanoacrylate fuming at Sandridge. This involved evaporating ethyl cyanoacrylate at 120 degrees celsius and venting to the atmosphere. An absolute no no with blood used for conventional serological testing (which is what John Hayward did) is humidity.
Blood used in conventional serological testing requires a good quality sample and any exposure to heat and humidity will quickly degrade making it useless. Do you never question why the 'flake' 'found' in the silencer was the only exhibit capable of producing full results for sereological testing by way of Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (EAP Enzyme), Adenylate Kinase (AK Enzyme) and Haptoglobin (HP Protein)? Whereas other exhibits were only capable of confirming ABO groupings and/or human blood in origin. We are told NB sustained a severe beating with the rifle which contained "splashes" and "smears" of blood. This blood would not be subjected to the same degree of heat on the outside of the rifle that the 'flake' was inside the silencer along with the hot gasses. The blood on the outside of the rifle was analysed on 13th Aug and before it was subjected to Cyanoacrylate fuming at Sandridge.
-
I was just re-reading my JB books 8)><( well actually only the bits about the blood. According to SL's book Geoffrey Rivlin arranged tests to determine the affect of heat from the rifle/firing/silener/gases for JB's '88/'89 appeal. No mention of the method or results/conclusion and more importantly who carried out these tests. No mention of the fact the flake wasn't analysed until 10th Sept and in the interim had been kept at ambient temperature.
Obviously the tests failed to help Jeremy or there would have been an attempt to use them. Why they failed is pretty obvious. It didn't get hot enough to dry the blood rapidly let alone so hot that it would provide a basis to say it would be impossible to get any results.
The reality in this case is that Jeremy removed the scope in anticipation of committing the murders, killed everyone while the moderator was attached then removed it, put it in the closet and made up lies about the gun not being able to be stored with the scope and moderator attached and about how he thus found it with them unattached and left it out with them unattached.
These various lies were proven false and in combination with his lies about Nevill phoning him totally sunk him, Julie ratting him out made matters worse of course.
-
Obviously the tests failed to help Jeremy or there would have been an attempt to use them. Why they failed is pretty obvious. It didn't get hot enough to dry the blood rapidly let alone so hot that it would provide a basis to say it would be impossible to get any results.
The reality in this case is that Jeremy removed the scope in anticipation of committing the murders, killed everyone while the moderator was attached then removed it, put it in the closet and made up lies about the gun not being able to be stored with the scope and moderator attached and about how he thus found it with them unattached and left it out with them unattached.
These various lies were proven false and in combination with his lies about Nevill phoning him totally sunk him, Julie ratting him out made matters worse of course.
I think I'll rely on tests/conclusions of independent forensic scientists 8((()*/ Lets see if we can make it front page instead of just online. Watch this space ?>)()<
-
I think I'll rely on tests/conclusions of independent forensic scientists 8((()*/ Lets see if we can make it front page instead of just online. Watch this space ?>)()<
They already spoke. They not only spoke at trial where they refuted the notion the moderator got hot enough to dry blood rapidly but in other cases where drawback was successfully type tested and even DNA tested. You ignore such for some reason but ignoring it accomplishes nothing. Your hopes are pie in the sky simply.
-
I think it is quite amusing that on blue David is insisting he has found new forensic evidence that exonerates Jeremy.
People suggested he simply made the claim to brag and get attention because he refuses to post what this supposed evidence is. He responded that he did it to revitalize the site and spark new debate but how could he spark new debate if he won't reveal any details to discuss?
One of the most hilarious claims is that the evidence needs to be kept a secret to prevent the authorities from seeing it and then setting out to refute it. The authorities will not attempt to refute it unless and until the allegations are made in a legal setting they don't waste their time on allegations raised outside of the process. In the meantime if it needs to be hidden because it is unable to withstand scrutiny then it is nonsense. The best way to test claims are to hold them out to allow full scrutiny and see if the claims can be refuted.
If David is scared of people here or on blue refuting his claims and thus is afraid to post them then it doesn't bode well for such claims...
Here is what NGB described the work as being:
"The material sent to me by david1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate."
-
I think it is quite amusing that on blue David is insisting he has found new forensic evidence that exonerates Jeremy.
People suggested he simply made the claim to brag and get attention because he refuses to post what this supposed evidence is. He responded that he did it to revitalize the site and spark new debate but how could he spark new debate if he won't reveal any details to discuss?
One of the most hilarious claims is that the evidence needs to be kept a secret to prevent the authorities from seeing it and then setting out to refute it. The authorities will not attempt to refute it unless and until the allegations are made in a legal setting they don't waste their time on allegations raised outside of the process. In the meantime if it needs to be hidden because it is unable to withstand scrutiny then it is nonsense. The best way to test claims are to hold them out to allow full scrutiny and see if the claims can be refuted.
If David is scared of people here or on blue refuting his claims and thus is afraid to post them then it doesn't bode well for such claims...
Here is what NGB described the work as being:
"The material sent to me by david1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate."
How many false promises have I made in the past Scip? None! Is my name Mike? No!
-
How many false promises have I made in the past Scip? None! Is my name Mike? No!
You have made plenty of false claims. One of those claims you took form Mike including the false claim Cook took the moderator apart in August. Others are your own.
"JM never told Julie anything. What JM sais about the bike and window in her September statements is written in RWB's diary weeks before hand."
His diary was written in September as a result of her statement. After she came forward with the truth police decided to re-interview Boutflour and he wrote the diary as an aid for his statement.
Your get so many things wrong it is amazing.
After making that false claim you wrote, "Her statements are coerced this is irrefutable because they contain multiple contradictory narratives that a truthful statement would not manifest." This is another fallacy. The statements she made that you have a problem with are claims that she would not have made if coerced by police. If coerced she would have said Jeremy confessed to committing the murders himself and they would have fed her precise details about the crime that had not been released to the public. They would not have coerced her to include erroneous details.
You insisted it was a fact she was coerced and said you would prove it beyond question. You failed to live up to your promise of proving such he evidence you offered failed miserably. All you did was repeat the same arguments you had already made which simply amounted to opinion including your OPINION that it had to be coerced because Jeremy never would have told her the things she claimed. Your opinion that he would not have told her he wanted to kill his family is not proof that he didn't tell her. You elevate your subjective opinion to evidence and favorable unsupported opinion of lawyers as facts. Knowing what I do about your bias, your lack of comprehension on how to effectively prove things and about this case and the limits that exist I know that your claim you or anyone else can prove Sheila did it is a pipedream. There is no conceivable way to prove Sheila did it. There isn't even a viable way to prove it is reasonably likely she did it let alone a certainty.
Instead of presenting it to people who have demonstrated relentless bias and divorced from reality to such a large degree that they tried to appeal using nonsense claims thus are useless in judging the validity of your claims, you need to present it to people who will thoroughly test it to see whether it has any validity. Sycophants will say anything sounds great. If it can't stand up to scrutiny then it is worthless and there is little point in trying to fight for the right to argue it to a court.
If someone is stupid enough to pay for claims by non-experts then they deserve to lose their money. Just remember that when your name is attached to claims that are dismissed as rubbish your ego can take a big hit. You have enough problems handling being refuted on an anonymous message board let alone in a public arena where it can follow you around for life.
-
You have made plenty of false claims. One of those claims you took form Mike including the false claim Cook took the moderator apart in August. Others are your own.
"JM never told Julie anything. What JM sais about the bike and window in her September statements is written in RWB's diary weeks before hand."
His diary was written in September as a result of her statement. After she came forward with the truth police decided to re-interview Boutflour and he wrote the diary as an aid for his statement.
Your get so many things wrong it is amazing.
After making that false claim you wrote, "Her statements are coerced this is irrefutable because they contain multiple contradictory narratives that a truthful statement would not manifest." This is another fallacy. The statements she made that you have a problem with are claims that she would not have made if coerced by police. If coerced she would have said Jeremy confessed to committing the murders himself and they would have fed her precise details about the crime that had not been released to the public. They would not have coerced her to include erroneous details.
You insisted it was a fact she was coerced and said you would prove it beyond question. You failed to live up to your promise of proving such he evidence you offered failed miserably. All you did was repeat the same arguments you had already made which simply amounted to opinion including your OPINION that it had to be coerced because Jeremy never would have told her the things she claimed. Your opinion that he would not have told her he wanted to kill his family is not proof that he didn't tell her. You elevate your subjective opinion to evidence and favorable unsupported opinion of lawyers as facts. Knowing what I do about your bias, your lack of comprehension on how to effectively prove things and about this case and the limits that exist I know that your claim you or anyone else can prove Sheila did it is a pipedream. There is no conceivable way to prove Sheila did it. There isn't even a viable way to prove it is reasonably likely she did it let alone a certainty.
Instead of presenting it to people who have demonstrated relentless bias and divorced from reality to such a large degree that they tried to appeal using nonsense claims thus are useless in judging the validity of your claims, you need to present it to people who will thoroughly test it to see whether it has any validity. Sycophants will say anything sounds great. If it can't stand up to scrutiny then it is worthless and there is little point in trying to fight for the right to argue it to a court.
If someone is stupid enough to pay for claims by non-experts then they deserve to lose their money. Just remember that when your name is attached to claims that are dismissed as rubbish your ego can take a big hit. You have enough problems handling being refuted on an anonymous message board let alone in a public arena where it can follow you around for life.
Oh Dear!
Well all I can say Scip is that once my findings get out whether by me or JBs legal team I hope you take the time to reflect on this post.
-
Oh Dear!
Well all I can say Scip is that once my findings get out whether by me or JBs legal team I hope you take the time to reflect on this post.
I have little doubt that your findings are nonsense. Your claim you can't tell me because I will leak it to the campaign team and the claims might be wrong so they might use it as propaganda is quite silly.
You express little faith in private and and yet so much faith in public.
I find it funny you won't answer simple questions that could end the drama of whether you potentially stole work from Caroline. There is no need to release your findings. All you need do is answer two simple questions. Is your breakthrough related to blood found in the Bible? Is it related to blood on Sheila's hands? If either answer is yes that still doesn't explain in detail what your findings are. If both answers are no it ends the drama. Your refusal to answer is being read by some as evidence that your breakthrough is related to one (or both) of these 2 things.
-
I have little doubt that your findings are nonsense. Your claim you can't tell me because I will leak it to the campaign team and the claims might be wrong so they might use it as propaganda is quite silly.
You express little faith in private and and yet so much faith in public.
I find it funny you won't answer simple questions that could end the drama of whether you potentially stole work from Caroline. There is no need to release your findings. All you need do is answer two simple questions. Is your breakthrough related to blood found in the Bible? Is it related to blood on Sheila's hands? If either answer is yes that still doesn't explain in detail what your findings are. If both answers are no it ends the drama. Your refusal to answer is being read by some as evidence that your breakthrough is related to one (or both) of these 2 things.
I doubt very much if David's claims relate to the blood/bible as it seems David's claims are capable of assisting the defence. The blood/bible would not be capable of assisting the defence (or prosecution) at this stage as it is something that could have been raised at trial. It wasn't therefore the opportunity to pursue this aspect of the case is lost.
http://ccrc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf (http://ccrc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf)
"What is 'new evidence or legal argument'? -
If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will usually need to find some important new evidence or legal argument. Usually this means something that was not covered at your trial or your appeal. For example it may be new evidence not known about at the time, or something that has changed since your trial, like the appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury, the judge or the magistrates, even if you believe that they made the wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that wasn’t raised back then, and that the judges at your appeal didn’t know either, that makes your case look significantly different now."
The CoA have already made it clear they will not accept any evidence that relates to blood staining patterns in points 514 to 520 of the CoA doc for the reasons I have stated above ie that it is something that could have been pursued at trial. It wasn't so it is lost.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
-
I have little doubt that your findings are nonsense. Your claim you can't tell me because I will leak it to the campaign team and the claims might be wrong so they might use it as propaganda is quite silly.
You express little faith in private and and yet so much faith in public.
I find it funny you won't answer simple questions that could end the drama of whether you potentially stole work from Caroline. There is no need to release your findings. All you need do is answer two simple questions. Is your breakthrough related to blood found in the Bible? Is it related to blood on Sheila's hands? If either answer is yes that still doesn't explain in detail what your findings are. If both answers are no it ends the drama. Your refusal to answer is being read by some as evidence that your breakthrough is related to one (or both) of these 2 things.
Apparently David stole research which Caroline posted on blue.
I was informed this research was posted before I joined so must have been well over three years ago. David only joined the Blue forum a year ago. So I doubt he trawled through the forum dating back years, to look for something to steal. If he did, he could choose something a former member posted, who wouldn't challenge him. There are enough former members.
Unless David has given something away in recent posts which show he has stolen Caroline's research, which is doubtful.
-
I doubt very much if David's claims relate to the blood/bible as it seems David's claims are capable of assisting the defence. The blood/bible would not be capable of assisting the defence (or prosecution) at this stage as it is something that could have been raised at trial. It wasn't therefore the opportunity to pursue this aspect of the case is lost.
http://ccrc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf (http://ccrc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf)
"What is 'new evidence or legal argument'? -
If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will usually need to find some important new evidence or legal argument. Usually this means something that was not covered at your trial or your appeal. For example it may be new evidence not known about at the time, or something that has changed since your trial, like the appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury, the judge or the magistrates, even if you believe that they made the wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that wasn’t raised back then, and that the judges at your appeal didn’t know either, that makes your case look significantly different now."
The CoA have already made it clear they will not accept any evidence that relates to blood staining patterns in points 514 to 520 of the CoA doc for the reasons I have stated above ie that it is something that could have been pursued at trial. It wasn't so it is lost.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
The defense would try to say evidence is new because of new science that enables the to interpret the stains better. Whether that would suffice depends on the court. Some are willing to relax/bend rules if it suits them.
If it is not about blood in the Bible or blood on her hands then all he need do is say such and it rules out his breakthrough being any of the things Caroline is referring to. His refusal to rule out such as being his breakthrough makes some think that is what it is because it would be easy to just say it is something else if it is something else.
-
Apparently David stole research which Caroline posted on blue.
I was informed this research was posted before I joined so must have been well over three years ago. David only joined the Blue forum a year ago. So I doubt he trawled through the forum dating back years, to look for something to steal. If he did, he could choose something a former member posted, who wouldn't challenge him. There are enough former members.
Unless David has given something away in recent posts which show he has stolen Caroline's research, which is doubtful.
Thank you Adam.
Then again If many people study the same case its inevitable their work could cross over and such allegations can easily be made I guess.
-
Thank you Adam.
Then again If many people study the same case its inevitable their work could cross over and such allegations can easily be made I guess.
Ummmm... are you saying that your work crossed over Caroline's bible blood print findings?
-
I hope you're not expecting a straight answer, sika! @)(++(*
-
Ummmm... are you saying that your work crossed over Caroline's bible blood print findings?
Short answer - no
Long answer - your not getting one
-
Short answer - no
Long answer - your not getting one
8)><( For one reason or another, I'll have money with you that this 'new discovery' of yours, will never be revealed. I'll give you 18 months.
Shall we say, a £50 donation to Save the Children?
-
I hope you're not expecting a straight answer, sika! @)(++(*
@)(++(*. Spot on Myster. No surprise there though!
-
8)><( For one reason or another, I'll have money with you that this 'new discovery' of yours, will never be revealed. I'll give you 18 months.
Shall we say, a £50 donation to Save the Children?
Considering the amount of abuse I have received both on and off the forums I shall never be releasing or agree to announcing anything again. In the unlikely scenario I find something else in the future, its going straight to JBs QC and know one will know about it. Lesson learned, The past week has been stressful enough. I do not wish to repeat it.
-
Considering the amount of abuse I have received both on and off the forums I shall never be releasing or agree to announcing anything again. In the unlikely scenario I find something else in the future, its going straight to JBs QC and know one will know about it. Lesson learned, The past week has been stressful enough. I do not wish to repeat it.
Having said that, you have to concede that you have also received considerable support, from Jackie! @)(++(* 8)><(
-
Thank you Adam.
Then again If many people study the same case its inevitable their work could cross over and such allegations can easily be made I guess.
Caroline seems adament that you have stolen her research from over three years ago. Which is very modest of her.
I will have to read the thread again one day to find out why.
-
Caroline seems adament that you have stolen her research from over three years ago. Which is very modest of her.
I will have to read the thread again one day to find out why.
I've heard Caro is busy with a top Northern legal firm (the equivalent of the worst in the South) securing intellectual property rights for her research into the bible and palm print ?>)()<
-
Considering the amount of abuse I have received both on and off the forums I shall never be releasing or agree to announcing anything again. In the unlikely scenario I find something else in the future, its going straight to JBs QC and know one will know about it. Lesson learned, The past week has been stressful enough. I do not wish to repeat it.
Why don't you send the details to me David and I will decide if it is unique or not? Needless to say I won't reveal the information.
-
... including a cc if you please, to me, Holly, scipio, Caroline, APRIL, Adam, pugsy and every other Tom, Dick and Harry I haven't mentioned.
Why should John have all the fun!
-
I've heard Caro is busy with a top Northern legal firm (the equivalent of the worst in the South) securing intellectual property rights for her research into the bible and palm print ?>)()<
Caroline can be quite pompous. Often refuting peoples posts with two word answers.
Recently on another forum I commented on other peoples suggestions about Sheila sleeping in the main bedroom. Several posters, including a moderator ganged up on me saying I was the only one saying it. When I quoted other peoples posts Caroline told me I should realise what she really meant. I'm sorry but no one has time to second guess or over analyze someones post. What is written is taken at face value.
Now saying David stole her research from over three years ago and over two years before David joined, is surprising. There are lots of other valid ways to discredit a statement that has no source or evidence to back it up.
In the short term everyone just has to wait for David to publish Hunters or Bamber reply to him.
-
Caroline can be quite pompous. Often refuting peoples posts with two word answers.
Recently on another forum I commented on other peoples suggestions about Sheila sleeping in the main bedroom. Several posters, including a moderator ganged up on me saying I was the only one saying it. When I quoted other peoples posts Caroline told me I should realise what she really meant. I'm sorry but no one has time to second guess or over analyze someones post. What is written is taken at face value.
Now saying David stole her research from over three years ago and over two years before David joined, is surprising. There are lots of other valid ways to discredit a statement that has no source or evidence to back it up.
In the short term everyone just has to wait for David to publish Hunters or Bamber reply to him.
Unless Caroline has been reading private messages, how can she possibly know what evidence David has. That question for David thread is really weird. She suddenly turns really aggressive for no apparent reason.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7600.msg357740.html#msg357740
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7600.msg357741.html#msg357741
-
Unless Caroline has been reading private messages, how can she possibly know what evidence David has. That question for David thread is really weird. She suddenly turns really aggressive for no apparent reason.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7600.msg357740.html#msg357740
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7600.msg357741.html#msg357741
This whole saga, whilst telling us nothing more about the Bamber case, tells us a great deal about the two main protagonists, Caroline and David.
-
Unless Caroline has been reading private messages, how can she possibly know what evidence David has. That question for David thread is really weird. She suddenly turns really aggressive for no apparent reason.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7600.msg357740.html#msg357740
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7600.msg357741.html#msg357741
Hints about what the supposed breakthrough included referenced among other things that it contradicted a factual claim of the Court of Appeals. One of the assertions was that the bulk of the blood on the Bible got there from sitting in a pool of Sheila's blood. Caroline speculated that this COA assertion is what was being refuted by David and repeatedly asked questions to try to see if that is the case. David has refused to answer straight whether this is or isn't the case. His refusal to answer straight has her convinced she is right and convinces her that he is using arguments she made.
All David would need to do in order to end such speculation is to answer straight whether or not his breakthrough involved blood on the Bible. If he answers no then his breakthrough is not related to what Caroline believes. His refusal to answer this question is being taken by Caroline as a tacit admission that it is.
David often makes no sense and doesn't make any sense at all here. He said he posted about his breakthrough to spark discussion. When people try to discuss it as he said he wanted then he refuses to do so. His mentality is like a child who wants to gloat and say I have a secret I have a secret and just tease people. His supposed motivation for posting makes no sense in light of the fact he is unwilling to discuss it. My own sense is that he posted it so that just in case the defense does run with his claim and investigate it that he can brag about deserving credit for it. It wasn't to spark discussion is was to try to lay groundwork for claiming credit.
His reasons for not wanting to disclose the information are absurd. On one hand he exudes great confidence in his work. But he said he is scared to have me peer review his claims because he is scared that I will get the information out to the campaign team and then they will run with it. He says he doesn't want that to happen because he may be wrong and doesn't want them using his work to make erroneous propaganda claims. In my personal opinion what he is really scared of is them stealing his work and him not getting credit. I despise the campaign team and there is no danger of me leaking anything to them or anyone else.
The reason he cited on the board for not wanting his theory to get out is because then the government will find out about the claim sooner than they would if the claim is introduced to them in court filings and that would give them more time to disprove his theory.
First of all this is absurd. Government lawyers are not waiting for claims to come out on websites so they can then test them. They only take claims seriously and try to test them when they are made through the legal process.
But worse, David claims to be objective and said he only wants his breakthrough used by Jeremy if it is true. If that were the case he would want as many people as possible to investigate his claims to see whether they are true. Instead he wants as few people as possible to test it so that there is the least possible opportunity to be proven wrong.
David has a history of hypocrisy and illogic and this squares with that quite well. He is a staunch Jeremy advocate but tries to present himself as impartial to try to gain credibility.
The theory Caroline set forth fell apart under scrutiny and I am sure so will whatever David has conjured up.
-
All David would need to do in order to end such speculation is to answer straight whether or not his breakthrough involved blood on the Bible. If he answers no then his breakthrough is not related to what Caroline believes. His refusal to answer this question is being taken by Caroline as a tacit admission that it is.
I have resolved the issue with Caroline.
David often makes no sense and doesn't make any sense at all here.
I can only explain things to you, I cannot understand them for you
He said he posted about his breakthrough to spark discussion. When people try to discuss it as he said he wanted then he refuses to do so. His mentality is like a child who wants to gloat and say I have a secret I have a secret and just tease people.
I was told over the phone by Andrew Hunter that I should not reveal anything, Hence its now down to his legal team. Teasing people with the information is now my default option.
But he said he is scared to have me peer review his claims because he is scared that I will get the information out to the campaign team and then they will run with it.
Scared? lol I just don't think its appropriate for the CT to have it. As for you "peer reviewing" what's the point? your pro guilt zealotry will stop at nothing other than a video tape of Shelia committing the massacre.
The reason he cited on the board for not wanting his theory to get out is because then the government will find out about the claim sooner than they would if the claim is introduced to them in court filings and that would give them more time to disprove his theory.
First of all this is absurd. Government lawyers are not waiting for claims to come out on websites so they can then test them. They only take claims seriously and try to test them when they are made through the legal process.
That was the reason Andrew Hunter gave me, since he was a member of parliament and held government office, I think he may know better than me and you on the process.
Instead he wants as few people as possible to test it so that there is the least possible opportunity to be proven wrong.
Again you make things up. my reasons are stated above.
David has a history of hypocrisy and illogic and this squares with that quite well.
Why do you see the splinter in my eye and not notice the log in your own eye?
-
I have resolved the issue with Caroline.
I can only explain things to you, I cannot understand them for you
I was told over the phone by Andrew Hunter that I should not reveal anything, Hence its now down to his legal team. Teasing people with the information is now my default option.
Scared? lol I just don't think its appropriate for the CT to have it. As for you "peer reviewing" what's the point? your pro guilt zealotry will stop at nothing other than a video tape of Shelia committing the massacre.
That was the reason Andrew Hunter gave me, since he was a member of parliament and held government office, I think he may know better than me and you on the process.
Again you make things up. my reasons are stated above.
Why do you see the splinter in my eye and not notice the log in your own eye?
You are so biased that you consider anyone who is objective to be an anti-Bamber zealot it really is laughable.
Hunter is a joke. He has made many absurd claims. He is so biased in favor of Jeremy that he doesn't care about the truth he wants the government to have as little chance as possible to try to scrutinize defense claims in hopes that even if they are false the government won't have enough time to prove it.
He is so delusional and paranoid in the meantime that he thinks the government is trolling websites so that they can try to disprove claims before they even are made in the legal process.
If you choose to be as delusional that doesn't bode every well for you. In the meantime it doesn't at all square with your claim that you are objective and just want your theory to be considered if it is actually true and valid. If you wanted to make sure it is true and valid you would release it and let the chips fall where they may. refusing to release it to aid the defense in trying to sandbag the prosecution is not something that an objective person interested in the truth would do. If interested in the truth you let all see your claims and have the opportunity to rigorously test them.
You constantly contradict yourself indeed you contradicted yourself at the outset by saying you were announcing this to spark discussion though you refuse to discuss it and thus there is no way to discuss anything. Your claim you wanted to spark discussion makes no sense. When you make such little sense on such basic issues there is no reason at all to take serious your claim that you have found a breakthrough.
-
Let's face it. Nobody believes that David has unearthed anything remotely interesting.
I find Caroline's attitude rather strange. If David has pinched her research, which has already been published, then so what?
-
I don't believe David and think he has made up this claim to keep the debate alive. I sent him a PM and he didn't bother to reply to me. As for Andrew Hunter, Jeremy told me three years ago that he is lo longer in contact with him. Either reveal what you have found or stop posting. I have hundreds of documents relating to the case which have been through with a fine tooth comb. With so many people working for Jeremy over the years, including many professionals, no one has come up with any evidence to support his innocence. Stop playing games David and get a life.