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: John on November 25, 2012, 11:53:25 PM
-
Serving CCRC Commissioner Ewen Smith once represented Jeremy Bamber as his lawyer. In the following excerpt from one of the many ITN news reports broadcast after the trial, Ewen Smith, then acting for Bamber states, "The CCRC's ah examination of the ah DNA in the silencer has revealed that there is no trace in the female DNA matching Sheila Caffell's...at all...not a scintilla appears of a match." He continues stating that there is every possibility that Sheila Caffell's blood was not in the silencer.
Fast forward to 4.45 (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1)
The truth however as we now know it is that the DNA recovered from inside the silencer and originating from the baffles returned 17 similar markers with Sheila Caffell and it is accepted that up to 13 could be coincidental rendering it highly likely that the DNA found deep within the sound moderator did come from Sheila Caffell.
It should be noted that by using 15 or 16 markers the chances of two people having the same DNA is estimated to be around 1 in a trillion. The chances then that the DNA in the silencer just happened to derive from someone other than Sheila Caffell are so infinitesimally small as to be nigh impossible.
I wonder if he has now changed his position?
-
Serving CCRC Commissioner Ewen Smith once represented Jeremy Bamber as his lawyer. In the following excerpt from one of the many ITN news reports broadcast after the trial, Ewen Smith, then acting for Bamber states, "The CCRC's ah examination of the ah DNA in the silencer has revealed that there is no trace in the female DNA matching Sheila Caffell's...at all...not a scintilla appears of a match." He continues stating that there is every possibility that Sheila Caffell's blood was not in the silencer.
Fast forward to 4.45 (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1)
The truth however as we now know it is that the DNA recovered from inside the silencer and originating from the baffles returned 17 similar markers with Sheila Caffell and it is accepted that up to 13 could be coincidental rendering it highly likely that the DNA found deep within the sound moderator did come from Sheila Caffell.
It should be noted that by using 15 or 16 markers the chances of two people having the same DNA is estimated to be around 1 in a trillion. The chances then that the DNA in the silencer just happened to derive from someone other than Sheila Caffell are so infinitesimally small as to be nigh impossible.
I wonder if he has now changed his position?
So that's Ewen Smith... nice find John, have you seen the film before?
Just goes to show how wrong one can be... sometimes.
-
I may be wrong in this but wasn't there two attempts to extract DNA which related to Sheila from the sound moderator/silencer? It is also worth pointing out that the finding of Sheila's DNA does not prove that her blood was in the silencer but it renders it very likely. It should also be remembered that the original analysis of the blood found on the outside of the silencer found it compatible with Sheila. It was also proven that this blood could not have derived from animals.
The fact that Sheila was not biologically linked to any members of the family except the twins gives further support to the DNA and blood analysis evidence.
-
Patti over on the blue forum offers this gem...
DNA is unique. Your DNA is like a fingerprint but better... If you took 6 lottery numbers and the winning combination is 23, 27, 32, 40, 43, 50 many people will have two three or four numbers only a limited number of one or two might have the 6 numbers, this making it unique to those that have the lottery numbers
If you only had 5 numbers then this is not unique to you.
The LCN DNA test is less reliable that of the SGM test.
If you compare the test results done in the Madeleine M case her markers were set at 19/20 this was one short of it being unique to her.
If you take Shelia's result at 17/20 then this is less likely to be unique with her. However, it does not rule out that there was a mixture of DNA in the silencer. What is does confirm is that the DNA was not unique to Shelia. If this is the case and, based on this evidence alone then the evidence that was submitted in court in 1996 falls....because the jury that asked questions about Shelia's blood being on the silencer were told that it belonged to Sheila.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3628.msg141805.html#msg141805
For goodness sake Patti, do read up on the science of DNA! It isn't a lottery where you have to get as many numbers as you can out of 20. The magic number of 20 is simply the bench mark for criminal prosecutions in the UK, it being much less in places like the USA.
Ask yourself the question? The sound moderator was relatively new and was only used by Nevill or Jeremy. Neither males had any biological connection with Sheila so the chances of any of them sharing any DNA markers in common was purely chance. How then did human DNA get into the sound moderator if it has been shown that such DNA didn't belong to Nevill or Jeremy? Did it actually relate to the twins who were also shot with a rifle fitted with a sound moderator, the same sound moderator which just so happened to find its way back to the gun cupboard?
The probability of two individuals having the same 17 markers in common must be about 1 in a zillion or something. The chances of those two people both being at White House Farm and leaving their DNA in a sound moderator which wasn't used by anyone outside the family must be about a zillion zillion to 1!
In such circumstances Patti, anything over a 13 is a hit!
The DNA didn't relate to anyone else in the family so we are left with only the one possibility...it was Sheila's.
-
477. The CCRC recorded the information available to it as:
"10.2 The silencer had been submitted by the Commission to the FSS for examination in order to establish whether there was more than one person's DNA inside it. On the 6 March 2000, the Commission was informed that the tests had identified the DNA of at least two people inside the silencer and that there was both male and female DNA present. The female DNA was stronger than the male DNA and was present all the way through the inside of the silencer. They were not able to say that the DNA readings were derived from blood, and they were not able to identify from whom the DNA had originated.
-
"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.
-
Oh why stop there, lets have the full story?
493. Since the CCRC referred this case to the court, further DNA testing has taken place of other parts of the moderator. Seven swabbings have been taken from internal parts of the moderator apart from the baffles. All seven results indicated that DNA from more than one person was present. The results were complex and incomplete and it was not possible to determine how many people had contributed to the DNA from the mixture. The predominant contribution appeared to have come from a female or females.
494. When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison.
496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
It should be noted that the benchmark for prosecutions in the UK is set at the relatively high figure of 20 markers. This is what the Forensic Science Service and the judges were and and currently tied to. It has to be accepted however that the chances of anyone else having a match of 17 markers in such a situation as we have here is virtually impossible.
It can only be inferred therefore that if DNA was indeed collected from within the sound moderator, that at least some of it related to Sheila Caffell. Blood found within the sound moderator was also determined to be the same group as that of Sheila Caffell.
This can only lead to one logical conclusion!
-
I may be wrong in this but wasn't there two attempts to extract DNA which related to Sheila from the sound moderator/silencer? It is also worth pointing out that the finding of Sheila's DNA does not prove that her blood was in the silencer but it renders it very likely. It should also be remembered that the original analysis of the blood found on the outside of the silencer found it compatible with Sheila. It was also proven that this blood could not have derived from animals.
The fact that Sheila was not biologically linked to any members of the family except the twins gives further support to the DNA and blood analysis evidence.
You are spot on Dave, in fact there were more than two attempts.
Wicked quotes from results which were received by the CCRC in March 2000. These results recorded that they were unable to find any DNA attributable to Sheila Caffell within the sound moderator.
However, after the CCRC referred the case to the court of appeal further testing took place and it was as a consequence of that further testing that DNA was found which had 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell.
508. In our judgement having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber. That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
In fact nothing has changed since the last appeal with respect to the DNA and blood found on and inside the sound moderator so good luck on Thursday. @)(++(*
-
In fact nothing has changed since the last appeal with respect to the DNA and blood found on and inside the sound moderator so good luck on Thursday. @)(++(*
We could sum up the response from the blue forum quite succinctly in one sentence > There's none so blind as those who will not see. 8(0(*
(http://covertcraven.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/wise-monkeys2.jpg?w=500)
-
Could I clarify this a bit further for the sake of completeness. It was suggested by Patti over on the blue forum today that the DNA evidence as submitted at the last appeal was inconclusive but I find the fact that 17 markers were found to be very conclusive. As has already been pointed out the chances of some innocent person having the same 17 markers in common with Sheila Caffell while at the same time having had access to that sound moderator is so ridiculously small so as to never be taken seriously. Add to that the fact that the recovered DNA originated from a female and that reduces that possibility by yet another 50%. It may not be conclusive but it can never be overturned. Bottom line is that it is a million to 1 for sure that some of the blood and DNA found in the silencer belonged to Sheila Caffell.
The only reason that the court of appeal stated that it was inconclusive was because a 20 marker match was not obtained. So what is the difference between a million to one possibility or a trillion to one possibility in real terms?
Does it matter?
-
I tend to agree with you and that is where the Law is somewhat of an ass if I may be so bold.
There are rules which must be followed in any judgements and followed to the letter otherwise some eloquent young lawyer with a reputation to repair and a string of IVA's to pay off would be able to pick holes in them. The appeal court will be well aware of the significance of the latest DNA results as will be the CCRC consequently the refusal to make a referral. I am quite sure that there will not be any change to this on Thursday.
-
It is not fair and not true to say that the Low Count Numbers DNA were from Sheila. The final conclusion from the CCRC was this...
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other.
That is the top and bottom of it....
If you believe that 19/20 markers that were found in the MM case were not that of M then how can you justify that 17/20 belonged to SC.......Just asking >@@(*&)
-
It is not fair and not true to say that the Low Count Numbers DNA were from Sheila. The final conclusion from the CCRC was this...
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other.
That is the top and bottom of it....
If you believe that 19/20 markers that were found in the MM case were not that of M then how can you justify that 17/20 belonged to SC.......Just asking >@@(*&)
What has Madeleine McCann to do with it?
-
Patti will always attempt to claim that black is white when we all know that black is in fact black. She has now introduced the old contamination chestnut and claims that the tests somehow proved that Sheila's DNA wasn't in the sound moderator when science has shown the opposite to be true.
She apparently doesn't understand the science behind DNA analysis and actually attributes it to a lottery. Quite pathetic if I may say so but there you go...deluded as ever.
The truth about the DNA is really quite simple, the chances of two people having 17 DNA markers in common is as already pointed out well over 1 in a million. The chances of two people having 17 DNA markers in common who also both had access to the sound moderator owned by Nevill Bamber must be infinitesimally small.
You cannot have contamination of DNA, you either have it or you don't have it, there is no middle ground. The chances that DNA collected from the baffles within the sound moderator would match with any citizen within the UK is again millions to one. To use Patti's simplistic analogy, you would have more chance of winning the National Lottery jackpot than you would of having the same 17 marker DNA as that collected from Nevill's sound moderator. That puts the whole thing into perspective.
To conclude, the odds that the DNA obtained from the sound moderator were millions to one yet Sheila Caffell came up with a match on 17 markers. To have done so randomly would have required odds in excess of several million to one. The forensic lab boffins must have been jumping for joy the day those results were obtained because they knew that regardless of the Law and the 20 marker rule that the DNA came from Sheila Caffell.
The fact that blood collected from the sound moderator and tested some years earlier was of the same group as that of Sheila Caffell also lends support to the contention that the DNA actually came from blood. It is a logical progression when both blood and DNA are found within the same object.
-
One other point worth mentioning. When this debate was aired some time ago the pro Bamber crowd tried to argue that the blood could have come from animals which Jeremy had shot on the farm, more specifically, rabbits.
http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber.html
Forensic scientist Mark Webster however was able to prove that this was not the case and in turn strongly criticised the Jeremy bamber forum for promoting false information in the case thus...
An "official website for Jeremy Bamber" has suggested that animal blood may have been confused with human blood:
"Human blood is made up of a number of different constituents including red and white blood cells, a number of different enzymes and plasma. Forensic science uses some of these enzymes to differentiate blood samples from coming from one person rather than another.
One of these is the AK enzyme and this became important in this case. This enzyme was used to say that the blood flake discovered inside the sound moderator came from Sheila and no one else. Humans have two types of the AK enzyme, AK1 enzyme and AK2-1. The blood flake was analyzed and found to contain the AK1 enzyme therefore it came from someone with blood group A.
What the court was not told was that the AK-1 enzyme that is found in human blood is genetically identical to the AK-1 enzyme found in the blood of pigs, cattle, rabbits, chickens and the fish carp."
Scientist Mark Webster responded as follows:
Adenylate Kinases are enzymes that catalyse the inter-conversion of different forms of adenosine phosphate. In humans and animals, different enzymes with AK activity are located in different parts of the cells and in different tissues. These are designated: AK1, AK2, AK3 etc.
There is confusion in the nomenclature. The AK enzyme that forensic scientists call "AK" is "AK1"
AK1 itself occurs in different forms in humans. Forensic scientists decided to call these different forms 1, 2 etc. and never used the 1 from AK1. This gives rise to the nomenclature: AK 1, AK 2 and AK 2.1.
The type of AK1 enzyme in a sample of blood was revealed using a technique called starch gel electrophoresis. The test result appear as different patterns of blue bands on a thin film of white starch gel, the patterns corresponding to the different AK1 blood types. The result obtained from the blood flake found in the sound moderator is shown below with known AK 1 and AK 2.1 control samples:
(http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/AKplate.jpg)
Rabbit AK1 is quite similar to human AK1, but it is not identical. About 5% of the structure differs between the two species. I cannot exclude the possibility that rabbit or some other animal AK1 could be mistaken for one of the human AK1 types using starch gel electrophoresis, but I think this is extremely unlikely. It should also be noted that the blood flake gave a positive result in a test for human proteins and other enzyme typing tests gave typically human results.
The ABO blood grouping system - familiar from blood transfusions - splits most of the population into the blood groups A, B, O and AB. The ABO system was also used to characterise blood in the sound moderator. The ABO blood groups reflect the structure of antigens attached to red blood cell membranes and antibodies in the blood. ABO antigens and antibodies are unrelated to the AK enzymes.
The statement "The blood flake was analyzed and found to contain the AK1 enzyme therefore it came from someone with blood group A." is gibberish. A person's AK type does not predict that person's ABO group.
So there you have it, yet another blue forum theory shot to pieces. @)(++(*
-
John, brilliant post! Undermines MANY arugments put forward by many on the blue forum. I remember telling them that they didn't have it right but I couldn't find this info, well don! - this was about a year ago when they were claiming that the evidence should be thrown out of court because it could have been rabbit blood. Now they will see they were wrong.
Seems to happen a lot in the Bamber case. Am looking forward to the two court dates!
-
Patti will always attempt to claim that black is white when we all know that black is in fact black. She has now introduced the old contamination chestnut and claims that the tests somehow proved that Sheila's DNA wasn't in the sound moderator when science has shown the opposite to be true.
She apparently doesn't understand the science behind DNA analysis and actually attributes it to a lottery. Quite pathetic if I may say so but there you go...deluded as ever.
The truth about the DNA is really quite simple, the chances of two people having 17 DNA markers in common is as already pointed out well over 1 in a million. The chances of two people having 17 DNA markers in common who also both had access to the sound moderator owned by Nevill Bamber must be infinitesimally small.
You cannot have contamination of DNA, you either have it or you don't have it, there is no middle ground. The chances that DNA collected from the baffles within the sound moderator would match with any citizen within the UK is again millions to one. To use Patti's simplistic analogy, you would have more chance of winning the National Lottery jackpot than you would of having the same 17 marker DNA as that collected from Nevill's sound moderator. That puts the whole thing into perspective.
To conclude, the odds that the DNA obtained from the sound moderator were millions to one yet Sheila Caffell came up with a match on 17 markers. To have done so randomly would have required odds in excess of several million to one. The forensic lab boffins must have been jumping for joy the day those results were obtained because they knew that regardless of the Law and the 20 marker rule that the DNA came from Sheila Caffell.
The fact that blood collected from the sound moderator and tested some years earlier was of the same group as that of Sheila Caffell also lends support to the contention that the DNA actually came from blood. It is a logical progression when both blood and DNA are found within the same object.
Hi John
I am not a deluded person, I search for the truth and neither do I twist the truth is order to suit. If I am wrong I will say I am wrong, but If I know what I am saying to be fact, then I will stand by that that fact.
And the fact is, that the LCN DNA that was taken in 2002 could not determine 100% that it belonged to Sheila. The conclusion was, that it may have done. The other conclusion was, that it could not be determined that the DNA taken, was from blood.
In my opinion no tests on the moderator would ever be conclusive after 27 years. There is no blood left inside of the moderator to test. Although there is DNA and that DNA could belong to anyone that had handled it.
The other thing I would like to mention, is that the rifle had been test fired with the sound moderator attached by Flethcher......So is it likely that any DNA from the rifle nozzle could have been projected up through the moderator due to hot gases.
John you have wanted me to come on here to debate for a long time.....Here I am, but please don't call me names. I'm not like that. Have a good day all..... 8)-)))
-
Morning Wicked.
I like you and appreciate you taking the trouble to come across and debate this issue as it isn't allowed on the Bamber forum for obvious reasons.
I agree that the words 'can't be shown conclusively' were used in respect of the DNA and Sheila Caffell in 2002 but the chance that it wasn't Sheila's DNA is several million to one. You can't argue with those odds but you seem to want to?
In addition, if you add to this the fact that the DNA was female and whoever it belonged to had to have come into contact with the sound moderator then you have a situation where it couldn't possibly have been anyone else's DNA other than Sheila Caffell.
The DNA doesn't belong to just anybody who handled the moderator otherwise there wouldn't be such a close link to Sheila Caffell. I agree that the link to blood hasn't been made scientifically but what else could it have come from?
-
Andrea, I notice that Caroline across on the Bamber forum is promoting the lie that Sheila's DNA wasn't found in the DRB/01 sound moderator when DNA analysis became available in 2001. This has been explored in great depth and the chances that the DNA didn't belong to Sheila was several million to one. Maybe Caroline believes in such odds but I certain don't.
The bottom line is the silencer was purchased new and only the Bamber family used it. In those circumstances therefore and taking into account the fact that Sheila was not biologically connected to any of the adults on the farm, there can only be one conclusion. The DNA found on the innermost baffles did in fact belong to Sheila Caffell and most probably derived from her blood which was most definitely found in the silencer in 1985.
-
Where do you think the silencer is now John?
Obviously in safe keeping as this case has always been subject to an appeal application
Forensic science has moved on so much and maybe the blood issue could be decided without any doubt once and for all?
-
Where do you think the silencer is now John?
Obviously in safe keeping as this case has always been subject to an appeal application
Forensic science has moved on so much and maybe the blood issue could be decided without any doubt once and for all?
It already has been. Bamber fanatics who believe that there has been a conspiracy, will always cast doubt on any piece of evidence. It's so easy.
-
It was either 17 or 18 markers matched sheilas blood, thats a lot. Not conclusive but pretty much certain.
I was signed into both forums last night john, but i wasnt actually at the computer.
-
It was either 17 or 18 markers matched sheilas blood, thats a lot. Not conclusive but pretty much certain.
I was signed into both forums last night john, but i wasnt actually at the computer.
Considering you don't even need that many matches in order to get a conviction in the USA I would call that pretty dam convincing!!!!!!!
Carolinr or is it Keira obviously is grasping at more straws. @)(++(*
-
The accepted threshold for DNA for legal purposes in the UK is currently set very high at 10 pairs or 20 markers. In the USA the threshold is much lower and varies between States. It is quite remarkable that when the silencer was tested for DNA it returned a 17 marker exact match to Sheila Caffell. The forensic scientists must have been gob-smacked when these results were obtained since the sample was so small. In fact, the sample was so small that they couldn't even tell whether it was blood or not.
Luckily, tests were conducted in 1985 when a larger sample was available and this returned a result which showed that the blood was human and was indistinguishable with that of Sheila Caffell.
It was reported at the last appeal that the tests were inconclusive but one must realise that this is because the threshold is set so high. In actual fact, the chances that the sample found in the silence did not come from Sheila must be at least 10 million to one at the very least. That for me is conclusive in anyone's money!
-
Serving CCRC Commissioner Ewen Smith once represented Jeremy Bamber as his lawyer. In the following excerpt from one of the many ITN news reports broadcast after the trial, Ewen Smith, then acting for Bamber states, "The CCRC's ah examination of the ah DNA in the silencer has revealed that there is no trace in the female DNA matching Sheila Caffell's...at all...not a scintilla appears of a match." He continues stating that there is every possibility that Sheila Caffell's blood was not in the silencer.
Fast forward to 4.45 (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1)
The truth however as we now know it is that the DNA recovered from inside the silencer and originating from the baffles returned 17 similar markers with Sheila Caffell and it is accepted that up to 13 could be coincidental rendering it highly likely that the DNA found deep within the sound moderator did come from Sheila Caffell.
It should be noted that by using 15 or 16 markers the chances of two people having the same DNA is estimated to be around 1 in a trillion. The chances then that the DNA in the silencer just happened to derive from someone other than Sheila Caffell are so infinitesimally small as to be nigh impossible.
I wonder if he has now changed his position?
Call me naive or stupid but up until I read Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes I thought that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100%. I had not realised that it was simply her type which is shared by others including that of her Uncle, Mr Boutflour, who I believe had a hand in finding the silencer 8(0(*. According to Wilkes, Jeremy's QC decided not to present this information to the jury >@@(*&).
In the above link Mr Ewan Smith seems to imply that the blood found in the silencer is that of Sheila Caffell's or a mixture of Mr and Mrs Bamber's 8-)(--) He makes no reference to the possibility of contamination/Mr Boutflour 8-)(--)
Here is a link to the 'Crimes That Shook Britian - Jeremy Bamber'. At about 18.30 in DI Mr Bob Miller seems to also imply that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100% 8-)(--)
-
Call me naive or stupid but up until I read Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes I thought that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100%. I had not realised that it was simply her type which is shared by others including that of her Uncle, Mr Boutflour, who I believe had a hand in finding the silencer 8(0(* . According to Wilkes, Jeremy's QC decided not to present this information to the jury >@@(*&).
In the above link Mr Ewan Smith seems to imply that the blood found in the silencer is that of Sheila Caffell's or a mixture of Mr and Mrs Bamber's 8-)(--) He makes no reference to the possibility of contamination/Mr Boutflour 8-)(--)
Here is a link to the 'Crimes That Shook Britian - Jeremy Bamber'. At about 18.30 in DI Mr Bob Miller seems to also imply that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100% 8-)(--)
It was Sheila's cousin David Boutflour who found and handled the silencer before he realised that it was contaminated with blood, Holly... blood was found deep within the baffles as a result it is thought of being backspattered from a close contact shot to Sheila's neck, rather than by any unintended or devious means by either Robert or David Boutflour.
-
Serving CCRC Commissioner Ewen Smith once represented Jeremy Bamber as his lawyer. In the following excerpt from one of the many ITN news reports broadcast after the trial, Ewen Smith, then acting for Bamber states, "The CCRC's ah examination of the ah DNA in the silencer has revealed that there is no trace in the female DNA matching Sheila Caffell's...at all...not a scintilla appears of a match." He continues stating that there is every possibility that Sheila Caffell's blood was not in the silencer.
Fast forward to 4.45 (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1)
The truth however as we now know it is that the DNA recovered from inside the silencer and originating from the baffles returned 17 similar markers with Sheila Caffell and it is accepted that up to 13 could be coincidental rendering it highly likely that the DNA found deep within the sound moderator did come from Sheila Caffell.
It should be noted that by using 15 or 16 markers the chances of two people having the same DNA is estimated to be around 1 in a trillion. The chances then that the DNA in the silencer just happened to derive from someone other than Sheila Caffell are so infinitesimally small as to be nigh impossible.
I wonder if he has now changed his position?
Call me naive or stupid but up until I read Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes I thought that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100%. I had not realised that it was simply her type which is shared by others including that of her Uncle, Mr Boutflour, who I believe had a hand in finding the silencer 8(0(*. According to Wilkes, Jeremy's QC decided not to present this information to the jury >@@(*&).
In the above link Mr Ewan Smith seems to imply that the blood found in the silencer is that of Sheila Caffell's or a mixture of Mr and Mrs Bamber's 8-)(--) He makes no reference to the possibility of contamination/Mr Boutflour 8-)(--)
Here is a link to the 'Crimes That Shook Britian - Jeremy Bamber'. At about 18.30 in DI Mr Bob Miller seems to also imply that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100% 8-)(--)
Oh silly me I forgot to add the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc
-
Call me naive or stupid but up until I read Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes I thought that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100%. I had not realised that it was simply her type which is shared by others including that of her Uncle, Mr Boutflour, who I believe had a hand in finding the silencer 8(0(* . According to Wilkes, Jeremy's QC decided not to present this information to the jury >@@(*&).
In the above link Mr Ewan Smith seems to imply that the blood found in the silencer is that of Sheila Caffell's or a mixture of Mr and Mrs Bamber's 8-)(--) He makes no reference to the possibility of contamination/Mr Boutflour 8-)(--)
Here is a link to the 'Crimes That Shook Britian - Jeremy Bamber'. At about 18.30 in DI Mr Bob Miller seems to also imply that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100% 8-)(--)
It was Sheila's cousin David Boutflour who found and handled the silencer before he realised that it was contaminated with blood, Holly... blood was found deep within the baffles as a result it is thought of being backspattered from a close contact shot to Sheila's neck, rather than by any unintended or devious means by either Robert or David Boutflour.
Yes Myster I believe it was David Boutfour who found the silencer. But I think I'm right in saying that Ann Eaton, David and Robert Boutflour then took possession of it and inspected it around a table at Oak Farm. And that the silencer was transported in the back of Ann Eaton's Ford Sierra along with Sheila's blood stained clothing. >@@(*&)
-
That is the classic misinformation put about by the other site. They cannot make up their minds whether to discredit the forensic evidence by saying it was poor match to Sheila or if it was a perfect match due to deliberate contamination by the relatives. They also have an obsession with Sheila's clothes.
They also like to claim that Sheila did it after she was shot for the first time, ran around the house, evaded the police and barked like a dog, with a bullet wound to the throat only to be shot a second time by the police and then Jeremy was framed in a massive cover up by Special Branch. Only one brave policeman saw through all this and correctly identified Sheila as the killer but he was silenced by a Masonic conspiracy.
Like I say it is Fantasy Island over there.
The Bamber case is boring and obvious and there are much better cases to review.
-
Call me naive or stupid but up until I read Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes I thought that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100%. I had not realised that it was simply her type which is shared by others including that of her Uncle, Mr Boutflour, who I believe had a hand in finding the silencer 8(0(*. According to Wilkes, Jeremy's QC decided not to present this information to the jury >@@(*&).
In the above link Mr Ewan Smith seems to imply that the blood found in the silencer is that of Sheila Caffell's or a mixture of Mr and Mrs Bamber's 8-)(--) He makes no reference to the possibility of contamination/Mr Boutflour 8-)(--)
Here is a link to the 'Crimes That Shook Britian - Jeremy Bamber'. At about 18.30 in DI Mr Bob Miller seems to also imply that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100% 8-)(--)
To put the blood, the silencer/sound moderator and the DNA into perspective Holly, the follow is what is known and true.
In 1986 it was proven that,
- Blood was found both inside and outside of the silencer.
- This blood was human blood, it did not come from animals.
- The blood was of the same group as that of Sheila Caffell.
In addition, in 2002 it was discovered that,
- DNA from material with a 17 marker match to Sheila Caffell was found on baffles deep with the silencer.
- It could not be ascertained what this material came from but it was assumed to be blood given the earlier discovery.
-
Call me naive or stupid but up until I read Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes I thought that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100%. I had not realised that it was simply her type which is shared by others including that of her Uncle, Mr Boutflour, who I believe had a hand in finding the silencer 8(0(*. According to Wilkes, Jeremy's QC decided not to present this information to the jury >@@(*&).
In the above link Mr Ewan Smith seems to imply that the blood found in the silencer is that of Sheila Caffell's or a mixture of Mr and Mrs Bamber's 8-)(--) He makes no reference to the possibility of contamination/Mr Boutflour 8-)(--)
Here is a link to the 'Crimes That Shook Britian - Jeremy Bamber'. At about 18.30 in DI Mr Bob Miller seems to also imply that the blood found in the silencer was that of Sheila's 100% 8-)(--)
To put the blood, the silencer/sound moderator and the DNA into perspective Holly, the follow is what is known and true.
In 1986 it was proven that,
- Blood was found both inside and outside of the silencer.
- This blood was human blood, it did not come from animals.
- The blood was of the same group as that of Sheila Caffell.
In addition, in 2002 it was discovered that,
- DNA from material with a 17 marker match to Sheila Caffell was found on baffles deep with the silencer.
- It could not be ascertained what this material came from but it was assumed to be blood given the earlier discovery.
Thank you for the above John.
I have read the R v Jeremy Nevill Bamber 2002 appeal hearing and I believe it states that the main source of DNA was from Mrs Bamber 8-)(--)
I understand that as the DNA testing was based on LCN it is super sensitive and the potential for contamination is significant especially when the silencer was handled etc at a time when such a test was not even envisaged. I personally do not think anything of any consequence can be gained from the LCN DNA testing/results hence the appeal court judges rightly threw it out.
-
That is the classic misinformation put about by the other site. They cannot make up their minds whether to discredit the forensic evidence by saying it was poor match to Sheila or if it was a perfect match due to deliberate contamination by the relatives. They also have an obsession with Sheila's clothes.
They also like to claim that Sheila did it after she was shot for the first time, ran around the house, evaded the police and barked like a dog, with a bullet wound to the throat only to be shot a second time by the police and then Jeremy was framed in a massive cover up by Special Branch. Only one brave policeman saw through all this and correctly identified Sheila as the killer but he was silenced by a Masonic conspiracy.
Like I say it is Fantasy Island over there.
The Bamber case is boring and obvious and there are much better cases to review.
Outlook how could you do this to me...I've spent hours reading up on the Bamber case, purchased all the books etc and now you tell me it is boring and obvious 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( Well I have to say it's not boring and obvious to me...yet @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
If what you say is true, and I'm sure it is, regarding posters stating that Sheila barked like a dog etc then those that post such rubbish should feel a sense of shame. Regardless of whether Sheila was responsible due to suffering from a dreadful mental illness or her brother was responsible she was undoubtedly a victim.
No such thing exists as a "poor match" or "perfect match". At the end of the day Sheila's blood type matched that found in the silencer and her Uncle's, Robert Boutfour. This blood type can be found amongst many members of the population. Why was the jury not made aware of the potential for contamination from potentially multiple sources? Of course the thought has crossed my mind did the relatives plant the so-called blood evidence in an attempt to frame Jeremy and secure his inheritance which was rightfully his if he is innocent?
-
Deliberate contamination by RB would suggest that he had to know he and Sheila were the same blood group, would it not? I doubt RB knew he and Sheila shared the same Blood group.
-
Deliberate contamination by RB would suggest that he had to know he and Sheila were the same blood group, would it not? I doubt RB knew he and Sheila shared the same Blood group.
Andrea that's exactly what I thought initially. Then I thought about discussions I've had with family members, just general chit chat, about which blood group we belong to A, B, O. It is often something discussed a bit like horoscopes. But then the test results yielded 4 readings all of which were shared by Mr Boutflour and Sheila but I certainly would not have been aware of the potential for these other readings. Is it entirely innocent/coincidence or something sinister? No idea. Certainly think the jury should have been given the opportunity to consider this. ?{)(**
-
That is the classic misinformation put about by the other site. They cannot make up their minds whether to discredit the forensic evidence by saying it was poor match to Sheila or if it was a perfect match due to deliberate contamination by the relatives. They also have an obsession with Sheila's clothes.
They also like to claim that Sheila did it after she was shot for the first time, ran around the house, evaded the police and barked like a dog, with a bullet wound to the throat only to be shot a second time by the police and then Jeremy was framed in a massive cover up by Special Branch. Only one brave policeman saw through all this and correctly identified Sheila as the killer but he was silenced by a Masonic conspiracy.
Like I say it is Fantasy Island over there.
The Bamber case is boring and obvious and there are much better cases to review.
Outlook how could you do this to me...I've spent hours reading up on the Bamber case, purchased all the books etc and now you tell me it is boring and obvious 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( Well I have to say it's not boring and obvious to me...yet @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
If what you say is true, and I'm sure it is, regarding posters stating that Sheila barked like a dog etc then those that post such rubbish should feel a sense of shame. Regardless of whether Sheila was responsible due to suffering from a dreadful mental illness or her brother was responsible she was undoubtedly a victim.
No such thing exists as a "poor match" or "perfect match". At the end of the day Sheila's blood type matched that found in the silencer and her Uncle's, Robert Boutfour. This blood type can be found amongst many members of the population. Why was the jury not made aware of the potential for contamination from potentially multiple sources? Of course the thought has crossed my mind did the relatives plant the so-called blood evidence in an attempt to frame Jeremy and secure his inheritance which was rightfully his if he is innocent?
I am afraid that is very much the case. Most books are inaccurate or hideously biased and the lies and speculation spread from the "Blue Forum" to confuse everyone, but that is their purpose. They strongly believe that endlessly repeating a lie makes it true.
The main thought must be: "Is it really likely that relatives would embark on an elaborate "fit-up" after murdering an entire family using information they could not possibly know and probably exceeded the knowledge of forensic science at the time and they were so good at it that the evidence survives several critical appeals and reviews for almost 30 years and for what?" The Bambers did not even own White House Farm. It was leased.
It is nice to believe in conspiracies and all powerful government organizations that kill and fit people up for no apparent reason but Bamber is not worth the time or effort.
-
That is the classic misinformation put about by the other site. They cannot make up their minds whether to discredit the forensic evidence by saying it was poor match to Sheila or if it was a perfect match due to deliberate contamination by the relatives. They also have an obsession with Sheila's clothes.
They also like to claim that Sheila did it after she was shot for the first time, ran around the house, evaded the police and barked like a dog, with a bullet wound to the throat only to be shot a second time by the police and then Jeremy was framed in a massive cover up by Special Branch. Only one brave policeman saw through all this and correctly identified Sheila as the killer but he was silenced by a Masonic conspiracy.
Like I say it is Fantasy Island over there.
The Bamber case is boring and obvious and there are much better cases to review.
Outlook how could you do this to me...I've spent hours reading up on the Bamber case, purchased all the books etc and now you tell me it is boring and obvious 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( Well I have to say it's not boring and obvious to me...yet @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
If what you say is true, and I'm sure it is, regarding posters stating that Sheila barked like a dog etc then those that post such rubbish should feel a sense of shame. Regardless of whether Sheila was responsible due to suffering from a dreadful mental illness or her brother was responsible she was undoubtedly a victim.
No such thing exists as a "poor match" or "perfect match". At the end of the day Sheila's blood type matched that found in the silencer and her Uncle's, Robert Boutfour. This blood type can be found amongst many members of the population. Why was the jury not made aware of the potential for contamination from potentially multiple sources? Of course the thought has crossed my mind did the relatives plant the so-called blood evidence in an attempt to frame Jeremy and secure his inheritance which was rightfully his if he is innocent?
I am afraid that is very much the case. Most books are inaccurate or hideously biased and the lies and speculation spread from the "Blue Forum" to confuse everyone, but that is their purpose. They strongly believe that endlessly repeating a lie makes it true.
The main thought must be: "Is it really likely that relatives would embark on an elaborate "fit-up" after murdering an entire family using information they could not possibly know and probably exceeded the knowledge of forensic science at the time and they were so good at it that the evidence survives several critical appeals and reviews for almost 30 years and for what?" The Bambers did not even own White House Farm. It was leased.
It is nice to believe in conspiracies and all powerful government organizations that kill and fit people up for no apparent reason but Bamber is not worth the time or effort.
I found Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes very objective. In fact I believe Jeremy's relatives co-operated/were interviewed by Roger Wilkes 8-)(--)
I have no idea whether Jeremy's family tampered with the silencer/evidence or indeed whether some other form of innocent or deliberate contamination took place. It is certainly possible. The forensic science available at the time, including procedures used etc for gathering evidence, was by today's standards rudimentary.
The combined estate of Mr and Mrs Bamber was valued at 436k gross.
Yes the evidence has survived several appeals but this may be due to 'herd mentality' and/or flawed group thinking.
In 2008 the entire global financial system almost collapsed. The current Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Lord Turner, describes it as "50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake". Do I believe a handful of judges, qc's and a quango can call it wrong?...you bet I do 8(0(*
-
For me the question of the significance of the silencer is of low priority and indeed consequence. We know from the positioning of the bullet casings who was shot where and we can almost determine the sequence of those shootings. It is clear from the unassailable evidence that Nevill and June were surprised in their bedroom. June was shot where she lay while Nevill was shot at or near the door to the bedroom.
The intruder did not break in by force, he let himself in through a window which he had done many times before.
We know that Nevill Bamber never made any telephone call to police that morning irrespective of the speculation by Bamber and his cronies. Not a single police officer or operator received such a call. The only telephone call was made by Jeremy Bamber and even then he didn't think fit to dial 999.
Why did Jeremy Bamber lie? Only one reason...to cover his own tracks.
-
For me the question of the significance of the silencer is of low priority and indeed consequence. We know from the positioning of the bullet casings who was shot where and we can almost determine the sequence of those shootings. It is clear from the unassailable evidence that Nevill and June were surprised in their bedroom. June was shot where she lay while Nevill was shot at or near the door to the bedroom.
The intruder did not break in by force, he let himself in through a window which he had done many times before.
We know that Nevill Bamber never made any telephone call to police that morning irrespective of the speculation by Bamber and his cronies. Not a single police officer or operator received such a call. The only telephone call was made by Jeremy Bamber and even then he didn't think fit to dial 999.
Why did Jeremy Bamber lie? Only one reason...to cover his own tracks.
You may well be right John but the point is there is no evidence to support most of the above. I find there are too many assumptions made about the case especially with regard to the sequence of events and timings. In the absence of satellite technology and digital recordings we are left with...er not a lot really 8-)(--)
You are obviously far more familiar with the case than I am and I respect your views and belief that Jeremy is guilty as charged. At this moment in time I am open minded.
-
Roger Wilkes also interviewed and consulted with Bamber while writing Blood Relations, not just the wider family.
-
For me the question of the significance of the silencer is of low priority and indeed consequence. We know from the positioning of the bullet casings who was shot where and we can almost determine the sequence of those shootings. It is clear from the unassailable evidence that Nevill and June were surprised in their bedroom. June was shot where she lay while Nevill was shot at or near the door to the bedroom.
The intruder did not break in by force, he let himself in through a window which he had done many times before.
We know that Nevill Bamber never made any telephone call to police that morning irrespective of the speculation by Bamber and his cronies. Not a single police officer or operator received such a call. The only telephone call was made by Jeremy Bamber and even then he didn't think fit to dial 999.
Why did Jeremy Bamber lie? Only one reason...to cover his own tracks.
You may well be right John but the point is there is no evidence to support most of the above. I find there are too many assumptions made about the case especially with regard to the sequence of events and timings. In the absence of satellite technology and digital recordings we are left with...er not a lot really 8-)(--)
You are obviously far more familiar with the case than I am and I respect your views and belief that Jeremy is guilty as charged. At this moment in time I am open minded.
You can't just dismiss the known evidence Holly. I agree that too many assumptions can be made but at the end of the day blood matching Sheila was found in the silencer in 1985 and DNA which certainly belonged to her was found when the most inaccessible baffles were tested in 2002. Where this DNA originated and how Sheila's blood got into the silencer are two questions which will never be answered.
For this very reason I prefer to look at other evidence to find Jeremy Bamber guilty.
-
Holly, do you think the blood in the silencer was Sheila's? If not, who do you think it belongs to? Not forgetting that Sheila wasnt actually Blood related to her adopted family.
-
For me the question of the significance of the silencer is of low priority and indeed consequence. We know from the positioning of the bullet casings who was shot where and we can almost determine the sequence of those shootings. It is clear from the unassailable evidence that Nevill and June were surprised in their bedroom. June was shot where she lay while Nevill was shot at or near the door to the bedroom.
The intruder did not break in by force, he let himself in through a window which he had done many times before.
We know that Nevill Bamber never made any telephone call to police that morning irrespective of the speculation by Bamber and his cronies. Not a single police officer or operator received such a call. The only telephone call was made by Jeremy Bamber and even then he didn't think fit to dial 999.
Why did Jeremy Bamber lie? Only one reason...to cover his own tracks.
You may well be right John but the point is there is no evidence to support most of the above. I find there are too many assumptions made about the case especially with regard to the sequence of events and timings. In the absence of satellite technology and digital recordings we are left with...er not a lot really 8-)(--)
You are obviously far more familiar with the case than I am and I respect your views and belief that Jeremy is guilty as charged. At this moment in time I am open minded.
You can't just dismiss the known evidence Holly. I agree that too many assumptions can be made but at the end of the day blood matching Sheila was found in the silencer in 1985 and DNA which certainly belonged to her was found when the most inaccessible baffles were tested in 2002. Where this DNA originated and how Sheila's blood got into the silencer are two questions which will never be answered.
For this very reason I prefer to look at other evidence to find Jeremy Bamber guilty.
It is not necessary for me to dismiss known evidence John as I simply do not believe any exists to dismiss and I don't say this facetiously.
Here is an excerpt from the 2002 Appeal Hearing as you will see it categorically states that it could not be proved one way or the other whether Sheila's DNA was in the silencer. June Bamber's DNA was found and an unidentified male.
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
I've already set out my stall re the so-called blood evidence. Yes Sheila's blood type matched that found in the silencer and the sample provided by Robert Boutflour. This does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Sheila's. Many members of the population share Sheila and Robert's blood type and there's no record of where the silencer had been/who handled it. This should have been made clear to the jury. Instead they were misled into thinking that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" to Sheila's. In other words that it was exclusive to Sheila.
All the rest about phone logs/calls/bikes/wetsuits/he said this/she said that/blah, blah it is not measurable/scientific. It is all subjective.
-
Holly, do you think the blood in the silencer was Sheila's? If not, who do you think it belongs to? Not forgetting that Sheila wasnt actually Blood related to her adopted family.
Andrea I honestly do not know as there is simply no conclusive evidence either way. Please see my previous post.
I appreciate that Sheila was not a blood relation and this is the biggest obstacle for me to overcome in believing Jeremy to be guilty. I understand that 1 in 6 suffers mental illness. Although some figures seem to suggest it is as high as 1 in 4. Either way this equates to 16.66% or 25.00% of the population. So for me to believe Jeremy to be guilty I have to accept that 4 individuals thrown together pretty much at random by that I mean via marriage and adoption exceed the statistical average by up to 58.34% (June and Sheila mental illness, Jeremy personality disordered) It is this statistical anomaly that I have difficulty with.
Peter Vanezis stated that if Jeremy is responsible he would have to have been mad. Peter Vanezis is not a psychologist/psychiatrist so probably not really qualified to make such a statement. But I am sure most would agree that if Jeremy is responsible he surely cannot be defined as 'normal'. I understand Jeremy has been tested numerous times and shows no signs of psychopathy. But if we assume Jeremy is responsible this must mean 75% of the family were suffering from mental illness/personality disorder. Whereas the statistical norm is 16.66% to 25.00%.
Imagine walking along any street anywhere in the world and taking four people at random, who are not genetically related, and finding that three of the four suffered from mental illness/personality disorder. >@@(*&)
-
It is not necessary for me to dismiss known evidence John as I simply do not believe any exists to dismiss and I don't say this facetiously.
Here is an excerpt from the 2002 Appeal Hearing as you will see it categorically states that it could not be proved one way or the other whether Sheila's DNA was in the silencer. June Bamber's DNA was found and an unidentified male.
497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.
I've already set out my stall re the so-called blood evidence. Yes Sheila's blood type matched that found in the silencer and the sample provided by Robert Boutflour. This does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Sheila's. Many members of the population share Sheila and Robert's blood type and there's no record of where the silencer had been/who handled it. This should have been made clear to the jury. Instead they were misled into thinking that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" to Sheila's. In other words that it was exclusive to Sheila.
All the rest about phone logs/calls/bikes/wetsuits/he said this/she said that/blah, blah it is not measurable/scientific. It is all subjective.
Do you understand why their Lordships were unable to state categorically under the Law that the 17-marker match with Sheila Caffell found in the silencer was deemed inconclusive? I will tell you.
Under UK Law only a 20-marker match can be used to establish fact capable of sustaining a conviction. It is much less in other countries such as the USA but there you have it, the UK has set a very high bar. That said, the chances of someone else's DNA having a 17-marker match with Sheila Caffell in such circumstances are billions to one. You might want to accept such odds as inconclusive but I certainly don't and won't.
As far as the probabilities are concerned Sheila's DNA was most definitely found in the silencer and anyone who claims otherwise is blowing bubbles. The sample was too small to establish what this DNA came from.
And as I stated earlier, the issue of the silencer has no relevance for me as there is plenty of evidence to prove that Jeremy Bamber was indeed a cold blooded killer.
-
In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence. In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied. No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber. This is not just hearsay, this is fact.
The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence. We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie. Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am. A police car was despatched at 3.36 am
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this. Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.
One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.
-
Holly, do you think the blood in the silencer was Sheila's? If not, who do you think it belongs to? Not forgetting that Sheila wasnt actually Blood related to her adopted family.
Andrea I honestly do not know as there is simply no conclusive evidence either way. Please see my previous post.
I appreciate that Sheila was not a blood relation and this is the biggest obstacle for me to overcome in believing Jeremy to be guilty. I understand that 1 in 6 suffers mental illness. Although some figures seem to suggest it is as high as 1 in 4. Either way this equates to 16.66% or 25.00% of the population. So for me to believe Jeremy to be guilty I have to accept that 4 individuals thrown together pretty much at random by that I mean via marriage and adoption exceed the statistical average by up to 58.34% (June and Sheila mental illness, Jeremy personality disordered) It is this statistical anomaly that I have difficulty with.
Peter Vanezis stated that if Jeremy is responsible he would have to have been mad. Peter Vanezis is not a psychologist/psychiatrist so probably not really qualified to make such a statement. But I am sure most would agree that if Jeremy is responsible he surely cannot be defined as 'normal'. I understand Jeremy has been tested numerous times and shows no signs of psychopathy. But if we assume Jeremy is responsible this must mean 75% of the family were suffering from mental illness/personality disorder. Whereas the statistical norm is 16.66% to 25.00%.
Imagine walking along any street anywhere in the world and taking four people at random, who are not genetically related, and finding that three of the four suffered from mental illness/personality disorder. >@@(*&)
It is unusual certainly but by no means impossible. You also have to factor in that both Jeremy and Sheila were adopted and that in itself can bring certain psychological disadvantages for young adults. Both of them sought out their birth parents so we don't know how that affected them.
We know for example that Sheila sought out and contacted her mother behind June's back even going as far as to telephone her while at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger. That in itself brought pressures for a girl who was already suffering from mild mental illness.
At the end of the day one has to put semantics to the one side and only consider the established facts. I have yet to read anything which shows Jeremy Bamber to be innocent. By his own actions both prior to and after the murders he has shown himself to be a most callous character and very capable of murder if the price was right.
The evidence of Julie Mugford and others was the topping on the cake for the police, it was the mortar which filled in all the gaps in order to make the case watertight. Bamber has had 28 years to provide evidence which might support him but failed at every juncture. That says it all for me.
-
For me the question of the significance of the silencer is of low priority and indeed consequence. We know from the positioning of the bullet casings who was shot where and we can almost determine the sequence of those shootings. It is clear from the unassailable evidence that Nevill and June were surprised in their bedroom. June was shot where she lay while Nevill was shot at or near the door to the bedroom.
The intruder did not break in by force, he let himself in through a window which he had done many times before.
We know that Nevill Bamber never made any telephone call to police that morning irrespective of the speculation by Bamber and his cronies. Not a single police officer or operator received such a call. The only telephone call was made by Jeremy Bamber and even then he didn't think fit to dial 999.
Why did Jeremy Bamber lie? Only one reason...to cover his own tracks.
I understand that White House Farm had a panic alarm installed due to Mr Bamber's role as a magistrate and a threat made by a father over his son's sentence. Any ideas as to why the alarm was not activated?
If Jeremy crept in via a window would Crispy the dog not have started barking and/or the outside guard dog?
Did Jeremy have a key to White House Farm? If so why not enter via the door, lock it and exit via the window? I think the relatives found the smashed in door outside with a key in it? If so then I guess this would have prevented Jeremy from entering via the door?
-
As far as I understand the alarm was connected to the police but it wouldn't operate whilst the telephone handset was not on its cradle. Yet another reason why Sheila is not the person responsible.
Farm dogs will react to strangers but the dog at the farm undoubtedly knew Jeremy's voice so would not have alerted those inside the house. Crispy would have been asleep in June's room and most probably did not hear Jeremy enter the house or come up the stairs until it was too late. An interesting point though, I have never seen it mentioned that either dog was sedated.
A key to the farmhouse would not have been of any use as they are barred from the inside. The back door did have a key in it on the inside, this was the door the police used a sledgehammer to force entry.
-
Roger Wilkes also interviewed and consulted with Bamber while writing Blood Relations, not just the wider family.
Have you read the book Andrea? If so did you find it fair in terms of objectivity? I did, I didn't think it was pro or anti Jeremy. Yes Roger Wilkes interviewed Jeremy and he received some remuneration for his 'cooperation' which allowed him to finance some further tests by a US expert that ended up supporting the prosecution @)(++(*
-
I have all the books published on this case, i havent read the Wilkes book cover to cover yet.
-
In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence. In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied. No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber. This is not just hearsay, this is fact.
The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence. We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie. Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am. A police car was despatched at 3.36 am
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this. Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.
One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.
Thank you John for your previous post/reply.
I need to improve my understanding more on the phone logs/calls/timings etc before I can respond.
Re the bike, surely it would have made more sense to go by foot especially with regard to creeping in and out of Goldhanger? In the event of encountering a passer-by it would be much easier to take cover if on foot than riding or pushing a bike? I believe the bike belonged to Mrs Bamber and was a sit up beg type so not designed for off-road eg ploughed ? fields and the sea wall? Plus the potential for problems with the tyres/chain. I believe the tyres were checked and soil analysed along with the bike overall for blood staining? All tests were negative?
-
I have all the books published on this case, i havent read the Wilkes book cover to cover yet.
Yes I normally dip in and out of books but I made myself read it from cover to cover. I found it a bit heavy at times. Bridget Jones Diary is more my thing @)(++(*
-
In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence. In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied. No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber. This is not just hearsay, this is fact.
The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence. We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie. Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am. A police car was despatched at 3.36 am
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this. Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.
One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.
Thank you John for your previous post/reply.
I need to improve my understanding more on the phone logs/calls/timings etc before I can respond.
Re the bike, surely it would have made more sense to go by foot especially with regard to creeping in and out of Goldhanger? In the event of encountering a passer-by it would be much easier to take cover if on foot than riding or pushing a bike? I believe the bike belonged to Mrs Bamber and was a sit up beg type so not designed for off-road eg ploughed ? fields and the sea wall? Plus the potential for problems with the tyres/chain. I believe the tyres were checked and soil analysed along with the bike overall for blood staining? All tests were negative?
Although the bicycle failed to provide much forensic evidence, the tyre wall's were covered in soil yet the treads were clean indicating that it had been thorough deep mud and then ridden on the highway. Jeremy made the excuse that the bike was at his house so that Julie could use it to get to the station but Julie denied ever hearing about this.
When Jeremy's uncle, Robert Boutflour, heard of this he went out and tried to find cycle tracks along the lanes but was unsuccessful. You must remember that there are many farm tracks which criss-cross the farm which Jeremy could have taken that morning to avoid being seen. At 3am in the dark on a bicycle he would have both seen and heard any vehicles approaching him and hidden quite easily.
-
I think a bike journey rather than on foot to be the more reasonable assumption... the adrenaline would be pumping, sweat pouring, thoughts haywire if he had just killed five family members. He would have been tired and sweating like a pig by the time he reached Goldhanger, more so if he had walked (both ways)... before he had even the time to think what to say on the phone to Julie and the police. We're talking about 3-4 miles by the shorter road route, even further by the circuitous sea wall or farm tracks.
Doesn't it seem both strange and telling that the bike should appear at his cottage shortly before the murders, and he told Julie that it was for her use?
-
In addition, I agree about the wetsuit evidence being subjective but the evidence in relation to the phone call, the phone logs and the bicycle all add up to evidence. In fact the evidence by police officers and the civilian police operator taken with the phone logs go a long way to prove that Jeremy lied. No police officer or the civilian operator received any phone call from Nevill Bamber. This is not just hearsay, this is fact.
The telephone logs bear this out and corroborate everything which Julie Mugford and her two flatmates stated in evidence. We know that Jeremy Bamber also claimed at one time that he had telephoned the police before he telephoned Julie, we know this to be a lie. Bamber telephoned Julie at 3am, he spoke with her for about 20 minutes before he rang the police at 3.26am. A police car was despatched at 3.36 am
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Nevill Bamber telephoned anyone that morning let alone used a telephone. The evidence by the pathologist taken together with the forensic evidence relating to the telephone in the kitchen clearly proves this. Nevill Bamber could not have spoken due to his injuries let alone use a telephone without leaving it covered in blood.
One piece of evidence leads to another in a trail which at its conclusion results in only one outcome...Jeremy Bamber lied.
Thank you John for your previous post/reply.
I need to improve my understanding more on the phone logs/calls/timings etc before I can respond.
Re the bike, surely it would have made more sense to go by foot especially with regard to creeping in and out of Goldhanger? In the event of encountering a passer-by it would be much easier to take cover if on foot than riding or pushing a bike? I believe the bike belonged to Mrs Bamber and was a sit up beg type so not designed for off-road eg ploughed ? fields and the sea wall? Plus the potential for problems with the tyres/chain. I believe the tyres were checked and soil analysed along with the bike overall for blood staining? All tests were negative?
Although the bicycle failed to provide much forensic evidence, the tyre wall's were covered in soil yet the treads were clean indicating that it had been thorough deep mud and then ridden on the highway. Jeremy made the excuse that the bike was at his house so that Julie could use it to get to the station but Julie denied ever hearing about this.
When Jeremy's uncle, Robert Boutflour, heard of this he went out and tried to find cycle tracks along the lanes but was unsuccessful. You must remember that there are many farm tracks which criss-cross the farm which Jeremy could have taken that morning to avoid being seen. At 3am in the dark on a bicycle he would have both seen and heard any vehicles approaching him and hidden quite easily.
Thank you John. I hope I'm not an irritating Newbie asking lots of obvious questions. I'll be back at uni next week so will have less time to post then 8)><(
1985 is a bit before my time but maybe some posters can recall the weather conditions at the start of August 1985 in terms of rainfall which would have made the fields full of deep mud? What if anything is known about the geology of the said fields?
Yes he might have had advance warning of a motorised vehicle by engine sound and lights but what about another cyclist and/or walker.
The difficulty I have with the bike is the exiting and re-entering Goldhanger which in my opinion would be very high risk compared with being on foot which surely offers more protection in falling under the radar quite literally.
-
I think a bike journey rather than on foot to be the more reasonable assumption... the adrenaline would be pumping, sweat pouring, thoughts haywire if he had just killed five family members. He would have been tired and sweating like a pig by the time he reached Goldhanger, more so if he had walked (both ways)... before he had even the time to think what to say on the phone to Julie and the police. We're talking about 3-4 miles by the shorter road route, even further by the circuitous sea wall or farm tracks.
Doesn't it seem both strange and telling that the bike should appear at his cottage shortly before the murders, and he told Julie that it was for her use?
Hello Myster. You might be right I have no real idea. I just think on foot it afforded more protection in operating covertly. Plus cycling through fields full of deep mud seems like hard work to me. Also on foot it would have been easier to use a pocket torch. Could he have cycled in darkness or taken the risk of using lights on the bike.
There are bound to be lots of coincidences in a case like this. For example Taff Jones who believed in Jeremy's innocence falling off a ladder. I personally think this was a tragic accident. I have read on other sites that some conspiracy theories surround this. The finding of the bike at Goldhanger might be innocent or sinister. Any ideas as to how Jeremy got the bike from White House Farm to Goldhanger in the first place? Did he transport it via a vehicle or cycle home on it?
-
Holly, do you think the blood in the silencer was Sheila's? If not, who do you think it belongs to? Not forgetting that Sheila wasnt actually Blood related to her adopted family.
Andrea I honestly do not know as there is simply no conclusive evidence either way. Please see my previous post.
I appreciate that Sheila was not a blood relation and this is the biggest obstacle for me to overcome in believing Jeremy to be guilty. I understand that 1 in 6 suffers mental illness. Although some figures seem to suggest it is as high as 1 in 4. Either way this equates to 16.66% or 25.00% of the population. So for me to believe Jeremy to be guilty I have to accept that 4 individuals thrown together pretty much at random by that I mean via marriage and adoption exceed the statistical average by up to 58.34% (June and Sheila mental illness, Jeremy personality disordered) It is this statistical anomaly that I have difficulty with.
Peter Vanezis stated that if Jeremy is responsible he would have to have been mad. Peter Vanezis is not a psychologist/psychiatrist so probably not really qualified to make such a statement. But I am sure most would agree that if Jeremy is responsible he surely cannot be defined as 'normal'. I understand Jeremy has been tested numerous times and shows no signs of psychopathy. But if we assume Jeremy is responsible this must mean 75% of the family were suffering from mental illness/personality disorder. Whereas the statistical norm is 16.66% to 25.00%.
Imagine walking along any street anywhere in the world and taking four people at random, who are not genetically related, and finding that three of the four suffered from mental illness/personality disorder. >@@(*&)
It is unusual certainly but by no means impossible. You also have to factor in that both Jeremy and Sheila were adopted and that in itself can bring certain psychological disadvantages for young adults. Both of them sought out their birth parents so we don't know how that affected them.
We know for example that Sheila sought out and contacted her mother behind June's back even going as far as to telephone her while at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger. That in itself brought pressures for a girl who was already suffering from mild mental illness.
At the end of the day one has to put semantics to the one side and only consider the established facts. I have yet to read anything which shows Jeremy Bamber to be innocent. By his own actions both prior to and after the murders he has shown himself to be a most callous character and very capable of murder if the price was right.
The evidence of Julie Mugford and others was the topping on the cake for the police, it was the mortar which filled in all the gaps in order to make the case watertight. Bamber has had 28 years to provide evidence which might support him but failed at every juncture. That says it all for me.
Yes I understand adoptees are at greater risk of emotional/pyschological issues than their non-adopted peers but this does not account for the mental illness suffered by Mrs Bamber which first occurred when Sheila was around 1 or 2 years of age and before Jeremy was even conceived. If Jeremy is guilty then to have 3 out of 4 adoptive family members suffering from mental illness/personality disorder is an alarming statistic. Of course if Jeremy is innocent the statistic is still alarming but more believable. Who was it who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics"?
According to Colin Caffell's book Sheila met with her natural mother around May 1985. I believe some letters were also exchanged. I was not aware of any phone conversations. Are you able and willing to provide your source for the said call made from Goldhanger? Colin's book states that in the aftermath of the tragedy Sheila's natural mother found it difficult to liaise via phone as her other other children were unaware of Sheila's existence and her husband was unsupportive.
As far as I'm aware Jeremy has not met his natural parents in adulthood. After his failed 2002 appeal he sought the support of his natural parents via his probation officer but they did not want to know.
Are you able to provide examples of what you deem to be callous behaviour by Jeremy? He sounds like a role model compared with some of the guys I have to endure at uni who can be quite boorish. He was certainly no Mick Philpott et al prior to the night of the tragedy.
I struggle to treat anything said by Julie Mugford seriously as I fail to understand how any 'normal' woman could continue an intimate relationship with a man (Jeremy) who, according to her witness statement dated 8/9 Sept, confessed to her on the day of the murders to hiring a hitman to murder his entire immediate adoptive family. Why did she wait until she was dumped to fess up? Had she have fessed up straight away more 'evidence' would have been preserved eg the carpets. Why was she not charged with peverting the course of justice?
-
Thank you John. I hope I'm not an irritating Newbie asking lots of obvious questions. I'll be back at uni next week so will have less time to post then 8)><(
1985 is a bit before my time but maybe some posters can recall the weather conditions at the start of August 1985 in terms of rainfall which would have made the fields full of deep mud? What if anything is known about the geology of the said fields?
Yes he might have had advance warning of a motorised vehicle by engine sound and lights but what about another cyclist and/or walker.
The difficulty I have with the bike is the exiting and re-entering Goldhanger which in my opinion would be very high risk compared with being on foot which surely offers more protection in falling under the radar quite literally.
Not irking at all as it helps those of us who have followed the case for such a long time to keep abreast of the basics.
I don't think there would have been too many people walking or cycling around in the dark at 2.45am in the morning.
We don't know that he cycled both directions, for all we know he never left the farm the previous evening and used the bike to return to Goldhanger after the shootings.
-
Hello Myster. You might be right I have no real idea. I just think on foot it afforded more protection in operating covertly. Plus cycling through fields full of deep mud seems like hard work to me. Also on foot it would have been easier to use a pocket torch. Could he have cycled in darkness or taken the risk of using lights on the bike.
There are bound to be lots of coincidences in a case like this. For example Taff Jones who believed in Jeremy's innocence falling off a ladder. I personally think this was a tragic accident. I have read on other sites that some conspiracy theories surround this. The finding of the bike at Goldhanger might be innocent or sinister. Any ideas as to how Jeremy got the bike from White House Farm to Goldhanger in the first place? Did he transport it via a vehicle or cycle home on it?
Could I clarify one think here Holly. There was no need for Jeremy to cycle "in the fields" as there are many farm tracks available to him. Usage of some would have required him to traverse a gate.
-
According to Colin Caffell's book Sheila met with her natural mother around May 1985. I believe some letters were also exchanged. I was not aware of any phone conversations. Are you able and willing to provide your source for the said call made from Goldhanger? Colin's book states that in the aftermath of the tragedy Sheila's natural mother found it difficult to liaise via phone as her other other children were unaware of Sheila's existence and her husband was unsupportive.
As far as I'm aware Jeremy has not met his natural parents in adulthood. After his failed 2002 appeal he sought the support of his natural parents via his probation officer but they did not want to know.
Are you able to provide examples of what you deem to be callous behaviour by Jeremy? He sounds like a role model compared with some of the guys I have to endure at uni who can be quite boorish. He was certainly no Mick Philpott et al prior to the night of the tragedy.
I struggle to treat anything said by Julie Mugford seriously as I fail to understand how any 'normal' woman could continue an intimate relationship with a man (Jeremy) who, according to her witness statement dated 8/9 Sept, confessed to her on the day of the murders to hiring a hitman to murder his entire immediate adoptive family. Why did she wait until she was dumped to fess up? Had she have fessed up straight away more 'evidence' would have been preserved eg the carpets. Why was she not charged with peverting the course of justice?
You will find the reference to Sheila attempting to phone her mother here at page 11. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1053.0)
As far as Julie is concerned I believe she simply failed to accept what she had got herself caught up in and only managed to face reality when the relationship soured.
-
Thank you John. I hope I'm not an irritating Newbie asking lots of obvious questions. I'll be back at uni next week so will have less time to post then 8)><(
1985 is a bit before my time but maybe some posters can recall the weather conditions at the start of August 1985 in terms of rainfall which would have made the fields full of deep mud? What if anything is known about the geology of the said fields?
Yes he might have had advance warning of a motorised vehicle by engine sound and lights but what about another cyclist and/or walker.
The difficulty I have with the bike is the exiting and re-entering Goldhanger which in my opinion would be very high risk compared with being on foot which surely offers more protection in falling under the radar quite literally.
Not irking at all as it helps those of us who have followed the case for such a long time to keep abreast of the basics.
I don't think there would have been too many people walking or cycling around in the dark at 2.45am in the morning.
We don't know that he cycled both directions, for all we know he never left the farm the previous evening and used the bike to return to Goldhanger after the shootings.
Thank you. Aside from this forum I am often told I ask a lot of questions. Thankfully my natural curiosity/questions haven't landed me in any trouble yet!
Yes I agree there was unlikely to be much passing traffic around 2.45am in rural Essex but it was holdiay season so you could get people departing for or arriving from airports. I just think the entering and exiting of Goldhanger was very risky on a bike. If I was operating covertly I would have worn dark clothing and a hood/headwear and gone on foot as I think it would have afforded more protection and flexibility in literally throwing one's self to the ground, crouching and crawling. It would be more difficult if not impossible with a bike would it not?
I think I recall Mr or Mrs Foakes saying that they heard Jeremy leave White House Farm on the eve of the murders. Apparently he was a bit of a boy racer and revved his car, drove fast etc. Proably liked creating dust clouds.
I think Jeremy used his car for the daily journey to and from work/White House Farm so I assume in a small village/hamlet neighbours would notice any subtle changes in habit. Did the cottage have a garage?
-
According to Colin Caffell's book Sheila met with her natural mother around May 1985. I believe some letters were also exchanged. I was not aware of any phone conversations. Are you able and willing to provide your source for the said call made from Goldhanger? Colin's book states that in the aftermath of the tragedy Sheila's natural mother found it difficult to liaise via phone as her other other children were unaware of Sheila's existence and her husband was unsupportive.
As far as I'm aware Jeremy has not met his natural parents in adulthood. After his failed 2002 appeal he sought the support of his natural parents via his probation officer but they did not want to know.
Are you able to provide examples of what you deem to be callous behaviour by Jeremy? He sounds like a role model compared with some of the guys I have to endure at uni who can be quite boorish. He was certainly no Mick Philpott et al prior to the night of the tragedy.
I struggle to treat anything said by Julie Mugford seriously as I fail to understand how any 'normal' woman could continue an intimate relationship with a man (Jeremy) who, according to her witness statement dated 8/9 Sept, confessed to her on the day of the murders to hiring a hitman to murder his entire immediate adoptive family. Why did she wait until she was dumped to fess up? Had she have fessed up straight away more 'evidence' would have been preserved eg the carpets. Why was she not charged with perverting the course of justice?
You will find the reference to Sheila attempting to phone her mother here at page 11. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1053.0)
As far as Julie is concerned I believe she simply failed to accept what she had got herself caught up in and only managed to face reality when the relationship soured.
Thank you for the link. It is strange how people interpret things differently. I read Ann Eaton's statements the other day and I thought to myself how could Sheila not know the phone number for White House Farm thinking that Ann Eaton was referring to her adoptive mother as opposed to her natural mother. The relevant section of the statement is confusing:
"During the summer of 1984, Sheila BAMBER visited me at my home. I recall that she smoked continuously and appeared strange. I say that because I left her alone in the kitchen and went outside. On returning Sheila replaced the phone into the handset and I asked her who she been telephoning. Sheila said she had been trying to ring her mother but she didn't know the number. I asked her who she had been speaking to and she became agitated and said that it didn't matter"
I don't understand why Vicky Pryce was charged with perverting the course of justice over a speeding fine but not Julie Mugford over 5 murders?
Ann Eaton's witness statements 31 - 49 appear to be missing are they available? Anyway thank you for providing this forum it seems very well organised and civilised ?{)(**
-
Thank you for the link. It is strange how people interpret things differently. I read Ann Eaton's statements the other day and I thought to myself how could Sheila not know the phone number for White House Farm thinking that Ann Eaton was referring to her adoptive mother as opposed to her natural mother. The relevant section of the statement is confusing:
"During the summer of 1984, Sheila BAMBER visited me at my home. I recall that she smoked continuously and appeared strange. I say that because I left her alone in the kitchen and went outside. On returning Sheila replaced the phone into the handset and I asked her who she been telephoning. Sheila said she had been trying to ring her mother but she didn't know the number. I asked her who she had been speaking to and she became agitated and said that it didn't matter"
I don't understand why Vicky Pryce was charged with perverting the course of justice over a speeding fine but not Julie Mugford over 5 murders?
Ann Eaton's witness statements 31 - 49 appear to be missing are they available? Anyway thank you for providing this forum it seems very well organised and civilised ?{)(**
Holly, if you read on a bit further, Ann goes on to state that she had mentioned to June about what Sheila had been attempting to do and June had reacted in terms which shocked Ann. I don't think Ann had seen June be so cross before.
Interesting point you make about Vicky Pryce and Julie Mugford but why the comparison as their stories have little in common if anything? Julie didn't pervert the course of justice or commit perjury.
Remainder of the statements are ready for upload, we didn't want to put too much up at the same time. There are several dozens pages still to add as well as those already notified but as yet not uploaded.
-
Holly are you aware that JB robbed and trashed the caravan park. He stole over £900 and tried to say he did it to highlight a lack of security, he never paid that money back. Thats callous behaviour imo.
His behaviour after the murders was horrendous and callous.
-
Hello Myster. You might be right I have no real idea. I just think on foot it afforded more protection in operating covertly. Plus cycling through fields full of deep mud seems like hard work to me. Also on foot it would have been easier to use a pocket torch. Could he have cycled in darkness or taken the risk of using lights on the bike.
There are bound to be lots of coincidences in a case like this. For example Taff Jones who believed in Jeremy's innocence falling off a ladder. I personally think this was a tragic accident. I have read on other sites that some conspiracy theories surround this. The finding of the bike at Goldhanger might be innocent or sinister. Any ideas as to how Jeremy got the bike from White House Farm to Goldhanger in the first place? Did he transport it via a vehicle or cycle home on it?
Could I clarify one think here Holly. There was no need for Jeremy to cycle "in the fields" as there are many farm tracks available to him. Usage of some would have required him to traverse a gate.
Yes I appreciate that John. My family home is in a rural area and I often go for country walks. Plus I have many farmer friends. But you made mention of deep mud so I had visions of Jeremy cycling through this.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=830.msg30871#msg30871
In any event I beg to differ on this point. I think if Jeremy is responsible it would have made more sense to go on foot in terms of being able to operate covertly particularly exiting and entering Goldhanger.
-
Holly are you aware that JB robbed and trashed the caravan park. He stole over £900 and tried to say he did it to highlight a lack of security, he never paid that money back. Thats callous behaviour imo.
His behaviour after the murders was horrendous and callous.
Hello Andrea. Yes it is in Wilkes book. I agree it was a real low-down thing to do. Especially as Mr and Mrs Bamber appear to have been very generous to Jeremy. As you no doubt know he eventually admitted to doing it out of greed rather than to prove a point about lax security as claimed initially. And as you said he never repaid the money. Doubt he had any intention of ever doing so.
As far as I can see though this incident was a one-off. I certainly do not wish to condone it but I don't think his ability to pull this off means he was capable of murdering his family.
I struggle to view Jeremy in the same light as say the likes of Mick Philpott. There doesn't appear to be anything in Jeremy's background to indicate a propensity towards violent, aggressive or anti-social behaviour.
Are you able to give me some examples of what you consider to be Jeremy's "horrendous and callous" behaviour after the murders?
As I said in a previous post he seems like a lot of the guys at uni eg immature, showing off, chasing women etc, etc. I guess most eventually grow up.
-
Bamber only admitted the robbery after he killed his family, and only doing so because Julie told the police.
As far as callous behaviour after the murders, where would you like me to start!
JB couldnt be bothered to turn up at a memorial service held for his family.
At their funerals he looked at his watch and said 'times up' he couldnt wait to go.
In the funeral car he was telling julie what he wanted to do to her later that afternoon, to the disgust of those whoheard him.
Going to sheilas flat and putting the twins belongings in a black bag and dumping them in the hallway.
Trying to sell sheilas photos to a national newspaper.
Yes he was slapping waitresses backsides at the reception held after the funerals. Laddish behaviour you may say, but considering 5 of his family were violently murdered, hardly appropriate.
As shona once said. What a f..king hero.
I could go on.
-
Thank you for the link. It is strange how people interpret things differently. I read Ann Eaton's statements the other day and I thought to myself how could Sheila not know the phone number for White House Farm thinking that Ann Eaton was referring to her adoptive mother as opposed to her natural mother. The relevant section of the statement is confusing:
"During the summer of 1984, Sheila BAMBER visited me at my home. I recall that she smoked continuously and appeared strange. I say that because I left her alone in the kitchen and went outside. On returning Sheila replaced the phone into the handset and I asked her who she been telephoning. Sheila said she had been trying to ring her mother but she didn't know the number. I asked her who she had been speaking to and she became agitated and said that it didn't matter"
I don't understand why Vicky Pryce was charged with perverting the course of justice over a speeding fine but not Julie Mugford over 5 murders?
Ann Eaton's witness statements 31 - 49 appear to be missing are they available? Anyway thank you for providing this forum it seems very well organised and civilised ?{)(**
Holly, if you read on a bit further, Ann goes on to state that she had mentioned to June about what Sheila had been attempting to do and June had reacted in terms which shocked Ann. I don't think Ann had seen June be so cross before.
Interesting point you make about Vicky Pryce and Julie Mugford but why the comparison as their stories have little in common if anything? Julie didn't pervert the course of justice or commit perjury.
Remainder of the statements are ready for upload, we didn't want to put too much up at the same time. There are several dozens pages still to add as well as those already notified but as yet not uploaded.
Hi John. Yes I did read on in the statement but again we interpret things differently as I understood this to mean that Ann Eaton was annoyed at June's response. I don't really understand it. Can we be sure that Sheila was trying to call her natural mother and not her adoptive mother?
"I then took Sheila back to White House Farm. I cannot remember if the twins, Daniel and Nicholas were with her. Later I mentioned this incident to Aunt June BAMBER and she said to me 'Accept people for what they are lovee. Don't try and turn them into something they are not. Perhaps you ought to look into yourself a bit more'. I was upset and will say that I have never been spoken to by my Aunt in that manner. I was only trying to assist.
My Aunt June Bamber was obviously having problems with Sheila at this time".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2161
Re Julie Mugford and Vicky Pryce, I see both of them as being scorned women and acting out. Vicky Pryce took Chris Huhne's points. At a later date he left her for his mistress. Vicky Pryce then went to the press about the swapping of points. The rest as they say is history.
In Julie Mugford's statement dated 8th August 1985 she makes no reference to Jeremy's involvement, or a third party, in any shape or form. Having then been dumped, in her statement dated 8th September 1985 (number 11) she states that Jeremy told her on the evening of the 7th August 1985 that he had arranged for Matthew to carry out the murders.
If Julie Mugford's statement of 8th September 1985 is true then surely she perverted the course of justice? She lied in her statement of 8th August 1985? Had she have told the truth then the police would have treated the crime scene differently, preserved potential evidence eg the carpets etc. The police might not have allowed the relatives and/or Jeremy access to White House Farm.
My boyfriend is studying law and his friend is on track for a double first in law from Cambridge so I will discuss the perjury issue with them. Unless you know? I think I read in one of your posts that you are or were a policeman? (I'm thinking of joining the police force when I leave uni. My degree is unrelated but a career in the police force is something I'm interested in).
I look forward to reading the rest of Ann Eaton's statement as and when they become available. Many thanks.
-
Do you not think that Sheila was taking the opportunity to have a fly phone call with her natural mother when she was away from the farmhouse. In addition, I read into this that this was the reason why June got rather hot and bothered when Ann mentioned what she had been up to. June obviously was angry that Sheila had attempted to telephone her natural mother behind her back.
I would have thought that Sheila would have known the tel number of WHF without any difficulty as she was brought up on the farm.
At least that is the way I read it...could be wrong though? >@@(*&)
-
Bamber only admitted the robbery after he killed his family, and only doing so because Julie told the police.
As far as callous behaviour after the murders, where would you like me to start!
JB couldnt be bothered to turn up at a memorial service held for his family.
At their funerals he looked at his watch and said 'times up' he couldnt wait to go.
In the funeral car he was telling julie what he wanted to do to her later that afternoon, to the disgust of those whoheard him.
Going to sheilas flat and putting the twins belongings in a black bag and dumping them in the hallway.
Trying to sell sheilas photos to a national newspaper.
Yes he was slapping waitresses backsides at the reception held after the funerals. Laddish behaviour you may say, but considering 5 of his family were violently murdered, hardly appropriate.
As shona once said. What a f..king hero.
I could go on.
Thanks Andrea. Yes I agree it makes uncomfortable reading. I have read about the incidents in the books but when you bring them altogether they sound worse and as you say callous. I know people grieve differently but it does sound inappropriate to say the least. But if he was responsible would he not have feigned grief especially in the company of others? Surely he would have kept his head down? I just don't know. I'll have to think about this more and go back to the incidents in the books.
-
I cannot remember the exact detail of this but when he got into the car after the funeral he changed completely according to Julie. I cannot remember if Colin also made a comment about his callous behaviour. Maybe Andrea or Shona remembers what happened.
-
I don't think Julie lied in her first statement, more she just withheld a few things out of confusion and bewilderment. It took her a few weeks to realise she had to do the right thing though and speak out.
-
Someone did say, cant remember who, that they though Bamber was 'putting it on' at the funeral.
People do grieve in different ways, but thank goodness, most of us lose only 1 family member at a time not 5, and not violently.
My dad died suddenly, i acted normally afterwards, though i was devastated. But had i lost my whole family at once to murder things would have been different.
-
Bamber only admitted the robbery after he killed his family, and only doing so because Julie told the police.
As far as callous behaviour after the murders, where would you like me to start!
JB couldnt be bothered to turn up at a memorial service held for his family.
At their funerals he looked at his watch and said 'times up' he couldnt wait to go.
In the funeral car he was telling julie what he wanted to do to her later that afternoon, to the disgust of those whoheard him.
Going to sheilas flat and putting the twins belongings in a black bag and dumping them in the hallway.
Trying to sell sheilas photos to a national newspaper.
Yes he was slapping waitresses backsides at the reception held after the funerals. Laddish behaviour you may say, but considering 5 of his family were violently murdered, hardly appropriate.
As shona once said. What a f..king hero.
I could go on.
Mick Philpott larked about at the mortuary, touching-up the nurses, calling his dead children "little shits" and complaining about the smell of their decomposition. He went on to enjoy an evening of karaoke until he was asked to leave by his disgusted friends. And some people said "well, people grieve in different ways." Just what was said of Bamber to try and excuse his behaviour after the murders. And what else do they have in common? The displays of faux grief, Philpott at the press conference and Bamber's risible performance at the funeral.
-
Do you not think that Sheila was taking the opportunity to have a fly phone call with her natural mother when she was away from the farmhouse. In addition, I read into this that this was the reason why June got rather hot and bothered when Ann mentioned what she had been up to. June obviously was angry that Sheila had attempted to telephone her natural mother behind her back.
I would have thought that Sheila would have known the tel number of WHF without any difficulty as she was brought up on the farm.
At least that is the way I read it...could be wrong though? >@@(*&)
I read it several times John and I couldn't really work it out. I'll go back again and see if I can glean anything further. Ann Eaton usually refers to Mrs Bamber as 'Aunt June' so you might be right. Why did Ann Eaton make reference to 'Mother' and not 'Aunt June'? I just recall Colin stating in his book that Sheila's natural mother had not told her other children about Sheila and her husband was unsupportive so on this basis I thought telephone contact might have been off limits. I think Sheila's natural mother at that time was living in Canada/Halifax with a time difference of some 4/5 hours behind GMT so this in itself would not preclude such a call.
If Sheila was used to calling her parents from London she might have got confused with phoning locally as I think unlike now you had to use different numbers/dialling codes? Not sure well before my time.
-
Someone did say, cant remember who, that they though Bamber was 'putting it on' at the funeral.
People do grieve in different ways, but thank goodness, most of us lose only 1 family member at a time not 5, and not violently.
My dad died suddenly, i acted normally afterwards, though i was devastated. But had i lost my whole family at once to murder things would have been different.
Andrea poor you. Perhaps you felt you had to be outwardly strong for others including your mum.
I do agree though, how would one cope with losing all of one's immediate family and as you say to murder as well? It's too awful to contemplate. 8(8-))
-
I don't think Julie lied in her first statement, more she just withheld a few things out of confusion and bewilderment. It took her a few weeks to realise she had to do the right thing though and speak out.
John do you think then if Julie was initially confused and bewildered then Jeremy might have felt the same and this might account for what appears to have been his callous and inappropirate behaviour as described in Andrea's post #67?
-
Bamber only admitted the robbery after he killed his family, and only doing so because Julie told the police.
As far as callous behaviour after the murders, where would you like me to start!
JB couldnt be bothered to turn up at a memorial service held for his family.
At their funerals he looked at his watch and said 'times up' he couldnt wait to go.
In the funeral car he was telling julie what he wanted to do to her later that afternoon, to the disgust of those whoheard him.
Going to sheilas flat and putting the twins belongings in a black bag and dumping them in the hallway.
Trying to sell sheilas photos to a national newspaper.
Yes he was slapping waitresses backsides at the reception held after the funerals. Laddish behaviour you may say, but considering 5 of his family were violently murdered, hardly appropriate.
As shona once said. What a f..king hero.
I could go on.
Mick Philpott larked about at the mortuary, touching-up the nurses, calling his dead children "little shits" and complaining about the smell of their decomposition. He went on to enjoy an evening of karaoke until he was asked to leave by his disgusted friends. And some people said "well, people grieve in different ways." Just what was said of Bamber to try and excuse his behaviour after the murders. And what else do they have in common? The displays of faux grief, Philpott at the press conference and Bamber's risible performance at the funeral.
Yes Shona the above offers some comparables with what Andrea has highlighted in terms of what appears to have been callous and inappropriate behaviour by Jeremy Bamber after the murders or murders/suicide.
Couple of differences though. 1) Jeremy Bamber did not identify the victims at the mortuary as he said he would find it too much I believe? The task was left to Julie Mugford. 2) Philpott has previously served a prison sentence for aggressive/violent behaviour. Well stabbing an ex to be precise. Also I think Philpott was being investigated for another offence relating to a road-rage incident where he punched a motorist. 3) Philpott treated women badly eg violent, controlling, domineering etc.
-
I don't think Julie lied in her first statement, more she just withheld a few things out of confusion and bewilderment. It took her a few weeks to realise she had to do the right thing though and speak out.
John do you think then if Julie was initially confused and bewildered then Jeremy might have felt the same and this might account for what appears to have been his callous and inappropirate behaviour as described in Andrea's post #67?
Julie was confused by what she was confronted with while Jeremy had no reason to be confused. He knew exactly what he was doing. Barbara Wilson (farm secretary) refers to this.
-
I don't think Julie lied in her first statement, more she just withheld a few things out of confusion and bewilderment. It took her a few weeks to realise she had to do the right thing though and speak out.
John do you think then if Julie was initially confused and bewildered then Jeremy might have felt the same and this might account for what appears to have been his callous and inappropirate behaviour as described in Andrea's post #67?
Julie was confused by what she was confronted with while Jeremy had no reason to be confused. He knew exactly what he was doing. Barbara Wilson (farm secretary) refers to this.
Yes John I'm interested in knowing more about Barbara Wilson. She features quite heavily in Wilkes' book. Apparently Jeremy started barking orders at her and put his feet on the desk but it all sounds like hearsay and her interpretation of what could be described as Jeremy's boorish behaviour 8-)(--) I was unable to pick up on anything concrete. 8-)(--). I believe she was the last person to speak to Mr Bamber who was apparently short and sounded annoyed as though she might have interupted an argument 8-)(--) Did the police take a witness statement from her and if so is it available on here? Is there any other information relating to Barbara Wilson? Thank you. Holly.
-
Operation Stokenchurch - Barbara Wilson
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1045.0
-
Operation Stokenchurch - Barbara Wilson
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1045.0
Thanks again John for making further info available.
This appears to be about the running of N and J Bamber Ltd post trial/conviction?
Barbara Wilson seems a thoroughly honest and decent type but perhaps a little busy bodyish?
I am unable to find anything in her information above or in Wilkes' book which in any way links Jeremy to the crimes he has been convicted of.
-
Operation Stokenchurch - Barbara Wilson
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1045.0
Thanks again John for making further info available.
This appears to be about the running of N and J Bamber Ltd post trial/conviction?
Barbara Wilson seems a thoroughly honest and decent type but perhaps a little busy bodyish?
I am unable to find anything in her information above or in Wilkes' book which in any way links Jeremy to the crimes he has been convicted of.
I take it you have viewed this report Holly?
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/06/AS061086012/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
Also see the ITV Tonight documentary at 6.58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
-
Operation Stokenchurch - Barbara Wilson
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1045.0
Thanks again John for making further info available.
This appears to be about the running of N and J Bamber Ltd post trial/conviction?
Barbara Wilson seems a thoroughly honest and decent type but perhaps a little busy bodyish?
I am unable to find anything in her information above or in Wilkes' book which in any way links Jeremy to the crimes he has been convicted of.
I take it you have viewed this report Holly?
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/06/AS061086012/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
Also see the ITV Tonight documentary at 6.58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
Good clip John. It shows the value of contemporaneous reports and evidence and of what was provided under cross-examination as opposed to what what people bothered to write up in books and newspapers later.
Regardless of the failures of the police and later authors it is often forgotten that the witnesses such as Eaton, Wilson and Mugford (however, reviled they are on "Blue") had to stand up in court and give evidence under oath and be cross-examined by Rivlin who was a first-rate QC acting for the Defence. If any had been lying he would have torn them to pieces but they held together which is more than JB supporters have done since.
-
And especially Julie Mugford whose evidence alone was gold-plated.