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: Admin on March 02, 2012, 01:19:11 PM

Title: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Admin on March 02, 2012, 01:19:11 PM
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/2/11/1297423406566/Jeremy-Bamber-murder-appe-007.jpg)



Jeremy Bamber was convicted in 1986 of murdering five members of his family at their home, White House Farm, near the village of Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex during the early hours of 7 August 1985.

Those murdered included his adoptive parents, Nevill and June Bamber, his adopted sister Sheila Caffell and her twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas.

He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years.  In 1994, he was told that he must spend the rest of his life in prison.

Bamber has always protested his innocence, believed to be the only prisoner in the UK serving a whole-life tariff to do so.

He has fought tirelessly to clear his name, the case is currently before the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).



Jeremy Bamber official website (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/)
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: Admin on March 02, 2012, 02:21:40 PM
Approaching the evidence chronologically, Bamber first takes issue with police reports of his telephone call to Cheltenham station.

After speaking to Bamber, PC West contacted his colleagues at Witham police station, which is halfway between Chelmsford and Tolleshunt. The officer who took this call wrote up a memo headed “daughter gone bezerk”, in which he paraphrases what Nevill is supposed to have told Jeremy about Sheila having “got hold of one of my guns”, and adds “Information passed to CD [control at Chelmsford] by Mr Bamber’s son”, confirming that Chelmsford’s source was Jeremy Bamber.

West times Bamber’s own call from Goldhanger to Chelmsford at 03.36, whereas the other memo times West’s call to Witham at 03.26, so at least once timing is inaccurate. But Bamber concludes that the timing is bang on: his suggestion is that the other officer didn’t get his information from Chelmsford, but from no less a person than Nevill Bamber. The officer, Jeremy maintains, must have taken an emergency call from the 61-year-old farmer and noted Nevill’s words as he’d spoken them.

Aware that a problem existed reconciling the order in which calls between the parties were placed and the time at which they were said to have happened, the Crown liaised with the officer in question. He confirmed that he’d received a call from Chelmsford at 03.26, passing on the information received from Jeremy Bamber moments beforehand. Later he filled out an official Document Record to this effect.

At no time had he heard from Nevill Bamber or anyone else in connection with the incident at White House Farm. Presumably then, West had misread the clock when he filled out his call log, or just mistakenly wrote 03.36 instead of 03.26.

At 03.35, Witham despatched patrol car CA7 to attend the scene, and Chelmsford directed CA5 to attend at 03.36. Overlooking the fact that the police were co-ordinating their response across relevant parts of the county, Bamber’s supporters also ask why the Essex constabulary should send a car from each station unless the police were responding separately to different reports?

There is something darkly comic about the image of Nevill Bamber, under a hale of bullets, leafing through the phone book to get hold of the number for Witham station instead of dialling 999.

Plainly, there is little for Bamber’s defence team to get their teeth into here, but that hasn’t stopped them promoting the risible scenario of a call from Nevill to Witham police station. Earlier this summer the mainstream press picked up on the story: the Mail and Mirror were among papers reporting it on 5 August as a dramatic new find that had the potential to clear the supposed killer.

These papers uncritically reported that all along, documented proof seems to have existed that police had heard about Sheila’s rampage not only via Jeremy but directly from Nevill. If this information was correct, Jeremy’s account was vindicated and he could not possibly be guilty of the murders.

It’s worth considering the implications of the defence’s claim. If it were true, several members of the Essex constabulary would have been aware of the existence of a call from Nevill on the morning of the murders. When officers began to suspect the son of involvement and started poking around for discrepancies in Jeremy’s story, they would quickly have turned up accounts of Nevill’s call, snuffing out any doubts they had about Sheila’s culpability.

In these circumstances, police would only have continued to pursue Bamber for the murders if they were intentionally attempting to frame him.

In fact, Bamber maintains that this is exactly what happened, although he casts the net much wider to take in his relatives as well as the Essex constabulary.

Bamber’s legal team must be aware that claims about Nevill telephoning police withstand no scrutiny. Perhaps their strategy is to keep throwing anything at all to the papers, the better to build a groundswell of feeling that their client is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The long retired Stan Jones recently told the Essex Chronicle that Bamber "consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court and appeal hearings”, manipulating its supposed meaning to support his claim to be wrongly convicted.
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: John on March 02, 2012, 02:41:16 PM
The problem is that there is little truth in what Jeremy alleges was said as against what realistically must have been said.  Jeremy never reported that his father was stressed or in fear of his life as someone would expect to be when confronted by a gun wielding mad woman.  He never even said that Sheila had entered the kitchen and was coming towards him with a rifle. It just does not sit well.

Jeremy said the phone went dead...why did the phone go dead?
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: John on March 02, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
For any of this to be true then Sheila would have to have shot her mother and children before coming downstairs after Nevill.  That apparently could not have happened.

Jeremy never mentioned hearing any shots while his father was supposedly on the phone to him. Jeremy never mentioned Nevill ever saying that shots had been heard by him.

The whole scenario as recalled by Jeremy is simply a load of bollocks!!
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: Angelo222 on March 02, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
Not much mystery really as to how young Jeremy undertook the murders.

He had means, motive and opportunity.

First of all young Jeremy did not use his car or June's bicycle to get to and fro from the farm on the morning of the murders.  He actually used both of them.  He drove the car with the bike on board to a lane just south west of the farm and dismounted the bicycle before making along the lanes and over one gate to get to the farm. Nobody heard him because the bicycle was silent. The evidence in relation to the bike was that the side walls were dirty but the tread clean.  Evidence that it had been used on the farm track and the surfaced track aternatively.....no mystery there.

Next we can look at the telephone call which Nevill was supposed to have made to Jeremy when he invited him over to see his sister shoot them all.  Total piss!

Jeremy murdered his entire family and then dialled his cottage at Goldhanger before he left the farmhouse, leaving the handset conveniently off the hook.  He left the farmhouse by means of the little window making sure that the snib fell down. He was quite an expert at doing this you see, twenty years of practice.  After cycling and then motoring to his cottage, a trip of only about 5 minutes he answered the call from the farmhouse and immediately hung up.  A few minutes later and the automatic disconnection feature used by the Post Office at that time would disconnect the call. Perfect!!

Oh!  I forgot, then he placed the call to the police station at 3.26am which would allow him some extra time to get cleaned up.
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: John on March 02, 2012, 03:17:44 PM
Well deduced dave, I can see that you will be a great asset to this forum in getting to the truth in some cases.  I have never seen it explained in these terms before.

Tesko produced a photograph on the Jeremy Bamber forum which made Sheila look like she had been up the chimney in an attempt to persuade everyone that it was gun residue which would have resulted from her using a rifle. He has had this particular photograph for ages now but all of a sudden he sees what appears to be soot. Dried blood old chap or the photos been nobbled!

You couldn't make it up!  :)
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: piece on March 02, 2012, 03:27:25 PM
Good point John. I have never understood how the phone call story adds up. For Bamber says that Ralph phoned him (which woke him up) and that call went dead. Then Jeremy tries to phone Ralph back but gets the engaged tone. So that means the phone was no longer dead and was therefore working sufficiently for I assume Ralph to be phoning the police. The transcripts do not record such a call, and if they did then then I wonder how that call was terminated. For the record, it is clearly nonsense that JB says Ralph made any calls at all. There is no verification of any such calls. JB only started mentioning that Ralph called the police when he interpreted the logs that way.

I much prefer Woffinden's analysis of the way Bamber had organised the phones around the house. Bamber had spent a huge amount of time planning his perfect crime.
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: Admin on March 02, 2012, 04:26:50 PM

Welcome to the forum piece, an extremely intriguing interpretation of what went on that night.  When I personally look at these scenarios I find it hard to believe that anyone would stand in a kitchen in any event if a hysterical gun woman was marauding around my home.

Your point about Bamber making this cock and bull story up quite recently is perfectly sound.

Would you like to introduce yourself in the new members section?
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: guest on March 02, 2012, 05:33:52 PM
I never did get an answer, did I??!! I've googled the Anschutz, and seen how fiddly it it to reload. IMO, there was no way that a shaky, uncoordinated Sheila, even in the grip of some superhuman mania as has been suggested on Mike's forum, could have fired such precise shots into the boys' heads. Or reloaded. And with no gun oil or residue on her hands, clean feet, no blood spatter and perfect, unbroken and chip-free nails, she obviously went from her bedroom to her murder.
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: Tim Invictus on March 03, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
Good point John. I have never understood how the phone call story adds up. For Bamber says that Ralph phoned him (which woke him up) and that call went dead. Then Jeremy tries to phone Ralph back but gets the engaged tone. So that means the phone was no longer dead and was therefore working sufficiently for I assume Ralph to be phoning the police. The transcripts do not record such a call, and if they did then then I wonder how that call was terminated. For the record, it is clearly nonsense that JB says Ralph made any calls at all. There is no verification of any such calls. JB only started mentioning that Ralph called the police when he interpreted the logs that way.

I much prefer Woffinden's analysis of the way Bamber had organised the phones around the house. Bamber had spent a huge amount of time planning his perfect crime.

Nevill was a 6ft 4" 14 stone working farmer and an ex-RAF fighter pilot. If, as Bamber says, Nevill's 5ft 6" 8 stone daughter was 'going berserk with a gun' in the house with his wife and two grandsons present, I hardly think Nevill would try and call his effeminate 'nancy boy' son Jeremy.

Neville would have dealt with Sheila personally or if he couldn't he would have called 999. He certainly wouldn't have left the others in danger to call Jeremy.     
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: amazon on March 06, 2012, 02:01:09 PM
Hartley has made an honest post over yonder today on the great Bamber divide, but has made a bit of a sweeping generalisation in the process about how each camp views the police, legal system, judges etc. I myself am a particularly staunch supporter of our police service, our legal system, the independence of the judiciary etc. However, I am also open to the fact that there will be mistakes and that these can have a catastrophic effect on people's lives (not just MOJ's but for e.g. deaths in custody, death or injury to suspects or indeed members of the public - anyone remember Blair Peach?). Therefore we must get to the bottom of why mistakes are made, correct them (as far as we are able to) and learn from them. So, it is fundamentally wrong to label supporters of miscarriages of justice as somehow being police [ censored word ], anti establishment or 'lefties' etc. In a million years no-one could ever accuse me of being any of these things, yet I think Simon Hall was wrongly convicted, as I did Sally Clark. Likewise, in the past we have seen shocking instances of confession evidence either made up or obtained illegally. I could go on and on, but I will still defend our legal system for being the best in the world, but it would be so much better if it were more effective at monitoring its performance and being honest when it gets things badly wrong - and quickly!

Gawd, this is like Radio Four's though for the day!! (I just wanted a break from the gardening really  @)(++(* )
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: Nicholas on March 09, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
Jeremy Bamber - Latest Case News


"A lot has been happening while we are waiting to hear news from the CCRC on their decision. There is a lot of media interest in the case at the moment and there is a documentary currently being made to air at the end of the month on ITV. Simon Mckay has continued his work on my case and has also spoken to various media sources about my innocence.

I have heard back from Essex Police regarding several complaints I have made, despite our best efforts to stop a dispensation being applied for by Essex Police, the IPCC have ruled that a dispensation can be applied to the officers who waited 14 months before investigating the alleged fraud on my family's estate. The grounds for the dispensation were that the complaint was received more than 12 months after the officer's misconduct.

The system we call "Justice" does not take into account that these documents were not disclosed until after the 2002 appeal, so how can I have made a complaint about it within twelve months? The allegations by Barbara Wilson that Peter Eaton had stolen considerable sums of money from N & J Bamber Ltd went uninvestigated, and the reasons behind this will never be known because of the dispensation reliving Essex Police from having to answer for this.


Other complaints currently held by the IPCC without resolution are the non disclosure of radio logs (the CCRC recently only obtaining one single page in triplicate), a senior officer of Essex Police holding a personal collection of crime scene photographs. Failure of police to adequately obtain evidence of a struggle from the kitchen floor at the scene, and the issue of unreported scratch marks in addition to those under the mantle.


I have also made a complaint to the IPCC regarding John Yates, dubbed by the press as "Yates of the Yard" the former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. He was in charge of the "Stokenchurch" investigation carried out for the CPS preceding my 2002 appeal. We now have evidence which shows that the Met knew that the burn marks made to my father by the barrel of the rifle which Sheila used to kill the family, were investigated but the results were not disclosed to the defence. The Metropolitan police accepted that Malcolm Fletcher the forensic ballistics expert for the prosecution at trial, did not know the cause of burns and stated so in a report marked by the Met as "no further action." As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Once again thank you for the many letters of support and kindness from so many people which bring me comfort during the long wait for a decision."

Jeremy Bamber


If you would like further documentary evidence or photographs for news articles please contact us direct. You can also write to Jeremy as he manages his own campaign, Jeremy Bamber, A5352AC, HM Full Sutton, York, YO41 1PS.

From Jeremy Bamber Campaign Admin
officialbamber@live.co.uk
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: Angelo222 on March 10, 2012, 01:36:50 AM
What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. 

Quote from:  Jeremy Bamber
As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Really??  How does Bamber know the sound moderator wasn't on the gun during the shootings unless of course he was there?  The majority of the shots were not made up close with gun on skin contact so there is NO way to know this.  Bamber as usual is spouting hot air!!  Best add this to the misnomers admin before the public take this goon seriously.
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: Admin on March 10, 2012, 01:44:37 AM
What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. 

Quote from:  Jeremy Bamber
As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Really??  How does Bamber know the sound moderator wasn't on the gun during the shootings unless of course he was there?  The majority of the shots were not made up close with gun on skin contact so there is NO way to know this.  Bamber as usual is spouting hot air!!  Best add this to the misnomers admin before the public take this goon seriously.

Not like you to be on the night shift Dave? 


Good point btw about him not knowing if a silencer was fitted unless he had some special knowledge of the crime scene. We will just write this up now when it is fresh and get it promoted across our friends on Twitter.
Title: Re: Introduction to the case
Post by: John on April 08, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. 

Quote from:  Jeremy Bamber
As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Really??  How does Bamber know the sound moderator wasn't on the gun during the shootings unless of course he was there?  The majority of the shots were not made up close with gun on skin contact so there is NO way to know this.  Bamber as usual is spouting hot air!!  Best add this to the misnomers admin before the public take this goon seriously.


I must have missed that comment Dave.   More wishful thinking than scientific reasoning.  At the end of the day nobody except the killer knows when and where the sound moderator or silencer was used on the rifle.

We have to realise that Jeremy Bamber had not planned for what happened that morning and in fact was caught very much off guard by events.   

A well meaning group of academics, lawyers and scientists once claimed that everything went to plan seamlessly that morning and on that basis therefore Jeremy must be innocent as real life seldom works out that way.  Nothing could be further from the truth however.

Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: John on August 09, 2012, 03:24:34 PM
I have come across some very interesting information about the ladies bicycle which was found at the back of Jeremy's house in Goldhanger and evidence that it was indeed used to cycle to the farm.

I have also come across some interesting info on Jeremy's sudden departure from Australia.

Watch this space!  8(0(*
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Lindyhop on February 24, 2014, 07:52:27 PM
I'm intrigued!  >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Myster on February 24, 2014, 08:42:51 PM
I'm intrigued!  >@@(*&)
You'll have to be intrigued a little while longer, Lindy... John's post was made in August 2012.  8(8-))
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Lindyhop on February 24, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
Haha I didn't notice the date! Thanks Myster  8(8-))
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: scipio_usmc on February 24, 2014, 10:21:58 PM
Haha I didn't notice the date! Thanks Myster  8(8-))

At that time of night what is the chance of anyone seeing his car?  He could have even driven with the lights out part of the time.  I personally think he probably risked it and took the car but we will never know for sure whether he decided to risk being seen so used the car or used the bike instead unless he decides to admit the truth.  Short of a witness who saw him we simply will never know.   

Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Lindyhop on February 25, 2014, 07:54:50 PM
At that time of night what is the chance of anyone seeing his car?  He could have even driven with the lights out part of the time.  I personally think he probably risked it and took the car but we will never know for sure whether he decided to risk being seen so used the car or used the bike instead unless he decides to admit the truth.  Short of a witness who saw him we simply will never know.

I wonder if he had an alibi prepared if someone had seen him? I reckon he took the bike as if he was in some kind of disguise, he could've been quite hard to identify by someone driving by. At best an eye-witness would've said that they spotted a male cyclist in the vicinity, but that wouldn't have been enough to even charge him with the murders. So my money is on him cycling there, but as you say unless he 'fesses up we'll never know.
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: goatboy on February 25, 2014, 08:16:28 PM
I think a car would have been heard by someone-he couldn't risk this and he would have known a  back route from Goldhangar to the farm he could take on a bike. The night he left the farm in his car he made a lot of noise, wheelspinning and revving the engine. Some say this is evidence that he had had a row or a heated argument with his family, I personally think this was part of his alibi (the neighbours would verify that he left the farm that night and without any evidence he had returned they couldn't link him to the murders).
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Myster on December 17, 2014, 08:18:43 PM
Jeremy isn't a good a shot as Jeremy, Mick.  I'll let you decide which one's which &%+((£

Off-topic posts go in the Off-topic section down below... there's a good lad  8((()*/
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on April 19, 2015, 12:51:19 AM
My question would be, if you are guilty of a crime, why campaign endlessly for nearly three decades declaring your innocence
?
Unless someone doesn't have a conscience at all, I don't see the point, IF all the evidence is stacked positively against them.
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Myster on April 19, 2015, 10:18:16 AM
My question would be, if you are guilty of a crime, why campaign endlessly for nearly three decades declaring your innocence?

Unless someone doesn't have a conscience at all, I don't see the point, IF all the evidence is stacked positively against them.

... because he was and still is, furious at getting caught out by Essex police, bitter at Julie for giving his secret money-spinning game away, and even more miffed when the Home Secretary upped his 25 year sentence to a Whole Life Term.

Not forgetting that being served mushy sprouts and lumpy gravy every Christmas is enough to drive anyone to desperation.
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on April 22, 2015, 09:24:48 PM
... because he was and still is, furious at getting caught out by Essex police, bitter at Julie for giving his secret money-spinning game away, and even more miffed when the Home Secretary upped his 25 year sentence to a Whole Life Term.

Not forgetting that being served mushy sprouts and lumpy gravy every Christmas is enough to drive anyone to desperation.

i
I don't get how someone can be "pissed off" for centuries, but I do wonder why no high profile person has ever taken up his case
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 22, 2015, 10:27:34 PM
i
I don't get how someone can be "pissed off" for centuries, but I do wonder why no high profile person has ever taken up his case

How do you know they haven't  8(0(*

Welcome to the forum btw.
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on April 23, 2015, 12:55:26 AM
How do you know they haven't  8(0(*

Welcome to the forum btw.

hi and thanks holly

I dont know but never heard of anyone high profile defending him.. And it seems theyre not getting on well its been years and years
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 23, 2015, 12:22:47 PM
hi and thanks holly

I dont know but never heard of anyone high profile defending him.. And it seems theyre not getting on well its been years and years

When you say defending him do you mean a high profile lawyer, such as Michael Mansfield QC, or a high profile person campaigning on his behalf?

I think once a jury returns a verdict it is then incredibly difficult to make good MoJ's as we have seen with other high profile and long-running cases:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3394.msg129016#msg129016

We know MoJ's are a fact of the judicial system and the system is not perfect.  No system is ever perfect? 

Also as I have recently pointed out the one thing that marks out JB's case as being different in this regard is that he does not have the support of any family.  Obviously some, perhaps many, will say no because he murdered them.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg233108#msg233108
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on April 23, 2015, 11:47:30 PM
Michael Mansfield??? Jesus h christ

I didnt know that and you make a great point about family not being there as they were dead, horrible as it is, but surely he had friends, maybe not that close though to go through that kind of thing

The other thing is, how comes so many posters on tbis forum and others are so convinced of his guilt, its not exactly a nutters paradise
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 25, 2015, 06:30:19 PM
Michael Mansfield??? Jesus h christ

I didnt know that and you make a great point about family not being there as they were dead, horrible as it is, but surely he had friends, maybe not that close though to go through that kind of thing

The other thing is, how comes so many posters on tbis forum and others are so convinced of his guilt, its not exactly a nutters paradise

I am sure JB did have friends and acquaintances but in many respects his life history was a little different compared to the majority:

1. He was adopted into the Bamber family.  If you read the witness statements of JB's extended family they seem to have spent very little time with the Bamber family other than business meetings and occasional family get togethers at Christmas and family do's eg weddings.

2.  He grew up on an isolated farm.  Roger Wilkes book does make ref to JB having friends on neighbouring farms but I guess by the time he could play out unsupervised he was off to boarding school in Norfolk and these friendships would have been restricted to school hols only.

3.  From the age of 5 - 8 he attended a Maldon Court Prep in Maldon which is some 6 miles from WHF.

4.  From the age of 8 - 16 he attended Gresham school in Norfolk some 80 miles from WHF.  Again Roger Wilkes book makes ref to friends at school but I guess come term time he was back at WHF.

5.  At the age of 17 he returned to WHF and attended Colchester college for 1 year.  Followed by overseas travel.

6.  He then started working at WHF but obviously this environment does not provide opportunity to work with lots of people in a close knit working environment eg an office, shop, factory, hospital, mine, laboratory etc.

7.  From the age of 17 his friends seem to have been drawn from the night scene around Essex and also working in restaurants within the area. 

I do tend to ramble somewhat  @)(++(* but what I'm trying to say is growing up on WHF and attending schools some distance from WHF was not conducive to enduring friendships.

With regard to so many posters on this forum and elsewhere being convinced of JB's guilt you can't include me in that as I am very much in the innocent camp.  I don't think those that post on this forum and other forums are necessarily representative of the population at large.  I guess also the media have a lot to answer for in how JB was portrayed in 1985/86 eg money hungry, womanising, psychopath.  Also it cant help when you are found guilty in a court of law and the trial judge describes you as "warped and evil beyond belief"!?  All a bit of a PR nightmare!
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on April 27, 2015, 01:39:15 AM
Thanks Holly, sometimes you just dont go with the crowd, rightly or wrongly..is there any specific piece of evidence that proves without doubt that he did it?
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 28, 2015, 11:15:34 AM
Thanks Holly, sometimes you just dont go with the crowd, rightly or wrongly..is there any specific piece of evidence that proves without doubt that he did it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

No.  Overall the prosecution case against JB at trial was weak set against the legal threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  The defence could easily overcome all aspects of the case other than a silencer.  The silencer was found some 3/4 days after the tragedy by JB's relatives in the gun cupboard at WHF.  And after the police had completed their investigation of the property.  The silencer was found to contain blood internally and externally along with paint and a hair attached to the outside.  The blood was analysed and found to match SC's blood by way of ABO grouping, two enzymes and a protein.  It is not statistically individualising but the case for the blood being SC's is compelling.  The question is how did the blood end up in the silencer?  The prosecution claim JB shot all five members of his family with a silencer fitted to the rifle.  One of the shots SC received was a contact wound.  The prosecution claim  the  blood found its way inside the silencer by way of a little known phenomenon referred to as 'draw-back'.  This is where blood from a contact wound  is sucked back into the barrel of a firearm/silencer immediately after the bullet is fired due to the partial vacuum created by contracting discharge gasses.  The rifle was found  over SC's body without a silencer attached and initially all concerned thought she had taken her own life having murdered her family.  However when the silencer 'evidence' surfaced it begged the question how SC could have shot herself with the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard.  Obviously she couldn't.  This then put JB firmly in the frame until you realise the police were handed 3 samples of SC's blood by the pathologist for forwarding to the lab for various toxicology tests etc!  JB's relatives were suspicious about JB from day one.  Unfairly so imo.   They were able to exert a lot of pressure on the police so much so the investigation started to change shape.  SC and JB both had a legitimate right to be at WHf and handle the contents etc so any forensic evidence was only ever going to be limited.  The police had nothing on JB to get the case to trial let alone get a jury to convict hence the so-called silencer evidence surfaced.  I believe in all probability JB is innocent and I think the relatives and police genuinely thought JB guilty but they had nothing to secure a conviction so engineered the so-called silencer evidence.

If you're interested in the case Mercury you really need to read up on it, carry out your own research and form your own conclusions.   8((()*/

Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on April 29, 2015, 01:19:24 AM
Thanks again Holly, I just might as from what I have read there are tonnes of "niggles" here

Theres certain cases where its a damn slunk ie Jodi Arias guilty without any doubt whatsoever at any time
Then theres the psycho Amanda Knox, where its 50 50.. have to wieigh up the evidence and her pathetic psychology,statements and behaviours
Oscar Pistorius
Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside

Bamber? maybe guilty but not definitely




Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Myster on April 29, 2015, 06:51:07 AM
Deffo GUILTY!  %56& ... an "innocent" man who peppers his police interviews with NO COMMENTS has a hell of a lot to hide!

"Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside"

Couldn't have said it better myself!
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 29, 2015, 07:57:34 AM
Thanks again Holly, I just might as from what I have read there are tonnes of "niggles" here

Theres certain cases where its a damn slunk ie Jodi Arias guilty without any doubt whatsoever at any time
Then theres the psycho Amanda Knox, where its 50 50.. have to wieigh up the evidence and her pathetic psychology,statements and behaviours
Oscar Pistorius
Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside

Bamber? maybe guilty but not definitely
I think the press have a lot to answer for as with say Christopher Jeffries.  Remember how he was quickly rounded on as he seemed to 'fit' the bill!  When the real culprit was the unlikely looking Vincent Tabak.
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 29, 2015, 08:16:37 AM
Deffo GUILTY!  %56& ... an "innocent" man who peppers his police interviews with NO COMMENTS has a hell of a lot to hide!

"Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside"

Couldn't have said it better myself!

An innocent man in the midst of grieving for family finds himself accused of murdering them. 

He probably wouldn't have had any cause to say no comment if the police hadn't lied to him.
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Myster on April 29, 2015, 08:52:57 AM
An innocent man in the midst of grieving for family finds himself accused of murdering them. 

He probably wouldn't have had any cause to say no comment if the police hadn't lied to him.

Grieving!!!?  8(8-))   In the words of Barbara Wilson - "He was as happy as a lark!"  ?{)(**  

A month after the murders they were forgotten and consigned to the back of his memory.

Gotta go Holly... Toodle-pip.
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on April 29, 2015, 11:55:38 PM
Myster and Holly, thanks for replying, both appreciated. Seeing as I know hardly anything about this case I won't comment any further until I have had a look at various sites, for or against. It does raise the troublesome question, when does anyone actually know if someone is guilty or innocent. For sure, a court verdict doesn't always prove it.



Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 30, 2015, 01:09:33 PM
Myster and Holly, thanks for replying, both appreciated. Seeing as I know hardly anything about this case I won't comment any further until I have had a look at various sites, for or against. It does raise the troublesome question, when does anyone actually know if someone is guilty or innocent. For sure, a court verdict doesn't always prove it.

You're welcome Mercury.  Most of the posters on this forum have formed their own opinions/conclusions on the WHF case over many months and have moved on as it gets boring and there's nothing really new to discuss.  However two new case related books are due for release in July of this year so watch this space!  Also I understand JB has a new application winging its way to the CCRC!

I hope I didn't sound unhelpful when I said you need to read up etc., but I think its something you have to decide for yourself rather than someone like me giving you my biased views!  Probably the two best sources of information in terms of being factually correct are the Court of Appeal document http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html and a book by author Roger Wilkes http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Murders-Penguin/dp/0140242007  Plus the witness statements and other information on this forum. 

Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Myster on April 30, 2015, 06:44:22 PM
"Also I understand JB has a new application winging its way to the CCRC!" ... this must be the one! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2sozrof3HY&feature=youtu.be&t=1m15s)
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2015, 11:10:33 PM
You're welcome Mercury.  Most of the posters on this forum have formed their own opinions/conclusions on the WHF case over many months and have moved on as it gets boring and there's nothing really new to discuss.  However two new case related books are due for release in July of this year so watch this space!  Also I understand JB has a new application winging its way to the CCRC!

I hope I didn't sound unhelpful when I said you need to read up etc., but I think its something you have to decide for yourself rather than someone like me giving you my biased views!  Probably the two best sources of information in terms of being factually correct are the Court of Appeal document http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html and a book by author Roger Wilkes http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Murders-Penguin/dp/0140242007  Plus the witness statements and other information on this forum.

No Holly, nothing to do with you. Thanks for the links.

Is he in for life, as in "life" with no possibility of parole? Like the killer of April Jones?
Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 11, 2015, 04:28:57 PM
No Holly, nothing to do with you. Thanks for the links.

Is he in for life, as in "life" with no possibility of parole? Like the killer of April Jones?

Yes.  Here's the list from Wiki.  As you will see it is broken down into two sections: life sentences imposed by judges and life sentences imposed by home secretaries.  I don't understand why Mark Bridger received a life sentence but the likes of Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting minimum terms, albeit the minimum terms are likely to see them spend the rest of their natural life behind bars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

I don't believe in capital punishment but I'm all for life tariffs for the most serious of crimes especially sexually motivated child killers.  To my mind a life tariff is a greater punishment, and  hopefully deterrent, than capital punishment.  Many such prisoners faced with the prospect of life behind bars take their own lives eg Shipman and West and others are unsuccessful eg Huntley.  Anyone on a life tariff and claiming to be the victim of a MoJ, such as JB, still has the opportunity to appeal against their conviction via the CCRC/CoA.

Against JB's name it states:

"He is the only whole life tariff prisoner who has not accepted guilt or culpability and was also the youngest such prisoner when the original list was published. Despite the law lords' ruling in November 2002, Bamber has been told by the Home Secretary that he will never be released".

Title: Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
Post by: mercury on May 13, 2015, 07:47:05 PM
Not sure Holly. It's not clear.I need to keep reading.