None of your points make any sense whatsoever. None.
Really? Yet I assume you would like to conduct a civil discussion with me?
Is your attitude right, do you think?
Your first point that EP messed up the crime scene is wrong.
Yet in a different post, you admitted that Essex Police HAD messed up the crime scene and lost "vital evidence".
It’s true that the raid team had to smash the door down and search through all the rooms — so of course they had to walk all over the house. How else were they supposed to find everyone? Taff Jones was inept, that’s true, and they shouldn’t have destroyed much of the evidence —
But I'm wrong about everything, you say?
but that only highlights how right they were to convict him when much evidence was lost,
Perhaps, yes. As you say, perhaps it is a testament to the strength of the case against him.
and he was represented by one of the top QC’s at that time. If a brilliant top QC couldn’t get Jeremy off, what does that tell you?
A black cab driver circa 30 years ago: "If a top QC couldn't get the Birmingham Six off in an appeal, what does that tell you, eh guv'nor? I once had that Reggie Kray in the bad of me cab once. Gentleman he was....."
I don't find your point very convincing! Sorry.
And despite the initial mistakes made by the police under the orders of Taff Jones, the police photographer was actually praised for being so thorough and complete in his taking of pictures of all the bodies and crime scene. They even moved Sheila’s arm to show the blood stain beneath it on her nightdress — so how you can say the photographs cannot be relied upon?
The camera can lie.
I say we can't rely on the police for the reasons YOU yourself have just given in this post and in a previous post in which you admitted the police had destroyed "vital evidence".
But I am not maligning the police. I do also agree with you that the police have a difficult job to do and it's easy for me to sit here and criticise. In fact, I don't blame the police at all. I blame the mistake and I'm glad the police have reformed their practices. They learned from it. What else can we ask? They're only human and they do their best.
Another point to reflect on is that it must have been terrible for the police officers who came on the scene. You may guffaw at this, but this may even have affected the senior officers' emotions and, although I appreciate it's their job, Taff Jones and others may have even gone through a sort of PTSD themselves and that may even explain the initial mistakes.
The forensic scientists actually did very well by establishing the blood groups inside the silencer given that they had relatively little to analyse. They found 13 out of a possible 20 of Sheila’s bands/markers in the flake of blood — and in 2002 after advances in analysis had improved, they found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in the same sample — making it a trillion to one that blood could belong to anyone else.
To be honest, this is the only useful part of your post. If you had just stuck to facts like this and you could be a bit more civil, we could have a useful discussion and I may well change from thinking Bamber probably did it to accepting that he definitely did it.
I do know already about what you say, but my understanding of the evidence is different. I will look again.
How can you possibly say THAT evidence can’t be relied upon? It convinced the court, jury and high court judges — and they have far better knowledge than you do, or anyone else, including me. Or are you going to suggest like some of his other supporters do, that the appeal court judges are corrupt too? That the whole of Essex Constabulary, all the lawyers, QCs, forensic scientists, ballistic experts, pathologists, psychiatrists, witnesses, the judge, the appeal court judges, the judges at the court of Human Rights, neighbours, acquaintances, friends, family, journalists, everyone involved were all corrupt, all lied, and wanted to set him up?
Please refer to a post in which I have stated, suggested or even implied any of this. If you can't, then I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from making allegations like this. Please be careful about what you say to people.
And there’s nothing remotely strange about why the silencer which Jeremy used wasn’t found on the day of the murders: Jeremy had hidden it. Have you not read the case through?
I have read the case through. If we assume he did hide the moderator, then it was hid at the scene. Why didn't the police find it?
Do you not realise that Sheila’s blood, including both June’s and Nevill’s were found in that silencer Jeremy hid? Does that not prove to you that it was used in the killings? Don’t you realise Jeremy used the silencer so as not to wake everyone when he first shot the twins in their heads? Do you not realise that Jeremy didn’t want nearby neighbours hearing bullets firing?
There is no evidence he used the moderator in the kilings, but I find it interesting that you cling to this evidence, even though it's not necessary for you to do say. You could throw the moderator away. Indeed, isn't that what the trial judge said in his summing-up to the jury?
You then say you “think” Julie was lying. You think. But you don’t know her, nor did you. You’ve even come out with the ludicrous suggestion that Julie herself was arrested! That’s utter nonsense. She wasn’t arrested at all, and to even suggest that makes you look like a conspiracist — and no-one takes any notice of those....
I know she lied. She admits it herself. The question is whether we should believe what she said subsequently. My question is: Why should I? Neither you nor anybody else can give me a strong reason.
I suspect she was arrested, I don't know it, and I note that Essex Police are hiding behind PII certificates.
Julie came forward of her own volition, as did her friend. Julie VOLUNTEERED all the information she had, warts and all,
Your facts aren't quite right there. She wasn't a volunteer. Her testimony was coerced and she was given immunity, not so much for her own benefit, but for the Crown, though it did benefit her.
and she told the police things Jeremy had told her AFTER he’d murdered his family, that she couldn’t have possibly known about the killings. She knew exactly where all the bodies were found; how they were laying; their exact positions; how many bullets they’d each received; how Jeremy entered and left the house (which proved correct); and various other things that were NOT made public and the only way she could have known those things was from being told by the killer: Jeremy. He did indeed lie and made out he’d paid a hitman to do it, but the rest of what he told her was all true...even down to the “dropped glove” and Jeremy’s “made-up hitman” being worried about the fingerprints on the rifle. How could she have known THAT? Tell me how she could have known there’d be few fingerprints on the rifle when no-one was told at that time?
Sorry but she could have learned all this from other sources, including Jeremy. Remember that even if Jeremy told her these things, that doesn't make him guilty, since Jeremy himself could have gleaned the information from innocent sources.
But just to refresh my memory, perhaps you could quickly link to her statements where she provided all this information?
Julie’s statement was NOT hearsay at all: she repeated what Jeremy had told HER. Why do you think the judge told the jury they could convict him on just her evidence alone? Do you seriously think the court would allow HEARSAY? Do you not think the defence would have objected?!
The critical part of her statement was hearsay (and also untrue). You are wrong when you say that hearsay evidence was inadmissible at that time in English criminal trials. There have always been exceptions to the common law rule against hearsay, including hearsay involving criminal admissions by an accused.
Also, arguably it wasn't technically hearsay on the basis that both Bamber himself and McDonald were open to cross-examination - indeed, I assume this was one of the reasons McDonald was called, the other one being to quash the notion of a hitman in the jury's minds and point the finger solely at Jeremy.
And for you to say you think she’s an abominable woman because she made one foolish mistake of making out she’d lost her cheque book to commit fraud, is somewhat severe. She confessed to it; felt shame and remorse; and paid the money back to the bank. Yes, it was wrong what she did, but Jeremy didn’t think so. He was pleased as punch when she illegally bought him a top of the range coffee maker with her “stolen” cheque book, and actually praised her. He was a DREADFUL influence on her.
Sorry but here you fall into the classic trap of trying to deodorise Julie Mugford. I needn't take it seriously or respond further. Both Julie Mugford and Jeremy Bamber were abominable individuals, and she was a criminal in her own right.
And this nonsense that Sheila’s body was moved by the police is a ridiculous lie. She wasn’t moved at all. The photographs PROVE that. They only moved her arm to take photos of the blood beneath.
Well, it is a truism that the police must have moved the body at some stage, and it's also not controversial to suppose that the police moved her when they found her as (I assume) they would have had to safe the rifle and maybe attempt to resuscitate her, depending on what they found. So my point actually stands. You've just misunderstood me.
The Bible was staged by Jeremy, as was the rifle. Sheila couldn’t have opened the Bible, pressed her hand into her own pool of blood as she was losing consciousness, imprinted her blooded hand inside the Bible; closed it; opened it again; then positioned it next to herself when she was gurgling for breath. The mirrored imprint inside the Bible actually tripped him up... It’s actually too ludicrous to even comment on. The same as the rifle. Had Sheila shot herself the rifle would have fallen on the floor, as would her arm. And how could she shoot herself with just one arm? Her left arm was tucked up beside her head. Explain that. And the telephone — Nevill couldn’t SPEAK as he’d already been shot by in his mouth by Jeremy upstairs and had a ripped tongue and larynx. Forensics and ballistics PROVED that. But you’re ignoring that. You’re ignoring ALL the facts. Why?
I'm not ignoring facts. I'll get on to discussing the Bible in due time. I appreciate you adding your own views, but it would be more helpful if you could calm down a bit.
Yes, Sheila was suffering from a MH condition, one in which it’s never been known for someone with mild schizophrenia, such as Sheila had, and who’s on medication to ever kill. Ever. Sheila’s medication had been reduced, but it was STILL too strong for her. She could barely walk. She was weak, heavily tranquillised, unable to focus; shaky; had no coordination; and had NO MOTIVE to kill her adored sons and her parents. Sheila wasn’t a psychopath, either — but Jeremy Bamber is. And he had a HUGE MOTIVE to kill them all; which he carried out.
I’m not sure about the first gunshot wound, but the only correct thing you’ve said is that Sheila was shot (definitely the second time) without the silencer; and Jeremy HAD to do that as he realised Sheila wouldn’t have been able to reach the trigger with the silencer attached.
Sheila could NOT have shot herself twice, as Dr Vanezis concluded AFTER seeing the crime scene, the rifle, and the photographs. Dr Vanezis was actually furious with Taff Jones for misleading him at the PM. He said afterwards that Sheila could NOT have walked after the first shot — so how and why — would/could she have gone downstairs to hide the silencer when part of her spine had been shattered; she was pouring with blood, struggling to breathe...and not a single drop of her blood was found ANYWHERE downstairs, in the cupboard, on the landing...not even by the bedroom door. Perhaps you could explain that to Professor Vanezis: I can forward you his phone number if you’d like?
You make some good points here, but you also make the assumption that the moderator was used in the killings. It may have been. I'll need to re-consider the points you make above about the DNA found in the moderator.
And to come out with that silly old chestnut: Sheila cleaned herself after shooting her children and parents dead, beating Nevill to a pulp exposing his brain, before shooting herself TWICE near where her mother lay dead is nuts. If Sheila was going berserk and had lost her mind, why would she remove her heavily bloodstained clothes that would have had tissue parts from Nevill all over her, in her hair, up her nose, inside her ears...take a shower or bath, then insert a tampon, put her wristw..ch back on and then shoot herself dead? Where were her bloodstained clothes? Where did they go? Any idea?
That's an argument from incredulity. Why not clean herself?
You suggesting Sheila used TWO rifles like some kind of saloon bar cowgirl on a rampage is laughable. Where WAS this other gun?
There was more than one loaded gun in the house and you've admitted that the police missed "vital evidence" [your words]. Why is it laughable?
You’re obviously desperate to try and make him look innocent ...and I give you 10/10 for highlighting his guilt.
No, I think he probably did it, actually. I've said that half-a-dozen times. Please don't impugn my motives.
