Author Topic: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012  (Read 68160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #45 on: March 23, 2012, 08:26:16 AM »
Shona, no, I can´t see the documentary here - i hope it will be online (it will.)

Claudia, what short videos?

Abs pop down to Luxembourg in your VW Beetle .... I will have the Bamber video recorded and you can watch it anytime!  @)(++(*
Actually perhaps one of our kind members could put the video on youtube so Abs can see it and we all can comment on it there.

Offline John

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #46 on: March 23, 2012, 08:34:32 AM »
)
Shona, no, I can´t see the documentary here - i hope it will be online (it will.)

Claudia, what short videos?

Abs pop down to Luxembourg in your VW Beetle .... I will have the Bamber video recorded and you can watch it anytime!  @)(++(*
Actually perhaps one of our kind members could put the video on youtube so Abs can see it and we all can comment on it there.



Will it be a documentary though or a work of some fiction.  We could be in danger of giving too much credibility to a film which is simply looking at theories in the Bamber case and ignoring all the other evidence.


A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2012, 08:47:50 AM »
Shona, no, I can´t see the documentary here - i hope it will be online (it will.)

Claudia, what short videos?


I believe Claudia is referring to the short videos which have been added in the video library section.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

stevo

  • Guest
Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #48 on: March 26, 2012, 04:15:34 PM »
How the hell has this been given a prime time slot on ITV1?  I know for a fact Jeremy has spoken about a 'deal being done' and has disbanded his campaign team.  Does anybody else think a deal really has been done?  ITV did put this programme back 2 weeks and I was wondering if this has been timed to coincide with the CCRC decision and they already know the result?  Maybe Jeremy is just being overconfident as he always thinks he will be out soon.  If it got referred, I think it would be thrown out at the Court Of Appeal.  Trouble is, Simon McKay would have got what he wanted from this case by then unfortunately.  On a different matter,  I'd just like to say that Jackie Preece is a nasty piece of work.  I got banned from the other forum after one post for saying that!  I know she reads what is written here so I'd just like to say to her that you will never get to meet Jeremy so please STOP emailing him as he has nothing to do with you anymore and says you are nothing more than an obsessed stalker who needs to get a life.  Even Mckay thinks you're a trollop!  Could someone give me her email address so I can write to her in person?  Thanks!

Offline John

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2012, 04:18:26 PM »
Welcome to the forum Stevo.  When you get a chance would you like to introduce yourself to us all here and tell us why you are interested in the cases.  Thanks.

I have a meeting soon so maybe Tim will respond.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 04:21:26 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2012, 03:43:12 PM »
Been a busy morning in north London today, good god I couldn't cope with this traffic every day, thank goodness I live in such beautiful surrounds.   I had a lovely visit with some of my old muckers from the past who hold some pretty senior posts.  They are quite confident that the Bamber case will not be reopened, rather he will fade into obscurity eventually and never be heard of or taken seriously ever again.  I must admit i did agree with them.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Justice K

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2012, 03:48:23 PM »
Been a busy morning in north London today, good god I couldn't cope with this traffic every day, thank goodness I live in such beautiful surrounds.   I had a lovely visit with some of my old muckers from the past who hold some pretty senior posts.  They are quite confident that the Bamber case will not be reopened, rather he will fade into obscurity eventually and never be heard of or taken seriously ever again.  I must admit i did agree with them.

I take it you will be visiting a few places on your business trip relevant to the Bamber case?
Law without justice is a wound without a cure.  (William Scott Downey)

Offline Matthew Wyse

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #52 on: March 29, 2012, 09:36:06 AM »
 8(>((     I am so looking forward to this latest "new evidence" in the Bamber case according to his deluded supporters.  Will it be yet another false dawn, yet another attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes?   I get the distinct feeling that the public have had quite enough of Bamber and are bored with this case.
Most people suspect the truth but few are able to admit it.

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #53 on: March 29, 2012, 09:43:04 AM »
8(>((     I am so looking forward to this latest "new evidence" in the Bamber case according to his deluded supporters.  Will it be yet another false dawn, yet another attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes?   I get the distinct feeling that the public have had quite enough of Bamber and are bored with this case.

Isn't it gong to be hilarious if and when the CCRC boot Bamber out .... watch Tesko implode and Miss P. get even more demented!  8)-)))

tescoman

  • Guest
Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #54 on: March 29, 2012, 03:41:05 PM »
The ccrc have no option but to boot his case out.          On the subject of tonights tv prog though I will sacrifice an episode of corrie just to watch the latest garbage.    I have a feeling benny hill will win though on the comedy front.    @)(++(*

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #55 on: March 29, 2012, 03:56:56 PM »
So now we have some meat on the bones of the Bamber documentary tonight .... thank's Eleanor. I think this should be discussed seriously rather than used as a tool for baiting the Bamberettes!

The first mistake noted is that June and Nevill did not own White House Farm as stated; not a crucial mistake though:

ITV 1 'Tonight' - Thursday 29th March 19.30
 
Bamber: Then New Evidence
By Mark Williams-Thomas
 
The scene that greeted the police officers on their entry into the farmhouse was one of blood-soaked carnage.     In the kitchen on the ground floor, they found the body of Neville Bamber, dressed in his pyjamas and slumped over a chair.   He had been shot eight times, with six of the bullets fired at close range into his head.    But it seemed clear that he had put up a fierce struggle against his lethal assailant, for not only  was his face severely bruised but also around his corpse lay the evidence of a fight, including broken crockery, a smashed ceiling light and upturned furniture.   
 
The trail of murderous violence extended upstairs.   In one bedroom with tragic poignancy, were the bodies of six-year-old twins Daniel and Nicholas Caffell .   Eight bullets, all delivered from very close range, had accounted for them as they slept.    In the master bedroom lay the heavily blood-stained body of June Bamber who had been shot seven times, once through her forehead right between her eyes.  FINALLY there was the body of Sheila Caffell and the mother of the murdered twins, who had two bullet wounds in her neck, a rifle across her chest and a bible at her side.
 
Altogether 25 rounds had been fired during this massacre, which took place during the early hours of 7th August 1985 at White House farm in rural Essex.    It was a crime that shook the nation in its savagery and its extraordinary circumstances.  Initially the police and the media were certain that the bloodbath had been perpetrated by Sheila Caffell during some kind of frenzied breakdown.     She was a vulnerable ex-model with a long history of mental illness.    All the victims were members of her immediate family, her adoptive parents, Neville and June, the owners of White house Farm and her twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas.   The pattern of killing suggested that Sheila had killed the other four and then shot herself in a deranged murder-suicide.
 
But then the saga took a bizarre twist.   A few weeks after the crime, the spotlight of suspicion began to fall on Sheila’s brother Jeremy, who had also been adopted by the Bambers and lived in a rented cottage near the farm.    Gradually, the police built up a case against him.    Having been charged with the murders, Bamber was put on trial in October 1986 and after a very high profile court case lasting 19 days, was found guilty.   
He has been in prison ever since, one of the few lifers in Britain who has been told that he will never be released because of the gravity of his crimes.
 
After all these years behind bars, Bamber continues to maintain his innocence.   And in the subsequent 26 years since the trial, doubts have grown about his guilt.   This case has attracted considerable attention and continues with opinions split between those who believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent and those that firmly believe he is guilty.   It is accepted by the original police team that vital evidence was lost, and enquires and forensic examinations were not carried out properly.    Vital material was destroyed or ignored.   The crime scene was never secured properly.  These are all failings that would not be accepted in any murder enquiry today. But we must remember this is 1985 and policing has changed massively since then.
 
I write as a criminologist and former detective myself with much experience of working on high profile cases and subsequently studying many more.   The White House Farm murders have only recently attracted my attention but having looked in depth at the evidence, it is clear that Bamber’s new legal team have identified some very significant points which need to be carefully considered.
 
Tonight, in an ITV documentary special, I have been given exclusive access to a lot of previously unseen documents and have set out to challenge the new evidence by Bambers legal team and see if it stands up under separate scrutiny. 
 
The essence of the prosecution case is that Bamber was a cunning manipulator who loathed his adoptive parents and staged the massacre so that he could inherit the family farm and fortune.   According to this narrative, Bamber climbed into the White House Farm on the night of 7th August, took one of his father’s rifles, complete with a silencer on it, and embarked on the murders.   But in this account, two unforeseen problems almost ruined the deadly scheme.   First of all, his father Neville put up powerful resistance despite having sustained a number of bullet wounds.   That, said the prosecutors, was why he was battered so badly.    Second, Bamber discovered that, with the silencer on the rifle, it would have been physically impossible for Sheila to have shot herself  because her arms were simply not long enough to stretch to the trigger while holding the muzzle under her chin.    So, according to the prosecutors, Bamber removed the silencer after killing her and left the now shorter rifle on her chest.   Having placed the silencer in the gun cupboard downstairs, the illusion of suicide was complete.
 
So this object was absolutely crucial to the prosecution case.  The silencer was the key single piece of evidence in this case . In  fact, the judge in the original trial said that “on its own, it could lead the jury to believe that the defendant is guilty.”   Given its strength however to the case it is important to note that the silencer was not found by the police at all during their initial search of White House Farm.   
 
Instead, it was uncovered by members of the wider Bamber family days after the police had finished their work at the crime scene.   It was the discovery of the silencer that suddenly turned Jeremy Bamber into the suspect.
 
The evidence that a silencer was definitely used when Sheila was killed has always has been the prosecutions case, yet this is now where Bamber's lawyers have obtained evidence to challenge this view.  In preparing to mount a renewed appeal to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, his legal team ordered one of the world’s leading ballistics experts, based in the USA, to conduct tests with a rifle and ammunition exactly the same as that used at White House Farm.   This expert’s findings, based on detailed photographs taken of Sheila's two gunshot wounds is that in his opinion,  one of the wounds was consistent with the rifle  without a silencer attached. Just as importantly, in the police photos of Neville’s body, there are a number of small, circular burn marks on his back. Again Bambers's legal team have now obtained expert evidence which concludes that the three marks are consistent with the artificially heated muzzle of a rifle without a silencer. 
 
For the TV documentary tonight, we replicated precisely the firearms tests from the USA and achieved exactly the same results. One crucial point which has troubled me is how no residue, lead or gun oil was ever found on Sheila, despite having fired 25 rounds, which would have entailed reloading the .22 rifle at least twice.    Furthermore her manicured nails were undamaged. Although no proper forensic tests were carried out;  to the naked eye no residue was visible on her hands.   So I tested this and  loaded the bullets into the magazine . I found that I could easily load the first 9 bullets into the magazine and use the pads of my finger, leaving no residue on my fingers. And if i did get any residue on my fingers it was easily removed simply by wiping my hands on clothing.
 
The programme also looks at other evidence crucial to Bamber’s conviction.    One is the fact that his former girlfriend, Julie Mugford, was paid £25,000 for her story by the News of the World.   She played a crucial role for the prosecution.   After initially supporting Bamber in the wake of the killings, she turned against him and told the police that he had confessed he was planning to kill his parents.  “Tonight or never”, she claimed he said on the day of the murders.    But the jury never learnt of her dealings with the media. 
In our programme tonight, we have tape of Bamber saying, more with regret than anger, “I think there is no question that Sheila was responsible”
 
Even after 27 years this case still attracts massive public opinion and attention . Whatever your view - ultimately the decision sits with the Commission as to whether this case will be referred back to the court of Appeal for the second time.   A decision which I am told is imminent.
 
Twitter @mwilliamsthomas


My immediate reaction is this seems to be reasonably balanced.

Questions:
Are they saying the silencer wasn't used for any of the 25 shots or for some of the 25 shots?

It appears of the two shots to Sheila, one could have been made without the silencer fitted and the other could not be determined? How on earth does this exonerate Bamber ... he could have realised Sheila wasn't dieing after he put the silencer away and made the second shot without the silencer. So what?

There's possible burn marks to Nevill made by the muzzle end of the gun minus the silencer. Again so what? Nevill could have been killed first downstairs before Bamber had a chance to fit the silencer to the gun. How does this suggest bamber's innocence?

It is vary vague as to whether they are saying the silencer was never used or was used only for some shots. If it was never used then the billion dollar question is how on earth did proven blood from the victims get inside the silencer?

If they are saying the silencer was only used for some shots and a logical mind between shots decided to get  the silencer and use it then surely this is huge circumstantial evidence that a logical mind was at work and not "Sheila going berserk with a gun"? Why on earth would Sheila, in a psychotic state as suggested, care at all whether a silencer should or sould not be used?

I also don't buy gun shot residue only on Sheila's fingertips being easily wiped off on clothing and leaving no trace. And surely she should have had gun shot residue on her fingers from the final two suicide shots to herself ... she couldn't have wiped off that gun shot residue could she?

Wasn't Sheila's clothing also testing for GSR and found to be clean? Where's the wiped residue on her clothing that's being suggested?

What about Sheila's clean feet? No blood or debris from the fight with Nevill?

What about Sheila's clean manicured, unchipped fingernails?

What about Sheila having no damage or injuries from the violent life or death struggle with Nevill?


The Julie Mugford NOTW deal?
Julie herself said she was being hounded by the press on a daily basis and her solicitor suggested the best thing to do is make one deal with one newspaper and she should leave it in his hands? True or not that's what Sheila said happened and she was unaware of the details of the deal at the time of the trial.

Julie did not know there would be any newspaper money went she went to the police to expose Bamber? They are saying she lied because of money and yet when she approached the police with the truth she knew nothing of any possible money!

And finally these new experts are working from crime scene photographs. My understanding is that evidence from forensic experts at the scene and at the coroner's office is always relied upon over contradicting photographs that may or may not give an accurate picture (!) of the facts.

I tried to approach this with an open mind and yet find myself pulling it apart (imho) ..... so far I see nothing that makes my opinion waiver. 

 
   
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 04:46:42 PM by Tim Invictus »

Offline John

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #56 on: March 29, 2012, 04:52:31 PM »
I completely agree Tim, I find the piece to be rather amateurish for such an important case.  Some points which need addressing...

Mr Williams-Thomas failed to point out that the police initially thought that Sheila had done it because Jeremy Bamber had written the script that way from the very first moment he contacted the police. When the police arrived he went to great pains to emphasise that his mad sister was responsible.  The plan was in full swing!

Jeremy didn't live in a rented cottage.  He lived in a cottage owned by his father which he had free use of.

Doubts have not grown about his guilt.  He is a guilty today as he was 26 years ago and any properly charged jury would come to the same conclusion.

Bamber did not take one of his fathers rifles complete with silencer on it.  The rifle did not have a silencer on it, Bamber had to retrieve it from the cupboard and fit it.

It was not the discovery of the silencer which turned Jeremy Bamber into a suspect.  He was a suspect from the moment DS Stan Jones overheard him laughing with Julie Mugford just hours after the murders took place.

So what if Sheila was shot once with a rifle that did not have a silencer attached, Bamber obviously had removed the silencer to replace it in the gun cupboard after making a mess of trying to clean it.  He obviously put another round in the unsilenced rifle and shot Sheila a second time when he realised she was not dead and could live until police arrived.

I think Mr Williams-Thomas needs to do some more homework!
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

tescoman

  • Guest
Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #57 on: March 29, 2012, 05:52:33 PM »
I completely agree Tim, I find the piece to be rather amateurish for such an important case.  Some points which need addressing...

Mr Williams-Thomas failed to point out that the police initially thought that Sheila had done it because Jeremy Bamber had written the script that way from the very first moment he contacted the police. When the police arrived he went to great pains to emphasise that his mad sister was responsible.  The plan was in full swing!

Jeremy didn't live in a rented cottage.  He lived in a cottage owned by his father which he had free use of.

Doubts have not grown about his guilt.  He is a guilty today as he was 26 years ago and any properly charged jury would come to the same conclusion.

Bamber did not take one of his fathers rifles complete with silencer on it.  The rifle did not have a silencer on it, Bamber had to retrieve it from the cupboard and fit it.

It was not the discovery of the silencer which turned Jeremy Bamber into a suspect.  He was a suspect from the moment DS Stan Jones overheard him laughing with Julie Mugford just hours after the murders took place.

So what if Sheila was shot once with a rifle that did not have a silencer attached, Bamber obviously had removed the silencer to replace it in the gun cupboard after making a mess of trying to clean it.  He obviously put another round in the unsilenced rifle and shot Sheila a second time when he realised she was not dead and could live until police arrived.

I think Mr Williams-Thomas needs to do some more homework!


I was under the impression a Company like ITV would at least get the basics right but sadly they cannot even do that.  I must say I am disappointed in this article so who knows what sort of rubbish will be in the documentary.

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #58 on: March 29, 2012, 06:55:25 PM »
I completely agree Tim, I find the piece to be rather amateurish for such an important case.  Some points which need addressing...

Mr Williams-Thomas failed to point out that the police initially thought that Sheila had done it because Jeremy Bamber had written the script that way from the very first moment he contacted the police. When the police arrived he went to great pains to emphasise that his mad sister was responsible.  The plan was in full swing!

Jeremy didn't live in a rented cottage.  He lived in a cottage owned by his father which he had free use of.

Doubts have not grown about his guilt.  He is a guilty today as he was 26 years ago and any properly charged jury would come to the same conclusion.

Bamber did not take one of his fathers rifles complete with silencer on it.  The rifle did not have a silencer on it, Bamber had to retrieve it from the cupboard and fit it.

It was not the discovery of the silencer which turned Jeremy Bamber into a suspect.  He was a suspect from the moment DS Stan Jones overheard him laughing with Julie Mugford just hours after the murders took place.

So what if Sheila was shot once with a rifle that did not have a silencer attached, Bamber obviously had removed the silencer to replace it in the gun cupboard after making a mess of trying to clean it.  He obviously put another round in the unsilenced rifle and shot Sheila a second time when he realised she was not dead and could live until police arrived.

I think Mr Williams-Thomas needs to do some more homework!

Good points John and I would say you're looking at it fairly too. We have only addressed the issues and supposed new evidence that Bamber's defense are bringing up now.

The trial judge gave the jury 3 points to consider and on which they could find Bamber guilty or innocent. McKay and his team seem to suggest the jury found Bamber guilty on the silencer evidence alone which is not accurate. We haven't mentioned a litany of other evidence that screams Bamber's guilt. I look forward to the programme with interest.

One thing that I think even the Bamberettes will agree on now; if the CCRC reject Bamber after all this then he is dead and buried. He will die in prison!

Offline John

Re: Bamber case on ITV Tonight Programme 29th March 2012
« Reply #59 on: March 29, 2012, 07:09:00 PM »
I completely agree Tim, I find the piece to be rather amateurish for such an important case.  Some points which need addressing...

Mr Williams-Thomas failed to point out that the police initially thought that Sheila had done it because Jeremy Bamber had written the script that way from the very first moment he contacted the police. When the police arrived he went to great pains to emphasise that his mad sister was responsible.  The plan was in full swing!

Jeremy didn't live in a rented cottage.  He lived in a cottage owned by his father which he had free use of.

Doubts have not grown about his guilt.  He is a guilty today as he was 26 years ago and any properly charged jury would come to the same conclusion.

Bamber did not take one of his fathers rifles complete with silencer on it.  The rifle did not have a silencer on it, Bamber had to retrieve it from the cupboard and fit it.

It was not the discovery of the silencer which turned Jeremy Bamber into a suspect.  He was a suspect from the moment DS Stan Jones overheard him laughing with Julie Mugford just hours after the murders took place.

So what if Sheila was shot once with a rifle that did not have a silencer attached, Bamber obviously had removed the silencer to replace it in the gun cupboard after making a mess of trying to clean it.  He obviously put another round in the unsilenced rifle and shot Sheila a second time when he realised she was not dead and could live until police arrived.

I think Mr Williams-Thomas needs to do some more homework!

Good points John and I would say you're looking at it fairly too. We have only addressed the issues and supposed new evidence that Bamber's defense are bringing up now.

The trial judge gave the jury 3 points to consider and on which they could find Bamber guilty or innocent. McKay and his team seem to suggest the jury found Bamber guilty on the silencer evidence alone which is not accurate. We haven't mentioned a litany of other evidence that screams Bamber's guilt. I look forward to the programme with interest.

One thing that I think even the Bamberettes will agree on now; if the CCRC reject Bamber after all this then he is dead and buried. He will die in prison!


I have always said that I look at the cases from the perspective of the evidence.  That is why I changed my opinion entirely in the Luke Mitchell case when the evidence actually pointed towards him being guilty.  That said, I would be the first to welcome the slightest glimmer of hope in relation to Bamber.  The hard part for me though is that in most cases there is evidence which can support innocence but it is so obviously missing in this instance.  Wishful theories and long sagas about police incompetence and documents being held under PII do nothing to alter this situation.  The CCRC would have had access to everything in the Bamber cases and even they find that there isn't anything which supports his position that he is innocence.

I fear Mark Williams-Thomas has done nothing but muddy the water and I told him so earlier this afternoon when it was pointed out to him that his article was factually wrong on several counts. I note that he has not bothered to answer my criticisms.  If someone is going to do a TV programme about Bamber should be done properly and not look like an episode from The Bill.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 07:12:04 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.