The baclava and wetsuit theories

[scipio_usmc]

There is no evidence that Jeremy wore a baclava and/or wetsuit on the night of the murders.  It is in fact true that killers usually change out of the clothes they wore while committing murders to dispose of evidence.  Thus it is likely that Jeremy changed his clothes and washed up.  If he saw blood on his clothing then he surely would have changed before going outside to the police. Sometimes killers do not notice blood though because the droplets are small.  Sometimes they do not change all their clothes and get caught for this reason.  Other times there are witnesses to what they originally had been wearing on a particular day and such clothes are able to be retrieved because they were not thrown away or were not thrown away well enough.   

He knew enough about guns that he probably would have worn gloves to limit the gunshot residue on his hands.  The fact he haldned guns in the past means contamination could occur so he would still have an excuse fo the presence of gunshot residue.  Contrary to the claims of some gunshot residue doesn't just completely vanish by itself.  It is transferred and that is how it leaves an item.  It is easy to transfer which is why one has to be careful about interpretation.

On appeal there was much argued about the tests done.  They performed a test to detemrine whether Sheila handled a gun. This means whether there were low levels of gunshot residue on her hands and body because just grasping a gun is enough to get low leves of gunshot residue.  To determine someone likely fired a weapon requires evidence of a rather high level of gunshot residue.  Because gunshot residue can be washed away and transferred over time it is quite possible for someone who fired a weapon to have low levels if they had time to wash up and handle many things which they could transfer the particles to.  It doesn't usually wash away that fast though that none can be detected. But all the low levels prove it as minimum a gun was handled nothing more.

Jeremy made sure he noted he handled a gun recently so low levels could be found on him.

We don't know how long Jeremy waied to call police.  We only know he waited at least 20 minutes after dialing to call Julie.  We don't know whether the family died at 2Am or 2:30.  All we know is he waited until after he changed his clothes and cleaned up before calling police.  If you have little time to change and no time to wash up then i that case wearing something like a wetsuit or the like over your clothes would make sense. But he had no need to do that and if he had been wearing a baclava would not have as much to fear about the phone being used because he could not be identified.  The phone precautions taken obviated the need to disguise his identity.

Surely the time he took to call police was used cleaning up and changing but we have no idea if he changed all his clothes or not and if the threw all of them away or what.  We have no idea if he even did a good job cleaning up.  The fact that police never examined his clothing or body means we have no way of knowing just how effective he was at cleaning up.  It wound up being not needed because police bought his BS.  He didn't know if they would buy it or not and might examine him so cleaned up for sure we just don't know the extent.

I personally doubt he went to greater lengths though than other killers.  He probably just changed some or all his clothes and probably used gloves.  The baclava seems pointless and overalls or a wetsuit not necessary.

         

[Lindyhop]

I agree the balaclava wasn't necessary if he wasn't bothered about his family knowing he was the murderer - I thought he may have pretended to be a burglar. I do think he had some form of disguise though, for the off-chance that someone spotted him cycling back from the farm. Maybe just a handkerchief tied over his mouth. Or he may have thought his dyed hair was disguise enough.

All the mentions of baclavas have made me hungry...

[scipio_usmc]

I agree the balaclava wasn't necessary if he wasn't bothered about his family knowing he was the murderer - I thought he may have pretended to be a burglar. I do think he had some form of disguise though, for the off-chance that someone spotted him cycling back from the farm. Maybe just a handkerchief tied over his mouth. Or he may have thought his dyed hair was disguise enough.

All the mentions of baclavas have made me hungry...

Given the hour of night and the desolate area I doubt he wore a disguise period.  His main concern would be to not have evidence on his body or clothing in case police did decide to impound his clothes or test him.

He easily could have driven home without anyone seeing him.  How many people would be likely out and about at that hour?  Who out and about would be able to ID him driving a car?  You see headlights not who is in a car or even the color and make necessarily.  Whether he used the bike or actually drove who knows but I would have driven if I were him as opposed to taking a bike.   

[John]

Given that the killings were premeditated it is more than likely that he would have had a stash of clothes at the farm ready to change into and every opportunity to dispose of contaminated clothing on the farm.  I don't believe the police even searched the farm outbuildings immediately after the murders since they thought it was a murder suicide.

[Myster]

Given the hour of night and the desolate area I doubt he wore a disguise period.  His main concern would be to not have evidence on his body or clothing in case police did decide to impound his clothes or test him.

He easily could have driven home without anyone seeing him.  How many people would be likely out and about at that hour?  Who out and about would be able to ID him driving a car?  You see headlights not who is in a car or even the color and make necessarily.  Whether he used the bike or actually drove who knows but I would have driven if I were him as opposed to taking a bike.

9 Head street is very close to the neighbouring houses, both on either side and across the road. JB's car wasn't garaged, just parked at the front.
So would he have risked disturbing/waking these people after midnight by starting up, leaving and returning in his car ?

When he made his way to WHF after ringing the police I wonder whether the neighbours heard any car engine turning over then and if they made any statements about it ?

The Crown's case was that a bicycle was used though.  John hinted in a different thread that he had some interesting new info about it but never elaborated.

[Lindyhop]

Yeah - pretty certain he cycled. He made a big deal about leaving WHF in his car, revving noisily possibly so people would know he'd left. He wouldn't risk driving back there - it only needed one person to say they saw him leave/arrive and his alibi would've been blown. There was also no reason for him to have his mother's bike in his backyard - the Julie excuse was just that, an excuse.

[steve_trousers]

Hi All

I have only heard the wetsuit theory from one source, Bob Woffinden and it's likely just his guess and we will never know.
If I was planning the perfect murder I would think that wearing a wetsuit makes sense, a few minutes under a hot shower should get rid of all traces so dogs cant smell it, then hide it well.
I personally think it is risky for him to just don a different pair of clothes for the murder as he surely would have had to burn bloodstained clothing ? he wouldnt be able to just wash them and put back in his closet? (stains)  he couldnt hide them very far away due to time constraints and that brings the risk of blood dogs.

Then again the wetsuit theory brings its own risks... if anyone caught him in possesion of it at any time before or after the murders, it would be noteworthy and suspicious in itself seeing as to my knowledge the bloke wasnt into watersports anyway.

Maybe he did just wear a pair of old clothes that he was no longer seen wearing, and burned them as quickly as he could.

[scipio_usmc]

Hi All

I have only heard the wetsuit theory from one source, Bob Woffinden and it's likely just his guess and we will never know.
If I was planning the perfect murder I would think that wearing a wetsuit makes sense, a few minutes under a hot shower should get rid of all traces so dogs cant smell it, then hide it well.
I personally think it is risky for him to just don a different pair of clothes for the murder as he surely would have had to burn bloodstained clothing ? he wouldnt be able to just wash them and put back in his closet? (stains)  he couldnt hide them very far away due to time constraints and that brings the risk of blood dogs.

Then again the wetsuit theory brings its own risks... if anyone caught him in possesion of it at any time before or after the murders, it would be noteworthy and suspicious in itself seeing as to my knowledge the bloke wasnt into watersports anyway.

Maybe he did just wear a pair of old clothes that he was no longer seen wearing, and burned them as quickly as he could.

I would not waste a wetsuit, I would simply wear clothes I did not mind disposing of.

Bear in mind he intended to murder them in bed, that is why he did it so late. He had no idea that Nevill would make it out of bed and he would need to beat him in the kitchen.  He might have expected no blood at all unless he understood blood spatter mechanics which I doubt given his actions with the suppressor.  He was aware of GSR though so wore gloves.  That is the other thing that can get on clothing but can be washed out if you launder them.  Blood can be laundered out as well though so you don't necessarily have to toss them though it is easier to do so than to look for specks of blood that might not have been washed away. Big blood stains are likely when you are going to bludgeon or stab someone or move their body. Shooting them most likely would result in spatter simply so long as you shoot them at relatively close range. If you shoot them from a distance you don't even need to worry about that.     

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi All

I have only heard the wetsuit theory from one source, Bob Woffinden and it's likely just his guess and we will never know.
If I was planning the perfect murder I would think that wearing a wetsuit makes sense, a few minutes under a hot shower should get rid of all traces so dogs cant smell it, then hide it well.
I personally think it is risky for him to just don a different pair of clothes for the murder as he surely would have had to burn bloodstained clothing ? he wouldnt be able to just wash them and put back in his closet? (stains)  he couldnt hide them very far away due to time constraints and that brings the risk of blood dogs.

Then again the wetsuit theory brings its own risks... if anyone caught him in possesion of it at any time before or after the murders, it would be noteworthy and suspicious in itself seeing as to my knowledge the bloke wasnt into watersports anyway.

Maybe he did just wear a pair of old clothes that he was no longer seen wearing, and burned them as quickly as he could.

Hi Steve

If you care to have a look at the diary entries made by Robert Boutflour I think you will find the wetsuit theory originated from him.  Bob Woffinden also appears to have given it some credibility.  Obviously not keen on watersports 

Personally I think the idea is daft in the extreme.  A wetsuit is porous and would therefore absorb any blood and debris from a soc.

A friend of JB's who posts on here and Blue has advised on numerous occasions that she has the wetsuit in her possession and it was tested by EP and nothing found.

JB was a watersports enthusiast.  He undertook a diving course in Australia or New Zealand.  He was also into windsurfing.

Here's the link to Bob Woffinden's claims re protective clothing and lending support  to the idea of a wetsuit.  This really destroys his credibility as an investigative journalist in my eyes. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

[scipio_usmc]

Hi Steve

If you care to have a look at the diary entries made by Robert Boutflour I think you will find the wetsuit theory originated from him.  Bob Woffinden also appears to have given it some credibility.  Obviously not keen on watersports 

Personally I think the idea is daft in the extreme.  A wetsuit is porous and would therefore absorb any blood and debris from a soc.

A friend of JB's who posts on here and Blue has advised on numerous occasions that she has the wetsuit in her possession and it was tested by EP and nothing found.

JB was a watersports enthusiast.  He undertook a diving course in Australia or New Zealand.  He was also into windsurfing.

Here's the link to Bob Woffinden's claims re protective clothing and lending support  to the idea of a wetsuit.  This really destroys his credibility as an investigative journalist in my eyes. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

The wetsuit theory is based on 2 things, the fact he used a wetsuit and such would be a good way to stop from getting covered in blood or GSR.  It is no different than wearing overalls or the like (not farmer overalls I mean a work suit) over your clothes and then disposing of it.  Your suggestion it would not work is wrong.

My problem with the theory is why would he waste a perfectly good wetsuit instead of just tossing regular clothing which would be cheaper.

Because the clothing he wore was never tested we have no idea if he was really careful or not.  He could have had high velocity blood spatter and GSR on his clothing when he was police for all we know.  You need a microsocope to see both otherwise use a chemical for detection.  Spatter from beating him though would be visible so chances are he did change at least his shirt because it is likely he would have gotten blood on it that was visible to the naked eye.   

[steve_trousers]

Hi Steve

If you care to have a look at the diary entries made by Robert Boutflour I think you will find the wetsuit theory originated from him.  Bob Woffinden also appears to have given it some credibility.  Obviously not keen on watersports 

Personally I think the idea is daft in the extreme.  A wetsuit is porous and would therefore absorb any blood and debris from a soc.

A friend of JB's who posts on here and Blue has advised on numerous occasions that she has the wetsuit in her possession and it was tested by EP and nothing found.

JB was a watersports enthusiast.  He undertook a diving course in Australia or New Zealand.  He was also into windsurfing.

Here's the link to Bob Woffinden's claims re protective clothing and lending support  to the idea of a wetsuit.  This really destroys his credibility as an investigative journalist in my eyes. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

Hi Holly
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, and correcting me.
I do agree its a bit OTT to change into a wetsuit when he could have just worn old clothes though a wetsuit is still a pretty good idea in some circumstances.
 
As for Bob Woffinden, he lost credibility even before bamber with his blind devotion to James Hanratty in the face of conclusive DNA evidence, and he was one of those pushing for the DNA tests in the first place. We can all be wrong but have the balls to admit it. Apparently there was cross contamination of the DNA samples. Well where is the killers DNA then ? Halfwit.


 

[Holly Goodhead]

The wetsuit theory is based on 2 things, the fact he used a wetsuit and such would be a good way to stop from getting covered in blood or GSR.  It is no different than wearing overalls or the like (not farmer overalls I mean a work suit) over your clothes and then disposing of it.  Your suggestion it would not work is wrong.

My problem with the theory is why would he waste a perfectly good wetsuit instead of just tossing regular clothing which would be cheaper.

Because the clothing he wore was never tested we have no idea if he was really careful or not.  He could have had high velocity blood spatter and GSR on his clothing when he was police for all we know.  You need a microsocope to see both otherwise use a chemical for detection.  Spatter from beating him though would be visible so chances are he did change at least his shirt because it is likely he would have gotten blood on it that was visible to the naked eye.

PC Mercer a dog handler with his dog was present at WHF the dog did not sniff out JB.

[puglove]

PC Mercer a dog handler with his dog was present at WHF the dog did not sniff out JB.

Was it a sniffer dog though, Holl?

I'm sure that someone (possibly Gladys) once posted that PC Mercer ended up working for the Co-op.    >@@(*&)

[scipio_usmc]

PC Mercer a dog handler with his dog was present at WHF the dog did not sniff out JB.

The dog was in case there was  agunman inside who needed to be subdued.  The dog attacks the gunmen so that police can then safely jump in and disarm the gunmen without being shot at.

There is no evidence the dog was trained to sniff out gunshot residue, a dog trained as a sniffer dog doesn't search on its own it does so when commanded to do so which no one order it sto sniff Jeremy to see if he had GSR on his body, and dogs trained to detect GSR are unreliable.  DOgs cross trained to sniff GSR and other things are notoriously unreliable.  Dogs exclusively trained to search for one thing are more reliable.  It is only the past few years that dogs have been trained exclusively to look for GSR and they are rare, most training is for drugs and explosives. 

Your desperation is quite apparent.  At this point you are pulling out all the BS the blue board has claimed.  When you start have to resort to posting lies like that there is a police record indicating Nevill phoned police it means you admit you have nothing valid at all to support Jeremy's innocence.

[goatboy]

I think the Bamber supporters tend to think there are documents withheld under PII which will prove his innocence which is why they are being withheld. However, it has been suggested on this forum that the CCRC does have access to the documents withheld under PII. And in spite of this they have not decided to refer the case to appeal, which suggests that there is nothing in these documents of any use to his case at all.