The Lies of Jeremy Bamber

[Holly Goodhead]

No, I understand that perfectly, I just don't agree. 

First, it was a sound moderator.  If we're going to be strict about it, I'm not sure there is technically even such a thing as a 'silencer'.  The use of the term 'silencer' is, to my understanding, a colloquialism and misleading.

Yes, it could have been missed, but the point is proof.  You assume that the relevant family members would have come to the realisation that the moderator was missing, but how would they have known that? All the immediate family who might have known about the moderator were now dead.  And surely Bamber would have known this intuitively?  He had lived there, he was a member of the immediate family, and he worked there, and he will have used the gun itself. 

Surely Bamber would also have been able to figure out that even if subsequently the extended family had noticed that the moderator was missing and said: 'Oh look, there's a missing silencer', it could have been missing for any one of a number of plausible reasons completely unconnected with the killings.  Somebody might have lost it before the killings for unrelated causes.  The police might, somewhere down the line, have decided that the absence of the moderator was a telling indicator of Bamber's guilt, but unless it could be found, its absence was not evidence of his guilt.

And wasn't there more than one moderator/silencer anyway? 

I still maintain that Bamber would have been better-served taking the moderator away - assuming he did it - and I also maintain my bafflement that Bamber would calmly return the moderator to its proper place after killing five people, all immediate family.  Maybe that's what prompts your objection here?  Subconsciously you share my concern about Bamber's supposed actions.

No moderator, no forensic evidence. But if he did do it, then I'm glad he didn't remove the moderator and he was caught.

So, I did understand the post that was directed at me, it's just that I had covered that ground already. If I responded inappropriately, that was because of the way the information was provided.  A vicious circle has been created on this Forum, and I would contend it is due to the attitude that anybody who asks questions should be treated rudely and attacked.  You will deny this, but your other posts are a case in point, and they have been highlighted to the Moderator on the Announcement thread.

The terms 'sound moderator', 'silencer' and 'suppressor' all mean the same thing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silencer_(firearms)

According to AE's WS AP first raised the issue of the silencer on 7th Aug.  AP had seen it at WHF when he visited last week-end of July.  He raised it with EP on 8th Aug.  JB was asked to complete a further WS about the silencer (and scope) on 8th Aug

[LuminousWanderer]

The terms 'sound moderator', 'silencer' and 'suppressor' all mean the same thing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silencer_(firearms)

Yes, but that wasn't my point.  "Silencer" is just a colloquial expression.  As I state above, there is strictly no such thing and the significance of that is fairly obvious and I need not spell it out to you.

According to AE's WS AP first raised the issue of the silencer on 7th Aug.  AP had seen it at WHF when he visited last week-end of July.  He raised it with EP on 8th Aug.  JB was asked to complete a further WS about the silencer (and scope) on 8th Aug

To recap, Puglove's point was about the presumed mental process of a hypothetical 'guilty Bamber'.  What Puglove is saying is that Bamber must have fathomed-out that the "silencer" would be missed and that that in itself would be a telling indicator of his culpability, therefore - the theory goes - he reasoned that he needed to leave the "silencer" there.

My response to Puglove on that is essentially that Bamber would not have reasoned things out that way, if at all.  I don't believe Bamber would even need to have thought about this.  If we assume the hypothesis that Bamber did it, then intuitively he would have decided to take the "silencer" with him, because (among other reasons):

(i). the moderator wasn't just a circumstantial 'jigsaw piece', it bore and represented forensic and ballistic evidence in its own right, and Bamber had sufficient common-sense and knew enough about guns to realise that not disposing of the "silencer" could, potentially, implicate him; and,

(ii). Bamber was obviously shooting all members of his family that knew about the "silencer".  I accept your point above that members of the extended family might have been aware of it, but would Bamber have factored that in?; and,

(iii). removing the "silencer" was just the obvious reactive thing to do, whereas replacing the "silencer" in the gun case (or wherever it was) was more a proactive thing to do, and in that type of situation, the former is more probable than the latter; and,

(iv). Bamber's knowledge of guns, albeit only that of a 'gun user', would be sufficient for him to realise that ballistic evidence of a moderated firearm would be inconclusive and debatable.  Bamber needed the police to see that everybody had been shot and that the shooter had done the killing and then killed herself (per Bamber's staging of it).  There is an argument that Bamber should have left the moderator with Sheila's body, so as to imply that she had detached it before killing herself, but in that regard see (i) above: the moderator itself was evidence, not just a circumstantial 'piece' in a jigsaw.  So intuitively (if not logically) Bamber has to take the moderator with him and dispose of it so that it is gone forever.  "Buried moderators tell no tales".  As such, my own hypothetical Bamber would subconsciously weigh up the risks of circumstantial evidence versus the risks of forensic evidence, and he would chose to accept the former and eliminate the latter;

(v). following on from (iv) above, Bamber must have realised that he could more easily avoid close questions about a "missing moderator" than he could forensic questions about blood, hairs and other human tissue and other traces on an in situ moderator. 

"A missing moderator, officer?  No, sorry, I know nothing about that.  Sorry, must dash, meeting a new girlfriend you know. Oh, by the way, here's my solicitor's telephone number.  You'll be putting questions to him now, in writing please." 

Bottom line: no moderator, no forensic evidence, police are screwed.  Perhaps they would have found some other forensic basis to charge him anyway, but at the very least in that scenario they have a greatly weaker case against Bamber (it's weak already).

It's for those reasons that I regard the presence of the "silencer" as more incongruous than not if we are working on the basis that Bamber did it.  I acknowledge Puglove's rudimentary logic, and it's not a surprise to see it mentioned because, after all, it forms part of the Crown's case theory.  But logic doesn't always render the correct conclusion and I believe the decision about the "silencer" would be more likely made by a hypothetical 'guilty Bamber' intuitively/sub-consciously.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't see the significance at all so please spell it out.  The terms used are interchangeable and mean the same thing.

I could say 'take my car', 'take my motor', take my wheels or take my vehicle.  All can mean the same thing. 

JB once wrote to me saying we now know there was a moderator and a silencer!  JB has to concern himself with the silencer/sound moderator presented at trial which the prosecution claim was attached to the rifle when SC sustained her gsw's and contained blood within matching SC's blood groups.  I don't care how many exhibits labels or terms used or even if more than one silencer features.  It's the silencer presented at trial and blood within which need undermining if JB is ever to smell freedom again. 

AP and JB exchanged comments about the rifle whilst handling it complete with silencer and scope.  I believe AP and JB went target shooting together on said weekend. 

[LuminousWanderer]

I don't see the significance at all so please spell it out.  The terms used are interchangeable and mean the same thing.

I could say 'take my car', 'take my motor', take my wheels or take my vehicle.  All can mean the same thing.

Simply that it is not technically possible to 'silence' the sound of a gun firing, so the term 'silencer' is technically inaccurate and tends to give a misleading impression about the capabilities of the equipment.  The difference, if any, between 'car' and 'motor' would not have the same significance.  Not that I am saying the point is of great significance, and I wasn't making too much of it, I'm just highlighting that 'silencers' don't strictly exist.  It's a colloquialism.

JB once wrote to me saying we now know there was a moderator and a silencer!  JB has to concern himself with the silencer/sound moderator presented at trial which the prosecution claim was attached to the rifle when SC sustained her gsw's and contained blood within matching SC's blood groups.  I don't care how many exhibits labels or terms used or even if more than one silencer features.  It's the silencer presented at trial and blood within which need undermining if JB is ever to smell freedom again. 

AP and JB exchanged comments about the rifle whilst handling it complete with silencer and scope.  I believe AP and JB went target shooting together on said weekend.

I can't comment on the rest of this.  I don't believe it's too relevant to the matter above.  I still maintain it's unlikely that Bamber would have killed five of his immediate family, then calmly replaced the "silencer" in the gun box.  I think in that scenario he would have taken it with him, knowing its potential to implicate him and weighing up that forensic incrimination is worse than circumstantial incrimination.  He would have had enough 'gun sense' to realise that, but I don't believe Bamber would even have needed to think this through, it would have been intuitive to remove the "silencer" from the picture and simply shrug his shoulders if asked about it.  Agree or disagree with me, but I've explained why I believe this, and therefore I regard the presence and recovery of the "silencer" as an incongruity if we are assuming Bamber did it.

[Holly Goodhead]

Simply that it is not technically possible to 'silence' the sound of a gun firing, so the term 'silencer' is technically inaccurate and tends to give a misleading impression about the capabilities of the equipment.  The difference, if any, between 'car' and 'motor' would not have the same significance.  Not that I am saying the point is of great significance, and I wasn't making too much of it, I'm just highlighting that 'silencers' don't strictly exist.  It's a colloquialism.

How does this relate to JB's case?  What's the relevance?

Cars also use silencers which can also be referred to as mufflers.  Combustion engines are not silent. 

I can't comment on the rest of this.  I don't believe it's too relevant to the matter above.  I still maintain it's unlikely that Bamber would have killed five of his immediate family, then calmly replaced the "silencer" in the gun box.  I think in that scenario he would have taken it with him, knowing its potential to implicate him and weighing up that forensic incrimination is worse than circumstantial incrimination.  He would have had enough 'gun sense' to realise that, but I don't believe Bamber would even have needed to think this through, it would have been intuitive to remove the "silencer" from the picture and simply shrug his shoulders if asked about it.  Agree or disagree with me, but I've explained why I believe this, and therefore I regard the presence and recovery of the "silencer" as an incongruity if we are assuming Bamber did it.

It doesn't really matter what we believe JB may or may not have done with the silencer if he carried out the murders.  Speculating is a waste of time IMO.  It has underpinned his conviction for almost 32 years and only undermining it will give him a fighting chance. 

[LuminousWanderer]

It doesn't really matter what we believe JB may or may not have done with the silencer if he carried out the murders.  Speculating is a waste of time IMO.  It has underpinned his conviction for almost 32 years and only undermining it will give him a fighting chance.

Perhaps at this point I should remind you and anybody reading this that I didn't raise the point.  I'd already dismissed it for much the same reason: that Bamber's prospects hinge on forensics, not speculative questions of 'Wouldha dunna couldha been there had done this maybe yesterday'.  I'm merely addressing here a point made by Puglove, about what thinking process might have led him to leave the "silencer" there.

[Holly Goodhead]

Perhaps at this point I should remind you and anybody reading this that I didn't raise the point.  I'd already dismissed it for much the same reason: that Bamber's prospects hinge on forensics, not speculative questions of 'Wouldha dunna couldha been there had done this maybe yesterday'.  I'm merely addressing here a point made by Puglove, about what thinking process might have led him to leave the "silencer" there.

When did puglove raise the point?

[adam]

The silencer was already on the rifle when Bamber entered the WHF window.

He committed the massacre, then took the silencer off. Either knowing in advance or realising the rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself. Or took it off to burn Nevill's back.

He then put the silencer in a box at the back of the gun cupboard where the police would not find it. They didn't.

Mike & David do come up with some crazy theories about the silencer.

[adam]

The rifle was bought for shooting vermin. The silencer obviously assists with this otherwise it would not be included as an accessory.

Nevill would just put the silencer on and leave it on. It would be too time consuming having to keep putting it off and on.

Bamber's rabbit story confirms this. He showed that shooting vermin is a spontaneous thing as when vermin is seen. The rifle must always be ready with silencer attached.

Anthony Pargeter said he saw the rifle with silencer attached prior to the massacre. It would certainly have been on the rifle after Bamber entered the bathroom window. Even Lookout agrees.

[adam]

Lookout says the silencer was on the rifle during the massacre. Sheila taking it off half way through the massacre, which explains how her blood got into the silencer. Although Sheila only started bleeding after she was dead.

Why Sheila put the silencer in a box at the back of the gun cupboard half way through the massacre was not explained. Neither was why Bamber would give the police false information and say the rifle had no silencer on the night before.

[adam]

Mike has a lot of theories about the silencer.

David agrees Sheila received a contact shot in a location where there is high blood flow & blood vessels which would produce back splatter. He believes this shot was with the rifle minus the silencer, although there was no blood in the rifle barrel.

David believes the relatives fabricated the silencer without police assistance, using wet period blood from a bucket & scratching the aga without having seen the kitchen crime scene photos. Deciding the relatives could have done this, was his reason for changing stance from hardcore guilter.

[Nicholas]

Perhaps at this point I should remind you and anybody reading this that I didn't raise the point.  I'd already dismissed it for much the same reason: that Bamber's prospects hinge on forensics, not speculative questions of 'Wouldha dunna couldha been there had done this maybe yesterday'.  I'm merely addressing here a point made by Puglove, about what thinking process might have led him to leave the "silencer" there.

But shortly after the murders Bamber requested the police burn much of the evidence linked to the murders! By today's standards of forensic testing, these items could have provided further conclusive proof of guilt

You have to ask yourself -

1)Did he have material destroyed that could show beyond doubt his guilt (not that many people appear left with doubts) or

2) Did he have a genuine association to said material and he made a fatal mistake by requesting the evidence be destroyed and he sealed his own fate?

In nearly 33 years he's never once claimed he regretted his actions; if anything he's avoided this fact.

Then there's Julie Mugford evidence.

"Mr Rivlin told the jury Bamber had no motive. No evidence existed to show Bamber had calculated he would benefit from any will. No evidence had been produced to show hate was a motivation. Mr Rivlin said: "This is a case in which some commentators may feel that there has been little lacking in terms of human drama. But the one thing that is lacking is proof." Contrasting Bamber's evidence with Ms Mugford's, he asked: "Who are we dealing with in this case – a consummate actor or a consummate actress?"

I have seen no evidence whatsoever suggesting she's a consummate actress; on the contrary.

Jeremy Bamber on the other hand:

'The "devil incarnate" had good taste. His fondness for fine tailoring was obvious from the first moment I set eyes on him. Immaculately dressed, he was handsome and knew it. You could tell immediately that he was successful with women. Jeremy Bamber may have been one suit among many at Chelmsford Crown Court, but there was a real sense that he was revelling in being the centre of attention.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

Jeremy Bambers prospects don't hinge on "forensics." He has no prospects!

If you look at this case through, what you've referred to as a "lawyerly lens," he has no options left open to him. He's burned all his bridges.

[Nicholas]

But shortly after the murders Bamber requested the police burn much of the evidence linked to the murders! By today's standards of forensic testing, these items could have provided further conclusive proof of guilt

You have to ask yourself -

1)Did he have material destroyed that could show beyond doubt his guilt (not that many people appear left with doubts) or

2) Did he have a genuine association to said material and he made a fatal mistake by requesting the evidence be destroyed and he sealed his own fate?

In nearly 33 years he's never once claimed he regretted his actions; if anything he's avoided this fact.

Then there's Julie Mugford evidence.

"Mr Rivlin told the jury Bamber had no motive. No evidence existed to show Bamber had calculated he would benefit from any will. No evidence had been produced to show hate was a motivation. Mr Rivlin said: "This is a case in which some commentators may feel that there has been little lacking in terms of human drama. But the one thing that is lacking is proof." Contrasting Bamber's evidence with Ms Mugford's, he asked: "Who are we dealing with in this case – a consummate actor or a consummate actress?"

I have seen no evidence whatsoever suggesting she's a consummate actress; on the contrary.

Jeremy Bamber on the other hand:

'The "devil incarnate" had good taste. His fondness for fine tailoring was obvious from the first moment I set eyes on him. Immaculately dressed, he was handsome and knew it. You could tell immediately that he was successful with women. Jeremy Bamber may have been one suit among many at Chelmsford Crown Court, but there was a real sense that he was revelling in being the centre of attention.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

Jeremy Bambers prospects don't hinge on "forensics." He has no prospects!

If you look at this case through, what you've referred to as a "lawyerly lens," he has no options left open to him. He's burned all his bridges.

Martin Ogram - "I have taken a great interest in Jeremy's case for about the last four years, and needless to say I know he is innocent. I have corresponded with him on a regular basis, and he often telephones me from the jail for a chat to tell me of the progress with the appeal. Last November I visited him at Full Sutton and found a well spoken intelligent gentleman – and despite his circumstances extremely interested in me and not in the slightest part bitter about his plight. To say that he is a positive thinker is the understatement of all understatements, and all his time and energy is ploughed into the case plus his considerable work as a skilled braillist and teacher of reading and English to fellow inmates.http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/martin

Would Martin Ogram recognise if he were being conned? Would he recognise the red flags? What did he expect to find when he first met Bamber? Did he have any expectations? What is his understanding of psychopathy?

Would he recognise if he were being taken advantage of? Would he recognise a pathological manipulator and liar?

He describes a "consummate actor" to me, an information gatherer. Someone wanting to learn as much as they can about you in order to learn how you tick...

[Nicholas]

Mike has a lot of theories about the silencer.

David agrees Sheila received a contact shot in a location where there is high blood flow & blood vessels which would produce back splatter. He believes this shot was with the rifle minus the silencer, although there was no blood in the rifle barrel.

David believes the relatives fabricated the silencer without police assistance, using wet period blood from a bucket & scratching the aga without having seen the kitchen crime scene photos. Deciding the relatives could have done this, was his reason for changing stance from hardcore guilter.

David has quite clearly got a lot of catching up to do and as I've stated numerous times before his apparent bias won't allow him to see the case objectively.

[John]

Martin Ogram - "I have taken a great interest in Jeremy's case for about the last four years, and needless to say I know he is innocent. I have corresponded with him on a regular basis, and he often telephones me from the jail for a chat to tell me of the progress with the appeal. Last November I visited him at Full Sutton and found a well spoken intelligent gentleman – and despite his circumstances extremely interested in me and not in the slightest part bitter about his plight. To say that he is a positive thinker is the understatement of all understatements, and all his time and energy is ploughed into the case plus his considerable work as a skilled braillist and teacher of reading and English to fellow inmates.http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/martin

Would Martin Ogram recognise if he were being conned? Would he recognise the red flags? What did he expect to find when he first met Bamber? Did he have any expectations? What is his understanding of psychopathy?

Would he recognise if he were being taken advantage of? Would he recognise a pathological manipulator and liar?

He describes a "consummate actor" to me, an information gatherer. Someone wanting to learn as much as they can about you in order to learn how you tick...

I remember reading that some time back Stephanie but thanx for making me laugh again.  I think Mr Ogram needs to get out more.  Jeremy Bamber is a well practised actor.