Inadequate Police Investigation

[scipio_usmc]

There is much talk of police being inept and inadequately investigating.  What things they do do that were actually inept and inadequate and what were the results of such?

1) First and foremost the failure of crime scene officers to take all the firearms and firearms related materials.

2) The failure of crime scene officers to take and store all the bedding

3) The failure of DCI Jones to want a thorough fingerprinting of the scene.

4) The failure to explore more thoroughly the fact that 30 bullets found in the kitchen was too many for Jeremy's claims to be true

5) The failure to explore other obvious lies that Jeremy told such as that the gun didn't fit in the closet with the moderator attached so that is why it was not attached when he took it out.

6) The failure to call a pathologist and ballistic expert to the scene.

7) Cook losing the gray hair

These are the only investigatory attacks which can be leveled. Most attacks leveled at them are not about the investigation at all but rather attacks on typos and other BS that are simply red herrings.

The family finding the moderator and turning it over to police alleviated that error.  When Julie came forward would police likely would have wanted to secure the moderator anyway so it still could have been obtained by them.   The family turning it in simply resulted in it being in their custody longer.

What about the failure to keep and test all the bedding instead of only some?  That had no impact at all on things they would not have had an expert try to reconstruct the scene anyway. It's an error because in some cases this will matter but in the instant case made no difference.

What about the failure to fingerprint the entire scene?  The prints of the victims and Jeremy were all over the place for natural reasons so would not provide any assistance at all.  If they had found prints in blood they would have documented them because that actually would be of value but there were none that they could find.

On the one hand police should have been more suspicious and probing as a result of Jeremy's lie about the rifle not fitting in the closet and too many bullets in the kitchen for his story to be true.  The fact he was lying about these things suggests the tale of leaving the gun and bullets out was a lie which in turn means he was falsely trying to frame his sister.  What more could they have done as a result though?  At most they could have questioned him more about this and sped up the timetable in which the lab examined the evidence.  Ultimately what is the difference that the lab did the main examinations a month later?  Was there any harm?  The only potential harm by the delay (and sometimes there is a delay in processing by work volume the lab has and that could have played a role here) is perhaps there would have been stronger ak/1 detections if the type testing had been done sooner.  We have no way to know whether that is the case or not though.

The 7th error had no impact because even if Nevill's hair was attached to the moderator what does that prove?  it was in his closet which had some of his hair in it so big deal. Even though it had no impact in the case it is pretty shoddy work to not take proper precautions to preserve it because he had no way to know for sure it would be meaningless.

The 6th error resulted in Vanezis not recognizing things that should have been recognized and police not having the benefit of an expert who might have caused them to take all the firearms related materials mike they should have.  Ultimately it didn't matter because they got Jeremy anyway but it could have resulted in the crime scene officers taking more evidence and recognizing much earlier that it wasn't a suicide.

Everyone involved in the case missed evidence that Sheila was moved flat after being killed and that the Bible had been opened, closed, reopened to the same page and then placed in a pool of blood that formed after she died. This is probably the most significant miss in the case.  Only after the conviction did anyone recognize such and if it had been an acquittal such would not be able to have been used for a retrial.  This is something the experts should have been able to detect so was a failure on their part not necessarily the police who lack the expertise to recognize such things. 

Non of these errors in any way hangs Jeremy on the contrary they could have resulted in him getting away with murder.  Yet Jeremy supporters constantly attack the police saying their shoddy work prejudiced Jeremy and calls his conviction into question when it does no such thing.  Police miss things all the time when investigating cases they are human someones cold cases are solved because the second set of detectives recognize things missed by the initial investigators.  If DCI Jones' attitude would have prevented the evidence from ever being examined by the lab then his attitude could be attacked because it potentially would have resulted in Jeremy getting away but there is no evidence that the lab would not have examined the evidence if he had remained in charge. 

14

[Holly Goodhead]

Scipio I hope you dont think I'm stealing your thunder but I'm going to start a thread on the bullets found in the kitchen as its an aspect I'm unsure about and I would prefer to have one dedicated thread.   

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio I hope you dont think I'm stealing your thunder but I'm going to start a thread on the bullets found in the kitchen as its an aspect I'm unsure about and I would prefer to have one dedicated thread.   

Have at it. Such holds little relevance to the appeal because it was not a serious leg in the overall conviction though could have supplemented the opinion of his guilt.  I do think the bullet issue plays a role in the personal views of those who think he is guilty because it contradicts his story of leaving the gun and bullets out.  Why would he make that up unless he was guilty?  To this day he has been unable to account for this problem.

He really painted himself into a corner because he said he was in a rush to get the rabbits but the gun was empty when he found it so he had to load it first.  This eliminated his ability to later say oh there was 5 bullets in the gun already.  If that were the case he simply would have run outside with the gun not bother to see if he could load 5 more bullets into it.  So he simply offered no explanation which requires one to believe that Sheila used 10 bullets from the kitchen supply then for some irrational reason went to the closet to get 5 more bullets instead of using the kitchen supply that remained. This is a pretty good example of how even though he overthought some aspects he under-thought others.  I guess he was banking on the police not digging too deep like those who poison others hope police will not dig too deep and figure it out.

An independent thread on it will be welcome to fully discuss the impact.
   

[Holly Goodhead]

Have at it. Such holds little relevance to the appeal because it was not a serious leg in the overall conviction though could have supplemented the opinion of his guilt.  I do think the bullet issue plays a role in the personal views of those who think he is guilty because it contradicts his story of leaving the gun and bullets out.  Why would he make that up unless he was guilty?  To this day he has been unable to account for this problem.

He really painted himself into a corner because he said he was in a rush to get the rabbits but the gun was empty when he found it so he had to load it first.  This eliminated his ability to later say oh there was 5 bullets in the gun already.  If that were the case he simply would have run outside with the gun not bother to see if he could load 5 more bullets into it.  So he simply offered no explanation which requires one to believe that Sheila used 10 bullets from the kitchen supply then for some irrational reason went to the closet to get 5 more bullets instead of using the kitchen supply that remained. This is a pretty good example of how even though he overthought some aspects he under-thought others.  I guess he was banking on the police not digging too deep like those who poison others hope police will not dig too deep and figure it out.

An independent thread on it will be welcome to fully discuss the impact.
 

Talking to farming friends I'm led to believe prior to the tightening up of gun laws it was very common to have ammo and firearms dotted around the farm house to take random pops at various creatures eg foxes and rabbits.  In the UK only a tiny % of the population live on farms and/or have access to firearms so to most JB's claims of shooting rabbits on the hoof and leaving ammo on the kitchen work top seems unusual/suspicious but I think if you talk to the farming community it was very much the norm? 

[Angelo222]

Talking to farming friends I'm led to believe prior to the tightening up of gun laws it was very common to have ammo and firearms dotted around the farm house to take random pops at various creatures eg foxes and rabbits.  In the UK only a tiny % of the population live on farms and/or have access to firearms so to most JB's claims of shooting rabbits on the hoof and leaving ammo on the kitchen work top seems unusual/suspicious but I think if you talk to the farming community it was very much the norm?

I don't kow who you have been speaking to Holls but any self respecting farmer would never leave a gun lying around and especially so if there were children in a house.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't kow who you have been speaking to Holls but any self respecting farmer would never leave a gun lying around and especially so if there were children in a house.

Yes agreed today with the tightening of gun laws but what about in the mid 80's and before?  I'm not suggesting even then firearms were left loaded but leaving ammo in one location and a firearm close by I am led to believe was the norm to take a pop at a fox or rabbits?  That is honestly what I have been told by farming friends.  I have in the main always lived in rural or semi-rural locations so have mixed with farmers all my life but personally other than my brother owning an air rifle when we were children I've never lived in a house with firearms. 

[puglove]

I don't kow who you have been speaking to Holls but any self respecting farmer would never leave a gun lying around and especially so if there were children in a house.

Totally true.

Holl, I try to lookout for sweeping generalisations, but I don't know anyone who shoots and would leave out as much as an air rifle that was loaded. And it beggars belief that Ralph and June would disregard Bamber's loaded rifle and scattered live ammo left in sight and reach of the boys.

And at what point did Ralph find his opportune moment to call Bamber? After he was injured? No blood on or around the phone, clear speech, no mention of shots already being fired, no plea for medical help/an ambulance.

Or before he was injured? When a slow, wobbly, medicated, "psychotic" Sheila was brandishing (going crazy with) a relatively low-powered gun that she had no previous knowledge of, and even if Ralph had bobbed down and run at her, taking a slug in the shoulder or back, he could have overpowered her?

Anyhoo. Hopefully, Troods and her pals will come here for one of your mass debates. Myster and Scipio will squish them like bugs (but politely) and you and I can eat that (rather soggy-looking) cake!!

 

[puglove]

Yes agreed today with the tightening of gun laws but what about in the mid 80's and before?  I'm not suggesting even then firearms were left loaded but leaving ammo in one location and a firearm close by I am led to believe was the norm to take a pop at a fox or rabbits?  That is honestly what I have been told by farming friends.  I have in the main always lived in rural or semi-rural locations so have mixed with farmers all my life but personally other than my brother owning an air rifle when we were children I've never lived in a house with firearms.

There was a time, and it WAS in the mid 80's, when everyone in our lane was getting burgled. We didn't...maybe because Mike Tesko couldn't google our address, or maybe because we had a lot of noisy dogs. Anyhoo. I got a bit angsty, and told BT that I wanted to keep his shotgun under the bed. Loaded. And BT said "No." It was far too dangerous. And very silly. You just don't do it.

We've got a baseball bat and a taser, though.

[Holly Goodhead]

Totally true.

Holl, I try to lookout for sweeping generalisations, but I don't know anyone who shoots and would leave out as much as an air rifle that was loaded. And it beggars belief that Ralph and June would disregard Bamber's loaded rifle and scattered live ammo left in sight and reach of the boys.

And at what point did Ralph find his opportune moment to call Bamber? After he was injured? No blood on or around the phone, clear speech, no mention of shots already being fired, no plea for medical help/an ambulance.

Or before he was injured? When a slow, wobbly, medicated, "psychotic" Sheila was brandishing (going crazy with) a relatively low-powered gun that she had no previous knowledge of, and even if Ralph had bobbed down and run at her, taking a slug in the shoulder or back, he could have overpowered her?

Anyhoo. Hopefully, Troods and her pals will come here for one of your mass debates. Myster and Scipio will squish them like bugs (but politely) and you and I can eat that (rather soggy-looking) cake!!

 

I might want to eat Matt (Wall, member of CT) if this is him:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1033.0;attach=4714

Lol he might be a Cat A prisoner doing time with JB!

[Holly Goodhead]

There was a time, and it WAS in the mid 80's, when everyone in our lane was getting burgled. We didn't...maybe because Mike Tesko couldn't google our address, or maybe because we had a lot of noisy dogs. Anyhoo. I got a bit angsty, and told BT that I wanted to keep his shotgun under the bed. Loaded. And BT said "No." It was far too dangerous. And very silly. You just don't do it.

We've got a baseball bat and a taser, though.

When I visted farms during that period I don't ever recall seeing ammo or firearms about but I'm just going on what I was told when I posed the question and it wasn't in relation to WHF/JB. 

What about Tony Martin?

[puglove]

When I visted farms during that period I don't ever recall seeing ammo or firearms about but I'm just going on what I was told when I posed the question and it wasn't in relation to WHF/JB. 

What about Tony Martin?

Yes!! The Tony Martin thing. He's a bit odd, but he should surely be allowed to protect what is his. Basically, don't try to break in and rob what doesn't belong to you, and suck it up if you get shot up the arse, you dodgy pikey.

Mike Tesko, take note.     

[Holly Goodhead]

Scipio I dont have the time right now to respond to all the points in your post #1 but with regard to the bedding DC Hammersley's trial testimony states everything of evidential value was removed from the bed in the main bedroom?

As far as I can see the only bedding that was burned belonged to the beds the twins slept in.  What could be gained from forensically analysing this?

[puglove]

Scipio I dont have the time right now to respond to all the points in your post #1 but with regard to the bedding DC Hammersley's trial testimony states everything of evidential value was removed from the bed in the main bedroom?

As far as I can see the only bedding that was burned belonged to the beds the twins slept in.  What could be gained from forensically analysing this?

And who demanded that everything was taken away and burnt?

Jeremy Bamber. Now living in Wakefield, with every other child killer.

Boo f..king hoo.     

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio I dont have the time right now to respond to all the points in your post #1 but with regard to the bedding DC Hammersley's trial testimony states everything of evidential value was removed from the bed in the main bedroom?

As far as I can see the only bedding that was burned belonged to the beds the twins slept in.  What could be gained from forensically analysing this?

The operative part being that which they felt was of evidentiary value. They took the bottom bottom sheet and June's pillows but there are no records reflecting anything else being taken.  It seems that they didn't see any need for the rest.

I don't think there was anything lost by not keeping the rest but they could not be sure of it at the time and perhaps some of Nevill's blood got on it who knows though he certainly didn't have to bleed anywhere in the room despite being shot there.  His blood would shut up some conspiracy theorists but would not have mattered to the criminal case so even if it was lost by getting rid of the quilt it would not matter.  I still count it as a mistake for not letting others decide whether it help value. Let he lab and lead investigators decide.

[John]

I don't believe there was an inadequate police investigation, they did what they could at a time when DNA forensics was still in its infancy.  There just isn't that much to the case if you boil it down.

1. An apparently secure house which police had to break into.
2. A wayward son with a plan who could secretly get into the house.
3. Only one person inside who could have done the deed but was forensically neutral.
4. A crimes scene left to look like four murders and a suicide.
5. A story about a phonecall which never happened.
6. At the end of the day only one person could have done it or had someone else do it for him.
7. If the latter then a rock solid alibi would have been needed as with Brett Collins.
8. Leaves only one possible outcome.

Jeremy did it!