Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.  (Read 18413 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« on: April 06, 2016, 12:07:01 PM »
The circumstantial evidence is extensive in this case and taken as a whole clearly supports the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, I have seen nothing or been made aware of anything over the years which will change that situation.  The sound moderator forensics are not the Holy Grail in this case which some believe them to be, there is a wealth of other information which first of all establishes who the culprits could be and secondly narrow it down to two individuals, namely Jeremy Bamber and Sheila Caffell.  This is established fact beyond all shadow of any doubt.

From this position the way forward is easily determined.  One has to find evidence which links either suspect to the murder scene.  This task is made all the more difficult because both suspects had valid reasons for being in White House farmhouse.

Armed with the forensic evidence gathered from the farmhouse it is a relatively simple task to work out what happened, who was shot first, where the fight took place etc etc...  the MEANS.   One then has to look to the two suspects, their physical attributes, their state of mind etc...   It soon becomes clear that there is no tangible evidence that Jeremy Bamber carried out the killings.  Certainly he knew how to get to the farm without attracting attention, he knew how to get into and out of the farmhouse even when it appeared locked and secure.  His presence would not have disturbed the farm dog or set it off barking. He had no alibi for the night of the murders, he thus has OPPORTUNITY.

One then has to look to Jeremy's adoptive sister Sheila for answers.  The scene which confronted the police when they entered the master bedroom suggested that Sheila had committed suicide by shooting herself twice in the neck.  Indeed, they went with this scenario initially before further evidence came to their attention.  If Sheila had fired off 25 rounds, reloaded the rifle and had a scuffle with her adoptive father Nevill Bamber in the kitchen, there would have been forensic evidence in abundance in the form of fingerprints, gunshot residues, blood and blood spatter.  The evidence however tells a very different story.

Sheila Caffell had none of the forensic indicators either on her or on her clothing associated with the events which we know took place, you could say she was forensically clean.  There is no possible way Sheila could have committed those dreadful murders and come out of it as cousin David Boutflour succinctly put it, "Without a single hair out of place".

One then has to look to other evidence in order to build up a case, Julie Mugford eventually came forward and filled in the missing pieces of the puzzle, the MOTIVE was easily established.

93
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 06:50:55 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 Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2016, 05:11:11 PM »
I don't find there's anything "nutshell" about the case.  I think it is very complex not just from an evidential perspective but also the entire judicial system from investigation to trial.  And many other factors such as media involvement in shaping opinion.

We all have different backgrounds by way of life experiences, education etc and process information very  differently so it is not surprising we arrive at different conclusions.  When I say we I mean anyone who has an opinion on the case whether they be lay or professional.  I don't believe enough experts have given opinion based on modern forensic science.  Modern Forensic science was just coming to the fore at the time of JB's trial.  Unfortunately blood pattern analysis was not used at trial and DNA evidence was not even available then.

Imo only expert opinion is capable of fundamentally changing the direction of the case based on modern forensic science.

I will give one example of why I believe the case is complex and the trial verdict potentially wrong.  It was said by investigating officers eg DI Cook that had SC been responsible he would have expected to find more of her fingerprints on the rifle (only one was found).  Many posters also make this contention.  I've posted research which suggests that fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms due to texture.   I have also exchanged emails with arguably one of the world's leading experts on fingerprints and he has advised the same due to the coating on firearms known as 'bluing'.

Puglove did make a point a while back about the wood stock and next time I speak with the expert I will endeavour to clarify this.  Based on my email exchange with the expert I think he would have said if fingerprints can usually be found on the stock but it's not good to assume so for the sake of completeness I will check and report back.

I accept fingerprints are only one small aspect of the case but to my mind it shows incompetence among investigating officers.  DI Cook was regarded as the fingerprint expert with 19 years experience.  I don't necessarily blame him.  What sort of training did he receive?  Who was supervising him?  Was he keeping up-to-date with his knowledge?

Email exchange between expert and myself sent to Myster for confirmation.  I will not be putting this info in the public domain as the expert no doubt communicated with me on the basis of confidentiality. 

« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 05:24:28 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2016, 08:16:20 PM »
I don't find there's anything "nutshell" about the case.  I think it is very complex not just from an evidential perspective but also the entire judicial system from investigation to trial.  And many other factors such as media involvement in shaping opinion.

We all have different backgrounds by way of life experiences, education etc and process information very  differently so it is not surprising we arrive at different conclusions.  When I say we I mean anyone who has an opinion on the case whether they be lay or professional.  I don't believe enough experts have given opinion based on modern forensic science.  Modern Forensic science was just coming to the fore at the time of JB's trial.  Unfortunately blood pattern analysis was not used at trial and DNA evidence was not even available then.

Imo only expert opinion is capable of fundamentally changing the direction of the case based on modern forensic science.

I will give one example of why I believe the case is complex and the trial verdict potentially wrong.  It was said by investigating officers eg DI Cook that had SC been responsible he would have expected to find more of her fingerprints on the rifle (only one was found).  Many posters also make this contention.  I've posted research which suggests that fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms due to texture.   I have also exchanged emails with arguably one of the world's leading experts on fingerprints and he has advised the same due to the coating on firearms known as 'bluing'.

Puglove did make a point a while back about the wood stock and next time I speak with the expert I will endeavour to clarify this.  Based on my email exchange with the expert I think he would have said if fingerprints can usually be found on the stock but it's not good to assume so for the sake of completeness I will check and report back.

I accept fingerprints are only one small aspect of the case but to my mind it shows incompetence among investigating officers.  DI Cook was regarded as the fingerprint expert with 19 years experience.  I don't necessarily blame him.  What sort of training did he receive?  Who was supervising him?  Was he keeping up-to-date with his knowledge?

Email exchange between expert and myself sent to Myster for confirmation.  I will not be putting this info in the public domain as the expert no doubt communicated with me on the basis of confidentiality.

This case is not any different from most. It is not complex from a legal standpoint it was very straightforward.  You ignore the evidence that proves Jeremy guilty and create strawmen. Jeremy wasn't convicted on the basis that if Sheila was guilty there would have been more of her prints on the weapon. This is a strawman created to imply there was no substantial evidence.  He was convicted because a witness said he was planning to kill his family and to frame Sheila, physical evidence established that Sheila was murdered and framed, his various lies and claims about being phoned by Nevill which were not in the least bit credible. He wasn't convicted on a whim.

It is not unique for people to become supporters and to ignore evidence and try to pretend there was insufficient evidence to convict in cases like this where there is substantial evidence.  This happens in a great number of cases.  Look at the recent publicity in the Steven Avery case. Teresa Halbach went to his property and that was the last time she was heard from.  Aside from a confession from Avery's nephew her vehicle was found hidden in brush on his property, her license was found in his home, her blood was found in his home and more.  As we speak people are suggesting that someone planted Teresa Halbach's car and all the other evidence in order to frame him.  This is no different than the wild claims about Jeremy being framed and there are plenty of other cases where the same unsupported claims are made of a great deal of evidence being planted. What is rare and unique are cases where it has been proven that significant amounts of evidence were actually planted.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 09:59:56 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline sika

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2016, 08:32:24 PM »
I don't find there's anything "nutshell" about the case.  I think it is very complex not just from an evidential perspective but also the entire judicial system from investigation to trial.  And many other factors such as media involvement in shaping opinion.

We all have different backgrounds by way of life experiences, education etc and process information very  differently so it is not surprising we arrive at different conclusions.  When I say we I mean anyone who has an opinion on the case whether they be lay or professional.  I don't believe enough experts have given opinion based on modern forensic science.  Modern Forensic science was just coming to the fore at the time of JB's trial.  Unfortunately blood pattern analysis was not used at trial and DNA evidence was not even available then.

Imo only expert opinion is capable of fundamentally changing the direction of the case based on modern forensic science.

I will give one example of why I believe the case is complex and the trial verdict potentially wrong.  It was said by investigating officers eg DI Cook that had SC been responsible he would have expected to find more of her fingerprints on the rifle (only one was found).  Many posters also make this contention.  I've posted research which suggests that fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms due to texture.   I have also exchanged emails with arguably one of the world's leading experts on fingerprints and he has advised the same due to the coating on firearms known as 'bluing'.

Puglove did make a point a while back about the wood stock and next time I speak with the expert I will endeavour to clarify this.  Based on my email exchange with the expert I think he would have said if fingerprints can usually be found on the stock but it's not good to assume so for the sake of completeness I will check and report back.

I accept fingerprints are only one small aspect of the case but to my mind it shows incompetence among investigating officers.  DI Cook was regarded as the fingerprint expert with 19 years experience.  I don't necessarily blame him.  What sort of training did he receive?  Who was supervising him?  Was he keeping up-to-date with his knowledge?

Email exchange between expert and myself sent to Myster for confirmation.  I will not be putting this info in the public domain as the expert no doubt communicated with me on the basis of confidentiality.
Like all Bamber supporters, you choose to portray this case as being really complicated and deeply complex.

I find that it's the complete opposite!  It is so bloody obvious, it's untrue! 

If someone can't at the very least, concede that it was more likely Jeremy than Sheila, then I can't take them seriously.





Offline APRIL

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2016, 08:46:51 PM »
Like all Bamber supporters, you choose to portray this case as being really complicated and deeply complex.

I find that it's the complete opposite!  It is so bloody obvious, it's untrue! 

If someone can't at the very least, concede that it was more likely Jeremy than Sheila, then I can't take them seriously.

Occam's razor.

Online Eleanor

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2016, 06:43:51 PM »

Well, that hasn't helped.

I have read things in the past that lead me to suspect that Jeremy Bamber could be Innocent.  But since I get insulted every time I try to discuss it, I have rather given up.

Offline sika

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2016, 11:42:08 PM »
Well, that hasn't helped.

I have read things in the past that lead me to suspect that Jeremy Bamber could be Innocent.  But since I get insulted every time I try to discuss it, I have rather given up.
Well, thanks for adding to the debate.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 11:45:34 PM by sika »

Online Eleanor

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2016, 02:04:00 AM »
Well, thanks for adding to the debate.

b....r off.  And just get on with your nasty debate.  But then you don't actually want to talk to people like me because we might find you wanting.

The McCann Forum is suddenly looking infinitely preferable.  If that is the best that you can do.

Offline adam

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2016, 08:57:38 AM »
Well, that hasn't helped.

I have read things in the past that lead me to suspect that Jeremy Bamber could be Innocent.  But since I get insulted every time I try to discuss it, I have rather given up.

What things ? Be interesting to know.

People will agree or disagree with you. It's a forum.

Offline sika

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2016, 09:29:59 AM »
b....r off.  And just get on with your nasty debate.  But then you don't actually want to talk to people like me because we might find you wanting.

The McCann Forum is suddenly looking infinitely preferable.  If that is the best that you can do.
Perhaps now you've gone, it'll get a little less nasty. 

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2016, 10:21:01 AM »
Can I remind all members of the 3 high level rules on the home page please:

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!


Providing members are adhering to the above they are entitled to post whatever views they hold about the case, however unlikely they might seem to others, without fear of any sort of intimidation.

     
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2016, 10:38:33 AM »
Like all Bamber supporters, you choose to portray this case as being really complicated and deeply complex.

I find that it's the complete opposite!  It is so bloody obvious, it's untrue! 

If someone can't at the very least, concede that it was more likely Jeremy than Sheila, then I can't take them seriously.

Sika as you seem to see the case as simple and straightforward are you able to briefly state your main reasons why you believe the perp is far more likely to be JB than SC?
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2016, 10:41:59 AM »
Tin hat at the ready, Holly?  8(8-))
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The case in a nutshell.
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2016, 10:57:25 AM »
Tin hat at the ready, Holly?  8(8-))

I've always enjoyed robust mass debating!
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?