Thoughts On The Case

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Having now refreshed my memory, I've just been posting about this on the other thread about the silencer.

You are misrepresenting the evidence.  I sensed that you were, because I have in the past read in some depth on the case, but I needed to go back and check the details.

First, the blood group finding does not prove that it was Sheila's blood.  That's simple enough.

Second, the DNA finding was rejected by the 2002 appellate judges.  It is based on LCN testing, which cannot establish a source for the DNA trace, and it is also the case that findings are unreliable due to the acknowledged probability of contamination.

Ironically, you ask [to paraphrase]: "How can THAT evidence not be relied on?"  Well, I suggest you re-direct your question to the English Court of Appeal, because they decided it could not be relied on.  Come back to us when you have an answer.

The current position is this - there is no conclusive evidence that the moderator has Sheila's blood.  Nor is there any evidence that the moderator was used in the killings, or even that any silencer/moderator was used at all.

In my view, the moderator is a dead duck.  If we were to re-try this case, the moderator would be disregarded by a jury, or a judge would just throw it out altogether.

My view is that the killer, probably Jeremy, did not use a moderator anyway, and I think the relatives and police brought the moderator into evidence innocently, due to their (probably correct) suspicions about Jeremy and their desperation.

I remain of the view that Jeremy probably did this, but I think the convictions are unsafe.  So far, nobody has convinced me otherwise.  Insulting me and goading me definitely won't convince me and does nothing for your case.  Telling me that Jeremy had a hearty breakfast with extra bacon and grinned to somebody at the funeral won't convince me either. 

If you can be polite and respectful of other posters and if you can come up with something that convinces me, then I'll be delighted to acknowledge it and I will thank you for it.

It isn’t me misrepresenting the evidence — it’s you not understanding it

I should remind you that you’re not a forensic scientist; nor a pathologist; and neither a Judge.

All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila. You can’t/won’t believe that, despite you having no scientific understanding, ballistic understanding, legal understanding — and neither are you medically trained.

Added to that, you can’t seem to absorb scientific facts presented by experts.

I’ve attached an excerpt from the OFFICIAL High Court report, which, if you read it slowly and carefully you may understand 😌

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Daisy]

It isn’t me misrepresenting the evidence — it’s you not understanding it

I should remind you that you’re not a forensic scientist; nor a pathologist; and neither a Judge.

All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila. You can’t/won’t believe that, despite you having no scientific understanding, ballistic understanding, legal understanding — and neither are you medically trained.

Added to that, you can’t seem to absorb scientific facts presented by experts. So why should I bother trying to convince you of the reality, when you steadfastly refuse to accept it — and more importantly — it doesn’t matter what you think as you’re of no consequence and your opinion doesn’t matter. To put it bluntly, no-one cares whether you’re convinced or not, your views are insignificant — and embarrassingly wrong. If you wish to highlight your difficulty in assimilating factual evidence, that’s your prerogative — but don’t expect me to reply to you.

I’ve attached an excerpt from the OFFICIAL High Court report, which, if you read it slowly and carefully you may understand 😌

During the time I was helping Jeremy I phoned the three forensic scientists. One of them had died and I spoke to his son.  I will have to dig out what was discussed as I have archived everything from that time.  I seen to remember one of them saying he couldn’t be sure it was Sheilas blood.  What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves.  The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial.  The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.

[Robittybob1]

It isn’t me misrepresenting the evidence — it’s you not understanding it

I should remind you that you’re not a forensic scientist; nor a pathologist; and neither a Judge.

All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila. You can’t/won’t believe that, despite you having no scientific understanding, ballistic understanding, legal understanding — and neither are you medically trained.

Added to that, you can’t seem to absorb scientific facts presented by experts. So why should I bother trying to convince you of the reality, when you steadfastly refuse to accept it — and more importantly — it doesn’t matter what you think as you’re of no consequence and your opinion doesn’t matter. To put it bluntly, no-one cares whether you’re convinced or not, your views are insignificant — and embarrassingly wrong. If you wish to highlight your difficulty in assimilating factual evidence, that’s your prerogative — but don’t expect me to reply to you.

I’ve attached an excerpt from the OFFICIAL High Court report, which, if you read it slowly and carefully you may understand 😌

You say "All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila."  can you show me this determination please?

[Nicholas]

What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves.  The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial.  The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.

Sounds like you’ve been listening to more BS Daisy

Tell me, how much did Bamber’s trial cost and what’s the break down with regards how much was spent on his defence as trial compared to that of the prosecution?

[Nicholas]

The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.

In the real world - how much time does do you think the prosecution have to find these experts who agree with them Daisy?

And what if the prosecution can’t find an expert who agrees with them ?

[Caroline]

During the time I was helping Jeremy I phoned the three forensic scientists. One of them had died and I spoke to his son.  I will have to dig out what was discussed as I have archived everything from that time.  I seen to remember one of them saying he couldn’t be sure it was Sheilas blood.  What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves.  The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial.  The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.

The taxpayer pays legal aid fees too and Bamber isn't doing so bad. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10555133/jeremy-bamber-500k-legal-aid/

[ISpyWithMyEye]

During the time I was helping Jeremy I phoned the three forensic scientists. One of them had died and I spoke to his son.  I will have to dig out what was discussed as I have archived everything from that time.  I seen to remember one of them saying he couldn’t be sure it was Sheilas blood.  What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves.  The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial.  The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.

Actually, Daisy...that isn’t correct.

The Law Society have made huge cutbacks

That’s affected the CPS and Legal Aid. No longer can people accused of crimes get legal aid as they did back in the 1980s. Parliament has cracked down on throwing thousands of pounds to pay the accused defence...in fact, some charged criminals are entitled to nothing. They’re on their own,

Likewise, the CPS are reluctant to charge a suspect if they think they may not win the case; hence why police are told to persuade the accused to accept a Caution rather than going to court.

Obviously, in serious cases it’s different, but the Law Society most definitely do not have a bottomless pit to prosecute.

It’s also nonsense that the prosecution look for “one expert after another “ to come up with the answer they want. Whoever told you that? Jeremy?

The prosecutors are not corrupt, which you’re implying.

If you think like that, he same could apply to the defence....

In the event, both the prosecuting expert AND the defence expert came up with the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was inside the silencer. That’s why at trial the defence barely touched on it, and at the second appeal the defence grappled, stumbled, and his argument was ridiculously weak.

[Robittybob1]

Actually, Daisy...that isn’t correct.

The Law Society have made huge cutbacks

That’s affected the CPS and Legal Aid. No longer can people accused of crimes get legal aid as they did back in the 1980s. Parliament has cracked down on throwing thousands of pounds to pay the accused defence...in fact, some charged criminals are entitled to nothing. They’re on their own,

Likewise, the CPS are reluctant to charge a suspect if they think they may not win the case; hence why police are told to persuade the accused to accept a Caution rather than going to court.

Obviously, in serious cases it’s different, but the Law Society most definitely do not have a bottomless pit to prosecute.

It’s also nonsense that the prosecution look for “one expert after another “ to come up with the answer they want. Whoever told you that? Jeremy?

The prosecutors are not corrupt, which you’re implying.

If you think like that, he same could apply to the defence....

In the event, both the prosecuting expert AND the defence expert came up with the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was inside the silencer. That’s why at trial the defence barely touched on it, and at the second appeal the defence grappled, stumbled, and his argument was ridiculously weak.

OK in the trial " both the prosecuting expert AND the defence expert came up with the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was inside the silencer" but later on DNA analysis of the same blood from the silencer it was shown the blood was not Sheila's.
Do you accept the DNA findings or not?

[Nicholas]

Traumatised yes, I agree.  But not by Jeremy, other than her dumping her if that would cause trauma, but by the lies and crap she had to spill out under oath.

If he had not been found guilty, that’s would be really traumatic for her, as she’d be found out to be lying under oath.  She looking at prison.

Yes, it was very traumatic for her and not for the ridiculous reasons you guys are spouting out here.

Do you think Virginia lied under oath Aunt Agatha?

Or do you think Bamber was seeing both sisters at the same time?

[Propatria]

Hello to everyone, I am new to this forum but have studied the case and read a great number of posts over the last few weeks. I have a few observations/questions that may not have been covered before, but my apologies if they have:

1.  Regarding the reflection/movement in the window seen during the police/JB walk around the front of the farm; it occurs to me that the sash windows would be of considerable age and, most probably, the glass in those window would be produced using old technology as described in this MIT link -https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-does-glass-change-over-time/. As the glass may have been warped or disrupted during the manufacturing process, they may have produced an odd reflection of whatever moon or other light was available that night, which may not have occurred with modern glass.

2. CAL mentions in Appendix 1 that the door to JB's room in the farmhouse was locked and had to be forced open by EP. Has it been established if the key to that room was in the farmhouse or did JB have it? Why was it locked and was it normally locked?

3.  Could the cartridge case found on the stairs be a jam that was cleared when the perpetrator returned upstairs?

4.  Were NB and June's wallet and handback ever found? If not, then it is reasonable to assume the perpetrator took them and does that rule out Sheila as the killer?

Thanks for your attention and I look forward to any replies and responses,

Pete

[Myster]

Hello to everyone, I am new to this forum but have studied the case and read a great number of posts over the last few weeks. I have a few observations/questions that may not have been covered before, but my apologies if they have:


1.  Regarding the reflection/movement in the window seen during the police/JB walk around the front of the farm; it occurs to me that the sash windows would be of considerable age and, most probably, the glass in those window would be produced using old technology as described in this MIT link -https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-does-glass-change-over-time/. As the glass may have been warped or disrupted during the manufacturing process, they may have produced an odd reflection of whatever moon or other light was available that night, which may not have occurred with modern glass.
2. CAL mentions in Appendix 1 that the door to JB's room in the farmhouse was locked and had to be forced open by EP. Has it been established if the key to that room was in the farmhouse or did JB have it? Why was it locked and was it normally locked?

3.  Could the cartridge case found on the stairs be a jam that was cleared when the perpetrator returned upstairs?

4.  Were NB and June's wallet and handback ever found? If not, then it is reasonable to assume the perpetrator took them and does that rule out Sheila as the killer?

Thanks for your attention and I look forward to any replies and responses,

Pete

1. Re. the linked article, I doubt the window glass of WHF was medieval though!  More likely to have been Crown glass manufactured during the early to mid 19th c. well before the Pilkington float-glass era. I used to live in an old house of a similar age to WHF, fitted with sliding sash windows and original glass in the bedrooms which had slight imperfections, but I doubt they would give the illusion of some imaginary figure inside seen from outside at ground level.  Chris Bews sighting might possibly have been reflections of clouds casting shadows as they passed across the moon, or shimmering reflections of branches of the mature tree nearest to the house...

https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/bambi-murder-case-1985-aerial-view-of-white-house-farm-tolleshunt-darcy-essex-scene-of-mrs-sheila-caffell-murder-jeremy-nevill-bamber-born-13-january-1961-is-a-former-british-farmer-who-was-sentenced-in-october-1986-to-five-life-terms-after-bein-1716796a

2. I haven't read anything about the whereabouts of the key to Jeremy Bamber's bedroom. As it was his home from home, he probably locked it up to stop prying eyes of his parents finding a secret stash of you know what.

3. As only three brass casings were found in the kitchen, when there should have been four, a stovepipe jam cleared on the way upstairs was considered a possibility, but I tend to think (as did the police) that the DRH14 casing on the mid-landing was one of two ejected from the rifle during the last shots to June Bamber's head.  Or a fourth missing casing in the kitchen might have been disposed of unknowingly by the clean-up crew.

4. How and why did Jeremy Bamber know that his father's wallet contained £400-500 cash?  Nevill's wallet and June's handbag were found by Ann Eaton and presumably their contents (money-wise) were handed over to executor, Basil Cock, on the Saturday (or later) after the murders when the relatives gained access to WHF. Part of Ann Eaton's statements re. the wallet and handbag...

[Propatria]

Thanks for the comments, but AE's statements don't clarify what happened to NB's wallet, only that JB stated to her that it was missing and contained several hundred pounds in cash and credit cards. So it seems it was missing, which still rules out Sheila.

Pete

[Propatria]

Another thought is about opportunity; was this the first time that Sheila and the twins came to stay, without Colin or anyone else, since JB came back from his trips abroad?

Pete

[Myster]

Thanks for the comments, but AE's statements don't clarify what happened to NB's wallet, only that JB stated to her that it was missing and contained several hundred pounds in cash and credit cards. So it seems it was missing, which still rules out Sheila.

Pete

There might be an additional revelation in the rest of her statements... too much to read through now.

[Myster]

Another thought is about opportunity; was this the first time that Sheila and the twins came to stay, without Colin or anyone else, since JB came back from his trips abroad?

Pete

She was at WHF with the twins in March 1985.