UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on April 23, 2020, 09:08:25 PM
-
Pages 1 - 5
-
Pages 6 - 10
-
Pages 11 - 15
-
Pages 16 - 20
-
Pages 21 - 25
-
Pages 26 - 30
-
Pages 31 - 35
-
Pages 35 - 39
-
Pages 40 - 44
-
Pages 45 - 49
-
Pages 50 - 52
-
Dr Vanezis - CV
Prof Vanezis - Guest On Desert Island Discs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009491v
-
And the point you are making ... is?
-
Isn’t all this the same as what’s already in here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=28.0
-
And the point you are making ... is?
I don't know what Holly's point is, but I'm pleased that everyone can see what the pathologist actually said, rather than what some like to think he said.
-
I don't know what Holly's point is, but I'm pleased that everyone can see what the pathologist actually said, rather than what some like to think he said.
Unfortunately some of those pages are virtually impossible to read.
-
Isn’t all this the same as what’s already in here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=28.0
Yes, a simple link would have sufficed, meanwhile my question elsewhere continues to be ignored.
-
I don't know what Holly's point is, but I'm pleased that everyone can see what the pathologist actually said, rather than what some like to think he said.
Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.
Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.
-
I don't know what Holly's point is, but I'm pleased that everyone can see what the pathologist actually said, rather than what some like to think he said.
Oh I agree!
-
Isn’t all this the same as what’s already in here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=28.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=28.0)
No, Vanezis' testimony at trial has never been posted in the documents section before, but it could now do with moving there permanently.
-
Unfortunately some of those pages are virtually impossible to read.
Just save them to a file as pdf and open in a decent pdf editor - if you're that way inclined.
-
Just save them to a file as pdf and open in a decent pdf editor - if you're that way inclined.
Will that sort out the “barely there” faded type? Not that I’m remotely arsed to find out tbh. I’ve read more than enough gut churning detail about the violent deaths of those poor people than I ever needed to.
-
I ask myself if those who post here are as lacking in manners in their 'real' lives as they are in their virtual lives?
Vertigo Swirl asked if we know what the pathologist said at trial:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11316.msg585510#msg585510
The answer is some here know because they have his trial testimony but it isn't in the library here so yesterday evening I spent a good 30 - 40 mins uploading it for the benefit of OTHERS.
Instead of a thank you I get:
- And the point you are making is?
- Isn't all this the same as what's already the same what's in here?
- Unfortunately some of those pages are virtually impossible to read
- Yes, a simple link would have sufficed, meanwhile my question elsewhere continues to be ignored.
- Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.
Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.
- Will that sort out the “barely there” faded type? Not that I’m remotely arsed to find out tbh. I’ve read more than enough gut churning detail about the violent deaths of those poor people than I ever needed to.
Unbelievable.
-
And the point you are making ... is?
I'm fulfilling a request for info!
-
Isn’t all this the same as what’s already in here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=28.0
No.
-
Unfortunately some of those pages are virtually impossible to read.
Oh I'm so sorry shall I spend all day transcribing them for you?
Seriously what do you expect with documents that are some 33 years old?
-
Yes, a simple link would have sufficed, meanwhile my question elsewhere continues to be ignored.
Do you think if a simple link would have sufficed I would waste time uploading the way I have?
-
Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.
Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.
Never mind surfeit of information you've had a deficit of information to the extent you haven't even read the pathologist's trial testimony but it hasn't stopped you posting your opinions.
If you find this case so unpalatable may I politely recommend that you resign yourself to the MM board.
-
Oh I agree!
You have access to the trial testimony which others don't.
-
Oh I'm so sorry shall I spend all day transcribing them for you?
Seriously what do you expect with documents that are some 33 years old?
Oh dear, what a sarky reply. The only thing I expect from you is the courtesy of a reply to posts that I address to you. I didn’t ask you to post up all these pages did I?
-
I ask myself if those who post here are as lacking in manners in their 'real' lives as they are in their virtual lives?
Vertigo Swirl asked if we know what the pathologist said at trial:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11316.msg585510#msg585510
The answer is some here know because they have his trial testimony but it isn't in the library here so yesterday evening I spent a good 30 - 40 mins uploading it for the benefit of OTHERS.
Instead of a thank you I get:
- And the point you are making is?
- Isn't all this the same as what's already the same what's in here?
- Unfortunately some of those pages are virtually impossible to read
- Yes, a simple link would have sufficed, meanwhile my question elsewhere continues to be ignored.
- Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.
Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.
- Will that sort out the “barely there” faded type? Not that I’m remotely arsed to find out tbh. I’ve read more than enough gut churning detail about the violent deaths of those poor people than I ever needed to.
Unbelievable.
I asked if we knew what he said at the trial a propos the broken nose (you have taken my comment out of context) - a simple “ yes, he didn’t mention it, perhaps with the relevant page attached as source material, would surely have sufficed. Instead I am supposed to wade through pages and pages of barely legible text to find an answer to a question that I don’t really think has much bearing on the case one way of the other? Your reaction by posting everything is what I would term “overkill” and your irritable responses on this thread I would term as a massive “over-reaction”.
-
I asked if we knew what he said at the trial a propos the broken nose (you have taken my comment out of context) - a simple “ yes, he didn’t mention it, perhaps with the relevant page attached as source material, would surely have sufficed. Instead I am supposed to wade through pages and pages of barely legible text to find an answer to a question that I don’t really think has much bearing on the case one way of the other? Your reaction by posting everything is what I would term “overkill” and your irritable responses on this thread I would term as a massive “over-reaction”.
I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;
Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.
Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;
Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.
Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.
You appear to be overlooking that, at the time the bodies were examined, approximately 12 hours after their deaths, there was no suspect, other than Sheila. Further investigation -denied them, anyway, by the unseemly haste with which the adult bodies were cremated, wouldn't have been thought to be necessary. It's probable that, had there been another suspect, things would have been done differently. Hindsight is a wonderful tool.
-
Will that sort out the “barely there” faded type? Not that I’m remotely arsed to find out tbh. I’ve read more than enough gut churning detail about the violent deaths of those poor people than I ever needed to.
Yes, you can manipulate the brightness, etc.
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;
Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.
Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.
Dr Vanezis trial testimony isn't all there was to determine Jeremy Bamber's guilt and he did make some omissions with the potential to have been vital, which were noted at a later date one of which (the handprint on Sheila Caffell's nightdress) was described as follows in the conclusions to Bamber's appeal ...
520- Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
*** *** *** ***
I think rather than - in my opinion - attempting to blind us all with a narrow science reflecting your firmly held point of view it might be time to give some consideration to the broader picture.
-
You have access to the trial testimony which others don't.
So where did you het this copy from?
-
I asked if we knew what he said at the trial a propos the broken nose (you have taken my comment out of context) - a simple “ yes, he didn’t mention it, perhaps with the relevant page attached as source material, would surely have sufficed. Instead I am supposed to wade through pages and pages of barely legible text to find an answer to a question that I don’t really think has much bearing on the case one way of the other? Your reaction by posting everything is what I would term “overkill” and your irritable responses on this thread I would term as a massive “over-reaction”.
I think she posted it for good reasons so that everyone could read it rather than just seeing. extracts.
-
You appear to be overlooking that, at the time the bodies were examined, approximately 12 hours after their deaths, there was no suspect, other than Sheila. Further investigation -denied them, anyway, by the unseemly haste with which the adult bodies were cremated, wouldn't have been thought to be necessary. It's probable that, had there been another suspect, things would have been done differently. Hindsight is a wonderful tool.
You appearing to be overlooking the fact that people have regularly put words into Vanezis' mouth without providing any evidence that he said them. That, to me, is a step too far.
-
You appearing to be overlooking the fact that people have regularly put words into Vanezis' mouth without providing any evidence that he said them. That, to me, is a step too far.
They have also played down what he said and ignored important terms like 'fractured suck' - you were silent on these issues.
-
Dr Vanezis trial testimony isn't all there was to determine Jeremy Bamber's guilt and he did make some omissions with the potential to have been vital, which were noted at a later date one of which (the handprint on Sheila Caffell's nightdress) was described as follows in the conclusions to Bamber's appeal ...
520- Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
*** *** *** ***
I think rather than - in my opinion - attempting to blind us all with a narrow science reflecting your firmly held point of view it might be time to give some consideration to the broader picture.
Vanezis wrote in his notes at the post mortem that some of the bloodstains on Sheila's nightdress were made by her right hand. In court he said there was no blood on her hand. When questioned by CAL, he said "I'm not whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands". [page 194]
It would be interesting to know at what point this hand washing occured.
-
They have also played down what he said and ignored important terms like 'fractured suck' - you were silent on these issues.
Which page is that on please?
-
Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.
Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.
Posting pages and pages and pages f documents we’ve already read in the formal report is actually boring, and doesn’t mean a thing. Only one person has viewed all that effort Holly went to, so she should relax a bit and just post links — far simpler.
She’s trying to pad out her non-argument knowing that no-one is bothered enough to read it.
The people who DID read it were the jury: the ones who found the mass murderer GUILTY.
That’s all that matters, as the appeal court judges said.
-
I don't know what Holly's point is, but I'm pleased that everyone can see what the pathologist actually said, rather than what some like to think he said.
Oh, that explains why you kept getting everything wrong, G-Unit...you’d never read it before...
I have, as have most contributors on here.
I’m glad you now have some understand of the actual facts 😊
-
Posting pages and pages and pages f documents we’ve already read in the formal report is actually boring, and doesn’t mean a thing. Only one person has viewed all that effort Holly went to, so she should relax a bit and just post links — far simpler.
She’s trying to pad out her non-argument knowing that no-one is bothered enough to read it.
The people who DID read it were the jury: the ones who found the mass murderer GUILTY.
That’s all that matters, as the appeal court judges said.
How can it be boring to read the evidence? I think it's better than making wild guesses with nothing to confirm their truth.
-
Vanezis wrote in his notes at the post mortem that some of the bloodstains on Sheila's nightdress were made by her right hand. In court he said there was no blood on her hand. When questioned by CAL, he said "I'm not whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands". [page 194]
It would be interesting to know at what point this hand washing occured.
It is apparent that the appeal court did not consider that Sheila’s hand had been washed as you speculate. Rather the reverse. They concurred that had Vanezis brought the evidence available in his notes to the original trial it would have served to reinforce Bamber’s guilt.
The point is not the red herring you have introduced it is the fact that Vanezis was privy to information he did not present to the trial which was as accurate as that which he did.
Just because evidence was not presented at the trial does not detract from its validity and no witness can be considered infallible, sometimes things get missed as I think happened on this occasion I think a bloody handprint on a murdered victim's body is a big deal.
Anyway ... for the purposes of a discussion forum just because evidence was not led at trial does not invalidate it as a discussion tool. This is not a trial and I think it is appropriate to discuss all information with a valid source which in this instance happens to be that part of Vanezis's notes which he chose not to tell the court about.
517
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;
Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.
Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.
I haven’t made any of those claims so why are you replying to me?
-
They have also played down what he said and ignored important terms like 'fractured suck' - you were silent on these issues.
Did you mean “fractured skull”?
-
Shall we have a whip-round to gift Caro a new keyboard?
-
... or suggest gently that predictive text isn't all it's cracked up to be?
-
... or suggest gently that predictive text isn't all it's cracked up to be?
It is actually a massive pain in the neck.
-
It is actually a massive pain in the neck.
I degree.
-
I degree.
Me Top Lasso.
-
$6(&
Did you mean “fractured skull”?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* - Probably. I type too fast - must learn to read back before posting!
-
Shall we have a whip-round to gift Caro a new keyboard?
I don't think it would help. @)(++(*
-
Dr Vanezis trial testimony isn't all there was to determine Jeremy Bamber's guilt and he did make some omissions with the potential to have been vital, which were noted at a later date one of which (the handprint on Sheila Caffell's nightdress) was described as follows in the conclusions to Bamber's appeal ...
520- Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
*** *** *** ***
I think rather than - in my opinion - attempting to blind us all with a narrow science reflecting your firmly held point of view it might be time to give some consideration to the broader picture.
The above is perhaps the best evidence of JB's appalling defence at trial and 2002 appeal.
At the 2002 appeal forensic scientist Martyn Ismail was called by the prosecution to testify about SC's position as depicted in soc images. Point 514 +
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
He said after the second fatal gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet but soc images show her head flat to the floor. However first respondent A/PS Woodcock states in his wit stat SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet. Who moved SC at soc after she was first observed by A/PS Woodcock and soc images taken? It wasn't JB as he was outside with police.
The defence was so poor that points that should have been a slam dunk for JB were allowed to be used against him by the prosecution.
-
Thank you for taking the trouble to upload all of this Holly.
As a guilter I do not wish to stoop to the level of the CT and simply make things up.
The amount of supporters that have told me to "do my research" while claiming "it could have been rabbits blood but the jury were never told" and other such nonsense has left me with the strong impression that Bambers claims of innocence simply don't stand any scrutiny at all so the least I can do is base my opinion on solid facts.
I can't be bothered to read it all though, my important take away was that Vanezis was angry that he hadn't been called to the scene and stated that he would have raised concerns had he seen SC in situ.
The pathological evidence itself was simply inconclusive about who the perp was.
-
The above is perhaps the best evidence of JB's appalling defence at trial and 2002 appeal.
At the 2002 appeal forensic scientist Martyn Ismail was called by the prosecution to testify about SC's position as depicted in soc images. Point 514 +
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
He said after the second fatal gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet but soc images show her head flat to the floor. However first respondent A/PS Woodcock states in his wit stat SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet. Who moved SC at soc after she was first observed by A/PS Woodcock and soc images taken? It wasn't JB as he was outside with police.
The defence was so poor that points that should have been a slam dunk for JB were allowed to be used against him by the prosecution.
I think the 2002 appeal was JBs own fault. Unlike an appeal referred by the single judge, a referral by the CCRC allows other points to be thrown in without permission. I doubt any QC would have annoyed the court with the idiotic and ultimately self defeating nonsense that only Bamber could have insisted upon.
I think any defence that brings up evidence of a body being moved post mortem when his client is accused of staging the scene would likely be struck off - a point emphasised by the CoA regarding the bible issue.
-
I think the 2002 appeal was JBs own fault. Unlike an appeal referred by the single judge, a referral by the CCRC allows other points to be thrown in without permission. I doubt any QC would have annoyed the court with the idiotic and ultimately self defeating nonsense that only Bamber could have insisted upon.
I think any defence that brings up evidence of a body being moved post mortem when his client is accused of staging the scene would likely be struck off - a point emphasised by the CoA regarding the bible issue.
Any news re the High court challenge with the CPS yet?
“The legal papers lodged by Bamber and his team at the end of last week argue that the CPS failed to follow a direction for complete disclosure made by the Appeal judges in 2002. His legal team accuses the CPS of rejecting a ballistics report without instructing an expert to examine its credentials, as per protocol.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/bambers-lawyers-challenge-cps-over-non-disclosure/
-
I think the 2002 appeal was JBs own fault. Unlike an appeal referred by the single judge, a referral by the CCRC allows other points to be thrown in without permission. I doubt any QC would have annoyed the court with the idiotic and ultimately self defeating nonsense that only Bamber could have insisted upon.
I think any defence that brings up evidence of a body being moved post mortem when his client is accused of staging the scene would likely be struck off - a point emphasised by the CoA regarding the bible issue.
The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections. Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.
Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue? Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!
-
The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections. Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.
Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue? Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!
The overall conclusion in the end was that SC body had been staged by Bamber
-
The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections. Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.
Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue? Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!
The post mortem moving of Sheila works against Jeremy as he would have motive and reason to do this, the police would not. They admitted moving her arm and removing/replacing the gun for the photographs. Which police officer would have moved her whole body and why? Say her head was propped up against the cabinet and a PO went to feel for a pulse and her head then fell to the floor - why not just admit that?
The direction of the blood flow from her mouth suggests she was lying flat for some time.
As the 2002 CA made clear, the defence did pursue the bible issue and quite keenly but then dropped all interest in it, the most likely explanation being that the pages had clearly been shut and reopened while the blood was wet. It was pictured lying on top of a pool of Sheila's blood so likely the blood was Sheila's.
-
The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections. Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.
Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue? Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!
Not this again Holly? Woodcock also noted the blood pattern around her mouth which is at complete odds with her head being off the floor and Ismail doesn't support what you are saying, just that 'when shot' he head was off the floor. I agree with MacDonnell, she had been moved, by Bamber!
Yes, why didn't the defence pursue?
-
The post mortem moving of Sheila works against Jeremy as he would have motive and reason to do this, the police would not. They admitted moving her arm and removing/replacing the gun for the photographs. Which police officer would have moved her whole body and why? Say her head was propped up against the cabinet and a PO went to feel for a pulse and her head then fell to the floor - why not just admit that?
The direction of the blood flow from her mouth suggests she was lying flat for some time. Of course it does!!
As the 2002 CA made clear, the defence did pursue the bible issue and quite keenly but then dropped all interest in it, the most likely explanation being that the pages had clearly been shut and reopened while the blood was wet. It was pictured lying on top of a pool of Sheila's blood so likely the blood was Sheila's.
There is more to this issue than meets the eye.
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;
Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.
Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.
I’ve already replied to you, G-Unit
Nevill suffered a broken nose.
The pathologist established that, yet you’re disbelieving it.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You appearing to be overlooking the fact that people have regularly put words into Vanezis' mouth without providing any evidence that he said them. That, to me, is a step too far.
Dr Vanezis is not thick, gullible, or naive — no-one could have, or would have been bale to put words into his mouth! Besides his own reports he had photographic evidence of the PM’s; took X-rays; sent bloods and tissue samples to the lab for analysis...and you're saying some PC Plodd put words into his mouth?!
-
I ask myself if those who post here are as lacking in manners in their 'real' lives as they are in their virtual lives?
Vertigo Swirl asked if we know what the pathologist said at trial:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11316.msg585510#msg585510
The answer is some here know because they have his trial testimony but it isn't in the library here so yesterday evening I spent a good 30 - 40 mins uploading it for the benefit of OTHERS.
Instead of a thank you I get:
- And the point you are making is?
- Isn't all this the same as what's already the same what's in here?
- Unfortunately some of those pages are virtually impossible to read
- Yes, a simple link would have sufficed, meanwhile my question elsewhere continues to be ignored.
- Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.
Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.
- Will that sort out the “barely there” faded type? Not that I’m remotely arsed to find out tbh. I’ve read more than enough gut churning detail about the violent deaths of those poor people than I ever needed to.
Unbelievable.
Well, I read through it all long before you put those grainy shots up...
-
Vanezis wrote in his notes at the post mortem that some of the bloodstains on Sheila's nightdress were made by her right hand. In court he said there was no blood on her hand. When questioned by CAL, he said "I'm not whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands". [page 194]
It would be interesting to know at what point this hand washing occured.
CAL interviewed Dr Vanezis 30 years after he’d carried out the post mortem. He’s carried out THOUSANDS throughout his career! He obviously couldn’t quite recall when Sheila’s hand had been washed of blood: he may have done it himself after examine her hands, or a mortuary assistant may have cleaned it — he merely said he couldn’t remember when her hand had been washed. But it’s irrelevant: Sheila’s head, hands and feet were all covered in bags before they placed her in a body bag and took her to the mortuary.
Furthermore, the hand IMPRINT of blood on Sheila’s hand was hers. No-one else’s. Hers. EXACT match.
So whatever you’re trying to infer, just don’t bother...you’re nitpicking.
-
How can it be boring to read the evidence? I think it's better than making wild guesses with nothing to confirm their truth.
You read the evidence and don’t understand it!
You said Nevill didn’t have a broken nose...but that’s in the evidence too!
-
It is apparent that the appeal court did not consider that Sheila’s hand had been washed as you speculate. Rather the reverse. They concurred that had Vanezis brought the evidence available in his notes to the original trial it would have served to reinforce Bamber’s guilt.
The point is not the red herring you have introduced it is the fact that Vanezis was privy to information he did not present to the trial which was as accurate as that which he did.
Just because evidence was not presented at the trial does not detract from its validity and no witness can be considered infallible, sometimes things get missed as I think happened on this occasion I think a bloody handprint on a murdered victim's body is a big deal.
Anyway ... for the purposes of a discussion forum just because evidence was not led at trial does not invalidate it as a discussion tool. This is not a trial and I think it is appropriate to discuss all information with a valid source which in this instance happens to be that part of Vanezis's notes which he chose not to tell the court about.
517
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
You’ve explained that perfectly, Brietta :)
-
The rubbish you come out with is embarrassing
Dr Vanezis is not thick, gullible, or naive — no-one could have, or would have been bale to put words into his mouth! Besides his own reports he had photographic evidence of the PM’s; took X-rays; sent bloods and tissue samples to the lab for analysis...and you're saying some PC Plodd put words into his mouth?!
I was referring to posters on forums such as this one.
-
The above is perhaps the best evidence of JB's appalling defence at trial and 2002 appeal.
At the 2002 appeal forensic scientist Martyn Ismail was called by the prosecution to testify about SC's position as depicted in soc images. Point 514 +
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
He said after the second fatal gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet but soc images show her head flat to the floor. However first respondent A/PS Woodcock states in his wit stat SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet. Who moved SC at soc after she was first observed by A/PS Woodcock and soc images taken? It wasn't JB as he was outside with police.
The defence was so poor that points that should have been a slam dunk for JB were allowed to be used against him by the prosecution.
You’ve misread that.
The police officer said Sheila’s he’d was “slightly raised against the bed cabinet”
Which it was.
He didn’t say Sheila’s head was PROPPED UP LEANING against the cabinet”
In all the photographs of Sheila, both when she was first found and had clearly not even been TOUCHED, and the photographs where the police moved the rifle on her lap to enable the photographer to take pictures of the bloodied hand imprint on her nightdress, Sheila’s body is in the EXACT same spot; EXACT same position; and her nightdress was ALSO in the EXACT same position.
Jeremy Bamber had obviously dragged her down flat on the floor, otherwise it would have been even more obvious she couldn’t have shot herself half sitting up. When he dragged her dead body down, him being thick, forgot that the back of her nightdress would bunch up.
You can see the EXACT bunching in all photos.
Do you SERIOUSLY think all the lawyers, QC’s and jury didn’t study this detail?! Do you??
-
I think the 2002 appeal was JBs own fault. Unlike an appeal referred by the single judge, a referral by the CCRC allows other points to be thrown in without permission. I doubt any QC would have annoyed the court with the idiotic and ultimately self defeating nonsense that only Bamber could have insisted upon.
I think any defence that brings up evidence of a body being moved post mortem when his client is accused of staging the scene would likely be struck off - a point emphasised by the CoA regarding the bible issue.
Spot on, Common Sense.
We all know Jeremy Bamber is guilty, as does he. As did the jury. And as did the judge and COA judges.
Bamber’s few supporters try to distort & twist ludicrous points that have no significance — and were dealt with decades ago.
They can spout until they’re blue in the face, but the courts made their mind up 34 years ago and knew far more than any of us do; hence why his sentence was INCREASED to Life without Parole.
All these petty little points they try to make have been batted out of court years ago...the ludicrous suggestions that the police shot Sheila, Crispy shot her, the police set him up, the police moved her body...it’s all BS. They’ll be doing this until JB pops his clogs in his cell...they seem to live and breathe him. I find it revolting how anyone can be drawn to a mass murderer who also shot dead two little boys...
-
The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections. Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.
Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue? Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!
Sheila wasn’t moved at all.
Have you not seen the photographs?
Both before the gun was removed for the photographs, and afterwards? Sheila is in the identical spot/position. Her nightdress has IDENTICAL bundling.
-
The overall conclusion in the end was that SC body had been staged by Bamber
It was, Nicholas.
And everyone knows it.
Except a few of his supporters who have difficulty understanding that.
-
The post mortem moving of Sheila works against Jeremy as he would have motive and reason to do this, the police would not. They admitted moving her arm and removing/replacing the gun for the photographs. Which police officer would have moved her whole body and why? Say her head was propped up against the cabinet and a PO went to feel for a pulse and her head then fell to the floor - why not just admit that?
The direction of the blood flow from her mouth suggests she was lying flat for some time.
As the 2002 CA made clear, the defence did pursue the bible issue and quite keenly but then dropped all interest in it, the most likely explanation being that the pages had clearly been shut and reopened while the blood was wet. It was pictured lying on top of a pool of Sheila's blood so likely the blood was Sheila's.
Yes, the defence very quickly dropped the Bible attempt...when they realised it brought into question how Sheila could have shot herself in the throat, causing massive blood loss to collect in her throat and neck (as seen by the swelling in the photographs), been semi-conscious, gurgling for breath, partially paralysed as her upper spine had been shattered by the bullet — then somehow picked the Bible up, opened it, deliberately put her hand in the pool of blood that had escaped from her neck into a pool beside her, then pressed her hand hard inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again and put it down next to her when she was supposedly holding the long rifle in her right hand and her left arm was twisted backwards towards her head...them somehow managed to shoot herself a second time.
No wonder the defence quickly shut up about THAT!
Jeremy hadn’t anticipated when he pressed Sheila’s hand onto the Bible then closed it, that it it would make an identical hand print on the opposite page! What an idiot! Besides being an evil psychopath and mass murderer, he’s also thick.
-
Yes, the defence very quickly dropped the Bible attempt...when they realised it brought into question how Sheila could have shot herself in the throat, causing massive blood loss to collect in her throat and neck (as seen by the swelling in the photographs), been semi-conscious, gurgling for breath, partially paralysed as her upper spine had been shattered by the bullet — then somehow picked the Bible up, opened it, deliberately put her hand in the pool of blood that had escaped from her neck into a pool beside her, then pressed her hand hard inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again and put it down next to her when she was supposedly holding the long rifle in her right hand and her left arm was twisted backwards towards her head...them somehow managed to shoot herself a second time.
No wonder the defence quickly shut up about THAT!
Jeremy hadn’t anticipated when he pressed Sheila’s hand onto the Bible then closed it, that it it would make an identical hand print on the opposite page! What an idiot! Besides being an evil psychopath and mass murderer, he’s also thick.
I would tend to agree. 8((()*/
-
The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections. Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.
Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue? Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!
She wasn't moved as such, the first responders merely lifted her arm in order to remove and make safe the rifle. Had she been moved then the blood trails would have been very different.
-
I think while Holly is spending taxpayers money on reconstructions, a recon of Sheila shooting herself and ending up in that position based on expert blood spatter analysis and her rucked up nightdress would be interesting.
She was clearly upright and leaning to her right in order for the blood to have dripped on to her arm so I'm far from convinced that the rifle would end up lying in the middle of her body.
How the bible came to be in that position, slightly on top of her upper arm and covering a pool of her blood also boggles my mind. Was she supposed to be holding the bible and the 4ft rifle when she supposedly shot herself?
It all points to a scene staged by Bamber to my mind.
-
She wasn't moved as such, the first responders merely lifted her arm in order to remove and make safe the rifle. Had she been moved then the blood trails would have been very different.
And it's these tiny, and otherwise insignificant actions, that supporters cling to as being proof of others' corruption, ergo, Jeremy's innocence.
-
I think while Holly is spending taxpayers money on reconstructions, a recon of Sheila shooting herself and ending up in that position based on expert blood spatter analysis and her rucked up nightdress would be interesting.
She was clearly upright and leaning to her right in order for the blood to have dripped on to her arm so I'm far from convinced that the rifle would end up lying in the middle of her body.
How the bible came to be in that position, slightly on top of her upper arm and covering a pool of her blood also boggles my mind. Was she supposed to be holding the bible and the 4ft rifle when she supposedly shot herself?
It all points to a scene staged by Bamber to my mind.
It may also be worth noting that when muscles relax, limbs flop. There's no way that, in death, she'd have been holding the rifle in that contrived way.
-
It is apparent that the appeal court did not consider that Sheila’s hand had been washed as you speculate. Rather the reverse. They concurred that had Vanezis brought the evidence available in his notes to the original trial it would have served to reinforce Bamber’s guilt.
The point is not the red herring you have introduced it is the fact that Vanezis was privy to information he did not present to the trial which was as accurate as that which he did.
Just because evidence was not presented at the trial does not detract from its validity and no witness can be considered infallible, sometimes things get missed as I think happened on this occasion I think a bloody handprint on a murdered victim's body is a big deal.
Anyway ... for the purposes of a discussion forum just because evidence was not led at trial does not invalidate it as a discussion tool. This is not a trial and I think it is appropriate to discuss all information with a valid source which in this instance happens to be that part of Vanezis's notes which he chose not to tell the court about.
517
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
Dr V was specifically asked by the trial judge to clarify this inconsistency between his notes and trial testimony. When he carried out the pm the blood staining was restricted to SC's wrist and a mid-finger and he confirmed SC's palms were not contaminated with blood.
The washing referred to took place during pm.
End of unless you want to go down the road that he perjured himself?
If the nightdress hadn't been destroyed against all protocols it could be tested by way of blood staining analysis and DNA.
NB and June's hands were heavily blood stained.
-
Spot on, Common Sense.
We all know Jeremy Bamber is guilty, as does he. As did the jury. And as did the judge and COA judges.
Bamber’s few supporters try to distort & twist ludicrous points that have no significance — and were dealt with decades ago.
They can spout until they’re blue in the face, but the courts made their mind up 34 years ago and knew far more than any of us do; hence why his sentence was INCREASED to Life without Parole.
All these petty little points they try to make have been batted out of court years ago...the ludicrous suggestions that the police shot Sheila, Crispy shot her, the police set him up, the police moved her body...it’s all BS. They’ll be doing this until JB pops his clogs in his cell...they seem to live and breathe him. I find it revolting how anyone can be drawn to a mass murderer who also shot dead two little boys...
I share your disdain for the CT and those that repeat their desperate stupid dishonest nonsense but I take the view that the there is some room for legitimate doubt about aspects of the case and respect others differing opinions where they are based on fact.
Unlike the Bamberettes, I have no emotional investment here, I couldn't care less if it turns out he is innocent after all but I have been waiting 34 years for something concrete to convince me and so far.. nothing
-
She wasn't moved as such, the first responders merely lifted her arm in order to remove and make safe the rifle. Had she been moved then the blood trails would have been very different.
The rifle was made safe after soc images were taken.
Soc officers DI Cook and DC Hammersly confirmed SC's arm was lifted to photograph blood stains underneath.
I'm talking about A/PS Woodcock's wit stat, who was one of the first to enter the bedroom along with PC's Collins and Delgado, where he observed and noted SC's head raised against the bedside cabinet which is at odds with soc images showing the head flat to the floor.
Fast fwd some 17 years and Martyn Ismail for the prosecution (yes let that detonate) concluded from the blood staining (which was in its infancy mid 80's and not used at trial) that SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet and she had been pulled down by her feet evidenced by the rucking up of her nightdress.
To conclude a first respondents observation of SC's found position correspond with testimony from Martyn Ismail that sC' s head was raised against the bedside cabinet not flat to the floor as depicted in soc images.
Who moved SC at soc and why? It wasn't JB as he was outside with the police. More importantly why hasn't anyone fessed up? This has clearly been covered up which begs the question what else has been covered up?
-
It is apparent that the appeal court did not consider that Sheila’s hand had been washed as you speculate. Rather the reverse. They concurred that had Vanezis brought the evidence available in his notes to the original trial it would have served to reinforce Bamber’s guilt.
The point is not the red herring you have introduced it is the fact that Vanezis was privy to information he did not present to the trial which was as accurate as that which he did.
Just because evidence was not presented at the trial does not detract from its validity and no witness can be considered infallible, sometimes things get missed as I think happened on this occasion I think a bloody handprint on a murdered victim's body is a big deal.
Anyway ... for the purposes of a discussion forum just because evidence was not led at trial does not invalidate it as a discussion tool. This is not a trial and I think it is appropriate to discuss all information with a valid source which in this instance happens to be that part of Vanezis's notes which he chose not to tell the court about.
517
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
Oh and Brie BTW Mr Turner was JB's useless defence QC.
Dr Vanezis made clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood. Whereas NB's right hand was heavily bloodstained, how can it be excluded that the marks on SC's nightdress did not originate from NB when they were in the kitchen and SC was inflicting the non-gunshot wounds?
-
Oh and Brie BTW Mr Turner was JB's useless defence QC.
Dr Vanezis made clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood. Whereas NB's right hand was heavily bloodstained, how can it be excluded that the marks on SC's nightdress did not originate from NB when they were in the kitchen and SC was inflicting the non-gunshot wounds?
It might be reasonably expected that Nevill's hand would be larger than Sheila's, that's apart from the fingerprints being in a downward position. It's difficult to imagine how it would have been possible for Nevill to make such a print.
-
It may also be worth noting that when muscles relax, limbs flop. There's no way that, in death, she'd have been holding the rifle in that contrived way.
Now, that I can agree with!
-
I share your disdain for the CT and those that repeat their desperate stupid dishonest nonsense but I take the view that the there is some room for legitimate doubt about aspects of the case and respect others differing opinions where they are based on fact.
Unlike the Bamberettes, I have no emotional investment here, I couldn't care less if it turns out he is innocent after all but I have been waiting 34 years for something concrete to convince me and so far.. nothing
I have no interest in the CT either: some of the "supporters" I have come across are quite objectionable. So are some "guilters"-----it's almost like opposing religions at times!
I'm not really interested in Jeremy either, but I am very interested in the case, which is intriguing. I have never been able to make up my mind whether or not he's guilty, and personally, I suspect we will never find out for sure.
-
Now, that I can agree with!
It's amazing how, in attempt to prove MOJ -or innocence!!!, not always commensurate with being the same, but if it ends up as an MOJ, who cares about innocence?- unnecessary complications are being added to this argument, whilst the simplest of truths are being ignored.
-
I think while Holly is spending taxpayers money on reconstructions, a recon of Sheila shooting herself and ending up in that position based on expert blood spatter analysis and her rucked up nightdress would be interesting.
She was clearly upright and leaning to her right in order for the blood to have dripped on to her arm so I'm far from convinced that the rifle would end up lying in the middle of her body.
How the bible came to be in that position, slightly on top of her upper arm and covering a pool of her blood also boggles my mind. Was she supposed to be holding the bible and the 4ft rifle when she supposedly shot herself?
It all points to a scene staged by Bamber to my mind.
Is it taxpayers money paying for this nonsense? I thought he’d been begging people for money and to take out loans.
I did suggest that a reconstruction of Sheila shooting herself would be better than the one Holly wants of the “perp” shooting everyone....we all know they were shot, and we all know it was easy. Not so with Sheila, though...
But Holly failed to comment. She avoids awkward questions/points...
-
Oh and Brie BTW Mr Turner was JB's useless defence QC.
Dr Vanezis made clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood. Whereas NB's right hand was heavily bloodstained, how can it be excluded that the marks on SC's nightdress did not originate from NB when they were in the kitchen and SC was inflicting the non-gunshot wounds?
How can you not work out the simplest of things?
Nevill’s hand was twice the size of Sheila’s....
-
I share your disdain for the CT and those that repeat their desperate stupid dishonest nonsense but I take the view that the there is some room for legitimate doubt about aspects of the case and respect others differing opinions where they are based on fact.
Unlike the Bamberettes, I have no emotional investment here, I couldn't care less if it turns out he is innocent after all but I have been waiting 34 years for something concrete to convince me and so far.. nothing
I’m afraid I can’t agree there.
I’ve seen nothing at all that gives any room for doubt whatsoever. Nothing.
He, and only he was capable of killing those five members of his family. And believe me, if I did indeed think he could in any way be innocent I’d fight his corner, but he’s as guilty as sin — and there’s absolutely nothing but ludicrous conspiracies to try and make some people doubt his conviction.
He’s lied profusely, throughout, changed his stories...and innocent men don’t change their stories do they...
-
Is it taxpayers money paying for this nonsense? I thought he’d been begging people for money and to take out loans.
I did suggest that a reconstruction of Sheila shooting herself would be better than the one Holly wants of the “perp” shooting everyone....we all know they were shot, and we all know it was easy. Not so with Sheila, though...
But Holly failed to comment. She avoids awkward questions/points...
Holly seems to think the CCRC will pay for reconstructions once the privately funded forensic analysis persuades them the conviction is unsafe. I won't be holding my breath.
-
I have no interest in the CT either: some of the "supporters" I have come across are quite objectionable. So are some "guilters"-----it's almost like opposing religions at times!
I'm not really interested in Jeremy either, but I am very interested in the case, which is intriguing. I have never been able to make up my mind whether or not he's guilty, and personally, I suspect we will never find out for sure.
I agree completely. I don't know whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty or not, but I'm not convinced that the trial was properly conducted. Paul Terzeon of Kingsley Napier said in 2002 that the defense would have acted differently had they known some facts they were unaware of at the time of the trial.
-
I agree completely. I don't know whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty or not, but I'm not convinced that the trial was properly conducted. Paul Terzeon of Kingsley Napier said in 2002 that the defense would have acted differently had they known some facts they were unaware of at the time of the trial.
So you wouldn't mind if a 5 times murderer had gotten off with. it?
-
So you wouldn't mind if a 5 times murderer had gotten off with. it?
It's not about a murderer getting off, but about the defence being in possession of all the facts.
-
I’m afraid I can’t agree there.
I’ve seen nothing at all that gives any room for doubt whatsoever. Nothing.
He, and only he was capable of killing those five members of his family. And believe me, if I did indeed think he could in any way be innocent I’d fight his corner, but he’s as guilty as sin — and there’s absolutely nothing but ludicrous conspiracies to try and make some people doubt his conviction.
He’s lied profusely, throughout, changed his stories...and innocent men don’t change their stories do they...
So why do you think Mark Newby has decided to represent him and advance yet more nonsense? as I see it
-
It's not about a murderer getting off, but about the defence being in possession of all the facts.
So what do the defence know about Bamber’s activities that they’ve not shared ?
Would they have a timeline of his apparent over lapping ‘relationships’ for example and would they know JM was abused by Bamber?
The abuse of JM was never explored during Bamber’s trial - the defence attempted to portray her as a ‘scorned women’ instead
The jury nor prosecution it seems were never in possession of the full facts of this aspect of the case
-
It's not about a murderer getting off, but about the defence being in possession of all the facts.
Which facts do you believe would have changed the juries mind had they know about them?
-
I’m afraid I can’t agree there.
I’ve seen nothing at all that gives any room for doubt whatsoever. Nothing.
He, and only he was capable of killing those five members of his family. And believe me, if I did indeed think he could in any way be innocent I’d fight his corner, but he’s as guilty as sin — and there’s absolutely nothing but ludicrous conspiracies to try and make some people doubt his conviction.
He’s lied profusely, throughout, changed his stories...and innocent men don’t change their stories do they...
Mark Newby has claimed publicly Bamber’s narrative has remained the same?
-
Mark Newby has claimed publicly Bamber’s narrative has remained the same?
It hasn't - he has completely changed the times of the phone calls for one thing!
-
Which facts do you believe would have changed the juries mind had they know about them?
I haven't a clue----we would have to ask Paul Terzeon which facts he is referring to.
-
It hasn't - he has completely changed the times of the phone calls for one thing!
Who has, JB or Newby?
Which calls are you referring to? The one from JB to the police is logged with a time.
-
I have no interest in the CT either: some of the "supporters" I have come across are quite objectionable. So are some "guilters"-----it's almost like opposing religions at times!
I'm not really interested in Jeremy either, but I am very interested in the case, which is intriguing. I have never been able to make up my mind whether or not he's guilty, and personally, I suspect we will never find out for sure.
I agree. I simply despair of modern day tribalism. This forum isn't twitter, we can have a civilised debate and learn more about this complicated case from those that have studied it in depth.
Have you read the appeal court judgement? I find it difficult to believe anyone can read that and still have the confidence to declare him completely innocent.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
It hasn't - he has completely changed the times of the phone calls for one thing!
He's also changed the movement PC Myall thought he saw in the window to a clear silhouette which they all saw and those corrupt coppers lied about in court - yet another conspiracy against poor Jem!
-
He's also changed the movement PC Myall thought he saw in the window to a clear silhouette which they all saw and those corrupt coppers lied about in court - yet another conspiracy against poor Jem!
Absolutely CS - there are various other things too. Some subtle - some not so.
-
How can you not work out the simplest of things?
Nevill’s hand was twice the size of Sheila’s....
Dr V's notes make clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood whereas NB's right hand was. When he referred to the right hand causing what he thought was a palm print on SC's nightdress was he referring to NB's hand?
No measurements or palm prints were taken for comparison.
-
I agree completely. I don't know whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty or not, but I'm not convinced that the trial was properly conducted. Paul Terzeon of Kingsley Napier said in 2002 that the defense would have acted differently had they known some facts they were unaware of at the time of the trial.
Which "unknown facts" would these be and how would they have made a material difference?
For example, the CT forever bleat on about the jury not being told the proper facts of the inheritance but they were. It was in an agreed note referred to by CoA.
What they weren't told is that NB secretly owned some of the Eatons land and Bamber intended to sell it and live the playboy lifestyle down under - the reason they weren't told was because only Bamber knew this and he kept quiet instead of telling the court himself.
-
Which "unknown facts" would these be and how would they have made a material difference?
For example, the CT forever bleat on about the jury not being told the proper facts of the inheritance but they were. It was in an agreed note referred to by CoA.
What they weren't told is that NB secretly owned some of the Eatons land and Bamber intended to sell it and live the playboy lifestyle down under - the reason they weren't told was because only Bamber knew this and he kept quiet instead of telling the court himself.
A highly significant point - what does Mark Newby make of this omission ?
-
I agree. I simply despair of modern day tribalism. This forum isn't twitter, we can have a civilised debate and learn more about this complicated case from those that have studied it in depth.
Have you read the appeal court judgement? I find it difficult to believe anyone can read that and still have the confidence to declare him completely innocent.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
Absolutely. I'm learning all the time , since I have not studied the case in the depth some posters on here have.
The appeal court judgment? Well, I'll be honest with you, and say that I've read half of it !!
I don't see how anyone has the confidence to declare JB either innocent or guilty-----but that's just me!
-
Dr V's notes make clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood whereas NB's right hand was. When he referred to the right hand causing what he thought was a palm print on SC's nightdress was he referring to NB's hand?
No measurements or palm prints were taken for comparison.
Dr V could not have been referring to June because he was writing the notes as he went along and June's pm didn't take place until after NB's and SC's on the following day. So if it wasn't June's and it wasn't SC's as her hands were not contaminated it can only mean one thing and that's it originated from NB when the pair were in the kitchen.
No wonder Essex Police destroyed the nightdress against all protocols.
&%%6
-
Dr V's notes make clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood whereas NB's right hand was. When he referred to the right hand causing what he thought was a palm print on SC's nightdress was he referring to NB's hand?
No measurements or palm prints were taken for comparison.
How on. earth did you come to THAT conclusion? You are a stickler for what is documented until it comes to your own theories!
-
How on. earth did you come to THAT conclusion? You are a stickler for what is documented until it comes to your own theories!
How did you arrive at your theories about the 'palm print' originating from SC when Dr V made clear her hands were not contaminated?
-
How did you arrive at your theories about the 'palm print' originating from SC when Dr V made clear her hands were not contaminated?
Bamber staged the crime scene and would have had time to wash SC’s hand - if he’d used it to make the ‘palm print’
He could have taken the bucket from downstairs upstairs to wash SC’s hand and then return it to where it originated
There were towels placed near NB - these could also have been used in the ‘clean up’
-
I have no interest in the CT either: some of the "supporters" I have come across are quite objectionable. So are some "guilters"-----it's almost like opposing religions at times!
I'm not really interested in Jeremy either, but I am very interested in the case, which is intriguing. I have never been able to make up my mind whether or not he's guilty, and personally, I suspect we will never find out for sure.
I have
He’s guilty
And some of us know that ‘for sure’
SC didn’t have it in her to murder
-
I haven't a clue----we would have to ask Paul Terzeon which facts he is referring to.
I found it interesting that the police involvement in the issue of Mugford and Battersby's dealings with the Midland Bank weren't revealed to the defence at all. Mr Terzeon only found out in 2002 that a plain clothes police officer accompanied them to the bank on 4/10/85. According to the bank manager Mr Dovey's witness statement in 2002 the police officer was DS Jones who went away and then returned with a ready written statement for Mr Dovey to sign. That statement, dated 14/10/85 didn't mention the police involvement at all.
-
How did you arrive at your theories about the 'palm print' originating from SC when Dr V made clear her hands were not contaminated?
Because I can see it's a palm print but don't push me on the bible - we ALL have stuff up our sleeves Holly.
-
Which "unknown facts" would these be and how would they have made a material difference?
For example, the CT forever bleat on about the jury not being told the proper facts of the inheritance but they were. It was in an agreed note referred to by CoA.
What they weren't told is that NB secretly owned some of the Eatons land and Bamber intended to sell it and live the playboy lifestyle down under - the reason they weren't told was because only Bamber knew this and he kept quiet instead of telling the court himself.
Did the Eatons share the information with anyone?
-
Bamber staged the crime scene and would have had time to wash SC’s hand - if he’d used it to make the ‘palm print’
He could have taken the bucket from downstairs upstairs to wash SC’s hand and then return it to where it originated
There were towels placed near NB - these could also have been used in the ‘clean up’
And what would be the point in JB doing this? How would it assist him 'staging' the scene and pinning the blame on SC?
-
And what would be the point in JB doing this? How would it assist him 'staging' the scene and pinning the blame on SC?
Vanezis initially stated that her R hand were not contaminated apart from blood - I don't know why he later changed it but has recently admitted that the marks on her nightdress do look like finger marks rather that an imprint of the trails from her wrists. My theory was produced from something he actually wrote - not from thin air.
-
I found it interesting that the police involvement in the issue of Mugford and Battersby's dealings with the Midland Bank weren't revealed to the defence at all. Mr Terzeon only found out in 2002 that a plain clothes police officer accompanied them to the bank on 4/10/85. According to the bank manager Mr Dovey's witness statement in 2002 the police officer was DS Jones who went away and then returned with a ready written statement for Mr Dovey to sign. That statement, dated 14/10/85 didn't mention the police involvement at all.
Every which way you turn he was there. Was he just a highly motivated officer determined to get his man or woman come what may all in the name of justice or was there something else at play?
-
Vanezis initially stated that her R hand were not contaminated apart from blood - I don't know why he later changed it but has recently admitted that the marks on her nightdress do look like finger marks rather that an imprint of the trails from her wrists. My theory was produced from something he actually wrote - not from thin air.
Can you post a link please to where he stated that her right hand were not contaminated apart from blood?
-
Every which way you turn he was there. Was he just a highly motivated officer determined to get his man or woman come what may all in the name of justice or was there something else at play?
Bamber the psychopath
-
Bamber the psychopath
That was the former.
-
Did the Eatons share the information with anyone?
Why would they? They weren't on trial and who's to say that they even knew JBs intentions at that stage or even that they knew of the secret land deal.
-
That was the former.
What evidence do you have to make claim DS Jones was a psychopath Holly
-
I found it interesting that the police involvement in the issue of Mugford and Battersby's dealings with the Midland Bank weren't revealed to the defence at all. Mr Terzeon only found out in 2002 that a plain clothes police officer accompanied them to the bank on 4/10/85. According to the bank manager Mr Dovey's witness statement in 2002 the police officer was DS Jones who went away and then returned with a ready written statement for Mr Dovey to sign. That statement, dated 14/10/85 didn't mention the police involvement at all.
It's interesting but completely irrelevant if they were accompanied or not.. At no point does Mr Dovey mention any police involvement or intervention in the decision making of the bank which was based purely on the banks policy. JM + SBs involvement in the cheque fraud was put before the jury as was every other thing that could be used to discredit their truthfulness.
-
What evidence do you have to make claim DS Jones was a psychopath Holly
I don't believe I've said he was?
-
I found it interesting that the police involvement in the issue of Mugford and Battersby's dealings with the Midland Bank weren't revealed to the defence at all. Mr Terzeon only found out in 2002 that a plain clothes police officer accompanied them to the bank on 4/10/85. According to the bank manager Mr Dovey's witness statement in 2002 the police officer was DS Jones who went away and then returned with a ready written statement for Mr Dovey to sign. That statement, dated 14/10/85 didn't mention the police involvement at all.
Every which way you turn he was there. Was he just a highly motivated officer determined to get his man or woman come what may all in the name of justice or was there something else at play?
Bamber the psychopath
That was the former.
What evidence do you have to make claim DS Jones was a psychopath Holly
I don't believe I've said he was?
Who were you referring to then when you stated
That was the former.
?
-
It's amazing how, in attempt to prove MOJ -or innocence!!!, not always commensurate with being the same, but if it ends up as an MOJ, who cares about innocence?- unnecessary complications are being added to this argument, whilst the simplest of truths are being ignored.
Are you referring to innocence fraud April ?
-
Who were you referring to then when you stated
?
It was an either or and the either was the former.
-
It was an either or and the either was the former.
Who were you referring to exactly - these are the names you used
Mugford and Battersby
Mr Terzeon
Mr Dovey
DS Jones
Pls state who you were referring to being a psychopath
-
Can you post a link please to where he stated that her right hand were not contaminated apart from blood?
Certainly!
It's difficult to read but he states that "palm print on nightdress matches bloodstains, appear to have been transferred from R hand" and later "both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains"
And this from CAL after a recent interview with the man himself;
Asked to address the discrepancy today, Vanezis muses: ‘I’m not sure whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands.’ Regarding his courtroom statement about the stain on her nightdress, he reflects: ‘The smear in the blood on her neck wounds is obviously from putting her hand up to it. Her fingers could then have made the marks on her nightdress because there are three streaks forming the stain – two together and one slightly apart. The marks could be from her wrist, but the thickness of them definitely resembles fingers and she certainly has some blood on the side of her hand. There’s also a line through the streaks where the material has folded, giving a slightly distorted pattern.’ The blood trails evident on Sheila’s lower right arm, together with substantial blood staining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, reinforced the probability that she had raised her hand to her neck.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (pp. 194-195). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
.
-
Yes, the defence very quickly dropped the Bible attempt...when they realised it brought into question how Sheila could have shot herself in the throat, causing massive blood loss to collect in her throat and neck (as seen by the swelling in the photographs), been semi-conscious, gurgling for breath, partially paralysed as her upper spine had been shattered by the bullet — then somehow picked the Bible up, opened it, deliberately put her hand in the pool of blood that had escaped from her neck into a pool beside her, then pressed her hand hard inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again and put it down next to her when she was supposedly holding the long rifle in her right hand and her left arm was twisted backwards towards her head...them somehow managed to shoot herself a second time.
No wonder the defence quickly shut up about THAT!
Jeremy hadn’t anticipated when he pressed Sheila’s hand onto the Bible then closed it, that it it would make an identical hand print on the opposite page! What an idiot! Besides being an evil psychopath and mass murderer, he’s also thick.
Doesn’t Mark Newby know all this?
-
It's interesting but completely irrelevant if they were accompanied or not.. At no point does Mr Dovey mention any police involvement or intervention in the decision making of the bank which was based purely on the banks policy. JM + SBs involvement in the cheque fraud was put before the jury as was every other thing that could be used to discredit their truthfulness.
The fact that none of them mentioned it is the interesting bit. Why would DS Jones go with them anyway?
-
Dr V's notes make clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood whereas NB's right hand was. When he referred to the right hand causing what he thought was a palm print on SC's nightdress was he referring to NB's hand?
No measurements or palm prints were taken for comparison.
How DARE you question an expert pathologist?
Do you THINK he couldn’t differentiate between a palm print of a man of Nevill’s size and frame, and Sheila’s?
I’m not reading all your boring screenshots: I’ve read the whole case thoroughly.
Stop trying to create doubts when there aren’t any. You look desperate.
You’ve got nothing whatsoever to go on, so you’re nitpicking in pathetic things that have been established by experts.
-
Holly seems to think the CCRC will pay for reconstructions once the privately funded forensic analysis persuades them the conviction is unsafe. I won't be holding my breath.
She’s been saying all this since 2014...and still hasn’t got anywhere.
She can’t back up any of her claims, and much of what she says doesn’t fit. She claims she hasn’t received a letter from Jeremy Bamber in two years, yet she spends every waking moment discussing him on here...anyone who thinks THAT’S normal needs their bumps read too.
-
Dr V was specifically asked by the trial judge to clarify this inconsistency between his notes and trial testimony. When he carried out the pm the blood staining was restricted to SC's wrist and a mid-finger and he confirmed SC's palms were not contaminated with blood.
The washing referred to took place during pm.
End of unless you want to go down the road that he perjured himself?
If the nightdress hadn't been destroyed against all protocols it could be tested by way of blood staining analysis and DNA.
NB and June's hands were heavily blood stained.
Holly, what don’t you grasp about the FACT that a Sheila’s nightdress was NOT destroyed before the trial?!
Sheila’s nightdress was forensically examined with a fine tooth comb AFTER Jeremy Bamber was arrested.
-
Certainly!
It's difficult to read but he states that "palm print on nightdress matches bloodstains, appear to have been transferred from R hand" and later "both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains"
And this from CAL after a recent interview with the man himself;
Asked to address the discrepancy today, Vanezis muses: ‘I’m not sure whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands.’ Regarding his courtroom statement about the stain on her nightdress, he reflects: ‘The smear in the blood on her neck wounds is obviously from putting her hand up to it. Her fingers could then have made the marks on her nightdress because there are three streaks forming the stain – two together and one slightly apart. The marks could be from her wrist, but the thickness of them definitely resembles fingers and she certainly has some blood on the side of her hand. There’s also a line through the streaks where the material has folded, giving a slightly distorted pattern.’ The blood trails evident on Sheila’s lower right arm, together with substantial blood staining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, reinforced the probability that she had raised her hand to her neck.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (pp. 194-195). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
.
Bumping for Holly...
Thank you, Caroline
-
Which "unknown facts" would these be and how would they have made a material difference?
For example, the CT forever bleat on about the jury not being told the proper facts of the inheritance but they were. It was in an agreed note referred to by CoA.
What they weren't told is that NB secretly owned some of the Eatons land and Bamber intended to sell it and live the playboy lifestyle down under - the reason they weren't told was because only Bamber knew this and he kept quiet instead of telling the court himself.
That’s even more ammunition for the prosecution, CS. Great point you’ve brought up!
Just WHY didn’t Jeremy Bamber mention this secret land deal in court — which he would have definitely known about?!
Of course, we know why....
He didn’t want the jury to know he had even MORE reason to kill everyone.
-
That’s even more ammunition for the prosecution, CS. Great point you’ve brought up!
Just WHY didn’t Jeremy Bamber mention this secret land deal in court — which he would have definitely known about?!
Of course, we know why....
He didn’t want the jury to know he had even MORE reason to kill everyone.
8((()*/
-
So why do you think Mark Newby has decided to represent him and advance yet more nonsense? as I see it
Money for nothing, basically. And he’s hardly a Michael Mansfield QC is he? He’s just a small time solicitor from Derby — is it? He probably enjoys getting involved in a case that’s not quite as tedious and dull as representing someone who’s complained about a visiting order not being sent out on time, or whatever other trivial rubbish they take issue with
He knows he’s onto a loser, but he’s prepared to deliver rubbish to the court so he can stuff the money into his bank, enjoy it on a nice cruise or whatever his thing is while JB starts a new attempt for an appeal with another goofy solicitor.
Actually, I don’t know why JB doesn’t represent himself? He’s had 30 years reading up about his own case; and as he insists he’s innocent he would have the confidence to represent himself in court.
-
It hasn't - he has completely changed the times of the phone calls for one thing!
So Mark Newby has been disingenuous or is he outright lying?
-
So Mark Newby has been disingenuous or is he outright lying?
You've quoted him elsewhere recently ...something along the lines of .."the new evidence may show the chain of events" - He seems to be very circumspect in all of his statements about Bamber, never mentioning the word "innocent"
If you take the broad Bamber story, that he has always protested his innocence, that NB called him, that JM is a liar and that Sheila did it then it hasn't changed.
MN can hardly say "he's as guilty as hell" - he would be cast out of the MOJ club and have to find other work.
-
You've quoted him elsewhere recently ...something along the lines of .."the new evidence may show the chain of events" - He seems to be very circumspect in all of his statements about Bamber, never mentioning the word "innocent"
If you take the broad Bamber story, that he has always protested his innocence, that NB called him, that JM is a liar and that Sheila did it then it hasn't changed.
MN can hardly say "he's as guilty as hell" - he would be cast out of the MOJ club and have to find other work.
Mark Newby has claimed, ‘I can’t say anything other than it was Sheila’
By Matthew Young
“JEREMY Bamber claims he has new evidence proving he could not have massacred his family in 1985.
The killer alleges he was with police outside the Essex farmhouse murder scene and that they believed someone was alive inside – possibly with a gun.
Bamber, 59, who is serving life, claimed: “It is the ultimate alibi.”
JEREMY Bamber has spoken from his prison cell to again insist he did not murder his family in a farmyard bloodbath 35 years ago.
And the convicted killer claims new evidence shows there was still life inside the house while he was outside speaking to dozens of police – which he hopes will clear his name.
His lawyers say officers did not enter White House Farm, where his 61-year-old parents Nevill and June, sister Sheila Caffell, 26, and her twin sons Nicholas and Daniel, six, were butchered, for nearly four hours after arriving, amid fears someone was alive inside, possibly with a gun.
Speaking from his cell in Wakefield, West Yorks, Bamber said: “It is the ultimate alibi that I was in the company of dozens of police officers when it was clear that a person or persons were alive in the house who I am convicted of murdering.”
He claims schizophrenic Sheila murdered her sons and parents.
But author Carol Ann Lee, who exchanged regular letters with Bamber for her book Murders at White House Farm, insisted she has no doubts about his guilt.
She said the overriding piece of
JEREMY Bamber’s lawyer Mark Newby wants prosecutors to disclose evidence he claims would undermine the conviction.
He has issued judicial review proceedings against the CPS, alleging it refused to release documents, as ordered by courts.
It is also claimed Essex Police was told three times to disclose relevant material, but has failed to.
evidence was a gruesome crime scene photograph, which has never been published, which showed the murders were committed by somebody “extremely adept with a gun”.
Ms Lee added: “Sheila didn’t, she was also on medication for her illness, which made her uncoordinated.”
Bamber’s girlfriend Julie Mugford also told police he planned the slaughter in a bid to get his hands on the family inheritance and had phoned her, saying: “Tonight’s the night.”
The fresh claims from Bamber’s legal team come as the 1985 DRAMA Freddie Fox murders are being portrayed in the ITV drama White House Farm, starring Freddie Fox as the mass killer.
They will form part of an appeal bid in a submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Bamber’s lawyer Mark Newby claims the new evidence is “strong”.
Detectives maintained everyone in the farmhouse at Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Essex, was dead by around 3.30am.
Bamber, who lived in nearby Goldhanger, met officers at the scene at 3.50am. He stayed with them until he was taken away at 9am.
But his legal team now say a rifle was spotted in an upstairs window by two separate gun police at around 7am, meaning someone in there was alive. Bamber’s lawyers said also in the new evidence are logs showing a firearms team as being “in conversation with a person from inside the farm” at 5.25am. And that a 999 call was made from inside at 6.09am. Documents seen by the Mirror show a BT operator connected police to an open line at the farm at 05.50am, meaning the handset must have been put back on to make the 6.09am call.
When officers eventually broke into the home they heard a noise upstairs, believing it may have been a person.
On inspection, everyone was dead. But Bamber’s team claim the noise could have been Sheila killing herself.
The gun was found on her body. Ballistics expert Bruce Jones claimed the .22 rifle would not have been loud enough for police to “associate its noise with a shot”. Other evidence shows windows may have been opened after 3.30am and lights turned off between 4am and 5am.
Mr Newby said: “I haven’t received evidence that contradicts it, I can’t say anything other than it was Sheila. Things shouldn’t have happened at those times if it was Jeremy.”
Bamber, who was 24 at the time and later jailed for life, criticised Fox’s portrayal of him, claiming “it is nothing like me”, and he was able to “make things up for dramatic effect”.
He said: “I am concerned ITV are now cashing in on the tragedy.” ITV insisted it did “meticulous research”.
Essex Police said appeals have “not found anything to suggest Bamber was wrongly convicted
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mirror/20200121/282978221960529
-
Mark Newby has claimed, ‘I can’t say anything other than it was Sheila’
By Matthew Young
“JEREMY Bamber claims he has new evidence proving he could not have massacred his family in 1985.
The killer alleges he was with police outside the Essex farmhouse murder scene and that they believed someone was alive inside – possibly with a gun.
Bamber, 59, who is serving life, claimed: “It is the ultimate alibi.”
JEREMY Bamber has spoken from his prison cell to again insist he did not murder his family in a farmyard bloodbath 35 years ago.
And the convicted killer claims new evidence shows there was still life inside the house while he was outside speaking to dozens of police – which he hopes will clear his name.
His lawyers say officers did not enter White House Farm, where his 61-year-old parents Nevill and June, sister Sheila Caffell, 26, and her twin sons Nicholas and Daniel, six, were butchered, for nearly four hours after arriving, amid fears someone was alive inside, possibly with a gun.
Speaking from his cell in Wakefield, West Yorks, Bamber said: “It is the ultimate alibi that I was in the company of dozens of police officers when it was clear that a person or persons were alive in the house who I am convicted of murdering.”
He claims schizophrenic Sheila murdered her sons and parents.
But author Carol Ann Lee, who exchanged regular letters with Bamber for her book Murders at White House Farm, insisted she has no doubts about his guilt.
She said the overriding piece of
JEREMY Bamber’s lawyer Mark Newby wants prosecutors to disclose evidence he claims would undermine the conviction.
He has issued judicial review proceedings against the CPS, alleging it refused to release documents, as ordered by courts.
It is also claimed Essex Police was told three times to disclose relevant material, but has failed to.
evidence was a gruesome crime scene photograph, which has never been published, which showed the murders were committed by somebody “extremely adept with a gun”.
Ms Lee added: “Sheila didn’t, she was also on medication for her illness, which made her uncoordinated.”
Bamber’s girlfriend Julie Mugford also told police he planned the slaughter in a bid to get his hands on the family inheritance and had phoned her, saying: “Tonight’s the night.”
The fresh claims from Bamber’s legal team come as the 1985 DRAMA Freddie Fox murders are being portrayed in the ITV drama White House Farm, starring Freddie Fox as the mass killer.
They will form part of an appeal bid in a submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Bamber’s lawyer Mark Newby claims the new evidence is “strong”.
Detectives maintained everyone in the farmhouse at Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Essex, was dead by around 3.30am.
Bamber, who lived in nearby Goldhanger, met officers at the scene at 3.50am. He stayed with them until he was taken away at 9am.
But his legal team now say a rifle was spotted in an upstairs window by two separate gun police at around 7am, meaning someone in there was alive. Bamber’s lawyers said also in the new evidence are logs showing a firearms team as being “in conversation with a person from inside the farm” at 5.25am. And that a 999 call was made from inside at 6.09am. Documents seen by the Mirror show a BT operator connected police to an open line at the farm at 05.50am, meaning the handset must have been put back on to make the 6.09am call.
When officers eventually broke into the home they heard a noise upstairs, believing it may have been a person.
On inspection, everyone was dead. But Bamber’s team claim the noise could have been Sheila killing herself.
The gun was found on her body. Ballistics expert Bruce Jones claimed the .22 rifle would not have been loud enough for police to “associate its noise with a shot”. Other evidence shows windows may have been opened after 3.30am and lights turned off between 4am and 5am.
Mr Newby said: “I haven’t received evidence that contradicts it, I can’t say anything other than it was Sheila. Things shouldn’t have happened at those times if it was Jeremy.”
Bamber, who was 24 at the time and later jailed for life, criticised Fox’s portrayal of him, claiming “it is nothing like me”, and he was able to “make things up for dramatic effect”.
He said: “I am concerned ITV are now cashing in on the tragedy.” ITV insisted it did “meticulous research”.
Essex Police said appeals have “not found anything to suggest Bamber was wrongly convicted
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mirror/20200121/282978221960529
None of this is “fresh news” at all
Bamber’s been bleating on about these tired old excuses for donkeys years:
“His ultimate alibi” which he used in first trial didn’t wash...we all know he planned to meet the police outside AFTER he’d killed his family. Hardly an ultimate alibi.
“Police in conversation with someone in the farm”...yes, the police operator meant HIM, Jeremy Bamber. And to say the phone must have been put down at some stage to make a call, Jeremy Bamber admitted the line cut off when he made out Nevill phoned him. What Jeremy DIDN’T say was the truth: that it was he who phoned his home number and then cut it off to clear the line.
“The rifle propped by the window”...it wasn’t seen by any police at 7am. It was placed there AFTER the police removed it from Sheila’s dead body. Pathological evidence proves Sheila had liver mortis, and photos in situ prove that. Sheila had been dead since at least 3am and only ONE gun was found upstairs. All Nevill’s other guns were found in the gun cupboard downstairs where he kept them at all times.
“The noise upstairs “ ....that was Crispy. The same dog Bamber suggested shot Sheila the second time. For Bamber’s team to suggest the noise may have been a gunshot without a silencer — and these were experienced firearms officers — is embarrassing. Gunshots don’t sound like creaking floorboards where a little dog is circling in panic underneath a bed. The ballistics “expert” they’ve raked up, Bruce Jones, could maybe answer why marksmen are warned to wear large industrial strength ear protectors when firing .22 rifles....some people have been known to suffer deafness and permanent tinnitus by not protecting their ears. So to say you’d not hear a gunshot is risible.
No 999 call was made from inside the house at 6:09am. All 999 calls are recorded and none were made, or logged. The only log was the police operator relaying to other officers times when police asked the GPO specific questions whilst listening in. Further, why would anyone call 999 from inside the house when there were over 50 police officers surrounding it; calling out on their loudhailer; and two ambulances there on standby...
No windows were opened and closed at all. None. No lights were turned on and off. The only light seen was coming from the movement of the moon and rising sun reflecting through the windows.
The police have given ALL documents to Jeremy Bamber. Over 4M according to him....and on the night he killed them the police wrongly assumed it was Sheila because he’d lied to them. Despite him telling them Sheila had “gone berserk with a gun” there’s no written evidence at all that they spotted her moving, talking, shouting, screaming, laughing hysterically, singing, nothing. It was all deadly silent. HAD there been any evidence at all that Sheila was alive inside the house Taff Jones would have waved it in the air for everyone to see, especially when he was dragged in weeks later and removed from the case for being inept.
If there is a photograph that’s never been made public, how would Jeremy know about it? But if one does exist and the police decided it was too gruesome to share, the fact a ballistic expert said the shooting was done by someone who was extremely adept with a gun, that rules out Sheila even more, and is even more damning for Jeremy Bamber.
Jeremy ends his claims by saying he’s “concerned” ITV are cashing in on the tragedy. Wrong word, JB: he means he’s JEALOUS. Money has always been his god.
And the reason Mark Newby can’t say anything is that he has nothing TO say. He sounds a drip of a solicitor and will be mocked for evermore when he loses this latest attempt at dragging up boring old claims that were batted out of the last appeal hearing in less than an hour.
-
Bamber staged the crime scene and would have had time to wash SC’s hand - if he’d used it to make the ‘palm print’
He could have taken the bucket from downstairs upstairs to wash SC’s hand and then return it to where it originated
There were towels placed near NB - these could also have been used in the ‘clean up’
I’d say most of the blood on Sheila’s hand came off when Jeremy pressed it firmly against the Bible.
It would have left remnants, but wouldn’t have looked heavily bloodstained.
It’s as simple as that, really.
-
Mark Newby has claimed publicly Bamber’s narrative has remained the same?
Mark Newby hasn’t studied the case notes in that case...whoops!
Jeremy Bamber changed timings and sequences of phone calls that night, changed stories of Sheila’s MH issues, changed stories of her knowledge of guns, changed his story of where he’d left the rifle in the house, oh, he changed so many stories for me to mention right now...and that’s without all the lies he got tripped up on in his statements....
He has a poor memory, does Jem 🥶
-
None of this is “fresh news” at all
Bamber’s been bleating on about these tired old excuses for donkeys years:
“His ultimate alibi” which he used in first trial didn’t wash...we all know he planned to meet the police outside AFTER he’d killed his family. Hardly an ultimate alibi.
“Police in conversation with someone in the farm”...yes, the police operator meant HIM, Jeremy Bamber. And to say the phone must have been put down at some stage to make a call, Jeremy Bamber admitted the line cut off when he made out Nevill phoned him. What Jeremy DIDN’T say was the truth: that it was he who phoned his home number and then cut it off to clear the line.
“The rifle propped by the window”...it wasn’t seen by any police at 7am. It was placed there AFTER the police removed it from Sheila’s dead body. Pathological evidence proves Sheila had liver mortis, and photos in situ prove that. Sheila had been dead since at least 3am and only ONE gun was found upstairs. All Nevill’s other guns were found in the gun cupboard downstairs where he kept them at all times.
“The noise upstairs “ ....that was Crispy. The same dog Bamber suggested shot Sheila the second time. For Bamber’s team to suggest the noise may have been a gunshot without a silencer — and these were experienced firearms officers — is embarrassing. Gunshots don’t sound like creaking floorboards where a little dog is circling in panic underneath a bed. The ballistics “expert” they’ve raked up, Bruce Jones, could maybe answer why marksmen are warned to wear large industrial strength ear protectors when firing .22 rifles....some people have been known to suffer deafness and permanent tinnitus by not protecting their ears. So to say you’d not hear a gunshot is risible.
No 999 call was made from inside the house at 6:09am. All 999 calls are recorded and none were made, or logged. The only log was the police operator relaying to other officers times when police asked the GPO specific questions whilst listening in. Further, why would anyone call 999 from inside the house when there were over 50 police officers surrounding it; calling out on their loudhailer; and two ambulances there on standby...
No windows were opened and closed at all. None. No lights were turned on and off. The only light seen was coming from the movement of the moon and rising sun reflecting through the windows.
The police have given ALL documents to Jeremy Bamber. Over 4M according to him....and on the night he killed them the police wrongly assumed it was Sheila because he’d lied to them. Despite him telling them Sheila had “gone berserk with a gun” there’s no written evidence at all that they spotted her moving, talking, shouting, screaming, laughing hysterically, singing, nothing. It was all deadly silent. HAD there been any evidence at all that Sheila was alive inside the house Taff Jones would have waved it in the air for everyone to see, especially when he was dragged in weeks later and removed from the case for being inept.
If there is a photograph that’s never been made public, how would Jeremy know about it? But if one does exist and the police decided it was too gruesome to share, the fact a ballistic expert said the shooting was done by someone who was extremely adept with a gun, that rules out Sheila even more, and is even more damning for Jeremy Bamber.
Jeremy ends his claims by saying he’s “concerned” ITV are cashing in on the tragedy. Wrong word, JB: he means he’s JEALOUS. Money has always been his god.
And the reason Mark Newby can’t say anything is that he has nothing TO say. He sounds a drip of a solicitor and will be mocked for evermore when he loses this latest attempt at dragging up boring old claims that were batted out of the last appeal hearing in less than an hour.
Nevill's guns were not found in the gun cupboard; just one shotgun.
-
Certainly!
It's difficult to read but he states that "palm print on nightdress matches bloodstains, appear to have been transferred from R hand" and later "both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains"
And this from CAL after a recent interview with the man himself;
Asked to address the discrepancy today, Vanezis muses: ‘I’m not sure whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands.’ Regarding his courtroom statement about the stain on her nightdress, he reflects: ‘The smear in the blood on her neck wounds is obviously from putting her hand up to it. Her fingers could then have made the marks on her nightdress because there are three streaks forming the stain – two together and one slightly apart. The marks could be from her wrist, but the thickness of them definitely resembles fingers and she certainly has some blood on the side of her hand. There’s also a line through the streaks where the material has folded, giving a slightly distorted pattern.’ The blood trails evident on Sheila’s lower right arm, together with substantial blood staining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, reinforced the probability that she had raised her hand to her neck.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (pp. 194-195). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Thanks Caro
I have translated his hand written notes as follows:
bloodstained palm print on nightdress matches bloodstain appear to have been formed from R hand ?
both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstain
He actually places a question mark in his notes. I'm not convinced they were finger marks as they are very long and thin and there's also a void which is oblong in shape and has clearly defined lines.
In the pm he refers to the stain originating from SC's wrist.
He makes clear in his notes, post mortem report and trial testimony that SC's hands were not contaminated other than some blood in the wrist area and one finger but he is clear the insides of the fingers and palms were not contaminated. He is even asked by the judge to clarify the matter and is adamant that the insides of the fingers and palms were not contaminated.
He actually places a question mark in his notes. I'm not convinced they were finger marks as they are very long and thin and there's also a void which is oblong in shape and has clearly defined lines.
With regard to his contribution to CAL we are only privy to her understanding of what he said. I wonder if there was some misunderstanding in that he thought June put her own fingers to her neck which Dr V makes clear in his trial testimony.
-
Mark Newby hasn’t studied the case notes in that case...whoops!
Jeremy Bamber changed timings and sequences of phone calls that night, changed stories of Sheila’s MH issues, changed stories of her knowledge of guns, changed his story of where he’d left the rifle in the house, oh, he changed so many stories for me to mention right now...and that’s without all the lies he got tripped up on in his statements....
He has a poor memory, does Jem 🥶
Am interested in why Mark Newby is choosing to perpetuate Bambers obvious innocence fraud
Mark Newby has claimed, ‘I can’t say anything other than it was Sheila’
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mirror/20200121/282978221960529
-
Am interested in why Mark Newby is choosing to perpetuate Bambers obvious innocence fraud
Mark Newby doesn’t come across as razor sharp, does he?
In fact, for him to say “I can’t say anything except Sheila did it” sounds like he’s going to give us all a good laugh when he eventually has to explain how he — out of the blue — suddenly knows categorically that Sheila did it. 100%! Sheila did it 😑
So why is he demanding EP release documents that he doesn’t know exist, nor their content? He doesn’t need anything now — he KNOWS Sheila did it!😤
-
Am interested in why Mark Newby is choosing to perpetuate Bambers obvious innocence fraud
Quite simply because if he can get Bamber out on a technicality he will be a God in MOJ circles.
If he fails it will be because the CCRC "are part of the problem" and so not his fault.
The rifle in the window evidence is interesting but the rest is just old conspiracy guff. I wonder if the CCRC will interview the officers that reported seeing a rifle to ascertain whether they simply might have been mistaken - and will Bamber ever tell us if they do?
-
Quite simply because if he can get Bamber out on a technicality he will be a God in MOJ circles.
If he fails it will be because the CCRC "are part of the problem" and so not his fault.
The rifle in the window evidence is interesting but the rest is just old conspiracy guff. I wonder if the CCRC will interview the officers that reported seeing a rifle to ascertain whether they simply might have been mistaken - and will Bamber ever tell us if they do?
The rifle in the window guff isn't that interesting really. Jeaps said she saw what 'appeared' to be a rifle leaning against the window. For this to be the case, Sheila would have had to be alive, she would have had to go and get the rifle from the window, avoid being seen by the officers outside and shoot herself without being heard (twice).
What 'appeared' to be a rifle had to have been leaning against the window in the box room as on the side of the house mentioned by Jeaps, the main bedroom window is bricked up. We don't have any CS pictures of the box room, so we have no idea what was in it - this aspect could be cleared up by these photographs. The Raid Team were primed for a siege, they knew there were guns in the house so anything that looked remotely like one, would be noted - I guess anyone would, if their life might depend on it.
-
Quite simply because if he can get Bamber out on a technicality he will be a God in MOJ circles.
If he fails it will be because the CCRC "are part of the problem" and so not his fault.
The rifle in the window evidence is interesting but the rest is just old conspiracy guff. I wonder if the CCRC will interview the officers that reported seeing a rifle to ascertain whether they simply might have been mistaken - and will Bamber ever tell us if they do?
They are ‘part of the problem’
-
Quite simply because if he can get Bamber out on a technicality he will be a God in MOJ circles.
If he fails it will be because the CCRC "are part of the problem" and so not his fault.
The rifle in the window evidence is interesting but the rest is just old conspiracy guff. I wonder if the CCRC will interview the officers that reported seeing a rifle to ascertain whether they simply might have been mistaken - and will Bamber ever tell us if they do?
The rifle in the window was explained in 1986, CS
The police officers, after making sure it was empty and after the photographs had been taken placed the rifle against the wall by the window.
That’s all it was. As simple as that.
This rumour has obviously come about by one of the officers probably mentioning everything what happened to his mates in the pub, then one of those mates told his mate...and that’s how things get distorted and twisted.
There were NO guns in any windows, except for that rifle that I’ve just explained.
-
The rifle in the window guff isn't that interesting really. Jeaps said she saw what 'appeared' to be a rifle leaning against the window. For this to be the case, Sheila would have had to be alive, she would have had to go and get the rifle from the window, avoid being seen by the officers outside and shoot herself without being heard (twice).
What 'appeared' to be a rifle had to have been leaning against the window in the box room as on the side of the house mentioned by Jeaps, the main bedroom window is bricked up. We don't have any CS pictures of the box room, so we have no idea what was in it - this aspect could be cleared up by these photographs. The Raid Team were primed for a siege, they knew there were guns in the house so anything that looked remotely like one, would be noted - I guess anyone would, if their life might depend on it.
That’s right, Caroline
Another thing many people seem to forget is that police are human beings
This was a HUGE incident with a supposed crazy gun woman going berserk, in a house which Jeremy told them contained “lots of guns”, and so the police were on extreme high alert. When you’re scared for your own safety too, which they would have been, the mind plays tricks. Someone blowing a bubblegum and popping it could make them jump out their skin and aim their guns.
Their eyes are searching EVERYWHERE for movements, shapes, and just as people can stare at clouds and make them into the shape of a head or tree, any shadow, item, anything that remotely resembled the shape of a gun could trick their heightened state and make them wonder if it is a gun, when it could just be a broomstick.
But all of this is a tad pointless in a way, as once they entered WHF they found all the guns, so they know exactly how many were there and where they were.
-
That’s right, Caroline
Another thing many people seem to forget is that police are human beings
This was a HUGE incident with a supposed crazy gun woman going berserk, in a house which Jeremy told them contained “lots of guns”, and so the police were on extreme high alert. When you’re scared for your own safety too, which they would have been, the mind plays tricks. Someone blowing a bubblegum and popping it could make them jump out their skin and aim their guns.
Their eyes are searching EVERYWHERE for movements, shapes, and just as people can stare at clouds and make them into the shape of a head or tree, any shadow, item, anything that remotely resembled the shape of a gun could trick their heightened state and make them wonder if it is a gun, when it could just be a broomstick.
But all of this is a tad pointless in a way, as once they entered WHF they found all the guns, so they know exactly how many were there and where they were.
Very well observed. They may all have appeared to be in full control of their emotions, but most would have been close to quivering wrecks inside, probably wondering if they'd said good-bye to their families for the last time. Sadly, when one is only interested in facts, this very important factor becomes factored out of how the facts came to be.
-
The rifle in the window guff isn't that interesting really. Jeaps said she saw what 'appeared' to be a rifle leaning against the window. For this to be the case, Sheila would have had to be alive, she would have had to go and get the rifle from the window, avoid being seen by the officers outside and shoot herself without being heard (twice).
What 'appeared' to be a rifle had to have been leaning against the window in the box room as on the side of the house mentioned by Jeaps, the main bedroom window is bricked up. We don't have any CS pictures of the box room, so we have no idea what was in it - this aspect could be cleared up by these photographs. The Raid Team were primed for a siege, they knew there were guns in the house so anything that looked remotely like one, would be noted - I guess anyone would, if their life might depend on it.
Thanks for the explanation Caroline. I wonder if the CCRC have already investigated this?
I am deeply suspicious that JB and the CT are not just deluded fools but deliberately committing innocence fraud.
-
Thanks for the explanation Caroline. I wonder if the CCRC have already investigated this?
I am deeply suspicious that JB and the CT are not just deluded fools but deliberately committing innocence fraud.
I can imagine JB committing "innocence fraud", but why would the CT knowingly do so?
-
Thanks for the explanation Caroline. I wonder if the CCRC have already investigated this?
I am deeply suspicious that JB and the CT are not just deluded fools but deliberately committing innocence fraud.
Jeremy is certainly guilty of IF - the others are probably six of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't give them a second thought much now, I can't imagine reading the rubbish they peddle on Twitter or watching any of their ridiculous Youtube BS. They made themselves a laughing stock when they tried to suggest that Bamber only sent CAL a handful of letters - but that gem must have originated from their Jem!
-
They are ‘part of the problem’
The appeal courts and CCRC are not interested in guilt or factual innocence, only the "safety" of a conviction. Most appeals are overturned on technicalities.
A case in point is Sister Jessie McTavish - nicknamed "Sister Burke and Hare" by her colleagues. Her conviction for murdering a patient was overturned by the Scottish courts because the judges directions failed to take properly into account her denial that she had confessed to it. The jury had heard about her confession and her denial directly from the witnesses but the judge wasn't fair in the summing up. There was no retrial. Astonishingly, she was later allowed to return to nursing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580550/Nurse-who-inspired-Colin-Norris.html
-
I can imagine JB committing "innocence fraud", but why would the CT knowingly do so?
I would HOPE that they wouldn't but it takes all sorts to make a world. They must know that Bamber isn't always honest with them but they have supported him no matter what. Prime example is their attacks on CAL and when caught out, didn't even have the decency to make a formal apology. I don't think anyone actually takes them seriously - not even harden supporters - I know I didn't when I thought Bamber was innocent.
-
The appeal courts and CCRC are not interested in guilt or factual innocence, only the "safety" of a conviction. Most appeals are overturned on technicalities.
A case in point is Sister Jessie McTavish - nicknamed "Sister Burke and Hare" by her colleagues. Her conviction for murdering a patient was overturned by the Scottish courts because the judges directions failed to take properly into account her denial that she had confessed to it. The jury had heard about her confession and her denial directly from the witnesses but the judge wasn't fair in the summing up. There was no retrial. Astonishingly, she was later allowed to return to nursing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580550/Nurse-who-inspired-Colin-Norris.html
Wouldn't the SCCRC have dealt with that? Aren't they a separate body from the CCRC?
-
I can imagine JB committing "innocence fraud", but why would the CT knowingly do so?
I believe they think he is innocent, in fact they are utterly convinced of it but I cannot believe they peddle all of those long debunked myths for any reason other than to fool new recruits and present a false narrative, IE: the case for JB is overwhelming and those wicked authorities are letting a clearly innocent man rot in jail.
What they actually have is nothing and I can't get my head around the idea that they are not aware that at least some of it is pure rubbish.
-
I believe they think he is innocent, in fact they are utterly convinced of it but I cannot believe they peddle all of those long debunked myths for any reason other than to fool new recruits and present a false narrative, IE: the case for JB is overwhelming and those wicked authorities are letting a clearly innocent man rot in jail.
What they actually have is nothing and I can't get my head around the idea that they are not aware that at least some of it is pure rubbish.
I agree but I do think all that crap originates from Bamber. A few years ago, there was something about Sheila's fingerprints being discovered on the casings. I challenged then via email and received a letter from Bamber saying that it was his fault, he's made a mistake and assumed something he shouldn't have. His explanation was once again - poor! I agree that they have a genuine belief in his innocence but you would think by now, they would realise he's not to be trusted?
-
I agree but I do think all that crap originates from Bamber. A few years ago, there was something about Sheila's fingerprints being discovered on the casings. I challenged then via email and received a letter from Bamber saying that it was his fault, he's made a mistake and assumed something he shouldn't have. His explanation was once again - poor! I agree that they have a genuine belief in his innocence but you would think by now, they would realise he's not to be trusted?
Indeed. I find it fascinating how they continue to cling to things though. I think the rabbits blood/AK1 enzyme hokum originated with them but you still hear it - "only AK1 was found so it could have been a rabbits blood in the silencer" - I guess some of them are just plain thick
-
Thanks for the explanation Caroline. I wonder if the CCRC have already investigated this?
I am deeply suspicious that JB and the CT are not just deluded fools but deliberately committing innocence fraud.
8((()*/
-
I agree but I do think all that crap originates from Bamber. A few years ago, there was something about Sheila's fingerprints being discovered on the casings. I challenged then via email and received a letter from Bamber saying that it was his fault, he's made a mistake and assumed something he shouldn't have. His explanation was once again - poor! I agree that they have a genuine belief in his innocence but you would think by now, they would realise he's not to be trusted?
If NGB1066 didn’t realise this, or at least acknowledge it publicly, why should the CT?
-
Because I can see it's a palm print but don't push me on the bible - we ALL have stuff up our sleeves Holly.
Have you considered informing the CPS & Essex police of this?
Especially in light of the recent challenge made re disclosure
-
Please stay on topic. Cheers!!
-
If NGB1066 didn’t realise this, or at least acknowledge it publicly, why should the CT?
Because they actively campaign for him.