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 17, 2017, 07:21:33 PM
-
Which of the following would cause you to reconsider your postion over JB's case:
a) Forensic testing undermining the silencer evidence to the extent the CCRC refer to the CoA.
b) Scene of crime reconstruction by experts showing NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs.
c) JM retracting her testimony.
d) Reports from psychologists showing SC in all probability suffered an 'attachment disorder' due to June's mental illness circa 1959 putting SC at greater risk of suicide and committing acts of aggression including filicide.
e) None of the above.
If you want to select more than one option please place in order of priority. Thanks.
328
-
How about
f) a convincing explanation as to how Sheila - with no experience of firearms and mental health/co-ordination issues - would have been able to reload a complex weapon twice and fire 25 bullets accurately
g) a convincing explanation as to how Sheila was able to overcome, and impose severe injuries on, her father who was a foot taller and physically far stronger than she was
h) a convincing explanation of JB's behaviour following the call from Neville. Specifically to cover why he didn't call 999, why he didn't go to the farm immediately, and why he called Julie if it wasn't to create an alibi for himself?
-
Which of the following would cause you to reconsider your postion over JB's case:
a) Forensic testing undermining the silencer evidence to the extent the CCRC refer to the CoA.
b) Scene of crime reconstruction by experts showing NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs.
c) JM retracting her testimony.
d) Reports from psychologists showing SC in all probability suffered an 'attachment disorder' due to June's mental illness circa 1959 putting SC at greater risk of suicide and committing acts of aggression including filicide.
e) None of the above.
If you want to select more than one option please place in order of priority. Thanks.
I'd go with C but she would have to provide a detailed explanation.
-
How about
f) a convincing explanation as to how Sheila - with no experience of firearms and mental health/co-ordination issues - would have been able to reload a complex weapon twice and fire 25 bullets accurately
g) a convincing explanation as to how Sheila was able to overcome, and impose severe injuries on, her father who was a foot taller and physically far stronger than she was
h) a convincing explanation of JB's behaviour following the call from Neville. Specifically to cover why he didn't call 999, why he didn't go to the farm immediately, and why he called Julie if it wasn't to create an alibi for himself?
Computer says no! Only a - e inclusive are available! Please make your selection accordingly!
-
How about
f) a convincing explanation as to how Sheila - with no experience of firearms and mental health/co-ordination issues - would have been able to reload a complex weapon twice and fire 25 bullets accurately
g) a convincing explanation as to how Sheila was able to overcome, and impose severe injuries on, her father who was a foot taller and physically far stronger than she was
h) a convincing explanation of JB's behaviour following the call from Neville. Specifically to cover why he didn't call 999, why he didn't go to the farm immediately, and why he called Julie if it wasn't to create an alibi for himself?
a - d are based on aspects of the case where it might be possible to undertake new tests etc capable of securing a CoA hearing. I'm not sure f - h above could be advanced in this way. F - h were all aspects of the case that were thrashed out at trial and according to Ewan Smith above the jury was primarily interested in the silencer/blood evidence. I think the only people capable of determining what constitutes a "convincing explanation" for f - h would be a jury but I'll give it a go:
f) There's no evidence SC handled firearms in adulthood. She left WHF at 17/18 yoa and returned infrequently. However we don't know what went on during her childhood. Growing up on a farm surrounded by firearms and those that used them signals to me that she would have more idea than most. When I started fending for myself I can't ever recall my parents sitting me down providing detailed instructions on all manner of things from roasting a chicken to planting bulbs but somehow I knew how to do these things. Did my parents explain at some stage or did I simply observe consciously or sub-consciously?
Yes SC had mental health issues but afaik there's no evidence of any learning disability preventing her from loading and firing a firearm.
Where's the evidence SC suffered co-ordination issues?
Where's the evidence a .22 semi-auto rifle is complex? It's perceived as complex to most in Little Britian as its alien and something they have little or no knowledge of. Ask most Yanks and they will tell you something different.
Where's the evidence accuracy played a part at WHF? June was prone in bed when initially shot and slow or immobile thereafter. NB's facial shots and head shots were fired when the rifle was within inches of his skin. The twins were asleep in bed.
g) How did Andrews overpower and murder Lee Harvey with a pen knife? See image of pair below.
h) Behaviour is very subjective. If JB received a call from NB saying "Sheila's gone crazy, she's got the gun" then I think his reactions are within the 'normal' range ie trying to call back to seek further info from NB as to what was required and discussing with JM beforehand.
-
Re Andrews above you can just make out her longish polished fingernails in the above. Afaik her fingernails didn't form part of the prosecution against her. And yet she stabbed Lee Harvey a total of 42 times with a penknife which I would have thought was far more hazardous to nails than loading and firing a firearm some 25/26 times and using it to wield blows.
-
Another case similar to that of Lee Harvey and Andrews is that of Thomas Cressman and another Andrews. The image below shows the difference in statue.
Andrews hit Thomas Cressman with a cricket bat and then stabbed him.
The image below shows the difference in statue.
-
Computer says no! Only a - e inclusive are available! Please make your selection accordingly!
Only (c)... but that will never happen considering she's kept schtum for 31 years.
Your Sheila shooting-on-the-stairs theory went to pot when you realised Jeremy Bamber could have done the same.
HOL9000 is on the verge of being deactivated... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuEN5TjYRCEhttp:// (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuEN5TjYRCEhttp://)
-
Only (c)... but that will never happen considering she's kept schtum for 31 years.
Your Sheila shooting-on-the-stairs theory went to pot when you realised Jeremy Bamber could have done the same.
HOL9000 is on the verge of being deactivated... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuEN5TjYRCEhttp:// (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuEN5TjYRCEhttp://)
When I first mooted NB shot on the landing/main stairs I said there was a possible scenario for SC or JB. I thought I would get it in before I was shot down in flames.
Another obstacle to overcome is that if June sustained the 2 gsw's to her head in the location she was found then it seems likely DRH/3 and 4 pertain to these gsw's but I've allocated them to NB's lip and jaw gsw.
-
Computer says no! Only a - e inclusive are available! Please make your selection accordingly!
c. But it's a bit like saying "if my granny had a dick she'd be my grandad." It's not going to happen.
-
Another case similar to that of Lee Harvey and Andrews is that of Thomas Cressman and another Andrews. The image below shows the difference in statue.
Andrews hit Thomas Cressman with a cricket bat and then stabbed him.
The image below shows the difference in statue.
My father-in-law used to play golf with Lee Harvey's dad. And the Cressmans lived about half a mile from us.
It's a small world, sometimes. 8(8-))
-
When I first mooted NB shot on the landing/main stairs I said there was a possible scenario for SC or JB. I thought I would get it in before I was shot down in flames.
Another obstacle to overcome is that if June sustained the 2 gsw's to her head in the location she was found then it seems likely DRH/3 and 4 pertain to these gsw's but I've allocated them to NB's lip and jaw gsw.
... or DRH/13 and 14, if the perp was standing in the doorway/landing area, with the rifle pointing downwards. Casings cushioned on impact with the carpet, DRH/14 tumbling down three steps and coming to a rest by the skirting on the lower landing.
-
Julies WS is very long, detailed, accurrate and damaging.
If she retracted everything it would mean she was helped to lie by the police & maybe coerced into lying in the first place. Although the police had nothing on her at first.
If the police made this big effort with Julie, then they must have fabricated and hidden a lot of other evidence. Although why they would do this a month after the massacre, I don't know.
Assume a full retraction from Julie will result in an acquittal.
I don't believe any of the other issues would free Bamber now. Isn't there nothing left to test in the silencer ?
-
C? A fantasy to be relished? Whatever wasn't included -or exaggerated- in Julie's witness statement, will, I imagine, had it played on her conscience, have been shared with either a priest or a therapist, neither of whom can divulge what she told them. Would she come forward, now, after all this time? She has a new life -albeit, I'm given to understand she is harassed on behalf of those who believe she lied- in a new country and a family who weren't part of her life in 1985. Personally, I can't see it happening..................but hey, I didn't ever think Donald Duck -ooops, SORRY!, TRUMP 8()-000(- would ever be president of the USA.
-
Another case similar to that of Lee Harvey and Andrews is that of Thomas Cressman and another Andrews. The image below shows the difference in statue.
Andrews hit Thomas Cressman with a cricket bat and then stabbed him.
The image below shows the difference in statue.
Both these women had one victim to deal with and chose a simple weapon. Your point about the fingernails - loading a magazine would be more detrimental to fingernails by the fact that they would be involved in the process. When using a knife, they are protected by the rest of the hand when making a fist to hold the knife.
-
... or DRH/13 and 14, if the perp was standing in the doorway/landing area, with the rifle pointing downwards. Casings cushioned on impact with the carpet, DRH/14 tumbling down three steps and coming to a rest by the skirting on the lower landing.
Based on the wound tracks to June's head I don't see how it would be possible for the perp to inflict them from the landing entrance. Even if the perp was able to flex their hand/barrel sufficiently, which would be a very unnatural angle, the position of June's head doesn't lend to DRH/13 and 14 fired from the landing side imo.
-
Julies WS is very long, detailed, accurrate and damaging.
If she retracted everything it would mean she was helped to lie by the police & maybe coerced into lying in the first place. Although the police had nothing on her at first.
If the police made this big effort with Julie, then they must have fabricated and hidden a lot of other evidence. Although why they would do this a month after the massacre, I don't know.
Assume a full retraction from Julie will result in an acquittal.
I don't believe any of the other issues would free Bamber now. Isn't there nothing left to test in the silencer ?
I'll take that as a c) then Adam 8((()*/ Computer can only cope with a) to e)!
I'm not sure a retraction of JM's testimony would result in an acquittal. According to Ewan Smith above the trial judge warned jurors about over reliance on JM's testimony.
I believe there are forensic tests available capable of undermining the blood and silencer evidence.
-
C? A fantasy to be relished? Whatever wasn't included -or exaggerated- in Julie's witness statement, will, I imagine, had it played on her conscience, have been shared with either a priest or a therapist, neither of whom can divulge what she told them. Would she come forward, now, after all this time? She has a new life -albeit, I'm given to understand she is harassed on behalf of those who believe she lied- in a new country and a family who weren't part of her life in 1985. Personally, I can't see it happening..................but hey, I didn't ever think Donald Duck -ooops, SORRY!, TRUMP 8()-000(- would ever be president of the USA.
Vincent Tabak confessed to a chaplain:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8820130/Vincent-Tabak-told-prison-chaplain-I-killed-Joanna-Yeates.html
I don't see why JM wouldn't unburden herself if she was coerced by the police and/or others. She was a just turned 21 year interviewed extensively over a prolonged period by middle aged experienced police officers and without access to any other adult, including her parents and/or legal representative.
Lets hope the polls are right about kitten heel's "thumping majority" or we could end up with the bearded one 8(8-))
-
Vincent Tabak confessed to a chaplain:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8820130/Vincent-Tabak-told-prison-chaplain-I-killed-Joanna-Yeates.html
I don't see why JM wouldn't unburden herself if she was coerced by the police and/or others. She was a just turned 21 year interviewed extensively over a prolonged period by middle aged experienced police officers and without access to any other adult, including her parents and/or legal representative.
Lets hope the polls are right about kitten heel's "thumping majority" or we could end up with the bearded one 8(8-))
I'm unaware of Tabak's domestic situation, eg. did he have children? Concur re "kitten heels".
-
Both these women had one victim to deal with and chose a simple weapon. Your point about the fingernails - loading a magazine would be more detrimental to fingernails by the fact that they would be involved in the process. When using a knife, they are protected by the rest of the hand when making a fist to hold the knife.
Yes they only had one victim to deal with using simple weapons: cricket bats and knives. In the case of Tracie Andrews she ended up with a black eye. If we are to believe JB guilty we have to accept he had 3 adults to deal with over at least 2 different locations albeit with the aid of a rifle and yet didn't sustain any injuries.
Myster will thank you for this... there's no evidence 'farm girl' suffered any nail damage from loading a mag and firing her firearm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
-
Yes they only had one victim to deal with using simple weapons: cricket bats and knives. In the case of Tracie Andrews she ended up with a black eye. If we are to believe JB guilty we have to accept he had 3 adults to deal with over at least 2 different locations albeit with the aid of a rifle and yet didn't sustain any injuries.
Myster will thank you for this... there's no evidence 'farm girl' suffered any nail damage from loading a mag and firing her firearm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
I suppose TA's victim would have been in closer proximity to her and her knife, and less likely to have moved away from her, that would Jeremy's victims with a gun's barrel between them. If Jeremy wore protective clothing -of any description, it's unlikely that he'd have sustained any injury which, if seen, couldn't have been passed off as something which occurred whilst he was working.
-
I suppose TA's victim would have been in closer proximity to her and her knife, and less likely to have moved away from her, that would Jeremy's victims with a gun's barrel between them. If Jeremy wore protective clothing -of any description, it's unlikely that he'd have sustained any injury which, if seen, couldn't have been passed off as something which occurred whilst he was working.
Was the barrel horizontal or vertical between NB and his perp during the "violent struggle"? If vertical I guess they were pretty close.
Many people had an opportunity to see JB naked and partly clothed in the aftermath:
- JM
- Andrew and Karen Bishop when they went windsuring 17th/18th Aug after tragedy
- Guests at CC's who observed JB with towel around his waist
Much was made about so-called scars on JB's hands as per CoA doc as follows. As you will see on 12th Sept DS Jones asked to look at JB's hands. If JM, or anyone else, observed any marks on his body post murders then why not point them out to EP when JB was interviewed under caution and subsequently charged. It seems obvious JM was sleeping with JB immediately pre and post murders.
Ground 13 – scars on the appellant's hands 444. With all respect to the appellant's team, we have found this ground of appeal incomprehensible. Indeed, and in fairness to him, Mr Turner conceded at the outset of his submissions that he did not put this forward as a free-standing ground of appeal, and preferred to rely upon it as no more than an element in the factual background to his overarching allegation of unsatisfactory police behaviour. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, and in order to assess whether this particular complaint adds anything to the overall strength of the appellant's case, we are satisfied that we should consider and deal with it, albeit briefly.
445. The starting point for such consideration is the fact that at no point during the trial was any evidence led from any witness, nor any witness cross-examined, to establish or suggest that the appellant had at any material time had any scars or scratches on his hands. Indeed, on the hand-written postcard note from Ann Eaton (CAE/4) which was disclosed at trial, the entry for the 8 August recorded "No scratches on his hands - no shaking at all".
446. At one stage during his interview on 12 September 1985 DS Jones asked Mr Bamber to show him his hands, and he examined both the palms and the backs. He offered no explanation to the appellant as to why he had done this, but it seems highly likely that the stimulus for this action was a telephone call that appears to have been made on the previous day to the police by Anthony Pargeter, who was Nevill Bamber's nephew. He is said to have reported having seen small "circular scars" on Jeremy Bamber's right hand. This piece of information triggered a series of actions. By Action no. 96, on the 12 September 1985 DI Bright was instructed to take a further statement from Mr Pargeter on this matter. No result of this action is recorded, and no formal statement from Mr Pargeter appears in the documentation in the case. This may well be because of the other information that was forthcoming on the matter. By Action no. 97 of the same date DS Jones was instructed to interview the appellant on the same topic - and DS Jones' response referred to the notes of interview and reported that there were no marks visible.
447. On the 14 September 1985 by Action no. 200, DC Thomerson was instructed to take a statement from David Boutflour (the son of Robert Boutflour) to include, among other matters, any sightings of cuts on the appellant's hands on the day after the killings. This action produced a statement from David Boutflour which included a passage in which he stated that on the Wednesday or Thursday after the killings Jeremy Bamber had made a comment to him about having received two small cuts on his hand while working on the farm. "As he made this comment he showed me the palm of his right hand, but as I was about 5 feet away from him at the time I could not see the scratches to which he referred." This passage did not appear in the edited statement of this witness, which was served on the defence as evidence for use at trial. On 16 September, by Action no. 201, instructions were given for the trigger guard of the rifle to be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory for blood. There is no record of any result.
448. By Action no. 302 on 19 September 1985 DS Jones was asked to submit a report about these matters, and in his reply DS Jones repeated that when Mr Bamber had been interviewed "There were no visible signs of scars etc". He added that if and when the appellant was re-interviewed an ultra violet light could be used to examine his hands again. This suggestion was picked up on the 24 September 1985 in Action no. 396 when DS Jones was instructed to carry out such an examination; but his response as recorded on the action sheet was "Bamber charged; above not done on instructions of A/D/C/ Superintendent Ainsley." Indeed, on the 26 September 1985 a letter from the office of the DPP indicated that in the view of the Director the appellant should not now be further interviewed.
449. As has already been made clear, the prosecution case against the appellant was conducted on the basis that there was no sign of any injuries to his hand subsequent to the killings. The complaint that the prosecution had kept the defence in ignorance of material which would have permitted them to mount an attack on the veracity of Mr Pargeter is misconceived; there was never any necessity to mount any such attack. Mr Pargeter had never given any evidence which incriminated the appellant in any way. So far from the prosecution seeking to advance dubious evidence hostile to the appellant's interests, it appears that they were unwilling to advance any suggestions by Mr Boutflour or Mr Pargeter that they were not able to confirm for themselves to be soundly based. One of the more remarkable contentions in the appellant's skeleton argument on this topic is the assertion that the defence "were kept in ignorance of the fact of the officer's examination of the appellant's hands....". The appellant, of all people, plainly knew himself that that had happened.
450. Finally, the decision not to pursue the instruction given under Action no. 396 and not to re-interview the appellant again was entirely consistent with code C under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, given that by that time the appellant was either about to be or indeed had just been charged.
451. In our judgment there is no foundation whatsoever for the suggestion that the matters complained of under this ground of appeal resulted in any prejudice to the appellant in the conduct of his defence. Nor, in our judgment, do the facts underlying these complaints provide any support for the assertion that the police officers concerned were determined to withhold information from the appellant or his advisors in an attempt to influence the evidence in favour of a prosecution. In reality, the opposite appears to be the case.
-
Yes they only had one victim to deal with using simple weapons: cricket bats and knives. In the case of Tracie Andrews she ended up with a black eye. If we are to believe JB guilty we have to accept he had 3 adults to deal with over at least 2 different locations albeit with the aid of a rifle and yet didn't sustain any injuries.
Myster will thank you for this... there's no evidence 'farm girl' suffered any nail damage from loading a mag and firing her firearm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
Yes, someone a lot stronger than Sheila, someone used to the .22 auto and someone who was a pretty good shot. There is no reason why he would sustain injuries. Said 'farm girl' is experienced with firearms.
-
Whooo.. woooo!!! Thank-you...Thank-you... Thank-you...Thank-you!!! 8((()*/
Love those nut-cracking thunder thighs! 8)><(
-
Which of the following would cause you to reconsider your postion over JB's case:
a) Forensic testing undermining the silencer evidence to the extent the CCRC refer to the CoA.
b) Scene of crime reconstruction by experts showing NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs.
c) JM retracting her testimony.
d) Reports from psychologists showing SC in all probability suffered an 'attachment disorder' due to June's mental illness circa 1959 putting SC at greater risk of suicide and committing acts of aggression including filicide.
e) None of the above.
If you want to select more than one option please place in order of priority. Thanks.
I would go with C too but it ain't gonna happen lass. @)(++(*
-
Yes, someone a lot stronger than Sheila, someone used to the .22 auto and someone who was a pretty good shot. There is no reason why he would sustain injuries. Said 'farm girl' is experienced with firearms.
Where was physical strength required?
The defence expert said the following
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8110.msg398443#msg398443
Is there a counter argument from the prosecution?
Why would SC allow JB to shoot her through the neck vertically whilst prone without resisting if she didn't want to die?
The bio-mechanical movements would be the same surely whether a novice or an experienced handler?
-
Whooo.. woooo!!! Thank-you...Thank-you... Thank-you...Thank-you!!! 8((()*/
Love those nut-cracking thunder thighs! 8)><(
Good abs and upper arms but needs to work on her booty and thighs. Anyhow although the casings go backwards, (forwards with Anshutz) it gives some idea of how far they travel in terms of height and distance. I can't see any probs with the casings flying over the handrail at WHF.
-
I've no idea of JM's iq. Given her education, qualifications and career I think it is safe to assume she is brighter than average. However I don't think anyone needs to be particularly bright to fool a court. Check out the case of Stefan Kizsko. 4 13 yoa girls admitted they "lied for a laugh" at court. The QC who cross-examined then went on to become Home Sec.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjHmsSk4bLTAhUHK1AKHam4CjEQFggTMAI&usg=AFQjCNGqdPULmYE9lrkO6BWdFHz4JabLoQ
-
I lost an excellent friend in MikeG by suggesting the buck stops with fragrant delectable kitty heels in unlocking the clanging gates.
The buck absolutely stops with this devious piece of work.
Sadly, it seems -that between you- you and your Kiwi mate have done a very successful axing of the JB thread on IA. Shame that. It was a good alternative to my preferred forums and there were some really good posters.
-
I've no idea of JM's iq. Given her education, qualifications and career I think it is safe to assume she is brighter than average. However I don't think anyone needs to be particularly bright to fool a court. Check out the case of Stefan Kizsko. 4 13 yoa girls admitted they "lied for a laugh" at court. The QC who cross-examined then went on to become Home Sec.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjHmsSk4bLTAhUHK1AKHam4CjEQFggTMAI&usg=AFQjCNGqdPULmYE9lrkO6BWdFHz4JabLoQ
She had nothing to gain and almost everything to lose including her freedom if she didn't tell the whole truth. In fact she lost her home in England and the freedom to live there because of Bamber's actions. She has had to live a life in exile in Canada but she has made the best of it, raised a family and risen to great heights in her chosen career.
-
I lost an excellent friend in MikeG by suggesting the buck stops with fragrant delectable kitty heels in unlocking the clanging gates.
The buck absolutely stops with this devious piece of work.
Do you think this line is helpful? I don't. The UK's system and processes have been explained numerous times. NZ is a completely different country: land mass, population and various economic data. If kitty heels intervened over every grievance with the judicial system she would be incapable of running the country. Why should she intervene over JB but ignore the plight of this couple:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/charlie-gard-high-court-ruling-doctors-life-support-withdraw-baby-rare-genetic-condition-parents-a7678436.html
-
She had nothing to gain and almost everything to lose including her freedom if she didn't tell the whole truth. In fact she lost her home in England and the freedom to live there because of Bamber's actions. She has had to live a life in exile in Canada but she has made the best of it, raised a family and risen to great heights in her chosen career.
Well 4 x 13 year old girls lied "for a laugh" at the trial of Stefan Kiszko and went unpunished:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
I understand JM purchased a flat with the proceeds (25k) of her NoW deal:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=520.msg15271#msg15271
Is this the home, you refer to above, she lost?
-
Which of the following would cause you to reconsider your postion over JB's case:
a) Forensic testing undermining the silencer evidence to the extent the CCRC refer to the CoA.
b) Scene of crime reconstruction by experts showing NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs.
c) JM retracting her testimony.
d) Reports from psychologists showing SC in all probability suffered an 'attachment disorder' due to June's mental illness circa 1959 putting SC at greater risk of suicide and committing acts of aggression including filicide.
e) None of the above.
If you want to select more than one option please place in order of priority. Thanks.
31
E) all are red herrings in the end. c) would be worth a boost to their naive little campaign, and some renewed gutter column inches but in the end you would have to question her motives for waiting more than 3 decades to do so and that won't in the end be enough to free him.
-
E) all are red herrings in the end. c) would be worth a boost to their naive little campaign, and some renewed gutter column inches but in the end you would have to question her motives for waiting more than 3 decades to do so and that won't in the end be enough to free him.
'C' would be a massive boost. It would also be headline news. If Julie said the police knew she was lying but encouraged her to do so I can't see how the frenzy would keep Bamber behind bars.
-
Yes, perhaps your right massive boost would be more accurate.
But lets face it it's not going to happen because she told the truth on the stand in 1986. In my opinion there is a far greater chance that even a psychopath like Bamber will finally own up to what he has done, as he approaches his frail dotage and the realization that he's going to die behind bars then why not wipe the slate clean ?
That probably won't happen either, his sick followers being his only friends - but for me it's a reason I still keep tabs on the case, not because of any prospect of him actually being freed.
-
Yes, perhaps your right massive boost would be more accurate.
But lets face it it's not going to happen because she told the truth on the stand in 1986. In my opinion there is a far greater chance that even a psychopath like Bamber will finally own up to what he has done, as he approaches his frail dotage and the realization that he's going to die behind bars then why not wipe the slate clean ?
That probably won't happen either, his sick followers being his only friends - but for me it's a reason I still keep tabs on the case, not because of any prospect of him actually being freed.
So she told the truth once she had been dumped by a man she knew had drilled 8 bullets into sleeping 6 year olds, but was happy to consort with him till then?
I don't think so and neither does Julie or any sane case analyst.
-
I'm afraid the way you describe it is nonsense, I have heard of this untruth before, it is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" myth.
She didn't go to the police because she had been dumped by bamber, their relationship had been going that way some time and he had more or less completely ignored her anyway since the funeral.
She went to the police as her conscience unravelled when the realization hit home of what he had done, and that there was no 3rd party involved.
Happy to assist with any questions you may have about the case.
-
I'm afraid the way you describe it is nonsense, I have heard of this untruth before, it is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" myth.
She didn't go to the police because she had been dumped by bamber, their relationship had been going that way some time and he had more or less completely ignored her anyway since the funeral.
She went to the police as her conscience unravelled when the realization hit home of what he had done, and that there was no 3rd party involved.
Happy to assist with any questions you may have about the case.
I obviously don't understand you. We know factually
1. Mugford identified the bodies soon after the shooting.
2. She can imagine Bamber, Matthew MacDonald or Sheila as being responsible.
3. It can't be Sheila because Bamber has said he is organising the massacre, he phoned her earlier and said it must be tonight, and afterwards phoned her at 3 30 saying it's all going well.
4. By the time she is in court she claims it was Bamber.
So any dawning realisation must be that it wasn't MacDonald, it was Bamber. Either way she knows Bamber paid someone to put 8 bullets in the heads of the sleeping 6 year olds, or Bamber put 8 bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year olds.
Somewhere along the way she is lying, and the only lie that fits is that he told her he was planning it.
Since we all know that she would not plan holidays with a child killer, she most assuredly did not know he had organised it, so she lied in court when claiming foreknowledge he had. She was a groomed witness.
-
yes your sequence of events is broadly correct, but I don't agree with your assertion that she is a liar and not simply a scared, naive young woman not being honest with the police at the outset then coming to her senses.
She could never have imagined for a second that Bamber would go through with his frequent and boorish threats to murder his family, and most likely felt somehow culpable for not going to the police earlier. She was scared.
-
yes your sequence of events is broadly correct, but I don't agree with your assertion that she is a liar and not simply a scared, naive young woman not being honest with the police at the outset then coming to her senses.
She could never have imagined for a second that Bamber would go through with his frequent and boorish threats to murder his family, and most likely felt somehow culpable for not going to the police earlier. She was scared.
I just added to my post above, so that is my reasoning. There are irreconcilable problems with Mugford's testimony, and judge Drake at least understood that when telling the jury to not rely on her. So essentially Mugford is out, and the case relies on other evidence, which in my opinion is also out.
-
I obviously don't understand you. We know factually
1. Mugford identified the bodies soon after the shooting.
2. She can imagine Bamber, Matthew MacDonald or Sheila as being responsible.
3. It can't be Sheila because Bamber has said he is organising the massacre, he phoned her earlier and said it must be tonight, and afterwards phoned her at 3 30 saying it's all going well.
4. By the time she is in court she claims it was Bamber.
So any dawning realisation must be that it wasn't MacDonald, it was Bamber. Either way she knows Bamber paid someone to put 8 bullets in the heads of the sleeping 6 year olds, or Bamber put 8 bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year olds.
Somewhere along the way she is lying, and the only lie that fits is that he told her he was planning it.
Since we all know that she would not plan holidays with a child killer, she most assuredly did not know he had organised it, so she lied in court when claiming foreknowledge he had. She was a groomed witness.
You don't seem to have a grasp on the difference between voicing that one "knows" and knowing that one "knows".
1) Did Julie have to fight off others who wanted to identify the twins?
2) I guess we'd all "imagine" whatever we were told.
3) Either that, or he phoned her at silly o'clock to have phone sex.
4) By the time she was in court,having witness his callous behaviour, she'd have been certain of his guilt.
Nor do you seem to have a grasp on how women act when they're scared. Many go with the idea that if they pretend everything is 'normal' it will be. What exactly makes you think JULIE 'planned' their holidays? She was a student who had to work to fund her degree.
I'll concur that she told as much of the truth as she needed -something Jeremy himself said was necessary- to secure her own future. In court, she answered questions she was asked. To the best of my knowledge, one isn't allowed to volunteer information from the witness box. It's not her fault if the defense didn't push their questions until they got an answer. You can go on bleating about what you THINK she knew until you're blue in the face. Two words. PROVE IT!
-
I obviously don't understand you. We know factually
1. Mugford identified the bodies soon after the shooting.
2. She can imagine Bamber, Matthew MacDonald or Sheila as being responsible.
3. It can't be Sheila because Bamber has said he is organising the massacre, he phoned her earlier and said it must be tonight, and afterwards phoned her at 3 30 saying it's all going well.
4. By the time she is in court she claims it was Bamber.
So any dawning realisation must be that it wasn't MacDonald, it was Bamber. Either way she knows Bamber paid someone to put 8 bullets in the heads of the sleeping 6 year olds, or Bamber put 8 bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year olds.
Somewhere along the way she is lying, and the only lie that fits is that he told her he was planning it.
Since we all know that she would not plan holidays with a child killer, she most assuredly did not know he had organised it, so she lied in court when claiming foreknowledge he had. She was a groomed witness.
Inevitably Julie knew different things at different times. Weeks before the massacre she was aware that Jeremy wasn't content with his lot and was planning to do something about it. I don't accept for a moment however that Julie took him seriously to the extent that his plans involved murder.
The sleeping pills story however is worrying, what did Julie really think he was playing at?
On the night of the murders Jeremy told Julie that it was Sheila who was out of control. Sheila was the patsy initially but at some stage this changed and Jeremy had to invent the hitman story to appease her. Thus Jeremy had admitted that the family were murdered not by Sheila but by Matthew MacDonald. There then arises some difficulty for Julie because at that point she was in possession of information which she should have provided to the police. For whatever reason she failed to do so initially and so could have been prosecuted for withholding evidence.
In the end she did come forward albeit indirectly. Thereafter she cooperated fully with the police and saw the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber through to the end. One must remember that had Julie Mugford not spoken out, a mass murderer might very well have got away with his dastardly deed. For that at least Julie must be commended.
-
I just added to my post above, so that is my reasoning. There are irreconcilable problems with Mugford's testimony, and judge Drake at least understood that when telling the jury to not rely on her. So essentially Mugford is out, and the case relies on other evidence, which in my opinion is also out.
No, your reasoning is flawed. There are no irreconcilable problems at all with Mugford's testimony, and the trial judge himself commented that her testimony had the ring of truth about it. You are distorting the truth when you say the judge told the jury not to rely on her. Another myth put out there by the sick few.
So to use your turn of phrase Mugford is most definitely in, along with the other evidence from the scene both forensic and physical. Then there is the smoking gun in the case in my opinion - Jeremy Bamber's own insistence of the 3 am call from Nevill at white house farm.
Bamber himself raised the possibility years later of a 3rd party intruder, someone who if he is innocent knows could not possibly exist as Nevill himself rang him and told him on the night that Shelia "had gone crazy and got the gun"
-
No, your reasoning is flawed. There are no irreconcilable problems at all with Mugford's testimony, and the trial judge himself commented that her testimony had the ring of truth about it. You are distorting the truth when you say the judge told the jury not to rely on her. Another myth put out there by the sick few.
So to use your turn of phrase Mugford is most definitely in, along with the other evidence from the scene both forensic and physical. Then there is the smoking gun in the case in my opinion - Jeremy Bamber's own insistence of the 3 am call from Nevill at white house farm.
Bamber himself raised the possibility years later of a 3rd party intruder, someone who if he is innocent knows could not possibly exist as Nevill himself rang him and told him on the night that Shelia "had gone crazy and got the gun"
Hi Steve. I recently posted the following on another thread. @ 3 mins in JB's former solicitor, Ewen Smith, who went on to become a CCRC commissioner stated that JB's trial judge advised and directed the jury not to convict on JM's evidence alone as it wasn't good enough:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
Despite all our various views on the case it seems JB's conviction was/is underpinned by the blood and silencer?
As an aside does anyone know the current whereabouts of Ewen Smith? The following CCRC publication dated 5th Sept 2016 indicates he was still with the commission then but he's not on the current website?
https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CCRC-Candidate-Pack-30-June.pdf
-
Hi Steve. I recently posted the following on another thread. @ 3 mins in JB's former solicitor, Ewen Smith, who went on to become a CCRC commissioner stated that JB's trial judge advised and directed the jury not to convict on JM's evidence alone as it wasn't good enough:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
Despite all our various views on the case it seems JB's conviction was/is underpinned by the blood and silencer?
As an aside does anyone know the current whereabouts of Ewen Smith? The following CCRC publication dated 5th Sept 2016 indicates he was still with the commission then but he's not on the current website?
https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CCRC-Candidate-Pack-30-June.pdf
I phoned the CCRC and apparently he's no longer with the commission albeit The Law Society's register has him at the CCRC.
-
Hello lady Holly. Yes, and this backs up my point that that is more accurately what the judge said "not to convict based on her testimony ALONE" and that is very different from implying she was an unreliable witness. Julie Mugford was a very credible witness.
Wasn't the silencer blood evidence destroyed in 1996? In which case Jeremy's hopes of being freed have changed anyway from "somewhere between slim and none" to "I hear slim just left town".
In any case if you believe Jeremy is guilty that same evidence tested with modern techniques would have only confirmed that Sheila couldn't have done it.
-
Hello lady Holly. Yes, and this backs up my point that that is more accurately what the judge said "not to convict based on her testimony ALONE" and that is very different from implying she was an unreliable witness. Julie Mugford was a very credible witness.
Wasn't the silencer blood evidence destroyed in 1996? In which case Jeremy's hopes of being freed have changed anyway from "somewhere between slim and none" to "I hear slim just left town".
In any case if you believe Jeremy is guilty that same evidence tested with modern techniques would have only confirmed that Sheila couldn't have done it.
I can only go on Ewen Smith's comments above as I haven't read anything from the judge about the reliability of JM's testimony. If the judge advised and directed the jury not to convict on JM's testimony alone as it wasn't good enough it seems in stark contrast to the comments made by the trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, in the case of Stefan Kiszko:
The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations". Pamela Hind's evidence was read out in court. Park said that Buckley's "sharp eyes set this train of inquiry into motion".
Did JB's trial judge, Sir Maurice Drake, praise JM for her bravery and honesty or make similar comments?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
-
I understand all visible blood inside the silencer was swabbed away pre trial.
I've heard the silencer is displayed in EP's museum but I've no idea whether there's any truth to this.
I believe there are forensic tests capable of undermining the blood/silencer evidence.
-
well, we can't compare what different judges remark on different cases, but our Judge certainly commended JM's testimony that it had "the ring of truth about it" and for me that is high praise albeit perhaps not the highest possible praise of her brave testimony. But then it never needed to be.
I never presumed Julie mugford was a saint, for example i'm sure she probably did have her sights set on being lady muck of cowshit farm through marriage to Jeremy. All that changed however on the night of 7th August 1985, and her conscience quickly unravelled leading her to go to police and tell the truth. She was a credible witness not as Samson suggested a Liar who lied and lied again.
-
well, we can't compare what different judges remark on different cases, but our Judge certainly commended JM's testimony that it had "the ring of truth about it" and for me that is high praise albeit perhaps not the highest possible praise of her brave testimony. But then it never needed to be.
I never presumed Julie mugford was a saint, for example i'm sure she probably did have her sights set on being lady muck of cowshit farm through marriage to Jeremy. All that changed however on the night of 7th August 1985, and her conscience quickly unravelled leading her to go to police and tell the truth. She was a credible witness not as Samson suggested a Liar who lied and lied again.
Are you able to provide a source for the "ring of truth about it" comment?
The four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses mentioned above "lied for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial and yet the trial judge referred to their "bravery" and "honesty".
Samson and I believe JM was 'groomed' by EP.
-
Are you able to provide a source for the "ring of truth about it" comment?
The four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses mentioned above "lied for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial and yet the trial judge referred to their "bravery" and "honesty".
Samson and I believe JM was 'groomed' by EP.
If we're going to allow that, at 20, Julie probably had more between her ears, than Jeremy, it's very possible that she thought that, by getting her own story told first, it would help to negate anything of detriment to her character. If EP groomed her, I can't see they'd have been able to do more than assist her to accomplish this. She couldn't have had a physical hand in what happened because she was miles away -the phone call MAY have been a prearranged 'signal'- but it's highly likely she knew more that she let on.
-
Again, you can't compare witnesses on 2 different cases. Your comparing Julies testimony with witnesses on a totally unrelated case which turned out to be a miscarriage of Justice. Something we know the Bamber case is not as he implicated himself with his insistence on the 3 am call from Nevill at the farm.
I don't need to provide sources, the judges comments are in the public domain. The jury were asked to weigh up the evidence and believed her, the same conclusion I would have reached had I been a juror. The same Evidence she repeated at the 2002 appeal.
-
Again, you can't compare witnesses on 2 different cases. Your comparing Julies testimony with witnesses on a totally unrelated case which turned out to be a miscarriage of Justice. Something we know the Bamber case is not as he implicated himself with his insistence on the 3 am call from Nevill at the farm.
I don't need to provide sources, the judges comments are in the public domain. The jury were asked to weigh up the evidence and believed her, the same conclusion I would have reached had I been a juror. The same Evidence she repeated at the 2002 appeal.
If we were discussing Stefan Kiszko's case pre acquittal do you think everyone, lay and expert alike, would see it for what it was ie a miscarriage of justice?
Another guilter attributed "the ring of truth" to JB's defence:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6331.msg279608.html#msg279608
The jury had to weigh up all the evidence and we have no idea how they arrived at their verdicts and what weight they attributed to the various aspects. We know they asked the judge for clarification about the blood in the silencer.
Independent journalist, David Connett, who sat through much of the trial and heard JM provide her testimony found her unreliable:
Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
JM wasn't called at JB's 2002 appeal.
-
The truth about the 'ring of truth' from CAL...
-
The truth about the 'ring of truth' from CAL...
Thanks Myster. Has CAL provided a source? According to CAL the judge seems to be asking the jury to consider whether JM's testimony had a 'ring of truth' to it. Whereas Steve seemed to be saying the judge said JM's testimony had a 'ring of truth' to it. Big difference.
-
Thanks Myster. Has CAL provided a source? According to CAL the judge seems to be asking the jury to consider whether JM's testimony had a 'ring of truth' to it. Whereas Steve seemed to be saying the judge said JM's testimony had a 'ring of truth' to it. Big difference.
An interview (possibly) with Martin Delgado of the Mail in 2002.
But the judge did say that as the trial progressed and evidence built up, he thought JM was telling the truth.
-
An interview (possibly) with Martin Delgado of the Mail in 2002.
But the judge did say that as the trial progressed and evidence built up, he thought JM was telling the truth.
Source appreciated. 8((()*/
How reliable are male judges from the 1970's/1980's era in assessing the testimony of young women? We know in the case of Stefan Kiszko the trial judge praised the 4 x 13 year old girls for their "bravery" and "honesty" when in fact they told the court a pack of lies "for a laugh".
-
An interview (possibly) with Martin Delgado of the Mail in 2002.
But the judge did say that as the trial progressed and evidence built up, he thought JM was telling the truth.
If he believed that Julie's evidence had "the ring of truth" it could have been said either as a directive OR an invitation.
-
If he believed that Julie's evidence had "the ring of truth" it could have been said either as a directive OR an invitation.
I don't think the judge said Julie's testimony had a 'ring of truth' to it.
It was Bamber's lawyers who privately said all her WS's merged together & there was a 'ring of truth' to them.
-
Touche Holly.
Either way, Julie Mugford's testimony certainly had the ring of truth about it and she was a credible and excellent witness and not a liar as Mr Samson asserted.
-
Touche Holly.
Either way, Julie Mugford's testimony certainly had the ring of truth about it and she was a credible and excellent witness and not a liar as Mr Samson asserted.
Well even 2 of the 12 jurors didn't find JM a credible and excellent witness.
Personally I find her testimony unreliable although I do find myself having quite a lot of sympathy for her as I feel she was used and abused by EP.
-
Indeed 2 of the Jurors wept openly as the verdict was delivered, I'm sorry but that tells you all you need to know about these persons in the face of a mountain of other evidence which was presented to them, pointing to Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator.
I too feel sympathy for Julie Mugford, this thoroughly decent and conscionable young woman told the truth in the end, if that's what you call being used by the Essex police.
-
Indeed 2 of the Jurors wept openly as the verdict was delivered, I'm sorry but that tells you all you need to know about these persons in the face of a mountain of other evidence which was presented to them, pointing to Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator.
I too feel sympathy for Julie Mugford, this thoroughly decent and conscionable young woman told the truth in the end, if that's what you call being used by the Essex police.
I'm interested in the mountain of other evidence which wasn't presented to the jury, pointing to SC as the perp namely a soc reconstruction and a visit to WHF where experts talk through the evidence:
Dr Vanezis - trajectories and wound tracks
Malcolm Fletcher - casings and distance of shots
John Hayward - interpretation of bloodstaining
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg401293#msg401293
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg401301#msg401301
-
No, your reasoning is flawed. There are no irreconcilable problems at all with Mugford's testimony, and the trial judge himself commented that her testimony had the ring of truth about it. You are distorting the truth when you say the judge told the jury not to rely on her. Another myth put out there by the sick few.
So to use your turn of phrase Mugford is most definitely in, along with the other evidence from the scene both forensic and physical. Then there is the smoking gun in the case in my opinion - Jeremy Bamber's own insistence of the 3 am call from Nevill at white house farm.
Bamber himself raised the possibility years later of a 3rd party intruder, someone who if he is innocent knows could not possibly exist as Nevill himself rang him and told him on the night that Shelia "had gone crazy and got the gun"
On the one point, Bamber raising the possibility there was a third party intruder, why not some time in 30 years? The lunatic fringe are asserting Sheila could not have done it, Bamber knows he didn't dunnit, so a 3rd party is all that is left. Of course he is down the rabbit hole and learns like Alice everything is possible.
But it is not.
-
Are you able to provide a source for the "ring of truth about it" comment?
The four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses mentioned above "lied for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial and yet the trial judge referred to their "bravery" and "honesty".
Samson and I believe JM was 'groomed' by EP.
And indeed Holly you are superbly highlighting that judges are not remotely separated from the common citizenry in their ability to see only what they wish to see.
I have found this from studying a score of cases, it never ceases to astonish.
-
Again, you can't compare witnesses on 2 different cases. Your comparing Julies testimony with witnesses on a totally unrelated case which turned out to be a miscarriage of Justice. Something we know the Bamber case is not as he implicated himself with his insistence on the 3 am call from Nevill at the farm.
I don't need to provide sources, the judges comments are in the public domain. The jury were asked to weigh up the evidence and believed her, the same conclusion I would have reached had I been a juror. The same Evidence she repeated at the 2002 appeal.
You seem obsessed by this 3 am call. Somehow you wield this as proof he is a liar, but my understanding is the call was confirmed by the phone exchange, the only question being whether Nevill to Jeremy or Jeremy to Jeremy.
-
You seem obsessed by this 3 am call. Somehow you wield this as proof he is a liar, but my understanding is the call was confirmed by the phone exchange, the only question being whether Nevill to Jeremy or Jeremy to Jeremy.
The latter definately.
-
Your understanding again is wrong. BT were not able in 1985 to log calls and tell who called who and when like they can now, so Jeremy's claim could not be corroborated.
If you do not understand the significance of Nevill's call then may I suggest you read the following in it's entirety
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.0)
-
Your understanding again is wrong. BT were not able in 1985 to log calls and tell who called who and when like they can now, so Jeremy's claim could not be corroborated.
If you do not understand the significance of Nevill's call then may I suggest you read the following in it's entirety
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.0)
A lot of unnecessary confusion surrounds the call.
I would like you to present the key datapoint that persuades you a telephone call was not initiated by Nevill about 3 am.
Then we can discuss it.
I always start by taking claims at face value, such as Jeremy's claim, and wait for the claim to be disproved with hard science.
-
Either way, Julie Mugford's testimony certainly had the ring of truth about it and she was a credible and excellent witness and not a liar as Mr Samson asserted.
Anyone who is prepared to dig deep enough can work out for themselves that Julie's testimony may have been obtained not from Jeremy but from elsewhere.
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is questionable for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is questionable is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are suspect we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
Julies statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore in my view, Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those details from in order for her to make the claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald.
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she said she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point (this I have explained multiple times) Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
This post has been edited in order to comply with forum rules
-
Jeremy shot himself in the foot by sticking with his s.o.s call from the farm. Nevill could not have made that call stating "Sheila had gone crazy and got the gun" as it precludes a 3rd party involvement, and narrows it down to either Sheila or Jeremy as the murderer.
You will recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence left at the scene, which proves Sheila could not possibly have been the perpetrator. Therefore Jeremy Bamber is guilty. Case closed.
-
Jeremy shot himself in the foot by sticking with his s.o.s call from the farm. Nevill could not have made that call stating "Sheila had gone crazy and got the gun" as it precludes a 3rd party involvement, and narrows it down to either Sheila or Jeremy as the murderer.
You will recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence left at the scene, which proves Sheila could not possibly have been the perpetrator. Therefore Jeremy Bamber is guilty. Case closed.
Okay I understand your position. You have invoked simple modal logic.
One of your premises appears to be that Sheila could not do this crime and remain unsullied. This premise is false, so you should use hard science as requested to prove Nevill did not phone Jeremy.
Obviously this crime can be replicated using actors to show how Sheila could pick up a loaded gun, go upstairs and shoot her mother, shoot her father in the mouth as he came upstairs to investigate, then when he is incapacitated swing the gun by the barrel to bludgeon him, reload the cartridge with her fingernails remote from the cartridge, and shoot again.
Then we can have her lying down and shooting herself twice, after realising the first shot missed her brain.
If necessary she can wash herself before her suicide.
-
And to understand the context of David's detailed post.
" 'I realised that I was listening to the horrific truth,’ Acting Chief Superintendent Mike Ainsley said of Julie’s interview. He was in no doubt that Jeremy had carried out the murders himself, ‘but in view of what had occurred in the previous month, including the findings of the coroner’s court, it was essential to establish the veracity of what Julie Mugford was now saying.’
She and Liz were taken into protective custody at the force training school in Chelmsford. ‘I was encouraged not to talk to anyone outside while I was there,’ Julie remembered, ‘and that included my mum."
-
No one's claiming Bamber gave Julie a detailed confession. He even said MM committed the massacre as a proxy.
Bamber would have spent more time telling Julie he was 'watertight' & there was 'nothing she could do'. That was when he wasn't talking to Brett Collins or other friends.
Julie said Sheila was on the bed when she was on the floor. So what ?
I don't know when Julie got information from AE. She was Bamber's girlfriend after the massacre & being whisked around England & Amsterdam after he dragged her over to WHF at 5am on the massacre morning.
If AE suspected Bamber, she's not going to tell his girlfriend as it will alert Bamber.
Yes Julie did say Bamber cycled there. He brought the bike over to WHF just before the massacre. So she would not need AE to think up this lie.
Julie said the bible was on Sheila when it was next to her. So what ?
Supporters are just ignoring the several & huge amounts of disadvantages Julie would have in single handedly deciding to try to frame an innocent man. A month after the massacre.
-
Disadvantages Julie had in approaching the police and accusing an innocent man of a 5x massacre.
Bamber would deny everything.
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
Julies WS is in different parts -
Events after the massacre:
The eating out, drug buying, wind surfing, expensive hotels, trips around the country and abroad, clearing out WHF & Sheila's flat.
There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and friends or relatives asked.
What Bamber did does not prove guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him.
This part of her WS is 100% true.
Bamber's hatred & resentment towards his family:
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans:
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.
Bamber had also mentioned to someone else about burning down WHF.
Julie's feelings:
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
-
These are things in Julie's WS which she would not have read in the following days newspapers. Not that she would have read them anyway -
There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF.
The outside doors were locked every night.
There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting.
There was a kitchen fight during the massacre.
The twins were shot in their sleep.
Sheila had a bible near her.
There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM.
There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record.
Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering.
Sheila was shot last.
June was shot in her bed.
Everyone was asleep. Except Neville.
Sheila was shot under the chin.
-
I have no real idea about David's claims of a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' but from posts it appears he has stolen Caroline's intellectual property (IP). His soc reconstruction appears to be based on my IP. David perhaps you should take to wearing a cricket box 8(0(* ?>)()<
I'm about the same age as JM and in 1985 my life was similar too. I had been dating a guy for about a year and can't think of anyone less likely to murder his family. However if the police told me in 1985 he was responsible for murdering his family I may well have believed them over him as it would have been beyond my comprehension that the police were anything less than 100% trustworthy and competent despite at the same time studying Stanley Milgram's experiment 'obedience to authority' on my psychology course:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200203/the-man-who-shocked-the-world
-
Anyone who is prepared to dig deep enough can work out for themselves that Julie's testimony may have been obtained not from Jeremy but from elsewhere.
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
A nice attempt to try and discredit Julie but none of it proves what you claim. Julie's recollection of what Jeremy Bamber told her does not have to correlate with the crime scene, they are mutually exclusive. Jeremy Bamber could have said anything to Julie in an attempt to keep her on side, he told her that MacDonald was the hitman and we know that to be a fabrication too.
As far as Ann and Robert singing from the same hymn sheet as Julie, that is not in the least surprising. Stories have a habit of being repeated and especially so within families. It is not beyond the bounds of possibilities that the police themselves inadvertently let snippets of information get out. Claiming that Julie was a complete liar is simply unjustified but then wholly expected from people who blindly support someone who was so intoxicated with greed that he murdered two sleeping children.
-
Okay I understand your position. You have invoked simple modal logic.
One of your premises appears to be that Sheila could not do this crime and remain unsullied. This premise is false, so you should use hard science as requested to prove Nevill did not phone Jeremy.
Obviously this crime can be replicated using actors to show how Sheila could pick up a loaded gun, go upstairs and shoot her mother, shoot her father in the mouth as he came upstairs to investigate, then when he is incapacitated swing the gun by the barrel to bludgeon him, reload the cartridge with her fingernails remote from the cartridge, and shoot again.
Then we can have her lying down and shooting herself twice, after realising the first shot missed her brain.
If necessary she can wash herself before her suicide.
All of which comprises such fantasy that it doesn't deserve a sensible reply.
-
No one's claiming Bamber gave Julie a detailed confession. He even said MM committed the massacre as a proxy.
Bamber would have spent more time telling Julie he was 'watertight' & there was 'nothing she could do'. That was when he wasn't talking to Brett Collins or other friends.
Julie said Sheila was on the bed when she was on the floor. So what ?
I don't know when Julie got information from AE. She was Bamber's girlfriend after the massacre & being whisked around England & Amsterdam after he dragged her over to WHF at 5am on the massacre morning.
If AE suspected Bamber, she's not going to tell his girlfriend as it will alert Bamber.
Yes Julie did say Bamber cycled there. He brought the bike over to WHF just before the massacre. So she would not need AE to think up this lie.
Julie said the bible was on Sheila when it was next to her. So what ?
Supporters are just ignoring the several & huge amounts of disadvantages Julie would have in single handedly deciding to try to frame an innocent man. A month after the massacre.
But that fits with their agenda. Discredit all and everyone as long as Bamber sets foot out of prison.
-
Just so we're clear. Any posts claiming someone is a liar will be removed on sight. Mods please note!
-
All of which comprises such fantasy that it doesn't deserve a sensible reply.
First step... audition for a severely-depressed, paranoid schizophrenic actress doped up with haloperidol who walks with a stiff gait and has never loaded a magazine or used an Anschutz before, then we're in business.
-
First step... audition for a severely-depressed, paranoid schizophrenic actress doped up with haloperidol who walks with a stiff gait and has never loaded a magazine or used an Anschutz before, then we're in business.
I should think so. Had Sheila even managed to put the magazine in the rifle and engage a round I fear the plasterboard would have suffered more than the victims.
To be serious for a moment though, what really surprises me is that Jeremy Bamber only missed once so his shots must have been carefully aimed execution style and that takes some doing. It just goes to show how callous and determined he really was.
-
I should think so. Had Sheila even managed to put the magazine in the rifle and engage a round I fear the plasterboard would have suffered more than the victims.
To be serious for a moment though, what really surprises me is that Jeremy Bamber only missed once so his shots must have been carefully aimed execution style and that takes some doing. It just goes to show how callous and determined he really was.
Sheila had a moving target just twice, first when she shot Nevill in the mouth as he came upstairs after hearing her shoot June. Then two in the left arm as he tried to escape. Her other three victims were asleep, and of cpourse she was stationary when shooting herself.
But thank you for posting your crime theory, it is always interesting John.
-
Sheila had a moving target just twice, first when she shot Nevill in the mouth as he came upstairs after hearing her shoot June. Then two in the left arm as he tried to escape. Her other three victims were asleep, and of cpourse she was stationary when shooting herself.
But thank you for posting your crime theory, it is always interesting John.
Sheila lacked so much dexterity and coordination she would have been lucky to get one shot off never mind twenty two. Clearly had Sheila really threatened the family with a rifle Nevill would have shut her down instantly rather than look for a phone to call Jeremy as suggested by supporters.
-
Sheila lacked so much dexterity and coordination she would have been lucky to get one shot off never mind twenty two. Clearly had Sheila really threatened the family with a rifle Nevill would have shut her down instantly rather than look for a phone to call Jeremy as suggested by supporters.
John:
I always invoke the duck/rabbit illusion to further these discussions.
I see duck you see rabbit, only one creature exists.
-
Id bet my house and all its contents that this case will never go back to the Ct of Appeal unless (c) occurred; and the chances of that happening on her deathbed are probably one in a million as she told the truth.
-
Id bet my house and all its contents that this case will never go back to the Ct of Appeal unless (c) occurred; and the chances of that happening on her deathbed are probably one in a million as she told the truth.
I tend to agree. 8((()*/
-
Id bet my house and all its contents that this case will never go back to the Ct of Appeal unless (c) occurred; and the chances of that happening on her deathbed are probably one in a million as she told the truth.
And I'd bet my hovel, my giant muckheap and my teetering mountain of empty Bacardi bottles that you're absolutely cock on, jelgoon!!
8((()*/
-
John:
I always invoke the duck/rabbit illusion to further these discussions.
I see duck you see rabbit, only one creature exists.
I just see twonk. &%&£(+
"Hey, Mike!! You're so AWWWWWSOMMMME!!"
@)(++(*
-
I just see twonk. &%&£(+
"Hey, Mike!! You're so AWWWWWSOMMMME!!"
@)(++(*
Samson. According to you, the Ramseys are innocent. And Pistorius is innocent. And OJ Simpson is innocent. And D...... and Harold Shipman. And Rose West and Hitler.
Massive twonkery.
8)-)))
-
Samson. According to you, the Ramseys are innocent. And Pistorius is innocent. And OJ Simpson is innocent. And D...... and Harold Shipman. And Rose West and Hitler.
Massive twonkery.
8)-)))
Not OJ Simpson, Harold Shipman Rose West or Hitler.
But the Ramseys and Oscar Pistorius told the whole truth. Interestingly the courts agree with some finality.
-
Samson. According to you, the Ramseys are innocent. And Pistorius is innocent. And OJ Simpson is innocent. And D..... and Harold Shipman. And Rose West and Hitler.
Massive twonkery.
8)-)))
OJ is innocent. Similar to Bamber he was at home sleeping. Alone.
-
Okay I understand your position. You have invoked simple modal logic.
One of your premises appears to be that Sheila could not do this crime and remain unsullied. This premise is false, so you should use hard science as requested to prove Nevill did not phone Jeremy.
Obviously this crime can be replicated using actors to show how Sheila could pick up a loaded gun, go upstairs and shoot her mother, shoot her father in the mouth as he came upstairs to investigate, then when he is incapacitated swing the gun by the barrel to bludgeon him, reload the cartridge with her fingernails remote from the cartridge, and shoot again.
Then we can have her lying down and shooting herself twice, after realising the first shot missed her brain.
If necessary she can wash herself before her suicide.
Samson, you asked me to apply 'hard science' to prove the telephone call never took place. Refer to my earlier post, I agree you can't because it was not possible in 1985.
This is the point I am repeatedly trying to make to you sir, and for the final time. The significance of the telephone call is that even if he told the truth about the call, it excluded any possibility of 3rd party involvement and so painted himself into a corner.
Thus by his own admission the killer could only be Jeremy or Sheila. Now recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence that confirms that Sheila could not possibly have done it. Case closed.
As the gentleman above mentioned the rest of your post is not worth a sensible response.
-
Samson, you asked me to apply 'hard science' to prove the telephone call never took place. Refer to my earlier post, I agree you can't because it was not possible in 1985.
This is the point I am repeatedly trying to make to you sir, and for the final time. The significance of the telephone call is that even if he told the truth about the call, it excluded any possibility of 3rd party involvement and so painted himself into a corner.
Thus by his own admission the killer could only be Jeremy or Sheila. Now recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence that confirms that Sheila could not possibly have done it. Case closed.
As the gentleman above mentioned the rest of your post is not worth a sensible response.
Such as?
-
David, I'm not providing yet another list it has all been discussed to death on the pages of this fine forum. You don't need to look very far, It is all here but even a scholar such as yourself refuses to see it.
Another such list would only go over old arguments which have been held up in the light of day and then comprehensively discredited. Some of these arguments beggar belief, please refer to recent posts on this thread alone.
There is a veritable mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence on clear view in the public domain proving that Sheila could not possibly have been the protagonist, and that person could only be Jeremy by virtue of his insistence on the s.o.s. call on the night.
-
David, I'm not providing yet another list it has all been discussed to death on the pages of this fine forum. You don't need to look very far, It is all here but even a scholar such as yourself refuses to see it.
Another such list would only go over old arguments which have been held up in the light of day and then comprehensively discredited. Some of these arguments beggar belief, please refer to recent posts on this thread alone.
There is a veritable mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence on clear view in the public domain proving that Sheila could not possibly have been the protagonist, and that person could only be Jeremy by virtue of his insistence on the s.o.s. call on the night.
I've already provided a forensic evidence library on the Blue forum. Which has 43 threads on the different forensic evidence which incriminates Bamber.
David's response was to create a thread called 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' & then refuse to say what the breakthrough was.
-
Adam/Steve
In 2001/02 the CCRC referrred the case to the CoA based on the blood flake/silencer alone. If other aspects of the case were strong ie showed in no uncertain terms SC could not be responsible then the CCRC would not have referred.
If the blood/silencer evidence can be undermined then the case against JB falls.
-
Adam/Steve
In 2001/02 the CCRC referrred the case to the CoA based on the blood flake/silencer alone. If other aspects of the case were strong ie showed in no uncertain terms SC could not be responsible then the CCRC would not have referred.
If the blood/silencer evidence can be undermined then the case against JB falls.
Holly, the blood/silencer evidence is not going to be undermined. I read the 522 point judgment from his 2002 appeal in it's entirety again this evening.
So lets be clear in relation to your above statement in bold, Lord justice Kaye summed up that while the CCRC were right in referring to the court of appeal the original blood evidence stood.
"We do not doubt the safety of the verdicts and we have recorded in our judgment the fact that the more we examined the detail of the case the more likely we thought it to be that the jury were right"
-
David, I'm not providing yet another list it has all been discussed to death on the pages of this fine forum. You don't need to look very far, It is all here but even a scholar such as yourself refuses to see it.
Another such list would only go over old arguments which have been held up in the light of day and then comprehensively discredited. Some of these arguments beggar belief, please refer to recent posts on this thread alone.
There is a veritable mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence on clear view in the public domain proving that Sheila could not possibly have been the protagonist, and that person could only be Jeremy by virtue of his insistence on the s.o.s. call on the night.
In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.
Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.
-
In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.
Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.
Didn't you create a thread saying 'forensic evidence breakthrough' then refuse to say what the breakthrough was ?
You know the 'forensic evidence library' has 43 threads. Each thread highlighting at least one incriminating piece of forensic evidence against Bamber. Supporters have bravely argued against each thread, but all the 43+ pieces of evidence can't be wrong. There is probably twice as much if I bothered looking.
The library was created because Lookout would ask me every week what forensic evidence there was against Bamber & it would save me having to repeat myself. Nugs would also focus on trying to undermine the silencer on his vision it was the only piece of forensic evidence against Bamber. To be honest, he still does & won't acknowledge the library when I mention it.
-
Holly, the blood/silencer evidence is not going to be undermined. I read the 522 point judgment from his 2002 appeal in it's entirety again this evening.
So lets be clear in relation to your above statement in bold, Lord justice Kaye summed up that while the CCRC were right in referring to the court of appeal the original blood evidence stood.
"We do not doubt the safety of the verdicts and we have recorded in our judgment the fact that the more we examined the detail of the case the more likely we thought it to be that the jury were right"
Lord Kaye is a typical judge who sees what he wants.
Science is for scientists, and I have seen judges repeatedly take from expert opinions what they want.
STUDY the David Dougherty appeal in New Zealand, where appeal court judges proved a man screwed his pubescent neighbour, except he did not! They totally butchered the dna evidence.
(the best part was seeing minister of justice Doug Graham suffer the same fate many years on, as director of a failed finance company being found guilty of fraud, he refused to compensate Dougherty because he was god back then)
-
Holly, the blood/silencer evidence is not going to be undermined. I read the 522 point judgment from his 2002 appeal in it's entirety again this evening.
So lets be clear in relation to your above statement in bold, Lord justice Kaye summed up that while the CCRC were right in referring to the court of appeal the original blood evidence stood.
"We do not doubt the safety of the verdicts and we have recorded in our judgment the fact that the more we examined the detail of the case the more likely we thought it to be that the jury were right"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg403462#msg403462
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg403462#msg403462
Oh yes indeed dear Holly, you are engaging in the craft of pattern observing.
No one of sound mind should ever take any comfort from these direct appeals. They magnify the problem, and the abject fear the common citizenry should have of these evil b........s at the appellate level.
I can't say it more kindly, but I do hope to be repudiated.
-
In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.
Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.
Obviously reality is somewhat different. There is a mountain of evidence against Bamber.
-
Oh yes indeed dear Holly, you are engaging in the craft of pattern observing.
No one of sound mind should ever take any comfort from these direct appeals. They magnify the problem, and the abject fear the common citizenry should have of these evil b......s at the appellate level.
I can't say it more kindly, but I do hope to be repudiated.
The following CoA transcript is very telling. It involves the 3 appeal court judges along with Michael Turner QC for the defence, Victor Temple QC for the prosecution and expert witness Mark Webster who is a biologist.
-
Oh yes indeed dear Holly, you are engaging in the craft of pattern observing.
No one of sound mind should ever take any comfort from these direct appeals. They magnify the problem, and the abject fear the common citizenry should have of these evil b......s at the appellate level.
I can't say it more kindly, but I do hope to be repudiated.
Many criticise and level all sorts of accusations at the police, relatives, JM, experts and other prosecution witnesses. My criticism is mainly with JB's defence at trial and CoA hearing, trial judge and appeal court judges:
- There's no evidence that JB's defence at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence expert witnesses called at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence JB's defence at anytime looked to procure expert testimony from elsewhere where mass shootings are a regular occurrence eg US. Is there any reason Terzeon and Rivlin didn't get their butts on a plane out to the US to meet with ballistics and pathologists experienced in gsw's.
- Red flags:
- An adoptive family ie no shared genes and yet a mentally ill mother and daughter with the son standing
accused of murder!
- Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the only one capable of producing a full set of blood groups
was the 1/4" flake inside the silencer!
- Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the bible escaped examination with the defence failing to
track it down!
- No attempt to reconstruct the soc. It is clear from cross-examination of expert witnesses at trial and points put
forward at appeal that the defence failed to understand the soc despite all the data staring them in the face!
It appears we have no way of tracking the performance of these people.
-
Many criticise and level all sorts of accusations at the police, relatives, JM, experts and other prosecution witnesses. My criticism is mainly with JB's defence at trial and CoA hearing, trial judge and appeal court judges:
- There's no evidence that JB's defence at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence expert witnesses called at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence JB's defence at anytime looked to procure expert testimony from elsewhere where mass shootings are a regular occurrence eg US. Is there any reason Terzeon and Rivlin didn't get their butts on a plane out to the US to meet with ballistics and pathologists experienced in gsw's.
- Red flags:
- An adoptive family ie no shared genes and yet a mentally ill mother and daughter with the son standing
accused of murder!
- Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the only one capable of producing a full set of blood groups
was the 1/4" flake inside the silencer!
- Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the bible escaped examination with the defence failing to
track it down!
- No attempt to reconstruct the soc. It is clear from cross-examination of expert witnesses at trial and points put
forward at appeal that the defence failed to understand the soc despite all the data staring them in the face!
It appears we have no way of tracking the performance of these people.
Quite often in a case the defence will not drag things out if they are of the opinion that their client appears to be in fact guilty or has even confessed. The other case being showcased here at the moment, the trial and conviction of Vincent Tabak being a classic example.
Could this have been the case with Jeremy Bamber, was Julie's evidence the final nail in his defence?
-
Quite often in a case the defence will not drag things out if they are of the opinion that their client appears to be in fact guilty or has even confessed. The other case being showcased here at the moment, the trial and conviction of Vincent Tabak being a classic example.
Could this have been the case with Jeremy Bamber, was Julie's evidence the final nail in his defence?
I've often wondered if Jeremy's defence thought he was guilty.
-
Quite often in a case the defence will not drag things out if they are of the opinion that their client appears to be in fact guilty or has even confessed. The other case being showcased here at the moment, the trial and conviction of Vincent Tabak being a classic example.
Could this have been the case with Jeremy Bamber, was Julie's evidence the final nail in his defence?
VT confessed whilst on remand. JB has always denied any involvement.
JM's testimony came about on 7th Sept. The blood flake results were made available on 12th Sept. JB was under constant surveillance after his release from custody on 13th Sept until 1.30am 16th Sept. He then went off on hol to S.France and was arrested and charged with the murders upon his return on 29th Sept. Interesting timeline.
-
I've often wondered if Jeremy's defence thought he was guilty.
I heard from what I consider to be a reliable source that an acquittal was anticipated on the basis of 'reasonable doubt'! Sounds somewhat optimistic!
I think the difficulty here is that those who are legally trained look at things slightly differently from the rest of us. As I see it we tend to look for absolutes ie innocent or guilty and go all round the houses with a lot of subjective and irrelevant stuff.
-
I heard from what I consider to be a reliable source that an acquittal was anticipated on the basis of 'reasonable doubt'! Sounds somewhat optimistic!
I think the difficulty here is that those who are legally trained look at things slightly differently from the rest of us. As I see it we tend to look for absolutes ie innocent or guilty and go all round the houses with a lot of subjective and irrelevant stuff.
I certainly don't believe them to be as enmired in guilt/innocence in the same way that we are. It more about what a jury will believe.
-
I've often wondered if Jeremy's defence thought he was guilty.
If you want a take on Edmund Lawson's opinion about his client, read pages 137-139 of 'Deviant'. Suffice to say that he thought Jeremy Bamber guilty before it even got to trial. There's also an illuminating part about Bamber knowing how much cash was in the farm. Holly and perhaps others here and on blue will only pooh-pooh it because of animosity towards PH, but I think he had a genuine chat with Ed Lawson in 2002.
-
If you want a take on Edmund Lawson's opinion about his client, read pages 137-139 of 'Deviant'. Suffice to say that he thought Jeremy Bamber guilty before it even got to trial. There's also an illuminating part about Bamber knowing how much cash was in the farm. Holly and perhaps others here and on blue will only pooh-pooh it because of animosity towards PH, but I think he had a genuine chat with Ed Lawson in 2002.
We only have PH's word that his 'chance' meeting with the late Ed Lawson QC actually took place. I look at how reliable the source is and in PH's case I put him in the same category as GDS and his cronies re the wet blood photos.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6384.msg256612#msg256612
PH seems to contradict himself in that he claims in the above link he attended some or all (?) of the trial and spent 3 decades researching the case. And yet in 2002, when this 'chance' meeting supposedly took place, PH claims he was unware of EL's identity up until that point.
The following seems a more reliable source and seems to suggest JB didn't endear himself to the late EL.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html
-
I'm convinced a soc reconstruction put together by experts will show NB was shot on the landing stairs/main stairs. If I'm right on this it will show the defence at trial and 2002 were incompetent and negligent.
Taken from the CoA:
60. Found in or just outside the bedroom were thirteen cartridge cases. Seven would account for the shots into June Bamber, two for the wounds suffered by Sheila Caffell, leaving four cartridge cases that had been fired at Nevill Bamber. Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen. If one accepts that the four shots to the head which would have immobilised and killed Nevill Bamber were fired in the kitchen where his body was recovered, it would follow that he had received the less serious injuries upstairs in the bedroom and was then able to make his way downstairs where he was subsequently killed.
No forensic evidence underpinning this statement. It just seems to be an assumption made by the proseuction that went unchallenged.
147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.
No forensic evidence underpinning this statement. Again an assumption made by the prosecution that went unchallenged.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
Here it is evident that the defence's incompetence and negligence in not challenging the prosecutions assumption that NB sustained his upstairs gsw's in the bedroom was damaging to JB's case. Where's the expert evidence?
Even at the 2002 CoA hearing Michael Turner QC still overlooks this aspect of the case. He attempts to explain the lack of blood on the phone by asserting a police officer used it thus removing any blood!
Point 429:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
FFS Is it that difficult to consider the phone call may have come before any shooting started and go off and look for the evidence 8()(((@# Or at the very least challenge the prosecutions assumption.
We are told:
Geoffrey Rivlin - "Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness,..."
Ed Lawson - "the cleverest of the clever"
Michael Turner - “a barrister who can secure results no others could”,
Maybe a bit of modesty wouldn't go amiss &%+((£
-
In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.
Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.
David you implied I am a retard but you do not appear to be familiar with the facts from the original trial back in 1986. With respect please follow the link and read it in it's entirety, then you will understand my position. The same applies to Samson and the lady Holly.
www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
Jeremy Bamber was justly convicted by a veritable mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence.
-
David you implied I am a retard but you do not appear to be familiar with the facts from the original trial back in 1986. With respect please follow the link and read it in it's entirety, then you will understand my position. The same applies to Samson and the lady Holly.
www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
Jeremy Bamber was justly convicted by a veritable mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence.
I've read that already multiple times. I've also read the 240 pages of the court of appeal transcripts that produced this appalling judgement made purely for public consumption.
-
If you want a take on Edmund Lawson's opinion about his client, read pages 137-139 of 'Deviant'. Suffice to say that he thought Jeremy Bamber guilty before it even got to trial. There's also an illuminating part about Bamber knowing how much cash was in the farm. Holly and perhaps others here and on blue will only pooh-pooh it because of animosity towards PH, but I think he had a genuine chat with Ed Lawson in 2002.
No he didn't. If Ed Lawson was still alive today PH would find another deceased person to have a fictional conversation with.
-
I'm convinced a soc reconstruction put together by experts will show NB was shot on the landing stairs/main stairs. If I'm right on this it will show the defence at trial and 2002 were incompetent and negligent.
Taken from the CoA:
60. Found in or just outside the bedroom were thirteen cartridge cases. Seven would account for the shots into June Bamber, two for the wounds suffered by Sheila Caffell, leaving four cartridge cases that had been fired at Nevill Bamber. Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen. If one accepts that the four shots to the head which would have immobilised and killed Nevill Bamber were fired in the kitchen where his body was recovered, it would follow that he had received the less serious injuries upstairs in the bedroom and was then able to make his way downstairs where he was subsequently killed.
No forensic evidence underpinning this statement. It just seems to be an assumption made by the proseuction that went unchallenged.
147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.
No forensic evidence underpinning this statement. Again an assumption made by the prosecution that went unchallenged.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
Here it is evident that the defence's incompetence and negligence in not challenging the prosecutions assumption that NB sustained his upstairs gsw's in the bedroom was damaging to JB's case. Where's the expert evidence?
Even at the 2002 CoA hearing Michael Turner QC still overlooks this aspect of the case. He attempts to explain the lack of blood on the phone by asserting a police officer used it thus removing any blood!
Point 429:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
FFS Is it that difficult to consider the phone call may have come before any shooting started and go off and look for the evidence 8()(((@# Or at the very least challenge the prosecutions assumption.
We are told:
Geoffrey Rivlin - "Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness,..."
Ed Lawson - "the cleverest of the clever"
Michael Turner - “a barrister who can secure results no others could”,
Maybe a bit of modesty wouldn't go amiss &%+((£
The forensic evidence that Nevill was shot in the bedroom, was that the casings were found in the bedroom.
Nevill was also found bare footed in his pyjamas. Which suggests he was shot straight after getting out of bed. Which would match a Bamber massacre attempt.
-
I'm convinced a soc reconstruction put together by experts will show NB was shot on the landing stairs/main stairs. If I'm right on this it will show the defence at trial and 2002 were incompetent and negligent.
good luck with your soc reconstruction put together by experts, it's the breakthrough we've all been waiting for
FFS Is it that difficult to consider the phone call may have come before any shooting started and go off and look for the evidence 8()(((@# Or at the very least challenge the prosecutions assumption.
Yes, it is. If she had not started shooting then naturally Nevill would have simply have attempted to disarm his feeble daughter without the need to call his playboy son.
We are told:
Geoffrey Rivlin - "Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness,..."
Ed Lawson - "the cleverest of the clever"
Michael Turner - “a barrister who can secure results no others could”,
His defence team were splendid, they did a sterling job and almost persuaded the jury to let Jeremy off the hook. In the face of a mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence which proved Sheila could not possibly have been the perpetrator.
-
The forensic evidence that Nevill was shot in the bedroom, was that the casings were found in the bedroom.
Nevill was also found bare footed in his pyjamas. Which suggests he was shot straight after getting out of bed. Which would match a Bamber massacre attempt.
NB sustained 4 gsw's upstairs. 1 casing was found on the landing, another on the transition strip (carpet gripper between landing and bedroom) with a further 2 just inside the bedroom door. As previously pointed out the direction of the barrel and casing ejection port largely determine the location of casings. The location of these casings is entirely consistent with NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's on the landing stairs and/or main stairs. Casings are just one aspect. Other aspects such as lack of NB's blood in the bedroom, estimated distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks all support NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's on the landing stairs and/or main stairs. The totality of the physical evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition NB sustained his upstairs gsw's as suggested. If you disagree please provide the expert testimony explaining otherwise.
- There's no evidence the defence or prosecution attempted to reconstruct the soc.
- The defence did not even visit WHF.
- Dr Vanezis did not complete his autopsy report until 30th Sept which was after JB had been charged with 5 murders.
- Dr Vanezis completed a further report dated 7th May 1986 which details the trajectories of the facial gsw's. He even gives a clue by saying NB may have been standing (or words to this effect) when he sustained these wounds. NB was 6' 4". SC 5'7.5" and JB 6'0". How can NB have been standing within the bedroom and sustained the lip and jaw gsw's which were inflicted 20 degrees below the horizontal? The barrel was pointing very slightly downwards and given the heights of victims and perp this has to mean the perp was elevated. The only elevation that fits with all the other physical evidence is the stairs.
- NB's slippers can be seen in soc photos but they are not neatly by his bed. I think one or both are under a nearby chair. If he was woken by SC he would not have wanted to disturb June by rummaging about, putting lights on etc so simply left his bedroom. It was the height of summer so no real need for slippers and dressing gown. I hate slippers and haven't had a pair since childhood. Defence lawyers should not be making silly assumptions. Michael Turner QC trying to explain the lack of blood on the phone by saying the police inadvertently removed it by dialling out! If you've got defence counsel like this it's only going to go one way and that's back to jail!
- There's no evidence any expert entered WHF other that Dr Vanezis. He said it was just an 'out of interest' visit.
- Afaik no one even produced scaled drawings.
-
good luck with your soc reconstruction put together by experts, it's the breakthrough we've all been waiting for
Steve if you want to see a good game of footy:
https://ticketingcontent.thefa.com//FA%20Womens%20Cup%20Final%202017
Better late than never I guess. Clearly a reconstruction should have been carried out pre-trial.
Yes it is. If she had not started shooting then naturally Nevill would have simply have disarmed his feeble daughter without the need to call his playboy son.
Where's the evidence SC was "feeble"?
If SC hadn't started shooting then NB may have attempted to disarm SC but it seems SC went upstairs shot June whilst NB was downstairs and then shot NB on the landing/main stairs.
His defence team was splendid, they did a sterling job and almost got Jeremy off the hook, in the face of a mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence which proves Sheila could not possibly have been the perpetrator.
The case would never have got to trial without the silencer AND JM. If the silencer can be undermined JB will walk as there's nothing left other than an unreliable prosecution witness:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
In the fullness of time the defence at trial and 2002 appeal will be seen as exceptionally poor. Hopefully those involved will not get off as lightly as David Waddington did over his bungling of the Stefan Kizsko case.
-
- Afaik no one even produced scaled drawings.
I've snipped all the other nonsense above that about Nevill being shot on the stairs, because it's becoming repetitive, tiresome and easily challenged. He was more likely to have been wounded in bed and while escaping the bedroom from the casing evidence alone.
What we have available to us drawing-wise is miniscule. There must have been more plans drawn to scale available at the trial in '85. Andrew Hunter is seen here examining a photo file from the Stokenchurch Enquiry, so maybe those plans and dimensions in imperial were taken from the originals...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Steve if you want to see a good game of footy:
I don't care if it's dire as long as Birmingham beat Man city. I'm only 5 stops from Wembley so if your going pop in for tea and a scone.
Where's the evidence SC was "feeble"?
oh come on Holly. It's not a sex thing but you only have to look at photo's to see she was pathetically feeble compared to an unwounded Nevill. He would have laughed and made to grab the gun off her before calling his playboy son to come and assist disarming her.
The case would never have got to trial without the silencer AND JM. If the silencer can be undermined JB will walk as there's nothing left other than an unreliable prosecution witness:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
In the fullness of time the defence at trial and 2002 appeal will be seen as exceptionally poor. Hopefully those involved will not get off as lightly as David Waddington did over his bungling of the Stefan Kizsko case.
I think the time for that is long passed, there is little interest in the case any more and even though you are right about the silencer and JM's evidence, there is still a veritable mountain of circumstantial and physical evidence which shored up the case against him
-
I've snipped all the other nonsense above that about Nevill being shot on the stairs, because it's becoming repetitive, tiresome and easily challenged. He was more likely to have been wounded in bed and while escaping the bedroom from the casing evidence alone.
If WHF had taken place in the US a team of experts would reconstruct the soc to establish what happened in terms of location of perp and victims as they did here in the JFK reconstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5JDhi4URds
Where's the expert evidence that NB was shot in the bedroom? If we had some expert evidence to this effect my ramblings could be easily challenged and dismissed.
What we have available to us drawing-wise is miniscule. There must have been more plans drawn to scale available at the trial in '85. Andrew Hunter is seen here examining a photo file from the Stokenchurch Enquiry, so maybe those plans and dimensions in imperial were taken from the originals...
Well spotted looks like some scaled drawings exist but were they used pre-trial?
-
I think the time for that is long passed, there is little interest in the case any more and even though you are right about the silencer and JM's evidence, there is still a veritable mountain of circumstantial and physical evidence which shored up the case against him
Man City Women are sublime. Not to mention my namesake 8(>((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmxWVRm_FI4
Thanks for the invite. Can I bring the girls and clotted cream along?
How did Tracie Andrews overpower Lee Harvey with a pen knife? Andrews stabbed LH over 30 times until she killed him. Women can be aggressive. They are not always sweetness and light swooning all over the place as depicted in Jane Eyre. Lee Harvey looks a fit young guy and physically far more powerful than Andrews. A rifle is clearly more lethal than a knife. NB wasn't Superman.
I agree there's little interest in the case at this moment in time. The Bamber board here is lucky to have 30 max guests/members at any one time. Whereas the McCann board regularly attracts circa 200. Once the case turns all manner of people will jump on board across the globe. Our cousins across the pond will be particularly interested given the firearms aspect and the Royal connection.
-
Forgot to add the pic. Half watching Man Utd v Celta Viga.
-
Man City Women are sublime. Not to mention my namesake 8(>((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmxWVRm_FI4
Thanks for the invite. Can I bring the girls and clotted cream along?
How did Tracie Andrews overpower Lee Harvey with a pen knife? Andrews stabbed LH over 30 times until she killed him. Women can be aggressive. They are not always sweetness and light swooning all over the place as depicted in Jane Eyre. Lee Harvey looks a fit young guy and physically far more powerful than Andrews. A rifle is clearly more lethal than a knife. NB wasn't Superman.
I agree there's little interest in the case at this moment in time. The Bamber board here is lucky to have 30 max guests/members at any one time. Whereas the McCann board regularly attracts circa 200. Once the case turns all manner of people will jump on board across the globe. Our cousins across the pond will be particularly interested given the firearms aspect and the Royal connection.
You are more than welcome to bring the girls, but I will supply the clotted cream. Bring David and Samson too they can wash my car while we have it out over a cuppa.
Re: Tracie Andrews I remember it well, the two cases can't be compared really she slashed him across the neck and severed his jugular, before proceeding to stab him multiple times.
So she got 'lucky' for want of a better word. Having said that she seems a formidable woman I wouldn't want to meet her in a dark alley!
-
Tracey Andrews also called the police and tried to implicate another person. A non existent road rage driver. She also pleaded 'not guilty' in court & testified. As Bamber did.
Lee Harvey's parents suspected Andrews from the start. A bit like AE & co.
Tracey Andrews crime was a spur of the moment crime, rather than planned. The police latched onto her quicker than they did with Bamber.
-
You are more than welcome to bring the girls, but I will supply the clotted cream. Bring David and Samson too they can wash my car while we have it out over a cuppa.
Re: Tracie Andrews I remember it well, the two cases can't be compared really she slashed him across the neck and severed his jugular, before proceeding to stab him multiple times.
So she got 'lucky' for want of a better word. Having said that she seems a formidable woman I wouldn't want to meet her in a dark alley!
David is too busy producing diagrams based on my reconstruction! What's wrong with my paper and pencil one here?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6883.msg293857#msg293857
I've seen a wide variety of figures quoted for the number of stab wounds LH sustained. Typically ranging from 30 - 42. Where does the severed jugular feature? I've attached an image of the murder weapon.
I have never understood the argument that NB would simply have relieved SC of the rifle.
Women are capable of aggressive and violent acts whether they suffer mental illness or not.
http://isciencemag.co.uk/news/new-research-on-domestic-violence-against-men/
-
Tracey Andrews also called the police and tried to implicate another person. A non existent road rage driver. She also pleaded 'not guilty' in court & testified. As Bamber did.
Lee Harvey's parents suspected Andrews from the start. A bit like AE & co.
Tracey Andrews crime was a spur of the moment crime, rather than planned. The police latched onto her quicker than they did with Bamber.
Andrews confessed some 2 years into her sentence. Although she pleaded self-defence despite the fact she inflicted a stab wound to LH's back. Hope she had to undergo lots of anger managment in prison.
LH's father suspected Andrews from the off but his mother wanted to believe her.
Andrews sustained at least one black eye. Gross.
-
Andrews confessed some 2 years into her sentence. Although she pleaded self-defence despite the fact she inflicted a stab wound to LH's back. Hope she had to undergo lots of anger managment in prison.
LH's father suspected Andrews from the off but his mother wanted to believe her.
Andrews sustained at least one black eye. Gross.
Underbite corrected on the NHS whilst in prison at a cost of £5000!!! Lee Harvey's mother was 8()(((@#
-
Underbite corrected on the NHS whilst in prison at a cost of £5000!!! Lee Harvey's mother was 8()(((@#
I assume it was on medical grounds rather than cosmetic?
-
Andrews confessed some 2 years into her sentence. Although she pleaded self-defence despite the fact she inflicted a stab wound to LH's back. Hope she had to undergo lots of anger managment in prison.
LH's father suspected Andrews from the off but his mother wanted to believe her.
Andrews sustained at least one black eye. Gross.
Lee Harvey must have been stabbed in the back at the beginning of the 42 stabs frenzy from Andrews.
Once he realised what was happening, he was too injured to react. An enraged Andrews would be formidable.
-
I assume it was on medical grounds rather than cosmetic?
How coincidental that she was coming up for release soon after. To disguise her former appearance, do you think?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191389/Road-rage-murderer-Tracie-Andrews-gets-5-000-plastic-surgery-taxpayers-expense.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191389/Road-rage-murderer-Tracie-Andrews-gets-5-000-plastic-surgery-taxpayers-expense.html)
-
It was 19 days before Andrews was arrested.
In high profile cases the police have to be sure.
-
It was 19 days before Andrews was arrested.
In high profile cases the police have to be sure.
The case is far simpler than WHF. Stabbings are an everyday occurrence. As such all concerned have experience with this type of soc. Not so with ballistics. The WHF case is first and foremost about ballistics. Can you identify another peacetime shooting in the UK other than where the perp was identified by multiple witnesses eg Ryan, Hamilton, Bird etc? On this basis alone WHF is unique, I think?
The evidence against her seems overwhelming. I think some people are hardwired for aggression and violence like Pit Bull Terriers!
-
How coincidental that she was coming up for release soon after. To disguise her former appearance, do you think?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191389/Road-rage-murderer-Tracie-Andrews-gets-5-000-plastic-surgery-taxpayers-expense.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191389/Road-rage-murderer-Tracie-Andrews-gets-5-000-plastic-surgery-taxpayers-expense.html)
Well apparently she has changed her name but the state hasn't bothered with a formal new identity. I think in the main this tends to be reserved for those convicted of some sort of child abuse/murder. Talking of which I watched an interesting docu the other eve about child killer Mary Bell.
-
The case is far simpler than WHF. Stabbings are an everyday occurrence.
So why didn't SC grab a cook's knife from the kitchen drawer to do the deed? Much easier than loading and aiming a rifle, especially one that she'd never used before, don't you think?
-
So why didn't SC grab a cook's knife from the kitchen drawer to do the deed? Much easier than loading and aiming a rifle, especially one that she'd never used before, don't you think?
As far as I can see a rifle is far more efficient and lethal than a knife? I don't believe there's anything remotely complicated about using that particular rifle and shooting at very close distance mainly immobile targets. If more women had access to firearms in this country the crime rates would be correspondingly higher. Had Andrews lived in the US she may well have pulled a handgun from her handbag or from LH's glove box.
-
I have never understood the argument that NB would simply have relieved SC of the rifle.
Women are capable of aggressive and violent acts whether they suffer mental illness or not.
What is there to understand Holly, Nevill was a WW2 veteran and very capable when confronted by someone with a gun. Having Sheila waving a .22 rifle in front of his nose would have incensed him into immediate action. Telephoning the pussy down the road would never have entered his thoughts IMO. He would have taken her out with one bash no problem.
-
As far as I can see a rifle is far more efficient and lethal than a knife? I don't believe there's anything remotely complicated about using that particular rifle and shooting at very close distance mainly immobile targets. If more women had access to firearms in this country the crime rates would be correspondingly higher. Had Andrews lived in the US she may well have pulled a handgun from her handbag or from LH's glove box.
Nobody except an amateur uses a rifle in an enclosed space within a house as it is clumsy and easily caught as evidenced by the grappling contest over the kitchen table in which the ceiling lantern was smashed and a piece broken off the rifle stock.
Nevill put up a brave fight with Jerry Bamber even though he had already been shot four or five times.
-
I've seen a wide variety of figures quoted for the number of stab wounds LH sustained. Typically ranging from 30 - 42. Where does the severed jugular feature? I've attached an image of the murder weapon.
This devastating injury tells the whole story, and how she was able to kill him with a penknife and only walk away with a black eye.
In our case we know there was a prolonged, climactic struggle in the kitchen with the gun. A fight we know sheila couldn't possibly have emerged completely clean and unscathed from.
On the other point. I think without a shadow of a doubt Nevill would have tried to talk her down himself, long before calling 999 or Len or even his pot smoking playboy son. And particularly If as you suggested the shooting had not begun yet.
-
The case is far simpler than WHF. Stabbings are an everyday occurrence. As such all concerned have experience with this type of soc. Not so with ballistics. The WHF case is first and foremost about ballistics. Can you identify another peacetime shooting in the UK other than where the perp was identified by multiple witnesses eg Ryan, Hamilton, Bird etc? On this basis alone WHF is unique, I think?
The evidence against her seems overwhelming. I think some people are hardwired for aggression and violence like Pit Bull Terriers!
That is what I was saying. The Andrews case was simpler but still took 19 days before an arrest.
It only took 11 more days before Bamber was arrested. Despite a crime which had been planned for months. Which negates the view there was a big stance change.
Evidence has to processed & statements taken. Then you have people like Andrews & Bamber leading the police in the wrong direction. The police have to follow those leads as Andrews & Bamber were the only alive witnesses who had approached the police.
-
Nobody except an amateur uses a rifle in an enclosed space within a house as it is clumsy and easily caught as evidenced by the grappling contest over the kitchen table in which the ceiling lantern was smashed and a piece broken off the rifle stock.
Nevill put up a brave fight with Jerry Bamber even though he had already been shot four or five times.
Surely nobody discharges a rifle in a residential dwelling other than maybe police/military for mock ups/training exercise and those on a dangerous path eg criminals or the mentally ill. And potential victims for self-defence.
The pathologist described NB's efforts as a "spirited defence". If it was anything more than this then why did SC or JB walk away unscathed?
The pathology reports detail NB's upstairs gsw's as:
- Facial wounds were life threatening. Causing severe pain and loss of blood internally and externally.
- Total impairment to left arm
Dr Vanezis did not produce his autopsy report until 30th Sept. By this time JB had already been charged with 5 murders and some had already decided there was a "violent struggle" in the kitchen between NB and JB. The pathology report suggests otherwise along with Dr Vanezis' further report dated 16th May 1986.
-
What is there to understand Holly, Nevill was a WW2 veteran and very capable when confronted by someone with a gun. Having Sheila waving a .22 rifle in front of his nose would have incensed him into immediate action. Telephoning the pussy down the road would never have entered his thoughts IMO. He would have taken her out with one bash no problem.
Yes NB was a WW2 veteran and it makes no sense to me that if JB opened fire in the master bedroom he would squander 5 or 6 bullets on June, a petite woman of perhaps a slightly anxious disposition, and allow his greatest adversary to escape the bedroom.
We don't know that SC was waving a .22 in front of NB's nose. I read a post on Blue the other day suggesting SC may have locked herself in the downstairs bathroom with the rifle. In this scenario what was NB to do break the door down? Maybe he called JB for assistance. Meanwhile SC left the bathroom and went upstairs and shot June with NB leaving the phone on the kitchen top and then sustaining his upstairs gsw's on the landing stairs/main stairs which is what the physical evidence suggests.
-
This devastating injury tells the whole story, and how she was able to kill him with a penknife and only walk away with a black eye.
In our case we know there was a prolonged, climactic struggle in the kitchen with the gun. A fight we know sheila couldn't possibly have emerged completely clean and unscathed from.
On the other point. I think without a shadow of a doubt Nevill would have tried to talk her down himself, long before calling 999 or Len or even his pot smoking playboy son. And particularly If as you suggested the shooting had not begun yet.
It seems Andrews stabbed LH a total of 42 times. Which wound do you believe was the "devastaing" one and when did it occur amonst the other 41?
Neither SC or JB presented with any defense wounds from any "struggle" in the kitchen.
We have no real idea what NB did or didn't do. We can only ever know for certain what the physical evidence allows us to know.
-
That is what I was saying. The Andrews case was simpler but still took 19 days before an arrest.
It only took 11 more days before Bamber was arrested. Despite a crime which had been planned for months. Which negates the view there was a big stance change.
Evidence has to processed & statements taken. Then you have people like Andrews & Bamber leading the police in the wrong direction. The police have to follow those leads as Andrews & Bamber were the only alive witnesses who had approached the police.
I don't see any positive correlation between the time it takes the police to make an arrest and identifying the perp?
Chris Jerrieries was arrested before Vincent Tabak.
Stefan Kizsko and Sean Hodgson served lengthy prison sentences before DNA evidence showed they had been wrongly convicted and by definition arrested.
In the WHF case some of the most important evidence wasn't made available until AFTER JB had been charged: pathology report along with an additional report from the pathologist.
-
Surely nobody discharges a rifle in a residential dwelling other than maybe police/military for mock ups/training exercise and those on a dangerous path eg criminals or the mentally ill. And potential victims for self-defence.
The pathologist described NB's efforts as a "spirited defence". If it was anything more than this then why did SC or JB walk away unscathed?
The pathology reports detail NB's upstairs gsw's as:
- Facial wounds were life threatening. Causing severe pain and loss of blood internally and externally.
- Total impairment to left arm
Dr Vanezis did not produce his autopsy report until 30th Sept. By this time JB had already been charged with 5 murders and some had already decided there was a "violent struggle" in the kitchen between NB and JB. The pathology report suggests otherwise along with Dr Vanezis' further report dated 16th May 1986.
Jeremy Bamber had marks on his arm.
-
Yes NB was a WW2 veteran and it makes no sense to me that if JB opened fire in the master bedroom he would squander 5 or 6 bullets on June, a petite woman of perhaps a slightly anxious disposition, and allow his greatest adversary to escape the bedroom.
We don't know that SC was waving a .22 in front of NB's nose. I read a post on Blue the other day suggesting SC may have locked herself in the downstairs bathroom with the rifle. In this scenario what was NB to do break the door down? Maybe he called JB for assistance. Meanwhile SC left the bathroom and went upstairs and shot June with NB leaving the phone on the kitchen top and then sustaining his upstairs gsw's on the landing stairs/main stairs which is what the physical evidence suggests.
I would suggest Jeremy Bamber stormed into the master bedroom, shot June in the face and then turned the rifle on Nevill as he approached him emptying the magazine. Jeremy Bamber then had to retreat downstairs to reload and was followed by a wounded Nevill who staggered down the main staircase leaving spots of blood on the wall. Reaching the kitchen he met up with Jeremy Bamber again and the struggle over the rifle ensued smashing a light fitting and scattering crockery from the kitchen table.
-
I would suggest Jeremy Bamber stormed into the master bedroom, shot June in the face and then turned the rifle on Nevill as he approached him emptying the magazine. Jeremy Bamber then had to retreat downstairs to reload and was followed by a wounded Nevill who staggered down the main staircase leaving spots of blood on the wall. Reaching the kitchen he met up with Jeremy Bamber again and the struggle over the rifle ensued smashing a light fitting and scattering crockery from the kitchen table.
When you say shot June in the face I assume you mean the gsw between her eyes and/or the gsw above her ear? If so then no I disagree. We know June was able to walk around the bed having sustained some of her gsw's evidenced by forensic testing of the blood trail on the carpet around the bed. However the pathological evidence makes clear the two gsw's to her head/face rendered her incapable of voluntary movement thereafter.
NB's gsw's sustained in bed are difficult to reconcile. At least 5 or 6 of the casings June's side of the bed pertain to her wounds. I doubt many will contest this. How can any of DRH/3 /4 /13 and /14 pertain to NB's gsw's if sustained in bed? The gsw's to NB's shoulder and elbow/chest were to his rear. All of NB's upstairs gsw's had downward trajectories. None of NB's blood was found within the bedroom eg carpet or bedding.
-
Jeremy Bamber had marks on his arm.
First I've heard of this?
-
First I've heard of this?
I have, think It was the police officer who went to see JB several hours later and watched him eating a fry up.
It's in Blood relations by roger wilkes but for sure that's not the only place I have come across it
-
I have, think It was the police officer who went to see JB several hours later and watched him eating a fry up.
It's in Blood relations by roger wilkes but for sure that's not the only place I have come across it
AE states in her wit stat that she had a good look at JB's arm(s) and was surprised to see no marks. It seems this was Friday 9th August.
See bottom of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3542
See top of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3544
-
Well, a police officer said he saw marks on Jeremy's arm the morning after and we must sit up and take notice of that.
It is interesting that Ann didn't see any marks a few days later, perhaps she just missed them. That seems more likely than a police officer making it up in the first place.
-
Bamber told DB that he had two small cuts on his right hand through working on the farm and showed him, but DB was too far away to see. They were discussing the fight in the kitchen beforehand.
-
Well, a police officer said he saw marks on Jeremy's arm the morning after and we must sit up and take notice of that.
It is interesting that Ann didn't see any marks a few days later, perhaps she just missed them. That seems more likely than a police officer making it up in the first place.
More than happy to consider this if you find a source?
AE observed JB's arm(s) on 9th Aug. This was some 3 days after the murders. AE said he was wearing a short sleeved shirt. Why would he wear short sleeves if he was sporting defence wounds?
JM makes no mention of any marks to his person. He was seen by others at CC's house over the w/e of 10th/11th Aug with a towel around his waist no one observed any marks to his person. On w/e of 17th/18th he went windsurfing with JM and another couple no one observed any marks to his person.
-
Bamber told DB that he had two small cuts on his right hand through working on the farm and showed him, but DB was too far away to see. They were discussing the fight in the kitchen beforehand.
This was dealt with at the 2002 appeal hearing and dismissed.
Ground 13. Point 445.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
445. The starting point for such consideration is the fact that at no point during the trial was any evidence led from any witness, nor any witness cross-examined, to establish or suggest that the appellant had at any material time had any scars or scratches on his hands. Indeed, on the hand-written postcard note from Ann Eaton (CAE/4) which was disclosed at trial, the entry for the 8 August recorded "No scratches on his hands - no shaking at all".
-
Then there was the blood under the seat in Nevill's car which Jeremy Bamber was using and on a bathrobe at Bourtree Cottage in Goldhanger.
-
The forensic evidence isn't important.
Supporters have said over the last two days Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
-
Then there was the blood under the seat in Nevill's car which Jeremy Bamber was using and on a bathrobe at Bourtree Cottage in Goldhanger.
The biologist from FSS, John Hayward, considered the bloodstains on NB's car seat "of little relevance".
Here's the info re blood tests on the car and bathrobe.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=935
I thought the prosecution argued JB wore a wetsuit and used June's bike. On this basis I don't really see the relevance with NB's car and JB's bathrobe? Is anyone suggesting JB wore his bathrobe and used NB's car as his mode of transport?
-
The forensic evidence isn't important.
Supporters have said over the last two days Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
You could be forgiven for thinking this based on how poorly the lawyers dealt with it.
I thought JM agreed to view the victims as she believed in the spiritual world and felt she could connect with SC to establish what happened? This formed part of her trial testimony and Rivlin's cross-examination? David will post it up.
I think in an ideal world it would have been better for CC's parents to have identified the twins and RWB and PB to have identified June, NB and SC.
-
You could be forgiven for thinking this based on how poorly the lawyers dealt with it.
I thought JM agreed to view the victims as she believed in the spiritual world and felt she could connect with SC to establish what happened? This formed part of her trial testimony and Rivlin's cross-examination? David will post it up.
I think in an ideal world it would have been better for CC's parents to have identified the twins and RWB and PB to have identified June, NB and SC.
Undoubtedly. But there must have been reticence on everyone's parts for the task to have fallen to Julie.
-
You could be forgiven for thinking this based on how poorly the lawyers dealt with it.
I thought JM agreed to view the victims as she believed in the spiritual world and felt she could connect with SC to establish what happened? This formed part of her trial testimony and Rivlin's cross-examination? David will post it up.
I think in an ideal world it would have been better for CC's parents to have identified the twins and RWB and PB to have identified June, NB and SC.
According to CC, his father was in just as bad a state as he was on hearing news about the twins.
-
According to CC, his father was in just as bad a state as he was on hearing news about the twins.
I fully understand that neither Colin nor his parents would have wanted to witness the destruction of the boys. Colin said he wanted to remember them as they had been. If the Boutflowers couldn't bring themselves to identify their adult relatives, it stands to reason that Colin and his father couldn't identify the children.
-
Undoubtedly. But there must have been reticence on everyone's parts for the task to have fallen to Julie.
According to AE Robert Howie volunteered but as his mother, Betty, had spoken to the press and as a result of this EP wanted someone else. No idea why talking to the press would change things.
I can't recall the relationship between the Howies and the wider family. I think they were the orphaned children of June's aunt or uncle and the Speakmans brought them up. Something like that. Its in CAL's book.
Was RH going to identify the twins too or just NB, June and SC? If I remember correctly I think SC was friendly with a Sarah Howie so maybe the Howies were able to identify the twins. No idea of the relationship between RH and SH.
It seems the Howies were quite supportive towards JB. At one stage offering to put up bail money. RWB said something like he had enough to see JB off!
-
According to AE Robert Howie volunteered but as his mother, Betty, had spoken to the press and as a result of this EP wanted someone else. No idea why talking to the press would change things.
I can't recall the relationship between the Howies and the wider family. I think they were the orphaned children of June's aunt or uncle and the Speakmans brought them up. Something like that. Its in CAL's book.
Was RH going to identify the twins too or just NB, June and SC? If I remember correctly I think SC was friendly with a Sarah Howie so maybe the Howies were able to identify the twins. No idea of the relationship between RH and SH.
It seems the Howies were quite supportive towards JB. At one stage offering to put up bail money. RWB said something like he had enough to see JB off!
Do you agree Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins ?
Other posters believe if they were Julie's age & in her situation, they would have refused to do this. Although no one has ever been in her situation.
These other posters believe everyone else will act in the exact same way they would, therefore Bamber is innocent.
-
According to CC, his father was in just as bad a state as he was on hearing news about the twins.
I'm sure he was but the norm is for a member of the family to carry out this task?
"If the Coroner orders a post-mortem examination then a member of the family will be asked to formally identify the body".
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/coroners-post-mortems-and-inquests
At the time JM was only 20 years of age and just JB's girlfriend of 18 months. It seems strange to my mind this task fell on her shoulders.
-
Do you agree Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins ?
Other posters believe if they were Julie's age & in her situation, they would have refused to do this. Although no one has ever been in her situation.
These other posters believe everyone else will act in the exact same way they would, therefore Bamber is innocent.
I believe JB is innocent based mainly on the 3 reasons stated in the following post:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8016.msg389770#msg389770
I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness regardless of whether or not she identified the twins.
-
Do you agree Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins ?
Other posters believe if they were Julie's age & in her situation, they would have refused to do this. Although no one has ever been in her situation.
These other posters believe everyone else will act in the exact same way they would, therefore Bamber is innocent.
Of course Julie would want to admire Jeremy's handiwork. What young woman would not be proud of their boyfriend for drilling bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year old angels. Now she could get on with planning the joint holidays and partying with her noble paramour.
In fact I am pointing out how nonsensical it is to believe a word that appalling woman ever said.
-
Of course Julie would want to admire Jeremy's handiwork. What young woman would not be proud of their boyfriend for drilling bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year old angels. Now she could get on with planning the joint holidays and partying with her noble paramour.
In fact I am pointing out how nonsensical it is to believe a word that appalling woman ever said.
But I thought you thought he was innocent??
-
But I thought you thought he was innocent??
I have no doubt at all he is innocent.
Don't forget that guilters rely on Mugford for the position they hold, and he would never have been arrested without her revelations. But I have yet to see the calculations that have her evidence being reconciled with any real world narrative.
-
I have no doubt at all he is innocent.
Don't forget that guilters rely on Mugford for the position they hold, and he would never have been arrested without her revelations. But I have yet to see the calculations that have her evidence being reconciled with any real world narrative.
No, you're wrong.
-
Of course Julie would want to admire Jeremy's handiwork. What young woman would not be proud of their boyfriend for drilling bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year old angels. Now she could get on with planning the joint holidays and partying with her noble paramour.
In fact I am pointing out how nonsensical it is to believe a word that appalling woman ever said.
Julie Mugford's testimony was the nail in Bamber's coffin that the innocent camp can't explain away, so you resort to defamation of her character. There is no justification at all for describing her as 'appalling'
The fact is this thoroughly decent and conscionable young woman told the truth on the stand, the very reason that despite your best efforts and all your diagrams Jeremy Bamber will never be released.
Unless of course he confesses, which is a real possibility now that the glory days of his sick little campaign are well and truly over.
-
Can we refrain from personal comments re lay prosecution witnesses and the use of emotive language. It is sufficient to refer to the witness/testimony as reliable or unreliable setting out your reasons why. Thanks.
-
Can we refrain from personal comments re lay prosecution witnesses and the use of emotive language. It is sufficient to refer to the witness/testimony as reliable or unreliable setting out your reasons why. Thanks.
Holly, I am aware of your forgiveness of this woman from a sense of 20 year old vulnerability, but she delivered elaborate and questionable testimony in a court of law for which she was paid 25,000 pounds and delivered a man to live in a cage for life without parole.
Knowingly.
To call her appalling is a kindness of sorts.
-
Holly, I am aware of your forgiveness of this woman from a sense of 20 year old vulnerability, but she delivered elaborate and questionable testimony in a court of law for which she was paid 25,000 pounds and delivered a man to live in a cage for life without parole.
Knowingly.
To call her appalling is a kindness of sorts.
Again, you have no justification at all to smudge her character.
There was nothing questionable at all about her testimony, this brave woman took the stand and what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.
-
I have no doubt at all he is innocent.
Don't forget that guilters rely on Mugford for the position they hold, and he would never have been arrested without her lies. But I have yet to see the calculations that have her evidence being reconciled with any real world narrative.
This, along with the mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Sheila could not have been the perpetrator.
As for your last sentence. Her evidence is a big problem for your camp as no diagrams can explain it away. You are left with no option other than attempting to destroy her character with all these untruths.
-
Disadvantages Julie had in approaching the police and accusing an innocent man of a 5x massacre.
Bamber would deny everything.
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
Please can anyone questioning Julie's evidence please refer to this excellent post by Adam.
I couldn't have put it any better.
-
Please can anyone questioning Julie's evidence please refer to this excellent post by Adam.
I couldn't have put it any better.
Thanks. It is strange that people believe Julie would ignore all of those disadvantages to single handedly frame an innnocent, greiving man of killing his own family.
Her reason for doing this according to Bamber is that he 'jilted her'. Although Bamber brought her over to WHF & Julie testified he begged her to attend some of his trips.
The latest attack from supporters on another forum is that Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins. I have a counter list for that to.
-
Samson I have recently posted the following vid featuring JB's former solicitor and CCRC commissioner Ewen Smith. He states JM's evidence was not the reason the jury found JB guilty. The trial judge apparently directed the jury insofar as they could not convict on JM's evidence alone as it wasn't good enough. He goes on to say that jurors were concerned with the blood/silencer evidence. This sounds about right based on the judge's summing up and jury's questions to the judge and deliberations.
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.msg4561#msg4561
My view is that the police brainwashed JM into believing JB was guilty based on their own beliefs. During JB's police interviews he was told SC had been murdered based on the fact she had 2 gsw's and either one killed her outright. This absolutely is not true. The pathologist always maintained he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. And in fact the autopsy report wasn't even produced until after JB had been charged. I'm pretty sure had I been in JM's position and told this I would have found it quite compelling against my former boyfriend. I believe all sorts of threats were made against JM ranging from her criminal charges for her part in petty crime impacting on her teaching career to an accessory after the fact based on the circa 3.15am phone call.
JM was due to be called again at JB's 2002 appeal hearing. As such she provided further wit stats; she states during her police interviews 1985 she was held at the police college and advised not to speak with anyone including her mother. Afaik she didn't receive any legal representation. These interviews took place over several days. To my mind we have a 20 year old young woman who at the time of her interviews was probably quite emotional; 4/5 days before the murders she read the twins a bedtime story and put them to bed; 4/5 days later she identified them in a morgue with gsw's in shaved heads. A few weeks later she splits up with her boyfriend of some 18 months. Then we have a bunch of middle aged, experienced police officers looking to put together a case against JB on the basis they believed him responsible.
I find JM's testimony completely unreliable based on the following physical evidence:
Fingerprints on rifle
In her testimony she claims a glove came off. It seems this was said to explain the fact only one fingerprint from each of JB and SC was found on the rifle. I have discussed this with a forensic scientist and world leader in fingerprints. (Myster has seen a copy of the email). The simple explanation here is that firearms are coated with a substance known as 'bluing' which makes latent fingerprints very difficult to detect. We know JB handled the rifle on previous occasions so one fingerprint would be about the norm. It seems SC had also handled the rifle extensively at some stage. Evidence of poorly trained police officers.
Bible
In her testimony she claims a bible was placed on SC's chest. All sorts of stories exist about this bible ranging from SC seeking it out to read passages before taking her own life to JB staging it to add a theme of religious mania. My view is that June walked around the bed clutching her bible and dropped it pretty much where it was found. The bible contained significant bloodstaining. Despite the bible being found at the centre of soc and exhibited at trial the defence did not track it down for forensic examination. Evidence of an incompetent and negligent defence.
To my mind JM was/is simply a pawn used by EP. I blame totally JB's appalling defence at trial and 2002 appeal hearing, trial judge and 3 appeal court judges.
-
Samson I have recently posted the following vid featuring JB's former solicitor and CCRC commissioner Ewen Smith. He states JM's evidence was not the reason the jury found JB guilty. The trial judge apparently directed the jury insofar as they could not convict on JM's evidence alone as it wasn't good enough. He goes on to say that jurors were concerned with the blood/silencer evidence. This sounds about right based on the judge's summing up and jury's questions to the judge and deliberations.
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.msg4561#msg4561
My view is that the police brainwashed JM into believing JB was guilty based on their own beliefs. During JB's police interviews he was told SC had been murdered based on the fact she had 2 gsw's and either one killed her outright. This absolutely is not true. The pathologist always maintained he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. And in fact the autopsy report wasn't even produced until after JB had been charged. I'm pretty sure had I been in JM's position and told this I would have found it quite compelling against my former boyfriend. I believe all sorts of threats were made against JM ranging from her criminal charges for her part in petty crime impacting on her teaching career to an accessory after the fact based on the circa 3.15am phone call.
JM was due to be called again at JB's 2002 appeal hearing. As such she provided further wit stats; she states during her police interviews 1985 she was held at the police college and advised not to speak with anyone including her mother. Afaik she didn't receive any legal representation. These interviews took place over several days. To my mind we have a 20 year old young woman who at the time of her interviews was probably quite emotional; 4/5 days before the murders she read the twins a bedtime story and put them to bed; 4/5 days later she identified them in a morgue with gsw's in shaved heads. A few weeks later she splits up with her boyfriend of some 18 months. Then we have a bunch of middle aged, experienced police officers looking to put together a case against JB on the basis they believed him responsible.
I find JM's testimony completely unreliable based on the following physical evidence:
Fingerprints on rifle
In her testimony she claims a glove came off. It seems this was said to explain the fact only one fingerprint from each of JB and SC was found on the rifle. I have discussed this with a forensic scientist and world leader in fingerprints. (Myster has seen a copy of the email). The simple explanation here is that firearms are coated with a substance known as 'bluing' which makes latent fingerprints very difficult to detect. We know JB handled the rifle on previous occasions so one fingerprint would be about the norm. It seems SC had also handled the rifle extensively at some stage. Evidence of poorly trained police officers.
Bible
In her testimony she claims a bible was placed on SC's chest. All sorts of stories exist about this bible ranging from SC seeking it out to read passages before taking her own life to JB staging it to add a theme of religious mania. My view is that June walked around the bed clutching her bible and dropped it pretty much where it was found. The bible contained significant bloodstaining. Despite the bible being found at the centre of soc and exhibited at trial the defence did not track it down for forensic examination. Evidence of an incompetent and negligent defence.
To my mind JM was/is simply a pawn used by EP. I blame totally JB's appalling defence at trial and 2002 appeal hearing, trial judge and 3 appeal court judges.
The police didn't find out about her 1984 minor cheque book fraud until after she completed her WS. She told the police about the caravan break in.
Why would June carry the bible to the other side of the bed, drop it & then go back to where she was found ?
The police did say to Bamber in his police interviews that Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Bamber didn't disagree and suggested Nevill said "She" on the phone or Crispy fired the second shot. However no one knows if the police also said this to Julie.
Bamber's defence was the best available in 1985/6. Unless F Lee Bailey agreed & was available to fly over from America.
-
I'm not condoning what she did just trying to explain what imo happened. In her brainwashed mind she probably thought she was acting altruistically.
The four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses at the trial of Stefan Kiszko "lied for a laugh". No 'scorned woman', 25k or immunity against prosecution for petty crime.
Most appreciate lay witnesses are unreliable even when they want to be truthful eg eye witnesses.
-
I'm not condoning what she did just trying to explain what imo happened. In her brainwashed mind she probably thought she was acting altruistically.
The four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses at the trial of Stefan Kiszko "lied for a laugh". No 'scorned woman', 25k or immunity against prosecution for petty crime.
Most appreciate lay witnesses are unreliable even when they want to be truthful eg eye witnesses.
If the police brainwashed her, why did she tell 5 people before going to the police ?
-
If the police brainwashed her, why did she tell 5 people before going to the police ?
We don't know she told anyone anything. Or even that LR approached the police before they were approached by the police. Who are the 5? LR, SB, MW and ? ? We know for sure JB and JM were very much into cannabis. It seems likely the others were users if not distributors for JB. The police might have made all sorts of threats.
-
We don't know she told anyone anything. Or even that LR approached the police before they were approached by the police. Who are the 5? LR, SB, MW and ? ? We know for sure JB and JM were very much into cannabis. It seems likely the others were users if not distributors for JB. The police might have made all sorts of threats.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6871.msg319937.html#msg319937
What threats could they make ? They didn't know about her 1984 minor cheque book fraud until after she completed her WS.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6871.msg319937.html#msg319937
What threats could they make ? They didn't know about her 1984 minor cheque book fraud until after she completed her WS.
Who are the 5 you referred to?
If the police want someone to testify in such a high profile case they need to know the witness warts n all. If they don't expose any potential weaknesses in the witnesses background and character they know the defence will and this has the potential to destroy the witnesses credibilty with jurors. The police/prosecution got in first and painted a picture of a naive trainee primary school teacher led astray by a man of the world! The police would needed to know everything hence they even asked JM about her sex life with JB. The fact JM's cheque fraud is recorded in her WS on a given date doesn't mean it wasn't discussed earlier through a brutal interrogation.
-
Who are the 5 you referred to?
If the police want someone to testify in such a high profile case they need to know the witness warts n all. If they don't expose any potential weaknesses in the witnesses background and character they know the defence will and this has the potential to destroy the witnesses credibilty with jurors. The police/prosecution got in first and painted a picture of a naive trainee primary school teacher led astray by a man of the world! The police would needed to know everything hence they even asked JM about her sex life with JB. The fact JM's cheque fraud is recorded in her WS on a given date doesn't mean it wasn't discussed earlier through a brutal interrogation.
PS Threats re use of/possession/distributing cannabis. 32 years ago young people were in general far more deferrential especially to the police. Also before PACE Act it was far easier for police to abuse their powers.
-
Who are the 5 you referred to?
If the police want someone to testify in such a high profile case they need to know the witness warts n all. If they don't expose any potential weaknesses in the witnesses background and character they know the defence will and this has the potential to destroy the witnesses credibilty with jurors. The police/prosecution got in first and painted a picture of a naive trainee primary school teacher led astray by a man of the world! The police would needed to know everything hence they even asked JM about her sex life with JB. The fact JM's cheque fraud is recorded in her WS on a given date doesn't mean it wasn't discussed earlier through a brutal interrogation.
Karen Bishop, Andy Bishop, Malcolm Walters, Liz Rimmington, Susan Battersby.
Source is Wilkes's book.
-
Karen Bishop, Andy Bishop, Malcolm Walters, Liz Rimmington, Susan Battersby.
Source is Wilkes's book.
According to CAL, JM fell short of 'telling' the Bishops. The Bishops were medi students at Cambridge. My guess is they were not part of the druggy scene in Essex and therefore EP didn't have any dirt to dish in order to get them to play ball.
-
Samson
We have strict rules here when it comes to defamatory comments. Please do not state that a witness told lies or gave false testimony without evidence to back it up. You are welcome to your views and opinions but I must insist you obey the forum rules.
-
Samson
We have strict rules here when it comes to defamatory comments. Please do not state that a witness told lies or gave false testimony without evidence to back it up. You are welcome to your views and opinions but I must insist you obey the forum rules.
John, that is exactly why I published those long posts that are the work of another.
The intention is for them to be parsed in such a manner that the notion Julie Mugford is a teller of truth might be substantiated. Those posts prove the opposite in my opinion.
Maybe I don't understand British laws of defamation that may cover a woman who lives in Canada, but the very idea she cannot be called to account supports the notion of finality, leaving a man in jail for a crime he did not do.
I lament for mother England, this is a disgrace.
-
Who are the 5 you referred to?
If the police want someone to testify in such a high profile case they need to know the witness warts n all. If they don't expose any potential weaknesses in the witnesses background and character they know the defence will and this has the potential to destroy the witnesses credibilty with jurors. The police/prosecution got in first and painted a picture of a naive trainee primary school teacher led astray by a man of the world! The police would needed to know everything hence they even asked JM about her sex life with JB. The fact JM's cheque fraud is recorded in her WS on a given date doesn't mean it wasn't discussed earlier through a brutal interrogation.
An excellent post Holly. Those interviewing Julie would have left her in no doubt that if she didn't come clean and tell them absolutely everything about what happened with Jeremy that she could effectively kiss goodbye to any thoughts of a teaching career. Julie may have been silly to tolerate Bamber but she wasn't a stupid girl, she knew exactly what she had to do and she did it. In my view she spilled the beans big time.
-
John, that is exactly why I published those long posts that are the work of another.
The intention is for them to be parsed in such a manner that the notion Julie Mugford is a teller of truth might be substantiated. Those posts prove the opposite in my opinion.
Maybe I don't understand British laws of defamation that may cover a woman who lives in Canada, but the very idea she cannot be called to account supports the notion of finality, leaving a man in jail for a crime he did not do. I lament for mother England, this is a disgrace.
Then she should have chosen somewhere other than Canada.
-
Then she should have chosen somewhere other than Canada.
I understand Julie was more or less forced abroad by her connection to the Bamber case, an intolerable situation to be in.
-
I understand Julie was more or less forced abroad by her connection to the Bamber case, an intolerable situation to be in.
Had Julie maintained a low profile and dignified presence, it may well have gone better for her. She did herself no favours by her own behaviours post trial. However, in her defense, she was still only 21 and had been through emotional and psychological hell. If we've never been there, who are we to judge? I imagine she used some of the money to travel, during which time she met her future husband, who just happened to be a Canadian.
-
Had Julie maintained a low profile and dignified presence, it may well have gone better for her. She did herself no favours by her own behaviours post trial. However, in her defense, she was still only 21 and had been through emotional and psychological hell. If we've never been there, who are we to judge? I imagine she used some of the money to travel, during which time she met her future husband, who just happened to be a Canadian.
I am not sure what you mean, as I was always under the impression that she HAD maintained a dignified silence post trial. And you can't get much lower profile than moving to another continent under another name. Or have I got this wrong and missed something?
The only publicity I can think of was the 25k newspaper deal at the time, and as far as I'm concerned that was thoroughly well deserved, as she had been though the emotional and psychological hell at the hands of this psychopath that you referred to above.
-
I am not sure what you mean, as I was always under the impression that she HAD maintained a dignified silence post trial. And you can't get much lower profile than moving to another continent under another name. Or have I got this wrong and missed something?
The only publicity I can think of was the 25k newspaper deal at the time, and as far as I'm concerned that was thoroughly well deserved, as she had been though the emotional and psychological hell at the hands of this psychopath that you referred to above.
Did you not see the pictures of her? Satin toga, split to the thigh? Telling the world that he'd given her sex like never before? Hardly dignified in the wake of 5 deaths, 2 of whom being the age group of those she was planning to teach.
-
Did you not see the pictures of her? Satin toga, split to the thigh? Telling the world that he'd given her sex like never before? Hardly dignified in the wake of 5 deaths, 2 of whom being the age group of those she was planning to teach.
I must confess I didn't, having never read a tabloid in my life. Therefore yes I agree that is wholly inappropriate.
At the same time we know what the gutter press is like, they would have insisted on lurid details and photographs such as those, these swine know what sells newspapers.
As you said I think we can forgive her taking into account her age, and there is no doubt this thoroughly decent young woman deserved every penny following her ordeal at the hands of this evil psychopath.
-
More than happy to consider this if you find a source?
AE observed JB's arm(s) on 9th Aug. This was some 3 days after the murders. AE said he was wearing a short sleeved shirt. Why would he wear short sleeves if he was sporting defence wounds?
JM makes no mention of any marks to his person. He was seen by others at CC's house over the w/e of 10th/11th Aug with a towel around his waist no one observed any marks to his person. On w/e of 17th/18th he went windsurfing with JM and another couple no one observed any marks to his person.
Had another look at Roger Wilkes definitive book on the case over the past few days. I admit I cannot find reference to any marks on Jeremy's arms in the days after the murders, only a plaster on his finger supposedly from some faux pas on the farm before the murders.
So I am unable to provide a source for that, but it's notable that both John and I referred to it in separate posts. I wonder where it comes from ?
-
Had another look at Roger Wilkes definitive book on the case over the past few days. I admit I cannot find reference to any marks on Jeremy's arms in the days after the murders, only a plaster on his finger supposedly from some faux pas on the farm before the murders.
So I am unable to provide a source for that, but it's notable that both John and I referred to it in separate posts. I wonder where it comes from ?
Here is the first paragraph of the only on line review.
I remember I was 10yrs old when these murders took place and it seemed like a pretty open and shut case. After reading this book, I'm not so sure anymore. The police really did screw up this investigation and were extremely sloppy. I don't think this book proves that Jeremy Bamber is innocent beyond doubt, but I don't think the evidence proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt either. Many people including members of Bamber's family commented on his behavior, which they found suspicious. To be honest, I found the behavior of the Eatons and Beautflours to be far more unusual, and in some cases quite appalling. The fact that they were going in and out of that house and helping themselves to stuff was pretty tacky
It looks like you found what you wanted Steve but this reviewer seems to have understood the case correctly.
-
Here is the first paragraph of the only on line review.
I remember I was 10yrs old when these murders took place and it seemed like a pretty open and shut case. After reading this book, I'm not so sure anymore. The police really did screw up this investigation and were extremely sloppy. I don't think this book proves that Jeremy Bamber is innocent beyond doubt, but I don't think the evidence proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt either. Many people including members of Bamber's family commented on his behavior, which they found suspicious. To be honest, I found the behavior of the Eatons and Beautflours to be far more unusual, and in some cases quite appalling. The fact that they were going in and out of that house and helping themselves to stuff was pretty tacky
It looks like you found what you wanted Steve but this reviewer seems to have understood the case correctly.
It really is a good, objective book. I recommend you read it. I did and came away safe in the knowledge that there is absolutely no doubt Jeremy Bamber is guilty as charged.
-
It really is a good, objective book. I recommend you read it. I did and came away safe in the knowledge that there is absolutely no doubt Jeremy Bamber is guilty as charged.
I can't get it on Kindle, so for now I will work with two reviews. Your's and the one on Amazon.
The Amazon reviewer clearly had no bias, but could you say Wilkes' book was your intro to the case like that reviewer?
You see I have no doubt he is innocent after reading Carol Ann Lee's book and the long post that has disappeared showing the origins of Mugford's testimony.
The forensics work perfectly with Sheila heading upstairs with the gun while Nevill phones Jeremy.
The big moving part, or epicycle that disappears, is the faked suicide. That becomes real and the factual side of the case, if not the legal, is closed.
Thank you however for your thoughts on the case.
-
Here is the first paragraph of the only on line review.
I remember I was 10yrs old when these murders took place and it seemed like a pretty open and shut case. After reading this book, I'm not so sure anymore. The police really did screw up this investigation and were extremely sloppy. I don't think this book proves that Jeremy Bamber is innocent beyond doubt, but I don't think the evidence proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt either. Many people including members of Bamber's family commented on his behavior, which they found suspicious. To be honest, I found the behavior of the Eatons and Beautflours to be far more unusual, and in some cases quite appalling. The fact that they were going in and out of that house and helping themselves to stuff was pretty tacky
It looks like you found what you wanted Steve but this reviewer seems
Amazon has 11 online reviews on the book.
-
It really is a good, objective book. I recommend you read it. I did and came away safe in the knowledge that there is absolutely no doubt Jeremy Bamber is guilty as charged.
I read it after reading & watching all the pro and anti Bamber items on the internet and Youtube. The reviews on Amazon gave the book the best scores and said it was least biased book.
Wilkes does say there is overwhelming evidence against Bamber which has always been the case . But reports events from the time Sheila visited Bamber on his tractor hours before the massacre, to 1996 in an unbiased way. Wilkes interviewed everyone except Julie.
I've recommended David reads it or CAL's book which has got good reviews, to give him a better understanding of the case.
-
Can we stick to debating the FACTS of the case as we perceive them please and leave out the silliness regarding perceptions of posters' level of case knowledge. The latter doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to the debate and has the potential to antagonise and disrupt the forum. Thanks.
-
Had another look at Roger Wilkes definitive book on the case over the past few days. I admit I cannot find reference to any marks on Jeremy's arms in the days after the murders, only a plaster on his finger supposedly from some faux pas on the farm before the murders.
So I am unable to provide a source for that, but it's notable that both John and I referred to it in separate posts. I wonder where it comes from ?
Ground 13, point 444 of the CoA hearing 2002 seems to cover these points along with AE's WS's:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8100.msg405977#msg405977
-
I read it after reading & watching all the pro and anti Bamber items on the internet and Youtube. The reviews on Amazon gave the book the best scores and said it was least biased book.
Wilkes does say there is overwhelming evidence against Bamber which has always been the case . But reports events from the time Sheila visited Bamber on his tractor hours before the massacre, to 1996 in an unbiased way. Wilkes interviewed everyone except Julie.
I've recommended David reads it or CAL's book which has got good reviews, to give him a better understanding of the case.
But to date all the books just regurgitate what went before. There's no evidence any of the expert witnesses or lawyers had any experience in the most important aspects of the case eg ballistics. The only mass shootings in the UK during peacetime involve the likes of Ryan, Hamilton and Bird. These cases were uncontested and clearly mass murder/suicide.
-
Ground 13, point 444 of the CoA hearing 2002 seems to cover these points along with AE's WS's:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8100.msg405977#msg405977
Thank you Holly. I think it worth reproducing Ground 13 in its entirety. In mitigation I think it is worth pointing out that the murders took place on the 7th August 1985 and it wasn't until over a month later, on the 12th September that DS Jones inspected Jeremy Bamber's hands.
Ground 13 – scars on the appellant's hands 444. With all respect to the appellant's team, we have found this ground of appeal incomprehensible. Indeed, and in fairness to him, Mr Turner conceded at the outset of his submissions that he did not put this forward as a free-standing ground of appeal, and preferred to rely upon it as no more than an element in the factual background to his overarching allegation of unsatisfactory police behaviour. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, and in order to assess whether this particular complaint adds anything to the overall strength of the appellant's case, we are satisfied that we should consider and deal with it, albeit briefly.
445. The starting point for such consideration is the fact that at no point during the trial was any evidence led from any witness, nor any witness cross-examined, to establish or suggest that the appellant had at any material time had any scars or scratches on his hands. Indeed, on the hand-written postcard note from Ann Eaton (CAE/4) which was disclosed at trial, the entry for the 8 August recorded "No scratches on his hands - no shaking at all".
446. At one stage during his interview on 12 September 1985 DS Jones asked Mr Bamber to show him his hands, and he examined both the palms and the backs. He offered no explanation to the appellant as to why he had done this, but it seems highly likely that the stimulus for this action was a telephone call that appears to have been made on the previous day to the police by Anthony Pargeter, who was Nevill Bamber's nephew. He is said to have reported having seen small "circular scars" on Jeremy Bamber's right hand. This piece of information triggered a series of actions. By Action no. 96, on the 12 September 1985 DI Bright was instructed to take a further statement from Mr Pargeter on this matter. No result of this action is recorded, and no formal statement from Mr Pargeter appears in the documentation in the case. This may well be because of the other information that was forthcoming on the matter. By Action no. 97 of the same date DS Jones was instructed to interview the appellant on the same topic - and DS Jones' response referred to the notes of interview and reported that there were no marks visible.
447. On the 14 September 1985 by Action no. 200, DC Thomerson was instructed to take a statement from David Boutflour (the son of Robert Boutflour) to include, among other matters, any sightings of cuts on the appellant's hands on the day after the killings. This action produced a statement from David Boutflour which included a passage in which he stated that on the Wednesday or Thursday after the killings Jeremy Bamber had made a comment to him about having received two small cuts on his hand while working on the farm. "As he made this comment he showed me the palm of his right hand, but as I was about 5 feet away from him at the time I could not see the scratches to which he referred." This passage did not appear in the edited statement of this witness, which was served on the defence as evidence for use at trial. On 16 September, by Action no. 201, instructions were given for the trigger guard of the rifle to be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory for blood. There is no record of any result.
448. By Action no. 302 on 19 September 1985 DS Jones was asked to submit a report about these matters, and in his reply DS Jones repeated that when Mr Bamber had been interviewed "There were no visible signs of scars etc". He added that if and when the appellant was re-interviewed an ultra violet light could be used to examine his hands again. This suggestion was picked up on the 24 September 1985 in Action no. 396 when DS Jones was instructed to carry out such an examination; but his response as recorded on the action sheet was "Bamber charged; above not done on instructions of A/D/C/ Superintendent Ainsley." Indeed, on the 26 September 1985 a letter from the office of the DPP indicated that in the view of the Director the appellant should not now be further interviewed.
449. As has already been made clear, the prosecution case against the appellant was conducted on the basis that there was no sign of any injuries to his hand subsequent to the killings. The complaint that the prosecution had kept the defence in ignorance of material which would have permitted them to mount an attack on the veracity of Mr Pargeter is misconceived; there was never any necessity to mount any such attack. Mr Pargeter had never given any evidence which incriminated the appellant in any way. So far from the prosecution seeking to advance dubious evidence hostile to the appellant's interests, it appears that they were unwilling to advance any suggestions by Mr Boutflour or Mr Pargeter that they were not able to confirm for themselves to be soundly based. One of the more remarkable contentions in the appellant's skeleton argument on this topic is the assertion that the defence "were kept in ignorance of the fact of the officer's examination of the appellant's hands....". The appellant, of all people, plainly knew himself that that had happened.
450. Finally, the decision not to pursue the instruction given under Action no. 396 and not to re-interview the appellant again was entirely consistent with code C under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, given that by that time the appellant was either about to be or indeed had just been charged.
451. In our judgment there is no foundation whatsoever for the suggestion that the matters complained of under this ground of appeal resulted in any prejudice to the appellant in the conduct of his defence. Nor, in our judgment, do the facts underlying these complaints provide any support for the assertion that the police officers concerned were determined to withhold information from the appellant or his advisors in an attempt to influence the evidence in favour of a prosecution. In reality, the opposite appears to be the case.
-
I must confess I didn't, having never read a tabloid in my life. Therefore yes I agree that is wholly inappropriate.
At the same time we know what the gutter press is like, they would have insisted on lurid details and photographs such as those, these swine know what sells newspapers.
As you said I think we can forgive her taking into account her age, and there is no doubt this thoroughly decent young woman deserved every penny following her ordeal at the hands of this evil psychopath.
This is contrary to expert evidence:
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
-
This is contrary to expert evidence:
https://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
Several people including his own counsel made reference to Jeremy displaying the classic signs of a psychopath yet as you point out, psychiatrists have as far as we know never made such a clinical diagnosis. However, it is known that some psychopaths do see the condition diminish and even disappear in later life. I suggest the more recent results have come about on that basis with his metal status at the time of the murders being undiagnosed.
-
Holly dearest I wonder how deeply you thought about your topic before posting it? 'For those who believe Jeremy guilty'. Don't you find it telling just who those people are?
All Jeremy's remaining family that he didn't murder including Colin Cafel, the twins father, who didn't for one second suspect Jeremy until he learned the facts of the murders and immediately knew Sheila could not have done it!
All the coppers on the case who were exposed to the facts and JB's character (except one too stubborn to admit he was wrong)!
Julie Mugford and all her friends who knew Jeremy. (Is there anyone JB ever knew before conviction who supports his innocence?)
The High Court judge was obviously convinced JB was guilty. All the many judges at the CCRC who have reviewed the case .... like wise. One making the highly unusual comment stating that the more they review the case the more utterly convinced they are that justice has been done.
10 of 12 jurors got it right.
Have you read Colin's book Holly? I don't see how anyone who has read that very moving book could doubt his honestly and he knew Sheila better than anyone left alive.
PS: A great friend of mine bought me that book .... a lovely surprise!
-
Holly dearest I wonder how deeply you thought about your topic before posting it? 'For those who believe Jeremy guilty'. Don't you find it telling just who those people are?
All Jeremy's remaining family that he didn't murder including Colin Cafel, the twins father, who didn't for one second suspect Jeremy until he learned the facts of the murders and immediately knew Sheila could not have done it!
All the coppers on the case who were exposed to the facts and JB's character (except one too stubborn to admit he was wrong)!
Julie Mugford and all her friends who knew Jeremy. (Is there anyone JB ever knew before conviction who supports his innocence?)
The High Court judge was obviously convinced JB was guilty. All the many judges at the CCRC who have reviewed the case .... like wise. One making the highly unusual comment stating that the more they review the case the more utterly convinced they are that justice has been done.
10 of 12 jurors got it right.
Have you read Colin's book Holly? I don't see how anyone who has read that very moving book could doubt his honestly and he knew Sheila better than anyone left alive.
PS: A great friend of mine bought me that book .... a lovely surprise!
Appeal to Common Belief
(also known as: appeal to accepted belief, appeal to democracy, appeal to widespread belief, appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the number, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum consensus gentium, appeal to the mob, appeal to the gallery, consensus gentium, mob appeal, social conformance, value of community, vox populi)
When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.
Logical Form:
A lot of people believe X.
Therefore, X must be true.
Link - Appeal to Common Belief (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal-to-Common-Belief)
-
Several people including his own counsel made reference to Jeremy displaying the classic signs of a psychopath yet as you point out, psychiatrists have as far as we know never made such a clinical diagnosis. However, it is known that some psychopaths do see the condition diminish and even disappear in later life. I suggest the more recent results have come about on that basis with his metal status at the time of the murders being undiagnosed.
John, both I and one of my blue friends can testify to incidences of psychiatrists who believe him to be a psychopath. They came across him/had conversations with him in the course of their duties Neither has given a WS, presumably because they were never asked.
-
Several people including his own counsel made reference to Jeremy displaying the classic signs of a psychopath yet as you point out, psychiatrists have as far as we know never made such a clinical diagnosis. However, it is known that some psychopaths do see the condition diminish and even disappear in later life. I suggest the more recent results have come about on that basis with his metal status at the time of the murders being undiagnosed.
Afaik this reference from JB's defence counsel was made in Wilkes' book. How reliable is it? I don't believe this 'expert' has ever been publicly identified so we have no confirmation of his/her identity and qualifications/experience. Do defence counsel discuss their cases with book authors especially when the defendant/appellant maintains innocence? Assuming the information is correct did the person actually meet with JB and if so what tools did he/she use to make such an assessment?
If someone is so psychopathic they are capable of murdering small children sleeping in their beds is it possible to change from this mindset to 'normal'?
-
Holly dearest I wonder how deeply you thought about your topic before posting it? 'For those who believe Jeremy guilty'. Don't you find it telling just who those people are?
All Jeremy's remaining family that he didn't murder including Colin Cafel, the twins father, who didn't for one second suspect Jeremy until he learned the facts of the murders and immediately knew Sheila could not have done it!
All the coppers on the case who were exposed to the facts and JB's character (except one too stubborn to admit he was wrong)!
Julie Mugford and all her friends who knew Jeremy. (Is there anyone JB ever knew before conviction who supports his innocence?)
The High Court judge was obviously convinced JB was guilty. All the many judges at the CCRC who have reviewed the case .... like wise. One making the highly unusual comment stating that the more they review the case the more utterly convinced they are that justice has been done.
10 of 12 jurors got it right.
Have you read Colin's book Holly? I don't see how anyone who has read that very moving book could doubt his honestly and he knew Sheila better than anyone left alive.
PS: A great friend of mine bought me that book .... a lovely surprise!
Hi Tim
Yes I read CC's book nearly 5 years ago now. It offered an insight into the dynamics of the Bamber family.
To lose 1 child is every parent's nightmare let alone 2 in such awful circumstances.
Afaik none of those mentioned in your post had any experience of mass shootings? The only peacetime mass shootings I am aware of in the UK involve uncontested cases of murder/suicide: Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derrick Bird etc. I don't believe the UK had the expertise mid 80's to analyse the SoC to determine JB or SC. WHF required experts in ballistics, bloodstain analysis and pathology of gunshot wounds. In JB's case the expert evidence was either lacking or woefully inadequate. I assume CC was to a large degree dependent on the information he received from others.
-
John, both I and one of my blue friends can testify to incidences of psychiatrists who believe him to be a psychopath. They came across him/had conversations with him in the course of their duties Neither has given a WS, presumably because they were never asked.
But without an identity and credentials I find these sorts of claims unreliable. I also find the psychologists in the docu/dramas: Kerry Daynes, David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland unreliable when it is clear none of them have even met with JB let alone formally assessed him and/or considered the other members of the family with long histories of mental illness.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6891.msg295342#msg295342
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6968.msg300445#msg300445
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6849.msg292112#msg292112
-
But without an identity and credentials I find these sorts of claims unreliable. I also find the psychologists in the docu/dramas: Kerry Daynes, David Holmes and Katherine Ramsland unreliable when it is clear none of them have even met with JB let alone formally assessed him and/or considered the other members of the family with long histories of mental illness.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6891.msg295342#msg295342
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6968.msg300445#msg300445
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6849.msg292112#msg292112
You're entitled to find them so -in your opinion- but it doesn't make them wrong. In both cases to which I refer, they did interview him. Family history MAY indicate chains of mental illness but it can't be said that because mental illness isn't familial, it doesn't develop in another family member. I would agree, however, that docu. doctors are only voicing their opinions.
-
You're entitled to find them so -in your opinion- but it doesn't make them wrong. In both cases to which I refer, they did interview him. Family history MAY indicate chains of mental illness but it can't be said that because mental illness isn't familial, it doesn't develop in another family member. I would agree, however, that docu. doctors are only voicing their opinions.
I would expect health professionals such as medi doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists etc to take patient confidentiality seriously even in an era when maybe they were not duty bound by the data protection act etc. If they are going around discussing sensitive information with others unconnected then I would question the integrity and professionalism of such individuals.
https://www.igt.hscic.gov.uk/KnowledgeBaseNew/DH_Protection%20and%20Use%20of%20Confidential%20Information%20in%20Prisons.pdf
It seems prisoners do have rights in this regard too.
The Bamber family wasn't a biological family. It was a family engineered socially and rubber-stamped by a legal process known as adoption. And yet we have a mentally ill adoptive mother, a mentally ill adopted daughter and according to some a psychopathic mass murdering adopted son. Afaik none of the birth families: Bamber, Speakman, Marshams or Jays have any history of mental illness/personality disoders. This is what I would like the psychologists and psychiatrists to address.
-
I would expect health professionals such as medi doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists etc to take patient confidentiality seriously even in an era when maybe they were not duty bound by the data protection act etc. If they are going around discussing sensitive information with others unconnected then I would question the integrity and professionalism of such individuals.
https://www.igt.hscic.gov.uk/KnowledgeBaseNew/DH_Protection%20and%20Use%20of%20Confidential%20Information%20in%20Prisons.pdf
It seems prisoners do have rights in this regard too.
The Bamber family wasn't a biological family. It was a family engineered socially and rubber-stamped by a legal process known as adoption. And yet we have a mentally ill adoptive mother, a mentally ill adopted daughter and according to some a psychopathic mass murdering adopted son. Afaik none of the birth families: Bamber, Speakman, Marshams or Jays have any history of mental illness/personality disoders. This is what I would like the psychologists and psychiatrists to address.
How does that make then wrong about Bamber?
-
How does that make then wrong about Bamber?
Who are these people? What are their credentials? When, where and how did they assess JB? Where's the evidence?
-
Who are these people? What are their credentials? When, where and how did they assess JB? Where's the evidence?
In his prison files I suspect - bet the CT won't be asking for those to be made public.
-
In his prison files I suspect - bet the CT won't be asking for those to be made public.
I have no idea what's in JB's prison file. I'm sure you will agree that seeing is believing.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg401188.html#msg401188
-
Who are these people? What are their credentials? When, where and how did they assess JB? Where's the evidence?
I'm certain that you know it isn't possible for me to reveal that but I can vouch for them having legitimate access to Jeremy. I don't know what evidence you require, but I'm very certain that neither of the persons I refer to were asked to provide evidence above and beyond what was their remit. This in no way invalidates their opinions.
-
I'm certain that you know it isn't possible for me to reveal that but I can vouch for them having legitimate access to Jeremy. I don't know what evidence you require, but I'm very certain that neither of the persons I refer to were asked to provide evidence above and beyond what was their remit. This in no way invalidates their opinions.
With respect APRIL I am sure you will appreciate from where I am sitting these are simply unsubstantiated claims.
-
With respect APRIL I am sure you will appreciate from where I am sitting these are simply unsubstantiated claims.
Of course. The findings of those I mentioned, because they're, presumably, locked away in Jeremy's file, remain only their opinion.................but it doesn't make them wrong.
-
Of course. The findings of those I mentioned, because they're, presumably, locked away in Jeremy's file, remain only their opinion.................but it doesn't make them wrong.
How do you expect me to comment when:
a) I have no idea who you are
b) I have no idea who your associates are who it is claimed assessd JB
c) What relevant experience and qualifications b) might possess for such an assessment to hold up to scrutiny
d) When, where and how any assessment took place
-
How do you expect me to comment when:
a) I have no idea who you are
b) I have no idea who your associates are who it is claimed assessd JB
c) What relevant experience and qualifications b) might possess for such an assessment to hold up to scrutiny
d) When, where and how any assessment took place
Holly, I hadn't given any thought to possible comment. I was simply passing on the information that I and a blue friend both know of professionals who, having had access to Jeremy, believe him to be a psychopath. I believe there are also those professionals who don't agree with their findings.
-
Holly, I hadn't given any thought to possible comment. I was simply passing on the information that I and a blue friend both know of professionals who, having had access to Jeremy, believe him to be a psychopath. I believe there are also those professionals who don't agree with their findings.
Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April £4%4% Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.
You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath? I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.
I have had email contact with various forensic scientists. One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake). I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification. I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.
I don't know why posters go down this road:
- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why.
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath
I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them. I do not have the time or inclination for any of this. A complete waste of time.
-
Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April £4%4% Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.
You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath? I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.
I have had email contact with various forensic scientists. One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake). I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification. I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.
I don't know why posters go down this road:
- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why.
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath
I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them. I do not have the time or inclination for any of this. A complete waste of time.
Except I didn't go down that road. I have verified this on the forums via three people JB, AH and NGB. Several people have seen it. I would have posted it on the forums had NGB and AH not persuaded me otherwise. This I can also substantiate via PMs and e-mails.
You know this.
-
Except I didn't go down that road. I have verified this on the forums via three people JB, AH and NGB. Several people have seen it. I would have posted it on the forums had NGB and AH not persuaded me otherwise. This I can also substantiate via PMs and e-mails.
You know this.
Not really no. If you have what you consider is a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' why not just keep it to yourself and relevant others eg NBG and AH? Why the need to announce it on the forum when you are unable and/or unwilling to provide further info. I thought you or someone said the announcement was intended to 'stimulate debate'!
-
Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April £4%4% Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.
You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath? I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.
I have had email contact with various forensic scientists. One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake). I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification. I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.
I don't know why posters go down this road:
- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why.
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath
I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them. I do not have the time or inclination for any of this. A complete waste of time.
Holly, I don't actually mind that you find it a waste of time. In fact, I would urge you not to waste your time reading/responding to my unsubstantiated posts. It will save me the bother of reading/responding to your replies. Not everyone here has, like you, put their heart and soul into trying to uncover something which will prove Jeremy innocent. Back in the days when I believed him innocent, I never believed he be released. I still believe it to be the case, however, because of my proximity to D'Arcy and my friendship with those -now all in their late 80's/early 90's- who were friends with Nevill and June, my interest is maintained. You do sterling work on Jeremy's behalf. I hope there's a positive pay off.
-
Holly, I don't actually mind that you find it a waste of time. In fact, I would urge you not to waste your time reading/responding to my unsubstantiated posts. It will save me the bother of reading/responding to your replies. Not everyone here has, like you, put their heart and soul into trying to uncover something which will prove Jeremy innocent. Back in the days when I believed him innocent, I never believed he be released. I still believe it to be the case, however, because of my proximity to D'Arcy and my friendship with those -now all in their late 80's/early 90's- who were friends with Nevill and June, my interest is maintained. You do sterling work on Jeremy's behalf. I hope there's a positive pay off.
For that matter what's the point in trying to prove he's innocent? Waste of time really - he isn't 8(0(*
-
For that matter what's the point in trying to prove he's innocent? Waste of time really - he isn't 8(0(*
Indeed. But there's still something compellingly addictive about it ?{)(**
-
Holly, I don't actually mind that you find it a waste of time. In fact, I would urge you not to waste your time reading/responding to my unsubstantiated posts. It will save me the bother of reading/responding to your replies. Not everyone here has, like you, put their heart and soul into trying to uncover something which will prove Jeremy innocent. Back in the days when I believed him innocent, I never believed he be released. I still believe it to be the case, however, because of my proximity to D'Arcy and my friendship with those -now all in their late 80's/early 90's- who were friends with Nevill and June, my interest is maintained. You do sterling work on Jeremy's behalf. I hope there's a positive pay off.
Thanks but there are many who do "sterling work" including those who claim to believe JB guilty eg Caroline, Myster and Scipio. It is only through good quality debate that I have learned so much about the case.
-
Not really no. If you have what you consider is a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' why not just keep it to yourself and relevant others eg NBG and AH? Why the need to announce it on the forum when you are unable and/or unwilling to provide further info. I thought you or someone said the announcement was intended to 'stimulate debate'!
It has stimulated debate. Compare the forum's monthly visits for May of each year.
May 2015 - 27,727 visits
May 2016 - 55,789 visits
May 2017 - 68,498 visits
I believe all the suspicion about making claims is a culture that formed as a result of Mike's many claims in the past etc.
-
Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April £4%4% Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.
You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath? I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.
I have had email contact with various forensic scientists. One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake). I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification. I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.
I don't know why posters go down this road:
- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why.
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath
I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them. I do not have the time or inclination for any of this. A complete waste of time.
I posted this week about Sheila not having any oil, blood or gun shot residue on her or her nightdress. Meaning she either changed & had a vigourous shower after killing herself, or someone else killed her.
This is an important point & was put into the library. However had no response from supporters.
I've realised supporters like to support Bamber on the basis of possible hidden evidence from EP, claimed withheld knowledge from fellow supporters, or Julie's actions of identifying the twins & staying fairly loyal for 20 days.
The only forensic evidence really brought up by supporters is the silencer, most accusing the relatives of fabricating this. But they don't elaborate and refuse to answer questions on how the relatives expertly achieved this big, risky and complicated frame.
The exceptions are Holly & Mike although Mike rarely interacts with other posters.
-
It has stimulated debate. Compare the forum's monthly visits for May of each year.
May 2015 - 27,727 visits
May 2016 - 55,789 visits
May 2017 - 68,498 visits
I believe all the suspicion about making claims is a culture that formed as a result of Mike's many claims in the past etc.
I admire your self-belief David, really I do!
1. What is the definition of a 'visit'?
2. Are the viewing numbers quoted above for the JB board only?
3. Given that your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' has to remain under wraps as 'it would give the Crown more time to prepare' how has this 'stimulated debate'?
4. How do you know the upward trajectory of viewing numbers above is down to your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and not one or more other factors eg the 30th anniversary in Aug 2015 and the two book launches both of which attracted media attention in the tabloids:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
The Simon Hall case also attracted a lot of publicity which spilled over onto the Bamber board: confession, suicide and inquest.
-
I posted this week about Sheila not having any oil, blood or gun shot residue on her or her nightdress. Meaning she either changed & had a vigourous shower after killing herself, or someone else killed her.
This is an important point & was put into the library. However had no response from supporters.
I've realised supporters like to support Bamber on the basis of possible hidden evidence from EP, claimed withheld knowledge from other posters or Julie's actions such as identifying the twins or staying fairly loyal for 20 days.
The only forensic evidence really brought up by supporters is the silencer, most accusing the relatives of fabricating this. But they don't elaborate and refuse to answer questions on how the relatives expertly achieved this big, risky and complicated frame.
The exceptions are Holly & Mike although Mike rarely interacts with other posters.
A mention in the same sentence as Mike &%+((£
-
I posted this week about Sheila not having any oil, blood or gun shot residue on her or her nightdress. Meaning she either changed & had a vigourous shower after killing herself, or someone else killed her.
This is an important point & was put into the library. However had no response from supporters.
I've realised supporters like to support Bamber on the basis of possible hidden evidence from EP, claimed withheld knowledge from fellow supporters, or Julie's actions of identifying the twins & staying fairly loyal for 20 days.
The only forensic evidence really brought up by supporters is the silencer, most accusing the relatives of fabricating this. But they don't elaborate and refuse to answer questions on how the relatives expertly achieved this big, risky and complicated frame.
The exceptions are Holly & Mike although Mike rarely interacts with other posters.
As far as I can see SC's found state is entirely consistent with her being the perp. There's no need for a "ritual" cleanse with or without harsh abrasives to remove gunshot residue (gsr); change of clothes; pondering the idea that SC may have been naked etc, etc.
Backspatter (Blood from gunshot wounds (gsw's))
An excerpt taken from a book entitled "Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice" authored by Stuart H James of James and Associates forensic scientists:
"There is no valid scientific basis to relate estimates or establish probabilities for the production of impact spatter resulting from gunshot".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8_fKBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=MacDonnell+and+Brooks+gunshots+barrel+of+gun&source=bl&ots=BsKjA30yol&sig=f1pLI-d1mAM3mNDHVvmSpTpz2xA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjetMS94uTPAhWJLMAKHcEvCcwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=MacDonnell%20and%20Brooks%20gunshots%20barrel%20of%20gun&f=false
http://www.bloodevidence.com/jamesassoc.html
As I have pointed out previously the rifle contained so little blood it was not even possible to group the stains. Why would it then follow SC would sustain any blood to her person/nightdress? The stains on the rifle were described as "smears" and "splashes" which were probably deposited on the rifle when NB was beaten with a "blunt instrument" most probably the rifle.
Blood serology testing was used in the investigation and trial. This type of testing requires a relatively large sample of blood in good quality. Afaik blood on SC's person wasn't tested and only two areas of the nightdress were tested meaning any small stains will have fallen under the radar. Had all of this evidence been retained then it would be possible to apply DNA testing.
Gun Oil From Firearm
There is no reason to believe an abudance of oil would be present on the rifle to the extent it would transfer to the users clothes/person. Whether SC was murdered or took her own life the rifle was found across her person so unless the rifle was only oiled one side then I dont understand why the absence of such is any way suspicious?
Gunshot Residue
All the forensic text books basically say the same thing ie lack of or presence of GSR is inconclusive. Movement and time can dissipate GSR. In this case SC's hands were not swabbed until PM so many hours after death and after some considerable movement.
Whether SC fired the rifle 25/26 times or JB did, SC was found in an enclosed environment where a firearm had been discharged a number of times and twice over her body with the rifle found resting across her nightdress/person. So clearly an absence of GSR means squat.
-
As far as I can see SC's found state is entirely consistent with her being the perp. There's no need for a "ritual" cleanse with or without harsh abrasives to remove gunshot residue (gsr); change of clothes; pondering the idea that SC may have been naked etc, etc.
Backspatter (Blood from gunshot wounds (gsw's))
An excerpt taken from a book entitled "Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice" authored by Stuart H James of James and Associates forensic scientists:
"There is no valid scientific basis to relate estimates or establish probabilities for the production of impact spatter resulting from gunshot".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8_fKBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=MacDonnell+and+Brooks+gunshots+barrel+of+gun&source=bl&ots=BsKjA30yol&sig=f1pLI-d1mAM3mNDHVvmSpTpz2xA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjetMS94uTPAhWJLMAKHcEvCcwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=MacDonnell%20and%20Brooks%20gunshots%20barrel%20of%20gun&f=false
http://www.bloodevidence.com/jamesassoc.html
As I have pointed out previously the rifle contained so little blood it was not even possible to group the stains. Why would it then follow SC would sustain any blood to her person/nightdress? The stains on the rifle were described as "smears" and "splashes" which were probably deposited on the rifle when NB was beaten with a "blunt instrument" most probably the rifle.
Blood serology testing was used in the investigation and trial. This type of testing requires a relatively large sample of blood in good quality. Afaik blood on SC's person wasn't tested and only two areas of the nightdress were tested meaning any small stains will have fallen under the radar. Had all of this evidence been retained then it would be possible to apply DNA testing.
Gun Oil From Firearm
There is no reason to believe an abudance of oil would be present on the rifle to the extent it would transfer to the users clothes/person. Whether SC was murdered or took her own life the rifle was found across her person so unless the rifle was only oiled one side then I dont understand why the absence of such is any way suspicious?
Gunshot Residue
All the forensic text books basically say the same thing ie lack of or presence of GSR is inconclusive. Movement and time can dissipate GSR. In this case SC's hands were not swabbed until PM so many hours after death and after some considerable movement.
Whether SC fired the rifle 25/26 times or JB did, SC was found in an enclosed environment where a firearm had been discharged a number of times and twice over her body with the rifle found resting across her nightdress/person. So clearly an absence of GSR means squat.
This is why I praised you & Mike earlier. As you will discuss all aspects.
Unfortunately the published 2002 appeal says very damaging things about Sheila's condition. Some of which, such as the nails I haven't mentioned.
Sheila either changed and had a vigourous shower with specialist cleaning agents after she had died. Or someone killed her.
-
47. The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.
48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands.
49. DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased's feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar.
50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.
51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle.
-
The court of appeal made 20 points of evidence showing that Sheila had not fired a rifle.
It was impossible for Sheila to put herself in this condition. Both while alive as it was not simply a case of having that 'mysterious' shower. And certainly she was not able to remove all evidence off her, after killing herself.
A submitted counter argument today is that the Court of Appeal judgement was in 2002 !!!! ????
-
This is why I praised you & Mike earlier. As you will discuss all aspects.
Why not? I'm more interested in aspects of the case that are underpinned by science as opposed to aspects that are subjective and impossible to prove either way eg lay witness testimony, whether or not NB called JB, JB's behaviour pre and post tragedy etc, etc.
Unfortunately the published 2002 appeal says very damaging things about Sheila's condition. Some of which, such as the nails I haven't mentioned.
As far as forensics go the published 2002 appeal is rooted in the dark ages. Also it was drafted by 3 appeal court judges who probably don't know any more about the forensic aspects than contributors to this forum. They are lawyers not forensic scientists.
Sheila either changed and had a vigourous shower with specialist cleaning agents after she had died. Or someone killed her.
SC's found in state is entirely consistent with her being the perp:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8100.msg409838#msg409838
-
Why not? I'm more interested in aspects of the case that are underpinned by science as opposed to aspects that are subjective and impossible to prove either way eg lay witness testimony, whether or not NB called JB, JB's behaviour pre and post tragedy etc, etc.
As far as forensics go the published 2002 appeal is rooted in the dark ages. Also it was drafted by 3 appeal court judges who probably don't know any more about the forensic aspects than contributors to this forum. They are lawyers not forensic scientists.
SC's found in state is entirely consistent with her being the perp:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8100.msg409838#msg409838
The 20 pieces of undisputed forensic evidence show Sheila did not fire a rifle.
The judges published the undisputed forensic evidence they have been given to explain their decisions on Bamber's COA application. In a comprehensive 522 point report.
The three judges do not collect the evidence themselves 17 years after the event.
It was impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre by not firing a rifle.
-
47. The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.
If SC was the perp there's no reason blood, dirt or powder would be visible on her hands or that she would damage her fingernails/polish and sustain any marks/indentations to her fingers.
The lubricant on the bullets used reduces residues:
http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow
Is there any evidence of 'Farm Girl' getting grubby hands and/or damaging her fingernails/polish when loading the mag, chambering a round and discharging the firearm numerous times?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc
48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hands.
See above.
49. DC Hammersley, the Scenes of Crimes Officer placed plastic bags over Sheila Caffell's hands and feet before her body was removed from the farmhouse. He saw some blood staining to the back of the right hand, but apart from that the hands, to his eye were clean and the nails intact. The deceased's feet were also free from blood staining and from any debris such as sugar.
The bags were not forensically examined. Again see above. Geoffrey Rivlin covered at trial the fact that any sugar on SC's feet would detach on the walk from the kitchen to the bedroom. Sweepings were not taken. Why would SC's feet be blood stained? Crsipy had the free run of the house. The GPO op said she thought Crispy was by the phone in the kitchen due to the barking she heard. He was found under the bed in the master bedroom. No bloody paw prints found anywhere. No footprints in blood found from any other person(s).
50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.
What exactly was the purpose of the swabbing? To detect lead on hands from handling bullets or gsr from firearm discharge? These sorts of tests are sensitive and there's much to suggest the investigating officers and scientists were not careful. Eg swabbing needed to have taken place at soc before body was moved and placed in bags. We don't know the level of lead on the sicentists' hands pre testing. Can we rule out SC wiping or washing her hands? As already pointed out the bullets used at WHF were coated in a lubricant to minimise residues. The CoA doc refers to "similar" bullets used in tests. How similar is similar? Need to use the same bullets. We don't even know the type of test used.
51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle.
No explanation for the holes found in SC's nightdress and the black particles surrounding them said to have been caused by a hot object.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8100.msg409838#msg409838
-
Both hands and feet were covered with plastic bags at the crime scene.
Hands
Perfectly clean.
One blood mark on back of hand.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.
Finger nails
Well manicured.
Not broken.
Nails in tact.
Fingers
No marks or indentations.
No blood on finger tips.
No dirt on finger tips.
No powder on finger tips.
No trace of any lead dust coating.
No traces of the lubricant from handling a lot of bullets.
Feet
Perfectly clean.
Free from blood staining.
No debris such as sugar.
No mention of foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.
Nightdress
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on it.
No presence of firearm residue.
No trace of rifle oil.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.
--------------------------
I am not sure what Crispy's paws have got to do with the above. Mind you Bamber did suggest Crispy fired the second shot.
It was impossible for Sheila to have fired 26 bullets & reloaded twice, and then be free of the above 20 things.
Sheila was also not injured, unlike Nevill, after a brutal kitchen fight.
-
Both hands and feet were covered with plastic bags at the crime scene.
Hands
Perfectly clean.
One blood mark on back of hand.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.
Finger nails
Well manicured.
Not broken.
Nails in tact.
Fingers
No marks or indentations.
No blood on finger tips.
No dirt on finger tips.
No powder on finger tips.
No trace of any lead dust coating.
No traces of the lubricant from handling a lot of bullets.
Feet
Perfectly clean.
Free from blood staining.
No debris such as sugar.
No mention of foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.
Nightdress
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on it.
No presence of firearm residue.
No trace of rifle oil.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.
--------------------------
I am not sure what Crispy's paws have got to do with the above. Mind you Bamber did suggest Crispy fired the second shot.
It was impossible for Sheila to have fired 26 bullets & reloaded twice, and then be free of the above 20 things.
Sheila was also not injured, unlike Nevill, after a brutal kitchen fight.
All entirely consistent with overall soc and SC responsible hence the most senior officer at soc Chief Sup George Harris signed the scene off as murder/suicide.
-
The court of appeal made 20 points of evidence showing that Sheila had not fired a rifle.
It was impossible for Sheila to put herself in this condition. Both while alive as it was not simply a case of having that 'mysterious' shower. And certainly she was not able to remove all evidence off her, after killing herself.
A submitted counter argument today is that the Court of Appeal judgement was in 2002 !!!! ????
Having examined the evidence I totally agree, Sheila never fired any weapon. By attempting to implicate her Jeremy Bamber shot himself in the foot.
-
The rifle was discharged a total of 25 or 26 times (debatable whether June sustained an 8th graze only wound hence 25/26). SC was found in a room where the rifle had been discharged numerous times. Whether SC took her own life or JB murdered her the rifle was fired twice over her body. The rifle was found resting over SC's nightdress/person with her hand and fingers in contact with the rifle. Therefore if there was any gun oil or GSR present it begs the question why it wasn't found?
SC's forehead was swabbed to check for the presence of lead (I assume in GSR?). When SC sustained her 2 gsw's The muzzle of the rifle (or silencer) was clearly far closer to her forehead than when the muzzle of the rifle (or silencer) was directed at victims and yet no lead (in GSR?) detected.
If the tests results showed low levels of lead (in GSR) compatible with SC being in an environment where a firearm had been discharged numerous times and twice over her body then I could maybe understand the argument but as it stands I don't understand at all.
Whether SC was perp or victim some lead in GSR should have been detected if the tests were carried out properly.
These are complex issues and I don't believe EP and FSS had the wherewithal to deal with it.
I haven't seen anything from the manufacturers confirming the materials used.
Adam the COA doc makes no reference to GSR? There are various tests used to check for the presence of GSR are you able to identify which one was used?
-
Having examined the evidence I totally agree, Sheila never fired any weapon. By attempting to implicate her Jeremy Bamber shot himself in the foot.
Yet it has been repeatedly pointed out the only moving part was light footed Sheila as she went her executing way. 3 sleepers, one surprised as he came up the stairs.
-
A supporter has continuously agreed that the mountain of forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle is correct. So much so that she gave a reason why the evidence says this - Sheila changed & had a shower.
When it was pointed out a shower/change would not remove evidence on Sheila & she could not do this after killing herself, the supporter refused to change stance or support Mike's or Sherlock's suggestions. Saying that "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself".
Agreeing with the forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle, then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself" is an appalling contradiction & grossly unfair on an innocent Sheila.
-
A supporter has continuously agreed that the mountain of forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle is correct. So much so that she gave a reason why the evidence says this - Sheila changed & had a shower.
When it was pointed out a shower/change would not remove evidence on Sheila & she could not do this after killing herself, the supporter refused to change stance or support Mike's or Sherlock's suggestions. Saying that "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself".
Agreeing with the forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle, then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself" is an appalling contradiction & grossly unfair on an innocent Sheila.
Any sort of "ritual cleanse" and/or changing into a clean nightdress makes no sense in terms of an absence of gsr/gun oil as it doesn't account for the fact two shots were fired over SC's body whilst the rifle was in very close proximity to SC's body. The rifle was found resting on SC's person/nightdress with her hand/fingers resting on the rifle. According to FSS tests carried out concluded the following:
51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
Adam I've uploaded a forensic textbook. Chapter 12 deals with 'Detection of Gunshot Residues'. By the mid-80' there were 3 generally accepted methods of analysing GSR:
- neutron activation
- flameless atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS)
- scanning electon microscope energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry (SEM-EDX)
Have you any idea if the method used in the WHF case was one of the above? If so which one? If not one of the above do you know which method was used?
-
Any sort of "ritual cleanse" and/or changing into a clean nightdress makes no sense in terms of an absence of gsr/gun oil as it doesn't account for the fact two shots were fired over SC's body whilst the rifle was in very close proximity to SC's body. The rifle was found resting on SC's person/nightdress with her hand/fingers resting on the rifle. According to FSS tests carried out concluded the following:
51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
Adam I've uploaded a forensic textbook. Chapter 12 deals with 'Detection of Gunshot Residues'. By the mid-80' there were 3 generally accepted methods of analysing GSR:
- neutron activation
- flameless atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS)
- scanning electon microscope energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry (SEM-EDX)
Have you any idea if the method used in the WHF case was one of the above? If so which one? If not one of the above do you know which method was used?
Adam I'm struggling to upload the forensic text book I mentioned above. I will continue with my endeavours. Otherwise you may need to pop round so we can go through it together. I see from your forum profile you are 19 years of age. I'm not sure if that's current or when you joined. In any event I like young men very much 8(0(*
-
Adam I'm struggling to upload the forensic text book I mentioned above. I will continue with my endeavours. Otherwise you may need to pop round so we can go through it together. I see from your forum profile you are 19 years of age. I'm not sure if that's current or when you joined. In any event I like young men very much 8(0(*
The "1" is a mistake, it should be a "7". Adam mistyped it..... intentionally!
-
Any sort of "ritual cleanse" and/or changing into a clean nightdress makes no sense in terms of an absence of gsr/gun oil as it doesn't account for the fact two shots were fired over SC's body whilst the rifle was in very close proximity to SC's body. The rifle was found resting on SC's person/nightdress with her hand/fingers resting on the rifle. According to FSS tests carried out concluded the following:
51. Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
Adam I've uploaded a forensic textbook. Chapter 12 deals with 'Detection of Gunshot Residues'. By the mid-80' there were 3 generally accepted methods of analysing GSR:
- neutron activation
- flameless atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS)
- scanning electon microscope energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry (SEM-EDX)
Have you any idea if the method used in the WHF case was one of the above? If so which one? If not one of the above do you know which method was used?
Well done Holly for clarifying a simple error the guilters make, using shoddy forensics to prove Sheila never had the rifle any where near her, BUT SHE DID. 8(>((
-
Well done Holly for clarifying a simple error the guilters make, using shoddy forensics to prove Sheila never had the rifle any where near her, BUT SHE DID. 8(>((
As far as I'm aware, none of the guilters here are blind. It would therefore be incredulously stupid of them to suggest "Sheila never had the rifle anywhere near her" when there are pictures to the contrary.
-
I believe Samson is referring to her using the rifle when it is obvious she didn't. This was Bamber's last port of call, to blame Sheila for everything that happened, but nobody is falling for it. What a waste!!
-
I believe Samson is referring to her using the rifle when it is obvious she didn't. This was Bamber's last port of call, to blame Sheila for everything that happened, but nobody is falling for it. What a waste!!
Thank you for clarifying that, A.222. Samson obviously isn't entirely au fait with our phraseology 8(0(*
-
Thank you for clarifying that, A.222. Samson obviously isn't entirely au fait with our phraseology 8(0(*
I have never understood how anyone can persist with the silly notion that JB is innocent to the extent some do by ignoring the very straightforward evidence. You don't have to be Sherlock to see what happened at WHF.
-
I have never understood how anyone can persist with the silly notion that JB is innocent to the extent some do by ignoring the very straightforward evidence. You don't have to be Sherlock to see what happened at WHF.
You may not know that I was once convinced of his innocence. I confess to still having very rare moments of questioning my belief in his guilt now that I've changed sides. However, what brings me back to reality is the thought of him idling his way through a phone book, at silly o'clock, to look up local police stations after his father had allegedly called him to say that Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun. Not satisfied with that, he calls his girlfriend before he speaks to the police.
-
I have never understood how anyone can persist with the silly notion that JB is innocent to the extent some do by ignoring the very straightforward evidence. You don't have to be Sherlock to see what happened at WHF.
I don't consider the evidence very straightforward. To my mind it is extremely complex, but that's my mind!
-
You may not know that I was once convinced of his innocence. I confess to still having very rare moments of questioning my belief in his guilt now that I've changed sides. However, what brings me back to reality is the thought of him idling his way through a phone book, at silly o'clock, to look up local police stations after his father had allegedly called him to say that Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun. Not satisfied with that, he calls his girlfriend before he speaks to the police.
Exactly. And also the fact he left the gun out after rabbit shoot minus silencer, blood is found in the silencer indicating silencer used in murders. so not only did Sheila have a nice bubble bath before her suicide to wash the debris off her, she also kindly put the silencer back in the gun cupboard located at the opposite end of the house (and different floor) from where she was found, before shooting herself in the neck TWICE. It appears that after "going crazy and getting the gun" she found the composure to try and frame Jeremy for the murders otherwise why else clean up after her?
Plus this feeble individual who couldn't drink a cup of water without using both hands, or put one arm out without having to put the other arm out in the other direction to steady herself is supposed to have loosed off 25 out of 26 shots on target with a gun never used before, and battered her strong fit father into unconsciousness after a prolonged life and death struggle in the kitchen. No comparison can be drawn with Tracie Andrews there.
I'm sorry for me this isn't complex it Is a straightforward open and shut case which the jury got right first time round in 1986, and everything that has happened in the intervening 32 years has only served to strengthen the case against him. A case based on a veritable mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence.
-
You may not know that I was once convinced of his innocence. I confess to still having very rare moments of questioning my belief in his guilt now that I've changed sides. However, what brings me back to reality is the thought of him idling his way through a phone book, at silly o'clock, to look up local police stations after his father had allegedly called him to say that Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun. Not satisfied with that, he calls his girlfriend before he speaks to the police.
This is just the worst type of reason to change sides April.
20/20 hindsight is employed here. You can only imagine one universe, that where there are 5 bodies, but everything you describe is before he knew anything happened.
This explains all the oddities. He knows Sheila is a nutbar, but not a killer.
As has often been pointed out at a sane forum like IA, the best strategy for a guilty Bamber is to lie low till normal farm time, turn up, call the cops and say,
Look at this, that crazy sister of mine has finally cracked and killed them all. After all, Taff Jones decided that was what had happened immediately. All the ideas Bamber would add a complex portfolio of moving parts with phone calls and so on is ridiculous.
In fact I will start a thread so we can discuss this. Not right now, but when I have thought it through more thoroughly.
-
This is just the worst type of reason to change sides April.
20/20 hindsight is employed here. You can only imagine one universe, that where there are 5 bodies, but everything you describe is before he knew anything happened.
This explains all the oddities. He knows Sheila is a nutbar, but not a killer.
As has often been pointed out at a sane forum like IA, the best strategy for a guilty Bamber is to lie low till normal farm time, turn up, call the cops and say,
Look at this, that crazy sister of mine has finally cracked and killed them all. After all, Taff Jones decided that was what had happened immediately. All the ideas Bamber would add a complex portfolio of moving parts with phone calls and so on is ridiculous.
In fact I will start a thread so we can discuss this. Not right now, but when I have thought it through more thoroughly.
Samson old boy, I think you are correct and that was his plan up until the point where things started to go awry, i.e having to shoot Sheila a second time and the climactic battle with Nevill in the kitchen.
My view is that he then changed tack and realised the importance of police hearing his version of events first, and not Mrs Wilson's.
Out of interest I am assuming here that Mrs Wilson would have been the first to discover the bodies had police not been called at 03:30? but then again it was a sunday morning perhaps I am wrong and Mrs Wilson wasn't going to WHF that day..
-
I don't consider the evidence very straightforward. To my mind it is extremely complex, but that's my mind!
I think anyone holding onto that faint glimmer of belief in his innocence will struggle to make sense of it. Had there really been a phone call from Nevill, speedy Gonzales would have been down at the farm within 5 minutes. As it was he took his time, even taking time to casually telephone Julie with the news, then trot off at snails pace down to the farm stopping along the way to put on a jumper while the police zoom past him. All very convenient and all so predictably stupid.
In my view, the only reason some police were wrong footed in the beginning was because they couldn't accept that Jeremy was in any way capable of such a dreadful deed.
-
I think anyone holding onto that faint glimmer of belief in his innocence will struggle to make sense of it. Had there really been a phone call from Nevill, speedy Gonzales would have been down at the farm within 5 minutes. As it was he took his time, even taking time to casually telephone Julie with the news, then trot off at snails pace down to the farm stopping along the way to put on a jumper while the police zoom past him. All very convenient and all so predictably stupid.
In my view, the only reason some police were wrong footed in the beginning was because they couldn't accept that Jeremy was in any way capable of such a dreadful deed.
Well as I said recently I give little weight to the phone calls, lay witness testimony and JB's behaviour pre and post tragedy. Instead I prefer to ponder the aspects that have some basis in science: attachment theory, blood/silencer and SoC. To my mind these aspects are not straightforward.
-
How anyone who has even a loose grasp of the facts of the Bamber case can believe him innocent remains quite beyond my comprehension. None of Jeremy's remaining family or old friends doubt his guilt; nor do any of the police or judges who have been involved in the case.
Jeremy himself kindly proved beyond any doubt that either he or Sheila committed the murders as it is quite impossible that Sheila neither could of or would have murdered her adored twins and her parents it has to have been Jeremy.
Is it not extremely arrogant for any Bamber not guilty exponent to presume they know better than JB's and Sheila's remaining family members and every officer, judge and the CCRC directly involved in the case and the jury that convicted him?
-
How anyone who has even a loose grasp of the facts of the Bamber case can believe him innocent remains quite beyond my comprehension. None of Jeremy's remaining family or old friends doubt his guilt; nor do any of the police or judges who have been involved in the case.
Jeremy himself kindly proved beyond any doubt that either he or Sheila committed the murders as it is quite impossible that Sheila neither could of or would have murdered her adored twins and her parents it has to have been Jeremy.
Is it not extremely arrogant for any Bamber not guilty exponent to presume they know better than JB's and Sheila's remaining family members and every officer, judge and the CCRC directly involved in the case and the jury that convicted him?
There are probably a dozen individuals in those organizations you mention that know Jeremy is innocent. The ramifications that would result from them admitting to it would be incredible.
-
How anyone who has even a loose grasp of the facts of the Bamber case can believe him innocent remains quite beyond my comprehension. None of Jeremy's remaining family or old friends doubt his guilt; nor do any of the police or judges who have been involved in the case.
Jeremy himself kindly proved beyond any doubt that either he or Sheila committed the murders as it is quite impossible that Sheila neither could of or would have murdered her adored twins and her parents it has to have been Jeremy.
Is it not extremely arrogant for any Bamber not guilty exponent to presume they know better than JB's and Sheila's remaining family members and every officer, judge and the CCRC directly involved in the case and the jury that convicted him?
No in a nutshell!
The case involved little known about phenomena:
- attachment theory
- ballistics
- blood stain analysis
- pathology of gunshot wounds
There's no evidence to date these issues have been properly addressed. 1985/86 was effectively the dark ages for such matters. In the absence of proper information the void has been filled with a lot of hot air!
-
It's surprising that even after a hard day on a tractor how much energy one can sum up to murder your family, especially when half a million quid is there to be grabbed for nothing.
Bamber was driven by greed for gain and I find it astonishing that so many are thick and gullible enough not to see through the fog of lies he created. APRIL and Caroline have certainly turned for the better, and it's pity others can't do the same.
-
It's surprising that even after a hard day on a tractor how much energy one can sum up to murder your family, especially when half a million quid is there to be grabbed for nothing.
Bamber was driven by greed for gain and I find it astonishing that so many are thick and gullible enough not to see through the fog of lies he created. APRIL and Caroline have certainly turned for the better, and it's pity others can't do the same.
Jilted?
-
Jilted?
Jilted or 1/2 a million quid? Which is the bigger motive? &%+((£
-
Jilted or 1/2 a million quid? Which is the bigger motive? &%+((£
The money motive is assembled for luminaries like David Bain and Mark Lundy. Amanda Knox is a ring in with the jealousy, beauty and popularity motive.
All have in common with Jeremy Bamber the abilty to come and go from the scene with no forensic attachment, and great alibis.
Can't you all see it?
-
David I thought there was a thread for the so-called hit man 'Matthew MacDonald' but it appears not. Anyway save starting a new thread, as it's probably not that important, I thought I would say I want to about it here!
I know you have said previously the relatives brought a 'Matthew' into the investigation and re-reading AE's COLP WS's again I noticed a 'Mathew Hampton'?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3594
-
There are probably a dozen individuals in those organizations you mention that know Jeremy is innocent. The ramifications that would result from them admitting to it would be incredible.
You can't possibly know that so your comment is just hot air. The CCRC usually just give their decision and reasoning but don't often comment on cases; for The CCRC to state the more they review the Bamber case, the more utterly convinced they are of his guilt is pretty damning in my eyes.
Even the two jurors who voted to acquit Jeremy can't be assumed to believe he is innocent. Chances are they considered themselves not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt ..... idiots!
It amazes me that Jeremy literally has no one from his family or youth supporting him but still attracts on line fans who refuse to see the blindingly obvious. Sheila couldn't have done it ergo Jeremy has to be guilty.
-
You can't possibly know that so your comment is just hot air. The CCRC usually just give their decision and reasoning but don't often comment on cases; for The CCRC to state the more they review the Bamber case, the more utterly convinced they are of his guilt is pretty damning in my eyes.
Even the two jurors who voted to acquit Jeremy can't be assumed to believe he is innocent. Chances are they considered themselves not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt ..... idiots!
It amazes me that Jeremy literally has no one from his family or youth supporting him but still attracts on line fans who refuse to see the blindingly obvious. Sheila couldn't have done it ergo Jeremy has to be guilty.
I find it telling -VERY telling- that there was NO ONE from his school/college/various jobs who came forward on his behalf. I refuse to accept the b--l---ks offered that such were prevented from giving evidence. I'm inclined to believe that to be the excuse given for the fact that no one offered. I do, naturally, accept that being unpopular doesn't make him a murderer.
-
FAO ADAM
Adam I know you like to highlight JB's claims that Crispy may have inflicted SC's second gsw and I just thought I would highlight that maybe the claim is not as ridiculous as it sounds! Read in the DM yesterday about a farmer killed by his tractor where it is thought his Jack Russell released the handbrake.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170606/281814283831762
-
David I thought there was a thread for the so-called hit man 'Matthew MacDonald' but it appears not. Anyway save starting a new thread, as it's probably not that important, I thought I would say I want to about it here!
I know you have said previously the relatives brought a 'Matthew' into the investigation and re-reading AE's COLP WS's again I noticed a 'Mathew Hampton'?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3594
They didn't mention a Matthew. they mentioned the name McDonald but just made a mistake. They were talking about the letters Jeremy received from Scotland I think the sender was called 'McTavish'? They simply got the name wrong and David has taken that, dragged it out of proportion and is peddling the idea that the hit man story came from RB. With this in mind, EP then adopted this idea (without and good reason) and made Julie recount t in a statement even though it was only Bamber they wanted to lock up. Yes, all as clear as mud @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
They didn't mention a Matthew. they mentioned the name McDonald but just made a mistake. They were talking about the letters Jeremy received from Scotland I think the sender was called 'McTavish'? They simply got the name wrong and David has taken that, dragged it out of proportion and is peddling the idea that the hit man story came from RB. With this in mind, EP then adopted this idea (without and good reason) and made Julie recount t in a statement even though it was only Bamber they wanted to lock up. Yes, all as clear as mud @)(++(* @)(++(*
Oh right, I don't really know anything about this. But I recently re-read AE's COLP WS's and stumbled across a 'Mathew Hampton' along with mention of the police and JM:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3594
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3596
-
FAO ADAM
Adam I know you like to highlight JB's claims that Crispy may have inflicted SC's second gsw and I just thought I would highlight that maybe the claim is not as ridiculous as it sounds! Read in the DM yesterday about a farmer killed by his tractor where it is thought his Jack Russell released the handbrake.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170606/281814283831762
OMG...I've heard it all now...Crispy done it! @)(++(*
(http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Henry-Repeating-Arms-.30-30-and-minitaure-schnauzer-courtesy-The-Truth-About-Guns-675x900.jpg)
-
David I thought there was a thread for the so-called hit man 'Matthew MacDonald' but it appears not. Anyway save starting a new thread, as it's probably not that important, I thought I would say I want to about it here!
I know you have said previously the relatives brought a 'Matthew' into the investigation and re-reading AE's COLP WS's again I noticed a 'Mathew Hampton'?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3594
I have attached it in this post.
It was first argued that it cannot be Mathew Mcdonald because there was a mysterious 'other Mcdonald' with no forename or any documents showing him to exist.
(https://s11.postimg.org/6gqs93ulv/lying2.jpg)
It seems Caroline has now admitted there is no other Mcdonald. Thus it can only be Mathew Mcdonald. She now claims they brought up the wrong name. The wrong name of a person who just so happens to spread rumors of being a mercenary. It just so happens to be brought up by someone who is suspicious of Jeremy lending someone £2000. Miraculously by the same people who where given false information about the crime scene. Then by astounding coincidence would be verbatim of Jeremy's alleged confessions to Julie involving paying Mathew Mcdonald £2000.
hmmmm... &%+((£
-
There are probably a dozen individuals in those organizations you mention that know Jeremy is innocent. The ramifications that would result from them admitting to it would be incredible.
I think they would be extremely foolish to do so given the evidence in the case.
It doesn't take much to work out that Jeremy Bamber had to distance himself tout de suite from any involvement in the murders and McDonald was a suitable patsy. He must have had a right laugh after filling Julie's head with tales of mercenaries and paying two grand to have five people bumped off. The poor girl swallowed it, hook line and sinker.
-
OMG...I've heard it all now...Crispy done it! @)(++(*
(http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Henry-Repeating-Arms-.30-30-and-minitaure-schnauzer-courtesy-The-Truth-About-Guns-675x900.jpg)
That's it then... case solved after all these years! You can tell a psychopathic schnauzer (or shih tzu) by his evil penetrating stare!
-
I have no idea whether or not JB is guilty or innocent: I am gradually learning more about the case, but am still very much "on the fence".
However, I don't think it is arrogant to believe him innocent. His family members had a motive for wanting him found guilty: they got the inheritance, did they not? And, from what I have read, I don't like some of them any more than I like JB. Also, I don't have any great faith in Julie Mugford. As for the police, jury, lawyers, etc, well, I wouldn't like to comment.
I don't believe Sheila would have wanted to kill her twins------but then, Sheila was far from well.
-
Obviously I can't help gloating at the prospect of the execrable kitty heels being bundled from Tory leadership on the back of her profoundly arrogant and disastrous foray into power mongering.
Her handling of Bamber alone makes this moment sweet.
(I have saved this post for my own enjoyment later, since it may have a short half life here).
-
Here endeth the political broadcast on behalf of the Samsonite Party... case closed. With a bit of luck we'll get a Labour Home Sec. who'll give even less of a damn about Bamber than May did.
-
I have no idea whether or not JB is guilty or innocent: I am gradually learning more about the case, but am still very much "on the fence".
However, I don't think it is arrogant to believe him innocent. His family members had a motive for wanting him found guilty: they got the inheritance, did they not? And, from what I have read, I don't like some of them any more than I like JB. Also, I don't have any great faith in Julie Mugford. As for the police, jury, lawyers, etc, well, I wouldn't like to comment.
I don't believe Sheila would have wanted to kill her twins------but then, Sheila was far from well.
You need a gentle push off that fence in the guilty direction, mrswah.
To take one example... the rifle scope. To kill any rabbit instantly and therefore humanely from a distance requires an accurate head shot using a telescopic sight, yet none was attached to the rifle on the 7th August, when it had been only a week before, as was witnessed by Anthony Pargeter. The scope was found packed into its polystyrene case, salted away at the back of the gun cupboard, and was detached for one reason only... to make the rifle more manouverable in the confines of a bedroom and enable easier firing at close range with shots to the victims' heads.
Bamber told a pack of lies, all designed to implicate his poorly sister - leaving the rifle out in plain sight so that "Sheila must have seen it as a sign"; emphasizing the loading of a magazine side on to her the night before so that "Sheila had a good view of what I was doing"; the nonsense of his scaremongering to the police before they entered that "Sheila was a psychopath, and had used all the firearms in the house before", when patently she had never done so. Then he overegged the pudding with his fake alibi of the phony phone call to put four miles distance between him and the farm when the incident took place. Muddying the waters about the time and order of his calls to Julie Mugford and the police, when these should have been clear in his mind even four weeks after such a life-changing event. Police found 30 unused bullets on the kitchen worktop, out of a box of 50 which Bamber said he had emptied out to load the magazine the night before. Twenty-five bullets had been fired, so there should have been the same amount left on the worktop... yet when questioned, Bamber had no answer to this simple five extra bullets conundrum, just a "No Comment".
That should be enough to be going on with.
-
You need a gentle push off that fence in the guilty direction, mrswah.
To take one example... the rifle scope. To kill any rabbit instantly and therefore humanely from a distance requires an accurate head shot using a telescopic sight, yet none was attached to the rifle on the 7th August, when it had been only a week before, as was witnessed by Anthony Pargeter. The scope was found packed into its polystyrene case, salted away at the back of the gun cupboard, and was detached for one reason only... to make the rifle more manouverable in the confines of a bedroom and enable easier firing at close range with shots to the victims' heads.
Bamber told a pack of lies, all designed to implicate his poorly sister - leaving the rifle out in plain sight so that "Sheila must have seen it as a sign"; emphasizing the loading of a magazine side on to her the night before so that "Sheila had a good view of what I was doing"; the nonsense of his scaremongering to the police before they entered that "Sheila was a psychopath, and had used all the firearms in the house before", when patently she had never done so. Then he overegged the pudding with his fake alibi of the phony phone call to put four miles distance between him and the farm when the incident took place. Muddying the waters about the time and order of his calls to Julie Mugford and the police, when these should have been clear in his mind even four weeks after such a life-changing event. Police found 30 unused bullets on the kitchen worktop, out of a box of 50 which Bamber said he had emptied out to load the magazine the night before. Twenty-five bullets had been fired, so there should have been the same amount left on the worktop... yet when questioned, Bamber had no answer to this simple five extra bullets conundrum, just a "No Comment".
That should be enough to be going on with.
Don't take any notice of Myster, mrswah.
He is a young and inexperienced commentator.
The cases that resemble Bamber are legion, and I suggest you read widely to understand what a straightforward replica miscarriage this case is. If you are interested I will list a great reading list that will render you competent with minimal effort.
-
Don't take any notice of Myster, mrswah.
He is a young and inexperienced commentator.
The cases that resemble Bamber are legion, and I suggest you read widely to understand what a straightforward replica miscarriage this case is. If you are interested I will list a great reading list that will render you competent with minimal effort.
Young?!!!! Thanks for the compliment! 8((()*/ Just off to swig a few bottles of Phyllosan. 8(8-))
-
Young?!!!! Thanks for the compliment! 8((()*/ Just off to swig a few bottles of Phyllosan. 8(8-))
Actually I don't recall exactly why I concluded you are younger than me.
I hope you are for sake of pending longevity. ?{)(**
-
Actually I don't recall exactly why I concluded you are younger than me.
I hope you are for sake of pending longevity. ?{)(**
I dare say I am far older than both of you!!!
I would appreciate that reading list, Samson. Thank you.
-
You need a gentle push off that fence in the guilty direction, mrswah.
To take one example... the rifle scope. To kill any rabbit instantly and therefore humanely from a distance requires an accurate head shot using a telescopic sight, yet none was attached to the rifle on the 7th August, when it had been only a week before, as was witnessed by Anthony Pargeter. The scope was found packed into its polystyrene case, salted away at the back of the gun cupboard, and was detached for one reason only... to make the rifle more manouverable in the confines of a bedroom and enable easier firing at close range with shots to the victims' heads.
Here is footage of a guy shooting rabbits with no scope. So how many members of his family has he massacred?
https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s (https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s)
Bamber told a pack of lies, all designed to implicate his poorly sister - leaving the rifle out in plain sight so that "Sheila must have seen it as a sign"; emphasizing the loading of a magazine side on to her the night before so that "Sheila had a good view of what I was doing"; the nonsense of his scaremongering to the police before they entered that "Sheila was a psychopath, and had used all the firearms in the house before", when patently she had never done so. Then he overegged the pudding with his fake alibi of the phony phone call to put four miles distance between him and the farm when the incident took place. Muddying the waters about the time and order of his calls to Julie Mugford and the police, when these should have been clear in his mind even four weeks after such a life-changing event. Police found 30 unused bullets on the kitchen worktop, out of a box of 50 which Bamber said he had emptied out to load the magazine the night before. Twenty-five bullets had been fired, so there should have been the same amount left on the worktop... yet when questioned, Bamber had no answer to this simple five extra bullets conundrum, just a "No Comment".
In order to construct a case you need draw an inference/chain of reasoning from facts. What you are doing here is drawing an inference/chain of reasoning from your own assumptions or suspicions. In the end, it proves nothing.
-
Here is footage of a guy shooting rabbits with no scope. So how many members of his family has he massacred?
https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s (https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s)
In order to construct a case you need draw an inference/chain of reasoning from facts. What you are doing here is drawing an inference/chain of reasoning from your own assumptions or suspicions. In the end, it proves nothing.
Did you notice the word 'humanely' in Myster's post? If he'd had sights on the rifle, he might have gotten a head shot and not had to shoot the poor thing TWICE!
-
I dare say I am far older than both of you!!!
I would appreciate that reading list, Samson. Thank you.
Interesting notion mrswah
In my somewhat brief foray into discussing subjects on the internet, I have generally discovered that participants are not that youthful.
The particular books I recommend are
Life after Death by Damien Echolls
Missing Pieces by Ian Wishart
The Final Chapter by Chris Birt.
Scene of the Crime by Steve Braunias.
Principal Suspect by Coustopolis
Trial by Ambush by Joe Karam
Meticulous or Ridiculous by Geoff Levick. (I can email you this to any address, it is live and describes the greatest miscarriage of justice in New Zealand history, we are deconstructing it with an appeal hearing in Wellington in late October).
Jeremy Bamber did not do the crime discussed here, I promise you.
There are others like Full Circle describing how Gloria Killian was kidnapped and the astronauts mum was activist, Piggyback by Geoffry Jean Doty explaining the Maria Riddulph miscarriage, there are many.
Addictive.
Steven Avery did not kill Teresa Hallbach but R Hillegas did. Brendan Dassey is captive like Jessie Misskelly and Teina Pora before him.
-
Here is footage of a guy shooting rabbits with no scope. So how many members of his family has he massacred?
https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s (https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s)
Most farmers I know don't bother with telescopic sights for shooting rabbits. The reason given is that if the rabbits are so far out telescopic sights are required it is unlikely they would be spotted in the first place being hidden in grass etc. Rifles have a built in sight of sorts. See parts 1,2, 3 and 5. This ties in with JB's WS where he refers to standard ball and V:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1266
I guess this is the reason telescopic sights are sold as an accessory and not as standard.
Nothing remotely out of the ordinary with JB taking the rifle without scope and silencer to shoot bunnies around the yard.
-
Here is footage of a guy shooting rabbits with no scope. So how many members of his family has he massacred?
https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s (https://youtu.be/Soe-jhZhp_I?t=1m48s)
In order to construct a case you need draw an inference/chain of reasoning from facts. What you are doing here is drawing an inference/chain of reasoning from your own assumptions or suspicions. In the end, it proves nothing.
The collective untruths prove a damn sight more than your mysterious new evidence which you bragged would stimulate debate but had no intention of revealing, and was nothing more than a load of bluster and hot air.
I find it extremely suspicious and telling that the new scope just happened to have been removed and hidden such a short time before the murders. There's no indication in your video link either of how far the shooter was from the rabbit, but this is how it should be done.
https://youtu.be/O0MGKMjKusQ?t=3m10s (https://youtu.be/O0MGKMjKusQ?t=3m10s)
-
The collective untruths prove a damn sight more than your mysterious new evidence which you bragged would stimulate debate but had no intention of revealing, and was nothing more than a load of bluster and hot air.
I find it extremely suspicious and telling that the new scope just happened to have been removed and hidden such a short time before the murders. There's no indication in your video link either of how far the shooter was from the rabbit, but this is how it should be done.
https://youtu.be/O0MGKMjKusQ?t=3m10s (https://youtu.be/O0MGKMjKusQ?t=3m10s)
So easy to diss a serious case analyst like David1819 with no evidence to contradict.
Pathetic and against the intent of this forum to establish the science that describes the crime scene.
-
Most farmers I know don't bother with telescopic sights for shooting rabbits. The reason given is that if the rabbits are so far out telescopic sights are required it is unlikely they would be spotted in the first place being hidden in grass etc. Rifles have a built in sight of sorts. See parts 1,2, 3 and 5. This ties in with JB's WS where he refers to standard ball and V:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1266 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1266)
I guess this is the reason telescopic sights are sold as an accessory and not as standard.
Nothing remotely out of the ordinary with JB taking the rifle without scope and silencer to shoot bunnies around the yard.
Bamber's sights were fixed to the rifle by the gunsmith, so not extra, and there's no evidence that they had been detached since they were bought until shortly before the murders. Once removed they're also a pain and time-consuming to zero in again, having had experience of exactly the same Nikko-Stirling model myself.
-
So easy to diss a serious case analyst like David1819 with no evidence to contradict.
Pathetic and against the intent of this forum to establish the science that describes the crime scene.
There's no evidence either in his secret theory to contradict because he refuses to discuss it. Like the Emperor's new clothes, crowds gathered, admired and applauded, then sauntered off disappointed and disillusioned because there was only minor appendage to see.
-
There's no evidence either in his secret theory to contradict because he refuses to discuss it. Like the Emperor's new clothes, crowds gathered, admired and applauded, then sauntered off disappointed and disillusioned because there was only minor appendage to see.
David 1819 is by far the most serious case analyst I have had the pleasure to follow since Holly Goodhead is by far the most serious case analyst I have had the pleasure to follow.
Thank you David and Holly for your work.
Nostalgia-NZ has been banned here, but is a key player in the Lundy hoax, who will be released.
-
Bamber's sights were fixed to the rifle by the gunsmith, so not extra, and there's no evidence that they had been detached since they were bought until shortly before the murders. Once removed they're also a pain and time-consuming to zero in again, having had experience of exactly the same Nikko-Stirling model myself.
The Anshutz rifle was purchased and owned by NB as licence holder along with the Nikko telescopic sight and Parker Hale silencer. The telescopic sights and silencer being optional extras. JB thought the gunsmith set the sights for 200 yards. If the rifle was as good as uselss without the telescopic sight then surely Anshutz would build in as standard at the factory?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=531.0;attach=1673
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1270
The fact Anthony Pargeter claimed he saw the rifle a week of so before the murders with sights and silencer attached is surely neither here nor there? JB said the rifle would not fit in its case with the silencer on. AP also said the rilfe looked new and was unmarked. How long would it stay in this condition if it was left hanging about uncased?
The rifle has a built in sight as per my post above and this is more than sufficient for shooting vermin visible around the yard. In this vid the famer talks about shooting jackdaws at 35 and 47 yards using a range finder to gauge the distance. If a farmer needs telescopic sights for these sorts of distances I would recommend a visit to Specsavers or a change of career forthwith!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hazYkd9hlT8
-
As posted above the Anshutz rifle comes factory fitted with iron sights aka open sights. When the rifle was purchased NB also purchased a telescopic sight. The following vid discusses the advanatages/disadvantages of iron sights v telescopic sights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOWQ-TF6SGg
Even if AP was correct in his recollection that the telescopic sights were fitted to the rifle when he visited WHF on w/e of 27th/28th Jul, some 10 days before the murders, I really don't understand why this is deemed relevant?
-
Did you notice the word 'humanely' in Myster's post? If he'd had sights on the rifle, he might have gotten a head shot and not had to shoot the poor thing TWICE!
The Anshutz rifle comes factory fitted with iron sights which are more than adequate for shooting bunnies around the yard. See parts 1 - 5 in the following:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8100.0;attach=9254
-
Bah Lydia doesn't need a scope for 250 yards plus *&*%£
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX2pcF3i4tE
-
The Anshutz rifle comes factory fitted with iron sights which are more than adequate for shooting bunnies around the yard. See parts 1 - 5 in the following:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8100.0;attach=9254
There's also a factory fitted rear sight too. See parts 6 and 7:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8100.0;attach=9254
-
The Anshutz rifle was purchased and owned by NB as licence holder along with the Nikko telescopic sight and Parker Hale silencer. The telescopic sights and silencer being optional extras. JB thought the gunsmith set the sights for 200 yards. If the rifle was as good as uselss without the telescopic sight then surely Anshutz would build in as standard at the factory?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=531.0;attach=1673 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=531.0;attach=1673)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1270 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1270)
The fact Anthony Pargeter claimed he saw the rifle a week of so before the murders with sights and silencer attached is surely neither here nor there? JB said the rifle would not fit in its case with the silencer on. AP also said the rilfe looked new and was unmarked. How long would it stay in this condition if it was left hanging about uncased?
The rifle has a built in sight as per my post above and this is more than sufficient for shooting vermin visible around the yard. In this vid the famer talks about shooting jackdaws at 35 and 47 yards using a range finder to gauge the distance. If a farmer needs telescopic sights for these sorts of distances I would recommend a visit to Specsavers or a change of career forthwith!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hazYkd9hlT8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hazYkd9hlT8)
Jeremy Bamber claimed the rifle was his, and if it had been set for a 200 yard range when bought, then that's an awfully long way just to shoot rabbits in the WHF back yard. So presumably it was on for 9 months coming to no harm and serving its proper purpose, distance shooting in the fields, then all of a sudden relegated to the back of a cupboard?
Back in 1985 there were few weapons manufacturers fitting telescopic sights... Eley didn't, because it was a specialised field best left to optical manufacturers and buyers to decide which was best for them.
The rifle was left hanging about... remember Nevill's - "Best not make it too easy for the next generation to follow" - remark to his brother-in-law. He sussed out what could and did happen.
-
As posted above the Anshutz rifle comes factory fitted with iron sights aka open sights. When the rifle was purchased NB also purchased a telescopic sight. The following vid discusses the advanatages/disadvantages of iron sights v telescopic sights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOWQ-TF6SGg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOWQ-TF6SGg)
Even if AP was correct in his recollection that the telescopic sights were fitted to the rifle when he visited WHF on w/e of 27th/28th Jul, some 10 days before the murders, I really don't understand why this is deemed relevant?
Pointless and useless video! He managed only two out ten on target with the default fixed sights!!!... and hadn't even bothered to adjust or zero-in the telescopic.
It's relevant because the plan was to kill all the family at close range within the confined space of a bedroom and an attached sight would hinder that.
-
Bah Lydia doesn't need a scope for 250 yards plus *&*%£
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX2pcF3i4tE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX2pcF3i4tE)
What do they say about golf - A good spoil walked?
-
David 1819 is by far the most serious case analyst I have had the pleasure to follow since Holly Goodhead is by far the most serious case analyst I have had the pleasure to follow.
Thank you David and Holly for your work.
Nostalgia-NZ has been banned here, but is a key player in the Lundy hoax, who will be released.
Think you need to get things into perspective mate!
-
Jeremy Bamber claimed the rifle was his, and if it had been set for a 200 yard range when bought, then that's an awfully long way just to shoot rabbits in the WHF back yard. So presumably it was on for 9 months coming to no harm and serving its proper purpose, distance shooting in the fields, then all of a sudden relegated to the back of a cupboard?
Back in 1985 there were few weapons manufacturers fitting telescopic sights...Eley didn't, because it was a specialised field best left to optical manufacturers and buyers to decide which was best for them.
The rifle was left hanging about... remember Nevill's - "Best not make it too easy for the next generation to follow" - remark to his brother-in-law. He sussed out what could and did happen.
Where does JB say the rifle was his? We don't know the reason NB purchased the rifle. Once a scope is sighted-in adjustments will need to be made by the shooter dependant on the target. We don't know whether the scope was usually on or off. The fact AP claimed he saw it on one w/e in July 1985 means squat. Why not ask others eg the housekeeper, Jean Boutell, or farm worker Len Foakes who were present inside and outside the farm several times a week. Even if it was usually on its hardly compelling evidence of anything?
If NB feared he was going to be shot I am surprised he didn't take more care with his firearms and store them in a proper gun cupboard.
-
Pointless and useless video! He managed only two out ten on target with the default fixed sights!!!... and hadn't even bothered to adjust or zero-in the telescopic.
It's relevant because the plan was to kill all the family at close range within the confined space of a bedroom and an attached sight would hinder that.
How would the attached sight be a hindrance but not the silencer which would extend the length of the rifle by some 7"?
-
Think you need to get things into perspective mate!
What do you think of our signature tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9gKyRmic20
?>)()<
-
Where does JB say the rifle was his? We don't know the reason NB purchased the rifle. Once a scope is sighted-in adjustments will need to be made by the shooter dependant on the target. We don't know whether the scope was usually on or off. The fact AP claimed he saw it on one w/e in July 1985 means squat. Why not ask others eg the housekeeper, Jean Boutell, or farm worker Len Foakes who were present inside and outside the farm several times a week. Even if it was usually on its hardly compelling evidence of anything?
If NB feared he was going to be shot I am surprised he didn't take more care with his firearms and store them in a proper gun cupboard.
In a police interview or statement, can't be bothered searching it out right now, but trust me.
The rifle?... a pre-Christmas present, as a substitute for the repeater shotgun which he queried the Eatons about and they pooh-poohed.
Once zeroed-in, only little adjustment is necessary by turning the focusing ring.
Even Nevill would find it hard to believe that his son was hatching a plan to shoot him, which is why he was tardy in storing any weapons away.
-
What do you think of our signature tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9gKyRmic20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9gKyRmic20)
?>)()<
The song's good, but the message rank when applied to this case, even thirty years later...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9VMgTWEEIA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9VMgTWEEIA)
-
The song's good, but the message rank when applied to this case, even thirty years later...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9VMgTWEEIA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9VMgTWEEIA)
"Don't dream it's over" that's good enough for me!
It was released in '86, year of JB's trial, and Neil Finn is a Kiwi. Hence I've chosen it as our sig tune!
Love Miley Cyrus' voice:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9LiI6poe3QE
-
"Don't dream it's over" that's good enough for me!
It was released in '86, year of JB's trial, and Neil Finn is a Kiwi. Hence I've chosen it as our sig tune!
Love Miley Cyrus' voice:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9LiI6poe3QE (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9LiI6poe3QE)
Yes, I know... that's why I said thirty years later, but unfortunate that NF is from NZ.
-
FAO ADAM
Adam I know you like to highlight JB's claims that Crispy may have inflicted SC's second gsw and I just thought I would highlight that maybe the claim is not as ridiculous as it sounds! Read in the DM yesterday about a farmer killed by his tractor where it is thought his Jack Russell released the handbrake.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170606/281814283831762
Bamber wanted Crispy put down as he didn't want him 'messing up his stereo equipment'.
Seems that the stereo messing Crispy was also treacherous & could have fired the second shot.
Although Bamber also said Nevill may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone to him when questioned about Sheila's two shots. He never said who 'she' could have been.
-
Bamber wanted Crispy put down as he didn't want him 'messing up his stereo equipment'.
Seems that the stereo messing Crispy was also treacherous & could have fired the second shot.
Although Bamber also said Nevill may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone to him when questioned about Sheila's two shots. He never said who 'she' could have been.
Sheila's biological, maternal, dementia suffering grandmother, smuggled out of her nursing home, in the dead of night, by Christine, Sheila's biological mother, and driven into darkest Essex in order for her to see the sons of the 'baby' she forced Christine to give up for adoption. *&*%£
-
"Don't dream it's over" that's good enough for me!
It was released in '86, year of JB's trial, and Neil Finn is a Kiwi. Hence I've chosen it as our sig tune!
Love Miley Cyrus' voice:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9LiI6poe3QE
Good song but this one is an horrendous version. %56&
-
Does MC still poke out her fungus-coated, nicotine-stained lollicker... or has she grown out of it? &%+((£
-
Does MC still poke out her fungus-coated, nicotine-stained lollicker... or has she grown out of it? &%+((£
Ooh er. She did look a bit rank at that Manchester concert. A good stiff yardbroom and some Jeyes fluid would sort her out.
Anyhoo. The good news is that I've planted my sprouts, to ensure supreme mushiness in time for Christmas. And the better news is that Bamber will leave prison in a cheap box, just like Brady. 8((()*/
(I've also planted some Bellis, to cover up all the bald bits between the sprouts. 8)-))))
There'll be hell toupee if they don't come up. ?8)@)-)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFZsunzjDXU
Why don't artists write/sing aobut normal stuff like drinking Tescos finest? Who drinks lilac wine?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFZsunzjDXU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFZsunzjDXU)
Why don't artists write/sing aobut normal stuff like drinking Tescos finest? Who drinks lilac wine?
Why don't immature, two-bit warblers sing their own compositions instead of pinching other people's classics?... talk about money for old rope!
-
Why don't immature, two-bit warblers sing their own compositions instead of pinching other people's classics?... talk about money for old rope!
She's not a patch on the Elkie Brooks version.
-
She's not a patch on the Elkie Brooks version.
.....or Jeff Buckley's.
-
She's not a patch on the Elkie Brooks version.
You want Elkie?... you got Elkie! In 1977 (aged 32) and not a stray lollicker in sight!...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0RfTsZvk4M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0RfTsZvk4M)
Or a 2015 version (aged 70). Think she sings less harshly and better in this version than she did when younger. Maybe 'Sanatogen Tonic Wine' would be more appropriate now, but a bit too long to fit the lyric...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK5iIwxM5MI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK5iIwxM5MI)
-
You want Elkie?... you got Elkie! In 1977 (aged 32) and not a stray lollicker in sight!...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0RfTsZvk4M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0RfTsZvk4M)
Or a 2015 version (aged 70). Think she sings less harshly and better in this version than she did when younger. Maybe 'Sanatogen Tonic Wine' would be more appropriate now, but a bit too long to fit the lyric...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK5iIwxM5MI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK5iIwxM5MI)
Brilliant! Spine tingling! Mind blowing! O******c!!!!!!! You're right about the latter version. There's a wealth of life experience in it that the earlier one lacks.
-
Interesting notion mrswah
In my somewhat brief foray into discussing subjects on the internet, I have generally discovered that participants are not that youthful.
The particular books I recommend are
Life after Death by Damien Echolls
Missing Pieces by Ian Wishart
The Final Chapter by Chris Birt.
Scene of the Crime by Steve Braunias.
Principal Suspect by Coustopolis
Trial by Ambush by Joe Karam
Meticulous or Ridiculous by Geoff Levick. (I can email you this to any address, it is live and describes the greatest miscarriage of justice in New Zealand history, we are deconstructing it with an appeal hearing in Wellington in late October).
Jeremy Bamber did not do the crime discussed here, I promise you.
There are others like Full Circle describing how Gloria Killian was kidnapped and the astronauts mum was activist, Piggyback by Geoffry Jean Doty explaining the Maria Riddulph miscarriage, there are many.
Addictive.
Steven Avery did not kill Teresa Hallbach but R Hillegas did. Brendan Dassey is captive like Jessie Misskelly and Teina Pora before him.
You should be careful about posting that Ryan H is a killer such can constitute defamation. Steven Avery most certainly killed Halbach.
Zellner's motion contains speculation built upon so many lies that it is astounding. She lies as much as Mike which is quite bad considering lawyers have an ethical duty of candor towards tribunals and adversaries.
-
You should be careful about posting that Ryan H is a killer such can constitute defamation. Steven Avery most certainly killed Halbach.
Zellner's motion contains speculation built upon so many lies that it is astounding. She lies as much as Mike which is quite bad considering lawyers have an ethical duty of candor towards tribunals and adversaries.
I have also spent hours on the Avery case including reading Jeremy Buting's book Illusion of Justice.
Defence attorneys write books when their client is innocent, not when they have argued reasonable doubt, and said oh well we did our best. It is in fact extremely unusual for defence attorneys to proclaim innocence. This is the case in the Mark Lundy case in New Zealand, where David Hislop Ross Burns and Julie Kincaide all declared their client factually innocent after he was called legally guilty by a jury. The defence attorneys are correct, and in October this will be seen in the high court at appeal. I know a great deal about what is happening in that case, including conclusive new evidence not in the public domain, but the case is now international as the prosecutors will find to their eternal shame.. It is also no casual observation Zellner makes when stating Ryan Hillegas killed Teresa, and that is not defamation in the USA or she would not have placed it on the public record. She cites compelling inferences that can bed made, read the 200 pages already out of her 1200 page filing. Like Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy, Steve has a cast iron alibi in the matter of phone calls from his property he made when Teresa was already visiting Hillegas.
I am happy to debate with facts till the cows come home.
On Bamber, I would refer you to MikeG's best attempt, as architectural draughtsman, to get bullets in the correct flesh trajectory, to Nevill while still in the bedroom. Mike is a bright guy, but seems unwilling to concede he proved it was impossible for Nevill to be shot inside the bedroom. This is all on the IA thread.
-
I have also spent hours on the Avery case including reading Jeremy Buting's book Illusion of Justice.
Defence attorneys write books when their client is innocent, not when they have argued reasonable doubt, and said oh well we did our best. It is in fact extremely unusual for defence attorneys to proclaim innocence.
Believing someone is innocent because their attorney claims it is silly. Their attorney is a paid advocate. OJ Simpson's lawyers publicly said he was innocent even as they privately admitted his guilt.
A defense lawyer is in no stronger a position to evaluate guilt or innocence than any other informed people and are biased instead of being objective. What matters is the basis of their beliefs and their beliefs are based on nonsense and their allegations of evidence being planted are absurd.
It is also no casual observation Zellner makes when stating Ryan Hillegas killed Teresa, and that is not defamation in the USA or she would not have placed it on the public record. She cites compelling inferences that can bed made, read the 200 pages already out of her 1200 page filing.
It's not compelling to anyone who is objective and informed. The brief is full of lies and absurd allegations that make no sense and that legally can't be made even if there were a retrial.
All she did was take wild allegations made up by people who decided they want to argue Avery is innocent and spend day after day making up wild nonsense claims. Adopting their fairytales harms her credibility severely. It basically would be like a lawyer going to the blue forum and adopting wild crap Mike makes up.
Under the Denny case in order to accuse a third party at a Wisconsin trial the defense must have the following:
1) evidence of a credible motive
2) evidence of opportunity
3) evidence of means
4) something to establish a link between the death and the person beyond simply speculation.
I. Motive
Hillegas dated the victim in high school and they broke up during their freshman year of college when she was 19, she was 25 when killed so dated others for years after they broke up. He had no delusions that she wasn't dating others.
Zellner lied to try to establish a plausible motive. She alleged that:
1) Hillegas was trying to date the victim again (there is no evidence of this she made it up)
2) That the victim was having a sexual relationship with her roommate around the time of her death
3) That he found out that the victim was sleeping with her roommate and became jealous because he wanted her so fought with her on October 31 over this and killed her thus didn't want
There is no evidence that Hillegas was trying to get her back or wanted her back. That was entirely made up speculation on her part. So even if there were a retrial there is no admissible evidence that could be used to get this allegation before the jury. Worse still there was no evidence of a then current sexual relationship with her roommate. A man who allegedly had a sexual relationship with her in the past alleged that well before the murder she had admitted she slept with her roommate a few times but regretted it and was just platonic around the time of her death. Emails sent out shortly before her death indicated she felt her roommate was a pig, couldn't stand him and was glad she barely saw him because their schedules didn't align. Even if the man's allegations are true that she slept with him a few times many months before her murder and regretted it that fails to establish any ongoing sexual relationship for Hillegas to be jealous of.
Another lie she told was that Hillegas had an on again off again relationship with her that was abusive. There was no evidence of them dating after they broke up their freshman year of college so no evidence of an on again off again relationship. Nor is there evidence of any abuse. Tom Pearce told police she told him she was in an abusive relationship her senior year of college and when she was interning. She was not dating Hillegas her senior year of college the person being referred to can't be Hillegas. Zellner ignored such and lied because she had nothing legitimate to raise. So she pretended that Hillegas was dating her their senior year of college when it was her senior year of high school. To try to get away with the farce she said senior year without specifying college or high school.
So her speculation as to motive entirely flopped and is proven nonsense.
II. Opportunity
There is no evidence that supports Halbach left the Avery property alive let alone went home, that Hillegas visited her as soon as she got home and he then killed her. She simply alleges Halbach left without providing any evidence beyond Steven Avery's self serving claims. Steven Avery now claims she arrived at 2:31, took the photos, he walked to her vehicle, paid her at her vehicle, gave him the materials and left in a matter of 3 minutes and was already gone by 2:35 and that he called her at 2:35 to ask her to return. This is contradicted by logic, witness testimony and it also differs from what he told police back in 2005. His own nephew said that he saw her walking to Avery's trailer and that Avery didn't walk to her vehicle as he claimed. His nephew said he saw her taking photos around 2:45 and that her vehicle was still there around 2:50 when he left.
The defense needs evidence that establishes she left and went home but has none. Zellner tried to deflect from these deficiencies by concentrating entirely on Hillegas and lied saying he had no alibi and could not account for what he did. The evidence she cited for such simply said police didn't ask him to prove what he was doing that week. Indeed during his trial testimony he detailed what he did on the day she was reported missing and the next few days after that. Even if true that police didn't ask that doesn't mean he could not detail what he did. But he would only have a need to account for what he did if the defense can first establish she left and went home and establish that Hillegas was there.
Nor does the defense have any evidence to support opportunity or means to plant evidence. The defense hilariously lied about Hillegas having unfettered access to the property while police were processing it. Friends of the victim including Hillegas were allowed to search the areas adjacent to Avery Salvage they were not permitted on Avery Salvage. Even if he had been allowed on Avery Salvage the notion he was transporting burned human bones and burned property and planting same while police were there collecting evidence and walking around with K9 dogs is ridiculous. Only people who are too biased to be rational/realistic would consider such even remotely possible.
III & IV Means plus something more
The defense completely ignored the evidence that proved the victim was shot at least 2 times in the head. There is no evidence of Hillegas having access to a gun. The defense speculated the victim was hit over the head and strangled. It is not speculation but proven fact that the victim was shot at least 2 times in the head. It makes no difference whether those 2 shots killed her or they were fired to make sure she was dead, they exist. The defense ignored this issue because there was no material to even try distorting to pretend he had a gun.
They allege Hillegas burned her body and property but have no evidence of Hillegas having any fires anywhere. In contrast Steven Avery had fires on the very day she visited and in the ashes of those fires were found her remains and the charred remnants of her clothing and belongings. Before such burned evidence was found Avery was expressly asked multiple times to describe what he did that day and he left out the fires which was the thing he did for the longest period of time so it is not credible he innocently forgot. In his last interview with police he was expressly asked the last time he had any fires and he lied saying a week prior to Halbach's visit. The defense can't find anything even remotely similar against Hillegas.
In one news video it appears Hillegas has something on his hands but it is much too unclear to tell. Avery apologists speculated that they were scratches. These marks are not visible in other video and he drew on his hands so it could be ink in addition to just being grainy video. zellner got an expert to look at the grainy video and he decided the marks were scratches though no reputable scientist woudl make such an assessment from such video. worse still he assessed the marks were consistent with scratches from fingernails. At the end of the day this is just speculation that is no more useful than speculation from Sutherst about the mantle.
Even if he had scratches on his hands that alone would not establish his as a suspect anyway but they don't even have any proof he had scratches.
The defense found nothing that would permit them accusing Hillegas in a court and should have redacted his name in the court filings. He has a strong case for defamation if he chooses to sue.
I could spend all day tearing apart the lies and nonsense the defense resorted to and why such crap has no ability at all to undermine Avery's conviction. The evidence conclusively proves Avery's guilt those who doubt his guilt do so not because of any flaws in the evidence but rather because they are ignorant of the facts and evidence or if fully informed then because of their own mental makeup prevents them from being rational and objective.
I posted a summary of the evidence against Avery in the off topic section it is not yet approved but once it is I welcome you to read it and debate the case there.
Like Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy, Steve has a cast iron alibi in the matter of phone calls from his property he made when Teresa was already visiting Hillegas.
Avery had no phone alibi that helps him. He didn't use his phone during the time police say the crime was committed. He didn't use his phone between 2:35 and 4:35 and his claim of why he made the 4:35 call to Halbach makes zero sense.
Jeremy's claims about the phone don't help him either they hurt him severely establishing him as a liar. There is no proof that Nevill called him as he claimed. That is not airtight in any objective sense.
Lundy's call was not at the time of the murder so can't prove him innocent and provide an ironclad alibi. If they were killed too soon after the call for him to be able to get there to commit the crimes because he was too far away THEN it would provide an ironclad alibi.
I am happy to debate with facts till the cows come home.
On Bamber, I would refer you to MikeG's best attempt, as architectural draughtsman, to get bullets in the correct flesh trajectory, to Nevill while still in the bedroom. Mike is a bright guy, but seems unwilling to concede he proved it was impossible for Nevill to be shot inside the bedroom. This is all on the IA thread.
It is quite possible for him to have been shot in the bedroom but it is not possible to be shot and yet bullets or casings to get outside the bedroom unless moved by a human.
-
Lundy and Avery have no Alibi's
From the time and location of Lundy's whereabouts you can infer a speedy getaway.
Avery is the last known person to see the victim alive. The latest evidence shows it was former boyfriend that led investigators to Hallbacs car. Which is interesting but it's certainly not going to prove he killed her.
-
Lundy and Avery have no Alibi's
From the time and location of Lundy's whereabouts you can infer a speedy getaway.
Avery is the last known person to see the victim alive. The latest evidence shows it was former boyfriend that led investigators to Hallbacs car. Which is interesting but it's certainly not going to prove he killed her.
Pam and Nicole Sturm found the vehicle and notified police about such.
Avery's lawyer made unsupported 2 mutually exclusive allegations 1) that Hillegas (her boyfriend from high school and part of her freshman year of college) hid it and told the Sturms where to find it 2) that police found it themselves and told the Strums where to find it. These allegations are not new they were the product of people who decided Avery is innocent and spend day in and day out making up new allegation they can think up. That she takes such wild speculation and advances it without any evidentiary support says much about just how desperate his defense attorney is. If she had anything valid she would not need to resort to tripe like that.
Avery's lawyer has also made up the allegation that Mrs. Zipperer was the last person to see Halbach alive. His lawyer alleges Halbach's last appointment was with Zipperer and that a host of people lied (including numerous police, Mrs Zipperer and Avery's nephew Bobby). She alleges that Zipperer and police lied about what the answering machine message Halbach left stated. She alleges the message stated Halbach was going to the Avery appointment first and all those who listened to the message concealed this. She has no evidence she just made the claim up from thin air. Naturally such an allegation without any evidence is worthless.
His lawyer is appearing in MAM2 and doing this to get as much publicity as she can get. Her claims have no chance in hell in court they seem aimed at fooling the ignorant and weak minded who already support Avery.
She even had him attest to a pack of new lies in an affidavit. Those lies lack credibility but can't be even evaluated since he would obviously have known them at the time of his trial and should have raised his claims then.
One of the lies is especially stupid- he claims his toothbrush was not in any of the crime scene photos and must have been stolen by police. One of the trial exhibits features said toothbrush his lawyer either didn't even look at the exhibits or knew it was a lie but hoped no one else would notice. The nonsense going on is the most pathetic thing ever and taking away from actual injustices:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-206-bathroom-sink.jpg
-
It is quite possible for him to have been shot in the bedroom but it is not possible to be shot and yet bullets or casings to get outside the bedroom unless moved by a human.
Scip i have done some painstaking 3D reconstruction efforts on this particular area. The dimensions are all based on the police diagrams. This demonstrates the shots trajectories and the shell casings. All meshing in conformity to the evidence. While doing this, i could not think of a plausible way for how Nevill could get that shoulder shot while in the bedroom.
(http://imgur.com/CGCOvJs.gif)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Those images fail to take into account the shooting that police suggest. The shooter at the foot of the bed and Nevill either sitting up in bed or actually turned and sitting on the bed getting up. All 4 shots to his left side are possible to be inflicted with him in such position and the shooter at the foot of the bed.
-
David's magical side ejecting & bouncing casings are not the only magical things from that rifle.
The bullets were not bad either. All hitting a moving Nevill from several feet away. Twice in the face. Although the evidence states the two face shots were from inches away.
-
Lundy and Avery have no Alibi's
From the time and location of Lundy's whereabouts you can infer a speedy getaway.
Avery is the last known person to see the victim alive. The latest evidence shows it was former boyfriend that led investigators to Hallbacs car. Which is interesting but it's certainly not going to prove he killed her.
Lundy Avery and Bamber have complete alibis and forensically clean presentations after the crimes done by others.
Lundy is easy to deal with.
The prosecution alleged in court that he could cover about 490 kilometers with 58 liters of petrol, 60 km of casual driving, 2 careful journeys of 150 kms, and one 130 km journey at 100 kms per hour average which included multiple traffic lights and built up areas. Race track tests show the car capable of consuming greater than 30 liters per 100.
I will not be tedious with the maths but that is a complete alibi
UNLESS the crown alleges he refueled with hidden jerry cans. They have not done so in any court proceeding so are not allowed to at appeal. The panel will have to state in writing that he did so at appeal, and they will not because it is unlawful to do so.
That is the most straightforward layman's alibi but like Bamber he was not at the crime scene for multiple forensic reasons. I can say that unknown male dna was found under the fingernails of the victim, and that the autopsy describes multiple DEFENSIVE wounds sustained by the victim. foreign dna under fingernails disappears fast with normal hygiene. Normal hygiene is precluded by death.
Avery made a 15 minute phone call, pedantic and loving to Jodi in jail at 5 pm.
HOW?
You can not remove flesh from bones in a fire pit, you attain only a charred corpse.
5 tyres steel belts were recovered, one with embedded bone material. 5 tyres are obviously woefully inadequate fuel, but this is only one certain plank that exonerates Avery. I will deal with Scipio's authoritarian concoction at great length when I have time.
-
Avery made a 15 minute phone call, pedantic and loving to Jodi in jail at 5 pm.
HOW?
You can not remove flesh from bones in a fire pit, you attain only a charred corpse.
How does speaking to her on the phone around 5PM provide an alibi for killing her between 2:45-4pm?
As for pit fires they will indeed burn away flesh especially when fed by 10 plus tires.
-
How does speaking to her on the phone around 5PM provide an alibi for killing her between 2:45-4pm?
As for pit fires they will indeed burn away flesh especially when fed by 10 plus tires.
I guess we can both agree if Bamber and Avery are innocent evidence was planted in both cases.
Do you have an Avery link that develops your theory? Have you read Zellner's first 200 pages? I am genuinely interested.
-
There would have to be an industrial scale planting of evidence. As my recent thread has shown.
Mike has suggested the police shot Sheila. Then carried her from the bed to the floor. Putting the bible onto Sheila's blood after it had dripped onto the carpet. This being done before the photograoher arrived.
Mike's theory would also explain how Sheila's legs were pulled on the carpet after the second shot. Unfortunately it seems Mike is not going to release his picture of Sheila on the bed.
Bamber has accused the relatives, but not the police of fabricating the silencer. Altnough the relatives could not have achived this without a lot of police assistance.
The 360 campaign was set up several months ago to go through every piece of evidence at trial. Requesting £6,000 in donations. There has been no feedback from them.
-
I guess we can both agree if Bamber and Avery are innocent evidence was planted in both cases.
Do you have an Avery link that develops your theory? Have you read Zellner's first 200 pages? I am genuinely interested.
Yes I read it and the exhibits that is how I know she distorted so much. She took supposition from experts and then misrepresented what they said because their supposition was not strong enough. She also grossly misrepresented various facts of the case. She provided very little legal analysis basically ignoring the legal issues that matter tremendously. As you know from the Bamber case you need new science or things that could not have reasonably been known previously in order to be able to raise it on appeal. Moreover, in Wisconsin, if such things were known at the time of a prior appeal you need to establish good cause for not raising such at the prior appeal. Avery already filed a post conviction motion, it should have included everything arguable and he needs good cause for not including anything she is raising now. She didn't go through each thing she is arguing establishing good cause because she can't. That's fatal to most of the arguments she is making, there is no reason to even get to the merits and she knows it which is why I believe she just made the arguments for the sake of MAM2. It provides material for MAM2 (or MAM3) plus she wants people to watch her in MAM2 and beyond only if she filed this would many continue to believe Avery is innocent and watch it and continue to follow her unprofessional tweets.
Her garbage is worthless on the merits as well.
She has nothing that under the Denny line of cases would permit her accusing Hillegas in court. She claims she met Denny but failed to actually discuss the caselaw in detail and explain how the things she came up with met it. She even factually distorted tremendously lying about him being a recent boyfriend, they broke up when they were freshman in college, and she thus misrepresented him as the abusive boyfriend that she had as a college senior though it wasn't. She also misrepresented that the victim and her roommate were currently involved in a sexual relationship though it was in the past. This is important because she claimed Hillegas was jealous of their current relationship and fought with her and killed her over it because he wanted her back. There is no evidence he wanted her back, that was also simply wild speculation. He didn't own a gun and there was nothing to actually tie him to the crime that would meet Denny which is why she avoided discussing it in detail like required. She knows she will lose but just wanted to get this crap out there in a filing where she is protected from defamation. She never spoke to the family to find out if they did in fact tell Hillegas that the light on Halbach's vehicle was damaged prior to her going missing. They simply branded him a liar by going to the insurance company to ask if she filed a claim back in 2005. They said they had no record of it which is different from she didn't do it. The retention record policy of companies is usually 12 years so they already would have been destroyed, especially since she died. Moreover, the family could have been in error and thought she filed a claim though she didn't. The important issue is whether it was damaged and the family told Hillegas such. She never even investigated that. The defense at trial could have asked the victim's mother and brother if it was damaged prior but chose not to. The damage was irrelevant. Even if made by the killer while parking the vehicle on the Avery lot it would fail to prove who the killer was.
Some things she argues are so stupid it boggles the mind. For instance lying about Hillegas being on the very property with police and suggesting that he planted the human remains around a big dog right under their noses. Did he hide the remains in his pants pocket? In the meantime he wasn't allowed on the Avery lot he was searching with other civilians in areas adjacent to the Avery property. Which leads to one of the dumbest things of all that she argued. Someone who was part of the Hillegas search group wrote Kiligus group on a map (of an area outside of the Avery property) because he misheard the name. She alleged that Hillegas was using the fake name Kiligus to conceal he was part of that search. The only thing that group found was a condom wrapper that wound up being no use to the investigation. Making up such stupid things tremendously undermines her credibility.
Her allegation that Avery left blood in his sink because he was running late and didn't have time to turn the tap on, that within minutes of leaving Hillegas ran in his trailer with a dropper and sucked up the blood to plant in Halbach's vehicle to frame him is truly absurd. To say Avery noticed the blood missing and knew it was used to frame him but his lawyers refused to argue it and committed malpractice is even more absurd. Hoping to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for not making this allegation at trial is frankly a joke.
The claims about the bullets are just as bad. She lied about what the prosecution argued to create a strawman argument and then to say that the strawman argument was refuted. She did this because the expert failed to refute what was actually argued at trial.
She lied and said that at trial the prosecution argued the 2 bullets found in the garage exited Halbach's skull. She further said her experts proved that the bullet with Halbach's DNA on it could not have exited her skull because no bone was found embedded and it would have been if it exited her skull.
The prosecution argued that she was shot at least 2 times in the head and likely shot many more times given the large number of spent casings. They argued the bullet with her DNA either grazed or exited her (that is the only way her DNA would get on it) but there was no way to tell what part of the body suffered such wound since her body was destroyed. From the Bamber case you can see how with an intact body all wounds can be observed and recorded.
Her expert's opinion was shaky and not proven to be scientifically valid. His testing simply proved that bone could be embedded not that it will always be embedded in a bullet fragment that goes through bone. It would take far more advanced testing to prove bone will always be embedded. Moreover, the expert failed to do testing of the exact wash the lab used on the bullet. It would take extensive testing to prove that the exact wash under no circumstances will wash away bone particles. Doing limited testing of different chemicals than those used fails to establish anything. But even if such were proven that bone particles would have to be present on a bullet fragment when a bullet passes through bone such would be worthless to Avery. All that would prove is that the bullet didn't pass through bone, the bullet still could have grazed her or passed through soft tissue. The failure to find bone would not be able to prove the bullet didn't strike her which is what matters.
The expert also claimed that the crime lab put some kind of sticky material on the bullet fragment to make it easier to grasp and stuck to this material was wood dust and other particles. If true that such substance was placed there by the lab then that means any tiny particles adhering to it got there after the crime. Zellner made various arguments about these particles that are totally invalid since they can't have gotten there until after the lab placed the material on the bullet fragment.
Every argument she makes repeats the pattern of these. She distorts what the evidence she has proves and makes up some ridiculous claim of how the trial defense was inept for not advancing the bogus argument she had conjured up.
She also had Avery sign an affidavit with numerous bogus claims. For instance he now claims he gave Dawn his own address though the address Dawn recorded on the sheet was Barb Janda's address. They allege Dawn altered this later and lied to make it appear Avery was pretending to be Janda. This is all crap that she knows it is too late to try arguing but wants the public to believe this nonsense even as it will fail in court.
He also claimed in his affidavit that Johnson fired his gun into gopher holes near the garage and bullets and casings sometimes got in the garage. How could he have witnessed that when he was in jail the entire time that Johnson lived on the property? Well before he got out of jail Johnson moved out. In fact, Johnson said he last fired anything there in 1999. She knew his claim didn't belong in the affidavit and that it would not be used in court she just put it there for propaganda purposes. She should have known about the trial exhibit photo showing his toothbrush. Either she is extremely inept or dishonest and hoped no one would actually look at the photos to see that Avery lied about his toothbrush being stolen before the photos were taken. This was another argument worthless in court but used for propaganda purposes.
His most significant claim was that he witnesses Wiegert pocket a groin swab. This was used to allege that Wiegert held on to it for months and replaced the hood swab with the groin swab. He didn't make any such claim to his trial lawyers. This was something recently thought up. He should have raised it prior if hea really observed such. The lab received the hood swab sealed there was no evidence that Wiegert cut open the bag and resealed it. Only the delusional would believe this nonsense.
Her experts admitted that the amount of touch DNA left on object varies widely. There is no way to quantify how much will be left. None can be left, a tiny amount or an amount that is small but still quite significant. This right there ends the ability to say the amount of DNA found on the key was too much to be touch DNA. They did worthless testing (allegedly) having Avery hold the key for 12 minutes. Then they looked at the amount of DNA on it and said that the amount found on the key by the lab was much more so it must have been planted. The killer didn't just hold the key one time. The kill touched the key, then put it in an ignition and turned it rubbing it hard not just holding it. The killer also turned the ignition off. We don't know how many times the killer did this. The killer was most likely sweating whereas Avery was not when in jail just holding it. He eventually held it while walking all the way back to his trailer and touched it inside his trailer who knows how many times. There is no way to assess how much DNA would get on it under those circumstances. The scientific rule is that the amount of DNA left varies widely from nonsense to a significant amount and her experts failed miserably at establishing the amount was too much to be touch DNA. Worse still, it didn't have to be touch DNA only. It could have been blood, saliva, touch DNA or a mixture of all 3. She alleged that her expert did testing that proved the DNA on the key was not blood or saliva based. Her expert did no such testing the following was an out and out lie on her part:
"Dr. Reich has determined that the source of the DNA on the key, Item C, was not blood...Dr. Reich determined that the DNA extracted from the swab of the Toyota sub-key came from skin cells of Mr. Avery."
The brain fingerprinting is so ridiculous I can't believe she even claimed that. Worse still she said that Avery's prior appellate counsel was negligent for not using it in his prior appeal and her proof that the technology existed at the time of his prior appeal is a letter from a prisoner telling Avery to get brain fingerprinting done. That letter shows the convict didn't even know what he was talking about he claimed it was a new form of DNA. So wee have another lie from her, par for the course...
The remainder of her claims were simply unsupported speculation (and out and out lies) that fails to prove he is innocent and provides no basis to vacate his conviction.
I knew she would not be able to come up with anything but the brief was far worse than I even anticipated.
Since I spent months studying all the evidence in this case I recognize many lies that the public wouldn't which is what she is banking on.
Since we are getting away form making comparisons to Bamber and getting into specifics I think it is best to continue the discussion here, the mods have approved it:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8315.0
Anything in particular in the brief you want to discuss with specificity or any facts you want to discuss in specificity I am willing address.
A comparison of what Zellner did to this case would be a lawyer reading all the crap on blue, asking the public to send in any suggestions and then taking all that crap and putting it in a brief requesting an appeal on the basis of such speculation and then the lawyer doing a television series about it.
-
Thank you, will read and respond.....
-
Lundy Avery and Bamber have complete alibis and forensically clean presentations after the crimes done by others.
Lundy is easy to deal with.
The prosecution alleged in court that he could cover about 490 kilometers with 58 liters of petrol, 60 km of casual driving, 2 careful journeys of 150 kms, and one 130 km journey at 100 kms per hour average which included multiple traffic lights and built up areas. Race track tests show the car capable of consuming greater than 30 liters per 100.
I will not be tedious with the maths but that is a complete alibi
UNLESS the crown alleges he refueled with hidden jerry cans. They have not done so in any court proceeding so are not allowed to at appeal. The panel will have to state in writing that he did so at appeal, and they will not because it is unlawful to do so.
That is the most straightforward layman's alibi but like Bamber he was not at the crime scene for multiple forensic reasons. I can say that unknown male dna was found under the fingernails of the victim, and that the autopsy describes multiple DEFENSIVE wounds sustained by the victim. foreign dna under fingernails disappears fast with normal hygiene. Normal hygiene is precluded by death.
Avery made a 15 minute phone call, pedantic and loving to Jodi in jail at 5 pm.
HOW?
You can not remove flesh from bones in a fire pit, you attain only a charred corpse.
5 tyres steel belts were recovered, one with embedded bone material. 5 tyres are obviously woefully inadequate fuel, but this is only one certain plank that exonerates Avery. I will deal with Scipio's authoritarian concoction at great length when I have time.
Bamber doesn't have an alibi, he has a story that only a dead man can verify and Sheila was forensically clean - no trace of any other victims blood was found on her. Bamber had time to clean himself up.
-
Bamber doesn't have an alibi, he has a story that only a dead man can verify and Sheila was forensically clean - no trace of any other victims blood was found on her. Bamber had time to clean himself up.
What we do not know is what evidence was keenly sought from Sheila. The good man Taff Jones resolved the crime immediately. It walked looked and quacked like a duck.
-
What we do not know is what evidence was keenly sought from Sheila. The good man Taff Jones resolved the crime immediately. It walked looked and quacked like a duck.
Resolving it without getting all the evidence was not wise. That is what Jeremy hoped for though. It was hardly the first and won't be the last where police believed something staged to look like a suicide (or accident) was a suicide (accident) but later it was proven a murder (sometimes more than a year later). Luckily in this case it didn't take a year to realize the truth.
-
Resolving it without getting all the evidence was not wise. That is what Jeremy hoped for though. It was hardly the first and won't be the last where police believed something staged to look like a suicide (or accident) was a suicide (accident) but later it was proven a murder (sometimes more than a year later). Luckily in this case it didn't take a year to realize the truth.
The crime's that have been committed here is forged evidence and perjury. It has gone largely unnoticed and without retribution for nearly 32 years.
-
The crime's that have been committed here is forged evidence and perjury. It has gone largely unnoticed and without retribution for nearly 32 years.
Total bollox!... continue living in your own little fantasy world.
It's going to be another glorious sweltering hot day and far too enjoyable to waste on the likes of Bamber.
-
What we do not know is what evidence was keenly sought from Sheila. The good man Taff Jones resolved the crime immediately. It walked looked and quacked like a duck.
But was actually .......... a goose! @)(++(*