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: adam on June 10, 2017, 10:51:37 AM
-
Although Julie and the relatives get a lot of attention regarding this case, they had virtually no influence in what forensic evidence the courts received.
Julie had no influence on any forensic evidence the courts have ever received.
The submitted forensic crime scene evidence would have to all be totally wrong for Bamber to be innocent. It would not possible for so many huge mistakes to be made by so many qualified people.
The only explanation is if experts, professors & police officers all worked together to create false information. Writing up false reports, documents & witness statements.
Is it feasible that respected and law abiding professionals & relatives of the deceased would all work together to create at least 50 pieces of false forensic evidence for the courts ?
26
-
Below is a list of some of the forensic evidence which has been released pre trial, pre appeals and online. Over half is in the 522 point 2002 Court of Appeal document.
A lot of it is not disputed by both guiters and supporters although Mike has today disputed each point.
I have asked individually both Mike & David if all the released forensic evidence is wrong, does that mean it was all made up by dozens of people to frame Bamber. But got no confirmation from them or anyone else that this is what happened.
-----------------
Perfectly clean hands on Sheila.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.
Well manicured nails on Sheila.
Not broken.
Nails in tact.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers.
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 re loading twice.
Perfectly clean feet.
Feet free from blood staining.
No debris such as sugar on feet
No mention of foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.
Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.
Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.
Paint in silencer.
Blood in silencer.
No blood in the rifle end.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible.
Effects of Haloperidol.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.
Sheila under sedation.
Easy window entrance into WHF.
Shutting kitchen window from outside.
Murder weapon options.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.
Items around the kitchen window being moved.
Bike route to WHF.
Bike at Bamber's cottage.
June not waking/getting shot in bed.
Nevill's back burns.
2012 CCRC court judgement.
The twins not waking.
Bamber's call to the police.
Nevill's injuries
Sheila's time limits.
No valid Sheila scenario.
-
What cannot be disputed is everything above has been released as forensic evidence. The options are then -
1: Everything is wrong through innocent human error.
2: Everything is wrong due to unprecedented large scale deliberate falseification.
3: Everything is correct.
4: Some of the above is correct. A small amount may be open to challenge due to human error or individual interppretation.
____________
I'm sure everyone will rule out option 1 for so many pieces of evidence.
So far no one has supported option 2 although Mike has disputed every point.
Option 3 & 4 are the most plausible and show 100% that Bamber is guilty. Unless people switch to the 3rd party options suggested by Mike & Sherlock.
-
Although Julie and the relatives get a lot of attention regarding this case, they had virtually no influence in what forensic evidence the courts received.
Julie had no influence on any forensic evidence the courts have ever received.
The submitted forensic crime scene evidence would have to all be totally wrong for Bamber to be innocent. It would not possible for so many huge mistakes to be made by so many qualified people.
The only explanation is if experts, professors & police officers all worked together to create false information. Writing up false reports, documents & witness statements.
Is it feasible that respected and law abiding professionals & relatives of the deceased would all work together to create at least 50 pieces of false forensic evidence for the courts ?
In a word...NO
-
What cannot be disputed is everything above has been released as forensic evidence. The options are then -
1: Everything is wrong through innocent human error.
2: Everything is wrong due to unprecedented large scale deliberate falseification.
3: Everything is correct.
4: Some of the above is correct. A small amount may be open to challenge due to human error or individual interppretation.
____________
I'm sure everyone will rule out option 1 for so many pieces of evidence.
So far no one has supported option 2 although Mike has disputed every point.
Option 3 & 4 are the most plausible and show 100% that Bamber is guilty. Unless people switch to the 3rd party options suggested by Mike & Sherlock.
You can't blame supporters for trying but what interested me particularly is why, when there is such a mountain of damning evidence against Jeremy Bamber, does anyone bother?
Why would anyone support a mass murderer who slaughter two children as they slept?
-
You can't blame supporters for trying but what interested me particularly is why, when there is such a mountain of damning evidence against Jeremy Bamber, does anyone bother?
Why would anyone support a mass murderer who slaughter two children as they slept?
It is an interesting case, so not surprising people discuss it. Some people may even lean towards innocence in the beguinning depending on what book, videos or internet articles they watch/read as these can be biased towards guilt or innocence.
But not sure how anyone who acquires a basic understanding of the case can continue to support & even campaign for Bamber.
Current supporters Mike, David & JackieD have engaged with Bamber, which may make them more stubborn. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for supporting Bamber is that he sounds nice on the phone.
JackieD & Susan focus more on Julie rather than the forensic evidence. Believing they would have acted differently if in Julie's position. A thread was even created addressed to me on Julie identifying the twins, suggesting Julie doing this shows Bamber is innocent.
Some supporters are interested in Roch's 'withheld' information which he says shows 'Sheila definately committed the massacre'. This withheld information will have to be very powerful to negate all of the above released forensic evidence.
-
Show me another peacetime mass shooting in England where the jury had to decide between two potential perps?
The case involves complex forensics eg ballistics, blood stains and pathology of gunshot wounds. England didn't possess the homegrown expertise to evaluate such a soc in 1985/86. Instead we had the following:
Malacolm Fletcher - Ballistics
His introduction to the court at trial included experience with an air rifle as a boy.
John Hayward - Blood Stains
516. Mr Turner's first objection was that this was not evidence that could not have been called by the prosecution at trial. He submitted that evidence of blood staining interpretation was available in the 1980s and the fact that the prosecution had not sought to look at this dimension of the case at that time should not mean that they can now introduce the evidence to support their case, if it was viewed by the court as unsafe to rely on the convictions in other respects. Mr Temple contended that whilst the study of and drawing inferences from blood staining patterns may have been available in the 1980s, it was in its relative infancy and with the passage of time since that era, the skills have become more developed so that in consequence greater reliance can be placed on such evidence. He relied in this regard on a statement from Mr Ismail which accepts that there have been references to the interpretation of blood patterns going back to the story of Cain & Abel in the Bible and that the first scientific work was published in 1939 but contends that in the United Kingdom, the first practical courses on the subject were not run until 1988. He concludes:
"In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge."[/b]
Dr Vanezis - Pathologist
By his own admission he lacked experience with gsw's hardly surprising in a country with low gun owndership:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=744
Experts didn't evalute the soc properly to the extent that the only expert that visited WHF was Dr Vanezis and by his own admission this was just an 'out of interest' visit.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
Compare Dr Vanezis with the likes of Dr Di Maio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
As a consequence we are left with a lot of hot air: phone calls, bikes, windows, fingernails, lay witness testimony, leaving a rifle out, sights on/off, rifle fitting in a cupboard or not and so it goes on and on 8(8-))
No doubt in my mind JB is innocent and I do believe his conviction will be quashed based on solid forensic evidence.
-
Show me another peacetime mass shooting in England where the jury had to decide between two potential perps?
The case involves complex forensics eg ballistics, blood stains and pathology of gunshot wounds. England didn't possess the homegrown expertise to evaluate such a soc in 1985/86. Instead we had the following:
Malacolm Fletcher - Ballistics
His introduction to the court at trial included experience with an air rifle as a boy.
John Hayward - Blood Stains
516. Mr Turner's first objection was that this was not evidence that could not have been called by the prosecution at trial. He submitted that evidence of blood staining interpretation was available in the 1980s and the fact that the prosecution had not sought to look at this dimension of the case at that time should not mean that they can now introduce the evidence to support their case, if it was viewed by the court as unsafe to rely on the convictions in other respects. Mr Temple contended that whilst the study of and drawing inferences from blood staining patterns may have been available in the 1980s, it was in its relative infancy and with the passage of time since that era, the skills have become more developed so that in consequence greater reliance can be placed on such evidence. He relied in this regard on a statement from Mr Ismail which accepts that there have been references to the interpretation of blood patterns going back to the story of Cain & Abel in the Bible and that the first scientific work was published in 1939 but contends that in the United Kingdom, the first practical courses on the subject were not run until 1988. He concludes:
"In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge."[/b]
Dr Vanezis - Pathologist
By his own admission he lacked experience with gsw's hardly surprising in a country with low gun owndership:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=744
Experts didn't evalute the soc properly to the extent that the only expert that visited WHF was Dr Vanezis and by his own admission this was just an 'out of interest' visit.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
Compare Dr Vanezis with the likes of Dr Di Maio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
As a consequence we are left with a lot of hot air: phone calls, bikes, windows, fingernails, lay witness testimony, leaving a rifle out, sights on/off, rifle fitting in a cupboard or not and so it goes on and on 8(8-))
No doubt in my mind JB is innocent and I do believe his conviction will be quashed based on solid forensic evidence.
From all the evidence I have read. Only two experts in this case have implied or explicitly stated that Sheila did not commit suicide.
Those two are Malcom Fletcher and Professor Macdonnell. Interestingly enough, Professor Macdonnell recanted his original 1992 report due to incomplete information and now believes Sheila could have committed suicide. Despite this, Adam still includes Professor Macdonnell in his "mountain of incriminating evidence"
-
Each of the pieces of evidence above deserves and has probably already had it's own individual thread on.
However the thread question is how did all this evidence end up with the DPP, trial courts, appeal courts, in books and online ? It wasn't because of Julie or the relatives. But because of experts, professors, blood testers, photographers & police officers.
If the evidence is deliberately wrong, the conspiracy was vastly bigger than just the relatives & Stan Jones. It branched out to dozens or hundreds of people who had no motive to lie.
Hopefully there will be some answers. Just attempting to blitz a thread with documents relating to some of the pieces of evidence to support a stance, as David did on another forum, will not provide the answer.
-
Each of the pieces of evidence above deserves and has probably already had it's own individual thread on. Supporters of course saying the published and submitted evidence is all wrong.
However the thread question is how did all this evidence end up with the DPP, trial courts, appeal courts, in books and online ? It wasn't because of Julie or the relatives. But because of experts, professors, blood testers, photographers & police officers.
If the evidence is deliberately wrong, was the conspiracy vastly bigger than just the relatives & Stan Jones & it branched out to dozens or hundreds of people ?
I'll go through it all tomorrow. Too sleepy now. Much of it is irrelevant and has been allowed to take on a life of its own due to JB's very poor defence at trial and appeal hearing 2002.
-
From all the evidence I have read. Only two experts in this case have implied or explicitly stated that Sheila did not commit suicide.
Those two are Malcom Fletcher and Professor Macdonnell. Interestingly enough, Professor Macdonnell recanted his original 1992 report due to incomplete information and now believes Sheila could have committed suicide. Despite this, Adam still includes Professor Macdonnell in his "mountain of incriminating evidence"
Can anyone seriously consider MF an expert? What sort of court allows such a numpty to pass himself of as an expert? A court that presided over the greatest MOJ post capital punishment, maybe? &%+((£
I attach again MF's relevant experience for readers' consideration:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8290.0;attach=9264
-
Show me another peacetime mass shooting in England where the jury had to decide between two potential perps?
The case involves complex forensics eg ballistics, blood stains and pathology of gunshot wounds. England didn't possess the homegrown expertise to evaluate such a soc in 1985/86. Instead we had the following:
Malacolm Fletcher - Ballistics
His introduction to the court at trial included experience with an air rifle as a boy.
John Hayward - Blood Stains
516. Mr Turner's first objection was that this was not evidence that could not have been called by the prosecution at trial. He submitted that evidence of blood staining interpretation was available in the 1980s and the fact that the prosecution had not sought to look at this dimension of the case at that time should not mean that they can now introduce the evidence to support their case, if it was viewed by the court as unsafe to rely on the convictions in other respects. Mr Temple contended that whilst the study of and drawing inferences from blood staining patterns may have been available in the 1980s, it was in its relative infancy and with the passage of time since that era, the skills have become more developed so that in consequence greater reliance can be placed on such evidence. He relied in this regard on a statement from Mr Ismail which accepts that there have been references to the interpretation of blood patterns going back to the story of Cain & Abel in the Bible and that the first scientific work was published in 1939 but contends that in the United Kingdom, the first practical courses on the subject were not run until 1988. He concludes:
"In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood pattersat scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge."[/b]
Dr Vanezis - Pathologist
By his own admission he lacked experience with gsw's hardly surprising in a country with low gun owndership:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=744
Experts didn't evalute the soc properly to the extent that the only expert that visited WHF was Dr Vanezis and by his own admission this was just an 'out of interest' visit.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
Compare Dr Vanezis with the likes of Dr Di Maio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
As a consequence we are left with a lot of hot air: phone calls, bikes, windows, fingernails, lay witness testimony, leaving a rifle out, sights on/off, rifle fitting in a cupboard or not and so it goes on and on 8(8-))
No doubt in my mind JB is innocent and I do believe his conviction will be quashed based on solid forensic evidence.
To reinforce the point above re the general incompetence I have highlighted in red above the words 'blood patters'. There's no such thing as 'blood patters'. Does the author mean blood spatters or blood patterns? Either way it just demonstrates that crucial aspects of the case were overlooked due to gross incompetence and negligence?
Was there anything preventing Geoffrey Rivlin as lead QC at trial obtaining expert help in the crucial areas of ballistics, bloodstain analysis and pathology of gunshot wounds from the US?
Adam answer me this please: what experience did any of the lawyers, experts or trial judge have in cases involving mass shootings?
-
Can anyone seriously consider MF an expert? What sort of court allows such a numpty to pass himself of as an expert? A court that presided over the greatest MOJ post capital punishment, maybe? &%+((£
I attach again MF's relevant experience for readers' consideration:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8290.0;attach=9264 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8290.0;attach=9264)
You still continue to ignore the part where he says he had 13 years experience after joining the Firearms dept., during which time he must have handled and researched more than just air-guns.
-
You still continue to ignore the part where he says he had 13 years experience after joining the Firearms dept., during which time he must have handled and researched more than just air-guns.
So why did he think the court needed to know about his "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"? And what relevant qualifications did he have, if any? All the other experts who gave evidence provided the court with details of their qualifications eg degrees, membership of professional bodies etc. Not so for MF.
And what experience did he have, if any, of cases involving mass shootings?
-
So why did he think the court needed to know about his "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"? And what relevant qualifications did he have, if any? All the other experts who gave evidence provided the court with details of their qualifications eg degrees, membership of professional bodies etc. Not so for MF.
And what experience did he have, if any, of cases involving mass shootings?
What are they supposed to do, Holly?.. conjour experts up out of thin air? Malcolm Fletcher was well qualified to take on this case at the time. Such a shame you have a blinkered view of his expertise...
http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher (http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher)
-
What are they supposed to do, Holly?.. conjour experts up out of thin air? Malcolm Fletcher was well qualified to take on this case at the time. Such a shame you have a blinkered view of his expertise...
http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher (http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher)
Obtain expert evidence from a country that has high rates of gun crime including experience of mass shootings during peacetime.
I don't believe I am blinkered. The other expert witnesses who gave evidence at JB's trial detailed their academic and professional qualifications. A complete contrast with MF. If MF possessed the sort of qualifications claimed above then why not tell the court at JB's trial instead of falling back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
-
What are they supposed to do, Holly?.. conjour experts up out of thin air? Malcolm Fletcher was well qualified to take on this case at the time. Such a shame you have a blinkered view of his expertise...
http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher (http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher)
More, experts who had empirical experience of cases involving mass shootings.
-
Obtain expert evidence from a country that has high rates of gun crime including experience of mass shootings during peacetime.
I don't believe I am blinkered. The other expert witnesses who gave evidence at JB's trial detailed their academic and professional qualifications. A complete contrast with MF. If MF possessed the sort of qualifications claimed above then why not tell the court at JB's trial instead of falling back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
We don't have the whole of the trial transcript but I doubt the comment above was the only endorsement of MF as an expert witness. There are standards that have to be adhered to and tests passed before you can become and expert witness and the above wouldn't suffice.
http://www.csofs.org/Certificate-of-Professional-Competence-CPC
-
We don't have the whole of the trial transcript but I doubt the comment above was the only endorsement of MF as an expert witness. There are standards that have to be adhered to and tests passed before you can become and expert witness and the above wouldn't suffice.
http://www.csofs.org/Certificate-of-Professional-Competence-CPC
Afaik we do have MF's full trial transcript? Anthony Arlidge QC started by asking each expert witness to outline to the court his/her relevant academic and professional qualifications along with relevant experience. The contrast with witnesses such as Prof Knight, John Hayward and Glynis Howard could not be greater when compared with MF.
MF's trial testimony is here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7845.msg379415#msg379415
What sort of checks were made on expert witnesses in 1986?
-
Other expert witnesses:
Prof Knight
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7845.msg379423#msg379423
John Hayward
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7845.msg379422#msg379422
Glynis Howard
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Mark Webster at COA 2002 hearing follows a similar format in outlining his academic, prof qualifications and relevant experience.
-
Below is a list of some of the forensic evidence which has been released pre trial, pre appeals and online. Over half is in the 522 point 2002 Court of Appeal document.
A lot of it is not disputed by both guiters and supporters although Mike has today disputed each point.
I have asked individually both Mike & David if all the released forensic evidence is wrong, does that mean it was all made up by dozens of people to frame Bamber. But got no confirmation from them or anyone else that this is what happened.
-----------------
Perfectly clean hands on Sheila.
This was based on visual insepctions at soc. Only a detailed forensic examination by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel at soc were capable of determining whether SC's hands were "perfectly clean". This didn't happen.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila.
Whose blood?
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.
SC's hands were not swabbed at soc for gsr. Would handling the Eley bullets show appreciably higher levels of lead?
Well manicured nails on Sheila.
No reason why they wouldn't be. Loading a mag, chambering a round, pulling the trigger and using the rifle to wield blows to NB would not necessarily result in damage to fingernails/polish.
Not broken.
As above
Nails in tact.
As above
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers.
No reason why there would be. Dr Vanezis was asked this question by Arlidge QC at trial. He replied words to the effect there's no reason SC would sustain any marks/indentations to her fingers/hands.
No blood on finger tips.
Why would there be?
No dirt on finger tips.
Why would there be?
No powder on finger tips.
Why would there be?
No trace of any lead dust coating.
Why would there be?
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice.
Why would there be? If anyone disputes this then I would urge them to visit a gunshop and ask to handle the Eley subsonic hollow point bullets and check it out like I did.
Perfectly clean feet.
Why wouldn't they be?
Feet free from blood staining.
Why wouldn't they be?
No debris such as sugar on feet
Why would there be?
No mention of foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.
There was no "brutal fight" and no reason at all for SC as perp to have damaged her feet.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.
Only two areas were tested. There may have been small amounts of blood from other victims although the amount of blood on the rifle was too little for grouping. Had the nightdress been destroyed this could not be examined using DNA tests.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress
The rifle was fired a total of 25/26 times. SC was found in an environment where the rifle had been fired at least 13 times, if not 14, including twice over her body.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress
The rifle was found across SC's body with one side resting on her nightdress and the other side in contact with her hand/fingers. This suggests there was no oil to be found.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.
There's no evidence of aggressive movement which would cause damage to SC's nightdress. Although her nightdress did contain unexplained burn marks, holes and black particles.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.
No need for ritual cleanse. What was to be removed?
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.
As above.
Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.
What does this prove? It was height of summer and middle of night why would he feel the need to hunt out his slippers/dressing gown and possibly disturb June in the process
Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.
What does this prove? It was height of summer and middle of night why would SC feel the need to hunt out slippers/dressing gown even if she had some with her?
Paint in silencer.
I think you mean on silencer? How did it get there?
Blood in silencer.
How did it get there
No blood in the rifle end.
Studies of firearms used in contact gsw's show a high % don't present with any blood in/on barrel
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.
By whom?
Sheila's blood underneath the bible.
Whose blood? Afaik the blood on the bible wasn't tested. Or if it was the results are unknown.
Effects of Haloperidol.
At SC's TOD the level of haloperidol was within the low range of moderate.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.
As above.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.
The last witness to have contact with SC was PB during the circa 10pm tel con. The murders took place some 5.5 hours later. No one knows SC's state of mind at this point of time.
Sheila under sedation.
Toxicology tests show this wasn't the case.
Easy window entrance into WHF.
During the 80's most residential properties and cars were easy to enter unlike today with double glazing, windown locks and car alarms etc.
Shutting kitchen window from outside.
Even if it was possible for someone to leave WHF by a window and secure it shut from outside it doesn't mean this happened. Surely jurors should have been taken to WHF to observe the windows and check for themselves whether it was possible for JB to secure shut from outside?
Murder weapon options.
I don't know what you mean by this?
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.
Produced a report based on incorrect info. He thought the silencer was definitely fitted. When he realised that the silencer may not have been fitted he said he had no idea whether it was case of murder/suicide or murder.
Items around the kitchen window being moved.
Anyone may have moved these items at any time.
Bike route to WHF.
Yes numerous bike routes to WHF doesn't mean anyone took one to carry out the murders.
Bike at Bamber's cottage.
No evidence of anything.
June not waking/getting shot in bed.
We have no idea whether June was awake or not. It is thought she was shot with her head on the pillow due to the blood stains and bullets in pillow.
Nevill's back burns.
Prof Knight didn't think the burns to NB's back were burns.
2012 CCRC court judgement.
Just a rehash of the trial with yet another incompetent and negligent QC.
The twins not waking.
No reason why they would and thankfully they didn't.
Bamber's call to the police.
What else was he to do when he was unable to make contact with NB?
Nevill's injuries
What about them?
Sheila's time limits.
What time limits?
No valid Sheila scenario.
All the physical evidence shows SC and NB were downstairs. In all probability NB made the call to JB. Meanwhile SC went upstairs and shot June either 5 or 6 times. NB then left the kitchen phone on the worktop went upstairs where he sustained his facial gsw's and gsw's to his shoulder and elbow. He retreated downstairs. SC followed and in all probability used the rifle to wield blows on NB. NB was then shot a further 4 times in the kitchen. June was shot a further twice in the bedroom. The twins were shot a total of 8 times in their sleep. SC then shot herself twice. By the time the police arrived they were in all probability dead.
-
Thanks. I know supporters will dispute all released incriminating evidence.
My thread post & reply 8 is asking how many dozens or hundreds of people would have had to work together to make up so much false evidence. And what different types of individuals & organisations would have to join forces to create this ?
Only the relatives had a financial incentive but would have had to have had major help from the police in order to fabricate just one of the 50+ pieces.
-
Thanks. I know supporters have to dispute all released incriminating evidence.
My thread post & reply 8 is asking how many dozens or hundreds of people would have had to work together to make up so much false evidence. And what different types of individuals & organisations would have to join forces with this ?
Only the relatives had a financial incentive but would have had to have major help from the police in order to fabricate just one of the 50+ pieces.
I don't find anything incriminating?
There's no need for anyone to falsify etc the points you raise. They are just irrelevant as per my responses. They are not remotely scientific eg JB could enter/exit WHF via a window(s), June's bike at Goldhanger, SC's state as found at soc, NB and SC found in nightwear and bare footed, so what? No idea how anyone can deduce from this JB is responsible?
The case hinges on the blood/silencer evidence and it is this that needs undermining or upholding. The jury was smart enough to see through all the fog and get to the hub of the matter hence their deliberations and queries to the judge related in the main to the blood/silencer. If the blood in the silencer was there as a result of drawback aka blowback then JB is guilty as charged. If the blood in the silencer was there as a result of some other means then in all probability JB is innocent.
-
I don't find anything incriminating?
There's no need for anyone to falsify etc the points you raise. They are just irrelevant as per my responses. They are not remotely scientific eg JB could enter/exit WHF via a window(s), June's bike at Goldhanger, SC's state as found at soc, NB and SC found in nightwear and bare footed, so what? No idea how anyone can deduce from this JB is responsible?
The case hinges on the blood/silencer evidence and it is this that needs undermining or upholding. The jury was smart enough to see through all the fog and get to the hub of the matter hence their deliberations and queries to the judge related in the main to the blood/silencer. If the blood in the silencer was there as a result of drawback aka blowback then JB is guilty as charged. If the blood in the silencer was there as a result of some other means then in all probability JB is innocent.
Do you believe all the released forensic evidence is correct apart from the silencer ?
-
Do you believe all the released forensic evidence is correct apart from the silencer ?
What in your opinion amounts to forensic evidence in JB's case? And what is the definition of forensic evidence based on UK law?
-
It is an interesting case, so not surprising people discuss it. Some people may even lean towards innocence in the beguinning depending on what book, videos or internet articles they watch/read as these can be biased towards guilt or innocence.
But not sure how anyone who acquires a basic understanding of the case can continue to support & even campaign for Bamber.
Current supporters Mike, David & JackieD have engaged with Bamber, which may make them more stubborn. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for supporting Bamber is that he sounds nice on the phone.
JackieD & Susan focus more on Julie rather than the forensic evidence. Believing they would have acted differently if in Julie's position. A thread was even created addressed to me on Julie identifying the twins, suggesting Julie doing this shows Bamber is innocent.
Some supporters are interested in Roch's 'withheld' information which he says shows 'Sheila definately committed the massacre'. This withheld information will have to be very powerful to negate all of the above released forensic evidence.
I must admit I originally went along with him being innocent mainly because the crime was so heinous that I couldn't believe for a moment that he was capable of such evil intent. The further I looked into the facts of the case though I came to realise that he was extremely cunning and conniving and was very capable of what he was being accused of. I honestly believe his adoption as a baby had much to do with the hate he later came to foster for his adoptive family.
I don't accept for a moment that anyone attempted to frame Jeremy Bamber, he concocted a convenient story to cover his crime but it soon began to unravel. Ultimately, it was his insistence that Sheila did it that was his undoing. Julie Mugford's evidence was the clincher in the end though and provided the motive for such a dreadful deed. Had she made it all up as some suggest in some sort of sordid revenge on him she would have been destroyed in the witness box. She wasn't though but by protecting him for so long in the beginning she damaged her own reputation and ultimaterly paid the price...exile.
-
I must admit I originally went along with him being innocent mainly because the crime was so heinous that I couldn't believe for a moment that he was capable of such evil intent. The further I looked into the facts of the case though I came to realise that he was extremely cunning and conniving and was very capable of what he was being accused of.
What facts were these? Assumptions made up to preclude Sheila from committing the massacre such as "Nevill would take the gun away" or "Sheila wont choose that spot to commit suicide" ect are not facts.
You put allot of emphasis on what took place in Kitchen. However you fail appreciate that Nevill was shot three times before the struggle in the Kitchen took place. The pathologist testified that Neville would be unable to use his left arm at all and the other two shots to the jaw would only have given him a short amount of time left to live.
I don't accept for a moment that anyone attempted to frame Jeremy Bamber, he concocted a convenient story to cover his crime but it soon began to unravel. Ultimately, it was his insistence that Sheila did it that was his undoing. Julie Mugford's evidence was the clincher in the end though and provided the motive for such a dreadful deed. Had she made it all up as some suggest in some sort of sordid revenge on him she would have been destroyed in the witness box. She wasn't though but by protecting him for so long in the beginning she damaged her own reputation and ultimaterly paid the price...exile.
She was!
-
I must admit I originally went along with him being innocent mainly because the crime was so heinous that I couldn't believe for a moment that he was capable of such evil intent. The further I looked into the facts of the case though I came to realise that he was extremely cunning and conniving and was very capable of what he was being accused of. I honestly believe his adoption as a baby had much to do with the hate he later came to foster for his adoptive family.
I don't accept for a moment that anyone attempted to frame Jeremy Bamber, he concocted a convenient story to cover his crime but it soon began to unravel. Ultimately, it was his insistence that Sheila did it that was his undoing. Julie Mugford's evidence was the clincher in the end though and provided the motive for such a dreadful deed. Had she made it all up as some suggest in some sort of sordid revenge on him she would have been destroyed in the witness box. She wasn't though but by protecting him for so long in the beginning she damaged her own reputation and ultimaterly paid the price...exile.
Bamber is certainly very influential with people he engages with.
Trudie & Matt said Bamber sounding nice on the phone is one of their top 5 reasons they believe he's innocent. Experienced crime reporter Bob Woffinden was so impressed after Bamber contacted him, he supported Bamber for a short period. Later calling him a 'charming psychopath'.
Bamber discarded Mike & JackieD years ago & David's secret 'forensic evidence breakthrough' came to nothing. But Bamber certainly left a lasting impression & both Mike & David still support him. JackieD is just as determined but bases her stance on Julie rather than any forensic or circumstantial evidence.
Stephanie, who had first hand experience of being taken in by someone - Simon Hall, urged supporters to stop being gullible. Although a lot have changed stance, some will be like Stephanie and refuse to unless Bamber actually admits to the crime.
-
I must admit I originally went along with him being innocent mainly because the crime was so heinous that I couldn't believe for a moment that he was capable of such evil intent. The further I looked into the facts of the case though I came to realise that he was extremely cunning and conniving and was very capable of what he was being accused of. I honestly believe his adoption as a baby had much to do with the hate he later came to foster for his adoptive family.
I don't accept for a moment that anyone attempted to frame Jeremy Bamber, he concocted a convenient story to cover his crime but it soon began to unravel. Ultimately, it was his insistence that Sheila did it that was his undoing. Julie Mugford's evidence was the clincher in the end though and provided the motive for such a dreadful deed. Had she made it all up as some suggest in some sort of sordid revenge on him she would have been destroyed in the witness box. She wasn't though but by protecting him for so long in the beginning she damaged her own reputation and ultimaterly paid the price...exile.
John:
I am glad you regard Julie Mugford as the clincher.
I am also enormously pleased that David 1819 can post a rejoinder so speedily.
We all have common ground now, this case is far too important to languish, it reverberates around the world.
Solve this, solve a multitude.
Watch the Lundy case implode with forensics that are similar to this, and leave the Mugfords gasping like goldfish in an empty tank.
-
John:
I am glad you regard Julie Mugford as the clincher.
I am also enormously pleased that David 1819 can post a rejoinder so speedily.
We all have common ground now, this case is far too important to languish, it reverberates around the world.
Solve this, solve a multitude.
Watch the Lundy case implode with forensics that are similar to this, and leave the Mugfords gasping like goldfish in an empty tank.
Ah, Samson. Lord of all twonkery. Cheers for putting your kiss of death on IA. You must be so proud.
a) Just to say, as a sideline, I trim and clip dogs and horses. It's what I do. You're well overdue for a shearing.
b) Please explain how Sheila massacred her entire family and didn't plaster her prints ALL over the gun. ALL the different parts of the gun. How could that happen?
c) Expirated blood. Now, I'm not sure if you understand what that means. You've been so busy taking the piss out of people who have looked deeply into this case for many moons, and presuming that you have found some sort of secret, you have overlooked the obvious.
There is no secret to this case. Bamber was a cold, callous, black-hearted b......... He still is. And he so nearly got away with it. JUST like Mick Philpott.
-
Ah!! FAO JaneyJ on blue. I missed a trick there. You're right, Philpott dragged his awful partner into the mix, just like Bamber tried to drag Julie. The crocodile tears. The pretence. The greed.
Bamber was so stupid that he thought that no one would notice that he wasn't grieving, just pig-greedy for cash and stuff. So dim that he thought that no one would notice when he put his feet up on Ralph's desk and swanked.
So greedy that he tried to sell Sheila's pictures. What a worm. Thank goodness that, whatever a spiteful old bat thinks, he'll rot in prison. And die.
-
AND....
ngb. Stop enabling Mike. It's weird. And stop having phone sex with Stephanie Hall. We all know what you're up to.
%£&)**#