Differences In Forensics And Trial Between WHF And Murder Of Jill Dando

[Holly Goodhead]

Now, Now!... it was a crime scene.  I know they messed up initially, but contaminating it further is stretching things a bit.

But when you look at other cases you find the police always seem to have an excuse for the fact the soc was compromised.  In the case of the Rettendon murders it was melting snow.  In the case of Jill Dando it was the ambulance service that arrived first.  Imo the chief investigating officers appear to be some of the thickest people I've ever encountered.  In the case of Jill Dando Hamish Campbell said the perp only had 1 cartridge on the basis the casing found at soc had been tampered with.  How could he possibly know the perp did not have other cartridges in his/her pocket also tampered with?  He went on to say it was probably tampered with to reduce its contents thus reducing the sound of gunfire but then ruled out a professional hit as a silencer wasn't used instead.  Silencers are difficult to come by and anyone planning to murder Jill Dando would realise that if they did manage to procure a silencer it would be all over the press silencer used.  This might then alert whoever passed on the silencer to tip off the police.  In the case of the Rettendon murders Insp Dibly said the victims were unarmed because a firearm wasn't found.  How could he know the perp didn't search the vehicle and take any firearms?

I've no reason to have any grievances with the police.  I've never been involved in any criminality in my life nor been involved with anyone who has been involved in any criminality.

[Caroline]

Unless I was able to carry out background checks on MF, which I'm not, how could I possibly know for sure what qualifications he had and when he obtained them?  What I do know for sure is how MF introduced himself at trial which was in sharp contrast to all the other expert witnesses. 

MF said he had 13 years experience working in the firearms dept but this doesn't tell us exactly what his experience covered or what qualified him to provide reliable and credible testimony on very complex aspects of ballistics ie the drawback phenomenon, gunshot residues and pathology of gunshot wounds. 

I don't know what you mean by Julie was the only living person close to JB?  By the time JM provided her damning testimony the relationship was over.  The pair were in their late teens/early twenties during the 18 month relationship.  They never lived together full-time.  Most of the time there was some considerable geographic distance between them.  Afaik they didn't even holiday together other than the odd weekend away?  How would any of know their true feelings towards one another at any stage of the relationship and/or whether either party saw it as long-term?

If JM's testimony was stronger than the silencer the CCRC would not have referred JB's case to CoA on the back of the silencer/blood.

We will have to disagree on MF - if 13 years experience isn't enough for you, then nothing would be.

I didnt say JM's testimony was stronger, I said it was a big part of the case and it was.

[Caroline]

But it wasn't uncluttered. There was a net curtain and toiletries on the window sill which had every chance of being knocked off onto the floor and difficult to reach from outside because the drop was farther than that of the kitchen window.  Hence plastic drainer, soap bottle, etc. could be relocated more easily.  Bamber was fit, well used to climbing in and out of tractors so no problem getting onto a kitchen sink.  I've no idea about the last question.

The drop wasn't father then the kitchen window? We don't know how many toiletries were on the sill but they can easily be moved and replaced. Clambering over the sink is a lot more difficult and I hate to keep repeating myself but we know Bamber frequently used the shower room window, the hacksaw was found near it and it was found to be unlocked.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes JB said he knew he could gain entry through windows but he did not know of a way of exiting leaving windows/doors secured from within. 

There was a lot for jurors to look at at WHF not just the windows eg blood stains on carpets and other exhibits, casings, location of victims found and likely locations when they sustained non-fatal gsw's along with info re trajectories showing perp/victim location.

Other cases involving shooting incidents jurors were taken to soc:

Tony Martin's home:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/711870.stm

And Jill Dando's home:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1323186.stm

In the case of Tony Martin a reconstruction was made involving the same defence firearms expert at JB's trial Major Mead.  Although it isn't clear to me whether Major Mead was actually involved in the trial or just the documentary.  The latter only I think.  In any event he obviously had access to Bleak Farm.  The reconstruction involves the evidence I have queried in the past and asked why a reconstruction wasn't/hasn't been presented to date: casings, trajectories and wound tracks.  Anthony Scrivener QC then goes on to talk about the wounds to the back of Fred Barras and how the evidence taken as a whole casings, trajectories and wound tracks supported the prosecution case against Tony Martin. 

Imo a similar reconstruction at WHF would show NB was shot on the landing stairs facing towards his bedroom door with the perp already in the bedroom.  This would support JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB potentially came from downstairs having been in the kitchen calling JB with the perp already in the bedroom shooting June.

Interesting how many of these cases generate good quality tv docs but in JB's case we get a lot of silly drama type progs. 

[Caroline]

In the case of Tony Martin a reconstruction was made involving the same defence firearms expert at JB's trial Major Mead.  Although it isn't clear to me whether Major Mead was actually involved in the trial or just the documentary.  The latter only I think.  In any event he obviously had access to Bleak Farm.  The reconstruction involves the evidence I have queried in the past and asked why a reconstruction wasn't/hasn't been presented to date: casings, trajectories and wound tracks.  Anthony Scrivener QC then goes on to talk about the wounds to the back of Fred Barras and how the evidence taken as a whole casings, trajectories and wound tracks supported the prosecution case against Tony Martin. 

Imo a similar reconstruction at WHF would show NB was shot on the landing stairs facing towards his bedroom door with the perp already in the bedroom.  This would support JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB potentially came from downstairs having been in the kitchen calling JB with the perp already in the bedroom shooting June.

Interesting how many of these cases generate good quality tv docs but in JB's case we get a lot of silly drama type progs.

It wouldn't support the telephone call, just that the killer was upstairs at the time. There can be many permutations of how and why Bamber might be upstairs and NB downstairs. My own thoughts (for what they are worth) is that Bamber didn't slink back in the night, he arrived back prior to Nevil going to bed - I think he forced an argument on purpose earlier and came back under the guise of an apology. He waited for Nevil to head off to the shower and went to work on the others - leaving only Nevil to deal with.

[adam]

The jury went to Fingringhoe firing range, arguably of less importance than visiting WHF to get an impression of the rooms and events discussed at trial.

Chelmsford to Fingringhoe: 28 miles.

Chelmsford to Tolleshunt D'Arcy: 19 miles.

Why did they go to the firing range. To see how much quieter the rifle was with a silencer on? Pretty important although the court could have just played a video.

Taking the jurors out again is a bit extreme. The case was discussed for weeks in court. It seems that neither the jurors, prosecution, judge & defence felt a visit to WHF was needed.

[adam]

Yes JB said he knew he could gain entry through windows but he did not know of a way of exiting leaving windows/doors secured from within. 

There was a lot for jurors to look at at WHF not just the windows eg blood stains on carpets and other exhibits, casings, location of victims found and likely locations when they sustained non-fatal gsw's along with info re trajectories showing perp/victim location.

Other cases involving shooting incidents jurors were taken to soc:

Tony Martin's home:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/711870.stm

And Jill Dando's home:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1323186.stm

If Bamber knew how to & often  entered & exited WHF through windows, it is surprising he did not know how to bang shut a window.

Leaving his exit window open makes it vulnerable to burglary. It also highlights to a returning Nevill & June that someone has entered WHF. Doubtful Bamber left them a note.

Julie said Bamber knew he could bang shut the kitchen window.

[Holly Goodhead]

In the case of Tony Martin a reconstruction was made involving the same defence firearms expert at JB's trial Major Mead.  Although it isn't clear to me whether Major Mead was actually involved in the trial or just the documentary.  The latter only I think.  In any event he obviously had access to Bleak Farm.  The reconstruction involves the evidence I have queried in the past and asked why a reconstruction wasn't/hasn't been presented to date: casings, trajectories and wound tracks.  Anthony Scrivener QC then goes on to talk about the wounds to the back of Fred Barras and how the evidence taken as a whole casings, trajectories and wound tracks supported the prosecution case against Tony Martin. 

Imo a similar reconstruction at WHF would show NB was shot on the landing stairs facing towards his bedroom door with the perp already in the bedroom.  This would support JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB potentially came from downstairs having been in the kitchen calling JB with the perp already in the bedroom shooting June.

Interesting how many of these cases generate good quality tv docs but in JB's case we get a lot of silly drama type progs.

I forgot to add the link for the above!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemcOAg53eM

The reconstruction evidence starts at 40:40

[Holly Goodhead]

It wouldn't support the telephone call, just that the killer was upstairs at the time. There can be many permutations of how and why Bamber might be upstairs and NB downstairs. My own thoughts (for what they are worth) is that Bamber didn't slink back in the night, he arrived back prior to Nevil going to bed - I think he forced an argument on purpose earlier and came back under the guise of an apology. He waited for Nevil to head off to the shower and went to work on the others - leaving only Nevil to deal with.

Yes it would support the telephone call in more ways than one.

The prosecution case is that NB was shot in his bedroom.  Two of the gsw's NB sustained UPSTAIRS, lip and jaw, meant that purposeful speech thereafter was impossible so how could NB call JB "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun"?  Furthermore these two gsw's produced heavy blood loss and no blood was found on the mouthpiece.

At trial Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if any of the victims sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the main bedroom (obviously excl the twins).  MF replied no.  Ed Lawson did not ask MF how he arrived at this conclusion or challenge him in any way.  I have not read Major Mead's (firearms expert for the the defence) testimony to know what he said or didn't say.  However given Michael Turner QC at the 2002 appeal attempted to argue an officer used the kitchen phone to call out and inadvertently removed the blood it would seem unlikely Major Mead put up a robust defence at trial in this regard.

I've posted the link above re the construction at Bleak Farm.  Anthony Scrivener QC comments that the totality of the physical evidence at soc by way of gunshot trajectories, casings and the gsw to the back of Fred Barras may well have caused Joe (ie average Joe/juror, I assume) to side with the prosecution as together it was strongly suggestive that Tony Martin did not fire all the shots whilst he was on the stairs as he claimed and fired whilst Fred Barras was attempting to escape. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I forgot to add the link for the above!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemcOAg53eM

The reconstruction evidence starts at 40:40

Actually its 46:40

[APRIL]

Yes it would support the telephone call in more ways than one.

The prosecution case is that NB was shot in his bedroom.  Two of the gsw's NB sustained UPSTAIRS, lip and jaw, meant that purposeful speech thereafter was impossible so how could NB call JB "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun"?  Furthermore these two gsw's produced heavy blood loss and no blood was found on the mouthpiece.

At trial Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if any of the victims sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the main bedroom (obviously excl the twins).  MF replied no.  Ed Lawson did not ask MF how he arrived at this conclusion or challenge him in any way.  I have not read Major Mead's (firearms expert for the the defence) testimony to know what he said or didn't say.  However given Michael Turner QC at the 2002 appeal attempted to argue an officer used the kitchen phone to call out and inadvertently removed the blood it would seem unlikely Major Mead put up a robust defence at trial in this regard.

I've posted the link above re the construction at Bleak Farm.  Anthony Scrivener QC comments that the totality of the physical evidence at soc by way of gunshot trajectories, casings and the gsw to the back of Fred Barras may well have caused Joe (ie average Joe/juror, I assume) to side with the prosecution as together it was strongly suggestive that Tony Martin did not fire all the shots whilst he was on the stairs as he claimed and fired whilst Fred Barras was attempting to escape.

You're assuming a phone-call was made. Had there not been one it would explain why there was no blood on it.

[Holly Goodhead]

You're assuming a phone-call was made. Had there not been one it would explain why there was no blood on it.

No it doesn't.  A careful analysis of the physical evidence at soc by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks shows without any doubt NB did not sustain any gsw's in his bedroom.  Instead he sustained the two facial gsw's whilst he was facing towards the bedroom with the perp already in the bedroom.  He then sustained the two gunshot wounds to the rear of his body: shoulder and elbow/chest whilst he was descending the main stairs with the perp behind.  In other words NB made the call from the kitchen before he sustained any gsw's or indeed any shots had been fired. 

What physcial evidence do you have that supports the prosecution case that the perp entered the main bedroom, opened fire and inflicted the four non-fatal gsw's NB sustained?

[Holly Goodhead]

It wouldn't support the telephone call, just that the killer was upstairs at the time. There can be many permutations of how and why Bamber might be upstairs and NB downstairs. My own thoughts (for what they are worth) is that Bamber didn't slink back in the night, he arrived back prior to Nevil going to bed - I think he forced an argument on purpose earlier and came back under the guise of an apology. He waited for Nevil to head off to the shower and went to work on the others - leaving only Nevil to deal with.

Approx what time do you believe JB arrived back at WHF and by what means eg car, bike, walk etc?

[Caroline]

Yes it would support the telephone call in more ways than one.

The prosecution case is that NB was shot in his bedroom.  Two of the gsw's NB sustained UPSTAIRS, lip and jaw, meant that purposeful speech thereafter was impossible so how could NB call JB "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun"?  Furthermore these two gsw's produced heavy blood loss and no blood was found on the mouthpiece.

At trial Ed Lawson QC for the defence asked MF if any of the victims sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the main bedroom (obviously excl the twins).  MF replied no.  Ed Lawson did not ask MF how he arrived at this conclusion or challenge him in any way.  I have not read Major Mead's (firearms expert for the the defence) testimony to know what he said or didn't say.  However given Michael Turner QC at the 2002 appeal attempted to argue an officer used the kitchen phone to call out and inadvertently removed the blood it would seem unlikely Major Mead put up a robust defence at trial in this regard.

I've posted the link above re the construction at Bleak Farm.  Anthony Scrivener QC comments that the totality of the physical evidence at soc by way of gunshot trajectories, casings and the gsw to the back of Fred Barras may well have caused Joe (ie average Joe/juror, I assume) to side with the prosecution as together it was strongly suggestive that Tony Martin did not fire all the shots whilst he was on the stairs as he claimed and fired whilst Fred Barras was attempting to escape.

None of that supports NB making any phone calll - all it would ever show is that NB was outside of the bedroom.

[Holly Goodhead]

None of that supports NB making any phone calll - all it would ever show is that NB was outside of the bedroom.

A reconstruction based on the physical evidence at soc would turn the prosecution case heard at trial on its head in this regard.

The prosecution case at trial as quoted from the CoA 2002 doc:

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;

The above is based on the perp entering the main bedroom and opening fire on NB and June where it is claimed NB sustained his 4 non-fatal gsw's.

The above did not happen.  NB sustained his 2 non-fatal gsw's, lip and jaw, on the landing stairs facing towards the bedroom with the perp firing out from the bedroom.  NB sustained the other 2 non-fatal gsw's to the rear of his shoulder and elbow/chest whilst descending the main stairs with the perp behind.