What would convince that Jeremy was guilty of 5 murders?

[Myster]

"So where was this second gun? How does it fit into the picture? Did the police record its existence? If so, why wasn’t it presented as evidence?

We know that at 7.15 a.m. on the morning of the tragedy, WPC Jeapes saw a rifle leaning against the main bedroom window inside the farmhouse (which from other testimony wasn’t there some hours earlier.) Jeapes recorded this sighting before armed police burst into the house sometime after 7.30 a.m. PC Bird then photographed this particular rifle (photo 23) leaning up against the same window as part of his duties as a crime scene photographer. This rifle, therefore, cannot have been the same rifle which the police say they found on top of Sheila’s body, also photographed by PC Bird. The police have never adequately explained the story behind this other rifle which was in the same room as the dead bodies of Sheila and June, and where the police suspected Nevill was shot and wounded a number of times. At Jeremy’s 1986 trial, PC Bird could not adequately explain how that rifle came to be leaning against the bedroom window."  From "An Innocent Man" by David Shaw

Do yourself a favour, Rob, and avoid any confusion by ignoring fairy tales and untruths invented by 'David Shaw'. There was only one Anschutz used in the killings - the rifle removed from Sheila's body was the same one propped up by the window.  It would be impossible for anyone at a distance outside at ground level to recognise such a tiny portion of the barrel as belonging to the rifle shown in DC Bird's photo.

[APRIL]

Do yourself a favour, Rob, and avoid any confusion by ignoring fairy tales and untruths invented by 'David Shaw'. There was only one Anschutz used in the killings - the rifle removed from Sheila's body was the same one propped up by the window.  It would be impossible for anyone at a distance outside at ground level to recognise such a tiny portion of the barrel as belonging to the rifle shown in DC Bird's photo.

Thanks Myster. He might listen to you. I thought the "Debunking" thread might prove helpful.

[Myster]

"Anyone who thinks Jeremy Bamber is guilty of murder should pay close attention now. Why would Essex police want a paint sample from underneath the mantelpiece in the kitchen on August 9 to match to a recovered exhibit responsible for that very scratch mark, when the silencer was not even found until at least the 10th of August by the relatives, and not handed to the police until August 12 1985?"

I'm having trouble believing what I'm reading.  Is this really true?

The paint sample was only taken by Ron Cook on the evening of 14th. August, when Cook, Miller and Stan Jones visited the farmhouse for further investigation.

[Robittybob1]

Depends who your source is.

The other sources do they even mention it.  Each source has their favorite topic.

[APRIL]

The other sources do they even mention it.  Each source has their favorite topic.

I imagine every author has their favourite drum to beat. The scratch is known about. It's provenance, less so. How clever, then, to run with an idea about it, that no one else has posited.

[Brietta]

I imagine every author has their favourite drum to beat. The scratch is known about. It's provenance, less so. How clever, then, to run with an idea about it, that no one else has posited.

I think the balance of probability is that the paint on the silencer got there during the fight when Nevill was struggling for his life.  But even if the crime scene photographs had included a close up of under the mantel it could probably have been argued that it had happened on an earlier occasion.
Highly unlikely ... but in my short experience of looking at the case in any depth the one thing that has leapt out at me is the Bamber campaign presents nothing of substance but relies solely on clutching at ephemeral straws and wishful thinking.

[Robittybob1]

I think the balance of probability is that the paint on the silencer got there during the fight when Nevill was struggling for his life.  But even if the crime scene photographs had included a close up of under the mantel it could probably have been argued that it had happened on an earlier occasion.
Highly unlikely ... but in my short experience of looking at the case in any depth the one thing that has leapt out at me is the Bamber campaign presents nothing of substance but relies solely on clutching at ephemeral straws and wishful thinking.

But what I'm looking for is a thing that makes you believe he is guilty.  What is the one thing that seals it for you?

[Robittybob1]

Do yourself a favour, Rob, and avoid any confusion by ignoring fairy tales and untruths invented by 'David Shaw'. There was only one Anschutz used in the killings - the rifle removed from Sheila's body was the same one propped up by the window.  It would be impossible for anyone at a distance outside at ground level to recognise such a tiny portion of the barrel as belonging to the rifle shown in DC Bird's photo.

The gun by the window looks like it has a silencer attached to it.

[Robittybob1]

http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-page-14.html

I'm convinced there is a miscarriage of justice in the Bamber case.  Read page 14 (really chapter 14 of "The Innocent Man".

"So, when it comes to the ballistic evidence presented at Jeremy’s trial, what do we know? Firstly, that basic scientific interpretation of bullets and cartridge cases is an exact science; it is not open to subjective interpretation when it comes to deciding whether or not a certain rifle was responsible or not responsible for firing a certain type of bullet, as in the case of the Anschutz rifle and Eley ammunition.

Twenty one years ago Essex police put a man in prison for life for shooting five people dead using one gun and one batch of ammunition. Every police officer and expert under oath testified that these ‘facts’ were accurate. Every piece of official documentation ever released, skimpy though it was, toed the official line. There was never a hint or suggestion that the Essex police force or its ballistic experts weren’t certain of the claims they made in court. The defence were given no grounds, or opportunity, to challenge the police assertions.

Essex police did all of this knowing the ballistic evidence they presented in court was not – could not – be true. Now, via police documents, police admissions during official interviews, crime scene photographs, buried reports, undisclosed lab reports and working notes, an entirely different picture emerges. It is a picture full of confusion and deceit."

[Brietta]

But what I'm looking for is a thing that makes you believe he is guilty.  What is the one thing that seals it for you?

It isn't one thing nor could it ever be.

The police made their case ... I have read quite a bit about it and I have taken care not to get caught up in the lies, misinformation and propaganda with which this case is awash ... leaving me without an iota of doubt that Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded killer who pumped hollow nose (dum-dum) bullets into the heads of two sleeping children and who wiped out his family.

[APRIL]

It isn't one thing nor could it ever be.

The police made their case ... I have read quite a bit about it and I have taken care not to get caught up in the lies, misinformation and propaganda with which this case is awash ... leaving me without an iota of doubt that Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded killer who pumped hollow nose (dum-dum) bullets into the heads of two sleeping children and who wiped out his family.

That's it in a nutshell, Brietta. There's nothing which stands out on it's own, but ALL those individual behaviours add up to just one conclusion.

[Robittybob1]

It isn't one thing nor could it ever be.

The police made their case ... I have read quite a bit about it and I have taken care not to get caught up in the lies, misinformation and propaganda with which this case is awash ... leaving me without an iota of doubt that Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded killer who pumped hollow nose (dum-dum) bullets into the heads of two sleeping children and who wiped out his family.

OK if you believe the police are being honest you might end up with a view like yours.   When you see the analysis of the bullets one has to suspect that at least two guns were in use that night.  Yet the police testified that all the bullets were fired from the one .22 Anschutz rifle.  Testisfied to that effect without providing the evidence.

[steve_trousers]

It isn't one thing nor could it ever be.

The police made their case ... I have read quite a bit about it and I have taken care not to get caught up in the lies, misinformation and propaganda with which this case is awash ... leaving me without an iota of doubt that Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded killer who pumped hollow nose (dum-dum) bullets into the heads of two sleeping children and who wiped out his family.

An excellent synopsis. There is no ‘smoking gun’ in this case, a fact that draws a lot of MoJ campaigners in.

In the words of the 2002 appeal court judges “the more we look into the details of the case the more convinced we are that the jury was correct the first time”

[Robittybob1]

An excellent synopsis. There is no ‘smoking gun’ in this case, a fact that draws a lot of MoJ campaigners in.

In the words of the 2002 appeal court judges “the more we look into the details of the case the more convinced we are that the jury was correct the first time”

Wishy-washy answer like that does nothing for me.  So was it things like having a full English breakfast the next morning somehow part of your evidence against Jeremy?

[steve_trousers]

Do yourself a favour, Rob, and avoid any confusion by ignoring fairy tales and untruths invented by 'David Shaw'. There was only one Anschutz used in the killings - the rifle removed from Sheila's body was the same one propped up by the window.  It would be impossible for anyone at a distance outside at ground level to recognise such a tiny portion of the barrel as belonging to the rifle shown in DC Bird's photo.

 

2 guns