Professors, experts & police creating false reports, documents and WS's.

[adam]

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

[adam]

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.

[adam]

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.

[John]

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

[John]

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?

[adam]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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 

No doubt in my mind JB is innocent and I do believe his conviction will be quashed based on solid forensic evidence.   

[david1819]

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 

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"

[adam]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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

[Holly Goodhead]

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 

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? 

[Myster]

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

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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? 

[Myster]

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