Author Topic: Experts/police/relatives creating a mountain of false forensic evidence:  (Read 603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 35033
Blood could have run down inside the rifle when it was on edge on the window sill.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668


No mention of foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.

"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
Wow. David (again) is going to try to fire fight 50+ pieces of published incriminating forensic evidence. Which has unsuccessfully all been fire fighted before on other threads.

However this thread question is how did 50+ pieces of incriminating evidence end up with the police, DPP, courts, COA, in books & online if Bamber was innocent ?

It is not a hard question. I have given 4 possible answers.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 10:40:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668

Blood in silencer.


34. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report.  That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists.  In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds.  He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds.


Mark Thomas: Now you've looked at the photograph's
Philip Boyce: I have.
Mark Thomas: These are of Sheila's Injuries.
Philip Boyce: I have.
Mark Thomas: Which would you say is the most likely to have occurred?
Philip Boyce: Based on my examination of the wounds in the photographs.And the tests that i have just done. I'm of the opinion that the contact wounds to Sheila's chin. Was contact without the silencer fitted.

"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
I know posters will ask me 'what forensic evidence'. Below is some -


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.

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.

       
                                               -------------------



Surely the experts/police/relatives couldn't have created all this false forensic evidence.

I only want one answer to one question.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
Dozens of respected & law abiding/upholding people would all have to work together. Putting their names to false witness statements, documents & evidence.

They would all have to agree to be corrupt and to lie to the DPP courts and juries.

They would all have to trust each other that no one will break ranks and retract . Both at the time and in the future.

Surely to create so much false forensic evidence is impossible.

From my original thread post written two days ago.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 09:46:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
What cannot be disputed is everything in the list on page 1 has been released as forensic evidence. Over half is within the 522 points of the 2002 Court of Appeal.

The options are then -

1:

Each piece of released forènsic evidence is wrong through innocent human error. 


2:

Each piece of released forensic evidence is wrong due to unprecedented huge scale deliberate falseification from hundreds of experts, professors,  police officers & relatives. 


3:

Bamber is guilty and each piece of released forensic evidence is correct.


4:

Bamber is guilty. However after 32 years a small amount of the released forensic evidence may be open to challenge due to human error or individual interppretation.

                                            ____________

I'm sure everyone will rule out option 1. One piece of forensic evidence may be wrong due to human error. But not over 50 pieces.

So far no one has supported option 2.

Option 3 & 4 are the most plausible and show 100% that Bamber is guilty. Unless people say RB, AE, a random stranger, hit man or SAS style hit man team committed the massacre, as suggested by Mike & Sherlock.

Here are my possible answers to my question from 2 days ago.

Obviously David is ruling out option 3 & seems to be fire fighting all 50+ pieces of published incriminating evidence. 

So either 50+ pieces are all wrong due to innocent human error.  Or it is a deliberate made up 50 + pieces of incriminating evidence from dozens or hundreds of different people in different fields.

Either way Bamber is the unluckiest man alive.

I hope everyone applauds David's tenancity. However I hope  he says why this mountain of wrong evidence was made available to the world.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 11:18:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668

2012 CCRC court judgement.


That implies there is only 1 piece of evidence. The silencer.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
He's not listening.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39043
Relatives-

Could only fabricate one piece of forensic evidence. - silencer. With a lot of assistance from the police.
the blood group evidence was ill conceived and misrepresented, the Ak1 part of the result was not unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell as claimed by the prosecutions blood expert, John Hayward! AK1 was shared by animals and Sheila, and two lots of animals blood was found inside the same silencer (but the lucifarian Hayward happened to let that matter conveniently slip his mind because it would have served to weaken the prosecutions case, and at the same time strengthen the defence case!

Police:

Had no motive to create false evidence. So, why did they swap the original piece of badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) for a whole bullet? And, which shooting incident in the kitchen does the officers report, 1612 relate to?Which would have to be ratified by experts Experts only give their opinion, they do not create evidence! or for the silencer, the relatives. However there were a lot of huge risks. there are always risks when somebody is lying or has lied!


Experts

Again they had no motive to give false evidence let's take the prosecutions ballistic expert,
the lucifarian Fletcher! He did not say that the original badly fragmented piece of bullet which the pathologist took out of Sheila's neck during autopsy, and say that 'it' had been fired via the anshuzt rifle! He didn't examine the original piece of badly fragmented bullet which was PV/20, he examined a different bullet, a whole one which somebody had switched! Hence, a perfect example of the dishonest act of one person having a profound impact on evidence from elsewhere, provided in this instance, as it were by an expert! So much of an expert that in fact he didn't even check with the pathologist to see if the whole bullet he examined and linked to the rifle, was in fact the very same piece of badly fragmented bullet from Sheila's neck!
or write false documents nonsense.. & WS's police officers paraphrase the Statement TS of witnesses, but if your of lucifarian blood then it's alright just a minor deception! for the courts.


The police, relatives & experts all testified.

                                             ----------------

Why was so much false evidence created by experts, relatives & the police ?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
David is that what one of the jurors said. About the judge directing them to find him guilty? Is it in call book. Does it say anything else

Sorry for the late reply, only just seen this.

Page Cal page 380.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4911.msg251196.html#msg251196

There is already a thread on the Judges summing up. His main points are below. If there is anything new in CAL's book, enter it in the relavent thread (link above). Rather than deflecting from this important thread question.

                                        -----------------------

Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ?

Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ?

Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole.

Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ?

The jury should ignore the media.

Every witness in the trial is equal.

Did the 'mysterious' phone call from Neville happen ?

Could Julie have lied under oath for nearly two days ?

Did Julie's testimony have a ring of truth ?

The judge said Bamber should know whether he phoned Witham police station or not.

The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence.

Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ? 

Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ?

There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.

Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction.

Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime.

Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation.  Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ?

The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ?

Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place.

Julie was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ?

If Julie was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events. 

If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes.

Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.

Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons.

Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent.

The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.

The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night.

The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ?

The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard.

The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes.

The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 06:36:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189


Thank you Mike. It's good someone has answered this simple but vital question. 

Virtually all of the 50+ pieces of incriminating evidence already have individual threads. So not sure how David posting his own chosen documents here to fire fight a fraction of the 50+ pieces will answer my question. It is inappropriate to get involved in 10 different topic debates in one thread as it deflects from the simple but vital thread question.

It seems you are saying the police created all this false forensic evidence themselves. Then got experts to give their opinions which would support the evidence the police had created.

Do you believe a large team within EP with wide ranging forensic expertise was set up to create all this false evidence. Then they found experts, relatives, blood testers, photographers & professors to justify each piece ?  An undertaking this huge would surely be too much for Stan Jones to secretly achieve himself.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 09:36:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 35033
The main " protagonist " in this case was RWB. He went to great lengths in contacting an associate who worked in the Met. after EP's conclusion of 4 murders and a suicide. Carr,from the Met then arranged to meet with Simpson,who then organised a review involving Kenneally,who finally presented his report which concluded " That all the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible ". Sept 6th.
( Sept 7th was when JM spoke about the hitman )

This was about a month after the murders and between AE and RWB,they turned WHF upside down " looking for clues ",anything that they would have thought would change the views of senior police !!
They constantly rang the station at Witham,had umpteen meetings with officers there.

On the 9th of October 1986 Arlidge QC then told the jury that JM " had given her assurance that she had not sold her story to a newspaper and had no intention of doing so ".

What we have here are a bunch of lying,greedy,avaricious individuals !!