Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Express / Lomax
« Last post by JackieD on Yesterday at 05:48 PM »
Notice Scott Lomax gave a realistic number of letters and he had actually spoken to and met Jeremy unlike CAL the fantasist
23
One had a distinctive scratch mark along the outer casing of the sound moderator (silencer),  another sound moderator (Silencer) had a solitary hair stuck on it, and a third Sound Moderator (silencer), was found to have got some red paint particles crushed into the knurled pattern, around the circumference of the silencers end cap!

The mysterious hair found on one of the sound moderators (silencer), was the one found in the gun cupboard at whf by David Boutflour on the 10th August which his brother in law, Peter Earn handed over to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985, which I believe was the one Labelled originally as exhibit 'DB/1', which did not get sent to the lab' at Huntingdon until the 30th August 1985, where it remained for a lengthy time afterwards! It was inside this particular sound moderator (silencer) that on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and the 19th of September 1985, that blood which had been found upon 'its' baffle plates was identified by scientific means (blood grouping), producing the four blood group types, 'A', (etc), (etc), (etc). There was no blood found on any of the baffle plates belonging to either of the other two sound moderators (silencers), 'SBJ/1', or 'DRB/1'. The shiny elongated scratch found on one of the sound moderators was almost certainly present on the silencer bearing the identification mark of 'SBJ/1' which Was taken to Huntingdon Lab' on the 13th August 1985....

The third sound moderator (silencer) 'DRB/1', was the one taken from the farmhouse by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, which she handed over to headquarters SOCO (DC OAKY), on that very same date. It was a also the very same sound moderator (silencer) 'DRB/1' that on the 12th September 1985, David Boutflour took it upon himself to telephone the police to tell them that he had found the silencer to the rifle! This was also the very same sound moderator ('silencer), 'DRB/1', which DS Davison and DS Eastwood fingerprinted on the 13th September 1985, and which was subsequently sent off to the lab' to be examined on the 20th September 1985, and which was provisionally examined for the first occasion on the 25th September 1985, and upon which not until the 2nd October 1985, red paint which was present in the knurled pattern on the circumference of that silencers metal end cap was subsequently matched with a red paint sample taken from the kitchen aga mantelpiece, on a date and time which is shrouded in mystery! According to DS Davidson (Witham police SOCO), DI Cook handed him a paint sample taken from wherever, because some reddish coloured paint had been found to be present on the end of a guns barrel at the scene!

A sound moderator (silencer) was fingerprinted on three separate dates!

First occasion was on the 15th August 1985, by DI Ron Cook!

Second occasion was on the 23rd August 1985 by DI Ron Cook!

Third occasion was on the 13th September 1985 by DS Davison and DS Eastwood!
24
Police and Lab' records confirm that three different marked 'sound moderators / silencers' ('SBJ/1', 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1' were submitted to Huntington Laboratory on three separate occasions, (13th August 1985, 30th August 1985, and the 20th September 1985)..

One had a distinctive scratch mark along the outer casing of the sound moderator (silencer),  another sound moderator (Silencer) had a solitary hair stuck on it, and a third Sound Moderator (silencer), was found to have got some red paint particles crushed into the knurled pattern, around the circumference of the silencers end cap!
25
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Discussion on motive
« Last post by JackieD on Yesterday at 01:55 PM »
That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.

Thank you Arther
26
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Express / Lomax
« Last post by Roch on Yesterday at 09:06 AM »
27
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Discussion on motive
« Last post by Adam on Yesterday at 06:57 AM »
That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.

What more would you want than -

One alive suspect.

A mountain of forensic evidence.

A mountain of circumstantial evidence.

A big witness.

Several motives.

An opportunity.

No alibi.

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

It has been suggested that a forensic industrial frame department was set up. Not sure why EP would do this. If they did, this could not include the circumstantial evidence, no alibi, one alive suspect, motives & opportunity. These were already in place. 

28
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Discussion on motive
« Last post by maggie on Yesterday at 02:13 AM »
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.

I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Well said arthur, I agree.
29
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Discussion on motive
« Last post by arthur on Yesterday at 01:02 AM »
There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi.

There are over 60 pieces of forensic evidence from the Court of Appeal that show it was not Sheila. There is too much circumstantial evidence to list.

There is an excellent witness - Julie Mugford. Who wouldn't dare perjure herself so seriously because she was 'jilted'.

Not sure what else can be supplied.

That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.
30
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Discussion on motive
« Last post by Adam on Yesterday at 12:52 AM »
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.

I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi.

There are over 60 pieces of forensic evidence from the Court of Appeal that show it was not Sheila. There is too much circumstantial evidence to list.

There is an excellent witness - Julie Mugford. Who wouldn't dare perjure herself so seriously because she was 'jilted'.

Not sure what else can be supplied.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10