The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer

[David1819]

Sources in capitals.

Disputed/Not disputed is referring to the CT -


1.

Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA


2.

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA


3.

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.


4.

Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


5.

No broken nails - Not disputed COA.


6.

Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.


7.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.


8.

No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


9.

No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


10.

No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


11.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.


12.

No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


13.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA


14.

Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.


15.

Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.


16.

Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.


17.

No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.


18.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.


19.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


20.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


21.

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


22.

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.


23.

No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.


24.

Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.


25.

Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


26.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


27.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.


28.

Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.


29.

Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.


30.

Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


31.

Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


32.

Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


33.

No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.


34.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.


35.

Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.


36.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.


37.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.


38.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.


39.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.


40.

Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.


41.

Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.


42.

Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.


43.

No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.


44.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.


45.

Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.


46.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.


47.

June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.


48.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.


49.

2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.


50.

The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.


51.

Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.


52.

Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.


53.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.


54.

No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.


55.

Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.


56.

Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.


57.

Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.


58.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.


59.

Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.


60.

Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.


61.

Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.


62.

Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.


63.

Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER


64.

Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK


65.

Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.


66.

Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.


67.

Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.


68.

Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.


69.

Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA


70.

Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.


71:

Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.

----------

Depends when this evidence was needed. Prior to trial, they had several months to create. Prior to a DPP referral they would have had to work 24/7.

The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

"Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[David1819]

    Calling your list idiotic is not abusive. Other than that I barely respond to any of your posts because they are just mindless lists of things, or Gish Gallop as David observes.
    I remember when you joined and your posts came across then, as they do now, as disruption. I believe that you post with this purpose in mind and for that reason reply to very little that you say.
   

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#How_to_respond

I go for option 6. Fallacy Namedropping

[guest29835]

I have. Thomas Mair. I'm afraid I am far less trusting of our state and its institutions. The evidence and his 'trial' were a sham.

You should probably start a thread on that.  One thing I would need you to explain is why Thomas Mair hasn't spoken out from prison to deny involvement.  Is he in on it?  If so, since he is in prison, what does he gain?

[JackieD]

You should probably start a thread on that.  One thing I would need you to explain is why Thomas Mair hasn't spoken out from prison to deny involvement.  Is he in on it?  If so, since he is in prison, what does he gain?

It is a FACT that there is NO good reason to destroy negatives used during a murder investigation. The only acceptable way to deal with all negatives is to log every single negative and just label anything unacceptable

On just that one fact the conviction is unfair

We all pay for the CCRC to let this unacceptable behaviour continue.

If there was a forensically factual documentary about the Bamber case the general public would be horrified and that’s without throwing Julie Mugford into the mix.

There was never enough evidence to convict Bamber and our judicial system is a joke if you take this case as an example and QC please don’t ever make out the police don’t lie.
The police are not judge and jury and they continually practice ‘noble cause corruption’
It’s not their place

[guest29835]

It is a FACT that there is NO good reason to destroy negatives used during a murder investigation. The only acceptable way to deal with all negatives is to log every single negative and just label anything unacceptable

On just that one fact the conviction is unfair

We all pay for the CCRC to let this unacceptable behaviour continue.

If there was a forensically factual documentary about the Bamber case the general public would be horrified and that’s without throwing Julie Mugford into the mix.

There was never enough evidence to convict Bamber and our judicial system is a joke if you take this case as an example and QC please don’t ever make out the police don’t lie.
The police are not judge and jury and they continually practice ‘noble cause corruption’
It’s not their place

I didn't say the police don't lie.  You're not really understanding what I'm saying.  Sorry.

I've noticed that nobody has come forward with an example of a case in which the police malevolently framed an ordinary non-criminal innocent member of the public.

I don't mean the police fitting up the local sneak thief, for a Post Office robbery that's out of his league, on ridiculous evidence. That sort of thing happens.  It used to happen a lot, and it used to happen that the police would intentionally frame an 'innocent' person who was already a known criminal.  It was a 'nod and wink' thing.  It was also regular that people got roughed up in police custody. 

What I'm talking about is an ordinary regular Joe Bloggs with no criminal record. 

Under the principle that 'there's nothing new under the sun', I'm sure if we search long and hard enough, we'll find one or two examples in Britain involving police officers who had some vested interest or something concrete to gain, such as money or a personal relationship, but I would submit that it's just so vanishingly rare, that it hardly merits comment.

I would submit that there's a huge misunderstanding about miscarriages of justice.  It's very wrong, but at the same time, it happens because the police make errors.  They also lie about these errors, so yes, there's an element of malice involved to that extent, but they don't fit ordinary regular people up who they know to be innocent.

If you dispute this, then I demand further and better particulars.  I want proof. 

I'm not saying I like the police or the authorities - to be honest, I don't really - but I work on evidence, and I think making wrongful accusations against police officers is just as wrong as making wrongful accusations against people who aren't police officers.

Is this an honest dialogue we're having or not?

[gringo]

Can anybody produce an example of an ordinary innocent person being convicted of a serious crime due to police malevolence?  The main criterion is that the police know or assume the individual is factually innocent, but press ahead and prosecute anyway, even falsifying evidence in the process.

Before you say Jeremy Bamber, that's an allegation at this point.  I'm talking about a situation where this sort of police misconduct has been proved.

    Stefan Kiszko

[gringo]

Can anybody produce an example of an ordinary innocent person being convicted of a serious crime due to police malevolence?  The main criterion is that the police know or assume the individual is factually innocent, but press ahead and prosecute anyway, even falsifying evidence in the process.

Before you say Jeremy Bamber, that's an allegation at this point.  I'm talking about a situation where this sort of police misconduct has been proved.

    There are good arguments for quite a few more but the Kiszko case is remarkable in that the police had the evidence that showed he couldn't be the killer but ignored it and proceeded to prosecution and conviction. The Carl Bridgewater four is also a case where it is difficult to overlook the anomalies and not conclude deliberate police corruption.
     Any conviction obtained by the infamous West Midlands Serious Crime Squad(who took their description somewhat too literally) of the late 70's/ early 80's could fall into this category.
     A quick look into the history of the WMSCS would disabuse you of any notion of honest mistake rather than outright corruption.

[JackieD]

I didn't say the police don't lie.  You're not really understanding what I'm saying.  Sorry.

I've noticed that nobody has come forward with an example of a case in which the police malevolently framed an ordinary non-criminal innocent member of the public.

I don't mean the police fitting up the local sneak thief, for a Post Office robbery that's out of his league, on ridiculous evidence. That sort of thing happens.  It used to happen a lot, and it used to happen that the police would intentionally frame an 'innocent' person who was already a known criminal.  It was a 'nod and wink' thing.  It was also regular that people got roughed up in police custody. 

What I'm talking about is an ordinary regular Joe Bloggs with no criminal record. 

Under the principle that 'there's nothing new under the sun', I'm sure if we search long and hard enough, we'll find one or two examples in Britain involving police officers who had some vested interest or something concrete to gain, such as money or a personal relationship, but I would submit that it's just so vanishingly rare, that it hardly merits comment.

I would submit that there's a huge misunderstanding about miscarriages of justice.  It's very wrong, but at the same time, it happens because the police make errors.  They also lie about these errors, so yes, there's an element of malice involved to that extent, but they don't fit ordinary regular people up who they know to be innocent.

If you dispute this, then I demand further and better particulars.  I want proof. 

I'm not saying I like the police or the authorities - to be honest, I don't really - but I work on evidence, and I think making wrongful accusations against police officers is just as wrong as making wrongful accusations against people who aren't police officers.

Is this an honest dialogue we're having or not?

But Jeremy wasn’t a criminal was he ?
What I know about him from speaking to him, writing to him and reading about the case he would have been one of the easiest people to stitch up.

There is nothing about Jeremy that was streetwise at the time of the murders

You have to know him a bit to understand and as far as the caravan robbery goes I bet it was Julie’s idea.

This big spender has money in the bank at the time of the murders unlike most young people these days.
Why didn’t he have a big overdraft?

[guest29835]

    There are good arguments for quite a few more but the Kiszko case is remarkable in that the police had the evidence that showed he couldn't be the killer but ignored it and proceeded to prosecution and conviction. The Carl Bridgewater four is also a case where it is difficult to overlook the anomalies and not conclude deliberate police corruption.
     Any conviction obtained by the infamous West Midlands Serious Crime Squad(who took their description somewhat too literally) of the late 70's/ early 80's could fall into this category.
     A quick look into the history of the WMSCS would disabuse you of any notion of honest mistake rather than outright corruption.

Again, sorry but you've totally got the wrong end of the stick about what I'm driving at.

The police believed Kiszko to be guilty.  If they had believed him innocent, they would have left him alone.

I'm sure there is deliberate police corruption in such cases, maybe in the Bamber case too, but what I'm asking is you to provide me with examples of cases where the police believed or assumed somebody was innocent but sought to bring charges anyway and this was later proved to be the case.

Can you provide such examples?

[Roch]

You should probably start a thread on that.  One thing I would need you to explain is why Thomas Mair hasn't spoken out from prison to deny involvement.  Is he in on it?  If so, since he is in prison, what does he gain?

You've asked some pertinent questions there.  I suspect he's either been bought off or is in fear for his life or lives of his family members.  Whether he's actually in prison or attended his own trial are up for debate. As is where Jo Cox ended up.  Yes a thread may be an idea.

[gringo]

I didn't say the police don't lie.  You're not really understanding what I'm saying.  Sorry.

I've noticed that nobody has come forward with an example of a case in which the police malevolently framed an ordinary non-criminal innocent member of the public.

I don't mean the police fitting up the local sneak thief, for a Post Office robbery that's out of his league, on ridiculous evidence. That sort of thing happens.  It used to happen a lot, and it used to happen that the police would intentionally frame an 'innocent' person who was already a known criminal.  It was a 'nod and wink' thing.  It was also regular that people got roughed up in police custody. 

What I'm talking about is an ordinary regular Joe Bloggs with no criminal record. 

Under the principle that 'there's nothing new under the sun', I'm sure if we search long and hard enough, we'll find one or two examples in Britain involving police officers who had some vested interest or something concrete to gain, such as money or a personal relationship, but I would submit that it's just so vanishingly rare, that it hardly merits comment.

I would submit that there's a huge misunderstanding about miscarriages of justice.  It's very wrong, but at the same time, it happens because the police make errors.  They also lie about these errors, so yes, there's an element of malice involved to that extent, but they don't fit ordinary regular people up who they know to be innocent.

If you dispute this, then I demand further and better particulars.  I want proof. 

I'm not saying I like the police or the authorities - to be honest, I don't really - but I work on evidence, and I think making wrongful accusations against police officers is just as wrong as making wrongful accusations against people who aren't police officers.

Is this an honest dialogue we're having or not?

   On the other side of the coin there are serious crimes that the police don't solve despite almost certainly knowing the perpetrators and evidence being available.
     If you aren't already acquainted with the details of the Daniel Morgan murder then perhaps have a look at that also. A most intriguing tale of police corruption and involvement in murder that cannot be put down to incompetence.
     You could also look into the reasons for PACE(Police And Criminal Evidence Act) being enacted. It didn't happen in a vacuum and was in large part in response to documented police corruption and framing of innocent people leading to a number of overturned convictions. Public confidence was so low in the police with justifiable reason that PACE 1984 was enacted to prevent police lying and beating confessions out of suspects.
     Far from being a vanishingly small problem, it was so large that new legislation had to be enacted to prevent the wide-scale corruption in an attempt to re-establish public trust.
     

[guest29835]

But Jeremy wasn’t a criminal was he ?
What I know about him from speaking to him, writing to him and reading about the case he would have been one of the easiest people to stitch up.

There is nothing about Jeremy that was streetwise at the time of the murders

You have to know him a bit to understand and as far as the caravan robbery goes I bet it was Julie’s idea.

This big spender has money in the bank at the time of the murders unlike most young people these days.
Why didn’t he have a big overdraft?

But it's not been shown that Jeremy is innocent, and probably the best you can hope for is that the conviction is quashed on the basis that it is unsafe, rather than a factual exoneration.

Therefore, the Bamber case isn't an example either.

I think the truth is that you can't point to an example of a case in which the police pursued an ordinary non-criminal person they knew to be innocent.  That's no surprise, because it must be an extremely rare occurrence.  I am sure there will be a few such cases, but the fact that nothing springs to mind suggests to me that it's not a phenomenon that's worthy of much comment.  It makes sense that it is rare because police officers have no motive to frame an innocent person.  Why would they bother doing so?  Just for kicks and giggles?

Despite this, you maintain that the police did pursue Jeremy knowing him to be innocent.  Can you explain why they would do this?  It will need to be a pretty compelling motive.  I'm just trying to imagine a scenario in which Robert Boutflour and Stan Jones are discussing the case and Robert brings this up.

"Can I call you Stan?" 

"No".

"Can I call you Jones?"

"No.  That makes me sound like a black servant in the American South, circa 1852."

"Can I call you Stanny?"

"Yes."

"Well, this little tosser, what we're going to do about him?  We're shut of Sheila, June and Nevill, and those horrible twins, but the woofter's threatening to throw us off the land.  You help us and I'll make it worth your while, old Stanny boy."

"But he's innocent."

"I know."

"How much?" 

"Ten grand.  Plus we'll buy you a new suit for the trial, send you to a health farm - you need to cut down on the flab - and we'll fix up that scruffy car of yours, the Citroën Dyane."

"What about promotion?  The missus has been going on at me."

"I'll put in a good word.  You'll soon be a real-life Campion, only not as stylish - no offence."

[guest29835]

     If you aren't already acquainted with the details of the Daniel Morgan murder then perhaps have a look at that also. A most intriguing tale of police corruption and involvement in murder that cannot be put down to incompetence.

Sorry but you're changing the subject and moving the goalposts of the discussion.  I know there's police corruption.  I know the police lie.  That's not in dispute. 

What I'm disputing is the specific suggestion that the police intentionally frame innocent ordinary people for crimes.  Not regular criminals, ordinary people with no involvement in criminality.

Nobody so far has provided me with an actual example of such conduct.

[gringo]

Sorry but you're changing the subject and moving the goalposts of the discussion.  I know there's police corruption.  I know the police lie.  That's not in dispute. 

What I'm disputing is the specific suggestion that the police intentionally frame innocent ordinary people for crimes.  Not regular criminals, ordinary people with no involvement in criminality.

Nobody so far has provided me with an actual example of such conduct.

    I  already did with Stefan Kiszko. The police suppressed the evidence that proved that he couldn't have committed the murder. Sperm heads that Kiszko couldn't produce on Lesley Molseed's clothing were withheld. They coerced a confession out of a man with clear learning difficulties, brutally questioning him for three days and only getting him to sign a confession because they told him he could go home to his mum if he did.
    How do you conclude that Kiszko's conviction was an honest mistake?

[gringo]

    It is widely regarded as the most egregious example of police misconduct in a supposed miscarriage of justice. I am baffled that anyone can consider the Kiszko case was an honest mistake.