The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[guest29835]

A bit? It would mean they knowingly framed an innocent man after they concluded themselves that Sheila was responsible and with absolutely no motive. Its almost as big a stretch as Aliens abducting sheep.

But there's another half to what I said in the original post that this refers back to.

I said there would have to be a vital interest, and I also said that there would need to be convincing evidence of this vital interest.

What is your evidence for the above?  I asked at the time and drew a blank from the Forum.

[David1819]

The relatives would need to know -

Sheila's arm lenght.

The rifle lenght with silencer.

Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.

What back splatter is.

Who received contact shots.

What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.

Where were the contact shots on everyone.

Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.

How to realistically put blood into a silencer.

Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.

The chance of this getting a conviction.

The punishment if caught doing this.

Was there a kitchen fight.

How to effectively scratch the aga.

What the kitchen crime scene photos show.

Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.

What blood group was Sheila.

How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.

Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.

Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.

..........

That is after having the idea in the first place.

"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. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of 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 — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[David1819]

I could go through all your list, but just to concentrate on the above two, you are actually contradicting your own argument.  If it's true that this needed to be known for somebody to introduce the silencer into evidence, then why did the silencer come into play at all, whether genuinely or otherwise?

In reality, they would not have needed to know the things you mention or even had an appreciation of the silencer's relevance.  What happened is that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard, and they say it was 'sticky' and had blood on it, and they realised it belonged to the rifle. 

If they did plant the silencer, that would mean all they needed to figure out was that the detection of any blood at all in the silencer could potentially be incriminating, regardless of whose blood it was.

They had overheard Jeremy telling Taff Jones he left the gun out without the silencer attached on the rifle. That's all they needed to know in order contradict his version of events.

[guest29835]

I'm not sure I agree. He was a detective. He would know what wounds are. If he in any way attempted to conceal them, either by sleight of hand with crime scene images or cajoling a pathologist - arguably, he deliberately, knowingly contributed to the framing of a person, when evidence pointed away from that person.

But this brings me to another point: wounds can be missed and overlooked, even by experienced detectives, crime scene officers and pathologists. 

I have to say, I am not entirely sure which photographs you are talking about.  You did send me a link, but that was a general link to an entire thread, so I am at a disadvantage in this discussion as I am not clear what wounds precisely are being referred to.  It would be really helpful if somebody could start a new thread for this discussion with the photos in the original post, so we can all see what is being talked about.

However, if I am right, I think you are talking about cuts to her arm.  If so, those wounds would have been relatively minor in nature (the key point for the defence is not the severity of the wounds, but the type, location and number of them), and these wounds would have been covered or obscured by dried blood and so maybe for that reason not reported initially at the scene.  It is easy to miss cuts and abrasions if slight or minor.  I think an honest pathologist could quite easily have missed such evidence.

[guest29835]

They had overheard Jeremy telling Taff Jones he left the gun out without the silencer attached on the rifle. That's all they needed to know in order contradict his version of events.

Thanks.  A useful point.  Sorry, remind me: is that in one of the witness statements?

[Adam]

The relatives would need to know -

Sheila's arm lenght.

The rifle lenght with silencer.

Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.

What back splatter is.

Who received contact shots.

What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.

Where were the contact shots on everyone.

Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.

How to realistically put blood into a silencer.

Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.

The chance of this getting a conviction.

The punishment if caught doing this.

Was there a kitchen fight.

How to effectively scratch the aga.

What the kitchen crime scene photos show.

Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.

What blood group was Sheila.

How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.

Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.

Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.

..........

That is after having the idea in the first place.

David has no answer to this. Or the COA forensic evidence, 95% of which the CT have not disputed.

All he can do is copy and paste someone else's quote.

[guest29835]

David has no answer to this. Or the COA forensic evidence, 95% of which the CT have not disputed.

All he can do is copy and paste someone else's quote.

Thanks Adam.

[Adam]

Thanks Adam.

My pleasure.

It's alright saying the relatives put blood and paint in the silencer. The impossible part is adequately addressing my 20 points. 

[guest29835]

My pleasure.

It's alright saying the relatives put blood and paint in the silencer. The impossible part is adequately addressing my 20 points.

I didn't know that.  Thanks Adam.

Now that Adam has changed his position, we may see more stance changes.

It's getting exciting.

[Adam]

I didn't know that.  Thanks Adam.

Now that Adam has changed his position, we may see more stance changes.

It's getting exciting.

What do you think of David's theory that the relatives got diluted period blood in a bucket of water & put it inside the silencer?

[JackieD]

Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things.  I insist on the distinction.  Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man.  It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence.  It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day.  It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system.  Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent. 

The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.

Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position.  I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance.  The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions.  In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain.  Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly. 

What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative.  It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.

Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.

However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it.  It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent.  A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team. 

Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative.  In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.

Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'.  Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.

Going by some of the evidence that has been withheld for over 30 years for no reason I believe you are wrong. That in itself is a miscarriage of justice. We are not talking about someone doing 12 months in prison we are talking about someone on a full life tariff convicted on circumstantial evidence. I believe Jeremy has been a victim because a bunch of people acted for there own personal gain and I include the police, Mugford, the relatives and anyone else where documentation has discrepancies.

[Adam]

Going by some of the evidence that has been withheld for over 30 years for no reason I believe you are wrong. That in itself is a miscarriage of justice. We are not talking about someone doing 12 months in prison we are talking about someone on a full life tariff convicted on circumstantial evidence. I believe Jeremy has been a victim because a bunch of people acted for there own personal gain and I include the police, Mugford, the relatives and anyone else where documentation has discrepancies.

What withheld evidence?

[Steve_uk]

Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things.  I insist on the distinction.  Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man.  It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence.  It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day.  It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system.  Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent. 

The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.

Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position.  I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance.  The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions.  In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain.  Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly. 

What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative.  It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.

Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.

However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it.  It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent.  A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team. 

Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative.  In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.

Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'.  Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.

This certainly wasn't the case with Bamber, as it was quite clear DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones and DI Stan Jones had their own individual views from the outset. I also reject the idea that Peter Vanezis could be leant on to provide evidence which suited someone else's own agenda.

[David1819]

But there's another half to what I said in the original post that this refers back to.

I said there would have to be a vital interest, and I also said that there would need to be convincing evidence of this vital interest.

What is your evidence for the above?  I asked at the time and drew a blank from the Forum.

I have explained this on the previous page

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg490117.html#msg490117

[guest29835]

I have explained this on the previous page

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg490117.html#msg490117

That's the very post I was replying to.  You haven't included any evidence in that post.  You simply assert that Jeremy would have controlled the Eatons' land.  Where is the copy of the deeds of tenancy providing this?  Where is the evidence that Jeremy would have had a controlling share in the caravan park?  We would need to see a copy of wills, annual returns and articles of association.