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

[guest29835]

Why would they need to know which room Sheila was found?

The room itself doesn't matter, just the fact that it was some way from the gun cupboard.  It maybe looks less convincing if the crime scene has Sheila found in the kitchen or the den, for instance, as you could then interpret that as a deranged and confused Sheila putting the silencer back before killing herself, perhaps after first changing her mind and making to the den to put the weapon back, then changing her mind again.  That seems less likely if she is in the bedroom, especially given that there was no blood evidence in the den - effectively ruling out Rivlin's explanation.  If Rivlin was right and, let's say, Sheila had second thoughts, and then changed her mind again while putting the rifle back, then where is the blood?

Good point about also knowing which rifle was used. Some rifles won't have a silencer option. Also whether the silencer they chose was compatible with the murder weapon. I will add those to my list.

No problem Adam. It's the least I can do after you helped me out with the jet skis and also the other day when I was out in my windsurfing get-up.  What am I like, eh, Adam?

They would need to know more than how to dismantle a silencer. They would also need to know how to create the back spatter effect. David even believes they learnt how to put diluted period blood into the silencer.

I disagree with you there.  I see the logic in what you say, but I've already covered the point exhaustively above.  There was no need for them to even know about back-spatter or even the range of the shots.  Your reasoning is perfectly logical, but the basic flaw in it is that you are reasoning backwards from a conclusion.  Remember the order in which the evidence was discovered, then think it through again.

I have no idea what the 'diluted period blood' is about.  Maybe we should skip over that.  My point about the blood is that, again, yes it is better if they know Sheila's blood group (and I think they did), but it wasn't necessary for them to know this to put in place an effective conspiracy given the state of forensic knowledge at that time, which they would have general knowledge of. 

The reality is that they could just put any human blood in the silencer and it would incriminate Jeremy.  If the blood group had matched, say, one of the twins, then all the better.  At that point, Jeremy is in serious trouble. 

You think it was 'lucky' that it matched Sheila.  It was and it wasn't.  On one level, it helped the police retroactively fit the silencer into the crime scene, but a clever defence barrister could have asked why, if a twin (or whatever other victim) were shot at contact range, that victim's blood type is not part of the blood grouped?  If we accept drawback theory, then that makes no technically sense, though it does make sequential sense if you accept that Jeremy shot Sheila last (albeit he need not have).

[guest29835]

(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour.

----------

It's good to know the police cave in to pressure from elderly relatives. But also disappointing.

You dishonestly ignore that this is one of three factors.  Those factors worked together.  If the relatives had given full-throated support to Jeremy, I doubt the police would have taken Julie Mugford's evidence seriously; and without Stan Jones, I think she would have been dismissed as a fantasist.

It was Robert Boutflour who reported the silencer to the police and demanded a meeting with a chief officer of Essex Police.

[Adam]

The room itself doesn't matter, just the fact that it was some way from the gun cupboard.  It maybe looks less convincing if the crime scene has Sheila found in the kitchen or the den, for instance, as you could then interpret that as a deranged and confused Sheila putting the silencer back before killing herself, perhaps after first changing her mind and making to the den to put the weapon back, then changing her mind again.  That seems less likely if she is in the bedroom, especially given that there was no blood evidence in the den - effectively ruling out Rivlin's explanation.  If Rivlin was right and, let's say, Sheila had second thoughts, and then changed her mind again while putting the rifle back, then where is the blood?

No problem Adam. It's the least I can do after you helped me out with the jet skis and also the other day when I was out in my windsurfing get-up.  What am I like, eh, Adam?

I disagree with you there.  I see the logic in what you say, but I've already covered the point exhaustively above.  There was no need for them to even know about back-spatter or even the range of the shots.  Your reasoning is perfectly logical, but the basic flaw in it is that you are reasoning backwards from a conclusion.  Remember the order in which the evidence was discovered, then think it through again.

I have no idea what the 'diluted period blood' is about.  Maybe we should skip over that.  My point about the blood is that, again, yes it is better if they know Sheila's blood group (and I think they did), but it wasn't necessary for them to know this to put in place an effective conspiracy given the state of forensic knowledge at that time, which they would have general knowledge of. 

The reality is that they could just put any human blood in the silencer and it would incriminate Jeremy.  If the blood group had matched, say, one of the twins, then all the better.  At that point, Jeremy is in serious trouble. 

You think it was 'lucky' that it matched Sheila.  It was and it wasn't.  On one level, it helped the police retroactively fit the silencer into the crime scene, but a clever defence barrister could have asked why, if a twin (or whatever other victim) were shot at contact range, that victim's blood type is not part of the blood grouped?  If we accept drawback theory, then that makes no technically sense, though it does make sequential sense if you accept that Jeremy shot Sheila last (albeit he need not have).

The relatives are being even more calculating, considering how the room Sheila was found in would be interpreted regarding the silencer.

I agree that it being human blood incriminates Bamber. As Sheila would not have put the silencer away.

Agree the relatives could have just put any human inside the silencer & struck very lucky in that it matched Sheila's. They also struck lucky in that Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

[guest29835]

The relatives are being even more calculating, considering how the room Sheila was found in would be interpreted regarding the silencer.

I agree that it being human blood incriminates Bamber. As Sheila would not have put the silencer away.

As I've explained, it's not the specific room that matters, it's just the general location of the body in the house.  To illustrate: if Sheila had been found in the den, next to the gun cupboard, with the gun cupboard open, then would the police have cared about the silencer being found in the gun cupboard?  I highly doubt it. 

The defence theory was weak, and the lack of evidence of blood transference in the den or near the gun cupboard gave it that tint of implausibility, and you can see why the jury couldn't accept it.  If, for instance, blood prints matching Sheila had been found on the floor of the den, you would accept Rivlin's argument, notwithstanding the actual location of Sheila's body.

The relatives will have realised that Sheila was found in the bedroom, which is upstairs not downstairs [thanks Adam], so she was unlikely to have returned the silencer herself.  It's stating the plainly obvious really, so it's not 'calculating'; and remember also that the relatives had inspected the house after the crime and knew and/or could make an educated guess about where blood was found and not found.  Peter and David would know (or would infer or guess) that there was no blood in the den because there was no blood there when they arrived and looked in the gun cupboard, and the carpet was still intact. 

Agree the relatives could have just put any human inside the silencer & struck very lucky in that it matched Sheila's.

The blood didn't match Sheila.  It was just the same blood group.  It is important to correct that, because even today people who are supposed to be experts in the case still go round saying that the blood was Sheila's when this has never been proved. This is also relevant to the hypothesis we're discussing.  Yes, in the scenario of a conspiracy, it was luck that the blood group matched Sheila's, but Sheila's own blood group was common enough, so the luck is attributable to a highly-probable statistical co-incidence.

Furthermore, as I've explained, any group of human blood would do.  Let's say that the blood was grouped to the twins: then Jeremy is still incriminated.  In fact, his position is arguably even worse because his whole defence rests on the notion that Sheila is shot last.

They also struck lucky in that Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

I disagree with the part in bold.  That's not lucky.  They didn't need to know about the shot ranges.  In the hypothetical scenario of a conspiracy, they are acting on a mixture of reason and intuition, with incomplete knowledge.  They just decide to put human blood in the silencer because they realise that could cause problems for Jeremy.  In any case, they could infer that Sheila was found shot in the head region.  Where else would she have been shot if she killed herself or Jeremy staged such?  In the foot?

[Adam]

As I've explained, it's not the specific room that matters, it's just the general location of the body in the house.  To illustrate: if Sheila had been found in the den, next to the gun cupboard, with the gun cupboard open, then would the police have cared about the silencer being found in the gun cupboard?  I highly doubt it. 

The defence theory was weak, and the lack of evidence of blood transference in the den or near the gun cupboard gave it that tint of implausibility, and you can see why the jury couldn't accept it.  If, for instance, blood prints matching Sheila had been found on the floor of the den, you would accept Rivlin's argument, notwithstanding the actual location of Sheila's body.

The relatives will have realised that Sheila was found in the bedroom, which is upstairs not downstairs [thanks Adam], so she was unlikely to have returned the silencer herself.  It's stating the plainly obvious really, so it's not 'calculating'; and remember also that the relatives had inspected the house after the crime and knew and/or could make an educated guess about where blood was found and not found.  Peter and David would know (or would infer or guess) that there was no blood in the den because there was no blood there when they arrived and looked in the gun cupboard, and the carpet was still intact. 

The blood didn't match Sheila.  It was just the same blood group.  It is important to correct that, because even today people who are supposed to be experts in the case still go round saying that the blood was Sheila's when this has never been proved. This is also relevant to the hypothesis we're discussing.  Yes, in the scenario of a conspiracy, it was luck that the blood group matched Sheila's, but Sheila's own blood group was common enough, so the luck is attributable to a highly-probable statistical co-incidence.

Furthermore, as I've explained, any group of human blood would do.  Let's say that the blood was grouped to the twins: then Jeremy is still incriminated.  In fact, his position is arguably even worse because his whole defence rests on the notion that Sheila is shot last.

I disagree with the part in bold.  That's not lucky.  They didn't need to know about the shot ranges.  In the hypothetical scenario of a conspiracy, they are acting on a mixture of reason and intuition, with incomplete knowledge.  They just decide to put human blood in the silencer because they realise that could cause problems for Jeremy.  In any case, they could infer that Sheila was found shot in the head region.  Where else would she have been shot if she killed herself or Jeremy staged such?  In the foot?

I don't know why you keep mentioning the kitchen downstairs. I don't recall ever saying it. Maybe you can remind me. Thanks QC.

Believe the blood matched Sheila's in 13 out of 16 categories. Meaning it was was hers. Hope someone can confirm this.

Sheila could return the silencer at any time. She was in the kitchen giving 6.4, 15 stone Nevill a brutal beating. However the judge said he found this very unlikely. She also had time constraints.

Yes the relatives could just put any human blood into the silencer to cause problems. Not least for themselves. As it happened there was a mountain of other forensic evidence. So they didn't need to bother.

[Adam]

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg591050#msg591050

Sorry it was 17 out of 20.

[Adam]

Sheila's arm lenght.

The rifle lenght with silencer.

What murder weapon was used.

Whether the silencer they have chosen was compatible with the murder weapon.

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 put diluted period 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.

----------

Believe it's common sense that the relatives would want to know all of the above before deciding on a very callous & dangerous framing attempt. If they had the idea in the first place.

But fair play to QC for fire fighting to justify his 98.7% guilty stance. David, Lookout & JackieD have gone AWOL again.

[guest29835]

Believe it's common sense that the relatives would want to know all of the above before deciding on a very callous & dangerous framing attempt. If they had the idea in the first place.

But fair play to QC for fire fighting to justify his 98.7% guilty stance. David, Lookout & JackieD have gone AWOL again.

Thanks Adam.  It must be that they are blown away by your subtle erudition and masterful command of the case and just can't compete.  I think you should write a book or two.  Or maybe three. 

You could become the go-to TV expert on the Bamber case. 

[David1819]

Perhaps the police said 'just put some blood in the sound moderator and we'll do the rest'.  Or even, 'just leave it all to us'.

Are you being serious? Have you actually read the trial transcripts and witness statements avaliable on this forum?

[David1819]

You dishonestly ignore that this is one of three factors.  Those factors worked together.  If the relatives had given full-throated support to Jeremy, I doubt the police would have taken Julie Mugford's evidence seriously; and without Stan Jones, I think she would have been dismissed as a fantasist.

It was Robert Boutflour who reported the silencer to the police and demanded a meeting with a chief officer of Essex Police.

Everything has been explained to Adam before. But he just continues going round in circles as if it never was. I suspect he his clinging onto hope that Paul Harrisons book may still force Jeremy to 'confess'. Better late than never. 

[guest29835]

Everything has been explained to Adam before. But he just continues going round in circles as if it never was. I suspect he his clinging onto hope that Paul Harrisons book may still force Jeremy to 'confess'. Better late than never. 

Paul should have asked Adam to ghost write the book for him.  Adam's 76 Pieces of Forensic Evidence That Prove Jeremy Is Guilty would have been the final word on the case and ended all debate for good, and probably would have led to a documentary.

[David1819]

Paul should have asked Adam to ghost write the book for him.  Adam's 76 Pieces of Forensic Evidence That Prove Jeremy Is Guilty would have been the final word on the case and ended all debate for good, and probably would have led to a documentary.

Adam would first need to make his mind up how many "pieces" of "evidence" he as. The number as varied over years, anything from 30 to 200.

[David1819]

Adam would first need to make his mind up how many "pieces" of "evidence" he as. The number as varied over years, anything from 30 to 200.

Some examples

There are over 50 pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. So it had to be Bamber.

200 pieces of forensic and circumstantial evidence.

Only 100+ pieces. But since when was that enough for supporters ?

28 pieces of forensic evidence.

30 pieces of forensic evidence incriminating Bamber. 

Well there are 19 pieces of foremsic evidence

33 forensic points which link Bamber to the crime.

[guest29835]

Some examples

Until recently, Adam never explained why he changed stance from neutral/undecided to dogmatically-committed to the guilty position.  Now he has admitted that he was lying and in fact he has believed all along that Jeremy is guilty, based on documentaries and the Wilkes book.

It's unclear what connection Adam has to the case, if there is a connection at all.  It could be that he is just a strange person who likes to spend a large chunk of his time spamming a discussion forum about a random case that he has no connection to.

[Roch]

Are you being serious? Have you actually read the trial transcripts and witness statements avaliable on this forum?

In what respect?