THE SILENCER SAGA

[killingeve]

You are entitled to your opinion but you still have to explain the two statements, on the same day, with different contents retrieved.
You indicated that other tests were performed by the lab on the socks. What were these tests. I know it was June's blood no dispute there.
Members can make up their own minds as to whether this issue is sinister.
If the other items were collected and not seen by the defence that is a disclosure issue.

The defence sees a lot of material but either overlooks (incompetence/negligence) or chooses not to include.  Eg you can see in the attached where at the 2002 appeal Turner QC was arguing about the letter written by Colin Caffell to Mr Bamber.  Appeal judges point out it was in defence bundle and so nothing to answer. 

[Bubo bubo]

Suit yourself pal.  I've read enough of your back posts to know that you frequently bark up the wrong tree.  I will highlight some time permitting. 

Re the socks the simple explanation is that they were stored in the mobile scenes of crime vehicle until they resurfaced later. The police are trained to be mindful of costs.  Each time the lab analyses an exhibit it costs.  On 7th Aug (apart from DS Jones) all considered the case to be sucide/murder.  It is obvious that the drips on the carpet and socks originated from the same source.  Therefore why analayse both especially when it was considered murder/suicide so no trial/defence to answer to.  Roll on a month later and the case is now considered 5 murders.  DC Bird returns to the farmhouse to take photos of the outbuildings, adjacent land etc and recovers other exhibits eg gloves, gauntlets, soil sample, fire debris sample and includes the socks as it is obvious they will now come under scrutiny.

I am not your matey or your pal. If you are going to debate it cannot be a one-sided affair. You expect me to answer your questions but the reverse is also true. How many times have I posed the two statements question without any acceptable answer? Your suggestion makes no sense. He passed the socks to DS Davidson. So how did he collect them again 33 days later?  You have already proved they were not available later.

Your argument is all over the place. If he found the socks while the farmhouse was a crime scene how are they DB6 they should be DB1. They can only be DB6 if found at the same time as the other items. If they had been left in the SOCO vehicle the nomenclature after collection, bagging and labelling, would not have changed. The date would be 07/08/85 to 09/08/85 and they should still be DB1
I will not be responding to your ill thought out suggestions.

[Bubo bubo]

The defence sees a lot of material but either overlooks (incompetence/negligence) or chooses not to include.  Eg you can see in the attached where at the 2002 appeal Turner QC was arguing about the letter written by Colin Caffell to Mr Bamber.  Appeal judges point out it was in defence bundle and so nothing to answer.

I am no fan of the defence as my posts show. The trial statement looks OK. They were unlikely to know of the activities eg, burning items, AE's tidying up which occurred between the crime scene closure and the stated find date which made this find on the date stated impossible.

[Roch]

The defence sees a lot of material but either overlooks (incompetence/negligence) or chooses not to include.  Eg you can see in the attached where at the 2002 appeal Turner QC was arguing about the letter written by Colin Caffell to Mr Bamber.  Appeal judges point out it was in defence bundle and so nothing to answer.

A negligent defence doesn't itself support Bamber having committed the killings. Quite the contrary, it is more likely to have been a significant component in bringing about his wrongful conviction. If you had a pie chart with segments, 'negligent-defence' would sit aside 'nondisclosure' 'misled- jury' 'cheque-book journalism' 'witnesses who stood to gain' etc etc.

[killingeve]

A negligent defence doesn't itself support Bamber having committed the killings. Quite the contrary, it is more likely to have been a significant component in bringing about his wrongful conviction. If you had a pie chart with segments, 'negligent-defence' would sit aside 'nondisclosure' 'misled- jury' 'cheque-book journalism' 'witnesses who stood to gain' etc etc.

My ref to incompetence/negligence was in general terms not necessarily with this case. 

Re this case, a lot of material was produced but it gets whittled down as to what is used at trial.  This doesn't mean the defence was unaware of certain material but chose not to include.  I've given an example above about the letter written by Colin Caffell. 

[killingeve]

I am not your matey or your pal. If you are going to debate it cannot be a one-sided affair. You expect me to answer your questions but the reverse is also true. How many times have I posed the two statements question without any acceptable answer? Your suggestion makes no sense. He passed the socks to DS Davidson. So how did he collect them again 33 days later?  You have already proved they were not available later.

Your argument is all over the place. If he found the socks while the farmhouse was a crime scene how are they DB6 they should be DB1. They can only be DB6 if found at the same time as the other items. If they had been left in the SOCO vehicle the nomenclature after collection, bagging and labelling, would not have changed. The date would be 07/08/85 to 09/08/85 and they should still be DB1
I will not be responding to your ill thought out suggestions.

You're splitting hairs.  Were any of the items harmful to Bamber:  Gloves, gauntlets, socks, soil sample, fire debris etc? 

For those of us who believe Bamber guilty we could just as easily say Bamber burned the clothes he wore when he carried out the murders in the firepit and this might have blostered the prosecution case against him.  Not that it needed bolstering with the mountain of evidence presented at trial. 

I've looked through some of your posts and you seem to me to be a massive conspiracy theorist.  If its not swapped bullets its the above and so it goes on and on.  Can you cite another case which features multiple wrongdoings by the police and other authorities in order to secure a conviction?

Paperwork will show ambiguities and anomalies because humans are not perfect!

[Roch]

My ref to incompetence/negligence was in general terms not necessarily with this case. 

Re this case, a lot of material was produced but it gets whittled down as to what is used at trial.  This doesn't mean the defence was unaware of certain material but chose not to include.  I've given an example above about the letter written by Colin Caffell.

Yes, exactly. As Rivlin was too polite and respectful of the prosecution to do his job properly.

[Adam]

It is surprising that the defence brought up Julie's minor cheque book fraud. Committed over 2 years before the trial!

It was nothing to do with the massacre. Unlike the caravan break in.

Very doubtful this is usual practice with witnesses.

[Rob_]

It is surprising that the defence brought up Julie's minor cheque book fraud. Committed over 2 years before the trial!

It was nothing to do with the massacre. Unlike the caravan break in.

Very doubtful this is usual practice with witnesses.

Why was it surprising that JM's cheque book fraud was brought up? The defence were trying to cast doubt on her credibility and reliability.

[Bubo bubo]

You're splitting hairs.  Were any of the items harmful to Bamber: Gloves, gauntlets, socks, soil sample, fire debris etc? 

For those of us who believe Bamber guilty we could just as easily say Bamber burned the clothes he wore when he carried out the murders in the firepit and this might have blostered the prosecution case against him.  Not that it needed bolstering with the mountain of evidence presented at trial.

I've looked through some of your posts and you seem to me to be a massive conspiracy theorist.  If its not swapped bullets its the above and so it goes on and on.  Can you cite another case which features multiple wrongdoings by the police and other authorities in order to secure a conviction?

Paperwork will show ambiguities and anomalies because humans are not perfect!

1 The fact that the silencer was swapped to a soil sample hurt JB

2 I do not claim that the fire debris came from the firepit. I have already had to pull up David 1819 for misrepresenting my views. Please don't go down that road.

3 You could only say he burnt his clothes if there was evidence. There is no evidence. However there is evidence that items were burnt and collected on the day. Items that could have been used during the tragedy to protect the wearer amongst other things. Why not lay them at JB's door?

4 As predicted resorting to human error. I will say what I have said before. If JB's case is not the record for a MOJ. It will win hands down on human errors and paperwork ambiguities.

[Adam]

Why was it surprising that JM's cheque book fraud was brought up? The defence were trying to cast doubt on her credibility and reliability.

I suppose her WS was watertight. Desperate times....

I just hope if ever a witness, in cross examination my apple stealing on my uncles allotment when I was 9 isn't brought up. 

[killingeve]

It is surprising that the defence brought up Julie's minor cheque book fraud. Committed over 2 years before the trial!

It was nothing to do with the massacre. Unlike the caravan break in.

Very doubtful this is usual practice with witnesses.

The defence will look to dig the dirt on prosecution witnesses and anyone else if it assists the defence case.  The defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background.  They concluded 'more museli than marijuana'.

[guest29835]

The defence will look to dig the dirt on prosecution witnesses and anyone else if it assists the defence case.  The defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background.  They concluded 'more museli than marijuana'.

They weren't looking very hard then, were they.  I hope the defence asked for a refund.

[guest29835]

I suppose her WS was watertight. Desperate times....

I just hope if ever a witness, in cross examination my apple stealing on my uncles allotment when I was 9 isn't brought up.

I think Mike has something on that in his archives.  Action Report on what to do about Adam, the apple scrumper.  Operation Adam's Apples.  I didn't have the heart to bring it up though, especially after all the moral support you've been giving me via the PM system, Adam.

[killingeve]

1 The fact that the silencer was swapped to a soil sample hurt JB

You have no evidence for this just your interpretation of sloppy paperwork.

2 I do not claim that the fire debris came from the firepit. I have already had to pull up David 1819 for misrepresenting my views. Please don't go down that road.

Maybe you need to be clearer then?  Is it yourself or David1819 and myself?

3 You could only say he burnt his clothes if there was evidence. There is no evidence. However there is evidence that items were burnt and collected on the day. Items that could have been used during the tragedy to protect the wearer amongst other things. Why not lay them at JB's door?

If you can't see the flaws in the above then really there's no hope for you. 

4 As predicted resorting to human error. I will say what I have said before. If JB's case is not the record for a MOJ. It will win hands down on human errors and paperwork ambiguities.

The errors have been explained by the authorities but the supporters just refuse to accept them.