Louis Theroux

[killingeve]

It was never mentioned at trial that RWB shared the same blood grouping as Sheila.

No but it could have been.  Therefore as far as I understand it isn't possible to adjudicate on something at appeal that could have been argued at trial. 

[Steve_uk]

But how could he possibly know this?  The chances are one of us here will share the same groups if (as per podcast) 8% of the population share these groups. 

Bamber's defence at trial could have argued this.  They didn't so the opportunity is lost as far as I understand.

But Sheila wasn't on trial. The Defence did its best by calling Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson, and of course there was Jeremy's pack of lies about his sister having hit Daniel in the car one time, but fortunately the jury ultimately saw through it.

[killingeve]

I took most of the ABRSM exams. I prefer classical pieces. Not much of a fan of jazz. Chacun à son goût.

Why did you decide to undertake the exams?  Which classical pieces do you prefer?  The reason I ask is that I tend to find a piece and then overplay it instead of exploring further.  Do you have a playlist?

[Steve_uk]

Why did you decide to undertake the exams?  Which classical pieces do you prefer?  The reason I ask is that I tend to find a piece and then overplay it instead of exploring further.  Do you have a playlist?

Playing a piece is like examining a speech from Shakespeare's Hamlet. It's so concentrated at the advanced level. I don't play full movements any more (I think the Third Movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata might induce a stroke these days) but I do play Chopin pieces, Liszt and Beethoven, which are my favourites.

[guest29835]

Re 8 above why would Robert Boutflour put his blood inside the silencer?  How would he, or anyone else for that matter, know he shared the same complex blood groups as Sheila?  Based on 8% of the population sharing these groups it stands to reason others who handled the silencer will share the same groups.  I can't see the review people being impressed with such fanciful notions. 

Also as I understand it this could have been argued at trial.  It wasn't thus its now redundant unless somehow it can be shown it was fabricated.  Simply alleging Robert Boutflour might have contaminated the silencer I don't think is going to cut it.

First, if you stop and think about it, your whole argument here actually underlines the defence case.

Second, it was at least implied at trial.  The reason Robert Boutflour stormed off angrily (so it is claimed) is that Rivlin asked him about the suggestion of a cut on his finger at the time he was examining the silencer before it was handed to the police.

You ask why Robert Boutflour would put his blood in the silencer.  The answer is to frame Jeremy of course.  He could be done easily.

You refer to the importance of matching blood groups.  In fact, as I have explained on here before, the blood groups need not have matched for the ruse to work. It may just be a 'happy' coincidence that they did.

How these people perceive the strength of the evidence is immaterial.  Its how the review people perceive it and ultimately the appeal court if it gets that far which I somehow doubt.

I'm quite aware of that.  My point, which you oddly take out of context, is that we don't know the strength of Jeremy's case for review and appeal, so it's hopeless either accepting what is being said or rejecting it.  That's jumping the gun.  Only Jeremy and the CT and his lawyers can know.  In due course, we will also find out, as you say, how the CCRC see it.

[killingeve]

Playing a piece is like examining a speech from Shakespeare's Hamlet. It's so concentrated at the advanced level. I don't play full movements any more (I think the Third Movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata might induce a stroke these days) but I do play Chopin pieces, Liszt and Beethoven, which are my favourites.

Beethoven is my favourite and Moonlight Sonata is sublime.  I think I know what you mean by concentrated.  I recall going to a Vivaldi Four Seasons concert in Prague where I was seated right in front of the cellist who I thought was going to explode!

[killingeve]

First, if you stop and think about it, your whole argument here actually underlines the defence case.

Second, it was at least implied at trial.  The reason Robert Boutflour stormed off angrily (so it is claimed) is that Rivlin asked him about the suggestion of a cut on his finger at the time he was examining the silencer before it was handed to the police.

You ask why Robert Boutflour would put his blood in the silencer.  The answer is to frame Jeremy of course.  He could be done easily.

You refer to the importance of matching blood groups.  In fact, as I have explained on here before, the blood groups need not have matched for the ruse to work. It may just be a 'happy' coincidence that they did.

I'm quite aware of that.  My point, which you oddly take out of context, is that we don't know the strength of Jeremy's case for review and appeal, so it's hopeless either accepting what is being said or rejecting it.  That's jumping the gun.  Only Jeremy and the CT and his lawyers can know.  In due course, we will also find out, as you say, how the CCRC see it.

36 years on I don't think the review people are going to be interested in any may be.

The podcast by Bamber's campaigners outlines the submission.  Frankly they sound like a bunch of cranks to me.  For example they believe all concerned know Bamber is innocent and that the police shot Sheila a second time during a training exercise.  Where's the evidence for all of this.  I bet the review people are having a right old chuckle. 

[guest29835]

36 years on I don't think the review people are going to be interested in any may be.

The podcast by Bamber's campaigners outlines the submission.  Frankly they sound like a bunch of cranks to me.  For example they believe all concerned know Bamber is innocent and that the police shot Sheila a second time during a training exercise.  Where's the evidence for all of this.  I bet the review people are having a right old chuckle.

Sorry, but I think we're at cross purposes.  I'm not referring specifically to Jeremy's submissions to the CCRC.  I'm just answering your question about how the planting of the silencer could have occurred.  I have simply no idea what Bamber's submissions to the CCRC are.  Nobody does, other than the people involved, so it's next-to-pointless to speculate about the strengths or weaknesses of it.  Only they know if their submissions are truly credible or it's all a bluff, and it will be a decision for the CCRC and the courts. 

I don't need to be lectured to about what the CCRC may or may not accept.  I am not an expert on the law and the legal system, but I am not naive about it either.  I do know quite a lot about it.

I don't personally believe the police shot Sheila, nor do I believe that, if they had shot her, they would then try to cover it up by framing Jeremy, knowing him to be innocent.  I think if they had shot Sheila, they would have owned up to it immediately and probably just claimed she was pointing a gun at them, or if it was obviously an accident, they could have claimed she was already dead having committed suicide, and that would have been the 'conspiracy' we would now be discussing 37 years later.  These things happen and that would have been the end of it.  I've never understood why people think the police would cover that up.  They had no motive to do so and the nature of the situation gave them every opportunity to come up with a cover story to justify or excuse shooting her, which would have been accepted by pretty much everybody.

Having said that, it's worth adding a caveat. 

In a scenario in which Sheila is shot by the police, the probability of a conspiracy increases if, for whatever reason, the police don't admit to it straight-away and enter it into the record.  There is a small possibility that she was accidentally shot by a police officer, who then panicked and covered it up with the assistance of one or two others.  This, however, is independent of the later investigation of Jeremy.  The police may have had genuine reasons for treating Jeremy as a suspect regardless of such a cover-up, though it could also be that the police were driven to go after Jeremy by a sense of guilt that one of their own had shot Sheila under whatever circumstances.

The pro-innocent argument we sometimes hear is that senior officers were threatened, or in effect blackmailed, by the relatives - specifically, Robert Boutflour - who had found out that Sheila had been somehow shot by the police and had also discovered other irregularities in the investigation.  The relatives told the police that the press would be informed unless the spotlight turned on Jeremy.

I don't accept any of this, but that's not because I think it is crankish.  These theories do have a logic to them and the police might have been persuaded to look at Jeremy and then find evidence on him in order to avoid embarrassment and maybe even a criminal investigation of police officers.  However,, there is no clear evidence to support it, so I can't know if it is true or not, and for various common-sense reasons, I'm inclined not to accept such theories. 

[Roch]

I don't personally believe the police shot Sheila, nor do I believe that, if they had shot her, they would then try to cover it up by framing Jeremy, knowing him to be innocent.  I think if they had shot Sheila, they would have owned up to it immediately and probably just claimed she was pointing a gun at them, or if it was obviously an accident, they could have claimed she was already dead having committed suicide, and that would have been 'conspiracy' we would now be discussing 37 years later.  These things happen and that would have been the end of it.  I've never understood why people think the police would cover that up.  They had no motive to do so and the nature of the situation gave them every opportunity to come up with a cover story to justify or excuse shooting her, which would have been accepted by pretty much everybody.

Having said that, it's worth adding a caveat. 

In a scenario in which Sheila is shot by the police, the possibility of a conspiracy increases if, for whatever reason, the police don't admit to it straight-away and enter it into the record.  There is a small possibility that she was accidentally shot by a police officer, who then panicked and covered it up with the assistance of one or two others.  This, however, is independent of the later investigation of Jeremy.  The police may have had genuine reasons for treating Jeremy as a suspect regardless of such a cover-up, though it could also be that the police were driven to go after Jeremy by a sense of guilt that one of their own had shot Sheila under whatever circumstances.

The pro-innocent argument we sometimes hear is that senior officers were threatened, or in effect blackmailed, by the relatives - specifically, Robert Boutflour - who had found out that Sheila had been somehow shot by the police and had also discovered other irregularities in the investigation.  The relatives told the police that the press would be informed unless the spotlight turned on Jeremy.

I don't accept any of this, but that's not because I think it is crankish.  These theories do have a logic to them and the police might have been persuaded to look at Jeremy and then find evidence on him in order to avoid embarrassment and maybe even a criminal investigation of police officers.  However,, there is no clear evidence to support it, so I can't know if it is true or not, and for various common-sense reasons, I'm inclined not to accept such theories.

Once again, sharp writing that encapsulates the conspirational approach to the case.

[killingeve]

Sorry, but I think we're at cross purposes.  I'm not referring specifically to Jeremy's submissions to the CCRC.  I'm just answering your question about how the planting of the silencer could have occurred.  I have simply no idea what Bamber's submissions to the CCRC are.  Nobody does, other than the people involved, so it's next-to-pointless to speculate about the strengths or weaknesses of it.  Only they know if their submissions are truly credible or it's all a bluff, and it will be a decision for the CCRC and the courts. 

I don't need to be lectured to about what the CCRC may or may not accept.  I am not an expert on the law and the legal system, but I am not naive about it either.  I do know quite a lot about it.

I don't personally believe the police shot Sheila, nor do I believe that, if they had shot her, they would then try to cover it up by framing Jeremy, knowing him to be innocent.  I think if they had shot Sheila, they would have owned up to it immediately and probably just claimed she was pointing a gun at them, or if it was obviously an accident, they could have claimed she was already dead having committed suicide, and that would have been 'conspiracy' we would now be discussing 37 years later.  These things happen and that would have been the end of it.  I've never understood why people think the police would cover that up.  They had no motive to do so and the nature of the situation gave them every opportunity to come up with a cover story to justify or excuse shooting her, which would have been accepted by pretty much everybody.

Having said that, it's worth adding a caveat. 

In a scenario in which Sheila is shot by the police, the possibility of a conspiracy increases if, for whatever reason, the police don't admit to it straight-away and enter it into the record.  There is a small possibility that she was accidentally shot by a police officer, who then panicked and covered it up with the assistance of one or two others.  This, however, is independent of the later investigation of Jeremy.  The police may have had genuine reasons for treating Jeremy as a suspect regardless of such a cover-up, though it could also be that the police were driven to go after Jeremy by a sense of guilt that one of their own had shot Sheila under whatever circumstances.

The pro-innocent argument we sometimes hear is that senior officers were threatened, or in effect blackmailed, by the relatives - specifically, Robert Boutflour - who had found out that Sheila had been somehow shot by the police and had also discovered other irregularities in the investigation.  The relatives told the police that the press would be informed unless the spotlight turned on Jeremy.

I don't accept any of this, but that's not because I think it is crankish.  These theories do have a logic to them and the police might have been persuaded to look at Jeremy and then find evidence on him in order to avoid embarrassment and maybe even a criminal investigation of police officers.  However,, there is no clear evidence to support it, so I can't know if it is true or not, and for various common-sense reasons, I'm inclined not to accept such theories.

The police certainly did not shoot Sheila with police issued firearms since the ammunition is different to that used in the shootings.  The only other possibility is that the police accidentally discharged the murder weapon upon removing it from the body.  However there's no evidence that anyone interfered with the scene until some considerable time after Sheila was found.  The pathologist said both shots were inflicted in very quick succession ie seconds.  I think the whole notion of police involvement is utter madness.  Either Sheila shot herself twice with the light trigger pull semi-automatic or her brother murdered her as the prosecution claim. 

The defence at trial was well aware the chain of custody surrounding the silencer was suspect to say the least.  They could have argued contamination but chose not to and instead relied upon the argument that the blood represented an intimate mix of Mr and Mrs Bamber's blood which also represented Sheila's blood groupings as a stand alone.  Its not then possible to go back to the review body or appeal courts and argue contamination with vague notions that somehow Robert Boutflour's blood ended up in the silencer. 

We know broadly speaking what's in the submission as Bamber's support people spend about an hour and a half telling us in a very recent podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M&t=114s

1. Claims of two silencers based on exhibit labels.

Already dealt with by the female forensic scientist.

2. Burn marks to Mr Bamber's back.

The Home Office pathologist and defence pathologist both agreed at trial, to some extent, that they could not be entirely certain the marks were in fact burns or how they were caused.

Irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making.

3. Grey hair.

It was made clear the grey hair went missing before it could be forensically examined.  The biologist told the court even if it hadn't gone missing it held little forensic value as noone could be sure how it came to be there.  Irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making.

4. Windows.

Defence at trial relied upon notes from DCI Jones' notebook confirming all windows were secured from within except a pantry window which was covered in cobwebs and clearly hadn't been used.  The trial judge told the court how Bamber entered and exited was not important. 

Again irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making. 

As Patrick O'Connor said in the doc to even stand a chance a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence is required and I didn't hear anything from these people that they had anything of the sort.   

[killingeve]

Once again, sharp writing that encapsulates the conspirational approach to the case.

Interesting for forum debate but do you think conspiracy theories are going to cut it with the review body/appeal courts?

[David1819]

2. Burn marks to Mr Bamber's back.

The Home Office pathologist and defence pathologist both agreed at trial, to some extent, that they could not be entirely certain the marks were in fact burns or how they were caused.

Irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making.

In the pathologists original notes, it's stated that the burn marks were caused by the barrel of the rifle.

This is extremely relevant because the jury's decision making was based primarily on the silencer being attached to the weapon during the murders.

[killingeve]

In the pathologists original notes, it's stated that the burn marks were caused by the barrel of the rifle.

This is extremely relevant because the jury's decision making was based primarily on the silencer being attached to the weapon during the murders.

It might be extremely relevant to you but I dont think the review body will share your views.  They are interested in what the jury was told at trial.  At trial both patholgoists concluded, to some extent, they could not be certain the marks were burns or what caused them.  Therefore it played no part in the jury's decision making. 

[killingeve]

Trial judge re the windows

As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):

"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"

Judge gave a clear direction to the jury. 

[Roch]

Trial judge re the windows

As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):

"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"

Judge gave a clear direction to the jury.

Obviously, absurd direction. Drake's rep preceded him (Carl Bridgewater and the Shrewsbury pickets).