Louis Theroux

[Adam]

It sounds like the latch you use to hold the window open at a certain angle? These cannot be shut from outside, if there is a withheld photo the defense never had at trail showing this latch closed then this is more than interesting.

You are dead in the water on this Rob.

Your stance needs to be -'yeah the window could be banged secure from outside. But that doesn't make Bamber guilty'.

[lookout]

It sounds like the latch you use to hold the window open at a certain angle? These cannot be shut from outside, if there is a withheld photo the defense never had at trail showing this latch closed then this is more than interesting.

Rob I've lived in a couple of houses ( Georgian and Victorian ) both having these type of window locks and I know that they can only be secured from the inside as on the base of one frame is a set of lugs which on the opening part is a " handle " with a set of holes that go over the lugs from the inside and it's the last hole that secures the window.

[Adam]

It was accepted by everyone involved 36 years ago the kitchen window could be banged secure from outside.

Trying to change that will go nowhere.

[guest29835]

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

We don't, because Jeremy's Campaign Team are not his lawyers.

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.

That's the opinion of one barrister who has had no involvement whatsoever in the case.  He is an experienced criminal counsel, so his opinion is of note, but what he says is not the be-all and end-all.  Repeatedly quoting him, as you do, as if he is some sort of authority on this particular case, is coming over as rather dull and tiresome. 

It remains the position that Jeremy does not have to prove he is innocent, he only has to demonstrate that the convictions are unsafe.  That is the position in all criminal appeals.

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

Everything the CCRC looks at is a 'may be'.  The CCRC is not a court and the Commissioners cannot deliver a verdict on the evidence in front of them.  All they can do is decide whether the defence submissions warrant further inquiries and investigations and whether there is a real prospect of the convictions being overturned that may justify a referral to the Court of Appeal. 

[lookout]

Well one judge seemed to think it was worth trying for an appeal with the amount of information that had been garnered. Joe Stone QC had said, after the discovery of a second silencer that " evidence could significantly undermine the prosecution case ".

[David1819]

If proved, it would just mean Bamber took the silencer off upstairs. Went downstairs & put it away. Then burned Nevill's back to check for life.

Ah yes. Not only is this a pathetic attempt to make your scenario fit. It would also mean Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up. 

[Adam]

Ah yes. Not only is this a pathetic attempt to make your scenario fit. It would also mean Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up. 

I don't follow.

The 2012 CCRC submission was that Nevill's back was burnt minus silencer.

This just means Bamber took the silencer off & put it away prior to burning Nevill's back.

[guest29835]

Ah yes. Not only is this a pathetic attempt to make your scenario fit. It would also mean Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up. 

Let's think about this:

My own view is that Jeremy would not have taken the rifle back downstairs at all.  He had no reason to, and he was also unlikely to, because remember that in order to figure out how to stage Sheila's suicide, he had to take the silencer off the rifle and then place the rifle on Sheila's body.  He would have just left the rifle on or by the body and put the silencer in the gun cupboard before leaving.

However, we can't rule out completely the idea that after placing the rifle on Sheila's body, he decided that he needed to check on Nevill by prodding him with the rifle, so returned downstairs with the rifle having the intention of putting it back on Sheila's body later.  So let's assume that Jeremy returns the silencer to the gun cupboard, and in doing so, he also checks Nevill's body with the rifle. 

The immediate problem Jeremy would have is that Nevill's body blocks the way to the den.  How does he get to the gun cupboard if he can't get through the back door of the kitchen into the back corridor? 

It must be that Jeremy moved the body either before or after leaving the silencer in the gun cupboard (and if before, that means he's moved it twice).  But why would Jeremy block the back door of the kitchen with Nevill's body?  One possibility is that Nevill was still alive and after killing Sheila, Jeremy heard Nevill downstairs or even when he was in Nevill's den, and that is when the struggle between them ensued in which Jeremy hits a dying Nevill with the rifle butt, etc.

The next problem is how Jeremy can go through the back corridor and across the floor of the den without leaving blood traces and blood prints (feet, hands, fingers) on the floor and walls and in the gun cupboard itself.  He is carrying a silencer that has blood in it and he must have blood on his shoes/boots and clothing as he has presumably struggled with Nevill.  This I can't explain.  Did Jeremy remove all his clothing and tip-toe across?

[Adam]

Me & Bamber agree on two things -

An available silencer would be used in a silent massacre attempt.

There is a possibility Nevill's back burns were inflicted minus silencer.

---------

Bamber argues point 2 suggests the silencer was not used at all.

However the blood & paint evidence shows the silencer was used. So the silencer would have been taken off & put away prior to burning Nevill's back.

[lookout]

Remember----two silencers  and two rifles were in use ! Work that out.

[David1819]

I don't follow.

It means that (in your fictional scenario) Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up.

I can only explain it to you. I cant understand it for you.

[David1819]

However, we can't rule out completely the idea that after placing the rifle on Sheila's body, he decided that he needed to check on Nevill by prodding him with the rifle

After shooting him 8 times and beating him with the rifle? 

Have you ever heard of a rational killer doing this? A rational killer would simply ensure the victim is dead by inflicting at least one headshot.

Whoever decided to spend time heating up the barrel and then prod Nevil was not in a reasonable state of mind (like Sheila).

[Adam]

After shooting him 8 times and beating him with the rifle? 

Have you ever heard of a rational killer doing this? A rational killer would simply ensure the victim is dead by inflicting at least one headshot.

Whoever decided to spend time heating up the barrel and then prod Nevil was not in a reasonable state of mind (like Sheila).

Sheila could not have lifted Nevill onto a coal scuttle. Why would she want to burn Nevill's back in the middle of a psychotic rage.

Bamber did it minus silencer to check for signs of life. Rather than re load again. He was pretty sure he would not have to re load. So put the silencer away.

[guest29835]

After shooting him 8 times and beating him with the rifle? 

Have you ever heard of a rational killer doing this? A rational killer would simply ensure the victim is dead by inflicting at least one headshot.

Whoever decided to spend time heating up the barrel and then prod Nevil was not in a reasonable state of mind (like Sheila).

I wasn't saying Jeremy did any of these things.  I also wasn't saying he didn't.  If you read my post through, I was considering the plausibility of it.

As to whether he would check for life after shooting Nevil eight times and beating him with a rifle, it depends.  We don't know, do we.  It depends on just how injured Nevill was as a result of the first assault and also in what order Jeremy, if guilty, did things.   

He was shot eight times, but with a vermin rifle.  In that situation, he could still be alive for some time, and the prosecution case is that he moved around the house after being shot at least four times, including shots to the head.

He was beat with the rifle, supposedly, but this could have happened later when Jeremy realised he was still alive and moving around.  Or it could have been mixed up in the shooting, as the prosecution say.  Or it may be that he wasn't beaten up and the injuries were sustained from falling or something else.

[David1819]

There was no rifle on top of Sheila, when the TFG last witnessed her crime scene. The Bible and her head were also in different positions..

Therefore Jeremy Bamber was prosecuted and convicted by using a police-constructed crime scene. The jury were not told this. If they had have been told this, I would imagine it would have led to an electric moment in British crown court history.

Ron Cook told the jury that he took the rifle off the body and moved her arm. If the TFG came into the witness box saying her head and bible were moved. It wouldn't make any difference to how things played out.