Podcast by Bamber's support group containing information about 03/21 submission

[JackieD]

I do have a problem processing information that Bamber is withholding, yes!

How do you know

a) Non-disclosed information exists?
b) if such information exists it would assist Bamber?

Perhpas NGB1066 could give his opinion on the above.

I am sure he will especially regarding the chief prosecution witness !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JackieD]

Thanks Roch

[lookout]

I can fully endorse what Roch has said-----and more !

[killingeve]

The jury were not told that the blood grouping in the sound moderator was a match for one of the major prosecution witnesses. They were not told that Miller had informed the same witness that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows at WHF. They were not told that peer reviewed ballistics and burns' experts reports were of the opinion a sound moderator wasn't used. The reports have not been contested by any other scientists and obviously would have brought in to play the question of deliberate contamination (if JB had used a defence barrister instead of Rivlin). They were not told that JM was arrested as opposed to having come forward. They were not told how many coaching sessions she had, or who paid her subsistence while she was at police college or that her deal with NOTW was pre-trial. Etc etc etc etc etc ,(ie prob tip of the iceberg, regarding what the jury were not told).

Realistically how would Robert Boutflour's blood have ended up in the silencer?  How would he know that his blood groupings matched Sheila's?  If Rivlin has gone down the road of contamination and brought to the attention of the jury the match no doubt the prosecution would have posed some challenging arguments about how Robert Boutflour could possibly know his blood was a match for Sheila's and how it ended up there? 

I know nothing about "sophisticated equipment" used to detect tampering with windows.  What evidence exists to support this?

Obviously jurors do not hear about forensic tests carried out by the defence post trial such as those you mention but they do not get to hear about forensic tests carried out by the proseuction either such as the one carried out for the 2002 appeal by a Mr Ismail.  The learned judges concluded at point 519

Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial.

Does evidence exist supporting your assertions about Julie Mudgford?

[killingeve]

If you are telling the ‘truth’ and have read up about the case you would clearly know how much evidence was witheld from the jury. Just one piece of evidence that would have made a difference to the jury was the NOTW deal
So your post is pointless

You seem to overlook the fact that Julie Mugford was just one prosecution witness.  Others also testified:

Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family 116. Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.

117. During the winter of 1984 the appellant told one of the farm workers, "I'm not going to share my money with my sister" and he had always given the impression he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.

118. James Richards, another student from Goldsmiths College who had met the appellant through Julie Mugford, heard him talk of his parents in about February 1985. He claimed they kept him short of money and that his mother was a religious freak. He said, "I fucking hate my parents".

119. In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".

[Roch]

Realistically how would Robert Boutflour's blood have ended up in the silencer?  How would he know that his blood groupings matched Sheila's?  If Rivlin has gone down the road of contamination and brought to the attention of the jury the match no doubt the prosecution would have posed some challenging arguments about how Robert Boutflour could possibly know his blood was a match for Sheila's and how it ended up there? 

I know nothing about "sophisticated equipment" used to detect tampering with windows.  What evidence exists to support this?

Obviously jurors do not hear about forensic tests carried out by the defence post trial such as those you mention but they do not get to hear about forensic tests carried out by the proseuction either such as the one carried out for the 2002 appeal by a Mr Ismail.  The learned judges concluded at point 519

Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial.

Does evidence exist supporting your assertions about Julie Mudgford?

You do realise the question asked by the jury, regarding Robert Boutflour, prior to delivering the verdicts?  That in itself implies that the jury would have been interested in the fact that the blood group found in the sound moderator was not an exact match for Sheila only, it was an exact match for him also. Also to be considered, he was present when it was found.

Granted regarding your post trial remark. However, how can burns and ballistics experts be stating that there was no sound moderator on the rifle for the contact shots to Sheila, if her blood is supposed to have found its way in the sound moderator by a process of back spatter? Are you aware that MF didn't carry out any experiments to prove this? He got the theory from a text book or article.

You should watch the windows video, regardless of your opinions on the judge's summing up. You yourself have hinted that the judge's summing up on the windows is a ridiculous statement (you framed it differently, but that's what you meant). It might be a good idea to compare his remark with the window video content.

ngb may be able to confirm re JM and the NOTW deal. It is definitely now known she was put up in a police college and received subsistence. The defence have details of how many times she met with DS Stan Jones.

[lookout]

QT, there is a document somewhere on the forum which gives a run-down on when the silencer was found by the family and if I remember rightly it's this particular document that Ann Eaton had a sudden " lapse of memory " in that she couldn't remember quite a few things.   

Also another document which states that Mr Hayward had been adamant that only Sheila's blood had contained the particular enzyme.

[killingeve]

You do realise the question asked by the jury, regarding Robert Boutflour, prior to delivering the verdicts?  That in itself implies that the jury would have been interested in the fact that the blood group found in the sound moderator was not an exact match for Sheila only, it was an exact match for him also. Also to be considered, he was present when it was found.

Granted regarding your post trial remark. However, how can burns and ballistics experts be stating that there was no sound moderator on the rifle for the contact shots to Sheila, if her blood is supposed to have found its way in the sound moderator by a process of back spatter? Are you aware that MF didn't carry out any experiments to prove this? He got the theory from a text book or article.

You should watch the windows video, regardless of your opinions on the judge's summing up. You yourself have hinted that the judge's summing up on the windows is a ridiculous statement (you framed it differently, but that's what you meant). It might be a good idea to compare his remark with the window video content.

ngb may be able to confirm re JM and the NOTW deal. It is definitely now known she was put up in a police college and received subsistence. The defence have details of how many times she met with DS Stan Jones.

The jury posed a question about inheritance and whether it was a reason for Robert Boutflour claiming Bamber made the following comment

424. On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:

"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."

About 8% of the white British population share the same groupings so the fact Robert Boutflour's did is hardly surprising.  If the defence argued Robert Boutflour placed his own blood inside the silencer it would need to overcome some serious obstacles for it to stand up under cross examination of expert witnesses.  Bearing in mind the blood was supposedly seen as far down as the 5th/6th baffle.

I haven't seen the window video.  Are you able to upload it?

The trial judge warned the jury about the reliablity of Julie Mudgord's evidence

"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.

[killingeve]

QT, there is a document somewhere on the forum which gives a run-down on when the silencer was found by the family and if I remember rightly it's this particular document that Ann Eaton had a sudden " lapse of memory " in that she couldn't remember quite a few things.   

Also another document which states that Mr Hayward had been adamant that only Sheila's blood had contained the particular enzyme.

Yes Lookout I am familiar with all aspects of the silencer evidence as it is the sticking point in my opinion.

I also note in the recent documentary that David Boutflour said when he recovered the silencer from the gun cupboard that he observed a hair which is inconsistent with other statements!!!!!!!!!!

[lookout]

Yes Lookout I am familiar with all aspects of the silencer evidence as it is the sticking point in my opinion.

I also note in the recent documentary that David Boutflour said when he recovered the silencer from the gun cupboard that he observed a hair which is inconsistent with other statements!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, the vanishing hair.

[lookout]

Yes, the vanishing hair.

Which I would have said wasn't there initially, but after when it was taken to DB's home. RWB's for instance ?

[lookout]

All DB had remarked about when " finding " the silencer was the blood and paint----not a grey hair ?

[JackieD]

You seem to overlook the fact that Julie Mugford was just one prosecution witness.  Others also testified:

Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family 116. Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.

117. During the winter of 1984 the appellant told one of the farm workers, "I'm not going to share my money with my sister" and he had always given the impression he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.

118. James Richards, another student from Goldsmiths College who had met the appellant through Julie Mugford, heard him talk of his parents in about February 1985. He claimed they kept him short of money and that his mother was a religious freak. He said, "I fucking hate my parents".

119. In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".

As usual your points and posts are weak



Paul Osborne, who ran a Colchester snooker club called Qs, said in a written statement that he knew Jeremy as a pleasant, polite and straightforward person.
 Osborne added that he seemed to work hard, and enjoyed a good relationship with his family.

Charles Lapridge, who sold the Bambers some machinery for the farm, described Jeremy as easy to deal with, and that Jeremy had got on well with his father.

He’d never caught whiff of any troubles between Jeremy and the family when he visited the farm.

The housekeeper at White House Farm, Jean Bouttell, had worked for the Bambers for twenty years and had never heard Jeremy say anything nasty about his family.

 A Colchester chartered surveyor, Richard Buck, said Jeremy was a straightforward sort of person. ‘Out of his family, I found it most easy to deal with him.’

 The landlord of the Chequers in Goldhanger, described Jeremy as a model customer. 😢


You are comparing these people above to Mary Mugford who raised her daughter to carry out over 20 serious criminal offences

Julie Mugford herself who carried out over 20 serious criminal offences

A farm worker ?

James Richards who was probably involved in Mugfords criminal activities


Do you wonder you look like a joke and nobody is taking you seriously

[lookout]

My personal take on the blood inside the baffles/ silencer was when it was dismantled. I'm not familiar with the baffles themselves but anyone unfamiliar with the handling of a dissected silencer could have found themselves with a sharp cut from the edges of them, namely RWB who'd been seen with some sort of injury to his finger as it was covered---plaster/ bandage ? Which, had he been handling it and had cut himself then his blood would have been on one or two of the baffles.

Again, when the silencer was put together again, chances are that the baffles wouldn't have been in the same order as when it was first dismantled. Of the 14 ? baffles contained within the silencer it would then have appeared that blood had reached further down the silencer than it had.

Was RWB aware of his blood grouping being the same as Sheila's ??

[Roch]

The jury posed a question about inheritance and whether it was a reason for Robert Boutflour claiming Bamber made the following comment

424. On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:

"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."

About 8% of the white British population share the same groupings so the fact Robert Boutflour's did is hardly surprising.  If the defence argued Robert Boutflour placed his own blood inside the silencer it would need to overcome some serious obstacles for it to stand up under cross examination of expert witnesses.  Bearing in mind the blood was supposedly seen as far down as the 5th/6th baffle.

I haven't seen the window video.  Are you able to upload it?

The trial judge warned the jury about the reliablity of Julie Mudgord's evidence

"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.

So if the jury had already been informed that RWB's blood grouping matched that of Sheila's (instead of being misdirected that the blood in the sound moderator only matched Sheila's), how much more cautiously would they have approached RWB's evidence about the alleged remark from Jeremy? They were already suspicious, as you have shown above.

You yourself are now aware of uncontested scientific findings that the marks to Sheila were formed by a rifle without a sound moderator. I have also informed you that MF admitted he hadn't carried out any experiments to confirm the back-spatter theory in this case.  The judge directed the jury that they could convict on the sound moderator evidence alone. So we have have convictions in place for 35 years, shored up by a theory from an article or text book, without experiments and without precedent in the expert's own experience.