Are we allowed to know the substance of this 100% proof?
One of the new pieces of evidence is to do with the silencer, that was published on the CT website some time ago.
This article from the Guardian is from 2018 (link below), when Bamber was trying it on with the CPS. It's about there being more than one silencer (Yawn, yawn).
And yes, it is all propaganda.
Below is my unpicking of the article, and I suspect this same 'evidence' has been submitted to the CCRC
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence The important bits in the article are...
The confidential report, which has been seen by the Guardian, casts doubt on the validity of evidence relating to a rifle sound moderator, or silencer, that was pivotal to Bamber’s conviction in 1986 This is misleading, as the report was
commissioned by Bamber.Tthe Govt has no control over it whatsoever. This paragraph implies that the Govt are
preventing its release, which is not true.
If Bamber wants to publish it, he can, it doesn't have to be 'confidential' if he doesn't want it to be.
If it's 'confidential' because he's going to use it for his CCRC appeal, then the Guardian should make it clear. They don't.
I can't see why Bamber can't publish the report.
A week before Bamber’s trial started, the head of biology at Huntingdon Science Laboratories wrote a letter to Essex Police, seen by the Guardian, saying that the results of the blood tests would show that the blood “could have come from either Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour”.This is somewhere somewhere between misleading, and outright lie.
Technically the blood could have come from anyone in the world who has the same blood group as Sheila Caffell. And that includes Robert Boutflour.
The prosecution Counsel had access to this information, because under cross examination at the actual trial, Robert Boutflour was asked if it was possible that he accidentally dripped his blood into the silencer.
So there was no secret or withheld information about Robert Boutflours blood group, and it was all presented to the jury in exactly the same open and transparent way that it would be today.
Bamber has claimed for many years that evidence was not disclosed to the defence by Essex police showing that two silencers had been examined by forensic scientists.In the new report, the senior forensic scientist and leading firearms expert concluded that separate silencers were being examined by the police at the same time in different departments, based on “serious discrepancies” in how the devices were described and the fact that there was no record of any item being transferred from one section to the other.Both silencers are believed to contain blood that could belong to either Caffell or Boutflour.They even admit that both silencers have blood from the same people in it. This is a very strong clue to even us lay people that it was the same silencer.
The Guardian article then continues...
Although the CPS stated “there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”, they added: “Any evidence that suggests that there was or may have been another silencer for the rifle would raise the possibility that the other silencer was used during the shooting and not the one alleged by the prosecution.So after all of that, this 'forensic evidence' that Jeremy Bamber says 'proves' there was more than one silencer, gets handed over to the CPS, and the CPS come back and say...
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”And that 'evidence' will probably be very similar if not identical to the silencer 'evidence' that Jeremy Bamber has submitted to the CCRC.
But it has already been
publicly rejected by the CPS.But hey, its 100% proof of his innocence.
And that, is propaganda. Guardian style.
