End of the road ?

[Roch]

The important thing to note with the Guardian article is that they say they've obtained forensic evidence showing that there were two silencers.  And they say that this evidence undermines the prosecution case.

Jeremy Bamber's lawyers then submitted the evidence to the CPS

The CPS studied the evidence that shows that there were two silencers.

The CPS then make a public statement quoted as follows:

“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”

In the same article Jeremy Bamber makes this quote:

Bamber said: “The report in the hands of the CPS proves with absolute certainty that this case featured two silencers. And now the CPS must act. There are moments in life when the truth can no longer be suppressed and this is one of those times.”

And let's just remind ourselves how the CPS reacted after studying this so-called 'proof':

“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”

And this is almost certainly what he's submitted to the CCRC.  And it has already been rejected.

Hyperbole. Propaganda. Fantasy.

How do we know the CPS are not just simply closing ranks? If you have documentary evidence that sound moderators were recorded as having different lengths, grooves, patterns, condition etc; and located on different dates, then it is the CPS who are peddling propaganda by trying to brush this off.

[Roch]

“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”

Let's just remind ourselves of this alleged no documentary evidence that supports there having been a second silencer..

This sound moderator is alleged by the police and Bamber’s relatives at various times to have been:


(a) scratched;[v]

(b) not scratched;[vi]

(c) covered in a jam-like substance;[vii]

(d) not covered in a jam-like substance;[viii]

(e) had a grey hair attached to it;[ix]

(f) did not have a grey hair attached to it;

(g) had a flake of blood outside it;[xi]

(h) had a flake of blood inside it;[xii]

(i) measured 7 inches and had 17 baffle plates inside;[xiii]

(j) measured 6.5 inches and had 15 baffle plates inside;[xiv]

(k) had a lot of blood inside;[xv]

(l) had just one flake of blood inside;[xvi]

(m) had Sheila’s blood inside;[xvii]

(n) didn’t have Sheila’s blood inside;[xviii]

(o) had June’s DNA inside;[xix]

(p) didn’t have Sheila’s DNA inside;[xx]

(q) had unidentified male DNA inside;[xxi]

(r) had 250 red paint flakes on the outside;[xxii][xxiii]

(s) didn’t have any paint on the outside;[xxiv]

(t) had a flake of blood between baffle plates 1 and 2;[xxv]

(u) had a single flake of blood on baffle plate 5;[xxvi]

(v) had blood on baffle plates 1-5;[xxvii]

(w) had three lowered rings along the length, one at each end and one in the       middle;[xxviii]

(x) had no rings along the length;[xxix]

(y) had a film of white residue on it from superglue fumes used for fingerprinting purposes;[xxx] and,

(z) had no white residue from superglue fumes[xxxi].


All of the above 26 assertions were made by various witnesses. Is it possible that they could have been describing more than one silencer?

[Cambridgecutie]

How do we know the CPS are not just simply closing ranks? If you have documentary evidence that sound moderators were recorded as having different lengths, grooves, patterns, condition etc; and located on different dates, then it is the CPS who are peddling propaganda by trying to brush this off.

What you are referring to is very similar to  Peter Sutherst's evidence, where he used something like Photoshop to stitch 3 images together, in order to create a panorama of the whole of the mantelshelf in the kitchen.

He then said that it proved that the scratches photographed underneath the mantelshelf weren't there when the original crime scene photos were taken. 

But his evidence was massively flawed, unscientific and completely meaningless. 

Standard stitching techniques like that employed by Sutherst using Photoshop or similar, distorts all original measurements, so that you end up with something that looks okay to a viewer, but doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

He needed to use photogrammetry software, and ideally Bamber should have employed someone with expertise in matching crime scene photos in this way.

Peter Sutherst was woefully unqualified to carry out the work.  And the totally inaccurate results reflected that.

All of Bamber's scientific offerings end up going the same way as Peter Sutherst's.  Under scientific scrutiny, It all proves to be woefully inadequate and unscientific.

We know that Jeremy Bamber lies about evidence, like creating fiction from individual pieces of paper, that are taken out of context.

And we know that The Guardian newspaper lies about, and distorts, the facts when they write about Jeremy Bamber.

As for the CPS, there is no evidence that the CPS have done anything wrong.  You have to have evidence to make the accusation that you have, and you have none.

The CPS will have handed their findings regarding the silencer over to Bamber's legal team, and Bamber can then do what he wants with it, he can publish it so that we can all see it,  or keep it a secret.

As far as I'm aware, he's chosen to keep it a secret.  Which suggests that the CPS are correct, and implies that Bamber's legal team accept the findings of the CPS.

And now they've dumped it onto the poor old CCRC.

Resorting to the 'everyone is corrupt' mantra is great for preaching to the converted, but doesn't have any meaning because there is no evidence at all that it is true.

[Adam]

Using Photoshop. That sounds about right.

[Cambridgecutie]

“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”

----------

Have you got a link to that quote?

The quote is made by  Frank Ferguson, head of special crimes at the CPS.

It was published in an article by the Guardian below.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence

The article is written by Eric Allison who is a Jeremy Bamber supporter, and that one quote completely obliterates the whole point of the article, which is to say that there is evidence that there were two silencers, when in fact there isn't.

I am guessing that Eric Allisons bosses told him to add that, in order to create some balance, but it completely wipes out his argument.

The article contains the usual lies and misinformation about the case that Eric Allison cuts and pastes into many of his pro Bamber articles.

[lookout]

Nothing but sour grapes at every turn.

[David1819]

What you are referring to is very similar to  Peter Sutherst's evidence, where he used something like Photoshop to stitch 3 images together, in order to create a panorama of the whole of the mantelshelf in the kitchen.

He then said that it proved that the scratches photographed underneath the mantelshelf weren't there when the original crime scene photos were taken. 

But his evidence was massively flawed, unscientific and completely meaningless. 

Standard stitching techniques like that employed by Sutherst using Photoshop or similar, distorts all original measurements, so that you end up with something that looks okay to a viewer, but doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

He needed to use photogrammetry software, and ideally Bamber should have employed someone with expertise in matching crime scene photos in this way.

Peter Sutherst was woefully unqualified to carry out the work.  And the totally inaccurate results reflected that.

All of Bamber's scientific offerings end up going the same way as Peter Sutherst's.  Under scientific scrutiny, It all proves to be woefully inadequate and unscientific.

We know that Jeremy Bamber lies about evidence, like creating fiction from individual pieces of paper, that are taken out of context.

And we know that The Guardian newspaper lies about, and distorts, the facts when they write about Jeremy Bamber.

As for the CPS, there is no evidence that the CPS have done anything wrong.  You have to have evidence to make the accusation that you have, and you have none.

The CPS will have handed their findings regarding the silencer over to Bamber's legal team, and Bamber can then do what he wants with it, he can publish it so that we can all see it,  or keep it a secret.

As far as I'm aware, he's chosen to keep it a secret.  Which suggests that the CPS are correct, and implies that Bamber's legal team accept the findings of the CPS.

And now they've dumped it onto the poor old CCRC.

Resorting to the 'everyone is corrupt' mantra is great for preaching to the converted, but doesn't have any meaning because there is no evidence at all that it is true.

I have a copy of Suthurst's report. He never used photoshop or any photo editing software.

[David1819]

Let's just remind ourselves of this alleged no documentary evidence that supports there having been a second silencer..

A lot of those claims are BS. The ones that are accurate are simply explained. One relative had seen the silencer before the other relative had scratched and contaminated it. Some police and witnesses had seen and described the silencer prior to it being superglue tested for prints. Likewise other witnesses had examined the silencer after the blood was removed from it for testing.

[ILB]

The Boutflour/Eaton conspiracy against Bamber is a possibility.

To me though personally, I think there has been an incident preluding the massacre that has soiled the bad blood.

None of us are aware of the most inner dealings within the families. We rely on statements.

This has to cover a lot of ground (years perhaps) before 7.8
85

[ILB]

It may have gone on between Boutflour and Bamber senior since as early as 1950.

I personally believe a lot of animosity was held between the two and they weren't particularly close

[Rob_]

What you are referring to is very similar to  Peter Sutherst's evidence, where he used something like Photoshop to stitch 3 images together, in order to create a panorama of the whole of the mantelshelf in the kitchen.

He then said that it proved that the scratches photographed underneath the mantelshelf weren't there when the original crime scene photos were taken. 

But his evidence was massively flawed, unscientific and completely meaningless. 

Standard stitching techniques like that employed by Sutherst using Photoshop or similar, distorts all original measurements, so that you end up with something that looks okay to a viewer, but doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

He needed to use photogrammetry software, and ideally Bamber should have employed someone with expertise in matching crime scene photos in this way.

Peter Sutherst was woefully unqualified to carry out the work.  And the totally inaccurate results reflected that.

All of Bamber's scientific offerings end up going the same way as Peter Sutherst's.  Under scientific scrutiny, It all proves to be woefully inadequate and unscientific.

We know that Jeremy Bamber lies about evidence, like creating fiction from individual pieces of paper, that are taken out of context.

And we know that The Guardian newspaper lies about, and distorts, the facts when they write about Jeremy Bamber.

As for the CPS, there is no evidence that the CPS have done anything wrong.  You have to have evidence to make the accusation that you have, and you have none.

The CPS will have handed their findings regarding the silencer over to Bamber's legal team, and Bamber can then do what he wants with it, he can publish it so that we can all see it,  or keep it a secret.

As far as I'm aware, he's chosen to keep it a secret.  Which suggests that the CPS are correct, and implies that Bamber's legal team accept the findings of the CPS.

And now they've dumped it onto the poor old CCRC.

Resorting to the 'everyone is corrupt' mantra is great for preaching to the converted, but doesn't have any meaning because there is no evidence at all that it is true.

Please elaborate on why photogrammetry software, or even stitching would be needed? a scratch is a scratch just two photos of the same area one taken at the crime scene and one after would be sufficient.

Your post sounds very clever and technical but to create a 3d model needs many high quality images with a minimum of 50% overlap and each point appearing in at least two photos. Just not possible with the very poor quality and very few images in this case, and in my view totally unnecessary anyway.

[Adam]

The quote is made by  Frank Ferguson, head of special crimes at the CPS.

It was published in an article by the Guardian below.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence

The article is written by Eric Allison who is a Jeremy Bamber supporter, and that one quote completely obliterates the whole point of the article, which is to say that there is evidence that there were two silencers, when in fact there isn't.

I am guessing that Eric Allisons bosses told him to add that, in order to create some balance, but it completely wipes out his argument.

The article contains the usual lies and misinformation about the case that Eric Allison cuts and pastes into many of his pro Bamber articles.

Yes Eric Allison is a long term supporter.

Unlike Bob Woffindon he hasn't changed stance & unlike Trudie & Andrew Hunter he still comes out to play.

[Adam]

Bamber told Julie about MM as a proxy.

Julie did not know if MM had been to WHF before.

What is the issue?

Hopefully David will answer today.

[Adam]

This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.

----------

Why would Julie want that?

Hopefully David will answer today.

Third request.

[Adam]

It may have gone on between Boutflour and Bamber senior since as early as 1950.

I personally believe a lot of animosity was held between the two and they weren't particularly close

You need proof.

Not sure what any dispute between the Boutflours & Nevill has to do with the massacre.