Author Topic: The New Yorker article  (Read 10694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6672
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2024, 05:50:PM »
I think the article is very well researched and gives a balanced assessment of the case.  It would serve as a very good introduction to someone new to the case who wishes to have a clear summary.  In case members have a problem with the link provided (I think free access is only granted for a single article) here is a pdf version.


Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2024, 06:02:PM »
I think the article is very well researched and gives a balanced assessment of the case.  It would serve as a very good introduction to someone new to the case who wishes to have a clear summary.  In case members have a problem with the link provided (I think free access is only granted for a single article) here is a pdf version.


Neil, I thought it read rather like a novel, i.e. Nevill's "periwinkle" eyes and June's tweed skirt!!! There were certainly elements of truth, albeit heavily interspersed with claims which had previously been discredited. I haven't read it all yet so it might improve?

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6672
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2024, 06:05:PM »

Neil, I thought it read rather like a novel, i.e. Nevill's "periwinkle" eyes and June's tweed skirt!!! There were certainly elements of truth, albeit heavily interspersed with claims which had previously been discredited. I haven't read it all yet so it might improve?

It is worth reading it all the way through.  It is by far the best article I have seen written about the case.  I think it will stimulate some debate and wider interest.  I wonder what effect it will have on the CCRC.  They will certainly read it.

 

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2024, 06:07:PM »
I think the article is very well researched and gives a balanced assessment of the case.  It would serve as a very good introduction to someone new to the case who wishes to have a clear summary.  In case members have a problem with the link provided (I think free access is only granted for a single article) here is a pdf version.
At least Bamber admits talking to the Sun regarding the Sheila photos. I don't recall him mentioning before any previous "schizophrenic episodes" his sister endured. Otherwise rather superficial on his and Sheila's background, no mention of Nevill's damning conversations with farm secretary Barbara Wilson, and no mention of Suzette, which may have been the catalyst for the murders.

Offline Curiosity

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2024, 06:14:PM »

Neil, I thought it read rather like a novel, i.e. Nevill's "periwinkle" eyes and June's tweed skirt!!! There were certainly elements of truth, albeit heavily interspersed with claims which had previously been discredited. I haven't read it all yet so it might improve?

I couldn't decide whether Nevill's eyes resembled a flower or a gastropod mollusc!

The journo is right about Putin and his elimination of anyone who opposes him though -

https://weta.org/watch/shows/amanpour-and-company/heidi-blake-suspicious-deaths-connected-kremlin-otkbgc

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and furballs.

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2024, 06:52:PM »


Surely he'd be past -long past- retirement age by now? Had he still been working for EP he'd hardly have revealed such an anti EP statement. Had what he said been true, a call log would have been filled in when it happened. This call log is where?

Do we know how old he was at the time?

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2024, 06:54:PM »
Surely he'd be past -long past- retirement age by now? Had he still been working for EP he'd hardly have revealed such an anti EP statement. Had what he said been true, a call log would have been filled in when it happened. This call log is where?

Not sure Jane. I have not yet properly read the article.


Offline Curiosity

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2024, 07:12:PM »
I wonder if Bumbling Ron's cack-handed treatment of the bible will force members of the CCRC into submission?

"Detective Inspector Ron Cook, the lead crime-scene officer, died several years ago. But when I spoke to his deputy, Detective Sergeant Neil Davidson, he made a startling revelation. During the examination of the bodies, Cook had “lifted the Bible up and had a look at it,” he said. “It was one of those ‘Oh, shit’ moments.” Davidson recalled that Cook had stood “fumbling” with the Bible, before asking which page it had been on, and had then put it back by Sheila’s body before the pictures were taken to “re-create what we just screwed up.” This kind of incident had earned Cook a nickname on the force. “We called him Bumbling Ron,” Davidson said. “Chaos reigned wherever he trod.”

Cook oversaw the cleanup of the crime scene, and Davidson helped dispose of bloody carpets and bedding. After Bamber was declared the prime suspect, “The shit hit the fan, big time,” Davidson said. “ ‘What can we salvage? Who can we blame?’ ” Cook spent weeks “chasing about, red in the face,” trying to find scraps of evidence, Davidson told me. “He was trying to dig himself out of the hole. The whole forensic thing was really a shambles, because nothing was preserved.” Watching the chaos unfold had left him conflicted about the case. He told me, “I would not be surprised if, one day, someone comes along and says, Here’s definitive proof that he didn’t do it.”"
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and furballs.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2024, 07:17:PM »
Do we know how old he was at the time?


Not long out of nappies and still wet behind the ears?

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2024, 07:47:PM »
I wonder if Bumbling Ron's cack-handed treatment of the bible will force members of the CCRC into submission?

"Detective Inspector Ron Cook, the lead crime-scene officer, died several years ago. But when I spoke to his deputy, Detective Sergeant Neil Davidson, he made a startling revelation. During the examination of the bodies, Cook had “lifted the Bible up and had a look at it,” he said. “It was one of those ‘Oh, shit’ moments.” Davidson recalled that Cook had stood “fumbling” with the Bible, before asking which page it had been on, and had then put it back by Sheila’s body before the pictures were taken to “re-create what we just screwed up.” This kind of incident had earned Cook a nickname on the force. “We called him Bumbling Ron,” Davidson said. “Chaos reigned wherever he trod.”

Cook oversaw the cleanup of the crime scene, and Davidson helped dispose of bloody carpets and bedding. After Bamber was declared the prime suspect, “The shit hit the fan, big time,” Davidson said. “ ‘What can we salvage? Who can we blame?’ ” Cook spent weeks “chasing about, red in the face,” trying to find scraps of evidence, Davidson told me. “He was trying to dig himself out of the hole. The whole forensic thing was really a shambles, because nothing was preserved.” Watching the chaos unfold had left him conflicted about the case. He told me, “I would not be surprised if, one day, someone comes along and says, Here’s definitive proof that he didn’t do it.”"


It doesn't make EP look very honest. Didn't they all sign affidavits that they didn't alter the crime scene?  This was used in a previous rejection by the CCRC. 

Picking up and putting back the bible in and of itself has no proof value that JB didn't commit the murders. I think that's the line they will take.  Thing is, if they have lied about this, then what else have they lied about?

Offline Curiosity

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2024, 08:14:PM »
It doesn't make EP look very honest. Didn't they all sign affidavits that they didn't alter the crime scene?  This was used in a previous rejection by the CCRC. 

Picking up and putting back the bible in and of itself has no proof value that JB didn't commit the murders. I think that's the line they will take.  Thing is, if they have lied about this, then what else have they lied about?
Shifting Nevill's body away from the AGA and perching it on a chairback, wrapping June's body up in an electric blanket to hasten livor mortis, rigor mortis or whatever, then shooting her between the eyes with a Brno?  The amount of crime scene corruption that went on is truly astonishing!!!
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and furballs.

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2024, 08:21:PM »
It doesn't make EP look very honest. Didn't they all sign affidavits that they didn't alter the crime scene?  This was used in a previous rejection by the CCRC. 

Picking up and putting back the bible in and of itself has no proof value that JB didn't commit the murders. I think that's the line they will take.  Thing is, if they have lied about this, then what else have they lied about?

No, because evening it is true, it has to undermine the safety of the conviction.

The prosecution case was based mainly on the sound moderator and Julie Mugford.

The position of the Bible makes absolutely no difference.

No Court  of Appeal judge would quash a conviction  based on a moved bible!

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2024, 08:25:PM »
No, because evening it is true, it has to undermine the safety of the conviction.

The prosecution case was based mainly on the sound moderator and Julie Mugford.

The position of the Bible makes absolutely no difference.

No Court  of Appeal judge would quash a conviction  based on a moved bible!

Yes I have pointed out that picking up and repositioning the bible is not proof of innocence. However, police allegedly gave sworn statements that they did not alter the crime scene. It's not like they gave sworn statements to say that Cook altered the positioning and pages of the bible.

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: The New Yorker article
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2024, 09:04:PM »
I think the article is very well researched and gives a balanced assessment of the case.  It would serve as a very good introduction to someone new to the case who wishes to have a clear summary.  In case members have a problem with the link provided (I think free access is only granted for a single article) here is a pdf version.

Thanks for uploading this ngb.