Why do you think Jeremy Bamber might be / is innocent?

[BarefootDanC]

Who are all the experts you refer to?

I am aware that post trial the defence argued heat, from repeat firing of the rifle, may have produced the results presented at trial.  To test this hypothesis FSS Huntingdon placed blood in a (the?) silencer and discharged a (the?) rifle with the same/different ? ammo a total of 25 times.  We are told the results were unaffected. 

The experiment was to test whether between the 25 shots, at soc, blood had entered the silencer, dried, and further blood had entered and deposited on the dried blood thus producing the defence argument that the blood represented an intimate mix of June and NB's. 

The above was all about the mixed blood argument presented by the defence at trial.  A simple typed report was produced without the photographic evidence that is generated by tests using gel electrophoresis.  There is no evidence that the defence asked its own experts to check over the simple typed report and ask for the supporting photographic evidence.

My hypothesis is that a blood flake would not have been able to withstand the enviroments:

- Hot gasses from silencer
- Time spent in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber
- Time spent hanging around in ambient temp from the above until we are told the flake was identified on 12th Sept
- I have been advised by arguably the world's leading expert on blood serology that PGM is more robust than AK and EAP and yet in this case we are told the flake was unable to produce a result for PGM!
- None of the other case related exhibits were able to produce the sort of results we are told the flake did despite the fact other exhibits contained a greater quantity of blood which did not sustain the sort of environmental insults the flake underwent.

I do not trust anything coming out of FSS.  I have carried out considerable research into much of the trial testimony and I believe it is wrong.

3.3 FSS Quality

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science. The present FSS in-house quality framework goes well beyond the basic requirements of ISO17025 and is in close accord with the FSR’s forthcoming Codes. Indeed, before closure was announced the FSS were planning to act as a test-bed for compliance to this code later this year.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

Plus at the time the Bamber exhibits were under examination FSS Huntingdon was headed up by Ronald Outteridge, the forensic scientist charged with perverting the course of justice in the case of Stefan Kiszko:

https://www.watersidepress.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Criminal-Proceedings_Holland-Outteridge.pdf

And the above is just the tip of the iceberg about the flake being a crock of shite.

"Who are the experts who I refer to?"

1) Glynis Howard called by the prosecution
2) Dr Patrick for the defence at trial, although not called
3) MarK Webster for the defence at the 2002 appeal.

My question for you is does any expert back up your opinion? This reminds me of the "rabbits blood" theory.

[Cambridgecutie]

"Who are the experts who I refer to?"

1) Glynis Howard called by the prosecution

It has been pointed out to you previously by me and others that GH was not involved with the blood supposedly found inside the silencer  which was first identified on 12th Sep.  Her involvement and trial testimony was solely concerned with the blood on the outside of the silencer which she examined on 13th Aug.  Where she refers to the inside she is referring to the inside of the aperture which is accessible without any dismantling of the silencer.  The dismantling did not happen until Sep.

2) Dr Patrick for the defence at trial, although not called

We have Dr Patrick Lincoln's reports here which were compiled for the defence pre trial.  As you will see he does not refer to any chain of custody ie that he has even considered the environments.  There's no evidence he is even aware that the bloood we are told was found inside was found a month after the blood was examined on the outside.

He identified an anomaly with the testing, referenced in his report, but there's no evidence this was challenged.

He makes clear he has no idea who actually carried out the tests and what sort of processes, systems and oversight were in place.

It is evident from the CoA hearing that the communication was not what it should be between all involved:

462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.

As I have pointed out numerous times he was a medi doctor working in a London teaching hospital not a forensic scientist working in a FSP.  Ie no access to other relevant experts to confer with eg ballistics.

3) MarK Webster for the defence at the 2002 appeal.

I have read MW's lengthy testimony at the CoA 2002.  As with Dr Lincoln there's no evidence he was aware of the chain of custody.  He is a highly qualified biologist.  This aspect of the case requires a multi-disciplinary approach: ballistics, biologist and pathologist. 

My question for you is does any expert back up your opinion? This reminds me of the "rabbits blood" theory.

My question for you is has any expert ever carried out any testing to confirm the drawback phenomenon is even possible with a silencer attached? 

It has been pointed out to you previously the rabbit blood theory is a non-starter because tests were carried out to determine human in origin.  The starting points are to determine what is believed to be blood is in fact blood and then to check it is human in origin.

[Cambridgecutie]

And there's no evidence the defence or court at trial were aware the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was examined a month after the blood on the outside was examined.  No evidence the chain of custody was considered. 

And no one has explained how blood on the outside of the rifle, arguably of greater quantity and quality than blood found inside the silencer, was unable to generate any blood results beyond what was thought to blood was in fact blood and human in origin:

71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.

[David1819]

"Who are the experts who I refer to?"

1) Glynis Howard called by the prosecution
2) Dr Patrick for the defence at trial, although not called
3) MarK Webster for the defence at the 2002 appeal.

My question for you is does any expert back up your opinion? This reminds me of the "rabbits blood" theory.

You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!

To be honest I couldn't care less what he wore, or what he looked liked, as trying to guess this doesn't make him more or less guilty.

But, what we do know is that he made lots of really clumsy, clunky and very obvious lies. And everyone saw those lies, could remember those lies, but not Bamber.  Bamber didn't have the memory, the intelligence, the nous, the common sense, to remember the lies that he made.  Many of which he didn't have to make in the first place

Many of those lies were expertly exposed by DS Jones in Bambers interviews.

And all of that shows quite clearly that he isn't the sharpest tool in the box. He never really controlled events after the murders, and his general idiocy let him down.

So, if he was so poorly organised after the murders, then it makes sense that he was hopelessly poorly organised before the murders.

And so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that in Jeremy Bambers warped fantasising world, going in like a mixture between the SAS and the milk tray man, ridiculous as it sounds, starts to sound plausible, once you realise how dumb he was in those days.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be a comedy, watching Bamber struggling to put a wet suit on outside the house on the night, hopping around trying to get a leg into the suit, then falling over and swearing to himself.

If Mr Bean did murders.

That's a beautiful photo of you Cutie. Nice face

PS... I am not a lesbo

How about bi?  Best of both worlds 

Ehhhh???  No I love opposite sex too much.

[BarefootDanC]

You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!

Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers, who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.

My understanding of the CCRC submission is they are not challenging the actual biology of the blood tests, i.e. they agree that the blood group is a match for Sheila but they respond to this by saying that the blood was also a match for Robert Boutflour's.

It seems like they think either Robert Boutflour inserted his own blood into the moderator (they say they have proof that "the sound moderator was never on the gun") or the police planted Sheila's blood in it.

[Cambridgecutie]

You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!

FAO Mods

I accept the op dated 15th July 2022 @10.51am uploaded by David1919 on 21st Jan 2025 @ 3.30pm is logged under my profile history but I do not believe I made this post?

David has been advised previously that Cambridgecutie and Munska are not one and the same.  I find his obsession with accusing posters of being others and/or using multiple profiles simultaneously creepy and disturbing.  I am aware that using multiple profiles simultaneously is against forum rules and can confirm that I have never done this. 

[Cambridgecutie]

I don't dispute what your saying NGB, But, i don't take her serious anymore and i don't know how anyone can,   she has been posting here under different names 'm lead to believe, she claimed she was Colsville from Red forum when she first introduced herself on here, yet we all Know her as Holly, meaning she had two Identites on Red, [On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written] her arguments about Stan Jones, re him planting blood in the silencer and climbing through the WHF window to plant the silencer for the relatives to find, was Bonkers, and I'm personally not bothered wether she thinks Bamber innocent or guilty, but she spent most of her time arguing for his guilt and now done a complete U turn 

So i must admit,  So this is my reason why i don't listen to her.

Where have I ever made reference to being Colsville? 

I can confirm when I posted on the so-called Red forum I only did so under the username Holly Goodhead.  Most of the time I was on that forum I was a 'senior moderator'.  The owner/admin of the forum would not have tolerated the mods having multiple usernames/profiles.

[Cambridgecutie]

You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!

When I heard Keir Starmer describe Axel Rudakubana as "loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom", I thought for a moment he was talking about you!

[Cambridgecutie]

Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers, who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.

My understanding of the CCRC submission is they are not challenging the actual biology of the blood tests, i.e. they agree that the blood group is a match for Sheila but they respond to this by saying that the blood was also a match for Robert Boutflour's.

It seems like they think either Robert Boutflour inserted his own blood into the moderator (they say they have proof that "the sound moderator was never on the gun") or the police planted Sheila's blood in it.

I was invited by JB to join his CT about a decade ago but I disagreed with the strategy and when I shared my views with the supreme leader I was told it was their way or the highway so I chose the latter. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers,who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.

My understanding of the CCRC submission is they are not challenging the actual biology of the blood tests, i.e. they agree that the blood group is a match for Sheila but they respond to this by saying that the blood was also a match for Robert Boutflour's.

It seems like they think either Robert Boutflour inserted his own blood into the moderator (they say they have proof that "the sound moderator was never on the gun") or the police planted Sheila's blood in it.

If you need 1,000 pages (assuming they're A4) to convince others of something I would say those trying to do the convincing are on a hiding to nothing.  It would appear they're going for quantity over quality!  Throw enough shite at the wall in the hope that some will stick.  The CoA judges in 2002 got thoroughly pi**ed off with this:

522. In this regard there is one further observation that we feel compelled to make. That is that it seems to us that there is a significant deficiency in the statutory framework that provides for a reference by the CCRC to this court of a matter. We have no difficulty at all with the concept that there should be a machinery to review potential miscarriages of justice, where no other avenue of appeal remains. Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them. As a result notwithstanding the economical advocacy of counsel and the efficient preparation of the case, the case lasted some days longer than could be justified by some of the points that were taken. We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is pressed to deal sufficiently expeditiously with the caseload that it has and time unnecessarily wasted means that cases where the court subsequently determines that someone is wrongly detained in prison are delayed. We hope that thought will be given to making this relatively modest change to the legislation that would enable the court to make more efficient use of its time.

[Roch]

If you need 1,000 pages (assuming they're A4) to convince others of something I would say those trying to do the convincing are on a hiding to nothing.  It would appear they're going for quantity over quality!  Throw enough shite at the wall in the hope that some will stick.  The CoA judges in 2002 got thoroughly pi**ed off with this:

522. In this regard there is one further observation that we feel compelled to make. That is that it seems to us that there is a significant deficiency in the statutory framework that provides for a reference by the CCRC to this court of a matter. We have no difficulty at all with the concept that there should be a machinery to review potential miscarriages of justice, where no other avenue of appeal remains. Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them. As a result notwithstanding the economical advocacy of counsel and the efficient preparation of the case, the case lasted some days longer than could be justified by some of the points that were taken. We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is pressed to deal sufficiently expeditiously with the caseload that it has and time unnecessarily wasted means that cases where the court subsequently determines that someone is wrongly detained in prison are delayed. We hope that thought will be given to making this relatively modest change to the legislation that would enable the court to make more efficient use of its time.

If JB is innocent. The appeal court judges from 2002 will not come out of this well. Especially if what they dismissed as minor, turns out to be major.

[ILB]

Could a guy keep a burden like this to himself for a 40 year period in a CAT A establishment refusing to do any offence related work ( which your expected to do and makes your life easier) and continually fight the system to the same velocity of Jeremy Bamber? Any knockback he has he just keeps going. He's never relented. He is adamant of his innocence.


This could be the greatest MOJ of all time. I do believe he will get to the COA and possibly get an acuittal Even if he is gulity. Momentum will spill over with this case one day. Maybe it's just a hunch I have but I believe so.

[David1819]

Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers, who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.

That was sarcasm.

[Cambridgecutie]

If JB is innocent. The appeal court judges from 2002 will not come out of this well. Especially if what they dismissed as minor, turns out to be major.

Please consider the words spoken and the words highlighted ie "some of the matters". 

[Roch]

Please consider the words spoken and the words highlighted ie "some of the matters".

Yes but that's my point. Will those particular things prove to be otherwise in the long run?