Gun tests in Arizona

[mertol22]

       What happens if this new finding from America proves that a sound moderator wasn't used on
  Shelia and that two rimfire marks were on her neck wounds. Then they have to deal with Z's photo
  of Shelia on the bed with a single wound ? Isn't that enough to quash the conviction as not unsafe
  but impossible for Bamber to have committed as he was outside. This would then bring into question
  Essex police's claim of noble cause corruption, as that comes next to admonish themselves of a
  miscarriage of justice ?

EP at this point in time may soon be placed in a very difficult corner  Simon is pushing forward and this is the best news for the pro forum members in a long time.

[ngb1066]

EP at this point in time may soon be placed in a very difficult corner  Simon is pushing forward and this is the best news for the pro forum members in a long time.

I believe Jeremy is now is the most favourable position he has been in since before the 2002 appeal. He has realistic prospects of geting his convictions overturned.

[campion]

   Mertol 22,
                    If only I new how to put the smiley faces on a message, You would get 100s   

[Newbury1]

Nick, it seems to me that you are saying you believe in Jeremy Bamber's guilt, - probable guilt, yes!

as per the the circumstantial evidence used to convict him (i.e. hearsay testimony) - Some of it!

but not the silencer evidence, which in your own opinion, was not only also circumstantial but probably fabricated - that's correct  

Due to the nature of the evidence being circumstantial, you do not afford much credence in the power of defence discoveries which happen to undermine that circumstantial evidence? - If the new evidence is strong enough it may sway my opinion; however as I am not privy to the detail I cannot comment on it further - that is now for the CCRC 

You're losing me here.  I am struggling to assess your position on what makes Jeremy guilty in your eyes and how he should prove his innocence? - there is no need to assess my thinking so closely, and it certainly is not up to me to show how he should prove his innocence. I am simply presenting theories and having them debated

Here is a taster of my thinking

My points for JB's Innocence

1) SC's illness
2) No marks on JB following murders
3) Calm nature with the police outside whf
4) No need for such an extreme crime
5) Getting SC to comply to suicide scenario
6) Getting to and from whf


Points for Guilty

1) Use of .22 rifle and 25 shots (non missed)
2) Reloading gun - not a frenzied attack imo
3) The overpowering of Nevill
4) Is JB lying over father's phone call, and no concrete proof Nevill called police!
5) Inheritance?


Possible reasons a 3rd party was involved (with JB’s knowledge)   

1) No marks on JB
2) No witness to JB getting to and from whf (however did JB ever leave whf that night)
3) Ability to coldly kill all family
4) JM's original testimony
5) Execution style head shots imo

 Just my thoughts!

[jon]

 Nick , What do you want to see to prove his innocence ?

[Newbury1]

Nick , What do you want to see to prove his innocence ?

Well I guess the proof would have to be available today - and not all the overlooked and destroyed stuff from years ago!

So;

1) Any irrefutable proof that Nevill called the police directly (could this still be held back under pii?).
2) A police person of repute (probably difficult to find  ) that steps forward and spills the beans,
3) Any other forensic evidence pointing at SC that may still be held, and not yet disclosed

I could probably go on; but it is a bit of a wish list!

[curiousessex]

Nick I am struggling with your 80%?

Curiousessex could I ask your % I bet it's way lower!!!

Jackie

When there was the vote thread on the forum my vote was 'Probably'.

I would never vote Definately most particularly in this case.

For me the questions and discrepancies surrounding the timings and sequence of telephone calls on the morning of 7th Augst have never been satisfactorily answered or explained away. I include in this Jeremy's alibi which is published on this forum.

As such and given there is one sequence which would mean Jeremy being guilty as charged and in my opinion there are witness statements from Julie's flatmates (these being non Police personnel and not members of the family) which cause Jeremy's alibi problems in this regard.

You asked..........

[Newbury1]

Nick , What do you want to see to prove his innocence ?

Jon, I answered your question.

Can you now please answer mine - What proof do you have of JB's innocence?

Thanks.

[jon]

Jon, I answered your question.

Can you now please answer mine - What proof do you have of JB's innocence?

Thanks.

I have none of innocence or guilt therefore he is innocent !! I find the whole case from top to bottom a fit up , anyone who believe's JM is a fool to my mind , if you want people convicted on the so called evidence in this case , i pity you !!

[curiousessex]

Yes they could.  If new evidence is presented which undermines a central plank of the prosecution case the Court of Appeal can quash the convictions.

 

But will the CCRC be concerned?

I understand the CCRC have already previously stated police officer statements are more reliable than photographs.

Just guessing here...........  The CCRC might state in response;

'Whilst there appears to be some photographic evidence of marks on Nevill Bamber's body there is no conclusive proof that such marks were actually burn marks. Recent press articles have confirmed and detailed the issue of burn marks were raised at the original trial, however, Mr Bamber's solicitor goes on to confirm such marks were dismissed as a "mystery". It has also been stated a senior forensics expert in 1985 raised the possibility that the rifle muzzle may have been responsible but there is no evidence that exists to confirm that such a line of inquiry was pursued at the time.

In reaching our decision on this particular matter we can be sure that there is evidence to conclude that the issue of possible burn marks was available for the defence (correction) to pursue such an argument at the time of the original trial. The fact that this line of questioning was not pursued at the original trial remains a matter for Mr Bamber's chosen legal team at the time. We are happy that the Appeal process is not a forum or umbrella in which to continue the arguments of a particular case which, according to the evidence available, could and should have been pursued at the time of the original trial.

On this particular subject we cannot therefore conclude the recent tests, as conducted in Arizona, can be regarded as new evidence in the way that the CCRC process seeks in order to grant a referral to the Court of Appeal.'

[Newbury1]

I have none of innocence or guilt therefore he is innocent !! I find the whole case from top to bottom a fit up , anyone who believes JM is a fool to my mind , if you want people convicted on the so called evidence in this case , i pity you !!

There is no need to pity me. I did not convict JB as I was not on the Jury. It is the Jury you have to pity!

It is getting him out now that he has been convicted that needs to be proved. I have to prove nothing to get JB out or for him to stay in, mind you if I had a picture of SC on the bed I would have handed it over to JB's legal team ages ago (or sold it to the papers  ) - I have stated my view time and again that Rivlin could have done better with the evidence he had back in '86!

[JackiePreece]

Curious
Could you put. % on it

Nick on you list of things making JB guilty could we knock out of the equation overpowering of Neville as if he had been shot first wouldn't he have been very easy to overpower


I just had this sad thought if Sheila was attacking Neville they must have had such good times together in the past as a little girl and her dad and Neville seemed a nice guy. I was thinking if Neville was looking at her when she shot him, it's absolutely tragic.
Poor Neville and Sheila

[jon]

There is no need to pity me. I did not convict JB as I was not on the Jury. It is the Jury you have to pity!

It is getting him out now that he has been convicted that needs to be proved. I have to prove nothing to get JB out or for him to stay in, mind you if I had a picture of SC on the bed I would have handed it over to JB's legal team ages ago (or sold it to the papers  ) - I have stated my view time and again that Rivlin could have done better with the evidence he had back in '86!

If it is getting him out now that is the issue for you , it is simple if it can be proven now that 'the silencer ' was not used then the case is over , as this is what was claimed at trial !!

[curiousessex]

If it is getting him out now that is the issue for you , it is simple if it can be proven now that 'the silencer ' was not used then the case is over , as this is what was claimed at trial !!

Not necessarily.. whilst very hypothetical......see below

Just guessing here...........  The CCRC might state in response;

'Whilst there appears to be some photographic evidence of marks on Nevill Bamber's body there is no conclusive proof that such marks were actually burn marks. Recent press articles have confirmed and detailed the issue of burn marks were raised at the original trial, however, Mr Bamber's solicitor goes on to confirm such marks were dismissed as a "mystery". It has also been stated a senior forensics expert in 1985 raised the possibility that the rifle muzzle may have been responsible but there is no evidence that exists to confirm that such a line of inquiry was pursued at the time.

In reaching our decision on this particular matter we can be sure that there is evidence to conclude that the issue of possible burn marks was available for the defence (correction) to pursue such an argument at the time of the original trial. The fact that this line of questioning was not pursued at the original trial remains a matter for Mr Bamber's chosen legal team at the time. We are happy that the Appeal process is not a forum or umbrella in which to continue the arguments of a particular case which, according to the evidence available, could and should have been pursued at the time of the original trial.

On this particular subject we cannot therefore conclude the recent tests, as conducted in Arizona, can be regarded as new evidence in the way that the CCRC process seeks in order to grant a referral to the Court of Appeal.'

[Alias]

I can never get over that the EP destroyed all physical evidence in the Bamber case in 1996. Exactly around the time DNA evidence really took off and started altering multiple convictions.
Makes you think.