The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...

[bloggs and son]

Yes I am pleased too but I was worried at one time because certain anti Bamber/troublemakers were worried Jeremy could be getting close to having his case referred because of Simons input they decided to publish personal attacks on Simon with much glee.
Not one of those people are the slightest bit interested in justice.
Simon walking out on Jeremy would have had DEVASTATING consequences

Yes. That is what I would term mudslinging in order to blacken his character and weaken people's confidence in him with the purpose of causinf him to fail with his presentation to the CCRC. You can undermine someone's work by denigrating them. Politicians do it all the time and so do the press.

[Patti]

The appeal judgement in 2002 stated that the jury themselves were given the opportunity to load the rifle and some had difficulty in doing so.  Has anyone here loaded this, or any similar rifle?

Hi Neil. That is assuming that the magazine was loaded 10 times. You can just load one bullet or 4, 5 6 or 7...which would be easy to load....

When the German company was asked about the difficulties, they replied saying that they had no got any issues regarding the loading of 10 bullets or that it was difficult. The went on to say they had no complaints regarding this and that their guns had been tested prior to sale and there was no problems found...

I do believe the jury did an exercise loading bullets into the rifle, but then that rifle had been damaged....I would not say it was extremely difficult to load but more fiddly than anything.....and if honesty creeps in, although it might be slightly difficult, it would not be impossible....

[Bridget]

The appeal judgement in 2002 stated that the jury themselves were given the opportunity to load the rifle and some had difficulty in doing so.  Has anyone here loaded this, or any similar rifle?

NGB has a similar one, and has posted that he doesn't find it difficult at all.

[Bridget]

Hi Neil. That is assuming that the magazine was loaded 10 times. You can just load one bullet or 4, 5 6 or 7...which would be easy to load....

When the German company was asked about the difficulties, they replied saying that they had no got any issues regarding the loading of 10 bullets or that it was difficult. The went on to say they had no complaints regarding this and that their guns had been tested prior to sale and there was no problems found...

I do believe the jury did an exercise loading bullets into the rifle, but then that rifle had been damaged....I would not say it was extremely difficult to load but more fiddly than anything.....and if honesty creeps in, although it might be slightly difficult, it would not be impossible....

No, they loaded cartridges (bullets) into the magazine, which was not damaged.

[Neil]

Hi Neil. That is assuming that the magazine was loaded 10 times. You can just load one bullet or 4, 5 6 or 7...which would be easy to load....

When the German company was asked about the difficulties, they replied saying that they had no got any issues regarding the loading of 10 bullets or that it was difficult. The went on to say they had no complaints regarding this and that their guns had been tested prior to sale and there was no problems found...

I do believe the jury did an exercise loading bullets into the rifle, but then that rifle had been damaged....I would not say it was extremely difficult to load but more fiddly than anything.....and if honesty creeps in, although it might be slightly difficult, it would not be impossible....

That's very informative, thanks Patti

[Patti]

No, they loaded cartridges (bullets) into the magazine, which was not damaged.

I thought you had gone out....lololol No the magazine was not damaged, but the rifle the magazine went into was.....Anyway, how do you know the magazine it's self wasn't damaged?

It's irrelevant Bridget, because even if the bullets were slightly hard, it does not mean it was impossible and if they jury did load the 10th bullet, then Sheila was more capable of loading it than we think....

Eat your dinner....lol 

[Bridget]

I thought you had gone out....lololol No the magazine was not damaged, but the rifle the magazine went into was.....Anyway, how do you know the magazine it's self wasn't damaged?

It's irrelevant Bridget, because even if the bullets were slightly hard, it does not mean it was impossible and if they jury did load the 10th bullet, then Sheila was more capable of loading it than we think....

Eat your dinner....lol 

I went out and came back again - gotta keep you on your toes!

Has anyone ever suggested the magazine was damaged? Or that it was impossible?

[Roch]

Covering their tracks for what? And what about the rest of that sentence you quoted - the part where I suggested it would have been easier to frame Sheila?

They covered their tracks in relation to the manipulated / hidden evidence.  Two appeals occur ed in which the defence did not even know the existence of most of the stuff which has come to light since the 2002 appeal.  It's only just come light this year that the case was reviewed as late as the 6Th September and that Taff was backed by the reviewing officer.  It's only just come to light that the way the Julie Mugford has portrayed as coming forward is absolute codswallop.  It only came to light in approx 2004 that a silencer from the case kept on Taff's desk and used by Whiddon.  it's only came to light many years after conviction that special branch ordered the destruction of exhibits.  Wet blood photos came to light after 2002 appeal.  If bamber is left to uncover wtf took place and hasn't got a clue what to request from the case papers to support his appeal (because he doesn't know what's in the case papers to support his appeals) then he is effectively conducting his quest for appeals blind or at best piecemeal.  Logs re female downstairs only came to light in 2004.  They have been edited.

I don't understand the point you are making re Sheila.  But I certainly don't think the relatives were going to go away, thereby placing EP under extreme pressure.  It does seem far fetched that in order to avoid whatever had took place during the raid from being exposed, the lesser of two evils for EP was to frame Bamber, nevertheless, frame bamber is what they did.  You may be gullible enough to buy this miraculous silencer find in the cupboard, preferring to take the line the only real argument for the defence is potential contamination.  I struggle with it being credible.

[JackiePreece]

Brilliant post and can I add again if the family and David Boutflour really wanted this case to END NOW they would be fully supportive of everything being released under PII so there could no longer be any applications to the CCRC.

I don't believe the family will ever canvas for the PII evidence to be released because I think they believe there could be further evidence uncovered that could damage the prosecutions case.

I hope somebody i e preferably Mark gets to ask David Boutflour on camera one day if he supports the release of PII evidence in this case

[Patti]

They covered their tracks in relation to the manipulated / hidden evidence.  Two appeals occur ed in which the defence did not even know the existence of most of the stuff which has come to light since the 2002 appeal.  It's only just come light this year that the case was reviewed as late as the 6Th September and that Taff was backed by the reviewing officer.  It's only just come to light that the way the Julie Mugford has portrayed as coming forward is absolute codswallop.  It only came to light in approx 2004 that a silencer from the case kept on Taff's desk and used by Whiddon.  it's only came to light many years after conviction that special branch ordered the destruction of exhibits.  Wet blood photos came to light after 2002 appeal.  If bamber is left to uncover wtf took place and hasn't got a clue what to request from the case papers to support his appeal (because he doesn't know what's in the case papers to support his appeals) then he is effectively conducting his quest for appeals blind or at best piecemeal.  Logs re female downstairs only came to light in 2004.  They have been edited.

I don't understand the point you are making re Sheila.  But I certainly don't think the relatives were going to go away, thereby placing EP under extreme pressure.  It does seem far fetched that in order to avoid whatever had took place during the raid from being exposed, the lesser of two evils for EP was to frame Bamber, nevertheless, frame bamber is what they did.  You may be gullible enough to buy this miraculous silencer find in the cupboard, preferring to take the line the only real argument for the defence is potential contamination.  I struggle with it being credible.

Hi Roch

I struggle with the silencer too....Why did they not ring the police from WHF to tell them what they had discovered, why did they not simply leave it there? Why did they take it home and try to screw the end off it? That silencer was cross contaminated in my opinion. It should never have been included in the scenario.....Many years later....no DNA on that silencer from Sheila.?? 

[Bridget]

They covered their tracks in relation to the manipulated / hidden evidence.  Two appeals occur ed in which the defence did not even know the existence of most of the stuff which has come to light since the 2002 appeal.  It's only just come light this year that the case was reviewed as late as the 6Th September and that Taff was backed by the reviewing officer.  It's only just come to light that the way the Julie Mugford has portrayed as coming forward is absolute codswallop.  It only came to light in approx 2004 that a silencer from the case kept on Taff's desk and used by Whiddon.  it's only came to light many years after conviction that special branch ordered the destruction of exhibits.  Wet blood photos came to light after 2002 appeal.  If bamber is left to uncover wtf took place and hasn't got a clue what to request from the case papers to support his appeal (because he doesn't know what's in the case papers to support his appeals) then he is effectively conducting his quest for appeals blind or at best piecemeal.  Logs re female downstairs only came to light in 2004.  They have been edited.

I don't understand the point you are making re Sheila.  But I certainly don't think the relatives were going to go away, thereby placing EP under extreme pressure.  It does seem far fetched that in order to avoid whatever had took place during the raid from being exposed, the lesser of two evils for EP was to frame Bamber, nevertheless, frame bamber is what they did.  You may be gullible enough to buy this miraculous silencer find in the cupboard, preferring to take the line the only real argument for the defence is potential contamination.  I struggle with it being credible.

Well that is a rather circular argument isn't it? Why did they need to manipulate evidence in the first place?

I may be gullible? HA! Pots and kettles...

[Bridget]

Hi Roch

I struggle with the silencer too....Why did they not ring the police from WHF to tell them what they had discovered, why did they not simply leave it there? Why did they take it home and try to screw the end off it? That silencer was cross contaminated in my opinion. It should never have been included in the scenario.....Many years later....no DNA on that silencer from Sheila.?? 

There was DNA matching 17 out of 20 markers when compared to Sheila's mother's, so, given the fairly limited range of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, yes Sheila's DNA was in the silencer. The issue at appeal was however, how it got there.

[Roch]

Well that is a rather circular argument isn't it? Why did they need to manipulate evidence in the first place?

I may be gullible? HA! Pots and kettles...

I'll be back later.  I have some hypothetical questions for you. You may feel they are circular but perhaps that's unavoidable.

[Bridget]

I'll be back later.  I have some hypothetical questions for you. You may feel they are circular but perhaps that's unavoidable.

You're now going to follow your circular answers with circular questions? I can't wait...

[Patti]

There was DNA matching 17 out of 20 markers when compared to Sheila's mother's, so, given the fairly limited range of people whose DNA could possibly be in the silencer, yes Sheila's DNA was in the silencer. The issue at appeal was however, how it got there.

Not enough markers Bridget to say it belonged to Sheila....It's not enough, I tell ya!