Author Topic: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission  (Read 13154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #90 on: January 05, 2013, 06:11:PM »
Hello, Jo  ;D
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2013, 06:13:PM »
Bamber was born to a vicar's daughter who had had an affair with a married army sergeant, a comptroller at Buckingham Palace. She gave the baby up for adoption in 1961, the year of his birth, through the Church of England Children's Society. It was only after Bamber's conviction, when his adoption records were published, that his biological parents were told by reporters that Bamber was their son. They were by then married to each other, and both were working at Buckingham Palace.
That was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber

I think there's probably a lot of reasons why a mother would give up their child, especially up to probably recently. Things have changed and there are probably better 'services' and link ups running between services to keep families together.
Way back it was a stigma to have a child out of wedlock to start with and there may be other circumstances like the parent being ill, have an addiction problem, the victim of rape or have a child with a disability that the parent cannot cope with due to circumstaces (having other children or having their own disability etc).
I wouldn't slate anyone for making this decision because it's so difficult. There was a programme on recently,'Protecting our children', that was an eye opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-2xD3ILrs (there were 3 episodes in total, it looks like they're further broken down to 4 parts per episode).

I wouldnt slate any parents having to give up a child for adoption either, and i wouldnt blame those same parents for how that child turned out.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2013, 06:20:PM »
::) Give up Lugg while you're still sane.


Lugg,I would imagine that their guilt for having parted with something that was a natural part of them,,would be there until they died.
The programme about such a subject used to show the mother looking for her child ( now adult with their own family ) and some of these mothers were elderly,but were just longing to know if their " once " offspring were alright.
Any mother under these circumstances, who doesn't have a pang of guilt as they get older,isn't worth knowing.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #93 on: January 05, 2013, 07:26:PM »
Simon McKay is not a member of this forum but that has no bearing upon his commitment to the case.  He has already put a lot of his time into the case without any payment and he remains committed to it.

His commitment speaks volumes to me.  I'm glad I have aligned my self to the same side as him. 

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #94 on: January 05, 2013, 08:35:PM »
Bamber was born to a vicar's daughter who had had an affair with a married army sergeant, a comptroller at Buckingham Palace. She gave the baby up for adoption in 1961, the year of his birth, through the Church of England Children's Society. It was only after Bamber's conviction, when his adoption records were published, that his biological parents were told by reporters that Bamber was their son. They were by then married to each other, and both were working at Buckingham Palace.
That was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber

I think there's probably a lot of reasons why a mother would give up their child, especially up to probably recently. Things have changed and there are probably better 'services' and link ups running between services to keep families together.
Way back it was a stigma to have a child out of wedlock to start with and there may be other circumstances like the parent being ill, have an addiction problem, the victim of rape or have a child with a disability that the parent cannot cope with due to circumstaces (having other children or having their own disability etc).
I wouldn't slate anyone for making this decision because it's so difficult. There was a programme on recently,'Protecting our children', that was an eye opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-2xD3ILrs (there were 3 episodes in total, it looks like they're further broken down to 4 parts per episode).
I wasn't going on tv programmes. My wife and also her mother lived it. I can tell you more than any tv programme can. I wasn't slating anyone for giving up their children. In fact I have been saying the exact opposite. So please don't make it look as if I have.
What I am angry about is the way they reacted after they realised JB was their son. I had just discovered my son after many years I would do all I could to contact him. Not disown him like they did.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2013, 08:36:PM »
His commitment speaks volumes to me.  I'm glad I have aligned my self to the same side as him.
So am I. I think it was disgusting the way the opposition were calling his a "failed" barrister and the like. Totally childish. The kind of comment you'd expect from a lush. Oops! it was said by a lush. ::)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 08:40:PM by Lugg »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2013, 09:01:PM »
Onwards and upwards,eh.? I firmly believe that Jeremy is innocent and that's all that matters.

Offline campion

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2013, 09:08:PM »
   On the subject of Jeremy's alleged natural/ biological parentage, I am somewhat surprised to learn that Claire Powell published this in her 1994 book. According to Wikipedia, CP was made aware by reporters. Which paper might this have been, and how did they gain this information?
  Was Jeremy already cognisant of this claim? Major Marsham  appears so jubilent in his duties (as in announcing Royal births), performing them with practiced pride.
  I find it totally amazing that they did not study the whys and wherefors of the case of their 'son', for whatever reason.
  With Jeremy being a convicted criminal, he must already be aware of his Mitochondial DNA. Would it be within the realms of possibility, if he so desired, for Jeremy to have his DNA checked against the Marshams, for the avoidance of doubt. Perhaps that would elucidate the reason for their denial of him?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2013, 09:10:PM »
Ooooooo,can of worms,campion. Good idea though.

Offline campion

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #99 on: January 05, 2013, 09:21:PM »
 An eye for an eye, Look out.
  As Jeremy was  'stitched' up, so may the sewers be 'stitched' up. I rest my case.
  May the worms proliferate, and wriggle at the opening  of the can.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #100 on: January 05, 2013, 09:33:PM »
An eye for an eye, Look out.
  As Jeremy was  'stitched' up, so may the sewers be 'stitched' up. I rest my case.
  May the worms proliferate, and wriggle at the opening  of the can.



Ready to be caught by the early bird, perhaps? :) :) :) :)

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #101 on: January 05, 2013, 09:38:PM »


Ready to be caught by the early bird, perhaps? :) :) :) :)
I believe campion is thinking of a higher DNA than we may suppose? A bit regal if you ask me. ::)

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #102 on: January 05, 2013, 09:48:PM »
Not prince Phillip!
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #103 on: January 05, 2013, 09:50:PM »
I believe campion is thinking of a higher DNA than we may suppose? A bit regal if you ask me. ::)


I daresay he is,Lugg,,,which isn't really surprising given the antics below stairs,,or even above :-X

Offline Patti

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13193
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #104 on: January 05, 2013, 09:52:PM »
THE real dad of Jeremy Bamber last night said he wants nothing to do with his murdering son after hearing the killer was after his help to launch another bid for freedom.

Major Leslie Marsham branded the 43-year-old a psychopath who has no chance of being reunited with him or his natural mother Juliet.

Bamber was jailed for life in August 1986 for massacring five members of his adoptive family at their remote farmhouse to claim a pounds 500,000 inheritance.

He denied the killing, claiming he didn't need the money because his real parents were wealthy and he could have got cash from them.

His lawyers argue that had the jury known about his parentage, they might not have convicted him.

Speaking for the first time about his father, a former servant for the Queen who lived at Buckingham Palace, Bamber said from his cell at Whitemoor jail, Cambs: "I'd like their support, what son wouldn't?

"I am sure my life would have been very different if I hadn't been adopted. I would like to be acknowledged by my genetic parents."

But 72-year-old Mr Marsham angrily dismissed any chance of that.

He said: "It was traumatic when we had to hand him over. He went to lovely people, who looked after him and gave him the best start in life.

"He abused them. He's a murderer. It's well proven. He's as guilty as hell. Most murderers complain to the bitter end they never did it.

"We had no part in his upbringing whatsoever. I don't know and don't wish to know whether he is our child or not. He has ruined our lives. He is a horrible man."

Retired Mr Marsham, who lives in a mews house near Hampton Court Palace, West London, which was a gift from the Queen, added: "We told his probation officer we wanted nothing to do with him. There's not going to be any reuniting.

"We have perfectly nice children, who've also been greatly affected by this. Quite frankly he's nothing to do with us."

Bamber, who shot dead his adoptive parents, sister and two young nephews, told how he was eight when he found out about his real mother and father.

Former RAF pilot Neville Bamber and his wife June took him under their wing after they found out they couldn't have children.

The killer said: "I read all the documentation and correspondence about my real parents. My adoptive parents kept in touch with them for four years. I do understand why I was adopted and don't feel any hurt.

"As far as I am aware they met at a dance, but I've never had contact with them and don't know if they know about me, but would assume they do. Of course if I had not have been adopted I would have been looked after by them, but that is not relevant now."

ALTHOUGH he has never met his dad since adoption, Bamber said he still harbours a lot of affection for him. He found out details of him from rich and famous guide Who's Who.

Bamber was born out of an illicit affair between Mr Marsham and his then lover Juliet Wheeler in 1961. The couple later married but put up their son for adoption soon after his birth due, it is believed, to the stigma attached to having an illegitimate child at the time.

His birth certificate showed he was born at St Mary Abbots Hospital in Kensington, West London. It lists his father as a sergeant in the Royal Army Medical Corps and gives his residence as the Hebridean island of St Kilda.

Instead of having a privileged upbringing at Buckingham Palace, their son went to live with the Bambers on their farm in the Essex village of Tolleshunt D'Arcy.

Bamber was 25, Bamber when he was locked up for the murders. At first police believed his schizophrenic sister Sheila, a model, nicknamed Bambi with a history of mental illness, killed her family before turning the gun, a .22 semi-automatic rifle, on herself.

But they changed their minds when relatives discovered a silencer for the murder weapon, which officers had missed, with a spot of blood inside that was said to be Sheila's.

Detectives reached the conclusion she could not have killed herself and put the silencer back in the cupboard

The trial jury at Chelmsford convicted him of murder by a 10-2 majority.

Bamber's defence team vigorously argued at his most recent appeal that new DNA evidence, carried out with the latest scientific techniques not available in the 80s, suggests the blood found in the silencer was not Sheila's.

But court of appeal judges ruled his convictions safe. His legal representatives, though, maintain comments made by trial judge Mr Justice Drakes that he murdered "partly out of greed" are inaccurate.

Lawyer Giovanni di Stefano said: "The prosecution case all along was that Mr Bamber murdered for his inheritance.

"But why would he do that when, in fact, his genetic parents were very well-to-do and might well have financially provided for him in later life. It doesn't make sense.

"Mr Bamber is said to display unusual confidence and even arrogance but when one considers the pedigree of his parents one can easily identify that it may have something to do with his genetic background.

"Had the jury at his original trial known his parentage it may have swayed one juror into returning a different verdict."

HIS legal team are now considering a further appeal by Bamber against the murder convictions, even though the two previous High Court attempts have failed.

They claim new evidence has been unearthed from official police reports - not disclosed at the time of the trial - which show notes by an officer in radio logs that there was movement in the house in the early hours of the morning while Bamber was with police outside

They also claim another log stated that a man was seen running outside the farm as Bamber spoke to officers.

Mr Di Stefano added: "There are considerable discrepancies in the police case against Mr Bamber and many of these originate from evidence gathered by the police themselves.

"I'm convinced that the conviction was based on a flawed case."

Bamber also still insists he is not guilty. He said: "I maintain my innocence because I am innocent

"I have kept strong through my imprisonment which I put it down to being innocent and fighting for the truth.

"But, of course, genetics must be involved as we all inherit something from our parents."



http://www.thefreelibrary.com/He+went+to+lovely+people+who+gave+him+the+best+start+in+life.+He...-a0112751004