Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission

[lookout]

One characteristic of a phsychopath is that he is proud of his crimes. I detect no such thing in Jeremy?

Lugg,I'm afraid that any pride that Jeremy did have as a son to Neville,,was quashed the moment he was convicted for doing something that he clearly knew nothing about in the first place,,but that there were so many against him that he never stood a chance. What more could he say,other than he didn't commit the crime,which I believe that he didn't do.
  Two women who fought to their deaths were responsible and I won't be budged on that at all.

[lookout]

Anything else beyond that is purely hearsay and supposition.

[guest1199]

Hi Patti!!

So, the comment about residue inside the rifle stated in the report is a red-herring? 

It looked to me that the residue pattern during the testing was fairly conclusive regardless of the marks on Nevill’s back that no moderator was fitted.  If the origin of the marks on Nevill’s back were inconclusive how and any results be regarded as conclusive?  If the marks were burns something would have to have been heated to produce that effect if it wasn’t the rifle, what was it?

There is not much in the report regarding the photographic evidence that concludes that the scratches didn’t exist on the day of the murder!!   I saw a video on Jeremy’s website where the CCRC made it clear that they at a certain point would welcome no further submissions. Did the CCRC consider this evidence at all?

The CCRC took a ridiculous 8 years to come to its conclusions, does that mean that any emerging leads will take another 8 years or will they push it to 10, 12 or 20 years!?

[ngb1066]

Hi Patti!!

So, the comment about residue inside the rifle stated in the report is a red-herring? 

It looked to me that the residue pattern during the testing was fairly conclusive regardless of the marks on Nevill’s back that no moderator was fitted.  If the origin of the marks on Nevill’s back were inconclusive how and any results be regarded as conclusive?  If the marks were burns something would have to have been heated to produce that effect if it wasn’t the rifle, what was it?

There is not much in the report regarding the photographic evidence that concludes that the scratches didn’t exist on the day of the murder!!   I saw a video on Jeremy’s website where the CCRC made it clear that they at a certain point would welcome no further submissions. Did the CCRC consider this evidence at all?

The CCRC took a ridiculous 8 years to come to its conclusions, does that mean that any emerging leads will take another 8 years or will they push it to 10, 12 or 20 years!?

I believe it will be a lot quicker this time.  The submissions will be completed without time pressure and will be fully supported by evidence.

 

[Patti]

Hi Patti!!

So, the comment about residue inside the rifle stated in the report is a red-herring? 

It looked to me that the residue pattern during the testing was fairly conclusive regardless of the marks on Nevill’s back that no moderator was fitted.  If the origin of the marks on Nevill’s back were inconclusive how and any results be regarded as conclusive?  If the marks were burns something would have to have been heated to produce that effect if it wasn’t the rifle, what was it?

There is not much in the report regarding the photographic evidence that concludes that the scratches didn’t exist on the day of the murder!!   I saw a video on Jeremy’s website where the CCRC made it clear that they at a certain point would welcome no further submissions. Did the CCRC consider this evidence at all?

The CCRC took a ridiculous 8 years to come to its conclusions, does that mean that any emerging leads will take another 8 years or will they push it to 10, 12 or 20 years!?

Hi Tom

No, I am not saying that, what I'm saying is that the commission said that Fowler did not address any residue in the rifle, when he did his experiment.  The commission is not satisfied that marks on Nevill's back came from the rifle.   If they were, then they would have to say that the silencer was not on the rifle when the marks were made, therefore it could be that a silencer was never on the rifle at all. 

It was Dr Fowler's opinion that the marks on Nevill's back were the same size and diameter as the mozzle of the rifle.  Fowler also said that the residue marks on Sheila's wounds were made with the silencer off....and could not be made with the silencer on.  However, he continued to say, that further tests were required, because the mozzle of the rifle did not reach the required temperature after firing. 

[Bridget]

Sorry If I appear a bit dim on this (I am still trying to make sense of this). Can someone tell me a bit more on the subject of  “no residue being found in the rifle”.  what is the significance of this??

We still have significance attached to the blood flake on the moderator.  As far as I know the AK1 enzyme was attributed to Sheila despite being shared with a number of animals.  As far as I understand it there was no other method of evaluating whether it as Sheila’s blood other than by the AK1 enzyme. 

In the further 2002 appeal it was DNA tested and (correct me if I’m wrong) the DNA sample indicated that it was not Sheila’s but June’s blood with the possibility that Sheila’s blood had been completely swabbed away with June’s DNA being cross contamination.

Why does the issue of blood in the moderator still carry weight with the prosecution?

Cheers!!
Tom

I think the residue referred to in that paragraph is blood, not gun shot residue, it's the only way I can make sense of it since as far as I'm aware, no one has claimed there was no GSR in the barrel.

The AK1 test was just one of 5, and in a report written much later one of the defence experts deals with the issue of whether or not animal AK1 could be confused with human AK1 and he thought it possible but unlikely if I recall correctly.

DNA from June was accepted to have been found in the silencer for the purposes of the appeal, and also DNA matching 17 out of 20 markers when compared with Sheila's natural mother. The DNA evidence relating to Sheila was ultimately discounted at appeal because LCN DNA testing is hugely more sensitive than any tests performed at the time, and the possibility of contamination either at or after the trial couldn't be ruled out.

[guest1199]

Hi Bridget and Patti!!

Thanks for your comments.

I had a look at Jeremy’s website and it seems to be unequivocal on the subject of blood.  Surely if the blood was identified as Sheila’s it would have to be defined by another blood component. 

Was the authority that tested the blood in 1985  Police forensics or an independent lab.  If it was a Police lab did they send it out to confirmed by an independent source?

Have the CCRC considered the new photographic evidence that suggests that the scratches were not there on the day of the murder?  I don’t see too much about it in the judges report!

Cheers!!
Tom

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget and Patti!!

Thanks for your comments.

I had a look at Jeremy’s website and it seems to be unequivocal on the subject of blood.  Surely if the blood was identified as Sheila’s it would have to be defined by another blood component. 

Was the authority that tested the blood in 1985  Police forensics or an independent lab.  If it was a Police lab did they send it out to confirmed by an independent source?

Have the CCRC considered the new photographic evidence that suggests that the scratches were not there on the day of the murder?  I don’t see too much about it in the judges report!

Cheers!!
Tom

Hi Tom,

Mark Webster, the defence expert at the appeal, describes at least some of what is written on the website as 'gibberish', you can read his comments here:

http://www.forensic-science.co.uk/bamber.html

I'm not sure what the status of the lab was at the time, I think it was a govt facility and as such probably worked pretty much exclusively for the police / prosecution.

If you're referring to Peter sutherst's evidence, yes I think that was rejected by the CCRC on the basis that he was looking in the wrong place, or the right place wasn't visible, something like that - ngb explained that once and I've forgotten what he said!

[killingeve]

Possible because they were so ready practicall from the start to accuse him. If he was part of my family it would take a great deal more than it did them to believe him to be guilty. The fact that they hated him is revealed in the words of Ann Eaton on the day of the murders, "Why is Jeremy still alive?". Not, "Is Jeremy ok?".

Hi Lugg

When I read AE's wit stat I found the above quite remarkable given that JB didn't live at WHF.  To my mind it seems a peculiar comment set against the full stat. 

[killingeve]

Hi Bridget and Patti!!

Thanks for your comments.

I had a look at Jeremy’s website and it seems to be unequivocal on the subject of blood.  Surely if the blood was identified as Sheila’s it would have to be defined by another blood component. 

Was the authority that tested the blood in 1985  Police forensics or an independent lab.  If it was a Police lab did they send it out to confirmed by an independent source?

Have the CCRC considered the new photographic evidence that suggests that the scratches were not there on the day of the murder?  I don’t see too much about it in the judges report!

Cheers!!
Tom

Hi Tom

Apparently the error rate at the lab responsible, *Huntingdon, was appalling and a Dr Mike Harris was installed to sort things out.  He set up a system of double-checking test resulsts, known as corroborative or duplicate grouping.  This meant that every experiment, test and measurement was done twice but in the late summer/autumn of '85 when the Bamber tests were carried out there was no double checking.

The lab was run by the Home Office and it appears that due to close links with the police etc the prosecution have easier access than the defence.

Re the scratch marks I believe the CCRC have stated that police wit stats must take precedence over Mr Sutherest's photographic findings.

*I believe the lab at Huntingdon was subject to an undercover C4 documentary some years ago about ill treatment of monkeys/animal testing?

[killingeve]

Hi Patti I would never expect the family to offer Jeremy any support at all they as you said were not blood relatives and got the feeling they did not like Jeremy who has been reported as being arrogant little pup.

I wonder why the family as you stated Patti could never have believed that Sheila had committed the murders so had to go down the route that Jeremy did it.  As far as I am aware the family were not close to either of the adopted Bamber children and probably had little to do with them and would not know either of them very well.

I think what lookout meant was if she was a member of Jeremy's family she would be with him all the way,

Hi Susan

An excerpt from Colin's book re the day of Sheila's funeral:

"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam.  Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden.  Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it?  I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence.  They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong.  These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".

"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness -   which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."

 

[susan]

Hi N/N  welcome back we have missed you.  Thanks for the extract from Colin's book it is very interesting to hear the extended family did not know of Sheila's illness I suspect the Bambers were very private people and kept things like that to themselves.  Colin in his own way seemed a decent enough sort of chap although wayward in someways I think he was a good Father and the loss of his children must have been heart breaking and one I am sure he never got over. So sad   I wonder deep down did he think Jeremy capable of these murders.  I have not read the book does he give any indication in it to his thoughts.

[killingeve]

Hi N/N  welcome back we have missed you.  Thanks for the extract from Colin's book it is very interesting to hear the extended family did not know of Sheila's illness I suspect the Bambers were very private people and kept things like that to themselves.  Colin in his own way seemed a decent enough sort of chap although wayward in someways I think he was a good Father and the loss of his children must have been heart breaking and one I am sure he never got over. So sad   I wonder deep down did he think Jeremy capable of these murders.  I have not read the book does he give any indication in it to his thoughts.

Hi Susan

Thank you - nice to know I've been missed  .  Just had a little hol. 

The impression I got was that JB and CC had a good relationship and initially CC goes along with the murder/suicide theory.  It's only when the relatives start raising issues about Sheila's inability to handle the said gun etc that CC starts to change his view. 

As the excerpt states they kind of feed of each other ie relatives have a complete lack of understanding of SC's mental illness and CC has a complete lack of understanding of guns/arsenal of weapons etc at WHF.  Relatives + CC = 2 + 2 = 5.  All seem to benefit in different ways with JB carrying the can.  CC acknowledges his shortcomings in a number of areas specifically his treatment of Sheila and imo a guilty JB aussages his conscience.  I feel sure that there's a part of CC that ?wonders?.

[Patti]

Hi Susan

An excerpt from Colin's book re the day of Sheila's funeral:

"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam.  Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden.  Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it?  I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence.  They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong.  These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".

"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness -   which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."

Excellent! Naughty 

[susan]

Hi N/N thanks for your excellent post. I am sure deep down Colin Caffell may have a niggling doubt as to whether Jeremy is guilty or not.  He would know the behaviour of Sheila as good as anyone infact better than any living soul.  I think he too would know Jeremy Bamber better than anyone but as you said 2 + 2 is 5.