"All People Are Bad And Should Be Killed"

[Lugg]

There are so many incidentals that we have no idea about Lugg and its very true that by insisting if Jeremy didnt do it that Sheila must have is falling into the same trap. The fact is there are plenty of reasons for believing Sheila may have done it we certainly cant be sure because we dont know who else may have got into the farmhouse and how etc that night. Its a real mystery.

The problem is that there is no evidence that anyone got in, let alone Bamber, Maggie. It is just something that has been assumed.

[maggie]

The problem is that there is no evidence that anyone got in, let alone Bamber, Maggie. It is just something that has been assumed.

I know theres no evidence about anything really. We dont know if it was inside job or outside if its a cepted jeremy could get in the so could anyone else the window access wasnt a secret but that doesnt mean it was used. Even if somehow Jeremy Bamber is one day proven innocent I doubt we will ever know who was guilty or started it or whatever.

[Daniel_day]

The problem is that there is no evidence that anyone got in, let alone Bamber, Maggie. It is just something that has been assumed.

It has also been 'assumed' that Sheila committed the murders. There is not a shred of evidence to show that she did and yet how many posters here conclude that Sheila was responsible for the murders on here?. Bamber however...the silencer and the phone call, BOTH of which put him squarely in the frame. You can argue the toss about contamination and all the rest of it, it doesn't really make an once of difference to the outcome of the case because that theory simply cannot be proven. The fact remains that a  silencer was found in the cupboard with blood on it - dead people dont put silencers back neatly into cupboards, people who are murderers and want to cover their tracks, do.

[Daniel_day]

Ann Eaton was taking notes of what Jeremy said on the morning/noon of the murders, that is how soon she suspected he was guilty. She was not in shock that her relatives had been brutally murdered, she was taking notes.
One of the strangest things about this case in my opinion.

I haven't read that anywhere. I thought she started her note taking much later. Where did you find that?
Truth is, everything I have read, Ann did not like Jeremy at all. Howwever, he appears to have started to be nice to her in the run up to the murders. His motives? I'll leave that to the debate.

[maggie]

It has also been 'assumed' that Sheila committed the murders. There is not a shred of evidence to show that she did and yet how many posters here conclude that Sheila was responsible for the murders on here?. Bamber however...the silencer and the phone call, BOTH of which put him squarely in the frame. You can argue the toss about contamination and all the rest of it, it doesn't really make an once of difference to the outcome of the case because that theory simply cannot be proven. The fact remains that a  silencer was found in the cupboard with blood on it - dead people dont put silencers back neatly into cupboards, people who are murderers and want to cover their tracks, do.

Your post is also full of assumptions. First we have no proof the silencer was found in
the cupboard etc, etc. So in truth there is no hard evidence either did it. It just depends how each persons interpretation. There are no hard facts. Even if somebody did put the silencer back in the box in the cupboard there's nothing to tell us it was Jeremy Bamber.

[maggie]

I haven't read that anywhere. I thought she started her note taking much later. Where did you find that?
Truth is, everything I have read, Ann did not like Jeremy at all. Howwever, he appears to have started to be nice to her in the run up to the murders. His motives? I'll leave that to the debate.

you can read hrr witness statement in the archives Daniel. How do you know she didnt like Jeremy?  Because she said so? Women dont always tell the truth daniel, i know because I am one

[maggie]

Goodnight daniel

[Daniel_day]

Jeremy had the strength and the weaponry to fight off his victims one by one if necessary. It's as simple as that. After the murders he was cheerful,though in interviews with Police tried to pass this off as manic depression. He would be far more believable almost twenty-eight years on if he said "I disliked my relatives but I didn't kill them",but instead we have this unconvincing eulogy and the pacing up and down in the cell with Nevill's "it will all come out in the wash" hanging over the scene.

It's distressing,and not convincing anyone.

Yes I agree Steve,
Bamber does seem to have overplayed his hand that morning. The theatrics outside of the farm gave rise to suspicion amongst some police officers present, that he was putting this on. Of course it could so easily be argued that he wasnt becuase that doesnt fit in with the scenrio believed by those that support his innocent. I have studied quiet a few cases where the perpetrator has put on some kind of act.

For those who are interested in similar cases I can suggest you watch this video (in 3 parts)
http://youtu.be/OoHkUYtUi6s
on the Menendez Brothers
 
or another similar case on Matthew De Gruchy found here:
http://youtu.be/u0x3sZBA6ec

The case of Ernie Scherer
http://youtu.be/nJ9fqRjE-v0

Happy viewing

[Daniel_day]

Your post is also full of assumptions. First we have no proof the silencer was found in
the cupboard etc, etc. So in truth there is no hard evidence either did it. It just depends how each persons interpretation. There are no hard facts. Even if somebody did put the silencer back in the box in the cupboard there's nothing to tell us it was Jeremy Bamber.

Erm, yes it was. This is what evidence was used in a court of law. Now if you say there is NO evidence YOU have the onus to prove otherwise. If you cannot then it stands.
That's the way the law works Maggie whether you like it or not.
Your second point is down to statistical plausibility. If Jeremy Bamber phoned the police to say that his father had phoned him, then that implies he had knowledge of something was wrong at the farm BEFORE the police did. Now if Sheila could not have put that silencer back in the cupboard - Jeremy Bamber certainly did.
In 1985 it was established that the blood found in the silencer was the same grouping as that of Sheila.  It was argued that this was actually animal blood but this has been shown to be impossible due to the presence of a certain enzyme in its make up.  The blood could have belonged to someone else but the question has to be asked as to how a strangers blood could find its way into a silencer which was purchased new and has only ever belonged to the Bamber family?
This aside, a breakthrough came with DNA testing in 2001 and just ahead of Bamber's 2002 appeal.  The silencer was tested thoroughly with the baffles all being minutely tested.  A sample of DNA was given by Sheila's birth mother who lives in Canada. Advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. The DNA was found on the baffles deepest within the silencer.  The chances of anyone else having the same DNA is some 100 million to 1. The chances of someone else having the same DNA who also had access to the silencer is billions to one.  I must add that it was not determined by test if this DNA came from blood as the quantity was too small.  However, given the results of the blood analysis in 1985 and the results of the DNA analysis done in 2001 it doesn't take much to realise that it was Sheila's blood found in the silencer.
It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. 
In short Maggie, it WAS Sheila's blood inside the silencer. Now I will ask you a question; how did the silencer find it's way back into the cupboard if the person who's blood is inside the silencer is dead and found in a completely different area of the house? Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
This, among other evidence was enough for me to conclude that Sheila did not murder her family. There is absolutely zero evidence that she murdered her family, there is no plausible method or believable scenario on how she murdered her family and no-one can prove she murdered her family. If this be the case, and there is no reasons to believe otherwise, then she has been maliciously maligned, shamefully castigated and her memory desecrated.
Now if Sheila did not murder her family - and I want you to consider the implications of that statement bearing in mind what I have just said -who in your mind did?

[SirSimeon2003]

the fact that you think he is innocent. Yet you are accusing steve of wanting Julie exonerated???

The implication being that Julie is guilty and the irony being that if Julie is guilty then Jeremy Bamber is guilty

[Alias]

Nobody knows shit about this case. Dont pretend to.

[Daniel_day]

Nobody knows shit about this case. Dont pretend to.

Well excuse me...
What an ugly thing to say. If no-one knows anything about the case what on earth are you here for? What can we learn from each other then? If we are all in an abyss of utter ignorance? We can only construe what we can from the evidence, saying that 'we know shit' really isnt helping anyone.
I do not 'pretend' to know anything. Either contribute or butt out.

[Daniel_day]

The implication being that Julie is guilty and the irony being that if Julie is guilty then Jeremy Bamber is guilty

Guilty of what exactly? Guilty of being an accomplice to murder? Lying on the stand? No she is not, if you can prove otherwise feel feel to lay out your case.

[Daniel_day]

you can read hrr witness statement in the archives Daniel. How do you know she didnt like Jeremy?  Because she said so? Women dont always tell the truth daniel, i know because I am one

An interesting observation Maggie, duly noted..

[killingeve]

Erm, yes it was. This is what evidence was used in a court of law. Now if you say there is NO evidence YOU have the onus to prove otherwise. If you cannot then it stands.
That's the way the law works Maggie whether you like it or not.
Your second point is down to statistical plausibility. If Jeremy Bamber phoned the police to say that his father had phoned him, then that implies he had knowledge of something was wrong at the farm BEFORE the police did. Now if Sheila could not have put that silencer back in the cupboard - Jeremy Bamber certainly did.
In 1985 it was established that the blood found in the silencer was the same grouping as that of Sheila.  It was argued that this was actually animal blood but this has been shown to be impossible due to the presence of a certain enzyme in its make up.  The blood could have belonged to someone else but the question has to be asked as to how a strangers blood could find its way into a silencer which was purchased new and has only ever belonged to the Bamber family?
This aside, a breakthrough came with DNA testing in 2001 and just ahead of Bamber's 2002 appeal.  The silencer was tested thoroughly with the baffles all being minutely tested.  A sample of DNA was given by Sheila's birth mother who lives in Canada. Advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. The DNA was found on the baffles deepest within the silencer.  The chances of anyone else having the same DNA is some 100 million to 1. The chances of someone else having the same DNA who also had access to the silencer is billions to one.  I must add that it was not determined by test if this DNA came from blood as the quantity was too small.  However, given the results of the blood analysis in 1985 and the results of the DNA analysis done in 2001 it doesn't take much to realise that it was Sheila's blood found in the silencer.
It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. 
In short Maggie, it WAS Sheila's blood inside the silencer. Now I will ask you a question; how did the silencer find it's way back into the cupboard if the person who's blood is inside the silencer is dead and found in a completely different area of the house? Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
This, among other evidence was enough for me to conclude that Sheila did not murder her family. There is absolutely zero evidence that she murdered her family, there is no plausible method or believable scenario on how she murdered her family and no-one can prove she murdered her family. If this be the case, and there is no reasons to believe otherwise, then she has been maliciously maligned, shamefully castigated and her memory desecrated.
Now if Sheila did not murder her family - and I want you to consider the implications of that statement bearing in mind what I have just said -who in your mind did?

Morning DD

I have to say you are wrong in your assertions regarding the DNA evidence.  Please don't shoot the messenger if you are unhappy with what I am about to post then please take it up with the scientists acting for the defence and prosecution: Dr Clayton and Miss Groombridge and the three appeal court judges: Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Henriques.

Miss Groombridge concluded it was not possible to perform any sort of statistical evaluation.  Please see below point 496 of CoA doc:

496.   In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.

The DNA evidence showed that SC's DNA MAY have been in the silencer.  June's DNA WAS in the silencer and there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.  Please see point 497 of CoA doc:

497.   We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.

The DNA evidence was fatally flawed due in main to contamination which rendered the results "completely meaningless" as stated by the expert Mr Webster and concluded by the judges Please see point 506 of CoA doc:

506.   We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".