Cambridge News article

[Roch]

Not sure how old this article is but I do not think the contentious phone log would be classed as 'a clear forensic link' to a struggle having took place involving Sheila in the kitchen.  Even if the phone log is read from a standpoint sympathetic to the defence, it does not indicate an actual struggle in the kitchen between Sheila and Nevill.

In extracts from a letter published in the Daily Mirror, Bamber says: "We now have evidence to directly link Sheila in a struggle with my dad in the kitchen, a clear forensic link that is compelling to say the least.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Bamber-confident-of-new-evidence-0-60518.xnf?BodyFormat=2&

If he is not referring to the phone log, then what 'forensic' item is he referring to?

[lookout]

Not so much a struggle,,but a desperate call indicating that a very sick woman had hold of one of the guns is/was proof enough that all wasn't well in that house, as one could/would have  imagined.
Put another way,,,it wasn't a normal night at the farmhouse.! By all accounts,Sheila had " flipped " before,but not,it seemed whilst in charge of a rifle.

[Roch]

Thanks Lookout.  I do think he is referring to an item of evidential value that links Sheila to crime scene in the kitchen.  For example, perhaps this 'forensic' item came to light as a result of the defence being able commision lab blow ups from the negatives released by the CCRC?

Whatever it may have been, why was it not used in the last submissions and whatever it is, will it be used in any future submissions? 

[lookout]

Thanks Lookout.  I do think he is referring to an item of evidential value that links Sheila to crime scene in the kitchen.  For example, perhaps this 'forensic' item came to light as a result of the defence being able commision lab blow ups from the negatives released by the CCRC?

Whatever it may have been, why was it not used in the last submissions and whatever it is, will it be used in any future submissions?

Roch,,it probably wasn't obtained until after the last submission anyway if the truth be known. I feel that there's a bit too much dragging of feet in all this. Purposely done to drag the case out more than it already has been. That being the case,I hope that what has been retrieved from" burial" after all these years,,is going to be worthwhile for the near future.

[maggie]

Roch,,it probably wasn't obtained until after the last submission anyway if the truth be known. I feel that there's a bit too much dragging of feet in all this. Purposely done to drag the case out more than it already has been. That being the case,I hope that what has been retrieved from" burial" after all these years,,is going to be worthwhile for the near future.

Hi lookout/Roch, I'm a bit lost have read the link but has Jeremy just written the letter or what are they referring to?

[Reader]

This refers to about 3 years ago, as that is when Jeremy had been in custody for "nearly twenty-five years". Presumably, the evidence has therefore already been considered by the CCRC.

[Roch]

Hi lookout/Roch, I'm a bit lost have read the link but has Jeremy just written the letter or what are they referring to?

Maggie, it would appear the letter is either from 2010 or 2011.  My guess is the latter and the 'forensic' link refers specifically to the kitchen crime scene.

Roch,,it probably wasn't obtained until after the last submission anyway if the truth be known. I feel that there's a bit too much dragging of feet in all this. Purposely done to drag the case out more than it already has been. That being the case,I hope that what has been retrieved from" burial" after all these years,,is going to be worthwhile for the near future.

You may be right about the dragging of feet Lookout.  Or perhaps there was not enough time to focus on this aspect of 'forensic' evidence, given the change of legal representation?

This refers to about 3 years ago, as that is when Jeremy had been in custody for "nearly twenty-five years". Presumably, the evidence has therefore already been considered by the CCRC.

That might depend upon whether the journalist writing the article is including the period spent on remand, awaiting trial.  It's possible that the journalist is referring to the period from October 1986 sentencing.  So we could be looking at 2011, which is when I think the CCRC released the negatives to the defence.

I'm not sure if Neil may be able to shed any further light on what is being referred to in the letter?

[maggie]

Thanks for your explanation Roch  am still a bit confused.  Hopefully ngb will know more.

[Nickos]

Hi Maggie, I wonder whether JB was/is referring to the chipped toe nail paint - from SC's painted toes - that I believe Sutherst (the "photo expert") spotted 

Sutherst, as you know, has checked crime scene photos of the kitchen to determine if red paint from the aga surround was on the floor - he found none - suggesting the aga surround scratch marks, allegedly made by the silencer, were not there at the time the photos were taken, but I believe he apparently spotted a fleck of toe nail paint on the kitchen floor that possibly matched a chip in SC's toe nail.

However; we also know Sutherst's expert opinion has got JB nowhere!! 

[maggie]

Hi Maggie, I wonder whether JB was/is referring to the chipped toe nail paint - from SC's painted toes - that I believe Sutherst (the "photo expert") spotted 
Sutherst, as you know, has checked crime scene photos of the kitchen to determine if red paint from the aga surround was on the floor - he found none - suggesting the aga surround scratch marks, allegedly made by the silencer, were not there at the time the photos were taken, but I believe he apparently spotted a fleck of toe nail paint on the kitchen floor that possibly matched a chip in SC's toe nail.
However; we also know Sutherst's expert opinion has got JB nowhere!! 

Hello nickos, good to see you posting again. You could be right, he may have been speaking of the chipped toe nail which would put Sheila in the kitchen at some time but don't see what else, on it's own it does prove. Depends on the context it's used in. Roch or lookout introduced the subject, wonder what they think?

[susan]

Nickos my love you have returned to me.  Did you enjoy your stay in Bonnie Scotland.  Haste ye back

[Nickos]

Hello nickos, good to see you posting again. You could be right, he may have been speaking of the chipped toe nail which would put Sheila in the kitchen at some time but don't see what else, on it's own it does prove. Depends on the context it's used in. Roch or lookout introduced the subject, wonder what they think?

Thanks Mags, we'll wait for Roch / lookout's take on it! 

[Nickos]

Nickos my love you have returned to me.  Did you enjoy your stay in Bonnie Scotland.  Haste ye back

Hi McG, how could I stay away. 

I see over the months you have become more convinced of JB's innocence.

Not for me!!

I’m back up with my boys late August – the Kenmore / Loch Tay area.

[susan]

Nickos the day will come when you will agree with me or you will be banned from Scotland

[Caroline R]

Hi Maggie, I wonder whether JB was/is referring to the chipped toe nail paint - from SC's painted toes - that I believe Sutherst (the "photo expert") spotted 

Sutherst, as you know, has checked crime scene photos of the kitchen to determine if red paint from the aga surround was on the floor - he found none - suggesting the aga surround scratch marks, allegedly made by the silencer, were not there at the time the photos were taken, but I believe he apparently spotted a fleck of toe nail paint on the kitchen floor that possibly matched a chip in SC's toe nail.

However; we also know Sutherst's expert opinion has got JB nowhere!! 

This did cross my mind also but, can't see one fleck of toe nail paint turing the whole case on it's head. Like a lot of things, it will simply be dismissed.