The relatives framing Jeremy in two days. Possible ?

[grahameb]

Have it on good authority that while back spatter is a possibility in such a situation, it's highly unlikley it would involve that amount of blood so deep into the moderator.

Also if there was blood in the silencer as Mike demonstrated it could have and most likely was animal blood as that was what the gun was used for. Who in their right mind would use a rabbit gun to massacre people. Oh that's right the person who did it was not in their right mind.
If Jeremy went after his family intending to kill them with that pea shooter then he must have been out of his tiny mind. Certainly not the choice weapon of an assassin. We would have chosen the shotgun first. It was loaded already and would have stopped the big guy dead in his tracks. In my opinion he wouldn't have faffed about with a little .22 rabbit gun. Ludicrous, to borrow the word of another member.

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio, I feel sure that it's exactly as your last paragraph states. You say there would have been no reason to involve the family. I rather think the family involved themselves from the off. Having hounded the police with their belief that Jeremy was responsible, it was THEY who "found" the evidence to damn him. How odd then that not only did they NOT phone the police to say that they'd found it -and I feel certain that HAD they, they'd have been told not to handle it but to leave it in situ- they passed it round from person to person -wearing gloves, would you suppose?- they took it home with them, open to the elements, for further examination.

They had no idea what could or could not be told from the suppressor.  They collected all the weapons and acessories not merely the suppressor. 

The simple realiy is that at best their lack of care could have let evidence wash off it could not have allowed blood evidence to be transferred.  There is no way for blood to be accidentally sprayed inside not even their own.  This is the greatest challenge to the claim that the evidence is unreliable because they found it.  It takes far more knowledge than they possessed to have planted the evidence tha was inside. 

I appreciate that there's no provision in law for emotions, and IMO, this is what was firmly behind what happened. Whilst Jeremy may have been adopted into the family, in certain eyes, it didn't automatically MAKE him family. Not as unusual as it sounds when "family" wealth is in question. What is MORE unusual is to find people who are willing to admit it. I have only known two.

Jeremy's adoption has little to do with anything.  Sheila was also adopted.  His character is why the family had a rift with him.  His own actions made them suspicious as well including.  In a US case where a son killed his entire family in the middle of the night, his grandparents, uncles and aunts also disaowned him.  He was not adopted. Emotions are part of the equation always.  Jeremy stole from the family and acted like a jerk so one can't fault them for no sticking up for him once it started looking like he was responsible.   

[Caroline]

The lab, the police who supposedly collected it and any other police who would be aware of it including any supervisors they talked to and the family.  This is not a small undertaking. The usuall frame job requires 1-3 cops.  The more people involved the greater the risk of 1 giving the truth away by accident or if something goes wrong ratting out the whole cast.  The risk must be taken into account.

The safest frame job would involve the least number of participants possible.  There would be no reason at all to involve the family and risk them telling the truth.  Why would the lab go along with it or even engineer it?  The average police and family would not have the expertise to engineer it the lab would have to.

1) They had to recognize the shot was of such a nature it would definitely leave drawback

2) to clean out the back spatter from the rifle and pretend it never existed

3) to  obtain Sheila's blood and devise a device to spray it inside so it would mimick drawback 

The experts each had their own expertise so all the experts used by the prosecution had to join forces.  Then they would need to recruit the police who dropped off the sample and had collected it and any other police they spoke to.  On top of this they would have to have decided to risk the fmaily being outraged at what they did and ratting them out by asking the family to take part though there would be no need at all if they in fact found the suppressor not the family.  Nex they had to pray no one slipped up or talked under pressure.

It is not quite as simple as you make it out to be and there are a lot of risks.    

They would simply need to convince the jury that it was possible. Expert witnesses here have often come under HUGE criticism for their willingness to support a certain stance without checking their facts. It was probably worse in 1985. I have already mentioned that crime labs (back then) were NOT independent from the police and many of the SOCO's were just cops - today it is a civilian post. One of the officers who thought Jeremy guilty was a SOCO and would have been familiar with backspatter (although I would imagine most police officers were) and there were 3 samples of Sheila's blood taken at autopsy to use in the investigation.

Why wouldn't the family support the police in their endeavour to convict Jeremy Bamber? They thought he was guilty and such an operation by the police would legitimise the frame up in the eyes of the relatives.

Of course it wouldn't be simply and I have never suggested it would be - the risk, of course would be HUGE. But like you say, who would believe that people including the police could be involved in such an organised sting? Once people already think that, you're half-way there!!

Check the case of Stephan Kiszko  who was framed for the 'rape' and murder of Lesley Mullseed. The poor man had a condition that prevented him from producing semen. You would think that any expert witnesses would have needed to be familiar with Stephan's medical records before testifying in condemnation of him because the police knew about his condition but chose to sit on it! Stephan actually confessed (later retracted) to the crime because he was promised he could go home to his mother if he did. He served 16 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and police knew he was innocent but the frame-up removed the case from their books and the pressure to solve the case. After his release, Lesley's uncle was convicted of the crime using DNA analysis - but too late for Stephan who didn't live very long after gaining his freedom.

Perhaps people don't get framed in the US but there are quite a few examples in British history. Recently Barry George was convicted in 2001 for the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando and in 1989 the Hillsborough disaster  involved a MASSIVE cover-up by the police that went to the very top of the force and to the heart of government.

 

[Caroline]

They had no idea what could or could not be told from the suppressor.  They collected all the weapons and acessories not merely the suppressor. 

The simple realiy is that at best their lack of care could have let evidence wash off it could not have allowed blood evidence to be transferred.  There is no way for blood to be accidentally sprayed inside not even their own.  This is the greatest challenge to the claim that the evidence is unreliable because they found it.  It takes far more knowledge than they possessed to have planted the evidence tha was inside. 



Jeremy's adoption has little to do with anything.  Sheila was also adopted.  His character is why the family had a rift with him.  His own actions made them suspicious as well including.  In a US case where a son killed his entire family in the middle of the night, his grandparents, uncles and aunts also disaowned him.  He was not adopted. Emotions are part of the equation always.  Jeremy stole from the family and acted like a jerk so one can't fault them for no sticking up for him once it started looking like he was responsible.   

You seem to be saying that they treated the silencer no differently from any of the other ammo that they collected? Well, that's not quite true. RB states that he TOLD DB that he better put the silencer in a plastic bag to preserve it - why? They didn't know at that point that it had been used (did they?). None of the other ammo was preserved in such a way nor was it scrutinised later around the kitchen table. They reported finding the silencer - not the other ammo.

You're right - the lack of care could have rendered the silencer useless IF it had been found and treated that way but not if it wasn't .

[Jane]

They had no idea what could or could not be told from the suppressor.  They collected all the weapons and acessories not merely the suppressor. 

The simple realiy is that at best their lack of care could have let evidence wash off it could not have allowed blood evidence to be transferred.  There is no way for blood to be accidentally sprayed inside not even their own.  This is the greatest challenge to the claim that the evidence is unreliable because they found it.  It takes far more knowledge than they possessed to have planted the evidence tha was inside. 



Jeremy's adoption has little to do with anything.  Sheila was also adopted.  His character is why the family had a rift with him.  His own actions made them suspicious as well including.  In a US case where a son killed his entire family in the middle of the night, his grandparents, uncles and aunts also disaowned him.  He was not adopted. Emotions are part of the equation always.  Jeremy stole from the family and acted like a jerk so one can't fault them for no sticking up for him once it started looking like he was responsible.   

Scipio, in response to your first paragraph. I'll say simply that I believe they took a chance and used everything at their disposal.

In response to your SECOND paragraph, however, this has EVERYTHING to do with adoption, both Jeremy's AND Sheila's. It's hypothetical because we'll never know what might have happened had Sheila been the one remaining Bamber left but as the general rule of thumb in these cases is a 30/70 share between female/male, it's less likely, IMO, that there's have been such a clamour to convict her. The second point I's like to make is that their feelings re Jeremy didn't happen over night. Jeremy didn't arrive in the family as a "jerk" of only a few months old but it was then, IMO, that their dislike of him started. But for his arrival, the bulk of family money would stay in the family. I feel certain that by now you'll have read Ann's WS -she had no rapport with and absolutely no time for Sheila- and RWB's "diary." It screams of a long held detestation of him. I'd hazard a guess that every drop of poison spoken about Jeremy, was dripped from RWB's lips into Nevill's ear. To him, Jeremy stood between his children and what he saw as being rightfully theirs. He WASN'T family.........................I do appreciate, however, that this doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

[Adam]

For some reason, my 'The trial, a brutal highlighting of guilt ? ' has become an issue about the relatives planting incriminating blood on the silencer. Which of course is impossible.

Anyway here is the thread on this.

[Mr. Gee]

For some reason, my 'The trial, a brutal highlighting of guilt ? ' has become an issue about the relatives planting incriminating blood on the silencer. Which of course is impossible.

Anyway here is the thread on this.

There you go again Adam. You use the word "impossible" far too freely my lad.

[Adam]

If the silencer did not have blood & paint on, the relatives, in two days had to -

1: Decide in unison to attempt to frame Jeremy. All be confident in each other that no one will crack under pressure. They all had to agree to commit a serious crime & risk criminal charges.

2: Find out about back splatter.

3: Find out if any shots were contact shots which would produce back splatter.

4: Find out Sheila's, June's and Neville's blood type.

5: Find out if the rifle end had blood on it. Meaning a silencer was not used & they could not frame Jeremy.

6: Get blood which is very close to Sheila's, June's and Neville's. Assisting in getting a conviction.

7: Find out how to effectively & realistically put the correct blood into the silencer baffles. (This may be impossible)

8: Get the right equipment to transfer the found blood into the silencer. (This may not be available).

9:  Go back to WHF and effectively put paint onto the silencer.

10: None of them retract from their statements and attempt to frame Jeremy.

11: Find June's DNA and put it in the silencer. ( this would be impossible).

[Mr. Gee]

Let me just answer that in two stages Adam. (1) The relatives if of course they did indeed frame Jeremy would not have to agree in unison. It would basically only need one crooked person to frame someone.
(2) They didn't need to know all the other points you listed in order to fake the silencer evidence. IF they did want to frame Bamber then they didn't need to know about blood spatter or contact shots or indeed anything else. In fact the police had shown such stupidity in the handling of the case it shouldn't have been too difficult to fool them with faked evidence? Once again Adam you are making things too complicated when in actual fact it was probably such an easy thing to do if they wanted to do it.

[Adam]

Let me just answer that in two stages Adam. (1) The relatives if of course they did indeed frame Jeremy would not have to agree in unison. It would basically only need one crooked person to frame someone.
(2) They didn't need to know all the other points you listed in order to fake the silencer evidence. IF they did want to frame Bamber then they didn't need to know about blood spatter or contact shots or indeed anything else. In fact the police had shown such stupidity in the handling of the case it shouldn't have been too difficult to fool them with faked evidence? Once again Adam you are making things too complicated when in actual fact it was probably such an easy thing to do if they wanted to do it.

So the relatives fooled the police, forensics, lab technicians & blood experts with fake evidence. Taking a bit of a risk aren't they ?

[lookout]

 The whole charade was mis-management and BAD judgement on the side of EP. A re-trial would be the fairest way of dealing with this--------------------say a LOT of guilters !!

[lookout]

 I'm damn sure if I'd been guilty of murdering my family,I wouldn't have handed over any keys to WHF days after,considering I hadn't looked around first in case of any incriminating evidence lying around.

It wasn't Jeremy who was going through the dustbins !! It wasn't Jeremy who was going through the place with a fine tooth-comb. It wasn't Jeremy who " found " anything,or HELPED police in the inquiries like Huntley did to take the heat off himself. Jeremy was completely oblivious to what was going on behind his back. Finger pointing and blame from day one----------------without any evidence.

I'm appalled by the actions of EVERYONE concerned.

[Adam]

I'm damn sure if I'd been guilty of murdering my family,I wouldn't have handed over any keys to WHF days after,considering I hadn't looked around first in case of any incriminating evidence lying around.

It wasn't Jeremy who was going through the dustbins !! It wasn't Jeremy who was going through the place with a fine tooth-comb. It wasn't Jeremy who " found " anything,or HELPED police in the inquiries like Huntley did to take the heat off himself. Jeremy was completely oblivious to what was going on behind his back. Finger pointing and blame from day one----------------without any evidence.

I'm appalled by the actions of EVERYONE concerned.

The police had the keys. It was just after the massacre.

Stan Jones gave AE the keys to do a tidy up. She did not ask for them. Jeremy was in Amsterdam. Thread already created.

[lookout]

 The silencer was fingerprinted. Do we know the results ? If so,do we know if DB's prints were also on it after him tampering with it ?

[Mr. Gee]

So the relatives fooled the police, forensics, lab technicians & blood experts with fake evidence. Taking a bit of a risk aren't they ?

I didn't say that you have. I wisely used the word "IF".