The campaign against Jeremy Bamber

[scipio_usmc]

The curious thing is that it's YOU who have always claimed what we supposedly have thought. It NEVER made sense to me that shots had been fired PRIOR to a call being made. Hid I not say it loudly enough or did it simply not fit with what you were saying?

What part of:

"Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting."

confuses you?

I clearly state that Jeremy supporters all argue that the phone call predated the shooting and therefore there would be no blood on the phone under their reasoning so the lack of blood on the phone is unable to refute their claims.

I didn't misrepresent the position of supporters, especially not you since you confirm my point and operate under the assumption the shots were fired after just like I stated.

While you are busy trying to create a conflict that doesn't exist you ignored all my points about how the phone call claim hurt Jeremy.

[Jane]

What part of:

"Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting."

confuses you?

I clearly state that Jeremy supporters all argue that the phone call predated the shooting and therefore there would be no blood on the phone under their reasoning so the lack of blood on the phone is unable to refute their claims.

I didn't misrepresent the position of supporters, especially not you since you confirm my point and operate under the assumption the shots were fired after just like I stated.

While you are busy trying to create a conflict that doesn't exist you ignored all my points about how the phone call claim hurt Jeremy.

Well if you want to play at being a big kid, I made the claim long before you joined the forum. So you think I ignore YOUR points? GREAT!!! Now you know how it feels.......................should you care.

[scipio_usmc]

Well if you want to play at being a big kid, I made the claim long before you joined the forum. So you think I ignore YOUR points? GREAT!!! Now you know how it feels.......................should you care.

For me it is good if you fail to address my points.  If you fail to challenge an opponents points then they prevail by default because their arguments are unrebutted.  You are the one acting like a kid by saying you are going to ignore me and not address anything, it not only is childish but futile.

You also are demonstrating childishness in saying that you held the view that the call was made before any shooting occurred long before I came on the scene.  You are making things personal for no reason at all.

I never claimed that I am the one who convinced Jeremy supporters that the call had to be made before any shooting occurred.  I simply pointed out some of the reasons WHY Jeremy supporters hold such view.

My point was that the fact blood was not found on the phone fails to dent the claims of Jeremy supportes a different avenue must be use dand then I presented that avenue.

You failed to address that avenue so my points were all unrebutted. People refusing to address them doesn't make them go away so I couldn't care less if Jeremy supporters can't address them it just makes it harder for Jeremy supporters to claim their positions have a solid basis when they can't refute such points.

[Jane]

For me it is good if you fail to address my points.  If you fail to challenge an opponents points then they prevail by default because their arguments are unrebutted.  You are the one acting like a kid by saying you are going to ignore me and not address anything, it not only is childish but futile.

You also are demonstrating childishness in saying that you held the view that the call was made before any shooting occurred long before I came on the scene.  You are making things personal for no reason at all.

I never claimed that I am the one who convinced Jeremy supporters that the call had to be made before any shooting occurred.  I simply pointed out some of the reasons WHY Jeremy supporters hold such view.

My point was that the fact blood was not found on the phone fails to dent the claims of Jeremy supportes a different avenue must be use dand then I presented that avenue.

You failed to address that avenue so my points were all unrebutted. People refusing to address them doesn't make them go away so I couldn't care less if Jeremy supporters can't address them it just makes it harder for Jeremy supporters to claim their positions have a solid basis when they can't refute such points.

Yeh, yeh, what ever!!! If we'd been having this conversation face to face, I wouldn't have spoken a word because I wouldn't have got one in edgeways. It seems that whilst you're determined that no one but you can be allowed to be right - ie NOT ONLY DO I APPEAR TO BE RIGHT, I AM RIGHT"- but you throw a tantrum when no one will play with you. WHY, in God's name would anyone want to. Perhaps it's not so much your points we don't want to address, as your admitted "couldn't care less" attitude to us which is hardly friendly but maybe we're picking up on your attitude and are caring less about your opinion of us.

[Caroline]

Scipio? I may have dreamt this so I apologise in advance if I have this wrong BUT - did you say there was no flake found in the sound moderator?

Just in case you missed it!

[scipio_usmc]

Just in case you missed it!

No it wasn't me.

I have disputed Mike's claims that the flake was a losse flake that was floating around the moderator.

I characterize the flake in the same manner as the 2002 Court of Appeal decision which stated, "At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing."

I contend that blood pooled, dried to form a flake and such flake was stuck to the moderator because it dreid onto it and this flake was scraped out of the moderator and then tested.

Also that visible blood dried on the first 4-6 baffles with blood diminishing as the baffles were deeper inside and this was all removed and some of it tested.  Finally that the defense found and removed microscopic drops of blood from the first 8 baffles that was tested.  The prosecution and defents experts agreed that the flake, visible blood from the baffles and microscopic drops from the baffles were all group A and Sheila was the sole individual who could have been the source of such blood.

My final conclusion is that such blood could not have been transferred innocently into the moderator the only way to account for all this blood is for blood to have sprayed inside, a spray is the only way to get blood on each successive baffle and yet to dimish each successive wave like that.  The only natural phenomena that could cause such is drawback.  For the blood to instead have been planted would require using some device that would spray blood on the initial 8 baffles but not beyond and thus to mimick spatter which also only travels a few inches. 

I have never heard of any case where a device was successfully used to mimick drawback and thus used to frame someone. The typical planting attempt features taking a vial or dropper and dripping/pouring blood inside a barrel and that results in blood going too far inside or not far enough depending on the situation.  Certainly pouring it in a moderator or using a dropper would fail to result in getting blood on each baffle to a certain point and result in amount on each reducing until finally stopping.  Chances are the initial baffles could be entirely missed unless the moderator is kept horizinatlaly in which case the blood would not go very deep.

So there are 2 takeaways:

1) Innocent contamination is out the window the blood would have to have been planted if it was not from drawback

2) Planting it would have been a complex act that required great knowledge and skill

[Jan]

That's not actually true as i have posted evidence from one of the experts that says the ccrc did not understand the blood evidence or chose to ignore it. Therefore if it was not sheila blood your argument falls to pieces.

[Jane]

That's not actually true as i have posted evidence from one of the experts that says the ccrc did not understand the blood evidence or chose to ignore it. Therefore if it was not sheila blood your argument falls to pieces.

Jansus, whilst I'm certain he'd deny it, if Scipio's script isn't vastly different from ours, at the very least, it's embroidered. He claims Jeremy drove to the farm at 5mph. I don't recall that we knew that previously.

[Caroline]

No it wasn't me.

I have disputed Mike's claims that the flake was a losse flake that was floating around the moderator.

I characterize the flake in the same manner as the 2002 Court of Appeal decision which stated, "At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing."

I contend that blood pooled, dried to form a flake and such flake was stuck to the moderator because it dreid onto it and this flake was scraped out of the moderator and then tested.

Also that visible blood dried on the first 4-6 baffles with blood diminishing as the baffles were deeper inside and this was all removed and some of it tested.  Finally that the defense found and removed microscopic drops of blood from the first 8 baffles that was tested.  The prosecution and defents experts agreed that the flake, visible blood from the baffles and microscopic drops from the baffles were all group A and Sheila was the sole individual who could have been the source of such blood.

My final conclusion is that such blood could not have been transferred innocently into the moderator the only way to account for all this blood is for blood to have sprayed inside, a spray is the only way to get blood on each successive baffle and yet to dimish each successive wave like that.  The only natural phenomena that could cause such is drawback.  For the blood to instead have been planted would require using some device that would spray blood on the initial 8 baffles but not beyond and thus to mimick spatter which also only travels a few inches. 

I have never heard of any case where a device was successfully used to mimick drawback and thus used to frame someone. The typical planting attempt features taking a vial or dropper and dripping/pouring blood inside a barrel and that results in blood going too far inside or not far enough depending on the situation.  Certainly pouring it in a moderator or using a dropper would fail to result in getting blood on each baffle to a certain point and result in amount on each reducing until finally stopping.  Chances are the initial baffles could be entirely missed unless the moderator is kept horizinatlaly in which case the blood would not go very deep.

So there are 2 takeaways:

1) Innocent contamination is out the window the blood would have to have been planted if it was not from drawback

2) Planting it would have been a complex act that required great knowledge and skill

If it was successful, you wouldn't have heard of it! Also, this was back in 1985 and in the UK where the phenomenon of drawback wouldn't have been something that was seen on a regular basis and so the conclusion of 'drawback' was most likely made simply to explain how blood got inside. I don't think they would have been looking  for signs of a frame up, rather they were more concerned with finding out who's blood was inside. As I have previously said, there were three samples taken and only two were referred to as having been used. I know that all three were said to be sealed and delivered to the lab BUT we have nothing from the lab to verify this claim

[scipio_usmc]

If it was successful, you wouldn't have heard of it! Also, this was back in 1985 and in the UK where the phenomenon of drawback wouldn't have been something that was seen on a regular basis and so the conclusion of 'drawback' was most likely made simply to explain how blood got inside. I don't think they would have been looking  for signs of a frame up, rather they were more concerned with finding out who's blood was inside. As I have previously said, there were three samples taken and only two were referred to as having been used. I know that all three were said to be sealed and delivered to the lab BUT we have nothing from the lab to verify this claim

We have the Holab forms the lab signed- upon receipt of items at the lab the lab signs the Holab forms one of which is returned to the police, the second of which is retained for the lab's files and among other things the statement from Allen.  If the seals had been broken then the lab would have noted such upon arrival on the Holab forms and certainly in their statements and probably would not have even used the samples at all but instead rejected them for testing.





The samples were brought to the police station the evening of the murders.  They remained there 12-15 hours and on 8/8/85 were conveyed to HQ and then were conveyed to the lab arriving on 8/9/85.

What cops on 8/8/85 were convinced Jeremy was guilty, figured there would not be any evidence to prove his guilt even though nothing had been processed yet so decided to swipe blood to plant somewhere convenient in the future to frame him?

In the meantime your points about drawback being not well known cuts heavily against suggestions that police planted the blood. That early on police had no idea whether the wounds to Sheila were contact wounds or not.  All police statements and actions make clear they considered the moderator's importance to be for potential fingerprints.  Cook makes it clear that was his concern- fingerprints. 

The lab figured out the whole issue of drawback in Septemebr it didn't come from police suggesting anything to the lab.  That was  a joint effort between the biologists and the ballistics expert.     

The lab already had tested and found out the blood in the moderator was human by 8/14/95 because the lab sent a message to police indicating such but police still had no clue what the significance of such could be and still cared only about supergluing it for latent fingerprints.

How would police know to spray blood inside and what could they use to do it?  If there were going to plant blood they would have poured it in or used a dropper most likely.

Your suggestion they did this doesn't fit in the short timeframe during which the moderator was delivered to the lab and human blood found let laone the short timeframe that the blood was at the police station.

Nor do you take into account that if the rifle had been used without the moderator then blood would have been inside the rifle and they would have to have known it would be in there and to clean it out.  They would have to have done such also within the first 2 days of the investigation.

The only ones who would have had the expertise and opportunity to doctor the evidence is the lab and it would have to have happened with their help police could not have done it alone, there is no getting around that.  If police were going to doctor the evidence they would not involve the family hoping that the fmaily would be on board and not rat them out.  They would not put their careers in the hands of strangers who coudl talk at any point in time even by accident and kill their careers.  If they were going to doctor evidence they would invovle only a tight knit circule of cops. 

They would have no need for the family to be invovled at all anyway. All that does is make people suspicious so they could and woudl have simply made up that police found the moderator if they were going to fake it.

[lookout]

 In my own personal estimation, the Haloperidol which was given intra-muscularly to Sheila,made her worse than the condition that she already had. ( adversely affected )
Medication given to patients with mental illnesses,,or indeed with medical problems is very hit and miss, and trial and error is usually the normal practice until something suitable is found. I very much doubt that Sheila had the right medication/treatment.
As used to be with private practices,money came first,treatment second. Unlike now where consultants work between the private sector and the NHS.

Sheila needed love,reassurance and emotional stability which wasn't forthcoming from a mother who treated her and everything Sheila did,with a military attitude. Such as the time Sheila aborted/miscarried,was more or less told to get on with it. It's staggering to learn that this young woman had NO support from ANYONE,,and her confidence took a bashing too.

Every emotion that Sheila had suffered was lying dormant until such times as she exploded,,as it would with most,,and it's an absolute myth to think that someone like Sheila would explode to the extent that she did,so it was easier to blame her brother,and have him arrested for burglary before leading up to the fact that " it must have been him " who'd murdered his family.
What a bloody mess this case is,brought about by the sheer misunderstanding of Sheila and Jeremy,who remains a VICTIM too !

[scipio_usmc]

In my own personal estimation, the Haloperidol which was given intra-muscularly to Sheila,made her worse than the condition that she already had. ( adversely affected )
Medication given to patients with mental illnesses,,or indeed with medical problems is very hit and miss, and trial and error is usually the normal practice until something suitable is found. I very much doubt that Sheila had the right medication/treatment.
As used to be with private practices,money came first,treatment second. Unlike now where consultants work between the private sector and the NHS.

Sheila needed love,reassurance and emotional stability which wasn't forthcoming from a mother who treated her and everything Sheila did,with a military attitude. Such as the time Sheila aborted/miscarried,was more or less told to get on with it. It's staggering to learn that this young woman had NO support from ANYONE,,and her confidence took a bashing too.

Every emotion that Sheila had suffered was lying dormant until such times as she exploded,,as it would with most,,and it's an absolute myth to think that someone like Sheila would explode to the extent that she did,so it was easier to blame her brother,and have him arrested for burglary before leading up to the fact that " it must have been him " who'd murdered his family.
What a bloody mess this case is,brought about by the sheer misunderstanding of Sheila and Jeremy,who remains a VICTIM too !

Your eestimation is not worht much because it is not based on any evidence but rather what you want to believe because you support Jeremy.

There is nothing at all to suggest her medication was not working. The notion that after months suddenly at 3AM it gave her problems is not credible at all.  Teh doctors treating here wer ein the best position to know.

In the meantime the physical evidence matters greatly because it establishes she didn't do squat to anyone including herself.

You and other Jeremy supporters put all your eggs in one basket.  Your simplistic claims are she was crazy so she did it end of story you don't give a crap that Jeremy was proven a liar over and over and, made nonsenscial claims, told Sheila of his plans, that there is a complete lack of any physical evidence to establish Sheila beat or killed anyone and evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself.

You don't care about any of this or her doctor's assessments of her condition at the time of the murders.

She's crazy so she did it that is all you have at the end of the day.

Naturally rational peopel laugh at such and consider it drivel.

[Jane]

Your eestimation is not worht much because it is not based on any evidence but rather what you want to believe because you support Jeremy.

There is nothing at all to suggest her medication was not working. The notion that after months suddenly at 3AM it gave her problems is not credible at all.  Teh doctors treating here wer ein the best position to know.

In the meantime the physical evidence matters greatly because it establishes she didn't do squat to anyone including herself.

You and other Jeremy supporters put all your eggs in one basket.  Your simplistic claims are she was crazy so she did it end of story you don't give a crap that Jeremy was proven a liar over and over and, made nonsenscial claims, told Sheila of his plans, that there is a complete lack of any physical evidence to establish Sheila beat or killed anyone and evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself.

You don't care about any of this or her doctor's assessments of her condition at the time of the murders.

She's crazy so she did it that is all you have at the end of the day.

Naturally rational peopel laugh at such and consider it drivel.

There would be no need for this conversation if what you said had actually transpired. I agree ENTIRELY that the doctor who was treating her was the person best placed to know -albeit, now, we would probably look for other ways of treating her- HAD he been seeing her on a regular basis but as I've said MANY times, he, NOR any other medical expert -despite that she was supposed to have been visited regularly by a psychiatric nurse, presumably because it was believed she needed to be monitored- since she left the hospital 18 weeks prior to her death. You have implied on numerous occasions that there was nothing wrong with her. If Ferguson had agreed with you he wouldn't have arranged for those home visits and he apparently wasn't aware that they hadn't happened. The medical experts who made statements regarding her mental health, had, I believe, never seen her.

[scipio_usmc]

There would be no need for this conversation if what you said had actually transpired. I agree ENTIRELY that the doctor who was treating her was the person best placed to know -albeit, now, we would probably look for other ways of treating her- HAD he been seeing her on a regular basis but as I've said MANY times, he, NOR any other medical expert -despite that she was supposed to have been visited regularly by a psychiatric nurse, presumably because it was believed she needed to be monitored- since she left the hospital 18 weeks prior to her death. You have implied on numerous occasions that there was nothing wrong with her. If Ferguson had agreed with you he wouldn't have arranged for those home visits and he apparently wasn't aware that they hadn't happened. The medical experts who made statements regarding her mental health, had, I believe, never seen her.

I have never implied there was nothing wrong with her.  in fact many of the things wrong with her are a problem for the defense because they make her less capable of committing the alleged crimes.

The heart of the matter in terms of her mental condition is:

1) whether she was a threat to anyone

2) whether she was a threat to herself

3) whether her mental condition was changing around the time of the murders

None of this is of any value at all unless there is evidence to establish she could have potentially done something because mental state alone proves nothing.

Someone could say they want to kill themself and have a hisotry of trying to commit suicide but if the evidence proves they can't have shot themself then that is not enough to defeat a murder charge against someone else.

But let's go through the motions anyway,

What evidence is there to establish she was suicidal?  None!

What evidence is there to establish she was at risk to try to kill anyone?  None!

Even when intreated she didn't try any such things and she did in fact respond to treatment.

What evidence to suggest she was recently changing and becoming at risk of doing any of the above?  None.

WHich is why the defense and Jeremy supports keep harking back to 1983 before she was treated when she had stated she had suicidal thoughts and delusions about her kids.  Even then though she didn't do anything to even try to harm her family or herself.  And after treatment she no longe rhad delusions about her family and no longer expressed any suicidal thoughts. 

Jeremy supporters have a simplistic notion that Sheila was ill and that's all that matters that means she did it.  That argument can't get before a court becaus eit is ridiculous and unrelaible.  Evidence must be reliable in order to reach a court and must be well founded and convincing to persuade a court.

Most people have the same requirements to be convinced of something.  While biased people don't have such standards most people do so there is still a need to make rational arguments supported by evidence to try to establish something.

A texbook example of taking apart a prosecution point is from the Knox case.  The prosecution argued that Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the sink and this means she participated in the murder.  The defense pointed out that Knox's DNA was not blood based.  It was not an example of Knox's blood mixed with the victim's. The defense also showed a video of the prosecution swabbing all over the bathroom.  Knox's DNA was bound to be in the bathroom because she used it.  There is no way to prove her DNA was mixed with the blood at all the same swabs used to swab blood were also swabbed all over the bathroom.  That means that the swab could pick up DNA from normal bathroom use.  How does this provide a basis to find that her DNA mixed with Kercher's blood as a result of the murders? This very point was used to achieve an acquittal the second trial. 

The third trial court chose to ignore that the procedure used would necessarily result in DNA mixing and thus prove nothing and made the baseless finding that this proved Knox took part in the murder.  Now there was a nother appeal filed by Knox.  This was not the only issue but all the issues were for a similar reason.  The findings of the court were not supported by the evidentiary record.  The evidence cited could not support a finding that she took part.

That is the kind of claim that Jeremy supporters have to make.  They have to make the argument that evidence wa sunable to support the findings made by the court.  That in turn requires proving that the evidence can't result in such finding in a way similar to the example I gave.

The problem is that there is no way for Jeremy supporters to attack the evidence in the same way.

Jeremy supporters largely say the witnesses should not be believed.  You have to prove what they say is objectively wrong in order to say a court had no basis to believe them.  It is not enough to say you personally choose not to believe them.

There is no way to say Ferguson's assessments were objectively wrong.  There is no evidence to prove his assessments objectively wrong. 

This case is impossible for the defense to overturn because there is no such evidence to prove the prosecution's case to be objectively wrong.

Jeremy supporters can't resute most of the evidence used to convict Jeremy so instead gloss over it hoping that people will just ignore it.  Supporters need to identify each arguent, take on each argument head on and try to find evidence to rebut each argument.

Supporters never do that and yet cry that he is still behind bars and say it is unfair.

 

[Jan]

I have never implied there was nothing wrong with her.  in fact many of the things wrong with her are a problem for the defense because they make her less capable of committing the alleged crimes.

The heart of the matter in terms of her mental condition is:

1) whether she was a threat to anyone

2) whether she was a threat to herself

3) whether her mental condition was changing around the time of the murders

None of this is of any value at all unless there is evidence to establish she could have potentially done something because mental state alone proves nothing.

Someone could say they want to kill themself and have a hisotry of trying to commit suicide but if the evidence proves they can't have shot themself then that is not enough to defeat a murder charge against someone else.

But let's go through the motions anyway,

What evidence is there to establish she was suicidal?  None!

What evidence is there to establish she was at risk to try to kill anyone?  None!

Even when intreated she didn't try any such things and she did in fact respond to treatment.

What evidence to suggest she was recently changing and becoming at risk of doing any of the above?  None.

WHich is why the defense and Jeremy supports keep harking back to 1983 before she was treated when she had stated she had suicidal thoughts and delusions about her kids.  Even then though she didn't do anything to even try to harm her family or herself.  And after treatment she no longe rhad delusions about her family and no longer expressed any suicidal thoughts. 

Jeremy supporters have a simplistic notion that Sheila was ill and that's all that matters that means she did it.  That argument can't get before a court becaus eit is ridiculous and unrelaible.  Evidence must be reliable in order to reach a court and must be well founded and convincing to persuade a court.

Most people have the same requirements to be convinced of something.  While biased people don't have such standards most people do so there is still a need to make rational arguments supported by evidence to try to establish something.

A texbook example of taking apart a prosecution point is from the Knox case.  The prosecution argued that Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the sink and this means she participated in the murder.  The defense pointed out that Knox's DNA was not blood based.  It was not an example of Knox's blood mixed with the victim's. The defense also showed a video of the prosecution swabbing all over the bathroom.  Knox's DNA was bound to be in the bathroom because she used it.  There is no way to prove her DNA was mixed with the blood at all the same swabs used to swab blood were also swabbed all over the bathroom.  That means that the swab could pick up DNA from normal bathroom use.  How does this provide a basis to find that her DNA mixed with Kercher's blood as a result of the murders? This very point was used to achieve an acquittal the second trial. 

The third trial court chose to ignore that the procedure used would necessarily result in DNA mixing and thus prove nothing and made the baseless finding that this proved Knox took part in the murder.  Now there was a nother appeal filed by Knox.  This was not the only issue but all the issues were for a similar reason.  The findings of the court were not supported by the evidentiary record.  The evidence cited could not support a finding that she took part.

That is the kind of claim that Jeremy supporters have to make.  They have to make the argument that evidence wa sunable to support the findings made by the court.  That in turn requires proving that the evidence can't result in such finding in a way similar to the example I gave.

The problem is that there is no way for Jeremy supporters to attack the evidence in the same way.

Jeremy supporters largely say the witnesses should not be believed.  You have to prove what they say is objectively wrong in order to say a court had no basis to believe them.  It is not enough to say you personally choose not to believe them.

There is no way to say Ferguson's assessments were objectively wrong.  There is no evidence to prove his assessments objectively wrong. 

This case is impossible for the defense to overturn because there is no such evidence to prove the prosecution's case to be objectively wrong.

Jeremy supporters can't resute most of the evidence used to convict Jeremy so instead gloss over it hoping that people will just ignore it.  Supporters need to identify each arguent, take on each argument head on and try to find evidence to rebut each argument.

Supporters never do that and yet cry that he is still behind bars and say it is unfair.

18 weeks is a long time so you have to concede that her condition could have deteriorated within that 18 weeks. Just because the medical persons involved did not see her in that period of time does not prove it did not happen. So I see your argument as proof by omission. Weak