Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[Jan]

It would not be difficult to spray blood from a pipette or anything similar into the moderator I don't think when they found the blood they even thought about whether draw back came into it - after all in the beginning they did not even bring a ballistics expert to the scene.

Personally I think if it is true that DB scraped some blood from the silencer then it never should be accepted as evidence at all. They accepted a contamination argument at appeals - so in my eyes there was plenty of chance for contamination at the time of the murders.

[Jan]

hmmm - have we been misled?

Having read DB notes I think we may have

But there are other bits of his statement that are interesting . i.e the family talking about hacksaw/windows / silencer - all before these things were "found"

[lookout]

" Police informed----but not straightaway " ( referring to blood on silencer ) What's that about ?

If you see something like that,doesn't your own common sense tell you to leave it where it is--------then inform the police immediately ?

[David1819]

It would not be difficult to spray blood from a pipette or anything similar into the moderator I don't think when they found the blood they even thought about whether draw back came into it - after all in the beginning they did not even bring a ballistics expert to the scene.

Personally I think if it is true that DB scraped some blood from the silencer then it never should be accepted as evidence at all. They accepted a contamination argument at appeals - so in my eyes there was plenty of chance for contamination at the time of the murders.

RB or DB also took the silencer apart from what I read in Evil Beyond belief? by Scott Lomax

All silencers are designed to be taken apart so you can clean them and remove soot. Below is the same model


We don't even know if they put the baffles back in correct order as initially found

[Jan]

I cant actually find the COLP typed statement from DB -

I was led to believe he scraped blood off - but that does not tie up with what it says - another ambiguous statement .

But  not quite sure where DB close inspection of the silencer comes into the timing of finding it /taking it home / and then the police collecting it.

[lookout]

The relatives knew NOTHING at all about Sheila,who they didn't see or hear of from one year to the next,so who were they to judge that it was Jeremy ? The police were just as bad being led like they were by people who didn't know the Bambers' situation with Sheila.
This is so unfair as it's been Jeremys' word against others during this totally unfair trial,where the relatives motives should have been questioned along with their eagerness in " finding/looking for evidence ".

[scipio_usmc]

All the above is rubbish Scipio, as is almost all you have written on this thread about the offences committed by Julie Mugford, the likely sentences had she been prosecuted and the circumstances in which she was given immunity from prosecution in return for agreeing to testify against Jeremy Bamber in his trial for murder.  I have previously posted in detail about this.

1) Far from being rubbish my point about the key issue being whether Julie had a need and reason to make up the story about Jeremy doing wrong to save herself is accurate.  When one is alleging a witness made up a story of knowing about wrongdoing committed by someone else just because they were in trouble and wanted to save their own skin one needs to demonstrate they wer ein trouble and needed to save their own skin and then made up a story.

She had no need for immunity prior to telling her story.  Police were unaware of the crimes she committed.  Moreover, she could have told police everything she said about Jeremy without admitting her crimes.  She admitted them willingly and but for that fact they would not have been aware of them. 

Her admissions were the only evidence of the crimes the police ever developed. They had no witnesses to establish Julie and Susan passed the checks themselves other than Julie and Susan. They had no independent witnesses or physical evidence regarding any drug offenses or the Caravan break-in.

Telling police about Jeremy exposed her to liability it didn't save her from harm. Thus the attempt to frame it as her lying in order to save herself fails miserably.

2) Your claim that she got immunity is rubbish.  The legal bar to prosecuting her for bank fraud was that the bank accepted restitution and would not press charges.  It didn't matter whether she testified or not after that point.  Police could not charge her or Susan with fraud because the bank would not press charges. Even if she refused to testify police could do nothing.

The alleged drug offenses relied entirely on her confession and if she decided to fight it her admission would be the sole evidence police had. The Caravan break-in featured her say she tried to get a key so he could enter so she unsuccessfully attempted to help him get inside. As a lawyer you know a defense attorney would say she had no idea he wanted to do anything illegal and that she thought he had a legal right to be there since he was a part owner. 

Post for everyone what legal bar to attempt to prosecute Julie for the drug offenses and the break-in if the authorities decided they wanted to do so, was created by her testifying in the case.  There was no legal bar created by her testifying, she wasn't granted immunity. If the authorities wanted to try to charge her after she testified they could have done so there was no legal bar to charging her with them only a legal bar to charging her for the bank fraud and that bar predated the testimony and hinged on the bank's decision.

3) If you posted evidence of the likely sentences for the crimes in question then please point out where and your source.  I have researched the issue and even today the penalties are small for the alleged drug offenses and fraud.  The prosecutor wrote that in Essex it was standard to issue a cation for a first time drug offender in those circumstances.  What evidence do you have to the contrary>

Explain in detail what unsuccessfully attempting to get the key to commit a burglary would enable a prosecutor to charge someone with.  Then explain the defense her lawyers could make and the chance of a successful prosecution.

The failure to file a criminal complaint means no bank fraud charges could be pursued but what was the typical punishment for a first time offender for a sum of 800 pounds and what was the maximum punishment?  How much did someone need to steal in order to get jailtime?  Even today only people who steal a great deal get jailtime.  Minor fraud results in fines. 

 

 

[nugnug]

there no way of knowing weather she admited her crimes becouse not all her interviews are public we havent seen the trnscripts of them all.

[scipio_usmc]

It would not be difficult to spray blood from a pipette or anything similar into the moderator I don't think when they found the blood they even thought about whether draw back came into it - after all in the beginning they did not even bring a ballistics expert to the scene.

Personally I think if it is true that DB scraped some blood from the silencer then it never should be accepted as evidence at all. They accepted a contamination argument at appeals - so in my eyes there was plenty of chance for contamination at the time of the murders.

1) How does removing evidence so that police can't use warrant the ignoring of evidence that isn't removed?  That would be like me picking up a gun used in a murder with my bare hands and then saying that because I touched it with my bare hands I might have left a print so police can't consider all the prints found on the gun. Unless my touching of the gun can result in depositing the prints of the other people on the gun the argument doesn't work. 

Scraping away blood doesn't deposit result in depositing the other blood present, it removes blood.  There is no basis to argue that removing the blood in any way affected the blood tested by police which was relied upon to convict him.

2) If the family deposited the blood they would not have scraped some of it away.

3) In order to plant the blood the family would have: 1) needed a source of Sheila's wet blood or to have to KNOWN her blood type including unique enzymes and to have found a source of the blood possessing the same exact attributes; 2) have needed to know she suffered a contact wound thus know her blood would have gotten inside the weapon; 3) to know all about the principles of drawback including how to replicate drawback. A typical dropper would not result in the distribution of blood found and would provide clues the blood had been planted; 4) they would have needed to conspire with someone who was in a position to remove the blood from the rifle because they had no access to the rifle.  If Sheila was shot with the gun sans moderator her blood would have been in the rifle so they would have needed someone to remove such blood.  There is no way the family alone could have planted the blood and no way the family would have known she suffered a contact wound and drawback would have resulted.  Those things were all revealed well after the moderator was found.

 

   

[lookout]

People DO plant evidence you know,Scipio. Where is it you live,Never Never Land ??

[Jan]

1) Far from being rubbish my point about the key issue being whether Julie had a need and reason to make up the story about Jeremy doing wrong to save herself is accurate.  When one is alleging a witness made up a story of knowing about wrongdoing committed by someone else just because they were in trouble and wanted to save their own skin one needs to demonstrate they wer ein trouble and needed to save their own skin and then made up a story.

She had no need for immunity prior to telling her story.  Police were unaware of the crimes she committed.  Moreover, she could have told police everything she said about Jeremy without admitting her crimes.  She admitted them willingly and but for that fact they would not have been aware of them. 

Her admissions were the only evidence of the crimes the police ever developed. They had no witnesses to establish Julie and Susan passed the checks themselves other than Julie and Susan. They had no independent witnesses or physical evidence regarding any drug offenses or the Caravan break-in.

Telling police about Jeremy exposed her to liability it didn't save her from harm. Thus the attempt to frame it as her lying in order to save herself fails miserably.

2) Your claim that she got immunity is rubbish.  The legal bar to prosecuting her for bank fraud was that the bank accepted restitution and would not press charges.  It didn't matter whether she testified or not after that point.  Police could not charge her or Susan with fraud because the bank would not press charges. Even if she refused to testify police could do nothing.

The alleged drug offenses relied entirely on her confession and if she decided to fight it her admission would be the sole evidence police had. The Caravan break-in featured her say she tried to get a key so he could enter so she unsuccessfully attempted to help him get inside. As a lawyer you know a defense attorney would say she had no idea he wanted to do anything illegal and that she thought he had a legal right to be there since he was a part owner. 

Post for everyone what legal bar to attempt to prosecute Julie for the drug offenses and the break-in if the authorities decided they wanted to do so, was created by her testifying in the case.  There was no legal bar created by her testifying, she wasn't granted immunity. If the authorities wanted to try to charge her after she testified they could have done so there was no legal bar to charging her with them only a legal bar to charging her for the bank fraud and that bar predated the testimony and hinged on the bank's decision.

3) If you posted evidence of the likely sentences for the crimes in question then please point out where and your source.  I have researched the issue and even today the penalties are small for the alleged drug offenses and fraud.  The prosecutor wrote that in Essex it was standard to issue a cation for a first time drug offender in those circumstances.  What evidence do you have to the contrary>

Explain in detail what unsuccessfully attempting to get the key to commit a burglary would enable a prosecutor to charge someone with.  Then explain the defense her lawyers could make and the chance of a successful prosecution.

The failure to file a criminal complaint means no bank fraud charges could be pursued but what was the typical punishment for a first time offender for a sum of 800 pounds and what was the maximum punishment?  How much did someone need to steal in order to get jailtime?  Even today only people who steal a great deal get jailtime.  Minor fraud results in fines. 

 

 

Fact - with even a caution she would not have been able to continue in her chosen profession
Fact - if the above was true then there would have been no reason to involve the DPP
Fact - the bank manager said the police were involved in the "confession"
Fact - £800 - was a lot of money in those days
Fact - which poster said she admitted her crimes before "dobbing JB in" ? No one

Therefore the conversations must have come out in the 32 interviews . Perhaps you should ask yourself how those conversations  about her past crimes came about during the interviews?

[Steve_uk]

Your record of always being wrong and misrepresenting is still intact.  Post where I stated blood was only on baffles 1, 2 and 6.   You won't be able to find any such quote because you made the claim up.

I have consistently stated that the crime lab personnel didn't record how deep they found the blood in any written record.  The memory of one was that the blood extended to at least the 6th baffle and another to the 7th.  Defense expert Lincoln found microscopic traces of group a blood on the first 8 baffles. Thus the blood was established to have been on the first 8 baffles.  In addition I noted a flake of blood found in between baffles 1 and 2 was found to be a flake of group A blood which had an enzyme in Sheila's blood, her mother had a different enzyme so it could not have been her mother's blood.

My posts stress this information again and again including quotes from the 2002 COA decision I posted to you with this information.  You clearly lack the ability to comprehend it and even after being corrected still keep saying the flake with Sheila's enzyme was on the 5th baffle which is factually wrong though it makes no real difference in the overall picture.
 
What does this have to do with the blood removed from the moderator in 1985 and 1986?  Are you suggesting that the fact no blood remained in 200 means the blood removed in 1985 and 1986 wasn't actually blood?  If so then you are more delusional than I thought.

The DNA tests of the moderator has no bearing at all on the evidence used at trial which is why the COA rejected the defense's claims. 

The only DNA test that would matter would have been a DNA test of the blood removed by the lab and by defense expert Lincoln.  DNA tests of such blood were not done though just serology tests.  The blood was type A and a flake tested had an enzyme June lacked so it had to be Sheila's.

Sheila had a wound that was virtually certain to result in drawback- it happens to be her fatal wound.  That means her blood would be found in the rifle if the rifle was used without a moderator and in the moderator if the moderator was used.  It was not in the rifle but was in the moderator which proves the fatal shot was fired with the moderator attached.  That in turn proves she was murdered because there is no way she could have shot herself with the moderator attached except by pulling the trigger with her toes (which would have resulted in her gown getting evidence on it from the vents and ejection port) and she would not have been able to remove it and put it away after her death.

The DNA tests done in 2000 don't impact this at all. What you cited is in part why the DNA tests are worthless there was no evidence there was any blood left inside to test for DNA. FURTHERMORE, even if there had been blood found, finding blood of someone else doesn't prove the blood removed wasn't Sheila's.  Sheila had a wound that would result in drawback.  If someone else had a wound resulting in drawback as well that doesn't negate the fact her blood would have to have been in the moderator or the rifle and wasn't in the rifle but there was evidence it was in the moderator. 

The COA decision stressed this:

"The evidence of Mr Hayward was not to the effect that all the blood in the moderator had been tested but rather that some of that blood had been tested. Thus this was not a case where the scientist was saying that the only blood in the moderator came from Sheila Caffell. His evidence was that the blood tested came from Sheila Caffell although he acknowledged the remote possibility that even that blood was a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber.

No questions were asked at trial of Mr Hayward to establish what part of the blood he had tested. The position was, however, known to the defence through their own expert Dr Lincoln. Dr Lincoln had seen the evidential material upon which the group testing results were based and agreed with the conclusions. He recorded that evidence in the course of his report of 19 September 1986. He said that Mr Hayward had "found a flake of blood trapped under the first or second baffle plate" and that it was this flake that was tested and produced the groupings A, EAP BA, AK1, Hp2.1 upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution. Dr Lincoln further recorded:

"Mr Hayward states that he could detect visible staining on the "upper baffle plates" and that he swabbed these plates so that the blood was taken onto cotton material which could subsequently be used in grouping tests. On this material Mr Hayward successfully determined the ABO and EAP groups and showed the blood to be groups A, EAP BA."

This finding from the swabbing of the upper baffle plates was thus consistent with blood from either June Bamber or Sheila Caffell or even a combination of blood from the two of them but not in any way from blood from Nevill Bamber or Nicholas Caffell.

Thus, even if one accepted that the DNA found on the baffle plates at a much later date came from blood from June Bamber deposited on the baffle plates during the shootings, it was not in any way inconsistent with the conclusions drawn from the testing of the flake which material that had been destroyed by the very nature of the examination process and hence could not be subjected to DNA testing. Thus the evidence did not as the Commission suggested "severely undermine" the prosecution case."

In laymen's terms:

1) The prosecution expert didn't claim that all the blood was Sheila's and only Sheila's.  The prosecution expert noted that blood on the baffles was group A which was shared by June and Sheila and thus could belong to either or both.  The flake of blood is what was determined to be Sheila's and only Sheila's because it had an enzyme Sheila possessed but that June didn't because June had a different enzyme.

2) Therefore even if it were proven that June's blood had been found all this would prove is that June's blood was still in the moderator and had failed to be removed by the lab and Lincoln during their testing.  It would not be able to establish that the blood flake removed in 1985 which was determined to be Sheila's wasn't Sheilas.  Only DNA testing of that flake could potentially establish the flake wasn't Sheila's.

This was the MAIN reason for the COA saying the evidence failed to undermine the prosecution case the COA went on to discuss other problems such as contamination which were simply additional reasons to dismiss the claims but even without contamination the evidence was worthless for the above reason.

Scipio you mention that there was no blood found in the silencer from Nicholas Caffell(and by assumption also twin brother Daniel). But didn't the perpetrator hold the ,22 anschutz with moderator attached close to the twins' heads,and what would have been the result were this to be the case? I'm also interested in the DNA from June being found in the silencer but none from Sheila,or have I not got this correct?

[ngb1066]

1) Far from being rubbish my point about the key issue being whether Julie had a need and reason to make up the story about Jeremy doing wrong to save herself is accurate.  When one is alleging a witness made up a story of knowing about wrongdoing committed by someone else just because they were in trouble and wanted to save their own skin one needs to demonstrate they wer ein trouble and needed to save their own skin and then made up a story.

She had no need for immunity prior to telling her story.  Police were unaware of the crimes she committed.  Moreover, she could have told police everything she said about Jeremy without admitting her crimes.  She admitted them willingly and but for that fact they would not have been aware of them. 

Her admissions were the only evidence of the crimes the police ever developed. They had no witnesses to establish Julie and Susan passed the checks themselves other than Julie and Susan. They had no independent witnesses or physical evidence regarding any drug offenses or the Caravan break-in.

Telling police about Jeremy exposed her to liability it didn't save her from harm. Thus the attempt to frame it as her lying in order to save herself fails miserably.

2) Your claim that she got immunity is rubbish.  The legal bar to prosecuting her for bank fraud was that the bank accepted restitution and would not press charges.  It didn't matter whether she testified or not after that point.  Police could not charge her or Susan with fraud because the bank would not press charges. Even if she refused to testify police could do nothing.

The alleged drug offenses relied entirely on her confession and if she decided to fight it her admission would be the sole evidence police had. The Caravan break-in featured her say she tried to get a key so he could enter so she unsuccessfully attempted to help him get inside. As a lawyer you know a defense attorney would say she had no idea he wanted to do anything illegal and that she thought he had a legal right to be there since he was a part owner. 

Post for everyone what legal bar to attempt to prosecute Julie for the drug offenses and the break-in if the authorities decided they wanted to do so, was created by her testifying in the case.  There was no legal bar created by her testifying, she wasn't granted immunity. If the authorities wanted to try to charge her after she testified they could have done so there was no legal bar to charging her with them only a legal bar to charging her for the bank fraud and that bar predated the testimony and hinged on the bank's decision.

3) If you posted evidence of the likely sentences for the crimes in question then please point out where and your source.  I have researched the issue and even today the penalties are small for the alleged drug offenses and fraud.  The prosecutor wrote that in Essex it was standard to issue a cation for a first time drug offender in those circumstances.  What evidence do you have to the contrary>

Explain in detail what unsuccessfully attempting to get the key to commit a burglary would enable a prosecutor to charge someone with.  Then explain the defense her lawyers could make and the chance of a successful prosecution.

The failure to file a criminal complaint means no bank fraud charges could be pursued but what was the typical punishment for a first time offender for a sum of 800 pounds and what was the maximum punishment?  How much did someone need to steal in order to get jailtime?  Even today only people who steal a great deal get jailtime.  Minor fraud results in fines. 

 

 

Each of your points is wrong.  I will answer them in a later post.

[lookout]

Scipio you mention that there was no blood found in the silencer from Nicholas Caffell(and by assumption also twin brother Daniel). But didn't the perpetrator hold the ,22 anschutz with moderator attached close to the twins' heads,and what would have been the result were this to be the case? I'm also interested in the DNA from June being found in the silencer but none from Sheila,or have I not got this correct?

June also had the same " soot " marks on one of her hands that Sheila also had.

[scipio_usmc]

I cant actually find the COLP typed statement from DB -

I was led to believe he scraped blood off - but that does not tie up with what it says - another ambiguous statement .

But  not quite sure where DB close inspection of the silencer comes into the timing of finding it /taking it home / and then the police collecting it.

Some blood was scraped from the opening. It was claimed this blood was saved with the intention to give it to police but no statement mentions them actually turning it over to police or where it was stored.  When the moderator was turned over to police by Ann she made no mention of giving them any blood with it.  Nor did any police records reflect such.  Nor anything about a little blood being turned over with the scope, bullets etc.  Thus it is not clear what they ultimately did with the blood they scraped away.

The claims about them taking the moderator apart started out as speculation of what they could potentially have done while it was in their possession and somehow the grapevine changed it to it to they admitted they did take it apart.