Facts

[lookout]

They lacked enough manpower to raid the house and still guard the perimeter. They didn't know if Sheila was holding everyone hostage and would shoot them if police entered or if she would shoot at them.  They didn't know if she would run out another door or window on the other side of the house than they entered from. 9 officers ended up raiding the house with the rest guarding the perimeter. They didn't even have 9 armed officers initially.

They were using a megaphone to shout at the house. There was no tape recordings of anything.   

When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".

[Jane]

When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".

Well, of course, I would say, if there were children in the house, they should be extra careful about charging in like bulls in china shops. Emotionally, whilst wanting them to go in yesterday, reasonably I'd want them to exercise every caution.

[Caroline]

When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".

They followed procedure.

[scipio_usmc]

When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".

There were 6 armed men there- if 4 stayed outside so that only 1 was covering each side that leaves 2 to try to clear the house.  They wanted far more inside to clear such a big house that supposedly had so many firearms at hand.

[mike tesko]

On the contrary it is unreasonable to reject the evidence on the basis you do.  The family didn't know a thing about drawback, didn't they didn't need to know anything at all about drawback. That was the province of ballistic experts... know Sheila's fatal wound was a contact but by the time of the autopsy the pathologist did, and following on from this, so did the police, and eventually the ballistic expert who was responsible for introducing the phenomena of drawback to explain the presence of Sheila's blood inside the silencer wound let alone a contact wound that would result in drawback, as I say, this was the province of the ballistic expert. didn't know her blood type, but the pathologist did, so did the police, and the lab expertsdidn't have access to her blood this is not strictly true since they had access to the farmhouse, and Ann Eaton recovered Sheila Caffells heavily bloodstained knickers and took them home in the back of her brothers car... and even if they wanted to plant blood for simplistic reasons without appreciating anything about drawback they would not have used something to spray blood inside. Sheila's blood got into the silencer at the time of the second shot. After the shot in question, police found themselves in a dilemma, because the only way police could promote her death as a suicide, was if they took off the silencer so that the length of the family owned rifle could then be said to have fired both shots by her own hand. With the silencer left on, they would not have been able to say that the rifle so configured that it had been used to inflict the first (lower) shot, because it would have been too long to have been a weapon used at the time... Yet the blood inside the moderator was sprayed inside, yes... that is the only way for blood to get on the first 8 baffles. it did, according to the ballistic experts theory, yes... Furthermore, if the family had planted the blood then Sheila's blood would have been found in the muzzle of the rifle and the family had no access to the murder weapon so can't have removed such blood. First of all, the blood only sprayed as far down as the sixth baffle, secondly the other baffles closest to the muzzle end of the barrel were blood free, how then could blood have jumped 11 other baffles and then contaminate the barrel of the rifle? Furthermore, relatives had possession of the silencers, of which we are talking about two different ones, (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', second 'DRB/1') and  If they had known her fatal wound was one that would result in drawback and had known all about drawback they would have known her blood was in the rifle so planting blood in the moderator would be useless.  this is not true, because the pathologist, the police, and the ballistic expert all knew that the wounds to Sheila be throat were contact in nature, which coupled with the fact that the barrel of the rifle was blood free, ought to have known that a silencer had been attached to the barrel of the gun at the time she was shot. I believe the police did know, because they removed it at the scene, so that they could present her death as a suicide, rather than have to admit to their own involvement in her death. ..

In order to reject the evidence on the basis of the family finding it you need to establish there is a reasonable chance they planted the evidence.  Ann Eaton handed over the second silencer ('DRB/1') to 'DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985. 'DS Davidson' and 'DS Eastwood' fingerprinted it on the 13th September, and this second silencer was not sent to the lab until the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for blood a fibers. This second silencer which was the brainchild of David Boutflour and Ann Eaton is the silencer upon which the red paint from the kitchen aga was contained. There was none of Sheila's blood inside the second silencer, it arrived at the lab' after blood had already been found inside the first silencer (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1)... There is not a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. this is not true, since Boutflour and Eaton introduced the second silencer, DRB/1', (I am not referring to the first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1) on the 11th September 1985. Furthermore, it had to be either the relatives or the police who made the additional 'U' shaped scratch on the front fascia of the kitchen aga which was firstly photographed by police on the 12th / 14th September (the 'U' shaped scratch is absent on all photographs taken on the run August, 1985) The evidence is safe. From the perspective of a corrupt prosecution and the fact that a conviction was secured only because relatives introduced the second silencer (DRB'/1') on the 11th September 1985, contaminated with red paint from the kitchen aga, Bamber remains safely in custody. But now that the second silencer ('DRB/1') is known to have been introduced by Boutflour and Eaton on the 11th September, rather than the 12th August, 1985, it becomes a game changer. It can now be proven that Sheila's blood was not found inside this second silencer ('DRB/1') because it arrived at the lab' too late (on the 20th September) by which stage Sheila's blood had already been found inside the first silencer (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1), and already analysed on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985. The court was deceived regarding Sheila's blood and red paint from the aga being present inside and upon the same silencer. With this in mind, the convictions are unsafe, and must be quashed...

The family are part of the chain of custody.  The the relatives introduced the second silencer ('DRB/1') containing the red paint from the aga, on the 11th September, 1985... house was in police control until August 9. police had all the time in the world to to present Sheila's death as a suicide, with use of the same gun, and to hide the silencer because it's use in the second shooting of Sheila, was too long to have been used by her to shoot herself on the first occasion...  August 10 the family, Basil Cock etc went to the house and the moderator, bullets and various weapons were found.  TheDavid Boutflour found the silencer ('SBJ/1') Jones Junior placed back in the cupboard on 9th August when cops gave keys back to Ann Eaton... family established the chain of custody of all such weapons.yes, they introduced the first silencer (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1) on the 12th August 1985, containing Sheila's blood, and Boutflour and Eaton introduced the second silencer ('DRB/1') on the 11th September 1985, containing the red paint... They only had the moderator for less than 2 days they had the second silencer ('DRB/1') for over a month until Ann Eaton handed  ('DRB/1') over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985..., keeping it in a closet or chest until turning it over to police on the 12th. From where did they keep the second silencer ('DRB/1') for over a month before they handed it over to police on 11th September 1985? there the chain was in police custody or at the lab depending on the date.Hangon a minute - lets get the now known facts right concerning the whereabouts of both silencers on the 11th September 1985? Ok, first things first, the original silencer (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) was sent to the lab' by 'Ron' Cook on the 30th August, 1985, received by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, and the blood expert, Hayward, inside which we now know was found the blood group evidence belonging to Sheila, tested on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985. So, there can be no doubt, there is no doubt at all, Sheila's blood was found to have been present inside a totally different silencer than the one exhibited during Bambers trial (DRB/1)22, which was not handed to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton until the 11th September 1985, along with other exhibits which were originally marked, DRB/2, DRB/3, and DRB/4. This second silencer (DRB/1) was still in police possession between the 11th and the 20th September, 1985, and did not get sent to the lab' to be checked by police until the 20th, so rest assured Sheila's unique blood was never inside silencer DRB/1. However, red paint from the scratch on the aga was present in this second silencers end cap knurl, consistent with it having been used to make the 'U' shaped mark on the front facing panel on the Agfa surround in the kitchen, a mark which is not present there in crime scene photographs taken on 7th August, 1985, but which materialise there by 14th September, 1985. There is no doubt whatsoever that the end of the second silencer (DRB/1) was deliberately scoured against the front face of the kitchen aga post 7th August 1985. The position of the red particles of paint crushed into the knurl of the second silencer, is consistent with the shape and size of the 'U' shaped mark being spoken about. Nobody but the relatives or the police had the opportunity or the motive to deliberately fabricate the 'U' shaped scratch mark on the kitchen aga. It is very telling, that from police perspective, in particular, by reliance upon DS Davidsons COLP interview, where he makes mention of a paint sample, RC/1, being taken by Cook on the 8th August 1985, because some red paint had been found ingrained onto the end of a guns barrel (not the silencer). Of course, once either Boutflour and Eaton had deliberately scratched the aga, marks that were present on the aga surround made by the end of a guns barrel, and the end of the second silencer (DRB/1)... This is sufficient for a court to rule it reliable evidence.

To reject it you have to establish a reasonable likelihood of planting the evidence in question but the defense could not do so the defense had zero basis They have good cause now that the truth about the late introduction of the second silencer can be proven to suggest they planted any evidence. Yes, they did plant evidence, and Eaton and Boutflour still lie regarding the handiong over of the second silencer to DC Oakley (DRB/1) on the 11th September 1985, a silencer they had for a month, a silencer that was used to deliberately make the 'U' shaped mark on the aga...

[lookout]

a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!

The judge had ruled that it " was either Sheila or Jeremy " ? So why wasn't Jeremy acquitted,especially as there was no proof in which to connect him to the murders ?
In effect,Jeremy was imprisoned because " it might/could " have been him. What a way to conduct a mass-murder trial.

[Caroline]

The judge had ruled that it " was either Sheila or Jeremy " ? So why wasn't Jeremy acquitted,especially as there was no proof in which to connect him to the murders ?
In effect,Jeremy was imprisoned because " it might/could " have been him. What a way to conduct a mass-murder trial.

No physical evidence but there was/is evidence of a circumstantial nature.

[lookout]

No physical evidence but there was/is evidence of a circumstantial nature.

Circumstantial ? Mmmmm.Much the same as posters have been on here when describing me ! But you're ALL wrong !! How can ANYONE know what a person's like when they don't know them ?

I admit I don't know Jeremy,but---------------I could never envisage him as being the killer in any shape or form. Even reading the newspapers back in 1985 I'd made up my mind then that it wasn't him.

[Stephanie]

Circumstantial ? Mmmmm.Much the same as posters have been on here when describing me ! But you're ALL wrong !! How can ANYONE know what a person's like when they don't know them ?

I admit I don't know Jeremy,but---------------I could never envisage him as being the killer in any shape or form. Even reading the newspapers back in 1985 I'd made up my mind then that it wasn't him.

I think to be fair Lookout, your posts give you away

What I fail to understand is the fact that you would side with those individuals who'd actually bother with anyone who'd committed such a heinous crime,as to " help " them rehabilitate ? You,and others like you leave me speechless and offended !

Just say for instance that Jeremy had murdered the twins. Would you still feel the same,or would you say what others,including myself if I thought he was guilty, that the man should be left to die in prison ?
I've never heard you mention JB and rehabilitation in the same sentence ? Would it apply to him in your world ?

I don't agree with your way of thinking because I'm on the side of the victims at all times,never the criminals.

[lookout]

I think to be fair Lookout, your posts give you away

There you go,describing/analyzing. They are my thoughts,not necessarily my overall persona,so you don't really know,do you ? I can think anything I like but it doesn't stop me from being ME as a person.

[Caroline]

Circumstantial ? Mmmmm.Much the same as posters have been on here when describing me ! But you're ALL wrong !! How can ANYONE know what a person's like when they don't know them ?

I admit I don't know Jeremy,but---------------I could never envisage him as being the killer in any shape or form. Even reading the newspapers back in 1985 I'd made up my mind then that it wasn't him.

You have enough to say about Jeremy, his character and what you believe he is like. Perhaps you should heed your own words?

I CAN envisage him being a killer - just because you made your mind up 30 years ago, doesn't mean you made it up the right way.

[lookout]

We'll see,aye ?

[Caroline]

We'll see,aye ?

See what? You've been hanging on to this since I joined this forum and we haven't seen anything yet!

[lookout]

See what? You've been hanging on to this since I joined this forum and we haven't seen anything yet!

Why should that bother you ? He's already where you want him to be.
A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss. I'm in no hurry,but it would appear that you are.Strange,that.

[Caroline]

Why should that bother you ? He's already where you want him to be.
A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss. I'm in no hurry,but it would appear that you are.Strange,that.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it's not me taking things said here personally. I couldn't care less what you think. Patience about what? I thought it was all 'hotting up' and an appeal was imminent? 

Where did you get that I was in a hurry from what I said? It's just you taking things personally again and trying to have a dig - just like the 'mud slinging comment'. Chill out Lookout and take your own advice on 'patience'.