Deviant. Paul Harrison's book.

[Stephanie]

Yeah why not. He is not mentioned in my will so id be fine.   

How so?

[Jan]

How so?

no motive.

[David1819]

no motive.

Nice to see someone has sound judgement     Even more he has every reason to avoid harming someone because if he did it would harm his campaign and the his reputation for not getting in trouble would be in shatters.

[Stephanie]

Nice to see someone has sound judgement     Even more he has every reason to avoid harming someone because if he did it would harm his campaign and the his reputation for not getting in trouble would be in shatters.

Oh I see... Simple as that then... 

With 'sound judgement' like yours why do we bother rehabilitating prisoners - In fact, why send them to prison in the first place? Especially, if say, like JB, his only motive to murder was for inheritance 

What do you suggest? Fifteen minutes on the naughty step?! 

[scipio_usmc]

It was June's blood which was found on them.

What part of June bled on them as she walked by them confused you?  It doesn't matter who owned them she walked by them while bleeding and thus her blood fell on them as she passed.  Her blood would not only fall on objects owned by her. The location of the objects matter (the pertinent location being in the path she walked after being shot) not ownership.     

[scipio_usmc]

And yet as Sheila was guided into the corner to be shot she did not get blood from june on her feet or disturb the socks . Its odd.

It's not odd, the blood is not pooled it is tiny drips that stained the carpet.  Walking on such stains doesn't make it likely to pick up blood. Pooled blood takes longer to dry and provides enough volume for some to transfer to a shoe or foot. Blood on a floor is much more likely to transfer than from a carpet. Even on a floor though if it is not much blood and it begins drying there won't be much of a transfer.

[Adam]

there are not many cases like this one to be fair where there are no definite forensics linking him to the crime and the main evidence is he must of done it because Sheila could not of done it ( disputed by several experts)

There is a mountain of forensic evidence incriminating Bamber.

I don't know why you post such rubbish.

[Jane]

There is a mountain of forensic evidence incriminating Bamber.

I don't know why you post such rubbish.

Ah well, there's the rub. If there WAS a mountain of evidence incriminating Jeremy, we wouldn't be debating it. I'm inclined to say that evidence of his guilt is default evidence -others may prefer the more commonly used "circumstantial." For me, it's the evidence that Sheila DIDN'T do it which is the main pointer to saying Jeremy did.

[Jan]

It's not odd, the blood is not pooled it is tiny drips that stained the carpet.  Walking on such stains doesn't make it likely to pick up blood. Pooled blood takes longer to dry and provides enough volume for some to transfer to a shoe or foot. Blood on a floor is much more likely to transfer than from a carpet. Even on a floor though if it is not much blood and it begins drying there won't be much of a transfer.

but it transferred to the bible

[Adam]

Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ?

Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.

Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.

There is the bible that landed on top of Sheila's blood.

There is Sheila's legs being pulled after she had been shot.

There is the time scale the judge mentioned - 3.26am - 3.48am. It is impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre in this time.

There is the fact that no one can explain how Sheila committed the massacre, which matches the forensic crime scene.

The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence (20 points) showing it was not Sheila, which has been posted several times.  Which automatically shows it was Bamber.

June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.

The twins not waking is forensic evidence pointing to an execution, rather than a long term crazy woman episode.

There is the silencer evidence.

There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.

There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside.


So the answer to the question is -

There is forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime.

[Adam]

Ah well, there's the rub. If there WAS a mountain of evidence incriminating Jeremy, we wouldn't be debating it. I'm inclined to say that evidence of his guilt is default evidence -others may prefer the more commonly used "circumstantial." For me, it's the evidence that Sheila DIDN'T do it which is the main pointer to saying Jeremy did.

Circumstantial evidence also exists. A mountain of it.

People discuss the forensic evidence to try to discredit it.

But when there are 20 reasons why Sheila didn't commit the massacre, or 19 good sources about the kitchen window, that is hard to do.

[Adam]

I have just posted 11 incriminating forensic evidence.

The forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre is divided into 20 reasons.

So there are at least 31 forensic reasons.

As I said, I don't why Jan says there is no definite forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime.

[Jane]

I have just posted 11 incriminating forensic evidence.

The forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre is divided into 20 reasons.

So there are at least 31 forensic reasons.

As I said, I don't why Jan says there is no definite forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime.

As "forensic" relates to scientific, I find that little, of what you list as being forensic, actually is. Sheila's legs being pulled? No explanation for how Sheila did it? Forensic? I think not. Default? Certainly.

[Adam]

As "forensic" relates to scientific, I find that little, of what you list as being forensic, actually is. Sheila's legs being pulled? No explanation for how Sheila did it? Forensic? I think not. Default? Certainly.

The 31 reasons are all forensic reasons.

Circumstantial is something like the bike. Which was brought over just before the massacre. Giving Jeremy another travelling option. Julie also said he planned to cycle. However there is no forensic evidence on the bike. Which is not surprising.

Sheila's legs being pulled after she died was brought up in the 2002 appeal judgement. Who said it highlights guilt further.

[lookout]

There is a mountain of forensic evidence incriminating Bamber.

I don't know why you post such rubbish.

Umpteenth time------------where's this MOUNTAIN of evidence ??