What makes Bamber innocent?

[gringo]

send an email to the remaining family and tell them that,iam talking about my own opinion ,many would disagree including people in the guilty camp.we cant be 100% sure if they did or not.in my book its fine if they did.everyone to their own

  Sami, it is this kind of attitude and indifference to police fabricating evidence thats ends up with people like Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham 6, Eddie Gilfoyle and far too many more to mention individually being convicted for crimes that they didn't commit.
    It is not only those convicted who suffer. The families and loved ones of both the victims and of those wrongly convicted suffer equally. It is grotesque to believe that police corruption is ok under any circumstances.
     I would assume that you are unaware of the many perversions of justice, which would go some way to explaining your indefensible stance on this. If this is the case then it would be a good starting point if you want to have an informed debate.
     The alternative is that you are aware of the many cases where police have been proven to have fabricated evidence but you are untroubled by these. If this is the case and you believe that fabricating evidence is an acceptable way to gain a conviction then you are part of the problem.
     

[sami]

  Sami, it is this kind of attitude and indifference to police fabricating evidence thats ends up with people like Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham 6, Eddie Gilfoyle and far too many more to mention individually being convicted for crimes that they didn't commit.
    It is not only those convicted who suffer. The families and loved ones of both the victims and of those wrongly convicted suffer equally. It is grotesque to believe that police corruption is ok under any circumstances.
     I would assume that you are unaware of the many perversions of justice, which would go some way to explaining your indefensible stance on this. If this is the case then it would be a good starting point if you want to have an informed debate.
     The alternative is that you are aware of the many cases where police have been proven to have fabricated evidence but you are untroubled by these. If this is the case and you believe that fabricating evidence is an acceptable way to gain a conviction then you are part of the problem.
   

did the jury convict him only on the basis of the silencer alone,if it were your family and you knew the person did it and might getaway with it,would you do the same.iam saying i can understand if they took that route and have no trouble sleeping over it,first you must prove the silencer evidence was fabricated and by who

[lookout]

Sheila was the one who'd said that " all people are evil and should die " and also written to Ann from her hospital bed,Sheila had added " God had a purpose for her ".
Because of those former words,Sheila had displayed an extreme indifference to human life--------resulting in the manslaughter of her family then the predictable suicide of herself. Although suicides aren't always predictable as most of the time they're unavoidable too,but this one had been a last resort in this case.
A rifle was the option because they were there in the farmhouse and it mattered not about the size of Sheila against the size of her father as a gun eliminates  the physical difference between the sexes and would not have been as easily retrievable as any other weapon/implement,which would have required a closer contact.

Because of the position/angle of Sheila and because most suicides aim for the side of the head or the mouth or chest, she'd positioned herself lying full length to accommodate the rifle towards her neck as she'd have been aiming for the jugular vein. There was a close contact shot because of the visible burn mark around it. Most suicide shots are angled upwards as was in Sheila's case. In a suicide,the weapon is normally close by.If it had been murder,it would have been missing or in this case cleaned and put back to where it was left, but because there was also a print of Sheila's finger found on the rifle,it was the weapon used along with its dead killer.

Suicide notes and personal problems are indicators of suicide. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse also. A person's medical/personal history is vital in confirming that it was suicide/murder.

Scratches,cuts and bruises usually indicate murder as were found on both parents.

[Caroline]

Sheila was the one who'd said that " all people are evil and should die " and also written to Ann from her hospital bed,Sheila had added " God had a purpose for her ".
Because of those former words,Sheila had displayed an extreme indifference to human life--------resulting in the manslaughter of her family then the predictable suicide of herself. Although suicides aren't always predictable as most of the time they're unavoidable too,but this one had been a last resort in this case.
A rifle was the option because they were there in the farmhouse and it mattered not about the size of Sheila against the size of her father as a gun eliminates  the physical difference between the sexes and would not have been as easily retrievable as any other weapon/implement,which would have required a closer contact.

Because of the position/angle of Sheila and because most suicides aim for the side of the head or the mouth or chest, she'd positioned herself lying full length to accommodate the rifle towards her neck as she'd have been aiming for the jugular vein. There was a close contact shot because of the visible burn mark around it. Most suicide shots are angled upwards as was in Sheila's case. In a suicide,the weapon is normally close by.If it had been murder,it would have been missing or in this case cleaned and put back to where it was left, but because there was also a print of Sheila's finger found on the rifle,it was the weapon used along with its dead killer.

Suicide notes and personal problems are indicators of suicide. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse also. A person's medical/personal history is vital in confirming that it was suicide/murder.

Scratches,cuts and bruises usually indicate murder as were found on both parents.

Well, there is no doubt that they were murdered Lookout - they were shot to death so I guess the cuts and bruises weren't really that mush of a giveaway.

However, given that you're big on forensics - what forensic evidence proves that the killer was Sheila?

[mike tesko]

It was impossible for the relatives to frame Bamber with the silencer. Several threads created.

It is also an outrageous suggestion where there is no proof.

Sorry, but there is proof that relatives were at the heart of the frame up by introducing the second silencer, and the flake of blood that David Boutflour scraped from the second silencer that his family handed over to the cops on the 11th September 1985. Nothing could be any clearer, actually...

Relatives still had a silencer, when the other silencer was already at the lab', so what in your mind set does 'that' mean?

Cops still had the second silencer in their possession whilst the other silencer was already at the lab', so, once again, what in your mind set does 'that' mean to somebody like you?

There are many examples by referring to the 'evidence' produced by the cops themselves, which contradict the suggestion that they only ever received one silencer from the relatives that the relatives claim was recovered from the farmhouse. It would takes ages to list each and every 'contradiction', just get it out of your head that there was only one silencer handed over to cops by relatives, because they handed over two different ones, one in August, the other in September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Sorry, but there is proof that relatives were at the heart of the frame up by introducing the second silencer, and the flake of blood that David Boutflour scraped from the second silencer that his family handed over to the cops on the 11th September 1985. Nothing could be any clearer, actually...

Relatives still had a silencer, when the other silencer was already at the lab', so what in your mind set does 'that' mean?

Cops still had the second silencer in their possession whilst the other silencer was already at the lab', so, once again, what in your mind set does 'that' mean to somebody like you?

There are many examples by referring to the 'evidence' produced by the cops themselves, which contradict the suggestion that they only ever received one silencer from the relatives that the relatives claim was recovered from the farmhouse. It would takes ages to list each and every 'contradiction', just get it out of your head that there was only one silencer handed over to cops by relatives, because they handed over two different ones, one in August, the other in September 1985...

All these contradictions that I am referring to, can't all be put down to 'cop errors', these were not cop errors, these were deliberate acts where the cops tried to generate that much confusion that most people would give up trying to make some sense out of it all, and generally accept that these references must all be to the same, one and only silencer...

But, cops overlooked many things...

[mike tesko]

All these contradictions that I am referring to, can't all be put down to 'cop errors', these were not cop errors, these were deliberate acts where the cops tried to generate that much confusion that most people would give up trying to make some sense out of it all, and generally accept that these references must all be to the same, one and only silencer...

But, cops overlooked many things...

So did David Boutflour, and the other relatives...

[mike tesko]

You see...

Most people tend to overlook the most obvious of 'tell tale signs' in situations of this nature, whereas, somebody like me, 'hones in' on whatever it is, that jumps out of the scenario, or situation...

I noticed this ' tell tale sign' within moments of first being 'given the information' by Jeremy, himself in 1989...

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour, nor any of the other relatives, 'did not even know' that Ralph Bamber had purchased the .22 semi - automatic rifle, until 'after they recovered one of the silencers from the scene on the 10th August 1985'. Nobody told them which weapon had been used to shoot the victims with, until much later. In fact, the relatives were led to believe originally that Sheila had killed everyone with use of a shotgun, including herself...

Jeremy couldn't have told them, because even he did not know, nor was he told by cops about 'which' gun had fired any of the shots, but the closest cops got to telling anyone about the identity of the type of weapon that may have been used, was when DCI 'Taff' Jones, and DS 'Stan' Jones went to see Jeremy at his cottage on the afternoon of the 9th August 1985, and questioned him about (a) was the telescopic site fitted to the rifle on the evening just prior to the shootings, (b) was the silencer fitted to that rifle, at that stage, (c) how many rounds were already in that gun when he first took possession of it, (d) how many more rounds did he load into the ammunition magazine, if at all, and (e) where did he get any additional ammunition from?

At the end of these questions, cops then asked him where he thought five additional bullets which they knew had been fired during the killings had originated from, because they said there was still 30 full rounds with the ammunition box he had left on the kitchen side before going home?

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour, nor any of the other relatives, 'did not even know' that Ralph Bamber had purchased the .22 semi - automatic rifle, until 'after they recovered one of the silencers from the scene on the 10th August 1985'. Nobody told them which weapon had been used to shoot the victims with, until much later. In fact, the relatives were led to believe originally that Sheila had killed everyone with use of a shotgun, including herself...

Jeremy couldn't have told them, because even he did not know, nor was he told by cops about 'which' gun had fired any of the shots, but the closest cops got to telling anyone about the identity of the type of weapon that may have been used, was when DCI 'Taff' Jones, and DS 'Stan' Jones went to see Jeremy at his cottage on the afternoon of the 9th August 1985, and questioned him about (a) was the telescopic site fitted to the rifle on the evening just prior to the shootings, (b) was the silencer fitted to that rifle, at that stage, (c) how many rounds were already in that gun when he first took possession of it, (d) how many more rounds did he load into the ammunition magazine, if at all, and (e) where did he get any additional ammunition from?

At the end of these questions, cops then asked him where he thought five additional bullets which they knew had been fired during the killings had originated from, because they said there was still 30 full rounds with the ammunition box he had left on the kitchen side before going home?

So, armed with this information, how did David Boutflour know that he had found the silencer to the gun, if at that stage he did not even know that such a gun existed, or had been bought?

[mike tesko]

Even when the relatives were at Jeremys cottage on the 7th August, 1985, there was absolutely no talk or mention of the anshuz rifle having been the murder weapon, albeit I am prepared to accept although from the top of my head I can't think of any examples to back it up, that somebody may have mentioned a .22 rifle. For example, when Jeremy was making his witness statement, maybe relatives overheard him talking about having seen rabbits near the Dutch barn, how he had gone for the rifle, loaded it, and gone outside intending to shoot them? I will have to check...

[Jane]

So, armed with this information, how did David Boutflour know that he had found the silencer to the gun, if at that stage he did not even know that such a gun existed, or had been bought?

Given all the other tit bits of information which was dripped from various sources about what had allegedly occurred in WHF your question is rhetorical.

[lookout]

Well, there is no doubt that they were murdered Lookout - they were shot to death so I guess the cuts and bruises weren't really that mush of a giveaway.

However, given that you're big on forensics - what forensic evidence proves that the killer was Sheila?

Given the sloppy work of the forensic team it doesn't surprise me that an innocent man was charged. However,there had been trace signs of gsr on Sheila's hand/s which was cleverly/cunningly put down as having been the use of kitchen utensils-----yes,Sheila must have washed all the pans after supper,but wouldn't that have also washed away any residue from the pans anyway too ? 
That trace must have come from somewhere ?? Her nightdress wasn't tested.

[sami]

Given the sloppy work of the forensic team it doesn't surprise me that an innocent man was charged. However,there had been trace signs of gsr on Sheila's hand/s which was cleverly/cunningly put down as having been the use of kitchen utensils-----yes,Sheila must have washed all the pans after supper,but wouldn't that have also washed away any residue from the pans anyway too ? 
That trace must have come from somewhere ?? Her nightdress wasn't tested.

i think this has been explained to you before,lookout

[mike tesko]

Even when the relatives were at Jeremys cottage on the 7th August, 1985, there was absolutely no talk or mention of the anshuz rifle having been the murder weapon, albeit I am prepared to accept although from the top of my head I can't think of any examples to back it up, that somebody may have mentioned a .22 rifle. For example, when Jeremy was making his witness statement, maybe relatives overheard him talking about having seen rabbits near the Dutch barn, how he had gone for the rifle, loaded it, and gone outside intending to shoot them? I will have to check...

Yes, I have just checked and Jeremy makes mention in his 7th August 1985 witness statement that he went to get his .22 rifle, (he uses the word 'my'), but there is no mention that he was referring to the .22 anshuzt rifle, he could just as easily have been referring to his .22 BSA air rifle. In any event, David Boutflour makes mention in one of his witness statements, that he did not know that Ralph Bamber had purchased a .22 anshuzt rifle, and I shall try to locate that particular comment and place it in its rightful position in time, so that we can all be sure of the very first occasion that David Boutflour knew about the existence of Ralph Bambers .22 anshuzt rifle, because that information is very important. It is important because when he takes possession of the first silencer at the scene on the 10th August 1985, how could he have known that that silencer was the one belonging to the anshuzt rifle which was supposedly the only murder weapon used in the shootings?