Author Topic: What makes Bamber innocent?  (Read 351381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3360 on: July 23, 2016, 10:29:AM »
One of the puzzling features of the silencer, or the silencers that were 'merged' into being reference to the same silencer, was the fact that two identical Parker hale silencers were normally kept at the farmhouse around the time of the murders. One of these Parker hale silencers belonged to a relative (a beneficiary of Ralph Bambers inheritance estate), which according to what Anthony Pargeter told Essex police in one of his witness statements, he had purchased in 1980, and it was 'always' kept at the farmhouse. It had 17 internal baffle plates. It did not have a serial number. It could be fitted to the barrel of most .22 rifles. The other Parker hale silencer, was purchased by Ralph Bamber at the end of November, 1984. It has not been determined how many internal baffle plates this silencer had got, since the manufacturers production run of silencers containing 17 baffle plate went from 1980, until the beginning of November 1984. From the beginning of November 1984, only 15 baffle plates were present in the updated version. Externally the older type silencers, and the new ones, were identical in appearance, but different in their internal design, since the former ones had 17 baffle plates internally, whereas, the latter only had 15...

It fell to be established, therefore, whether or not the Parker hale silencer which Ralph Bamber ordered from Radcliffe the gun dealers, Colchester, on the 24th November, 1984, was a silencer from old stock,cor the newer design with less internal baffle plates? What is rather telling is that on the 24th November, 1984, when Ralph Bamber went to buy the anshuzt rifle, and it's Parker hale silencer, that the gun dealer did not have any Parker hale silencers in stock and told Me Bamber, that he would have to order one from the manufacturers which could be delivered a week later. It is rather amusing that Essex police did not go all out to identify how many baffle plates were inside the silencer purchased by Ralph Bamber. For some reason cops steered clear of this feature. Jeremy has told me on several occasions that his father ordered the latest Parker hale silencer which was why he had to wait a week before Radcliffe delivered it to and a week later. If true, then the Bamber owned silencer would have only had 15 internal baffle plates, not 17...

The key flake of blood, and the red paint have at one time or another been associated with a 17 Baffled silencer, not a 15 Baffled one...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3361 on: July 23, 2016, 10:30:AM »
It's not new, he's been saying this since I wrote to him and no doubt before that.





So has it made headline news then,for the public to see ? NO ! Now it should spread like ivy considering that corruption is there for all to see,written by the supposed law of the land.
Because of " other things that have come to light " it's safe to spread this evidence for all to see,including those who chose to commit perjury !! 
Sooner or later as JB said----" they've ALL got to face the music ".
It's utterly treacherous.

My own thoughts are that because of JB's work over the years in pinpointing what's been done,with more to come,that there's a possibility that he could be kept in prison------------for obvious reasons and not for any crime HE committed,but that of others. I hope I'm wrong.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3362 on: July 23, 2016, 10:36:AM »
It's not new, he's been saying this since I wrote to him and no doubt before that.





So has it made headline news then,for the public to see ? NO ! Now it should spread like ivy considering that corruption is there for all to see,written by the supposed law of the land.
Because of " other things that have come to light " it's safe to spread this evidence for all to see,including those who chose to commit perjury !! 
Sooner or later as JB said----" they've ALL got to face the music ".
It's utterly treacherous.

My own thoughts are that because of JB's work over the years in pinpointing what's been done,with more to come,that there's a possibility that he could be kept in prison------------for obvious reasons and not for any crime HE committed,but that of others. I hope I'm wrong.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3363 on: July 23, 2016, 10:37:AM »
Oooops.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3364 on: July 23, 2016, 10:51:AM »
When senior police officers can withhold vital evidence from the French authorities regarding Princess Diana's death,they can certainly do the same for the ordinary man in the street !! Because they can !

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3365 on: July 23, 2016, 11:21:AM »

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3366 on: July 23, 2016, 11:30:AM »
When senior police officers can withhold vital evidence from the French authorities regarding Princess Diana's death,they can certainly do the same for the ordinary man in the street !! Because they can !
i fully agree with that.if diana was pregnant by doodi.than it makes sense .because we cant have the future king of england having a muslim half brother ;)

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3367 on: July 23, 2016, 12:18:PM »
Diana wasn't pregnant, ( gutter press will always lie to get a better story ! ) she had more blue blood than our present royals !
Still no excuse for withholding evidence which seems to be peculiar to our justice system.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21081
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3368 on: July 23, 2016, 07:13:PM »
I disagree with the suggestion that even without the silencer evidence, and everything which was pinned to it, insofar as the prosecutions case was concerned, does not prove Bambers innocence. I think the opposite argument is true, since it is much too late for anybody to be able to ignore all the dishonesty associated with the silencer evidence on the part of the relatives, Essex Police, and Experts. If this dishonesty had been noted during the trial, and the jury might well have gone on to convict him, but that proposition did not happen. What this means is that the silencer, blood and paint evidence, has to stand up to scrutiny, otherwise, the convictions have to be quashed, as unsafe. If that occurs, it is equivalent to him having been found 'not' guilty' by the original jury, or to put it another way, that he is innocent...

Derek Bentley-found guilty of murder under joint enterprise law. Hanged . Given posthumous pardon.
http://links.laws.londoninternational.ac.uk/bookmarkpress/derek-bentley-case-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia/

Stephen Downing. Confessed to killing the "Bakewell Tart." Wendy Sewell. Retracted confession but found guilty. Served 27 years before conviction deemed unsafe because a solicitor was not present when he confessed and a pathology report was withheld from the jury which confirmed she had been strangled, which Downing never admitted to. Awarded £500000 compensation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/6054330.stm


Barry George. Found guilty of the murder of Jill Dando. Spent eight years in jail. Found not guilty at a retrial but "not innocent enough to be compensated."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/not-innocent-enough-to-be-compensated-barry-george-loses-legal-battle-for-compensation-over-wrongful-8697397.html

Colin Stagg. Charged with murder of Rachel Nickell in 1992 and stood trial. Honeytrap evidence ruled inadmissible by judge. Stagg awarded £706000 compensation.

What is the moral of these stories? That it has to be proven that Police lied or withheld evidence which could have made a material difference to a jury's verdict, or in Barry George's case the onus was on the Defendant himself to prove he couldn't have done it beyond reasonable doubt rather than the Crown having to prove he did.

For Jeremy Bamber to be declared innocent on any of the above categories the Defence would have to prove that new facts so undermined previous evidence that no conviction could ever have been based on it.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 07:17:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3369 on: July 23, 2016, 08:17:PM »




So has it made headline news then,for the public to see ? NO ! Now it should spread like ivy considering that corruption is there for all to see,written by the supposed law of the land.
Because of " other things that have come to light " it's safe to spread this evidence for all to see,including those who chose to commit perjury !! 
Sooner or later as JB said----" they've ALL got to face the music ".
It's utterly treacherous.

My own thoughts are that because of JB's work over the years in pinpointing what's been done,with more to come,that there's a possibility that he could be kept in prison------------for obvious reasons and not for any crime HE committed,but that of others. I hope I'm wrong.

Of course not because there is nothing in it. If this had been the incredible find that it being suggested, and as he has know all about it since at LEAST 2010, why didn't it form part of the 2012 submissions to the CCRC? I'll tell you why, because Simon McKay must have told him it was a no go.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 08:20:PM by Caroline »
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3370 on: July 23, 2016, 08:30:PM »
It wasn't known about in 2012 or it would then have come to light----also the reason why Simon McKay didn't include it.

Nothing to do with it being a " no-go " as would typically have you believe.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 08:33:PM by lookout »

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3371 on: July 23, 2016, 09:12:PM »
It wasn't known about in 2012 or it would then have come to light----also the reason why Simon McKay didn't include it.

Nothing to do with it being a " no-go " as would typically have you believe.
i think we should take carolines word for it.jb knew all this.she has a written to him so she should know :)

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13780
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3372 on: July 23, 2016, 09:17:PM »
Of course not because there is nothing in it. If this had been the incredible find that it being suggested, and as he has know all about it since at LEAST 2010, why didn't it form part of the 2012 submissions to the CCRC? I'll tell you why, because Simon McKay must have told him it was a no go.

It did, they used forensic work to demonstrate the evidence was produced after the murder's.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3373 on: July 23, 2016, 09:45:PM »
i think we should take carolines word for it.jb knew all this.she has a written to him so she should know :)





Caroline isn't the only one he writes to,or who writes to him. I'm sure I've gained a bit more info this last couple of weeks too !

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3374 on: July 23, 2016, 10:12:PM »




Caroline isn't the only one he writes to,or who writes to him. I'm sure I've gained a bit more info this last couple of weeks too !
you werent holidaying with him in the nick were you.i hope not. ;)