What makes Bamber innocent?

[sami]

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 !

can i correct you,caroline does not write him anymore and nor has he written to her anymore.that just leaves you and mike

[Caroline]

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

The forensic evidence proved nothing of the sort - had that been the case, Jeremy wouldn't be in prison. However, Lookout was talking about Stan Jones finding the silencer etc. had they had proof of THAT, SM would have mentioned it and shown the evidence to the CCRC during the last submissions.

[Caroline]

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 !

I don't write to him now, but he's telling you stuff he told me years ago 

[David1819]

The forensic evidence proved nothing of the sort - had that been the case, Jeremy wouldn't be in prison. However, Lookout was talking about Stan Jones finding the silencer etc. had they had proof of THAT, SM would have mentioned it and shown the evidence to the CCRC during the last submissions.

If you read Bamber vs CCRC 2012, It explains it. The ballistic evidence shows the silencer was not attached when Sheila's wounds were inflicted. The CCRC accepted this evidence and never challenged it.

BUT

Because the scratches under the mantle piece are consistent with being caused by a silencer they argued that it was used on the night and that if the silencer was used the chances of Sheila being responsible were 'nil' thus they rejected the application.

The scratches in question appear in a location that is covered by a top hanging on the clothes line in the original photo's taken on the 7th, very convenient 

[Steve_uk]

If you read Bamber vs CCRC 2012, It explains it. The ballistic evidence shows the silencer was not attached when Sheila's wounds were inflicted. The CCRC accepted this evidence and never challenged it.

BUT

Because the scratches under the mantle piece are consistent with being caused by a silencer they argued that it was used on the night and that if the silencer was used the chances of Sheila being responsible were 'nil' thus they rejected the application.

The scratches in question appear in a location that is covered by a top hanging on the clothes line in the original photo's taken on the 7th, very convenient 

Could you quote the relevant passage?

[David1819]

Could you quote the relevant passage?

I have quoted three separate passages. Hope this makes sense

34. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report.  That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists.  In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds.  He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds.  He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment. 
35.   The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362.  First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer.  Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake.  I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission.  The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence



38.   Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge,


11.   That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.

[Steve_uk]

I would like to see the context of 38. Are they saying that Bamber is innocent just because there is no silencer mark on Nevill's back?  https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge

[mike tesko]

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.

New facts 'have come to light' since the jury convicted Jeremy of the murders. To begin with, the jury were totally unaware that the key and very crucial flake of blood that they were told was found inside a silencer bearing the identifying mark 'DRB/1', could not possibly have been found inside 'that' particular silencer because the silencer bearing the identifying mark 'DRB/1' did not get sent to the lab' at Huntingdon, until long after the said flake had already been found inside a different silencer bearing the identifying mark, 'DB/1' which cops had sent to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985. Silencer, 'DRB/1' was not submitted to the lab' by cops until the '20th September, 1985', by which stage, the flake found in the other silencer ('DB/1') had already been analysed, producing blood group activity, A, EAP BA, 'AK/1, and HP 2-1, on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September, 1985. The blood was not tested to see whether or not it was human blood, until the 20th September, 1985 - but which blood had been tested on that date? It remains a distinct possibility, that the silencer, 'DRB/1' that was sent along to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for blood, was the source of the human blood, confirmed that same date. The lab' records confirm the sequence with which the blood group activity was analysed, followed by a test to see 'if' the blood was human, or not? Normally, such a test would be done at the outset, followed by individual blood group analysis, but in this instance that procedure is out of sequence. The bottom line, is that the individual blood group activity obtained from examination of 'the flake', was not found in the silencer 'DRB/1' at all. The jury were 'conned' into accepting there had only been one silencer at the heart of the case , a silencer bearing the identifying mark, 'DRB/1', court exhibit No.9, which had the following history associated with it - found by David  Boutflour in a cupboard in the den at and, kept safe at his sister's house for a couple of days, then handed to DS 'Stan' Jones, who in turn had shown it to PI 'Bob' Miller, before handing it to DI 'Ron' Cook, who in turn took it along for Glynis Howard to examine. How after she took a swab from it, how she had returned it into the possession of 'Ron' Cook, who took it away, fingerprinted it, before returning it back to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August, 1985. After its receipt at the lab' at Huntingdon on this date, the flake of blood was discovered inside it. Once analysed the blood of the flake produced four blood group results (obtained on the 13th, 14th, 18th and 19th September) said to be blood that was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell...

But...

None of the foregoing related to 'the silencer', 'DRB/1'...

Nothing could be any clearer, the jury have been deceived into accepting a 'cock and bull story' about there being only one silencer, which only had one exhibit reference ('DRB/1'), when all along there were clearly at least two different silencers in the possession of the relatives, Essex Police, and the lab' experts, at one time or another. All miscarriages of justice involve the use of a deception by cops or prosecution witnesses. More often than not the prosecution seek to rely upon a strategy of choice, where they invite the jury to decide between one outcome, against another. In Bambers case, they ran with the argument, that the killer could only have been Sheila, or Jeremy. But they sought to stack the odds in 'their' favour, by presenting the blood group activity found inside 'the' silencer, as being unique and exclusive to Sheila. Which when coupled with the fact that no silencer had been attached to the barrel of the rifle when it was supposedly found on Sheila's body, but rather 'it' had been removed from the gun and taken downstairs to another part of the farmhouse and concealed in a cupboard - it was hardly surprising that the jury convicted Bamber, but it was all a huge deception from start to finish...

[lookout]

It was deception on a huge scale and I don't know how they got away with it. When you read more into everything that went on and how the investigation had been carried out you do come to realise that  there's a lot  that doesn't add up.

[sami]

It was deception on a huge scale and I don't know how they got away with it. When you read more into everything that went on and how the investigation had been carried out you do come to realise that  there's a lot  that doesn't add up.

the judges in jb's appeals didnt think so.and they werent involved in the case

[lookout]

How would/could appeal judges know anything ? They'll have skim-read this massive complex case in so little time that it was easier to follow the guilty trail.

[Jane]

How would/could appeal judges know anything ? They'll have skim-read this massive complex case in so little time that it was easier to follow the guilty trail.

They will? I think that comes under personal opinion rather than proven fact.

[David1819]

It was deception on a huge scale and I don't know how they got away with it. When you read more into everything that went on and how the investigation had been carried out you do come to realise that  there's a lot  that doesn't add up.

Lookout. You previously have never believed in the conspiracy theories, you seem to be changing stance on this now? 

[lookout]

Lookout. You previously have never believed in the conspiracy theories, you seem to be changing stance on this now? 

It's against my better judgement to think about conspiracy theories because it's used as an excuse to get away from the real truth of the matter as well as something to cling to for those who can't make up their minds one way or another.  Well this isn't for me and I would rather use the word deception which is more definite and covers a wide range of investigations.

[lookout]

I know for a fact that police can and have been known to use deception but I can't say that anyone else did,therefore the phrase conspiracy theory doesn't come into it.