What makes Bamber innocent?

[Caroline]

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

Well, had David posted the WHOLE of point 38, it would have had more context, this is the rest of it and a a follow on to the nest point.

 "..... it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis.

39. I would add, in relation to the assumption about the receipt by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of fresh evidence, it is ready to receive evidence of an expert nature where there has been appropriate scientific advances. It is much more cautious about expert evidence which is accepted as not new science, but the result of more research on the specific case or another view. I say that because the assumption upon which the Commission has proceeded is one that is as favourable and as generous as could be made to Mr Bamber"

Basically, what they are saying is, that they considered the 'new evidence' carefully (and as such have given Bamber the benefit of the doubt), however, because it is simply a rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective, they are cautious to accept it and that they felt the research was incomplete. What they aren't saying it what David claims because had they been able to convince the CCRC that the silencer wasn't on the rifle when Sheila shot herself, it would indicate the blood wasn't Sheila's and the whole silencer evidence was null. On that basis, they would have had to grant an appeal - they didn't because they saw the 'new' evidence as simple the perceptive of another expert and that they did Bamber a favour was agreeing to look at it.

[sami]

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.

yes but can you show police used deception in this case.has any officer ever been reprimanded apart from taffy

[Jane]

yes but can you show police used deception in this case.has any officer ever been reprimanded apart from taffy

More to the point, has ANY member of the team, despite what Mike has said, ever intimated or offered tangible proof that deception was employed to convict Jeremy?

[mike tesko]

The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, told the jury that no evidence had been placed before the court that if the blood from the flake of the silencer had been an 'intimate mixture' of the parents bloods', that Sheila could not have removed the silencer herself and placed it in the cupboard. He told the jury that if they came to the conclusion that the blood in question was a mixture of the parents blood, then they should accept that Sheila had put the silencer, away...

[mike tesko]

Police were party to switching the badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) with a whole test fired round, to fool everyone into accepting that both of Sheila's wounds had been inflicted by use of the same anshuzt rifle...

[lookout]

yes but can you show police used deception in this case.has any officer ever been reprimanded apart from taffy

During the investigation two or three officers were pulled to oneside and cautioned.
No matter how out of line an officer can be it's rare that he faces disciplinary hearings,or loses his pension and status.
It's normally the top brass who are found to be reneging but because of their positions,they remain untouchable for some unknown reason. Take Hillsborough for instance.

[mike tesko]

Red paint from the aga in the main kitchen, was found ingrained upon the barrel of a gun that was found 'downstairs' - source 'COLP' interviews of DS Neil Davidson (SOCO)...

Which of course, puts 'the cat amongst the pigeons'...

[David1819]

Well, had David posted the WHOLE of point 38, it would have had more context, this is the rest of it and a a follow on to the nest point.

 "..... it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis.

39. I would add, in relation to the assumption about the receipt by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of fresh evidence, it is ready to receive evidence of an expert nature where there has been appropriate scientific advances. It is much more cautious about expert evidence which is accepted as not new science, but the result of more research on the specific case or another view. I say that because the assumption upon which the Commission has proceeded is one that is as favourable and as generous as could be made to Mr Bamber"

Basically, what they are saying is, that they considered the 'new evidence' carefully (and as such have given Bamber the benefit of the doubt), however, because it is simply a rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective, they are cautious to accept it and that they felt the research was incomplete. What they aren't saying it what David claims because had they been able to convince the CCRC that the silencer wasn't on the rifle when Sheila shot herself, it would indicate the blood wasn't Sheila's and the whole silencer evidence was null. On that basis, they would have had to grant an appeal - they didn't because they saw the 'new' evidence as simple the perceptive of another expert and that they did Bamber a favour was agreeing to look at it.

No they would not. No silencer on Sheila's wounds does not mean it was never used on the night," the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence"  The silencer had paint on it and the kitchen mantle had scratches consistent with it being caused by a silencer. Bambers expert could not prove the scratches do not appear in the photos on the 7th. This brings us back to point 11

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.

That is their reasoning. If the silencer was used at any time then Jeremy is guilty thus there was no possibility of the COA quashing the conviction.

Fowlers report is not a "rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective" the abrasions to the wounds had never been used as evidence before.

[Steve_uk]

The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, told the jury that no evidence had been placed before the court that if the blood from the flake of the silencer had been an 'intimate mixture' of the parents bloods', that Sheila could not have removed the silencer herself and placed it in the cupboard. He told the jury that if they came to the conclusion that the blood in question was a mixture of the parents blood, then they should accept that Sheila had put the silencer, away...

It stretches credibility that a woman in psychosis would have the presence of mind to do this.

[lookout]

It's only when a psychotic attack is imminent that a woman with a depressive illness is likely to inflict harm.
They usually have no recollection of what they're doing or what they've done.

[Adam]

It stretches credibility that a woman in psychosis would have the presence of mind to do this.

There is no presence of mind needed. There is simply no reason for Sheila to do this. But several reasons why Bamber would.

[lookout]

So JB is now suffering from psychosis ? Strange that it hasn't been reported in 30 years.

[sami]

So JB is now suffering from psychosis ? Strange that it hasn't been reported in 30 years.

would jb tell you or others if he had been suffering psychosis.he may be or may have done ,we cant tell

[Steve_uk]

By that stage there's only one way out for them: they have to kill their family aka David Bain. Who knows what complex they are suffering from?

[Caroline]

No they would not. No silencer on Sheila's wounds does not mean it was never used on the night," the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence"  The silencer had paint on it and the kitchen mantle had scratches consistent with it being caused by a silencer. Bambers expert could not prove the scratches do not appear in the photos on the 7th. This brings us back to point 11

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.

That is their reasoning. If the silencer was used at any time then Jeremy is guilty thus there was no possibility of the COA quashing the conviction.

Fowlers report is not a "rehash of OLD evidence and a different perspective" the abrasions to the wounds had never been used as evidence before.

I think you have got what they are saying completely wrong,