What makes Bamber innocent?

[Caroline]

Yes they could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence

A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.

Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
 

Dr Caruso and Peter Suthurst's evidence is not 100% conclusive. But in my view they show a high probablility of the scratches being made after the 7th.

The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.

If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.

You have read it incorrectly. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowler's report isn't open to challenge. They stated the work was incomplete and that it failed to challenge or account for previous considerations such as the  flake in the silencer/no residue on the gun and Fletcher and Venezis's findings. They also stated that the COA prefer evidence based on new scientific methods not simple a fresh look.

[mike tesko]

You have read it incorrectly. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowler's report isn't open to challenge. They stated the work was incomplete and that it failed to challenge or account for previous considerations such as the  flake in the silencer/no residue on the gun and Fletcher and Venezis's findings. They also stated that the COA prefer evidence based on new scientific methods not simple a fresh look.

The 'flake' was not found inside the silwncer bearing the exhibit reference 'DRB/1', it was found inside the other silencer which bore the exhibit reference, 'DB/1'...

Silencers, 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1' were clearly not the same silencer, since the former ('DB/1') was sent to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, and the latter ('DRB/1') was not sent to the lab' until the 20th September, 1985!!!

Anyone, who is remotely corrupt, needs to ask themselves, how one silencer ('DB/1') can be sent to the lab' on the 30th Augfust, 1985, without any evidence that 'it' was ever returned to the possession of Essex police, afterwards, to enable them to resend 'it' to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for 'blood and fibers'?

[mike tesko]

Xxxx xxx that applies to everybody, and anybody who is trying to xxxx with the truth, in this instance...

Those of you, who are, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves, for trusting and believing in such a dishonest proposition...

[mike tesko]

Those who believe in such a bias and untrustworthy proposition, are all vile, evil monsters, that the world can do without...

Why don't you xxxxxxxxxxx and die a lingering, horrible death, conducive to the type of individual you really are...

[mike tesko]

I want 'liars', all liars, to be prosecuted...

[mike tesko]

I want 'liars', all liars, to be prosecuted...

Including, 'guilty' suspects...

[mike tesko]

The 'absolute truth' is, that between them, the relatives, the cops, and the lab' experts, stitched up, Jeremy Bamber, for these murders, by use of the 'introduction' of the silencer argument. You do not have to be a 'rocket scientist' to be able to fathom out what the prosecution set out to prove' in this particular case...

What we are dealing with here, is clearly 'an act of deception'...

[mike tesko]

The 'absolute truth' is, that between them, the relatives, the cops, and the lab' experts, stitched up, Jeremy Bamber, for these murders, by use of the 'introduction' of the silencer argument. You do not have to be a 'rocket scientist' to be able to fathom out what the prosecution set out to prove' in this particular case...

What we are dealing with here, is clearly 'an act of deception'...

On the part of the prosecution, and 'it's' witnesses...

[mike tesko]

If I am honest, 'I don't particularly agree, with everything that Jeremy has said, but what I know to be the truth, is that 'he', did not shoot, and kill his sister, Sheila Caffell...

He couldn't have, and he did not kill his sister, as alleged...

[mike tesko]

Listen up, Cops were not 'angels'...

they lied, to make it into a simple case of 'four murders, and a suicide', nothing more, nothing less...

[Caroline]

The 'flake' was not found inside the silwncer bearing the exhibit reference 'DRB/1', it was found inside the other silencer which bore the exhibit reference, 'DB/1'...

Silencers, 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1' were clearly not the same silencer, since the former ('DB/1') was sent to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, and the latter ('DRB/1') was not sent to the lab' until the 20th September, 1985!!!

Anyone, who is remotely corrupt, needs to ask themselves, how one silencer ('DB/1') can be sent to the lab' on the 30th Augfust, 1985, without any evidence that 'it' was ever returned to the possession of Essex police, afterwards, to enable them to resend 'it' to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for 'blood and fibers'?

Unless it has escaped you, I don't believe the silencer evidence, I wasn't talking about what I believe as far as the silencer goes, I was posing my interpretation of what the 2012 submissions were referring to.

[David1819]

You have read it incorrectly. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowler's report isn't open to challenge. They stated the work was incomplete and that it failed to challenge or account for previous considerations such as the  flake in the silencer/no residue on the gun and Fletcher and Venezis's findings. They also stated that the COA prefer evidence based on new scientific methods not simple a fresh look.

No I haven't, You need to look at the big picture to understand the CCRCs reasoning. In 2002 Jeremy went to the COA on basis that the blood in the silencer could be a mix of June and Neville's.

The COA in 2002 accepted that is was a possibility but argued that Sheila would not go into the gun cupboard put the silencer on before killing everyone then put it away in the cupboard before shooting herself. With Dr Fowlers evidence alone the COA would make the same argument and come to the same conclusion.

In my opinion Fowlers evidence shows the blood was planted, but its not Fowlers job to make those allegations and point the finger, That's what Mckay in hindsight should have done.

[Adam]

No I haven't, You need to look at the big picture to understand the CCRCs reasoning. In 2002 Jeremy went to the COA on basis that the blood in the silencer could be a mix of June and Neville's.

The COA in 2002 accepted that is was a possibility but argued that Sheila would not go into the gun cupboard put the silencer on before killing everyone then put it away in the cupboard before shooting herself. With Dr Fowlers evidence alone the COA would make the same argument and come to the same conclusion.

In my opinion Fowlers evidence shows the blood was planted, but its not Fowlers job to make those allegations and point the finger, That's what Mckay in hindsight should have done.

I agree with the COA. There is no way Sheila would have put the silencer on. Neville was already awake and she would not know how to insert it.  She also would not put it away and would not know how to take it off. 

It being human blood shows Bamber 100% guilty.

Do you agree with Bamber that his cousins somehow brilliantly fabricated the silencer evidence. Or agree with Mike, Lookout and Caroline that the 'treacherous' Stan Jones did.

[Jane]

No I haven't, You need to look at the big picture to understand the CCRCs reasoning. In 2002 Jeremy went to the COA on basis that the blood in the silencer could be a mix of June and Neville's.

The COA in 2002 accepted that is was a possibility but argued that Sheila would not go into the gun cupboard put the silencer on before killing everyone then put it away in the cupboard before shooting herself. With Dr Fowlers evidence alone the COA would make the same argument and come to the same conclusion.

In my opinion Fowlers evidence shows the blood was planted, but its not Fowlers job to make those allegations and point the finger, That's what Mckay in hindsight should have done.

Nor, I believe, is it yours to re interpret the CCRC's reasoning, but it doesn't stop you.

[mike tesko]

The blood evidence cannot be taken in isolation - it is attached to the existence of at least two different Parker hale silencers. Inside one of these silencers ('DB/1') that cops sent to the lab' on the 30th August1985, was the crucial dried flake of blood which produced the key blood group activity as a result of the flake being analysed between the 12th to the 19th September 1985. In stark contrast, human blood was found on the second silencer ('DRB/1') that cops sent to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, with specific instruction for it to be checked for blood. Both of these silencers originated from possession of the relatives. If these murders were only carried out by a single firearm, then why is it that blood in one form or another ends up in or on two different silencers, if only one silencer was supposedly found and recovered from the scene by relatives? Oddly enough, in September when David Boutflour contacted the police to tell them about him finding the silencer to 'the Gun's, he gives two possible locations inside the cupboard where he supposedly only found one silencer. Now, you do not need to be a brain surgeon, or for that matter a South Yorkshire police officer obtaining an extra pocketbook to rewrite his notes, to see that there is plainly something dramatically wrong with the 'one silencer' story. More significantly, in their haste to 'stitch' Bamber up as the murderer, the damn fools made a bollocks of attributing the key blood group evidence to 'the wrong silencer' ('DRB/1'), which as it turns out, did not even get sent to the lab' to be checked for blood, until after the flake had already been found and removed from the other silencer ('DB/1'), and the blood group evidence obtained from the flake - all done and dusted by the 19th September 1985, a day before the second silencer ('DRB/1') was sent to the lab' by cops to be checked for blood...