What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

It is typical of the kind of dishonest tactic which bent cops use when they stitch a person up. They introduce a piece of damning evidence that wasn't really there to start off with. In Bambers case, it was the introduction of a second silencer ('DRB/1') in which it was falsely claimed had been found the flake of dried blood, which prosecution experts were prepared to say was blood that was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell...

[lookout]

And nobody argues with the law even if they knowingly KNOW they are wrong do they !!?? Unless it's an aspersion cast at them.

[Caroline]

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.

This is just your opinion David, , the commission didn't state that they accepted Fowlers report without question, they were talking about their decision. So, what the COA would or would not do, is simply down to speculation. Your so called 'looking at the bigger picture' leaves the way forward to make all sorts of grand claims, however, if we stick to the facts as they are (not how we would like them to be), we can't go wrong.

[Caroline]

And nobody argues with the law even if they knowingly KNOW they are wrong do they !!?? Unless it's an aspersion cast at them.

Yes, they do.

[lookout]

Yes, they do.

 The relatives didn't,did they ? They happily and merrily went along with the law.

[David1819]

This is just your opinion David, , the commission didn't state that they accepted Fowlers report without question.

The commission did not and could not challenge Fowlers evidence, That is why Jeremy took them to court.

So, what the COA would or would not do, is simply down to speculation.

No its not because the COA have already made a judgment back in 2002 on the relevant issue

The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself

Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.

This brings us back the 2012 Judgment

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.


This is why the appeal was denied and the court sided with the CCRC

[mike tesko]

It is typical of the kind of dishonest tactic which bent cops use when they stitch a person up. They introduce a piece of damning evidence that wasn't really there to start off with. In Bambers case, it was the introduction of a second silencer ('DRB/1') in which it was falsely claimed had been found the flake of dried blood, which prosecution experts were prepared to say was blood that was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell...

But they made the mistake of attributing the results that were obtained from the examination of the flake of dried blood, to the wrong silencer ('DRB/1'), which alas arrived at the lab' to be checked over for a possible presence of blood a few days too late..

[mike tesko]

The Court of appeal, nor the CCRC, have yet entertained the notion that two different identical looking silencers lay at the heart of the matter. They have only considered issues surrounding the possible use of a solitary silencer...

[lookout]

" The case of Jeremy Bamber---22.08.11 ".

Page 150.--Similarly David Boutflour has described the sound moderator he gave to the police as being damaged and with a scratch on it ( see David Boutflour's trial transcript page 33 at E,F,G and H document S 12 or P--20 ) It is submitted that this infers that the sound moderator that David Boutflour describes was not the one belonging to Neville Bamber as stated by COLP ( paragraph 5.3 ) 
 

[sami]

 The relatives didn't,did they ? They happily and merrily went along with the law.

because they had no doubt jb was the killer

[buddy]

because they had no doubt jb was the killer

No Sami they wanted JB to be the killer, that is why they introduced the silencer.
The police falsely used the silencer to obtain a conviction.

[mike tesko]

The Court of appeal, nor the CCRC, have yet entertained the notion that two different identical looking silencers lay at the heart of the matter. They have only considered issues surrounding the possible use of a solitary silencer...

DS 'Stan' Jones, returned to the farmhouse mid morning, and he took possession of four 'SBJ' exhibits, including a silencer 'SBJ/1', on the 7th August, 1985. Of course, when he was interviewed by COLP in 1991, he conveniently could not remember the reason for him having returned to the farmhouse, on that first morning', nor what he had done on that occasion. Interestingly enough, non of the SOCO's on duty at the scene, remembered that 'Stan' Jones had returned to the scene when he had done. It creates an air of suspicion concerning the possibility that the find and recovery of a silencer ('SBJ/1') at the scene on that first morning, had occurred, but for one reason or another, cops decided to cover it up. One thing is absolutely true, and that is the fact that 'Stan' Jones recovered exhibits, 'SBJ/1', 'SBJ/2', 'SBJ/3', and 'SBJ/4', at the scene on the 7th August, 1985...

[Steve_uk]

No Sami they wanted JB to be the killer, that is why they introduced the silencer.
The police falsely used the silencer to obtain a conviction.

Although suspicious I believe it was too much of a risk for the relatives to take.

[lookout]

No Sami they wanted JB to be the killer, that is why they introduced the silencer.
The police falsely used the silencer to obtain a conviction.

That's more like it buddy. Right answer.

[buddy]

Although suspicious I believe it was too much of a risk for the relatives to take.

Why do you think it was a risk Steve. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.