Items which were destroyed in 1996:

[Adam]

It's been said that these items were destroyed in 1996 -


June Bamber's night dress
     
Sheila Caffell's night dress
     
Top pillow and pillow case from right hand side of bed in main bedroom
     
Bottom pillow and floral pillow case from right hand side of bed in main bedroom
     
Bible found next to Sheila Caffell
     
Ralph Bamber's pyjama top
     
Ralph Bamber's pyjama bottom
     
Daniel Caffell's pyjamas (red)
     
Nicholas Caffell's pyjamas (blue)


Supporters claim these were destroyed after ten years because EP were aware of new legislation which was coming in, which would have apparently meant they could never destroy  these. Would this evidence support either Sheila or Bamber -

Blood:

Neither Sheila or Bamber dripped any blood prior to Sheila's first shot. So neither of their blood would have dripped on anything.

There was blood on the bible. That just means Bamber may have put her hands on it after shooting her.

People also say Sheila put her nightdress on after committing the massacre and then having a shower. Which helps explain why it was not ripped or damaged at all after the kitchen fight. This would mean only her blood would be on it, but also suggests Bamber woke her after everyone else had been killed.


Finger prints:

Both Bamber and Sheila were regular visiters at WHF. So valid reasons why their fingerprints would be on everything. Bamber was not religious but said he used the bible to hit Crispy.

It would be a surprise if Bamber's finger prints were on the twins pyjamas. But he could just give an excuse why he touched them.


DNA:

Both Bamber and Sheila had previously been inside WHF.

DNA, fingerprints and blood are best used to show a suspect was at a location he claims he had never been to before. Or prove that a suspect handled a murder weapon.

DNA was in it's infancy in 1996. So unlikely the police were worrying about it.

                                        _________________

Can anyone think of any ways this evidence would have supported or hindered either suspect ?

[guest154]

I've never heard a convincing case put forward for how anything that was destroyed could have proven Bamber innocent.

[Jane]

I've never heard a convincing case put forward for how anything that was destroyed could have proven Bamber innocent.

Mat HI I don't think there is, either, but as that can't be proved, it's easy for supporters to say there was.

[guest154]

Mat HI I don't think there is, either, but as that can't be proved, it's easy for supporters to say there was.

Hi Apes!
It does annoy me that the evidence was destroyed. If Bamber had been injured in the murders and his blood left there then I see how a case could be made for his guilt.

[David1819]

It's been said that these items were destroyed in 1996 -


June Bamber's night dress
     
Sheila Caffell's night dress
     
Top pillow and pillow case from right hand side of bed in main bedroom
     
Bottom pillow and floral pillow case from right hand side of bed in main bedroom
     
Bible found next to Sheila Caffell
     
Ralph Bamber's pyjama top
     
Ralph Bamber's pyjama bottom
     
Daniel Caffell's pyjamas (red)
     
Nicholas Caffell's pyjamas (blue)


Supporters claim these were destroyed after ten years because EP were aware of new legislation which was coming in, which would have apparently meant they could never destroy  these. Would this evidence support either Sheila or Bamber -

Blood:

Neither Sheila or Bamber dripped any blood prior to Sheila's first shot. So neither of their blood would have dripped on anything.

There was blood on the bible. That just means Bamber may have put her hands on it after shooting her.

People also say Sheila put her nightdress on after committing the massacre and then having a shower. Which helps explain why it was not ripped or damaged at all after the kitchen fight. This would mean only her blood would be on it, but also suggests Bamber woke her after everyone else had been killed.


Finger prints:

Both Bamber and Sheila were regular visiters at WHF. So valid reasons why their fingerprints would be on everything. Bamber was not religious but said he used the bible to hit Crispy.

It would be a surprise if Bamber's finger prints were on the twins pyjamas. But he could just give an excuse why he touched them.


DNA:

Both Bamber and Sheila had previously been inside WHF.

DNA, fingerprints and blood are best used to show a suspect was at a location he claims he had never been to before. Or prove that a suspect handled a murder weapon.

DNA was in it's infancy in 1996. So unlikely the police were worrying about it.

                                        _________________

Can anyone think of any ways this evidence would have supported or hindered either suspect ?

you have already posted all this stuff you have made up why make a thread?

[Jane]

Hi Apes!
It does annoy me that the evidence was destroyed. If Bamber had been injured in the murders and his blood left there then I see how a case could be made for his guilt.

So to be clear, they could JUST as well have destroyed evidence that categorically proved him guilty.

[David1819]

So to be clear, they could JUST as well have destroyed evidence that categorically proved him guilty.

If the evidence was damning they would not destroy it.

[gringo]

   Then why do you imagine that both Bamber's defence and the CCRC requested them for further testing? Are their forensic experts less informed than you?
   And why were EP so keen for these items not to be tested that they were willing to not only defy the courts but to basically stick two fingers up in the process as well by destroying the evidence in question?
   The justifications being peddled here do nobody any credit and it is simply defending the indefensible. You lose all  credibility to be objective and honest debaters with your pretence that you see no wrong in EP's actions.
   

[Jane]

   Then why do you imagine that both Bamber's defence and the CCRC requested them for further testing? Are their forensic experts less informed than you?
   And why were EP so keen for these items not to be tested that they were willing to not only defy the courts but to basically stick two fingers up in the process as well by destroying the evidence in question?
   The justifications being peddled here do nobody any credit and it is simply defending the indefensible. You lose all  credibility to be objective and honest debaters with your pretence that you see no wrong in EP's actions.
 

Well, IF they were acting so unlawfully WHY was a higher authority not sent in to confiscate what was being held?

[sami]

Well, IF they were acting so unlawfully WHY was a higher authority not sent in to confiscate what was being held?

excellent point jane.and why havent any charges been brought against whoever did it jb,s team should have looked at it

[gringo]

So to be clear, they could JUST as well have destroyed evidence that categorically proved him guilty.

  Yes they could have been withholding evidence that categorically proved his guilt but  then ignored a court order to hand it over. After ignoring the court order to hand over evidence that categorically proved him guilty they could have then decided to destroy this evidence that categorically proved him guilty.
   It could have happened like that but it seems unlikely for reasons too obvious to spell out

[David1819]

Well, IF they were acting so unlawfully WHY was a higher authority not sent in to confiscate what was being held?

what "higher authority" there is none! not back then anyway

[gringo]

Well, IF they were acting so unlawfully WHY was a higher authority not sent in to confiscate what was being held?

  That's not how it works is it?
   Does your "IF" imply that you consider the possibility that they weren't acting unlawfully?

[Jane]

what "higher authority" there is none! not back then anyway

For starters, the authority that demanded the documents were handed over.

[Jane]

  That's not how it works is it?
   Does your "IF" imply that you consider the possibility that they weren't acting unlawfully?

KI don't know how it works or I wouldn't have asked the question. I'm NOT 100% convinced that they acted unlawfully but I can see they MAY have.