Witheld Docs

[JackieD]

I think I'll wait to hear that from Caroline before drawing conclusions.

You carry on drawing your conclusions 24/7 because nobody takes you seriously anyway

[Caroline]

You carry on drawing your conclusions 24/7 because nobody takes you seriously anyway

Where is the post where I said I didn't ask Jeremy about The Sun?

You think people take you seriously?

[Adam]

This site does suffer when members hold their cards too close to their chest.

Mike has been open about the evidence he has had for several years - a photo of Sheila on the bed. He said a few ago that this had been passed to his legal advisors.

David created a thread over a year ago called 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & asked NGB to say it was 'well written' to create an interest. Then would not say what it was although it seems to be to do with fingerprints on the bible.

Roch's withheld piece of evidence he has seen but can't disclose apparently shows 'Sheila is definately the killer'. This must show high level forgery, corruption & framing. Otherwise it will not negate the already published mass of incriminating evidence & will be dismissed.

JackieD said she has been given new information, perhaps during her research for her 6 part documentary. But said will not disclose it on here.

[lookout]

This site does suffer when members hold their cards too close to their chest.

I wonder why,Steve ?

[Roch]

Roch's withheld piece of evidence he has seen but can't disclose apparently shows 'Sheila is definately the killer'. This must show high level forgery, corruption & framing. Otherwise it will not negate the already published mass of incriminating evidence & will be dismissed.

The mass of published 'evidence' about Jeremy isn't very high grade though is it?

He rang police saying his father had rang him - but police couldn't prove whether the call did or didn't take place...  he smirked... he dyed his hair black... he emptied a flat... his attitude was callous... he never showed any remorse... he was acting... he told Ann that him and her would be in charge of something within a relatively short period of time... he couldn't put one foot in front of the other.. he was profligate with money... he planned to sell everything... he wore make-up... he made his dad cry... he put his feet up on the desk... he said he hated his parents... he said he could easily shoot his parents... he was a druggy who bought & sold drugs... he put live rats in his mam's pockets... he was a petty criminal etc etc.... he treated a police officer with disrespect over the phone by using their surname only...

[Adam]

The mass of published 'evidence' about Jeremy isn't very high grade though is it?

He rang police saying his father had rang him - but police couldn't prove whether the call did or didn't take place...  he smirked... he dyed his hair black... he emptied a flat... his attitude was callous... he never showed any remorse... he was acting... he told Ann that him and her would be in charge of something within a relatively short period of time... he couldn't put one foot in front of the other.. he was profligate with money... he planned to sell everything... he wore make-up... he made his dad cry... he put his feet up on the desk... he said he hated his parents... he said he could easily shoot his parents... he was a druggy who bought & sold drugs... he put live rats in his mam's pockets... he was a petty criminal etc etc.... he treated a police officer with disrespect over the phone by using their surname only...

You must have missed my recent thread. Here is a percentage of the published forensic evidence. The circumstantial evidence will need a separate library -


Perfectly clean hands on Sheila.   

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila. 

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.

Well manicured nails on Sheila. 

No broken nails.

Nails in tact.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers. 

No blood on finger tips.

No dirt on finger tips.

No powder on finger tips.

No trace of any lead dust coating.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice.

Very clean feet.

Feet free from significant blood staining.

No debris such as sugar on feet.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.

Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.

Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.

Paint in silencer.

Aga scratch's.

Blood in silencer.

No blood in the rifle end.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.

Sheila's blood underneath the bible.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.

Sheila under sedation.

Easy window entrance into WHF.

Shutting kitchen window from outside. 

Murder weapon options.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.

Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left. 

Bike route to WHF.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.

June not waking/getting shot in bed.

Nevill's back burns.

2012 CCRC court judgement.

The twins not waking.

Bamber's call to the police.

Nevill's injuries 

Sheila's time limits.

No valid Sheila scenario.

[Adam]

All the 200+ published pieces of forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is 'definately the killer'.

The piece of evidence you said you have seen must show wide scale forgery, perjury & corruption with the deliberate goal being to frame Bamber.

You have never said the piece of evidence you have seen shows this.

[Roch]

You must have missed my recent thread. Here is a percentage of the published forensic evidence. The circumstantial evidence will need a separate library -


Perfectly clean hands on Sheila.   

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila. 

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.

Well manicured nails on Sheila. 

No broken nails.

Nails in tact.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers. 

No blood on finger tips.

No dirt on finger tips.

No powder on finger tips.

No trace of any lead dust coating.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice.

Very clean feet.

Feet free from significant blood staining.

No debris such as sugar on feet.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.

Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.

Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.

Paint in silencer.

Aga scratch's.

Blood in silencer.

No blood in the rifle end.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.

Sheila's blood underneath the bible.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.

Sheila under sedation.

Easy window entrance into WHF.

Shutting kitchen window from outside. 

Murder weapon options.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.

Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left. 

Bike route to WHF.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.

June not waking/getting shot in bed.

Nevill's back burns.

2012 CCRC court judgement.

The twins not waking.

Bamber's call to the police.

Nevill's injuries 

Sheila's time limits.

No valid Sheila scenario.

Pretty damning stuff eh... 

Except it's largely a load of pap, based on dodgy prosecution evidence (or misrepresented by your self).  Those boys really were desperate.  If you think Pinocchio and Gonzo have big noses - you should see the size of Ainsley's!

[Adam]

Pretty damning stuff eh... 

Except it's largely a load of pap, based on dodgy prosecution evidence (or misrepresented by your self).  Those boys really were desperate.  If you think Pinocchio and Gonzo have big noses - you should see the size of Ainsley's!

All this is published evidence. A lot agreed with or not disputed by Bamber. The exception being the silencer which Bamber started focusing on in the mid 90's.

I did create a recent thread on how the 6 week industrial scale operation to create so much false evidence was carried out, prior to the police's successful submission to the DPP. But got no answers. Feel free to give an answer. 

[Roch]

All the 200+ published pieces of forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is 'definately the killer'.

The piece of evidence you said you have seen must show wide scale forgery, perjury & corruption with the deliberate goal being to frame Bamber.

You have never said the piece of evidence you have seen shows this.

Well firstly, I cant relate to your first sentence.  I doubt many forum members can either. 

Secondly, I think I have been pretty clear regarding the implications of the evidence I saw. 

It means that the relatives and press were given the right information from the very beginning (regarding Sheila having been responsible for the killings). 

Incidentally, what the relatives should have done - was to accept* that Sheila was responsible - but question police as to whether Jeremy may have had some hand in matters - by way of assistance, foreknowledge, influence etc.

This would have allowed police to do two things. 

(1) Correctly hold Sheila as responsible (as per their original conclusions).

(2) Investigate any potential role Jeremy had - but in a far less pressurised environment.

*remember that two to three relatives did at various stages concede that she may have been responsible - including Colin

[Adam]

Well firstly, I cant relate to your first sentence.  I doubt many forum members can either. 

Secondly, I think I have been pretty clear regarding the implications of the evidence I saw. 

It means that the relatives and press were given the right information from the very beginning (regarding Sheila having been responsible for the killings). 

Incidentally, what the relatives should have done - was to accept* that Sheila was responsible - but question police as to whether Jeremy may have had some hand in matters - by way of assistance, foreknowledge, influence etc.

This would have allowed police to do two things. 

(1) Correctly hold Sheila as responsible (as per their original conclusions).

(2) Investigate any potential role Jeremy had - but in a far less pressurised environment.

*remember that two to three relatives did at various stages concede that she may have been responsible - including Colin

So how was so much forged incriminating evidence created by late September 1985 for the DPP.  A lot of it created covertly behind Taff Jone's back ?

And why after 32 years has it never been proven that any of these 200+ pieces of incriminating evidence were forged ?

[Caroline]

Pretty damning stuff eh... 

Except it's largely a load of pap, based on dodgy prosecution evidence (or misrepresented by your self).  Those boys really were desperate.  If you think Pinocchio and Gonzo have big noses - you should see the size of Ainsley's!

The CT aren't much better Roch.

[Roch]

So how was so much forged incriminating evidence created by late September 1985 for the DPP.  A lot of it created covertly behind Taff Jone's back ?

And why after 32 years has it never been proven that any of this evidence is forged ?

The case didn't go to trial until October 1986.  Police had ample time to conceal, omit, destroy, manipulate etc.  They had time to sift through statements and ditch the ones that weren't helpful 'you wont be required to give evidence on this occasion'.  They had time to prep legal  - to ask loaded questions to the prepped prosecution witnesses during the trial.

Some people on your own side don't even believe a silencer was used    Let alone a one with a label bearing case number that hadn't even yet come in to existence. 

Whether much of the case evidence is proven to be forged seems to be subjective.  It's either fishy to people or its not.  For example - if there is alleged pocket book mishandling - people either take it in to account or overlook it - depending upon their view.

[Roch]

The CT aren't much better Roch.

I think they are a bit gung-ho, slack and closed-minded, as opposed to being cautious, diligent and open- minded.  I don't think they are deliberately dishonest. 

[Caroline]

The case didn't go to trial until October 1986.  Police had ample time to conceal, omit, destroy, manipulate etc.  They had time to sift through statements and ditch the ones that weren't helpful ;you wont be required to give evidence on this occasion'.  They had time to prep legal to ask loaded questions to prepped prosecution witnesses during the trial.

Some people on your own side don't even believe a silencer was used    Let alone a one with a label bearing case number that hadn't even yet come in to existence. 

Whether much of the case evidence is proven to be forged seems to be subjective.  It's either fishy to people or its not.  For example - if there is alleged pocket book mishandling - people either take it in to account or overlook it - depending upon their view.

Any prosecution would go through statements and omit those that aren't helpful. The defence aren't benign in this process Roch and they had just as much time to prepare.

I don't believe the stuff about pocket books going missing or lofts being burgled etc.