Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackieD on October 20, 2021, 10:42:AM
-
Julie Mugford admitted trying to smother/murder Jeremy Bamber.
What does that say about her character?
I would say nearly all members here would say she sounds completely unhinged
I would say most members here would say she should never be allowed to go into a teaching career
If you are referring to me as a bamberette I am going to ask for you to be permanently banned
-
What do you think about Julie Mugfords criminal history of 13 separate cheque frauds
Would you say that makes her an expert liar
Did these separate 13 cheque frauds happen before the caravan robbery
I will remind you that the criminal age of responsibility
-
Julie Mugford admitted trying to smother/murder Jeremy Bamber.
What does that say about her character?
I would say nearly all members here would say she sounds completely unhinged
I would say most members here would say she should never be allowed to go into a teaching career
If you are referring to me as a bamberette I am going to ask for you to be permanently banned
She put a pillow over his face for a few seconds. Jeremy Bamber was not to my knowledge a defenceless quadraplegic. It says she felt let down after a courtship of nearly two years. Nobody likes to be strung along by a partner who promised marriage, then backed out. If you banned everyone from teaching who had thrown a tantrum in their past there would be nobody left, would there?
-
What do you think about Julie Mugfords criminal history of 13 separate cheque frauds
Would you say that makes her an expert liar
Did these separate 13 cheque frauds happen before the caravan robbery
I will remind you that the criminal age of responsibility
It makes me think how young she was. Didn't I read somewhere that by the age of 18 one in three people has a criminal record of some kind? I can remember during my schooldays in the 1970s how shocked we all were when one of our friends was caught shoplifting a load of chocolate bars from NSS and stuffing them into his briefcase. This kind of thing just didn't happen at grammar school. Julie was young and foolish, as was Susan Battersby. They had been led astray by Jeremy calling them goody two-shoes. One criminal day and thirteen transactions, though I'm unsure myself of the exact number.
Thank you for reminding me of the age of criminal responsibility.
-
JackieD gets carried away -
Julie tried to murder Jeremy. She also committed 13 cheque book frauds.
----------
It was one cheque book fraud.
Julie is not going to achieve a murder by putting a pillow over Bamber!
-
Julie Mugford admitted trying to smother/murder Jeremy Bamber.
What does that say about her character?
I would say nearly all members here would say she sounds completely unhinged
I would say most members here would say she should never be allowed to go into a teaching career
If you are referring to me as a bamberette I am going to ask for you to be permanently banned
What's a bamberette? Sounds like a scooter of some description?
-
What do you think about Julie Mugfords criminal history of 13 separate cheque frauds
Would you say that makes her an expert liar
Did these separate 13 cheque frauds happen before the caravan robbery
I will remind you that the criminal age of responsibility
What do you think the jury thought?
-
What's a bamberette? Sounds like a scooter of some description?
It's a supporter of Jeremy Bamber. I note lookout in the past has objected to the term. It's shorthand really for "the Jeremy supporters", though may conjure in some minds attractive American cheerleaders with their skimpy costumes swishing vinyl pom-poms.
-
It's a supporter of Jeremy Bamber. I note lookout in the past has objected to the term. It's shorthand really for "the Jeremy supporters", though may conjure in some minds attractive American cheerleaders with their skimpy costumes swishing vinyl pom-poms.
Is the term unisex?
-
Is the term unisex?
Well I thought so, though some think it refers to the female gender only. Why it should be labelled offensive I don't know.
-
It's a supporter of Jeremy Bamber. I note lookout in the past has objected to the term. It's shorthand really for "the Jeremy supporters", though may conjure in some minds attractive American cheerleaders with their skimpy costumes swishing vinyl pom-poms.
It's not the vision I have in my mind Steve ;D
-
It's not the vision I have in my mind Steve ;D
I don't think a vest would look the part with a skimpy costume.
-
She put a pillow over his face for a few seconds. Jeremy Bamber was not to my knowledge a defenceless quadraplegic. It says she felt let down after a courtship of nearly two years. Nobody likes to be strung along by a partner who promised marriage, then backed out. If you banned everyone from teaching who had thrown a tantrum in their past there would be nobody left, would there?
Your wrong again. Trying to misrepresent the situation
Her position was crystal clear she tried to smother Jeremy to prevent him ever being with another women.
It’s horrendous, dangerous, spiteful, wicked unhinged behaviour
-
It makes me think how young she was. Didn't I read somewhere that by the age of 18 one in three people has a criminal record of some kind? I can remember during my schooldays in the 1970s how shocked we all were when one of our friends was caught shoplifting a load of chocolate bars from NSS and stuffing them into his briefcase. This kind of thing just didn't happen at grammar school. Julie was young and foolish, as was Susan Battersby. They had been led astray by Jeremy calling them goody two-shoes. One criminal day and thirteen transactions, though I'm unsure myself of the exact number.
Thank you for reminding me of the age of criminal responsibility.
You are absolutely crazy!!!! You need help. You are now trying to blame Jeremy for Mugfords 13 separate cheque frauds
Please provide proof or is this something you have made up in your warped mindset
-
JackieD the trial lasted some 6 weeks I believe and it was actually about far more than Julie Mugford. You post as though this woman single-handedly sealed Bamber's fate. She didn't!
What may I ask is your obsession with this prosecution witness?
-
JackieD the trial lasted some 6 weeks I believe and it was actually about far more than Julie Mugford. You post as though this woman single-handedly sealed Bamber's fate. She didn't!
What may I ask is your obsession with this prosecution witness?
Supporters support from different angles.
JackieD supports Bamber because Julie identified the twins.
-
Oh God, here we go with the empty one-liners !
-
JackieD the trial lasted some 6 weeks I believe and it was actually about far more than Julie Mugford. You post as though this woman single-handedly sealed Bamber's fate. She didn't!
What may I ask is your obsession with this prosecution witness?
Without JM or the silencer the case would not even have gone to trial? Or am I missing something?
-
Without JM or the silencer the case would not even have gone to trial? Or am I missing something?
Julie Mugford AND the silencer are the most important pieces of evidence against Bamber, yes. But all trials involve such pieces of evidence. There's also a mountain of other less important evidence against Bamber which when taken as a whole is quite insurmountable in my opinion.
-
Supporters support from different angles.
JackieD supports Bamber because Julie identified the twins.
And then there's David with his diluted period blood theory.
A gentleman this morning who posts under user name Mike has said new evidence has emerged. I asked for evidence of the newly emerged evidence but at this moment in time nothing. :-\
-
Julie Mugford AND the silencer are the most important pieces of evidence against Bamber, yes. But all trials involve such pieces of evidence. There's also a mountain of other less important evidence against Bamber which when taken as a whole is quite insurmountable in my opinion.
I respect your opinion, actually everyone's but take away JM's evidence or the silencer and the case falls in my opinion.
Also as both the silencer and JM's testimony are shrouded in doubt hopefully you can start to see why some think this is a MOJ.
-
I respect your opinion, actually everyone's but take away JM's evidence or the silencer and the case falls in my opinion.
Also as both the silencer and JM's testimony are shrouded in doubt hopefully you can start to see why some think this is a MOJ.
Exactly Rob, indeed what would there have been ? What with JM's fantasizing and all the bluster and mix-ups with silencers nothing else in the way of hard evidence remained.
-
Of course there was always JB's dyed hair and dilated pupils that could have created quite a blockbuster of a book or media drama. Or even daring to produce a sickly grin at a funeral. There have been endless " clues " like these of ways how to trap a murderer.
-
I respect your opinion, actually everyone's but take away JM's evidence or the silencer and the case falls in my opinion.
Also as both the silencer and JM's testimony are shrouded in doubt hopefully you can start to see why some think this is a MOJ.
All criminal cases require at least 2 'slam dunks' to get to trial. In this case it is the silencer and Julie Mugford. Bamber has the right to challenge his conviction but so far he has been unsuccessful.
With respect Rob the fact you see the 'slam dunks' as shrouded in doubt doesn't mean the vast majority do and more importantly the judiciary by way of commission and appeal court.
Some still think the earth is flat, 9/11 was orchestrated by the US gov and Princess Diana was murdered. There will always be fringe elements as there in the Bamber case.
-
And then there's David with his diluted period blood theory.
A gentleman this morning who posts under user name Mike has said new evidence has emerged. I asked for evidence of the newly emerged evidence but at this moment in time nothing. :-\
The newly identified evidence, concerns the fact that exhibit reference 'DB/1', lab' item no. 23, that was submitted by Essex police to Huntingdon Lab' on the 30th August 1985, was not a silencer [afterall], but rather, it was 'a small flake of dried blood' that 'David Boutflour' claims 'to have scraped from the flat surface of a silencers metal end cap' with 'use of a razor blade', which he claims to have kept and held on to, because [in his own words] 'it fascinated him'. Well he didn't keep it (so to speak) since this became exhibit 'DB/1' (lab' item no. 23) that 'Essex police submitted to Huntingdon Lab' on the '30th August 1985' and from which 'the blood grouping evidence' obtained on the '12th', '13th', '18th' and the '19th September 1985', originated - no evidence actually existed to confirm or to establish that any blood group type [allegedly relating solely to 'Sheila'] was found inside silencer 'DRB/1'. Infact the opposite is true![if 'David Boutflours account was to be beleived, then the small dried flake of blood, was found on the outside of the silencer, not the inside of it] It turns out that' this was the method' and 'policy' by which the case against 'Jeremy Bamber' was 'fabricated' , in order to 'get a conviction' which turned out to be 'financially beneficial to relatives' who took part 'in executing the evidence' , as I have described..
-
The newly identified evidence, concerns the fact that exhibit reference 'DB/1', lab' item no. 23, that was submitted by Essex police to Huntingdon Lab' on the 30th August 1985, was not a silencer [afterall], but rather, it was 'a small flake of dried blood' that 'David Boutflour' claims 'to have scraped from the flat surface of a silencers metal end cap' with 'use of a razor blade', which he claims to have kept and held on to, because [in his own words] 'it fascinated him'. Well he didn't keep it (so to speak) since this became exhibit 'DB/1' (lab' item no. 23) that 'Essex police submitted to Huntingdon Lab' on the '30th August 1985' and from which 'the blood grouping evidence' obtained on the '12th', '13th', '18th' and the '19th September 1985', originated - no evidence actually existed to confirm or to establish that any blood group type [allegedly relating solely to 'Sheila'] was found inside silencer 'DRB/1'. Infact the opposite is true![if 'David Boutflours account was to be beleived, then the small dried flake of blood, was found on the outside of the silencer, not the inside of it] It turns out that' this was the method' and 'policy' by which the case against 'Jeremy Bamber' was 'fabricated' , in order to 'get a conviction' which turned out to be 'financially beneficial to relatives' who took part 'in executing the evidence' , as I have described..
I didn't ask what it concerns sir; I asked for evidence.
-
And then there's David with his diluted period blood theory.
A gentleman this morning who posts under user name Mike has said new evidence has emerged. I asked for evidence of the newly emerged evidence but at this moment in time nothing. :-\
Its not just my idea.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43900.html#msg43900 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43900.html#msg43900)
-
Its not just my idea.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43900.html#msg43900 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43900.html#msg43900)
Either way you're happy to perpetuate?
-
You are absolutely crazy!!!! You need help. You are now trying to blame Jeremy for Mugfords 13 separate cheque frauds
Please provide proof or is this something you have made up in your warped mindset
What a Freudian slip. You used the exact words Stan Jones said to Jeremy Bamber after the 10th September interview. The cheque book fraud is on page 192 here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.msg59875.html#msg59875
I'll let members make up their own minds as to their relevance to five murders.
-
Strange woman. At the mention of " killing the parents " JM remained staying with JB, whereas any other woman would either have got out of the relationship or at least told the police what had been said ?
Hadn't JM learned her lesson in violence when she was allegedly raped while in France, working ? Did she report that ?
-
Julie Mugford AND the silencer are the most important pieces of evidence against Bamber, yes. But all trials involve such pieces of evidence. There's also a mountain of other less important evidence against Bamber which when taken as a whole is quite insurmountable in my opinion.
The other forensic evidence is just as important.
But appreciate supporters will focus on one piece. Trying to fire fight them all will be impossible.
-
Same woman hadn't been " blinded by love " because she never loved him to start with, only the financial situation he was in. It was clearly a spiteful entry she'd made in her statements and she knew that she'd shot herself in the foot given her own past drug-dealings that she wouldn't have been allowed to work with children in this country, that her only option was to go abroad. EP must have realised that---hence the NoTW to the rescue.
" If I can't have you, nobody else can ! "
-
Having a straight forward Bamber scenario matching the crime scene evidence is also very damaging to Bamber.
Not just mine, but CAL did one.
Rob's main criticism on seeing my scenario for the first time was that it was dark outside!
-
Same woman hadn't been " blinded by love " because she never loved him to start with, only the financial situation he was in. It was clearly a spiteful entry she'd made in her statements and she knew that she'd shot herself in the foot given her own past drug-dealings that she wouldn't have been allowed to work with children in this country, that her only option was to go abroad. EP must have realised that---hence the NoTW to the rescue.
" If I can't have you, nobody else can ! "
You and JackieD are two peas in a pod! Both utterly clueless about the forensic aspects of the case so just attack the main prosecution witness.
-
I suggest the threads Question for Adam and Steve, Question for Steve and Question for Adam be merged.
-
You and JackieD are two peas in a pod! Both utterly clueless about the forensic aspects of the case so just attack the main prosecution witness.
What forensic aspect would that be ?
-
You and JackieD are two peas in a pod! Both utterly clueless about the forensic aspects of the case so just attack the main prosecution witness.
Maybe JackieD will respond to my 'Question for JackieD' thread.
Since joining the forum, she has only posted about Julie.
-
Maybe JackieD will respond to my 'Question for JackieD' thread.
Since joining the forum, she has only posted about Julie.
I think they fail to understand the strength of all the forensic evidence against Bamber.
-
I keep asking for forensic evidence but it never comes forthwith.
-
What forensic aspect would that be ?
It is the sort of question I would expect from you after nearly a decade here and tens of thousands of posts.
The silencer and lack of any injuries and debris of any type on Sheila. How's that for starters.
-
I keep asking for forensic evidence but it never comes forthwith.
Try reading the appeal court document 2002.
-
It is the sort of question I would expect from you after nearly a decade here and tens of thousands of posts.
The silencer and lack of any injuries and debris of any type on Sheila. How's that for starters.
I'm talking about JB !
-
Try reading the appeal court document 2002.
Lookout is well aware of all the forensic evidence.
She is playing ignorant again for attention.
-
I'm talking about JB !
So am I!
-
Lookout is well aware of all the forensic evidence.
She is playing ignorant again for attention.
It's not me who's ignorant. I keep asking the same question but never get a straight answer.
-
So where is all this forensic evidence that you have on JB then ?
-
So where is all this forensic evidence that you have on JB then ?
May I suggest you read the 2002 appeal court hearing. It is the most comprehensive and yet succinct case material.
-
May I suggest you read the 2002 appeal court hearing. It is the most comprehensive and yet succinct case material.
You keep saying that but it still doesn't answer my question.
-
You keep saying that but it still doesn't answer my question.
It will if you read it.
I am not going to indulge you further.
-
It's not me who's ignorant. I keep asking the same question but never get a straight answer.
Since White House Farm was Jeremy's second home the forensic evidence is pretty worthless. How can you tell in any case that a woman has lain down and shot herself or her brother ordered her to sit down and pulled the trigger himself..
-
May I suggest you read the 2002 appeal court hearing. It is the most comprehensive and yet succinct case material.
When you say appeal court hearing
Do you mean this? - http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
Or this? - https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390)
-
When you say appeal court hearing
Do you mean this? - http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
Or this? - https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390)
Do tell us what the second one is. If it could be made larger for the shortsighted member it would be appreciated.
-
Do tell us what the second one is. If it could be made larger for the shortsighted member it would be appreciated.
You'll have to invest in a magnifying glass ;D Or, use the magnifier on the laptop ?
-
When you say appeal court hearing
Do you mean this? - http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
Or this? - https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390)
The version stamped by the court!
-
The version stamped by the court!
They are both from the same court.
-
They are both from the same court.
I know but one is the finished product.
-
May I suggest you read the 2002 appeal court hearing. It is the most comprehensive and yet succinct case material.
Lookout should have read the COA. It has been online for years. Maybe over 10 years.
-
I know but one is the finished product.
The one you have read is a one sided summary for public consumption. The other is the whole oral hearing and it tells a rather different story.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156)
-
The one you have read is a one sided summary for public consumption. The other is the whole oral hearing and it tells a rather different story.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156)
Do expand.
-
I remember reading that and was horrified at the arrogant and pompous idiots with their shameful----but typical behaviour of those on the side of the majority. What chance does anyone have ?
-
JB was so patient whereas anyone else in his position wouldn't have been.
-
The one you have read is a one sided summary for public consumption. The other is the whole oral hearing and it tells a rather different story.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156)
I'm interested in what the court concluded. As William Clegg QC said 'you want to know what the prosecution are saying' as a starting point!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW6MM7dLhuY
-
I remember reading that and was horrified at the arrogant and pompous idiots with their shameful----but typical behaviour of those on the side of the majority. What chance does anyone have ?
I know Justice Kay was a prosecuting judge, not sure of the others but also during the trial Rivlin too was a prosecuting judge. You can't tell me that their work on defence cases can't be anything else but biased !
They obviously have more knowledge when prosecuting than defencing.
If it was me being defended I'd demand a judge whose prime knowledge was defending.
-
I know Justice Kay was a prosecuting judge, not sure of the others but also during the trial Rivlin too was a prosecuting judge.You can't tell me that their work on defence cases can't be anything else but biased !
They obviously have more knowledge when prosecuting than defencing.
If it was me being defended I'd demand a judge whose prime knowledge was defending.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
-
I know Justice Kay was a prosecuting judge, not sure of the others but also during the trial Rivlin too was a prosecuting judge. You can't tell me that their work on defence cases can't be anything else but biased !
They obviously have more knowledge when prosecuting than defencing.
If it was me being defended I'd demand a judge whose prime knowledge was defending.
Utterly clueless.
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/
-
I know Justice Kay was a prosecuting judge, not sure of the others but also during the trial Rivlin too was a prosecuting judge. You can't tell me that their work on defence cases can't be anything else but biased !
They obviously have more knowledge when prosecuting than defencing.
If it was me being defended I'd demand a judge whose prime knowledge was defending.
I don't believe you have learning difficulties rather you have a terrible attitude and the worst listening skills I have ever encountered in my life.
-
I don't believe you have learning difficulties rather you have a terrible attitude and the worst listening skills I have ever encountered in my life.
Can we have some moderation on this forum for this obvious troll who is more than likely the troll Matt
-
And your attitude stinks !!
At least I speak the truth as it's people like you who wouldn't know the truth if it poked you in the eye !
Once anyone here starts with their insults/ abuse I know I've hit a chord which brings out the nasty person that you are !
-
Jackie at my time of life I don't have to tolerate this ill-mannered oaf. What a nasty piece of work it is !!
-
People/Things like these CLEARLY come on this forum at very sensitive times to disrupt and stop genuine posters who want to learn more about this horrendous miscarriage of justice case
Anyone who research this case knows for a FACT this is an unsafe conviction
That is undeniable
-
Lookout these trolls know the truth about the murders is so close to coming out. So many great producers and documentary makers queuing up to rubbish the Carol Anne Lee and Louis Theroux efforts
The general public won’t be disappointed by the actual truth
-
The one you have read is a one sided summary for public consumption. The other is the whole oral hearing and it tells a rather different story.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9957.msg454156.html#msg454156)
This is just a complaint on the manner of the presiding judges. There's no evidence whatsoever contained therein.
-
Lookout these trolls know the truth about the murders is so close to coming out. So many great producers and documentary makers queuing up to rubbish the Carol Anne Lee and Louis Theroux efforts
The general public won’t be disappointed by the actual truth
Adam must be delighted that he has a cowardly side-kick like himself.
-
Adam must be delighted that he has a cowardly side-kick like himself.
At least we spotted it immediately. Thes people obviously have no lives
-
I don't believe you have learning difficulties rather you have a terrible attitude and the worst listening skills I have ever encountered in my life.
I received a PM when joining the forum. Part of it saying Lookout was dim & another (former poster) was one of the biggest Bamber defenders.
I don't believe Lookout is as dim as she makes out. Just a lazy poster who wants to deflect posts from guilters. This is through a combination of unsourced new statements which contradict sourced information & repeatedly asking the same questions.
-
May I suggest you read the 2002 appeal court hearing. It is the most comprehensive and yet succinct case material.
I have been looking through it Cc if you don't mind me saying it appears very biased and incorrect in places.
For example it talks about the lead content on the hand swabs, but makes no mention of the copper content matching the two testers loading 18 bullets into a magazine?
It also states that SC's hands were perfectly clean? but PV in his hand written notes says there was a blooded palm print on her nightdress from her right hand?
If I am missed something hopefully you can correct me?
-
I have been looking through it Cc if you don't mind me saying it appears very biased and incorrect in places.
For example it talks about the lead content on the hand swabs, but makes no mention of the copper content matching the two testers loading 18 bullets into a magazine?
It also states that SC's hands were perfectly clean? but PV in his hand written notes says there was a blooded palm print on her nightdress from her right hand?
If I am missed something hopefully you can correct me?
Well you didn't read point 50 for a start. Additionally one wonders why her nails remained intact. To shoot herself once let alone twice one might have thought she would have had to grip the rifle fairly tightly, enough to give forensics more than the one fingerprint they did find.
-
Well you didn't read point 50 for a start. Additionally one wonders why her nails remained intact. To shoot herself once let alone twice one might have thought she would have had to grip the rifle fairly tightly, enough to give forensics more than the one fingerprint they did find.
I did read this, but I expect the report to be accurate and fair, I find two errors or misleading information within two paragraphs. I know nothing about guns but have seen videos claiming a child could have used the rifle.
Talking about fingerprints on the rifle, how many cops mauled it on the day?
-
I did read this, but I expect the report to be accurate and fair, I find two errors or misleading information within two paragraphs. I know nothing about guns but have seen videos claiming a child could have used the rifle.
Talking about fingerprints on the rifle, how many cops mauled it on the day?
DI Cook wasn't wearing gloves; DC Hammersley was. Cook lifted the Anschütz using the sling fittings on the butt and under the barrel, two very narrow surfaces from which "there would have been no chance of recovering any idintifiable finger marks."
Paragraph 50 of the 2002 Appeal:
50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.
-
DI Cook wasn't wearing gloves; DC Hammersley was. Cook lifted the Anschütz using the sling fittings on the butt and under the barrel, two very narrow surfaces from which "there would have been no chance of recovering any idintifiable finger marks."
Paragraph 50 of the 2002 Appeal:
50. Following removal of the bags at the mortuary, Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. These results were compared to hand swabs taken from volunteers at the laboratory who were required to load the magazine with eighteen rounds of ammunition. Significantly higher traces of lead were found than those recorded on the hands of Mrs Caffell. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead.
Ok I agree with that, but where does it say the copper content of the swabs did match the volunteers who loaded 18 bullets into a magazine?
-
There's such a thing as washing. Sheila may have used the bathroom and would naturally have washed her hands afterwards.
-
Ok I agree with that, but where does it say the copper content of the swabs did match the volunteers who loaded 18 bullets into a magazine?
I'm not sure I follow.
-
I'm not sure I follow.
The swabs were also tested for copper, and the copper content of SC's right hand matched the copper content of the testers who had loaded 18 bullets into a magazine.
-
The swabs were also tested for copper, and the copper content of SC's right hand matched the copper content of the testers who had loaded 18 bullets into a magazine.
Is this contained in David's report with the small print I cannot read?
-
I'm not sure I follow.
Also it was mentioned at trail that lead would be removed more easily than copper, this is a guess but maybe the blood on SC's right hand had to be removed before the swab could be taken resulting in the low level of lead found?
-
Is this contained in David's report with the small print I cannot read?
I found this from a post David made, but it is in the trail statements.
-
216.
At trial, Mr Rivlin QC, who appeared for the appellant at trial, sought to counteract this evidence in two ways.
First in cross-examination of the scientist, he drew his attention to traces of other elements in the test results from the swabs, iron and copper, and queried whether these were significant.
The scientist said that they were no more than might have been obtained from the atmosphere.
He did not think the copper could have come from the bullets unless they had been scratched.
-
216.
At trial, Mr Rivlin QC, who appeared for the appellant at trial, sought to counteract this evidence in two ways.
First in cross-examination of the scientist, he drew his attention to traces of other elements in the test results from the swabs, iron and copper, and queried whether these were significant.
The scientist said that they were no more than might have been obtained from the atmosphere.
He did not think the copper could have come from the bullets unless they had been scratched.
If these results had been from swabs of JB's hands you would have been jumping up and down for joy!
-
If these results had been from swabs of JB's hands you would have been jumping up and down for joy!
Why?
-
Why?
Because it would be the only real evidence you have putting JB at the scene of the crime.
-
If these results had been from swabs of JB's hands you would have been jumping up and down for joy!
There is no joy in this case. It's not Charlie Chaplin material. Jeremy wore gloves, as confirmed in Julie's statement.
-
There is no joy in this case. It's not Charlie Chaplin material. Jeremy wore gloves, as confirmed in Julie's statement.
No fibres found----no gloves and no fingerprints.
-
No fibres found----no gloves and no fingerprints.
As Oscar Wilde stated: "The truth is rarely plain and never simple.." Julie poured her heart out to Stan Jones that September evening, the unvarnished truth warts and all, making for distressing reading in parts, but with an air of authenticity as she discoursed in the last chance saloon. She alluded to gloves and even went further, mentioning a detail which had never appeared in the mass media, namely that a glove had come off in the fight with Nevill, necessitating a wipe of the gun, which removed Sheila's fingerprints therefrom.
-
Can we have some moderation on this forum for this obvious troll who is more than likely the troll Matt
I thought you had me on ignore! I said you wouldn't have the discipline to follow through.
-
And your attitude stinks !!
At least I speak the truth as it's people like you who wouldn't know the truth if it poked you in the eye !
Once anyone here starts with their insults/ abuse I know I've hit a chord which brings out the nasty person that you are !
Why don't you try engaging your brain before you post and consider whether what your're posting is factually correct and whether you can provide supporting evidence rather than flooding the board with misinformation.
-
Jackie at my time of life I don't have to tolerate this ill-mannered oaf. What a nasty piece of work it is !!
And no one here wants the board flooded with misinformation.
-
People/Things like these CLEARLY come on this forum at very sensitive times to disrupt and stop genuine posters who want to learn more about this horrendous miscarriage of justice case
Anyone who research this case knows for a FACT this is an unsafe conviction
That is undeniable
Lets hope the review commission agrees with you!
-
Lookout these trolls know the truth about the murders is so close to coming out. So many great producers and documentary makers queuing up to rubbish the Carol Anne Lee and Louis Theroux efforts
The general public won’t be disappointed by the actual truth
Seems to me just about every player has contributed to either Lee or Theroux so who are these great producers and documentary makers going to include? JackieD and Lookout ;D
-
Seems to me just about every player has contributed to either Lee or Theroux so who are these great producers and documentary makers going to include? JackieD and Lookout ;D
JackieD said she wanted to make a 6 part documentary.
The first 5 episodes would be on Julie.
-
I received a PM when joining the forum. Part of it saying Lookout was dim & another (former poster) was one of the biggest Bamber defenders.
I don't believe Lookout is as dim as she makes out. Just a lazy poster who wants to deflect posts from guilters. This is through a combination of unsourced new statements which contradict sourced information & repeatedly asking the same questions.
I am surprised Lookout and JackieD are not part of Bamber's support group. Maybe they are and do things behind the scenes!
-
I have been looking through it Cc if you don't mind me saying it appears very biased and incorrect in places.
For example it talks about the lead content on the hand swabs, but makes no mention of the copper content matching the two testers loading 18 bullets into a magazine?
It also states that SC's hands were perfectly clean? but PV in his hand written notes says there was a blooded palm print on her nightdress from her right hand?
If I am missed something hopefully you can correct me?
Re the hand swabs the court (at trial) was told
216. At trial, Mr Rivlin QC, who appeared for the appellant at trial, sought to counteract this evidence in two ways. First in cross-examination of the scientist, he drew his attention to traces of other elements in the test results from the swabs, iron and copper, and queried whether these were significant. The scientist said that they were no more than might have been obtained from the atmosphere. He did not think the copper could have come from the bullets unless they had been scratched. The other defence approach to this evidence was the theory of ritualistic washing to which reference has earlier been made.
As I think I said in another post, the trial judge questioned the HO pathologist re his notes pertaining to blood stains on Sheila's hands. I would recommend you read his trial testimony in the library here.
-
What a pair of sad individuals you two are. Why not go back to your own forum if you don't agree with anything here, instead of disrupting this one with your snide comments ? You know your own best !!