Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on November 26, 2021, 10:08:PM
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
August 8th:
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
-
Pity you and Sir Richard Scott weren't featured in the Theroux stich-up.
-
According to Peter Eaton Stan Jones collects the silencer from him at 7pm on the 12th? The silencer having been given to him by David Bouflour.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
Any proof of that?
Julie would just see the faces. That is all you need to identify.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
Agree with that.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
Any proof of that?
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
AE was an observant lady.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
Agree with that.
Did AE take home the bucket of water?
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
Agree with that. Or rather take your word for it.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
What did AE think the paint in the silencer was when she first saw it?
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
To frame an innocent man of 5x murder. Of his family.
You are well aware of the obstacles.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
I don't know where you get the 10 August piece from. By 12 August David Boutflour has found the silencer with blood and red paint thereon. (Dickinson Report Paragraph 261)
DS Jones collects the silencer on 12 August (Dickinson Report Paragraph 266)
-
For God's sake !!
-
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead.
-
No---you just like being seen ! Attention-seeker they're known as.
-
"empty vessels make the most noise".
-
No---you just like being seen ! Attention-seeker they're known as.
Well David created the thread.
You believe Sheila's blood fell into the silencer mid massacre when Sheila took it off.
This was obviously after the silencer scratched the aga.
-
Not sure how Sheila's blood could fall into the silencer mid massacre.
She wasn't bleeding!
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
The visit to the mortuary took place on 8th Aug at a time when the bodies would have been embalmed. Ms Mugford would only have seen the victims' faces.
Bamber said he left the rifle near the settle which was in a hall.
DS Jones collected the silencer on 12th Aug. He handed it to DI Cook on 13th Aug and it went to the lab the same day.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
At trial Ed Lawson for the defence made reference to the little known phenomenon referred to as draw-back (blood entering the silencer from a contact gunshot wound) by referring to an article by US pathologists Allen and Stephens (1983) who said at the time it was poorly understood.
Also at trial Malcolm Fletcher (HO ballistics) told the court -
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
And yet David1819 wants us to believe that Mrs Eaton, a farmer, had the wherewithal to contaminate the silencer with diluted period blood!
-
At trial Ed Lawson for the defence made reference to the little known phenomenon referred to as draw-back (blood entering the silencer from a contact gunshot wound) by referring to an article by US pathologists Allen and Stephens (1983) who said at the time it was poorly understood.
Also at trial Malcolm Fletcher (HO ballistics) told the court -
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
And yet David1819 wants us to believe that Mrs Eaton, a farmer, had the wherewithal to contaminate the silencer with diluted period blood!
Very doubtful Bamber was aware of it.
-
We have yet to know how the silencer came to have blood inside it as up to now there have only been theories about it so it's hardly worth getting excited about until we have the right answer from forensics.
-
We have yet to know how the silencer came to have blood inside it as up to now there have only been theories about it so it's hardly worth getting excited about until we have the right answer from forensics.
It has been clear since 1986 -
Back spatter from Sheila's two contact shots in areas of high blood flow.
Keep up.
-
We have yet to know how the silencer came to have blood inside it as up to now there have only been theories about it so it's hardly worth getting excited about until we have the right answer from forensics.
It was the clincher at the 1986 trial and still stands.
Sheila's contact gunshot wounds.
-
Very doubtful Bamber was aware of it.
And even more doubtful Mrs Eaton was!
-
And even more doubtful Mrs Eaton was!
Menstrual blood is made of blood, remains of an unfertilized egg, and the mucus membrane prepared by the uterus for a fertilized egg to attach to.
She was banking on the Lab not noticing or picking up on this, how was she to know what test the Lab would do and what for? She hadn’t a clue what tests the Lab would run on the blood, it was a very high risk gamble in which Ann would know that menstrual blood would differ.
-
And even more doubtful Mrs Eaton was!
That is correct. Suspect David believes AE read some books straight after the massacre.
-
Menstrual blood is made of blood, remains of an unfertilized egg, and the mucus membrane prepared by the uterus for a fertilized egg to attach to.
She was banking on the Lab not noticing or picking up on this, how was she to know what test the Lab would do and what for? She hadn’t a clue what tests the Lab would run on the blood, it was a very high risk gamble in which Ann would know that menstrual blood would differ.
Dear God! It's bad enough having to cope with one's own!! The thought of handling someone else's is nauseating beyond words!!!
-
Believe David is relying on AE already knowing what 'back spatter' is. As well as AE believing a rifle used for shooting rabbits was powerful enough to produce back spatter from a contact shot.
After that she needed to find out a lot more information. Forthwith.
-
Dear God! It's bad enough having to cope with one's own!! The thought of handling someone else's is nauseating beyond words!!!
Well she’s certainly not trying to cover herself, if she was hiding something she wouldn’t have mentioned finding the Knickers and finding the silencer in her statements.
-
Well she’s certainly not trying to cover herself, if she was hiding something she wouldn’t have mentioned finding the Knickers and finding the silencer in her statements.
That's a very good point, RJ.
-
That is correct. Suspect David believes AE read some books straight after the massacre.
They all worked their heads that's for sure.
-
Well she’s certainly not trying to cover herself, if she was hiding something she wouldn’t have mentioned finding the Knickers and finding the silencer in her statements.
The underwear was first mentioned in the housekeepers statement. And it also relates to the blood found on the kitchen window. So the officer taking the statement probably questioned her on the subject.
She testified at court that she left the nickers at white House Farm. But admitted to COLP she took them back to Oak Farm.
-
The underwear was first mentioned in the housekeepers statement. And it also relates to the blood found on the kitchen window. So the officer taking the statement probably questioned her on the subject.
She testified at court that she left the nickers at white House Farm. But admitted to COLP she took them back to Oak Farm.
How?
-
Here is another thread worth reading..
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
-
The whole point being that nobody should have ever been allowed inside the farmhouse at any time ( who'd have wanted to ? ) while investigations were continuing. Relatives or not, try and get past police when somewhere is under investigation ! Under the circumstances I'd have very much doubted if anyone would have wanted to have broken in.
-
Here is another thread worth reading..
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
This Forum had some cracking posters around that time, and Smiffy was one of them. It's worth hunting round the Forum for his posts, I think.
-
The whole point being that nobody should have ever been allowed inside the farmhouse at any time ( who'd have wanted to ? ) while investigations were continuing. Relatives or not, try and get past police when somewhere is under investigation ! Under the circumstances I'd have very much doubted if anyone would have wanted to have broken in.
They weren't.
-
This Forum had some cracking posters around that time, and Smiffy was one of them. It's worth hunting round the Forum for his posts, I think.
I've read many of Smiffy's posts. He used to get a lot of stick as well, only because he spoke sense. :o
-
It looks like David is not going to address any of the posts. Although he created the thread.
Except to say the blood in the bucket of water relates to the blood on the kitchen window sill. Then not say how.
-
And it wasn't Bamber who'd created the blood splashes on the window sill and surrounding area-----how did it get there btw ?
-
And it wasn't Bamber who'd created the blood splashes on the window sill and surrounding area-----how did it get there btw ?
Bamber did exit out of the kitchen window.
-
DS Jones collects the silencer on 12 August (Dickinson Report Paragraph 266)
He collects the second of two silencers on conflicting dates [evening of the 12th August 1985], but he had already collected a silencer from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation (7th August 1985) - both of these silencers were subsequently merged together as though they were the same items!
-
He collects the second of two silencers on conflicting dates [evening of the 12th August 1985], but he had already collected a silencer from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation (7th August 1985) - both of these silencers were subsequently merged together as though they were the same items!
No, that is from a fake statement you made up.
YOU have earned yourself a 'Permanent BAN' for this attack upon my credibility and character..
-
No, that is from a fake statement you made up.
YOU have earned yourself a 'Permanent BAN' for this attack upon my credibility and character..
?????
-
He collects the second of two silencers on conflicting dates [evening of the 12th August 1985], but he had already collected a silencer from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation (7th August 1985) - both of these silencers were subsequently merged together as though they were the same items!
Why would he have collected one on 7th Aug? Collected from where? Who did he hand it to? He wasn't a scene of crime officer and it didn't fall within his remit to go around collecting exhibits. He only spent a little time at the scene of crime and spent most of the 7th at Bamber's cottage.
-
I have not faked any witness statement or document which / that confirms, that there were / was / is official confirmation that the police, the lab' experts, and the relatives merged the existence of 'two parker hale silencers', into 'ONE' so that blood associated with / to one of them, and red paint associated with the other, came to be presented, as though the blood group evidence and the red paint particle evidence belonged to one parker hale silencer ['alone']
`DS Jones' returned to the farmhouse [his second visit to the crime scene on that first morning of the police investigation] and it was then that he seized, found, or took possession of 'Anthony Pargeters' 17 baffled parker hale silencer which originally boasted the exhibit reference of 'SBJ/1'. This particular parker hale silencer [belonging to Pargeter] was half an inch longer than the other [Bamber owned] parker hale silencer, which only had 14 internalysed baffle plates, and the length of which, in total from the end to the bottom was [only] 6 inches. There were / are significant differences internally of each parker hale silencer - the 'Pargeter silencer' [ collected by 'DS Jones' at the scene on his second attendance there, on the 7th August 1985] was purchased in 1980, by 'Anthony Pargeter. At 'this time' only 17 internal baffle plated parker hale silencers were produced by the company, and on sale to members of the public. One other feature worth noting, was that / is that this particular version of a parker hale silencer during this period (1980 - the beginning of 'November 1984'] the length of this product` was 'six and a half inches'.
In contrast, the `other parker hale silencer` which was `recovered from the crime scene` by 'David Boutflour' on the '10th August 1985', was `a newer upgraded model of the product`, it having been `redesigned internally` [at the manufacturing stage] to 'only have 14 baffle plates' and which `the total length of it`, as measured from one end to the other, being only 'six inches', long.
There exists evidence to confirm that there were / are / and is, two completely different parker hale silencers, that were `seized`, `found`, or `taken possession of`, by `two completely different persons` ['Ds Jones' and `David Boutflour'] the first of which ['SBJ/1'!] was `seized at white house farm`, on `the first morning of the police investigation` ['7th August 1985']. Whereas, `the other silencer` [`DB/1'] was `independantly recovered from the crime scene` by 'David Boutflour', `three days later`, on the '10th August 1985'. This 'particular parker hale silencer', had 'far less internal baffle plates', and 'was half an inch shorter in length` [six inches, only] as `compared` to `the other one. [`SBJ/1']..
-
I have not faked any witness statement or document which / that confirms, that there were / was / is official confirmation that the police, the lab' experts, and the relatives merged the existence of 'two parker hale silencers', into 'ONE' so that blood associated with / to one of them, and red paint associated with the other, came to be presented, as though the blood group evidence and the red paint particle evidence belonged to one parker hale silencer ['alone']
`DS Jones' returned to the farmhouse [his second visit to the crime scene on that first morning of the police investigation] and it was then that he seized, found, or took possession of 'Anthony Pargeters' 17 baffled parker hale silencer which originally boasted the exhibit reference of 'SBJ/1'. This particular parker hale silencer [belonging to Pargeter] was half an inch longer than the other [Bamber owned] parker hale silencer, which only had 14 internalysed baffle plates, and the length of which, in total from the end to the bottom was [only] 6 inches. There were / are significant differences internally of each parker hale silencer - the 'Pargeter silencer' [ collected by 'DS Jones' at the scene on his second attendance there, on the 7th August 1985] was purchased in 1980, by 'Anthony Pargeter. At 'this time' only 17 internal baffle plated parker hale silencers were produced by the company, and on sale to members of the public. One other feature worth noting, was that / is that this particular version of a parker hale silencer during this period (1980 - the beginning of 'November 1984'] the length of this product` was 'six and a half inches'.
In contrast, the `other parker hale silencer` which was `recovered from the crime scene` by 'David Boutflour' on the '10th August 1985', was `a newer upgraded model of the product`, it having been `redesigned internally` [at the manufacturing stage] to 'only have 14 baffle plates' and which `the total length of it`, as measured from one end to the other, being only 'six inches', long.
There exists evidence to confirm that there were / are / and is, two completely different parker hale silencers, that were `seized`, `found`, or `taken possession of`, by `two completely different persons` ['Ds Jones' and `David Boutflour'] the first of which ['SBJ/1'!] was `seized at white house farm`, on `the first morning of the police investigation` ['7th August 1985']. Whereas, `the other silencer` [`DB/1'] was `independantly recovered from the crime scene` by 'David Boutflour', `three days later`, on the '10th August 1985'. This 'particular parker hale silencer', had 'far less internal baffle plates', and 'was half an inch shorter in length` [six inches, only] as `compared` to `the other one. [`SBJ/1']..
Mike, what in your opinion would be the ojective of the above?
-
This Forum had some cracking posters around that time, and Smiffy was one of them. It's worth hunting round the Forum for his posts, I think.
Indeed.
-
Why would he have collected one on 7th Aug? Collected from where? Who did he hand it to? He wasn't a scene of crime officer and it didn't fall within his remit to go around collecting exhibits. He only spent a little time at the scene of crime and spent most of the 7th at Bamber's cottage.
[`YOU'] Why would he have collected one on 7th Aug?
[`ME'] because whilst at 'Jeremy Bambers' cottage [9 Head Street, Goldhanger] `Jeremy' mentioned to 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' that there existed a silencer, telescopic site, and hundreds of rounds of Eley. 22 subsonic hollow point ammunition belonging to the. 22 semi-automatic [Anshuzt make] rifle when purchased in November 1984. As a result, and whilst 'DC Clark' continued to take a witness statement from 'Jeremy' 'DS Jones' left the cottage and returned to the crime scene intent on searching for, and 'where possible', to 'find and locate' the 'said accessories spoken about' by 'Jeremy', beforehand. A 'PC' had been tasked by 'senior officers' at the scene to keep 'a log' of 'everyone entering', or 'leaving the premises'. By reference to the contents of that log, it confirms that 'DS Jones' returned to the crime scene 'at 11.15am', that particular morning. That log, also contains evidence, that upon and during his return to the crime scene, that he left and entered the farmhouse, in the company of a senior officer, both of whom did so whilst engaged in a 'Informative exercise'[ police at the scene, 'had been' and 'were in the process' of 'resetting the position of the bodies' of 'the three adult victims']. THIS came about, because of an accident, whereby 'Sheila Caffell' was 'shot' and 'killed' during a training exercise, which involved various trainee firearm officers, practicing removal of a firearm from the body of a victim who had committed suicide. During this training exercise, police engaged in this part of the operation/exercise, used at least two different. 22 calibre rifles to carry out the [.22 semi-automatic (Anshuzt) rifle`], and `the .22 bolt action ('Brno'model) rifle]. It remains 'a distinct possibility' , that 'a third. 22 air rifle' ['BSA' model] was also used to carry out this exercise. Such was the confusion at the scene from the initial entry to the accidental shooting by a firearm officer of 'Sheila Caffell' that proper safety checks did not get performed, with regards to whether or not, one or other of each of these. 22 weapons, could be, or were still loaded with at least, 'One' live round of '. 22 ammunition'...
'DS Jones' had returned to the scene, to withdraw any item of evidential value, which was possible to undermine the 'outcome' of 'the tragedy', as set or arranged by 'senior officers' at the scene. On this occasion, it is well documented that 'DS Jones' took four separate items of evidential value from the crime scene on and during his second visit on the first morning of tge police investigation into these/those five deaths..
I can expand further, if required, or necessary..
-
At trial Ed Lawson for the defence made reference to the little known phenomenon referred to as draw-back (blood entering the silencer from a contact gunshot wound) by referring to an article by US pathologists Allen and Stephens (1983) who said at the time it was poorly understood.
Also at trial Malcolm Fletcher (HO ballistics) told the court -
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
And yet David1819 wants us to believe that Mrs Eaton, a farmer, had the wherewithal to contaminate the silencer with diluted period blood!
Anyone with a pair of hands can unscrew a silencer and contaminate the baffles inside.
Moreover would you care to explain -
The muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin being contact wounds without the silencer fitted.
No trace of Nicholas Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds in an area most commonly associated with backspatter.
-
Anyone with a pair of hands can unscrew a silencer and contaminate the baffles inside.
I don't doubt that. But 'drawback aka as blowback' is a complex phenomenon where the opposite of what would ordinarily be expected occurs ie gases causing blood to travel towards the line of fire. The idea Mrs Eaton woud have such knowledge is laughable! :))
Moreover would you care to explain -
The muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin being contact wounds without the silencer fitted.
What has this got to do with the above? You're conflating two entirely different propostions: one how you believe the silencer was contaminated and two that the silencer wasn't used.
In any event the expert evidence from the defence in this regard hasn't been challenged by the prosecution.
No trace of Nicholas Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds in an area most commonly associated with backspatter.
Hair can impede flight and you also need to factor in an immature skull.
-
[`YOU'] Why would he have collected one on 7th Aug?
[`ME'] because whilst at 'Jeremy Bambers' cottage [9 Head Street, Goldhanger] `Jeremy' mentioned to 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' that there existed a silencer, telescopic site, and hundreds of rounds of Eley. 22 subsonic hollow point ammunition belonging to the. 22 semi-automatic [Anshuzt make] rifle when purchased in November 1984. As a result, and whilst 'DC Clark' continued to take a witness statement from 'Jeremy' 'DS Jones' left the cottage and returned to the crime scene intent on searching for, and 'where possible', to 'find and locate' the 'said accessories spoken about' by 'Jeremy', beforehand. A 'PC' had been tasked by 'senior officers' at the scene to keep 'a log' of 'everyone entering', or 'leaving the premises'. By reference to the contents of that log, it confirms that 'DS Jones' returned to the crime scene 'at 11.15am', that particular morning. That log, also contains evidence, that upon and during his return to the crime scene, that he left and entered the farmhouse, in the company of a senior officer, both of whom did so whilst engaged in a 'Informative exercise'[ police at the scene, 'had been' and 'were in the process' of 'resetting the position of the bodies' of 'the three adult victims']. THIS came about, because of an accident, whereby 'Sheila Caffell' was 'shot' and 'killed' during a training exercise, which involved various trainee firearm officers, practicing removal of a firearm from the body of a victim who had committed suicide. During this training exercise, police engaged in this part of the operation/exercise, used at least two different. 22 calibre rifles to carry out the [.22 semi-automatic (Anshuzt) rifle`], and `the .22 bolt action ('Brno'model) rifle]. It remains 'a distinct possibility' , that 'a third. 22 air rifle' ['BSA' model] was also used to carry out this exercise. Such was the confusion at the scene from the initial entry to the accidental shooting by a firearm officer of 'Sheila Caffell' that proper safety checks did not get performed, with regards to whether or not, one or other of each of these. 22 weapons, could be, or were still loaded with at least, 'One' live round of '. 22 ammunition'...
'DS Jones' had returned to the scene, to withdraw any item of evidential value, which was possible to undermine the 'outcome' of 'the tragedy', as set or arranged by 'senior officers' at the scene. On this occasion, it is well documented that 'DS Jones' took four separate items of evidential value from the crime scene on and during his second visit on the first morning of tge police investigation into these/those five deaths..
I can expand further, if required, or necessary..
Cheers Mike.
I don't believe Bamber initiated any conversation with anyone re the silencer/scope/sights. Mrs Eaton was in contact with Anthony Pargeter on 7th Aug and he was the first to initiate such conversations. As a result Bamber was asked to complete a second witness statement on 8th August re the silencer/scope/sights.
Why do you believe the police needed two silencers and all the rest that goes with the exhibit labels etc in order to frame Bamber? Why would one be insufficient ie the one exhibited at trial said to contain blood matching Sheila's groups and paint matching the Aga?
-
Cheers Mike.
I don't believe Bamber initiated any conversation with anyone re the silencer/scope/sights. Mrs Eaton was in contact with Anthony Pargeter on 7th Aug and he was the first to initiate such conversations. As a result Bamber was asked to complete a second witness statement on 8th August re the silencer/scope/sights.
Why do you believe the police needed two silencers and all the rest that goes with the exhibit labels etc in order to frame Bamber? Why would one be insufficient ie the one exhibited at trial said to contain blood matching Sheila's groups and paint matching the Aga?
Well, here's the thing, isn't it? Unless either/both DS Jones and DC Clarke completed witness statements which included the claim that JB had mentioned...................OR passed such information on to other parties -and why would they?- it seems we have yet another situation in which JB is the only conveyor of the information, the reliability of which may be said to be suspect.
-
Anyone with a pair of hands can unscrew a silencer and contaminate the baffles inside.
Moreover would you care to explain -
The muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin being contact wounds without the silencer fitted.
No trace of Nicholas Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds in an area most commonly associated with backspatter.
Says who. One expert who tested on pigs skin.
-
Anyone with a pair of hands can unscrew a silencer and contaminate the baffles inside.
Moreover would you care to explain -
The muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin being contact wounds without the silencer fitted.
No trace of Nicholas Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds in an area most commonly associated with backspatter.
You previously said Sheila was shot in an area of high blood flow. Which is correct. Contact shots.
Daniel & Nicholas were shot in the skull. No one has ever suggested there could be back spatter.
-
It looks like David is not going to address any of the posts. Although he created the thread.
Except to say the blood in the bucket of water relates to the blood on the kitchen window sill. Then not say how.
Still waiting.
As David kept saying to CC.
-
I don't doubt that. But 'drawback aka as blowback' is a complex phenomenon where the opposite of what would ordinarily be expected occurs ie gases causing blood to travel towards the line of fire. The idea Mrs Eaton woud have such knowledge is laughable! :))
The idea that you would need scientific knowledge to put something inside a silencer is laughable. Planting or manufacturing evidence is criminal and criminals take risks.
What has this got to do with the above? You're conflating two entirely different propostions: one how you believe the silencer was contaminated and two that the silencer wasn't used.
If the silencer was not used then the blood is a result of deliberate contamination. They are both fundamentally linked.
In any event the expert evidence from the defence in this regard hasn't been challenged by the prosecution.
I am asking you to challenge it. 8)
Hair can impede flight and you also need to factor in an immature skull.
That brings up another point as to why there is no bone fragments in the silencer also. Nicholas caffel suffered three contact wounds to the head.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
-
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead.
David has also ignored this.
-
The idea that you would need scientific knowledge to put something inside a silencer is laughable. Planting or manufacturing evidence is criminal and criminals take risks.
If the silencer was not used then the blood is a result of deliberate contamination. They are both fundamentally linked.
I am asking you to challenge it. 8)
That brings up another point as to why there is no bone fragments in the silencer also. Nicholas caffel suffered three contact wounds to the head.
[i]"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
[/i]"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
Did they use a rifle for shooting rabbits?
-
Must be a pretty powerful weapon to get through all the fat & muscle on a pig to bring up bone fragments.
Not sure what that has got to do with a rifle used for shooting rabbits. Nevill needing 8 shots.
-
For God's sake !!
Ridiculous isn't it? There have been talks lately about starting another forum because of this. That way NGB can have Adam all to himself. :))
-
Why is David ignoring queries to his 'sequence of events' thread post?
He can't just pretend they don't exist.
-
In this thread I have responded to David's posts in replies -
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
28
33
39
54
55
56
58
59
----------
If he believes AE fabricated the silencer, he must have answers. Preferably with sources to back it up.
Just posting his sequence & then saying 'that's it' just suggests he's on a wind up. It's no secret he was a hardcore guilter.
-
Why is David ignoring queries to his 'sequence of events' thread post?
He can't just pretend they don't exist.
I will only answer valid queries. Not trolling masquerading as queries.
-
I will only answer valid queries. Not trolling masquerading as queries.
David you must stop being a prat.
You can't post something, then ignore questions. That is called lying.
-
In this thread I have responded to David's posts in replies -
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
28
33
39
54
55
56
58
59
----------
If he believes AE fabricated the silencer, he must have answers. Preferably with sources to back it up.
Just posting his sequence & then saying 'that's it' just suggests he's on a wind up. It's no secret he was a hardcore guilter.
The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
Done
-
David you must stop being a prat.
You can't post something, then ignore questions. That is called lying.
Of course the rest of the forum is entitled to answer my queries to David's posts.
However he is the only crank making them so no one else has responded.
Even David refuses to answer questions to his own 'sequence of events'!
-
Must be a pretty powerful weapon to get through all the fat & muscle on a pig to bring up bone fragments.
Not sure what that has got to do with a rifle used for shooting rabbits. Nevill needing 8 shots.
What fat and muscle? The pigs were shot in the head.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
-
What fat and muscle? The pigs were shot in the head.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
My error.
Well done for responding to one of my posts to your 'sequence' thread post. Only another 16 left.
What rifle was used on the pigs?
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
August 8th:
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
At the moment I have posted 37 obstacles to this 'sequence of events'. On this thread.
One of my posts had more than one obstacle.
Obviously David needs to adequately address these. It is his long term belief that AE fabricated the silencer without police assistance.
-
Strange how Adam seems so concerned about the relatives contaminating the silencer when he claims there are 70 other pieces of
evidence bullshit out there. What's the problem if just one piece is planted?
::) 8)
-
Strange how Adam seems so concerned about the relatives contaminating the silencer when he claims there are 70 other pieces of evidence bullshit out there. What's the problem if just one piece is planted?
::) 8)
Yes there are 74 pieces of forensic evidence. Most taken from the court of appeal.
Your one piece - AE fabricated the silencer. Although you can't address any of the 37 obstacles.
Bring back Trudie & her cake baking.
-
David does not trust the legal system. He does not accept evidence in the COA.
A pity he creates a thread regarding his long term view. Then refuses to answer questions!
-
Its also worth pointing out that majority of Adam "questions" I have already answered and corrected him on in the past. But as per usual Adam just pretends it never happens and asks the same questions over and over again. I am sure QC will agree with me.
-
Its also worth pointing out that majority of Adam "questions" I have already answered and corrected him on in the past. But as per usual Adam just pretends it never happens and asks the same questions over and over again. I am sure QC will agree with me.
No you haven't. Don't lie.
37 questions not answred. To David's own thread.
AE really fabricated the silencer using a bucket of diluted period blood.
-
Its also worth pointing out that majority of Adam "questions" I have already answered and corrected him on in the past. But as per usual Adam just pretends it never happens and asks the same questions over and over again. I am sure QC will agree with me.
Anyway, you would have to answer them again.
It's your thread.
-
No you haven't. Don't lie.
37 questions not answred. To David's own thread.
AE really fabricated the silencer using a bucket of diluted period blood.
And here is your answer -
The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
David's a top-end poster on the case imo. I'm sure the likes of RJ would agree with that assessment Adam.
If MindHouse had interviewed David about Mugford's testimony and interviewed Bill on Ainsley's actions, I think that would be enough to cancel out the propaganda and swing public opinion to 50/50 at the very least. Possibly even put the defence in credit.
Anyway, sorry .. just passing through.
-
David's a top-end poster on the case imo. I'm sure the likes of RJ would agree with that assessment Adam.
If MindHouse had interviewed David about Mugford's testimony and interviewed Bill on Ainsley's actions, I think that would be enough to cancel out the propaganda and swing public opinion to 50/50 at the very least. Possibly even put the defence in credit.
Anyway, sorry .. just passing through.
What about David not responding to 37 obstacles. On his own thread post!
I did ask in a polite way. All in the thread.
He's had a long term view that AE fabricated the silencer. Then created a 'sequence of events'. Then refuses to address 37 obstacles.
When I create a thread I answer all posts.
-
I suspect David thought his 'sequence of events' was watertight. And that would be it.
He was not expecting to have to defend it or 37 obstacles to address. Of which he had no answers.
He intially tried to stone wall by not responding. Now he is just copying and pasting.
-
I suspect David thought his 'sequence of events' was watertight. And that would be it.
He was not expecting to have to defend it or 37 obstacles to address. Of which he had no answers.
He intially tried to stone wall by not responding. Now he is just copying and pasting.
Anyway David's really convinced everyone AE fabricated the silencer.
-
David's a top-end poster on the case imo. I'm sure the likes of RJ would agree with that assessment Adam.
If MindHouse had interviewed David about Mugford's testimony and interviewed Bill on Ainsley's actions, I think that would be enough to cancel out the propaganda and swing public opinion to 50/50 at the very least. Possibly even put the defence in credit.
Anyway, sorry .. just passing through.
Very much appreciated
-
Any proof of that?
Julie would just see the faces. That is all you need to identify.
My first response to David's thread post. After he posted -
'Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.'
----------
No response.
-
Any proof of that?
Second response. After David posted -
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
----------
No response.
-
Anyway. All 37 questions in the thread.
David was so chuffed he had created his own 'sequence of events' he didn't even write anything in red.
Silly matters such as questions from other posters on it should be ignored.
-
Why is Adam so worked up about this subject? I thought the silencer was just 1 of 70 "pieces of evidence"?
He has 69 other pieces. Therefore he can join Steve_uk, Paul Harrison and Caroline in being guilters who accept the silencer is a fabrication.
-
Why is Adam so worked up about this subject? I thought the silencer was just 1 of 70 "pieces of evidence"?
He has 69 other pieces. Therefore he can join Steve_uk, Paul Harrison and Caroline in being guilters who accept the silencer is a fabrication.
You created the thread. So I was asking questions on your 'sequence of events'. As I would do on other threads from other posters.
Rob always asks me questions on my threads. Which I always answer.
Bit weird creating a thread. Then ignoring questions.
-
You created the thread. So I was asking questions on your 'sequence of events'. As I would do on other threads from other posters.
Rob always asks me questions on my threads. Which I always answer.
Bit weird creating a thread. Then ignoring questions.
That is different, Rob asks a few reasonable questions. You compile a flood of individually-weak, fallacious and loaded questions so long that is unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer. You deliberately do this so nobody answers you, allowing you claim victory, but everyone can see it for what it is.
"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
Ask questions properly and you will get answers.
-
That is different, Rob asks a few reasonable questions. You compile a flood of individually-weak, fallacious and loaded questions so long that is unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer. You deliberately do this so nobody answers you, allowing you claim victory, but everyone can see it for what it is.
"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
Ask questions properly and you will get answers.
There you go again. Refusing to answer questions. On your own scenario!
-
There you go again. Refusing to answer questions. On your own scenario!
Exactly how the Gish Gallop works. ;D
-
David didn't complain on this thread when I first asked questions.
He just didn't answer as he had no answer. Then hoped I would not chase him up.
When I did chase him up he still refused.
Not to worry. It's only 37 obstacles to his AE scenario he probably spent days trying to work out.
-
Exactly how the Gish Gallop works. ;D
How to debate the case like Adam.
Make a list of bullshit so long its not reasonable for anyone to answer it. Claim victory when nobody answers it (as intended). Should someone answer - copy and paste the list again pretending nobody answered it. :))
-
AE must be really worried.
David has his scenario. And it only has 37 holes.
-
AE must be really worried.
David has his scenario. And it only has 37 holes.
She can sleep well at night after reading your "37 holes" I am sure. ::)
-
How to debate the case like Adam.
Make a list of bullshit so long its not reasonable for anyone to answer it. Claim victory when nobody answers it (as intended). Should someone answer - copy and paste the list again pretending nobody answered it. :))
Yes no other supporters answered.
So it was down to you. To support your own scenario!
You should do what the OS does. Create a Youtube video. Then switch off the 'comments' section.
-
Its a pity Adam only recently found these "37 holes". Ten years ago AE could have sued the hell out of the Telegraph, The producers of Behind Mansion Walls, CTSB and Peter Sutherhurst for libel thanks to those "37 holes".
Slamdunk! ::) ::)
-
Any reasonable questions about my scenario will be answered. Trolling will either be called out for what it is or ignored.
-
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
----------
How would Julie know about Nevill's injuries. She would just see the faces.
-
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
---------
Any proof of that?
-
While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
----------
Any proof of that?
-
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this.
---------
I assume these are in AE's & DB's WS's.
-
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
----------
How would Julie know about Nevill's injuries. She would just see the faces.
Nevills face is mentioned in her notes. Along with what DC Clarke told her, that's all she needed to know iy order to make it look like the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
-
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead.
David can also address these obstacles AE would have.
Twenty eighth request.
-
The underwear was first mentioned in the housekeepers statement. And it also relates to the blood found on the kitchen.
----------
How?
-
The muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin being contact wounds without the silencer fitted.
----------
Says who? Obviously not the trial experts.
-
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this.
---------
I assume these are in AE's & DB's WS's.
Court testimony -
Q. When you took the box which contained the silencer out of the gun cupboard, whichever that box may have been, is it right you actually looked at the silencer then and there?
A. I looked at the silencer then and there, but did not come to any conclusion until a latter date, because I looked at the silencer at a latter date at my sister’s home.
Q. Where did you look at it when you were in White House Farm? In which room where you when you looked at it?
A. I looked at it in the confines of the office in the den.
Q. Is this right: Did you see anything of significance at the time in the den on the silencer?
A. I cannot remember whether I noticed the fact it had the red paint on it and the undermentioned spot of blood at the time of inspecting it in the office, or on further investigation at my sister’s house. The notability of the damage to the silencer, i.e. the protective coating to the silencer.
Q. So you have no memory of noticing anything significant on the silencer at White House Farm?
A. I have the memory of noticing the damage to the silencer, but not the spot of blood.
Q. Not blood and not red paint?
A. I cannot recollect so far back now, sorry.
-
Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to the head.
----------
Did they use a rifle for shooting rabbits?
-
Any reasonable questions about my scenario will be answered. Trolling will either be called out for what it is or ignored.
Your patience is off the scale
-
Your patience is off the scale
All David has to do is answer questions. To his own thread!
Preferably with sources.
-
Court testimony -
Q. When you took the box which contained the silencer out of the gun cupboard, whichever that box may have been, is it right you actually looked at the silencer then and there?
A. I looked at the silencer then and there, but did not come to any conclusion until a latter date, because I looked at the silencer at a latter date at my sister’s home.
Q. Where did you look at it when you were in White House Farm? In which room where you when you looked at it?
A. I looked at it in the confines of the office in the den.
Q. Is this right: Did you see anything of significance at the time in the den on the silencer?
A. I cannot remember whether I noticed the fact it had the red paint on it and the undermentioned spot of blood at the time of inspecting it in the office, or on further investigation at my sister’s house. The notability of the damage to the silencer, i.e. the protective coating to the silencer.
Q. So you have no memory of noticing anything significant on the silencer at White House Farm?
A. I have the memory of noticing the damage to the silencer, but not the spot of blood.
Q. Not blood and not red paint?
A. I cannot recollect so far back now, sorry.
Thank you and well done.
-
Thank you and well done.
Now read DB's statement dated 12-09-85 Adam
-
The idea that you would need scientific knowledge to put something inside a silencer is laughable. Planting or manufacturing evidence is criminal and criminals take risks.
Planting blood on the outside is one thing but opening it up and putting it in as far as the 8th baffle quite something else! If the scientists didn't even think to open it up on the first occasion (13th Aug) what on earth makes you think Mrs Eaton would have the wherewithal to do so in order to plant blood, diluted period blood at that, as far in as the 8th baffle! And if she did don't you think she would be saying something like 'Oooo it seems to extend into that little hole I think you had better open it up and have a look inside'!!!!!! But no it was another month before the scientists decided to open it up and look inside!
Mrs Eaton has no history of criminality.
If the silencer was not used then the blood is a result of deliberate contamination. They are both fundamentally linked.
If being the operative word!
I am asking you to challenge it. 8)
I have.
That brings up another point as to why there is no bone fragments in the silencer also. Nicholas caffel suffered three contact wounds to the head.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
It depends on many factors. Wound site and muzzle velocity being two. In this case the wound site was wrong for bone fragments and the muzzle velocity too low.
-
Now read DB's statement dated 12-09-85 Adam
What are you implying?
-
What are you implying?
Well in his statement dated 12-09-85 DB says he saw blood and paint on the silencer at WHF???
-
Well in his statement dated 12-09-85 DB says he saw blood and paint on the silencer at WHF???
Bamber was unable to recall whether he called the police before Julie or vice versa. Its called forgetting or getting muddled!
-
Bamber was unable to recall whether he called the police before Julie or vice versa. Its called forgetting or getting muddled!
Sorry I don't accept this, you can believe what you want though that's up to you.
-
Sorry I don't accept this, you can believe what you want though that's up to you.
Neither do I. I wonder if QT thinks all this was a muddle up also
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459000.html#msg459000 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459000.html#msg459000)
;D
-
Planting blood on the outside is one thing but opening it up and putting it in as far as the 8th baffle quite something else! If the scientists didn't even think to open it up on the first occasion (13th Aug) what on earth makes you think Mrs Eaton would have the wherewithal to do so in order to plant blood, diluted period blood at that, as far in as the 8th baffle! And if she did don't you think she would be saying something like 'Oooo it seems to extend into that little hole I think you had better open it up and have a look inside'!!!!!! But no it was another month before the scientists decided to open it up and look inside!
Mrs Eaton has no history of criminality.
None of this precludes deliberate contamination.
I have.
Where?
It depends on many factors. Wound site and muzzle velocity being two. In this case the wound site was wrong for bone fragments and the muzzle velocity too low.
Source?
-
Neither do I. I wonder if QT thinks all this was a muddle up also
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459000.html#msg459000 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459000.html#msg459000)
;D
Just goes to show how desperate the relatives were to get a conviction.
-
Neither do I. I wonder if QT thinks all this was a muddle up also
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459000.html#msg459000 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10038.msg459000.html#msg459000)
;D
This is typical of your posts: a denial then change the subject. Please read Roger Wilkes Blood Relations Chapter Twenty. It's quite clear that Jeremy Bamber is being deliberately obfuscatory under interrogation. Cambridgecutie is quite correct.
-
Bamber was unable to recall whether he called the police before Julie or vice versa. Its called forgetting or getting muddled!
The 'absolute truth' relevant to this issue, was that 'Jeremy' attempted to make contact via a telephone call to 'Witham police station' in between the call from his father (before 3.26am) and his call to 'julie Mugford' (3.30am). 'He' then made a telephone call to 'Chelmsford police station' at the time, '3. 36am'..
It therefore, impacts upon whether or not, 'Jeremy' contacted the police 'BEFORE' or [and] 'AFTER' his telephone call to 'Julie Mugford' at '3.30am'..
His attempt to contact 'Witham police station' prior to his call to his girlfriend 'Julie Mugford' at '3.30am' depends upon whether or not, it 'qualifies' as being 'Jeremys' calls that 'He had made to the police'..
In my view, 'Jeremy' made 'two telephone calls to police', [ the first of which took place between 3.26am and '3.30am - and 'a second call to police' after 'he successfully' contacted 'Julie Mugford' at '3. 30am']...
-
Just goes to show how desperate the relatives were to get a conviction.
Yup.
-
The 'absolute truth' relevant to this issue, was that 'Jeremy' attempted to make contact via a telephone call to 'Witham police station' in between the call from his father (before 3.26am) and his call to 'julie Mugford' (3.30am). 'He' then made a telephone call to 'Chelmsford police station' at the time, '3. 36am'..
It therefore, impacts upon whether or not, 'Jeremy' contacted the police 'BEFORE' or [and] 'AFTER' his telephone call to 'Julie Mugford' at '3.30am'..
His attempt to contact 'Witham police station' prior to his call to his girlfriend 'Julie Mugford' at '3.30am' depends upon whether or not, it 'qualifies' as being 'Jeremys' calls that 'He had made to the police'..
In my view, 'Jeremy' made 'two telephone calls to police', [ the first of which took place between 3.26am and '3.30am - and 'a second call to police' after 'he successfully' contacted 'Julie Mugford' at '3. 30am']...
In which case why leave one of them out of his 7th Aug witness statement?
-
Just goes to show how desperate the relatives were to get a conviction.
And for unfathomable reasons it goes to show how desperate you and David are to get an acquittal!!!!!
-
None of this precludes deliberate contamination.
The justice system works on what's more or less probable not flights of fantasy!!!!!
Where?
Everywhere!!!!!
Source?
Numerous excerpts to forensic textbooks online refer to draw-back aka blowback being dependent on various factors eg wound site, calibre of firearm, bullet velocity. I think you are conflating two different phenomenons: backspatter which is blood for a non-contact gunshot wound travelling back against the line of fire and depositing within the environment and draw-bck aka blowback which is blood from a contact gunshot wound travelling back against the line of fire and depositing within the firearm's barrel or silencer if attached.
-
In which case why leave one of them out of his 7th Aug witness statement?
He wasn't questioned at the time he made his first witness statement that was taken by 'DC Clark' on the 7th August 1985, regarding how many times [his attempt to contact police at Witham police station] after 3.26am, and prior to him calling 'Julie Mugford' [3.30am] he 'tried' to contact the police earlier that morning. Furthermore, he only got through [3.36am, onwards] and `spoke to a police officer` on `the second occasion` that 'he attempted to contact them'. When I was serving a prison sentence at 'HMP FULL SUTTON' [1989/1990] 'I' spent a lot of time talking to 'Jeremy' about his arrests, prosecution, and how his trial had been conducted. These conversations that we had stretched out over a long period of time, and of course many different occasions. 'Him' and 'Me' were next door to one another on 'B Wing'. There were only four wings during the period 'I' spent time in custody there [`A', 'B', 'C' and 'D']. LATER ON, two more wings,['E' and 'F' were constructed some time after my release from custody awaiting appeal ['26th July 1990'] as a result of the 'Greater Manchester police enquiry into what 'South Yorkshire police' got up to, in 'my arrest', 'prosecution' and 'convictions' [what Greater Manchester police uncovered during their investigation in complaints made by me, also impacted, on other cases, including 'the Hillsborough disaster' [1989] - the 'fabrication of witness statement' contents, and 'faked entries' in 'police notebooks' which had not been issued to police officers at the time that many of them entered handwritten accounts, into notebooks which were relied upon during my trial [as though they had been in possession of such notebooks at the time of an incident ['Sunday' the '25th January 1987'] after which 'the lot of them' claimed that they had 'made up' [`OH', 'YEAH'] their entries in notebooks, on the evening of the incident they were referring to [25th January 1987] when all along, 'these' /'those' handwritten notes, were recorded by them all, 'additionally', 'obtained notebooks' that 'a senior police officer' had (dishonestly) 'issued to them' much later on. The police at time /in 'that era' commonly falsified evidence' so that they could hopefully convict innocent people of crimes which maybe 'they had not actually committed'!
-
He wasn't questioned at the time he made his first witness statement that was taken by 'DC Clark' on the 7th August 1985, regarding how many times [his attempt to contact police at Witham police station] after 3.26am, and prior to him calling 'Julie Mugford' [3.30am] he 'tried' to contact the police earlier that morning. Furthermore, he only got through [3.36am, onwards] and `spoke to a police officer` on `the second occasion` that 'he attempted to contact them'. When I was serving a prison sentence at 'HMP FULL SUTTON' [1989/1990] 'I' spent a lot of time talking to 'Jeremy' about his arrests, prosecution, and how his trial had been conducted. These conversations that we had stretched out over a long period of time, and of course many different occasions. 'Him' and 'Me' were next door to one another on 'B Wing'. There were only four wings during the period 'I' spent time in custody there [`A', 'B', 'C' and 'D']. LATER ON, two more wings,['E' and 'F' were constructed some time after my release from custody awaiting appeal ['26th July 1990'] as a result of the 'Greater Manchester police enquiry into what 'South Yorkshire police' got up to, in 'my arrest', 'prosecution' and 'convictions' [what Greater Manchester police uncovered during their investigation in complaints made by me, also impacted, on other cases, including 'the Hillsborough disaster' [1989] - the 'fabrication of witness statement' contents, and 'faked entries' in 'police notebooks' which had not been issued to police officers at the time that many of them entered handwritten accounts, into notebooks which were relied upon during my trial [as though they had been in possession of such notebooks at the time of an incident ['Sunday' the '25th January 1987'] after which 'the lot of them' claimed that they had 'made up' [`Ho', 'YEAH'] their entries in notebooks, on the evening of the incident they were referring to [25th January 1987] when all along, 'these' /'those' handwritten notes, were recorded by them all, 'additionally', 'obtained notebooks' that 'a senior police officer' had (dishonestly) 'issued to them' much later on. The police at time /in 'that era' commonly falsified evidence' so that they could hopefully convict innocent people of crimes which maybe 'they had not actually committed'!
I know he wasn't questioned but he gave a very detailed account of events leading up to the claimed phone call from his father and detailed events thereafter. No reason for him to leave a second phone call out. And certainly no reason for him to leave out such a phone call when he was interviewed under question in September about the phone calls.
-
I don't doubt that. But 'drawback aka as blowback' is a complex phenomenon where the opposite of what would ordinarily be expected occurs ie gases causing blood to travel towards the line of fire. The idea Mrs Eaton woud have such knowledge is laughable! :))
What has this got to do with the above? You're conflating two entirely different propostions: one how you believe the silencer was contaminated and two that the silencer wasn't used.
In any event the expert evidence from the defence in this regard hasn't been challenged by the prosecution.
Hair can impede flight and you also need to factor in an immature skull.
This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family. It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue. Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.
I am non-committal on the matter. I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted. Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.
I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator. If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy. But I am not saying they did this, or anything. I don't know! I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.
The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:
(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.
Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:
(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia? For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation. The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.
Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk. But as David observes, criminals do take risks.
Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:
In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be. They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer. They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy. Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable. That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.
Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection. First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it? Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's? The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it. Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it. It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila. The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:
- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.
Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters. You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood. Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:
(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.
You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose. It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type. I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:
- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.
There are two possibilities:
Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family. The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.
Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.
One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial. Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.
As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found. Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer. The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers. Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.
Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case. I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.
I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.
-
Everywhere!!!!!
Nowhere have you refuted the ballistic evidence produced in 2011/12. If you have please provide a link
Numerous excerpts to forensic textbooks online refer to draw-back aka blowback being dependent on various factors eg wound site, calibre of firearm, bullet velocity. I think you are conflating two different phenomenons: backspatter which is blood for a non-contact gunshot wound travelling back against the line of fire and depositing within the environment and draw-bck aka blowback which is blood from a contact gunshot wound travelling back against the line of fire and depositing within the firearm's barrel or silencer if attached.
You claimed that "the wound site was wrong for bone fragments". You could only have got that from forensic literature so can you please provide the source?
-
This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family. It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue. Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.
I am non-committal on the matter. I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted. Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.
I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator. If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy. But I am not saying they did this, or anything. I don't know! I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.
The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:
(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.
Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:
(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia? For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation. The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.
Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk. But as David observes, criminals do take risks.
Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:
In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be. They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer. They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy. Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable. That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.
Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection. First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it? Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's? The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it. Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it. It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila. The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:
- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.
Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters. You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood. Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:
(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.
You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose. It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type. I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:
- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.
There are two possibilities:
Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family. The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.
Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.
One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial. Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.
As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found. Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer. The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers. Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.
Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case. I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.
I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.
The relatives "discovered" the blood on the silencer on three days after the deaths. The problem there is after three days the blood would have dried flat and black. It would have been indistinguishable from any another black substance ie. soot. This raises two issues, how did they know it was blood without any testing apparatus and how could it appear like a "blob of jam" like Ann Eaton described it? The answer for me is rather straightforward.
-
Nowhere have you refuted the ballistic evidence produced in 2011/12. If you have please provide a link
Why are you so concerned with the opinion of a layperson? The ballistic evidence hasn't been challenged by the prosecution because it in no way undermined the overall evidence (silencer/blood) and the review commission isn't in the business of wasting taxpayers' money.
You claimed that "the wound site was wrong for bone fragments". You could only have got that from forensic literature so can you please provide the source?
Are you talking about Sheila or Nicholas? Sheila's wound site was wrong for bone fragments and Nicholas' skull was immature and protected by hair.
-
And for unfathomable reasons it goes to show how desperate you and David are to get an acquittal!!!!!
No I totally look at the case as unbiased as I can unlike you. Someone sees blood / paint on the main exhibit at WHF farm and does not point this out the to others present???
Then latter claims to see the paint / blood at his sisters house ???
It was planted no one would have put the silencer in the cupboard not Sheila not JB.
-
Why are you so concerned with the opinion of a layperson? The ballistic evidence hasn't been challenged by the prosecution because it in no way undermined the overall evidence (silencer/blood) and the review commission isn't in the business of wasting taxpayers' money.
You claim you have already refuted this, so just post the link, its not difficult?
Are you talking about Sheila or Nicholas? Sheila's wound site was wrong for bone fragments and Nicholas' skull was immature and protected by hair.
For the 3rd time what forensic literature are you going by? If you are not going to provide it I will make the reasonable assumption you have made this up.
PS: Nicholas Cafell was shot on the cheek bone and above the eyebrow thus those shots were not "protected by hair" ::)
-
No I totally look at the case as unbiased as I can unlike you. Someone sees blood / paint on the main exhibit at WHF farm and does not point this out the to others present???
Then latter claims to see the paint / blood at his sisters house ???
It was planted no one would have put the silencer in the cupboard not Sheila not JB.
But what about Adams "37 holes"? ::) Did they not convince you otherwise? ;D
-
But what about Adams "37 holes"? ::) Did they not convince you otherwise? ;D
No :)) not at all David.
-
You claim you have already refuted this, so just post the link, its not difficult?
Why do I need to refute the abrasion rings when the review commission didn't even bother? There's no need to refute the abrasion rings because it doesn't explain the blood or scratches? One expert wil give one opinion and one another. This can be evidenced by the burns expert in US saying the marks on Mr Bamber's back were burns caused by the heating of the rifle barrel. And yet at trial Prof Knight, defence pathologist, did not even think they were burns let alone caused by the heating of the rifle barrel!
For the 3rd time what forensic literature are you going by? If you are not going to provide it I will make the reasonable assumption you have made this up.
PS: Nicholas Cafell was shot on the cheek bone and above the eyebrow thus those shots were not "protected by hair" ::)
What literature are you going by? If you are not going to provide it I will make the reasonable assumption you have made this up.
I will concede I got mixed up over the twins and the different wounds they suffered.
-
Why do I need to refute the abrasion rings when the review commission didn't even bother?
According to you, you already have "everywhere!!". So just post the link ::)
-
What literature are you going by? If you are not going to provide it I will make the reasonable assumption you have made this up.
Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
8)
-
Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
8)
Of course that tells me everything I need to know? ::) Post up the link or shut up!
You have quoted VDM in the past, I've read your back posts, re blood found inside firearms. It happens a % of the time not all the time. My view is a person's physiology plays a part which means every case will be different and can't be generalised.
In any event Ed Lawson challenged Malcolm Fletcher on all of this at trial.
-
Besides blood in the silencer I haven't heard tell of any other fragments----bone/ tissue etc. It didn't appear to be mentioned in any of the reports, unless I've missed it.
-
Besides blood in the silencer I haven't heard tell of any other fragments----bone/ tissue etc. It didn't appear to be mentioned in any of the reports, unless I've missed it.
No you didn't miss it, which makes a refreshing change, so you're obviously improving which can only be a good thing.
Nothing was found other than blood.
-
No you didn't miss it, which makes a refreshing change, so you're obviously improving which can only be a good thing.
Nothing was found other than blood.
Thank the Lord for that.
-
No :)) not at all David.
I didn't think so. Good thing I never read them in the first place.
-
Besides blood in the silencer I haven't heard tell of any other fragments----bone/ tissue etc. It didn't appear to be mentioned in any of the reports, unless I've missed it.
Yes, this is another suspicious factor.
-
And here is 22 of those holes. Which you have been addressed.
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead
-
And here is 22 of those holes. Which have not been addressed.
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead
Thanks Adam. I nearly fell for what smooth-tongued David was saying there. It's lucky you're here to put me on the right track. I just wish I'd taken your advice and not turned up at the demo in my surfing gear. How was I supposed to know you can't surf along Tollesbury Road? Anyway, these things are sent to try us!
-
Yes, this is another suspicious factor.
Is it? What would you expect to find? Fibres from the wringing out of the diluted period blood stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water?
-
David is being very optimistic about no bone fragments in the silencer. Even the Campaign for Freedom has never made this suggestion since forming in 1986.
But David has a source saying there were bone fragments from pigs heads! Although did not say what gun was used.
-
Besides blood in the silencer I haven't heard tell of any other fragments----bone/ tissue etc. It didn't appear to be mentioned in any of the reports, unless I've missed it.
You are not mistaken.
-
David is being very optimistic about no bone fragments in the silencer. Even the Campaign for Freedom has never made this suggestion since forming in 1986.
But David has a source saying there were bone fragments from pigs heads! Although did not say what gun was used.
Did it form in 1986?
-
Did it form in 1986?
Believe in the 80's the 'Campaign for Freedom' was Jeremy & Mike.
-
Believe in the 80's the 'Campaign for Freedom' was Jeremy & Mike.
I was just thinking about the current support group which I think formed much later.
I was watching a prog the other eve about the Cardiff 3. Just reinforces the view that if Bamber was innocent his conviction would have been overturned by now especially given all the support he has.
-
I was just thinking about the current support group which I think formed much later.
I was watching a prog the other eve about the Cardiff 3. Just reinforces the view that if Bamber was innocent his conviction would have been overturned by now especially given all the support he has.
Assume the CT formed after the internet.
-
Good that David is able to answer the holes in his AE fabricating the silencer time sequence.
-
One of the points in Adams gish gallop is that the relatives must know
"Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots."
Why would they need to know this? If they knew they would have attempted to plant the twins blood in the silencer to corroborate NCs contact wounds. They didn't know hence there is none. ::)
;D
Well no contact shots. No back spatter.
If all 5 received contact shots, be surprising if only Sheila's blood was found in the silencer.
-
AE would first have to find out if Sheila received a contact shot/s. Then find out where.
Then find out about the other 23 shot locations.
-
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
Just answer the points. Surely easy if your theory about Mrs Eaton contaminating the silencer with diluted period blood from the bucket stacks up with a ratio of about one to a million. That's one part period blood to a million parts water. This theory has been doing the rounds since the days of the McKenzie group in the 80's. I wonder if the support group have included it in the 2021 submission?
-
Nicholas Caffell suffered three contact wounds in an area most likely to produce backspatter. If AE knew this it may have deterred her from trying but I doubt it. Desperate times calls for desperate measures she would either lose her livelihood or wind up living the "cuckoos" pocket.
You previously said Sheila's shots were in an area of high blood flow.
Anyway it's much too outlandish to suggest AE would -
Have the idea.
Persuade relatives.
Find everything out in such a short time.
Attempt to frame a (then) innocent man of killing his own family.
-
Nicholas Caffell suffered three contact wounds in an area most likely to produce backspatter. If AE knew this it may have deterred her from trying but I doubt it. Desperate times calls for desperate measures she would either lose her livelihood or wind up living the "cuckoos" pocket.
Contact or close contact wounds don't always result in backspatter but you know this from what you've posted in the past.
-
Just answer the points. Surely easy if your theory about Mrs Eaton contaminating the silencer with diluted period blood from the bucket stacks up with a ratio of about one to a million. That's one part period blood to a million parts water. This theory has been doing the rounds since the days of the McKenzie group in the 80's. I wonder if the support group have included it in the 2021 submission?
FYI:
All of Adam's points have been answered and replied to at least several times. This topic has been gone over before, in detail, and I have replied previously to the specific points Adam raises now on this thread.
The problem is that Adam does not develop his views in response to the points and arguments people put to him. He just parrots the same points over and over and over again for months and years on end. In the end, most posters give up and either ignore him or leave the Forum altogether.
-
The experts did say there was a 'remote' possibility of it being a mixture of June's & Nevill's blood.
Nevill recieving contact shots to the head in the kitchen. June shot in the neck.
No mention of any missing potential bone fragments from Nevill, Daniel or Nicholas.
It was back spatter blood or nothing.
-
FYI:
All of Adam's points have been answered and replied to at least several times. This topic has been gone over before, in detail, and I have replied previously to the specific points Adam raises now on this thread.
The problem is that Adam does not develop his views in response to the points and arguments people put to him. He just parrots the same points over and over and over again for months and years on end. In the end, most posters give up and either ignore him or leave the Forum altogether.
No they haven't.
Besides which you have created a thread - time sequence.
So must answer basic questions or don't create the thread.
-
No they haven't.
Besides which you have created a thread - time sequence.
So must answer basic questions or don't create the thread.
They have.
And there is no rule that people who create threads have to answer questions, still less accept questions from you.
-
The experts did say there was a 'remote' possibility of it being a mixture of June's & Nevill's blood.
Nevill recieving contact shots to the head in the kitchen. June shot in the neck.
No mention of any missing potential bone fragments from Nevill, Daniel or Nicholas.
It was back spatter blood or nothing.
No evidence Mr Bamber received any contact shots.
62. Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.
63. Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin, although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber's chest.
64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body.
65. As regards the twins, four of the five injuries suffered by Daniel were caused when the gun was held within one foot of his head, the fifth was from over two feet away. The three wounds to Nicholas were contact or close proximity shots.
-
FYI:
All of Adam's points have been answered and replied to at least several times. This topic has been gone over before, in detail, and I have replied previously to the specific points Adam raises now on this thread.
The problem is that Adam does not develop his views in response to the points and arguments people put to him. He just parrots the same points over and over and over again for months and years on end. In the end, most posters give up and either ignore him or leave the Forum altogether.
Can you link me to the relevant threads? Thanks.
-
Can you link me to the relevant threads? Thanks.
Would it not make more sense to stop treating Adam as a genuine poster? Well, it would make more sense if you were one yourself.
-
They have.
And there is no rule that people who create threads have to answer questions, still less accept questions from you.
They haven't.
It is forum practice to respond to questions if you create a thread.
-
Can you link me to the relevant threads? Thanks.
I have asked 37 questions in David's AE time sequence.
Look forward to QC's 30+ links.
-
No evidence Mr Bamber received any contact shots.
62. Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.
63. Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin, although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber's chest.
64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body.
65. As regards the twins, four of the five injuries suffered by Daniel were caused when the gun was held within one foot of his head, the fifth was from over two feet away. The three wounds to Nicholas were contact or close proximity shots.
65. As regards the twins, four of the five injuries suffered by Daniel were caused when the gun was held within one foot of his head, the fifth was from over two feet away. The three wounds to Nicholas were contact or close proximity shots.
----------
Thanks. So David is putting all his cards on Nicholas's 3 shots. Which were either close or contact shots.
His evidence - pigs shot by another rifle!
-
Would it not make more sense to stop treating Adam as a genuine poster? Well, it would make more sense if you were one yourself.
Feeling left out.
-
Exactly. Makes a long list of bullshit nobody will bother answering. If they answer pretend it never was answered and paste the bullshit list again.
Answer them again. You created the thread.
It's not as if you were bombarded with other questions.
-
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead
-
Poor David. Can't answer any of these points. Let alone my other 15 questions on this thread.
AE's time sequence. Don't make me laugh.
-
This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family. It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue. Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.
I am non-committal on the matter. I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted. Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.
I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator. If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy. But I am not saying they did this, or anything. I don't know! I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.
The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:
(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.
Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:
(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia? For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation. The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.
Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk. But as David observes, criminals do take risks.
Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:
In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be. They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer. They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy. Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable. That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.
Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection. First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it? Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's? The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it. Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it. It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila. The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:
- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.
Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters. You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood. Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:
(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.
You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose. It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type. I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:
- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.
There are two possibilities:
Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family. The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.
Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.
One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial. Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.
As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found. Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer. The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers. Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.
Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case. I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.
I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.
Go for it!
There's a world of difference between forensic ballistics (crime) and those who use firearms for country pursuits and to manage vermin/pests.
If you own guns/silencers its important to clean them regularly. All such articles/cleaning products refer to a build up of gunshot residue and the like nothing about blood. The only occasion you would get up close to an animal or bird would be to put one out of its misery if it was wounded but you wouldn't risk getting too close in case the bullet hits the ground, or some other object, and ricochets back!
I wouldn't mind betting the relatives had never seen or heard of blood in a barrel or silencer in the course of their country pursuits/farm work.
There is no way the relatives would have had any understanding of 'drawback/blowback'.
-
One of the strangest threads I have seen.
David creates the thread. I ask questions in the first two pages. These questions become holes if not addressed adequately.
David does not answer any of the questions.
I chase David up in page 3. He puts his foot down & says is not going to answer questions. On his own thread!
I have realised that David has no faith in the justice system. Saying the COA evidence is 'bullshit'.
-
One of the strangest threads I have seen.
David creates the thread. I ask questions in the first two pages. These questions become holes if not addressed adequately.
David does not answer any of the questions.
I chase David up in page 3. He puts his foot down & says is not going to answer questions. On his own thread!
I have realised that David has no faith in the justice system. Saying the COA evidence is 'bullshit'.
It's a good job you're here, Adam, insisting on standards.
Plus we now have Cambridgecutie to take care of the disciplinary side of things, freeing you up to provide moral support to more members via the PM system.
I think David should enrol on your moral support programme. I'm only surprised he hasn't already.
-
Would it not make more sense to stop treating Adam as a genuine poster? Well, it would make more sense if you were one yourself.
Would it not make more sense for you to either take a break, as you said you were going to do, or just ignore/respond to posts as you see fit instead of all this nonsense you keep coming out with?
-
This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family. It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue. Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.
I am non-committal on the matter. I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted. Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.
I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator. If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy. But I am not saying they did this, or anything. I don't know! I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.
The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:
(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.
Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:
(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia? For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation. The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.
Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk. But as David observes, criminals do take risks.
Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:
In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be. They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer. They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy. Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable. That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.
Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection. First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it? Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's? The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it. Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it. It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila. The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:
- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.
Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters. You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood. Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:
(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.
You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose. It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type. I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:
- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.
There are two possibilities:
Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family. The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.
Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.
One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial. Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.
As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found. Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer. The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers. Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.
Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case. I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.
I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.
What evidence. Expand. Preferably with sources.
-
This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family. It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue. Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.
I am non-committal on the matter. I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted. Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.
I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator. If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy. But I am not saying they did this, or anything. I don't know! I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.
The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:
(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.
Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:
(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia? For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation. The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.
Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk. But as David observes, criminals do take risks.
Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:
In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be. They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer. They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy. Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable. That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.
Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection. First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it? Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's? The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it. Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it. It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila. The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:
- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.
Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters. You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood. Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:
(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.
You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose. It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type. I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:
- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.
There are two possibilities:
Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family. The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.
Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.
One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial. Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.
As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found. Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer. The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers. Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.
Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case. I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.
I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.
I've always said that in my list. Last posted on page 12.
Over to you David, Lookout & JackieD.
-
This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family. It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue. Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.
I am non-committal on the matter. I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted. Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.
I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator. If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy. But I am not saying they did this, or anything. I don't know! I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.
The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:
(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.
Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:
(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia? For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation. The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.
Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk. But as David observes, criminals do take risks.
Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:
In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be. They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer. They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy. Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable. That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.
Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection. First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it? Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's? The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it. Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it. It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila. The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:
- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.
Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters. You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood. Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:
(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.
You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose. It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type. I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:
- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.
There are two possibilities:
Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family. The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.
Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.
One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial. Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.
As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found. Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer. The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers. Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.
Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case. I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.
I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.
With regards to the wider family knowing Sheila's blood group. Perhaps I was thinking about it when I told the nurse, who took my blood this morning, that I had no idea what my blood group was. I may have been expecting her to tell me, but she said that she wasn't surprised, and that it seemed that only those who gave blood/had blood disorders would be likely to know what their blood group was. She said it wasn't possible for her to tell me. Much has previously been made about how easy it would be for the family to find out Sheila's blood group the information, but I'd have been hard pushed to find out what my own was, this morning.
-
With regards to the wider family knowing Sheila's blood group. Perhaps I was thinking about it when I told the nurse, who took my blood this morning, that I had no idea what my blood group was. I may have been expecting her to tell me, but she said that she wasn't surprised, and that it seemed that only those who gave blood/had blood disorders would be likely to know what their blood group was. She said it wasn't possible for her to tell me. Much has previously been made about how easy it would be for the family to find out Sheila's blood group the information, but I'd have been hard pushed to find out what my own was, this morning.
Bearing in mind this wasn't just the ABO groupings, which most people have at least heard of from O level biology even if they don't know their own grouping, but enzymes and proteins too. I mean who on planet earth know their groupings for the following: Adenylate Kinase (AK), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphtase (EAP), Haptogoblin (HP) and Phosphoglucomutase (PGM). In fact I bet most haven't even heard of these enzymes and proteins let alone which group they fall into!
The whole idea of the relatives contaminating the silencer is beyond ridiculous.
-
This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family. It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue. Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.
I am non-committal on the matter. I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted. Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.
I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator. If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy. But I am not saying they did this, or anything. I don't know! I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.
The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:
(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.
Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:
(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia? For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation. The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.
Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk. But as David observes, criminals do take risks.
Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:
In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be. They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer. They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy. Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable. That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.
Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection. First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it? Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's? The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it. Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it. It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila. The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:
- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.
Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters. You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood. Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:
(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.
You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose. It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type. I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:
- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.
There are two possibilities:
Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family. The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.
Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.
One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial. Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.
As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found. Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer. The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers. Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.
Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case. I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.
I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.
QC I think you should follow this post with another long informative post on the inheritance issue. If we are discussing tampering with evidence you have to talk in detail about why anyone had a motive to plant evidence/pervert the cause of justice
It is continually written that Jeremy’s motive to murder his family was money but because of the murders the family were left in a very precarious situation financially which would impact on all there lives
The inheritance issue is such an important factor in this case that cannot be ignored
-
QC I think you should follow this post with another long informative post on the inheritance issue. If we are discussing tampering with evidence you have to talk in detail about why anyone had a motive to plant evidence/pervert the cause of justice
It is continually written that Jeremy’s motive to murder his family was money but because of the murders the family were left in a very precarious situation financially which would impact on all there lives
The inheritance issue is such an important factor in this case that cannot be ignored
Please explain.
Perpetrators usually need the means, motive and opportunity to commit a crime. Even if 'supporters' believe the relatives had the motive how do you explain the means and opportunity of fabricating the silencer? Opportunity may be less of a problem given they found it but having the means is altogether a different animal!
-
QC I think you should follow this post with another long informative post on the inheritance issue. If we are discussing tampering with evidence you have to talk in detail about why anyone had a motive to plant evidence/pervert the cause of justice
It is continually written that Jeremy’s motive to murder his family was money but because of the murders the family were left in a very precarious situation financially which would impact on all there lives
The inheritance issue is such an important factor in this case that cannot be ignored
Now that is the kind of reply QC wants.
If I start disecting his long posts he either -
Starts calling me names.
Complains to NGB
Tells me to create seperate threads.
-
Now that is the kind of reply QC wants.
If I start disecting his long posts he either -
Starts calling me names.
Complains to NGB
Tells me to create seperate threads.
Thanks Adam. Appreciate you need to give me the 'hard word' now and then.
Adam provides moral support to waverers like myself, via the PM system, and with a ‘hard word’ occasionally on the Forum.
Cambridgecutie is handing out some good old-fashioned discipline. Just the ticket to deal with recalcitrant youngsters like Roch and Rob!
Real Justice is in charge of physical fitness and puts me through my paces, with early reveilles and country runs.
Steve looks after ethics and makes sure that posters don’t stray too far off-course.
Judge Jane is available to sentence transgressors. Serious offenders like QCChevalier can expect some hard time. Young, first-time offenders like Rob should expect to be given a second chance, but with conditions, such as not being allowed near a sun bed for a set period.
It’s all falling into place.
-
I suspect it was Ann Eaton acting alone. And I'm not the first.
As for libel, will they really take the risk of being cross-examined again, and under a different pretence that the defence should have used 35 years ago? I think there are two chances of that happening, slim and none and slims out of town.
Who else is there?
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
They didn't have Sheila's blood. They had a pair of period blood stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water. There's a world of difference. To produce results for the enzyme and protein markers you need good quality DRIED stains of a certain size.
[Inserted Comments, by 'miketesko' (ADMIN) '3rd December 2021' at '8.40am', below..
'A blood sample that was taken at the time of the autopsy performed on 'Sheila Caffell' [7th August 1985] went missing. IT WAS ONE OF 'DI Cooks' exhibits! This could be significant because 'DI Cook', 'dismantled one of the silencers' [`DB/1'] on the '29th August 1985', prior to him forwarding the rebuilt silencer in question, to the Lab' at 'Huntingdon' for the attention of 'Malcolm Fletcher'. It is 'suspected', that 'DI Cook' 'introduced 'the missing blood sample' that had been 'taken' from the body of 'Sheila' beforehand by 'himself'
It should be noted, that at the time 'DI Cook' dismantled the aforementioned silencer, that 'he did not see any evidence of blood' (whatsoever) 'on internal baffle plates' which as it turns out, 'he had separated the first half dozen' or so, of 'the silencers 17 baffle plates'! [by the way 'DI Cook' took photographs of the dismantled silencer] It was this particular silencer [`DB/1'] inside of which 'John Hayward' discovered the key blood source of 'Sheila Caffells' blood groups, on the following dates:- 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985'. This is bewildering, since `David Boutflour', 'Ann Eaton', 'Robert Boutflour', 'DI Cook' and 'Malcolm Fletcher', 'never saw any blood' on 'any of the 17 baffle plates' until then [ 12th to 19th September 1985]...
-
They didn't have Sheila's blood. They had a pair of period blood stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water. There's a world of difference. To produce results for the enzyme and protein markers you need good quality DRIED stains of a certain size.
[Inserted Comments, by 'miketesko' (ADMIN) '3rd December 2021' at '8.40am', below..
'A blood sample that was taken at the time of the autopsy performed on 'Sheila Caffell' [7th August 1985] went missing. IT WAS ONE OF 'DI Cooks' exhibits! This could be significant because 'DI Cook', 'dismantled one of the silencers' [`DB/1'] on the '29th August 1985', prior to him forwarding the rebuilt silencer in question, to the Lab' at 'Huntingdon' for the attention of 'Malcolm Fletcher'. It is 'suspected', that 'DI Cook' 'introduced 'the missing blood sample' that had been 'taken' from the body of 'Sheila' beforehand by 'himself'
It should be noted, that at the time 'DI Cook' dismantled the aforementioned silencer, that 'he did not see any evidence of blood' (whatsoever) 'on internal baffle plates' which as it turns out, 'he had separated the first half dozen' or so, of 'the silencers 17 baffle plates'! [by the way 'DI Cook' took photographs of the dismantled silencer] It was this particular silencer [`DB/1'] inside of which 'John Hayward' discovered the key blood source of 'Sheila Caffells' blood groups, on the following dates:- 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985'. This is bewildering, since `David Boutflour', 'Ann Eaton', 'Robert Boutflour', 'DI Cook' and 'Malcolm Fletcher', 'never saw any blood' on 'any of the 17 baffle plates' until then [ 12th to 19th September 1985]...
It's the 2nd December today not the 3rd.
I believe you're wrong about the above.
-
The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
-
The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Nevill ringing Bamber & Julie committing massive perjury because Bamber apparently jilted her, comes a close second.
-
The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
The relatives believed JB was guilty and to them they were doing justice. If you don't realize how suspiciously convenient it is them "finding" it, then you probably have some form of Asperger's syndrome.
-
The relatives believed JB was guilty and to them they were doing justice. If you don't realize how suspiciously convenient it is them "finding" it, then you probably have some form of Asperger's syndrome.
Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer. In a silent massacre attempt?
Then take it off after shooting Sheila?
-
The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
-
The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Nothing's ridiculous if you don't particularly like a person. People go to great lengths to claw back what they think is, or should be theirs. Wouldn't you if you could get away with it ?
-
Nothing's ridiculous if you don't particularly like a person. People go to great lengths to claw back what they think is, or should be theirs. Wouldn't you if you could get away with it ?
And impossible to do.
-
Bearing in mind this wasn't just the ABO groupings, which most people have at least heard of from O level biology even if they don't know their own grouping, but enzymes and proteins too. I mean who on planet earth know their groupings for the following: Adenylate Kinase (AK), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphtase (EAP), Haptogoblin (HP) and Phosphoglucomutase (PGM). In fact I bet most haven't even heard of these enzymes and proteins let alone which group they fall into!
The whole idea of the relatives contaminating the silencer is beyond ridiculous.
How the silencer was found and handled is what is ridiculous, to me whose blood is in it is not that important bearing in mind it's 1985. There could potentially have been traces of five people's blood in it if JB did the crime, which maybe would have covered something like 80% of the population?
-
The relatives believed JB was guilty and to them they were doing justice. If you don't realize how suspiciously convenient it is them "finding" it, then you probably have some form of Asperger's syndrome.
Yes someone believed Sheila could not have done the crime, so it had to be JB and the evidence was beefed up to make sure justice in their view was done.
-
Who else is there?
David Bird's COLP interview is interesting Adam.
-
Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer. In a silent massacre attempt?
Then take it off after shooting Sheila?
No because the gun was fairly quite anyway, but if he did use it then why put it in the cupboard??
He would have suspected the use of a silencer would be obvious to the Police so would have simply left it beside Sheila.
-
No because the gun was fairly quite anyway, but if he did use it then why put it in the cupboard??
He would have suspected the use of a silencer would be obvious to the Police so would have simply left it beside Sheila.
Doubt that Bamber knew the silencer (apparently) did not make much difference to the sound. He only made the claim decades later.
Besides which, a small difference is still useful.
-
No because the gun was fairly quite anyway, but if he did use it then why put it in the cupboard??
He would have suspected the use of a silencer would be obvious to the Police so would have simply left it beside Sheila.
I don't understand this.
-
Doubt that Bamber knew the silencer (apparently) did not make much difference to the sound. He only made the claim decades later.
Besides which, a small difference is still useful.
Of course he knew it was to stop bunnies fleeing before the bullet hit them, it was not a silencer from a human ear's point of view. The effect also depended on the type of bullet used but you know all this Adam.
-
I don't understand this.
I know nothing about guns Adam but if I put a silencer on a gun and use it at close range I would have assumed the Police would easily be able to detect this?
-
Nothing's ridiculous if you don't particularly like a person. People go to great lengths to claw back what they think is, or should be theirs. Wouldn't you if you could get away with it ?
If they were convinced of his guilt and also believed he would turn them off their land, it is not far-fetched at all. I imagine they would have been prepared to do just about anything, on the proviso that they could get away with it, as you say.
I must say, it is not something I could countenance, as you are framing a potentially innocent person, however I have never been in that situation or anything comparable, nor have most people; and, if they were convinced of his guilt, they may not have thought about it sensibly.
-
If they were convinced of his guilt and also believed he would turn them off their land, it is not far-fetched at all. I imagine they would have been prepared to do just about anything, on the proviso that they could get away with it, as you say.
I must say, it is not something I could countenance, however I have never been in that situation or anything comparable, nor have most people.
Its much less farfetched than the prosecutions narrative. :))
-
Of course he knew it was to stop bunnies fleeing before the bullet hit them, it was not a silencer from a human ear's point of view. The effect also depended on the type of bullet used but you know all this Adam.
Well the evidence shows he put the silencer on.
It was a 'silent' massacre attempt.
-
I know nothing about guns Adam but if I put a silencer on a gun and use it at close range I would have assumed the Police would easily be able to detect this?
Back spatter was little known then. Very doubtful Bamber knew about it.
He also never realised the silencer had scratched the aga during the kitchen fight.
-
Well the evidence shows he put the silencer on.
It was a 'silent' massacre attempt.
No, the evidence shows it was a fabrication to make it look like he put the silencer on.
-
Back spatter was little known then. Very doubtful Bamber knew about it.
He also never realised the silencer had scratched the aga during the kitchen fight.
Besides which the silencer was not part of the crime scene. It was put in a box at the back of the gun cupboard. Virtually hidden.
-
Yes someone believed Sheila could not have done the crime, so it had to be JB and the evidence was beefed up to make sure justice in their view was done.
You can say that again.
-
No, the evidence shows it was a fabrication to make it look like he put the silencer on.
Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt.
Then put it away after shooting Sheila.
-
Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt.
Then put it away after shooting Sheila.
Must be the fifth time I've asked David this.
-
The contact shots to Shelia's neck have not left the abrasion rings typical of a silencer contact wound.
Cambrigecutie claims to have refuted this "everywhere" but has not done it at all.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4318)
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9070.0;attach=50720)
-
Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt.
Then put it away after shooting Sheila.
Even Bamber says Nevill's back was burnt minus silencer.
Bamber would burn Nevill's back after finishing his shooting.
-
If they were convinced of his guilt and also believed he would turn them off their land, it is not far-fetched at all. I imagine they would have been prepared to do just about anything, on the proviso that they could get away with it, as you say.
I must say, it is not something I could countenance, as you are framing a potentially innocent person, however I have never been in that situation or anything comparable, nor have most people; and, if they were convinced of his guilt, they may not have thought about it sensibly.
Do you believe the relatives used diluted period blood?
-
The contact shots to Shelia's neck have not left the abrasion rings typical of a silencer contact wound.
Cambrigecutie claims to have refuted this "everywhere" but has not done it at all.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4318)
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9070.0;attach=50720)
It's strange David that there is no sign of a silencer being on the gun when Sheila was shot but her blood is found in the silencer!
-
It's strange David that there is no sign of a silencer being on the gun when Sheila was shot but her blood is found in the silencer!
Exactly! The idea that the relatives would need to know every detail to make it fit in place is invalid because it does not fit into place.
-
It's strange David that there is no sign of a silencer being on the gun when Sheila was shot but her blood is found in the silencer!
David is just putting up random pictures & claiming they match his theory again.
Do you believe the relatives used diluted period blood?
-
Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt.
Then put it away after shooting Sheila.
No
-
For Rob. Will keep him busy answering each point. David has always refused to answer.
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead
-
No
Do you not think it is a common sense move by Bamber.
He took it off downstairs prior to burning Nevill's back. After finishing his shooting. Even Bamber in 2012 agreed this is possible.
-
Bamber is not going to burn Nevill's back until he has finished his shooting.
Most likely he took it off in the kitchen. Then put it away. Then burnt Nevill's back.
Bamber agreed in 2012 this is possible.
-
Do you believe the relatives used diluted period blood?
I have not come to any conclusions about it. I am on the fence, because I like the sensation.
-
To be fair to David & Lookout, they have had long term theories on how Sheila's blood got into the silencer which they have stuck to -
David through diluted period blood.
Lookout due to Sheila taking off the silencer mid massacre & her blood falling inside.
----------
Hopefully QC & Rob will confirm now if they support either of these theories or have alternative theories.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
In your view.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Oh yes. Pigs shot with another rifle.
Never mentioned before. Even by the CT.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Maybe he took the silencer off after shooting everyone. To burn Nevill's back.
Bamber agreed this was possible in 2012.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Did AE also forget the put a comma in her long WS?
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Thought he testified he could not remember.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Easy if you know how.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Then lost & not an issue at trial.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Photos are inconclusive. If they were clear Bamber would have been released over 10 years ago.
David getting carried away again.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Says you.
He can use his other arm.
The crime scene evidence shows there was a violent struggle.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
They were already rich. Says the OS.
Framing an innocent man of killing 5 members of his own family.
-
The mountain of other forensic evidence in the COA is just as important as the silencer. It also highlights the silencer evidence was not fabricated.
But appreciate people will just focus on one piece of evidence - the silencer. Why? Because the relatives found it.
-
The crime scene evidence shows there was a violent struggle between Sheila and June and between Sheila and Nevill. There was no evidence of Jeremy exhibiting any signs of a struggle.
-
When the debate is lost Adam starts flooding the topic with bullshit
"Technique #1 - 'DILUTE TOPICS'
Aim:
Stop individuals doing their own research & convert community into one of gossipers/Keep forum readers focused on unrelated and non-productive issues.
Method:
Trolling:
This wears out each forum member as they have to put more energy into finding the good quality posts amongst the crap
- essentially burning the valuable resource of time and energy.
Misdirection:
Make posts to direct user traffic away from good DD towards uninformed opinion.
The more uninformed a group is, the easier the group is to control.
Forum sliding:
Create low quality posts such as low effort memes and have them set aside.
Try and make these posts seem more credible - have them set aside, let them “age”, fill the post with conversations from fake accounts. … and when the time comes, upvote the hell out of it. This floods a forum with useless posts.
Solution:
- Ignore the trolls
- Present arguments for others to see …but don’t burn your energy arguing too long."
-
WHEN I ADDRESS EACH POINT IN DAVID'S POST, HE CAN'T ANSWER THEM. SO RESORTS TO - DISRUPTION.
WHAT A PRAT.
-
There was no evidence of Jeremy exhibiting any signs of a struggle.
----------
It was more of an attack by Bamber. As Nevill's injuries show.
They did wrestle for the rifle.
I have previously done a 5 stage breakdown of the struggle.
-
There was no evidence of Jeremy exhibiting any signs of a struggle.
----------
It was more of an attack by Bamber. As Nevill's injuries show.
They did wrestle for the rifle.
I have previously done a 5 stage breakdown of the struggle.
How can they have a wrestle with rifle when Nevill could only move one arm?
-
David's 10 points to support his claim AE fabricated the silencer are very weak. As I just highlighted.
If that isn't bad enough, he then says AE used diluted period blood!
He then refuses to answer my questions.
-
How can they have a wrestle with rifle when Nevill could only move one arm?
By Nevill using one arm.
Assuming you are right & he could not use both arms. I have never read this anywhere else.
-
To be fair to David & Lookout, they have had long term theories on how Sheila's blood got into the silencer which they have stuck to -
David through diluted period blood.
Lookout due to Sheila taking off the silencer mid massacre & her blood falling inside.
----------
Hopefully QC & Rob will confirm now if they support either of these theories or have alternative theories.
Thanks Adam. I'm still wavering and hoping you will provide some moral support on this, even if it's the 'hard word' from you and Real Justice to get me in gear.
-
Thanks Adam. I'm still wavering and hoping you will provide some moral support on this, even if it's the 'hard word' from you and Real Justice to get me in gear.
Look forward to hearing if you & Rob support David's or Lookout's theories. Or have your own.
Don't forget the police could be included into any fabrication.
-
Thought he testified he could not remember.
How could he forget!
It would be "Oh what is this, looks like blood and paint on the silencer"
AE and others "oh lets have a look GOSH yes it's blood!"
-
By Nevill using one arm.
Assuming you are right & he could not use both arms. I have never read this anywhere else.
You have never read this anywhere else? That comes as no surprise, once again you display your lack of research into this case.
Its on page 14 of the pathologists trial testimony.
(https://i.ibb.co/P6RDw7J/ve14-001.jpg)
Adam, out of curiosity, what case material have you actually studied other than JBs statements, the COA and Roger Wilkes Blood Relations?
-
You have never read this anywhere else? That comes as no surprise, once again you display your lack of research into this case.
Its on page 14 of the pathologists trial testimony.
(https://i.ibb.co/P6RDw7J/ve14-001.jpg)
Adam, out of curiosity, what case material have you actually studied other than JBs statements, the COA and Roger Wilkes Blood Relations?
I confess I have not read page 14 of the pathologists trial testimony.
No one can accuse you or Mike of not reading every document.
-
You have never read this anywhere else? That comes as no surprise, once again you display your lack of research into this case.
Its on page 14 of the pathologists trial testimony.
(https://i.ibb.co/P6RDw7J/ve14-001.jpg)
Adam, out of curiosity, what case material have you actually studied other than JBs statements, the COA and Roger Wilkes Blood Relations?
So he used one arm.
Or maybe two. He had been shot 4 times 30 seconds earlier & was now fighting for his life. With the adreleline he may not have noticed the pain.
-
How do you wrestle for the rifle with one arm? Your good arm grabs hold of the rifle.
Sorted.
The smashed ceiling light, aga scratches & disruption shows the rifle was wrestled for.
-
Look forward to hearing if you & Rob support David's or Lookout's theories. Or have your own.
Don't forget the police could be included into any fabrication.
You expect me to believe the impossible Adam that's the problem with your view of events.
Four or five officers search the cupboard and miss the silencer, one says he was not trained to spot a silencer ::)
There is no evidence looking at Sheila's wounds she was shot with the silencer on the gun but her blood is in the silencer.
The relatives find the silencer and instead of taking this valuable exhibit directly to the Police it goes all round the Moon, then no one can remember when the blood, paint hair was first noticed and no one can remember who notified the Police.
It was this exhibit alone that turned the whole case from four murders and a suicide to five murders :o
-
Look forward to hearing if you & Rob support David's or Lookout's theories. Or have your own.
Don't forget the police could be included into any fabrication.
Thanks Adam, but I've lost my self-confidence and I'm still sulking because you didn't recommend me for the CT.
I need a safe space on the Forum where only you are allowed to dissect my posts, in a supportive and constructive way, with the occasional 'hard word', as part of your moral support.
We could call it the Baby Forum.
I'm going for a cry now.
-
You expect me to believe the impossible Adam that's the problem with your view of events.
Four or five officers search the cupboard and miss the silencer, one says he was not trained to spot a silencer ::)
There is no evidence looking at Sheila's wounds she was shot with the silencer on the gun but her blood is in the silencer.
The relatives find the silencer and instead of taking this valuable exhibit directly to the Police it goes all round the Moon, then no one can remember when the blood, paint hair was first noticed and no one can remember who notified the Police.
It was this exhibit alone that turned the whole case from four murders and a suicide to five murders :o
So do you believe David's or Lookout's silencer scenarios. Or have your own.
Time to 'man up' & stop hiding.
-
So do you believe David's or Lookout's silencer scenarios. Or have your own.
Time to 'man up' & stop hiding.
I will look at your list of questions which you posted earlier when I get time Adam, I am off to work soon.
The blood, paint on / in the silencer was planted, no doubt about it in my view.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
Two gun enthusists viewing photographs in Ewen Smith's office beg to differ. Bamber could have shot Nicholas and Daniel once initially, thereby stopping the heart. He then returned for overkill. The scratch marks were on the underside of the mantleshelf, so difficult to notice on first inspection. Your assertion on the sequence of Nevill's injuries is speculation.
-
To summarise all the inconsistencies with the silencer off the top of my head -
No muzzle imprints consistent with a silencer on the contact wounds to Sheila's neck/chin.
No skin tissue, bone fragments or blood from Nichoals Caffell inside the silencer despite suffering three contact wounds.
Marks on Nevills back and arm consistent with the threaded end of the barrel.
Ann Eatons description of the blood appearing as a "blob of jam" is not how blood that has dried for three days appears.
David Boutflour does not notice blood or paint when he looked at the silencer in the den at white house farm. Nor does he notice the grey hair.
David Boutflour claims he attempted to unscrew the silencer but it was too tight/hard. Yet buy all accounts it was easy to unscrew and designed as such.
The grey hair only seems to appear once Peter Eaton hands it over to DS Jones.
No evidence of scratch marks in the 7th of August crime scene photos.
Nevill suffered a comminuted fracture to his arm from a gunshot upstairs, making an altercation over the rifle impossible.
Three people who handled it prior to the police have a financial interest in a conviction.
If you tell the truth,' Mark Twain once observed, 'you don't have to remember anything.'
-
Bamber agreed in 2012 the silencer could have been used during the shootings. Then taken off to burn Nevill's back.
Bamber is not going to lift Nevill onto a coal scuttle & start burning his back until he has finished shooting everyone.
After deciding to burn Nevill's back minus silencer, he took it off in the kitchen & put it back in it's usual place. Not aware of the back spatter phenomenon or the aga paint. And not expecting anyone to check anyway.
-
It is doubtful Bamber took the silencer off in the bedroom.
He was going downstairs with the rifle after shooting Sheila. To check to see if Nevill needed more shots. Deciding to burn his back after checking.
The silencer was taken off in the kitchen & put away once the decision was made to burn Nevill's back.
Bamber returned upstairs to put the rifle on Sheila.
Bamber agreed this is possible in 2012. Saying Nevill's back was burnt minus silencer.
-
Of course Bamber may have already known or realised on the night, the rifle with silencer was too long for Sheila. Another reason for taking it off.
He took it off & put it away in the kitchen. After shooting Sheila & checking to see if Nevill needed more shots.
Then Nevill's back was burnt with the rifle barrel. As stated by Bamber in 2012.
-
Of course Bamber may have already known or realised on the night, the rifle with silencer was too long for Sheila. Another reason for taking it off.
He took it off & put it away in the kitchen. After shooting Sheila & checking to see if Nevill needed more shots.
Then Nevill's back was burnt with the rifle barrel. As stated by Bamber in 2012.
The gun cupboard was in Nevill's den, which was at the far end of the house. He would have to go through the kitchen, into the back corridor, then into Nevill's den.
-
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
August 8th:
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
-
The gun cupboard was in Nevill's den, which was at the far end of the house. He would have to go through the kitchen, into the back corridor, then into Nevill's den.
Ok. He walked out of the kitchen to the corridor where the gun cupboard was.
-
Lookout's silencer scenario is even more impossible than David's -
Sheila took the silencer off mid massacre & her blood fell in it. The scratch marks were during the kitchen struggle.
----------
The scratch mark scenario is correct.
The problem with the dripping blood is Sheila only bled after her first shot.
-
Hopefully Rob, QC, Roch & JackieD will say how they believe the aga paint and Sheila's blood got into the silencer.
None have supported David's diluted period blood theory, although none have dismissed it.
The other option is the police fabricated the silencer. Then asked the relatives, BC & BW to say they found it. For no apparent reason.
-
Hopefully Rob, QC, Roch & JackieD will say how they believe the aga paint and Sheila's blood got into the silencer.
None have supported David's diluted blood theory, although none have dismissed it.
The other option is the police fabricated the silencer. Then asked the relatives, BC & BW to say they found it. For no apparent reason.
I've always wondered how involved Cook was in all this.
-
Ok. He walked out of the kitchen to the corridor where the gun cupboard was.
No, Adam. The gun cupboard was not in the corridor. It was in the den, as I've just told you. He would have to walk out of the kitchen, into the back corridor, then into the den. The cupboard was at the far end of the room, in the void under the top office stairs.
-
No, Adam. The gun cupboard was not in the corridor. It was in the den, as I've just told you. He would have to walk out of the kitchen, into the back corridor, then into the den. The cupboard was at the far end of the room, in the void under the top office stairs.
Ok he walked out of the kitchen into the corridor & put the silencer away where he got it from.
After shooting Sheila & prior to burning Nevill's back.
Bamber agreed in 2012 Nevill's back was burnt minus silencer. This supports him taking it off downstairs & putting it away.
-
I've always wondered how involved Cook was in all this.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/183/103/alens.jpg)
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/183/103/alens.jpg)
He was technically proficient though.
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
;D
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
Did they?
How did that help AE?
-
He was technically proficient though.
Who was?
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
Was AE shown the crime scene photos. Days after the massacre?
Didn't know AE was a high ranking officer in EP.
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
Did they?
Oh yes & AE was given access to the crime scene photos.
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
Did they. Who told them?
Just need to find out about all the other shots.
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
Stan Jones gave AE the keys after it was no longer a crime scene.
-
They did have means and opportunity.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
Period blood. In a bucket of water.
-
Who was?
Cook. He also had his own forensics business afterwards. Think it was called 'Dabs' or something.
-
Its worth pointing out that there are three possible sources for the blood.
The 1st being the blood AE took home (already covered in this topic)
Jeremy wrote to mike in 2010 saying he believes his relatives contaminated the silencer with Nevil and Junes blood. Since they had access to the scene and AE was cleaning up Nevills blood from the kitchen floor and there was also Junes blood on the door upstairs. Although possible I find it less probable.
Then you have Robert Boutflour using his own blood, also possible but I also find it less probable.
-
Cook. He also had his own forensics business afterwards. Think it was called 'Dabs' or something.
And? He started his own fingerprinting consultancy. What's wrong with that?
-
Its worth pointing out that their are three possible sources for the blood.
The 1st being the blood AE took home (already covered in this topic)
Jeremy wrote to mike in 2010 saying he believes his relatives contaminated the silencer with Nevil and Junes blood. Since they had access to the scene and AE was cleaning up Nevills blood from the kitchen floor and there was also Junes blood on the door upstairs. Although possible I find it less probable.
Then you have Robert Boutflour using his own blood, also possible but I also find it less probable.
The evidence is it was Sheila's blood. With a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Nevill's & June's.
Doubt there was any blood inside WHF when AE was given access. Carpets had been burned & the crime scene cleared up.
But if there was, I'm sure AE was on her hands & knees trying to scrape dried blood up.
I thought AE knew Bamber had told the police the silencer was not attached to the rifle.
-
Its worth pointing out that there are three possible sources for the blood.
The 1st being the blood AE took home (already covered in this topic)
Jeremy wrote to mike in 2010 saying he believes his relatives contaminated the silencer with Nevil and Junes blood. Since they had access to the scene and AE was cleaning up Nevills blood from the kitchen floor and there was also Junes blood on the door upstairs. Although possible I find it less probable.
Then you have Robert Boutflour using his own blood, also possible but I also find it less probable.
I thought AE knew Bamber had told the police the silencer was not attached to the rifle.
Poor RB. Just a farmer seeing out the final years of his life. Accused of putting his own blood into a silencer. To frame an innocent man of killing his family.
-
And? He started his own fingerprinting consultancy. What's wrong with that?
I'm just saying he had the technical nous regarding forensics. He also happens to be the other detective complained about in one of the grounds.
-
Ok he walked out of the kitchen into the corridor & put the silencer away where he got it from.
After shooting Sheila & prior to burning Nevill's back.
Bamber agreed in 2012 Nevill's back was burnt minus silencer. This supports him taking it off downstairs & putting it away.
No. If he did it and if he used the silencer, he walked out of the kitchen into the back corridor, then into the den, where he replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard.
-
The evidence is it was Sheila's blood. With a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Nevill's & June's.
Doubt there was any blood inside WHF when AE was given access. Carpets had been burned & the crime scene cleared up.
But if there was, I'm sure AE was on her hands & knees trying to scrape dried blood up.
I thought AE knew Bamber had told the police the silencer was not attached to the rifle.
Its on page 44 of the witness statement that she cleaned the kitchen floor on august 10th.
-
I'm just saying he had the technical nous regarding forensics. He also happens to be the other detective complained about in one of the grounds.
(https://imgix.bustle.com/inverse/e4/ac/b5/74/9323/4d48/a1aa/0f562b338b98/im-totally-tickled-by-it.jpeg?w=375&h=328&fit=max&auto=format%2Ccompress)
-
Its on page 44 of the witness statement that she cleaned the kitchen floor on august 10th.
'Hoovered the kitchen floor. Then washed the kitchen floor.'
----------
No mention of blood. She is not going to attempt to hoover blood first.
-
David1819, it says here sharks can scent menstrual blood in water so maybe I will have to concede you are onto something ;D
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/reduce-risk/menstruation/
-
Oh no. The theory that AE saw a documentary about sharks sensing period blood, then had the idea to frame Bamber, will now flood the forum.
-
Oh no. The theory that AE saw a documentary about sharks sensing period blood, then had the idea to frame Bamber will now flood the forum.
This could be like my Crispy theory, Adam - a mould-breaker. I'm still sulking because you didn't recognise my brilliance when I first outlined my Crispy theory and you should have recommended me to the CT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SLb6BdCHlE
-
David1819, it says here sharks can scent menstrual blood in water so maybe I will have to concede you are onto something ;D
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/reduce-risk/menstruation/
Sharks can sense all blood. They can even differentiate shark blood from other species blood, they are repulsed by former and attracted to the later. Fascinating creatures.
-
Oh no. The theory that AE saw a documentary about sharks sensing period blood, then had the idea to frame Bamber, will now flood the forum.
Even worse...it will probably be included in the next submission :'(
-
Even worse...it will probably be included in the next submission :'(
Alcoholly when are you going to stop this trolling?
-
Alcoholly when are you going to stop this trolling?
I think you should discipline David for this outburst, Cambridgecutie! Youngsters like David should be seen and not heard. Probably a few early morning reveilles and country runs with Real Justice will sort him out! Up at 5.30 a.m., a cold shower (Baltic style), then a good hard run over the hills. That'll set him straight!
It's soft justice that's to blame for all this - bring back six of the best!
-
when are you going to stop this trolling?
You are going to have to just debate the case with CC, like you were doing yesterday / in recent days. Otherwise it will just descend in to a slagging match.
-
Or put her on ignore?
-
For Rob. Will keep him busy answering each point. David has always refused to answer.
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
How to realistically scratch the aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing AE had the idea & decided to go ahead
I have tried to answer you questions Adam:
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
She just had to believe Sheila could not commit the crime so it had to be JB, she thought she was helping justice prevail.
Sheila's arm lenght.
No need to know this, if Sheila’s blood was in the silencer then it had to be JB who committed the crime.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
This is immaterial, as said above if Sheila’s blood is in the silencer this is enough to convict JB.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
Yes several ways, even if her arms were not long enough though this is not proven I believe? I have seen video's of a girl the same height as Sheila able to reach the trigger with the silencer on
What back splatter is.
No need to know anything about back spatter, a layman in the street would assume that a very close range / contact shot is highly lightly to result in traces of blood etc. getting into the barrel.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
Why does this matter it was 1985 not today with DNA technology
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
All that mattered was that human blood was in the silencer with a possibility it was Sheila’s, who understood back spatter back then not even MF!
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Not important she knew that all shots were close range.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
You know the answer to this .
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
If there was they would claim JB just switched them, the ploy would still work.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Quite easy in those days to do this and not get found out, but much more difficult with today’s technology to do this and get away with it.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
It’s not known for certain it was Sheila’s blood.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Who knows? Maybe animal blood?
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Yes
How to realistically scratch the aga.
easy!
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The relatives would just claim the Police missed it in their initial search.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
It would show it was not suicide, and put the spotlight on JB which it did.
The punishment if caught doing this.
How could it be proven? Any human blood in the silencer and JB takes the hit.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Did they know? DB probably suspected hence his bad memory.
Sheila's blood group.
Not important it was 1985, even now it’s not certain it was Sheila’s blood in the silencer.
The blood group of each other.
Not relevant, four other victims were shot at very close range.
-
I have tried to answer you questions Adam:
AE would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
She just had to believe Sheila could not commit the crime so it had to be JB, she thought she was helping justice prevail.
Sheila's arm lenght.
No need to know this, if Sheila’s blood was in the silencer then it had to be JB who committed the crime.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
This is immaterial, as said above if Sheila’s blood is in the silencer this is enough to convict JB.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
Yes several ways, even if her arms were not long enough though this is not proven I believe? I have seen video's of a girl the same height as Sheila able to reach the trigger with the silencer on
What back splatter is.
No need to know anything about back spatter, a layman in the street would assume that a very close range / contact shot is highly lightly to result in traces of blood etc. getting into the barrel.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
Why does this matter it was 1985 not today with DNA technology
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
All that mattered was that human blood was in the silencer with a possibility it was Sheila’s, who understood back spatter back then not even MF!
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Not important she knew that all shots were close range.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
You know the answer to this .
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
If there was they would claim JB just switched them, the ploy would still work.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Quite easy in those days to do this and not get found out, but much more difficult with today’s technology to do this and get away with it.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
It’s not known for certain it was Sheila’s blood.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Who knows? Maybe animal blood?
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Yes
How to realistically scratch the aga.
easy!
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The relatives would just claim the Police missed it in their initial search.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
It would show it was not suicide, and put the spotlight on JB which it did.
The punishment if caught doing this.
How could it be proven? Any human blood in the silencer and JB takes the hit.
Confidence the other relatives that none would succumb to police pressure.
Did they know? DB probably suspected hence his bad memory.
Sheila's blood group.
Not important it was 1985, even now it’s not certain it was Sheila’s blood in the silencer.
The blood group of each other.
Not relevant, four other victims were shot at very close range.
Give it about week and Adam will paste the same questions saying nobody has yet answered them.
-
I'd like to see how and where those 3 adults first died because I don't believe that they'd been found in the positions that we're led to believe.
-
I'd like to see how and where those 3 adults first died because I don't believe that they'd been found in the positions that we're led to believe.
Tatchell has claimed that there is photographic evidence that all bodies were moved. His lack of detail makes the claim ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is therefore not possible to know whether he is referring to something very dodgy or something more benign that happened during photography. Given the CT now claim that Sheila's first shot was her fatal shot and that 30 shots were fired that night, it would appear that previous sketches of how the incident panned out are obsolete.
-
Give it about week and Adam will paste the same questions saying nobody has yet answered them.
Yes I know David Adam likes winding people up ::)
-
I'd like to see how and where those 3 adults first died because I don't believe that they'd been found in the positions that we're led to believe.
I agree Lookout, I think you posted a photograph of June a while back that looks very strange?
-
Tatchell has claimed that there is photographic evidence that all bodies were moved. His lack of detail makes the claim ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is therefore not possible to know whether he is referring to something very dodgy or something more benign that happened during photography. Given the CT now claim that Sheila's first shot was her fatal shot and that 30 shots were fired that night, it would appear that previous sketches of how the incident panned out are obsolete.
Tatchell is primarily being fed the CT narrative that I have already explained is incorrect and easily dismantled.
I suspect Tatchell is of the view that Jeremy's bisexuality and Robert Boutflour's homophobia played a role in Robert Bouflours efforts to get a conviction. And that is a valid view to hold, it may well be true.
I also suspect Tatchell is primarily focused on raising awareness rather that studying case material, hence I an not going to consider him an authority on the Bamber case.
-
Tatchell is primarily being fed the CT narrative that I have already explained is incorrect and easily dismantled.
I suspect Tatchell is of the view that Jeremy's bisexuality and Robert Boutflour's homophobia played a role in Robert Bouflours efforts to get a conviction. And that is a valid view to hold, it may well be true.
I also suspect Tatchell is primarily focused on raising awareness rather that studying case material, hence I an not going to consider him an authority on the Bamber case.
Tatchell's podcast is worth a listen. He describes the non-disclosure issues eloquently. There is something of 'Robert Powell' about him.
-
Tatchell has claimed that there is photographic evidence that all bodies were moved. His lack of detail makes the claim ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is therefore not possible to know whether he is referring to something very dodgy or something more benign that happened during photography. Given the CT now claim that Sheila's first shot was her fatal shot and that 30 shots were fired that night, it would appear that previous sketches of how the incident panned out are obsolete.
Because nobody not even the police were present when this tragedy happened it does leave the case wide open to misinterpretations. For instance Sheila could have been standing when she shot herself, sad as it sounds it's a simpler method than lying down as she was tall and would have had no trouble holding the rifle up to her neck.
-
Because nobody not even the police were present when this tragedy happened it does leave the case wide open to misinterpretations. For instance Sheila could have been standing when she shot herself, sad as it sounds it's a simpler method than lying down as she was tall and would have had no trouble holding the rifle up to her neck.
With her being upright, it would account for the blood drops ( downwards ) on her arm which couldn't have got there if she'd been lying down.
-
With her being upright, it would account for the blood drops ( downwards ) on her arm which couldn't have got there if she'd been lying down.
According to David and Peter Vanezis, those marks on her wrist are where the blood stops. Therefore they can't have been dripped on to her arm.
-
According to David and Peter Vanezis, those marks on her wrist are where the blood stops. Therefore they can't have been dripped on to her arm.
Liquid doesn't stop running whether you're dead or alive and that includes blood.
-
Give it about week and Adam will paste the same questions saying nobody has yet answered them.
You certainly have never answered. Unlike Rob.
Rob is very naive & thinks AE wpuld need no information prior to succeeding in the frame of the century. I'll dismiss each of his responses now.
-
She just had to believe Sheila could not commit the crime so it had to be JB, she thought she was helping justice prevail.
---------
If there was evidence Bamber was innocent, AE would be prosecuted for an attempted (and failed) frame
-
No need to know this, if Sheila’s blood was in the silencer then it had to be JB who committed the crime.
----------
AE needed to know if Sheila could shoot herself with the silencer attached.
If she could, the frame atrempt fails.
-
This is immaterial, as said above if Sheila’s blood is in the silencer this is enough to convict JB.
----------
Ditto previous post.
-
Yes several ways, even if her arms were not long enough though this is not proven I believe? I have seen video's of a girl the same height as Sheila able to reach the trigger with the silencer on.
----------
Videos 20 years later would not help AE.
-
No need to know anything about back spatter, a layman in the street would assume that a very close range / contact shot is highly lightly to result in traces of blood etc. getting into the barrel.
-------,,Disagree. AE would also need to know if the rifle Bamber used was powerful enough to produce back spatter.
-
Why does this matter it was 1985 not today with DNA technology.
----------
AE needed to know who recieved contact shots. And where on the body.
No contact shots. No possible frame.
-
All that mattered was that human blood was in the silencer with a possibility it was Sheila’s, who understood back spatter back then not even MF!
----------
It would only matter if Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow. And no one else did.
-
Not important she knew that all shots were close range.
----------
Did she? Some nody locations are more likely to produce back spatter.
-
You know the answer to this.
----------
Yes. There was no other evidence against Sheila. AE needed to know this.
-
If there was they would claim JB just switched them, the ploy would still work.
----------
Why would Bamber swap the silencer he would leave by Sheila?
-
Quite easy in those days to do this and not get found out, but much more difficult with today’s technology to do this and get away with it.
----------
Really? Tell me more.
-
It’s not known for certain it was Sheila’s blood.
----------
The evidence says it was.
-
Who knows? Maybe animal blood?
--------
The rifle barrel had no blood on/in. AE needed to know this.
-
Yes.
----------
The crime scene photos are inconclusive. AE would not have access to the photos.
-
easy.
---------
Easy to scratch the aga correctly. Agree, no one has complained since.
-
The relatives would just claim the Police missed it in their initial search.
----------
That would really get Taff & co onside.
-
It would show it was not suicide, and put the spotlight on JB which it did.
----------
If successful. Which it was.
-
How could it be proven? Any human blood in the silencer and JB takes the hit.
----------
Agree. Sheila would not have put the silencer away. The blood being Sheila's is the cherry on top.
-
Did they know? DB probably suspected hence his bad memory.
----------
The relatives did not know if one or all of them would crack under pressure. None have.
-
Not important it was 1985, even now it’s not certain it was Sheila’s blood in the silencer.
----------
The relatives just got lucky with the blood matching Sheila's.
-
Not relevant, four other victims were shot at very close range.
----------
Important to know each others blood group if framing via Sheila shooting herself.
-
Holy shit Adam. You have just made 22 sequential posts in under 30 minutes. What a Nutter.
PS: This is also in violation of forum rules 5 and 6.
-
Holy shit Adam. You have just made 22 sequential posts in under 30 minutes. What a Nutter.
PS: This is also in violation of forum rules 5 and 6.
Do piss off.
You are lucky you are still here after continually breaking moderator instructions & posting personally abusive pictures.
What happened to Mike's permanant ban of you?
-
No need to know this, if Sheila’s blood was in the silencer then it had to be JB who committed the crime.
----------
AE needed to know if Sheila could shoot herself with the silencer attached.
If she could, the frame atrempt fails.
No if Sheila's blood is in the silencer JB is guilty, assuming the blood is not planted.
-
No if Sheila's blood is in the silencer JB is guilty, assuming the blood is not planted.
Agree Bamber is guilty. If Sheila could not have shot herself.
-
Agree Bamber is guilty. If Sheila could not have shot herself.
It's not proven she could not have shot herself even with the silencer on, there are video's on YouTube suggesting otherwise.
-
Agree Bamber is guilty. If Sheila could not have shot herself.
Although the evidence shows Sheila did not stand up after the first shot. So could not have put the silencer away.
AE would need to know this.
-
AE would have to find out a hell of a lot. Taff certainly wasn't going to tell her anything.
-
Although the evidence shows Sheila did not stand up after the first shot. So could not have put the silencer away.
AE would need to know this.
I agree but there was no silencer to put away as one was never used that night.
-
I agree but there was no silencer to put away as one was never used that night.
All the COA evidence exonerates Sheila. So only Bamber knows if he used the silencer. Or whether AE committed the frame of the century.
-
All the COA evidence exonerates Sheila. So only Bamber knows if he used the silencer. Or whether AE committed the frame of the century.
Page 28 of David Bird's COLP statement is interesting.
-
All the COA evidence exonerates Sheila. So only Bamber knows if he used the silencer. Or whether AE committed the frame of the century.
Your opinion is totally wrong!
`Sheila', was 'still alive when the first 6 man raid team forced entry into the farmhouse. If the' truth be known', 'PS Woodcock' was responsible for inflicting 'the first non-fatal shot' to 'Sheila' when entry was made in relation to the farmhouse, and subsequently, into 'the main kitchen'
-
Something like 22 replies in succession on this thread Adam. Would it not be better to club some of the answers together by putting them in a word doc first and then transferring the text in to a post? It's more fiddly for you but it would be better for all concerned.
-
Something like 22 replies in succession on this thread Adam. Would it not be better to club some of the answers together by putting them in a word doc first and then transferring the text in to a post? It's more fiddly for you but it would be better for all concerned.
I do usually highlight in bold a section in a post, responding below. As I did with David's thread post at the start of the thread. Other posters do this.
This was after QC made a big fuss over me copying & pasting sections of his posts & replying underneath.
I couldn't do this with Rob's post as his writing was already in bold.
Rob kindly responded to each of my points. So I had to do the same.
-
I do usually highlight in bold a section in a post, responding below. As I did with David's thread post at the start of the thread. Other posters do this.
This was after QC made a big fuss over me copying & pasting sections of his posts & replying underneath.
I couldn't do this with Rob's post as his writing was already in bold.
Rob kindly responded to each of my points. So I had to do the same.
Ok thanks for the explanation.
-
I do usually highlight in bold a section in a post, responding below. As I did with David's thread post at the start of the thread. Other posters do this.
This was after QC made a big fuss over me copying & pasting sections of his posts & replying underneath.
I couldn't do this with Rob's post as his writing was already in bold.
Rob kindly responded to each of my points. So I had to do the same.
Other posters don't repeatedly post like you do over and over again in reply to the same post.
There is a specific forum rule that forbids it. You can't repeatedly post to bump up your post count. You also can't dilute topics and spam threads.
And you're right, I did make a big fuss about it and I still do, because:
(i). It's wrong and you know it's wrong.
(ii). It's contrary to forum rules.
(iii). It harms the Forum because it's annoying and makes it difficult for people to read and navigate through threads.
I suggest that when you need to respond to a post, you create a Word document or similar and put all your points together in that, then post it in one single post, or at most, two posts.
-
Other posters don't repeatedly post like you do over and over again in reply to the same post.
There is a specific forum rule that forbids it. You can't repeatedly post to bump up your post count. You also can't dilute topics and spam threads.
And you're right, I did make a big fuss about it and I still do, because:
(i). It's wrong and you know it's wrong.
(ii). It's contrary to forum rules.
(iii). It harms the Forum because it's annoying and makes it difficult for people to read and navigate through threads.
I suggest that when you need to respond to a post, you create a Word document or similar and put all your points together in that, then post it in one single post, or at most, two posts.
Why would I want to do that?
-
Other posters don't repeatedly post like you do over and over again in reply to the same post.
There is a specific forum rule that forbids it. You can't repeatedly post to bump up your post count. You also can't dilute topics and spam threads.
And you're right, I did make a big fuss about it and I still do, because:
(i). It's wrong and you know it's wrong.
(ii). It's contrary to forum rules.
(iii). It harms the Forum because it's annoying and makes it difficult for people to read and navigate through threads.
I suggest that when you need to respond to a post, you create a Word document or similar and put all your points together in that, then post it in one single post, or at most, two posts.
I don't know to quote different bits of posts & respond in one post.
Your posts are often 5-10 times longer than everyone else's. Often with apparent new information. Resulting in lots of questions & more than one post needed.
I don't need to do it with other posters. David's 'sequence of events' post being the exception.
-
Supporters always deflecting from their pathetically weak arguments by moaning about the posting styles of those who believe Bamber guilty as charged ::)
-
I will look at your list of questions which you posted earlier when I get time Adam, I am off to work soon.
The blood, paint on / in the silencer was planted, no doubt about it in my view.
In which case you should be able to show how, when and by whom which might well result in the slam dunk piece of evidence Patrick O'Connor QC referred to in the recent Sky doc.
-
Tatchell has claimed that there is photographic evidence that all bodies were moved. His lack of detail makes the claim ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is therefore not possible to know whether he is referring to something very dodgy or something more benign that happened during photography. Given the CT now claim that Sheila's first shot was her fatal shot and that 30 shots were fired that night, it would appear that previous sketches of how the incident panned out are obsolete.
Since when are the CT an authority on anything Bamber related?
Where are you getting the above highlighted in bold from?
-
The contact shots to Shelia's neck have not left the abrasion rings typical of a silencer contact wound.
Cambrigecutie claims to have refuted this "everywhere" but has not done it at all.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4318)
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9070.0;attach=50720)
You have been advised numerous times. Experts for the prosecution have not yet had an opportunity to instruct their own experts to refute the abrasion rings. There is no need to since connected prosecution arguments stood without having to counter as explained by the judcial review judges. With regards to the marks on Mr Bamber's back, in the opinion of a highly experienced defence pathologist at trial he did not believe the marks were burns. And in the opinion of the expert from Arizona, by his own admission he needed to undertake further work before he could reach any sort of conclusion.
-
Page 28 of David Bird's COLP statement is interesting.
Is it? In what way?
-
In which case you should be able to show how, when and by whom which might well result in the slam dunk piece of evidence Patrick O'Connor QC referred to in the recent Sky doc.
If you cannot see a problem with how the main exhibit which turned the case on it's head was found in the cupboard after four or five officers had already searched the cupboard then you must be biased beyond belief.
Any person not associated with the case looking at the silencer and how it was handled after it was found would have serious concerns.
-
I agree Lookout, I think you posted a photograph of June a while back that looks very strange?
Why would officers go around moving the victims?
-
Is it? In what way?
Well have you read it?
-
Since when are the CT an authority on anything Bamber related?
Where are you getting the above highlighted in bold from?
Whether they are the authority is open to question, based upon ambiguities in interpretations. But they are without doubt miles ahead in terms of the of volume of evidence and the categorisation and cross referencing of evidence.
It was in the podcast. It's either a glaring error or by default, the CT are claiming that a second shot was fired in to adeceased Sheila.
-
Of course he knew it was to stop bunnies fleeing before the bullet hit them, it was not a silencer from a human ear's point of view. The effect also depended on the type of bullet used but you know all this Adam.
The bullets were subsonic.
-
The bullets were subsonic.
Yes but still a quiet gun.
-
Whether they are the authority is open to question, based upon ambiguities in interpretations. But they are without doubt miles ahead in terms of the of volume of evidence and the categorisation and cross referencing of evidence.
What evidence are you referring to?
It was in the podcast. It's either a glaring error or by default, the CT are claiming that a second shot was fired in to deceased Sheila.
Which podcast?
-
Yes but still a quiet gun.
In relation to what?
-
How the silencer was found and handled is what is ridiculous, to me whose blood is in it is not that important bearing in mind it's 1985. There could potentially have been traces of five people's blood in it if JB did the crime, which maybe would have covered something like 80% of the population?
It was important to the prosecution, trial judge and jurors. It is arguably the most important aspect of the case against Bamber and underpins his conviction.
Please explain?
-
What evidence are you referring to?
Which podcast?
I don't understand the first question.
Re which podcast, I don't know as I haven't kept any record of them and there are lots. It was within the first 3rd of them, at a guess.
-
I don't understand the first question.
You referred to "volume of evidence"?
Re which podcast, I don't know as I haven't kept any record of them and there are lots. It was within the first 3rd of them, at a guess.
No Way am I wasting time listening to reams of rubbish just to confirm more rubbish. Yes a second shot was fired into Sheila.
-
Was JB transferred to Wakefield in the hope that he'd be killed by an inmate, to silence him ?
-
You referred to "volume of evidence"?
No Way am I wasting time listening to reams of rubbish just to confirm more rubbish. Yes a second shot was fired into Sheila.
Yes, volume of evidence.
If you're not prepared to listen to podcasts then you shouldn't purport to know the case from their perspective.
Even the CT recognise that some podcasts contain errors. If you are deterred by the first error you think you've heard, then as I said to RJ recently, you're at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
-
I don't know to quote different bits of posts & respond in one post.
Your posts are often 5-10 times longer than everyone else's. Often with apparent new information. Resulting in lots of questions & more than one post needed.
I don't need to do it with other posters. David's 'sequence of events' post being the exception.
Please stop messing around and do as you have been asked.
Please stop disrespecting this Forum and its members.
Criticism is fine. Please go ahead and dissect my posts, but please stop messing around now. If your intention is to annoy, you have succeeded. Your behaviour is very annoying, as well as immature.
-
Please stop messing around and do as you have been asked.
Please stop disrespecting this Forum and its members.
Criticism is fine. Please go ahead and dissect my posts, but please stop messing around now. If your intention is to annoy, you have succeeded. Your behaviour is very annoying, as well as immature.
I have. As stated in reply 343.
I'll certainly dissect your posts. Please respond, don't just ignore. Respond without name calling, crying or sarcasim. Or say 'it's already been posted'.
-
Supporters always deflecting from their pathetically weak arguments by moaning about the posting styles of those who believe Bamber guilty as charged ::)
A pity. I'm usually the only one who responds to QC's & David's posts. Guess they don't like questions.
-
Please stop messing around and do as you have been asked.
Please stop disrespecting this Forum and its members.
Criticism is fine. Please go ahead and dissect my posts, but please stop messing around now. If your intention is to annoy, you have succeeded. Your behaviour is very annoying, as well as immature.
What humbug. You have no shred of credibility whatsoever left on this issue and are lucky still to be here.
-
Just been watching a docu. about Dontae Sharpe who was imprisoned for 26 years and was exonerated last month. All I can say is what a lovely man he is, a complete gentleman ! It's those who put him away who were the rats and utterly clueless.
-
Supporters always deflecting from their pathetically weak arguments by moaning about the posting styles of those who believe Bamber guilty as charged ::)
Alcoholly when are going to stop this trolling campaign?
-
Alcoholly when are going to stop this trolling campaign?
Obviously can't help it as it's a well known fact that alcohol addles the brain. It's contagious too !
-
Was JB transferred to Wakefield in the hope that he'd be killed by an inmate, to silence him ?
The information that 'I have received' regarding this matter [ from 'UC'] is that he wanted to be closer location wise to me ['I live at Barnsley, South Yorkshire']. I currently don't communicate with 'Jeremy' [letter wise, by phone, or visits] because there is no urgent need for him or me, to do so. I KNOW what the truth is concerning any possible influence he may, or may not have had, in the tragedy. 'He' knows, not to 'fuck with me' and 'I know not to fuck him about'. Lets just say, that as things stand, 'we both are aware and have respect for each others views in connection with the case which has been successfully brought against him. I am contracted by mutual agreement with' Jeremy' to be detached from the present campaign teams involvement in trying to secure clearing his name, and I have no complaints about this. But, in the background, I will always contribute, whenever, and wherever it seems appropriate for me to do so.
He is incarcerated less than 12 miles [Wakefield Prison] for a specific reason/purpose, which involves the authorities wish and desire for me to resume contact with him, like when he was serving part of his sentence at HMP Full Sutton' after I was released from prison because of police corruption [in my own particular case, and circumstances] investigated by 'Greater Manchester police', led by 'DCS', 'Grange Catlow', and supported originally by 'a senior Crown Prosecution person'. I believe that any prospect of my [own] convictions being officially overturned were influenced by the fact that I was supporting 'Jeremy('s)' bid to get his own convictions overturned...
-
What humbug. You have no shred of credibility whatsoever left on this issue and are lucky still to be here.
Just to be clear, are you saying that you approve of Adam's idiosyncratic posting style, which is the issue under discussion? Yes or No answer will do.
Also, can I point out to you that you have - again - just breached a specific forum rule, which forbids personal attacks on members.
Could you stop doing that, please?
Thank you.
-
The information that 'I have received' regarding this matter [ from 'UC'] is that he wanted to be closer location wise to me ['I live at Barnsley, South Yorkshire']. I currently don't communicate with 'Jeremy' [letter wise, by phone, or visits] because there is no urgent need for him or me, to do so. I KNOW what the truth is concerning any possible influence he may, or may not have had, in the tragedy. 'He' knows, not to 'fuck with me' and 'I know not to fuck him about'. Lets just say, that as things stand, 'we both are aware and have respect for each others views in connection with the case which has been successfully brought against him. I am contracted by mutual agreement with' Jeremy' to be detached from the present campaign teams involvement in trying to secure clearing his name, and I have no complaints about this. But, in the background, I will always contribute, whenever, and wherever it seems appropriate for me to do so.
He is incarcerated less than 12 miles [Wakefield Prison] for a specific reason/purpose, which involves the authorities wish and desire for me to resume contact with him, like when he was serving part of his sentence at HMP Full Sutton' after I was released from prison because of police corruption [in my own particular case, and circumstances] investigated by 'Greater Manchester police', led by 'DCS', 'Grange Catlow', and supported originally by 'a senior Crown Prosecution person'. I believe that any prospect of my [own] convictions being officially overturned were influenced by the fact that I was supporting 'Jeremy('s)' bid to get his own convictions overturned...
Mmmm, I see. I've always been puzzled as to why he was moved to the worst prison in the country, housing the worst of criminals yet prison officers in previous prisons that JB was in had said he was a " model prisoner "----if there is such a thing.
In view of the latest submission, I haven't heard of a prisoner being released from Wakefield following a successful appeal.
Where there are child murderers you're more likely to get bumped off but so far JB's only been involved with one skirmish in the past, though that was about him using the phone while another inmate couldn't wait his turn and so jumped JB from behind.
-
'yes', [Lookout] 'I know' the point that 'you are making' - but 'trust' in 'your own judgement' with 'regards to this matter'.
Mmmm, I see. I've always been puzzled as to why he was moved to the worst prison in the country, housing the worst of criminals yet prison officers in previous prisons that JB was in had said he was a " model prisoner "----if there is such a thing. In view of the latest submission, I haven't heard of a prisoner being released from Wakefield following a successful appeal.
Where there are child murderers you're more likely to get bumped off but so far JB's only been involved with one skirmish in the past, though that was about him using the phone while another inmate couldn't wait his turn and so jumped JB from behind.
'yes' - I see your point..
-
According to information I have recieved from 'OC', 'Essex police built up', and 'made out a false case' against 'JEREMY' to 'implcate him' as 'the killer'...
I would just like to emphasise, that any, or 'all police informants' will 'say anything' "that 'the police want to hear them talking about'..
-
Just to be clear, are you saying that you approve of Adam's idiosyncratic posting style, which is the issue under discussion? Yes or No answer will do.
Also, can I point out to you that you have - again - just breached a specific forum rule, which forbids personal attacks on members.
Could you stop doing that, please?
Thank you.
People are sick of you for one introducing obscenity to the Forum. We didn't have this problem before you arrived. As far as Adam's posts are concerned, time was you couldn't get enough of them.
-
According to information I have recieved from 'OC', 'Essex police built up', and 'made out a false case' against 'JEREMY' to 'implcate him' as 'the killer'...
I would just like to emphasise, that any, or 'all police informants' will 'say anything' "that 'the police want to hear them talking about'..
Another point I'd like to question is when JM was being interviewed umpteen times, was there another officer at all times witnessing what was said ? Or was it just SJ and his scheming brain ?
-
People are sick of you for one introducing obscenity to the Forum. We didn't have this problem before you arrived. As far as Adam's posts are concerned, time was you couldn't get enough of them.
I seriously don’t know why NGB gives his time Steve, I hope he doesn’t mind me saying it, it’s like being in charge of a set of Primary school children running to the teacher every day with tales. I’ve never witnessed anything like it in the time I’ve been here and if I was him I’d seriously walk away and leave them to it he’s worth far more than this shit!
-
I seriously don’t know why NGB gives his time Steve, I hope he doesn’t mind me saying it, it’s like being in charge of a set of Primary school children running to the teacher every day with tales. I’ve never witnessed anything like it in the time I’ve been here and if I was him I’d seriously walk away and leave them to it he’s worth far more than this shit!
You can't seriously endorse Adam's posting record? It's patently clear and has been for years, that his presence here is to disrupt and ruin the forum.
-
You can't seriously endorse Adam's posting record? It's patently clear and has been for years, that his presence here is to disrupt and ruin the forum.
There are several here who deserve, far more so than Adam, to be labelled "disruptive". I doubt there's a poster here who hasn't been attacked, OR can claim never to have attacked. For some, it's only about retaliation, for others, it's intolerance of another's views.
-
You can't seriously endorse Adam's posting record? It's patently clear and has been for years, that his presence here is to disrupt and ruin the forum.
Then why don’t you do the GROWN UP thing and ignore it or don’t post, instead of whinging like a school kid. You don’t think other posters are goading then and trying to disrupt? You’ve turned into a whinging child and if I was NGB I would leave you to it!
-
You can't seriously endorse Adam's posting record? It's patently clear and has been for years, that his presence here is to disrupt and ruin the forum.
At least he’s not abusive and labels others as cock suckers and degrades the moderator who gives his to run the forum. You’ve just witnessed David labelling another poster as a alcholic, I don’t know who CC is yet you both goad him/her, purely because you can’t beat them with posts.
-
I seriously don’t know why NGB gives his time Steve, I hope he doesn’t mind me saying it, it’s like being in charge of a set of Primary school children running to the teacher every day with tales. I’ve never witnessed anything like it in the time I’ve been here and if I was him I’d seriously walk away and leave them to it he’s worth far more than this shit!
Steve_uk is the poster that NGB gets annoyed by the most. Should NGB no longer gives his time to nuisance posters, Steve_uk will probably be the first to be purged. Several posters have him on ignore for a reason.
-
At least he’s not abusive and labels others as cock suckers and degrades the moderator who gives his to run the forum. You’ve just witnessed David labelling another poster as a alcholic, I don’t know who CC is yet you both goad him/her, purely because you can’t beat them with posts.
I had Adam on ignore for years. You're talking about one incident with QC, a poster that you lot ran from because you couldn't live with his posts 🤣. As for CC, she doesn't take on board any facts that don't fit her straightjacket 2002 appeal approach. While she is technically impressive, I don't think she is majorly case savvy. More like a glorified Adam.
-
Steve_uk is the poster that NGB gets annoyed by the most. Should NGB no longer gives his time to nuisance posters, Steve_uk will probably be the first to be purged. Several posters have him on ignore for a reason.
Are you sure about that. That’s the best way of dealing with someone you find annoying, put them on ignore, I made no secret I had you on ignore when all you ever did was goad Caroline and Jane. I never complained to NGB though
-
Are you sure about that. That’s the best way of dealing with someone you find annoying, put them on ignore, I made no secret I had you on ignore when all you ever did was goad Caroline and Jane. I never complained to NGB though
People complain to ngb about Adam because he is incessant in his trolling. I agree he's not the only one that is in the wrong on here. I also believe that if everyone had him on ignore, it would dull his interventions to background noise.
-
I had Adam on ignore for years. You're talking about one incident with QC, a poster that you lot ran from because you couldn't live with his posts 🤣. As for CC, she doesn't take on board any facts that don't fit her straightjacket 2002 appeal approach. While she is technically impressive, I don't think she is majorly case savvy. More like a glorified Adam.
Im also lead to believe Caroline left for different reasons and rightly so.
-
People complain to ngb about Adam because he is incessant in his trolling. I agree he's not the only one that is in the wrong on here. I also believe that if everyone had him on ignore, it would dull his interventions to background noise.
Roch! You have a choice. It's called an ignore button. Leave others to do as they will without inciting. Or do you like it when posters are goaded and insulted to give sport?
-
Posters on here use different abuse methods -
JackieD is an 'in your face' abuser. She will dive straight in without hesitation with hardcore abuse.
QC uses patronising tactics. Or will call posters trolls, spammers, complain, or do all three if his posts are questioned.
David trolls old posts looking for ways to attack posters who have changed stance. He will copy & paste the same quote if COA evidence is quoted or if feeling threatened.
Lookout floats around the forum & will use the personal attack method if she feels Jeremy is being attacked.
-
Are you sure about that.
If memory serves me correctly. NGB stated that and proceeded to call him a 'tosser' and told him to seek psychiatric help.
I made no secret I had you on ignore when all you ever did was goad Caroline and Jane.
I was only responding to their own goading and attacks on me. I even started posting on another forum to get away from them and they soon followed me onto that forum. So, you work out who was causing trouble.
-
If memory serves me correctly. NGB stated that and proceeded to call him a 'tosser' and told him to seek psychiatric help.
I was only responding to their own goading and attacks on me. I even started posting on another forum to get away from them and they soon followed me onto that forum. So, you work out who was causing trouble.
You’ve done nothing but goad Jane since she returned, she’s done the right thing and put you on ignore. She hasn’t complained to NGB though I bet!
-
Steve_uk is the poster that NGB gets annoyed by the most. Should NGB no longer gives his time to nuisance posters, Steve_uk will probably be the first to be purged. Several posters have him on ignore for a reason.
Maybe it's because I discover the inaccuracies in your posts and don't let them pass.
-
Roch! You have a choice. It's called an ignore button. Leave others to do as they will without inciting. Or do you like it when posters are goaded and insulted to give sport?
Alright, I'll put him on ignore again. I only took him off to give him a chance and engage with some of his questions.
-
You’ve done nothing but goad Jane since she returned, she’s done the right thing and put you on ignore. She hasn’t complained to NGB though I bet!
You say he has goaded Jane, I think his questions to her are fair. Though I admit they are a bit repetitive.
-
You say he has goaded Jane, I think his questions to her are fair. Though I admit they are a bit repetitive.
You have just contradicted yourself there I’m afraid.
-
You have just contradicted yourself there I’m afraid.
I think some of his questions to her are fair. I don't always agree with the way they are worded.
-
People are sick of you for one introducing obscenity to the Forum. We didn't have this problem before you arrived. As far as Adam's posts are concerned, time was you couldn't get enough of them.
No they are not sick to death of QC. You personally have been warned numerous times about your language and the content of your posts
Don’t keep posting rubbish
-
You can't seriously endorse Adam's posting record? It's patently clear and has been for years, that his presence here is to disrupt and ruin the forum.
Exactly
-
There are several here who deserve, far more so than Adam, to be labelled "disruptive". I doubt there's a poster here who hasn't been attacked, OR can claim never to have attacked. For some, it's only about retaliation, for others, it's intolerance of another's views.
There you go again more vicious attacks and more trolling
-
You say he has goaded Jane, I think his questions to her are fair. Though I admit they are a bit repetitive.
Repetitive only because they go un-answered.
-
At least he’s not abusive and labels others as cock suckers and degrades the moderator who gives his to run the forum. You’ve just witnessed David labelling another poster as a alcholic, I don’t know who CC is yet you both goad him/her, purely because you can’t beat them with posts.
Absolutely nonsense QC, David and Roch know more about the case than you and there lies the problem because you know times running out for the people who perverted the course of justice in the Bamber trial
-
Posters on here use different abuse methods -
JackieD is an 'in your face' abuser. She will dive straight in without hesitation with hardcore abuse.
QC uses patronising tactics. Or will call posters trolls, spammers, complain, or do all three if his posts are questioned.
David trolls old posts looking for ways to attack posters who have changed stance. He will copy & paste the same quote if COA evidence is quoted or if feeling threatened.
Lookout floats around the forum & will use the personal attack method if she feels Jeremy is being attacked.
Me ? Personal attacks ? That's a LIE !!
-
Steve_uk is the poster that NGB gets annoyed by the most. Should NGB no longer gives his time to nuisance posters, Steve_uk will probably be the first to be purged. Several posters have him on ignore for a reason.
Totally agree along with Jane and RJ
-
I think some of his questions to her are fair. I don't always agree with the way they are worded.
Roch, perhaps you could outline for me, exactly what it is about, what I imagine to be, his question(s) to me, that you regard as being 'fair'.
-
I had Adam on ignore for years. You're talking about one incident with QC, a poster that you lot ran from because you couldn't live with his posts 🤣. As for CC, she doesn't take on board any facts that don't fit her straightjacket 2002 appeal approach. While she is technically impressive, I don't think she is majorly case savvy. More like a glorified Adam.
Spot on about QC imagine if the knew who he was
-
Im also lead to believe Caroline left for different reasons and rightly so.
Best thing that ever happened
-
Roch! You have a choice. It's called an ignore button. Leave others to do as they will without inciting. Or do you like it when posters are goaded and insulted to give sport?
Exactly what you do, why don’t you come here and discuss the case?
-
If memory serves me correctly. NGB stated that and proceeded to call him a 'tosser' and told him to seek psychiatric help.
I was only responding to their own goading and attacks on me. I even started posting on another forum to get away from them and they soon followed me onto that forum. So, you work out who was causing trouble.
100% right David they fear you for your case knowledge
-
Maybe it's because I discover the inaccuracies in your posts and don't let them pass.
I don’t think so
-
Alright, I'll put him on ignore again. I only took him off to give him a chance and engage with some of his questions.
Please put him on ignore. I have and you are not missing anything
-
You say he has goaded Jane, I think his questions to her are fair. Though I admit they are a bit repetitive.
His questions are fair 100%
-
You’ve done nothing but goad Jane since she returned
My post record shows I have made 120 posts since Jane returned. Of those 120 posts only 7 involve Jane and it would be even less than 7 if I got an answers. Thus your claim I have done nothing but goad Jane since she returned is totally false.
-
Me ? Personal attacks ? That's a LIE !!
FFS
-
My post record shows I have made 120 posts since Jane returned. Of those 120 posts only 7 involve Jane and it would be even less than 7 if I got an answers. Thus your claim I have done nothing but goad Jane since she returned is totally false.
You will continue to be attacked by RJ because of your research on this case
-
Spot on about QC imagine if the knew who he was
What on earth makes you think you might be the only one who does, and others don't?
-
Bloody 'ell, I asked Mike a question at 4.39 and everyone's side-tracked it ::) What's new ? 2hrs ago.
-
Another point I'd like to question is when JM was being interviewed umpteen times, was there another officer at all times witnessing what was said ? Or was it just SJ and his scheming brain ?
'Hi Lookout' the documentation currently in my possession concerning how many times 'DS Jones' saw and spoke to 'Julie Mugford' before the commencement of 'Jeremys' trial amounted to '32 separate occasions'. However, when 'DS Jones' went on annual leave, 'DC Barlow' took up the mantle practiced by him...
-
'Hi Lookout' the documentation currently in my possession concerning how many times 'DS Jones' saw and spoke to 'Julie Mugford' before the commencement of 'Jeremys' trial amounted to '32 separate occasions'. However, when 'DS Jones' went on annual leave, 'DC Barlow' took up the mantle practiced by him...
So it doesn't sound as though either officers had a witness with them when questioning JM. It figures !
-
Roch, perhaps you could outline for me, exactly what it is about, what I imagine to be, his question(s) to me, that you regard as being 'fair'.
I will do Jane but not tonight. I don't support you being repeatedly questioned.. just now and again.. :))
-
What on earth makes you think you might be the only one who does, and others don't?
You haven’t got a clue have you ???
Ask Roch, David, Rob and Lookout what they think about QC
-
You haven’t got a clue have you ???
Ask Roch, David, Rob and Lookout what they think about QC
If you say so, and you choose to believe it, but I wonder why you'd say that? What has what anyone else thinks about him have to do with WHO he is?
-
It's rare that I welcome anyone onto the forum because I don't like being taken for a ride. QC was no exception when he joined because I totally ignored him, in fact we had a spat. However, as time went on and I realised that he had a sense of humour ( always wins for me as I think of Campion in that respect ) and although the subject of the debate is by no means humerous QC manages to bring out some quaint phrases that take the edge off the seriousness of it all.
-
It's rare that I welcome anyone onto the forum because I don't like being taken for a ride. QC was no exception when he joined because I totally ignored him, in fact we had a spat. However, as time went on and I realised that he had a sense of humour ( always wins for me as I think of Campion in that respect ) and although the subject of the debate is by no means humerous QC manages to bring out some quaint phrases that take the edge off the seriousness of it all.
Aww! That's a really lovely post, Lookout, and it's strange you mention Campion as I knew him very well. We'd talk about all sorts, and he frequently mentioned his son.
-
Aww! That's a really lovely post, Lookout, and it's strange you mention Campion as I knew him very well. We'd talk about all sorts, and he frequently mentioned his son.
>>>>>>>just been making a cup of tea.
I'd love to have met Campion as he always put me in mind of my old dad with some of his sayings. His son sounded as though he took after him too, a chip off the old block.
-
>>>>>>>just been making a cup of tea.
I'd love to have met Campion as he always put me in mind of my old dad with some of his sayings. His son sounded as though he took after him too, a chip off the old block.
I'm watching a thing on Pcss Margaret and Tony Snowden. My friend's sis in law is talking about him, She's his biographer and she had to promise not to publish until after his death. She described him as "naughty" by fun and likeable!!
I live very close to where Campion lived. I was lucky to have got to know him as he'd been VERY ill. Some of what he said, I took with a pinch of salt, but he was always amusing.
-
Obviously can't help it as it's a well known fact that alcohol addles the brain. It's contagious too !
At least I've got a brain to addle unlike the supporters here and their rubbish posts!
-
Alcoholly when are going to stop this trolling campaign?
This is what you resort to when your posts are dissected and rightly rubbished.
-
This is what you resort to when your posts are dissected and rightly rubbished.
Don't knock David's 'sequence of events'. It only had 37 holes.
-
This is what you resort to when your posts are dissected and rightly rubbished.
You have achieved nothing of the sort.
-
At least I've got a brain to addle unlike the supporters here and their rubbish posts!
Rubbish post like you claiming the contact wounds on Nichollas Caffells cheek bone and above his eyebrow, would produce no backspatter because of the hair on his head?
Rubbish posts like you claiming to have refuted a subject "everywhere" when in actual fact you refuted it nowhere?
Rubbish posts like you claiming the case is a "slamdunk" then failing to explain why?
Those kind of rubbish posts? 8)
-
Don't knock David's 'sequence of events'. It only had 37 holes.
As expected, you are already ignoring the fact Rob answered them all.
-
As expected, you are already ignoring the fact Rob answered them all.
That was 22 points.
Rob automatically says AE would not need any information prior to the frame of the century.
-
That was 22 points.
Rob automatically says AE would not need any information prior to the frame of the century.
Yes Adam all anyone needed to know was that a silencer in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it would convict JB and notice I said anyone.
-
Yes Adam all anyone needed to know was that a silencer in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it would convict JB and notice I said anyone.
Exactly. And it only worked because RIvlin QC never let the jury consider deliberate contamination.
-
Exactly. And it only worked because RIvlin QC never let the jury consider deliberate contamination.
I hope this case David was the first and last time Rivlin QC defended anyone?
-
I hope this case David was the first and last time Rivlin QC defended anyone?
So do I ! I could have done better myself.
-
Yes Adam all anyone needed to know was that a silencer in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it would convict JB and notice I said anyone.
I think you mean Sheila's blood groupings shared by about 8% of the white British population.
At a minimum any 'planter' would need to know Sheila's groupings and have access to blood with those groupings.
Forget David's diluted period blood theory because I can assure you 100% that conventional serological analysis of blood, used in this case, requires good quality dried blood of a certain quantity.
-
Exactly. And it only worked because RIvlin QC never let the jury consider deliberate contamination.
What do you think he was indirectly saying at trial when he asked Mr Bouflour snr and jnr if they had ever incurred cuts when handling firearms?
-
So do I ! I could have done better myself.
Of course you could! Your explanation for Sheila's blood groupings in the silencer is that she removed it during the shootings and her own blood dripped into it!
Your problem with the above is that Sheila did not incur any blood producing wounds until she received her own gunshot wounds in the main bedroom. Therefore how could she possibly have removed the silencer, gone downstairs and put it back in the cupboard?
-
Of course you could! Your explanation for Sheila's blood groupings in the silencer is that she removed it during the shootings and her own blood dripped into it!
Your problem with the above is that Sheila did not incur any blood producing wounds until she received her own gunshot wounds in the main bedroom. Therefore how could she possibly have removed the silencer, gone downstairs and put it back in the cupboard?
The blood in that silencer was a mixture of Nevill, June's and------because we know nothing about the covered wound below Sheila's abdomen ? her blood " group " as well, therefore risking contamination to the silencer which hadn't been a TRUE match to anyone.
Initially, a silencer had been found under the bed in Nevill and June's bedroom. Information is held !
-
This " withheld " information has and still is threatening the whole legal system. It's an archaic system and cases like this are still conducted behind closed doors to generally protect the innocent which is so wrong.
Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt !
-
The blood in that silencer was a mixture of Nevill, June's and------because we know nothing about the covered wound below Sheila's abdomen ? her blood " group " as well, therefore risking contamination to the silencer which hadn't been a TRUE match to anyone.
Initially, a silencer had been found under the bed in Nevill and June's bedroom. Information is held !
The jury heard all about the mixed blood theory and rejected it rightly so in my opinion. Mr Bamber did not receive any contact shots and the expert, Mr Fletcher, said Mrs Bamber might have received one contact shot but he thought it unlikely. How then did the blood groupings represent Mr and Mrs Bamber's?
You're right no one at rial mentioned the dressed wound on Sheila's abdomen. Too late to assist Bamber now since it was something that could have been adjudicated on at trial. I can only assume the defence did not seek to advance knowing it would not stand up under cross examination.
-
This " withheld " information has and still is threatening the whole legal system. It's an archaic system and cases like this are still conducted behind closed doors to generally protect the innocent which is so wrong.
Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt !
Take it up with your MP.
-
Take it up with your MP.
You are so irrelevant
https://youtu.be/_ZzxpKgaPgI
-
Take it up with your MP.
We are here to discuss a potential miscarriage of justice not to take instructions from the likes of you
-
You are so irrelevant
https://youtu.be/_ZzxpKgaPgI
When all else fails, eh ? ::)
-
You are so irrelevant
https://youtu.be/_ZzxpKgaPgI
It might be boring but its kept Bamber behind bars for over 36 years and it will continue to do so.
-
We are here to discuss a potential miscarriage of justice not to take instructions from the likes of you
What action would you suggest Lookout takes if she's unhappy with the legal system? Making a post on an internet forum, read by a handul, doesn't strike me as being very effective!
-
M.P's indeed. They're too busy with their nose's in the troughs to bother about the public.
-
When all else fails, eh ? ::)
Talking of 'fails' any news on Bamber's latest submission?
-
It might be boring but its kept Bamber behind bars for over 36 years and it will continue to do so.
We will see and the slam dunk will be the American documentary makers looking at the case right now.
The can give the main players in the case the game they crave when no stone is left unturned
Cannot wait. Be exited
-
M.P's indeed. They're too busy with their nose's in the troughs to bother about the public.
Ever considered making a case for all out anarchy?
-
When all else fails, eh ? ::)
I know CC with the same old narrative. Yawn
-
Ever considered making a case for all out anarchy?
Running out of content 😂
-
We will see and the slam dunk will be the American documentary makers looking at the case right now.
The can give the main players in the case the game they crave when no stone is left unturned
Cannot wait. Be exited
Take a long time from looking to airing. Doesn't sound like you're hopeful about Bamber's latest submission and imminent referral to appeal courts with an acquittal all but a formality?
-
Forget David's diluted period blood theory because I can assure you 100% that conventional serological analysis of blood, used in this case, requires good quality dried blood of a certain quantity.
Source?
-
Ever considered making a case for all out anarchy?
Why not ? We badly need something to sort the wheat from the chaff.
-
Source?
I've provided a source previously.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
-
I've provided a source previously.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
Hi Holly
-
I know CC with the same old narrative. Yawn
You recycle your narrative with every post! Its your tagline as follows -
"Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 cheque frauds, robbery, and drug deailing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before the trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000"
All the above was put before the jury or defence decided not to adjudicate on at trial so no longer relevant.
1. Cheque fraud
344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
2. Caravan Park Robbery
"I would like to tell you about the burglary I committed with Jeremy."
338. At that point she was cautioned and told that she did not have to say anything but she went on to give the police details of that burglary. Having dealt with that matter, she then revealed that she had also committed the cheque fraud with Susan Battersby.
340. All these facts were clearly known to the defence and they were in a position to make such use of them as they saw fit. The first document that Mr Turner submits is significant and which had not been disclosed to the defence is a police action form (Action no. 148) dated 13 September 1985.340. All these facts were clearly known to the defence and they were in a position to make such use of them as they saw fit. The first document that Mr Turner submits is significant and which had not been disclosed to the defence is a police action form (Action no. 148) dated 13 September 1985.
3. Press deal
363. The final limb of ground 5 relates to the fact that Julie Mugford sold her story to the newspapers. As we made clear earlier in this judgment one ground of appeal raised before the court at the original appeal and rejected by the court as unarguable related to this same topic.
364. Mr Turner explained to the court that there was now evidence available to show that when Julie Mugford indicated through the prosecution that she had not sold her story to the press at the time of trial that this was simply untrue.
365. We can deal with this aspect of the case shortly because by the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Turner acknowledged that he was unable to establish on that this was so.
366. He, therefore, did not address us in his closing speech to argue that there was any significant difference between the ground that had earlier failed and the present ground and accordingly it must fail as it properly did before.
-
The drug dealing seems to have been played down probably because it was a quid pro quo with both equally involved.
-
Hi Holly
Hi Valerie
-
Hi Valerie
Is Holly(wood) beckoning?
-
I've provided a source previously.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
I remember when you told me about this
-
I remember when you told me about this
Its readily accessible to anyone who cares to look!
-
When you told me this
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
-
When you told me this
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
Really?
-
Really?
Yep
-
I've provided a source previously.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
Hi Alcoholly.
As you already know there is no mention in that article of menstrual blood being incapable of producing these results.
Why are you pretending to be a guilter? I know you have plenty of time on your hands being unemployed and all but still it's rather pathetic and pointless.
-
Really?
Yep
When you told me this
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
Come on Jackie, that's not fair. You can't expect someone with alcohol induced alzheimer's to remember that far back! :)) :)) 8)
-
Bit weird David saying CC is Holly Goodhead.
Holly Goodhead is a poster & moderator on the Red forum. She is a Bamber supporter.
David met Holly a few years ago. They did not get along. Holly not being impressed with David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
David has since referred to Holly as an alcoholic. Not sure how he knows after one meeting.
Now CC is being called Alcoholly by David. Although I do not believe she has ever mentioned alcohol.
-
Bit weird David saying CC is Holly Goodhead.
Holly Goodhead is a poster & moderator on the Red forum. She is a Bamber supporter.
David met Holly a few years ago. They did not get along. Holly not being impressed with David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
David has since referred to Holly as an alcoholic. Not sure how he knows after one meeting.
Now CC is being called Alcoholly by David. Although I do not believe she has ever mentioned alcohol.
It's rather obvious CC is HG on a wind up. Adam you didn't think somebody would actually take you seriously did you?
She makes no secret of her drinking habits on the Red forum.
-
If you are drunk at 11:47pm on a Tuesday evening posting on a true crime forum. If that does not scream alcoholic, I don't know what does.
This is when I decided to pull the plug on the red forum.
-
Trouble is with those sort of people you don't know how you've got them as their mindsets are iffy. I can't be doing with self-inflicted brain fog.
-
Poor Adam.
He joined this forum one month before Paul Harrison changed his agenda, giving him the false impression he had made people change their mind.
Now almost 25 THOUSAND posts later, Someone finally tells him how good his posts are. Turns out it was a JB supporter winding people up.
Adam is in much need of emotional support right now. :))
-
Q QC he’s up for a bit of that
-
Hi Alcoholly.
As you already know there is no mention in that article of menstrual blood being incapable of producing these results.
Why are you pretending to be a guilter? I know you have plenty of time on your hands being unemployed and all but still it's rather pathetic and pointless.
Alcoholly?
If the forum had a minimum entry requirement you wouldn't be here! The article doesn't need to refer to menstrual blood to blow apart your absurd theory that a pair of menstural blood stained knickers left to soak in a bucket of water would be capable of yielding the results relevant to this case. It refers to quality and quantity of blood required for the type of tests carried out in this case.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
Do you believe a "large" sample in good condition can be found in a bucket of water?
-
If you are drunk at 11:47pm on a Tuesday evening posting on a true crime forum. If that does not scream alcoholic, I don't know what does.
This is when I decided to pull the plug on the red forum.
Surely even you are not so stupid as to take someone on an internet forum with the username Holly Goodhead displaying an image of Captain Mainwaring from Dad's Army seriously! :o
-
Alcoholly?
If the forum had a minimum entry requirement you wouldn't be here! The article doesn't need to refer to menstrual blood to blow apart your absurd theory that a pair of menstural blood stained knickers left to soak in a bucket of water would be capable of yielding the results relevant to this case. It refers to quality and quantity of blood required for the type of tests carried out in this case.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
Do you believe a "large" sample in good condition can be found in a bucket of water?
So have you changed from being a staunch Bamber supporter or are you just on a wind 🔝
-
Poor Adam.
He joined this forum one month before Paul Harrison changed his agenda, giving him the false impression he had made people change their mind.
Now almost 25 THOUSAND posts later, Someone finally tells him how good his posts are. Turns out it was a JB supporter winding people up.
Adam is in much need of emotional support right now. :))
Who has told Adam how good his posts are?
-
Surely even you are not so stupid as to take someone on an internet forum with the username Holly Goodhead displaying an image of Captain Mainwaring from Dad's Army seriously! :o
Indeed I don't take you seriously.
-
Indeed I don't take you seriously.
Good. Lets move on then. :)
-
Good. Lets move on then. :)
No, you will be getting banned soon for breaking forum rules, such as using multiple accounts and already being a banned member.
-
Alcoholly?
If the forum had a minimum entry requirement you wouldn't be here! The article doesn't need to refer to menstrual blood to blow apart your absurd theory that a pair of menstural blood stained knickers left to soak in a bucket of water would be capable of yielding the results relevant to this case. It refers to quality and quantity of blood required for the type of tests carried out in this case.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
Do you believe a "large" sample in good condition can be found in a bucket of water?
Who said the results were "optimal" in this case?
You can tell from the crime scene photos that the bucket is not full of water. We only have AEs word that the knickers were soaking.
-
Who said the results were "optimal" in this case?
You can tell from the crime scene photos that the bucket is not full of water. We only have AEs word that the knickers were soaking.
If it makes you happy to stay wedded to your absurd theory then far be it for me to try and convince you otherwise.
-
I've provided a source previously.
Conventional serological analysis
Analysis of the proteins, enzymes, and antigens present in the blood. These substances are more susceptible to degradation than DNA and this type of testing usually requires a "large" sample (quarter size) in good condition for optimal results. This type of testing is rarely statistically individualizing.
https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
In addition to the above I exchanged emails some time ago with George Schiro the forensic scientist who wrote the article.
-
Hi Holly
I remember when you told me about this
And so, both CambridgeCutie and Holly Goodhead have made contact with George Schiro on the exact same subject and quote the same pieces of the same text. Some obscure scientist nobody has ever heard of.
What a coincidence.. :)) :))
-
And so, both CambridgeCutie and Holly Goodhead have made contact with George Schiro on the exact same subject and quote the same pieces of the same text. Some obscure scientist nobody has ever heard of.
What a coincidence.. :)) :))
And you don't think others do what you do ie read through the back posts of others especially when it is known only two UK based forums discuss the case on a regular basis? ::) When I joined this forum I read through all of NGB1066's posts as he is an expert of sorts and I was interested in what he had to say.
Not sure what you mean by nobody has heard of George Schiro? He wrote an article which is relevant to this case and his details are on the internet.
https://witnessdirectory.com/georgeschiro
https://www.linkedin.com/in/george-schiro-b1411926
https://forensicscienceresources.com/GeorgeCV.htm
If only you dedicated the same sort of time and energy to researching the case as you do trawling through the back posts of others you might actually turn something up of interest!
-
And you don't think others do what you do ie read through the back posts of others especially when it is known only two UK based forums discuss the case on a regular basis? ::) When I joined this forum I read through all of NGB1066's posts as he is an expert of sorts and I was interested in what he had to say.
Not sure what you mean by nobody has heard of George Schiro? He wrote an article which is relevant to this case and his details are on the internet.
https://witnessdirectory.com/georgeschiro
https://www.linkedin.com/in/george-schiro-b1411926
https://forensicscienceresources.com/GeorgeCV.htm
If only you dedicated the same sort of time and energy to researching the case as you do trawling through the back posts of others you might actually turn something up of interest!
Hi Alcoholly 👋
-
Hi Alcoholly 👋
Hi Sobriety but still come up with rubbish theories about a pair of menstrual stained knickers left soaking in a bucket of water for days on end contaminating the silencer :)) :)) :))
If this is what sobriety does for you I'll have some of what Holly is on :P
-
Hi Sobriety but still come up with rubbish theories about a pair of menstrual stained knickers left soaking in a bucket of water for days on end contaminating the silencer :)) :)) :))
If this is what sobriety does for you I'll have some of what Holly is on :P
Hi Alcoholly 👋
-
Hi Alcoholly 👋
I have reported your post for disrupting the forum.
I can only assume that you're unhappy about me being here and showing up your posts for what they are.
-
I have reported your post for disrupting the forum.
I can only assume that you're unhappy about me being here and showing up your posts for what they are.
Hi Alcoholly 👋
-
Are you going to reply to this Holly?
So have you changed from being a staunch Bamber supporter or are you just on a wind up
-
Poor Adam.
He joined this forum one month before Paul Harrison changed his agenda, giving him the false impression he had made people change their mind.
Now almost 25 THOUSAND posts later, Someone finally tells him how good his posts are. Turns out it was a JB supporter winding people up.
Adam is in much need of emotional support right now. :))
I greatly value the moral support I receive from Adam via the PM system, and Adam shouldn't be ashamed of seeking moral support himself.
One of the issues Adam needs to explain is why he didn't recommend me for the CT after I revealed my revolutionary Crispy theory. I've been sulking about it for months now.
The rejection has really affected me.
-
David shouldn't really call a poster 'Alcoholly'.
He said himself he has to take medication to control his physical & mental health problems.
-
I greatly value the moral support I receive from Adam via the PM system, and Adam shouldn't be ashamed of seeking moral support himself.
One of the issues Adam needs to explain is why he didn't recommend me for the CT after I revealed my revolutionary Crispy theory. I've been sulking about it for months now.
The rejection has really affected me.
All get out the the violin for Adam.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/13A7YlLvYVDnmU/giphy.gif)
-
So have you changed from being a staunch Bamber supporter or are you just on a wind 🔝
Be a bit of an extreme wind up. Posting as a guilter for nearly 2 years.
Holly Goodhead would just be following in Trudie's, Mike's, Jane's, Caroline's, Susan's, Maggies, & Real Justice's shoes & changing stance to guilty.
Deciding to post on here as it's a busier forum.
-
David shouldn't really call a poster 'Alcoholly'.
He said himself he has to take medication to control his physical & mental health problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTDb0ebFh8E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTDb0ebFh8E)
-
I still think Adam should man up and challenge Cambridgecutie to a mud-wrestling match to decide once and for all who is the Head Guilter. We can't have Cambridgecutie challenging Adam's role with her own scenarios.
-
I still think Adam should man up and challenge Cambridgecutie to a mud-wrestling match to decide once and for all who is the Head Guilter. We can't have Cambridgecutie challenging Adam's role with her own scenarios.
Cambridgecutie is a supporter trolling as a guilter. So that just leaves Adam.
-
Cambridgecutie is a supporter trolling as a guilter. So that just leaves Adam.
I don't care, I want my entertainment. It's time to rumble!
NGB has already agreed to officiate.
Mike has promised to lay on beer and chips.
Steve has drawn up the rules - no eye-gouging, no kicks to the nethers by Cambridgecutie, the usual.
Everything is in place for the Fight of the Century!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA7oHMJW0AMHWbW.jpg)
-
Be a bit of an extreme wind up. Posting as a guilter for nearly 2 years.
Holly Goodhead would just be following in Trudie's, Mike's, Jane's, Caroline's, Susan's, Maggies, & Real Justice's shoes & changing stance to guilty.
Deciding to post on here as it's a busier forum.
HollyGoodhead was still posting pro innocent comments on the red forum last month.
I suspect HollyGoodhead set up the CambridgeCutie account two years ago (probably to access our library of evidence). But only started posting a few months ago.
Since she already was permanently banned and struggles to cover her tracks. She probably thought being a guilter would be a good smoke screen. She would then pretend to decide JB is innocent and start where she left off. Notice she is already using "what if JB is an MOJ".
Clearly this has backfired. And she has made a right idiot of herself.
-
Be a bit of an extreme wind up. Posting as a guilter for nearly 2 years.
Holly Goodhead would just be following in Trudie's, Mike's, Jane's, Caroline's, Susan's, Maggies, & Real Justice's shoes & changing stance to guilty.
Deciding to post on here as it's a busier forum.
Susan and Maggie stopped believing JB was guilty. I suspect Caroline has come back to her senses also, but wont do so publicly.
-
HollyGoodhead was still posting pro innocent comments on the red forum last month.
I suspect HollyGoodhead set up the CambridgeCutie account two years ago (probably to access our library of evidence). But only started posting a few months ago.
Since she already was permanently banned and struggles to cover her tracks. She probably thought being a guilter would be a good smoke screen. She would then pretend to decide JB is innocent and start where she left off. Notice she is already using "what if JB is an MOJ".
Clearly this has backfired. And she has made a right idiot of herself.
I thought it was a lot longer since Holly has posted on red. Why won’t she answer the question
-
Cambridgecutie is a supporter trolling as a guilter. So that just leaves Adam.
Possible. You are a guilter who posts as a supporter.
-
Susan and Maggie stopped believing JB was guilty. I suspect Caroline has comes back to her senses also but wont do so publicly.
Maggie & Susan flip flopped a lot. They were that sort of poster.
Caroline was a hard core supporter after watching CTSB & getting letters from Bamber. She became a hardcore guilter after I joined. But not without a fight!
-
HollyGoodhead was still posting pro innocent comments on the red forum last month.
I suspect HollyGoodhead set up the CambridgeCutie account two years ago (probably to access our library of evidence). But only started posting a few months ago.
Since she already was permanently banned and struggles to cover her tracks. She probably thought being a guilter would be a good smoke screen. She would then pretend to decide JB is innocent and start where she left off. Notice she is already using "what if JB is an MOJ".
Clearly this has backfired. And she has made a right idiot of herself.
I thought NGB said her account was active.
-
HollyGoodhead was still posting pro innocent comments on the red forum last month.
I suspect HollyGoodhead set up the CambridgeCutie account two years ago (probably to access our library of evidence). But only started posting a few months ago.
Since she already was permanently banned and struggles to cover her tracks. She probably thought being a guilter would be a good smoke screen. She would then pretend to decide JB is innocent and start where she left off. Notice she is already using "what if JB is an MOJ".
Clearly this has backfired. And she has made a right idiot of herself.
Maybe the plan was for JackieD's posts on Julie identifying the twins would have persuaded her to change from hardcore guilter.
-
I thought NGB said her account was active.
NaughtyNun hasn't been online since 2013
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171)
-
I thought it was a lot longer since Holly has posted on red. Why won’t she answer the question
You could always contact her outside the forum if you want to know? :-\
-
NaughtyNun hasn't been online since 2013
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171)
Naughty Nun, eh? Send her to me. I'll give her a spanking as punishment!
-
Naughty Nun, eh? Send her to me. I'll give her a spanking as punishment!
Trust me you wouldn't want to :)) :))
-
NaughtyNun hasn't been online since 2013
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171)
Is Holly Goodhead Naughty Nun?
Why not just return as NN & a supporter.
-
Is Holly Goodhead Naughty Nun?
Why not just return as NN & a supporter.
I think you should start a new thread, Adam listing reasons why Holly Goodhead would come back as Naughty Nunn rather than Cambridgecutie.
I think that, in addition to your moral support endeavours, there's a definite demand for this kind of post on the Forum. It puts members in the picture and helps summarise what's going on. It should put paid to these rumours once and fall.
-
Is Holly Goodhead Naughty Nun?
Yes.
Why not just return as NN & a supporter.
She was banned
-
Yes.
She was banned
Thought there profile would be deleted if given a permanant ban.
-
NGB posted in 2020 -
'She was before that Egap1 on here. She posted regularly. Her ban was lifted long ago.'
-
The following shows dried diluted blood. 1:1 being undiluted and the final one being 10 times diluted.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288836824/figure/fig1/AS:960122595594248@1605922473287/Dried-blood-stains-produced-from-droplets-50ml-of-10-ascending-dilutions-blood-to.gif)
-
NaughtyNun hasn't been online since 2013
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1171)
Stop trolling.
-
HollyGoodhead was still posting pro innocent comments on the red forum last month.
I suspect HollyGoodhead set up the CambridgeCutie account two years ago (probably to access our library of evidence). But only started posting a few months ago.
Since she already was permanently banned and struggles to cover her tracks. She probably thought being a guilter would be a good smoke screen. She would then pretend to decide JB is innocent and start where she left off. Notice she is already using "what if JB is an MOJ".
Clearly this has backfired. And she has made a right idiot of herself.
Stop trolling.
At least you are not calling another poster Alcoholly. As she is aware you are not perfect.
-
NGB posted in 2020 -
'She was before that Egap1 on here. She posted regularly. Her ban was lifted long ago.'
Egap1 was her too.
-
Egap1 was her too.
Didn’t she used to post a lot on adoption
-
Didn’t she used to post a lot on adoption
Yeah
-
NGB posted in 2020 -
'She was before that Egap1 on here. She posted regularly. Her ban was lifted long ago.'
Impossible to know if she was aware it was lifted. If she did then she may have been posing as a guilter in an attempt to cover her identity
Having a quick browse on Red, she was posting pro Bamber arguments as Holly Goodhead on Red in late October this year. She began posting as a guilter here in early October prior to her latest pro Bamber comments on Red.
So either she has lost the plot or it was a ruse. I believe it is the latter.
-
Didn’t she used to post a lot on adoption
Yes, that's the one.
-
I find it telling that AE never responded to the accusation contrary to DB.
"But his allegations against Ann Eaton and David Boutflour, made in his first full prison interview, represent the first time he has directly blamed other people for his plight."
"Mr Boutflour yesterday dismissed the allegations as “absolute piffle” and said he and his sister had no reason to incriminate their cousin, who was described by the trial judge as “evil, almost beyond belief”."
"Mrs Eaton could not be contacted for comment yesterday, and has previously declined to speak to the press."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html)
-
I find it telling that AE never responded to the accusation contrary to DB.
"But his allegations against Ann Eaton and David Boutflour, made in his first full prison interview, represent the first time he has directly blamed other people for his plight."
"Mr Boutflour yesterday dismissed the allegations as “absolute piffle” and said he and his sister had no reason to incriminate their cousin, who was described by the trial judge as “evil, almost beyond belief”."
"Mrs Eaton could not be contacted for comment yesterday, and has previously declined to speak to the press."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html)
It's hard to know whether David's seeming candour and pro-interview stance is an indicator of his vested interest in upholding the prosecution because of his own actions. Ann's more media shy approach - could it be that she shuns the limelight for the same reason ? Or could it be that they are just different personalities, one more outgoing than the other? I have a feeling that Ann prefers the cover of safety afforded by the actors who have portrayed her, as a doughty go-getter, putting the evil killer away. The Ann's on telly are very 2 dimensional.
-
It's hard to know whether David's seeming candour and pro-interview stance is an indicator of his vested interest in upholding the prosecution because of his own actions. Ann's more media shy approach - could it be that she shuns the limelight for the same reason ? Or could it be that they are just different personalities, one more outgoing than the other? I have a feeling that Ann prefers the cover of safety afforded by the actors who have portrayed her, as a doughty go-getter, putting the evil killer away. The Ann's on telly are very 2 dimensional.
Ann was showing the ITV cameras round the house and doing interviews not long after the 2002 appeal failed. It was a different story when COLP arrived in 1991, Ann claimed she was traumatized having to go through it all again with the police.
I suspect DB has no problem going on TV on a frequent basis as he probably hasn't got much to hide and thinks JB is guilty and has some kind of moral duty to speak.
-
Don't forget the snivelling of DB David. I don't know which was worse, the supercilious grin after the funerals or the snivelling.
-
DB is the spokesman for the family.
-
DB is the spokesman for the family.
What's that got to do with anything ? Spokesman for what ?
-
Another interesting thread.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843)
-
What's that got to do with anything ? Spokesman for what ?
That has got to do with why AE stays quiet & why RB is always being interviewed. Which is what was being discussed.
Keep up.
-
DB is interviewed when asked. There are so many documentaries being made.
If all the family refused, supporters would still complain.
-
That has got to do with why AE stays quiet & why RB is always being interviewed. Which is what was being discussed.
Keep up.
Why would AE have to keep quiet ?
-
Why would AE have to keep quiet ?
She doesn't. But DB is the family spokesman.
-
She doesn't. But DB is the family spokesman.
For what purpose ?
-
For what purpose ?
To respond to media approaches.
-
To respond to media approaches.
What media approaches ?
-
What media approaches ?
Have you not seen any of the documentaries?
-
The following shows dried diluted blood. 1:1 being undiluted and the final one being 10 times diluted.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288836824/figure/fig1/AS:960122595594248@1605922473287/Dried-blood-stains-produced-from-droplets-50ml-of-10-ascending-dilutions-blood-to.gif)
1:1 means 1 part blood and 1 part whatever it is being diluted with.
Have you considered the dilution effect with the menstrual blood stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water?
-
1:1 means 1 part blood and 1 part whatever it is being diluted with.
Have you considered the dilution effect with the menstrual blood stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water?
We discussed this under you other pseudonym Holly Goodhead. Nothing has changed since, no need to reiterate.
-
We discussed this under you other pseudonym Holly Goodhead. Nothing has changed since, no need to reiterate.
What was the purpose then of uploading the dilution image?
-
What was the purpose then of uploading the dilution image?
It wasn't addressed to you. It was for any member or the forum to look at, should they take an interest.
-
It wasn't addressed to you. It was for any member or the forum to look at, should they take an interest.
Well I am a member of the forum and I have taken an interest so what point are you endeavouring to convey by uploading this image?