Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 30, 2022, 05:33:AM
-
A total of 'five different blood (sample) types' were present upon 'the nightdress [`ND/3'] worn by 'Sheila Caffell, at the time of the shootings!
-
'A' and 'O' blood types were found to be present [when scientifically examined at the laboratory] on the front and back of 'Sheila Caffells', 'light blue nightdress' [`ND/3'] lab' item no.19
-
It therefore remains a very distinctive possibility that 'Sheila Caffells' nightdress [`ND/3'] `LAB ITEM NO. 19' got contaminated with spots and smudges of her victims blood ('A' and 'O') during her attacks upon them!
-
What can't speak can't lie can it ? Interesting.
It's a foregone conclusion that just the 3 adults present were involved that night and not a 4th, i.e. JB. I've never seen it any other way.
-
It's no surprise then that the nightdress was destroyed!
-
Shocking isn't it Rob ?
-
Shocking isn't it Rob ?
Yes terrible Lookout, that dress today would probably solve the case beyond doubt.
-
Yes terrible Lookout, that dress today would probably solve the case beyond doubt.
Yes, that and quite a few other things too. The deception is unforgiveable. Phone-calls " rolled into one ", 2 silencers " rolled into one "----and so it went on.
-
Sorry but I don't believe any of this.
-
Why not Steve ?
-
Why not Steve ?
It's not included in any of the books on the case for a start. It's never been disclosed on this forum for the ten years I've been here. It's never been raised by any of Jeremy Bamber's legal team hitherto.
-
It's not included in any of the books on the case for a start. It's never been disclosed on this forum for the ten years I've been here. It's never been raised by any of Jeremy Bamber's legal team hitherto.
Hi Steve.But what about the nightdress being destroyed just as DNA testing was being widely used.Dosent this make you the slightest bit suspicious?
-
It's not included in any of the books on the case for a start. It's never been disclosed on this forum for the ten years I've been here.
It's never been raised by any of Jeremy Bamber's legal team hitherto.
Of course it wouldn't be in any of the books as they're mainly anti-Bamber.
I doubt that the team know the half of it as they've only gone so far back in the case.
-
Hi Steve.But what about the nightdress being destroyed just as DNA testing was being widely used.Dosent this make you the slightest bit suspicious?
Wasn't Colin Pitchfork convicted in 1988 through the use of DNA evidence? The nightdress was destroyed in 1996.
-
Wasn't Colin Pitchfork convicted in 1988 through the use of DNA evidence? The nightdress was destroyed in 1996.
Well i suppose that is true Steve.I know the nightdress was examined by forensics in 1985 but probably not DNA tested.Maybe JB only thought to have it DNA tested around 1996 and when the police got wind of this,decided to destroy it.I dont know.Mike will have more idea of the circumstances surrounding the nightdress.
-
Well i suppose that is true Steve.I know the nightdress was examined by forensics in 1985 but probably not DNA tested.Maybe JB only thought to have it DNA tested around 1996 and when the police got wind of this,decided to destroy it.I dont know.Mike will have more idea of the circumstances surrounding the nightdress.
'
Here is the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD', [relating to the rear view only] of 'Sheila Caffells nightdress' ['ND/3' - lab item no. 19] dated, the `14th August 1985`, which serves to confirm that from a very early stage, forensic scientist and police knew that there were numerous bloodstains, in the form of 'smears', 'smudges', 'spottings', 'squirtings', 'drippings', and 'soaking, on the 'rear' of the garment!
-
If, as it was claimed, that prior to 'Sheila Caffells' body ending up 'on the main bedroom floor' (irrespective of how her body ended up there) that 'June Bamber' who had already been shot whilst in bed, how she had managed to climb out of the bed and then walked around to the other side of the bed, and dripped blood from her wounds onto the carpet where 'Sheilas body' subsequently ended up!
-
If, as it was claimed, that prior to 'Sheila Caffells' body ending up 'on the main bedroom floor' (irrespective of how her body ended up there) that 'June Bamber' who had already been shot whilst in bed, how she had managed to climb out of the bed and then walked around to the other side of the bed, and dripped blood from her wounds onto the carpet where 'Sheilas body' subsequently ended up!
Then, for whatever reason, she had walked back around the bottom edge of the bed, toward the main bedroom door where she was shot and killed'..
The point I wish to make regarding this matter, is that if 'Sheilas body' had already been dead on the bedroom floor, then 'it stands to reason', that 'June's blood' would have contaminated the top surface of Sheilas body', in particular, onto the nightdress being worn by 'her'. I think this proves beyond reasonable doubt that 'June Bamber' must have been shot before 'Sheila Caffell, was! This sheds some light on the sequence of events that unfolded that night. More significantly, it could lend support for' Sheila being the shooter'..
Another worrying feature, as far as I am concerned, was that the police cut out part of the main bedroom carpet and burnt it on a fire in the grounds of the farmhouse
-
Well i suppose that is true Steve.I know the nightdress was examined by forensics in 1985 but probably not DNA tested.Maybe JB only thought to have it DNA tested around 1996 and when the police got wind of this,decided to destroy it.I dont know.Mike will have more idea of the circumstances surrounding the nightdress.
Why would the police destroy a vital exhibit in a murder case where the convicted person was protesting their innocence Snow? If they thought it would help the Crowns case would it have been destroyed?
The technology has come on in leaps and bounds, if Sheila was the perpetrator there would be microscopic traces of the victims blood all over her nightdress which could be detected with todays technology that is what the police were scared of.
-
Wow indeed...
-
Wow indeed...
Good morning Roch.I am a bit slow when it comes to the technical stuff.Why wow? What is the scenario we are looking at here and the significance of the blood stains.Can you simplify things a bit for a dummy like me?
-
Why would the police destroy a vital exhibit in a murder case where the convicted person was protesting their innocence Snow? If they thought it would help the Crowns case would it have been destroyed?
The technology has come on in leaps and bounds, if Sheila was the perpetrator there would be microscopic traces of the victims blood all over her nightdress which could be detected with todays technology that is what the police were scared of.
Hi Rob.Yes of course it is suspicious the destroying of the nightdress.But i think what happened was the cops that did this got off scot free because the appeal courts decided not to investigate them,and sweep it under the carpet.Their reason being that any evidence that could have come from destroyed evidence would therefore be in JBs favour,But of course the cops knew JB was still protrsting his innocence and destroying the dress should give ANYONE reasonable doubt about JBs guilt,surely.
-
We must also gather that blood on the back of the nightdress denotes injuries from whence the blood came ?
-
Wow indeed...
Yet no damage to the night dress. ::)
-
We must also gather that blood on the back of the nightdress denotes injuries from whence the blood came ?
Good morning Lookout.So the gist of it is that Sheila could not have sustained any injuries or cuts to her back by simply walking through to the bedroom,they must have been inflicted while fighting with her parents.Is that it?
-
Good morning Lookout.So the gist of it is that Sheila could not have sustained any injuries or cuts to her back by simply walking through to the bedroom,they must have been inflicted while fighting with her parents.Is that it?
If she had cuts inflicted on her back, there would be corresponding damage to dress fabric. Yet there is none.
-
If she had cuts inflicted on her back, there would be corresponding damage to dress fabric. Yet there is none.
Hi Dave,Well might this possibly prove that Sheila washed and changed into the nightdress after the injuries were inflicted.?
-
Good morning Lookout.So the gist of it is that Sheila could not have sustained any injuries or cuts to her back by simply walking through to the bedroom,they must have been inflicted while fighting with her parents.Is that it?
That's about the strength of it snow. Seems pretty logic to me.
-
Yet no damage to the night dress. ::)
There wouldn't necessarily need to be. For a number of factors. But if the injuries were small, how do we know there wasn't corresponding small damage to the nightdress? It would be difficult to see. Especially if there was blood.
-
If she had cuts inflicted on her back, there would be corresponding damage to dress fabric. Yet there is none.
Not if she'd changed David.
-
Let's not also forget that in AE's statement she mentioned 3 buckets of clothes ? Then it became two, so what was in the 3rd bucket ?
-
There wouldn't necessarily need to be. For a number of factors. But if the injuries were small, how do we know there wasn't corresponding small damage to the nightdress? It would be difficult to see. Especially if there was blood.
There was a small hole reported on the front of the nightdress, so why would they notice that and nothing else?
The blood simply soaked through as the fabric overlapped. This is a loose fit nightdress not a slim fit.
-
Hi Dave,Well might this possibly prove that Sheila washed and changed into the nightdress after the injuries were inflicted.?
For what it's worth, 'I believe whole heartedly' to 'the suggestion', that, 'prior to the police entry into the farmhouse', at around 7.30am (onwards) that 'Sheila' washed [herself] and 'changed her lower body clothing'. In fact, 'I think I may be able to convince many of you' by drawing your attention to what is captured in 'crime scene photograph no. 23'...
Look here 'at everything captured in Crime Scene photograph no. 23'?.....
What 'do you all see'?
-
There was a small hole reported on the front of the nightdress, so why would they notice that and nothing else?
The blood simply soaked through as the fabric overlapped. This is a loose fit nightdress not a slim fit.
That's not what the examination note states though is it.
-
Not if she'd changed David.
Do not forget DB2 fire debris. Was it completely burned?
-
In fact, 'I think I may be able to convince many of you' by drawing your attention to what is captured in 'crime scene photograph no. 23'...
Look here 'at everything captured in Crime Scene photograph no. 23'?.....
What 'do you all see'?
Do you see what is hanging over the bannister on the top landing at the scene?
-
Do you see what is hanging over the bannister on the top landing at the scene?
I am not sure what it is Mike,but it appears to be soaking wet.
-
There was a small hole reported on the front of the nightdress, so why would they notice that and nothing else?
The blood simply soaked through as the fabric overlapped. This is a loose fit nightdress not a slim fit.
Why would it soak through from contact with another part of the nightdress, in just a small, specific area?
-
Hi Rob.Yes of course it is suspicious the destroying of the nightdress.But i think what happened was the cops that did this got off scot free because the appeal courts decided not to investigate them,and sweep it under the carpet.Their reason being that any evidence that could have come from destroyed evidence would therefore be in JBs favour,But of course the cops knew JB was still protrsting his innocence and destroying the dress should give ANYONE reasonable doubt about JBs guilt,surely.
Blood evidence was destroyed in 1996. Ten years after the verdict.
Except bed sheets destroyed a few days after the massacre.
It was also 7 years after the 1989 appeal and 5 years before the 2002 appeal. DNA was not a major thing then.
The silencer has not been destroyed but there is nothing left to test.
So nothing sinister.
-
Technology in 1986 was already good enough to establish -
'Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood.
The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found'.
----------
Tests now would show the same thing.
Not sure what DNA would find. If Bamber's DNA is on it, he can give several innocent reasons why.
-
Technology in 1986 was already good enough to establish -
'Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood.
The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found'.
----------
Tests now would show the same thing.
Not sure what DNA would find. If Bamber's DNA is on it, he can give several innocent reasons why.
Wake up Adam please.
In October 2008, on the 25th anniversary of the murder, Nottinghamshire police announced they had new evidence, derived using the latest forensic DNA analysis techniques. (DNA profiling didn't exist when Aram was murdered, and the national DNA database wouldn't come into existence for another 12 years.) They could now "say with certainty" that Aram had been in the red Fiesta, and that her killer had gone to the Generous Briton. They also had his DNA profile. But it didn't match any of the four million profiles on the database. A new tactic was called for.
The database was searched again, this time for "near misses": profiles similar enough to the killer's that they could belong to a member of his family. The DNA of the 300 closest (male) hits was then re-examined, this time looking at markers on the Y-chromosome: as all the DNA on this is passed from father to son, it's a very good indicator of familial relationships between men (allowing for mutations, my father, uncle, cousin and his son all have the same Y-chromosome as me, inherited from my grandfather). But all 300 near misses came back negative. As more profiles were added to the database, the same checks were carried out.
Eventually, after 600 near misses had been re-tested, the markers on the 19-year-old careless driver's Y-chromosome came up as a match for the killer's. His father and two uncles were arrested in April 2009. Their swabs were flown to the forensics lab by helicopter (the custody clock was ticking) and a positive match to the killer's profile confirmed within nine hours. The careless driver's father, Paul Hutchinson, a 51-year-old newspaper delivery agent, was charged with Colette Aram's murder. He pleaded guilty on 21 December, and on 25 January was sentenced to life imprisonment.
-
Wake up Adam please.
In October 2008, on the 25th anniversary of the murder, Nottinghamshire police announced they had new evidence, derived using the latest forensic DNA analysis techniques. (DNA profiling didn't exist when Aram was murdered, and the national DNA database wouldn't come into existence for another 12 years.) They could now "say with certainty" that Aram had been in the red Fiesta, and that her killer had gone to the Generous Briton. They also had his DNA profile. But it didn't match any of the four million profiles on the database. A new tactic was called for.
The database was searched again, this time for "near misses": profiles similar enough to the killer's that they could belong to a member of his family. The DNA of the 300 closest (male) hits was then re-examined, this time looking at markers on the Y-chromosome: as all the DNA on this is passed from father to son, it's a very good indicator of familial relationships between men (allowing for mutations, my father, uncle, cousin and his son all have the same Y-chromosome as me, inherited from my grandfather). But all 300 near misses came back negative. As more profiles were added to the database, the same checks were carried out.
Eventually, after 600 near misses had been re-tested, the markers on the 19-year-old careless driver's Y-chromosome came up as a match for the killer's. His father and two uncles were arrested in April 2009. Their swabs were flown to the forensics lab by helicopter (the custody clock was ticking) and a positive match to the killer's profile confirmed within nine hours. The careless driver's father, Paul Hutchinson, a 51-year-old newspaper delivery agent, was charged with Colette Aram's murder. He pleaded guilty on 21 December, and on 25 January was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Get your act together Rob.
Long quotes won't help you.
How would the nightdress benefit Bamber now. It was tested & available for testing until 1996.
-
Yours is one big act Adam !! Try the truth instead of spin.
-
Do you see what is hanging over the bannister on the top landing at the scene?
Is it blue cotton pantyhose with the legs hung over the top Mike?
-
I am not sure what it is Mike,but it appears to be soaking wet.
For example, the item could have been a light blue vest or jumper, which had been worn by 'Sheila' less than five hours before the photograph [no. 23] which captured this image, was taken! If so, who washed the garment? when? And why?
Another factor being the location of 'Sheila Caffells bedroom' relative to the entrance of her parents main bedroom doorway, and the position of the wet garment hanging over the bannister at the top of the main stairs?
[Adjacent to eachother]
-
Get your act together Rob.
Long quotes won't help you.
How would the nightdress benefit Bamber now. It was tested & available for testing until 1996.
Adam stop letting the village idiot doing your posts ;)
I will give you a clue:
"In October 2008" and "derived using the latest forensic DNA analysis"
-
Adam stop letting the village idiot doing your posts ;)
I will give you a clue:
"In October 2008" and "derived using the latest forensic DNA analysis"
What's 2008 got to do with a box of frogs? The nightdress was disposed of in 1996.
What new evidence could be found on the nightdress?
-
What's 2008 got to do with a box of frogs? The nightdress was disposed of in 1996.
What new evidence could be found on the nightdress?
I can't give you any more clues other than the case was solved using the latest technology in 2008.
I can dig lots more examples out Adam but I am sure you will want to do your own research.
-
I can't give you any more clues other than the case was solved using the latest technology in 2008.
I can dig lots more examples out Adam but I am sure you will want to do your own research.
I know technology is always improving.
What would today's technology discover on the nightdress that could benefit Bamber?
-
I know technology is always improving.
What would today's technology discover on the nightdress that would benefit Bamber?
We have discussed this several times before Adam, what was the police so scared of that they destroyed it?
The answer is above!
-
Besides which my reply to Snow66!'s post was just saying there was nothing sinister in the 1996 disposal.
-
We have discussed this several times before Adam, what was the police so scared of that they destroyed it?
The answer is above!
The nightdress was tested for -
Damage
Blood.
Oil.
GSR.
----------
Today's technology it can be tested for DNA. But Bamber can just say he's always inside WHF.
-
Testing for DNA would not really benefit Bamber.
If his DNA is not on the nightdress, it can be said he wore gloves. Or just touched Sheila's skin.
If his DNA is on the nightdress, he has to make excuses.
-
'Sheilas bedroom'
-
Main Bedroom telephone on Sheila Caffells' bed?
-
Besides which my reply to Snow66!'s post was just saying there was nothing sinister in the 1996 disposal.
Hi Adam.Dont you think the cops destroyed the night dress because they knew JB wanted to have it DNA tested.Wasnt it because they MAY have known that the other victims blood spray would have been discovered? I dont think the cops were ever that certain of JBs guilt,and who knows,maybe THEY had the dress DNA tested before they destroyed it.Wouldnt they also want to know whose blood was on it? Maybe they found out but it was too late.If they had framed JB thinking he was guilty,it was too late to reverse things without a lot of heads having to roll.Of course some think the cops knew they framed an innocent man in the first place.I just dont know at the moment where the truth lies.
-
Hi Adam.Dont you think the cops destroyed the night dress because they knew JB wanted to have it DNA tested.Wasnt it because they MAY have known that the other victims blood spray would have been discovered? I dont think the cops were ever that certain of JBs guilt,and who knows,maybe THEY had the dress DNA tested before they destroyed it.Wouldnt they also want to know whose blood was on it? Maybe they found out but it was too late.If they had framed JB thinking he was guilty,it was too late to reverse things without a lot of heads having to roll.Of course some think the cops knew they framed an innocent man in the first place.I just dont know at the moment where the truth lies.
No. But conspiracy theorists will.
How do you know Bamber wanted it DNA tested? DNA was barely known about in 1996.
The nightdress had already had it's blood tested. All the blood on it was Sheila's.
-
Adam stop letting the village idiot doing your posts ;)
I will give you a clue:
"In October 2008" and "derived using the latest forensic DNA analysis"
I can't believe what you've just said, although I appreciate they're not your words. IF this case had truly -TRULY-, been solved in 2008, using the latest and presumably irrefutable technology, which could have been placed, and publicly revealed to having been so, in the hands of the highest authorities in the country, why is JB still behind bars?
This information takes me back to within weeks of joining, as a supporter I'll stress!! to be told that "evidence exists" to see JB walk free!! Not only that, the poster had not only seen it, they HAD it. For weeks, apart from that I was getting bored with being told it, I saw no point in it. Such information should have been placed with the authorities. When I suggested such, to the poster, I was told it would happen when they saw fit!! Made me glad my friends aren't like that!!! Now I take any such claims with a large helping of salt and put them down to wishful thinking.
-
No. But conspiracy theorists will.
How do you know Bamber wanted it DNA tested? DNA was barely known about in 1996.
The nightdress had already had it's blood tested. All the blood on it was Sheila's.
'For the benefit of everyone', Here are the facts relating to the forensic examination of 'Sheila Caffells' light blue coloured 'nightdress' [exhibit reference 'ND/3', Lab' item no.19], where 'two stains of blood that was present upon her nightdress' produced two conflicting blood group type results. 'Stain 1', and 'Stain 2', produced the following blood group type results:-
301 - blood group type 'A'
2*02 - blood group type 'A'
JF192 - 003 - blood group type '0'
BB9 - 003 - blood group type 'O'
BB12 - 2*03 - blood group type 'A'
BB16 - 2*03 - blood group type 'A'
BB20 - 003 - blood group type 'O'
BB21 - 002* - blood group type 'O'
BB25 - 003 - blood group type 'O'
According to 'forensic scientists' who tested a sample of 'Sheila Caffells' blood, the result they got, was that her blood type 'A1'....
Yet, elsewhere, and documented on a Lab' record, it states that 'Sheila Caffells' blood type was 'A'..
So, what blood group type was 'Sheila' - blood type 'A1' or blood type 'A'?
-
'For the benefit of everyone', Here are the facts relating to the forensic examination of 'Sheila Caffells' light blue coloured 'nightdress' [exhibit reference 'ND/3', Lab' item no.19], where 'two stains of blood that was present upon her nightdress' produced two conflicting blood group type results. 'Stain 1', and 'Stain 2', produced the following blood group type results:-
301 - blood group type 'A'
2*02 - blood group type 'A'
JF192 - 003 - blood group type '0'
BB9 - 003 - blood group type 'O'
BB12 - 2*03 - blood group type 'A'
BB16 - 2*03 - blood group type 'A'
BB20 - 003 - blood group type 'O'
BB21 - 002* - blood group type 'O'
BB25 - 003 - blood group type 'O'
According to 'forensic scientists' who tested a sample of 'Sheila Caffells' blood, the result they got, was that her blood type 'A1'....
Yet, elsewhere, and documented on a Lab' record, it states that 'Sheila Caffells' blood type was 'A'..
So, what blood group type was 'Sheila' - blood type 'A1' or blood type 'A'?
Wasn't Colin Pitchfork convicted in 1988 through the use of DNA evidence? The nightdress was destroyed in 1996.
Examination of the nightdress seeking blood group type evidence, relating to bloodstains upon it, and the acquired blood group type results was not made available to the defense at trial [1986], and or, the appeal in 2002. This evidence was withheld from those representing 'Jeremy Bamber' under the opt out rules of, 'Non- Disclosure'...
-
I can't believe what you've just said, although I appreciate they're not your words. IF this case had truly -TRULY-, been solved in 2008, using the latest and presumably irrefutable technology, which could have been placed, and publicly revealed to having been so, in the hands of the highest authorities in the country, why is JB still behind bars?
This information takes me back to within weeks of joining, as a supporter I'll stress!! to be told that "evidence exists" to see JB walk free!! Not only that, the poster had not only seen it, they HAD it. For weeks, apart from that I was getting bored with being told it, I saw no point in it. Such information should have been placed with the authorities. When I suggested such, to the poster, I was told it would happen when they saw fit!! Made me glad my friends aren't like that!!! Now I take any such claims with a large helping of salt and put them down to wishful thinking.
I am not sure what you are saying Jane? a case was solved in 2008 with the latest technology, which I take to mean that prior to this date the technology was not good enough?
Sheila's nightdress was destroyed in 1996 it is now 2022.
-
I am not sure what you are saying Jane? a case was solved in 2008 with the latest technology, which I take to mean that prior to this date the technology was not good enough?
Sheila's nightdress was destroyed in 1996 it is now 2022.
The nightdress was tested in 1985.
It had -
No GSR
No oil.
No lubricant.
Only Sheila's blood on. [`please stop hallucinating'!
How many days before she was involved in the shooting of other family members, was it that she received her medication, and or took her prescribed tablets? Whenever that was, and whether she did, or not, there is no way that any pro-guilty Bamber is/was guilty recruits, could possibly know what sort of an influence, such failures, or successes, may have, or did have, or could have contributed to the outcome of this tragedy! It was a reckless decision by her doctor, to halve the amount of Haloperiodal given to her, so close to the time of 'the happennings'..
'Sheila' was not docile, as suggested by those who think that 'Jeremy Bamber' killed her victims!
She was 'alert enough', to 'write a suicide note' in her 'own hand'! She removed a tampon, from an unopened box of tampons that were found upon a bed in her room! An 'empty' tampon container was found downstairs in the living room', and during autopsy, the pathologist confirmed that there was a tampon inserted vaginally! I would suggest, that everything that 'Sheila' had to do (and did) in the entire process and procedure of placing her heavily bloodstained knickers in a bucket of cold water [in the kitchen], of her opening a box of 10 tampons in her bedroom and carrying one such tampon downstairs into the living room, where she removed a tampon from its packaging, and personally inserted it intimately into herself, then wash and rinse out the pair of light blue night attire legggings, and droop these over the bannister rail [half way between the main bedroom entrance and her own bedroom door, in the general region of the top landing/top of the main stairs]. She then [at about 7.15am] placed a rifle at a box room window located in between the main bedroom, and the children's bedroom, before making her way back downstairs into the kitchen, to face her preconceived fate! 'Sheila' was so docile and confused that she sorted out a second wooden chair, in front of a similar wooden chair upon which `Ralph Bamber' had slumped due to the fact that by that/this stage, he had been 'non fatally wounded 4 times' already!
Need I say more?
It was not damaged.
----------
Todays technology cannot change that.
Today's technology is not required to resolve this miscarriage of justice, all' Jeremy' and most others would have liked, and still insist, on the full disclosure of all aspects of the investigation!
-
The nightdress was tested in 1985.
It had -
No GSR
No oil.
No lubricant.
Only Sheila's blood on.
It was not damaged.
----------
Todays technology cannot change that.
Have a read up Adam on the sample size required for DNA analysis years ago compared to today and tell me what you discover.
-
Is there all that much in this [`Yes'there is] . If Sheila was the last person to be shot[`by whom'] it's very possible that traces of blood from the other victims could've easily be deposited on her nightdress. [`including for the possibility, that 'Sheila' had shot herself, or that she was shot by police on one, or two different occasions']
Regarding the attack on Nevill and June [`which could have been at the hand of 'Sheila' intertwined with the strong possibility, that at some stage, 'Neville' and 'June' attacked eachother, or indeed, that during a police exercise, the police trainees fired live rounds into the bodies of victims who they believed to be dead.][It remains distinctly possible, that 'whilst' carrying out 'the practice of informatives', that when police were reconstructing the position of 'Sheila Caffells' body, that 'the rifle in question discharged a shot' which actually did kill her'! once JB exited the room ['if, he was there'] June could've staggered over to Neville [`and whilst the parents were struggling with one another'] he in turn goes after JB or, of course the following could be true. For example, 'Neville Bamber' managed to get himself downstairs and make a desperate but short telephone call to 'Jeremy' which 'he' terminated the duration of, because, 'Neville' needed to call the police (3.26am) to alert them what had, and was taking place inside the somewhat isolated location of the farmhouse, from where 'Neville' was contacting them from the farmhouse telephone line'.. . Whatever way it happened there is a very distinct possibility of cross contamination of Neville, June and Sheila's blood.[`Yeah', a fair point] I think it would be very surprising if there was no cross contamination of the blood of the victims given the circumstances.[`including, the strong possibility that any cross contaminaction of all their blood types, at the time 'Sheila shot the others'] We simple don't know for sure the order of the murders. So a lot of claims regarding blood groups can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 'that' was 'a matter which the jury needed to hear about', and which 'the evidence of such' was' not disclosed' to 'the defense counsel' or 'to the court which tried the matter'...
Also very possible that Sheila was awakened by the commotion 'There was' and is 'no evidence', whatsoever, that 'Sheila' slept 'at all' during 'the evening and the night of 6th/7th August 1985' and could've easily gone into Junes room and would've obviously tried to help June.[`or, as 'the case may be', when 'Sheila' went into the main bedroom intent on shooting 'June' dead..] Again possible contamination.[`or', 'inevitable cross contamination']Shock and horror would've played a massive part in all of this[`which was surely the role' and 'responsibity of the jury', to make 'any judgement upon', but 'they were never given such an opportunity to pass judgement upon' relating 'to this issue'. So both could've been paralysed with fear. 'I guess', the 'same paralysis' and 'fear', on the part of the prosecution', its 'experts', 'police', and 'some members of the public'. If the true circumstances of the multiple contamination of 'Sheila Caffells' nightdress had been disclosed to the defense, the court, and the jury, the verdict would have been totally different!!!
[`Instead, everybody was being told that there was no other persons blood group types on the nightdress [which was not, and is not true!]
JB then returns after the fight with Neville.[`there exists no evidence capable of supporting this narrative! I mean as previously stated I'm not a student of this case but regarding this thread I can't see anything conclusive.['wait and see']
-
Is there all that much in this. If Sheila was the last person to be shot, it's very possible that traces of blood from the other victims could've easily be deposited on her nightdress.
Regarding the attack on Nevill and June, once JB exited the room, June could've staggered over to Neville, he in turn goes after JB. Whatever way it happened there is a very distinct possibility of cross contamination of Neville, June and Sheila's blood. I think it would be very surprising if there was no cross contamination of the blood of the victims given the circumstances. We simple don't know for sure the order of the murders. So a lot of claims regarding blood groups can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Also very possible that Sheila was awakened by the commotion and could've easily gone into Junes room and would've obviously tried to help June. Again possible contamination. Shock and horror would've played a massive part in all of this. So both could've been paralysed with fear.
JB then returns after the fight with Neville. I mean as previously stated I'm not a student of this case but regarding this thread I can't see anything conclusive.
What was the prosecution's case at trial, regarding blood samples found on her nightdress? Genuine question, as I can't remember.
-
The nightdress was tested in 1985.
It had -
No GSR
No oil.
No lubricant.
Only Sheila's blood on.
It was not damaged.
----------
Todays technology cannot change that.
The nightdress was only tested for blood.
-
The nightdress was only tested for blood.
51.
Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. [`Not true']
The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. ['The prosecutions case insofar as the only blood found to be present on the front and back of the nightdress belonged exclusively to' Sheila Caffell', was / is 'a blatent lie']
The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
'The nightdres' (exhibit 'ND/3', lab' item no. 19) was [never tested for the presence of any firearm residue']
The photos also show the nightdress was not damaged. ['I beg to differ']
All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.[`Not true']
Obviously none of these were found on her nightdress either. [`because no such testing of the nightdress took place']
-
51.
Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood.
The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.
The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
----------
The photos also show the nightdress was not damaged.
----------
All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.
Obviously none of these were found on her nightdress either.
Exactly. The nightdress was only tested for blood.
-
Because the powers that be had JB guilty from the onset nobody would bother with any further testing etc.
Then when family and friends joined in there was no hope for Jeremy. This is the way I see it, he was doomed :(
-
Exactly. The nightdress was only tested for blood.
'The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.'
-
Exactly. The nightdress was only tested for blood.
'All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.'
----------
Obviously none of these were found on her nightdress either.
-
No evidence on Sheila's hands, fingers, nails, body, face & nightdress confirms Bamber as the killer.
Supporters counter this in different ways -
JackieD posts about Julie identifying the twins.
Lookout posts about her gut feeling.
Rob posts about the nightdress being disposed 11 years after the masacre.
QC says if the police had waited until 2022 for a trial there will be more reasonable doubt.
Snow66! says Bamber would have crashed into things in the twins bedroom & woken everyone up.
-
'The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.'
Didn't it later come to light, that the item was only examined visually? What's the betting that this visual examination, (which for the purposes of EP served for an examination) was actually preceded by a proper examination, the results of which were / are contradictory to to the findings of the visual examination?
-
No evidence on Sheila's hands, fingers, nails, body, face & nightdress confirms Bamber as the killer.
Supporters counter this in different ways -
JackieD posts about Julie identifying the twins.
Lookout posts about her gut feeling.
Rob posts about the nightdress being disposed 11 years after the masacre.
QC says if the police had waited until 2022 for a trial there will be more reasonable doubt.
Snow66! says Bamber would have crashed into things in the twins bedroom & woken everyone up.
Didn't Stan Jones say that he had a " gut-feeling " that JB was guilty ?
Well I have the same " gut-feeling " about JB's innocence !
-
'The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.'
So what are you saying Adam Sheila was shot with a air rifle?
The rifle was only inches away there must have been GSR on her.
-
There would have been minimum GSR from a comparatively new rifle anyway, even after as many shots which were fired.
-
Didn't it later come to light, that the item was only examined visually? What's the betting that this visual examination, (which for the purposes of EP served for an examination) was actually preceded by a proper examination, the results of which were / are contradictory to to the findings of the visual examination?
Exactly. The garment was only tested for blood. I've now said it three times.
-
Didn't it later come to light, that the item was only examined visually? What's the betting that this visual examination, (which for the purposes of EP served for an examination) was actually preceded by a proper examination, the results of which were / are contradictory to to the findings of the visual examination?
You know you need to provide a source Roch.
I have never read this before.
-
No evidence on Sheila's hands, fingers, nails, body, face & nightdress confirms Bamber as the killer.
Supporters counter this in different ways -
JackieD posts about Julie identifying the twins.
Lookout posts about her gut feeling.
Rob posts about the nightdress being disposed 11 years after the masacre.
QC says if the police had waited until 2022 for a trial there will be more reasonable doubt.
Snow66! says Bamber would have crashed into things in the twins bedroom & woken everyone up.
Plenty of scope for reasonable doubt in this case.
Adam counters this in different ways -
The supper reconnaissance - likes to mention this a lot.
His gut feeling.
Ignoring points made by doubters and supporters that cast a different light on the evidence.
Just repeats the same points over and over again and hopes nobody notices.
Posting lots of lists of irrelevant things.
When caught out, denies he said the thing he was caught out on. Demands that you post up when he said it, then when it is posted up, he insults you.
Claims he doesn't insult anybody, then insults somebody, then pretends he hasn't.
Misrepresents the views and stances of people he disagrees with - see his post above.
Demands other members are banned if they disagree with him.
He's started so may as well carry on.
Gives moral support to wavering members like QC via the PM system. A prestigious role.
-
Didn't Stan Jones say that he had a " gut-feeling " that JB was guilty ?
Well I have the same " gut-feeling " about JB's innocence !
Good for you.
Stan Jones backed up his gut feeling with evidence.
'Stan Jones' was the cause of the ill feeling between 'DCI Jones' and 'himself'.
With the benefit of hindsite, he returned to the crime scene from 'Jeremys' cottage, intent on seizing the silencer that 'Jeremy had just been talking about! He made the mistake of wrongly assuming that there was only one silencer somewhere at the scene, and that it belonged to the rifle that' Jeremy' said he had left on a wooden settle in the back hallway. The door entrance to the downstairs bathroom and toilet, was close to where the wooden settle stood. He went toward the bathroom entrance and looked around. There were several weapons leaning against the wall, and a number of firearm accessories, including a Parker hale sound moderator [silencer], numerous boxes of .22 rim fire ammunition. He took possession of the silencer that would attract the exhibit reference of 'SBJ/1'.
-
Good for you.
Stan Jones backed up his gut feeling with evidence.
What " evidence " would that have been ?
-
It took a year before a case was cobbled together using hearsay and character assassination.
-
It took a year before a case was cobbled together using hearsay and character assassination.
You'r right, 'lookout' [`Oh', 'what a tangled web we weave' when 'we fist practice to decieve']...
'The signed exhibit labels' bearing 'signatures', are 'FAKE'