Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: ILB on October 07, 2023, 10:30:PM
-
Only Shelias blood - again not people specific a blood group that matched Shelias that also matched Robert Boutflour and a mix of the population
-
No GSR, GSR doesn't last long periods of time
You can firefight them all.
I will go by the COA.
-
Shows Shelia went to bed, bedwear doesn't prove that in its totality. People change into bedwear after showering. Both Shelias beds in the bedroom were made, no evidence Bamber made them
-
Lack of blood staining - means nothing, doesn't prove Bambers gulit.
-
Shelias leg pulled - I have ismails report in my possession. About the bedside cabinet. It is junk science. And will not effect a court of appeal hearing in any effect as it wasnt called as original evidence in the trial.
-
You can firefight them all.
I will go by the COA.
You should actually go by the prosecution. They brought the case.
-
You missed this one -
'Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's".
-
You missed this one -
'Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's".
Was it proved as being Jeremy Bambers?
-
You can firefight them all.
I will go by the COA.
It's not firefighting anything, it's sensible answers and alternatives
And before you go saying I'm championing Bambers innocence, I was pointing towards his unreliable rifle story the other day.
Prepared to look at all aspects without jumping to conclusions as always from day one!
-
You missed this one -
'Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's".
Where did you get that from?
-
You missed this one -
'Bloodied palm print on nightdress not Sheila's".
Can you elaborate on this please Adam?
Sheila's hand/arm had to be moved so the photograph of the palm print could be taken. I appreciate this is a bit of a sensitive area as Sheila's hands were perfectly clean?
-
Where did you get that from?
COA.
-
I have already been chastised by HB Cutie.
Sorry iv'e only just seen this, No i wasn't Chastising you, i don't even Know you, i attacked your post and i say again it is absolutly Rubbish the thought of giving Prisoners air time on TV when they Appeal and i gave my reasons why. Lucy Letby is appealing, should we give her air time to put the families through hell again.
-
COA.
What's the full passage of text Adam?
-
Only Shelias blood - again not people specific a blood group that matched Shelias that also matched Robert Boutflour and a mix of the population
Realistically how would blood from approx 8% of unrelated white British population end up in the silencer? Bearing in mind the scratches and hair support the theory the silencer was used during the murders. And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?
-
Sorry iv'e only just seen this, No i wasn't Chastising you, i don't even Know you, i attacked your post and i say again it is absolutly Rubbish the thought of giving Prisoners air time on TV when they Appeal and i gave my reasons why. Lucy Letby is appealing, should we give her air time to put the families through hell again.
I think snow was thinking along the lines of 'I'm a Prisoner... Get Me Out Of Here'!
-
Shelias leg pulled - I have ismails report in my possession. About the bedside cabinet. It is junk science. And will not effect a court of appeal hearing in any effect as it wasnt called as original evidence in the trial.
Really? Seems to have the background for the task?
The esteemed and learned judges were impressed with what you refer to as 'junk science' whilst acknowledging the evidence did not meet the criteria based on the judicial system:
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
-
Realistically how would blood from approx 8% of unrelated white British population end up in the silencer? Bearing in mind the scratches and hair support the theory the silencer was used during the murders. And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?
Added to which, how totally beyond belief, are the methods -and materials!!- said to have been employed to get it there.
-
Are you happy Cc that a .22 rifle using low velocity ammunition would result in a flake of blood due to blood spatter being found in the silencer?
The evidence is what it is. If not blood spatter how do you explain how blood matching Sheila's groups ended up inside the silencer? Bearing in mind this was further supported by the scratches and hair.
-
How does back spatter explain how blood was detected on the threaded (hidden) part of the silencer?
The blood found on the threaded part was insufficient in quantity for grouping. But tests were able to conclude it was blood and human in origin. I guess a small amount could have seeped in when Nevill was bashed about with it and bleeding heavily? Or Bamber may have had some blood on his hands and transferred it when unscrewing?
-
Added to which, how totally beyond belief, are the methods -and materials!!- said to have been employed to get it there.
Well David's theory of Mrs Eaton wringing out Sheila's left to soak menstrual stained knickers into the silencer surely still has to take the biscuit!?
-
Really? Seems to have the background for the task?
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/martyn-ismail-293b8518
The esteemed and learned judges were impressed with what you refer to as 'junk science' whilst acknowledging the evidence did not meet the criteria based on the judicial system:
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
-
What's the full passage of text Adam?
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print.
He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual.
-
Really? Seems to have the background for the task?
The esteemed and learned judges were impressed with what you refer to as 'junk science' whilst acknowledging the evidence did not meet the criteria based on the judicial system:
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
Will never be used as evidence so not detrimental.
It is science, it's about a bedside cabinet and where blood would fall. It's a predication. It's not one hundred percent accurate
-
Realistically how would blood from approx 8% of unrelated white British population end up in the silencer? Bearing in mind the scratches and hair support the theory the silencer was used during the murders. And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?
Where is supporting evidence that Sheila's blood group is as stated? Her medical records are sealed.
There was no hair.
A scratch can occur at any time?
-
Realistically how would blood from approx 8% of unrelated white British population end up in the silencer? Bearing in mind the scratches and hair support the theory the silencer was used during the murders. And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?
The AK1 enzyme is also linked with blood of game such as cattle, rabbits etc. It's highly likely the blood could have been animal. Had this been put to the trial in 86 things may have differed
-
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print.
He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual.
If that handprint hasn't proven to be Jeremy Bambers, that means little. Plenty interpretations open
-
If that handprint hasn't proven to be Jeremy Bambers, that means little. Plenty interpretations open
Probably too feint for it to be matched. Obviously not Sheila's.
PV says Rigor Mortais was well established on Sheila. So the blood would have dried by the time the police entered.
CAL says the neck blood photos were doctored by the CT.
-
Will never be used as evidence so not detrimental.
It is science, it's about a bedside cabinet and where blood would fall. It's a predication. It's not one hundred percent accurate
The emphasis is on Sheila's found position. Ismail's evidence supports the theory Sheila was pulled by her feet after sustaining the second instantly fatal gunshot wound. It does not need to be 100% just beyond reasonable doubt. Even DNA evidence is not 100%.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.[/b]
-
The AK1 enzyme is also linked with blood of game such as cattle, rabbits etc. It's highly likely the blood could have been animal. Had this been put to the trial in 86 things may have differed
You are wrong. All blood stained exhibits first underwent a test for a positive reaction for blood. They then underwent a second test to determine the blood was human in origin. These tests preceded tests to determine blood groups: antigens, enzymes and proteins.
-
You are wrong. All blood stained exhibits first underwent a test for a positive reaction for blood. They then underwent a second test to determine the blood was human in origin. These tests preceded tests to determine blood groups: antigens, enzymes and proteins.
The AK1 enzyme means there is fifty percent chance on paper at least it is animal blood.
-
Where is supporting evidence that Sheila's blood group is as stated? Her medical records are sealed.
There was no hair.
A scratch can occur at any time?
It is interesting how supporters are happy to rely on RB's blood groups matching the flake but not Sheila's!
The test results are documented in various places for all victims along with Bamber and the relatives. The defence also sent its own expert, Dr Patrick Lincoln, to the FSS site to verify all the findings.
A grey hair was observed by EP apparently attached to the silencer. Possibly pertained to Nevill. But fair play to John Hayward at trial as he did say it probably held little forensic value.
A bit of a stretch to suggest a scratch can occur at any time given the paint found ingrained on the silencer matched the Aga paint where all the evidence suggested some sort of struggle had taken place.
-
The AK1 enzyme means there is fifty percent chance on paper at least it is animal blood.
No it does not.
-
PV's report also says Rigor Mortais in June was well established.
This negates the theory that the police shot June 3 times because she was a threat holding a shot gun. After Sheila had shot her 4 times.
-
PV's report that Rigor Mortais was well established in Nevill.
Obviously he was not moved.
-
Sorry iv'e only just seen this, No i wasn't Chastising you, i don't even Know you, i attacked your post and i say again it is absolutly Rubbish the thought of giving Prisoners air time on TV when they Appeal and i gave my reasons why. Lucy Letby is appealing, should we give her air time to put the families through hell again.
No problem HB,I hear what your'e saying.
-
I think snow was thinking along the lines of 'I'm a Prisoner... Get Me Out Of Here'!
Maybe Cutie,or possibly 'I'm an innocent man...for heavens sake get me out of this hell'
-
The emphasis is on Sheila's found position. Ismail's evidence supports the theory Sheila was pulled by her feet after sustaining the second instantly fatal gunshot wound. It does not need to be 100% just beyond reasonable doubt. Even DNA evidence is not 100%.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.[/b]
Paragraph 518 has reared its head again,perhaps Killing eve will resurface again too!
-
Lifting a 15 stone Nevill in Rigor Mortais is one thing.
Putting his pyjama top on and putting him over a coal scuttle/chair is another.
-
It is interesting how supporters are happy to rely on RB's blood groups matching the flake but not Sheila's!
The test results are documented in various places for all victims along with Bamber and the relatives. The defence also sent its own expert, Dr Patrick Lincoln, to the FSS site to verify all the findings.
A grey hair was observed by EP apparently attached to the silencer. Possibly pertained to Nevill. But fair play to John Hayward at trial as he did say it probably held little forensic value.
A bit of a stretch to suggest a scratch can occur at any time given the paint found ingrained on the silencer matched the Aga paint where all the evidence suggested some sort of struggle had taken place.
Are you saying Lincoln carried out experiments on Sheila's blood to confirm it matched her known blood groups? Where did they get a sample of Sheila's blood, to confirm it was Sheila's blood.
The alleged hair is utterly irrelevant. They probably had to get rid of it because it was Bobby's or something like that (if it ever existed in the first place).
I'm not aware that paint can cause scratches on metal.
-
Are you saying Lincoln carried out experiments on Sheila's blood to confirm it matched her known blood groups? Where did they get a sample of Sheila's blood, to confirm it was Sheila's blood.
The alleged hair is utterly irrelevant. They probably had to get rid of it because it was Bobby's or something like that (if it ever existed in the first place).
I'm not aware that paint can cause scratches on metal.
So you're suggesting that the blood given to FSS was also RB's?
-
PV's report also says Rigor Mortais in June was well established.
This negates the theory that the police shot June 3 times because she was a threat holding a shot gun. After Sheila had shot her 4 times.
Adams mentioned to Montgomery when they went straight in after the TFG had left the house, that both the women [Sheila and June] having a complexion of Shiny almost waxed like.
it will not let me load the notes, but it's in Adams COLP notes.
-
So you're suggesting that the blood given to FSS was also RB's?
Just trying to work out what sample of Sheila's blood was provided. I understand they had exhibits. Just wondered which exhibit they used to obtain her blood sample.
-
No problem HB,I hear what your'e saying.
No problem Snow.
-
Just trying to work out what sample of Sheila's blood was provided. I understand they had exhibits. Just wondered which exhibit they used to obtain her blood sample.
They had three samples of her blood.
-
Are you saying Lincoln carried out experiments on Sheila's blood to confirm it matched her known blood groups? Where did they get a sample of Sheila's blood, to confirm it was Sheila's blood.
The alleged hair is utterly irrelevant. They probably had to get rid of it because it was Bobby's or something like that (if it ever existed in the first place).
I'm not aware that paint can cause scratches on metal.
I thought you might have been familiar with this important aspect of the case.
Blood samples were taken from the victims during pm's and passed to EP who in turn forwarded to FSS for analysis.
I think its fairly obvious the silencer (metal) scratched the Aga surround (painted wood) causing paint particles to attach to the silencer.
-
Blood samples were taken from the victims during pm's and passed to EP who in turn forwarded to FSS for analysis.
I think its fairly obvious the silencer (metal) scratched the Aga surround (painted wood) causing paint particles to attach to the silencer.
Thanks for confirming re the blood samples.
I don't believe you're being serious re the scratches, so won't comment further on that.
-
And how would RB know his blood groups matched those contained within the flake?
Nobody can answer how he would know, or whether he did or didn't know. That would be for a jury to ponder and a defence barister to ponder, if it was relevant to bother do so. Fact of the matter is it was a match and he was a key prosecution witness and patriarch of the inheritors, whom the jury were already suspicious of. We both know what would have happened if they had been told the truth. Bamber was already set to walk free anyway.
Lying to the jury on scientific evidence doesn't make the conviction sound. It's shithouse behaviour from the prosecution barister, that blemishes the scientist's trustworthiness.
-
Thanks for confirming re the blood samples.
I don't believe you're being serious re the scratches, so won't comment further on that.
What was my answer? Chopped liver? :(
-
What was my answer? Chopped liver? :(
Ha ha yes thanks to you also 😏
-
Nobody can answer how he would know, or whether he did or didn't know. That would be for a jury to ponder and a defence barister to ponder, if it was relevant to bother do so. Fact of the matter is it was a match and he was a key prosecution witness and patriarch of the inheritors, whom the jury were already suspicious of. We both know what would have happened if they had been told the truth. Bamber was already set to walk free anyway.
Lying to the jury on scientific evidence doesn't make the conviction sound. It's shithouse behaviour from the prosecution barister, that blemishes the scientist's trustworthiness.
Realistically how many of us can identify our enzyme and protein groups? How would Robert Boutflour know his groups matched Sheila's?
You do understand that Rivlin had before him, pre-trial, all the test results: flake, 5 victims, Bamber and relatives. The prosecution did not withhold the information. The judge even made a point of saying to Rivlin, the biologist was going to provide testimony about a number of blood stained exhibits is there anything the court needs to know about the way they were transported or words to this effect. Rivlin replied no.
How could Rivlin accuse Robert Boutflour of accidentally or deliberately contaminating the silencer when his main line of defence was to argue the flake represented an intimate mix of Nevill and June's blood which together potentially could have generated the same test result as Sheila's?
No idea why you are sounding off about the prosecution barrister and scientist? Are you now saying the scientist deliberately misled the jury much the same way you have accused Vanezis of doing?
You are beginning to sound like a crank/conspiracy theorist. Why are all these people going to perjure themselves running the risk of a custodial sentence, ruined reputation and career, loss of livelihood etc just to put a half-witted Essex farmer behind bars?
I'm not sure you understand Rivlin's main line of defence and the blood evidence. Rivlin told the court Sheila used the silencer to kill her parents and sons before removing it, returning it to the gun cupboard and then going upstairs to shoot herself. Rivlin argued the flake was generated by back spatter from Nevill and June wherby their blood overlapped and when the scientist cut the flake into 5 for each test he inadvertently took parts of blood from Nevill and parts from June which generated effectively a false reading representing Sheila's results. Rivlin obviously thought there was more chance of a jury believing this than Robert Boutflour dobbing his blood in. That said he did put it to David Boutflour that either he or his father may have cut themselves around the silencer.
If the prosecution has strong evidence the jury are going to find guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Nobody can answer how he would know, or whether he did or didn't know. That would be for a jury to ponder and a defence barister to ponder, if it was relevant to bother do so. Fact of the matter is it was a match and he was a key prosecution witness and patriarch of the inheritors, whom the jury were already suspicious of. We both know what would have happened if they had been told the truth. Bamber was already set to walk free anyway.
Lying to the jury on scientific evidence doesn't make the conviction sound. It's shithouse behaviour from the prosecution barister, that blemishes the scientist's trustworthiness.
I'm guessing that, unless he'd sent a sample of his blood away for analysis, or, for whatever reason, it had been done previously, he categorically would NOT have known what his blood comprised. Under those circumstances, I'd call it lying to put into the jury's collective mind that he might. I might go as far as to call it "shithouse behaviour".
-
PV says Rigor Mortais was 'well established' in -
Sheila.
Nevill.
June.
Daniel.
Nicholas.
This negates the theories that people were still alive when people arrived at WHF. Or moved by police.
They were always very optimistic theories.
-
PV says Rigor Mortais was 'well established' in -
Sheila.
Nevill.
June.
Daniel.
Nicholas.
This negates the theories that people were still alive when people arrived at WHF. Or moved by police.
They were always very optimistic theories.
We know Sheila was moved because the TFG were up in arms at the briefing when shown images. Bible, head, rifle all moved. In the end they got gaslighted by Taff, or another senior detective. Unfortunately among the defence nobody knew about this until many many years later. It was hidden from the 1986 jury. Just like RB's blood grouping. Just like JB having initially blamed the TFG for the shootings, just like Sheila having said all people are bad and should be killed. Just like the non-gunshot wounds etc etc etc.
-
I'm guessing that, unless he'd sent a sample of his blood away for analysis, or, for whatever reason, it had been done previously, he categorically would NOT have known what his blood comprised. Under those circumstances, I'd call it lying to put into the jury's collective mind that he might. I might go as far as to call it "shithouse behaviour".
Why bother with any of this? Simple fact is, it was withheld from the jury that it was an exact match for RB. This is the same RB whom the jury ended up asking a question about inheritance. Fact is the judge would not have been able to misdirect the jury about the blood in the SM. Since we already know JB would have walked without that summing up, withholding the blood results for RB is what effectively convicted JB.
-
Why bother with any of this? Simple fact is, it was withheld from the jury that it was an exact match for RB. This is the same RB whom the jury ended up asking a question about inheritance. Fact is the judge would not have been able to misdirect the jury about the blood in the SM. Since we already know JB would have walked without that summing up, withholding the blood results for RB is what effectively convicted JB.
I think you're missing the point in a big way. It appears you're either unable or unwilling to understand the blood evidence and the defence strategy.
-
I think you're missing the point in a big way. It appears you're either unable or unwilling to understand the blood evidence and the defence strategy.
I haven't had time to reply to your sermon above. You'll get your turn soon enough. 😏
-
Why bother with any of this? Simple fact is, it was withheld from the jury that it was an exact match for RB. This is the same RB whom the jury ended up asking a question about inheritance. Fact is the judge would not have been able to misdirect the jury about the blood in the SM. Since we already know JB would have walked without that summing up, withholding the blood results for RB is what effectively convicted JB.
Sorry Roch, but you really are pulling out all the stops -manipulating?- to make this guy guilty. You only objective is to see JB "walk". You don't seem to give a toss about his guilt. You've convinced yourself JB would, but for the summing up, be free. You have no way of knowing such to be true. Thankfully, the Booby isn't here to accuse you of being a mindreader -although, because you're on the same side, he'd probably overlook it.
-
I haven't had time to reply to your sermon above. You'll get your turn soon enough. 😏
Bring it on 8)
If only you paid the same attention to expert testimony, the prosecution case, legal proceedings etc compared with your devotion to Bill and David's theories you would be getting closer to the truth ;)
-
Bring it on 8)
If only you paid the same attention to expert testimony, the prosecution case, legal proceedings etc compared with your devotion to Bill and David's theories you would be getting closer to the truth ;)
Well, to be fair, it took you long enough - still not sure you actually believe he's guilty or just playing at devil's advocate?
-
Well, to be fair, it took you long enough - still not sure you actually believe he's guilty or just playing at devil's advocate?
She believes JB is innocent but has fun gaslighting other supporters, who she views as having inferior intelligence, is my guess. If check her posts on other issues you will probably find that she deviates from the official version and takes a more exploratory approach. All of her winding up on the JB case is based on doggedly adhering to the 1986 trial or 2002 appeal or other official rulings, where she pretends that the authorities must be right on every issue. That being said, I am glad she is back posting. Pity David has disappeared.
-
We know Sheila was moved because the TFG were up in arms at the briefing when shown images. Bible, head, rifle all moved. In the end they got gaslighted by Taff, or another senior detective. Unfortunately among the defence nobody knew about this until many many years later. It was hidden from the 1986 jury. Just like RB's blood grouping. Just like JB having initially blamed the TFG for the shootings, just like Sheila having said all people are bad and should be killed. Just like the non-gunshot wounds etc etc etc.
They had all been dead several hours. Since Bamber killed them at around 2am -
'Rigor Mortais well established'.
-
Supporters can still say Bamber is innocent. But Sheila would have had to have done everything between 3.10am to 3.48am.
No sightings or conversations, no Sheila barking, no June holding shot guns after being shot 4 times, no laying on cold agas or police putting Nevill's pyjama top on.
These huge time limits to Sheila the judge felt was worthy of bringing up in his summing up.
-
They had all been dead several hours. Since Bamber killed them at around 2am -
'Rigor Mortais well established'.
Perhaps the TFG had hallucinated at the scene, leading them to describe the issues they were not happy with. Maybe someone dropped something in their flasks of tea when they met up at Tiptree.
-
I think you're missing the point in a big way. It appears you're either unable or unwilling to understand the blood evidence and the defence strategy.
Are you sure Cc that the defense had the blood groupings for the relatives?
If so can you point me to the information?
-
Perhaps the TFG had hallucinated at the scene, leading them to describe the issues they were not happy with. Maybe someone dropped something in their flasks of tea when they met up at Tiptree.
It was Peter Vanezis who said Rigor Mortis well established.
-
They had all been dead several hours. Since Bamber killed them at around 2am -
'Rigor Mortais well established'.
The PM's were in the afternoon Adam, "well established" does not mean "fully established"
Rigour sets in approximately 2 to 6 hours after death and is full established around 12 hours.
-
Are you sure Cc that the defense had the blood groupings for the relatives?
If so can you point me to the information?
Cambridge is more interested in the 'defence strategy' so for example, if Rivlin was aware of the match but chose not to use it, that's hardly the CCRC's fault. Why should they carry truck with a matter that could have been brought up in 1986 but wasn't. Tough luck. Apparently this is enlightened thinking.
-
Cambridge is more interested in the 'defence strategy' so for example, if Rivlin was aware of the match but chose not to use it, that's hardly the CCRC's fault. Why should they carry truck with a matter that could have been brought up in 1986 but wasn't. Tough luck. Apparently this is enlightened thinking.
Cc is stating something that I find hard to believe was not mentioned at the trial Roch?
If the jury knew one of more of the relatives was a match it would have been quite a eye opener!
-
Cc is stating something that I find hard to believe was not mentioned at the trial Roch?
If the jury knew one of more of the relatives was a match it would have been quite a eye opener!
She will probably say that Rivlin, quite correctly, refused to canvas such a fanciful and offensive notion regarding Mr Boutflour snr.
-
PV suggests June's leg and arm shots were when she was protecting herself.
This is quite possible. A natural reaction after her first 3 bed shots had woken her in pain.
Nevill simultaneously waking & reacting. Meaning Bamber only got 2 face shots into him.
-
Waking may also depend on whether Bamber turned the bedroom light on when entering.
He may have put the hallway light on & felt there was enough light coming in from this. He would know the bedroom layout.
-
I'm really tempted to make a video out of this Rob. Something to get my teeth in to over the coming months.
-
The PM's were in the afternoon Adam, "well established" does not mean "fully established"
Rigour sets in approximately 2 to 6 hours after death and is full established around 12 hours.
Those are estimated times, not set in stone and depend on other factors.
-
Well, to be fair, it took you long enough - still not sure you actually believe he's guilty or just playing at devil's advocate?
Best to stay neutral like Switzerland ;)
In fact my post above is completely neutral.
-
Are you sure Cc that the defense had the blood groupings for the relatives?
If so can you point me to the information?
Yes absolutely. In fact it was the defence that sought out testing the relatives which they agreed to. Its really disappointing that those interested in the case, especially those that claim to support Bamber, are not up to speed with this. It is without doubt the most important aspect of the case.
-
As PV suggested, it does seem that Bamber's first 3 shots into June were in the upper stomach/neck area.
June then put her arm and leg up to defend herself. So was shot once in the arm & once in the leg.
The next 4 shots being into Nevill.
-
Supporters can still say Bamber is innocent. But Sheila would have had to have done everything between 3.10am to 3.48am.
No sightings or conversations, no Sheila barking, no June holding shot guns after being shot 4 times, no laying on cold agas or police putting Nevill's pyjama top on.
These huge time limits to Sheila the judge felt was worthy of bringing up in his summing up.
This is worthy of nothing more than a gif response. But I will be an adult and refrain
-
Obviously June was shot first. From June's side of the bed.
He may have planned to move to Nevill's side of the bed and shoot him. But saw Nevill reacting & carried on shooting from June's side.
The rifle with silencer was long enough to get close range shots on Nevill from June's side of the bed.
-
If he had decided to shoot Nevill first, he may have gone to his side of the bed. However there were no bullet casings there.
He may have wanted to keep his distance from Nevill to avoid any physical confrontation. So went to and stayed on June's side of the bed.
-
Even Matthew MacDonald (spelling?) provided a blood sample for analysis.
-
They had all been dead several hours. Since Bamber killed them at around 2am -
'Rigor Mortais well established'.
Vanesiz conducted his investigation post mortem at 3.30pm the same day, hours later. Of course rigor Morris in all ( and especially in reference to Shelia was well established
-
Vanesiz conducted his investigation post mortem at 3.30pm the same day, hours later. Of course rigor Morris in all ( and especially in reference to Shelia was well established
Re Sheila, Vanezis stated in the PM report:
Rigor mortis was well established and hypostasis was consistent with the position in which she was found at the scene.
What point are you endeavouring to make?
-
Shooting from and staying on June's side of the bed suggests he wanted to avoid any physical confrontation with Nevill.
This gave Nevill the chance to exit the bedroom door.
Bamber was not in front of the door. He was on June's side of the bed. Wanting to avoid a physical confrontation.
-
How does back spatter explain how blood was detected on the threaded (hidden) part of the silencer?
Here are some of my thoughts from earlier posts.
I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath managed to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.
author=Bubo bubo link=topic=10740.msg505360#msg505360 date=1639504190]
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.
BLOOD WORKS
[/size]
I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.
I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.
1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.
This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.
2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.
If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.
3 A deliberate action at the lab
They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.
4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.
Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.
I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image
It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.
Try reading this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image
and this
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image
It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.
I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this
SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.
I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.
The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.
There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.
The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.
I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.
I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.
While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.
I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.
[/quote]
-
Re Sheila, Vanezis stated in the PM report:
Rigor mortis was well established and hypostasis was consistent with the position in which she was found at the scene.
What point are you endeavouring to make?
I was taking to Adam. Not you
-
Realistically how many of us can identify our enzyme and protein groups? How would Robert Boutflour know his groups matched Sheila's?
Who said he did know? And even if he did, why would he give that away?
You do understand that Rivlin had before him, pre-trial, all the test results: flake, 5 victims, Bamber and relatives. The prosecution did not withhold the information.
This implies that Rivlin consciously let a chief prosecution witness off the hook, when he could have had him literally squirming. That is either gross incompetence or it is sinister.
No idea why you are sounding off about the prosecution barrister and scientist? Are you now saying the scientist deliberately misled the jury much the same way you have accused Vanezis of doing?
Yes, Arlidge and the scientist knew that the blood matched Bobby's groupings but didn't let on to the jury.
You are beginning to sound like a crank/conspiracy theorist.
Which of the people you refer to who knew the results let the jury in on the secret?
Why are all these people going to perjure themselves running the risk of a custodial sentence, ruined reputation and career, loss of livelihood etc just to put a half-witted Essex farmer behind bars?
Why does anyone get fit up, if that's the case?
I'm not sure you understand Rivlin's main line of defence and the blood evidence. Rivlin told the court Sheila used the silencer to kill her parents and sons before removing it, returning it to the gun cupboard and then going upstairs to shoot herself. Rivlin argued the flake was generated by back spatter from Nevill and June whereby their blood overlapped and when the scientist cut the flake into 5 for each test he inadvertently took parts of blood from Nevill and parts from June which generated effectively a false reading representing Sheila's results.
We're not stuck in 1986, unfortunately.
Rivlin obviously thought there was more chance of a jury believing this than Robert Boutflour dobbing his blood in.
That was a calamitous mistake, not least because the jury later demonstrated they didn't trust Robert Boutflour.
That said he did put it to David Boutflour that either he or his father may have cut themselves around the silencer.
Scientifically, why would he suggest such a thing?
If the prosecution has strong evidence the jury are going to find guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But they didn't did they? The jury convicted because of the judge's summing up.. which was erroneous.
-
It's was junior scientists who examined the flake. Not Hayward
-
Bring it on 8)
If only you paid the same attention to expert testimony, the prosecution case, legal proceedings etc compared with your devotion to Bill and David's theories you would be getting closer to the truth ;)
Thanks to Bill and David, we have got closer to the truth. We have unearthed the wounds and have a better understanding of the sources for Mugford's testimony.
I await your response still.
-
Thanks to Bill and David, we have got closer to the truth. We have unearthed the wounds and have a better understanding of the sources for Mugford's testimony.
I await your response still.
David thinks both yours and Bill's claims are erroneous. Both of your comments are just opinion, no more worthy than anyone else. There is no more understanding than before, it's just what you choose to believe.
-
David thinks both yours and Bill's claims are erroneous. Both of your comments are just opinion, no more worthy than anyone else. There is no more understanding than before, it's just what you choose to believe.
I don't see David as being strong in the area that he disagrees with. He flounders much like your self. Nevertheless I would choose him to attack Mugford's testimony. That is an area where he is strong. It's horses for courses.
-
I don't see David as being strong in the area that he disagrees with. He flounders much like your self. Nevertheless I would choose him to attack Mugford's testimony. That is an area where he is strong. It's horses for courses.
Oh Roch! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh Roch! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I merely meant flounder on the wounds. Not on every aspect of the case ,😏
-
Thanks to Bill and David, we have got closer to the truth. We have unearthed the wounds and have a better understanding of the sources for Mugford's testimony.
I await your response still.
Imo Bill and David's claims re "fight wounds" and Mrs Eaton wringing Sheila's menstrual stained knickers into the silencer are utter nonsense and will rightly never get off the starting blocks. All they do is confirm Bamber's guilt and create a circus. Re Mugford's testimony it is all open to interpretation. CCRC/CoA are not into 'open to interpretation'. They're looking for slam danks.
-
Who said he did know? And even if he did, why would he give that away?
This implies that Rivlin consciously let a chief prosecution witness off the hook, when he could have had him literally squirming. That is either gross incompetence or it is sinister.
The defence has to come up with a strategy it thinks will win the case. It went with Sheila using the silencer and the flake representing a mixture of June and Nevill's blood. As I said previously Rivlin did ask David Boutflour if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer ie sowing seeds in jurors' minds.
Yes, Arlidge and the scientist knew that the blood matched Bobby's groupings but didn't let on to the jury.
Which of the people you refer to who knew the results let the jury in on the secret?
How could it be a secret when the defence knew about it? As far as the prosecution was concerned Bamber used the silencer throughout and the flake originated from Sheila. Experts answer questions put to them by the defence and prosecution.
Why does anyone get fit up, if that's the case?
Miscarriages of justice do happen yes but afaik no one has ever been convicted in connection with such?
We're not stuck in 1986, unfortunately.
?
That was a calamitous mistake, not least because the jury later demonstrated they didn't trust Robert Boutflour.
They may not have trusted RB over the 'Oh Uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents' comment but they might not have bought him dobbing his blood into the silencer when a far more plausible argument existed.
Scientifically, why would he suggest such a thing?
Suggest what?
But they didn't did they? The jury convicted because of the judge's summing up.. which was erroneous.
Only jurors know how they arrive at a verdict. It seems from the question to the judge about the blood that this weighed heavily but no one will ever know for sure. Had the defence beat the drum about 8% of the unrelated British population sharing the blood groups, which included Uncle Bobby, maybe a guilty man might have walked. No one will ever know. No point crying over spilt milk.
-
Imo Bill and David's claims re "fight wounds" and Mrs Eaton wringing Sheila's menstrual stained knickers into the silencer are utter nonsense and will rightly never get off the starting blocks. All they do is confirm Bamber's guilt and create a circus. Re Mugford's testimony it is all open to interpretation. CCRC/CoA are not into 'open to interpretation'. They're looking for slam danks.
OK, sorry you are in the firing line.. but..
Firstly, I never said Mugford's testimony could be taken apart for the benefit of the CCRC. Personally I'm not arsed about the opinion of the CCRC. I don't have any faith in them.
Secondly, I could take you apart on the wounds. You have no idea which shots caused which alleged streams. You have no explanation how gunshot wounds could cause the many variations of marks in blood, in so many different places. I doubt you have given it any serious consideration.
Those who support guilt or are overly sceptical of the wounds have no cohesive line of defence on them; and simply provide generic waffle when challenged on specifics. It's actually embarrassing. You have no explanation how JB could have staged Sheila while she had blood still running all over her from these aparent streams. You have nothing to offer with regards to a number of other aspects of her crime scene. You are not interested in the truth.
If Vanezis recorded that Sheila's hair was blonde, you would tell us that any challenge based on this being wrong, would be rightfully dismissed by the CCRC, on account of Vanezis having worked directly with Sheila's body; and not just from photographs.
Sorry you are the one in the firing line today, but I just find it all quite pathetic.
-
Here are some of my thoughts from earlier posts.
I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath managed to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.
author=Bubo bubo link=topic=10740.msg505360#msg505360 date=1639504190]
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.
BLOOD WORKS
[/size]
I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.
I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.
1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.
This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.
2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.
If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.
3 A deliberate action at the lab
They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.
4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.
Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.
I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image
It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.
Try reading this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image
and this
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image
It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.
I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this
SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.
I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.
The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.
There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.
The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.
I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.
I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.
While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.
I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.
I thought most people realized the Sion Jenkins blood expiration theory was a cop out. As for Sheila using a silencer at all during the murders, there was no need if she were going to commit suicide thereafter.
-
I thought most people realized the Sion Jenkins blood expiration theory was a cop out. As for Sheila using a silencer at all during the murders, there was no need if she were going to commit suicide thereafter.
If you are attempting to outline an argument it is required that you list all possibilities. I do not think it was that reason and said so. However since I believe she was in a psychotic state it was incumbent that this possibility was included since her condition meant it was a possibility. I notice you do not address any of the other possibilities or arguments advanced.
-
If you are attempting to outline an argument it is required that you list all possibilities. I do not think it was that reason and said so. However since I believe she was in a psychotic state it was incumbent that this possibility was included since her condition meant it was a possibility. I notice you do not address any of the other possibilities or arguments advanced.
Well you included far too much information to assimilate in one post. Maybe you could summarize the main points. Sheila having a nose bleed is a bit of a stretch, as is her opening another box of Eley ammunition, though admittedly it wasn't you yourself who advanced that theory.
-
The defence has to come up with a strategy it thinks will win the case. It went with Sheila using the silencer and the flake representing a mixture of June and Nevill's blood. As I said previously Rivlin did ask David Boutflour if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer ie sowing seeds in jurors' minds
Why would Rivlin want to plant a seed about David Boutflour, who isn't mentioned in the letter?
How could it be a secret when the defence knew about it? As far as the prosecution was concerned Bamber used the silencer throughout and the flake originated from Sheila.
We know the prosecution deliberately withheld the fact from the jury, when the scientist was questioned. What you are implying is Rivlin knowingly allowed to that happen.
Experts answer questions put to them by the defence and prosecution.
Which gives them the right to knowingly hoodwink the jury?
?
Your take on the case is like you have 1986 concrete shoes on.
They may not have trusted RB over the 'Oh Uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents' comment but they might not have bought him dobbing his blood into the silencer when a far more plausible argument existed
.
This view is woeful. They weren't told the science. You are tacitly approving that Rivlin was correct to go with a weaker scientific argument, than a far stronger scientific argument at his disposal. Please remind me again, who was present at the alleged discovery of the SM? It's as if you think the jury would be caught up in the silly games you play, rather than have the capacity to join the dots for themselves, when presented with facts and science.
Suggest what?
That RB or DB cut themselves while handling the SM. How does planting a seed about that fit in with a strategy based on a claim that June and Nevill's blood mingled in the SM?
Only jurors know how they arrive at a verdict. It seems from the question to the judge about the blood that this weighed heavily
Which question?
-
If you are attempting to outline an argument it is required that you list all possibilities. I do not think it was that reason and said so. However since I believe she was in a psychotic state it was incumbent that this possibility was included since her condition meant it was a possibility. I notice you do not address any of the other possibilities or arguments advanced.
I have read the post fully now, including the references. Leaving aside I may need a new prescription from my optometrist, what is your opinion on it being difficult to introduce blood into the silencer, I assume with a chemical pipette?
-
I have read the post fully now, including the references. Leaving aside I may need a new prescription from my optometrist, what is your opinion on it being difficult to introduce blood into the silencer, I assume with a chemical pipette?
Is that a teat pipette? Do you think it's strange the Rivlin asked if DB or RB might have cut themselves when handling the SM?
-
Is that a teat pipette? Do you think it's strange the Rivlin asked if DB or RB might have cut themselves when handling the SM?
I thought the question was addressed to Robert Boutflour only. It was as far as Rivlin went in attacking the Establishment. Of course Jeremy Bamber played the Establishment card for all it was worth.
-
I have read the post fully now, including the references. Leaving aside I may need a new prescription from my optometrist, what is your opinion on it being difficult to introduce blood into the silencer, I assume with a chemical pipette?
Even with a pipette it would be difficult because the blood was not visible to the naked eye and with such an approach it would be tricky to control the volume. A small air brush might do the trick but that is a bit too technical. We are talking about something akin to a fine mist IMO. A small amount of blood on the muzzle or in the end of the gun combined with the gasses on firing would I suggest be more realistic
-
I thought the question was addressed to Robert Boutflour only. It was as far as Rivlin went in attacking the Establishment. Of course Jeremy Bamber played the Establishment card for all it was worth.
It was.
-
Shooting from and staying on June's side of the bed suggests he wanted to avoid any physical confrontation with Nevill.
This gave Nevill the chance to exit the bedroom door.
Bamber was not in front of the door. He was on June's side of the bed. Wanting to avoid a physical confrontation.
Seems like you were a fly on the wall the way you describe everything.
Accept it's your version of events
-
It was.
Did Cambridge refer to DB in error?
-
Did Cambridge refer to DB in error?
Probably. But wasn't this the Jeremy Bamber trial, after all?
-
Probably. But wasn't this the Jeremy Bamber trial, after all?
You will have to explain yourself there Steve?
-
You will have to explain yourself there Steve?
Well I assume the reasoning behind the question was to sow doubt in the jury's minds about the provenance of the blood in the silencer. I meant that it was Jeremy Bamber who was on trial, not Robert Boutflour for potential perjury.
-
Well I assume the reasoning behind the question was to sow doubt in the jury's minds about the provenance of the blood in the silencer. I meant that it was Jeremy Bamber who was on trial, not Robert Boutflour for potential perjury.
What's the point in sowing doubt in the jury's mind about Robert Boutflour's blood being in the SM, when the jury are being told that the blood in the SM matched Sheila's groupings only?
That makes no sense whatsoever. It even runs contrary to the 'defence strategy' claimed by Cambridge.
-
Can anyone explain why David and Pamela Boutflour's blood grouping is indicated on a baffle?
-
Can anyone explain why David and Pamela Boutflour's blood grouping is indicated on a baffle?
Well it might not have been their blood per se. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/blood-2002-appeal
-
What's the point in sowing doubt in the jury's mind about Robert Boutflour's blood being in the SM, when the jury are being told that the blood in the SM matched Sheila's groupings only?
That makes no sense whatsoever. It even runs contrary to the 'defence strategy' claimed by Cambridge.
Well the blood enzymes of Sheila Caffell and Robert Boutflour happened to be identical. I think Rivlin wanted to confuse the jury into thinking it may well be RB's blood. In the summing up Mr. Justice Drake may have given more weight to it being exclusively Sheila's blood, when John Hayward had said that one couldn't tell on the basis of appearance alone.
-
Well the blood enzymes of Sheila Caffell and Robert Boutflour happened to be identical. I think Rivlin wanted to confuse the jury into thinking it may well be RB's blood. In the summing up Mr. Justice Drake may have given more weight to it being exclusively Sheila's blood, when John Hayward had said that one couldn't tell on the basis of appearance alone.
According to Cambridge, Rivlin knew full well that the blood groupings in the SM were a match for Robert Boutflour. Why then, would he merely attempt to 'plant the seed' in the jury's mind, by asking Robert Boutflour, whether he may have cut himself when handling the SM, while simultaneously failing to announce that the blood inside the SM was a direct match to his groupings? This is in essence, absurd.
-
According to Cambridge, Rivlin knew full well that the blood groupings in the SM were a match for Robert Boutflour. Why then, would he merely attempt to 'plant the seed' in the jury's mind, by asking Robert Boutflour, whether he may have cut himself when handling the SM, while simultaneously failing to announce that the blood inside the SM was a direct match to his groupings? This is in essence, absurd.
Because he couldn't directly accuse someone who was not on trial of tampering with evidence. That's not how criminal trials work.
-
Because he couldn't directly accuse someone who was not on trial of tampering with evidence. That's not how criminal trials work.
Sorry Steve, but what a load of rubbish.
He would be stating a scientific fact! He could have put the Crown's case in serious jeopardy by doing so, thereby increasing his chances of a famous victory among criminal defences.
-
Sorry Steve, but what a load of rubbish.
He would be stating a scientific fact! He could have put the Crown's case in serious jeopardy by doing so, thereby increasing his chances of a famous victory among criminal defences.
I suggest to you that you know what RB's answer would have been, so there wasn't much difference in accusing directly, or indirectly as he did with the cut finger remark.
That reminds me: isn't there a reference in Bob Woffinden's Blood Relations about a successful barrister whose strategy was to try everyone but the defendant..
-
I suggest to you that you know what RB's answer would have been, so there wasn't much difference in accusing directly, or indirectly as he did with the cut finger remark.
So because RB would have been unlikely to admit that he played any part providing blood for the SM..
you think the best way for Rivlin to handle this, was to not mention whatsoever that the blood in the SM was a match for RB's blood; and instead, simply ask him whether he may have cut his finger when handling the SM (without providing any context as to why he would be asking such a question)?
-
So because RB would have been unlikely to admit that he played any part providing blood for the SM..
you think the best way for Rivlin to handle this, was to not mention whatsoever that the blood in the SM was a match for RB's blood; and instead, simply ask him whether he may have cut his finger when handling the SM (without providing any context as to why he would be asking such a question)?
Well I assume the only way Rivlin knew RB's blood was an identical match for SC's is that RB volunteered to take a blood test in the first place.
-
Well I assume the only way Rivlin knew RB's blood was an identical match for SC's is that RB volunteered to take a blood test in the first place.
OK, let's say you are right on this. What would be the point of RB taking a blood test in the first place? In addition, is there evidence available that this was voluntary and not as a result of being requested to do so? I mean, I can't see him raising his hand aloft and asking if he could please be tested.
-
OK, let's say you are right on this. What would be the point of RB taking a blood test in the first place? In addition, is there evidence available that this was voluntary and not as a result of being requested to do so? I mean, I can't see him raising his hand aloft and asking if he could please be tested.
I'm not privy to the details, but had he anything to hide I assume he would have refused.
-
I'm not privy to the details, but had he anything to hide I assume he would have refused.
So he agreed to take a test, to rule himself out of the blood in the SM. The test then ruled him in. But Rivlin decided that the fact he agreed to take the test was all that mattered; and not the result itself? Why then, did Rivlin ask him if he had cut his finger?
-
So he agreed to take a test, to rule himself out of the blood in the SM. The test then ruled him in. But Rivlin decided that the fact he agreed to take the test was all that mattered; and not the result itself? Why then, did Rivlin ask him if he had cut his finger?
Well it took the spotlight off his client for one thing. For another it might have made the jury dubious as to the validity of the silencer evidence.
-
Well it took the spotlight off his client for one thing. For another it might have made the jury dubious as to the validity of the silencer evidence.
Sorry Steve, but you're just not grasping this. If I am wrong then please explain that to me.
-
Sorry Steve, but you're just not grasping this. If I am wrong then please explain that to me.
Nothing but a confession in the witness box by RB that he contaminated the silencer with his blood is going to satisfy you.
-
Nothing but a confession in the witness box by RB that he contaminated the silencer with his blood is going to satisfy you.
Steve, you're completely missing the point. It's like you've got a mental block or blind spot or something.
-
Does anyone know where David and Pamela Boutflour's blood groupings are listed on the forum?
-
Does anyone know where David and Pamela Boutflour's blood groupings are listed on the forum?
They're not on the forum, but are mentioned in the link in #401. I wish you would explain your point, otherwise you're looking for a scenario akin to Romaine Heilger in Agatha Christie's Witness for the Prosecution.
-
Sorry Steve, but what a load of rubbish.
He would be stating a scientific fact! He could have put the Crown's case in serious jeopardy by doing so, thereby increasing his chances of a famous victory among criminal defences.
I am pretty sure Steve is correct (although NGB will know), you're not allowed to openly accuse someone of a crime like 'fitting up Bamber' with the SM. By asking him about cutting his hand, it was to make the suggestion that the blood may have come from RB in the jury's mind.
-
Steve, you're completely missing the point. It's like you've got a mental block or blind spot or something.
Why don't you just say what your point is? If he's not allowed to implicate him directly (and I am sure NGB with clarify that point), how else do you suggest he introduced the notion that the blood belonged to RB?
-
I am pretty sure Steve is correct (although NGB will know), you're not allowed to openly accuse someone of a crime like 'fitting up Bamber' with the SM. By asking him about cutting his hand, it was to make the suggestion that the blood may have come from RB in the jury's mind.
And how would that occur exactly, if the jury were told that the blood was a match for Sheila but nobody else?
Why don't you just say what your point is? If he's not allowed to implicate him directly (and I am sure NGB with clarify that point), how else do you suggest he introduced the notion that the blood belonged to RB?
By stating a scientific fact. What was the point in the first place, of getting the relatives blood tested? Why not just say, 'well there's no point in even asking for their blood samples.. because if anything comes back as a match, we can't say anything about it anyway'.
Codswallop.
-
I am pretty sure Steve is correct (although NGB will know), you're not allowed to openly accuse someone of a crime like 'fitting up Bamber' with the SM. By asking him about cutting his hand, it was to make the suggestion that the blood may have come from RB in the jury's mind.
Steve is wrong and Roch is correct. Counsel is entitled to put any accusation to a prosecution witness, with certain exceptions. It was open to Rivlin to ask a witness whether he had tampered with the silencer. He chose not to ask the direct question for tactical reasons. I do not have time now to set out the entire position but a few years ago I posted a lengthy explanation of the legal position in response to another member. I gave an example of an Old Bailey case with which I was very familiar. A search should find the post.
-
Steve is wrong and Roch is correct. Counsel is entitled to put any accusation to a prosecution witness, with certain exceptions. It was open to Rivlin to ask a witness whether he had tampered with the silencer. He chose not to ask the direct question for tactical reasons. I do not have time now to set out the entire position but a few years ago I posted a lengthy explanation of the legal position in response to another member. I gave an example of an Old Bailey case with which I was very familiar. A search should find the post.
ngb, Anthony Arlidge questioned the scientist and showed him a list of names, which didn't include the relatives' names and results. The scientist concurred with Arlidge that nobody else on the list shared blood groupings with Sheila Caffell; the inference being that the blood in the SM could only have come from Sheila Caffell. Therefore the jury were led to believe that the blood groupings in the SM did not match anyone else's blood groupings.
I assume the jury were aware that the relatives discovered the SM after being given the keys to the farmhouse by Jeremy Bamber, subsequent to police searches.
If Rivlin had cross examination the scientist regarding the blood groupings of Robert Boutflour as (per detailed by the scientist in his written communication) do you think this may have unsettled the jury regarding the SM evidence? Could it have also restrained Justice Drake in his summing up?
-
ngb, Anthony Arlidge questioned the scientist and showed him a list of names, which didn't include the relatives' names and results. The scientist concurred with Arlidge that nobody else on the list shared blood groupings with Sheila Caffell; the inference being that the blood in the SM could only have come from Sheila Caffell. Therefore the jury were led to believe that the blood groupings in the SM did not match anyone else's blood groupings.
I assume the jury were aware that the relatives discovered the SM after being given the keys to the farmhouse by Jeremy Bamber, subsequent to police searches.
If Rivlin had cross examination the scientist regarding the blood groupings of Robert Boutflour as (per detailed by the scientist in his written communication) do you think this may have unsettled the jury regarding the SM evidence? Could it have also restrained Justice Drake in his summing up?
Well, there you are then, Rivlin should have accused Boutflour of contaminating the silencer and all of the other witness's for framing Bamber. Including West and Bonnet. Lets not assume any of these rat bags are telling the truth - well, except Bamber of course!
-
Well, there you are then, Rivlin should have accused Boutflour of contaminating the silencer and all of the other witness's for framing Bamber. Including West and Bonnet. Lets not assume any of these rat bags are telling the truth - well, except Bamber of course!
Sorry Zoso, but that post smacks of desperation.
-
ngb, Anthony Arlidge questioned the scientist and showed him a list of names, which didn't include the relatives' names and results. The scientist concurred with Arlidge that nobody else on the list shared blood groupings with Sheila Caffell; the inference being that the blood in the SM could only have come from Sheila Caffell. Therefore the jury were led to believe that the blood groupings in the SM did not match anyone else's blood groupings.
I assume the jury were aware that the relatives discovered the SM after being given the keys to the farmhouse by Jeremy Bamber, subsequent to police searches.
If Rivlin had cross examination the scientist regarding the blood groupings of Robert Boutflour as (per detailed by the scientist in his written communication) do you think this may have unsettled the jury regarding the SM evidence? Could it have also restrained Justice Drake in his summing up?
Ah! I see it all now. Well, some of it. As there's no concrete proof that JB is innocent, supporters are suggesting that if the jury could have been unsettled enough, they'd have found him innocent. Doesn't mean he was, though, does it? Aha! I hear you counter, but there was no concrete proof that he was guilty! There didn't need to be. All that was necessary to prove was time, opportunity, and motive, which were all present. Added to which, as the judge said, it was either him or Sheila.
-
ngb, Anthony Arlidge questioned the scientist and showed him a list of names, which didn't include the relatives' names and results. The scientist concurred with Arlidge that nobody else on the list shared blood groupings with Sheila Caffell; the inference being that the blood in the SM could only have come from Sheila Caffell. Therefore the jury were led to believe that the blood groupings in the SM did not match anyone else's blood groupings.
I assume the jury were aware that the relatives discovered the SM after being given the keys to the farmhouse by Jeremy Bamber, subsequent to police searches.
If Rivlin had cross examination the scientist regarding the blood groupings of Robert Boutflour as (per detailed by the scientist in his written communication) do you think this may have unsettled the jury regarding the SM evidence? Could it have also restrained Justice Drake in his summing up?
It may have had some effect, but it would have to have been coupled with some more direct cross examination of Robert Boutflour and this conflicted with Rivlin's trial strategy of showing a way for the jury to acquit JB without having to accept that JB had been framed.
-
Ah! I see it all now. Well, some of it. As there's no concrete proof that JB is innocent, supporters are suggesting that if the jury could have been unsettled enough, they'd have found him innocent. Doesn't mean he was, though, does it? Aha! I hear you counter, but there was no concrete proof that he was guilty! There didn't need to be. All that was necessary to prove was time, opportunity, and motive, which were all present. Added to which, as the judge said, it was either him or Sheila.
Leaving aside from the motive, the other elements along with fake evidence were brought together by false testimony and circumstantial constructions to build a case against him
-
Sorry Zoso, but that post smacks of desperation.
Well, you would be best placed to recognise that.
-
Well, you would be best placed to recognise that.
I'm stating facts, including scientific facts, trickery with Arlidge's handling of an expert witness, withholding of facts from the jury and weak and deferential defence strategy from Rivlin. Even with all this, the jury were not going to convict.
-
Ah! I see it all now. Well, some of it. As there's no concrete proof that JB is innocent, supporters are suggesting that if the jury could have been unsettled enough, they'd have found him innocent. Doesn't mean he was, though, does it? Aha! I hear you counter, but there was no concrete proof that he was guilty! There didn't need to be. All that was necessary to prove was time, opportunity, and motive, which were all present. Added to which, as the judge said, it was either him or Sheila.
That's not what I'm saying. I will spell it out for you later.
-
Steve is wrong and Roch is correct. Counsel is entitled to put any accusation to a prosecution witness, with certain exceptions. It was open to Rivlin to ask a witness whether he had tampered with the silencer. He chose not to ask the direct question for tactical reasons. I do not have time now to set out the entire position but a few years ago I posted a lengthy explanation of the legal position in response to another member. I gave an example of an Old Bailey case with which I was very familiar. A search should find the post.
..and these exceptions would be what?
Accusing a witness of lying
You should only accuse a witness of lying during cross examination if you have evidence to support that accusation. Most witnesses are not trying to deceive the court - they are giving their version of events which may be unreliable because of:
an honest mistake
a lack of knowledge
poor memory
the circumstances at play when the events took place.
Solicitors Regulation Authority
-
Hey Steve, maybe you could preside over a case. Judge Steve UK, sympathetic to DS Jane Blackwater fitting up some poor soul, with the help of solid Essex farming folk. I mean why would such people lie? Surely they a pillars of the community?
-
Hey Steve, maybe you could preside over a case. Judge Steve UK, sympathetic to DS Jane Blackwater fitting up some poor soul, with the help of solid Essex farming folk. I mean why would such people lie? Surely they a pillars of the community?
I happen to believe Julie.
-
I happen to believe Julie.
The jury didn't.
-
The jury didn't.
That's 100% fact for the entire 12, is it?
-
I'm stating facts, including scientific facts, trickery with Arlidge's handling of an expert witness, withholding of facts from the jury and weak and deferential defence strategy from Rivlin. Even with all this, the jury were not going to convict.
I am sure there was information that the defence sat on too. Happens all the time.
-
The jury didn't.
How do you know? Unless they were all in contempt and revealed their deliberations?
-
I am sure there was information that the defence sat on too. Happens all the time.
The defence are not obliged to disclose anything. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, and that comes with an obligation to make full disclosure.
-
The defence are not obliged to disclose anything. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, and that comes with an obligation to make full disclosure.
In this case the prosecution prefer to spend hundreds of thousands to prevent full disclosure. :))
-
The defence are not obliged to disclose anything. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, and that comes with an obligation to make full disclosure.
Yes I know, that doesn't mean they didn't have anything that influenced their handling of the defence. Afterall, at the end of the day lawyers are people too and would surely have the same level of disgust for such a crime and the perpetrator? Especially if they have knowledge that Bamber was likely guilty?
Sure, they could have pursued the RB blood in the silencer theory, however, if I were a member of the jury, it wouldn't be enough to tell me he had the same blood group and enzyme as Sheila - I don't even know what my own blood group is so the first thing I would wonder, would be how he could have known? There isn't a single reason why he would. I also imagine that drawback wasn't something he would have been familiar with. The only way that would have worked, is if the police identified the two samples as being the same and used his blood to contaminate the silencer given that Sheila's samples were sealed. Not that I'm trying to add to the whole idea of a conspiracy!
-
Yes I know, that doesn't mean they didn't have anything that influenced their handling of the defence. Afterall, at the end of the day lawyers are people too and would surely have the same level of disgust for such a crime and the perpetrator? Especially if they have knowledge that Bamber was likely guilty?
Sure, they could have pursued the RB blood in the silencer theory, however, if I were a member of the jury, it wouldn't be enough to tell me he had the same blood group and enzyme as Sheila - I don't even know what my own blood group is so the first thing I would wonder, would be how he could have known? There isn't a single reason why he would. I also imagine that drawback wasn't something he would have been familiar with. The only way that would have worked, is if the police identified the two samples as being the same and used his blood to contaminate the silencer given that Sheila's samples were sealed. Not that I'm trying to add to the whole idea of a conspiracy!
What do you mean by this Zoso? If you are saying what I think you are then this is a major cause of MOJs!
-
Especially if they have knowledge that Bamber was likely guilty?
What knowledge?
if I were a member of the jury...
If you were a member of the jury, you'd be most likely heading for an acquittal decision, until you heard Drake's one-sided speech. He wouldn't have been able to give that one-sided speech, if it had came to light that one of the people present when the key prosecution exhibit was allegedly discovered, matched the blood inside the exhibit.
Drake wouldn't have another victim to add the previous 27-28 people he had managed to have wrongly convicted. And there'd been a line of stoney faced / red faced relatives absolutely fuming about inheritance; and possibly facing a civil lawsuit from JB.
-
What knowledge?
If you were a member of the jury, you'd be most likely heading for an acquittal decision, until you heard Drake's one-sided speech. He wouldn't have been able to give that one-sided speech, if it had came to light that one of the people present when the key prosecution exhibit was allegedly discovered, matched the blood inside the exhibit.
Drake wouldn't have another victim to add the previous 27-28 people he had managed to have wrongly convicted. And there'd been a line of stoney faced / red faced relatives absolutely fuming about inheritance; and possibly facing a civil lawsuit from JB.
Give a dog a bad name, eh, Roch!
It would have taken a supremely confident/educated/arrogant jury to, whatever had been their unanimous, prior decision, have gone against the judge.
-
Give a dog a bad name, eh, Roch!
It would have taken a supremely confident/educated/arrogant jury to, whatever had been their unanimous, prior decision, have gone against the judge.
I believe his one-sided summing up is explored in the Theroux 'documentary' by a legal expert. When confronted with the Bridgewater Four convictions, he blamed corrupt policing. He was also aware that the police changed statements in the Shrewsbury 24 case. If you cut Drake in half, he would have MOJ written all down his middle, like a stick of rock.
-
I believe his one-sided summing up is explored in the Theroux 'documentary' by a legal expert. When confronted with the Bridgewater Four convictions, he blamed corrupt policing. He was also aware that the police changed statements in the Shrewsbury 24 case. If you cut Drake in half, he would have MOJ written all down his middle, like a stick of rock.
So, previously, he got it wrong sometimes? Regrettable, I agree. However, the law of averages says no one gets it wrong ALL the time.
-
So, previously, he got it wrong sometimes? Regrettable, I agree. However, the law of averages says no one gets it wrong ALL the time.
If you were a copper trying to fit someone up, and you found out Drake was going to be the judge, you would probably think, 'well at least we've half a chance with this fella'.
How likely is it that Drake can be involved in three high profile trials, and in each one, there are accusations of corrupt policing? It's not as if Bamber has tried to use the previous trials in the argument either. Come on Jane, wake up.
-
What do you mean by this Zoso? If you are saying what I think you are then this is a major cause of MOJs!
I thought I was pretty clear - what's not to understand? I was playing devils advocate, I'm not saying it DID happen, just how it COULD.
-
What knowledge?
You know when you keep saying something happened at the CS to initiate a frame up of Bamber - same kind of knowledge!
If you were a member of the jury, you'd be most likely heading for an acquittal decision, until you heard Drake's one-sided speech. He wouldn't have been able to give that one-sided speech, if it had came to light that one of the people present when the key prosecution exhibit was allegedly discovered, matched the blood inside the exhibit.
Drake wouldn't have another victim to add the previous 27-28 people he had managed to have wrongly convicted. And there'd been a line of stoney faced / red faced relatives absolutely fuming about inheritance; and possibly facing a civil lawsuit from JB.
I don't remember much about the case from back then, but I do recall thinking he was guilty as sin!
-
You know when you keep saying something happened at the CS to initiate a frame up of Bamber - same kind of knowledge!
I don't remember much about the case from back then, but I do recall thinking he was guilty as sin!
As did many others, probably around the 10/2 ratio of the jury. I doubt it's far off that now.
-
As did many others, probably around the 10/2 ratio of the jury. I doubt it's far off that now.
It's probably 8-4, by virtue of all the money and resources that have been poured in to selling the guilty version in the media; and a lack of understanding regarding the purpose, function and performance of the CCRC, in the minds of the general public.
Like I expressed before, whoever controls the narrative, controls public opinion.
-
Steve is wrong and Roch is correct. Counsel is entitled to put any accusation to a prosecution witness, with certain exceptions. It was open to Rivlin to ask a witness whether he had tampered with the silencer. He chose not to ask the direct question for tactical reasons. I do not have time now to set out the entire position but a few years ago I posted a lengthy explanation of the legal position in response to another member. I gave an example of an Old Bailey case with which I was very familiar. A search should find the post.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171132.html#msg171132
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171132.html#msg171132
This is what the Solicitors Regulation Authority says:
You should only accuse a witness of lying during cross examination if you have evidence to support that accusation. Most witnesses are not trying to deceive the court - they are giving their version of events which may be unreliable because of: an honest mistake.
What evidence did Rivlin have that Robert Boutflour contaminated a silencer with his own blood?
-
This is what the Solicitors Regulation Authority says:
You should only accuse a witness of lying during cross examination if you have evidence to support that accusation. Most witnesses are not trying to deceive the court - they are giving their version of events which may be unreliable because of: an honest mistake.
What evidence did Rivlin have that Robert Boutflour contaminated a silencer with his own blood?
Well I don't think Rivlin needed to go in all guns blazing with such an accusation but the mere fact Boutflour snr was around when this crucial exhibit was found was enough to sow the seeds in jurors' minds. Coupled with the fact his family would benefit financially from Bamber's conviction. Rivlin did ask Boutflour jnr if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer.
-
This is what the Solicitors Regulation Authority says:
You should only accuse a witness of lying during cross examination if you have evidence to support that accusation. Most witnesses are not trying to deceive the court - they are giving their version of events which may be unreliable because of: an honest mistake.
What evidence did Rivlin have that Robert Boutflour contaminated a silencer with his own blood?
Does the above relate to civil or criminal?
-
OK, sorry you are in the firing line.. but..
:o
Firstly, I never said Mugford's testimony could be taken apart for the benefit of the CCRC. Personally I'm not arsed about the opinion of the CCRC. I don't have any faith in them.
Well who is supposed to be impressed by it then?
You might not be arsed about the opinion of the CCRC but if you want Bamber to walk he doesn't have that luxury.
Secondly, I could take you apart on the wounds. You have no idea which shots caused which alleged streams. You have no explanation how gunshot wounds could cause the many variations of marks in blood, in so many different places. I doubt you have given it any serious consideration.
Those who support guilt or are overly sceptical of the wounds have no cohesive line of defence on them; and simply provide generic waffle when challenged on specifics. It's actually embarrassing. You have no explanation how JB could have staged Sheila while she had blood still running all over her from these aparent streams. You have nothing to offer with regards to a number of other aspects of her crime scene. You are not interested in the truth.
You are right I have no idea which shots caused which streams because I have not seen any expert evidence to support such. With respect I am not going to rely on lay people. I have taken on board the report here produced by the late Prof Herb MacDonnel (since convicted of sex crimes) and forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
If Vanezis recorded that Sheila's hair was blonde, you would tell us that any challenge based on this being wrong, would be rightfully dismissed by the CCRC, on account of Vanezis having worked directly with Sheila's body; and not just from photographs.
Sorry you are the one in the firing line today, but I just find it all quite pathetic.
What exactly did Vanezis say or not say at trial that was harmful to Bamber?
-
Does the above relate to civil or criminal?
You'll have to wait until ngb1066 clarifies.
-
This is what the Solicitors Regulation Authority says:
You should only accuse a witness of lying during cross examination if you have evidence to support that accusation. Most witnesses are not trying to deceive the court - they are giving their version of events which may be unreliable because of: an honest mistake.
What evidence did Rivlin have that Robert Boutflour contaminated a silencer with his own blood?
He had no direct evidence, but he could still have put the suggestion to him if he had decided it would assist the defence.
-
David said Bamber made the suggestion to Rivlin, but Rivlin thought it too ridiculous.
It's one thing people on the internet making these insinuations, but Rivlin was a respected lawyer in a real life high profile murder case.
-
David said Bamber made the suggestion to Rivlin, but Rivlin thought it too ridiculous.
It's one thing people on the internet making these insinuations, but Rivlin was a respected lawyer in a real life high profile murder case.
David thinks Rivlin was mad for not accusing Ann Eaton at trial of planting diluted (very diluted btw) period blood from Sheila's menstrual stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water.
-
David thinks Rivlin was mad for not accusing Ann Eaton at trial of planting diluted (very diluted btw) period blood from Sheila's menstrual stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water.
What's period blood ?
-
Well I don't think Rivlin needed to go in all guns blazing with such an accusation but the mere fact Boutflour snr was around when this crucial exhibit was found was enough to sow the seeds in jurors' minds. Coupled with the fact his family would benefit financially from Bamber's conviction. [
[/b]Rivlin did ask Boutflour jnr if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer.[/b]
Are you certain? Two members think this question was only addressed to Robert.
-
What's period blood ?
Mesntrual blood.
-
Are you certain? Two members think this question was only addressed to Robert.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,632.msg14357.html#msg14357
Afaik the question was not put to Robert. I assume the question was put to David because he found (and handled) the silencer. But in putting the question to David you will see he squeezed in Robert too.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,632.msg14357.html#msg14357
Afaik the question was not put to Robert. I assume the question was put to David because he found (and handled) the silencer. But in putting the question to David you will see he squeezed in Robert too.
Try this instead
-
He had no direct evidence, but he could still have put the suggestion to him if he had decided it would assist the defence.
But he did, by asking if he'd cut himself when handling the silencer.
-
Well I don't think Rivlin needed to go in all guns blazing with such an accusation but the mere fact Boutflour snr was around when this crucial exhibit was found was enough to sow the seeds in jurors' minds. Coupled with the fact his family would benefit financially from Bamber's conviction. Rivlin did ask Boutflour jnr if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the Bamber case, but watching, last night, the unfolding story of how a man in Chelmsford stabbed to death his Canadian girlfriend, the prosecutor said, to camera, that the defence had with them, in court, the psych report on the defendant -possibly saying he'd been mentally ill at the time of the offence-, which they were fully entitled to use in his defence, thus a reducing guilty of murder charge to a guilty of manslaughter with the possibility of release under parole. They chose not to use it................I wonder, will supporters of JB, say that this man's defence acted illegally by not defending to the letter of the law?
-
But he did, by asking if he'd cut himself when handling the silencer.
He did not go further and ask whether he had contaminated the silencer. I am not saying he should have done (that is partly a tactical decision) but he could have done if he thought it helped the defence.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171132.html#msg171132
Thank you CC. The relevant posts of mine are lower down in the thread you have linked. Important is the example I gave of the Old Bailey trial. Members interested in this aspect of the case should read the thread as it covers the point raised now directly.
-
Does the above relate to civil or criminal?
I believe it refers to both criminal and civil proceedings. Of course this had no direct bearing on Rivlin because the Law Society only deals with solicitors. Rivlin as a barrister was regulated by the Bar Council. It does not matter in practice because the Bar Council Code of Conduct says essentially the same - it is set out fully in the thread you have linked.
-
But he did, by asking if he'd cut himself when handling the silencer.
How did he?.. The jury were told that the blood groupings matched Sheila only. Not Robert. Why would the jury suspect that by cutting himself, he would inadvertently cause Sheila's blood groupings to go in to the SM?
-
Well who is supposed to be impressed by it then?
You might not be arsed about the opinion of the CCRC but if you want Bamber to walk he doesn't have that luxury.
While there may be legal experts within the CCRC, The CCRC are not experts on this case. They're essentially paper clip types, tasked with adherence to arbitrary guidelines: and with an unwillingness to exercise powers (which are vaunted by all and sundry in name only). The only time the CCRC would find itself in a position of having to refer this case, is if the authorities lost control of the case narrative, resulting in embarrassment and awkward questions snowballing.
You are right I have no idea which shots caused which streams because I have not seen any expert evidence to support such. With respect I am not going to rely on lay people. I have taken on board the report here produced by the late Prof Herb MacDonnel (since convicted of sex crimes) and forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
That is your freedom of choice. Nature gave you eyes and a brain. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to try and reconstruct aspects of Sheila's crime scene, while realising that certain vague conclusions proffered in the past, simply do not fit.
What exactly did Vanezis say or not say at trial that was harmful to Bamber?
Read his testimony when discussing with Drake regarding marks in Sheila's arm, wrist, hand etc.
-
While there may be legal experts within the CCRC, The CCRC are not experts on this case. They're essentially paper clip types, tasked with adherence to arbitrary guidelines: and with an unwillingness to exercise powers (which are vaunted by all and sundry in name only). The only time the CCRC would find itself in a position of having to refer this case, is if the authorities lost control of the case narrative, resulting in embarrassment and awkward questions snowballing.
Totally untrue. CCRC do refer cases and have in fact referred Bamber's case in the past. The CCRC are not going to refer when they know it will not meet the threshold with CoA.
That is your freedom of choice. Nature gave you eyes and a brain. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to try and reconstruct aspects of Sheila's crime scene, while realising that certain vague conclusions proffered in the past, simply do not fit.
But Bamber was not convicted on this.
Read his testimony when discussing with Drake regarding marks in Sheila's arm, wrist, hand etc.
Can you link me to it please.
-
He did not go further and ask whether he had contaminated the silencer. I am not saying he should have done (that is partly a tactical decision) but he could have done if he thought it helped the defence.
But what would be the point? All he would say to that is 'no'. Better to just plant the notion in the mind of the jury, which is what he tried to do. Had he gone that far, I guess the prosecution would have just asked how RB could possibly know he had the same blood group and enzyme as Sheila. IF had anything to do with it, he couldn't have done it alone or just off the top of his head.
-
Jeremy Bamber is innocent !
-
Jeremy Bamber is innocent !
You off the fence?
-
You off the fence?
Took it back to Wickes, need a refund
-
Took it back to Wickes, need a refund
Too many splinters?
-
Too many splinters?
-
Fence! Wood! = splinters = sore botty perhaps?
-
But what would be the point? All he would say to that is 'no'. Better to just plant the notion in the mind of the jury, which is what he tried to do. Had he gone that far, I guess the prosecution would have just asked how RB could possibly know he had the same blood group and enzyme as Sheila. IF had anything to do with it, he couldn't have done it alone or just off the top of his head.
Nothing was planted in anyone's mind. The jury were not informed of the match regarding Robert.
What was the point in asking for the blood tests to be carried out in the first place?
-
Nothing was planted in anyone's mind. The jury were not informed of the match regarding Robert.
What was the point in asking for the blood tests to be carried out in the first place?
No idea Roch given that it wasn't m who ordered them. However, I'll say agin, how the hell would RWB know he was a match?
-
No idea Roch given that it wasn't m who ordered them. However, I'll say agin, how the hell would RWB know he was a match?
Flip it on its head. According to Cambridge only 8 out of every hundred people share the blood groupings. So the main guy who was the driving force behind the prosecution of Bamber; a man who thought up fantastic notions to get around the patent lack of evidence; a man who was present at the finding of the SM, just happens to be one of these '8 in every hundred' along with Sheila. How handy is that eh?
-
Flip it on its head. According to Cambridge only 8 out of every hundred people share the blood groupings. So the main guy who was the driving force behind the prosecution of Bamber; a man who thought up fantastic notions to get around the patent lack of evidence; a man who was present at the finding of the SM, just happens to be one of these '8 in every hundred' along with Sheila. How handy is that eh?
So why submit to a blood test in the first place? The relatives knew Sheila as well as anybody, apart from perhaps Colin.
-
The AK1 enzyme is also linked with blood of game such as cattle, rabbits etc. It's highly likely the blood could have been animal. Had this been put to the trial in 86 things may have differed
But the blood was tested for species and "found to be human in origin"!
-
But the blood was tested for species and "found to be human in origin"!
It was Sheila's blood. She received contact shots in areas of high blood flow.
The silencer also aquired paint & a scratch during the kitchen fight. The rifle breaking and Nevill's watch smashing and falling off.
-
It was Sheila's blood. She received contact shots in areas of high blood flow.
The silencer also aquired paint & a scratch during the kitchen fight. The rifle breaking and Nevill's watch smashing and falling off.
Correct, so it baffles me why every so often Bamber supporters imply it might have been rabbit's blood!
-
Correct, so it baffles my why every so often Bamber supporters imply it might have been rabbit's blood!
It was used to shoot rabbits on the farm.
-
It was Sheila's blood. She received contact shots in areas of high blood flow.
The silencer also aquired paint & a scratch during the kitchen fight. The rifle breaking and Nevill's watch smashing and falling off.
Shelias blood group
-
It was used to shoot rabbits on the farm.
But if it was tested "and found to be human in origin" then it couldn't be rabbit's blood, regardless
-
But if it was tested "and found to be human in origin" then it couldn't be rabbit's blood, regardless
Did you get any footwear for christmas Dan? ^-^
-
Did you get any footwear for christmas Dan? ^-^
No.
We have a tradition at our church of bringing one Christmas present to show during the middle of the Christmas Day service, so I brought a book, walking there and back barefoot (about a mile each way).
-
No.
We have a tradition at our church of bringing one Christmas present to show during the middle of the Christmas Day service, so I brought a book, walking there and back barefoot (about a mile each way).
Ah,I see Dan.
Cant really think of a reply to that!
-
Ah,I see Dan.
Cant really think of a reply to that!
OK, lol.
Any thoughts on the blood which was "found to be human in origin"?
-
But if it was tested "and found to be human in origin" then it couldn't be rabbit's blood, regardless
I don't believe it was rabbit blood.
-
OK, lol.
Any thoughts on the blood which was "found to be human in origin"?
No,not really Dan,although I did put forward a scenario where Sheila returned the silencer to the cupboard,but it didn't go down very well.
-
Does anyone know where I can find the testimony for this? Much obliged if anyone can help. (THE PART ABOUT THE QUESTION TO DAVID).
-
Does anyone know where I can find the testimony for this? Much obliged if anyone can help. (THE PART ABOUT THE QUESTION TO DAVID).
It mentions it in CAL'S book Roch, page 350, not exact wording but along those lines.
-
It mentions it in CAL'S book Roch, page 350, not exact wording but along those lines.
Cheers HB. I will try and find the book at home.