Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: ILB on April 29, 2025, 12:30:PM
-
Brief audio interview
https://youtu.be/3KvKULMvOUs?si=Q8J4BMuWjPPQZNEI
-
Brief audio interview
https://youtu.be/3KvKULMvOUs?si=Q8J4BMuWjPPQZNEI
JB came over well until he said "and they know it".
Most, if not all, the documents capable of winning an appeal are available eg expert evidence from trial and from various other times eg CoA.
If there was any 'smoking gun' it would simply have been destroyed not archived.
There could be many valid reasons why case papers have been archived. Eg closed adoptions ensure strict confidentiality:
https://www.ramsdens.co.uk/open-or-closed-adoption-a-question-we-all-need-to-be-asking/#:~:text=Closed%20adoption%20ensures%20strict%20confidentiality,to%20many%20families%20and%20professionals.
Closed adoption ensures strict confidentiality about the identity of both the adoptive and biological parents and can seem ‘safer’ to many families and professionals
Medi records of June and NB might be another example. Especially June's psychiatric treatment pre and post adoption.
-
JB came over well until he said "and they know it".
Turn of phrase.
-
Turn of phrase.
Disagree. It's the sort of stuff BFDC talks about ie conspiratorial. No one in authority knows JB is innocent.
-
Disagree. It's the sort of stuff BFDC talks about ie conspiratorial. No one in authority knows JB is innocent.
I thought I had detected some saddended emotion from his voice. Not verge of tears but slightly emotional.
-
Brief audio interview
https://youtu.be/3KvKULMvOUs?si=Q8J4BMuWjPPQZNEI
This is an old chestnut. Jeremy's Bambers file are sealed at Kew and Bamber and his supporters are claiming this is evidence of non-disclosure, but it is not.
They are just sealed from the public. Bamber has all his documents.
The same is true of Peter Sutcliffe - his records are also sealed:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14511264 (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14511264)
-
This is an old chestnut. Jeremy's Bambers file are sealed at Kew and Bamber and his supporters are claiming this is evidence of non-disclosure, but it is not.
They are just sealed from the public. Bamber has all his documents.
The same is true of Peter Sutcliffe - his records are also sealed:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14511264 (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14511264)
I can assure you that Jeremy Bamber does not have access to all the files.
-
I can assure you that Jeremy Bamber does not have access to all the files.
Correct.
-
I can assure you that Jeremy Bamber does not have access to all the files.
Prove it!
-
Prove it!
He is a category A prisoner, and even has to put in applications to access documents he has in possession. They are stored within the prison.
I think many misunderstand how actually curtailed and scruitzned the regime Bamber actually lives his life under.
-
JB still referring to the polygraph years on.
The disappointment must have been off the wall when he realised it amounted to nothing Judicial system wise.
-
JB still referring to the polygraph years on.
The disappointment must have been off the wall when he realised it amounted to nothing Judicial system wise.
I've tried to get through to him in the past. Another example is snow/'Aga burns'. We can spend many a happy hour poring over all sorts of nonsense here but the CCRC/CoA are only interested in very narrow aspects of the case and anything outside is a complete non-starter.
-
I've tried to get through to him in the past. Another example is snow/'Aga burns'. We can spend many a happy hour poring over all sorts of nonsense here but the CCRC/CoA are only interested in very narrow aspects of the case and anything outside is a complete non-starter.
Its odd that the Aga evidence hasn't been mentioned for quite some time, maybe thats a good sign, Cutie! :)
-
I've tried to get through to him in the past. Another example is snow/'Aga burns'. We can spend many a happy hour poring over all sorts of nonsense here but the CCRC/CoA are only interested in very narrow aspects of the case and anything outside is a complete non-starter.
I totally agree it's a none starter.
The only reason I give JB himself personally Lee way is because he's the one doing time and has been for almost 40 years. Any modicum of light at the end of the tunnel, whether it be newspaper article, polygraph, etc etc will spur JB on in his plight and maybe give him a personal boost. As said he is a prisoner, and it is his life.
In regards to his CT, legal team, or whoever sanctioned the Boyce experiment, absolute madness. I share your opinion in that it won't overturn the conviction. It is fundamentally a complete waste of time.
JB being sold the idea has no massive bearing in detriment to him, he's spent 39 years in jail come September 40 for a crime he says he didn't commit. Any deemed positive he will only naturally use to his perceived advantage.
-
I totally agree it's a none starter.
The only reason I give JB himself personally Lee way is because he's the one doing time and has been for almost 40 years. Any modicum of light at the end of the tunnel, whether it be newspaper article, polygraph, etc etc will spur JB on in his plight and maybe give him a personal boost. As said he is a prisoner, and it is his life.
In regards to his CT, legal team, or whoever sanctioned the Boyce experiment, absolute madness. I share your opinion in that it won't overturn the conviction. It is fundamentally a complete waste of time.
JB being sold the idea has no massive bearing in detriment to him, he's spent 39 years in jail come September 40 for a crime he says he didn't commit. Any deemed positive he will only naturally use to his perceived advantage.
I believe it was JB himself and Yvonne who suggested to Boyce that the Aga may have made the marks, ILB!
-
I believe it was JB himself and Yvonne who suggested to Boyce that the Aga may have made the marks, ILB!
Quite possibly Snow.
The Overriding point is it won't show the 1986 convictions as unsafe mate.
-
I believe it was JB himself and Yvonne who suggested to Boyce that the Aga may have made the marks, ILB!
Even if this was true, which it isn't, how does it exonerate JB? It doesn't.
-
I totally agree it's a none starter.
The only reason I give JB himself personally Lee way is because he's the one doing time and has been for almost 40 years. Any modicum of light at the end of the tunnel, whether it be newspaper article, polygraph, etc etc will spur JB on in his plight and maybe give him a personal boost. As said he is a prisoner, and it is his life.
In regards to his CT, legal team, or whoever sanctioned the Boyce experiment, absolute madness. I share your opinion in that it won't overturn the conviction. It is fundamentally a complete waste of time.
JB being sold the idea has no massive bearing in detriment to him, he's spent 39 years in jail come September 40 for a crime he says he didn't commit. Any deemed positive he will only naturally use to his perceived advantage.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind :) When the CCRC throws out the most recent submission he might be more open to a change of personnel and a different strategy ;)
-
Its odd that the Aga evidence hasn't been mentioned for quite some time, maybe thats a good sign, Cutie! :)
It would be a good sign if his 'supporters' have had a lightbulb moment and now accept its a complete non-starter.
-
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind :) When the CCRC throws out the most recent submission he might be more open to a change of personnel and a different strategy ;)
Who better than Cutie to take over his new strategy, right then first things first, Stan climbed through the window and put his blood on the outside of the silencer, he wanted to play GOD and the FSS contaminated the inside because……………..I don’t know about cruel to be kind, but your strategy is insane to say the least!
-
I believe it was JB himself and Yvonne who suggested to Boyce that the Aga may have made the marks, ILB!
That's grasping at straws if ever I heard it! Let's chuck this one into the mix and see who's prepared to run with it! You never know, it might just work!!!
-
Who better than Cutie to take over his new strategy, right then first things first, Stan climbed through the window and put his blood on the outside of the silencer, he wanted to play GOD and the FSS contaminated the inside because……………..I don’t know about cruel to be kind, but your strategy is insane to say the least!
It is not necessary to prove to the CCRC/CoA how the blood test results came about just that it was not through the drawback phenomenon as claimed by the prosecution at trial. The former will be for the inevitable public inquiry to determine post acquittal. I have always said, and still maintain, that we will learn more post acquittal than we know pre acquittal.
-
It is not necessary to prove to the CCRC/CoA how the blood test results came about just that it was not through the drawback phenomenon as claimed by the prosecution at trial. The former will be for the inevitable public inquiry to determine post acquittal. I have always said, and still maintain, that we will learn more post acquittal than we know pre acquittal.
The Campaign Team currently claim to have proof that the sound moderator was not on a gun, so if the latest submission gets rejected, I can't see how you will have success.
-
Who better than Cutie to take over his new strategy, right then first things first, Stan climbed through the window and put his blood on the outside of the silencer, he wanted to play GOD and the FSS contaminated the inside because……………..I don’t know about cruel to be kind, but your strategy is insane to say the least!
I've changed my mind about DS Jones climbing through the window to contaminate the silencer before the relatives found it. I am now more inclined to think the outside of the silencer: blood, hair, paint and scratches came about when, or shortly after, DS Jones collected the silencer from Oak Farm and he sat drinking whisky with PE into the small hours.
I'm now thinking the relatives found the silencer and didn't pay much attention to it at any time and did not see anything untoward. When DS Jones collected it from Oak Farm and sat drinking whisky into the small hours with PE he was offered a cash incentive to help secure a conviction. He then set about contaminating the silencer to secure a cash incentive and to play God/prove his superiors wrong.
He then went back to the relatives telling them they had overlooked the contaminants and they would need to backtrack otherwise it would not stand up. They agreed to do this hence their conflicting accounts in witness statements and at trial about who was present when it was found, who saw what and when etc, etc.
-
The Campaign Team currently claim to have proof that the sound moderator was not on a gun, so if the latest submission gets rejected, I can't see how you will have success.
I am not the CT and I will not be taking instruction from JB.
-
I've changed my mind about DS Jones climbing through the window to contaminate the silencer before the relatives found it. I am now more inclined to think the outside of the silencer: blood, hair, paint and scratches came about when, or shortly after, DS Jones collected the silencer from Oak Farm and he sat drinking whisky with PE into the small hours.
I'm now thinking the relatives found the silencer and didn't pay much attention to it at any time and did not see anything untoward. When DS Jones collected it from Oak Farm and sat drinking whisky into the small hours with PE he was offered a cash incentive to help secure a conviction. He then set about contaminating the silencer to secure a cash incentive and to play God/prove his superiors wrong.
He then went back to the relatives telling them they had overlooked the contaminants and they would need to backtrack otherwise it would not stand up. They agreed to do this hence their conflicting accounts in witness statements and at trial about who was present when it was found, who saw what and when etc, etc.
C'mon! Is this entirely fair? You're making rather too much of DSJ "drinking whiskey into the small hours". You've been on the receiving end of similar accusations, have you not? If I accept that what's been thrown at you is gross exaggeration, I must also afford SJ the same, surely?
-
C'mon! Is this entirely fair? You're making rather too much of DSJ "drinking whiskey into the small hours". You've been on the receiving end of similar accusations, have you not? If I accept that what's been thrown at you is gross exaggeration, I must also afford SJ the same, surely?
Big difference...I am not acting in a professional capacity. DS Jones admitted at trial to drinking on the job.
-
Big difference...I am not acting in a professional capacity. DS Jones admitted at trial to drinking on the job.
Other than the very few who were teetotal, I don't know of any policeman -or, for that matter, doctor- who didn't drink on the job in that era. Not many would have been asked that question, though.
-
Other than the very few who were teetotal, I don't know of any policeman -or, for that matter, doctor- who didn't drink on the job in that era. Not many would have been asked that question, though.
Agreed. I am not suggesting DS Jones was intoxicated to the point he lost his senses, although he might have done. What concerns me is the cosy nature of sitting with PE into the small hours.
-
Agreed. I am not suggesting DS Jones was intoxicated to the point he lost his senses, although he might have done. What concerns me is the cosy nature of sitting with PE into the small hours.
His modus operandi when dealing with bereaved families perhaps?
-
It is not necessary to prove to the CCRC/CoA how the blood test results came about just that it was not through the drawback phenomenon as claimed by the prosecution at trial. The former will be for the inevitable public inquiry to determine post acquittal. I have always said, and still maintain, that we will learn more post acquittal than we know pre acquittal.
Ah! I see where your coming from now, Cutie!
-
Even if this was true, which it isn't, how does it exonerate JB? It doesn't.
It is true ,Cutie!, I will try and find out where I seen/saw this!
-
From the Doc Maker-
'Yvonne and Jeremy had a theory that they [burns] were caused by the handles on the Aga oven.'
-
From the Doc Maker-
'Yvonne and Jeremy had a theory that they [burns] were caused by the handles on the Aga oven.'
Are you for real?!
-
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind :) When the CCRC throws out the most recent submission he might be more open to a change of personnel and a different strategy ;)
Do you think the CT are essentially useless?
-
I've tried to get through to him in the past. Another example is snow/'Aga burns'. We can spend many a happy hour poring over all sorts of nonsense here but the CCRC/CoA are only interested in very narrow aspects of the case and anything outside is a complete non-starter.
Completely true, the barrister on the theroux doc summed it to a tee " a slam dunk nature" something that casts doubt on the original verdict. Nothing about the Aga burns undermines JBs position and neither does it implicate SC, it also doesn't effect the blood or JM
Who's paying Boyce?
-
Do you think the CT are essentially useless?
I think they probably provide JB with some emotional support in the absence of family. This could be a good thing and save him from loopy females wanting a 'relationship', marriage etc.
-
Are you for real?!
How so, Cutie?
What have I done now?
-
Do you think the CT are essentially useless?
Their hearts are in the right place. But its a classic example of one step forward two steps back.
-
That's grasping at straws if ever I heard it! Let's chuck this one into the mix and see who's prepared to run with it! You never know, it might just work!!!
I would try anything if I was a man in JBs position. I'm not joking.
If JB is genuinely innocent then the man has gone through the most horrendous ordeal anybody could ever experience. Losing his entire family and spent 40 years in prison. Most apart from a brief period as a CAT B, in CAT A conditions.
-
I would try anything if I was a man in JBs position. I'm not joking.
If JB is genuinely innocent then the man has gone through the most horrendous ordeal anybody could ever experience. Losing his entire family and spent 40 years in prison. Most apart from a brief period as a CAT B, in CAT A conditions.
Life as a cat A prisoner will be his 'normal' now much the same way our little lives are 'normal' to us :) He would probably struggle more with 'freedom' now.
-
Their hearts are in the right place. But its a classic example of one step forward two steps back.
I give them credit for their work given that they receive no financial reward and have lives of their own. However i think they spent too much time on the disclosure issue and did not spread their investigations on a more detailed examination of the evidence(docs etc) that they had. It is true lack of disclosure has given rise to quite a few MOJ's and should be pursued Maybe it is a lack of resources human and physical but to me it seemed that this was just one strategy and a more holistic approach might have yielded better results. The results whilst welcome were kicked in to the long grass by EP's response.
Hats off to them anyway.
-
Life as a cat A prisoner will be his 'normal' now much the same way our little lives are 'normal' to us :) He would probably struggle more with 'freedom' now.
Believe JB would struggle as would anybody imprisoned for that length of time. Standard.
I personally have an admiration for JB, for clawing away for as long as he has. I know the vast majority don't share the notion.
I only use my experience of meeting many lifers who claim innocence and after a first appeal knock back simply settle into the prison regime, keep their head down,engage with psychology and do the courses with an eventual goal to get out.
JBs whole tariff in 1994, doesn't apply, he's been fighting since day one. Ever since that gulity verdict got announced in 86.
JB has stuck to his stance from day one. And believe me he will have lived the most awkward regime for it.
-
Their hearts are in the right place. But its a classic example of one step forward two steps back.
It's got a cultish vibe to it.
I think CC pointed this out and she's right.
-
His modus operandi when dealing with bereaved families perhaps?
But it wasn't his m.o when he dealt with JB at WHF ie 'they're dead and the sooner you accept it the better' and PE was related to the Bambers by marriage to AE.
-
But it wasn't his m.o when he dealt with JB at WHF ie 'they're dead and the sooner you accept it the better' and PE was related to the Bambers by marriage to AE.
It's not impossible that he saw through JB's presentation. He wasn't the only one.
-
It's not impossible that he saw through JB's presentation. He wasn't the only one.
The police surgeon seemed to think JB's reactions were genuine and normal and I guess he must have seen a fair few especially as he was approaching retirement. Chief Sup Harris seemed to share his opinion so too other senior officers eg DCI Jones.
-
I believe DS Jones was a see you next Tuesday personally.
From the interview impressions I have seen of him over the years you get a gauge of an individual very quickly and he doesn't come across as very bright at all, and this is coming from a simpleton like myself.
-
I believe DS Jones was a see you next Tuesday personally.
From the interview impressions I have seen of him over the years you get a gauge of an individual very quickly and he doesn't come across as very bright at all, and this is coming from a simpleton like myself.
He was the only one daft enough to consider what the relatives were saying to him.
-
I believe DS Jones was a see you next Tuesday personally.
From the interview impressions I have seen of him over the years you get a gauge of an individual very quickly and he doesn't come across as very bright at all, and this is coming from a simpleton like myself.
I could barely make out what he was saying most of the time, ILB!
-
Even if this was true, which it isn't, how does it exonerate JB? It doesn't.
It would show that EP or the raid team moved Nevill onto the coal scuttle/chair After entrance and before photos.
Then did not disclose that.
The 12 raid team WS's say Nevill was found on the coal scuttle/chair. The police WS's will say the same.
So quite serious if they all lied. And new evidence not available at trial.
But can't see why they would move Nevill so quickly into such a strange position. Then all deny it.
-
I could barely make out what he was saying most of the time, ILB!
Make an emergency appointment with Lugholesavers asap. They'll syringe out a 50 year build-up of wax for a tenner.
-
He was the only one daft enough to consider what the relatives were saying to him.
The Eatons and Boutflours smelled a rat in the nest from the start and shrewd Stan got a strong whiff of that too.
-
The Eatons and Boutflours smelled a rat in the nest.
Or smelt £
-
It would show that EP or the raid team moved Nevill onto the coal scuttle/chair After entrance and before photos.
Then did not disclose that.
The 12 raid team WS's say Nevill was found on the coal scuttle/chair. The police WS's will say the same.
So quite serious if they all lied. And new evidence not available at trial.
But can't see why they would move Nevill so quickly into such a strange position. Then all deny it.
Yes I appreciate that but it still would not overcome the blood/silencer evidence and JM's testimony which had nothing to do with the raid team.
The idea that 12 raid team members all fabricated their testimony is just more utter nonsense from JB/CT.
-
I believe DS Jones was a see you next Tuesday personally.
From the interview impressions I have seen of him over the years you get a gauge of an individual very quickly and he doesn't come across as very bright at all, and this is coming from a simpleton like myself.
Well he was bright enough to get the ball rolling with the silencer and securing JM's testimony. But yeah I get what you're saying he was an accident waiting to happen and needed to be on a long leash imo. It seemed to me it was a busy time for EP with summer hols and PACE training. Perhaps ordinarily he would be more accountable to the likes of DCI Jones and Chief Sup Harris.
-
Well he was bright enough to get the ball rolling with the silencer and securing JM's testimony. But yeah I get what you're saying he was an accident waiting to happen and needed to be on a long leash imo. It seemed to me it was a busy time for EP with summer hols and PACE training. Perhaps ordinarily he would be more accountable to the likes of DCI Jones and Chief Sup Harris.
He wanted to play God and took a bung according to you, and the FSS contaminated the inside of the silencer, did they want to play God as well?
-
He wanted to play God and took a bung according to you, and the FSS contaminated the inside of the silencer, did they want to play God as well?
As far as the FSS was concerned the outside of the silencer and JM's testimony were authentic pieces of evidence gathered using normal investigatory techniques. Hence it agreed to get the case over the line by producing a set of test results. Ie snowball effect.
You can see the same in the case of Stefan Kizsko where 4 teenage girls lied "for a laugh" and SK gave a false confession due to the police not following interview porotcol. The lab then agreed to get the case over the line by supressing forensic evidence that would have exonerated SK.
-
Yes I appreciate that but it still would not overcome the blood/silencer evidence and JM's testimony which had nothing to do with the raid team.
The idea that 12 raid team members all fabricated their testimony is just more utter nonsense from JB/CT.
How will they overcome the blood /silencer evidence? There is nothing left to test.
Julie's WS is unbreakable & she will never retract.
-
As far as the FSS was concerned the outside of the silencer and JM's testimony were authentic pieces of evidence gathered using normal investigatory techniques. Hence it agreed to get the case over the line by producing a set of test results. Ie snowball effect.
You can see the same in the case of Stefan Kizsko where 4 teenage girls lied "for a laugh" and SK gave a false confession due to the police not following interview porotcol. The lab then agreed to get the case over the line by supressing forensic evidence that would have exonerated SK.
Who did they agree with to get the case over the line? Stop diverting your nonsense with another case. So you say the FSS agreed in the Bamber case to get it over the line to convict Jeremy, who did they agree with? Who in their wisdom decided to put blood on the inside of the silencer on the baffle plates creating back splatter?
-
How will they overcome the blood /silencer evidence? There is nothing left to test.
Julie's WS is unbreakable & she will never retract.
Cutie is going to disprove the backspatter theory, Adam!
-
Who did they agree with to get the case over the line? Stop diverting your nonsense with another case. So you say the FSS agreed in the Bamber case to get it over the line to convict Jeremy, who did they agree with? Who in their wisdom decided to put blood on the inside of the silencer on the baffle plates creating back splatter?
I think that this aspect could have occurred at the FSS. I posted this some time ago.
Have you completed your analysis of the McKenzie report. It suggests some very worrying points. I will not list them all since it is only a few pages and readers can see the claims for themselves.
1 There was never a flake of blood in the silencer.
2 As expounded by Holly Goodhead on Red and her analysis of the serological components being unable to remain viable over time, the blood on the baffles is not conclusively Sheila's.
3 MF dismantled the SM on the 13/08/85. I have seen no GER for this and it is claimed the HOLAB 5 form is a fake. Why would RC dismantle it again if he knew this?
4 JH did not conduct the tests on the flake but testified as if he had.
It is possible that it was MF. He received some blood and tissue with the bullet PV20. Some of the blood could have formed in a flake and he could have claimed he found it when examining the sound moderator.
I still find it strange that RWC never found it (it was claimed to be loose) when he dismantled the SM and photographed it on the 21/08/85. I believe the flake was measured and was 5mm. It was not large.
-
Cutie is going to disprove the backspatter theory, Adam!
Better late than never.
-
I think that this aspect could have occurred at the FSS. I posted this some time ago.
It is possible that it was MF. He received some blood and tissue with the bullet PV20. Some of the blood could have formed in a flake and he could have claimed he found it when examining the sound moderator.
I still find it strange that RWC never found it (it was claimed to be loose) when he dismantled the SM and photographed it on the 21/08/85. I believe the flake was measured and was 5mm. It was not large.
Does the shenanigans with the silencer correspond with the time Julie came forward, Bubo?
-
Does the shenanigans with the silencer correspond with the time Julie came forward, Bubo?
The silencer tested positive for blood on the outside on the 13th August and Julie going to the police took place in September. However, the tests on the blood inside the sound moderator took place in September.
-
Well he was bright enough to get the ball rolling with the silencer and securing JM's testimony. But yeah I get what you're saying he was an accident waiting to happen and needed to be on a long leash imo. It seemed to me it was a busy time for EP with summer hols and PACE training. Perhaps ordinarily he would be more accountable to the likes of DCI Jones and Chief Sup Harris.
There may have been a severe case of one man upmanship at stake within the CID division and he may have seen Bamber as a golden goose.
Believe he retired in 1991, wonder if he stayed at DS in the aftermath or went up in ranks.
-
I think that this aspect could have occurred at the FSS. I posted this some time ago.
It is possible that it was MF. He received some blood and tissue with the bullet PV20. Some of the blood could have formed in a flake and he could have claimed he found it when examining the sound moderator.
I still find it strange that RWC never found it (it was claimed to be loose) when he dismantled the SM and photographed it on the 21/08/85. I believe the flake was measured and was 5mm. It was not large.
Oh, so it was MF who decided he would play God, along with Stan, was they both in it together? MF just mentions P/V 20 as a bullet not seen mention of blood and tissue in his statement, i am at a disadvantage though, just using iphone! He also says he “ I have been unable to find any evidence that the silencer was ever mounted to the rifle”
-
Oh, so it was MF who decided he would play God, along with Stan, was they both in it together? MF just mentions P/V 20 as a bullet not seen mention of blood and tissue in his statement, i am at a disadvantage though, just using iphone! He also says he “ I have been unable to find any evidence that the silencer was ever mounted to the rifle”
I think he formed the view the silencer was used, because of the absence of blood in the rifle barrel and the presence of blood in the silencer due to the lab testing results?
-
Oh, so it was MF who decided he would play God, along with Stan, was they both in it together? MF just mentions P/V 20 as a bullet not seen mention of blood and tissue in his statement, i am at a disadvantage though, just using iphone! He also says he “ I have been unable to find any evidence that the silencer was ever mounted to the rifle”
Check out my posts HB. He swapped PV20 because it had lans and grooves not consistent with being fired by the Anschutz. He was passed PV20 by Taylor. His GER is on the forum and I have referenced this document in my posts if I remember correctly. CC thinks he was lacking in experience.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10645.msg494127.html#msg494127
-
The silencer tested positive for blood on the outside on the 13th August and Julie going to the police took place in September. However, the tests on the blood inside the sound moderator took place in September.
Was the silencer tested on the inside before or after Julie went to the police, Dan?
Or at least, when were the results from the testing documented?
-
Check out my posts HB. He swapped PV20 because it had lans and grooves not consistent with being fired by the Anschutz. He was passed PV20 by Taylor. His GER is on the forum and I have referenced this document in my posts if I remember correctly. CC thinks he was lacking in experience.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10645.msg494127.html#msg494127
Thanks Bubo, what date was this do you know? Must have been early if he says it was wet blood, surely blood on a bullet would dry pretty quickly? I can’t quite follow it yet poor connection and reading ability, no internet service.
-
Was the silencer tested on the inside before or after Julie went to the police, Dan?
Or at least, when were the results from the testing documented?
Before, Glynis Howard started the tests on the 13th of August. I can’t post it, because I’m using my iPhone and I don’t know how to copy and paste documents from this, if you go to her statements she says she removed blood from inside and outside of the silencer on this day?
-
Before, Glynis Howard started the tests on the 13th of August. I can’t post it, because I’m using my iPhone and I don’t know how to copy and paste documents from this, if you go to her statements she says she removed blood from inside and outside of the silencer on this day?
OK, thanks HB, i'll take a look.
-
Before, Glynis Howard started the tests on the 13th of August. I can’t post it, because I’m using my iPhone and I don’t know how to copy and paste documents from this, if you go to her statements she says she removed blood from inside and outside of the silencer on this day?
She swabbed the outside and the inside but only about 1/4" or so. She did not look inside to a greater depth. Believe it is in one of her statements or trial testimony. In her trial testimony she says just inside. She gave reasons for not dismantling.
-
She swabbed the outside and the inside but only about 1/4" or so. She did not look inside to a greater depth. Believe it is in one of her statements or trial testimony. In her trial testimony she says just inside. She gave reasons for not dismantling.
Thanks Bubo!
-
She swabbed the outside and the inside but only about 1/4" or so. She did not look inside to a greater depth. Believe it is in one of her statements or trial testimony. In her trial testimony she says just inside. She gave reasons for not dismantling.
The question was, when did she start the tests, before JM testimony or after. You’ve now come up with something completely different to try to distract from the original question.
-
The question was, when did she start the tests, before JM testimony or after. You’ve now come up with something completely different to try to distract from the original question.
No no, the question was, when was specifically the inside tested, HB, and the results documented?
-
No no, the question was, when was specifically the inside tested, HB, and the results documented?
She gave it as the 13th of August, I can see where you are going now, the reason she gives as having a different date, it was altered (without telling her, and it does give a suspicion I agree) because of the mix up and renaming of the silencer to DRB1, you’ll have to excuse me I’m only using my iPhone.
-
No no, the question was, when was specifically the inside tested, HB, and the results documented?
Bubo’s answer was nothing to do with your question about dates.
This was part one of your original question, I was answering this part
Was the silencer tested on the inside before or after Julie went to the police, Dan?
-
Bubo’s answer was nothing to do with your question about dates.
This was part one of your original question, I was answering this part
Was the silencer tested on the inside before or after Julie went to the police, Dan?
OK, thanks, HB!
I better take a look at the statements myself, cant expect everyone else to do the work!
-
The question was, when did she start the tests, before JM testimony or after. You’ve now come up with something completely different to try to distract from the original question.
Sorry HB that was not my intention. I believe Dan answered your question I was moving the debate on with additional information. Dan posted your answer while I was researching. No intention to deceive. It is clear they were testing blood on a SM before JM came forward. These seem to be initial tests to establish whether it was human or animal. The amounts involved were only small and precise tests were not possible to identify type etc and 'human' was the outcome.
-
For the record; RWC took a SM to the FSS and waited for the results and returned with it on the same day if my memory is correct.
-
Sorry HB that was not my intention. I believe Dan answered your question I was moving the debate on with additional information. Dan posted your answer while I was researching. No intention to deceive. It is clear they were testing blood on a SM before JM came forward. These seem to be initial tests to establish whether it was human or animal. The amounts involved were only small and precise tests were not possible to identify type etc and 'human' was the outcome.
No problem, cutie is moving the goal posts each statement she makes, I thought you was doing the same, she’s gone From Stan climbing through the window to not doing so now, now she’s trying to link the FSS and Julie’s statement in some way, by saying the FSS went with the snowballing effect, then she throws another case in, nothing at all to do with Bamber, just to bolster her theory. She’s all over the place, because she realises what a fool she made of herself by accusing Stan of climbing through the window.
-
No problem, cutie is moving the goal posts each statement she makes, I thought you was doing the same, she’s gone From Stan climbing through the window to not doing so now, now she’s trying to link the FSS and Julie’s statement in some way, by saying the FSS went with the snowballing effect, then she throws another case in, nothing at all to do with Bamber, just to bolster her theory. She’s all over the place, because she realises what a fool she made of herself by accusing Stan of climbing through the window.
If you wish to dig deeper on the blood in the SM read posts 39,40 and 41 on this thread.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200844.html#msg200844
You will see that PL came to his conclusions and reported to JB's solicitor 27/05/86. However he was forced to revise his opinion 19/09/86 because of the flake evidence. This suggests that the FSS did not find the flake until after PL's original visit and his report had been completed. If it was found before April 86 when was it found? and who found it? If the FSS were testing it before April why did they not tell PL of any ongoing investigations that might have a bearing on his conclusions and report.
-
What's the story about the blood ( blood group of DB) found in the silencer?
-
If you wish to dig deeper on the blood in the SM read posts 39,40 and 41 on this thread.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200844.html#msg200844
You will see that PL came to his conclusions and reported to JB's solicitor 27/05/86. However he was forced to revise his opinion 19/09/86 because of the flake evidence. This suggests that the FSS did not find the flake until after PL's original visit and his report had been completed. If it was found before April 86 when was it found? and who found it? If the FSS were testing it before April why did they not tell PL of any ongoing investigations that might have a bearing on his conclusions and report.
So the flake of blood was found by Hayward on 12 sept 1985 a few days after Julie went to the police, is this correct, Bubo?
-
So the flake of blood was found by Hayward on 12 sept 1985 a few days after Julie went to the police, is this correct, Bubo?
Where did you get this date? The second report (19/09/86) of PL mentions that Hayward found the flake but no date is given.
-
OK, thanks, HB!
I better take a look at the statements myself, cant expect everyone else to do the work!
Im not quite sure when the results came back though, they could have come after both JM and JB had been questioned?
-
So the flake of blood was found by Hayward on 12 sept 1985 a few days after Julie went to the police, is this correct, Bubo?
We are told a flake of blood was found inside the silencer which matched SC's blood groups. I believe the 'find' was 12th Sep '85. A few days after we are told JM went to EP.
-
Who did they agree with to get the case over the line? Stop diverting your nonsense with another case. So you say the FSS agreed in the Bamber case to get it over the line to convict Jeremy, who did they agree with? Who in their wisdom decided to put blood on the inside of the silencer on the baffle plates creating back splatter?
Another case where the forensic scientist who went on to be charged with perverting the course of justice also went on to head up FSS Huntingdon when and where the Bamber exhibits were under examination. How is this a diversion and nonsense with another case? I would have thought by most people's standards it is highly relevant?
Who did they agree with? Look at my post: head of FSS Huntingdon and obviously some senior heavyweight with EP, DPP or HO. Of course they didn't say 'fabricate the evidence' just 'pull out all the stops'. Use your loaf Softy Boy.
-
How will they overcome the blood /silencer evidence? There is nothing left to test.
Julie's WS is unbreakable & she will never retract.
You are assuming there was something to test in the first place ;)
The blood/silencer evidence will be shown for what it is.
-
You are assuming there was something to test in the first place ;)
The blood/silencer evidence will be shown for what it is.
You need expert opinion to back up your theory.
-
I think that this aspect could have occurred at the FSS. I posted this some time ago.
It is possible that it was MF. He received some blood and tissue with the bullet PV20. Some of the blood could have formed in a flake and he could have claimed he found it when examining the sound moderator.
I still find it strange that RWC never found it (it was claimed to be loose) when he dismantled the SM and photographed it on the 21/08/85. I believe the flake was measured and was 5mm. It was not large.
You are assuming there was a flake of blood said to measure 1/4" 'found' inside the silencer.
-
You need expert opinion to back up your theory.
Of course :)
-
Better late than never.
Well hopefully JB will start smelling the coffee when the most recent submission is thrown out.
-
There may have been a severe case of one man upmanship at stake within the CID division and he may have seen Bamber as a golden goose.
Believe he retired in 1991, wonder if he stayed at DS in the aftermath or went up in ranks.
He remained at the rank of DS at the time of retirement in '91. I could not find anything in the Essex police rag for that period with any 'nice' words wishing him well.
Incidentally post conviction, Oct '86, a number of officers were promoted to more senior positions. I will look them up when I have time.
-
Thanks Bubo, what date was this do you know? Must have been early if he says it was wet blood, surely blood on a bullet would dry pretty quickly? I can’t quite follow it yet poor connection and reading ability, no internet service.
;)
-
Before, Glynis Howard started the tests on the 13th of August. I can’t post it, because I’m using my iPhone and I don’t know how to copy and paste documents from this, if you go to her statements she says she removed blood from inside and outside of the silencer on this day?
No. The inside she is referring to is the inside of the aperture ie no dismantling. The so-called flake was not 'found' until 12th Sep when we are told the silencer was opened up and the end caps unscrewed and baffles tipped out.
-
Another case where the forensic scientist who went on to be charged with perverting the course of justice also went on to head up FSS Huntingdon when and where the Bamber exhibits were under examination. How is this a diversion and nonsense with another case? I would have thought by most people's standards it is highly relevant?
Who did they agree with? Look at my post: head of FSS Huntingdon and obviously some senior heavyweight with EP, DPP or HO. Of course they didn't say 'fabricate the evidence' just 'pull out all the stops'. Use your loaf Softy Boy.
You like to use the word God don’t you, so everyone playing God ;)
-
;)
when out camping I always forget things, the signal and not having my glasses have made it hard work!
-
No problem, cutie is moving the goal posts each statement she makes, I thought you was doing the same, she’s gone From Stan climbing through the window to not doing so now, now she’s trying to link the FSS and Julie’s statement in some way, by saying the FSS went with the snowballing effect, then she throws another case in, nothing at all to do with Bamber, just to bolster her theory. She’s all over the place, because she realises what a fool she made of herself by accusing Stan of climbing through the window.
When did he help himself to the contents of NB's wallet?
-
No. The inside she is referring to is the inside of the aperture ie no dismantling. The so-called flake was not 'found' until 12th Sep when we are told the silencer was opened up and the end caps unscrewed and baffles tipped out.
You could be right, without checking I can’t disagree with you.
-
When did he help himself to the contents of NB's wallet?
Maybe write to his surviving Family and ask them yourself?
-
You are assuming there was a flake of blood said to measure 1/4" 'found' inside the silencer.
I am not I have given various thoughts as to the origin of the flake. One of these is that there never was a flake.
Have you completed your analysis of the McKenzie report. It suggests some very worrying points. I will not list them all since it is only a few pages and readers can see the claims for themselves.
1 There was never a flake of blood in the silencer.
2 As expounded by Holly Goodhead on Red and her analysis of the serological components being unable to remain viable over time, the blood on the baffles is not conclusively Sheila's.
3 MF dismantled the SM on the 13/08/85. I have seen no GER for this and it is claimed the HOLAB 5 form is a fake. Why would RC dismantle it again if he knew this?
4 JH did not conduct the tests on the flake but testified as if he had.
-
You like to use the word God don’t you, so everyone playing God ;)
No. How did the snowball get rolling?
Relatives - Dripping poison into the ears of EP. Would have fallen on deaf ears without:
Snowball
DS Jones - Fabricated the outside of the silencer: blood, hair, paint and scratches. Genuinely believes JB guilty. Wants to play God and prove his superiors wrong. Gets off on the media coverage and enjoys knowing he is controlling events. Maybe financially incentivised by PE/relatives.
Snowball
DS Jones - Put the frighteners on JM and secured her testimony
Snowball
FSS - Told everyone thinks he dunnit including his surviving family. And his bird said he planned it. And the outside of the silencer supports his involvement but DPP say we need something more. Can you help us out? Otherwise he's going to get away with 5 murders and 500K.
Snowball
A flake of blood is 'found' inside the silencer said to match SC's blood groups.
Conviction
-
No. How did the snowball get rolling?
Relatives - Dripping poison into the ears of EP. Would have fallen on deaf ears without:
Snowball
DS Jones - Fabricated the outside of the silencer: blood, hair, paint and scratches. Genuinely believes JB guilty. Wants to play God and prove his superiors wrong. Gets off on the media coverage and enjoys knowing he is controlling events. Maybe financially incentivised by PE/relatives.
Snowball
DS Jones - Put the frighteners on JM and secured her testimony
Snowball
FSS - Told everyone thinks he dunnit including his surviving family. And his bird said he planned it. And the outside of the silencer supports his involvement but DPP say we need something more. Can you help us out? Otherwise he's going to get away with 5 murders and 500K.
Snowball
A flake of blood is 'found' inside the silencer said to match SC's blood groups.
Conviction
Oh, so Julie Mugford wasn't a scorned woman at all then!
-
Oh, so Julie Mugford wasn't a scorned woman at all then!
No. A frightened woman with the threat of accessory to murder hanging over her.
-
No. A frightened woman with the threat of accessory to murder hanging over her.
That can be true and her statements can also be true. They are not mutually exclusive.
-
No. A frightened woman with the threat of accessory to murder hanging over her.
frightened, and someone who had been dumped and out for revenge.
-
Sorry HB that was not my intention. I believe Dan answered your question I was moving the debate on with additional information. Dan posted your answer while I was researching. No intention to deceive. It is clear they were testing blood on a SM before JM came forward. These seem to be initial tests to establish whether it was human or animal. The amounts involved were only small and precise tests were not possible to identify type etc and 'human' was the outcome.
Yes, Stan was made aware on the 14th of August that the blood from the silencer was Human. I think he went on leave the day or two after and didn’t return to the investigation till 2nd of Sept, Barlow took over the investigation while Stan was off. So Glynis Howard had removed blood from the outside and inside I think she means the knurled end, and tested it on the 13th of August. To test for types of blood grouping would take longer I suppose?
-
No. A frightened woman with the threat of accessory to murder hanging over her.
SJ just had to tell her a few facts.
The case was on going. Evidence had been & was being processed. Bamber was a strong suspect. It was better she told him now what she knew.
Probably took a soft approach as she had approached him.
-
Yes, Stan was made aware on the 14th of August that the blood from the silencer was Human. I think he went on leave the day or two after and didn’t return to the investigation till 2nd of Sept, Barlow took over the investigation while Stan was off. So Glynis Howard had removed blood from the outside and inside I think she means the knurled end, and tested it on the 13th of August. To test for types of blood grouping would take longer I suppose?
It must have been a total shock to discover his blood was human in origin ::)
Insufficient quantity.
-
Can't see the police taking a heavy handed approach with witnesses that approach them. Who may have important information..
They will be friendly.
-
SJ just had to tell her a few facts.
The case was on going. Evidence had been & was being processed. Bamber was a strong suspect. It was better she told him now what she knew.
Probably took a soft approach as she had approached him.
She did not approach him he approached her.
-
She did not approach him he approached her.
She contacted SJ via phone. At Liz Rimmington's property.
She had told 5 people between the 27th August - 8th September.
-
She contacted SJ via phone. At Liz Rimmington's property.
She had told 5 people between the 27th August - 8th September.
You have no evidence for this by way of phone records as would be available today.
-
You have no evidence for this by way of phone records as would be available today.
It is well documentated.
You are entitled to believe SJ bullied & scared JM into a 23 page WS within 24 hours.
I do not believe that would be there tactic or that they would need to after JM had left Bamber, told 5 people & approached the police.
-
It is well documentated.
You are entitled to believe SJ bullied & scared JM into a 23 page WS within 24 hours.
I do not believe that would be there tactic or that they would need to after JM had left Bamber, told 5 people & approached the police.
It isn't well documented at all. The ws's are poorly written.
There was no their or they just DS Jones!
-
It isn't well documented at all. The ws's are poorly written.
There was no their or they just DS Jones!
It doesn't make them less valid. Julie didn't go to police of her own accord, a point in her favour.
-
It isn't well documented at all. The ws's are poorly written.
There was no their or they just DS Jones!
And Johnny Walker.
-
It isn't well documented at all. The ws's are poorly written.
There was no their or they just DS Jones!
Just out of interest what do you believe the scale of money incentivsation would have been for Stan to undertake such an endeavour?
-
Although open minded and not closed to the idea I struggle to think why DS Jones would go on basically a course of action called " get Bamber " whilst acknowledging and personally being victim to 80s bully boy police tactics ( on a much lesser scale of course)
There HAS to have been a large scale payment to him to have undertaken the course of action.
-
Stan wasn't completely pally with the relatives in the early stages.
Scolding AE when she moaned about Jeremy selling or valuing items. And reminding her it "wasn't her business "
Accept he was having to tow the initial official line of enquiry and result.
-
It doesn't make them less valid. Julie didn't go to police of her own accord, a point in her favour.
But had JM, former grammar school and undergrad, written them you might think the quality would be better?
-
And Johnny Walker.
Hoho. I wonder if he had a preferred brand? He was unfairly portrayed in CAL's ITV adaptation as having a beer belly and being a bit scruffy/unshaven which he wasn't.
-
Just out of interest what do you believe the scale of money incentivsation would have been for Stan to undertake such an endeavour?
I've no idea if he was offered a financial incentive and if so how much.
There have been many cases where the police have falsified evidence and witness testimony without financial incentive. The incentive in these cases might have been to appease the hierarchy and media and/or maintain postion/promotion.
We have to accept in this case the police already had a suspect in SC.
-
Although open minded and not closed to the idea I struggle to think why DS Jones would go on basically a course of action called " get Bamber " whilst acknowledging and personally being victim to 80s bully boy police tactics ( on a much lesser scale of course)
There HAS to have been a large scale payment to him to have undertaken the course of action.
But we don't know anything about DS Jones' psyche.
-
Hoho. I wonder if he had a preferred brand? He was unfairly portrayed in CAL's ITV adaptation as having a beer belly and being a bit scruffy/unshaven which he wasn't.
Also I believe Mark Addys portrayal wasn't accurate in the sense of DS Jones being a caring individual.
But I do believe there was some severe power dynamics one man upmanship going off in CID at the time.
-
But we don't know anything about DS Jones' psyche.
So why do you have him climbing through windows, putting blood in silencers & bullying JM?
-
But we don't know anything about DS Jones' psyche.
Do you think he was jealous of JB?
-
So why do you have him climbing through windows, putting blood in silencers & bullying JM?
Because that's what the totality of the evidence shows.
I mean we do not know what motivated him.
-
Do you think he was jealous of JB?
Jealous? Maybe envious?
-
Because that's what the totality of the evidence shows.
I mean we do not know what motivated him.
Do you think SJ fabricating the silencer should have been a ground in 89, 2002, 2012 or 2021?
-
So why do you have him climbing through windows, putting blood in silencers & bullying JM?
Climbing through windows? I'm pretty sure PE simply opened the front door to give it to him? :))
-
Jealous? Maybe envious?
I can see a jealousy forming between a cocksure 24 year old coming into significant wealth and a haggard detective.
From what we're lead to believe though he took an instant dislike to JB, from the outset. Which is unusual.
-
Do you think SJ fabricating the silencer should have been a ground in 89, 2002, 2012 or 2021?
To secure an acquittal at trial it was necessary to demonstrate that the blood supposedly found inside the silencer did not get there by way of the drawback phenomenon. As the defence effectively went along with the prosecution narrative claiming SC used the silencer and the blood represented an intimate mix of NB and June's blood it resulted in a guilty verdict.
1989 - the defence had a little go at undermining the blood by arguing heat from firing of the rifle may have altered the blood results but still with the mixed blood theory.
2002 - the defence attempted to undermine the blood using LCN DNA evidence but still with the mixed blood theory
2012 - the defence attempted to undermine the silencer by arguing it was not on the gun evidenced by the PS' photographic evidence and testimony from the US re the marks to NB's back
2021 - the defence are attempting to undermine the silencer by saying there was more than 1!? No idea how this undermines the evidence presented at trial.
All of the above utterly useless. You have to strike at the heart which is deliberate contamination because that is exactly what happened. It is not necessary to point the finger at the perp(s) just need to demonstrate that it was scientifically impossible for it to have happened the way the prosection claimed ie drawback phenomenon and that the evidence was fabricated.
-
Climbing through windows? I'm pretty sure PE simply opened the front door to give it to him? :))
Either the OUTSIDE of the silencer was contaminated by DS Jones pre relatives finding or after.
At some stage he also emptied the contents of NB's wallet.
-
I can see a jealousy forming between a cocksure 24 year old coming into significant wealth and a haggard detective.
From what we're lead to believe though he took an instant dislike to JB, from the outset. Which is unusual.
Jealousy and envy, while related, are distinct emotions. Jealousy is a feeling of fear or resentment about losing something or someone you have, often involving a third party. Envy, on the other hand, is a feeling of wanting what someone else has, a desire for something they possess or achieve. Essentially, jealousy is about losing, while envy is about having.
But as you said he gave AE short shrift re her interfering over the personal effects at WHF. So this might have been his general demeanor with everyone.
He wasn't a physically attractive man imo and he didn't present well in the Sky docu. I struggled to understand him at times.
If we knew more about his background we might have a better understanding. I will see what I can find out 8)
-
I can see a jealousy forming between a cocksure 24 year old coming into significant wealth and a haggard detective.
From what we're lead to believe though he took an instant dislike to JB, from the outset. Which is unusual.
Stan was being told from the start who to interview, by either Taff or Miller. It wasn’t just Stan who was interviewing Bamber Clark was doing most of the interviewing. When Stan telephoned Miller telling him he wanted to discuss things, (it was in relation to Bamber’s behaviour, the family not believing Sheila could use a gun ECT) he was then invited to the Meeting at WHF. Clark also attended but he was late because he had been with JM to identify the bodies at the Morgue, he had the same feeling as Stan and told Taff so, Taff dismissed them both saying they had been influenced by the families.
I don’t think anyone can blame Stan at this stage, things don’t add up for most of us, I think the family was adding a lot of doubt into Stan in the early stages, he’s there to listen to both sides and form an opinion. On the other hand, you have Taff who is not interviewing and obviously not listening to his chain of Command, clearing the crime scene as though it was solved, he gave instructions to Cook he didn’t require a fingerprint examination and not to do a full search of the premises.
-
Jealousy and envy, while related, are distinct emotions. Jealousy is a feeling of fear or resentment about losing something or someone you have, often involving a third party. Envy, on the other hand, is a feeling of wanting what someone else has, a desire for something they possess or achieve. Essentially, jealousy is about losing, while envy is about having.
But as you said he gave AE short shrift re her interfering over the personal effects at WHF. So this might have been his general demeanor with everyone.
He wasn't a physically attractive man imo and he didn't present well in the Sky docu. I struggled to understand him at times.
If we knew more about his background we might have a better understanding. I will see what I can find out 8)
As crazy as it sounds this type of behaviour has existed in all types of " macho" male environments since the beginning of time.
Taff was equally scathing of DS Jones questioning him on his conclusion. Nobody wants to admit that they are wrong.
It's one man upmanship, is there any personal record of animosity between both Jones pre August 7th 85? Who knows.
-
If SBJ could pull something off like this to frame a 24 year old reasonably intelligent, middle class soon to he wealthy farmer. Then how many other people has he wronged?
-
Jealousy and envy, while related, are distinct emotions. Jealousy is a feeling of fear or resentment about losing something or someone you have, often involving a third party. Envy, on the other hand, is a feeling of wanting what someone else has, a desire for something they possess or achieve. Essentially, jealousy is about losing, while envy is about having.
But as you said he gave AE short shrift re her interfering over the personal effects at WHF. So this might have been his general demeanor with everyone.
He wasn't a physically attractive man imo and he didn't present well in the Sky docu. I struggled to understand him at times.
If we knew more about his background we might have a better understanding. I will see what I can find out 8)
Who told you that Claude or KE or Cutie?
-
Either the OUTSIDE of the silencer was contaminated by DS Jones pre relatives finding or after.
At some stage he also emptied the contents of NB's wallet.
Without any proof whatsoever, I’d sooner listen to Claude and that’s saying something!
-
Without any proof whatsoever, I’d sooner listen to Claude and that’s saying something!
Claude?
-
Climbing through windows? I'm pretty sure PE simply opened the front door to give it to him? :))
Especially after offering him a bung, she’s all over the place with it and no one takes her seriously anyway.
-
Who told you that Claude or KE or Cutie?
Who told me what?
-
Claude?
Davids BOT
-
Without any proof whatsoever, I’d sooner listen to Claude and that’s saying something!
It isn't without any proof whatsover that the silencer was contaminated.
-
Stan was being told from the start who to interview, by either Taff or Miller. It wasn’t just Stan who was interviewing Bamber Clark was doing most of the interviewing. When Stan telephoned Miller telling him he wanted to discuss things, (it was in relation to Bamber’s behaviour, the family not believing Sheila could use a gun ECT) he was then invited to the Meeting at WHF. Clark also attended but he was late because he had been with JM to identify the bodies at the Morgue, he had the same feeling as Stan and told Taff so, Taff dismissed them both saying they had been influenced by the families.
DC Clark took JB's initial wit stats 7th and 8th Aug. DCI Jones interviewed JB on 8th and 9th Sep. DS Jones interviewed JB on 10th and 12th Sep.
I don’t think anyone can blame Stan at this stage, things don’t add up for most of us, I think the family was adding a lot of doubt into Stan in the early stages, he’s there to listen to both sides and form an opinion. On the other hand, you have Taff who is not interviewing and obviously not listening to his chain of Command, clearing the crime scene as though it was solved, he gave instructions to Cook he didn’t require a fingerprint examination and not to do a full search of the premises.
You are completely wrong as usual. DCI Jones did interview JB on 8/9 Sep. And he was following his chain of command. Chief Sup Harris was at the soc long before DCI Jones arrived and had already declared it one of murder/suicide. The police surgeon was of the same opinion.
DCI Hammersley confirmed at trial that nothing of evidential value was disposed of.
What would be the point of a fingerprint examination when both suspects had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents therein?
-
You are completely wrong as usual. DCI Jones did interview JB on 8/9 Sep. And he was following his chain of command. Chief Sup Harris was at the soc long before DCI Jones arrived and had already declared it one of murder/suicide. The police surgeon was of the same opinion.
DCI Hammersley confirmed at trial that nothing of evidential value was disposed of.
What would be the point of a fingerprint examination when both suspects had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents therein?
I know he did, he interviewed him after Stan told him what Bamber had said about the Rabbits and shooting at them to some, the main interviewing was done by Clark and Taff wouldn’t listen to them both and started to clear the crime scene. I’m talking PRE WHF meeting when Taff had made up his mind!
-
To secure an acquittal at trial it was necessary to demonstrate that the blood supposedly found inside the silencer did not get there by way of the drawback phenomenon. As the defence effectively went along with the prosecution narrative claiming SC used the silencer and the blood represented an intimate mix of NB and June's blood it resulted in a guilty verdict.
1989 - the defence had a little go at undermining the blood by arguing heat from firing of the rifle may have altered the blood results but still with the mixed blood theory.
2002 - the defence attempted to undermine the blood using LCN DNA evidence but still with the mixed blood theory
2012 - the defence attempted to undermine the silencer by arguing it was not on the gun evidenced by the PS' photographic evidence and testimony from the US re the marks to NB's back
2021 - the defence are attempting to undermine the silencer by saying there was more than 1!? No idea how this undermines the evidence presented at trial.
All of the above utterly useless. You have to strike at the heart which is deliberate contamination because that is exactly what happened. It is not necessary to point the finger at the perp(s) just need to demonstrate that it was scientifically impossible for it to have happened the way the prosection claimed ie drawback phenomenon and that the evidence was fabricated.
But it is not impossible. Which is why it was the prosecution case. The defence not disputing.
-
But it is not impossible. Which is why it was the prosecution case. The defence not disputing.
;)