Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: ngb1066 on February 27, 2026, 10:21:AM
-
I know there is already a reference to this on another thread but it justifies a separate thread. It is well worth reading. I believe there is more to come.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber
-
will this report now be a submission to the CCRC?
-
Thanks ngb very interesting.
-
"Now a distinguished British forensic physician has said he does not believe a silencer, also known as a moderator, was used when Caffell was shot dead. The Guardian commissioned Professor Jason Payne-James, a specialist in forensic and legal medicine, to examine the crime-scene photographs taken by Essex police. He has concluded that the bullet injuries are not consistent with a contact or close range injury caused by an Anschütz 525 rifle with a silencer attached. Payne-James, president of the European Council of Legal & Forensic Medicine, specialises in the medical recording and interpretation of injuries.
He told the Guardian: “The pattern imprint on the skin is not large enough to suggest that a silencer was used, either at very close range or in contact with her body. These are close-range bullet holes, and the nature of the moderator or silencer is such that you’d expect some form of pattern imprint equivalent to the diameter of the silencer if it was used in contact or at very close range.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber?fbclid=IwY2xjawQOKuRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeglQE_DhrY1myZGDDck7kCGrIQp7s8LBHZ4wyX_PFHaujcLGl9Esyzg2uTf8_aem_ID3q5rEsSIgt8Zgx5i7xbg (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber?fbclid=IwY2xjawQOKuRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeglQE_DhrY1myZGDDck7kCGrIQp7s8LBHZ4wyX_PFHaujcLGl9Esyzg2uTf8_aem_ID3q5rEsSIgt8Zgx5i7xbg)
-
Thanks ngb very interesting.
The Guardian’s latest report tells those who believe in JB’s innocence very little. There are however two new pieces of information.
Firstly, it uses yet another scientific report to claim the silencer/moderator was not fitted during the killings. Arguments around this aspect has already been given by three American scientists as well as PB and the CCRC has ignored this evidence.
Secondly the HB report in the New Yorker magazine adds two new facts. David Boutflour says his SM was taken away for months and BW says she felt the finding was restaged to give it authenticity.
Time will tell whether these developments alone are enough to bring about a referral to the Appeals Court.
Ngb has indicated there may be more to come. Innocence supporters wait with baited breath.
-
will this report now be a submission to the CCRC?
Not immediately because the CCRC are currently considering the defence response to the Provisional Statement of Reasons. If as a result of this there is a referral to the Court of Appeal there will be no further submission to the CCRC but the new material will form part of the grounds of appeal submitted to the Court of Appeal. Without going into detail on matters which have not yet been made public, in my view the prospects of a new appeal are far higher than they have been at any time since trial.
-
Not immediately because the CCRC are currently considering the defence response to the Provisional Statement of Reasons. If as a result of this there is a referral to the Court of Appeal there will be no further submission to the CCRC but the new material will form part of the grounds of appeal submitted to the Court of Appeal. Without going into detail on matters which have not yet been made public, in my view the prospects of a new appeal are far higher than they have been at any time since trial.
if the CCRC refer but not on this as a ground then Bamber will need to seek leave to appeal on this ground.
I'd say this is not new evidence - just a new expert saying something that's already been submitted.
The encouraging thing for Bamber is that under Vera Baird so far the CCRC has referred a couple of old cases with, on the face of it, nothing that appears to be new
-
if the CCRC refer but not on this as a ground then Bamber will need to seek leave to appeal on this ground.
I'd say this is not new evidence - just a new expert saying something that's already been submitted.
The encouraging thing for Bamber is that under Vera Baird so far the CCRC has referred a couple of old cases with, on the face of it, nothing that appears to be new
The 2002 appeal was the result of the CCRC referring the case on a single ground, but several additional grounds were included in the Grounds of Appeal drafted by counsel. The same would happen here.
-
The 2002 appeal was the result of the CCRC referring the case on a single ground, but several additional grounds were included in the Grounds of Appeal drafted by counsel. The same would happen here.
The law changed after Bamber's appeal. An appellant has to seek leave for additional grounds not referred by the CCRC
-
The law changed after Bamber's appeal. An appellant has to seek leave for additional grounds not referred by the CCRC
Wonder if that was because of his 2002 appeal?
-
Wonder if that was because of his 2002 appeal?
Yes I think so. The Judges asked for this to be looked at after he was referred on one ground then proceeded to spam the Court with 14 more
-
Yes I think so. The Judges asked for this to be looked at after he was referred on one ground then proceeded to spam the Court with 14 more
Can you direct us to the relevant change in the law?
-
Yes I think so. The Judges asked for this to be looked at after he was referred on one ground then proceeded to spam the Court with 14 more
Prisoners must love him!
-
Can you direct us to the relevant change in the law?
Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 315
almost certainly a response to the closing remarks in Bamber's 2002 judgment
-
Wonder if that was because of his 2002 appeal?
The Criminal Justice Bill (that became law in 2003) was introduced in the House of Commons on 21 November 2002. Bamber appeal was denied in mid December.
IIRC it was David Blunketts project.
-
Prisoners must love him!
Not sure what you mean. Keep your fingers crossed and he may end up like Ian Watkins & Ian Huntley.
-
I know there is already a reference to this on another thread but it justifies a separate thread. It is well worth reading. I believe there is more to come.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber
Most of this article is rubbish which is cut and paste from the Campaign Team websites.
-
The Criminal Justice Bill (that became law in 2003) was introduced in the House of Commons on 21 November 2002. Bamber appeal was denied in mid December.
IIRC it was David Blunketts project.
the relevant clause was added in 2003 before Royal Assent
-
the relevant clause was added in 2023 before Royal Assent
But has that specific rule come into effect.
What Section 315 Actually Says
The section provides that:
- The Secretary of State may bring different parts of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 into force on different days.
- Commencement may be general or specific—meaning it can apply to all cases, or only to certain areas, circumstances, or purposes.
- It also allows for transitional, transitory, or saving provisions, which smooth the shift from old law to new law.
This is a standard clause in major Acts of Parliament. It does not create offences, rights, or duties itself; it simply governs when the rest of the Act comes into effect.
-
But has that specific rule come into effect.
What Section 315 Actually Says
The section provides that:
- The Secretary of State may bring different parts of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 into force on different days.
- Commencement may be general or specific—meaning it can apply to all cases, or only to certain areas, circumstances, or purposes.
- It also allows for transitional, transitory, or saving provisions, which smooth the shift from old law to new law.
This is a standard clause in major Acts of Parliament. It does not create offences, rights, or duties itself; it simply governs when the rest of the Act comes into effect.
came wholly in force at 4.4.2005
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No.8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2005
-
Most of this article is rubbish which is cut and paste from the Campaign Team websites.
Are you saying the Guardian are lying about they themselves consulting the president of the European Council of Legal & Forensic Medicine?
-
Are you saying the Guardian are lying about they themselves consulting the president of the European Council of Legal & Forensic Medicine?
Do you understand the word "most"?
Why don't you run past Jason Payne-James your theory that AE contaminated the silencer with water from a bucket containing SC's menstrual stained knickers?
-
Not sure what you mean. Keep your fingers crossed and he may end up like Ian Watkins & Ian Huntley.
I took it to mean clogging up the system?
I wish the media would refrain from putting up images of IH. Last night I was eating my dinner and up pops IH on the news >:( :( Does anyone care if he dies? Why not just say he had his head caved in with a metal pole and leave it at that. I suppose there will be some misguided individual out there sending him a 'get well soon' card.
-
Are you saying the Guardian are lying about they themselves consulting the president of the European Council of Legal & Forensic Medicine?
I said much of it not all of it.
-
I took it to mean clogging up the system?
I wish the media would refrain from putting up images of IH. Last night I was eating my dinner and up pops IH on the news >:( :( Does anyone care if he dies? Why not just say he had his head caved in with a metal pole and leave it at that. I suppose there will be some misguided individual out there sending him a 'get well soon' card.
I suppose it would be pretty tough having to live through it all again, especially if you happen to not live all that far from the locality.
-
I said much of it not all of it.
You said "most" and you are right imo. The article is littered with inaccuracies. I will identify just four because I simply cannot be bothered to go though it all:
- The FSS has never commented on the % of the population who share SC's blood groups. Dr Lincoln for the defence stated 8% of unrelated white British population would be expected to share SC's blood groups.
- Claims JB washed away his "blood splashings" in the nearby North Sea. Where/when was JB near the North Sea?
- MF estimated the lower wound to SC (not immediately fatal) was within 3 inches of her throat and the upper wound as being a contact shot.
There's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that JB is innocent but I doubt he will ever receive the justice he deserves as the case is all over the place, very poorly managed, a complete mess and too unwieldy with all sorts of people throwing in their contribution haphazardly. Its a very sad state of affairs :'(
-
I suppose it would be pretty tough having to live through it all again, especially if you happen to not live all that far from the locality.
My aversion is nothing compared to the parents having to see/hear about it.
-
You said "most" and you are right imo. The article is littered with inaccuracies. I will identify just four because I simply cannot be bothered to go though it all:
- The FSS has never commented on the % of the population who share SC's blood groups. Dr Lincoln for the defence stated 8% of unrelated white British population would be expected to share SC's blood groups.
- Claims JB washed away his "blood splashings" in the nearby North Sea. Where/when was JB near the North Sea?
- MF estimated the lower wound to SC (not immediately fatal) was within 3 inches of her throat and the upper wound as being a contact shot.
There's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that JB is innocent but I doubt he will ever receive the justice he deserves as the case is all over the place, very poorly managed, a complete mess and too unwieldy with all sorts of people throwing in their contribution haphazardly. Its a very sad state of affairs :'(
- The FSS has never commented on the % of the population who share SC's blood groups. Dr Lincoln for the defence stated 8% of unrelated white British population would be expected to share SC's blood groups.
This is a great example. As it says, this is the defence expert who new this before the trial. This is the situation with every single case before DNA.
Theoretically, it could have been 8% of the general population, but for it to be someone else's blood other than Sheila, how did someone else's blood get in??
I realise supporters reading this will be shouting at their computer "it could have been planted" ...
-
- The FSS has never commented on the % of the population who share SC's blood groups. Dr Lincoln for the defence stated 8% of unrelated white British population would be expected to share SC's blood groups.
Dr Lincoln sent a report to the defence highlighting the 8%.
This is a great example. As it says, this is the defence expert who new this before the trial. This is the situation with every single case before DNA.
There is absolutely no comparison between the type of blood testing undertaken in JB's case during 85/86 and DNA testing. The former, based on blood serology/serological analysis, is not statistically individualising hence 8% of unrelated white British population would be expected to share the groups supposedly identified in the 'flake'. The latter, DNA, is statistically individualsing hence it is presented as eg 1 in a billion.
Theoretically, it could have been 8% of the general population, but for it to be someone else's blood other than Sheila, how did someone else's blood get in??
You are assuming blood got in when all the surrouding evidence suggests it didn't!!
I realise supporters reading this will be shouting at their computer "it could have been planted" ...
As I said you are assuming blood got in!!
The type of DNA testing undertaken was LCN (low copy number) which is capable of producing a result from a sample as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt. There was no conclusive evidence of SC's dna in the silencer. The judges explained this by suggesting it was all swabbed away for the initial testing. Really?
-
Put it another way. In 1985/6 and before, there was no DNA testing at all and the only tests which could be carried out on blood was blood grouping.
As the blood could match 8% of the population, what was the point of it in any case?
-
Put it another way. In 1985/6 and before, there was no DNA testing at all and the only tests which could be carried out on blood was blood grouping.
As the blood could match 8% of the population, what was the point of it in any case?
It forms the crux of the case! The blood group results were able to differentiate between SC's blood results and the other victims' results. The results as a stand alone represented SC's blood groups only made up the so-called flake supposedly found inside the silencer!
-
I know there is already a reference to this on another thread but it justifies a separate thread. It is well worth reading. I believe there is more to come.
http.s://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber
A brilliant read---not before time should this information be repeated. Now perhaps someone with more than half a brain will see the apparent difference regarding the usage of a silencer or in this case, not.
Thankyou for this NGB. I'd just happened to turn to this case for any further news and hey-presto. To my mind it should be his " get out of jail free " card !
-
It forms the crux of the case! The blood group results were able to differentiate between SC's blood results and the other victims' results. The results as a stand alone represented SC's blood groups only made up the so-called flake supposedly found inside the silencer!
Indeed, but (before DNA) why was there ever a point in blood grouping it never actually identified who it came from?
-
Indeed, but (before DNA) why was there ever a point in blood grouping it never actually identified who it came from?
Because it reduces the pool of suspects and either implicates or absolves.
Blood grouping uses the same method as DNA, gel elctrophoresis to weigh molecules in enzymes and proteins, and was the precursor to DNA. Prior to grouping ABO/antigens were used.
In the WHF case, the blood evidence, taken at face value, is very strong circumstantial evidence against JB. It has always been my belief that until this is demolished JB's conviction will stand.
-
Because it reduces the pool of suspects and either implicates or absolves.
Blood grouping uses the same method as DNA, gel elctrophoresis to weigh molecules in enzymes and proteins, and was the precursor to DNA. Prior to grouping ABO/antigens were used.
In the WHF case, the blood evidence, taken at face value, is very strong circumstantial evidence against JB. It has always been my belief that until this is demolished JB's conviction will stand.
Well if you have the ability to demolish the blood evidence with your superior brain power, now would probably be a good time to do so, Cutie!
We're counting on you young lady!
-
Because it reduces the pool of suspects and either implicates or absolves.
Blood grouping uses the same method as DNA, gel elctrophoresis to weigh molecules in enzymes and proteins, and was the precursor to DNA. Prior to grouping ABO/antigens were used.
In the WHF case, the blood evidence, taken at face value, is very strong circumstantial evidence against JB. It has always been my belief that until this is demolished JB's conviction will stand.
But how can it if the blood could have belonged to a percentage of the population - in every single case?
-
Well if you have the ability to demolish the blood evidence with your superior brain power, now would probably be a good time to do so, Cutie!
We're counting on you young lady!
Don't you think this would have happened already, given how much work Bamber supporters have done on the silencer evidence over last 40+ years?
-
Don't you think this would have happened already, given how much work Bamber supporters have done on the silencer evidence over last 40+ years?
Ha ha! True, Dan!
Its just that i've been told certain things about Cutie's intentions to free Bamber!
-
Well if you have the ability to demolish the blood evidence with your superior brain power, now would probably be a good time to do so, Cutie!
We're counting on you young lady!
I don't have any superior brain power just common sense.
-
But how can it if the blood could have belonged to a percentage of the population - in every single case?
Are you having a laugh? In itself blood grouping and/or blood type isn't capable of convicting anyone but it can assist implicate or absolve along with other evidence either circumstantial or direct.
Example: Man with ginger hair seen breaking into garden shed around 3am. At 3.15am the police stop a man walking in the vicinity carrying a lawn mower. Man, with ginger hair, says he found lawn mower down an alley and thought it had been dumped so decided to take it home. Police instruct a forensic search of the shed. It appears the perp cut themself breaking in leaving blood on the lock.
A: Blood group and/or type does not match man with ginger hair carrying lawn mower. Useful to defence.
B: Blood group and/or type does match man with ginger hair carrying lawn mower. Useful to prosecution.
Even DNA evidence in itself is not enough for a conviction without other cicumstantial or direct evidence.
-
Don't you think this would have happened already, given how much work Bamber supporters have done on the silencer evidence over last 40+ years?
It has not happened already. There are many aspects to the so-called silencer evidence and it has not been collectively de-bunked. To date it has all been very piece meal and mixed up with a lot of utter nonsense that is either totally irrelevant or totally wrong as in factually wrong.
-
It has not happened already. There are many aspects to the so-called silencer evidence and it has not been collectively de-bunked. To date it has all been very piece meal and mixed up with a lot of utter nonsense that is either totally irrelevant or totally wrong as in factually wrong.
A lot of research took place on the silencer in the run up to the trial and the 2002 appeal.
-
A lot of research took place on the silencer in the run up to the trial and the 2002 appeal.
You are either totally clueless or totally disingenous. I am not going to waste my time identifying all the e's and o's in my arsenal save I will highlight the following for you from the 2002 appeal hearing, section 14, last two paras:
On 8 September 1986, Dr Lincoln again went to the laboratory and this time met and discussed the matter with Mr Hayward. As a result of this meeting, Dr Lincoln appreciated that the blood tested all came from a single flake trapped under the first or second baffle. In a letter to the defence solicitors, Dr Lincoln said that Mr Hayward “used this single flake to produce a solution from which he was able to determine the groups”. He said that this meant that the possible explanation he had earlier suggested as to a combination of more than one persons blood no longer applied.
In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln’s view.