Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Newbury1 on February 08, 2012, 01:55:PM
-
The gun tests in Arizona were carried out in part to suggest the burn marks to Nevills back were caused by a rifle without a silencer fitted.
At trial, and maybe to simplify matters, EP declared that only one gun was used by the murderer (with a silencer fitted).
Mike, amongst others, has alluded on some occasions to the possibility that another gun may have been used at whf that fateful night (as all the shots could not be directly connected to the Bamber rifle).
For the sake of debate what if another gun (Pargetters or the unique weapon handed in shortly after the murders) was used as well?
(e.g. 10 shots fired from the Bamber rifle (1 magazine of 10 bullets) and 15 shots from Pargetters (I magazine of 10 bullets and one of 5 bullets) = 25 shots).
We could therefore have one rifle with a silencer fitted (used to kill the twins (5 & 3 shots) and SC (2 shots) = 10 shots).
And one rifle without a silencer fitted (used to Kill Nevill (8 shots) and burn his back, and June (7 shots) = 15 shots?
-
The gun tests in Arizona were carried out in part to suggest the burn marks to Nevills back were caused by a rifle without a silencer fitted.
At trial, and maybe to simplify matters, EP declared that only one gun was used by the murderer (with a silencer fitted).
Mike, amongst others, has alluded on some occasions to the possibility that another gun may have been used at whf that fateful night (as all the shots could not be directly connected to the Bamber rifle).
For the sake of debate what if another gun (Pargetters or the unique weapon handed in shortly after the murders) was used as well?
(e.g. 10 shots fired from the Bamber rifle (1 magazine of 10 bullets) and 15 shots from Pargetters (I magazine of 10 bullets and one of 5 bullets) = 25 shots).
We could therefore have one rifle with a silencer fitted (used to kill the twins (5 & 3 shots) and SC (2 shots) = 10 shots). And one rifle without a silencer fitted (used to Kill Nevill (8 shots) and burn his back, and June (7 shots) = 15 shots?
The new evidence suggests that Sheila was shot without the silencer fitted.
-
Nick, my take on this is that if there were two or more guns used, that would have been the case presented by prosecution at trial. The fact that it wasn't, suggests to me two possible reasons. (A) There was only one gun used. (B), There was more than one gun used but it does not suit the police version of events to present the prosecution case as such.
I do not believe it can be brought to bear upon Jeremy Bamber (i.e. throwing a spanner in the works regarding claims of innocence) precisely because of my first sentence.
-
The defence believe that only one rifle was used, without the silencer fitted.
-
Nick what % are you on innocent or guilty
-
The new evidence suggests that Sheila was shot without the silencer fitted.
NGB
In your opinion do such tests make Jeremy innocent of the crime or do such tests only undermine the prosecution's case against him?
The conviction could be deemed unsafe if the CCRC decide to refer to the Court of Appeal.
Being devil's advocate, could it remain there is a possibility that whilst Jeremy may have his conviction quashed he could still also have committed the act in using a gun that did not have a silencer fitted. Or a combination of weapons given there were a number of guns in White House Farm?
-
The Sword of Damocles held above Bamber's head has been...
'How could Sheila have shot her self with the silencer on and then placed it in the gun cupboard?'
'Who put the silencer in the gun cupboard?'
'How could Sheila have shot her self with the silencer on? her arms were too short.'
How many people have cited such statements over the years and then finished their statements about Jeremy Bamber being 'bang to rights' and evil etc?
I think first things first. Let's have some recognition from the guilty camp that such conceptions were in fact false and misleading. I'm speaking in general here. Let's see some humility from the guilty camp with regards to world renowned experts showing up the sword held over Bamber's head as being made of bendy plastic.
-
NGB
In your opinion do such tests make Jeremy innocent of the crime or do such tests only undermine the prosecution's case against him?
The conviction could be deemed unsafe if the CCRC decide to refer to the Court of Appeal.
Being devil's advocate, could it remain there is a possibility that whilst Jeremy may have his conviction quashed he could still also have committed the act in using a gun that did not have a silencer fitted. Or a combination of weapons given there were a number of guns in White House Farm?
The tests undermine an essential element of the prosecution case, but they do not prove that Jeremy is innocent. Other evidence which is likely to be presented following a referral of the case goes further and supports the view that Sheila was responsible.
In answer to your second question, yes it is possible, but the weight of the evidence is likely to be against that possibility.
-
The new evidence suggests that Sheila was shot without the silencer fitted.
Okay -
"one rifle with a silencer fitted (used to kill the twins (5 & 3 shots) and SC (2 shots with silencer removed) = 10 shots).
-
Okay -
"one rifle with a silencer fitted (used to kill the twins (5 & 3 shots) and SC (2 shots with silencer removed) = 10 shots).
Nick. According to the prosecution... who's blood was supposed to be in or on the silencer?
-
Nick what % are you on innocent or guilty
Jackie, I get the feeling I am being led into a trap, but to answer honestly I am 80% of the opinion JB is guilty (I have answered this before on the forum);
But it is also my opinion that evidence has been fabricated. Now on this subject I believe we differ quite a lot - but please understand I do not support the use of noble cause corruption or evidence tampering.
I think most on the forum probably believe fabricated / tampered evidence = JB innocent!
However a recent quote from ngb sums it up - "The tests undermine an essential element of the prosecution case, but they do not prove that Jeremy is innocent."
-
Okay -
"one rifle with a silencer fitted (used to kill the twins (5 & 3 shots) and SC (2 shots with silencer removed) = 10 shots).
Nick - if a second rifle was used, what happened to it?
-
Neil,
In your opinion, how likely is it that a multi weapon murder crime scene, would reach trial as a single weapon crime scene prosecution?
-
Nick. According to the prosecution... who's blood was supposed to be in or on the silencer?
I can answer that one for you roch ;) - According to the prosecution it was SC's blood.
However; I believe the blood flake was planted and the silencer(s) evidence was tampered with! - see my comments above and ref to a quote from ngb!
-
Neil,
In your opinion, how likely is it that a multi weapon murder crime scene, would reach trial as a single weapon crime scene prosecution?
I find it difficult to envisage the two weapon scenario. I do not see any reason why the police would conceal evidence of a second weapon having been used.
-
Nick - if a second rifle was used, what happened to it?
Ngb - as referred to in my original post, it could have been Pargetters (what did happen with his gun that night - the story changed a couple of times ) or that unique weapon (UW) handed in (I don't know what happened to that).
When Mike first referred to this UW I did ask him if it was still in existence and where it might be - I don't think I got an answer (but I could be wrong).
-
I find it difficult to envisage the two weapon scenario. I do not see any reason why the police would conceal evidence of a second weapon having been used.
Thanks for your opinion Neil. Just to clarify, another way of putting it. In your opinion, how likely would it be that Essex Police / crime labs would be unable to detect the use of multiple weapons from studying crime scene / victims / balistics?
-
I find it difficult to envisage the two weapon scenario. I do not see any reason why the police would conceal evidence of a second weapon having been used.
Part of the EP cock-up that night - EP originally thought it was 4 murders and a suicide (with one rifle - no silencer).
When the case changed it would have been more complicated for EP to introduce a second weapon (Media question - why did EP overlook the use of a second weapon. EP would have looked even bigger idiots).
When the case changed EP thought they had enough on JB with the story of one rifle (with silencer now fitted to introduce rifle as too long for SC to kill herself with etc.)
-
Thanks for your opinion Neil. Just to clarify, another way of putting it. In your opinion, how likely would it be that Essex Police / crime labs would be unable to detect the use of multiple weapons from studying crime scene / victims / balistics?
There were I believe 10 rounds fired which could not definitely be attributed to the Anschutz rifle so the use of a second .22 rimfire weapon could not be conclusively ruled out.
-
Part of the EP cock-up that night - EP originally thought it was 4 murders and a suicide (with one rifle - no silencer).
When the case changed it would have been more complicated for EP to introduce a second weapon (Media question - why did EP overlook the use of a second weapon. EP would have looked even bigger idiots).
When the case changed EP thought they had enough on JB with the story of one rifle (with silencer now fitted to introduce rifle as too long for SC to kill herself with etc.)
Yes, I follow your logic. It is possible, although in my view unlikely.
-
Thanks for your opinion Neil. Just to clarify, another way of putting it. In your opinion, how likely would it be that Essex Police / crime labs would be unable to detect the use of multiple weapons from studying crime scene / victims / ballistics?
Don' forget Roch EP would not be looking for another weapon for a least a month after the killings. Afterall EP were convinced it was 4 murders and a suicide (with one rifle no silencer).
A lot of the bullets according to Mike (and ballistics at the time) could not be directly attributed to the Bamber rifle.
Then in 1996, whilst the case was still ongoing, the bullets were destroyed by EP (how convenient is that if EP had someting to hide?!!)
-
The new evidence suggests that Sheila was shot without the silencer fitted.
And since the trial was based on the fact that there was only one gun used to shoot all members of the family the CCRC or the appeal court cannot use the possibility of there being two guns as an objection.
-
The Sword of Damocles held above Bamber's head has been...
'How could Sheila have shot her self with the silencer on and then placed it in the gun cupboard?'
'Who put the silencer in the gun cupboard?'
'How could Sheila have shot her self with the silencer on? her arms were too short.'
How many people have cited such statements over the years and then finished their statements about Jeremy Bamber being 'bang to rights' and evil etc?
I think first things first. Let's have some recognition from the guilty camp that such conceptions were in fact false and misleading. I'm speaking in general here. Let's see some humility from the guilty camp with regards to world renowned experts showing up the sword held over Bamber's head as being made of bendy plastic.
I doubt that you will ever see that acknowledgement because unbelief is stronger than evidence.
-
Nick, could there be a pitfall inherent in trying to minimise defence revelations? At which point do we reach a stage where people are actively striving to find ways or reasons to keep Jeremy Bamber in the frame for these killings?
-
Nick , the other day , you was saying ' what JB need's is evidence to get the CCRC to refer the case back to the COA ' now he as that , you seem to want more , it appear's to me if JM said ' she was lying ' you would try and say that is irrelevant also !! JB said all along ' the gun he left had no moderator fitted ' , EP went to court and never accepted this , if it is now found that JB told the truth at the start and EP never you can hardly expect the conviction's not to be overturned !!
-
And since the trial was based on the fact that there was only one gun used to shoot all members of the family the CCRC or the appeal court cannot use the possibility of there being two guns as an objection.
An interesting point that backs the prosecution against the wall (so to speak).
If lets say "new" evidence (I know it's a long shot) came to light that a second weapon was used and the prosecution wanted to present this (to counteract the no silencer proposal by the defence) would that be possible and, if so, then a re-trial would be inevitable - wouldn't it?
-
Okay -
"one rifle with a silencer fitted (used to kill the twins (5 & 3 shots) and SC (2 shots with silencer removed) = 10 shots).
When I was studying theology in reference to Bible exposition when you come across a difficult passage of scripture was (and I think the same logic applies to this case) that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simplest explanation was and is in this case that it happened as the police first thought it did ie that Sheila shot the family and then herself using that one gun that was found with her body. Everything else is speculation which unfortunately was all begun by Robert Boutflour an his silly diary.
-
An interesting point that backs the prosecution against the wall (so to speak).
If lets say "new" evidence (I know it's a long shot) came to light that a second weapon was used and the prosecution wanted to present this (to counteract the no silencer proposal by the defence) would that be possible and, if so, then a re-trial would be inevitable - wouldn't it?
There will never be a retrial , as EP would have to reveal all withheld document's and that won't happen IMO !!
-
An interesting point that backs the prosecution against the wall (so to speak).
If lets say "new" evidence (I know it's a long shot) came to light that a second weapon was used and the prosecution wanted to present this (to counteract the no silencer proposal by the defence) would that be possible and, if so, then a re-trial would be inevitable - wouldn't it?
The prosecution would need leave from the Court of Appeal to call evidence in support of the prosition that a second weapon was used, and I doubt if leave would be given. I very much doubt that a retrial would be ordered in this case.
-
Nick, could there be a pitfall inherent in trying to minimise defence revelations? At which point do we reach a stage where people are actively striving to find ways or reasons to keep Jeremy Bamber in the frame for these killings?
Roch I strongly believe it has been certain parties desire to actively strive to find ways or reasons to keep JB in the frame for these killings since he was found guilty (without the silencer evidence - which I believe was tampered with - I believe JB would have been found NOT guilty)!
In fact the striving by certain parties started before JB was found guilty!
-
Roch I strongly believe it has been certain parties desire to actively strive to find ways or reasons to keep JB in the frame for these killings since he was found guilty (without the silencer evidence - which I believe was tampered with - I believe JB would have been found NOT guilty)!
In fact the striving by certain parties started before JB was found guilty!
If I didn't believe that Sheila was responsible for the killings I would dare to suggest that the relatives were all too early to come up with the claim that Jeremy was responsible for the crime? As if they know something that no one else did? The were too eager in their accusations to put Jeremy in the frame that it almost throws suspicion upon themselves?
-
Nick , the other day , you was saying ' what JB need's is evidence to get the CCRC to refer the case back to the COA ' now he as that , you seem to want more , it appear's to me if JM said ' she was lying ' you would try and say that is irrelevant also !! JB said all along ' the gun he left had no moderator fitted ' , EP went to court and never accepted this , if it is now found that JB told the truth at the start and EP never you can hardly expect the conviction's not to be overturned !!
Hi Jon,
I quoted - "On the flip side; there is not one piece of hard evidence (yet!) that proves JB did not kill his family!"
I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.
I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!
-
Hi Jon,
I quoted - "On the flip side; there is not one piece of hard evidence (yet!) that proves JB did not kill his family!"
I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.
I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!
Nick, was the silencer evidence not the 'central plank' in Jeremy Bamber's conviction? Are you not stretching it a bit to portray these new findings as 'circumstantial'?
-
I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.
Does JB need to produce hard evidence to prove he did not kill his family? Is it not simply sufficient that he disprove evidence that was relied on by the prosecution at his trial?
-
Hi Jon,
I quoted - "On the flip side; there is not one piece of hard evidence (yet!) that proves JB did not kill his family!"
I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.
I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!
When will the camel break the straw's back for you ? You want to keep a man in prison when you can not even put him at the scene of the crime at the relevant time !! What evidence keep's him convicted in your mind Nick ?
-
Ngb the court of appeal could rule unsafe conviction couldn't they?
-
Nick I am struggling with your 80%?
Curiousessex could I ask your % I bet it's way lower!!!
-
Nick, was the silencer evidence not the 'central plank' in Jeremy Bamber's conviction? Are you not stretching it a bit to portray these new findings as 'circumstantial'?
Roch the silencer evidence as presented by the prosecution was still circumstantial; even though it convinced the Jury to find guilty.
The defence had counter circumstantial points at the time (mix of two bloods, a rabbits etc) but this failed to impress the Jury!
The new counter circumstantial evidence (the non use of a silencer) may be strong, but will it convince the CCRC? - a totally different beast to a Jury!
If the CCRC believe no silencer was used they simply have to admit the possibility that the silencer as presented by the prosecution was tampered with - bloody dynamite!!
-
Ngb the court of appeal could rule unsafe conviction couldn't they?
Yes they could. If new evidence is presented which undermines a central plank of the prosecution case the Court of Appeal can quash the convictions.
-
I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!
I beg to differ. What is being discussed here is hard evidence that demonstrates that a silencer was not used. And as Jamber (even Bamber ;D )was convicted on circumstancial evidence this hard evidence disproves that circumstancial evidence. It is not meant to "prove" that Bamber did not commit murder. But it does demonstrate that his conviction was unsafe. That is all it is meant to do. Indeed that is all it is meant to do.
-
Nick I am struggling with your 80%?
Curiousessex could I ask your % I bet it's way lower!!!
Jackie my % doesn't really matter. My opinion is not that impoartant in the scheme of things!
My 80% simply represents that fact that I more inclined to believe in JB's guilt than innocence; although I accept there are certain areas that could point to JB not being involved.
If I am proved wrong then so be it.
-
When will the camel break the straw's back for you ? You want to keep a man in prison when you can not even put him at the scene of the crime at the relevant time !! What evidence keeps him convicted in your mind Nick ?
This is not the case.
I want to see an innocent man released.
But personally I am not convinced that JB is innocent.
I actually believe potentally fabricted evidence keeps JB in prison, but as I have said before -Fabricated / tampered evidence does not = innocence.
I am simply reserving my judgement (which is just my opinion) that JB maybe innocent.
My stance on this case is all over the forum, and on my members profile. See my posts should you wish to read them!
-
Simon McKay is I think at the moment fast tracking another case at CCRC of someone he is representing that new DNA evidence has been found that the murder his client is in prison for was carried out by two people not one.
It makes me wonder with the way DNA evidence keeps exposing moj how can the ccrc keep up with these breakthroughs in forensic science and really say they can cope
Colin Norris case is another one that could be unsafe
They could be in chaos at Birmingham
-
It seems to me several points are becoming clear, there does seem to be cast belief that a silencer was not used, given the silencer is in effect the reason for convicting Jeremy along with other parts i do believe the conviction is looking unsafe as far as i see my question to the guilty camp is just for a moment cross into the neutral line and ask yourself is Jeremy telling the truth all along , one last thought where is the great i am hartley to eliminate this new turn in the case where is he ?
-
What happens if this new finding from America proves that a sound moderator wasn't used on
Shelia and that two rimfire marks were on her neck wounds. Then they have to deal with Z's photo
of Shelia on the bed with a single wound ? Isn't that enough to quash the conviction as not unsafe
but impossible for Bamber to have committed as he was outside. This would then bring into question
Essex police's claim of noble cause corruption, as that comes next to admonish themselves of a
miscarriage of justice ?
-
What happens if this new finding from America proves that a sound moderator wasn't used on
Shelia and that two rimfire marks were on her neck wounds. Then they have to deal with Z's photo
of Shelia on the bed with a single wound ? Isn't that enough to quash the conviction as not unsafe
but impossible for Bamber to have committed as he was outside. This would then bring into question
Essex police's claim of noble cause corruption, as that comes next to admonish themselves of a
miscarriage of justice ?
EP at this point in time may soon be placed in a very difficult corner Simon is pushing forward and this is the best news for the pro forum members in a long time.
-
EP at this point in time may soon be placed in a very difficult corner Simon is pushing forward and this is the best news for the pro forum members in a long time.
I believe Jeremy is now is the most favourable position he has been in since before the 2002 appeal. He has realistic prospects of geting his convictions overturned.
-
Mertol 22,
If only I new how to put the smiley faces on a message, You would get 100s
-
Nick, it seems to me that you are saying you believe in Jeremy Bamber's guilt, - probable guilt, yes!
as per the the circumstantial evidence used to convict him (i.e. hearsay testimony) - Some of it!
but not the silencer evidence, which in your own opinion, was not only also circumstantial but probably fabricated - that's correct
Due to the nature of the evidence being circumstantial, you do not afford much credence in the power of defence discoveries which happen to undermine that circumstantial evidence? - If the new evidence is strong enough it may sway my opinion; however as I am not privy to the detail I cannot comment on it further - that is now for the CCRC
You're losing me here. I am struggling to assess your position on what makes Jeremy guilty in your eyes and how he should prove his innocence? - there is no need to assess my thinking so closely, and it certainly is not up to me to show how he should prove his innocence. I am simply presenting theories and having them debated
Here is a taster of my thinking
My points for JB's Innocence
1) SC's illness
2) No marks on JB following murders
3) Calm nature with the police outside whf
4) No need for such an extreme crime
5) Getting SC to comply to suicide scenario
6) Getting to and from whf
Points for Guilty
1) Use of .22 rifle and 25 shots (non missed)
2) Reloading gun - not a frenzied attack imo
3) The overpowering of Nevill
4) Is JB lying over father's phone call, and no concrete proof Nevill called police!
5) Inheritance?
Possible reasons a 3rd party was involved (with JB’s knowledge)
1) No marks on JB
2) No witness to JB getting to and from whf (however did JB ever leave whf that night)
3) Ability to coldly kill all family
4) JM's original testimony
5) Execution style head shots imo
Just my thoughts!
-
Nick , What do you want to see to prove his innocence ?
-
Nick , What do you want to see to prove his innocence ?
Well I guess the proof would have to be available today - and not all the overlooked and destroyed stuff from years ago!
So;
1) Any irrefutable proof that Nevill called the police directly (could this still be held back under pii?).
2) A police person of repute (probably difficult to find ;) ) that steps forward and spills the beans,
3) Any other forensic evidence pointing at SC that may still be held, and not yet disclosed
I could probably go on; but it is a bit of a wish list!
-
Nick I am struggling with your 80%?
Curiousessex could I ask your % I bet it's way lower!!!
Jackie
When there was the vote thread on the forum my vote was 'Probably'.
I would never vote Definately most particularly in this case.
For me the questions and discrepancies surrounding the timings and sequence of telephone calls on the morning of 7th Augst have never been satisfactorily answered or explained away. I include in this Jeremy's alibi which is published on this forum.
As such and given there is one sequence which would mean Jeremy being guilty as charged and in my opinion there are witness statements from Julie's flatmates (these being non Police personnel and not members of the family) which cause Jeremy's alibi problems in this regard.
You asked..........
-
Nick , What do you want to see to prove his innocence ?
Jon, I answered your question.
Can you now please answer mine - What proof do you have of JB's innocence?
Thanks.
-
Jon, I answered your question.
Can you now please answer mine - What proof do you have of JB's innocence?
Thanks.
I have none of innocence or guilt therefore he is innocent !! I find the whole case from top to bottom a fit up , anyone who believe's JM is a fool to my mind , if you want people convicted on the so called evidence in this case , i pity you !!
-
Yes they could. If new evidence is presented which undermines a central plank of the prosecution case the Court of Appeal can quash the convictions.
But will the CCRC be concerned?
I understand the CCRC have already previously stated police officer statements are more reliable than photographs.
Just guessing here........... The CCRC might state in response;
'Whilst there appears to be some photographic evidence of marks on Nevill Bamber's body there is no conclusive proof that such marks were actually burn marks. Recent press articles have confirmed and detailed the issue of burn marks were raised at the original trial, however, Mr Bamber's solicitor goes on to confirm such marks were dismissed as a "mystery". It has also been stated a senior forensics expert in 1985 raised the possibility that the rifle muzzle may have been responsible but there is no evidence that exists to confirm that such a line of inquiry was pursued at the time.
In reaching our decision on this particular matter we can be sure that there is evidence to conclude that the issue of possible burn marks was available for the defence (correction) to pursue such an argument at the time of the original trial. The fact that this line of questioning was not pursued at the original trial remains a matter for Mr Bamber's chosen legal team at the time. We are happy that the Appeal process is not a forum or umbrella in which to continue the arguments of a particular case which, according to the evidence available, could and should have been pursued at the time of the original trial.
On this particular subject we cannot therefore conclude the recent tests, as conducted in Arizona, can be regarded as new evidence in the way that the CCRC process seeks in order to grant a referral to the Court of Appeal.'
-
I have none of innocence or guilt therefore he is innocent !! I find the whole case from top to bottom a fit up , anyone who believes JM is a fool to my mind , if you want people convicted on the so called evidence in this case , i pity you !!
There is no need to pity me. I did not convict JB as I was not on the Jury. It is the Jury you have to pity!
It is getting him out now that he has been convicted that needs to be proved. I have to prove nothing to get JB out or for him to stay in, mind you if I had a picture of SC on the bed I would have handed it over to JB's legal team ages ago (or sold it to the papers ;) ) - I have stated my view time and again that Rivlin could have done better with the evidence he had back in '86!
-
Curious
Could you put. % on it
Nick on you list of things making JB guilty could we knock out of the equation overpowering of Neville as if he had been shot first wouldn't he have been very easy to overpower
I just had this sad thought if Sheila was attacking Neville they must have had such good times together in the past as a little girl and her dad and Neville seemed a nice guy. I was thinking if Neville was looking at her when she shot him, it's absolutely tragic.
Poor Neville and Sheila
-
There is no need to pity me. I did not convict JB as I was not on the Jury. It is the Jury you have to pity!
It is getting him out now that he has been convicted that needs to be proved. I have to prove nothing to get JB out or for him to stay in, mind you if I had a picture of SC on the bed I would have handed it over to JB's legal team ages ago (or sold it to the papers ;) ) - I have stated my view time and again that Rivlin could have done better with the evidence he had back in '86!
If it is getting him out now that is the issue for you , it is simple if it can be proven now that 'the silencer ' was not used then the case is over , as this is what was claimed at trial !!
-
If it is getting him out now that is the issue for you , it is simple if it can be proven now that 'the silencer ' was not used then the case is over , as this is what was claimed at trial !!
Not necessarily.. whilst very hypothetical......see below
Just guessing here........... The CCRC might state in response;
'Whilst there appears to be some photographic evidence of marks on Nevill Bamber's body there is no conclusive proof that such marks were actually burn marks. Recent press articles have confirmed and detailed the issue of burn marks were raised at the original trial, however, Mr Bamber's solicitor goes on to confirm such marks were dismissed as a "mystery". It has also been stated a senior forensics expert in 1985 raised the possibility that the rifle muzzle may have been responsible but there is no evidence that exists to confirm that such a line of inquiry was pursued at the time.
In reaching our decision on this particular matter we can be sure that there is evidence to conclude that the issue of possible burn marks was available for the defence (correction) to pursue such an argument at the time of the original trial. The fact that this line of questioning was not pursued at the original trial remains a matter for Mr Bamber's chosen legal team at the time. We are happy that the Appeal process is not a forum or umbrella in which to continue the arguments of a particular case which, according to the evidence available, could and should have been pursued at the time of the original trial.
On this particular subject we cannot therefore conclude the recent tests, as conducted in Arizona, can be regarded as new evidence in the way that the CCRC process seeks in order to grant a referral to the Court of Appeal.'
-
I can never get over that the EP destroyed all physical evidence in the Bamber case in 1996. Exactly around the time DNA evidence really took off and started altering multiple convictions.
Makes you think.
-
Nick on you list of things making JB guilty could we knock out of the equation overpowering of Neville as if he had been shot first wouldn't he have been very easy to overpower
Jackie, that's an interesting question!
Before I answer, if I did remove that point, do you then accept the other guilty points I made?
-
I believe Sheila beat Neville after he was shot perhaps not fatal but enough to hit him several times and then firing more shots, i do not believe Neville was beaten first in a struggle.
-
Not necessarily.. whilst very hypothetical......see below
Just guessing here........... The CCRC might state in response;
'Whilst there appears to be some photographic evidence of marks on Nevill Bamber's body there is no conclusive proof that such marks were actually burn marks. Recent press articles have confirmed and detailed the issue of burn marks were raised at the original trial, however, Mr Bamber's solicitor goes on to confirm such marks were dismissed as a "mystery". It has also been stated a senior forensics expert in 1985 raised the possibility that the rifle muzzle may have been responsible but there is no evidence that exists to confirm that such a line of inquiry was pursued at the time.
In reaching our decision on this particular matter we can be sure that there is evidence to conclude that the issue of possible burn marks was available for the defence (correction) to pursue such an argument at the time of the original trial. The fact that this line of questioning was not pursued at the original trial remains a matter for Mr Bamber's chosen legal team at the time. We are happy that the Appeal process is not a forum or umbrella in which to continue the arguments of a particular case which, according to the evidence available, could and should have been pursued at the time of the original trial.
On this particular subject we cannot therefore conclude the recent tests, as conducted in Arizona, can be regarded as new evidence in the way that the CCRC process seeks in order to grant a referral to the Court of Appeal.'
I think i am right in saying the CCRC can send a case back to the COA , even if the evidence had been available at trial , when there is exceptional circumstance's , like new technology available !!
-
If it is getting him out now that is the issue for you , it is simple if it can be proven now that 'the silencer ' was not used then the case is over , as this is what was claimed at trial !!
That is the issue for the CCRC not me, and even if it can be proven that a silencer was not used (and experts deliver expert opinions and not necessarily facts) for me it is not conclusive; and this is why I started this thread. Please see first post and possible use of second gun. It's just that I am a sceptic!
-
Nick I am lost in the gun side of things I generally go along with Ngb because he is impartial.
The inheritance I don't agree with. JB was always in line for it and he was jogging along nicely in his life
The only thing which I don't understand clearly are the phone calls. Maybe something has been witheld
My feeling is that I no I would definitely have been not guilty on the verdict because of the mugford now deal
There was too much information witheld for a guilty verdict without reasonable doubt
Reasonable doubt was all over this case
-
I think i am right in saying the CCRC can send a case back to the COA , even if the evidence had been available at trial , when there is exceptional circumstance's , like new technology available !!
Why could firing tests in order to determine the temperature of the end of a rifle with or wihout a silencer being fitted not have been conducted in 1985 /1986.
Not being funny but in very basic terms...
Surley all one would need is a safe firing environment (health and safety permitted), a certain number of rounds of the same type, a rifle of the same type, a silencer of the same type and some kind of thermometer. Whilst the unit of temperature remains the same I do not believe thermometer technology has advanced that much in the last 26 years.
-
Why could firing tests in order to determine the temperature of the end of a rifle with or wihout a silencer being fitted not have been conducted in 1985 /1986.
Not being funny but in very basic terms...
Surley all one would need is a safe firing environment (health and safety permitted), a certain number of rounds of the same type, a rifle of the same type, a silencer of the same type and some kind of thermometer. Whilst the unit of temperature remains the same I do not believe thermometer technology has advanced that much in the last 26 years.
These recent test's replicated burn's to human skin !! By an expert in that field !!
-
These recent test replicated burn's to human skin !! By an expert in that field !!
Why could tests not have been done in 1985 / 1986 using real human skin as opposed to waiting 26 years in order to achieve replication of burns to human skin?
-
Why could tests not have been done in 1985 / 1986 using real human skin as opposed to waiting 26 years in order to achieve replication of burns to human skin?
What do you want Curious ? The truth or a way out for 26 year's of lie's and deceit ? If they proved in America burn's were made without silencer fitted !!
-
Why could firing tests in order to determine the temperature of the end of a rifle with or wihout a silencer being fitted not have been conducted in 1985 /1986.
Not being funny but in very basic terms...
Surley all one would need is a safe firing environment (health and safety permitted), a certain number of rounds of the same type, a rifle of the same type, a silencer of the same type and some kind of thermometer. Whilst the unit of temperature remains the same I do not believe thermometer technology has advanced that much in the last 26 years.
Or a homeless person. ;D
-
Our role in any case is to assess if there is new evidence or new issues that might give rise to a fresh appeal. We have to perform that role within a strict legal framework. We are committed to review all cases thoroughly and objectively, but the nature of the legal framework means that, more often than not, we are unable to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal.
Why is this? Our legal role means that we are not allowed to perform a “re-run” of your trial just because your evidence was not accepted by the jury and the evidence of the prosecution was. We have to be able to identify convincing fresh evidence or issues if we are to have a chance of referring cases back to the Court of Appeal. If evidence was put before the jury from which they could properly reach conclusions, it is of no help that we might reach a different view – what we will need is new evidence or arguments.
So the Court of Appeal is not going to be interested in whether we at the Commission would have convicted you if we had been on the jury. Instead, we have to be able to say to the Court, “Look, here is a new piece of evidence, or a new legal argument that hadn’t been identified at the time of the trial, that the jury never got the chance to consider. It could have changed the whole outcome of the trial.” Only then will the Court of Appeal be able to ask itself whether the conviction was unsafe.
Somehow i just think this will get the ccrc out of a sticky wicket? does anyone else have thoughts on this.
-
Our role in any case is to assess if there is new evidence or new issues that might give rise to a fresh appeal. We have to perform that role within a strict legal framework. We are committed to review all cases thoroughly and objectively, but the nature of the legal framework means that, more often than not, we are unable to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal.
Why is this? Our legal role means that we are not allowed to perform a “re-run” of your trial just because your evidence was not accepted by the jury and the evidence of the prosecution was. We have to be able to identify convincing fresh evidence or issues if we are to have a chance of referring cases back to the Court of Appeal. If evidence was put before the jury from which they could properly reach conclusions, it is of no help that we might reach a different view – what we will need is new evidence or arguments.
So the Court of Appeal is not going to be interested in whether we at the Commission would have convicted you if we had been on the jury. Instead, we have to be able to say to the Court, “Look, here is a new piece of evidence, or a new legal argument that hadn’t been identified at the time of the trial, that the jury never got the chance to consider. It could have changed the whole outcome of the trial.” Only then will the Court of Appeal be able to ask itself whether the conviction was unsafe.
Somehow i just think this will get the ccrc out of a sticky wicket? does anyone else have thoughts on this.
Yes , there is fresh evidence !!
-
Our role in any case is to assess if there is new evidence or new issues that might give rise to a fresh appeal. We have to perform that role within a strict legal framework. We are committed to review all cases thoroughly and objectively, but the nature of the legal framework means that, more often than not, we are unable to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal.
Why is this? Our legal role means that we are not allowed to perform a “re-run” of your trial just because your evidence was not accepted by the jury and the evidence of the prosecution was. We have to be able to identify convincing fresh evidence or issues if we are to have a chance of referring cases back to the Court of Appeal. If evidence was put before the jury from which they could properly reach conclusions, it is of no help that we might reach a different view – what we will need is new evidence or arguments.
So the Court of Appeal is not going to be interested in whether we at the Commission would have convicted you if we had been on the jury. Instead, we have to be able to say to the Court, “Look, here is a new piece of evidence, or a new legal argument that hadn’t been identified at the time of the trial, that the jury never got the chance to consider. It could have changed the whole outcome of the trial.” Only then will the Court of Appeal be able to ask itself whether the conviction was unsafe.
Somehow i just think this will get the ccrc out of a sticky wicket? does anyone else have thoughts on this.
Hold a minute....deedaar, are you saying that you are a member of the CCRC, or are you quoting from the CCRC?
-
Sorry graham you blown my cover, no its something i was reading on the ccrc site i just got this gut feeling that they can say it was available for the defence because the burn marks was mentioned?I have read a lot of articles on how hard it is to get a cases reviewed when evidence was available.
-
What do you want Curious ? The truth or a way out for 26 year's of lie's and deceit ? If they proved in America burn's were made without silencer fitted !!
Jon
I do not want anything.
It is what the CCRC want that is most important. I was merely being a devils advocate in reply to what NGB had posted. If you look back you will see that this was clearly stated at the beginning of my post.
Such a hypothetical response is to stimulate debate from a reasoned perspective given the CCRC has already detailed that police officer statements are more reliable than photographs.
If you want my opinion and if what Mike says is true then Jeremy's team as wide as it is, and I include Mike in this, already allegedly has the evidence to get an immediate referral. The alleged photograph of Sheila on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck means Jeremy cannot have administered a second wound to her neck and killed her. It is documented and accepted by the prosecution and the court that it is the second wound that killed Sheila. As such Jeremy, in my opinion, walks and his conviction is deemed unsafe. Essex Police would be in big trouble, the Criminal Justice System would be brought into total disrepute given there will have been a total abuse and undermining of PII etc. Such an abuse, could only be authorised and maintained from the very top.
The alleged photograph is DYNAMITE if it exists. Yet in an earlier post it has been stated the reason such a photograph cannot be made public is because it is illegal and it would be deemed a criminal offence to have it because it is allegedly being held under PII and therefore does not exist.
-
Could there not be an argument that the photos fall within a batch not recognised to exist and therefore not covered by PII? Has the CCRC not stated that it has disclosed all the photos already? These other alleged photos would therefore be 'extra' photos.
-
Exactly the kind of debate that is needed her Curious.....I enjoy reading your logical posts.
And for exactly the reasons you described, the fallout being beyond my own comprehension yet, I believe the CCRC are going to do EVERYTHING within their power to ensure Jeremy does not see the light of day.
The repercussions far outweigh the crime.
-
God only know's what Ewen is going to do with the brown envelope he has received......
Seek advice from high is my first guess.........
And another cover-up begins!
Talk about the ground swallowing him up.......
-
He said the envelope contained 'copies'. If I was Z, I wouldn't be climbing any step ladders at home for a while.
-
He said the envelope contained 'copies'. If I was Z, I wouldn't be climbing any step ladders at home for a while.
If I was 'Z' I would have made arrangements to anonymously get a copy of the alleged photograph to Simon McKay whilst also making some back up copies.
I certainly would not risk exposing myself on the perceived 'enemy' CCTV system whilst having it publicly stated the day I was actually on the perceived 'enemy' premises.
-
If I was 'Z' I would have made arrangements to anonymously get a copy of the alleged photograph to Simon McKay whilst also making some back up copies.
I certainly would not risk exposing myself on the perceived 'enemy' CCTV system whilst having it publicly stated the day I was actually on the perceived 'enemy' premises.
He seems to respect the proper channels?
-
Exactly the kind of debate that is needed her Curious.....I enjoy reading your logical posts.
And for exactly the reasons you described, the fallout being beyond my own comprehension yet, I believe the CCRC are going to do EVERYTHING within their power to ensure Jeremy does not see the light of day.
The repercussions far outweigh the crime.
Good, yet disturbing strap line!
-
He seems to respect the proper channels?
If one is trying to free an innocent person from prison, one needs to beat the system. Using "proper channels" seems weak!
I would give the original info. to JB's legal team (keep a copy for myself) and present copies to the CCRC with a note from JB's legal team telling them where the originals are; and if the CCRC did nothing the media would get to know - that would rock the CCRC's boat!
This is why I am sceptical about all this Z subterfuge and damming photo's etc. imo it does not make sense!
-
1) Use of .22 rifle and 25 shots (non missed)
2) Reloading gun - not a frenzied attack imo
3) The overpowering of Nevill
4) Is JB lying over father's phone call, and no concrete proof Nevill called police!
5) Inheritance?
Hi Nick. These of course a good reasons for doubting Jeremy's innocence. But:
(2) Reloading the gun - not a frenzied attack.
Unfortunately there is no way of gauging these things? Ralph looked as if he was attacked in a frenzied way. And
(3) it has been mentioned Ralph may have been layed into after he was shot? The broken rifle butt is an indication of this. Mentally ill people can appear very cool and calculating. This thing looks to me as if it had been carefully prepared? one indication of this is Sheila's bag and other stuff on her bed. So maybe she didn't go to bed that night but rather waited til everyone was asleep so as not to encounter much opposition?
(5) I don't think that inheritance was a factor in this crime as it has been mentioned before Jeremy didn't want for anything and was quite comfortably off with his little cottage and income from the caravan park.
(4) The only thing I can't cross off the list is that we only have Jeremy's word that his father phoned him? But then again why would he phone the police himself? This to my mind (if he was guilty) wouldn't have been the wisest thing for him to do. Because far from drawing attention away from himself it would obviously make him the focus of attention? Although as I said before your points are good questions and need an answer? The telephone call and the fact that Jeremy told police that his father phoned him is a pivotal point. Did he lie? If he did then there is every chance he knew what was happening that night and this makes him guilty by default.
-
Curious
Could you put. % on it
Nick on you list of things making JB guilty could we knock out of the equation overpowering of Neville as if he had been shot first wouldn't he have been very easy to overpower
I just had this sad thought if Sheila was attacking Neville they must have had such good times together in the past as a little girl and her dad and Neville seemed a nice guy. I was thinking if Neville was looking at her when she shot him, it's absolutely tragic.
Poor Neville and Sheila
Jackie
As requested here are my percentages with reasons added as requested.
Was Jeremy involved / commit the crime. My gut feeling probably lies between 75% and 80%. Mainly because of the timing and sequence of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985 plus other coincidences and inconsistency in my opinion. This excludes the silencer evidence.
Is Jeremy's conviction secure on the basis of the original trial. My gut feeling probably lies around 40%. Mainly because of the silencer evidence and my personal opinion regarding it be admitted as evidence.
Do I think the CCRC will refer. My gut feeling probably lies at around 35%. Mainly because, in my opinion, there are probably other factors at play given the unique case history and the embarassment if has already caused with a failed initial investigation. To go back on the verdict now, given all the issues surrounding the case, would be a bigger embarassment for the Justice System.
Additionally, in my opinion, if the alleged photograph of Sheila with a single gunshot wound to her neck whilst still being on the bed is published.........
CCRC referral - 100%.
Court of Appeal to quash the conviction - 100%.
Subsequent ramifications and fall out - Substantial
-
Nick I am lost in the gun side of things I generally go along with Ngb because he is impartial.
The inheritance I don't agree with. JB was always in line for it and he was jogging along nicely in his life
The only thing which I don't understand clearly are the phone calls. Maybe something has been witheld
My feeling is that I no I would definitely have been not guilty on the verdict because of the mugford now deal
There was too much information witheld for a guilty verdict without reasonable doubt
Reasonable doubt was all over this case
Hi Jackie,
Thanks for your answer - now mine.
Points for Guilty
1) Use of .22 rifle and 25 shots (non missed)
This point is subjective and not conclusive; but I believe I will always hold the opinion this was far too clinical for SC to have done it. I have discussed with ngb that it is my opinion the final death shots were more execution style than frenzied, and although ngb disagreed we agreed to disagree.
2) Reloading gun - not a frenzied attack imo
I have difficulty in believing SC, in a moment of madness (unhinged), could efficiently reload the gun twice in order to kill them all.
3) The overpowering of Nevill
Without knowing categorically the sequence of shots, if we believe (as suggested by some) that in order for SC to overcome Neville he had to be injured then let's consider what may have been the first shots (which in my opinion were 5, 6, 7 & 8 - see diagram below) two to the chin (5 & 6), one very high on the shoulder (7) and one through his left arm (8).
I am no medical expert, but these wounds, when fighting for your life, would not incapacitate Nevill (a 6' 4" farmer in good physical health) enough to stop him dealing with SC imo
4) Is JB lying over father's phone call, and no concrete proof Nevill called police?
We all know there is no conclusive evidence to support any of this. There are significant problems with the whole phone calls scenario.
5) Inheritance?
A weak point, and one I am prepared to concede on the basis that JB was leading a pretty good life and I do find it difficult to believe anyone can blow away their whole family, and hope to get away with it, for any amount of money (but that could just be me being naive!)
Please let me know if you wish me to clarify any of the above.
-
He seems to respect the proper channels?
In my opinion a very weak justification....... If 'Z' respected the proper channels and associated due process 'Z' would not even have a copy of the alleged photograph.
-
Hi Nick. These of course a good reasons for doubting Jeremy's innocence. But:
(2) Reloading the gun - not a frenzied attack.
Unfortunately there is no way of gauging these things? Ralph looked as if he was attacked in a frenzied way. And
(3) it has been mentioned Ralph may have been layed into after he was shot? The broken rifle butt is an indication of this. Mentally ill people can appear very cool and calculating. This thing looks to me as if it had been carefully prepared? one indication of this is Sheila's bag and other stuff on her bed. So maybe she didn't go to bed that night but rather waited til everyone was asleep so as not to encounter much opposition?
(5) I don't think that inheritance was a factor in this crime as it has been mentioned before Jeremy didn't want for anything and was quite comfortably off with his little cottage and income from the caravan park.
(4) The only thing I can't cross off the list is that we only have Jeremy's word that his father phoned him? But then again why would he phone the police himself? This to my mind (if he was guilty) wouldn't have been the wisest thing for him to do. Because far from drawing attention away from himself it would obviously make him the focus of attention? Although as I said before your points are good questions and need an answer? The telephone call and the fact that Jeremy told police that his father phoned him is a pivotal point. Did he lie? If he did then there is every chance he knew what was happening that night and this makes him guilty by default.
Hi Grahame, I have answered my points to Jackie, but will read through your post to see if I need to add any more.
By the way the number 8 with a bracket following seems to come up as 8) - I'm not trying to be cool ???
-
Hi Grahame, I have answered my points to Jackie, but will read through your post to see if I need to add any more.
By the way the number 8 with a bracket following seems to come up as 8) - I'm not trying to be cool ???
Seems I missed out number 1?