Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: keepers on July 09, 2012, 11:13:PM
-
The trial judge stated "if you believe the silencer was fitted to the gun then you can convict on the paint evidence alone"
How on earth is mr suthersts expert analysis of the paint evidence from the mantle not the single most important part of the fresh evidence submitted to the ccrc. If the jury were able to convict on this evidence alone then surely the appeal court can quash on this evidence alone!!
-
According to Wikipedia:The White House Murders Mr. Justice Drake said the jury could convict on Julie Mugford's testimony alone. If you're referring to the scratch marks on the mantlepiece I would agree with you that that is suspicious and would indicate some tampering of the crime scene by the relatives.
Blood on the silencer was deemed to have come from Sheila,and as Jeremy Bamber did not shoot any rabbits the previous evening unless the blood was old blood it was likely that Sheila had been shot with the silencer,Jeremy Bamber or a hitman had then unscrewed the silencer and the sight and replaced them in the gun cupboard.
None of this affects Julie Mugford's testimony.
-
The trial judge stated "if you believe the silencer was fitted to the gun then you can convict on the paint evidence alone"
How on earth is mr suthersts expert analysis of the paint evidence from the mantle not the single most important part of the fresh evidence submitted to the ccrc. If the jury were able to convict on this evidence alone then surely the appeal court can quash on this evidence alone!!
I believe that Mr Suthersts analysis was considered at the 2002 appeal, or perhaps by the CCRC. It was suggested that he was examining the wrong area of the mantle, the picture he was examining did not show the relevant area.
This particular subject has been covered elsewhere on here, unfortunately I can't tell you where exactly.
It is mentioned here...http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2895.60.html
-
I believe that Mr Suthersts analysis was considered at the 2002 appeal, or perhaps by the CCRC. It was suggested that he was examining the wrong area of the mantle, the picture he was examining did not show the relevant area.
This particular subject has been covered elsewhere on here, unfortunately I can't tell you where exactly.
It formed part of the recent defence application to the CCRC, it was given a preliminary refusal early in 2011, the defence chose not to respond to any of the reasons for the preliminary refusal, instead concentrated on submitting new grounds, these were also refused when a final decision was announced.
-
It formed part of the recent defence application to the CCRC, it was given a preliminary refusal early in 2011, the defence chose not to respond to any of the reasons for the preliminary refusal, instead concentrated on submitting new grounds, these were also refused when a final decision was announced.
Thanks for that. That particular revelation seems to have been around for years! When first presented in the documentary, I thought that it looked quite compelling, just goes to show!
-
Mr justice drake did instruct the jury that the paint evidence was of extreme importance. Mr suthersts findings are also of great importance. At the end of the day the fact is that this crucial piece of evidence happened after 7th August 1985. I know that Jeremy was extremely excited by mr suthersts findings so I still don't understand why his defence team have not pushed this further
-
Mr justice drake did instruct the jury that the paint evidence was of extreme importance. Mr suthersts findings are also of great importance. At the end of the day the fact is that this crucial piece of evidence happened after 7th August 1985. I know that Jeremy was extremely excited by mr suthersts findings so I still don't understand why his defence team have not pushed this further
Well no, that's the theory, and of course it's disputed. The Sutherst stuff did seem to go very quiet after the initial rejection though, so I'm guessing either they couldn't get any further with it, or perhaps they'll pick back up on it after the JR.
-
Mr justice drake did instruct the jury that the paint evidence was of extreme importance. Mr suthersts findings are also of great importance. At the end of the day the fact is that this crucial piece of evidence happened after 7th August 1985. I know that Jeremy was extremely excited by mr suthersts findings so I still don't understand why his defence team have not pushed this further
Mr Suthersts findings were fundamentally flawed.
-
Neil can you explain how Peter Sutherst's findings are "fundamentally flawed"? There's a clip here showing his theory that the scratch marks were made after the day of the murders. Mr. Sutherst states that he aligned the photos in jigsaw fashion and thereby proved that the scratch marks were made at a later date. I'm not fully sure myself whether he can tell with all the photos at his disposal whether there was a scratch or not on the underside of the mantlepiece as there are no direct photos of that area,just the facade. However most of the carpet had been photographed that morning and there were no flecks of paint that had dropped down from the scratch marks(there is a slight area of the carpet which is obscured by a chair leg where it's possible there could have been paint residue). What Sutherst did find was a tiny fleck of Sheila's glittery nail varnish on the carpet,which if disclosed at the trial may have been enough to swing one more juror in Jeremy's favour.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence
-
Here is the clip of Peter Sutherst discussing the mantlepiece and Sheila's nail varnish:http://news.sky.com/story/832908/family-massacre-bamber-hopes-for-freedom-bid
-
Neil can you explain how Peter Sutherst's findings are "fundamentally flawed"? There's a clip here showing his theory that the scratch marks were made after the day of the murders. Mr. Sutherst states that he aligned the photos in jigsaw fashion and thereby proved that the scratch marks were made at a later date. I'm not fully sure myself whether he can tell with all the photos at his disposal whether there was a scratch or not on the underside of the mantlepiece as there are no direct photos of that area,just the facade. However most of the carpet had been photographed that morning and there were no flecks of paint that had dropped down from the scratch marks(there is a slight area of the carpet which is obscured by a chair leg where it's possible there could have been paint residue). What Sutherst did find was a tiny fleck of Sheila's glittery nail varnish on the carpet,which if disclosed at the trial may have been enough to swing one more juror in Jeremy's favour.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence
Hi Steve, I was referring purely to the mantle examination. Sutherst was unable to view the relevant section, therefore I would suggest that this part of his examination is fundamentally flawed, a point which was not contested by the defence.
Whether Jeremy's team are in possession of all the photographs taken of the area surrounding the Aga, is of course a different matter!
-
please let it be known that some of you think mr sutherests findings are flawed ,90 per cent of the time mr sutherest works for the prosecution as defence teams cannot afford him- funny how his findings arent flawed when working for the police!
-
Here is the clip of Peter Sutherst discussing the mantlepiece and Sheila's nail varnish:http://news.sky.com/story/832908/family-massacre-bamber-hopes-for-freedom-bid
That piece of nail was never examined.It was from Sheilas' big toe and was found near the AGA in the kitchen. Incidentally,,her fingernails showed signs of having had a knock of sorts as some of her nails were damaged and not in the finely manicured state as some would have you believe.
-
please let it be known that some of you think mr sutherests findings are flawed ,90 per cent of the time mr sutherest works for the prosecution as defence teams cannot afford him- funny how his findings arent flawed when working for the police!
I for one would like to see for myself whether they were "fundamentally" floored. For all we have is the word of the CCRC's "expert". So, with all this hullabaloo about releasing certain pictures . Let us see those particular pictures that Southerst examined and then we can make up pur own minds about it. Strange how some do not contend those findings isn't it?
-
please let it be known that some of you think mr sutherests findings are flawed ,90 per cent of the time mr sutherest works for the prosecution as defence teams cannot afford him- funny how his findings arent flawed when working for the police!
Hi Keeper, are you able to qualify this claim?