Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on September 07, 2012, 08:43:AM
-
Two things of major importance leap out and grab your attention, yet no-one grasps its importance...
(1) - Police were sent to the scene, in the knowledge that Jeremy had recieved a telephone call during the early hours from his father who informed him that his sister (Sheila) had gone crazy and that she had got hold of one of his guns, and for Jeremy to come to the farm quickly. So with this in mind police must have known that at least Ralph had still alive at that stage. PC Saxby, therefore, would know that there was someone alive inside whf at the time of Ralph Bambers call to Jeremy. This belief would have been reinforced as a result of the information recieved when Bews, Myall and Jeremy all came running back with the tale of having seen a person inside the house. Saxby would also be privy to information contained in radio messages passed between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room, since CA07 was used for that purpose between what was taking place at the scene relayed back to the control room. This would have included information about the discovery of two bodies upon entry by the raid team at 7;37am, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder and a suicide, and how one of those bodies migrated upstairs to the bedroom. Saxby took Jeremys complaint about him believing that police had shot and killed his family...
-
Two things of major importance leap out and grab your attention, yet no-one grasps its importance...
(1) - Police were sent to the scene, in the knowledge that Jeremy had recieved a telephone call during the early hours from his father who informed him that his sister (Sheila) had gone crazy and that she had got hold of one of his guns, and for Jeremy to come to the farm quickly. So with this in mind police must have known that at least Ralph had still alive at that stage. PC Saxby, therefore, would know that there was someone alive inside whf at the time of Ralph Bambers call to Jeremy. This belief would have been reinforced as a result of the information recieved when Bews, Myall and Jeremy all came running back with the tale of having seen a person inside the house. Saxby would also be privy to information contained in radio messages passed between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room, since CA07 was used for that purpose between what was taking place at the scene relayed back to the control room. This would have included information about the discovery of two bodies upon entry by the raid team at 7;37am, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder and a suicide, and how one of those bodies migrated upstairs to the bedroom. Saxby took Jeremys complaint about him believing that police had shot and killed his family...
(2) - Everything that PS Saxby knew before he left the scene that morning at about 9:30am, pointed to a person, or persons still alive inside the premises long after thier arrival and the arrival of Jeremy at the scene...
-
(2) - Everything that PS Saxby knew before he left the scene that morning at about 9:30am, pointed to a person, or persons still alive inside the premises long after thier arrival and the arrival of Jeremy at the scene...
Mike,,this aspect in itself needs to be investigated,when there was every possibility of someone still being alive inside that house. The police should have acted swiftly/quickly. There needs to be questions asked why time was wasted when so many lives hung in the balance.
Surely bullet-proof clothing was available then.?
-
Two things of major importance leap out and grab your attention, yet no-one grasps its importance...
Not even JB's defence team!
(1) - Police were sent to the scene, in the knowledge that Jeremy had recieved a telephone call during the early hours from his father who informed him that his sister (Sheila) had gone crazy and that she had got hold of one of his guns, and for Jeremy to come to the farm quickly.
So with this in mind police must have known that at least Ralph had still alive at that stage. PC Saxby, therefore, would know that there was someone alive inside whf at the time of Ralph Bambers call to Jeremy.
Only based on JB's story! Ralph of course could have been dead well before JB called EP, and Ralph therefore never made that call to JB.
This belief would have been reinforced as a result of the information recieved when Bews, Myall and Jeremy all came running back with the tale of having seen a person inside the house.
Only based on JB's story.
Bews and Myall, I believe, have never admitted verbally or in writing seeing a person at the window, and imo never will
Saxby would also be privy to information contained in radio messages passed between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room, since CA07 was used for that purpose between what was taking place at the scene relayed back to the control room. This would have included information about the discovery of two bodies upon entry by the raid team at 7;37am, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder and a suicide, and how one of those bodies migrated upstairs to the bedroom. Saxby took Jeremys complaint about him believing that police had shot and killed his family...
Elements raised above are known to JB's defence team - they are subjective, arguable etc. and possibly records made in error, but ultimately not conclusive as evidence, or JB's team would have been able to successfully use them.
-
(2) - Everything that PS Saxby knew before he left the scene that morning at about 9:30am, pointed to a person, or persons still alive inside the premises long after thier arrival and the arrival of Jeremy at the scene...
Everything..........??
Long after their (EP's) arrival......... I don't think so!
-
The role played by the occupants of CA07 at the scene once the firearms team arrived upon the scene at and from 5am, in the capacity of communications between the firearms team at the incident and the control room back at police headquarters, has never been properly explained or disclosed. Bews, Myall and Saxby, liased between officers at the scene and others elsewhere, and this was achoeved by one or other of them relaying messages back and forth. It therefore follows, that whatever they spoke about or relayed as a result of the all being in the firing linr, involved details of the person seen at the bedroom window, about why the dogs were barking before the arrival of the police and Jeremy, why the telephone which had its hanset off the cradle with line open at about 3:58am, should be engaged hours later when the line was rechecked by the opetator, when differeny lights in the farmhouse eere deitched on or off at different times during the operation, how two bodies were found downstairs in the kitchen upon entry by the raid team, and a further three bodies found updtairs which later somehow manifested itself into one body dow, four up, were all things which passed through the occupants of CA07 at the scene before they left the scene at about 9:30am...
Bofy of one desd male, and the body of one dead female, a murder, and a suicide...
-
What are two police officers and one civilian doing, running back to the patrol car? Why would a trick of the light on a window, in a back-lit room, with the moon on the other side of the building, cause these three people to run back to the patrol car? I can understand some haste due to the urgency of the situation.
-
The role played by the occupants of CA07 at the scene once the firearms team arrived upon the scene at and from 5am, in the capacity of communications between the firearms team at the incident and the control room back at police headquarters, has never been properly explained or disclosed. Bews, Myall and Saxby, liased between officers at the scene and others elsewhere, and this was achoeved by one or other of them relaying messages back and forth. It therefore follows, that whatever they spoke about or relayed as a result of the all being in the firing linr, involved details of the person seen at the bedroom window, about why the dogs were barking before the arrival of the police and Jeremy, why the telephone which had its hanset off the cradle with line open at about 3:58am, should be engaged hours later when the line was rechecked by the opetator, when differeny lights in the farmhouse eere deitched on or off at different times during the operation, how two bodies were found downstairs in the kitchen upon entry by the raid team, and a further three bodies found updtairs which later somehow manifested itself into one body dow, four up, were all things which passed through the occupants of CA07 at the scene before they left the scene at about 9:30am...
Bofy of one desd male, and the body of one dead female, a murder, and a suicide...
I have always felt that all at the farm that night were fully aware that it was a siege situation . There is a lot of evidence which suggests that this is the case and it makes less sense that the police waited until 7.30 to act unless they had reason not to ( ie. they knew there was at least one person alive in the farmhouse with firearms available )
-
I have always felt that all at the farm that night were fully aware that it was a siege situation . There is a lot of evidence which suggests that this is the case and it makes less sense that the police waited until 7.30 to act unless they had reason not to ( ie. they knew there was at least one person alive in the farmhouse with firearms available )
It also fits in with Bamber's knee-jerk reaction that the raid team were responsible for the deaths. Fits perfectly. That remark was not planned in any way whatsoever imo. He lashed out precisely because there had been the impression that there were people still alive in the farmhouse, that all was not lost, that the situation was retrievable to some extent.
-
What are two police officers and one civilian doing, running back to the patrol car?
Imagine JB saying "what was that" and triggering further fear? - it could have happenned :P
Initially the "trick of the light" scenario could have represented in their fear riddled minds that some one was active; but as it turned out (who knows) it was a "trick of the light", as actually refferred to, and put to Bews, by Rivlin.
Bews did not initially use the phrase a "trick of the light" at trial; it was Rivlin (Defence Council for JB :o)
Why would a trick of the light on a window, in a back-lit room, with the moon on the other side of the building, cause these three people to run back to the patrol car? I can understand some haste due to the urgency of the situation.
See answer above.
Back-lit room? – Contentious
-
Nickos, you've put your own words inside my quote. According to Bews television interviews, it was Myall who first drew their attention to the window. He then changed it to Bamber in a later television interview.
Given the inconsistencies in statements regarding which lights were on or off, it is not inconceivable that the window in question was back-lit.
-
Nickos, you've put your own words inside my quote. According to Bews television interviews, it was Myall who first drew their attention to the window. He then changed it to Bamber in a later television interview.
Given the inconsistencies in statements regarding which lights were on or off, it is not inconceivable that the window in question was back-lit.
Roch, do you agree that it was initially Rivlin at trial that put the phrase "trick of the light" to Bews?
Now why would an educated barrister such as Rivlin not say to Bews at trial, "could what I have just referred to as a trick of the light, and that you have just replied yes to, have ever been mistaken for that of a person being at, or passing by, the relevant window.
What if Rivlin had drawn Bews to say "well possibly!" - think of the ramifications of that??
It was Rivlin (JB's Defence Council) that first put this phrase to Bews; and has subsequently been used as an underming technique, by others, against Bews.
Bews may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but to use this phrase against him is misdirected imo
I think some ought to start with Rivlin!!
-
Roch, do you agree that it was initially Rivlin at trial that put the phrase "trick of the light" to Bews?
Now why would an educated barrister such as Rivlin not say to Bews at trial, "could what I have just referred to as a trick of the light, and that you have just replied yes to, have ever been mistaken for that of a person being at, or passing by, the relevant window.
What if Rivlin had drawn Bews to say "well possibly!" - think of the ramifications of that??
It was Rivlin (JB's Defence Council) that first put this phrase to Bews; and has subsequently been used as an underming technique, by others, against Bews.
Bews may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but to use this phrase against him is misdirected imo
I think some ought to start with Rivlin!!
I think that's a disingenuous approach. Firstly, we do not know what was discussed behind the scenes pre-trial and during trial. Could Rivlin have got wind of the likelihood that he would meet with a brick wall of denial if he pursued it? The defence had no documentary evidence of the sighting (according to the Hunter manuscript, it was only many years later and after the logs had came to light, with subsequent official requests made by the defence for the corresponding page of the logs relevant to this period, that the official response received from EP was that it has been 'misplaced').
Also, what has Bews done since trial, to deny or rectify a mistaken claim that he had indeed seen a trick of the light? Has Bews tried to describe the incident in terms that would contradict the trick of the light scenario?
Regarding Bews testimony. I'm not sure that it's fair to describe him as not the sharpest tool in the box. However I think it's stretching it a bit to consider that he might have coughed up to a sighting of a person at the window. He would have effectively been contradicting the entire thrust of the second investigation, its' aims and its' orchestration by powers considerably senior to him self.
Wasn't that the very danger that DCI Taff Jones represented?
-
Nickos, you've put your own words inside my quote. According to Bews television interviews, it was Myall who first drew their attention to the window. He then changed it to Bamber in a later television interview.
Given the inconsistencies in statements regarding which lights were on or off, it is not inconceivable that the window in question was back-lit.
Either way Roch, it has for twenty plus years been something small, a small detail that has alway sbeen called a trick of light. But like most things in the Bamber campaign - it suddenly over times becomes something MUCH bigger than it actually was as Bamber tries to create confusion.
Don't you see this at all?
-
Either way Roch, it has for twenty plus years been something small, a small detail that has alway sbeen called a trick of light. But like most things in the Bamber campaign - it suddenly over times becomes something MUCH bigger than it actually was as Bamber tries to create confusion.
Don't you see this at all?
Didn't the prosecution / police cause the confusion with their selective use of evidence ?
-
Didn't the prosecution / police cause the confusion with their selective use of evidence ?
Selective is right,Gringo.
-
I think that's a disingenuous approach. Firstly, we do not know what was discussed behind the scenes pre-trial and during trial. Could Rivlin have got wind of the likelihood that he would meet with a brick wall of denial if he pursued it? The defence had no documentary evidence of the sighting (according to the Hunter manuscript, it was only many years later and after the logs had came to light, with subsequent official requests made by the defence for the corresponding page of the logs relevant to this period, that the official response received from EP was that it has been 'misplaced').
Also, what has Bews done since trial, to deny or rectify a mistaken claim that he had indeed seen a trick of the light? Has Bews tried to describe the incident in terms that would contradict the trick of the light scenario?
Regarding Bews testimony. I'm not sure that it's fair to describe him as not the sharpest tool in the box. However I think it's stretching it a bit to consider that he might have coughed up to a sighting of a person at the window. He would have effectively been contradicting the entire thrust of the second investigation, its' aims and its' orchestration by powers considerably senior to him self.
Wasn't that the very danger that DCI Taff Jones represented?
Agree with that in its entirety . Bews has been inconsistent on this point as previously documented and he gives the impression of being less than honest .
-
Agree with that in its entirety . Bews has been inconsistent on this point as previously documented and he gives the impression of being less than honest .
To say the least! :)
-
Whether or not a person was seen in the bedroom by Bews, Myall and Jeremy, helps to determi e Jeremys culpability, so Bews is obviously not going to have to admit a person who was alive in the bedroom was seen moving around after the arrival of the police and Jeremy...
If there was someone alive in the bedroom, Bamber has the perfect alibi which disproves the prosecutions case...
-
Agree with that in its entirety . Bews has been inconsistent on this point as previously documented and he gives the impression of being less than honest .
Bews inconsistent = dirty liar
Bamber and defence inconsistent = understandable confusion
-
Two things of major importance leap out and grab your attention, yet no-one grasps its importance...
(1) - Police were sent to the scene, in the knowledge that Jeremy had recieved a telephone call during the early hours from his father who informed him that his sister (Sheila) had gone crazy and that she had got hold of one of his guns, and for Jeremy to come to the farm quickly. So with this in mind police must have known that at least Ralph had still alive at that stage. PC Saxby, therefore, would know that there was someone alive inside whf at the time of Ralph Bambers call to Jeremy. This belief would have been reinforced as a result of the information recieved when Bews, Myall and Jeremy all came running back with the tale of having seen a person inside the house. Saxby would also be privy to information contained in radio messages passed between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room, since CA07 was used for that purpose between what was taking place at the scene relayed back to the control room. This would have included information about the discovery of two bodies upon entry by the raid team at 7;37am, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder and a suicide, and how one of those bodies migrated upstairs to the bedroom. Saxby took Jeremys complaint about him believing that police had shot and killed his family...
Bearing in mind the post below, which contains an extract from one of Jeremys sites in which it is claimed that Saxby's statement contains the information about Bews, etc, returning from their walk about.
Do have the statement from Saxby that they are referring to?
Okay, here is some more food for thought.
It is alleged that any mention of this sighting was removed and edited out of statements etc, and that Jeremy was in too much shock apparently to realise the importance of this alleged sighting until some years later when Mike pointed it out to him.
Have I got that right? Please somebody correct me if I am wrong.
_________________________________________________________________________
Now this is an extract taken from Jeremys official website, how does that fit in with the stories being presented on this forum? Take particular notice that the incident is brought up at trial!!!
Link to full page: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1
Bews, Myall & Jeremy see movement in the window (after 3.45am)
When Jeremy and the police arrived at White House Farm they saw movement in the master bedroom. Below is an extract from PS Bews trial transcript:
Rivlin: "Do you remember at some stage early on, this happened that one of you Police Officers said that you thought you could see a shadow and you all jumped?"
Bews: "Yes, that is when we first went to the house with Mr Bamber. We had gone round what I thought was the back. We had seen the kitchen door with the light on. We then went into a field which is at the side of the farm house and went went round to where what is - - I believe the front door is and above that is a window. As we moved away I thought we saw something else move, a shadow, something like that. We looked up and after looking for a couple of minutes I was satisfied that it was a - - perhaps a part in the glass that just shone the light slightly as you looked at it."
Rivlin: "It could have been a trick of the light?"
Bews: "I think it was a trick of the light"
It has been stated in a recent interview by Sgt Bews that the movement was just 'the moon' Howver, Saxby's police statement maintains that PS Bews along with PC Myall and Jeremy "came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and PS Bews contacted information room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report" Did Sgt Bews really call the firearms team out as a result of seeing a reflection of the moon? During the 80's firearms teams would only have come out if the police were seriously threatened by armed persons. If this was a trick of the light - what light source caused it? It was still dark at this time and the moon was on the other side of the house. This was a lone house in a rural area there was no light from external sources. In addition Geoffrey Rivlin QC clearly did not question the witness properly, in this extract the Defence barrister is actually making the suggestion that the witness didn't see a shadow at all but a trick of the light. One of the key features of miscarriages of justice is often poor legal representation.
-
The police and Jeremy were in no doubt at all, upon returning to the patrol car (CA07) manned by PS Saxby, that at least one occupant inside whf was still very much alive, which was why PS Bews himself passed a situation report back to the control room via the police radio, requesting that firearms team be deployed immediately to the scene...
The proof of the pudding is in the eating - so why don't Essex police relrase a transcript of what Bews said at that time, and why does'nt Bews hinself say what he said at that time, and why doesn't PS Saxby say what Bews said at that time, and why doesn't the person who took the situation report passed by Bews to the control room identify themselves and say what Bews said, and tell us what was done with that information?
All that is required to resolve this matter is for the police to disclose it all...
Simple...
-
I only asked to see the statements which are being used to support these theories.
1. Saxbys statement containing details of Bews, Mayall and Jeremys return.
2. Bews statement dated 16/8/85 detailing the same.
I think I can speak for the majority of people on here that we would like to see them, for purposes of transparency.
As it stands, the clearest information about the reason for calling backup, is from Myall who says it was due to Jeremy telling them that Sheila was capable of using all of the guns in the house.
-
I only asked to see the statements which are being used to support these theories.
1. Saxbys statement containing details of Bews, Mayall and Jeremys return.
2. Bews statement dated 16/8/85 detailing the same.
I think I can speak for the majority of people on here that we would like to see them, for purposes of transparency.
As it stands, the clearest information about the reason for calling backup, is from Myall who says it was due to Jeremy telling them that Sheila was capable of using all of the guns in the house.
what a load of bollocks...
Police wouldn't need to send the occupants of CA07 to the scene if this was just abiut whether or not Sheila could fire a .22 rifle or not.get a grip of yourself, a child could fure that type of rifle, stop trying to make out there was something or anything at all difficult about anyobe being able ir unable to fure such a weapon - a child could fo it, and Sheila did...
-
what a load of bollocks...
Police wouldn't need to send the occupants of CA07 to the scene if this was just abiut whether or not Sheila could fire a .22 rifle or not.get a grip of yourself, a child could fure that type of rifle, stop trying to make out there was something or anything at all difficult about anyobe being able ir unable to fure such a weapon - a child could fo it, and Sheila did...
Erm, why do you need to be so rude?
Read my previous post, then see the page from Myalls statement.
If an alternative explaination is indicated elsewhere, then let's see it please. I can only base an opinion on what is put in front of us.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3130.0;attach=19795;image)
-
Bews inconsistent = dirty liar
Bamber and defence inconsistent = understandable confusion
Both prosecution and defence can only rely on documents and timings provided by the police so surely you must see that the defence are at a disadvantage ,especially as the recording of these events leaves something to be desired . It is not the defence who get to choose which logs and statements are used or disclosed .
The changes on the defence side are in response to new info becoming available usually because the police have been forced to disclose something previously hidden .
I don't think the defence have anything held under pii .
There is simply no excuse for the shifting ground of the prosecution . They do after all have all the evidence including pii so why should their version of events need to shift .
It is understandable that the defence position will change as new evidence becomes available .
It is less understandable for the prosecution position to change because it isn't new to them . This looks more like shifting your story to try and accommodate what you have been forced to disclose .
-
Both prosecution and defence can only rely on documents and timings provided by the police so surely you must see that the defence are at a disadvantage ,especially as the recording of these events leaves something to be desired . It is not the defence who get to choose which logs and statements are used or disclosed .
The changes on the defence side are in response to new info becoming available usually because the police have been forced to disclose something previously hidden .
I don't think the defence have anything held under pii .
There is simply no excuse for the shifting ground of the prosecution . They do after all have all the evidence including pii so why should their version of events need to shift .
It is understandable that the defence position will change as new evidence becomes available .
It is less understandable for the prosecution position to change because it isn't new to them . This looks more like shifting your story to try and accommodate what you have been forced to disclose .
When you say the prosecution position has shifted, what are you referring to?
-
Both prosecution and defence can only rely on documents and timings provided by the police so surely you must see that the defence are at a disadvantage ,especially as the recording of these events leaves something to be desired . It is not the defence who get to choose which logs and statements are used or disclosed .
The changes on the defence side are in response to new info becoming available usually because the police have been forced to disclose something previously hidden .
I don't think the defence have anything held under pii .
There is simply no excuse for the shifting ground of the prosecution . They do after all have all the evidence including pii so why should their version of events need to shift .
It is understandable that the defence position will change as new evidence becomes available .
It is less understandable for the prosecution position to change because it isn't new to them . This looks more like shifting your story to try and accommodate what you have been forced to disclose .
Are you me in disguise? ;D
-
what a load of bollocks...
Police wouldn't need to send the occupants of CA07 to the scene if this was just abiut whether or not Sheila could fire a .22 rifle or not.get a grip of yourself, a child could fure that type of rifle, stop trying to make out there was something or anything at all difficult about anyobe being able ir unable to fure such a weapon - a child could fo it, and Sheila did...
Mike ive feltmore recoil on a air soft pistol, sometimes some posts get a little silly , as you say its simple to use this rifle , you load point and fire what the hell else does a rifle do please im all ears .
-
When you say the prosecution position has shifted, what are you referring to?
The changing times / conflicting logs as one example . The prosecution had to accommodate newly disclosed logs, which cast doubt on their initial position, for the 2002 appeal .
Do you believe that the prosecution as presented in 1986 would convict now ? If the defence had all information they now have in 1986, the prosecution would be laughed out of court .
-
Are you me in disguise? ;D
I thought you were me in disguise . Usually I just read the forum Roch because you seemed to do most of my talking for me :)
-
Erm, why do you need to be so rude?
Read my previous post, then see the page from Myalls statement.
If an alternative explaination is indicated elsewhere, then let's see it please. I can only base an opinion on what is put in front of us.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3130.0;attach=19795;image)
Where did PC Myall get all the additional information from that which is typed out in his witness statement? You can spot the additional information by comparing notes allegedly written up by PC Myall in his pocketbook in handwritten entries dated 7th August 1985, against the contents of his typed witness statement, dated, 15th August 1985...
-
I thought you were me in disguise . Usually I just read the forum Roch because you seemed to do most of my talking for me :)
Cheers :)
Will the prosecution also now have to shift its' position that Julie Mugford came forward to unburden her self (7/9/85?) Julie Mugford was arrested before this date wasn't she?
-
The changing times / conflicting logs as one example . The prosecution had to accommodate newly disclosed logs, which cast doubt on their initial position, for the 2002 appeal .
Do you believe that the prosecution as presented in 1986 would convict now ? If the defence had all information they now have in 1986, the prosecution would be laughed out of court .
Do you mean the timings for the phone call from JB to the police? That was dealt with at the original trial, the prosecution case hasn't shifted on that issue at all. Rather, what I see is the defence (quite rightly) picking up on anomalies, and the police / prosecution explaining them. You might not like their explanations, but that is what they are.
-
For obvious reasons, Essex police have not attempted to reconcile the anomolies relating to the clock in the control room, with the corresponding difference in time, relevant to the clock of Mugfords friends clock, many miles away in London...
-
For obvious reasons, Essex police have not attempted to reconcile the anomolies relating to the clock in the control room, with the corresponding difference in time, relevant to the clock of Mugfords friends clock, many miles away in London...
The friend explained why her clock was set wrong, it's something I used to do myself. I believe the police checked her clock as well.
-
The friend explained why her clock was set wrong, it's something I used to do myself. I believe the police checked her clock as well.
Don't get clever - what if the clock was incorrect before she reset it, lets say it was 10 minutes fast, she then resets the clock thinking she is setting it 10 minutes fast, when all along sge was resetting the time correctly...
In any event, Jeremy called Julie mugford, not Julie Mugfords friend. What was required here was a comparison between Julie Mugfords clock, and her friends clock, which as I understand it was not done for one reason or another...
I wonder why...
-
Where did PC Myall get all the additional information from that which is typed out in his witness statement? You can spot the additional information by comparing notes allegedly written up by PC Myall in his pocketbook in handwritten entries dated 7th August 1985, against the contents of his typed witness statement, dated, 15th August 1985...
Nicely side stepped. ;)
I'm sure his statement is based on his recollection of events, just like any other witness statement. If his notebook said it was night, but his statement said it was day, then that would be a different matter. The notebook and the statement do not contradict each other.
Anyway, my point is, if you are really interested in the truth, then you surely wouldn't have a problem with looking at all of the available information, even if you thought some of the information was innaccurate for whatever reason, if that was the case you would simply express that opinion.
We're talking about Myall, Saxby and Bews and the reason for them taking a particular course of action. Bews 16/8/85 statement and Saxbys statement as referred to on Jeremys official website, are two very obviously missing documents which would need to be taken into account.
As it stands we only Myalls account and he indicates that the firearms team were called following Jeremy giving his opinion that Sheila could use all of the guns, all of the guns were loaded and she was a nutter. There is nothing which suggests that the firearms team were called because they saw movement in the house.
If there is any evidence which does indicate that the firearms team were called because movement was seen in the house, then would you please be kind enough to show us?
I can't think of a reason why you would be against revealing such evidence.
-
The friend explained why her clock was set wrong, it's something I used to do myself. I believe the police checked her clock as well.
Yes, it was verified on an unnanounced police visit.
-
[quote author=-The Jam- link=topic=3170.msg122935#msg122935
As it stands we only Myalls account and he indicates that the firearms team were called following Jeremy giving his opinion that Sheila could use all of the guns, all of the guns were loaded and she was a nutter. There is nothing which suggests that the firearms team were called because they saw movement in the house.
[/quote]
Details which were missing from his notebook that he wrote up on the morning of 7th August 1985.where did Myall get that information from, and who prompted him to include it in his later witness statement?
-
[quote author=-The Jam- link=topic=3170.msg122935#msg122935
As it stands we only Myalls account and he indicates that the firearms team were called following Jeremy giving his opinion that Sheila could use all of the guns, all of the guns were loaded and she was a nutter. There is nothing which suggests that the firearms team were called because they saw movement in the house.
Details which were missing from his notebook that he wrote up on the morning of 7th August 1985.where did Myall get that information from, and who prompted him to include it in his later witness statement?
The very same crucial information, is also missing from the pocketbook entries of PS Bews, supposedly written up on 7th August 1985 - how odd...
-
The very same crucial information, is also missing from the pocketbook entries of PS Bews, supposedly written up on 7th August 1985 - how odd...
Both officers insert the reference to Jeremy having allegedly called his sister a nutter, and the claim he told them that his sister could use all the firearms in the farmhouse, yet both conveniently omitted these details when they both wrote up thier pocketbook entries on 7th August 1985...
-
Both officers insert the reference to Jeremy having allegedly called his sister a nutter, and the claim he told them that his sister could use all the firearms in the farmhouse, yet both conveniently omitted these details when they both wrote up thier pocketbook entries on 7th August 1985...
Both omit any reference to the sighting of the person when they write up thier notes in thier pocketbooks, which they write up supposedly on 7th August 1985, and make no mention of the same when they make thier witness statements, nor do they record any actual duties performed by them at the scene involving messages relayed betwee the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room, and vice versa...
-
Both omit any reference to the sighting of the person when they write up thier notes in thier pocketbooks, which they write up supposedly on 7th August 1985, and make no mention of the same when they make thier witness statements, nor do they record any actual duties performed by them at the scene involving messages relayed betwee the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room, and vice versa...
That information would be in his " other " pocketbook,Mike. Didn't they work on two.?
-
Once you start to examine the contents of PC Myalls pocketbook entries for Events 7th August 1985, not only is crucial information missing from the pocketbook which materializes later in his statement, but he apparently writes 6 pages of notes in his pocketbook between 10:25am and 10:30am (which I am sorry to say is unacceptable) and lo and behold who should countersign those magical notes but none other than the dark knight rises, PS Bews...
BEWS ALSO WRITES 7 PAGES OF NOTES, between 10:25am, and 10::30am...
What a load of codswallop these so called officers of the law, are...
Lying no good bastards...
-
Once you start to examine the contents of PC Myalls pocketbook entries for Events 7th August 1985, not only is crucial information missing from the pocketbook which materializes later in his statement, but he apparently writes 6 pages of notes in his pocketbook between 10:25am and 10:30am (which I am sorry to say is unacceptable) and lo and behold who should countersign those magical notes but none other than the dark knight rises, PS Bews...
BEWS ALSO WRITES 7 PAGES OF NOTES, between 10:25am, and 10::30am...
What a load of codswallop these so called officers of the law, are...
Lying no good bastards...
It makes you wonder why the details of the situation report that was passed from the scene to the control room relating to the person seen in the bedroom, or trick of light, couldn't be written up in thier pocketbooks, or mentioned in thier statements - since based on the speed with which Myall and Bews wrote up thier notes for thier entire shift that night, within a five minute period between 10:25am and 10:30am, for example, 6 pages for Myall, and 7 pages for Bewsy, it would surely have only taken a few seconds for these super efficient Essex police officers to put something down in writing about what they saw, where they were when they saw what they saw, and what was spoken about when contact was made with the control room...
-
It makes you wonder why the details of the situation report that was passed from the scene to the control room relating to the person seen in the bedroom, or trick of light, couldn't be written up in thier pocketbooks, or mentioned in thier statements - since based on the speed with which Myall and Bews wrote up thier notes for thier entire shift that night, within a five minute period between 10:25am and 10:30am, for example, 6 pages for Myall, and 7 pages for Bewsy, it would surely have only taken a few seconds for these super efficient Essex police officers to put something down in writing about what they saw, where they were when they saw what they saw, and what was spoken about when contact was made with the control room...
Also note...
That considering Myall and Bewsy performed communication duties where they relayed messages back and forth between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room (and vice versa) when two bodies had been reportedly found downstairs, and only three bodies found upstairs. no such details anywhere in either pocketbook or witness statement...
And, how did the control room get to know that one of the two bodies found was being described as a murder, whilst the other a suicide - if this information came from the likes of Bews, Myall and Saxby, acting in thier role of communications, they have a great deal of explaining to do. Since, if one of the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen was a reference to Sheila, it kind of lends more credence to the earlier sighting of a person in the bedroom...
-
It makes you wonder why the details of the situation report that was passed from the scene to the control room relating to the person seen in the bedroom, or trick of light, couldn't be written up - since based on the speed with which Myall and Bews wrote up thier notes for thier entire shift that night, for example, 6 pages for Myall, and 7 pages for Bewsy, it would surely have only taken a few seconds for these super efficient Essex police officers to put sonething down in wriying about what they saw, whrre they were when they saw what they saw, and what was spoken about when contact was made with the control room...
Mike, I think that whilst individually, they may have rehearsed a similar scenario, they may not have rehearsed it together and a rehearsal is totally different from a performance. I think it likely that at some point, at least temporarily, training and discipline went out the window, maybe being responsible for Bews loss of bladder control. By the time the firearms team arrived they may have been falling over each other' Bearing in mind the possibility that NONE of those present had previously been in a real life situation such as the one in which they found themselves, and bearing in mind also the length of time they were there, I don't find it in the least surprising that their memories of what occured, and in what sequence, may have become extremely clouded. I'm fully aware that what I'm suggesting will be denied, but given the scenario in which nobody seemed to have a clue and nobody seemed prepared to make positive decision, I AM surprised that it was only Bews bladder that was dodgy.
-
Also note...
That considering Myall and Bewsy performed communication duties where they relayed messages back and forth between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room (and vice versa) when two bodies had been reportedly found downstairs, and only three bodies found upstairs. no such details anywhere in either pocketbook or witness statement...
And, how did the control room get to know that one of the two bodies found was being described as a murder, whilst the other a suicide - if this information came from the likes of Bews, Myall and Saxby, acting in thier role of communications, they have a great deal of explaining to do. Since, if one of the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen was a reference to Sheila, it kind of lends more credence to the earlier sighting of a person in the bedroom...
The police case can best be summed up by referring to the sighting of the person at the bedroom window as a trick of light, the displacement of Sheila's body from kitchen to bed and from the bed to the floor as a trick of flight, and the introduction of the silencer/blood/paint evidence, and the claim that Jeremy killed everyone and stage managed the scene as a trick of shite...
-
Also note...
That considering Myall and Bewsy performed communication duties where they relayed messages back and forth between the firearms officers at the scene, and the control room (and vice versa) when two bodies had been reportedly found downstairs, and only three bodies found upstairs. no such details anywhere in either pocketbook or witness statement...
And, how did the control room get to know that one of the two bodies found was being described as a murder, whilst the other a suicide - if this information came from the likes of Bews, Myall and Saxby, acting in thier role of communications, they have a great deal of explaining to do. Since, if one of the two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen was a reference to Sheila, it kind of lends more credence to the earlier sighting of a person in the bedroom...
Because that first wound of Sheilas' was a flesh wound,she would have been able to " gather herself together " on hearing the police,, albeit initially stunned,but neverthless would have been able to then make it upstairs from the kitchen. She'd have been the " apparition " that was seen at the window.
-
Because that first wound of Sheilas' was a flesh wound,she would have been able to " gather herself together " on hearing the police,, albeit initially stunned,but neverthless would have been able to then make it upstairs from the kitchen. She'd have been the " apparition " that was seen at the window.
So did she go back downstairs again in order to be seen dead in the kitchen by the raid team on entry? That's a lot of wandering around for someone with a lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae.
-
So did she go back downstairs again in order to be seen dead in the kitchen by the raid team on entry? That's a lot of wandering around for someone with a lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae.
It really amazes me that when those from the other team keep referring to all this blood loss from the non fatal neck wound. All you have to do is look at the small vertical blood trail that can be barely seen beneath the non fatal bullet entry wound on Sheila's neck. so without counting the triangular bloodstain on the front upper part of her nightdress, where did all this blood from the non fatal neck wound go?
It didn't go anywhere once she got back on her feet because anyblood that originally tricked from it had dried and coagulated by the time she got to her feet downstairs and fled upstairs to the bedroom...
Refer to Professors Knights testimony...
-
So did she go back downstairs again in order to be seen dead in the kitchen by the raid team on entry? That's a lot of wandering around for someone with a lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae.
Who knows.? Unless you were there to witness what her movements were,but my thoughts are that she was like a hyperactive child flitting around. A Whirling Dirvish best describes her that night.
You'd be surprised how much the body can undertake in certain circumstances. People have had broken necks and not realised. Particularly in dangerous situations,the bodys' pain centre shuts down while they concentrate on the job in hand.
Drugs have this hyper effect.
-
So did she go back downstairs again in order to be seen dead in the kitchen by the raid team on entry? That's a lot of wandering around for someone with a lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae.
Surely anybody with a lacerated jugular will resemble a moving abattoir?
-
Who knows.? Unless you were there to witness what her movements were,but my thoughts are that she was like a hyperactive child flitting around. A Whirling Dirvish best describes her that night.
You'd be surprised how much the body can undertake in certain circumstances. People have had broken necks and not realised. Particularly in dangerous situations,the bodys' pain centre shuts down while they concentrate on the job in hand.
Drugs have this hyper effect.
The jugular wound came later.
-
Surely anybody with a lacerated jugular will resemble a moving abattoir?
;D
-
The jugular wound came later.
Came later than what? You were talking about her first wound, which lacerated her jugular.
-
When Professor Knight testified during the trial, he said that Sheila could have moved
around for up to half an hour after recieving the non fatal shot - he did not take into account Sheila had collapsed and regained consciousness, otherwise she could have moved around over a much greater period.All in all consistent with Sheila being originally shot and found downstairs, rendered temporarily unconscoius, able to recover at a time when any blood from the original bullet wound had dried and coagulated. There would not be any blood running down her neck, or down her body if the blood from the original non fatal wound had already dried...
-
When Professor Knight testified during the trial, he said that Sheila could have moved
around for up to half an hour after recieving the non fatal shot - he did not take into account Sheila had collapsed and regained consciousness, otherwise she could have moved around over a much greater period.All in all consistent with Sheila being originally shot and found downstairs, rendered temporarily unconscoius, able to recover at a time when any blood from the original bullet wound had dried and coagulated. There would not be any blood running down her neck, or down her body if the blood from the original non fatal wound had already dried...
Here is the relevant page of Vanezis report:
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=732;image)
Could you please Knight's report please?
-
The jugular wound came later.
I think the bullet shaved the jugular, it may not have actually severed the wall...if it had yes she would have bled to death but its a vein so not so messy as an artery where the blood shoots out. imo
-
Here is the relevant page of Vanezis report:
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=732;image)
Could you please Knight's report please?
I will try to find the relevant extracts from Professor Knights testimony which differs vastly from what Venezis said...
-
Came later than what? You were talking about her first wound, which lacerated her jugular.
No I wasn't. I said her first wound was a flesh wound.The jugular appeared much later.
-
No I wasn't. I said her first wound was a flesh wound.The jugular appeared much later.
No it didn't.
-
I will try to find the relevant extracts from Professor Knights testimony which differs vastly from what Venezis said...
Thank you.
-
No it didn't.
Gawd,this is exactly what happens when no time of death is reported/recorded. Everything's then done by guesswork.
What's the matter with the police and their investigations.?
At that massacre in France,French police didn't even see that little 4 year old child until 8 hours later. What goes on.?
-
No it didn't.
Well i was wrong but I didnt think there was enough blood for the jugular to be lacerated...where did the blood go?
-
Well i was wrong but I didnt think there was enough blood for the jugular to be lacerated...where did the blood go?
The second shot was seconds after the first and intantaneously fatal, so there wasn't much.
-
Well i was wrong but I didnt think there was enough blood for the jugular to be lacerated...where did the blood go?
More than likely on the rugs/carpets that were burned I should imagine,Maggie.
-
Gawd,this is exactly what happens when no time of death is reported/recorded. Everything's then done by guesswork.
What's the matter with the police and their investigations.?
At that massacre in France,French police didn't even see that little 4 year old child until 8 hours later. What goes on.?
It's nothing to do with guesswork - the first shot to Sheila lacerated her jugular, fact.
-
It's nothing to do with guesswork - the first shot to Sheila lacerated her jugular, fact.
According to Venezis, but doesn't Knights disagree or at least, not fully concur?
-
If the first shot lacerated her jugular, where did all the blood go? I mean where is all the blood that should be in the bedroom, from the lacerated jugular?
-
According to Venezis, but doesn't Knights disagree or at least, not fully concur?
I don't know what Knight's evidence was, Mike hasn't posted his report yet. There's certainly no mention of a difference of opinion with regards the laceration of the jugular vein, although they may have disagreed over what she would have been capable of after the injury. I don't buy the plug / healing theory, but I'm not a pathologist so I'd like to see what Knight had to say. All I can find online about his evidence is some testimony he gave at trial with regards parental killings and ritual cleansing. There is a brief summary of his evidence in the 2002 appeal:
91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide. In cross-examination he accepted the proposition contained in an article, which he himself had written some years earlier, that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting".
-
If the first shot lacerated her jugular, where did all the blood go? I mean where is all the blood that should be in the bedroom, from the lacerated jugular?
The second shot was seconds after the first and intantaneously fatal, so there wasn't much.
-
The second shot was seconds after the first and intantaneously fatal, so there wasn't much.
So for some reason, far much more blood exited from the second fatal shot than did from the initial non-fatal shot, which allegedly preceeded it by a few seconds? Upon close inspection of the crime scene photo, the initial non-fatal shot doesn't look like it occured only a few seconds before the other shot to me.
-
90. Dr Bradley, another Consultant Psychiatrist, was also called by the defence during the trial to give general evidence of the features of "altruistic" killings and to confirm that it was not unusual that a female murderer should not have a history of previous violence. He also gave evidence that where parents kill children there may be an element of "over-kill" or the infliction of excessive violence.
91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide. In cross-examination he accepted the proposition contained in an article, which he himself had written some years earlier, that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting".
92. A number of other witnesses were called on the appellant's behalf at trial as to Sheila Caffell's mind. They included Farhad Emami (Freddie), a friend who gave evidence as to her mental state before the second admission to hospital, her relationship with her parents and her mood and appearance in the months before her death.
93. Also called on the appellant's behalf were Miss Grimster who had seen Miss Caffell on 30 March 1985. The deceased said she saw herself as a white witch and said she had once contemplated suicide. Nurse Heath from the Nottingham Hospital spoke of her low mood on one occasion and of a more optimistic one on another. Sandra Elston who saw Sheila Caffell on 31 July 1985 said the deceased appeared well and her only concern was about a poor haircut she had recently had.
-
I don't know what Knight's evidence was, Mike hasn't posted his report yet. There's certainly no mention of a difference of opinion with regards the laceration of the jugular vein, although they may have disagreed over what she would have been capable of after the injury. I don't but the plug / healing theory, but I'm not a pathologist so I'd like to see what Knight had to say. All I can find online about his evidence is some testimony he gave at trial with regards parental killings and ritual cleansing. There is a brief summary of his evidence in the 2002 appeal:
91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide. In cross-examination he accepted the proposition contained in an article, which he himself had written some years earlier, that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting".
Thanks for that, Bridget, but I MUST challenge his assertion that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting". Most women contemplating suicide probably don't have access to guns, but for those who do, I imagine it would be the method of choice
-
So for some reason, far much more blood exited from the second fatal shot than did from the initial non-fatal shot, which allegedly preceeded it by a few seconds? Upon close inspection of the crime scene photo, the initial non-fatal shot doesn't look like it occured only a few seconds before the other shot to me.
Well you're not a pathologist either...
With regards the amount of blood from each wound, I don't really see how you can say that there was more from the second wound. Prof. Herbert Leon McDonnell's report describes a "large quantity of blood that had pooled between her right arm and her body", and this blood can only have come from the first wound since she was prostrate when she received the second.
-
Well you're not a pathologist either...
With regards the amount of blood from each wound, I don't really see how you can say that there was more from the second wound. Prof. Herbert Leon McDonnell's report describes a "large quantity of blood that had pooled between her right arm and her body", and this blood can only have come from the first wound since she was prostrate when she received the second.
Then why is there a gap in the trail of blood from the first wound, to where there is a streak of blood which appears to be a mirror image of the streak of blood from the fatal wound?
-
Then why is there a gap in the trail of blood from the first wound, to where there is a streak of blood which appears to be a mirror image of the streak of blood from the fatal wound?
It would help if you'd post a picture so I can see what you mean, but probably because when she received the first wound she was semi upright but slouched to one side.
-
It would help if you'd post a picture so I can see what you mean, but probably because when she received the first wound she was semi upright but slouched to one side.
Several people on the forum have suggested that the lower stream of blood is a mirror imprint of the upper stream of blood, caused by her head lolling forward / upward in a reflex action due to the second shot. In other words, if her head does not loll forwards, there would be no streak of blood present, adjacent to the first wound. You can see the gap I am referring to, it is a thinning in width, of the lower streak, right next to the wound.
Anyway, I think we are getting away from Saxby's unanswered question somewhat. :-\
-
Think about the angle and trajectory taken by each bullet...
-
Think about the angle and trajectory taken by each bullet...
I have, and I believe the first shot was made at an angle that would have someone other than SC holding the gun!!
And again, why would SC try and take her own life with what was a risky (from an instant death point of view) and initially non-fatal shot to her throat (having allegedly shot all her victims clinically in the head)?
Why did SC not make the first shot under her chin and into her brain?
-
I think that's a disingenuous approach. Firstly, we do not know what was discussed behind the scenes pre-trial and during trial. Could Rivlin have got wind of the likelihood that he would meet with a brick wall of denial if he pursued it? The defence had no documentary evidence of the sighting (according to the Hunter manuscript, it was only many years later and after the logs had came to light, with subsequent official requests made by the defence for the corresponding page of the logs relevant to this period, that the official response received from EP was that it has been 'misplaced').
Also, what has Bews done since trial, to deny or rectify a mistaken claim that he had indeed seen a trick of the light? Has Bews tried to describe the incident in terms that would contradict the trick of the light scenario?
Regarding Bews testimony. I'm not sure that it's fair to describe him as not the sharpest tool in the box. However I think it's stretching it a bit to consider that he might have coughed up to a sighting of a person at the window. He would have effectively been contradicting the entire thrust of the second investigation, its' aims and its' orchestration by powers considerably senior to him self.
Wasn't that the very danger that DCI Taff Jones represented?
Let me turn this another way:
Did Rivlin at trial ever question JB on this subject - prompting JB with a question such as "when PC's Bews, Myall and yourself "ran" from the farmhouse, having seen what PC Bews has agreed with my comment was a trick of the light, was this in your opinion a person seen at the window?
JB's answer: Yes!
This would have at least established the possibility of a figure at the window in the minds of the Jury - and it is my understanding, after putting it to Bews, the point was never raised at trial again by Rivlin.
So to Rivlin this imo was a non-point!
-
Let me turn this another way:
Did Rivlin at trial ever question JB on this subject - prompting JB with a question such as "when PC's Bews, Myall and yourself "ran" from the farmhouse, having seen what PC Bews has agreed with my comment was a trick of the light, was this in your opinion a person seen at the window?
JB's answer: Yes!
This would have at least established the possibility of a figure at the window in the minds of the Jury - and it is my understanding, after putting it to Bews, the point was never raised at trial again by Rivlin.
So to Rivlin this imo was a non-point!
Errors made by Rivlin, does not prove there was no person at the bedroom window...
If Essex police released all the information about what Bews spoke about to the control room upon the jaunt into the grounds of whf with Myall and Jeremy, and every other communication which followed on from that up to and including the deployment of the firearms team, we would soon get to the bottom of this...
-
Although some 27 years have rlapded since Bews recounted what they had just witnessed and an accompanying request to deploy the firearms officers to the scene, no information has ever been given about what Bews said, who he said it to, who that person contacted and what that person said to the other person, Essex police and Bews in particular act and carry on as though it was dome sort of psychic event that us mere mortals wouldn't be able to fathom out or understand - we are left to imagine that nothing was said about what they had all just seen, and that the firearms team turned up at the scene without anybody saying anything at all to them...
-
Errors made by Rivlin, does not prove there was no person at the bedroom window...If Essex police released all the information about what Bews spoke about to the control room upon the jaunt into the grounds of whf with Myall and Jeremy, and every other communication which followed on from that up to and including the deployment of the firearms team, we would soon get to the bottom of this...
I don't think it will ever be proved that a figure was, or was not, at the window (but I am more inclined to believe there was never an actual sighting of a person at the window - just my op.)
However; I think we can all agree that an incident referred to by Rivlin at trial, and subsequently EP, as a trick of the light (totl) was known prior to trial (or Rivlin would not have referred to it at trial).
The trial was JB's and Rivlins opportunity to raise this subject, and to at least persuade/influence the Jury into an alternative story, other than totl, and both JB and Rivlin failed to grasp the significance of this :o
My point is that an educated barrister such as Rivlin either, rather strangely, believed that JB (+EP) seeing a figure at the window had no substance :P, or he didn't believe JB - and he was JB's defence!
It seems to me this could be construed as another point where JB was "stitched up", but this time (if the figure at the window had any substance) by his own team!
-
Errors made by Rivlin, does not prove there was no person at the bedroom window...
If Essex police released all the information about what Bews spoke about to the control room upon the jaunt into the grounds of whf with Myall and Jeremy, and every other communication which followed on from that up to and including the deployment of the firearms team, we would soon get to the bottom of this...
Then you'll agree that errors made by EP, Doctors, etc. etc. does not prove JB to be innocent?
- and so the wheel turns ;)
-
Then you'll agree that errors made by EP, Doctors, etc. etc. does not prove JB to be innocent?
- and so the wheel turns ;)
and likewise everything else they came up with doesn't prove he's guilty...
Seems like there are some prople who think its alright to tamper with exhibits, alter exhibit references, have thier witness statrments typed out and edited by the DPP, and all manner of criminal activity - oh I forgot, when police and thier experts get up to such things, you describe it as an error, a mistake, or whatever other pathetic excuse or explanation you can come up with. Lets get the facts right, the new police investigation and the relatives stitched Jeremy Bamber up with murders he did not commit. There is no direct evidence which proves he shot and killed anyone, the evidence was purely circumstantial...
What if Sheila's blood was found inside either Anthony Pargeters Parker Hale Silencer, or an identical Parker Hale silencer belonging to Robert Woodwis Boutflour? Would that make one or other the killer? You see the police and Pargeter have never talked about where Pargeters Parker hale silencer wa the time of the shootings but it could only have been either at the scene, or in Pargeters possession? If Sheila's blood was actually found inside it, does this make it more likely that Anthony Pargeter was/is the killer?
Similarly, Robert Boutflours Parker hale silencer was never kept at the scene, and both Sheila and he had the same blood grouprs, but different DNA, whi h might account for why Sgeilas DNA was never found on any baffles where bloid had supposefly been found, whilst an unidentifued male DNA was detected that could have originated from Robert Boutflour...
Tests could still be carried out today to establish whether or not the mysterious unidentified male DNA found on baffle plates originated from and was exclusive to Robert Boutflour...
Imagine if the blood group activity found in the silencer, originated from Robert Boutflour, matched to his own DNA on the very same baffle plates the incriminating blood was found...
Now that would be very interesting, indeed...
-
Test the unidentified male DNA found on baffles of silencer to Robert Boutflour...
Game over, if a perfect match established...
-
Test the unidentified male DNA found on baffles of silencer to Robert Boutflour...
Game over, if a perfect match established...
Is the DNA still available Mike ?
-
Is the DNA still available Mike ?
The DNA profile of the unidentified male found in the silencer was documented at the time. At the 2002 appeal judgement the court said that it was prepared to accept that it could have been Ralph Bambers DNA (because his body gad been cremated and there were/was no direct family members available from who a DNA sample could be taken for comparuson). Nevertheless, even though the court was prepared to accept that DNA from both parents was found inside the silencer, it rejected this evidence as being proof the the original blood obtained from inside the same silencer, had originated from them. Instead it preferred to accept that a presence of the parents DNA in the silencer came about as a result of contamination, through mishandling by the experts whilst they carried out tests upon it. Imagine that, the ciurt of appeal bending over backwards to accommodate the presence if the unidentified male DNA found in the silencer as belonging to Ralph Bamber, so that it became a possibility that the blood obtained from inside the silencer had not been unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell, but that it could have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood, in keeping with defence arguments at trial, but despite this, rejected at the appeal stage by the argument of contamination...
Imagine if at the time of the trial, this DNA evidence in its contaminated form gad been availabke to the defence and the jury? It would then have been possible to argue as part of the defence case, that if the parents DNA got into the silencer by a process of contamination through mishandling, the chances are that the blood found in the silencer also got there by contamination also...
I find it hard to imagine where a court would have allowed blood group evidence found inside the same silencer as DNA profiles, that got into the silencer by a process of contamination would accept the blood group evidrnce, yet reject the corresponding DNA evidence...
There is also the possibikity that the unidentified male DNA found on the baffles where the crucial blood group evidence came into contact, being Robert Woodwis Boutflourss, which can still be checjed because his children are still alive...
I have copies of the DNA profiling tests, results, and conclusions, and no cgecks have yet been carried out to see if the unidentifiable male DNA found in the silencer was/is his...
-
The DNA profile of the unidentified male found in the silencer was documented at the time. At the 2002 appeal judgement the court said that it was prepared to accept that it could have been Ralph Bambers DNA (because his body gad been cremated and there were/was no direct family members available from who a DNA sample could be taken for comparuson). Nevertheless, even though the court was prepared to accept that DNA from both parents was found inside the silencer, it rejected this evidence as being proof the the original blood obtained from inside the same silencer, had originated from them. Instead it preferred to accept that a presence of the parents DNA in the silencer came about as a result of contamination, through mishandling by the experts whilst they carried out tests upon it. Imagine that, the ciurt of appeal bending over backwards to accommodate the presence if the unidentified male DNA found in the silencer as belonging to Ralph Bamber, so that it became a possibility that the blood obtained from inside the silencer had not been unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell, but that it could have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood, in keeping with defence arguments at trial, but despite this, rejected at the appeal stage by the argument of contamination...
Imagine if at the time of the trial, this DNA evidence in its contaminated form gad been availabke to the defence and the jury? It would then have been possible to argue as part of the defence case, that if the parents DNA got into the silencer by a process of contamination through mishandling, the chances are that the blood found in the silencer also got there by contamination also...
I find it hard to imagine where a court would have allowed blood group evidence found inside the same silencer as DNA profiles, that got into the silencer by a process of contamination would accept the blood group evidrnce, yet reject the corresponding DNA evidence...
There is also the possibikity that the unidentified male DNA found on the baffles where the crucial blood group evidence came into contact, being Robert Woodwis Boutflourss, which can still be checjed because his children are still alive...
I have copies of the DNA profiling tests, results, and conclusions, and no cgecks have yet been carried out to see if the unidentifiable male DNA found in the silencer was/is his...
A lot of mental gymnastics by the court on this issue certainly Mike .
DNA tests and comparisons would as you say at least provide clarity .
Is there any prospect of anyone doing these checks ?